AIR POLLUTION – MONITORING MODELLING AND HEALTH
air pollution â monitoring, modelling and health - Ademloos air pollution â monitoring, modelling and health - Ademloos
210 Air Pollution – Monitoring, Modelling and Health 2 i B i .20 t.20 i .20 t.20 .20 t.20 FR (u u ) A (u u ), u u , FR 0, u u i .20 t.20 (4) 50x10 3 40 PM 10 [g/m 3 ] 30 20 10 50x10 3 40 30 20 10 BC [ng/m 3 ] frac4_PM 10 frac4_-dm/dt frac4_bc-uv frac4_bc-ir frac4_fit frac3_PM10 frac3_-dm/dt frac3_fit frac2_-dm/dt frac2_fit frac1234_PM10 frac1234_-dm/dt 5.6 x 150 13.0 14.8 x 10 x 300 x 10 60x10 -3 50 40 30 20 10 -dm/dt [kg/s] 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 10 u .20 [m/s] Fig. 4. The mass outflow, PM10 and BC concentrations from a 0.21 m 2 “unit” surface for FR2 (blue), FR3 (green), FR4 (red) and FR1234 (black) as a function of the measured wind velocity u .20 . Dashed vertical lines denote threshold velocities u t.20 for different coal fractions. A i [10 -5 kg/m] B i [10 -5 kg s/m 2 ] u t.20 [ m/s] FR 2 0.6 0.9 14.8 FR 3 14 19 13.0 FR 4 84 270 5.6 Table 3. Parameter values to fit the measured mass outflow. 8 A comparison between the observed mass losses as a function of time for different fractions of coal reveals a similar development in surface profiles with time as that reported for sand by Ferreira & Oliveira (2008), whereas Eq. (7), which was successful when dealing with sand, greatly underestimates the measured values for coal. 12 14 16 18 20 4.2 Iron ore The setting-up of the test track for iron ore and alumina measurements was similar to that for coal. The test surface area was 0.35 x 0.51 m 2 and only mass loss was recorded. As expected from the density ratio, the iron ore is a less intensive source of dust than coal. For FR1 there was no mass loss detected up to and including u .20 = 18 m/s. 4.2.1 Iron ore fraction 2 and 3 For FR2, the detected loss is not statistically significant. For FR3 a none zero mass loss was observed only for the largest values of u .20 , at 16 m/s and 20 m/s (Figure 5-left).
Fugitive Dust Emissions from a Coal-, Iron Ore- and Hydrated Alumina Stockpile 211 Measurements therefore show that threshold velocity u t.20 for FR2 must be larger than 18 m/s. According to the Greeley-Iversen scheme (described below) the threshold velocity u t.20 equal to 26.7 m/s is predicted if d 50 = 5 mm and u * t = 1.5 m/s. For FR3 the measured threshold wind velocity u t.20 is 14.0 m/s (Figure 5–right). Since this is less than 18 m/s, according to the G-I scheme the FR3 aerodynamic roughness length should be less than 300 μm and consequently, d 50 < 9 mm. This is not in contradiction with our measurements since the maximum diameter of iron ore particles in FR3 is 3 mm. 41.6 41.2 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Hz 40.8 Mass [kg] -dm/dt [kg/s] 40.4 40.0 Iron Ore - FR 3 39.6 39.2 38.8 100 50 -50 -100x10 -3 0 1000 2000 3000 Time [sec] 4000 5000 10 5 Back wind velocity [m/s] 400x10 -6 300 -dm/dt [kg/s] 200 100 0 Iron ore FR2 FR3 fit FR3 -dm/dt = 0.0000271 (u .20 - 13.96) 2 8 10 12 14 u .20 [m/s] 16 18 Fig. 5. -Left, FR3 iron ore mass loss measurement (red), its negative time derivative (gray) and back wind velocity (blue). -Right, the mass loss from the test surface as a function of u .20 air velocity for FR2 (red) and FR3 (black). 4.3 Hydrated alumina Hydrated alumina is a fine material with large erosion potential. It is usually extracted from bauxite, which is mined for the production of aluminium. In the port, the alumina is unloaded from ships using a continuous unloader and transported to silos where it is stored. Experience tells that only a small wind velocity is sufficient to lift particles of alumina into the air. Indeed, the alumina particles are small with diameters from 20-100 μm and 3200 kg/m 3 density. The fraction of alumina tested was taken directly from the storage facility. Already at about 2.5 m/s (8 Hz) there is an observable mass loss (Figure 6 -left). It is notable that this mass loss is constant in time at any given air velocity, suggesting that no major alteration in surface morphology occurred during the test. Figure 6-right shows the results and reveals that the threshold velocity for alumina at 0.20 m above the centre of the test vessel is 2.45 m/s.
- Page 170 and 171: 160 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 172 and 173: 162 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 174 and 175: 164 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 176 and 177: 166 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 178 and 179: 168 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 180 and 181: 170 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 182 and 183: 172 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 184 and 185: 174 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 186 and 187: 176 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 188 and 189: 178 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 190 and 191: 180 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 192 and 193: 182 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 194 and 195: 184 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 196 and 197: 186 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 198 and 199: 188 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 200 and 201: 190 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 202 and 203: 192 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 204 and 205: 194 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 206 and 207: 196 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 208 and 209: 198 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 210 and 211: 200 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 212 and 213: 202 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 214 and 215: 204 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 216 and 217: 206 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 218 and 219: 208 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 222 and 223: 212 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 224 and 225: 214 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 226 and 227: 216 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 228 and 229: 218 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 230 and 231: 220 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 232 and 233: 222 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 234 and 235: 224 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 236 and 237: 226 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 238 and 239: 228 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 240 and 241: 230 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 242 and 243: 232 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 244 and 245: 234 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 246 and 247: 236 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 248 and 249: 238 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 250 and 251: 240 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 252 and 253: 242 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 254 and 255: 244 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 256 and 257: 246 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 258 and 259: 248 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 260 and 261: 250 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 262 and 263: 252 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 264 and 265: 254 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 266 and 267: 256 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
- Page 268 and 269: 258 Air Pollution - Monitoring, Mod
Fugitive Dust Emissions from a Coal-, Iron Ore- and Hydrated Alumina Stockpile 211<br />
Measurements therefore show that threshold velocity u t.20 for FR2 must be larger than 18<br />
m/s. According to the Greeley-Iversen scheme (described below) the threshold velocity u t.20<br />
equal to 26.7 m/s is predicted if d 50 = 5 mm and u * t = 1.5 m/s. For FR3 the measured<br />
threshold wind velocity u t.20 is 14.0 m/s (Figure 5<strong>–</strong>right). Since this is less than 18 m/s,<br />
according to the G-I scheme the FR3 aerodynamic roughness length should be less than 300<br />
μm and consequently, d 50 < 9 mm. This is not in contradiction with our measurements since<br />
the maximum diameter of iron ore particles in FR3 is 3 mm.<br />
41.6<br />
41.2<br />
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Hz<br />
40.8<br />
Mass [kg]<br />
-dm/dt [kg/s]<br />
40.4<br />
40.0<br />
Iron Ore - FR 3<br />
39.6<br />
39.2<br />
38.8<br />
100<br />
50<br />
-50<br />
-100x10 -3<br />
0<br />
1000<br />
2000<br />
3000<br />
Time [sec]<br />
4000<br />
5000<br />
10<br />
5<br />
Back wind velocity [m/s]<br />
400x10 -6<br />
300<br />
-dm/dt [kg/s]<br />
200<br />
100<br />
0<br />
Iron ore<br />
FR2<br />
FR3<br />
fit FR3<br />
-dm/dt = 0.0000271 (u .20 - 13.96) 2<br />
8<br />
10<br />
12<br />
14<br />
u .20 [m/s]<br />
16<br />
18<br />
Fig. 5. -Left, FR3 iron ore mass loss measurement (red), its negative time derivative (gray)<br />
and back wind velocity (blue). -Right, the mass loss from the test surface as a function of u .20<br />
air velocity for FR2 (red) and FR3 (black).<br />
4.3 Hydrated alumina<br />
Hydrated alumina is a fine material with large erosion potential. It is usually extracted from<br />
bauxite, which is mined for the production of aluminium. In the port, the alumina is<br />
unloaded from ships using a continuous unloader and transported to silos where it is<br />
stored. Experience tells that only a small wind velocity is sufficient to lift particles of<br />
alumina into the air. Indeed, the alumina particles are small with diameters from 20-100 μm<br />
and 3200 kg/m 3 density.<br />
The fraction of alumina tested was taken directly from the storage facility. Already at<br />
about 2.5 m/s (8 Hz) there is an observable mass loss (Figure 6 -left). It is notable that this<br />
mass loss is constant in time at any given air velocity, suggesting that no major alteration<br />
in surface morphology occurred during the test. Figure 6-right shows the results and<br />
reveals that the threshold velocity for alumina at 0.20 m above the centre of the test vessel<br />
is 2.45 m/s.