United States EPA-600/2-90-003
Environmental Protection
A<>encv January 1990
Research and
Development
ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS
FROM CHARCOAL LIGHTER FLUID
AND REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES
Prepared for
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Prepared by
Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA- 600 /2-90- 003
January 1990
ESTIMATION OF EMISSIONS
FROM CHARCOAL LIGHTER FLUID
AND REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES
FINAL REPORT
By:
Darcy L. Campbell and Margie B. Stockton
Radian Corporation
3200 Progress Center
P.O. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
EPA Contract No. 68-02-4286
Work Assignment No. 80
EPA Project Officer: Michael Kosusko
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, O.C. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are known to contribute to the
formation of ozone; therefore, the ozone nonattainment issue has focused
attention on the VOC emitted from many stationary, mobile, and area sources.
One group of area sources which have received recent attention by the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency and a number of State and local air pollution
control agencies is the use of a wide variety of VOC containing consumer
products. The focus of this study is to evaluate emissions of VOC from
charcoal lighter fluid, one consumer product comprised entirely of volatile
constituents.
Volatile organic compounds are emitted when charcoal lighter fluid is
used, but,these emissions are difficult to quantify. Evaporative VOC losses
occur from the lighter fluid prior to ignition, and combustion VOC losses
occur from burning lighter fluid-soaked charcoal briquettes.
The information from studies conducted to date is most complete for the
evaporative VOC losses. The estimates vary greatly, however, based on the
length of time between application of the lighter fluid and ignition of the
fire. The best estimate of VOC evaporative emissions is 1,110 tons VOC/yr
(1,000 Mg/yr), and is derived from one of the tests evaluated in this study.
This estimate lies in the mid range of the estimates reviewed, and is based on
the assumption that a 5 minute soaking period is most representative of actual
usage practices.
Approximately 14,500 tons VOC/yr (13,150 Mg/yr) are expected to be
emitted from the combined evaporation and combustion of charcoal lighter
fluid. The limited tests conducted to date have not distinguished the lighter
fluid combustion emissions from the charcoal briquette combustion emissions.
In this study, current usage patterns, emission estimates, ease of use,
and costs to consumers are evaluated for the alternatives to charcoal lighter
fluid. In general, electric grills produce the lowest emissions, followed by
liquified petroleum gas and natural gas grills. Chimney and electric starters
produce charcoal combustion emissions only, and solid and gel starters should
produce fewer emissions than self-starting charcoal or charcoal lighter fluid.
Emissions from self-starting charcoal result from the combustion of the
volatile component and the charcoal itself.
ii
-------
Section
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract i i
Figures i v
Tabl es., i v
1. Introduction 1
2. Results and Conclusions 3
Lighter Fluid Emission Estimates 3
Significance 5
Evaluation of Alternatives 5
Conclusion and Recommendations 6
3. Lighter Fluid Emission Estimates 8
South Coast Air Quality Management District Estimate 8
The Clorox Company's Independent Testing Firm Estimate.. 8
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Estimate 9
Estimate Derived from U. S. Testing and U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency 12
4. Evaluation of Alternatives to Charcoal Lighter Fluid 14
5. References , 21
Appendix A: Evaporative Data Provided by The Clorox Company.. 22
(U. S. Testing)
Appendix B: Emission Tests of Two Key Area Sources: Lawnmower
and Charcoal Lighter Fluid Emissions 24
Appendix C: Conversion of C02, CO, and THC to Emission Rates. 30
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 Evaporation of Lighter Fluid vs. Time • 10
2 AEERL Charcoal Grill Emissions u
TABLES
Number Page
1 Summary of Charcoal Lighter Fluid Emission Estimates 4
2 Current Use Patterns For Gri 11 s 15
3 Current Charcoal Ignition Methods 15
4 Emission Ranking for Charcoal Lighter Fluid Alternatives 16
5 Ease of Use Comparison for Alternative Outdoor Cooking
Practices 17
6 Cost Estimates for Initial Purchase of Grills 18
7 Cost Per Fire for Outdoor Cooking Alternatives 18
iv
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
In 1988, 101 cities In the United States were unable to meet the Federal
government's air pollution standard for ozone. Volatile organic compounds
(VOC) are known to contribute to the formation of ozone; therefore, the ozone
nonattainment issue has focused recent attention on the VOC emitted from many
area sources, including consumer products. Substantial emission controls have
already been placed on many stationary and mobile sources of VOC, and many
area sources could be controlled to further reduce VOC emissions in populated
areas.
One consumer product category of interest regarding the possible
emission of VOC is charcoal lighter fluid. This product category is being
evaluated by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because it is
comprised entirely of volatile constituents. Petroleum naphtha and petroleum
distillate are the only ingredients, though some manufacturers may add a small
amount of perfume. The VOC emissions are less than 100 percent of the lighter
fluid applied, however, because some of the lighter fluid is combusted to form
carbon dioxide and water vapor.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in California
was the first regulatory agency in 1989 to investigate charcoal lighter fluid
as a source of atmospheric VOC. Possible control measures considered by the
SCAQMD for this product category are:
• Prohibit the sale of grills that require lighter fluid;
• Require that lighter fluid be reformulated to contain fewer
photochemically reactive constituents; and
• Restrict the use of lighter fluid during summer smog episodes and
discourage its use in general through public information programs.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the limited studies available
and estimate the magnitude of emissions from charcoal lighter fluid. Section
2 presents the results and conclusions concerning charcoal lighter fluid VOC
emissions, and evaluates the significance of these emissions relative to VOC
-------
emissions from other consumer products. The derivation of the lighter fluid
emission estimates is described in Section 3, along with a discussion of the
limitations of each estimate. Section 4 presents an evaluation of the various
alternatives to charcoal lighter fluid, and examines the current use patterns,
potential emissions, ease of use, and cost to consumers for each alternative.
The references cited in this study are provided in Section 5.
-------
SECTION 2
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
LIGHTER FLUID EMISSION ESTIMATES
Volatile organic compounds are emitted when charcoal lighter fluid is
used, but these emissions are difficult to quantify. Evaporative VOC losses
occur from the lighter fluid, and combustion VOC losses occur from burning
lighter fluid-soaked charcoal briquettes. Limited tests have been performed
to date, and none have attempted to distinguish the lighter fluid combustion
emissions from the charcoal briquette combustion emissions.
Three studies that attempted to estimate VOC emissions from charcoal
lighter fluid use were reviewed in this study. The results of these studies
are summarized here, and are discussed in more detail in Section 3. Table 1
presents a summary of the emissions information as found in studies by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District;1'2 U. S. Testing, an independent
testing firm hired by the Clorox Company;3 and the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL).
The SCAQMD estimate is not based on actual testing, but is based instead on
assumptions of the emission factor and evaporation rate for charcoal lighter
fluid. The Clorox Company's test examines only evaporation of lighter fluid
prior to ignition. The test conducted by the EPA is the most complete of
those conducted to date in that evaporation and combustion emissions are
monitored (Appendix B). However, it is difficult to distinguish the charcoal
combustion emissions from those of the lighter fluid.
National emissions of VOC from lighter fluid use can best be estimated
by combining the data provided by the Clorox Company and the EPA. The
national estimate of 1,110 tons VOC/yr (1,000 Mg/yr) due to evaporation of
charcoal lighter fluid lies in the mid range of the estimates reviewed, and is
calculated from the evaporative data provided by the Clorox Company.
Evaporation and combustion of lighter fluid are estimated to yield a
national total of 14,500 tons VOC/yr (13,150 Mg/yr), based on the EPA's test.
The SCAQMD recently conducted a more detailed evaluation of pollutant
emissions from various methods of igniting charcoal briquettes.* The charcoal
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CHARCOAL LIGHTER FLUID EMISSION ESTIMATES
Annual National Emission Estimate'
Evaporation
Evaporation and Combustion
Source (tons VOC/yr) (tons VOC/yr)
South Coast Air Quality
Management District 6,937 (6,300 Mg) b
U. S. Testing 244 (220 Mg) b
(CTorox Company)
U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency 2,780 (2,520 Mg) 17,200 (15,600 Mg)
Best Estimate0 1,110 (1,000 Mg) 14,500 (13,150 Mg)
'Based on an estimate of 46,250 tons/yr (42,000 Mg/yr) of charcoal lighter
fluid used.5
bNot estimated.
"Derived from U. S. Testing and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency data.
-------
ignition methods tested are discussed more fully in Section 4, and included an
electric starter, charcoal lighter fluid, self-lighting charcoal, solid
starter, and a chimney starter. The information contained in the SCAQMD
report summary is included in Section 4 as a qualitative ranking of VOC
emissions from the charcoal lighter fluid alternatives.
SIGNIFICANCE
It is useful to compare the estimates of total VOC emissions from
charcoal lighter fluid to emissions from other consumer product categories.
To put the lighter fluid VOC emission estimate into perspective, the VOC
emissions from automotive products such as polishes and waxes, antifreeze,
carburetor and choke cleaners, brake cleaners, engine degreasers, and engine
starting fluid are compared. This comparison is valid because products in
both categories typically are used only outdoors.
The estimate of 14,500 tons VOC/yr (13,150 Mg/yr) emitted from the use
of charcoal lighter fluid most closely compares to that from the use of
carburetor and choke cleaners of 13,093 tons VOC/yr (11,880 Mg/yr).6
California ranks carburetor and choke cleaners as 14th of 47 consumer product
subcategories that produce photochemically reactive organic compounds (PROC).
This subcategory is estimated to produce 1.5% of the total PROC emissions from
consumer product usage in California.6
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives to charcoal lighter fluid evaluated in this study are:
• Electric, liquified petroleum gas (LPG), and natural gas grills
which replace the need for lighter fluid and charcoal;
• Chimney and electric starters which replace charcoal lighter fluid
and are used in conventional grills;
t Solid and gel starters for use in conventional charcoal grills;
and
-------
• Self-starting charcoal, which can be purchased in a combustible
bag or loose, and is used in conventional grills.
These alternatives are discussed in more detail in Section 4. Current usage
patterns, emission estimates, ease of use, and costs to consumers are
evaluated. In general, electric grills result in the lowest emissions,
followed by LPG and natural gas grills. Chimney and electric starters produce
charcoal combustion emissions only, and solid and gel starters should produce
fewer emissions than self-starting charcoal or charcoal lighter fluid.4
Emissions from self-starting charcoal result from the combustion of the
volatile component in the briquettes or the bag and combustion of the charcoal
itself.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The potential emissions from the use of charcoal lighter fluid are
significant enough to warrant further research in this area. On the basis of
the information evaluated in this study, more testing should be conducted
before a quantitative ranking of the VOC emissions from alternative outdoor
cooking practices is made. An investigation of the emissions expected from
the use of charcoal lighter fluid should first evaluate the length of time
consumers allow the fluid to soak before ignition. Since virtually 100% of
charcoal lighter fluid is volatile, the length of the evaporation period will
have a large effect on total VOC emissions.
This point is best illustrated by the data provided by U. S. Testing.3
If the lighter fluid is left on the charcoal for only 1 minute before
ignition, then only 0.65% of the fluid applied evaporates. If the fluid is
left on the coals for 10 minutes, then 4.9% of the fluid evaporates. The
Barbecue Industry Association's5 estimate that 46,250 tons (42,000 Mg) of
lighter fluid were used in 1988 in the United States indicates that the
emissions from evaporation of lighter fluid alone could range from 300 tons
(270 Mg) VOC/year to 2,266 tons/year (2,050 Mg/yr).
It would be useful to conduct additional testing to distinguish lighter
fluid combustion emissions from charcoal combustion emissions. Volatile
organic compound emissions that result from charcoal combustion could be
tested by igniting the charcoal with an electric starter.
-------
Another factor that will greatly affect the estimate of VOC emitted
from the use of charcoal lighter fluid is related to the EPA test that
measures emissions as total hydrocarbons (THC). This test may have resulted
in an overestimation of VOC released, since the measured THC emissions may
include some organics that are not considered volatile under EPA's definition
of VOC. By its regulatory definition, a volatile organic compound is any
organic compound that participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions.
The definition of VOC includes all organic compounds except: methane, ethane,
methyl chloroform, methylene chloride, and seven chloroflurocarbons. These
compounds are exempt because they have negligible photochemical reactivity. /
measurement of THC thus would include methane and ethane concentrations that
are not considered VOC.
In this test it was also difficult to separate the combustion emissions
of the lighter fluid from the combustion emissions of the charcoal itself.
More investigation of the emissions from the alternatives (especially
natural gas and LPG grills) discussed in this report also is needed. Both
propane and methane are considered to burn cleanly, but emissions from these
grills should be quantified before recommending them to consumers as
appropriate substitutes for charcoal grills.
-------
SECTION 3
LIGHTER FLUID EMISSION ESTIMATES
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ESTIMATE1'2
The South Coast Air Quality Management District in California was the
first regulatory agency in 1989 to estimate VOC emissions from charcoal
lighter fluid usage. The SCAQMD estimated the District's reactive organic
emissions to be 2 tons/day (1.8 Mg/day) from the use of charcoal lighter
fluid. This estimate was based on lighter fluid sales figures, an emission
factor for lighter fluid between 0.1 and 0.5, and the assumption that 10 to
25% of the charcoal lighter fluid applied evaporates prior to ignition. The
density of lighter fluid was assumed to be equal to that of kerosene (6.91
Ibs/gal or 0.828 g/ml). The amount of lighter fluid used per year in the
District was based on an annual sales figure for the United States, scaled
down by population density. The average cost for lighter fluid was assumed to
be $1.50/qt.2
The SCAQMD, however, used national sales data for lighter fluid which
are believed to be overestimated. The amount of lighter fluid used nationally
was later made available by the Barbecue Industry Association (BIA).5 Their
figure of 46,250 tons (42,000 Mg) used in 1988 is approximately 55% of
SCAQMD's figure.
An emission estimate can be made, however, based on SCAQMD's assumption
of an average evaporation rate of 15% and the BIA's annual use figure of
46,250 tons/yr (42,000 Mg/yr). Using this information, nationwide VOC
emissions from evaporation of lighter fluid are estimated to be approximately
6,937 tons/yr (6,300 Mg/yr).
THE CLOROX COMPANY'S INDEPENDENT TESTING FIRM ESTIMATE3
The Clorox Company hired an independent testing firm (U. S. Testing) to
evaluate emissions of VOC due to evaporation of lighter fluid applied to
charcoal. U. S. Testing applied 3.5 fluid ounces (103 ml) of lighter fluid to
2 pounds (0.9 kg) of charcoal and simulated outdoor cooking conditions
(80°F and 50% relative humidity). The firm then weighed the pile of charcoal
every 30 seconds, and established a linear relationship between time and
-------
cumulative evaporation of lighter fluid. Figure 1 shows a plot of this
relationship.
I). S. Testing then calculated a linear regression curve based on the
data shown in Figure 1 and in Appendix A, to yield the equation:
Percent Evaporated = 0.478 x (saturation time in minutes) + 0.05
U. S. Testing estimated evaporation emissions from charcoal lighter
fluid based on the sales information from the Barbecue Industry Association,
and estimated total national VOC emissions due to evaporation alone to be
244.2 tons/year (220 Mg/yr). This estimate assumes that consumers follow the
label instructions and allow the lighter fluid to soak for one minute before
ignition.
U. S. Testing also estimated VOC evaporative emissions for the SCAQMD to
be 6.93 tons/year (6.3 Mg/yr), or 0.038 tons/grilling day (0.03 Mg/grilling
day).
This study is limited in that no attempt was made to estimate VOC
emissions during combustion. In addition, this test may have assumed an
unrealistically short soaking period (1 minute) of the lighter fluid. Another
limitation of this test lies in the calculation of a linear regression. Since
the regression is based on a time series of data from one test, the validity
of the confidence interval is in question. In order to estimate a confidence
interval, independent evaporative measurements from several tests with lighter
fluid soaked-briquettes should be taken.
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ESTIMATE
The AEERL in Research Triangle Park, NC conducted a test to monitor
total hydrocarbon, carbon dioxide (C02) and carbon monoxide (CO) emitted from
the evaporation and combustion of 100 ml (3.4 fluid ounces) of lighter fluid
and 2 pounds (0.9 kg) of charcoal (Appendix B). Ambient conditions were
simulated in the outbuilding where the test was conducted. The coals were
allowed to soak for 15 minutes before ignition. Concentrations of THC, C02,
and CO were measured every 5 minutes. Figure 2 presents the results of
AEERL's measurements.
-------
5.0-1
4.5-
O % Evaporation = 0.478182 x
(time In minutes) +0.05
0.5-
0.0
I I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I ! I I I
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Tbnafmin)
Figure 1. Evaporation of Lighter Ruid vs. Time
10
-------
150
Added Lighter Lit Fire
Fluid
Removed Grill
Figure 2. AEERL Charcoal Grill Emissions
-------
Assuming an ambient THC concentration of 2 ppm, as measured prior to
application of the lighter fluid to the charcoal and after the grill was
removed, the concentration measurements for C02, CO, and THC were converted to
emission rates (Ibs/min). The calculations for this conversion are included
in Appendix C. Based on the calculated emission rates, it was determined that
prior to combustion, 6% of the lighter fluid had evaporated. Using the BIA's
estimate of 46,250 tons (42,000 Mg) of lighter fluid used per year, this
yields a total of 2,780 tons (2,520 Mg) of VOC per year from a 15 minute
evaporation period.
To provide an estimate of the emissions from evaporation and combustion
of lighter fluid, it was assumed that all emissions of THC are from lighter
fluid for the first 25 minutes of combustion. This is a conservatively high
estimate since the lighter fluid should burn off well before this time and the
charcoal should produce some of the measured THC emissions. This estimate is
17,200 tons/year (15,600 Mg/yr) of VOC emitted from both evaporation and
combustion, or 37.1% of the charcoal lighter fluid used.
Three potential sources of overestimation in this analysis are:
• The measured THC emissions may include some organic compounds that
are not considered volatile under EPA's definition of VOC (i.e.,
methane, ethane);
t The measured THC emissions from combustion that are attributed to
the lighter fluid may actually be affected by emissions from the
combustion of the charcoal; and
• AEERL's 15 minute saturation period may not represent actual
consumer usage practices, and may be an overestimation of the
length of time users allow the lighter fluid to soak into the
briquettes prior to lighting the fire.
ESTIMATE DERIVED FROM U. S. TESTING AND U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
On the basis of the information presented above, an estimate of VOC
emissions from evaporation and from evaporation and combustion of lighter
fluid can be derived by using a combination of U. S. Testing's data and the
12
-------
test data from AEERL. The biggest discrepancy in the evaporation estimate
from these two tests lies in the length of the soaking period. U. S. Testing
let the lighter fluid soak for 1 minute and estimated evaporative losses of
0.528%, while AEERL's 15 minute saturation period produced 6% evaporative
losses.
A best estimate was made based on the assumption that a 5 minute soaking
period is most representative of actual usage practices. Using the
evaporative data provided by U. S. Testing (Figure 1 and Appendix A) and an
assumed soaking period of 5 minutes yields an emission estimate (for
evaporation only) of 2.4 percent.
The BIA's estimate of 46,250 tons (42,000 Mg) of lighter fluid used per
year indicates that 1,110 tons (1,000 Mg) of VOC may be emitted from the
evaporation of lighter fluid prior to combustion.
A better estimate of VOC emissions from both evaporation and combustion
may be less conservative than the the EPA's calculated 17,200 tons/year
(15,600 Mg/yr) by assuming the THC emissions are from the lighter fluid until
THC and CO emissions begin to decrease at t = 40 minutes rather than t = 50
minutes (Figure 2). This estimate is based on the assumption that no lighter
fluid is present after t = 40 minutes, and the remaining THC emissions are
from combustion of the charcoal briquettes only. The estimate yields total
VOC emissions from evaporation and combustion of 14,500 tons/year
(13,150 Mg/yr), or 31.3% of the lighter fluid used.
13
-------
SECTION 4
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO CHARCOAL LIGHTER FLUID
The current use patterns, potential emissions, ease of use, and costs to
consumers for the alternatives to charcoal lighter fluid are reviewed in this
section.
The available alternatives include:
• Grills that eliminate the need for both charcoal and lighter
fluid, such as electric, liquified petroleum gas, and natural gas
grills;
• Chimney and electric starters, that replace lighter fluid and are
used in conventional grills;
• Solid and gel starters as substitutes for charcoal lighter fluid
for use in conventional grills; and
t Self-starting charcoal, in a combustible bag or loose, used in
conventional grills.
Tables 2 through 7 compare the current use patterns, emissions, ease of
use, and costs for each of these alternatives. The most popular outdoor
cooking method currently uses charcoal and lighter fluid (Tables 2 and 3).5
As shown on Table 4, this method is expected to produce the highest emissions,
however.* These emissions are from the evaporation of lighter fluid and the
combustion of lighter fluid and charcoal.
Electric grills produce negligible emissions, have a low initial
purchase cost, and the cost of electricity used per fire is negligible.
Increased emissions associated with generating additional electricity from the
utility plants were not considered because the increased use of electricity is
considered negligible (the rating for an electric grill is similar to that for
a toaster oven). As with the other alternatives that eliminate the need for
charcoal, there is no need for ash cleanup, and better control of cooking
temperatures can be achieved. This method's only disadvantage is its lack of
portability (an electric outlet must be accessible).
14
-------
TABLE 2. CURRENT USE PATTERNS FOR GRILLS7
Tvoe of Grill
Charcoal grills
Gas grills
(natural or LPG
not specified)
Electric grills
Percent of U.S. Households Using:
76%
23.3%
4%
TABLE 3. CURRENT CHARCOAL IGNITION METHODS5
Charcoal Ignition Method
Charcoal lighter fluid
Instant lighting
Electric starter
Chimney starter
Solids
(Unaccounted for)
TOTAL
Tons of Charcoal Ignited
534,290 (68.3%)
121,251 (15.5%)
66,493 (8.5%)
20,339 (2.6%)
7,040 (0.9%)
32.855 (4.2%)
782,268
15
-------
TABLE 4. EMISSION RANKING FOR CHARCOAL LIGHTER FLUID
ALTERNATIVES8'9'10'11'12
Alternative
Comments
Electric grill
Bottled gas (LPG)
grill
Natural gas grill
Electric starter
Chimney staYter
Solid starter
Gel starter
Self-starting charcoal (w/naphtha
or mineral spirits)
Self-starting charcoal (w/naphtha)
in a bag
Charcoal with lighter fluid
No emissions
Some emissions (water vapor,
C02, and CO)
Possible formaldehyde emissions
Emissions from charcoal combustion
Emissions from charcoal combustion
Emissions from charcoal combustion
Emissions from charcoal and
alcohol-based gel
Emissions from charcoal and
naphtha or mineral spirits
during combustion
Emissions from charcoal and
naphtha during combustion, and
particles from combustion
of the bag
Evaporation of lighter
fluid and combustion of
charcoal and lighter fluid
16
-------
TABLE 5. EASE OF USE COMPARISON FOR ALTERNATIVE OUTDOOR COOKING PRACTICES8
Alternative
Comments
Electric and natural
gas grills
Bottled gas (LPG) grill
Self-starting charcoal in bag
Self-starting charcoal not in bag
Charcoal with lighter fluid
Chimney starter
Electric starter
Solid starter
Gel Starter
Do not need lighter fluid or
charcoal, no ash cleanup, good
control of flame/heat; not
portable, grill must have natural
gas or electrical hookup
Do not need lighter fluid or
charcoal, no ash cleanup, good
control of flame/heat; must
refill LPG, only table-top
model is portable
Do not need lighter fluid, one fire
per bag
Do not need lighter fluid
Base case for comparison
Must remove chimney after coals heat
Must remove starter after coals
heat, chance of destroying
starter
Must carefully arrange coals,
takes longer to start
Difficult to achieve complete burn
17
-------
TABLE 6. COST ESTIMATES FOR INITIAL PURCHASE OF GRILLS8'13
Alternative Average Cost Range
Natural Gas Grill: $440.00 $340.00 - 540.00
Free Standing LPG Grill: 299.00 99.00 - 741.00
Tabletop LPG Grill: 31.00 25.00 - 49.00
Tabletop Electric Grill: 63.00 49.00 - 79.00
Free Standing Charcoal Grill: 61.00 19.00 - 138.00
Chimney Starter: • 12.50 10.00 - 15.00
Electric Starter: . 9.00 5.00 - 14.00
TABLE 7. COST PER FIRE FOR OUTDOOR COOKING ALTERNATIVES8
Product: Cost per Fire
Self-Starting Charcoal in Bag $1.29
Self-Starting Charcoal 0.87
Charcoal Briquettes with Solid Starter 0.45+0.30 =0.75
Charcoal Briquettes with Lighter Fluid 0.45+0.12 =0.57
Charcoal Briquettes with Gel Starter 0.45+0.11 =0.56
LPG 0.33
Electric Starter negligible
Natural Gas negligible
Electric Grill negligible
18
-------
Natural gas, predominantly methane, can only be used in grills that can
be connected to a gas line. As shown in Tables 4 and 5, natural gas grills
are the easiest to use. Some studies indicate that burning natural gas may
produce formaldehyde emissions; however, no quantitative emissions data were
located.12 Other emissions are water vapor and carbon dioxide.9 Natural gas
grills are the most expensive alternative examined in terms of initial cost,
but their estimated lifetime is 10 to 15 years (with $40.00 burner replacement
every 5 years). The costs of this method and the LPG grills can also be
considered in terms of eliminating the need for charcoal and charcoal lighter
fluid. The cost of natural gas per fire is negligible.
The free standing LPG grill is not as easy to use as the natural gas
grill because the propane fuel tanks must be refilled. The Consumer Union8
estimates that it costs $9.00 to refill a 20-gallon tank, which will last for
approximately 27 fires. The burners for these grills are generally guaran-
teed for 5 years, and average replacement cost is $30.00. The portable table-
top LPG grill is much less expensive than the free standing model, but is
expected to have a shorter lifespan (with burner replacement needed after
2 years).
The potential emissions from this alternative are expected to be
negligible. Carbon dioxide and water vapor may be emitted,9 as well as carbon
monoxide. The American Gas Association, however, requires emissions from
combustion of LPG to be less than 0.08 percent carbon monoxide in an air-free
sample of flue gas.9
The other alternatives discussed here require the use of some type of
charcoal. Electric starters are used to heat the charcoal briquettes, and
therefore eliminate the need for lighter fluid. The only emissions are those
from the charcoal,* and the primary disadvantages are the need for a nearby
electrical outlet and the chance of destroying the starter if it is left in
the hot coals too long.
Solid starters, which usually consist of wood shavings held together
with paraffin, are one of the most inconvenient alternatives. The charcoal
must be arranged around the pieces of starter, and this method takes the
longest to start the charcoal.8
Chimney starters are relatively new on the market, and resemble pieces
of metal stove pipe. A piece of newspaper is placed in the bottom of the tube
and charcoal is piled on top. A draft is created from the ignition of the
19
-------
newspaper In the bottom of the chimney starter, and the flames are drawn up
through the charcoal. The need for lighter fluid Is eliminated. The
emissions from this method are those from the charcoal and the piece of paper.
The inconvenience of this method lies in the tricky task of removing the
chimney once the coals are hot.
The use of an alcohol-based gel starter with charcoal briquettes may
cause some alcohol emissions in addition to those from the charcoal
combustion. The gel may result in lower evaporative emissions than liquid
lighter fluid because it does not require a soaking period prior to lighting.
No quantitative emissions data were located, however.
Self-lighting charcoal eliminates the need to apply lighter fluid, and
eliminates the emissions associated with evaporation of the fluid during the
soaking period. Emissions are expected from combustion of the charcoal and
the naphtha component of the charcoal, however.* Self-lighting charcoal and
self-lighting charcoal in a bag are both easier to use than regular charcoal
and lighter fluid, but one disadvantage is that if more charcoal is needed,
regular charcoal must be added.
As presented in Table 4, the use of charcoal briquettes and lighter
fluid are expected to have the highest emissions of all the alternatives
discussed in this report.
20
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
1. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Air Quality
Management Plan: 1989 Revision. Final Appendix IV-A, Tier I, Tier II,
and Contingency Control Measures. 1989.
2. Ewing, K., South Coast Air Quality Management District, El Monte, CA.,
personal communication, May 1989. VOC emission estimate for charcoal
lighter fluid.
3. Wolfe, J., The Clorox Company, Pleasanton, CA., personal communication,
July 1989. Charcoal lighter fluid tests prepared by U. S. Testing.
4. Higuchi, J., South Coast Air Quality Management District, El Monte, CA.,
personal communication, September 1989. Report on pollutant emissions
resulting from various methods of igniting charcoal briquettes.
5. Burton, S., Barbecue Industry Association, Naperville, IL., personal
communication, July 1989. Estimates of product usage—charcoal and
lighter products.
6. Rogozen, M. B. and R. J. Baca. Compilation and Speciation of National
Emission Factors for Consumer/Commercial Solvent Use; Science
Applications International Corporation; U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1989. EPA-450/2-89/008 (NTIS PB 89-207203).
7. Appliance. The Saturation Picture. 1988. p. 48.
8. Consumer Reports. Summertime Cookouts. 1986. June: pp. 356-363.
9. Childers, C. V., Weber-Stephen Products Company, Palatine, IL., personal
communication, August 1989. Emissions from propane grills.
10. Chemical Week. Summer Fires Up Cookout Market. 1974. July: pp. 33-34.
11. Mizelle, J., U. S. Department of Agriculture, Standards Division, LP6
Section, Raleigh, NC, personal communication, August 1989. Emissions
from propane and natural gas grills.
12. GCA Corporation. Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of
Formaldehyde. 1984. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-450/4-84-0076 (NTIS PB84-200633).
13. Public Service Company, Durham, NC, personal communication, August 1989.
Cost and durability of natural gas grills.
21
-------
APPENDIX A
EVAPORATIVE DATA PROVIDED BY THE CLOROX COMPANY
(U. S. TESTING)3
22
-------
APPENDIX A. EVAPORATIVE DATA PROVIDED BY THE CLOROX COMPANY (U. S. TESTING)1
Time Weight Loss
(Min) (% of Applied)
0.0 0.0
1.0 0.65
2.0 1.1
3.0 1.4
4.0 1.9
5.0 2.4
6.0 2.9
7.0 3.4
8.0 3.8
9.0 4.4
10.0 4.9
23
-------
APPENDIX B
EMISSION TESTS OF TWO KEY AREA SOURCES:
LAWNMOWER AND CHARCOAL LIGHTER FLUID EMISSIONS
Data Obtained by Jeff Ryan
Acurex Corporation
P.O. Box 13109
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
Reported by Sharon L. Nolen
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
April 20, 1989
24
-------
EMISSION TESTS OF KEY AREA SOURCES
INTRODUCTION
As part of AEERL's overall research program in area sources of VOC
emissions related to the ozone non-attainment problem, emission tests were
performed on two key area sources. The two sources chosen for the test were
gasoline lawnmowers and charcoal grills. These two sources were chosen
because limited data currently exist and emissions from these sources are
expected to show some correlation with population. Since ozone non-attainment
tends to occur in populated areas, it was desirable to learn more about the
quantities and types of emissions resulting from their use.
This report describes the test facilities, tests, and results. It
should be emphasized that the data presented was obtained (for experimental
purposes only) without benefit of quality assurance and has not been
duplicated. Therefore, all data should be viewed as strictly preliminary.
TEST FACILITIES AND ANALYSES
The tests were conducted in a small outbuilding (3.0 x 3.0 x 2.7 m,
10 x 10 x 9 ft). The temperature-controlled combustion air delivery system
was configured to permit the introduction of approximately 35.5 m3/min
(1,253 ft /min) of air (1.4 air exchanges/min) to the chamber. Deflectors
were positioned so that incoming air did not blow directly onto the emission
source. Since the experiment was designed to simulate outdoor use of the two
sources in a controlled environment, this air delivery system maintained
ambient temperatures and ensured that chamber oxygen concentration always
exceeded 20% by volume.
Continuous gas-phase samples were extracted from the combustion chamber
through a heated 15.2 m (50 ft) long, 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) outside diameter Teflon
sample line equipped with a particle filtration system. Part of this sample
was further conditioned for the removal of moisture and analyzed by the
individual continuous emission monitors (CEMs) (CO, C02, 02). A portion of
the heated gas sample was collected and analyzed for S02 and total
hydrocarbons (THC). No other sampling and analysis was performed due to
limitation of funds.
EQUIPMENT AND TEST PROCEDURE
Lawnmower
The gasoline-powered lawnmower used for the emissions test was a Briggs
and Stratton 3.5 horsepower, push model with 22 inch blades. It is
manufactured by Murrey Ohio Manufacturing Company and the model number is
7-2226x91. The following steps were used for the test:
r. Start mower
2. Maintain low idle
3. Increase idle to 3/4 load
4. Shut off mower
5. Remove mower from hut
25
-------
Charcoal Grill
The charcoal grill used for the test was the Little Weber grill.
However, the lid which comes with the grill was not used during any part of
the test. Approximately 900 g (2 Ibs) of charcoal were used with
approximately 100 ml of lighter fluid. The following steps were used for the
test.
1. Spray on lighter fluid
2. Light fire
3. Remove grill from hut
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The CEM data for the lawnmower and charcoal grill test are presented in
Tables 1 and 2, respectively. No significant change was seen in the 02
measurement, indicating that ambient conditions were simulated as designed.
Likewise, no changes were noted for C02 to S02 during the tests. CO and THC
concentrations were found to vary during the tests with changes in conditions.
Figures 1 and 2 present the CO and THC concentrations graphically with
test conditions indicated for the lawnmower and charcoal grill, respectively.
Figure 1 shows that the CO level for the lawnmower increased smoothly after
the mower was started, with a rapid increase following the increase in idle to
3/4 load. After this rapid increase, a plateau was reached at about 220 ppm
before the mower was shut off. After the mower was shut off, the CO level
rapidly fell to background levels. A maximum of 11 ppm THC was reached at
35 minutes, at approximately the same time the CO level reached its plateau.
Figure 2 shows an increase in THC to about 6 ppm, after the lighter
fluid was sprayed on the charcoal. Both THC and CO peaked about 15 minutes
after the fire was lit at maximums of 34 and 148 ppm, respectively. THC
showed a fairly rapid decrease after the maximum followed by a slow decline
until the grill was removed from the test facility. CO declined rapidly after
the maximum was reached and slowly rose to a second peak shortly before the
grill was removed. The THC and CO peaks at 15 minutes can possibly be
attributed to the combustion of the charcoal lighter fluid remaining after
volatilization with the second CO peak due to the smoldering of the charcoal.
CONCLUSIONS
Again, the data presented should be considered as preliminary. The
tests were not repeated and no quality assurance was applied. However, they
may be used for order of magnitude estimates for each source. Additional data
are needed on the use of each of these sources to project emission estimates.
26
-------
TABLE 1
LAWNMOWER EMISSIONS TEST
TIME
(Minutes)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
02
(X)
21.1
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.1
21.0
21.1
21.1
21.0
002
(X)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
(ppm)
1
1
45
67
79
85
149
218
216
221
85
2
2
2
2
1
1
SO2
(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TIC
(ppm)
2
3
7
5
6
6
10
11
10
10
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
PTTMiPyg
Start mover
Increase idle
Shut off mower
Remove mower
TABLE 2
CHARCOAL GRILL EMISSIONS TEST
TIME
(Minutes)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
02
(X)
21.1
21.1
21.1
21.0
21.1
21.0
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
21.0
21.0
21.0
002
(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
CO
(ppm)
2
1
1
1
1
2
5
41
148
93
88
92
102
114
112
45
2
1
S02
(X)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TIC REMARKS
(ppm)
2
2
2 Added lighter fluid
6
7
7 Lit fire
4
27
34
11
6
4
3
3
2 Removed grill
2
2
2
27
-------
240
220 —
IV)
00
10 15 20 30 35 40 50 55
Tune (min)
Started Mower Increased Idle Shut Off Mover
60
70 75
80
Removed Mower
Figure 1. AEERL Lawn Mower Emissions Test
-------
150
IV3
to
Removed Grill
Figure 2. AEERL Charcoal Grill Emissions
-------
APPENDIX C
CONVERSION OF C02, CO, AND THC TO EMISSION RATES
30
-------
CONVERSION DESCRIPTION
The following discussion presents the method for converting the measured
concentrations and air flows to emission rates of lighter fluid from
barbecues. Results from the April 20, 1989 test report were used to predict
emission rates. The concentrations reported for total hydrocarbons (THC) are
reported as parts per million (ppm) of propane, or moles of propane per
million moles air. The baseline concentration of 2 ppm was assumed to be a
background concentration. The following example calculation demonstrates the
conversion from THC concentration reported to THC emissions (as propane -
C3H8).
Example Calculation
Time = 5 minutes
THC Concentration = 6 x 10"6 (moles propane/mole air) =6 ppm
THC Concentration (less background concentration) = 4 x 10"6 moles
propane/mole air.
Air Flow Rate = 1253 ft3 air/min
Temperature = 77°F - 537 °R
Gas Constant = 0.7302 ft3 air • ATM/1b-mol air • °R
Pressure = 1 ATM.
Emissions (Ib THC (as propane) =
(1253 ft3 air/min) x (4 x 10"6 Ib moles prooane/lb mole air)
(0.7302 ft3 air - ATM/lb-mol air • °R) x (537'R/l ATM)
x (44 Ib mole propane/1b propane)
- 5.62 x 10"* Ib THC (as propane)/min
Assuming that evaporative emissions occurred during the time that the 15
minute, 20 minute, and 25 minute readings were collected, the emissions from
evaporation over this 15 minute period were 0.0633 Ib THC (as propane). This
represents 6% of the total quantity of lighter fluid applied. The following
example calculation demonstrates the method used to develop these estimates.
31
-------
Example Calculation
(5.62 x 1(T* Ib/min) x 5 min + (7.03 x 10'* Ib/min) x 5 min +
(7.03 x 10'* Ib/min) x 5 min = 0.0098 Ib THC (as propane)
0.0098 Ib THC/0.1631 Ib lighter fluid
= 6.00% emitted from evaporation
Emissions from combustion and evaporation were calculated in a similar
manner. Emissions up through the first CO peak (at 40 min) and prior to the
second CO peak (at 50 min) were calculated in the same manner to be 0.0513 Ib
and 0.0605 Ib, respectively.
32
-------
APPENDIX B. CONVERSION OF C02, CO. AND THC TO EMISSION RATES
Air flow rate 1253 cub.ft/min
Temperature « 77 deg F
C02 emissions C02 emissions CO emissions CO emissions THC emissions THC emissions
CO
CO
Time
(min)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
Totals
C02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
0
CO
2
2
2
6
7
7
4
27
34
11
6
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
as C02
(Ib/min)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.141
0.141
0.141
0.141
0.141
0.141
0.141
0.141
0.141
0.141
0
7.03
as C
(tb/min)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0383
0.0383
0.0383
0.0383
0.0383
0.0383
0.0383
0.0383
0.0383
0.0383
0
1.92
as CO
(ib/min)
0.000
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.013
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.009
0.010
0.010
0.004
0.000
0
0.373
as C
(tb/min)
0.0000
0
0
0
0
0.0000
0.0002
0.0015
0.0056
0.0035
0.0033
0.0035
0.0039
0.0043
0.0043
0.0017
0.0000
0
0.160
Evaporation
Prior to 2nd
Prior to 1st
as C3H8
(tb/min)
0
0
0
5.62E-04
7.03E-04
7.03E-04
2.81E-04
3.52E-03
4.50E-03
1.27E-03
5.62E-04
2.81E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
0
0
0
0
0.0633
0.0098
0.0605
0.0513
as C
(Ib/min)
0
0
0
4.60E-04
5.75E-04
5.75E-04
2.30E-04
2.8BE-03
3.68E-03
1.04E-03
4.60E-04
2.30E-04
1.15E-04
1.15E-04
0
0
0
0
0.0518
-------
,ni TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(f lease read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
NO.
EPA-600/2-90-003
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
•|TLE AND SUBTITLE
Estimation of Emissions from Charcoal Lighter Fluid
and Review of Alternatives
6. REPORT DATE
January 1990
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
R(S)
Darcy L. Campbell and Margie B. Stockton
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
DCN: 89-239-004-80-09
>. PERFORMING OROANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS ~~
Radian Corporation
P. O. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-4286, Task 80
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final; 4-10/89
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
541-2734.
AEERL project officer is Michael Kosusko, Mail Drop 61, 919/
The report gives results of an evaluation of emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from charcoal lighter fluid, a consumer product consisting entir-
ely of volatile constituents. An estimated 46,250 tons (42,000 Mg) of charcoal lighter
fluid is used in the U. S. each year. VOCs contribute to the formation of ozone;
therefore, the ozone nonattainment issue has focused attention on VOCs emitted
from many sources. VOCs are emitted when charcoal lighter fluid is used, but these
emissions are difficult to quantify. Evaporative VOC losses occur from the lighter
fluid prior to ignition, and combustion VOC losses occur from burning lighter-fluid-
soaked charcoal briquettes. This study evaluates tests conducted to date on charcoal
lighter fluid emissions. The information is most complete for evaporative VOC los-
ses. The estimates vary greatly, however, based on the length of time between appli-
cation of the lighter fluid and ignition. Estimates of evaporative VOC losses range
from 244 to 6,937 tons/yr (220 to 6,300 Mg/yr). The best estimate of VOC evapora-
tive emissions is 1,110 tons VOC/yr (1,000 Mg/yr). Approximately 14,500 tons VOC/
yr (13,150 MG/yr) is expected to be emitted from the combined evaporation and com-
bustion of charcoal lighter fluid. The limited tests conducted to date have not distin-
guished lighter fluid from charcoal briquette combustion emissions.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Emission
Ignition
Charcoal
Organic Compounds
Volatility
Combustion
Evaporation
Naphthas
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Lighter Fluid
Volatile Organic Com-
pounds
13B
14G
21B
21D
07C
07D
UK
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)'
Unclassified
38
AGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
SPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |