Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Surface Coating Facilities: Characterization of Facilities, Estimation of Emission Rates, and Dispersion Modeling of Off-Site Impacts
- 1 Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA
- 2 School of Energy and Environment, University of Phayao, Phayao, Thailand
- 3 Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA
- 4 Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA
- 5 Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA
- 6 Department of Chemical Engineering, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
- 7 Providence Engineering, Irving, USA
- 8 Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA
- 9 Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA
- 10 Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA
Abstract
Surface coating facilities are major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in urban areas. These VOCs can contribute to ground-level ozone formation, and many are hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), including xylene, ethylbenzene, and toluene. This project was conducted in order to provide information for updating the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), USA , permit by rule for Surface Coating Facilities. Project objectives were: 1) To develop a database of information regarding surface coating facilities in Texas; 2) To estimate maximum emission rates for various VOC species from surface coating facilities in Texas; 3) To conduct dispersion modeling to estimate off-site impacts from surface coating facilities. The database was developed using 286 TCEQ permit files authorizing surface coating facilities in Texas during 2006 and 2007. The database was designed to include information important for estimating emission rates, and for using as inputs to the dispersion model. Hourly and annual emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particulate matter (PM), and exempt solvents (ES) were calculated for each permitted entity/ company in the database, according to equations given by TCEQ. Dispersion modeling was then conducted for 3 facility configurations (worst-case stack height, good practice stack height, and fugitive emissions), for urban and rural dispersion parameters, for 8-hour and 24-hour operating scenarios, and for 1-hour, 24-hour, and annual averaging times, for a total of 36 scenarios. The highest modeled concentrations were for the worst-case stack height, rural dispersion parameters, 24-hour operation scenario, and 1-hour averaging time. 108 specific chemical species, which are components of surface coatings, were identified as candidates for further health impacts review .
- US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Vol. I, Chapter 4, Evaporation Loss Sources, Section 4.2.2.1, General Industrial Surface Coating,” In: US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) AP-42, 5th Edition, 1981. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch04/final/c4s02_2a.pdf
- A. Kumar and T. Shenoy, “Surface Coatings,” In: W. T. Davis, Ed., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2000, pp. 321-332.
- R. Mukund, T. J. Kelly and C. W. Spicer, “Source Attribution of Ambient Air Toxic and Other VOCs in Columbus, Ohio,” Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 30, No. 20, 1996, pp. 3457-3470. doi:10.1016/1352-2310(95)00487-4
- J. H. Lawrimore and V. P. Aneja, “Chemical Mass Balance Analyses of Nonmethane Hydrocarbon Emissions in North Carolina,” Chemosphere, Vol. 35, No. 11, 1997, pp. 2751-2765. doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(97)00321-4
- M. Placet, C. O. Mann, R. O. Golbert and M. J. Niefer, “Emissions of Ozone Precursors from Stationary Source: A Critical Review,” Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 34, No. 12-14, 2000, pp. 2183-2204. doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00464-1
- S. Pierucci, R. Del Rosso, D. Bombardi, A. Concu and G. Lugli, “An Innovative Sustainable Process for VOCs Recovery from Spray Paint Booths,” Energy, Vol. 30, No. 8, 2005, pp. 1377-1386. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2004.02.017
- US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Vol. I, Chapter 4, Evaporation Loss Sources, Section 4.2.1, Nonindustrial Surface Coating,” In: US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) AP-42, 5th Edition, 1991. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch04/final/c4s02_1.pdf
- Y. J. Choi, R. V. Calabrese, S. H. Ehrman, R. R. Dickerson and J. W. Stehr, “A Combined Approach for the Evaluation of a Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Inventory,” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2006, pp. 169-178. doi:10.1080/10473289.2006.10464446
- K. Mannschreck, D. Klemp, D. Kley, R. Friedrich, J. Huhlwein, B. Wickert, P. Matuska, M. Habram and F. Slemr, “Evaluation of an Emission Inventory by Comparisons of Modeled and Measured Emission Ratios of Individual HCS, CO and NOx,” Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 36, Suppl. 1, 2002, pp. 581-594. doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00211-X
- J. G. Watson, J. C. Chow and E. M. Fujita, “Review of Volatile Organic Compound Source Apportionment by Chemical Mass Balance,” Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 36, No. 9, 2001, pp. 1567-1584. doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00461-1
- A. Srivastava and D. Majumdar, “Emission Inventory of Evaporative Emissions of VOCs in Four Metro Cities in India,” Environmental Monitoring Assessment, Vol. 160, No. 1-4, 2010, pp. 315-322. doi:10.1007/s10661-008-0697-4