EPA-450/3-75-087
November 1975
CALCULATION
OF EMISSION FACTORS
FOR AGRICULTURAL
BURNING ACTIVITIES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
-------
EPA-450/3-75-087
CALCULATION
OF EMISSION FACTORS
FOR AGRICULTURAL
BURNING ACTIVITIES
by
L.G. Wayne and M.L. McQueary
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
1930 14th St.
Santa Monica, California 90404
Contract No. 68-02-1004 TO #4
EPA Project Officer: Thomas F. Lahre
JJ-"
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
November 1975
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are available
free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and grantees,
and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from the Air Pollution
Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from the National Techni-
cal Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by Pacific
Environmental Services, Inc. , in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-1004 TO #4.
The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from Pacific
Environmental Services , Inc. The opinions , findings , and conclusions
expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of compamy or product names is not to be
considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-75-087
-------
FOREWORD
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. is pleased to submit this
report to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
in fulfillment of the requirements of Contract No. 68-02-1004
Task No. 4. Section II of this report provides a complete proposed
revision for AP-42 Sections 2.4 and 6.12. Sections III and IV of thls
report describe in detail all information used to arrive at the
proposed emissions factors. Abstracts of all documents from which
data were obtained are provided in an appendix.
We wish to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. E.F. Barley, University
of California, Riverside, Messrs. J. Thompson and G. Palo of the
California Air Resources Board and Mr. T. Lahre, EPA Project Officer
xn the work associated with this project and in the preparation of
this report.
Ill
-------
-'vi"^-- fr'VT'-ys'TnVM
/..J. '-.aw •• HUAi-JtiUifs/QCl
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.4-1
Table 2.4-2
Table 2.4-3
Table III-l
Table III-2
EMISSION FACTORS FOR OPEN BURNING OF
NONAGRICULTURAL MATERIAL ....
EMISSION FACTORS FOR OPEN BURNING OF
AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS
FUEL LOADING FACTORS FOR OPEN BURNING
OF AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS ....
EMISSION FACTORS FOR VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL
MATERIALS, WITH SIGNIFICANT VARIATIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS CONDITIONS OF
BURNING
AVERAGES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF
POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FOR ORCHARD
PRUNINGS
Page
10
20
44
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION x
A. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EFFORT . . !
B. TASK PERFORMANCE AND REPORT ORGANIZATION 2
II. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO AP-42 ...... 4
A. SUGGESTED REVISION TO SECTION 2.4 5
B. SUGGESTED REVISION TO SECTION 6.12 • • 13
III. BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR S3CTION 2.4
A. FIELD CROPS
(Alfalfa, asparagus, barley, bean, corn, cotton,
hay, oats, pea, rice safflower, sorghum, wheat,
field grasses, pineapple)
B. VINE CROPS 3g
(Boysenberry, grape)
C. WEEDS 4Q
(Ditch bank, mixed, -;ules, Russian thistle)
D. ORCHARD CROPS 43
(Almonds, apple, apricot, avocado, cherry, citrus,
date, fig, nectarine, olive, peach, pear,
prune, walnut)
E. FOREST PRODUCTS 55
(Hemlock, Douglas fir, western red cedar)
IV. BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR SECTION 6.12 56
APPENDIX I. ABSTRACTS
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF EFFORT
This task order No. 4 is composed of six subtasks to be conducted
in the sequence shown in the following summary description of each task.
Sub task No. 1
Subtask No. 2
Subtask No. 3
Subtask No. 4
Subtask No. 5
Subtask No. 6
Conduct a brief background study of emission factors
and agricultural burning data availability.
Contact Dr. Ellis Barley, at the University of
California, Riverside and other related personnel
and obtain all available and appropriate reports,
raw data, etc. which the University of California
personnel have generated on agricultural burning.
If possible, the Contractor shall further familiarize
himself with the activities through a visit with the
University of California, Riverside personnel at the
burning simulation facilities.
Compile all valid data obtained from Riverside,
analyze it and reduce it to emission factor form
when this has not already been done.
Assemble the other references available in the
literature on agricultural burning (especially
those referenced in Sec. 2.4 of AP-42), and
reduce the data therein to emission factor form.
From the data available after performing (1)
through (3) above, prepare revisions of Sections
2.4 and 6.12 in AP-42 which would appropriately
reflect the new data available on agricultural
burning. Said revisions shall be in the same
general format as Sections 2.4 and 6.12, but
shall be subject to minor technical change at
the discretion of the Project Officer.
For each section revised in AP-42, a corresponding
background document shall be written which shall
describe in greater detail, the various agricultural
burning activities included in each section and shall
clearly show how each emission factor was derived.
The latter may require the inclusion of any calculations,
histograms, material balances and assumptions, etc.,
used in deriving these factors. Accompanying each
background document shall be copies of the references
cited therein.
-------
B. TASK PERFORMANCE AND REPORT ORGANIZATION
Literature search, pursuant to Subtasks 1 and 4 as described above,
revealed nine references containing information pertinent to this effort.
Abstracts of these references are presented in Appendix I and complete
copies have been provided under separate cover and are available from the
Project Officer.
Techniques and results of the studies on pollutant emissions
from agricultural burning were discussed with Dr. Ellis Darley, director
of that project, and associated personnel at the University of California,
Riverside. Dr. Darley furnished all available data from that project in
the form of two reports, documents 7 and 8 which are abstracted in Appen-
dix I of this report. An amended copy of Reference B is given in Appen-
dix II. These data have been reviewed, analyzed, and cast into the form
of emission factors; indeed, they constitute the overwhelming bulk of
the data found to be available from all sources discovered.
Using Dr. Darley's information and the data from other sources
identified in Appendix I, PES has prepared revised versions of Sections
2.4 and 6.12 of AP-42, pursuant to Subtask 5, above. These versions are
presented below as Sections IIA and IIB, respectively, of this report.
For each of the proposed revisions of AP-42, PES has prepared a
background document, pursuant to Subtask 6. These documents constitute
Sections III and IV, respectively, of this report. Each of these
documents presents extensive detail and complete experimental data re-
quired to explain the reasoning and the assumptions involved in deriving
the proposed emission factors.
In Section IIA, which deals with open burning of agricultural
materials, prunings and wood refuse, the wealth of new information pro-
vided by the Riverside studies has made it possible to estimate emission
factors for the burning of some dozens of different materials and, in a
number of cases, for various conditions of burning these individual
materials. However, it is likely that in many applications, emission
-------
factors will be required for materials of uncertain composition under
incompletely known burning conditions. For use in these circumstances,
PES has also suggested aggregate emission factors which require less
detailed information about fuel and burning conditions.
-------
-------
II. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO AP-42
SUGGESTED REVISION
2.4 OPEN BURNING
2.4.1 General 1
Open burning can be done in open drums or baskets, in fields, and
in large open dumps or pits. Materials commonly disposed of in this
manner are municipal waste, auto body components, landscape refuse,
agricultural field refuse, wood refuse, and bulky industrial refuse.
2.4.2 Emissions
Ground-level open burning is affected by many variables including
wind, ambient temperature, composition and moisture content of the debris
burned, and compactness of the pile. In general, the relatively low
temperatures associated with open burning increase the emission of parti-
culates, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons and suppress the emission of
nitrogen oxides. Sulfur oxide emissions are a direct function of the
sulfur content of the refuse. Emission factors are presented in
Table 2.4-1 for the open burning of municipal refuse and automobile com-
ponents.
Emissions from agricultural refuse burning are dependent mainly
on the moisture content of the refuse and in the case of field crops,
whether the refuse is burned in a headfire or a backfire. (Headfires are
started at the upwind side of a field and allowed to progress in the
direction of the wind whereas backfires are started at the downwind edge
and forced to progress in a direction opposing the wind.) Other variables
such as fuel loading (how much refuse material is burned per unit of land
area) and how the refuse is arranged (e.g. in piles, rows, or spread out)
are also important in certain instances.
Emission factors for open agricultural burning are presented in
Table 2.4-2. They are presented as a function of refuse type and also,
-------
in certain instances, as a function of burning techniques and/or
moisture content when these variables are known to significantly
affect emissions.
Table 2.4-3 presents typical fuel loading values associated
with each type of refuse. These can be used, along with the correspond-
ing emission factors, to estimate emissions from certain categories of
agricultural burning when one does not know the specific fuel loadings
for a given area.
For more detailed information on this subject, the reader should
consult the references cited at: the end of this section.
-------
Table 2.4-1
EMISSION FACTORS FOR OPEN BURNING OF NONAGRICULTURAL MATERIAL.
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: B
Municipal Refuse*
Ibs/ton
kg/MT
Automobile
Components '
Ibs/ton
kg/MT
References 2 through 6
Upholstery, belts, hoses and tires burned in common
Reference 2
cticulates
16
8
100
50
Sulfur
Oxides
1
0.5
Neg.
Neg.
Carbon
Monoxide
85
42
125
62
Hydrocarbons
(CH4)
30
15
30
15
Nitrogen
Oxides
6
3
4
2
-------
Table 2.4-2
EMISSION FACTORS FOR OPEN BURNING OF AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS
EMISSION FACTOR RATING: E.
REFUSE CATEGORY
1. Field Crops0
Unspecified
Burning technique not significant
Asparagus
Barley
Corn
Cotton
Saf flower
Sorghum
Grasses ,
Pineapple
RiceS
Sugar cane
Headfire burning1
Alfalfa
Bean (red)
Hay (wild)
Oats
Pea
Wheat
Backfire burning^
Alfalfa
Bean (red), Pea
Hay (wild)
Oats
Wheat
2. Vine Crops
3. Weeds
Unspecified
Russian thistle (tumbleweed)
Tules (wild reeds)
4. Orchard CropsC>k
Unspecified
Almond
Apple
Apricot
Avocado
Cherry
Citrus (orange, lemon)
Date palm
Fig
Nectarine
Olive
Peach
Pear
Prune
Walnut
5. Forest Residues
Unspecified1
Hemlock, Douglas fir , Cedarm
Ponderosa pine"
PARTICULAT.ESb
Ibs/ton kg/Ml
21 11
40 20
22 11
14 7
8 4
18 9
18 9
16 8
8 4
9 4
7 4
45 23
43 22
32 16
44 22'
31 16
22 11
29 14
14 7
17 8
21 11
13 6
5 3
15 8
22 11
5 3
6 3
6 3
4 2
6 3
21 20
8 4
6 3
10 5
7 4
4 2
12 6
6 3
9 4
3 2
6 3
17 8
4 2
12 6
EMISSIONS3
CARBON MONOXIDE
1 Ib/ton kg/MT
117 58
150 75
157 78
108 54
176 88
144 72
77 38
101 50
112 56
83 41
71 35
106 53
186 93
139 70
137 68
147 74
128 64
119 60
148 72
150 75
136 68
108 54
51 26
85 42
309 154
34 17
52 26
46 23
42 21
49 24
116 58
44 22
81 40
56 28
57 28
33 16
114 57
42 21
57 28
42 21
47 24
140 70
90 45
195 98
HYDROCAPBONS
(as C6H14)
Ibs/ton kg/MT
23 12
85 42
19 10
16 8
6 1
** O
26 13
9 4
19 10
8 4
10 5
10 5
36 33
46 23
22 11
3J 16
38 19
17 9
37 18
25 12
17 8
18 9
11 6
7 4
12 6
2 1
27 14
10 5
8 4
4 2
8 4
32 16
10 5
12 f>
7 4
10 5
4 2
18 9
5 2
9 4
3 2
8 4
24 12
5 2
14 7
-------
Factors expressed as weight of pollutant emitted per weight of refuse material burned.
Particulate matter from most agricultural refuse- burning has been found to be in the submicron size
range (12).
Reference 12 and 13.
For these refuse materials, no significant difference exists between emissions resulting fiom headfirin"
or backfiring. °
These factors represent emissions under typical high moisture conditions. If ferns are dried to 1 <±,s
than 15 percent moisture, particulate emissions will be reduced by 30 percent, CO emission by 23 percent
and HC by 74 percent. '
When pineapple is allowed to dry to less than 20 percent moisture, as it usually is, the firing technique
ni"^i i^^tantJ' When headfired above 20 Percent moisture, particulate emission will increase to 23 Ib/ton
(11.5 kg/MT) and HC will increase to 12 Ib/ton (6 kg/MT). See reference 11.
g
This factor is for dry (<15 percent moisture) rice straw. If rice straw is burned at higher moisture
levels, particulate emission will increase to 29 Ib/ton (14.5 kg/MT), CO emission to 161 Ib/ton (80.5 kg/MT)
and HC emission to 21 Ib/ton (10.5 kg/MT).
See Sec 6.12 for discussion of sugar cane burning.
See accompanying text for definition of headfiring.
JSee accompanying text for definition of backfiring. This category, for emission estimation purposes
includes another technique used occasionally for limiting emissions, called into-the-wind striplighting
which involves lighting fields in strips into the wind at 100-200 M (300-600 ft.) intervals.
Orchard primings are usually burned in piles. No significant difference in emission results from burning
a cold pile as opposed to using a roll-on technique, where prunings are bulldozed onto a bed of embers
from a preceding fire.
Reference 10. Nitrogen oxide emissions estimated at 4 Ib/ton, 2 kg/MT.
'Reference 15.
"Reference 16.
-------
Table 2.4-3
FUEL LOADING FACTORS FOB OPEN BURNING OF AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS
REFUSE CATEGORY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Field Crops
Unspecified
Alfalfa
Asparagus
Barley, Cotton
Bean, Pea
Corn
Hay (wild)
Oats
Rice
Safflower
Sorghum
Sugar cane
Wheat
Vine Crops
Weeds
Unspecified
Russian thistle
Orchard Crops
Unspecified
Almond
Apple
Apricot
Avocado
Cherry, Citrus, Date palm
Fig
Nectarine
Olive, Prune, Walnut
Peach
Pear
Forest Residues
Unspecified
WASTE PRODUCTION3
tons/acre MT/hectare
2.0
0.8
1.5
1.7
2.5
4.2
1.0
1.6
3.0
1.3
2.9
11.0
1.9
2.5
3.2
0.1
1.6
1.6
2.3
1.8
1.5
1.0
2.2
2.0
1.2
2.5
2.6
70
4.5
1.8
3.4
3.8
5.6
9.4
2.2
3.6
6.7
2.9
6.5
24.0
4.3
5.6
7.2
0.2
3.6
3.6
5.2
4.0
3.4
2.2
4.9
4.5
2.7
5.6
5.8
157
aReference 14
^If orchard removal is the purpose of a burn, 30 tons/acre (66 MT/hectare) of waste will be
produced.
10
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.4
1. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources Research, Inc.,
Reston, Va. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control Administration,'
Durham, N.C., under Contract Number CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
2. Gerstle, R. W. and D. A. Kemnitz. Atmospheric Emissions from Open
Burning. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 2-2:324-327. May 1967.
3. Burkle, J. 0., J. A. Dorsey, and B. T. Riley. The Effects of Operating
Variables and Refuse Types on Emissions from a Pilot-Scale Trench
Incinerator. Proceedings of 1968 Incinerator Conference, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers. New York. May 1968. p. 34-41.
4. Weisburd, M. I. and S. S. Griswold (eds.). Air Pollution Control Field
Operations Guide: A Guide for Inspection and Control. U.S. DREW, PHS,
Division of Air Pollution, Washington, D.C. PHS Publication No. 937. 1962.
5. Unpublished data on estimated major air contaminant emissions. State of
New York Department of Health. Albany. April 1, 1968.
6. Darley, E. F. et al. Contribution of Burning of Agricultural Wastes to
Photochemical Air Pollution. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. 16:685-690,
December 1966.
7. Feldstein, M. et al. The Contribution of the Open Burning of Land
Clearing Debris to Air Pollution. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc.
13:542-545, November 1963.
8. Boubel, R. W., E. F. Darley, and E. A. Schuck. Emissions from Burning
Grass Stubble and Straw. J. Air Pol. Control Assoc. _19_:497-500, July 1969.
9. Waste Problems of Agriculture and Forestry. Environ. Sci. and Tech
1:498, July 1968.
10. Yamate, G. et al. An Inventory of Emissions from Forest Wildfires,
Forest Managed Burns, and Agricultural Burns and Development of Emission
Factors for Estimating Atmospheric Emissions from Forest Fires. Presented
at the 68th Annual Meeting, Air Pollution Control Association, Boston,
Mass. June 1975.
11. Darley, E. F. Air Pollution Emissions from Burning Sugar Cane and
Pineapple from Hawaii. Amendment to EPA Research Grant R800711, University
of California, Riverside, August 1974.
12. Darley, E. F. et al. Air Pollution from Forest and Agricultural Burning.
California Air Resources Board Project 2-017-1, University of California'
Davis, April 1974.
11
-------
13. Darley, E. F. Progress Report on Emissions from Agricultural Burning.
California Air Resources Board Project 4-011. University of California,
Riverside. Private communication with permission of Air Resources Board
June 1975.
14. Private Communication on Estimated Waste Production from Agricultural
Burning Activities. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento
September, 1975.
15. Fritschen, L. et al, "Flash Fire Atmospheric Pollution", USDA Forest
Service Research Paper PNW-97 , 1970.
16. Sandberg, D.V., Pickford, S.G. and Darley, E.F., "Emissions from
Slash Burning and the Influence of Flame Retardant Chemicals", J. Air
Pollution Control Association 25: 278 (1975).
12
-------
SUGGESTED REVISION
6.12 SUGAR CANE PROCESSING
6.12.1 General 1~3
Sugar cane is burned in the field prior to harvesting to remove
unwanted foliage as well as to control rodents and insects. Harvesting
is done by hand or where possible, by mechanical means.
After harvesting, the cane goes through a series of processes
to be converted to the final sugar product. It is washed to remove
larger amounts of dirt and trash; then crushed and shredded to reduce
the size of the stalks. The juice is next extracted by one of two
methods, milling or diffusion. In milling the cane is pressed between
heavy rollers to press out the juice; in diffusion the sugar is leached
out by water and thin juices. The raw sugar then goes through a series
of operations including clarification, evaporation, and crystallization
in order to produce the final product. The fibrous residue remaining
after sugar extraction is called bagasse.
All mills fire some or all of their bagasse in boilers to provide
power necessary in their milling operation. Some, having more bagasse
than can be utilized internally, sell the remainder for use in the
manufacture of various chemicals such as furfural.
6.12.2 Emissions
2, 3
The largest sources of emissions from sugar cane processing are
the openfield burning in the harvesting of the crop and the burning
of bagasse as fuel. In the various processes of crushing, evaporation,
and crystallization, some particulates are emitted but in relatively
small quantities. Emission factors for sugar cane field burning are
shown in Table 2.4-2. Emission factors for bagasse firing in boilers
are presented in Section 1.7.
13
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.12
1. Sugar Cane. In: Kirk-Othiner Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology,
Vol. IX. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1964.
2. Darley, E. F. "Air Pollution Emissions from Burning Sugar Cane and
Pineapple from Hawaii." Amendment to EPA Research Grant R800711
Air Pollution from Forest and Agricultural Burning. Statewide Air
Pollution Research Center, University of California, Riverside,
August 1974.
3. Draft. Background Information For Establishment of National
Standards of Performance for New Sources. Raw Cane Sugar Industry.
Prepared for EPA Under Task Order 9c of Contract CPA 70-142 by
Environmental Engineering, Inc. Gainesville, Florida. July 15, 1971.
14
-------
III.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR SECTION 2.4 (OPEN BURNING)
Information suitable for estimating the emission factors listed
in the tables of Section 2.4 is drawn mainly from two reports (refer-
ences 7 and 8) obtained from Dr. Ellis Darley, University of California,
Riverside and an estimation of waste produced in horticulture burning
made by the California Air Resources Board (9). Abstracts of these and
other relevant documents are provided in Appendix I. Full copies are
obtainable from the Project Officer. In reference 7, Air Pollution
from Forest and Agricultural Burning. Dr. Darley and his colleagues re-
ported on extensive studies on burning of agricultural materials, both
in the laboratory and in the field; reference 8 amounts to a compila-
tion of data for similar experiments conducted more recently, covering
a broader variety of materials.
The earlier Riverside report (7) presents statistically supported
conclusions regarding various factors which were found to affect the rate
of emission of particulates, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons in burn-
ing of certain agricultural materials. In brief, it is clear that, with
most materials, emissions are strongly related to the moisture content
of the fuel. The technique of burning-whether by headfires, backfires,
or Into-the-wind-striplighting—can also have a substantial influence
on emissions. Finally, the amount of emissions per ton of fuel can also
vary appreciably depending on whether the fuel is piled, rowed, or
spread—a factor that was simulated, in the laboratory tests, by various
loadings on the burning platform.
The main purpose of the Riverside studies was to demonstrate the
potential value of tested fire-management techniques in minimizing the
quantity of emissions produced in agricultural burning. By the same
token, the results also demonstrated that emissions estimates for
agricultural burning must be subject to a high degree of uncertainty,
unless the burning techniques used and the condition of the material'
burned are known with unusual accuracy. Certainly, in many applications
15
-------
of agricultural burning emission factors, estimates of emissions will
be needed even though much of this information is not readily available.
PES, in compiling these enission factors, has adopted the approach
of offering factors useful with different levels of detail in the fuel
inventory information. Thus, in the tables presented in Section 2.4,
there is a single emission factor for field crops, which may be used to
obtain a rough estimate of emissions from burning of a specified amount
of any or all of the various materials—alfalfa, barley, beans, etc.—
listed as field crops on subsequent lines of the table. These additional
lines provide a more accurate emission factor for the burning of a particu-
lar crop, e.g., alfalfa, using each of two common burning techniaues, a
headfire burn, a backfire burn.
In tabulating these emission factors, PES has elected not to in-
clude columns for emissions of sulfur oxides or nitrogen oxides. The
new information available to us does not include data on these pollutants,
which were not measured in the Riverside studies. Only in the case of
nitrogen oxides from forest residues (Reference LO) has any such esti-
mate been made, and this is incorporated as a footnote to the table.
No data from field fires have been used in preparing this docu-
ment. Comparisons of field and laboratory burning of rice straw indi-
cate the burning tower fires accurately simulate field conditions (7).
This enables experiments to be conducted under more carefully controlled
conditions, thereby minimizing variations among data. Quoting Darley (7),
"The residue is rarely in a uniform condition in the field.
Even in a field that appears to be very uniform there may
be variations in residue moisture content as high as 50%
about the mean value. Fuel loading will also vary by as much
50% about the mean value, because of differences in plant
populations in the field, straw spreader performance, and
harvester patterns in the field. The smoke sampling technique
only measures the particulates produced from .07 kg (.15 Ibs.)
of fuel or less. Unless a uniform mixing of the particulate
emissions takes place between the fire and the sampler, the
emissions measured may not be fully representative of the
entire plot."
16
-------
Following subsections of this Background Document deal with each
individual agricultural material studied. Conditions affecting the
emission factors—especially moisture content, firing technique, and
fuel loading—are individually discussed in each case where they have
been shown to have a statistically significant effect. Finally, the
rationale for the tabulated emission factor values is explained in each
subsection.
All data points used in calculating an emission factor are listed
and means and standard deviations for each factor are given immediately
below the data tabulation. The overall standard deviation for emissions
from 196 field crop burns is 9.6 for particulates, 36.0 for CO and 6.8
for hydrocarbons. The recommended emission factors for field crops are
summarized in Table III-l and for orchard crops, in Table III-2.
Table III-l presents a concise summary of average emissions
based on the Riverside results for each field crop, vine, and weed.
Table III-2 summarizes emission factors for orchard prunings, which are
discussed in Subsection D.
In preparing these tabulations, the basic statistical tool was
Student's _t test for the comparison of means. This was used in the form
given by V. L. Maksoudian, "Probability and Statistics with Applications,"
International Textbook Company, Scranton, Pa., 1969 (p.239):
For sets of data having the same variance
(V - Y }
1 xo'
t = _
Two groups of data are not significantly different, and may there-
fore be combined, if the absolute value of t is less than t (0.025, n + n -2),
where n represents sample size and x represents the mean for each group.
17
-------
For* sets of data not having the same variance
Xl ~ X2
t ^
In this case, two groups of data may be combined if the absolute
value of t is less than t (0.025, r 2
nl " I n2 - X
In analyzing the data for orchard prunings, an analysis of variance
was carried out for each pollutant in order to define the significant
differences among the fourteen types of trees tested.
The determination of hydrocarbon emissions has been complicated by
use of two analyzers during the1 1975 burning schedule. Quoting from
Dr. Barley's report (8), "Recently we had the opportunity of borrowing a
newer model of hydrocarbon analyzer (Beckman 400) from EPA. When the new
instrument was compared with our analyser it was obvious that the response
of the newer instrument was more sensitive so that at given peaks in a
fire, it registered a higher value. In computing emission factors, the
greater sensitivity has the net result of increasing the hydrocarbon yield
from 25 to 35 percent, depending on the width of the peak. After consult-
ing with staff of both the ARE and EPA it has been decided to use the
newer instrument on future fires." In order to compare data obtained
using two different instruments, PES has elected to convert all data
collected on the first hydrocarbon analyzer to correspond to readings
which would have been obtained on the Beckman 400. Nineteen burns were
conducted with both analyzers operating so that a comparison of the two
could be made. The average difference between readings was 30%, i.e.,
18
-------
multiplying the value obtained on the first analyzer by 1.30 will
yield the value recorded by the second. This has been done for all
data values obtained at Riverside using the older hydrocarbon analyzer.
Dr. Barley calibrates the hydrocarbon analyzers with hexane
and all values have been calculated based on this response. PES sees
no need to alter the reporting base, which has been duly noted in the
revision to Section 2.4 of AP-42. Both Fritschen , et al (2) and
Sandberg, et al (3) reported hydrocarbons as carbon. These values
have been corrected to correspond to all other hexane related results.
The legend for reading these data tables is as follows:
H-25 is a headfire conducted during 1974-5 with the
/ with the burning table at a 25% incline.
H-15 is a headfire conducted during 1974-5 with the
burning table at 15% incline.
B-25 is a backfire conducted during 1974-5 with the
burning table at a 25% incline.
B-15 is a backfire conducted during 1974-5 with the
burning table at a 15% incline.
Flat is a fire conducted during 1974-5 with a hori-
zontal burning table.
Dates refer to the year or month a burn was made.
Sidefire is an attempt to simulate into-the-wind-
striplighting of a field by slowly igniting the
downwind corner of the material, slowly moving
the flame into the wind (up the table)
Repeating, all hydrocarbon values are calculated compensating for 1)
different responses between the old and new analyzers and 2) relating
to calibration with hexane.
19
-------
TABLE III - 1
EMISSION FACTORS FOR VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS, WITH SIGNIFICANT VARIATIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS CONDITIONS OF BURNING. VALUES IN POUNDS PER TON OF FUEL BURNED
Product and Burning Conditions
Alfalfa Headfire
Backfire
Asparagus Moisture <15%
Moisture >15Z
Barley
Bean (red) Headflre
Backfire
Corn
Cotton
Hay Headfire
Backfire
Oats Headflre
Backfire
Pea Headflre
Backfire
"ice Moisture >15X
Moisture <15Z
Saf flower
Sorghum
Wheat Head fire
Backfire
Field grasses
Vine Crops
Pineapple Moisture <201
Headflre Moisture >205
Backfire Moisture >20*
Russian thistle
Tules
Weeds - Unspecified
Orchard Crops (except Avocado and Olive)
Avocado
Olive
Forest slash burning*
Ibs. Emitted/Ton Fuel
Particulate
45
29
28
40
22
43
15
14
8
32
17
44
21
31
14
30
9
18
18
22
13
16
5
7
23
9
22
5
is
6
21
12
17
CO
106
119
116
150
157
186
147
108
176
139
150
137
136
147
ISO
161
83
144
77
128
108
101
51
106
130
117
309
34
85
50
116
114
140
HC
36
37
17
85
19
46
20
16
6
22
17
33
18
38
30
21
10
26
9
17
11
19
47
8
16
9
27
2
12
7
32
18
24
Number of
Test Fires
2
2
1 1
6
25
5
5
11
2
,
2
5
9
2
2
19
47
6
4
7
12
14
12
10
2
2
8
4
12
97
3
8
-
*For forest slash burning NO emissions have been estimated to be 4 Ibs/ton fuel burned.
20
-------
A. Field Crops
1. Alfalfa
Type of Fire
% Moisture,
dry wt.
basis
Ibs.
Part.
Emissions,
per ton fuel burned
CO HC
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
41.5
48.0
45
4.6
26.1
31.4
29
3.7
103.2
107.8
106
2.9
125.3
112.4
119
9.1
33.9
38.2
36
3.0
38.0
35.1
37
2.0
H-25
Mean
Standard
deviation
B-25
Mean
Standard
deviation
There is a significant difference between emissions from headfire
and backfire burns. PES recommends both factors be given in AP-42 with
the instruction that if the fire management technique is unknown, an
average of the two values be used in calculating emissions. The recommended
emission factors are listed in Table III-l for all products.
2. Asparagus fern
H-15
B-15
H-25
10.9
11.6
11.7
10.9
10.5
10.5
24.5
27.9
26.1
29.7
34.4
34.7
98.6
108.9
95.9
107.3
90.4
121.3
17.0
19.4
16.8
19.5
19.4
25.2
21
-------
2. Asparagus fern (continued)
Type of Fire
% Moisture,
dry wt.
basis
Ibs.
Part.
B-25 10.5 29.5
10.5 25.4
Emissions,
per ton fuel
CO
145.4
118.1
burned
HC
22.5
17.1
Flat
April 1973
Mean
Standard
deviation
12.0
14
10
22.3
. 27
28
28
3.8
79.6
165
145
116
26.4
12.0
12
9
17
4.8
Type of Fire
% Moisture,
wet wt.
ba.sis
Fern
Stem
Emissions,
Ib. per ton fuel burned
Part. CO HC
December, 1972
Mean
Standard deviation
18
33
29
18
46
61
50
63
35
32
53
—
40
11.4
103
107
171
221
150
56.4
86
62
113
79
85
21.2
22
-------
Dr. Barley has conducted burns of both freshly cut asparagus fern
and air dried residues. The difference in emissions from the "wet" and
"dry" materials is significant. Among the numerous backfire and head-
fire burns of low moisture material, there is no significant difference
in the mean emissions at the 95% confidence interval.
In view of Dr. Darley's report (8) that asparagus fern may often
be burned before the material has dried to a moisture level of 10-12%,
PES suggests the emission factors determined in burning the "wet" ferns
be the primary entry in AP-42. A footnote will be included stating that
emissions are reduced when dry material is burned.
23
-------
3. Barley
Type of Fire
% Moisture,
dry wt.
basis
Ibs.
Part
Emissions,
per ton fuel burned
CO HC
HEADFIRE
Mean
H-15
H-25
1973
BACKFIRE
B-15
B-25
1973
Flat
SIDEFIRE (1973)
ard deviation
8.6
9.1
11.8
~10.0
~10.0
8.1
6
14
20.4
15
10.5
8.7
10.1
~10.0
-10.0
4
14
20.3
18.0
18.4
10.0
10.0
9.1
6
18
6.6
9.4
11.4
14.6
28.5
21.3
52.0
75.5
30.6*
59.6
't ''
7.1
7.8
9.6
7.8
8.6
31.9
28.2
19.4*
30.1
49.6
6.8
9.4
7.7
26.6*
42.0*
22
18.2
85.1
102.5
91.6
148.2
152.3
156.5
257.3
267.0
138.0*
299.0
80.4
102.5
110.7
113.3
112.7
230.7
237.6
142.0*
271.7
297.8
92.7
96.9
91.7
159.8*
195.6*
157
76.1
7.2
7.9
5.3
22.2
28.9
27.6
20.5
35.8
17.4*
40.2
7.3
7.1
8.5
13.1
15.5
15.0
29.0
20.3*
40.2
40.4
5.2
5.7
7.3
15.0*
26.4*
19
11.9
*Fires conducted at lower fuel loading.
24
-------
The data marked with asterisks represent fires conducted at a
lower fuel loading than was used in all other burning tower trials—
2 Ibs., to simulate spread straw, as opposed to 6 Ibs., to simulate
rowed straw.
Fuel loading does affect the pollutant emissions. In labora-
tory fires, increasing fuel loading generally decreases particulate
emissions. However, in these barley burns, the opposite occurred.
Darley (7) suggests this might have resulted from substantially better
air drying, less compaction or a lower required rate of oxygen supply
at the lesser fuel loading. All of these variables have been shown to
reduce production of emissions.
The 1973 fires burned at the higher fuel loading "may well not
represent most field conditions. The residue quantity in the field
usually corresponds to the .9 Kg J2 Ib. j tests at the SAPRC tower."
(7) Burns conducted in the field in 1972 have substantially lower
particulate emissions—4.7 Ibs./ton fuel was the average for 43 trials.
The range of data obtained in 1973 and 1974, even with the same
.25 Ib. fuel/sq.ft. load used, is so large that no meaningful compari-
sons of effects of moisture or fuel loading are possible.
There is no indication that any data may be discarded because
of error in conducting the experiment, however, the experimental techniques
used in 1973-1974 were not the same. In 1973 a slope of more than 25%
was used and additional air flow from a fan was used to increase the rate
of burning. At this time, because effects of different variables cannot
be segregated with certainty, an emission factor obtained by averaging
all available laboratory data is being proposed for inclusion in
AP-42.
25
-------
4. Bean (red)
Type of Fire
% Moisture,
dry wt.
basis
Emissions,
Ibs. per ton fuel burned
Part. CO HC
H-15
H-25
Mean
Standard deviation
B-15
B-25
Mean
Standard deviation
12.5
11.6
11.0
12.4
9.7
12.3
11.2
9.3
13.7
9.7
20.2
19.5
13.0
45.7
40.4
43
3.7
15.6
16.4
11.6
11.3
12.4
15
3.5
174.4
156.5
142.7
193.1
179.1
186
9.9
155.5
70.1
139.1
183.9
149.9
147
34.4
27.2
10.3
17.9
48.8
44.2
46
3.0
21.8
19.0
15.5
25.4
24.0
20
5.6
There is a significant difference between emissions from burns
using headfire and backfire burning techniques. , As in the previous
case of burning barley, the average emissions for both headfires and
backfires are to be listed in AP-42 along with the suggestion that if
fire management technique is unknown, use the average emissions for the
two different types fires, i.e., 29 Ibs. partlculates/ton fuel, 166 Ibs.
CO/ton fuel and 32 Ibs. EC/ton fuel.
26
-------
5. Corn
Type of Fire
% Moisture,
dry wt.
basis
Ibs.
Part
Emissions,
per ton fuel burned
CO HC
H-15
H-25
B-15
16.8
14.5
12.7
13.4
9,0
9.5
16.9
10.8
14.1
7.6
11.7
17.4
16.1
15.2
12.7
15.0
12.4
15.2
13.2
11.5
15.1
13.2
14
1.8
115.5
107.9
142.7
99.9
120.5
89.6
108.6
95.6
97.8
110.3
102.4
108
14.5
17.7
17.7
17.9
13.8
20.4
12.5
16.5
13.9
13.4
18.5
14.3
16
2.6
B-25
Mean
Standard deviation
There is no significant difference between the means for any type of
fire conducted. Thus an average of all data is used to obtain the emission
factors in Table III-l.
6. Cotton
Windrow
14.4
14.7
Mean
Standard deviation
10.7
6.2
8
2.1
182.8
169.0
176
3.7
5.6
5.6
These were the only burns conducted. The average emissions are
shown in Table III-l.
27
-------
7. Hay (wild)
% Mois
dry <;
T\TTNl-» ft. £ T^-f
Type of Fire basi:
ture, Emissions,
?t. Ibs. per ton
5
Part. CO
H 25 !0.'+ 27.4 137
10-'> 36.7 139
Mean
Standard deviation
B-25 10.1
11.1
Mean
Standard deviation
« ,« i
32 139
fuel
.8
.7
6.6 1.3
16.5 155.3
17.4 144.4
17 150
•6 7.
7
burned
HC
21.8
22.5
"22
.5
18.4
14.7
.
17
2.6
There is a significant difference between emissions from headfire
and backfire burns. PES recommends both factors be given in AP-42 with
the note that if the fire management method is unknown, an average of the
two values can be used in calculating emissions.
8. Oats
H-15
H-25
Mean
Standard deviation
B-15
B-25
11.3
9.1
10.8
7.1
9.6
11.8
9.2
11.2
10.2
8.1
7.6
18.4
23.5
19.7
44.8
43.8
44
0.7
19.3
22.2
20.3
22.0
17.9
21.5
121.4
154.0
149.2
141.6
132.5
137
6.4
124.8
135.8
130.0
156.4
134.0
124.0
11.7
23.1
20.2
32.8
33.3
33
0.8
13.7
16.1
17.0
18.7
23.8
23.5
28
-------
Flat
9.5
10.5
12.7
ion
19.6
21.9
21.5
21
1.7
131.9
138.1
135.4
136
11.5
15.1
21.4
13.5
18
4,2
Standard deviation
There is a significant difference between emissions from headfire and
backfire burns. PES suggests including these two emission factor sets
in AP-42 with the instruction that if the fire management technique is
unknown, an average of the two values be used in calculating emissions.
9. Peas
% Mois
dry
Type of Fire basi
H-25 9.8
9.8
Mean
Standard deviation
B-25 9.8
9.8
^fean
Standard deviation
ture Emissions,
wt ' Ibs. per ton fuel
o
Part. CO
32.5 147
29.6 147
31 147
4.2
14.3 157
14.3 143
14 150
.0 10
.3
.4
.3
.4
.2
burned
HC
39.1
37.4
38
1.2
31.8
29.0
30
2.0
There is a significant difference between emissions from headfire
and backfire burns. PES suggests including both factors in AP-42 with the
instruction that if the fire management technique is unknown, an average
of the two values be used in calculating emissions.
29
-------
10. Rice
Type of Fire
% Moisture,
dry wt.
basis
Emissions,
Ibs. per ton fuel burned
Part. CO HC
H-25
H-15
Headfire (1973)
Headfire (1972)
Headfire (1973 )
Backfire (1973)
Backfire (1972)
*Fires conducted with fuel load of 2 Ibs.
9
10
6
10
10
14
15
5
13
9
8
10
12
10
14
14*
5*
15*
14«
5'*
7
10
14
13
7
7
9
10
9
9.9
14.7
16.2
15.1
11.2
19.2
9.8
5.9
14.1
5.1
7.8
20.3
8.0
6.3
15.5
19.2
5.9
4.9
9.8
3.4
7.0
6.5
9.8
12.9
5.7
4.8
3.8
6.2
6.6
122.6
95.7
78.4
79.2
96.3
58.6
86.8
61.8
78.4
63.0
64.5
89.5
96.3
86.3
132.2
58.6
61.8
64.9
76.0
72.0
77.0
66.1
111.4
104.1
67.9
64.2
69.0
103.4
107.9
11.8
10.9
7.5
11.0
12.5
8.2
11.0
34.7
15.1
7.4
9.5
17.2
5.7
4.8
9.9
8.2
34.7
9.8
8.6
8.2
6.6
7.0
14.4
18.3
7.9
7.5
6.6
11.2
4.2
30
-------
10. Rice (continued)
Type of Fire
% Moisture,
dry wt.
basis
Emissions,
Ibs. per ton fuel burned
Part. CO HC
Backfire (1972)
B-25
B-15
Sidefire (1973)
Mean
Standard deviation
11
12
10
12
6
6
6
9
8
7
16
18
21
13
15
13
8
13
2.8
11.5
6.3
8.3
8.8
7.0
9.1
9.4
5.6
2.7
5.1
11.2
10.2
9.7
9.9
9.5
4.6
9.1
8.8
3.9
84.5
132.1
87.4
74.1
67.8
58.0
72.1
65.6
77.3
51.4
58.0
127.7
79.5
77.6
72.8
72.4
64.5
77.6
82.6
20.3
2.6
9.1
10.4
7.2
7.8
5.1
7.4
7.4
9.2
5.2
5.7
22.4
13.6
12.7
10.3
10.4
9.2
9.5
9.5
3.9
31
-------
10. Rice (continued)
% Mois
dry
Type of Fire bas-
Headfire (1973) 18
17
21
26
Headfire (1972) 40
20
32
20
17
21
Backfire (1973) 20
17
24
23
Backfire (1972) 32
24
22
16
17
Mean
Standard deviation
Emissions,
sture, lbs> per ton fuel
wt.
Ls Part. CO
24.8 118.6
22.1 109.5
36.2 137.8
39.8 156.5
89.4
51.2 227.1
65.7 164.2
38.9 137.3
24.9 145.3
17.3 159.9
15.1 126.4
7.3 92.5
15.7 161.0
12.1 137.4
27.0 269.2
27.2 300.7
25.7 155.9
12.2 140.3
11.5 158.0
29.7 161.0
20.7 53.3
burned
HC .
23.3
22.8
31.2
34.1
24.0
22.4
30.4
17.8
13.0
13.8
20.4
13.4
28.7
24.7
23.4
28.7
16.9
8.3
9.6
21.4
7.5
(Fire conducted at .08 Ib./sq.ft,
calculations.)
loading, riot included in
Headfire (1973)
20*
6.5
54.0
7.9
*Fires conducted with fuel load of 2 Ibs.
32
-------
The first step in correlating this substantial quantity of data
was to group results in terms of year of test, type of fire, moisture
content and fuel loading. Students' t-test, with the statistics
described on p.17 was used to compare means of several combinations
of these groups of data. The results of all low moisture head-
fires and backfires and all sidefires can be combined to yield one
set of emission factors. The high moisture headfires and backfires,
with the exception of one fire conducted at the unusually low fuel
loading of .08 Ibs. fuel/sq.ft., yield substantially higher quantities
of pollutants and have been combined to provide a separate set of factors,
There is insufficient information to make any statement about
emissions from high moisture, low fuel load headfires, so this one burn
has been excluded from any calculations.
To minimize the number of factors, particularly in consideration
of the practice of allowing rice straw to dry before burning PES suggests
the "low moisture" be incorporated into AP-42 with a footnote stating
that if a high moisture burn has been known to have been conducted,
particulate emissions will be increased to 29 Ibs./ton, CO to 161 Ibs./
ton and HC to 21 Ibs./ton.
11. Safflower
% Mois
dry i
Type of Fire basi
ture Emissions,
wt ' Ibs. per ton
5 Part. CO
H-15 16.9 14.7 125
10.9 12.4 130
14.4 23.8 177
B~15 18.3 14.6 122
fuel
.9
.1
.9
.6
12-2 24.9 139.2
12-2 20.8 165.2
Mean
Standard deviation
18 144
5.3 22.8
burned
HC
21.6
12.1
33.8
17.8
36.8
31.7
26
9.9
33
-------
There is no significant difference between the means for either
type of fire conducted. Thus an average of all data is used to obtain
the emission factors.
12. Sorghum
Type of Fire
% Moisture,
dry wt.
basis
Ibs.
Part
Emissions,
per ton fuel burned
CO HC
H-25 66.0
43.9
B-25 46.6
29. }
Mean
Standard deviation
Four burns were completed. The
the emission factor in Table III-l.
13. Wheat
H-15 7.6
8.4
9.4
H-25 7.2
10.7
Headfire (1973) 17.2*
6.2
Mean
Standard deviation
11.8
31.7
13.4
13.4
17.6
9.4
average of all
9.6
12.6
12.2
20.5
35.5
31.5
29.5
21.6
10.6
68.3
79.2
80.9
79.2
77
5.8
results
91.8
105.0
100.9
143.1
167.1
134.8
157.1
128.5
29.5
6.6
8.8
9.1
10.3
9
1.5
is used as
7.2
8.3
7.4
32.2
28.8
20.3
17.7
17.4
10.4
Fire conducted at fuel loading of .08 Ibs/sq. ft,,
34
-------
13. Wheat (Continued)
Type of Fire
% Moisture,
dry wt.
basis
Ibs.
Part
Emissions,
per ton fuel burned
CO HC
B-15
B-25
Flat
7.8
8.6
8.5
9.7
7.5
6.6
7.4
8.9
11.6
9.6
15.7*
14*
7.9
9.7
12.5
10.6
11.8
10.6
7.4
10.5
11.4
22.1
16.5
20.2
12.6
4.6
82.1
95.9
89.0
110.2
110.8
110.7
84.1
95.0
105.8
186.2
123.6
99.1
107.7
29.6
4.2
6.9
8.6
8.8
19.8
13.0
4.7
7.3
8.1
18.8
17.9
18.1
11.4
5.8
Backfire (1973)
Sidefire (1973)
Mean
Standard deviation
Fire conducted with fuel load of only 2 Ibs., not included in calculations,
Headfire (1973) 10.9* 11.8 48.0 4.8
The 1973 series fires were conducted at different loading levels—
.08 Ibs./sq.ft., simulating spread straw and .25 Ibs./sq.ft., simulating
rowed straw. The 1975 series fires were conducted at a .25 Ib./sq.ft.
loading. Fuel loading does influence the amount of emissions, but at this
time there is insufficient data to allow calculation of emission factors
for both categories. In determining the factors shown, it was found that
*Fires conducted at fuel loading of .08 Ibs./sq.ft.
35
-------
at the 95% confidence level,, fuel loading did not affect the values
for backfires, but the one 1973 headfire noted in the data table, was
significantly different from other headfire results and was not included
in further calculation.
Both factors for headfires and backfires, plus a sidefire, are
included in the suggested revision of AP-42.
14. Field Grasses.
Grasses from the Willamette Valley, Oregon were burned under varying
conditions by Boubel et al. (AP-42, § 2.4, Ref. 8).
Summarizing from this report, the yields of various pollutants
resulting from burning in the tower at Riverside are as follows:
lue
er. Rye
ent
tnn. Rye
escue
r chard
lue
er . Rye
Sent
tnn. Rye
'escue
)r chard
tean
Standard devi
7
Jo
Moisture
5
6
2
9
9
15
23
71
60
20 )
55 1
66
66 I
47 1
ation
Emissions
Ib/ton fuel
Part. CO
16.5 147
12.0 104
14.0 124
10.5 85
13.0 122
11.5 89
15.0 95
26.0 106
24.0 109
10.0 58
17.0 77
17.5 100
-16 101
5.1 23.4
burned
HC
28.
21.
21.
12.
18.
10.
12.
29.
29.
7.
14.
23.
19
7.
0
7
7
4
6
9
4
5
5
8
0
3
6
36
-------
Field burns were also conducted. The average emissions from ten
fires are given below:
Emissions
Ibs/ton fuel burned
Part.
Blue 81.2
Orchard 12.0
Per. Rye 9.2
Fes cue 6 . 4
Ann. Rye 3.3
CO
238
135
119
116
108
HC
23.0
17.1
15.2
15.1
16.0
The average values for the emission variables from the field series
and burning tower series of fires are as follows:
Field Fires 15.6 132.2
Burning tower 15.6 101.3
Fires
17.3
19.2
The average emissions which they reported from the burning tower
fires are incorporated in Table III-l.
15. Pineapple
Type of Fire
% Moisture,
dry wt.
basis
Ibs.
Part.
Emissions ,
per ton fuel burned
CO HC
Headfire
8.8
10.4
16.7
18.4
15.7
25.0
28.3
6.3
6.4
8.7
8.1
8.8
24.8
21.7
108.7
102.1
121.8
91.0
87.4
131.9
127.8
5.6
6.4
8.6
7.4
7.0
15.2
16.6
37
-------
Type of Fire
Backfire
% Moisture,
dry wt.
basis
8.1
10.4
15.6
17.9
16.1
25.0
23.8
Emissions
Ibs. per ton fuel burned
Part. CO HC
6.2 113.9 4.2
6.6 100.9 5.5
6.5 112.9 6.0
7.4 103.1 6.9
9.2 121.5 10.7
8.2 110.7 8.6
9.9 122.7 10.1
Darley (4) reports significant differences at the 99% confidence
level in pollutants emitted from burning pineapple trash under these
three conditions:
<20 7.4 106.4 7.6
>20
Headfire
Backfire
23.2
9.0
129.8
116.7
15.9
9.4
Because of this, PES considers these three sets of emission
factors be included in AP- 42.
B. Vine Crops
1. Boysenberry
Pile
Mean
11.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
3.8
3.9
3.6
3.7
4
64.3
62.9
43.7
51.7
56
2.3
1.3
1.0
.8
1
Standard
Deviation
.4
9.8
.7
38
-------
The emissions listed in Tables III-l are the averages of these
four trial burns.
Type of Fire
% Moisture,
dry wt.
basis
Emissions,
Ibs. per ton fuel burned
Part. CO HC
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll- on
Mean
Standard deviation
Average of four
1973 Trials
Average of
all Trials
40.7
40.0
39.6
37.5
24.0
26.1
22.8
22.3
30.0
6.6
8.2
7.4
8.2
3.4
5.2
3.8
5.1
6.0
1.9
5.7
5.8
36.9
49.9
46.1
50.2
46.2
58.3
44.4
59.3
49
7.4
62.
51
6.6
10.4
7.6
9.2
2.7
5.4
3.3
3.7
6.1
2.8
7.7
6.9
As is described more fully in the Orchard Crops section, grape
prunings were burned at two moisture levels, 24% H20 and 30% HO, and with
two ignition techniques, a cold start and a roll-on start. Because both
the moisture levels in actual field burns may vary between these two test
contents, and actual field burns may use the roll-on technique to maintain
a fire, the appropriate field emission factor represents average emissions
from all test fires. The averages given in III-l were obtained by first
finding the average emissions from the 1974 - 1975 burning series and
then combining this number with the overall emissions from the four 1973
trials.
39
-------
C. Weeds
1. Ditch. Bank
Type of Fire
H-25
H-25
B-25
B-25
Flat
Piles
2. Mixed
Piles
Mean
% Moisture,
dry wt.
basis
Ll.l
11.1
11.1
11.1
13.8
13.8
13.8
13.8
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
Standard deviation
Ibs.
Part .
17.9
17.4
14.0
11.7
17.4
15.1
35.4
20.8
9.0
11.2
6.7
6.5
15
7.8
Emissions,
per ton fuel
CO
115.9
110.6
98.9
89.0
92.2
77.8
70.8
69.1
63.8
88.4
72.2
66.1
85
17.5
burned
HC
16.0
18.0
15.2
11.6
13.8
8.7
20.4
14.6
5.3
7.2
4.2
4.9
12
5.5
3. Tules (wild reeds)
Piles
17.4
12.8
Rack, stems 13.6
held vertically
Mean
Standard deviation
3.9
4.8
4.7
5.6
5
.7
29.8
36.7
33.6
37.2
34
3.4
1.8
1.6
2.0
1.3
2
.3
40
-------
4. Russian Thistle (Tumbleweed)
Type of Fire
% Moisture,
dry wt.
basis
Ibs.
Part.
Emissions,
per ton fuel burned
CO HC
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry/Green
Dry
Dry/Green
24
25
22
26
20
19
20
21
22
2.6
(1)
(1)
(1)
336
361
230
308
310
309
49.2
12
20
20
25
31
44
23
42
27
11.2
Mean
Standard deviation
(1) Concentration exceeded range of recorder
Ditch bank weeds were a mixture of species which are found along
ditch banks. Mixed weeds were an assortment of 10 to 15 species found
in an unspecified area. In both cases all materials growing in a
sample area were cut and used in the burning tower tests. Tules are a
particular species of wild reed; Russian thistle is also a species,
more commonly known as tumbleweed.
An average emission factor for unspecified weeds or a variety of
weeds is obtained by combining the results of all fires using ditch
bank weeds or mixed weeds: 15 Ibs. particulate/ton fuel, 85 Ibs. CO/
ton fuel and 12 Ibs. HC/ton fuel.
Tules emit substantially less when they are burned, therefore a
separate listing of 5 Ibs. particulate/ton fuel, 34 Ibs. CO/ton fuel
and 2 Ibs. hydrocarbons/ton fuel is provided.
41
-------
The unusually high concentration of CO produced by burning Russian
thistle warrants providing a separate emission factor for this material
of 22 Ibs./ton fuel of particulate, 309 Ibs./ton fuel of CO and 27 Ibs./
ton fuel of hydrocarbons. Dr. Barley does point out that because of the
low density of fuel (on the order of one ton per acre), the total emissions
may not impact on the air pollution potential as greatly as these results
may suggest.
-------
D. Orchard Crops
Variables examined by Darley (8) in the amount of pollutants emitted
by burning orchard residues were moisture content and fire management
technique. Low moisture fuels generally contained 20-30% water while
high moisture fuels contained over 30% water. As with field crops, persons
interested in determining emissions will generally not have information
on moisture content available to them. Thus, PES again suggests that
emissions be obtained by averaging results from burning both "wetter" and
"drier" fuels.
The fire management techniques are "cold ignition" and "roll-on
ignition." Cold ignition means "There were no hot coals on the table and
the fuel was ignited with a large propane torch." Roll-on ignition means
the fire "was ignited by rolling the pile of fuel onto the glowing embers"
of the cold ignition fire. Continuing to quote Dr. Darley, "After roll-on
it took two to three minutes before the pile started to flame. The reason
for using the roll-on method was to simulate in some way the field practice
of placing residues on the hot coals of a previous fire." To better
represent the emissions from field fires conducted in this manner, PES
suggests the results from cold and roll-on fires be averaged.
Table III-2 summarizes the averages and standard deviations of
observed emissions for orchard prunings.
To determine whether the averages listed in the table were signifi-
cantly different, PES carried out a statistical analysis, a one-way
analysis of variance, for each of the three contaminants. This analysis
confirmed that the emissions of each contaminaiit are significantly
different for different orchard crops, and yielded the following estimates
of the extent of difference necessary for 95 per cent confidence in the
difference between any two averages: particulates, 4 Ibs/ton; CO, 21 Ibs/ton;
HC 7 Ibs/ton.
Using these criteria, it appears reasonable to suggest the use of
common emission factors for most orchard crops. Avocado and olive
43
-------
Table III-2
AVERAGES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
FOR ORCHARD PRUNINGS. VALUES IN POUNDS PER TON OF FUEL.
Orchard
Material
Almond
Apple
Apricot
Avocado
Cherry
Citrus
Date Palm
Fig
Nectarine
Olive
Peach
Pear
Prune
Walnut
Entire Group
-
Particulates
Ave. S.D.
5.9 0.5
4.2 0.5
6.3 1.8
20.6 3.0
7.9 2.0
6.0 2.5
9.5 3.4
7.4 1.4
4.4 0.5
12.3 3.7
5.6 1.4
9.1 4.4
3.4 0.5
6.2 1.3
6.5 3.7
Carbon
Monoxide
Ave . S.D.
46 . 1 9.8
41.6 5.4
48.9 10.3
116.5 16.7
43.8 5.2
80.6 26.8
56.0 9.3
56.8 7.0
32.9 4.4
114.4 11.6
42.5 4.5
56.8 6.2
41.8 4.5
47.3 5.8
51.7 20.7
Hydrocarbons
Ave . S.D.
7.9 1.9
4.3 0.5
8.3 3.0
32.0 5.3
10.4 3.1
11.8 4.6
6.9 2.0
10.0 3.2
4.1 0.7
17.5 1.8
5.3 1.8
8.6 2.2
3.2 0.8
7.8 2.7
9.9 7-.4
Number
of
Burns
8
8
8
3
8
13
4
8
7
8
8
8
8
9
108
44
-------
emissions are distinctly higher, for all three contaminants, than the
other crops tested; and, for CO, emissions from citrus burning are
significantly higher than for any of the remaining eleven crops.
Averages calculated for these eleven crops, pooled, are: particulates,
6.3; CO, 46; and HC, 7.0, Ibs./ton. Averages for all the orchard crops
studied, including avocado, citrus and olive, are: particulates, 6.5;
CO, 52; and HC, 10. Ibs./ton.
To summarize, briefly, the relative emissions from burning
various orchard prunings, we can characterize three main groups of
materials, as follows:
Relatively high emissions: avocado, olive, citrus
Near average emissions: apricot, cherry, data, fig, pear, walnut
Relatively low emissions: almond, apple, nectarine, peach, prune.
Complete results from the orchard crop fires are tabulated below:
45
-------
Crop
Type of Fire
Almonds Cold
Roll-on
Apple
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll- on
Cold
Roll- on
Cold
Roll- on
Cold
Roll- on
Cold
Roll-on
3 Fires 1973
4 Fires 1973
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
% Moisture,
dry wt.
basis
39,7
38.7
38.4
39.3
38.2
39.5
38.6
28.1
24.8
25.4
25.4
27.2
26.6
26.0
27.2
23
28
27.9
34.8
28.2
38.6
Ibs.
Part .
4,4
6, .8
4.1
5.5
3.8
6.2
3.4
6.6
3.4
4.5
3.6
5.3
3.7
5.2
3.7
7.0
8.1
8.5
3.8
4.8
4.4
5.1
Emissions ,
per ton fuel
CO
35.1
47.0
35.3
47.0
44.4
61.7
34.8
45.4
21.1
30.2
23.4
40.5
10.3
35.1
25.5
40.1
75
64
32.3
37.7
31.4
44.6
burned
HC
7.4
10.6
6.6
9.0
7.4
10.4
6.1
11.9
4.3
6.6
3.2
6.7
1.3
8.0
3.3
7.8
11.1
9.2
3.5
6.2
3.6
6.7
46
-------
Crop
Apple
Apricot
Type of Fire
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
% Moisture,
dry wt.
basis
34.7
30.4
33.9
33.7
20.7
21.6
23.7
17.9
16.6
23.5
20.7
20.4
42.0
42.8
37.9
42.5
40.6
39.7
36.3
39.4
29.9
28.6
26.2
24.6
25.8
26.6
29.0
Emissions ,
Ibs. per ton fuel
Part. CO
4.3 36.6
5.5 48.1
4.5 31.9
4.5 36.1
3.3 28.0
4.1 62.7
4.1 27.2
3.6 62.8
3.5 26.3
4.2 72.6
4.2 26.5
3.9 60.4
5.7 38.4
7.8 65.9
4.6 43.6
6.7 57.6
6.5 51.7
11.7 70.6
8.1 60.6
9.6 68.9
4.2 23.8
7.4 52.0
4.2 35.8
6.2 46.4
4.1 33.5
4.9 44.3
4.1 30.3
5.1 55.4
burned
HC
3.0
5.1
3.5
4.5
2.5
5.8
2.4
4.7
2.3
6.8
2.2
5.9
6.3
10.7
5.3
7.6
7.1
14.4
8.3
15.0
2.4
7.7
3.3
5.7
3.4
5.5
3.6
5.3
-------
Crop Type of Fire
% Moisture,
dry wt.
basis
Leaves
and
Twigs Branches
Emissions,
Ibs. per ton fuel
Part. CO
burned
HC
/ \
Avocado Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cherry Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
Cold
Roll-on
33.0 85.8
83.5
31.5 91.8
77.6
17.4 35.6
15.7 35.8
42.3
37.7
37.3
40.3
38.9
47.2
42.8
42.4
30.3
33.0
27.4
30.5
29.6
31.6
31.5
37.5
22.2 126.9
24.6 134.3
21.9 126.8
24.2 116.8
18.1 112.0
17.8 101.7
10.7 41.9
13.8 49.3
7.3 36.6
10.9 49.2
6.6 43.6
8.5 57.9
6.4 40.1
10.8 62.4
4.9 31.0
7.0 46.0
5.4 32.1
8.3 45.8
5.1 35.4
8.2 52.6
4.8 28.0
8.2 48.0
34.8
38.2
36.3
36.8
26.5
28.2
12.2
14.7
7.2
12.9
8.8
11.2
7.8
15.4
6.9
10.0
7.2
11.3
8.2
13.0
5.5
12.8
48
-------
Drying Time
weeks
Percent moisture,
wet weight basis
leaves , branches
twigs %-iy l%-3"
Emissions, Kg/MT (Ib/ton)
of weight loss
Part. CO
HC
Orange, November-December. 1972
0 52 40
1 20 32
2 (skipped due
3 19 29
4 13 26
0 48 33
1 29 37
2 18 32
3 14 32
4 15 29
6 16 14
25 (base fuel) ]
7 11 2
8 12 19
36 7.5
32 3.8
to bad weather)
30 3.0
27 3.1
Orange, April-May
37 5.1
34 2.4
32 2.0
.33 1.7
32 1.5
22 1.7
^ 1.2
Lemon, December,
1- 4.1
27 2.4
(15.0)
(7.6)
(6.0)
(6.2)
, 1973
(10.1)
(4.8)
(4.0)
(3.4)
(2.9)
(3.3)
(2.4)
1972
(8.1)
(4.3)
52 (103)
43 (86)
38 (76)
37 (73)
64 (123)
60 (120)
43 (85)
36 (71)
39 (77)
23 (46)
12 (23)
40 (80)
43 (85)
8.9 (17.8)
5.0 (9.9)
9.9 (19.8)
10.7 (21.4)
10.4 (20.9)
5.0 ( 9.9)
4.5 ( 9.0)
2.9 ( 5.8)
2.9 ( 5.8)
2.8 ( 5.5)
0.6 ( 1.2)
9.1 (18.2)
3.9 ( 7.8)
— Diameter classes combined.
49
-------
% Moisture, .. Emissions
diy wt per ton fuel
Crop Type of Fire basis Part. CO
Pinnae Peticles
Date Palm Pile 11.2 15.2 7.1 48.3
Pile 11.3 15.3 6.4 4s!o
Pile 11.6 16.7 13.6 61.1
Pile 10.8 14.3 10.8 66.6
Fig Cold 40.8 5.3 48.6
Roll-on 45.8 14.6 89.9
Cold 35.5 4.9 41.0
Roll-on 41.5 10.0 83.5
Cold 33.6 4.8 44.2
Roll-on 36.0 8.1 66.5
Cold 39.4 6.0 44.5
Roll-on 40.2 10.0 75.4
Cold - 4.9 40.2
Roll-on 19.8 7.8 63.1
Cold 21.2 5.0 36.6
Roll-on 21.1 11.9 71.8
Cold 19.0 5.4 43.6
Roll-on 20.5 6.4 49.1
Cold 21.9 5.8 38.3
Roll-on 18.6 8.0 71.6
Nectarine Cold 35.3 4.9 37.3
Roll-on 37.2 4.5 40.3
Cold 34.5 4.1 37.8
Roll-on 37.6 5.2 39.7
Cold 34.2 3.2 26.0
Roll-on 28.4 3.8 30.3
burned
HC
5.4
5.7
9.7
6.8
7.4
22.1
5.0
16.1
7.5
14.7
9.4
18.9
4.5
10.4
4.7
9.8
6.2
7.8
5.5
10.1
4.0
5.0
5.1
5.8
2.8
4.6
50
-------
% Moisture,
dry wt.
Crop Type of Fire basis
Nectarine Cold , 30.8
Roll-on 35.8
Cold 31.3
Roll-on 29.7
Cold 28.6
Roll-on 32 . 0
Cold 29.7
Roll-on 27.8
Leaves
and
Twigs Branches
Olive Cold 22.1 42.5
Roll-on 19.2 45.5
Cold 25.8 45.8
Roll-on 21.6 45.9
Cold 25.7 42.6
Roll-on - 48.6
Cold 22.2 45.7
Roll-on 28.4 46.5
Cold 11.1 34.9
Roll-on 12.2 31.1
Cold 11.1 30.6
Roll-on 11.8 28.3
Cold 9.6 33.1
Roll-on 11.1 33.2
Twigs
only
Cold 14.9 30.8
Roll-on 12.6 30.5
Ibs.
Part
3.2
4.7
3.9
4.9
4.5
5.1
3.8
4.8
12.3
15.3
12.7
12.7
9.9
19.3
12.6
16.4
13.6
12.9
12.0
11.0
8.9
11.2
8.2
7.4
Emissions ,
per ton fuel
CO
24.4
33.2
29.1
33.5
30.2
36.4
30.0
32.0
111.1
108,0
105.4
96.3
100.8
118.4
98.9
111.8
91.6
171.9
84.3
136.0
88.3
127.0
134.2
146.1
burned
HC
3.1
5.6
3.0
4.2
3.4
4.8
3.0
3.6
15.0
18.8
16.9
16.6
15.0
22.6
14.4
19.6
14.0
25.3
14.6
23.3
10.0
19.0
17.1
17.8
51
-------
% Moif
Crop Type of Fire dry
has
»ture Emissions
wt. ' Ibs. per ton fuel
13 Part. CO
£rc3.Crl CoJ n ice *
I" 35>5 4.8 43.2
Roll-on 38.0 4.2 49.3
Cold //
Roll—on AC
Cold 50
Roll-on 42
Cold 42
Roll-on 40
Cold 25
Roll-on 26
Cold 24
Roll-on 24
Cold 24
Roll-on 24
Cold 24.
Roll-on 25 .
4 Fires 1974 28
Pear Cold 45.
Roll-on 43.
Cold
Roll-on 41.
Cold 47.
Roll-on 48 .
•3 5.6 43.6
•7 4.6 46.3
•5 4.8 48.7
•1 6.2 52.6
•6 6.1 50.2
•5 5.2 36.2
•6 5.9 44.1
•4 5.5 34.9
0 5.2 41.8
2 9.6 37.9
1 8.2 61.3
6 5.7 35.0
0 7.6 56.0
3.8 31
7 9.2 47.2
1 10.1 65.7
8.8 47.4
5 12.9 67.1
0 18.9 63.8
6 17.2 72.2
Cold 40.6 - 55 3
Roll-on 39.5 _ 61'g
burned
HC
5.8
6.3
5.5
11.1
7.0
8.0
7.4
7.6
2.9
5.8
3.0
3.4
2.7
6.3
3.2
6.5
3.3
7.6
11.3
5.1
10.7
10.7
15.2
7.9
12.9
52
-------
I Moisture, Emissions
,!„, T.Tt _.._ Ibs. per ton fuel
Crop Type of Fire basis part CO
Pear Cold 31.8 6.7 39.5
Roll~ on 9^7 CT r-/x>
"• ' ->* / 54, 0
Cold 28.3 5>4 51i?
Roll-on 24.1 6.5 51 8
Cold 24.5 5.7 45 7
Roll-on 19.5 ?>2 ?4'9
Cold 24.5 6.3 48 4
R°ll-on 19.3 6.7 62 .'4
rune Cold 29.6 2.8 35 3
Roll-on 27.6 3.3 53 ^
Cold 35.4 4>3 39>Q
Roll-on 33.9 3_6 45>g
Cold 26.3 3>9 31 y
Roll-on 28.2 2.9 39 .'o
^°" 26.4 3.3 28.6
Roll-°n 36.4 4.8 47.9
Cold 20.9 2.8 37.5
Roll-on 21.4 3.2 45.8
?" 21'! 2.4 31.8
Roll~on 21.6 3.5 40.7
Cold 18.9 _
RoH-on 20.1 4.0 31;6
S°J? 18'4 3.5 26.3
Roll-on 19.1 3>5 39>1
•
burned
HC
7.0
6.7
5.6
7.2
6.3
9.6
6.7
8.1
1.8
3.9
2.5
3.6
2.9
4.4
2.6
7.4
2.0
3.6
1.3
3.5
1.7
3.9
2.1
3.7
53
-------
% Moisture, Emissions,
drv wi- lbs- Per ton fuel burned
Crop Type of Fire basis part C0
Walnut cold 43.4 4>9 42 g
R°ll-on 45.5 6>6 5?>3
Cold 40.6 5.7 44.0
Roll-on 49.4 7-3 54>6
Cold 44.7 6.1 42 9
Roll-on 46.1 8.8 63[6
Cold 45.4 7.5 47 7
Roll-°n 46.6 10.3 66 ! 6
Cold 31.5 5.5 4Q>7
Roll-on 36.5 5.7 42.9
Cold 31.6 4.8 40.2
Roll-on 36.6 5.5 44.!
Cold 38.1 6.0 50.2
Roll-on 32.5 4.3 38.9
Cold - 5.6 42.0
Roll-on 30.0 6.1 45.7
1974 Fire 32.5 4.6 40
HC
5.8
8.1
7.1
8.5
7.1
13.6
9.7
17.3
5.2
6.6
5.2
6.6
9.3
5.6
5.3
6.7
4.6
54
-------
E. Forest Products
Fritschen, et al. (2) have conducted laboratory fires on logging
slash found in the Pacific Northwest. Their data from five fires are
summarized below:
Fuel
Hemlock
Douglas fir
Western red cedar
Ibs. Emitted/ton
Part. CO
4.0 60
4.0 92
4.6 64
3.4 112
4.4 118
fuel
3
3
5
6
6
HC
.7
.7
.0
.8
.8
Sandberg et al. (3) studied the effects of flame retardants on emissions
from ponderosa pine. The emissions in Ibs per ton of fuel burned for
untreated pine are 12 lbs. particulars, 195 Ibs. CO and 14 Ibs. HC. Yamate,
et al. (6) summarized information Dr. Barley presented in a paper at the
1972 Spring Meeting, West States Section/The Combustion Institute as
follows: particulates 17 ibs/ton fuel burned; CO, 140 Ibs/ton fuel-
HC, 24 Ibs/ton; NO^ 4 Ibs/ton. Based upon the statement in his report
"...unpublished results and opinions of experienced wildfire observers '
In the U.S. Forest Service were weighted heavily in selecting high
emission values from the range of values reported by Darley," PES
suggests that these emission factors be used for AP-42.
55
-------
IV> BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR SECTION 6.12 (SUGAR CANE PROCESSING)
New data on emissions from the burning of sugar cane have been
furnished in a draft copy of a report (reference 4) by Dr. E. F. Darley,
director of the agricultural burning research studies at the University
of California, Riverside. Experiments were undertaken, to simulate
burning conditions in Hawaiian pineapple fields. To quote Barley's
description of the project,
The principal object of burning cane is to get rid
of much of the leaf material so that the cane stalk
itself is relatively clean for factory processing.
Thus the great bulk of material consumed in a fire
is dead leaf material on the ground and those dead
leaves still attached to the bottom and midportions
of the cane. Some green leaves in the top may also
burn. Therefore, in order to duplicate the field
conditions as nearly as possible on the burning
table, sectioned whole cane, attached leaves, and
leaf trash on the ground were sent to Riverside.
Cane to be sent to Riverside was cut from given
commercial fields on Oahu on the morning that the
field was to be burned. Four plots measuring
5' x 5' were selected at random in the field and
corner stakes placed 2 % feet on either side of
the center of the planting furrow and for a
length of 5' along i:he furrow. All of the cane
contained within the vertical block above two of
the plots was cut..,.All material was taken to
the DOA laboratories;, fumigated. . .and then well
aerated to remove all methyl bromide....
Packages of cane would arrive in Riverside approximately 24 hours after
cutting and the material would be burned the following day. This handling
is reflected primarily in the differences in amount of material which would
burn. In the laboratory an amount equivalent to 15.8 tons fuel/acre
burned, while in the field, the weight of cane and ash indicate 10.9 tons
56
-------
-------
fuel/acre burned. The average emissions for whole cane found in the lab
are 7.2 Ibs. particulate/ton fuel, 70.6 Ibs. CO/ton fuel and 10.4 Ibs.
HC/ton fuel. Corresponding values in Ibs. pollutant per acre fuel burned,
based on the field fires, would be 79 Ibs. particulate/acre, 770 Ibs. CO/
acre and 113 Ibs. HC/acre.
No new data on N0x emissions have been available to us; therefore,
the current values of 2 Ibs./ton fuel are being retained.
57
-------
APPENDIX I
ABSTRACTS
Abstracts of literature appearing after the publication of AP-42
are provided below. Data from these reports have been used to supplement
the latest results of Dr. Darley's simulations to calculate emission
factors. When the data are subsequently discussed, references to the
appropriate document will be made.
1. Middleton, J. T. and Darley, E. F. "Control of Air
Pollution Affecting or Caused by Agriculture," in
Pollution: Engineering and Scientific Solutions.
E. S. Barrekette (ed.), Plenum Publishing Corp.,
New York.
This chapter reviews the effects of various pollutants on vegetation,
the general types of pollution control mechanisms, and summarizes the
nation-wide emissions estimated for selected source categories for the
year 1969. Estimated emissions from open burning of agricultural refuse
and forest materials were 11.2 x 10 tons of particulates, 17.7 x 106
tons carbon monoxide, 4.6 x 10 tons hydrocarbons, and 1.9 x 1Q6 tons
nitrogen oxides.
2. Fritschen, L. , Bovee, H., Buettner, K., Charlson, R.,
Monteith, L. , Pickford, S., Murphy, J. and Darley, E.
Slash Fire Atmospheric Pollution. USDA Forest Service
Research Paper PNW-97, 1970.
Results of an investigation of slash burning contributions to air
pollution are presented. The hypothesis is incomplete combustion and
greater emissions result from low-temperature fires associated with
broadcast burns. Results of field tests and laboratory tests with respect
to burning characteristics, gaseous and particulate emissions are reported
in detail.
59
-------
Estimates of emissions from laboratory tests on burning of slash
range from 30 to 59 grams CO, and from 1.2 to 2.2 grams of carbon in
hydrocarbons, per kilogram of fuel. Corresponding figures in pounds
per ton are : CO, 60 to 118; HC, 3 to 5.
3. Sandberg, D. V., Pickford, S. G. and Darley, E. F.
Emissions from Slash Burning and the Influence of
ame ^cf Chemicals«" J^Air_Poll. Control Assoc.
(1975) .
Ponderosa pine fuelbeds were burned to simulate slash fires.
Studies showed (a) emission rates varied with burning intensities,
(b) diammonium phosphate flame retardant increased emissions;
(c) the smoldering combustion phase accounts for most of the gaseous
pollutant emissions from such fires. Overall, emissions sampled during
ten burns with ponderosa pine fuelbeds yielded emission factors for
carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons aad particulate matter of 140 ± 10,
8.4 ± 2.0 and 9.1 ± 1.4 Ib/ton of initial fuel, respectively. Treating
similar fuelbeds with diammoniun phosphate flame retardant significantly
increased these factors to 166 ± 28, 11.7 ± 2.1 and 19.3 ± 3.3 Ib/ton
of initial fuel, respectively,
4. Darley E. F. "Air Pollution Emissions from Burning
Sugar Cane and Pineapple from Hawaii." Amendment to
EPA Research Grant R800711 Air Pollution,. from Forest
and Agricultural Burning. Statewide" Air Pollution -
' Un±VerS±ty of California, Riverside,
This paper discusses thoroughly the various aspects of sampling
and burning numerous examples of sugar cane and pineapple trash. Results
reported and analyzed include the yield of partlculates , carbon monoxide
and hydrocarbons, the yield of benZO(a)pyrene and selected trace metals,
and the particle size distribution.
60
-------
For nineteen batches of whole sugar cane, average emissions
(± standard deviation) in pounds per ton of fuel were: Particulates,
7.2 ± 1.6; CO, 70.6 ± 17.3; HC 10.4 ± 8.3. For eighteen batches of
sugar cane leaf trash, the corresponding values were: Particulates,
5.3 ± 2.0; CO, 59.4 ± 15.3; HC 8.4 ± 7.5.
From eighteen burns of pineapple trash, particulate emissions
varied from 6 to 25 pounds per ton of fuel; the larger emissions
correspond to head-fire burning of trash with a high moisture content.
Average emissions from these burns were: Particulates, 9.9 Ibs;
CO, 111 Ibs; and HC, 6.5 Ibs (all per ton of fuel).
5. Yamate, G., Stockham, J., Vatavuk, W. and Mann, C.
"An Inventory of Emissions from Forest Wildfires,
Forest Managed Burns, and Agricultural Burns."
Paper (#75-36.6) presented at the 68th Annual
Meeting, Air Pollution Control Association, Boston,
Mass., June 1975.
An information search was conducted to obtain data on acreages burned
and tons of fuel burned per acre in forest wildfires, forest managed
burning and agricultural burning. Estimated emission factors were
applied to these data for each of the burn categories. The expression
provided to estimate emissions released to the atmosphere using the
tabulated data isE =Y xFxAxC
P P
where
Ep = tons of pollutant, p, emitted to the atmosphere
Yp = yield factor for pollutant, p, in Ib per ton of fuel consumed
F = tons of fuel consumed per acre burned
A = number of acres burned
C = constant to convert pounds to tons, 1/2000.
Emission factors utilized were, in pounds per ton of fuel: Particulates,
17; CO, 140; HC (as methane), 24j NO , 4.
61
-------
6. Yamate, G., Stockham, J,, Becker, D., Waterman, T., Llewellen P
and Vatavuk, tf. M. "Development of Emission Factors for
Estimating Atmospheric Emissions from Forest Fires." Paper
(#75-36.7) presented at the 68th Annual Meeting, Air Pollution
Control Association, Boston, Mass., June 1975.
Emission factors have been developed for estimating atmospheric
emissions from forest wildfires. The factors, for particulates, hydro-
carbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides, expressed
as pounds pollutant released to the atmosphere per acre forest land
burned, were developed using pollutant yield data from experimental
burns and estimates of the fuel consumed per acre by a wildfire. Consump-
tion estimates were developed from available fuel inventories. Pollutant
yield data were obtained from measurements made on laboratory, burning
tower, field experimental and managed fires. Each ton of forest fuel
consumed yields an average estimated 17 Ibs particulates, 140 Ibs carbon
monoxide, 24 Ibs hydrocarbons and 4 Ibs nitrogen oxides.
7. Darley, E. F., Miller, G. E., Jr., Goss, J. R. and Biswell H. H.
Air Pollution from Forest and Agricultural Burning. ARE Project
2-017-1, University of California, Davis April 1974.
In order to obtain information on the effect of atmospheric conditions,
residue management and fire management techniques on particulate, hydro- .
carbon and carbon monoxide emissions from open field burning, burns were
conducted with cereal grains such as wheat, reice and barley; asparagus fern
and orchard prunings. Many burns were conducted in the field and laboratory
simulations of field burns were done at the SAPRC burning tower. Both
laboratory and field data agreed that moisture content of fuel residues
was the most significant factor influencing emission levels. At higher
moisture contents particulate emisisions can be reduced by lighting the
field only on the downwind edges (backfiring) or using an into-the-wind
striplighting technique. All raw data are provided and a thorough analysis
of all results is presented.
62
-------
8. Darley, E. F. Progress Report on Emissions from Agricultural
Burning, ARE Project 4-011. Statewide Air Pollution Research
Center, University of California, Riverside, Private communica-
tion with permission of California Air Resources Board, June 1975.
This is a listing of all data from burning simulations conducted for
this project since July 1, 1974.
9. Communication from the California Air Resources Board (ARE) stating
estimates of waste produced by agricultural burning activities.
This is a listing of factors used by staff of the ARE in calculating
pounds of pollutant per acre of vegetation burned. The references they used
in arriving at these factors are listed.
63
-------
EPA-450/3-75-087
TECHMICAL REPORT DATA
ease read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
CALCULATION OF EMISSION FACT3RS FOR
AGRICULTURAL BURNING ACTIVITIES
L. G. Wayne and M. L. McQu-aary
= ORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS ~
Pacific Environmental Services Inc
1930 14th Street
Santa Monica, California 90404
2- SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
November 1975
5. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
3. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
075
PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NCX
68-02-1004 Task Order 4
'3- TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
FINAL
4. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
IPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Copies of all references cited have been provided to the
Sponsoring Agency under separate cover. "the
16. ABSTRACT
Proposed revisions to the emission factors for agricultural burning
activities given in Sections 2.1 and 6.12 of AP-42, Compilations of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors, are made.
The data, calculations and supplemental information upon which
the proposed emission factors axe based are provided. A substantial
amount of the test data was obtained from the work of Dr. E. p. Darley
University of California, Riverside, California.
Abstracts of all references are included.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
EMISSIONS
WASTE DISPOSAL
AGRICULTURAL WASTE
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT ~
RELEASE UNLIMITED
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
64
IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
AGRICULTURAL
BURNING
EMISSION FACTORS
JRITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. SECURITY C\,ASS (This pagef
UNCLASSIFIED
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
21 NO. OF PAGES
66
22. PRICE
------- |