United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-60Q/R-97-134a
November 1997
OF
THE
OF M
i.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting
the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading
to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems
to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and
building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources
wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks from
threats to human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air,
land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and
control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze
development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental
technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to
support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and
information transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term
research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and
Development to assist the user community and to link researchers with their
clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EVALUATION OF EMISSIONS FROM THE
OPEN BURNING OF HOUSEHOLD WASTE IN BARRELS
Volume 1. Technical Report
Prepared by:
Paul M. Lemieux
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared in Cooperation with:
New York State Department of Health
Bureau of Toxic Substances Assessment
and
New York State Department of Health
Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research
Albany, NY 12202
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
A detailed emissions characterization study was undertaken to examine, characterize, and quantify emissions from
the simulated burning of household waste materials in barrels. This study evaluated two separate waste streams: that
of an avid recycler, who removes most of the recyclable content from the waste stream prior to combustion; and that
of a non-recycler, who combusts the entire stream of household waste. Estimated emissions were developed in units
of mass emitted per mass of waste burned. Continuous gas samples were analyzed for oxygen, carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, and total hydrocarbons. Gas-phase samples were collected using SUMMA®
canisters and analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Extractive samples from the combined paniculate- and gas-phase were analyzed for semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
chlorobenzenes (CBs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDDs/PCDFs),
aldehydes and ketones, hydrogen chloride (HC1), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), and metals. Emissions of PMio and
PM2.5 were also measured. Ash residue samples were analyzed for SVOCs, PCBs, PCDDs/PCDFs, and metals.
It was found that for most of the non-chlorinated compounds, including VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, and aldehydes and
ketones, emissions from the non-recycler were higher, both on a per mass burned basis and on a per day basis (using
waste generation estimates from New York State). However, emissions of many of the chlorinated organics,
particularly CBs and PCDDs/PCDFs, were higher from the avid recycler, on a per mass burned basis. From
estimates of waste generated each day by New York households for the avid recycler and non-recycler scenarios,
emissions per day of PCDDs/PCDFs are significantly higher for the avid recycler. Emissions of PCBs were higher
from the non-recycler, although the cause of this phenomenon is not known. This phenomenon is likely due to
several factors, including the higher mass fraction of PVC in the avid recycler's waste. It is also possible that some
component of the non-recycler's waste may potentially serve to poison the metallic catalysts believed to be
responsible for enhancing formation rates of PCDDs/PCDFs. Results from HC1 sampling indicated much higher
HC1 emissions from the avid recycler, which is consistent with the higher emissions of chlorinated organics, and ash
residue analysis indicated that the avid recycler's residue had more copper, which could contribute to higher
emissions of PCDDs/PCDFs. It was noted that the temperature at the base of the burning bed was significantly
lower in the case of the avid recycler than it was for the non-recycler. Gas-phase emissions of metals were not a
strong function of the test conditions. PM emissions were much higher from the non-recycler. Almost all of the PM
emissions from both test conditions were < 2.5 |jin in diameter.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ii
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF FIGURES v
PREFACE vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi
TABLE OF METRIC EQUIVALENTS vii
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Experimental Approach 5
2.1 Summary of Objectives and Experimental Approach 5
2.2 Open Burning Simulation Facility 8
2.2.1 Burn Hut 9
2.2.2 Sample Shed 11
2.2.3 Hazardous Air Pollutants Mobile Laboratory (HAPML) 12
2.3 Test Procedures 12
2.4 Sampling and Analysis Methods 12
2.4.1 CEMs and Thermocouples 12
2.4.2 Volatile Organic Sampling and Analysis 13
2.4.3 Dichotomous Sampling for Total PMio andPM2.5 Paniculate 13
2.4.4 Particulate/Semivolatile Organic Sampling and Analysis 14
2.4.5 Paniculate-and Vapor-Phase Metals Sampling and Analysis 15
2.4.6 Paniculate- and Vapor-Phase PCDDs/PCDFs Sampling and Analysis 15
2.4.7 Ash Analysis 16
2.4.8 Acid Gas Sampling and Analysis 16
2.4.9 Aldehyde and Ketone Sampling and Analysis 17
2.5 Data Processing 17
3.0 Data, Results, and Discussion 18
3.1 Continuous Measurement Results 18
3.2 Volatile Organic Compound Analytical Results 33
3.3 Semivolatile Organic Compound Analytical Results 37
3.4 Chlorobenzene Analytical Results 44
3.5 Fob/cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Analytical Results 46
3.6 Aldehyde and Ketone Analytical Results 47
3.7 Paniculate- and Vapor-Phase PCDDs/PCDFs Analytical Results 49
3.8 Poly chlorinated Biphenyl Analytical Results 50
3.9PMioandPM2.5 Paniculate Results 52
3.10 Paniculate- and Vapor-Phase Metals Analytical Results 53
3.11 Acid Gas Analytical Results 54
3.12 Ash Residue Analytical Results 55
3.13 Uncertainties and Limitations 55
4.0 Summary and Conclusions 61
5.0 References 67
APPENDICES A-G Vol.2
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Measurements of Gerstle and Kemnitz 3
Table 2-1. Composition of household waste prepared by EPA (based on a characterization of
household waste prepared by the NYSDEC) 6
Table 2-2. Composition of material used on each test day 7
Table 3-1. Mass of waste burned during testing 18
Table 3-2. Estimated emissions of targeted volatile organic compounds, mg/kg 34
Table 3-3. Estimated emissions of tentatively identified VOC compounds, mg/kg 36
Table 3-4. Estimated emissions of semivolatile organics as analyzed by Acurex, g/kg 37
Table 3-5. Estimated emissions of semivolatile organics as analyzed by NYSDOH , g/kg 40
Table 3-6. Estimated emissions of chlorobenzenes, g/kg 45
Table 3-7. Estimated emissions of PAHs, mg/kg 46
Table 3-8. Estimated emissions of aldehydes andketones, g/kg 48
Table 3-9. Estimated emissions of PCDDs/PCDFs, mg/kg 49
Table 3-10. Estimated emissions of PCBs, mg/kg 51
Table 3-11. Estimated emissions of particulate matter, g/kg 52
Table 3-12. Estimated emissions of gaseous mercury, g/kg 53
Table 3-13. Estimated emissions of particulate-phase metals, g/kg 54
Table 3-14. Estimated emissions of acid gases, g/kg 55
Table 3-15. SVOC concentration in composite ash sample, |J,g/kgash 57
Table 3-16. PCDD/PCDF concentration in composite ash sample, pg/gof ash 58
Table 3-17. PCB concentration in composite ash sample, ng/gof ash 59
Table 3-18. Metal concentration in composite ash sample, mg/kg 60
Table 4.1. Comparison between open burning of household waste and controlled combustion of municipal
waste in a municipal waste combustor 62
Table 4-2. Number of open-burning households to equal the pollution from a full-scale MWC facility 64
Table 4-3. Which test condition resulted in higher emissions? 65
Table 4-4. Summary of all test data 66
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Plan view of open burning simulation facility 8
Figure 2-2. Diagram of burn hut 10
Figure 2-3. Plan view of burn hut showing sampling locations 11
Figure 3-1. Fraction of initial mass combusted 19
Figure 3-2. O2 Results from Test 1 19
Figure 3-3. CO2 Results from Test 1 20
Figure 3-4. CO Results from Test 1 20
Figure 3-5. THC Results from Test 1 21
Figure 3-6. NO Results from Test 1 21
Figure 3-7. Burn Mass Results from Test 1 22
Figure 3-8. Temperature Results from Test 1 22
Figure 3-9. O2 Results from Test 2 23
Figure 3-10. CO2 Results from Test 2 23
Figure 3-11. CO Results from Test 2 24
Figure 3-12. THC Results from Test 2 24
Figure 3-13. NO Results from Test 2 25
Figure 3-14. Burn Mass Results from Test 2 25
Figure 3-15. Temperature Results from Test 2 26
Figure 3-16. O2 Results from Test 4 26
Figure 3-17. CO2 Results from Test 4 27
Figure 3-18. CO Results from Test 4 27
Figure 3-19. THC Results from Test 4 28
Figure 3-20. NO Results from Test 4 28
Figure 3-21. Burn Mass Results from Test 4 29
Figure 3-22. Temperature Results from Test 4 29
Figure 3-23. O2 Results from Test 5 30
Figure 3-24. CO2 Results from Test 5 30
Figure 3-25. CO Results from Test 5 31
Figure 3-26. THC Results from Test 5 31
Figure 3-27. NO Results from Test 5 32
Figure 3-28. Burn Mass Results from Test 5 32
Figure 3-29. Temperature Results from Test 5 33
Figure 3-30. Average emissions of selected target VOCs 35
Figure 3-31. Average emissions of selected target SVOCs 44
Figure 3-32. Chlorobenzene summary 45
Figure 3-33. PAH Summary 47
Figure 3-34. Aldehyde andketone summary 48
Figure 3-35. PCDDs/PCDFs data summary 50
Figure 3-36. Paniculate matter data 52
Figure 4-1. Comparison between open burning and controlled combustion 63
-------
PREFACE
The CTC was established by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) to provide technical assistance to state and local air pollution control agencies. Three levels
of assistance can be accessed through the CTC. First, a CTC HOTLINE (919-541 -0800) has been established to
provide telephone assistance on matters relating to air pollution control technology. Second, more in-depth
engineering assistance can be provided when appropriate. Third, the CTC can provide technical guidance through
publication of technical guidance documents, development of personal computer software, and presentation of
workshops on control technology matters. The technical guidance projects, such as this one, focus on topics of
national or regional interest that are identified through contact with state and local agencies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge the contributions of the following people, who contributed significantly to the
authorship of this report: Christopher Lutes and Matthew Pavlik of Acurex Environmental, who performed the
testing and wrote most of the introductory and experimental sections; Judith Johnson from NYSDOH, who helped
plan and execute the tests, and helped write a significant portion of the report; and Kenneth Aldous and Haider
Khwaja of WCL&R, who oversaw much of the analytical work and wrote the analytical reports and QA case
narrative for their portion of the study.
The author would like to acknowledge the contributions of Peter Kariher, Chris Pressley, Jeff Quinto, Ann Drago,
Jarek Karwowski, Mike Bowling, and Mitch Howell of Acurex Environmental. Jeff Ryan also contributed to this
project both with Acurex Environmental and later with the U.S. EPA. We would also like to acknowledge the
contributions of Ben Pierson, of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Solid
and Hazardous Waste, Bureau of Waste Reduction and Recycling, who provided information about the components
of waste for the avid recycler and the non-recycler.
VI
-------
TABLE OF METRIC EQUIVALENTS
1 gal = 0.1337 ft3 = 0.0038m3
1 ton = 2000 lb = 907.1kg
1 Ib = 0.4536 kg
1 bushel =1.2445 ft3 = 0.0352 m3
1 in =2.54 cm = 0.0254m
vn
-------
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
In many areas of the country, residential solid waste disposal practices consist of open-burning using barrels or other
similar devices instead of, or in addition to, disposal to municipal landfills or municipal solid waste combustors. The
motivations for households that open-burn their garbage may include convenience, habit, or landfill and cost
avoidance. 1 Some communities have regulations which ban the open burning of garbage.
Emissions from backyard burning of residential solid waste are released at ground level resulting in decreased
dilution by dispersion. Additionally, the low combustion temperature and oxygen-starved conditions associated with
backyard burning may result in incomplete combustion and increased pollutant emissions. In contrast, modern
refuse combustors have tall stacks, specially designed combustion chambers, and high efficiency flue gas cleaning
systems, which serve to minimize the risk of waste combustion.
Limited data are available for evaluating pollutant emissions from the backyard burning of residential solid waste. A
survey of the literature identified few published studies on the testing of emissions from burn barrels. The available
information on emissions from the combustion of solid waste is predominantly based on the testing of municipal
waste combustors. Literature exists which describes the nature and toxicity of thermal decomposition products
and/or smoke due to the combustion of various types of plastics and other materials under varying conditions that do
not include burn barrels.
Only two of the available studies characterized emissions associated with open burning of residential refuse in a
backyard burner (e.g., a 55-gal drum). These studies were performed by the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
of Minnesota^ and the Two Rivers Regional Council of Public Officials and Patrick Engineering, Incorporated of
Illinois^. Both study designs included a hood and stack constructed above the 55-gal drum to capture the plume and
facilitate pollutant emissions tests. Both studies reported that a substantial amount of dilution air was entrained in
the burn barrel stack. Rough estimates of dilution air ratios were calculated by comparison to incinerator volumetric
flow rates. The presence of large volumes of dilution air in these studies may have substantially reduced stack gas
concentrations, thereby increasing the uncertainties in the measurements from these two studies. The Minnesota
study estimated that the emissions of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-/>-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) from a burn barrel are 20
times greater on a per unit garbage basis than the emissions from a controlled incinerator. ^ No other pollutants were
evaluated in the Minnesota study.
The Illinois study quantified the extent and impact of backyard burning in Illinois. 1 This study included a survey of
187 residents in rural counties of Illinois to determine the quantity and type of wastes burned, the management of
the ash, and motivation for burning. Thirteen households volunteered to set aside the waste they typically burned for
1 week. Samples of waste were sorted and weighed. The overall composition of the waste was found to be similar to
the composition of residential waste that is typically landfilled by residents in other counties of Illinois, containing
mixtures of paper products, wood, food waste, plastic resins, glass or ceramics, and metals. Prior to burning, waste
1
-------
was bagged, weighed, and a bulk density was determined. Refuse was burned over an 8-hour period in a 55-gal
drum. Emission sampling was done for three 2-hour test periods. Pollutants measured in the stack hood included
paniculate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (862), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride
(HC1), total volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans
(PCDDs/PCDFs), and metals. Test results showed that PM emissions from the burn barrel may be 40 times higher
than from an uncontrolled incinerator. Test results showed that burn barrels could emit up to 17 times more total
PCDDs/PCDFs on a per unit mass refuse burned basis than a controlled municipal waste incinerator. This result is
consistent with the Minnesota study measurement of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Metal emissions were many times higher than
those of a controlled incinerator. SO2 emissions on a per unit mass of refuse burned basis were found to be similar
to the emission rates for a 1,200 ton/day municipal solid waste incinerator. Afterburning, the volume of residual ash
was measured and weighed. Results of this study showed that the weight reductions of burned refuse varied from 34
to 53 percent, indicating that a substantial amount of waste was left unburned. Volume reductions of waste varied
between 70 and 80 percent, suggesting that less dense materials combusted more easily. Ash leachate, from the
Toxicity Characteristic Leachability Procedure (TCLP), was analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs)
and metals. The SVOCs in the ash leachate were below method detection limits (MDLs). Also, the metals (except
for barium and lead) in the ash leachate, were found to be below MDLs. Barium and lead levels were below those
that are considered hazardous according to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) definition of
hazardous waste.
The above studies characterized emissions associated with the open-burning of residential solid waste in 55-gal
drums. Other studies have measured combustion products from the open burning of refuse in other burning devices.
Gerstle and Kemnitz quantified emissions from the burning of municipal refuse. ^ The apparatus used to burn the
material was a burn table equipped with a cone to capture and funnel the pollutants to a sampling port. Material
weighing 45.5 to 56.8 kg (100 to 125 Ib) actively burned for 60-90 minutes followed by a smoldering period which
lasted up to 12 h. Weights were recorded using a platform scale and continuous monitors were used for stack gas
temperature, gas flow, and weight of material. Samples were analyzed for carbon dioxide (CO2), CO, vapor-phase
total hydrocarbons (THCs), NOX, formaldehyde, organic acids, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Concentrations were converted to emission rates on a per unit of initial weight basis by assuming that the
concentrations that were measured during the first hour remained constant for the duration of the smoldering period.
The design of the study did not simulate the oxygen-starved conditions commonly found in backyard burn barrels.
PAH emissions included fluoranthene, pyrene, chrysene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(e)pyrene, and
benzo(g,h,i)perylene in quantities ranging from 0.13 to 0.78 g emitted per ton of material initially present. Average
PM emissions were 16 Ib per ton of material initially present. This result is comparable to the Illinois study. Other
results of this study are shown in Table 1-1.
Burckle et al. reported results of an emissions study associated with burning municipal refuse in a pilot-scale trench
incinerator. ^ This unit was constructed using a refractory lined trench incinerator unit with a supplied air blower and
smokestack. Emissions from this unit were compared to the emissions from an open burn and a full-scale trench
incinerator. The pollutants measured were CO2, CO, NOX, and PM. The study results indicated that paniculate
-------
emissions ranged from 20.6 to 59.0 Ib of PM per ton of material burned. Other emission factors include carboxyls as
acetic acid and carbonyIs as formaldehyde. Carboxy 1 emissions were 3.13 to 13.00 Ib emitted per ton of material
burned, and carbonyl emissions were 1.24 to 6.06 Ib emitted per ton of material burned. Oxygen-starved conditions
were not simulated.
Table 1-1. Measurements of Gerstle and Kemnitz(3)a
CO2 CO THCb Formaldehyde Organic Acidsc NOX
1230 85 30 0.095 15 4 to 27
a - All units expressed in pounds emitted per ton of material initially present.
b - THC expressed as methane.
c - Organic acids expressed as acetic acid.
Other household waste combustion devices for home use have been designed that supposedly have aesthetic
advantages over the traditional barrel burner. For instance a text for homeowners written in the 1950's stated, "The
average outdoor incinerator seldom amounts to more than a cylinder offence wire or an old oil drum with the end
knocked out. To beautify the garden or yard, here is an attractive incinerator made of stone...designed to look like a
miniature lighthouse.^" This same text provides detailed drawings of an "attractive barbecue fireplace (which)
includes an incinerator which uses the same chimney as the grill. A smoke deflector prevents smoke from
circulating from one firebox to the other." Even today a mail order catalog received by one of the authors advertised
what appears to be a fairly simple aluminum "Trash Burner," 3 bushel capacity, as an "exceptional unit for home,
estate or business. It provides the efficiency of far larger, more costly custom-built installations. All burnable refuse
is reduced to fine ash in any weather. Simply load, ignite and forget it." Although there are no actual test data to
evaluate the manufacturer's claims for this unit, it is unlikely that the combustion efficiency of a well operated, well
designed municipal waste combustor can be matched by such a simple backyard device operated in the manner
described. ^
Each of the aforementioned sources provides useful information; however, there are limitations associated with their
results. As previously noted, due to the sampling design used in these tests the entrainment of an unknown volume
of dilution air may have substantially reduced the contaminant concentrations measured in the stack. Other
limitations include: 1) unrefined characterization of the waste stream, 2) only emissions of a limited number of
target compounds were measured, 3) reproducibility of measurements was not evaluated, and 4) oxygen-starved
conditions were not simulated. The Illinois study offers the most complete emission factor data; however, it did not
adequately account for the dilution air entrained in the stack during sampling. Additionally, several products of
incomplete combustion were not measured (e.g., benzo-(a)-pyrene and other PAHs).
The New York State Departments of Health (NYSDOH) and Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), as well as
3
-------
regulatory agencies in other states, requested that the EPA's Control Technology Center (CTC) perform a study to
characterize the emissions due to open burning of residential waste in burn barrels using techniques that would
minimize the limitations of previous studies. The CTC, NYSDOH, and NYSDEC performed a cooperative study to:
1) characterize and fabricate the waste to be burned (in duplicate), 2) measure the emission rates of many pollutants
of concern, 3) measure these pollutant concentrations in the residual ash (except for the VOCs), 4) measure the
volume of ambient air entering the burn facility, and 5) be representative of the combustion conditions typically
found in a backyard burner. The study was conducted under the direction of the EPA's National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (APPCD). The combustion tests were
conducted by APPCD's on-site contractor, Acurex Environmental Corporation (Acurex) with the oversight of
representatives from APPCD and NYSDOH. Analytical chemistry work was divided between Acurex and
NYSDOH staffs.
-------
SECTION 2.0
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
2.1 Summary of Objectives and Experimental Approach
This project was a study to qualitatively identify and quantitatively measure the emissions of hazardous air
pollutants from the open burning of household residential refuse in barrels. A secondary objective was to evaluate
the concentrations of hazardous compounds in the residual ash. The target audience for this work is the
environmental research community at large as well as state and local regulatory agencies. The major intended end
use of the data is to place the emissions from these processes in proper perspective with respect to other point and
area sources and to provide estimated emissions values that can serve as inputs to a risk assessment for the barrel
burning process. This work is intended to provide a sufficiently broad survey of the emissions from this process to
allow evaluation of the need for further study of this practice. It should be noted that most risk assessment studies
currently include sources of uncertainty so great that the true risk can only be stated to be within a range of one or
more orders of magnitude. Thus the formal data quality objective for this study was stated as follows.
"The objective of this study is to measure the emissions of hazardous air pollutants from the open burning of
household residential refuse in barrels such that emission factors derived are accurate within a factor of three. We
seek to estimate the emissions from these processes with sufficient accuracy so that the true emission factor is
between 33 and 300 percent of the estimated emission value reported. Further we seek to survey as broad a range of
potential emissions as resources and available sampling methodologies allow."
Due to the highly variable nature of household waste generation, a reasonable representation of a waste stream for
disposal in a burn barrel was prepared according to the typical percentages of various materials characterized and
quantified for New York State residents. The characterization was performed by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation's Division of Solid Waste and is based upon waste stream characterizations for New
York State. The preparation of simulated waste was performed by Acurex staff primarily from raw materials
diverted from the household waste streams of staff members.
Emissions from two categories of waste were analyzed in this study (Table 2-1). These categories include waste
from an avid recycling and a non-recycling family of four. To reduce the amount of different types of material to be
collected for the tests, percentages for like materials were combined (e.g., percentages for newspaper, books, and
office paper have all been combined) and percentages for "miscellaneous" items for each category were added to the
items that make up the largest percent for that category (see Table 2-1). Household hazardous waste (e.g., household
chemicals, paint, grease, oils, tires, and other vehicle parts) were not included in the waste to be burned. For the
recycling and non-recycling scenarios, 6.4 - 13.5 kg (14 - 30 Ib) of waste were combusted (in duplicate) in a
specially designed vessel (described below) in the EPA's Open Burning Simulation Test Facility (the facility). The
facility has been used for other similar studies. ^ $ ^ ^ »H»12 The composition of the material burned during the
tests is shown in Table 2-2.
-------
Table 2- 1 . Composition of household waste prepared by EPA (based on a characterization of household waste
prepared by the NYSDEC).
Non-Recycler (%)
Avid Recycler (%)
PAPER
Newspaper, books, and office paper
Magazines and junk mail
Corrugated cardboard and kraft paper
Paperboard, milk cartons, and drink boxes
PLASTIC RESIN (all types may contain trace plasticizers; e.g.
PET #1 (bottle bill)
HOPE: #2, LDPE #4, and PP #5
PVC: #3
PS: #6
Mixed #7
FOOD WASTE
TEXTILE/LEATHER
WOOD (treated/untreated)
GLASS/CERAMICS
Bottles/jars (bottle bill)
Ceramics (broken plates and cups)
METAL - FERROUS
Iron - cans
NON-FERROUS
Aluminum - cans (bottle bill), foil, other
Other non-iron (wire, copper pipe, batteries)
PERCENT TOTAL
TOTAL WEIGHT GENERATED PER HOUSEHOLD
FOR DISPOSAL IN BURN BARRELS
32.8
11.1
7.6
10.3
, cadmium)a
0.6
6.6
0.2
0.1
0.1
5.7
3.7
1.1
9.7
0.4
7.3
1.7
u.
100.0
4.9 kg/day
3.3
~
~
61.9
~
10.4
4.5
0.3
0.3
~
~
3.7
~
6.9
4.0
1.0
11
100.0
1.5 kg/day
a - PET = polyethylene terephthalate; HOPE = high-density polyethylene; LDPE = low-density polyethylene;
PP = polypropylene; PVC = polyvinyl chloride; and PS = polystyrene.
-------
Table 2-2. Composition of material used on each test day, grams; numbers in parentheses represent
mass percent of those componentsa.
Test No.
PAPER
Newspaper, books, and office paper
Magazines and junk mail
Corrugated cardboard and kraft paper
Paperboard, milk cartons, and drink boxes
PLASTIC RESINb
PET #1 (bottle bill)
HOPE: #2, LDPE #4, and PP #5
PVC: #3
PS: #6
Mixed #7
FOOD WASTE
TEXTILE/LEATHER
WOOD (treated/untreated)
GLASS/CERAMICS
Bottles/jars (bottle bill)
Ceramics (broken plates and cups)
METAL - FERROUS
Iron - cans
NON-FERROUS
Aluminum - cans
Other non-iron
TOTAL
1
Avid
Recycler
374.6 (3.3)
-
-
7019.4 (61.9)
~
1180.0(10.4)
510.9 (4.5)
34.2(0.3)
34.2 (0.3)
—
-
419.6 (3.7)
-
782.7 (6.9)
453.6 (4.0)
113.6(1.0)
419.5(1.0)
11.342kg
= 25.0 Ib
2
Avid
Recycler
374.6 (3.3)
~
~
7019.5 (61.9)
~
1179.6(10.4)
511.0(4.5)
34.0 (0.3)
34.1(0.3)
—
~
419.3 (3.7)
~
782.6 (6.9)
453.9 (4.0)
113.8(1.0)
419.8(1.0)
11.342kg
= 25.0 Ib
4
Non-
Recycler
2231.7(32.8)
755.2(11.1)
517.1 (7.6)
700.8 (10.3)
40.8 (0.6)
449.1 (6.6)
13.6 (0.2)
6.8(0.1)
6.8(0.1)
387.9 (5.7)
251.8(3.7)
74.8(1.1)
660.1 (9.7)
27.4 (0.4)
496.6 (7.3)
115.7(1.7)
74.8(1.1)
6.811kg
= 15.0 Ib
5
Non-
Recycler
2231.6(32.8)
755.2(11.1)
517.1 (7.6)
700.8 (10.3)
40.7 (0.6)
449.1 (6.6)
13.6 (0.2)
6.8(0.1)
6.8(0.1)
387.7 (5.7)
251.7(3.7)
74.7(1.1)
660.5 (9.7)
27.3 (0.4)
496.4 (7.3)
115.4(1.7)
74.6(1.1)
6.810kg
= 15.0 Ib
a - Test 3 was a blank with no household waste present.
b - PET = polyethylene terephthalate; HOPE = high-density polyethylene; LDPE = low-density polyethylene;
PP = polypropylene; PVC = polyvinyl chloride; and PS = polystyrene.
-------
The pollutants targeted in this study were total PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 |jm or less (PMio), total PM
with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 |jm or less (PM2.5), HC1, hydrogen cyanide (HCN), VOCs, aldehydes,
combined paniculate-phase and vapor-phase SVOCs (including PAHs, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
PCDDs/PCDFs), particulate-phase metals, and vapor-phase mercury. Additionally, SVOCs (including PAHs, PCBs,
and PCDDs/PCDFs), and metals were measured in the residual ash. Continuous emission monitors (CEMs) for
oxygen (62), CO2, CO, THCs, and nitric oxide (NO) were also operated. Measured concentrations were related to
dilution air volumes and measured net mass of debris combusted to derive emission rates. Emission rate data and ash
sampling results are intended to be useful in evaluating the potential exposure due to pollutant emissions associated
with the backyard burning of household refuse in barrels.
2.2 Open Burning Simulation Facility
The facility used in this study consists of three primary components; the burn hut, sample shed, and Hazardous Air
Pollutants Mobile Laboratory (HAPML). A plan view of the Open Burning Simulation Facility is shown in Figure
2-1.
INSULATED
SAMPLE
DUCT
SAMPLE SHED
BURN HUT
HEATED
SAMPLE
LINE
HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
MOBILE LABORATORY
Figure 2-1. Plan view of open burning simulation facility.
-------
2.2.1 Burn Hut
The burn hut (Figure 2-2) is an outbuilding with a 2.7 x3.4 m(8.9 x 11.1 ft) floor area and a sloping roof with a
minimum height of 1.9 m (6.3 ft) and a maximum height of 2.2 m (7.3 ft), modified for small-scale, open-
combustion simulation experiments. The building has been fitted with an air handling system which during this
study delivered 45.4-46.5 m^/min (1603-1642 ft-Vmin). The air handling unit supplies air at ground level to both
sides of the burn hut. This flow rate was sufficient to maintain a positive pressure within the facility. Thus it could
be assumed that the outflow rate from the facility was equal to this inflow rate. At this flow rate, the effective air
exchange rate of the burn hut is 2.4 air exchanges/min. Mixing of the burn hut air was provided by the currents from
these two air inlets and a pyramidal deflector shield located over the barrel. Residential type electric fans were
placed in the hut in a further attempt to ensure thorough mixing. These fans were oriented to circulate air within the
facility and thus should not significantly alter air exchange rates. Thermocouples were placed at the numbered
locations shown in Figure 2-2. Note that thermocouple No. 3 failed and is not shown.
The sample transport duct, 17-cm (6.6-in) OD stove pipe, was located over and behind the deflector shield. This
duct transported a representative sample from the burn hut atmosphere to the sampling shed located adjacent to the
burn hut. To minimize heat loss and condensation of organics, the duct was insulated outside the burn hut. The inner
walls and ceiling of the burn hut were covered with 1.6-mm (1/16 in) aluminum sheeting to provide an inert surface
within the test facility. To provide a highly clean, inert surface within the test facility, all surfaces within the burn
hut were completely lined with Tedlar sheet material (approximately 0.06 mm thick and sealed with heating,
ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) grade aluminum faced tape (part No. 6A062, W. W. Grainger). However,
it should be noted that in some tests heat from the combustion process caused tape peeling and thus breaches in this
inner Tedlar surface. This should not significantly bias test results however since the pressure within the Teflon
envelope would have been positive and thus the direction of flow out through these breaches.
-------
Sample Duct
T
Deflector Shield
Household Waste
Ventilation Holes
(1/2 in. diameter,
2 in. up from base)
Air Inlet
Flame
Steel Drum (55 gal)
A
(9
Air Inlet
Figure 2-2. Diagram of burn hut (numbers represent thermocouple locations).
A 55-gal steel drum, modified for ventilation, was used as the burn device. ^ The drum was sandblasted prior to
use to remove paint, thus simulating the use of a weathered, used barrel that would be the most common residential
situation. This combustion device was operated on an electronic scale platform to allow the mass consumed by
combustion to be monitored. The material to be combusted was prepared according to the masses listed in Table 2-2.
As much as possible, duplicate fuel mixes were prepared by manually sorting individual objects into the two
duplicate mixtures. The mixes were manually mixed in a plastic bag. The material was used and stored at "as
received/as collected" moisture content. Moisture content based on drying a bulk sample at 105 °C was estimated.
Also located in the burn hut were inlets for various sampling devices. Figure 2-3 illustrates the locations of the
sampling devices. The inlet for the volatiles sampling train was located within the burn hut, but the SUMMA®
canister and balance of the sampling train were located exterior to the burn hut. Volatiles were sampled using a 0.64
cm (1/4 in) Teflon line inserted through a hole in the back of the burn hut. This line was filtered to 0.2 |jm particle
size and regulated using a 0-50 mL/min mass flow controller. The inlet for the dichotomous PMjo and PM/2.5
sampling device, PCDDs/PCDFs, metals, HCN, HC1, aldehyde/ketone, and SVOC sample trains were located within
the burn hut. Sampling media for the dichotomous, PCDDs/PCDFs, aldehyde/ketone, and SVOC trains were also
located within the burn hut. The sampling media for the HCN, HC1, and metals trains were exterior to the hut except
for the filter and cyclones (if any) which were located within the hut.
The air inputs into the hut from the air handling system were measured in triplicate before and after each set of tests
using an Airdata backpressure/temperature-compensated flowgrid airflow system. In order to make these
measurements, a flowgrid (Airdata Flow Meter CFM-88, Shortridge Instruments Inc., Scottsdale, Arizona) was
10
-------
placed in front of the air conditioner openings in a pattern to traverse the entire opening. During these tests, the door
was closed with both air conditioners running to maintain as nearly as possible the conditions during a test.
1 Fan 76
-* 74
^^
^J
-84 r £
/>
1
_
r)
f
66
VOC(61) PM(122) r\
*43-L
HCl (24)
i )
Fan
1 — '
137
^
^
CEM (196)
T"
51
«-46-
'
,—,
1
m^
^
HCN(41)
fcj Burn Barrel T
112
\ /
^~ ^^ ^<^
SVOC (97) T
97
PCDD/PCDF (97)
\*
©^
T Aldehydes (91)
51
' W
r^ Q7
lr»— 97
33
f
M
66 >
Metals (47)
/x
r^-30 — ^
T
56
j y
Front Door
Figure 2-3. Plan view of burn hut showing sampling locations (all measurements are in cm; measurements in
parentheses represent height from floor).
2.2.2 Sample Shed
The sample shed contained the additional required sampling equipment such as the paniculate removal device for
the CEMs and the meter box and pumps for the various sampling trains. All dry gas meters were calibrated against a
Bell Prover or wet test meter. A digital readout/control for the platform scale was remotely operated from the sample
shed.
CEM samples were extracted from a sampling manifold within the sample duct. The manifold consists of 9.5-mm
(3/8 in) OD stainless steel probes positioned in the sample transport duct so that the probe orifice faced the direction
of sample flow. The sample stream was pulled from the burn hut into the sample shed under vacuum by an induced
draft (ID) fan located downstream of the sample manifold. A heated filter box and heated sample line carried the
sample gas to the Hazardous Air Pollutants Mobile Laboratory (HAPML).
11
-------
2.2.3 Hazardous Air Pollutants Mobile Laboratory (HAPML^
The HAPML was used for the continuous monitoring of the fixed combustion gases. A heated (121 °C [250 °F]),
particulate-free gaseous sample was extracted from the sample manifold and routed to individual analyzers for
continuous measurement. A portion of the heated sample was routed to the THC analyzer. The remaining portion of
the sample stream was further conditioned for moisture removal by a refrigeration condenser and silica gel before
being routed to the O2, CO2, and CO analyzers. The gas stream for NO was obtained from a location between the
refrigeration condenser and desiccant. An Ecom multigas combustion analyzer was also attached to this system at
this point during Test Nos. 2-5. The Ecom analyzer has onboard additional paniculate and moisture removal
systems. The Ecom analyzer was primarily installed since scoping and initial tests indicated that the individual O2
analyzer was not performing adequately. A substitute individual O2 analyzer was not available, and repairs were not
feasible. The analog output of the individual analyzers was recorded by computerized data acquisition system which
recorded all readings at 30-s intervals. This data acquisition system was also used to record weights from the
platform scale and temperatures from a series of eight thermocouples located in the burn hut, air conditioner input
ducts, and sample transport duct. The Ecom analyzer has an onboard data acquisition system that was set to record
readings at 2 minute intervals.
2.3 Test Procedures
At the beginning of each test day all sample trains were assembled and leak-checked, and all CEMs calibrated as per
the Quality Assurance Project Plan. Before the initiation of the test, the material to be combusted was placed in the
barrel, air flow through the facility was initiated, and 15 minutes of background data on the continuous emission
monitors and thermocouples were obtained. The material to be combusted was then lit for a short period (<3 min)
using a propane torch. At least 2 minutes after the removal of the propane torch, sampling on all trains was initiated.
Propane torches generally produce only CO2 and small quantities of low molecular weight products of incomplete
combustion and these products were expected to have largely dissipated before sampling is initiated; therefore, this
procedure should not bias the results. This was verified by a hut blank experiment during which the propane torches
were lit, but household waste was not burned. Additionally, the hut blank experiment provides information for the
assessment of background contaminant concentrations in the ambient air that is pumped through the facility. Various
field and laboratory blank samples were collected for each sampling train.
2.4 Sampling and Analysis Methods
2.4.1 CEMs and Thermocouples
Fixed combustion gases CO2, CO, NO, O2, and THC were monitored continuously throughout the test period
through the sampling manifold. Each CEM was calibrated prior to each test. The calibration consisted of at least
three points (zero, span, mid-point). After introducing the zero and adjusting, span gases were used to adjust the
12
-------
gain, and a mid-point calibration gas was introduced to verify analyzer linearity. At the conclusion of testing for the
day, the response of the instrument was again checked by introducing a zero and span gases. All span gases used
were certified by the manufacturer. All span and zero gases were delivered at a constant pressure and flow identical
to those used during sampling. This was done to avoid biasing the sample gas measurements with respect to the
calibration gas measurements. A calibration gas was allowed to flow through the entire system from the heated filter
box to the analyzer to test for system sample bias on one occasion. The Ecom multigas combustion analyzer has a
different standard calibration procedure. It was three-point calibrated at the beginning of the project. Before each
test the analyzer performed an automatic one-point calibration check. On at least one occasion the oxygen analyzer
functions of this analyzer were independently verified with a calibration gas. Thermocouple calibration checks were
conducted once during the project using an ice bath slurry and a boiling water bath.
2.4.2 Volatile Organic Sampling and Analysis
Volatile organics were sampled into SUMMA® canisters and analyzed according to Method TO-14^ by Acurex.
The canisters were cleaned before each experiment by five sequential evacuations and refillings with purified gas.
Ten percent of each batch of canisters were tested before use to ensure adequate cleaning. The SUMMA® canisters
were located exterior to the burn hut with a Teflon sample probe drawing directly from the burn hut. The sample
was collected through a train consisting of the Teflon tubing probe followed by a paniculate filter and mass flow
controller. The dead volume of this system was minimal compared to the sample volume. A diagram of a similar
sampling system is provided in the cited method. The filter and delivery system was not heated since the area to be
sampled from (the burn hut) was very close to ambient temperature. Method TO-14's instructions for capillary
column gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) analysis in the full scan mode were used (although
Method TO-14 contains provisions for other analytical methods that were not used in this study). Compound
identification was based on retention time and the agreement of the mass spectra of the unknown to mass spectra of
known standards. A multipoint calibration was performed before analysis for a targeted group of analytes to
establish response factors (RFs). Quantification was then based on an external standard method using these RFs and
the integrated responses for each identified compound. Beyond those targeted compounds, up to the 20 highest
abundance peaks were tentatively identified based on spectral identification. The program used for this tentative
identification attempts to identify all nontargeted peaks with areas greater than 10 percent of that of the nearest
eluting standard.
2.4.3 Dichotomous Sampling for Total PMjp and PM2.5 Particulate
This sampler was operated in accordance with the operating manual^ and the provisions of the EPA's "Reference
Method for the Determination of PMio in the Atmosphere." ^ The method of operation of this sampling train for
this project differed from the operating manual in several respects: 1) due to constraints of facility size, the sampler
location criteria in Section 5.1 were modified (i.e., the sampler was placed inside the burn hut); 2) the flow through
the sampler was measured by a separate dry gas meter in addition to the rotameter as discussed in the manual; and 3)
the filter holders were modified to accept a 142 mm Teflon filter. All filters were desiccated before taring and stored
13
-------
in a desiccator after sampling, until weighing. All aspects of this determination were performed by Acurex.
2.4.4 Particulate/Semivolatile Organic Sampling and Analysis
Total particulate-phase organics were sampled using a Graseby PS-1 sampler operated within the burn hut. This
train which is designed to comply with EPA's ambient sampling method TO-13,16 consisted of an open-faced filter
holder followed by a polyurethane foam (PUF)-sandwiched XAD-2 bed vapor trap. The target flow rate for this
sampler as stated in TO-13 is 200 to 280 L/min (7 to 9.8 ft-Vmin). This flow rate is designed to achieve low
detection limits for the quantification of generally dilute ambient concentrations. Since this sampler does not have a
paniculate size separation device, considerably lower flow rates can be used. Due to the expected high
concentrations of analytes in these tests, we operated this sampler at approximately 28.3 L/min (1 ft-Vmin). The
temperature of air entering the train and within the PUF cartridge was assessed during preliminary tests in order to
decide if further precautions were necessary to cool the system. Due to high temperatures in the burn hut, additional
cooling was required and a copper cooling coil was fabricated to enclose the exterior of the PUF module. The
method of operation of this sampling train was different from method TO-13 in the listed respects: 1) due to
constraints of facility size, the sampler location criteria in Section 11.3.2 of TO-13 were modified (i.e., the sampler
was placed inside the burn hut); 2) the flow through the sampler was measured by a separate dry gas meter rather
than a venturi and Magnehelic gauge as discussed in TO-13; and 3) analysis was performed as described below. The
PUF pieces were cleaned using methylene chloride in a Soxhlet extractor and stored in sealed Tedlar bags before
preparation of the PUF/XAD-2 cartridge. The XAD-2 resin was cleaned and QC'd as outlined in Lentzen et al. ^
XAD-2 was maintained under refrigeration (4 °C) in an amber bottle when not in use.
The semivolatile and particulate-phase organic sample was collected with a 110-mm diameter filter (Pallflex 2500
QAT-UP), and a glass and stainless steel cartridge containing PUF/XAD-2® resin sorbent. All semivolatile organic
samples were stored in sealed Tedlar® bags and maintained under refrigeration (4 °C) before extraction. The filter
and cartridge were then extracted together in methylene chloride. A glass Soxhlet extractor was constructed to house
the PUF/XAD-2 cartridge and keep the solvent rinse level above the rim of the cartridge. The samples were
concentrated using a rotary evaporator until the volume was approximately 5 mL, then the sample was transferred to
a nitrogen blowdown vial. The samples were then concentrated using a nitrogen blowdown and hot water bath until
the final volume of 1 mL was obtained. The samples were then transferred to a 2 mL crimp-cap vial with septum
until injection on the gas chromatograph/mass selective detector (GC/MSD). The organic paniculate and XAD-2
samples were analyzed together by Acurex after extraction. Analysis followed EPA Method 82701^ for
semivolatile/particulate bound organics. Compound identification was based on retention time and the agreement of
the mass spectra of the unknown to mass spectra of known standards. A multipoint calibration was performed before
analysis for a targeted group of analytes to establish relative response factors (RRFs). Quantification was then based
on an internal standard method utilizing these RRFs and the integrated responses of ions specific to each identified
compound. Beyond those compounds targeted, the 20 highest abundance peaks were tentatively identified based on
spectral identification.
14
-------
A fraction of the semivolatile organic extracts were sent to WCL&R for analysis for PAHs and (tri through hexa)
chlorobenzenes. This was done in a manner as to allow quantitative recording of the volume split off for this
purpose and the total volume of the extract. A modification of EPA Method 8280 was used for the analysis of PAHs
and chlorobenzenes using GC/ MS with selected ion monitoring and isotope dilution quantitation.
2.4.5 Particulate- and Vapor-Phase Metals Sampling and Analysis
Metal species were sampled in accordance with Method 101A modified to be nonisokinetic, since sampling was not
done from a duct. ^ The preserved quartz fiber filters and associated rinses were sent to WCL&R for analysis
except for the vapor-phase mercury samples which were analyzed by Triangle Laboratories due to the high cost and
regulatory difficulty of shipping these fractions to WCL&R.
At WCL&R, the metals were extracted from the particulates and the extracts were analyzed using Inductively
Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS), Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry, Electrothermal Atomic
Absorption Spectrophotometry (graphite furnace), and Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption. The filters were divided
into quarters to accomplish these analyses. Acid digestions for trace metals arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium,
magnesium, copper, nickel, lead, selenium, silver, and zinc and were performed using nitric acid. Digestates were
analyzed for trace metals arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, magnesium, copper, nickel, lead, silver, and zinc by
ICP-MS using EPA Method 2008. A portion of each digestate was analyzed for selenium by Electrothermal Atomic
Absorption Spectrophotometry (graphite furnace) using EPA Method 270.2. Acid digestion for trace metals
chromium and aluminum was performed using nitric and hydrofluoric acids. These digestates were analyzed by
Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry using EPA Method 202.1 for aluminum and EPA Method 218.1 for
chromium. Nitric acid rinses of the front half of the sampling trains were concentrated, digested, and analyzed for
all metals except mercury as described above. For these rinses, hydrofluoric acid was not used in the digestion
procedure for chromium and aluminum. Mercury in the vapor phase was collected in permanganate solution in an
impinger. This solution was analyzed by Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption as specified in Method 101A by Triangle
Laboratories. The aqueous extract of the filter was analyzed by Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption as specified in
Method 101A by WCL&R. Hydrochloric acid rinses of the mercury impingers were also analyzed for mercury by
Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption by WCL&R.
2.4.6 Particulate- and Vapor-Phase PCDDs/PCDFs Sampling and Analysis
Total particulate-phase PCDDs/PCDFs were sampled using a Graseby PS-1 sampler operated within the burn hut.
This train, designed to comply with EPA's ambient sampling method TO-9,^0 consists of an open-faced filter holder
followed by a PUF-sandwiched XAD-2 bed vapor trap. Because this sampler does not have a paniculate size
separation device, fairly low flow rates can be used. Given the expected high concentrations of analytes in these
tests, we operated this sampler at approximately 28.3 L/min (1 ft-Vmin) for approximately 1.5 hours. The
temperature of air entering the train and within the PUF cartridge was assessed during preliminary tests in order to
decide if further precautions were necessary to cool the system. Since further precautions were required, a copper
15
-------
cooling coil was fabricated to enclose the exterior of the PUF module. The method of operation of this sampling
train differs from method TO-9 in other respects:
Due to constraints of facility size, the sampler location criteria in TO-9 were modified (i.e., the
sampler was located inside the burn hut)
The flow through the sampler was measured by a separate dry gas meter rather then a venturi and
Magnehelic gauge as discussed in TO-9
Analysis was performed using HRGC/LRMS based on EPA Methods 23 and 8280
The filter and vapor-phase module were analyzed together
These samples were spiked, extracted, and concentrated by Acurex. The extracts were then shipped on ice to
WCL&R for analysis by Method 8280.
Additionally, a fraction of the PCDD/PCDF extract was removed before the addition of surrogate standards and sent
to NYSDOH's Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research (WCL&R) for analysis of PCBs by GC/electron
capture detector as per the NYSDEC Analytical Services Protocol Method 91-11. The PCDD/PCDF sample
cartridge was spiked prior to extraction with a PCB standard mix supplied by WCL&R. The initial analysis of these
fractions was not performed by WCL&R because of a laboratory accident. A second set of fractions of the
PCDD/PCDF extracts were obtained by WCL&R and analyzed for congener-specific PCBs using surrogate
congeners spiked prior to analysis.
2.4.7 Ash Analysis
A single subsample of the ash collected during each type of combustion tests ("avid recyclers" and "non-recyclers")
was collected by Acurex and either soxhlet extracted (for organic components) or acid digested (for inorganic
components) and analyzed for the following parameters:
PCDDs/PCDFs by EPA Method 8280 by WCL&R
SVOCs by EPA Method 8270 by WCL&R
Metals by EPA Method 200.7 ICP Emission by WCL&R
PCBs by NYSDEC Analytical Services Protocol Method 91-11 by WCL&R
2.4.8 Acid Gas Sampling and Analysis
HC1 was sampled and analyzed in general accordance with EPA Method 26, except that the stack sampling specific
isokinetic sampling procedures were not utilized. This sample was withdrawn directly from the burn hut as
discussed above. This analysis was performed by Acurex using High Pressure Liquid Chromatography (HPLC),
based on Method 26. HCN was sampled in accordance with NIOSH Method 7904 directly from the burn hut.
Analysis was performed using an ion sensitive electrode as discussed in Method 7904. This analysis was performed
16
-------
by Acurex.
2.4.9 Aldehyde and Ketone Sampling and Analysis
Sampling for these species used DNPH-coated cartridges located within the burn hut as outlined in Method IP-6A.
Analysis was performed by Acurex using HPLC.
2.5 Data Processing
Estimated emissions per unit mass burned were calculated using measured concentrations of analytes, the volume of
air entering the burn hut facility, the volume of air drawn through the sampling device standardized to ambient
temperature and barometric pressure, and the mass of waste consumed by combustion. These estimated emissions
expressed a mass of analyte produced per mass of debris material consumed in the combustion process.
During all runs, the air flow rate into the burn hut was 46 m^/min (1622.5 ft-Vmin) on a dry, standard basis.
The sample trains yielded results in average concentration over the duration of the run. In order to convert to
estimated emissions per unit mass burned, the following formula was used:
Estimated emissions = Avg concentration * Flow rate into hut * Run time
Mass of waste burned
The information necessary to calculate the estimated emissions can be found in the Appendices F and G. Note that
the mass of waste burned depends on the mass at the start and stop times of the sampling methods and not on the
total mass burned through the entire experiment.
17
-------
SECTION 3.0
DATA, RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION
All emissions data are reported in mass emitted per kg of household waste combusted. Each analytical sample also
included a hut blank, but the hut blank data are not included in the body of the report since there was no material
burned in the hut blank and, as such, the estimated emissions per unit mass burned for those tests are undefined. All
data from various blanks are included in the Appendices F and G. In addition, data presented in this manner do not
take into account that the avid recycler produces only 30 percent of the mass of refuse produced by the non-recycler.
Table 2-1 states that the avid recycler family of four produces approximately 1.5 kg/day of refuse, and the non-
recycler family of four produces approximately 4.9 kg/day. Section 4.0 discusses the differences between the
estimated emissions on a mass basis and the estimated emissions on a household basis.
In addition, it must be noted that many analytes were present at values below the lowest calibration point for the
analytical methods. These data were flagged with a "J" in the data tables. Compound concentrations flagged in this
manner cannot be held to the same degree of quantitative certainty of compounds whose concentrations fell within
the calibration range. However, these data are very different from non-detects. Compounds flagged in this manner
were definitely present, but not quantified to the same degree that they would have been had they been within the
calibration range of the analytical instruments.
3.1 Continuous Measurement Results
Table 3-1 lists the test conditions for the experiments. If the fraction of the initial material that was combusted is
plotted, it is noted that a greater fraction of the mass of the avid recycler's trash is combusted. This observation is
shown in Figure 3-1. Figures 3-2 through 3-25 show the traces from the CEMs for 62, CO2, CO, THC, and NO, as
well as the signal from the weigh scale for Tests 1, 2, 4, and 5. Test 3 was the hut blank and had uninteresting CEM
results that were generally consistent with expected ambient air concentrations of those species. O2 and CO2 levels
were approaching ambient concentrations for all tests, although CO2 did rise slightly during the burns. Other CEM
traces showed high values during initial combustion of the waste, but tapered off towards zero as time progressed.
Temperature measurements listed as "base of barrel" and "above barrel" represent measurements taken at points 5
and 8 in Figure 2-2.
Table 3-1. Mass of waste burned during testing
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
Test
Conditions
Avid Recycler
Avid Recycler
Hut Blank
Non-Recycler
Non-Recycler
Start Mass
(kg)
12.4
13.6
0.0
6.4
8.8
Final Mass
(kg)
4.4
4.4
0.0
3.1
4.7
Mass Burned
(kg)
8.1
9.2
0.0
3.3
4.1
Amt. Burned
(%)
65.3
68.1
~
51.6
46.6
Duration
(min)
77
83
92
62
91
18
-------
o
^
CD
C£
T3
O
C^
CD
C£
T3
_CD
O
>,
O
CD
DC.
_CD
O
>,
O
CD
DC.
Figure 3-1. Fraction of initial mass combusted.
(N
O
25-,
20-
15-
10-
0-
\ \ \ \ \ \
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time Since Ignition (min)
120
140
Figure 3-2. O2 Results from Test 1
19
-------
100
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-3. CO2 Results from Test 1
ex
ex
O
O
40-
30-
20-
10-
0-
\
0
20 40 60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-4. CO Results from Test 1
80
100
20
-------
25 -J
20-^
I
O
K
H
1.2-
1.0-
S 0.8.
ex
0.4.
0.2-
20
40
60
80
100
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-5. THC Results from Test 1
20
40
60
80
100
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-6. NO Results from Test 1
21
-------
50.
40-
g 30-
£
| 20-
10-
400-
20 40 60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-7. Burn Mass Results from Test 1
80
100
°i 300.
(L)
H
200-
100-
Base of Barrel
Above Barrel
\
0
20 40 60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-8. Temperature Results from Test 1
80
100
22
-------
\p
0^
(N
O
25 "I
20-
15-
10-
5-
o
rnmtufi * •«"'^^-^|itf«-*'%-^.^^-^» "• in *
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
(N
O
o
o.io.
0.08.
0.06.
0.04.
0.02.
0.00.
\
0
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-9. C>2 Results from Test 2
I
20
I
40
I
60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-10. CO2 Results from Test 2
I
80
100
23
-------
ex
ex
8
25-
20.
5^
0^
20
40
60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-11. CO Results from Test 2
80
100
16
14
12
ex -. „
ex 10'
6-
4.
2.
e
a
a
O
i
20
I
40
I
60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-12. THC Results from Test 2
24
80
100
-------
1.2-
1.0-
0.8.
°-6'
0.4.
0.2.
0.0.
20 40 60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-13. NO Results from Test 2
80
100
50-,
40-
30~'
op
'5
20-
10-
\
0
I I I
20 40 60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-14. Burn Mass Results from Test 2
I
80
100
25
-------
o
o
500-1
400-
S 300-1
S
200-
100-
Base of Barrel
Above Barrel
25-,
20-
15-
\
0
\^
20
\^
40
\^
60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-15. Temperature Results from Test 2
\^
80
100
(N
O
10-
5-
1
0
1
20
1
40
1
60
1
80
100
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-16. 62 Results from Test 4
120
140
26
-------
(N
O
o
0.10-
0.08-
0.06-
0.04-
0.02-
0.00
30
25
20
10
5
20
40
60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-17. CO2 Results from Test 4
20
40
60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-18. CO Results from Test 4
80
100
80
100
27
-------
20
18-
16-
I 14-|
OH
O
12-
10-
20 40 60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-19. THC Results from Test 4
I
80
100
cx
xS>
O
100
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-20. NO Results from Test 4
28
-------
50.
40-
£ 30-
ao
20-
10-
o
X^
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-21. Burn Mass Results from Test 4
700.
^ 600.
£?
°^ 500 -|
a
e 400.
(L)
300-
200.
100.
-- Base of Barrel
— Above Barrel
60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-22. Temperature Results from Test 4
80
100
29
-------
25
20-
(N
o
15-
10-
5-
0-L
\
0
20 40 60 80 100
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-23. C>2 Results from Test 5
120
140
O
O
0.14.
0.12.
0.10.
0.08.
0.06.
0.04.
0.02.
\
0
I I \
20 40 60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-24. CC>2 Results from Test 5
80
100
30
-------
30.
25.
I 20'
O
O 15.
10.
5.
20 40 60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-25. CO Results from Test 5
80
100
O
K
H
16-
14-
12-
10-
\
0
I I I
20 40 60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-26. THC Results from Test 5
I
80
100
31
-------
2.5.
2.0.
> 1.5.
1.0-
0.5.
50-,
40-
o 30
-M
20--
10-
I
20
I
40
I
60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-27. NO Results from Test 5
I
80
100
0-L
\
0
20 40 60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-28. Burn Mass Results from Test 5
80
100
32
-------
£?
o
3
«s
tH
s
(L)
H
700 -,
600-
500-
400-
300-
200-
100-
Base of Barrel
Above Barrel
40 60
Time Since Ignition (min)
Figure 3-29. Temperature Results from Test 5
80
100
3.2 Volatile Organic Compound Analytical Results
Table 3-2 lists the results from the analysis of the targeted VOC compounds. A considerable portion of those
compounds were found to be below the method detection limit (MDL). However, a number of them were detected
at elevated levels, and it is apparent that, on a mass emitted per mass of material burned basis, emissions from the
non-recycler are higher than the emissions from the avid recycler. Figure 3-30 illustrates the difference between
emissions of VOCs from the two different waste streams by plotting the average of the estimated emissions per unit
mass burned of those VOCs that were detected at levels above the detection limits for both the avid recycler and the
non-recycler. If converted into mass emissions per day or per person, emissions of VOCs from non-recyclers would
be even higher relative to avid recyclers. Of particular note is the observation that benzene emissions are
approximately 1 g/kg of waste burned, which could potentially be significant, given that benzene has been
implicated as a carcinogen.
In addition to the target VOC compounds, a spectral library search was also performed to identify the unknown
peaks. Table 3-3 lists the tentatively identified compounds (TICs) in the volatile range. Again, those compounds
that were present in both the avid recycler and non-recycler samples were consistently higher for the non-recycler.
33
-------
Table 3-2. Estimated emissions of targeted volatile organic compounds, mg/kg
Test No.
1, ,1-Trichloroethane
1, ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1, ,2-Trichloroethane
1, -Dichloroethane
1, -Dichloroethene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,3 -Butadiene
1 ,3 -Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Butanone
3-Methylpentane
4-Ethyltoluene
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Benzyl Chloride
Bromomethane
Butyl Acetate
Butyl Methyl Ether
Carbon Bisulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Decane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Dichlorotrifluoroethane
Dimethyl Bisulfide
Dodecane
Ethyl Acetate
Ethyl Benzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Limonene
1
Avid
Recycler
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
162
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
234
1068
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
138
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
138
0.4
0.4
245
Avid Non- Non-
Recycler Recycler Recycler
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
60 195 148
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
0.4 59 96
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
139 1346 529
378 1765 708
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.5 <1.2 <1.2
O.4 <1 <1
O.5 <1.3 <1.3
O.4 <1.1 <1.1
136 263 116
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1.1 <1.1
O.8 <2.1 <2.1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
51 422 116
O.4 <1 <1
O.4 <1 <1
(continued)
34
-------
Table 3-2 (continued). Estimated emissions of targeted volatile organic compounds, mg/kg
Test No. 1 2
4 5
Avid Avid Non- Non-
Recycler Recycler Recycler Recycler
m,p-Xylene 87 O
Methylene Chloride O.7 68
Naphthalene 150 53
Nonane O.4 O
o-Xylene 65 O
Octane O.4 O
Pinene O.4 O
4
-------
Table 3-3. Estimated emissions of tentatively identified VOC compounds, mg/kg
Compound
Propene
Butene
Pentene
Pentane
Substituted Pentadiene
Substituted Dihydromethylenefurandione
1 ,3 -Cyclopentadiene
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
Substituted Methylfuran
Substituted Methylbutenone
2,5-Dimethylfuran
2-Furancarboxaldehyde
2-Cyclopenten- 1 -one
Substituted Methylcyclopentanone
Substituted Methylethenylbenzene
Benzaldehyde
5 -Methyl-3 -furancarboxaldehy de
Benzofuran
Phenol
Substituted Ethynylmethylbenzene
Total (excluding non-detects)
Avid Recycler
1878
699
140
236
157
236
135
306
218
-
-
245
-
-
131
240
-
92
402
258
5373
Avid Recycler
1444
252
-
-
-
276
87
124
243
-
-
107
-
-
-
49
-
-
-
54
2636
Non-Recycler
5514
1272
-
-
-
3499
424
-
3605
467
424
933
233
159
594
-
-
159
-
233
17516
Non-Recycler
3499
1060
223
-
-
1803
223
318
2015
276
276
848
170
127
-
127
170
-
-
127
11262
36
-------
3.3 Semivolatile Organic Compound Analytical Results
Table 3-4 lists the results from the analysis of the targeted SVOCs as performed by Acurex, and Table 3-5 lists the
results from the NYSDOH's WCL&R laboratory. Like the VOCs, a major portion of the SVOC target compounds
were found to be below the MDL. However, a number of them were detected at elevated levels, and it is apparent
that, with the exception of 2-Methylnaphthalene, emissions from the non-recycler are higher than the emissions from
the avid-recycler. Figure 3-31 illustrates the difference between emissions of SVOCs from the two different waste
streams by plotting the average of the estimated emissions per unit mass burned of those SVOCs that were detected
at levels above the detection limits for both the avid recycler and the non-recycler. The data in Figure 3-31 were
derived by examining compounds that were quantified from both tests in both laboratory analyses, and averaging the
results. Another observation is that there appears to be reasonable agreement between the two laboratories on those
compounds present in relatively high concentrations.
Table 3-4. Estimated emissions of semivolatile organics as analyzed by Acurex, g/kg
rest No.
,2,4,5 Tetrachlorobenzene
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
,2-Dichlorobenzene
,3 Dinitrobenzene
,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
,3 -Dichlorobenzene
,4-Dichlorobenzene
,4-Naphthoquinone
-Naphthylamine
-Nitrosopiperidine
2,3 ,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4 Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2 -Naphthylamine
1
Avid
Recycler
O.0004
O.0004
O.0004
O.0004
O.0004
O.0004
O.0004
O.0004
O.0004
O.0004
O.0004
O.0004
O.0004
0.0042
O.0004
O.0004
O.0004
O.0004
O.0004
O.0004
0.0004 J
O.0004
O.0004
0.0026 J
0.0057
<0.0004
2
Avid
Recycler
O.0018
<0.0018
0.0005 J
O.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
O.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
O.0018
<0.0018
0.0066 Ja
<0.0018
O.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
0.0015 J
O.0018
<0.0018
0.018
0.0252
O.0018
(continued)
4
Non-
Recycler
O.0025
<0.0025
<0.0025
<0.0025
<0.0025
O.0025
<0.0025
<0.0025
<0.0025
<0.0025
O.0025
<0.0025
<0.0025
0.0172
<0.0025
O.0025
<0.0025
<0.0025
<0.0025
<0.0025
O.0025
<0.0025
<0.0025
0.0068 J
0.0343
O.0025
5
Non-
Recycler
O.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
O.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
O.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
O.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
<0.0018
0.0015 J
O.0018
<0.0018
0.0094 J
0.0212
O.0018
37
-------
Table 3-4 (continued). Estimated emissions of semivolatile organics as analyzed by Acurex, g/kg
Test No.
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
3 ,3 '-Dichlorobenzidine
3 ,3 '-Dimethylbenzidine
3 -Methylcholanthrene
4-Aminobiphenyl
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3 -methyl-phenol
4-Chloroaniline
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Methylphenol
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
Aniline
Anthracene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (ghi) perylene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Benzyl Alcohol
Benzyl butyl phthalate
bis (2-Chloroethoxy) methane
bis (2-Chloroisopropyl) ether
bis-(2-Chloroethyl) ether
Chlorobenzilate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diallate
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dinoseb
Diphenylamine
Ethyl Methanesulfonate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
1
Avid
Recycler
<0.0004
O.0004
<0.0004
<0.0004
<0.0004
<0.0004
O.0004
<0.0004
<0.0004
<0.0004
0.0101
O.0004
<0.0004
<0.0004
<0.0004
0.0062
0.0019 J
O.0004
0.0015 J
0.0026 J
0.0016 J
O.0004
0.0011 J
0.0005 J
O.0004
0.0013 J
<0.0004
<0.0004
O.0004
<0.0004
0.0032 J
0.0015 J
O.0004
<0.0004
0.0004 J
0.0014 J
0.0005 J
O.0004
<0.0004
<0.0004
0.0031 J
0.0016 J
O.0004
2
Avid
Recycler
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0435
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0013 J
0.0184
0.0064 J
0.0018
0.0039 J
0.0006 J
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0023 J
0.0012 J
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0006 J
0.0032 J
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0045 J
0.0007 J
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0034 J
0.007 J
0.0018
(continued)
4
Non-
Recycler
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0586
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0015 J
0.028
0.0035 J
0.0025
0.0054 J
0.0025 J
0.0027 J
0.0025
0.002 J
0.0025
0.0043 J
0.0037 J
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0031 J
0.0035 J
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0053 J
0.0036 J
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0083 J
0.0072 J
0.0025
5
Non-
Recycler
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0692
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.001 J
0.0184
0.0079 J
0.0018
0.0031 J
0.0014 J
0.0012 J
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0075 J
0.0038
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0016 J
0.0153 J
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0034 J
0.0018 J
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0044 J
0.0046 J
0.0018
38
-------
Table 3-4 (continued). Estimated emissions of semivolatile organics as analyzed by Acurex, g/kg
Test No.
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrole
Methyl Methanesulfonate
n-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
n-Nitrosodiethylamine
n-Nitrosomethylethylamine
n-Nitrosopyrrolidine
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Safrole
Total (excluding non-detects)
1
Avid
Recycler
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0148
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0075
0.0357
0.0041
0.0004
0.0883
2
Avid
Recycler
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0813
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0182
0.1227
0.003 J
0.0018
0.3273
4
Non-
Recycler
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.037
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.026
0.148
0.0086 J
0.0025
0.3491
5
Non-
Recycler
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.037
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0697
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0151 J
0.1024
0.0049
0.0018
0.3266
a - J = (PQL), Quantified outside of instrument calibration range
39
-------
Table 3-5. Estimated emissions of semivolatile organics as analyzed by NYSDOH WCL&R, g/kg
Test No.
Compound
,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
,2-Dichlorobenzene
,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
,3 -Dichlorobenzene
,3-Dinitrobenzene
,4-Dichlorobenzene
,4-Naphthoquinone
,4-Phenylenediamine
-Naphthylamine
2,2'-oxybis(l-Chloropropane)
2,3 ,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Naphthylamine
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
2-Picoline
3 ,3 '-Dichlorobenzidine
3 ,3 '-Dimethylbenzidine
3- or 4-Methylphenol
3 -Methylcholanthrene
3-Nitroaniline
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
4-Aminobiphenyl
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
4-Chloro-3 -methylphenol
4-Chloroaniline
1
Avid
Recycler
0.000035 Ja
0.0008
0.000062 J
0.0022
0.000019 J
0.0025
0.000014 J
0.0039
Ob
0.0013
0.0025
0.0026
0.0029
0.00028 J
0.0027
0.0039
0.0025
0.0024
0.0028
0.0026
0.0028
0.0013
0.000472 J
0.002
0.0049
0.0013
0.0026
0.0026
0
0.0011
0
0.0095
0.0012
0.0023
0.0021
0.0021
0.0021
0.0025
0.0012
0.0017
0.0028
0.002
2
Avid
Recycler
0.000177 J
0.000325 J
0.000483 J
0.002
0.000271 J
0.0022
0.000154 J
0.0035
0
0.0012
0.0023
0.0023
0.0026
0.00048 J
0.000551 J
0.0107
0.0022
0.0022
0.000177 J
0.0023
0.0025
0.0012
0.001424 J
0.0164
0.0225
0.0011
0.0023
0.0024
0
0.001
0
0.0393
0.0011
0.0021
0.0019
0.0019
0.0019
0.0023
0.0011
0.0015
0.0025
0.0019
(continued)
4
Non-
Recycler
0.000064 J
0.000042 J
0.000067 J
0.0069
0.0036
0.0077
0.0039
0.0122
0
0.004
0.0079
0.0081
0.0091
0.0081
0.00041 J
0.0506
0.0078
0.0077
0.0087
0.0081
0.0088
0.0042
0.000826 J
0.0068
0.041
0.0039
0.0081
0.0083
0
0.0036
0
0.0661
0.0039
0.0072
0.0067
0.0065
0.0066
0.0079
O.0037
0.0053
0.0088
0.0064
5
Non-
Recycler
0.0026
0.0019
0.000159 J
0.0051
0.000058 J
0.0057
0.000038 J
0.0089
0
0.0029
0.0058
0.0059
0.0066
0.0059
0.0061
0.0474
0.0057
0.0056
0.0063
0.0059
0.0064
0.0031
0.0015 J
0.0062
0.0419
0.0029
0.0059
0.0061
0
0.0026
0
0.0571
0.0029
0.0053
0.0049
0.0048
0.0048
0.0058
0.0027
0.0038
0.0064
0.0047
40
-------
Table 3-5 (continued). Estimated emissions of semivolatile organics as analyzed by NYSDOH WCL&R, g/kg
Test No.
Compound
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether
4-Nitroaniline
4-Nitrophenol
4-Nitroquinoline- 1 -oxide
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
7, 12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
Aniline
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
beta-BHC
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Chlorobenzilate
Chrysene
cis-Isosafrole
Decane
delta-BHC
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diallate-A
Diallate-B
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethoate
Dimethylphenethylamine
Dimethyl phthalate
Dinoseb
1
Avid
Recycler
0.0014
0.0024
0.003
0.001
0.0025
0.0006
0.000251 J
0.0045
0.001418 J
0.0018
0.0021
0.0026
0.000968 J
0
0.001527 J
0.000987 J
0.000677 J
0.00081 J
0.0007 J
0.000723 J
0.0023
0.0025
0.0029
0.0134
0.002224 J
0.0025
0.003
0.0017
0
0.0021
0.00096 J
0.0028
0.0018
0.0018
0.000065 J
0.001298 J
0.0021
0.0027
0.0034
0.0003
0.0026
0.0022
2
Avid
Recycler
0.0013
0.0021
0.0027
0.0009
0.0023
0.0005
0.000845 J
0.0123
0.0063
0.0016
0.0019
0.0023
0.0019
0
0.000266 J
0.000149 J
0.000188 J
0.00026 J
0.000178 J
0.002071 J
0.0021
0.0023
0.0026
0.0068
0.001448 J
0.0023
0.00049 J
0.0016
0.000309 J
0.0019
0.001574 J
0.0046
0.0016
0.0017
0.000032 J
0.0039
0.0019
0.000343 J
0.0031
0.0003
0.0023
0.002
(continued)
4
Non-
Recycler
0.0046
0.0075
0.0094
0.0032
0.0079
0.0018
0.001334 J
0.0262
0.003949 J
0.0056
0.0067
0.0081
0.003119 J
0
0.002018 J
0.001963 J
0.001584 J
0.002061 J
0.001347 J
0.008419 J
0.0073
0.008
0.0092
0.1394
0.008533 J
0.008
0.003358 J
0.0055
0.000033 J
0.0067
0.002566 J
0.0277
0.0056
0.0058
0.00031 J
0.0066
0.0066
0.00362 J
0.0108
0.001
0.0081
0.007
5
Non-
Recycler
0.0033
0.0054
0.0068
0.0023
0.0057
0.0013
0.000676 J
0.0112
0.006134 J
0.0041
0.0049
0.0059
0.001343 J
0
0.000663 J
0.000601 J
0.000665 J
0.000739 J
0.000597 J
0.0104
0.0053
0.0059
0.0067
0.0207
0.004716 J
0.0059
0.001211 J
0.004
0.000341 J
0.0049
0.0087
0.0658
0.0041
0.0043
0.000074 J
0.002746 J
0.0048
0.001432 J
0.0079
0.0008
0.0059
0.0051
41
-------
Table 3-5 (continued). Estimated emissions of semivolatile organics as analyzed by NYSDOH WCL&R, g/kg
Test No.
Compound
Diphenylamine
Disulfoton
Dodecane
Dotriacontane
Eicosane
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
gamma-BHC
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Hexadecane
Hexatriacontane
Indeno( 1,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Kepone
Methapyrilene
Methoxychlor
Methyl methanesulfonate
Methyl parathion
Methyl yellow
Mirex
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
1
Avid
Recycler
0.0023
0.0014
0.0001
0.0025
0.0005
0.0023
0.0022
0.0025
0.0026
0
0.0023
0.0026
0.011
0.0026
0.001183 J
0.0022
0.0019
0.0019
0.000041 J
0.0006
0.0009
0.0009
0.0006
0.0002
0
0.000501 J
0.0017
0.0026
0.0043
0.0006
0.0022
0.0026
0.0026
0.0023
0.002
0.0025
0.0031
0.0028
0.0028
0.0023
0.0028
0.0029
2
Avid
Recycler
0.0021
0.0013
0.000283 J
0.000838 J
0.000386 J
0.0021
0.002
0.0023
0.0024
0
0.0021
0.0023
0.01
0.0019
0.0044
0.002
0.0018
0.0017
0.0016
0.0006
0.0008
0.0008
0.0005
0.000313 J
OJ
0.000161 J
0.0016
0.0023
0.0039
0.0005
0.002
0.0024
0.0023
0.002
0.0018
0.0023
0.0028
0.0026
0.0025
0.0021
0.0026
0.0027
(continued)
4
Non-
Recycler
0.0072
0.0044
OJ
0.001721 J
0.000645 J
0.0072
0.007
0.008
0.0083
0
0.0072
0.0081
0.0348
0.0065
0.0072
0.0069
0.0061
0.0058
0.0056
0.002
0.0028
0.0028
0.0018
0.000574 J
OJ
0.001108 J
0.0055
0.0081
0.0136
0.0018
0.0069
0.0082
0.0081
0.0071
0.0063
0.0078
0.0097
0.009
0.0088
0.0072
0.0089
0.0092
5
Non-
Recycler
0.0053
0.0032
0.000537 J
0.0003 12 J
OJ
0.0052
0.0051
0.0059
0.0061
0
0.0052
0.0059
0.0254
0.002572 J
0.003 109 J
0.0051
0.0045
0.0043
0.0041
0.0015
0.002
0.002
0.0013
0.000841 J
OJ
0.000407 J
0.004
0.0059
0.0099
0.0013
0.005
0.006
0.0059
0.0052
0.0046
0.0057
0.0071
0.0066
0.0065
0.0053
0.0065
0.0068
42
-------
Table 3-5 (continued). Estimated emissions of semivolatile organics as analyzed by NYSDOH WCL&R, g/kg
Test No.
Compound
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Nonane
o,o,o-Triethylphosphorothioate
o-Toluidine
Octacosane
Octadecane
Octane
Parathion
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phorate
Pronamide
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Sulfotep
Tetracontane
Tetracosane
Tetradecane
Thionazin
trans-Isosafrole
Undecane
Total (excluding non-detects)
1
Avid
Recycler
O.0025
<0.0031
0.0128
<0.0026
0
O.0021
<0.002
0.0043
0.0001
0
O.0022
0.000064 J
<0.0019
<0.0022
O.0026
0.0065
0.046
<0.002
<0.0021
0.0039
0
O.0014
<0.0021
0
0.0012
0.0001
O.0024
<0.0015
0
0.1401
2
Avid
Recycler
0.0023
0.0029
0.0538
0.0024
0.000265 J
0.0019
0.0018
OJ
0.000216 J
0.000158 J
0.002
0.000295 J
0.000042 J
0.002
0.0024
0.0135
0.1372
0.0018
0.0019
0.0026
0
0.0013
0.0019
OJ
0.004269 J
0.000363 J
0.0021
0.0014
0.000327 J
0.3582
4
Non-
Recycler
0.008
0.0099
0.0367
0.0083
OJ
0.0065
0.0063
OJ
0.000357 J
OJ
0.0068
0.000127 J
0.0059
0.0068
0.0083
0.027
0.204
0.0062
0.0066
0.0106
0
0.0045
0.0066
OJ
OJ
0.000359 J
0.0075
0.0048
OJ
0.7069
5
Non-
Recycler
0.0059
0.0072
0.0469
0.0061
0.000157 J
0.0047
0.0046
0.017963 J
0.000356 J
0.000494 J
0.005
0.0031
0.0043
0.005
0.0061
0.0106
0.1053
0.0046
0.0048
0.003949 J
0
0.0033
0.0048
OJ
0.002523 J
0.000579 J
0.0055
0.0035
0.000357 J
0.4900
a - J = (PQL), Quantified outside of instrument calibration range
b - 0 = no recovery of this compound under conditions of extraction
43
-------
^0.12-
7-fi
^-*'
S 0.1-
C/)
C-
•§ 0.08-
w
E
m 0.06-
T3
-2
"oo
LJJ
0.02-
//// Avid Recycler
Non-Recycler
n
fll
rTI
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
CD-oCDCDCDCDCDCD^oCDCCDCDCDCD-oCD
C^CCCCCC^CCDfgCCC^C
CO t~ "j~: >s m rn rri ^*» ^ ^^ ^ — r^ >' ^ t~ t~ >^
£ -5- -£ £ ^ >- >- Q.<^ N"^ m£"cD-Q-
(~~ >» -~- t~" Q -~: -~: ** •" — . ^ ^ — . £^_ t~" (Q
Q.£ ™ Q-O C C^^^ CD O Q-C
^CDm^^n,DCD(D
-i^^oS" ^NCD i5£iiz^
^ ^!, < Q < ^CCQ .0) °-
CN1
O
N
CD
GO
Figure 3-31. Average emissions of selected target SVOCs.
3.4 Chlorobenzene Analytical Results
Chlorobenzenes are of concern both for their toxicological properties and as potential precursors to the formation of
PCDDs/PCDFs. Table 3-6 shows the estimated emissions per unit mass burned of all of the chlorobenzene isomers
as well as the total of each isomer group. Figure 3-28 was derived by averaging the results from the two cases for
each material. Interestingly enough, unlike the general VOC and SVOC data, the chlorobenzene emissions for the
avid recycler are higher than for the non-recycler, by roughly a factor of 2. This is likely due to the fact that the
composition of the household waste for the avid recycler contains a much higher proportion of PVC plastic, which is
highly chlorinated. However, when emissions of chlorobenzenes are calculated based on a per person or per day
basis, the emissions from the non-recycler are approximately 40% higher.
44
-------
Table 3-6. Estimated emissions of chlorobenzenes, mg/kg
Test No.
Isomer
13 Dichlorobenzene
14 Dichlorobenzene
12 Dichlorobenzene
135 Trichlorobenzene
124 Trichlorobenzene
123 Trichlorobenzene
1235 Tetrachlorobenzene
1245 Tetrachlorobenzene
1234 Tetrachlorobenzene
12345 Pentachlorobenzene
123456 Hexachlorobenzene
TOT Dichlorobenzene
TOT Trichlorobenzene
TOT Tetrachlorobenzene
TOT Pentachlorobenzene
TOT Hexachlorobenzene
Emissions (mg/kg)
o o o o
k> co ji. en
1 i i i i 1 i i i i 1 i i i i 1
Estimated
0
0 ^
i , , , , i , , , i
1
Avid
Recycler
0.016
0.0067
0.051
0.002
0.0339
0.0477
0.0107
0.0109
0.0393
0.0371
0.0345
0.0643
0.1001
0.051
0.0371
0.0345
2
Avid
Recycler
0.2448
0.0919
0.3365
0.0298
0.2575
0.3057
0.0788
0.0411
0.163
0.1622
0.0625
0.5666
0.7048
0.2318
0.1622
0.0625
4
Non-
Recycler
0.0076
0.0032
0.1074
O.0077
0.0468
0.0457
0.0197
0.0277
0.0686
0.0727
0.0309
0.1065
0.1074
0.0985
0.0727
0.0309
5
Non-
Recycler
0.0596
0.0313
0.1616
0.0042
0.0519
0.0452
0.0117
0.0121
0.0342
0.0331
0.0131
0.2196
0.1178
0.0487
0.0331
0.0131
I
\
CD
CD
N
C
CD
.Q
0
o
o
b
yy, rr
m
CD
C
CD
N
CD
.Q
O
0
O
H
/^ Avic
1 Recycler
Non-Recycler
^
^ ^
'',, ^
robenzene
0
o
CD
1
•obenzene
o
.c
o
S
"c
CD
Q_
/
robenzene
o
o
CD
X
CD
X
Figure 3-32. Chlorobenzene summary
45
-------
3.5 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Analytical Results
Table 3-7 shows the estimated emissions per unit mass burned from the PAH analysis, in units of mg/kg. As was
found in the VOC and SVOC data, the emissions of PAH from the non-recycler are higher than from the avid
recycler. Figure 3-29 also illustrates this observation. Figure 3-33 was created based on data averaged between the
two tests at each fuel condition. Emissions from the non-recycler are on the order of twice the level of the emissions
from the average recycler per kg of material burned. Thus on a per household basis, PAH emissions for the non-
recycler would be dramatically higher than for the avid recycler. Note that in many cases, the greater sensitivity of
SIM analytical methods makes this data set more useful than the quantitation of these compounds in the general
SVOC dataset.
Table 3-7. Estimated emissions of PAHs, mg/kg
Test No.
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(123cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total
1
Avid
Recycler
0.2394
2.7065
0.6066
1.1356
1.1234
1.62
0.9877
0.5209
1.6461
0.3795
1.4921
1.4757
1.0391
4.0279
2.8379
1.6695
23.51
2
Avid
Recycler
0.7793
4.044
0.9337
0.4294
0.2385
0.5407
0.2811
0.1238
0.4644
0.0675
1.4626
3.1838
0.2981
6.3651
3.8527
1.3768
24.44
4
Non-
Recycler
0.9578
13.6424
2.3724
3.1364
3.1275
3.7585
2.8148
1.6424
3.5588
0.4861
5.1917
4.7756
2.7997
18.9598
8.9946
6.1419
82.36
5
Non-
Recycler
0.578
8.9577
.291
.3425
.1167
.5016
.134
0.4085
1.5136
0.1595
2.9436
2.536
0.9547
16.1032
5.6546
3.5157
49.71
46
-------
16-
O)
I)14-
O)
E :
c
•§10-
w I
m 8~-
T3 I
® 6-
CD
C
~ 4-
w
LJJ
2^
0-
d
\
CD
C
CD
.C
£
_
••'
/
X
M
I I
CD CD CD
C C C
CD CD CD
-^ o o
_^ CD CD
J
y//
\\
\
Avid Recycler
Non-Recycler
UljiaLal
I I I I I
_
-
L\
n
n
r
r
i i i i
CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD
C C
zcccccccccc
CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD
i^-£=">,-£=wo-£=!=;^"m?=^
>>-HJ C—^*^ ^iCD*^ ^ ^lu^ >,
-
c
§
0
<
±3 CD
CD
C
O
<
CD
s—
o
D
CD
i_
o
CD C
CD -Q
N
C
CD
CQ
O ^
o £ o-
N CD N
CQ
CQ
^5,
^
N
C
CD
£ E
o
D
T3
O
CO
CM
'o'
C
CD
i= C
-C CD
S- c
CD CD
Figure 3-33. PAH Summary.
3.6 Aldehyde and Ketone Analytical Results
Table 3-8 lists the data from the aldehyde and ketone analytical samples. Again, as was the case with the VOCs and
SVOCs, emissions from the non-recycler are higher than for the avid recycler. In the case of the aldehydes and
ketones, this effect is even more pronounced, with the emissions from the non-recycler being an order of magnitude
higher than from the avid recycler. Figure 3-30 illustrates this observation. The data in Figure 3-30 were calculated
by averaging the results from the the two similar experiments. Only those compounds that were present above the
detection limit in all samples are shown in Figure 3-30.
47
-------
Table 3-8. Estimated emissions of aldehydes and ketones, g/kg
Test No. 1
Avid
Recycler
2,4-Dimethylbenzaldehyde <0.0042
Acetaldehyde 0.0305
Acetone 0.0686
Acrolein O.0042
Benzaldehyde 0.0344
Butyraldehyde 0.0072
Crotonaldehyde <0.0042
Formaldehyde 0.0434
Hexaldehyde <0.0042
Isovaleraldehyde <0.0042
m-Tolualdehyde <0.0042
o-Tolualdehyde <0.0042
p-Tolualdehyde 0.0234
Propionaldehyde 0.0105
Valeraldehyde <0.0042
Total (Excluding non-det) 0.218
2
Avid
Recycle
O.0037
0.0079
0.0441
O.0037
0.0057
O.0037
<0.0037
0.0112
O.0037
<0.0037
<0.0037
<0.0037
<0.0037
O.0037
<0.0037
0.0689
4
Non-
Recycler
O.0104
1.1581
0.6207
0.1066
0.3504
O.0104
0.1341
1.229
<0.0104
0.0408
O.0104
<0.0104
<0.0104
0.3179
O.0104
3.958
5
Non-
Recycler
O.0093
0.5171
0.2816
<0.0093
0.2176
O.0093
<0.0093
0.491
<0.0093
<0.0093
O.0093
<0.0093
<0.0093
0.122
<0.0093
1.629
0.8-
O)
80.5
T3
.20.3
03
| 0.2
W
Avid Recycler
Non-Recycler
CD
"D
03
o
<
<•
CD
c
o
8
CD
T3
03
CQ
CD
T3
CD
T3
03
E
0
Figure 3-34. Aldehyde and ketone summary
48
-------
3.7 Particulate- and Vapor-Phase PCDDs/PCDFs Analytical Results
Table 3-9 lists the results from the analysis for PCDDs/PCDFs for the avid recycler and the non-recycler. For the
most part, emissions of PCDDs were non-existent for the non-recycler, except for OCDD, which was higher than
that of the avid recycler. The blank sample showed high levels of OCDD, and the non-recycler runs also exhibited
high levels of OCDD while other PCDDs/PCDFs were low. For this reason, OCDD data should be treated as
suspect. Figure 3-35 illustrates this observation. PCDFs were higher than PCDDs, which is consistent with results
seen from municipal waste combustors, hazardous waste incinerators, and other combustion devices-^ . It must be
noted that some internal standard recoveries were not good, with some being as low as 10 %, particularly on the avid
recycler data, so quantitation for some congeners may be questionable, although qualitatively, the data are sound.
PCDDs/PCDFs generally exhibited the same trend that was seen in the chlorobenzenes (Figure 3-32), where
emissions from the avid recycler were higher than emissions from the non-recycler. One would expect this to
happen, since chlorobenzenes are believed to be the primary organic precursors leading to formation of
PCDDs/PCDFs.
Table 3-9. Estimated emissions of PCDDs and PCDFs, mg/kg
Test No.
Isomer
2378
12378
123478
123678
123789
1234678
12346789
2378
12378
23478
123478
123678
234678
123789
1234678
1234789
12346789
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Compound
TCDD
PECDD
HXCDD
HXCDD
HXCDD
HPCDD
OCDD
TCDF
PECDF
PECDF
HXCDF
HXCDF
HXCDF
HXCDF
HPCDF
HPCDF
OCDF
TCDD
PECDD
HXCDD
HPCDD
OCDD
TCDF
PECDF
HXCDF
HPCDF
OCDF
PCDD
PCDF
PCDD/PCDF
1
Avid Recycler
O.0009
0.0013
0.0002
0.0014
0.0008
0.0153
0.0115
0.0022
0.0035
0.0013
0.0012
0.0067
0.0094
0.0024
0.0439
0.0004
0.0114
0.0141
0.0191
0.0099
0.0338
0.0115
0.158
0.0995
0.0781
0.0576
0.0114
0.0884
0.4046
0.493
2
Avid Recycler
O.0005
O.0005
O.0001
0.0006
0.0006
0.0008
0.0005
0.0002
0.0004
0.0002
0.0001
0.0006
0.0009
0.0003
0.0015
0
0.0005
0.0018
0.0008
0.0004
0.0015
0.0005
0.0224
0.0106
0.0056
0.0021
0.0005
0.005
0.0412
0.0462
4
Non-Recycler
O.0003
O.0003
O.0004
0.0006
0.0005
0.0006
0.0448
0.0001
0.0001
0.0002
0.0001
0.0002
0.0001
O.0004
0.0002
0.0005
0.0007
0.0003
0.0003
0.0006
0.0006
0.0448
0.0038
0.0024
0.0011
0.0002
O.0007
0.0448
0.0075
0.0523
5
Non-Recycler
O.0003
O.0003
O.0003
0.0005
0.0004
0.0005
0.0317
0.0003
0.0002
O.0003
0.0001
O.0003
O.0003
O.0003
0.0034
0.0003
0.0006
0.0003
0.0003
0.0005
0.0005
0.0317
0.0007
O.0002
0.0005
0.0034
O.0006
0.0317
0.0046
0.0363
49
-------
There are several possible explanations for this phenomenon. Much of the difference between the two test
conditions is highly influenced by Run 1. If Run 1 were excluded, then there would not be a significant difference
between Runs 2, 4, and 5. This indicates that Run 1 behaved differently than the other runs. This will be discussed
in greater detail later. The higher proportion of PVC plastic found in the waste stream of the avid recycler could
potentially increase formation of chlorinated organic compounds. Combustion conditions such as temperature
profiles and oxygen availability, as well as the particular mixture of carbon molecules and chlorine in the presence
of a metal catalyst, are all likely to be important factors in the formation of PCDDs/PCDFs. All of these variables
changed between the avid recycler and the non-recycler test cases. However, there is not sufficient information to
build a strong argument explaining why the emissions from the avid recycler were so much higher than from the
non-recycler. The emissions on a mass basis from the avid recycler are so much higher than those of the non-
recycler, that PCDDs/PCDFs from avid recyclers are higher on a per person basis as well.
O)
?
to
to
to
E
LJJ
T3
CD
-t->
CD
E
to
LJJ
.z.u-
0.2-
-
. _
. 1 i)—
-
-
_
0.1-
"
"
-
-
.05-
[7
^
Avid Recycle
r
Non-Recycler
10 rn n r-
\
D
i i i
o o o c
i
^
/
/
/
/
/
i
c
\
n
\ \
3 LJ-
/
/
/
/
/
L
1
J_
L
1 n
7
1 1 1
]_ LL LL LL
oooooopqooo
LJJ
o-
Q-OQ-
i
LJJ
0-
XQ-O
11
o
CL
Figure 3-35. PCDDs/PCDFs data summary.
3.8 Polychlorinated Biphenyl Analytical Results
Table 3-10 lists the polychlorinated biphenyl results. Only those compounds that were quantified in both of the
duplicate samples from both of the test conditions are listed below. The complete PCB data set can be found in the
appendix. Interestingly, the total identified PCB emissions from the non-recycler are approximately 3 times those of
the avid recycler. It is unknown why this phenomenon may occur. Examining estimated emissions per unit mass
burned of individual compounds shows the same trend. Published PCB emissions data from combustion sources is
very sparse. This observation is especially interesting in light of the fact that emissions of other chlorinated organics
are higher for the avid recycler.
50
-------
Table 3-10. Estimated emissions of PCBs, mg/kg
Test No.
BZ-1 (2-Chlorobiphenyl)
BZ-7, BZ-9
BZ-15,BZ-17
BZ-16, BZ-32
BZ-26 (2,3',5-Trichlorobiphenyl)
BZ-31 (2,4',5-Trichlorobiphenyl)
BZ-20, BZ-33, BZ-53
BZ-22 (2,3,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl)
BZ-52(2,2',5,5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-44(2,2',3,5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-40(2,2',3,3'Tetrachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-74(2,4,4',5-Tetrachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-70(2,3',4',5-Tetrachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-66, BZ-95
BZ-91(2,2',3,4',6-Pentachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-56, BZ-60
BZ-92(2,2',3,5,5'-Pentachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-84(2,2',3,3',6-Pentachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-90, BZ-101
BZ-99(2,2',4,4',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-83(2,2',3,3',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-97(2,2',3',4,5-Pentachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-85, 4,4'-DDE
BZ-77,BZ-110
BZ-151(2,2',3,5,5',6-Hexachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-135
BZ-123,BZ-149
BZ-1 18
BZ-146
BZ-132,BZ-105
BZ-141 (2,2',3,4,5,5'-Hexachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-138
BZ-183
BZ-174
BZ-177
IUPAC-199
BZ-65(2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-166,BZ-175
1
Avid
Recycler
0.0185
0.0122
0.0071
0.0043
0.0067
0.013
0.0138
0.0075
0.0197
0.0063
0.0009
0.0037
0.0039
0.0047
0.0032
0.0043
0.0016
0.0013
0.0024
0.0083
0.0039
0.0028
0.0043
0.0055
0.0063
0.0071
0.0154
0.0083
0.0025
0.006
0.0029
0.0047
0.0002
0.0026
0.0023
0.0023
0.3571
0.4301
2
Avid
Recycler
0.0077
0.0121
0.0096
0.0096
0.0044
0.0152
0.0121
0.0055
0.0114
0.0052
0.0005
0.0018
0.0034
0.0037
0.0015
0.0027
0.0009
0.0009
0.0018
0.0063
0.0029
0.0013
0.0018
0.0037
0.0044
0.0008
0.0081
0.004
0.0013
0.0013
0.0015
0.0021
0.0036
0.0017
0.0007
0.0007
0.3495
0.4231
4
Non-
Recycler
0.0408
0.0643
0.0396
0.0346
0.0186
0.0767
0.0371
0.0297
0.0346
0.0111
0.003
0.0031
0.0067
0.0136
0.0106
0.0063
0.0021
0.0048
0.0052
0.0198
0.0054
0.0026
0.0067
0.0093
0.0101
0.0049
0.0186
0.0083
0.003
0.0059
0.0032
0.0074
0.0089
0.0026
0.0015
0.0009
1.2367
1.2862
5
Non-
Recycler
0.1344
0.0986
0.0385
0.0448
0.0323
0.0645
0.0592
0.0538
0.078
0.0206
0.0035
0.0088
0.0099
0.0206
0.0041
0.0073
0.0031
0.0083
0.0108
0.0188
0.0019
0.0056
0.0099
0.0152
0.0179
0.0045
0.0287
0.0143
0.0036
0.0049
0.0039
0.008
0.0059
0.007
0.0069
0.0013
0.7439
1.0217
Total PCBs
1.0077
0.9287
3.0845
2.625
51
-------
3.9 PMio and PM2.5 Particulate Results
Table 3-11 lists the results from the paniculate matter sampling, in terms of PMio and PM2.5 for all tests. Note
that the PM \Q data include the contribution from PM/2.5. PM emissions for the non-recycler are significantly higher
than those of the avid recy cler. In addition, as Figure 3-36 illustrates, almost all of the measured PM is < 2.5 |jm,
which is of concern from a respirability standpoint. Note that total paniculate was not measured, so it is possible
that PM > 10 |jm was emitted as well.
Table 3-11. Estimated emissions of paniculate matter, g/kg; numbers in parentheses indicate the percentage of
that was less than 2.5 |jm in diameter.
Test No.
PM2.5
PMio
1
Avid
Recycler
6.93
7.46 (93%)
2
Avid
Recycler
3.58
4.18(86%)
4
Non-
Recycler
20.07
21.28 (94%)
5
Non-
Recycler
14.8
16.23 (92%)
20-
D5
16-
.914-
I 12'
to
E 10-
LJJ
~° 8-
®
"3 r*
.i 6"
uj 4^
2-
0-
PM2.5
PM10
Avid Recycler Non-Recycler
Figure 3-36. Particulate matter data.
52
-------
3.10 Participate- and Vapor-Phase Metals Analytical Results
Table 3-12 shows the estimated emissions per unit mass burned of gaseous mercury for the tests. These values
were all less than the detection limit.
Table 3-13 shows the data for the other particulate-phase metals. There don't appear to be any obvious conclusions
to draw from these data. Some metal emissions are higher for the avid recycler, and some are higher for the non-
recycler. The very high Al data in Test 1 for the avid recycler appear to be some sort of anomaly, possibly due to
suspended material in the sample. Metal emissions are largely caused by combustion of waste components which
contain metal-containing additives. It is unknown what caused that high value for aluminum on that test. Note also
that Run 1 exhibited higher Cu emissions than the other runs. This may be a possible explanation as to why the
PCDD/PCDF data from Run 1 were so much higher.
Table 3-12. Estimated emissions of gaseous mercury, g/kg
Test No. 12 45
Avid Recycler Avid Recycler Non-Recycler Non-Recycler
0.001467 0.001365 O.004504 O.002905
53
-------
Table 3-13. Estimated emissions of paniculate -phase metals, g/kg
Test No.
Ag
Al
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Mg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
1
Avid Recycler
0.000029
0.215
0.000745
0.000102
0.000018
0.000135
0.000237
0.015015
O.000015
0.00327
0.000804
0.000409
0.000457
0.018888
2
Avid Recycler
0.000017
0.002491
0.001993
0.000082
0.000017
0.000075
0.000208
0.006176
O.000014
0.000853
0.000188
0.002566
0.000426
0.003071
4
Non-Recycler
0.000068
0.002506
0.004329
0.001242
0.000057
0.000239
0.000228
0.002164
O.000046
0.003189
0.000228
0.000752
0.001424
0.000911
5
Non-Recycler
0.000037
0.004776
0.000154
0.00058
0.000037
0.000037
0.000176
0.000573
0.000081
0.001837
0.00025
0.00022
0.000918
0.000073
3.11 Acid Gas Analytical Results
Table 3-14 shows the results from the HC1 and HCN samples. Emissions of HC1 are much higher from the avid
recycler. This observation partially supports the hypothesis that the higher mass fraction of PVC present in the avid
recycler's waste stream contributes to HC1 and chlorinated organic emissions in excess of that of the non-recycler.
However, Run 1' s HC1 was only a factor of two higher than Run 2, yet the PCDDs/PCDFs were an order of
magnitude higher, so obviously chlorine is not the primary variable affecting emissions of PCDDs/PCDFs. HCN
emissions are marginally higher for the non-recycler. It may be that some of the plastics that are present in the non-
recycler's waste stream decompose to produce HCN gas. The plastics that the avid recycler removes from the
waste stream do not obviously contribute to production of HCN gas, such as might be expected from combustion of
plastics such as nylon; however, it may be that nitrogen from some other source in the waste stream, coupled with
the highly localized regions of fuel-richness associated with combustion of polyethylene and polypropylene, leads to
production of HCN gas.
54
-------
Table 3-14. Estimated emissions of acid gases, g/kg
Test No.
HC1
HCN
1
Avid
Recycler
3.281
0.2382
2
Avid
Recycler
1.508
0.1615
4
Non-
Recycler
0.4814
0.7277
5
Non-
Recycler
0.08636
0.2083
3.12 Ash Residue Analytical Results
For the purposes of analysis of the ash residue, ash samples from the duplicate experimental conditions were
combined resulting in two composite samples, one for the avid recycler and one for the non-recycler. The
composite ash samples were analyzed for SVOCs, PCDDs/PCDFs, PCBs, and metals. Table 3-15 lists the SVOC
concentrations for those compounds that were present at above the detection levels in at least one of the two waste
streams. As was the case for the gas phase compounds, SVOCs in the ash residue are higher for the non-recycler.
Table 3-16 lists the PCDDs/PCDFs for the two composite ash samples. PCDDs/PCDFs in the avid recycler's
residue were much higher than the non-recycler's. This observation is consistent with what was seen in the gas-
phase samples. Table 3-16 shows the PCB results from the composited ash samples. Unlike what was seen in the
gas-phase samples, PCBs were higher for the avid recycler. Examining the traces for the temperature at the base of
the burn barrel (Figures 3-8, 3-15, 3-22, and 3-29), it is apparent that the temperature of the bed of burning material
in the barrel is much higher in the case of the non-recycler; probably due to the higher mass fraction of high Btu
content plastic present in the non-recycler's waste stream. This lower bed burning temperature may help explain the
higher PCBs found in the avid recycler's residue. PCBs are a very non-volatile group of compounds, and lower
temperatures would result in more PCBs in the solid residues than in the gas phase. Table 3-17 shows the metals in
the residue for the composited ash sample. Of particular note is the high copper concentration in the residue of the
avid recycler. Copper has been implicated as a catalyst in the mechanism of PCDD/PCDF formation. The higher
copper concentration could promote formation of PCCDs/PCDFs in the avid recycler tests.
3.13. Uncertainties and Limitations
It must be stressed that these tests were performed on a simulated waste stream, and only two repeats of each test
condition were performed. This limits the statistical validity of treating the estimated emissions per unit mass
burned from these tests as actual emission factors. There are several potential variations between these tests and
what is performed in reality that may contribute to differences between the data presented and real-life emissions
from burn barrels. Some of these differences include:
55
-------
Ignition method: A propane torch was used for these tests. Actual practices will vary, but
variations in ignition method could potentially alter the emissions, perhaps significantly.
Waste composition: These tests used a simulated waste, based on surveys of households in New
York State. From the observed variations in the emissions of the avid recyclers and the non-
recyclers, there may be wide and unpredictable variations in the emissions for many different
combinations of waste burned in backyard burn barrels. In addition, household hazardous waste
was not included in these tests, which could significantly affect emissions.
Procedural limitations: We collected samples during the active portion of the burn (i.e., until the
weight on the platform scale was stable). The burn continued to smolder beyond this point (as
shown by Figures 3-4, 3-8, 3-11, 3-15, 3-18, 3-22, 3-25, and 3-29) and further emission sampling
was not performed.
Data limitations: Some of the analytes that were observed were present at concentrations below
the lowest calibration point for the analytical methods. These analytes were flagged with a "J" in
the data tables. The quantitation of data flagged with a "J" should be treated as questionable.
However, it must be stressed that data flagged with a "J" are completely different from non-
detects. These compounds were definitely detected by the analytical methods; however, their
concentrations were below the range where there is good confidence in their quantitation.
Analytical anomalies: For most of the tests, the various blanks came out clean. However, the
PCDD/PCDF blank sample showed high levels of OCDD present. The non-recycler runs also
exhibited high levels of OCDD while other PCDDs/PCDFs were low. For this reason, OCDD
data should be treated as suspect. In addition, recoveries for many of the PCDD/PCDF internal
standards were not very good. For confidence in the quantitation of PCDD/PCDF data, recoveries
must be within a certain range. Since some of the recoveries were outside of this range, the
PCDD/PCDF data cannot be assumed to be within the +30 percent that is generally accepted from
Method 23.
56
-------
Table 3-15. SVOC concentration in composite ash sample, |J.g/kg ash
Compound
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3 -Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Methyl phenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
Alpha-picoline
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorobenzene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Pyridine
Total (excluding non-detects)
Avid Recycler
140 Ja
120 J
190 J
88 J
54 J
54 J
170 J
92 J
<5000
120 J
160 J
<5000
480 J
190 J
<5000
62 J
78 J
78 J
110J
110J
76 J
55 J
170 J
110J
68 J
78 J
170 J
650 J
290 J
290 J
76 J
870 J
5121
Non-Recycler
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
38 J
<5000
<5000
1100J
670 J
400 J
61 J
1400 J
160 J
80 J
94 J
<5000
<5000
<5000
<5000
220 J
<5000
350 J
<5000
170 J
120 J
<5000
2400 J
<5000
810 J
180 J
600 J
8853
a - J = (PQL), Quantified outside of instrument calibration range
57
-------
Table 3-16. PCDD/PCDF concentration in composite ash sample, ng/kg of ash
Isomer
2378
12378
123478
123678
123789
1234678
12346789
2378
12378
23478
123478
123678
234678
123789
1234678
1234789
12346789
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Compound
TCDD
PECDD
HXCDD
HXCDD
HXCDD
HPCDD
OCDD
TCDF
PECDF
PECDF
HXCDF
HXCDF
HXCDF
HXCDF
HPCDF
HPCDF
OCDF
TCDD
PECDD
HXCDD
HPCDD
OCDD
TCDF
PECDF
HXCDF
HPCDF
OCDF
PCDD
PCDF
PCDD/PCDF
Avid Recycler
31
230
270
420
300
4000
9600
830
1000
2500
2300
2100
2900
810
12000
1400
8200
2500
4100
5600
7600
9600
25000
21000
19000
17000
8200
14851
34040
48891
Non-Recycler
9
53
44
74
56
630
690
220
270
690
480
490
670
150
2100
170
560
490
740
1300
1300
690
8200
6600
4600
2900
560
1556
5800
7356
58
-------
Table 3-17. PCB concentration in composite ash sample, |J,g/kg of ash
Compound
BZ-1 (2-Chlorobiphenyl)
BZ-7, BZ-9
BZ-6 (2,3'-Dichlorobiphenyl)
BZ-8, BZ-5
BZ-1 9 (2,2',6-Trichlorobiphenyl)
BZ-18 (2,2',5-Trichlorobiphenyl)
BZ-24, BZ-27
BZ-26 (2,3',5-Trichlorobiphenyl)
BZ-25 (2,3',4-Trichlorobiphenyl)
BZ-31 (2,4',5-Trichlorobiphenyl)
BZ-28 (2,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl)
BZ-20, BZ-33, BZ-53
BZ-5 1 (2,2',4,6'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-45(2,2',3,6-Tetrachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-52(2,2',5,5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-44(2,2',3,5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-37, BZ-42, BZ-59
BZ-41,BZ-64
BZ-63, DCS
BZ-66, BZ-95
BZ-56, BZ-60
BZ-99(2,2',4,4',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-83(2,2',3,3',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-87, BZ-115
BZ-77, BZ-110
BZ-132,BZ-105
BZ-141(2,2',3,4,5,5'-Hexachlorobiphenyl)
BZ-138
BZ-178
BZ-175
BZ-183
BZ-156
BZ-1 80
BZ-203, BZ-196
BZ-189
BZ-195
BZ-1 94
BZ-206
Avid Recycler
<2.5
2.1
3.7
5.4
<0.5
32
12
0.8
0.5
1.5
0.5
2.2
0.5
5.3
3.1
2.6
.8
.8
.8
.6
3.4
0.4
1.5
1.2
3.4
1.2
0.5
1.7
41
1.8
0.7
0.5
1.6
0.6
1.1
1.4
2.8
Non-Recycler
4.9
2.1
4.7
3.8
5.6
6.3
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.5
0.9
1.5
1.3
1.8
1.2
1.7
0.5
0.5
0.8
2.1
1.3
0.5
1.9
1
3.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
47
1.8
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
3.4
Total
142.5
105
59
-------
Table 3-18. Metal concentration in composite ash sample, mg/kg
Compound
Ag
Al
As
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
K
Mb
Mg
Mn
Na
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Ti
V
Zn
Avid Recycler
<9
101000
320
185
0.9
94600
<3
11
300
4910
4390
0.1
5000
<17
2870
541
5410
22
164
<1
228
102
820
37
11500
Non-Recycler
8
<82400
<69
119
0.8
139000
<2
5
92
343
3560
0.1
3110
16
2530
152
3450
<13
32
1
104
117
1740
32
721
60
-------
SECTION 4.0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A detailed emissions characterization study was undertaken to examine, characterize, and quantify emissions from
the simulated burning of household waste materials in barrels. This study evaluated two separate experimental
waste streams; that of an avid recycler, who removes most of the recyclable content from the waste stream prior to
combustion, and that of a non-recycler, who combusts the entire stream of household waste. Estimated emissions
were developed in units of mass emitted per mass of waste burned. Continuous gas samples were analyzed for 62,
CO2, CO, NO, and THCs. Extractive samples from the gas phase were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, PCBs,
chlorobenzenes, PCDDs/PCDFs, aldehydes and ketones, HC1, HCN, and metals. Emissions of PM were also
measured, including PMio and PM2.5. Ash residue samples were analyzed for SVOCs, PCBs, PCDDs/PCDFs, and
metals.
Substantial emissions of numerous pollutants were found, and significant differences were found between emissions
from open burning of an avid recycler's and non-recycler's waste. In particular, however, there was a significant
difference in emissions of many compounds between Run 1 and Run 2, both of which were nominally the same test
conditions. These differences highlight the difficulties in generating statistically valid emissions data when
evaluating emissions from complex combustion systems.
It was found that for most of the non-chlorinated compounds, including VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, and aldehydes and
ketones, emissions from the non-recycler were higher, both on a per mass burned and on a per day basis (based on
waste generation statistics provided by NYSDEC). However, emissions of many of the chlorinated organics (on a
per mass burned basis), particularly chlorobenzenes and PCDDs/PCDFs, were higher from the avid recycler.
Emissions of PCBs were higher from the non-recycler, although the cause of this phenomenon is not known. On a
per day basis, emissions of PCDDs/PCDFs are significantly higher for the avid recycler. This phenomenon is likely
due to several factors, including the higher mass fraction of PVC in the avid recycler's waste, a different
temperature profile, and possibly a different mix of metallic catalysts. It is also possible that some component of the
non-recycler's waste may potentially serve to poison the metallic catalysts believed to be responsible for enhancing
formation rates of PCDDs/PCDFs. Results from HC1 sampling indicated much higher HC1 emissions from the avid
recycler, which is consistent with the higher emissions of chlorinated organics, and ash residue analysis indicated
that the avid recycler's residue had more copper, which could contribute to higher emissions of PCDD/PCDF.
However, differences in emissions of HC1 alone could not explain the differences between the PCDDs/PCDFs of the
various runs. It was noted that the temperature at the base of the burning bed was significantly lower in the case of
the avid recycler than it was for the non-recycler. Gas-phase emissions of metals were not a strong function of the
waste streams. PM emissions were much higher from the non-recycler. Almost all of the PM emissions from both
test conditions were < 2.5 |jm in diameter.
It may be useful to compare emissions from open burning of household waste to emissions from a full-scale
municipal waste combustor (MWC) unit operating with good combustion and flue gas cleaning technology. Based
61
-------
on data from a field test at an MWC-, and averaging the "Normal Good" PT-08, PT-09, and PT-1 1 test conditions
from reference 22, using the samples taken at the pollution control device outlet, the data in Table 4-1 were
generated. For the results from this study, concentrations of all target VOCs were summed to give total VOC
emissions (concentrations below detection limit were set at zero). A similar treatment was taken for PAHs,
chlorobenzenes (CBs), PCDDs/PCDFs and PCBs.
When plotted as a bar graph as shown in Figure 4-1, it is readily apparent that even the significant differences
between the avid recycler and non-recycler's emissions are minor in comparison to the difference between open
burning of household waste and the controlled combustion of municipal waste at a dedicated MWC facility. Note
that the value axis of Figure 4-1 is a logarithmic scale, showing that emissions from open burning can be several
orders of magnitude higher than controlled combustion.
Table 4-1. Comparison between open burning of household waste and controlled combustion of municipal waste in
a municipal waste combustor (MWC data from reference 22); all emissions are in |J,g/kg waste burned.
Avid Recycler
Non-Recycler
MWC
PCDD
PCDF
CBs
PAHs
VOCs
46.7
222.9
1007.5
23974.7
2052500
38.25
6.05
424.2
66035.65
4277500
0.0016
0.0019
1.16
16.58
1.17
62
-------
MWC
Non-Recycler
Avid Recycler
Total VOC H
Total PAH
Total Chlorobenzenes
Total PCDF
Total PCDD
//,
^
n
zz
-rn
D
D
D
1
/////////////////////////////////
\
1
/////////////////////////A
1
/ /////////////////// \
1
//////////////////\
1
////////////////I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
OH -5-00000
o - ° 8 8 8
^ ° 8
•
c
c
c
c
c
Estimated Emissions (|ig/kg)
Figure 4-1. Comparison between open burning and controlled combustion.
As an additional comparison of open burning versus controlled combustion in a properly designed combustion
device, Table 4-2 was created by calculating the total air pollutants produced per day using the estimated emissions
per unit mass burned from Table 4-1, the waste generation rates described in Table 2-1, and comparing those values
to a hypothetical 182,000 kg/day (200 ton/day) MWC facility emitting air pollutants at the rate described in Table 4-
1. It should be noted that this size MWC facility processes the equivalent waste from 37,000 non-recycling and
121,000 avid recycling households. By dividing the daily estimated emissions from the MWC by the daily
estimated emissions from open burning, it is possible to estimate how many open-burning households it would take
to equal the air pollution produced by a moderately sized MWC facility. The number is surprisingly low, in fact for
certain pollutants such as VOCs and chlorobenzenes, a single household that burns their trash in barrels produces
more pollutants than a well-operated full-scale MWC facility. Comparing these results to other data in the literature
finds that we are higher than the literature values, but not outrageously higher. The Western Lake Superior Sanitary
District burn barrel test^ reported 3.9E-12 Ib 2,3,7,8-TCDD perlb garbage burned. Our data were non-detecton
2,3,7,8 TCDD at roughly < 5 E-10 kg/kg trash consumed by combustion. This is consistent but not very definitive.
They report this as a 20x increase in the emission rate of 2,3,7,8 TCDD using burn barrels vs incinerators. The
Illinois report^ reports 0.6E-9 Ib/lb refuse of total dioxins and furans. Note also that these numbers aren't a 1 to 1
comparison because of the total burned vs mass consumed by combustion factor. This conversion would tend to
improve the agreement. These results are approximately a factor of 10 lower than our results. It is probable that the
63
-------
fraction of PVC in the refuse contributes significantly to the total amount of PCDDs/PCDFs produced. For the
refuse mixture described in Table 2-1, open burning in barrels produced very high levels of PCDDs/PCDFs.
Emissions from backyard burning of residential solid waste are released at ground level resulting in decreased
dilution by dispersion. This could potentially exacerbate the potential impacts beyond what is apparent from the
magnitude of the emissions alone. The large magnitude of the emissions, coupled with the concentration of these
emissions in the local neighborhoods due to poor dispersions, will lead to increased direct inhalation exposure.
Table 4-2. Number of open-burning households to equal the air pollution from a full-scale MWC facilitya.
Avid Recycler Non-Recycler
PCDD 4.15 1.55
PCDF 1.03 11.65
CBs 140 100
PAHs 83.8 9.31
VOCs 0.07 0.01
a - using refuse generation rate supplied by NYSDEC, shown in Table 2-1; MWC burns 182,000 kg/day (200
ton/day)
Another issue related to this particular source is that it could potentially be a significant overall source of
PCDDs/PCDFs. The EPA 1994 Draft Dioxin Reassessment document-^ attempted to conduct a mass balance for
dioxin emissions in the United States and identified a significant gap between current deposition estimates and
emission estimates. The deposition estimates were considerably higher than the emissions estimates. The EPA
speculated that this indicated that there were unknown dioxin emission sources. The dioxin emissions from burn
barrels may be a missing link to help account for the gap between measured deposition rates and the emissions
inventories.
Table 4-3 illustrates the general trends as to which waste stream resulted in higher emissions. The first two columns
are based on the mass/mass emissions, and the second two columns are based on mass/day emissions, using the
waste generation rates reported by NYSDEC in Table 2-1. For the ash residue, estimates per person were based on
both the waste generation rates reported by NYSDEC and the mass of material remaining after combustion shown in
Table 3-1. Table 4-4 summarizes all of the test data into a single table, showing the average results for the various
pollutants that were measured, along with the ratio between the avid recycler and non-recycler.
64
-------
Table 4-3. Which test condition resulted in higher emissions?
Pollutant
mass emitted/mass burned
Avid Recycler Non-Recycler
mass emitted/persona
Avid Recycler Non-Recycler
Gas-Phase
VOCs
SVOCs
PAHs
PCBs
chlorobenzenes X
PCDDs/PCDFs X
aldehydes and ketones
HC1 X
HCN
PM
metals
Ash Residue
SVOCs
PCBs X
PCDDs/PCDFs X
metals
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
-
a - using refuse generation rate supplied by NYSDEC, shown in Table 2-1.
65
-------
Table 4-4. Summary of all test data
Parameter
WASTE COMPOSITION
total daily waste (kg)
PVC in waste (kg)
paper waste (kg)
all plastics (kg)
food (kg)
textile, leather (kg)
wood (kg)
glass/ceramics (kg)
metals (kg)
COMBUSTION RESULTS
max.bed temp. (°C)
fraction burned (%)
unburned residue (kg)
Average, per mass lost
Recycler Non-Recycler Ratio
1.5
0.07
0.98
0.23
0
0
0.06
0.1
0.14
370
66.7
0.50
AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS
benzene (Fig. 3-30)
acetone (Fig. 3-30)
styrene (Fig. 3-30)
total TICsa (Tab. 3-3)
naphthalene (Fig. 3-31)
phenol (Fig. 3-31)
dichlorobenzenes (Tab. 3-6)
trichlorobenzenes (Tab. 3-6)
tetrachlorobenzenes (Tab. 3-6)
pentachlorobenzene (Tab. 3-6)
hexachlorobenzene (Tab. 3-6)
acenaphthylene (Tab. 3-7)
naphthalene (Tab. 3-7)
phenanthrene (Tab. 3-7)
725
190
310
4000
40
85
0.320
0.400
0.140
0.100
0.048
3.4
5.2
3.3
aldehydes & ketones (Tab. 3-8) 140
total PCDD (Tab. 3-9)
total PCDF (Tab. 3-9)
total PCB (Tab.3-10)
PM10 (Tab. 3-11)
PM2.5 (Tab. 3-11)
HC1 (Table 3-14)
HCN (Table 3-14)
0.047
0.22
0.97
5800
5.3
2400
200
4.9
0.01
3.02
0.36
0.28
0.18
0.05
0.5
0.49
740
49.1
2.49
(mg/kg burned)
1240
940
740
14400
48
140
0.160
0.110
0.074
0.053
0.022
11
18
7.3
2800
0.038
0.0061
2.86
19000
17.4
284
468
0.31
7.00
0.32
0.64
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.20
0.29
0.50
1.36
0.20
0.58
0.20
0.42
0.28
0.83
0.61
2.00
3.64
1.89
1.89
2.18
0.31
0.29
0.45
0.05
1.24
36
0.34
0.31
0.30
8.47
0.43
Average, per household
Recycler Non-Recycler
Ratio
(same as per mass basis)
725
190
310
4002
40
85
0.320
0.400
0.140
0.100
0.048
3.4
5.2
3.3
140
0.047
0.220
0.97
5803
5.3
2401
200
(mg/household«day)
2983
2262
1780
34645
115
337
0.385
0.265
0.178
0.128
0.053
26
43
18
6737
0.091
0.015
6.87
45712
42
682
1126
0.24
0.08
0.17
0.12
0.35
0.25
0.83
1.51
0.79
0.78
0.91
0.13
0.12
0.19
0.02
0.51
15
0.14
0.13
0.13
3.52
0.18
RESIDUALS IN ASH ^ig (or ng) per kg ash
PCDD, ng/kg; (Tab.3-16)
PCDF, ng/kg; (Tab.3-16)
PCB, |^g/kg (Tab. 3-17)
Cr (Tab. 3-18)
Cu (Tab. 3-18)
Pb (Tab. 3-18)
Zn (Tab. 3-18)
14851
34040
220
300
4910
164
11500
1556
5800
122
92
343
32
721
9.54
5.87
1.80
3.26
14
5.13
16
a - Tentatively Identified (VOC) Compounds.
66
-------
SECTION 5.0
REFERENCES
1 Two Rivers Regional Council of Public Officials, report prepared for U.S. EPA Region 5, Emission
Characteristics of Burn Barrels. June 1994.
2 Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, "Burn Barrel Dioxin Test," August 1992, cited in Two Rivers
Regional Council of Public Officials, report prepared for U.S. EPA Region 5, Emission Characteristics of Burn
Barrels. June 1994.
3 Gerstle, R.W., and D.A. Kemnitz, "Atmospheric Emissions From Open Burning," Journal of Air Pollution
Control Association. 17 (5), 324-327, May 1967.
4 Burckle, J. O., J.A. Dorsey, and B.T. Riley, "The Effects of the Operating Variables and Refuse Types on
the Emission from a Pilot Scale Trench Incinerator," in Proceedings of 1968 National Incinerator Conference. 1968.
5 Popular Mechanics Concrete Handbook: A Complete Guide to Mixing and Using Concrete Around the
Home and Farm, Popular Mechanics Company, Chicago, IL, 1956.
6 "Alsto's Handy Helpers, Practical Products for Your Home, Yard and Garden," Alsto's Handy Helpers, a
DickBlick Company, Galesburg, IL, Winter 1996.
7 Ryan, J.V., Characterization of Emissions from the Simulated Open Burning of Scrap Tires." EPA-600/2-
89-054 (NTIS PB90-126004), October 1989.
8 Kariher, P., M. Tufts, and L. Hamel, Evaluation of VOC Emissions from Heated Roofing Asphalt EPA-
600/2-91-061 (NTIS PB92-115286), November 1991.
9 Ryan, J.V., and C.C. Lutes, Characterization of Emissions from the Simulated Open- Burning of Non-
Metallic Automobile Shredder Residue. EPA-600/R-93-044 (NTIS PB93-172914), March 1993.
10 Lutes, C. C., R.J. Thomas, and R. Burnette, Evaluation of Emissions From Paving Asphalts. EPA-600/R-
94-135 (NTIS PB95-129110), August 1994.
67
-------
11 Lutes, C.C., and J.V. Ryan, Characterization of Air Emissions from the Simulated Open Burning of
Fiberglass Materials . EPA-600/R-93-239 (NTIS PB94-136231), December 1993.
12 Lutes, C.C., and P.H. Kariher, Evaluation of Emissions from the Open Burning of Land-Clearing Debris.
EPA-600/R-96-128 (NTIS PB97-115356), October 1996.
13 Winberry, W.T., N.T. Murphy, and R.M. Riggan, Compendium Method TO-14: "The Determination of
Volatile Organic Compounds in Ambient Air using SUMMA® Passivated Canister Sampling and Gas
Chromatographic Analysis," in Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in
Ambient Air, EPA-600/4-89-017 (NTIS PB90-127374), Quality Assurance Division, Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory, U.S. EPA, 1988.
14 "Operator's and Instruction Manual, Manual Dichotomous Sampler Model 241," Graseby/Anderson,
General Metal Works, Village of Cleves, OH, May 1990.
15 40 - Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1-51, Part 50, Appendix J. Revised as of July 1, 1993, Office of the
Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C.
16 Winberry, W.T., N.T. Murphy, and R.M. Riggan, Compendium Method TO-13: "The Determination of
Benzo(a)Pyrene and Other Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Ambient Air using Gas Chromatographic and
High Performance Liquid Chromatographic Analysis," in Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic
Organic Compounds in Ambient Air, EPA 600/4-89-017 (NTIS PB90-127374), Atmospheric Research and
Exposure Assessment Laboratory, U.S. EPA, 1988.
17 Lentzen, D.E., D.E. Wagoner, E.D. Estes, and W.F. Gutnecht, IERL-RTP Procedures Manual: Level 1
Environmental Assessment (Second Edition), EPA-600/7-78-201 (NTIS PB293795), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1978.
18 Method 8270 in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. Vol. IB, Field Manual Physical/Chemical
Methods (Third Edition), U.S. EPA, SW-846 (NTIS PB88-239223), November 1986.
19 40 - Code of Federal Regulations, Part 61, Appendix B, Method 101A "Determination of Paniculate and
Gaseous Mercury Emissions from Sewage Sludge Incinerators," Revised as of July 1, 1991, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1991.
68
-------
20 Winberry, W.T., N.T. Murphy, and R.M. Riggan, Compendium Method TO-9: "Method for the
Determination of Poly chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins (PCDDs in Ambient Air Using High-Resolution Gas
Chromatography/High Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS)," in Compendium of Methods for the
Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air, EPA 600/4-89-017 (NTIS PB90-127374),
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, U.S. EPA, 1988.
21 Rigo, G.H., A.J. Chandler, and W.S. Lanier, The Relationship Between Chlorine in Waste Streams and
Dioxin Emissions from Waste Combustor Stacks. ASME Research Report CRTD-Vol 36, 1996.
22 Finkelstein, A., and R.D. Klicius, National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program: The
Environmental Characterization of Refuse-derived Fuel (RDF) Combustion Technology, Mid-Connecticut Facility,
Hartford, Connecticut, EPA-600/R-94-140 (NTIS PB96-153432), December 1994.
23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Draft Report: Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like
Compounds. NTIS PB94-205499, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington D.C., June 1994.
69
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/600/R-97-134a
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Evaluation of Emissions from the Open Burning of
Household Waste in Barrels, Volume 1. Technical
Report
5. REPORT DATE
November 1997
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Paul M. Lemieux
8.PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
See Block 12
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D4-0005, Acurex
Environmental Corporation
1 OYPE OF'REPORT ANtTpfRloD COVERED
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Final: 9/95 - 4/97
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
APPCD project officer is Paul M. Lemieux, Mail Drop 65, 919/541-0962.
Volume 2 contains Appendices A-G.
16. ABSTRACT
The report gives results of a detailed emissions characterization study, undertaken to examine,
characterize, and quantify emissions from the simulated burning of household waste material in
barrels. The study evaluated two waste streams: that of an avid recycler, who removed most of the
recyclable content from the waste stream prior to combustion; and that of a non-recycler, who
combusts the entire stream of household waste. Estimated emissions were developed in units of
mass emitted per mass of waste burned. Continuous gas samples were analyzed for oxygen, carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, and total hydrocarbons. Gas-phase samples were collected
using SUMMA canisters and analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Extractive samples from the combined particulate- and gas-
phase were analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorobenzenes (CBs), polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDDs/PCDFs), aldehydes and ketones,
hydrogen chloride (HC1), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), and metals. Emissions of particulate matter
(PM) with aerodynamic diameters of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and of 2.5 micrometers or less
(PM2.5) were also measured.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMJ
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Combustion
Garbage
Wastes
Sewage
Refuse
Emission
Circulation
Pollution Prevention
Stationary Sources
Household Wastes
Recycling
21B
14G
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
77
20. SECURITY CLASS (This Page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |