AP42 Chapter 9 Reference
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Background Report Reference AP-42 Section Number: 9.12.2 Background Chapter: 4 Reference Number: 5 Title: Characterization of Ethanol Emissions fi-om Wineries California Air Resources Board California Air Resources Board July 1982 EAL Corporation AP-42 Section%% Reference Report Sect. Reference -s FINAL REPORT CHARACTERIZATION OF ETHANOL EMISSIONS FROM WINERIES Submitted to: Research Division California Air Resources Board on July 19, 1982 By: FAL Corporation Principal Investigators: Mr. David R. Fielder (Technical Services Manager) Mr. Philip A. Bumala (Air Program Manager) Reference : Mr. Joseph A. Pantalone (Contract Officer) California Air Resources Board Agreement No. AO-071-31 FAL Work Order No. 64-6003 ERRATA SHEET EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHARACTERIZATION OF ETHANOL EMISSIONS FROM WINERIES Submitted to: Research Division California Air Resources Board on July 19, 1982 By: FAL Corporation Principal Investigators: Mr. David R. Fielder (Technical Services Manager) Mr. Philip A. Bumala (Air Program Manager) Reference: Mr. Josep) A. Pantalone (Contract Officer) California Air Resources Board Agreement NO. AO-071-31 FAL Work Order No. 64-6003 EAL Corporatlon -Iten Commentslcorrections 12 Table 14 Figure 8 in the main text is the reference for sample locations 1, 2, 5 and 6. 14 Figure 13 All data contained in Figure 13, excluding FAL data was taken directly from California Air Resources Board Report No. C-8-050, Oct. 31, 1978, Section IIB, Figure I, Table I. 15 AP.,Supplement 10 should read: Emission Factor = + Equation EF (0.136T - 5.91) [(B-20.4)(T-15.21) (0.00085) + C] 15 solids handling Definition: the separation of grape skins process and seeds from the fermenting must result- ing in the free run juice. 19 nozzels correct spelling: nozzles 17 Example, stoichio- The calculation began with an initial juice metric calculated sugar content of 20"Brix (20 grams sugar/ cumulative ETOH 100 mls juice). emissions vs. measured emissions When in reality, 23'Brix could have been more representative. Recalculating the example starting with 23'Brix and ending at 3"Brix results in a value of 769 total cumulative lbs. ETOH emitted vs. 714 lbs. measured. Agreement is within 8% and the lower measured value could be due to draining of the fermentation tank before additional ethanol losses would have oc- curred. EAL Corporatlon ABSTRACT In traduction Wine industry ethanol emission factors have been determined with emphasis on the fermentation process and fugitive emissions. Information has been gained from winery surveys, an extensive literature search, and actual source testing of fermentation exhaust streams and suspected fugitive emission sources. Wine production in California may be characterized by methods and materials employed in two general regions. One is the warm Central Valley where the larger standard table and dessert wine producers typically harvest and ferment high sugar content grapes. In contrast, the northern coastal counties and Napa Valley are conducive to the production of premium wines, which are made from slower maturing grapes, grown in a unique microenvironment of moderate temperatures and sunshine. Review of Problem The California Air Resources Board has determined that ethanol emissions \' from winery production and storage processes may significantly contribute to the formation of ozone through photochemical smog reactions1). The primary source of these emissions is ethanol entrainment by carbon dioxide during the fermentation process. However, emissions will occur from any other process or situation where wine is exposed to the air, such 'as in transfer- ring or racking, blending, and storage utilizing porous materials. Factors affecting the degree of ethanol emissions include fermenting parameters, process equipment design, and handling techniques and temperatures. Finally, since the ARB is concerned with control of organic emissions, particularly in areas of non-compliance with the national ambient air quality standards, appropriate control techniques must be determined to limit present and potential emissions of ethanol from the wine industry. Control strategies may well prove advantageous to the industry when abate- ment is non-destructive, effectively serving as a resource recovery system. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following personnel and organizations were most helpful in providing information and/or allowing access to their facilities for surveys and testing: Mr. Kazuo Sanbongi Manager, Process United Vintners Department Madera Mr. Joe Rossi Winemaker United Vintners Madera Mr. A1 Del Bondio Operations Manager United Vintners Oakville Mr. Timothy Mondavi Executive Vice- Robert Mondavi President Oakville Ms. Kristi Koford Production Enologist Robert Mondavi Oakville Dr. James Vahl Technical Manager Robert Mondavi Oakville Mr. David Sicherman Plant Manager Paul Masson Madera Additional personnel who assisted with this project include Farshid Salmati (FAL), Ben Siackler (EAL), John Lawton (EAL), Charles Parrish (FAL), Jayant Shringarpure (a),Elizabeth Minor (EAL), John Tan (EAL), and Jane Anderson (W). DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the contractor and not necessarily those of the California Air Resources Board. The mention of commercial products, their source or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as either an actual or implied endors- ement of such products. EAL Corporatlon TABLE OF CONTENTS Section No. Page No. List of Figures 1 List of Tables ii I Introduction Study Approach 1 Methods 2-6 I1 Results Introduction 7-a Paul Masson, Madera 9 United Vintners, Madera 10-21 United Vintners, Oakville 22-30 Robert Hondavi, Oakville 31-42 I11 Summary and Conclusions 43-50 IV Recommendations 51-55 v References 56-59 VI Glossary 60 VI1 Appendix 61-63 EAL Corporation LIST OF FIGURES -Tit le 1. Ethanol Gas Sampling Train 3 2. White Wine Ferm. Exh. Ethanol Emissions 16 3. White Wine Fern. Volumetric Exhaust Flow 17 4. Red Wine Ferm. Exh. Ethanol Emissions 20 5. Red Wine Ferm. Volumetric Exhaust Flow 21 6. Red Wine Ferm. Exh. Ethanol Emissions 26 7. Red Wine Ferm. Volumetric Exhaust Flow 27 8. U.V. Oakville Layout ~ 29 9. Turbine Meter Fittings 33 10. White Wine Ferm. Exh. Ethanol Emissions 38-39 11. White Wine Ferm. Volumetric Exhaust Flow 40 12. R.M. Oakville Layout 42 13; Summary of Ethanol Loss Studies 47 14. Activated Carbon Adsorption System 53 15. Wet Scrubber 54 , EAL Corporatlon LIST OF TABLES Tit le 1. Turbine Meter On-Site Cross Checks 5 2. Physical Parameters Tank No. 576 14 3. White Wine Ferm. Exh. Ethanol Emissions 15 4. Physical Parameters Tank No. 5 18 5. Red Wine Fern. Exh. Ethanol Emissions 19 6.(I Physical Parameters Tank No. 198 24 7. Red Wine Fern. Exh. Ethanol Emissions 25 8. Fugitive Emissions, U.V. Oakville 28 9. iFugitive Emissions, U.V. Inglenook 30 10. Physical Parameters Tank No. 289 34 11. White Wine Fern. Exh. Ethanol Emissions 34-36 12. Fugitive Emissions, R.M. Oakville 41 13. Ethanol Ferm. Emissions and Emission Factors 44 14. Ethanol Fugitive Emissions and Emission Factors 45-46 15. Comparison of EAI. and EPA Emission Factors 48 ii EAL Corporation SECTION I INTRODUCTION STUDY APPROACH The project objectives were: To perform an ethanol survey of selected wineries and blending and storage facilities. To determine the effect on ethanol emission rate and amount of the type of wine being produced, the type of yeast utilized, fermentation time and temperature, and the fermenting equipment design. To perform source and fugitive emission tests at selected wine industry facilities to obtain actual emission data per ton of fermentation feed stock and per unit of fermentation time. To determine the ethanol emissions from storage involving porous materials. and handling operations including transfer, blending and bottling. To review and discuss potentially applicable control technology for the reduction of ethanol emissions from industry processes. In order to meet these objectives, a technical plan was followed beginning with consultation with experts in the wine industry. The exchange of information greatly assisted the subsequent literature search. The literature searchformed the basis from which a winery survey was con- ducted. Detailed inspections of facilities and a continued dialogue with winemakers and plant managers eventually led to decisions on sampling locations. n 1 - - __ __ a .\ EAL Corporation METHODS Sample Collection An extraction method was employed in which a known volume of gas, withdrawn from the fermentation exhaust stream, was bubbled through a series of three large Greenburg-Smith impingers. The first two impinger collections were separated from the third in order to verify an acceptable collection efficiency. EAI. personnel had previously conducted a large scale emission test of an acetator tank in Oakland. California. The process involves heating a solution of 6% acetic acid and 6% ethanol to 86OF while blowing air through it at a rate of 170 m3 per hour over a 32 hour period. Oxidation of the ethanol occurs to produce an end product containing 12% acetic acid and 0.5% ethanol. These conditions closely approximate those of a wine fermentation tank. Our sampling train for the acetator test consisted of a set of three im- pingers containing 100 mL each of a 0.1M NaOH solution (NaOH added to assist acetic acid absorption). Subsequently, the contents of the first two im- pingers were analyzed separately from that of the third to check absorption (capture) efficiency. The first four samples collected, during the initial high alcohol content portion of the cycle, had an average collection efficiency of 92% In the first two impingers. This information, coupled with the statistical evaluation of impinger collection efficiences contained in the JAPCA article "Estimating Overall Sample Train Efficiency" demonstrates that for the complete three impinger train, an overall collection efficiency of greater than 99% was achieved (1). A sample interface and all connections were made of glass and teflon. A thorough leak-check of the collection train was performed prior to each test at a 10" Hg vacuum for sixty seconds with a maximum tolerance of 0.02 ft30f volume change.