Magnum Industries, Inc.

 

 

New Gel-Coat Application Technology

Emission Testing

 

May 30 – June 2, 2000

 

 

Emission Tests
Performed at Coating Applications Research Laboratory

(CARL)

CARL Test Engineers

S. J. Hall

J. R. Noonan

 

 

 

Summary Report

(Technical Revision - - November 22, 2000)

Compiled and Written

By

S. J. Hall

J. R. Noonan

July 24, 2000

 

 

Clean Manufacturing Technology and Safe Materials Institute

Purdue University

2655 Yeager Road

Suite 103

West Lafayette, In. 47906


Confidentiality Statement

 

 

Confidentiality Information:

 

            Purdue does not desire to receive information which is confidential to Composite Technology Polymers Group. However, should it be necessary for personnel of the Coating Applications Research Laboratory (CARL) to receive such confidential information in order to perform the technical assistance needed, Purdue and its researchers agree to use their best effort to prevent the disclosure of such information furnished by Composite Technology Polymers Group,  provided such confidential information is clearly indicated in writing as confidential, or given orally and reduced to writing within thirty (30) days.  If requested, Purdue and Composite Technology Polymers Group will develop and sign a Confidentiality Agreement .

 

No Warranties:

 

            Purdue makes no warranties, expressed or implied, as to any matter whatsoever, including without limitation, the condition of the technical assistance or deliverable or any invention(s) or product(s), whether tangible or intangible, conceived, discovered, or developed under this project agreement; or the ownership, merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose of the assistance or any such inventions or product or deliverables.  Purdue shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, special or other damages suffered by Composite Technology Polymers Group or by any licensee or any others resulting from the use of the deliverables or any such inventions or product.

 

Use of Purdue’s Name:

 

            Composite Technology Polymers Group cannot use the name of Purdue nor of any member of Purdue’s staff in any publicity, advertising, or news release without the prior written approval of an authorized representative of Purdue.  Composite Technology Polymers Group will not under any circumstance advertise or otherwise state or imply that Purdue has tested or approved any product or process.

 

Use of CMTI and/or CARL Name:

 

            Composite Technology Polymers Group may reference in technical and research reports and documents that the Indiana Clean Manufacturing Technology and Safe Materials Institute (CMTI) and its Coating Applications Research Laboratory (CARL) located at Purdue University performed testing on products (material) supplied by Composite Technology Polymers Group.

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Gel-coat Application Technology

Emission Testing

May 30 – June 2, 2000

Magnum Industries, Inc.

 

From May 30 through June 2 the Magnum Company was present at the Coating Applications research Laboratory (CARL), at Purdue University, to perform a series of emission tests on a new type of application technology designed to apply gel-coat material in non-atomized form.

 

 

Gel-coat Materials Used:

The emission tests were performed using a standard type of resin material manufactured by Lilly Industrial Coating Company, product number 5784E90016, batch # EL2000050137, 38% styrene (by wt.).

 

 

Application equipment operational settings (all application equipment supplied and operated by Magnum personnel):

 

Tests 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

            Conventional, External Mix

            518 tip size

11 to 1 pump, 70 psi

            1.45% by weight (approx.) catalyst mix

            20 psi catalyst atomizing air

           

Test 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

            Fit Technology, External Mix

            0.025 orifice size & 25 degree angle

11 to 1 pump, 28 - 30 psi

            1.45% by weight (approx.) catalyst mix

            18 - 20 psi (static) catalyst air pressure

 

 

All tests were performed in accordance with the following EPA methods:

 

 

The emissions data in this report are given as percent styrene emission as compared to the pounds of styrene applied.

 

 

Equipment Used During Test

 

Magnum application equipment (as noted above)

J.U.M. Engineering, Inc. flame ionization detector (FID), model 3-100

Dwyer Instrument, Inc.-2 standard-design pitot tubes, mold 160 series

Dwyer Instrument, Inc. primary standard manometer, model #424

NEC data-logging Pentium portable computer

National Instruments: LabVIEW, version 5.1 Graphical Programming Software,

         data acquisition software

National Instruments: LabVIEW DAQCARD AI-16XE-50 voltage to digital converter

National Instruments: SCB-68 voltage to digital interface

Dwyer Instrument, Inc. pressure transducer, model 607-4—convert inches of water pressure to            linear voltage readout

Alnor Velometer series 6000—air velocity measurement instrument

Barnant temperature & relative humidity logger, model 6919000

Dwyer Instrument, Inc. temperature transducer (linear voltage readout), model 4151D

Binks standard paint booth modified for 100% emission capture

EPA method 204 temporary/permanent enclosure—collection of 100% of emissions

Sartorious scale—360 pounds maximum, 2 gram sensitivity (computer readout)

Sartorious scale—150 pounds maximum, 1 gram sensitivity

CFA certified male mold with overspray capture flange

 

Emission Test Procedure:

 

TCA-FID was calibrated via EPA certified propane gas standards prior to the beginning of each test.

 

Application began only after the lab had reached a VOC PPM baseline level of approximately    1-PPM (as indicated on the TCA-FID).

 

Gel-coat material was applied to a CFA designed, male mold surface (35.66 sq. ft. including flange but not including overspray of approximately 2 inches).

 

The gel-coat was applied to an approximate wet-mil thickness of 18 to 23 mils.

 

Typical spray time was approximately 130 to 170 seconds allowing a targeted resin deposition onto the mold surface of approximately 2.27 Kg. (5.00 lbs.).  The actual spray time varied depending on the gel-coat resin flow rate from the subject application equipment.

 

The TCA-FID was verified and re-calibrated (if required) via EPA certified propane gas standards at the end of each test.  The calibration drift of the TCA-FID was less than 5% for each of the tests.  Calibration drift of less than 5% is deemed acceptable by the EPA for Method 25A emission tests.


 

Catalyst (initiator) ratio to resin (determined by actual weight of catalyst used) equaled 1.4% (catalyst wt./resin wt.) for all tested samples.

 

The gel-coat material, applied to the CFA male mold, was monitored for emissions (and data was logged every two seconds) during the entire time, from the start of the resin application process, through cure of the material.  The emission test was deemed complete only when the gel-coat had cured and the emissions had returned to original baseline levels.  The entire emission test process, for each of the test run, spanned approximately 45 to 70 minutes.

 

 

Test acceptance or rejection from the emission factor calculation:

 

Tests 1 and 2 were performed as practice trials designed for the spray operator and test participants to practice the test protocol requirements.  Tests 1 and 2 were not meant to be emission factor tests and therefore, were not included in the emission factor calculation.

 

Test 6 was also a practice trial for the operator to acquaint himself with the new FIT technology applicator since its operation and application characteristics differed from the conventional application used in the prior set of tests.  The test was not meant to be an emission factor test and therefore, it was not included in the emission factor calculation.

 

Test 9 was rejected from inclusion in the emission factor calculations because the gel-coat application operator inadvertently strayed from the test protocol application technique.  The mold flanges received only 60% coverage with the remaining 40% receiving a “dust coat” of 4 to 6 mils of gel-coat.  All other acceptable tests 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 received proper full coverage over the entire mold including the flange area as the test protocol dictated.

 

 

Please see following tables:

 

Table 1 – application specifications for each individual test

 

Table 2 – pounds resin (gel-coat) applied, pounds styrene applied, pounds and percent emitted for each test

 

Table 3 – emissions comparison of Conventional verses FIT technology, statistical ANOVA tests and commentary

 

Table 4 – application portion emissions as percent of total emissions (attached to chart 3)

 

Table 5 – comparison of average PPM and peak PPM of Conventional verses FIT technology (attached to chart 8, 9, 10)

 

Table 6 – t-test statistics analyzing the emissions test data for statistical significance

 


Please see following charts:

 

Chart 1 – Normal-Distribution graph comparing Conventional and FIT emissions for full test

 

Chart 2 – Normal-Distribution graph comparing Conventional and FIT emissions for only the application portions of the tests

 

Chart 3 – graph of application emissions portions of the tests as compared to percent of total emissions

 

Chart 4 – graph of PPM styrene emission traces verses time, comparing all accepted tests (tests 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10) for the full duration of the tests

 

Chart 5 – graph of PPM styrene emission traces verses time, comparing each accepted Conventional applicator test (tests 3, 4, 5)

 

Chart 6 – graph of PPM styrene emission traces verses time, comparing each accepted FIT applicator test (tests 7, 8, 10)

 

Chart 7 – graph of PPM styrene emission traces verses time, comparing all accepted tests (tests 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10) for the application period of the tests plus time for booth to complete 5 complete air changes after end of each application

 

Chart 8 – graph of PPM styrene average emission traces verses time, comparing Conventional and FIT applicators for application periods only (pauses between surface application of mold top, side, and front are cropped-out)

 

Chart 9 – bar chart comparing cropped, average PPM styrene emissions during application periods of Conventional verses FIT

 

Chart 10 - bar chart comparing cropped, approximate peak styrene emissions during application periods of Conventional verses FIT


 

Table 1

 

 

 


 

Table 2