English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 65317/65317 (100%)
Visitors : 21371722      Online Users : 199
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/3277


    Title: 加油站加油槍抽氣量與加油量比率檢測方法之研究;The study of vapor recovery test procedure: Air to liquid volume ratio
    Authors: 高于昌;Yu-Chang Kao
    Contributors: 環境工程研究所碩士在職專班
    Keywords: 油氣回收設備;揮發性有機物;氣油比檢測;vapor recovery facilities;volatile organic compounds;air to liquid volume ratio
    Date: 2006-01-04
    Issue Date: 2009-09-21 12:13:53 (UTC+8)
    Publisher: 國立中央大學圖書館
    Abstract: 加油站加油過程所排放之揮發性有機物(Volatile Organic Compounds, VOCs),因含有苯、甲苯、乙苯、二甲苯、甲基第三丁基醚等有害人體健康及影響空氣品質之物質,近年來已逐漸受到重視;環保署為降低加油站所造成之空氣污染問題,乃參考美國對加油站油氣回收之管制方法,除推動加油站設置油氣回收設備外,並制定相關管理辦法予以規範。 本研究目的乃為比較環保署所公告之加油站油氣回收設備檢測方法中,檢測頻率最高、檢測合格率最低且最易引起爭議之「加油站加油槍抽氣量與加油量比率檢測方法」(一般簡稱為氣油比檢測),與其所參考美國CARB「Vapor Recovery Test Procedure TP-201.5:Air to Liquid Volume Ratio」檢測方法之差異與影響,並藉由實地測試與採樣實驗,比較分析台灣現行檢測方法所使用儀器設備之準確性與精確度,及對檢測人員可能造成之暴露危害。 實驗結果發現台灣現行檢測方法所使用所使用之測試設備(油料承接桶),因受限於現行所使用之測試儀器無法將檢測過程所產生之油氣回收,亦未加設活性碳裝置以吸附檢測過程所產生之油氣,執行檢測之工作人員若使用一般無活性碳吸附裝置之油料承接桶進行檢測,其VOCs之暴露將遠高於使用具活性碳吸附裝置油料承接桶之工作人員,此差異可達7倍以上,甚至可高達23倍之多;而現行檢測方法所使用之測試儀器,雖具有相當之準確性與精確度,但若由不同檢測人員操作則會造成檢測結果差異,此差異可達4.03 %以上,甚至高達7.53 %。 經比較並歸納分析環保署與美國CARB之檢測方法與管理辦法,發現美國CARB除對於檢測方法不斷檢討與修正,並致力於發展更高效率之油氣回收設備與方式,且訂定完善之配套措施及規範,值得台灣於未來修正檢測方法與管理辦法時借鏡與參考。 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted from the vehicle refueling at gasoline stations include benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene, and MTBE, which are major air pollutants and hazardous. In order to reduce VOCs emissions from gasoline stations, the Taiwan EPA legislates and obligates the gasoline stations to establish vapor recovery facilities based on the U.S. control policy of the vapor recovery system with the gasoline stations. The objective of this study is to compare the differences between the Taiwan EPA’s test method“NIEA A211.70B”and the U.S. CARB’s Vapor Recovery Test Procedure “TP-201.5: Air to Liquid Volume Ratio (A/L ratio)”, which has the highest test frequency, the lowest qualified rate, and is most easily to cause disputes. This study also analyzes the accuracy and the precision of the equipments currently used in Taiwan and the testers’ exposures to the VOCs with different equipments. It is found that the installation of activated carbon in the portable liquid tanks could effectively reduce the testers’ exposures to the VOCs down to 1/23 of the current exposures. It is also shown that, although the equipments are quite accurate and precise, different testers will introduce different A/L ratios. The test procedures and management methods of Taiwan and U.S. CARB were also compared and discussed. It is found that U.S. CARB does not only revise the test procedure and management method constantly, but also devotes to develop facilities with higher gasoline vapor recovery efficiency.
    Appears in Collections:[環境工程研究所碩士在職專班] 博碩士論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    0KbUnknown951View/Open


    All items in NCUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    ::: Copyright National Central University. | 國立中央大學圖書館版權所有 | 收藏本站 | 設為首頁 | 最佳瀏覽畫面: 1024*768 | 建站日期:8-24-2009 :::
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback  - 隱私權政策聲明