April 2014 Sampling of Biofilter Emissions · Envirochem Services field personnel (Edward...

April 2014 Sampling of Biofilter Emissions

at Harvest Power’s Richmond, BC Facility

Prepared for:

Harvest Power

7028 York Road,

Richmond, BC V6W 0B1

Prepared by:

Envirochem Services Inc.

206 – 267 West Esplanade

North Vancouver, BC, V7M1A5

www.envirochem.com

31 July 2014

QUARTERLY BIOFILTER SAMPLING REPORT Page ii

20140731 QUARTERLY ODOUR SAMPLING HARVEST POWER

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1

2.0 EMISSION SOURCES ...................................................................................... 1

3.0 SAMPLING PROGRAM ................................................................................... 3

3.1 Instrumentation Used ............................................................................................. 3

3.1.1 Odour Sampling .......................................................................................... 3

3.1.2 VOC Sampling .............................................................................................. 3

3.2 Sample Collection ................................................................................................... 4

3.2.1 Odour Sampling .......................................................................................... 4

3.2.2 VOC sampling .............................................................................................. 4

4.0 SAMPLING RESULTS – APRIL 2013 ................................................................. 4

4.1 Odour Results .......................................................................................................... 4

4.2 VOC Results ............................................................................................................. 7

QUARTERLY BIOFILTER SAMPLING REPORT Page iii


List of Tables

Table 1: List of Sources Sampled On April 23rd 2014 .................................................................... 3

Table 2: Odour Threshold Values for April 23rd, 2014 .................................................................. 5

Table 3: Hedonic Tone, Intensity and Characterization (EOC and Envirochem) .......................... 6

Table 4: PID Field VOC Results (corrected for dilution) for April 23rd, 2014 ................................ 8

Table 5: Measured biofilter flow & Average VOC compared to permit GVA1054 ...................... 9

Table 6: Energy Garden Biofilter Results ....................................................................................... 9

List of Figures

Figure 1: Harvest Site Plan showing all Emission Sources under permit GVA1054 ..................... 2

List of Appendices

Appendix I: Biofilter Inlet Flow Rates, provided by Harvest Power

Appendix II: Environmental Odour Consulting Odour Panel Report

Appendix III: Maxxam Analytics GC-FID & GC-MS Results for Energy Garden Biofilter Inlet

sample

QUARTERLY BIOFILTER SAMPLING REPORT Page 1


1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the results of odour samples and volatile organic compound (VOC)

measurements taken at Harvest Power’s (Harvest) Richmond Facility on April 23rd 2014.

The report contains:

A site plan with the permitted and sampled emission sources.

A brief description of the sampling program.

Sampling Results

o Odours were analyzed by Dynamic Olfactometry (odour panel) in accordance

with the European Standard EN 13725: “Air Quality-Determination of Odour

Concentration” by Environmental Odour Consulting Ltd (EOC)

o Hedonic tone and characterization by an odour panel at EOC, as well as

Envirochem Services field personnel (Edward Haythornthwaite, Tim Weaver

and Gail Slavik).

o All flow measurements were taken by Harvest using a hot-wire anemometer.

o Scentroid (field olfactometer) analysis by EOC.

o Odour Panel Report by EOC.

o VOCs were measured in the field using a photoionization detector (PID).

o An extra sample was submitted to Maxxam analytics for Method 18 analysis

of methane and total VOC (TVOC)

For more details on the Harvest sampling program, please refer to and the sampling plan

entitled: “Sample Collection Plan, Permit #GVA 1054, Quarterly Biofilter Sampling” prepared for

Metro Vancouver by Harvest and Envirochem in April 2014 and Metro Vancouver Permit

GVA1054.

2.0 EMISSION SOURCES

Metro Vancouver Air Permit GVA1054 lists ten emission sources on site. Quarterly odour and VOC measurements are required by permit at four of these sources, all biofilters. The remaining six emission sources were not measured, as this is not required by the permit. Figure 1 shows all emission sources on site which are covered by Permit, and Table 1 lists the sources which were sampled on April 23rd 2014.



Figure 1: Harvest Site Plan showing all Emission Sources under permit GVA1054



Table 1: List of Sources Sampled On April 23rd 2014

SOURCE

DETAIL

LOCATION

SOURCE ID (PERMIT

GVA1054)

Energy Garden Biofilter Inlet 3

Outlet 3

Southwest Biofilter Inlet Inlet 5

Outlet 5

Northeast Biofilter Inlet 6

Outlet 6

Screening Biofilter Inlet 8

Outlet 8

3.0 SAMPLING PROGRAM

This section summarizes the instrumentation and sample collection methodology used during

the sampling event. For a full description of the instrumentation and sample collection

methodology used during the odour sampling event please refer to “Sample Collection Plan,

Permit #GVA 1054, Quarterly Biofilter Sampling” prepared for Metro Vancouver by Harvest and

Envirochem in April 2014.

3.1 INSTRUMENTATION USED

3.1.1 Odour Sampling

Scentroid DS5 and SM100 sample diluters, 10L TedlarTM bags, TeflonTM tubing (1/4” OD x

1/8’ ID).

3.1.2 VOC Sampling

Sample diluters, bags and tubing as described above.

RAE Systems MiniRAE 3000 Photoionization Detector (PID), with 10.6eV lamp.



3.2 SAMPLE COLLECTION

3.2.1 Odour Sampling

Biofilter outlets were divided into 16 separate equal area sample locations (cells) to allow for a

representative composite sample to be collected, composed of a grab at each of the 16 cells.

Air samples for odour analysis were collected in new, pre-conditioned 10L TedlarTM bags, using

sample diluters (dilution probe) which were set at a recorded dilution factor. Surface samples

were collected using a static soil gas sampling system consisting of a circular 35cm diameter

stainless steel collection hood fitted with temperature and sample probe connections and a

small vent chimney (plugged during sampling). This was moved around the surface of the

biofilter, from cell to cell.

Before sampling, each bag was purged three times with the source discharge air, to ensure the

sampling system (chimney device, diluter, bags and tubing) were all filled with sample, and all

non-sample air was removed. Clean tubing was used at each source to avoid cross

contamination. A single field blank sample was collected, of 100% dilution air.

Collected sample bags were placed in dark bags prior to shipping. After completion of the

sampling event, all samples were shipped by courier overnight to Environmental Odour

Consulting (EOC) in Ontario to be analyzed the following morning by an odour panel.

3.2.2 VOC sampling

VOC measurements were taken from the labelled odour bags at the end of the day. All bags

were sampled for VOC using a PID. Readings were allowed to stabilize for approx. 15 seconds

before being noted. Constant gentle pressure was applied to the bag while open to ensure the

sample was not diluted with ambient air. The PID was spanned before and after testing using

isobutylene.

One extra sample collected at the Energy Garden biofilter inlet. This was composed of two

duplicate 10L bag samples, both diluted at 1:19 (sample air : dilution air). The extra sample was

submitted to Maxxam Analytics for analysis of Methane and total VOC by USEPA Method 18.

4.0 SAMPLING RESULTS – APRIL 2013

4.1 ODOUR RESULTS

The results from Environmental Odour Consulting’s odour panel are presented as Table 2. The

highest average odour concentration (47,397 OU/m3) was detected at the northeast biofilter

inlet, followed by the southwest biofilter inlet (6,893 OU/m3). The odour discharge rates were



calculated by multiplying the odour panel measured concentration by the flow rate provided by

Harvest Power (see Appendix I). Removal efficiencies were calculated based on the average

inlet and outlet concentrations. Hedonic tone, Intensity and Characterization were assessed

from bag samples by EOC. The measurement of intensity was qualitative (not per standard

ASTM E544). Panelists were asked to smell samples without dilution, and a scale was used to

determine intensity. Hedonic tone and characterization were also assessed in-field by

Envirochem while standing on the biofilter outlet. The results are presented in Table 3. Hedonic

tone and odour character were not assessed at biofilter inlets due to potential health and

safety concerns with breathing undiluted process air.

Table 2: Odour Threshold Values for April 23rd, 2014

Source Sample Name

Time Sampled

Flow (m3/s)

Odour Concentration (OU/m3) Odour Discharge

Rate (based on Panel)

(OU/s)

Detection Threshold

(Panel)

Detection Threshold (Scentroid

Mask)

3 Energy Garden Biofilter

3-IN-1 9:20 5.95 1420 220 8,449

3-IN-3 10:00 5.95 840 140 4,998

OUT-3-1 9:20 5.95 610 Not detectable 3,630

OUT-3-2 10:00 5.95 244 Not detectable* 1,452

SOURCE #3 ODOUR REMOVAL EFFICIENCY 62% 98% 62%

5 Southwest

Biofilter

SW-IN-1 10:55 2.77 7808 1,708 21,628

SW-IN-2 11:15 2.77 5978 1,159 16,559

SW-OUT-1 10:55 2.77 560 140 1,551

SW-OUT-2 11:15 2.77 460 100 1,274


6 Northeast Biofilter

NE-IN-1 1:00 3.25 44225 6,649 143,731

NE-IN-2 1:15 3.25 50569 7,991 164,349

NE-OUT-1 1:00 3.25 1620 220 5,265

NE-OUT-2 1:15 3.25 1820 260 5,915


8 Screening Biofilter

Screen-IN-1 3:00 3.9 3233 549 12,609

Screen-IN-2 3:15 3.9 2745 366 10,706

SE-OUT 1 3:00 3.9 340 40 1,326

SE-OUT-2 3:15 3.9 460 80 1,794


Field Blank n/a n/a 12 4 n/a

* Where odour could not be detected using the Scentroid mask, the field blank result has been used to calculate

removal efficiency.



Table 3: Hedonic Tone, Intensity and Characterization (EOC and Envirochem)

Source ID Sample Name

Environmental Odour Consulting Envirochem - Field Notes

Intensity (From Panel)

Hedonic Tone

(-3 to +3 scale)

Character

Hedonic Tone - Range

(average) (-10 to +10

scale)

Descriptors


3-IN-1 3 -3 garbage/ sour - -

3-IN-3 3 -2 garbage/ sour - -

OUT-3-1 1 -1 garbage/ moldy

-5 to -2 (-3.5) Garbage, Wood, Musty, Compost

OUT-3-2 1 0 dust -5 to -2 (-3.5) Garbage, Wood, Musty, Compost

5 Southwest

Biofilter

SW-IN-1 3 -3 garbage/ rotten food

- -

SW-IN-2 3 -3 garbage/ rotten food

- -

SW-OUT-1

2 +1 fresh wood/ compost

-3 to -1 (-2) Musty, Wood, Garbage

SW-OUT-2

2 +1 fresh wood/ compost

-3 to -1 (-2) Musty, Wood, Garbage


NE-IN-1 4 -3 garbage/ sour/ rotten food

- -

NE-IN-2 4 -3 garbage/ sour/ rotten food

- -

NE-OUT-1

3 +2 fresh wood/ sharp

-6 to -2 (-4) Wood, Earthy, Garbage, Oily

NE-OUT-2

3 +2 fresh wood/ sharp

-6 to -2 (-4) Wood, Earthy, Garbage, Oily


Screen-IN-1

3 -3 rotten food/ garbage/ sour

- -

Screen-IN-2

3 -3 rotten food/ garbage/ sour

- -

SE-OUT 1 2 +1 fresh wood -2 to -1 (-1.5) Musty

SE-OUT-2

2 +1 fresh wood/ dust

-2 to -1 (-1.5) Musty

Field Blank 1 +1 fresh wood - -



As shown in Table 3, the biofilters appeared to be successful in modifying the hedonic tone

from rotten food/ garbage/ sour on the inlet to fresh wood, dust (similar to the field blank) on

the outlets.

The full odour panel report provided by EOC is attached as Appendix II.

4.2 VOC RESULTS

The results of field VOC measurements (expressed as methane CH4) and corrected to account

for the dilution factor are summarized in Table 4. Although the PID does not measure CH4,

Permit GVA1054 requires that VOC results be expressed as CH4; thus the PID readings in parts

per million (ppm) were converted to milligrams per cubic metre (mg/m3) as CH4.

VOC discharge rates (mg/min) were calculated by multiplying concentration (mg/m3) by the

flow rate (m3/s) measured by Harvest Power (see Appendix I) and comparing the average inlet

concentration to the average outlet concentration.

Flow rates and emission concentrations were compared to permit maximums in Table 5. All

biofilter flow rates were below permit maximums.

Measured VOC at the energy garden biofilter (EN03) was 24.4 mg/m3 – which is above the

permit value. This concentration resulted in a calculated removal efficiency of -115% (i.e. the

biofilter appeared to be adding VOC). As this elevated outlet VOC concentration this does not

appear to be consistent with the measured odour removal efficiencies (of 62 to 98%) or the

previous set of test results, it is considered suspect and further investigation should be

considered during the next sampling event.

At the northeast biofilter, measured VOC was 8 mg/m3 or slightly above permit maximum of

7.6mg/m3, however, the measured result of 8 is + 2 mg/m3 when the instrument sensitivity and

dilution ration are taken into account.

The VOC discharge rates (mg/min, as CH4) were also calculated and compared to the permitted

discharge rates based on flows and concentrations included in the permit. As can be seen on

Table 5, even though the measured VOC flow from the energy garden biofilter was above the

calculated permitted discharge rate, the total facility emission rate (12,124 mg/min as CH4) was

well within (65% lower than) the sum of the permit maximums (34,747mg/min as CH4).



Table 4: PID Field VOC Results (corrected for dilution) for April 23rd, 2014

Source Sample Name

Time Sampled

Flow (m3/s)

Non Methane (NM) VOC

(ppm)

NMVOC (mg/m3, as CH4, per Permit GVA

1054)

NMVOC Discharge

Rate (mg/s)


3-IN-1 9:20 5.95 16 10.7 64

3-IN-3 10:00 5.95 18 12 71

OUT-3-1 9:20 5.95 36.6 24.4 145

OUT-3-2 10:00 5.95 36.6 24.4 145

SOURCE #3 AVERAGE VOC REMOVAL EFFICIENCY -115%

5 Southwest

Biofilter

SW-IN-1 10:55 2.77 12.2 8.14 23

SW-IN-2 11:15 2.77 <6.1 <4 <11

SW-OUT-1 10:55 2.77 4 2.6 7

SW-OUT-2 11:15 2.77 2 1.3 4

SOURCE #5 AVERAGE VOC REMOVAL EFFICIENCY 61%*


NE-IN-1 1:00 3.25 103.7 69.2 225

NE-IN-2 1:15 3.25 61 40.7 132

NE-OUT-1 1:00 3.25 12 8 26

NE-OUT-2 1:15 3.25 12 8 26

SOURCE #6 AVERAGE VOC REMOVAL EFFICIENCY 85%


Screen-IN-1 3:00 3.9 <6.1 <4 <15.6

Screen-IN-2 3:15 3.9 <6.1 <4 <15.6

SE-OUT 1 3:00 3.9 <2 <1.3 <5.1

SE-OUT-2 3:15 3.9 <2 <1.3 <5.1

SOURCE #8 AVERAGE VOC REMOVAL EFFICIENCY (NOT CALCULATED**)

Field Blank no time n/a <0.1 <4 n/a

All mg/m3 concentrations are correct at 20°C, 1 atmosphere, and expressed as Methane. All Inlet and outlet

detection limits are 6.1ppm and 2 ppm respectively with the exception of source #3, where the outlet detection

limit is 6.1ppm, and the inlet detection limit is 2ppm. This is dependent on the dilution ratio which was used in the

field.

*Removal efficiencies have been calculated as [1-(average outlet concentration/average inlet concentration)]. For

the purposes of calculating efficiencies, where a value was below the detection limit it has been assumed to be

half the detection limit.

**Where both inlet and outlet samples were below detect, the removal efficiency could not be calculated. The

differences in RDL were due entirely to field dilution ratios, so calculating efficiency based on half detection limit

would be misleading. However, a discharge rate which is <DL indicates that biofilter is operating effectively.



Table 5: Measured biofilter flow & Average VOC compared to permit GVA1054

Biofilter Outlet Flow

(m3/min)

Permit Maximum

Flow (m3/min)

Average VOC as

CH4

(mg/m3)

Permit Maximum

VOC as CH4

(mg/m3)

Measured Emission rate as

CH4 (mg/min)

Permit Maximum Emission

rate as CH4 (mg/min)

3 Energy Garden Biofilter 357 1,150 24.4 0.53 8,711 610

5 Southwest Biofilter 166 1,200 2.0 7.6 332 9,120

6 Northeast Biofilter 195 1,200 8.0 7.6 1,560 9,120

8 Screening Biofilter 234 552 <1.3* 28.8 1,521 15,898

TOTAL - - - - 12,124 34,747

*For the purposes of calculating emission rates, where a value was below the detection limit it has been assumed

to be half the detection limit.

The results of the lab gas chromatography and flame ionization detection (GC-FID) analysis for

the energy garden inlet sample are presented in Table 6 with the full analytical report provided

by Maxxam Analytics in Appendix III.

An additional lab analysis was performed, in which the sample from the bag was transferred to

thermal desorption tube (TDT), and analyzed for total VOC (C3-C16) by gas chromatography and

mass spectrometry (GC-MS). This measurement excluded C2 compounds (such as ethane), and

is also included in Table 6. Although this result is not suitable for direct comparison with the PID

results (expressed as CH4), both results are within the same order of magnitude. This

relationship, and the fact that the PID passes a zero and span check, suggests that PID results

can be relied upon.

Table 6: Energy Garden Biofilter Results

Analytical Method Detection

Limit CH4

mg/m3 VOC

mg/m3

Bag GC-FID (Lab) 26.7 325.4 ND Maxxam “Landfill gas analysis”, GC-FID from direct gas

injection

Bag TDT GC-MS (Lab) 1.2 - 5.6 BC Env Lab Manual, GC-MS from lab-prepared TD tube

(C3 – C10 expressed as toluene equivalent), C10 – C16 (as dodecane equivalent)

PID (Field) 1.3 - 11.3

All results adjusted for dilution (1 part sample with 19 parts dilution air), corrected to 20°C, 1 atmosphere,

expressed as Methane, except GC-MS results (see comment).

April 2014 Sampling of Biofilter Emissions Harvest Power Inc., Richmond BC

APPENDIX I

BIOFILTER FLOW RATES

Velocities in the Biofilter inlets

Apr. 23

Energy Garden Biofilter 60,000fpm

Vertical readings 7.45 7.5 7.3 7.15 7.45 7.5

Horizontal readings 7.2 7.1 7.3 7.45 7.35 7.15

Average speed 7.325

NE Biofilter 1200rpm



Average speed 4.008333

SW Biofilter 1300rpm



Average speed 3.4125

Screener Biofilter Full speed



Average speed 4.8


APPENDIX II

EOC ODOUR PANEL REPORT

Report

Odour Evaluation of Seventeen Air Samples Report to: Harvest Power Mr. Scott Kerr Manager, R&D and Compliance 7028 York Road Richmond, BC V6W0B1 Tel: (604) 341 4157 E-mail: [email protected]

Prepared by: Environmental Odour Consulting Anna H. Bokowa, M.Sc. Principal Tel: (647) 988 5814 [email protected]

Date of Report: April 30, 2014 11 pages

mailto:[email protected]

Table of Contents Page 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 2

2. TEST METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Odour Evaluation for Odour Detection Threshold Values .............................................................. 3 2.2 Direct Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 4

3. RESULTS........................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 1 Odour Detection Threshold Values (ODTV)……………………………………………………………….5 Table 2 Direct Evaluation Results .............................................................................................. 6

1. INTRODUCTION

Harvest Power (Harvest) asked Environmental Odour Consulting (EOC) to evaluate seventeen (17) air samples collected by Envirochem Services Inc.

All samples were shipped via Air Canada Cargo on April 23, 2014. Samples were placed into dark colored garbage bag and then packed into two cardboard boxes and one plastic container. On April 24, 2014 EOC retrieved the samples from the Air Canada Cargo terminal in Mississauga, Ontario for same day evaluations. In order to demonstrate that the samples were not cross contaminated during the shipment, EOC prepared two blanks from the shipping containers: one from the actual cardboard box and the second from the plastic container. An air sample from each type of container was withdrawn and analyzed the same way as actual samples. All evaluations for odour detection threshold value (ODTV) were performed according to the European standard EN13725: 2003 and Ontario Ministry of the Environment Method ON-6 using dynamic olfactometry with screened panelists. In addition, all samples were evaluated for intensity, hedonic tone and character of the odour. Also, the same samples were evaluated for ODTV using a Scentroid SM 100 Field Olfactometer. The evaluations using the Scentroid were performed twice: with an attached regular port and a mask.

2. TEST METHODOLOGY

2.1 Odour Evaluation for Odour Detection Threshold Values

The odour samples were evaluated within thirty hours after collection by the dynamic dilution olfactometer at the EOC laboratory, based on European Standard EN 13725:2003 and Ontario Ministry of the Environment Method ON-6 “Determination of Odour Emission from Stationary Sources.”

The binary choice mode was chosen for odour evaluations.

The panelists’ responses were recorded by computer software and were processed to determine the odour detection threshold value (ODTV) for each sample. The ODTV is a dilution factor and therefore has no units. For convenience however, the ODTV may be expressed in odour units (ou). A screened odour panel was used for all evaluations. They were tested for odour sensitivity and are considered to be within the normal range according to the European Standard EN 13725:2003. Each sample was evaluated once according to the Ontario Ministry of Environment Method ON-6.

In addition, the same samples were evaluated by one panelist for ODTV using a Scentroid SM100 Field Olfactometer. Different plates were used for this purpose; Plate A. Plate H, and Plate 3 which covered different ranges for ODTV evaluation.

2.2 Direct Evaluation

All samples were also evaluated for intensity, hedonic tone and character of the odour. For intensity, each panelist was asked to smell a bag directly without any dilution and use an intensity scale to determine the intensity of the detected odour.

The following scale was used.

0 ...........................no odour

1 ...........................slight odour

2 ...........................moderate odour

3 ...........................strong odour

4 ...........................extreme odour

For hedonic tone, each panelist was asked to smell a bag directly without any dilution and use a hedonic tone scale in order to determine if the detected odour is pleasant or unpleasant.

The following scale was used:

-3 ..........................very unpleasant

-2 ..........................unpleasant

-1 ..........................slightly unpleasant

0 ...........................neutral

+1..........................slightly pleasant

+2..........................pleasant

+3..........................very pleasant

An average for all panelist responses was used for calculating the hedonic tone of each sample. The panelists were also asked to use their own words to describe the character of the detected odour. The most common descriptor used by the panelists was used as the overall character descriptor for a sample.

3. RESULTS Table 1 presents the results for odour detection threshold values obtained by evaluation of the samples using dynamic olfactometry as well as the ODTV from 1 panelist when the Scentroid SM100 was used.

EOCSampleNo Client EOC Date/Time Dilution RawODTV NetODTV NetandRaw(x)ODTV NetandRaw(x)ODTV

Sample Sample Recorded ou ou ou ou

Identification Identification bytheClient EOCPanel EOCPanel Scentroid Scentroid port mask

LaboratoryBlank-cardboardbox NA B24041412 NA 1 8 8 NA NA

Blank-plasticcontainer NA B24041413 NA 1 6 6 NA NA

Sample1 FieldBlank B24041414 notime 1 12 12 6* 4*

Sample2 SE-OUT1 B24041415 3:00-3:11 20 17 340 100(5)* 40(2)*

Sample3 SE-OUT-2 B24041416 3:15-3:21 20 23 460 140(7)* 80(4)*

Sample4 OUT-3-1 B24041417 9:20-9:57 61 10 610 244(4)* <DL*

Sample5 OUT-3-2 B24041418 10:00-10:14 61 4 244 <DL* <DL*

Sample6 SW-OUT-1 B24041419 10:55-11:05 20 28 560 260(13)* 140(7)*

Sample7 SW-OUT-2 B24041420 11:14-11:31 20 23 460 220(11)* 100(5)*

Sample8 NE-OUT-1 B24041421 1:00-1:10 20 81 1620 480(24)* 220(11)*

Sample9 NE-OUT-2 B24041422 1:15-1:23 20 91 1820 560(28)* 260(13)*

Sample10 SW-IN-1 B24041423 notime 61 128 7808 3660(60)* 1708(28)*Sample11 SW-IN-2 B24041424 notime 61 98 5978 1708(28)* 1159(19)*

Sample12 3-IN-1 B24041425 notime 20 71 1420 480(24)** 220(11)**

Sample13 3-IN-3 B24041426 notime 20 42 840 260(13)** 140(7)**

Sample14 NE-IN-1 B24041427 notime 61 725 44225 13359(219)*** 6649(109)***Sample15 NE-IN-2 B24041428 notime 61 829 50569 13359(219)*** 7991(131)***

Sample16 Screen-IN-1 B24041422 notime 61 53 3233 793(13)** 549(9)**

Sample17 Screen-IN-2 B24041422 notime 61 45 2745 549(9)** 366(6)**

*-basedonreadingsfromPlateA**-basedonreadingsfromPlateH

***-basedonreadingsfromPlate3

NA-notanalyzed

Table1

OdourDetectionThresholdValues

Table 2 shows the results for direct evaluation of each sample. Table 2 Direct Evaluation Results

EOCIdentification ClientSample Intensity* Hedonic

Number Identification Tone* Character

Number

Blank-cardboardbox N/A 1 0 cardboard

Blank-plasticcontainer N/A 1 0 plastic

Sample1 FieldBlank 1 +1 freshwood

Sample2 SE-OUT1 2 +1 freshwood

Sample3 SE-OUT-2 2 +1 freshwood/dust

Sample4 OUT-3-1 1 -1 garbage/moldy

Sample5 OUT-3-2 1 0 dust

Sample6 SW-OUT-1 2 +1 freshwood/compost

Sample7 SW-OUT-2 2 +1 freshwood/compost

Sample8 NE-OUT-1 3 +2 freshwood/sharp

Sample9 NE-OUT-2 3 +2 freshwood/sharp

Sample10 SW-IN-1 3 -3 garbage/rottenfood

Sample11 SW-IN-2 3 -3 garbage/rottenfood

Sample12 3-IN-1 3 -3 garbage/sour

Sample13 3-IN-3 3 -2 garbage/sour

Sample14 NE-IN-1 4 -3 garbage/sour/rotten

Sample15 NE-IN-2 4 -3 garbage/sour/rotten

Sample16 Screen-IN-1 3 -3 rottenfood/garbage/sour

Sample17 Screen-IN-2 3 -3 rottenfood/garbage/sour

*-Averagefrom8Panelists

HedonicToneScale: IntensityScale:

-3VeryUnpleasant 0Neutral 0-Noodour

-2Unpleasant +1SlightlyPleasant 1-Slight

-1SlightlyUnpleasant +2Pleasant 2-Moderate

+3VeryPleasant 3-Strong

4-Extreme

Anna H. Bokowa, M.Sc Principal, Environmental Odour Consulting

7


APPENDIX III

ENERGY GARDEN BIOFILTER

MAXXAM REPORT

Your Project #: 13067 Site Location: RICHMOND, BC Your C.O.C. #: 08392630

Attention: Ed HaythornthwaiteEnvirochem Services Inc.#206 - 267 Esplanade WestNorth Vancouver, BCCanada V7M 1A5

Report Date: 2014/05/01Report #: R1561328

Version: 1

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

MAXXAM JOB #: B432038Received: 2014/04/23, 17:20

Sample Matrix: Air# Samples Received: 1

Date DateAnalyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method Analytical MethodOrganic Gases- ppm Landfill Gas Analysis 1 N/A 2014/04/24 . Petroleum Hydrocarbon Analysis TD Tube 1 N/A 2014/05/01 BBY5SOP-00031 BC Env Lab Manual

* Results relate only to the items tested.

Encryption Key

Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.

Stefanie Teo, Project ManagerEmail: [email protected]# (604) 734 7276

====================================================================This report has been generated and distributed using a secure automated process.Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Total cover pages: 1

Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Burnaby: 4606 Canada Way V5G 1K5 Telephone(604) 734-7276 Fax(604) 731-2386

Page 1 of 6

Envirochem Services Inc.Maxxam Job #: B432038 Client Project #: 13067Report Date: 2014/05/01 Site Location: RICHMOND, BC

Sampler Initials: EHORGANIC VAPOURS (AIR)

Maxxam ID JL2692Sampling Date 2014/04/23

UNITS BIOFILTER 3 - INLET RDL QC BatchHydrocarbonsMethane ppm 24.4 2.0 7462869Total Volatile Organic Compounds ug 2.50 0.50 7471364

RDL = Reportable Detection Limit

Page 2 of 6


Sampler Initials: EH

General Comments

Sample JL2692-01: Based on a 9L sample TVOC is 277.7 ug/m3

Page 3 of 6


Sampler Initials: EHQUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT

Method BlankQC Batch Parameter Date Value UNITS7471364 Total Volatile Organic Compounds 2014/05/01 <0.50 ug

N/A = Not ApplicableMethod Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination.

Page 4 of 6

Validation Signature Page

Maxxam Job #: B432038

The analytical data and all QC contained in this report were reviewed and validated by the following individual(s).

Rob Reinert, Data Validation Coordinator

====================================================================Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 ofISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6

Date post:	16-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

April 2014 Sampling of Biofilter Emissions · Envirochem Services field personnel (Edward...

Documents