Closed Loop Fumigation of a Concrete Elevator Broken Arrow, Oklahoma Dr. Carol Jones Department of...
-
Upload
egbert-mcbride -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Closed Loop Fumigation of a Concrete Elevator Broken Arrow, Oklahoma Dr. Carol Jones Department of...
Closed Loop Fumigation of a Concrete Elevator
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Dr. Carol JonesDepartment of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering
Oklahoma State University
Edmond Bonjour and Randy BeebyStored Products Research and Education CenterDepartment of Entomology and Plant Pathology
Oklahoma State University
Mark Fultz, ManagerHansen Mueller Grain Co., Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Urbanization around Rural Elevator
Challenges
• Fumigation safety is a concern to neighbors and to employees
• Conventional methods of phosphine fumigation put workers and people in close proximity in danger
• Improper fumigation leads to insect resistance
Goals of this Project
• Seek a method to improve safety of fumigating with phosphine
• Seek a method to decrease the amount of fumigant required
• Seek a method to increase the concentration distribution throughout the grain bins
Common Fumigation Methods and Negative
Effects• Probe and Tarp: exposure during tarping• Automatic Dispenser: pellets spill from buckets and
release gas in unwanted areas, shrinkage caused from turning and moving grain
• Gravity Fumigation: little control of where gas may go
Each method offers increased risk of exposure during insertion of fumigant into the grain.
Proposed Method
• Closed Loop Fumigation System in a concrete silo• Example of a J-System patented by James Cook in
1980.• Consists of:
– Sealing air leaks in storage structure– Installing low pressure low volume centrifugal blower re-
circulating air-gas mixture from headspace of grain into base of silo
– Installing pipes from fan to blower and back into silos
Closed Loop Basic IdeaPressured base ducts force gas mixture upward
through grain bulk providing better gas distribution through grain.
Grain Bulk
Headspace
Blower
Bin Diagram of Elevator Facility
#3
#4
#5
#13
#15
#16 #17
#14
#12
#11#10
#7
#8 #9
#1 #2
#6
Closed loop system installed in one half of the elevator while the other half remained unchanged for a conventional method fumigant application
#3
#4
#5
#13
#15
#16 #17
#14
#12
#11#10
#7
#8 #9
#1 #2
#6
CLF Conventional
8660 MT capacity
(120,000 bu)
Dosage: Phosphine Pellets
• Manager chose his normal dosage rate of 500 pellets/1000 ft3 which is his normal dosage rate. Both sides of the elevator were treated the same. – CLF side: pellets distributed on top of the grain.– Conventional side: pellets were inserted into the grain as it
was loaded into the bin
Monitoring
• Monitoring fumigation: top, bottom, and middle of bin
Monitoring
• Electronic gas meters were used to measure phosphine concentration every 4 hours for the first 32 hours and every 10 hours for the next 88 hours.
ResultsCLF versus Conventional Fumigation
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Hour from Treatment
pp
m
CLF BIN
CONVENTIONAL BIN
200 PPM
A closed loop system was installed in one half of the elevator while the other half remained unchanged for a conventional method fumigant application
#3
#4
#5
#13
#15
#16 #17
#14
#12
#11#10
#7
#8 #9
#1 #2
#6
CLF Conventional
8660 MT capacity
(120,000 bu)
Installation of CLFBin Diagram of Elevator Facility
#3
#4
#5
#13
#15
#16 #17
#14
#12
#11#10
#7
#8 #9
#1 #2
#6
Seal Inner Vents
Installation of CLF• Seal silos as completely as possible…inner vents to
silos not included in loop
Installation of CLFBin Diagram of Elevator Facility
#3
#4
#5
#13
#15
#16 #17
#14
#12
#11#10
#7
#8 #9
#1 #2
#6
Seal Outer Vents
Installation of CLF• Seal silos as completely as possible…outer
vents
Installation of CLF• Seal silos as completely as possible...access
openings
Proposed Method for StudyBin Diagram of Elevator Facility
#3
#4
#5
#13
#15
#16 #17
#14
#12
#11#10
#7
#8 #9
#1 #2
#6
Install Fan on top of Bin 6 (outside of head house)
Headhouse
Proposed Method for Study
• Blower mounted outside on top of one bin adjacent to the head house.
• 1/3 HP supplying 320 cfm
Proposed Method for Study
• Installing pipes from fan to blower and back into silos
Flexible hose from fan through window to man lift shaft
Down man lift shaft to ground level using 3 inch PVC sewage pipe
Proposed Method for Study
• Installing pipes from fan to blower and back into silos
After Fumigation
• Blower discharge piping was disconnected and the blower was used to evacuate the fumigant from the CLF system and bins.
• Evacuation can be accomplished when the danger to workers or to residents around the elevator is the least.
• Gas can be discharged 120 ft. above ground level reducing danger
• Closed Loop Fumigation– Installation costs– Less fumigant– Less labor– Less worker exposure and
health costs
• Conventional Fumigation– Turning costs and product
shrinkage– More fumigant– More labor– More bin entry required of
workers causing health risk and higher insurance rates
Economic Comparison ($4/bu wheat)
Economic Comparison ($8/bu wheat)
Conclusion• Closed loop fumigation was more successful
since it reached the desired 200 ppm for 100 hours. Conventional fumigation did not reach this level.
• ¾ of the fumigant could have been saved in this elevator
• Closed loop fumigation is ultimately cheaper• Closed loop fumigation is safer than conventional
fumigation when carried out properly
Closed Loop Fumigation of a Concrete Elevator
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Dr. Carol JonesDepartment of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering
Oklahoma State University
Edmond Bonjour and Randy BeebyStored Products Research and Education CenterDepartment of Entomology and Plant Pathology
Oklahoma State University
Mark Fultz, ManagerHansen MuellerGrain Co., Broken Arrow, Oklahoma