This article was downloaded by: [Clayton State University Library]

On: 07 October 2014, At: 19:10

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm16

A Comparison of the Size Distribution of Particulates

Emitted from Air, Mechanical, and Steam Atomized
Oil Fired Burners
a b
Frederick J. McGarry & Constantine J. Gregory
a
Environmental Engineers, Inc , Concord , New Hampshire , USA
b
Northeastern University , Boston , Massachusetts , USA
Published online: 15 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Frederick J. McGarry & Constantine J. Gregory (1972) A Comparison of the Size Distribution of
Particulates Emitted from Air, Mechanical, and Steam Atomized Oil Fired Burners, Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, 22:8, 636-639, DOI: 10.1080/00022470.1972.10469692

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1972.10469692

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 A Comparison of the Size Distribution of
Particulates Emitted from Air, Mechanical, and
Steam Atomized Oil Fired Burners
Downloaded by [Clayton State University Library] at 19:10 07 October 2014

Frederick J. McGarry Constantine J. Gregory

Environmental Engineers, Inc. Northeastern University
Concord, New Hampshire Boston, Massachusetts

Participate size distributions were obtained in the effluent gases from three steam slower moving oil stream as the mixture
generating boilers of a power station employing mechanical, steam, and air sys- passes through a burner nozzle.
The least common method of fuel
tems for heavy fuel atomization. Samples were obtained with an eight-stage atomization in this country is the air
cascade impactor. The air atomized burner produced the lowest particulate atomized burner. The primary reason
loading, the greatest percentage of particulates by weight in the submicron range, for its limited use is the feeling that
and particulates with the lowest combustible content. the cost of supplying the required
pressurized air is too great to warrant
its use. This method is similar in
operation to the steam atomizer except
that pressurized air from a burner
primary air fan replaces steam as the
atomizing fluid. The oil under a pres-
sure of 28 psi passes through an orifice
There are many factors which can in- The most frequently used fuel ato- within the burner tip and immediately
fluence the quantity and size distribu- mizers are of the mechanical type. comes in contact with a stream of air
tion of particulate emissions produced High pressure (400 psi) is used to force rotating clockwise under a pressure of
by oil-fired boilers employed for power the oil at a high velocity through the 27 in. of water or about 1 psi. It then
generation. One of the most im- small tangential passages of a sprayer comes in contact with a second stream
portant is the nature of fuel atomiza- plate into a chamber where the oil is of air of equal pressure to the first,
tion. The degree of atomization has rapidly rotated. Centrifugal forces moving in a counter-clockwise direction.
an important effect on the size of the caused the oil to break up into thin The combination of the two streams of
particles as well as the particulate layers, thereby producing a mist-like compressed air create a great deal of
loading. Poor atomization results in spray. Proper atomization is depen- turbulence, resulting in the dispersion
large fly ash particles and a higher dent upon the centrifugal velocities offinelyatomized fuel droplets.
particulate loading, since the droplets which in turn are dependent upon fuel
of fuel may be quite large and thereby pressures. Experimental Methods
difficult to burn completely. Good Steam atomizers are divided into two A total of 27 particulate samples were
atomization has a reverse effect since categories, outside and inside mix, collected from the flue gas effluent from
the oil droplets are small and complete depending upon whether the steam and three oil-fired steam generating boilers,
combustion is more likely to occur. oil mix inside or outside the burner each utilizing a separate method of fuel
This study is concerned with a com- nozzle. The steam atomizer investi- atomization. The device used for
parison of the size distributions of gated here is of the inside mix variety. sampling was the Andersen Stack
particulates associated with the three Steam, under a pressure of up to 140 sampler. This sampler uses the prin-
types^of heavy fuel oil atomizers pres- psi, has a much greater velocity than ciple of a cascade impactor for the
ently used in the generation of elec- the oil, which is pumped at a pressure separation and collection of particulates
tricity: mechanical, steam, and air. of up to 120 psi, and thus atomizes the on 8 internal collection plates. The

636 Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

 sampler is made up of 9 jet plates, each
having a pattern of 300 drilled holes,
housed in a stainless steel case. Each
of the plates is separated by a 2.5-mm
gasket.
The size distribution of particles
produced by the stack sampler was
supplied by the manufacturer. The
calibration data were obtained for
spherical particles of unit density at an
Downloaded by [Clayton State University Library] at 19:10 07 October 2014
airflow rate of 0.75 cfm. The particle
size distribution for each of the 8 stages
of the sampler is shown in Table I.
Sample collection was achieved at
stack conditions. The sampler, fitted
with a Vrin. entrance nozzle, was
placed on the end of a probe and
operated at three equally spaced loca-
tions across the middle of an 18 by
4.6 ft duct running from the economizer
to the air heater. This location was
chosen since it was one of the few areas
accessible for sampling. Some con-
sideration was given to sampling after
an electrostatic precipitator which was
located downstream of the air heater
but collection efficiency of the precipi-
tator varied and it was felt that a con-
sistent gas sample was not possible.
Ideally, isokinetic sampling, where
the velocity of the flue gas in the duct is
matched by the velocity of the sample
passing through the nozzle, should be
employed. At the time of sampling,
calibration curves were not available
for flow rates other than 0.75 cfm.
Consequently, the samples taken were
drawn at the specified flow rate of 0.75
cfm and isokinetic sampling was not
attempted. This procedure was neces-
Table I. Particle size distribution of
Andersen stack sampler for a flow rate of
0.75 ft 3 /min.
Stage number Particle size retained, n
0 30 and larger
1 9.2-30
2 5.5-9.2
3 3.3-5.5
4 2.0-3.3
5 1.0-2.0
6 0.3-1.0
7 0.1-0.3
August 1972 Volume 22, No. 8
Table II. Summary of participate data obtained from stack sampling.
atomized
No. of samples
Total mg
Total mg normalized to 100 Mw hra
Particulate <30 M! mg/avgtest
Particulate <30 n; %
Particulate <3.3 n; mg/avgtest
Particulate <3.3 n\ %
mg
sary since a flow rate greater than this
value would result in the particle dis-
tribution in the sampler shifting upward
due to the increased velocities. Flow
rates less than 0.75 cfm would shift
the distributions on the plates to lower
values.
Table II is a general summary of the
data collected. The sampling results
are presented with reference to both the
total weight of particulate sampled
during each of the three types of firing
and the percentage of particulate by
weight in the various size ranges. The
total weight of particulate is also
presented as values normalized to milli-
grams per 100 megawatt hour in order
to provide for comparisons compensated
for differences in length of sampling
time and total Btu firing rates of the
three boilers tested.
The velocities in the duct were not
constant across the gas stream, ranging
from 44.4 ft/sec near the walls to 63.0
ft/sec in the center of the duct. Veloc-
ities at the sampling points also varied,
differing by up to 4 ft/sec during a 3-
min monitoring period. At the speci-
fied sampling rate and with a ^-in.
nozzle, the flow rate through the nozzle
was 36.7 ft/sec. The error produced
by sampling at less than the stream
velocity is that an excess of coarse
particles will be collected.1
Results
The manner in which the sampler
segregated the particulates into definite
size ranges made possible a comparison
on the basis of a weight of the particu-
lates retained per plate. For each
sample taken, the weights of the particu-
lates collected on each plate were added
Type burneir
Air Steam Mechanical
atomized atomized
10 8 9
226.8 642.1 4032.3
383.2 1069.7 7892.6
8.9 21.6 109.0
39.2 26.9 24.3
6.5 10.8 40.4
28.5 13.5 9.0
mg of test sample v 60 X 100
together to obtain a total weight. A
percent weight of the total was then
calculated for each stage.
Figure 1 shows a comparison of the
weight of material retained on each of
the four upper collection stages, ranging
from over 30/t to 3.3/*, for each of the
three types of atomizers. The arith-
metic mean was used to calculate the
percent by weight retained on a given
plate. The air atomized unit produced
the greatest percent weight of particu-
lates for the range over 30/x, 12% greater
than the mechanical and 7% over that
of the steam atomized units. Both
the steam and mechanical atomized
units had nearly equal values of percent
weight retained for both collection
stages 1 and 2, 27.45% on stage 1 and
27.50% on stage 2 for the steam unit,
and 22.21% on stage 1 and 22.71% on
stage 2 for the mechanical unit.
In stages 3 and 4, 9.2 to 5.5 /x and 5.5
to 3.3 n, the mechanical atomized unit
produced the greater percent weight of
particulates. In the 9.2-5.5 n range,
the mechan|cal unit was 16% greater
than the air unit and 10% greater than
the steam. In the 5.5-3.3 n range the
difference was 5% over the air and 4%
over the steam.
Figure 2 represents the weight of
particulate collected on the lower four
stages of the sampler, ranging from 3.3
to 0.1^. Here the air atomized unit
produced the greatest percentage weight
of particulates retained on the stages.
For stage 5, the air was 3.5% greater
than the mechanical and 0.5% more
than the steam. Stage 6 continues
the trend with the air atomizer unit
being 3% greater than the mechanical
and 5% greater than steam.
637
 35-

Air
30- 1 Air
ii Mechanical
7

J
JMechanical
25-
1 Steam •q 6

•£20-
s 5

J
Downloaded by [Clayton State University Library] at 19:10 07 October 2014

•10

Collection stage
1 2 3 4
(over 30//) (30-9.2^) (9.2-5.5/*) (5.5-3.3//)
Figure 1. Relationship between percent by weight retained and
collection stage for air, mechanical, and steam atomizers, 30 to 3.3 p.
Collection stage
5 6 7 8
(3.3-2.0/0 (2.0-1.0/0 (1.0-0.3,*) (0.3-0.1/*)
Figure 2. Relationship between percent by weight retained and
collection stage for air, mechanical, and steam atomizers, 3.3 to 0.1 ft.

In stages 7 and 8 the air atomized
burner produced a percent weight of
particulates which was 7.5% greater
than the mechanical and 5% greater
than steam for stage 7, and 6% greater
than mechanical and 4% greater than
steam for stage 8.
The air atomized unit produced the
greatest percentage weight of particu-
lates in the range from 3.3 to 0.1 p.
The mechanical atomizer produced the
greatest percent weight in the 9.2 to
3.3 n range. The steam atomized unit,
with the exception of the 30 to 9.2 ^
range, had percent weights which did
not predominate in any particular size
range. H months when the yearly demands for
Figure 3 has logarithmic-probability
plots of particulate diameter versus
percent by weight retained greater than
the diameter for each type of burner.
These plots allow estimates of the per-
cent by weight of particulates of a given
size range which may be emitted from a
given type of atomizer. Also, it is
possible to check the expected emissions
against air pollution control standards,
thus determining if compliance can be
aided through choice of the atomizer.
Discussion
The atomizer units were located in
three boilers which had essentially
638
identical configurations. They were
tangentially fired with natural circula-
tion, designed for coal or oil firing.
The boilers were designed and con-
structed by Combustion Engineering.
It was not practical to operate with the
same load on each of the three boilers.
This was due to the fact that each type
of atomization produced a different
maximum output. In order to obtain
equal loadings, it would have been neces-
sary to reduce the outputs of the
mechanical and steam atomized units,
by about 12%, to the maximum output
of the air atomized burner. Since the
testing occurred during the summer
electricity are at their peak, this reduc-
tion would have been excessive. There-
fore, it was necessary to sample the
three units at their maximum outputs,
69 mw for air, 80 mw for steam, and
84 mw for mechanical.
The Andersen Stack Sampler pre-
sented a minor problem in that particu-
lates were drawn through the gasket
seal between the plates. This oc-
casionally resulted in the collection of
large particulates on the periphery of
plates 7 and 8. The best method for
removing these particulates was to
lightly tap the bottom of the collection
plate. Since the particulates normally
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
collected on the plates exhibited a
strong adhesive force, the large particles
could be removed without loss of the
smaller ones.
The particles collected on the plates
from the air atomized burner were
markedly different from both those of
the mechanical and steam atomized
units. In the range below 1 (i, the
particulates usually formed miniature
stalagmites with the upper portions
being thread-like in appearance. The
color of these formations varied from a
gray white to a yellow gray. This
coloring corresponded to the color of
the fuel ash upon combustion of all
volatile material.
Ash content of the particulates col-
lected was investigated. It was found
that the mechanical atomized burner
produced particulates which had a
combustible content of up to 99%.
The steam atomized unit produced
particulates which contained approxi-
mately 80% combustibles. The use
of the air atomized burner resulted in
the formation of particulates with only
a 40% combustible content.
The mechanical atomized burner
produced the greatest percentage of
particulates in the 9.2 to 3.3 n range.
All of the particulates collected were
very dark in color and did not exhibit
 the characteristic of the particulates
from the air atomized unit, i.e., forming
the miniature stalagmites. The per-
cent combustibles in the particulates
collected ran as high as 99.3%, in-
dicating very poor efficiency in com-
bustion of the fuel. The particulates
collected in the ranges below 1 fx gen-
erally formed very flat mounds and ap-
peared primarily black in color.
The steam atomized burners produced
particulates which had properties which
generally fell between those of the air
Downloaded by [Clayton State University Library] at 19:10 07 October 2014
and the mechanical atomized units.
Compared to the other two types of
atomizers, there was' generally no
specific size range of particulate con-
centration. The particles in the range
below 2 fj. generally exhibited a dark
gray color, noticeably lighter than the
particulates in the same region from the
mechanical atomizer. There was also a
tendency to form the same stalagmite-
like formations as were observed with
the particulates collected from the air
atomized units. The percent com-
bustible material in the ash also fell
between those values for the particulates
collected from the other two units, ap-
proximately 85%.
Visual observations of the plumes
from each unit were made at ground
level, with the sun to the rear of the
observer, and at a distance of approxi-
mately 1000 m. Under clear sky condi-
tions, the air atomized unit had a white,
dense plume. This appearance is most
Cumulative percent weight retained greater than particle size
99.9 99 95 90 80
Figure 3. Log probability distributions of particulate size produced by
fuel atomizers.
August 1972 Volume 22, No. 8
likely due to the predominance of
particles within the light scattering
region of 0.3 to 0.8 M-2 Although the
sampler did not specifically separate
particulates into this range, it did
separate the particulates into the 0.1-
1.0 fi range, the limits of which are
slightly outside the light scattering
region. Over 14% by weight of the
particulates fell within the 0.1-1.0 M
range.
The plume of the steam atomized
burner appeared slightly less dense than
that observed for the air atomized unit.
The particulate weight concentration
in the 0.1-1.0 n range was slightly
over 5%, considerably less than that
for the air atomizer.
The mechanical atomizer produced a
plume considerably less dense than the
others. The particulate concentration
by weight in the 0.1-1.0 M range was less
than 1%.
Summary and Conclusions
Particulate air samples were collected
from the effluent gases from three steam
generating boilers at an electric gene-
rating station. Samples were collected
by an Andersen Stack Sampler which
operates on the principle of a cascade
impactor. The samples were separated
into eight size ranges and were deposited
on the collection plates of the sampler.
These plates were weighed with the
samples and compared with their tare
weights to obtain the weight per plate
60 . 40 20 10 5 2 1 .5
Mechanical atomized burner
Air atomized burner
and the total weight of particulates
collected. The percent of the total
weights retained on each plate was then
computed for each sampling date.
The plumes produced by each type
of atomizer were observed and com-
pared to the results of the particulate
samples.
The air atomized burner produced
the greatest percentage of particulates
by weight in the sub-micron range of
the three types of atomizers investi-
gated. The air atomized unit also
produced particulates with a lower
combustible content than either of the
other two units.
The mechanical atomized burner
produced particulates which were con-
centrated in the 9.2-3.3 n range. The
steam atomized burner on the other
hand, produced a particulate distribu-
tion which was spread approximately
proportionately through the particulate
size ranges investigated.
Acknowledgments
This investigation was supported in
part by Public Health Service Training
Grant No. 5 A10 AH 00649-03, from
the Health Manpower Grants Branch
of the United States Public Health
Service.
The authors are also pleased to
acknowledge the Boston Edison Co.
for its assistance and cooperation, and
Mr. C. J. Geiser for constructive com-
ments.
References
1. R. W. Wasser, "Sampling of effluent
gases for particulate matter," Amer.
Ind. Health Assoc. J., 19(6):(Dec. 1958).
2. J. S. Clarke and G. J. Hudson, "Heavy
oil burning," Institute of Marine
Engineers, 71(5): 135 (March 1959).
3. Medi-Comp Research and Develop-
ment, "Technical Data and Instruc-
tions for Operation and Care of Ander-
sen Stack Sampler," Salt Lake City,
Utah, 1970.
Mr. McGarry is a Senior Sanitary
Engineer with Environmental Engi-
neers, Inc., Concord, N. H. Dr.
Gregory is an Associate Professor of
Environmental Science in the De-
partment of Civil Engineering at
Northeastern University, Boston,
Mass.
639