Transcript Document

Practicability of the standard EN 14181
put into question: results of the
LABORELEC study
LABORELEC
WG Implementatie
EN14181 in
Vlaanderen
April 07
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Outline:
 LABORELEC tests on QAL2:
 Protocol
 Some examples
 Findings summary :
 QAL2
 QAL3
 AST
 Conclusions.
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
QAL2 assessment protocol:
 Two in-situ analysers in conventional Belgian power
plants:
 PROCAL: PULSI 240RL
 SICK GM31 and GM35
 Parameters:
 NO: 0-500 ppm and 0-1000 ppm
 SO2: 0-600 ppm
 CO: 0-200 ppm and 0-1000 ppm
 Continuous recording of the AMSs and SRM outputs
 Hourly averages distributed on three days.
 No peripheral measurements taken into account.
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
PROCAL PULSI (1)
 IR spectroscopy
(IR wavelengths obtained by means of
interference filters and gas filled cells (GCF))
 Auto zero checks.
 Span checks should be possible with test
gas.
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
PROCAL Pulsi (2)
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
SICK GM 31 (1)
 Possible to measure simultaneously SO2, NO
and optionally NO2 or NH3
 UV spectroscopy
 Zero point measurement
 Reference point measurement
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
SICK GM 31 (2)
Sampling
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
SICK GM 35
 IR spectroscopy
 CO
 CO2
 H2O
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Example 1a: cal. funct. obtained during
different recording periods.
Calibration functions for CO (AMS1)
30
25
SRM
20
15
10
5
0
0
LABORELEC
10
AMS
20
30
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Example 1b: cal. funct. obtained during
different recording periods
Calibration functions for CO (AMS2)
170
120
SRM
Calibration functions for CO (AMS2)
70
30
25
20
20
20
-30
70
AMS
120
170
15
SRM
-30
10
5
0
-10
-5
-10
LABORELEC
0
10
20
30
AMS
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Example 2: cal. funct. obtained during
the same recording period
Calibration functions: SO2
350
300
D = 52 ppm
SRM
250
200
y = 0,94x + 36,81
150
y = 0,75x + 89,10
100
50
0
0
LABORELEC
100
AMS 200
300
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Example 3: data selection
CO SICK: hourly averages
700
SRM ppm dry
600
500
400
300
Randomly selected
200
100
0
-100 0
200
400
600
AMS ppm dry
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Example 3: data selection
CO QAL2 SICK: hourly averages
700
SRM ppm dry
600
500
400
Randomly selected
300
Chosen
200
100
0
-100 0
200
400
600
AMS ppm dry
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Example 3: data selection
CO SICK: calibration functions
800
y = 1,38x - 4,24
2
SRM
600
R = 0,99
y = 1,22x - 0,21
400
2
R = 0,99
200
0
0
200
400
600
-200
AMS
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Example 4: 2 methods to calculate the
calibration function
10,00
9,00
8,00
7,00
6,00
5,00
4,00
3,00
2,00
1,00
0,00
-2,00
CO QAL2 AMS2 : calibr ation functions
600,00
500,00
3,00
AMS ppm dry
SRM ppm dry
SRM ppm dry
CO QAL2 AMS2: hourly averages
8,00
400,00
300,00
200,00
100,00
0,00
0,00
50,00
100,00
150,00
200,00
AM S ppm dry
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary:
1/5
 Impossible to vary the pollutant concentration
(as requested in § 6.3).
 Irrelevant calibration function when:
 measurements close to zero
 Measurements not scattered enough
 Markedly different calibration functions
obtained on the same AMS (even during the
same recording period).
 Validation test not always relevant.
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary:
1/5
 Impossible to vary the pollutant concentration
(as requested in § 6.3).
 Irrelevant calibration function when:
 Measurements close to zero
 Measurements not scattered enough
 Markedly different calibration functions
obtained on the same AMS (even during the
same recording period).
 Validation test not always relevant.
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary:
1/5
 Impossible to vary the pollutant concentration
(as requested in § 6.3).
 Irrelevant calibration function when:
 measurements close to zero
 Measurements not scattered enough
 Markedly different calibration functions
obtained on the same AMS (even during the
same recording period).
 Validation test not always relevant.
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary:
1/5
 Impossible to vary the pollutant concentration
(as requested in § 6.3).
 Irrelevant calibration function when:
 measurements close to zero
 Measurements not scattered enough
 Markedly different calibration functions
obtained on the same AMS (even during the
same recording period).
 Validation test not always relevant.
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary:
2/5
 Validated range to narrow.
 Too costly for:
 Plants operating for short durations
 With emissions much lower than the ELV.
 Difficult to pass the variability test with high
plant emission.
 Why does the methodology proposed by the
standard not include the uncertainty on the
SRM measurements?
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary:
2/5
 Validated range to narrow.
 Too costly for:
 Plants operating for short durations
 With emissions much lower than the ELV.
 Difficult to pass the variability test with high
plant emission.
 Why does the methodology proposed by the
standard not include the uncertainty on the
SRM measurements?
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary:
2/5
 Validated range to narrow.
 Too costly for:
 Plants operating for short durations
 With emissions much lower than the ELV.
 Difficult to pass the variability test with high
plant emission.
 Why does the methodology proposed by the
standard not include the uncertainty on the
SRM measurements?
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary:
2/5
 Validated range to narrow.
 Too costly for:
 Plants operating for short durations
 With emissions much lower than the ELV.
 Difficult to pass the variability test with high
plant emission.
 Why does the methodology proposed by the
standard not include the uncertainty on the
SRM measurements?
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary:
3/5
 QAL2 with low emissions?
 Extension of the calibration range based
on linearity functional tests.
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary:
4/5
 QAL1 data not available for existing AMS
 Site data very difficult to obtain use of
default values
 Cusum chart is complicated and no example
of Shewart chart provided
 QAL3 does not make sense with AUTOCAL
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary:
4/5
 QAL1 data not available for existing AMS
 Site data very difficult to obtain use of
default values
 Cusum chart is complicated and no example
of Shewart chart provided
 QAL3 does not make sense with AUTOCAL
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary:
4/5
 QAL1 data not available for existing AMS
 Site data very difficult to obtain use of
default values
 Cusum chart is complicated and no example
of Shewart chart provided
 QAL3 does not make sense with AUTOCAL
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary:
4/5
 QAL1 data not available for existing AMS
 Site data very difficult to obtain use of
default values
 Cusum chart is complicated and no example
of Shewart chart provided
 QAL3 does not make sense with AUTOCAL
 Use of fixed warning limits
 What about auto zero and span checks?
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary:
5/5
 Same findings as for QAL2
 Linearity and cross interference tests already
checked during QAL1
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Findings summary:
5/5
 Same findings as for QAL2
 Linearity and cross interference tests already
checked during QAL1
 Supress linearity and cross interference
tests
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Conclusions
 Be careful
 Some features have to be revised/ clarified:
 QAL2 with low emissions?
 Extension of the calibration range based on linearity
functional tests.
 Use of fixed warning limits
 QAL3 utility
 What about auto zero and span checks?
We ask for a standard revision !
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Current situation:
CEN committee will publish a guidance
note to support the application of the
EN14181.
(mainly based on the Technical guidance Note M20
published by the British Environment agency,
www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business)
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Five reasons for you to choose Laborelec :
 You have one-stop shopping for your energy needs
 You get access to more than 40 years of experience
 You get rapid service with reliable solutions
 You increase the profitability of your installations
 You benefit from independent and confidential advice
LABORELEC
The technical Competence Center
in energy processes and energy use.
From R&D to operational assistance.
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Procal NO and SO2
NO
Calibration function:
Variability:
Upper validity
limit
a
Period 1
Period 2
Period 3
Period x
Period x+1
Period y
Period y+1
b
-17,95
-0,78
48,03
104,71
29,47
40,28
33,64
1,12
1,03
0,89
0,84
1,04
0,95
0,96
mg/Nm³ std
1458
2078
1892
1861
2190
2074
2083
R²
0,98
0,99
0,83
0,52
0,86
0,98
0,99
SO2
Calibration function:
SD
14,3
43,8
34,0
43,7
38,8
34,5
30,3
Variability:
Upper validity
limit
a
Period 1
Period 2
Period 3
Period x
Period x+1
Period y
Period y+1
LABORELEC
b
-0,92
14,68
14,83
121,22
42,50
-6,91
-7,67
0,94
0,92
0,93
0,61
0,89
0,98
0,98
Test 1
Test 2
o*kv = 59,8 o*kv =19,9
OK
OK
OK
NOK
OK
NOK
OK
NOK
OK
NOK
OK
NOK
OK
NOK
mg/Nm³ std
1618
1455
1377
1548
1543
1769
1442
R²
0,93
0,94
0,94
0,40
0,75
0,99
1,00
SD
20,0
17,8
40,7
49,1
55,6
17,7
11,0
Test 1
Test 2
o*kv = 89,6 o*kv = 24,9
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
NOK
OK
NOK
OK
NOK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
Procal CO
CO
Calibration function:
Variability:
Upper validity
limit
a
Period 1
Period 2
Period 3
Period x
Period x+1
Period y
Period y+1
LABORELEC
b
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,68
0,42
0,67
1,03
1,10
1,01
0,98
mg/Nm³ std
6
10
29
22
24
29
22
R²
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
SD
1,8
3,4
4,5
6,0
6,1
6,6
5,6
Test 1
Test 2
o*kv= 20,7 o*kv = 12,4
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
SICK NO and SO2
NO
Calibration function:
Variability:
Upper validity
limit
a
Period 3
Period 4
Period 4+1
Period x
Period x+1
Period y
Period y+1
b
39,50
5,63
0,43
-10,49
-35,39
10,87
13,98
0,87
0,95
0,96
1,06
1,12
0,97
0,96
mg/Nm³ std
1904
2118
2107
1923
2221
2096
2108
R²
0,87
1,00
1,00
0,80
0,93
1,00
1,00
Test 1
Test 2
o*kv = 59,8 o*kv =19,9
OK
NOK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
NOK
OK
NOK
OK
OK
OK
OK
SD
27,4
9,4
15,6
27,8
26,6
14,5
13,1
SO2
Calibration function:
Variability:
Upper validity
limit
a
Period 3
Period 4
Period 4+1
Period x
Period x+1
Period y
Period y+1
LABORELEC
b
14,83
5,53
10,07
89,10
36,81
7,75
12,49
0,93
0,95
0,94
0,75
0,94
0,96
0,95
mg/Nm³ std
1363
1362
1350
1530
1537
1429
1429
R²
0,94
1,00
0,99
0,48
0,81
1,00
1,00
SD
40,7
23,0
24,4
45,5
48,1
8,5
11,6
Test 1
Test 2
o*kv = 89,6 o*kv = 24,9
OK
NOK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
NOK
OK
NOK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
SICK CO
CO random
Calibration function:
Variability:
Upper validity
limit
a
Period 3
Period x
Period x+1
Period y
Period y+1
Period 6
Period 7
Period 8
b
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
-0,21
-0,10
-2,44
2,51
2,71
3,96
3,33
1,22
0,97
0,83
mg/Nm³ std
23
28
51
42
395
605
202
R²
-
na
na
0,99
1,00
0,88
SD
5,7
6,4
14,7
15,4
31,3
56,4
26,4
Test 1
Test 2
o*kv= 20,7 o*kv = 12,4
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
NOK
OK
NOK
NOK
NOK
NOK
NOK
NOK
NOK
CO recalculé
Calibration function:
Variability:
Upper validity
limit
a
Period 3bis
Period ybis
Period y+1
bis
Period 6bis
Period7Ter
LABORELEC
b
8,92
4,63
4,77
0,84
0,93
0,55
-4,24
0,08
1,38
0,94
mg/Nm³ std
29
R²
0,92
0,59
0,74
SD
1,6
3,8
1,8
438
33
0,99
0,95
11,1
4,3
Test 1
Test 2
o*kv= 20,7 o*kv = 12,4
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007
LABORELEC
Results of the Laborelec study– 9 April 2007