Paper to be presented at 13th Annual International Symposium on the Measurement of Toxic
and Related Air Pollutants, Gary, NC. September 1-3, 1998.
Emissions of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons from the
Open Burning of Household Waste in Barrels
Christopher C. Lutes
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
4915 Prospectus Drive
Durham, NC 27713 .
Paul M. Lemieux
United States Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Judith A. Abbott
New York State Department of Health
Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment
Albany, NY 12203
Kenneth M. Aldous
New York State Department of Health
Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research
Albany, NY 12203
ABSTRACT
Backyard burning of household waste in barrels is a common waste disposal practice that produces
emissions of numerous pollutants. Previous studies to characterize these emissions investigated a
limited number of pollutants, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions were not
evaluated. PAHs are a ubiquitous class of compounds that result from the incomplete combustion
of organic matter. Exposure to materials containing PAHs can cause several types of cancer in
humans. The U.S. EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer recognize the
carcinogenicity of several PAHs by inhalation and ingestion. Using a waste mixture designed to
simulate waste generated by an "avid recycler" and a "non-recycler," the emissions of volatile and
semivolau'le organic compounds, metals, acid gases, and respirable particulates were measured
from a 55-gal. (208 L) bum barrel at HPA's open burning test facility. Total measured PAH
emissions ranged from 23 mg/kg of waste burned (avid recycler) to 83 mg/kg (non-recycler). This
study provides important data on a potentially significant source of emissions of air toxics.
-------
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 in municipal
landfills or municipal solid waste combustors. The motivations for households that open-bum their
garbage may include convenience, habit, or waste disposal cost avoidance.1 Some communities
have regulations that ban the open burning of garbage, and others may provide educational
materials to curb open-burning. Emissions from open-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, modem 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.
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 Minnesota2 and the Two Rivers Regional Council of
Public Officials and Patrick Engineering, Incorporated, of Illinois1. The Illinois 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. 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. These studies estimated emissions per unit mass of waste initially
present in the barrel for several different air toxics (e.g., polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans [PCDDs/PCDFs], total volatile organic compounds fTVOCs] measured as methane,
metals, paniculate matter [PM], hydrogen chloride [HC1], carbon monoxide [CO], and oxides of
sulfur and nitrogen) associated with open burning of residential solid waste. The results of these
studies indicated that the estimated chemical-specific emissions per unit mass of waste initially
present in the barrel were higher than for controlled incinerators. However, neither study
evaluated the emissions of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
The above studies characterized emissions associated with burning residential solid waste
in 55-gal. drums. In another study, Gerstle and Kemnitz quantified emissions from the burning of
municipal refuse on a bum table equipped with a cone to capture and funnel the pollutants to a
sampling port3 Samples were analyzed for several combustion gases and hydrocarbons including
PAHs. Estimated emissions of fluoranthene, pyrene, chrysene, benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(e)pyrene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene ranged from 0.14 to 1.41 mg PAH
emitted per kg of material initially present
These studies provide useful information; however, there are limitations associated with
their results (e.g., the presence of dilution air in the stack, a limited number of target compounds,
and unrefined characterization of the waste). This paper reports on a study to qualitatively identify
-------
and quantitatively characterize the emissions due to open burning of residential solid waste in bum
barrels using techniques that would minimize the limitations of previous studies. The
comprehensive results of this project are contained in an EPA report4. This paper focuses on PAH
emissions associated with the open-burning of residential solid waste in burn barrels. As is
evident from the above discussion, little emissions data exist for PAH emissions associated with
the open-burning of residential solid waste in barrels. PAHs are a class of compounds that result
from the incomplete combustion of organic matter. Exposure to materials containing PAHs can
cause several types of cancer in humans. The U.S. EPA and the International Agency for
Research on Cancer recognize the carcinogenicity of several PAHs by inhalation and ingestion.3-6
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
This project aimed to qualitatively identify and quantitatively measure the emissions of
hazardous air pollutants from the open burning of household residential refuse in barrels while
controlling for the limiting factors of earlier studies. Analytical work was divided between
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller (ARCADIS) and the New York State (NYS) Department of Health,
Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research (WCL&R). Though numerous pollutants were
targeted in this study, this pnper focuses on the methods used to estimate PAH emissions.
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 NYS residents. The
characterization was performed by NYS Department of Environmental Conservation's
(NYSDECs) Division of Solid Waste and is based upon waste stream characterizations for NYS.
The simulated household wastes were prepared primarily from raw materials diverted from the
household wastes of ARCADIS staff members.
Emissions from two categories of waste were analyzed in this study. These categories
include waste from an avid recycling and a non-recycling family of four. Household hazardous
waste* (e.g., household chemicals, paint, grease, oils, tires, and other vehicle parts) were not
included in the waste to be burnedl Table 1 presents the composition of the simulated waste
streams for the two scenarios. For the recycling and non-recycling scenarios, 6.4 - 13.5 kg (14 -
30 Ib) of waste was burned Cm duplicate) in a specially designed bum barrel in the EPA's Open
Burning Test Facility4. A 55-gal. steel drum was modified for ventilation as the bum device. The
drum was sandblasted prior to use in order to remove paint, thus simulating the use of a
weathered, used burn barrel that would represent the most common residential burn device. This
combustion device was placed on an electronic scale platform to allow the mass consumed by
combustion to be monitored.
-------
Table 1. Composition of Waste
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., cadmium)*
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
a - PET = polyethylene terephthalate; HOPE = high-density
polyethylene; PP = polypropylene; PVC = polyvmyl chlorid
Non-
Recycler (%)
32.8
11. 1
7.6
10.3
0.6
6.6
0.2
0.1
0.1
5.7
3.7
1.1
9.7
0.4
7.3
1.7
1.1
100
4.9 kg/day
Avid
Recycler (%)
3.3
_
_
61.9
—
10.4
4.5
0.3
0.3
—
—
3.7
—
6.9
4.0
1.0
3.7
100
1.5 kg/day
>olyethylene; LDPE - low-dens
e; and PS = polystyrene.
ty
Before the initiation of each test, the material to be combusted was placed in the barrel, air
flow through the facility was initiated, and 15 minutes of background data were obtained on
continuous emission monitors (CEMs) and thermocouples. The material to be combusted was then
lit for a short period (<3 min) using a propane torch. Sampling was initiated at least 2 minutes after
the removal of the propane torch. Propane torches generally produce only water (H2O), carbon
-------
dioxide (COj), and small quantities of low molecular weight products of incomplete combustion.
Since these products were expected to have largely dissipated before sampling is initiated, this '
procedure should not bias the results. This assumption was verified by a hut blank experiment
during which the propane torches were lit, but household waste was not bumed. Additionally, the
hut blank experiment provided information for the assessment of background contaminant
concentrations in the ambient air that is pumped through the facility.
Total particulate-phase organics were sampled using a Graseby PS-1 sampler operated
within the burn hut. This train, which is based on EPA?s ambient sampling method TO-13,7
consisted of an open-faced filter holder followed by a polyurethane foam (PUF)-sandwiched
XAD-2 bed vapor trap. Due to the expected high concentrations of analytes in these tests, this
sampler was operated at approximately 28.3 L/min (1 ftVmin). The temperature of air entering the
train and within the PUP 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 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. The filter and cartridge were then extracted together in a Soxhlet
apparatus using methylene chloride. After extraction, a known fraction of the initial extract was
sent to WCL&R for analysis. Both ARCADIS and WCL&R analyzed the combined organic
paniculate and XAD-2 sample extracts. These analyses followed EPA Method 8270* for the
analysis of semivolatile/particulate bound organics using Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
(GC/MS). WCL&R also performed a modification of EPA Method 8280' for the analysis of
PAHs using GC/MS with selective ion monitoring (SIM) and isotope dilution quantitation to
ensure adequate detection and quantitation of all target PAHs.
Estimated emissions of PAHs per unit mass burned were calculated using the measured
concentrations of PAHs in the initial extract, 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 > msumed by combustion. These estimated emissions
expressed a mass of arialyte produced per mass of solid waste consumed in the combustion
process.
RESULTS
PAH emissions data are reported in milligrams emitted per kilogram of residential solid
waste consumed by combustion. Each sample train also included a hut blank, but the hut blank
data are not included in this paper since there was no material burned in the hut blank and, as such,
the estimated emissions per unit mass bumed for those tests are undefined. Pollutant
concentrations during the hut blank tests were insignificant in comparison to the household waste
burn tests. In addition, data presented in this manner (as estimated emissions) do not take into
account that the avid rccycler produces only 30 percent of the mass of refuse produced by the non-
recycler.
-------
Tables 2 and 3 present the estimated PAH emissions in milligrams per kilogram of material
consumed by combustion. These data are based on analyses performed by ARCADIS and
WCL&R, respectively, using Method 8270. Both Tables 2 and 3 present several estimated
emission results that are based on analytical data that were below the method detection limit (MDL)
and present at values below the lowest calibration point (flagged with T in the tables) for Method
8270. Evaluations of these data indicate high variability between duplicate burns of similar waste.
However, there appears to be reasonable agreement between the two laboratories on those
compounds present in relatively high concentrations. Furthermore, the data from the individual
tests do not show any strong trends related to the waste composition (i.e., avid recycler vs. non-
recycler). However, average estimated PAH emissions for the non-recycler are higher than the
estimated emissions for the avid recycler.
Table 4 presents the estimated PAH emission per kilogram of material consumed by
combustion based on the SIM analyses. This method provides MDLs approximately five orders of
magnitude lower than Method 8270. Thus reliable quantitation of all PAHs in the test burns was
achieved even for those targets that were outside Method 8270's quantitation range. Examination
of the data in Table 4 also indicates some variability between test bums using the same waste
composition. As was found in the Method 8270 data, the emissions of PAHs from the non-
recycler are higher than from the avid recycler. Total PAH emissions from the non-recycler are on
the order of twice the level of the emissions from the average recycler per kilogram of material
burned.
Figure 1 illustrates the difference between emissions of PAHs from the two different
waste-stream scenarios and compares the different analytical methods. The data in Figure 1 were
derived from all data generated using Method 8270 from both laboratories and Method 8280 to
obtain average PAH estimated emissions for the non-recycler and the avid recycler waste
scenarios. Values that were qualified with a "J" were used as is, and values that were reported
below the detection limit were used as the value of the detection limit. In order to better illustrate
all the emissions data, the y-axis is a log scale. Data gaps exist where a PAH was a target
compound for either the 8270 Method or the SIM method but not for both. As seen by this Figure,
the modified Method 8280 data are consistent with the less sensitive data obtained using Method
8270, and this method provides reliable quantitation of target PAHs. Figure 1 also indicates that,
although there are differences between emissions of specific PAHs for the two waste streams, the
overall PAH profile is consistent for the two waste-stream scenarios.
-------
Table 2. Estimated Emissions of PAHs as Analyzed by ARCADIS by Method 8270, mg/kg
Test No.
PAH
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthenc
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
2-Chloronaphthalcnc
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthraccnc
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
3-Methylcholanthrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1
Avid Reveler
<0.4
6.2
<0.4
1.5 J
2.6 J
1.6 J
<0.4
1.1 J
0.5 J
<0.4
3.2 J
0.4 J
3.1 J
1.6 J
<0.4
2.6 J
15.0
7.5
4.1
2
Avid Recycler
1.3 J'
18.0
<1.8
3.9 J
0.6 J
<1.8
<1.8
<1.8
<1.8
<1.8
<0.6J
<1.8
3.4 J
7.0 J
<1.8
18.0
81.0
18.0
3.0 J
4
Non-Recycler
1.5 J
28.0
<2.5
5.4 J
2.5 J
2.7 J
<2.5
2.0 J
<2.5
<2.5
3.1 J
<2.5
8.3 J
7.2 J
<2.5
6.8 J
37.0
26.0
8.6 J
5
Non-Recycler
1.0 J
18.0
<1.8
3.1 J
1.4 J
1.2 J
<1.8
<1.8
<1.8
<1.8
1.6 J
<1.8
4.4 J
4.6 J
<1.8
9.4 J
70.0
15.0 J
4.9
a - J = (PQL), Quantified outside of instrument calibration range
-------
Table 3. Estimated Emissions of PAHs as Analyzed by WCL&R by Method 8270, mg/kg
Test No.
PAH
Acenaphthcne
Acenaphthylene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
8enzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
2-Chloronaphthalcnc
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthraccnc
7, 12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
3-Methylcholanthrenc
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1
Avid
Recycler
0.25 J1
4.5
<2.8
0.97 J
1.5 J
0.99 J
0.68 J
0.81 J
0.70 J
<1.3
3.0
0.065 J
<0.6
2.6
1.2 J
<1.2
2.0
13.0
6.5
3.9
2
Avid Recycler
0.85 J
12.0
<2.5
1.9
0.27 J
0.15 J
0.19 J
0.26 J
0.18 J
<1.2
0.49 J
0.032 J
<0.5
1.9
4.4
<1.1
16.0
54.0
14.0
2.6
4
Non-Recycler
1.3 J
26.0
<8.8
3.1 J
2.0 J
2.0 J
1.6 J
2.1 J
1.3 J
< 4.2 "
3.4 J
0.31 J
<1.8
6.5
7.2
<3.9
6.8
37.0
27.0
11.0
5
Non-Recycler
0.68 J
11.0
<6.4
1.3 J
0.66 J
0.60 J
0.67 J
0.74 J
0.60 J
<3.1
1.2 J
0.074 J
<1.3
2.6 J
3.1 J
<2.9
6.2
47.0
11.0
3.9
a - J = (PQL), Quantified outside of instrument calibration range
-------
Table 4. Estimated Emissions of PAHs as Analyzed by WCL&R Using Modified Method 8280
(SIM), mg/kg
Test No.
PAH
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrcne
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Quysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrcnc
Pyrenc
Total
1
Avid Recycler
0.24
2.7
0.61
1.1
1.1
1.6
0.99
0.52
1.6
0.38
1.5
1.5
1.0
4.0
2.8
1.7
23.3
2
Avid Recycler
0.78
4.0 '
0.93
0.43
0.24
0.54
0.28
0.12
0.46
0.067
1.5
3.2
0.30
6.4
3.9
1.4
24.5
4
Non-Recycler
0.96
14.0
2.4
3.1
3.1
3.8
2.8
1.6
3.6
0.49
5.2
4.8
2.8
19.0
9.0
6.1
82.8
5
Non-Recycler
0.58
9.0
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.1
0.41
1.5
0.16
2.9
2.5
0.95
16.1
5.6
3.5
49.5
-------
100^
O)
S Avid Recycler 8270
D Non-Recycler 8270
• Avid Recycler SIM
• Non-Recycler SIM
~8
T n i i i i i r
^B ^D ^9 ^^ © ® O ^D ® ^^
0)Q)Q)OQ)Q)Q)O90?
&|fll|l|i|
flllf8!!^!
§^S^§ £-E o
sg^gs .§ -s
1185-e
CD Q
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Despite the carefully controlled nature of these experiments, the PAH emissions data
presented in this paper demonstrate variability between duplicate tests of the same waste stream.
Greater variability would be expected between emissions from the general use of bum barrels since
the waste composition and combustion conditions are likely to vary.
.Using waste generation rates per household reported by NYSDEC and assuming that all
waste is disposed of by open-burning in a bum barrel, PAH emission rates can be estimated on a
per household basis. For the non-recycler, estimated total PAH emissions range from 245 to 402
mg/day. For the avid recycler, estimated total PAH emissions are 36 mg/day. Thus, on a per
household basis, estimated PAH emissions for the non-recycler would be dramatically
(approximately 7 to 11 times) higher than for the avid recycler. The Illinois study indicated that,
on the average, approximately 36 percent of households in small municipalities burned their solid
waste in burn barrels.1 Therefore, open burning of household waste may be a significant
contributor to ambient levels of PAHs.
The PAH-specific emissions data from Gerstle and Kemnitz were 2 to 13 times lower than
the estimated average PAH-specific emissions data for the non-recycler and the avid recycler.
PAH emissions from these tests were also compared to emissions from two full-scale
municipal waste combustors (MWCs): a modem MWC that possesses good combustion
conditions and flue gas cleaning technology and an older mass-burn incinerator that possesses no
air pollution control devices.
The comparison to the modern MWC was based on data from a field test at a refuse-derived
fuel facility using the average of the "Normal Good" PT-08, PT-09, and PT-11 test conditions at
the pollution control device outlet10. Total PAH emissions fro'm this MWC are 0.017 mg/kg. The
estimated average total PAH emissions from the open-burning tests are 66 and 24 mg/kg for the
non-recycler and avid recycler, respectively.
The emissions test report for the older mass-burn incinerator presented an emission rate
only for benzo(a)pyrene. Based on the incinerator's capacity and the benzo(a)pyrene emission
rate, the estimated emissions for benzo(a)pyrene are 0.003 mg/kg." The open-burning tests
yielded estimated average benzo(a)pyrene emissions of 2,1 and 0.67 mg/kg for the non-recycler
and avid recycler, respectively. Based on these comparisons, it is readily apparent that even the
significant differences between the avid recycler and non-recycler emissions are minor in
comparison to the difference between open burning of household waste and the
controlled/uncontrolled combustion of municipal waste at dedicated MWC facilities.
This study adds to the limited current database for emissions associated with open-burning
of household waste in a burn barrel. However, there are limitations with the use of these data. As
previously noted, bum barrel emissions are variable; no two bum barrels can be expected to emit
similar quantities of PAHs. Additionally, there is a lack of information about the exact
.composition of what people typically bum in their barrels and the frequency and prevalence of this
-------
waste disposal activity. The Illinois study is the only study that evaluated these important aspects
of open-burning of residential solid waste.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Matthew Pavlik, Peter Kariher,
Chris Pressley, Jeff Quinto, Ann Preston, Jarek Karwowski, Mike Bowling, and Mitch Howell of
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller. Jeff Ryan also contributed to tHis project both with ARCADIS
Geraghty & Miller 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-rccycler.
REFERENCES
1 Two Rivers Regional Council of Public Officials, report prepared for U.S. EPA Region 5,
Emission Characteristics of Bum 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 Lemieux, Paul M. "Evaluation of Emissions from the Open Burning of Household Waste
in Barrels," Volume 1, Technical Report, EPA-600/R-97-134a (NTIS PB98-127343), November
1997.
5 IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 1983. IARC Monographs on the
Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans. Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds,
Part 1, Chemical, Environmental and Experimental Data. Volume 32. Lyon: International Agency
for Research on Cancer.
6 U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Drinking Water
Criteria Document for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Cincinnati, OH:
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, ECAO-CIN-D010 (NTIS PB92-173459).
7 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 Chrpmatographic 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.
-------
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Emissions of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
from the Open Burning of Household Waste in
Barrels
NRMRL-RTP-p-333
1. REPORT NO:
600/A-98/114
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Imttniettom OH the reverie before compte
2.
7. AUTHOR(S) ,
PB99-102238
REPORT DATE
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
C. Lutes (ARCADIS), P.Lemieux (EPA), and
J.Abbott and K.Aldoas (NYSDH)
a. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
0. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
ARCADIS Geraghty New York State Dept. of
and Miller, Inc. Health
Durham, NC 27713 Albany NY 12203
0. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D4-0005 (ARCADIS)
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
IXTYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Published paper; 7-12/97
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES APPCD project officer is Paul M. Lemieux, Mail Drop 65. 9197
541-0962. Presented at 13th Annual International Symposium on the Measurement of
Toxic and Related Air Pollutants. Gary. NC, 9/1-3/98.
i .A RA
paper diSCUS6es emissions of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) from the open burning of household waste in barrels. (NOTE: Previous stu-
dies to characterize these emissions investigated a limited number of pollutants, and
PAH emissions were not evaluated. PAHs are a ubiquitous class of compounds that
result from the incomplete combustion of organic matter. Exposure to materials
containing PAHs can cause several types of cancer in humans. The U. S. EPA and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer recognize the carcinogenicity of
several PAHs by inhalation and ingestion. ) Using a waste mixture designed to simu-
late waste generated by an avid cycler and a non- cycler, the emissions of volatile
and semi volatile organic compounds, metals, acid gases, and respirable particu-
lates were measured from a 55-gal. (208- L) burn barrel at EPA's open burning test
facility. Total measured PAH emissions ranged from 24 (avid recycler) to 82 mg/kg
(non-recycler) of waste burned. This study provides important data on a potentially
significant source of emissions of air toxics.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
bJDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
C. COSATI FWd/GtOUp
Pollution
Aromatic Polycyclic
Hydrocarbons
Combustion
Wastes
Organic ^Compounds
Volatility
Toxicity
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Household Waste
13B
20 M
06T
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This pat*)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
13
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (S-73)
------- |