4.7 Article

PAHs, carbonyls, VOCs and PM2.5 emission factors for pre-harvest burning of Florida sugarcane

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Volume 55, Issue -, Pages 164-172

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.03.034

Keywords

Biomass burning; PAH; Particulate matter; Carbonyls; VOC; Levoglucosan

Funding

  1. EPA through Palm Beach County Health Department [XA-96475807, 234]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Emission factors (EFs) for hazardous polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), carbonyls, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as well as other species such as PM2.5, elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), and tracer compounds (e.g., levoglucosan (LG) and other sugars) were investigated for sugarcane pre-harvest burning in Florida. A combustion chamber was used to simulate field burning conditions for determining EFs of both dry leaf and whole stalk biomass burning. Samples were collected from the chamber's exhaust duct following EPA sampling methods. The total PAH EFs were 7.13 +/- 0.94 and 8.18 +/- 3.26 mg kg(-1) for dry leaf and whole sugarcane stalk burning, respectively. Carbonyl EFs were 201 +/- 39 and 942 +/- 539 mg kg(-1) for dry leaf and whole stalk burning, respectively. PAH and carbonyl emissions were dominated by lower molecular weight compounds (e.g., naphthalene and formaldehyde, respectively). Of the aromatic VOCs studied, benzene was the predominant species. The PM2.5 EF was 2.49 +/- 0.66 g kg(-1), which is in range of the current published AP-42 EFs for particulate matter emissions from sugarcane burning and other sugarcane studies. The OC, EC and LG EFs were 0.16 +/- 0.09 g kg(-1), 0.71 +/- 0.22 g kg(-1), and 7.87 +/- 5.42 mg kg(-1), respectively. EFs of gaseous pollutants were generally lower than EFs from studies of agricultural residue combustion, likely due to the high combustion efficiency observed in this study. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available