You are on page 1of 35

ESTIMATION OF BTEX EMISSION IN GAS DEHYDRATION PROCESS

(A CASE STUDY OF GAS MARKETING COMPANY, PORT HARCOURT)




BY

NWOGWUGWU KELECHI
&
NWOKOMA, DARLINGTON, B.
M.TECH (Chem. Engrg.)












2

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Natural gas is an important source of primary energy. Nigerias natural gas reserves are
estimated at 4.5 billion m
3
. Most of known reserves are in the form of associated gas
contained in the countrys oilfield. There has been a substantial increase in gas
production since 1990, as the country is geared toward reducing of gas flaring through
the associated gas gathering projects. Natural gas contains many contaminants, of which
water is the most common.
Most natural gas will be near water saturation at the temperature and pressure of
production. Dehydration of natural gas, which is a critical component of the natural gas
conditioning process, is the removal of the water that is associated with natural gases in
vapour form. Removal of water from the gas stream reduces the potential for corrosion,
hydrate formation and freezing in the pipeline. It stops sluggish flow conditions that may
be caused by condensation of water vapour in natural gas. Water is also removed to meet
a water dew point requirement of a sales gas contract specification from 32.8 to
117kg/10
6
[Grosso et al, 1980]. Therefore, the dehydration of natural gas is mandatory.
There are different techniques employed for dehydrating natural gas, but only two types
of dehydrating equipment are currently in use: they are absorption by liquid desiccants
and adsorption by solid desiccants. The unit s called a liquid desiccant dehydrator and a
solid desiccant dehydrator respectively. A common type of liquid desiccant dehydrator is
3
the glycol dehydration unit [Kohl and Riesenfeld, 1985]. In this process, triethylene
glycol (TEG) or diethylene glycol (DEG) is used to remove water in the gas stream.
In many cases the plant feed will contain small quantities of aromatic hydrocarbon that
are quite soluble in the TEG. The aromatics, which are primarily comprised of benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, or xylene (BTEX) along with other volatile organic compound
(VOCs), are vented to the atmosphere, thus posing a serious environmental threat.
Environmental regulatory agencies limit emission from gas dehydration units to 10
tons/year of any one pollutants or 25 tons/year of total pollutants [Coerr, S. 1995].

1.1: RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
The resulting concentrations of BTEX emitted from a source must estimate for air quality
assessments at different locations around the source. The concentration of the pollutant at
desired locations can be found by establishing monitoring stations. However, the cost of
setting up monitoring stations at all desired locations around a source is high. Thus, for
regulatory work a modeling approach becomes an acceptable alternative. A review of
literatures points to an extremely heterogeneous body modeling methodologies and
empirical environmental studies. Most of them are site specific and capture only a
specific aspect of the pollution problem (e.g. role of economic output or traffic or
meteorology) and few distinguish between local and regional effects.
The objectives of this work are:
1. Developing a model to estimate BTEX emission from gas dehydration unit.
4
2. Simulating the developed model to evaluate the effect of vent height and diameter
on dispersion of these organic pollutants.
















CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 BTEX EMISSION CONTROL
5
To properly control emissions, standards are set. The basic idea of setting an emission
standard is that there is some maximum possible or practical degree of control. This
maximum degree of control varies between various classes of emitters but presumably
can be determined for each. If it is determined for each, and each member of that class of
emitters is required to control its emission to this maximum degree possible then we will
have the lowest possible emission rate and cleanest possible air. If the setting of emission
standard is logically a cleanest possible philosophy the setting of air quality standard is
logically a zero-damage philosophy. The local licensing authority whose task is to
consider the impact of new and existing emissions usually sets emission standards. These
standards are listed and classified accordingly.
Class I substances are those with most severe emission standard and class III, the least
severe. Certain procedures are followed as thus:
1. Identify the emission substance by name, determine whether they are class I, II, or
III.
2. Class I substance should not exceed a concentration of0.1mg/m
3
at a mass flow
rate of 0.5g/hr or more.
3. The class II substance should not exceed 1mg/m
3
at a mass flow rate of 5g/hr or
more.
4. The class III substance should not exceed 5mg/m
3
at a mass flow rate of 25g/hr or
more.
6
5. If substances of classes II and I exist, then the concentration should not exceed
1mg/m
3
. If classes I and III or II and III exist, then the mass concentration should
not exceed 5mg/m
3
.
BTEX emissions are regulated so as to keep the air quality acceptable to national and
international standards. An industry achieves these standards by utilizing a variety of air
emission abatement technologies such as BTEX strippers. The waste stream is often air
which contains variety of gaseous and particulate contaminants of different densities,
particle sizes and volatility. Before a particular cost effective air emission abatement
technology is chosen, the emission stream must be characterized fully to determine
important measurable properties such as:
i. The stream composition
ii. The stream flow rate
iii. The stream temperature
iv. The stream pressure.
Based on this information, the choice of abatement equipment can be taken. There are
three general options in BTEX emission abatement, namely:
1. Waste minimization (of raw material, product and by-product), for
example selection of glycol; ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol and
triethylene glycol.
2. Recovery and recycling
3. Destruction or disposal, for example the use of BTEX strippers.

7
For Option 1:






For Option 2:





For Option 3:



FIGURE 2.1: FLOW SHEET OPTIONS IN BTEX EMISSION CONTROL.


Further information required to make the final choice are:
Process
Raw Material
Product
Waste Emission
(Minimization)
Process Recovery
Process
Raw material
Waste Emission
Recycle
Waste
Emission
Wastes
e
Raw material
Process
Waste Destruction
Process
8
1. The variability in the composition, flow rate, temperature and pressure of the
stream (that is, to start up or shutdown).
2. The explosivity of the stream. This is especially important where BTEX are
concerned. Properties such as flash point, auto-ignition temperatures and the
concentration at which it form an explosive mixture, the Lower Explosive Limit
(LEL) should be known.
3. The corrosiveness of the stream in both liquids and gases.
With regards to each constituent of the stream, some or all of the following information
may be required:
i. Molecular formula and weight
ii. Freezing and boiling point
iii. Solubility
iv. Adsorption and absorption properties
v. Chemical behaviour/ reactivities
vi. Heat of condensation, adsorption and dissolution
vii. Particle size distribution and densities of any solution.
viii. Odour threshold
ix. Health effects
x. p
H

xi. Vapour pressure corves
Equipment selection first considers the type of compounds to be removed. These may be
considered in three broad categories:
9
i. VOCs: Defined as any organic substances or mixtures, which
can release vapour to the atmosphere and with the potential to
cause environmental effect at low atmospheric level.
ii. Inorganic compound
iii. Particulate material
The stream contents will determine the type of equipment, which may be used in any
application. The major types of equipment in use today for hydrocarbon emission control
are:
i. Incinerators
ii. Adsorbers
iii. Condensers
iv. Absorbers
Controlling and preventing these fugitive emissions are best done by equipment
modification and channeling local ventilation/extraction to an emission control unit, from
where the clean gas is emitted as a point source.
These control standards are best achieved by means of compulsory test, which every
industry and car must undergo on a regular basis for pollution emission rates.
Often, pollutants are released from several sources into the atmosphere. The pollution
source could be categorized into:
i. Point sources; stacks and vents
ii. Area sources; landfills, ponds, storage piles.
iii. Volume sources; Conveyors, structures with multiple vents.
10
iv. Open pit Sources.
The dispersion of the pollutants, emitted from these sources in the atmosphere depends
on various factors, which can be classified into major categories as under-mentioned:
- Source Characteristics; Emission rate of pollutant, Stack height, Exit velocity of
the gas, Exit temperature of the gas, Stack diameter.
- Meteorological Conditions; Wind velocity, Wind direction, Ambient temperature,
Atmospheric stability, Mixing height.
The resulting concentrations of the pollutant emitted from a source must estimate for air
quality assessments at different locations around the source. These concentrations of the
pollutant at desired locations can be found by establishing monitoring stations. However,
the cost of setting up monitoring stations at all desired locations around a source is high.
Thus, for regulatory work a modeling approach becomes an acceptable alternative.

2.2: Air Quality System Analysis
The modeling of air quality usually involves the development of quantitative
relationships between the pollutant emissions from point and area, fixed and mobile
sources, and the resulting concentrations at different receptors sites over different time
scales, for example, hourly, daily, annual average
1
. Empirical data and formulation in
terms of algebraic relationships are used to determine and maintain good air quality
standard. Several modeling approaches have prevailed over the last four decades.



11

Figure 2.2: AIR QUALITY SYSTEM ANALYSIS
Air quality standards are modeled such that they predict air quality, and assist in planning
and policy making
1
. Figure 2.1 represents air quality system analysis.

2.2: DISPERSION MODELS
The technique of estimating the atmospheric dispersion of the pollutant and the resulting
concentrations at various conditions using the source characteristics and the
meteorological conditions is known as dispersion model.
Dispersion models directly relate emissions to receptor ambient concentrations through
mathematical representations of the physical and chemical processes that govern the
transport and removal as well as chemical transformation of the pollutants, once they
have left the emission points. Dispersion modeling is acceptable for analyzing the impact
of emission from industrial sources for either long or short term.








Predicted Air
Quality
Mathematical
Modeling
Emission
Chemistry
Meteorology
12
2.2.1: SHORT TERM DISPERSION MODEL
The short-term dispersion model for an industrial source complex gives options to model
emissions from a wide range of sources that might be present at a typical industry.
The basis of the model is the straight-line, steady state Gaussian exponential plume
equation, which is used with meteorological inputs such as wind speed and direction,
atmospheric stability, and mixing height
2
.
The Gaussian exponential plume equation could be modified to model simple point
source emissions from stacks, emissions from stacks that experience the effects of
aerodynamic down wash due to near by buildings, isolated vents, multiple vents, storage
piles, conveyor belts, etc.
The Gaussian plume equation, for a steady state hourly concentration at downwind
distance x (m) and crosswind distance y (m) is given as
2
:


y z y s
y
U
QKVD
o o o t
_
2
5 . 0 exp
2
= Equation 2.1
2.2.2: LONG TERM DISPERSION MODEL
The ISC long-term model uses input meteorological data that have been summarized into
joint frequencies of occurrence for particular wind speed classes, wind direction sectors,
and stability categories. In the long term model, the area surrounding a continuous source
of pollutants is divided into sectors of equal angular width corresponding to the sectors of
the seasonal and annual frequency distributions of wind direction wind speed, and
stability seasonal or annual emission from the source are partitioned among the sectors
13
according to the frequencies of wind blowing toward the sectors. The concentration fields
calculated for each source are translated to a common coordinate system (either Polar or
Cartesian) and summed to obtain the total due to all sources.
For a stack, the mean seasonal concentration is expressed as:

z s
k j i
U
QfSVD
R
o
u t
k
_
, , 1
3
2 A
= Equation 2.2
The Gaussian model assumes a constant wind speed without a wind shear and a flat
topography. Though the Gaussian models are practical, effective and mathematically
simple, most of them are not capable of dealing with scenarios where the pollutant is of
reactive nature. Moreover, the Gaussian model fails to incorporate turbulence in a
comprehensive sense
3
. Gaussian models are only suitable for air quality modeling over
short distances. These models cannot predict concentrations beyond a radius of
approximately 20 kilometers from the source, and at greater distances three dimensional
wind variations, mixing depths and temporal variations become predominant
3
. These
factors informed the development of several numerical models.
Numerical modeling techniques are sought when the formulated equation and model
cannot be solved analytically. The three major classes of numerical models in decreasing
order of complexity are:
- Three dimensional equation models
- Intermediate similarity profile models (also known as slab models)
- Modified Guassian models (also known as Box models)
14
These classes of models differ in the mathematical description of the atmospheric
dispersion processes, type of releases, that is; stack, jet or area source the model is
designed to handle, degree of completeness in the description of non-transport processes
like chemical reactions, and terrain feature complexities for which the model is designed.
Such complex models involve the discretization of basic fluid dynamics and chemical
reactions equations, over a trajectory in the case of long distance transport of SO
2
and its
chemical conversion to sulfates
4
or over a three-dimensional grid conversing the region
under study in the case of ozone
5
.
The basic equations describing the dynamic and growth of a plume containing both
liquid and solid particulate material from an elevated source may be expressed as
6,7
:
- Conservation of mass:
( )
a p
e
p p
R V
R
V
R V
dt
d

2 2
2
= Equation 2.3
- Conservation of Energy (Heat)
( )
d P P
P
p p
T T W R V
L
T R V
dt
d
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
A
o
o

2 2
* Equation 2.4
- Conservation of Momentum
1. Vertical Momentum:
( ) ( )
2 2 2
*
*
R V
dt
d
WE
T
T
g R V W R V
dt
d
p p
a
p p p p
o +
|
|
.
|

\
|

A
= Equation 2.6
2. Horizontal Momentum:
( ) ( ) ( )
p a
V
x d x p p
Sin R V U C U V R V
dt
d
u / /
2 2
= Equation 2.6
15
2.4: TIME - SERIES MODELS
Time-series models have been developed to take advantage of the availability of time-
linked (hourly, daily, monthly), site-specific concentration data. The concentration at
time, t is related to past concentrations at the same site, and to present and past
meteorological conditions and source strengths
7-11
.
2.5 INTRA-URBAN MODELS.
Some studies focus on the spatial distribution of concentrations, their distance decay, and
their relation to population density. Using intra-urban model, Hewitt (1991)
12
showed
that there is an apparent distance decay of NO
2
concentration in the urban area of
Lancaster, U.K, from the city. Anderson and Greenberg (1981)
13
used the discriminate
analysis to assess the impact of 21 land-use categories on particulate concentration at 30
monitoring sites in New Jersey. Geographical Information systems (GIS) models belong
to this model category, though it makes use of a GIS to interrelate various spatial data
sets.


2.6 BOX MODELS
This is a simple model used to get an initial estimate of concentration values. It is based
on the mass conservation of a pollutant in a box. The reference frame is Eulerian, that is,
fixed frame, rather than Lagrangrian, which reference frame is moving with the velocity
of the pollutant. The box volume may represent a city or an industrial region. The plan
area over a city or region is represented by and is the vertical dimension of the airside.

2.7: AIR POLLUTION INDEX MODELLING
16
Air pollution index modeling is typically based on a function (B). Which is ascribed a
number indicating good, satisfactory, unhealthy or hazardous quality. The index (B) is
called the polluted to a specific parameter like hydrocarbon emission or to a group of
related parameters.
This modeling approach take the weighted values of the pollutant parameter measured at
spatial point and compare it to the single number in the air quality standard. The index
(B), which is a non-dimensional number, can be obtained for corresponding pollutant
concentration as:

( )
i
i i
i i
i
C C
C C

+ =
+
+
1
1
| |
| | Equation 2.7
The air quality and concentration are illustrated in Table 2.1.
TABLE 2.1: BREAK POINTS FOR PSI
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHOD

3.1: POINT SOURCE MODEL FOR BTEX EMISSION
Short-term BTEX emission from point source, such as stacks and isolated vents is
modeled using equations of mass conservation. For each source and hour, the origin of
POLLUTION
STANDARD INDEX
(PSI)
DESCRIPTION CONCENTRATION
(ppm)
<50 Good Quality <0.05
50 Satisfactory 0.015
150 Unhealthy 0.5
250 Hazardous Alert 0.7
350 Hazardous Warning 0.8
450 Hazardous Emergency 0.8
550 Hazardous Serious
harm
1.0
17
the sources coordinate system will be placed at the ground surface at the base of the
stack. The x-axis is assumed positive in the downwind direction, the y-axis will be
crosswind (normal) to the x-axis and the z-axis will be extended horizontally. This is
represented as a hypothetical box as depicted in Figure 3.1 below.









FIGURE 3.1: HYPOTHETICAL REPRESENTATION OF BTEX EMISSION
SOURCE

The mass in this hypothetical box will be viewed as conserved through reflection at the
surfaces and concentration in the box being constant. The wind speed and direction taken
to be constant with height.
To conserve mass for a continuous elevated source, it is assumed that turbulences is
homogenous and there is a solid boundary at the ground level. Assuming the a effective
source height to be an elevated height, h, the mass conservation is defined as:
| | | |
| | | | box the within generated t pollu of Rate box the leaving t pollu of Rate
box the entering t pollu of Rate box the in t pollu of change of Rate
tan tan
tan tan
+
=
Equation 3.0
C
in

l
h
C
out

w
x
z
18
Equation 3.0 can be mathematically expressed as:
( )
g out in
A
zr y x C C U z y yQ x
t
C
z y x A A A + A A A + A A =
c
c
A A A Equation 3.1
Making the following implicit assumptions:
1. There is neither generation nor decay.
2. The continuous emission or emission times equal to or greater than travel times to the
downwind position of interest so that the diffusion in the direction of travel is
negligible.
3. The material diffused is a suitable gas aerosol (<20m diameter), which remain
suspended in the air long period of time.
4. Mass is conserved through reflection at surfaces.
5. There is constant wind speed and constant wind direction with height.
6. The wind shear effect on the horizontal diffusion is negligible (effect becomes larger
after ~ 10km).
7. There is constant concentration through out the box.
8. The dispersion parameters are independent of z and function of x (and hence wind
speed alone).
9. The averaging times of all quantities (wind speed U, dispersion parameters o
y
o
z
and
pollutant concentration C) are the same.
Thus the generation term r
g
= 0, which reduces Equation 3.1 to:
( )
out in
A
C C zU y yQ x
t
C
z y x A A + A A =
c
c
A A A Equation3.2
Dividing across with AxAyAz, yields
19
( )
out in
A
C C
x
U
z
Q
t
C

A
+
A
=
c
c
Equation3.3
As concentration through out the box is assumed constant,
, C C
out
=
Thus Equation3.3 becomes:
( ) C C
x
U
z
Q
t
C
in
A

A
+
A
=
c
c
Equation 3.4
With notation from Figure 3.1, Az = mixing height h, Ax = length of the box L.
Substituting these into Equation 3.4 yields:
( ) C C
L
U
h
Q
t
C
in
A
+ =
c
c
Equation 3.5
Expanding Equation 3.5 yields:
C
L
U
C
L
U
h
Q
t
C
in
A
+ =
c
c
Equation 3.6
By rearrangement Equation 3.6 becomes:
|
.
|

\
|

+
=
c
c
C
Uh
UhC QL
L
U
t
C
in A
Equation 3.7
Let
( )
Uh
UhC QL
b
and
L
U
a
in
+
=
= ,
Equation 3.8
Substituting Equation 3.8 into Equation 3.7 gives:
( ) c b a
t
C
A
=
c
c
Equation 3.9
Rearranging Equation 3.9 gives:
20
( )
t a
c b
C
A
c =

c
Equation 3.10
Integrating from t = 0 to t = t, we have:
at
c b
c b
n =
(

I
0
Equation 3.11
By rearrangement, we have:
( )
at at
e c e b c

+ =
0
1 Equation 3.12
Imposing Equation 3.12 into Equation 3.7 gives:
( )
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+
=
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
t
L
U
t
L
U
in
e C e
Uh
UhC QL
t C
0
1 Equation 3.13
Expanding Equation 3.13 will yield:
( )
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
t
L
U
t
L
U
in
e C e C
Uh
QL
t C
0
1 Equation 3.14
But
t
1
=
L
U
Equation 3.15
And by dimensionless quantification:
t
u
t
= Equation 3.16
Substituting Equations 3.15 and 3.16 into Equation 3.14 yields:
( ) ( ) ( ) | | u u t u +
(

+ = exp exp 1
0
C C
h
Q
C
in
Equation 3.17
Introducing a dimensionless length,
21
R
R
ZL whereL
L
L
Z
=
=
Equation
3.18
into Equation 3.14 and expanding it will give:
( )
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|

(

+ = t
ZL
U
C t
ZL
U
C
Uh
QZL
t C
R R
in
R
exp exp 1
0
Equation 3.19
Knowing that:
R
R
U
L
t = Equation 3.20
And introducing it into equation 3.19 gives:
( )
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|

(

+ =
R R in R
Z
C
Z
C
h
Q
Z Z C u u t
1
exp
1
exp 1
0
Equation 3.21
Equations 3.17 and 3.21 are the modeled Equations for point source BTEX emission with
respect to time and length. The model Equations are subject to the boundary conditions:
22
( )
( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( ) 1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
C Z C
AtZ
Z C
AtZ
C C
At
C
At
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
u
u
u
u

The model equation for stack emission considers the effect of time, stack height and
diameter on dispersion of BTEX pollutants. The developed model will be applied to
estimating concentration of pollutant from stack emission of a manufacturing plant
involved in machining, heat treatment, welding and spraying. Comparing results obtained
from the model equation to plant will validation the model.

3.1: MATHEMATICAL METHOD FOR SOLVING THE MODEL EQUATIONS.
A simple, accurate and practical solution for the model equation 3.17 and 3.22, is by
reducing them to a set of N coupled first order differential Equations for the functions y,
( )
( )
. .., ,......... 1
, ,......... ,
1
N i
y y x f
dx
x dy
n i
i
=
=

23
To solve for initial value problems using the Runge-Kutta method of fourth-order
formula for which the derivative is evaluated four times: once at the initial point, twice at
trial mid points
|
.
|

\
|
2
h
, and once at a trial endpoint.
( )
n n n n
y x hf y y ,
1
+ =
+

Where h is the interval.
For the input: Initial values, x
0
, y
0
, at step size h, number of steps N.
For the output:

( )
( )
4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
1
2 2
6
1
0
6 3 3 6
K K K K y
h
K K K K
y y
n
n n
+ + + + =
+ + + + + =
+

For n = 0, 1, 2, 3,N-1 do:
( )
n n
y x hf K ,
1
=

( )
h x x
K y h x hf K
K
y
h
x hf K
K
y
h
x hf K
n n
n n
n n
n n
+ =
+ + =
|
.
|

\
|
+ + =
|
.
|

\
|
+ + =
+1
3 4
2
3
1
2
,
2
,
2
2
,
2

The model equations were solved using this method in Visual Basic Program shown in
Appendix A.
24
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 RESULTS
Air quality modeling is an acceptable technique for analyzing the impact of emission
from industrial source. In this work, the air quality impact of manufacturing plant, PZ
Industries PLC, Aba in Abia State of Nigeria was studied using the modeled equations.
The Industry manufactures electronics (such as refrigerators, televisions), drugs and
household consumables such as detergents, soaps, toothpastes, balms, etc. The
manufacturing process involves unit operations such as machining, heat treatment,
welding and spraying. The area around the manufacturing plant is generally flat. Land
used in the area is generally agricultural and residential (****find out).
Emissions of potential concern from the plant includes Sulphur dioxide SO
2
, Nitrogen
Oxides NO
x
, Carbon Monoxide CO, Particulate matter, Volatile Organic Compounds
VOCs. An investigation of the plant shows that the process units responsible for the
emission of these pollutants are the paint spray booths, heating furnace and shot blasting.
The air pollutants are emitted from three stacks. Stack parameters obtained from air
pollution permits and plant HSE personnel are presented in Appendix B.
The model equation was used to predict Volatile Organic Compound VOCs, only. The
model prediction of VOCs concentrations from the three stacks and data obtained from
the Plant EPA screening analysis within 2km receptor location is given in Table 4.1.

25
Table 4.1: Model Prediction of VOCs Concentrations and Data from EPA Screening
Analysis

Stack
(Source)
Model Prediction
(g/m
3
)
Plant Data Percentage
Deviation
(%)
S1 655.83 660.74
S2 416.76 402.50
S3 3096.35 3078. 44
Total 4168.94 4141.68


The variation of concentrations of VOCs with respect to time, distance, stack height and
diameter were computed from the model equations and the results are presented in Table
4.2 4.4.
4.2 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Results of variation of concentration of Volatile Organic Compounds VOCs with time
were computed as showed in Table 4.1. The model prediction of the sum of VOCs
concentrations from the three stacks was 4168.94g/M
3
, while that of EPA screening
analysis for the plant was 4141.68g/M
3
, which gives 0.6% deviation from the model
prediction.
Figure 4.1 showed the relationship between the emitted VOCs concentration with time. It
indicates that the ground level pollutant concentration increases with time.


26
C(tita)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
tita
C
(
t
i
t
a
)
Source #1
Source #25
Source #32

Figure 4.2 relates pollutant concentration with stack height. It indicates that emitted
pollutant concentration decreases as stack height increases.


27
As stack height is raised, the location of maximum concentration on the ground level
moves away from the stack, because the emission will have to travel further and will
disperse before reaching the ground level.
Figure 4.3 relates pollutant concentration with stack diameter. It showed that decrease in
stack diameter decreases pollutant concentration within the stack vicinity.

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
delta
C
(
d
e
l
t
a
)
Source #1
Source #25
Source #32
Tita = 0.05





28

Reducing the stack diameter causes flow restriction, thereby increasing exit velocity of
emission of pollutant.The resultant narrow jet of pollutant will have a higher plume rise
which spreads out to give additional dilution before reaching the ground.
Figure 4.4 relates pollutant concentration






29
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Z
C
(
Z
)
Source #1
Source #25
Source #32
Tita = 0.05
C(tita)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
tita
C
(
t
i
t
a
)
Source #1
Source #25
Source #32
30
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
delta
C
(
d
e
l
t
a
)
Source #1
Source #25
Source #32
Tita = 0.05
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Z
C
(
Z
)
Source #1
Source #25
Source #32
Tita = 0.05

Tita = 0.05
Tita = 0.05
31
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
del ta
C
(
d
e
l
t
a
)
Source #1
Source #25
Source #32
Ti ta = 0.05











32
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 CONCLUSION
An air quality modeling based on well-mixed hypothetical cell was carried out for
various sources at PZ Industrial plant, Aba in Abia State to estimate the concentration of
Volatile Organic Compounds VOCs released from the plant manufacturing operations
and to assess the relationships between the concentration of ground level VOCs and stack
parameters namely; height and diameter.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
The dispersion or spreading of emitted pollutant into the air is caused by turbulence in the
air. This turbulence involves interactions between large and small air current called
eddies. These interactions are ultimately impossible to estimate or predict in details. Due
to this complexity of dispersion or spreading mechanism, the turbulence in the air was
considered in this work as homogeneous. This may limit the predictive power of the
modeled equations. Therefore further work should be done to characterize and estimate
the dispersion or spreading effect, so as to improve the developed models.
Also the model developed in this work is based on a single cell with 48 hours averaging
time. Further work could expand and estimate models within a multi-period framework,
which would make the assessment of the effects of time-linked urban factors, such as
traffic flows possible. It is also pertinent to note that other pollutants emitted from the PZ
Industrial plant such as Sulphur dioxide, Particulate Matter, Xylene etc were not
considered in this work. This give room for further work.
33
REFERENCE
EPA, 2000. National Air Pollution Emission Trends, 1900-1998. Report EPA-454/R-00-
002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC27711 March.

1. Bowers, J.R., J. R. Bjorklund and C. S. Cheney, 1979: Industrial Source Complex
(ISC) Dispersion Model Users Guide. Volume 11, EPA-450/4-79-031, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC27711.

3. Gifford F.A and Hanna S. R., 1973. Modeling Urban Air Pollution,
Atmospheric Environment 7: Pp 131-136.

4. Cooke, M. J. and Wadden, R. A., 1981. Atmospheric Factors Influencing Daily
Sulfate Concentrations in Chicago Air, Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association Vol.31, 11: Pp1197-1199.

5. Seinfeld, J. H., 1988 . Ozone Air Quality Models, Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Association Vol.38, 5: 616-645.

6. Millionis A. E. and Davies T. D., 1994. Regression and Stochastic Models for
Pollution-11. Applications and Stochatic Models to Examine the link between
ground-Level Smoke Concentrations and Temperature Inversions, Atmospheric
Environment. Vol.28, 17: 2811-2822.

7. Lioy P. J., Mallon R. P., Lippmann., Knelp T. J., and Sampson P. J., 1982. Factors
Affecting the Variability of Summertime Sulfate in a Rural Area Using Principal
Component Analysis, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association Vol.32, 10:
Pp1043-1047.

8. Asbaugh L. L., 1983, A Statistical Trajectory Technic for Determining Air
Pollution Source Regions, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
Vol.33, 11: Pp1096-1098.

9. Moody, J. L. and Samson, P. J., 1989. The Influence of Atmospheric Transport
on Precipitation of Chemistry at Two Sites in the Midwestern United State.
Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 23, 10:2117-2132.

34
10. Moy, L. A et al., 1994. Relationship Between Back Trajectories and
Tropospheric Trace Gas Concentrations in Rural Virginia, Atmospheric
Environment, Vol. 28, 17:2811-2822.

11. Brankov E., Rao S. T., and Porter P. S., 1998. A Trajectory-Clustering-
Correlation Methodology for Examining the Long-Range Transport of Air
Pollutants, Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 32, 9:1525-1534.

12. Hewitt,C. N., 1991. Spatial Variations in Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations in an
Urban Area, Atmospheric Environment, 25B, 429-434.

13. Anderson R. F. and Greenberg M. R., 1981. The Associations Between Land Use
and Particulate Air Quality in New Jersey, 1973-1977, Modeling and Simulation
12: 191-196.

















35