What principals have you used to program the automatic choice of one or another measuring system?
It is based on the U.S.EPA requirements and on the
analysis of the application experience of big number of environmental control measuring systems and instruments proposed
by the leading world manufactures.
The requirements of the U.S.EPA as well as the experience of manufactures concerning the use of analytical methods in
the automatic measuring instruments are summarized in the table:
Table. Measuring Methods Which Are Used by the Leading World Manufacturers in the Automatic Measuring Instruments
| Substance | Ambient Air | Emissions |
| O3 | Chemiluminescence; UV Absorption | Chemiluminescence; UV Absorption |
| SO2 | Fluorescence | UV Absorption; Nondispersive Infrared (NDIR); Fluorescence |
| NOx | Chemiluminescence | Chemiluminescence |
| CO | Nondispersive Infrared (NDIR) | Nondispersive Infrared (NDIR) |
| O2 | No specific requirement | Electrochemical |
| Sum of CH | Flame Ionization | Flame Ionization |
It should be noticed that the U.S.EPA requirements direct rather strictly to use one or another method for continuous
emission monitoring control (CEMS) - please see
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR), CHAPTER I--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Pt. 60, App. A.
There are no so rigid requirements to use a concrete measuring method for an ambient air in a gas analysis instrument
controlling a concrete substance. But in the most cases there are used the methods presented in the table to control
substances in an ambient air.
There are a lot of chemical components to control. US.EPA does not have the requirements for all
components. What do you propose in the case of need to control many different substances?
Of course, it is a complicated solution how and where to use one or another method or a measuring instrument.
We offer an optical in-situ measurement of big variety of substances in this case.
Are the U.S.EPA requirements match the requirements in other countries? I.e. will it be right
if I be oriented by the U.S.EPA requirements with the installation of the measuring system in my country?
In general the requirements in the other countries are similar or there no any specific requirements at all.
So we recommend to use the conventional measuring systems for control of several main components
(PM2.5, PM10, SO2, NO, NO2, CO, O3) and in the case of need of official data
presentation or use. In the other cases such as - measurement not only main components, installation of equipment
in the countries with specific requirements, not official data presentation and use, specific control tasks,
achievement of better price for a control of many components etc. - the in-situ measuring system can be a better
solution.
What are the specific tasks where you recommend to use an in-situ system?
Such tasks are: Substances transfer e.g. along the fence of a plant or a factory; remote control
of vehicle exhausts; control of specific emissions from stack and many other tasks.
Where do you recommend to use a conventional emission control system with the use of a dilution block and where with the use of an air conditioning (cooling) block?
It first depends on what you already have available or want to buy from reliable supplier. You can use ambient air control analyzers to control emission with the help of a dilution block. It also depends on moisture content in a sample, length of a sample line etc. The Benefits/Limitations of
both systems are presented at the page 'Dilution-Extractive CEMS vs Extractive CEMS' of this portal.
|
|