Continuous monitoring emissions

according to EN-14181 on Incineration

and Cement Processes

William Averdieck
WilliamA@PCME.co.uk
 Objective of 13284-2
(Selection, commissioning, calibration and
on- going service of Particulate AMS)

Ensure AMS measures at the Emission Limit Value with total uncertainty less
than 30%

80

70

60
Dust (mg/m3)
50
mg/m3

ELV (Emission Limit

40 Value)
30 Limit allowing for 30%
uncertainty
20

10

0
30-Jun 1-Jul 2-Jul 3-Jul 4-Jul
Relevant new standards
Standard/ requirement
Scope Status

Quality Assurance of Automatic CEN standard published

EN-14181 Monitoring Systems (AMS):
MID published

EN-13284-2 Standard for Particulate AMS CEN standard published.

derived from 14181 specifically for MID published
particulate

EN-13284-1 Isokinetic sampling standard for CEN standard published

dust <50mg/m3
(emphasis 5mg/m3)
Standard Reference Method (SRM)
Stages of EN-14181 (13284-2)

Linearity
check
Calibration
check
Customer
purchase
QAL 1 QAL 2 QAL 3 AST QAL 3

On going QA
Instrument Calibration
certification Zero and Span
1 year

Time
QAL2 : 15 point calibration over 3 days
5 points over 3 days (Emissions <30% of ELV)
Method A regresssion
Use un-normalised data to calculate regression curve Normalise the calibrated values ->
AMS signal SRM Cal. AMS
x y Var(x) Var(x,y)
4.59 3.68 5.14 4.44 3.34 y = 0.7141x + 0.0659
R2 = 0.8746
5.13 4.34 7.86 7.34 3.73
7.49 4.68 26.72 15.27 5.42 6.00
2.40 2.44 0.01 0.05 1.78
2.98 2.89 0.43 0.76 2.19 5.00

SR M valu e (actu al m g /m 3)
1.34 0.29 0.96 1.40 1.02
1.10 1.46 1.48 0.32 0.85 4.00
1.19 0.30 1.29 1.61 0.91
1.03 0.18 1.66 1.99 0.80 3.00
3.09 2.01 0.59 0.22 2.27
1.42 0.63 0.81 0.98 1.08 2.00
0.44 0.83 3.54 1.68 0.38
0.70 0.41 2.64 2.13 0.56 1.00
0.76 0.77 2.45 1.49 0.61
1.19 0.93 1.29 0.91 0.91 0.00
2.32 1.72 56.87 40.61 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
AMS signal
b var(x,y)/var(x) 0.71 Calibration factor adjustment
a y-bx 0.07 Offset adjustment

Instructions
This calculation gives the calibration factor adjustment: New Cal Factor = Old Cal Factor x Calibration Factor Adjustment
It also shows any OFFSET which needs ADDING to the CALIBRATED AMS signal
 QAL2 calibration range
Calculation of valid calibration range
AMS
Duct Ambient O2 Value @
Sample AMS AMS Pressure Pressure Oxygen Moisture T P corrected Moisture STP
Number I Signal x Value y Temp 'C mm Hg mmHg % % corrected corrected (11%) Corrected Nmg/m3
1 4.59 3.34 163 -3.0 751.5 11.17 13.72 5.34 5.42 5.51 6.39 6.39
2 5.13 3.73 164 -3.0 751.5 11.10 11.22 5.96 6.06 6.12 6.89 6.89
3 7.49 5.42 169 -3.0 751.5 11.54 10.99 8.77 8.90 9.42 10.58 10.58
4 2.40 1.78 163 -3.0 751.5 11.58 11.92 2.84 2.88 3.06 3.47 3.47
5 2.98 2.19 163 -3.0 751.5 11.36 11.27 3.50 3.55 3.69 4.15 4.15
6 1.34 1.02 150 -3.0 750.8 11.27 9.95 1.59 1.61 1.66 1.84 1.84
7 1.10 0.85 152 -3.0 750.8 11.27 11.79 1.33 1.35 1.39 1.58 1.58
8 1.19 0.91 152 -3.0 750.8 11.26 10.62 1.42 1.44 1.48 1.66 1.66
9 1.03 0.80 152 -3.0 750.8 11.11 13.13 1.25 1.27 1.29 1.48 1.48
10 3.09 2.27 153 -3.0 750.8 11.28 12.29 3.54 3.60 3.71 4.23 4.23
11 1.42 1.08 147 -3.0 742.5 12.24 12.55 1.66 1.71 1.95 2.23 2.23
12 0.44 0.38 146 -3.0 742.5 10.33 12.37 0.58 0.60 0.56 0.64 0.64
13 0.70 0.56 147 -3.0 742.5 10.40 12.50 0.87 0.89 0.84 0.96 0.96
14 0.76 0.61 148 -3.0 742.5 11.07 13.37 0.93 0.96 0.97 1.12 1.12
15 1.19 0.91 151 -3.0 742.5 11.14 13.85 1.42 1.46 1.48 1.71 1.71
155 -3.0 748.3 11.21 12.10 2.73 2.78 2.87 3.26 3.26

Note: you should use compensation parameters measured by client MAX 10.58

Valid Calibration Range 11.64

(Max + 10%)

Instructions:
This shows the valid calibration range. Calibration must be redone if the daily average exceeds this.
Variability Test
Variability test
Calculation of Sd using normalised values

AMS calibration
SRM (stardard value (standard
conditions) conditions) Di square(Di-D)
7.04 6.39 0.65 0.43 Require Sd < sigma*Kv
8.03 6.89 1.14 1.31
9.14 10.58 -1.44 2.07 Sd 1.02
4.78 3.47 1.30 1.70 sigma 1.53 30% of ELV as 95% confidence ELV = 10
5.49 4.15 1.33 1.78 Kv (15) 0.98
0.53 1.84 -1.32 1.73 sigma*Kv 1.49
2.69 1.58 1.12 1.25
0.55 1.66 -1.11 1.22 1.02 < 1.49 Variability test pass
0.34 1.48 -1.14 1.30
3.74 4.23 -0.48 0.23 Instructions
1.31 2.23 -0.93 0.85 Enter the daily Emission Limit Value (ELV)
1.40 0.64 0.76 0.58 The variability test passes if Sd < Sigma*Kv
0.70 0.96 -0.26 0.07
1.42 1.12 0.30 0.09
1.74 1.71 0.03 0.00
-0.0030 1.02 Sd
 Objective of QAL 3
Quality Assurance Level 3
• To ensure AMS meets required uncertainty on a continuous basis (ongoing
Quality Assurance).

1200

1000
Check
Span
800

Dust
600 Expected Zero
Expected Span

400

200
Check
Zero
0
11:08 11:11 11:13 11:16 11:19
How do you check zero and span
for a dust AMS?
Dust interaction volume for core
dust measurement techniques
Side/back scatter

Interaction volume
Beta Attenuation

Electrodynamic
Tribolectric

Forward scatter Opacity

Dynamic Opacity
 Zero and Span materials
Zero Span material Issue evaluated
material

Sample of gas Gas of known Uncertainty in calibration

Gas with concentration concentration
of 0mg/m3 of
AMS required pollutant

Condition Introduction of Change in instrument

Dust simulating no dust surrogate which performance (calibration
simulates elevated shifts cannot be measured
AMS dust concentration due to cross-sensitivities)
 Precision and Drift

Precision
Drift

• Precision
– Closeness of agreement of AMS results for successive zero and
span readings
• Drift
– Change in calibration response over period without maintenance
causing change in measured readings
 Sources of uncertainty
(example)

Noise Temp Voltage Other Total AMS

(process conditions –
contamination) uncertainty
 Shewart statistics
Manual or
Automatic
(eg result of span check)

2xS

Where s is determined in QAL 1 or

from performance standards
Cusum spreadsheet
Manual or
Automatic
 Flexibility in QAL 3 methods
QAL 3 Purpose of zero Applicability Comments
method and span check

CUSUM charts Drift and precision Control and Heavy statistics.

evaluated separately automatic More applicable to manual
compensation audit

Shewart charts Drift and precision Control Comparison against allowable

evaluated together uncertainty from QAL 1
Applicable to automatic zero
and span test
Automatic compensation not
allowed
Custom Change in Control Compatible with some
methodology performance detected existing designs.
(justified by Readings must be recorded
manufacturer)

QAL 3 is operator responsibility(manual or automatic)

 Opacity (Low dust)
4500 Premier (Land)
•Coal fired power plant
•Cement kilns
•Oil fired power plant
•Incinerators (large stack)
 Zero and span check within 4500 plus
Optics contamination
and alignment

Light
source
Receiver and Apply shewart approach to
electronics automatic checks within
instrument
ZERO CHECK
REFLECTOR

UPSCALE
CHECK FILTER
 Dual Beam Opacity
D-CEM 2000 (Codel)

•Coal fired Power

plant
•Cement kilns
(large stack/ESP)
 D-CEM2000 Span check method

Alignment
Optic cleanliness Optic cleanliness

Source Source

Receiver & electronics Receiver & electronics

 Forward Light scatter
LMS-181 (PCME)

•Incinerators
•Cement Kilns (EP and
bagfilter controlled)
•Oil and Gas fired PP
 Span and zero check on LMS-181
Beam Optics Receiver optics

Light source Measure

Detector and ment
electronics mode

Span check

Automatic checks: sensor remains in stack. Results

recorded for shewart chart
 Annual: AST linearity test

Remove
sensor from
stack and
insert audit
material
 Beta Attenuation
Beta 5m (Environment SA)

•Incinerators (wet and dry)

•Power plant (wet gas after
FGD)
•Wet collectors in chemical
and metals industry
 Beta 5M - QAL3 Procedure

QAL 3 for Beta 5m

Mass Volume

Blank Span Inlet Flow-rate

control

Sample automatic zero

performed
before each
performed by
introducing a
standard gauge
performed by way of a
standard flow-meter*

Volume
sampling membrane of a
known mass by
unit area*

Mass Mass Weighing Sampled volume by unit

verification time verification

Mass Concentration Control

Manual application of * All the references are linked to the National Standard

Shewart or Cusum charts

 Rod-electrification
‘Zero check’ ‘Operation check’ What is checked

PFM-97 Electronic switch Compare performance Drift and error in one

(triboelectric) Response to ‘zero’ of two sensing rods sensor compared to
current Difference in signals another
over 4 hours > 6% Signal amplification
indicates failure

EMS-191 Electronic switch 1) Electronic switch Integrity of signal

(electrodynamic) Response to ‘zero’ Response to ‘span’ from probe to
current current electronics
2) Contamination across Signal amplification
insulator and analysis

•Appropriate checks will detect change in instrument

performance
•There is no Particulate AMS check for any type of instrument
which will flag calibration shifts due to process conditions
 Triboelectric
PFM-97 (Dr Foedisch)

•Incinerators
(Bagfilters and EP)
•Oil and Gas fired PP
•Cement Kilns
(Bagfilters and EP)
 Span test within PFM-97

Signal Rod
processing integrity
P1 (probe 1 signal)

P2 (probe 2 signal)

Pass criterea: (P1 –P2) < 0.04%

P1
 Electrodynamic
DT-991
•Incinerators (bagfilters)
ELV : 0-10mg/m3
•Cement Kilns (bagfilters)
•ELV: 0-30mg/m3

MCERTs certification:
0- 15mg/m3
 Span and Zero check on DT-991

Rod integrity Signal processing

Sensor electronics span check

Probe contamination check

Zero results from DT-991
in incineration process
Reporting Zero and Span results
pre QAL 3
Reporting Zero and Span
according to QAL 3
 QAL 2 Practicalities:
1) Key issue is getting good cal points
(valid instrument readings and accurate samples)

Valid calibration range

 SRM validity
Cal 2 assumes no systematic errors- BUT

•Take extreme caution in performing SRM: 13284-1 permits a number of

types of sampling equipment and is not prescriptive. (note variation in results
from validation of standard (12.2) with 4 teams using different equipment)
•Average 6.4mg/m3 Extreme values 3 to 19mg/m3
•Reproducibility 5.7, Repeatability 2.1
 Pre QAL 2
1) Demonstrate reliability in application
2) Instrument maintenance and linearity test
Extend calibration range where possible
(allow to extrapolate to 30% of ELV)
 Plan QAL 2 in conjunction with plant operation
•Plan calibration to cover sufficient calibration range to cover typical emissions variations.
• Standard requires 15 points over 3 days (5 points if <30% ELV),
•Ensure resources used effectively.

Filter media regains

efficiency as cake builds

Plant off for re-bagging

Caution required when extending calibration range
changes process conditions
60

Dust concentration mg/m3

50
2 micron
1 micron dust
2 micron dust
1 micron
40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Instrument output

Use polynomial to compensate

for particle size dependency (if
repeatable for plant conditions)
Knowledge of SRM, instrument and process is critical to
ensure valid calibrations
 Caution of dynamic calibration conditions

When emissions data is dynamic

(AMS max > 10 x AMS average)

consider:
1) Does response time of instrument
increase average under curve
2) Are SRM and AMS exposed to
similar conditions
 For large plant, consider tools to assist calibration

TTEEOOM
M 77000000 SSPPM
M ssyysstteem
m ccoom
mppoonneennttss

S t a ck
W a ll
M a s s tr a n s d u c e r
a t e n d o f p ro b e Port w / Probe
S u p p o r t M e c h a n is m

P ro b e G a s C o n tr o l
(M a s s tr a n s d u c e r o n h in g e ) U n it
Transducer

G as dr y er
V o l. m e a s u re m e n t
Pu m p U n it
Mass

P r e s s u r e s e n s o rs
S a m p le V a c u u m
U s e r in t e r f a c e &
E le c tr o n ic s P u rg e S u p p ly
F lo w c o n t ro lle rs Pumps
P ito t / T e m p . P o w e r s u p p lie s
In le t S e n so r S a m p lin g P la t f o r m
N o z zl e
A ss e m b l y
H e a te d E l e c tr ic a l /
P n e u m a tic U m b il ic a l
E l e c tr o n i c
C o n n e c tio n s
S a m p l e F lo w
P u rg e F lo w

M a s s tr a n s d u c e r P u m p a n d c o n t ro l u n its

•Instantaneous data reduces chance of need for re-sampling by avoiding

invalid results and limited calibration range
 A practical way forward to meet
EN-13284-2
• QAL 2
– Plan for QAL 2 using dynamic
data from continuous monitor
– Caution (ranges, process
conditions, SRM, instrument
performance)
– Assess protocol and equipment
to be used for sampling since
these effect results at low dust
• QAL 3
– Consider automatic or manual
approach
– Data treatment
• New users of AMS
– Investigate ‘total’ cost of
ownership
– Stability of calibration
– QAL 3 features
– Ease of auditing (linearity check
for AST)
• Existing users of CEMs
– Zero and span checks required (not
original part of MCERTS)
– Presence of zero and span doesn’t
necessarily provide QAL 3 feature
– Explore upgrade path for existing
instruments to AMS
• Zero and Span features
• QAL 3 Data analysis
• Reporting
• AST linearity tests
 EN-13284-2 results in reliable (and not in-
expensive) particulate emission data from WID
applications for which the uncertainty is known