Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test ... · Reference Number: 12 Title:...

AP-42 Section Number: 9.1 1.1

Reference Number: 12

Title: Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test Report, Cargill Incorporated (West Plant), Cedar Rapids, Iowa

PEDCo Environmental Inc.

PEDCo Environmental Inc.

June 1979

EPA

Text Box

Note: This is a reference cited in AP 42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I Stationary Point and Area Sources. AP42 is located on the EPA web site at www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ The file name refers to the reference number, the AP42 chapter and section. The file name "ref02_c01s02.pdf" would mean the reference is from AP42 chapter 1 section 2. The reference may be from a previous version of the section and no longer cited. The primary source should always be checked.

I b I I I I I I I I I

United States Office of Air Quality EMB Report 79-VEG.fjg Environmental Protection Planning an3 Standards Cctober 1979

'I AP42Section 9& I

ReportSect. - reduction Reference

Reference - I I (Meal Processing) J

Emission Test Report Cargill, Incorporate (West Plant) Cedar Rapids, Iowa

I I I

I I PEPA

I I I I I 1 I I I

EMB Report 79-VEG-6g October 1979

United States Environmental Protection Planning and Standards

Office of Air Ouality

Research Triangle Park NC 2771 1

Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing)

Emission Test Report Ca rg i I I, I nco rporated (West Plant) Cedar Rapids, Iowa

I' d I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL. INC. 1 1 4 9 9 CHESTER ROAD

CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246 (51 3) 782-4700

TELEX IS 13) 782-4807 i i

! ! I I '

VEGETABLE OIL EXTRACTION PLANT MEAL SAMPLING AND OPACITY TEST

C a r g i l l West C e d a r R a p i d s , Iowa

June 20, 1979

BY

PEDCo E n v i r o n m e n t a l , I n c . 11499 C h e s t e r R o a d

C i n c i n n a t i , O h i o 45246

79-VCG-6G C o n t r a c t No. 68-02-2811

Task N o . 19 PN 3 3 3 3 - 5

Projec t Techn ica l Manager

Nancy N c L a u g h l i n

U . S . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMISSION MEASUREMENT BRANCH

BRANCH OFFICES

D A L U S . T U A S COLUMBUS. onio KANSAS CITY. MISSOURI DURHAM. NORTH CAROLINA

CHESTER TOWERS

/ /

i., ',

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 2 . 1 Meal Sampling 2 . 2 Opaci ty R e a d i n g s

3 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 3 . 1 Meal Samples 3 . 2 Opaci ty R e a d i n g s

APPENDIX A

ii

Page

1

A- 1

‘I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -

I

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION I

I.

I

This site visit was conducted at the Cargill West plant Tn \

Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on June 20, 1979. The purpose of this vikit

was to collect meal samples (to be analyzed for hexane content),

monitor process conditions, and check selected sites for visible

emissions. Personnel from PEDCo Environmental, Inc. conducted

the meal sampling and analysis and the opacity readings, while

personnel from Research Triangle Institute monitored the processing

parameters. I

Meal samples were taken in triplicate at each of the sampling

sites to provide a data base to evaluate the accuracy and re?roduc-

ibility of the sampling and analytical technique.

were taken after each of the following process steps:

I

Meal samples 1 I

1. Desolventizer toaster (DT)

2 . Meal cooler

3 . Flour mill

4. Flash desolventizer toaster

5 . Meal grinding

I i 6. Flash tank after the Schneckens. I

Opacity was read at eight different sites in the plant. i

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I

SECTION 2

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

2.1 MEAL SAMPLING

The laboratory data sheet listing a l l of the concentrations

for each of the triplicate samples is in Section 3.0 of the

appendix of this report. Sample log sheet is in Section 1.0 of

the Appendix. The data indicates a considerable problem with

sample stability. For example, triplicate samples taken at the

flash DT at 11:04 show a wide variance in hexane concentration.

The second sample which was analyzed on June 2 9 , 1979, has a

concentration of 5,300 pq/q of wet meal. The samples analyzed on

July 19 and July 2 3 show concentrations of 3100 ug/g and 2 9 0 0 ug/g

respectively. Similar discrepancies appear whenever triplicate

samples were analyzed on different dates. Because of this

problem, the highest measured concentration may be the most

representative of the real value. Table 1 lists the highest

measured concentration for each site on a wet and dry meal basis

and the date of the analysis.

I

Meal sampling was done between 1O:OO A.M. and 4:OO P.M. The

sample log indicates no problems were encountered and no devia-

tions were made in the sampling procedure.

t

I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I

i

-

3,000

960

200

6,700

180

880

Hexane con( Sarnpl e

s i t e

2,800 7/ 241 7 9

6/29/79

6/29/79

61291 79

7/12/79

711 2/79

' I t ra t ion dry

v9/9 Date o f a n a l y s i s

Cooler

Flour Mill

Flash OT

Meal Post G r i n d i n g

Flash - After . Schneckens

880

89

6,100

150

780

2 . 2 OPACITY READINGS

Stack opacity was read according to the procedures of Method

g of the Federal Register* at the following sites:

jq.;-.' = - Site Emission Control Device - 5 Meal Dryer Vent Cyclone

7. Flour Cooler Pulsair Pulsair

I Meal Cooler Vent Aerodyne Dust Collector

C Flour Cooler - RJ Baghouse

7 Grinding - RJ Baghouse

J .

L,

_ *

Hul l Grinder Cyclone

Exhaust Fan - Prep. Bldg. None

Flaker Conditioner Aerodyne Dust Collector

At the meal dryer vent, opacity ranged from 0 to 5 percent.

4

I .

2.

At all other sites, there were no visible emissions. Opacity

data sheets are in Section 2.0 of the Appendix in this report.

Federal Register, Vol. 4 2 , No. 16, August 18, 1977.

4

1 i I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I; I

t d I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I

Hexane concent ra t ion

s i t e !J9/9 vg/g Sample wet dry

Date o f a n a l y s i s

7/24/79 I DT I 2,800 I 3,000

89

6,100

Cooler 1 880 I 960 1 6/29/79

200

6,700

Flour Mill

Flash OT

Flash - After . Schneckens

780 880 711 2/79

6/29/79

6/ 29/79

Meal Post G r i n d i n g I 150 I 180 1 711 2/79



g of the Federal Register* at the following sites:

z-i--7 ' = - Site Emission Control Device . -- .

5 Meal Dryer Vent Cyclone

7 Flour Cooler Pulsair Pulsair

f Meal Cooler Vent Aerodyne Dust Collector

C Flour Cooler - RJ Baghouse

-7 I Grinding - RJ Baghouse

/ . <I

Hull Grinder Cyclone



At the meal dryer vent, opacity ranged from 0 to 5 percent.

P

/ .

2 .


data sheets are in Section 2 . 0 of the Appendix in this report.

I I I I I I I

x Federal Register, Vol. 4 2 , No. 16, August 18, 1977.

4

I

I d I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I

SECTION 3

SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

3.1 MEAL SAMPLES

The meal sampling and analytical technique was adopted from

a volitilization head-space sampling procedure developed at Texas

AhM University.’

bottles with septum caps, tare weighed in the lab with two layers

of filter paper in the bottom of each. In the field just prior

to sampling, 0.5 mP. of water was added to wet the filter paper,

using an automatic pipette. A long handled scoop was used to

take a sample from the conveyor belt. A small portion of this

scoop was then transferred to each of the triplicate samples

using a small spoon and a funnel. Septum caps were replaced

immediately on the samples. An aluminum cap was then crimped

tightly over the septum for a final seal. Each bottle was then

weighed to determine the amount of sample collected. Meal samples

were stored in a cooler with ice for shipment back to the PEDCo

laboratory and stored in a refrigerator until analysis. Ideally

a 2.0 gram sample should be taken each time.

had to be done quickly to prevent evaporation losses, and the

actual sample weight varied from 1.34 g to 3.11 g.

Sample bottles used were 100 mll glass serum

However, sampling

b. J. Wan, M. Chittwood, C. M. Cater, “Determination of Residual Hexane in Solvent Extracted Meal,” Food Protein RLD Center, Texas A&M University. 5

I

Analysis was done by placing the sample bottle into a sand-

bath for two hours at 125OC and then gradually cooling the sample

to room temperature. A 1.0 mL head space sample is then injected

into a gas chromatograph. Calibration standards are made by

adding a known amount of 99 mole percent n-hexane to processed

meal that has been completely dried. To determine the dry weight

of the meal sampled after analysis, the samples were placed in a

drying oven uncapped and reweighed after the moisture and hexane

had been driven off.


Opacity was read by a qualified observer using the procedures

of Federal Register* Method 9. Readings were taken every 15

seconds over a 12 minute period at each site.

*Federal Register, Vol. 4 2 , No. 16, August 18, 1977.

6

I '1

3.0 Meal Sample Laboratory Analysis Report

DATA SHEET

Date : June 20, 1979 i Cargill West, Cedar Rapids lant :

a1 si5 %."" 7/2 3/79 7/2 4/7 9 1 7/23/79

7/23/79 6/29/79 7/23/79

6/29/79 7/23/79 7/23/79

I ~ 7/23/79 6/29/79 7/19/7 9

6/29/79 7/2 3/7 9

I 7/19/79

7/23/79 1/2 4/7 9 6/2 9/7 9

5 7/23/79 7/2 4 /79

I

II 6/29/79 a 7/23/79 6/29/79

7/24/79 7/24/79 7/23/79

7/20/79 7/20/79 7/12/79

Sample No.-Location

64 65 66

67 68 69

70 71 72

73 74 75

76 77 78

79 80 81

82 83 84

85 86 87

88 89 90

91 92 93

D.T. D.T. D. T.

Cooler Cooler Cooler

Flour Mi Flour Mi Flour Mi

I 1 1

Flash D.T. Flash D.T. Flash D.T.


Flour Mill Flour Mill Flour Mill

Flash D.T. Flash D.T. Flash D.T.



D.T. D.T. D.T.

Sample Wet W t . Wet Dry Time (g) (lJg/g) - Date

6/20/79 6/2 0 /7 9 6/20/7 9

6/20/79 6/20/79 6/20/79

6/20/79 6/20/79 6/20/79

6/2 0/79 6/20/79 6/2 0 /79

6/20/7 9 6/20/79 6/20/79

6/20/79 6/20/79 6/20/79

6/2 0/7 9 6 / 2 O/? 9 6/20/79

6/20/79 6/20/79 6/20/79

6/20/79 6/2 0/7 9 6/20/79

6/20/79 6/2 0/79 6/20/79

9:53 pm 9:53 pm 9:53 pm

10:03 pm 10:03 pm 10:03 pm

10:09 pm 10:09 pm 10:09 pm

11:04 pm 11:04 pm 11:04 pm

11:08 pm 11:08 pm 11:08 pm

11:13 pm 11:13 pm 11:13 pm

12:02 pm 12:02 pm 12:02 pm

12:07 pm 12:07 pm 12:07 pm

12:lO pm 12:lO pm 12:lO pm

12:25 pm 12:25 pm 12:25 pm

1.51 2700 1.85 2800 1.41 2500

2.84 400 2.92 880 2.68 290

2.24 70 2.16 47 2.00 47

2.03 2900 1.74 5300 2.05 3100

2.29 500 2.10 170 2.46 420

2.05 50 1.75 39 1.22 68

1.93 2900 2.67 2600 2.57 6100

5.43 380 3 84 670 4.03 420

2.06 42 2.10 45 1.99 57

3.64 100 3.82 100 3.47 78

(A) Duplicate injection of this sample produced a 5 to 10% difference.

(e) Duplicate injection of this sample produced a difference greater than 10%.

30 32g 3000

4 4 l 960

'4% 52

8 ::Sg

E 3 6 0

3500

5

72

2800

6a%: i: i: 4: I I I I

I

DATA SHEET

lant: Cargill West Cedar Rapids

Sample Sample No.-Location Date

7/23/79 7/12/79 7/20/79

7/24/79 7/2 4 /7 9 c 7/24 /7 9 7/20/79 ( A ) 7/2 3/79 7/23/79

7/23/79 (B) 7/20/79 6/29/79

7/19/79 6/29/79 7/23/79

7/19/79 7/23/79 7/23/79

7/20/79 (B) 7/23/79

. 7/23/79 (A)

7/20/79

7/23/79

7/23/79 9 . 7/2 0/7 9 7/20/79 7/23/79

7/20/79 7/20/79

h

94 95 96

97 98 99

100 101 102

103 104 105

106 107 108

109 110 111

112 113 114

115

116

117

118 119 120

121 122 123

Meal Post 6/20/79 Meal Post 6/20/79 Meal Post 6/20/79

Flash D.T. 6/20/79 Flash D.T. 6/20/79 Flash D.T. 6/20/79

Cooler 6/20/79 Cooler 6/20/79 Cooler 6/20/79

Flour Mill 6/20/79 Flour Mill 6/20/79 Flour Mill 6/20/79

Flash D.T. 6/20/79 Flash D.T. 6/20/79 Flash D.T. 6/20/?9

Cooler 6/20/79 Cooler 6/2 0/7 9 Cooler 6/20/79


Flash-after 6/20/79 Schneckens Flash-after 6/20/79 Schneckens Flash-after 6/20/79 Schneckens



Date: June 20, 1979

Wet Ht. Time ( g )

12:35 pm 3.55 12:35 pm 3.13 12:35 pm 2.73

1:04 pm 3.42 1:04 pm 3.34 1:04 pm 2.13

1:07 pm 3.17 1:07 pm 2.72 1:07 pm 2.49

1:11 pm 1.91 1:11 pm 1.59 1:11 pm 1.83

2:OO pm 2.46 2:OO pm 2.29 2:OO pm 2.30

2:04 pm 2.61 2:04 pm 2..87 2:04 pm 2.70

2:lO pm 2.10 2:lO pm 2.39 2:lO pm 2.04

3:05 pm 2.89

3:05 pm 2.63

3:05 pm 2.79

3:07 pm 2.78 3:07 pm 3.00 3:07 pm 2.44

3:12 pm 2.08 3:12 pm 2.06 3:12 pm 1.97

Wet (IJg/g)

87 150 82

2400 2400 2600

4 30 250 390

43 43 89

3400 5500 2800

440 400 440

40 42 44

610

590

540

4 90 580 370

48 50 48

Dry weight was not recorded.


(B) Duplicate injection of this sample produced a difference greater than 10%.

Dry (lJg/g)

110 180 87

3100 3100 2900

520 290 430

48 52

200

0 6400 3300

510 460 490

48 43 53

780

700

570

540 680 4 30

54 54 48

_- . -. - . . . . .

- '. DATA SHEET

cargill West8 Cedar Rapids Date: June 20, 1979 Plant : 1

Date Analysis

7/12/79

7/24/79

7/20/79

6/29/79 7/12/7 9 6/29/79

6/29/79 6/29/79 7/19/79

Sample Ho.-Location Sample Wet Nt. Wet D~~ i

Time (9 1 (ug/9) (ug/g) - Date

124 Flash-af ter

125 Flash-after

126 Flash-after

Schneckens

Schneckens

Schneckens

127 Cooler 12 8 Cooler 129 Cooler

130 Flour Mill 131 Flour Mill 132 Flour Mill

6/20/79 4:OO pm

6/20/79 4:OO pm

6/20/79 4:OO pm

2.47 780 880 I 490 I

1.92 410

2.46 520 630

6/20/79 4:05 pm 6/20/79 4:05 pm 6/20/79 4:05 pm

6/20/79 4:08 pm 6/20/79 4:08 pm 6/20/79 4:08 pm

2.69 850 970 I 2.83 680 750

loo0 I 2.63 940

1.94 84 86 2.31 82 2.49 53

loo0 I 2.63 940

1.94 84 86 2.31 82 2.49 53

'Duplicate injection of this sample produced a 5 to 10% difference.

Duplicate injection of this sample produced a difference greater than 10%.

I 1 I 11

I I

i

! b I I I

I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I

PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. I 1 4 9 9 CHESTER ROAD

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45246 (51 3) 782-4700

TELEX (51 3) 782-4807

VEGETABLE O I L EXTRACTION PLANT MEAL SAMPLING AND OPACITY TEST

C a r g i l l West Cedar R a p i d s , Iowa

June 2 0 , 1 9 7 9

BY

PEDCO E n v i r o n m e n t a l , I n c . 1 1 4 9 9 C h e s t e r R o a d

C i n c i n n a t i , O h i o 4 5 2 4 6

7 9-VEG-6G C o n t r a c t N o . 6 8 - 0 2 - 2 8 1 1

T a s k N o . 1 9 ' PN 3 3 3 3 - 5

P r o j e c t T e c h n i c a l M a n a g e r

Nancy M c L a u g h l i n

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EMISSION MEASUREMENT BRANCH

BRANCH OFFICES

DALLAS. T U A S COLUMBUS. OHIO

KANSAS Urr. MISSOURI DURHAM. NORTH CAROLINA CHESTER TOWERS

L

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 2.1 Meal Sampling 2.2 Opacity Readings

3.1 Meal Samples 3.2 Opacity Readings

3 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

APPENDIX A

ii

1

2 2 4

5 5 6

A-1

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

This site visit was conducted at the Cargill West plant in

Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on June 20 , 1979. The purpose of this visit

was to collect meal samples (to be analyzed f o r hexane content),

monitor process conditions, and check selected sites for visible

emissions. Personnel from PEDCo Environmental, Inc. conducted

the meal sampling and analysis and the opacity readings, while

personnel from Research Triangle Institute monitored the processing

parameters.

Meal samples were taken in triplicate at each of the sampling

sites to provide a data base to evaluate the accuracy and reproduc-

ibility of the sampling and analytical technique. Meal samples

were taken after each of the following process steps:

1. Desolventizer toaster (DT)

2 . Meal cooler

3 . Flour mill

4 . Flash desolventizer toaster

5 . Meal grinding

6. Flash tank after the Schneckens.

Opacity was read at eight different sites in the plant.

1

1 0 I 1 l ib I I

I

1 .

SECTION 2

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

2.1 MEAL SAMPLING

The laboratory data sheet listing all of the concentrations

for each of the triplicate samples is in Section 3.0 of the

appendix of this report. Sample log sheet is in Section 1.0 of

the Appendix. The data indicates a considerable problem with

sample stability. For example, triplicate samples taken at the

flash DT at 11:04 show a wide variance in hexane concentration.

The second sample which was analyzed on June 29, 1979, has a

concentration of 5,300 pg/g of wet meal. The samples analyzed on

July 19 and July 23 show concentrations of 3100 ug/g and 2900 pq/g

respectively. Similar discrepancies appear whenever triplicate

samples were analyzed on different dates. Because of this

problem, the highest measured concentration may be the most

representative of the real value. Table 1 lists the highest

measured concentration for each site on a wet and dry meal basis

and the date of the analysis.

Meal sampling was done between 1O:OO A.M. and 4 : O O P.M. The

sample log indicates no problems were encountered and no devia-

tions were made in the sampling procedure.

2

TABLE 1. HEXANE CONCENTRATION I N MEAL SAMPLES AT CARGILL WEST, CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA

Hexane concent ra t ion Sample wet d r y

s i t e u g l g u g l g

2,800 3,000 DT

(Highest measured va lue o n l y )

Date o f ana lys is

7/24/79

880

89

6,100

150

780

Cooler

F lour M i l l

F lash OT

Meal Post Gr ind ing

F lash - A f t e r Schnec kens

960 6/29/79

200 61 29/79

6,700 61 291 79

180 711 2/79

880 7/12/79

3

:I I 1 I r I I

I _.

I i

I t

I I I I I 0 I I I I

I .

-



9 of the Federal Register* at the following sites:

j?n 1~: - Site Emission Control Device

Meal Dryer Vent Cyclone

Flour Cooler Pulsair Pulsair

Meal Cooler Vent Aerodyne Dust Collector

Flour Cooler - RJ Baghouse

Grinding - RJ Baghouse

Hull Grinder Cyclone



At the meal dryer vent, opacity ranged from 0 to 5 percent


data sheets are in Section 2.0 of the Appendix in this report.

Federal Register, Vol. 4 2 , No. 16, August 18, 1977.

4

~

I 1 I i I c r I I I I I I

I I I

I 11 I I

i.

I I

SECTION 3

SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

3.1 MEAL SAMPLES

The meal sampling and analytical technique was adopted from

a volitilization head-space sampling procedure developed at Texas I A&M University. Sample bottles used were 100 mll glass serum

bottles with septum caps, tare weighed in the lab with two layers

of filter paper in the bottom of each. In the field just prior

to sampling, 0.5 mll of water was added to wet the filter paper,

using an automatic pipette. A long handled scoop was used to

take a sample from the conveyor belt. A small portion of this

scoop was then transferred to each of the triplicate samples

using a small spoon and a funnel. Septum caps were replaced

immediately on the samples. An aluminum cap was then crimped

tightly over the septum for a final seal. Each bottle was then

weighed to determine the amount of sample collected. Meal samples

were stored in a cooler with ice for shipment back to the PEDCo

laboratory and stored in a refrigerator until analysis. Ideally

a 2 . 0 gram sample should be taken each time. However, sampling

had to be done quickly to prevent evaporation losses, and the

actual sample weight varied from 1.34 g to 3.11 g.

'P. J. Wan, M. Chittwood, C. M. Cater, "Determination of Residual Hexane in Solvent Extracted Meal," Food Protein R&D Center, Texas A&M University. 5

(1 c 1 I

c

I

I I: i..

I

I

Analysis was done by placing the sample bottle into a sand-

bath for two hours at 125OC and then gradually cooling the sample

to room temperature. A 1.0 ml? head space sample is then injected

into a gas chromatograph. Calibration standards are made by

adding a known amount of 99 mole percent n-hexane to processed

meal that has been completely dried. To determine the dry weight

of the meal sampled after analysis, the samples were placed in a

drying oven uncapped and reweighed after the moisture and hexane

had been driven off.


Opacity was read by a qualified observer using the procedures

of Federal Register* Method 9. Readings were taken every 15

seconds over a 12 minute period at each site.

*Federal Register, Vol. 4 2 , No. 16, August 18, 1977.

6

1 I I r r r I

I I

APPENDIX A

A- 1

.. .

1.0 Meal Sample Log

t

i I I I I 1

I I 1 I

I I I

I I

. . .

I 1 I t I I I I I I 1

r c. . 1 t .

2.0 Opacity Data Sheets

I I

1 ! I c I I I

I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I

_.

E V

0 iL

Y *

h h

9 c 0 c Y U w L c

e

Y = 0 %

c

c 0

Y 0 > L Y .a a 0 L 0

c

u I

z % n .u c L

3

2! e a Y

Y

E c Y c Y L

P

> 8

a

c 9 u H L

I i 1

I 1

c 1

I

u 4

Y t= 0 LL

c

z 2 %

c Y

L

a 0 L 0 - Y n L Y X

-0

k n 0 e 5;

t! E 3 Y

Y

7i

2

I- Y c Y c

I

1 i ..

I

I I

I

i L

i

I I

I

I U

Ol

. .

I

... .

% I

.

I I I I' 1

I 4 a I 4 l a

I I 4 1

I i

I U

Ol

:: 2

4

m 3 w

0

d z " 2: >

a I ..

I I

1 I I' I I 1 E I P E B I I P I a 1 I.

* h 0 L

0 2

d

J n

g

I u I P I t I @ I

1 I& c I E

I I

B 1' 1 I I li 1 t

I

t * ,

. h :: n -

Y

" Y I.

>I z 2' E U

#I.. 0 I- # = .P ;z

- Y " C ia

-: :- e

.

. L t n' c

0

d 2

n

>

WDEW ULEOUTR VOL 19, NO. llP--IUEsDAI, NOVWDEl 1% lW4 . .

c IE i t p I Q I n 1' 1 P

I

I

, /

- !

.

c ia @ 1 il # 3 E I 3.0 Meal Sample Laboratory Analysis Report

!

.

..

DATA SHEET

June 20, 1979 lant: Cargill West, Cedar Rapids Date :

Dry Sample Wet Ut. Wet

4 e t e

Time (g) (lJg/g) !US/S) - alysis Sample No.-Location Date

1 @7/23/79 7/24/79

,,7/23/79 I

64 D.T. 65 D. T. 66 D.T.

6/20/79 9:53 pm 1.51 6/20/79 9:53 pm 1.85 6/20/79 9:53 pm 1.41

e7/23/79 67 Cooler 6/20/79 10:03 pm 2.84 , 68 Cooler 6/20/79 10:03 pm 2.92

( A ) 69 Cooler 6/20/79 10:03 pm 2.68

6/29/79 ( A ) 70 Flour Mill 6/20/79 10:09 pm 2.24 7/23/79 ( B ) 71 Flour Mill 6/20/79 10:09 pm 2.16 7/23/79 (B) 72 Flour Mill 6/20/79 10:09 pm 2.00

2700 2800 2500

400 880 290

70 47 47

3200 3000 3000

460 960 340

76 52 52

73 Flash D.T. 6/20/79 11:04 pm 2.03 2900 3500 74 Flash D.T. 6/20/79 11:04 pm 1.74 5300 6100 75 Flash D.T. 6/20/79 11:04 pm 2.05 3100 3500

6/2 9/7 9 76 Cooler 6/20/79 1l:OB pm 2.29 500 560

' 7/19/79 78 Cooler 6/20/79 11:08 pm 2.46 420 500 7/23/79 (A) 77 Cooler 6/20/79 11:08 pm 2.10 170 200

(A) 79 Flour Mill 6/20/79 11:13 pm 2.05 50 53 P ;;;;;;; 80 Flour Mill 6/20/79 11:13 pm 1.75 39 44

F :;::;;: 81 Flour Mill 6/20/79 11:13 pm 1.22 68 72

82 Flash D.T. 6/20/79 12:02 pm 1.93 2900 3200

84 Flash D.T. 6/20/79 12:02 pm 2.57 6100 6700 83 Flash D.T. 6/20/79 12:02 pm 2.67 2600 2800

7/2 3/7 9 85 6/29/79 86 7/24/79 87

7/24/79 ( A ) 88 7/24/79 ( B ) 89 7/23/79 (B) 90

7/20/79 (A) 91

7/12/79 93 7/20/79 92



D.T. D.T. D.T.

6/20/79 6/20/79 6/20/79

6/20/79 6/20/79 6/20/79

6/20/79 6/20/79 6/20/79

12:07 pm 12:07 pm 12:07 pm

12:lO pm 12:lO pm 12:lO.pm

12:25 pm 12:25 pm 12:25 pm

5.43 3 84 4.03

2.06 2.10 1.99

3.64 3.82 3.47

380 440 670 770 420 460

42 45 45 51 57 66

100 210 100 140 78 90


(3) Duplicate injection of this sample produced a difference greater than 10%.

DATA SHEET

&ant: Cargill West, Cedar Rapids

7/23/79 &/12/79 7/20/79

&/2 4/7 9 /24/79 t:::::: 7/2 3/7 9

7/19/79 6/29/79 7/23/79

7/19/79

17/20/79 I 7/23/79 . 7/23/79

1 7/2 0/7 9 7/2 3/79

7/23/79

17/20/79 7/20/79

Sample Sample No.-Location Date

94 95 96

97 98 99

(A) 100 101 102

(B) 103 104 105

106 107 108

109 110 111

(B) 112 11 3

(A) 114

115

11 6

117

11 8 119 12 0

(B) 121 (A) 122

12 3

Meal Post 6/20/79 Meal Post 6/20/79 Meal Post 6/20/79





Cooler 6/20/79 Cooler 6 /2 0/7 9 Cooler 6/20/79


Flash-after 6/20/79 Schneckens Flash-after 6/20/79 Schnecken s Flash-after 6/20/79 Schneckens



Date: June 20, 1979

Wet Ht. Time (9)

12:35 pm 3.55 12:35 pm 3.13 12:35 pm 2.73

1:04 pm 3.42 1:04 pm 3.34 1:04 pm 2.73

1:07 pm 3.17 1:07 pm 2.72 1:07 pm 2.49

1:11 pm 1.91 1:11 pm 1.59 1:11 pm 1.83

2:OO pm 2.46 2:OO pm 2.29 2:OO pm 2.30

2:04 pm 2:04 pm

2:lO pm 2:lO pm 2:lO pm

3:05 pm

3:05 pm

3:05 pm

3:07 pm 3:07 pm 3:07 pm

3:12 pm 3:12 pm 3:12 pm

2:04 Dm 2.61 2.87 2.70

2.10 2.39 2.04

2.89

2.63

2.79

2.78 3.00 2.44

2.08 2.06 1.97

Wet (u9/9)

87 150 82

2400 2400 2600

4 30 250 390

43 43 89

3400 5500 2800

440 400 440

40 42 44

610

590

540

490 580 370

48 50 48

4 @ Dry weight was not recorded. (A) Duplicate injection of this sample produced a 5 to 0% difference.

Dry (ug/g)

110 180 87

3100 3100 2900

520 290 4 30

48 52

200

- 0 6400 3300

510 460 490

48 43 53

780

700

570

540 680 4 30

54 54 48

1 (B) Duplicate injection of this sample produced a difference greater than 10%.

Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test ... · Reference Number: 12 Title:...

Documents

Transcript of Vegetable Oil Production (Meal Processing) Emission Test ... · Reference Number: 12 Title:...