Stack Emission Methods: EPA, EN and HJ Equivalence

Which method applies to your report, and which instrument executes it. This is the reference we use internally, written out so the answer does not depend on a sales conversation.

Why the method number matters more than the instrument

An instrument does not “comply with EPA Method 1-5”. The test complies with Method 1-5. Regulatory bodies assess the sampling procedure, the verification records and the calculation — not the instrument’s brand. What a manufacturer can legitimately do is build an instrument whose probe geometry, flow control, filtration and data capture meet the method’s requirements, and supply the verification records that demonstrate it.

This distinction matters commercially. A supplier who claims an instrument “meets EPA 1-5” without naming what it does and does not satisfy is asking you to take their word for the part that matters. A supplier who says “this is the principle, these are the standards the instrument is built to, and this is what your test body still has to do” is giving you what you need to specify correctly.

The equivalence table

Each row lists a parameter, the method framework in each jurisdiction, what the method actually determines, and the Kesen instruments that execute it. Every model code links to its product page.

Which framework applies to your report?

• Operating across multiple jurisdictions? Specify per jurisdiction and document the mapping internally. A configuration that satisfies one framework is frequently not optimal for another, and the difference is usually range rather than principle.
• Unsure which implementing method applies? Ask your national environmental authority, not the instrument supplier. The authority publishes the applicable method; a supplier can only tell you what their instrument is built to.
• Third-party testing for a client? The client or their regulator specifies the framework. Confirm it in writing before quoting — a change of framework after the test invalidates the work.

Configuration decisions that change the result

Low-concentration particulate

Below roughly 50 mg/m³ the gravimetric result approaches the method blank. A standard configuration can produce a number that looks valid and is not defensible. The low-concentration multi-function probe and a higher-flow pump exist for exactly this case. Our 3012H-D states a lower testing limit of 1 mg/m³ at a 1 m³ standard-condition sample volume. This is a configuration decision at order, not an upgrade after delivery.

Moisture basis

Stack gas results are reported dry or wet depending on the method, and the two can differ by enough to fail a limit. Moisture is not a housekeeping parameter — it enters the calculation. Measure it in the same run rather than carrying a value over from a previous test.

Probe selection

Probe diameter, material and temperature rating must match the duct geometry and the flue gas temperature. A leak in the probe or a degraded filter holder biases the entire result, and the bias may not be detectable in the subsequent calculation.

Which gases, and in what range

The low-range and high-range SO² configurations of the same analyser are different instruments in practice. State the expected concentration range in your enquiry so the configuration is confirmed in the quotation rather than discovered on site.

Download the table

Frequently asked questions

An instrument does not “comply with EPA Method 1-5”. The test does.

A regulatory body assesses the sampling procedure, the verification records and the calculation — not the instrument's brand. What a manufacturer can legitimately do is build an instrument whose probe geometry, flow control, filtration and data capture meet the method's requirements, and supply the verification records. Kesen states plainly which frameworks an instrument is built to, and what your accredited test body still has to do.

Can I report an EPA Method 1-5 result using a Chinese-standard sampler?

The physical principle, probe geometry and gravimetric determination are the same. What differs is procedural detail: flow-rate verification method, leak-check procedure, probe construction tolerances and calculation conventions. An instrument built to GB/T 16157-1996 and HJ/T 48-1999 addresses the same measurement. Confirm the specific differences your authority expects with your own accredited tester — before the test, not after.

Which framework should I specify?

The framework your regulator enforces — in practice the national implementing method of the jurisdiction where the report is filed, not the method you are most familiar with. If you operate across jurisdictions, specify per jurisdiction and document the mapping internally; one configuration frequently cannot satisfy two frameworks at once, and the difference is usually range rather than principle.

What is the difference between a standard and a low-concentration configuration?

Below roughly 50 mg/m³ of particulate, the gravimetric result approaches the method blank and a standard configuration can no longer produce a defensible number. The low-concentration configuration uses a higher-flow pump and a multi-function probe to increase the sampled mass. Our 3012H-D states a lower testing limit of 1 mg/m³ at a 1 m³ standard-condition sample volume. This is a configuration decision at order, not an upgrade after delivery.

Should I report dry or wet gas concentration?

Whichever the method requires — and the two can differ by enough to fail a limit. Moisture is not a housekeeping parameter; it enters the calculation. Measure it in the same run using the 1062C or 1062E rather than carrying a value over from a previous test.

Do you supply the verification records my accredited body needs?

Each instrument is calibrated against traceable reference standards before dispatch and ships with a calibration record showing the measured values, the reference standard used and the acceptance tolerance. Verification records are provided per the applicable JJG regulation. We supply the instrument configuration and documentation; the compliance report is prepared by your own accredited test body.

What is the real difference between an NDIR and an NDUV analyser?

The measurement principle and the application. NDIR uses short-wave infrared absorption and suits CO, CO₂, SO₂, CH₄, NOₓ and NH₃. NDUV uses ultraviolet absorption and suits O₃, NO, NO₂ and SO₂. Both are non-dispersive, which removes moving parts. The choice comes down to which gases you need and the concentration range, not to which technology is better.

Are your instruments accurate to the figure you publish?

We publish measurement conditions with every figure, because an accuracy figure without its range, gas, ambient temperature, compensation mode and response time is not a usable specification. If a competitor's datasheet omits those conditions, ask both of us for the same test under the same conditions and compare.

Can one configuration cover several method frameworks?

Frequently the instrument can, which is why the multi-gas analysers are built as configurable platforms. But a single configuration usually cannot satisfy every framework simultaneously — a low-range and a high-range SO₂ measurement are different configurations of the same analyser. Ask for the configuration to be confirmed in the quotation against the frameworks you actually work under.

Request a quotation

Tell us the parameter or pollutant, the concentration range you expect, the method framework your report must follow, and your stack or site conditions. An engineer will reply with the configuration and a price — normally within one working day.

Parameter: ____________  |  Method framework: ____________  |  Expected range: ____________  |  Stack temperature / duct diameter: ____________

Request a Quote  · Industry solutions