TECHNICAL PAPER

Cooper, and MacDonald ISSN 1047-3289 J. Air & Kim, Waste Manage. Assoc. 49:471-476
Copyright 1999 Air & Waste Management Association

Estimating the Lower Heating Values of Hazardous and Solid Wastes

C. David Cooper, Brian Kim, and John MacDonald Civil & Environmental Engineering Department, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida

ABSTRACT A new equation is proposed to predict the lower heating value of hazardous and non-hazardous materials. The equation was developed by a statistical correlation of heating value and composition data for a variety of materials as reported in a number of sources. The model takes into account the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, chlorine, and sulfur content of the material being combusted. INTRODUCTION The incineration of hazardous and solid wastes is an important technique for destroying and disposing of these materials. Effective incineration achieves very high destruction and removal efficiencies of principal organic hazardous constituents and minimizes the formation of products of incomplete combustion. Such performance requires a sufficiently high temperature, a long enough residence time, an excess of oxygen, and good turbulence in the gases to promote completion of the oxidation reactions to produce stable end products. In the design of the combustion chamber and the afterburner, a good estimate of the lower heating value (LHV) of the waste to be incinerated is important. However, in most instances, only the higher heating value (HHV) of the waste is reported.

The LHV is a better measure than the HHV of the heat released by the waste under actual operating conditions. The HHV is the gross heat released when a small sample of the material is burned in a test calorimeter at a reference temperature (usually 25 oC) and all products are in their standard states at that temperature. The HHV includes the heat of condensation of water vapor formed in the combustion reaction, which is not realistic for industrial combustion equipment. The LHV is related to the HHV through the heat of vaporization of water, as shown for methane: CH4 + 2 O2 CO2 + 2 H2O (liq) where HHV = 212,800 cal/gmole CH4, CH4 + 2 O2 CO2 + 2 H2O (gas) where LHV = HHV - 2*(Hv of water) = 212,800 - 2* 10,519 = 191,762 cal/gmole CH4. If the material burned contains chlorine, then HCl is formed as a principal product of combustion and, by analogy, the HHV and LHV are related by the heats of vaporization of both water and HCl. In calculating the initial heat balance on an incinerator to determine the amount of supplemental fuel required, the usable heat released from the waste must be calculated. Usable heat can be defined as the LHV less the heat required to vaporize any free water in the waste and adjusting for the dilution effect of any noncombustible ash in the waste. For design, the percent carbon combustion also must be taken into account because small amounts of unburned carbon usually remain in the ash. Likewise, heat losses through the walls of the furnace must be subtracted. The remaining heat is the net usable energy that is available to heat the combustion gases and excess air. Thus, the LHV is needed to predict the expected final temperature of the combustion gases. Several methods have been used in the past to estimate the HHV and LHV of wastes. Brunner1 cites DuLongs approximation (which was developed for coal) as follows:
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 471

(1)

(2)

IMPLICATIONS Prediction of heating values of hazardous and solid wastes, and other hazardous and non-hazardous combustible materials, is important for several reasons, including combustion analysis and the design of combustion equipment. For mixtures of wastes, heating values often must be determined experimentally, which may introduce questions as to the accuracy of the testing and whether the sample being tested is representative. Existing prediction correlations either do not consider all the atoms often found in hazardous waste, or have been based on data sets that are too sparse. This paper presents a generalized equation developed from a diverse group of materials, which performs well statistically and depends only on the ultimate analysis. It is proposed for use on a variety of solid or liquid materials.

Volume 49 April 1999

Cooper, Kim, and MacDonald

HHV = 14,544 C + 62,028 (H - 0.125 O) + 4,050 S (3) where HHV is in Btu/lb of waste, and C, H, O, and S are the weight fractions in the waste of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and sulfur, respectively. Theodore and Reynolds2 report a modified form of DuLongs equation LHV = 14,000 C + 45,000 (H - 0.125 O) 760 Cl + 4,500 S Florida (UCF) on hazardous waste incineration. After reviewing ways to estimate heating values of wastes as part of the class, the conclusion was made that a better method for predicting LHV of hazardous wastes was needed. Thus, the authors set out to develop an equation based on ultimate analysis that could be applied to a variety of hazardous compounds. A secondary objective was to see if the same equation could be made applicable to non-hazardous materials as well, so the authors included a number of non-hazardous materials in the database. METHODOLOGY Data Sources and Data Reduction In conducting this work, data were gathered from several sources on the reported heating values of two kinds of materials. Twenty different hazardous compounds were selected that contained various percentages of carbon, hydrogen, chlorine, sulfur, oxygen, and nitrogen, as shown in Table 1. Twenty different non-hazardous materials were selected, again with an eye for diversity of composition. Because data on non-hazardous solid wastes were difficult to find, some data on coals and other solid materials were included in the database, as shown in Table 2. The HHVs for the hazardous materials were reported for pure compounds; the HHVs for the nonhazardous materials were generally reported by the original authors on an as-is basis, which includes free water and ash. These HHVs first were adjusted from an as-is basis to a dry, no-ash basis as follows: HHVdna = (HHVasis)/(1- fw - fash) Hn = 1,558.80 + 19.96 (%C) + 44.30 (%O) 671.82 (%S) - 19.92 (%W) (5) (6)

(4)

where LHV is in Btu/ lb of waste. In eqs 3 and 4, the term (H - 0.125 O) reflects the assumption that any oxygen in the waste will preferentially combine with hydrogen in the waste in the mass ratio of 8:1 to produce water and, thus, prevent that much hydrogen from reacting with atmospheric oxygen. Presumably, this will avoid the exothermic effect (heat released by) that amount of hydrogen, if it had reacted with molecular oxygen in the air. Recently, Liu, Paode and Holsen3 reviewed several relationships that have been applied to municipal solid wastes, including ones based on physical composition, proximate analysis, and ultimate analysis. They conducted a statistical step-wise multiple regression analysis to develop an equation for predicting the net calorific value of the municipal solid waste from Kaohsiung City, Taiwan, and concluded that their equation based on ultimate analysis was better than previous models/methods. They included the ultimate analysis parameters (C, H, O, N, S, and water) as possible independent variables to develop their final equation

where Hn = net calorific value (kcal/kg of waste), and %C, %O, %S, and %W = % by weight of carbon, oxygen, sulfur, and water, respectively. One disadvantage of this result is that it is purely statistical and, therefore, may be appropriate only for the specific municipal waste studied. For example, it has no separate coefficient for hydrogen and a negative coefficient on sulfur. The authors note that their finding of no significant effect of hydrogen is in contrast to the results of DuLong and others. Their waste was low in sulfur and, thus, the negative sign did not affect the result significantly. However, the oxidation of sulfur is exothermic, so this runs counter to expectations. Therefore, this equation cannot be extended with confidence to other materials. OBJECTIVES This paper results from the interest and efforts of two students in a graduate class at the University of Central
472 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

where fw and fash = mass fractions of free water and ash in the waste, respectively. The LHVs were then calculated as follows: LHVdna = HHVdna - mw Hvw - mHCl HvHCl (7)

where mw = mass of water produced by combustion (lb H2O/lb waste), mHCl = mass of HCl produced by combustion (lb HCl/lb waste), and Hv = heat of vaporization [Btu/lb (1049 for water, 884 for HCl)]. The resulting LHVs of the hazardous and non-hazardous compounds are shown in Tables 1 and 3, respectively. In contrast to the non-hazardous materials (discussed in the next two paragraphs), the data reduction for the hazardous compounds was much simpler due to the fact that each compound was essentially pure (without free water or ash) and was represented by one chemical formula. In order to provide for a more robust data set, 3 and 10 data sources were used for the hazardous materials and non-hazardous materials, respectively.
Volume 49 April 1999

Cooper, Kim, and MacDonald

Table 1. Hazardous compoundscomposition and heating values. HHVa (Btu/lb) 20,000 17,990 8,100 10,120 9,140 8,100 4,190 8,190 16,500 5,260 11,100 9,540 7,470 3,820 13,500 9,900 11,300 6,170 18,250 5,180 % Wt. N 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.18 13.03 15.65 0.00 23.71 15.21 0.00 10.98 15.01 16.67 31.08 13.85 20.28 16.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 LHVa (Btu/lb) 18,650 17,270 7,600 9,357 8,400 7,420 3,720 7,710 15,900 4,600 10,400 9,060 7,250 3,470 13,000 9,490 10,700 5,770 17,400 4,690 Source (Ref.) 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Compound

Formula

C 85.60 92.24 47.43 44.44 33.50 40.24 26.56 30.49 78.22 30.60 56.48 45.04 42.86 17.76 65.31 52.16 49.38 44.76 91.23 36.50

H 14.40 7.76 2.56 6.35 5.63 4.51 1.49 5.13 6.58 3.86 4.75 3.79 2.40 3.73 4.99 4.39 5.93 1.25 8.77 1.53

O 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.92 14.88 0.00 11.80 13.54 0.00 20.38 0.00 0.00 38.07 0.00 0.00 23.16 9.40 9.94 0.00 8.10

S 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.86 0.00 0.00 7.88 27.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.17 0.00 47.42 15.85 0.00 18.83 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cl 0.00 0.00 50.00 26.24 32.96 39.60 52.27 0.00 0.00 45.16 27.79 18.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.04 0.00 53.86

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Methylcyclohexane (l) CH 7 14 Benzene (l) CH 6 6 DDT (l) C H Cl 14 9 5 Diallate (l) C H Cl NOS 10 17 2 Dimethyl carbamoyl chloride (l) C H ClNO 3 6 3-Chloropropionitrile (l) C H ClN 3 4 Endosulfan (s) C H Cl O S 9 6 6 3 1-Acetyl-2-thiourea (s) C H N OS 3 6 2 Benzidine (s) C H N 12 12 2 Chloroacetaldehyde (l) C H ClO 2 3 p-Chloroaniline (s) C H ClN 6 6 1-(o-Chlorophenyl) thiourea (l) C H ClN S 7 7 2 Dinitrobenzene (s) CHNO 6 4 2 4 2,4-Dithiobiuret (s) CHNS 2 5 3 2 1-Naphthyl-2-thiourea (s) C H NS 11 10 2 p-Nitroaniline (s) CHNO 6 6 2 2 Propylthiouracil (s) C H N OS 7 10 2 TCDD (s) C H Cl O 12 4 4 2 Toluene (l) CH 7 8 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (s) C H Cl O
6 3 3 a

Raw data were reported in different units and required conversion to Btu/lb. All values derived from the raw data were rounded to indicate significant figures of the original data.

For the non-hazardous materials, assumptions sometimes were required when handling data from different sources. In some cases, whether a reported heating value was the HHV or the LHV was not stated explicitly, but from other comments in the text, the inference was that the heating value was the HHV. When the authors were unable to determine whether reported heating values were for the as-received condition (including free water and ash) or had been adjusted to a dry, no-ash basis, the data were not used in this study. The most difficult problem encountered in interpreting the raw data was that many of the reported percent compositions did not sum to 100%. (In the most severe case, the constituents summed to 99.6%) How chlorine was reported was a particular problem. Some sources listed chlorine separately along with the major components (C, H, O, N, and S). In other sources, the major constituents summed to 100%, but percentages for certain trace elements (including chlorine) were also reported. For the latter case, the oxygen percentage was decreased by the reported chlorine percentage. This was justified because oxygen content is usually determined by difference. For those cases in which chlorine was already listed as a major constituent, no adjustments could be made if the total did not add to 100%. From these raw percentages, the percent water and ash were subtracted to achieve raw dry, no-ash percentages for use
Volume 49 April 1999

in determining the dry, no-ash HHV. However, for use in the statistical modeling, the dry, no-ash composition was normalized to 100%. Statistical Treatment of Data Numerous computer runs were made to try to correlate the dry, no-ash LHVs of the materials to their compositions. All statistical analyses were done using SAS.4 The proposed models were formulated in two ways: as a nointercept model that included all the independent variables, or as intercept models leaving out nitrogen as an independent variable. This reduced the potential inflation of the variances due to collinearity. Collinearity exists because the independent variables are mass fractions that sum to 1.00. The statistical modeling was conducted in several ways. During the initial analysis, the hazardous compounds were analyzed separately from the non-hazardous materials data. Then the two data sets were combined and analyzed as one data set. For each set of data, the statistical treatment first produced a multiple regression equation of the form: LHVdna = B1C + B2H + B3O + B4S + B5Cl + B6N (8) or
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 473

Cooper, Kim, and MacDonald

Table 2. Non-hazardous materialsreported values. Reported HHVa (Btu/lb) 1,700 5,590 16,250 5,880 7,810 6,914 8,685 12,890 4,020 7,313 7,398 13,500 10,100 6,900 10,100 8,020 8,810 8,745 8,900 12,200 % Wt.b (Reported) O N S 6.0 22.5 2.17c 35.1c 11.76c 31.82c 32.3c 6.43c 17.84 26.53 25.46 6.30c 4.73 13.10 5.80 10.83 15.1 12.5 8.2 5.7 2.3 1.0 0.24 0.11 0.92 0.5 0.8 1.56 0.64 0.79 0.56 1.34 1.25 0.70 0.90 0.62 0.8 1.1 0.9 1.4 0.3 0.2 1.23 2.9 0.25 0.12 0.18 1.59 0.21 0.47 0.14 1.29 3.38 1.00 4.00 0.48 0.8 0.8 4.2 4.3 Source (Ref.) 7 7 8 9 10 11 11 11 12 13 13 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16

Fuel Sewage sludge RDF Tire-derived fuel Black liquor Auto fluff Byker densified RDF Castle Bromwich densified RDF Coal Average RDF RDF RDF Slurry (Upper Freeport coal) West Virginia bituminous coal Texas lignite coal Illinois bituminous coal Wyoming subbituminous coal Absaloka, MT, coal Navajo, NM, coal River-King, IL, coal Pyro, KY, coal
a

C 13.0 33.0 83.87 34.9 39.72 36.0 46.5 70.3 23.48 42.73 42.49 73.73 63.27 40.60 57.50 47.87 65.6 56.6 54.5 68.5

H 2.0 6.0 7.09 3.05 4.58 5.1 6.7 4.72 3.17 6.37 5.46 4.89 4.40 3.10 3.70 3.40 4.5 4.3 4.0 5.9

Cl 0.01 0.2 0.16d 0.67 0.77 0.32 1.09 0.37d 0.46d 0.27 0.35 0.17 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.25

HO
2

Ash 9.0 14.5 4.78 0e 42.77 14.8 11.0 7.8 16.87 22.83 25.54 12.28 14.93 9.26 16.00 6.37 13.2 24.6 28.2 15.2

67.0 22.5 0.62 0e 0f 11.4 2.3 7.6 37.79 0f 0f 0f 8.00 32.20 12.00 30.40 0f 0f 0f 0f

Raw data were reported in different units and required conversion to Btu/lb. All values were rounded to indicate significant figures of the original data. Percent compositions may not sum to 100% due to rounding and the inclusion of other elements (sodium, potassium, etc.) in the overall composition. c Oxygen content determined by difference. d Value represents a trace percentage for an oxide compound. This percentage was incorporated into the overall composition by reducing the oxygen percentage by an equivalent amount. e Composition reported for dry, no-ash basis. f Composition reported for dry basis.
b

LHVdna = Int. + B1C + B2H + B3O + B4S + B5Cl (9) where Bi = best-fit coefficient, and C, H, etc. = mass fraction of that element in the material, on a dry, no-ash basis. Furthermore, some correlations with models of other forms were attempted, such as LHVdna = Int. + B1C + B2(H - O/8) + B3 S + B4Cl (10) LHVdna = Int. + B1C + B2(H - Cl/35.5) + B3 O + B4S (11) and LHVdna = Int. + B1C + B2(H - O/8 - Cl/35.5) + B3 S (12) During the statistical work, F tests were performed on the models developed from each of the two individual data sets and from the combined data set. The model based on the combined 40-point data set was as good as either of
474 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

the models based on individual data sets, and was not being driven by one or the other data set. Regression diagnostics were performed to check for non-constant variance of the residuals, bias among the variables, tolerances, and outliers. Partial residual plots showed no bias or non-linearity occurring among the variables. There were some fan-shaped variance plots, which were corrected by using weights equal to the squares of the fitted values. Collinearity was minimized by using the form of the model equation shown in eq 9 or 12. Tolerances were checked and found to be greater than 0.08, indicating that collinearity was not a problem. Externally studentized residuals were evaluated to determine if any of the points were outliers. One possible outlier was identified (sewage sludge), but that datum was retained in the modeling. RESULTS Eqs 9 through 12 were modeled using each of the 20point data sets (hazardous and non-hazardous materials), in addition to the combined data set. For all equations and for all data sets, very similar values were obtained for
Volume 49 April 1999

Cooper, Kim, and MacDonald

Table 3. Non-hazardous materialsdry, no-ash basis. HHVa (Btu/lb) Dry & No ash 7,300 8,880 17,180 5,880 13,650 9,616 9,780 15,240 8,860 9,477 9,936 15,400 14,930 11,800 14,030c 12,700 13,400 13,380 13,800 14,810 % Wt.a, b O 25.4 35.8 2.14 45.7 19.20 43.11 36.9 7.16 38.67 34.38 34.19 7.18 6.14 22.38 8.06 17.13 17.4 16.6 11.4 6.6 LHVa (Btu/lb) Dry & No Ash 6,500 7,980 16,480 5,500 13,560 9,559 9,701 15,190 8,790 9,409 9,881 15,300 14,890 11,700 13,990c 12,600 13,360c 13,330 13,700 14,750 Source (Ref.) 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16

Fuel

C 55.1 52.5 88.66 45.5 69.40 48.7 53.1 83.1 51.50 55.38 57.06 84.05 82.09 69.35 79.86 75.71 75.6 75.2 75.9 79.6

H 8.5 9.5 7.49 3.97 8.00 6.8 7.7 5.58 6.95 8.26 7.33 5.57 5.71 5.30 5.14 5.38 5.2 5.7 5.6 6.9

N 9.7 1.6 0.25 0.14 1.61 0.7 0.9 1.84 1.40 1.02 0.75 1.53 1.62 1.20 1.25 0.98 0.9 1.5 1.3 1.6

S 1.3 0.3 1.30 3.8 0.44 0.16 0.20 1.88 0.46 0.61 0.19 1.47 4.39 1.71 5.56 0.76 0.9 1.1 5.9 5.0

Cl 0.04 0.3 0.16 0.87 1.35 0.43 1.25 0.44 1.01 0.35 0.47 0.19 0.05 0.07 0.14 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.29

Sewage sludge RDF Tire-derived fuel Black liquor Auto fluff Byker densified RDF Castle Bromwich densified RDF Coal Average RDF RDF RDF Slurry (Upper Freeport coal) West Virginia bituminous coal Texas lignite coal Illinois bituminous coal Wyoming subbituminous coal Absaloka, MT, coal Navajo, NM, coal River-King, IL, coal Pyro, KY, coal
a

All values were rounded to indicate significant figures. Percent compositions are normalized to 100%, but may not sum to 100% due to rounding. c Values should be rounded to three significant figures, but were kept at four to indicate a difference between HHV and LHV values.
b

the correlation coefficients (R2) and variances. Therefore, only the final results for the models depicted by eq 9 and 12 are presented here. In the scatter plot shown in Figure 1, the predictions using models of the form of eq 12 for both 20-point data sets are plotted, along with the predictions from the 40point combined data set. All the data sets are modeled

well. The R2 values were all about 0.95 for all three data sets (using all data points) and were about 0.97 when the tests excluded the suspected outlier. The models represented by eqs 9 and 12 were compared using the combined data set. The results are shown in Table 4 and Figure 2. As can be seen, both models fit the data well. In fact, in Figure 2, the two lines representing the least-squares fit of the predicted versus actual data for each equation appear to lie almost on top of each other. However, eq 12 has fewer coefficients (resulting in a slightly lower variance) and has a positive coefficient on sulfur; therefore, it was selected as the best model. In addition, with this equation, all coefficients were found to be statistically different from zero, except for the intercept. CONCLUSIONS The high R 2 values and the good appearance of Figures 1 and 2 lead to the conclusion that the fitted equations provide accurate predictions of the LHVs for a variety of materials. Based on the work done in this study, the authors conclude that a good general formula for predicting the LHV of a hazardous or nonhazardous waste or other combustible material is
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 475

Figure 1. Predicted versus actual LHVs, using models of the form of eq 12 on three data sets.
Volume 49 April 1999

Cooper, Kim, and MacDonald

REFERENCES
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Brunner, C.R. Incineration Systems Handbook; Incinerator Consultants: Reston, VA, 1996. Theodore, L.; Reynolds, J. Introduction to Hazardous Waste Incineration; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, 1987. Liu, J.-I.; Paode, R.D.; Holsen, T.M. Modeling the energy content of municipal solid waste using multiple regression analysis, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 1996, 46(7). SAS (Release 6.1.2). SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, 1989-1996. Surprenant, N.; Nunno, T.; Kravett, M.; Breton, M. Halogenated-Organic Containing Wastes, Noyes Data Corporation: New Jersey, 1988. Harris, J.C.; Larsen, D.J.; Rechstiner, C.E.; Thrum, K.E. Combustion of Hazardous Wastes, Noyes Publications: New Jersey, 1985. Steinruck, P.; Ganster, G. The FICB ProcessA Novel FBC Solution. In Proceedings of the 1989 International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion; Manaker, A.M., Ed.; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, 1989; Vol. 2, pp 863-867. Characteristics of TDF (tire-derived fuel). Bulletin 20.20.1C. Waste Recovery Inc.: Dallas, TX, 1990. Dayton, D.C.; Frederick, W.J., Jr., Direct observation of alkali vapor release during biomass combustion and gasification: 2Black Liquor Combustion at 1,100 oC, Energy & Fuels. 1995, 9(5), 765-774. Rehmat, A.G., et al. Auto fluff combustion and ash agglomerate formation studies in a fluidized-bed combustor, Energy & Fuels. 1995, 9(5), 765-774. Salam, T.F.; Anjum, A. The Combustion of Densified-Refuse Derived Fuel (d-RDF) Pellets on a Chain Grate Stoker. In Proceedings of The Institute of Energys First International Conference on Combustion & Emissions Control; Institute of Energy: London, 1993. Sanyal, A., et al. Field Evaluation of Gas Cofiring in a Large RDF Incinerator in the United States. The Institute of Energys First International Conference on Combustion & Emissions Control; Institute of Energy: London, 1993. Department of Commerce. 25 Gram Capacity Combustion Flow Calorimeter. NBSIR 82-2457. March 1982. Masi, S., et al. Combustion Rates of Carbon Fines from FWS Feeds of a Fluidized Combustor. In Proceedings of the 1989 International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion; Manaker, A.M., Ed.; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: 1989; Vol. 2, pp 775-781. Hoskins, W.W.; Keeth, R.J.; Tavoulareas, S. Technical and Economic Comparison of Circulating AFBC vs. Pulverized Coal Plants. In Proceedings of the 1989 International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion; Manaker, A.M., Ed.; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, 1989; Vol. 1, pp 175-180. Kalmanovitch, D.P.; Hajicek, D.R.; Mann, M.D. The Effects of Coal Ash Properties on FBC Boiler Tube Corrosion, Erosion, and Ash Deposition. In Proceedings of the 1989 International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion; Manaker, A.M., Ed.; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, 1989; Vol. 2, pp 847-862.

8.

Figure 2. Predicted versus actual LHVs, comparing eq 9 to eq 12 using the combined data set.

9. 10. 11.

LHVdna = -791 + 17,050 C + 32,030 (H - O/8 - Cl/35.5) + 4,591 S

(13)
12.

where LHVdna = lower heating value on a dry, no-ash basis (Btu/lb); and C, H, O, Cl, and S = mass fraction of that element in the material on a dry, no-ash basis. For any given waste or other combustible material, once the LHVdna is predicted using eq 13, eqs 6 and 7 can be solved to estimate the HHVasis if desired. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge the advice of Mortaza Jamshidian, Department of Statistics, UCF, in the statistical testing.

13. 14.

15.

16.

Table 4. Final model parameters for predicting lower heating values. Parameter Estimates B2 B3 B4 B5 About the Authors C. David Cooper, PE, QEP (corresponding author), is professor of engineering in the Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) Department at University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 32816-2450. Brian Kim and John MacDonald are Ph.D. students in the CEE Department.

Model Eq 9 Eq 12

Intercept 3,918 -791

B1

12,650 24,340 -9,725 -3,240 -5,471 0.953 17,050 32,030 4,591 NA NA 0.948

Note: NA = not applicable.

476 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Volume 49 April 1999