I,

y 1.1 t

1

I· cs

ea

;h

heir c

mi-Iy nd

iely ng a

ice 'om-

, the )m-

il ,ke lor (

Refuse Composition And flue-Gas Analyses from Mun;c;pal

Incinerators

Abstract

An alyses of the components of municipal refuse were assembled, from which an average· composite analysis was calculated. The analyses of the flue and stack gases from 18 municipal incin erators were also tabu­lated and plotted. A marked difference was n oted be­tween the analyses of the stack gases and those to be expected from the combustion of the composite refuse. Much of the difference can be accounted for by the carbon loss in the residue and oxidation of metallics. Suggestion s for future in vestigations in clude new refuse and residue analyses, and chemical studies on the inter­action of spray water and fly ash with nue gas. A n ew formula is presented for correcting stack-gas dust load­ings to 50 per cent excess air.

Introduction

Incineration is the combustion process by which refuse and air are reacted to produce an acceptable gaseous effluent and an inert solid residue. One may expect, therefore, that advan ces in the art will depend to Some degree on our knowledge of refuse composition and analysis and of the products of combustion , espe­cially the flue gases.

In an earlier paper [1] the writer presen ted combus­tion calculations for incin erators, which related in de� tail the refuse composition, air supply, flue�gas analyses and heat balances. A hypothetical municipal refuse was assumed to illustrate the application of the classical

35

E. R •. KAISER Department of Chemical Engineering

New York University New York, New York

.'

. methods of computation . Sin ce the preparation of that paper there has been an opportunity to study a number of stack-gas an alyses from tests of municipal in ciner­ators. Surprisingly, the cellulosic n ature of refuse was n ot reflected by the gas analyses. With few exceptions the stack-gas analyses were like those of a rich hydro­carbon fuel. The apparent lack of correlation between the assumed chemical composition of municipal refuse and the gas analyses resulted in the in vestigation re­ported below.

Analysis of Municipal Refuse Charged to Incinerators

Data on refuse components were collected from a n umber of sources [2J - [25], A composite chemical an alysis of a single municipal refuse complete enough for this study was n ot found. It was therefore n ecessary to compute a composite an alysis based on an average refuse composition, whose values were selected as shown in Table I. The composition is in the range out­lined by the American Public Works Association [3J and Rogus [22], see Appendix A. The composition is in: tended to reflect the period, 1950-1962, rather than cur­rent conditions of higher paper and plastics (synthetics) content and less garbage and ashes.

It was recogn ized, of course, that actual refuse varies widely among commun ities, by seasons, by days, and by loads received at an incin erator. For the presen t study, only the variation in the proportion of the COlU­bustible elements is important, which is much less than

'I

the n ormal variation in moisture nn d n oncombustibles. Anyon e wishin g to in vestigate a differen t refuse compo· sition will find the tables in the report useful for thnt purpose.

TABLE I

AN AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL REFUSE PER CENT BY WEIGHT

Rubb;sh (64 Pe, Cent) Paper, all kinds 42.0 Wood and bark 2.4 Grass 4.0 Brush 1.5 Cuttings, green 1.5 Leaves, dry 5.0 Leather goods 0.3 Rubber 0.6 Plastics 0.7 Oils, paInts 0.8 Linoleum 0.1 Rags 0.6

Street refuso 3.0 Dirt, household 1.0 Unclassified 0.5

Food Wastes (12 Per Cent) Garbage 10.0 Fats 2.0

Noncombustibles (24 Per Cent) Metals 8.0 Gloss & ceramics 6.0 Ashes 10.0

100.0

An ultimate analysis for each compon en t was then derived, often by averaging several analyses obtained from the referen ces cited. The complete tabulation is Appendix B of this report. As differen t types of paper have widely varying ash conten ts, the composite anal­ysis for mixed paper was based on 1962 consumption [18]. The analysis for garbage was based on food anal­yses and calorific values [15J, and on the composition determined for East Lansing, Michigan [3], [4]. It was n ecessary to estimate a number of minor values. When more proximate and ultimate an alyses become avail­

'able, such tabulations can be made more accurate and complete.

The addition of a separate item for fats was n eces­sary to increase the percentage of lipids to about 8.3 per cent of the dry, ash-free matter, which is in the ran ge found by others [3]- [5]. Waste fats are a signifi­cant part of food wastes, and are partly absorbed on paper before reaching the incin erator. Lipids also exist in man y other refuse compon en ts.

The composite analysis of the refuse was produced by adding together the amounts of moisture, carbon , hydrogen, oxygen, n itrogen , sulfur and ash for the 20 constituen ts, each of which is present in the proportion given in Table I.

The calorific value of the composite was the summa­tion of the values for the 20 con stituen ts, weighted by percentages present. The heat of combustion of the metals was not in cluded in the total, but the partial oxidation of the metals is discussed separately. Ap. pen dix C lists additional analyses and calOl'Hic values of in terest. The resultan t composite analysis an d heat­ing values nre given in Table II.

36

TABLE 11

COMPOSITE ANALYSIS OF AN AVERAGE MUNICIPAL REFUSE, AS RECEIVED BASIS

Moisture Corban Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Sulfur

Per cent

20.73 28.00

3.50 (0.71)* 22.35

0.33 0.16

Noncomb. ** 24.93 100.00

Calorific value,

Theoretical Combustion Air Ib/lb refuso

X 11.53 = 3.2284 X 34.34 = 0.2438

X 4.29 = 0.0069

3.4791 Ib

Btu/lb: 4917, as fired; 6203 dry basis; 9048 dry�ash�rree basis.

·The net hydrogen available for combustion (0.71 per cent) equals the total bn1rogen (3.50 per cent) less 1/8 of the oxygen (22.35 per cent Il8J). .

uNoncombusliblesl ash, glass, ceramics, melals.

The ratio of the weights of carbon to net hydrogen , C/(H), equals 39.4. This ratio is an important concept in understanding flue-gas analyses and refuse as a fuel, as explained in the earlier paper [1].

Because of the limitations of the data, the composite analysis was nqt deemed exact, but as sufficien tly accurate to be used as a basis for deteonining theo­retical gas analyses to be compared with analyses of flue gas determined in the field by others and made available to the author.

Refuse Compareci with Fuels

It has gen erally been assumed that municipal refuse, and such compon ents as wood, paper, garbage, leaves, grass and brush are essen tially cellulose with a heat­ing value of 8000 Btu per Ib of dry, ash-free matter. This assumption is useful for design purposes but is sufficiently inaccurate to lead to serious misunder� standings in regard to flue-gas analyses. Cellulose is C6H100S, in which only the carbon is con sidered as available for combustion . The hydrogen and oxygen are present in the cellulose molecule in the same ratio as water and appear in the flue gas as ,�ater vapor. As there is no hydrogen available for combustion, the C/(H) ratio is infinity (00). When burned with air, cellu­lose would yield a flue gas whose Orsat an alysis would always show the dry volume percentages as follows:

co, + CO/2 + 0, - 20.9 per cent, the volumetric oxy­gen content of air.

In contrast, while mun icipal refuse contai n s much cellulose it also contains fats, oils, waxes, lignin (in wood), protein, plastics and rubber, all of which can · tain, besides carbon , addition al hydrogen beyond that n ecessary to form water with any nnd all of the oxygen

�-1

e

\1-

n

,t

en

s.

,

presen t in these compounds. �I1tiB n ct or available hydrogen requires oxygen from the combustion air and

( "'roduees additional water vapor. When oxygen is con-umed without producin g a gas analyzed by the Orsat

apparatus, the Orsat analysis shows less than 20.9 per cen t (or CO, + COl2 + 0, • The ratio CI(II) of these non -cellulosic compoun ds is often in the range of 6 to 8. They have high calori(ic values, usually 16,000 to 20,000 Btu per lb, and cause the reduction in CI(lI) o( refuse (rom tha't o( cellulose to the 39.4 for the average refuse given . The Orsat analyses of the flue gas (or fuels containing carbon and n et hydrogen are affected by the CI(lI }ratio in accordance with the equation:

C (lI) =

CO, 8.80 - 0.421 (CO, + 0,)' (1)

Equation (1) is derived (rom the molal relation s and the oxygen content of air, 20.9 per cent. Sulfur and n itrogen in refuse cause only slight error in the use of the equa­tion. The CI(lI) ratios for a number of well- k n own fuels are listed in Table III. The CI(lI) ratios (or the refuse components are given in Appendix B.

TABLE III

Clal) RATIOS OF TYPICAL SOLID, LIQUID AND GASEOUS COMBUSTIBLES

CI(ll)

Infinity (00)

150 130

48,49 39.6 22.8 22.5 18.3

12 7.5 7.2 6.0

5.6-8.0 5.36 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.0 3.3 3.0

o

Fuel

Pure corban, cellulose, starch, sugar, carbon monoxide

Paper, mixed Coke Anthracite Wood, ovg. 17 species Pocahontas seam, low-volatile coal Lignite, mean Pittsburgh seam, bituminous coo I Acetylene, benzene Rubber Fats, mean value Ethylene, polyethylene, plastics,

methyl alcohol Fuel oil, light to residual Gosolino Hexane Butane Propane Ethane Natural gas Methane Hydrogen

Flue-Gas Analyses

With complete combustion o( the carbon , hydrogen and sulfur, the refuse n itrogen is also freed to the flue gas. In practice, it may be expected that some of the sulfur will be presen t in the residue and fly ash, while

37

I tl;e balun ce is burn ed prin cipally to 50,1 with traces o( SO,. CO, and SO, arc absorbed together! in the Orsat an d are reported as CO,. As the volume 10( SO, will be less than 0.1 per cent o( the CO, and the refuse n itrogen will he about 0,1 per cen t o£ the n itroge'n in the stoich� iometric air, refuse Nand S may he ncg; ected in con­sidering the Orsat gas analyses. The CPl con ten t of air, 0.03 per cent, is also usually n egl cled except in precision work.

With complete combustion of the car on, hydrogen and sulfur in the example refuse, the tl1�oretical compo­sition of the dry flue gas would be as ivel! in Table IV.

TABLE IV

THEORETICAL FLUE,GAS ANALYSES F' R COMPLETE COMBUSTION OF THE ORGANIC CO PONENTS

OF AN AVERAGE MUNICIPAL R FUSE

Dry Volume, Per Cent Air Supplied CO, 0, N, CI(H)

Theoretical 19.62 0.00 80.38 36.3

100 per cent excess 9.73 10.56 79.71 37.7

200 per cent excess 6.47 14.03 79.50 38.1

300 per cent excess 4.85 15.76 79.39 39.4

400 per cent excess 3.87 16.81 79.32 41.2

The ratio CI(lI) calculated from the flue gas varied slightly from 39.4 because (1) assumes 'a fuel (ree of n itrogen an d sulfur, whereas air to burn sulfur was in­cluded in the theoretical air. The difference is of no consequen ce. The correlation was exact at 300 per cen t excess air.

In actual practice, the refuse· is n ot completely burned. Char is present in the residue and in the carry­over solidsj carbon monoxide and traces of organic vapors are presen t in the flue gases. Furthermore, there is oxidation of the metals in the refuse, intentional or n ot, which consumes some of the oxygen in the com­bustion air. In the strict sense, the metals are combus­tible. Field data on the combustible conten t o( inciner­ator residue are rare. Charred refuse in the l'esidue in­creases with incin erator throughout and moisture con­ten t of the refuse_ The degree of burning of the meta Is is also a variable. Carbon monoxide is normally meas­ured on test an d is seldom more than 0.2 per cent in the stack gases.

Effect of Unburned Carbon in the Residue. lnciner ator residue n ormally con tains charred refuse which is discharged (rom the grate before combustion could be completed. The cl,ar is essentially fixed carbon an d ash, the moisture and volatile hydrocarbon haVing been distilled of(. As the char in the residue did n ot partici­pate in the combustion, the CI(II) ratio o( Ihe com­bustibles that actually burned would be reduced (rom the original 39.4, depending on the amount of carbon in the residue. A reasonable estimate of the average car­bon content of the residue is probably 20 per cent in

i

-;

'� -�

daily practice. On this basis the total residue (grate and carryover) is 0.2493/0.80 = . 0.3ll6 Ib per Ib of refuse charged. TIle corresponding carbon loss is 0.3116 - 0.2493 = 0.0623 Ib per Ib refuse. 1110 theoretical air for the refuse actually burned would be reduced from 3.479 to 2.761 Ib per Ib refuse.

The correspon ding flue-gas an alyses are given in Table V. Half the sulfur is assumed burned to SO" and half is assumed combined with the residue.

.

TABLE V

THEORETICAL FLUE.GAS ANALYSES FOR AN AVERAGE MUNICIPAL REFUSE BURNED WITH 20 PER CENT

CARBON IN THE TOTAL RESIDUE-

Dry Volume, Per Cent Air Supplied CO, 0, N, CI(H) Theoretical 19.30 0.0 80.70 28.6

100 per cent excess 9.55 10.58 79.87 29.4 200 per cent exeess 6.35 14.05 79.60 29.9 300 per cent excess 4.75 15.78 79.47 30.2 400 per cent excess 3.79 16.82 79.39 30.6

·Metals not oxidized.

By comparing Tables IV and V, a decrease in C/{ll) from 39.4 to 30.2 is shown to have resulted from a loss of unburned carbon equal to 20 per cen t of the residue. This result occurs only to the exten t that the n et hydro. gen in the refuse is gasified in the furnace. Uncharred ' refuse that is discharged from the grate does n ot affect the result.

Effect of Oxic/ation of Metals. The oxidation of iron, tin, aluminum, magnesium, lead, zinc, copper an d other metals in the furnace removes free oxygen that would otherwise be present in the flue gases. The oxidation liberates heat an d increases the weight of the residue. In sofar as the dry flue-gas an alysis is concern ed, oxy­gen lost to the metals in producing oxides has the same effect as oxygen lost to hydrogen in producing water. vapor. The sum of CO, + 0, + CO/2 is reduced, n itrogen is increased, an d the apparen t C/{l/} calculated from the flue gas is decreased. .

The degree of oxidation of metals will vary among furnaces. On e of the metals is aluminum in the form of foil, throw-away pans and cans, and die castings. It has been observed that part of the aluminum melts and adheres to the grates while a fraction undoubtedly burn s to ash. The tin plate used for cans has a coatin g of about 15 tb tin per ton of steel, or 0.75 per cent tin. While it is gen erally observed that tin has been sub­limed from the cans, the underlying steel has been only partially destroyed.

To explore the effect of metal oxidation , on e may assume that the magnesium, tin, zinc, aluminum foil, solder, an d copper wire arc fully oxidized. Aluminum die castings, pots and cans melt but the metal is probably oxidized 75 per cent. As iron oxidizes by degrees to

38

FeD, FCl04 an d Fe20J, it may he assumed that as an average the iron oxidizes to 50 per cent completion. While some metallic iron remains, much FC104 and some Fe,O, nre produced. The oxygen combin ed with the iron is thus 0.5 x 48/ll1.7 or 0.215 times the weight of the iron . Aluminum oxidizes to AllOJ with 0.890 times its weight of oxygen. Zinc, tin and lead remove 0.245, 0.371 and 0.077 times their weights of oxygen , respec. tively.

As the free metals totalled 0.0768 Ib per Ib of aver· age refuse, it is estimated that iron was probably 0.070 Ib; and aluminum, 0.0060 Ib, while the other non· ferrous metals may be assumed to have weighed 0.0008 lb. The estimated oxygen consumption is given in Table VI.

TABLE VI

OXYGEN CONSUMED BY PARTIAL OXIDATION OF METALLIC REFUSE

Iron 0.070 x 0.215

Aluminum 0.006 x 0.75 x 0.890

Others 0.0008 x 0.3

Lb O2 to metals, Ib/lb refuse

Oxygen, Ib = 0.01505 = 0.00400

= 0.00024

0.01929

The air required for the oxidation of the metals is 0.01929/0.2315 = 0.0833 Ib per Ib refuse. The oxida. tion is 54 per cent complete. The new "non-combus­tibles" weight is increased by the oxidation to 0.2686 Ib/lb refuse. With 20 per cent carbon in the residue, the new residue is 0.2686/0.80 = 0.3358 Ib/lb refuse. The. carbon in the residue weighs 0.0672 Ib/lb refuse. The new stoichiometric air is 2.7881b/lb refuse, based on the actual requirement for oxygen. The combined effect of partial oxidation of the metals and of unburned carbon in the residue is reflected by the dry flue.gas analyses, as given in Table VII.

TABLE VII

THEORETICAL FLUE·GAS ANALYSES FOR AN AVERAGE MUNICIPAL REFUSE BURNED WITH 20 PER CENT

CARBON IN TOTAL RESIDUE AND PARTIAL OXIDATION OF METALS

Air Supplied

Theoretical 100 per cent excess 200 per cent excess 300 per cent excess 400 per cent excess

Dry Volume, Per Cent CO, 0, N,

18.80 0.00 81.20 9.27 10.61 80.12 6.15 14,09 79.76 4.61 15.80 79.59 3.68 16.84 79.48

Apparent CI(H) 21.2 21.6 22.1 22.3 22.7

An appreciable change took place in the flue.gas composition as the result of metals oxidation . The CO, content was reduced and the N 2 content was increased. While the actual ratio of carbon to hydrogen burned re·

maiaed 30.0, (1) shows an apparent C/(II) ratio 01 22.3. 11Jis change is equivalent to n 35 per cent increase in let hydrogen content of the refuse, hence the metals simulale hydrogen in their ellect on the C/(fI) ratio cal­culated Irom the flue gas. An interesting sidelighl is'the lOBs 01 946 Blu per lb of refuse in the carbon in Ihe reBidue, and a gain of about 284 Blu per lb of refuse (rom the oxidation of the melals [25].

This type of reasoning and calculation could be car� ried further by allowing for carbon carryover and the IOSB of unburned hydrogen (hydrocarbon) Irom the lur­nace. The carbon carryover would be largely consumed in the combustion chamber following the furnace and in Ihe hot, dry settling chamber. The hydrocarbon would be burned even morc readily than the fixed carbon. These eHects will he discussed in a later section.

To summarize the calculated flue-gas analyses based on the average refuse analysis, it has been shown that the loss of carbon to the residue and the oxidation of met­als both allect the flue-gas composition and reduce the e/(Il) ratio, real and apparent, calculated from the gas analyses. Under the: conditions of 20 per cent carbon in the total residue and 54 per cent oxidation of the metals, Ihe C/(II) of the flue gas was reduced from 39.4 to 22.3 at 300 per cent excess air. It would noW be of interest to determine wh ether actual flue-gas analyses confirm these calculations.

Orsat Analyses From Incinerator Tests

'Analyses of stack gases from 18 municipal inciner­ators were collected [26]- [33], together with analyses in some cases of the gaseous products of combustion leaving the furnace, settling chambers, dust collectors and ID lans. These data are tabulated in Appendix D. The data are also plotted on an Ostwald chart, Fig. 1.

To include analyses with carbon monoxide (CO), on the chart, the analyses were adjusted as if the CO had been burned with the excess oxygen present. The C/(H) ratios and the excess airs were thus not altered. A lew lines 01 constant C/(Il) ratio are shown as are lin es of constant excess air. The individual points usually represent averages of several Orsat analyses comprising runs or tests. The tests were conducted by n number of different engineers over a period of 12 years and at a variety of types of municipal incinerators. As analyses of the refuse for the tests and other operating data were rarely included, the Orsat data must be con­sidered in terms of averages and medians in compari­Son with gas analyses from an average refuse.

Furnace Exit Gases. Analyses of gas samples from the exits of the furnaces were available from 27 tests of 5 plants. The CO, contents ranged from 16.2 to 6.2 per cent, and excess air from 14 to 180 per cent. The C/(II)ratios ranged Irom 36.8 to 5.6, with an avemge of 16.0. TIle average 01 the furnace outlet gas analyses

, , I follows, with values as dry volume perr ntages:

Exco,ss Ai( CO, 0, CO N, P.� Cen t CI(H}

10.12 9.18 0,15 80.55 74.8 16.0

The median C/(lI) was 17.5. Combustion is not completed in the urnace. Flakes

of incandescent paper char, soot, carb n monoxide, and minor amounts of hydrocarbons carry 0 er with the gases into the combustion and settling chamb rs and hot flues, where combustion continues. As the ca ryover combus­tible solids are largely devolatilized i the primary chamber, the Orsat analyses of the fur ace exit gases should show a slightly lower C/(ll) ra io than the 22.3 calculated lor Table Vlll, as they do. e ratio should be restored by the burnou t of fixed "ear on in the suc­ceeding chambers, unless some other factors intervene.

Flue Gas in Dry Afterchambers. In the passages be­tween the furnace outlets and the settling chamber in� lets of three incinerators there was a consistent and marked decrease in C/(l/Jralio of the gases, as follows:

TABLE VIII A

AVERAGE CI(H) RATIOS OF FLUE GAS Inlet to Dry

. New York City Incinerator Furnace Exit Settling Chamber

Betts Avenue Gansevoort South Shore

17.7 13.0 24.5

8.0 8.2

13.2

".-----------------------------------------, I.

II

10

� • f>-<-+H='f'ltII i T 1-++k+H=m � 6 I-+-'-cl-++t,,-i=

ANALYSES Of FLUE GAS

-liQ.!t 18 MUNICIPAL INCINERATORS

,,,WPLINe POINts

• 'UIINA,t[ OUTLET

.IPItAY-CH"WlEA OUTLU

.ITAn:··WtT snn:w

• nACIt·�DItY snuw

oL-��L_L_�������illHmi 6 7 8 9 10 II 12. 13 14 15 16 17 18 t9 20 21

OXYGEN. ORY VOLUME PERCENT

FIG. 1 OSTWALD CHART OF INCINERATOR FLUE GAS.

39

I

! ,

,,<>�---------------�--

, . l'

The rapid burning of hydrocarbons of low molecular weight in the short turbulent passages, as contrasted with the slower burning of char particles, would account for a decrease in CI(I!) . However, the low CI(l!) ratios at the inlets to the settling chambers suggest a very high carbon carryover or a refuse several times richer in net hydrogen than that of the average refusc. As neither of these explanations appears plausible, a mys­tery is presented for further investigation. Additional sampling of the gases and analysis of all gases and particulate matter is suggested.

The percentages of excess air in the afterchambers of three plants is of interest. Much excess air was ad­mitted after the furnace in two of the three separation chambers, as shown in Table VIlI B.

Betts Avenue * Gansevoort** South Shore***

"Tests 2 .. 5.

TABLE VIII B

Furnace Dry Separation Chamber Outlet Inlet Exit

Per Cent Excess Air

1 1 8 182 258 162 198 201 92 280 444

"Test 5. ·"'Tesls 6/4 � 6/8.

The addition of air by infiltration usually masks the ef­fect of combustion in a secondary chamber.

The data from several plants with dry chambers fol­lowing the furnace show a marked increase in C/(H) of the flue gas on passage through the chambers. For eXM /1 ample, in Tests 2 M 5 at Betts Avenue Incinerator, the \:,\ CI(II)ratio of the flue gas rose from 11.8 to 17.7 be-tween the inlet and outlet of the settling chamber. f Tests 6/4 - 6/8 at the South Shore Incinerator show an I increase of CI(H) ratio from 13.2 to 107 in the settling I chamber. Ho, ... 'ever, two comparable tests, 5 and 6, at the Gansevoort Incinerator show no change in this reM spect. Hence, from theory and available data, one may conclude in general that the combustible burned in the hot afterchambers contains far more carbon and less available hydrogen than does the original refuse. Eq. (1) permits us to observe this effect despite the infiltra�

,�ion or controlled admission of additional air into the flue gas in the chambers, and the consequent reduction in CO2 percentage.

Flue Gas in WeI Settling Chambers. The limited data available indicate a definite decrease in the CI(lI) ratio of the flue gases on passage between fur­nace outlets and the exits of spray chambers and/or wet impingement baffles. This is contrary to the change when Ihe gases flow through dry afterchambers. Part of the change undoubtedly occurs in the hot duct im­mediately following the furnace, as explained previously. The ·sprays, wet bottoms, and wet baffles then quench co.mbustion and prevent the burnout of carryover carbon and unburned gases.

40

The reduction in CI(II) ratio for the flue gas from 14.0 to 9.55 on passage froOl furnace ·exit through the spray chamber was determined from six tests at the 73rd St. Incinerator in 1958, and from 15.1 to 11.6 on, five tests there in 1962. A considerable amount of air was also added, whicb belped cool the gases.

The gases before the sprays at a Florida incinerM ator and a Winchester, Ky., incinerator had C/(II) values of 24.3 and 25.5, respectively, whereas tIle gases leav­ing the spray chamber of a Florida incinerator had a CI(ll) ratio of 12.4. All of the above data show the same effect, although admittedly the best comparisons are those for the tests in the same plant when the gas sam­ples were taken simultaneously. The one exception, which defies explanation, is the set of tests at Glen� dale, California [291, where the gas at the scrubber in­let had a C/(fI) of 7.0 compared with a stack gas of 26.0.

While the general effect on the gas analysis of pas­sage through a wet chamber seems apparent, the magni� tude of the change is larger than would be expected by combustion alone. It was therefore advisable to consider other factors that could influence the gases.

One clue investigated was the possibility that the spray water and alkaline components of the fly ash react with the carbon dioxide in tbe flue gas and reduce the CO, content of the flue gas, which would then reduce the CI(lI) ratio. For example, several incinerator engi­neers have infomlcd the author that neutral spray water becomes acidic on passage through the wet dustMcollect­ing spray chambers. Tbe water leaves the chamber hot, which precludes simple solution of any appreciable'" amount of CO� in the water itself. However, SO, could be absorbed by hot water. It has been reported that the water later becomes alkaline on standing in contact with its load of fly ash in a settling basin, but not in all cases.

Analyses of fly ash collected in incinerator plants and emitted from the stacks have been tabulated in Ap­pendix E. While these data are meager, they may he con� sidered for their possible effects while cooling in con­tact wi th flue gas. The data are summarized in Table IX.

Without a more detailed examination of the fly ash one could not be certain of the proportions of the Fe20" CaO, Alga, Na,O and K,O that are available to absorb carbon dioxide from the nue gas when cooled by the sprays and excess air. The amount of fly ash that be­comes cool in contact Witll the flue gas is also a factor, as is the temperature, time of contact, and the concen-

.

tration of carbon dioxide. Analyses of fly ash for carbon­ates would be helpful. The presence of SO, in the analyses is evidence of sulfates. The determination for organics includes the loss of CO, upon heating the samples dur­ing analysis.

To detennine whether this possibility is worth further investigation, one may assume a case in which 12 per cent of the inorganic matter in the refuse is carried out.

I I { t

es

.' -

nr

.0.

er

ct

r

. t-

(

lth

In-

IX.

J"

}r,

on-

es

s

-

leI'

( It

TABLE IX

FLY.ASH ANALYSES

Collected Emitted

Organic 3.3 18.2

Inorganic 96.7 81.8 100.0 100.0

Silicon as SiD, 49.5 36.3

Aluminum as A/,OJ 22.9 25.7

Iron as Fe,OJ 6.3 7.1

Calcium as CoO 8.8 8.8 Magnesium as MgO 2.2 2.8 Sodium as NOlO 6.0 10.4 potassium as K,O Titanium as TiD, 1.3 0.9

Su lEur as SOl 3.0 8.0 100.0 100.0

of the furnace with the gases. For the example refuse, the inorganic fly ash would be 0.02892 lb per lb refuse. If we �ssume further that selected oxides are half con­verted to carbonates in contact with the cooled flue gas, the consumption of CO, by a composite of the collected and emitted fly ash (see Appendix E) is calculated in Table X.

TABLE X

HYPOTHETICAL CONVERSION OF OXIDES TO CARBONATES IN FLY ASH

Lb oxide /lb refuse x CO,/lb oxide

Fe CO, 0.065 x 0.02892 x 0.5 x 88.02/159.70

Ca CO, 0.087 x 0.02892 x 0.5 x 44.01/56.08 Mg CO, 0.024 x 0.02892 x 0.5 x 44.01140.32 No,CO, 0.040 x 0.02892 x 0.5 x 44.01161.99 K, CO, 0.040 x 0.02892 x 0.5 x 44.01/94.19

Total Ib CO2 to carbonate, per Ib refuse

=

=

=

=

=

=

Lb CO, '0 carbonates

0.000518

0.000987 0.000379 0.000411 0.000270

0.002565

As 0.78 lb CO, are produced per Ib refuse in this case, tIle absorption of CO, by the fly ash would have a negligible effect on the flue-gas analysis and C/(H) ratio. However, the effect on the pH of the quench water might be appreciable. Even if bicarbonates were produced with wet sprays, which would double the re­moval of the CO, from the flue gas, the result would not account for the important change in the flue gas obM served in practice. Nevertheless, analyses of fly ash for carbonates and analyses of the water drained from spray chambers would be advisable as unexpected fac­tors may be uncovered.

A further reduction in C/(lI) took place in the spray­cooled gase� between the spray chamber and the in­duced-draft fan following mechanical dust collectors. The effect was observed at the 73rd St. Incinerator in 1958 and 1962. Additional data and explanations or

/ 41

theories would indeed be welcome to solve the mystery accounting for the complete change in gas analyses.

Stack Gases

During incinerator tests the flue gas is normally sampled some distance up the stack, and is analyzed

,

by Orsat apparatus, as part of the determination of dust loadings of the stack gases. The dry stack gases and associated moisture are the combined resultant of the refuse analysis, the chemical reactions, dilutions by excess air, evaporation of water from refuse and sprays, and moisture addition from the combustion of hydrogen in tIle refuse.

Dry-system Stack Gas. The dry-gas analyses of 35 tests on incinerators with dry afterchambers showed an average excess air of 324 per cent, and a range from 145 to 771 per cent. The C!(H) ratio varied between in­finity and 4.15, with an average of 10.3 based on the average gas analysis ,\'hich follows:

CO, 0, CO N, Excess Air, Per Cent C/(lI) --------3.88 16.15 0.03 79.94 324 10.8

The median C/(H) was 9.0. One group of 7 tests was not included because of very low C/(H) ratios, only half those of the next lowest groups. TIle reason for the low C/(H) generally is not understood.

Wet-system Stack Gas. The dry-gas analyses of the 39 tests on incinerators with wet afterchambers had a range from US to 965 per cent excess air. The C/(H) ratio varied between infinity and 3.94, with an average of 14.9, as based on the average gas analysis which follows:

CO, 0, CO N, ----- ---4.69 15.38 0.13 79.82

Excess Air, Per Cent C/(H)

266 14.9

The median C/(H) of the stack gases was 14.3. The drYMsystem stack gases contained a lower perM

centage of carbon monoxide than that for the wet SySM tern, no doubt because of greater opportunity for burnM out. The wet systems had a lower average percentage excess air. Where the gases are cooled for passage through mechanical dust collectors and induced-draft fans, less cooling by air dilution is required wllere water sprays are used.

The lesser degree of burnout of the carbon in a wet system was not reflected in a lower C!(ll) in the flue gas. In contra�t, the stack gases from wet systems had a higher C/(II) than those from the dry systenis.

Final Estimate of Refuse Analysis

From a study of the gas analyses) one may expect / that the municipal refuse actually contained more net hydrogen than shown for the average refuse. The result

would be a lower C/{I!) ratio in the refuse, and a reduc­tion in the C/(H) ratios after allowance for carbon in the residue and oxidation of metals. The C/(II) ratio of the flue gas would then correspond more nearly to that actu� ally measured by others.

An increase in net hydrogen would be the result of a decrease in cellulose and the addition of fats, oils, greases, waxes, plastics, rubber, lignin, resins and the like. For example, the following ultimate analysis of refuse resulted from a slight adjustment of the original to produce a flue gas morc nearly the average determined in practice. The adjustment was made by reducing the oxygen content, hut it could have been made by reducing the carbon content or by a combination of changes.

TABLE XI

ULTIMATE ANALYSES OF MUNICIPAL REFUSE WEIGHT, PER CENT

Original Probable

Moisture 20.73 20.73

Corbon 28.00 28.00

Hydrogen 3.50 (0.71) 3.90(1.16)

Oxygen 22.35 21.95

Nitrogen 0.33 0.33

Sulfur 0.16 0.16

Noncomb. 24.93 24.93

100.00 100.00

Refuse CI(H} 39.4 24.1

Ort oir consumed, I lib refuse 2.788 2.937

Because of 20 per cent C in the residue and 54 per cent oxidation of metals, the flue gas analyses which follow in Table XII yield a C/(H) of 15.5 for the flue gas at 300 per cent excess air, yet the C/(H) of the refuse is 24.1.

TABLE XII

THEORETICAL FLUE-GAS ANALYSES FOR THE PROBABLE REFUSE COMPOSITION BURNED WITH

20 PER CENT CARBON IN TOTAL RESIDUE AND PARTIAL OXIDATION OF METALS

Dry Volume, Per Cent Apparent Air Supplied CO, 0, N, CI(H} Theoretical 18.00 0.00 82.00 14.7

100 per cent excess 8.85 10.65 80.50 15.0

200 per cent excess 5.85 14.14 80.01 15.2

300 per cent excess 4.38 15.85 79.77 15.5

400 per cent excess 3.50 16.87 79.63 15.6

, " The material balance at two air rates is in Table

'XIII for n dry incinerutor system.

� -' ..

42

TABLE XIII

MATERIAL BALANCE, LB PER LB REFUSE

Excess Air, Per Cent ,

0% 50% 300% Input ---

Refuse 1.0000 1.0000 1.000 Air, dry 2.9369 3.4054 11.748 Moisture in air 0.0388 0.0582 0.155

3.9757 5.4636 12.903 , I Output :1 Flue gas, dry gas, 3.0425 4.5110 11'.853

11 Flue gas, water vapor 0.5974 0.6168. . 0.714 Residue 0.3358 0.3358 0.336

Total, Ib 3.9757 5.4636 12.903

Corrected Dust Loadings of Stack Gases

A number of local ordinances prohibit the emission of dust loadings from incinerator stacks in excess of "0.85 lb per 1000 lb of gases, adjusted to 50 per cent excess air for products of combustion", which was adopted from ASME recommendations [34]. The purpose of the adjustment or correction was to prevent compli­ance by merely diluting the flue gas with excess air, and to treat all cases uniformly. The basis for the ad­justment is not stated, but it is normally assumed that the excess air in the stack gases is to be detennined from the dry flue-gas analysis (Orsatl. The weight of flue gas is determined on the actual or wet basis.

In the case of municipal incinerators, in which the water vapor is a more important part of the flue gas

!I r I I

than from normal fuel-fired furnaces and boilers, the ap- 1, plication of the adjustment is more difficult. The water-

1�5 vapor content of the flue gas based on the probable average refuse is shown for several excess airs in table XIV for a dry system. In a wet system the water vapor at 300 per cent excess air would be higher, up to 20 per cent or more.

TABLE XIV

FLUE-GAS ANALYSES FOR THE PROBABLE REFUSE, VOLUME PER CENT, THEORETICAL FOR

A DRY INCINERATOR SYSTEM

o Per Cent 50 Per Cent 300 Per Cont Excess Air Excess Air Excess Air Ory Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet

CO, 18.00 13.45 11.86 9.58 4.38 3.96

0, 0.00 0.00 7.15 5.78 15.85 14.33

N, 82.00 61.24 80.99 65.43 79.77 72.14

H,O 25.31 19.21 9.57

Totol 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Lb flue gas per Ib refuse 3.640 5.128 12.567

�

fll I I I ' ,

. �

'0 :8

)3

:;3 14 36 )3

on ,f ·nt

�se li-

. , ,d­hat ,d )f £Iu'

he

e ap� ater�

Table por o per

E,

Cent ;; Air Wet

3.96 4.33 2.14 9.57 0.00

2.567

The data in Table XlII show that flue gas from the probable municipal refuse haq close to 12 per cent H,O by weight at 50 per cent excess air before any waler vapor from quenching or wet cleaning was added. The weight of total (wet) flue gas at 50 per cent excGSS air would be 1000 Ib from the burning of 195 Ib refuse under the practical conditions assumed. However, when the flue gas has been diluted with air to 300 per cent ex­cess air before passage out the stack, the flue gas weight has increased to 2450 lb. The moisture loading has been reduced to 5.7 per ce�t by weight. The mois­ture content for air has been assumed at 0.0132 Ib per Ib dry air, which is 60 per cent relative humidity at 80F.

To illustrate the adjustment to 50 per cent excess air, as�ume a measured dust loading of 0.340 Ib per 1000 Ib of actual stack gas. The stack gas analysis is that given for 300 per cent excess air in Table XIV. By ratio of gas weights at 50 and 300 per cent excess air, the adjusted loading is obtained:

12.567 --- x 0.340 = 0.833 Ib/1000 Ib stack gas at

5.128 50 per cent excess air.

The weight of flue gas at 50 per cent excess air can be calculated from the analysis of the stack gas and the moisture content of the ambient air. The weigbt of nitrogen in 1000 Ib actual stack gas is first calculated, neglecting the nitrogen in the refuse. As nitrogen is 76.85 per cent of tbe weight of the dry air supplied to the incinerator system, the total air is calculated thus:

Total dry air Lb N, =

supplied, Ib 0.7685

The dilution air above 50 per cent and its humidity are calculatcd next and subtracted from 1000 Ib to yield the weight of the flue gas at 50 per cent excess air, thus

Weight of flue gas = 1000

at 50 per cent excess air

Lb N, (% SEA - 50 \ 0.7685 % SEA + 100/

(1.0 + abs. humidity of ambient air), where per cent SEA::: Stack gas excess air, per cent.

Some codes specify the correction to be made to 12 per cent CO, . In the above example, the result would be

12 43 x 0.340 = 0.930 Ib/1000 Ib stack gas corrected to • 8 12 per cent CO,

The result is not equivalent to 50 per cent excess air although the 12 per cent is remarkably close to that for municipal refuse at 50 per cent excess air. The difference would be even more when sprays and/or wet baffles are used.

43

I

Precautions for Gas Sampling aL Ana/ys/s

Investigations of this kind require �ccurncy of gas sampling and analysis to the full capability of convcn­tional Orsat equipment. No doubt, moJt of the flue-gas analyses reported were made by skill'd persons. Some data examine� were obviously in eITO and were not re� ported or used. However, it may be he' pful to others to study Orsat procedures carefully and bserve particu­larly the following precautions:

1) Use a water-jacketed sampling robe when with­drawing flue gas from furnaces and ot er hot zones. A hot plain or stainless steel or a copp r tube can be oxi­dized by the flue gas, which will redu e the oxygen con­tent appreciably. Also, the water cool ng will help quench combustion of CO or H, that m y be present in the gases.

.

2) When collecting gas samples over liquid, use a liquid that will not react with or absorb any of the sam� pIc. Saturated NaCl brine, mercury or saturated water solution of sodium sulfate acidulated with sulfuric acid are satisfactory. Tap water absorbs CO, readily, causing serious error. Gas-saturated tap water readily evolves or absorbs gas with changes of temperature and gas composition.

3) Gas compositions fluctuate rapidly with time, and will vary across furnaces and passages. A gas sample represents only the gas flowing past the end of the probe during the period of sampling. Stratification is least in the stack and particularly after a dust collector or in­duced-draft fan. However, mixing in passage does not eliminate fluctuations based on time cycles, such as in batch furnaces. Numerous gas samples are usually re� quired, each analyzed carefully.

4) The Orsat apparatus works best at normal room temperatures. Low readings for O2 are obtained at 40-60F. The solutions must be kept out of the manifold piping, and must be washed out if accidentally allowed to contaminate the bores. A gas sample should not be admitted to the apparatus until the manifold is filled with nitrogen remaining from a previous analysis of gas or air.

Summary and Conclusions

This study was undertaken to obtain more understand. ing of the refuse charged into municipal incinerators and of the combustion process as revealed by analyses of combustion gases. Analyses of refuse components were collected from numerous sources, from wllich a com· posite refuse analysis was calculated. This average refuse was not presented as a national average but, in the absence of hetter data, it was a useful basis for evaluating the gas analyses and the incineration process.

The available analyses of combustion gases from 18 municipal incinerators are reported. By comparison with

/

theoretical gas analyses from the composite refuse, a number of conclusions could be reached.

1) During the period of 1950-62 covcred by the data, the refuse analysis which probably represents an aver· age, was as follows:

Per Cent

Moisture 20.73

Corbon 28.00 Hydrogen 3.90

Oxygen 21.95 Nitrogen 0.33 Sulfur 0_16 Noncombustibles 24.93

100.00

Calorific value: 9300 Btu per lb, moisture and ash·free basis.

This analysis is based on the composite given in Appendix B, with adjustment of the hydrogen and oxy­gen contents as estimated from flue.gas analyses. Wide variations in moisture and ash contents, particularly upward, are met in practice.

2) The net hydrogen in the average refuse was prob­ably close to 1.16 per cent to yield a ratio of carbon to net hydrogen, C/(II), of 24.1.

3) The flue-gas analyses calculated for the probable refuse had an apparent C/(l!) ratio of 15.5 at 300 per cent excess air. The drop from 24.1 to 15.5 was the re· suit of an allowance for an estimated 20 per cent carbon in the total residue and a 54 per cent oxidation of the metals in the refuse. The result approximates the aver­age of actual flue gases from munici pal incinerators.

4) Exit gases from the furnaces of 5 plants ranged in excess air from 14 to 180 per cent, with an average of 75 per cent. The median C/(l!) was 17.5.

5) A marked reduction in C/(II) values of the actual flue gas occurred between furnace outlets and separa­tion-chamber inlets indicating rapid combustion of hydro­carbons in these turbulent gas passages. The median of the C/(l!) ratios based on the gases dropped from 17.5 to 'n.

6) The analyses of gas samples taken at the inlets and outlets of dry separation chambers indicated the combustion of much carbon and some carbon monoxide in the dry separation chambers. Char flakes are deposited in a hot zone and continue to glow and burn over an ex­tended period of time. The median C/(II) ratios in­creased from 7.3 to 17.1 in the plants from which data were available. Hydrocarbons may also have burned in the dry chambers but to a minor"degree in comparison with carbon.

7) During passage through wet sepamtion chambers the changes in flue gases showed relatively morc com­bustion of hydrogen and hydrocarbons than of free car­bon. Char flakes were probably burned more slowly and

44

were quenched before they had an opportunity to burn out, Between the furnace outlets and the spray chamber outlets the median C/(/!) of tllC gascs dropped from 17.5 to 11.8. Mqst of this change probably occurred in the passage between the furnace exit and the inlet to the wet chamber.

8) While flue gases undoubtedly react chemically witl, the unevaporated spray water and wet fly ash, the effect on the flue gas analysis appears to be slight. Research in this area would be advisable.

9) In dry systems the stack gasps had excess air con. tents of 145 to 771 per cent; with an average of 324 per cent. The C/(II) ratios of the stack gases from dry sys­tems ranged between infinity and 4.15, with a median value of 9.0_ The reason for the low C/m) is not ap­parent an"d constitutes the major anomaly.

10) The stack gases from wet-system incinerators contained excess air in the range of 115 to 965 per cent, with an average of 266 per cent. The C/(II) ratio varied from infinity to 3.94, with an average of H.9 and a median of 14.3_ Why the C/(II) should change between the separation chamber and stack sampling point is not understood.

II) The refuse analyses and, with rare exceptions, the flue gases at all points in the municipal incinerator indicate that the combustible portion of municipal in­cinerator refuse departed significantly from cellulose. This fact will be even more important in the "'future as the percentage of synt.hetics in the refuse increases.

12) New analyses of many of the refuse components are needed for future studies_ Especially valuable for a future investigation would be a complete test of one municipal incinerator.

13) A simple method is reported for adjusting or cor­recting the stack-gas dust loadings to 50 per cent air. The method is based on gas weights and allows for the high moisture content of the gases.

"

14) Guidance is given to reduce error in the sampling, stocage and analysis of flue-gas samples.

Acknowledgment

Analyses of refuse components and flue gases were made available by courtesy of the organizations; and personnel named in the references. The test results by Battelle Memorial Institute on four incinerators operated by the Department of Sanitation, City of New York, wer� made available by Commissioner Frank J. Lucia and Director of Engineering, Casimir A. Rogus.

The study was made possible by research grant EF-000530-01 from the U_S. Public Healtll Service, Divi­sion of Environmental Engrg. and Food Protection. The study benefited from discussions with members of the Incinerator Committee, ASME Process Industries Divi­sion.

rn ,i;er

in "

with Ifcct ll'ch

can· pcr

iyS-11

5

C el1t, ried

cn not

,S, ator 1-

;c.

-IS the

nls ( or a

cor� ir. thc

p iing,

·cre .I , by r�ted were d

Divi· The hc ivi-

References , [lJ E. R. Kaiser. "Combustion and Heat Calculations

for Inoinerators. If

[2] uA Ficld Study of Performance of Three Municipal Incincerators/' University of California. Inst. Engrg •. Hes., Tech. Bull. 6, November 1951.

[sJ "Municipal Refuse Disposal," Committee on Refuse Disposal, American Public Works Assn., 1961.

[4J G. F. Mallison and Wm. F. Hohloch, "The Composi­tion of Residential Garbage," Public Works, June 1956, p. 112-3. . .

--, [5J J. M. Bell, uThe Physical and Chemical Composition of MuniCipal Refuse (Milwaukee), It Purdue Univ., August I, 1959 to March I , 1960. .

[6J J. E. Etzel and J. M. Bell, "A Report on the Sampling and Composition of Municipal Refuse to DJoomingtoll, Ind.," Purdue Univ., April 1962.

[7J Hering and Greeley, "Collection and Disposal of Municipal Garbage." McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, N. Y. In!.

[8J O. de Lorenzi, Ed., uCombustion Enginecring, tJ Com­bustion Engineering, Inc., 1957, p. 12-2.

[9J G. F. Gebhardt, "Steam Power Plant Engineering," John Wiley and Sons, New York, N. Y., 6th ed., 1928, p. 45.

[10] H. R. Crohurst, "Municipal Wastes, "U. S. Public Health Service, Bull. No. 107, October 1920.

[llJ Data from L. P. Flood, New York City Dept. of Air PoBution Control.

[12J Communication with Dr. E., R. Laughlin, The Institute of Paper Chemistry, Appleton, Wis.

[ISJ Communication with Dr. K. A. Arnold, St. Regis Paper Co. Techni<;al Center, W. Nyack, N. Y.

[14] Communication with Mr. J. H. Gans, Georgia Kaolin Co., EHzabeth, New Jersey.

[15] C. D. Hodgman, Ed., "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics," Chemical Rubber Publishing Co., 34th ed., 1952.

[16] "Disposal of Garbage in the District of Columbia," Doc. No. 661, House of Representatives, 64th Congress, 1st session, 1915; published 1916.

Appenclix A Refuse Composition

Ra!!:Se of Huntc1�1 RefUse Com>osition. Reference 22

Percentsse .. PUtreecib1ee, such ss garbege, svi11, gerden trash and grsse 5 - 15

2. Peper of all types, including various synthetic vrappings, moiet 40 - 60

3· Rags, Including synthetics 1 - 3

�. Tin C8ns. Tin content ebout 15 1b per ton of iron 5 • 10

5· Net.s1s, ferrous end non-ferrous 1 - 3

6. Ashes end dirt } - 20

7. Glass 3 - 9

8. Miso. (10'000., plastics, eynthetics) 2 - 6

45

, - p-

i [17J H. S. Hersey, "Incinerators-Municipal, Industrial

and Domestic, JJ Trans. ASME, Vol. 59, 1939, p. 267·78. [181 "Plllp, Paper and Board," 1962 pata, American

Pae er and Pulp Assn., February IS, 19631, 119J M. Jacobson, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Jetter of March

7, 1963; Heats of Combustion for 56 mateirials listed in RI 5971, "ExplosibiJity of Dusts Used i ! the Plastics In­dustry."

[20J Correspondence with Pro!. J. M. Bell, Purdue Univ., AU6 ust 1963.

l21J J. E. Etzel and J. M. Bell, "Met ods of Sampling and Analyzing Refuse," American Public WOti s Assn., November 1962, p. 2-4, 18-21.

[22J C. A. Rogus, "The Collection 81 d Disposal of Solid Waste in U.S.A., ff APWA Reporter, Amer Public Works Assn., Mawh 1%3, p. 10, 12.

[23] "International Critical Tables," Vol. 5, 1926, p. 167. [24] "Fuel Flue Gases," American G s Assn., 1941. [25] J. F. Elliott and M. Gleiser, 1fT ermochemistry for

Steelmaking," American fron and Steellnstitute, Vol. I, 1960. [26] Data from Department of Sanitation, City of New York. [27J Data from R. A. Taft, Sanitary Eugrg. Center, Cincin·

nati, Ohio. [28J Data from C. Velzy, of Nussbaumer, Clarke and Velzy,

New York, N. Y. [29J E. E. Smauder, uProblems of Municipal Incineration,"

presented at West Coast Section meeting, Air Pollution Con­trol Assn., March 25-6, 1957.

[30] Data from D. Schwartz, Pyro Incinerator and Supply Corp., Mineola, New York.

[31] Data from F. R. Rehm, Wisconsin Chemical and Test­ing Co., Milwaukee, Wis.

[32] Data from E. B. Fox, Delaware County Disposal Dept., Media, Pa.

[33] Private report of Air Pollution Studies at Merrick In­cinerator, Town of Hempstead, N. Y., by Wis. Chemical and Testing Co., December 21, 1962j courtesy of F. Trautwein.

[34] "Example Sections [or a Smoke Regulation Ordinance," ASME, New York, N. Y., May 1949.

Medill Ave. lnc1neratillft Plant. CbIc8Bo. June 18-26.1256 Ref. ,.

Wst per cent

M.k (paper, rags, etc.) 6}.1 Garbage 2.5 Gress 8.0 Cons and bottles 1}.7 Ashee end dirt 12.7

100.0

YlIrlstion of Refuse at Medill Ave. Incinerator, Chicaso.

Cane end bottiee Ashes snd dirt 8.Oj 17.7� 9·5 10.8

12.9 ll·5 16.6 24.1 18.0 2.6 17·0 15.8

..&l � 95·7

Avg. 1}.7'f. 12.7�

Ps�rl R8�slete{IWJtl C6rbe�e 4. 5" 2.1

70.5 3·8 55.2 1." 56.7 2.6 67.8 3.2 57·3 1.2

dH � 1·5

63·1� 2.5�

Grass �

5.� 19·0

0.0 8 •• 8.7

� . 2

8.�

I

J ! I I

"','

....

'"

. ',', .. �

.":,:':

,,<'

:.,�,�--.. ",.�

�.::';§i,!��::\��;,.�

�;��:����ii�;;�;,"�-"-".

, .. -'.'���

' -" ..

. , ..... "-.... �

-,>,--

,-'"-

--" ,.,

Appe

ndix

B

Comp

ositi

on a

nd A

naly

sis

of a

lT Av

erag

e M

unic

ipal

Ref

use

Proximate

Analysis

·

Ulti

mate

Analysi

s, llry

basi

s, ve

1ght pe

r c:e:

:rt. Per

cent

"A8

rec

eive

d" b

asis

" of

we

ight pe

r ce

nt.

lion-**

l'i0l

l-**

total.

Mo

ist-

Vola

t1le

Fixe

d Tot

oJ.

Ava1l.abJ.

e �

ure

Ma

tter

Ca

rbon

Canb

. Ca

rbon

lMl.rop;

en lI9"<l.ro""

n Clxvl<en

Ritro.

...n Sul:!'ur

Caob

.

Rubb

ish,

64%

10

.24

8.4

4

5.38

43

·41

5.

82

(0.2

8)

6.00

Pa

per"

mixed.

42

.0

75·

94

44·32

0.

25

0.2

0

Wood and

bark

2.4

20

.00

67.8

9 11

·31

0.80

50

.46

5·9

7 (0

.672

) 42

.57

0.

15

0·05

1

.00

Gres

s 4

.0

65.

00

2·5

7

43·3

3 6.

04

t83)

41

.68

2.1

5 0·

05

6.7

5 llru

sh

1·5

4

0.00

5

·00

42·52

5

·90

0.7

5)

41.2

0 2

.00

0·05

8

·33

Gree

ns

1·5

62

.00

26.

74

6·

32

4.9

4 40

·31

5·6

4

0.7

7 39

·00

2.00

0·

05

13

·00

Iesv

es,

r1pe

5·

0 50

.00

4.1

0 4

0·50

5

·95

(0·3

1

45·

l.0

0.2

0 0·

05

8.2

0

leat

her

0·3

1

0.00

68

.46

12.4

4

9·l.

0

60

.00

8.00

(6

.56

11

·50

10.00

0.

40

10.1

0 Ru

bber

0.6

1

.20

83.

98

4.9

4

9·88

77

-65

10·3

5 2

.0

10.

00

Plas

ticS

0·

7

2.00

1

0.00

6

0.00

7

.20

22

.60

10

.20

Oils

, pe.1n:t

8 0.

8

0.00

1

6·30

66

.85

9.6

5 9

·00

5·2

0 2

.00

16·

30

Li.no

leum

0

.1

2.1

0 64

·50

6.60

2

6.8

0 48

.06

5·3

4 r�

3

·00

16.70

0

.10

0.

40

27

.40

Rags

0

.6.

10.

00

Sweep

ings,

str

eet

3·0

20

.00

D1rt

, 1i:

:7u.sehol

d 1

.0

3·2

0

Uncla

ssU'

ied

0·5

4.

00

Food va

stes

, 12%

Ge

rbag

e 1

0.0

72

.00

Fats

/2

�O

0.00

lionc

ombustib

les

,24%

Meta

llie

s 8

.0

3·00

Gla

ss an

d ce

ram1cs

6

.0

2.00

As

hes

10

.0

10.00

TIi

i5:O Or

p:en1e

Ana�

sis

of Ccm

oosi

te

Per

cent

Mo

istur

e =

20·7

3 Ce

lluJ.

ose,

sugar,

ste

reh ... �

�.6

3 Li

pids

Cret

a, 0

1ls,

"WaXes =

4

.50

Pr

otei

n, 6

.25N

:

2.06

Ot

her

orga

nic

(pls

stic

s)�

1.1

5 As

h, met

al,

glass

,etc

. =�

84·

34

54

.00

20·

54

20.

26

0·5

0

.4

2.68

3·4

6

2.2

0

55·00

6

.60

2

·70

31

.20

4.62

0.

13

2.4

5 6.

00

20.00

34

·70

4·7

6 i O•56

l 35

·20

0.1

4 0.

20

25.

00

6.2

6 7

0.00

2

0.62

2

·57

2

.(]"(

4.00

0

·50

0

.01

72.3

0 6

0.00

16

.60

2.4

5 (0

.166)

18.3

5 0

.05

0·05

62

·50

3.2

6 4.

48

44·99

6.

43

(2.8

4$)

28

.76

3·3

0

0·52

1

6.00

0

76.7

0 12

.10

(10.

70)

l.l.2

0

0 0

0

0·5

96

.0

0.7

6 0

.04

(o.ee)

0.2

99

·0

0.4

97

·2

0·56

0

·03

io•ee)

0.1

1

99·3

2

4.12

63

·2

.28

.0

0·5

.

0.4

0)

0.8

0

·5

70.2

Analy

siS

of Ccap

os1 t

e Re.f'use

, A:s

:Rec

eive

d Ba

sis

Mois

ture

ca

rbon

Tot

al

Avai

le"ol

e O>;y

gen

Nitr

ogen

Sul:!'ur

No

n-!!I:

dr�

n '�f

f Caob

. 20

·73

28.00

3

·50

22

·35

0·33

0.

16

24·9

3

Btu pe

r ;u,

Dry

"asb-

llI!ti

0 llry

:r:re

e ..£iJ&

�

basi

s

8055

155

7572

75

86

13

8700

52

76

93

8250

56

·7

7900

8600

$2

.4

7m

81

35

131

7069

7700

9.

1 88

50

9850

7

·5

1133

0 l.2

600

13·6

14

368

1600

0 7

.43

13400

16

000

16

8310

11

450

20

.4

7652

78

44

96

6000

8000

10

3790

156

50

100

3000

8000

15.

8

8484

10100

7

.2

16700

16

700

$1

124

1200

0 34

65

800

0 70

41

72

14o<k>

Rati

o c:(

Hl

39.4

Bt

u per

lb

491

7

Btu,

dry

6203

100

.00

*Base

d on

As.IM :me

thod

s of

analysis

01:

cool

end

coke

, 8a

:stu

, M

and

P:F

9048

adapt

ed f

or r

erus

e�

**No

n-comb

u8t1

b1es

--as

h, :me

tal,

gla

ss and.

cer

am1c

s�

__ t

, rn

we

mrmrf

till

rl::'MC�'�":t�

""'>� �

,_"

,,"",,\\ih�

'%i.ir·"tjd

it"· "

'��j��

I:t,&

.'�.d:_<f

"''':'''

'!�i.:u

:l)}:;,

.t::�

:'::C

'-\;'"

';'-

·�'c

, ';"

,,"

·,' ,� .?� �'< :;; , � '/ ':� �' co X'· 7 � ;..;' i� " B �

-'t, �: Ii 2:; {f. ;f. �. �:: �, I )i �. �-"

I " t i � \Ii &'{-� ",. '" I ,-.

l t, ''j:, §

I. I

.

��

I I i

i �! I I I " '

-,:.

Appondix C Ralvso Analyses and Calori"'c Valves

IDN, mu/lb MMF Reference

l\r\Ioh, CaUf. (8.67� .,ha) onbon l-.rbQn monoxide, CO (lr:ollu1osc, C6Hl(P", Ocuul06c flock, unground \Nircool, villov \.,'(>r);. �JCtrln, (I gum ** tl:l:'eloior (0.771> 8sh ) .... "

LIpide (ether sol. oi1s1 greasesl fats end voxes)

Oloie oeid, C18H34� stearic aCid, C18H36� " ,,'

l'arb-&.gc, Q1llr. (6. 531> ash**) es«ns , Q1ut. (10. 57� 8shH) ffd.ragen (LLV 51,62il lItthCr (10. 09i ash ) {H.\'CS, dry, Colif. (8. 481> osh--- ) u&n1n ** UrnleUlll (27.4", ash )

."ols

....

Oxide vgt/ tlCtol \lgt Aluminum to �O!) 1.69 Copper Iron

to CuD 1.25 to' FeO.9410 1. 304 to 'Pe304 1.}8 to FC203 1 . 43 to PbO 1.0'/8

","It!sium to !-!gO 1.656 ", to SnO-.? 1.27 "" to ZnO 1.245

h.,., products !IooU end MS' (24.051.e8h** )

....

Cndboerd (7.19'f. osb h M1.xtd paper �6. 55� 88h � Klxed paper It. ce� 8tt· llevapr1nt (}. 93� osb ) VeXed peper 'h.xtd cartons

Ortton Mlxed (2.1� 89h

**)

Il001 :::, ... 1 "'llt'J92.4� .. bu) �� U}$ «Iah ) 'lkU"-t "-" �1<1'5 ......

kllucoae (dextroae )CEiH1005 l�l'ructO&e CEiIl1206 t,.�., ��oe�) c12lb20U \>;'Ii�,(. ('",Ul.Ilou acetate ,,1M polymer fbtt.Ol tOl'Wl1dl'lhyde ��th;rlentl, JWllt index 6.0 hlnrOp)'lene, o.> - O.� entloxld8nt t--; Itt)'rene, cloer-

" .J1lttth4ne t(\fUII, not tiN! relel'\\"nt -""'3\ tlock

J\:'"t.t-whdlell{t 'f\4 btu cOllOl.vM\' 'r'l (hlorl>1o.VIl\Vl �, __ ' __ l"t-«(��· t(oI'I'11'Mr �, "'4.\ ' ' }1 filth ) �,� • • � D. Q, ( I ,ft;� Uh")

.. ?o.....",..,.--..., �

81518 2 1!1,Q93 21,

4'm 24 7, 23 7,490 19

14,270 9 10,410 19 7,396 23 8,625 16

16.1OCU\·g. 5 171 009 23 11,(fJ2 23 16,200 15 1,280 2 1,913 2

61,100 24 9,914 ,6 7,566 2

10,530 19 11,450 16

Btu/lb of metol

]3.3-50 25 1,085 25 2,160 25 2,870 25 3,160 25

!150 25 10,6/10 25 2,105 25 2,295 25

7,557 16 8,373- 16 6,078 2 7,709 16 6, 550 16

11,000 2 12,000 2

7,200 4 7,5IiO 16 6,900 4 6,628 2

12,800 16 12,400 2 13,580 19 7,522 2,

6,724 23 6,7-44 23 7,097 23 3,96, 24

6,000 19 13,190 19 11,190 19 191950 19 19,950 19 17,8'0 19

10,260 19 7,490 19

17,700 19

8,8'0 19 8,�0 2 8'm 16 7, 2}

.. t8, ',I;"", J; k .... �i. ' �lIl.Ir� nhult HQ.Al', JIOiSture end eah-tree basie

� ... '

47

Appendix D Five-Gas Analyses lor Mvnicipal Incinerafors

13 rd st. InCinerator, Hev York City. Continuous teed, vater sprays in du8t�settl1!!S chllliber. Teoted 12�. Reference 26.

� volUl!:1e I �r cent !\I..rMce 1 ()..Itlet co, "" CO "" Ex:cees oil', .....

�r cent c/(n)Rtltio F.

Te8t 1 10.4 9·2 0.0 60.4 76.5 19.0 1750 2 7·0 1,.2 0.0 79.6 166 2,.6 1660

� 1,.0 6.4 0.0 60.6 4, 20·5 1600 12.4 6.4 0.1 61.1 42.6 14.5 1650

5 9·2 7.6 0.2 63.0 5,·0 5.56 1600 6 10.6 9·2 0.0 60.2 76.6 22.9; 1700

Averase 10.4, 6.67 0·05 60.65 66. 1 14.0 1130

Atter s12rels! Furnace 1

435 12.6 640 Test 1 3·2 11.1 0.0 79.7 2 �. o 17., 0.0 79·7 IKe ll.6 650

� · 5 15.5 0.0 60.0 277 11.8 600 ,.� 16·t 0.0 79.6 367 18.1J 560

5 ,. '5· 0.0 81.2 256 ,.64 6,0 6 ,.6 16.4 0.0 79.6 �� 12.6 640

Averege ,.63 16.37 0.0 60.0 9·55 620

Atter I.D. fonl Furn8ce 1

566 Test 1 2.2 16.4 0.0 79.4 720 17., 2 2.6 17.1 0.0 79·5 536 16.5 570 3 3·9 16., 0.0 79·6 ,42 13·2 460 4 2.6 17.' 0.0 79.9 457 8.28 520 5 no data 560 6 2.� 17.7 0.0 79.6 526 6.45 570

Average 2. 4 11.48 0.0 79.66 517 11.55 541

stock sao FurMee

Test 1 1,2,3 2.0 16.2 0.0 79.6 635 6.75 516 2 1/2" 2·3 17·7 0.0 60.0 516 7.66 517

� 1,2,3 3.4 16.6 0.0 60.0 366 6.95 492 1,2 ,.0 17·5 0.0 79·5 t� 17.1 "'2

� 1,2 2.2 17.6 0.0 80.2 4.75 455 1 2.2 18. 4 0.0 79.4 720 17., 410

Average 2·51 17067 0.0 79·S;? 539 8.25 465

\ 7,rd st. Incinerator, New York City. Continuous feed, \rOtcr sproys in

dust-settliM chamber. Tested 12§g. Reference 26.

�li!1:S Point � volume I �r cent

Furl\8ce � i\lrnaee � "" CO "" Excess 8U, C!(H) 'l'<op. �r cent RBt10 _F_

Test 1 2 1,.8 5·2 0.0 81.0 32 17.2 17}5 2 2 16.2 2.6 0.0 61.0 i§ 20.2 1677

� 2 9.4 9.4 0.0 81.2 10.6 1772 2 10· 5 6.6 0.0 80.9 66 1'·9 1561

5 2 u.o 6.0 0.0 81.0 60 13.7 1695 Avel'8ge 12.18 6.80 0.0 81.!e' 47 15.05 1688

Coolins�ChaDher Flue atter sprays

Teet 1 2 \.6 16.2 0.0 60.0 330 10. 0 696 2 2 ·7 15·2 0.0 80.1 256 ll.l 656

\ 2 ,.6 16.6 0.0 79.6 376 17·9 692 2 .2 15·8 0.0 80. 0 296 11.1 625

5 2 4.0 16.0 0.0 80.0 ,,, 10. , 562 Aver8ge 4.1 15.96 0.0 79·94 ,ll 11.6 647

1.1). hn outlet 8tter Mch. collector

Test 1 2 ,.0 16.6 0.0 60.2 � 6.47 466 2 2 '.2 16.8 0.0 80.0 6.42 469

� 2 2.6 17.8 0.0 79.4 557 22.0 532 2 2.6 17.5 0.0 79·9 476 7·70 l.� 5 2 2·5 18. 0 0.0 79· 5 tr,: 14·7

Averege 2.62 17.36 0.0 19.80 9·52 50'/

� 2.6 17.8 79.6 556 476 Test 1 1,2,3 0.0 12.,

2 1,2,' 2.6 17.6 0.0 79.6 504 6·97 490

� 1,2" 2.4 18.2 0.0 79.4 650 16,9 466

2 1·5 16·5 0.0 60.0 705 §.94 440 Avenge 2.28 18.m 0.0 79·70 600 ·95 474

"1.' t� 1

,

Appendix D (Can 't.) Flue Gas Analyses For Municipal lllcinerators

Gansevoort Incinerator, Hev York City. Ho. ,. unit. Bette Ave. Incinerator. Hev York City. Tested 1959. � settllns chlmhersl no B(!r8ls. Teated Octooor 122:�' Reference 26. nrx aettllng chrunbers. No sproys. Reference 26.

� vol\l'lM'. �r cent Furnaee } outlet Furna,. M1et co, '"

• Teet 1 ll.' 6.7.

� M 10·5

15.0 2.6.

� 6.6 13.1• 10.6 9.1

Average 10.16 8 ••

Inlet of �nslon Chlmber

1 5·' , .. .

� ,.10 14.2 .8 15·0

� 5·' 14.0 •• 6 17.0

Average 10.6. " .92

().Itlet of �n.eion Cll.oo:Iilier

1 - 10

� , .. 14.2 . 6 1 • • 0

Average '·9 1 •• 1

� 2 •• 2 16.6

� •• 6 17-6 }.6 17.0

5 }.8 15.8 6 1.8 18.6

Average } .. 17.12

*Colc. baSis of 80.3� N.2.

CO "" -- --1.8 80.} 1.8 8o.

� 0.0 82. 0.0 8o.} 0.0 80.} 0.7' 80.7'

0.0 80 • • 0.0 80.10 0.0 80.2 0.0 80.8 0.0 80.10 0.0 80.410

no dBto 0.0 80.6 0.0 61.. 0.0 61.0

0.0 79.2 0.0 79.8 0.0 79.' 0.0 80 • • 0.0 79·6 0.0 79·68

Excess Air, p:!!;r eent

106 98 1.

162 75·' 85

.ll

.02 " } '98 'Ol '}6

'01 187 19.

}Io9

,� '91 771 .,a

c/(n) � " .7 10. 4 10.8 1}.0 20·9 1}.0

9·5 9.9

10.} 7.} 10.8 8 ••

8 •• •• 75 6.1

97·' 8.8

.8 • • 5·9 6.9

1}.0

DrY VOlUlllC, per cent

... t co, '" CO ""

1 8.10 ll.' 0.0 80 •• • 9·5 10., 0.0 80 •• } 9.6 10.0 0.0 80 • • • 6.2 1}.6 0.0 80 •• 5 8.0 ll.� 0.0 80.1

Average 8.}Io ll. 0.0 80.22

�ratlon CMmber Inlet I Furns.ce � 1 •• 6 (18.0) 0.0 (79.10) 2 6.0 '

�.8 0.0 80 ••

� 6.0 1 .0 0.0 (80.0) 5·0 ,

� .. 0.0 81.8

5 '.7 1 .0 0.0 81.} Average 10.86 (1 •• 60) 0.0 (80. 5')

Se2!!:nUon Chamber Outlet I Furnace � 1 •• 0 16.} 0.0 79.7 • 5·5 ',.' 0.0 79.10 } ,.6 1 .6 0.0 79.8 10 .6 15.' 0.0 80.0 5 '·5 15.6 0.0 79.9

Average 10.84 15.' 0.0 79.76

Se;E!ratlon Chamber Inlet I Furnace 4

1 1.5 18.7 0.0 79.8 • 6.0 ll.O 0.0 8}.0 } ,.8 12·7 0.0 81.,

Average " } 14.13 0.0 81. •

stock Gasa FU.rM¢e � 1 2.0 18 • • 0.0 79.6 • • •• 16.5 0.0 79.1 �

5·5 15.2 0.0 79.} '.2 c18.1 0.0 79·7

5 '·5 18.1 0.0 79.' Aversge }.,. 17.26 0.0 79.102

Beth Ave. Incinerator, No!v York City. ContinuouB feed. TeBted Hsrch 122�' No' sl!ra;(B. RefeNnee 26.

Steck 8,ss

lkl vo11.We I :E!r cent

.... FUrnaces co, '" CO "" Exeess Air, O/(H) -- --- per cent !hl.!2

1 },' 1.6 lS.2 0.0 80.2 607 }.Io5 2 • 1.0 19.0 0.0 80.0 85' •• 6}

� • 1.6 18.0 0.0 80 . • 562 2·92

},Io •• 6 17·0 0.,0 80.11 '05 ';ij 5 },' '·5 16.7 0.0 80.8 }6} }. 6 • 1.6 17.6 0.0 80.8 .76 2.23 8 • ••• 16.0 0.0 79.6 �g 20.8

Average 2.19 17.50 0.0 80.}l '.}O

Bootb Slore Incinerator, Kev York City. Continuous feed. Tested 1251. DrY settllns chambers. No spra;(S. Reference 27.

stack BSB

DrY V01UM. per cent

co, '" CO "" &KeesB Air, O/(H) �r cent Ratio

Run 1 7.1 12.6 O.oceo 80.} 1105 1'-.0 • 6.} 1}.6 o.oce8 80.1 180 " .9

� 6.0 '}.9 0.00}6 So. 1 190 14.2 6.10 1}.7 0.oce6 79·9 190 18.9

Average 6. 115 1}" 5 o. oce75 60.10 175 15·}

48

Excess Air, £!!:r cent

ll7 105 89

180 129 liS

(�c6) 187 (1.8})

� (,,8)

}loIo 220 226 '70 .85· 27'

788 101 1410 192

704 }77 265 600 6}0 650

O/(H) 'romp. !!ill2 .2:-18.1 1}65 .0·5 1770 17-

, 1770 1}. 1}1,6 19.0 1}91 17.7 1528

(.0.5) 12·9 -

( 1,.8) 1560 . 4 1160

5.07 lll} (8.00)1278

15.7 '}.} 18.9 1200 12.1 990 1}.} 1001 17.} 10610

5.<6 }.65 ,.7} 1510 , '9 -

9.'} 750 00 980

6'·5 97' 8.65 670

19.7 660 ••• 6 8<6

,

�:

'�

,

'l" 0:,.. 65 70 70 "" 91 28

60 60 13 78

00 90 001 �4

.10

'50 ,80 ,12 ;70 �O 106

Appendix D (Can 't.) Flue Gas Analyses For Municipal Incinerators

South Shore Incinerator, J(ey York City. Continuous teed. 'l't!8ted June 1956. Dry settllP1\: chall!bers (1'0 apr8ys).Referenee 26.

�ee 1fo. 1 ()Jtlet � volU1:le I �r cent

,..t COz "" CO "" hee81 Air, C/(H) -.. p!r �Dt Sill2 _'_

6/4 7.6 12.6 0.0 79·6 }6.8 1}99 150 6Z5 11·9 7.8 0.0 8C.} 58 2,., 1710 �6 10·7 9·0 0.0 8C.} 74 21.1 1610 9·0 11.0 0.0 8C.0 109 2}.7 l6W 6)A 11.2 8.6 0.0 8C.2 69 24.2 ITl2

Avenge 10.12 9·60 0.0 8C.08 92 2t..5 1660 Inlet of Expansion Chamber. l\1rnace 1 .. " 0fTi }.4 11·1 0 . • 19·1 1025 ".5 86} 6/5 6.1 12.8 0.0 81.1 154 7.24 1432 6/6 4.} 15. � 0.0 8C.4 258 7.85 1205 611 }.6 16. 0.0 7906 400 17.0 101' 6/8 ,.6 15·1 0.0 79., 259 6.56 1500

A\'erege .6 15·lI2 0.<:6 19.90 28C 1,.2 1215 ()J.tlet of �n810n Chamber I l\lrMce 1 ""

-m 18.S 78.4 620 780 2.6 0.2 <>0 4.7 16. 1 0.0 19·2 � 109 � ",,6 }.6 16.S 0.0 19.6 17· 0 Z7 ,.1 17.6 0.0 79.} 528 }6.} 8C8 6/8 4.6 16.1 0.0 79., ill 54.0 m Aversge }.72 11.08 0.04 19.16 101

stack Ges

rut :Furnaces

b]Ti � 2.4 lS.S 0.0 78.8 940 = 65' 6/, 1,2 4.0 16.2 0.0 79.8 �� 1}.8 850 6/6 1,2 ,.4 17.0 0.0 1906 16.2 8}0 611 1 2.6 IS.0 0.0 79.4 610 21.6 6'9 6/& 1 4.5 17·0 0.0 18·5 458 <P 66}

Average }.}6 17.4 0.0 19·22 495 66.0 721

Valley stre8lll, �ng Island, Incinerator. Continuous teed of d(llleatic Wet Impingement collector. Reference 28. refuse.

nue g88

",t

18 2, "

Average 41 4s

Average 51 5s Average 6, 1s Average 81 8, Average

91 9s

Average

Dry volume, per cent

COz 0. CO No

4.11 15·11 0.10 80.08 4.99 l O} 0.10 19·88 5·}5 1 .31 0.10 8C.24 5.02 14.82 0.10 8C.06 5·11 14.6} 0.10 8C.16 5 · 10 14.60 0.10 60.20 5. 105 14.615 0.10 8C.18 6.48 1}.51 0.10 19.91 6.41 1}. 52 0.10 19·91 6.415 1}.515 0.10 19.91 4.70 15.22 0.10 19.98 4.20 16. 00 0.20 19.60 4.45 '�.61 0.15 19.19 5·55 1 .24 0.10 8C.11 5 · 55 14.22 0.10 8C.l} 5 . 55 14.23 0.10 8C.12 6.87 1}.102 0.20 19.,' 6.88 1}.4} 0.20 19. 9 6.815 1}.1025 0.20 79·50

Excess ell', per cent

247 245 206 2}2 221 220 221 116 l'n 111 256 }11 281 204 �� 114 114 174

(1 ) aldpolnt of collector (s) stsck gas.

C/(H) B!!!.2 11.1 14.5 10.9 12.} 11.2 10.7 10.9 18.1 18.1 18.1 12.2 11.} " .} 12.6 12.4 12·5 }2.8 ,4.0 },.4

49

Merrick Incinerator, Town or Hempstead, N.Y, &Itch teed ot dClllestic Reference 28! 33. refuse. Wet bottan 1n secondary cMmber. boiler.

Stack 6!8 !?!:l VOlUM I �r cent

Test COz "" CO "" Excelill sir, C/(H) -- --- �r cent fill2

1 6.90 12.}} 0.80 19·9'/ 158 14.4 2 7.9'/ 11.62 0,40 80.01 118 11.9 } 7',5 U.Bl 1.21 79·4} 115 22.2

Average 7· 1 11·92 0.60 79.81 121 17.1 Test 1962

1 4. � 15·20 0.10 80.12 252 10.}7 2 4. } 15.,0 0.10 80.17 251 9.60 � ,. 2 14.5 0.1 80.2 21, 10.92

. 8 15·2 0.1 79·9 ��} 1}.65 Average 4.15 15·05 0.1 60.10 10.95

Delavare County No. 3 Incinerator Plant, Broomall, Pa. Continuous feed of muniCipal refuse. Sprays, vet collector. Tested 12§� Reference �.

steck 6as DrY volume! per cent

Test COz 0. CO No Excess air, C/(H) -- --- per cent �

1 4.15 " .25 0.10 19.90 258 1}.5 2 5·09 1 .}1 0.10 8C.50 204 8. 41 } }.96 17. C2. 0.20 18.82 4}4 00 Averege 4.60 15·5} 0. 1} 19.14 214 15·9 4 '·54 16.}} 0.10 80. a} }}5 8.80

� }'A4 16.}4 0.10 19.82 }}9 11.8 }. 0 15·95 0.10 80.15 }Ol 8.40 Averege }.69 16.21 0.10 80.00 }25 9·45

Beverly HillS, calif. Incinerator. Batch feed, municipal refuse, no 6arOOge. Sprsy chamber sfter sec. orch. Reference 2. Flue Gas at Secondary Arch. Anslyses teken f\ran graph in report for

\, period ot Cherse 8. � volumel Eel' cent

T1me,m1mttes COz 0. CO No Excess sir, C/(H) -- -- -- -- per cent �

84 2.85 17065 0.2 79.}0 5\8 24.0 85 }.65 16.65 0.2 19.50 }7} 18.2 86 6.}5 '�. 8 0.2 79·65 181 2}.8 87 6.85 1 .25 0.2 79.10 206 20.4 88 .25 11.6 0.1 19.85 126 24.1 89 6.65 1}.4 0.1 19.85 17} 20.0 90 1.90 12·5 0.1 19.50 146 41.9 91 1·}5 12.15 0.0 19· 90 15} 21.7 92 11. 15 9.0 0.0 19.85 14.5 }5.2

Avers.ge 6.67 1}.5} 0.12 19.68 118 25.0 Averoge Btsck�g6S analysis frem IIl6ter1s1 balance tor entire test:

!!!:l volume I per cent co. 0. CO No Excess air, C/(H) - -- -- P;!l:r cent !!lli.

6·56 1,.95 0.0 79.49 198 }9.5

" " '----.-----------�

\ '

I I

,

, ,

:1 1 I i , I ' " ' .

; j ; � '. ' 1 "

Appendix D (Con't.) Flue Gas Analyses For Municipal Incinerafors

Signal Rill, Calif. , lndner&tor. Datch feed of $.lJ'Iidpal retuse." 8pny cblmber In usc. Reference 2.

stack gas AMlYscs wire" rrca graph In report tor period of one charse.

Dry vol�! per cent

Tille l�nute8 co. 0, CO '" �ce88 tllr, c/(H) -- -- -- -- per cent Petio

70 2. 1 18.� 0.2 79.� 660 1}·5 71 0·9 19· 0.2 79.5 ll'O 5.�O 72 �.O 1.6.25 0·9 78.85 }15 5·75 n 5·9 11(.0 0.5 79.6 189 20.2 7" 8. 5 1l.}5 o.} 79.85 ll} 2}.2 75 7·0 12·7 o.} 80.0 1'7 16.5 76 6.} 1�.6 0.6 79.5 In 2}., 77 5.6 1 .5 o.} 79·6 216 21. 78 5.}5 1'.9 0.1 79.65 2'0 21." 79 5.} 1�.9 0.2 79·6 �� 21.6 80 �.o 15· 1 0.2 79.7 15·1 81 .4 15·7 0.2 79·7 287 15· 5 82 �.} 16.0 0.1 79.6 }06 18.9

� }.6 16.8 0.1 79·5 596 19.4 }.6 16.6 0.1 79.7 }72 1'·5

85 �.7 16.4 0.1 79.8 � 12.0 Ave .... .72 15·%1 0.28 79·59 18.7

Ave-rage stack-gBB enalysie reported tor entire teet:

DrY voltu:le. per cent

Exccss sir, C/(B) per cent Ratio

291 9Q.2 Average stack gas calculated traa muriel bolAnc8 after aprey

ch!ozlber: DrY voltlll!e! per cent:

co. "" CO '" 4.9 15.}9 0.}2 79. }9

Excess eir, per cent

266 c/(�) Ratio 2M

* 42� garbsge in refUse.

A Plorlda lW1i(!ipsl Incinerator. Reference 30.

Flue 888 et inlet to sprays

Dry vo11.llrle. �r cent

Run C<e "" CO '"

1 6.4 11(. 0 0.0 79.6 } 8.0 12.0 0. 0 80.0

Averag& 7.2 1,.0 0.0 79·8

A Ch1caSP M.m1ci�l Incinerator.

Plue 6ea atter !FrelS

Dry volume, per cent

Run co. "" CO ""

1 5·86 14.24 0.20 79.70 • �.81 14.40 0.19 79.60 � ·50 15.18 0.25 80.07

�.65 15·32 0.20 79.85 5 2.05 17.}7 0.25 80."

Averss& �.57 15·,0 0.22 79.91

Excess ell', �r t:ent

200 1}2 161

Reference 30.

Excess sIr, per cent

205 215 248 260 1,}5 258

c/(H) Ratio

,0.2 21.0 2'.5

cI(B) Ratio

20.2 24.0 10. 1 1�.} '.O}

12·55

An Eastern Incinerator vith Circular Furntlce, b8tcb feed. Reference ,1.

!}!Jck C8a

Run -

lr 1 hr 1 hr 1 hr Avereso

1256 test . Ho sproys.

!!:l volume t per cent

co. 0. CO '"

�.61, 1�.55 0.00 60.81 1J.40 14.82 0.00 80.78 �.88 1�.51 0.20 60.41

.78 1 . 42 0.10 80.10 �.95 1�.}2 0.08 80.67

Excell8 sir, c/(K) per cent Ratio

215 6.}6 228 6.29 172 10.1q 207 6·97 205 7·}9

50

Pasadena, Celif., Incinerotor. Botch feed, municipal refuse, no garbage. Dry settling chamber and .... aste hest boiler. Reference 2. Analyses taken from graph in report for period of one charge.

Secondar: canbustion Chamber GlIs

� Volwre I �r cent

'rb!e I Minute G """ "" 00* ',lf2 Excess eir, c/(H) - -- per cent �

96 1. 55 18·5 0.1 79·85 7(2 •• 88 'J1 2· 05 18.15 0.1 79·80 610 7.82 96 2·55 17.75 0.1 79·60 ,35 . 10.9 99 2·9 17.15 0.1 79·85 30 8.87

100 2.4 17.75 0.1 79·75 510 8.45 101 3·0 17.4 0.1 79.5 476 16.2 1(2 2.} 1708 0.1 79.8 535 7 . 57 10} 2.0 18.2 0.1 79·7 628 7.63 104 }·3 16.8 0.1 79.8 }88 11.7 1O!i 3·2 16·9 0.1 79.8 399 10 • • 106 }. O 17.} 0.1 79.6 459 13·} 1<11 2.6 17.7 0.1 79·6 525 11.6 108 }.} 16.3 0.1 80.} }O8 6.45 109 '. 5 15·5 0.1 79.9 274 12.8 llO 5·} 1'.9 0. 1 79.7 240 19·6 III 5·55 14.6 0.1 79.75 224 19.1 112 5· 5 " .7 0.1 79·6 2}0 20. 4

�� 5·15 14·95 0.1 79·8 �41 16.6 4.4 15·7 0.1 79.8 289 14.2

ll5 2.85 170 ' 0.1 79.65 472 11.6 Average }.}7 16.77 0.1 79·76 }86 ll.6

*Rot reported. Assume 0. 1"'.

Average stack ges calculated fran material balance reported.

� volume I �r cent

""" "" CO "" Excess air, ------ �r cent aasume

4.75 15·55 0.1 79·62 280

Glendale , Celif. , Incinerator. Teats April 16-20, 19;6.'

Continuous feed, municipal refuse. Reference 29.

Scrubber Inlet

1'eat sen<

A 6,910 c 1},400 D 15,900 F 15,600

Weighted ovg

stack OUtlet

Teat SCH( -- ----A 25,000 B 29,000 0 }O,OOO D 27,100 E 2},400 F 26,600

Weighted svg of Tests A, c, D

end F

DrY Volume! per cent

co. 0" CO ""

7·8 10.8 0.0 81.4 •• 8 14.0 0.0 81.2 '.7 16·5 0·3 79.5 •• 6 14.2 0.0 81.2 •• 81 14 • • 1 0.09 80.69'-

DrY volume! per cent

co" 0" CO "" -- ---2 . 1 18. 9 0.0 79·0 ,.8 16.6 0.0 79·6 2 · 3 17. 9 0.0 79·8 2 . 4 18.} 0.0 79·' 2.8 17.6 0.0 79.6 ,.0 1709 0.0 79·1

2 . 45 18.2} 0.0 79.}2

Excess air, per cent

101 188 '52 196 2<11

Excess oil', :2!r cent

965 }76 565 69' 516 600

672

c/(H) �

20.1

c/(H) Ratio

c/(�) Retio

QO 19·0 7.65

26.7 , •• 0 cP

26.0

�

. 13 . 4 . 7 .16 · 99

(H) tio

" . 0 . 65 . 7 . 0 o

. 0

"'TWh ... riYItilwam,'w&Y ··· .... ""''''fnr,·�·"''·''''··''iffV'''''''"C. ' """'","'9' '0''"",,,,-, , lCFWS 3 D sz

I ?

Appendix D (Con't.) Flue Gas Analyses For Municipal Incinerators

A Midwestern,

£!elt &8B

Rectongulor, Munic!psl Incinerator, batch teed. Reference �l. Tested 122§. No BETols,

� vol\lll'tl! I �r cent

fOUl co. 0, 00 112 RlccesB aIr, 0/(8) l2!::r cent �

lV 1.88 16.�9 0.0 79.73 6!R 7. 04 lB 1.78 16. 0 0.0 79.62 688 5.65

Avet$ge 1.63 16.�0 0.0 79·77 690 6.�7 �J 2. 09 16. 00 0.0 79. 91 � 6.12 2V 2.72 17.30 0.0 79.96 7·,0

Average 2.�0 17.65 0.0 79.95 510 6.66 ,v 1.58 16.� 0.0 60.00 662 �.15 'Z 2. 00 16.00 0.0 80. 00 577 �.26

Averege 1.79 16.21 0.0 60. 00 625 .71 �V 2.6q 17·30 0.0 79.86 q57 8.85 �E q.29 16. 00 0.0 79.71 318 16.60

Average 3·57 16.65 0.0 79·78 377 12.�0

Milvaukee I Wia' l South Side Incinerator. Tested 1955. No Sprays. Reference 31.

West Allis Via. lncineretor. Tested 1

Steck S8S

!:!D: volume, �r cent

'!'eot co. "" CO '"

1 5·00 1".9} 0.10 79,� 2 5.qO 14.60 0.00 80.00 , 5·85 14.15 0.00 80.00 �'75 1".20 0.10 79,95

� .62 'n} 0.00 80.05 5· 51 1 . 0 0,00 80.09

7 6.01 1".O} 0.00 79·96 Average 5.45 14·52 O.O} 80.00

I terence 1. Vet collector.

Excess sir, C/(H) �r cent �

206 8.}4 ",,4 1".2 20} 15.4 20} 14.8 264 11·5 21} 1}.2 199 16.6 220 1}.7

stack S!!B Winchester, KY' I!6tch charge tests. Reference 27. Tested 1$61

!:!tl volume I �r cent Betore sprays

, Run co. 0,

1 �.61 1�.72 2 . 66 1 .65

, 4.6. 1 •• 65 5·22 1q.25

5 �:?, 1�.21 Average 1�.73

Teet

Organic

Inorgenic

Silice as SiOa

Alumina as A'l203

Iron es haOa

Celcium ss cao

Magnesium 8 8 MgO

Sodium ss NOaO

Potassium as KaO

TitDnium 88 Tio"

9.1l.f'ur 8S so.

Reference

CO 112 Excess air, 0/(8) ;per cent !!ill2 Run 110.

0.10 60.37 262 7. 01 0.15 60.� 216 7.6q 0.10 60. 1 230 6.26 0.10 �. �3 202 6.96 0.10

80:� 200 9·62 0.11 223 6·39

1 2 }

Appendix E

co.

5 7 8.8 9.8

DrY vo1WM, per cent

"" CO '"

lit.? 0·05 79·55 11.0 0.«> 80.18 10.10 0.«> 79.78

Analyses of Fly Ash (Weight Per Cent)

Gansevoort New York City 7}rd st, Plont NYC South Shore Incinerator InCinerator

Cooling Collector Dnitted Upper Ex:pana. Emitted lm1tted chamber discharge from steck flue chamber frOOl steck from steck

A A B A B

5· 9 5 · 7' 6.7 3�·3 25· 1 0· 5 0.6 10.4 14.5

9.·1 9q·3 93· 3 65.7 74.9 99· 5 99.4 89.6 85. 5

48.2 43.6 .7. 0 35. 8 }6.0 50. 1 5.·6 }6. 1 }6.0

23. 8 26.6 23.7 26. 1 27.4 22· 5 20.� 22.4 27.7

7· 1 6. 7 7 · 5 7 . 5 6.8 5·3 6.0 4.2 10.0

9·2 10. 0 11. 0 8.9 9. 4 7. 9 7. 8 8.6 8 . 5

2 • • 2·7 2.8 2.8 2.9 1.8 1.9 2.1 3.4

2.4 2.8 2.7 4.9 •• 6 } 8.1 7.0 19· 0 4.7

1·9 2.2 2 . 0 5· 0 4. 0

2·5 2·9 2.8

2.5 2 · 5 3· 3 6.2 6. 9 4·3 2·3 7.6 1J· 7

26 26 26 26 26 26 26 3 3

51

Ritcess oir, c!(B) £2r cent Ratio

235 28.6 110 19·1 100 }}.6

3 Plante AverBge

Collected Emitted

3·3 18.2

96·7 81.8

49. 5 }6·3

22·9 25.7

6 · 3 7 . 1

8.8 8.8

2.2 2.8

6.0 10. 4

1·3 0· 9

3 · 0 8.0

, � :

, .