Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog


Main Title Assessment of the use of fugitive emission control devices /
Author Daugherty, D. P. ; Coy, D. W.
Other Authors
Author Title of a Work
Coy, D. W.
CORP Author Research Triangle Inst., Research Triangle Park, NC.;Industrial Environmental Research Lab., Research Triangle Park, NC.
Publisher U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory ; National Technical Information Service [distributor,
Year Published 1979
Report Number EPA 600/7-79-045; EPA-68-02-2612
Stock Number PB-292 748
OCLC Number 08271848
Subjects Air--Purification--Equipment and supplies ; Copper industry and trade--Environmental aspects--United States ; Lead industry and trade--Environmental aspects--United States
Additional Subjects Air pollution control ; Assessments ; Smelters ; Lead(Metal) ; Particles ; Electrostatics ; Design criteria ; Copper ; Additives ; Fugitive emissions ; Copper smelters
Internet Access
Description Access URL
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
EKBD  EPA-600/7-79-045 Research Triangle Park Library/RTP, NC 07/03/1997
ERAD  EPA 600/7-79-045 Region 9 Library/San Francisco,CA 02/11/2013
ESAD  EPA 600-7-79-045 Region 10 Library/Seattle,WA 03/23/2010
NTIS  PB-292 748 Some EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. 07/26/2022
Collation viii, 77 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
The report compares the efficiencies and utility consumptions expected from three fugitive emission control techniques--building evacuation, charged fog sprays, and water sprays with additives--if they were applied in primary lead and copper smelters. Estimates are provided of the reduction of total suspended particulate emissions and the reduction of elemental lead emissions from smelters when fugitive control is applied. Charged fog water sprays are emphasized; they enhance particulate collection by putting an electrostatic charge on fine water droplets. Building enclosure and evacuation is used as a basis with which such water sprays are compared. Available cost and energy consumption data were used to assess the competitiveness of charged fog sprays. Charged fog sprays were found to be less efficient than building evacuation, but also less expensive and less energy intensive by about a factor of 10. Charged fog sprays cannot replace conventional smelter techniques (e.g., secondary hooding or building evacuation) because they are not suitable for the typical large-volume, high-temperature, turbulent air streams. They are better suited for smaller scale, localized emission sources (e.g., conveyor transfer points) which contribute only a fraction of the fugitive particulate emissions.
"Research Triangle Institute." "February 1979." Includes bibliographical references. "Contract no. 68-02-2612, task no. 48, program element no. EHE624."