MEE 6501, Advanced Air Quality Control 1 Course Le.docx

MEE 6501, Advanced Air Quality Control 1
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit II
Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:
4. Examine causes of indoor and outdoor air pollution.
4.1 Describe the environmental, health, and safety (EHS)
implications of a spray booth work
system.
4.2 Develop a box and line process flow diagram (PFD) drawing
of a selected scenario.
4.3 Discuss the natural and anthropogenic variables causally
related to outdoor air pollution.
Course/Unit
Learning Outcomes
Learning Activity
4.1
Unit Lesson
Chapter 4, pp. 101-150
Unit II Mini Project
4.2

Unit Lesson
4.3
Unit Lesson
Reading Assignment
Chapter 4: Atmospheric Effects, pp. 101–150
Unit Lesson
Many times, the public has a propensity to focus on air
pollution derived from anthropogenic activities such as
manufacturing, construction, mining, transportation, industrial
processes (e.g., oil and gas production and
refining) or even agricultural practices. However, as
environmental engineers, we must pause and closely
consider both anthropogenic and natural variables that seem to
be correlated to air quality.
Phalen and Phalen (2013) list several major global natural
resources that are also considered to be significant
emitters of air pollutants (e.g., particles, sulfur, oxides of
nitrogen as NOx, and carbon monoxide as CO), to
include the following: dust and soil, fires and natural oxidation,
lightning, volcanic eruptions, sea spray, and
even biological actions.
What Godish, Davis, and Fu (2014) aptly demonstrate

throughout this unit is that most of what must be
closely monitored and considered during air quality engineering
activities are actually natural precursors of
formed pollutants (such as SO2 being a natural precursor to
H2SO4 as sulfuric acid) and aerosol particles
(both natural or anthropogenic). As such, much of the
information in this unit will be within the context of
particle science.
Aerosols
The study of particle science, as it relates to total air quality
(visibility, breathability, agronomic impacts, and
global temperatures), is quite literally a combination of applied
chemistry and physics (Phalen & Phalen,
2013). Consequently, our understanding of aerosols as airborne
particles is imperative in order to adequately
understand the independent variables causally related to outdoor
air quality. This importance is only
enhanced when we further consider anthropogenic processes
(such as our course project related to an
UNIT II STUDY GUIDE
Engineering for Outdoor Air Quality
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title

industrial painting operation) that necessarily have the potential
to discharge additional aerosol particles into
our air environment.
An aerosol could be defined as a particulate material that is
suspended in a gas, and thereby dispersed in air (Godish et al.,
2014; Phalen & Phalen, 2013). This particulate material
(liquids,
solids, or a combination of these two matrices) is condensed and
is consequently able to stay suspended in the gas matrix. This
provides for a mobile particulate that is able to migrate into any
areas that an unfiltered ambient gas may travel and inhabit. As
such, we may readily recognize these aerosols by different
names
in the study of air quality engineering, to include aerocolloids,
ash,
fumes, fogs, hazes, lapilli, mists, smogs, smokes, ultrafines, and
many other depictions of suspended particulate matter
outcomes.
They all refer to what we consider to be aerodisperse systems
(Phalen & Phalen, 2013).
From a simple physics perspective, we can speciate the
differences in aerosol particles by size, shape, density, and even
specific conductance. This ability to speciate is interestingly the
name (SPECIATE) of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s
(U.S. EPA) repository of volatile organic gas and particulate
matter (PM) speciation profiles of air pollution sources (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 2017). By
understanding the physical characteristics among particle types
within aerosols, we can then study the behavioral potential of
aerosol types that include particle aerodynamic
equivalent diameters, surface area, particle diffusion, electrical

charge distributions, and particle motion in the
air (Godish et al., 2014; Phalen & Phalen, 2013).
These additional evaluations of aerosol particles afford us the
opportunity to statistically predict (model) air
pollution and pollution plume movement within our
environment, even while informing our engineering
strategies for coagulating, precipitating, and filtering particles
from the air (Godish et al., 2014; Phalen &
Phalen, 2013). Consequently, Godish et al. (2014) are careful to
demonstrate this with their discussion of
mercury (Hg) deposition as they discuss the element’s unique
chemistry that affects its movement between
the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface.
Control Systems
As such, a combination of physical and chemical strategies may
be employed as we engineer control systems
to mitigate outdoor air pollution, regardless of the source
(anthropogenic or natural). For example, given that
elemental Hg is environmentally mobile and readily floats or
suspends in water, we might reasonably
anticipate being able to simply filter out elemental Hg from a
drinking water source (Godish et al., 2014; Hill &
Feigl, 1987). However, given that methylmercury (CH3Hg)
tends to remain dissolved in water (Godish et al.,
2014), we could reasonably expect CH3Hg to be unable to
successfully filter out CH3Hg, and consequently we
would need to consider alternative chemical approaches. As a
direct application of this idea, it has been
demonstrated that one effective means of removing CH3Hg
from water is to chemically coagulate the CH3Hg
particle, then physically filter the total dissolved organic
material (DOM) for effective pollutant removal
(Henneberry et al., 2011).

This approach of employing both physical and chemical
processes in tandem as engineering controls for air
quality is the strategic approach that is stressed throughout the
textbook. As a reminder, the more we can
engineer the hazard out of the work system, the higher our
success rate will be for controlling the work
system and subsequently lowering the risks to humans and the
environment (Manuele, 2014). Let’s look at
another practical application of this combined approach as we
consider our course project work for this unit.
In our course project, we are provided with a scenario where
you are an air quality engineering consultant
tasked with conducting a preliminary permitting (“Permit by
Rule” or PBR) evaluation of a painting operation’s
facility for a given state’s air permit limits. You may choose
from one of three scenario options of an aircraft
manufacturing exterior coating paint booth, a rail tank car
interior lining process, or a vehicle exterior coating
Aerocolloids
Smogs, Smokes
Fumes, Fogs
Ash
Hazes, Mists
Lapilli
Ultrafines
Figure 1. Common aerodisperse system terms

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
paint booth. This becomes important when we consider states
with high-concentration air quality cities. For
example, we understand that air quality in Houston, Texas, has
apparently become worse over time, even
with stringent air quality control standards having been in place
for over 30 years (Godish et al., 2014). As an
air quality engineer, you would first obtain a copy of the
affected state’s air emissions permitting guidance
document in order to understand the permitting requirements
and the steps necessary to calculate forecasted
air emissions of gases, aerosols, and particulate matter.
Within the affected state’s guidance document, we would
quickly review the standards to find the typical
emission limits of 25 tons per year of the following: (a) volatile
organic compounds (VOC), (b) sulfur dioxide
(SO2), (c) inhalable particulate matter (by size) or PM10, and
(d) any other air contaminants. Further, we would
typically find that there is a 250 ton per year limit for CO and
NOx. Finally, we would find that the affected
state will typically pose specific limits for VOC emissions per
year, per (paint) facility, as well as solvents and
exempt solvents used in the operation.

Understandably, this may cause us some initial alarm at how to
address and measure all of these quantitative
emission limits. Consequently, we now must first gather
information from our business records, paint vendor,
and Material Safety Data Sheet (now the more current Globally
Harmonized System/Safety Data Sheet or
SDS) as a starting point. Considering the chemical compounds
present in every single product to be used in
the operations is precisely where we must begin. Further, we
will need information related to the paint
facility’s ventilation system, coating cure heaters, and even the
facility’s operational schedule anticipated for
the work system.
For our scenario, the client has provided us with all of the SDS
documents, heater technical data sheets,
ventilation system technical data sheets, paint facility drawings,
and a clear idea of the anticipated hours of
operation for the facility. This information is tabulated for you
in the scenario. However, here is how we would
have researched, documented, and tabulated that same
information from the documents provided by the
client. Let’s go through these critical steps together.
First, you would do what every safety and environmental
engineer must do. In order to fully understand a given work
system, develop a process flow diagram (PFD) of the work
system. This affords us the opportunity to clearly identify
all required materials, equipment, and direction of flow of
those materials through the equipment. When we can
effectively draw an accurate PFD of the work system, we
can then more easily anticipate transitional points of
materials exchanges (e.g., solids to liquids, or liquids to
gases and aerosols), contact and emission points, and
ultimate disposition outcomes of emissions (such as

through filters and baghouses, liquid scrubbers, flares,
straight to atmosphere through emission stacks, and so
on).
Second, you would look at the SDS information found in
section 3.0 (Composition/Information on Ingredients) of every
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) compliant SDS document. You would notice that
tabulated within this section are the ingredients,
each ingredient’s Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number, and
each ingredient’s percent by weight within
the product. You would need to note every ingredient that
qualifies as a VOC and its percent by weight.
Additionally, you would need to make a note of the pounds of
VOC reported on the SDS for the entire
product. This would include both the coating (paint) and any
thinner or solvent.
Third, you would notice the vapor pressure, vapor density,
molecular weight, British thermal unit (Btu) values,
and other physical characteristics relevant to the air permit
calculations in section 9.0 (Physical and Chemical
Properties). You would make a note of these values for every
product. Understanding the physical
characteristics is arguably as important as understanding the
chemical characteristics when conducting air
emissions permitting.
Fourth, you would make note of any Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HAPs) identified in section 15.0 (Regulatory
Information) in the document. This information will be
imperative in being able to properly calculate our total
Sample process flow diagram from oil and gas industry
(Ragsac19, 2017)

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
VOC emissions in our Unit III work. A clear quantification of
VOC emissions is often the most fundamental
step for most air emissions permitting processes.
Finally, after you reviewed the SDS for every paint and thinner,
you would then look to the technical data
sheets for the heaters and ventilation system, as well as the
paint operation facility drawings. You would note
the relevant variables necessary to complete the VOC
calculations, ventilation calculations, and forecasted
emissions calculations. The subsequent calculated values (that
we will learn to work through in Units III-VII)
will ultimately be compared directly against the affected state’s
emission limit values. This direct comparison
will inform us as to whether or not the painting operation will
be within the PBR emission limit requirements, or
if a full-blown U.S. EPA Title V Air Permit will be required
prior to the company even breaking ground on the
construction of the new facility.
Reflect on the information we have discussed related to
aerosols, particle science, and atmospheric
conditions within this unit lesson, and mentally tie together the
concepts of engineering air quality through

environmental controls for optimal outdoor air quality. Your
clear understanding of these concepts, coupled
with the Unit I concepts, will inform your learning throughout
the rest of this course. Let’s get ready to identify
our empirical data so that we can begin to quantify our risks.
This is what environmental and safety
engineering is all about!
References
Godish, T., Davis, W. T., & Fu, J. S. (2014). Air quality (5th
ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Henneberry, Y., Kraus, T., Fleck, J. Krabbenhoft, D. Bachand,
P., & Horwath, W. (2011). Removal of
inorganic mercury and methylmercury from surface waters
following coagulation of dissolved organic
matter with metal-based salts. The Science of the Total
Environment, 409(3), 631–637.
Hill, J., & Feigl, D. (1987). Chemistry and life: An introduction
to general, organic, and biological life (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Macmillian.
Manuele, F. A. (2014). Advanced safety management: Focusing
on Z10 and serious injury prevention.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Phalen, R. F., & Phalen, R. N. (2013). Introduction to air

pollution science: A public health perspective.
Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Ragsac19. (2017). Process flow diagram, (ID 92756440)
[Photograph]. Retrieved from
https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-process-flow-
diagram-concept-many-uses-oil-gas-industry-
image92756440
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). Air emissions
modeling: SPECIATE Version 4.5 through 4.0.
Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-
modeling/speciate-version-45-through-40
Suggested Reading
In order to access the following resource, click the link below.
The following article provides an interesting consideration of
the potential impact of anthropogenic carbon
dioxide (CO2) on total atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This
becomes an extremely important discussion
point in greenhouse gas emission studies related to affected
industries and municipalities, even as air quality
engineers continue to gain a better understanding of
anthropogenic versus natural greenhouse gas source
implications for our planet Earth.
MacDougall, A. H., Eby, M., & Weaver, A .J. (2013). If
anthropogenic CO2 emissions cease, will atmospheric

CO2 concentration continue to increase? Journal of Climate,
26(23), 9563–9576. Retrieved from
https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://s
earch.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc
t=true&db=a9h&AN=92016220&site=eds-live&scope=site
earch.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9201
6220&site=eds-live&scope=site
earch.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9201
6220&site=eds-live&scope=site
Over the course of the next six units, you will be developing a
course project. You will complete a single section of the course
project in every unit by completing one section of the course
project, and then you will add to it with the subsequent work in
the following unit. This unit work will be in the form of unit
mini projects.
Our course project will be to develop a document titled “A
Permit by Rule (PBR) Evaluation for a Painting Operation” and
will serve as a simulation of our work as a contract
environmental engineer to an industrial organization planning a
painting operation within the United States.
The Scenario:
You have contracted with an industrial organization to engineer
and write a state air Permit by Rule (PBR) evaluation for a
painting operation facility. According to the local state laws and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) laws, the facility
must have an air permit before construction begins. Once the
facility is completed, the construction air permit will then
become the operational air permit for the facility.
As a result, your client wants the air permit to automatically
align the painting operation facility into operational compliance
with state and federal air quality laws. Consequently, it is

extremely important for you to evaluate the planned painting
operation against the PBR requirements in order to meet the air
permit criteria, using the state guidance document and
considering the equipment and chemicals already planned for
the facility operations.
You have tabulated the following information from what you
have gleaned from the material SDS documents and equipment
technical data sheets plan (depending on your scenario
selection, each “unit” represents a single aircraft, rail tank car,
or vehicle):
Interior Liner Coating Material
10 gallons coating/unit
2 gallons of solvent/unit
Unit Lining Application
Apply interior liners to two (2) units/day
Work five (5) hours/day and four (4) days/week
Unit Lining Curing
Cure interior liners of two (2) units/day
Interior Liner Cure
Heater fuel source is natural gas-fired drying oven
Heater generates 2.1 million (MM) Btu/hr at maximum 2,500
hrs/year
Unit Lining Design
Cross-draft air plenum
Unit interior is the spray area
Exhaust Fan
10,000 ft3/min (CFM)
1 exhaust fan
Air Makeup Unit
5760 ft3/min (CFM)
1 air makeup system
Filter Openings
20.0 ft2 each
Two (2) filter openings
Coating WV

VOC content
2.8 lb/gal coating
Coating VM
Coating volume
1.0 gal
Water Content
Per gal/coating
1.0 lb/gal
Water Density
Per gal/water
8.34 lb/gal
Coating VW
Water volume
Calculation
Exempt-solvent Content
Per gal/coating
0.5 lb/gal
Exempt-solvent Density
Per gal/exempt solvent
6.64 lb/gal
Coating Ves
Exempt solvent volume
Calculation
Additionally, your state’s department of environmental quality
(DEQ) has provided you the following PBR limits:
Potential to Emit (PTE)
100 tons VOC/year
Face Velocity
100 ft/min
Filter Velocity
250 ft/min
VOC/5-hour period
6.0 lbs/hr
Short-term Emissions
1.0 lbs/hr
Long-term Emissions

1.0 tons/yr
From your first visit with your client, these are your notes and
process flow sketch reflecting the intended operational design:
· The client has designed an interior coating spray painting
system that allows the interior of each unit to be coated.
· The operations will involve a stripped-down unit being
brought into the facility’s shop.
· The shop is a steel building with a finished concrete floor and
a paint booth for each unit.
· The unit will be placed in the spray booth.
· The booth will be opened at one end of the booth for makeup
air.
· The exhaust air will flow through an exhaust chamber at the
other end of the unit.
· For each unit, once the liner application operations are
completed, the forced curing (drying) operations will
immediately commence.
Instructions:
1. Closely read the required reading assignment from the
textbook and the unit lesson within the study guide, and
consider reading the suggested reading.
2. Select the PBR evaluation document to be for only one of the
following: (a) an aircraft manufacturing exterior coating paint
booth, (b) a rail tank car interior lining process, or (c) a vehicle
exterior coating paint booth. You will continue with this
scenario selection for the remaining six units, to complete the
entire document.
3. Using APA style (title page, abstract page, body with level 1
headings, and a reference page) for a research paper, begin
drafting a PBR evaluation document. You will add to this
document in every subsequent unit with another prescribed level
1 heading, building out the entire document one section at a
time.
4. Make your Unit II work the first level 1 heading (center,
bold) titled “General Considerations for Operation,” and

describe the scenario that is presented above, while specifically
describing the scenario that you selected (aircraft, tank car, or
vehicle). While describing your scenario, you must include the
environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of the
work system while pulling from the textbook as well as any
other relevant sources that are presented in the unit lesson in
the study guide. In your description of the EHS implications of
the system, be sure to discuss the natural and anthropomorphic
variables causally related to outdoor air pollution. You are
required to describe the scenario in at least 200 words
(minimum). You may find it convenient to summarize the
tabulated information in your General Considerations section of
the permit for future reference throughout the rest of the course,
but do not attempt to tabulate the information in the exact order
as what is presented here (to avoid a high match in SafeAssign).
5. Also under the first level 1 heading, present a box and line
process flow diagram (PFD) drawing of the selected scenario.
See the drawing on page 375 of the textbook as an additional
example of a PFD if you need assistance understanding how to
draw one; do not draw the same system that is provided on that
page. Do not hand-draw this, but use the “insert” and “shapes”
features within Microsoft Word to construct the PFD. Simple
labeled boxes and lines are adequate for this preliminary work,
so it is not necessary to present specific shapes in your PFD for
your selected scenario.
6. In your abstract section (page 2 of the document), write one
or two sentences that reflect your work for this unit. We will be
adding one sentence per unit to reflect our work as we go, with
the final abstract length being about 8 to 10 sentences long.
In following units (Units III through VII), the unit lessons will
contain information related to the interior surface coating
operation by means of practical mathematical calculation
examples. Consequently, it is imperative that you read the unit
lessons within the study guide in every unit, use the math
calculation examples provided in each unit lesson, and consider
the current (as well as previous) material from the textbook and

the additional information cited and referenced in the study
guide for every unit. This project will serve as a comprehensive
demonstration of your applied learning of engineering air
quality.
Your completed mini project should be a minimum of one page,
not counting the title page, abstract page, and reference page.
You are required to use at least one outside source, which may
be your textbook. All sources used, including the textbook,
must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have
accompanying APA citations.
Open Quick LinksQuick Links
Page Landmarks
Content Outline
Keyboard Shortcuts Logout
Global Menu
Michael AdamsActivity Updates Home Help
Top Frame TabsHome
Tab 1 of 3 (active tab)
Notifications
Tab 2 of 3
My Community
Tab 3 of 3
Current Location
MEE 6501-18H-5B20-S1, Advanced Air Quality
Control
Unit II

Menu Management Options
Course Menu:
MEE 6501-18H-5B20-S1, Advanced Air Quality Control
COURSE INFORMATIONStart
HereAnnouncementsSyllabus/ScheduleUnit IUnit
IICommunication ForumsGradesRESOURCESMy LibraryMath
and Writing CenterStudent ResourcesTools
Unit II
Content
Unit II Intro – Atmospheric Effects
Unit 2 goes into a deeper discussion on the topic of atmospheric
effects. The conditions that impact visibility comparing factors
that produce hazy conditions and pristine air. The topic of
stratospheric ozone depletion is presented along with the topic
of global warming. Today this might be better described as a
component of climate change. The unit has a discussion board
and a mini project for the assessment.
Unit II Study Guide
Click the link above to open the unit study guide, which
contains this unit's lesson and reading assignment(s). This
information is necessary in order to complete this course.

Unit II Discussion BoardUnit II Discussion Board OpenWeight:
2% of course gradeGrading RubricResponse Due: Saturday,
04/04/2020 11:59 PM (CST)Comment Due: Tuesday,
04/07/2020 11:59 PM (CST)
Go to Unit II Discussion Board »
Unit II Mini ProjectUnit II Mini Project OpenWeight: 10% of
course gradeGrading RubricDue: Tuesday, 04/07/2020 11:59
PM (CST)Instructions
Over the course of the next six units, you will be developing a
course
project. You will complete a single section of the course
project in every
unit by completing one section of the course project, and
then you will add
to it with the subsequent work in the following unit. This
unit work will
be in the form of unit mini projects.
Our course project will be to develop a document titled “A
Permit by Rule
(PBR) Evaluation for a Painting Operation” and will serve as a
simulation of
our work as a contract environmental engineer to an industrial
organization
planning a painting operation within the United States.
The Scenario:
You have contracted with an industrial organization to engineer
and write
a state air Permit by Rule (PBR) evaluation for a painting
operation facility.
According to the local state laws and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
(EPA) laws, the facility must have an air permit before
construction begins.

Once the facility is completed, the construction air permit
will then become
the operational air permit for the facility.
As a result, your client wants the air permit to automatically
align the
painting operation facility into operational compliance with
state and federal
air quality laws. Consequently, it is extremely important for
you to evaluate
the planned painting operation against the PBR requirements in
order to meet
the air permit criteria, using the state guidance document and
considering the
equipment and chemicals already planned for the facility
operations.
You have tabulated the following information from what you
have gleaned
from the material SDS documents and equipment technical data
sheets plan
(depending on your scenario selection, each “unit” represents a
single
aircraft, rail tank car, or vehicle):
Interior Liner Coating Material
10 gallons coating/unit
2 gallons of solvent/unit
Unit Lining Application
Apply interior liners to two (2) units/day
Unit Lining Curing
Cure interior liners of two (2) units/day
Interior Liner Cure
Heater fuel source is natural gas-fired drying oven
Heater generates 2.1 million (MM) Btu/hr at maximum 2,500
hrs/year
Unit Lining Design

Cross-draft air plenum
Unit interior is the spray area
Exhaust Fan
10,000 ft3/min (CFM)
1 exhaust fan
Air Makeup Unit
5760 ft3/min (CFM)
1 air makeup system
Filter Openings
20.0 ft2 each
Two (2) filter openings
Coating WV
VOC content
2.8 lb/gal coating
Coating VM
Coating volume
1.0 gal
Water Content
Per gal/coating
1.0 lb/gal
Water Density
Per gal/water
8.34 lb/gal
Coating VW
Water volume
Calculation
Exempt-solvent Content
Per gal/coating
0.5 lb/gal
Exempt-solvent Density
Per gal/exempt solvent
6.64 lb/gal
Coating Ves
Exempt solvent volume
Calculation
Additionally, your state’s department of environmental quality

(DEQ) has
provided you the following PBR limits:Potential to Emit
(PTE)100 tons VOC/yearFace Velocity100 ft/minFilter
Velocity250 ft/minVOC/5-hour period6.0 lbs/hrShort-term
Emissions1.0 lbs/hrLong-term Emissions1.0 tons/yr
From your first visit with your client, these are your notes and
process
flow sketch reflecting the intended operational design: The
client has designed an interior coating spray painting system
that
allows the interior of each unit to be
coated.
The operations will involve a stripped-down unit being
brought into the
facility’s shop. The shop is a steel
building with a finished concrete floor and a paint
booth for each unit. The unit will be
placed in the spray booth. The booth will be opened at one end
of the booth for makeup air. The exhaust air will flow through
an exhaust chamber at the other end of
the unit. For each unit, once the liner
application operations are completed, the
forced curing (drying) operations will
immediately commence.
Instructions: Closely read the required reading assignment from
the textbook and the
unit lesson within the study guide, and
consider reading the suggested
reading.Select the PBR evaluation document to be for only one
of the
following: (a) an aircraft manufacturing
exterior coating paint booth, (b) a rail tank
car interior lining process, or (c) a vehicle
exterior
coating paint booth. You will continue

with
this scenario selection for the remaining six
units,
to complete the entire document.Using APA
style (title page, abstract page, body with level 1 headings,
and a reference page) for a research
paper,
begin drafting a PBR evaluation
document.
You will add to this document in every
subsequent
unit with another prescribed level 1 heading,
building out the entire document one section at a
time. Make your Unit II work the first level 1 heading
(center, bold) titled
“General Considerations for Operation,” and describe the
scenario that is presented above, while
specifically
describing the scenario that you selected
(aircraft, tank car, or vehicle). While describing
your
scenario, you must include the
environmental,
health, and safety (EHS) implications of the
work
system while pulling from the textbook as well
as any other relevant sources that are
presented in
the unit lesson in the study guide. In your
description of the EHS implications of the
system,
be sure to discuss the natural and
anthropomorphic
variables causally related to outdoor air
pollution. You are required to describe the
scenario

in at least 200 words (minimum). You may
find it
convenient to summarize the tabulated
information in your General Considerations
section
of the permit for future reference throughout
the
rest of the course, but do not attempt to
tabulate
the information in the exact order as what
is
presented here (to avoid a high match in
SafeAssign).Also under the first level 1 heading, present a box
and line process flow
diagram (PFD) drawing of the selected
scenario. See the drawing on page 375 of
the
textbook as an additional example of a PFD if
you
need assistance understanding how to draw
one; do
not draw the same system that is provided
on
that page. Do not hand-draw this, but use the
“insert” and “shapes” features within
Microsoft
Word to construct the PFD. Simple labeled
boxes
and lines are adequate for this preliminary
work,
so it is not necessary to present specific
shapes in your PFD for your selected
scenario.In your abstract section (page 2 of the document),
write one or two
sentences that reflect your work for this
unit.

We will be adding one sentence per
unit to
reflect our work as we go, with the final
abstract
length being about 8 to 10 sentences long.
In following units (Units III through VII), the unit lessons will
contain information related to the interior surface coating
operation by
means of practical mathematical calculation examples.
Consequently, it is
imperative that you read the unit lessons within the study
guide in every
unit, use the math calculation examples provided in each
unit lesson, and
consider the current (as well as previous) material from
the textbook
and the additional information cited and referenced in the
study guide
for every unit. This project will serve as a comprehensive
demonstration
of your applied learning of engineering air quality.
Your completed mini project should be a minimum of one page,
not counting the
title page, abstract page, and reference page. You are required
to use at least
one outside source, which may be your textbook. All sources
used, including the
textbook, must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material
must have
accompanying APA citations.
Resources
The following resource(s) may help you with this assignment.
Citation GuideCSU Online Library Research GuideSubmit
Writing Center Request

Submit Unit II Mini Project »
Bootstrap
Loading...

MEE 6501, Advanced Air Quality Control 1 Course Le.docx

MEE 6501, Advanced Air Quality Control 1 Course Le.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to MEE 6501, Advanced Air Quality Control 1 Course Le.docx

Similar to MEE 6501, Advanced Air Quality Control 1 Course Le.docx (20)

More from gertrudebellgrove

More from gertrudebellgrove (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

MEE 6501, Advanced Air Quality Control 1 Course Le.docx