Calor Equipo S

2012 ASHRAE www.ashrae.org.
This material may not be copied nor distributed in either paper or digital form without
ASHRAEs permission. Requests for this report should be directed to the ASHRAE Manager of Research and Technical
Services.
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
ASHRAE
American Society of Heating. Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Inc.
1791 Tullie Circle, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30329-2305 S404-636-8400 Fax 404-321-5478
IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF EFFLUENTS

FROM VARIOUS COOKING APPLIANCES AND PROCESSES AS RELATED
TO OPTIMUM DESIGN OF KITCHEN VENTILATION SYSTEMS
ASHRAE 745-RP
Phase I
Final Report
Submitted to ASHRAE by:

William D. Gerstler, Research Assistant
Thomas H. Kuehn, Professor
David Y. H. Pui, Professor
James W. Ramsey, Professor
Michael P. Doerr, Research Assistant
University of Minnesota
Department of Mechanical Engineering
111 Church St. SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455-0111
June 13, 1996
This research report has been reprinted with the permission of ASHRAE. Distribution of the report by
PG&E's Food Service Technology Center is a service to industry and the research community.
The charge for this report is based exclusively on its printing cost.
Table of Contents
Page
Number
Topic Area
List of Tables
List of Figures
A. Executive Summary
6 . Introduction
1. Kitchen Ventilation Overview
2. Hood Selection
3. Fire Protection
4. Grease Extraction
5. Exhaust Flow Rates and Energy Consumption
6. Outdoor Air Pollution
7. Optimal Kitchen Design
C. Summary of Literature Review
D. Particulate Matter and Condensable Gases
1. Introduction
2. Summary of Current Available Methods of Measurement
a. Overview of Methods
i. EPA Method 5
ii. EPA Method 5G
iii. EPA Method 5H
iv. EPA Method 17
v. EPA Method 201
vi. EPA Method 201A
vii. EPA Method 202
viii.ILEPAATP-1
ix. SCAQMD Method 5.1
x. Dilution Stack Sampler
xi. Aerodynamic Particle Sizer
xii. QCM Cascade Impactor
b. Method Comparisons
c. Result of Applying Methods to Effluent Measurement
InCKV
3. Review of Previous Studies
a. Introduction
b. Study Summaries
c. Study Comparisons
4. Summary of Areas In Effluent Characterization Which Need
to be Addressed
E. Non-Condensable Gases
1. Introduction
F. Proposed Test Method For Phase II
1. Introduction
2. Testing Facility
a. Minnegasco Kitchen Test Laboratory
b. University of Minnesota Test Unit
3. Proposed Test Variables
4. Temperature and Velocity Measurements
5. Particulate Matter and Condensable Gases
6. Non-Condensable Gases
iv
V
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
5
7
7
7
8
8
8
10
11
12
13
14
14
15
16
17
17
18
21
23
23
23
24
29
31
31
31
33
33
33
33
33
34
36
37
39
ii
Topic Area
Page
Number
7. Proposed Time Line

G. List of People and Organizations Contacted
Appendix AAnnotated Bibliography
Appendix B-Test Methods
EPA Method 201A
EPA Method 202
EPA Method 25
Appendix C~Related Paper
"A personal cascade impactor: Design, evaluation and calibration."
Rubow et al. (1987)
Appendix DFacilities
Minnegaseco Commercial Foodservice Training Facility
40
42
A-1
B-1
B-2
B-10
B-14
C-1
C-2
D-l
D-2
iii
List of Tables
Table
Table 1. Keywords and Assigned Number of Papers.
Table 2. Methods Summary.
Table 3. Problems Using Sampling Methods When Applied To
Cooking Emissions.
Table 4. Summary of Reviewed CKV Emission Studies.
Table 5. Comparison Between CKV Emission Studies.
Table 6. Proposed Test Variables.
Table 7. Contacts and Organizations.
List of Figures
Figure
Page
Number
Figure 1. EPA Method 5 Sampling Train.
Figure 2. EPA Method 5G Sampling Train.
Figure 3. EPA Method 5H Sampling Train.
10
11
12
Figure 6. EPA Method 201A Sampling Train.
13
14
Figure 8. SCAQMD Method 5.1 Sampling Train.
15
Figure 9. The Dilution Stack Sampler.
16
Figure 10. QCM Cascade Impactor Sample Train Example.

Figure 11. Comparison of SCAQMD Method 5.1 and EPA Method
201A and 202, both modified for CKV applications.
Data for hamburger cooked on a charbroiler.
17
24
Figure 12. Comparison of CE-CERT and Dowell and Dashner studies

for solid and total particulate emissions. -Data is for hamburger
cooking on a chainbroiler using a Modified SCAQMD 5.1
sampling method and ASTM standard cooking procedures.
27
Figure 13. Comparison of total particulate concentrations from

various appliances between the Hildemann, and
Dowell and Dashner studies. In stack measurements
taken while cooking hamburgers.
28
Figure 14. Particle size distribution comparison between Dawson,

Annis and Annis, and Gordon studies.
29
Figure 15. Schematic of the proposed test facility at the University

of Minnesota.
34
Figure 16. Schematic of the proposed sampling train.
37
Figure 17. Grease particle size range and ranges covered by

various methods.
Figure 16. Phase II proposed research schedule.
39
41
v
IDENTIFICATION AND CHARATERIZATION OF EFFLUENTS FROM

VARIOUS COOKING APPLIANCES AND PROCESSES AS RELATED TO
OPTIMUM DESIGN OF KITCHEN VENTILATION SYSTEMS
ASHRAE 745-RP, Phase I
W.D. Gerstler ,T.H. Kuehn, D.Y.H. Pui, J.W. Ramsey, M.P. Doerr
Minneapolis, Minnesota
This report includes the results of Phase I of this research project. The main objectives of
Phase I are to review the literature for information regarding previous measurements of
effluent from cooking processes and test methods used, compile this information into
summary tables and charts, and to propose an improved test method for the laboratory and
field measurements to be implemented in Phase H.
Information was obtained from the published literature, personal contacts and research
reports. An annotated bibliography is given in Appendix A. No two previous studies can
be compared directly as differences exist in test methods, sample locations, appliances and
food products. Summary tables are presented that compare the test variables used in these
studies. Only very limited data comparisons can be made. It is not possible with the
existing information to produce a clear understanding of cooking emissions, both quantity
and particle size and gas characterization.
A proposed sampling system is given for the Phase II measurements of cooking effluent
above cooking appliances. This follows EPA Methods 201A and 202. The main
difference is the addition of a multistage impactor upstream. The impactor will be
immersed into the thermal plume to collect solid and liquid particles at the sampling location
temperature. Aerosol will also be sampled into an Aerodynamic Particle Sizer or a Laser
Particle Counter for real time measurements. Gas sampling and analysis essentially
follows the EPA methods. Appliances, food products, and other test variables for Phase II
are given.
B. Introduction
1. Kitchen Ventilation Overview
Kitchen ventilation is an integral part of heating, ventilating and air conditioning design and
construction. It generally can be divided into two major categories, residential, and
commercial (institutional). Building codes and regulations are quite different for the two
types of kitchen ventilation, because the typical residential kitchen does not experience the
same level of contaminant generation produced by commercial kitchens (ASHRAE 1995).
While residential kitchen ventilation is a matter of concern, this study concentrates on the
specific problems of commercial and institutional kitchen ventilation.
Kitchen ventilation system design addresses many areas. These include fire protection,
indoor air quality, indoor thermal comfort, overall energy usage including appliances and
HVAC systems, and outdoor air contamination (ASHRAE 1995; Gordon et al. 1994; Li et
al. 1993; Wolbrink and Sarnosky 1992; Frey et al 1993; Gladstone 1985; Horton et al.
1993). Current methods of kitchen ventilation are based on a limited understanding of the
mechanisms involved in the contaminant generation process and do not address all of these
concerns (ASHRAE 1994). Kitchen ventilation designers choose a type of hood and an
airflow rate based on the appliance and type of vented effluent This ventilation rate is
spelled out in standards that may be from national, state or local codes (ASHRAE 1995;
Talbert et al. 1973).
In general, the type of hood and the exhaust airflow rate will adequately address the
problem of fire protection (ASHRAE 1995), but at the expense of energy consumption
(Horton et al 1993) and outdoor air contamination (Bornstein 1978; Gordon et al. 1994)
and to a lesser degree, indoor air quality and comfort (Pekkinen and Takki-Haltrunen
1992). Many observers believe that the exhaust air flow rates can be reduced safely,
resulting in substantial energy savings (Conover 1992; ASHRAE 1994). Others suggest
lower exhaust rates do not address all of the energy concerns (Spata and Turgeon 1995;
Horton et al. 1993;). Instead, they suggest a comprehensive approach that integrates
exhaust and make-up flow rates with total HVAC design. In addition, there are many areas
where the level of pollution emitted from commercial cooking operations is a concern, and
there is very little information available regarding how to address this problem (Bornstein
1978; Francis and Lipinski 1977; Gordon et al. 1994). The goal of this study is to provide
fundamental information identifying and quantifying effluent generated by typical
commercial kitchen processes.
2. Hood Selection
The design of a commercial kitchen ventilation system begins with identifying the type of
appliances used. If the process will not produce grease, which is often the case with
steamers and kettles, a Type II hood is all that is required. Type II hoods do not require
grease extractors, and are responsible for only removing water vapor or steam and fumes.
On the other hand, if the process produces grease, which is common to most fast food
cooking operations, as well as most other restaurants and institutional kitchens, a Type I
hood is required. Currently, Type I hoods are categorized as either standard or listed. A
standard hood conforms to the code requirements of the location where it is used. A listed
hood does not necessarily conform to these exact requirements, instead, its design and
performance is listed by the manufacturer and can be shown to be equivalent to the local
code requirements if it meets certain criteria set up by nationally recognized standards.
Type I hoods must provide fire protection, grease removal and adequate ventilation
2
(ASHRAE 1995). This study will concentrate mainly of grease producing operations, but
certain aspects of non-grease producing operations will also be addressed.
3. Fire Protection
The area of fire protection is probably the most understood and best controlled part of
commercial kitchen ventilation. According to the National Fire Protection Agency's
(NFPA) Standard 96, all grease filters must be listed. Li order to be listed, they are tested
and certified by a standardized test laboratory under UL Standard 1046. Among other
things, the grease filter must protect the ventilation system from the hazard of open flame.
It is generally accepted that listed grease extractors/filters work well as a fire preventive
device (ASHRAE 1995).
4. Grease Extraction
The effectiveness of grease extractors at removing grease from the ventilation stream is
another matter. There are numerous tests that manufacturers perform or have independent
laboratories perform, which allow them to claim their extractor is efficient to a certain extent
(ASHRAE 1995; Gordon et al. 1994). Often this leads to claims of 95 to 99 % grease
removal efficiency. Overall, there is little confidence in the industry that these tests actually
measure the true grease extraction efficiency. For instance, some methods do not account
for grease in the vapor form. In general, the methods are based on limited knowledge and
data of the actual effluent being generated. All parties involved, including HVAC system
designers, electric and gas utilities, environmental monitoring agencies and hood and
appliance manufacturers, have an interest in the development of a standard method to
measure the effectiveness of grease extractors. Currently, ASHRAE is funding a project
where the end result will be a proposed grease extraction test method (Kleva 1996). Key
information provided by this study, such as the size of the grease particles and the amount
of grease in the vapor form, will be an invaluable tool for the development of a such a
method.
5. Exhaust Flow Rates and Energy Consumption
*
s
*
%
*
t
'.
'
t
'
t
Another area where an understanding of the fundamental nature of the cooking effluent is
necessary is the development of minimum exhaust flow rate requirements. As stated
above, these rates are usually determined by what appears to be adequate. The flow rate is
determined by the hood style and position, the type of appliance and product, and the size
of the area that must be ventilated (ASHRAE 1995; Talbert et al. 1973). After the physical
characteristics are determined, the expected thermal currents are estimated and, allowing for
a safety factor, the minimum flow rate is determined. To many observers, the required
ventilation rate often exceeds what appears to be necessary. This method is applied
because given the amount of reliable information, it is the best method currently available.
Recent studies suggest that simply reducing the exhaust rate is not the answer (Horton et al.
1993). The study recommends a comprehensive approach to energy gains and losses.
Applying this method suggests that many times during the year, when the outdoor
temperatures are favorable, high ventilation rates, with equally high make-up air from the
outdoors, will decrease the need for conditioned make-up air, thereby lowering costs. One
result of the study is an energy balance protocol in the form of standard test method for
ventilation system performance (Gordon et al. 1994; Smith et al. 1995) Approval of the
method as an ASTM standard is pending. If more detailed information is available about
the size, quantity and behavior of the cooking effluent, then more sophisticated methods
could be used to determine exhaust flow rates. The end result will be a safe and
comfortable working environment, with substantial energy savings.
'
%
"
$
*
f
,
'
.
<
,
f
f
X
6. Outdoor Air Pollution

In all areas of the country there is concern about the quality of outdoor air. Under current
environmental law, cooking effluent from commercial and institutional kitchens is simply
vented to the atmosphere with little or no monitoring of how much pollution it causes. This
pollution contributes to the overall pollution level in the vicinity of the restaurant. EPA
regulations limit the level of pollutants in the atmosphere by means of a national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). In this sense, contamination from kitchen ventilation is
counted (Gordon et al. 1994). However, individual source control focuses on large
industrial producers of pollutants such as electric utilities and chemical manufacturers and
does not yet include commercial cooking operations. Studies indicate that pollution from
cooking processes contribute a substantial amount of contamination into the atmosphere. A
study by Hildemann et al. (1991) at the California Institute of Technology, suggests that
almost one quarter of primary organic aerosol emissions from the Los Angeles area are
attributable to meat-cooking operations. One reason for this is that many other major
sources of pollution, such as utility plants and automobiles, are heavily monitored and
controlled. Furthermore, since thefirstversion of the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970,
there has been an enormous increase in the amount of fast food restaurants (Bornstein
1978). It follows that for a cleaner environment commercial and institutional kitchen
contributions to the pollution problem must be addressed.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which is responsible for air
quality in the Los Angeles area, has considered regulating the emissions from restaurants.
Since this effort began, there have been numerous problems, including the fact that a
reliable test to measure the amount of emissions from cooking operations is not available.
A number of studies, including one at California State Polytechnic University at Pomona
(Dowell and Dashner 1991) have had a limited amount of success solving these problems.
Currently, the Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT) at the
University of California, Riverside, is working to develop a method to test the emission
rates from commercial cooking operations. However, these efforts are proceeding without
a fundamental knowledge of cooking effluent. An understanding of the nature of cooking
effluent will assist these efforts. It is expected that a successful test method for measuring
cooking emissions will lead to wide scale monitoring of cooking operations, and an
increase in the development of technologies to reduce emission rates.
7. Optimal Kitchen Design
A final benefit of understanding cooking effluent generation is the overall integration of
kitchen design. Cooking appliances may be designed to operate more efficiently. The
amount of conditioned air needed for make-up air may be reduced. There is a possibility
that heated air from kitchen ventilation systems could be used elsewhere as a heat source (to
heat water for the dishwasher). Patel et al. (1993) estimate that improved technology
in
12
electric
appliance
and
gas
appliance
designs
show
a
potential
savings
of
70
x
10
and
73 x
1012 BTU's/year respectively. This is about one-quarter of the estimated energy now used
yearly for appliance operation in commercial/institutional kitchens. 12
In addition, they state
that heat recovery from appliances
can
result
in
a
saving
of
27
x
10
BTU's/year. Finally,
they estimate that 44 to 77 x 1012 addtitional BTU's could be saved by kitchen integration
design. Understanding the processes and behavior of cooking effluent will assist in the
effort for integrated kitchen design.
4
C. Summary of Literature Review

A literature review was conducted of the published work regarding commercial kitchen
ventilation and generated effluent. Electronic searches included COMPENDEX,
CURRENT CONTENTS, LUMINA, INDEXES and ASTL Hand searches of selected
journals revealing recent articles not yet added to the electronic data bases were also made.
Members of the technical committee overseeing the project were contacted and any
information or papers they were able to contribute were collected. Finally, at the
suggestion of some of the committee members, other people active in the industry,
including manufacturer's and consultants, were contacted and information was collected.
There were some papers available in the published literature, but very few in the area of
effluent characterization. Most of these papers concentrated on the ventilation system from
an energy conservation point of view. Furthermore, these papers contained general
information on commercial kitchen ventilation, which proved to be a good overview of the
subject.
The majority of the information concerning cooking effluent was contained in papers and
reports made available by the personal contacts. These include studies that actually
quantified emissions in one way or another. Since this is the focus of the current study,
particular attention was given to these papers.
In addition to the studies related to commercial kitchen ventilation, testing methods for
appliance performance and sampling were collected. Sampling methods include those for
particulate matter and non-condensable gases.
The literature was sorted into a number of different categories. Any single source could
have information pertaining to one or several of the categories. Table 1 lists the categories
as keywords and the number of papers or reports assigned to each keyword.
The first part of this report discusses the studies which focused on emission measurements
and summarizes their contribution to the characterization of cooking effluent. The final part
of this report proposes a testing matrix and sampling method which will provide a means to
identify and characterize cooking effluent more completely.
Table 1. Keywords and Assigned Number of Papers

Keyword
above appliance
ASTM cooking method
charbroilers
CKV integration
CKV performance test
commercial kitchens
control devices
electric appliances
exhaust CKV
filtration
fire protection
fryers
gas appliances
grease chemistry
griddles
heat gain
hood design
in room
in stack
indoor air pollution
kitchen CFD
measurement devices
modeling
non-condensable gases
outdoor air pollution
particle concentration
particulate measurements
residential studies
ROC-ROG
ROG measurements
sampling methods
SCAQMD
size classification
size estimate
source identification
ventilation rates
VOC
Number of
Papers
3
11
11
13
6
25
7
5
4
4
1
1
10
3
6
11
7
3
9
11
4
5
10
14
14
1
21
8
5
3
2
5
6
1
4
21
5
D. Particulate Matter and Condensable Gases

1. Introduction
The major concern in determining the nature of effluents generated by commercial kitchen
appliances is the characterization of the particulate matter and condensable gases. Because
of the complicated processes involved in the generation of these contaminants, there is not a
clear distinction between them (Gordon et al. 1994). During the various cooking
processes, food heats, emitting numerous solid, liquid and gaseous substances. These
substances include water and grease in both the liquid and vapor phases, non-condensable
gases such as CO, C02,NOx, various other gases and solid organic matter. A separate
section of this report addresses the non-condensable gases. Grease and water vapor
condense in the air stream and on the ventilation equipment. This condensation depends on
a number of factors including the temperature of the gas and surrounding surfaces, as well
as the concentration of the vapors. In addition, solid particulates resulting from organic
matter "burning" and violently emitting into the thermal plume as a result of the
"explosion'' of grease or water vapor that occurs during the cooking process can become a
means by which the grease and water vapor condense (Sarnosky 1987; Dawson 1991;
Annis and Annis 1989).
The understanding of condensation of vapor on airborne particulates is not complete, but it
depends on factors such as temperature, vapor pressure, and the nucleation particle.
Further complications in dealing with these physical phenomena arise from the transient
nature of the cooking process. For instance, when turning hamburgers during cooking,
the rate of emissions increases enormously. As a consequence of these physical realities,
the results from previous studies on cooking effluent emissions are highly dependent on
capture and characterization methods, as well as cooking methods. Previous studies have
adapted measurement methods from protocols designed to measure particulates and
condensable gases in other applications. Applying these methods to kitchen emissions has
various consequences, which partially accounts for the wide variation in quantitative
results.
Results also vary due to the previous lack of a standard method for cooking protocol. The
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards for appliance performance,
which includes a cooking protocol, now exist for most appliances, but were unavailable
before 1990. Therefore, section D.2.a. presents a review of the methods currently
available for measuring particulate matter and condensable vapor. Sections D.2.b.
compares the methods and section D.2.c.explains the consequences of applying them to
kitchen emission measurement. Section D.3. reviews previous studies, keeping in mind
the cooking and measurement techniques used. Finally, Section D.4. presents a summary
of the areas of cooking effluent characterization that need further study.
2. Summary of Current Available Methods of Measurement
There are a large number of methods currently available to measure concentrations of
particulate matter and condensable vapor. Because none were designed specifically for
kitchen application, previous studies chose different methods and modified them
accordingly. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 5 is the basis for most
of these methods. EPA Method 5 has numerous variations and certain state agencies
adopted their own variations. Hildemann et al. (1991) developed a vastly different method
for measuring aerosol concentrations. Some studies investigated the size distribution of the
particulate emissions (Annis and Annis 1989; Dawson 1991; Gordon 1994), which
involved using particle size classifiers. This section reviews and compares these methods
and explains the consequences of applying them to kitchen emission measurement
7
a. Overview of Methods
i. EPA Method 5
The EPA designed Method 5 to determine overall particulate matter concentrations from
stationary sources. Generally this includes stack emissionsfromcombustion processes.
Figure 1 shows the sample train for EPA Method 5.
TEMPERATURE SENSOR
IMPIN6ER TRAIN OPTIONAL,MAY BE REPLACED

BY AN EQUIVALENT CONDENSER
CHECK
VALVE
VACUUM
LINE
VACUUM
GAUGE
MAIN VALVE
THERMOMETERS
DRY GAS METER
AIR-TIGHT
PUMP
Figure 1. EPA Method 5 Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).

The sample probe isokinetically draws the samplefromthe airflowinto a heated tube and
then a filter. Both the tube and filter remain at a temperature at or below 120 degrees C.
The filtered sample flows into the condensing unit where it passes through impingers
submersed in an ice bath. Condensate and moisture collect in the impingers. The first two
impingers contain water, the third is empty and the fourth contains silica gel. The
temperature of the sample air leaving the last impinger must remain below 20 degrees C. A
pump draws the remaining sample through a series of valves and a dry gas meter, which
measures the dry gas volume. After afinalpressure determination, the sample air exhausts
to the test area. Particles and condensate collected on or before the heatedfiltercount as
total particulate matter. Liquid collected in the impingers and moisture absorbed by the
silica gel count as moisture.
ii. EPA Method 5G
The EPA designed Method 5G to determine particulate matter concentrationsfromwood
heaters or stoves, using a dilution tunnel to achieve a constant sampling rate. Figure 2
shows the sample train for EPA Method 5G.
8
Figure 2. EPA Method 5G Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).

Emissions mix with room air in a dilution tunnel where a damper and blower keep the flow
rate constant. Isokinetic sampling of the mixed air in the dilution chamber occurs and the
sample passes through two filters kept at a temperature less than 32 degrees C. The
remaining sample air dries in an unspecified drying device. A set of impingers similar to
those used in EPA Method 5 may be used. A pump draws the remaining sample through a
series of valves and a dry gas meter, which measures, the dry gas volume. After a final
pressure determination, the sample air exhausts to the test area. Particles and condensate
collected on or before the two filters count as total particulate matter.
9
iii. EPA Method 5H

The EPA designed Method 5H to determine particulate matter concentrationfromwood
heater or stoves from the stack location, without a dilution tunnel. Figure 3 shows the
sample train for EPA Method 5H.
Filler
Filler
Figure 3. EPA Method 5H Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).

The sample probe isokinetically draws the sample from the air flow into a heated tube and
then a filter. Both the tube and filter remain at a temperature at or below 120 degrees C.
The filtered sample flows into the condensing unit where it passes through impingers
submersed in an ice bath. Condensate and moisture collect in the impingers. The first two
impingers contain water, the third is empty and the fourth contains silica gel. The
temperature of the sample air leaving the last impinger must remain below 20 degrees C. A
filter between the third and fourth impinger collects any particles or condensate that passes
through the first three impingers. A pump draws the remaining sample through a series of
valves and a dry gas meter, which measures the dry gas volume. After a final pressure
determination, the sample air exhausts to the test area. Particles and condensate collected
on or before the second filter, including those in the first three impingers, count as total
particulate matter. Liquid collected in the impingers and moisture absorbed by the silica gel
count as moisture.
10
iv. EPA Method 17

The EPA designed Method 17 to determine particulate matter concentrations from sources
where the concentrations are independent of temperature, thus allowing sampling at instack temperature. Figure 4 shows the sample train for EPA Method 17.
mnmiMiuiiiicMiiinara

The sample probe isokinetically draws the sample from the air flow into the filter that is instack and at stack temperature. The filtered sample flows into the condensing unit where it
passes through impingers submersed in an ice bath. Condensate and moisture collect in the
impingers. The first two impingers contain water, the third is empty and the fourth
contains silica gel. The temperature of the sample air leaving the last impinger must remain
below 20 degrees C. A pump draws the remaining sample through a series of valves and a
dry gas meter, which measures the dry gas volume. After a final pressure determination,
the sample air exhausts to the test area. Particles and condensate collected on or before the
filter at stack temperature count as total particulate matter. Liquid collected in the impingers
and moisture absorbed by the silica gel count as moisture.
e
e
ii
<^
v. EPA Method 201

The EPA designed Method 201 to determine the concentration of particulate matter less than
10 micrometers in diameter (PM,0) from stationary sources. This became necessary when
data confirmed the additional health hazard of airborne fine particulate matter. Figure 5
shows the sample train for EPA Method 201.
EGR PROBE ASSEMBLY
-, METER AND FLOW

'CONTROL CONSOLE
SEALED PUMP

The sample probe isokinetically draws the sample from the air flow into the PM-10 cyclone
where it mixes with conditioned recycled air to maintain proper cyclone operating
conditions. Particles and condensate larger than 10 micrometers collect here. The sample
flows into the filter heated to stack temperature. The filtered sample flows into the
condensing unit where it passes through impingers submersed in an ice bath. Condensate
and moisture collect in the impingers. The first two impingers contain water, the third is
empty and the fourth contains silica gel. The temperature of the sample air leaving the last
impinger must remain below 20 degrees C. A pump draws the remaining sample through
a series of valves and a dry gas meter, which measures the dry gas volume. At this point
some of the gas is conditioned and re-circulated to the PM-10 cyclone. The rest of the
sample air exhausts to the test area, after a final pressure determination. Particles and
condensate collected on or before the filter at stack temperature, including those which
collect in the cyclone count as total particulate matter. Total particulate matter minus the
particles collected by the cyclone count as PM-10. Liquid collected in the impingers and
moisture absorbed by the silica gel count as moisture.
12
vi. EPA Method 201A

The EPA designed Method 201A as an alternate method to determine the concentration of
particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) from stationary sources.
EPA Method 201A does not require conditioned make-up air for the cyclone operation as
does Method 201. Figure 6 shows the sample train for EPA Method 201 A. .
IMPINGER TRAIN
SILICA GEL
V ; INCLINED
MANOMETER
FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM

GAS
X ORIFICE"
**
FINE
"*
CALIBRATED
Ear
co
\
X
%j,
VACUUM
VA0
G
GAUGE
(?
=C5J
}
INCLINED
. MANOMETER
VACUUM
PUMP
DRY GAS
METER
Figure 6. EPA Method 201A Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).

The sample probe isokinetically draws the samplefromthe air flow into the PM-10 cyclone
or cascade impactor. Particles and condensate larger than 10 micrometers collect here. The
sample flows into the filter hsated to stack temperature. The filtered sample flows into the
condensing unit .where it passes through impingers submersed in an ice bath. Condensate
and moisture collect in the impingers. The first two impingers contain water, the third is
empty and the fourth contains silica gel. The temperature of the sample air leaving the last
impinger must remain below 20 degrees C. A pump draws the rernaining sample through
a series of valves and a dry gas meter, which measures the dry gas volume. After a final
pressure determination, the sample air exhausts to the test area. Particles and condensate
collected on or before the filter at stack temperature, including those which collect in the
cyclone count as total particulate matter. Total particulate matter minus the particles
collected by the cyclone or cascade impactor count as PM-10. Liquid collected in the
impingers and moisture absorbed by the silica gel count as moisture.
vii. EPA Method 202

EPA Methods 17,201 or 201A constitute the first half of the EPA 202 sampling train.
EPA 202 specifies a different method of handling the condensate portion of the sampling.
The EPA designed Method 202 to determine the concentration of condensable vapors and
to specify the amount of organic and inorganic material collected. Figure 7 shows the
sample train for EPA Method 202.
,
Thwinoeoupto
Q^J,

After passing through the first half of the sampling train specified by the other methods, the
sample flows into the condensing unit where is passes through impingers submersed in an
ice bath. Condensate and moisture collect in the impingers. Thefirstthree impingers
contain water and the fourth contains silica gel. The temperature of the sample air leaving
the last impinger must remain below 20 degrees C. A pump draws the remaining sample
through a series of valves and a dry gas meter, which measures the dry gas volume. After a
final pressure determination, the sample air exhausts to the test area. Determining total
particulate matter depends on the front half method. The method uses methelene chloride,
an organic solvent, to dissolve the organic particulates and condensables found in the
impinger water and surrounding connections. The determination of organic and inorganic
composition of the particulates and condensables follows.
viii.ILEPAATP-1
a
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency adopted a version of EPA Method 5 for
determining the particulate emissions from incinerators. Stanley and Co. (1973) modified
this test for their purposes. While a diagram of the method is not available, a description
follows.
14
The sample probe isokinetically draws the samplefromthe airflowinto the condensing
unit where it passes through impingers submersed in an ice bam. Condensate and moisture
collect in the impingers. The first two impingers contain water, and the third is empty. A
pump draws the remaining sample through a series of valves and a dry gas meter, which
measures the dry gas volume. After a final pressure determination, the sample air exhausts
to the test area. Particles and condensate collected on or in the impingers count as total
particulate matter.
ix.SCAQMD Method 5.1
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted a version of EPA
Method 5 for their purposes. Figure 8 shows the sample train for SCAQMD Method 5.1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Temperature Sensor
Nozzle
Glass Lined Stainless Steel Probe
Stack Wall
S-typePitotTube
Temperature Sensor Meter
Pitot Tube Inclined Manomenter
Empty Impinger
Impinger with 100 ml of H 2 0
Empty Bubbler
Bubbler with Silica Gel
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Ice Bath
Filter
TCASmplingTee
Sealed Pump (Leak Free)
Filter for Pump
Metering Valve
Vacuum Gauge
By-Pass Valve
Temperature Compensated
Dry Gas Meter
21. Orifice
22. Orifice Inclined Manomenter
Figure 8. SCAQMD Method 5.1 Sampling Train (Gordon et al. 1994).
15
The sample probe isokinetically draws the sample from the airflowthrough a tube and into
the condensing unit where it passes through impingers submersed in an ice bath.
Condensate and moisture collect in the impingers. The first impinger is empty, the second
and third impingers contain water, the fourth impinger is empty and the fifth impinger
contains silica gel. The temperature of the sample air leaving the last impinger must remain
below 20 degrees C. A filter between the fourth and fifth impingers collect any particles or
condensate mat passes through the first four impingers. A pump draws the remaining
sample through a series of valves and a dry gas meter, which measures the dry gas volume.
After a final pressure determination, the sample air exhausts to the test area. Particles and
condensate collected on or before the second filter, including those in the first four
impingers, count as total particulate matter. Liquid collected in the impingers and moisture
absorbed by the silica gel count as moisture.
x. Dilution Stack Sampler
Hildemann et al. (1991) designed a sampling system specifically to collect organic
particulate matter that would condense under ambient conditions. Figure 9 shows the
sampling train for the Dilution Stack Sampler.
ACCESS
PORTS-
1^.
10/im
CYCLONE
C3=c
2.1pm
CYCLONES
HEATED INLET LINE
STACK
EMISSIONS 1MLET
COOLING
UNIT
ISAMPLE
FILTER HOLDERS
lji-l
KEPA
FILTER
|
I
DILUTION
AJR INLET
I i I
30
45
VII
I
'
VACUUM
PUMPS
60cm
Figure 9. The Dilution Stack Sampler (Hildemann et al. 1989).

The sample probe isokinetically draws the sample from the air flow through a 10
micrometer cyclone and into a heated inlet line. Cooled and filtered air blows into a dilution
tunnel where it pulls the sample air via a venturi effect The two streams mix and then a
portion of this diluted sample collects in a residence time chamber. After allowing time for
condensation at ambient temperature, a vacuum pump draws the sample into six parallel 2
micrometer cyclones. Three filters following each cyclone collect the remaining particles
that pass through the sizing device. Two of the filters are Teflon and particles collected
here determine the aerosol mass, trace metal content and ionic species. The remaining
sixteen filters are quartz fiber and particles collected on one also helps determine bulk fine
aerosol chemical properties. Detailed gas chromatography and gas chromatography/mass
16
spectroscopy analysis determine organic species from the particles collected on the fifteen
remaining filters.
xi Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS)
The APS counts and sizes particles in the range of 0.3 to 30 micrometers. It is a laser
based instrument that accelerates particles in a nozzle and measures the transit time through
a set of laser beams to obtain the aerodynamic diameter. A sampling probe isokinetically
collects particles and condensate from the air flow where they follow a sample tube into the
APS nozzle. The APS determines the particle count within preset size intervals.
xii. QCM Cascade Impactor
The quartz crystal micro-balance (QCM) cascade impactor determines aerosol particle size
through inertial impaction. Figure 10 shows a typical sample train.
Exhaust Syslcn
Figure 10. QCM Cascade Impactor Sample Train Example (Dawson 1991).
A sampling probe isokinetically draws the sample from the airflow where it moves through
a sample line. A flow splitter removes a portion of the flow to allow the proper operating
flow rate for the QCM cascade impactor. The sample flows through a series of inertial
impactors that allow for the determination of aerodynamic particle size. A quartz crystal
lies on the bottom of each impaction plate and its frequency changes according to the mass
of particles it contains. A computer compares this frequency with an identical quartz crystal
that is not in the particle stream, but is kept at the same temperature. The computer
determines the mass of each size fraction by analyzing the frequency difference. Particles
smaller than 0.05 micrometers and all un-condensed gas exhausts to the test area.
17
b. Method Comparisons
Table 2 compares and summarizes the different aspects of the testing methods mentioned in
section D.2.a.
The first column describes the quantities calculated using the given method. Every method
except the APS particle size analyzer, QCM cascade impactor and EPA Method 202
calculates the dry air volume. This quantity is necessary for mass and moisture
concentrations. The two size classification methods require other techniques, such as total
volume flow measurement with adjustments for moisture and standard atmospheric
conditions, to determine the dry air volume. For EPA Method 202, the method used in the
front half of the sample train determines the dry gas volume, the total particulate mass and
the moisture. EPA Method 5G, IL EPA Method ATP-1, the Dilution Stack Sampler, and
the size classifiers neglect moisture calculations. Users must apply separate moisture
determination techniques when using these methods. Determining total particulate matter is
common to all the methods, although its definition varies widely from method to method.
EPA Method 202 is the only method that breaks the condensable particulate matter into its
organic and inorganic species. EPA Methods 201,201A, and the Dilution Stack Sampler
determine the quantity of PM-10. However, Hildemann et al.used the Dilution Stack
Sampler only for fine organic aerosol particles smaller than 2 micrometers and therefore did
not determine PM-10.
All methods employ isokinetic conditions for sample capture. However, the definition of
acceptable values varies considerably. The Dilution Stack Sampler and the QCM cascade
impactor methods do not give a quantitative definition of acceptable isokinetic conditions.
Methods determining PM-10 include a size selective inlet. EPA Method 201 and the
Dilution Stack Sampler specify cyclones, while EPA Method 201A allows substituting a
cascade impactor.
Size classification is the main intent of using the APS particle size analyzer and QCM
cascade impactor. The range of the APS is from 0.3 to 30 micrometers, but it loses its
accuracy below about 0.8 micrometers. The QCM cascade impactor is efficient from 0.05
to 25 micrometers, but can be easily overloaded. EPA Method 201A does not specify the
type of cascade impactor used, except to follow manufacturers' instructions.
The presence of a filter before the condenser and its specified temperature is extremely
important when defining particulate matter for cooking applications. These specifications
vary widely from method to method.
The temperature of the sample leaving the condenser is also important to the definition of
the particulate matter and moisture quantities. Every method with a condenser except IL
EPA ATP-1 and SCAQMD Method 5.1 specifies the temperature must remain below 20
degrees C. IL EPA ATP-1 does not give a specified temperature, while SCAQMD Method
5.1 specifies the temperature remain below 15 degrees C.
EPA Method 5H and SCAQMD Method 5.1 include afilterafter the condenser. Particles
collected on this filter count as total particulate matter, thus the presence of a filter after the
condenser is important to the definition of the moisture and particulate matter quantities.
18
Table 2. Methods Summary.

Method
Quantities
Determined
Location
Sampled
Acceptable
Isokinetic
Conditions
Size
Selective
Inlet
Size
Classifier
(Range)
EPA 5
V ra ,M,
PMT
Vm, PMT
Iave = 10%
None
None
A,B
1 ^ = 10%
I im * = 20%
I m = 10%
I i m a = 25%
Iave = 10%
None
None
None
None
None
None
Iave = 10%
None
If chosen,
cascade
impactor
EPA5G
EPA5H
EPA 17
EPA 201
EPA 201A
V^M,
PMT(I)
Vm, PMT
A,B
'lLEPAATP-1
(modified by
McDonald's)
SCAQMD-5.1
Dilution Stack
Sampler
APS Particle
Size Analyzer
QCM Cascade
Impactor
(?
Temperature at
exit
(Condensation
Device)
<, 20"C (a)
Temperature at
Back Filter
(after
condenser)
No Filter
Comments
References
2 Filters
S32C
120 C
<, 20C (b)
No Filter
1,2,3
20C(a)
^20C
1,2,4
Hildemann, et
al. (1989)
Gordon, et al.
(1994)
Gordon, et al.
(1994)
Stack
Temperature
Stack
Temperature
Stack
Temperature
20C (a)
No Filter
1,5
< 20"C (a)
No Filter
6,7
20C (a)
No Filter
CE-CERT
(1996)
n/a
n/a
20C (c)
No Filter
CE-CERT
(1996)
Stanley & Co.

(1973)
Iave = 20%
n/a
10 um
cyclone
10 um
cyclone or
cascade
impactor
n/a
^ = 10%
None
None
No Filter
<. 20C (d)
No Filter
V m ,M,
PMT
A.B
n/a
None
None
No Filter
15C (e)
S20C
Vm, PMT,
PM,n
Particle
size
distribution
(0.3-30
Um)
Particle
size
distribution
(0.05-25
um)
unspecified
None
No Filter
ambient (f)
No Filter
10
U = io%
10 um
cyclone
None
APS (0.3-30
Um)
No Filter
None
No Filter
11
unspecified
None
Cascade
Impactor
(0.05-25 um)
No Filter
None
No Filter
11
V ra ,M,
PMT, PM,
V ra ,M,
PMT, PM10
00
EPA 202
Temperature at
Front Filter
(before
condenser)^
120 14 C
Organic &
Inorganic
CPMCHI)
Vro, PMT
c* ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
C* / > <y
if
t~* <"* <~* >~* i~* (.~* <* -'^' .<> -"* >yj ** *T *"* " * '* ""'
Dowell, et al.
(1991); CECERT (1996)
Hildemann, et
al. (1989)
Gordon, et al.
(1994)
Dawson (1991);
Annis, et al.
(1989)
Table 2. Methods Summary (continued).
Definitions:
Vm = Dry air volume (standard)
M = Moisture (could include total water vapor and/or % moisture)*
PMT = Total Particulate Matter*
PM10 = Particulate Matter < 10 urn in diameter
= Condensable Particulate Matter
* See Table 3 for definitions of moisture and total particlulate matter.
Condensation Devices:
a) 4 Greenburg/Smith Impingers, first 2 with 100ml H 2 0, third empty,
fourth with silica gel.
b) Any system to lower temperature to < 20C.
c) 4 Greenburg/Smith Impingers, first 3 with 100ml H 2 0, fourth with CPM
silica gel.
d) 3 Greenburg/Smith Impingers, first 2 with 100ml H 2 0, third empty.
e) 5 Greenburg/Smith Impingers, first empty, second and third 100ml
H 2 0, fourth empty, fifth with silica gel.
f) Dilution tunnel with large amounts of conditioned air to bring
temperature of gas to ambient conditions. This is followed by
a residence time chamber before particle collection.
Sample Locations Used In CKV Applications:

A) In exhaust duct
B) Above Appliance
Notes concerning Determined Quantities:
(I) Carbon balance for exhaust gas/kg wood burned also included, but not applicable to CKV procedures.
(II) If a cascade impactor is used instead of cyclone, size distributions are included by manufacturer's specifications.
^ (HI) Also includes quantities for whichever method (17, 201, or 201 A) is used in front half of sample train.
Comments:
1) Designed for stationary source stack PM emission when PM,0 is not needed. '
2) Designed for determining PM emission from wood stoves.
3) Has a dilution stack to mix emitted effluent with room air.
4) Can be used with EPA 5G dilution stack.
5) Designed for same as EPA 5 but filtered at stack temperature, not 120C.
6) Designed for stationary source stack PM emission where PM10 must be determined.
7) Filtered and conditioned air is added to cyclone to assure proper operation.
8) Used in conjunction with EPA 17,201, or 201A. Organic or inorganic fraction can be determined by using MeCl2 as an organic solvent.
9) No filter or silica gel used to dry the gas or collect the particles.
10) 2 urn cyclone used after dilution tunnel and residence settling chamber. Everything that passes 2 (im cyclone is then collected on an absolute filter.
11) Only used as a size classifier.
c. Result of Applying Methods to Effluent Measurement in CKV

When applying any of the particulate measurement methods to cooking emissions, it is
important to realize the designed use of the method. Emission measurements from cooking
processes involve the specific problem of high grease and water vapor levels in the
effluent. Methods designed for other applications rightfully do not take this into
consideration. The temperatures and conditions where the filtering and condensation occur
determine what counts as moisture and particulate matter. The temperatures specified in the
methods vary from stack temperature, which may be above 120 degrees C, down to 15
degrees C. The amount of grease and water vapor that condenses above 120 degrees C is
much less than the amount that condenses at 15 degrees C. Comparing particulate matter
concentrations defined by two different temperatures leads to confusing results. Table 3
summarizes the designed use of each method, states the definition of moisture and
particulate matter for the method, and explains the problems this causes when applying the
method to cooking emissions. It should be noted that the criticism is not directed at the
methods described. They work extremely well when applied to their designed use.
Applying EPA Methods 17,201, and 201A to cooking effluent results in only counting
particles and condensate that collect at stack temperature. If the stack temperature is high,
very little grease condenses and PM values are low. Grease vapor that passes through the
filter condenses in the impingers and counts as moisture. Therefore, the method overstates
the amount of water vapor.
Applying EPA Method 5 to cooking effluent results in the same problem, the only
difference being the filter temperature is defined at 120 degrees C. EPA Method 5G
defines particulate matter at 32 degrees C, which will certainly include some water vapor.
Additional problems occur because of the dilution tunnel, where particle losses could be
substantial.
EPA Methods 5H and 202 as well as SCAQMD Method 5.1 count grease condensate and
particles collected in the impinger water as moisture and particulate matter. Furthermore,
the counting of grease and water vapor that might not condense at ambient temperature
occurs, because the temperature at the exit may be substantially lower than 15 or 20 degrees
C. Therefore, these methods may overstate particulate matter concentrations.
IL EPA ATP-1 does not include any filters or temperature specifications so particulate
matter concentrations obtained are ambiguous.
Particulate matter and condensate loss occur in the Dilution Stack Sampler, especially at the
opening of the dilution tunnel. Furthermore, because a second proportional sampling
occurs at the residence time chamber, the sample collected may not be representative of the
original air flow.
The two size classifiers require long sample lines. The condensate that forms in the line
does not count as particulate matter. Larger particles have a greater chance of impacting the
sample line wall, causing subsequent size distributions to under count the amount of larger
particles. Because temperature is not specified in the sizing apparatus, grease vapor that
would condense at ambient temperature might still be in the vapor phase and pass through
the sizer.
21
Table 3. Problems Using Sampling Methods When Applied To Cooking Emissions.

Method
EPA 17
Definition of PM
All particles and condensate
collected on or before afilterat
stack temperature
EPA 201
EPA201A
EPA 5
Designed use
PM when concentrations are
independent of temperature
In stack PMin
From stationary sources
PM from stationary sources
EPA5G
PM from wood heaters(stoves)

collected on or before a set of 2
filters at T<32C
EPA5H
to
to
SCAQMD-5.1
ILEPAATP-1
(modified by
McDonald's)
PM from wood heater from stack

location
Organic/Inorganic condensable
AH particles and condensate

collected on or before afilterat
T20C including condensate
collected in impinger water.

PM from incinerators
Same as above exept TS15C

collected in or before impinger
water.
Dilution Stack
Sampler
Organic aerosol determined from

combustible sources
ADS Particle
Size Analyzer
Particle size distribution of

aerosols
All particle and condensate

collected after dilution of effluent
in a large dilution stack to
ambient air temperature.
selectively sized within the
sizing apparatus.
EPA 202

collected on or before a filter at
T^120C
Definition of Moisture
Liquid condensed in impinger
plus moisture absorbed by silica
gel. Note: No filter after
condensate.
plus moisture absorbed by silica
gel. Note: no filter after
condensation.
Moisture determined by separate
method.

plus moisture absorbed by silica,
gel. Note: Filter after
condensate is present.
Problems for kitchen effluent determination

1) Grease in vapor form at stack temperature is
counted as moisture, if condensed in impinger.
2) Many grease particles which will be PM at
ambient temperature are not counted as PM.
1) Grease in vapor form at 120C is counted as
moisture, if condensed in impinger.
2) Many grease particles which will be PM at
ambient temperature are not counted as PM.
1) Some grease in vapor form at 32C will not be
counted as PM, but may be PM at ambient
temperatures.
2) Some particles and condensate will be lost in
dilution chamber.
1) Grease and particles collected in impingers are
counted as PM and moisture.
2) Some grease vapor condensed at T<20C
(T515C for SCAQMD 5.1) might not have
formed PM at ambient conditions.

method.
1) Condensed grease and particles are counted as

both PM and moisture.
2) Because there are no filters, particles not
collected in impingers are lost.
1) Grease and particles when condense and collect
before the residence time chamber are not counted.

method.
1) Grease that is in the vapor phase at the

temperature of the analyzer is not counted.
All liquid condensed in impinger.
QCM Cascade
Impactor

a. Introduction
A thorough search for investigations related to cooking effluent measurement found seven
studies that made various measurements of effluent from real cooking processes. We do
not include studies that measured particulates in the surrounding room (Sarnosky 1987; Li
et al. 1993) and those that used an effluent generator instead of actual food (Pauch 1964;
Annis and Annis 1971; Annis 1978; Annis 1983). Three studies (Annis and Annis 1989;
Dawson 1991; Gordon et al. 1984) measured above the cooking surface and below the
hood. The remaining studies (Stanley and Co. 1973; Hildemann et al. 1989; Dowell and
Dashner 1991; CE-CERT 1996) as well as Gorden et al. (1994) made measurements instack. A brief summary of each study follows.
b. Study Summaries
Stanley and Co. (1973) conducted an emission test for McDonalds to investigate if the
restaurant would meet the anticipated requirements of EPA regulations. They determined
total particulate concentration, condensable hydrocarbons, and odor emissions. They
concluded that McDonalds would meet the anticipated level of allowable emissions.
Hildemann et al. (1991) conducted an extensive study on fine organic aerosol emissions
from numerous sources. One source included meat cooking operations. They concluded
meat cooking accounted for up to 21 % of fine organic aerosol emissions in the Los
Angeles area basin. Another result of their study included the contention that cholesterol is
a good marker for identifying the level of meat cooking emissions in the surrounding
atmosphere. Other papers written from the same data extensively looked at chemical
composition (Rogge et al 1991) and compared fossil and contemporary carbonaceous
organic concentrations (Hildemann et al. 1994).
Annis and Annis (1989) investigated the size distribution of cooking effluent from an
electric skillet. They reported the effects of ventilation rates, sample tube length and
composition, and types of food cooked. They also compared the size distributions from
actual cooking processes to an aerosol generator. The study found that concentrations were
mainly dependent on sample line length (inversely proportional), and that the aerosol
generator did not produce the same type of particle distribution as real food.
Dawson (1991) studied the particle size distribution of emissions from a naval ship kitchen.
The study measured particle sizes during real time operation on a not to interfere basis. The
general shape of the distributions compared well with the Annis study. The study
recommended the Navy consider large and small aerosol particles when evaluating hood
capture efficiency.
Dowell and Dashner (1991) conducted tests on a large number of broilers and griddles.
The study included measuring particulate matter concentration and Reactive Organic Gases
(ROG) levels. The tests reported severe repeatability problems with particulate
measurements.
Gordon et al. (1994) investigated particle size distribution and total concentration using
several methods. The particle size distributions varied greatly from the Annis and Dawson
studies, but the total concentrations agreed well with some of the data from the Dowell
study. The study recommends alternative methods for properly determining grease and
particulate emissions.
23
Resultsfroma current study by CE-CERT (1996) compare particulate concentrations taken

using EPA Method 201A and SCAQMD Method 5.1. The resulting particulate
concentrations appear to match well. The study is now investigating other variables as well
as trying to verify repeatability.
c. Study Comparisons
Each study reviewed had a different goal that it tried to accomplish. For this reason,
sample methods, cooking methods, foods cooked and appliances used varied widely.
Therefore, there are very few valid direct comparisons. Table 4 summarizes the studies
comparing each of the important categories.
From the table, it is easy to understand why kitchen ventilation system designers do not use
available emission data for determining performance criteria. Table 5 summarizes the
similarities and differences in each study.
Table 5 shows that only a few studies validly compare with one another. CE-CERT (1996)
compared two different sample methods keeping every other variable constant. Figure 11
shows these results compare well.
CE-CERT (1996)
0
Solids
SCAQMD 5.1
Total
EPA 201 A, 202
% Soluble % Organic Extract
Figure 11. Comparison of SCAQMD Method 5.1 and EPA Method 201A and 202, both
modified for CKV applications. Data is from hamburger cooked on a chainbroiler.
(Data from CE-CERT 1996)
The solid and total particulate concentrations agree extremely well. The percent soluble and
organic extract do compare as well. This may be die to the difference in the condenser part
of the sample train. It should be noted that these results are from a preliminary
presentation, and should be regarded as such. The final report was not available in time for
this paper, but should be completed soon.
24
Table 4. Summary of Reviewed CKV Emission Studies.

Reference
CE-CERT
(1996)
Gordon, et al.
(1994)
Sampling
Methods
SCAQMD 5.1,
EPA 201A,
EPA 202
EPA 5G,
EPA5H
Dowell, et al.
(1991)
SCAQMD 5.1
Hildemann, et
al. (1989),
(1991)
Dawson
(1991)
Dilution Stack
Sampler,
EPA 5
QCM Cascade
Impactor
Annis, et al.
(1989)
QCM Cascade
Impactor
Stanley & Co.

(1973)
IL - EPA,
ATP-1
Foods Cooked
Hamburger
Hamburger
Chicken Breast
Potatoes
Hamburger
Hamburger
Hamburger
Potatoes
Eggs
Hamburger
Potatoes
Chicken Thighs
&Legs
Bacon
Sausage
Hamburger
Potatoes
Fish Filets
Pies
Food
Specifications*
20% Fat, 1/4 lb
each
Appliance Used / Type
27% Fat, 1/4 lb

each; 2% Fat
(Chicken Breast)
23% Fat, 62%
Moisture, 1/4 lb
each
21% Fat, 1/4 lb
each; 10% Fat,
1/4 lb each
n/a
Griddle /Gas
Griddle/Gas
Fryers / Gas
Griddle /Gas & Electric
Broiler/Gas
Chain Broiler / Gas
Broiler/Gas
Griddle/Gas
'20% Fat, 1/4 lb

each;
30% Fat, 1/4 lb
each
Skillet / Electric
18% Fat, 1/4 lb

or 1/10 lb each
Griddle/Gas
Fryer / Gas
Chainbroiler/Gas
Griddle/Electric
Fryer / Electric
Griddle /Electric
General Description of Cooking Method

Modified ASTM Standard for broilers.
ASTM standards for performance of given appliance. Examples:

Griddle: 24 patties at 375"F for 6 minutes until T=163F.
Fryer: 3 lbs potatoes at 350F for 10 minutes.
ASTM standards for performance of given appliance. Examples:
See above.
80 patties, cooked 8 at a time to medium or well done continuously
for 70-80 minutes.
Conducted field measurements of various cooking operations.
Examples: Hamburgers: batches of 30-75 cooked continuously for
10 minutes each.
Potatoes: 6 minutes to cook.
Eggs: Cooked sporadically, 10 minutes each.
Hamburgers: 2 at a time at 350F for 4-5 minutes.
Potatoes: 1 lb at 400F in 3 cups- oil for 8 minutes.
Chicken: at 360F in 2 cups oil for 15 minutes.
Hamburgers: at 325F, light load and continuous load.

Potatoes: at 340F, 2 lbs continuously cooked.
Fish filets: at 335F continuously cooked.
Pies: at 335F, continuously cooked.
* Food specifications are for hamburger unless otherwise noted.
Table 5. Comparison Between CKV Emission Studies.

Reference
CE-CERT
(1996)
Gordon, et al.
(1994)
Dowell, et al.
(1991)
Hildemann, et al.
(1989), (1991)
Dawson
(1991)
Annis, et al.
(1989)
o^
CE-CERT
(1996)
Compared two
sample methods
Gordon, et al.
(1994)
a, d
b, c
Dowell, et al.
(1991)
a, b, c,
d
a, b, c,
d
Hildemann, et al.
(1989), (1991)
Dawson
(1991)
a, b, c
d
a, b, c
c,d
a,b
a, b, c
a, b, c
Cd
a, b
c,d
a, b
Cd
a, b
a, b, c
c, d
a, b
c, d
a, b
a, b, c
c, d
a, b
a,d
b, c
c, d
a,b
a, b, c
**
Stanley & Co.

(1973)
d
a, b, c
** Compared EPA Method 5 with Dilution Stack Sampler, measuring particulate matter from a fuel oil boiler.
Key:
Annis, et al.
(1989)
d
a, b, c
X: Similarities between the two studies being compared.

Y: Differences between the two studies being compared.
Variables:
a) Sample Method
b) Cooking Method
c) Appliance
d) Food
Comparisons of the Dowell and Dashner study with the CE-CERT study are also valid.
Figure 12 shows these results.
CE-CERT
Dowell and Dashner
Solids
Total
Figure 12. Comparison of CE-CERT and Dowell and Dashner studies for solid and total
particulate emissions. Data is for hamburger cooking on a chainbroiler using a Modified
SCAQMD 5.1 sampling method and ASTM standard cooking procedures.
(Data from CE-CERT 1996^Dowell and Dashner 1991)
The only common data presented in these studies is the solid and total particulate
concentrations. The results show significant variation. Conclusionsfromthese results
should be cautious due to the fact the CE-CERT data is preliminary and Dowell and
Dashner had trouble with reproducibility.
Although the sampling methods and cooking methods are quite different, it is interesting to
compare the Hildemann study with the Dowell study. An earlier study by Hildemann et al.
(1989) compared the results of the dilution stack sampler with EPA Method 5. The study
measured particulate concentrations from an oil fired boiler, and found the dilution stack
sampler reported concentrations 7 to 16 times higher than EPA Method 5. Keeping this in
mind, Figure 13 shows the results of total particle concentrations in the two studies, where
common variables allow.
27
Hildemann
Dowell and Dashner
Indicates data range.
o
o
o
..GriddkLL
Gnddle 2
Broiler
Griddle
Figure 13. Comparison of total particulate concentrations from various appliances between
the Hildemann, and Dowell and Dashner studies. In stack measurements taken while
cooking hamburgers.
(DatafromHildemann 1991; Dowell and Dashner 1992)
Hildemann et al. tested a broiler and a griddle. Dowell and Dashner tested a number of
broilers and griddles. The first part of Figure 13 shows Hildemann's concentrations were
over four times the concentrations found in the lower range of the Dowell and Dashner
study. However, Dowell and Dashner reported one data point from a broiler where
emission levels were almost twice that found in the Hildemann study. Therefore part of the
data can be explained partially by Hildemann's earlier study comparing EPA Method 5 to
the Dilution Stack Sampler, but it is certainly not conclusive. The second part of Figure 13
compares the griddle tests by Hildemann and Dowell and Dashner. Here, Hildemann
determined the particle concentrations to be very low, while the Dowell and Dashner study,
using two different griddles, showed data variations over a wide range. Figure 13
accentuates the problem of obtaining an accurate representation of particulate emissions
from commercial cooking processes.
Finally it is interesting to compare the size distributions of the Gordon study to the Annis
and Dawson study. Figure 14 shows the mass distribution results from the three studies.
28
Particle Size Distribution Comparison
Dawson
Annis and Anois
Gordon et al.
Figure 14. Particle size distribution comparison between Dawson, Annis and Annis, and
Gordon studies. (Curvefitswere generated at the University of Minnesota using DISTFTT
software, from Dawson 1991; Annis and Annis 1989; Gordon et al. 1994).
Total concentration values were not available for each study, therefore, Figure 14 shows
the relative percentage of mass collected in each size interval. This means Figure 14
accurately depicts the relative size distribution from the total mass collected in each study.
However, the total concentration needs to be known to give a quantitative comparison of
the actual amount of material collected at each interval. Even without the total
concentration, valuable information is available from this comparison.
The Annis and Dawson studies both report a large number of particles with a mass diameter
below 0.7 micrometers. This reflects the efficiency of the QCM cascade impactor at that
size range. However, there are few particles with diameters larger than 5 micrometers.
The Dawson study does report one data point of large diameter, but reports little in the
particle size range before it The reason for this may be that the larger particles never enter
the impactor due to condensation in the sample line. The Gordon study reports a large
number of particles with a mass diameter above 5 micrometers. The lack of particles below
0.7 micrometers is a consequence of using the APS particle size analyzer. Figure 14
shows the lack of completeness in the knowledge of cooking effluent characteristics.
4. Summary of Areas In Effluent Characterization Which Need to be Addressed
Previous cooking effluent studies do exist, but most researchers limited the scope of their
investigation to a small portion of the problem. Factoring in problems that arise from
measuring and cooking techniques as well as different foods and appliances tested, leaves
the state of cooking effluent knowledge as sketchy at best There is certainly a need for a
comprehensive approach to the problem.
29
First, previous studies only include measurements taken from a limited number of
appliances. These include griddles, chain and under-fire broilers, and fryers. Some
studies tested gas versions, others electric versions. Of all kitchen appliances these three
are certainly the most important, because they produce the most contamination. There is a
need for data from these appliances in both the gas and electric version, as well as data
from other appliances such as ovens and ranges.
The availability of the ASTM standards for appliance performance is a large step forward in
producing repeatable results. Comparing studies and validating results will be much easier
if all future studies adopt these tests and use them as the cooking method for producing
effluent. There is also a need for testing a larger selection of common foods.
The area most lacking in cooking effluent characterization is the existence of a sampling
protocol that defines particulate matter and condensable vapors properly. There is a need
for the size distribution of the particulate matter at different points along the ventilation
path. It is also important to document how much grease is in the vapor form throughout
the ventilation system. This information may lead to insights into the behavior of grease,
and assist in the development of a more efficient grease extractor.
A complete understanding of the nature of cooking effluent is probably not possible in the
near future, considering that fundamental mechanisms of particle condensation are not
understood at the most basic level. However, this information is not necessary for
advancing the technology of kitchen ventilation systems. Instead, studies that carefully
define and quantify particulate and condensable matter in the cooking effluent plume can be
used to help develop the next generation of cooking appliances and ventilation equipment.
Furthermore, the development of badly needed testing methods for grease extraction
efficiency and contaminant emission rates can accelerate with the availability of this
information.
30
. Non-Condensable Gases
1. Introduction
Effluent emittedfromcooking processes not only produce particulate matter and
condensable vapors, but also emit a wide variety of non-condensable gases. The most
widely recognized of these gases include CO, C02, and NOx. There are other less
recognized gases of interest. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) include all organic
compounds that are volatile except CO. Total Gaseous Non-Methane Organics (TGNMO)
represent VOC's according to EPA definitions. There is a specific sub-class of VOC's
which are of particular interest called reactive organic compounds (ROC) or reactive
organic gases (ROG). Gordon etal. and the Federal Register define ROG's. The
importance of VOC and ROG emissions vary according to the group concerned.
Previous studies attempted to look at non-condensable gaseous emissions, but usually were
side-tracked by the difficulties in the particulate matter and condensable vapor
quantification's. Of the seven studies mentioned previously, three pursued some type of
non-condensable gas quantification. Hildemann et al. (1991) performed Gas
Chromatography (GC) and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy (GC/MS) analysis on
collected particulates, and therefore did not search for emitted gases. Instead, die study
concentrated on an elemental analysis of the fine organic aerosol collected. Stanley and
Co., did analyze non-condensable gases using GC. They reported non-condensable
hydrocarbons from this analysis, but their concentration was on odor emissions, which is
difficult to apply in characterizing cooking effluent emissions. Therefore, this paper does
not include results from the Stanley study. The two studies classifying particle size (Annis
and Annis 1991; Dawson 1991) did not report any investigation into non-condensable
gases.
Most experts in the industry believe the understanding of particulate matter and condensable
vapor is more crucial to kitchen ventilation systems than non-condensable gases.
However, addressing this matter concerns those who monitor atmospheric emissions and
any study attempting to be comprehensive in cooking effluent characterization should
include it
In a section of Gordon's topical paper it is stated of VOC emissions:
"However, no studies exist to provide a definite quantitative analysis for emissions
in commercial cooking operations."
Review of previous studies certainly finds this to be a true statement.
SCAQMD's intention during the early 1990's was to reduce the emissions of particulate
matter, condensable vapors, and ROG's (Rule 1138). The first study to investigate these
premises was by Dowell and Dashner (1991). SCAQMD's main goal was identifying and
quantifying ROG's and the proposed method used SCAQMD Method 25.1, which is
similar to EPA Method 25. The method specifically identifies TGNMO's as carbon, which
are basically defined as VOC's. The first phase of Dowell and Dashner's study provides a
quantitative analysis of the gases. However, numerous problems encountered in the
particulate matter and condensable vapor analysis portion of the study leads them to neglect
this aspect of the study in phases II and HI. Therefore, the validity of ROG quantitative
results from phase I is suspect.
Gordon et al. (1994) reviewed a number of studies identifying and quantifying VOC's and
ROG's from emissions andfromoxidation occurring during storage of these compounds.
31
They concluded that cooking operations contribute very little to ozone generation and that
even the most polluting cooking operations produce little environmental and health
threatening substances.
CE-CERT (1996) spends a fair amount of effort on quantifying ROG's. Several methods
including a modified SCAQMD Method 25.1, a continuous flame ionization detector, and
GC/MS on gases collected in a summa canister or tedelar bag were compared in their
preliminary study. The SCAQMD Method 25.1 proved to have poor repeatability. The
GC/MS is an expensive alternative, and considered impractical in terms of field tests
possibilities. Instead, CE-CERT has recommended the use of the continuous flame
ionization detector to quantify ROG's. The most recent data shows this may be a
promising alternative, and verification testing is currently being pursued in their
investigation. It is expected that more will be known on this matter in the near future.
Overall, definitive information about the emissions of non-condensable gases, including
VOC's and/or ROG's is almost non-existent for cooking processes. CE-CERT is currently
pursuing several promising methods, which will clearly help determine the extent of the
problem. Clearly future studies must address this area.
32
F. Proposed Test Method For Phase II

1. Introduction
Phase II of ASHRAE 745-RP involves implementing a test procedure, measuring
particulate, condensable and non-condensable gas emissions from typical commercial
kitchen appliances and food products, and reporting these findings. This portion of the
Phase I report describes the testing facilities, gives the proposed test matrix, and discusses
methods of measuring temperature, velocity, particulate matter and condensable vapors,
and non-condensable gases, all for the Phase n part of the project. Finally, a time table
gives the approximate schedule of completing the Phase II work.
2. Testing Facility
a. Minnegasco Commercial Foodservice Training Facility
Minnegasco, a public utility that provides the majority of the natural gas throughout the
twin city metropolitan area, offered their Commercial Foodservice Training Facility for our
use in this project. Appendix C shows a copy of the brochure Minnegasco distributes,
briefly describing the facility and some of its benefits. Renovations at the facility currently
include several suggestions from this research group. These renovations include the
installation of a hew hood by July 1996. New renovations will also provide access to the
exhaust duct work.
Minnegasco's cooperation provides easy access to a testing facility that will meet most of
our needs. Minnegaseco provides the appliances at no cost, and any additional appliances
we request can easily be moved into the facility. Meters and other equipment for measuring
gas flow and energy consumption are readily available, as the training facility was designed
for this purpose. Equipment for our sample train will be moved into the facility, where
there is plenty of room for use and storage.
b. University ofMinnesota Test Unit
In addition to the Commercial Foodservice Training Facility at Minnegaseco, a small
kitchen test facility will be built in the Mechanical Engineering Building at the University of
Minnesota. Figure 15 shows a rough idea of the facility, including ductwork and fan
placement.
33
Table 6. Possible Test Variables.

Appliance
Type
Load
Food
Chain
Broiler
Gas
Heavy
Light
Hamburgers
Under-fired
Broilers
Electric
Gas
Heavy
Light
Hamburger
Chicken
Griddles
Electric
Gas
Heavy
Light
Hamburgers
Fryers
Electric
Gas
Heavy
Light
Ovens
Electric
Gas
Heavy
Light
Potatoes
Fish
Chicken
Potatoes
Beef Roast
Ranges
Electric
Gas
Heavy
Light
Water
Ventilation
Rate
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Sampling Location
Above Hood (2);
exhaust duct work
Above Hood (2);
exhaust duct work
Above Hood (2);
exhaust duct work
Above Hood (2);
exhaust duct work
Above Hood (2);
exhaust duct work
Above Hood (2);
exhaust duct work
Table 6 shows all of the different possibilities. After determining variable dependencies
during the early tests, the latter tests will only involve changing the variables that prove to
be the most important. Thefirstappliance tests will involve a chainbroiler, which is only
available in a gas model. The current study at CE-CERT involves data from the
chainbroiler, using hamburger meat. The first tests will purposely mimic the test
conditions used in the CE-CERT study. This allows direct comparison, in hopes of
confirming our test procedure as reasonable and valid. A chainbroiler will also be used by
AGA Research in their ASHRAE-sponsored study.
Tests for five other appliances include underfired broilers, griddles, fryers, ovens and
ranges. Preferable testing will occur in that order, because it indicates the relative level of
expected contaminant emission levels, from most to least. Planned tests including using
available gas and electric versions of each appliance. Tests also will include each load level
specified by me ASTM standard for performance of appliances. Finally, as recommended
by the committee, several food types will be used for certain appliances.
Inclusion of two other variables is important to this study. First, experimenters can adjust
the volume of air vented through the hood. The investigation includes testing at low,
medium, and high flow rates, with emphasis placed on low flow rates needed for plume
capture and containment Second, it is important to test from several locations. Testing
will include two different locations under the hood, one close to the cooking surface and
another near the hood opening. Preliminary tests involving temperature and velocity
measurements of the thermal plume will help determine roughly where to position the
sample probe for the under the hood tests. Then, several positions within the selected area
will be sampled, and the best position will be used for the remaining tests. Samples will
also be taken immediately after the hood, in the exhaust ductwork. Other possible areas for
tests include further along the ductwork and at the stack exit. The results from the other
testing positions determine the necessity of these tests.
35
4. Temperature and Velocity Measurements

An important aspect of cooking effluent characterization is documenting the temperature
and velocity profiles of the thermal plume, during the cooking process. Total
characterization of this aspect will include measuring temperatures and velocities at various
ventilation rates, with the appliance turned off. Other measurements taken will include
ventilation rates varying from 0 to a maximum, with idling appliances. Further
measurements include those during the various cooking processes, being sure to include
data from each cooking load. Reporting of all temperature and velocity profiles will include
time averages, but just as important, if not more so, will be documentation of the changes
in the thermal plume during the cooking process. This information is crucial to
understanding the formation of grease and water vapor particles throughout the cooking
and ventilating process.
A grid of shielded thermocouples will provide the means to measure the temperature of the
thermal plume. Shields minimize the expected effects of radiant heat transmission from the
cooking surface. The thermocouples connect to a data acquisition board that interfaces to a
computer, for recording and storage. The grid will traverse the volume under the hood,
with temperature measurements taken along the way, measuring an entire cross sectional
area at a time. Once the data is in the computer, there are numerous software programs
available to present the data and display the transient nature of the temperature distribution.
A similar method will be used to determine the velocity profiles. We have used a TSI
omni-directional hot film anemometer for previous velocity measurements beneath
residential exhaust hoods. This sensor is temperature compensated and can measure
temperature and velocity at the same location. We will mount the probe on a manual
traversing system to traverse the entire plume. Radiation from the cooking appliance may
affect the readings. Initial measurements will be made with little or no effluent to determine
what radiation correction will be necessary if any. We may also photograph and/or
videotape the plume to record the flow qualitatively. Water fog from a fog generator could
be used to visualize the flow when the plume is not visible as has been done with previous
measurements on residential hoods.
36
5. Particulate Matter and Condensable Gases

The proposed method for characterizing particulate matter and condensable gases includes
using EPA Method 201 A, with Method 202 for detennining the organic and inorganic
condensables. EPA Method 201A allows for the use of a cascade impactor before the
condenser stage. In this case, the choice is a compact cascade impactor. Figure 16 shows
a schematic of the sample train.
Non-condensablegm analyzers
EPA25
CTNMGO)
(Impact Cascade
hipaaor
HIter
1
Isokinetic Probe
Temperature
Conditioner
EBMO
CO
EBV7
CO2,02
Em 3
CO
GC/MS
EB\ 202 Condenser
with
T ri*er
Impnger
VUveJ. wth
silica gel
Diy gas metering
Aerosol Dilutor
H * I
I^P^c~]
Figure 16. Schematic of the proposed sampling train.
The sampling method starts by placing a compact cascade impactor into the airflow at the
point of sampling, with an isokinetic nozzle. The apparatus reaches a temperature equal to
the surrounding environment after a short time. After determining the range of expected
velocities at the sample point, the experimenter selects an appropriate nozzle. The compact
cascade impactor determines the size distribution of any particles present in the liquid or
solid phase, at the temperature where the sampling takes place. There is very little distance
between the nozzle and the first impactor, and the temperature during this traverse equals
the temperature at the sample point. This aspect of the sample strain is important because
only two previous studies (Annis and Annis 1989; Dawson 1991) attempt to classify
particles in the effluent stream.
Both previous studies used rather long sample lines, and did not specify the temperature of
their cascade impactor. Annis and Annis did attempt to place their impactor in theflowof
the effluent for one test, but due to the inlet position and the need for the QCM cascade
impactor to be right side up, the particles had to take a 180 degree turn, adversely affecting
their data. Therefore, Annis and Annis used sample lines that varied from 24 to 96 inches.
Results indicate that the overall concentration levels measured were inversely proportional
to sample line length, indicating particle deposition in the sample line may effect the size
distributions. Dawson used a sample line mat varied from 8 to 13 feet. He encountered the
same problems as Annis. By placing the cascade impactor in the hot air plume directly,
there will be no sample line and no losses at that point. The proposed use of a cascade
37
impactor placed in the flow, at temperature, allows, for the first time, the determination of
the true particle size distribution at a well-defined point above the cooking appliance. This
would be a significant advance in the characterization of cooking effluent.
At the end of the cascade impactor is an absolute filter (filter 1). This insures that only
substances in the gaseous phase at the temperature of the sampling point, pass on to the
condenser. This infers that any condensable material collected in the sample line, between
the cascade impactor and the condenser, or in the condenser, was in the vapor state at the
point of collection. Thermocouples will monitor the temperature of the gas in the sample
line near the entrance of the isokinetic nozzle and at the exit point, after filter 1, assuring the
gas is at sampling temperature. Another thermocouple will monitor the temperature of the
gas as it enters the condenser. This allows liquids condensed in the line to be quantified at
a given temperature. The condensate will include water vapor and grease.
Details specified in EPA Method 202 describe the back half of the sample train. A slight
modification of EPA Method 202 includes the addition of a filter (filter 2) after the
impingers with water. Filter 2 ensures only substances in the gaseous state at the
condenser temperature will pass to the non-condensable gas analysis unit and the dry gas
meter. The addition of a thermocouple at the wet impinger exit, after filter 2, helps define
the material collected in the impinger water and surrounding fittings. Previous studies, by
following the method protocol, simply keep the temperature below a given value. The
importance of knowing the exact value of the temperature where the condensation occurs
cannot be overemphasized. EPA Method 202 allows for the breakdown of the
condensation into organic and inorganic phases.
A final addition to the EPA Method 202 condenser is a valve placed after filter 2. This
valve allows the analysis of non-condensable gases. The non-condensable gas analysis
requires the removal of particulates in the gas stream. The EPA Method 202 condenser is
adequate for this purpose. Periodically, during sampling, the valve will divert the flow of
gasfromthe condenser into the non-condensable gas analysis unit. The following section
describes these methods of analysis.
Using this sample train gives the particle size distribution at the point of collection. It also
determines the amount of condensables in vapor form at the collection point and defines the
conditions under which condensation occurs. Finally it determines the breakdown of the
condensable matter. Note that the collection conditions define the condensable matter
collected. This is not equivalent to saying that these condensables represent the material
that will condense after the effluent leaves the ventilation system.
Alternate methods of particle size classification will include the Aerodynamic Particle Sizer
(APS) and the Laser Particle Counter (LPS). Both classifiers require an isokinetic sample
probe. The sampled effluent moves from the probe into a sample line. Here, the sample
must be conditioned to a certain temperature and concentration range. This is done with a
temperature conditioner and aerosol diluter. Requiring the sample to be cooled will cause
some condensation to occur. For this reason, the use of these methods is to supplement
information obtained from the personal cascade impactor and the EPA Method 202
condenser. The advantage of using these classifiers is that they give a real time count of the
particle size distribution. This will allow us to observe some of the transient tendencies of
the cooking process, and quantify them. Furthermore, the range of temperatures at which
the sample is conditioned can be varied, giving insight into the relationship between
contaminated gas stream temperature and particle size of the pollutants.
The end result of this proposed sample train is a quantification of the entire size distribution
of particulate matter at the sampling point. Figure 17 shows the range of particle sizes from
38
the cooking process obtained by reviewing the literature, and compares the proposed
sampling method with previously used methods.
Dp (Mm)
0.01
o.l
1-0
10
100
Grease
Particles
-H
APS
|*
QCM
Cascade
Impactor
UofM
Sample
Train
j ^
!
^j
,
M
J
,
M
Figure 17. Grease particle size range and ranges covered by various methods.
It is believed that grease particles range in size from 0.01 micrometers to 100 micrometers.
The APS range is generally from 0.7 or 0.8 to 10 micrometers. Even though the device
states it can measure particle sizes down to 0.3 micrometers, it is less reliable at small sizes.
The QCM cascade impactor's range is from 0.05 to particles over 25 micrometers, but
neither research group which used the QCM reported the larger sizes, perhaps due to
sample line losses. The proposed test method here is capable of measuring the entire
range. Particles larger than 25 micrometers collect on the first impactor stage. The
impactor stages classify particles from 0.05 to 25 micrometers. Finally, the absolute filter
after the last impaction stage collects all particulate matter smaller than 0.05 micrometers.
Therefore, a complete picture of the particulate size range at the sampling temperature will
be available.
Near the end of the study, the sampling train will be used to take field measurements at a
few selected working kitchens. Several food service kitchens at the University of
Minnesota are available. This part of the study allows verification of the sampling method
in real world applications. Furthermore, it will provide an opportunity to iron out any
problems encountered when applying the method in a non-laboratory environment
6. Non-condensable Gases
Determination of the quantity of non-condensable gases requires the removal of the large
amount of grease present in the gas stream. The condenser used for determining
condensable matter should adequately accomplish this. No particles and matter condensed
above 20 degrees C should exit the condenser. A valve installed in the condenser will
allow the gas stream to be drawn off whenever necessary. The previous section explains
this further.
The dry gas moves into the non-condensable portion of the sample train where test methods
determine CO, C0 2 , NOx and VOC levels. The test methods used for every quantity
described are well accepted and widely used. A brief description of each method follows.
39
EPA Method 10 determines the amount of CO by collecting the gas sample and analyzing it
using a Luft-type non-disperse infrared analyzer (NDIR). Corrections for C0 2 and H20
levels are necessary. The gas travels through a condenser to remove moisture and into the
analyzer. The minimum gas concentration for proper accuracy is 20 PPM.
EPA Method 3 determines the concentrations of CO?, 0 2 , and dry molecular weight using
either an Orsat or a Fyrite gas analyzer. Using a Fyrite gas analyzer is fine if dry molecular
weight is not needed. The gas flows through a condenser and a flow meter, into a bag.
The gas analyzer determines the emission levels from the bag contents.
EPA Method 7 gives several options in determining the concentration and breakdowns of
NOx's. The emission level determines the proper version of the test. NOx levels from the
testing cooking operations is expected to be minimal for gas appliances and almost zero for
electric appliances.
EPA Method 25 determines the concentration of total gaseous non-methane organics
(TGNMO) as carbon. These are the volatile organic compounds (VOC). A condenser is
necessary because organic particular matter will interfere with the analysis. The gas sample
passes through the condenser, which is immersed in dry ice. Condensate collects here and
the remaining gas collects in an evacuated tank. Independent analysis of the tank and
condensate takes place using a flame ionization detector (FID). It is important that the
sample is condensed separately using EPA Method 202 before the condenser described
here. Failure to do so will result in the condensable vapors counting as particulate matter
and VOC's.
The sample train will employ these methods to analyze the non-condensable gases found in
the cooking effluent. GC/MS analysis will also be used as an alternative method to
analyzing the non-condensable gases. Sample will collect in an evacuated canister
periodically during testing. This will be done by diverting the flow in the condenser
portion of the sampling train. The collected sample will be analyzed using GC/MS. This
gives an independent means to check the emissions of non-condensable gases.
When more information becomes available on the use of the continuous flame ionization
detector used by CE-CERT, it will be considered as an alternative for ROG quantification.
7. Proposed Time Line
After completing the literature review, the next step involves devising and constructing a
test kitchen, acquiring and installing test equipment and instrumentation, and conducting
and analyzing results. Figure 18 shows the proposed research schedule for Phase n.
The construction at the Minnegasco test kitchen facility is almost complete. The
construction of the test facility at the University of Minnesota is expected to take 3 to 4
months. Graduate and undergraduate students as well as technical staff at the University
will participate in the project.
40
Months from Start of Project

jasks:
10
12
14
16
18
20
22'
24
Construct Facility
Instrumentation
Appliance Acquisition
Laboratory Tests
Chain Broiler
Underfire Broiler
Gridiles
Fryers
Ovens
Ranges
Field Tests
Final Report
Technical Paper
Figure 18. Phase II proposed research schedule.

The development of the instrumentation begins soon after the construction. Most of the
equipment, including the cascade impactor, the EPA Methods 201A and 202, the APS, the
LPC, and the non-condensable gas analysis equipment is already available from the
Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University. Expected modifications will be
made as necessary throughout the testing period.
Minnegasco will provide the appliances needed through a number of vendor's, supplying
the equipment as needed. Thefirsttests will be done with a chain broiler. During this first
set of tests, modifications to the testing procedure will be done. For this reason, the first
set of tests will take the longest time to complete.
The following tests will be done with the under-fire broilers, griddles, fryers, ovens and
ranges, preferably in that order. This order reflects the decreasing amount of effluent
generation expected from the listed appliances.
After modifying the testing procedure to obtain satisfactory results, field tests will begin.
They will be conducted parallel to the last few appliance laboratory tests. Measurements
from appliances similar to those already completed in the laboratory will be the focus of the
field measurements.
The last part of the study includes a presentation of the findings in the form of a final report
to the committee. This report will summarize all the information collected during the
experimental study. A technical paper will also be written, allowing others to view the
results of the study.
41
G. List of People and Organizations Contacted

Table 7. Contacts and Organizations.
Contact
Organization
Rick Bagwell
Craig CanChris Check
Mary Cheese
Charles Claar
Gary Elovitz
Don Fisher
Damn Holthaus
Ron Huffman
Joe Knapp
Benjamin Y.H. Liu
Bruce Lundquist
Virgil Marple
Phil Morton
DickMuckler
Bob Niemaier
Rueben Palm
Fuoad Parvin
David Russel
Vernon Smith
Rich Swiercztna
Bill Welch
Bruce Zimmermann
Halton Company
Southern Engineering
Greenheck
Minnegasco
International Facility Management
Energy Economics Inc.
Fisher Consultants
Van Hemert, Hahn and Associates
LCI Manufacturing Co. Inc.
McDonald's Corporation
Captive Aire
Gaylord
Muckler Industries
Southern Engineering
Palm Brothers
AGA Research
Quest Metalwork's
Architectural Energy Corporation
Architectural Energy Corporation
CE-CERT (U of Calf., Riverside)
Avtec Industries
Air King
Ventmaster
Vader and Landcraft
42
APPENDIX A
Annotated Bibliography
\._Airpollution information activities at state and local agencies - United States, 1992.
Mobidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1993. 41(52,53): p. 967-969.
Keywords
This paper generally discusses the state of air pollution control in the U.S.
2._Annis, J.C. and P.J. Annis, Size distributions and mass concentrations ofnaturally
generated cooking aerosols. ASHRAE Transactions, 1989. 95(1).
Keywords
particulate measurements, residential studies, indoor air pollution, size classification,
above appliance
The authors reported the effects of flow rate, sample tube lengths and different foods on
the particle size distribution collected above the electric skillet.
3._ASHRAE, Invitation to submit a research proposal on an ASHRAE research project.
1994, ASHRAE.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, ventilation rates, VOC, ROC-ROG
This is the invitation for a research proposal and discusses the need for research into
cooking effluent characterization.
4._ASHRAE, ed. ASHRAE Handbook-HVAC Applications. 1995.
Keywords
ventilation rates, commercial kitchens, residential studies, hood design, control devices
Chapter 28 of this book gives a thorough description of the current state of kitchen
ventilation.
A-l
5._ASTM, Standard Test Methodfor the Performance of Griddles, 1990, ASTM.

Keywords
ASTM cooking method
This gives the procedures for the ASTM standard for performance of griddles.
6._ASTM, Standard Test Methodfor the Performance of Open Deep Fat Fryers, 1991,
ASTM.
Keywords
ASTM cooking method
This gives the procedure for the ASTM standard for performance of flyers.
7._ASTM, Standard Test Method for the Performance of Steam Cookers, 1993, ASTM.
Keywords
ASTM cooking method
This gives the procedure for the ASTM standard for performance of steam cookers.
8._ASTM, Standard Test Methodfor the Performance of Convection Ovens, 1993,
ASTM.
Keywords
ASTM cooking method
This gives the procedure for the ASTM standard for the performance of convection
ovens.
9._ASTM, Standard Test Methodfor the Performance ofRange Tops, 1994, ASTM.
Keywords
ASTM cooking method
This gives the procedure for the ASTM standard for the performance of range tops.
A-2
10._ASTM, Standard Test Methodfor the Performance of Underfired Broilers, Pub.

pending, ASTM.
Keywords
ASTM cooking method
This gives the proposed procedure for the ASTM standard for the performance of
underfired broilers.
1 l._ASTM, Standard Test Methodfor the Performance ofDouble Sided Griddles, Pub.
pending, ASTM.
Keywords
ASTM cooking method
This gives the procedure for the ASTM standard for the performance of double sided
griddles.
12._AVTEC, In-Vent Integrated Ventilation Hood and Conveyer System, B.O. Company,
Editor. 1995, Blodgett: Burlington VT.
Keywords
hood design, heat gain
Gives a description on an integrated hood and vent system, and uses the technique
developed by Gordon at AGA to prove it is more energy efficient than competitors.
13._Bornstem, MJ., Study to develop background information for the direct meat-firing
industry, 1978, GCA Corporation, GCA/Technology Division.
Keywords
outdoor air pollution, control devices, charbroilers, commercial kitchens, non-condensable
gases
This paper gives an overview of the direct meatfiringindustry. Some data is presented
for emission levels takenfroma Hardees study. Total emission estimatesfromthe meat
firing industry are given including particulates and non-condensable gases.
A-3
14_CE-CERT, Restaurant emissions technical advisory committee meeting. Data

presented at meeting, January, 1996.
Keywords
charbroilers, in stack, non-condensable gases, outdoor air pollution, particulate
measurements, ROC-ROG, ROG measurements
These are preliminary results of a study due to be published in late June 1996. PM and
ROG measurements from the stack are included. The study emphasizes developing
consistant protocol for emissions inventory including particles and gases. Comparisions
of SCAQMD 5.1 and EPA 201A and 202 are made. Comparisions of SCAQMD 25.1
and continuous FID are also made. These are allfrommeeting notes, not in the published
form.
15._Chang, S.K.W., Air velocity profiles around a person standing infrontof exhaust
hoods. ASHRAE Transactions, 1994.100(2): p. 439-447.
Keywords
ventilation rates, hood design
Experimental data was taken for velocity profiles around a person standing infrontof a
kitchen exhaust hood. Results show the effects of the human body on overall flow
patterns.
16._Condver, D.R., Building construction regulation impacts on commercial kitchen
ventilation and exhaust systems. ASHRAE Transactions, 1992.98(2): p. 1227-1235.
Keywords
heat gain, ventilation rates, indoor air pollution
This paper discusses regulations and their effects on CKV systems. Suggestions are made
with ways to meet conditions and reduce cost. A brief summary of the contradictions in
current code regulations is given.
A4
17._Dawson, C , Emissions testing on a working submarine, 1991, Department of the

Navy.
Keywords
particulate measurements, size classification, above appliance, indoor air pollution
This report discussesfieldmeasurements takenfroma Naval submarine. The
measurements included particle size distribution taken above the appliance before the
hood.
18._Dockery, D.W., et aL, An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S.
cities. The New England Journal of Medicine, 1993.329(24): p. 1753-1759.
Keywords
indoor air pollution, outdoor air pollution
This study reports on a mortality rate in six U.S cities in its association with air
pollution.
19._Dowell, D. and P. Dashner, Emissionsfromcharbroilers and griddles, Phase I,.
1991, Office of Engineering Research, School of Hotel and Restaurant Management,
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.
Keywords
gas appliances, electric appliances, particulate measurements, VOC, ROC-ROG, noncondensable gases, charbroilers, griddles, SCAQMD, ROG measurements, ASTM
cooking method, outdoor air pollution, in stack
This report discusses measurements takenfromfivecharbroilers and griddles of gas and
electric origin. Particulate concentrations and ROG measurements were made and
compared.
20._DoweIl, D. and P. Dashner, Emissionsfromcharbroilers and griddles, Phase II,.
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.
Keywords
ASTM cooking method, SCAQMD, particulate measurements, electric appliances, gas
appliances, griddles, charbroilers, outdoor air pollution, in stack
This report checks the repeatability of the measurements made in Phase I. Also,
differentcontrol devices were tested. The results showed problems with reproducability.
A-5
'
1
21 .JDowell, D. and P. Dashner, Emissionsfromcharbroilers and griddles, Phase III,.

California State Polytechic University, Pomona.
Keywords
outdoor air pollution, ASTM cooking method, SCAQMD, particulate measurements,
commercial kitchens, gas appliances, charbroilers, in stack
This report measures the particulate concentrations at three points from the stack to
check for reproducability during a single run. Using this method, the three measurements
taken gave consistent results, but only one test was run.
22._Elovitz, G.M., Design considerations for master kitchen exhaust systems. ASHRAE
Transactions, 1992. X2):p. 1199-1213.
Keywords
ventilation rates, CKV integration
This paper discusses the design of master kitchen exhaust systems and how they are to
be implemented.
23._Farnsworth, C , et aL, Development ofa fully vented gas range. ASHRAE
Transactions, 1989. 95(1): p. 759-768.
Keywords
gas appliances, ventilation rates, indoor air pollution, residential studies, non-condensable
gases
The authors developed a test method to evaluate the capture effectiveness of residential
range/vent systems. Measurements included efficiency ofNOx, water, and heat removal.
24._Federal Register, 40 CFR Ck 1,. 1995.
Keywords
sampling methods
The Federal Register provides a description and protocol for all the EPA sampling
methods.
A-6
25 .Francis, G.Z. and R.E. Lupinski, Control of air pollutionfromrestuarant

charbroilers. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 1977. 27(7): p. 643-647.
Keywords
charbroilers, control devices, grease chemistry, griddles, particle concentration, size
estimate, non-condensable gases
The authors discuss resultsfroma study giving total particle concentration and noncondensable gas emissions. They also discusscontrol devices such as after burners,
electrostatic preciptators and fiber pad mist eliminators as well as alternatives to
charbroiling.
26._Frey, D.J., et aL, Computer modeling analysis of commercial kitchen equipment and
engineered ventilation. ASHRAE Transactions, 1993. 99(2): p. 890-908.
Keywords
modeling, CKV integration, ventilation rates
This study identified and investigated technologies to improve energy efficiency in a
variety of restaurant types and climates. Computer modeling was done to analyze the
variables.
27._Fritz, R.L., A realistic evaluation ofkitchen ventilation hood design, Captive-Aire
Systems Inc.
Keywords
hood design, ventilation rates
This report discusses design considerations for commercial kitchen ventilation.
28._Garret, R.T., Commercial/Institutional kitchen exhaust and make-up air analysis,
design and selection application guide, 1984, Muckler Industries.
Keywords
hood design, commercial kitchens, ventilation rates
This report describes selection and application for hood and exhaust rates.
A-7
29._Giammer, R.D., D.W. Lockin, and S.G. Talbert, Preliminary study ofventilation
requirements for commercial kitchens. ASHRAE Journal, 1971.13(11): p. 51-55.
Keywords
heat gain, hood design, electric appliances, commercial kitchens
This a preliminary paper to Talbert's 1973 paper which discusses new criteria for
ventilation rates in commercial kitchens using electric appliances.
30._Gladstone, J., BeyondNFPA 96: Practical design for restaurantfire prevention.
Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning, 1985.57(1): p. 97-105.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, ventilation rates, tire protection, heat gain
This paper discusses the design of HVAC systems in respect to fire protection.
Discussions on the different requirements for ventilation rates in building codes are given.
Suggestions on how to develop the best system are given.
31._Gordon, E.B. and N.D. Burk, A two-dimensional finite-element analysis of a simple
commercial kitchen ventilation system. ASHRAE Transactions, 1993. 99(2): p. 909-914.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, CKV integration, kitchen CFD, ventilation rates, modeling
A two dimensional model is given to describe flow fields in CKV systems.
32._Gordon, E.B., V. Kam, and F. Parvin, Emissions from commercial cooking
operations and methods for their determination, 1994, American Gas Association
Laboratories.
Keywords
in stack, above appliance, VOC, ROC-ROG, non-condensable gases, charbroilers,
griddles, outdoor air pollution, gas appliances, commercial kitchens, particulate
measurements, ASTM cooking method, size classification
This paper tracks the history of commercial cooking effluent emissions and discusses
many of the problems associated with conclusive results from prior studies. Data is also
presented from preliminary AGA studies including the use of the APS for particle size
distribution.
A-8
33._Gordon, E.B. and F.A. Parvin, Afield test method for determining exhaust rates in
grease hoods for commercial kitchens. ASHRAE Transactions, 1994.100(2).
Keywords
ventilation rates, commercial kitchens
This paper discusses afieldtest method to determine grease exhause rates in exhaust
hoods. The method, if adopted, will allow for easier determination of valid exhaust rates.
34._Gordon, E.B., D.J. Horton, and F. Parvin, Development and application ofa
standard test method for the performance of exhaust hoods with commercial cooking
appliances. ASHRAE Transactions, 1994.100(2).
Keywords
heat gain, CKV performance test, ventilation rates, commercial kitchens, CKV integration
This paper describes the development of an energy balance protocol to evaluate EKV
system performance. The method is under review for adoption by ASTM.
35._Gordon, E.B. and D. Horton, If you can't stand the heat, get it out of the kitchen, in
Cooking For Profit. 1995.
Keywords
heat gain, commercial kitchens, ventilation rates, gas appliances, CKV performance test,
CKV integration
This article gives a brief overview of AGA's work to develop test methods for energy
balance protocol. The importance to applying these methods in determining optimum
kitchen performance is emphasized.
36._Gordon, E.B., DJ . Horton, and F.A. Parvin, Description ofa commercial kitchen
ventilation (CKV) laboratoryfacility. ASHRAE Transactions, 1995.101(1).
Keywords
commercial kitchens
This paper describes AGA labs CKV laboratory facility.
A-9
37._Hildemann, L., G.R. Cass, and G.R. Markowski, A dilution stack samplerfor
collection of organic aerosol emissions: Design, characterization andfieldtests. Aerosol
Science and Technology, 1989.10: p. 193-204.
Keywords
particulate measurements, measurement devices, sampling methods
This paper discusses a new technique to sample particulate emissions. It simulates
atmospheric conditions for dilution and condensation.
38._Hildemann, L.M., G.R. Markowski, and G.R. Cass, Chemical composition of
emissions from urban sources offineorganic aerosol. Environmental Science and
Technology, 1991.25(4): p. 744-759.
Keywords
particulate measurements, source identification, in stack, non-condensable gases,
charbroilers, outdoor air pollution, griddles, commercial kitchens
This study investigated the sources offineorganic aerosols and measured the emissions
the chemical compositionsfromeach source. One source was meat cooking operations
and was proven to be a major contributor of organic fine aerosols. Another paper by
Rogge (1991)discusses other aspects of the data collectedfromthis study.
39._Hildemann, L.M., et al, Sources of urban contemporary aerosol. Environmental
Science Technology, 1994.28(9): p. 1565-1576.
Keywords
particulate measurements, outdoor air pollution, charbroilers, in stack, source
identification
The authors take data presented in an earlier paper and determine the percentage of
Carbon emissions that comefromfossil sources and contemporary sources. Their
conclusions showed during most times of the year meat cooking comprises the majority
of contemporary Carbon sources.
40._Horton, D.J., Combined impact of ventilation rates and internal heat gains on HVAC
operating costs in commercial kitchens. ASHRAE Transactions, 1993.99(2): p. 877-883.
Keywords
heat gain, CKV performance test, CKV integration
This paper discusses the implications of integrating kitchen exhaust systems. Suggestions
include lowering the kitchen exhaust rate may not be the best thing to do.
A40
41._Horton, D., Knowing thefacts about appliance energy efficiency, 1995.

Keywords
heat gain
Meeting at Minnegasco, going over the new way to rate efficiencies of appliances and
promoting the fact less air flow might not equal less energy spent
42._Kanury, A.M., Burning of Liquid Fuel Surfaces, p. 175-200.
Keywords
grease chemistry
This book section describes the chemistry and mechanisms of the burning of liquid fuel
surfaces.
43 .Kelly, T.J. and G.F. Ward, Final report on national archives II: Testing of filters for
removal of gas-phase air pollutants, 1991, Battele.
Keywords
non-condensable gases, filtration
Testing was done on the efficiency of different filters placed in an air stream. Efficiency
for removing different types of gases were reported including 0 3 , S02, N02.
44._Kelso, R.M.,etaL, Computational simulation of kitchen airflows with commercial
hoods. ASHRAE Transactions, 1992. 98(1): p. 1219-1226.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, CKV integration, kitchen CFD, ventilation rates, modeling
This paper discusses commercial kitchen hood effects on air flow. Predictions are made
using a two dimensional CFD platform.
45 .Kinney, P.D. and D.Y.H. Pui, Inlet efficiency studyfor the TSIAerodynamic Particle
Sizer. Particle and Particle Systems Characteristics, 1995.12: p. 188-193.
Keywords
particulate measurements, measurement devices
This study discusses the particle sampling efficiency for the inlet system of the APS.
A41
46_Kleva, James A., Grease extraction and removal from exhaust air streams of cooking
processes. Task I Draft Report, ASHRAE 851-TRP, May, 1996.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, particulate measurements, sampling methods, control devices
This study investigates the different methods used to quantify grease extraction and gives
a recommendation for the best available method.
47._Knapp, J.N. and W.A. Cheney, Development of high-efficiency air cleaners for
grilling and deep frying operations. ASHRAE Transactions, 1993.99(2): p. 884-889.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, control devices
This report describes the use of an ESP for cleaning exhaust air streams for a McDonald's
application.
48._Kulmala, I., Numerical calculation of airflow fields generated by exhaust openings.
Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 1993.37(5): p. 451-467.
Keywords
modeling, exhaust CKV
Modeling was done to calculate the air flow fields by exhaust openings. This was a two
dimensional study.
49._KulmaIa, I., Numerical simulation of the capture efficiency of an unflanged
rectangular exhaust opening in a coaxial airflow. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 1995.
39(1): p. 21-33.
Keywords
exhaust CKV, modeling
Capture efficiency was estimated using numerical simulation of an unflanged rectangular
exhaust opening in a coaxial air flow.
A42
50._Leson, G., Biofiltration-Investigation of a Novel Air Pollution Control Technology for

the South Coast Air Basin, 1993. University of California at Los Angeles.
Keywords
filtration, VOC, ROC-ROG, control devices, non-condensable gases
The author discusses bio-filtration as a possible means for removing reactive organic gases
from the effluent stream provided the grease particulates are removed first
51. Li, C.-S., W.-H. Lin, and F.-T. Jenq, Removal efficiency of particulate matter by a
range exhaust fan. Environment International, 1993.19: p. 371-380.
Keywords
particulate measurements, residential studies, indoor air pollution, in room, size
classification
The authors studied concentration levels produced from cooking eggs, chicken, and soup
in a residential kitchen. Particle size ranges were on the order of 50-100 nm's. The device
used for the measurement was an electrical mobility aerosol spectrometer including a
differential mobility particle sizer and a condensation particle counter.
52._Lui, B.Y.H. and D.Y.H. Pui, Aerosol sampling inlets and inhalable particles.
Atmospheric Environment, 1981.15: p. 589-600.
Keywords
particulate measurements, measurement devices
This paper discusses the theoretical considerations for aerosol sampling inlet design. The
particle size concentrated on was inhalable particles (diameter < 15 micrometers).
53._LuL B.Y.BL, et ah, Electrostatic effects in aerosol sampling and filtration. Annals of
Occupational Hygiene, 1985. 29(2): p. 251-269.
Keywords
particulate measurements, measurement devices, filtration
This paper discusses electrostatic effects on aerosol sampling, concentrating on the
sampling tube. Filter housing electrostatic effects are also discussed with regard to to
filter efficiency.
A43
54._Madsen, U., N.O. Bruem, and P.V. Nielsen, A numerical and experimental study of
local exhaust capture efficiency. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 1993.37(6): p. 593605.
Keywords
modeling, exhaust CKV
Experiments were used to confirm numerical calculations of local exhaust capture
efficiencies. Some of these results can be applied to CKV.
55._Madsen, U., N.O. Breum, and P.V. Nielsen, Local exhaust ventilation-A numerical
and experimental study of capture efficiency. Building and Environment, 1994.29(3): p.
319-323.
Keywords
modeling, exhaust CKV, ventilation rates
This report compares numerical and experimental results in capture efficiency from local
exhaust ventilation systems such as a CKV hood.
56._Parvin, F., Standard Test Method For The Performance Of Commercial Kitchen
Ventilation Systems, Revised Edition, 1995, American Gas Association Laboratories.
Keywords
CKV performance test, CKV integration
This is the updated version of the proposed standard for performance of kitchen
ventilation systems.
57._Pasch, R.M., Design and application of grease filters. ASHRAE Journal, 1964: p.
64-72.
Keywords
filtration, commercial kitchens, particulate measurements
This study tested and rated grease filters by the use of an aerosol generator. The aerosol
was generated by throwing grease into hot water in a kettle. Particle concentrations were
measured before and after the grease extractor.
A44
58._Patel, R.F., P. Teagan, and J.T. Dieckmann, Characterization of commercial

building appliances, 1993. Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, electric appliances, gas appliances, CKV integration
This paper discusses the possible savings from improved technology in commercial
building appliances. Kitchen appliances are included in this study. Estimates are made of
expected future savings from the use of the new appliance technology and the integrated
kitchen concept.
59._Pekkinen, J.S. and Takki-Halttunen, Ventilation efficiency and thermal comfort in
commercial kitchens. ASHRAE Transactions, 1992.98(2): p. 1214-1218.
Keywords
ventilation rates, indoor air pollution, commercial kitchens
This paper discusses the thermal comfort conditions and ventilation effectiveness in
commercial kitchens. Suggestions for exhaust rates and positions of supply air units are
given.
60._Raloff, Cholesterol: Up in smoke. Science News, 1991.140: p. 60-61.
Keywords
This article reports some of the results from the Cal Tech group including their findings
that cholesterol is a good marker to identify meat cooking emissions.
61._Rogge, W.F., et aL, Sources of fine organic aerosol 1. Charbroilers and meat
cooking operations. Environmental Science and Technology, 1991. 25(6): p. 1112-1125.
Keywords
charbroilers, source identification, outdoor air pollution, particulate measurements, noncondensable gases, in stack, grease chemistry
This study discusses the amount of organic compounds emitted from meat cooking
operations. A special sampling technique was used (The dilution stack sampler) in an
attempt to simulate real life condensation conditions.
A45
62._Roy, S., R.M. Kelso, and AJ . Baker, An efficient CFD algorithm for the prediction
of contaminant dispersion in room air motion. ASHRAE Transactions, 1994.100(2): p.
980-987.
Keywords
kitchen CFD, CKV integration, commercial kitchens, modeling, ventilation rates
This report discussess a method to predict contaminate dispersion in room air relating to
commercial kitchen ventilation.
63._Rubow, K.L., et al, A personal cascade impactor: Design, evaluation and
calibration. American Industial Hygiene Association Journal, 1987.48(6): p. 532-538.
Keywords
measurement devices, particulate measurements
This paper discusses a personal cascade impactor including its design, how well it works,
and how to calibrate the device.
64._Sarnosky, J.R. Air quality and pollution in the kitchen, in Proceedings of the 38th
Annual International Appliance Technology Conference. 1987. Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH.
Keywords
particulate measurements, in room, size classification, indoor air pollution, residential
studies
This paper presents data from a residential and laboratory study measuring particulate
levels over a period of time during and after the cooking process.
65._Schaub, E.G., et al, On development of a CFD platform for prediction of
commercial kitchen ventilation flow fields. ASHRAE Transactions, 1995.101(2).
Keywords
kitchen CFD, ventilation rates, commercial kitchens, CKV integration, modeling
This reports the development of a CFD program to predict CKV flow fields. The model
is three dimensional.
A46
66._Smith, V.A., R.T. Swierczyna, and C. Claar, Application and enhancement ofthe
standard test method for the performance ofcommercial kitchen ventilation systems.
ASHRAE Transactions, 1995.101(2).
Keywords
CKV integration, CKV performance test, commercial kitchens, ventilation rates, heat gain
This paper reports on the standard test method for CKV system performance and suggest
refinements. It is a step toward final approval for the method.
67._Spata, A.J. and S.M. Turgeon, Impact ofreduced exhaust and ventilation rate at
"No Load" cooking conditions in a commercial kitchen during winter operation.
ASHRAE Transactions, 1995.101(2).
Keywords
heat gain, CKV performance test, CKV integration
This paper examines the heat gains experienced at no load conditions under reduced
exhaust rates during winter operation.
68._Stanley and Associates, Inc., Emission evaluation for grilling and deep frying at a
McDonald's unit, 1973, McDonalds Corporation.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, non-condensable gases, griddles, particulate measurements, outdoor
air pollution, fryers, in stack
This report was prepared for McDonald's and includes particulate and odor
measurementsfromstack measurements for griddle and fryer operations.
69._Talbert, S.G., LJ. Flanigan, and J.A. Eibling, An experimental study ofventilation
requirements of commercial electric kitchens. ASHRAE Transactions, 1973. 79: p. 34-47.
Keywords
commercial kitchens, ventilation rates, electric appliances, hood design, heat gain
The authors discuss the state of ventiation requirements for commercial electric kitchens
in 1973. They suggest new criteria for determing minimum ventilation rates as opposed
to the old minimum requirements which were based solely on physical dimensions.
A47
70._Traynor, G.W., D.W. Anthony, and C D . Hollowell, Technique for determining

pollution emisionsfrom a gas fired range. Atmospheric Environment, 1982.16(12): p.
2979-2987.
Keywords
indoor air pollution, gas appliances, residential studies, control devices, non-condensable
gases, modeling
The authors discuss CO, C02, and NOX emissions from a residential gas range. Thge
study includes both modeling and experimental data.
71._Traynor, G.W., et al, The effects of ventilation of residential air pollution due to
emissions from a gas-fired range. Environmental International, 1982. 8: p. 447-452.
Keywords
residential studies, gas appliances, indoor air pollution, non-condensable gases, control
devices
The authors discuss the concentrations of CO, C02, NOX from a gas fired range in a
residence. They suggest range hoods as the most effective way to remove pollutants.
72._Venkataraman, C. and SJK. Friedlander, Source resolution of fine particulate
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons using a receptor model modifiedfor reactivity. Journal
of the Air and Waste Management Association, 44: p. 1103-1106.
Keywords
source identification, outdoor air pollution
This paper estimates the source contributions from vehicles and meat cooking operations
for PAH and EC concentrations. The study was done at two Los Angeles sites.
73._Wolbrink, D.W. and J.R. Sarnosky, Residential kitchen ventilation-A guidefor the
specifying engineer. ASHRAE Transactions, 1992.98(2): p. 1187-1198.
Keywords
particulate measurements, in room, size classification, residential studies, indoor air
pollution
This paper summarizes the results of an earlier study related to particle size
measurements from residential cooking. The authors explain how the results of the earleir
study can be applied to designing current residential cooking devices.
A48
74._Zheng, M.,etaL, Characterization oftheNon -Volatile Organic Compounds in the

Aerosols of Hong Kong-Identification Abundance and Origin, The Hong Kong University
of Science and Technology, Publication Pending.
Keywords
non-condensable gases, outdoor air pollution
This paper partially discusses the contributions of kitchen emissions to non VOC
compounds in Hong Kong. This is a concern because of the high amounts of stir frying in
Chinese cooking which may explain the high levels of octadecenoic acid in the Hong Kong
area.
t
ft
Q
Q
r
<*
A49
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Appendix B
Test Methods
EPA Method 201A
EPA Method 202
EPA Method 25
B-l
\" BMI88I0M GAS RECYCLE, DATA REDUCTION,

0VERSION 3.4 MAV1986
Column
Raw Masses: '
Cyclone 1
Filter
'.
'.
Impingor Residue
Blank Values;
OYO Rinse
Filter Holder Rinse
Filter Blank
Impinger Rinse ..:.'.
:'(!
*~ Test ID. Code: Chapel Hill 2.
; Test Location: Baghouse Outlet.
| H Test Hlto: Cliapol Hill.
!{',.; Test Date: 10/20/88.
|i,;.Operators(s): JB RH MH.
iy.
Entered Run Data
& Temperaturos:
fe- T(STK)
' T(RCL)
'',' T(LFE)
V T(DGM)
Systom Pressures:
'' DH(ORI)
. DP(TOT)
" P(INL)
DP(RCL)
DP(PTO)
Mlsoellanoa:
P(BAR)
DP(STK)
V(DGM)
TIME
%C02
% 02
figure 13.
NOZ(IN)
Wator Con ton t:
KstlmaUo
or
Condenser
Efficiency envelope for cha
0.0 GM
21.7 MG
11.7 MG
0.0 MG
0.0 MG
0.0 MG
0.0 MG
0.0 MG
Calibration Values:
CP(PITOT)
2S1.0F
289.0 P
81.0 F
76.0 P
DH@(ORI)
MCTOTLFE)
B(TOT LPE)
M(RCL LPE)
B(RCL LPE)
DGM GAMMA
1.18 INWG
1.91 INWG
12.16 INWG
2.21 INWG
0.08 INWG
o.84o
10.880
0.2298
-.0058
;.. 0.0948
-.0007
0.9940
Reduced Data
Stack Voloolty (FT/SEC)
Stack Gas Moisture (%)
Sample Flow Rate (ACFM)
Total Flow Rate (ACFM)
Recycle Flow Rate (ACFM)
Percent Reoyclo
,
Isokinetic Ratio (%)
.'
29.99 INWG
0.10 INWG
13.744 FT3
60.00 MIN
8.00
20.00
0.2500
15.95
2,4
0.3104
0.6819
0.2760
46.7
95.1
0.0%
7.0 ML
(Particulate)
10.15
(%<)
(MG/DNCM)
35.8
58.6
30.5
87.2
(GFVACF)
(GR/DCF)
III
III
(UM)
(IJVDSCF)
(X 1E6)
3.53701
1.807
5.444
Nolo: Figure 14. Example Inputs and outputs of the EQR reduction program.
poses, EPA suggests that source PMI0 measurement Include both ln-atack PMio and condonslble emissions. Condonslble omissions
may be measured by an Implnger analysis in
/. Applicability and Principle
combination with this method.
1.2 Principle. A gas sample Is extracted at
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the in-stnek measurement of, particulate a constant flow rate through an In-stack
matter (I'M) emissions equal to or less than sizing device, which separates -PM greater
an aerodynamic diameter of nominally 10 than PMio. Variations from Isokinetic sam(PMio) from stationary sources. The EPA pling conditions are maintained within wellrecognizes that condonslble emissions not defined limits. The particulate mass is detercolloctod by an In-stack' mothod are also mined gravimetrically after .removal of
PMio, and that emissions that contribute to uncomblned water.
ambient, PMio lovols are the sum of condens2. Apparatus
Iblc cinl.'uiomi and emissions measured by an
NOTE:
Methods
cited In this method arc
In-stuck I'M,ii method, such as this mothod
or Mothoil 201. Therefore, for establishing part of 40 CFR part 60. appendix A.
2.1 Sampling Train. A schematic of the
source contributions to ambient levels of
PMio, such as for emission Inventory pur- Method 201A sampling train is shown in FlgMETHOD 201ADETERMINATION OF PMIO EMIS-
'3:
SIONS (CONSTANT SAMPMNO RATE PROCEDURE)
972
973
. %. win uioLuou. with the exoeptlon of

the PMio Biting device and in-staok Alter,
this train la the same aa an EPA Method 17
train.
'.
2.1.1 Nozzie. Stainless steel (316 or equivalent) with a isharp tapered leading edge. Eleven nozzles that meet the design speoiaoatlon
In Figure 2 of thia method are recommended.
A larger number of nozzles with email nozzle
Increments increase the likelihood that a
single nozzle can bo used for the entire traverse. If the nozzles do not meet the design'
specifications in Figure 2 of this method,
then the nozzles must moet the criteria In
Sootlon 5.2 of thl mothod.
2.1.2 PM,0 Slzer. Stainless steel (316 or
equivalent), capable of determining the PMio
fraction. The sizing device shall be either a
cyclone that meets the specifications in Section 6.2 of this method or a cascade lmpactor
that has been calibrated using the prooedure
In Section 5.4 of this method.
2.1.3 Filter Holder. 63-mm, stainless steel.
An Andersen filter, part number SE274, has
beon found to be acceptable for the in-staok
filter. NOTE: Mention of trade names or specific produots does not constitute endorsement by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
2.1.4 Pltot Tube. Same as in Method 6,
Section 2.1.3. The pltot lines shall be made of
heat resistant tubing and attaohed to the
probe with stainless steel fittings.
2.1.5 Probe Liner. Optional, same aa In
Method S, Section 2.1.2.
2.1.6 Differential Pressure Gauge, Condenser, Metering System, Barometer, and
Qas Density Determination Equipment.
Same as In Method S, Suctions 2.1.4, and 2.1.7
through 2.1.10, respectively.
2.2 Sample Recovery.
2.2.1 Nozzle, Sizing Dovlco, Probe, and Filler Holder Drui.hus. Nylon brUtlo brushes
wllh stainless steal wire shafts and handles,
jroporly sized anil shaped for cleaning the
lozzle, sizing device, probe or probe liner,
.ml filter holders.
2.2.2 Wash Bottles, Glass Sample Storage
iontalners. Petri Dishes, Graduated Cylinder
nd Balance, Plastic Storage Containers,
'umiel and Rubber Policeman, and Funnel.
ame as in Method S, Sections 2.2.2 through
2.8, respectively
2.3 AnalyslB. Same as in Method 5, Seeon 2.3.
J. Reagents
The roagonts for sampling, sample rocovy, and analysis uro the same as that speclid In Method 5, Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, resctlvely.
4. Procedure
.1 Sampling. The complexity of this
thod is such that, in order to obtain reli-
able results, testers should be trained, audi

experienced with the test procedures! - "il'^J
4.1.1 Pretest Preparation. Same as llnfl
Method 5. Seotlon 4.1.1.
"
WM
4.1.2 Preliminary Determinations. Samel
as in Method 6, Seotlon 4.1.2, exoept use tnei
directions on nozzle size selection and sam-1
pling time in this iriethod. Use of any nozzles
. greater than 0.16 In. in diameter requires a*|
sampling port diameter of 6 inches. Also, the I
required maximum number of traverse!
points at any location shall he 12.
j |$
4.1.2.1 The sizing devloe must be in-staok '
or malntalnod at stack temporaturo during :
sampling. The blookage effeot of the CSR
sampling assembly t7lll.be minimal If the
cross-seotibnol area of the sampling assembly is 3 percent or lees of the cross-seotlonal
area of the duot. If the cross-seotional area'.'
of the assembly is greater than 3 percent of
the cross-seotlonal area of the duot, then el-'
ther determine the pltot ooefflolent at sam-.'S
pling conditions or use a- standard pltot with 1
a known, coefficient In a configuration with
the CSR sampling assembly such that flow !!$
disturbances are minimized.
'"Mil
4.1.2.2 The setup calculations oan be performed by using the following procedures.
4.1.2.2.1 In order to maintain a out size of
10 inn In the sizing devloe, the flow rate
through the sizing device must be maintained at a constant, disorete value during
the run. If the sizing devloe Is a oyolons that
meets the design speoifioations in Figure 3 of
..this method, use the equations in Figure 4 of
this method to calculate three orifice heads
(AH): one at the average etaok temperature,
and the other two at temperatures 28 *0 (160
*F) of the average staok temperature. Use AH
calculated at the average staok temperature
as the pressure head for the sample flow rate
as long as the staok temperature during the
run Is within 28 *C (60 *F) of tho avorage
stack tomporature. If the staok temperature
varies by moro than 28 *C (60 *F), then use
the appropriate AH.
4.1.2.2.2 If the sizing device Is a cyclone
that does not meet the design speoifioations
in Figure 3 of this method, use the equations
in Figure 4 of this method, excopt una the
procedures in Section 6.3 of this method to
determine Q,, the correot cyclone flow rate
for a 10 nm size.
4.1.2.2.3 To seleot a nozzle, use the equations in Figure 6 of this method to calculate
APmin and Apu for eaoh nozzle at all three
temperatures. If tho sizing devloe Is a oyolone that does not meet the design speolflcatlonB In Figure 3 of this method, the oxample worksheets can be used.
4.1.2.2.4 Correot tho Method 2 pltot readings to Method 201A pltot readings by mul- i
tiplying the Method 2 pltot readings by the
square of a ratio of the Method 201A pltot coefficient to the Method 2 pltot coefficient.
Seleot the nozzle for which Ap, and Ap,
bracket all of the corrected Method 2 pltot
gs. If more than one nozzle meets this the large PM catch. Quantitatively recover
julrement, se.leot the nozzle giving the the PM from the'Interior surfaces of the nozgreatest symmetry. Note that If the expected zle and oyolone, exoludlng the "turn around"
iltot reading for one or more points Is.near oup and the Interior surfaces of the exit
{limit for a ohosen nozzle, It may be outside tube. The reoovery shall be -the same as that
for Container Number 2 In Method 6, Section
pie limits at the time of the. run.
.4.1.2.2.6 Vary the dwell time, or sampling 4.2.
time, at eaoh traverse point proportionately
4.2.4 Container Number 3 (PMio).. Quanwith the point velocity. Use the equations in titatively recover the .PM from all of the surFigure 6 of this method to calculate the faces from the oyolone exit to the front half
'dwell time at the first point and at eaoh sub- of the in-staok filter holder, .lnoludlng the
sequent point. It ia recommended that the "turn around" oup Inside the cyolone and
number of minutes sampled at eaoh point be the Interior surfaces of the exit tube. The regrounded to Clio noarost 16 seconds.
oovery shall be the same as'that for Conii.'l 4.1.3 Preparation of Collection Train. tainer Number 2 in Method 6, Seotlon'4.2.
['Same as in Method 6, Seotlon 4.1.3, exoept
4.2.6 Container Number 4 (Silica Gel). The
omit directions about a glass oyolone.
reoovery shall be the some as that for Con-
f?'4.1.4 Leak-Check Prooedure. The sizing, talner Number 3 in Method 6, Seotlon 4.2.'
deyioa is removed before the post-test leak4.2.7 Impinger Water. Same as In Method 6,
oheok to prevent any disturbance of the col- Seotlon 4.2,-under "Impinger Water." , .'.
lected sample prior to analysis.
4.3 Analysis. Same as in Method 6, Seop
|?!'4.1.4.1 Pretest Leak-Cheok. A pretest tion 4.3, except handle Method 201A Conn
jieak-oheok of the entire sampling train, in- talner Number 1 like Container Number i,1
cluding the sizing devloe, is required. Use the Method 201A Container Numbers 2 and 3 like
leak-oheok prooedure In Method 6, Seotlon ! Container Number 2, and Method 201A Con4.1.4.1 to conduot a pretest leak-oheok.
tainer Number 4 like Container Number' 3.
I,;'4.1.4.2 Leak-Checks During Sample Run. Use Figure 7 of this method to record the
'Same as In Method 6, Seotlon 4.1.4.1.
weights of PM oolleoted. Use .Figure 6-3 in
.,: 4.1.4.3. Post-Test Leak-Cheok. A leak- Method 6, Seotlon 4.3, to record the volume
"loheok is required at the conclusion of eaoh of water oolleoted.
4.4 Quality Control Procedures. Same as
* sampling run. Remove the cyclone before the
' leak-oheok to prevent the vacuum created by In Method 6, Seotlon 4.4.
4.6 PMio Emission Calculation and Acthe cooling of the probe from disturbing the
' oolleoted sample and use the procedure In ceptability of Results. Use the procedures in
', Method 6, Section 4.1.4.3 to oonduot a post- seotlon 6 to calculate PMio emissions and the
criteria in section 6.3.6 to determine the acI' test leak-oheok.'
4.1.6 Method 201A Train Operation. Same ceptability of the results.
as in Method 6, Section 4.1.6, exoept use the '
5. Calibration
procedures In this section for Isokinetic sampling and flow rate adjustment. Maintain the
Maintain an accurate laboratory log of all
flow rate calculated in Seotlon 4.1.2.2.1 of calibrations.
this method throughout the run provided the
6.1 Probe Nozzle, Pltot Tube, Motoring
stack tomporature is within 28 *C (60 "F) of System, Probe Heater Calibration, Temperathe tomporature used to calculate AH. If ture Gauges, Leak-oheok of Metering Sysstack temperatures vary by more than 28 C tem, and Barometer. Same aB In Method 6,
(60 *F), use the appropriate AH value cal- Seotlon 6.1 through 6.7, respectively.
culated In Section 4.1.2.2.1 of this method.
6.2 Probe Cyclone and Nozzle CombinaCalculate the dwell time at eaoh traverse tions. The probe oyolone and nozzle combinapoint as In Figure 6 of this method.
tions need not be calibrated if both meet de4.2 Sample Recovery. If a cascade Impac- sign specifications In Figures 2 and 3 of this
tor is used, use the - manufacturer's reo- method. If the nozzles do not meet design
ommended procedures for Bample recovery. If speoifioations, then test the oyolone and nozr
a cyclone Is used, use the same sample recov- zle combinations for conformity with perery as that in Method 6, Seotlon'4.2, exoept formance specifications (PS's) In Table 1 of
an lnoreased number of sample reoovery con- this method. If the oyolone doeB not meet detainers is rsqulrod.
sign specifications, then the oyloone and noz4.2.1 Container Number 1 (m-Staok Filter). zle combination shall oonform to the PS's
The reoovory shall be the same as that for and calibrate the oyolone to dotermlne the
Container Number 1 In Method 6, Seotlon 4.2. relationship between flow .rate, gas viscosity,
4.2.3 Container Number Z (Cyolone or Large and gas density. Use the procedures In SeoPM Catch). This step is optional. The tlon 6.2 of this method to conduct PS tests
anlsoklnetlo error for the oyolone PM is. and the procedures In Section 6.3 of this
theoretically larger than the error for the method to oalibrate the oyolone. The purposo
PMio catch. Therefore, adding all the frac- of the PS tests are to coniform that the cytions to get a total PM oatoh Is not as accu- clone and nozzle combination has the desired
rate as Method 6 or Method 201. Disassemble sharpness of out. .Conduct the PS testa in a
the cyolone and remove the nozzle to recover wind tunnel described In Section 6.2.1 of this
974
,1
975
luubiutu generation system is unacceptable.";*';

scribed In Section 5.2.2 of this method. Use
for the purpose of this test. Multiplots dntM
five particle sizes and three wind velocities
as listed in Taplo 2 of this method. A miniparticles that are agglomerated, and sattjsjii
mum of three, replicate measurements of colellites are particles that are smaller than?si
lection efficiency shall be performed for each
the specified size range.
'
"'< $)M
of the 15 conditions listed, for a minimum of
5.2.3 Sohematio
Drawings.
Sonem&tib^jW
45 measurements.
drawings of the wind tunnel and blower WB-:'M

5.2.1 Wind Tunnel. Perform the calibratern and other information showing complete 1 V||
tion and PS tests in a wind tunnol (or equiv- procedural details of i the - test atmosphere' i-p
alent test apparatus) capable of establishing generation,. verification, and delivery teoh- &'-'
and maintaining' the required gas stream veniques shall be furnished with calibration'1',',locities within 10 percent.
' data to the reviewing agency.
"
5.2.2 Particle Generation System. The ' 6.2.'i Plow Measurements. Measure the oyparticle generation system shall be capable
clone air flow rates with a dry gas meter andof producing solid monodlspersed dye para stopwatch, or a calibrated orifice system
ticles with the mass median aerodynamic (11capable of measuring flow rates to within 2
imeters specified in Table 2 of this method.
percent.
Perform the particle size distribution ver5,2.5 Performance Specification Proceflcatlon on an integrated sample obtained
dure. Establish test partiole generator operluring the sampling period of each test. An
ation and verify particle size microacopl-,
icceptable alternative Is to verify the size
cally. If monodlsperity Is to be verified by'
llstributlon of samples obtained before and
measurements at the beginning and the end.
,fter each test, with both samples required
of the run rather than by an integrated samo meet the diameter and monodisperslty re- ple,
these measurements, may be made at
ulroments for an acceptable test run.
this time..
_
''*'.
5.2.2.1 Establish the size of the solid dye
5.2.5.1 The cyclone out size, or D J0 , of a oyarticles delivered to the test section of the ' clone is defined here as the particle size hav'Ind tunnel by using the operating paraming a 50 percent probability of penetration.
ters of the particle generation system, and
Determine the cyclone flow rate at which Dm,
srlfy them during the tests by microscopic
is 10 urn. A suggested procedure is to vary,
camination of samples of the particles colthe cyclone flow rate while keeping a con T |
cted on a mumbrane filter. The particle
stent particle size of 10 urn. Measure the PM'
ze, as established by the operating paramcollected in the cyclone (mc), the exit tube
-ors of the generation system, shall be wlth(mi), and the filter (mf). Calculate cyclone efthe tolerance specified In Table 2 of this
ficiency (Be) for each flow rate as follows:
ethod. The precision of the particle size
rlficatlon technique shall be at least 0.5,
m
1, and particle size determined by the verK.
x loo
catlon technique shall not differ by more
(me+m,+mf)
an 10 percent from that established by the
crating paramotora n[ tlio partlclo gonora5.2.5.2. Do thruu roplicatos and calculate)
m system.
the average cyclono offiolonoy (Bcbvu) as fol.2.2.2 Certify the monodisperslty of the
lows:
rtlcles for each test either by microscopic
ipoctlon of collected particles on filters or
lS,(..,)=(E,+B2+Bj)/3
other suitable monitoring techniques
Whero Ei, Bi, and E 3 are replicate measure:h as an optical particle counter followed
ments of Be.
a multichannel pulso height analyzer. If
5.2.5.3 Calculate the standard deviation
proportion of multiplets and satellites In
(a) for the replicate measurements of & as
aorosol exceeds 10 porcent by mass, the
follows:
'M
(Ei+Ea+Ej)*
(B,*+E2+Ej*) -
exceeds 0.10. repeat the replicated runs.

1.5.4 Measure the overall efficiency of
cyclone and nozzle, E,,. at the particle
i and nominal gas velocities In Table 2 of
motliod using the following procedure.
.5.5 Set tli.i air velocity and particle
from one of the conditions in Table 2 of
V6
this method. Establish Isokinetic sampling

conditions and the correct flow rate in the
cyclone (obtained by procedures in this section) such that the Dj 0 is 10 am. Sample long
enough to obtain 5 porcent precision on
total collected mass as determined by the
precision and the sensitivity of measuring
technique. Dotermlne separately the nozzle

catch (m), cyclone catch (nO. oyclone exit
tube (MO, and collection filter catch (nv) for
each particle .size and nominal gas velooity
In Tablo 2 of this method. Calculate overall
efficiency (Bo) as follows:
B.=.
5.3.1 Calculate cyclone Kiow Kate. .Determine flow rates and Djo's for three different
partiole sizes between 5 urn and 16 |im, one of
which shall be'lO urn. All sizes must be determined within 0.5 urn. For eaoh size, use a different temperature within 60 *C (108 F) of
the temperature at which the cyclone is to
be used and conduct triplicate runs. A suggested procedure is to keep the partiole size
constant and vary the flow rate.
6.3.1.1 On log-log graph paper, plot the
Reynolds number (Re) on the abscissa,' and
the square root of the 'Stokes 60 number
((Stkjo)' 3 ] on the ordinate for each temperature. Use the following equations to compute
both values:
(m+m)
(m+mc+m,+mf)
xlOO
5.2.5.6 Do three repllcateB for each combination of gas velooity and partiole size In
Table 2 of this method. Use the equation
below to calculate the average overall efficiency [E^.v,)) for each combination following the procedures described in this section
for determining efficiency.
Eo<..f)=(Ei+Ej+EjV3
Where Ei, Ej, and Ej are replicate measurements of Ba.
Re >
dcycll'tl ,
6.2.5.7 Use the formula in Section" 6.2.6.3 to

calculate a for the replloate measurements.
If a exceeds 0.10 or if the particle sizes and
nominal gas velocities are not within the
limits specified in Table 2 of this method, repeat the replicate runs.
6.2.6 Criteria for Acceptance. For eaoh of
the three gas stream velocities, plot the
Eo<.,,) as a function of particle size on Figure
8 of this method. Draw smooth curves
through all particle sizes. E*,,,, shall be
within the banded region for all sizes, and
the E<(.v shall be 5010.6 percent at 10 pm.
6.3 Cyclone Calibration Procedure. The
purpose of this procedure is to develop the
relationship between flow rate, gas viscosity,
gas density, and D M .
>< \u
Q.-
976
n/(m-O.J)
<"> O" ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.

-*~* i~* fT- -<>
J'
(l(ni.|.5)/(in-<M)
cific to the impactor and which permits the

accurate determination of the out size of the
Impactor stages at field conditions. It is not
necessary to calibrate each Individual Impactor. Once an Impactor has been calibrated, the calibration data can be applied to.
other impaotors of identical design.
5.4.1 Wind Tunnel. Same as In Seotlon
6.2.1 of this method.
6.4.2 Partiole Generation System. Some
as in Seotion 5.2.2 of this method.
6.4.3 Hardware Configuration for Calibrations. An impaction stage constrains an aerosol to form circular or rectangular Jets,
which are directed toward a suitable substrate where the larger aerosol particles are
collected. For calibration purposes, three
stages of the cascade impactor shall be discussed and designated calibration stages 1, 2,
977
iTf
T ,
where:
Qcyc^Cyolone flow rate, cmVseo.
p=Gaa density, g/om1.
d ^ D i a m e t e r of oyclone inlet, cm.
u^Viscosity of staok gas, mioropoise.
DsoÂerodynamlc diameter of a partiole
having a 50 percent probability of penetration, cm.
6.3.1.2 Use a linear regression analysis to
determine the slope (m) and the Y-intercept
(b). Use the following formula to determine
Q, the pyolone flow rate required for a cut
size of 10 (Jim.
[ <3>0)<K,).b ]-< [ ~ ]
where:
mSlopo of the calibration line.
b=>y-lntorcept of the calibration line.
Q.=Cyclone flow rate for a out size of 10 urn,
cmVsec.
d=Dlameter of nozzle, cm.
T.cSteck gas temperature, *R.
P.oAbsoluto stack pressure, In. Hg.
M=Wot molocular wolght of the stack gas,
lb/lb-mole.
K,a4.O77xl0->.
5.3.1.3 Refer to the Method 201A operators
manual, entitled Application Guide for Source
PM,0 Measurement with Constant Sampling
Rate, for directions in the use of this equation for Q in the setup calculations.
5.4 Cascade Impactor. The purpose of calibrating a cascade Impactor Is to determine
the empirical constant (STK M ), which is spe-
4Qcy.(D)'
9 it u,)' ( d ^
and 3. The first calibration stage consists of

the colleuiion substrate of an Impaction
aUgo and all upstream surfaces up to and Including thn nozzle. This may Include other
preceding impactor stages. The second and
third calibration stages consist of each respective collection substrate and all upstream surfaces up to but excluding the collection substrate of the preceding calibration stage. This may Include Intervening Impactor staires which are not designated as
calibration stages. The cut Bize, or D, of the
adjacent calibration stages shall differ by a
factor of not less than 1.6 and not more than
2.0. For example, If the first calibration
stage has a DM of 12 urn, then the D of the
downstream stage shall be between 6 and 8
um.
5.4.3.1 It Is expected, but not necessary,
that the complete hardware assembly will be
used In each of the sampling runs of the calibration and performance determinations.
Only the first calibration stage must bo tested under Isokinetic sampling conditions. The
second and third calibration stages must'be
calibrated with the collection substrate of
the preceding calibration 3tage in place, so
that gas flow patterns existing In field operation will be simulated.
5.4.3.2 Each of the PM,0 stages should be
calibrated with the type of collection substrate, viscid material (suoh as grease) or
glass fiber, used in PMio measurements. Note
that most materials used as substrates at
elevated temperatures are not viscid at normal laboratory conditions. The substrate
material used for calibrations should minimize particle bounce, yet be viscous enough
to withstand erosion or deformation by tho
impactor Jsts and not interfere with tho procedure for measuring tho collected PM.
5.4.4 Calibration Procedure. Establish test
particle generator operation and verify particle size microscopically. If monodisperslty
Is to be verified by measurements at the beginning ar<d the end of the run rather than
by an Integrated sample, these measurements shall he mude at this time. Measure In
triplicate tho PM collected by tho calibration stage (riu and the PM on all surfaces
(Jown8U'ea.ii o( the respective calibration
stage, (m*) for all of the flow rates and particle MIZII ooinlilmalomi shown In Tnblo 2 of
this rnolhoil. Tuchnlqucs of mass measurement may include the use of a dye and
spectrophotometer. Particles on the' upstream side of a Jet plate shall be Included
with the substrate downstream, excopt* agglomerates of particles, which shall be Included with tho preceding or upstream substrate Ufo the following formula to calculate the collection efficiency (K) for oauh
stage.
5.4.4.1 Use the formula in Section 5.2.5.3 of
this method to calculate the standard deviation (a) for the ropllcalo measurements. If a
Hxcouda 0.10, rupuut Mi(i ropllcnto runs.
5.4.4.2 Use the following formula to calculate the average collection efflolenoy (E.,,)
for eaoh set of replicate measurements.
E.,=(Ei+E2+E3)/3
where Ei, Ea, and Ej are replicate measurements of E.
j
5.4.4.3, Use the following formula to calculate Stk for each
Stk=
D'Q
9uAdj
where:
DsAerodynamio diameter
of the test particle, cm (g/cmJ)'/4.
Q=Gas flow rate through the calibration
stage at Inlet conditions, em'/seo.
u=Oaa viscosity, mlcropolae.
A-Total cross-sectional area3 of the jets of.
tho calibration stage, cm .
(l,=Dlamotor of one Jot of tho calibration
stage, om.
5.4.4.4 Determine Stk M for eaoh calibration stage by plotting E,, versua 8tk on loglog paper. Stkjo is the Stk number at 60 percent efficiency. Note that partlole bounce
can cause efflolenoy to deorease at high valuos of Stk. Thus, 60 percent efflolenoy can
occur at multiple values of Stk. The calibration data should clearly Indicate the value of
Stk.io for minimum partlole bounce. Impactor efflolenoy versus Stk with minimal particle bounce . Is characterized by a
monotonically Increasing function with constant or increasing slope with increasing
Stk.
5.4.4.5 The Stkjo of tho first calibration
stage can potentially deorease with decreasing nozzle size. Thereforo, calibrations
should be performed with enough nozzle sizes
to provide a measured value within 25 per-
cent of any nozzle size used in PM10 measurements.
5.4.5 Criteria For Acceptance. Plot E., for
the first calibration stage versus the square
root of the ratio of Stk to Stk on Figure 9
of this motliod. Draw a smooth curve
through all of tho points. Tho curve shall be
within the banded region.
6. Calculations
Calculations are as specified in Method 5,
sections 6.3 through 6.7, and 6.9 through 6.11,
with tho addition of the following:
6.1 Nomenclature.
Bi=Molsturo fraction of slack, by volume,
dlmenslonloss.
Ci-Vlscoslty constant, lil.12 nilcropolso for
K (61.05 mioropolso for R).
Cj=Viscoslty constant. 0.372 mlcropoiao/K
(0.207 mlcropolse/R).
C3=VlHcoslty < , constant,
1.08x10-*
mlcropol80/ 'K (3.24x10- mlcropolso/R?).
u.fC,+OiT,+C,T,+C4foj-OjB.
C=ViscoBlty oonetant, 63.147 mlcropoise/
6.3.4.1 The PMio flow rate, at aotual :oyfraction Oi.
, ,
Cj=Vlsoosity oonstant, 74.143 mlcropoise/ clone conditions, Is calculated as follows:
fraction H20.
T, r .
V. ( r t i )'l
Dj0=Dlameter of particles having a 50 perQ,=
Q.(.wi)+
cent probability of penetration, um,

8
K,P. L
J
f=Staok gas fraction Oa, by volume, dry
basis.
6.3.4.2 Calculate the molecular weight on
K,=0.3B58 "K/mm Hg (17.641'R/in. Hg).
Mw=Wet molecular weight of stack gas. g/ a wet basis of the staok gas as follows:
g-mole (lb/lb-mole).
M=M4(1-B,)+18.0(B.)
Ma=Dry molecular weight of stack gas, g/g6.3.4.3 Caloulate the aotual DM of the cymole (lb/lb-mole).
Pb=Barometric pressure at sampling site, clone for the given conditions as follows:
mm Hg (in. Hg).
P,=Absolute stack pressure, mm Hg (in.
D=Bi
Hg).
Q,=Total cyclone flow rate at wet cyclone
conditions, mVmln (ftVmin).
Q.(iui)=Total cyclone flow rate at standard where Bi=0.027754 for metrio units (0.16626 foi
English units).
conditions, dscm/mln (dsof/min).
6.3.5 Acoep'tablo Rosults. Tho results an
T,=Average absolute tempbrature. of dry
acceptable If two conditions are met. Thi
motor, 'K CR).
T,=Avorago absoluto staok gas tompora- first is that 9.0 um i Djo i 11.0 um. The secon<
is that no sampling points are outside APmi
ture. K ("It).
Apm.,, or that 80 percent SI i 120 percen'
Vui)=Volume of water vapor in gas sim- and
and no more than one sampling point Is out
ple (standard conditions), scm (sof).
side Apmte and ap. If D is less than 9.0 urr.
0=Total sampling time, mln.
rejeot the results and ropoat the test.
u.=Vlscoslty of stack gas, mlcropoise.
6.2 Analysis of Cascade Impaotor Data.
7. Bibliography
Uso the manufacturer's recommended proce1.
Same
as
Bibliography
in Method 6.
dures to analyze data from cascade impac2. McCain, J.D.. J.W. Ragland.and A.I
tors.
6.3 Analysis or Cyclone Data. Use the fol- Williamson. Recommended Methodology fe
lowing procedures to analyze data from a the Determination of Partlole Size Dlstrlbi
Blngle stage cyclone.
tlons in Ducted Sources, Final Report. Pr<
6.3.1 PMio Weight. Determine the PM pored for the California Air Resources Boar
catch In the PMio range from the sum of the by Southern Research Institute. May 1988.
weights obtained from Container Numbers 1
3. Farthing. W.E., S.S, Dawes, A.I
and 3 IOBB tho aoetone blank.
Williamson, J.D. McCain, R.S. Martin, an
6.3.2 Total PM Weight (optional). Deter- J.W. Ragland. Development of Barn pi In
mlno the PM catoh for greater than PMio Methods for Source PMio Emissions. Bout!
from tho weight obtained from Container em Research Institute for the Envlroi
Number 2 less the acetone blank, and add It mental Protection Agency. April 1989. NT!
to tho PMio weight.
PB 69 190375, EPA/60CV3-e8-056.
6.3.3 PM,o Fraction. Determine the PMio
4. Application Guide for Source PMm Mea
fraction of the total particulate weight by
dividing the PMio particulate weight by the urement with Constant Sampling Rate, EPA/6C
3-88-057.
total particulate weight.
6.3.1 Aorodynamlc Cut Slzo. Calculate tho
stack gas viscosity as follows;
978
979
W. SI, App. M
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edition)
Envlrpnmental Protection Agency
Pt, 51, App.
f^^g^s^j
h H
kmmTTM0P^\
"co
O)
c
MM
H.
E
CO
CO
DC
(0
O
CD
3
Nozzle
Diameter
(Inches)
Cone
Angle, 6
(degrees)
Outside
taper, $
(degrees)
0.136
0.150
0.164
0.180
0.197
0.215
0.233
0.264
0.300
0.342
0.390
4
4
S
6 '
6
6
6
5
4
4
3
15
IS
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Straight Inlet
length, t
(Inches)
<0.05
<0.0S
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.0S
<0.05
<0.05
O)
Figure 2. Nozzle design specifications.
,
. "T
T o t a l Lengt
L
(Inches)
2.653*0.05
2.5S3t0.0S
1.9700.05
1.57210.05
1.491S0."05
1.45 0.05
1.4S 1 0 . 0 5
1.45.tO.05
1.48 0 . 0 5
i . 4 5 0.05
1.45 0.OS
'*' rff* "
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edition) J I i Environmental Protection Agency

Barometric pressure.
fXP,,in.Hg=
*' Stack static pressure,
S,ij: P i n . HiO=
Hi?i:.. Average stack temperature,
#.t,.'F=
'
;; Meter temperature, tm, P=
BOrlfloe AH. in. H 2 0=
\
Qas analysis:
%C02=
%Oa=
%Na+%CO=
Fraction moisture content,
Bw= _ _ _
Moleoular weight of Btack gas, dry basis:
Cyclone Interior Dloenjfonj
0.10 In. J
Pt. 51, App. M
"^
Q.=0.002837
Mj=0.44
(%COj)+0.32
(%Oj)+0.28
(%N2+%CO)=
1Mb mole
:;
Moleoular weight of stack gas, wet basis;
M=M* (1-B)+18 (B,,)=
1Mb mole
Absolute stack pressure:
,-i
P.=Ptar+
P.
. m. Hg
13.6
Viscosity of stack gas;

u,=162.418+0.2552 t,+3.2365xl0-J ' t,+0.53147
(%02>-74;143 Bw.=
micropoise
v
Cyclone flow rate:
(t,+460) I 0.2949
. fSVmln
M.P. J
Figuro 4. Example worksheet 1, oyolone

flow rate and AH.
Orlfloe pressure head (AH) needed for oyclone
flow rate:
AH
D l n n s l o i u (10.02 en, tO.Ol I n . )
t,+460
1*4.*soMj 1.083 AH
Or
Hop
Dcup
<;
U7
4.47
1.50
1.88
.SS
2.24
4.71
1.57
Z.25
4.4S
1.02
U4
Inchu
0.5Q
I.7S
0.59
0.74
174
0.8B
US
an
089
1.7S
0.40
0.43
o.
Method 201A pi tot coefficient,
t.*F
AH, In. H,0
Cyolono flow rato. ft'/mln.

Q.'
Method 2 pi tot coefficient,
Moleoular weight of stack gas, wet basis,
M
Nozzle diameter, D, In. =
.
Nozzle velocity:
Stack viscosity, IU,

micropoise =
Absolute stack pressure,
P in. Hg =
Average stack temperature,
t,, > =
Meter temperature, tm, F = .
Vmln
Vm
Vn
0.4457 +
[
[
3.056 Q,
v!
0.5690-
V"
0.2603 Q.'/4 u,
v"
/*,, = 0.2457 +
)M.
w.,1.5
. ft/sec
. ft/sec
If Rmi., i s l e s s t h a n 0.5, or if a n i m a g i nary number occurs when calculating

Rmi, u s e E q u a t i o n 1 t o c a l c u l a t e vmi.
Otherwise), uao E q u a t i o n 2.
ft/sec
Eq.
Vmln = V (0.5)
ft/sec
Eq.
Vmln =Vn Rmln = .
C a l c u l a t e Rmin
0.3072-
. ft/80O
D*
0.2603 Q,'/i p, "1

0.3072
M a x i m u m and m i n i m u m v e l o c i t i e s :
982
. in. H 2 0
Pb
Caloulato AH for three temperatures:
Ob
(Moure 3. Cyclone design ipeclMcUtonj.
r Q. (1-B.) P. 1
983.
,.^..:il.^',i.i<J.
n. a i , App. M
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edition)^
Calouiate Rm.
C
If Rm la greater than 1.5, use Bqua-p

tion 3 to calculate Vm. Otherwise,
use'J
Equation 4.
' '
'': ( v|
Bq. 3 v^jV. (1.5) =
ft/sec . '; V I
Eq.,4 v = v I U =
ft/seo
a 0.4457 +
t
0.6690 +
Environmental Protection Agency
0.2603 (*?,) u.
1.S
Figure 6. Example worksheet 3, dwell time.

Port
Point No.
AD
1
2
3
4
5
Figuro 5. Example worksheet 2, nozzle seleotlon.
Aiw = 1.3686x10-'*
. In. H20
P. M . ( v w . >
.ln.HiO
(t, + 460) C,*

Nozzle No.
D.,ln
v, ft/sec ,....
vi ft/sec
v, >t R/aec
..
..
..
..... .....
.....
*****
*****
Api, In. HjO ~~._..._..,^...^...

ApBU,ln.HiO
_.
Total run time, minutes =.

Number of traverse points =
T1
(Total run tlmo)

(Number of points)
L AP... J
where:
(Ap,)"
...
... .....
*****
-.
,; ?
-. i
I'
Ap
4 --
t
3
fiJ'
t,=dwell time at first traverse point, minutoa.

Ap'i=>tho veloolty head at the first traverse
point (from a previous traverse), in. Ha0.
Ap'.y,=the square of the average square root
of the Ap's (from a previous veloolty traverse), in. HjO.
At subsequent traverse points, measure the
velocity Ap and caloulate the dwell time
by using the following equation:
Rnal
weight
Tare.weight ;
Weight
gam
:-~
.,.,.
!.'
'
Tola!
.............
U s , aoolono Monk ......

'i
Weight of PM,
TABLE 1.PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS'FOR

SOURCE PMio CYCLONES AND NOZZLE C O M BINATIONS
TABLE 2.PARTICLE SIZES AND NOMINAL GAS

VELOCITIES FOR EFFICIENCY
Target gas velocities (m/seo)
Parameter
t. Collection
efficiency.
2. Cyclone cut
Size ( D M ) .
Unite
Pen
Particle size (|un)
Specifications
7t.O
Such that collection efficiency fads within envolope specified "by Section
5.2.6 and Figure 8.
10t |im aerodynamic diameter.
50.5
70.6
10 0.5
141.0
20t.O ........
15H.5
..............
() Mass median aerodynamic diameter.
Ap,=measured velocity bead at point 1 in.

H,0.
\
A % i~*
.t * i t

4 > * > 4> > *
*
o - <r>ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
o> o o <- <s" *" <>
252.6
HjO.
...
Weight ol PM I 0 (mg)
Container No.
(An,)"1. n=2,3,* * * total number of sampling

points
where:
t=dwell time at traverse point n, minutes.
Aps^measured velocity head at point n, in
...
Figure 7. Method 201A analysis sheet.
Veloolty traverse data:
Ap(Method 201A) = Ap(Method
Ap
Aoetone blank cone, mg/mg (Equation 5-4,

Method 6)
Aoetone wash blank, mg (Equation 6-5,
Method 5)
Nozzle No.
...._.....
AD
Plant
Date
Kun no.
Filter no.
Amount of liquid lost during
transport
Aoetone blank volume, ml
Aoetono wash volume, ml (4).
P. M , (v wb )a
(t, + 460) 0,*
Maximum and minimum velocity head values:

APnln = 1.3688 Xl0-<
Pt. 51, App. M-
At
'
>.
b.
Pt. 51, App. M
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1T95 Edition)
g
1 70
'I
%
"V
so
ui-
40
if
17 < v < 27 m/
30
9 < v < 17 m/
1
.:
1
I
90
:
. } .
i..fi'
z 00
ui
o 70
VL
%
UI
60
so
90
40
a.
30
U.
Ill
UI
''
17 < V < 27 to/ ] / / /

/
'
'-r
:U
"~
^ ^
':
20
v < 9 m/
10
1 I
8 tO
AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER (pm)
Figure 8.
1.
99
9<v<17m/i
20
-i\ iOMVM
tIP
90
Pt. 51; App.
ir
20
I'I
v < 9 m/t
9
0.1
40
10
1
02
II
0.4
0.6
O i l
VSTK/STK B 0
Ul-lt
Efficiency envelope for the PMl(; cyclone.
i! ft
r
4'
Ull-Jl
Figure 9. Efficiency envelope for first calibration stage.

[65 FR 14249, Apr. 17,1990; 65 FR 24687, June 18, 1990, as amended at 55 FR 37607, Sept. 10, 199
66 FR 6278, Fob. 16, 1991]
.uttii
Pt. 51,App. M
METHOD SM DliTBHMtNATlON OF CONDBNflrDLE
PAimcUI-ATK ICMIHHIONa PllOM STATIONAIiy
SOUUCBB

then allowed to air dry at ambient temperauiro to provont any NH<C1 from vaporizing.
3.,Apparatus
1. Applicability and Principle
3.1 Sampling Train. Same as in Method
1.1 Applicability. 1.1.1 TbiB method ap- 17, seotion 2.1, with the following exceptions
plies to the determination or condonslble noted below (see Figure 202-1). Note: Mention
particulate matter (CPM) emissions from of trade names or speolflo products does not
stationary sources. It Is intended to rep- constitute endorsement by EPA.
' resent condensible matter aa material that
3.1.1 The probe extension shall be glasscondenses after passing- through a Alter and . lined or Teflon. "V
as measured by this method (Note: Tho filter
3.1.2 Both the first and second implngers
catch can he analyzed according* to the ap- shall be of the GreenUurg-Smith design with
propriate method).
the standard tip.
1.1.2 This method may be used in conjunc3.1.3 All sampling train glassware shall be
tion with Method 201 or 201A if the probes oleaned prior to the test with soap and tap
are glass-liaed. Using Method 202 in conjunc- water, water, and rinsed using tap water,
tion with Method 201 or 201 A, only .the im- water, acetone, and finally, MeOb. It is impinger train configuration and analysis is ad- portant to completely remove all silicone
dressed by ;hls method. The sample train op- grease from areas that will be exposed to the
eration and front end recovery and analysis
shall be conducted according to Method 201 MeCli during, sample recovery.
3.2 Sample Recovery. Same as In Method
or 201A.
17, seotion 2.2, with the following additions:
1.1.3 This method may also be modified to
3.2.1 Ni Purge Lino. Inert tubing and fitmeasure material that condenses at other tings capable of delivering 0 to 28 llters/mln
temperatures by specifying the filter and of N gas to the impinger train from a stand2
probe temperature. A heated Method 5 out- ard gas
cylinder (see Figure 202-2). Standard
of-staok filter may be used instead of the ln- 0.95 cm (%-lnch) plastic tubing and compresstack filter to determine condensible emission fittings In conjunction with an adjustsions at wet sources.
able prossuro regulator and needle valve may
1.2 Principle. 1.2.1 The CPM is collected be used.
In tho Impinger portion of a Method 17 (ap3.2.2 Rotameter. Capable of measuring gas
pendix A, 40 CFR part 60) typo sampling flow
at 20 llters/mln.
train. Tho Impinger contents are Imme3.3 Analysis. The following equipment is
diately purged after the run with nitrogen necessary
in addition to that listed in Meth(Nj) to remove dissolved sulfur dioxide (SOi)
gases from tho impinger contents. The im- od'17, section 2.3:
3.3.1 Separatory Funnel. Glass, 1-liter.
pinger solution is then extracted with meth3.3.2 Weighing Tins. 350-ml.
ylene chloride (MoCh). The organic and
3.3.3 Dry Equipment. Hot plate and oven
aqueous fractions are then taken to dryness
and the residues weighed. The total of both with temperature control.
3.3.4 Plpots. S-ml.
fractions represent:) tho CPM.
3.3.6 Ion Chromatography Same as In
1.2.2 The potential for low collection efficiency exist at oll-flrod boilers. To improve Method SF, Section 2.1.6.
' the collection efficiency at these type of
i. Reagents
sources, an addltlonul filter placed betwoon
the scconc. and third Impinger la recUnless othorwlso indicated, all reagents
ommended.
must conform to tho specifications established by tho Committee on Analytical
2. Precision and Interference
Reagents of the American Chemical Society.
2.1 Precision. The precision based on Where such specifications are not available,
method development teats at an oil-fired use the best available grado.
4.1 Sampling. Samo as in Method 17, secboiler and a catalytic cracker were 11.7 and
tion 3.1, with the addition of dolonized dis4.8 porceht, respectively.
2.2 Inter.'erencc. Ammonia. In sources tilled water to conform to the American Sothat use ammonia injection as a control ciety for Testing and Materials Specification
loahnlquo for hydrogen chloride (1ICI), tho D 1193-74, Typo II and tho omlttanco of sooitiuimmlu lr.l.rliinm by rmuibliiK wll.li HOI In l.lon 3.1.4.
i.lHI Kim itUmmi (.i, I'orin umnuinliim chloride
4.2 Humplo Recovery. Same an In Mothod
(NlljClj which would ho measurod ai* OPM.
17, uoctlon 3.2, with tho following additions:
The sample may bo analyzed for chloride and
4.2.1 N3 Gas. Zero Na gaii at delivery presthe equivalent amount of NH4C1 can be sub- sures high enough to provide a flow of 20 lltracted from the CPM weight. However, if ters/mln for 1 hour through the sampling
NH.Cl Is to bo counted as CPM, the inor- train.
ganic fraction should be takon to near dry4.2.2 Mothyleno Chloride, ACS grade.
ness (less than 1 ml liquid) in tho oven and -Blanks shall bo run prior to use and only

methylene chloride with low blank values
(0.001 porcont) shall bo uaod.
4.2.3 Water. Same as in section 4.1.
4.3 Analysis. Same as in Method 17, section 3.3, with the following additions:
4.3.1 Methylene Chloride. Same as section
4.2.2.
I
4.3.2 Ammonium Hydroxide. Concentrated
(14.8 M) NHHOH.
4.3.3 Water. Same as in seotion 4.1.

4.3.4 Phenolphthaleln. The pH indicator
solution, 0.05 percent In SO percent alcohol.
5. Procedure
5.1 Sampling. Same as in Method 17, section 4.1, with the following exceptions:
'6.1,1 Place 100 ml of water
In the first
N
throe Implngers.
6.1.2 Tho use of silicone grease in train assembly Is not reoommended because it is
very Bolublo In MoOlj which may result in
sample contamination. Teflon tape or similar means may be used to provide leak-free
connections between glassware.
6.2 Sample Recovery. Same as. in Method
17, section 4.2 with the addition of a post-test
Na purge and specific changes In handling of
Individual samples as described below.; .
6.2.1 Post-test N3 Purge for Sourcos Emitting SCb. (Note: This step Is recommended,
but Is optional. With little or no SOa Is
present In the gas stream. I.e., the pH of the
impinger solution Is greater than 4.6, purging has been found to be unnecessary.) As
soon as possible after the post-test leak
check, detach tho probe and filter from the
Impinger train. Leave the Ice in the impinger box to prevent removal of moisture
during the purge. If necessary, add more Ice
during tho purge to maintain the gas tempore turo bolow 20 C. With no flow of gas
through the clean purge line and fittings, attach it to the input of the impinger train
(soo Klguro 202-2). To avoid over- or undorprossurizlng tho Implngor array, slowly commence tho N2 gas flow through tho lino while
simultaneously opening tho meter box pump
valve(s). Whon using the gas cylinder pressure to push the purge gas, through tho sample train, adjust the flow rate to 20 llters/mln
through the rotameter. When pulling the
purge gas through the sample train using the
meter box vacuum pump, sot the orifice pressure differential to AH and maintain an
overflow rate through the rotameter of less
than 2 lltorti/mln. This will guarantuo that
the Nj ilcllvui'.v nyaloin lu oporatlng nt groalor UIRII ambient prossuro and proven La tho
possibility of passing amblont air (rather
than Na) through the Implngers. Continue
the purge under these conditions for 1 hour,
checking the rotameter and AH value(s) periodically. After. 1 hour, simultaneously'turn
off tlie delivery and pumping systems.
5.2.2 Sample Handling.
r> o O OThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
O O O C* O O <0
4> n> A>. c* r* o i> > < r*
Pt. 51,App..M
5.2.2.1 Container Nos. 1, 2, and 3.!If filter
co.ton is to be dotormlnod, as detallod In
Method 17, section 4.2.
1.
6.2.2.2 Container No. 4 (Impinger Contents). Measure the liquid in the first, three
Implngers to within 1 ml using a clean graduated cylinder or by weighing it to within 0.6
g using a balance. Record the volume' or
weight of liquid present to be used to calculate the moisture content of the!effluent
gas. Quantitatively transfer this liquid Into
a clean sample bottlo (glass- or plastic); rlnso
each Impinger and the connecting glassware,
Including probe extension, twice with water,''
recover the rinse water, and add \\ to the
same sample bottle. Mark the liquid level on
the bottle.
;/'
6.2.2.3 Container No. 6 (MeCJj Ringe). Follow the water rinses of each Impinger''and
the connecting glassware, including . the
probe extension with two rinses of MeCh;
save the rinse products In a'clean,-glass sample Jar. Mark the liquid level oh the Jar. '
6.2.2.4 Container No. 6 (Water! Blank).
Once during each field test, plaoe 600 ml of
water in a separate sample-container.
.6.2.2.5 Container No. 7 (MeClaj Blank).
Onoe during each field test, place in a separate glass sample Jar a' volume of MeCla approximately equivalent to tho volume used
to conduct the MeCl3 rinse of the Implngers.
6.3 Analysis. Record the data required on
a sheet such as the one shown in Figure 2023. Handle eaoh sample container as follows:
5:3.1 Container Nos. 1, 2, and 3. If filter
catch Is analyzed, as detailed In Method 17,
section 4.3:
6.3.2 Container Nos. 4 and 5. Noto the level
of liquid in the containers and confirm on
tho analytical data sheet whether' leakage
occurred during transport. If a noticeable
amount of leakage has occurred, either void
tho sample or use methodB, subject to the approval of the Administrator, to correct the
final results. Measure the liquid in Container
No. 4 elthor volumetrically to 1 ml pr gravlmetrically to 0.5 g. Rcmovo a 6-ml aliquot
and set aside for later Ion. chromatographic
(IC) analysis of sulfates. (Noto: Do hot use
this aliquot to determine chlorides since the
HC1 will be evaporated during the first drying step; Section 8.2 details a procedure for
this analysis.)
5.3.2.1 Extraction, Separate the organic
fraction of the sample by adding tho contents of Container No. 4 (MeCla) to the contents of Container No. 4 In a 1000-ml
separatory funnel. Artor mixing, allow tho
rupiooua and organic phasus to fully sopamto,
and drain off most of tho organic/MoCla
phase. Then add 75 ml of MeCla to tho funnel,
mix well, and drain off the lower., organic
phase. Repeat with another 75 ml of MeClj.
This extraction should yield about 250 ml ol
organic extract. Each time, leave a small
amount of the organlc/MeClj phase. In the
separatory funnel ensuring that no water la
>-&
f>
r> i
* ? * **>"*
Pt. 51, App. M

collected In the organic phase. Place the organic extract in a tared 350-ml weighing bin.
6.3.2.2 Organic Fraotlon Weight Determination (Organic Phase from Container
Nos. 4 and 6). Evaporate the organic extract
at room temperature and pressure in a lab-,
oratory hood. Following evaporation, des-.
locate the organic fraction for 24 hours in a
desiccator containing anhydrous calcium
sulfate. Weigh to a constant weight and report the resvuts to the nearest 0.1 mg.
5.3.2.3 Inorganic Fraction Weight Determination. (Note: If NH<C1 is to b'o counted as
CPM, the Inorganic fraction should be taken
to near dryness (less than 1 ml liquid) in the
oven and then allow to air dry at ambient
temperature. If multiple acid emissions are
suspected, the ammonia titration .procedure
In section 8.1 may be preferred.) Using a hot
plate, or equivalent, evaporate the aqueous
phase to approximately 50 ml; then, evaporate to drynuss In a 105 "0 ovon. Redlssovle
the residue in 100 ml of water. Add five drops
of phenolphthaleln to this solution; then,
add concentrated (14.8 M) NH.OH until the
sample turns pink. Any exoess NH3OH will be
evaporated during the drying step. Evaporate the sample to dryness in a 105 C oven,
desiccate the sample for 24 hours, weigh to a
constant weight, and record the results to
the nearost 0.1 mg. (Note: The addition of
NH4OH is recommended, but is optional when
little or no SO is present in the gas stream,
I.a., wliun l.ho uH of the Implngor solution is
Ui'imUir Limit 4.6. Mm addition of NIUOII lu
not necessary.)
5.3.2.4 Analysis of Sulfate by IC to Determine Ammonium Ion (Ntt, + ) Retained in the
Sample. (Note: If NH4OH is not added, omit
this step.) Determine the amount of sulfate
in the aliquot taken from Container No. 4
earlier as described in Method 5F (appendix2
A, 40 CFR part 60). Based on the IC SO<~
analysis of tho aliquot, calculate the correction factor to subtract the NH^ retained In
the sample and to add the combined water
removed by the acid-base reaction (see section 7.2).
5.3.3 Analysis of Water and MeCl2 Blanks
(Container Nos. 6 and 7). Analyze these sample blanks as described above in sections
5.3.2.3 and 5.3.2.2, respectively.
5.3.4 Analysis of Acetone Blank (Container No. 8). Same as In Method 17, section
4.3.
6. Calibration
Sumo IIH In Molliod 17, noctlon S, oxoopt for.
II10 following:
6.1 IC Calibration. Same as Method 5F,
section 5.
6.2 Audit Proituilurn. Concurrently, analyv.i! Uu> mill 11, .wniiili) mid a uuL of compliance sample* In the same manner to evaluate the technique of the analyst and the
standards preparation. The same analyst, analytical reairents, and analytical system

shall be used both for compliance samples
and the EPA audit sample. If this oondltion
is met, auditing of, subsequent compliance
analyses for. the saime, enforcement agency
within 30 days is not required. An audit sample set may not be used to validate different
sets of compliance samples under the jurisdiction of different enforcement agencies,
unless prior arrangements are made with
both enforcement agencies.
ti.3 Audit Samples^'Audit Sample Availability, Audit samples will be supplied only
to enforcement agencies for compliance
tests. The availability of audit samples may
be obtained by writing:
Source Test Audit Coordinator (MD-77B),
Quality Assuranoe Division, Atmospheric
Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle, Park, NO 27711
or by oalling the Source Test Audit Coordinator (STAC) at (819) 541-7834. The request
for the audit sample must be made at least
30 days prior to the soheduled compliance
sample analysis.
6.4 Audit Results. Calculate the audit
sample concentration aooordlng to the calculation procedure described In the audit instructions lnoluded with the audit sample.
Fill in the audit sample ocncentration and
the analyst's name on the audit response
form Included with the audit instructions.
Sond one copy to the EPA Regional Offioe or
l.ho appropriate onforoomont agonoy'and a
uoooud copy to tho STAC. Tho EPA Regional
Office or the appropriate enforcement agency will report the results of the audit to the
laboratory being audited. Include this response with the results of the compliance
samples in'relevant reports to the EPA Regional Office or the appropriate enforcement
agency.
7. Calculations
Same as in Method 17, section 6, with the
following additions:
7.1 Nomenclature. Same as In Method 17,
section 6.1 with the following additions.
Ccpm=Concentration of the CPM in the stack
gas, dry basis, corrected to standard conditions, g/dsom (g/dscf).
Cs04=Concentratlon of SO<-' in the sample,
mg/ml.
mb=Sum of tho mass of the water and MeCh
blanks, mg.
mc=Mass of the NH4+ added to sample to
form ammonium sulfate, mg.
mi-Mass of Inorganio CPM matter, mg.
m=Mass of organic CPM, mg.
mf=Mass of dried sample from inorganio fraotlon, mg.
Vb-Volumo or aliquot taken for IC analysis,
ml.
Vic=Volume of implngor contonts sample, ml.
7.2 Correction for NBU+ and HjO. Calculate tho correction factor to subtract the

NH4+3retained in the sample based on the IC
SO.. ~ and if desired, add the oombined water
removed by the acid-base reaction.
nv=K C.j Vi
Eq. 202-1
where:
K=0.0205, when correcting for NH<+ and H20.
=0.1840, when only oorreotlng for NH4+.
7.3 Mass of Inorganio CPM.
xnpxn,
-m
V-Vb
Eq. 202-2
7.4
Concentration of CPM.
O c p =
\ Si
tit.,
.'
I'
iw
P-
I
&
nio+mimb
Eq, 202-3
VM
m;>:
3, Alternative Procedures
8.1 Determination of NHi* Retained in
Sample by Titration.
8.1.1 An alternative procedure to determine the amount of NH+ added to the Inorganic fraction by titration may be used.
After dissolving the Inorganio residue in 100
ml of water, titrate the solution with 0.1 N
NH.OH to a pll of 7.0, as lndfcatod by a pH
motor. Tho 0.1 N NIUOII Is mado as follows:
Add 7 ml of concentrated (14.8 M) N&.OH to
1 liter of water. Standardize against standardized 0.1 N HaSO< and calculate the exaot
normality using a procedure parallel to that
described In section 6.5 of Method 6 (appendix
A, 40. CFR part 60). Alternatively, purchase
0.1 N NH4OH that has been standardized
against a National Institute of Standards
and Technology reference material.
8.1.2 Calculate the concentration of SO->
in the sample using the following equation.
CS04=
drying of the sample should have removed all

HOI. Therefore, the 'remaining chlorides
measured by IC can be assumed to be NR.C1,
and this; weight con be subtracted from' the
weight determined for CPM.
8.3 Air Purge to Remove SO] from Implnger Contents. As an alternative to the
post-test N] purge described in section 6.2.1,
the tester may opt to conduot the post-test
purge with air at 20 llter/mln. Note: The use
of an air purge Is not as effective ai a N3
purge.'"'
Vic
It
Pt.51.App.lv!
48.03
V,N
V,f<
Eq. 202-4
100
where
N=Normallty of the NH4OH, mg/ml.
V,=Volume of NH..OH titrant, ml.
48.03-mg/meq.
100=Volumo of solution, ml.
8.3.1 Calculate the CPM as doscrlbod In
section 7.
8.2 Analysis of Chlorides by IC. At the
conclusion of the final weighing as doscrlbod
in section 6.3.2.3. rodlssolvo tho Inorganio
fraction in 100 ml of water. Analyze an aliquot of the redlssolved sample for chlorides
by IC using techniques similar to those described in Method 5F for sulfates. Previous
,"' :' .
8:4 Chloroform-ether Extraction.'As an alternative to the methylene chloride extraction described in section 6.3.2.1, the tester
may 'opt to conduct a chloroform-ether extraction. Note: The Chloroform-ether was
not as effective as the MeCh in removing the
brganlos,-'but it'was found to be an'aooeptable'(organio : ex'traotaht. Chloroform and
'dlethyle'therjof ACS grade, with low,blank
values (0.001 percent), shall be used.' Analysis
of the chloroform and dlethylether blanks
shall be conducted according to Section 6.3.3
forMe012.
8.4.1 Add the contents of Container No. 4
to a 1000-ml separatory funnel. Then add 76
ml of chloroform to the funnel, mix well, and
drain off the lower organio phase. Repeat
two more times with 75 ml of chloroform.
Then perform three extractions with 76 ml of
dlethylether. This extraction should yield
approximately 460 ml of organic extraotlon.
Eaoh time, leave a small amount of the organlc/MeCli phase In the separatory funnel
ensuring that no water is collected in the organio phase.
8.4.2 Add the contents of Container No. 6
to the organio extraotlon. Place approximately 300 ml of the organio extract In a
tared 350-ml weighing tin while storing the
remaining organio extract In a sample container. As the organio extract evaporates,
add the remaining extract to the weighing
tin.
.
8.4.3 Determine the weight of the organio
phase as described in Section 5.3.2.2.
8.5 Improving Collection Efficiency. If low
implnger collection efflolency Is Buspeoted,
the following procedure may be used.
8.5.1 Place an out-of-stook filter as described in Method 8 between tho second and
third lmplngers.
8.5.2 Recover and analyze the filter according to Method 17, Section 4.2. Inolude
the filter holder as part of tho connecting
glassware and handlo as described In sections
5.2.2.2 and 5.2.2.3.
8.5.3 Calculate the Concentration of CPM
as follows:
mo+mi+mi-mb
VM.U
Eq. 2025
Pt.5l,App. M
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 EdWorij
where:
mf = amount of OPM' collected on out-ofstacfc fllcer, mgr.
8.6 Wet Source Testing. When testing at a
wet source, use a heated out-of-staok filter
as described In Method 5.
9. Bibliography
' 1. DeWees, W.D., S.O. Stelnsberger; Q.M.
Plummer. L.T. Lay, O.D. MoAUster, and R.T.
Shlgehara. "Laboratory and Fiold Evaluation of the EPA Method 6 Implnger Catch for
Measuring Oondenslble Matter from Stationary Sources." Paper presented at the 1989
EPA/AWMA International Symposium on
Measurement of Toxic and Related Air Pollutants. Raleigh, North Carolina. May 1-5,
1989.
2. DeWees, W.D. and K.C. Stelnsberger.
"Method Development and Evaluation of
Draft Protocol for Measurement of Oondenslble Particulate Emissions." Draft Report.
November 17,1989.
3. Texas Air Control Board, Laboratory Division. "Determination of Particulate in
iinvlronmental Protection Agency
Staok Oases Containing Sulfurlo Aoid and/dr}

Sulfur Dioxide." Laboratory Methods fortDfk
termination of Air Pollutants. Modified Dedeniber3.197fl.
'
.'^r^L
4. Nothsteln, dreg. Masters Thesis. Unive'r|s
sity of Washington. Department of Environ-^
mental Health. Seattle, Washington. i"}'M.,
5. "Particulate Source Test Prooeduresjj
Adopted by Puget Sqund Air Pollution Con-!$
trol Agonoy Board 'of Dlreotors." Puget!;)'
Sound Air Pollution Control Agenoy, Engi-^
neering Division. Seattle, Washington. Au-ff
gust 11,1983.
. vaif
6. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Depart-s
ment of Environmental Resources. Chapterjl
139, Sampling and Testing (Title 26, Rules /f
and Regulations, Part I, Department of Envi-%
ronmental Resources, Subpart 0, Protection j |
of Natural Resources, Artiole m , Air Re-j
aouroes). January 8,1960.
'
'.\i'fif7. Wisconsin Dopartment of Natural Re-j
souroes. Air Management Operations Hand-l
book. Revision 3. January 11,1988.
Pt.51,App. M
c.
-
a
n
I
a
3
i
CD
.8
"8
5
,2
4T>
<;>
,f
f*
4>
>
>
*>
* *
'*
**" - a * - * '
<
c* ctThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
c* c* (y
Tt.61.App. M
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1^95 Edition);$
Ênvironmental Protection Agency
Pi. 51/App.M
:'.
Moisture Determination
,
''Volume or weight of liquid In lmpingers:'
>''<'."
ml org: '-'.i
''
g
: Weight of moisture In silica gel:
-'-!' Sample Preparation (Container No. 4)
.Amount of liquid lost during: transport:
,'
ml
Final volume:;
ml
pH of sample prior to analysis:
Addition of NR.OH required:.
Sample extracted 2X with 75 ml MeOW:
For Titration of Sulfate
, .Normality of NHaOH:
.N
.ml
Volume of sample titrated:
Volume of tltrant:..
.ml
Sample Analysis
f
Weight of condenalble
partlculals, mg
Container number
;4 (Inorganic)
4 & 6 (Organic)
Final
weight
Tare
weight
Weight
gain
....
Total:
Less Blank:
. Weight of Consenslble Particulate:
Figure 202-3. Analytical data-Bheet.
METHOD 205VERIFICATION OF GAS DILUTION
SYSTEMS FOR FIELD INSTRUMENT CALIBRATIONS
J. Introduction
1.1 Applicability. A gas dilution system
can provide known values of calibration
gases through controlled dilution of highlevel calibration gases with an appropriate
dilution gas. The instrumental test methods
i
in 40 CFR part 60e.g., Methods 3A, 6C, 7E,
10, 16, 16. 20, 25A and 25Brequire on-site,
multi-point calibration using gases of known
concentrations. A gaB -dilution system that
produces known low-level calibration gases
from high-level calibration' gases, with a degree or confidence similar to that for Proto. col' gases, may be used for compliance tests
in lieu of multiple calibration gases when
the gas dilution system is demonstrated to
meet the requirements of this method. The
Administrator may also use a gaB dilution
system In order to produce a wide range of
Cylinder Gas Audit concentrations when
conducting performance specifications according to appendix F, 40 CFR part 60. As
long as the acceptance criteria of this method are met, this method is applicable to gas
dilution systems using any type of dilution
technology, not solely the ones mentioned In
this method.
. . . . 1.2 Principle. The gas dilution system
feisball be evaluated on ope.analyzer^ once dtyr^.
i;v..*iiiv.vii. ..iv;.t. Mit-.. i.l--.i^fsBl
if
ing eaoh field test. A precallbrated analyzer

Is chosen, at- the discretion of the source
owner or operator, to demonstrate that the
gas dilution aystem produces predictable gas
concentrations . spanning a range < of. ooncentratlons. After meeting the requirements
of this method, the remaining analyzers may
be calibrated with the dilution system in accordance to the requirements of the applicable method for the duration of the field test.
In Methods 16 and 16, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, reactive compounds may be lost In the
gas dilution system.. Also, In Methods 2SA
and 26B, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, calibration with target compounds other than propane is allowed. In these cases, a laboratory
evaluation is required once per year in order
to assure the Administrator, that the' system
will' dilute these reactive gases without significant loss.
>'... .;.
NOTE: The laboratory evaluation .is.(required only If, the source owner or operator
plans'to utilize the dilution system< to prepare gases mentioned above as being .'reactive.
;. ; ,.-.'
2. Specifications. ''.''.',';'..
2.1 Gas Dilution System. The gas dilution'
system shall produce calibration gases whose
measured values are within. 2 percent of the
predloted values. The predloted values are
calculated based on the certified concentration of the supply gas (Protocol gases, when
available, are recommended for their aoouraoy) and the gas flow rates (or dilution ratios) through the gas dilution' system.
2.1.1 The gas dilution system shall be
recalibrated onoe per calendar year using
NIST-tracoablo primary flow standards with
an uncertainty 0.25 percent. A label shall be
affixed at all times to the gas dilution system listing the date of the most reoent calibration, the due date for the next calibration, and the person or manufacturer who
carried out the 6allbratlon. Fpllow the manufacturer's Instructions for the operation
and use of the gas dilution system. A oopy of
the manufacturer's instructions for the operation of the instrument, as well as the most
reoent recallbratlon documentation shall be
made available for the Administrator's, inspection upon request.
2.1.2 Some manufacturers of mass flow
controllers recommend that flow rates below
10 percent of flow controller capaolty bo
avoided; check for this recommendation and
follow the manufacturer's Instructions. One
study has Indicated that silicone oil from a
positive displacement pump produoes an Interference in SO] analyzers utilizing ultraviolet fluorescence; follow laboratory procedures similar to those outlined In Section 3.1
in order to demonstrate the significance ol
any resulting effect on instrument perform-
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edlllon)!
Pt. tO, App. A, Meth. 24A

ards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reseatch Tiliuifcle Park, NC 27711.
4.4 Confidence Limit Calculations for Watcrborne Coatings. Based on the between-laboratory precision statements, calculate the
confldenco limits for waterborne coatings as
follows:
To calculate the lower confidence limit,
subtract the appropriate between-laboratory
precision value from the measured mean
value for that parameter. To caloulate the
upper confidence limit, add the appropriate
between-laboratory precision value to the
measured mean value for that parameter.
For Wv and D 0 . use the lower confidence limits, and lor Ww, use the upper confidence
limit. Because V. Is calculated, there Is no
adjustment for the parameter.
5. Calculations
5.1 Noiin(iuooua Volatllo Mattor.
5.1.1 Solvent-borne Coatings.
W0=WV
Eci. 24-2
Where:
W0=Weight fraction nonaqueous volatllo
matter, g/g.
5.1.2 'Waterborne Coatings.
Wo=Wv-Ww
Bq. 24-3
5.1.3 Coatings Containing Exempt Solvents.
W=W.-W E -W
Eq. 244
where:
Wg-welitht fraction of exempt solvents, g/
g.
5.2 Weight Fraction Solids.
W,=l-W
Eq. 254
where:
W,=weU;ht fraction of solids, gig.
METHOD 24ADETERMINATION OP VOLATILE
MATTED CONTENT AND DENSITY OK PMNTINO
, INKS ANO RELATED COATINOB

1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the determination of the volatile organic
compound (VOC) content and density of solvent-borne (solvent reducible) printing Inks
or related coatings.
1.2 Principle. Separate procedures are
used to determine the VOC weight fraction
and density of the coating and the density of
the solvent in the coating. The VOC weight
fraction Is determined by measuring the
weight loss of a known sample quantity
which has been heated for a specified length
of time at a specified temperature. The density of both the coating and solvent aro
measured by a standard procedure. From
this Information, the VOC volume fraction isM

nnlnnln>.Ari
calculated.
.-:'.f*rr?i
2. Procedure
2.1 Weight Fraction VOC
-.firra!
2.1.1 Apparatu's. ,
.-.-Nil
2.1.1.1 Weighing Dishes. Aluminum foil, 58^
mm in diameter by 18 mm high, with a fla'l&j
bottom. There must be at least three welghjw
ing dishes per sample.
, . y:;'{|J!
2.1.1.2 Disposable Syringe. 6 ml.
';. i\ij$$
2.1.1.3 Analytical Balance. To measure t o . |
:,i
within 0.1 mg.
.
>}'3
2.1.1.4 Oven. Vacuum oven capable rof::|
maintaining a temperature of 1202C and an'Si
absolute pressure of 510 51 mm Hg for'4 <
hours. Alternatively, a forced draft oven 'capable of maintaining a temperature' of
1202C for 24 hours.,
' '(.
2.1.2 Analysis. Shako or mix tho sample
thoroughly to 'assuro that all the solids are
completely suspended. Label and weigh to
the nearest 0.1 mg a weighing dish and
record this weight (M,i).
.'.'
Using a 6-ml syringe without a needle re-.
move a sample of the coating. Weigh the sy-|
rlnge and sample to the nearest 0.1 mg and
record this weight (M<yi). Transfer 1 to 3 g of
the sample to the tared weighing dish. Reweigh the syringe and sample to the nearest
0.1 mg and record this weight (MYJ). Heat
the weighing dish and sample in a vaouum
oven at an absolute pressure of 51051 mm Hg
and a temperature of 1202O for 4'hours. Alternatively, heat the weighing dish and sample in a forced draft oven at a temperature of
1202"O for 24 hours. After the weighing dish
has cooled, reweigh it to the nearest 0.1 mg
and record the weight (Ma). Repeat this procedure for a total of three determinations for
each sample.
2.2 Coating Density. Determine the density of the ink or related coating according
to the procedure outlined in ASTM D 1476-60
(Reapproved 1980), (incorporated by referencesee J 60.17).
2.3 Solvent Donalty. Dotormlno the density of the solvent according to the procedure outlined in ASTM D 1475-60 (reapproved
1980). Make a total of three determinations
for each coating. Report the density Do as
the arlthmetio average of the three determinations.
3. Calculations
3.1 Weight Fraction VOC. Calculate the
weight fraction volatile organlo content W
using the following equation:
il
Mxi+MoYi-Mcvr-MKa
W
MVI-MCYI
I Environmental Protection Agency

W. Report the weight fraction VOC W as the
ârithmetic average of the three determlna&tlons.
'/';3.2 Volume Fraction VOC. Caloulate the
[^volume fraction volatile organic oontent V
s w i n g the following equation:
p.f
S
V.=(WJDc/D.
|
Eq. 24A-2
,A; Bibliography
'1. Standard TeBt Method for Density of
Faint, Varnish, Lacquer, and Related Products.
ASTM
Designation
D
1476-60
|(Reapproved 1980).
p .2. Teleconversatlon.
Wright,
Chuck,
!j;'Inmont Corporation with Reich, R. A., Ra\\y. dlan Corporation. September 25, 1979.- Qranfl',vure Ink AnalyslB.
v
?!?: 3. Teleconversatlon. Oppenheimer, Robjy ert, Qravuro Research Institute with Burt,
if' Rlok, Radian Corporation, November 6, 1979.
1
Gravure Ink Analysis.
6-",'.'
" .. METHOD 25DETERMINATION OF TOTAL Q A S E Y.:' OUB NONMETHANE OROANIO EMISBIONS AB
CARBON
Ing emission data semlcontlnuously over an

extended time period.
Direct measurement of an effluent with a
flamp ionization detector (FID) analyzer
may.be appropriate with prior characterization of the gas stream and knowledge that
the detector responds predictably to the organlo compounds In the stream. If present,
methane (OHO will, of course, also be measured. The FID oan be applied to the determination of the mass concentration of the
tota,l moleoular structure of the organlo
emissions under any of the following limited
conditions: (1) Where only one compound is
known to exist; (2) when the organlo compounds consist of only hydrogen and carbon;
(3) where the relative percentages .of the
compounds are known or oan be determined,
and the FID responses to the compounds are
known; (4) where a consistent mixture of the
compounds exists before and after emission
control and only the relative concentrations
are to be assessed; or (5) where the FID ban
be calibrated against mass standards of the
compounds emitted (solvent emissions, for
example).
Another example of'the uso of a direct FID

is as a soreenlng, method. If there is enough
information available to provide a rough es1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
timate of the analyzer accuracy, the FED an;j;.the measurement of volatile organlo comalyzer can be used to determine the VOC
pounds (VOC) es total gaseous nonmethane
oontent of an unoharacterized gas stream:
oirganlos (TONMO) as carbon in source emls! slons. Organic particulate matter will inter- With a sufficient buffer to adoount for possible inaccuracies, the direct FID can be a
fere with the analysis and, therefore, a paruseful tool to obtain the desired results
ticulate filter is required. The minimum dei.teotable for the method Is 60 ppm as carbon. - without costly exact determination.
In situations where a qualitative/quan" When carbon dioxide (CO*) and water vapor
titative analysis of an effluent stream is de.are present together in the staok, they can
sired or required, a gas chromatographic FID
produoe a positive bias in the sample. The
system may apply. However, for sources
magnitude of the bias depends on the conemitting numerous organlos, the time and
centrations of CO] and water vapor. As a
expense of this approach will be formidable.
guideline, multiply the COi concentration,
expressed as volume percent, times the water
1.2 Prlnolple. An emission sample is withvapor concentration. If this product does not
drawn from the staok at a constant rate
exceed 100, the bias can be considered insigthrough a heated filter and a chilled condennificant. For example, the bias is not signifisate trap by means of an evacuated sample
cant for a Bourco having 10 percent COj and
tank. After sampling is completed, the
10 porcont water vapor, but.lt would be sigTONMO are determined by Independently
nificant for a source near the detection limit
analyzing tho condensate trap and sample
having 10 percent COi and 20 percent water
tank fractions and combining the analytical
vapor.
results. The organic content of the condensate trap fraction is determined by oxidizing
This method is not the only method that
the NMO to CO] and quantitatively collectapplies to the measurement of TONMO.
ing the effluent in an evacuated vessel; then
Costs, logistics, and other practicalities of
source testing may make other test methods a portion of the COj is reduced to CH* and
more desirable for measuring VOC contents
measured by an FID. The organlo oontent of
of oertain effluent streams. Proper Judgment
the sample tank fraction is measured by InIs required in determining the most applicajecting a portion of the sample into a gas
ble VOC test method. For example, dependchromatographic column to separate the
ing upon tho molecular weight of tho
NMO from carbon monoxide (CO), COi. and
organlcs in the effluent stream, a totally
OR,; the NMO are oxidized to COj, reduced to
automated
semloontlnuous
nonmethane
CH*, and measured by an FID. In this manorganlcs (NMO) analyzer interfaced dlreotly
ner, the variable response of the FID associto tho uourco may yield accurate results.
ated with different typOB of organlcs Is elimiThis approach has tho advantage of provldnated.
1
r*ocA
i^
Pt. 60, App. A, Meth. 25
81
MU W W l l . I \,' - I
Z. Apparatus
2.1 Sampling. The sampling system consists of a hoaccd probo, hoatod flltor, condensate trap, flow control system, and sample
tank (Figuro 26-1). The TGNMO sampling
oqulpment can be constructed from commercially available components and components
fabricated In a machine shop. The following
equipment 1B required:
2.1.1 Heated Probe. 6.4-mm (Vi-ln.) OD.
stainless steel tubing with a heating system
capable of maintaining a gas temperature at
the exit end of at least 129C (285F). The
probe shall be equipped with a thermocouple
at the exit end to monitor the gas temperature.
A suitable probe* Is shown in Figure 25-1.
The nozzle is an elbow fitting attaohed to
the front end of the probe while the thermocouple Is Inserted In the side arm of a tee fitting attaohed to the rear of the probe. The
probe is wrapped with a suitable length9 of
high temperature) heating tape, and then
covered with two layers of glass cloth insular
tlon and one layer of aluminum foil.
NOTE:.If It Is not poselblo to use a hoatlng
system for safety reasons, an unheated system with an ln-atack filter is a suitable alternative.
2.1.2 Filter Holder. 25-mm ("Me-ln.) ID
Qelman filter holder with stainless steel
body and stainless steel support screen with
the Viton O-ring replaoed by a Teflon O-ring.
NOTE.Mention of trade names or speoiflo
products does not constitute endorsement by
the Environmental Protection Agenoy.
2.1.3 Filter Heating System. A metal box
consisting of an inner and an outer shell separated by insulating material with a heating
element in the lnnor shell capable of maintaining a gas temperature at the filter of
1213 *C (2808 *F).
A suitable hoatlng box Is shown In Figure
25-2. The outer shell Is a metal box that
measures 102 mmx280 mmx292 mm (4 ln.xll
ln.xllH in.), while the inner shell is-a metal
box measuring 76 mmx229 mmx241 mm (3
In.xS In.x9'/4 in.). The Inner box is supported
by 13-mm (V4-in.) phenolic rods. The void
space between the boxes is filled with
fiberfrax insulation which Is sealed in place
by means of a silicon rubber bead around the
uppor aides of the box. A removable lid made
In a similar mannor, with a 25-mm (1-ln.) gap
between the parts. Is used to cover the heating chamber.
The Inner box is heated wltn a 260-watt
cartridge heator, shielded by a stainless steel
shroud. The healer Is regulated by a
thormoatatlo temperature controller which
is sot to maintain a temperature of 121 C as
measured by a thermocouple in the gas line
just before the filter. An additional thermocouple is used to monitor the temperature of
the gas bohind the filter.
tsl UIIIUI!/.l(t
2.1.4 Condensate Trap. 9.6-mm 04-in.)'pE

316 stainless steel tubing bent intoia^M
shape. Exact dimensions ore shown in Flgiiite
25-3. The tubing shall be packed with coarwj
quartz wool, to a density of approximate!]"
0.11 g/co before bending. While the:condeng
sate trap Is paoked- with dry ice ln|'t'
Dewar, an ioe bridge'may form between^
arms of the condensate trap making ittf
floult to remove the condensate trap.;1]
problem can be prevented by attaohing?
steel plate between the arms of thepondei
sate trap in the same plane as the arm2
completely fill the intervening space. '."
2.1.6 Valve. Stainless steel shut-off .ya
for starting and Btopplng sample flow. ,.P
2.1.6 Metering Valve. Stainless steel'.._,
trol valve for regulating the' sample flow raV
through the sample train.
'; '^M
2.1.7 Rotameter. Glass tube with stainlessl
steel fittings, capable of measuring sample^*
flow in the range of 60 to 100 oc/mln. .'',- M{L,
2.1.8 Sample Tank. Stainless steel or.'alnflS
mlnum tank with- a minimum volume of iji-m
tera.
,..^
2.1.9 Mercury Manometer or Absolute!

ProoBuro Qaugo. Capable of measuring pres-ft
sure to within 1 mm Hg in the range of 0'U>$
900 mm.
2.1.10 Vacuum Pump, Capable of evaouat-'il(
ire of 10 mm Hg.
ing to an absolute pressure
Hg, W$S
2.2 Condensate Recovery Apparatus. Tl
system for the recovery of the organlcs: oa]
tured in the condensate trap oonsists' df>,
heat
source,
oxidation.
eatalystjj
nondisperaive infrared (NDIR) analyzer andan intermediate oolleotion vessel (IGVVFigVj
ure 25-4 is a sohematlo of a typical system.'
The system shall be capable of proper oxidation and recovery, as specified in Seotion 6,
The following major components are
quired:
'
!!'
2.2.1 Heat Source. Sufficient to heat the1
condensate trap (inoluding connecting tub-].;
ing) to a temperature of 200 C. A system'
using both a heat gun and an el eotrio tube'
furnace is recommended.
''! j*
2.2.2 Heat Tape. Sufficient to heat the connecting tubing between the water trap and';
the oxidation catalyst to 100 *C.
": *
2.2.3 Oxidation Catalyst. A suitable length'
of 9.6-mm (%-in.) OD Inconel 600 tubing!;
packed with 15 om (6 in.) of 3.2-mm (H-ln.)
diameter 19 percent chromla on alumina pellots. The catalyst material is packed in the
center of the oatalyet tube with quartz wool'
paokod on either end to hold it in place. The
catalyst tube shall be mounted vertically In
a 650 "O tube furnace.
2.2.4 Water Trap. Leak proof, oapable of;
removing moisture from the gas stream
2.2.5 Syringe Port. A 6.4-mm (H-in.) OD.
stainless steel tee fitting with a rubber septum placed In the side arm.
' 2.2.6 NDIR Detector. Capable of indicating'
CO} concentration in the range of zero to 5
percent, to monitor tho progress of combus-
tlon of the organic compounds from the oon'densato trap.

",1-2.3.7 Flow-Control Valve. Stainless steel,
maintain the trap conditioning system
'hear atmospherio pressure.
i jjff2.2.8 Intermediate
Collection . Vessel.
' Stainless steel or aluminum, equipped with a
female quick conneot. Tanks with nominal
! [volumes of at least 6 liters are reoi bmmended.
i
.. .2.9 Mercury Manometer or Absolute
pressure Gauge. Capable of measuring pres|iure: to within 1 mm Hg in the range of 0 to
jWO mm.
|p 2.2.10 Syringe. 10-ml gas-tight, glass syrhige equipped with an appropriate needle.
1J2.3 NMO Analyzer. The NMO analyzer is a
|:gas ohromatograph (GO) with baokflush capability for NMO analysis and is equipped
with an oxidation catalyst, reduction catalyst, and FID. Figures 25-5 and 25-6 are^schefoatloa of a typical NMO analyzer. This
iemloontlnuous GO/FID analyzer shall be oapable of: (1) Separating CO, CO?, and Ctt,
'from NMO, (2) reducing the COi to CH. and
! Quantifying as OIL, and (3) oxidizing the
;NMO to COi, roduclng the CO? to OH* and
' quantifying as CHU, according to Seotion 6.2.
The analyzer oonslsts of the following major
bomponents:
r,!'2.S.l Oxidation Catalyst. A suitable
length of 9.5-mm (H-in.) OD Inconel 600 tubing packed with 6.1 cm (2 in.) of 19 percent
'bhromla on 3.2-mm (H-ln.) alumina pellets.
The catalyst material is paoked in the center
of the tube supported on either side by
quartz wool. The catalyst tube must be
.mounted vertically in a 650 *C furnace.
HI 2.3.2 Reduction Catalyst. A 7.6-om (3-ln.)
! length of 6.4-mm (Vi-in.) OD Inconel tubing
fully paoked with 100-mesh pure nlokel pow(der. The catalyst tube muBt be mounted ver tloally in a 400 "O furnace.
(2.3.3 Separation Column(s). A 30-om (1-ft)
[length of 3.2-mm (H-ln.) OD stainless steel
$ tubing paoked with 60/80 mesh Unlbeads IS
' j followed by a 61-om (2-ft) length of 3.2-mm
(H-ln.) OD stainless steel tubing paoked with
' 60/80 mesh Carbosleve G. The Carbosieve and
UnibeadB columns must be baked separately
(gi at 200 *C with carrier gas flowing through
them for 24 hours before Initial Use.
!i . 2.3.4 Sample Injection System. A 10-port
00 sample injection valve fitted with a sample loop properly sized to Interfaoe with the
NMO analyzer (l-oo loop recommended).
2.3.6 FID. An FID meeting the following
specifications Is required:
2.3.5.1 Linearity. A linear response (6
percent) over the operating range as demonstrated by the procedures established In
Seotion 6.2.3.
2.3.6.2 Range. A full scale range of 10 to
60,000 ppm OIL. Signal attenuators shall be
available to produce a minimum signal response of 10 porcent of full scale.
2.3.6 Data Reoordlng System. Analog strip

chart recorder or'dlgital-Integration system
compatible with the FDD for permanently, recording the analytical results.
2.4 Other Analysis Apparatus.
2.4.1 Barometer. Meroury, aneroid, or
other barometer oapable of measuring atmospherio pressure to within 1 mm Hg.
2.4.2 Thermometer. Capable of measuring
the laboratory temperature to within 10..
2.4.3 Vaouum: Pump. Capable of evaouat-'
ing to an absolute pressure of 10 mm Hg, ' 2.4.4 Syringes. 10-ul and 60-ul liquid injeotlon syringes. '
,
2.4.6 Liquid Sample Injection Unit.'316 SS
U-tube fitted with an Injection septum) see
Figure 26-7.'.'
'
3. Reagents
3.1 Sampling. The following are required
for sampling:
3.1.1 Crushed Dry Ice.
3.1.2 Coarse Quartz Wool. 8 to 16 urn.
3.1.3 Filters. Glass fiber filters, without
organic binder.
3.2 NMO Analysis. The following gases *ro
needed:
3.2.1 Carrier Qaoea. Zero grade helium
(He) and oxygen (Oa containing lees than 1
ppm COa and less than 0.1 ppm C as hydrocarbon.
3.2.2 Fuel Gas.- Zero grade hydrogen (Ha)/
99.999 percent pure.
3.2.3 Combustion Gas. Zero grade air or Oa
as required by the detector.
3.3 Condensate Analysis. The following,
gases are needed:
3.3.1 Carrier Gas. Zero grade air, containing less than 1 ppm O.
3.3.2 Auxiliary Oa. Zero grade Oa, containing less than 1 ppm C.
3.3.3 Hexane. ACS grade, for liquid injection.
3.3.4 Deoane. ACS grade, for liquid Injection.
3.4 Calibration. For all calibration gases,
the manufacturer must recommend a maximum shelf life for each oyllnder (I.e., the
length of time the gas concentration is not
expected to change.more than 6 percent
from Its certified value). The date of gas cylinder preparation, certified organic concentration, and recommended maximum
shelf life must be affixed to each cylinder before shipment from the gas manufacturer to
the buyer. The following calibration gases
are required:
3.4.1 Oxidation Catalyst Efficiency Check
Calibration Gas. Gas mixture standard with
nominal concentration of 1 percent methane
in air.
3.4.2 FID Linearity and NMO Calibration
Gases. Three gas mixture standards with
nominal propane concentrations of 20 ppm,
200 ppm, and 3000 ppm, in air.
3.4.3 COa Calibration Gases. Three gas.
mixture standards with nominal CO] con-
853
852
P t*
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edition)'^
i'Environmental Protection Agency
vf
' ccntratlons of SO ppm, 600 ppm, and 1 per- valve to an absolute pressure of 10 ppm Hg ot\
|j}.'4.2 Sample' Recovery. After sampling Is
^'pompleted, close the flow control valve, and
cent. In air.
less. Close the purge valve, turn oft' the1.;
record the final tank vacuum; then record
NOTE.Total NMO of less than 1 ppm re- pump, wait a minimum period of 6 minutes^
t the. tank temperature and barometrlo presliilruil for 1 poruont mlxturo.
and reoheok the indicated vacuum. CaloulatoV;
s u r e . Oloso tho samplo tank valve, and dls3.4.4 NMO Analyzer System Chock Cali- the maximum ajlowablo prossure change;
[fjaonneat the sample tank from the sample
bration GB.SOS. Flour calibration gases are based on a leak r a t e of 1 percent of the sam-jj'
' system. Disconnect the oondensate trap a t
pling rate using Equation 25-1, Section 6.2. Ifjjj
needed as follows:
the flowmetering system, and tightly seal
3.4.4.1 Propane Mixture. Gas mixture the measured pressure change exoeeds thii
both ends of the condensate trap. Do not inBtandard containing (nominal) SO ppm CO, 60 calculated limit, correct the problem before:>
clude the probe from the stack to the filter
' ppm CR,, 2 porcent CO], and 20 ppm C3HB, beginning sampling. The results of the leak*]
as part of the condensate sample. Keep the
check should be lnoluded In the test report.^
prepared In air.
trap'paoked in dry ice until the samples are
3.4.4.2 Hexane. Oas mixture Btandard con- - 4.1.5 Sample Train Operation. Unplug the-"
returned t o the laboratory for analysis. Enprobe tip, and place the probe into the staok:
taining (nominal) 50 ppm hexane in air.
sure t h a t the test run number is properly
3.4.4.3 Toluene. Oas mixture standard con- such t h a t the probe is perpendicular to the1
Identified on the condensate trap and the
duot or stack axis; locate the probe tip a t a
taining (nominal) 20 ppm toluene in air.
sample tank(s).
3.4.4.4 Methanol. Gas mixture standard single preselected point of average velocity,1
U.4.3 Condensate Recovery. See Figure 25-9.
containing (nominal) 100 ppm methanol in facing away from t h e dlreotion of gas flow.
;8et t h e carrier gas flow rate, and h e a t t h e
For stabka having a negative statio pressure;
air.
oatalyst t o Its operating temperature
to conseal the sample port sufficiently to preventj
N
dition the apparatus.
air ln-leakage around the probe. Set.the-,
4. Procedure
>V/4.3.1 Daily Performance Cheoks. Each day
probe temperature controller to 129 "0 (2651
4.1 Sampling;
before analyzing any samples, perform the
F) and t h e filter temperature controller t o .1,
4.1.1 Cleaning Sampling Equipment. Be- 121 C (250 *F). Allow the probe and filter t o '
/following tests:
fore Its Initial use and after each subsequent h e a t for about 30 minutes before purging.the
v: 4.3.1.1 Leak Check. With the oarrler gas
use. a condensate trap should be thoroughly sample train.
'[Inlets and the flow oontrol valve olosed, In>{i%
cleaned and checked t o ensure t h a t i t is not
stall a clean condensate trap In the system,
Close t h e sample valve, open the purge'
contaminated. Both cleaning and checking
^ and evacuate the system to 10 mm Hg absocan be accomplished by installing the trap in valve, and s t a r t t h e vacuum pump. Set the";;
l u t e pressure or less. Close the vaouum pump
the condensate recovery system and treating flow rate between 60 and 100 cc/mln, a n d p
A", valve and turn off the vaouum pump. Monit as If i t were a sample. The trap should be purge the train with staok gas for a t least 10'.;
R i t o r the system pressure for 10 minutes. The
1
heated as deB6rlbod In the final paragraph of minutes. When the temperatures a t the exit ,',
'j Bystem Is acceptable If the pressure change
Soctlon 4.3.3. A trap m a y be considered clean ends of the probe and filter are within their..! : ls less than 2 mm Hg.
..c/ ; .when the COj concentration in i t s offluont specified range, sampling may begin.
4.3.1.2 System Background Test. Adjust
Check the dry ice level around the oonden- '
gas drops below 10 ppm. This check is opthe carrier gas and auxiliary oxygen flow
tional for traps t h a t have been used to col- sate trap, and add dry Ice if necessary.'
rate to their normal values of 100 cc/mln and
lect samples which were then recovered ac- Record tho d o c k time. To begin sampling,
150 cc/mln, respectively, with the sample roclose the purge valve and stop the pump.'
cording to the procedure In Section 4.3.3.
;!; oovery valve in vent position. Using a 10-ml
Open
the
sample
valve
and
the
sample
tank'
4.1.2 Sample Tank Evacuation and Leak
\jC;\. syringe withdraw a sample from the system
Check. Evacuate the sample tank to 10 mm valve. UBing the flow control valve, set the
?,';' effluent through the syringe port. Inject this
flow
through
the
sample
train
to
the
proper
Hg absolute pressure or less. Then close the
M sample into thfi NMO analyzer, and measure
rate.
Adjust
the
flow
rate
as
neoessary
tor
sample tank valve, and allow the t a n k t o sit
"i\l the CO] content. The system background Is
for 0 minutes. The tank is acceptable If no maintain a constant rate (10 percent)
'/ acceptable If the CO] concentration -Is less
throughout
the
duration
of
the
sampling
pechange in tank vacuum is noted. The evacu[>-. than 10 ppm.
riod.
Record
the
sample
tank
vacuum
and',
ation and leak check may be oonducted eiIf- > 4.3.1.3 Oxidation
Catalyst
Efficiency
ther in the laboratory or the field. The re- flowmeter setting a t 5-minute Intervals. (See
i'Cheok. Conduct a catalyst effloienoy t e s t as
il 8 e o l f i e d l n
Figure
25-6.)
Select
a
total
sample
time'
sults of the leak check should be lnoluded In
6.1.2 of this method. If
greater than or equal t o the minimum sam- %ffli" 't i lPe criterionSection
the test report.
of this test cannot be met,
pling time specified in the applicable subpart
make the necessary repairs to the system be4.1.3 Sample Train Assembly. J u s t before of the regulation; end the sampling when,
fore proceeding.
assembly, measure the tank vacuum using a this time period Is reaohod or when a con4.3.2 Condensate Trap .CO] Purgo and
morcury U-tubo manomotor or absolute pros- stant flow rate can no longer be maintained
Sample
Tank Pressurizatlon. After sampling
Buro gauge. Record this vacuum, the ambient because of reduced sample tank vacuum.
B
v>'- ' completed,
the condensate trap will contemperature, and the barometric pressure a t
condellse
d water and organ!ca and a
this time. Close the sample t a n k valve and
NOTE: If sampling had t o be stopped before i $' **'n
assemble the sampling system as shown in obtaining the minimum sampling time (spec- ' l i f v small volume of sampled gas. This gas from
It:- the stack may contain a significant amount
Figure 25-1. Immerse the condensate trap ified in the applicable subpart) because a
< of CO-2 which must be removed from the conbody In dry Ice. The point where the inlet constant flow r a t e oould not be maintained,
,-;.:' densate trap before the sample is recovered.
tube joins the trap body should be 2.5 t o 5 cm proceed as follows: After closing the sample
This is accomplished by purging the condenabove the top of the dry ice.
t a n k valve,' remove the used sample tank
sate trap with zero air and collecting the
4.1.4 Protest Leak Check. A pretest leak from the sampling train (without disoonneotpurgod KIWI In tho original samplo tank.
IIIK otlmr portions of clio aiimpllng train).
iihnck In 1111)111 mil. Ciihnlliil.n in* niiiiiiiliro till)
BOKIH with Ihu iiampla l a n k unci OOIHIHIITakn luiollwi' uvauuuloil mid loak-ohoolcod
KPliritxInikUi vuluinn of l.lui luimpliiiK Lrulli
sate trap from tho test run to be analyzed.
from the probe trip to the sainplo tank valve. sample tank, measure and record the tank
Set the four-port valve of the condensate reAfter assembling tho sampling train, plug vacuum, and a t t a c h the new tank to the
covery system ln the COi purge position as
tho probe tip, and mako certain t h a t tho uampllng train. After the new tank Is atshown ln Figure 25-9. With the sample tank
sample tank valve is closed. Turn on the vac- tached t o the sample train, proceed with the
valve olosod, attach the sample tank to tho
uum pump, and ovaouato tho sampling sys- sampling until tho required minimum samsample rocovory system. With the samplo rotem from the probe t i p to tho sample tank pling time has been exceeded.
Pt. 60, App. A, Meth; 25

covery valve in the vent position and the
flow oontrol valve fully open, evacuate the
manometer or pressure gauge to the vaouum
of the sample tank. Next, close the vacuum
pump valvo, opon the sample tank valve, and
record the tank pressure.
Attach the dry-lce-oooled condensate trap
to the recovery system, and initiate the
purge by switching the sample reoovery
valve from vent to collect position. Adjust
the flow control valve t o maintain atmospheric pressure ln the recovery system. Continue the purge until the CO] concentration
of t h e trap effluent is less than 6 ppm. CO]
concentration ln the trap effluent should be
measured by extracting Byringe samples
from the reoovery system and analyzing the
samples with the NMO analyzer. This procedure should be used only after the NDIR response has reaohed a minimum level. Using a
10-ml syringe; extract a sample from the syringe port prior to the NDIR, and lnjeot this
sample into the NMO analyzer.
After the completion of t h e CO] purge, use
the carrier- gas bypass valve to pressurize the
sample tank t o approximately 1060 mm Hg
absolute pressure with zero air.
4.3.3 Reoovery of- the Condensate Trap
Sample. See Figure 25-10. Attach the IOV to
the sample reoovery system. With the sample recovery valve ln a closed-position, between vent and colleot. and the flow oontrol
and IOV valves fully' open, evaouate the manometer or gauge, the connecting tubing,
and the ICV to 10 mm Hg absolute pressure.
Close tho flow-control and vacuum pump
valves.
Begin auxiliary oxygen flow to the oxidation catalyst at. a rate of 160' cc/mln, then
switch the four-way valve to the trap reoovery position and the sample reoovery valve
to colleot position. The system should now
be s e t up to operate as Indicated ln Figure
25-10. After the manometer or pressure gauge
begins to register a slight positive pressure,
open tho flow control valve. Adjust the flowcontrol valve to maintain atmospheric pressure in the system within 10 percent.
Now, remove the condensate trap from the
dry ice, and allow i t to warm to ambient
temperature while monitoring tho NDIR response. If after 6 minutes, the CO] concentration of the catalyst effluent Is below 10,000
ppm, discontinue-the auxiliary oxygen flow
to t h e oxidation catalyst. Begin heating the
trap by placing It ln a furnaoe preheated to
200 C. Once heating has begun, carefully
monitor the NDIR response t o ensure t h a t
the catalyst effluent concentration does not
oxcoed 60.000 ppm. Whenever tho CO] conuunl.nil.lon OXOOOIIH W.OOO ppm. mipply auxiliary oxygen to the catalyst a t the rate of 150
cc/mln. Begin heating the tubing t h a t connected the heated sample box to the condensate trap only after the CO] concentration
falls below 10,000 ppm. This tubing may bo
heated In the Bamo ovon as tho condonsate
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE. P.KR
IT. OU,_App. AriYlOTl.-ZS

trap or with an auxiliary heat source suoh as
a beat gun. Heating- toniperature must not
exceed 200 C. If a heat gun la used, heat the
tubing slowly along its entire length from
the upstream end to the downstream end,
and repeat the pattern for a total of three
times. Continue the recovery until the CO]
concentration drops to less than 10 ppm aa
determined by syringe Injection as described
under the condensate trap CO] purge Procedure, Section 4.3.2.
, After the sample recovery is oompleted,
use the carrier gas bypass valve to pressurize
the ICV to approximately 1060 mm Hg absolute pressure with zero air.
4.4 Analysis. Before putting the NMO analyzer into routine operation, conduct an Initial performance test. Start the analyzer,
and perform all the necessary functions in
order to put the analyzer into proper working order; then conduct the performance test
according to the procedures established In
Section 6.2. Once the performance test has
been successfully completed and the CO] and
NMO calibration rosponso faotors have been
determined, proceed with sample analysis as
follows:
4.4.1 Daily Operations and Calibration
Cheoks. Before and Immediately after the
analysis of each set of samples or on a daily
basis (whichever-occurs first), conduct a calibration test according to the procedures established In Section 5.3. If the criteria of the
daily calibration test cannot be met, repeat
the NMO analyzer performance test (Seotlon
6.2) before proceeding.
4.4.2 Operating Conditions. The carrier
gas flow rate is 29.fi cc/mln He and 2.2 cc/mln
Oj. The column oven is heated to 85 C. The
order of elutlon for the sample from the column Is CO, C1L, CO], and NMO.
4.4.3 Analysis of Recovered Condensate
Sample. Purge the sample loop with sample,
and then inject the sample. Under the specified operating conditions, the CO? in the
sample will elute In approximately 100 seconds. As soon aa the deteotor response returns to baseline following the CO* peak,
switch the carrier gas flow to backfiush, and
raise the column oven temperature to 195 "C
as rapidly as possible A rate of 30 "C/mln has
boon shown to bo ailo<]iinta. Raoorcl tho valuo
obtained for l.ho uomlonulbjo brgunlo material (Ccn) measured as CO> and any measured
NMO. Return the column oven temperature
to 65 C in preparation for the next analysis.
Analyze each sample In triplicate, and report
the average C..
4.4.4 'Analysis of Sample Tank. Perform
the analysis as described In Section 4.4.3, but
record only the value measured for NMO
(CU).
4.5 Audit Samples. Analyze a set of two
audit samples concurrently with any compliance samples and In exactly the same manner to ovalualo the analyst's technique and
the Instrument calibration. The same ana-
lysts, analytical reagents, and analytical;

system shall be used for the compliance earn*!
pies and the EPA audit samples; If this conj
dltlon is met, auditing of subsequent oomplK.
ance analyses for the same ' enforcement)
agenoy within 30 days Is not required;i>Ari[
audit sample set may not be used to validate!
different sets of compliance samples)under
the Jurisdiction of different enforcement;
agencies, unless prior arrangements'-are
made with both enforcement agendas. :&$&
Calculate the oonoentratlons of the audit,
samples in ppm using the specified sample
volume In the audit instructions. (NOTE.In|
dlcatton of acceptable'results may be oWi
tained Immediately by reporting the audit
results in ppm and compliance results :in
ppm by telephone to the responsible enforcement agenoy.) Znolude the results of both!
audit samples, their identification numbers)]
and .the analyst's name with the results .of
the compliance determination samples in apr
propriate reports-to the EPA regional office''f
or the appropriate enforcement agency dm>.';j
lng the 30-day period.
'nl ' |fl
The concentration of the audit samples ob-.j,-'-'
talned by the analyst shall agree within 20 .-
peroent of the actual concentrations. Failure V
to meet the 20-peroent specification may re- %
quire retests until'the audit problems are re^.resolved. However, if the audit results do not''
affect the compliance or noncompliance sta-';;',
tus of the affected faolllty, the Admlms-'V;
trator may waive the reanalysls require- %
ment, further audits, or retests and aocept
the results of the compliance test. While
steps are being taken to resolve audit analy- .
sis problems, the Administrator may also%
choose to use the data to determine the com- sfi
pliance or noncompliance of the affeoted fa- U
&
oility.
.-/J :f
5. Calibration and Operational Checks
Maintain a record of performance of each
item.
5.1 Initial Performance Oheok of Condensate Reoovery Apparatus. Perform these
testa before the system is first plaoed in operation, after any shutdown of 6 months or
more, and after any major modification of
tho uyatom, or at the speoiflod frequenoy.
6.1.1 Ottirlor das and Auxiliary. Oi Blank
Chock. Analyze oaoh new tank of oarrier gas
or auxiliary Oj with the NMO analyzer to
check for contamination. Treat the gas cylinders as noncondenslble gaa samples, and
analyze according to the procedure in Seotlon 4.4.3. Add together any measured OIL,
CO, COj. or NMO. The total concentration
must be lesB than 6 ppm.
6.1.2 Catalyst Efflolenoy Cheok. With a
clean condensate trap Installed in the recovery system, replace the carrier gas oylindsr
with the high level methane standard gas
cylinder (Sbotion 3.4.1). Set the four-port
valve to the recovory position, and attaoh an
ICV to the recovery systom. With tho samplo
V''
I'reoovery valve in vent position and the flowf: control and ICV valves fully open, evacuate
the manometer or gauge, the connecting tub<lng, and the ICV to 10 mm Hg absolute pressure. Close the flow-oontrol and vacuum
pump valves.
j
Âfter the NDIR response has stabilized,
switch the sample recovery valve from vent
to collect. When the manometer lor pressure
gauge begins to register a slight positive
pressure, open the flow-control valve. Keep
the flow adjusted so that atmospnerio pressure Is maintained in the system within 10
peroent. Continue collecting the sample in a
: normal manner until the ICV is filled to a
nominal gauge pressure of 300 mm Hg. Close
the ICV valve, and remove the ICV from the
system. Place the sample reoovery valve in
the vent position, and return the reoovery '
-system to its normal carrier gas and-normal
{ôperating conditions. Analyze the ICV for
iJ'COj using the NMO analyzer; the catalyst ef!<:'fiolenoy is acceptable if the CO] oonoentraji; tlon is within 2 percent of the methane
it standard concentration.
W
'!, 6.1.3 System Performance Check. Construct a liquid sample lnjeotlon unit similar
.In design to the unit shown in Figure 26-7.
[ Insert this unit into the condensate recovery
IV and conditioning system in place of a condensate trap, and set the oarrier gas and auxiliary Oa flow rates to normal operating lev,. ele. Attach an evaouated ICV to the system,
-and switch from system vent to collect. With
1? the carrier gas routed through the lnjeotlon
"; unit and the oxidation catalyst, Inject a llq|uld sample (See Seotlons 6.1.3.1 to 6.1.3.4)
|ii Into the lnjeotlon port. Operate the trap re' eovery system as described in Seotlon 4.3.3.
j,, Measure the flna?. ICV pressure, and then
W' analyze the vessel to determine the CO] concentration. For eaoh Injection, calculate the
peroent recovery using the equation in Section 6.6.
. The performance test is acceptable If the
average percent recovery is 100*10 percent
with a relative standard deviation (Seotlon
6.9) of less than 6 peroent for each set of triplicate Injections as follows:
6.1.3.1 60 |il Hoxane.
5.1.3.2 10 |il Hoxano.
- 6.1.3.3 60 ul Docane.
6.1.3.4 10 td Decane.
6.2 Initial NMO Analyzer Performance
Test. Perform these tests before the system
Is first placed In operation, after any shutdown longer than 6 months, and after any
major modification of the system.
6.2.1 Oxidation Catalyst Efficiency Cheok.
Turn off or bypass tho NMO analyzor reduction oatalyst. Mako triplicate Injootlons of
the high lovel methane standard (Section
3.4.1). The oxidation catalyst operation is acceptable If the FID response is less than 1
percent of the Injected methane concentration.
856
6.2.2 Reduction
Catalyst
Efflolenoy
Oheok. With the oxidation oatalyst unheated
or bypassed and the heated reduction catalyst bypassed, make triplicate Injections of
the i high level methane standard (Seotlon
3.4.1). Repeat'this procedure with both catalysts operative. The reduotlon catalyst operation is acceptable if the response under
both conditions agree within 6 peroent. -' "
6.2.3.- Analyzer Linearity Check and NMO
Calibration. While operating both the oxidation and reduction catalysts, conduct a linearity oheok of the analyzer using -the propane standards specified in Section 3.4.2.
Make triplicate injections of each calibration gas, and then calculate the average response factor (area/ppm C) for eaoh gas, as
well as the overall mean Of the response faotor values. The instrument linearity is acceptable If the average response factor of
eaoh calibration gas is within 2.6 percent of
the overall mean value and if the relative
standard deviation (Seotlon 6.9) for each set
of triplicate injections is less than 2 percent.
Record the overall mean of the propane response factor values as. the NMO calibration
response factor (RFNMO).
Repeat the linearity. oheok using the CO]
standards specified in Section 3.4.3. Make
triplicate lnjeotlons of each gas, and then
calculate'the average response faotor (area/
ppm O) for each gas, as well as the overall
mean of the response faotor values. Record
the overall mean of the response faotor'.'values as the CO] calibration response faotor
(RFcoi). Linearity is acceptable if the average response faotor of eaoh calibration gas is
within 2.6 peroent of the overall mean .value
and If the relative standard deviation for
eaoh set of triplicate lnjeotlons Is less than
2 percent. The RFcoa must be wltnln 10 percent of the RFNMO.
6.2.4 System Peformance Cheok. Check

the column separation and overall performance of the analyzer by making triplicate injections of the calibration gases listed in
Seotlon 3.4.4. The analyzer performance is
acceptable if the measured NMO value for
eaoh gas- (average of triplicate injections) is
within 5 peroent of the expected value.
6.3 NMO Analyzor Dally Calibration.
6.3.1 CO] Response Faotor. Inject triplicate samples of the high level CO] calibration gas (Section 3.4.3), and calculate the average response faotor. The system operation
Is adequate if the calculated response factor
is within 5 percent of the RFctn calculated
during tho Initial porformanoo tost (Sootlon
6.2.3). Use the dally response factor (DRFco,)
for analyzer calibration and tho calculation ,
of measured COi oonoontnUlonB In tho ICV
samplos.
6.3.2 NMO Response Factors. Inject triplicate samples of the mixed propane calibration cylinder (Section 3.4.4.1), and calculate
the average NMO response faotor. The eysLom operation 1B adequate If the calculated
857
PI. 60, App. A, Meth. 25
response factor Is within 5 percent of the ' Tf=Final temperature of intermediate colRFHMO calculated during the initial performlection vessel, TC.
'<
ance teat (Section 5.2.4); Use the daily re- Tu=Sample tank {temperature before samsponse faotor (DRFNMO) for analyzer calibrapling, TC.
,1
tion and calculation of NMO concentrations T,=8ample tank temperature at completion
in the sample tanks.
of sampling, *K.
5.4 Sample Tank and ICV Volume. The Ttf=Sample tank temperature after'pressur, volume of the gas sampling tankB used must
izing, TC.
' be determined. Determine the tank and ICV V=Bample tank volume, m".
volumes by weighing them empty and then V,=Sample train volume, co.
filled with delonlzed distilled water; weigh to Vi,=Intermedlate collection vessel volume;
the nearest 6 g, and record the'results. Alterm.
natively, measure the volume of water used
V,=aas volume sampled, dsms.
to fill them to the nearest S ml.
n=Number of data points.
q=Total number of analyzer Injections of in6. Calculations
termediate collection vessel during analAll equations are written using absolute
ysis (where k=Injeotlon number, 1. . . q).
pressure; absolute pressures are determined r=Total number of 'analyzer lnjeotlons of
by adding the measured barometric pressure
sample tank during analysis (where
to the measured gauge or manometer presjojnjeotlon number, 1. .<. r).
sure.
x,=Individual measurements.
6.1 Nomenclature.
x=Mean value.
C=TQNMO concentration of tbo effluont, p=Denslty of liquid injected, g/co.
ppm C equivalent.
e=Leak oheok period, min.
Cc=Caloulated condenslble organlo (conden- AP=AUowable
pressure change, om Hg.
sate trap) concentration of the effluent,
6.2 Allowable Pressure Change. For the pieppm 0 equivalent.
test leak oheok, caloulate the allowable
CcusMeasured concentration (NMO analyzer)
pressure change:
for the condensate trap ICV, ppm COi.
C,=Calculated noncondensible organic concentration (sample tank) of the effluent,
ppm C equivalent.
AP 0 . 0 1 ^ M
Eq. 25-1
C^Measured concentration (NMO analyzer)
for the sample tank, ppm NMO.
FsSampUng flow rate, cc/mln.
6.3 Sample Volume. For eaoh test run,
L=Volume of liquid injected, ul.
caloulate the gas volume sampled:
M=Molecular weight of the liquid lnjeoted, g/
g-mole.
mc=TGNMO mass concentration of the effluent, mg C/dam*.
N=Carbon number of the liquid compound in0.3857 V
jected (N=12 for decane, N=6 for hexane).
Pi=Flnal pressure of the Intermediate collection vessel, mm Hg absolute.
Pb-Barometric pressure, om Hg.
Pu-Gas sample tank pressure before samEq. 25-2
pling, mm Hg absolute.
P,=Qaa sample tank pressure after sampling,
6.4 Noncondensible Organlcs. For each
but before pressurizing, mm Hg absolute.
Ptf=Pinal gas samplo tank pressure after sample tank, determine the concentration of
nonmothane organlcs (ppm C):
prossurlztng, mm Hg absoluto.
tf
1
r ,i,- '-J
Eq. 25-3
6.6 CondenBlble Organlcs. For eaoh condensate trap determine the concentration of
organlcs (ppm C):
V.. P,
)c = 0.3857 JLJL
I c
Eq. 25-4
6.6 TGNMO. To determine the TONMO

concentration for eaoh test run, use the following equation:
C=C,+C
Eq. 26-4
6.7 TGNMO Mass Concentration, To determine the TONMO mass concentration as carbon for each test run, use the following equation:
m.sO.4993 C
Eq.25-6
6.8 Percent Recovery. To caloulate the
peroont rocovery for the liquid lnjeotlonu to
the condensate recovery and conditioning
system use the following equation.
Percent recovery=1.604 -
P.
Tf
Eq. 25-7
6.9 Relative Standard Deviation.
<- /- r%
rt> r* r*> r* it n> /- r*- r* *~t- o *> r v . r> r>- o " ;-y
> *> 4i r* .s*.,*v. *> i i i>
Eq. 25-8
7. Bibliography
1. Salo, Albert E., Samuel Wltz, and Robert
D. MaoPhee. Determination of Solvent Vapor
Concentrations by Total Combustion Analysis: A Comparison of Infrared with Flame
Ionization Detectors. Paper No. 75-33.2. (Presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the Air '
Pollution Control Association..Boston, Massachusetts. June 15-20,1976.) 14 p.
2. Salo, Albert E.. William L. Oaks, and
Robert D. MaoPhee. Measuring the Organlo
Carbon Content of Source Emissions for Air
Pollution Control. Paper No. 74-180. (Presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the'Air
Pollution Control Association. Denver, Colorado. June 8-13,1974.) 25 p.
c* cf r i i - r\ it it ti i* .r* ..c-
PI. 60, App. A. Moth. 25
Sir
jj|.' Environmental Protection Agency
REOULAtlMa
VALVE
VACUUM PUMP
CONNECTOR
SAMPLE
SHUT-OFF
VALVE
2M
U
FIIERFAX
INSULATION
&*
3.175
>
OZS
CONDENSATE
TRAPPROIE
J-l
BULKHEAD
,lJ
^ÔNNECTOH
DIMENSIONS;
PROIE
CONNECTOR
Figure 2&-1. Sampling train.
TO TEMPERATURE
CONTROLLER
PROIE LINE
THERMOCOUPLE
FILTER HEAT
TEMPERATURE
CONTROLLER
THERMOCOUPLE
CONOENSATE
TRAPPROIE
CONNECTOR
. THERMOCOUPLE
Figure 2 5 - 2 . Out-of-tteck filter box.
m>
R1iv
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edition) ,
PI. 60, App. A, Moth. 25
0^
Pt. 6 0 , A p p . A, M a t h . 25
HEAT TRACE (100 C)
3,,SSHUT
DIMENSIONS: 5 ?
ol7 0 0 *oir$ W A U
FLOW
T^
CONTROLii?)
COARSE QUARTZ
WOOL PACKING
VAIV
SAMPLE
RECOVERY
VALVE
!/|_
ICV
VALVE
" * V =
IC7
ICV
VACUUM PUMP
Figure 25-4. Condensate recovery system.
Figure 25-3. Condensate trap.
>
^ >
4 V ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
4 > 4 > 4 t
<0
4 V 4 4 .4 . . < '
SYRINGE PORT.
Pf. 60, App. A, Melh. 25
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edltton)g
I Environmental Protection Agency
Pt. 60. App. A, Meth. 25
CARRIER GAS
COLUMN OVEN
-1
1
CALIBRATION STANDARDSSAMPLE T A N K -
SAMPLE
INJECTION
LOOP
QCCOLUMN
V,
tmrmmnmrs
INTERMEDIATE COLLECTION
VESSEL (CONDITIONED 4
TRAP SAMPLE
REDUCTION
OXIDATION
CATAivrr
CATALYST
l
I
I
_l
VALVE OVEN
Hi CARRIER'
GAS
r?
SEPARATION
COLUMN
^
'BACKFLUSH
no
NONMETHANE
ORGANICS
CO, CH4, C0 2
;Hj AIR
VENT
OXIDATION
CATALYST
SAMPLE INLET
Figure 25-6. Nonmethane organic analyzer ( N M O ) .
REDUCTION
CATALYST
HYOROGEN
FLAME
IONIZATION
DETECTOR
COMBUSTION
AIR
DATA RECORDER
Figure 25-5. Simplified schematic of nonmethane organic (NMO) analyzer.
|
$
:,:>UM&
Bfaif:.'
'
Ut
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-95 Edition) ML.
INJECTION
SEFTUM
CONNECTINS T
FROM CARRIER
V =
-K
V O L A T I l l ORGANIC CARBON
CONNECTINS ELIOW
Ife
OATI.
IS
-TO CATALYST
';
11
1*138
31ISSTUIINO
DIMENSIONS: .^f
Figure 25-7. Liquid sample injection unit.
Figure 25-8. Example field dm form.
J'
a
!T<%
i T,
< V
O'W
J >
.I.DHNBHI..
Pt. 60,'App. A, Meth. 25
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-W EdrHon)'. !&&

HEAT TRACE (100 C)-
mm
0XI0ATI0N
REACTOR
NOIR
ANALYZER
SYRINGE PORT
VACUUM PUMP
Figure 25-9. Condensate recovery system, CO2 purge.

Figure 25-10. Condensate recovery system, collectionof trap organic*.
868
869
Appendix C
Related Paper
'A Personal Cascade Impactor: Design, Evaluation and Calibration"
K.L. Rubow, V.A. Marple, J. Olin and M.A. McCawley
American Industial Hygenists Association Journal
Vol. 48, no. 6, 1987..
C-l
Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 48(6):532-538 (1987)
A Personal Cascade Impactor: Design, Evaluation and Calibration*

KENNETH L. RUBOW'\ VIRGIL A. MARPLE'\ JOHN OLlNBand MICHAEL A. McCAWLEY*'
Particle Technology Laboratory. Mechanical Engineering Department. University of Minnesota. Minneapolis. MN 55455-0111: "Sierra
Instruments. Inc.. P.O. Box 909. Carmel Valley. CA 93924: and 'National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 944 Chestnut Ridge
Road. Morgantown. WV 26505
A
A cascade impactor has been developed that is suitable for personal sampling. The impactor can be used with four, six, or eight stages with cut
points ranging from 0.5 yun to 21 Aim aerodynamic diameter. Although the impactor can be operated over a fairly wideflowrate range, it is
designed specifically to be operated at 2 L/ min so that a personal sampler pump may be used as the air mover. The nozzles of the impactor are
radial slots with six slots per stage for the first six stages. Circular nozzles arranged in a radial pattern are used for the last two stages. On each
stage, the area between the nozzles is used as the impaction surface for the stage before it. This design allows for the impactor to be compact,
rugged and lightweight (170 gm for the four-stage design). The impactor stages are contained in a mounting bracket that can be clipped to the
lapel or pocket. Although the impactor is designed for personal use, it also can be used as a compact impactor for general sampling tasks. The
particle cut-off characteristics of each stage and the interstage losses were determined using monodisperse aerosols. The particle losses were
found to be low and the cut-off characteristics sharp. Thus, size distributions can be obtained as accurately as with larger cascade impactors.
Introduction
The ability to measure the size of airborne particles is important in both the ambient and workplace atmosphere. In the
ambient atmosphere, different size classes of aerosols can be
associated with different sources and methods of generation,11' information that can help target control efforts. In
the workplace, size-related standards, such as the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist(ACGlH)
and the British Medical Research Council (BMRC) respirable dust criteria,'2,3' have been applied to pneumoconiotic
dusts. These respirable particulate standards are defined by
the amount of particulate matter that will reach the nonciliated, lower (pulmonary) portion of the human lung.12'
The probability that a particle will be deposited in the pulmonary portion of the lung is governed largely by particle
aerodynamic diameter. Recently, the ACGIH Air Sampling
Procedures Committee has recommended size-selective
sampling for inspirable and thoracic sampling as well as
respirable sampling.'4,5'
Two-stage, personal respirable samplers have been used
to monitor exposure to these respirable particulate matter.'3,6' The cut-off characteristics of the first stage, which is
typically a cyclone, are approximately equivalent to the
respirable criteria. The quantity of respirable aerosol is
determined through gravimetric analysis of the material collected on a filter that serves as the second stage in these
two-stage samplers.
In addition to two-stage personal samplers, a four-stage
mini-cascade impactor suitable for personnel sampling was
marketed briefly by Andersen Samplers, Inc. in the late
1970s. Size distributions of aerosols in the respirable size
range could be obtained with this sampler. The cutpoints of
" Mention of company names or products does not constitute endorsement by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health.
this impactor ranged from 0.65 to 4.7 /jm when operated at a

sampling flow rate of 1.4 L/ min. A description and evaluation of the impactor is given by Martonen et al.a)
A more complete assessment of the workplace aerosol,
than just the measurement of respirable mass concentration,
is essential to ascertain health effects. Knowledge of the
aerosol size distribution is essential since particle deposition
in the various portions of the human respiratory tract and
perhaps the composition of the workplace aerosol are
particle-size dependent. Respirable mass concentration is a
measure only of that material that can reach the pulmonary
region. The pulmonary region of the lung, however, is only
one of three major regions. The others are the nasopharynx
and tracheal-bronchial tree.'8' Deposition of particles in
these other regions is also related to particle size. 1 n addition
to these various regions, particle deposition is subject to
variation between individuals as well as within individuals.'8'
The variability depends not only on anatomical differences
but also on breathing patterns'10' which, of course, change
with workload and subject fitness. Knowing the particle-size
distribution might make it possible for allowances to be
made for the variation in deposition. Most size distribution
measurements, however, have been area samples and, therefore, not always representative of individual exposures.
As with ambient aerosols, the composition of the workplace aerosol may vary because of multiple sources. For
example, in a coal mine in which diesel powered equipment
is used, ambient aerosols would consist of both diesel
exhaust that is almost exclusively less than I pm in size'11'
and other mine dust generated by the mechanical processes
that would be expected to be mostly greater than I jum on a
mass basis.'12' In cases like the diesel exhaust/mechanical
process dust, the respirable sampler cannot separate the two
aerosols. It can provide only a measure of the quantity of
respirable matter in the two aerosols combined. Knowledge
Copyright 19B7. American Industrial Hygiene Association
532
Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc J. (48)
June. 1987
pumps. This means a maximum flow rate of 2 L/min %

pressure drop across the sampler(including the afterfilter)!
less than 38 cm water.
t.
The design, operation and evaluation of this impactor tdescribed in this paper. The evaluation includes the calibrl
tion of the particle cut-off characteristics of each stage, u
measurement of internal particle losses and the determiistion of the aerosol sampling efficiency of the impactor inle;
of the amount of particles in the proper size ranges,, however,

would help to identify particles from the different sources.
To obtain more information about the particle-size distribution than that which can be found from the two-stage
samplers, a personal cascade impactor has been developed.
This impactor is the Marple Personal Cascade Impactor
(Sierra Andersen Div., Andersen Samplers, Inc., Atlanta,
Ga.). A sampling device that classifies particles based on the
principle of inertial impaction was chosen because it classifies the particles according to their aerodynamic diameter, a
major parameter in predicting particle deposition in the
respiratory tract.
Impactor Description and Operation

The Marple Personal Cascade Impactor, shown in Figures"
and 2, is marketed as a four-, six-, or eight-stage impactt,
with cut points ranging from 0.5 jum to 21 /zm aerodynam^
diameter. The four-, six- and eight-stage versions of tffi
Series 290 impactor are referred to as Models 294, 296 ar,
298, respectively. Although the impactor can be operate^,
over a fairly wide flow rate range, it is designed specifically t
be operated at 2 L/ min so that a personal sampler pump cart,
be used as the air mover. The pressure drop across th>
eight-stage impactor together with a Millipore PVC-5 afteN
Filter is 20 cm of water at this flow rate. As shown in Figure
the nozzles of the impactor for the first six stages are radia-'
slots with six slots per stage. The nozzles in Stages 7 and 2
consist of 12 circular holes arranged in a radial fashion. Th*
location of the nozzles are staggered from stage to stage $e
that the area between the nozzles can be used as the impaction surface for the stage before it. This design allows thi
impactor to be compact, rugged and lightweight (170 gm for
four-stage model). The impactor stages are contained in a
mounting bracket that can be clipped to the lapel or pocketi
The impactor inlet consists of a cowl and optional inlevisor. The optional visor is used when there is a danger of
large wood chips, cigarette ashes or other large diameter*
debris entring the impactor.
Although the impactor is designed for personal use, it also,,
can be used as a compact impactor for general sampling-'
tasks. For this type of sampling the mounting bracket and'^
inlet cowl can be removed. In'addition to the standard cowl^
inlet, an alternate in-line inlet, shown in Figure 2, has been*
designed and is available from the manufacturer.
*
The design parameters and particle cut-point diameters,.,
for each stage of the impactor are given in Table 1. For each"
stage, the shape, number, size of the nozzle, S/ W and Re are',;
given. S/ W is a ratio of the distance from the nozzle exit to s
the impaction surface (S) to the nozzle diameter or width *
(W). Re is the nozzle Reynolds number corresponding to a *
total sample flow rate of 2 L/min. The particle cut points of t,
the stages correspond to the particle size collected with 50% *
efficiency.
*
Design constraints on the sampler requires that it be compact, lightweight and rugged in order to be comfortable
when worn by a worker. The sampler also has to provide
accurate particle-size distribution data with high sampling
efficiency and low particle loss for particles up to 20 /nm in
diameter. Furthermore, the sampler has to operate at a flow
rate that is compatible with existing personal sampler
The cascade impactor is commercially available in either a -,

four-, six- or eight-stage version; these versions are designated Model 294,296 and 298, respectively. The four-stage Z
version uses Stages 1,2,3 and 5, while the six-stage unit used
Stages 3 to 8 of the eight-stage unit.
The use and operation of the personal impactor is similar -
to that for any cascade impactor. Particles larger than the *
Figure 1 Marple personal cascade impactor.
June. 1987
533 '-
Figure 2 Components of the Model 298 cascade impactor: A. Alternate in-line inlet; B. Standard inlet with optional visor; C. Impactor
Stages 1 to 8, collection substrates (circular discs with six radial slots), and afterfilter; D. Impactor base and mounting bracket.
cut point for each stage are collected on perforated collection substrates. These substrates, as shown in Figure 2, are
34 mm in diameter and are available in either Mylar or
stainless steel. Those particles that are smaller than the cut
point of the last stage are collected on a 34 mm afterfilter.
This filter is contained in a filter holder that is an integral
part of the impactor base. The aerosol size distribution is
determined through gravimetric analysis of the sample collected on each substrate and the afterfilter.
Evaluation Studies
Performance characteristics of the cascade impactor have
been determined extensively using a variety of liquid and
solid spherical monodisperse aerosols. Tests were performed
to determine, as a function of particle size, the following: 1)
particle cut-off characteristics of each stage; 2) particle loss
within the impactor; 3) particle sampling efficiency of the
impactor with the standard cowl inlet; and 4) the degree of
solid particle bounce as a function of impactor substrate
surface coating. A sampling flow rate of 2 L/ min was used in
all tests.
Particle collection characteristics of each stage in the
cascade impactor, the particle loss within the impactor. and
the inlet sampling efficiency were determined using liquid
and solid spherical monodisperse particles. Liquid oleic acid
particles containing a uranine dye tracer and solid ammonium fluorescein were produced with a TSI Model 3050
vibrating orifice monodisperse aerosol generatort VOM AG)
534
(TSI. Inc. St. Paul, Minn.). 03 'The use of ammonium fluorescein as a test aerosol and a description of its pertinent
properties are described by Stober and Flachsbart."'" Particles in the 0.68 to 23 nm size range were produced using this
generator.
The test procedure involved the impactor sampling monodisperse aerosols while it was located inside of an aerosol test
chamber. (ls, The pump pulling air through the impactor was
located outside of the chamber with a sampling line running
from the impactor through bulkhead fittings located on the
bottom of the chamber to the pump. For each test, aerosol
from the VOM AG was injected continuously into the top of
the chamber at a flow rate of 100 L/ min, drawn through the
central test section of the chamber, and exhausted through
an absolute filter at the lower portion of the chamber by a
blower. At a throughput flow rate of 100 L/min. the
downward air velocity in the chamber is 0.17 cm/sec. Thus,
the impactor was essentially sampling the aerosol from a
quiescent environment inside the chamber. The duration of
each test ranged from 0.5 to 3 hr. After each run, the impactor was disassembled completely and the deposited particles
washed from each surface with 20 cc of 0.001 N aqueous
solution of sodium hydroxide for the case of the liquid
particles or 0.1 N ammonium hydroxide for the solid particles. The uranine or ammonium fluorescein concentration in
the wash liquid was measured with a fluorometcr (Model
110. Turner Associates. Palo Alto. Calif.). From these data
the particle collection efficiencies of each stage as well as the
Am. Int. Hyg. Assoc. J. (48)
June. 1987
100
1iir
Series 290
STAGE %
Flow rote "2.0 L/min
Aerosol Type
_ 0 Oleic Acid (I)
80
>A Ammonium
o
Fluorescein^
zUl
O PSL(s)
o
u. 60
u
_
UJ
z
o
\- 4 0
o
UJ
_l
-1
o
<J 20
0.3
1.0
3.0
10
30
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER , pm

Figure 3 Cut-off characteristics of each stage of the cascade impactor.
particle loss on each surface within the impactor could be

determined since the uranine concentration present in the
wash was proportional to the quantity of particles collected
on each surface within the impactor.
In addition, a test method based on Polystyrene latex
(PS L) particles was used to determine the particle collection
characteristics of the impactor. Particles in the 0.481 to 1.0
/im diameter size range were generated by aerosolizing a
solution containing Dow PSL particles (Dow Chemical
Company, Indianapolis, Ind.) with an atomizer. The particle
concentration upstream and downstream of a given stage
was determined with a Particle Measurement Systems
Model ASAS-300X active scattering aerosol spectrometer

(Particle Measurement Systems, Inc., Boulder, Colo.).
Particle cut-off characteristics of each stage of the cascade
impactor for both liquid and solid particles are shown in
Figure 3. A classical **s" shaped efficiency curve was
obtained for each stage. The resulting impactor cut points
for each stage are given in Table 1.
The sharpness of the particle cut-off and the similarity
between curves for each stage can be observed in Figure 4. In
this figure the collection efficiency data for each stage has
been normalized by the cut point for that stage. The data
show two distinct curves. The curve for stage one is less
TABLE I
Design Parameters and Cut-Point Diameters
of Marple Personal Cascade Impactor
Nozzle
Stage
Nozzle
Shape
N o . of
Nozzles
width
(cm)
diameter
(cm)
Slot
Length
(cm)
S/W
ReA
Cut-Point
Diameter'' 1
(Mm)
slot
0.264
0.953
1.2
76
21.3
slot
0.145
0.953
13.
76
14.8
slot
0.0813
0.953
1.3
76
9.8
slot
0.0432
0.953
2.4
76
6.0
slot
0.0254
0.953
2.0
76
3.5
slot
0.0173
0.480
2.9
230
1.55
round
12
0.0457
1.7
490
0.93
round
12
0.0318
2.4
710
0.52
A t a sample flow rate of 2 L/min.
June. 1987
535
c
c.
r
100
^so
o
z
Series 290
Flow rate =2.0 L/min
UJ
Stage
o
d 60
u.
LU
o
a
O
40
0
0
4
UJ
Stage 2 - 8
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g-20
0
0.1
n
0.3
|.0
3.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER
CUT-POINT
Figure 4 Normalized collection efficiency data for each stage.
sharp than that obtained for the other stages primarily

because of size limitations of the impaction surface for this
stage. The width of the impactor surface for Stage 1 is
comparable to the nozzle width of Stage 1. Ideally, the
impaction surface width should be several nozzle diameters
wide, a criterion that is met by the other stages. The sharpness of the cut can be characterized by the geometric standard deviation (aK) that is defined as the square root of the
ratio of the particle diameter at the 84th percentile to that
diameteF-at the 16th percentile. The ae for stages two to eight
is 1.21.
Impaction substrates, when coated with silicone oil,
showed no- evidence of particle bounce. The coating used
was Hercules Industrial F.D.A. Silicone (Hercules Product
Div., The Richardson Co., Alden, N.Y.). The collection
efficiency data presented in Figure 3 and obtained with
both liquid and solid particles show that the same fraction
of both types of particles were found to be collected by each
stage. Tests performed with uncoated impaction substrates,
however, clearly showed particle bounce of solid particles,
particularly for Stages 7 and 8.
The degree of particle loss on various surfaces of the
impactor and the total loss within both the Models 294 and
298 impactors are presented in Figure 5. Surface loss data
are presented for the visor, the cowl and the upper surface of
stage one. The largest losses were found on the upper surface
of stage one.
536
The inlet sampling efficiency of the impactor in a quiescent environment, both with and without the visor, is presented in Figure 6. These data were obtained by comparing
the total amount of sampled aerosol, collected both within
the impactor and lost on the visor to that simultaneously
30
-iII
I I l
-l
1I I I I l |
Onfall last for

both modtU'
Flow role 2.0 L/min
29
20
w
w
o
IS -
< 10
o.
5 -
Modol 2 9 8 - ^
I
0.3
<
1.0
Modal 294
3.0
10
30
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER,/tm

Figure 5 Particle loss in the Model 294 and 298 impactors.
June. 1987
collected on an upward facing open-faced 37-mm plastic

fiter cassette. Both the impactor and filter cassette were
operated at sampling flow rates of 2 L/min. The inlet sampling efficiency of the open-faced filter cassette was determined to be near 100% based on the theory of Agarwal and
Liu.(16> These tests were performed in the aerosol test
chamber since the particle concentration is known to be
uniform at the test section." 4 ' The data show that the sampling efficiency is greater than 95% for all particle sizes less
than 8 /im and decreases to only 80% at 20 jum. Use of the
visor was found to decrease only the sampling efficiency by,
at most, 3%.
Overall particle sampling effectiveness of the cascade
impactor is presented in Figure 7 as a function of particle size.
The effectiveness, E, for the entire impactor, is defined as
too
i y i a=d_LI
Mattel 294
Modal 298
IOO
UJ
Z
UJ
>
Ul
Colm air sampling
20 -
Flow rote 2 . 0 L/min
_J
UJ
with visor-'
10
30
Figure 7 Effectiveness for Models 294 and 298.
than 7 jum in diameter, is 84% for 10 nm diameter particles

and falls to 56% and 64% at 20 jum for samplers with and
without the inlet visor, respectively.
Summary
A cascade impactor, suitable for personal use. has been
designed, built and extensively evaluated. This impactor is
compatible for use with existing personal sampler pumps
when operated with a sample flow rate of 2 L/ min. The
impactor is designed to be used in either a four-, six- or
eight-stage configuration with particle cut points ranging
from 0.52 to 21 ftm aerodynamic diameter. Evaluations of
the impactor with monodisperse particles in the size range of
0.48 to 23 urn have shown that the impactor has sharp
cut-off characteristics with low particle loss for particles less
than 10 Mm and high inlet sampling efficiency.
1.
2.
60-
3.
-J
2
<
to
3.0
References
o
z
a.
l l II
1.0
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER,/im
u.
u.
r- without visor
>-
o
z
' ' ' I
to 60
tu
(1)
i~ r r m r"
'
Both modeli1
without ierithisor-
where e is the inlet sampling efficiency and f the internal

particle loss. Thus, the effectiveness is the fraction of particles in the air being sampled that is collected on all impaction
substrates. The particle concentration in the air being
sampled is equal to that measured divided by the effectiveness. For particles less than 6 pm the effectiveness is model
dependent [i.e., dependent on number of stages in impactor.
as the effectiveness is affected primarily by particle loss
(Figure 5)]. For particles greater than 6 nm, however, the
effectiveness is independent of model, but rather affected by
inlet sampling efficiency (Figure 6Jand particle loss on the
first impactor stage. The effectiveness for both the Model
294 and 298 impactors is greater than 90% for particles less
I20
80 -
0.3
E = e(l-0
4 0 --
Series 2 9 0 with cowl inlet

Calm air sampling
Flow rate = 2.0 L/min
4.
20-
5.
I
1.0
I I
I I
3.0
.LI, I L
10
'
30
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER , //.m

Figure 6 Inlet sampling efficiency.
Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. (48)
6.
7.
Willeke, K. and K.T. Whitby: Atmospheric Aerosols Size

Distribution and Interpretation. J. Air Poll. Control Assoc.
25:529-32(1975).
AIHA Aerosol Technology Committee: Guide for Respirable Mass Sampling. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 37:133-137
(1970).
Lippmann, M.: Size Selective Health Hazard Sampling. In
Air Sampling Instruments, 6 ed., edited by P.S. Lioy.
Cincinnati, Ohio: American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, 1983. pp. H-1 to H-22.
American Conference of* Governmental Industrial Hygienists Technical Committee on Air Sampling Procedures:
Particle Size-Selective Sampling in the Workplace. Annals
ofACGIH 77:23-100 (1984).
Phalen, R.E., W.C. Hinds, W.John, P.J. Lioy, M. Lippmann,
M.A. McCawiey, O.G. Raabe, S.C. Soderholm and B.O.
Stuart: Rationale and Recommendations for Particle SizeSelective Sampling in the Workplace. Appl. Ind. Hyg. 7:3-14
(1986).
Lippmann, M.: Respirable Dust Sampling. Am. Ind. Hyg.
Assoc. J. 37:138-159 (1970).
Martonen, T., M. Clark, D. Nelson, D. Wlllard and E.
Rossignol: Evaluation of Mini Cascade Impactor for Sam-
June. 1987
537
8.
9.
10.
11.
538
pling Exposure Chamber Atmospheres. Fundam. Appl.

Toxicol. 2:149-152 (1982).
Task Group on Lung Dynamics lo ICRP Committee 2:
Deposition and Retention Models for Internal Dosimetry of
the Human Respiratory Tract. Health Phys. 72:173-207
(1966).
Lippmann, M. and R.E. Albert The Effect of Particle Size on
the Regional Deposition of Inhaled Aerosols in the Human
Respiratory Tract. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 30:257-275
(1969).
Heyden, J., L. Ambruster, J. Gebhart, E. Grein and W.
Stahlhofen: Total Deposition of Aerosol Particles in the
Human Respiratory Tract for Nose and Mouth Breathing. J.
Aerosol Sci. 6:311-328 (1975).
Vuk, C.T., M.A. Jones and J.H. Johnson: "The Measurement and Analysis of the Physical Character of Diesel Particulate Emissions." Paper presented at the Automotive
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Engineering Congress and Exposition, Detroit, Mich. 23-27

Feb. 1976.
Burkhart, J.E., M.A. McCawley and R.W. Wheeler: Particle
Size Distributions in Underground Coal Mines. Am. Ind.
Hyg. Assoc. J. 48:122-126 (1987).
Berglund, R.N. and B.Y.H. Liu: Generation of Monodisperse
Aerosol Standards. Environ. Sci. Technol. 7:147-153 (1973).
Stober, W. and H. Flaschbarfc An Evaluation of Nebulized
Ammonium Fluorescein as a Laboratory Aerosol. Atmos.
Environ. 7:737 (1973).
Marple, V.A. and K.L. Rubow: An Aerosol Chamber for
Instrument Evaluation and Calibration. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc.
J. 44:361-367 (1983).
Agarwal, J.K. and B.Y.H. Liu: A Criterion for Accurate Aerosol Sampling in Calm Air. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 47:191197 (1980).
11 October 1985; Revised 15 December 1986
fin. Ind. Hyg. Assoc J. (48)
June. 1987
Appendix D
Facilities
Minnegasco Commercial Foodservice Training Facility
D-l
Directions to Minnegasco Commercial

Foodservice Training Facility
From 35W north or south and 1-94 west, take
Hennepin/Lyndale exit. Follow Lyndale north and
then Hennepin to front of Basilica. Turn left and go
through first intersection; tum right on linden Ave.
From 1-94 East take Lyndale exit south to Dunwoody
Blvd., turn right on Linden Ave. From 394, take
Hennepin-Dunwoody exit, U turn as shown on map,
turn right at Linden Ave.
Proceed to parking Lot E.
Hfimnagasco
700 W. linden Ave., Minneapolis, MN 55403
Our full scale facilities include:

llu Idli st iii i UIIUIK 11 nl loulang equipment,
all A.( i A , N b ! and U L ipproved
n ^citjtif/ for o u r ioil pencil
n trds'v.itxv,jt>lunjj sj luii
B pluil> olpdiking
\ \ c elnvne your uiquiru s JII 1 visits. To make a
day 01 cvt nlng appointim.nl, i II your Minnegasco
1'ouilsLivicc iepxi!bi!iilative jl Lite number below.
Commercial FoodServlee
gaining fRcllSty
Maty Chccoo
SUMitft Holman
touchyp-oawiuy
iiaiuidi y a UUUKIIiy
equipment
At the Minnegasco Commercial Foodservice
Training Facility, our fully (rained professional
staff will help you select new gas commercial
cooking equipment and brain you in its
proper use.
It's an opportunity for you to try out die latest
in new equipment before you buy, to make sure
you select equipment that will work best in your
operation. Our staff can introduce you to:
combi ovens
m pasta cookers
m convection ovens
tilting braising pans
conveyor ovens
compartment steamers
i booster water heaters
a gas warewashing equipment
two-sided griddles and more.
We'll also provide you with equipment "spec"
sheets and a complete list of foodservice
equipment manufacturers in the United Slates.
Conveyor Oven
Natural gas gives you more for your

anergy dollars
a Its' economical. When used properly, new
natural gas cooking equipment can save 1/4 or
more In operating costs over electric.
n It's efficient Recent innovations have produced
nevy equipment that substantially reduces cooking
lime and fuel consumption, and increases
productivity.
Unreliable and easy to maintain. Natural gas
gives you the advantages of piei ise control and
<Ms>y|iriexpensive maintenance.
Almost anyone involved in planning or running a

commercial foodservice operation can benefit
from our facility.
Manufacturers a n d representatives can display
and demonstrate their equipment.
I >,
*\'
' '
Food brokers and commercial dealers can

arrange to demonstrate their products to
prospective buyers.
k> <
J'j^,
j.^
Foodservice operators can tiy out products

and recipes on our gas equipment and lest new
gas equipment before investing in it.
Architects and designers can receive individual
consultation on the use of natural gas equipment
in foodservice facilities.
Student groups can learn about the advantages
of high tech gas equipment.
- . - ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
-. > \ r\ <r> o C n r X / f l * îo*~fJ'* "1 *
IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF EFFLUENTS

FROM VARIOUS COOKING APPLIANCES AND PROCESSES AS RELATED
TO OPTIMUM DESIGN OF KITCHEN VENTILATION SYSTEMS
Final Report
ASHRAE 745-RP Phase II
Submitted by:
William D. Gerstler, Research Assistant
Thomas H. Kuehn, Professor
David Y. H. Pui, Professor
James W. Ramsey, Professor
Michael J. Rosen, Undergraduate researcher
Richard R. Carlson, Undergraduate researcher
Sean D. Petersen, Research Assistant
111 Church St. SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455-0111
July 21,1998
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to acknowledge numerous manufacturers and their representatives, whose
loans and/or donations of equipment helped make much of this testing possible:
Greenheck, Keating of Chicago, Inc., Frymaster Corporation, Magikitch'n, Inc., Wells
Manufacturing Company, G.S. Blodgett Corporation, Vulcan Hart Corporation, Avtec
Industries, Inc., Lloyd Hollander Company, and North Star Agency.
A special thanks is given to Minnegasco Food Services and Pacific Gas and Electric
Company's Food Service Technology Center for their help in arranging the equipment,
and invaluable support throughout the entire project.
Finally, we would like to thank members of the ASHRAE Kitchen Ventilation (TC 5.10)
Research sub-committee, for their support, guidance, and interest in this investigation.
i
Table of Contents
Page
Number
Topic Area
Acknowledgments
List of Tables
List of Figures
B. Introduction
1 Overview
2 Background
3 Description of Report Structure
C. Description of Test Kitchen and Ventilation System
D. Emission Comparisons From Various Cooking Processes
1 Introduction
2 Grease Particulates and Vapor
3 Carbon Dioxide Emissions
4 Carbon Monoxide Emissions
5 Nitrous Oxide Emissions
6 Hydrocarbon Emissions
7 Thermal Plume Volume Flowrate
8 Minimum Volumetric Flow Rate Generated By Process
9 Mass Flow and Energy Rate Comparisons at the Hood Entrance
and Exhaust Duct
10 Particulate Emission Concentrations
E. Individual Cooking Processes
1 Gas Griddle
a Appliance Description
b Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
e Velocity Distribution
f Temperature Distribution
g Particle Size Distribution
h Gaseous Emissions
i Time Dependent Particle Size Distribution
2 Electric Griddle
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
ii
i
ix
xii
1
4
4
5
8
9
15
15
16
46
55
58
61
69
72
76
79
86
86
86
86
86
89
89
93
97
101
103
105
105
105
105
107
107
109
113
Topic Area
h Gaseous Emissions
Gas Fryer
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
h Gaseous Emissions
Electric Fryer
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
h Gaseous Emissions
Gas Broiler
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
h Gaseous Emissions
Electric Broiler
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
h Gaseous Emissions
Gas Oven
Page
Number
119
119
119
119
120
122
122
126
130
132
135
135
135
135
137
139
139
139
142
148
148
148
148
149
149
149
152
160
170
174
174
174
176
176
176
176
180
186
196
200
202
202
iii
Page
Number
Topic Area
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
h Gaseous Emissions
8 Electric Oven
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
h Gaseous Emissions
9 Gas Range
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
h Gaseous Emissions
10 Electric Range
c Cooking Procedure
d Sampling Position
h Gaseous Emissions
F. Field Test From Middlebrook Hall Using a Briquette Style Gas Broiler
G. Exhaust Duct Fine Particle Measurements
1 Introduction
2 Comparison of ELPI Results With MOUDI Results
3 Gas Griddle Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
4 Electric Griddle Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
5 Gas Fryer Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
6 Electric Fryer Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
iv
202
202
203
203
207
207
213
214
214
214
214
214
215
215
219
223
223
223
223
224
224
226
226
231
236
238
238
238
238
239
239
242
246
251
252
259
259
260
264
264
264
264
Topic Area
7
8
9
10
11
12
Gas Broiler Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements

Electric Broiler Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Gas and Electric Oven Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Gas Range Find Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Electric Range Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Comparison With Exhaust Duct Data From CE-CERT' s "Further
Development of Emission Test Methods and Development of
Emission Factors For Various Cooking Operations" Final Report
to the SCAQMD.
H. Recommendations
I. Bibliography
Page
Number
269
269
273
273
273
276
283
288
APPENDICES
A. Appliance List and Description
B. Food Product List and Description
C. Sampling and Instrumentation Equipment
1 Particulates
2 Grease Vapor
3 Temperature
4 Velocity
5 Gases
6 Flow Visualization
7 Energy Measurement
8 Analytic
9 Schematic Drawings and Pictures of the Marple and MOUDI
Impactors, and the EPA Sampler
10 Schematic Drawing of the Gas Sampling
D. Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration Procedures
A Griddles
1 Energy Input Rate
2 Thermostat Calibration
B Fryers
1 Energy Input Rate
C Broilers
1 Energy Input Rate
D Ovens
1 Energy Input Rate
A-l
B-1
C-l
C-2
C-2
C-2
C-3
C-3
C-3
C-3
C-3
C-4
C-7
D-l
D-2
D-2
D-2
D-3
D-3
D-3
D-4
D-4
D-4
D-5
D-5
D-5
V
Topic Area
E.
F.
G.
H.
E Ranges
1 Energy Input Rate
Cooking Procedures
A Griddles
B Fryers
C Broilers
D Ovens
E Ranges
Test and Sampling Procedures
A Grease Emission Particle Size and Vapor Content
B Temperature Distribution
C Velocity Distribution
D CO/C0 2 Emissions
E NOx Emissions
F Aromatic Hydrocarbon Emissions
G Electrical Low Pressure Impactor (ELPI)
H Micro-Orifice Uniform Deposit Impactor (MOUDI)
Analytic Procedures
A Particle Size Distribution
B Total Particulates, PM 10, and PM 2.5
C Grease Vapor
D Carbon Dioxide Emissions
1 Total CO2 Emissions
2 Maximum CO2 Contributions From Combustion
3 CO2 Emissions After Subtracting Room Air Contributions
a. Plume Temperature, Tpiume
b. Flow Rate From the Food Product Gases, Qfood
c. Volumetric Flow Rate From the Flue, QflUe
d. Volumetric Flow Rate of the Plume, Qpime
e. Steps To Finding C 0 2 Emissions After Subtracting
Room Air Contributions
E Carbon Monoxide Emissions
F Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
G Hydrocarbons Emissions
H Thermal Plume Volumetric Flow Rate
I Minimum Volumetric Flow Rate Generated By the Process
J Mass Flow and Energy Rate Comparisons at the Hood Entrance
and Exhaust Duct
Uncertainty Analysis
A Particle Size Distribution
B Total Particulates, PM 10 and PM 2.5
Page
Number
D-6
D-6
D-6
E-l
E-2
E-4
E-7
E-ll
E-13
F-l
F-2
F-7
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-12
E-12
G-l
G-2
G-12
G-15
G-17
G-17
G-18
G-19
G-22
G-24
G-26
G-30
G-31
G-32
G-33
G-34
G-35
G-35
G-36
H-l
H-2
H-10
vi
Topic Area
C Grease Vapor
D Carbon Dioxide Emissions
1 Total CO2 Emissions
E Carbon Monoxide Emissions
F Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
G Mass How and Energy Rate Comparisons at the Hood Entrance
and Exhaust Duct
H Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties Per
Appliance For Each Test
1 Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties
for the Gas Griddle
for the Electric Griddle
for the Gas Fryer
for the Electric Fryer
for the Gas Broiler While Cooking Hamburger
for the Electric Broiler While Cooking Hamburger
for the Gas and Electric Broilers While Cooking
Chicken Breast
for the Gas Oven
for the Electric Oven
for the Gas Range
for the Electric Range
for the Briquette Gas Broiler Used During the
Field Testing
I. Sample Calculations
A. Particle Size Distribution
B. Total Particulates, PM 10, and PM 2.5
C. Grease Vapor
D. Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Page
Number
H-13
H-15
H-15
H-16
H-16
H-18
H-21
H-21
H-22
H-23
H-24
H-25
H-26
H-27
H-28
H-29
H-30
H-32
H-33
1-1
1-2
1-12
1-15
1-17
vii
Topic Area
J.
K.
L.
M.
1. Total C0 2 Emissions
2. Maximum CO2 Contributions From Combustion
3. CO2 Emissions After Subtracting Room Air Contributions
E. Carbon Monoxide Emissions
F. Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
G. Hydrocarbon Emissions
H. Thermal Plume Volumetric Flow Rate
I. Minimum Volumetric Flow Rate Generated By the Cooking Process
J. Mass Flow and Energy Rate Comparisons at the Hood Entrance
and Exhaust Duct
K. Particle Size Distribution Uncertainty
L. Total Particulates, PM 10, and PM 2.5 Uncertainty
M. Grease Vapor Uncertainty
N. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Uncertainty
1. Total CO2 Emissions Uncertainty
O. Carbon Monoxide Emissions Uncertainty
P. Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Uncertainty
Q. Mass Flow and Energy Rate Uncertainties at the Hood Entrance
and Exhaust Duct
Kitchen Hood Ventilation Rate Calibration
Kitchen Scale Calibration
Temperature Corrections For Radiation Heat Transfer
A. Equation Development For Temperature Corrections
B. Sample Temperature Correction
C. Determination of the View Factors
Appliance Brand, Model, and Source
Page
Number
1-17
1-18
1-19
1-25
1-26
1-27
1-27
1-27
1-27
1-29
1-39
1-42
1-44
1-44
1-45
1-46
1-47
J-l
K-l
L-l
L-2
L-10
L-l3
M-l
viii
List of Tables
Table
Page
Number
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Tested Hydrocarbons and Their Detection Limits for Griddles

Tested Hydrocarbons and Their Detection Limits for Fryers
Tested Hydrocarbons and Their Detection Limits for Broilers
Tested Hydrocarbons and Their Detection Limits for Ovens
Tested Hydrocarbons and Their Detection Limits for Ranges
Synonyms for Tested Hydrocarbons
Temperatures Used for Thermal Plume Boundaries
Measured Concentrations at the Sampling Point for Total Particulates
PM 10, and PM 2.5 (All Include Vapor)
Table 9. Estimated Total Particulate, PM 10, and PM 2.5 Source
Concentration Emissions Normalized to Standard Hood Volumetric
Flow Rates (Includes Vapor)
Table 10. Estimated Total Particulate, PM 10, and PM 2.5 Source
Concentration Emissions Normalized to Square Foot of Hood
Entrance (Includes Vapor)
Table 11. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Griddle
Table 12. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Griddle
Table 13. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Fryer
Table 14. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Fryer
Table 15. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Broiler Cooking Hamburger
Table 16. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Broiler Cooking Chicken Breast
Table 17. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Broiler Cooking Hamburger
Table 18. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Broiler Cooking Chicken Breast
Table 19. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Oven
Table 20. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Oven
Table 21. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Range
Table 22. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Range
Table 23. Gas Broiler Field Test Gaseous Emissions
Table 24. Comparison of Emission Data From the Gas Broiler While
Cooking Hamburger
Table 25. Comparison of Emission Data From the Electric Griddle
While Cooking Hamburger
Table A-l. List and Description of Griddles, Fryers, and Underfired Broilers
Table A-2. List and Description of Ovens and Ranges
Table B-l. Description of Food Products For Griddles, Fryers, Underfired
Broilers, and Ovens
Table B-2. Description of Food Products For Ranges and the Field Test
Table G-l. Impactor Internal Losses
Table G-2. Critical Nozzle Dimension
Table G-3. STK50 Values for the Marple Impactor
63
64
65
66
67
68
70
81
83
85
101
119
132
148
170
173
196
199
213
223
236
251
254
278
281
A-2
A-3
B-2
B-3
G-4
G-6
G-7
ix
Table
Page
Number
Table 1-1. Mass Collected On Each Impactor Stage

Table 1-2. Mass Collected in the Sample and Blank Containers For the
90 Inlet Probe
Table 1-3. Collected Mass, Correction Factor, and Corrected Collected
Mass for the Various Impactor Stages
Table 1-4. Particle Concentration for Each Impactor Stage
Table 1-5. Critical Nozzle Dimension for Each Impactor Stage
Table 1-6. Characteristic Stokesso Number for Each Impactor Stage
Table 1-7. Air Velocity Within the Nozzle for Each Impactor Stage
Table 1-8. Cunningham Slip Correction and 50 Percent Particle Cut
Size Diameter for Each Impactor Stage
Table 1-9. Normalized Particle Concentrations
Table I-10. Total Particulates Collected
Table I-11. Dilution Ratios Obtained from the MOUDI and ELPI Impactors
Table 1-12. Determination of the Net Mass Collected In Each Container
for Grease Vapor Calculations
Table 1-13. Quantities needed to Find the Average Plume Temperature
Table 1-14. Uncertainty In the Mass Collected On Each Impactor Stage
Table 1-15. Mass Collected In the Sample and Blank Containers For the
90 Inlet Probe With Associated Standard Deviations
Table 1-16. Uncertainties Associated With the Corrected Collected
Particulate Mass For Each Impactor Stage
Table 1-17. Particle Concentration Uncertainties For Each Impactor Stage
Table 1-18. Critical Nozzle Dimensions and Uncertainties For Impactor
Stages 2 Through 8
Table 1-19. Characteristic Stokesso Numbers and Uncertainties For
Impactor Stages 2 Through 8
Table 1-20. Uncertainties Associated With the Nozzle Air Flow Velocities
and Areas For Impactor Stages 2 Through 8
Table 1-21. Cunningham Slip Correction Factor and Associated
Uncertainties For Impactor Stages 2 Through 8
Table 1-22. Particle Cut Sizes and Associated Uncertainties For Impactor
Stages 2 Through 8
Table 1-23. Normalized Particle Size Concentrations and Associated
Uncertainties
Table 1-24. Standard Deviation Associated With the Weight of Each
Container Used For Grease Vapor Mass Determination
Table 1-25. Mass Flow rates and Associated Uncertainties For Each
Control Volume At the Hood Entrance
Table 1-26. Net Energy Rates and Associated Uncertainties For Each
Control Volume At the Hood Entrance
Table J-1. Actual Position of Measurements
1-2
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-9
1-12
1-12
1-14
1-15
1-20
1-29
1-30
1-31
1-32
1-33
1-34
1-35
1-37
1-37
1-39
1-42
1-48
1-50
J-3
x
Page
Number
Table
Table L-l. Measured and Corrected Thermocouple Temperatures and
Associated Differences and Uncertainties
Table M-l. List of Appliance Brand, Model, and Source
L-11
M-2
xi
List of Figures
Figure
Page
Number
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Schematic of the test kitchen and exhaust ventilation system

Schematic of test kitchen
Schematic of the ventilation hood
Schematic of the ventilation hood modified for the
under-fired broilers
Figure 5. Total grease emissions per appliance for each test
Figure 6. Collected total grease emissions per appliance
Figure 7. Average total grease emissions per appliance
Figure 8. Average grease distribution per appliance
Figure 9. Average grease distribution percentage per appliance
Figure 10. Particulate vs. vapor phase emission percentage per appliance
(average)
Figure 11. Total grease particulate emissions per appliance for each test
Figure 12. Average grease particulate emissions per appliance
Figure 13. Collected total grease particulate emissions per appliance
Figure 14. PM 10 grease particulate emissions per appliance for each test
Figure 15. Average PM 10 grease particulate emissions per appliance
Figure 16. Collected PM 10 grease particulate emissions per appliance
Figure 17. PM 2.5 grease particulate emissions per appliance for each test
Figure 18. Average PM 2.5 grease particulate emissions per appliance
Figure 19. Collected PM 2.5 grease particulate emissions per appliance
Figure 20. Grease vapor emissions per appliance for each test
Figure 21. Average grease vapor emissions per appliance
Figure 22. Collected grease vapor emissions per appliance
Figure 23. Total CO2 emissions per appliance (normalized to food
product mass)
Figure 24. Total CO2 emissions per appliance (normalized to 1 hour of
full load operation)
Figure 25. Total CO2 emissions per appliance (with maximum combustion
contributions)
Figure 26. Schematic of the mass and energy contributions to the exiting
flue gas
Figure 27. Schematic of the mass and energy contributions to the
thermal plume
Figure 28. Total C0 2 emissions per 1000 lb. food product (all C0 2
contributions from room dilution air subtracted)
Figure 29. Total CO2 emissions per hour of full load operation (all CO2
contributions from room dilution air subtracted)
Figure 30. Total CO emissions per appliance (normalized to food
product mass)
11
12
13
14
19
23
24
26
27
29
31
32
34
35
36
38
39
40
42
43
44
45
47
48
50
51
52
53
54
56
xii
Figure
Page
Number
Figure 31. Total CO emissions per appliance (normalized to 1000 hours

of full load operation)
Figure 32. NOx emissions per appliance (normalized to food product mass)
Figure 33. NOx emissions per appliance (normalized to 1000 hours of
full load operation)
Figure 34. Estimated volumetric flow rate of the cooking plume at
ventilation hood entrance per appliance
Figure 35. Minimum exhaust volumetric flow rate per electric appliance
Figure 36. Minimum exhaust volumetric flow rate per gas appliance
Figure 37. Comparison of mass flow calculations at the hood entrance and
in the exhaust duct
Figure 38. Comparison of net energy rates at the hood entrance and in
the exhaust duct
Figure 39. Comparison of U-M and PG&E ATM gas griddle energy
input rates
Figure 40. Comparison of U-M and PG&E gas griddle energy to the food
and griddle, per mass of food cooked
Figure 41. Comparison of the U-M and PG&E gas griddle cooking
efficiencies and product capacities
Figure 42. Position of the gas and electric griddles
Figure 43. Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas for the
gas and electric griddles
Figure 44. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening for the
gas griddle
Figure 45. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above the
gas griddle
Figure 46. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12,24, and 36 inches
above the gas griddle
Figure 47. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36
inches above the gas griddle
Figure 48. Gas griddle particle distribution (3 tests)
Figure 49. Gas griddle particle distribution (3 tests). Zoom on small
particles
Figure 50. Gas griddle normalized grease emissions
Figure 51. Gas griddle collected grease emissions
Figure 52. Gas griddle real time particle number concentrations. Taken
with the ELPI during the cooking process at the sampling point
Figure 53 Comparison of U-M and PG&E electric griddle energy
input rates
Figure 54 Comparison of U-M and PG&E electric griddle energy to the
food and griddle, per mass of food cooked
57
59
60
71
73
74
77
78
87
88
88
90
91
92
94
95
96
98
99
100
102
104
105
106
xiii
Figure
Page
Number
Figure 55 Comparison of the U-M and PG&E electric griddle cooking

Figure 56 Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening for the
electric griddle
Figure 57 Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above the
electric griddle
Figure 58 Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12,24, and 36 inches
above the electric griddle
Figure 59 Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36
inches above the electric griddle
Figure 60 Electric griddle particle distribution (3 tests)
Figure 61 Electric griddle particle distribution (3 tests). Zoom on small
particles
Figure 62 Electric griddle normalized grease emissions
Figure 63 Electric griddle collected grease emissions
Figure 64 Comparison of U-M and PG&E ATM gas fryer energy input
rates
Figure 65 Comparison of U-M and PG&E gas fryer energy to the food and
fryer, per mass of food cooked
Figure 66 Comparison of the U-M and PG&E gas fryer cooking efficiencies
and product capacities
Figure 67 Position of the gas and electric fryers
Figure 68 Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas for the
gas and electric fryers
Figure 69 Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening for the gas
fryer
Figure 70 Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above the
gas fryer
Figure 71 Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12,24, and 36 inches
above the gas fryer
Figure 72 Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36
inches above the gas fryer
Figure 73 Gas fryer particle distribution (2 tests)
Figure 74 Gas fryer normalized grease emissions
Figure 75 Gas fryer collected grease emissions
Figure 76 Gas fryer real time particle number concentrations. Taken with
the ELPI during the cooking process at the sampling point
Figure 77 Comparison of U-M and PG&E electric fryer energy input rates
Figure 78 Comparison of U-M and PG&E electric fryer energy to the food
and fryer, per mass of food cooked
Figure 79 Comparison of the U-M and PG&E electric fryer cooking
106
108
110
111
112
114
115
116
118
120
121
121
123
124
125
127
128
129
131
133
134
136
137
13 8
138
xiv
Figure
Page
Number
electric fryer
electric fryer
Figure 82. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12, 24, and 36 inches
above the electric fryer
inches above the electric fryer
Figure 84. Electric fryer particle distribution (2 tests)
Figure 85. Electric fryer normalized grease emissions
Figure 86. Electric fryer collected grease emissions
Figure 87. Position of the gas broiler
Figure 88. Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas
for the gas broiler
Figure 89. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the modified hood opening
for the gas broiler
Figure 90. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above the gas
broiler while cooking hamburger (modified hood used)
Figure 91. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12, 24, and 36 inches
above the gas broiler while cooking hamburger (modified
hood used)
inches above the gas broiler while cooking hamburger
(modified hood used)
Figure 93. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above the gas
broiler while cooking chicken (modified hood used)
Figure 94. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12,24, and 36
inches above the gas broiler while cooking chicken (modified
hood used)
inches above the gas broiler while cooking chicken (modified
hood used)
Figure 96. Gas broiler (hamburger) particle distribution (3 tests)
Figure 97. Gas broiler (hamburger) particle distribution (3 tests).
Zoom on small particles
Figure 98. Gas broiler (hamburger) particle distribution between 0.01
and 1.0 îm. Data taken with the ELPI during the cooking
process at the sampling point
Figure 99. Gas broiler (hamburger) normalized grease emissions
Figure 100. Gas broiler (hamburger) collected grease emissions
Figure 101. Gas broiler (chicken breast) particle distribution (1 test)
140
141
143
144
145
146
147
150
151
153
154
155
157
158
159
161
162
163
164
166
167
168
xv
Figure
Page
Number
Figure 102. Gas broiler (chicken breast) particle distribution (1 test).

Figure 103. Gas broiler (chicken breast) normalized grease emissions
Figure 104. Gas broiler (chicken breast) collected grease emissions
Figure 105. Gas broiler (hamburger) real time particle number
concentrations. Taken with the ELPI during the cooking
Figure 106. Position of the electric broiler
for the electric broiler
Figure 108. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the modified hood
opening for the electric broiler
electric broiler while cooking hamburger (modified
hood used)
inches above the electric broiler while cooking hamburger
inches above the electric broiler while cooking hamburger
electric broiler while cooking chicken (modified hood used)
Figure 113. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 24 inches above
the electric broiler while cooking chicken (modified hood
used)
Figure 114. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 24 inches
above the electric broiler while cooking chicken (modified
hood used)
Figure 115. Electric broiler (hamburger) particle distribution (3 tests)
Figure 116. Electric broiler (hamburger) particle distribution (3 tests).
Figure 117. Electric broiler (hamburger) particle distribution between 0.01
and 1.0 \im. Data taken with the ELPI during the cooking
Figure 118. Electric broiler (hamburger) normalized grease emissions
Figure 119. Electric broiler (hamburger) collected grease emissions
Figure 120. Electric broiler (chicken breast) particle distribution (1 test)
Figure 121. Electric broiler (chicken breast) particle distribution (1 test).
169
171
172
175
177
178
179
181
182
183
184
185
187
188
189
191
192
193
194
195
xvi
Figure
Figure 122. Electric broiler (chicken breast) normalized grease emissions

Figure 123. Electric broiler (chicken breast) collected grease emissions
Figure 124. Electric broiler (hamburger) real time particle number
concentrations. Taken with the ELPI during the cooking
Figure 125. Position of the gas and electric ovens
for the electric and gas ovens and ranges
Figure 127. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening for
the gas oven
gas oven
Figure 129. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 15 inches above
the gas oven
Figure 130. Gas oven particle distribution (2 tests)
Figure 131. Gas oven normalized grease emissions
Figure 132. Gas oven collected grease emissions
electric oven
electric oven
Figure 135. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12 inches above
the electric oven
Figure 136. Electric oven particle distribution (2 tests)
Figure 137. Electric oven normalized grease emissions
Figure 139. Position of the gas range
gas range
gas range
inches above the gas range
Figure 144. Gas range particle distribution (4 tests)
Figure 145. Gas range particle distribution (4 tests). Zoom on small
particles
Figure 146. Gas range normalized grease emissions
Figure 147. Gas range collected grease emissions
Figure 148. Position of the electric range
197
198
201
202
205
206
208
209
210
211
212
216
217
218
221
222
223
225
227
228
230
232
233
234
235
237
240
xvii
Figure
Page
Number
Figure 149. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening for
the electric range
electric range
Figure 151. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12, 24, and 36
inches above the electric range
Figure 153. Electric range particle distribution (3 tests)
Figure 154. Electric range particle distribution (3 tests). Zoom on
small particles
Figure 155. Electric range normalized grease emissions
Figure 156. Electric range collected grease emissions
Figure 157. Gas broiler field test particle distribution. 25% fat hamburger,
briquette style broiler
Figure 158. Gas broiler field test normalized grease emissions. 25% fat
hamburger, briquette style broiler
Figure 159. Gas broiler field test collected grease emissions. 25% fat
hamburger, briquette style broiler
Figure 160. Comparison of ELPI and MOUDI fine particle size
distributions from the exhaust duct for the gas griddle
distributions from the exhaust duct for the gas broiler
while cooking hamburger
distributions from the sampling point above the gas broiler
while cooking hamburger
Figure 163. ELPI fine particle size distributions from the exhaust duct for
the gas griddle during three different tests
Figure 164. ELPI fine particle size distributions from the exhaust duct for
the electric griddle during two different tests
Figure 165. ELPI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for
the gas fryer
the electric fryer
Figure 167. MOUDI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct
for the gas broiler while cooking chicken breast
the electric broiler while cooking hamburger
for the electric broiler while cooking chicken breast
241
243
244
245
247
248
249
250
253
255
256
261
262
263
265
266
267
268
270
271
272
xviii
Figure
Page
Number
for the gas range
for the electric range
Figure 172. Fine particle size distribution from the gas broiler cooking
hamburger. Data taken in the exhaust duct with the MOUDI
impactor
Figure 173. Particle size distribution from the gas broiler cooking
hamburger
Figure 174. Fine particle size distribution from the gas griddle cooking
hamburger. Data taken in the exhaust duct with the
MOUDI impactor
Figure 175. Particle size distribution from the electric griddle cooking
hamburger
Figure C-l. Components of the model 298 Marple Impactor
Figure C-2. Schematic of the impactor, in-line adapter, and 90 sample probe
Figure C-3. Schematic of the EPA Method 5 sample train
Figure C-4. The MOUDI impactor
Figure C-5. Schematic diagram of a MOUDI impaction stage
Figure C-6. Schematic diagram of CO/CO2 sampling
Figure C-7. Schematic diagram of NO* sampling
Figure C-8. Schematic diagram of the sampling train for hydrocarbons
Figure D-l. Thermocouple Placement
Figure E-l. Position of the gas and electric griddles
Figure E-2. Position of the gas and electric fryers
Figure E-3. Position of the gas broiler
Figure E-4. Position of the electric broiler
Figure E-5. Position of the gas and electric ovens
Figure E-6. Position of the gas range
Figure E-7. Position of the electric range
Figure J-l. Positions for measuring average velocity in a round duct
Figure J-2. Flow rate vs. fan frequency using pitot tube
Figure J-3. Flow rate vs. fan frequency (doors and windows shut, griddle
idle at 375 F using the anemometer)
Figure J-4. Flow rate vs. centerline velocity as measured by the anemometer
Figure K-l. Calibration of the kitchen scale
Figure L-l. Schematic diagram of the energy to and from the thermocouple
with associated temperatures and areas
Figure L-2. Schematic diagram of the convection velocity components
Figure L-3. Measured and corrected thermocouple temperatures and their
associated uncertainties
Figure L-4. Schematic diagram of the view factor relationships
274
275
277
277
280
280
C-4
C-5
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-7
C-8
C-9
D-7
E-3
E-5
E-8
E-9
E-l2
E-l4
E-l5
J-2
J-3
J-4
J-5
K-l
L-3
L-5
L-l2
L-l4
xix
IDENTIFICATION AND CHARATERIZATION OF EFFLUENTS FROM

VARIOUS COOKING APPLIANCES AND PROCESSES AS RELATED TO
OPTIMUM DESIGN OF KITCHEN VENTILATION SYSTEMS
ASHRAE 745-RP, Phase II
W.D. Gerstler ,T.H. Kuehn, D.Y.H. Pui, J.W. Ramsey, M.P. Rosen,
R.R. Carlson, and S.D. Petersen
Minneapolis, Minnesota
This report includes the results of Phase II of this research project. The main objective is
to characterize the effluent emissions from various grease producing cooking processes.
The cooking processes, as determined by the research committee, include gas and electric
versions of single sided griddles, open-vat deep fat fryers, under-fired broilers, full size
convection ovens, and six burner ranges. Measurements include plume velocity and
temperature profiles, grease particulate and vapor emissions, dry gas emissions including
CO, C0 2 , and NOx, and hydrocarbon emissions including aromatic hydrocarbons.
Additional measurements include real time particle size distributions during some
cooking processes as well as fine particulate distributions within the exhaust duct. The
report also presents results from a field test conducted at a working dormitory cafeteria
kitchen.
Velocity measurements were taken with an anemometer at the ventilation hood entrance,
therefore, the presence of grease laden vapor prevented measurements during actual
cooking processes. Alternative methods, such as boiling trays of water, were used to
simulate cooking plume conditions. Temperature measurements were taken with a
thermocouple grid placed at various heights above the cooking surface during the cooking
process. Therefore, real-time, as well as time averaged three-dimensional temperature
profiles of the cooking plume are available. The temperature and velocity time averaged
data were used to determine mass and energy balances for the cooking plume providing
estimates of the volumetric flow rate generated by the cooking processes.
Grease particulates and vapor were captured in the cooking plume by a sampling probe
connected to a Marple inertial impactor and an EPA Method 5 sampler. Grease
particulate size distributions in the plume were determined by the impactor, while the
EPA sampler cold box impinger condensation train condensed grease vapor, measured
using methods specified by EPA method 201 A. Real-time fine particulates were
measured using the Electrical Low Pressure Impactor (ELPI) in the cooking plume and
the exhaust duct. When the ELPI was not available, the Micro-Orifice Uniform Deposit
Impactor (MOUDI) was used to find integrated mass concentrations of fine particulates in
the cooking plume and exhaust duct.
1
CO and C0 2 measurements from the cooking plume were made with a portable IAQ
monitor connected to the sampling probe. Dry gas samples were collected in Tedlar bags
and NOx concentrations were determined with an EPA high sensitivity NDIR NOx
analyzer. Hydrocarbons were collected in charcoal sorbent tubes and analyzed using
NIOSH methods 1501 and 1003.
Results show effluent generation is highly process dependent. For instance, ovens and
fryers generate little or no grease particulate emissions, while other process generate
significant amounts. However, the broilers generate much smaller sized particulates
compared to the griddles and ranges. It appears CO and C0 2 emissions are generally
dictated by the natural gas combustion process and thus not present in processes from
electrical appliances. This is not true for the boilers, where it appears grease drippings,
which can land on extremely hot surfaces, provide additional CO and C0 2 emissions even
from the electric broiler. NOx emissions appear to be exclusively associated with gas
appliances, and the level of emission is related to the total gas consumption. However,
the gas oven does not follow this model and emits considerably higher NOx. Regardless,
NOx emissions are generally low in magnitude, even for the gas oven. For all processes,
hydrocarbon emissions were negligible above the method detection limit for all the
hydrocarbons tested. This is not to say there are no hydrocarbons emitted. It is possible
significant levels of emitted hydrocarbons exist for species not tested or included in the
grease particulates.
One of the most significant findings is the percentage of grease emissions in the vapor
form. It has long been suspected that significant levels of grease vapor are present in
cooking effluent. Results show the proportion of grease in the vapor phase varies from
30 % to over 90 % by mass. This is highly influential on the approach one should take in
designing grease removal strategies. For instance, while grease particulate emissions
from the ranges are mostly in the form of relatively easy to remove large particles, most
of the range grease emission is in the vapor form. This implies some type of
condensation mechanism is needed to remove the majority of the grease emissions.
Another significant finding includes the level of fine particulates emitted by the underfired broilers. Particulates less than 10 urn (PM 10) and those less than 2.5 \tm (PM 2.5)
differ significantly from larger particulates. They are not easily removed by traditional
inertial methods such as those associated with grease baffles. In addition, they pose much
higher risks to human health. Unlike other processes, effluent from the broilers contains
high concentrations of these fine particulates, and measurements taken in the exhaust duct
show that most of these particles pass through the grease baffles.
Recommendations include further testing and subsequent classification of under-fired
broilers. This investigation tested only two types of broilers, and data show there are a
great deal of variation between them. This is probably due mainly to the broiler design.
While the energy source probably plays a role in some differences seen, it appears the
addition of a water pan beneath the electric broiler is more significant. Other types of
broilers also exist, which have entirely different designs. A significant factor in effluent
emissions from broilers appears to be how the broiler design affects the fate of grease
2
drippings. Perhaps classification of broilers based on design, not necessarily energy

source, would be appropriate.
Another recommendation is to develop a test which can accurately determine grease
vapor removal efficiency. Data from this investigation shows it is extremely important to
eliminate grease vapor if one is to remove a significant portion of the overall grease
emissions. Quantifying grease vapor removal efficiency is an important step towards
recommending removal devices. Fundamental measurement of grease vapor
concentrations in an air stream is probably not sufficiently developed at this point to
properly implement a standard method. The technique used to quantify grease vapor in
this investigation appears to be promising, but more information is needed regarding what
is actually measured, how efficiently grease vapor is captured, and what sort of problems
could arise during the analytic procedures. Once grease vapor concentration
measurements are well understood, tested, and accepted, grease vapor removal
efficiencies of filters can be determined.
A final recommendation is to test for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's)
adsorbed into fine grease particulates. Evidence previously unavailable has recently been
presented suggesting carcinogenic PAH's are present in fine cooking oil particulates
(Siegmann and Sattler pub. pending). This information was available too late to be
incorporated in the present investigation, but it appears it may be an important aspect
affecting effluent emissions from commercial cooking processes.
3
B. Introduction
1. Overview
The goal of this investigation is to identify and characterize the effluent from various
commercial cooking processes. Testing involved ten appliances, including gas and
electric versions of griddles, open deep fat fryers, under-fired broilers, convection ovens,
and ranges. Measurements within the effluent plume included temperature and velocity
distributions, particulate concentrations and size distributions, and concentrations of
grease vapor, CO and CO2, NOx, and aromatic hydrocarbons. Additional measurements
within the exhaust duct included particulate concentrations and size distributions.
When possible, testing was conducted following procedures from the ASTM standard test
methods for appliance performance. These test methods specify product type, cooking
procedures, analysis procedures, and various other aspects of the cooking process. For
some appliances, such as the ranges and ovens, the ASTM test method calls for the use of
cooking products that produce little effluent. Therefore, the research committee
recommended alternative cooking products and the cooking procedures were adjusted
accordingly. For the under-fired broilers, testing included boneless, skinless, chicken
breasts, in addition to the 1/3 pound beef hamburgers called for in the ASTM test method.
The test kitchen exhaust ventilation system controls the removal of the cooking effluent.
Exhaust rates used during testing conform to the exhaust rates specified in the ASTM test
methods. A two-dimensional computational turbulent room air flow program assisted in
designing the test kitchen so that air flow into the ventilation hood was similar to the air
flow one would expect from an exhaust hood placed in a larger commercial type kitchen.
A clean room fog generator provides a qualitative means to assure the flow patterns
within the test kitchen closely followed those predicted by the simulation.
Information from the temperature and velocity profiles assisted in estimating the mass
and volume flow from the effluent plume. Information obtained from the loss of food
product mass and moisture mass, as well as information from the combustion process,
helped estimate the minimum mass and volume flow produced solely by the cooking
process. Particulate size information provided a means to divide the particulate emissions
into three categories: total particulates, PM 10, and PM 2.5. An EPA Method 5 type
sample train was used to condense cooking generated grease vapor, providing information
on the quantity present in the effluent plume. Because most of the gases tested are not
present in the room air, it can be assumed they are generated during the cooking process
from either the food or combustion. However, CO2 is found in the room air at significant
levels. Therefore, CO2 found in the effluent plume was divided into three sources:
combustion, room air, and actual cooking emissions.
While one objective of the investigation was to characterize the effluent present in the
cooking plume, another was to provide information on the total emissions expected per
4
amount of food product. This requires knowledge of the amount of room air dilution that
occurs. The dilution level was estimated using several techniques. Tracer particle
concentrations were measured in the plume and exhaust duct, and the ratio of their
concentrations relates to the amount of dilution. Likewise, temperature measurements
from the room air, plume, and exhaust duct, were used to estimate the amount of dilution.
Each process was tested several times to check for repeatability. As expected, the results
show effluent emissions are highly dependent on the cooking process as well as cooking
product. Data obtained from this investigation should prove to be a valuable resource for
those involved in further research, code development, and design guidelines, pertaining to
commercial cooking ventilation.
2. Background
Commercial kitchen ventilation is an integral part of heating, ventilating, and air
conditioning (HVAC) design and construction. Currently, several issues must be
addressed by commercial kitchen ventilation designers and code officials. These issues
include energy efficiency, fire protection, effluent emissions to the ambient atmosphere,
and indoor air quality. The level of knowledge currently available in each of these areas
varies. The fundamental information from this investigation can assist the development
needed in each of these areas. The following provides some background into these issues
and how they relate to commercial kitchen ventilation.
Before the energy crisis of the 1970's, little attention was paid to energy efficiency
throughout the HVAC industry (McQuiston and Parker 1994). Since that time, the
HVAC industry has changed dramatically, reflecting the concerns of the building owners
and occupants. However, until recently, there has not been much information available
pertaining to commercial kitchen ventilation. As a result, codes relating to commercial
kitchen ventilation vary from municipality to municipality, and their enforcement is often
different depending on the code official (ASHRAE 1995; Fisher 1997).
Originally, kitchen hood ventilation requirements were adopted from industrial
ventilation practices (ASHRAE 1995; Talbert et al. 1973). Often, these original
requirements are found in current codes. It is observed that for many cooking processes,
the ventilation required by the code far exceeds what is necessary to ventilate the cooking
effluent. This apparent excess ventilation results in huge energy costs. The mass of air
ventilated must be replaced by make-up air, which is usually conditioned at a high cost.
One remedy to this situation is to bring in unconditioned make-up air directly into the
kitchen hood. This practice is known by several names such as "internal compensation",
or "short circuiting," To avoid confusion, it is necessary to differentiate this make-up air
from the conditioned make-up air. Therefore, we will refer to it as internal compensation
make-up air. Some ventilation hoods provide make-up air from the front or bottom
panel. However, this air does not go directly into the hood and is not considered internal
compensation. Internal compensation eliminates the need to condition a portion of the
5
make-up air, therefore saving money. Internal compensation often provides up to 80

percent of total air exhausted. This practice can become problematic especially in
climates where the internal compensation air is extremely cold. In fact, the state of
Minnesota now limits internal compensation to 20 percent of the total air exhausted.
Another solution to high ventilation requirements is the listed ventilation hood. A
manufacturer can list a hood by having it tested by Underwriter's Laboratories (UL). The
test is Standard UL 710, and covers areas including electrical safety requirements, fire
protection and capture and containment of the effluent plume. In general, manufacturers
can show that the minimum ventilation rate for their particular hood can be much lower
than the requirements from standard mechanical codes. This reduces the overall cost of
the HVAC system by reducing the required fan size and power, and the amount of makeup air needed. While listed hoods often work well, some problems exist. The capture
and containment part of the test is a qualitative assessment for a particular application.
Smoke or fire can not be "observed" outside of the hood. The test is supposed to
represent a worse case scenario. However, if the hood was listed for one use, and then it
is actually used in another manner, the listed exhaust may not be sufficient. For example,
a restaurant may purchase a broiler and place it under a hood with an oven used for
baking bread. The hood may have worked fine removing the effluent from the oven, but
now smoke fills the room. The consequences can include the need for a much larger fan,
a larger make-up air system, and other system requirements. Needless to say the cost is
high. Worse, it provides understandable reasons for code officials to distrust listed hood
ratings.
Recent research has concentrated on developing alternate methods for determining
capture and containment. One is based on the Schlieren effect, which is used to visualize
any heat that escapes during the cooking process. While the present use of the Schlieren
effect is also qualitative, it provides a much more reliable and sensitive method of
visualizing capture and containment of cooking effluent. It is currently in the research
phase and is thus not widely available, but holds much promise. With additional
research, it is believed the Schlieren effect can be used to determine capture and
containment quantitatively using methods similar to PIV (particle image velocimetry).
Another method recently developed is the ASTM Standard Test Method for Performance
of Commercial Kitchen Ventilation Systems (ASTM F 1704 - 96). An energy balance
from the appliance to the room and exhaust duct is used to quantitatively determine the
minimum flow rate where capture and containment occurs. One advantage of this
standard is it is based on quantitative measurements.
Other factors confound the ability to determine the minimum flow rate for optimum
capture efficiency. The type and positioning of room air diffusers can create pressure
gradients that "pull" effluent from the kitchen hood. Room air disturbances, caused by
people passing in front of the hood, can affect capture of the effluent. This is especially
troublesome when the hood is positioned near a high traffic area, as is often the case in
cramped kitchen environments. Pressure gradients caused by the opening and closing of
doors can affect capture efficiency. Some appliances, such as pressure cookers, require a
6
low ventilation rate while they are closed, but create a large volume of effluent during the
short period after they are opened. All of these factors, and many not mentioned, make
the proposition of minimizing energy costs, while providing adequate ventilation,
challenging.
The general problem of determining the minimal requirements to ventilate a cooking
process has not been solved. Minimizing the energy requirements for commercial
cooking ventilation will not only depend on determining the minimal capture
requirements, but also on integrating kitchen ventilation design with the rest of the
HVAC system and the needs of the kitchen appliances (Patel et al. 1993). Recent
research has provided additional tools to develop an acceptable method. The future holds
the possibility of universally accepted and enforced codes and regulations.
Fire protection is extremely important in commercial kitchen ventilation due to the large
amounts of flammable grease used and released during cooking processes (ASHRAE
1995). The National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) has developed standards that most
local authorities have adopted as law (NFPA Standard 96). These standards pertain to
requirements for electrical and gas connections, lighting, smoke and fire detectors,
sprinkler systems, grease baffles, exhaust ducts, fans, and other equipment found in
commercial buildings. It is generally accepted that these standards are well developed
and enforced properly in the building codes. One aspect currently scrutinized is the
minimum duct velocities of 1500 fpm required for kitchen exhaust systems (ASHRAE
1997). The idea of a minimum duct velocity is to prevent the deposition of grease
particles on the inner exhaust duct walls, thus reducing fire hazard. Once again, this
value is largely based on industrial ventilation. From this and other recent investigations,
it has been discovered that many of the exhausted grease particles are in a size range
which may actually deposit at a higher rate when subjected to highly turbulent flows.
Future research will address this concern.
Since the Clean Air Act of 1970, many industries have been affected by the amount of
pollutants they are allowed to emit to the atmosphere. In the early 1990's, a study of
smog particulate sources showed that about 24 percent of carbonaceous smog particulates
in the LA basin originated from meat cooking (Hildemann et al. 1991). Meat cooking
was the most prevalent source of these particles, exceeding even automobile
contributions. As a result, legislation was passed limiting the emissions from commercial
restaurants. It was soon recognized that methods used to measure emissions from sources
such as utility boilers were not reliable when applied to cooking emissions. Recent
research shows emissions from chain driven char-broilers can be effectively reduced
(SCAQMD 1997). The current legislation, named Rule 1138 of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and adopted November 1997, applies only to
these chain driven char-broilers. Eventually, other appliances will also be subjected to
legislation. It is probable that legislation adopted in southern California will eventually
be applied to other regions of the U.S.
7
Most ventilation systems rely only on grease baffles to remove grease particles from the
effluent exhaust. Some ventilation systems include a water wash or an electrostatic
precipitator (ESP). The grease removal device in a ventilation hood is commonly referred
to as a grease extractor. However, the term grease extractor is a misnomer because its
only requirement is to prevent open flames from penetrating into the exhaust hood.
Because there is no accepted test for grease removal efficiency, manufacturers can choose
one of several methods used in the past, or develop their own (ASHRAE 1995; Gorden et
al. 1994). Therefore, it is common to see grease extractors with claimed efficiencies in
the range of 95 to 99 percent. Many, including manufacturers, believe these testing
methods are flawed, and do not address the real removal efficiency. Current research
focuses on the development of a test protocol to determine the true grease removal
efficiency. Ideally, such a test could be used for all grease removal devices including
water washes and ESP's. Most, if not all, manufacturers welcome such as test, allowing
them to market their products based on a fair, scientifically based standard test.
While indoor air quality has been acknowledged in the HVAC industry for a number of
years, it is now becoming a central issue. In the past, the focus has been on human
comfort in terms of temperature and humidity (McQuiston and Parker 1994). Currently,
much more attention is being paid to the health effects associated with poor indoor air
quality. Very little information is available regarding health effects from poorly
ventilated kitchens. However, recent work currently awaiting publication, found
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a known human carcinogen, dissolved within grease
particulates (Siegmann and Sattler pub. Pending). The indoor air quality issue will
certainly grow in the coming years, and it is likely to affect commercial kitchen
ventilation.
One of the major factors limiting the development of these aforementioned issues has
been the lack of scientific data. This investigation, along with several other concurrent
investigations, provides some of the necessary information. A comprehensive literature
review of previous commercial kitchen effluent investigations is presented in Phase I of
this project (Gerstler et. al., 1996).
3. Description of Report Structure
It is recognized that some readers may wish to find information regarding individual
cooking processes, others may only wish to see how processes compare, while still others
may be interested in the procedural and analytic details. This report is structured in a way
intended to assist those who wish to find particular information without having to
struggle through a large amount of extraneous data.
The first section provides a description of the test kitchen and the ventilation system. The
second section compares the emissions from different cooking processes. Discussions of
the cooking processes in this section are provided in the context of explaining the
differences seen in emission data. The third section discusses each process individually
and presents the emission results in detail. While comparisons to other processes are
8
discussed, comparisons of separate tests may be discussed when necessary. For each
process, a brief description of the appliance energy input rate and calibration, along with
the cooking procedure is given. Details of the procedures are presented in the appendices.
The fourth section shows the results from the testing done at a dormitory cafeteria. The
fifth section focuses on data collected in the exhaust duct. Recommendations for future
work are described in the sixth section. A detailed documentation of the cooking
appliances, food products, sampling equipment and instrumentation, energy input rate and
calibration, cooking procedures, test and sampling procedures, analytic procedures,
uncertainty analysis, sample calculations, and several instrument calibrations, is provided
in the appendices.
C. Description Of The Test Kitchen And Ventilation System
The test kitchen is a rectangular room built inside a large laboratory in the University of
Minnesota's Mechanical Engineering building. Figure 1 shows a schematic drawing of
the kitchen and exhaust ventilation system. Construction consists of a unistrut steel
frame, with floor dimensions of 10 x 10 ft. (3.05 x 3.05 m) and a height of 9 ft. (2.74 m).
Studs made of pine 2 by 4's attach to the metal frame and hold 5/8 in. (1.59 cm) fire rated
sheetrock. The sheetrock covers the ceiling, both side walls, and the back wall. The left
side wall has a 3 ft (0.91 m) door, 6.5 ft (1.98 m) high. The front wall consists of two
sections entirely covered with fine mesh vinyl screening. The first section is 4 ft. (1.22
m) wide and is not removable. The removable second section is 6 ft. (1.83 m) wide,
allowing appliance installation and removal. It consists of a wooden frame, attached to
the room via four door hinges. Door hinge pins secure the section in place. Twenty gauge
stainless steel panels entirely cover the sheetrock on the back wall. In addition, stainless
steel covers the back 4 ft (1.22 m) of each side wall. Appliance connections secured
along the back wall include one three-phase 208 V electrical outlet, one 4-plug 115 V
grounded outlet, and a 1 in. (2.54 cm) natural gas line. One 4-plug 115 V grounded outlet
and a variable speed fan control connect through the right side wall. The left side wall
holds a fire extinguisher secured next to the door. A single sheet of linoleum covers the
floor. Figure 2 shows a detailed schematic of the test kitchen.
A unistrut steel frame, bolted to the laboratory concrete ceiling, holds an 8 ft. (2.44 m)
long by 4 ft. (1.22 m) wide type 1 wall-mounted canopy listed ventilation hood. The
hood has in internal depth of 2 ft. (0.61 m), and is placed against the back wall at a height
of 6.5 ft. (1.98 m) above the kitchen floor. A 16 in. (40.64 cm) diameter collar connects
the hood to galvanized steel ducting of the same diameter. The ducting consists of a 3
piece 90-degree elbow with a 14 in. (35.56 cm) centerline bending radius, connected to a
9.83 ft. (3 m) horizontal duct run. The ducting connects to a 16 in. (40.64 cm) centrifugal
roof fan with a 1 HP motor, modified by the manufacturer to operate in a horizontal
position. The fan exhausts to the outside air. An access port attaches to the ducting 5.25
duct diameters (7 ft. or 2.13 m) from the elbow. A Styrofoam insert within the access
9
port, shaped to the same dimensions as the ducting, minimizes flow disturbances from the
access port. Figure 3 shows a schematic of the ventilation hood.
Ventilation requirements for the under-fired broilers (from ASTM F 1695-96) exceed the
capability of the exhaust fan. Reducing the total area of the ventilation hood allows for
the proper ventilation rate. Figure 4 shows a schematic of the modified ventilation hood.
Wooden dividers reduce the hood area 7.5 in. (19.05 cm) from each side of the existing
hood. Stainless steel covers the bottom of the hood from the sides to the dividers. The
stainless steel extends 1.5 in. (3.81 cm) past the wooden dividers. This duplicates the 1.5
in. (3.81 cm) right angle flange extending from the sides and front of the unmodified
hood. The modification reduced the effective capture area of the hood from 32 ft2 (2.97
m2) to 27 ft2 (2.51 m2), allowing the required 400 cfm (0.19 m3/s) of ventilation per
square foot of hood area.
A two-dimensional turbulent air flow modeling program (SHEBANG, by H. Han, 1990)
provided assistance in determining the test kitchen design. The goal was to design a
small test kitchen which did not greatly alter natural air flow patterns into the ventilation
hood. The program modeled air flow into a wall mounted kitchen hood with an
appliance, placed in a large room. The flow patterns from the large room were compared
to several designs of smaller rooms. The program approximated the air flow patterns
from make-up air along the ceiling, along the top of the front wall, along the bottom of
the front wall, along the entire front wall, and several variations combining these
locations. The comparisons showed the best design was to allow make-up air to enter the
test kitchen from the entire front wall.
After completing test kitchen construction, flow visualization of the air flow patterns into
the test kitchen and the hood was performed with a clean room fogger. The fogger
produces a fine water fog which adjusts to almost any level of desired buoyancy. To test
the kitchen design, we video taped approximately neutrally buoyant fog entering the test
kitchen and the hood. The air flow patterns were similar to those predicted by the model.
In addition, after modifying the hood for the broilers, we used the clean room fogger flow
visualization to determine if there was a large effect on the air flow patterns. The results
showed little or no effect from the modifications.
10
Figure 1. Schematic of the test kitchen and exhaust ventilation system
20tn.
IGiatCa.
46
In.
COOAR TO EXHAUST DUCT
30 In.
11.5
to
16 f a
i GREASE BAFFLES
^
VENTILATION HOOD
9 6 In.
10.78 In.
11.78 In.
SCREEN
DIVIDER
78 in.
681a
S0.BIn.
12&SIn.
LEFT SIDE VIEW
FRONT VIEW
Figure 2. Schematic of test kitchen
8.75 in.
28 in.
48 in
TOP VIEW
[|] Collar to exhaust duct
[7] 1.5 in. right angle flange at lower lip of ventilation hood (all
sides except back side)
U)
2 in.
S
20 in-
1.5 in.
16 in.
1.5 in.
-,
-J-
CZ1T'
24.5 in.
B-
v-
48 in.
4 In.
LEFT SIDE VIEW

fTl Grease drip tray and collector pan
|"2~| Grease baffle
5.5 in.
FRONT VIEW
2.75 in.
[3] Lowest boundary for grease baffle
[4] Grease drip tray
HTl Grease collector pan
Figure 3. Schematic of the ventilation hood

7 ^
2 in.
-3 in.
8.75 In.
28 in.
7.5 in.
48 In
96 in.
TOP VIEW
ITI Collar to exhaust duct
2 in.
____xrg
1.5 In.
16 in.
B19 In
1.5 in.
24.5 in.
i_
I
48 in.
"
2 in.
7.5 in.
FRONT VIEW
5.5 in.
4 In.
LEFT SIDE VIEW
f J l Grease drip tray and collector pan

\i\ Grease baffle
7 In.
Lowest boundary for grease baffle

_4j Grease drip tray
Grease collector pan
Area covered by wooden partition
Figure 4. Schematic of the ventilation hood modified for the under-fired broilers
i.
T
- 3 in.
D. Emission Comparisons From Various Cooking Processes
1. Introduction
During the cooking process, food products emit various compounds including grease,
water, and other materials such as protein. In addition, there is a release of combustion
by-products, from either primary combustion of the energy source or secondary
combustion of food products (such as grease drippings). The source of these emissions is
primarily from chemical reactions and phase changes due to heating. The form of the
released material can be gaseous, liquid, and/or solid. Some of the material is left on the
cooking surface or other areas of the appliance as burnt solids and/or liquid grease. The
rest of the material enters the cooking plume. Characterization of the material entering
the cooking plume is the primary objective of this research project.
The actual composition of the emitted products is extremely complex. These products
include non-condensable gases, such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen
oxides. Water and grease are present in the vapor as well as liquid form. Solid materials
such as burnt grease and protein are also present. For the purposes of this report, the
emission products are classified into three categories, non-condensable gases,
condensable gases, and particulates. Non-condensable gases only exist in the gaseous
form at normal room temperature and pressure. Condensables include grease and water
vapor, as well as condensable hydrocarbon compounds. The condensables are considered
vapors when in the gaseous form, but they may condense into the particulate form.
Particulates can be in the liquid or solid state, or a combination of both. In addition,
particulates may contain dissolved gases.
A common source of confusion is the difference between vapors and particulates.
Because vapors have the potential to form particulates, many people consider them very
small particulates. However, vapors behave as gases, and therefore must be treated as
such. The current science addressing very small particles (nanoparticles) is in its infancy.
Experimental techniques to systematically produce, control, and measure these particles
are just now developing. Therefore, the most often used definition of a particulate is its
ability to be filtered. It is well known that particulates with diameters down to 0.01 um
can be filtered to almost 100 percent efficiency. It is equally well known that gaseous
molecules with diameters of 0.0001 to 0.001 um pass through a high efficiency filter
unaffected. There are several current investigations studying the effect of filtration
between these size ranges. For this investigation, material collected on the absolute filter
are considered particulates, with a lower size limit of 0.01 um. Any material condensed
past the absolute filter is considered to have been in vapor form at the point of filtration.
While it may be the case that material smaller than 0.01 um is collected on the filter, it is
unproven. Besides, the contributions to the overall mass collected in this size range
would most likely be insignificant.
15
In the first part of this section we address the emission of grease particulates and vapors
from various cooking processes. The remainder of the section discusses the emission of
various gases.
2. Grease Particulates and Vapor
While Appendix F gives a detailed description of the test and sampling procedures, and
Appendix G details analytic procedures, a brief procedural summary follows.
The center of the cooking plume is estimated visually during tests conducted to find the
temperature distribution. A personal inertial impactor is positioned close to the estimated
plume center. The sampling position for each cooking process is shown in section E (also
in Appendix E). The impactor connects to an EPA Method 5 sample train and remains
above the idling appliance until it reaches the approximate temperature of the thermal
plume. In addition, the EPA Method 5 probe and oven hot box heat up, reaching a final
temperature at or above the temperature of the thermal plume. The temperature of the
cold box condensation train, consisting of impingers within an ice bath, stabilizes at or
below the required level (60 F or 15.6 C). Once the aforementioned preparatory steps
are complete, the cooking and sampling processes begin simultaneously. Appendix E
gives a detailed description of the cooking procedures used for each appliance.
Particles collect on the inside surface of the inlet probe, and inside the impactor on the
substrates and filter. Grease and water vapor pass through the impactor and condense in
the impinger train. The inlet probe is weighed before and after sampling. In addition, the
inside surface of the inlet probe is washed with acetone which collects and evaporates in a
pre-weighed beaker. For the inlet probe, the grease particulate mass is determined by the
net mass gain in the beaker. The substrates and filter are first desiccated, then weighed,
and finally placed securely in the impactor before sampling. As quickly as possible after
sampling (usually about 15 to 30 minutes after the cooking procedure ends), they are
weighed, then desiccated for a minimum of 24 hours and weighed again. The substrate or
filter net mass gain after sampling and desiccation, determines the grease particulate mass
for the size range pertaining to the impactor stage from which the substrate or filter
comes. Using only the desiccated masses eliminates all of the moisture that may collect
on the inlet probe, substrates, and filter. As a result of this methodology, any solid or
liquid material which collects on the filter and substrates, and does not volatilize in the
desiccator, is assumed to be grease particulates. Likewise, any material collected on the
substrates or filter, which volatilizes in the desiccator, is not counted as grease
particulates.
Testing shows that for most appliances, the mass lost during desiccation is less than two
percent. The only exceptions are the electric and gas fryers, which produce large amounts
of water that collects on the substrates. In addition, qualitative inspection shows a light
colored oily film on the substrates after sampling from most processes. This suggests the
majority of the collected particulates are in fact made of liquid grease. However, the
smallest particle sizes collected for the under-fired broiler process do show large amounts
16
of what appears to be solid black particulates. It is likely these are burnt solid pieces of
either fat, protein, or some other carbonaceous material emitted into the cooking plume.
Therefore, what is referred to in this investigation as grease particulates, may, in some
cases, contain material that strictly speaking, is not grease.
The sampling air that passes through the impactor enters the EPA Method 5 probe, which
is heated above the sampling temperature, to prevent particulate formation and
condensation. After leaving the probe the air enters the oven, or hot box. It passes
through the filter holder within the hot box, which does not contain a filter. During the
earliest tests, a filter was installed in the hot box filter holder, yet never collected any
material. This suggests all particulates were removed from the sampling air at the
impactor filter, and there was no additional particulate formation in the EPA Method 5
probe or the hot box. For this reason, the hot box filter was no longer used. The air
enters the impinger train, or cold box, consisting of three modified Greenberg-Smith
bubblers and one standard Greenberg-Smith impinger, all partially submerged in an ice
bath. The modified bubblers have a straight tube stem, while the standard impinger stem
narrows to a small opening at the bottom. The first bubbler is empty, the second is the
standard Greenberg-Smith impinger, containing 100 ml of DI water. The third bubbler
contains 100 ml of DI water and the fourth bubbler contains 200 g of silica gel.
Condensable material condenses within the first three bubblers, while the fourth bubbler
removes any additional moisture. The remaining dry air flows through the pump into the
gas meter, where the volume is measured, and vents to the room.
The bubbler bottles are weighed after sampling. All internal surfaces between the
impactor filter and the hot box filter holder are washed with acetone that collects and
evaporates in a pre-weighed glass beaker. The DI water from impingers 2 and 3 is
collected in separate pre-weighed glass beakers. Finally, all surfaces between the hot box
filter holder and the bubbler containing the silica gel are washed with acetone and
collected in a pre-weighed glass beaker. The beakers containing collected acetone and DI
water are placed under a laboratory ventilation hood to evaporate along with control
beakers containing acetone and DI water. After the necessary corrections given by mass
changes in the control beakers, the net mass gain in the evaporated beakers gives the mass
of collected grease vapor.
The material collected as grease vapor may in fact contain other condensable material. A
chemical analysis of the material was beyond the scope of the present investigation.
However, it is suspected that on a mass basis, the majority of the condensables are either
water or grease, and the aforementioned method certainly removes water. The method's
efficiency at removing grease vapor from the sampling air is unknown, and should be
addressed in the future.
To compare the emissions from various processes, the grease emissions are divided into
several categories, namely total grease, total grease particulates, PM 10 grease
particulates, PM 2.5 grease particulates, and grease vapor. Total grease includes all
grease particulates as well as all grease vapor. Total grease particulates includes all
17
grease particulate sizes. PM 10 grease particulates refers to all grease particulates less
than 10 um in diameter, while PM 2.5 refers to grease particulates less than 2.5 um.
Grease vapor includes all grease collected in the condensation impinger train.
Figure 5 shows the total grease emissions per appliance, for each of the performed tests.
The data are normalized to 1000 lb. of cooking product.
Data from the two griddles shows approximately equal quantities of total grease
emissions. This is not surprising considering the griddles were from the same
manufacturer, with identical designs except for the energy source. The proportion of the
total grease in the vapor and particulate form from the two griddles is not identical, and is
addressed later. The fryers and ovens show very little grease emission. The electric and
gas versions of each emit approximately the same amount. The food products used for
the fryers and ovens have a relatively low fat content (2-3% for the fryers, 8% for the
oven), which partially accounts for the low emissions. However, some may expect high
grease emission from the fryers due to the cooking medium, which is pure vegetable oil.
Testing shows that for these fryers, very little oil emits into the cooking plume. This may
be a function of the oil temperature and volatility. It is conceivable that a fryer using an
oil with a low boiling point, such as olive oil, while cooking a food product which
requires a high temperature, may emit a substantially larger amount of grease. However,
the conditions used for this investigation are probably much more typical of most
commercial fryer applications. For the oven, it is probable that emissions from a high fat
content product, such as a pork roast, will exceed those measured here. However, many
products cooked in ovens have a much lower fat content than the pizza used during these
tests, so emissions under those conditions may be much lower.
Emissions from the broilers show a discernible difference between the electric and gas
versions, when cooking hamburger. The electric broiler has a pan of water under each of
the two cooking grills, therefore, when grease drips from the meat, and does not land on
one of the electric coils, it falls into the water and cannot enter the cooking plume. The
gas broiler does not have a water pan and any grease which falls past the radiants hits a
collection tray beneath the burners. This collection tray is very hot, and burnt grease is
always present after cooking. In fact, grease fires from the pan occasionally flair up
during the cooking process. In addition, the total area of the hot radiants on the gas
broiler exceeds the total area of the electric coils on the electric broiler by a factor of
about 2. This is significant because grease drippings have a greater chance of falling on
the radiants, emitting grease vapor and particulates, than on falling on the electric coils.
Therefore, it is likely the difference in emissions from the gas versus the electric broiler is
due to the probability of liquid grease drippings reaching a surface hot enough to combust
the liquid grease or change it into the particulate and/or vapor form. Further support for
this argument is seen in the emissions from the broilers when cooking boneless skinless
chicken breast. The chicken breast is very low in fat content (2.7%), and evidence of
grease drippings is minimal. The emissions from the gas and electric broilers are
virtually identical, suggesting when dripping grease is minimized, as in cooking chicken
breast, the broilers emit similar levels of grease.
18
SO
ca p
if 8
o to
CO CO
CO
HX
UJ
CD
~ o>
o m si
Ill
CD X
*?
.2 X
- CO
S 3
trie Broi
ken Bre
CD .
> > CO
Gas Broile
hicken Bre
Z3
ctric Brc
amburg
(5 -Q
co w
-2 .
n V
u)
T)
ric Gri
urg
a S>
UJ
CO
CO
| N
fc--
8.
CO CO
B co
o to
o> c co
2 W
DC a) 
2.
O
0>._- 3
5 c co
o
UJ
CO
D) ffl
CO D5
CO
CO
It is interesting to compare the broiler emissions from the hamburger product to the
chicken product. While the fat content of the hamburger is about seven to eight times
that of the chicken breast, the grease emissions are only two to four times greater. When
performing a mass balance estimate on the fat content, it is discovered that only 20 to 30
percent of the fat lost from the hamburger during cooking is accounted for as grease in the
effluent emissions. For the chicken breast, this number rises to over 50 percent. While
the absolute value of the grease emissions from the hamburger is still higher, it is
significant that foods with higher fat content may emit a lower proportion of their fat
content to the cooking plume.
While this study only investigated two broilers with two food products, enough
information is available to make some important observations. From personal
observation and some scientific studies, many in the industry believe that in general, most
appliances behave similarly to other appliance of the same type, in terms of emissions,
regardless of make or design. A major exception to this has been the under-fired broiler.
In other words, while a griddle is a griddle, and a fryer is a fryer, all broilers are not the
same. While this is not surprising due the large number of variations of broilers
available, compared to other common appliances, there has never been an adequate
amount of information available to properly classify broilers.
It appears that the removal of grease drippings from areas where further volatilization
may occur greatly affects the grease emissions. For instance, it is likely that the tested gas
broiler would emit substantially less grease if the hot grease pan beneath the radiants was
replaced by a water tray. In fact, the company which manufactures the tested gas broiler
also manufactures such a model. Likewise, an electric broiler with a hot pan beneath the
coils instead of a water tray would likely emit more grease than the tested model.
Another major style of broiler is the briquette style under-fired broiler. A typical
briquette style broiler provides little opportunity for grease drippings to fall anywhere
except onto a hot briquette. The result may be a larger amount of grease emissions than
either model tested. It is likely that the fate of the grease drippings not only affects the
amount of total grease emissions, but also changes the size distribution and proportion of
grease which is present in the vapor and particulate form. If guidelines for grease
removal from under-fired broilers are to be effective, it is important to understand the
nature and differences of emissions from different broiler types.
Another important observation relates to the effect of cooking product fat content used on
the under-fired broiler. It appears that products of higher fat content emit a smaller
percentage, compared to lower fat products, of their total grease content directly into the
effluent plume. If this is true, a larger percentage of the fat must be in the form of grease
drippings. This provides an opportunity to reduce grease emissions by broiler design. If
a broiler is designed such that drippings are removed before having a chance to volatilize,
the grease emission level from an extremely high fat content food product, such as
sausage, may be closer to the emission level from a low fat content food. On the other
hand, if the broiler design enhances the chance of grease dripping onto a hot surface, the
emission difference between a low and high fat content food product will increase
20
dramatically. Another way to view this is to consider the total mass of fat lost in the food
product during cooking as the theoretical maximum grease emissions. Reducing
emissions into the cooking plume requires maximizing the amount of fat that is removed
from the system in the form of liquid grease.
Total grease emissions from the ranges show a 30 percent larger value from the gas
compared to the electric version.. The maximum temperature reached by the gas range
burner was about 800 F (427 C), while the maximum temperature reached by the
electric range French plate burner (used for cooking the sausage) was only 580 F (304
C). These temperatures were measured using a steel plate as described in ASTM
Standard Test Method 1521-96. If we assume the temperature of the cooking surface
reaches these values, it provides an explanation for the difference in emissions between
the gas and electric versions. The amount of liquid grease resulting from cooking the
sausage should be similar for each appliance, considering the product was identical and
the net mass loss of fat and moisture was similar. However, the fate of the liquid fat
might deviate when the surface temperature of the skillet differs. For both appliances, the
burners were set to a maximum output, therefore, the temperature of the skillet on the gas
range was likely higher than that of the electric range. The temperature range of interest
here is within the boiling point range of most oils and fats. Therefore, liquid grease from
the sausage on the gas griddle has a greater chance of vaporizing and entering the cooking
plume because it is heated to a higher temperature.
One would expect to see a longer cooking time to reach the same level of doneness on a
cooler surface compared to a hotter surface. Tests from this investigation do not show
this effect. A possible explanation may be that the sausages have a very small surface
area which is directly exposed to the cooking surface at any one time. While the sausage
contact area on a hot surface would certainly have a higher temperature than the same
area on a cooler surface, the distribution of this heat throughout the sausage may not be
dramatically affected by the actual temperature at the contact area. The sausage has a
high moisture content (51%), which is largely responsible for heating the internal regions
of the meat. The area of the sausage contacting the skillet heats moisture near the outer
part of the sausage, which in turn transfers the heat to the inner part of the sausage. The
difference in temperatures seen may not be enough to affect the overall cooking time.
However the same difference in temperatures may greatly affect the fate of the liquid
grease which drips to the skillet surface.
The grease emission from the ranges must be dependent on the cooking product and the
temperature used for cooking the product. A typical use of the gas range to cook sausage
may involve using a lower burner temperature, which would effect the total emissions.
The electric range has two speed coil burners which reach a temperature close to 800 F
(427 C). If the sausage was cooked on those burners set to their maximum output, the
emissions would probably increase. The burners were not used for cooking the sausage
because they were located on the left side of the range. Moving the position of the
sausage skillet would in turn produce a whole new set of variables related to the position
21
of the sauce and boiling water, affecting the behavior of the cooking plume. This would
make direct comparisons of emissions from the ranges more difficult.
The error bars in figure 5 are a result of uncertainties in the total mass of grease collected,
the mass of food product, the ratio of the sampling flow rate to the total exhaust flow rate,
and the ratio of dilution between the sampling point and the exhaust duct. Appendix H
shows a detailed analysis of the uncertainties. In almost all cases, the dilution ratio
dominates the uncertainty.
Figure 6 shows the actual amount of total grease collected for each run per appliance.
The data are not normalized. The total amount of grease collected per appliance was
generally of the same magnitude. This is a result of trying to collect enough material for
analysis, accomplished by adjusting the amount of food product cooked to reasonable
levels. For instance, the fryers required 24 lb. (10.9 kg) of potatoes to collect about 5 mg
(1.1 x 10"5 lb.) of grease, while the griddles required only 12 lb. (5.5 kg) of hamburger.
For most of the appliances, the level of collected grease was similar for all runs. It is
important to remember the data in figure 6 are not normalized, therefore it is necessary to
be cautious when making comparisons of emissions levels between appliances and even
between different runs from the same appliance. This is because factors such as the
exhaust flow rate, food product mass, and cooking time, are not considered.
The error bars in figure 6 are a result of the uncertainties in the mass of grease collected
in the inlet probe, the impactor substrates and filter, and the impinger train. The absolute
value of the uncertainties are almost identical because the measurement techniques were
similar for each test. The largest portion of uncertainty comes from determining the
contributions from the inlet stage and grease vapor. For these values, it was necessary to
use a scale with a resolution of 0.1 mg (2.2 x 10"7 lb.) to find net mass gain from grease
deposits in beakers weighing 50 to 100 g (0.11 to 0.22 lb.). The net mass loss was on the
order of mg's. In contrast, the substrates and filters weigh about 10 to 20 mg (2.2 x 10"5 to
4.4 x 10"5 lb.), and are measured on a scale with a resolution of 0.1 to 1 |ig (2.2 x 10~10 to
2.2 x 10"9 lb.).
Figure 7 shows the average total grease emissions from each appliance, normalized to the
mass of food product. The values in figure 7 are determined by averaging the data from
each run presented in figure 5. Figure 7 provides information for easy comparison
between appliance emissions. Discussion of the comparisons were previously given.
Uncertainties are not included in figure 7 for several reasons. Time constraints arising
from the desire to test many cooking processes limit the number of tests run for each
process. While the number of controllable variables is high, the number of uncontrollable
and/or unknown variables that may affect emissions is even higher. Therefore, a large
number of tests for each process is necessary to provide statistically significant
uncertainty for a given process. If we were to simply use the uncertainty from each
individual test, and consider only their influence on the average emissions, the resulting
uncertainty would most likely be understated. Therefore, those wishing to determine the
range of emissions from a given process can use the information available in figure 5 as
22
CD
CO
c E
tJ
ci> X
UJ " "
<2
co p
UJ
roiler
urger)
E>
CD ^ >
> . CO
ii
lectric
(Potat
"u.
Fryer
atoes)
"if
CD
riddle
rger)
to
m x>
2 E
CO
CO
2
ffl
CD
is <8
9m
Ii
n c
8
t3 to
UJ
3 ?
J? 8
8
fi m
o C=D
O
O
CD ;=
CD
CO
CD Q.
52 g>
CO
UJ O
CO
CO
CO
Appliance
EH Test 2
I Test 3
Figure 6. Collected total grease emissions per appliance
CD
O)
t3 co
iUJ
n co
CO
iS -c
CE D ) CD
8 S.S*
CO
CO
ni
CD
S *= CO
OCO
c S en
UJ
CO
CO
S.
C ffl O)
Appliance
Figure 7. Average total grease emissions per appliance
,55
estimates, keeping in mind that reproducing the results may depend not only on the
variables controlled and documented in this report, but also on factors which have not yet
been investigated (the effect of different appliance models, food products, ventilation
system, etc.).
Figure 8 shows the average grease distribution per appliance. Figure 9 shows the same
information in percentage terms. The emission data are normalized to the mass of food
product.
In figures 8 and 9, the average total grease emissions shown in figure 7 are divided into
the average contribution from each particulate size range and grease in the vapor phase.
The area shaded with horizontal lines, shown on the bottom of the histogram, represents
the mass contribution from grease in the vapor phase. The area above the grease vapor,
shaded with diagonal lines from the lower left to the upper right, represents the
contribution of particulates smaller than 2.5 (am. Above the 2.5 um particulates are the
particulates between 2.5 and 10 um, represented by the shaded area with diagonal lines
from the upper left to the lower right. Finally, the top of the histogram, shaded by vertical
lines, represents the mass contribution from particulates larger than 10 um.
These comparisons show considerable fluctuation of particle size distribution and vapor
contributions across the processes. While each of these size ranges will be compared
independently later, some comments are appropriate at this point. First, discussion will
focus on the difference in emissions from the gas and electric versions of each appliance.
Then, we will discuss the difference in emissions from process to process.
The cooking process from the gas versus the electric griddle shows the largest difference
in distribution. The gas griddle has a much higher percentage of grease in all the
particulate sizes, compared to the electric griddle. The majority of grease emissions from
the electric griddle are in the vapor form. Considering the griddles are identical in all
ways except for the energy source, this may appear suspect. However, the phase of the
grease emissions is dependent on the sampling position, which might explain the
differences seen.
The approximately equal value of total grease emitted from the griddles is somewhat
reassuring. This means identical food products cooked on identical surfaces heated to the
same temperature emit the same total amount of grease. The behavior of the emitted
grease is dynamic, and can be expected to change with the various conditions it
encounters during the ventilation process. The position of the sampling probe is
physically identical for the gas and electric griddles. However, the difference in the
thermal plume at that point is vastly different for the two appliances. The gas griddle has
a flue emitting hot combustion gases located along the entire back length of the appliance.
While the manufacturer uses an identical frame for the electric version, the flue is covered
with stainless steel and provides no contribution to the thermal plume. A very hot
thermal plume from the flue can be expected to entrain a large amount of dilution room
air. Much of this room air must travel across the area above the griddle surface. This
25
JB K
.2
?i
11
at
II
CO
J*
<D , - .
II
I*
fete
<D-C
to
1!
*i
at
>- t n
.-
<0
<
21
1^ 14" ?|"
^ 2.5 micrometers<Dp<=10 micrometers
EH Dp>10 micrometers
|l
if
II
ill Hi
Appliance
I Vapor
M Dp<=2.5 micrometers
Figure 8. Average grease distribution per appliance
100%
80%--
)
<a
60%
CD
40%
to
20%--
0 -o
m (0
<D
I
CD fc
O <D
IT g
To
00 S3
0Ui ^"
o x
.2 -o
'5 8,
oo ^
U -Q
E
u co
X
UJ '
*0 S3
2 2
co m
in
UJ
_-3
o 8.
52
1
CO
0)
CO
roc a
o g>
^-^
(ox:
CC O) in
Gas
(Spa
usag
Elect
Sausa
J2
CO
CO
lectri Range
(Spa hetti,
usag Sauce
0%
UJ
Q> 10 micrometers
may cause some of the grease vapor to condense on existing particulates, allowing
particulates to grow while removing grease vapor. The process should be minimal for the
electric griddle, because there is less entrained air. The temperature distribution
measured 12 in. (30.5 cm) above the two griddles supports this argument. The air near
the front and middle of the gas griddle (away from the flue) is closer to room temperature
than the air near the front and middle of the electric griddle.
By the time the plume reaches the sampling point, the gases from the gas griddle flue
have heated it to a higher temperature than that experienced by the electric griddle. A
question that needs to be answered is why would the grease vapor condense on
particulates at the relatively low temperature experienced near the griddle surface, and yet
not evaporate into the vapor form at the higher temperatures reached before sampling.
Perhaps the conditions for the vaporization of grease, present at the cooking surface, do
not exist between the cooking surface and the sampling point. Factors affecting the
vaporization of grease include not only the temperature, but the pressure, moisture and
other composition of the surrounding air, and the surface tension of the liquefied grease.
The affect of each of these factors is unknown, but they may play a role in explaining the
differences seen in the gas and electric griddle grease emissions.
The grease distribution from the fryers is slightly different, with the electric fryer having a
higher proportion of grease in the vapor phase and a lower proportion of grease in the
largest particle size range. Like the gas and electric griddles, the fryers are virtually
identical except for the energy source. The gas fryer produces flue emissions of much
higher temperature. Therefore, the same effect seen for the griddles may occur for the
fryers. The reason the effect may be less pronounced is the gas fryer flue is about one foot
above the cooking oil level, lowering the amount of possible room air entrainment before
the sampling point.
For the broilers, the distribution of particle sizes is basically the same for the electric and
gas versions. The slightly larger percentage of grease vapor seen for the gas version is
probably due to the very hot surface onto which the grease drippings fall. This slight
increase in percentage of grease vapor from the gas broiler, compared to the electric
broiler, is evident for both the hamburger and chicken breast products.
The electric and gas versions of the oven emit grease in mostly the vapor form. Because
the total mass of particulates is so low, the slightly larger percentage seen in the gas oven
is probably insignificant.
Grease emissions from the ranges show a higher percentage of grease in the vapor form
from the gas version. This is probably due to the higher burner temperature used to cook
the sausage.
To assist in comparing total grease emission distribution from the different processes,
figure 10 shows the percentage of emissions for the total particulate and vapor phase.
28
100%
90%
80%
70%
CO
O)
60%
50%
CD
40%
CO
2
Q.
30%
20%
10%
c
CD .O
E
CO
O l
.2 ,-.
o -9
2
c E
t3
3
CD X
UJ
fi
CD
^
>> to
CD CD
if 8
P 3E
UJ
mE
CO
a I
Si
o
HI
CD
mc
'oiler
reast]
E>
CQ CO
CO
CO
<".
^
C CD
o ?
O -*
O
hie
CD
lectric
(Potat
Gas
(Poti
JP.
reast]
0%
ridd
rger
to
UJ O
CO
CD Q_
S,
(/)
0}
cd co
CO
CD
CO
O 0.
o CDD)
c CCOO
1
UJ
3
CO
CO
a--
O ) * S CO
CC D J to
CO
CO
, 9 - co
CO co
-
3
CO
CO
Appliance
a % Vapor
D>
ED % Particles
Figure 10. Particulate vs. vapor phase emission percentage per appliance (average)
01
Si CD
o
>._- 3
* * CO
D ) CD"
c eg
D)
The percentage of grease emissions in the vapor form ranges from 30 percent for the
electric broiler while cooking hamburger to over 95 percent for the electric oven. The
percentage of grease present in the vapor phase is important to know because vapor
emissions cannot be removed by physical mechanisms alone. That is, when grease vapor
passes through a traditional grease baffle, the inertial forces responsible for removing
large particulates are ineffective at removing vapor. In light of the information shown in
figure 10, it is doubtful that claims of grease removal efficiencies in the 95 percent range
are accurate for grease extractors operating with only inertial removal mechanisms.
It is clear from figure 10 that the ovens and ranges have the highest percentage of grease
present in the vapor form. The percentage of grease vapor from the broilers cooking
chicken breast is fairly high, while there is much less, in percentage terms, cooking
hamburger. For reasons discussed earlier, the griddles and fryers differ from gas to
electric version much more than the other appliances. The range for percentage of grease
in the vapor form from the griddles and fryers fall between those seen from the broilers
cooking hamburger and the ranges.
The implications of a high percentage of grease emitting in the vapor form is great from
the perspective of grease removal. Grease vapor passing through any physical barriers
such as grease baffles, will eventually condense. This may occur on the surface of the
exhaust duct, on the internal surfaces of the exhaust fan, or somewhere outside the
building. The fate of the vapor within the exhaust system is probably dependent on the
temperatures it experiences within the system. For instance, if the exhaust duct lies along
the outside of the building, or within an unheated space within the building, and it is not
insulated, its internal surface may be quite cool. Under these conditions, grease vapor
condensation on the exhaust duct surface is likely. Some types of grease extractors, such
as water wash mists, may be very effective at condensing grease vapor before it enters the
exhaust duct.
It is worthwhile to compare the contributions from each particulate size range for the
various processes. Figure 11 shows the total particulate grease emissions per appliance
normalized to the mass of food product for each test. Figure 12 shows the average
particulate grease emissions for each process.
Total grease particulate emissions include all particulates collected. The emissions from
the fryers, ovens, and ranges, show a level of total particulates within or near the noise
range of our testing methodology. The griddles show a significant level of particulate
emissions, on the order of 5 to 10 lb. per 1000 lb. food product. When the food product is
hamburger, particulate emissions from the broiler cooking process significantly exceeds
that of the other cooking processes. The gas broiler emits an average of about 34 lb. per
1000 lb. of cooking product, with a standard deviation of about 8 lb. per 1000 lb. The
electric broiler emits about 15 percent less grease particulates. There is a dramatic
difference in grease particulate emissions when the broilers are used to cook chicken
breast. The particulate emissions fall by a factor of
30
OJ
o o> oj"
CO
Appliance
STestl
DD Test 2
0 Test 3
D Test 4
Figure 11. Total grease particulate emissions per appliance for each test
(Tl o
o it
CO . a
CD Q .
LU
CD
LU
CD
58
CO CO
a i
JCD
2>
m n3
o
e E
t3
CO
jD
LU
CD
m c
8
u
o
o s
c
8
O
2
Z
Ul O
''
CO
CD
V)
2
CO
CO
"
Appliance
Figure 12. Average grease particulate emissions per appliance
CD
D> *3 CO
5*
"
T->
S
o
CD
D)
CD
CO
co
3
L"W
^~'
18
CC
O ) CD
CO
CO
2.
o
S>. - 3
Rar
hett
Sa
en
CD CD
LL o
O to
&
Gas
(Spa
usag
o -9c
c
CD
Ove n
gePizza
O .O
t
to eg
Broiler
Breast,
c g>
b
LL
Breast
C 3
fl) (0
tati
.2
o a
C
K
JJ
CO D )
Q . CO
> co w
CD 5ii- 3
LU
CO
CO
5 to ten times the level seen from the boilers cooking hamburger, a direct result of the
lower fat content of the chicken breast. It is interesting to note the total particulate
emissions from the gas and electric versions of the broilers are identical when cooking
chicken breast, but when cooking hamburger, the gas broiler emits more particulates than
the electric broiler. This evidence supports the hypothesis that the hot grease collection
surface beneath the gas broiler causes additional grease emissions while cooking a higher
fat content food product.
Figure 13 shows the total mass of grease particulates actually collected during each test.
The data are not normalized. The total grease particulate collection ranged from below 1
mg to above 12 mg. Note the absolute value of the error bars are almost identical. This
is a result of employing consistent measurement and analysis techniques. The uncertainty
of 1 mg comes mostly from the uncertainty associated with the mass measurement of
the largest particles. The smaller uncertainties seen in the first range tests result from
collecting particulate data during three sequential runs (during the temperature
distribution tests). Therefore, to compare the collected grease emissions with other tests
from the same process, the collected mass from these tests was divided by three. The
additional collection time from these tests results in improved resolution, apparent in the
reduced uncertainty.
Figure 14 shows the PM 10 grease particulate emissions from each process normalized to
the mass of food product for all separate tests. Figure 15 shows the average PM 10 grease
emissions for each process. Comparing the level of PM 10 grease emissions from the
electric and gas versions of each appliance shows the energy source has little or no effect.
Therefore, the difference in grease emissions from the gas and electric versions of some
appliances, apparent in earlier figures, are not caused by these smaller particulates, but
result from a difference in large particulate and grease vapor emissions.
Figure 14 shows PM 10 particulate emissions from the fryers and ovens are essentially
undetectable. The levels for the griddles and ranges are also quite low. The level of PM
10 emissions is significant from the grease removal standpoint. Small particulates are
aerodynamic and follow the flow of the surrounding gas very closely. The smaller the
particle, the more likely it will follow the surrounding air stream. Therefore, it is likely
small particulates are not removed efficiently by traditional grease baffles, which employ
inertial separation mechanisms. While little information is available regarding the
relationship between grease baffle removal efficiency and particle size, it is likely
particles 10 ]im in diameter and smaller are not efficiently removed. The Stokes number,
typically used to characterized inertial impaction, is the ratio of the distance a particle will
travel before reacting to a change in air flow, to the characteristic size of the obstruction
causing the change in air flow. In fact, when the ventilation rate is maximized, the Stokes
number for a 10 ^.m particle entering the baffles used for this investigation is about 0.25.
This tells us some 10 |im particles may impact within the baffles, but many will also pass
through. Experimental tests are necessary to determine the actual removal efficiency.
33
Ul
CO CO
(D X
o XI
I
Ul
CO
X
Ul O
CO
CD
&--
ra c co
fa CO
O
CO
2 2
CC D) a)
to S
Ol
188
CO
CO
Appliance
m Test 2
ic Oven
ge Pizza
m xi
52 E
*i
S
m3
Gas Oven
ausa ge Pizza
u E
o
j) I
to
CD CD
lectri c Broiler
hicke n Breast
IS E
CO
"D "5-"
Gas Broiler
hicke n Breast
P>
3
.O
Electric
(Potat
.
CD
Gas Fryei
(Potatoes
i2
I Test 3
m Test 4
Figure 13. Collected total grease particulate emissions per appliance
CD
CD
D) . _ - O3
C
CO
e ca
CC CO
o
C
CO O )
I W co
W
CO
CO
14
12
o
g 10
Q.
O
o
o
c
g
"(0
co
"E
UJ
iBL
CD
CO
if 8
CD Q -
LU
LU
jD 0
2 2>
m XI
E
co
to
CD
'2 2>
m
o
r Eco
5 I
JD
LU
UJ O
CO
Eiectric Oven
Sausage Pizza
Gri
urg
"- 13
So
CD
^
> < CO
Gas Oven
ausage Pizza
m (0
lectri c Broiler
licke n Breast
CD
Gas Broiler
hicke n Breast
CO < 0
qui
E>
=n
_isCSl2EBfS5L
H-"
CD
S.--3
D> n co
co .c
CC 0 > CD
CO S >
BTesM
O Test 2
0 Test 3
S Test 4
Figure 14. PM 10 grease particulate emissions per appliance for each test
Cj
D ) CD"
r 5 o
lai its
CO
CO
Appliance
Si.
UJ
CO
CO
Si.
O D) ffl
c 5 o)
Appliance
Figure 15. Average PM 10 grease particulate emissions per appliance
While the PM 10 grease emissions from most processes are relatively low, the broilers
produce large amounts. Even the emissions while cooking the chicken breast, with a fat
content of only 2 to 3 percent, produced more PM 10 than the other appliances. The level
of PM 10 emissions while cooking hamburger on the broilers is almost an order of
magnitude greater than the emissions from other processes. Because much of the grease
from the broilers consists of small particulates, grease removal strategies must differ.
When designing inertial impaction to affect very small particles, one requires high airflow
velocities. To reach such velocities, a high pressure drop is usually necessary, requiring a
more powerful and energy intensive ventilation fan. At the present time, it seems
unlikely that traditional grease baffles can effectively remove PM 10 sized particulates in
a kitchen ventilation system. Strategies similar to those employed to remove grease
vapor, such as water washes, may be effective at removing small particulates. In
addition, one particulate removal strategy, electrostatic precipitation (ESP), is a well
known and proven method for removing small particulates from air streams. ESP's are
commonly used in traditional HVAC ventilation filtration and have more recently been
employed for kitchen ventilation. However, its effectiveness under the high loading
conditions seen in commercial cooking applications deserves investigation.
Figure 16 shows the collected mass of PM 10 grease particulates for each process. The
data are not normalized. The small error bars reflect accuracy and precision of the microbalance used to measurethe collected small particulates. While grease collection was on
the order of mg, the scale resolution was on the order of u.g. The uncertainties seen in
figure 14 reflect the inaccuracies involved finding the dilution ratio. Because figure 16
strictly shows raw collection data, dilution ratio errors are not included.
Figure 17 shows the PM 2.5 grease particulate emissions from each process, normalized
to the mass of food product, for each test. Figure 18 shows the average PM 2.5 emissions
for each process. Similar to the PM 10 grease emissions, the PM 2.5 grease emissions are
low for most processes except the broilers. In fact, the difference between PM 2.5
emissions from the broilers compared to the other processes is even greater than the
difference seen for PM 10 emissions. The Stokes number for a 2.5 fim particle traveling
through the grease baffles used in this investigation under maximum ventilation is only
0.015. Therefore, most PM 2.5 particulates will pass through the grease extractor and
enter the exhaust duct. While everything regarding the removal strategies of PM 10
particulates applies to PM 2.5 particulates, another important point regarding the
emission of small particulates should be addressed.
The human health effects regarding small particulates has been studied intensively over
the last 20 years. Particles below 10 p.m are considered inhalable, while particles 2.5 \im
in diameter and below are considered respirable, that is, they reach the lower regions of
the human respiratory tract. Cooking emissions have the potential to carry carcinogenic
material to the deep regions of the human lung. A recent study (Siegmann and Sattler
pub. pending) shows that cooking oil particulates can carry dissolved polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH). PAH's are considered human carcinogens. Section D-6 discusses
the study in greater detail. While the PAH's were identified within cooking oil
37
c
o
'w
to
"E
ill
o
CD
J2
o
o
c F
CO
"-1
2
CO
CD S ^
0 CD
if g
UJ
Ui
l Test 1
O *CD 13
2 E
O X
CO CO
11
2 m
m c
c E
3&
CO
o o
UJ X
O
Appliance
m
o
DDTest2
.Q
I Test 3
s 3
S
CQ CQ
c
o
Z
UJ O
CO
S Q.
o
O)
2
cO co
3
w
B Test 4
Figure 16. Collected PM 10 grease particulate emissions per appliance
c m
0
6 a.
CQ
D) tS CO
trie
age
CO
lectric
(Potat
P>
mM
RShm
er)
oo
iS -c -
CO
3
UJ CO

>._- 3
oco
CC D 5 CD
CO
CO
SSI
So
a J=.
8 3
CJ3 L _
HI
.03 - C
8 >
m E5
CO . O
CO CO
(3
X
*1
O CO
03 X
w
LU
03
Sg
om
m c
m 03
2 -*
CO
<Q
ID cO
.2
p
m
o
T"
CO
c
U3
Jd
O O
03 i -
UJ O
CO
r 9
-
<5 9
icOv
gePi
it g
"
03 CD
1 ff
Ove
gePi
a> ,
> . CO
G
Chi
<D 2
2
CO
w
i s co
o w
CD g
CO
rn CO
(3 C=O
Appliance
8 Test 1
IDlTest2
I Test 3
B Test 4
Figure 17. PM 2.5 grease particulate emissions per appliance for each test
03
fc--
0 > * 3 CO
C O ) ] )
CO
CO
en
03
>._- 3
oco
O
2 * 03"
CO
CO
Hi
"B 2
UJ
h
UJ
m .o
52
CO CO
CD
X
roil
52 -R
j e - CD
p
m
C>
Electri
Fryer
atoes)
CD 3
roiler
urger)
riddle
rger)
CD -Q
lectric
(Potat
riddle
urger)
3
XI
E
CO
X,
jD
CO
p
'g m
m c
CO CD
CO ^
o
CD
CD
"3"
P
mm
o c
SI
2
o
CD
ID !c
| a
CD C L
2 co
CO CO
CO
CO
Appliance
Figure 18. Average PM 2.5 grease particulate emissions per appliance
CD
CO
-2 3
^5
CD
ft--
D ) t J CO
S
co x2: co.
co
CC
O ) CD
CO
co en
CD
.9- <
CO co
CO
CO
o
c
.CD
Ui
OCO
D)
CO
CD"
D)
-9-
C O , co
CO
CO
particulates under non-cooking conditions, there is a strong possibility they are present in
commercial cooking operations. In addition, there may be other carcinogenic material
present within the particulates. Given the increased importance of both indoor and
ambient air quality, future studies will certainly address the potential dangers of long term
human exposure to cooking emissions.
Figure 19 shows the collected mass of PM 2.5 grease particulates for each process. The
data are not normalized. Similar to results shown in figure 16, much more PM 2.5 grease
particulates were collected from the broiler processes than any other process. The small
uncertainties result from the high resolution of the micro-balance used to measure the
substrates and filters which collect the smallest particulates.
Figure 20 shows the grease vapor emissions from each process normalized to the food
product mass, for each test. Figure 21 shows the average grease vapor emissions for each
process. Grease vapor emissions differ between electric and gas versions for several
appliances. The electric griddle produces more grease vapor than the gas griddle. As
previously discussed, this may be a result of room air entrained by the gas griddle flue
condensing grease vapor into particulates. The gas versions of the broiler cooking
hamburger and the range have higher grease vapor emissions than the electric versions.
The difference seen in the broiler probably relates to liquid grease landing on the hot
grease collection tray, where the drippings heat up and enter the cooking plume as grease
vapor.
The majority of the grease vapor from the ranges is a result of the sausage. The
temperature of the burner used to heat the sausage skillet is considerable higher on the gas
range compared to the electric range. Therefore, it is likely the grease drippings are
exposed to higher temperatures, producing more grease vapor. The ovens and the fryers
do not emit much grease vapor compared to the other processes.
The actual level of grease vapor emissions is significant. For instance, if a process
similar to the one used for the gas broiler is used constantly in a commercial process, a
great deal of grease vapor will be released. If the ventilation system simply relies on
grease baffles as a removal mechanism, as many do, almost all of the grease vapor will
vent to the atmosphere. This leaves the grease to condense somewhere, such as on the
building roof, or on other nearby buildings. The odor from the grease vapor may carry
great distances, causing many neighbors to consider the commercial cooking operation a
nuisance. As previously mentioned, the removal of grease vapor from an air stream is
challenging, and must be addressed in future investigations.
Figure 22 shows the collected grease vapor from each process. The data are not
normalized. The actual amount of grease vapor collected varied from about 1 to 22 mg.
The error bars shown in figure 22 reflect the uncertainty from the measurement errors.
They do not reflect the true accuracy of the method. The true accuracy of the method is
unknown because the efficiency with which the method condenses grease vapor is
unknown. While it is possible almost 100 percent of the grease vapor present in the
41
81
ts
Ul
if 8
Ul
ffl CD
CO . o
= CD
0)
CO
_CD CD
.2 co
2m
CD CD
SK
CO CO
II
m c
a i
tS co
5 o
0
III"
a*
CO
2 2
CD C L
o&
= .?
LU O
TO
2
CO ( 0
CO
CO
Appliance
IE Test 2
m CO
m Test 3
B Test 4
Figure 19. Collected PM 2.5 grease particulate emissions per appliance
CZ
CD
CD
CO
>
O
Q.
o
CD
tu
CO
D
CO
CO
trie
age
S 1
cCOBCo
x
CO ^
> CO
lectric
(Potat
(5 .3
Gas Fryer
(Pot atoes)
riddle
rger)
riddle
urger)
to
D ) t S CO
c o>u)
Co - C
co D ) CD
CC
CO S
D)
O .9- <
CO co
' ' 3
CO
CO
Si.
CO
O
C
D ) CD"
CO D )
SSI
tt
as
5 X
LU
co
CO
CD 5>
Mk
2 [?
CO
JD^
1 2
Gas Bro
hicken B
8 5,
C3
ft.
P
b
qui
a)
c
CJ
"ST
GasB
(Hamb
c = 3
(D E
T
TJ
|0
CD
Electric
(Potat
Electric Broilei
(Hamburger)
4*.
CD
m CO
o c
i- w
.se
o o
.{D
j=
tU O
o
CO
O)
CO
CO
CO
m Test 3
Figure 20. Grease vapor emissions per appliance for each test
CD
CO
DJ * 3
JD Q_
Appliance
CD Test 2
,-
CO
S 2 CO
co
O
(0
DC D ) CD
CO O )
CO
^ co
o S5 gj"
.9"
"~" CO
CO
HI
CO, W
CO O )
sag
CO
CO
o -g
o
G) X
UJ
Is
a|
CD (=.
>. to
*8
Si.
II
m .0
9
(0 (0
CD X
to
UJ
1
w
%r (0
ta 2
trie Broi
ken Bre
a
c a
CD
E
IS as
CD X
ias Broile
cken Bre
m (0
ctric Broil
amburge
.
a
(0
Q_
o
2
td 03
CO
Appliance
Figure 21. Average grease vapor emissions per appliance
i3
B to
o
O) S3 t0
5 -c
2 to
iS
H
a ID-
03
2 5
CO
fll
._- 3
CO
o 2> "
c 5 g
UJ
to
CO
Appliance
STest!
Test 2
I Test 3
Figure 22. Collected grease vapor emissions per appliance
incoming air stream condenses in the impinger train, this is not proven. Therefore, we are
truly measuring the mass of grease vapor which condenses from an air stream cooled to
below 60 F (15 C) by water filled glass impingers submerged in an ice bath. Further
research is necessary to find the relationship between this measurement and the true
amount of grease vapor present.
As part of this investigation, a grease mass balance from the gas griddle process was used
to determine if the grease vapor measurement levels were feasible. The total product fat
loss was compared to sum of the mass of grease collected in the particulate form, the
vapor form, and the mass of grease left on the griddle surface. Given the uncertainties in
the fat content before and after cooking, the total mass accounted for from particulate and
vapor collected emissions and grease left on the griddle surface, was within the range of
total product fat loss. This suggests the method used for grease vapor collection is
probably a decent approximation of the grease vapor present in the air stream.
3. Carbon Dioxide Emissions
A stainless steel probe, connected to a personal sampling pump and a CO2 analyzer, was
used to sample air from the thermal plume at the same position as the probe for the grease
emissions. Figure 23 shows the total CO2 emissions normalized to the food product
mass.
The CO2 emissions shown in figure 23 include contributions from the room air. That is,
room air, with a CO2 level from 350 to 450 ppm enters the thermal plume from several
sources. The largest contribution is from air entering the thermal plume between the
cooking surface and the sampling point. The thermal plume entrains this air, cooling the
plume before it reaches the exhaust duct. Smaller contributions come from excess
combustion air, necessary for complete combustion. In addition, within the gas
appliances, room air enters and cools the exhaust air. This dilution air differs from the
excess air in that it is not necessary for the combustion process. Instead, its purpose is to
reduce the temperature of the combustion products before they exit the flue. The values
from figure 23 reflect the total amount of CO2 which must exhaust through the ducting.
The CO2 emissions from the electric appliances are mainly from the dilution air. There
might be a slight effect seen from the food product, especially from the electric broiler.
For each appliance, it is clear the combustion process from the gas version causes higher
CO2 emissions than those seen from the electric version.
The largest CO2 emitter is the gas broiler. At first, it may appear peculiar that emissions
on the order of 1000 lb. per 1000 lb. of food product are produced. However, this
translates into about 5 cfm of CO2 in the exhaust duct or 2000 ppm for an exhaust flow
rate of 2400 cfm. Duct CO2 measurements show this value to be accurate.
While figure 23 shows the CO2 emissions normalized to the food product mass, it is
interesting to view the emissions per hour of operation. For instance, for the griddles, a
46
1600
1400
t3
.= 1200
Q.
rA 1000
o
o
800
c
Jo 600
<n
400
i
T5 X
in ^
vuMim
35
lea
g m
> co
if
lectric
(Potat
CO 3
CO
C
Gas Fryer
(Pot atoes)
S 1
ricG riddle
mbu rger)
riddle
urger)
m&m*
CD ja
HI
o x
CO (0
co J2
co -g
O
CD CD
II
o o
LU O
CO
CO
CO
O CO2
CO
Appliance
Figure 23. Total C0 2 emissions per appliance
(normalized to food product mass)
-
CDa
tricOv
age Pi
200
sOve
age Pi
CO
CD
CD
O ) t i CO
<o
OC
CO
co
x: _
O ) CD
eg o )
,9- *
CO co
co
CO
CO
O ) CD"
sss
ID
co
CO
45
40
c 35
o
30
Q.
O
3 25
O
-C
"e/5 20
c
g
rih
i
"5
CD
UJ
S3
<
LU
CO X )
a
CO CO
f
II
tS co
.2 X
UJ "-'
^
_g>
2
m
w
co
.C
2D CO
CD
1
mm
p
m
c
J2
"5
CO
_ "co"
CD
2> ts co
S 2 w
.2 -c -
a *
o =C>
CO
O
4= co
o co
CD 3
CO
co
ffl
icOv
gePi
co eg
O 5 .
(3 3
if
= CD
Ovei
gePi
roiler
urger)
CJ .Q
lectric
(Potat
CD T~"
D E>
Fryer
atoes)
0
riddle
rger)
oo
'to
| 15
HI
10
o
c
*=
o
S
ffi
.*
o
UJ O
CO (0
Appliance
Figure 24. Total C0 2 emissions per appliance
(normalized to 1 hour of full load operation)
m CO
DC D ) CD
CO
CO
>._- 3
* S CO
CO
O ) CD*
388
10
<5
full load test consists of only 6 lb. of hamburger, while a full load test for the oven
consists of 25 lb. of pizza. Therefore, the griddles must operate for a much longer time
period to reach 1000 lb. of food product, compared to the oven. Figure 24 shows the CO2
emissions normalized to one hour of full load operation.
The emissions from the electric appliances are almost identical when normalized to time.
This fact supports the notion that, for the electric appliances, the majority of the CO>
emissions are from the dilution room air. Emissions from the gas versions of the griddle,
fryer, oven, and range, have similar CO? emissions. Because the energy input from these
appliances are relatively similar, this suggests the majority of the CQ2 emissions are due
to combustion. However, the gas broiler shows much larger emissions even though its
energy input is similar to the other gas appliances. This suggests the food product
provides additional CO2 emissions. The food product CO2 contribution is most likely
from the grease drippings combusting on the hot surface of the radiants. The radiant
temperature was measured at about 1200 F (649 C), which is probably adequate to cause
a combustion type chemical reaction. The large difference in emissions from the gas
broiler cooking chicken breast compared to hamburger reflects the greater volume of
grease dripping from the hamburger product.
The average energy rate during cooking was used to estimate the total CQ2 contributions
from the combustion process. The assumption was that all the natural gas fed to the
appliance was combusted under stoichiometric conditions. Therefore, 2.74 lb. of CO2 is
released for each lb. of NH4 burned. Stoichiometric conditions will give the maximum
possible CO2 contributions from combustion. Figure 25 shows the total CO2 emissions
with the maximum contributions from combustion.
The histogram area with vertical lines shows the estimated maximum contribution from
combustion of natural gas. The remaining CO2 emissions, shown with horizontal lines,
represents contributions from the other possible sources, including grease combustion,
dilution air, and excess air. Emissions from the electric appliances must come from
grease combustion or dilution air. The gas griddle shows a large contribution from the
combustion process. For the gas griddle, the contribution from sources other than
combustion is similar to the CO2 emissions from the electric griddle. Because the
griddles are essentially identical, we would expect the CQ2 from sources other than
combustion to be equal for the gas and electric versions. We would expect the same for
the fryers and ovens, and figure 25 shows this to be true.
The gas broiler shows equal contributions from combustion while cooking either chicken
breast or hamburger. This is a result of the energy input being equal. The most
noticeable difference seen in the broilers is the contributions from grease combustion,
dilution air and excess air. The gas broiler emissions from these sources far exceeds that
from the electric broiler. The most probable explanation is the difference in broiler
design. The gas broiler has extremely hot radiants and a grease drip tray below the
cooking surface. Grease drippings from the food product frequently fall onto these hot
surfaces. It is common to have the grease drip tray catch fire, probably emitting
49
1200
o
T3
2
a.
o
o
o
1000-
800
3T
w
c
,o
600
co
400
"E
o
200
> co
il g
0 9z-
I*
CD
UJ
O I
ik
CO CO
o
&
c P>
en 5
u a
2 m
c
u
II
IE
O
cd
ia
CD
8) _
|J
to
CO
Js
CO
CO
o o
UJ o
o> e co
CO
co
IX
SI
Q> CD
co 2 2>
CO
Appliance
DO Combustion Estimate
M From Grease Combustion, Dilution Air, and Excess Air
Figure 25. Total C 0 2 emissions per appliance

(with maximum combustion contributions)
significant levels of CCh. The electric broiler does have electric heating elements which
have a temperature which we measured identical to the temperature of the gas broiler
radiants (1200 F or 649 C). However, they comprise an area smaller than that of the
radiants. In addition, the electric broiler has a water pan beneath the cooking surface, so
grease that drips past the heating elements is removed from the system, contributing no
emissions. The lower emissions from the chicken product reflects its lower fat content.
One would expect to see the CO2 contributions from the sources other than combustion
for the gas range to be similar to the contributions from the electric range. However, the
maximum combustion contributions can account for the entire measured CO2 emissions.
It is unlikely perfect combustion conditions exist, making the actual CQ2 contributions
from combustion lower. Besides, the amount of CO2 from the electric range is quite low,
therefore, we would expect for the combustion contributions from the gas range to
overshadow the contributions from the food product. The effect seen for the gas range
should remind readers of an important point, that is the data shown in figure 25 shows the
maximum possible combustion contributions, not the actual amounts.
While the previous figures show the total CO2 emissions including contributions from the
room air, it is possible to estimate the CO2 emissions when the room air CO2 is
subtracted. The result is an estimate of the amount of CO2 the process actually generates.
The amount of room air from the appliance flue, which includes excess combustion air
and dilution air used to cool the combustion gases, is estimated by performing an energy
and mass balance between the combustion flame, the room air, and the exiting flue gas.
Figure 26 shows a simple schematic of the process.
Aflame
Flame
Mflame
"Iroomaiir
k
W Flue
Appliance
"-room
Room Air
Eflue
\ -Eradiation
Mflue
Figure 26. Schematic of the mass and energy contributions to the exiting flue gas
The total mass of the gas exiting at the flue must equal the sum of the combustion gas
mass and the dilution room air mass used to cool the combustion gases before they exit
the flue. The same conservation also applies to the energy. The value for the flame
temperature of natural gas was estimated at 4000 R (2222 K), which is slightly below the
adiabatic flame temperature. Energy lost to the food product (as determined for each test)
was subtracted from the total energy contributions from the natural gas combustion. In
addition, energy losses due to infrared radiation to the surroundings were estimated at 50
percent based on available heat gain information (ASHRAE 1997). The remaining energy
from the flame is accounted for at the flue exit. For the gas griddle and gas fryer, the flue
temperature was measured at about 500 F (260 C). The same value was estimated for
51
the gas oven. The broiler and range do not have flues, but from our cooking surface
temperature calibrations we know the approximate temperature at the cooking surface is
about 500 F (260 C). The estimated amount of room air comes from the necessary mass
flow needed to balance the mass and energy of the gas exiting the flue.
A mass and energy balance on the room dilution air, the exiting flue gas, the food product
emissions, and the thermal plume at the sampling point determines the room air
contributions added to the plume between the appliance surface and the sampling point.
The mass and energy associated with the exiting flue gas was previously discussed. The
mass and energy contributions from the food product emissions are estimated by the net
mass loss from the cooking product. The velocity and temperature data helps in
estimating the thermal plume volume. The temperature data points that exceed the room
air temperature by a given amount determine the cross-sectional area boundary of the
thermal plume at the sampling point. The temperature used for the boundary was 5 F
(2.8 C) plus 15 percent of the difference found between the room air and the maximum
temperature found in the plume. The minimum value of 5 F (2.8 C) provides a realistic
boundary for the processes which have very low maximum plume temperatures. The
temperature and velocity data within the plume control boundary are used to find the
mass flow and energy of the thermal plume. An estimate for the amount of dilution room
air comes from balancing the mass and energy at the thermal plume. Figure 27 shows a
schematic of the process.
Eflue
Flue
Food
Product
Emissions
Mfl n e
Efood
Mfood
Volume Between the

Appliance and the
w Sampling Point
Uplume
Thermal Plume at the

Sampling Point
Mplume
Dilution
Room Air
Uroom
W
IVlroom
Figure 27. Schematic of the mass and energy contributions to the thermal plume
Once the mass flow of air from the room is known, its contribution to the CO2 measured
at the sampling point can be subtracted. Figures 28 and 29 show the estimated CQ2
contributions from the cooking process only, normalized to the mass of food product and
time, respectively.
After subtracting the contributions from the room air, the CO2 emissions from the electric
appliances essentially fall to zero. This is appropriate considering there is no combustion
52
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
to
E
to
u.
2
c
-CD
UJ
E
X
CO
"
<S
CO CO
5.
Broile
urger)
a
X3
"D "C
8 E
Elec
(Ha
CD
Broiler
burger
CD
, I 111 , Electric Frye

(Potatoes)
.
T3
sFrye
tatoes
DHL
, IMlll ,
_
o m
m c
w5
CO o
OS
O
, ill ,
1
03
11
LU O
"5"
c W
Q.
S>
CO
CO
3
CO
Appliance
Figure 28. Total C 0 2 emissions per 1000 lb. food product
(all C 0 2 contributions from room dilution air subtracted)
. 11 .
iB
o 8,
5
co
CO
8
._- 3
o> * s co
2 co
OC o )
CO
CO
2>
CO
CO
a 8
ff._- 3
CO
o f feg o)
*
c
SSI
UJ
CO
CO
30
25
20
15
10
c
CD
O)
w
3
XI
< 5 CO
S o
liT
CD
,*8
CD =
c E
13
<2 g
LL
O
0 X
LU
CD 9 ^
& w
CD
O
15
o
a> a.
LU
'2 S>
m 3
3
CD
E
CO
X
co
CD
2>
XI
E
CO
gm
CO c
ofo
a) CO
CO
"5 p
m co
c
9
i ; J*
9 o
LU O
CD
CO
Q.
O 2,
O)
co co
CO
CO
c W
CD
> a.
O
trie
age
ctri
< "=
(D
CO
3
a>
LU
CO
CO
Appliance
Figure 29. Total C0 2 emissions per hour of full load operation
(all C0 2 contributions from room dilution air subtracted)
o> e co
co . c
CC
O ) CD
w a. ^
c3&!
CO
CO
JOT
C 2
D)
SSI
LU
CO
CO
process. The electric boiler might be expected to emit CO2 from grease falling on the
heating coils. Data from the electric broiler cooking hamburger does show CQ>
emissions slightly above zero, but this is within the measurement noise.
The CO2 emissions from the gas griddle, fryer, oven, and range are all below the
maximum combustion contributions shown in figure 25. This suggests most, if not all, of
the CO2 emitted from the processes is from combustion. However, natural gas
combustion does not account for the CO2 levels seen from the gas broiler. The maximum
combustion contribution from the gas broiler shown in figure 25 is about 400 lb. per 1000
lb. of food product. This is true for both the hamburger and chicken breast. However, the
CO2 emissions while cooking chicken breast and hamburger, after subtracting room air
contributions, are about 475 and 750 lb./l 0001b., respectively. Given the sources of error
it is possible the emissions from chicken breast are mostly from combustion, but this
cannot explain the hamburger emissions.
As mentioned earlier, the most likely source of CQ2 contributions from the gas broiler, in
addition to natural gas combustion, is the combustion of grease drippings. Data from
figures 28 and 29 support the hypothesis that some combustion must occur when grease
falls on the hot radiants, as well as when grease fires flare-up on the grease drip tray
beneath the burners. The latter phenomena results in thick black smoke emitting to the
thermal plume. These grease fires certainly emit CQ2. It is likely this effect dominates
the additional CO2 emissions seen from the gas broiler. Contributions from grease
dripping on the radiants is probably not as great. Evidence which suggests this is the fact
we do not see significant CO2 contributions from the electric broiler. While the electric
coils only comprise about one half the area of the gas broiler radiants, the temperatures at
the coils and radiants are almost identical. Therefore, if large amounts of CQ2 were
coming from grease dripping on the radiants, it would be logical to expect somewhat
significant CO2 emissions from the electric broiler originating from grease dripping on
the electric coils. There is no evidence of this.
Except for the gas oven, the CO2 emissions normalized to time are generally in the same
proportion, in respect to cooking processes, as the emissions normalized to food product
mass. Compared to the other processes, the mass of food product used per test for the
oven (25 lb. or 11.4 kg) was large. Therefore, when the CQ2 emissions from the gas oven
are normalized to time, they are of the same order of magnitude as emissions from the gas
griddle, oven, and fryer.
4. Carbon Monoxide Emissions
Figures 30 and 31 show the CO emissions from each process, normalized to food product
mass and time, respectively. Carbon monoxide emissions from the sampling point were
taken along with the carbon dioxide emissions described in the previous section. The
55
12
10
o
3
o
O
o
o
c5
O
"CO*
o -g3
c t
.2 3L
LU
0) Q)
0) Ft.
LU ""'
OQ . a
8 E
co co
O X
if g
co o
CO
E
u n3
CD
CO
a> X
LU
w
CD
co
a)
" ft
>. co
2
em
.2
CO
co
CO
cfl
CO
c
5^
.*!
O
o
CO
LU O
f>
p
r W
CL
o
CO
CO
co
CO
Appliance
Figure 30. Total CO emissions per appliance

Ia
3*
.g S>
B co
o
co
-2 2
l^co
CD
O)
CD
O
e co
c
c0 j g CO
rr O) CD"
Gas
ctri
Si
oile
ON
,9OT.co
CO
O)
CO
CO
rx J? O T
O
O) cu"
SSI
LU
CO
300
o 250
CD
Q.
200
to
3
O
JZ
150
o
"cS
.2 100
CO
CO
LU
50
"5
3
8 x
UJ
if
UJ
CD
CD
CO . O
<
2 E
CO CO
(3 X
.2 -c-
is
It
CD
CO
_<D
3
.2 X
UJ "-'
g CO
V)
(D 10
2 2
CQ CD
CD
CO o
O P
CO
r N
TO
CO
O CO2
V
UJ
CO
CD
o
to
CD 3
E<8
i2 -c
CC O ) , co
sOve
age Pi
CD
lectric
(Potat
to (0
0 X
Gas Fryer
(Pot,atoes)
ricG riddle
mbu rger)
riddle
urger)
^BBBOIk
o 9 o
C S D)
SSI
m
.55
carbon monoxide sensor is on the same instrument as the carbon dioxide sensor,
therefore, an additional sampling tube connected the sampling pump to the sensor.
The background CO levels were below the minimum detection level of the
instrumentation (1 ppm), therefore, all measured CO must originate from either the
cooking process or the natural gas combustion. CO emissions from the gas and electric
versions of the fryers, ovens and ranges are within the detection noise level. Therefore,
given the measurement method, CO emissions are insignificant for these processes.
While the gas griddle shows a slightly significant level of CO emission, the electric
griddle does not. If CO contributions were from the actual meat cooking process, we
would expect to see significant CO emissions from the electric griddle. This suggests the
gas griddle may have operated under incomplete combustion conditions.
The broilers do show significant CO emission levels. By far, the highest emissions come
from the gas broiler cooking hamburger. CO emissions from the gas broiler fall by a
factor of six when cooking low fat chicken breast. The CO contributions from natural gas
combustion should be approximately the same regardless of cooking product. This
suggests the majority of the CO emissions relates to the cooking product. Data from the
electric broiler support this. CO emissions from the electric boiler cooking hamburger
are rather high, while emissions cooking chicken breast are insignificant. This shows the
cooking product affects the CO emissions from the electric broiler. Because the CO
emissions from the electric broiler cooking chicken breast are insignificant, it is plausible
to assume the majority of the CO emissions from the gas broiler cooking chicken breast is
from incomplete fuel combustion. Furthermore, contributions from incomplete
combustion for the gas broiler should be equal for the either food product. Therefore,
approximately 7/8 of the CO emissions from the gas broiler cooking hamburger are
probably associated with the hamburger product.
The most likely source of CO generation is the hamburger grease drippings. Some grease
falls on the hot radiants, while much of it lands on the grease drip tray beneath the
burners. The occasional flare-ups, described earlier, must generate a large proportion of
the CO emissions. While testing, there is a noticeable increase in CO levels when a flareup occurs. This evidence, along with data from grease particulate, grease vapor, and CO2
emissions, supports the notion that it is important to remove grease drippings from areas
of the cooking appliance where the grease can combust and add to overall emissions.
5. Nitrous Oxide Emissions
Air samples from the thermal plume at the sampling point were collected in Tedlar bags
and analyzed using a high sensitivity non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) NO* detector.
Samples from the room air determined the background levels, which were always found
to be near zero. Therefore, it can be assumed that any detected NOx originates from the
natural gas combustion or the cooking process. Figures 32 and 33 show the NOx
emissions from each process, normalized to the food product mass and time, respectively.
58
0.140
0.120
2 0.100
O 0.080
?
0.060
j j 0.040
0.020
U
CO
CO
o-g
t3
CD X
UU
,8
ca P
CD f t .
if
~
CD
^CD 5P >
1=
aE
CO CO
CD X
CD - C
= 5 CD
CD
II
O CO
.2 X
UJ """
UJ O
CO
Appliance
Figure 32. NOx emissions per appliance
, - CO
| N
P a
Electr
[Sausa
CD 3
CD CD
Gas Oven
ausa ge Pizza
CD - 9
3 S>
Q) CO
lectri 3 Broiler
hicke n Breast
CD
"O "C"
Gas Broiler
hicken Breast
CD *C" .
=5
^^^^^^*
0.000
CD
CD
a--
C CO
CT * 3 CO
&&*
CJBJ
CO
co
UJ
CO
CO
CO CO
t3 co
a x
LU " "
m
CO
CO
ic Oven
ge Pizza
CD 3
Oven
ge Pizza
m&
2 E
CD
c Broiler
n Breast
CD CD
n Breast
SS
ED~
Electric
(Potat
( 5 1
Gas Fryer
(Pot atoes]
(3 .0
ricG riddle
mburger)
riddle
urger)
CO
= 8
2
co
CO CO
.fa CO
o
CD sz
O
O o
O 3
LU O
CO
co
Appliance
Figure 33. NOx emissions per appliance

(normalized to 1000 hours of full load operation)
CD
D > t 3 CO
= w
U CO
CD 3
<
CO
CO
CD
CD
>._-
c
CO
-
a co
^ CO
O) of
388
UJ
CO
CO
The absolute value of the NOx emissions are very low. In fact, they are generally two
orders of magnitude lower than the CO emissions. Figures 32 and 33 show essentially no
NOx emissions from the electric appliances. Unlike the CO and CO2 emissions, even the
electric broiler shows no NOx emissions. This suggests the food product is not involved
at all in NOx production. One might expect NOx generation from the flare-ups that occur
while cooking hamburger on the gas broiler. However, the data shows the NOx emissions
from the broiler cooking hamburger to be about equal to the emissions while cooking
chicken breast. Therefore, conditions present during the grease fire flare-ups must be
unfavorable to NOx generation. Because NOx generation is not associated with food
product, it is probably more appropriate to view the NOx emissions from the data
normalized to time.
Figure 33 shows the NOx emissions from the gas griddle, fryer, broiler, and range, at
relatively equal values. The NOx emission from the gas oven is about four times that of
the other gas appliances. A possible explanation may lie in the fact the combustion air
recirculates within the gas oven burner area. This is not true for any other appliance. It is
well known that NOx generation from combustion is associated with high combustion
temperatures. In fact, a common problem with low NQx combustion in utility boilers is
the required low flame temperature reduces the percentage of fuel which undergoes
complete combustion. It is likely the temperature experienced by the combustion gasses
in the gas oven exceeds that seen in the other appliances. Therefore, the gas oven
generates substantially higher levels of NQx emissions.
6. Hydrocarbon Emissions
The classification of hydrocarbons and their method of detection appears confusing to
most who do not commonly work with them. Much of the confusion comes from the
terminology used to describe certain subgroups. Some of the terminology includes VOC
(volatile organic compounds), SVOC (semi-volatile organic compounds), ROC (reactive
organic compounds), ROG (reactive organic gases), TGNMO (total gaseous non-methane
organics), total hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, and PAH (polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons). In addition, there are many other subgroups of organic compounds.
Individual hydrocarbon gases may belong to one or many of these categories, with a
specific analytic test used to detect and measure each different subgroup. Emission
effects from these gasses on the environment and human health varies from compound to
compound. The most problematic aspect arising from this apparent confusion is the
intermingling of terminology. For this investigation, the goal was to test for aromatic
hydrocarbons emitted in the gaseous form. A personal sampling pump pulled air from the
thermal plume at the sampling point through an activated carbon sorbent tube. The
carbon within the sorbent tube adsorbs aromatic hydrocarbons, as well as other
compounds. The tube is sealed after sampling and sent to a laboratory where gas
chromatography is used to measure adsorbed gases. The specific tests performed were
NIOSH methods 1501 and 1003, for aromatic and halogenated hydrocarbons,
respectively. The halogenated hydrocarbons were included because the laboratory usually
performs the two tests together.
61
Tables 1 through 5 show the lower detection limit for each of the specified gases tested,
for which we did not detect emissions from any process. This is not to say that
hydrocarbon emissions do not exist in cooking processes. The lower detection levels
shown are about an order of magnitude higher than hydrocarbon emission data from some
previous studies. Performing experiments of sufficient length to reach these levels was
impractical in this investigation. The lower detection levels reached during this
investigation were around 100 ppb for most processes and up to several hundred ppb for
others. The limit depends on the sampling time period and rate, as well as the molecular
weight of the compound.
Each table shows the lower detection limit for a certain appliance, for both the gas and
electric versions. Tables 1 through 5 refer to the griddles, fryers, broilers, ovens, and
ranges, in that order. The gasses analyzed are specified by the aforementioned NIOSH
test method and include aromatic and halogenated hydrocarbons. The names used are
those found in the testing procedure. However, there are numerous synonyms for most
compounds, and some of which are shown in table 6.
There are several explanations as to why there were no hydrocarbons detected. First, as
discussed earlier, they may be present in levels below the detection limit. However, we
do detect a substantial amount of grease in the vapor form, and grease consists of
hydrocarbons. This leads to the conclusion that there may in fact be substantial levels of
hydrocarbons, but not the ones tested for. For instance, animal fat grease consists of
several different compounds, all of which are long, complicated hydrocarbon chains. If
the grease vaporizes and remains a long chain of hydrocarbons in the vapor form, it will
not be detected by the methods used. Perhaps a total hydrocarbon test would detect the
grease vapor. The grease vapor chemical composition does have implications to both the
environment and human health. For instance, if in fact most of the grease vapor remains
as long hydrocarbon chains, it is likely the grease will condense on a surface somewhere
in the exhaust system or outside the building. Therefore, it would be proper to treat the
grease vapor as an alternate phase of grease particulates. However, if the grease is
chemically altered in the vaporization process, that is the long hydrocarbon chains are
broken into different hydrocarbon compounds, it is possible some of these compounds
may be more harmful than grease. An example would be if PAH's were formed. PAH's
are known human carcinogens, therefore, according to OSHA standards, no detectable
level is acceptable in the work environment. From this investigation, we can conclude
that aromatic hydrocarbons are not emitted in the gaseous form in significant amounts,
but PAH levels were not tested and thus remain unknown.
Another possibility is that hydrocarbon gases may be dissolved within the grease
particulates. A recent study (Siegmann and Sattler pub. pending) shows that cooking oil
62
TABLE 1. TESTED HYDROCARBONS AND THEIR DETECTION LIMITS FOR GRIDDLES
Gas Griddle
HC ANALYSIS
Hydrocarbons
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
n-Butylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
2-Chlorotuluene
4-Chlorotuluene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloroprop
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dibromomethane
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1 -Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dlchloroethene
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dlchloropropane
2,2-Dichloropropane
1.1 Dichloropropene
cls-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,3-Dlchloropropene
Ethyl benzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Isopropylbenzene
p-lsopropyltoluene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl Isobutyl ketone
Naphthalene
n-Propylbenzene
Styrene
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trlchloroethene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
o-Xylene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Electric Griddle
Molecular Method Detection Limit Method Detection Limit

mg/m A 3
ppb
ppb
Weight
mg/m A 3
157
0.5
157
0.5
78.11
0.5
78
78
157.02
0.5
0.5
95
95
129.39
0.5
0.5
75
75
163.85
0.5
0.5
252.75
48
48
0.5
0.5
91
91
134.21
0.5
0.5
91
0.5
91
134.21
0.5
91
91
0.5
134.21
153.84
0.5
80
0.5
80
0.5
109
109
112.56
0.5
103
119.39
0.5
103
0.5
97
0.5
97
126.58
0.5
97
0.5
126.58
0.5
97
52
0.5
236.33
0.5
52
71
0.5
172.89
0.5
71
65
0.5
65
187.86
0.5
70
0.5
173.85
70
0.5
83
0.5
83
0.5
147
83
0.5
83
0.5
147
83
0.5
147
83
0.5
124
0.5
124
98.46
0.5
124
124
98.96
0.5
0.5
96.94
126
0.5
126
0.5
112.99
108
0.5
108
0.5
108
112.99
0.5
108
0.5
112.99
108
0.5
108
0.5
110.98
110
0.5
110
0.5
110.98
110
0.5
110
0.5
110.98
0.5
110
0.5
no
106.17
115
0.5
115
0.5
260.79
47
0.5
47
0.5
120.2
102
0.5
102
0.5
91
134.22
0.5
91
0.5
83
0.5
83
148.21
0.5
122
100.16
0.5
122
0.5
128.18
96
0.5
0.5
96
120.19
102
0.5
102
0.5
118
104.15
118
0.5
0.5
167.85
0.5
73
0.5
73
167.85
73
0.5
73
0.5
74
0.5
74
165.83
0.5
72.1
170
0.5
170
0.5
92.14
133
0.5
0.5
133
181.46
0.5
0.5
68
68
181.46
68
0.5
68
0.5
133.42
92
0.5
92
0.5
133.41
0.5
92
92
0.5
131.39
93
0.5
93
0.5
147.43
83
0.5
83
0.5
102
0.5
102
120.2
0.5
0.5
120.2
102
0.5
102
106.17
115
0.5
115
0.5
106.17
0.9
208
0.9
208
106.17
208
208
0.9
0.9
63
TABLE 2. TESTED HYDROCARBONS AND THEIR DETECTION LIMITS FOR FRYERS
Gas Fryer
HC ANALYSIS
Hydrocarbons
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromoform
n-Butylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
2-Chlorotuluene
4-Chlorotuluene
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dibromomethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dlchlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1.2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropane
2,2-Dichloropropane
1,1 Dichloropropene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Ethyl benzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Isopropylbenzene
p-lsopropyltoluene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl Isobutyl ketone
Naphthalene
n-Propylbenzene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Trlchloroethene
o-Xylene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Electric Fryer

mg/m A 3
ppb
Weight
PPb
mg/m A 3
78.11
878
2.8
376
1.2
437
187
157.02
2.8
1.2
227
129.39
530
2.8
1.2
419
179
163.85
2.8
1.2
271
2.8
116
252.75
1.2
511
219
134.21
2.8
1.2
511
219
134.21
2.8
1.2
511
219
134.21
2.8
1.2
153.84
446
2.8
191
1.2
609
2.8
261
112.56
1.2
575
2.8
246
119.39
1.2
542
126.58
2.8
1.2
232
542
2.8
232
126.58
1.2
124
290
2.8
1.2
236.33
397
172.89
2.8
170
1.2
365
187.86
2.8
156
1.2
395
2.8
169
1.2
173.85
467
147
2.8
200
1.2
467
2.8
200
147
1.2
467
147
2.8
200
1.2
697
2.8
299
1.2
98.46
693
2.8
297
1.2
98.96
96.94
708
303
2.8
1.2
112.99
607
2.8
260
1.2
607
2.8
260
112.99
1.2
607
2.8
260
112.99
1.2
618
2.8
265
1.2
110.98
110.98
618
2.8
265
1.2
618
265
110.98
2.8
1.2
106.17
646
2.8
277
1.2
260.79
263
2.8
113
1.2
571
120.2
2.8
245
1.2
219
134.22
511
2.8
1.2
198
148.21
463
2.8
1.2
294
685
2.8
100.16
1.2
535
229
2.8
1.2
128.18
571
2.8
245
120.19
1.2
282
104.15
659
2.8
1.2
175
167.85
409
2.8
1.2
409
175
167.85
2.8
1.2
414
165.83
2.8
177
1.2
408
951
2.8
1.2
72.1
92.14
2.8
319
745
1.2
181.46
378
2.8
162
1.2
378
2.8
162
1.2
181.46
514
2.8
220
133.42
1.2
514
133.41
2.8
1.2
220
224
131.39
522
2.8
1.2
147.43
465
2.8
199
1.2
571
245
1.2
120.2
2.8
245
120.2
571
2.8
1.2
106.17
2.8
277
1.2
646
531
106.17
1292
5.6
2.3
106.17
1292
5.6
2.3
531
64
TABLE 3. TESTED HYDROCARBONS AND THEIR DETECTION LIMITS FOR BROILERS
Gas Broiler
HC ANALYSIS
Electric Broiler

mg/m A 3
Weight
mg/m A 3
PPb
PPb
188
1129
78.11
0.6
3.6
Benzene
94
562
0.6
3.6
157.02
Bromobenzene
114
682
129.39
0.6
3.6
Bromochloromethane
90
538
Bromodichloromettiane
0.6
3.6
163.85
58
349
0.6
252.75
Bromoform
3.6
110
657
134.21
n-Butylbenzene
0.6
3.6
110
657
0.6
3.6
134.21
sec-Birtylbenzene
110
657
tert-Butylbenzene
0.6
3.6
134.21
96
0.6
573
3.6
153.84
131
0.6
784
3.6
112.56
Chlorobenzene
123
0.6
739
119.39
3.6
Chloroform
116
0.6
697
126.58
2-Chlorotuluene
3.6
116
0.6
697
4-Chlorotuluene
3.6
126.58
0.6
62
373
3.6
236.33
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropc
85
0.6
510
172.89
Dlbromochloromethane
3.6
78
0.6
469
187.86
1,2-Dibromoethane
3.6
85
0.6
507
173.85
Dibromomethane
3.6
100
0.6
600
147
3.6
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
100
0.6
600
147
3.6
1,3-Dlchlorobenzene
100
0.6
600
3.6
147
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
149
896
98.46
1,1-Dlchloroethane
0.6
3.6
149
0.6
891
98.96
3.6
1,2-Dichloroethane
152
0.6
910
3.6
96.94
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
781
112.99
130
0.6
3.6
1,2-Dlchloropropane
781
112.99
1,3-Dichloropropane
130
0.6
3.6
112.99
130
0.6
781
3.6
2,2-Dlchloropropane
132
0.6
795
3.6
110.98
1.1 Dichloropropene
795
110.98
132
0.6
3.6
795
3.6
110.98
132
0.6
138
3.6
106.17
Ethyl benzene
0.6
831
338
260.79
0.6
3.6
Hexachlorobutadlene
56
734
120.2
Isopropylbenzene
122
0.6
3.6
657
3.6
134.22
p-lsopropyltoluene
110
0.6
595
148.21
Methyl ethyl ketone
99
0.6
3.6
147
881
3.6
100.16
Methyl isobutyl ketone
0.6
344
1.8
688
3.6
128.18
Naphthalene
734
120.19
n-Propylbenzene
122
0.6
3.6
Styrene
0.6
847
3.6
104.15
141
167.85
0.6
525
3.6
88
0.6
525
3.6
167.85
88
0.6
532
165.83
Tetrachloroethene
89
3.6
Tetrahydrofuran
204
1223
3.6
72.1
0.6
Toluene
957
92.14
160
0.6
3.6
486
181.46
1.2
3.6
162
181.46
0.6
486
3.6
1 ,Z4-Trich!orobenzene
81
133.42
110
0.6
661
3.6
133.41
110
0.6
661
3.6
3.6
131.39
Trlchloroethene
112
0.6
671
1 ,Z3-Trichloropropane
100
0.6
598
3.6
147.43
734
3.6
120.2
122
0.6
734
0.6
3.6
120.2
1,3,5-Trlmethylbenzene
122
106.17
o-Xylene
831
3.6
138
0.6
m-Xylene
1661
106.17
1.2
7.2
277
1661
106.17
p-Xylene
7.2
277
1.2
Hydrocarbons
65
TABLE 4. TESTED HYDROCARBONS AND THEIR DETECTION LIMITS FOR OVENS
Gas Oven
HC ANALYSIS
Hydrocarbons
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromoform
n-Butylbenzene
sec-Bulylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
2-Chlorotuluene
4-Chlorotuluene
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dibromomethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-DIchloropropane
2,2-Dichloropropane
1,1 Dichloropropene
cls-1,3-Dichloropropene
Ethyl benzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Isopropylbenzene
p-lsopropyltoluene
Methyr ethyl ketone
Naphthalene
n-Propylbenzene
Styrene
1.1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Trichloroethene
1 ,Z3-Trichloropropane
o-Xylene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Electric Oven

mg/m A 3
Weight
ppb
ppb
mg/m A 3
0.5
151
0.48
157
78.11
0.5
75
157.02
78
0.48
0.5
129.39
91
0.48
95
0.5
72
0.48
163.85
75
0.5
47
0.48
252.75
48
88
0.48
134.21
91
0.5
91
0.5
88
0.48
134.21
88
0.48
91
0.5
134.21
76
153.84
80
0.5
0.48
104
109
0.5
0.48
112.56
103
99
0.48
119.39
0.5
97
0.5
93
0.48
126.58
97
0.5
93
0.48
126.58
52
0.5
50
0.48
236.33
71
0.5
68
0.48
172.89
63
65
0.5
0.48
187.86
0.48
70
0.5
68
173.85
0.5
0.48
147
83
80
80
0.48
147
83
0.5
83
0.5
80
0.48
147
124
119
0.5
0.48
98.46
124
0.48
98.96
0.5
119
96.94
121
0.48
126
0.5
104
112.99
0.5
0.48
108
104
0.48
112.99
108
0.5
104
0.48
112.99
108
0.5
0.5
106
0.48
110.98
110
0.48
0.5
106
110.98
no
0.48
110.98
110
0.5
106
0.48
106.17
0.5
111
115
45
0.48
260.79
47
0.5
98
0.48
120.2
102
0.5
88
0.48
134.22
91
0.5
79
0.48
148.21
83
0.5
117
0.48
100.16
122
0.5
128.18
0.5
92
0.48
96
98
0.48
120.19
0.5
102
0.5
113
0.48
104.15
118
70
0.48
167.85
73
0.5
0.48
73
0.5
70
167.85
74
0.5
71
0.48
165.83
163
0.48
170
0.5
72.1
92.14
0.48
133
0.5
128
181.46
0.5
65
0.48
68
65
0.48
181.46
68
0.5
133.42
92
0.5
88
0.48
133.41
0.5
88
0.48
92
90
0.48
131.39
0.5
93
147.43
0.5
80
0.48
83
98
0.48
120.2
102
0.5
98
120.2
0.5
0.48
102
111
0.48
106.17
115
0.5
219
0.95
106.17
1
231
219
0.95
106.17
1
231
66
TABLE 5. TESTED HYDROCARBONS AND THEIR DETECTION LIMITS FOR RANGES
Gas Range
HC ANALYSIS
Hydrocarbons
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromoform
n-Butylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
2-Chlorotuluene
4-Chlorotuluene
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dibromomethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropane
2,2-Dichloropropane
1,1 Dichloropropene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Ethyl benzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Isopropylbenzene
p-lsopropyltoluene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Naphthalene
n-Propylbenzene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trlchloroethane
Trichloroethene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-Trlmethylbenzene
c-Xylene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Electric Range

mg/m A 3
mg/m A 3
Weight
PPb
PPb
188
94
0.3
78.11
0.6
94
0.6
47
0.3
157.02
114
57
129.39
0.6
0.3
90
45
0.6
0.3
163.85
58
29
0.6
0.3
252.75
110
0.6
55
0.3
134.21
110
0.6
55
0.3
134.21
110
0.6
55
0.3
134.21
153.84
96
0.6
48
0.3
131
0.6
65
0.3
112.56
123
0.6
62
0.3
119.39
116
58
0.6
0.3
126.58
116
0.6
58
0.3
126.58
62
0.6
31
0.3
236.33
85
0.6
43
172.89
0.3
78
0.6
39
187.86
0.3
85
0.6
42
173.85
0.3
100
0.6
50
147
0.3
100
0.6
50
0.3
147
50
147
100
0.6
0.3
149
75
0.6
0.3
98.46
74
149
0.6
0.3
98.96
96.94
152
0.6
76
0.3
130
0.6
65
0.3
112.99
65
112.99
130
0.6
0.3
130
0.6
65
0.3
112.99
132
0.6
66
0.3
110.98
66
132
0.6
0.3
110.98
0.6
66
0.3
110.98
132
69
106.17
138
0.6
0.3
28
260.79
56
0.6
0.3
0.6
61
120.2
122
0.3
55
134.22
110
0.6
0.3
99
0.6
50
0.3
148.21
73
0.6
147
0.3
100.16
134
134
0.7
128.18
0.7
61
120.19
122
0.6
0.3
141
71
0.6
0.3
104.15
44
0.6
0.3
167.85
88
44
0.6
0.3
167.85
88
44
0.3
165.83
89
0.6
102
72.1
0.6
204
0.3
92.14
0.6
80
0.3
160
41
0.6
0.3
181.46
81
41
0.3
181.46
81
0.6
133.42
0.6
55
0.3
no
133.41
55
0.3
110
0.6
56
131.39
0.6
0.3
112
50
0.3
147.43
100
0.6
61
120.2
0.6
0.3
122
61
0.6
0.3
120.2
122
69
0.3
106.17
0.6
138
106.17
162
0.7
300
1.3
106.17
162
0.7
1.3
300
67
TABLE 6. SYNONYMS FOR TESTED HYDROCARBONS
Hydrocarbons
Benzene
Toluene
o-Xylene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Ethyl benzene
Isopropylbenzene
Styrene
Napthalene
Bromobenzene
1.2,4-Trimethylbenzene
n-Butylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
1,2-Dlchlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trlchlorobenzene
Common Synonyms
Aromatics and Benzenes
Benzol, Phene
Methylbenzene, Phenylmethane
1,2-dimethylbenzene
1,3-dimethylbenzene
1,4-dimethylbenzene
X
cumene
Ethylbenzene, Phenylethylene, Vlnylbenzene
X
Phenyl Bromide
Psuedocumene
Mesitylene
X
X
X
X
o-Dichlorobenzene
X
p-Dichlorobenzene
X
X
Other Hydrocarbons
Chlorobromomethane
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane X
tribromomethane
Bromoform
tetrachloromethane
Phenyl chloride, Monochlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
trichloromethane
Chloroform
o-Tolyl chloride. Benzyl chloride, Chloromethylbenzene
2-Chlorotuluene
4-Chlorotuluene
p-Tolyl chloride. Benzyl chloride, Chloromethylbenzene
1,2-Dlbromo-3-chloropropane
Dlbromochloromethane
Ethylene Bromide
1,2-Dlbromoethane
Methylene bromide
Dibromomethane
Ethylldene chloride
1,1-Dlchloroethane
Ethylene chloride
1,2-Dlchloroethane
cis-1,2-Dlchloroethene
1,2-Dlchloroethylene, Acetylene dlchloride
Propylene dlchloride
1,2-Dlchloropropane
Trimethylene chloride
1,3-Dlchloropropane
Acetone dlchloride, Isopropylidene chloride
2,2-Dichloropropane
X
1,1 Dichloropropene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene X
trans-1,3-Dlchloropropene X
X
Hexachlorobutadlene
p-lsopropyltoluene
2-Butanone
Methyl ethyl ketone
4-methyl-2 pentanone
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane X
1,1, 2,2-Tetrachloroethane Acetylene tetrachloride
Perchlorotheylene
Tetrachloroethene
1,4-Epoxybutane, Tetramethylene oxide
Tetrahydrofuran
Methylchloroform
vinyl trichloride
X
Trichloroethene
Trichlorohydrln, Allyl trichloride. Glycerol Trichlorohydrin
68
particulates carry dissolved polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). The study was
initiated to test the hypothesis that the level of lung cancer in Chinese women, which
cannot be explained by smoking, is related to cooking with extremely hot oil in poorly
ventilated conditions. In the investigation, testing consisted of heating cooking oil to
several different temperatures. The heated oil produced vapors and particulates. The
particulates were collected on a filter and analyzed for PAH content. Significant levels of
PAH's were found within the particulates. It should be stressed that this study did not use
an actual cooking process. This matter is worthy of further investigation under actual
cooking conditions.
7. Thermal Plume Volume Flow Rate
The volumetric flow rate of the thermal plume at the ventilation hood entrance was
estimated for each of the cooking processes. The hood entrance was divided into control
volumes determined by the temperature and velocity data positions. Section E shows the
control volumes used for each process. Temperature distribution data determined which
control volumes belonged in the thermal plume, and which did not, effectively forming a
plume boundary. For each process, the temperature used to find the thermal plume
boundary was 5 F (2.8 C) plus 15 percent of the maximum temperature difference
between the room air and the thermal plume. The use of a formula to find the
temperature cut-off for the plume boundary provides a systematic method applicable to
all processes. Temperature data used was taken from the highest point above the
appliance surface. For the ovens, die temperature data from the hood entrance was
available. Boundaries from all other appliances used the temperature data from 36 inches
above the cooking surface. This height is typically only 4 to 7 inches below the hood
entrance, depending on the cooking surface height.
For example, the electric griddle has a maximum temperature difference between the
room air and the plume of 8.8 F (4.9 C) at 36 in., therefore, the plume boundary was
determined by temperatures of the thermal plume exceeding 6.32 F (3.51 C). Some
appliances have much higher temperature differences, such as the gas fryer. For the gas
fryer the maximum temperature difference was 38.59 F (21.44 C) therefore the
boundary was determined by temperatures exceeding 10.79 F (5.99 C). The gas range
and gas broiler were problematic in that they have maximum temperature differences of
195 F (108 C), and 102 F (56 C), much higher than other appliances. The gas range
has an oven flue extension protruding 24 in. above the cooking surface along its back side
which traps heat from the burners, resulting in a small region of extremely hot emissions
near the center of the flue extension . If we use the same formula used for all other
processes, the temperature used to find the plume boundary is above 34 F (18.9). For the
gas broiler, the resulting temperature to find the plume boundary would be 20.3 F (11.28
C). We believe this falsely reduces the true size of the thermal plume. Therefore, a
value of 12 T (6.67 C) was used to find the plume boundary for the gas range and gas
broiler. Table 7 shows the maximum temperature difference between the thermal plume
and room air, and the temperature used to determine the plume boundaries, for each
appliance.
69
TABLE 7. TEMPERATURES USED FOR THERMAL PLUME BOUNDARIES
Appliance
A max plume" 1 room air

Op ( O Q
1 boundary cut-off
Op ( O Q
Gas Griddle
Electric Griddle
Gas Fryer
Electric Fryer
Gas Broiler
Hamburger
Gas Broiler
Chicken Breast
Electric Broiler
Hamburger
Electric Broiler
Chicken Breast
Gas Oven
Electric Oven
Gas range
Electric Range
37.14 (20.63)
8.81 (4.89)
38.59(21.44)
15.01 (8.34)
101.93
(56.63)
96.11
(53.39)
23.85
(13.25)
36.60
(20.33)
34.05 (18.92)
27.84(15.47)
195.16(108.42)
16.53(9.18)
10.57 (5.87)
6.32(3.51)
10.79 (5.99)
7.25 (4.03)
12
(6.67)
12
(6.67)
8.58
(4.77)
10.49
(5.87)
10.10(5.61)
9.18 (5.10)
12 (6.67)
7.48 (4.16)
After establishing the boundary of the thermal plume, the temperature and velocity data
determines the mass flow rate through each control volume in the thermal plume. The
mass flow rate is converted into a volume flow rate using the measured barometric
pressure and the bulk temperature of the thermal plume. It should be noted the velocity
data were not taken during the cooking process due to difficulties from the grease
emissions. Therefore alternatives, such as boiling trays of water on the cooking surface,
were applied to simulate the plume velocity during cooking. This worked for the griddles
and the ranges. For the fryers, ovens, and broilers, velocities were taken while the
appliance was idling, at times when the burners were cycling on. Figure 34 shows the
resulting estimates for the volumetric flow rate of the cooking plume as it enters the
ventilation hood.
The broilers produce the largest thermal plume, exceeding all other processes by a factor
of at least two. This supports the belief that broilers need greater ventilation compared to
most other cooking processes. The data show the gas broiler has a higher thermal plume
flow rate than the electric broiler, regardless of cooking product. This is appropriate due
to the increase volume generated by the natural gas combustion process. In fact, one
probably expects to see an even larger difference in thermal plume volumes between the
two types of broilers. Perhaps the temperature used for the gas broiler plume boundary is
over estimated, and portions of the plume are neglected in our estimates.
70
1400
1200
U_ 1000
O
CD
to
800
600
E
3
>
400
CD
3
*
C 3
P>
CD
U)
qui
CD -Q
co S
co
=R "ST
ectric Gri
urg
CD
CO
in
CO
CD J L
lect Frye
(Potatoes)
200
CD CD
~
O)
CO X )
E
CO CO
CD X
S-e
CD
m E>
3
o X)
c E
CO
ui
_CD
2 CO
m c
CO
CO
o
CD !c
O
CO
CO
g
m co
c .8
CD
Q.
52
Ul O
CO
CO
CO
CO
Appliance
r-
CD
Ia
8.--S
o-
iS -*= -
" g>
Ul
C
O
CO
CJ
CO
2 > * 3 CO
0C
D ) ID
CO
CO
CD
O
3
CO
CO
CO
O)
DC
o a>
"5
JD co, co
CO
ui ^ " CO
Figure 34. Estimated volumetric flow rate of the cooking plume at the ventilation hood entrance per appliance
CD
D ) ._C tS
CO
CD
The gas griddle, fryer, and range show higher volumetric flow rates than their electric
version counter parts. This reflects the extra flow rate generated by the combustion
process. The volumetric flow rates from the ovens are similar for both versions. For
ovens, table 6 shows almost equal maximum temperature differences between the plume
and the room air. For all other appliances, the gas version always has a substantially
higher temperature difference. This implies the volume generated by the gas oven
combustion process does not greatly affect the overall thermal plume volumetric flow
rate.
8. Minimum Volumetric Flow Rate Generated By Process
Figures 35 and 36 show the minimum volumetric flow rates for the electric and gas
appliances, respectively. They are separated because the natural gas combustion process
greatly affects the minimum exhaust requirements.
For the electric appliances, the volume of air generated by the cooking process defines the
minimum volumetric flow rate. No other volume generation mechanism, such as dilution
air, was considered. Therefore, this flow rate could be considered the lowest possible
ventilation rate.
Finding the volumetric flow rate generated by the cooking product requires several
assumptions. First, we assume water, grease, or something other than water or grease
(designated "other") must account for the total food product mass lost during cooking.
Each of these components can be in the particulate, bulk liquid, or vapor phase. We
assume the temperature at the cooking surface for each process, which is well above the
boiling point of water, prevents any water from being lost to the bulk liquid phase.
Furthermore, because we assume dilution air is not present, the temperature of the
generated air will be above the boiling point of water, preventing any water in the
particulate form. Therefore we assume the total mass of water lost is released in the
vapor form. Next, we assume that contributions from components other than water or
grease are insignificant. In fact, for each test, the total water mass loss plus the collected
grease vapor and particulates, usually accounts for more than 95 percent of the total
product mass loss during cooking.
We assume the mass lost to grease particulates does not add significantly to the air flow
generation. On a mass basis, grease particulate and grease vapor generation occurs at rates
which have a similar order of magnitude. However, a given mass of grease vapor
occupies about 50,000 times more volume than the same mass of grease particulate,
under identical conditions. This justifies ignoring grease particulate contributions to the
generated volume.
72
ID "
14.1
14-
^
LL
11.6
12- -
lio-
1 8- -
5.1
14
3.4
>
"> -9
2.5
lilt
2- -
;::.-::::
':.:'.-::::
:CiS'-: : : : , : : : , v : : *.:
sa
c
P>
1
CD
o
c
LU
ii
IS
cu
CO
CO 3
O -O
 Q.
O
o d)
cd
tri
Broi
Bre
0-
lect Fry
tatoes
-J
CO
letric
LL
o w
<x>3
TTi 55
LU
CO
Appliance
LU
Volume Generated From Food
Figure 35. Minimum exhaust volumetric flow rate per electric appliance
1
to
X.
& **
ra
O) CD
0
C S D5
** ,9"
1
CO CO
' 3
A
LU
CO
140
Gas Griddle
(Hamburger)
Gas Fryer
(Potatoes)
Gas Broiler
(Hamburger)
Gas Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
Gas Oven
(Sausage Pizza)
Appliance
E Volume Generated From Food
Combustion Air
H Dilution Air
Figure 36. Minimum exhaust volumetric flow rate per gas appliance
Gas Range
(Spaghetti, Sausage,
Sauce)
The volumetric flow rate generated by the food product can now be viewed simply as the
total product moisture loss, plus contributions from grease in the vapor form. Because
the moisture mass loss always exceeds the grease vapor generation by a large amount, we
assume the temperature of the generated volume of air is 212 F (100 C). In addition, the
grease vapor is estimated to have the same specific volume as water vapor at 212 F (100
C). Therefore, the volumetric flow rate from the cooking product is the mass of food
product moisture loss plus grease vapor mass generated, multiplied by the specific
volume of water vapor at 212 F (100 C), per time cooked.
Figure 35 shows the electric cooking processes have very low minimum exhaust
volumetric flow rates. Of course, these values are probably not achievable for most
processes. They would require an entirely sealed cooking and ventilation system, and
achieving ventilation without using dilution air, would cause high duct temperatures. The
electric range and fryer produce the largest flow rates. For the range, the amount of
moisture lost from the 3 pots of boiling water, as well as moisture lost from the two pots
of sauce contributes most of the volume generation. By comparison, the moisture loss
and grease vapor generation from the sausages is much less. Likewise, for the fryer,
almost all the volume generated is associated with the high loss of moisture content from
the fries. For the griddle and broiler, meat was the food product, and the generated
volumetric flow rates were less than half that of the fryer and range. For these appliances,
the grease vapor contributes a substantially higher portion of the volume, compared to
the fryer and range, but the majority is still from water vapor. The volume generated by
the electric oven is mostly from moisture lost from the pizza.
For the gas appliances, the minimum exhaust volumetric flow rate must include not only
the volume generated by the food, but the volume generated by the natural gas
combustion and subsequent dilution before leaving the flue. Figure 36 shows the volume
generated by the food for each gas appliance is nearly equivalent to the volume generated
by the food for the electric appliances. This reflects the effort to perform testing using
identical conditions, thus producing similar product mass loss for each test. In other
words, for the gas and electric appliances, the food was cooked to the same doneness.
The volume generated by combustion was determined by assuming stoichiometric
conditions to find the mass generated by each of the combustion products. The specific
volume for the resulting combustion by-products at the flue temperature converted the
mass flow into a volume flow from the flue. The mass of room air necessary to reduce the
temperature of the combustion by products from the flame temperature to the exiting flue
temperature determined the dilution air contribution. See figure 26 and the discussion
following it for details.
For most gas appliances, the volume generated by the food and combustion was less than
the volume from the dilution air. This is not true for the gas fryer and gas oven, where
the dilution air is about equal to the combustion air. It is important to note this is the
dilution air within the gas appliance, used to cool the combustion gas before it leaves the
flue. It does not refer to any dilution air entering the thermal plume above the appliance.
75
The gas broiler generates the largest minimum volumetric exhaust rate. The cooking
product has little effect on its overall minimum exhaust volumetric flow rate. Perhaps the
reason for the large amount of dilution air is the gas broiler does not have a flue,
therefore, the heat from the broiler's burners entrains room air throughout the volume
beneath the cooking surface. Similarly, the gas range does not have a flue, entraining
room air from the sides and beneath the burners. The gas griddle, fryer, and oven, have
similar minimum exhaust volumetric flow rates. All have nearly identical energy input
rates, and similar flue exit temperatures. Therefore, nearly equivalent dilution air flow
rates should be expected.
9. Mass Flow and Energy Rate Comparisons at the Hood Entrance and Exhaust Duct
The average mass flow rates and net energy gains at the ventilation hood entrance and in
exhaust duct were calculated for each process. The temperature and velocity data were
used to determine the average mass flow and net energy gain (above the room air energy)
for each control volume defined at the hood entrance. The results from each control
volume were summed to find the mass flow rate and net energy gain at the hood entrance.
Likewise, the mass flow rate and net energy gain in the exhaust duct were determined by
the average exhaust duct flow rate and the average temperature in the duct during
sampling. Ideally, if no losses occur between the hood entrance and exhaust duct
entrance, the results should be identical. Figure 37 shows a comparison between the mass
flow calculations at the hood entrance and in the exhaust duct.
The results generally show excellent agreement. For most appliances, the flow rates at
the hood entrance are identical to the flow rates in the exhaust duct, when the
uncertainties are considered. Only the electric griddle and electric broiler results fall
outside of the uncertainty bars. The mass flow rates are not very dependent on the
temperature measurements, but are extremely sensitive to the velocity measurements.
This is because the temperatures used for the calculations were absolute temperatures, as
required by the ideal gas law. The uncertainty in the velocity was estimated to be 20 %
for the values shown. Because the velocities were not taken during the cooking process,
and they vary widely during the process, this error might be underestimated. In fact, for
the electric griddle and electric broiler, the results fall within the error bars when an
uncertainty of 35 % is used for the velocity measurements.
It is interesting to note that the broilers had a volumetric flow rate 300 cfm higher than
the other appliances. However, for the gas broiler, the mass flow rate is about equal to
that of the other appliances. This is because of the elevated temperature from the gas
broiler plume. The same mass flow rate results in a higher volumetric flow rate. For the
electric broiler the plume and duct temperatures were not nearly as high, and the mass
flow rates are thus higher than rates from other appliances.
Figure 38 shows the net energy rates at the hood entrance and in the exhaust duct. The
net energy rate is the amount of energy contained in the air stream above the energy found
in the room air. Therefore, the temperature used to find these values is the difference in
76
250
^ 200
c
!
si
5=. 150 - H
CD
To
DC
5
.o
u.
100
W
<0
CO
Appliance
ED Hood Entrance
S Exhaust Duct
Figure 37. Comparison of mass flow calculations at the hood entrance and in the exhaust duct
1600
00
CO 0
c E
"5
JE
=1
CO -S
P
O 8>
CD * -
>.1o
lt
1 E>
co E
a s
UJ
CO .Q
CO CO
a x
co
CD
CD
CD
2 E>
3
trie
C9 3
-Q
<5 *%
lect
(Po
CD
ridd
rger
<D " C
S
.Q
o ca
I
UJ
8 2
mm
11
O
o -E
UJ o
CD
ft--
a.
o&
CO CO
O ) t J CO
o &
5 co
o w
iS -c .
OC O > CD
3
CO
Appliance
DD Hood Entrance
S Exhaust Duct
Figure 38. Comparison of net energy rates at the hood entrance and in the exhaust duct
CO
CO
CO
Cj O) CD"
sai
UJ
CO
CO
temperature between the control volume and the room air. This makes the calculations
extremely sensitive to the room air and control volume temperatures, unlike the mass
flow rate calculations, which require absolute temperatures. For the appliances which
have a low temperature thermal plume, the net energy gain was usually within the noise
level, due to the uncertainties in the net temperature values.
Even though the uncertainties were rather high, making the energy measurements less
useful for other calculations, there was good agreement between the energy in the exhaust
duct and the energy at the hood entrance. In fact, for the appliances with high plume
temperatures, the gas griddle, gas range, and both the electric and gas broiler, the relative
uncertainties were low enough to provide a basis to determine the dilution ratio in an
alternative way, using temperature as a tracer. The results validated the dilution ratios
determined by the small particulate tracers.
The results shown in figure 38 basically give information regarding the size and energy
content of the thermal plume produced by each process. Here, it is clear the gas broiler
and gas range deliver the most energy from the appliance to the exhaust duct. These
results should compliment the plume flow rates shown in figure 34. The most noticeable
difference is in the comparison between the gas and electric broilers. While the plume
flow rates show the gas broiler produces a slightly larger plume, the energy rate
comparison shows the gas broiler generates much more energy than the electric boiler.
One explanation for this difference may be the temperatures used for the plume boundary
in the plume flow rate calculations. The boundary cut-off for the gas broiler may have
been too high, thus eliminating part of the thermal plume. The energy rate at the hood
entrance includes all control volumes under the hood. Another explanation is that the
higher heat emitted by the gas broiler affects the net energy rate much more than the
volumetric flow rate. While a hotter thermal plume may only increase the volumetric
flow rate minimally, it will increase the net energy rate considerably.
In general, the mass flow through the hood entrance balanced well with the mass flow
rate calculated in the exhaust duct. The energy rate also balanced well for the hood
entrance and exhaust duct, but the uncertainties were high for appliances with low
temperature thermal plumes.
10. Particulate Emission Concentrations
In the future, it is likely commercial cooking processes will be categorized according to
their emission potential. While one way to view this is in terms of emissions per food
product mass, another is the concentration of emissions per volume of air. This report
has earlier documented the former view of particulate emissions. This section will
address particulate emission concentrations for each cooking process.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes there are numerous ways to
define total, PM 10, and PM 2.5 particulate matter due to the various volatility of the
chemical species comprising the particulates. Strictly speaking, total, or TSP (total
79
suspended particulates) include any size of solid and/or liquid particles which under
normal conditions remain suspended in the air. PM 10 and PM 2.5 only include
suspended liquid and/or solid particulates with nominal aerodynamic diameters below 10
and 2.5 urn, respectively. However, because the chemical species are often volatile or
semi-volatile, the total mass associated with these particulates can vary depending on the
sampling conditions. For this reason, the EPA defines "in-stack" particulate
concentrations as the concentration of matter in the particulate phase at in-stack
temperature and pressure. On the other hand, "source" particulate concentrations are
defined as the concentration of matter from a source in the particulate phase at ambient
conditions. Therefore, if sampling in an exhaust stack under conditions other than
ambient, as is most often the case, all condensable matter, other than water vapor, must
also be included as particulate matter when recording "source" particulate concentrations.
The logic behind this is that the EPA recognizes the condensables will most likely change
to the particulate form once released into the atmosphere.
Because the purpose of this investigation is to characterize the emissions from various
cooking processes close to the emission generating source, the particulate emissions
given thus far have been in terms of "in-stack" measurements. The condensables have
been reported separately as grease vapor. This gives information about emissions in the
particulate as well as vapor phase. However, for categorizing cooking emissions for
regulatory purposes, it is likely most authoritative agencies would not separate the
condensables from the particulates, but would instead view emission concentrations from
the "source" point of view. Therefore, the total, PM 10 and PM 2.5 concentrations given
in this section are "source" concentrations. These concentrations are determined by
adding the vapor, or condensable, mass collected, to the particulate mass collected. As
with the previous sections, the remainder of the report uses the "in-stack" definition of
particulates. Besides this section, the only exception to using the "in-stack" definition is
when the exhaust duct particulate matter concentrations are compared to the data
compiled by CE-CERT in section G.12. Because the goal of the CE-CERT investigation
was to measure source total particulate emissions, they combined the condensables with
the particulates when reporting total particulate emissions. It should be clear in section
G.12 when the source definition of particulates is used, because it is designated as
"Equivalent PM", referring to being equivalent to CE-CERT's definition.
While efforts involving codes and regulations will almost certainly use the "source"
definition of particulates, it is much less clear which size range will be used to define
cooking particulate emissions. At first, when addressing ambient air quality standards,
the EPA used only total particulates, but later added PM 10 air quality standards. Even
more recently, PM 2.5 standards have been adopted for some purposes. Other regulatory
agencies such as NIOSH have also been inclined to use various size ranges for indoor air
quality standards. Therefore, the data reported here includes total, PM 10, and PM 2.5
particulates.
Table 8 shows the concentration of particulates in the total, PM 10, and PM 2.5 size
ranges for each cooking process. Again, the source definition was used, therefore, the
80
TABLE 8. MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS AT THE SAMPLING POINT

FOR TOTAL PARTICULATES, PM 10 AND PM 2.5 (ALL INCLUDE VAPOR)
Appliance
(Product)
Gas Griddle
Electric Griddle
Gas Fryer
Electric Fryer
Gas Broiler
(Hamburger)
Electric Broiler
(Hamburger)
Gas Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
Electric Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
Gas Oven
Electric Oven
Gas Range
Electric Range
Gas Griddle
Electric Griddle
Gas Fryer
Electric Fryer
Gas Broiler
(Hamburger)
Electric Broiler
(Hamburger)
Gas Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
Electric Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
Gas Oven
Electric Oven
Gas Range
Electric Range
Gas Griddle
Electric Griddle
Gas Fryer
Electric Fryer
Gas Broiler
(Hamburger)
Electric Broiler
(Hamburger)
Gas Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
Electric Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
Gas Oven
Electric Oven
Gas Range
Electric Range
Source Total Particulate concentration at the sampling point (includes vapor)

Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4
(mg/m3)
(mg/m3)
(mg/m3)
(mg/m3)
313.932.5
248.1+34.5
291.633.8
NA
309.134.5
151.5+30.4
NA
312.2+31.6
39.237.1
NA
NA
178.3+34.8
NA
135.7+33.6
108.0+32.0
NA
NA
306.737.8
363.0+38.0
337.624.7
Average
(mg/m3)
284.5
257.6
108.8
121.8
335.8
360.2+43.1
351.7+34.0
303.332.0
NA
338.4
67.2+.17.1
NA
NA
NA
67.2
95.317.2
NA
NA
NA
953
87.4+23.4
NA
101.320.6
NA
NA
340.923.1
286.325.1
NA
248.1+36.2
NA
134.4+23.6
289.4+30.2
NA
124.110.4
147.926.8
124.127.8
Source PM 10 concentration at the sampling point (includes vapor)
NA
110.226.0
115.326.8
155.725.0
NA
173.2+24.4
143.7+24.0
262.327.2
NA
NA
93.8+27.2
11.2+29.5
NA
NA
83.3+25.1
84.2+27.5
NA
195.519.0
233.129.4
146.9+30.7
94.3
313.6
224.0
132.0
127.1
193.1
52.5
83.7
191.9
230.2+33.5
172.4+26.1
181.2+24.8
NA
194.6
55.813.4
NA
NA
NA
55.8
78.313.5
NA
NA
NA
78.3
NA
78.219.2
NA
97.917.3
334.319.1
NA
NA
286.1+21.3
NA
208.9+28.4
251.7+24.3
104.318.5
104.521.8
114.321.0
85.58.1
NA
Source PM 25 concentration at the sampling point (includes vapor)
139.6+25.0
NA
95.526.0
101.626.7
254.827.1
166.5+24.4
NA
139.423.9
NA
9.429.5
93.327.2
NA
NA
NA
83.1+27.5
82.425.1
130.4+30.7
220.729.3
NA
178.818.9
88.0
310.2
188.3
101.4
212.2+33.3
154.826.0
158.0+24.7
NA
175.0
54.513.4
NA
NA
NA
54.5
74.913.5
NA
NA
NA
74.9
78.019.2
334.1+19.1
NA
79.98.1
97.817.3
285.921.3
100.518.5
109.5+21.0
NA
NA
248.624.3
99.321.8
NA
NA
205.9+28.4
NA
87.9
310.0
185.0
96.2
112.2
186.9
51.4
82.7
176.6
81
grease vapor is included in all concentration calculations. Figure 8 shows the

concentration for each individual test as measured from the sampling point. The
uncertainty is associated with the measurement of the particulate and vapor mass, as well
as the sampling flow rate. Most of the uncertainty is a result of the uncertainty associated
with the measurement of the grease vapor. For most of the processes, the data show good
repeatability. For some processes, such as the gas fryer, there is a considerable amount
of disparity between tests. For the present report, the average values have been calculated
and used for further analysis. The data for each test is provided for those who may wish
to determine representative concentrations in an alternative manner.
While the data from table 8 show the measured concentrations from the sampling point,
the position of the sampling point relative to the thermal plume varies from process to
process. To determine a useful concentration quantity, the data need to be adjusted. The
dilution ratio from the sampling point to the exhaust duct has been estimated for each
process using sub-micron sized particulates as tracers. Therefore, the concentration of
particulates one would expect to find in the exhaust duct at the tested exhaust rate can be
estimated by dividing the average concentrations found at the sampling point by the
dilution ratio. This is the concentration one would expect if the quantity and phase of
particles and vapors remained unchanged from the sampling point to the exhaust duct.
Columns 2 through 4 in table 9 show the average concentration as measured from the
sampling point, the dilution ratio, and the estimated average concentration mat would be
found in the exhaust duct at the tested exhaust rate assuming no changes to the effluent
stream. While this last quantity may at first appear to be adequate for comparison, it is
dependent on the exhaust volumetric flow rate. By multiplying the estimated
concentration at the tested exhaust flow rate by the tested exhaust flow rate, one can
determine the mass flow rate of particles. The nominal tested exhaust volumetric flow
rate is shown in column 5, while the mass flow rate of particulates is shown in column 6.
At this point, we can now develop a method by which to compare emission
concentrations. The particulate mass flow rate shown in table 9 is still a function of the
exhaust flow rate at which the sample was taken, but it can be used to find the expected
particle concentration associated with any exhaust volumetric flow rate. Here, it is
proposed that the standard volumetric flow rate required by the ASTM Standard test
methods for appliance performance be used. This required flow rate varies from
appliance to appliance, and depends of the linear foot of the ventilation hood. For the
griddles, fryers, ovens, and ranges, the ASTM test methods require 300 cfm per linear
foot of hood. For the broilers, the requirement is 400 cfm per linear foot of hood.
Therefore, for an 8 ft. by 4 ft. hood, one would use 2400 cfm for the griddles, fryers,
ovens, and ranges, and 3200 cfm for the broilers. For a 4 ft. by 4ft. hood, the volumetric
flow rate would be one half of that for an 8 ft. by 4 ft. hood for the given appliances.
Columns 7 and 8 in table 9 show the particulate concentration emissions at the standard
ASTM required flow rate for an 8 ft. by 4 ft. hood, and a 4 ft. by 4ft. hood, respectively.
82
TABLE 9. ESTIMATED TOTAL PARTICULATE, PM 10, AND PM 2.5 SOURCE

CONCENTRATION EMISSIONS NORMALIZED TO STANDARD HOOD
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATES (INCLUDES VAPOR)
Estimated Average Source Total Particulate concentrations and mass flow rates (includes vapor)
Concentration
Average
Dilution
Estimated
Nominal
Particulate
Concentration
cone, at
concentration
test flow
for 4 ft. x 4 ft.
Ratio
mass flow
for 8 ft. x 4 ft.
sampling
hood at std.
using test
rate
rate as
hood at std.
point
exhaust flow
(frVmin)
flow rate
tested
flow rate
(mg/m5)
rate (mg/m3)
(mg/m3)
(mg/min)
(mg/m3)
107.4
284.5
53.7
2400
5.3
3648
53.7
Gas Griddle
257.6
5.0
513
2400
103.0
Electric Griddle
3501
51.5
108.8
5.0
21.8
2400
43.5
21.8
Gas Fryer
1478
24.4
24.4
121.8
5.0
2400
48.7
Electric Fryer
1656
2700
335.8
2.5
134.3
10269
113.3
226.6
Gas Broiler
(Hamburger)
338.4
4.2
80.6
2700
6160
68.0
136.0
Electric Broiler
(Hamburger)
67.2
26.9
2700
45.4
2.5
2056
22.7
Gas Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
95.3
4.6
20.7
2700
1584
35.0
Electric Broiler
173
(Chicken Breast)
94.3
7.5
12.6
2400
12.6
25.2
Gas Oven
855
313.6
11.0
2400
57.0
Electric Oven
28.5
1938
28.5
81.4
224.0
5.5
40.7
2400
Gas Range
2767
40.7
132.0
24.0
2400
48.0
Electric Range
5.5
1631
24.0
Estimated Average Source PM 10 concentrations and mass flow rates (includes vapor)
48.0
24.0
1630
2400
24.0
5.3
127.1
Gas Griddle
2624
2400
38.6
5.0
Electric Griddle
77.2
38.6
193.1
2400
10.5
5.0
52.5
21.0
103
713
Gas Fryer
2400
16.7
5.0
83.7
Electric Fryer
33.5
16.7
1138
2700
76.7
191.9
129.5
64.8
5867
2.5
Gas Broiler
(Hamburger)
3542
2700
46.3
4.2
194.6
Electric Broiler
78.2
39.1
(Hamburger)
2700
55.8
18.8
1706
223
2.5
Gas Broiler
37.7
(Chicken Breast)
2700
17.0
783
Electric Broiler
14.4
1302
4.6
28.7
(Chicken Breast)
2400
11.7
88.0
233
798
7.5
Gas Oven
11.7
310.2
Electric Oven
56.4
2400
28.2
11.0
28.2
1917
2400
34.2
53
188.3
Gas Range
68.5
34.2
2327
101.4
2400
18.4
Electric Range
18.4
1253
5.5
36.9
Estimated Average Source PM 2.5 concentrations and mass flow rates (includes vapor)
Gas Griddle
11X2
5.3
21.2
2400
21.2
1439
42.3
Electric Griddle
37.4
2400
37.4
186.9
5.0
2540
74.8
2400
51.4
5.0
10.3
698
Gas Fryer
103
203
Electric Fryer
82.7
5.0
16.5
2400
1124
163
33.1
2700
Gas Broiler
176.6
23
70.7
5402
59.6
119.2
(Hamburger)
Electric Broiler
175.0
2700
4.2
41.7
3186
35.2
703
(Hamburger)
2700
Gas Broiler
543
2.5
21.8
1668
18.4
36.8
(Chicken Breast)
Electric Broiler
74.9
16.3
2700
4.6
1245
13.7
27.5
(Chicken Breast)
87.9
Gas Oven
7.5
2400
797
23.4
11.7
11.7
Electric Oven
310.0
11.0
28.2
2400
1915
28.2
56.4
Gas Range
185.0
5.5
33.6
2400
2286
33.6
67.3
Electric Range
2400
96.2
5.5
173
1189
173
35.0
Appliance
(Product)
83
Note, the concentrations for the 8 ft. by 4ft. hood are exactly the same as the estimated
concentrations using the test exhaust flow rate found in column 4, for all process except
those involving the broiler. This is because for all appliances except the broiler, testing
was done with an 8 ft. by 4 ft. hood at the ASTM required flow rate. For those involving
the broiler, the hood was modified to 6.75 ft. by 4 ft., enabling us to reach the required
flow rate of 400 cfm per linear foot of hood. Therefore, the concentration one would
expect to find in the exhaust duct of an 8 ft. by 4 ft. hood operating at 400 cfm per linear
foot of hood would be slightly less than those from a 6.75 ft. by 4 ft. hood.
The estimated concentrations in the exhaust from a 4 ft. by 4ft. hood are twice that from
a 8 ft. by 4 ft. hood. This shows it is possible to present the data normalized per square
foot of hood entrance area. This would be done simply by multiplying the concentrations
estimated for an 8 ft. by 4 ft. hood by 32 ft2. Table 10 shows the results. Therefore, it is
possible to determine an emission concentration level at which a cooking process is
required to use a specific type of hood or grease removal device.
For instance, a proposed code may specify that if PM 10 emission concentrations exceeds
160 (mg/m3) -ft2 of hood entrance, a Type 1 grease hood is required. If one test facility
consists of an 8 ft. by 4 ft. hood, and the recommended exhaust flow rate for the
particular type of appliance is 300 cfm per linear ft. of hood, the exhaust flow rate should
be set at 2400 cfm. After eliminating all grease removal devices, the PM 10
concentration could be measured in the exhaust duct. If it exceeds 160 (mg/m3) -ft2, then
a hood is required. Because the entrance is 32 ft2, the critical concentration level is 5
mg/m3. If the same process is tested under a 4 ft. by 4 ft. hood, the exhaust flow rate
should be set at 1200 cfm, and the critical concentration level is 10 mg/m3. With this
method, it is possible to use a system with any sized hood where the required exhaust
ventilation rate can be reached.
One note of caution is that if a method similar to the one proposed is used, and total
particulates are chosen as the criteria, it is likely the numbers from this investigation will
exceed those measured by others, if the concentration measurements are taken in the
exhaust duct. This is because when making the calculations shown in tables 8,9, and 10,
the current investigation assumed all the particulates measured at the sampling point
would also be present in the exhaust duct. Because the total particulates collected at the
sampling point include many large particles, it is likely even without any grease removal
devices, some of the particles would not enter the exhaust duct, or would quickly fall to
the exhaust duct floor. For PM 10 and PM 2.5 particulates, one would expect this effect
to be negligible.
84
TABLE 10. ESTIMATED TOTAL PARTICULATE, PM 10, AND PM 2.5 SOURCE

CONCENTRATION EMISSIONS NORMALIZED TO SQUARE FOOT OF HOOD
ENTRANCE (INCLUDES VAPOR)
Estimated Average Source Total Particulate concentrations normalized to ft 2 of hood entrance (includes vapor)
Appliance
Concentration at recommended volumetric exhaust flow rate
(Product)
[(mg/m3)-(ft2 of hood entrance)]
Gas Griddle
1717.8
Electric Griddle
1648.6
Gas Fryer
696.0
Electric Fryer
779.8
Gas Broiler
3626.3
(Hamburger)
Electric Broiler
2175.5
(Hamburger)
726.0
Gas Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
559.4
Electric Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
402.6
Gas Oven
912.4
Electric Oven
1303.0
Gas Range
768.1
Electric Range
Estimated Average Source PM 10 concentrations normalized to ft2 of hood entrance (includes vapor)
Gas Griddle
767.3
Electric Griddle
1235.7
Gas Fryer
335.7
Electric Fryer
535.8
Gas Broiler
2072.0
(Hamburger)
Electric Broiler
1251.0
(Hamburger)
Gas Broiler
602.5
(Chicken Breast)
459.8
Electric Broiler
(Chicken Breast)
Gas Oven
375.5
Electric Oven
902.4
Gas Range
1095.7
Electric Range
590.2
Estimated Average Source PM 2.5 concentrations normalized to ft 2 of hood entrance (includes vapor)
Gas Griddle
677.5
Electric Griddle
1196.1
Gas Fryer
328.8
Electric Fryer
529.5
Gas Broiler
1907.6
(Hamburger)
Electric Broiler
1125.0
(Hamburger)
Gas Broiler
589.1
(Chicken Breast)
Electric Broiler
439.8
(Chicken Breast)
Gas Oven
375.0
Electric Oven
901.8
Gas Range
1076.4
Electric Range
559.9
85
E. Individual Cooking Processes
To eliminate bias from appliance to appliance, one gas and one electric version of each
appliance (from a single manufacturer when possible) was tested.
1. Gas Griddle
a. Appliance Description
This investigation used a 3-foot griddle with an atmospheric natural gas burner. The
rated input was 80 kBTU/h (23.44 kW). The cooking surface was chromium with
dimensions of 24 x 33 in. (61 x 83.2 cm) for a total area of 5.5 ft2 (0.51 m2).
b. Appliance Energy Input Rate and Calibration
Using procedures from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1275-95, described in Appendix
D, we found the actual energy input rate to be 75 kBTU/h (21.98 kW), which compares
well with a rated energy input of 80 kBTU/h (23.44 kW). Using procedures from the
same test method, we calibrated the thermostat control to provide a surface temperature
of375F(191C).
c. Cooking Procedure
Appendix E gives the details of the cooking procedure, adopted from ASTM Standard
Test Method F 1275-95. The food product cooked was frozen quarter pound, 20 % fat,
62 % moisture, finished grind hamburger patties. A laboratory specializing in food
product evaluation tested several patties for fat and moisture content. Appendix B shows
the results from these tests, and other information regarding the food product. The
following is a brief summary of the cooking procedure.
The cooking procedure begins with determining the time it takes to cook the patties to an
average of 35 % weight loss. After establishing the proper cooking time, patties are
weighted and arranged on aluminum sheet pans. The product temperature is measured
before cooking begins. The patties are placed on the griddle sequentially, four for each
square foot of cooking surface. At the proper times established earlier, the patties are
turned, and finally removed and placed on a grease drip tray. When applicable, a second
batch begins cooking when the appliance surface temperature reaches 375 F (191 C).
After dripping for one minute on each side, the weight of the cooked patties are
determined. Two patties from each batch are tested for moisture content.
For the gas griddle, previous data exist regarding energy efficiency for a similar appliance
using an identical food product. Therefore, it is interesting to compare the results,
indicating if the ASTM cooking procedures were implemented in a similar manner. The
data is from an atmospheric gas griddle, published in a Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)
86
report (PG&E 1989). The parameters compared are taken directly from the ASTM
Standard Test Method. Figure 39 shows the rated energy input, measured energy input,
and average energy input for the two gas griddles. For the U-M gas griddle, data from
one test (#5) is used for the comparison.
PG&E vs. U-M Gas Griddle
80
70
60
^ 50
H 40
B U-M Gas Griddle 5

a PG&E Gas Griddle ATM
10
0
kBTU/h
Rated input
kBTU/h
Measured
Input
kBTU/h
Ave Input
rate
Figure 39. Comparison of U-M and PG&E ATM gas griddle energy input rates
The rated and measured inputs differ because the griddle used in the U-M testingis rated
at 80 kBTU/h (23.44 kW) while the PG&E griddle is rated at 60 kBTU/h (17.58 kW).
The average input rate refers to the energy used during the cooking process. Therefore, if
both griddles cook the same amount of food, with a similar efficiency, they should use
about the same amount of energy. Figure 39 shows the average input rate from PG&E
testing is identical to testing from the U-M project. Figure 40 shows a comparison
between the amount of energy directed to the food and the griddle, per mass of food
cooked.
87

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
B U-M Gas Griddle 5

PG&E Gas Griddle ATM
800
600
400
200
0
BTU/lb
Efood
BTU/lb
E griddle
Figure 40. Comparison of U-M and PG&E gas griddle energy to the food and griddle, per
mass of food cooked.
The energy to the food considers all the energy absorbed by the food to bring it from its
original temperature to its final temperature. This includes the energy needed to thaw the
patties, evaporate some of the moisture, and elevate the total temperature to its final
value. The energy to the griddle is the total amount of energy contained in the natural gas
delivered to the griddle. The energy is normalized to the total food product cooked.
Again, the results from the PG&E test are similar to that of the U-M test. Figure 41
compares the energy efficiency and total product capacity of the two griddles.
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
a U-M Gas Griddle

m PG&E Gas Griddle ATM
%
eff cook
Ib/h
Product
Capacity
Figure 41. Comparison of the U-M and PG&E gas griddle cooking efficiencies
The cooking efficiency is the percentage of energy used by the griddle that is directed to
the food product. The product capacity is the maximum amount of product that can be
88
cooked in a given time period. The energy efficiency and product capacity from the two
research projects compare well.
Figures 39 through 41 show that the performance of the two griddles is similar, in terms
of the tested parameters from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1275-95. This suggests
the cooking procedure used in the present investigation sufficiently follows the standard
test method.
d. Sampling Position
Figure 42 shows the probe sampling position for the gas and electric griddles with respect
to the test kitchen. The maximum height instrumentation could be placed above the
cooking surface was chosen for the sampling height. After watching the cooking process
several times, the observable center of the plume at the sampling height appeared to be
centered horizontally above the appliance, about 12 in. from the back wall. Figure 42
shows the sampling position to lie along a straight path from the cooking surface center to
the exhaust duct center.
e. Velocity Distribution
Due to problems associated with grease particulates fouling the anemometer during actual
cooking, the velocity distribution for the gas griddle was taken while trays of water were
boiling on the griddle surface. Figure 43 shows the temperature and velocity control
volumes used for the gas and electric griddles. The volumes within the bolded areas are
the velocity control volumes, where the velocity was taken in the geometric center, at the
height of the hood opening. The velocities vary over time during the process, therefore,
an average velocity is used to estimate the velocity within each control volume.
Figure 44 shows the velocity distribution at the hood opening for the gas griddle. An
outline of the appliance surface and the exhaust duct opening is shown. At the point of
the hood opening, the majority of the air rises vertically, with little horizontal velocity
component. Therefore, the measured velocity, which is really the vertical velocity
component, is probably close to the total velocity vector at the measurement point. The
air velocity increases as the air moves closer to the exhaust duct opening. The maximum
velocity of about 150 fpm (0.76 m/s) is found centered directly beneath the exhaust duct
opening. The contour plot ends 6 in. from the outer edges of the hood. For the griddles,
velocities were not taken and the edge of the hood, therefore, the velocities in this area
are undetermined.
Figure 44 shows a gradual increase in air velocity from the front of the hood to the back.
As the thermal plume rises, it entrains room air, gaining velocity. The entire plume tends
to move towards the area inside the hood with the lowest pressure, which corresponds to
the grease baffle opening closest to the exhaust duct collar. Therefore, as expected, the
lowest velocities are seen furthest way from the exhaust opening.
89
1.0 In.
-*ll<-
12 In.
16 in.
26 In.
41.25 In.
9 In.
-&^
10.75 In.
20 In,
12 In.
s
s-
^~5
=>
96 In.
108.S la
32 In.
81 In.
9 In.
30 In.
7h.
11.5
In.
122 In.
50.5 In.
125.5 In.
LEFT SIDE VIEW
TOP VIEW
24 In.
LEGEND
Gas And Electric Griddle

Dimensions (Left Side)
33 in.

Dimensions (Top View)
Figure 42. Position of the gas and electric griddles
Sample Point
iTi
32 '
12
'ir
9
12
\o
r
12
10
P:d
41
6 I
i 14
15 ,
22 ' 231 '
24
L 1J
32 ' 33 I '
34
-ML42 l 4 3 | I 44
16 '
I
25 1 26 '
7 I '8 I
,
I
17 ' ,18 '
I
9 I 10
19 ' 2 0 ,
-"^ - M
I I
27 ' 8 '
15
16
23
24
I'
31
32
12
12
29 ' 30 1
3 1
1
_354I -36 n' 37
- i' -f138 j' . 391 4 'i.40 41
J T - L. ^X 45 I 46 I 47 I 148 I
Li
49 I 50 I
_ _L _l L 20_ _ i _ L _ l i _ L _ l i
19
-h- + - - h - H - - H
-
27
26
-~^-
1! _L 4
t"
72
-M -- -T-
'
25
12 ' 13. '
18
17
'
-- 4 -
1112
12
--<-
12
-^~^-
28
29
12
12
Velocity control volume boundaries
- Temperature control volume boundaries

1 1/2 inch inner flange within ventilation hood
30
12
Distances in italics (inches)
Velocity points in bold

Temperature points in plain
Figure 43. Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas for the gas and electric griddles
Vel (ft/min):
50
100
150
200
to
40
60
Front Hood Position (in.)
Figure 44. Velocity contour plot at the plane of the hood opening
for the gas griddle
250
/. Temperature Distribution
The temperature control volumes are shown in figure 43. A 50 point thermocouple grid
was positioned at three heights, during three separate cooking tests, corresponding to 12,
24 and 36 in. (30.5, 61, and 91.4 cm) above the cooking surface. Temperatures were
taken every minute during the entire cooking process. To cycle through the thermocouple
grid, the data acquisition channel switcher must change channels 50 times, which takes
about 37 seconds. Therefore, the temperature distribution for the entire grid is not known
simultaneously for any one time.
Figure 45 shows a two dimensional view of the temperature distribution at 36 in. (91.4
cm) above the gas griddle surface. The hood opening, exhaust duct opening, and
appliance surface outlines are shown on the graph. The temperatures shown are the
averages at each point over the entire cooking period. The rectangular area on the rear of
the appliance surface is the gas griddle flue. It is interesting to note the temperature at the
flue gas exit is about 500 T (260 C), while the maximum temperature 36 in. (91.4
cm)above the cooking surface is about 115 F (46.1 C). This shows a considerable
amount of dilution has occurred in a relatively short distance.
Figure 45 shows the highest temperatures are near the back of the appliance centered
under the exhaust duct opening. The contours show the temperature cools in an almost
rectangular fashion. This reflects the shape of the gas griddle flue, which produces the
largest heat flux contribution.
Figure 46 shows the three-dimensional view of the average temperature distribution
above the gas griddle. The plume is extremely hot over the flue area. As the plume rises,
the plume broadens and cools. At 36 in. (91.4 cm) above the griddle surface, the plume
has shifted towards the back of the kitchen, drawn there by the exhaust opening. The
hottest part of the plume begins to take a shape that is almost circular at this height. For
the griddles, the first row of thermocouples was set about 8 in. (20.3 cm) in front of the
kitchen back wall, so part of the plume, between the wall and the 8 in.(20.c cm) mark, is
not included in figure 46. Notice that at the 12 in. (30.5 cm) height, the air temperature
cools substantially in front of the flue opening. The most likely reason for this is the hot
plume from the flue produces a strong upward convective force, which in turn entrains
room air. This room air must travel across the area immediately above the griddle
surface. Therefore, the temperature of the plume above the griddle surface at the lower
height is almost the same as the dilution room air. It is possible this phenomena affects
grease vapor emissions, allowing the vapor to condense to the particulate phase.
Figure 47 shows the maximum measured plume temperature at the three heights over the
entire cooking period. As expected, the greatest temperature variation is seen 12 in. (30.5
cm) above the cooking surface. The temperature slowly climbs from 125 F (52 C) to
over 250 F (121 C) while the hamburger cooks on the first side. At four minutes,
immediately before the burgers are turned the temperature decreases. Within two minutes
after the burgers are turned, the temperature is back above 250 F (121 C). At nine
93
Temp (F): 65
75
85
95
105
40
60
Figure 45. Average temperature contour plot at 36 inches above
the gas griddle
115
>
Figure 46. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12, 24, and 36 inches above
the gas griddle
300
Patties turned
Patties placed
on griddle
225
6.
P 200
-1
10
Time (Min)
12 inch
24 inch
36 inch
Figure 47. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12, 24, and 36 inches above the gas griddle
11
minutes, the burgers are taken off, which takes between 30 seconds and one minute. The
griddle surface is then scraped clean. This process seems to reduce the temperature.
Once the surface is clean, the temperature falls further.
The same general pattern can be seen for the maximum temperature at 24 in. (61 cm)
above the cooking surface. The difference in temperatures between the 24 and 12 in. (61
and 30.5 cm) levels show a great deal of room air mixes with the thermal plume. This
tends to dampen the temperature fluctuations seen closer to the griddle surface. At the 36
in. (91.4 cm) height there is not much fluctuation of temperature. Again, the room air has
diluted the thermal plume, decreasing the maximum temperature.
g. Particle Size Distribution
The grease particle size distribution at the sampling point was determined by the use of an
inertial impactor. Figure 48 shows the resulting distribution from three tests. The form
of the ordinate may be unfamiliar to some readers. Because of the large differences in
particulate sizes (spanning 4 orders of magnitude), it is common to plot particulate
distributions on a log-normal graph. Therefore, normalizing the mass found in a
particular size range requires dividing the mass by the difference in the logs of the size
range boundaries. This allows the area within each histogram to accurately portray the
proportion of the mass found in that size range, compared to the other size ranges.
For the gas griddle, it is clear the results are repeatable. The majority of the grease
particulates, on a mass basis, are larger than 15 \im. It is likely most particulates in this
size range originate from splattering during the cooking process. This can occur as gas is
released during cooking, causing a tiny "explosion" near the surface of the meat,
propelling grease particulates into the thermal plume. A large portion of these
particulates probably originate during the turning process, when moisture and grease
drippings land on the hot griddle surface. From a grease extraction aspect, these large
particulates should be easy to remove by simple mechanical means such as a grease
baffle.
Figure 49 zooms in on the smaller particulate size ranges. It shows a rather smooth
progression towards larger particle sizes. In nature it is common to see this type of
particle size progression. Figure 49 shows that particulate sizes of great interest, those
below 10 \im and 2.5 Jim are not present in great mass for the gas griddle cooking
process. These particulate sizes are not only problematic from a grease removal
perspective, but are more likely to have impacts on human health.
Figure 50 shows the grease emissions normalized to 1000 lb. (454 kg) of food product.
The data shows the total particulates (TP), particulates smaller than 10 jim (PM 10),
particulates smaller than 2.5 (im (PM 2.5), grease in the vapor form (vapor), and the total
97
tiov -
200 -
i
i
i
1
w
<
D)
150
E
00
^-^
Q.
Q
O)
f,
o
P 100 -
I;
T>
1i:
i:
I.--
50 JUTS
J:
0-
0.01
0.10
H - I T H T ~L H
1.00
l!
i:
i:
1
1
s-r
k1
10.00
Dp (Mm)
100.00
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
Dp (Mm)
100.00
30
25
"I 20
O
8 15
"35
c
o
".CO
8
E 10
LLI
TP
PM10
mmm i1 \mrnff%tfffF
PM2.5
Vapor
Particle Size Range or Phase

STestl
CD Test 2
I Test 3
& Average
Figure 50. Gas griddle normalized grease emissions
Total Grease
111
CD
1*
CO
r
w
*-
o a
3 ere
CD
t*1
o -
s- a g.
co
ere
ere
2
g.
ions
' 3
to O
9. 8 <B
M
L3
8?
2 CD
ff g
S-g.
gas
die.
T3
a.
o
3
3
8
CD t r -
ct < 2
a* CD 3
&
CD
3
"
Ui
* co O
CO
CO
fl
" 2.
r* 3- 3
the
y.
CD
CD
3 a o
CO
CO
co
** 3c
s
co
CO
&5
ssi nsF
8.511.9
5.6
5.8
207
2.00.6
0 53" 'v. W
O
K
eou
Emissions
lb./1000 lb. food product
00
265160
174
0.60.2
0.060.02
CD g
CD
CD
5-
3*
$
Ci
(^
O
CO
o ^ a.
P?
co
& e
SS a
3"
O
CD co W
3
CD
ions
5*
8 p
gase
a p Ci
o g M
cT
Gas
g ff tn
O P .
z n
o
p
I 3 <q
co ere o
CO2 (including room air)

CO2 (subtracting room air)
Maximum Stoichiometric
CO2 Combustion
Contributions
S-S
a,g 3
CD < "
S 3 3"
&
co CD
S. 2 o
RT 3 3 co "J
3.
S o
3
3
0.
Q.
i-> CD
3 " CD
CD
CD
S> * 3
s? - t , co
~L O co
0 n
CO'
CL
CD
3*
CD
ere g
o. a
a.
3 "
IW^WIu
TP
PM10
umMMMH
PM2.5
Vapor
Particle Size or Phase

ETesM
ED Test 2
I Test 3
Figure 5 1 . Gas griddle collected grease emissions
Total Grease
CO2 is a natural combustion product expected to be emitted from a gas appliance. The
emissions can be accounted for entirely by the combustion process, suggesting the food
product does not produce additional C0 2 . The CO and NOx levels are quite low. They
are generally a sign of imperfect combustion. It appears as though the tested gas griddle
operates efficiently, with only a minimal amount of incomplete combustion.
Table 1 in section D.6 shows which hydrocarbons were tested. We found no evidence of
hydrocarbon emissions above the minimum tested detection limit.
1. Time Dependent Particle Size Distribution
Figure 52 shows the particle number concentration during the cooking process. The data
were taken with a sample probe placed in the sampling position shown in figure 42. A
sample line directed particulates from the probe to the ELPI. The ELPI is capable of
collecting number concentration data for extremely small particulates. The particle
diameters included in figure 52 range from 0.09 to 0.38 u.m.
Figure 52 shows the concentration of emitted particulates is quite sensitive to the cooking
process. The beginning of the cooking process sees the number concentration begin to
rise dramatically. After the first minute of cooking, the concentration begins to level off.
At 5 minutes into the cooking process, which corresponds to 6 minutes in figure 50, the
patties are turned. The number concentration rises for all three particle size ranges
shown. The magnitude of this rise, while difficult to see on a log plot, is about four fold.
When the patties are turned, all of the grease and moisture which has pooled on the top
side of the patty while the bottom side was cooking, now gets dumped onto the hot
griddle. This is the cause of the "sizzling" that you hear when meat is turned from one
side to another. The grease and moisture hitting the hot griddle surface causes the
generation of particulates.
When the patties are removed, the concentration falls by a factor of two. However, it
does stay well above the level it was before cooking began. There is still a lot of liquid
grease on the griddle, which is scraped off to prepare for the second batch. This cleaning
process must help generate some particulates.
When the second batch is placed of the griddle, there is a slight particle concentration
increase, bringing the concentration to about the same level it was during the cooking of
the first side of the first batch. Again, when the patties are turned, the concentration
increases to the same level it was for the first batch. When the patties from the second
batch are removed, the concentration falls back to the same level it did after the removal
of the first batch. Overall, the information in figure 52 shows that the generation of
particles during the gas griddle process is dependent on the actual cooking process.
103
1.0E+06 gr
First batch s t a r t o f s e c o n ( J
removed b a t c h
Patties turned
Start of first
batch
Patties turned
Second batch
removed
I 1.0E+05
c
o
?
1 1.0E+04
u
c
o
u
I 1.0E+03
1.0E+02
10
15
20
25
Time (min)
Stage 3 - 0.09-0.15pm
Stage 4-0.15-0.26um
'Stage 5 - 0.26-0.38(jm
Figure 52. Gas griddle real time particle number concentrations

Taken with the ELPI during the cooking process at the sampling point
2. Electric Griddle
This investigation used a 3-foot griddle with an electric burner. The rated input was 36.5
kBTU/h (10.7 kW) at 240 V. The cooking surface was chromium with dimensions of 24
x 33 in. (61 x 83.2 cm) for a total area of 5.5 ft2 (0.51 m2).
D, we found the actual energy input rate to be 25.6 kBTU/h (7.50 kW), which compares
well with a rated energy input of 26.1 kBTU/h (7.65 kW), adjusted for actual applied
voltage. Using procedures from the same test method, we calibrated the thermostat
control to provide a surface temperature of 375 F (191 C).
The cooking procedure for the electric griddle is identical to the procedure for the gas
griddle.
Previous data exist regarding energy efficiency for a similar appliance using an identical
food product. The data is from an electric griddle, published in a Pacific Gas aid Electric
(PG&E) report (PG&E 1989). The parameters compared are taken directly from the
ASTM Standard Test Method. Figure 53 shows the rated energy input, measured energy
input, and average energy input for the two electric griddles. For the U-M electric
griddle, data from one test (#1) is used for the comparison.
PG&E vs. U-M Electric Griddle
1
30.0 T
kBTU/h
Rated input
kBTU/h
Measured
Input
kBTU/h
Ave Input
rate
Figure 53. Comparison of U-M and PG&E electric griddle energy input rates
105
The rated input from the PG&E electric griddle is slightly higher than the U-M electric
griddle. This is due to a slight difference in applied voltage. The U-M testing produced a
slightly higher, but similar input rate. Overall, the comparison is favorable. Figure 54
compares the amount of energy directed to the food and the griddle, per mass of food
cooked.
U-M Electric Griddle

i PG&E Electric Griddle
BTU/lb
Efood
BTU/lb
E griddle
Figure 54. Comparison of U-M and PG&E electric griddle energy to the food and griddle,
per mass of food cooked
Results from the U-M testing are almost identical to those from the PG&E testing. Figure
54 shows the energy to the food is almost equal to the energy to the griddles. This means
the cooking efficiency is high. Figure 55compares the energy efficiency and total product
capacity of the two griddles.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
jgjl
a U-M Electric Griddle

n PG&E Electric Griddle
:=B
%
eff cook
I
p
Ji
Ib/h
Product
Capacity
Figure 55. Comparison of the U-M and PG&E electric griddle cooking efficiencies
106
The results from the PG&E testing are similar to the results from the U-M testing. The
much higher cooking efficiencies from the electric griddles, compared to the gas griddles,
are a consequence of where the energy conversion from the raw energy source occurs.
With the gas griddle, the energy applied to the food is compared to the total energy
content of the raw natural gas. Therefore, thermal inefficiencies associated with
converting the natural gas into heat show in the cooking efficiency. For the electric
griddle, the energy applied to the food is compared to the amount of electricity supplied
to the appliance. The thermal inefficiencies associated with converting the energy source
to electricity occur at the utility plant, and does not appear in the cooking efficiency.
Figures 53 through 55 show that the performance of the two griddles is similar, in terms
of the tested parameters from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1275-95. Therefore, it is
likely the cooking procedure used for the electric griddle sufficiently follows the standard
test method.
The sampling position is identical to that of the gas griddle, shown in figure 42.
The velocity distribution for the electric griddle was determined in a manner identical to
the velocity distribution for the gas griddle. Water pans placed on the cooking surface
helped approximate the effect of a thermal plume from the appliance. Figure 43 shows
the control volumes used for the velocity measurements, with actual measurements made
at the center of each.
Figure 56 shows the velocity distribution contour at the hood opening. An outline for the
appliance, hood, and exhaust duct positions is shown. The positions are identical to those
for the gas griddle. Like the gas griddle, the area near the borders of the hood are not
included because velocity measurements were not made past the contour area shown.
The area of the hood entrance closest to the exhaust duct opening shows the highest
velocities. The velocities are not quite as high as those seen from the gas griddle,
probably do to the absence of the effects caused by the combustion gases exiting the gas
griddle flue. However, comparing the two velocity profiles shows the velocity
distributions for the different griddles are much more similar than one may expect. This
suggests that by the time the plume reaches the hood entrance, dilution air from the room
has mixed thoroughly with the appliance emissions.
The gradual increase in velocity towards the exhaust duct entrance shows the plume is
moving towards the back of the ventilation hood, where the grease baffles are positioned.
It is interesting to note the rectangular shape of the highest velocity area. Some of this
effect is from the position of the appliance situated below that area. However, velocity
measurements at the grease baffles even when the appliance is not present show higher
107
Vel (ft/min):
50
100
250
WBHW""^!WII!r"
8&<i$i
40--
c
o
2 30o
200
00
150
Q.
E 20o
0)
2 lO0
H-H-
20
H I *
40
60
80
for the electric griddle
velocities near the exhaust duct opening. This suggests that while the area behind the
grease baffles is designed to operate as a plenum, supposedly providing equal velocity
flow to the entire grease baffle rack, in reality, flow rates through the grease baffles
furthest from the exhaust duct opening are lower than the flow rates near the center of the
ventilation hood.
/
Temperature Distribution
The temperature control volumes for the electric griddle are identical to those for the gas
griddle, shown in figure 43. Figure 57 shows the average temperature distribution 36 in.
(91.4 cm) above the electric griddle surface. There does not appear to be much of a
temperature gradient at this point of the plume. However, the outline of the plume is
visible, appearing directly under the exhaust duct opening, in an almost rectangular shape.
There are small areas representing the hottest average temperatures, but these areas are
not significantly hotter than the surrounding areas. Comparison of the electric and gas
griddle temperature distributions at 36 in. (91.4 cm) shows the gas griddle combustion
flue greatly increases the plume temperature.
Figure 58 shows a three-dimensional representation of the average temperature
distribution above the electric griddle. The data are from 12, 24 , and 36 in. (30.5, 61,
and 91.4 cm) above the cooking surface during the actual cooking process. It is clear that
a great deal of plume dilution occurs between 12 and 36 in. (30.5 and 91.4 cm). This is
evident in the decreased plume temperatures. The affect of the room air dilution is not
only to reduce the plume temperature, but also to increase the plume velocity. Also
noticeable in figure 58 is the direction of the plume movement as it rises. The plume
moves towards the back of the hood, where the grease baffles are located. This is where
all the air must exit, so it is natural that the plume would migrate in this direction. The
biggest difference between the three dimensional temperature distribution from the
electric griddle, compared to the gas griddle, is the absence of the effect of the
combustion flue. The plume at 12 in. (30.5 cm) above the surface is symmetric, and is
centered over the griddle surface. There is noticeable temperature increase even near the
front of the griddle surface. For the gas griddle, the exiting flue gas is extremely hot, and
dominates the plume characteristics. The exiting flue gas entrains room air and pulls it
across the front of the griddle, lowering the temperature near the griddle surface. As
stated earlier, this may influence the proportion of grease in the particulate and vapor
phases.
Figure 59 shows the real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36 in. (30.5,
61, and 91.4 cm) above the electric griddle. The data show the temperature of the air is
consistently reduced as the plume rises. At the 24 and 36 in. (61 and 91.4 cm) levels,
there appears to be a slight increase in maximum plume temperature as the cooking
process progresses. However, events such as the turning of the patties do not seam to
have a great influence at these heights. At the lower height of 12 in. (30.5 cm) the
maximum plume temperature varies more during the cooking process. There is actually a
drop in temperature when the patties are placed on the griddle, which is probably due to
109
m&
WSfS
UJ&tfO^
Temp (F): 65
75
85
95
40
60
105
80

the electric griddle
115
Front
Position (in,)

inches above the electric griddle
110
Patties removed
from griddle
Patties placed
of griddle
Patties turned
to
80
-1
10
Time (Min)
12 inch
24 inch
'36 inch
Figure 59. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12, 24, and 36 inches above the electric griddle
the temperature of the frozen patties (about 0 F, or -17.8 C). When the patties are
turned, there is a discernible increase in temperature. When the patties are removed, there
appears to be a temperature increase, which may be related to the scraping of the griddle
surface, necessary for cleaning. After a short period, the temperature begins to fall again.
Notice, the maximum plume temperatures for the electric griddle are much lower than
those seen from the gas griddle. In fact, by the time the plume is 24 in. (61 cm) from the
griddle surface, the temperature is only about 10 F (5.6 C) above room temperature.
Figure 60 shows the mass size distribution of the grease particulates from the electric
griddle. The data shown are from three separate tests. The data show the tests were not
nearly as repeatable as those for the gas griddle, especially at the larger particulate sizes.
One possible reason for this is the fact the effluent plume position varies much more for
the electric griddle. The gas griddle has a flue constantly emitting hot combustion gases.
These gases entrain room air as they rise towards the ventilation hood. Much of the
dilution air travels above the surface of the griddle to mix with the combustion gases.
During the cooking process, the gas griddle burners are on almost constantly, creating a
constant flow of dilution air. This probably stabilizes the position of the thermal plume.
For the electric griddle, there is no flue emitting hot gases. Therefore, the thermal plume
comes directly from the cooking surface, entraining dilution air as it rises. The cooking
process is highly variable, emitting effluents at various rates throughout. While the
cooking process is also variable for the gas griddle, the combustion process is not, thus a
more stabile plume. In addition to being highly variable, the plume from the electric
griddle is smaller in volume, due to the absence of combustion gases. A smaller plume is
more easily affected by varying flow conditions caused by perturbations such as the
movement of the cooks.
In fact, observations show the center of the electric griddle thermal plume moves as much
as one foot (30.5 cm) from the center of the appliance in either direction. While this may
seem minimal, the sampling point is very small (less than one square cm). The largest
particles are generated from mechanical processes originating from the release of gases
within the food product or when grease drippings are released during the turning process.
It is likely the majority of the large particles are emitted during these specific time
periods. If the center of the thermal plume has moved away from the sampling point
during this time period, the large particulates will not be captured.
Figure 61 shows the particle distribution at a lower concentration range, focusing on the
smaller particle sizes. The variation in the three runs is not nearly as pronounced as it is
for the larger particles, but it is still present. The general shape of the size distribution is
identical to the gas griddle distribution. The total mass of the small particulates is very
small. In fact, there is hardly any grease mass associated with particles smaller than 1
Hm.
113
250
200
150
Q.
Q
O)
P 100
50
0
0.01
MH
0.10
SS==ZEHE3I i
i in
1.00
10.00
i-f r T'I'-FT
Dp (urn)
Figure 60. Electric griddle particle distribution (3 tests)
'I
I I
100.00
100 90
80 -
o-
f1E 6-
o. 50 -
Q
D)
O
=5
40 30 20 "
10 -
^-J
0-
0.01
0.10
1.00
1
1
J
10.00
Dp (|jm)
Figure 61. Electric griddle particle distribution (3 tests)

100.00
25
20
3
2
Q.
j g 15
o
o
o
TP
^ ^1
PM10
BSSOSBII
= t =
1_
PM2.5
Vapor

I Test 1
CUTest2
I Test 3
H Average
Figure 62. Electric griddle normalized grease emissions
Total Grease
Figure 62 shows grease emissions for the various particle size ranges and vapor. Even
considering measurement errors, the three tests do not agree well with respect to the total
particulate mass emissions. However, there is good agreement with the smaller particle
sizes and the grease vapor. The proportion of the grease mass collected as vapor is much
higher for the electric griddle, compared to the gas griddle. This is true even if we
consider the test with the highest total particulate emissions to be the most representative.
The explanation for this may be related to the same phenomena which makes it difficult
to get repeatable large particle measurements. The exiting flue gas from the gas griddle
entrains dilution room air which travels across the area above the griddle surface, cooling
emissions from the food product. This cooling may be enough to condense the grease
vapor onto existing particles, lowering the mass of grease in the vapor phase while adding
to grease particulate mass. Without the influence of the hot flue gas emissions, the grease
vapor from the electric griddle cooking product remains in the vapor phase, at least until
it gets past the sampling point. There is some evidence which supports this. Figures 46
and 58 show the three dimensional temperature distributions from the gas and electric
griddles, respectively. The electric griddle distribution at 12 in. (30.5 cm) above the
cooking surface shows higher temperatures extending across the griddle surface,
especially near the center of the griddle. For the gas griddle, the temperature distribution
at 12 in. (30.5 cm) shows room air temperatures over the griddle surface. The
temperature rises dramatically closer to the flue exit. While the magnitudes of these
temperature differences is not much, perhaps 10 F (5.6 C), that may be enough to affect
the grease vapor. In addition, the temperature differences may be even greater closer to
the griddle surface. While this argument is certainly not indisputable proof, it does offer
a possible explanation for the differences in grease vapor proportion between the gas and
electric griddles.
Figure 63 shows the actual amount of grease collected for each particle size range. It
shows the same discrepancies in total particulates for the three runs as the normalized
emissions. It is worth noting for test 3, the total particulate mass collected is within the
measurement noise, while for test 1, it is near the noise range. Therefore, testing from
this investigation shows the true emission mass from the largest particulates to be
inconclusive. Future investigators wishing to address this issue will need to consider the
problems associated with the effluent plume movement during sampling.
117
T~
4_
CM
h- 1 -
CO CO ^^
co
CO CD CD
mmS
CD
CO
CO
CD
O
o
I-
CO
ted rease em issi
u
CD
O
CD
N
o
u
>
CD
in
CM
Z>
Q.
03
art
CD
O
u_
O
T
D.
D)
CD
o
o
3. Elect
apo
has
CO
CD
^
rn
a.
(6LU) SUOJSSJUJ:]
papenoQ
118
h. Gaseous Emissions
Table 12 shows the gaseous emissions from the electric griddle.
TABLE 12. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Griddle
Gas
Emissions

CO
NOx
4412
1.2
0.060.2
0.0010.004
Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
lb./1000hforCOandNO x
1.40.4
<0.1
26
0.030.14
From table 12, it is clear that the electric griddle emits essentially no detectable levels of
CO2, CO, or NOx. The levels of measured emissions all fall below the measurement
noise level. The CO2 level seen in the first row is entirely explained by the presence of
CO2 in room air. These data suggest the actual cooking of the food product for the
griddle process does not emit any of these particular gases. In light of this, it is likely the
emissions seen from the gas griddle are from the natural gas combustion process.
The emission of hydrocarbons from the electric griddle were undetectable. Table 2 in
section D.6 shows the particular hydrocarbons tested, and the minimum detection levels
measurable by the method.
3. Gas Fryer
This investigation used a single open vat fryer with two infrared natural gas burners. The
rated input was 80 kBTU/h (23.44 kW). The frying medium capacity was 50 lb. (22.7
kg), with a 14 x 15 in. (35.6 x 38.1 cm) surface for a total area of 1.46 ft2 (0.135 m2). The
frying medium was partially hydrogenated soybean oil. The appliance had a solid state
electronic thermostat control with electronic ignition.
same test method, we calibrated the thermostat control to provide a cooking oil
temperature of 350 F (177 C).
119
Test Method F 1361-95. The food product cooked was quarter inch, 2.2 % fat, 70 %
moisture, par-cooked shoestring potatoes. A laboratory specializing in food product
evaluation tested the potatoes for fat and moisture content. Appendix B shows the results
from these tests, and other information regarding the food product. The following is a
brief summary of the cooking procedure.
The cooking procedure begins with determining the time it takes to cook the potatoes to
an average of 30 % weight loss. After establishing the proper cookhg time, the potatoes
are weighed and arranged in air tight plastic bags. The product temperature is measured
before cooking begins. In addition, the cold zone is stirred for three minutes. The
potatoes are placed in fry baskets and lowered into the fryer, two baskets for each batch.
At the proper times established earlier, the potatoes are removed and placed on a grease
drip tray. When applicable, additional batches begin when the cooking oil temperature
reaches 340 F (171 C). After dripping for two minutes, the weight of the potatoes are
determined. Potatoes from each batch are tested for moisture content.
Similar to the griddles, previous data existregarding energy efficiency for a similar
appliance using a similar 6od product. The data are from an IR gas fryer, published in a
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) report (PG&E 1991). The parameters compared are
taken directly from the ASTM Standard Test Method. Figure 64 shows the rated energy
input, measured energy input, and average energy input for the two gas fryers. For the
U-M gas fryer, data from one test (#1) is used for the comparison.
PG&E vs. U-M Gas Fryer
kBTU/h
Rated input
kBTU/h
Measured
Input
kBTU/h
Ave Input
rate
Figure 64. Comparison of U-M and PG&E ATM gas fryer energy input rates
The rated inputs are identical, and the measured input and average input rate are similar.
For both appliances, it is clear the appliance is close to its full energy input capacity
120
throughout the cooking process. Figure 65 compares the amount of energy directed to
the food and the fryer, per mass'of food cooked.
I U - M Gas Fryer IR
m PG&E Gas Fryer IR
BTU/lb
Efood
BTU/lb
E fryer
Figure 65. Comparison of U-M and PG&E gas fryer energy to the food and fryer, per
mass of food cooked
The results from the PG&E test are almost identical to the results from the U-M test.
Figure 66 compares the energy efficiency and total product capacity of the two fryers.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
eff cook
I U-M Gas Fryer IR

i PG&E Gas Fryer IR
Ib/h
Product
Capacity
Figure 66. Comparison of the U-M and PG&E gas fryer cooking efficiencies
Figures 64 through 66 show that the performance of the two fryers is similar, in terms of
the tested parameters from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1361-95. Therefore, the
cooking procedure used in the present investigation closely follows the standard test
method.
121
Figure 67 shows the appliance and sampling position for the gas and electric fryers,
relative to the test kitchen. The gas fryer was positioned with the front of the appliance 6
in. (15.2 cm) inside the front face of the ventilation hood, centered left to right.
Observations during the temperature distribution testing showed the center of the effluent
plume to be about 13 in. (33 cm) from the back wall at a height of 22.25 in. (56.5 cm)
above the cooking surface. The sampling position is towards the back of the appliance
due to the influence of the hot, high velocity exiting flue gas. The flue position is
elevated 10.25 in. (26 cm) above the cooking surface.
Figure 68 shows the velocity and temperature control volumes and measurement
positions for the gas and electric fryers. Compared to the griddles, additional sampling
points were included, mainly near the back of the hood, and around the hood boundary, to
improve the distribution resolution. The areas within the bolded line represent the
velocity control volumes, with the measurement points being in the geometric center.
Figure 69 shows the velocity distribution for the gas fryer. Due to the high amount of
moisture in the thermal plume during cooking, velocity measurements were made while
the appliance was idling. The velocities used were the average velocity measured while
the appliance was cycling on. The area of highest velocity at the hood entrance is directly
below the exhaust duct entrance. It is also centered left to right above the fryer flue, but
is set back several inches. This shows the entire thermal plume gradually moves towards
the back of the ventilation hood.
Like the griddle velocity profiles, the velocity at the hood entrance for the gas fryer
increases towards the back of the hood. This is where the grease baffles are located. The
rectangular shape of the third highest velocity profile basically outlines the position of the
grease baffles. At the center of the hood, the higher velocities extend over the appliance
position, showing the thermal plume from the cooking surface.
The left side of the hood shows a definite decrease in velocity close to the left side hood
boundary. The same effect can be seen for the front and back of the hood. The right side
of the hood does not show this effect. This may be due to the proximity of the test
kitchen in the laboratory. The windows and the room air diffusers are positioned towards
the right side of the room, which may have an effect air entering the hood. During flow
visualization testing this effect was not evident. However, it is possible this effect is
extremely sensitive to other factors such as the position of the particulate instrumentation
and any people present in the room. Velocity distributions from most other appliances do
not show this effect, while a few others do, but to a much lesser extent.
122
.&-
t r^r
lish.
'-^~Jks
'Sam^'A
35 In.
11.5
in.
e & 'i
LEFT SIDE VIEW
TOP VIEW
M0.25ln.
4.5 In. j l
$6in.
|
15 h.
" 16.5 In.
I 13.75 In.
13.75 in.
t4.5 In.
<
31.6 In.
Gas Fryei
31.5 In.
Electric Fryer
S"
15.75 in.
Note: Dimensions of the exhaust are

4"x1* and fl Is located 1" away from
the edge of the griddle
"-
r^
Electric Fryet
LEGEND
G a s Fryer
Figure 67. Position of the gas and electric fryers
Sample Point
2_
' I
~9
T4_ 3_|L ssli

JLj_^_4 ia_86
I13MO l4 11 ' h 5 1 2 ' 1613
"M 1417I 1 5 ' i s ' ^
1
1 20
12
21
22
23 |
25
31
32
(24
26
"
51
70
52
r 43
41
n~ I ]
'61 .
6
62
12
l -
12
" fl
44
55
1-4
.
65
46
'i
45
4
66
- l -
-^~^-
10
Velocity control volume boundaries

Temperature control volume boundaries
1 1/2 inch inner flange within ventilation hood
1 38
* J
28
31,
32
'
39'
47'
'
40
48
9_
tl7 r t T 38 _l
I
56
.
30
37
a
X*_L"
I 42 I 43
i l l
.1 _
54
64
36
123^ 24
27|
29
I44
+6 3
26
"5 j " 3 6
-U'-L [_
I
11 25
27 I ,
28
33
:
42
J 2
"| r 3? j
I"
' I 22 '
J]
19
29
39
20
30
40
' 1
' I
J l 'I -!
U
46
I 471
I 48
I I
L _ _. 1
^ _._ 4 _
49
50
I
-I
57
58
<-67-I10
1
6 8
-I-
12
59
60
69
70
12

Figure 68. Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas for the gas and electric fryers
r =
Vel (ft/min):
50
100
150
200
40j*!r
c
o
S
0*2*5*
30
(0
o
" 20o
X
2 lO0-
40
60

for the gas fryer
250
The temperature control volumes for the gas fryer are shown in figure 68. The positions
of the thermocouples are different from those used during the griddle tests. There is a
higher concentration of thermocouples near the back side of the grid, and the first row of
thermocouples is actually located at the back wall surface. This allows greater
temperature resolution at the areas where the temperature gradients are the highest.
Figure 70 shows the average temperature distribution at 36 in. (91.4 cm) above the gas
fryer. The area of maximum plume temperature is located above the flue area, offset
slightly to the left. The offset is probably due to slight irregularities in air flow through
the grease baffles located near the exhaust duct entrance. Figure 70 shows that around the
peak plume temperatures, the temperature gradient falls symmetrically, almost forming
perfect concentric circles when plotted on a contour graph. It does not appear as though
the surface oil temperature has a great influence on the thermal plume.
Figure 71 shows a three-dimensional view of the average temperature distribution above
the gas fryer. For most appliances, the plume broadens as it rises, but this is not evident
for the gas fryer. It appears as though the temperature distribution remains relatively
constant at the three measured heights. The gas fryer is unique in that its combustion flue
is extremely small, only about four square inches in cross-sectional area. All of the hot
combustion gas must exit this flue. In addition, the flue is 10 in. (25.4 cm) above the
cooking surface, thus only 2, 14, and 26 in. (5.1, 35.6, and 66 cm) from the three
thermocouple grid locations. This must not be enough distance to see the dilution affect
the room air has on the plume. However, duct temperature measurements show the
exhaust air is substantially cooler than the peak plume temperatures, therefore, the
majority of the dilution must occur somewhere above the 36 in. height and the exhaust
duct opening. If grease emissions from the gas fryer were high, this would have a large
affect on designing a system to remove the grease. Because the grease emissions from
the gas fryer are so low, it probably does not present a problem.
Figure 72 shows the real time maximum plume temperatures at various heights above the
gas fryer. It may appear strange that sometimes the maximum plume temperature at 24 or
36 in. (61 or 91.4 cm) above the fryer surface exceeds the maximum plume temperature
at distances closer to the heat source. There are a couple of reason for this. First, the data
at each height were collected during separate tests. Therefore, the actual cooking process
may have varied somewhat at any particular time a maximum temperature was calculated.
This can easily account for some small temperature discrepancies, especially between the
24 and 36 in. (61 and 91.4 cm) heights. For the cases when the maximum plume
temperature at 12 in. (30.5 cm) falls below the maximum plume temperatures at higher
levels, another explanation is needed.
The gas fryer flue has a cross-section of 1 by 4 in. (2.5 by 10.2 cm), located 10 in. (25.4
cm) above the cooking surface. Therefore, when the thermocouple grid is placed 12 in.
(30.5 cm) above the cooking surface, there are actually no thermocouples directly above
126
r^ M q P Q P ^ ^ M f f p - .
iMtwTiaamrnniH wn* riff
Temp (F): 65
75
85
95
105
40-
to
c
o
S 30'
o
Q.
E 20o
X
0
2 10
00
I J,
20
Mi
40
60
H-+
80

the gas fryer
115
Temp (F)
115
40
X
(Q
3"
to
00
;* 30>
&
<
(D
oo
O 203
(O
(0
c3.
0)
8 io**
MM
40
^
20
&
^Pos/o 0n>)
Figure 71. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12, 24, and 36 inches above
the gas fryer
160
First batch
removec
First batch
placed in fryer
Second batch
placed in fryer
Second batch
removed
to
90
80
-1
Time (Min)
12 inch
24 inch
'36 inch
Figure 72. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12, 24, and 36 inches above the gas fryer
the flue opening. This results in the true maximum flue temperature at 12 in. (30.5 cm) to
be missed by the thermocouple grid. The opening is surrounded by thermocouples, but it
is unlikely any experiences temperatures as high as those directly over the flue. By the
time the plume reaches 24 in. (61 cm) above the cooking surface, the exiting flue gases
have spread out enough for the maximum plume temperature to be captured by the
thermocouple grid when placed at that height. The same is true at 36 in. (91.4 cm) above
the cooking surface.
The temperature increase seen when the first batch of potatoes is placed in the fryers is
shown at time 0. The actual time of these measurements corresponds to several seconds
after the cooking begins, due to the finite time it takes the data acquisition system to cycle
through the thermocouple grid. The temperature at the 24 and 36 in. (61 and 91.4 cm)
positions stays relatively constant until the first batch is removed, and the second is
placed in the fryer. At this point, the maximum plume temperature at 36 in. (91.4 cm)
rises, while the maximum plume temperature at 24 in. (61 cm) falls slightly. These
differences may actually be due to variations in the cooking process from test to test. It
appears that at 12 in. (30.5 cm) above the plume, the temperature varies significantly
during the entire process. Some of this variation is due to the thermocouple positions, as
explained earlier, while some effects are likely due to the fryer burner cycling on and off.
This burner cycling would have less affect as the plume height increases.
Figure 73 shows the grease particulate mass size distribution from the gas fryer. The
figure shows the results from two tests. Emissions from the gas fryer includes a large
proportion of water vapor. Even though the probe was allowed to heat up over the
appliance, water condensation was prevalent throughout the impactor. To minimize this,
the impactor was heated in a oven before sampling. The amount of water in the impactor
was substantially reduced, but there was still a fair amount found on the substrate
surfaces. This moisture was most likely in the particulate form when it collected,
therefore it can not be avoided if we wish to collect all particulates at the sampling point.
After desiccation of the substrates, little mass change was seen. In fact, the particle
concentrations shown below 15 Jim in figure 73 are all within the measurement noise
range. Therefore, we conclude that the gas fryer emits an undetectable amount of small
grease particulates.
The concentration of large particulates was relatively low. The concentration of large
particles found for the two runs differed by about a factor of two. It is likely the large
particles come from grease splattering that occurs when the food product is placed in the
cooking oil. Considering the number of variables affecting the probability of these
particles reaching the sampling point, our two tests show relatively good agreement.
Most of these particles will be removed by the grease baffles before they enter the exhaust
duct. Therefore, it seems unlikely grease particulates pose a major problem from gas
fryers.
130
100
90
80 -70
E
O)
60
E
CL
Q
D)
50
40
30
20
10 +
0 +0.01
 I I I I |
ca=
Til- T - r -
1.00 .
10.00
Dp (um)
Figure 73. Gas fryer particle distribution (2 tests)
I I I I I I
100.00
Figure 74 shows the normalized grease emissions from the gas fryer. The grease is
divided into different size ranges and the vapor phase. Emission of the smallest particles
is barely measurable. The total particulate emissions are low also, but are measurable. In
addition, the data from the two tests agree well considering measurement uncertainties.
The grease vapor emissions are also very low. For the first test, the emissions are below
the noise level, while they are just above the measurement noise for the second test.
Regardless, the total amount of grease emitted from the gas fryer appears to be very low
compared to emissions from other appliances.
Figure 75 shows the actual mass of grease collected in each particle size range. It should
be noted that a total of 24 lb. (10.9 kg) of food product was cooked to produce enough
emissions to be collected for each test. This translates into eight 3 lb. (1.4 kg) batches of
fries cooked back to back. This amount of food was still barely enough to produce
measurable grease emissions.
It is possible under different conditions that a fryer could produce considerably more
grease emissions. For instance, fryers are often used to cook food with a much higher fat
content than potatoes, such as skin-on chicken. This may increase grease emissions. In
addition, the grease vapor emissions may be sensitive to the cooking oil composition and
temperature. If an oil with a low smoke temperature, such as olive oil, were used, and the
cooking temperature was increased to a level close to the smoke point, much more grease
vapor would probably be emitted. However, it is doubtful that such conditions commonly
exist in commercial operations.
Table 13 shows the gaseous emissions from the gas fryer.
TABLE 13. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Fryer
Gas
Emissions

CO2 Combustion
Contributions
CO
NOx
13366
45
118
Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
lb./1000hforCOandNOx
8.74.5
2.9
7.7
0.00.1
0.040.02
05
2.31.2
The CO2 levels in table 13 show there is CO2 emitted during the cooking process that is
not accounted for by the CO2 from the room air. This level is less than the expected CO2
production from the natural gas combustion process. The CO2 level from combustion
132
TP
PM10
PM2.5
Vapor

STest 1
El Test 2
0 Average
Figure 74. Gas fryer normalized grease emissions
Total Grease
TP
PM10
PM2.5
STest 1
Vapor
El Test 2
Figure 75. Gas fryer collected grease emissions
was estimated assuming perfect combustion conditions, which represents the maximum
possible contribution from combustion. Overall, the CO2 emissions after subtracting
room air contributions only comprises about one third of the total CO2 at the sampling
point, the rest is simply due to room air concentrations which would be present without
the gas fryer.
The level of CO emissions was undetectable, suggesting an efficient combustion process
for the gas fryer burners. The NOx emissions per 1000 hours of full load operation are
slightly higher, but not remarkably so, for the gas fryer compared to other gas appliances
except the oven. However, all gas appliances, except the oven, seem to emit NOx at a
rate of about 2 lb. per 1000 hour of operation. The magnitude of NOx emissions does not
appear to be high enough to be of great concern.
Table 2 in section D.6 lists the tested hydrocarbons and shows their minimum detection
limits. The results show the emissions of all the hydrocarbons tested were below the
detection limit.
/. Time Dependent Particle Size Distribution
Figure 76 shows the time dependent nature of the particle number concentrations from the
gas fryer. When the fries are first added to the oil, the concentration increases
dramatically. After about 30 seconds, the concentration begins to level off, although
there is still a noticeable increase. After the first batch is removed, the concentration falls
by about an order of magnitude, only to begin climbing again after the next batch is
begun. This pattern repeats itself for each batch. It appears as though the concentration
levels reached when the cooking process stabilizes, are all about the same for each batch.
If anything, the generation of particulates stabilizes ais subsequent batches are added.
4. Electric Fryer
This investigation used a single open vat fryer with two low watt density heating
elements. The rated input was 47.8 kBTU/h (14 kW) at 208 V. The frying medium
capacity was 50 lb. (22.7 kg), with a 14 x 15.5 in. (35.6 x 39.4 cm) surface for a total area
of 1.51 ft (0.14 m ). The frying medium was partially hydrogenated soybean oil. The
appliance had a solid state electronic thermostat control.
well with a rated energy input of 45.5 kBTU/h (13.3 kW), adjusted for the actual applied
voltage. Using procedures from the same test method, we calibrated the thermostat
control to provide a cooking oil temperature of 350 F (177 C).
135
1.0E+06 r
First batch
removed
^ 1.0E+05
o
Start of
second batch
Second batch
removed
Start of
third batch
Third batch
removed
Start of
first batch
c
o
'I
u>
I 1.0E+04
o
c
o
o
a>
E
Z 1.0E+03
1.0E+02
4
Time (min)
Stage 3 - 0.09-0.15um
Stage 4 - 0.15-0.26|Jm *Stage 5 - 0.26-0.38Mm
Figure 76. Gas fryer real time particle number concentrations

10
The cooking procedure is identical to the procedure described for the gas fryer.
Previous data exist regarding energy efficiency for a similar appliance using a similar food
product. The data are from an electric fryer, published in a Pacific Gas and Electric
(PG&E) report (PG&E 1991). The parameters compared are taken directly from the
ASTM Standard Test Method. Figure 77 shows the rated energy input, measured energy
input, and average energy input for the two electric fryers. For the U-M electric fryer,
data from one test (#1) are used for the comparison.
PG&E vs. U-M Electric Fryer
50.0 T
kBTU/h
Rated input
kBTU/h
Measured
input
kBTU/h
Ave Input
rate
Figure 77. Comparison of U-M and PG&E ATM electric fryer energy input rates
The rated input for the U-M electric fryer is slightly less than the PG&E fryer due to a
slight difference in input voltage. The U-M test shows a slightly lower average input rate.
However, the average input rate is appliance specific, and different models will require
different rates to cook the same product. Figure 78 compares the amount of energy
directed to the food and the fryer, per mass of food cooked.
137

700
600
500
400
3 300
m 200
100
0
I U-M Electric Fryer

I PG&E Electric Fryer
BTU/lb
Efood
BTU/lb
E fryer
Figure 78. Comparison of U-M and PG&E electric fryer energy to the food and fryer, per
mass of food cooked
The results from the PG&E test are almost identical to those from the U-M test. The fact
mat the energy to the appliance is almost equal to the energy to the food shows the
appliance operates at high efficiency. Figure 79compares the energy efficiency and total
product capacity of the two fryers.
I U-M Electric Fryer

i PG&E Electric Fryer
eff cook
Ib/h
Product
Capacity
Figure 79. Comparison of the U-M and PG&E electric fryer cooking efficiencies
As stated earlier, the electric appliances have higher energy efficiencies compared to gas
appliances, as defined by the ASTM Standard Test Method. Inefficiencies from
converting the natural gas into heat are counted for the gas appliances, while the
conversion of raw energy product to electricity is ignored for the electrical appliances.
138
Figures 77 through 79 show that the performance of the two fryers is similar, in terms of
the tested parameters from ASTM Standard Test Method F 1361-95. Therefore, the
cooking procedure used in the present investigation likely adheres to the standard test
method.
The positions of the appliance and sampling point for the electric fryer are identical to the
positions for the gas fryer, shown in figure 67.
The velocity control volumes for the electric fryer are identical to those for the gas fryer
shown in figure 68. The electric fryer velocity measurements were taken under the same
conditions as the gas fryer, that is, with the appliance idling and cycling on.
Figure 80 shows the velocity distribution for the electric fryer. It is almost identical in
shape and magnitude to the distribution for the gas fryer. One might expect there to be
higher velocities from the gas version due to the combustion flue gases. The effect can be
seen slightly in the fact the area of highest velocity is larger for the gas fryer, but not
remarkably so. As with the griddles, this shows the dilution room air has had a chance to
thoroughly mix with the plume before the hood entrance.
Again, the velocities increase toward the back of the hood. The same rectangular shape
outlining the grease baffle position present in the gas fryer velocity profile is present for
the electric fryer. In addition, there is an increase in velocity over the appliance,
corresponding to the distance of the thermal plume from the cooking surface.
There appears to be a slight difference in the way the velocity decreases towards the left
side hood boundary compared to the right side. The left side velocities decrease close to
the hood boundary more noticeably than the right side velocities. This decrease is not
nearly as noticeable as it was for the gas fryer. However, it does support the idea that
perhaps under the conditions tested, more air may have entered the test kitchen from the
laboratory on the right side than the left.
/
The temperature control volumes for the electric fryer are the same as those for the gas
fryer, shown in figure 68. Figure 81 shows the average temperature distribution at 36 in.
(91.4 cm) above the electric fryer. Like the gas fryer, the distribution is symmetric, and
located above the flue area. However, the electric fryer flue area is actually closed,
therefore, what we see is the plume moving from above the cooking surface towards the
back of the hood. At 36 in. (91.4 cm) above the cooking surface, it happens to have
moved a distance equivalent to the position of the covered flue. The magnitude of the
139
r
Vel (ft/min):
^*mmm>mmm,m]fmi^f:
*t&**i.
50
100
.-
... <HV ..
150
iijaj mwiwa
200
m
Mm
40-
c o
Sfesr:'
S 3(H
4*.
O
(0
o
" 20o
o
2 lOco
250
20
I 'I | M l l l l | l ^ a M p M p M ^ M M M l M p M |
40
60
for the electric fryer
Temp (F): 65
75
85
95
105
115
40-c
o
S 30CO
o
Q.
" 20o
H M W i
0)
S 100
|H
20
I.
H-
40
60
80

the electric fryer
plume temperature is much less than that seen for the gas fryer, due to the absence of the
natural gas combustion products exiting a small flue area.
above the electric fryer. It is clear from this figure that the center of the plume is moving
from front to back as the plume rises. This is a result of the position of the grease baffles,
located at the back of the hood, through which the thermal plume must exit. It is also
easy to see the effect dilution air has on cooling the thermal plume as it rises. As the
plume rises, room air joins the plume, lowering the temperature, while increasing the
plume velocity and volume.
Figure 83 shows the real time maximum plume temperatures at various heights above the
electric fryer. For the electric fryer, it is easy to see when the potatoes are added and
removed from the cooking oil. The temperature greatly increases after the addition of the
food product, it peaks about a minute or so after cooking begins, and then begins to drop.
The plume temperature is at a minimum when the food is removed. This pattern is
evident for all three batches. The reason the 24 or 36 in. (61 and 91.4 cm) plume
maximum may exceed the 12 in. (30.5 cm) plume maximum is most likely due to some
variation in the cooking process. Each data set was taken during a separate test, therefore,
some variation is to be expected. In addition, some data at the 12 in. (30.5 cm) height
was lost. This is shown as a discontinuous line segment.
It is interesting to note the temperature of the plume follows the opposite pattern of the oil
temperature. When the food product is first added the oil temperature decreases
dramatically while it attempts to raise the food temperature. This is the process that
releases heat to the thermal plume. As the food cooks, the oil temperature increases,
while the plume temperature decreases. Less energy is transferred to the thermal plume.
At the end of the cooking process, the cooking oil is back to its original temperature.
Figure 84 shows the mass size distribution for grease particulates from the electric fryer.
The results are similar to those seen for the gas fryer. Concentrations from particulates
below the 15 u.m size are within the measurement noise level. The larger particulate
concentrations are also quite low. The concentrations from the two tests are within a
factor of two. This shows relatively good repeatability considering most large particles
probably originate from the splattering that occurs when the food product is introduced to
the cooking oil.
Figures 85 and 86 show the grease emissions for each particle size range and grease in the
vapor phase. Data in figure 85 are normalized to the mass of food product cooked, while
data in figure 86 are the actual mass of grease collected. The emission levels are almost
identical to those seen for the gas fryer. However, the two tests for the electric fryer agree
better with one another than the two tests for the gas fryer. The vapor emissions for the
two tests are almost identical. The magnitude of the grease vapor emissions for both
142
Temp (F)
115
105
95
H'K?'
85
75
65
Fror
Position (in.)

inches above the electric fryer
130
7060 -I
-
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
Time (Min)
12 inch
2 4 inch
mmmm
36 inch
Figure 83. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12, 24, and 36 inches above the electric fryer
100
90
80 70 -
60
a 50
D
O)
40
30 -20 10
0
0.01
^==P=*^^=?=^=?=^
0.10
~i E i
l T
1.00
10.00
Dp (Mm)
Figure 84. Electric fryer particle distribution (2 tests)
100.00
4*>
ON
.imiiiiiiitawiiw
TP
PM10
+PM2.5
I Test 2
Vapor
Âverage
Figure 85. Electric fryer normalized grease emissions
Total Grease
^Test 1
M Test 2
TP
PM10
PM2.5
Vapor

Figure 86. Electric fryer collected grease emissions
Total Grease
electric fryer tests is close to the magnitude of the grease vapor emission from test 2 of
the gas fryer. This suggests that the grease vapor collected from test 1 of the gas fryer,
which is below the measurement noise level, may not be representative.
For all particle size ranges and the vapor phase, emissions from the electric fryer are
about a factor of two above the measurement noise level. Improving on this would
require a much longer test using many pounds of fries. Data from this investigation
suggest the grease emissions from fryers are very low, and additional testing in this area
is probably unnecessary.
Table 14 shows the gaseous emissions from the electric fryer
TABLE 14. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Fryer
Gas
Emissions

C0 2 (subtracting room air)
CO
NOx
168
<1
o.oo.i
0.000+0.003
Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
1.00.5
<0.1
05
0.00.2
The gas emission results in table 14 show the electric fryer process does not emit any of
the tested gases at detectable levels. The CO2 that was detected at the sampling point can
be explained by the level found in the dilution room air.
Table 2 in section D.6 lists the tested hydrocarbons and the associated minimum detection
limits. Results show if any of the tested hydrocarbons were emitted they probably have
concentration levels below the detection limit.
5. Under-fired Gas Broiler
This investigation used a gas broiler with seven 2 ft (0.61 m) atmospheric burners with
radiants. The rated input was 105 kBTU/h (30.76 kW). The cooking surface was 22.75 x
30 in. (57.79 x 76.2 cm) for a total area of 4.74 ft2 (0.44 m2). The surface was tilted to
provide an avenue for grease run-off. The appliance had a standing pilot light.
D, we found the actual energy input rate to be 104.7 kBTU/h (30.68 kW), which
148
compares well with a rated energy input of 105 kBTU/h (30.76 kW). Using procedures
from the same test method, we measured the average grill surface temperature at 525 F
(273.9 C) at maximum output. The maximum average temperature difference between
the steel disks used for temperature calibration was 136 F (75 C).
Test Method F 1695-96. The food product cooked was one third pound, 20 % fat, 62 %
moisture, hamburger patties. An additional product, skinless boneless chicken breast, had
a fat content of 2.7 % and a moisture content of 74.3 %. A laboratory specializing in food
product evaluation tested the patties and chicken for fat and moisture content. Appendix
B shows the results from these tests, and other information regarding the food product.
The cooking procedure for the hamburger patties is identical to the procedure used for the
griddles. The cooking procedure used for the skinless boneless chicken breast was similar
to that of the hamburger, except a longer cooking time was required to reach 35 % weight
loss.
Figure 87 shows the positions of the appliance and sampling point for the gas broiler,
relative to the test kitchen. The appliance was positioned with its front surface 6 in. (15.2
cm) inside the front of the ventilation hood, centered left to right. From observing the
effluent plume during temperature distribution testing, we found the center of the plume
to be approximately 21 in. (53.3 cm) from the back wall of the kitchen, at a height of 32
in. (81.3 cm) above the cooking surface. This position is further from the back wall
compared to the fryers and griddles, mainly due to the absence of a flue. Instead, the
combustion gases mix immediately with the cooking product emissions along the entire
cooking surface. Because the grill is tilted during cooking to allow for grease drainage,
the top of the cooking surface was defined as the top of the grill when it was placed flat
on the grill supports. The required ventilation rate for the gas broiler is 400 cfm per
square foot of hood area (2 m3/s per m2). To achieve this rate, 7.5 in. (19.1 cm) on each
side of the hood was partitioned with plywood, and stainless steel sheet metal covered the
partitioned area. In addition, the sheet metal extended 1.5 in. (3.8 cm) from the partition
to duplicate the 1.5 in. (3.8 cm) flange lip on the unmodified hood.
Figure 88 shows the temperature and velocity control volumes associated with the gas
broiler. The areas within the bolded lines represent the velocity control volumes, with the
measurement point geometrically centered. The shaded hood area represents the area
partitioned to achieve the proper ventilation flow rate.
149
itF
1.01a
-an re!
161a
C
4 & la
/I
0
4
4
>4
261a
1'
"1 i
Asia
'fe'ggV
20 in,
V l 1.75 In
> <T>i
7.5 In.
aTio
** t i
32 la
81la
'-__
",
..L
* * 1
8 In.
11.75 fn.
35 la
I 41a
*~
L.
30 In.
11.6
la '
-_^__
LEFT SIDE VIEW
TOP VIEW
nsa
LEGEND
30.75la
Figure 87. Position of the gas broiler
Sample Point
L j . 1 |2_
i ,
12
1-29
17
25
1
15
12
126
126 1
10
33 I
,16
12 4I
27
17
28
36
29 I |
37
22
30
I 6
16 '
,_23|
, 24 , |
31 I
I1 31
32
I 1 32
12"T T , T 13
|
38
| 39
40
44
I,
45 I
19,
46
,20
47 I
I . I
14
r 7T
18,
43
15'
r r i ir -r 1 1
J .| _ 1 t_ _ L 1
r
T
|
Jb42
13 I 5 14 I
I _21JI|
35 '
34
,
41
!I A 1 _5 I ' _ 6_ l_ 7_l 1 _8 _l I
-fl
J.
r-T
3_
3 11 I
12
'10
21
48
I
- _ i-= nr^ rjrr. TTTL T [ - _ I _ r - | 22
12
23
-
7.5
10.5
-~^-
24
1
12
25
1
12
Velocity control
volume boundaries
Temperature control
volume boundaries
1 1/2 inch inner flange within
ventilation hood
26
27
zd
'
12
28
12
12
10.5

Hood area partitioned with
stainless steel covered
wood inserts.

Figure 88. Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas for the gas broiler
7.5
Figure 89 shows the gas broiler velocity profile at the hood entrance. Measurements were
made while the appliance was idling. The area near the hood boundaries not included in
the contour plot, but inside the hood entrance represent areas where no velocity
measurements were made. The velocity profile clearly shows steadily increasing
velocities close to the exhaust hood entrance. However, the highest velocities are still
several inches from the center of the exhaust duct entrance. This is probably due to the
large volume of air from the appliance surface. The gas broiler has no flue, therefore, all
the combustion gases mix with the dilution air and move toward the hood entrance. This
large volume of gas begins to rise at a point directly below the center of the hood, and
must move towards the back of the hood where the grease baffles are located. At the
hood entrance, the plume has not yet had enough time to move completely to the back of
the hood. The shape of the highest velocities suggests that the plume is moving towards
the exhaust duct entrance.
The shape of the velocity distribution is remarkably symmetric. Velocities increase
towards the back of the hood, as well as in the area directly over the appliance. As one
moves towards the left and right sides of the hood, the velocities decrease. The effect
seen in the fryers, where velocities are higher on the right side of the hood, is not present.
The velocities for the gas broiler are much higher than those for other appliances. This is
a result of the higher volume of air generated and entrained into the thermal plume. It
certainly justifies the notion that a broiler like this requires a higher ventilation rate than
the other appliances tested in this study.
/
Figure 88 shows the temperature control volumes used for the gas broiler. The positions
of the thermocouples are geometrically centered within each control volume. The
temperature control volumes are positioned identically to the ones used for all other
appliances except the griddles.
Figure 90 shows the average temperature distribution 36 in. (91.4 cm) above the gas
broiler while cooking hamburger. The shape of the plume is almost circular, with the
maximum temperatures located towards the back of the broiler, offset slightly to the left.
This is the same offset seen in the griddles and fryer, and is likely due to the air flow
through the grease baffles. Because the gas broiler does not have a flue, the position of
the plume shown in figure 90 shows the plume is migrating towards the back of the
ventilation hood, where the grease baffles are located. The plume must begin at the
broiler surface, shown by the innermost rectangle. As the plume rises, it moves towards
the area where the air must exit the ventilation hood, through the grease baffles located
near the back.
Figure 91 shows the average temperature profile at three heights above the gas broiler
cooking surface while cooking hamburger. The figure shows the plume does move from
front to back as it rises. In addition, it is easy to see the effects of the dilution room air,
152
,1 :.
Vel (ft/min):
50
150
100
200
250
40-c
o
E 30w
o
"g 20o
0)
2 10
CO
i" ii
20
40
60
i'*
80
for the gas broiler
95
Temp (F): 65
125
185
155
215
40c
o
S 304s>
CO
o
Q.
E 20o
X
2 100
'i
20
40
60
80

gas broiler while cooking hamburger (modified hood used)
'""Position^
Figure 91. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12.24, and 36 inches above
the gas broiler while cooking hamburger (modified hood used)
which lowers the temperature of the plume as it moves away from the broiler cooking
surface. Regardless, the average plume temperature at 36 in. (91.4 cm) above the cooking
surface is still extremely high.
Figure 92 shows the maximum plume temperature at various heights above the gas
broiler while cooking hamburger. At the 12 in. (30.5 cm) height, the maximum plume
temperature is affected by the cooking process. There is a temperature increase when the
patties are placed on the grill and when they are turned. Between these actions the
temperature is relatively stable. For the other heights, the temperature varies more
randomly, but there is an overall trend of the temperature rising during the cooking
process.
The fact that the maximum plume temperature at 36 in. (91.4 cm) is higher than the
maximum temperature at 24 in. (61 cm) for much of the cooking process is not easily
explained. There is no mechanism for the plume to heat between these heights. In
addition, the affect of a small flue area, which explains some similar discrepancies seen
from the gas fryer, is not applicable here. The most likely explanation is variability in the
cooking process. The temperature distributions are taken during three separate cooking
tests, with the data acquisition program cycling through the thermocouples one at a time.
The maximum temperature is determined by the highest temperature recorded during one
cycling period. Therefore, the maximum plume temperatures plotted in figure 90 are
single temperatures taken at a discrete time. If a major flare-up occurs during one time
period when the thermocouples are at 36 in. (91.4 cm) it is unlikely a flare-up will occur
at the same time period when the thermocouples are set at 24 in. (61 cm). Therefore, it is
possible to see a higher temperature at the 36 in.(91.4 cm) height.
The average temperature of the plume at the three heights for any time period always
shows the highest temperature located at the 12 in. (30.5 cm) height, the next highest at
the 24 in. (61 cm) height and the lowest temperature at the 36 in. (91.4 cm) height.
Maximum plume temperatures from higher plume heights is also seen in the gas broiler
data when cooking chicken breast, but does not occur in other appliances (with the
exception of the gas fryer, which is explained by the position of the flue). In general, this
suggests the gas broiler cooking process is more variable than other processes. This
variability is likely due to the grease fire flare-ups that occur on the grease drip tray
beneath the grill.
Figure 93 shows the average temperature distribution 36 in. (91.4 cm) above the gas
broiler surface while cooking chicken breast. Figure 94 shows the three-dimensional
contour plot of the average temperature distribution taken at three heights. Comparing
these to the temperature profiles from the gas broiler while cooking hamburger shows the
cooking product does not affect the average thermal plume temperature distribution. The
plume moves from front to back as it rises, and room air dilution cools it. The shape of
the plume is almost identical to the plume while cooking hamburger.
156
200-
175 -I
-1
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
1
10
1
11
1
12
1
13
14
Time (Min.)
12 inch
2 4 inch
~ ~ 3 6 inch
Figure 92. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36 inches above the gas broiler while cooking hamburger
Temp (F): 65
95
125
155
185
215
40-
00
c
o
2 30
o
" 2 0 *
o
X
-.
S 100)
ii
20
40
60
80

gas broiler while cooking chicken (modified hood used)
Figure 94. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12,24, and 36 inches above
the gas broiler while cooking chicken (modified hood used)
Figure 95 shows the time dependent maximum plume temperatures at the three heights
for the gas broiler cooking chicken breast. The data show the same discrepancies as the
maximum plume temperatures for the gas broiler cooking hamburger. Throughout the
entire cooking process the highest temperature was found at the 24 in. (61 cm) height.
Again, there is no mechanism for the plume to heat between 12 and 24 in. (30.5 and 61
cm). The average temperatures at these heights over time show the plume to be the
hottest at 12 in. (30.5 cm), the next hottest at 24 in (61 cm), and the coolest at 36 in. (91.4
cm). Therefore, the maximum plume temperatures are likely affected by variability in the
cooking process.
Figure 96 shows the grease particulate mass size distribution for the gas broiler cooking
hamburger. The data are from three separate tests, and show the size distribution was
repeatable. A large proportion of the particulate mass is from particles larger than about
15 |im. These particulates are most likely from the cooking product surface, originating
from the release of gases within the cooking product. When the food product heats,
moisture in the liquid form expands as it vaporizes. As it expands it builds pressure
which is eventually released. This energy can propel liquid grease into the effluent
stream as large particulates. Particulates of this size are easy to remove by mechanical
means such as grease baffles.
Figure 97 shows the same concentration distribution on a smaller scale to concentrate on
the smaller particle sizes. The mass concentration of particles between 15 ujn and about
0.5 |im slowly decreases. Below 0.5 p.m the mass contribution suddenly increases. From
the information available from the impactor, not much is known about the size
distribution between 0.5 \im and 0.01 |j.m. This is the grease mass collected on the afterfilter. From observation we know the material looks yellow with many areas of dark
black, unlike the larger particles collected on die substrates, which are a light yellow
liquid. The substrates with the smallest size range begin to show some collection of
black particulates. Therefore, it is likely the larger particles are mostly liquid grease,
while the smallest particles may include fine burnt carbon particulates.
For the gas broiler cooking hamburger we collected particles using the Electrical Low
Pressure Impactor (ELPI). The ELPI requires a long sample line, making it undesirable
for large particle collection. In addition, its principle of operation, measuring the current
associated with charged particles impacting on its impaction stages, makes it difficult to
simultaneously measure large concentrations of large and small particulates. This is due
to the large disparity in charge to mass ratios associated with particle diameters spanning
several orders of magnitude. However, after eliminating data for particles larger than 1
\im, the ELPI shows the mass concentration reaches a minimum between 0.4 and 0.9 pirn.
It then peaks at about 0.2 fim only to fall off considerably after 0.09 \im. Figure 98 shows
the mass distribution from the ELPI between 0.01 and 1.0 \im.
160
325
- 1 0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Time (Min)
12 inch
- ^ 2 4 inch
"" 36 inch
Figure 95. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12, 24, and 36 inches above the gas broiler while cooking chicken
250
200 -
-I 150
ON
to
a.
Q
a>
JD
P 100
50 --
, ' nr- i 4 T
0.01
4H
-H-
0.10
4H
4-4
g$E:
1.00
ii-
10.00
Dp (Mm)
i i i i
100.00
100
90
80
70
E
O)
60
E
Q- 50
Q
o>
o
=5 40
30
-
-..-.:A
20
10
0 4
0.01
I
i
0.10
Tin
1.00
4-JL 'I
I 'I
M-44
10.00
Dp (Mm)
U-H
I I I
100.00
50 T
45 \\
40 : ;
35 ;
30 ;
25 : ;
20 : ;
15::
I"
10::
5 ::
o T
0.01
'i
i~~i i
J i
'
11
0.1
Dp (|jm)
Figure 98. Gas broiler (hamburger) particle distribution between 0.01 and 1.0 |im
Data taken with the ELPI during the cooking process at the sampling point
il
i'
1
The magnitude of the concentration seen in the ELPI data is about the same as shown in
figure 97 for the same particle size range. This shows good agreement between the ELPI
and Marple impactors. Figure 98 suggests the majority of the mass in the smallest size
range shown in figure 97 is mostly concentrated between 0.1 and 0.5 \im. Therefore, the
mass based particle size distribution for grease emissions from the gas broiler cooking
hamburger is bi-modal.
A bi-modal distribution implies two separate particle generation mechanisms. The
mechanism for the generation of large particles has already been discussed. Particles in
the size range of the second mode are often the result of homogenous nucleation. It is
possible the yellow we see on the filter is grease vapor which has condensed on itself,
forming fine particulates. It seems the most likely source of the black areas seen on the
filter is the production of fine burnt carbon, possibly from grease dripping on the hot
surfaces beneath the grill. Another possibility is that fine burnt carbon particles may form
a surface onto which the grease vapor can condense. From the information available it is
not possible to determine which if any of these possibilities actually occurs. However,
the implications of this large mass of fine particulates emitting from the cooking process
are great.
Figures 99 and 100 show grease emissions from the gas broiler cooking hamburger for
different particle size ranges and the vapor phase. The data in figure 99 are normalized to
the food product mass, while the data in figure 100 show the actual mass of collected
grease. When grouped into the respective size ranges, the tests show great repeatability.
While the total particulate emissions are high, the emissions in the smaller size ranges are
of greater concern. The PM 10 emissions are above 10 lb. per 1000 lb. of food product.
This exceeds the total grease emissions for many of the cooking processes. The
emissions of PM 2.5 particulates is just below 10 lb. per 1000 lb. of food product. This
shows the majority of particulate mass below 10 \im is actually smaller than 2.5 |im.
These particles are hard to eliminate from the effluent stream. Simple mechanical
mechanisms like a grease baffle probably allow these small particles to easily pass
through. Water mists or electrostatic precipitators might be more effective, but this needs
to be investigated.
The level of grease vapor emission is also high. The data were not as repeatable
compared to the particulates, nevertheless there was general agreement on the emission
levels. Taken as a whole, the average grease emissions from the gas broiler cooking
hamburger is about 55 lb. per 1000 lb. of food product.
Figures 101 and 102 show the grease particulate mass size distribution from the gas
broiler cooking boneless skinless chicken breast. The concentration scale for figure 99 is
shown for easy comparison to the size distribution for the gas broiler cooking hamburger
in figure 97.
165
TP
PM10
Vapor
PM2.5

STesM
HI Test 2
W Test 3
g Average
Figure 99. Gas broiler (hamburger) normalized grease emissions
Total Grease
25
20
D)
c 15
o
'w
(0
"E
HI
T3
10
o
o
O
4-
TP
PM10
PM2.5
Vapor

ETesM
ED Test 2
I Test 3
Figure 100. Gas broiler (hamburger) collected grease emissions
Total Grease
IUU
9080 -
ON
00
70 -
60 -
50-
CD
o
5
40 30 20 10i
0 -I
0.01
0.10
1.00
1
10.00
Dp (pm)
100.00
<0
20
W
Q.
Q
O)
O
10
"
5-
0-
0.01
0.10
LH'iJ
1.00
10.00
Dp (Mm)
100.00
The scale used in figure 102 allows the distribution features to be seen more easily. The
shape of the distribution is almost identical to that seen for the gas broiler cooking
hamburger. This implies the particle generating mechanisms are identical. That is, the
mechanism responsible for the particulates below 0.5 p.m for hamburger must also be
present for the chicken. Therefore, while the amount of grease that falls onto the hot
surface beneath the grill from the chicken is much less than the amount that falls from the
hamburger, it is enough to generate a significant amount of small particulates.
Figures 103 and 104 show the grease emissions from the gas broiler cooking chicken
breast for the different size ranges and the vapor phase. Only one set of data was taken.
However, data from the broiler cooking hamburger show the methodology gives
repeatable results. Data in figure 103 are normalized to the product mass, while figure
104 shows the actual mass of grease collected in each size range.
The mass of total particulate emissions is relatively low. However, the amount of small
particulates is still high compared to other cooking processes. In addition, there is a large
amount of grease emitted in the vapor form. Therefore, almost 12 of the 14 lb. of grease
emissions per 1000 lb. of cooking product are either particles below 10 (im, or grease
vapor. This suggests regardless of cooking product, it will be difficult to remove a
significant amount of grease from the effluent stream produced by the gas broiler.
Table 15 shows the gaseous emissions from the gas broiler cooking hamburger.
TABLE 15. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Broiler Cooking Hamburger
Gas
Emissions

CO2 Combustion
Contributions
CO
NOx
1328301
752
402
Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
35.48.0
20
10.7
9.22.0
0.0710.02
24453
1.80.5
CO2 emissions from the gas broiler cooking hamburger are.very high, even when the
room air contributions are subtracted. Like the other gas cooking processes, combustion
of the natural gas produces CO2 emissions. Unlike the other processes, this only accounts
for about one half of the emissions after subtracting CO2 from the room air. This
suggests CO2 must be emitted from other parts of the cooking process. Most likely, the
additional CO2 comes from the combustion of the grease drippings. Grease falls onto the
170
20
18
16
o
Q_
12
o
o
10
*3>
c
(0
UJ
f?
-+
TP
PM10
PM2.5
Vapor

IIDTest 1
Figure 103. Gas broiler (Chicken breast) normalized grease emissions
Total Grease
8
7
6
TP
PM10
PM2.5
Vapor

EH Test 1
Figure 104. Gas broiler (chicken breast) collected grease emissions
Total Grease
hot radiants, which have a temperature measured at 1200 F (649 C). This temperature is
hot enough to combust the liquid grease. In addition, much of the grease falls past the
radiants and onto the grease drip tray beneath the burners. The drip tray occasionally
catches on fire, sending thick black smoke into the effluent plume. Undoubtedly this
process generates CO2. In addition, the same process probably accounts for the high
emission of CO.
The CO emissions from the gas broiler cooking hamburger are much higher than any
other process. The actual level measured in the plume, about 50 ppm, is definitely in a
range that affects human health. This fact increases the importance of operating the gas
broiler with proper ventilation.
The level of NOx emission is about the same for the gas broiler as it is with other gas
appliances except the oven. It appears that the occurrence of grease combustion in the
drip tray greatly does not increase NOx emissions. Instead, it is likely they are the result
of natural gas combustion.
Table 3 in section D.6. lists the tested hydrocarbons and their associated minimum
detection limits. The results show no emissions within the detection limit for all
hydrocarbons tested.
Table 16 shows the gaseous emissions from the gas broiler cooking chicken breast.
TABLE 16. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Broiler Cooking Chicken Breast
Gas
Emissions

CO2 Combustion
Contributions
CO
NOx
8391267
474
433
Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
21.316.8
12
11
1.410.7
0.0810.03
35117
2.010.7
The emission of CO2 from the gas broiler cooking chicken breast is considerably lower
than emissions from cooking hamburger. In fact, after subtracting room air contributions,
the CO2 emissions can almost be accounted for by contributions from the natural gas
combustion process. It is likely there is some contribution from grease drippings falling
on the hot surfaces beneath the grill surface, but it is minimal. There are essentially no
grease fire flare-ups while cooking the chicken breast. However, some grease does
collect there, and grease drippings also fall on the hot radiants, which probably adds some
CO2 to the effluent plume.
173
The CO emissions are much lower than those from the gas broiler cooking hamburger,
but are considerably higher than those from other appliances except for the electric broiler
cooking hamburger. The most probable explanation for this is the grease which does drip
on the radiants, combusts, emitting a fair amount of CO. While the emission level is not
as high as it is while cooking hamburger, it does show the importance of proper
ventilation.
The level of NOx emissions is about the same as it is for the gas broiler cooking
hamburger. This supports the notion that the grease drippings have little affect on the
generation of NOx.
Hydrocarbon emissions were not tested for the gas broiler cooking chicken breast.
/. Time Dependent Particle Size Distribution
Figure 105 shows the real time particle number concentrations from the gas broiler while
cooking hamburger. The data shown includes three of the smallest particle size ranges.
There appears to be a sinusoidal fluctuation in concentration levels that all three size
ranges follow. However, this sinusoidal fluctuation seems to be superimposed on an
average value that is mostly constant for all three size ranges during the cooking of the
first side. After the patties are turned, there is a noticeable increase-in the number
concentration for the two larger particle size ranges, while the smallest size range
concentration remains constant. After the patties are turned, the two larger size range
concentrations decease to a level approximately equal to where they were during the
cooking of the first side of the patties. However, for all three size ranges, the
concentration does fluctuate more after the patties are turned, compared to before the
turning occurs. This implies effluent generation is more varied after the turning process.
At this time period, grease constantly drips from the patties. Even when the patties are
removed, the concentration levels of these small particles does not decrease. It is likely
the grease remaining on the surface of the grill, as well as grease in the drip tray, is still
generating substantial amounts of fine particulates.
6. Under-fired Electric Broiler
This investigation used an electric broiler with two 2 ft (0.61 m) electric heating
elements. The rated input was 36.9 kBTU/h (10.8 kW) at 208 V. The cooking surface
was 20 x 33.25 in. (50.8 x 84.46 cm) for a total area of 4.62 ft2 (0.43 m2). The surface
was flat with heating elements placed 0.5 in. (1.27 cm) below the cooking grate. A large
water pan was beneath each heating element. The heating element control was solid state
electronic.
174
1.0E+07
Patties turned
Patties placed
on broiler grill
Patties removed
from broiler grill
E 1.0E+06
c
g
's
I 1.0E+05
o
c
o
o
-J
<D
E
i 1.0E+04
1.0E+03
'
'
L.
-1
L.
12
10
Time [s]
Stage 3 - 0.09-0.15um
Stage 4-0.15-0.26|jm
'Stage 5 - 0.26-0.38um
Figure 105. Gas broiler (hamburger) real time particle number concentrations
14

voltage. Using procedures from the same test method, we measured the average grill
surface temperature at 539 F (281.7 C) at maximum output. The maximum average
temperature difference between the steel disks used for temperature calibration was 51.1
F (28.3 C).
The cooking procedure for the electric broiler is identical to the procedure used for the
gas broiler.
Figure 106 shows the appliance and sampling point positions for the electric broiler,
relative to the test kitchen. The front surface of the appliance was positioned 6 in. ((15.2
cm) inside the front of the ventilation hood. The design of the electric broiler was
considerably different from the gas broiler. The grill was flat, and water pans were
positioned beneath the heating elements. However, like the gas broiler, the electric
broiler does not have a flue and the gases heated by the electric elements mixes with the
effluent from the cooking product at the grill surface. Therefore, the center of the
cooking plume at 32 in. (81.3 cm) above the cooking surface was observed to be 21 in.
(53.3 cm) from the back wall, identical to the position for the gas broiler. Like the gas
broiler, the electric broiler requires 400 cfm of ventilation per square foot of hood area (2
m3/s per m2). Therefore, the modifications done to the hood for the gas broiler were
repeated for the electric broiler.
Figure 107 shows the temperature and velocity control volumes and measurement points
for the electric broiler. The control volumes are represented by the area within the bolded
lines, at the center of which are the velocity measurement points. Like the gas broiler, the
sides of the ventilation hood were closed off to achieve the proper ventilation rate.
Figure 108 shows the velocity distribution for the electric broiler. The measurements
were made while the appliance was idling. Compared to the gas broiler, the velocities are
lower. The electric broiler does not have the added volume of gas combustion to increase
plume velocities. The shape of the highest velocity area is elongated. It appears to be a
shape that is somewhere between the rectangular shape seen in the griddles and fryers,
and the almost circular shape seen from the gas broiler. This suggests that the air volume
generated from the cooking process has combined considerably with the dilution air by
the time the plume reaches the hood entrance, but not as much as with the fryers and
176
1!f
1.01a
!
161a
4.51a
1/
0
11 In.
26 In.
0
0
12.5 h.
\<
* Bin.
'111.75 In
!g g.
20171,
J:^-c
21 la
32 In.
81 In.
'1
12.5 in.
6 In.
30 la
36 In.
-J
11.5
84 In.
30in.
^_^
^mm^
" L
i
122 In.
125.6 In.
LEFT SIDE VIEW
TOP VIEW
20 In.
LEGEND
16la
<
&
H5ln.
295 In.
Figure 106. Position of the electric broiler

Sample Point
I 1 | 2 L J. J. 42_'3.TT
6l
r
17
18,
I
1
25 1
25
26
33 I
20
27
tn-2 7 :J r
_l
34 I
35
r 1" "r_TJ^|_ilr
33
. 34 r
I J
41 |
10
41 | 42 <
1'
7.5
I 49
"
8.25
i35
|42 | 43 |
' I '
50
0 T
21 ' \
22 '
23|
'
24
16
I L_
28
28
36
36
22 |
J_29 J _ 30
^.31
37
|'
'
38
| 39
38
23
24
31
32
32
f 7 ~
~29pr 30'
37
.|
40
39
1 ~r
44
45
jl
46
| 47 I
40
| 48
47
:
4
.
L 4 ~:
h-"H 4-"-+- +
1
__L
H
1
JB
: j~_ Z7LTT._J.~J
119
26 1
L 4J. 5^-5 ' |_ _ 6 L 7|. J. _8 _ 7

T
T
12 1 2 " W i 3 3 M 4 M
i?~l"j6,_
15
48
44
51
56
52
14.25
10
Velocity control
volume boundaries
Temperature control
volume boundaries
11/2 inch inner flange within
ventilation hood '
8
53
'
10
5"
cc
14.25
8.25

Hood area partitioned with
stainless steel covered
wood inserts.
.
Figure 107. Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas for the electric broiler
7.5
Vel(ft/min):
50
100
150
200
250
for the electric broiler
griddles. As with the gas broiler, this justifies the higher flow rates recommended for
broilers. However, it is clear the velocities are not as high as seen for the gas broiler,
suggesting that the same ventilation rate may not be required for both the gas and electric
broilers. Like the gas broiler, the velocity profile for the electric broiler is quite
symmetric. Velocities increase towards the back of the hood, and decrease towards the
sides. In addition, the velocities over the appliance are higher than the velocities to either
side.
/
Figure 107 shows the temperature control volumes for the electric broiler. The
thermocouples are located in the geometric center of each control volume. Figure 109
shows the average temperature distribution of the cooking plume at 36 in. (91.4 cm)
above the electric broiler while cooking hamburger. The grill areas are shown by the two
inner rectangles in the appliance outline. At 36 in. (91.4 cm) it is clear the plume has
moved from front to back, towards the grease baffles and exhaust duct exit. The shape of
the plume is basically circular, with some higher temperatures against the back wall.
Overall, the temperatures are much less than those seen from the gas broiler.
above the electric broiler cooking hamburger. There is a great deal of dilution that occurs
between the 12 and 36 in. (30.5 and 91.4 cm) heights. At 12 in. (30.5 cm) a large area is
above 115 F (46 C), located directly above the broiler grill. By the time the plume
reaches 36 in., the highest temperature is about 105 F (41 C) and occurs in a very small
area. In addition, the plume has moved from the front towards the back. While the total
area of the plume does not increase much, the fact it is lower in temperature shows
dilution room air must mix with the plume. Therefore, the velocity of the plume must
increase as the plume rises.
Figure 111 shows the maximum plume temperatures at various heights above the electric
broiler while cooking hamburger. The temperatures at all three heights are basically
constant during the entire cooking process. Unlike the gas broiler, the actual
temperatures are well behaved, with the highest temperatures occurring lower in the
plume. It does not appear as though the cooking process significantly affects the plume
temperatures. The biggest difference between the gas and electric broilers is that there are
no grease fires occurring under the electric broiler. This explains the consistency of the
electric broiler plume temperatures.
The temperature profile for the electric broiler while cooking chicken breast was only
taken at 24 in. (61 cm) above the appliance surface. Figure 112 shows a two-dimensional
view of the average temperature distribution while figure 113 shows a three-dimensional
view. The temperature distribution is almost identical in shape to that seen from the
electric broiler while cooking hamburger at 24 in. (61 cm) above the cooking surface.
This suggests the thermal plume is not highly dependent on cooking product. There is a
difference in total plume area above 115 F (46 C). This shows the average plume
180
Temp (F):
65
75
85
95
105
115
40--
00
c
o
S 30o
" 20o
X
0)
2 10
0
20
' '
40
60
iIi
80

electric broiler while cooking hamburger (modified hood used)
00
to
Figure 110. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 12,24, and 36 inches above
the electric broiler while cooking hamburger (modified hood used)
200
Patties turned
Patties placed
on grill
Patties
removed
75
50
0
10
11
12
13
Elapsed Time (min)

12 inch
'24 inch
'36 inch
Figure 111. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12,24, and 36 inches above the electric broiler while cooking
hamburger (modified hood used)
14
- , ^
Temp (F):
75
65
85
95
105
40--
00
c
o
S 30o
o.
"g 20o
0)
2 10CO
20
40
60
fc-+*
80

electric broiler while cooking chicken (modified hood used)
115
X
(D
<5"
>
00
Io
8
S
3
(Q
0)
C
Fr
ontPosmonOn.)
Figure 113. Average temperature 3-D contour plot at 24 inches above

the electric broiler while cooking chicken (modified hood used)
temperature from the electric broiler cooking hamburger is slightly hotter than the
temperature while cooking chicken breast. The hamburger undergoes a larger loss of
mass, mostly as moisture content, than the chicken breast. This moisture must be mostly
in the form of steam, and adds additional energy in the form of sensible and latent heat to
the thermal plume.
Figure 114 shows the time dependent maximum plume temperature from 24 in. (61 cm)
above the electric broiler while cooking chicken breast. At first, it appears to vary much
more than the maximum plume temperature at the same height while cooking hamburger.
However, the data from the hamburger, shown in figure 111, are plotted on a different
scale. The temperature while cooking hamburger varies from about 125 F (52 C) to
almost 150 F (66 C). Figure 114 shows the maximum plume temperature while cooking
chicken breast varies from about 110 F (43 C) to about 135 F (57 C). Therefore, the
apparent increase in variation is really just a difference in temperature scale. The higher
temperature of the plume while cooking hamburger, previously discussed, is evident in
the maximum plume temperatures at 24 in. (61 cm) above the cooking surface. On
average, the plume while cooking chicken breast is about 15 F (8.3 C) lower than the
plume while cooking hamburger. However, it should be noted, the room temperature
during the hamburger tests was about 5 to 7 F (2.8 to 3.9 C) higher than the room
temperature during the chicken breast test. This must account for some of the plume
temperature differences.
Figure 115 shows the grease particulate mass size distribution for the electric broiler
cooking hamburger. The results from three tests show good repeatability. The mass
concentration of particulates larger than 15 (im is about equal to the concentration from
the gas broiler cooking hamburger. It is likely the large particles are generated by the
release of pressure built up within the cooking product from the heating of the food. The
moisture heats and vaporizes, expanding and building pressure. Eventually the pressure
releases, throwing liquid grease into the effluent plume as particulates.
Figure 116 shows the same distribution on a finer scale to accentuate the smaller
particulate sizes. It appears the concentrations quickly level off at about 10 Jim,
remaining relatively constant until the 1 \im size range is reached. Then, the
concentration increases and falls again after 0.5 ]J,m. The smallest particle size range
comprises diameters from 0.01 (Xm to 0.5 \im, representing the mass collected on the
after-filter. This is a large size range and it is doubtful the mass distribution is constant
across its entirety. However, there is no more information available from the impactor
used to generate the data in figure 116. In nature it is unusual to see such an abrupt
transition in size distributions. It is likely the majority of the mass in the last size range is
from particles closer to 0.5 p,m in diameter. This would result in a bi-modal distribution
similar to that seen for the gas broiler. In fact, this would explain the slight dip in
concentration we see at the 2.0 ^.m point, allowing this size range to represent the
division between the two modes.
186
105 -I
- 1 0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Time (Min.)
24 inch
Figure 114. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 24 inches above the electric broiler while cooking chicken (modified
hood used)
250
200
-i 150
D)
00
00
Q.
Q
O)
P 100
50 "-T.T.1
040.01
I I I
-H-
0.10
1.00
I "I I I I
10.00
Dp (\im)
100.00
100
H
i:
i:
i:
l;
i\>
80
90
i:
i:
l;
70
60 +
\i!
i:
Q- 50
Q
o>
o
55 40
""~i
i-
i;
it
30
20
10
H-H+i
0.01
0.10
1.00
u+410.00
Dp (pm)
100.00
Data from the ELPI, shown in figure 117, supports the theory that there is a second
particle mode. All of the limitations of taking particle size distribution from above the
appliance with the ELPI, explained in section E.5.g, also apply here. Regardless, the
qualitative nature of the distribution shown in figure 117 should be valid. Between 0.6
and 1.0 u,m there is a dip in the particle concentration. The distribution then peaks
between 0.4 and 0.6 [Lm. Below 0.4 fim the mass distribution tails off. It is almost nonexistent below 0.09 u,m. Therefore, there appears to be a bi-modal distribution, with the
large mode centered well above 15 p.m in diameter, and the small mode centered at about
0.5 p.m.
The gas broiler small particle mode is centered at about 0.2 (im, while the electric broiler
mode is centered at 0.5 iim. This suggests the process must be somewhat different.
However, the same type of particulate deposits, consisting of yellow with areas of dark
black, are evident on the filters for both broilers. One explanation is the extra volume
produced by the combustion process from the gas broiler generates higher plume
velocities. Evidence from the velocity distributions supports this. The higher velocities
would allow less time for the particles to grow by grease condensation before reaching
the sampling point. For the electric broiler, the lower velocities would allow the particles
to reach the larger size through grease vapor condensation.
Figures 118 and 119 show the grease emissions for the various size ranges and vapor
phase from the electric broiler cooking hamburger. Figure 118 is normalized to the mass
of food product while figure 119 shows the actual mass of grease collected. The small
particle emissions are very high. They are slightly lower than the emissions from the gas
broiler, but much higher than the other processes. These small particulates are
troublesome to remove from the effluent stream and may pose human health concerns.
The vapor emissions and large particulate emissions are lower than those seen from the
gas broiler. The lower value from these two size ranges accounts for the majority of the
difference between the overall grease emissions from the gas and electric broilers. The
major difference between the appliances is the area beneath the grill surface. The gas
version has a hot grease drip pan, which collects grease drippings. The pan occasionally
flares up, sending a thick black smoke plume through the grill and into the effluent
plume. The electric version has water pans beneath the grill. Therefore, grease drippings
harmlessly fall into the water and are removed from the system. The grease fires from the
gas broiler may account for the difference seen in the total particulate and vapor
emissions. When the grease combusts, some of the liquid will volatilize to the vapor
phase, thus increasing vapor emissions. At the same time, the plume of smoke
accelerates the air flow from the grill. The higher plume velocity allows more large
particles to reach the sampling point.
Figure 120 shows the grease particulate mass distribution for the electric broiler cooking
boneless skinless chicken breast. Figure 121 shows the same information on a finer scale,
allowing the distribution features to be easily viewed. Figure 120 is provided to allow for
easy comparison with the distribution from the electric broiler cooking hamburger (figure
116).
190
<U\J -
180 160 140 -
i 120 Q- 100 -
Q
o
80 -
T3
60 40 20 0-
0.01
iI
0.1
Dp (pm)
Figure 117. Electric broiler (hamburger) particle distribution between 0.01 and 1.0 \im
to
TP
PM10
PM2.5
^Testl
IE Test 2
m Test 3
Vapor
l Average
Figure 118. Electric broiler (hamburger) normalized grease emissions
Total Grease
TP
PM10
PM2.5
Vapor

Figure 119. Electric broiler (hamburger) collected grease emissions
Total Grease
100
90
80
70
I
-i 60
JE
o! 50
Q
D)
.O
40
30
20
10 +
0
0.01
i i i ii i I
0.10
1.00
i 11 i i
I'I
10.00
Dp (Mm)
i i ii i
100.00
25
20
Q.
O)
O
5 10
+-+
0.01
0.10
'i
i i
1.00
10.00
Dp (pm)
i i i i
100.00
The shape of the distribution from the electric broiler cooking chicken breast is identical
to the electric broiler cooking hamburger. This implies the same particle generation
mechanisms are present. The only difference is the concentrations are about one fifth that
of the hamburger concentrations. It is significant that for both the gas and electric
broilers, the size distributions have identical shapes regardless of the food product. It
implies the design of the appliance determines the particle emission size distribution,
while the fat content determines the magnitude of the emissions.
Figures 122 and 123 show the grease emissions for the various particle size ranges and
the vapor phase from the electric broiler cooking chicken breast. Figure 122 shows the
emissions normalized to the mass of food product while figure 123 shows the actual mass
of grease collected. Because of the repeatability shown for the electric broiler cooking
hamburger, only one test was conducted.
The total grease emissions are much lower when the chicken breast product is used.
However, there is still a large amount of grease emissions. The most significant aspect of
the grease emissions from the chicken breast is that 8 of the 12 lb. Per 1000 lb. of food
product comes from either grease vapor or particulates below 10 u,m. In fact, most of the
particulates below 10 |im are also below 2.5 u,m. Again, grease in these size ranges cause
the most problems in respect to grease removal and environmental health concerns.
Table 17 shows the gaseous emissions from the electric oven cooking hamburger.
TABLE 17. Gaseous Emissions From die Electric Broiler Cooking Hamburger
Gas
Emissions

CO
NOx
6515
5.7
2.10.5
0.000.01
Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
lb./1000 h for CO and NOx
1.80.4
0.2
5815
0.00.3
The CO2 emissions from the electric broiler cooking hamburger are quite low. After
subtracting the room air contributions, there is still some CO2 generation. The most
likely source for this is the combustion of grease dripping on the heating elements. The
same phenomena probably explains the high level of CO emissions. The heating
elements were measured at about 1200 F (549 C), about the same temperature as the gas
broiler radiants. The temperature of the heating elements is certainly high enough to
combust grease drippings. It appears that much of the combustion is incomplete, giving
rise to high CO generation.
196
VO
TP
PM10
PM2.5
Vapor
El Test 1
Figure 122. Electric broiler (chicken breast) normalized grease emissions
Total Grease
TP
PM10
PM2.5
Vapor

Figure 123. Electric broiler (chicken breast) collected grease emissions
Total Grease
The CO emissions from the electric broiler are about one fifth the emissions from the gas
broiler, when the food product is hamburger. While the absence of natural gas
combustion could partially explain this difference, there are probably additional factors.
The total area of the hot radiants beneath the gas broiler is about twice the area of the
heating elements beneath the electric broiler grill. Therefore, the grease drippings are
twice as likely to fall on the hot surface. More importantly, grease drippings that fall
through the grill and do not land on the radiants (for the gas version) or heating elements
(for the electric version) have very different fates, depending on the appliance. The water
pan beneath the electric broiler removes the possibility of grease combustion beneath the
heating elements. Conversely, the drip tray beneath the gas broiler pools the liquid
grease, which often combusts, adding CO and CO2 to the effluent plume.
Like other electric appliances, the emission of NO* is essentially non-existent. This
brings further support to the hypothesis that grease combustion does not generate
appreciable amounts of NOx.
Table 3 in section D.6. shows the minimum detection limits of the tested hydrocarbons
for the electric broiler cooking hamburger. Results show the absence of these gases
above the minimum concentration detection level.
Table 18 shows the gaseous emissions from the. electric broiler cooking chicken breast.
TABLE 18. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Broiler Cooking Chicken Breast
Gas
Emissions

CO
NOx
8928
<1
0.20.4
0.000.01
Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
1.90.6
<0.1
58
0.00.24
The results show CO2, CO, and NOx emissions from the electric broiler cooking chicken
breast were below the detection limits, after subtracting the room air CQ> contributions.
The amount of grease that comes from the chicken breast is much less than that which
comes from the hamburger. Therefore, there is much less chance of grease dripping on
the heating elements. While there certainly must have been some grease falling on the
elements, it was not enough to raise gaseous emission levels.
Hydrocarbon emissions were not tested for the electric broiler cooking chicken breast.
199
i. Time Dependent Particle Size Distribution

Figure 124 shows the real time number concentration from the electric broiler cooking
hamburger for three small particle size ranges. The data were collected from the same
sampling point as the Marple impactor and gaseous emission data were taken.
For all three size ranges, the concentration levels increase dramatically once the patties
are placed on the grill surface. The smallest particles are present in the highest numbers,
the next smallest have slightly lower concentrations, and the larger particles have even
lower number concentrations. After about 1 minute of cooking, the concentrations level
off, and remain basically constant throughout the cooking process. This includes when
the patties are turned. When the patties are removed, the concentration level falls
dramatically for all three size ranges.
The generation of particles in these size ranges appears to be different from the gas
broiler. First, at the beginning and end of the cooking process, the number concentration
of the small particles for the electric broiler is much smaller than it is during the cooking
process. For the gas broiler the concentration does not change. Before sampling above
the appliance with the ELPI, a cooking test was done sampling with the ELPI in the
exhaust duct. After this test was completed, the grill surface was scraped clean to prepare
for the next test. This occurred for both the gas and electric broilers. Apparently,
scraping the grill does not affect the small particle generation from the gas broiler much.
This is apparent from the concentration levels before cooking begins and after it ends.
For the electric broiler, this scraping must effectively remove much of the grease
responsible for small particulate generation. This is seen in the lower number
concentrations before and after the cooking process. The most probable reason for this is
the different design of the grills. For the gas broiler, the grill grates are cylindrical in
shape, and grease collects on the under side of the cylinder. The grate is placed on an
incline, and grease is supposed to follow the underside of the grate to a grease collection
area. However, much of the grease burns on the underside of the gate, remaining there
until the grate is hand cleaned in the sink. This means that when a cooking test has
already been performed, as is the case before the ELPI particle testing above the
appliance, there is a substantial amount of burnt grease on the underside of the grill which
is exposed to the heat from the burners.
For the electric broiler, the electric heating elements lie between rectangular shaped
grates. The grates extend below the heating elements. Therefore, any grease which has
collected on the underside of the electric broiler grates during the previous cooking test, is
not exposed to much heat from the heating elements.
Another difference between the broilers is the particle concentration does not change after
the patties are turned for the electric broiler. Again, the design of the grill is probably
responsible for this. When the patties are turned, grease that was pooled on the patties
top side spills between the grates. For the gas broiler, this means it either hits the hot
radiants or the grease drip tray below, which is also very hot. For the electric broiler,
200
1.0E+07 r
10
12
14
Time (min)
Stage 3 - 0.09-0.15pm
Stage 4-0.15-0.26um
Stage 5 - 0.26-0.38um
Figure 124. Electric broiler (hamburger) real time particle number concentrations
16
some grease drippings will land on the heating elements, but most will fall through the
grate and into the water pan beneath the grill. Therefore, small grease particulates are
generated at a higher rate after turning the patties on the gas broiler, while the generation
rate remains relatively constant for the electric broiler.
7. Gas Convection Oven
This investigation used a full size gas convection oven with a dual flow, directfired/recirculating, 4 burner heating system. The rated input was 55 kBTU/h (16.1 kW).
Convection was provided by a two speed fan. Temperature control was provided by a
solid-state digital electronic thermostat with electronic ignition.
same test method, we calibrated the oven temperature to 350 F (177 C).
Test Method F 1496-93. It should be noted that the cooking procedure was altered for a
different food product. The food products called for in the test method are baked potatoes
and cakes, which would not produce much effluent. The food product cooked was 5.02
oz per slice, food service sausage pizza, with a fat content of 8.2 % and a moisture
content of 53.5 %. A laboratory specializing in food product evaluation tested the pizza
for fat and moisture content. Appendix B shows the results from these tests, and other
information regarding the food product. The following is a brief summary of the cooking
procedure.
The cooking procedure begins with determining the time it takes to cook the pizza. The
manufacturer's recommended time of 15 minutes was tested and appeared to cook the
pizza to a sufficient level. The recommended cooking temperature is 375 F (191 C).
While the original temperature calibration was performed at 350 F (177 C), an
additional calibration at 375 F (191 C) was performed. After establishing the proper
cooking time, the pizza is weighted and arranged on aluminum sheet pans. The product
temperature is measured before cooking begins. The pizza is placed in the oven. At the
proper times established earlier, the pizza is removed. When applicable, a second batch
begins cooking when the appliance has reached 375 T (191 C). The weight of the
cooked pizza is determined. Two slices from each batch are tested for moisture content.
202
Figure 125 shows the appliance and sampling point positions for the gas and electric
ovens. The top surface of the full sized convection oven was 61 5/8 in. (156.5 cm) above
the kitchen floor, therefore, there was only about 16 in. (40.6 cm) from the flue exit to the
hood opening. All of the effluent from the oven exits at the oven flue, which is only 1.5
in. (3.8 cm) wide and 15.5 in. (39.4 cm) long. The front surface of the oven was
positioned 6 in. (15.2 cm) from the front of the ventilation hood. For the ovens, the flue
is not centered on the appliance, rather it lies closer to the left side. This is due to the
electronic control panel on the right side of the oven. Therefore, instead of centering the
appliance, the actual flue was centered left to right. This results in the right side of the
appliance being closer to the wall than the left side. The sampling point was positioned
as close to the hood entrance as possible, centered directly above the flue.
Figure 126 shows the velocity and temperature control volumes for the gas and electric
ovens and ranges. For these appliances, the velocity measurements were taken at all the
temperature measurement points, allowing the control volumes to be the same.
Additional measurements for the velocities were necessary because the temperature grid
does not extend throughout the entire hood entrance.
Figure 127 shows the velocity distribution for the gas oven. Measurements were taken
while the appliance was idling. Because the oven protrudes almost to the hood entrance,
the vertical velocity component directly above the oven, especially near the front, is much
lower than the horizontal velocity component. Measurements show that the horizontal
component is about five times the vertical component about 6 in. (15.2 cm) behind the
oven front, and about two times the vertical component 1 foot (30.5 cm) behind the oven
front. This shows the air flow around the oven begins to move horizontally towards the
back of the hood, once it clears the front of the oven. The same effect is not seen at the
sides or back of the oven. The reason it is probably seen at the front of the oven is the
fact the area between the top front of the oven and the front hood entrance is small. Air
that enters here is drawn towards the back of the hood, and must travel horizontally
across the top of the oven to reach the grease baffles. The velocities shown in figure 127
represent only the vertical component.
The velocities above the flue are not as high as one might expect. It appears as though
the highest velocities are not centered directly above the flue, but are shifted to the left.
In addition, there are high velocities seen at the sides of the hood, below the grease
baffles. Most likely, this is due to the effect of the large oven on the overall flow pattern
under the hood. Unlike other appliances, the oven blocks a major volume under the hood,
which greatly affects the air flow patterns beneath the entire hood. To properly
characterize the air flow patterns, a two or three component velocity probe is probably
necessary.
203
116.5 In.
1
7.5 m.
.iflfc-
_!
51.5 In.
5.375 In.
f
51.5 In.
U,
J
1
4.5 In.
48 In.
38.5 In.
42 m.
lam.
am. t
10.75 m.
8m.
11.7Sln.
112.6 In.
30 m.
to
122 In.
125.5 In.
LEFT SIDE VIEW
TOP VIEW
LEGEND
Note: The exhaust Is located 2.125'

tram the back of the Oran. and It is
1.75" wide
Note: The eidiausl Is located 2.125"

from the back of the Oven, and B Is
1.75- wide and 0.7F tell
Figure 125. Position of the gas and electric ovens
Sample Point
ro
-I J. _ _ 2. _ L 3 _ U L42 J. 5. 3_l.fi _ L7_5 J.8_6_l^ _ U ( L _ 1

fr - ^
13
"1 p1 25
115
#.
1
|
17
27
r 18 T
| 28 |
'
1
25
39
1 26 1 27 1 28 1 29 1 30 1 31 1
1 40 1 41 1 42 1 43 1 44 1 45 1
32
46
1
1
33
34
35 ,
36
37
38
39
40
51
52
53 |
54
55
56 |
57
58
,_
_ _
_ _ _
_j
7~H
1 37
'
1
49
J
1_
61
to
-I
73

11_ J. _J2-,
14
'
,
26
38
50
|
1
62
'
74
J_
'
|
|
'
116 10 I 17 11 I 18 12 I 19 13120 14 12115 I 22 16 I
42
44
45
47
63
'
64 | 65 | 66
1
1
'
|
|
'
'
67 | 68 | 69
1.
1
'
|
|
'
76
' 78
' 79
'
JL
_Jl
77
46
80
' 81
J_
24
34
- _
'
|
|
'
43
_ _
22 1 23 T
32 ( 33 |
41
75
19 1 20 T 21 7
29 | 30 | 31 |
'
l~
,
23
47
11/2 inch inner flange within

ventilation hood
'
1
[
5 9
48 1
1
6 0
71
70
'
|
1
1
|
'
83
' 84
'
'
|
|
_J_
36 |
48
82
_L

Figure 126. Temperature and velocity grid points and associated areas for
the electric and gas ovens and ranges
Jb
Velocity and temperature control

volume boundaries
24 1
79
10
11
tr ^
^^mmmtmmmmwmmm
Vel (ft/min):
t rjftfw mi M i a i
50
100
ir ,
200
150
250
"wmmmmmm
40--
to
ON
c
o
S 30
(0
o
QL
" 200)
5 lO0
20
+-H-
40
6"0
80
for the gas oven
/. Temperature Distribution
Figure 126 shows the temperature control volumes for the gas oven. The thermocouples
were located in the geometric center of each control volume. Figure 128 shows the
average temperature distribution at 15 in.(38 cm) above the gas oven. This height
corresponds to the ventilation hood entrance. All of the effluent from the oven must exit
the flue, whose outline is shown in figure 128. The appliance was positioned so that the
flue, not the appliance itself, was centered under the hood. The temperature distribution
shows the center of the plume has moved towards the back of the hood from the flue
opening. The plume is simply moving towards the grease baffles where the air exits.
While the shape of the flue is rectangular with a high aspect ratio, the plume has become
circular only 15 in. (38 cm) above the flue. This shows there must be a considerable
amount of mixing with the dilution room air. In addition, the hottest part of the plume is
offset to the left, as is seen from many of the appliances. Again, this shows slightly more
air is pulled through the left center baffles than the right center baffles.
From figure 128 it is also evident that the top surface of the oven is hot, and heats up the
air directly over it. Much of this air is traveling horizontally across the oven top to reach
the grease baffles. This is a result of the oven height and the high volume the oven
occupies beneath the ventilation hood. What is not seen in the temperature profile is the
effect of the opening the oven doors. When this occurs, a great deal of heat leaves the
front of the oven. For the data shown in figure 128, the effects of this are averaged into
the overall temperature distribution, and thus dampened out. In addition, our
thermocouple grid was not big enough to accommodate the entire area above the oven.
Figure 129 shows the time dependent maximum plume temperature 15 in. (38 cm) above
the gas oven. The variability seen is likely due to the cycling of the oven burners. On
average, it appears the maximum plume temperature rises slightly during the entire
cooking process. When the pizza is removed from the oven, the temperature increases.
This temperature increase occurs near the front of the oven and is from heat escaping the
oven doors. It took about one minute to remove the five trays of pizza, therefore, the
maximum temperature remained high during that period.
Figure 130 shows the grease particulate mass distribution from the gas oven. All grease
particulate measurements are below the measurement noise level. Therefore, figure 130
shows there are essentially no grease particulates emitted from the gas oven under the
tested conditions. All effluent emitted from the oven during the cooking process must
exit the flue. The gases leaving the flue are about 500 F (260 C). At that temperature,
most grease is probably in the vapor phase. In addition, the food product cooked, sausage
pizza, has a fat content of 8 %, which is relatively low.
Figure 131 shows the grease emissions for the various particle size ranges from the gas
oven, normalized to the food product mass. Figure 132 shows the mass of grease
207
ir
Temp (F): 65
75
85
95
115
105
40--
S3
o
00
c
o
30CO
o
Q.
"g 20o
2 lO0
4H
+--*
20
HH
40
60
- i i I >
80

the gas oven
4H
125
100 -I
- 1 0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Time (Min)
15 inch
Figure 129. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 15 inches above the gas oven
100 -i
90 80 -
70 -60 -50 40 30 20 10 -
0 +0.01
I I I I I
0.10
w+
I I I II
1.00
10.00
Dp (um)
Figure 130. Gas oven particle distribution (2 tests)
M U M
100.00
to
TP
PM10
PM2.5
Vapor

El Test 2
^ Average
Figure 131. Gas oven normalized grease emissions
Total Grease
10
9
8
^^
O)
w
c
o
0)
w
7
fi
E 5
O
(D
Col
to
to
LJJ
"O
0)
TP
PM10
Vapor
PM2.5

!Test1
U Test 2
luiai uica&e
actually collected for each test. It is clear the mass of particulates collected is
insignificant.
While there were not grease particulates emitted, there was some grease vapor. The level
of grease vapor emissions is still quite low. The grease vapor is probably a result of some
of the food product fat content, presumably from the cheese or the sausage, volatilizing
during the cooking process. One reason the level is low is the fat content of the food
product is low. Another reason may be the actual cooking process within the oven.
Unlike the other processes, food cooked in an oven is exposed to a constant source of
relatively low heat. There are not areas where the food touches extremely hot surfaces.
Therefore, the food is cooked slower. This probably minimizes the generation of grease
vapor.
We tested just one food product in the oven, but commercial uses for convection ovens
are highly diverse. It is possible that a high fat content food, such as some meat roasts,
may generate considerably more grease emissions. It is likely most of this grease would
be in the vapor form. It is difficult to speculate on particulate emissions from such food
products. It seems that even if large particulates were generated, they would find it
almost impossible to follow the flue gas out the flue without impacting somewhere in the
oven. While smaller particulates could follow the air steam, the temperature of the flue
gas may volatilize them to the vapor phase.
Table 19 shows the gaseous emissions from the gas oven.
TABLE 19. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Oven
Gas
Emissions

CO2 Combustion
Contributions
CO
NOx
10252
37
63
Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
9.64.9
4
6
0.010.04
0.080.04
1.34
7.83.9
The CO2 emissions from the gas oven are relatively low, and it is likely they come
exclusively from the combustion process. Additionally, the level of CO emissions was
well within the measurement noise range.
The NOx emissions from the gas broiler were higher than any other appliance. Because
NOx generation is most likely only associated with the combustion of natural gas, the
213
most important emission statistic is the mass emitted per 1000 hours of operation. For
the gas oven, this number is four times greater than the emissions from the other gas
appliances. One reason for this may be the recirculation of combustion gases that occurs
within the gas oven. While this feature improves the heat transfer efficiency of the oven,
it reintroduces hot gases into the combustion flame. The temperature of gasses near the
flame is probably hotter than for other appliances. NO* generation occurs under high
temperature conditions, and the design of the gas oven probably facilitates a larger area,
compared to other appliances, where these conditions exist.
The emission levels of tested hydrocarbons were all below the minimum detection limit.
Table 4 in section D.6. lists the hydrocarbons and the minimum limits.
8. Electric Convection Oven
This investigation used a full size electric convection oven with 3 direct-fired, tubular
electric heating elements. The rated input was 37.5 kBTU/h (11 kW) at 208 V.
Convection was provided by a two speed fan. Temperature control was provided by a
solid-state digital electronic thermostat.
voltage. Using procedures from the same test method, we calibrated the oven
temperature to 350 F (177 C).
The cooking procedure for the electric oven is identical to the gas oven cooking
procedure.
The appliance and sampling point positions for the electric oven are identical to the gas
oven, shown in figure 125.
214
The velocity control volumes for the electric oven are identical to the control volumes for
the gas oven, shown in figure 126.
Figure 133 shows the velocity distribution for the electric oven at the ventilation hood
entrance. Like the gas oven, the horizontal velocity component near the front of the oven
is much higher than the vertical component. This is due to the overall height of the oven
and the necessary path air must take to go over the oven and into the grease baffles. The
velocities shown in figure 133 are the vertical components of the air flow at the hood
entrance.
The highest velocities are above the flue exit and at the sides of the hood entrance. The
velocities above the flue are not shifted as much to the left as seen in the gas oven, but
there is a slight effect. Like the gas oven, the high velocities seen near the sides of the
hood entrance are probably associated with the large volume of space the oven fills,
changing the overall air flow patterns into the hood.
/
The position of the thermocouples for the electric oven is identical to their positions for
the gas oven, shown in figure 126. Figure 134 shows the average temperature
distribution at 12 in. (30.5 cm) above the electric oven. Like the gas oven, the
thermocouples were located at the ventilation hood entrance. The reason the
thermocouples are positioned 12 in. (30.5 cm) above the electric oven, while positioned
15 in. (38 cm) above the gas oven is due to electric oven being 3 in. (7.6 cm) taller.
Like the gas oven, the plume above the electric oven is circular in shape and slightly
offset to the left. The flue has been centered beneath the ventilation hood, not the
appliance itself. The shape of the flue for the electric oven is identical to the gas oven.
The top surface of the oven is hot, and affects the temperature of the air above it. The
fact the shape of the plume is circular 12 in.(30.5 cm) above the flue, which is highly
rectangular, shows dilution room air has already mixed with the exiting flue gases by the
time the plume reaches the hood entrance.
Figure 135 shows the time dependent maximum plume temperatures above the electric
oven. There are definitely fluctuations, but they are small in magnitude. They probably
represent the cycling of the oven heating elements. The data shown in figure 135
represent two batches of pizza cooked. After each batch is removed, there is a slight
increase in maximum plume temperature. While the temperature increase is not large, it
likely occurs when the oven doors are opened. Overall, the maximum plume temperature
above the electric oven remains relatively steady during the entire cooking process.
215
c
Vel (ft/min):
50
100
150
40
60
200
80
for the electric oven
250
B U j ^ ^ n / i 4'-^ 4
Temp (F): 65
75
85
95
"""t
105
115
40-c
o
S 30o
CL
" 20-
2 10
o-
20
l
I
I
l
T+
40
60
80

the electric oven
'
120
First batch
removed
First batch
placed in oven
110
100
Second batch
removed
(2
90 -
80
-1
11
14
417
+
20
23
26
29
32
Time (Min)
12 inch
Figure 135. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12 inches above the electric oven
35
38

Figure 136 shows the grease particulate mass distribution from the electric oven. Like the
gas oven, the electric oven emits practically no particulates.
Figure 137 shows the grease emissions for the various particle size ranges from the
electric oven, normalized to the food product mass. Figure 138 shows the mass of grease
actually collected for each test. These figures show the particulate mass collected is well
below the measurement noise.
The electric oven does emit grease vapor. In fact, the actual mass of grease vapor
collected from the electric oven is substantially higher than for any other process.
However, when the emissions are normalized to food product mass, it is still relatively
low. Comparing the grease vapor emissions from the electric oven to the gas oven shows
the electric oven appears to emit about twice as much. Part of this may be explained in
the uncertainly found in determining the dilution ratio. However, from our observations,
it appeared the pizza cooked in the electric oven was more "done" than the pizza cooked
in the gas oven.
The two ovens were set to the same temperature, and the cooking times were identical.
Even the total food product mass loss during the cooking process was basically the same.
Regardless, the color of the cheese from the finished pizza in the gas oven was mostly
white, with some edges turning golden brown. The color of the cheese from the pizza in
the electric oven was golden brown over the entire top surface. This apparent difference
in doneness was noticed by those who ate pizza from both ovens. Theoretically, the
difference in how thoroughly the food was cooked should have been evident from the
food product mass loss during cooking. It was not.
Perhaps the final part of the pizza cooking process, the browning of the top layer of
cheese, releases a fair amount of grease vapor. It is possible this part of the cooking
process happens very quickly, maybe in only a minute or two. It does not result in the
loss-of much additional mass, because most of the mass loss is from the loss of moisture,
the majority of which has already occurred. However, enough grease is released to effect
the overall grease vapor emissions.
Regardless of whether or not the browning of the cheese affects the grease emissions, the
pizza from the two ovens certainly had different appearances despite the same cooking
temperature, cooking time, and total overall mass lost. This suggests that for products
similar to this, an additional quantitative method needs to be developed to determine the
"doneness" of the food product.
219
100
90 +
80
70
f
-I 60
D)
to
E,
Q. 50
Q
O)
JO
40
30
20 10 0 -4
0.01
ii
H-\
0.10
*-*-*^H"
1.00
*!
I " ! i !
10.00
Dp (Mm)
Figure 136. Electric oven particle distribution (2 tests)
100.00
4.5
4.0
3.5
u
3
-a 3.0
o
o
o
o
to
to
2.5
"3s 2.0
c
o
"(0
to
E 1.5
UJ
1.0
0.5
0.0
TP
PM10
PM2.5
Vapor

HDTest2
i l Average
Figure 137. Electric oven normalized grease emissions
Total Grease
25
20
E,
^ 15
o
'(/)
w
to
I Test 1
I Test 2
'E
in
1 10
"o
O
1
TP
PM10
PM2.5
Vapor

Figure 138. Electric oven collected grease emissions
Total Grease
Table 20 shows the gaseous emissions from the electric oven.
TABLE 20. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Oven
Gas
Emissions

CO
NOx
73
<1
0.00.1
0.00+0.01
Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
0.610.3
<0.1
05
0.00.1
After subtracting room air C0 2 contributions, the emission of CO2, CO, and NOx, were
all below the detection limits for the electric oven. The fact there were not NOx
emissions from the electric oven supports the notion that the high NOx levels seen from
the gas oven were entirely associated with the natural gas combustion process.
Table 4 in section D.6. lists the tested hydrocarbons and their minimum detection limits.
Results show the electric oven does not emit any of the tested hydrocarbons in
concentrations exceeding the minimum detection limits.
9. Gas Range
This investigation used a six burner gas range with oven. The total rated input without
the oven was 120 kBTU/h (35.2 kW). Each burner had a rated input of 20 kBTU/h (5.9
kW). The six star burners were 9 in. (22.9 cm) in diameter, with cast iron grates and
standing pilot lights.
well to a rated energy input of 120 kBTU/h (35.2 kW). Using procedures from the same
test method, we determined the heating characteristics of one burner set at maximum and
then minimum output. Each test was 60 minutes. Set to the maximum output, the burner
reached 800 F (427 C) in 20 minutes, remaining at that temperature for the remainder of
the test. Set to the minimum output, the burner reached 425 F (218 C) in 39 minutes,
remaining at that temperature for the remainder of the test.
223
Test Method F 1521-96. It should be noted that the cooking procedure was altered for a
different food product. The food product called for in the test method is simply boiling
water. The food product cooked was spaghetti, spaghetti sauce, and pork sausage. All
three back burners boiled water in large pots, while spaghetti noodles were added to two
of the pots during the final ten minutes of cooking. The two side front burners simmered
spaghetti sauce during the entire cooking period. The middle front burner was used to fry
the pork sausage. The pork sausages were quarter pound linked style with a fat content
of 30.7 % and a moisture content of 57.3 %. A laboratory specializing in food product
evaluation tested the sausage for fat and moisture content. Appendix B shows the results
from these tests, and other information regarding the food product. The following is a
brief summary of the cooking procedure.
The cooking procedure begins with determining the time it takes to cook the pork sausage
to an average of 35 % weight loss. After establishing the proper cooking time, the
sausage is weighted and placed in containers. Three lb. (1.4 kg) of sausage are used for
each test. The spaghetti is divided into two 2.5 lb. (1.1 kg) piles for each test and placed
on wax paper. One 107 oz. (3.04 kg) can of sauce is poured into each of the two sauce
pots. The water is heated to a steady boil. The level of water found in the middle pot,
which is not used to cook spaghetti, is measured before cooking begins. The sausage
temperature is measured. The sausage and sauce are placed on the burners at the same
time. Spaghetti noodles are added to two pots of boiling water 10 minutes before the
sausage is done. The sausage and noodles are removed first, while the sauce is removed
one minute later, along with the grease in the sausage pan. A substantial time between
tests is necessary due to the need to cool the sauce and boil new water. The volume of
water in the middle pot and the volume of sauce are measured to estimate the total
amount of liquid boiled off. The weight of the cooked sausage is determined. Two
sausage are tested for moisture content.
The positions of the appliance and sampling point for the gas range are shown in figure
139. The front surface of the appliance was positioned 6 in. (15.2 cm) from the front of
the ventilation hood. The gas range also has an oven, which was not used during testing.
However, the flue to the oven includes a tall channel which acts as a back wall to the
appliance. This back wall extend 22 5/8 in.(57.5 cm) above the cooking surface and
greatly affects the behavior of the thermal plume from the range top. Like the broilers,
the gas range does not have a flue for the range top burners, leaving the combustion gases
to mix with the food product effluent at the cooking surface. The result of the oven flue
doubling as a back wall on the appliance was that the thermal plume near the oven flue
was much hotter than at other areas. For most appliances, the hottest area of the thermal
plume is at or near the greatest concentration of effluent emissions. This is not true for
the gas range. The cooking procedure for the gas range, described previously, results in
224
1,
24 In.
59.2S In.
i/ i
I
12 In.
o<on
ooo
48 In.
v_y
26 In.
41.25 In.
l|6ln.
41.26 In.
ll '
_
96 In.
10.75 In.
11.75 In.
I ,i
30 In.
1
1
122 In.
50.5 In.
125.S In.
TOP VIEW
LEFT SIDE VIEW
OOO
ooo
12 In.
12 In.
<
=~e
s
12 In.
12 In.
12 In.
37.5 In.
Note: Each burner Is 9.5 In In
diameter
Figure 139. Position of the gas range
LEGEND
Sample Point
the majority of the grease particulates coming from the front center burner, where the
sausage is cooked. Therefore, the observed center of the effluent plume at 32 in. (81.3
cm) above the cooking surface was 24 in. (61 cm) from the back wall of the kitchen. This
sampling position is about 1 foot (30.5 cm) from the point of maximum temperature for
the thermal plume at the same height above the cooking surface.
The velocity control volumes and measurement points for the gas range are the same as
that for the gas oven, shown in figure 126.
Figure 140 shows the velocity distribution for the gas range. Measurements were taken
while the appliance was boiling water on the burners to simulate cooking conditions.
There are two areas of very high velocities, both directly under the exhaust duct entrance.
While the areas are close together, there appears to be a region where the velocities
decrease between them. One explanation is that the gas range has an oven flue extending
almost two feet above the cooking surface. The heat from the burners is concentrated
along the center of this "back wall." The temperatures are very hot at this point, in fact,
about 100 F (55.6 C) hotter than temperatures seen for the gas broilers at the same point.
Hotter temperatures usually mean greater natural convection, thus higher velocities.
Perhaps when the gas clears the oven flue, there is a turbulence induced separation of air
flow. Highly turbulent conditions could explain two areas of peak velocity.
The velocities generally increase towards the back of the hood entrance. This shows the
air moving towards the grease baffles at the back of the ventilation hood. Also, the
velocities are higher above the appliance, showing the thermal plume from the appliance
surface. There are higher velocities near the back of the hood entrance close to each side.
These are basically rectangular in shape, corresponding to the area where the grease
baffles are located. The areas of lower velocity on each side near the back of the hood,
between the peak velocities in the center, and the high velocities towards the left and right
boundaries, correspond to the positions of the grease baffle spacers. These are solid
pieces of metal placed between the two baffles in the center, and the outer two baffles.
No air can flow through these, which explains the lower velocities. These spacers were
present for all tests, except the broilers, where modification of the effective hood area
required their removal. The effects of the spacer are present in most of the velocity
distributions, but are shown most prominently in the gas range distribution
/
The thermocouple positions for the gas range tests are identical to those for the gas oven,
shown in figure 126. Figure 141 shows the average temperature distribution 36 in. (91.4
cm) above the gas range. Unlike most other appliances, the plume above the gas range
has not moved much towards the back of the hood. The gas range has an oven flue which
extends about two feet above the range surface. While the oven is not used during
testing,
226
fc#J
Vel (ft/min):
50
100
150
200
to
to
-J
40
60
80
for the gas range
250
95
Temp (F): 65
125
40-
to
00
155
185
215
!f-'- '
c
o
2 30o
Q.
" 20o
0)
5 10
0
20
40
60
80

the gas range
the flue acts as a back wall, preventing the plume from migrating towards the grease
baffles until it clears the flue. Therefore, the hottest point is located directly above the
flue surface. However, at 36 in. (91.4 cm), the plume has become circular in shape,
showing that it is starting to mix with dilution room air.
Figure 142 shows the three-dimensional temperature profile above the gas range. Notice
the temperature grid at 12 in. (30.5 cm) is positioned 14 in. (35.6 cm) in front of the back
wall. This represents the position of the oven flue. The shape of the temperature profile
is flat along this acting back wall, and the temperature magnitude is very high, sometimes
exceeding 600 F (316 C). At 24 in. (61 cm) above the appliance, the temperature grid
can be positioned along the back wall of the kitchen, because it is higher than the oven
flue. However, it is only about 2 in. (5.1 cm) above the flue, thus the profile is still flat
near the back area. At 24 in. (61 cm) the size of the area representing the maximum
temperatures was decreased, showing the effects of dilution room air mixing with the
thermal plume. At 36 in. (91.4 cm) the plume finally becomes somewhat circular and has
cooled considerably.
It should be noted the affects of the oven flue acting as a back wall makes the gas range
different from most other appliances. The sampling point for most appliances is near the
36 in. (91.4 cm) temperature distribution height. At this height, the center of the
temperature plume and the center of the particulate plume is about equal. In other words,
the plume has mixed enough so that the particulates are distributed approximately the
same as the temperatures. For the gas range, the particulates are mainly generated from
the frying of the sausage, which occurs at the front center burner. At the height of the
sampling point, the center of the particle distribution appears to be about 24 in. (61 cm)
from the kitchen back wall. The temperature distribution at approximately the same
height shows the maximum plume temperatures are about 12 in. (30.5 cm) from the
kitchen back wall. Thus, at the sampling position, the center of the particulate plume
does not correspond to the center of the temperature plume. The particle and temperature
plume mixing for the other appliances is described below.
For appliances such as the gas griddle and gas fryer, which have high temperatures
exiting flues positioned away from areas of particle generation, the center of the
particulate plume is definitely positioned differently from the center of the temperature
plume, at locations close to the appliance surface. However, by the time the overall
effluent plume reaches the sampling point, mixing has combined the two plumes. For the
electric griddle and fryer, as well as both broilers and the electric range, there are no flues,
so the temperature and particulate plumes occur together. All the effluent must exit the
flues from the ovens, so again the two plume are distributed identically.
The different nature of the gas range means that one cannot assume the highest particle
concentrations occur near the center of the thermal plume at the sampling height. For the
other appliances, this assumption is probably valid.
229
to
Front
Pom
'i On.)
Figure 143 shows the time dependent maximum plume temperatures for the gas range at
12,24 and 36 in. (30.5, 61, and 91.4 cm) above the appliance surface. The temperature is
extremely high at all three heights. In general, the temperatures remain relatively
constant until the food product is removed. At first, the two boiling pots of water
cooking the noodles are removed, along with the sausage from the frying pan. The frying
pan does remain on the stove. Removing the boiling water and the sausage greatly
reduces the maximum plume temperature. After one minute, the sauce and frying pan are
removed, reducing the maximum temperatures even more. When the pots are removed,
the burners are turned off, which must account for much of the cooling. At 36 in. (91.4
cm) above the surface, there is a noticeable temperature rise once the sausage and sauce is
placed on the burners. A smaller increase is seen at 24 in. (61 cm). These products are
added to the front burners, and thus affect the overall plume greatly. The maximum
temperature at the 12 in. (30.5 cm) height is not affected by this because it always occurs
along the oven flue, which is behind the back burners. Any action at the front burners
will not greatly affect temperatures in this area.
Figure 144 shows the grease particulate mass size distribution for the gas range. Figure
145 has a finer scale allowing the features of the smallest size ranges to be seen. A total
of four tests were conducted, and the data show good repeatability.
The concentration of particulate mass is highest at the large particles sizes. It is
interesting to note the shape of the distribution is almost identical to that found for the gas
griddle. For the gas range, the majority of the grease particulates must come from the
frying of the sausage. This is done on a large flat frying pan. The process of cooking
meat on a frying pan is very similar to the process of cooking meat on a griddle surface.
This probably explains the similarity in distribution shapes.
There is not much particulate mass in the small size ranges. This suggests the main
mechanism of particle generation is the release of gas pressure inside the food product,
propelling larger particulates into the effluent steam. In addition, moisture from the food
product landing on the hot liquid grease in the pan can cause grease "explosions" which
may generate additional large particulates.
Figure 146 shows the grease emissions from the gas range for the various particle size
ranges, normalized to the food product mass. Note, there is no test 1 for the vapor or total
grease. For test 1, the cooking process was repeated three times, once for each of the
heights necessary to obtain the temperature profile. During these tests, particulates were
collected, but vapor was not. Collecting particulates during three cooking procedures
results in improved resolution. The smaller uncertainty in the total particulates, PM 10
and PM 2.5 size ranges reflects the better resolution. Because grease vapor was not
collected, the total grease emissions for test 1 are unknown.
231
700
600-
Sausage and sauce placed

on range (water for noodles
is already boiling)
Nooldes and
sausage removed
500
&
2 400
to
to
I 300
200-
100
10
14
18
22
Time (Min)
12 inch
24 inch
'36 inch
Figure 143. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12, 24, and 36 inches above the gas range
26
100
90 +
80
70
E 60
D)
E
to
Q.
Q
O)
50 -
40
JO
30 -20 -10 -0 -*
0.01
iTflTTrTfrtpirp^
0.10
1.00
10.00
Dp (Mm)
100.00
to
u>
4.
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
Dp (pm)
100.00
1 8
Q.
o
o
^8
co
0)
T""
N>
U>
U
111
TP
PM10
PM2.5
Vapor
Total Grease

HTest 1
I Test 2
IIDTest3
! Test 4
Figure 146. Gas range normalized grease emissions
3 Average
Figure 146 shows the majority of the grease emissions from the gas range come from
grease in the vapor form. The reason for the high percentage of grease in the vapor form
may be related to the frying pan temperature. The burners were set to maximum output
during the cooking process. At maximum output, the gas range burners raised the
temperature of a lA in. (0.6 cm) steel disk to about 800 F (427 C). The temperature of
the frying pan cooking surface was not measured, but it is reasonable to expect the
temperature to be high. Liquid grease from the sausage collects in the frying pan. If
heated to a high temperature, it is likely to vaporize, joining the effluent plume as grease
vapor. It is important to note that the normalization to food product mass includes the
sausage, spaghetti noodles, and spaghetti sauce, in proportion to what approximates a
complete spaghetti with sausage and tomato sauce meal. Most of the grease comes from
the sausage, therefore, the normalized emission values depend on the proportion of the
other constituents present. This certainly affects the normalized grease emission
estimates. For instance, it is easy to conceive a range top which is only used to cook
soup, noodles, sauce, or other similar items. If these food products contain little or no
grease generating ingredients, such as oil, lard, or meat, the grease emissions would be
essentially zero. On the other hand, if each of the six burners were used to cook three
pounds of sausage similar to the sausage cooked for this project, the normalized grease
emissions would be on the order of seven times greater than those shown in figure 146.
We believe the normalized emissions shown represent a typical application, but it is
important to realize this can vary a great deal depending on the specific application.
Figure 147 shows the actual collected grease mass for each particle size range. Again,
data from test 1 is not present for the grease vapor or total grease collected. The
uncertainty in the total particulate mass collected during test 1 clearly shows the
resolution improvement from collecting particles during three consecutive runs.
Table 21 shows the gaseous emissions from the gas range.
TABLE 21. Gaseous Emissions From the Gas Range
Gas
Emissions
IbVlOOO lb. food product

CO2 Combustion
Contributions
CO
NOx
958305
411
1192
Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
7.22.3
3.1
8.9
0.70.7
0.21+0.07
55
1.60.5
236
18
16
Test 1 consists of the integration of 3 particulate samplings, therefore,

the data presented here for test 1 is normalized to the sampling times
for tests 2, 3, and 4. the smaller uncertainties in testl reflects the
increased accuracy associated with longer sampling.
14
O)
CO
c
o
55 10
'(/)
w
to
E
LU
TJ
0
a
ts
CD
_rssssssMMh
PM10
TP
PM2.5
Vapor

I Testl
CD Test 2
I Test 3
B Test 4
Figure 147. Gas range collected grease emissions
Total Grease
The emissions normalized to food product mass were normalized to the mass of sausage,
spaghetti noodles, and sauce cooked. The proportion of each was such that it
approximated a typical spaghetti with sausage and tomato sauce meal. The spaghetti
noodles in boiling water, and spaghetti sauce, were not thought to produce much in terms
of particulate and gaseous emissions, although they do contribute greatly to the thermal
plume characteristics. Only three pounds (1.4 kg) of sausage were cooked per test, while
the total mass of the sauce and noodles was over eighteen pounds (8.4 kg). This certainly
affects the normalized emissions reported. As an estimate for a worse case scenario, the
normalized emissions would be increase seven fold, which would correspond to all six
burners cooking three pounds of sausage at the same time.
The CO2 emissions after subtracting room air contributions are easily explained by the
combustion contributions. In fact, measured CO2 levels including room air are lower
than the contribution expected from combustion under stoichiometric conditions. This is
not true for any other process. One explanation is that the combustion contribution
estimate is a maximum value, and imperfect combustion will emit less CO2.
The CO emissions are within the measurement error. Therefore, it appears the gas range
does not emit substantial amounts of CO.
The NOx emissions are about equal to emissions from other gas appliances except the
oven. Again NOx generation is probably from the natural gas combustion process.
Results show the emissions levels are below the detection limit.
10. Electric Range
This investigation used a six burner electric range with oven. The total rated input
without the oven was 41 kBTU/h (12 kW) at 208 V. Each burner had a rated input of 6.8
kBTU/h (2 kW). There were two open speed coil burners and four French plate burners,
each 9 in. (22.9 cm) in diameter. Heating was controlled with solid state electronics.
well with a rated energy input of 39.4 kBTU/h (11.5 kW), adjusted for actual applied
voltage. Using procedures from the same test method, we determined the heating
characteristics for one of each type of burner set at maximum and then minimum output.
Each test was 60 minutes. Set to the maximum output, the open speed coil burner
reached 775 F (413 C) in 27 minutes, remaining at that temperature for the remainder of
the test. Set to the minimum output, the open speed coil burner reached 275 F (135 C)
238
in 55 minutes, remaining at that temperature for the remainder of the test. Set to the
maximum output, the French plate burner reached 580 F (304 C) in 18 minutes,
remaining at that temperature for the remainder of the test. Set to the minimum output,
the French plate burner reached 300 F (149 C) in 60 minutes. It had not yet stabilized at
the end of the test.
The cooking procedure for the electric range is identical to the gas range cooking
procedure.
Figure 148 shows the appliance and sampling point positions for the electric range,
relative to the test kitchen. The front surface of the appliance was positioned 6 in. (15.2
cm) from the front of the ventilation hood. Like the gas range and the broilers, gases
heated by the electric burners mix with the effluent from the food product at the cooking
surface (or immediately above the cooking pot or pan). Unlike the gas range, the electric
range does not have an oven flue extending almost two feet above the cooking surface.
Instead, the oven flue only extends 5.5 in. (14 cm) above the cooking surface, and does
not affect the thermal plume while the oven is off (testing did not include using the
oven). The center of the effluent plume was determined to be approximately 24 in. (61
cm) from the back wall of the kitchen, at a height of 32 in.(81.3 cm) above the cooking
surface. This position is identical to the sampling position for the gas range. The reason
the gas range thermal plume is different from the electric range, while the center of the
effluent plumes carrying the grease particulates are basically identical, is a result of both
appliances generating particulates at the front center burner. The particulates must take
the same path from the pan on the front center burner to the ventilation hood, regardless
of the effect the oven flue has (or does not have) on the thermal plume.
The velocity control volumes and measurement points for the electric range are identical
to those for the gas oven, shown in figure 126.
Figure 149 shows the velocity profile for the electric range. Measurements were taken
while pots of water were boiling on the range burners to simulate the cooking thermal
plume. The velocity profile shows magnitudes much less than the gas range. One reason
is the combustion gases are not present. Another major factor is the electric range does
not have an oven flue protruding two feet above the cooking surface. Therefore, the
dilution air mixes with the cooking effluent much quicker.
The highest velocities are near the exhaust duct entrance, but shifted to the left. The
burners on the left side of the electric range are speed coils, while the other four are
French plates. The speed coils reach a temperature about 200 F (111 C) higher than the
239
118.5 In.
.=
>.
5 In.
oQ
o
ooo
24 In.
59.25 In.
'
*
48 In.
*
J'
5la
c *k~
'
10.75 la
96 In.
11.75 In.
108.5 In.
30 In.
'.
1221a
50.5 In.
125.5 In.
TOP VIEW
LEFT SIDE VIEW
ooo
ooo
*
12 In.
S"=
12 In.
JTV
4 In. J
12 In.
V
h
12 la
12 in.
Note: Each burner Is 9.5 la In

diameter
Figure 148. Position of the electric range
LEGEND
Sample Point
( 1
Vel (ft/min):
50
100
200
150
250
W M P H
~ " ^
40--
' ^ '
c
o
S 30-
?CT
CO
o
Q.
" 20o
0)
CS)
IO-
i l l
20
,L
i JL
40
60
80
for the electric range
French plates, when both are at maximum output. This explains the higher velocities
seen on the left side.
The velocities increase towards the back of the hood entrance, where the grease baffles
are located. Similar to the gas range, there are areas along the back of the hood which
have lower velocities. These correspond to the position of the baffle spacers, which block
air flow. The velocities also increase above the appliance surface, showing the affect of
the volume produced from the heated burners.
/
The positions of the thermocouples for the electric range temperature distribution are
identical to those used for the gas oven, shown in figure 126. Figure 150 shows the
average temperature distribution at 36 in.(91.4 cm) above the electric range. The
rectangular area directly behind the burners is a drip collection area, while the rectangular
area behind it is the oven flue. Unlike the gas range, the electric range oven flue only
extends 5.5 in. (14 cm) above the range surface, thus it does not affect the thermal plume.
The temperature plume is circular in shape at 36 in. (91.4 cm), and positioned offset
slightly to the left. The plume has begun to move toward the back of the ventilation hood
where the grease baffles are located.
Figure 151 shows a three-dimensional view of the average temperature distribution above
the electric range. It clearly shows the plume dilutes as it rises. In addition, the plume
center moves from the front towards the back. At 12 in. (30.5 cm) the plume is basically
centered over the appliance burners. There is a hot spot at the back right, corresponding
to the back right burner. This effect is seen slightly at the higher plume heights also. The
electric range has two types of burners, speed coils and French plates. The two speed
coils are located on the left hand side. The temperature of one speed coil and one French
plate were calibrated at maximum output, and the speed coil was found to be about 200
F (111 C) hotter. It was assumed the other burners of similar type had equivalent
temperature outputs. It is possible the back right French plate was hotter. Another
possibility is that the pot on that burner was offset slightly from the burner, allowing the
hot burner surface to heat the air directly above it. Because the high temperature is
definitely seen at approximately the same position 24 in.(61 cm) above the surface, and
appears to be present at 36 in. (91.4 cm), this had to occur during all three cooking tests
from which the data were collected. While this seams unlikely, the pots and pans did take
up most of the available area on the cooking surface, making the space cramped. The
sausages were constantly attended, thus the pots and pans were placed in positions to
allow easy access to turn the meat. It is possible the pot on the right back burner was
consistently placed slightly off the burner to provide room for the frying pan. Beside the
hot spot, the temperature plume from the electric range follows the same patterns as other
cooking processes.
Figure 152 shows the real time maximum plume temperatures at various heights above
the electric range. Before the cooking process begins, all the burners are on, which
242
TC=7T*-?ZmL
==****
Temp (F): 65
75
85
^~&a
5TT
,-
105
95
115
40-c
o
S 30(0
o
Q.
E 2oi
o
X
2 100
CO
0
t*
H-H
20
'
H _
40
60
80

the electric range
Temp (F)
115
105
95
pnPHJ
85
75
65
*******
on.)
170
160
150-1-
Sausage and sauce placed

on range, (water for noodles
is already boiling)
Sausage and
noodles removed
140
(i>
feb
i)
130
a
(U
ratu
Ui
120
u
CL,
1 110
100-
90-
Sauce
removed
80
10
14
18
22
Time (Min)
12 inch
24 inch
'36 inch
Figure 152. Real time maximum plume temperatures at 12, 24, and 36 inches above the electric range
26
explains the high temperatures. At 12 in. (30.5 cm) above the cooking surface, there is a
definite pattern of temperature variation. All the burners were at maximum output, so
cycling should not occur. Perhaps it shows variation in the cooking process. The
sausages were turned every few minutes at the beginning of the process, and turned more
frequently near the end. The temperature peaks at the 12 in. (30.5 cm) height may
correspond to the turning of the meat. At the 24 and 36 in. (61 and 91.4 cm) heights, the
temperature remains constant throughout the cooking process. Unlike the gas range, the
burners were not turned off when the food was removed. The main reason for this was
their are no flames to get in the way of removing the food like there are for the gas range,
therefore, the burners were left on during the process. There is a definite rise in plume
temperature as the food is removed. The burners were directly exposed to the air above
them, heating it faster and hotter than when the pots and pans were present.
Figure 153 shows the grease particulate mass distribution for the electric range. The
same information is shown in figure 154 on a finer scale to easily view the smaller
particle size ranges. Three tests were performed, and the data show good repeatability.
The shape of the distribution is identical to the distribution from the gas range. In
addition, this is the same general shape seen from the griddles. Most of the grease
particulate mass is found in the larger particle size range. This implies the same
mechanism of large particle generation, explained earlier, is probably responsible for the
grease particulate emissions.
Figure 155 shows the grease emissions for the various particle sizes from the electric
range, normalized to the food product mass. The particulate emissions are almost
identical to those from the gas range. However, the amount of grease vapor emitted is
only one half that of the gas range. One possible explanation is the fact the temperature
of the burner used to cook the sausages, a French plate in the front center of the range, is
about 200 F (111 C) cooler than the burner used to cook the sausages on the gas range,
when both burners are at maximum output. It seems as though a lower cooking surface
temperature should increase the time required to cook the meat to the same amount of
weight loss. However, we did not find this to be true. Perhaps the difference in cooking
surface temperature was not enough to significantly affect the cooking time, but may be
enough to affect the generation of grease vapor.
If the temperature at the frying pan surface of the gas range was considerably higher than
the point of vaporization for the sausage drippings, while the temperature for the electric
range was below this point, we would expect to see significantly different levels of grease
vapor emissions.
Figure 156 shows the collected grease emissions from the electric range for the various
size ranges. Test one is a composite of three cooking procedures performed for the
temperature distribution data collection. Therefore, the cooking time was three times
246
100
90
80
70 +
W
<g
to
Q- 50 +
Q
O)
jo
40 30 -
_1
,.
20 10
0
0.01
jrsrrJ
r-iri"rrnnr'
0.10
M i i i HT
"J
M M
1.00
10.00
Dp (urn)
i i i
100.00
25
20 -
I
Q.
Q
o
o
=5 10
0.01
1 I I I I I
0.10
+H- * H 1
i M i i \i
1.00
10.00
Dp {\im)
i i
i|
100.00
3
X>
4
3
o
o
"<3
CO
CO
*
LU
KWJBWIHHBRl
0
TP
PM10
PM2.5
Vapor

ETest 1
CD Test 2
I Test 3
g Average
Figure 155. Electric range normalized grease emissions
Total Grease
10
Test 1 consists of the integration of 3 samplings, therefore, the
data presented here for test 1 is normalized to the sampling times
for tests 2 and 3. The smaller uncertainties in testl reflects the
increased accuracy associated with longer sampling.
<-.
E
ITest 1
El Test 2
I Test 3
TP
PM10
PM2.5
Vapor

Figure 156. Electric range collected grease emissions
Total Grease
longer than the other runs, resulting in improved resolution. Data from figure 156 shows
the process to be repeatable.
Table 22 shows the gaseous emissions from the electric range.
TABLE 22. Gaseous Emissions From the Electric Range
Gas
Emissions

CO
NOx
212109
2.1
0.00.1
0.0000.002
Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
1.60.8
<0.1
05
0.00.2
After subtracting the room air contributions, the electric range does not emit CQ2, CO, or
NOx in measurable concentrations. This supports the hypothesis that emissions from the
gas range are entirely explained by the combustion of natural gas.
Like all other appliances, the electric range does not emit these gases at concentrations
above the detection level.
251
F. Field Test From Middlebrook Hall Using A Briquette Style Gas Broiler
Grease particle and vapor emissions, as well as CO and CO2 gaseous emissions were
tested from a briquette style gas broiler in the Middlebrook Hall cafeteria kitchen on the
University of Minnesota campus. Quarter pound, 25 % fat hamburgers were char-broiled
on one of two 85,000 BTU/h (24.9 kW) broilers located in the kitchen. The broilers were
located under a single island canopy style hood. The hood opening was 112.5 x 51.5 in.
(286 x 131 cm), for a total of 41 ft2 (3.8 m2). The flow rate into the hood was
approximated using an anemometer, and found to be about 3000 cfm (1.42 m /s). There
were a total of four openings into the exhaust duct, two on each side of the hood, placed
back to back. The exhaust duct openings were each 10 x 20 in.(25.4 x 50.8 cm) and fitted
with metal wire mesh filters. Between the hood entrance and the exhaust duct entrance,
there were stainless steel plate baffles, 31 in. (78.7 cm) wide, spaced about 5 in. (12.7 cm)
from the side of the hood and approximately evenly spaced between each other. The
front half of the hood (the half facing the cooks) had 2 plate baffles, while the back half
had three baffles. These baffles and their position had a great influence on the air flow
into the hood.
CO and CO2 levels taken at the sampling point and the exhaust duct opening were used to
estimate the amount of room air dilution between those points. Testing included two
batches of 20 patties, taken about 30 minutes apart. The patties for each batch were
placed on the grill sequentially, but the broiler did not heat evenly, therefore, the patties
were removed from the grill when they appeared done, which depended on the patty
position. The first batch cooked in 9 minutes 31 seconds, while the second batch cooked
in 9 minutes 40 seconds.
Figure 157 shows the grease particle mass distribution by particle diameter. The
distribution shows a majority of the mass is either from very large or very small particles.
Between 1 and 10 u,m, the mass concentration slowly increases. It appears to be a steady
increase in concentration up to the highest size range, between 15 and 100 îm. It is likely
the majority of the particles in this size range originate from mechanical means such as
the splattering of liquid grease from the turning process. In addition, it is unlikely these
large particles penetrate the exhaust duct grease filter.
The concentration level reaches a minimum at about 1.0 îm in diameter. As the particle
size decreases below 1.0 Jim, the mass concentration increases. In fact, there is a huge
concentration of particulates below 0.4 \im in diameter. The size range of particles
within this block is estimated from 0.01 to 0.4 urn, which is quite a large spread. The
mass of particulates in the smallest size range comprises the particles collected on the
Marple impactor's after-filter. The actual distribution within the size range is unknown.
It is significant that such a large proportion of the particle mass is concentrated in
particles below 0.4 \im in diameter. Particles of this size are highly aerodynamic, and
thus follow the fluid motion of the thermal plume closely. Because of their small mass,
thus a small inertia, they are not prone to inertial impaction, which is a common particle
252
IUU
90 80 70
!>
Q!
60
"
50 -
O)
o
g
40 30 2010 00.01
0.10
1.00
-H10.00
Dp (pm)
Figure 157. Gas broiler field test particle distribution
25% fat hamurger, briquette style broiler
100.00
removal mechanism. Instead, it is likely these particles will pass through the wire mesh
filters provided at the exhaust duct opening. In addition, particles in this size range are
respirable, that is, they are likely to be inhaled by humans into the deep alveolar region of
the lungs. There could be serious health consequences associated with particles in this
size range, depending on their chemical composition and morphology.
Figure 158 shows the grease emission levels for the various size ranges and grease
vapor, normalized to the mass of food product cooked. The size ranges are divided into
total particulates, which includes particles of all sizes, PM 10, which includes all
particles less than 10 jj.m in diameter, and PM 2.5, which includes all particles less than
2.5 Jim in diameter. In addition, the mass of grease vapor emitted is also shown. Finally,
the total grease emissions, including all the vapor and particulates, is shown. From figure
158, it is clear the gas broiler used in the field test emits the majority of its grease mass as
either vapor, or particulates less than 2.5 jtim in diameter. In fact, 80 to 85 % of the
grease mass emitted, is in this size range. As previously mentioned, grease in this size
range is difficult to remove from the effluent stream, and poses human health concerns. It
should be noted that in order to determine the total emissions, the level of dilution air
needed to be estimated. CO and CO2 concentrations at the sampling point and the
exhaust duct entrance were used to determine an estimated dilution ratio.
Figure 159 shows the actual grease mass collected for the various size ranges and grease
vapor. The mass collected for all size ranges are well above the measurement noise level,
which suggests the testing time period was long enough to produce reliable data. In fact,
for the PM 10 and PM 2.5 particulates, the mass collected was on the order of milligrams,
while the scale resolution was on the order of micrograms. Therefore, the error
associated with the collected mass was very low. However, uncertainties shown in figure
156 show that the uncertainty in grease emissions normalized to food product mass in
these particle size ranges is about equal to that of the other size ranges. This is because
the uncertainty in the dilution ratio dominates the uncertainty in grease emissions
normalized to the product mass, for all size ranges.
Table 23 shows the CO and CO2 emissions from the gas broiler field test. In addition, the
dilution ratio given by each of the emissions is estimated.
TABLE 23. Gas Broiler Field Test Gaseous Emissions
Gas
CO2 Combustion
Contributions
CO
Emissions
lb./1000 lb.
food product
2070638
453
Emissions
lb./hforC0 2
lb./1000hforCO
4113
9
Estimated
Dilution Ratio
4515
893288
2.31
2.51
NA
254
40
35
o 30
p
DL
25
o
o
o 20
"55
c
o
'8 15
LU
JQ 10
TP
PM10
PM2.5
Vapor

Figure 158. Gas broiler field test normalized grease emissions
25% fat hamburger, briquette style broiler
Total Grease
14
12
10
.2 8
o
O
TP
PM10
PM2 5
vapor

Figure 159. Gas broiler field test collected grease emissions
25% fat hamburger, briquette style broiler
Total Grease
Table 23 shows a very large amount of CO and CQ2 emissions. For the CO2 emissions,
only some of it can be accounted for by the natural gas combustion process. Some of it
can also be accounted for by CQ2 contributions from the room air, which is included in
the emissions shown in table 23. We did not have enough information about the cooking
plume (i.e. temperature and velocity profile data) to make an estimate of the room air
dilution C0 2 contribution. However, it is unlikely to account for much of the difference
between the total CO2 emissions and the natural gas combustion contributions.
Therefore, it is likely, a large amount of CQ2 is generated by the actual cooking process.
Data supporting this argument is seen in the CO emissions. CO emissions are not
affected by the room air, and therefore must be generated by either incomplete natural gas
combustion or combustion associated with the cooking process. The magnitude of CO
emissions is extremely high, corresponding to concentrations as the sampling point of
about 200 ppm, and concentrations entering the exhaust duct of about 85 ppm. If air in
the exhaust duct is not further diluted by other air streams, which is most likely the case,
the exhaust air from the hood over the gas broiler in Middlebrook Hall has dangerously
high concentrations of CO. While most of this air is quickly diluted once it reaches the
rooftop, there might be some concern over the emission of such high amounts of CO,
considering the close proximity of hundreds of student dormitory windows.
The most likely source of CO and CO2 generation, which is probably also responsible for
the large amount of grease in the vapor and fine particulate mode, is the combustion of
grease drippings on the hot briquettes. The natural gas is combusted below a layer of
ceramic briquettes. The briquettes cover the entire surface below the grill, making it most
certain that any grease that drips from the food product will land on a hot briquette. The
purpose of the briquettes is to provide an even distribution of heat to the grill surface.
The temperature of these briquettes is unknown, but they must be hot enough to ignite
grease, as is evident by the grease flare-ups that occur during the cooking process. Grease
dripping on the hot briquettes is probably responsible for most of the CO, CO2, grease
vapor, and fine grease particulate emissions.
The dilution ratios seen in table 23 represent an estimate to how much room air dilutes
the effluent plume between the sampling point and the exhaust duct entrance. The
associated dilution ratio makes it possible to estimate the total amount of emissions. The
dilution ratio using CO is simply the concentration at the sampling point divided by the
concentration at the exhaust duct opening. Because the background level was zero(there
was no CO in the room air), no other adjustments need to be made. The dilution ratio
using this method was found to be 2.31. For the CO2, there is a substantial background
level found in the room air. This room air concentration was subtracted from the CQ2
concentration found at the sampling point and at the exhaust duct opening. The adjusted
concentrations were used to find the dilution ratio of 2.51. Using two different gases, we
found the estimated dilution ratio to be quite consistent.
Overall, the field test shows that the methods used for this investigation are applicable in
the field. The actual apparatus is quite bulky, and not easily portable. However, with a
257
half day of preparation, and another full day consisting of set-up and testing, it is possible
to use the procedures developed in the laboratory for testing in the field.
258
G. Exhaust Duct Fine Particle Measurements

1. Introduction
Particle size information from the effluent exiting through the exhaust duct was
determined with two instruments, the ELPI (electrical low pressure impactor) and the
MOUDI (micro-orifice uniform deposit impactor). Both instruments require sample
lines, therefore, the size distribution information obtained is not complete for large
particulates. The main purpose of the measurements was to determine the mass
concentration of the smallest particulates in the exhaust duct, and compare it to the mass
concentration of identically sized particulates captured at the sampling point. The ratio of
these concentrations gives the effective dilution ratio between the sampling point and the
exhaust duct. While the primary purpose of these measurements was to find the dilution
ratio, the measurements do provide some insight to fine particulate emissions exiting the
exhaust duct.
The ELPI can measure particle size distributions in real time, examples of which were
previously shown. While the ELPI can be used as a traditional impactor, it must operate
as an electrical impactor to take real time data. As an electrical impactor, the ELPI has a
limitation in that its mechanism of operation limits its ability to simultaneously measure
high concentrations of very small particulates and larger particles. The ELPI operates by
measuring the current from charged particles which collide with its impaction stages.
The particles are charged to their saturation charge limit at the instrument opening using
corona discharge. The saturation charge limit is a function of the particle surface area,
and therefore is related to the particle diameter. Thus, when the ELPI is run using the
electrical mode, it essentially counts the number of particles that impact on a given
impaction surface. The total number and average diameter of particles which impact on a
surface give the approximate mass collected on the surface. Besides the fact that the
ELPI can measure particle size distributions during real time, its strength lies in its ability
to accurately count extremely small particles, while determining their size. For this
reason, the ELPI was the preferred choice for determining the dilution ratio for each
cooking process. Unfortunately, the ELPI was not available for the entire test series, and
the MOUDI was used as an alternative.
The MOUDI is a traditional inertial impactor, and the net mass collected on the impaction
surface is measured directly. It is a well established instrument, with many documented
uses in the literature. For this reason, it is appropriate to compare the size distribution
results from the ELPI to the results from the MOUDI.
259
2. Comparison of ELPI Results With MOUDI Results
Figure 160 shows the fine particle size distribution from the ELPI and MOUDI impactors.
The measurements were taken from a single sample probe placed in the exhaust duct
while the gas griddle was used. Therefore, there should be a minimal amount of bias due
to differences in sample population. The total sampling rate was 39.61pm (1.4 cfm), with
301pm (1.06 cfm) connected to the MOUDI, while 9.61pm (0.34 cfm) connected to the
ELPI. The results show a fair agreement between the particle size distributions obtained
from the two instruments. Qualitatively, the peak mass concentration occurs at
approximately the same diameter of 0.15 |im. The actual mass concentration measured
with the ELPI at each size range differs somewhat with that of the MOUDI, but usually
comes within a factor of two. The largest end of the size distribution shown in figure
160, particles near 1.0 u.m in diameter, shows the biggest discrepancy between the two
instruments. It is at this size range where the ELPI begins to be affected by the high
concentrations of small sized particulates.
Figures 161 and 162 show two more comparisons between the MOUDI and the ELPI,
while sampling during the gas broiler cooking process when using hamburger. Both data
were taken by splitting the flow from a single sample line. The concentration levels were
too high for the ELPI when sampling above the appliance, therefore, a dilution line was
added. On the other hand, the high concentration levels were advantageous for the
operation of the MOUDI impactor. Again, the data show fair agreement between the
ELPI and MOUDI instruments. The peak concentrations appear in the same positions,
and for most of the size ranges shown, the actual concentrations agree fairly well. Unlike
data from the gas griddle, the smallest MOUDI size range, which represents the mass
collected on the after filter, contains much more particulate mass than does the ELPI for
this size range. It may be possible that most of this mass is in particles smaller than 0.03
u,m, which is the minimal detection size for the ELPI when no after filter is used. It
should be stressed that the main purpose of these measurements was to determine a
dilution ratio between the sampling point and the exhaust duct. We used the third, fourth,
and fifth smallest size ranges from the ELPI, and the second, third, and fourth smallest
size ranges from the MOUDI to determine the dilution ratio. When this is done, the
dilution ratio obtained from the ELPI is within 10 % of the dilution ratio from the
MOUDI. When the ELPI was no longer available, which included testing of the broilers
with chicken breast, the ovens, and the ranges, the MOUDI was used to determine the
dilution ratio.
260
2
1.8
1.6 --
E
Q.
Q
to
ON
1 -
O)
=5 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
1 1
0.1
0.01
Dp (urn)
ELPIData
MOUDIData
Figure 160. Comparison of ELPI and MOUDI fine particle size distributions from the exhaust duct for the gas griddle
50
45
40 +
5T35
1,30
o. 25
Q
O)
ON
20
to
Figure 161. Comparison of ELPI and MOUDI fine particle size distributions from the exhaust duct for the gas broiler while
cooking hamburger
50
45 -40 -CO
35 -
<
30
.1
E
a. ?5 -
1/dlo
Q
O)
20 -
15 -10 5 -0 -\
'I
I ' I
1M
0.01
0.1
L+
1 h*-
Dp ftim)
ELPI Data
MOUDI Data
Figure 162. Comparison of ELPI and MOUDI fine particle size distributions from the sampling point above the gas broiler while
cooking hamburger
3. Gas Griddle Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements

Figure 163 shows the fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for the gas
griddle, with the data taken by the ELPI. The concentration in the exhaust duct was
determined during three different tests. For one of the tests, on April 18, the ventilation
rate was lowered to 1800 cfm (0.85 m3/s), which represents the lowest level where full
capture and containment is present. The data from April 18 are also the same data seen in
figure 160 from the ELPI. Figure 161 shows a great amount of consistency in the ELPI
measurements. As expected, when the ventilation rate is lower, the mass concentration is
higher due to less dilution air. This is evident in that the mass concentration is higher for
the smallest particles from April 18. For the data on March 26 and 27, taken under
identical ventilation rates, the particle size distribution is essentially identical. There
appears to be significantly more mass of particulates above 0.4 [im when the ventilation
rate is higher. Perhaps at the higher ventilation rate more particles collide, resulting in
larger coagulated particulates.
4. Electric Griddle Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Figure 164 shows the fine particle size distribution as determined by the ELPI for the
electric griddle in the exhaust duct. The results from two tests show again the ELPI gives
very consistent concentration data in the shown size range. The shape of the size
distribution is very similar to that from the gas griddle exhaust duct. There appears to be
a peak at about 0.2 Jim, and then a slight decrease, followed by an increase in
concentration as the particle size nears 1 \ua. Overall, the magnitude of the concentration
is similar to that seen from the gas griddle at the higher standard ventilation rate. Both
tests for the electric griddle were taken at the same standard ventilation rate.
5. Gas Fryer Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Figure 165 shows the fine particle size distribution for the gas fryer from the exhaust duct
as determined by the ELPI. The concentration level is extremely low, peaking at only
about 0.1 mg/m3. Not much grease was collected from the sampling point during the gas
fryer cooking process, so it is reasonable to expect low levels of particulates in the
exhaust duct. Unlike the Marple impactor data taken at the sampling point, moisture is
not removed before particulates are counted in the ELPI. Therefore, if there are actually
fine water particulates present in the exhaust duct air stream, which is likely for the
fryers, they may be counted by the ELPI.
6. Electric Fryer Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Figure 166 shows the fine particle size distribution for the electric fryer is similar to that
from the gas fryer. Again the mass concentration for particles less than 0.2 fim is almost
zero. There does appear to be a steeper increase in concentration at the 0.4 to 1.0 \im size
range for the electric fryer. Perhaps the extra heat added by the gas combustion for the
264
1.8 1.6 *-, 1.4 -
The ventilation rate was set to 1800 cfm, the minimum rate for
full capture and containment of the effuent plume, during the
April 18 test. For the tests on March 26 and 27, the ventilation
rate was 2400 cfm, the rate specified in ASTM Standard Test
Method F1275-95.
E
*
to
ON
t-m1
O)
= 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2 +
H
0.1
0.01
Dp fam)
18-Apr
26-Mar
27-Mar
Figure 163. ELPI fine particle size distributions from the exhuast duct for the gas griddle during three different tests
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
E 1.2
E
to
ON
a-
O)
o
=o 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-iih
0.1
0.01
Dp (jim)
18-Jun
14-Jul
Figure 164. ELPI fine particle size distributions from the exhaust duct for the electric griddle during two different tests
0.01
0.1
Dp (|jm)
Figure 165. ELPI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for the gas fryer
0.6
0.5
5*0.4
E
D)
a 0.3 +
^> 0.2
0.1 -
0
0.01
-ii-
0.1
Dp (pm)
Figure 166. ELPI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for the electric fryer
gas fryer process reduces some of the particles in this size range by negating some
additional condensation.
7. Gas Broiler Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Figures 161 and 167 show the fine particle distribution in the exhaust duct for the gas
broiler. Data from figure 161 were taken with the MOUDI and the ELPI while cooking
hamburger, while data from figure 167 was taken with the MOUDI while cooking
chicken breast. Notice the ordinate scale for the chicken breast is one tenth that used for
the hamburger. It is clear the fine particle concentration was much higher while cooking
hamburger. However, the gas broiler chicken breast exhaust duct fine particle mass
concentration still far exceeds the concentrations from the griddles and fryers. The shape
of the concentrations are generally the same. However, the peak concentration for the
hamburger occurs at about 0.2 Jim, while it occurs at 0.1 p.m for the chicken breast.
Perhaps the higher concentrations from the hamburger emissions allow more particle
collisions, allowing the mass distribution to move slightly to the larger sizes. It should be
noted that from most perspectives, including those related to particle removal and
environmental health, a 0.1 Jim particle behaves much the same as a 0.2 \im particle.
8. Electric Broiler Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Figures 168 and 169 show the fine particle distribution in the exhaust duct for the electric
broiler. The data in figure 166 is from the ELPI while cooking hamburger, while the data
in figure 169 is from the MOUDI while cooking chicken breast. The ordinate scale for
the chicken breast is about one tenth that for the hamburger. The shapes of the two
distributions are identical. There appears to be a peak concentration at about 0.5 u,m.
This compares to a peak of 0.1 to 0.2 u,m for the gas broiler. It is interesting to note that
figures 98 and 117 show the fine particle distributions for the gas and electric broilers
taken from the sampling point. Figure 98 shows at the sampling point the peak particle
concentration from the gas broiler cooking hamburger occurs at about 0.2 \im. Figure
117 shows for the electric broiler this peak occurs at 0.5 |im. Therefore, between the
sampling point and the exhaust duct access point, the fine particle size distribution has
not changed appreciably. The concentration has been diluted by room air, but the shape
of the distribution, at least between 0.01 and 1.0 îm, is identical. This is strong evidence
that the grease baffles do little to affect the fine particulates.
The magnitude of the concentrations from the electric broiler for each food product is
very similar to the those from their gas broiler counterparts. This is evident when you
compare figure 168 with figure 161, and figure 169 with figure 167. Figure 17 shows the
gas and electric broiler PM 2.5 emissions to be essentially identical, when using the same
food product. Therefore, the data from the Marple impactor, used to collect grease
particulates from the sampling point (data shown in figure 17), is entirely consistent with
data from the MOUDI and ELPI regarding small particulates from the broilers. The
entirety of data is strong evidence of the proficiency with which broilers generate fine
particles, and the inability of grease baffles to remove them from the air stream.
269
o -
4.5 4-
[mg/rr
fevi
CO
3.5 -
Q. 2.5 -
Q
O)
1.5 10.5 0-
0.01
|lI
H_ , :
,.
0.10
y_ - H
1.00
Dp (urn)
Figure 167. MOUDI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for the gas broiler while cooking chicken breast
50 x
45 ::
40 ::
35 ::
M 30 --
*a. 25::
Q
I20 ::
a
15 ::
10 '-}_
5 ::
i
0.01
' i
i-
- t i i -
0.1
Dp (Mm)
Figure 168. ELPI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for the electric broiler while cooking hamburger
o -
4.5 -
43.5 -
?
E
to
-J
to
Q!
Q
o
5
Z
2.5 -
2-
1.5 1 -
0.5 -
0-
0.01
1_ i
1ih H
1.
1 _ H
1 1
0.1
Dp (urn)
Figure 169. MOUDI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for the electric broiler while cooking chicken breast
9. Gas and Electric Oven Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements

For the gas and electric ovens, the MOUDI impactor was used to collect particulates at
both the sampling point and in the exhaust duct. In addition, the Marple impactor
collected particulates at the sampling points. Data from both impactors, at the sampling
point and the exhaust duct, show fine particulate concentrations are below detection
limits from the oven under the tested conditions. Therefore, there are no data shown from
the gas and electric oven exhaust duct measurements.
10. Gas Range Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
Figure 170 shows the fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct from the gas
range. The peak concentration occurs at about 0.1 îm, the same as for the gas broiler
while cooking hamburger. There is a significant portion of mass present on the after
filter, shown as particles between 0.01 and 0.05 îm. Perhaps these ultra-fine particles are
a result of the high exhaust duct temperature. The only other appliance with the same
high exhaust duct temperature as the gas range is the gas broiler. Perhaps these fine
particles remain present in the exhaust duct because conditions do not exist which allow
condensation or coagulation, two processes which will increase particle sizes.
11. Electric Range Fine Particulate Exhaust Duct Measurements
It is interesting to compare the data from the gas range to that from the electric range
shown in figure 171. The data are within the noise level for measurement from the
MOUDI impactor, suggesting an insignificant population of fine particulates. Therefore,
using the same cooking procedure and products as the gas range, an entirely different
population of particles exists in the exhaust duct from the electric range process. The
biggest difference in the process is the extremely hot temperatures seen above the gas
range. The end result is a hot exhaust duct air stream. Figure 9 shows the average grease
composition at the sampling point for the electric range to consist of more large
particulates, as well as slightly more PM 10 and PM 2.5 particulates, compared to the gas
range. The gas range produced more grease in the vapor form. This is consistent with a
hot thermal plume. It is possible that the conditions in the gas range exhaust promote the
production of some fine particulates, while the same conditions do not exist in the electric
range exhaust duct. While there is some difference in fine particle concentration in the
exhaust duct between the gas and electric ranges, it is important to remember the
concentration levels are still very small compared to the concentrations seen from other
appliances, especially the broilers.
273
0.6
0.5
^)
E
0.3
O)
.o
c 0.2
0.1 --
0.01
f-
0.1
Dp (u.m)
Figure 170. MOUDI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for the gas range
1 1H
o
-J
0.01
0.1
Dp (urn)
Figure 171. MOUDI fine particle size distribution from the exhaust duct for the electric range
12. Comparison With Exhaust Duct Data From CE-CERTs "Further Development of
Emission Test Methods and Development of Emission Factors For Various Cooking
Operations" Final Report to the SCAOMD
In a final report to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the
University of California, Riverside College of Engineering - Center for Environmental
Research and Technology (CE-CERT) reports emission data from several processes
similar to those tested in this investigation. While the purpose and goals of the CE-CERT
study differs from this investigation, it is worthwhile to compare some of the relevant
data. Because of the different scientific objectives, direct comparisons are not available
for most data sets. However, there are a few which apply, and these will be compared to
the greatest extent allowed by the available data.
The CE-CERT study includes three similar processes used in this investigation. First, an
under-fired gas broiler was used to cook 25 % fat hamburger. The cooking process is
almost identical to the one this investigation used for the gas broiler - hamburger testing.
Significant differences include the use of a 25 % fat beef and a 2/3 loading condition in
the CE-CERT investigation. This investigation used 20 % fat beef and full loading
conditions. The second comparable process is the open-vat deep fat gas fryer cooking
shoestring potatoes. The food product, appliance, and procedures are virtually identical
for both studies. The third process is the electric griddle. The CE-CERT investigation
used an almost identical griddle with a similar food product and similar cooking process.
Again, like the gas broiler, the main difference is that the CE-CERT study used 25 % fat
beef and 2/3 full loading conditions. Other processes used by the CE-CERT study are not
compatible for comparison with data from this investigation. This includes whole
chickens on a gas broiler. While one process from this investigation includes boneless
skinless chicken breast cooked on a gas broiler, the differences between skin-on and skinoff chicken are too great to invite a realistic comparison. The CE-CERT study also
includes boneless skinless chicken breast, but it was cooked on a flat griddle. The griddle
and under-fired broilers processes are much too different to justify a comparison of the
CE-CERT electric griddle chicken breast emissions with either of the under-fired broiler
chicken breast emissions from this investigation.
Figure 172 shows the fine particle distribution from the gas broiler cooking hamburger
for the present investigation. The data were taken with the MOUDI impactor in the
exhaust duct. Figure 161 shows the data taken with the ELPI are very similar to the
MOUDI data, therefore, only the MOUDI data are presented here. Because the main
objective of the exhaust duct measurement was to find the small particle concentrations to
use for the dilution ratio, particles larger than 1 \im were not measured. Notice that figure
172 gives the particle sizes in terms of mass percentage as opposed to concentration.
This allows for easy comparison with the data from CE-CERT.
Figure 173 shows the particle size distribution from the CE-CERT study (Welch and
Norbeck 1997). Because the present study does not include data for particles larger than
1 H-m, that part of the graph can not be compared. Fortunately it appears from figure 173
276
a
o
'o
D)
ro
0.01
1.00
0.10
10.00
Dpftim)
Figure 172. Fine particle size distribution from the gas broiler cooking hamburger
Data taken in the exhaust duct with the MOUDI impactor
Figure 173. Particle size distribution from the gas broiler cooking hamburger
(From Welch and Norbeck, 1997)
277
that only a small tail of particulates remain that are larger than 1 (im. Comparing figures
172 and 173 shows the two studies sampled an almost identical size distribution from the
under-fired gas broiler while cooking hamburger. Both figures show a peak mass
concentration occurring at about 0.2 fim. In addition, on the large particle side of the
peak, the two figures show a similar decline in particulate concentration. The biggest
difference is on the small particle side of the peak, where the data from the present study
shows a larger particle concentration between 0.01 and 0.1 u.m. However, if one
considers the steepness of the curve in figure 173, it is possible a slight error in cut-size,
from either study, could account for the difference in particulate mass concentration seen
in this size range. Overall, the comparison of the two studies shows excellent agreement.
To compare the overall emissions from the two studies, data from the exhaust duct and
from the sampling point in this investigation, can be used. Table 24 shows the emission
data from the two studies. For the CE-CERT study, only total particulate emissions are
given. The manner in which PM is determined in the CE-CERT study includes the mass
of grease collected in the cold box condensation train. Therefore, to properly compare the
two data sets, the grease vapor from the present study needs to be added to the particulate
emissions. Because the grease vapor was never collected in the exhaust duct, the data
from the sampling point above the appliance must be used. In addition, it is probably best
to remove the largest particulate mass emissions from the plume in this study. This is
because most of these particles will not pass through the grease baffles, and thus should
not be compared with the CE-CERT exhaust duct emission measurements. Therefore, an
equivalent PM emission value can be estimated for the data from this investigation to
compare to the data obtained in the CE-CERT study. This equivalent PM is defined as
the PM 10 particulates plus the grease vapor emissions. The relationship between particle
size and passage through the grease baffles is unknown, but the best guess is to use 10|j.m
as the cut-off.
TABLE 24. COMPARISON OF EMISSION DATA FROM THE GAS BROILER
WHILE COOKING HAMBURGER
From Welch
and Norbeck, 1997
Category Emissions
(lb./1000lb.)
32.7
PM
Present Study
Category
Emissions
(lb./1000lb.)
31.554
11.98
Equivalent PM
Exhaust Duct (Only includes
particles less than 1 urn)
As taken at the sample point above the
TP
PM10
PM2.5
Vapor
appliance
33.701
10.428
7.964
21.126
278
From table 24 it is clear the equivalent PM is equal to the vapor plus the PM 10
emissions. The value obtained is consistent with the data from the CE-CERT
investigation. Both studies show the average result from three tests, and they are very
close in magnitude. Because the CE-CERT study used a higher fat beef product, one
would expect to see higher emissions. The emissions from the CE-CERT study are
slightly higher, but not remarkably so.
Another method of comparison, with emissions as measured in the exhaust duct, show the
CE-CERT study found considerably more grease emissions. However, the present study
only includes the smallest particles. If particles greater than 1 (im comprise 25 % of the
mass found in the exhaust duct air steam, as it appears in figure 173, the emission data
from this study would be about one half that of the CE-CERT data. If grease vapor
emissions are added to this, using the measured amount at the sampling point above the
appliance, the total grease emissions in the exhaust duct would be about 37 lb./1000 lb.
Again this is very close to the number obtained in the CE-CERT study. It is probable that
some of the grease vapor collected above the appliance condenses into small particulates
before the exhaust duct measurement, thus part of the grease is counted twice using the
above mention method. Taking this into account allows for even closer agreement
between the investigations.
The second process which is comparable between the two studies is that of the open-vat
deep fat gas fryer while cooking shoestring potatoes. Both studies found the grease
emissions below detectable limits. While the present study did show some very large
particulates in the plume above the appliance, the concentrations were low and it is
unlikely they would ever make it to the exhaust duct. Due to the low concentrations, the
particle size distributions are not compared.
The third comparable process is the flat electric griddle cooking hamburger. While data
from this study are available for the fine particulates in the exhaust duct from the electric
griddle, the entire size distribution is not. However, data from the gas griddle, taken in
the exhaust duct with the MOUDI impactor are available. While we found some
differences between the gas and electric griddle emissions, we believe they are mainly
due to the presence of the gas appliance's flue, and are unlikely to affect the exhaust duct
measurements. In other words, we do not expect some of the differences present in
emissions between the gas and electric griddles as measured above the appliance, to affect
the exhaust duct particulate concentration. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to
compare CE-CERT's electric griddle exhaust duct particle size distribution with our gas
griddle exhaust duct particle size distribution.
Figure 174 shows the particle size distribution from the gas griddle taken by the MOUDI
impactor in the exhaust duct for this study. Note the distribution is given in percentage
terms for easy comparison with the CE-CERT particle size distribution shown in figure
175.
279
<*fl-
35 -
30-
25o
CD
)
IS
20
15
a.
10-
5-
0.01
r-l1 !
'' '
J1 I
Ml|
' 0. I
0.1
J I
i-lI
i i i t
10
i n
, , > _ ,
, . i
100
Dp(nm)
Figure 174. Fine particle size distribution from the gas griddle cooking hamburger
Data taken in the exhaust duct with the MOUDI impactor
0.01
0.1
log (Diameter, fan)
Figure 175. Particle size distribution from the electric griddle cooking hamburger
(From Welch and Norbeck, 1997)
280
Figures 174 and 175 show excellent agreement over the entire particle size range. There
is a small peak which occurs at about 0.2 (im, and a larger peak which occurs at about 2
Lim. Both peaks are present in each investigation. In addition, the relative value of the
peaks as a percentage of overall particulates in the exhaust duct are almost identical. The
small peak comprises about 5 percent of the mass distribution, while the large peak
contains about 30 to 35 percent. This appears to confirm the assertions made in the CECERT study, which claim previous studies, where particles sizes above 1 {im were
neglected, missed the entire second peak.
Table 25 compares the emission data from the electric griddle while cooking hamburger
for each study. Note, the exhaust duct emissions shown for the present study is from the
ELPI, and is not related to figure 174. All data from the present study shown in table 25
are from the electric griddle, except for one of the equivalent PM values, obtained by
adding the grease vapor and PM 10 average emissions from the gas griddle sampling
point measurements.
TABLE 25. COMPARISON OF EMISSION DATA FROM THE ELECTRIC
GRIDDLE WHILE COOKING HAMBURGER
From Welch and Norbeck, 1997
Category
PM
Emissions
(lb./1000 lb.)
5.0
Present Study
Category
Emissions
(lb./1000lb.)
11.192
Equivalent PM
(Electric)
Equivalent PM
7.179
(Gas)
Exhaust Duct
0.16
(Only includes
particles less than
1 urn)
As taken at the saniple point above the
appliance
TP
4.302
PM10
0.581
0.222
PM2.5
10.611
Vapor
Total Grease
14.913
The equivalent PM from the present study for the electric griddle is about twice the PM
from the CE-CERT study. However, most of the equivalent PM is from the grease vapor
(about 95%), and there is a relatively high uncertainty associated with this number. The
equivalent PM for the gas griddle in this investigation is about 7.2 lb./1000 lb., which is
more in line with the CE-CERT estimate.
281
An alternative method to estimate the exhaust duct measurement from the present
investigation is to estimate the total exhaust duct particulates from the information we
have regarding the fine exhaust duct particulates, and to add on an estimate for the
condensables. From figure 175, it appears as though about 65 percent of the mass is
above one p.m, therefore, the exhaust duct mass emission measurement must be adjusted
accordingly. In addition, the mass of grease vapor emissions should be summed with the
particulates to compare with the CE-CERT PM data. The result is an estimated emission
of about 11 lb./ 1000 lb. Again, this number is highly dependent on the grease vapor
emissions, which has a fair amount of uncertainty associated with it.
Overall, the particle size distribution for the griddles found in both studies agree
remarkably well. The total emissions show a larger discrepancy, but are easily considered
to be in the same range. Taking all three processes into account, the results from the CECERT investigation compare well with the results obtained by the present study.
282
H. Recommendations
Recommendations made from information gained through this report mainly pertain to
further research in the area of commercial cooking ventilation. We will not include
recommendations for specific ventilation rate requirements per cooking process, or any
other specifications which may someday become guidelines for kitchen designers.
Instead, information from this investigation can be used as fundamental data from which
further investigations can build.
An important aspect of our testing was determining the grease vapor emissions from
various cooking processes. Results show that process emissions, as measured in the
cooking plume, contain from 30 percent to over 90 percent of the grease in the vapor
phase. Therefore, any grease removal efficiency tests and grease removal strategies need
to reflect this reality. However, it should be noted that the grease vapor concentrations,
and thus emissions, were determined by a single method which has not been thoroughly
scrutinized. One recommendation is to investigate exactly what this test method
measures, along with the method's accuracy.
Other investigators have used the same method, or slight variations, to determine grease
vapor concentrations in an air stream. In the method, a sample of air from the cooking
plume (or exhaust duct for other investigations) is pulled through an impinger train
submersed in an ice bath. We use four impingers, including one Greenburg-Smith style
impinger, and three straight tube bubblers. The first impinger is empty, the second and
third contain DI water, while the fourth contains silica gel. The second impinger is the
Greenburg-Smith type. Other investigations have used four or five impingers, with the
last one always containing silica gel. However, the contents of the other impingers and
the position of the Greenburg-Smith type vary. That is, some investigations may use DI
water in the first two impingers and place the Greenburg-Smith type first, while the third
is empty, while others use impingers which all contain DI water (except the last one),
with the Greenburg-Smith type place right before the last impinger. At this time, it is
unclear what affect these variations have on the condensation of grease vapor.
The current method then requires the surfaces of the impingers as well as the rest of the
surfaces the sampling air contacts to be rinsed with acetone. The water in the impingers
is also collected. The acetone and collected water evaporates in a pre-weighed glass
beaker, and the beaker net mass gain constitutes the collected mass of grease vapor.
Results from this investigation find the method to be quite repeatable, and it appears to
give reasonable results. However, the method is not easily implemented and is sensitive
to phenomena such as static electricity. In the past, researchers have complained grease
vapor measurements using this or similar methods, were not repeatable, and often found
negative net mass gains in the beakers. We also experienced this problem, but found that
static electricity on the glass beaker surface was the main source of error. Once a method
for removing the static build-up was developed, consistent results were obtained. We
283
believe static charges explain many of the problems encountered in the past. Regardless,
other aspects of the method remain untested as to their actual effectiveness.
One question to answer is the effectiveness with which the acetone removes the
condensed grease vapor from the condensation train surfaces. The method was developed
to measure condensables from utility boiler stack emissions. In order to become an
official EPA test method, it was thoroughly tested. However, the total sampling time and
condensable concentrations are much higher for that particular application, therefore, it is
probable that condensable removal efficiency by the acetone was not as important as it
may be for cooking applications. For this investigation, the total mass of collected grease
was typically in the 1 to 10 mg range. The method sensitivity, based on the scale
precision used in this investigation, was about 0.5 mg. Therefore, if the acetone does not
dissolve all the condensed grease, emission estimates will be affected. It should be noted
that observations did not suggest significant levels of condensed grease remained after the
acetone wash. Regardless, this aspect of the grease vapor concentration method needs to
be investigated. One factor which may play a role is the technique used to rinse the
glassware. In this investigation, the same procedure, using equal amounts of acetone,
were used for each test. These techniques are not specified in the test method, therefore,
others may repeat the test method, but rinse the glassware in a different manner. While it
is probable this has little or no effect, it is an uncontrolled variable whose ramifications
are unknown.
Another question involving the acetone rinse is that of chemical reactions. It is possible
the acetone dissolves the condensed grease, then reacts with some of it to form a new
compound. If this new compound is volatile, it will evaporate with the acetone, and some
material which collects as grease vapor will now be lost to the atmosphere. Conversely,
the some acetone could combine with the grease to form non-volatile compounds, adding
mass when the remaining volatiles evaporate. Again there is no direct evidence from our
tests that show this to be the case. However, it remains a possibility that this affects the
grease vapor measurements.
It is important to ask how efficiently the condensation train condenses grease vapor. For
instance, if a volume of air containing 10 mg of grease vapor is sampled, but only 7 mg
condenses on the condensation train surface, the grease vapor concentration is
underestimated. As the method is used now, it is assumed 100 percent of grease in the
vapor phase condenses. Therefore, condensable grease concentrations reported, are, by
definition, material which condenses in the condensation train at the condensation train
temperature. Some factors which likely affect the condensation process include the
condensation train temperature and the sampling rate. The method specifies the
maximum temperature of the sampling gas exiting the condensation train must remain
below 68 F (20 C), however, it is often lower than this. For this investigation, the
sampling rate was 21pm (.071 cfm), dictated by the particle impactor operational flow
rate. However, depending on the application, much higher flow rates can be used.
Higher flow rates result in less time within the condensation train, but higher turbulence
within the impingers. It is unclear the temperature and flow rate affect grease vapor
284
condensation. Therefore, an important aspect towards understanding the grease vapor

concentration measurements includes testing various parameters and how they affect the
condensation process.
One possibility for investigating the method would be to sample grease vapor from an air
stream with a known quantity of grease vapor. The best results would probably involve
total sampling from a closed system as opposed to proportional sampling from an open
system. This eliminates errors from concentration gradients. Grease vapor would need to
be generated at a relatively constant rate, and a mass balance would determine the total
grease vapor concentration in the air stream. Parameters such as condensation train
temperature and sampling rates could be varied, as well as acetone rinsing techniques. To
test the acetone grease removal efficiencies, a know quantity of grease could be applied
directly to glass surfaces. Acetone would be used to rinse the surfaces, collected in a
beaker and evaporated. The net mass gain in the beaker could be compared to the mass
applied to the glass surfaces.
A better understanding of grease vapor measurements should assist in developing a
standard test method to determine grease removal efficiency. While specific studies have
addressed the problem, there is currently no universally accepted solution. There are
numerous well established air filter efficiency tests. However, their applicability to
grease removal efficiency is questionable. There are several reasons for this. First, as
shown in this investigation, cooking emissions include much of the grease in the vapor
form, which is not included in standard filter tests. Second, in cooking ventilation, the
entire hood is considered part of the grease removal system. Therefore, it would be
unsatisfactory to some to pull out a section of the system, such as the grease baffles, and
perform tests only on that section. Using an entire hood in a traditional filter efficiency
test becomes problematic for particle generation and homogeneous particle
concentrations. Third, certain grease removal strategies that are relatively unique to
kitchen ventilation, such as water mists or washes, are difficult to incorporate in a testing
procedure.
In the past, the solution has been to incorporate all the aspects unique to kitchen
ventilation into one test without much regard to how they fit together. Most in the
industry agree the results have not been satisfactory. Most often, grease vapor removal
has been ignored, but again, grease vapor measurements are not well developed. Perhaps
a two step approach is necessary. Once a grease vapor concentration measurement
method has been well established, it can be used to determine grease vapor removal
efficiencies. Procedures similar to those used for air filter efficiency could be used to
determine grease particulate removal.
One aspect of grease removal efficiency which has not been mentioned is the source of
the grease particles and vapor. Some attempts have been made to generate effluent
artificially, with differing degrees of success. From this investigation it is clear using real
food products does produce repeatable concentrations of effluents, but the generation
process is highly time dependent and relatively difficult to control. The obvious answer
285
is to develop an artificial effluent generator. Information from this investigation gives

insight as to what the particle size distribution from an effluent generator should be, and
what proportion of the effluent should be in vapor form. One obvious point is that
effluent generation is dependent on the cooking process, therefore, several different
populations of effluents need to be generated to test removal efficiencies. From this
investigation, it appears one process in particular, cooking done on under-fired broilers,
produces large amounts of fine particulates, which is not seen in other processes.
Another recommendation is to explore under-fired broilers in more detail. Emissions
from under-fired broilers were, not unexpectedly, the highest among the processes. A
large proportion of the grease particulates were very fine, and thus worrisome from
several perspectives including, human health, ambient environment, and grease removal.
In addition, when cooking hamburger, the boilers emitted relatively high concentrations
of carbon monoxide. While both broilers produced fine particulates at similar rates,
there were noticeable differences. Some of the differences, especially carbon dioxide
emissions, were due to one broiler being fueled by natural gas while the other was
electrical. However, it is likely many differences were not exclusively due to energy
source, but based more on broiler design.
The gas broiler has a grease drip tray directly under the burners. The broiler is designed
so that the grill is placed on an incline and some drippings are supposed to collect on the
grill underside and gravitate to the front drip tray. The front drip tray is similar to those
seen on griddles, and is not exposed to the burners. However, much of the grease falls
through the grill. Some grease lands on the hot radiants, while the rest lands on the drip
tray beneath the burners. Often, the grease drip tray flares, sending thick black smoke
into the effluent plume. By contrast, the electric broiler has a flat grill with electric
heating elements placed between the grill slots. Grease drippings can fall on the heating
elements, but most either drips through the grill or collects on the bottom side of the grill,
which is not directly exposed to the heating elements. The drippings which fall through
land in a water tray, which essentially prevents the grease from ever reaching the effluent
plume.
These two broilers, while differing in energy source, more importantly differ greatly in
design. The same company that manufactures the gas broiler tested, also manufactures a
similar gas model with a water pan beneath the burners. Likewise, it is probable that
many electric broilers do not possess a water tray. Briquette style broilers, one of which
was used in the field test, present another style of under-fired broiler, which may have
different effluent generating characteristics. Data suggests briquette style broilers may
produce more fine particulates than those with a hot grease drip tray beneath the burners.
Other types of broilers also exist, and it is unclear what type of emission characteristics
they possess.
It appears as though it is possible to characterize under-fired broilers based on their
design. This investigation only tested two broilers, so it is unclear how others would
compare. However, it seems worthwhile to investigate this matter further. It is possible
286
that not all broilers require the same ventilation requirements. Furthermore, grease
removal strategies may depend on the particular broiler design. Information from such an
investigation would not only be useful to those involved with kitchen ventilation, but also
broiler manufacturers. We believe the most important aspect of broiler design affecting
effluent generation is the fate of the grease drippings. The greater the chance of grease
drippings landing on a hot surface, or a surface subjected to grease flare-ups, the higher
the emissions. Further testing would allow broilers to be categorized based on their
effluent generation characteristics.
A final recommendation is to test for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's) adsorbed
into fine grease particulates. A recent investigation suggests that PAH's may be present
in fine cooking particulates (Siegmann and Sattler pub. Pending). It appears as though
the compounds are not present in the gaseous form, but are dissolved within the
particulates. The study does not use an actual cooking process but collects particles from
heated cooking oils. Several analytic methods including liquid chromatography confirm
the presence of PAH's. PAH's are known human carcinogens. In addition, if they are
present in the fine respirable particulates, they could easily penetrate into the lungs of
workers or others. This presents a serious health threat and underscores the importance of
proper ventilation. It must be noted that this information comes from only one study
which did not use real life cooking procedures. However it is important enough to invite
additional research.
Previous hydrocarbon testing has involved gas sampling. It appears as though the PAH's
are found in fine particulates, therefore, testing requires the capture of the particulates. It
is probably not necessary to test every cooking process for PAH's, but there are some
which are of particular concern. The original study was initiated from the high lung
cancer rates seen in Chinese women. In similar regions, the women had higher rates than
men, and smoking was not a factor. The hypothesis was that PAH's were present in fine
particulates from Chinese cooking. Chinese cooking is often done in poorly ventilated
areas with very high cooking temperatures. Therefore, it appears as though Chinese wok
cooking would be an appropriate cooking process to test. Broilers emit large quantities of
fine particulates. While it is possible the mechanism for generating these PAH laden
particulates does not exist at all in the broiler cooking process, the fact they do produce so
many small particles suggests it would be appropriate to test them.
287
I. Bibliography
ASHRAE (1989) ASHRAE HANDBOOK- FUNDAMENTALS. Atlanta, GA.

ASHRAE (1993) ASHRAE HANDBOOK-FUNDAMENTALS. Atlanta, GA.
ASHRAE (1995) ASHRAE Handbook-HVAC Applications. Atlanta, GA.
ASHRAE (1997) Work Statementfor "Effects ofAir Flow Velocity on Grease Deposition
in Exhaust Ductwork". ASHRAE TC 5.10.
ASTM (1993) Standard Test Methodfor the Performance of Convection Ovens, Report
ASTM F 1496-93.
ASTM (1995a) Standard Test Method for the Performance of Griddles, Report ASTM F
1275-95.
ASTM (1995b) Standard Test Method for the Performance of Open Deep Fat Fryers,
Report ASTM F 1361-95.
ASTM (1996a) Standard Test Method for the Performance of Range Tops, Report ASTM
F1521-96.
ASTM (1996b) Standard Test Method for the Performance ofUnderfired Broilers,
Report ASTM F 1695-96.
Federal Register (1995) 40 CFR Ch. 1.
Fisher, D. (1997) Optimizing the Design and Operation of Commercial Kitchen
Ventilation Systems. Fisher Consultants.
Graseby Andersen Universal Stack Sampler Operation Manual
Gerstler, W. D., Kuehn, T. H., Pui, D. Y. H., Ramsey, J. W. and Doerr, M. P. (1996)
Identification and Characterization of effluents from various cooking appliances and
processes as related to optimum design of kitchen ventilation systems, ASHRAE 745-RP
Phase I Report. University of Minnesota.
Gordon, E. B., Kam, V. and Parvin, F. (1994) Emissions from commercial cooking
operations and methods for their determination. American Gas Association Laboratories.
Hildemann, L. M., Markowski, G. R. and Cass, G. R. (1991) Chemical composition of
emissions from urban sources of fine organic aerosol. Environmental Science and
Technology 25,744-759.
288
Hinds, W. C. (1982) AEROSOL TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES, BEHAVIOR, AND

MEASUREMENT OF AIRBOURNE PARTICLES, pp. 409. John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
Incropera, F.P., and DeWitt, D.P. (1996) INTRODUCTION TO HEAT TRANSFER 3rd
Ed. pp. 679. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Marple, V.A., Rubow, K.L., and Behm, S.M. (1991) A microorifice uniform deposit
impactor (MOUDI): Description, calibration, and use. Aerosol Science and Technology
14,434-446.
McQuiston, F. C. and Parker, J. D. (1994) HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR
CONDITIONING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN pp. 742. John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
Monitor Labs, (1985a) Instruction Manual Nitrogen Oxides Analyzer Model 8840.
Monitor Labs, Inc.
Monitor Labs, (1985b) Operation and Maintenance Manual For Calibrator Model 8550.
Monitor Labs, Inc.
Patel, R. F., Teagan, P. and Dieckmann, J. T. (1993) Characterization of commercial
building appliances, Report DE-AC01-90-CE23821. Arthur D. Little, Inc.
PG&E (1989) Development and application of a uniform testing method for griddles,
Report 008.1-89.2. Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
PG&E (1991) Development and application of a uniform testing procedure for open,
deep-fatfryers, Report 008.1-90.22. Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Rubow, K. L., Marple, V. A., Olin, J. and McCawley, M. A. (1987) A personal cascade
impactor: Design, evaluation and calibration. American Industrial Hygiene Association
Journal 48,532-538.
SCAQMD (1997) Determination of particulate and volatile organic compound emissions
from restaurant operations. Rule 1138. South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Adopted November 14,1997
Siegmann, K. and Sattler, K. (1998) Potentially dangerous polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in cooking oil fumes. Publication Pending
Sparrow, E.M. (1996) Convection Heat Transfer Class Notes. ME 5342 University of
Minnesota, pp. 54.
289
Talbert, S. G., Flanigan, L. J. and Eibling, J. A. (1973) An experimental study of

ventilation requirements of commercial electric kitchens. ASHRAE Transactions 79, 3447.
Tsai, C.-J. and Pui, D. Y. H. (1990) Numerical Study of Particle Deposition in Bends of a
Circular Cross-Section-Laminar Flow Regime. Aerosol Science and Technology 12, 813831.
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (1990) UL 710 Standardfor Exhaust Hoods for
Commercial Cooking Equipment, Report ISBN 1-55989-123-8. Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc.
Welch, W. A., and Norbeck, J. M. (1997) Further Development of Emission Test
Methods and Development of Emission Factors for Various Commercial Cooking
Operations, Final Report for South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)
Contract #96027, University of California, Riverside College of Engineering - Center for
Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT).
290
APPENDIX A
APPLIANCE LIST AND DESCRD7TION
APPLIANCE LIST AND DESCRIPTION

TABLE A-l. LIST AND DESCIPTION OF GRIDDLES, FRYERS, AND
UNDERFIRED BROILERS
TYPE
Gas Griddle
DESCRIPTION
3-foot atmospheric burner

Rated input: 80 kBtu/h (23.44 kW)
Cooking surface: 24 x 33 x 1 in. (60.96 x 83.82 x 2.54 cm)
Surface material: chromium
Thermostat control
3-foot electric burner
Electric
Rated input: 10.7 kW (36.5 kBtu/h) @ 240 V
Griddle
Cooking surface: 24 x 33 x 1 in. (60.96 x 83.82 x 2.54 cm)
Surface material: chromium
Thermostat control
Single open vat with integral cold zone
Gas Fryer
Two infrared burners
Frying medium capacity: 50 lb. (22.7kg)
Frying area: 14 x 15 in. (35.56 x 38.1 cm)
Solid-state electronic thermostat control
Electronic ignition
Single open vat with integral cold zone
Electric Fryer
Two low watt density heating elements
Rated input: 14 kW (47.8 kBtu/h) @ 208 V
Frying medium capacity: 50 lb. (22.7 kg)
Frying area: 14 x 15.5 in. (35.56 x 39.37 cm)
Solid-state electronic thermostat control
Gas Broiler
Seven 2-foot atmospheric burners with radiant heat shields
Cooking surface: 22.75 x 30 in. (57.79 x 76.2 cm)
Tilted grate surface
Standing pilot light
Electric Broiler Two 2-foot electric heating elements
Rated input: 10.8 kW (36.9 kBtu/h) @ 208 V
Cooking surface: 20 x 33.25 in. (50.8 x 84.46 cm)
Flat grate surface, with heating elements 0.5 in (1.27 cm) below grate
Water pan below each heating element
Solid-state electronic heating control
A-2
TABLE A-2. LIST AND DESCIPTION OF OVENS AND RANGES

TYPE
Gas Oven
Electric Oven
Gas Range
Electric Range
DESCRIPTION
Full sized convection oven
Dual flow, direct-fired/recirculating, 4 burner heating system
Two speed fan
Solid-state digital electronic thermostat control
Electronic ignition
Full sized convection oven
Rated input: 11 kW (37.5 kBtu/h) @ 208 V
Direct-fired, tubular electric heating elements (3)
Two speed fan
Solid-state digital electronic thermostat control
Six burner range with oven
Total rated input (without oven): 120 kBtu/h (35.2 kW)
Rated input each burner: 20 kBtu/h (5.9 kW)
*
Six star burners, with cast iron grates
Standing pilot light
Six burner range with oven
Total rated input (without oven): 12 kW (41 kBtu/h) @ 208 V
Rated input each burner: 2 kW (6.8 kBtu/h)
Two open speed coils/ four French plates
Solid-state electronic heating control
A-3
APPENDIX B
FOOD PRODUCT LIST AND DESCRD7TION
FOOD PRODUCT LIST AND DESCRIPTION

TABLE B-l. DESCRIPTION OF FOOD PRODUCTS FOR GRIDDLES, FRYERS,
UNDERFIRED BROILERS, AND OVENS
DESCRIPTION
Pure beef, finished grind, frozen
Weight: 0.25 lb. (0.11kg)
Thickness: 0.375 in. (0.95 cm)
Diameter: 5 in. (12.7 cm)
Fat content: 20 2 % (measured 19.2 %)
Moisture content: 60 2 % (measured 61.2 %)
Adheres to ASTM 1275-95 Standard Test
Method for Performance of Griddles
French fried potatoes Blue ribbon product, par-cooked, frozen
Gas Fryer
shoestring potatoes
Electric Fryer
Fat content: measured 2.2 %
(ASTM 1361-95: 6 1 %)
Moisture content: measured 70 %
(ASTM 1361-95: 66 2%)
Pure beef, finished grind, fresh
Beef hamburgers
Gas Broiler
Weight: 0.33 lb. (0.15 kg)
Electric Broiler
Fat content: 20 2 % (measured 20.9 %)
Moisture content: 60 2 % (measured 59.8 %)
Adheres to ASTM 1695-96 Standard Test
Method for Performance of Underfeed Broilers
Chicken breast
Gas Broiler
Boneless, skinless, chicken breast, frozen
Electric Broiler
Weight: 0.25 lb. (0.11kg)
Moisture content: measured 74.3 %
Sausage pizza:
Gas Oven
Scored-sheet
sausage,
Electric Oven
Slice dimensions: 4 x 6 in. (10.16 x 15.24 cm)
textured vegetable
Slice weight: 0.314 lb. (0.14 kg)
protein,
mozzarella cheese, Moisture content: measured 53.5 %
cheese substitute
Ash content: measured 2.6 %
Protein content: measured 0.6 %
APPLIANCE
Gas Griddle
Electric
Griddle
FOOD PRODUCT
Beef hamburgers
B-2
TABLE B-2. DESCRIPTION OF FOOD PRODUCTS FOR RANGES AND THE

FIELD TEST
APPLIANCE
Gas Range
Electric Range
Gas Broiler
(Field Test)
FOOD PRODUCT
Spaghetti
DESCRIPTION
Spaghetti information:
100 % #1 hard amber durum wheat
Length: 10 in. (25.4 cm)
Diameter: 0.0625 in. (0.159 cm)
Spaghetti sauce
Sauce information:
Tomato base
Thin, traditional
Fat content: 2.4%
Bratwurst sausage
Sausage information:
All Pork Sausage
Length: 5 in. (12.7 cm)
Diameter: 1 in (2.54 cm)
Moisture content: measured 51.2%
Pure beef, finished grind, frozen
Weight: 0.25 lb. (0.11 kg)
Moisture content: measured 57.3 %
Beef hamburgers
B-3
APPENDIX C
SAMPLING AND INSTRUMENTATION EQUD7MENT
SAMPLING AND INSTRUMENTATION EQUIPMENT
1. Particulates
A. Personal inertial impactor (Shown in figures C-l and C-2).
1. Marple model 298 with model 290IA in-line adapter.
2. 90 sampling probe. Copper tubing, machine tapered inlet, 63 mm (2.48 in.)
bend radius, 4.65 mm (0.1831 in.) inside diameter.
3. 34 mm (1.34 in.) mylar substrates. Model C-290-MY.
4. 34 mm (1.34 in.) PVC membrane after-filters. 5 urn pore size. Model F-290P5.
5. 34 mm (1.34 in.) glass fiber after-filters. Spectro grade, type A, Gelman
filtration media, lot 202280-8208.
B. Micro-orifice uniform deposit impactor (MOUDI) (Shown in figures C-4 and C-5).
1. MOUDI impactor
2. 37 mm (1.46 in.) aluminum substrates. 1 mm (0.039 in.) thick.
3. 37 mm (1.46 in.) glass fiber after-filters. Spectro grade, type A, Gelman
filtration media, lot 202280-8208.
C. Electrical low pressure impactor (ELPI).
1. ELPI impactor
2. 3/4 hp (560 W) vacuum pump. 26 in. Hg. (8.8 x 104 Pa) rating.
2. Grease Vapor
A. EPA Method 5 sampling train. Graseby Andersen Universal Stack Sampler
(Schematic shown in figure C-3).
3. Temperature
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Type T thermocouple grid. 24 gauge wire, Teflon PFA insulation (500 F, 260 C).
5 in. (12.7 cm) diameter carbon steel disks. 1/4 in. (0.64 cm) thick.
12 in. (30.48 cm) diameter carbon steel disk. 1/4 in. (0.64 cm) thick.
Type K thermocouple array. 20 gauge wire, glass braid insulation (900 F, 482 C).
IBM 486 PC with IEEE-488 data interface.
IEEE digital multi-meter. Fluke 45 dual display.
IEEE switch controller. Fluke 2205A.
General digital multi-meter with Type K thermocouple capability. Keithley 132F
TRMS Multi-meter.
C-2
4. Velocity
A. Portable hot-wire anemometer. TSI model 8330 VelociCheck.
B. Pitottube.
C. Manometer. Dwyer, 0 - 0.25 in. H 2 0 (0 - 62.3 Pa), 0.005 in. H 2 0 (1.25 Pa)
resolution.
5. Gases
A. Portable CO/C02/humidity/temperature sensor with calibration collars. TSI model
8551 Q-Trak IAQ Monitor.
B. Portable humidity/temperature sensor. Vaisala model HMI31 indicator unit, HMP-35
probe.
C. Charcoal, coconut sorbent tubes.
D. 11 (.035 ft3 and 101 (0.35 ft3) Tedlar bags.
E. Personal sampling pump. SKC universal PCXR4 sampler.
F. Sample line particulate filter. Mine Safety Appliances type H HEPA cartridge. No.
95302
G. Soap bubble digital flow meter. Gilian model PN D-800268
6. Flow Visualization
A. Clean room fog generator.
B. Video camera.
C. 2-D turbulent CFD computer modeling program (SHEBANG).
7. Energy Measurement
A.
B.
C.
D.
Electrical power data logger. Synergistic model C 180.

Natural gas flow meter with 1/8 ft3 digital resolution.
Natural gas line thermometer, 0 to 100 C (32 to 212 F), 0.5 C (0.9 F) resolution.
Natural gas line pressure gauge, 0 to 15 in. H 2 0 (3737 Pa), 0.2 in. H 2 0 (50 Pa)
resolution.
8. Analytic
A.
B.
C.
D.
Analytic micro-balance. CahnC-31, 0-250mg, 0.1 ug resolution.

Fine analytic balance. Sartorius B-120 S, 0 -110 g, 0.1 mg resolution.
Course analytic balance. Sartorius L-610,0 - 610 g, 0.01 g resolution.
Kitchen scale. Pelouze model Y32R, 0 - 32 oz. (0 - 0.908 kg), 0.25 oz. (,007kg)
resolution.
E. High sensitivity NDIR NO* analyzer. Monitor Labs Inc. model 8840 analyzer with
model 8550 calibrator.
C-3
9. Schematic Drawings and Pictures of the Marple and MOUDI Impactors,

and the EPA Sampler
Figure C-l shows the components of the Marple impactor.
Figure C-l. Components of the model 298 Marple Impactor

(From Rubow et al. 1987)
Part A, the in-line adapter was used for testing, instead of part B, the standard visor. The
mounting bracket in part D was not used, but the impactor base, also shown in part D, is
needed to hole the filter and attach to the EPA Method 5 sampler. Part C shows the 8
impaction stages with the collection substrates and after-filter. Mylar substrates were
used, and for most tests the after-filter was a PVC membrane. For the broilers, a glass
fiber after-filter was used to collect the large amount of small particulates from the plume.
Figure C-l shows a tubing connector attached to the in-line adapter. For this
investigation, a piece of copper tubing bent to a 90 angle, with a tapered opening, was
attached to the in-line adapter in lieu of the tubing connector. Figure C-2 is a schematic
drawing of the impactor, in-line adapter, and 90 sampling probe.
C-4
Impactor stages
with substrates
and filter
In-line
adapter
_J^>\
90 sample
probe
N
\
*
Figure C-2. Schematic of the impactor, in-line adapter, and 90 sample probe.
Figure C-3 shows a schematic of the EPA Method 5 sample train.
THERMOCOUPLE
AND/OR
THERMOMETER
HOT BOX
THERMOCOUPLE
OR
THERMOMETER
PROBE 8 SAMPLE
NOZZLE
CHECK
VALVE
QUICK
CONNECT
UMBILICAL
CORD
QUICK
CONNECT
Figure C-3. Schematic of the EPA Method 5 sample train

(From Graseby Anderson)
C-5
For this investigation, the impactor set-up shown in figure C-2 is attached to the sampling
probe instead of the nozzle shown in figure C-3. In addition, the cyclone set was not used
and there was no filter placed in the filter holder.
The MOUDI is shown in figure C-4.
Figure C-4. The MOUDI impactor

(From Marple et al. 1991)
C-6
Figure C-5 shows a schematic of a typical MOUDI impaction stage in relation to the
stages above and below it.
SUBSTRATE CLAMPING
RING
IMPACTION PLATE
4-POLE MAGNETS
NOZZLE PLATE
DOUBLE O-RING SEAL-
TEFLON GASKET
STAGE BODY
Figure C-5. Schematic diagram of a MOUDI impaction stage

(From Marple et al. 1991)
10. Schematic Drawings of the Gas Sampling
Figure C-6 shows a schematic diagram of the apparatus configuration for the carbon
dioxide and carbon monoxide sampling.
Sample
probe /
CO sensor
y
co2
sensor
Sample line tube

Pump
CO/C02 analyzer
Figure C-6. Schematic diagram of CO/CQ2 sampling
C-7
The gas sample is drawn through the sampling probe place at the sample point location.
The air moves through the pump and exits a sampling tube where the air is divided into
two streams. One stream goes to the CO sensor and the other goes tot he CO2 sensor.
The sensors are fit with collars, which are designed for instrument calibration, but also
provide a means to keep the air sample separate from the room air. The sensors are
connected the analyzer, which provides a time averaged concentration measurements.
Figure C-7 shows a schematic diagram for NO* sampling.
Figure C-7. Schematic diagram of NOx sampling
The gas sample is drawn through the sampling probe, located at the sampling position. It
enters the pump via a sample line tube. It exits the pump and collects in a Tedlar bag.
The gas in the Tedlar bag is later fed to the NDIR high sensitivity NOx analyzer.
C-8
Figure C-8 shows a schematic diagram of the hydrocarbon sampling train.

Sample
probe
Sorbent
tube
Sample line tube
Figure C-8. Schematic diagram of the sampling train for hydrocarbons

The pump draws the air from the sample probe placed in the plume at the sampling
location. A sorbent tube placed in series with the pump and probe adsorbs any
hydrocarbons present in the sampled air.
C-9
APPENDIX D
APPLIANCE ENERGY INPUT RATE AND CALD3RATION PROCEDURES
APPLIANCE ENERGY INPUT RATE AND CALIBRATION PROCEDURES
In order to perform emission testing it is necessary to assure the cooking appliances are
operating properly. In addition, it is important to quantify some of the operating
parameters, such as thermostat accuracy. In this investigation, certain procedures from
ASTM Standard Test Methods (listed below) pertaining to appliance performance were
used to determine the energy input rate from each appliance, as well as document some of
the appliance's operating characteristics.
Griddles: F 1275-95
Fryers: F 1361-95
Under-fired Broilers: F 1695-96
Convection Ovens: F 1496-93
Ranges: F 1521-96
A. Griddles
1. Energy Input Rate:
1. Operate the griddle with the temperature controls set to maintain an average cooking
surface temperature of 375 F (191 C) directly above the thermostat temperature sensing
points. Measure the griddle surface temperature at the start of the test. It should be 75
5 F (24 2.8 C). Monitor the consumption of energy for 10 minutes after the appliance
is turned on. If the burners or heating elements commence cycling before 10 minutes,
monitor the energy consumption up to that point. For the gas appliance this involves
recording the volume, temperature, and pressure of the delivered gas. In addition, the gas
higher heating value, made available by the gas company's delivery station, should be
recorded. For the electric appliance, the total power consumption should be recorded.
2. Confirm that the appliance is operating within 5 % of the rated nameplate input or
power. If this is not the case, call the manufacturer to fix the unit or provide a new one.
For electrical models, care should be taken to adjust the rated nameplate input to the
actual measured test voltage.
2. Thermostat Calibration:
1. Place thermocouples directly above the thermostat temperature sensing points.
Because welding is not available, secure the thermocouples with pressure from weighted
wood blocks.
2. Set the temperature control to 375 F (191 C) for each burner or heating element and
start the appliance
3. Allow the appliance to stabilize for one hour after cycling commences.
D-2
4. Monitor the surface temperature over several complete cycles of the elements or
burners. Determine the average temperature for each thermostat control.
5. If the average temperature for each sensor is 375 5 F (191 2.8 C), mark the
position of the temperature controls. The griddle is now properly calibrated. If the
average temperature is out of this range, adjust the temperature control accordingly, and
repeat steps 3 through 5. Do this until the average temperature for each sensor is in the
proper range.
B. Fryers
1. Load the fryer with water to the indicated fill line and turn the fryer on with the
temperature controls set to the maximum setting.
2. Let the fryer run for a period of 15 minutes. For the gas model, monitor the time
required for the fryer to consume 5 ft3 (0.14 m3) of gas. For the electric model, monitor
the energy consumed during 15 minutes of operation. For the gas appliance this involves
1. Attach an immersion type thermocouple in the cooking zone. It should be placed in
the middle of the cooking zone, 1 in. (2.5 cm) up from the fry basket support, as
described in the ASTM Standard Test Method for Performance of Open Deep Fat Fryers,
F1361-95.
2. Load the frying medium to the indicated fill line. Set the temperature control to 350 F
(191C).
3. Allow the fryer to stabilize for 30 minutes before beginning temperature calibration.
4. Monitor the temperature over three complete cycles of the elements or burners.
Determine the average temperature.
5. If the average temperature is 350 5 F ( 1 7 7 2 . 8 C), mark the position of the
temperature control. The fryer is now properly calibrated. If the average temperature is
D-3
out of this range, adjust the temperature control accordingly, and repeat steps 3 through 5.
Do this until the average temperature for each sensor is in the proper range.
C. Broilers
1. Set the appliance temperature control to achieve maximum input.
2. For the gas appliance, allow the unit to run for 15 minutes then monitor the time it
takes consume 5 ft (0.14 m ) of gas. For the electric model, monitor the energy
consumed during the first 15 minutes of operation, or until the unit begins cycling,
whichever occurs first. For the gas appliance this involves recording the volume,
temperature, and pressure of the delivered gas. In addition, the gas higher heating value,
made available by the gas company's delivery station, should be recorded. For the
electric appliance, the total power consumption should be recorded.
1. Obtain four steel disks for each square foot of broiler grate. The disks should be
composed of carbon steel in accordance with Specification A 36/A 3 M. The dimensions
should be 5 in. (12.7 cm) diameter, 0.25 in. (0.63 cm) thick, with a flatness within 0.010
in. (0.025 cm). Twenty disks were required for the gas appliance, while eighteen were
required for the electric appliance.
2. Attach a thermocouple to the center of each disk, if possible. For this investigation,
we attached thermocouples to 10 disks. The thermocouples were attached to the disks
with two screws, one as a strain relief, the other to assure thermocouple contact with the
disk surface.
3. Determine the placement of the disks on the cooking grate. Follow procedures
10.3.2.1 through 10.3.2.4 from the ASTM Standard Test Method for Performance of
Underfeed Broilers, F 1695-96. For this investigation, a 4 by 5 configuration was used
for the gas appliance, while a 3 by 6 configuration was used for the electric appliance.
4. Position the disks evenly on the cooking grate, thermocouple side up. If
thermocouples are not used on every disk, make sure the disks with thermocouples are
distributed evenly.
5. Set the broiler controls to achieve maximum input.
D-4
6. Allow the unit to stabilize for 60 minutes.

7. Monitor the disk temperatures for one hour and record the average temperature of each
disk. Also record the total average temperature.
8. If the all temperatures are between 500 and 600 F (260 and 315 C) mark the
positions of the temperature controls. The broiler is now properly calibrated. If some
temperatures are out of this range, adjust the temperature controls accordingly, and repeat
steps 6 through 8. It may be necessary to adjust the appliance radiants, water levels in the
drip tray, or other applicable factors that may effect the grate temperature.
D. Ovens
1. Turn on the appliance and set the appliance temperature control to 350 F (177 C).
2. Monitor the energy consumed during the first 15 minutes of operation, or until the unit
begins cycling, whichever occurs first. For the gas appliance this involves recording the
volume, temperature, and pressure of the delivered gas. In addition, the gas higher
heating value, made available by the gas company's delivery station, should be recorded.
For the electric appliance, the total power consumption should be recorded.
1. Obtain five steel disks. The disks should be composed of carbon steel in accordance
with Specification A 36/A 3 M. The dimensions should be 5 in. (12.7 cm) diameter, 0.25
in. (0.63 cm) thick, with a flatness within 0.010 in. (0.025 cm).
2. Place two disks near the unit thermostat thermocouple. Place each of the other three
disks in the center of the oven, at three different height. One height should be on the
lowest rack, one on the middle rack, and the last on the top rack.
3. Set the temperature control to 350 F (177 C).
4. Allow the oven to stabilize for 1 hour.
5. Record the temperatures of the five steel disks at 30 second intervals for 15 minutes.
If the average recorded temperature is 350 5 F, the oven is calibrated. If the average
temperature is out of this range, adjust the temperature control accordingly, and repeat
D-5
steps 4 and 5. Do this until the average temperature for each sensor is in the proper
range.
E. Ranges
1. Set one of the appliance temperature controls (turn on one burner) to achieve
maximum input.
2. For the gas appliance, allow the unit to run for 15 minutes then monitor the energy
consumption for the next 15 minutes. For the electric model, monitor the energy
consumed during the first 15 minutes of operation. For the gas appliance this involves
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 for each of the burners.
4. Operate all the burners at the same time and repeat step 2.
1. Obtain one steel disk. The disk should be composed of carbon steel in accordance
with Specification A 36/A 3 M. The dimensions should be 12 in. (30.48 cm) diameter,
0.25 in. (0.63 cm) thick, with a flatness within 0.010 in. (0.025 cm).
2. Attach thermocouples to the disk. A total of 17 thermocouples, arranged as shown in
figure D-l, is preferable. For this investigation, 10 thermocouples were used,
corresponding to positions 1,2,4,6,8,9,11,13,15 and 17 on figure D-l. The thermocouples
were attached to the disks with two screws, one as a strain relief, the other to assure
thermocouple contact with the disk surface.
D-6
3 in. typ.
0.5 in.
from edge
typ.
Figure D-l. Thermocouple placement.

(From ASTMF 1521-96, 1996)
3. Position the disk on one of the burners, thermocouple side up.

4. Operate the appliance at its minimum control setting.
"5. Immediately start recording the temperatures and time. Allow the unit to operate for
one hour.
6. At the end on one hour, note the average temperature of the plate.
7. Turn the appliance off and allow it to cool at least 1 hour. Allow the disk to cool to 75
5 F (24 2.8 C).
8. Operate the appliance at its maximum control setting and repeat steps 6 through 8.
9. Repeat steps 5 through 9 for each different type burner on the range. In this
investigation, one burner was tested for the gas appliance, while two burners (one speed
coil, one French plate) were tested for the electric appliance.
D-7
APPENDIX E
COOKING PROCEDURES
COOKING PROCEDURES
A. Griddles
Note: The cooking procedures used for both the gas and electric griddles are modeled
after the ASTM Standard Test Method for Performance of Griddles, F1275-95. Efforts
were made to duplicate each step of this standard testing procedure, when possible.
1. Position the appliance properly. The griddle positions are shown in figure E-l.
2. Assure the appliance is operating properly by following the appliance energy input
rate procedures. Calibrate the thermostat settings. The procedures are given in
Appendix D.
3. Determine the number of hamburger patties to be cooked for each batch. Follow the
guideline given by 10.7.5 from the ASTM test method, for heavy load tests. It
was determined that for both griddles, 24 patties, arranged 4 from front to back
and 6 from left to right, constituted a heavy load test.
4. Determine the time it takes to cook the hamburgers to 35 % weight loss. Follow
procedures 10.7.7 to 10.7.14 from the ASTM test method. The time for the gas
griddle was found to be 5 minutes on the first side and 4 minutes on the second
side. The time for the electric griddle was found to be 5 minutes on the first side
and 4.5 minutes on the second side.
5. Prepare enough food product for the appropriate type run to be made. Temperature
distribution data require three batches (one batch for each height), while grease
particle and vapor testing requires two batches. Patties are placed on a half-sized
sheet pans 1 8 x 1 3 x 1 in. (45.7 x 33 x 2.5 cm), 1 batch (24 patties) per sheet, on
four levels. Each level has six patties and is separated by a sheet of wax paper.
Weigh four patties from each batch and record the total weight from all batches.
It is important to keep track of which four patties were weighted in each batch.
Wrap the pans entirely with plastic wrap, insert a thermocouple into one of the
patties from each batch, and place in the freezer until testing.
6. Prepare the appropriate sampling method.
7. Start the appliance and ventilation system at least one hour before cooking. This
allows the appliance to stabilize. Set the thermostat to 375 F (191C).
E-2
118.5 In.
1.0ln.
-U-
16 h.
ks
&
4.5 In.
41.25 In.
41.25 In.
9 In.
e
^ 10.75 In.
20 In,
12 In.
s
-
><:
>
11.75 In.
81 In.
9 In.
w
I
7 In.
30 In.
35 In.
U)
84 In.
30 In.
11.5
In.
122 In.
50.5 In.
125.5 In.
LEFT SIDE VIEW

24 In.
=s
TOP VIEW
la
LEGEND
24 In.

Dimensions (Left Side)
33 In.

Dimensions (Top View)
Figure E-1 Position of the gas and electric griddles
Sample Point
8. After the warm-up is complete, check the surface temperature by placing

thermocouples on the appliance surface positioned above the thermostat sensing
points. Record the surface temperature.
9. Bring out the food product. Record the food product temperature immediately before
testing begins. It should be 0 5 F (-17.8 2.8 C).
10. Load the hamburger patties sequentially onto the griddle surface. Record the loading
time. For a 36 in. (91.4 cm) surface it should take about 30 seconds.
11. Turn the hamburger patties sequentially after 5 minutes. Record the turning time.
12. Unload the hamburger patties sequentially onto a drip tray after the appropriate
time. For the gas griddle it is 4 minutes after turning. For the electric griddle it is
4 minutes 30 seconds. Record the unloading time. Be sure to separate the
hamburger patties which are to be weighed. Turn the patties in the drip tray after
one minute. Weigh the patties after an additional minute. Determine the weight
loss percentage. It should be 35 2 %
For grease particle and vapor testing two back-to-back runs are required. Therefore, it is
necessary to follow steps 13 and 14 while at the same time finishing step 12.
13. Scrape the griddle surface and wait for the appliance to re-heat to the proper
temperature (when it begins cycling). Record the time between the previous load
and new load. This was usually 2 minute 30 seconds.
14. Repeat steps 10 through 13.
15. Save two hamburger patties from each batch in a ziplock bag for moisture
composition testing.
B. Fryers
Note: The cooking procedures used for both the gas and electric fryers are modeled after
the ASTM Standard Test Method for Performance of Open Deep Fat Fryers, F1361-95.
Efforts were made to duplicate each step of this standard testing procedure, when
possible.
1. Position the appliance properly. The fryer positions are shown in figure E-2.
2. Assure the appliance is operating properly by following the appliance energy input
rate procedures. Calibrate the thermostat settings. The procedures are given in
Appendix D.
E-4
Ê^t
25 h.
IIBln.
-^4
LEFT SIDE VIEW
TOP VIEW
10.25 to.
4.5 h. ^
1
''
/,
^ 6 In.
u
15h.
13.75 In.
C
3
31.5 In.
13.75 In.
ip
Qsin.
$ 6 In.
<
31.5 In.
Gas Flyer
31.5 In.
Electric Fryer
16.5 In.
V
>
16.75 in.
Note: Dimensions of the exhausl are
4"x1* and ft is located 1 ' away from
the edge of the griddle
4.6 In.
"
t_
-<
>-
Electric Fryer
LEGEND
Gas Fryer
Figure E-2 Position of the gas and electric fryers

Sample Point
>
3. Determine the amount of food product to be cooked for each batch. Both models
tested were 50 lb. (22.7 kg) capacity, therefore, two fry baskets, each with 1.5 lb.
(681 g). of French fried potatoes, constitutes a full sized heavy load.
4. Determine the time it takes to cook the fries to 30 1 % weight loss. Follow
procedures 10.9.1 to 10.9.4 from the ASTM test method. The time for both
fryers was found to be 2 minutes 30 seconds.
distributions require three batches (one for each height), while grease particle and
vapor testing requires eight batches. One batch consists of two fry baskets, a
total of 3 lb. of fries. Fries for each basket are weighted on a kitchen scale and
placed in air tight ziplock bags.
allows the appliance to stabilize. Set the temperature dial to the level determined
in the calibration procedure. For both fryers, this was 350 F (177 C). Place
the thermocouple in the center of the cook zone.
8. Stir the cold zone vigorously for 5 minutes.
9. Allow the fryer to stabilize for 3 minutes before testing begins.
10. Record the cold zone and cooking zone temperatures just before the 3 minute
stabilization ends.
11. Bring out the food product. Record the food product temperature immediately
before testing begins. It should be 0 5 F (-17.8 2.8C).
12. Load the fries into the fryer. Record the loading time.
13. Thirty seconds before the end of the cooking time, remove the next load from the
freezer and place in fry baskets.
14. At the end of the cooking time, remove the cooked fries and place on the drip station.
Let the oil drain for 2 minutes. Weight the fries and record the weight loss. It
should be 30 1 % .
15. After the previous load is removed, wait for the cooking zone to return to 340 F.
For the gas and electric models tested this took 10 and 30 seconds, respectively.
Place the next load in the fryer at this time.
16. Repeat steps 12 through 15 until testing is complete.
E-6
17. Reserve enough fries to fill two air-tight canning jars. Seal the jars and save for
moisture composition testing.
C. Broilers
Note: The cooking procedures used for both the gas and electric broilers are modeled
after the ASTM Standard Test Method for Performance of Underfired Broilers, F1695-96.
possible.
1. Position the appliance properly. The gas broiler position is shown in figure E-3 and
the electric broiler position is shown in figure E-4.
2. Assure the appliance is operating properly by following the appliance check
procedures. Calibrate the thermostat settings. The procedures are given in
Appendix D.
3. Determine the number of hamburger patties to be cooked for each batch. Follow the
guideline given by 10.3.2 from the ASTM test method, for heavy load tests. It
was determined for the gas broiler, 20 patties, arranged 4 from front to back and 5
from left to right, constituted a heavy load test. For the electric broiler, 18 patties,
arranged 3 from front to back and 6 from left to right, constituted a heavy load
test.
4. Determine the time it takes to cook the hamburgers to 35 % weight loss. Follow
procedures 10.7.7 to 10.7.13 from the ASTM test method. The time for both
broilers was found to be 7 minutes on the first side and 6 minutes on the second
side.
vapor testing requires two batches. Patties are placed on a half-sized sheet pans
18 x 13 x 1 in. (45.7 x 33 x 2.5 cm), 1 batch per sheet (20 or 18 patties), on three
or four levels. Each level has a maximum of six patties and is separated by a
sheet of wax paper. Weigh six patties from each batch and record the total weight
from all batches. It is important to keep track of which patties were weighted in
each batch. Wrap the pans entirely with plastic wrap, insert a thermocouple into
one of the patties from each batch, and place in the freezer until testing.
E-7
HS.Sin.
7
1.0 In.
>ipe-
16 in.
fe
59.25 In.
n*
48 In.
2 6 In.
|1 '11.75 In
a f><
&
JS^.llfc-_~
K?^-:><:-T3
7.5 In.
20 In,
"STK
4125 In.
~ i
i ,
11.76 h.
6 In.
oo
LEFT SIDE VIEW
TOP VIEW
LEGEND
asm.
4 in.
Figure E-3 Position of the gas broiler
Sample Point
1.0 in.
-9"ll"6,
18ln
lc
%r
21 In.
*
**
*
4.5 in.
1**
26 In.
3.75 in.'
/i
20 In,
21 In.
|l 11.75 01
: =fe^S e ^ <
=
3 SMS
-g ^ <
 <
>
Figure E-4 Position of the electric broiler

Sample Point
in the calibration procedure. For both broilers, this was the highest setting. Place
the thermocouple equipped steel disks along the horizontal center of the cooking
surface. Five disks were used for the gas broiler while six were used for the
electric broiler.
8. After the warm-up is complete, check the surface temperature averaging the
temperatures of the steel disks . Record the surface temperature.
testing begins. It should be 39 1 F (3.9 0.6C).
10. Load the hamburger patties sequentially onto the griddle surface. Record the loading
time. It should take about 30 seconds.
11. Turn the hamburger patties sequentially after 5 minutes. Record the turning time.
12. Unload the hamburger patties sequentially onto a drip tray after the appropriate
time. For both broilers it is 7 minutes after turning. Record the unloading time.
Be sure to separate the hamburger patties which are to be weighed. Turn the
patties in the drip tray after one minute. Weigh the patties after an additional
minute. Determine the weight loss percentage. It should be 35 2 %
13. Scrape the broiler surface and wait for the appliance to re-heat to the proper
temperature. Record the time between the previous load and new load. This was
usually 3 minutes
14. .Repeat steps 10 through 13.
15. Save two hamburger patties from each batch in a ziplock bag for moisture
composition testing.
E-10
D. Ovens
Note: The cooking procedures used for both the gas and electric ovens are modeled after
the ASTM Standard Test Method for Performance of Convection Ovens, F1496-93.
possible.
1. Position the appliance properly. The oven positions are shown in figure E-5.
Appendix D.
3. Determine the amount of food product to be cooked for each batch. Both models
were full sized convection ovens. We used five full sheet pans, 18 x 26 x 1 in.
(45.7 x 66 x 2.5 cm), with sixteen 4 x 6 in. slices on each pan. Therefore, a full
load consists of eighty slices of pizza.
4. Determine the time it takes to cook the food product. Because the food product was
much different from that in the ASTM testing method, we used the directions
from the oven supplier. It was determined that 15 minutes was an appropriate
cooking time.
distributions require one batch, while grease particle and vapor testing requires
two batches. One batch consists five pans of sixteen slices each. Weigh eight
slices from each pan and record the total weight from each batch. It is important
to keep track of which slices were weighted in each batch. Place product in the
freezer until testing begins.
in the calibration procedure. For both ovens, this was 375 F( 190.6 C). Place a
thermocouple in the middle of the oven.
8. Record the oven temperature before cooking begins.
testing begins. It should be 0 5 F (47.8 2.8C).
10. Load the pans into the oven. Record the loading time.
E-ll
7.5 la
S.375In.
~t
5 1 J In.
-L?^.
M2.em.
w
I
I>
122 In.
to
125\Sln.
LEFT SIDE VIEW
TOP VIEW
LEGEND
Sample Point
Note: The exhaust Is located 2.125'

from the back of the Oven, and It Is
1.75" wide
Note: The exhaust Is located 2.125*

from the back of the Oven, and ft Is
1.75* wide and 0.75* tan
Figure E-5 Position of the gas and electric ovens
11. At the end of the cooking time remove the pans. Record the unloading time. Weight
the pizza slices and record the weight loss.
12. After the previous load is removed, wait for the oven to begin cycling. For both
models tested this took 3 minutes.
13. Repeat steps 10 and 11.
14. Reserve two pizza slices from each batch for moisture composition testing.
E. Ranges
Note: The cooking procedures used for both the gas and electric ranges are modeled after
the ASTM Standard Test Method for Performance of Range Tops, F1521-96. Efforts
were made to duplicate each step of this standard testing procedure, when possible.
1. Position the appliance properly. The position of the gas range is shown in figure E-6
and the position of the electric range is shown in figure E-7.
Appendix D.
3. Determine the amount of food product to be cooked for each batch. After consulting
with several people in the food service industry, we decided to cook the
following:
Two pots of spaghetti noodles, 5.0 lb. (2.3 kg) total dry weight.
One pot of boiling water.
Two pots of tomato based spaghetti sauce, 107 oz. (3 kg) each.
Three lb. (1.4 kg) of link style sausage, cooked in a frying pan.
Two pots with noodles would be placed on the back burners, left and right, with
the boiling water between them. The sauce would be place on the front burners,
left and right, with the sausage frying between them.
4. Determine the time it takes to cook the food product. It was found the sausage took
24 minutes, while the noodles took a total of 10 minutes. The water and sauce
could simmer as long as needed.
vapor testing requires one batch. Divide the 5 lb. (2.3 kg) package of spaghetti
E-13
If
II
1.0 In.
24 In.
12 In.
O:^n
V
16 la
4.5 In.
59.25 In.
ooo
48 In.
v_y
41.25 la
4125 In.
(1 S In.
20 In.
10.75 In.
Jl '
96 In.
11.75 In.
24 In.
108.5 In.
32 In.
22.62511.
81 In.
, *
I I
6 In.
trJ
I*
\
30 In.
37.5 In.
841a
te*
30 In.
11.5
In.
e
\1
122 In.
125.5 In.
TOP VIEW
LEFT SIDE VIEW
OOO
000
12 la
-s
=-=
=--<
&12 In.
121a
12 In.
37.5 In.
Note: Each burner Is 9.5 In In
diameter
Figure E-6 Position of the gas range
LEGEND
Sample Point
118.5 In.
-=
I
24 In.
n*
&
59.25 In.
'
26 In.
1/
Sin.
o Qo
ooo
*
48 In.
Sla
'
10.75 In.
86 In.
11.78 In.
30 In.
84 In.
1
122 In.
68 In.
125.5 In.
TOP VIEW
LEFT SIDE VIEW
5.Sln.
- * - >
|,i
37.5 In.
ooo
ooo
^
a-e
x
12 In.
12 In.
4 in. J
12 In.
LEGEND
12 In.
f
|7la
12 In.
Note: Each burner Is 9.6 In. In

diameter
Figure E-7 Position of the electric range

Sample Point
noodles evenly into two piles. Place an entire can of sauce (107 oz., 3 kg) in the
sauce pots. Weigh and record all the sausages and place in the refrigerator. Mark
the level of the sauce in the can.
in the calibration procedure. For burners under the sauce (front, left and right),
this was determined to be the low setting. All other burner were set to Hi.
8. Place three pots of water on the back burners, marking the water level of the middle
pot. Bring water to a boil.
9. Bring out the food product. Record the sausage temperature immediately before
testing begins. It should be 39 1 F (3.9 .6C).
10. Make sure the water level in the middle pot is the same as it was when marked.
11. Place the two pots of sauce on the front burners, left andright,and the frying pan
between them. Load the sausage into the frying pan. Record the loading time.
Turn the sausages and stir the sauce frequently during the cooking process.
12. After 14 minutes, add the noodles into the boiling water on the back burners, left
and right. Cover the sauce at this point.
13. At 24 minutes, remove the pots with the noodles from the range top. At the same
time remove the sausages from the frying pan, and place on a drip rack. Keep the
frying pan on the range top. Allow the sausages to drain for 2 minutes. Weigh
the sausages and record the weight loss.
14. At 25 minutes, remove the sauce, and the pot of water boiling in the back. At 26
minutes, remove the frying pan and stop sampling.
15. Allow the middle pot of water and the sauce to cool.
16. Measure me amount of water boiled off in the middle pot by refilling the pot to the
measured mark using a graduated beaker.
17. Measure the amount of sauce boiled off by returning it to the original can and
measuring the difference in volume from the original mark.
18. Reserve one sausage from each batch for moisture composition determination.
E-16
APPENDIX F
TEST AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
TEST AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
A. Grease Emission Particle Size and Vapor Content

The procedure begins with the assumption that all glass impinger pieces, sampling probe
lines, and the impactor have been thoroughly cleaned of all particles, grease, and sealant.
1. Weigh the clean impinger bottles and record.
2. Desiccate at least 10 mylar substrates and two PVC after-filters for 24 hours or longer.
3. Prepare the food product for testing. This step is dependent on the appliance and
food product. Record number or total weight of food product, and all other food
product information such as dimensions, and fat and moisture content.
4. Fill impingers 2 and 3 with approximately 100 ml (3.4 fl. oz.) DI water, weigh and
record.
5. Fill impinger 4 with approximately 200 g (0.44 lb.) desiccated silica gel, weigh and
record.
6. Assemble impinger train as follows.
A. Place a small amount of vacuum grease on the ground glass area of the
impinger stem. Spread it evenly across the surface with fingers.
B. Insert impinger stem into each impinger, twisting the stem back and forth until
a good seal is attained (when you can no longer see streaks from the
vacuum grease).
C. Place impingers in the impinger holder. Impinger 1 must be near the front of
the holder (where the holding slots are located), while impinger 4 must be
near the side of the holder, where the gas sample line attaches.
D. Lightly apply vacuum grease to the two ground glass surfaces of each
impinger stem.
E. Place the remaining fittings (three 180 degree glass elbows, one glass
connector to the filter holder, and the stainless steel connector to the large
sampling pump unit) on the sample train. The connector to the filter
holder must connect to the center (inlet) of impinger 1. The 180 degree
elbows connect from the sides (outlets) of the lower number impingers to
the center (inlets) of the next highest number impinger. Connect the
stainless steel piece to the outlet of impinger 4.
F. Cover the inlet and outlet to prevent contamination.
7. Place the impinger holder onto the EPA 5 sampler, by aligning the holding slots. Fill
with ice.
F-2
8. Assemble large glass filter holder, and place in the sampler oven. Grease the fittings
and connect the inlet to the sample probe, and the outlet to the impinger train.
Close the oven.
9. Assemble the inlet probe and impactor, with a dummy filter installed and no
substrates. Connect it to the front end of the sample train.
10. Check for leaks by blocking off the inlet nozzle and reading the pressure gauge on
the EPA sampler. Record the flow rate at 25 in. Hg vacuum.
11. Calibrate the flow rate for each element as follows:
A. The impactor should be calibrated with the flow calibrator attached to the inlet
nozzle. Adjustments are done with the course and fine knobs on the EPA
5 sampler. The flow should be 21pm (0.071 cfm).
B. Turn off the large sampler pump and let the pressure release.
12. Disassemble the impactor.
13. Assure the impactor is clean. Usually wiping down the surfaces with isopropyl
alcohol is sufficient.
14. Reassemble the impactor, placing the desiccated filter and substrates on the proper
stages. Weigh and record each substrate and the filter. Place assembled impactor
in desiccator until ready for use.
15. Turn on exhaust fan, determining the proper frequency for the flow rate using the
calibration curve. Record the frequency and the centerline velocity (using the
anemometer). See that the centerline velocity agrees with the desired flow rate.
16. Turn on the appliance, set to proper temperature, and let it warm up for
approximately 1 hour.
17. Check and record the temperature of the appliance at the position of the appliance
thermostat (if applicable).
18. Position the appliance properly using a tape measure. Record position.
19. Remove the impactor from the desiccator and attach to the sample train.
20. Perform a leak check identical to step 10. Fix any leakage.
21. Turn the EPA 5 sampling train on, the probe heater on and the oven heater on. The
probe heater setting should be 1, the lower oven setting should be 7, and the upper
oven setting 1.
F-3
22. Check the probe and oven temperatures. Assure they reach a range of 140F (60 C)
to220F(104C).
23. Place the nozzle inlet in the proper position using a tape measure and record.
24. Determine and record the following:
A. Room temperature.
B. Room barometric pressure.
C. Room humidity.
D. Room conditions (doors, windows, AHU).
E. Volumetric flow reading on the EPA sampler.
25. Check and record the food product temperature.
26. Remove the food product from storage. Weigh and record the pre-cooked product.
27. Bring food product into testing area, along with all needed utensils.
28. Close the kitchen door and prepare for testing.
29. Record the food product temperature immediately before testing begins.
30. Begin cooking while turning on the sample pump.
31. For a gas appliance, zero the natural gas meter at the beginning of cooking. For an
electrical appliance, synchronize the electrical power data logger with the
computer and stop watch. Record the data logger numbers corresponding to the
start and stop time.
32. Record the following during testing.
A. The natural gas pressure 2 times (near beginning and end) when applicable.
B. The natural gas temperature 2 times (near beginning and end) when applicable.
C. Cooking times
1. Time to put product on (once for each batch).
2. Time to turn product (once for each batch, when applicable).
3. Time to remove product (once for each batch).
4. Time between batches.
5. Cooking time on each side (when applicable).
6. Total sampling time.
F-4
D. Temperatures (try for at least 3 measurements)

1. Oven.
2. Stack.
3. Probe.
4. Impinger outlet.
5. Meter in.
6. Meter out.
E. Velocity
1. Velocity near the probe inlet.
F. Pressure
1. Pressure gauge on the EPA 5 Sample Train
2. Manometer on the dry gas meter
33. After removing product from the appliance, let the appliance stabilize for about 30
seconds. Then when the total cooking time reaches a 30 second interval,
terminate sampling.
34. Terminate sampling by turning off the pump. Record the following
A. Natural gas flow meter reading (when applicable).
B. Electrical power data logger numbers, saved to a computer file (when
applicable).
C. EPA sampling meter reading.
35. Turn off appliance, do a preliminary clean-up, and turn off ventilation hood when
appliance cools.
36. Weigh and record cooked product. Determine the weight loss and thus doneness.
Reserve some food product from each batch.
37. Tear apart some of the reserved food product. Weigh in a beaker and record.
38. Put beaker with reserved food product in a drying oven. After 24 hours remove,
weigh, and record. This is your final moisture content.
39. Remove and disassemble the impactor. Weigh and record each substrate and filter.
Place in a desiccator for at least 24 hours. Be sure to weigh and desiccate the top
of the first stage.
40. Weigh and record 8 clean 150 ml glass beakers. Repeat 3 times for each, being sure
to discharge all static charges. Use the average weight for calculations.
41. Weight the inlet probe. Wash out inlet probe with acetone and collect in beaker 7.
42. Fill beaker 8 (control beaker) with an equal amount of acetone that is in beaker 7.
Place beakers 7 and 8 under the evaporating hood.
F-5
43. Remove and disassemble the impinger train. Remove vacuum grease from all
surfaces during disassembly.
44. Weigh and record each impinger.
45. Empty water from impingers 2 and 3 into beakers 4 and 5 respectively. Fill beaker 6
(control beaker) with approximately the same amount of DI water and place all
three beakers under the evaporating hood.
46. Empty the silica gel into a dish and place in drying oven.
47. Wash all surfaces before the big oven filter with acetone, and collect the acetone in
beaker 1. These surfaces include:
A. Tubing after the impactor filter.
B. The 8 foot sampling probe.
C. The glass connectors before the big oven filter.
D. The oven filter holder glass before the filter.
48. Wash all surfaces after the big oven filter with acetone, and collect the acetone in
beaker 2. These surfaces include:
A. The oven filter holder glass after the filter.
B. The glass connectors after the big oven filter.
C. Inside and outside surfaces of impinger stems l,2,and 3, wherever the
surfaces could have been exposed to the sampling gas.
D. The inner surfaces of impingers 1,2, and 3.
E. All connecting glassware.
49. Determine whether beaker 1 or 2 has the most acetone and fill the other to an equal
amount. Then, fill beaker 3 with an equal amount of acetone. All of the acetone
should come from the same source.
50. Place beakers 1-3 under the evaporating hood.
51. Rinse all impinger glassware with water, scrubbing off any obvious vacuum grease
and place in an ultra-sonic cleaning bath. Clean for 20 to 30 minutes. Rinse with
DI water and place in drying oven. When dry, reassemble impinger train without
vacuum grease, and cover inlet and outlet with tape to avoid contamination.
52. Cover inlet and outlet of long sample probe to prevent contamination.
53. Call Minnegasco to find the gas higher heating value (when applicable). Record.
54. Average the electrical power data logger records corresponding to the cooking time
(when applicable). Record.
F-6
55. Weigh and record desiccated substrates and filters.

56. Weigh the desiccated stage one of the impactor. Clean it thoroughly and dry. Weigh
and record again.
57. Thoroughly clean the impactor. Clean the metal surfaces with isopropyl alcohol.
Rinse with DI water and blow dry. Clean O-rings, when necessary, with DI
water.
58. Weigh and record beakers 1-8 after evaporation has occurred.
59. Enter all data into the spreadsheet.
60. Thoroughly clean the appliance.
B. Temperature Distribution
The procedure begins with the assumption that the appliance has been properly warmed
up, the ventilation system has been checked and working properly, and the food product
is ready.
1. Place thermocouple grid horizontally level at 12 in. (30.48 cm) above cooking surface,
centered over the appliance, with back thermocouples as close to the back wall of
the test kitchen as possible.
2. Secure the thermocouple positioned in the duct.
3. Secure the non-radiant, ambient, room temperature thermocouple to an area shielded
from any appliance associated convective or radiative heat source.
4. Connect all data lines to the data acquisition system.
5. Determine the time required to run through 1 set of thermocouple readings. The
program "sleep" time is 1 minute minus this value. This assures readings will
begin at the beginning of each 1 minute period.
6. Determine the total number of time the program is to run. Allow for 1 set of data
before cooking begins and 2 sets of data after cooking ends. For example, if the
cooking process ends after 15 minutes, 18 sets of data are required.
7. Determine the temperature in the thermocouple control box.
8. Start the program 1 minute before cooking. Enter the number of times program is to
run, the sleep time, and the temperature in the thermocouple control box.
F-7
9. When program ends, save data in an ASCII format.

10. Move thermocouple grid to 24 in. (60.96 cm) above cooking surface, centered over
the appliance, with back thermocouples as close to the back wall as possible.
11. Repeat steps 7 through 9. Steps 2 through 6 do not need to be repeated.
12. Move thermocouple grid to 36 in. (60.96 cm) above cooking surface, centered over
he appliance, with back thermocouples as close to the back wall as possible.
13. Repeat steps 7 through 9.
Note: Due to the height of the ovens, only one temperature distribution was taken, with
the position of the grid at the hood opening.
The gas range came equipped with a back wall, therefore, at 12 in. (30.48 cm) the
grid was positioned along the appliance's back wall, not the back wall of the test
kitchen.
C. Velocity Distribution
While it is desirable to quantify the velocity distribution during the actual cooking
process, several factors make it extremely difficult. First, the air stream during the
cooking process contains large amounts of grease and water, in both the particulate and
vapor form. In general, the best devices to measure velocity under these conditions are
based on velocity pressure, such as the S-type pitot tube. However, these devices are not
very accurate at low air velocities due to the small value of the velocity pressure. In fact,
at a velocity of 100 fpm (0.5 m/s), the velocity pressure would be about 0.0006 in. H2O
(0.15 Pa). This is an impractical pressure to measure. Velocities from cooking
ventilation are often less than 100 fpm (0.5 m/s). Therefore, it is necessary to use devices
such as hot-wire or hot-film anemometers, which can often measure down to 1 fpm
(0.005 m/s).
However, anemometers are greatly affected by the grease, which contaminates the
measurement tip, and throws off the calibration. Therefore, we chose to approximate the
thermal plume under cooking conditions, and measure the velocity distribution of this
approximate cooking process. The methods we used for approximation follows.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Griddles: Two full trays of water were heated to boiling on the griddle surface.
Fryers: The fryers were heated to temperature (350 F, 177 C).
Broilers: The broilers were turned to their highest temperature.
Ovens: The ovens were heated to temperature (350 F, 177 C).
Ranges: Six pots of water were heated to boiling on the range burners.
F-8
Therefore, velocities from fryers, broilers, and ovens were essentially measured under
idling conditions, while velocities from the griddles and ranges were measured with a
load of heated water.
PROCEDURE
Procedure assumes appliances have been warmed up, the portable anemometer has been
cleaned and calibrated, and the ventilation system has been set and checked.
1. Set up a grid along the plane of the entrance of the ventilation hood.
2. Secure the anemometer on the tripod and position the tip at the first measurement
point, with the probe perpendicular to the airflow.
3. Allow the reading to stabilize. This takes 15 to 30 seconds.
4. Record the range of velocities, including the minimum, maximum, and average.
5. Place the anemometer at the next measurement point and repeat steps 3 and 4.
6. Continue until all measurements points are completed, adding water to the trays or
pots, when applicable.
D. CO/C0 2 Emissions
The procedure begins with the assumption that the CO/CO2 meter has been properly
calibrated. Figure C-6 in the equipment appendix shows a schematic diagram of the
CO/CO2 sampling train.
1. Connect the following items with rubber Tygon tubing in the following order:
1. Stainless steel sampling probe.
2. Particulate filter.
3. Personal sampling pump.
4. CO/CO2 meter.
2. Set the personal sampling pump to its "low flow" mode
3. Adjust the flow rate to approximately 1.51pm (0.053 cfm).
4. Position the stainless steel sampling probe by attaching to the EPA 5 sampling probe
and moving it to the proper position. Record the position.
F-9
5. Turn on the personal sampling pump. When cooking begins, start sampling with the
CO/CO2 meter by pressing the sample key. After removing the product from the
appliance and letting the appliance stabilize for about 30 seconds, stop the
sampling by pressing the sample key again. Record the start and stop time.
6. Record the average, minimum, and maximum values for both CO and CO2.
7. Disconnect the sampling probe and sampling line, but keep the sampling pump
connected to the CO/CO2 meter. Place in an area away from people to prevent
CO2 contamination from breathing.
8. Sample the background CO and CO2 levels for at least 3 minutes. Record the average,
minimum, and maximum values for both CO and CO2.
9. The same procedure can be used for sampling in the duct by simply positioning the
stainless steel sampling probe within the duct.
. NOx Emissions
Figure C-7 in the equipment appendix shows a schematic diagram of the NOx sampling
train.
1. Set the flow rate for the outlet of the personal sampling pump.
A. Connect the following items with rubber Tygon tubing in the following order:
3. Personal sampling pump low flow controller.
5. Soap bubble flow meter (primary standard).
B. Turn on the sampling pump and determine the flow rate.
C. Adjust the flow rate to a value that will allow a 101 (0.35 ft3) bag to be filled
during the total expected cooking time.
D. Let the flow rate stabilize and record the average flow rate and record.
2. Disconnect the flow meter.
3. Attach a 101 (0.35 ft3) Tedlar bag to the sampling pump outlet.
F-10
5. Turn on the personal sampling pump. Before cooking begins, disconnect the gas
sampling bag and purge the sample line. When cooking begins, start sampling by
opening the sampling bag valve and connecting to the sample pump outlet. After
removing the product from the appliance and letting the appliance stabilize for
about 30 seconds, stop the sampling by closing the sample bag valve. Record the
start and stop time.
6. Disconnect the sampling probe, sampling line, and gas sampling bag. Attach a
background gas sampling bag (identical, unused 101 (0.35 ft3) Tedlar bag). Place
in an area away from people.
7. Sample the background NOx levels by filling the bag with room air.
8. Test and record the NOx levels in the two bags using the high resolution nondispersive infrared NOx detector.
F. Aromatic Hydrocarbon Emissions
Figure C-8 in the equipment appendix shows a schematic diagram of the hydrocarbon
sampling train.
1. Set the flow rate through the activated carbon sorbent sampling tube:
A. Connect the following items with rubber Tygon tubing in the following order:
3. Soap bubble flow meter (primary standard).
4. "Dummy" activated carbon sorbent tube.
5. Personal sampling pump low flow controller.
B. Turn on the sampling pump and determine the flow rate.
C. Adjust the flow rate to a value between 200 and 300 ml/min
(7.1 and 10.6 x 10 3 cfm).
D. Let the flow rate stabilize and record the average flow rate and record.
2. Disconnect the "Dummy" sorbent tube and flow meter.
3. Attach the test sorbent tube between the particulate filter and sampling pump low
flow controller.
5. Turn on the personal sampling pump when cooking begins. After removing the
product from the appliance and letting the appliance stabilize for about 30
seconds, stop the sampling pump. Record the start and stop time.
F-ll
6. Cap the sorbent tube and send out for analysis. Be sure to calculate the total volume
sampled and give this information to the lab.
G. Electrical Low Pressure Impactor (ELPI)
The procedure begins with the assumption the appliance has been warmed up, the
ventilation system has been set and checked, the food product is ready, and the impactor
has been cleaned.
1. Determine the approximate air stream velocity at the sample point and select the
appropriate size probe to allow for isokinetic sampling.
2. Start the ELPI data acquisition program and determine the background particle
concentration.
3. Position the ELPI sampling probe in position (either above the appliance at the same
point particulate emissions are captured, or in the ducting, depending on which
ELPI run is being made).
3. Connect the sample line to the ELPI inlet.
4. Begin sampling with the ELPI at the beginning of cooking by starting the data
acquisition program.
5. Stop sampling with the ELPI at the completion of cooking by ending the data
acquisition program.
6. Disconnect the sample line.
7. Restart the ELPI data acquisition program and determine the background particle
concentration again.
8. Save the data files for later use in analysis.
H. Micro-Orifice Uniform Deposit Impactor (MOUDI)
The procedure begins with the assumption the appliance has been warmed up, the
ventilation system has been set and checked, the food product is ready, and the impactor
was been cleaned.
1. Cut out twenty 37 mm (1.46 in.) diameter aluminum foil substrates (1 mm, 0.039in
thickness) and two 37 mm (1.46 in.) glass fiber after-filters. Place in desiccator
for at least 24 hours.
F-12
2. Carefully weight and record the substrates and filters and place them in substrate and
filter holders, ten substrates and one filter for each MOUDI run (one above
appliance and one in the ducting).
3. Place "dummy" substrate holders and "dummy" filter in the impactor and adjust the
upper pressure drop to 20.1 in. H2O (0.71 psi), which corresponds to 301pm
(1.06 cfm).
4. Make sure the lower pressure drop does not exceed 7 psi (193.8 in. H2O). If it does,
clean the last 4 stages of the impactor.
5. Determine the approximate air flow velocity at the sampling point and select the
appropriate sized sampling nozzle to assure isokinetic sampling.
6. Secure the sampling probe in position (either above the appliance at the same point
particulate emission are captured, or in the ducting, depending on which MOUDI
run you are making).
7. Connect the sampling line to the sampling probe and MOUDI inlet.
8. Begin sampling with the MOUDI by turning on the sampling pump when cooking
begins.
9. Periodically check the upper and lower pressure drops. If the upper pressure drop
changes, adjust it back to 20.1 in. H2O (0.71 psi). Simply record the lower
pressure drop.
10. Stop sampling with the MOUDI by turning off the sampling pump when cooking
ends.
11. Record the pressure in the room.
12. Record the average duct temperature during sampling (from the duct thermocouple
data).
13. Disassemble the impactor, and place the substrates and filter in the desiccator for at
least 24 hours.
14. Carefully weigh and record the substrates and filter.
15. Repeat steps 3 thorough 14 for the second MOUDI run.
It is recommended to sample in the ducting first, because it is less likely to clog the
impactor, thus reducing the chance of timely cleaning delays.
F-13
APPENDIX G
ANALYTIC PROCEDURES
ANALYTIC PROCEDURES

1. Find the mass of grease collected on each impaction stage and the filter by
determining the difference in mass before and after sample collection. The substrates and
filters should be desiccated as described in Appendix F. Equation G-l gives the mass of
grease collected.
Ma = MM-Mm
(G-l)
where Mc is the mass of grease collected, MA is the mass of the desiccated inlet stage,
substrate, or filter after sampling, MB is the mass of the desiccated inlet stage, substrate,
or filter before sampling, and /" is the inlet stage, substrate, or filter position (I for the
inlet, 1 through 8 for substrates, and F for the filter).
2. Find the mass of grease collected on the 90 inlet probe by determining the difference
in mass from the residue in the acetone wash sample beaker and blank beaker, as
described by equation G-2.
"^Cprobe ~ "^Csample ~ "^Cblank
(G-2)
where Mc probe is the mass of grease collected in the 90 inlet probe, Mc sample is the mass
of residue found in the collection beaker (# 7 from Appendix F) after evaporation, and
Mc blank is the mass of residue found in the blank beaker (# 8 from Appendix F).
Mc sample and Mc blank are given in equations G-3 and G-4, respectively.
Mc sample ~ "*A sample ~ "^ B sample
(G"3)
where MA sample is the average mass of the acetone wash sample beaker after evaporation
and MBsample is the average mass of the acetone wash sample beaker before sample
collection.
"^Cblank
"^ A blank ~ ^ B blank
(G-4)
where MAblank is the average mass of the acetone wash blank beaker after evaporation
and MBbUmk is the average mass of the acetone wash blank beaker before sample
collection. It is important that care is taken in dissipating all static charge when weighing
the glass beakers. At least three weightings are recommended to determine the average
weights.
G-2
3. Find the combined particle mass from the probe, and stages 1,1, and 2.
Inspection of the data shows that most likely, there are substantial particle losses in stages
1 and 2. These losses probably occur in the 90 probe, the expansion area of the in-line
adapter, and on the inlet stage. While experimental and theoretical work has been done
regarding 90 bends, the effect of the expansion area and the in-line adapter is not well
known.
A universally acceptable solution to find the true effect each of these sampling
components has on the particles collected in the probe, and stages 1,1, and 2 would
require a full scale experimental investigation. On the other hand, it is possible to
estimate the nature of the loss mechanisms, and estimate their contribution to the losses
on each of the stages in question. While the former solution would take considerable
time and resources, the validity of the latter method would, at best, be questioned.
Therefore, for this investigation, the masses collected on the probe and stages 1,1 and 2
are combined.
The major disadvantage to this is the loss of three cut sizes. However, the first cut size
we do use, that associated with stage 2, is much better defined than the cut sizes we could
expect to find for the probe and inlet stages, even with an experimental investigation.
The cut sizes we loose are most likely around 35,25, and 21 um. The first cut size we
use is around 15 um. The behavior of particles in the range of 15 to 35 um is expected to
be largely identical. Therefore, the amount of information lost by combining stages is
minimal.
Equation G-5 gives the combined particle mass from the probe, and stages I, 1, and 2.
Mccomb = MC probe + MCI
+ MC\
+ MQI
(G-5)
Where Mccomb is the combined mass, Mcprobe is the mass collected in the probe, Ma is
the mass collected on the inlet stage, Mc\ is the mass collected on stage 1 and Mci is the
mass collected on stage 2.
4. Find the particle losses for impaction stages 3 through 8.
Surfaces other than impaction plates within the inertia! impactor collect particles must be
considered. Rubow et. al. (1987) evaluated the Marple impactor for internal losses as a
function of particle size. Losses at the probe, inlet, and stages 1 and 2 are not considered,
because the particle mass in these stages are grouped together. Therefore, the losses to
stage 2, which occur either in the probe, the inlet or on stage 1, are already taken into
account. Stage 1 and the inlet stage are affected similarly. The main source of particle
loss to the probe would be due to sampling efficiency. However, near isokinetic
conditions exist at the probe inlet, and these losses are minimized. Table G-l shows the
percentage of particles lost for impaction stages 3 through 8.
G-3
TABLE G-l IMPACTOR INTERNAL LOSSES

Stage
dpstd
CF (Particle losses)
%
Ccomb
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
um (in.)
14.8 (5.8 x 10"4)
9.8 (3.9 x 10"4)
6.0 (2.4 x 10"4)
3.5 (1.4 xHT 4 )
1.55 (6.10 xlO' 5 )
0.93 (3.7 x 10-5)
0.52 (2.0 xlO 5 )
0.01 (3.9 x 10"7)
0
8
7
4
2.5
2.5
0.5
0
Equation G-6 gives the corrected collected mass for each of the impaction stages.
Mr
(G-6)
Mca
~(l-CF)
where Mca is the corrected collected mass on stage /, and CF is the correction factor
given in table G-l. Note, for the mass collected on the filter, MCF, and the combined
mass, Mccomb, the corrected collected mass is determined by using a value of 0 for CF.
5. Find the standard volume of gas sampled.
The standard volume of gas sampled is given by equation G-7.
Vstd = Qstd 1 ts
(G-7)
where Vstd is the air sample volume adjusted to standard conditions, Qsai is the air
sampling flow rate adjusted to standard conditions, and ts is the sampling time. Qstli i is
given by equation G-8.
farfl
Std 1
'Z.gm
rr>
_ i gm _
"P-"
(G-8)
Pgm
. s t d
where Pad is 1.013 x 10 Pa (1 atm), Pgm is the absolute pressure at the gas meter, Tstdi
is 293.15 K (491.67 R), and rflirgm is the average absolute air temperature at the gas
meter. TaiTgm is determined by averaging the air temperatures at the gas meter, at points
upstream and downstream of the meter, which are taken periodically during sampling.
G-4
Qgm is given by equation G-9.

V
Qgm =
~f
(G-9)
where Vgm is the sample volume measured at the gas meter. Vgm is determined by
subtracting the gas meter reading before sampling, from the gas meter reading after
sampling.
6. Find the particle concentration.
The particle concentration is given by equation G-10.
C,=^
(G-10)
"std
where C, is the particle concentration corresponding to stage /, i refers to the combined

stages, or stages 3 through F.
7. Determine the cut size of the impactor stages and 90 inlet probe.
Impactor Stages:
Solve equation (G-l 1) (Hinds 1982) for each of the 8 Marple impactor stages.
"so ~ i L
TT,r
iA \\
(G_1!)
where d.50 is the particle diameter having 50 % collection efficiency for that stage, Ti is
the sampling gas viscosity, D; is the critical nozzle dimension, Stkso is the characteristic
Stokesso number for the impactor stage nozzle, p p is the particle density, U is die air
velocity within the nozzle, and Cc{dso} is Cunningham's slip correction at d.50. Equation
G-l 1 requires an iterative solution due to Cc being a function of dso. The following
details how to determine each parameter in equation G-l 1,
G-5
Sampling air viscosity, r\:

Equation G-12 approximates T) for air over the temperature range of -50 to 700 C (-58 to
1292 F) (Hinds 1982).
0.74
air imp
T\=r\si
(G-12)
std2
where T]^ is the standard air viscosity (1.832 x 10 P, or 3.838 x 10v7 lb.- s/ft), Tairimp IS
the sampling gas absolute temperature at the impactor, and Tstd2 is the standard gas
absolute temperature (296 K, or 532.8 R). Tairimp is determined by averaging the
temperatures at the impactor probe inlet, which are taken periodically during testing as
described in Appendix F. Note, the standard air temperature in equation G-12 is different
from that in equation G-8.
Critical nozzle dimension, Dt:
The critical nozzle dimension, D(, and the slot length, L for each stage of the Marple
impactor is given in Table G-2 (Rubow et. al.1987).
TABLE G-2. CRITICAL NOZZLE DIMENSION
Stage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Nozzle
Shape
slot
slot
slot
slot
slot
slot
round
round
Nozzle (D,)
width
diameter
cm (in.)
cm (in.)
0.264(0.104)
0.145 (0.0571)
0.0813 (0.0320)
0.0432 (0.0170)
0.0254 (0.0100)
0.0173 (0.00681)
0.0457 (0.0180)
0.0318 (0.0125)
Slot(L,)
length
cm (in.)
0.953 (0.375)
0.953 (0.375)
0.953 (0.375)
0.953 (0.375)
0.953 (0.375)
0.480(0.189)
-
G-6
Characteristic Stokesso number, StksoThe characteristic Stokesso number, Stkso, for each stage of the Marple impactor is found
using equation (G-13) (Hinds 1982).
PpstddpstdUstd^cstd
P
Stk^v50 = 'psm
(G-13)
HA
where ppstd is the standard particle density (1000 kg/m3, or 62.4 lb/ft3), dpstd is the
impactor stage standard cut point diameter, Ustd is the average standard air velocity
through the impactor nozzle, and Ccstd is the slip correction corresponding to dpstd.
The average standard air velocity, Ustd, can be found using equation G-14.
Ustd 2
U
(G-14)
^ A
where Qstd2 is the standard volume flow through the Marple impactor (21pm, or 0.071
cfm), and At is the total nozzle area through the impactor stage /. Table G-3 gives dpsld,
A, Ustd, Ccstd, and Stkso for each of the impactor stages.
TABLE G-3. STK50 VALUES FOR THE MARPLE IMPACTOR
Stage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
dpstd
um
(in.)
21.3
(8.39 x 10"4)
14.8
(5.83 x 10"4)
9.8
(3.9 x 10"4)
6.0
(2.4 x 10-4)
3.5
(1.4 xlO"4)
1.55
(6.10xl0 5 )
0.93
(3.7 x 10"5)
0.52
(2.0 x 10"5)
Ustd
*scstd
m
(ft2)
1.51 x 10"4
(1.62 xlO"3)
8.29 x 10"5
(8.92 x 10"4)
4.65 x 10"5
(5.00 xlO -4 )
2.47 x 10"5
(2.66 x 10"4)
1.45 xlO"5
(1.56 xlO -4 )
4.98 x 10-6
(5.36 x 10"5)
1.96x10"*
(2.11 xlO"5)
9.53 x l O 7
(1.03 x 10"5)
m/s
(fpm)
0.221
(43.5)
0.402
(17.1)
0.717
(141)
1.35
(266)
2.30
(453)
6.69
(1320)
17.0
(3350)
35.0
(6890)
(dimensionless
Stkso
(dimensionless
1.008
0.232
1.011
0.372
1.017
0.522
1.027
0.701
1.047
0.703
1.106
0.624
1.177
0.229
1.326
0.238
G-7
Particle density, pp:

This number refers to the density of the particles expected to be captured by the impactor.
The density of most particles collected during cooking processes is expected to be
between 800 and 1000 kg/m3 (49.9 and 62.4 lb/ft3). The exact number depends on
knowing the detailed composition of the particles, which is not yet available for
individual cooking processes. In addition, the particle cut size is not strongly dependent
on the particle density, and a difference of 10 to 20 % results in an error of only 5 to 10
%. Therefore, in this investigation, as is most often found in the literature, a value of
1000 kg/m3 (62.4 lb/ft3) is used.
Air velocity within the nozzle, U:
The air velocity within the nozzle for each impaction stage is given by equation G-15.
U=-
0imp
(G-15)
where Qimp is the actual flow rate through the impactor.

Qimp is given by equation G-16.
airgm
*imp
(G-16)
*^gm
air imp
where pairgm is the density of air at the gas meter and pairimp is the density of the air at the
impactor. Q
is given by equation G-9, pai
is given by equation G-17, and pairimp is

L
std3
airgm
std
airgm
std3
air imp = Parf

air imp
gm
(G-17)
L std
baro
P
L rstd
(G-18)
where p ^ is the standard air density (1.2929 kg/m3, or 0.0805 lb/ft3) at P^ (1.013. x 105
Pa, or 1 arm) and TsUi3 (273.15 K, or 491.67 R), and Pbaro is the room barometric
pressure.
G-8
Cunningham slip correction at dso, Cc{dso}'The Cunningham slip correction for each impactor stage is a function of the 50 percent
efficiency cut size at that stage. Therefore, an iterative calculation is required to solve
equation G-l 1. An empirical form of the slip correction, valid for particles to below 0.01
urn (3.93 x 10"7 in.), is shown in equation G-19 (Hinds, 1982).
air imp
Ce{dx] = l+-
d 50
2.514 + 0.800exp
(G-19)
air imp J
where \irimp is the mean free path of the air at the impinger inlet given by equation G-20
[Willeke and Baron, 1993].
air imp
l
std3
Su
1+
Kir imp ~ ^"std
stdl
baro
Su
1+ =
J
(G-20)
air imp J
where Xstd is the standard mean free path (0.0665 urn, or 2.62 x 10"6 in.) at Tadl (293.15
K, or 527.67R) and P^ (1.013 x 105 Pa, or 1 atm), and Su is Sutherlands constant (110.4
K, or 198.72 R).
90 Inlet Probe:
To determine the particle diameter having 50 % collection efficiency in the 90 inlet
probe, equation G-21 is used.
\9r\Dprobe{Stk5o)
^50
ppU(Cc{d50})
(G-21)
where dso is the particle diameter having 50 % collection efficiency in the 90 inlet probe,
Dprobe is the critical nozzle dimension, and Stk so is the characteristic Stokesso number for
the 90 inlet probe, and U is the air velocity within the inlet probe. Once again, an
iterative solution is required due to Cc being a function of dso. The following details how
to determine each parameter in equation G-21 for the inlet probe. The determination of
the parameters is identical or similar to the determination for the impaction stages, except
for the characteristic Stokesso number.
Sampling air viscosity, T\:
The sampling gas velocity found in equation G-12 is used to find T|
G-9
Critical nozzle dimension, D

The critical nozzle dimension, Dprobe, is the inside diameter of the sampling probe, found
to be (0.8 cm, or 0.315 in.).
Particle density, p p :
The particle density, pp is 1000 kg/m3 (62.4 lb/ft3), identical to that used for the
impaction stages.
Equations G-15 through G-18, used to find the air velocity through the impaction stages,
are used to find U for the 90 inlet probe. In this case the total area, A,, is the crosssectional area of the inlet probe, found to be 5.03 x 10"5 m2 (5.41 x 10"4 ft2).
Cunningham slip correction at dso, Ccfdso}'
Equations G-19 and G-20, used to find the slip correction for the impaction stages, are
used to find Ccfdsoj for the inlet probe.
Characteristic Stokes50 number, Stic so'.
The Stokesso number for a 90 bent tube with a uniform velocity profile entering the bend
is given by equation G-22 (Tsai and Pui 1990).
Stk*orm = [-0Me{-os6^
+ o.403Te
l( , 82x,0 5 ib2+U8xIO 3/il, 0024)/5
"-
"'
" -
fl +
(G-22)
3.92*10-" fl0 +5.67x10-^0+0.41

The Stokesso number for a 90 bent tube with a parabolic velocity profile entering the
bend is given by equation G-23 (Tsai and Pui 1990).
StkraboUc = \S59x\QTsR02 + 6.95x10~3R0 +024]x
Q-7.3x10-^-2.47x10-^-0.0077)^] 1 _ Q^(-WW*)
+ Q
775
(G
"23)
where Ro is the curvature ratio and De is the Dean number, given by equations G-24 and
G-25, respectively.
G-10
R
a
*0 =
De--
(G-24)
Re
(G-25)
R is defined as the bend center line radius, a is the inside radius of the tube, and Re is the
Reynolds number for the sampling gas. The inlet probe in this investigation has an inside
radius of 0.4 cm (0.157 in.) and a bend center line radius of 6.3 cm (2.48 in.). Therefore,
Ro was found to be 15.75. The Reynolds number is given by equation G-26.
D
Re=
probeUPairimp
Equations G-22 and G-23 show the Stokesso number for a bent tube may be dependent on
the velocity profile present at the beginning of the bend. For the inlet probe in this
investigation, a difference of about 2 to 4 % was found. Therefore, an average of the two
values, as shown in equation G-27, was used to apply to equation G-21
^tlr m*form _i_ Cfh- parabolic
~Sik50=
(G-27)
8. Normalize the particle concentration.

The particle size distribution spans several orders of magnitude of particle diameters.
Therefore, it is common to display the distribution on a log-normal histogram. It is
necessary to normalize the particle concentration to the cut sizes used in the histogram.
The normalized particle concentration is given by equation G-28.
C=FT
1
^50 i+1
log
L dS0i
(G-28)
where Cm is the normalized particle concentration corresponding to stage i, i refers to the

combined stages, or stages 3 through F, dsoi+i is the particle cut size of stage i + 1 and
d$o i is the particle cut size of stage i.
The first i evaluated is the combined stages. In this case, dso i is d$o 2. In order to evaluate
CN combined & value for dso i+i needs to be estimated. This is the largest cut size collected by
the sampling probe. In this investigation we estimated the largest particles that could
reach the sampling probe would be those with particle settling velocities approximately
equal to the upward velocity of the thermal plume at the sampling point. The thermal
plume velocities ranged from about 50 to 90 fpm (0.25 to 0.46 m/s). For a particle of 100
G-ll
(3.9 x 10"3 in.) fim, the settling velocity is about 50 fpm (0.25 m/s). Therefore, we
estimated the largest cut size to be 100 um (3.9 x 10~3 in.).
Some comments must be made regarding the estimate of the largest particle size. It is
possible that very large particles can be launched from the cooking surface at high
velocity, especially when frying or broiling high fat meat. It is acknowledged that under
these conditions, the settling velocity would play a secondary role to the initial velocity.
There is little information regarding the velocity with which grease particles can be
"shot" into the thermal plume. However, our observation is that the sampling probe is set
out of reach of the very large grease droplets, (those that can be seen, diameters on the
order of mm). In addition, as the thermal plume moves closer to the hood inlet, its
velocity increases due to the addition of dilution air. Therefore, the condition we specify
with which to compare the settling velocity, the velocity of the plume at the sample point,
can be considered a worse case scenario. In other words, particles of 100 um (3.9 x 10"3
in.) will most likely settle back to the cooking surface, because their settling velocity is
greater than the velocity of the thermal plume at all points below the sampling probe.
Particles of this size will be collected only when they have a large enough initial velocity
to reach the sampling probe.
B. Total Particulates, PM10, and PM 2.5
1. Determine the mass of collected particles in the total, PM 10 and PM 2.5 size ranges.
The amount of total particulates collected is given by equation G-29
Probe .
i=F
Mca
(G-29)
where MTP is the mass of the total particulates, / is the collection area and Mca is the
corrected collected mass on stage i.
The EPA has traditionally used the PM 10 to refer to the particulate mass less than 10 um
in diameter. It is an important parameter in determining ambient air quality. More
recently, the EPA has adopted a new standard which it believes relates to better to human
health effects. This new standard is called PM 2.5 and refers to the particulate mass less
than 2.5 um in diameter.
G-12
Equations G-30 and G-31 give mass of PM 10 and PM 2.5, respectively.

log
M PM 10
d
ifdjdKlOmm)
_ y <(
5o
Mca +
10
dSQ < 10mm
1
d50 > 10mm

log
d50i < 10mm
CCi(dxwith lOjun)
(G-30)
where MPM JO is the mass of PM 10, i (d5o<10/jm) is the collection area which does not
include any particles 10 um or larger, MccHdsowith lo^m) is the corrected collected mass of
the stage that contains the 10 um cutoff, and the term before Mca(d50wuh iopm) *s ^ e
partitioning factor, with takes only the mass of the particles less than 10 um from
Mca(d5o with io iimh Essentially the partitioning factor provides of method of dividing the
logarithmic particle cut sizes into appropriate fractions.
25
< 25mm
log
i(tl50<25mm)
_Y"51
M PM2S ~2-l
i=F
d50
MCCi +
dSQ > 25mm
log
d50i < 25mm
CCi(dKwith 25mm)
(G-31)
where MPM2.5 is the mass of PM 2.5, i(dso<2.5^m) is the collection area which does not
include any particles 2.5 um or larger, Mca<dso with 2.5 m) is the corrected collected mass of
the stage that contains the 2.5um cutoff, and the term before Mcafdsowith 2.5 pm) is the
partitioning factor, with takes only the mass of the particles less than 2.5 um from
McCi(d50 with 2.5 /im)-
2. Determine the ratio between the flow rate in the exhaust duct and the sampling flow
rate.
The ratio between the flow rates in the duct and the sampling flow rate is necessary to
estimate the total concentration of emitted particles. Equation G-32 gives the flow rate
ratios
QR =
'duct
(G-32)
Q,gm
where QR is the flow rate ratio, Qduct is the flow rate in the duct given by equation J-4,
and Qgm is the sampling flow rate at the gas meter given by equation G-9. The inverse of
QR is the fraction of the total flow rate that is actually sampled.
G-13
3. Determine the mass of food cooked.

In order to normalize the emission with respect to food product, it is necessary to
determine the total mass of the food cooked. A kitchen scale was calibrated and used for
food product mass determination. Equations K-l and K-2 in Appendix K give the actual
mass of food in ounces. For most food products, only a portion of the food was actually
weighted, therefore equation G-33 was used to determine the total mass of food.
Mf(mdtotal = Ma^^-
(G-33)
weighted
where Mf00d total is the total mass of food cooked, Ma is the actual mass of food weighted,
given by equation K-l or K-2, NCOoked is the number of food product cooked, and Nweigi,ed
is the number of food product weighted. For instance, for the gas griddle, 8 hamburger
patties were weighted, while 48 hamburger patties were cooked. Therefore, the total
mass of food cooked is determined by the multiplying the weight of the 8 patties by 6.
4. Determine the dilution ratio.
The ratio of the particulate concentration at the sampling point to the particulate
concentration within the duct is estimated by the dilution ratio. Equation G-34 gives the
dilution ratio.
2)* = ^ = * -
(G-34)
tracer duct
where DR is the dilution ration, Ctracer sample is the concentration of some tracer at the
sampling point, and Ctracer duct is the concentration of the same tracer in the duct. In this
investigation, a very small particle or range of small particles were used as the tracer.
Assumptions included that the tracer particles are affected little by the grease baffles, and
do not change in size by a significant amount between the plume and the measurement
location in the exhaust duct. Therefore, the concentration of the tracer in the duct is
affected only by the amount of dilution air added between the sampling point and the duct
entrance. Either the Electrical Low Pressure Impactor (ELPI) or the Micro-Orifice
Uniform Deposit Impactor (MOUDI) were used to measure these tracer particles. Note,
these impactors both require substantially long sample lines, which greatly affect the
collection of large particles. Therefore, for the purposes of this investigation they are
only useful to determine particle concentrations for the smallest particles. For this reason,
these instruments can not measure the total particle size distribution in the cooking plume
with much accuracy, but are excellent for determining the concentration of tracer
particles.
G-14
5. Normalize the collected mass with respect to 1000 lb. of food product cooked.
For comparison of appliance emissions, it is standard practice to normalize the emissions
with respect the mass of food product. Equation G-35 gives the normalized emission.
M_
M_
1000 lb. Food
*" total food
\QR]
.DR.
(G-35)
where M is the collected mass for total, PM 10, or PM 2.5 particles, and C is a
conversion constant. The conversion constant is necessary because M is usually in mg,
while Mtotaifod is in ounces or lb. The conventional representation is usually
lb. emissions/ 1000 lb. product.
C. Grease Vapor
1. Determine the mass of collected grease vapor.
The mass of total mass of collected grease vapor is given by equation G-36.
Mvma = Mvimp2 + Mvimp3 + Mvbf + Mvqf
(G-36)
where Mv lolai is the total mass of collected condensed grease vapor, Mv ,mp2 is the mass of
condensed grease vapor found in the water in impinger 2, Mv
imp 3 is the mass of
condensed grease vapor found in the water in impinger 3, MVbf is the mass of condensed
grease vapor found on surfaces before the EPA 5 sampler filter holder, and AfVfl/is the
mass of condensed grease vapor found on surfaces after the EPA 5 sampler filter holder.
Details on the collection technique are given in Appendix F.
Equations G-37 through G-40 give the condensed grease vapor mass collected for each of
the four collection areas.
Mvimp2 = Mvam, - Mvcont3
(G-37)
Mvimp3 = Mvaaa2 - Mvcorui
(G-38)
Mv=Mvconl4-Mvcmt6
(G-39)
Mvaf=Mvcmt5-Mvcmt6
(G-40)
where Mv cont, is mass of condensed grease vapor in container i. The following explains
the contents of each container.
G-15
1.
2.
3.
4.
Mass left after evaporation of DI water from impinger 2.

Mass left after evaporation of DI water from impinger 3.
Mass left after evaporation of the DI water blank.
Mass left after evaporation of acetone collected from washing the surfaces before the
EPA 5 sampler filter holder.
5. Mass left after evaporation of acetone collected from washing the surfaces after
the EPA 5 sampler filter holder.
6. Mass left after evaporation of the acetone blank.
The blanks are used to account for any residue that might be in the DI water or acetone,
and any particulates that may fall in the containers during evaporation in the evaporation
hood. Details are given in Appendix F.
The mass left in the containers after evaporation is determined by equation G-41.
M
vcomi
Aconti
~ Msconti
(G-41)
where M Aamti is the average mass of container / after evaporation, and M B com / is the
average mass of container / before sample collection. It is important that care is taken in
dissipating all static charge before weighing the glass containers. At least three
weightings are recommended to determine the average weights.
2. Normalize the collected condensed grease vapor mass with respect to 1000 lb. of food
product cooked.
Equation G-42 gives the normalized emission of grease vapor.
Mv total
"^v total
QR
1000 lb. Food [M^^lDRJ
(C-AD\
where Mv totai is given by equation G-36, Mtotaifood is given by equation G-33, QR is given
by equation G-32, DR is given by equation G-34, and C is the same conversion constant
in equation G-35.
G-16

1. Total CO? Emissions
Total CO2 emissions includes room air contributions as well as cooking process
contributions as measured in the cooking plume.
1. Determine the volumetric flow rate of CO2 in the exhaust duct from the cooking
plume at the sampling point. Equation G-43 gives the volumetric flow rate of CO2 from
the plume (Geo, ,*)
coz
"""^CQ2
plume
Qduct
Q_43
DR
plume
brlO
where PPMC02 plume is the CO2 concentration in the plume at the sampling point given in
parts per million, DR is given by equation G-34, and Qdua is the total volumetric flow
rate in the exhaust duct given by equation J-4. Note, this is not the total amount of CO2
which enters the exhaust duct. There are contributions from room air which enters the
exhaust air between the plume sampling point and the exhaust duct entrance.
2. Determine the density of CO2 in the exhaust duct. Equation G-44 gives the density of
CO2 in the exhaust duct (pCOz duct).
9co2
duct ~
~T: rj,
G-44
KI
duct
where MWCOi is the molecular weight of CO2 (44 lbm/lbmol or 44g/gmol), Pbaro is given
by equation G-1S,R is the universal gas constant (0.73 atm-ft3/lbmol-R or 8.314 Pam3/gmol-K), and Tdua is the average absolute duct temperature.
3. Calculate the mass flow rate of CO2 from the plume in the exhaust duct. Equation G45 gives the mass flow rate of CO2 in the exhaust duct {Mc^
plume.
M COt
dua=
Qcty
duct) from the
phone Pa^
duct
cooking
G-45
The results from this equation can be directly used to find the total CO2 emissions per
hour of appliance operationfromthe plume.
G-17
4. Normalize the total CO2 emissions with respect to 1000 lb. of food product cooked.
Equation G-46 gives the normalized emission of total CO2 from the plume exiting the
exhaust duct.
M
C(h
duct
C<h
1000 lb. Food
duct *s
G - 4 6
Mw1alfood
where ts is the total sampling time while the food is cooked, Mtotal food is given by
equation G-33, and C is the same conversion constant in equation G-35.
2. Maximum CO? Contributions From Combustion
The combustion of natural gas has an upper limit of CO2 generation. The maximum
contributions assume a stoichiometric chemical reaction, thus perfect combustion. In
reality, the CO2 contributions will be less depending on the efficiency of the combustion
process.
1. Determine the mass flow rate of natural gas to the appliance. The mass flow rate of
natural gas to the appliance (M CH4 ) is given by equation G-47.
M
CH< = QCHiPcHt
G-47
where QCHt is the flow rate of CH4 to the appliance, given by equation G-48, and pCH is
the density of CH4 at the flow meter, given by equation G-49.
QcH^^f-
G-48
where VCH is the volume of natural gas supplied to the appliance during the sampling
time and ts is the sampling time. VCH is determined by zeroing the natural gas meter at the
beginning of sampling, and reading the value at the completion of sampling.
MWCH
CH
where MWCHt is the molecular weight of natural gas (16 lbn/lbmol or 16 g/gmol), PCH is
the total absolute pressure of the supplied natural gas at the gas meter, and TCH is the
temperature of the natural gas at the gas meter. The total absolute pressure of the
supplied natural gas is the gas supply gauge pressure at the flow meter plus the room
barometric pressure.
G-18
2. Determine the mass flow of the CO2 combustion product. For stoichiometric
conditions, the mass flow of CO2 from combustion (Mc^
by equation G-50 (ASHRAE 1993).
Mco2
mmb=
comb)
of natural gas is given
2.744 MCHA
G-50
The results from this equation can be directly used to find the maximum CO2
contributions from combustion per hour of appliance operation.
3. Normalize the maximum CO2 combustion contributions to the mass of 1000 lb. of
food cooked. Equation G-51 gives the normalized maximum CO2 contributions from
combustion.
co2 comb __ Mco2 comb ts

\000 lb. Food
Mlomlfood
where ts is the sampling time, M totalfood is given by equation G-33, and C is the same
conversion constant in equation G-35.
3. CO? Emissions After Subtracting Room Air Contributions
Carbon dioxide levels in the room air are not negligible, which makes it unique from
other gases sampled. To find the CO2 contributions from the cooking process only,
including combustion, but not including room air dilution, it is necessary to estimate what
portion of the measured CO2 comes from the room air, and subtract that from the total
CO2 emissions.
The mass flow of C0 2 from the appliance only, including contribution from the actual
cooking process as well as the combustion process, is given by equation G-52.
c<h appi^Mco,
where M ca,
app,
plttme-MCOl
room
G-52
is the mass flow of C 0 2 from the appliance, including combustion and
cooking process contributions, M Co2
plume
is the mass flow of CO2 at the cooking plume,
and MCo2 room is the mass flow of room air contributions of CO2 to the plume. Note, the
strategy to find the mass flow rate of CQ2 from the appliance requires us to treat the mass
flow rate from the cooking plume a little differently that was done in the previous section.
G-19
To find the mass flow rate of a particular gas in an air stream equation G-53 can be used,
if the concentration of the particular gas is known in parts per million. Equation G-53 is
based on the ideal gas law and the fact that parts per million is a volume based
concentration measurement.
PPM gas
MW:P;
Mgas=Qa,
RZ air
G-53
MO 6
where M gas is the mass flow rate of the particular gas, Qair is the total volumetric flow
rate of the air stream containing the gas, MWmr is the molecular weight of the air in the air
stream, including the particular gas, P^y is the absolute pressure of the air, R is the
universal gas constant, rfll> is the absolute air temperature, and PPMgas is the
concentration of the particular gas in parts per million. Substituting equation G-53 into
equation G-52 gives equation G-54.
MW
<=o1 app, -Qpta
lY1
PPM CO2
rt
plume*plume
LclO
RT plume
MW
plume
-On
lvlrY
PPM CO2
roomrbaro
R T
room
LclO
G-54
where Qpiume is the volumetric flow rate of all the air in the plume passing through at the
sampling position, Qr00m is the volumetric flow rate of the contributions from the room auto the plume, MWpiume is the molecular weight of the room air, Ppiume is the absolute
pressure at the plume, Pbaro is the absolute barometric pressure in the room, where the
CO2 concentration was measured, Tpiume is the absolute temperature of the air in the
plume at the sampling point, Troom is the absolute room air temperature, R is the
universal gas constant, PPMcch plume is the CO2 concentration at the sampling point in
the cooking plume, and PPMCOl room ls
me
CO2 concentration of the dilution room air.
The molecular weight of the plume air and the molecular weight of the room air are
essentially identical. In addition, the difference in absolute pressure between the air in the
plume and the room barometric pressure is insignificant. Equation G-54 can now be
rearranged into equation G-55.
M CO,
PPM CO}
"*roombaro
appl
T
\ ppiume
lxlO
plume
Qn
6
room J
PPM CO2
1*10
room
G-55
The molecular weight of the room air is the standard molecular weight of normal air (29
lbm/lbmol, or 29 g/gmol), and the barometric pressure and temperature in the room are
measured for each test. The CO2 concentration in the plume is the average concentration
measured during the entire cooking process. The CQ2 concentration in the room air is the
G-20
average room air concentration measured after the test for at least 3 minutes, away from
the test kitchen and other sources of CO2 such as human respiration. Unfortunately, the
remaining three quantities, the plume flow rate, the room air contribution to plume flow
rate, and the plume temperature, are not as easy to determine. First we will discuss the
room air contributions and substitute additional terms into equation G-55.
The room air contributions to the plume cannot be measured directly. Therefore, we must
make some assumptions concerning the make-up of the plume. The total mass flow of
the plume can be divided into three components, namely, contributions from the dilution
room air, contributions from the food product, and contributions from the natural gas
combustion flue. For electrical appliances there are no contributions from natural gas
combustion. The dilution room air enters the cooking plume from around and above the
appliance cooking surface and mixes with the other components to become part of the
cooking plume. The contribution from the food product includes gases and vapors
released during the cooking process. Included in the food product contributions has to be
any combustion of grease drippings which might occur. These must be considered
separate from the natural gas combustion process, because they occur in electrical as well
as gas appliances. Equation G-56 gives the total mass contributions to cooking plume.
M plume
food + M room
G-56
where M pume is the mass flow of plume air at the sampling height, M fiue is the mass flow
contribution to the plume from the flue gases, M food is the mass flow contribution to the
plume from the cooking product, and M room is the mass flow contribution to the plume
from the dilution room air. Using the ideal gas law equation, equation G-56 can be given
in terms of volumetric flow rates as shown in equation G-57.
MW_plumePplume _
*plume
n rp
K 1
plume
*flue
MW^P,.
Jf T
K i
flue
MWfoodPfood
*food
p T
K 1
food
MW^P^
xiroom
n rp
K
1
room
The terms for the plume and room are given in equation G-54. Qflue is the volumetric
flow rate from the combustion flue gases, MWflue is the molecular weight of the
combustion flue gases, Pfiue is the absolute pressure at the flue gas exit, Tfiue is the
absolute flue gas exit temperature, Qf00d is the volumetric flow rate of the gases from the
food cooking process, MWf00d is the molecular weight of the food product gases, Pf00d is
the absolute pressure at the cooking surface, Tf00d is the absolute food product gas
temperature. The universal gas constant cancels out, as does the pressures, if we
approximate them to all be about barometric room pressure. The molecular weight of the
gases from the flue, room, and plume can all be considered about the same as the
molecular weight of normal air. However, the gases exiting the food product is
dominated by water vapor, therefore, the molecular weight of water vapor best represents
the molecular weight of gases from the food. We do not believe water vapor dominates
G-21
the overall plume gases, therefore, we do not adjust the plume molecular weight. After
canceling the universal gas constant and pressure terms, and equating three of the
molecular weights into the room air molecular weight, equation G-57 can be solved for
the room air flow rate Qr00m shown in equation G-58.
l&room
xiplume
nr
plume
_
roorr
"food
*-room
rr<
1
food
MWfood
t
MWm
^flue ,
-JJ
rp
room
G-58
ftue
Equation G-58 can be substituted into equation G-55 with the room air temperatures
canceling. The substitution yields equation G-59.
*plume
MWroom
rP
co
appl
barn
T
\
PPM COj
IJCIO
plume
plume J
QM)(MWt food
T
\MWroom
PPM C0
fi>od J
LclO
plume J
PPM CO2
room
*plume
room
(0
"l PPM CO}
>flue
LclO
LclO
T
\
flue
room
G-59
The first term in the brackets represents the CO2 detected in the cooking plume. The
second term subtracts the contributions from room air. However, included in the second
term is the plume volume mat comes from the food products and the flue. It is incorrect
to subtract CO2 room air contributions from these volumes so they are added back to the
equation in terms 3 and 4.
The room air molecular weight, barometric pressure, universal gas constant and
concentrations have been previously explained. The molecular weight from the food
product gases is estimated to be mostly water vapor therefore a value of 18 lb/lbmol (18
g/gmol) is used. The temperature from the food product gases is estimated at the phase
change temperature of water at 212 F (100C). The flue gas temperature, is only
applicable to gas appliances, and was determined by measurement. For the griddle, fryer,
and oven, the flue gases exited an actual flue and the temperature could be measured
directly. For the broiler and range, the flue exit was determined to be the surface of the
appliance, therefore, the temperatures found from the appliance surface temperature
calibration tests were used. The four remaining quantities to explain, the plume
temperature, the plume flow rate, the flow rate from the flue, and the flow rate from the
food product gases are discussed in detail below.
a. Plume temperature, Tpiume
While as a first approximation it may seem appropriate to use the temperature measured
at the sampling point. However, the sampling point is often near the peak temperatures
and does not adequately describe the plume temperature. The appropriate value to use is
the bulk plume temperature which accounts for the temperature and velocity gradients,
G-22
giving a temperature which properly connects the volumetricflowrate to the mass flow
rate. Finding an equation for the bulk temperature begins with a basic form of the energy
equation.
M CpAT
G-60
where E is the energy added system as defined by the control volume, M is the mass
flow offluidthrough the control volume, Cp is the specific heat of the fluid, and AT is
the temperature difference between the system and the surroundings. For calculating the
plume bulk temperature, the system is the cooking plume at the sampling point height,
and the control volume is defined by the hood area at the same height. Using these
definitions, AT becomes equal to Tpiume - TTOOm- Solving for Tpiume and specifying the
energy and massflowsare the average values for the entire plume gives equation G-61.
plume ~ =
room
-6
MCp
Where E is the average net energy content of the plume and M is the average mass flow
rate of the plume air at the sampling point. It is important to note the way the energy is
defined here only includes the energy content above the energy content of the surrounding
room air. The average energy and massflowrate can be determined by the individual
velocity and temperature measurements made at the sampling height. The plume is
divided into separate control volumes with an associated temperature and velocity. The
average massflowrate and average energy is simply a summation using these values.
Equation G-62 gives the energy equation and equation G-63 give the mass flow equation.
^ = S ^ / ^ - ^ 0 J = CpXG,P/(7;-rrooJ = C p X ^ A ^ ( 7 ; - ^ 0 J
i=l
1=1
K 1
i=l
M=E^=SaP/=XÂTV
i=l
i=l
i=\
G-62
ai
G-63
a*i
where i is one of the n control volumes, M, is the massflowrate through the control
volume, Ti is the temperature of the control volume, Q\ is the volumetric flow rate
through the control volume, p, is the air density in the control volume, /, is the velocity
through the control volume, A, is the control volume area, P, is the absolute pressure in
the control volume, and Ra is the gas constant for air (equal to the universal gas constant
divided by the molecular weight of air). The specific heat was assumed to be constant for
G-23
the given temperature range, and the gas constant and pressure can also be assumed
constant. Therefore, they can be brought outside the summation. After making these
adjustments, and substituting equations G-62 and G-63 into equation G-61, the specific
heat, gas constant and pressure cancel leaving equation G-64.
T-JL(T-T
T,
X/
rp
plume
v i
)
room'
+T
" IT A
G-64
room
The velocities used are the average velocities found during the velocity distribution
measurements. The temperatures are the average individual temperatures measured
during the temperature distribution tests at the height closest to the sampling point. The
control volume areas represent the areas around the velocity measurement positions, with
the measurement position geometrically centered. For the first few appliances, the
velocities and temperatures were not measured at the same points. Therefore, the
temperature measurements were used to find the average temperature within the velocity
control volume. The room temperature was measured throughout the temperature
distribution tests and the average value is used.
b. Flow rate from the food product gases, Qf00d
Equation G-65 gives the volumetric flow rate from the food product gases.
Qfood=MfoodX>food
G-65
where M {ood is the mass flow rate of the gases from the food product, and vfood is the
specific volume of the same gases. M f00d is given by equation G-66.
AM food
M food =
\"^ food before ~ "^ food after)
r^tm
G-66
where AMfood is the total change in mass of the food product during the cooking process,
ts is the sampling time, Mf00d before is the mass of the food before cooking, and Mfood after is
the mass of the food after cooking. For our purposes, the loss of food mass can be
divided into the loss of moisture, the loss of fat or grease, and other losses. In addition,
the mass loss of each of these components can be in the form of vapor, liquid, or
particulates. The mass loss of a component to the solid phase which does not become
aerosolized will be counted as a liquid. Equation G-67 gives all the possible components
of food product mass loss.
G-24
&Mfood
= AMÔ
vapor
+
AM
H20 liquid
grease
part
+ AM^ "H20
pan +
+ AM
grease vapor
AM
grease liquid
+ AM
Z J m
other vapor ^
L u n
other liquid
LUV1
other pan
H2O signifies water, grease signifies the loss of fat, and other means any other component
such as protein. Vapor represents the gaseous phase, liquid signifies liquid or solids left
on the cooking surface in bulk form, and part signifies particulates which could be in the
liquid or solid phase, or a combination. Because the cooking surface temperature is
always well above the heat of vaporization for water, we can assume no water is left in
the liquid form. Another assumption is that the mass of water in the particulate form is
insignificant. This may not be a valid assumption all the time, especially for the fryers,
but is probably valid for most situations. Finally, because we did not do a chemical
analysis on the collected grease vapor and particulates, we can assume our measurements
of the grease vapor and particulates includes quantities of what we specify as other. For
this reason, we can combine the grease and other terms. Eliminating and combining
terms from equation G-67, and substituting back into equation G-66, gives equation G68.
AMun
+AM
H2U
vapor
+AM
grease vapor
,. .,+AM
grease liquid
grease part
M food =
-_
G-68
\i
Next, we can assume that the mass of food lost as liquid grease, which includes any
grease (or substances other than water) left of the cooking surface, in the grease drip
trays, or burnt solids on various surfaces including utensils, does not contribute to the
food product gas volume.
A final simplifying assumption is that the grease particulates do not add appreciably to
the volume of gas from the food product. Calculations show that the volume of space
occupied by the grease particles is only about one fifty thousandth the volume occupied
by water and grease vapor. Therefore, mass lost to grease particulates can be ignored.
Eliminating the grease liquid and particles, and substituting equation G-68 into equation
G-65 gives equation G-69.
AM nmrmr + AAf
-.
Qfood =
"2^
vapor
nr
grease vapor
-^ _
^food
-o9
While the specific volume of a mixture of grease and water vapor is unknown, we can
assume it is similar to water vapor. Therefore, the specific volume of the food is
estimated as the specific volume of water vapor at 212 F (100 C): 26.8 ftVlbn, (1.67
m3/kg).
G-25
The food product mass loss of water vapor is given by equation G-70.
%Mst food before
^"^
H20 vapor ~
"^ food before
-M
100
%Mst food after

food after
G-70
100
where Mfoodbefore and Mfood^T are defined in equation G-66, and %Mstfoodbefore and
% Mstfoodafter are the food product moisture contents in mass percentage for the food
product before and after cooking. Samples of the food product are weighed before and
after moisture removal in an oven set at 221 F (105 C) to determine the % moisture. In
addition, some food product samples are tested by a food product laboratory to verify the
moisture determinations.
The food product mass loss to grease vapor is given by equation G-71.
AM grease vapor
M v total
JQQQ
ft>
F o ( ) d
1000
M total food
G-71
M v total
is given by equation G-42, the factor of 1000 converts the mass of
1000 lb. Food
total vapor emissions from per 1000 lb. of food product to per 1 lb. of food product, and
Mtotaifood is the total mass of food product cooked in lb. Substituting equations G-70 and
G-71 into equation G-69 yields the final equation for calculating the volumetric flow rate
from the food product shown by equation G-72.
where
M foodbefore
Qfood
%Mst food before
-M
100
1
M total food
1000 lb. Food 1000
%Mst food after

food after
100
V food
G-72
"^v total
c. Volumetric flow rate from theflue,Qflue

The volumetric flow rate from the flue includes contributions from the combustion gases
as well as some room air dilution which occurs between the combustion flame and the
flue exit. It is important to realize this dilution air does come from the room air, but does
not refer to the same room air dilution which occurs in the cooking plume. Instead, all
the room air dilution referred to here is used for one of two purposes. Some is used as
excess air in the combustion process, which helps combust a higher percentage of the
natural gas. The rest of the air is brought through the appliance and cools the combustion
gases a little before they exit the flue. In the end, the excess room air as well as the
dilution room air within the appliance helps cool the combustion gases, so for our
purposes they will be referred to as internal dilution air. The dilution air which joins the
G-26
plume from outside the flue and above the appliance surface is referred to as external
dilution air. Equation G-73 gives the equation for the total volumetric flow from the
appliance flue.
Qflue = Qcomb + Qim dil
-73
where QCOmb is the volumetric flow rate of the combustion products exiting the flue, and
Qintdu is the volumetric flow rate of the excess combustion air and internal dilution room
air. In this case, the combustion products not only include CQ2, but water vapor and
nitrogen also. Equation G-74 gives the volumetric flow rate from the combustion
products exiting the flue.
Qcomb=f^-
G-74
rcomb
where Mcomb'\s the mass flow rate of the combustion gases, and pcomb is the density of the
gases at the flue exit, given by equations G-75 and G-76, respectively.
M comb = 1824
MCH4
PflueMWcomb
Pcomb = ^Z
G-75
G-76
K1
flue
where
MCH4
is given by equation G-47, Pjiue is the absolute pressure at the flue exit,
MWcomb is the molecular weight of the combustion products, R is the universal gas
constant, and Tfiue is the absolute temperature of the gases exiting the flue. Equation G-75
assumes stoichiometric combustion and is found in the ASHRAE Fundamentals
Handbook (1993). For each lb. of CH4, stoichiometry requires 17.24 lb. of air, which is
generally comprised of 13.25 lb. of N2 and 3.99 lb. of O2. The other trace gases are
ignored in this calculation. The N2 goes through the combustion process intact, while the
CH4 and 0 2 combine to form 2.74 lb. of C0 2 and 2.25 lb. of H 2 0. Therefore, the
molecular weight of the combustion products is 29.18 lbm/ lbmol (29.18 g/gmol). The
pressure at the flue exit is estimated to be the same as the room barometric pressure, and
the flue exit temperature can be measured.
The internal dilution air cannot be measured directly, but must be calculated using
information we know about the combustion process and the flue exit. Equation G-77
gives the equation for the volumetric flow rate of internal dilution air exiting the flue.
_
M i n t dil
tJint da =
Pint dil
G-77
G-27
where A/jm du is the mass flow rate of the internal dilution air, and pint m is the density of
the air at the flue exit. There must be an energy and mass balance at the flue exit
comprising components from the combustion process and internal dilution. Equation G78 gives the energy balance and equation G-79 gives the mass balance.
Eflue ~ Ecomb
Mflue
înt dil
= M comb + M im dil
G-78
G-79
where EflUe is the total energy at the flue exit, Ecomb is the component of the energy at the
flue from the combustion products, Eintdu is the component of the energy at the flue from
the internal dilution air, M ^ i s the total mass flow of gases exiting the plume, Mcomb is
the mass flow of the combustion products given by equation G-75, and M m da is the
mass flow from the internal dilution air. The components of equation G-78 can be
written as follows:
flue = Mfl-e CpflueTflue
~(\ F
comb
\\ ^food
radiation A
G-80
Mcomb CpcombTcomb
G-81
CH* J
înt dil ~ "" im dil Cp ^
dilT-mi M
G-82
the Cp terms are the respective specific heats of the gases, and the T terms are the absolute
temperatures. The first term for the combustion gas energy takes into account the fraction
of energy that is lost to radiation. This is estimated using information on heat gains with
and without ventilation hoods from appliances available in the ASHRAE Fundamentals
handbook. The second term accounts for the fact not all of the energy produced in the
combustion process exits the flue or is lost to radiation. If this were the case, the food
product would never cook. Therefore, we estimate the combustion product energy
contribution as being that percentage of the energy from the combustion process which
does not go to the food or is lost as infrared radiation. In reality, there are places other
than the flue exit where this energy transfers such as heat conduction to the appliance
structural components, however, this is difficult to quantify, and we use the simplified
analysis. For each test the total volume of CH4 used is measured and the energy content
of the gas is known. The various ASTM appliance performance test methods give
G-28
approximate methodologies of determining the total energy transferred to the food

product.
Equations G-78 through G-82 can be combined and solved for the mass flow of internal
dilution air, resulting in equation G-83.
'food
V
Mint dil =
radiation)
M comb
C
w
*-CH4 J ^ p comb comb
pflue * flue
T
p flue flue
G-83
p int dil * int dil
Solving equation G-83 requires solving equation G-75 for the mass flow from the
combustion process, and finding the energy to the food and from the natural gas using the
appropriate ASTM test method for appliance performance. The temperature of the
combustion gases was estimated to be 4000 R (2222 K) which is just slightly below the
adiabatic flame temperature for natural gas. The flue temperature is measured directly,
and the internal dilution air comes from the room air, so the average room air temperature
is used. The specific heat of the combustion gases was determined by specific heats of
the combustion components at the flame temperature, weighted by their masses. The
result was a specific heat of about 0.36 BTU/lbm R. The specific heat of the internal
dilution air is equivalent to the specific heat of the room air (0.24 BTU/lbm R). The
specific heat of the flue gases at the flue exit is a composite of the specific heats of the
combustion and internal dilution gases given by equation G-84.
C
^ pflue
M comb
M,int dil
^-pintdi/C^- *jlue)
Mcomb+M
Mcomb+
int dil
CpComb(@Tflue)
G-84
Mitdil
While the mass flow from the combustion air is known independently, the mass flow the
internal dilution air is not. Therefore, equations G-83 and G-84 must be solved
simultaneously through interpolation. Note the specific heats for the internal dilution and
combustion gases are specified at the flue exit temperature for equation G-84, while they
were specified at the room air temperature and combustion flame temperature,
respectively, in equation G-83. At the approximate flue exit temperature of 500 F (260
C), the combustion gas specific heat is about 0.27 BTU/lbn, R, while the internal
dilution air specific heat remains near 0.24 BTU/lbm RFinally, the density of the internal dilution gases at the flue exit are determined using
equation G-85.
"flue MVfmt
'int dil
RTtflue
du
G-85
G-29
where the pressure and temperature at the flue exit are the same as used in equation G-76,
and the internal dilution air molecular weight equivalent to the molecular weight of the
room air.
d. Volumetric flow rate of the plume, Qpiume

The volumetric flow rate of the thermal plume is given by equation G-86.
M
ptumeTpbmeR
Up,ume
~ P
MW
plume
plume
where M piume is the mass flow rate of the thermal plume at the sampling point, Tpiume is
the bulk temperature of the plume as determined by equation G-64, R is the universal gas
constant, Ppiume is the absolute pressure of the plume at the sampling point, and A/Wp/ume is
the molecular weight of the plume air. The pressure at the plume is approximately the
same as the barometric room air pressure and the molecular weight of the plume air can
be considered approximately equal to the molecular weight of dry air.
Equation G-87 gives the mass flow rate of the thermal plume at the sampling point.
Mplume = 2J Mi
G-87
1=1
where Af, is the mass flow rate through the i th control volume. There are a total of n
control volumes. Note this is the same as equation G-63 except we have changed the
notation to be consistent with equation G-86. The mass flow rate of the i th control
volume is given by equation G-88
M
MÊiL.
G_88
RTt
where Qi is the volumetric flow rate through the control volume, /^,ro ,the absolute
pressure, is estimated for all control volumes to be equivalent to the room barometric
pressure, MWmr is the molecular weight of air, estimated to be the same for all control
volumes, R is the universal gas constant, and 7* is the absolute average temperature of
the control volume.
G-30
The volumetric flow rate through the control volume is given by equation G-89.
fi,=C/,A
G-89
where {/, is the average estimated velocity through the control volume, and A, is the crosssectional area of the control volume. Substituting equations G-87 through G-89 into
equation G-86 gives equation G-90. Note the pressure and molecular weight terms were
changed to reflect the assumptions stated in equation G-86.
TplumeR
Vip/M
fUA^raMW^
G9Q
Pban,MWair
Because the pressure, molecular weight, and universal gas constant, are constants over the
summation, they can be brought outside the summation and canceled by like terms in the
brackets, leaving equation G-91.
^ UiAi
*plume
plume 4
rp
VJ 7 1
Equation G-64 is used to solve for Tpiume, while the finding the remaining terms is also
explained in equation G-64. To clarify the summation, the control volumes used to
determine the plume boundaries are determined by the temperature within the boundary
center. If the average temperature in the particular control volume is sufficiently higher
than the room air temperature, as defined by table 7, the flow through the control volume
is considered part of the thermal plume. Another assumption which should be restated is
that the velocity measurements, which were not taken during the actual cooking process,
are approximately equal to the velocities at the same points during the cooking process.
e. Steps to find the CO2 emissions after subtracting room air contributions
1. Find the bulk plume temperature Tpiume using equation G-64. To accomplish this, the
average temperature at each thermocouple position at the height closest to the sampling
height must be found. Then, using table 7, the plume boundaries must be determined.
Finally, the average velocities within each control volume must be calculated.
2. Find the volumetric flow rate of the plume, Qpuime, using equation G-91.
3. Find the volumetric flow rate from the food product gases, Qf00d, using equation G-72.
4. Find the volumetricflowrate from the flue gases, Qflue, using equation G-73.
Equations G-74 through G-76 give the combustion contributions, while equations G-77,
and G-83 through G-85 give the internal dilution air contributions. For electrical
appliances, Qflue is considered to be zero.
G-31
5. Solve equation G-59 for the CO2 emissions from the appliance. This should give an
approximation to the actual amount of CO2 generated by the combustion process and
cooking product, while eliminating contributions from the room air.
. Carbon Monoxide Emissions
The background room air concentration of CO was found to be below detection.

Therefore, the CO levels measured were assumed to be a result of the natural gas
combustion process or the cooking process. It is likely the CO emissions from the
cooking process itself is mainly a result of grease drippings combusting of a hot surface.
For the gas broiler, grease drippings would often flare-up in the grease tray beneath the
broiler burners, certainly generating some CO emissions. The following describes how to
determine the CO emissions.
1. Find the volumetric flow rate of CO exiting the exhaust duct. Equation G-92 gives the
volumetric flow rate of CO in the exhaust duct (QCOducl)
dCO duct
""M-CO
plume
DR
QducL^
brlO
9 2
where PPMco plume is the CO concentration in the plume given in parts per million, DR is
the dilution ratio described in equation G-34, and QdUCt is the volumetric flow rate in the
duct given by equation J-4.
2. Determine the density of CO in the exhaust duct as given by equation G-93.
Pcoduc - ^TZ
G-93
K1
duct
where pCOduct is the density of CO in the exhaust duct, MWco is the molecular weight of
CO (28 lbm/lbmol or 28 g/gmol), Pbam is the room barometric pressure, R is the universal
gas constant, and Tdua is the average absolute duct temperature.
3. Find the mass flow rate of CO in the exhaust duct as given by equation G-94.
Mcoduc = QcoducPcoduc
G-94
where M codua is the mass flow rate of CO in the exhaust duct. Equation G-94 can be
used directly to find the CO emissions per 1000 hours of appliance operation.
G-32
4. Normalize the CO emissions to 1000 lb. of food product cooked. Equation G-95 gives
the normalized CO emissions.
M
COduct
M CO duel
1000 lb. Food
Mtoudftt0d
where ts is the sampling time while the food is cooked, Mtotaifood is the total mass of food
cooked as described in equation G-33, and C is the same conversion constant used in
equation G-35.
Nitrogen oxides emissions were measured by collecting gas samples at the sampling point
in a Tedlar bag. In addition, room air samples were also collected. The two sample bags
were analyzed with an NDIR based high sensitivity NO* analyzer. Although the room air
NOx concentrations were low, there were often measurable concentrations due to the
sensitivity of the analyzer. To simplify the analysis, the room air concentrations were
subtracted from the measured concentration at the sampling point to approximate the NO,
concentrations from the cooking process. Equation G-96 gives the equation used to find
the NO x plume concentration from the cooking process.
PPMNOxPlume = PPMNOxSamp -PPMNOiroom
G-96
where PPMNOplume is the corrected NOx concentration found in the plume at the
sampling point, PPMNOplttme is the measured concentration of NOx at the sampling point,
and PPMN0^ room is the room air concentration of NOx. All concentrations are given in
parts per million. The following describes how to determine the NOx emissions.
1. Find the volumetric flow rate of NOx exiting the exhaust duct as given by equation G97
PPM
rrIvl
QNO
duct
NOx
plume
DR
Qduc,
G 9 ?
LtlO
where QNOiduct is the volumetric flow rate of NOx exiting the exhaust duct, DR is the
dilution ratio described in equation G-34, and QdUC, is the volumetric flow rate in the duct
given by equation J-4.
G-33
2. Determine the density of N0X in the exhaust duct as given by equation G-98.
o
MWNOsPbaro
YNOxduct ~
where p ^
duct
-
duct
K1
U-VS
is the density of NOx in the exhaust duct, MWNOX is the average molecular
weight of NOx (38 lbn/lbmol or 38 g/gmol), Pbaw is the room barometric pressure, R is
the universal gas constant, and Tduct is the average absolute duct temperature. Here, we
assume equal parts NO to NO2 for the molecular weight.
3. Find the mass flow rate of NOx in the exhaust duct as given by equation G-99.
M NO, due = QNOx duct pNOx ^
G-99
where M NO, duct is the mass flow rate of NOx in the exhaust duct. Equation G-99 can be
used directly to find the NOx emissions per 1000 hours of appliance operation.
4. Normalize the NOx emissions to 1000 lb. of food product cooked. Equation G-100
gives the normalized NOx emissions.
M NO, duct
\000 lb. Food
M NO, duct t
-C
Mtotalfood
G-100
wheref* is the sampling time while the food is cooked, Mtotalfood is the total mass of food
cooked as described in equation G-33, and C is the same conversion constant used in
equation G-35.
For the hydrocarbon emissions an analytic testing laboratory was used. A sorbent
sampling tube was used to collect the gases and the tube was sent to the lab. To report a
concentration level, the total sampling volume was reported to the laboratory. Equation
G-101 gives the equation for total sample volume.
Vsamp=Qsampts
G401
where Vsamp is the sampling volume, Qsamp is the sampling volumetric flow rate, and ts is
the sampling time. The sampling volumetric flow rate was measured with an electronic
soap bubble flow meter.
G-34
The determination of the thermal plume volumetric flow rate, QpiUme, has been described
earlier by equations G-86 through G-91.
The minimum volumetric flow rate generated by the cooking process is determined by
combining some of the volumetric flow rates previously determined for the CQ2
emissions from the appliance. For the electric appliances, the rninimum flow rate is
simply the volume generated by the cooking product. For the gas appliances, the flow
rate generated by the combustion process and internal dilution air is added. Equations G102 and G-103 give the minimum volumetric flow rates for the electric and gas
appliances, respectively.
Grain elect = Qfood
Gmin gas
Qfood
G-102 '
Qcomb
QtA dil
G-103
where Qmin elect is the minimum flow rate from an electric appliance, Qmingas is the
minimum flow rate from a gas appliance, Qf00d is given by equation G-72, Qcomb is given
by equations G-74 through G-76, and Qmtdu is given by equations G-77 and G-83 through
G-85.
It is important to note the minimum volumetric flow rates assume no further dilution
from any room air, thus it is the equivalent of the flow from a closed hood sealed directly
over the process, with all outside room air sealed off. Technically, if one hood were to be
placed over the flue and food for the gas appliances, the two exhaust streams would mix
resulting in a slightly different volumetric flow rate than calculated in equation G-103.
This is because the food product gases have a lower temperature than the gases exiting
the flue (the combustion and internal dilution gases). Therefore, the flue gases would
cool, resulting in a lower volumetric flow rate, while the food product gases would
expand while they were heated by the flue gases. This effect was calculated for one
process and the result was a net increase of slightly less than 2 % of the volume
calculated using equation G-103. Therefore, considering the approximations already used
to calculate equation G-103, it appears unnecessary to add an additional level of
complexity.
G-35
J. Mass Flow and Energy Rate Comparisons at the Hood Entrance and Exhaust
Duct
1. Calculate the mass flow rate in the exhaust duct.

The exhaust flow rate in the duct is given by equation G-104.
Mdue = Qduapdua
G-104
where Mdua is the mass flow rate in the duct, Qducl is the volumetric flow rate in the duct
given by equation J-4, and pducl is the air density in the duct given by equation G-105.
Pduc, =
a"! * "
G-105
where MWai> is the molecular weight of air, Pbaw is the barometric room pressure, R is
the universal gas constant, and Tdua is the average absolute duct temperature.
2. Find the mass flow rate of air into the ventilation hood entrance.
The hood entrance is divided into control volumes as described in section E. The mass
flow rate is determined in each control volume and summed to give the total mass flow
rate into the hood entrance, shown in equation G-106.
M =5>=^Q i P i = ^ ^
I^fr
G-106
where Mhood is the mass flow of air through the hood entrance, Mi is the mass flow of
air through the i th of n control volumes, Q, is the volumetric flow rate through the
control volume, p(. is the density of the air passing through the control volume, Utis the
average velocity measured in the control volume, Tj is the average temperature measured
in the control volume during the cooking process, and A, is the cross-sectional area of the
control volume. Here, we assume the pressure and molecular weight of the air remain
constant.
3. Determine the energy rate through the exhaust duct.
The energy rate through the exhaust duct is given by equation G-107.
E
dua = M dm Cp air ( 7 ^ - Troom)
G-107
G-36
where EdUCt is the net energy gain in the duct, Cpair is the specific heat of air, and Tro0m is
the average room temperature measured during the cooking process. The massflowrate
of the air in the duct and the duct temperature are described in equation G-105.
4. Find the energy rate through the exhaust hood entrance.
Equation G-108 gives the average net energy gain in the exhaust hood entrance.
n
n .
MW
" 77 A
E =X*, = X M , . ^ ( ^ u = ^ f - ^ x M ( i ; _ u
G.108
where Ehood is the net energy gain at the exhaust hood entrance, and, is the net energy
gain in the i th control volume. Again, the specific heat of air, the barometric room
pressure, and the molecular weight of air are considered constant across all control
volumes.
G-37
APPENDIX H
UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
UNCERTAINY ANALYSIS
1. Find the uncertainty associated with the mass of grease collected on each impaction
stage and the filter.
Equation G-l is used to find the mass on each impaction stage. Equation G-l involves
the subtraction of two masses, therefore, equation H-l gives the absolute uncertainty
associated with each mass.
AMa = ^(AMAif+(AMBif
(H-l)
The values for AMM and AMBi are determined by the accuracy and precision of the scale
used to obtain the masses. When the scale is set to a range of 0.001 to 200 mg
(4.5 x 10"10 to 9.1 x 10"5 lb.), AMAorBiare estimated to be 0.005 mg (2.3 x 10"9 lb.) and
when the scale is set to a range of 0.0001 to 25 mg (4.5 x Iff11 to 1 x 10"5 lb.),
AMAorBl. are estimated to be 0.0005 mg (2.3 x 10"10 lb.).
2. Find the uncertainty associated with the mass of grease collected on the 90 inlet
probe.
Equations G-2 through G-4 are used to find the mass of grease collected on the 90 inlet
probe. Again, equations G-2 through G-4 involve subtraction, and equations H-2 through
H-4 give the absolute uncertainties associated with the mass collected on the inlet probe.
bMcprobe
= ) / ( A M c f+(AMCb!ank)2
^Mcsample=^(AMAsample)
+(AMBsample)
A M c ( t a i = y(AM
+ ( A M Bblank )
blank )
(H-2)
(H-3)
(H-4)
In order to use equations H-2 through H-4, the absolute uncertainty for each of the
averaged masses must be estimated. If we let M __ be any of the averaged masses within
the brackets in equations H-3 and H-4, the absolute uncertainty in M __ can be found
using either equation H-5 or H-6.
_
AM
A M _ = - T ^
Vn
(H-5)
H-2
(M__,-M__)2
AM
='
I=I
(H-6)
n-\
Equation H-5 applies if each measured value, M ,-, is considered an independent

measurement. In equation H-5, n is the total number of measurements and AM__ is the
absolute measurement uncertainty associated with each M _,. Equation H-5 is valid
when AM
is the same for all measurements, as would apply to a scale. The uncertainty
associated with the scale is used for determining AM_ and was found to be 0.5 mg
(l.lxl0- 3 lb.).
Equation H-6 gives the standard deviation of M __, where M , is the value of
measurement i. In this investigation, the values from H-5 and H-6 are similar. For the
purposes of uncertainty analysis, the higher of the two values is used.
3. Find the uncertainty in the combined particle mass from the inlet probe, and stages I,
l,and2.
Equation G-5 gives the combined mass of the inlet probe, and stages 1,1, and 2. Because
the masses are simply added, equation H-7 gives the uncertainty in the combined mass.
AMCCom* = ,j{AMcPr0be)2 +(AM C/ ) 2 +(AM CI ) 2 +(AM C2 ) 2
(H-7)
4. Find the uncertainty in the corrected collected particulate mass, McaUncertainties associated with the correction factor, used to correct the collected mass on
stages 3 through 8, must be determined. Equation G-23 gives the corrected collected
mass, Mca- It is necessary to calculate the absolute uncertainty inMca, because the
collected mass could equal 0. Therefore, the relative uncertainty would be indeterminate.
However, even if Ma and hence Mca are 0, uncertainties still exist. If we consider the
quotient, (1-CF), to be the one term (as opposed to considering CF independently)
equation H-8 gives the absolute uncertainty of Mca-
AMca =
1
AM a
{(1-CF))
Afl-CFJ
-Ma
{(l-CFf
12
(H-8)
The absolute uncertainty in (1-CF) is determined by estimating the error associated with
the graph from which the values of CF, for each impaction stage, were read. Note, for the
filter and the combined mass collection areas, CF is 0, therefore, AMCF is equal to
AMCCF, and AMCcomiis equal to AMCCcomb.
H-3
5. Find the uncertainties in the standard volume of gas sampled.

The standard volume of gas sampled, Vsld is given by equations G-7 through G-9. The
relative uncertainty is given by equations H-9 through H-l 1, when the uncertainties in
Tstdi, and Pstd are considered negligible.
std
Zstd2 J
AGgm V
Afi std 2
^ *Jgm
std 2
'AO 2
AGstd 2 v
AV.std
f .~
AT gm
2
(H-9)
\2
gm
g"> J
(H-10)
P
J
\ gm
AV.gm V
AG,gm
Q,gm
gm
(H-ll)
\*s
Combining equations H-9, H-10, and H-l 1 gives equation H-12.

AVstd
V.std
gm
. V
V
g"> J
2
(AP. \
(ATY
gm
K *
ra
* gm J
+ 2' * . *
(H-12)
\ s J
Equation H-l3 gives the absolute uncertainty in the volume measured by the gas meter,
Vgm-
fry
-.
gm
meter
<&
(H-13)
where AV^îs the absolute uncertainty in the gas meter reading andn is the number of
readings (always 2, one at the beginning of sampling and one at the end). AWmeter is
estimated to be 0.05 ft3 (1.4 x 10"3m3).
Equation H-14 gives the absolute uncertainty of the temperature of the air at the gas
meter.
A^gm - y\ATgmtcj + [ATgm vwiatiom j
where AT
Kis
(H-14)
the absolute uncertainty associated with the thermocouple accuracy, while
ATgm variations is the absolute uncertainty associated with the fluctuations air temperature.
For type K thermocouples, the uncertainty in the applicable temperature range is 2.2 C
H-4
(4 F). The fluctuation uncertainties are determined by the range of temperatures

measured at the gas meter during sampling.
The uncertainties in the pressure at the gas meter, Pgm , is estimated by the accuracy of the
measurement device. The pressure at the gas meter is determined by adding the pressure
drop across the orifice to the barometric pressure. The pressure across the orifice was
never more than 0.06 in. H2O (15 Pa) which is only 0.015 % of standard atmospheric
pressure. Therefore, for this investigation, the barometric pressure is used as the pressure
at the gas meter. The estimate for the uncertainty in the barometric pressure is 0.2 in.
Hg (677 Pa), which is very conservative and should account for not adjusting for the
orifice pressure.
The relative uncertainty associated with the sample time is estimated by taking into
account human error in operating the stop watch, and starting and stopping the sampling.
A value of 5 s is used.
6. Find the uncertainty in the particle concentration for stages F through 3 and the
combined stage.
Equation G-10 gives the particle concentration relating to each cut size. Because Mca
can equal 0 for some stages, it is necessary to use the absolute uncertainty. The
uncertainty in the concentration is given by equation H-15.
f
1 ^
"|2
AC =. AMca
Vvs(</y
AV.std
12
-M ca
std
(H-15)
J
7. Determine the uncertainty associated with the cut size of impactor stages 2 through 8.
An estimate of the uncertainty in the cut sizes is necessary to determine the total
uncertainty associated with the normalized concentration. Equation G-l 1 gives the
equation for the cut size. In equation G-l 1, all terms are multiplied or divided, and the
square root is taken to determine d.50. Therefore, equation H-16 gives the relative
uncertainty associated with d.50.
Ad 50
"50
AStt 50
Stk 50 J
r.*, V + \S MJ_
'P J
(H-16)
The following details the uncertainty associated with each term.
H-5
Sampling air viscosity, T|:

Equation G-12 gives the sampling air viscosity. If we consider the uncertainty associated
with Tstti2 and T^to be negligible, equation H-17 gives the relative uncertainty of T|.
0,74 AJairimP
Tl
- air imp
(H-17)
J
The absolute uncertainty of Tairimp is given by equation H-18.

A lair imp -y \ATair ^
rc J
+ \AIair ^
vartofonJJ
(H-18)
where ATairimpKis the absolute uncertainty associated with the thermocouple accuracy,
while ATalrimp varianoniis the absolute uncertainty associated with the fluctuations air
temperature. For type K thermocouples, the uncertainty in the applicable temperature
range is 2.2 C (4 F). The fluctuation uncertainties are determined by the range of
temperatures measured at the impinger during sampling.
Critical nozzle dimension, ),:
The relative uncertainty in D,- is determined by estimating the precision of nozzle
dimensions found in table G-2. For each D, the estimated uncertainty is five times the
last significant figure. For example, at stage 3, D, is given as 0.0813 cm (0.0320 in.).
Therefore, the absolute uncertainty is 0.0005 cm (0.002 in.), giving a relative uncertainty
of 0.6%.
Characteristic Stokesso number, Stkso'.
Equation G-13 gives the Stkso associated with each impaction stage. The values are all
multiplicative or divisive, and one term, dpstd, is squared. Equation H-19 gives the
relative uncertainty associated with Stkso when two sources of uncertainty, CCStd, and Tj^,
are considered negligible.
AStk50
5*,50
(Ap, V
IP.std
Ad,
d pstd
V
j
(AU
\Ustd
std
'ADV
I AJ
(H-19)
The experiments leading to the calibration of the impactor are done carefully. The
estimate for the relative uncertainty of the particle density is 1 %. The estimate for the
relative uncertainty of the particle cut size is 2% The relative uncertainty associated
with the standard air velocity through the nozzle is given by equation H-20.
H-6
At/ std
Ustd
'M.V
fAOstd 2
std 2
(H-20)
+ A;
The relative uncertainty associated with standard flow rate, QSid2, is estimated to be 1%.
The uncertainty associated with the nozzle area .A,, is given by equation H-21 for
rectangular nozzles and H-22 for circular nozzles. Estimates for the absolute uncertainty
for Li is determined in the same manner as those for D,-. Table G-2 in Appendix G gives
the values for >, and L, for each impaction stage.
(H-21)
V AD,
AnV
(H-22)
A,
The particle density, pp, is not well known for cooking effluent. Its value in has been
given as somewhere between 800 and 1000 kg/m3(49.9 and 62.4 lb/ft3) in most literature.
The particles consist of a mixture of grease, water, burnt carbon, and probably other
substances. Therefore, particle density is a large source of uncertainty. For this
investigation, the relative uncertainty for particle density was estimated at 20 %. In
other words, we assume that 68 % of the particles have a density in the range of 800 to
1200 kg/m2 (49.9 to 75.9 lb/ft3).
Equations G-15 to G-18 give the air velocity within the nozzle, U. The relative
uncertainty for U can be found using equation H-23.
AC/
U
\2
împ
'Mv
(H-23)
Equation H-24 gives the relative uncertainty for the flow rate in the impactor, Q,imptsQ.
*imD
AQgm]2
(A P mrgm
a,
< Qgm
I P. gm
f A pair. .imp V
fair u
(H-24)
^ rair imp j
H-7
Equations H-25 and H-26 give the uncertainties associated with the air densities at the gas
meter and the impactor.
f AT
*"
Ap,airgm
* airgm
'airgm
airgm
(AP }
'*L.V
AT, air imp *
Aft**imp
'air imp
(H-25)
gm
(H-26)
V^ * airimp
* baro
The estimate for the uncertainty in the barometric pressure is 0.2 in. Hg (677 Pa).
Equations H-23 through H-26 and equation H-l 1 are combined to form equation H-27.
'*y
AV,gm V
AU_
U
v
\
KK
'baro
airgm
T
* airgm
Aftbaro v
AP,gm V
P
\2
"J
^2
* " airimp
1 airimp
+
(H-27)
( A\
+
< J
Cunningham slip correction at dso, CJdso}-'

Equation G-19 gives the slip correction. The empirical equation is complex and requires
partial differentiation to determine the associated uncertainties. Equation H-28 shows the
equation that must be solved to determine the absolute uncertainty of Cc{dso}.
2
ACc{dx}=.
'deck*}'
Ad,50
âirimp
air imp
dcc{d50y
n2
dd 50
(H-28)
Solutions to the two partial differential equations within H-28 are given by equations H29andH-30.
air imp
d*
'50
2.514+ 0.8e
*-"*
âirimp
(H-29)
air imp
accfc}_-o.44 <-*> K,
'airimp
dd50
<-55rf")
0.44
J
__ ,
'50
air imp
(-.55-^-)
2514 + 0.8e
***
(H-30)
*50
The absolute uncertainty in the mean free path of air at the impactor must be determined
to solve H-28. Equation G-20 gives the expression for the mean free path, which also
H-8
requires partial differentiation. Equations H-31 through H-33 give the absolute
uncertainty in the mean free path of air at the impactor.
A3L.
=.
air imp
^Kirimp
AT,air imp
yUl
ARbaro
fd\air imp
air imp
(H-31)
dRbaro
d\irimp
(H-32)
dTnu
air imp
Pbaro Tstd 3 V
^Kir
imp
"W *
~ \td
air
"barn * std 3 "* air
""P )
Pgd fair
im
PV
air
""P )
imp ( l + 5 ^ / ^ 3 J
(H-33)
"*aro
Pbaro 7 ^ 3 V +
SU/Tairimp)
8. Find the uncertainty in the normalized particle concentration.

The normalized particle concentration is given by equation G-28. The quotient contains
the log of the cut sizes at and above the stage for which the concentration is determined.
While it is possible to differentiate the equation with respect to the individual cut sizes,
an unsatisfactory result will occur. The values of the cut sizes are not independent, that
is, if one cut size increases by 10%, all of the cut sizes will increase by approximately
10%. This results directly from the fact that all cut sizes are affected by the same
parameters in similar manners. Therefore, validating the equation requires the addition of
a covariance term. Instead, we will consider the quotient in equation G-28 to be one
term. The uncertainty associated with the quotient is estimated by equation H-34.
log
d50
"IN
M
(H-34)
*50i
Equation H-34 is simply the root mean square of the difference between the quotient in
equation G-28, and the same quotient when the uncertainty of the cut sizes are added or
subtracted from the cut sizes. Equation H-34 assures that the cut sizes within the log
terms always increase or decrease together, which reflects reality.
H-9
The absolute uncertainty in the normalized concentration can be determined using

equation H-35.
ACM =
AC
dCNi
' dci
'50 i+1
A log
(H-35)
. "50 i
where the solutions to the partial differential equations are given by equations H-36 and
H-37.
3CNi
(H-36)
da
log
^ 5 0 i+1
d
50i
dCNi
log
-C,
"SO i+1
^50 i
log
jy
(H-37)
*50 i+1
50i
Combining equations H-35 through H-37 gives

12
log
ACM- = _
'50 i+1
50 i
(H-38)
.
B. Total Particulates, PM10, and PM 2 J
1. Find the uncertainty associated with the mass of total, PM 10 and PM 2.5 sized
particles.
Equation G-29 gives the mass of the total particulates, MTP. It is simply the addition of
all the corrected collected masses. Equation H-39 gives the absolute uncertainty in MTP.
probe
E(AMca)2
(H-39)
i=F
H-10
Equations G-30 and G-31 give the mass of PM10 and PM 2.5, respectively. Because
determining these masses requires partitioning the mass collected on one impaction stage,
the uncertainty must reflect this. Equations H-40 and H-41 give the absolute
uncertainties of the mass of PM 10 and PM 2.5, respectively.
log
i(dm<Wpm)
AM PM 10
(AMCC|.)2 +
AMCCi(dxwtih \0yun)
dso > I0\im

log
d^ < \0\lm
25
d50 < 25\un
d^ > 25\un
log
d5Q < 25\im
(H-40)
log
Hdso<2S\un)
AMPM 2.5
10
d^ < 10|im
(AM ca ) 2 +
i=F
AM,CCi(dxwith 25\un)
(H-41)
To clarify equations H-40 and H-41, the first term summations include all the absolute
uncertainties from the corrected collected masses (AMCC/) up to the cut size that does not
include the partitioned cut size. That is, if dso at stage 4 is 6um, dso at stage 3 is 9 urn,
and dso at stage 2 is 14 um, the uncertainty of the mass at stage 4 is summed, but the
uncertainty at stage 3, which includes particles from 9 to 14 um is partitioned. The
partitioning occurs in the second term, and follows the model of uncertainty analysis for
weighted variables.
2. Find the uncertainty associated with the flow rate ratio, QR.
Equation G-32 gives the ratio between the flow rate in the exhaust duct and the sampling
flow rate. The relative uncertainty in QR is given by equation H-42.
f
AQR = . *Q*
U,
duct J
AQ *gm *
V. Q
^g"> J
(H-42)
The absolute uncertainty in the exhaust flow rate, A Q ^ , is estimated to be 200 cfm
(0.31 m3/s). AQgn/Qgn is given by equation H-ll.
H-ll
3. Find the uncertainty associated with the mass of food cooked.

Equation G-33 gives the total mass of food cooked. The relative uncertainty in the total
mass of food cooked is given by equation H-43.
AM food total
AM,
(H-43)
M food total
The absolute uncertainty in the actual mass of food weighed, AMa, is estimated to be 1
oz.(28.4g).
4. Estimate the uncertainty associated with the dilution ratio.
The dilution ratio is determined by several methods. These include using tracer particle
concentrations from the ELPI, tracer particle concentrations from the MOUDI, and energy
balances. The dilution ratio is based on the assumption that each of these methods
accurately depicts the level of dilution that occurs between the sampling point and the
exhaust duct. The uncertainty in this assumption is much larger than the uncertainty
associated with the actual measurements. When possible, several methods are use.d to
determine the dilution ratio, and are compared. The uncertainty in the dilution ratio for
each appliance is then estimated from information available from the comparisons. For
instance, if the dilution ratio taken for an appliance by the ELPI and the MOUDI compare
well, the uncertainty in the dilution ratio will be less than that for the dilution ratio taken
for an appliance by only one method.
5. Find the uncertainty associated with the normalized particle emissions.
Equation G-35 gives the normalized particle emissions for the total, PM 10, and PM 2.5
particle size ranges. The relative uncertainty in the normalized particle emissions is given
by equation H-44.
M
1000 lb. food
M
{1000 lb. food
where M
AM
2
AM total food \
\2
~M~
lr
total food
(AQR\
QR
{ADRV
(H-44)
is the mass associated with either the total, PM 10 or PM 2.5 particles.
H-12
C. Grease Vapor
1. Find the uncertainty associated with the mass of collected grease vapor.
Equation G-36 gives the mass of collected grease vapor. The absolute uncertainty in the
mass of collected grease vapor is given by equation H-45
AMv,0,a/ = A /(AM v i r a p 2 ) 2 +(AM v i m p 3 ) 2 +(AM^) 2 +(AM^) 2
(H-45)
Equations G-37 through G-40 give the mass of collected grease vapor for each of the four
collection areas. The absolute uncertainty for each of these masses is given in equation
H-46 through H-49.
Mvimp 2 = i K - J ' + K . , , ) 2
(H-46)
AM vimp 3 = J(AMvconl2)2+(AMvcmt3)2
(H-47)
A M ^ = V(AM v c o w 4 ) 2 +(AM v c o n , 6 ) 2
(H-48)
AM v a / = V(AM V C 0 l u 5 ) 2 +(AM V Q J n / 6 ) 2
(H-49)
Equation G-41 gives the mass of condensed grease vapor collected in each of the
containers. The absolute uncertainty associated with each mass is given by equation H50.
AMyconn. =^(AMAconll)2
+(AMBcoi)2
(H-50)
The absolute uncertainty in M __, where M _ refers to either averaged value in equation
H-50, can be found using either equation H-51 or H-52.
_
AM
AM_=7=^
Vn
(H-51)
X(M__,--M_) 2
AM__="y-^
n-\
(H-52)
H-13
Equation H-51 applies if each measured value, M__,-, is considered an independent

measurement. In equation H-51, n is the total number of measurements and AM_^ is the
absolute measurement uncertainty associated with each M_,. Equation H-51 is valid
when AM
is the same for all measurements, as would apply to a scale. The uncertainty
associated with the scale is used for determining AM_ and was found to be 0.5 mg
(l.lxl03lb.).
Equation H-52 gives the standard deviation of M __, where M ,- is the value of
measurement /. In this investigation, the values from H-51 and H-2 are similar. For the
purposes of uncertainty analysis, the higher of the two values is used.
2. Find the uncertainty associated with the normalized emission of grease vapor.
Equation G-42 gives the normalized emission of grease vapor. The uncertainty
associated with this value is given by equation H-53.
M v total
mm ib. food
M v total
1000 lb. food
AM v total \
V, "^v total
AM total food
M totalfood
v
j
(AQRV
QR
' ADRY
DR J
(H-53)
The values for the Mtotaifood, QR, and DR are identical to those found in equation H-44.
H-14

1. Determine the relative uncertainty for the CO2 emissions normalized to one hour of
appliance operation. Equations G-43 through G-45 show all the quantities are either
multiplied or divided, therefore, relative uncertainties can be used. Here, it is assumed
the uncertainties associated with the universal gas constant and molecular weight are
negligible. Equation H-54 gives the uncertainty in the CO2 emissions normalized to time
of appliance operation.
AM
COlduct
M C02
duct
APPM COi plume

PPM C0 plumel
2
'ADR}2
fAQ
[DR)
{ P W o J I, Tduct
dtt
(ATdduct
AGduct
J
H-54
iduct
For the sampling temperature range, the relative uncertainty in the CQ2 measurements
given by the instrument manufacturer is about 7.7 %. The dilution ratio uncertainty is the
same as used in equation H-44. The uncertainty for the barometric pressure is described
in equation H-26, the relative uncertainty in the duct temperature is determined by the
standard deviation of the measured duct temperatures, taken every minute during the
sampling process, and the relative uncertainty in the duct volumetric flow rate is
described in equation H-42.
2. Determine the relative uncertainty in the CQ2 emissions normalized to the mass of
food product. Equation G-46 shows the equation for determining the normalized CO2
emissions. The terms include the mass flow rate of CO2 in the duct, the sampling time,
and the mass of food product. Equation H-55 gives the relative uncertainty associated
with the CO2 emissions normalized to the mass of food product.
M CO! duct
1000 lb. Food
Mco2 duct
1000 lb. Food
.
V
AM conduct
JV Mconduct
AM total food V
\
"^ totalfood
H-55
The relative uncertainty for the food product mass is given by equation H-43, and the
relative uncertainty for the sampling time is described in equation H-12.
H-15
1. Equation H-56 gives the uncertainty associated with the CO emissions normalized to
time of appliance operation. The CO emissions normalized to time are calculated using
equations G-92 through G-94.
AM
CO duct
M CO duct
APPM CO plume V
PPM CO plume
(ADR}
{-w)
ATduct
+
\
*duct J
H-56
duct J
ban J
The absolute uncertainty in CO concentration, for the concentration levels measured was
3 parts per million as given by the instrument manufacturer. The remaining terms are the
same as described in equation H-54.
2. The relative uncertainty associated with the CO emissions normalized to the mass of
food product is given by equation H-57.
M CO duct
1000 lb. Food
M CO duct
1000 lb. Food
AM
CO duct
M CO duct
(AM
totalfood
V ( At.
M
\
lrl
total food
\fs
H-57
J
The food product mass and sampling time terms are the same as described in equation H55.
1. Determine the uncertainty associated with the corrected NOx plume concentration,
given by equation G-96. Equation H-58 gives the absolute uncertainty of the NOx plume
concentration.
*PPMNOiPbme = J(APPMNOxSamp)2 +(APPMNOxmom)2
H-58
The absolute uncertainty for the NOx measurements was estimated to be 0.010 parts per
million. This is about twice the highest uncertainty quoted by the manufacturer.
However, even doubling the uncertainty in this quantity does not affect the overall
uncertainty in NOx emissions, due to the high uncertainty associated with the dilution
ratio.
H-16
2. Determine the uncertainty associated with the NQc emissions normalized to time.
Equation H-59 shows the NOx emission uncertainty normalized to time of appliance
operation, as given by equations G-97 through G-99.
AM NO
duct
M NOjdua
APPM NO
PPM NO
plume
plume
+
j
(iDR\\(60^
UTJ la
duel J
ARbaro V
baro
duct
H-59
The NOx concentration terms are described in equation H-61, while the remaining terms
are described in equation H-54.
3. Determine the uncertainty associated with the NOx emissions normalized to food
product mass. Equation G-100 gives the NOx emissions normalized to 1000 lb. of food
product, and equation H-60 gives the associated relative uncertainty.
At NO. duct
1000 lb. Food
M NO. duct
1000 lb. Food
AM
\\
AM total food V
NO. duct
\
NOj, duct
total food
Â, A
At.
H-60
V'W
The food product mass and sampling time terms are the same as described in equation H55.
H-17
G. Mass Flow and Energy Rate Comparisons at the Hood Entrance and Exhaust
Duct
1. Find the relative uncertainty associated with the mass flow rate of air in the exhaust
duct. Equation G-104 and G-105 give the mass flow rate in the exhaust duct. Equation
H-61 gives the relative uncertainty associated with the mass flow rate.
AM
M duct
ARbaro V
Afi,duct
duct
\
Q,
^dact
1^
baro
ATduct
T
J
\
H-61
duct
where the absolute uncertainty in the duct temperature measurement is given by equation
H-62.
\^*duct
H-62
std /
where ATduct is the total absolute uncertainty associated with the duct temperature
measurement, ATducttc is the absolute uncertainty due to the thermocouple accuracy ( 4
F, or +2.2 C), and Ardudstd is the standard deviation of the thermocouple readings taken
from the duct during the cooking process.
2. Determine the absolute uncertainty of the mass flow rate of air through the ventilation
hood entrance. Equation G-106 gives the mass flow rate at the hood entrance. Equation
H-63 gives the absolute uncertainty of the hood entrance mass flow rate.
AAfw=j(AAT,)
H-63
where equation H-64 gives the absolute uncertainty of the mass flow rate through control
volume i.
AM, = Mi
ARbaro V
AUA
\V, J
*baro
AT;
'i
H-64
The absolute uncertainty of the i th control volume temperature is similar to equation H62 and shown in equation H-65.
ATJ-ÂljJ 2 +(A?;std)2
H-65
The variables are identical to those in equation H-62 except they apply to the i th control
volume temperature instead of the duct temperature.
H-18
3. Find the uncertainty associated with the exhaust duct energy rate. The exhaust duct
energy rate, given by equation G-107 contains a subtraction term. Therefore, for
uncertainty analysis, the equation will be divided into parts, the individual parts solved,
and finally substituted back in. The uncertainty associated with the specific heat of air is
negligible and will not be considered.
f
AEduct
AM
\
dug
^Vduct
*room)
_r
(T
'duct
Mduct
V duct
H-66
)
room J
The last term in equation H-66 can be simplified for analysis as shown in the following
equations.
[4TduC
~ Troon, ) f = induct
+ (ATrm>m
H-67
Equation H-67 is the absolute uncertainty associated with subtracted quantities. Both
sides of equation H-67 can be divided by (Jduct - Tr0om)2 giving equation H-68.
Wdu. ~ O f _ (ATdm f + (ATrooJ

(Tduc, -
room )
{jduc,
H-68
- Tmom )
Equation H-68 can be written as shown in equation H-69.

AK^duct
k
*room'
V duct
\2
(ATduclf
(T
room' J
\
room/
\ duct
^2
AT
dug
(T
\ \ duct
\ \ duct
\ duct
)
room J
H-69
(T
room/J
- T
(T
A 7*
room
(ATrooJ
room)
substituting equation H-69 into equation H-66 results in equation H-70.

AE duct
'duct
AM dua
Mduct
V (
AT
dua
\\r duct ~ * room))
V
ATroom
\\}duct
H-70
~' *room )J
Therefore, the absolute uncertainties in the duct and room temperatures are used to find
the uncertainties relative to the temperature difference between the exhaust duct and
room.
H-19
Because the calculation depends on a temperature difference, the absolute uncertainties

for the room and duct temperatures used in equation H-70 only include the standard
deviation due to temperature variation in the room and exhaust duct. The uncertainty
associated with the thermocouple accuracy is not nearly as important, due to the fact the
thermocouples are made from the same stand of thermocouple wire, thus any inaccuracies
in absolute temperature will cancel when a temperature difference is calculated.
4. Determine the absolute uncertainty associated with the net energy gain at the hood
entrance. Equation G-108 gives the net energy gain at the hood entrance. For many
control volumes outside the thermal plume the control volume temperature is equal to the
room air temperature. This results in a net energy gain of zero. Therefore, the relative
uncertainty associated with these control volumes is undefined. For this reason, absolute
uncertainties are needed to find the total uncertainty associated with the net energy gain at
the hood entrance. Equation H-71 gives the absolute uncertainty for the net energy gain
at the ventilation hood.
AE^JEN)2
H-71
1=1
where the absolute uncertainty in control volume i is given by equation H-72.
AE:=.
A Mi
'aO
V I
{d Mit J
a E:
A(T-T
room) K
[Tj-T^)
H-72
The terms in equation H-72 are given in equations H-73 through H-75.
d E,
= c
H-73
a Mi
a
dEi
=M
(Ti-Trm>j
room /
2
Afc - O=V(A?;)^pair
+(A02
H-74
H-75
Substituting equations H-73 through H-75 into equation H-72 yields equation H-76.
AE, ^ [ A M . - ^ d ; - ^ ) ) ]
+[[ A /(A7;) 2 +(Ar roora ) 2 )M / C p a / r ]
H-76
Equation H-76 is solved for each control volume and the results are used to solve
equation H-71.
H-20
H. Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties Per Appliance

For Each Test
1. Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties for the Gas Griddle
Gas Griddle 3
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
175.140
54.678
34.223
23.082
11.807
5.497
2.187
0.945
ACni(mg/mA3)
23.173
2.173
1.372
1.015
0.584
0.718
0.598
0.026
ACni/Cni(%)
13.2
4.0
4.0
4.4
4.9
13.1
27.3
2.7
Gas Griddle 5
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
149.863
50.068
32.098
20.480
11.747
4.782
1.646
1.006
ACni(mg/mA3)
25.690
2.100
1.377
1.005
0.618
0.769
0.648
0.029
ACni/Cni(%)
17.1
4.2
4.3
4.9
5.3
16.1
39.4
2.8
Gas Griddle 6
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
205.961
52.150
30.788
22.510
13.680
6.489
3.622
1.111
ACni(mg/mA3)
24.888
2.078
1.283
1.010
0.634
0.758
0.632
0.029
ACni/Cni(%)
12.1
4.0
4.2
4.5
4.6
11.7
17.5
2.6
H-21
2. Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties for the Electric Griddle
Electric Griddle 2
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
52.168
21.358
15.570
12.289
8.212
4.220
2.907
0.625
ACni(mg/mA3)
25.273
1.245
0.965
0.823
0.540
0.759
0.647
0.018
ACni/Cni(%)
48.4
5.8
6.2
6.7
6.6
18.0
22.3
2.9
Electric Griddle 3
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
163.010
16.888
14.147
10.702
6.492
4.113
4.031
0.752
ACni(mg/mA3)
23.071
1.084
0.883
0.745
0.477
0.690
0.593
0.030
ACni/Cni(%)
14.2
6.4
6.2
7.0
7.4
16.8
14.7
4.0
Electric Griddle 4
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
ACni(mg/mA3)
7.493
9.228
9.746
6.570
4.042
1.701
0.893
0.576
ACni(mg/mA3)
22.282
0.939
0.797
0.678
0.439
0.671
0.575
0.016
ACni/Cni(%)
297.4
10.2
8.2
10.3
10.9
39.4
64.3
2.8
H-22
3. Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties for the Gas Fryer
Gas Fryer 2
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
33.670
1.489
2.971
3.378
2.058
0.226
0.291
0.405
ACni(mg/mA3)
27.099
1.054
0.882
0.780
0.507
0.798
0.686
0.019
ACni/Cni(%)
80.5
70.8
29.7
23.1
24.6
353.6
235.7
4.7
Gas Fryer 3
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
100.981
0.000
0.237
0.937
1.221
0.000
0.000
0.495
ACni(mg/mA3)
25.719
1.007
0.837
0.737
0.481
0.762
0.654
0.016
ACni/Cni(%)
25.5
NA
353.6
78.6
39.4
NA
NA
3.3
H-23
4. Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties for the Electric Frver
Electric Fryer 2
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
60.967
0.253
1.367
2.219
1.805
0.477
0.000
0.774
ACni(mg/mA3)
22.585
0.894
0.745
0.658
0.429
0.675
0.578
0.021
ACni/Cni(%)
37.0
353.6
54.5
29.6
23.8
141.5
NA
2.7
Electric Fryer 3
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
29.393
1.578
0.219
2.309
2.192
0.597
0.000
1.773
ACni(mg/mA3)
23.758
0.932
0.773
0.684
0.448
0.704
0.603
0.045
ACni/Cni(%)
80.8
59.0
353.6
29.6
20.5
117.9
NA
2.5
H-24
5. Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties for the Gas Broiler

Gas Broiler Hamburger 3
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
192.344
39.697
37.104
29.327
16.072
9.227
7.013
27.626
ACni(mg/mA3)
26.826
1.804
1.557
1.261
0.733
0.803
0.664
0.793
ACni/Cni(%)
13.9
4.5
4.2
4.3
4.6
8.7
9.5
2.9

Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
161.493
31.496
24.937
22.948
14.956
7.555
5.219
23.530
ACni(mg/mA3)
30.153
1.604
1.255
1.125
0.732
0.852
0.714
0.669
ACni/Cni(%)
18.7
5.1
5.0
4.9
4.9
11.3
13.7
2.8

Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
157.344
52.072
37.206
23.765
11.699
3.934
5.398
24.323
ACni(mg/mA3)
17.455
1.880
1.280
0.880
0.481
0.529
0.458
0.536
ACni/Cni(%)
11:1
3.6
3.4
3.7
4.1
13.4
8.5
2.2
H-25
6. Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties for the Electric Broiler

Electric Broiler Hamburger 2

Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
164.060
38.032
32.356
31.415
27.109
32.643
53.381
29.027
ACni(mg/mA3)
35.568
1.946
1.582
1.471
1.163
1.534
1.916
0.894
ACni/Cni(%)
21.7
5.1
4.9
4.7
4.3
4.7
3.6
3.1

Combined
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
220.006
38.583
31.413
30.938
25.416
35.458
55.610
24.206
ACni(mg/mA3)
26.743
1.676
1.306
1.228
0.943
1.370
1.636
0.605
ACni/Cni(%)
12.2
4.3
4.2
4.0
3.7
3.9
2.9
2.5

Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
142.316
47.008
38.453
41.645
34.612
44.124
71.626
27.986
ACni(mg/mA3)
24.615
1.922
1.490
1.529
1.219
1.618
2.072
0.716
ACni/Cni(%)
17.3
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.7
2.9
2.6
H-26
7. Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties for the Gas and Electric
Broilers While Cooking Chicken Breast
Gas Broiler Chicken Breast 2

Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
12.664
3.716
2.737
1.637
1.095
0.262
1.290
4.573
ACni(mg/mA3)
12.252
0.512
0.421
0.365
0.237
0.371
0.316
0.107
ACm7Cni(%)
96.7
13.8
15.4
22.3
21.7
141.5
24.5
2.3
Electric Broiler Chicken Breast 2

Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
18.676
6.962
5.377
5.140
6.819
8.852
12.785
5.321
ACni(mg/mA3)
12.390
0.553
0.448
0.398
0.319
0.468
0.461
0.126
ACmVCni(%)
66.3
7.9
8.3
7.7
4.7
5.3
3.6
2.4
H-27
8. Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties for the Gas Oven

Gas Oven 2
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
10.970
0.000
0.293
0.322
0.252
0.466
0.627
0.120
ACni(mg/mA3)
15.749
0.623
0.518
0.456
0.297
0.471
0.404
0.007
ACni/Cni(%)
143.6
NA
176.8
141.5
117.9
101.1
64.3
5.7
Gas Oven 3
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
3.948
0.000
0.249
0.055
0.000
0.169
0.048
0.094
ACni(mg/mA3)
13.011
0.530
0.441
0.387
0.252
0.399
0.341
0.006
ACni/Cni(%)
329.6
NA
176.8
707.1
NA
235.7
707.1
6.1
H-28
9. Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties for the Electric Oven
Electric Oven 1
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
7.568
1.060
0.587
0.323
0.210
0.532
0.569
0.250
ACni(mg/mA3)
15.703
0.626
0.519
0.457
0.297
0.471
0.403
0.008
ACni/Cni(%)
207.5
59.0
88.4
141.5
141.5
88.4
70.8
3.3
Electric Oven 2
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
0.258
0.353
0.000
0.387
0.293
0.465
0.341
0.172
ACni(mg/mA3)
15.695
0.624
0.518
0.456
0.297
0.470
0.402
0.007
ACni/Cni(%)
6086.2
176.8
NA
117.9
101.1
101.1
117.9
4.1
H-29
10. Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties for the Gas Range
Gas Range 1
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
22.274
8.708
5.768
3.334
1.419
0.554
0.369
0.617
ACni(mg/mA3)
8.009
0.422
0.310
0.248
0.154
0.237
0.202
0.011
ACni/Cni(%)
36.0
4.8
5.4
7.4
10.9
42.8
54.7
1.8
Gas Range 2
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
34.104
14.397
8.756
4.511
1.869
0.302
0.000
0.966
ACni(mg/mA3)
17.402
0.872
0.657
0.542
0.344
0.535
0.453
0.024
ACni/Cni(%)
51.0
6.1
7.5
12.0
18.4
176.8
NA
2.4
Gas Range 3
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
41.784
11.247
7.396
3.933
1.498
0.701
0.000
0.790
ACni(mg/mA3)
20.464
0.912
0.726
0.617
0.395
0.620
0.527
0.020
ACm7Cni(%)
49.0
8.1
9.8
15.7
26.4
88.4
NA
2.5
H-30
Gas Range 4
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
44.982
14.227
8.533
4.289
1.604
0.000
0.000
1.487
ACni(mg/mA3)
27.148
1.158
0.908
0.771
0.496
0.782
0.669
0.040
ACni/Cni(%)
60.4
8.1
10.6
18.0
30.9
NA
NA
2.7
H-31
11. Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties for the Electric Range
Electric Range 1
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
43.285
16.455
12.203
9.318
4.877
1.583
1.116
0.523
ACni(mg/mA3)
7.684
0.593
0.420
0.331
0.191
0.229
0.195
0.009
ACni/Cni(%)
17.8
3.6
3.4
3.5
3.9
14.5
17.4
1.6
Electric Range 2
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
37.018
14.023
10.593
7.004
3.409
1.293
0.636
0.664
ACni(mg/mA3)
19.360
0.924
0.733
0.610
0.384
0.587
0.503
0.017
ACni/Cni(%)
52.3
6.6
6.9
8.7
11.3
45.4
79.0
2.6
Electric Range 3
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Cni(mg/mA3)
20.565
14.246
11.263
8.072
4.754
3.021
1.982
1.206
ACni(mg/mA3)
20.259
0.955
0.767
0.644
0.412
0.616
0.524
0.030
ACni/Cni(%)
98.5
6.7
6.8
8.0
8.7
20.4
26.5
2.5
H-32
12. Normalized Particle Concentrations and Uncertainties for the Briquette Gas Broiler
Used During the Field Testing
Stage
Combined
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Brique:tte Gas Broiler

Used at Middlebroo c Hall during the field testing
Cni(mg/mA3)
ACni(mg/mA3)
19.823
11.595
8.650
0.580
6.591
0.465
4.183
0.387
2.572
0.249
2.257
0.378
6.943
0.360
25.173
0.574
ACni/Cni(%)
58.5
6.7
7.0
9.3
9.7
16.7
5.2
2.3
H-33
APPENDIX I
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
A complete set of sample calculations are given for the gas broiler while cooking
hamburger. The actual test used for the particulate and vapor sample calculations is the
fifth overall gas broiler hamburger test, which corresponds to the third test used to
measure the particle size distribution. The calculations will follow the format presented
in Appendices G and H.
1. The mass collected on each impactor stage substrate and the filter are determined
using equation G-l. Table 1-1 shows the mass of the impactor stages before and after
collection as well as the net mass collected.
TABLE 1-1. MASS COLLECTED ON EACH IMPACTOR STAGE
Stage i
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Mfii(mg)
MAi(mg)
22881.3
25.518
24.910
25.302
25.240
25.006
25.178
25.404
25.110
67.3220
22882.1
25.584
24.941
25.838
25.701
25.341
25.432
25.458
25.197
69.8650
Ma(mg)
0.800
0.066
0.031
0.536
0.461
0.335
0.254
0.054
0.087
2.543
2. The mass collected in the 90 inlet probe is determined using equations G-2 through
G-4. Table 1-2 shows the mass of the sample and blank containers before and after
evaporation, as well as the net mass gain in each container.
TABLE 1-2. MASS COLLECTED IN THE SAMPLE AND BLANK CONTAINERS
FOR THE 90 INLET PROBE
1
2
3
Ave
M B sample (g)
M A sample (g)
65.6183
65.6186
65.6186
65.6185
65.6287
65.6284
65.6282
65.6284
M C sample (g)
M B blank (g)
M A blank (g)
M C blank (g)
0.0099
67.4220
67.4219
67.4221
67.4220
67.4245
67.4245
67.4243
67.4244
0.0024
The 1 through 3 refer to the three separate weightings and Ave is the average weight. The
subscript B refers to before the acetone wash is added, while A refers to after the acetone
has evaporated. The subscript C refers to the net mass collected in the given sample. The
1-2
two samples are referred to as the sample, or the blank, with the sample being the
container which holds the acetone wash from the inlet probe, and blank referring to the
container which holds a sample of acetone which has not been used to dissolve any grease
residue. The mass of grease collected in the inlet probe is the mass collected in the blank
container from the mass collected in the sample container given by the following
equation.
M c probe = 0.0099 - 0.0024 = 0.0075 g = 7.5 mg
3. The combined particle mass from the probe, and stages I, 1 and 2 is determined by
adding their collective masses, as given by equation G-5.
Mccomb = 7.5 + 0.800 + 0.066 + 0.031 = 8.397 mg
4. The particle losses within the impactor are determined using table G-l and equation
G-6. Table 1-3 shows the collected mass, the correction factor, and the corrected
collected mass for the various impactor stages.
TABLE 1-3. COLLECTED MASS, CORRECTION FACTOR, AND CORRECTED
COLLECTED MASS FOR THE VARIOUS IMPACTOR STAGES
Stage i
Ccomb
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
CF (%)
0
8
7
4
2.5
2.5
.5
0
MCi (mg)
8.397
0.536
0.461
0.335
0.254
0.054
0.087
2.543
Mcci (mg)
8.397
0.583
0.496
0.349
0.261
0.055
0.087
2.543
Mc is the collected mass, CF is the correction factor related to the particle losses, and
Mcc is the corrected collected mass.
5. The standard volume of gas sampled is determined by solving equations G-7 through
G-9.
The gas meter read 362.220 ft3 before sampling and 364.513 ft3 after sampling, therefore,
the actual volume of gas sampled, Vgm, was 2.293 ft3. The actual flow rate at the gas
meter, determined by dividing the volume sampled by the sampling time of 30 minutes
was 0.0764 ft3/min.
The standard flow rate is determined using equation G-8, where the flow rate is corrected
to standard temperature and pressure. The average temperature at the gas flow meter was
1-3
73 F, and the pressure was 29.03 in Hg. Converting the temperature into Kelvin gives
295.93 K.
ft
3
29.03 in. Hg
= 0.0734 ^ T ~ = 2.08 x 10 -3
29.92 in. Hg
min
min
293.15 K
Qsun =0.0764min 295.93 K
Multiplying the standard volumetric flow rate by the sampling time of 30 minutes gives a
standard volume of air sampled.
V^=2.08;cl0- 3 m (30 min) = 0.0624 m
nun
6. The particle concentration for each cut size is given by equation G-10. The corrected
collected mass for each stage is divided by the standard volume of air sampled. Table 1-4
shows the associated concentration collected for each impactor stage.
TABLE 1-4. PARTICLE CONCENTRATION FOR EACH IMPACTOR STAGE

Stage i
Ccomb
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Mcci (nig)
8.397
0.583
0.496
0.349
0.261
0.055
0.087
2.543
Ci (mg/m3)
134.536
9.334
7.942
5.591
4.174
0.887
1.401
40.744
7. The cut sizes of the impactor stages are given by equations G-l 1 through G-20 as well
as information from tables G-2 and G-3. The cut size of the 90 inlet probe is given by
equations G-21 through G-27.
Impactor Stages;
The parameters needed to determine the cut size are determined as follows.
Sampling air viscosity, T|:
The sampling air viscosity is given by equation G-12. The average absolute gas sampling
temperature at the impactor was 335.55 K.
Ti = 1.832
JC10-4P
335.55 if
296 #
.74
= 2.010 x 10-4 P = 2.010 x 10-5 Pa s
1-4
Critical nozzle dimension, D,:

Various critical nozzle dimensions are given in table G-2. Table 1-5 shows the nozzle
dimension needed to solve equation G-l 1 for each impactor stage.
TABLE 1-5. CRITICAL NOZZLE DIMENSION FOR EACH IMPACTOR STAGE
Stage i
Dj (cm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.264
0.145
0.0813
0.0432
0.0254
0.0173
0.0457
0.0318
Characteristic Stokesso number, Stkso'The characteristic Stokesso number for each stage is determined using equation G-l3.
The particle density is 1000 kg/m3, the standard air viscosity is 1.832 x 10"5 Pa-s, and the
rest of the parameters are given in table G-3. A calculation for stage 4 will be shown.
The standard cut point partilce diameter for stage 4 is 6.0 u,m, or 6.0 x 10"6 m.
The standard air velocity through stage 4 is given in equation G-l4, by dividing the
standard volumetric flow rate through the Marple impactor, 21pm or 3.33 x 10"5 m3/s, by
the total nozzle area. Stage 4 has six rectangular slot nozzles, 0.0432 by 0.953 cm, shown
in table G-3, giving each nozzle an area of 4.12 x 10"2 cm2. Therefore, the total nozzle
area is 0.247 cm2, or 2.47 x 10"5 m2.
Usui = (3.33 x 10"5m3/s) /(2.47 x 10"5 m2) = 1.35 m/s
The slip correction at the impactor stage cut size of 6.0 |im is 1.027. This is given by
Hinds (1982).
The critical nozzle dimension for determining the characteristic Stokesso number is the
same as the dimension for determining the actual Stokesso number. As shown in table 1-5,
it is equal to 0.0432 cm, or 4.32 x 10^ m, for the 4 th impactor stage.
Using the aforementioned numbers and solving equation G-l3 gives the characteristic
Stokesso number for the 4th impactor stage.
1-5
1000
Stk
50
m3)
(6.0 x 10- 6 m) 2 | 1.35- |(l.027)
-5
11
- 0.701
-4
9(1.832 x 10 Pa s\A32 X 10 m)
The same procedure can be used to find the characteristic Stokeô number for each
impactor stage. Table G-6 shows the final results for each of the eight Marple impactor
stages.
TABLE 1-6. CHARACTERISTIC STOKES50 NUMBER FOR
EACH IMPACTOR STAGE
Stage i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Stksoi
0.232
0.372
0.522
0.701
0.703
0.624
0.229
0.238

The particle density used to determine the particle cut size for each impactor stage is 1000
kg/m3.
The air velocity within each impactor nozzle is determined by solving equations G-15
through G-18. First, the actual volumetric air flow rate through the impactor is
determined, then the flow rate is divided by the nozzle area of the given impactor stage to
find the velocity within the given nozzle.
The air flow rate through the impactor is given by equations G-16 through G-18. The
density of the air at the gas meter and the impactor are determined first. For these
equations, the standard air density at 273.15 K and 1 atm, or 29.92 in. Hg., is
1.2929 kg/m3. For the fifth gas broiler test while cooking with hamburger, the average
temperature at the gas meter was 73 F, while the average temperature at the impactor
was 144.4 F. These temperatures are equal to 295.93 K and 335.59 K, respectively. The
barometric pressure was 29.03 in Hg. Equations G-17 and G-18 give the density of the
air at the gas meter and the impactor, respectively.
1-6
r air gm =
Vair imp
ke 273.15 K 29.03 in. Hg

1.2929-r
= 1.158-^m .295.93 # J 29.92 in. Hg
m
kg "273.15 #~ [29.03 m. Hg'

kg
= 1.02 1 - Y
= 1.2929-r
m
m .335.59 K_ [29.92 in. Hg
The actual flow rate through the gas meter, as given earlier, was 0.0764 ftVmin, or
3.61 x 10"5 m3/s. Therefore, the actual flow rate through the impactor is calculated using
equation G-16.
kg
1.158^1-5
m = 4.09 x 10~3 m
= 2.454 Ipm
Qimn = 3.61 x K Tm
kg
s
1.021
m
Using equation G-15, the air velocity through each nozzle is determined. For a sample
calculation example, impactor stage 4 will be used. The nozzle area for stage 4 has
2
already been determined to be 2.47 x 10"r 5 m
4.09 x 10- 5 m
U=
-52
2.47 x \QT>m
m
= 1.66-
The calculated air flow velocity values through the nozzle for each impactor stage are
given in table 1-7.
TABLE 1-7. AIR VELOCITY WITHIN THE NOZZLE FOR
EACH IMPACTOR STAGE
Stagei
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Ui (m/s)
0.271
0.493
0.880
1.66
2.82
8.21
20.8
42.9
Cunningham slip correction at dso, Ccfdso):

The Cunningham slip correction is needed to find the cut point, dso, but is also dependent
on dso. Therefore, an iterative solution is necessary. An empirical form for the slip
1-7
correction is given by equation G-19, and requires the mean free path of the air at the
impactor. Therefore, we will calculate the mean free path of the air at the impactor first.
The mean free path of the air at the impactor is given by equation G-20. The standard
mean free path at 293.15 K and 1 atm, or 29.92 in. Hg. is given to be 0.0665 (im.
Sutherlands constant is 110.4 K. The average temperature and pressure of the air at the
impactor has already been given to be 335.59 K and 29.03 in. Hg., respectively.
A Wrt .=Q0665 J iin
33559 K 29.92 in. Hg

293.15 isT 29.03 in. Hg
110.4 K >
1+293.15 Kj
110.4 K
1+= 0.0Sl3\lm
335.59 K,
As previously stated, an iterative solution is required to find the cut size for each stage.
Therefore, the known result for the fourth stage particle cut size will be used to find the
slip correction, and then, that result will be used to confirm the particle cut size. In this
investigation, a spreadsheet was used to iterate each cut size and slip correction factor.
When the iteration was done, the particle cut size for the fourth impactor stage was found
to be 5.65 (im. This number is used to find the Cunningham slip correction factor as
Cc{5.65um} = l +
0.0813u/n
5.65\im
2.514+ 0.800exp - 0 5 5
= 1.036
0.0S13\imJ
5.65|i/n
All of the numbers are now available to find the cut size for each stage. Equation G-l 1
gives the particle cut size for each impactor stage. Again, the fourth stage will be used as
an example.-
d50
9(2.01 x 10"5Pa sU.32 x lO^mVoJOl)

.
, 3
, w<
*
~ = 5.65x I0~6m = 5.65 u.m
tnnn,
I
1000fc / m3 (1.66m / J)(1.036)
^
Table 1-8 gives the Cunningham slip correction and particle cut size diameter for each
impactor stage on the fifth gas broiler hamburger test.
1-8
TABLE 1-8. CUNNINGHAM SLIP CORRECTION AND 50 PERCENT PARTICLE

CUT SIZE DIAMETER FOR EACH IMP ACTOR STAGE
Stage i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CCi
1.010
1.014
1.021
1.036
1.060
1.137
1.230
1.423
d50i (^m)
20.12
13.96
9.24
5.65
3.29
1.45
0.86
0.47
90 Inlet Probe:
The particle cut size for the 90 inlet probe is determined using equations G-21 through
G-27. The parameters needed to solve equation G-21 follow below.
The sampling air viscosity for the 90 inlet probe is identical to that for the impactor
stages, determined to be 2.010 x 10"5 Pa-s.
Critical nozzle dimension, Dprot,e:
The critical nozzle dimension for the probe is the inside diameter of the sampling probe,
measured to be 0.80 cm, or 0.008 m.
The particle density is identical to that used for the impactor stages, at 1000 kg/m3.
The air velocity within the nozzle is determined using equations G-15 through G-18, the
same as for the impactor stages. However, the total area in this case is the cross-sectional
area of the sampling probe, measured to be 5.03 x 10"5 m2. The flow rate through the
inlet probe is equal to the flow rate through the impactor, previously determined to be
4.09 x 10"5 m3/s. Therefore, the air velocity within the nozzle can be determined using
equation G-15.
1-9
* m3
4.09 x l O - 5
u
= ,M
, _5
5
5.03jclO m
22
= 0.813-
Cunningham slip correction at dso, Cc{dso}:

Again, as with the impactor stages, the slip correction is dependent on the 50 percent cut
size and requires an iteration. Equations G-19 and G-20, used for the impactor stages are
also applicable for the inlet probe. The mean free path of the air at the inlet probe is the
same as found for the impactor stages, at 0.0813 |j.m. The calculated cut point diameter
of 32.65 |im will be used to illustrate the slip correction calculation.
0.0813um
(
Cc {32.65ym) = 1 + ^ g
2514 + 0.800exp ^
32.65uw
\
32.65uw
055?
0mi3\im
= 1.006
Characteristic Stokes50 number, Stk so '

The characteristic Stokesso number is determined using equations G-22 and G-23 which
were derived from a numerical study (Tsai and Pui 1990). The former is for a uniform
velocity profile while the later is for a parabolic velocity profile. Because we are unsure
of the internal velocity profile within the probe, we will use an average of the two
Stokesso numbers. First, the Reynolds number within the probe is calculated using the
diameter of the probe measured to be 0.008 m, and several previously calculated
parameters including the velocity of the air within the probe, at 0.813 m/s, the air
viscosity, at 2.010 x 10 s Pa-s, and the density of the air at the impactor, at 1.021 kg/m3.
Re
0.008m(0.813m/.s)(1.021fcWm3)
=
'
,n5n
= 330.4
5
2.01x10
Pas
The curvature ratio of the probe is determined using equation G-24. The bend centerline
radius was measured to be 6.3 cm, while the inside radius of the tube was measured to be
0.4 cm.
6.3cm
R0= = 15.75
0.4cm
The Dean's number is determined using equation G-25.
330.4
De= ,
-- = 8325
V15.75
1-10
The characteristic Stokesso number for uniform velocity profile is given by equation G22.
Stkuniform
_ [_ Q^f-0.086(15.75))
Q^lL[(-1^10-5(15.75)2+1.18Î0-3(15.75)-0.024)83.25]j
3.92xl0-6 (15.75)2 + 5.67X1 0 - 3 (15.75) + 0.41 = 0.627

The characteristic Stokesso number for parabolic velocity profile is given by equation G23.
Stkgrabolic = [3.59x10-5(l5.75)2 + 6.95x10_3(15.75) + 0.24]x
"e[(-7.3xlO-6(15.75)2-2.47Jrl0-5(15.75)-O.0O77)83.25]l_o65e(_o.O39(15.75))
Q 7 7 5 _ Q^gQ
Therefore, the average characteristic Stokesso number used for the 90 inlet probe is
0.604.
The 50 percent particle cut size diameter is now found using equation G-21.
dm50
9(2.01xlQ-5 Pa j)(0.008m)(0.604)
= ,1
= 3.26x10 m = 32.6llra
3;
w
\ 1000% /m (0.803m / J ) ( L 0 0 6 )
8. The particle concentration is normalized to the particle cut sizes to allow the
concentration to be viewed on a log-normal plot. Equation G-28 is used to determine the
normalized concentration for the combined inlet probe and impactor stages and the
remaining impactor stages. As discussed previously in the paper, the maximum particle
size for the combined stages is estimated to be 100 |im, while the minimum particle size
for the filter is estimated to be 0.01 |im.
A sample calculation for the normalized concentration is given for the 4th impactor stage.
As shown in table 1-5, the measured concentration was 7.942 mg/m3. Table 1-8 shows the
cut size of impactor stage 3 is 9.24 |im, while the cut size of impactor stage 4 is 5.65 ujn.
7942^
c'JV4 =
924\xm
log
5.65\im
=372
^m
1-11
Table 1-9 gives the normalized particle concentrations for the combined stages, and the
remaining impactor stages.
TABLE 1-9. NORMALIZED PARTICLE CONCENTRATIONS
Stage i
Ccomb
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
d50i (|im)
100
13.96
9.24
5.65
3.29
1.45
0.86
0.47
0.01
Q (mg/m3)
CNi (mg/m3)
134.536
9.334
7.942
5.591
4.174
0.887
1.401
40.744
157.344
52.072
37.206
23.765
11.699
3.934
5.398
24.323
B. Total Particulates, PM10, and PM 2.5

1. The total mass collected in the total, PM 10, and PM 2.5 particle size ranges are
determined using equations G-29 through G-31.
For the total particulates, the corrected collected mass within each size range is summed.
Table I-10 shows the collected corrected mass for each size range, and their sum, giving
the mass of total particulates collected.
TABLE 1-10. TOTAL PARTICULATES COLLECTED
Stage i
Ccomb
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
TOTAL PARTICULATES
Mca (mg)
8.397
0.583
0.496
0.349
0.261
0.055
0.087
2.543
12.771
Determining PM 10 and PM 2.5 collected masses requires partitioning the impactor

collection stage than includes the particle size of interest. For the fifth gas broiler test,
stage 3 contains particulates in the size range of 13.96 p.m to 9.24 jim. Therefore, to
determine the PM 10 particulate mass, the mass of particulates collected on the filter
through stage 4 are summed, while the mass of particulates collected on stage 3 is
1-12
partitioned so that only the mass of particulates less than 10 Jim are included. The sum of
the corrected collected mass from the filter through the fourth stage was 3.791 mg. The
mass collected on the third was 0.583 mg, and the mass attributed to particulates less than
10 |im was determined using equation G-30.
10\im
924um
0 583 m
=3.791 mg+ion*
S = 3 - 9 0 2 mS
13.9oLUnI 13.96UJ71
log
924ym
log
MPMl0
The sixth impactor stage includes the 2.5 um cut-off, therefore, the filter and stages 8 and
7 are summed while the mass from the sixth stage is partitioned to find the mass of PM
2.5 particulates. The mass collected on the filter through the seventh stage was 2.685 mg,
while the mass collected on me sixth stage was 0.261 mg. Equation G-31 is used to
determined the PM 2.5 mass collected.
log
Mm 2.5= 2.685 mg +
25\Lm
\A5\un
0.261 mg = 2.859 mg
~329\nm~
log
l.45\im
2. The ratio of the exhaust duct and sampling flow rate is given by equation G-32. The
sampling flow rate through the gas meter is used and has been previously calculated to be
0.0764 ft3/min. Equation J-4 is used to find the flow rate in the exhaust duct. The
centerline velocity in the exhaust duct was measured to be 1970 ft/min.
Qduc = 1.492(1970^7-) - 1 9 7 2 = 2742min
mm
Therefore, using equation G-32, the flow rate ratio is calculated.
fi3
2742mm = 35890
QR =
0.0764 fiL
min
3. The mass of the food product cooked is given by equation G-33. For the gas broiler,
40 hamburger patties were cooked, while a total of 12 hamburger patties were weighed.
The measured weight of the 12 patties was 50.3 oz. Using equation K-l, the actual
weight of the 12 patties is determined.
Ma = 1.23(50.3 oz.) + 0.15 = 62.02 oz.
1-13
Equation G-33 gives the total mass of food product cooked.

Mfoodtotal = 62.02 oz.yj = 206.7 oz.= 12.92 lb.
4. The dilution ratio is estimated using the smallest particulates as a tracer. The mass
concentration of the smallest particulates above the appliance is compared to the mass
concentration of the same particulates in the exhaust duct. For the gas broiler, both the
ELPI and MOUDI impactors were used. Once the dilution ratio is estimated, the same
estimate is used for each test, therefore, the dilution ratio used for the fifth gas broiler
hamburger test was also used for the other gas broiler hamburger tests. The procedure for
determining the cut sizes and particle concentrations for the MOUDI impactor are
identical to those used for the Marple impactor and are not repeated here. Table 1-11
shows the size ranges, concentrations and dilution ratios obtained using the MOUDI and
ELPI impactors. Note, the stages for the ELPI impactor are numbered such that the
smallest cut size refers to the lowest stage number. The stages for the MOUDI and
Marple impactors are numbered such that the largest cut size refers to the lowest stage
number.
TABLE M l . DILUTION RATIOS OBTAINED FROM THE MOUDI AND ELPI
IMPACTORS
MOUDI
Stage
7
8
F
Stages
1-6
Above Appliance
In Exhaust Duct
Concentration
Size range
Size range
Concentration
3
(mg/m )
(mg/m3)
(îm)
(u.m)
8.746
0.159-.0294
0.169-0.307
3.640
8.215
3.264
0.084-0.159
0.092-0.169
10.054
0.01-0.084
0.01-0.092
4.192
EL)PI
In Exhaust Duct
Above Appliance
Concentration
Size range
Size range
Concentration
3
(mg/m
)
(mg/m3)
(urn)
(N
0.029-0.381
4.106
0.029-0.381
1.656
Dilution
Ratio
2.40
2.52
2.40
Dilution
Ratio
2.48
It is clear the dilution ratio was rather consistent regardless of the measurement
instrument. Using the data shown in table 1-11, it was decided to use a dilution ratio of
2.5 for the gas broiler while cooking hamburger.
5. The normalized particulate emissions are calculated using equation G-35. Below are
the calculations for the total particulates, PM 10, and PM 2.5 for the fifth test of gas
broiler while cooking hamburger.
1-14
ft. Emissions
lb.
35890
= 31.25
1000
1000 lb. Food
1000 lb.
25
M TP
1000 ft. Food
\ini\mg
M PM\0
1000 lb. Food
3.902 mg
12.92 ft.
lft.
454 x 105 mg
ft. Emissions
35890
lb.
= 955
1000
1000 ft. Food
25
1000 ft.
M PM25
1000 ft. Food
2.859 mg
12.92 ft.
lft.
ft.
ft. Emissions
35890
1000
: 7.00
1000 ft. Food
25
1000 ft.
12.92 ft.
lib.
454 xlO 5 mg
454 xlO mg
C. Grease Vapor
1. The mass of collected grease vapor is determined using equations G-36 through G-41.
Equation G-41 is used to calculate the mass of grease vapor collected in each container.
Table 1-12 shows the measured and average weight of each container, before and after
collection and evaporation, and the net mass of grease vapor collected in each container.
TABLE 1-12. DETERMINATION OF THE NET MASS COLLECTED IN EACH
CONTAINER FOR GREASE VAPOR CALCULATIONS
Container
(i)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Before collection and evaporation

Weighing number
Kg) 2(g) 3(g)
61.9140
61.9144
61.9144
After collection and evaporation

Weighing number
3(g)
Kg) 2(g)
MflcoMl
Ave.
(g)
61.9152
61.9142
61.9154
A com i
Ave.
(g)
"l v cont i
(mg)
61.9151
61.9152
1.0
1.0
84.2483
84.2487
84.2483
84.2484
84.2494
84.2493
84.2495
84.2494
65.9591
65.9593
65.9591
65.9591
65.9593
65.9593
65.9594
65.9593
0.2
64.7946
64.7946
64.7948
64.7947
64.8041
64.8042
64.8042
64.8042
9.5
67.0171
67.0172
67.0173
67.0172
67.0299
67.0300
67.0295
67.0298
12.6
67.6684
67.6686
67.6686
67.6685
67.6764
67.6763
67.6760
67.6762
7.7
Equations G-37 through G-40 are used to determine the mass of collected grease vapor in
each vapor collection area.
1-15
Mvimp2 =1.0-0.2 = 0.8 mg

M ^ 3 = l . O - 0 . 2 = 0.8mg
M v 6 / = 9 5 - 7 . 7 = 1.8mg
Mvbf =12.6 -7.7 = 4.9 mg
Equation G-36 is used to calculate the total mass of grease vapor collected.
M
v *>*,; = -8 + 0.8 +1.8 + 4.9 = 83 mg
2. The normalized emission of grease vapor is determined using equation G-42. The
mass of food cooked, the flow rate ratio, and the dilution ratio are identical to those used
for the normalized particulate emissions.
M v total
1000 lb. Food
8.3 mg
lb. Emissions
Mb.
35890
lb.
= 20.3
1000
5
12.92 lb. 454 *10 mg 25
1000 lb. Food
1000 lb.
3. The total grease emission is determined by adding the total particulate emission with
the total vapor emission.
"**"
=20.3 + 31.25 = 5155-/&- E m i S S i n S
\000 lb. Food
1000 lb. Food
1-16

A sample of CO2 calculations are presented for the gas broiler while cooking hamburger.
The CO and CO2 measurements were made during the second gas broiler hamburger test.
1. The volumetric flow rate of CO2 in the exhaust duct from the cooking plume at the
sampling point is given by equation G-43. The flow rate in the exhaust duct is
determined using equation J-4. For the second gas broiler test, the centerline duct
velocity was measured to be 1910 ft/min.
ft3
Qdua = 1.492(1910/* / nun) - 1 9 7 2 = 2653 ^

mm
The average CO2 concentration during the cooking process, as measured at the sampling
point, was 5169 ppm. The dilution ratio used for the C0 2 determination is the same as
that used for the grease particulates and vapor, estimated to be 2.5.
ft3
C02 plume
5169 ppm 2653^7^

= 549-*
25
IJCIO6
'
min
2. The density of CO2 in the exhaust duct is given by equation G-44. The molecular
weight of CO2 is 44 Ibm/lbmol, the barometric pressure was 29.03 in. Hg, or 0.97 arm,
and the average temperature in the exhaust duct was 106.02 F, or 565.69 R.
Pco
"to~
atm-ft3 ,
--103"*3
0.73 fi_ fon 565.69*)
3. The mass flow rate of CO2 from the plume in the exhaust duct is given by equation G45.
MCOl
lb. \
0.103 , =
dua=5A9A
min V
ft J
0565^
min
The CO2 emission rate per hour of full load appliance operation is simply determined by
converting the mass flow rate of CO2 from the plume in the exhaust duct to lbm/h. This
gives a CO2 total emission mass flow rate of 33.9 lbm/h.
1-17
4. The normalized total CO2 emissions from the cooking plume exiting the exhaust duct
is given by equation G-46. The total sampling time was 14 minutes, and the total mass of
food cooked was 6.67 lb.
M co,
co, ......
ducl
1000 lb. Food
0565
lb
min ( 1 4 mm^. 1000,
_. .
mm
-lb. ,=1186- lb. Emissions
6.671b.
(1000 lb.)
1000 lb. Food
2. Maximum CO? Contributions From Combustion

1. The mass flow rate of natural gas to the appliance is determined using equations G-47
through G-49. The volumetric flow rate of CH4 is given by equation G-48. The total
volume of natural gas supplied to the appliance during the 14 minute sampling time was
22.625 ft3.
22.625ft3
, ft3
QCH
=1-62-^7CHi = tA
14 mm
min
The density of the natural gas at the gas meter is determined using equation G-49. The
molecular weight of CH4 is 16 lbn/lbmol, the measured temperature of the natural gas
was 26.2 C, or 538.83 R. The supply pressure was 7.2 in H2O, therefore, adding the
barometric pressure gives an absolute supply pressure of 0.99 arm.
16
^7 (0 " aa " )
' 73 ^ (m83 "*>

Equation G-47 gives the mass flow rate of CH4 to the appliance.
3
lb.
lb. \
ft
7
0.040--!
MCHi = 1.62-"
= 0.065- m
mm V
ft
mm
2. The mass flow of the CO2 combustion product is given by equation G-50.
Mc, . ^ = 2 , 4 4 ^ , 0 . 0 6 5 ^ ) = 0 .
lbmLH4
mm
9 ^
nun
1 7
The maximum CO2 contribution per hour of full load appliance operation is determined
by converting the combustion mass flow rate to lb./h. This gives a maximum CO2
contribution of 10.7 lb./h.
1-18
3. The maximum CO2 contributions from combustion normalized to 1000 lb. of food
product cooked is given by equation G-51. The sampling time was 14 minutes and the
mass of food product cooked was 6.67 lb.
MCOl comb
1000 lb. Food
ai79
lb.
minU4min)1000
lb.
= ^ b . C02 Emissions
6.67 lb.
(l 000 lb.)
1000 lb. Food
3. CO? Emissions After Subtracting Room Air Contributions

1. The average plume temperature is determined using equation G-64. The average
measured room temperature during sampling was 77.74 F, or 537.41 R. The
temperatures for the velocity control volumes were determined by averaging the
temperature control volumes within each velocity control volume, weighted by the total
area each temperature control volume occupied within the velocity control volume. Table
1-13 shows the control volume areas, velocities, temperatures, and quantities needed to
solve equation G-64.
1-19
TABLE 1-13. QUANTITIES NEEDED TO FIND THE AVERAGE PLUME

TEMPERATURE
Velocity
Control
Volume
Units
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUM
Area
Velocity
Tempera
UjAj
Ai
ture Tj
Ti
T-T
UjAi
TiX
( A i - 1 room/
ft/min
ft
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
0.656
0.875
0.875
0.875
0.875
0.875
0.656
159
148
160
200
189
164
180
97
95
165
300
141
105
161
77
67
79
97
81
50
52
57
38
37
40
27
26
52
F
77.74
86.50
107.49
123.47
92.31
80.96
77.74
77.74
88.44
145.99
183.81
103.16
80.40
77.74
77.74
85.79
96.69
101.37
85.96
80.74
77.74
77.74
77.74
77.74
77.74
77.74
77.74
77.74
ft
minR
0.222
0.271
0.282
0.343
0.342
0.303
0.251
0.135
0.173
0.272
0.466
0.251
0.194
0.225
0.107
0.123
0.142
0.173
0.148
0.093
0.073
0.070
0.062
0.060
0.065
0.044
0.042
0.063
4.997
F
0.00
8.76
29.75
45.73
14.57
3.22
0.00
0.00
10.70
68.25
106.07
25.42
2.66
0.00
0.00
8.05
18.95
23.63
8.22
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
min
0.00
2.37
8.39
15.68
4.99
0.98
0.00
0.00
1.85
18.59
49.45
6.37
0.52
0.00
0.00
0.99
2.69
4.08
1.22
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
118.47
118.47 - ^
^ + 5 3 7 . 4 1 * = 561.12-*= 101.45-F
4.997^
nun R
1-20
2. The volumetric flow rate of the plume is determined using equation G-91. The plume
temperature has been previously calculated. The summation term is similar to the
summation used for the plume temperature, except, only the control volumes where the
temperature is 12 F greater than the room air temperature are summed. Therefore,
control volumes 3,4,5,10,11,12,17, and 18 are used for the summation. The total
summation value is 2.272 ft3/(min R).
(
-plume
fi3
= 561.12/? 2.272=1275min'R
mm
3. The volumetric flow rate from the food product gases is determined using equation G72. Because the volumetric flow rate from the food product gases requires the emission
rate of grease vapor, the three gas broiler tests with particulate and vapor measurements
were used. The final value shown in the comparison section is an average of the food
volume flow rates from the three tests. Because we have already shown numerous
calculation from the fifth gas broiler hamburger test, we will use it for the sample
calculation.
The mass of the food before cooking was 12.92 lb, while after cooking it was 7.65 lb.
The moisture contents of the hamburgers before and after cooking were measured to be
59.79 and 48.7 percent, respectively. The normalized grease vapor emission was
calculated to be 20.3 lb./1000 lb. food, as previously shown. The specific volume of the
food product gases was estimated to be 26.8 f^/lbm, equal to the specific volume of steam
at 212 F. The time used for this calculation is the actual cooking time of 26 minutes,
which only includes the time the food product is on the appliance.
T59.79 %1
T48.7
- 7.65 lb\
26.8
100
L 100 J
L 10
lb^ = 439JL
26 min
lb. vapor iemissionsT1 (1000 lb.)
nun
12.92 lb.
1000 lb.. Food [_ 1000 lb.
12.92 lb.
*~food
The average flow rate from the food product gases for the three gas broiler hamburger
tests was 4.66 ftVmin.
4. The volumetric flow rate from the flue gases is determined using equation G-73. To
solve equation G-73, the combustion and internal dilution air contributions must be
determined.
Equations G-74 through G-76 are used to find the combustion contributions. Equation G75 gives the mass flow rate of combustion gases exiting the flue. The mass flow rate of
natural gas was previously calculated to be 0.065 lb./min.
1-21
Ib.Comb. gases
Ib.CH,
lb.Comb, pases
Mcomb = 18.24
S
(0.065
7-*-) = 1.185
lb. CH4
mm
mm
Equation G-76 gives the density of the combustion gases exiting the flue. The absolute
pressure at the flue was estimated to be 1 atm, the molecular weight of the flue gases is
29.18 lbn/lbmol, and the average temperature at the flue exit was estimated to be 500 F,
or 959.67 R. Note, for the gas broiler, the flue is considered the grill surface, therefore,
the estimated temperature was determined using measurements taken with thermocouples
attached to steel disks placed on the grill surface.
latml 29.18
IbmolJ
0.73- J (959.6TR)
Ibmol R
.lb.
J
Equation G-74 is used to determine the volumetric flow rate of the combustion gases at
the flue exit.
lb.
1.185r*3
1
inun
i
AO
J
Qcomh=
l t = 28.48
lb_
nun
0.0416 3
ft
The internal dilution air contributions to the volumetric flow rate exiting the plume are
determined using equation G-77 and equations G-83 through G-85. Equations G-83 and
G-84 require interpolation. For the purposes of the sample calculation, the known value
of C pfluewill be used to solve equation G-83, and the result will be substituted back into
equation G-84 to solve for Cpflue.
The fraction of energy from the flame that exits the flue was estimated to be 0.5. This
number comes from information available about heat gains to the ambient with and
without a ventilation hood. Most appliances for which this information is available show
about a 50 percent difference in heat gain with and without a hood. Therefore, it is
assumed that about half the energy from the appliance is lost due to infrared radiation.
The faction of the appliance energy that is absorbed by the food was about 14 percent for
the gas broiler cooking hamburger. The specific heat of the combustion air at the flame
temperature was estimated to be 0.357 BTU/lbra R. The flame temperature was
estimated to be 4000 R, which is near the adiabatic flame temperature for natural gas.
The temperature at the flue is the same as was estimated for the combustion gas flow rate,
at 959.67 R. The specific heat of the internal dilution air was estimated to be 0.24
BTU/lbm R. The temperature of the internal dilution air entering the flue was at a room
temperature of 75 F, or 534.67 R. The value for the specific heat of the flue gas found
through interpolation was 0.2465 BTU/lbm R-
1-22
1b.
(l-0i)(l-0.14) 0.357
BTU
v(4000/?)
; -
0 . 2 4 6 5 - ^ - (957.67/?)
Mb,*, =1.185-
mm
lb'R
02465^^-(959.6TR)-024^^-(534.6TR)
y
lbR
lbRK
'
'
IK
4.138nun
Confirming the iteration, equation G-84 is solved using the previously calculated values,
and 0.24 BTU/lbm R for the specific heat of the internal dilution air at the flue
temperature, and 0.27 BTU/lbm R for the specific heat of the combustion air at the flue
temperature.
lb
IK
1.1854.138BTU
BTU
mm
mm
024
+
027
^pflue ~
lbm
lbm
IK
lbm
lb'R
lb'R
m
1.185^ + 4.138^
1.185r- + 4.138-minj
mm
mm
mm
BTU
0.2465lb'R
Equation G-85 is used to determine the density of the internal dilution air. The pressure
was 1 atm, the molecular weight of the air was 29 lbn/lbmol, and the temperature at the
flue was 959.67 R.
lb
latmW^)
Ibmol
Pint dil ~
IK
= 0.041-f
ft3
- 7 3 7 ; r (959.677?)
IbmoVRv
'
The volumetric flow rate of the dilution air is determined using equation G-77.
4.138
iSint
da ~
iint dU
lb.
mm
=m
IJj
0.041-^
mm
The total volumetric flow rate from the plume is given by equation G-73.
Q,
= 28.48 ^ r - + 1 0 0 ^ - = 128.48mm
min
mm
1-23
5. Equation G-59 is used to determine the CO2 emissions from the appliance with the
room air subtracted. All quantities have been explained previously except the average
concentration of CO2 in the room, measured to be 402 ppm, and the molecular weight of
the gas volume generated by the food product, assumed to be mostly water, thus equal to
18.016 lbm/lbmol.
1275
ft
3 A
nun 5169 ppm

561.27?
lxlO6
3 "\
1275 ft 402 ppm

nun
561.27?
1*106
ft"1
M CO2
appl
f
IK ,
ft V 18.016 m
29 2L -(la*m) 4.7
Ibmol
Ibmol 402ppm
min
IK
ft -atm
671.67/?
lxlO6
290.73
Ibmol )
IbmoVR \
A
128.48
IK
= 0.433-
min
ft
min 402ppm
959.677?
U10 6
The mass flow rate of CO2 from the appliance is therefore equal to 26 lbm/h. If it takes 15
minutes to cook 6.67 lb. of hamburger on the gas broiler, the food is cooked 2.249
min/lb., or 0.03748 h/lb. Therefore, it takes 37.48 h to cook 1000 lb. of food product.
The CO2 emission from the gas broiler while cooking hamburger, after subtracting the
room air contribution, is then equal to the emission rate multiplied by the time to cook
10001b.
M
cot appi
1000 lb. Food ~
lb. (
h
lb. Emissions
37.48
= 975
h
1000 lb. Food
1000 lb.
1-24

A sample of CO calculations are presented for the gas broiler while cooking hamburger.
The CO and CO2 measurements were made during the second gas broiler test.
1. The volumetric flow rate of the CO exiting the exhaust duct is determined using
equation G-92. The dilution ratio is 2.5, the same as used in the particulate and vapor
emission determinations for the gas broiler while cooking hamburger. The average CO
concentration during the sampling period was 56 ppm. The flow rate in the exhaust duct
was measured to be 2653 ft3/min, as previously calculated for the CQ2 emission.
ft3
CO duct
ft3
56ppm n 2653^
m n
0.059-^
6
25
lxlO
min
2. The density of CO in the exhaust duct is given by equation G-93. The molecular
weight of CO is 28 lbm/lbmol, the barometric pressure was 29.03 in. Hg, or 0.97 atm, and
the average temperature in the exhaust duct was 106.02 F, or 565.69 R.
: =0066 "*>
> - ^ r ^ ;
3. The mass flow rate of CO in the exhaust duct is given by equation G-94.
ft' (
lb 1
IK
= 0.0039Mcoduct =0.059^
mm
mm 0.066-y
ft )
Therefore, the mass flow rate of CO emissions from the gas broiler while cooking
hamburger, per 1000 hours of appliance operation is equal to 234 lb./1000 h.
4. The normalized total CO emissions exiting the exhaust duct is given by equation G-98.
The total sampling time was 14 minutes, and the total mass of food cooked was 6.67 lb.
If
î_te
1000 lb. Food
0.0039-^(l4min)
_min
6.67 lb.
100Q
,,
iu v
lb.
_ 2Jb. Emissions
(1000 lb.)
' 1000 lb. Food
1-25
For the sample calculation, the gas broiler while cooking hamburger is used as an
example. The NOx measurements were made during the second gas broiler test. Equation
G-96 is used to determine the measured plume NOx concentration. The concentration
measured in the room was 0 ppm, while the concentration measured in the sampling bag
was 0.3025 ppm.
PPM
mx
piume = 03025ppm - Oppm = 03025ppm
1. The volumetric flow rate of NOx exiting the exhaust duct is determined using
equation G-97. The dilution ratio for the gas broiler while cooking hamburger was 2.5,
and the exhaust duct flow rate was 2653 ft/min.
Q.NO.
0.3025ppm 2653./P/min
, 4. J ft3
J
=
321X10"
25
LdO6
" """" min
duct
2. The density of the NOx in the exhaust duct is determined using equation G-98. The
average molecular weight of NOx is 38 lbm/lbmol. The absolute pressure used to find the
density was 1 atm, while the duct temperature was 100 F, or 559.67 R.
38
0
P" -*"-
7Ibmol
^7(lfl0n)
3
atm-ft
nncn lbm
-UUW 3
3. The mass flow rate of NOx in the exhaust duct is determined using equation G-99.
MNOx ^ ^ ^ b r l O - 4 ^
lb \
0.093-Y
min
= 2.99x10
IK
min
Therefore, the emission rate of NOx per 1000 hours of full load gas broiler operation is
equal to 1.79 lb./1000h.
4. The NOx emission rate normalized to 1000 lb. of food product is determined using
equation G-100. The sampling time for the NOx collection bag was 15 minutes, and the
total mass of food cooked was 6.67 lb.
:4
AW, A..
due,
Mm.
1000 lb. Food
2.99x1 QT5r-(15min)
,,
,, -. . .
1000, lb.
" ,=0.067min
_ lb. Emissions
6.67 lb.
(1000 lb.)
'
1000 lb. Food
1-26
The hydrocarbon emissions were determined by an outside laboratory using NIOSH

methods 1003 and 1501. The pump used to draw air through the sorbent tube was
calibrated at 0.1991pm, and the total sampling time was 14 minutes. For analysis, the
laboratory requires the total volume of air sampled. Equation G-101 is used to determine
the total volume sampled through the sorbent tube.
^ = 0 . 1 9 9 - ^ ( l 4 m i n ) = 2.786/
mm
The thermal plume volumetric flow rate for the gas broiler while cooking hamburger has
been previously calculated to be 1275 rf/min, shown on page 1-21.
For the sample calculations, the minimum volumetric flow rate for the gas broiler while
cooking hamburger will be used. Equation G-103 is used to find the minimum flow rate
from a gas appliance. The flow rate generated by the food product, combustion, and
internal dilution air have been previously calculated for the gas broiler while cooking
hamburger as 4.7,28.5, and 100 frVmin.
mm
mm
mm
mm
J. Mass Flow and Energy Rate Comparisons at the Hood Entrance and Exhaust
Duct
1. Equations G-104 and G-105 are used to determined the mass flow rate in the exhaust
duct. For the temperature distribution taken 36 in. above the gas broiler surface while
cooking hamburger, the exhaust duct volumetric flow rate was measured to be 2787
ft3/min. The barometric pressure was 28.98 in. Hg., or 0.97 arm, the average exhaust duct
temperature was 106.02 F, or 565.69 R, and the molecular weight of the air is 29
lbm/lbmol. Equation G-105 gives the density of the exhaust duct air.
1-27
pn
29-
<> ~
IK
: (0.91 atm)
IbmoV "
'
zznr*
^
0.068j
nM
atm- ft
ft
&73f-(56w*)
Ibmol R
Using equation G-104, the mass flow rate of air through the exhaust duct is determined.
Mduct =2787
lb
ft2 0.068 IK = 189.5rmin
mm
ft3)
2. The mass flow rate of air at the ventilation hood entrance is determined using equation
G-106. The summation in the equation has already been determined to be 4.997 ft3/(min
R), as shown in table 1-13.
IK
Ibmol
ft
lb,
3
(4.997-377^)
=
192.5
atm-ft
minT?
mm
0.73
IbmoVR
0.91atm(29
M hood
3. The energy rate through the exhaust duct is determined using equation G-107. The
specific heat of the air is 0.24 BTU/lbmR, while the other parameters in the equation
have been previously given.
Educt
BTU \
BTU
kBTU
024
= 1895
^ 7 " = 7.72- h
IKR (565.69/? -537.41i?) = 1 2 8 6min
mm
IK
4. The energy rate through the exhaust hood entrance is determined using equation G108. The summation in the equation has been calculated as 118.47 ftVmin, as shown in
table 1-13.
BTU ,
024(0.91
^hood ~'
.
IK
atm) 29
lb K
ft3
BTU
kBTU
Ibmol
(118.47^7") = 10967- = 657-
mm
mm
h
atm- ft
0.73
IbmoVR
1-28
K. Particle Size Distribution Uncertainty

1. The uncertainty associated with each impactor stage is determined using equation
H-l. Table 1-14 shows the uncertainty associated with the mass measurements before
mass collection, after mass collection and desiccation, and the resulting uncertainty in the
collected mass measurement.
TABLE 1-14. UNCERTAINTY IN THE MASS COLLECTED ON EACH IMPACTOR

STAGE
Stage i
AMui(mg)
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
0.5
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.0005
AMAJ
(mg)
0.5
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.0005
A M a (mg)
0.707
0.00707
0.00707
0.00707
0.00707
0.00707
0.00707
0.00707
0.00707
0.000707
The following is an example of the uncertainty calculation for stage 4.

AMC4 = -j(0.005mg)2 +(0.005mg)2 = O.00701mg
2. The uncertainty associated with the mass of grease collected in the 90 inlet probe is
determined using equations H-2 through H-6. First, the uncertainty associated with the
average mass of the collection containers, before and after collection and desiccation, is
determined using both equations H-5 and H-6. The larger uncertainty associated with
each container weight is used to solve the remaining equations. For all average container
weights, the parameters used in equation H-5 have identical values; the uncertainty
associated with the scale measurement was 0.5 mg, and the number of measurements
was 3.
05mg
AM.. = T=2- = 0289mg
Table 1-15 shows the mass collected in the sample and blank containers, and their
associated standard deviations.
1-29
TABLE 1-15. MASS COLLECTED IN THE SAMPLE AND BLANK CONTAINERS

FOR THE 90 INLET PROBE WITH ASSOCIATED STANDARD DEVIATIONS
1
2
3
Ave
STD
M B sample ( g )
M A sample ( g )
M B blank (g)
M A blank ( g )
65.6183
65.6186
65.6186
65.6185
0.17 mg
65.6287
65.6284
65.6282
65.6284
0.25 mg
67.4220
67.4219
67.4221
67.4220
0.10 mg
67.4245
67.4245
67.4243
67.4244
0.12 mg
For each container mass, the results from equation H-5 give a larger uncertainty.
Therefore, these values are used to solve equations H-3 and H-4.
AMCsample = V(0.289ms)2+(0.289m*)2 = 0.408mg
AMCblank = TJ(02S9mg)2 +(0289mgf
= 0.408mg
The uncertainty associated with the mass collected in the 90 inlet probe is determined
using equation H-2.
AMCprote = ^{OAOSmgf +(0A0Smg)2 = 0577mg
3. The uncertainty associated with the combined particle mass from the inlet probe, and
stages 1,1, and 2, is determined using equation H-7. All of the quantities needed to solve
the equation have been previously determined.
AMCComb = ^(pSllmg)1
+(0.707mg)2 + (o.00707mg)2 + (o.00707mg)2 = 0.913mg
4. The uncertainties associated with the corrected collected particulate masses are
determined using equation H-16. The fourth stage from the gas broiler while cooking
hamburger test 5 is used for the sample calculation. The mass collected on the stage was
0.461 mg, the absolute uncertainty was 0.00707 mg, the correction factor was 0.08, or
8%, and the uncertainty in 1-CF was estimated to be 0.020.
AMCC4 =
0.00707mg
0.92.
0.020
'-0.461mg
, (0.92)2 .
= 0.013 hng
Table 1-16 shows the results for all the impactor stages, as well as the combined stage and
filter.
1-30
TABLE 1-16. UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CORRECTED

COLLECTED PARTICULATE MASS FOR EACH IMPACTOR STAGE
Stage i
Comb
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
MCi (nig)
8.397
0.536
0.461
0.335
0.254
0.054
0.087
2.543
1-CF
0
0.920
0.930
0.960
0.975
0.975
0.995
1.000
AMa (nig)
0.913
0.00707
0.00707
0.00707
0.00707
0.00707
0.00707
0.000707
A(l-CF)
0
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.010
0
AMca (mg)
0.913
0.0148
0.0131
0.0104
0.00901
0.00734
0.00716
0.000707
5. The uncertainty associated with the standard volume of gas sampled is determined
using equations H-12 through H-14. Equation H-13 gives the absolute uncertainty of the
volume of sampling air measured at the gas meter. The absolute uncertainty associated
with the gas meter reading was estimated to be 0.05 ft3, and the number of readings was
2.
0.05./?3
The absolute uncertainty associated with the temperature of the air at the gas meter is
determined using equation H-14. The absolute uncertainty associated with the
thermocouple accuracy is 4 F, or 2.2 K, and the uncertainty associated with the
temperature variation was 7 F, or 3.89 K.
ATgm = 4{22K)2+ (3.892S:)2 = 4.47 K
The volume sampled at the gas meter was 2.293 ft3, and the average temperature at the
gas meter was 73 F, or 295.93 K. The pressure at the gas meter was 29.02 in. Hg., with
and uncertainty of 0.2 in. Hg. The total sampling time was 30 minutes, or 1800 s, with
and uncertainty of 5 s. Solving equation H-12 gives the relative uncertainty associated
with the standard volume of gas sampled.
AV^ N354^Y JJ*KJ

Vstd
\\ 2293ft* )
{295.93KJ
+(j2*tSL.Y +2f_2i_Y = Mm2 = 22%

{29.03 in.Hg.)
{l&OOs)
6. The uncertainty associated with the particulate concentrations are determined using
equation H-15. Stage 4 from the fifth gas broiler while cooking hamburger test is used as
a sample calculation example. The standard sampling volume was previously found to be
1-31
0.0624 m , therefore, the absolute uncertainty associated with it is 2.2 % of the value, or
0.00137 m3. The corrected collected mass from stage four was previously determined to
be 0.491 mg, as shown in table 1-4, and the uncertainty associated with it was 0.0131
mg, as shown in table 1-16.
AC 4 =.
1
0.013 \mg\
0.0624m3
0.00137m -0.496mg
(0.0624m3)2
:
= 0273
mg
m3
The uncertainties for the particle concentrations associated with each impactor stage and
the combined stages are shown in table 1-17.
TABLE 1-17. PARTICLE CONCENTRATION UNCERTAINTIES FOR EACH
IMPACTOR STAGE
Stage i
Comb
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Mca (mg)
8.397
0.583
0.496
0.349
0.261
0.055
0.087
2.843
V std (m 3 )
0.0624
0.0624
0.0624
0.0624
0.0624
0.0624
0.0624
0.0624
AMca (mg)
0.913
0.0148
0.0131
0.0104
0.00901
0.00734
0.00716
0.000707
AVstd (m3)
0.00137
0.00137
0.00137
0.00137
0.00137
0.00137
0.00137
0.00137
AQ(mg/m3)
14.92
0.314
0.273
0.207
0.171
0.119
0.119
0.898
7. The uncertainty associated with the impactor cut sizes are determined using equation
H-16. It is first necessary to solve equations H-17 through H-33, which relate to the
parameters found in Equation H-16.
The relative uncertainty in the sampling air viscosity is determined using equation H-17.
Equation H-18 gives the absolute uncertainty associated with the average air temperature
at the impactor. The absolute uncertainty due to the thermocouple accuracy is 4 F, or
2.2 K, while the absolute uncertainty due to the temperature variation found in the fifth
gas broiler hamburger test was 22 F, or 12.2 K.
ATair unp = j(2.2K)2 +(122K)2 = 12AK
The temperature at the impactor was 335.55 K.
1-32
0.74
12AK V
= 0274 = 2.74%
33555KJ
Critical nozzle dimension, D,:

The uncertainty associated with the critical nozzle dimension was estimated to be five
times the last significant figure given by the impactor design characteristics. Table 1-18
shows the critical nozzle dimensions and associated uncertainties for stages 2 through 8,
all needed for the normalized concentration uncertainties calculated later.
TABLE 1-18. CRITICAL NOZZLE DIMENSIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES FOR
IMPACTOR STAGES 2 THROUGH 8
Stage i
Dj (cm)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.145
0.0813
0.0432
0.0254
0.0173
0.0457
0.0318
ADj (cm)
0.005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
ADi/Di(%)
3.45
0.62
1.16
1.97
2.89
1.09
1.57
Characteristic Stokesso number, Stkso'.

The relative uncertainty in the characteristic Stokes^ number is determined using
equation H-19. The relative uncertainty associated with the standard velocity is
determined using equation H-20 and either equation H-21 or H-22, depending on
impactor stage nozzle shape (H-21 for rectangular, H-22 for circular). The fourth stage
is rectangular with a width of 0.0432 cm, and a length of 0.953 cm. The uncertainty
associated with these dimensions is determined identically to that used in table 1-18, thus
for the width the uncertainty is 0.0005 cm and for the length it is 0.005 cm. Because
the fourth stage is rectangular, equation H-21 is used.
A^
0.0005cm V f0.005cmY
= 0.0127 = 127%
+
0.0432cm
0.953cm,/
The relative uncertainty associated with the standard flow rate is estimated to be 1%.
The relative uncertainty associated with the standard velocity through stage 4 is
determined using equation H-20.
AC/ std
= V(0.0l)2+(0.0127)2 = 0.0162 = 1.62%
std
1-33
The relative uncertainty of the particle density used to determine the impactor calibration
is estimated to be 1%. The relative uncertainty of the particle cut size is estimated to be
2%. Equation H-19 can now be solved to determine the relative uncertainty of the
characteristic Stokesso number.
AStk 50
= V(0.01)2 +[2(0.02)]2 +(0.0162)2 +(0.0116)2 = 0.0458 = 4.58%
Stk,50
Table 1-19 shows the relative uncertainties associated with the characteristic Stokesso
number for impactor stages 2 through 8.
TABLE 1-19. CHARACTERISTIC STOKES50 NUMBERS AND UNCERTAINTIES
FOR IMPACTOR STAGES 2 THROUGH 8
Stage i
Stk50
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.372
0.522
0.701
0.703
0.624
0.229
0.238
Aps,d/pstd
(%)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
AUstd/Ustd
(%)
3.63
1.29
1.62
2.27
3.23
2.41
3.30
AdpStd/dpStd
(%)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ADi/Dj
(%)
3.45
0.62
1.16
1.97
2.89
1.09
1.57
AStk50/Stk5o
(%)
6.49
4.36
4.58
5.10
5.98
4.90
5.51
Particle density, p p :
The relative uncertainty in the particle density is estimated to be 20 %.
Air velocity within the Nozzle, U:
The uncertainty associated with the air velocity within the nozzle is determined using
equation H-27. The fourth impactor stage from the fifth gas broiler hamburger test is
used for a sample calculation. All parameters needed to solve the equation have been
previously determined.
A/4
U4
'0.0354./r3Y ( 5 s V ( 4.47K Y ( Y1AK V

+
U800 J A295.93A-J {33555KJ +
2293ft' j
0.2 in. Hg. V
29.03 in. Hg.)
( 0.2 in. Hg.

1,29.03 in. Hg
= 0.0458 = 4.58%
+ (0.0127)
The parameters for six of the seven terms are identical for all impactor stages. Only the
relative uncertainty in the nozzle area changes. Table 1-20 shows the relative uncertainty
1-34
associated with each of the air velocities within the impactor nozzles for stages 2 through
8.
TABLE 1-20. UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE NOZZLE AIR FLOW
VELOCITES AND AREAS FOR IMPACTOR STAGES 2 THROUGH 8
Stage i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Ui (m/s)
0.493
0.880
1.66
2.82
8.21
20.8
42.9
AAj/Ai (%)
3.49
0.81
1.27
2.04
3.07
2.19
3.14
AUi/U; (%)
5.62
4.48
4.58
4.85
5.37
4.92
5.41
Cunningham slip correction atd.50, Cjdso}:

The absolute uncertainty associated with the slip correction is determined using equations
H-28 through H-33.
Equations H-32 and H-33 are solutions to partial derivatives necessary to find the
absolute uncertainty in the mean free path of the air. The standard mean free path is
0.0665 ujm, the standard pressure is 29.92 in. Hg., Sutherlands constant is 110.4 K, the
standard air temperature is 293.15 K, the measured barometric pressure was 29.03 in.
Hg., and the average temperature of the air at the impactor was 335.55 K.
dX.
air imp
ar,
air imp
0.0665UJW(29.92
in. Hg^l + llOAK/293.15K)
293.15^(29.03 in. Hg.){l +110AK133555K)
0.0665M/n(l 10.4K)(l9.92 in. Hg.^1 +110.4^ / 293.15AQ

293.15^(29.03 in. Hg^.33555K)(l +
dkirimp
dP,baro
llQAK/33555K)
= 3.02*10- 4 -^
K
~ 0.0665u/n(29.92 in. Hg%.33555K)(l +110.4K1293.15^)

_ _uw
- = -2.80*10 3
1
in. Hg.
293.15^(29.03 in. Hg) {\ + UQAKI33555K)
The absolute uncertainty in the mean free path of the air at the impactor is determined by
solving equation H-31.
1-35
-\i
AX,air imp
~\2
\un
0.2 in. Hg. - 2.8x10'
in. Hg.
= 3.7xlO~ 3 ^
12.4K 3.02xl0~ -^
To find the absolute uncertainty associated with the slip correction factor, equations H-29
and H-30, each a solution to a partial derivative, must be solved. The cut size for the
fourth impactor stage of the fifth gas broiler hamburger test is used for the sample
calculation. The 50 percent cut size diameter was found to be 5.65 fxm, and the mean free
path of the air at the impactor was found to be 0.0813 |im.
(-0.55-:
<*Cc{dx} _
1
2514 +
3A..,.
5.65^m
air imp
dCc{d50}
dd 50
0813|imJ
-0.44 (-o-55^g_)
0.0813pn
5.65|J.m
(5.65\im)
0.44
-0.55
+ "0 . 0 8 1 3 ^
5.65]xm "\
0.0813funJ> -f\AA*
= 0.445
\\m
5.65nm Y
I-0.550.0813(unJ
2514 + 0.8e^
= -6.40x10"
\im
Solving equation H-28 requires an iterative solution because it depends on the absolute
uncertainty of the 50 percent cut size diameter. For the fourth impactor stage of the fifth
gas broiler hamburger test it was found to be 0.60 \im. This value will be used to show
the uncertainty associated in the slip correction, which can then be used to verify the
uncertainty in the 50 percent cut size diameter.
ACc{5.65nm} = .
3.7X10_3UJW
f
0.445
-o.
1 ^
0.60îm - 6.4x10- 3
V
-3,
[imj
= +4.18xl0~JHm
The slip correction factor for the fourth stage was found to be 1.036, therefore, the
relative uncertainty in the slip correction factor is 0.4 %.
Table 1-21 shows the slip correction and associated uncertainties for impactor stages 2
through 8.
1-36
TABLE 1-21. CUNNINGHAM SLIP CORRECTION FACTOR AND ASSOCIATED

UNCERTAINTIES FOR IMPACTOR STAGES 2 THROUGH 8
Stage i
Cc
1.014
1.021
1.036
1.060
1.137
1.230
1.423
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
ACc/Cc(%)
0.17
0.24
0.40
0.67
1.44
2.21
3.69
AC C
0.0017
0.0025
0.0042
0.0071
0.0164
0.0271
0.0525
The parameters necessary to calculate the uncertainty in the 50 percent cut size diameters
have all been calculated. For the sample calculation, the fourth impactor stage of the fifth
gas broiler hamburger test is used. The relative uncertainties for the following parameters
were; viscosity, 2.74 %, critical nozzle dimension, 1.16 %, Stokesso number, 4.58 %,
particle density, 20 %, velocity within the nozzle, 4.58 %, slip correction, 0.4%.
Equation H-16 is used to determine the relative uncertainty in the 50 percent cut size
diameter.
Ad50
'50
[05(0.0274)] + [05(0.0116)] + [05(0.0458)] + [05(0.2)]2

(+[0f(0.0458)]2 +[0.5(0.004)]2
= 0.106 = 10.6%
The cut size was found to be 5.65 um, therefore, the absolute uncertainty in the cut size is
equal to 0.60 urn, which verifies the calculation done for the slip correction. Table 1-22
shows the uncertainty associated with the 50 percent cut size for impactor stages 2
through 8.
TABLE 1-22. PARTICLE CUT SIZES AND ASSOCIATED UNCERTAINTIES FOR
IMPACTOR STAGES 2 THROUGH 8
Stage
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
dso
(urn)
13.96
9.24
5.65
3.29
1.45
0.86
0.47
ATI/TI
ADj/Dj
(%)
2.74
2.74
2.74
2.74
2.74
2.74
2.74
(%)
3.45
0.62
1.16
1.97
2.89
1.09
1.57
AStkso/Stkso
(%)
6.49
4.36
4.58
5.10
5.98
4.90
5.51
App/pp
AUj/Uj
(%)
(%)
5.62
4.48
4.58
4.85
5.37
4.92
5.41
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
ACc/Cc
(%)
0.17
0.24
0.40
0.67
1.44
2.21
3.69
Ad50/d5o
(%)
11.1
10.6
10.6
10.7
11.0
10.7
11.0
Ad*)
(um)
1.55
0.98
0.60
0.35
0.16
0.09
0.05
1-37
8. The uncertainty associated with the normalized particle concentration is determined

using equations H-34 through H-38. Impactor stage four from the fifth gas broiler
hamburger test is used for sample calculations. Equation H-34 gives the absolute
uncertainty associated with the logarithm of the cut size ratio. For the fourth stage, the
cut size diameter and uncertainties from the third and fourth stages are used. The cut size
of the third stage was found to be 9.241 0.977 |xm, while the cut size of the fourth stage
was found to be 5.653 0.600 \im. Note, an extra decimal place of precision is shown
for this particular calculation, which is very sensitive to the cut size values.
log
log
9.24l\im
5.653\vn
log
9241\im + 0.917\im
-log
5.653ujn + 0.600n#i
W2 =1.83*10- 4
9241ujn-0.977pw
-log
5.653u/n-0.600u/n
Equations H-36 and H-37 are partial derivatives which must be solved to find the
absolute uncertainty in the normalized concentration. The non-normalized concentration
for the fourth impactor stage, calculated previously, was 7.942 0.273 mg/m3.
dCN4
ac 4
log
9.241pn
log
5.653|im
= 4.685
dC,N4
-7.942 mg/m3
~924l\im'
_5.653nm_
log
9.24 l u V
5.653|JJ?Z
The uncertainty associated with the normalized concentration as given by equation H-38
is shown below for the fourth impactor stage of the fifth gas broiler hamburger test.
ACJV4 = J 0273^f(4.685)
-\i
+ 1.83x10" -18.6 mg
m3 J
V
= L28^f
m
Table 1-23 shows the uncertainties for the combined stages, stage 3 through 8, and the
filter. The lower cut size for the combined stages was the second impactor stage. The
upper boundary was estimated to be 100 |J,m, as described in Appendix G. The relative
uncertainty in the upper boundary cut size was estimated to be equal to uncertainty for the
second impactor stage. Therefore, for the fifth gas broiler hamburger test, the relative
uncertainty for the second impactor stage was 11.1 %, making the absolute uncertainty
in the upper boundary of the combined stages 11.1 urn. A similar estimate is necessary
1-38
for the lower boundary of the filter stage. For the fifth gas broiler hamburger test, the
lowest cut size was estimated to be 0.010 0.001 (Xm.
TABLE 1-23. NORMALIZED PARTICLE SIZE CONCENTRATIONS AND
ASSOCIATED UNCERTAINTIES
Stage i
Comb
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
d50i (urn)
100.0
13.96
9.24
5.65
3.29
1.45
0.86
0.47
0.010
Ad50i (pm)
11.1
1.55
0.98
0.60
0.35
0.16
0.09
0.05
0.001
CNi (mg/m3)
ACNi (mg/m3)
ACNJ/ CNJ
157.344
52.072
37.206
23.765
11.699
3.934
5.398
24.323
17.455
1.880
1.280
0.880
0.481
0.529
0.458
0.536
11.1
3.6
3.4
3.7
4.1
13.4
"8.5
2.2
(%)
L. Total Particulates, PM 10, and PM 2.5 Uncertainty
1. The uncertainties associated with the mass of total, PM 10, and PM 2.5 particulates
are determined using equations H-39 through H-41. Table 1-16 shows the uncertainties
associated with the corrected collected mass for each impactor stage. These values are
used to solve equation H-39 through H-41. The absolute uncertainty associated with the
total particulate mass is determined using equation H-39.
(0.913mg) +(0.0148mg) +(o.0131mg) + (o.0104mg) +
AM 7 P =.
|(0.00901mg)2 +(0.00734mg)2 +(o.00716mg)2 +(o.000707mg)2
= 0.9133mg
The absolute uncertainty associated with the PM 10 particulate mass is determined using
equation H-40. The particle cut size immediately below 10 \im for the fifth gas broiler
hamburger test was 9.24 u,m, while the particle cut size above 10 u,m was 13.96 |im.
1-39
(0.0131mg)2 + (0.0104mg)2 + (o.00901mg)2 + (0.00734mg)2 +

AMPM 10
(0.00716mgf + (0.000707mg)2 +
= 0.021 Smg
10\im
9.24pn
(0.0148mg)
I3.96\im
log
9.24\im j y
log
The absolute uncertainty associated with the PM 2.5 particulate mass is determined using
equation H-41. The particle cut size immediately below 2.5 Jim for the fifth gas broiler
hamburger test was 1.45 u,m, while the particle cut size above 2.5 u,m was 3.29 (J.m.
|(0.00734mg)2 +(0.00716mg)2 + (0.000707mg)2 +
AM PM25
log
25\im -\\
lA5\im
log
~3.29\im~
_l.45\im_
(0.0090 Img)
= 0.0119mg
2. The relative uncertainty associated with the flow rate ratio is determined using
equation H-42. The relative uncertainty associated with the flow rate at the gas meter is
determined using equation H-l 1. The volume at the gas meter was previously determined
to be 2.293 ft3 with an uncertainty of 0.0354 ft3. The sampling time was 1800 s, with an
estimated uncertainty of 5 s.
Ae,gm
'0.0354./r3Y
3
-gm
\ 2293ft
(5,
l 1800 s.
= 0.016 = 1.6%
The exhaust flow rate in the exhaust duct was measured to be 2742 ft'/min with an
uncertainty estimated to be 200 ftVmin.
200^3/min"
AQR = .
+ (.016)2 =0.075 = 7 5 %
2742.# 3 /min,
3. The uncertainty associated with the mass of food cooked is determined using equation
H-43. The total mass of food weighed was 62.02 oz. However, this was done in two
batches, with an average weight of about 31 oz.. The estimated uncertainty for each
weighing was 1 oz. The uncertainty associated with the total mass of food cooked is
estimated using the uncertainty for one weighing, as described by equation H-43.
1-40
AMfood total
M food total
1 oz.
,31 oz.
= 0.032 = 3.2 %
4. The uncertainty associated with the dilution ratio is estimated based on the quality of
the dilution ratio data. For the gas broiler, two instruments were used to measure the
concentration of tracer particles above the appliance at the sampling point and in the
exhaust duct. Table 1-11 shows the results were very consistent. Regardless, the dilution
ratio determination depends on the validity of many assumptions. These include a
relatively homogeneous fine particulate concentration in the plume at the sampling point
and in the exhaust duct, as well as negligible loss or gain of fine particulates between the
plume sampling point and the exhaust duct sampling position. For this reason, the
uncertainty in the dilution ratio for the gas broiler while cooking hamburger was
estimated to be 20 %.
5. The uncertainty associated with the normalized particle emissions is determined using
equation H-44. This equation is used to determine the uncertainty for the total, PM10,
and PM 2.5 particulate emissions. The relative uncertainty in the mass of food cooked,
flow rate ratio, and dilution ratio, are identical for all three particulate sizes, previously
found to be 3.2 %, 7.5 %, and 20 %, respectively. The mass of total particulates was
found to be 12.771 0.913 mg.
M TP
, 1000 lb. Food )
\
M TP
1000 lb. Food
\( 0.913mg "
+ (0.032)2 + (0.075)2 + (02) 2 = 0228 = +22.8 %
12.11 \mg
The mass of PM 10 was found to be 3.902 0.022 mg.

M PM10
1000 lb. Food J
M PMW
1000lb. Food)
'^m8
+ (0.032)2 + (0.075)2 + (02) 2 = 0216 = 21.6
3.902mgJ
The mass of PM 2.5 was found to be 2.859 0.012 mg.

M PM 2.5
\\000lb. Food)
M PM2S
1000 lb. Food
2&59mg
+ (0.032)2 + (0.075)2 + (02) 2 = 0216 = 21.6 %
1-41
M. Grease Vapor Uncertainty
1. The uncertainty associated with the mass of collected grease vapor is determined using
equations H-45 through H-52. The first step to solving these equations is determining the
absolute uncertainty associated with the mass of each container, before and after
collection and evaporation. The larger of the uncertainties determined using equations H51 and H-52 is used for the remaining calculations. The uncertainty found using equation
H-51 is identical for all container weights. The absolute uncertainty in the scale was
found to be 0.5 mg, and the number of measurements was 3 for each container.
05mg
AM __ = j- = 0.289mg
Equation H-52 gives the standard deviation associated with the average weight of each
container, for weightings before and after collection and evaporation. Table 1-24 shows
the measured, average, and standard deviation of the weights associated with each
container.
TABLE 1-24. STANDARD DEVIATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE WEIGHT OF
EACH CONTAINER USED FOR GREASE VAPOR MASS DETERMINATION
Container
Before
Kg)
61.9140
61.9144
61.9144
61.9142
0.231
84.2483
84.2487
84.2483
84.2484
0.231
65.9591
65.9593
65.9591
65.9591
0.115
64.7946
64.7946
64.7948
64.7947
0.115
67.0171
67.0172
67.0173
67.0172
0.100
67.6684
67.6686
67.6686
67.6685
0.115
61.9152
61.9154
61.9151
61.9152
0.153
84.2494
84.2493
84.2495
84.2494
0.100
65.9593
65.9593
65.9594
65.9593
0.058
64.8041
64.8042
64.8042
64.8042
0.058
67.0299
67.0300
67.0295
67.0298
0.265
67.6764
67.6763
67.6760
67.6762
0.208
2(g)
3(g)
Ave. (g)
STD(mg)
After
Kg)
2(g)
3(g)
Ave. (g)
S T D (mg)
Comparing the standard deviations shown in table 24 to the uncertainty found using
equation H-51 shows that the value found using equation H-51 is always larger than the
standard deviations.
Equation H-50 is used to determined the uncertainty associated with the net mass
collected in a given container. Because the uncertainty found using equation H-51 is the
1-42
applicable uncertainty for the average mass of each container, the result of equation H-50
is also applicable to the uncertainty in the net mass collected in each container.
AMvcom. = A/(0.289mg)2+(0.289mg)2 = 0.409mg
Equations H-46 through H-49, which give the absolute uncertainty associated with each
collection area, are all dependent on the uncertainty associated with the net mass from
two particular containers. Because these containers all have the same uncertainty, the
uncertainties associated with each collection area are identical.
A M V C 0 / t o ; = J(0.409mg)2+(0.409mgf
= 057Smg
The uncertainty associated with the total mass of grease vapor collected is determined
using equation H-45.
AMvwtal = ^{05nmgf
+ (057Smgf + (057Smgf + (057Smgf
= 1.156mg
2. The uncertainty associated with the normalized emission of grease vapor is determined
using equation H-53. For the fifth gas broiler hamburger test, the mass of grease vapor
was found to be 8.3 1.16 mg. The relative uncertainties associated with the total mass
of food cooked, flow rate ratio, and dilution ratio, are identical to those used for the
normalized particulate uncertainties, found to be 3.2 %, 7.5 %, and 20 %,
respectively.
CM
1Y1
v total
1000 lb. Food

M v total
1000 lb. Food
~J )
ttU6mg)2
S3mg
+ (0.032)2 + (0.075)2 + (02)2 = 0257 = 25.7 %
3. The uncertainty associated with the normalized emission of total grease is the square
root of the sum of the uncertainties found for the normalized emission of total particulates
and grease vapor.
'
Mgreae total \
1000 lb. Food J
8.815
\(
lb. Emissions V f
lb. Emissions V
7.106
5.217 1000 lb. _Food.
r +
1000 lb. Food)
lb. Emissions
1000 lb. Food
The total emissions were found to be 51.55 lb./1000 lb. Food, therefore, the relative
uncertainty for the total grease emissions was found to be 17.1 %.
1-43
N. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Uncertainty

1. Total CO? Emissions Uncertainty
1. The uncertainty associated with the CO2 emissions normalized to one hour of
appliance operation is determined using equation H-54. The relative uncertainty of the
CO2 concentration, as given by the manufacturer for the temperature range experienced
during sampling is 7.7 %. The sample calculation example will use the second gas
broiler hamburger test, which was the gas broiler test from which the CO and CO2
concentrations were measured. The relative uncertainty associated with the dilution ratio
was 20 %, the same as for the particulate and vapor emissions. The barometric pressure
was measured at 29.03 0.2 in. Hg. The average exhaust duct temperature was
determined to be 565.69 30 R, while the flow rate in the exhaust duct was 2653 200
ftVmin.
A Mc 2
dua
Mcot
0.2 in. Hg. )

= n/(0.077) + (0.2) +
1,29.03 m. Hg.)
2
-xcvif V
(( 30R
^565.697?
duct
/"200^ 3 /min
.2
2653./r/min
0.233 = 23.3%
Therefore, the total CO2 emission from the gas broiler while cooking hamburger was
found to be 33.9 7.9 Vojh at full load operating conditions.
2. The relative uncertainty in the total CQ2 emissions normalized to the mass of food
product is determined using equation H-55. The relative uncertainty associated with the
mass of food product cooked was previously determined to be 3.2 %. The absolute
uncertainty in the sampling time was 5 s, while the total time for the CQ2 sampling was
14 minutes, or 840 s.
.
C<h
duct
1000 lb. Food = L 233)2 +(Q032)2+ f^\
=Q235=
^^
1000 lb. Food

Therefore, the total CO2 emission from the gas broiler normalized to food product mass
was found to be 1186 279 lb. Emissions/1000 lb. Food.
1-44
O. Carbon Monoxide Emissions Uncertainty
1. The relative uncertainty associated with the CO emissions are determined using
equation H-56. The second bas broiler hamburger test is used for a sample calculation
example. The uncertainties associated with the dilution ratio, exhaust duct flow rate,
barometric pressure, and exhaust duct temperature are identical to those used for the CO2
emission uncertainty. The absolute uncertainty for the CO concentration given by the
manufacturer for the given temperature range is 3 ppm. The average measured CO
concentration was 56 ppm.
A M CO duct
M CO duct
' 3 ppm
56ppm
+ (02f +
02 in. Hg.
29.03 in. Hg.
30R ^
565.69/?
^200y? 3 /min N 2
2653./5?3/min
0227 = 22.7 %
Therefore, the CO emission from the gas broiler while cooking hamburger was found to
be 234 53 lbn/1000 h at full load operating conditions.
2. The relative uncertainty associated with the CO emissions normalized to food product
mass are determined using equation H-57. The uncertainties associated with the mass of
food cooked and sampling time are identical to those used for the CO2 emissions. M CO duct
1000 lb. Food = , (0227)2+(0.032)2 + ( 5. V + 0229 = 22.9%
UQs)
M CO duct
1000 lb. Food
Therefore, the CO emission from the gas broiler cooking hamburger, normalized to food
product mass was found to be 8.2 1.9 lb. Emissions/1000 lb. Food.
1-45
P. Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Uncertainty
1. The uncertainty associated with the NO* emissions normalized to time of appliance
operation are determined using equations H-58 and H-59. For the sample calculation, the
NOx emission results from the second gas broiler hamburger test are used. The absolute
uncertainty associated with the NOx sample concentration and room concentration
measurements were estimated to be 0.05 ppm and 0.01 ppm, respectively. The higher
uncertainty used for the sample concentration was due to the higher range used to find the
concentration.
&PPMNOx
plmne
= yj(0.05ppm)2 +(0.0lppm)2 = 0.05 \ppm
The uncertainties associated with the dilution ratio, exhaust duct flow rate, barometric
pressure, and exhaust duct temperature, are identical to those used for the CQ2
uncertainty. The measured plume NOx concentration was 0.3025 ppm.
0.051^J+(02)2 + f
AM
NO
>
M NO,
duct
duct
0.3025 ppm
30/? V
565.697?,
0.2 in. Hg. ^2

29.03 in. Hg.
200,/r / min
2653,/f3 / min
= 0.277 = 27.7 %
Therefore, the total NOx emission from the gas broiler while cooking hamburger was
found to be 1.79 0.50 lbn/1000 h at full load operating conditions.
2. The uncertainty associated with the NO* emissions normalized to food product mass
are determined using equation H-60. The uncertainty associated with the food product
mass is identical to that used for the CO2 emissions. The total time for the NOx sampling
bag was 15 minutes, or 900 s. The absolute uncertainty for die sampling time was
estimated to be 5 s.
M NO, duct
1000 lb. Food = J(0.277)2+(0.032)2 + ( 5s
900 s
M NO, duct
1000 lb. Food
= 0279 = 27.9
Therefore, the total NOx emission normalized to food product mass cooked from the gas
broiler while cooking hamburger was found to be 0.067 0.018 lb. Emissions/1000 lb.
Food.
1-46
Q. Mass Flow and Energy Rate Uncertainties at the Hood Entrance and Exhaust
Duct
1. The relative uncertainty associated with the mass flow rate of air in the exhaust duct is
determined using equations H-61 and H-62. The gas broiler while cooking hamburger is
used for the sample calculations. Equation H-62 gives the absolute uncertainty associated
with the exhaust duct temperature. The standard deviation for the exhaust duct
temperature was found to be 1.81 R, while the absolute uncertainty due to the
thermocouple accuracy is 4 R.
ATdua = TI(\.SVR)2+(4R)2
= 4.397?
For the temperature distribution taken 36 in. above the gas broiler while cooking
hamburger, the exhaust duct flow rate was found to be 2787 150 ftVmin. The
barometric pressure was 28.98 0.2 in. Hg., and the average exhaust duct temperature
was found to be 565.69 R.
f
AM
duct
M duct
>i
150min
2787
02 in. Hg. \
28.98 m. Hg.
' 4.397? V
= 0.055 = 55%
,565.697?,
miny
Therefore, the mass flow rate in the exhaust duct was found to be 189.5 10.4 lbm/min.
2. The absolute uncertainty associated with the mass flow rate of air through the
ventilation hood entrance is determined using equations H-63 through H-65. Equation H65 is used to find the absolute uncertainty in the average temperature of theith control
volume. The first control volume will be used as an example. The temperature of the
first control volume was found to be 77.74 F, or 537.41 R with a standard deviation of
0.62 F, or 0.62 R. The absolute uncertainty associated with the thermocouple accuracy
is 4 R.
AT, = N/(0.627?)2+(47?)2 = 4.05R

The air velocity through control volume 1 was found to be 159 ft/min, with an estimated
relative uncertainty of 20 %. The control volume area was 0.75 ft2, with an estimated
relative, uncertainty of 10%. The barometric pressure was found to be 28.98 0.2 in.
Hg. The mass flow rate through control volume 1 was found to be 8.53 lbm/min.
1-47
l
K I, M / ^2 \ 0.2 in. Hg.
AM, = 8 . 5 3 - ^ (0.2) 2 +(0.l) 2 +
*
mm U
I 28.98 m. Hg.
( 4.05/? V
+ 537.41/?
/*>_
= 1.91nun
The uncertainties associated with the remaining control volume mass flow rates are found
in an identical manner. The relative uncertainties associated with the velocity, area, and
barometric pressure are estimated to be the same for each control volume. The
uncertainty associated with the average control volume temperature depends on the
standard deviation of the measured temperatures during the cooking period. For many of
the control volumes, the temperature was determined by a weighted average of the
temperatures measured within the control volume used for the mass flow rate calculation.
The standard deviation for the temperature of these control volumes was determined
accordingly. Table 1-25 shows the uncertainties associated with the mass flow rate
through each control volume.
TABLE 1-25. MASS FLOW RATES AND ASSOCIATED UNCERTAINTIES FOR
EACH CONTROL VOLUME AT THE HOOD ENTRANCE
Control
Volume
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sum
M,
(lbjmin)
8.53
10.42
10.84
13.18
13.16
11.66
9.66
5.20
6.66
10.47
17.92
9.63
7.47
8.64
4.13
4.72
5.46
6.65
5.71
3.56
2.79
2.68
2.38
2.32
2.50
1.69
1.63
2.44
192.5
AUi/Ui
(%)
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
AAj/Ai
APbaro/Pbaro
(%)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
(%)
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
AT/Tj
(%)
0.75
0.94
1.21
1.02
0.78
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.92
1.24
1.55
0.88
0.76
0.75
0.75
0.77
0.87
0.93
0.77
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
AA/, 2
(lbjmin)
1.91
2.33
2.43
2.95
2.95
2.61
2.16
1.16
1.49
2.35
4.02
2.16
1.67
1.93
0.92
1,06
1.22
1.49
1.28
0.80
0.62
0.60
0.53
0.52
0.56
0.38
0.36
0.55
43.01
(Ibn/min)2
3.65
5.44
5.90
8.72
8.68
6.81
4.67
1.36
2.23
5.51
16.15
4.65
2.80
3.74
0.85
1.12
1.49
2.21
1.63
0.63
0.39
0.36
0.28
0.27
0.31
0.14
0.13
0.30
90.42
1-48
Using the sum of the squares of the mass flow rate uncertainties, the uncertainty
associated with the total mass flow rate through the hood entrance is determined.
^2^
AMw,=
90.42
IK
^min,
= 957mm
Therefore, the mass flow rate through the hood entrance was found to be 192.5 9.5
lbm/min.
3. The uncertainty associated with the net exhaust duct energy rate is determined using
equation H-70. For the gas broiler hamburger test, the standard deviation in the room air
temperature was found to be 0.62 R. The standard deviation in the exhaust duct air
temperature was found to be 1.81 R. The difference between the exhaust duct and
room air temperature was equal to 106.02T - 77.74T = 28.28 F = 28.28 R.
AE duct
f
2
= J(0.055) +
"duct
181/? V
^ n0.62/?
o'D V
28.28/?
28.28/? J
= 0.087 = 8.7 %
Therefore, the energy rate in the exhaust duct was found to be 1286 112 BTU/min.
4. The uncertainty associated with the net energy gain at the hood entrance is determined
using equations H-71 and H-76. Control volume 1 from the gas broiler hamburger test
will be used as an example.
The mass flow rate for the control volume was found to be 8.53 1.91 lbm/min. The
specific heat of the air was estimated to be 0.24 BTU/(lbni R). The temperature
difference between the control volume and room temperature was 0 R. The standard
deviation of the room and control volume temperature was found to be 0.62 R.
AE,=.
IK
1.91mm
O*)
BTU
lb
m
2
2
{J(0.627?)
v
v+(0.62Z?) W k - 0 2 4 - ^ ?
'
mm
BTU
1.80mm
Table 1-26 shows the uncertainties associated with the control volumes used to find the
net energy gain at the hood entrance.
1-49
TABLE 1-26. NET ENERGY RATES AND ASSOCIATED UNCERTAINTIES FOR

EACH CONTROL VOLUME AT THE HOOD ENTRANCE
Control
Volume
BTU/min
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sum
0.0
22.0
77.6
145.0
46.1
9.0
0.0
0.0
17.1
171.9
457.1
58.9
4.8
0.0
0.0
9.1
24.9
37.8
11.3
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1095.2
AM,
cP
(lbjmin)
(Vajmin)
8.53
10.42
10.84
13.18
13.16
11.66
9.66
5.20
6.66
10.47
17.92
9.63
7.47
8.64
4.13
4.72
5.46
6.65
5.71
3.56
2.79
2.68
2.38
2.32
2.50
1.69
1.63
2.44
192.5
1.91
2.33
2.43
2.95
2.95
2.61
2.16
1.16
1.49
2.35
4.02
2.16
1.67
1.93
0.92
1.06
1.22
1.49
1.28
0.80
0.62
0.60
0.53
0.52
0.56
0.38
0.36
0.55
43.01
BTU/
lbmR
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
T,T
R
AT
R
A * room
0.00
8.76
29.75
45.73
14.57
3.22
0.00
0.00
10.70
68.25
106.07
25.42
2.66
0.00
0.00
8.05
18.95
23.63
8.22
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.62
3.25
5.54
4.39
1.61
0.60
0.62
0.62
3.05
6.34
9.13
2.89
0.85
0.62
0.62
1.29
2.71
3.37
1.28
0.68
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
AEj
BTU/
min
1.81
9.63
22.67
35.39
11.68
3.15
2.04
1.10
6.29
41.72
109.8
14.85
2.18
1.83
0.87
2.62
6.66
10.07
3.19
0.97
0.59
0.57
0.50
0.49
0.53
0.36
0.34
0.52
292.47
AEj2
(BTU/
min)2
3.26
92.80
513.9
1252
136.5
9.94
4.18
1.21
39.53
1740
12065
220.6
4.75
3.34
0.76
6.84
44.39
101.4
10.19
0.95
0.35
0.32
0.25
0.24
0.28
0.13
0.12
0.27
16255
The absolute uncertainty in the exhaust hood entrance net energy rate is determined using
the equation H-71. The sum of the squares of the uncertainty for each control volume, as
shown in table 1-26, is used for the calculation.
r
BTUY _
BTU
A w =,16255
= 127V min J
mm
Therefore, the net energy rate gain at the exhaust hood entrance for the gas broiler while
cooking hamburger was found to be 1096 127 BTU/min.
1-50
APPENDIX J
KITCHEN HOOD VENTILATION RATE CALIBRATION
KITCHEN HOOD VENTILATION RATE CALIBRATION
The kitchen hood ventilation system is shown in figure 1. The fan rotation speed is
controlled by a variable speed AC motor controller. The variable speed control is capable
of adjusting the frequency from 0 to 60 Hz. in 0.1 Hz. steps. Calibration consists of
measuring the average exhaust velocity in the 16 in. diameter duct at a point 5 1/4 duct
diameters downstream from the 90 degree elbow and 2 1/8 duct diameters upstream of
the fan. The average exhaust velocity is used to determine the volumetric flow rate,
which is correlated to the controller frequency as well as the centerline velocity.
The average velocity is determined by measuring the velocity pressure at 20 points, as
determined by a pitot tube and a manometer. The pitot tube is considered a primary
standard for velocity measurement. The manometer has a scale of 0 to 0.25 in. H2O with
divisions of 0.005 in. H2O. The velocity pressure is converted into velocity using .
equation J-1.
V = C(hw/p),/2
(J-l)
where V = velocity (fpm), hw = velocity pressure (in. H2O), p = density of air (lb/ft3) and
C = 1096.5. The 20 measuring points are determined by dividing the duct area into
concentric circles of equal area and measuring the velocity at the centers of these areas.
Figure J-l shows the arrangement used.
EQUAL
CONCENTRIC
. t 4 9 W.
Figure J-l. Positions for measuring average velocity in a round duct

(ASHRAE 1989)
Table J-l shows the actual distances measured for a 16 in. (40.64 cm) round duct.
J-2
TABLE J-l. ACTUAL POSITION OF MEASUREMENTS
Measuring point
(vertical)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Distance from side wall

inlet opening (in.)
I3
/32 (1.03 cm)
5
1 /i6 (3.33 cm)
2 H/32 (5.95 cm)
3 5/8 (9.21 cm)
5 ,5/32 (13.89 cm)
10 17/32 (26.75 cm)
12 3/8 (31.43 cm)
13 21/32 (34.69 cm)
14 n /, 6 (37.31cm)
15 ,9/32 (39.61 cm)
Measuring point
(horizontal)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
The average velocity is found by simply averaging the 20 velocities. The averageflow
rate is determined by multiplying the average velocity by the duct cross-sectional area.
The frequency was varied from 25 to 60 Hz. in 5 Hz. steps, and the averageflow rate was
determined. Figure J-2 shows the flow rate vs. the fan frequency.
Flowrate vs. Fan Frequeny (using the pitot tube)
All baffles installed, windows and doors closed, AHU off
Qduct = 43.5 v + 89.4

R2 = 0.9987
20
40
60
Fan Frequency (Hz)

Qduct ave (cfm) " ^ ^ Linear (Qduct ave (cfm))
Figure J-2. Flow rate vs. fan frequency using pitot tube.
Figure J-2 shows that the flow rate could be adjusted from 1200 to 2700 cfm (34.0 to 76.5
m3/min).
J-3
Additional measurements were taken with solid state battery operated anemometer, which
would allow for ease of use during actual testing. The same 20 measuring points are
used, as well as an additional point, the centerline velocity. The centerline velocity is
taken in the center of the duct, 8 in. (20.32 cm) from the wall. Test conditions were
similar, except a gas griddle was running idle at 375 F (190.6 C) producing a thermal
plume. Four fan frequencies were used (30,40,50, and 60 Hz). Figure J-3 shows the
flow rate vs. the fan frequency.
Flowrate vs. Fan Frequency (Doors and windows shut,
griddle idle at 375 F, using the anemometer)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Frequency (Hz)
Qduct ave (cfm)
Linear (Qduct ave (cfm))
Figure J-3. Flow rate vs. fan frequency using anemometer.

The results from the anemometer were similar to the results from the pitot tube. Equation
J-2 is the linear fit equation for the flow rate vs. the frequency using the pitot tube, while
Equation J-3 is the linear fit equation using the anemometer.
Qduct = 43.5v+ 89.4
(J-2)
Qduct = 43.2v+106.2
(J-3)
where Qduct = average flow rate (cfm), and v = fan frequency (Hz).
Figure J-4 shows the flow rate vs. the centerline velocity as measured by the anemometer.
J-4
Flowrate vs. Centerline velocity (using the anemometer)
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
<
f
|
E
2000
1800
1600
1400 +
1200
10001000
Qduct = 1.49 V d -197.2

R2 = 0.9976
+-
1200
1400
1600
+-
+-
1800
2000
2200
Centerline Velocity (ft/min)
Qduct ave (cfm)
Linear (Q duct ave (cfm))
Figure J-4. Flow rate vs. centerline velocity as measured by the anemometer.
The flow rate can be set by adjusting the fan frequency to the desired level determined by
equation 2 or 3 (less than 0.8 % difference between the two equations in the range of
1200 (34 m3/min) to 2700 (76.5 m3/min) cfm). In addition, the flow rate can be
experimentally measured using the anemometer centerline velocity and equation J-4
from figure J-4.
Qduct = 1.49 x Vc, -197.2
(J-4)
where Qduct = average volumetric flow rate (cfm), and Vci = centerline velocity as
determined by the anemometer (fpm).
J-5
APPENDIX K
KITCHEN SCALE CALIBRATION
KITCHEN SCALE CALIBRATION
The kitchen scale used for weighing food products was calibrated using standard metric
masses. Masses from 100 g (3.52 oz.) to 1000 g (35.2 oz.) were used, in steps of 100 g
(3.52 oz.). The kitchen scale ranges from 0 to 32 oz. (0 to 908 g) with a resolution of
0.25 oz. (7.1 g). The first calibration was performed on April 14,1997 with an aluminum
sheet pan as a tare. A second calibration was performed on July 17,1997 with a lighter
plastic cutting board tare. Figure K-l shows the results from the two calibrations.
CALIBRATION OF THE KITCHEN SCALE
Figure K-l. Calibration of the kitchen scale.
Equation K-l is used for finding the actual mass when the aluminum sheet pan is used for
tare, while equation K-2 is used when the plastic cutting board is used.
Ma = 1.23 xM k s +0.15
(K-l)
Ma = 1.22 x Mks + 0.01
(K-2)
where M a = Actual mass (oz.) and M^ = Mass measured on the kitchen scale.
K-2
APPENDIX L
TEMPERATURE CORRECTIONS FOR
RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER
A. Equation Development For Temperature Corrections
The thermocouples used to determine the temperature distribution of the thermal plume
are affected to some degree by radiation heat transfer from the cooking appliance and to
the surrounding room. This section approximates the overall affect of radiant heat
transfer on the measured temperature. We believe the results show the affects are
minimal and justify using the actual measured temperature without corrections for our
temperature distributions and subsequent calculations.
The goal is to determine the actual temperature of the air flowing past the thermocouples
in the cooking plume. Because radiation to and from the thermocouples and surrounding
surfaces, including the appliance surfaces and the room walls, affect the actual
temperature of the thermocouples, the true temperature of the air flowing past the
thermocouples is not necessarily the same as the temperature determined by the
thermocouple voltage. The analysis begins by considering each thermocouple as a
cylinder 0.0625 in. (0.159 cm) diameter by 0.5 in. (1.27 cm) long. The circular end of the
thermocouple is ignored as it constitutes a very small area, and is tapered to a point for
many of the thermocouples in the thermocouple grid.
The thermocouple is considered at steady state, therefore, the net energy rate gain is zero.
Za=0
L-l
where Qj is the energy gained or lost from source i. We consider three sources of energy
gain or loss.
1 Qcook = Radiation to or from the appliance cooking surface.
2- QmomF Radiation to or from the surroundings.
3- Qcom>= Convection heat transfer from the air flowing past the thermocouple.
Note, the conduction heat transfer along the thermocouple wire is ignored (dT/dx along
the thermocouple wire 0).
Figure L-l shows a schematic diagram of the energy balance and associated surfaces and
temperatures.
L-2
idrmtm
(Radiation)
TTC (Measured thermocouple
temperature)
Qcom (Horizontal and

vertical convection)
^N\r~l
Tair (Actual air

temperature)
\icook
(Radiation)
(Surrounding
Temperature)
I
Appliance surface
Figure L-l. Schematic diagram of the energy to and from the thermocouple, with
associated temperatures and areas
Using the assumed energy flow directions and the steady state assumption gives equation
L-2.
Qamk = Qroom
L-2
where QCOOk is the radiation heat transfer from the cooking surface to the thermocouple,
given by equation L-3, Qmm is the radiation heat transfer from the thermocouple to the
surroundings, given by equation L-4, and QC(mv is the convective heat transfer from the
thermocouple to the surrounding air, given by equation L-5.
QcOBk=MsU*VF(Tsu/-TTC4)
L-3
Qroom = f i a A r c W v C T ( r 7 . c 4 - T r o o m 4 )
L-4
Qa,nv=HTATC(TTC-Tair)
L-5
The following describes the constants used for the radiation equations.
c = emissivity of the cooking surface to the thermocouple
ER = emissivity of the thermocouple to the surroundings
Here, we will assume constant emissivities, e = ec =ER
L-3
where e is the emissivity constant.

a = Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
ASurf= appliance surface area
Arc = thermocouple surface area
TSUrf= appliance surface temperature
TTC = measured thermocouple temperature
Troom = temperature of the surroundings
Note, the temperatures for the radiation equations (L-3 and L-4), must be in absolute
units, while the temperature quantity used for the convection equation (L-5) is a
temperature difference, thus making absolute units unnecessary.
View Factors:
VF = appliance surface to thermocouple
VFTCC = thermocouple
VFTCC
to appliance surface
= Asurf * VF/ATC
VFTCR = thermocouple
to surroundings
VFTCR = 1-VFTCC
(View factor relationships from Incropera and Dewitt, 1996)
L-4
Convection is divided into two terms. A vertical component with the air flow along the
axis of the thermocouple cylinder and a horizontal component with the thermocouple
cylinder perpendicular. Figure L-2 shows a schematic diagram of the convection velocity
components.
t
L
,'r&
K (measured vertical
s'
velocity component)
Vf, (horizontal velocity component)
V
(total air
air
vaa iioiai
velocity vector)
Figure L-2. Schematic diagram of the convection velocity components
The quantity actually measured is the vertical velocity component.

0 = the angle of the velocity vector
Va = the total air velocity vector
Vv = the measured vertical air velocity
Vh = the horizontal air velocity component
Vh = Vv Tan 6
Because the convection heat transfer is divided into two components, the total convection
heat transfer coefficient must also be divided into two components. This is described
below, as are the remaining variables from equation L-5
HT = total convection heat transfer coefficient
HT =
Hv + Hh
Hv = vertical convection heat transfer coefficient

Hh = horizontal convection heat transfer coefficient
Tair = actual temperature of the air flowing past the thermocouple
L-5
ATC = %DL
For the convection equations, the air properties are determined at the average of the air
and thermocouple temperatures 2 (TTC +Tair) (Sparrow 1996). However, TTC and T^
only differ by a small amount. Because TTC is known, properties are determined at its
temperature within the program written for the temperature corrections. The following
parameters are used for the convection equations.
|j. = air dynamic viscosity
p = air density
v = u/p = air kinematic viscosity
k = thermal conductivity of the air
Cp = specific heat of air
Pr = Prandlt number = Cp \i/k
For the vertical convection component, the surface of the thermocouple is treated as a flat
plate. The flow is assumed turbulent over the entire length of the thermocouple due to
the typical air velocity, the thermocouple's rough surface, and its blunt end. Equation L-6
gives the convection heat transfer coefficient for the vertical velocity component
(Sparrow 1996).
0.037Re 8 Pr^&
H=
f
L-6
where Rey is the Reynolds number corresponding to the vertical velocity component
given by equation L-7.
Rev=^-
L-7
1)
Substituting equation L-7 into equation L-6 gives equation L-8.

0.037 Vv08 P r ^ k
"v ~
rO.2,.0.8
L-8
For the horizontal convection component the thermocouple surface is treated as a

horizontal cylinder in the air cross flow. Equation L-9 gives the horizontal convection
heat transfer coefficient
L-6
# =
NuDk
~D~
L-9
where NUD is the Nusselt number given by equation L-10, for Reo<104 (Sparrow 1996).
NuD =0.3+
0.62Re$Pr^
L-10
X
[l + (0.4/Pr)^|
where ReD is the Reynolds number corresponding to the horizontal air velocity
component given by equation L-l 1.
VJanQD
ReD=-^
v
L-ll
substituting equation L-l 1 into equation L-10 gives equation L-12.
0.621
VJanQD
V*
v
J Pr^
NuD =0.3+
L-12
tX
[l + (0.4/Pr)^j
Substituting equation L-12 into equation L-9 gives equation L-l3.
0.3Jt
D
0.62(V v rae)^Pr^^
L-13
K X
(uD)^[l + ( 0 . 4 / P r ) ]
Equations L-3 and L-4 can be written in terms of the constant emissivity, the area of the
thermocouple, and the view factor from the thermocouple to the appliance surface.
Notice, for equation L-3, the term AsurfVF can be written as ATCVFTCC- Also, for equation
L-4, VFTCR can be written as 1-VFTCC- These substitutions result in equations L-14 and L15.
Qcook = GATcVFTcc(Tsurf-TTC )
L-14
Qroom = OATC(1-VFTCC)(TTC4
L-15
'I room )
L-7
Equation L-2 can now be rearranged to form equation L-16.

L-16
idconv \cook ' JeSri
Substituting equation L-5 into L-15 and solving for Tair gives equation L-17.
T
x
\*cook
=T
air
*room)
L-17
HTA TC
TC
Substituting equations L-14 and L-15 into equation L-17 gives equation L-18.
OVFTCC*surf
~ EVTJLTC + EOT J
TrrT*
x
air
-EOVF
Troom
TrrM
TCC
TC
Hj
L-18
where HT can be written as the composite of its horizontal and vertical components given
by equation L-19.
0.037V,,08 P r ^ k
0.62fVv7ane)^ P r ^ k
T
(vZ))^[l + ( 0 . 4 / P r ) ^ ]
\)0SL0-2
L-19
Therefore, equations H-18 and H-19 are used to estimate the actual air temperature from
the given thermocouple temperature measurement.
The uncertainty associated with the corrected air temperature is determined using
equation L-20. Note, the uncertainty associated with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, the
Prandlt number, and the thermal conductivity of the air are considered negligible.
Ae
AT. =
air
f37\
K BE
'M^
AT,TC
W TC J
AD
AVK TCC
r^T
dT ^
KM )
BTair
XT*
KovrTCC y
AT
far.
-\2
air
'ar.air
A9
-\i
.36
AV
3T\
\.dTsurfJ
A%)
L-20
^Tty2
\*y,j
L-8
The partial derivatives for the emissivity, the view factor, and the temperatures of the
appliance surface, thermocouple, and the surroundings are given by equations L-21
through L-25.
dTgjr
\j''TCC'surf
*TC
* roam
^^TCC'room
HT
[z..S-z
l*surf
dTalr
dVRTCC
arfl,
ar.surf
ar,re
= ea
L-22
WFTCJ^]
HT
L-23
[4TTC3]
L-24
HT
Kir
dT
HT
= ea
dT.
L-21
bTroJ-4VFTCCTroj]
= ea
L-25
H-r
The partial derivatives with respect to terms found in the convection heat transfer
coefficient, which include the thermocouple diameter and length, the angle of the air
velocity vector, and the magnitude of the vertical velocity component, are given by
equations L-27 through L-30. To simplify the form of the equations, the numerator found
in equation L-18 will be referred to as Qrad in equations L-27 through L-30. Equation L26 gives Qrad4
Q . = ea\vF Trr T J -T'*+T

*Z-rad
\_
Kr
oL
Kr
3D
arod
fly
TCC surf
TC
room
-VF T r r T
TCC*room
8
Q,rod 0.037V" Pr^ k(02)
v>*L12
HT
-0.3Jt
O-eifyjanof2
D2
L-26
"L-21
P r ^ k(05)
iK
L-28
l ) ^ D [ l + (0.4/Pr)^}
L-9
rot/
ar* _ Q,
ae # T
3^
ftrod
BVV
HT
0.62VV^ P r ^ &(0.5)
2
L-29
(oDTanQV (cosG ) [l + (0.4 / P r ) ^ ] *
0.62(7anG)^ P r ^ *(05)
0.037 P r ^ *(08)
%
^ 0 . 8 0 J y 0.2
L-30
(vDTanQ)% [l.+ (0.4 / Pr)^ ]
B. Sample Temperature Correction

A computer program using Engineering Equation Solver (EES) version 4.412 was written
to solve equations L-18 and L-19 to determine a sample temperature correction. In
addition, the equations for the uncertainty analysis were also solved. For this sample
temperature correction, a typical thermocouple view factor was chosen, therefore, the
corrections refer to the air temperature corresponding to a single thermocouple position.
A typical appliance surface temperature and surrounding room air temperature were also
chosen. Finally, the emissivity, vertical velocity component, and velocity angle were
estimated to be representative of typical measured values. The program is included in
section D of this Appendix. The following values were used to solve for the corrected air
temperature and uncertainty:
e = 0.8 0.2 (25 %)
a = 1.712 x 10-9 BTU/(hr ft2 R4)
VFJCC
= 0.0220 0.0022 (10 %)
Tsurf = 350 115.5 F (33 %)

Troom = 753.75F(5%)
Vv = 100 25 ft/min (25 %)
0 = 30 30 (100 %)
D = 1/16 1/64 in. (25 %)
L= 1/2 1/8 in. (25 %)
The program ESS has physical properties of many substances, including air, internally
built into the program. Therefore, k, \x, p, i), Cp, and Pr are all determined within the
program for the given air temperature.
L-10
A parametric table for thermocouple temperatures ranging from 70 to 200 F with 5 F

intervals, was made within the program. The temperature correction with associated
uncertainties was determined for each thermocouple temperature. The uncertainty
associated with each thermocouple temperature as given by the manufacturer was 1.8
F. Note, while the temperatures are given in degrees Fahrenheit here, they are converted
to degrees Rankin in the equations requiring absolute temperature units.
Table L-l shows the measured thermocouple temperature, the resulting calculated actual
air temperature, and the associated differences and uncertainties.
TABLE L-l. MEASURED AND CORRECTED THERMOCOUPLE
TEMPERATURES AND ASSOCIATED DIFFERENCES AND UNCERTAINTIES
TTC(F)
TairCF)
Tair-TjcCF)
ATai.CF)
ATai.ATair-TTc)
(%)
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
69.63
74.73
79.84
84.95
90.07
95.19
100.32
105.45
110.58
115.72
120.87
126.02
131.17
136.33
141.5
146.67
151.85
157.03
162.22
167.41
172.61
177.82
183.03
188.24
193.47
198.7
203.94
-0.37
-0.27
-0.16
-0.05
0.07
0.19
0.32
0.45
0.58
0.72
0.87
1.02
1.17
1.33
0.25
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.27
0.30
0.34
0.38
0.42
0.47
0.52
0.57
0.63
0.69
0.75
0.82
0.88
0.95
1.03
1.10
1.18
1.25
1.34
1.42
66
86
1.5
1.67
1.85
2.03
2.22
2.41
2.61
2.82
3.03
3.24
3.47
3.7
3.94
136
440
317
119
77
60
52
47
44
42
40
39
38
38
37
37
37
37
37
36
36
36
36
36
36
L-ll
Table L-l shows that between 70 and 85 F, the thermocouple actually radiates less heat
to the surroundings than it gains from the appliance surface. Therefore, the measured air
temperature is greater than the actual air temperature. As the measured temperature rises
above 85 F, the measured thermocouple temperature is less than the actual air
temperature due to radiation losses to the surroundings. However, the difference between
the measured and actual temperature only ranges from about -0.37 to + 3.94 F. In
addition, in general, as the temperature increases, so does the absolute uncertainty in the
temperature correction. The relative uncertainty in the temperature correction with
respect to the temperature difference decreases as the temperature rises, but it begins to
stabilize at about 36 %. Therefore, it does not appear as though much is gained by
correcting the temperature for radiation effects. Furthermore, the measured thermocouple
temperature also has an uncertainty associated with it. When this uncertainty is
considered, the measured and corrected temperatures fall within the same range over most
of the temperature measurement span.
Figure L-3 shows the measured and corrected temperatures with their associated
uncertainties.
210
130
150
210
Temperature (F)
Corrected Temperature
'Measured Thermocouple Temperature
Figure L-3. Measured and corrected thermocouple temperatures and their associated
uncertainties
Figure L-3 clearly shows that over the given range of temperatures, the corrected
temperature does not appreciably differ from the measured thermocouple temperature.
For most appliances, the measured plume temperature does not exceed 200 F at any
point. For some appliances, such as the gas broiler and gas range, the temperature does
L-12
exceed 200 F, but only over a very small area. The temperatures taken closer to the
appliance tend to have a larger area of high temperatures, which may suggest temperature
corrections are appropriate at those positions. However, the air velocity is unknown at
these positions, causing an extremely large uncertainty in the temperature correction,
which essentially eliminates any advantages to using the corrected temperature.
It should be noted that the major difficulty in determining an accurate radiation
temperature correction for measurements above a cooking appliance comes from the
complexity of the appliance surface and surroundings. For instance, in the case of the gas
broiler, the thermocouple is exposed to some areas of the gas broiler where the flame,
with a temperature of about 4000 R, radiates heat. However, the gas broiler radiants are
only about 1200 F, while the hamburger patties range from 38F to 160 F, depending on
the time of the cooking process. It is nearly impossible to determine what proportion of
these different heat sources affects each individual thermocouple. Therefore, it is
difficult to determine the effective surface temperature of the appliance. The same
complexities affect the estimates for the emissivity. While half the surrounding room
consists of sheet rock, wood, or screen surfaces, the other half consists of stainless steel,
galvanized steel, and aluminum surfaces. Therefore, the complexities of an experimental
test kitchen inherently make radiation heat transfer corrections difficult.
C. Determination of the View Factors
A C++ computer program was written to determine the view factor for each thermocouple
for every cooking process. While it was decided not to use the corrected temperatures in
the report, the determination of the view factors is included for those who may wish to
further pursue work in this area.
The program calculates the view factor the appliance surface has for the particular
thermocouple. This is the VF variable in equation L-3. The view factor used in equation
L-18 is determined by the relationship between VF and the areas of the appliance surface
and thermocouple.
Equation L-31 (Incropera and DeWitt 1996) give the view factor from one surface to
another.
VF
rCosB.CosQ,
A,Aj
'-i;[isr-!M<iA'
W1
where VFy is the view factor from surface i "looking at" surface j . In this case, surface i
is the appliance surface and surface j is the thermocouple surface. Therefore, A, is the
appliance surface area, A/ is the thermocouple surface area, dAj is the differential
appliance surface area, dAj is the differential thermocouple surface area, R is the distance
from dAi to dAj, 9/ is the angle between R and the surface normal at dAi, and 9, is the
L-13
angle between R and the surface normal at dAj. Figure L-4 shows a schematic diagram of
these relationships.
LXj
''
Figure L-4. Schematic diagram of the view factor relationships

The front left corner is considered the origin for the calculations. The lengths and
thermocouple radius are included because they are needed to determine the areas. The
program divides the thermocouple and the appliance surface area into defined differential
areas, and the double integration shown in equation L-31 is approximated numerically.
The appliance surface area position is defined, and the position of each thermocouple is
brought into the program via an input file. The view factor is computed and sent to an
output file.
L-14
APPENDIX M
APPLIANCE BRAND MODEL AND SOURCE
APPLIANCE BRAND, MODEL, AND SOURCE

TABLE M-l. LIST OF APPLIANCE BRAND, MODEL, AND SOURCE
TYPE
Gas Griddle
Electric
Griddle
Gas Fryer
Electric Fryer
Gas Broiler
Electric Broiler
Gas Oven
Electric Oven
Gas Range
Electric Range
BRAND AND MODEL

Keating
36RFL-D
Keating
36 FLD-E
Frymaster
MJH-50-SD
Frymaster
H-14-SD
MagiKitchen
FM-RMB-36
Wells
B-50
Blodgett
DFG-100
Blodgett
Mark V Single
Vulcan
36-L
Vulcan
VR-4
SOURCE
Lloyd Hollander Company
through Minnegasco
PG&E Food
Service Technology Center
PG&E Food
PG&E Food
North Star Agency
through Minnegasco
PG&E Food
North Star Agency
through Minnegasco
North Star Agency
through Minnegasco
Vulcan Hart Corporation
through Minnegasco
PG&E Food
M-2

Calor Equipo S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calor Equipo S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012 ASHRAE www.ashrae.org.

American Society of Heating. Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Inc.

1791 Tullie Circle, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30329-2305 S404-636-8400 Fax 404-321-5478

IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF EFFLUENTS

Submitted to ASHRAE by:

June 13, 1996

7. Proposed Time Line

Figure 1. EPA Method 5 Sampling Train.

Figure 2. EPA Method 5G Sampling Train.

Figure 3. EPA Method 5H Sampling Train.

Figure 4. EPA Method 17 Sampling Train.

Figure 5. EPA Method 201 Sampling Train.

Figure 6. EPA Method 201A Sampling Train.

Figure 7. EPA Method 202 Sampling Train.

Figure 8. SCAQMD Method 5.1 Sampling Train.

Figure 9. The Dilution Stack Sampler.

Figure 10. QCM Cascade Impactor Sample Train Example.

Figure 12. Comparison of CE-CERT and Dowell and Dashner studies

Figure 13. Comparison of total particulate concentrations from

Figure 14. Particle size distribution comparison between Dawson,

Figure 15. Schematic of the proposed test facility at the University

Figure 16. Schematic of the proposed sampling train.

Figure 17. Grease particle size range and ranges covered by

IDENTIFICATION AND CHARATERIZATION OF EFFLUENTS FROM

6. Outdoor Air Pollution

C. Summary of Literature Review

Table 1. Keywords and Assigned Number of Papers

D. Particulate Matter and Condensable Gases

IMPIN6ER TRAIN OPTIONAL,MAY BE REPLACED

Figure 1. EPA Method 5 Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).

Figure 2. EPA Method 5G Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).

iii. EPA Method 5H

Figure 3. EPA Method 5H Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).

iv. EPA Method 17

Figure 4. EPA Method 17 Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).

v. EPA Method 201

-, METER AND FLOW

Figure 5. EPA Method 201 Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).

vi. EPA Method 201A

FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM

Figure 6. EPA Method 201A Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).

vii. EPA Method 202

Figure 7. EPA Method 202 Sampling Train (Federal Register 1995).

Figure 8. SCAQMD Method 5.1 Sampling Train (Gordon et al. 1994).

HEATED INLET LINE

Figure 9. The Dilution Stack Sampler (Hildemann et al. 1989).

Table 2. Methods Summary.

<, 20C (b)

< 20"C (a)

Stanley & Co.

<. 20C (d)

Table 2. Methods Summary (continued).

Sample Locations Used In CKV Applications:

c. Result of Applying Methods to Effluent Measurement in CKV

Table 3. Problems Using Sampling Methods When Applied To Cooking Emissions.

PM from wood heaters(stoves)

All particles and condensate

PM from wood heater from stack

AH particles and condensate

PM from stationary sources

Same as above exept TS15C

Organic aerosol determined from

Particle size distribution of

'' rff "