Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Pushing
baghouse
emissions
Fugitive pushing
emissions
Charging
emissions
Door leaks
Combustion
stack
emissions
Lid leaks
Offtake
leaks
Baghouse for
captured pushing
emissions
Quenching
emissions
Charging
car
for coal
Gas collecting
main
Offtakes
Lids on charging
ports
Coal bunker
Water
Quench tower
Coke pushing machine
Coke wharl
Coke
Quench car
Doors
Combustion stack
Coke Oven Battery
Fig. 3.13 Sources of nanoparticles in a coke oven battery in Michigan (USA) [
51
]
Table 3.8 Annual emissions
of nanoparticles in a steel
plant with a coke oven battery
in Michigan (USA) [
51
]
Pollutant
Emissions
(
tpy
)
Percent
SO
x
4,567
35
NO
x
5,616
43
PM-CON
1,876
14
PM
2.5
-FIL
1,130
8
Total
13,189
100
HAP
Total emissions
(
tpy
)
HAP in PM2.5
(
tpy
)
Manganese
13
7.2
Lead
1.9
0.7
Nickel
0.04
0.01
Chromium
0.2
0.1
Mercury
0.4
0.4
Total
15.5
8.4
adjacent points varied from 250 to 3,000 ng/Nm
3
, depending on the environmental
factors and the Saharan dust advection (Fig.
3.14
)[
52
].
The days when the natural nanoparticle concentration was higher than that of the
investigated emissions were days when Saharan dust was present in the atmosphere.
3.3.1.3 Chemical Industry
The sources of nanoparticles released by chemical product plants are so diverse that
listing them here would go beyond the scope of the present monograph. This is
because besides raw materials, half-finished and finished products under the form of
PM with direct impact on air quality, any chemical plant releases, intentionally or
unintentionally, gases that interact with other pollutants and generate PM.
