controlling cooking emissions n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
CONTROLLING COOKING EMISSIONS PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
CONTROLLING COOKING EMISSIONS

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 25

CONTROLLING COOKING EMISSIONS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 112 Views
  • Uploaded on

CONTROLLING COOKING EMISSIONS. A SECOND CONSIDERATION IN DESIGNING SUSTAINABLE COMMERCIAL KITCHENS by Robert Ajemian, MSPH President- Green Kitchen Designs Inc. www.GreenKitchenDesigns.com. TAKE –HOME MESSAGE.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

CONTROLLING COOKING EMISSIONS


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. CONTROLLING COOKING EMISSIONS A SECOND CONSIDERATION IN DESIGNING SUSTAINABLE COMMERCIAL KITCHENS by Robert Ajemian, MSPH President- Green Kitchen Designs Inc. www.GreenKitchenDesigns.com

    2. TAKE –HOME MESSAGE • 1) COMMERCIAL COOKING EMISSIONS ARE LIKELY TO BE REGULATED AS AIR POLLUTION IN THE FUTURE • 2) CURRENT, HIGHLY EFFECTIVE, BUT COSTLY TECHNOLOGIES EXIST TO CONTROL THESE EMISSIONS • 3) PROPER SIZING, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THIS EQUIPMENT ARE CRITICAL TO ACHIEVE DESIRED RESULT

    3. OVERVIEW • CURRENT PRACTICE FOR REGULATING SMOKE AND ODORS • CURRENT CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES • AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PARADIGM • POTENTIAL HAZARDS IN MEAT SMOKE • TWO AIR POLLUTION (NAAQS) CONCERNS • GROUND LEVEL OZONE (O3) • PARTICULATE MATTER • SCIENCE BEHIND RISK ASSESSMENT • NEW REGULATIONS/FUTURE CHANGE

    4. CURRENT REGULATORY PRACTICE IN NYC • COOKING EMISSIONS ARE THOUGHT OF AS GREASE,SMOKE AND ODORS • NYC BUILDING CODE REQUIRES DISCHARGE AT ROOF • COOKING EMISSIONS ARE NOT ADDRESSED • EPA 10% OPACITY RULE HOLDS BUT NOT APPLICABLE FOR COOKING

    5. CURRENT NYC PRACTICE-USAGE OF POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES (PCD) • WHEN ROOF CAN NOT BE ACCESS THROUGH BUILDING,SIDEWALL DISCHARGE IS ALLOWED WITH PCD • MUST HAVE 10 FOOT CLEARANCE TO OPERABLE AIR INTAKES (FIRE HAZARD) • ALSO USED TO HEAD OFF NUISANCE COMPLAINTS (SMOKE/ODORS) • QUITE COMMON IN MANHATTAN • NO “GREEN” APPLICATIONS • NO CLEAR LEED POINTS ASCRIBED

    6. ELECTROSTATIC CHARGE IMPARTED TO PARTICLE THEN DEPOSITION ON CHARGE PLATES OFFERED WITH AUTOMATIC WASH SINGLE (400 FPM) DOUBLE PASS (500) MECHANICAL(HEPA) SERIES OF INCREASINGLY GREATER FILTERS UP TO 500 FPM FREQUENT FILTER CHANGES -CLOGGED FILTER INDICATORS POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICESSMOKE (PARTICULATE) FILTRATION

    7. ELECTROSTATIC LOW S.P. LOSS (LESS FAN HP) HIGHER CAPITAL COST (10-25%) LOWER OPERATING COST(10-25%) GREASE TO SEWER-NO LANDFILLING MECHANICAL(HEPA) HIGHER SP LOWER CAPITAL COST HIGHER OPERATING COST GREASE TO LANDFILL –NO CAUSTIC TO SEWER UNCHANGED FILTER IS FIRE HAZARD ADVANTAGES / DISADVANTAGES

    8. ADVANCED HOOD FILTRATION • REDUCTION IN SMOKE CONTROL MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY/COSTS • HISTORICAL BAFFLE FILTERS TO 20% • NEW ASTM 2519 TEST STANDARD • TWO NEW GROUPINGS • ONE GROUPING 50-60% REMOVAL EFFICIENCY • NOMINAL 25% INCREASE IN S.P. • MINIMAL EXTRA CLEANING • ONE GROUPING 80-90% REMOVAL EFFICIENCY • DRAMATIC DOUBLING OF S.P. • OFTEN DAILY CLEANING REQUIRED • MOST OF MASS IN LARGER SIZES-FINES (<.1um) NOT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED

    9. CONTROL OF ODORS • CHEMICAL ADSORPTION • ACTIVATED CHARCOAL MOST COMMON • CAN BE SUPPLEMENTED WITH ADMIXTURES, KMnO4 IS COMMONLY INCLUDED • FREQUENCY OF CHANGES DEPENDS ON LOADING • RECHARGEABLE ( GREEN) • THERMAL/CATALYTIC OXIDATION • GOOD WHEN HEAT IS FREE • COMMON ON CHAIN CHARBROILERS • OTHER- MASKING AGENTS/UVC • ENZYMATIC SPRAY AGENTS? • EFFLUENT FROM UVC SYSTEMS AT CROSS PURPOSES WITH AQM?

    10. AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT APPROACH

    11. WHAT IS AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT APPROACH? • CRAFTING OF SCIENTIFIC, MEDICAL AND RISK ASSESSMENTS INTO PUBLIC POLICY THAT ESTABLISHES AIR POLLUTION LEVELS THAT REPRESENT ACCEPTABLE RISK • INVOLVED EPA, STATES, COURTS (SUPREME), INDUSTRY AND CITIZENS GROUPS • LATEST REVISIONS (1995) TO NAAQS CONCERN OZONE AND PM - BOTH IMPACTED BY COOKING EMISSIONS

    12. RISK ASSESSMENT • IDENTIFY HAZARD • QUANTIFY HAZARD • DETERMINE RISK • IMPLEMENT CONTROL TO ACHIEVE ACCEPTABLE RISK

    13. WHAT IS QUALITATIVELY AND QUANTITATIVLEY EMITTED DURING COOKING PROCESS AND WHAT RISK DO THEY POSE FOR AIR QUALITY? • PREVIOUSLY • GREASE, SMOKE AND ODORS • NOW • PARTICULATES (or AEROSOLS ) • 0.01 TO 10+ um AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER • SOLID OR LIQUID OR BOTH • VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs) • SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SOCs) • PARTITION BETWEEN THE PARTICLE AND GAS PHASE

    14. PREVIOUS ASHRAE RESEARCH

    15. RESEARCH-MEAT COOKING METHODS FRYING vs CHARBROILING LEAN (10% FAT) vs. REGULAR (21% FAT) BEEF

    16. CALIFORNIA RESEARCH-PARTICLE SIZE • COMPARISON OF FINE PARTICULATE (< 1.8 um) FROM WOODBURNING,MEAT SMOKING AND CIGARETTES • COMPARISON OF TWO SIMULTANEOUS MEASUREMENT METHODS • GOOD AGREEMENT BETWEEN METHODS • EXCEPT OPC HAD SIGNIFICANT COARSE FRACTION • FOUND MASS DISTRIBUTION MODE FOR WOOD-BURNING AND MEAT SMOKING AT 0.1 - 0.2 um • CIGARETTES MODE AT 0.3 - 0.4 um

    17. CALIFORNIA VOCs/SOCs RESEARCH • DEFROSTED HAMBURGERS COOKED ON NATURAL GAS FIRED CHARBROILER FOR FIVE MINUTES • FINE PARTICLE (<1.8um-SAME AS KLEEMAN STUDY) EMISSION RATES OF 18.8 +/- 2.0 g/Kg OF MEAT • WITH 56.6 +/- 3.3 %ORGANIC CARBON CONTENT • THE EMISSION RATES WERE APPROXIMATELY HALF THOSE OF HILDEMANN ET ALWHEN COOKING TIME 7-8 MINUTES • FRACTION OF ORGANIC CARBON STATISTICALLY SAME • VIRTUALLY NO ELEMENTAL (FIXED) CARBON AND VERY LITTLE INORGANIC MATTER

    18. CALIFORNIA RESEARCH -CHEMICAL PROFILE • HIGHEST EMITTED INDIVIDUAL VOCs WERE FORMALDHYDE, ACETALDEHYDE AND ETHYLENE • RELATIVELY SMALL ON MASS BASIS COMPARED TO OTHER URBAN SOURCES • OTHER REACTIVE VOCS INCLUED PROPENE, BUTENE AND 1,3 BUTADIENE • HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT ALDEHYDES AND CHOLESTEROL WERE EMITTED ANDMAY SERVE AS MARKERS IN FUTURE STUDIES • n-ALKANOIC, n-ALKENOIC AND CARBONYLS MADE UP SIGNIFICANT FRACTION FO SOC AND PARTICLE PHASE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (OLEIC AND PALMITIC DOMINATED) • OTHER COMPOUNDS EMITTED OF TOXICOLOGICAL INTEREST • BENZENE, TOLUENE, PHENANTHRENE

    19. EVALUATING HAZARDS • CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES • REACTIVITY • PARTICLE SIZE- AFFECTS LUNG DEPOSTION • VAPOR PRESSURE • WATER/OCTANOL PARTITIONING • HEAVY METAL TOXICITY - NA • CARCINOGEN,MUTAGEN • DIRECT ACTING (IRRITANT OR CARCINOGEN) vs. TRANSFORMED AIR POLLUTANT (SMOG OXIDANTS) • MECHANISM OF TOXICITY • HUMAN EXPOSURE CLINICAL STUDIES • ANIMAL STUDIES • FINDING THAT OLDER RATS SUSCEPTIBLE TO PM

    20. O3 NAAQS • REACTIVE SPECIES THAT ENTER THE PHOTOCHEMICAL CYCLES TO PRODUCE SMOG (O3 NAAQS) • LOCALIZED PHENOMENON • PARALLELS SUN RADIATION, NOx FROM VEHICLES, METEOROLGY • OZONE (OXIDANTS) • CONTROLLED HUMAN STUDIES • NAAQS BASED ON REDUCED MEASURABLE LUNG FUNCTION • REVISED DOWNWARDS IN 1995

    21. PARTICULATE MATTER NAAQS • PARTICULATE MATTER (PM 2.5NAAQS) • FINE PARTICULATE DEEP INTO LUNGS • ASSOCIATED TOXIC SOCs • BASED ON EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES • CONSIDERABLE SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTIES IN HEALTH EFFECTS • MAINLY DUE TO COMPLEXITY OF HAZARD • SEE EXCELLENT PAPER BY PHALEN ON THE PARTICULATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROVERSY • REVISED DOWNWARD IN 1995 • CREATION OF PM 2.5 • SOME AIR TOXICS • 1,3 BUTIDIENE, PAH • NY PASSED CALIFORNIA IN 2007

    22. LATEST REGULATION IN CA • BAAQMD REGULATION 6 RULE 2 • PASSED DECEMBER 5, 2007 • Phased in application over next five years • STIPULATES THAT ALL CHAIN DRIVEN CHARBROILERS WITH 400 LBS OF BEEF HAVE PARTICULATE CONTROL • STIPULATES THAT FOOD OPERATIONS COOKING 800 LBS OF BEEF PER WEEK ON => 10 sq feet OF UNDERFIRED CHARBROILER SHALL HAVE PARTICULATE CONTROL

    23. FUTURE RESEARCH • ORGANIC CARBON EMISSIONS FROM MEAT SMOKING AND INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES ARE SIMILAR • RESEARCH WILL BE ENACTED TO TRY AND TEASE OUT THE CONTRIBUTIONS • AS ENGINE EMISSIONS GET MORE RESTRICTIVE, COOKING EMISSIONS WILL APPEAR ABOVE BASELINE • SEARCH FOR CHEMICAL MARKER • TO DATE CHOLESTEROL/ HIGH MW ALDEHYDE • ADVANCED AIR POLLUTION MODELLING

    24. FUTURE REGULATIONS • OZONE NON ATTAINMENT AREAS (SPECIFICALLY NORTHEAST) LIKELY TO FOLLOW EXAMPLE • GREEN COMPETITION AMONGST CITIES LIKELY TO FOLLOW • IF YOU DO ENGINEER DESIGN IN NAAQS NON- ATTAINMENT AREA LIKELY TO FOLLOW

    25. REITERATE TAKE HOME MESSAGE • 1) COMMERCIAL COOKING EMISSIONS ARE LIKELY TO BE REGULATED AS AIR POLLUTION IN THE FUTURE • 2) CURRENT, HIGHLY EFFECTIVE, BUT COSTLY TECHNOLOGIES EXIST TO CONTROL THESE EMISSIONS • 3) PROPER SIZING, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THIS EQUIPMENT ARE CRITICAL TO ACHIEVE DESIRED RESULT