United States EPA-600/R-02-076
Environmental Protection , /-.,-.
Agency October 2002
vvEPA Research and
Development
Emissions of Organic Air
Toxics from Open
Burning
Prepared for
Office of Research and Development
Prepared by
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
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 (NRMRL) is the Agency's
center for investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing
and reducing risks from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The
focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness
for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources;
protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and
restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector
partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate
emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems
by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure
implementation of environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and
community levels.
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.
-------
EPA-600/R-02/076
October 2002
Emissions of Organic Air
Toxics from Open Burning
Annual Performance Measure 90
Goal 1 Clean Air
Prepared by
Paul M. Lemieux
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC
-------
ABSTRACT
Emissions from open burning, on a mass pollutant per mass fuel (emission factor)
basis, are greater than those from well controlled combustion sources. Some types of
open burning (e.g., biomass) are large sources on a global scale in comparison to other
broad classes of sources (e.g., mobile and industrial sources). A detailed literature search
was performed to collect and collate available data reporting emissions of organic air
toxics from open burning sources. Availability of data varied according to the source and
the class of air toxics of interest. Volatile organic compound (VOC) and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) data were available for many of the sources. Non-PAH
semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) data were available for several sources.
Carbonyl and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofuran
(PCDD/F) data were available for only a few sources. There were several sources for
which no emissions data were available at all. Several observations were made
including:
Biomass open burning sources typically emitted less VOCs than open burning
sources with anthropogenic fuels on a mass emitted per mass burned basis, particularly
those where polymers were concerned.
Biomass open burning sources typically emitted less SVOCs and PAHs than
anthropogenic sources on a mass emitted per mass burned basis. Burning pools of crude
oil and diesel fuel produced significant amounts of PAHs relative to other types of open
burning. PAH emissions were highest when combustion of polymers was taking place.
Based on very limited data, biomass open burning sources typically produced higher
levels of carbonyls than anthropogenic sources on a mass emitted per mass burned basis,
probably due to oxygenated structures resulting from thermal decomposition of cellulose.
It must be noted that local burn conditions could significantly change these relative
levels.
Based on very limited data, PCDD/F emissions varied greatly from source to source
and exhibited significant variations within source categories. This high degree of
variation is likely due to a combination of factors, including fuel composition, fuel
heating value, bulk density, oxygen transport, and combustion conditions. This
highlights the importance of having acceptable test data for PCDD/F emissions from
open burning so that contributions of sources to the overall PCDD/F emissions inventory
can be better quantified.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ii
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii
1.0-INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 - Sources of Open Burning Emissions Data 1-2
1.2 -Purpose and Scope of the Report 1-5
2.0-MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING OF EMISSIONS 2-1
2.1 - Methodology of Reporting Open Burning Emissions 2-1
2.2 - Ambient Sampling 2-2
2.3 -Plume Sampling (Nomad sampler) 2-4
2.4 - Laboratory Simulations 2-5
2.5-Wind Tunnel Testing 2-7
2.6 -Remote sensing 2-7
2.7 - Industrial Hygiene Samplers 2-8
2.8 -Wipe Samples and Ash Samples 2-8
2.9 -Extrapolation from Similar Sources 2-8
3.0-OPENBURNING ACTIVITES 3-1
3.1 -Biomass Fuels 3-1
3.1.1 - Prescribed Burning, Savanna, and Forest Fires 3-1
3.1.2-Agricultural/Crop Residue Burning 3-2
3.1.3 -Land Clearing Debris 3-4
3.1.4-Yard Waste 3-7
3.1.5 - Camp Fires 3-7
3.1.6 -Animal Carcasses 3-8
3.2-LiquidFuels 3-8
3.2.1-Crude Oil/Oil Spills 3-8
3.2.2-Accidental Fires (includes railroad tank cars) 3-10
3.3 - Solid Anthropogenic Fuels 3-10
3.3.1 - Open Burning of Household Waste 3-10
3.3.2 -Landfill Fires and Burning Dumps 3-12
3.3.3-Tire Fires 3-13
3.3.4-Automobile Shredder Fluff 3-15
3.3.5 - Open Burning of Fiberglass 3-17
3.3.6-Agricultural Plastic 3-18
3.3.7-Structural Fires 3-18
3.3.8-Vehicle Fires 3-19
3.3.9-Construction Debris 3-20
3.3.10-Grain Silo Fires 3-20
3.3.11 - Open Burning of Electronics Waste 3-20
3.4 -Miscellaneous Fuels 3-20
3.4.1 - Copper Wire Reclamation 3-20
3.4.2-Fireworks 3-20
in
-------
4.0-EMISSIONS ANALYSIS 4-1
5.0-CONCLUSIONS 5-1
5.1 -Purpose of Document 5-1
5.2 - Summary of Findings 5-1
5.3 -Data Gaps and Recommendations 5-1
6.0-REFERENCES 6-1
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 - SUMMA Canister and Gas Metering Equipment 2-3
Figure 2-2-Method TO-13 Train 2-4
Figure 2-3 -Nomad Sampler 2-5
Figure 2-4-U.S. EPA Open Burning Test Facility 2-6
Figure 2-5 -U.C. Davis Wind Tunnel Facility 2-7
Figure 4-1 - VOCs from Open Burning Sources (mg/kg burned) 4-3
Figure 4-2 - SVOCs from Open Burning Sources (mg/kg burned) 4-4
Figure 4-3 - Formaldehyde from Open Burning Sources (mg/kg burned) 4-5
Figure 4-4 - PCDDs/Fs from Open Burning Sources (mg/kg burned) 4-7
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 - Open Burning Sources Considered for this Report 1-2
Table 1-2 - Summary of Open Burn Literature Search Results (Numbers of
citations found by type) 1-4
Table 1-3 - Targeted HAPs from Open Burning 1-6
Table 3-1 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Prescribed Burning and Forest Fires
(mg/kg burned) 3-3
Table 3-2 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Agricultural/crop Burning (mg/kg
burned) 3-5
Table 3-3 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Open Burning of Land Clearing
Debris (mg/kg burned) 3-6
Table 3-4 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Open Burning of Yard Waste
(mg/kg burned) 3-7
Table 3-5 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Burning Pools of Liquid Fuels
(mg/kg burned) 3-9
Table 3-6 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Barrel Burning of Household Waste
(mg/kg burned) 3-11
Table 3-7 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Burning Dumps and Landfill Fires
(ng/m3) 3-13
Table 3-8 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Open Burning of Scrap Tires
(mg/kg burned) 3-14
Table 3-9 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Open Burning of Automobile
Shredder Residue (mg/kg burned) 3-16
Table 3-10 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Open Burning of Fiberglass
(mg/kg burned) 3-17
Table 3-11 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Open Burning of Pesticide Bags
(mg/kg burned) 3-19
Table 4-1 - Summary of Available Data 4-2
VI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Christopher Lutes, Dawn Santoianni, and Dennis Tabor of ARCADIS
Geraghty & Miller, and Satish Bhagat of the Senior Environmental
Employment program have provided valuable support in performing the
literature search and in helping to prepare this document.
Vll
-------
1.0 - INTRODUCTION
Emissions of air pollutants from the open burning of various materials is of concern
to the public as well as local, state, federal, and foreign environmental regulatory
agencies. Open burning is defined as the unenclosed combustion of materials in an
ambient environment. This can include unintentional fires such as forest fires, planned
combustion activities such as the burning of grain fields in preparation for the next
growing season, arson-initiated fires at scrap tire piles, or even detonation of fireworks at
public celebrations. Because of the diverse set of materials that are commonly burned in
uncontrolled settings and the difficulties in acquiring representative environmental
samples for estimation of emission factors, there is considerable uncertainty in the
estimated emissions from open burning activities. The overall emissions from a source
depend on both the emissions and the activity level. There is frequently significant
uncertainty in the activity levels as well. This report only discusses emissions and not
activity levels.
Ideally, when combustion takes place, sufficient mixing of the fuel and combustion
air and sufficient gas-phase residence times at high temperatures couple to assure a high
degree of completeness in the combustion process, which limits pollutant emissions due
to incomplete combustion. Open burning, due to its less than ideal combustion
conditions, typically produces soot and particulate matter (PM) that are visible as a
smoke plume, carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4) and other light hydrocarbons,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, and semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOCs) including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) such as
benzo[a]pyrene. Depending on the source, varying amounts of metals such as lead (Pb)
or mercury (Hg) may be emitted. Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (PCDDs/Fs) or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) can be emitted as well.
Distinction is made between flaming combustion and smoldering combustion during
open burning, which each exhibit different predominant chemical pathways.
Some of the compounds from these classes of pollutants are persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT). This includes PCDDs/Fs, PCBs, hexachlorobenzene,
and some of the PAHs such as benzo[a]pyrene.
Anthropogenic emissions from some open burning sources can be major contributors
to overall emission inventories. For example, open burning of household waste in barrels
is one of the largest airborne sources of PCDDs/Fs in the United States (U.S. EPA, 2000).
As industrial sources reduce their emissions in response to environmental regulations,
non-industrial sources such as open burning begin to dominate the emissions inventory.
Open burning emissions are troubling from a public health perspective because of
several reasons:
Open burning emissions are typically released at or near ground level instead of
through tall stacks which aid dispersion;
Open burning emissions are not spread evenly throughout the year; rather, they are
typically episodic in time or season and localized/regionalized;
Open burning sources are, by their very nature, non-point sources and are spread out
over large areas; regulatory approaches that are effective on point sources, such as
l-l
-------
mandated flue gas cleaning devices, cannot be applied to non-point sources such as
those found in open burning situations;
Compliance to any bans on open burning are difficult to enforce.
1.1 - Sources of Open Burning Emissions Data
In order to ascertain the current state of knowledge with regard to compound-specific
emissions data from open burning sources, a computer-aided literature search was
performed to locate articles related to emissions of air toxics from open burning. A
Dialogฎ and Infoscout search was performed at the U.S. EPA's Information Center at
Research Triangle Park, NC to search through several computer databases and produce a
list of publications from technical journal articles, conference proceedings, and
government reports since 1987. The sources that were considered are listed in Table 1-1.
The majority of the published emissions data from open burning sources has been of
criteria pollutants, including CO, PM, and nitrogen and sulfur oxides (NOX and SOX). The
U.S. EPA's AP-42 emission factor database (U.S. EPA, 1996a) contains a significant
amount of information on emissions of criteria pollutants from a limited number of open
burning sources, mainly from the agriculture industry. AP-42 has detailed information on
the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) aspects of the data.
Data on emissions of PCDDs/Fs were taken from the open literature and from the
EPA's source inventory component of the dioxin reassessment document (U.S. EPA,
2000). It must be noted that PCDD/F data from open burning sources is very limited or
non-existent, and so many of these sources are not in the quantitative emission inventory,
where emission factors are more well-developed.
Table 1-1 - Open Burning Sources Considered for this Report
Accidental Fires
Agricultural Burning of Crop Residue
Agricultural Plastic Film
Animal Carcasses
Automobile Shredder Fluff Fires
Camp Fires
Car-Boat-Train (the vehicle not cargo)
Fires
Construction Debris Fires
Copper Wire Reclamation
Crude Oil & Oil Spill Fires
Electronics Waste
Fiberglass
Fireworks
Grain Silo Fires
Household Waste
Land Clearing Debris (biomass)
Landfills/Dumps
Prescribed Burning & Savanna/Forest Fires
Structural Fires
Tire Fires
Yard Waste Fires
U.S. EPA, in conjunction with the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
(STAPPA/ALAPCO), has also sponsored the Emissions Inventory Improvement Program
(EIIP), which has provided additional information to supplement AP-42 in some areas.
Andreae and Merlet published a detailed review of emissions of air toxics, aerosols,
and trace gases from open burning of biomass (Andreae and Merlet, 2001). In this
1-2
-------
review article, data compiled from many disparate sources were analyzed statistically so
that emissions data were reported with error bounds. Open burning data were presented
from savanna/grassland fires, tropical and extratropical forest fires, and combustion of
agricultural residues. This review, however, was limited to biomass emissions.
Based on the literature search, along with the aforementioned reviews and databases,
information on emissions of air toxics from various sources was compiled so that the
available literature could be analyzed for availability of different data types. Table 1-2
presents the results of the literature search compiled by data types and measurement
methods.
Of the open burning sources listed in Table 1-1, there were several of which we were
unable to find any published emissions data. These include combustion of animal
carcasses, accidental fires, construction debris, and grain silo fires. Although no
information about the emissions of air toxics from these sources exist, fires of these types
do occur.
1-3
-------
Table 1-2 - Summary of Open Burn Literature Search Results (Numbers of citations found by type)
Type of Open
Burning
All
Prescribed
Burning
Agricultural
Land Clearing
Yard Waste
Camp Fires
Animal
Carcasses
Crude Oil
Accidental
Fires
Household
Waste
Landfills/
Dumps
Tire Fires
Fluff Fires
Fiberglass
Agricultural
Plastic Film
Structural Fires
Car/Boat/Train
Construction
Debris
Grain Silo
Copper Wire
Fireworks
Total
Citations
125.
29.
15.
8.
8.
2.
0
15.
0
12.
4.
10.
4.
1.
3.
2.
2.
0
0
5.
5.
Types of Pollutant Reported
Criteria
Pollutant
Data
79.
15.
11.
7.
7.
0
11.
11.
1.
6.
3.
1.
1.
1.
2.
0
2.
Particulate
Data
68.
14.
8.
5.
o
10.
10.
0
4
1.
^
2.
2.
Q
2.
Speciated
VOCs
35.
4.
6.
5.
0
0
5.
4.
1.
5.
1.
2
1
0
0
0
Semi-
volatiles
55.
11.
6.
6.
2.
1.
7.
6.
2.
8.
2.
1.
2.
0
0
1.
0
Metals
Data
26.
5.
1.
0
0
0
5.
5.
0
6.
1.
1.
0
0
0
0
2.
Acid
Aerosols
19.
6.
2.
1.
1.
1.
0
4.
0
1.
1.
1.
0
1.
0
0
0
PCDD/
PCDF/PCB
Data
18.
0
1.
0
0
1.
0
8.
2.
^
1.
0
0
0
0
2
2
Type of Study
Ambient
Monitoring
22.
6.
0
0
1.
5.
0
2.
1
0
0
0
0
0
3.
2
Plume
Sampling
36.
14.
4.
0
1.
g
0
1.
0
0
0
0
1
0
3.
1.
Laboratory
Simulation
21.
1.
7.
5.
1.
0
1.
1.
0
3.
1.
0
0
0
0
0
1.
Pilot-scale
Simulation
25.
2.
1.
2.
o
o
5.
8.
1.
2.
2.
1.
^
o
o
Q
o
Remote
Sensing
3.
2.
0
0
0
0
1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Modeling
1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.
Review
Article
28.
6.
5.
1.
3.
0
0
2
1.
4
1.
0
^
1
2.
0
0
Coverd in Previous
AP-42
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EIIP
x
x
x
x
Andrese
X
X
-------
1.2 - Purpose and Scope of the Report
The purpose of this report is to summarize organic air toxic emissions data from open
burning of various materials in order to assess commonalities between sources and
discuss methodologies for estimating emissions. The detailed analysis of emissions is
limited to those sources for which sufficient published data exist to perform the analysis.
Sources which do not have sufficient published data will be discussed in the text, but not
in the detailed analysis.
Sources that are of a very transient nature (e.g., open burning/open detonation of
explosives and civilian detonation of explosives, such as in road building), underground
fires (e.g., coal seam fires), and enclosed biomass combustion (e.g., charcoal production,
biomass cooking) are not included in this report.
The air pollutants used in the detailed analysis will be limited to the air toxic VOCs
and SVOCs that are found on the list of 189 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) found in
Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (U.S. EPA,
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/188polls.html). Metal HAPs will be not be discussed,
although their emissions are largely a function of their concentration in the material to be
burned and the combustion temperature. Other air pollutants that are of concern but not
on the HAP list will be discussed in the text as appropriate. Table 1-3 lists the target
HAPs of primary interest that are to be addressed in this report.
For some sources, multiple data sets of emissions were published in multiple sources.
Where possible, the quality of the data was evaluated based on experimental detail,
representativeness, and QA/QC reporting. Based on these criteria, a composite data set
was generated using data averaged across multiple experiments, but not across multiple
references. The data tables presented in this report spell out which reference was used for
the data in that table. In general, data of a given pollutant class all came from the same
reference.
The data presented are generally limited to speciated HAP data. Total VOCs were
not used, although total PAH data were used if no other data were available. In the
tables, if an entry is blank it means that no data were available for that pollutant either
because of non-detects or incomplete data sets.
The data presented will be limited to emissions-type data. No activity factors will be
discussed, although activity factors are clearly important in order to convert emissions
factor type data into a form suitable for examining emissions on a temporal, regional,
national, or global basis
1-5
-------
Table 1-3 - Targeted HAPs from Open Burning
CAS Number
75-07-0
60-35-5
75-05-8
98-86-2
53-96-3
107-02-8
79-06-1
79-10-7
107-13-1
107-05-1
92-67-1
62-53-3
90-04-0
71-43-2
92-87-5
98-07-7
100-44-7
92-52-4
117-81-7
542-88-1
75-25-2
106-99-0
133-06-2
63-25-2
75-15-0
56-23-5
463-58-1
120-80-9
133-90-4
57-74-9
79-11-8
532-27-4
108-90-7
510-15-6
67-66-3
107-30-2
126-99-8
1319-77-3
95-48-7
108-39-4
106-44-5
98-82-8
334-88-3
132-64-9
96-12-8
84-74-2
106-46-7
91-94-1
111-44-4
542-75-6
62-73-7
111-42-2
64-67-5
119-90-4
60-11-7
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetamide
Acetonitrile
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic acid
Acrylonitrile
Allyl chloride
4-Aminobiphenyl
Aniline
o-Anisidine
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzotrichloride
Benzyl chloride
Biphenyl
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)
Bis(chloromethyl) ether
Bromoform
1,3-Butadiene
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbonyl sulfide
Catechol
Chloramben
Chlordane
Chloroacetic acid
2-Chloroacetophenone
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
Chloroform
Chloromethyl methyl ether
Chloroprene
Cresol/Cresylic acid
o-Cresol
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
Cumene
Diazomethane
Dibenzofuran
1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
Dibutyl phthalate
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Dichloroethylether(Bis[2-chloroethyl]ether)
1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Dichlorvos
Diethanolamine
Diethyl sulfate
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
CAS Number
121-69-7
119-93-7
79-44-7
68-12-2
57-14-7
131-11-3
77-78-1
N/A
51-28-5
121-14-2
123-91-1
122-66-7
106-89-8
106-88-7
140-88-5
100-41-4
51-79-6
75-00-3
106-93-4
107-06-2
107-21-1
151-56-4
75-21-8
96-45-7
75-34-3
50-00-0
118-74-1
87-68-3
N/A
77-47-4
67-72-1
822-06-0
680-31-9
110-54-3
302-01-2
7647-01-0
7664-39-3
123-31-9
78-59-1
108-31-6
67-56-1
72-43-5
74-83-9
74-87-3
71-55-6
78-93-3
60-34-4
74-88-4
108-10-1
624-83-9
80-62-6
1634-04-4
101-14-4
75-09-2
101-68-8
Pollutant
N,N-Dimethylaniline
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride
N,N-Dimethylformamide
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
Dimethyl phthalate
Dimethyl sulfate
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol (including salts)
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
1 ,4-Dioxane (1 ,4-Diethyleneoxide)
1 ,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Epichlorohydrin (l-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane)
1,2-Epoxybutane
Ethyl acrylate
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl carbamate (Urethane)
Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane)
Ethylene dibromide (Dibromoethane)
Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane)
Ethylene glycol
Ethyleneimine (Aziridine)
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Ethylidene dichloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexamethylene diisocyanate
Hexamethylphosphoramide
Hexane
Hydrazine
Hydrochloric acid (Hydrogen Chloride)
Hydrogen fluoride (Hydrofluoric acid)
Hydroquinone
Isophorone
Maleic anhydride
Methanol
Methoxychlor
Methyl bromide (Bromomethane)
Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)
Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane)
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)
Methylhydrazine
Methyl iodide (lodomethane)
Methyl isobutyl ketone (Hexone)
Methyl isocyanate
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl tert-butyl ether
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline)
Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane)
4,4'-Methylenediphenyl diisocyanate (MDI)
CAS Number
101-77-9
91-20-3
98-95-3
92-93-3
100-02-7
79-46-9
684-93-5
62-75-9
59-89-2
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
106-50-3
75-44-5
7803-51-2
7723-14-0
85-44-9
1336-36-3
1120-71-4
57-57-8
123-38-6
114-26-1
78-87-5
75-56-9
75-55-8
91-22-5
106-51-4
100-42-5
96-09-3
1746-01-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
7550-45-0
108-88-3
95-80-7
584-84-9
95-53-4
120-82-1
79-00-5
79-01-6
95-95-4
88-06-2
121-44-8
1582-09-8
540-84-1
108-05-4
593-60-2
75-01-4
75-35-4
1330-20-7
95-47-6
108-38-3
106-42-3
N/A
Pollutant
4,4'-Methylenedianiline
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitrobiphenyl
4-Nitrophenol
2-Nitropropane
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
Pentachloronitrobenzene (Quintobenzene)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
p-Phenylenediamine
Phosgene
Phosphine
Phosphorus
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyls
1,3-Propane sultone
beta-Propiolactone
Propionaldehyde
Propoxur
Propylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloropropane)
Propylene oxide
1 ,2-Propylenimine (2-Methylaziridine)
Quinoline
Quinone (p-Benzoquinone)
Styrene
Styrene oxide
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
Titanium tetrachloride
Toluene
Toluene-2,4-diamine
2,4-Toluene diisocyanate
o-Toluidine
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Triethylamine
Trifluralin
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl bromide
Vinyl chloride
Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethylene)
Xylenes
o-Xylene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Polycyclic Organic Matter
-------
2.0 - MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING OF EMISSIONS
2.1 - Methodology of Reporting Open Burning Emissions
When reporting emissions from open burning sources, there are several approaches
that can be used. The published literature presents data in any or all of these forms.
Delmas et al. published a paper detailing methodology for determining emission factors
from open burning of biomass (Delmas et al., 1995). Open burning emissions data can be
presented as:
Raw concentrations either in the plume or in the ambient air some distance away from
the plume. Raw concentrations are difficult to deal with because they give no
information as to the amount of pollutants that were generated relative to the amount
of material that was burned. Comparison of different sources cannot be quantified.
Raw concentrations, however, are useful from a health effects perspective if the
measurements are taken at the exposure point.
Emission factors (EFs) in the form of mass of pollutant emitted per unit mass of
material burned. EFs are very useful because comparing individual EFs to each other
allows sources to be compared on a purely mass basis. Multiplying the EF by the
activity factor, usually in terms of mass burned per unit time or area, can be used to
compare sources on a daily basis or geographically in terms of local, national, or
global basis.
Emission Ratios (ERs) utilize a carbon balance to compare the concentrations of a
species of interest to a reference species, such as CO or carbon dioxide (CO2). For
example, the ER of chloromethane (CH3C1) relative to CO is calculated using the
formula shown in Equation 1-1 (Andreae and Merlet, 2001):
,,-,, =
/>yV//;r/ra /evil /rY)i
'l uSSmokc ~ '<- USAnibi<.'iil (1-1)
For calculation of ERs from smoldering fires, CO is generally used as the reference
species. For flaming fires, CO2 is generally used as the reference species (Andreae and
Merlet, 2001). ERs have the advantage that they only require simultaneous measurement
of the species of interest and the reference species in the smoke, and no information is
required about the fuel composition, burning rates, or quantities combusted. Because of
this, ERs are useful for analyzing field test results. ERs can be given on a mass basis or a
molar basis.
When data are not available in EF units, it is possible to convert data given in ER
units into EF units using Equation 1-2 (Andreae and Merlet, 2001):
MW
(1-2)
2-1
-------
where EFX is the emission factor of species x, ER(x/y) is the molar emission ratio of
species x relative to species y, EFY is the emission factor of species y, and MWX and
MWy are the molecular weights of species x and y, respectively. If the mass emission
ratios are known, then the emission factors can be calculated using Equation 1-3:
0-3)
where ER(X/Y) is the mass emission ratio of species x relative to species y.
Each EF in the AP-42 database is given a rating from A through E, with A being the best.
An EF's rating is a general indication of the reliability, or robustness, of that factor. Test
data quality is rated A through D, and ratings are thus assigned:
A - Excellent. Factor is developed from A- and B-rated source test data taken from many
randomly chosen facilities in the industry population. The source category population
is sufficiently specific to minimize variability.
B - Above average. Factor is developed from A- or B-rated test data from a reasonable
number of facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, it is not clear if the facilities
tested represent a random sample of the industry. As with an A rating, the source
category population is sufficiently specific to minimize variability.
C - Average. Factor is developed from A-, B-, and/or C-rated test data from a reasonable
number of facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, it is not clear if the facilities
tested represent a random sample of the industry. As with the A rating, the source
category population is sufficiently specific to minimize variability.
D - Below average. Factor is developed from A-, B- and/or C-rated test data from a small
number of facilities, and there may be reason to suspect that these facilities do not
represent a random sample of the industry. There also may be evidence of variability
within the source population.
E - Poor. Factor is developed from C- and D-rated test data, and there may be reason to
suspect that the facilities tested do not represent a random sample of the industry.
There also may be evidence of variability within the source category population.
2.2 - Ambient Sampling
Ambient sampling involves the measurement of pollutant concentrations in the open
atmosphere. Much of the available data on emissions of air toxics from open burning is
based on ambient pollutant measurements. VOCs are commonly measuring using EPA
Method TO-14 (Winberry et al., 1988a) using SUMMA canisters that are cleaned and
evacuated prior to sampling. A fraction of each batch of canisters are typically analyzed
before use to ensure adequate cleaning. Compound identification is based on retention
time and the agreement of the mass spectra of the unknown to mass spectra of known
standards. Figure 2-1 shows a SUMMA canister, flow meter, and sampling pump.
2-2
-------
Figure 2-1 - SUMMA Canister and Gas Metering Equipment
SVOCs are sampled according to Method TO-13 (Winberry et al., 1988b), which
consists of a filter followed by a polyurethane foam (PUF)-sandwiched XAD-2 bed vapor
trap. These samplers typically operate at flow rates designed to achieve low detection
limits for the quantification of generally dilute ambient concentrations. After sampling is
complete, the filter and XAD trap are recovered, extracted with an organic solvent such
as dichloromethane (CH2Cl2), concentrated, and analyzed by GC/MS. Figure 2-2 shows
a Method TO-13 train.
20
-3
-------
Magnshl; Gaug-
0 100 in.
Figure 2-2 - Method TO-13 Train
2.3 - Plume Sampling (Nomad sampler)
Directly sampling in the smoky plume of a fire is a difficult proposition. Many
uncontrolled fires are not easily approachable by sampling crews and exhibit temporal
shifts in the position of the flame front; changes in wind directions make it difficult to
position ambient sampling devices. The U.S. EPA is currently developing a hand-held
boom sampler (Nomad sampler) to enable sampling crews to insert the suction end of a
sampling probe directly into the smoke plume without needing to get extremely close to
the smoke or fire (Gullett et al., 2002a). Figure 2-3 shows the concept of the Nomad
sampler.
2-4
-------
standard
Flow controller TO-9 module
set to 40 CFM [
PUF
custom adapter
(to be modified?)
Flow
Power cord
to Generator
portable large
generator guage
power
cord
Hi Vol
Blower
(40
CFM)
Hand-carried
sampling train
(see detailed
drawing)
\
7/8" I.D. PTFE
, to sample inlet
/\
sample
inlet
7/8" I.D.
PTFE
10'
lightweight
pole
Figure 2-3 - Nomad Sampler
2.4 - Laboratory Simulations
An effective way to develop emission factors for open burning sources is through
laboratory simulations using a flux chamber approach. In a laboratory simulation, small
amounts of the material in question are combusted in as representative a manner as
possible while making detailed measurements of the mass of burning material,
combustion air and dilution air flow rates, relevant temperatures, and the concentrations
of the pollutants of interest.
The earliest laboratory simulation of open burning that attempted measurement of air
toxics and other similar pollutants was reported in 1967 (Gerstle and Kemnitz, 1967).
This study used a conical shaped tower suspended above the burning bed to capture the
plume in such a way that conventional stack sampling approaches could then be used.
The U.S. EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory has an Open
Burning Test Facility (OBTF) located in Research Triangle Park, NC. The OBTF has
been used for several test programs to evaluate emissions from a wide variety of open
burning sources. Sources that have been tested in the OBTF include tire fires (Ryan,
1989; Lemieux and DeMarini, 1992; Lemieux and Ryan, 1993), fiberglass burning (Lutes
and Ryan, 1993), open burning of land clearing debris (Lutes and Kariher, 1996),
automobile shredder fluff fires (Ryan and Lutes, 1993), open burning of household waste
in barrels (Lemieux, 1997; Gullett et al., 2001; Lemieux et al., 2002), agricultural plastics
(Linak et al., 1989), forest fires (Gullett and Touati, 2002a), and agricultural burning
2-5
-------
(Gullett et al., 2002b). In limited cases where field data are available to support
measurements from the OBTF, results appeared to agree within an order of magnitude
(Lemieux and DeMarini, 1992). In the OBTF, shown in Figure 2-4 as configured for
experiments investigating open burning of household waste in barrels (Lemieux et al.,
2002), there is a continuous influx of dilution air into the facility, simulating ambient
dilution. Fans located around the interior maintain a high level of mixing. The burning
mass of material is mounted on a weigh scale so that burning rates can be estimated.
Ambient sampling equipment is positioned inside the interior of the facility, or extractive
samples can be taken through the sample duct.
Sample Duct
Household Wast
Ventilation Holes
(1/2 in. diameter,
2 in. up from base)
Air Inlet
Deflector Shield
Flame
Steel Drum (55 gal.)
Air Inlet
Figure 2-4 - U.S. EPA Open Burning Test Facility
Pollutant concentrations measured in the OBTF can be converted to the mass
emissions of individual pollutants (emission factor units) using Equation 2-2:
^sample QoHTI'' r
mbtirned
(2-2)
where EF = the emission factor in mg/kg waste consumed, Csampie = the concentration of
the pollutant in the sample (mg/m3), QOBTF = the flow rate of dilution air into the OBTF
in m3/min), i = the burn sampling time in minutes, and nibumed = the mass of waste burned
(kg).
2-6
-------
2.5 - Wind Tunnel Testing
The University of California at Davis developed a wind tunnel testing facility that has
been used for testing emissions from open burning of agricultural residues (Jenkins et al.,
1990). This type of facility can control important variables such as fuel moisture content,
wind speed, fuel loading, and influence of soil bed conditions on combustion conditions.
Figure 2-5 shows a diagram of the wind tunnel facility.
Sampling Platform
Fuel
Loading Diffuser
Table
Blower
Flow Straightening
Section
Adjustable Ceiling Track
D
D
11 m
Ash
Bin
Fuel Conveyor
ซ
-8.4 m-
In let Section
9.8 m-
Door 1 Door 2 Door 3
Combustion Test Section
-7.4 m-
Figure 2-5 - U.C. Davis Wind Tunnel Facility
2.6- Remote sensing
Aircraft and satellite remote sensing have been employed to collect emissions data
from biomass burning for a multitude of programs including the South African Regional
Science Initiative (SAFARI) in the year 1992 and 2000, the Experiment for Regional
Sources of Sinks and Oxidants (EXPRESSO), the "Fire of Savannas" (FOS/DECAFE)
experiments, Biomass Burning Airborne and Spaceborne Experiment in the Amazonas
(BASE-A), and a Brazilian Institute for the Environment study. Such studies have
utilized aircraft or satellite based instruments such as Extended Dynamic Range Imaging
Spectrometer (a four-line infrared spectrometer developed by the National Aeronautics
Space Administration), "Fire Mapper" spectrometer (infrared radiometer developed by
the US Forest Service, the Brazilian Institute of the Environment, and Space Instruments
Inc), and NOAA Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR). However,
these aircraft and satellite spectrometers were used primarily for ascertaining information
related to fire spread, smoke spread and optical density, and criteria pollutants. The focus
of the remote sensing studies to date has been to integrate aircraft and satellite
information with ground-based (not remote) sensing data in order to predict and quantify
the effects of biomass burning on the global climate.
Another method of developing emissions data from open burning sources in support
of the above approach is through ground-based optical remote sensing. This approach
2-7
-------
combines path-integrated optical sensing with meteorological measurements (Hashmonay
et al., 2001). In a scale of several hundred meters, Fourier Transform Infrared
instrumentation is typically used in an open path configuration (OP-FTIR) in which the
IR source is coupled with a series of retroreflectors so that the overall path length is many
times greater than the distance between the IR source and the retroreflector array. The
long path length improves sensitivity so that detection limits can be achieved which are
capable of measuring ambient concentrations of organic pollutants. When a several
kilometer scale is needed, other instrumentation techniques including Differential optical
absorption spectroscopy (DOAS), long path Tunable Diode Laser Absorption
Spectroscopy (TOLAS), Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) for aerosol detection,
and Differential absorption LIDAR (DIAL) for gaseous detection are also available
(Hashmonay et al., 1999; Hashmonay and Yost, 1999; Grant et al., 1992). Most of the
VOC compounds on the HAP list can be measured at low parts-per-billion levels using at
least one of these techniques as well as long path particulate matter extinction
measurements (Hashmonay et al., 1999).
2.7 - Industrial Hygiene Samplers
Frequently, initial responders to open burning situations do not have the capability to
perform ambient or plume sampling. In cases such as this, there are colorimetric
sampling methods available such as Draeger tubes. In a Draeger tube, a pump is used to
pull an air sample through a tube containing a material that is sensitive to a given
pollutant (e.g., hydrochloric acid), and based on a color change in the tube media, a
concentration is determined. In most cases, Draeger tubes are not sufficiently sensitive to
be used for quantitation of air toxics, although they are useful for crude estimates of
criteria pollutant concentrations.
2.8 - Wipe Samples and Ash Samples
Another method of assessment of emissions from open burning is through the use of
wipe samples or ash samples, either at the fire site or at sites of deposition downwind
(e.g., horizontal outdoor surfaces). This method does not result in data that can be used
to estimate emission factors or air emissions, but does provide qualitative data on what
pollutants were released during the open burning situation, and this is frequently one of
the only tools available for analysis once the burn has completed.
2.9- Extrapolation from Similar Sources
Sometimes the only tools available to estimate emissions from open burning involve
using expert judgment to estimate emissions from one source by examining emissions
from another source. This approach is usually not sound from a quantitative basis;
however, qualitative information can be generated that might be useful. An example of
this approach would be for a reader that finds a source where no published emissions data
-------
are available (e.g., automobile fires). The reader could look at emissions from burning
similar materials (e.g., automobile shredder residue or pyrolysis of plastics) and make an
educated guess as to the qualitative nature of the potential emissions and develop target
analyte lists for any sampling activities.
2-9
-------
3.0 - OPEN BURNING ACTIVITES
Emissions data on organic air toxics from various open burning sources have been
published in available literature. The level of detail and units of the emissions data vary
widely from source to source. The discussion in this section will be broken down in
terms of the type of material being burned, since physical/chemical properties of the fuel
have a significant effect on emissions. The four classes of materials open burned include
biomass fuels, liquid fuels, solid anthropogenic fuels, and miscellaneous materials.
3.1 - Biomass Fuels
Emissions from the burning of biomass are potentially major sources of air toxics.
This category was broken up in terms of the types of biomass and the method of
combustion. In general, data for emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases
from biomass combustion were available and of generally good quality. However, data
on emissions of air toxics were much more limited.
3.1.1 -Prescribed Burning, Savanna, and Forest Fires
Grasslands are burned for various reasons, including manipulating vegetation,
enhancing biological productivity and biodiversity, prairie restoration and maintenance,
reduction of woody plants, or management for endangered species (Higgins et al., 1989).
Savanna and forest fires may also occur naturally through lightning strikes. These types
of fires are dynamic events where a moving flame front passes over the fuel source, such
as a savanna or forest. Because of this behavior, both smoldering and flaming
combustion zones exist with each type of combustion dominating at different times.
VOCs and SVOCs are emitted in large quantities with a large variety of oxygenated
organic compounds from the thermal decomposition of cellulose. Many of these
oxygenated SVOCs are not on the HAP list.
The EPA's AP-42 emission factor database presents data on wildfires (U.S. EPA,
1996b) that has an emission factor rating of D, indicating that the emission factors are
based on laboratory testing. Prescribed burning emission factors ratings vary from A to
D, depending on the fuel species, with data derived from some field tests and experiments
in laboratory hoods. AP-42 presents criteria pollutants and VOC data (methane and non-
methane). No speciated VOC, SVOC, metals, or chloroorganic data (including
PCDDs/Fs and PCBs) are presented.
A detailed study on the use of molecular tracers in organic aerosols from biomass
burning was performed by Oros and Simoneit (Oros and Simoneit, 200la; 200Ib) which
examined emissions of a large number of different compounds from both deciduous trees
and temperate-climate conifers. Emissions from many different species of trees were
reported. The objective of this study was to isolate potential compounds to use as tracers
for source apportionment applications. Many of the compounds reported in this study are
oxygenates and straight chain hydrocarbons and are not on the list of HAPs.
3-1
-------
Masclet et al. reported PAH data from a field study of emissions from prescribed
savanna burns (Masclet et al., 1995). Twelve PAHs were profiled and compared to other
sources including urban air. Unfortunately this source only reported concentration data
on the PAHs, and no other pollutants, such as CO, were reported so that emission factor
units could be derived.
Kjallstrand et al. performed a laboratory study examining emissions of SVOCs from
burning forest materials (Kjallstrand et al., 2000). They found that significant amounts of
methoxyphenols were released.
Perhaps the most complete source of data for emissions of organic air toxics from
open burning of biomass is the article by Andreae and Merlet, 2001. The authors
compiled a list of pollutants from a wide variety of literature sources, and converted the
emissions data into emission factor units along with estimates of the uncertainty in the
reported values.
Because prior emission factors of PCDDs/Fs from forest fires were based on
measurements made in woodstoves, those emission factors were rated as low quality by
the U.S. EPA. Gullett et al. performed laboratory simulations to estimate the emission
factor of PCDDs/Fs from forest fires (Gullett and Touati, 2002a) using samples of wood
from Oregon and North Carolina. Their results showed a wide range of estimated
emissions, with PCDD/F emissions varying over an order of magnitude. Prange et al.,
2002, reported on elevated PCDD/F concentrations found during a prescribed forest fire
in Australia; however, no emission factor units were estimated.
Yamasoe et al., 2000, performed a study examining trace element emissions from
vegetation fires in the Amazon Basin. This study reported on inorganic pollutants and
particulate. Emissions data on pollutant species such as sulfates, chlorides, and metals
were presented.
Based on these sources of information, Table 3-1 was constructed, which lists the air
toxics and other pollutants emitted from prescribed burning, grassland fires, and forest
fires. The PCDD/F data from Gullett and Touati, 2002a, was reported as a range rather
than an average value. PCDDs/Fs are reported in terms of total quantities and toxic
equivalence quantities (TEQs). In addition, some data sets included data on the
individual homologue groups including tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta-, and octa-substituted
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (TCDD, PeCDD,
HxCDD, HpCDD, OCDD, TCDF, PeCDF, HxCDF, HpCDF, and OCDF, respectively).
3.1.2 - Agricultural/Crop Residue Burning
Another class of open burning sources include the agricultural/crop burning sources.
The agricultural industry uses open burning as a rapid method for disposing of crop
residues, releasing nutrients for the next growing cycle, and clearing land. The AP-42
documents do not have any speciated air toxics data. Jenkins et al. published several
papers and reports (Jenkins et al., 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1996d) for the California Air
Resources Board that discussed a detailed series of laboratory tests on emissions from
burning cereal crop residues in the U.C. Davis wind tunnel facility. The naphthalene and
2-methylnaphthalene data from those reports were flagged as questionable by the authors.
Barley straw showed high emissions of styrene. Gullett et al. have performed laboratory
3-2
-------
simulations to estimate emissions of PCDDs/Fs from rice straw and wheat straw (Gullett
et al., 2002b).
Table 3-1 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Prescribed Burning and Forest Fires
(mg/kg burned)
Class
VOCs1
SVOCs1
Carbonyls1
PCDDs/FsJ
Compound
butadiene
benzene
toluene
xylenes
ethylbenzene
styrene
methyl chloride
methyl bromide
methyl iodide
acetonitrile
furan2
2-methyl-furan2
3-methyl-furan2
2-ethylfuran2
2,4-dimethyl-furan2
2,5-dimethyl-furan2
tetrahydrofuran2
2,3-dihydrofuran2
benzofuran2
furfural2
PAH
phenol
methanol
formaldehyde
acetaldehyde
acrolein
propionaldehyde
butanals
hexanals
heptanals
acetone2
methyl ethyl ketone
2,3-butanedione
pentanones2
heptanones2
octanones2
benzaldehyde2
Total PCDDs/Fs
TEQ PCDDs/Fs
Savanna and
Grassland
70
230
130
45
13
24
75
2.1
0.5
110
95
46
8.5
1
8
2
16
12
14
230
2.4
3
1300
350
500
80
9
53
13
3
435
260
570
15
6
15
29
Tropical Forest
400
250
60
24
30
100
7.8
6.8
180
480
170
29
3
24
30
16
13
15
370
25
6
2000
1400
650
180
80
71
31
3
620
430
920
28
2
19
27
Extratropical Forest
60
490
400
200
48
130
50
3.2
0.6
190
425
470
50
6
19
50
20
17
26
460
25
5
2000
2200
500
240
140
210
20
4
555
455
925
90
5
20
36
1. 5(1 0'4)- 6.7(1 0"J)
2.0(1 0'b)- 5.6(1 0'b)
Source: Andreae and Merlet, 2001
: Compound of interest not on HAP list
1 Source: Gullett and Touati, 2002
3-3
-------
Sugarcane growers in Hawaii burn their crops prior to harvest to reduce the unused
leaf mass that must be transported to sugar mills. Sugarcane crop burning is not practiced
annually but rather on a two-year cycle for any given field (Hawaii, 1997). Emissions
data for air toxics are not available, although EPA has a current research project to
measure PCDD/F emissions from sugarcane burning.
Table 3-2 lists the emissions for air toxics from burning various agricultural/crop
material.
3.1.3 - Land Clearing Debris
Disposal of debris generated by land-clearing or landscaping activities has long been
problematic. Land clearing is required for a wide variety of purposes such as
construction, development, and clearing after natural disasters. The resultant debris is
primarily vegetative in composition, but may include inorganic material. Landscaping
activities, such as pruning, often generate similar vegetative debris. This debris is often
collected and disposed of by municipalities. Open burning or burning in simple air-
curtain incinerators is a common means of disposal for these materials, which has long
been a source of concern. Air-curtain incinerators use a blower to generate a curtain of air
in an attempt to enhance combustion taking place in a trench or a rectangular-shaped,
open-topped refractory box.
As is the case of burning agricultural and crop material, the papers and reports by
Jenkins et al. (Jenkins et al., 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1996d, 1996e) provide a wealth of
information on emissions from spreading and pile fires of Douglas Fir, Almond, Walnut,
and Ponderosa Pine slash based on wind tunnel studies. The U.S. EPA reported on a
laboratory simulation study (Lutes and Kariher, 1996) to evaluate emissions of air toxics
from land-clearing debris combustion. They also attempted to simulate an air-curtain
incinerator in order to assess the effectiveness of those types of units. Testing was
performed on land clearing debris samples from Tennessee and Florida. Although it was
undetermined how effective air-curtain incinerators are, this study presented speciated
data on VOC and SVOC air toxics. PCDDs/Fs were not measured in this study. For the
purposes of presentation of these data in this report, all runs from a given type of land
clearing debris were averaged together. Table 3-3 lists the air toxic emission factors from
open burning of land clearing debris.
3-4
-------
Table 3-2 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Agricultural/crop Burning (mg/kg burned)
Class
VOCs^
SVOCs
PAHs2
PCDDs/Fs3
Compound
acetonej
methylbutanone (isopropylmethyl ketone)
benzene
dimethlyfuran'11
2-methyl 2-cyclopenten-1-oneJ
2-chloro phenolj
toluene
benzonitrile'11
benzaldehyde
methylphenol (hydroxy toluene)J
styrene
xylene
benzofuranj
methoxymethylphenol (creosol)
furancarboxaldehyde (furfural)J
phenol
naphthalene4
2-methylnaphthalene':1' 4
acenaphthalene
acenaphthene
fluorene
phenanthrene
anthracene
fluoranthene
pyrene
benzo[aj]anthracene
chrysene
benzo[b]fluoranthene
benzo[k]fluoranthene
benzo[a]pyrene
benzo[e]pyrene
perylene
benzo[g,h,i]perylene
lndeno[1 ,2,3-cd]pyrene
dibenz[a,h]anthracene
TEQ PCDDs/Fs
Barley Straw
3.77
177
52
82
36
18
72
80.30
2.70
11.75
9.31
2.70
17.35
3.00
2.30
3.58
1.13
1.43
2.40
0.60
0.78
1.01
0.23
0.52
0.59
0.01
Corn Stover1
4.34
36
81
22
29
46
26
4.48
2.63
0.40
0.66
0.12
1.61
0.19
0.80
0.77
0.19
0.27
4.66
2.85
9.56
11.26
2.08
0.57
9.67
0.57
Rice Straw
4.01
11
127
173
77
2
35
16
208
45
8.39
5.43
1.06
0.31
0.36
1.54
0.27
0.45
0.35
0.15
0.17
0.15
0.10
0.08
0.11
0.02
0.04
0.06
5.37(10"')
Wheat Straw
4.39
48
52
35
26
196.19
1.07
1.50
0.17
0.32
4.09
1.07
3.93
2.47
1.30
1.37
1.14
0.48
0.41
0.59
0.44
1.05
0.67
4.52(10"')
Composite of two conditions
! Source: Jenkins et al., 1996c
' Compound of interest not on HAP list
1 Data flagged as questionable by Jenkins et al.
1 Source: Gullett et al., 2002b
3-5
-------
Table 3-3 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Open Burning of Land Clearing Debris (mg/kg
burned)
Class
VOCs
SVOCs
PAHs
Compound
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene':1
1 ,3,5-trimethylbenzene'3
1,3-butadiene
2-butanone
4-ethyltolueneJ
acetonej
benzaldehvde
benzene
benzofuranj
benzyl chloride
bromomethane
butyl methyl ether
chloromethane
cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene
ethyl benzene
limonene'11
xylene
methyl isobutanone
methylene chloride
pinenej
styrene
toluene
trans-1 ,3-dichloropropene
phenol
cumene6
creosol
furancarboxaldehyde (furfuralf
1,1-biphenyl
phenol
cresol
2,4-dimethylphenol':1
dibenzofuran
dibutyl phthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
naphthalene
2-methylnaphthalene'3
acenaphthylene
acenaphthene
fluoranthene
pyrene
chrysene
benzofalanthracene
benzofblfluoranthene
benzofklfluoranthene
benzofalpyrene
Indenofl ,2,3-cdlpyrene
dibenzfa.hlanthracene
benzofq.hjlperylene
fluorene
phenanthrene
anthracene
benzofalpyrene
Tennessee
Debris1
18.0
4.5
133.0
31.8
32.5
181.3
303.5
1.8
5.3
14.3
32.0
81.5
117.5
2.0
98.8
72.8
190.8
1.7
10.10
2.39
56.98
53.60
10.28
3.19
8.44
17.62
7.64
6.63
0.33
2.17
1.66
0.47
0.38
0.63
0.71
0.34
0.34
0.03
0.38
Florida
Debris1
7.5
1.5
74.5
28.0
8.5
146.5
195.0
1.0
1.0
94.0
32.0
15.0
43.0
1.0
28.5
106.0
0.97
1.49
54.35
55.85
14.31
3.31
0.08
5.59
14.06
6.25
5.38
0.18
1.91
0.67
0.50
0.67
0.67
0.24
0.18
0.58
Douglas
Fir Slash2
196.0
137.0
157.0
93
13.57
2.58
2.42
2.52
1.77
1.47
0.22
0.25
0.06
0.14
0.04
0.01
0.86
3.94
0.72
0.05
Ponderosa
Pine Slash2
444.0
56.0
271.0
351.0
251
403.0
335.0
202.00
16.96
2.27
1.41
1.87
1.35
1.07
0.10
0.11
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.68
2.59
0.43
0.02
Almond
Prunnings2
8.0
30.0
5.0
3.0
10.0
19.0
11
18.0
9.00
7.31
0.15
2.67
0.18
0.52
0.45
0.21
0.21
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.003
0.05
2.04
0.32
0.02
Walnut
Prunnings2
8.0
8.0
16.0
2.0
8.0
7.0
11.0
18.0
14.56
1.98
1.06
1.72
1.30
0.97
0.08
0.06
0.01
0.93
1.99
0.37
0.02
Source: Lutes and Kariher, 1996
! Source: Jenkins et al., 1996c
' Compound of interest not on HAP list
3-6
-------
3.1.4-Yard Waste
Burning leaves and other yard waste is yet another category of open burning which
has data gaps in the available information. The AP-42 database and its expanded EIIP
documents did not have any speciated VOCs, SVOCs, metals, or PCDD/F data. The
early laboratory simulation study by Gerstle and Kemnitz, 1967, reported on PAH
measurements from yard waste burning, but their data were not broken down in terms of
the species of tree. The Illinois Institute of Natural Resources published a report (Illinois
Institute of Natural Resources, 1978) on the health effects from leaf burning that included
data on speciated SVOC from burning leaves from three different species of trees. Table
3-4 lists the air toxics measured from open burning of yard waste, showing the mean
yields from 6 replicate measurements of three species and one composite sample.
Table 3-4 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Open Burning of Yard Waste (mg/kg burned)
Class
PAHs
Compound
anthracene/phenanthrene
methyl anthracenes
fluoranthene
pyrene
methylpyrene/fluoranthene
benzo[c]phenanthrene
chrysene/benzo[a]anthracene
methyl chrysenes
benzo fluoranthenes
benzo[a]pyrene/ benzo[e]pyrene
perylene
lndeno[1 ,2,3,-cd]pyrene
benzo[g,h,i]perylene
dibenz[a,i and a,h] pyrenes
coronene
Red Oak
10.567
3.368
4.31
2.802
1.847
0.054
1.277
0.98
0.369
0.26
0.963
0.072
Sugar Maple
5.24
3.172
2.143
1.538
0.993
0.171
0.943
0.393
0.137
0.467
0.398
Sycamore
5.967
2.92
1.767
1.823
0.902
0.262
0.67
0.438
0.457
0.523
0.695
0.06
0.027
0.008
Composite
4.97
3.967
2.108
1.562
1.152
0.112
0.523
0.253
0.377
0.193
0.11
0.245
0.051
Source: Illinois Institute of Natural Resources, 1978
3.1.5 Camp Fires
Although camp fires and bonfires would be expected to have emissions within the
range of those from the larger-scale events where similar fuels, such as conifer trees, are
burned, there were citations in the literature specifically directed at this source. Simoneit
et al., 2000, performed a study to examine conifer wood smoke from a campfire for
potential organic biomarkers. Another study (Dyke et al., 1997) measured PCDD/F in
ambient samples on "bonfire night" in England, a night where many bonfires of various
fuel types and fireworks are set off. This study noted an increase in PCDD/F levels,
although there was no way to distinguish whether the source of the increase was the
bonfires or the fireworks.
3-7
-------
3.1.6 Animal Carcasses
Open burning of animal carcasses has been performed in cases where a biological
agent has contaminated a herd of livestock (e.g., foot and mouth disease, mad cow
disease). No leading references were found that could give any information on either
criteria pollutants or air toxics from open burning of animal carcasses. It is unknown
how significant this source might be.
3.2 - Liquid Fuels
The burning of pools of liquid fuel present a significantly different combustion
scenario than exists in a fire involving solid biomass because of both differences in fuel
composition and lack of air flow into the flame front from beneath. There are several
sources of emissions data on air toxics from burning liquids.
3.2.1- Crude Oil/Oil Spills
Just before the conclusion of the Gulf War, more than 800 oil wells were ignited by
retreating Iraqi forces, more than 650 of which burned with flames for several months.
Husain, 1994, and Stevens et al., 1993, reported on the characterization of the plume
from those fires. Sampling was performed in the plume on the ground using remote
sensing and in the plume aloft using aircraft outfitted with sampling devices. Data from
those tests consisted primarily of criteria pollutants, although some analysis of metals and
other elements was performed.
Ross et al., 1996, conducted experiments on in-situ burning of crude oil, where
controlled spills consisting of 42,000 and 25,000 kg of crude oil were burned at sea while
plume sampling was performed.
A series of experiments were conducted at the mesoscale (larger than laboratory-
scale, but smaller than full-scale) to examine emissions from a large pool fire from
burning oil. Those experiments were reported in a series of papers (Fingas et al., 1993,
1996, 1998, 1999) and included plume, upstream, and downstream sampling for various
compounds, including particulate-bound PCDDs/Fs.
Another study (Booher and Janke, 1997) that included emission factors for criteria
pollutants was given to convert the data to emission factor units using Equation 1-3, and
using emission ratios relative to CC>2. Based on those calculations, Table 3-5 was
constructed to list the air toxics produced from burning pools of oil.
3-8
-------
Table 3-5 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Burning Pools of Liquid Fuels1 (mg/kg burned)
Class
VOCs
Carbonyls
PAHs
PCDDs/Fs
Compound
benzene
toluene
ethylbenzene
xylenes
ethyltoluenes^
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene^
formaldehyde
acetaldehyde
acrolein
acetone^
propionaldehyde
crotonaldehyde2
methyl ethyl ketone
benzaldehyde2
isovaleraldehyde^
valeraldehyde^
p-tolualdehyde2
methyl isobutyl ketone
hexanal2
2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde^
naphthalene
acenaphthalene
acenaphthene
fluorene
1-methylfluorene
phenanthrene
anthracene
fluoanthene
pyrene
benzo[a,b]fluorene
benzo[a]anthracene
chrysene
benzo[b&k]fluoanthene
benzo[a]pyrene
lndeno[1 ,2,3-cd]pyrene
benzo[g,h,i]perylene
TCDD
PeCDD
HxCDD
HpCDD
OCDD
TCDF
PeCDF
HxCDF
HpCDF
OCDF
Total PCDDs/Fs
Fuel Oil
1022
42
10
25
22
32
303
63
39
35
6
13
104
17
11
13
162
99
10
1
26
13
15
20
2
4
5
9
7
5
5
Crude Oil
251
139
32
11
20
7
44
5
13
44
4
0.5
0.2
6
1
4
5
0.3
1
1
2
1
1
7.07(1 0'3)
1.34(10'4)
2.05(1 0'4)
1.86(10'b)
4.28(1 0'4)
Source: pollutant concentrations from Fingas et al.,
emission factors from Booher and Janke, 1997
: Compound of interest not on HAP list
1996, and PM and CO
3-9
-------
3.2.2 - Accidental Fires (includes railroad tank cars)
No data were found on emissions from accidental fires, such as what might occur if a
railroad tanker catches fire. This source could be potentially important from a local
standpoint, but these occurrences are probably not common enough for this source to
likely be a major contributor to national emissions inventories.
3.3 - Solid Anthropogenic Fuels
The combustion of solid anthropogenically produced fuels is a source of concern for
air toxics both because of the potential for formation of pollutants of interest and because
these sources typically are found in areas where more direct exposure of residents to the
pollutants can occur. In addition, these sources typically contain polymeric materials
such as plastics and resins.
3.3.1 - Open Burning of Household Waste
Open burning of household waste, usually in barrels (dubbed "backyard barrel
burning") is commonly practiced in rural areas of the U.S. where local waste collection
services are not available. It is also commonly practiced in developing countries as one
of the primary waste management techniques. This source was one of those sampled in
the original open burning experiments by Gerstle and Kemnitz, 1967. A study by the
U.S. EPA (Lemieux, 1997; Lemieux et al., 2000) performed a laboratory simulation of
barrel burning. A limited number of tests were conducted where a wide variety of criteria
and air toxic pollutants were measured. Most of the pollutants, including VOCs, SVOCs,
and PM, did not exhibit wide variations between duplicate tests. However, PCDDs/Fs
varied over several orders of magnitude. Additional tests were performed to better
characterize the PCDD/F emission factor from barrel burning (Gullett et al., 2001;
Lemieux et al., 2002). The variation between duplicate runs of these later tests was
significantly less than in the original ones. Based on these more recent studies, this
source has been moved to the quantitative inventory of dioxin sources in the U.S. (U.S.
EPA, 2000). Based on estimated activity factors, barrel burning appears to be one of the
largest measured sources of PCDD/F in the U.S. now that maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standards have been implemented for all of the major industrial
PCDD/F sources (it must be noted that other non-characterized sources could be as
significant as barrel burning, but no data are available). Table 3-6 lists the emissions for
air toxics from open burning of household waste in barrels. To derive the emissions
estimates in Table 3-7, the data for the four experimental conditions described in
Lemieux, 1997, were averaged, with non-detects set to zero. When compound-specific
analyses were performed (e.g., PAHs, chlorobenzenes, and carbonyls), the data from the
compound-specific analysis was used instead of the general screening analysis. PCDD/F
and PCB data were taken from Lemieux et al., 2002, and represent the average of
baseline conditions reported in their experiments.
3-10
-------
Table 3-6 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Barrel Burning of Household Waste (mg/kg
burned)
Class
VOCs1
SVOCs1
Chlorobenzenes1
PAHs1
Compound
1,3-butadiene
2-butanone
benzene
chloromethane
ethyl benzene
m,p-xylene
methylene chloride
o-xylene
styrene
toluene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol2
2,4-dimethylphenol2
2,6-dichlorophenol2
2-chlorophenol2
2-methylnaphthalene2
2-cresol
3- or 4-cresol
acetophenone
benzyl alcohol2
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
dibenzofuran
isophorone
pentachloronitrobenzene
phenol
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichlorobenzene2
1 ,3,5-trichlorobenzene2
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,3-trichlorobenzene2
1 ,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene2
1 ,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene2
1 ,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene2
1 ,2,3,4,5-pentachlorobenzene2
hexachlorobenzene
acenaphthene
acenaphthalene
anthracene
benzofalanthracene
benzo[a]pyrene
benzofblfluoranthene
benzofq.hjlperylene
benzofklfluoranthene
chrysene
dibenzofa.hlanthracene
fluoranthene
fluorene
lndeno[1 ,2,3-cd]pyrene
naphthalene
phenanthrene
pyrene
Emissions
141.25
38.75
979.75
163.25
181.75
21.75
17.00
16.25
527.50
372.00
0.19
0.24
17.58
0.04
0.95
8.53
24.59
44.18
4.69
4.46
23.79
3.45
3.64
9.25
0.01
112.66
0.08
0.03
0.16
0.01
0.10
0.11
0.03
0.02
0.08
0.08
0.04
0.64
7.34
1.30
1.51
1.40
1.86
1.30
0.67
1.80
0.27
2.77
2.99
1.27
11.36
5.33
3.18
Continued
3-11
-------
Table 3-6 - Continued
Class
Carbonyls1
PCDDs/Fs & PCBsJ
Compound
acetaldehvde
acetone2
acrolein
benzaldehvde
butvaldehvde2
crotoaldehyde2
formaldehyde
isovaleraldehvde2
p-tolualdehyde2
propionaldehvde
Total PCDDs/Fs
TEQ PCDDs/Fs
Total PCBs
TEQ PCBs
Emissions
428.40
253.75
26.65
152.03
1.80
33.53
443.65
10.20
5.85
112.60
5.80(10'J)
7.68(10'b)
1.26(10"')
1.34(10'b)
Source: Lemieux, 1997
: Compound of interest not on HAP list
1 Source: Lemieux, 2002
3.3.2 - Landfill Fires and Burning Dumps
For many of the same reasons that open burning of household waste in barrels is a
major source of PCDDs/Fs, it is speculated that burning dumps and landfill fires might be
similarly high emitters of PCDDs/Fs and other air toxics. There are currently very little
data available on emissions of air toxics from these types of open burning. There were a
few studies published that had data available on air toxics from research in Scandinavia.
Ruokojarvi et al., 1995, presented data from both intentional and spontaneous fires at
municipal landfills in Finland. Ettala et al., 1996, discussed occurrences and
circumstances of landfill fires, also in Finland; little quantitative data were presented in
this study, however. There was a study by Pettersson et al., 1996, that reported on
emissions of criteria pollutants from both actual and simulated fires in Sweden. Table 3-
7 lists the emissions of air toxics from burning dumps and landfill fires. Note that data
were not sufficient to convert the information to emission factor units, so only plume
concentrations are reported in Table 3-7. In light of the lack of emission factors, a
qualitative comparison was performed between landfill fires and open burning of
household waste in barrels. Comparing the relative emissions of individual PAHs and
PCBs to Table 3-6 (backyard barrel burning), the total PCBs were somewhat higher than
individual PAHs in the case of the landfill fires, but an order of magnitude or so less than
individual PAHs in the case of the open burning of household waste in barrels, which
suggests that different combustion conditions may dominate in a landfill fire than are
predominant in a backyard burning situation and that it is not appropriate to extrapolate
emissions from that source to this source.
3-12
-------
Table 3-7 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Burning Dumps and Landfill Fires (ng/m3)
Class
PAHs
Compound
acenaphthylene
acenaphthene
fluoranthene
phenanthrene
anthracene
fluorene
pyrene
benzo[a]anthracene
chrysene
benzo[b&k]fluoranthene
benzo[a]pyrene
indeno[1 ,2,3-cd]pyrene
dibenz[a,h]anthracene
benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Total PAHs
Total PCBs
Controlled
Landfill Fire
90
50
100
520
160
120
120
60
80
50
20
10
10
10
1480
15.5
Uncontrolled
Landfill Fire
60
30
50
30
85
180
170
60
70
20
15
10
10
10
810
590
Source: Ruokojarvi et al., 1995
3.3.3 - Tire Fires
Approximately 240 million scrap rubber tires are discarded annually in the U.S.
(Sladek, 1987; U.S. EPA, 1991). Viable methods for reclamation exist. Some of the
attractive options for use of scrap tires include controlled burning, either alone or with
another fuel such as coal, in a variety of energy intensive processes, such as cement kilns
and utility boilers (Kearney, 1990; Clark et al., 1991; Pirnie, 1991). Another potentially
attractive option is the use of ground tire material as a supplement to asphalt paving
materials. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (U.S. Congress, 1991)
mandates that up to 20 percent of all federally funded roads in the U.S. include as much
as 20 Ib (9 kg) of rubber derived from scrap tires per ton (907 kg) of asphalt by 1997. In
spite of these efforts, less than 25 percent of the total amount of discarded tires are re-
used or re-processed, and the remaining 175 million scrap tires are discarded in landfills,
above-ground stockpiles, or illegal dumps. In addition, these reclamation efforts do little
to affect the estimated 2 billion tires (18 million tonnes) already present in stockpiles.
A side effect of the problems associated with scrap rubber tires is the frequent
occurrence of tire fires at tire stockpiles. These fires, which are often started by arsonists,
generate large amounts of heat and smoke and are difficult to extinguish. This is partly
due to the fact that tires, in general, have more heat energy by weight than coal does
(37600 kJ/kg vs. 27200 kJ/kg) (Pirnie, 1991). Some tire fires have burned continuously
for months, such as the 9-month Rhinehart tire fire in Winchester, VA. Such fires pollute
not only the atmosphere but also the land and groundwater due to the liquefaction of the
rubber during the combustion process.
Several EPA reports and subsequent journal articles have been published on a set of
laboratory-scale simulations of a tire fire. These documents reported on VOC and SVOC
3-13
-------
air toxics as well as PM and other criteria pollutants (Ryan, 1989; Lemieux and Ryan,
1993). PCDDs/Fs were not measured. A follow on study that was performed in
collaboration with health effects researchers measured the mutagenic activity associated
with tire fires (Lemieux and DeMarini, 1992). A paper study prepared by Reisman,
1997, collected data on ambient monitoring near tire fires and compared the results to
laboratory simulations. Based on these studies, Table 3-8 was constructed using the
average of the four test conditions described in Lemieux and Ryan, 1993.
Table 3-8 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Open Burning of Scrap Tires1 (mg/kg burned)
Class
VOCs
SVOCs
Compound
benzaldehyde2
benzene
benzodiazine2
benzofuran
benzothiophene2
butadiene
dihydroindene2
xylenes
dimethyl, methylpropyl benzene2
dimethyldihydro indene2
ethenyl benzene2
ethenyl cyclohexene2
ethenyl, dimethyl benzene2
ethenyl, methyl benzene2
ethenyldimethyl cyclohexene2
ethenylmethyl benzene2
ethyl benzene
ethyl, methyl benzene2
ethynyl benzene2
ethynyl, methyl benzene2
isocyano benzene2
limonene2
toluene
methyl indene2
methyl thiophene2
methyl, ethenyl benzene2
methyl, methylethenyl benzene2
methyl, methylethyl benzene2
methyl, propyl benzene2
methylene indene2
methylethyl benzene2
propyl benzene2
styrene
tetramethyl benzene2
thiophene2
trimethyl benzene2
1 -methyl naphthalene2
1,1'biphenyl, methyl2
2-methyl naphthalene2
benzisothiazole2
Emissions
314.4
2180.55
15.55
12.55
20.5
234.6
41.7
928.95
7.45
19.85
776.6
66.9
15.45
16.8
175.2
131.25
377.95
405.15
160.75
394.65
318.55
460
1367.75
228.25
9.05
66.15
390.75
197.45
20.8
41.45
152.15
78.3
652.7
127.85
41.25
60.9
279.15
5.55
389.95
86.95
Continued
3-14
-------
Table 3-8 - Continued
Class
SVOCs(cont)
PAHs
Compound
benzo[b]thiophene2
biphenyl
cyanobenzene2
dimethyl benzene2
dimethyl naphthalene2
methyl, dimethyl benzene2
ethynyl benzene2
hexahydro azepinone2
indene2
isocyano naphthalene2
methyl benzaldehyde2
phenol
propenyl naphthalene2
propenyl, methyl benzene2
trimethyl naphthalene2
naphthalene
acenaphthylene
acenaphthene
fluorene
phenanthrene
anthracene
fluoranthene
pyrene
benzo[a]anthracene
chrysene
benzo[b]fluoranthene
benzo[k]fluoranthene
benzo[a]pyrene
dibenz[a,h]anthracene
benzo[g,h,i]perylene
indeno[1 ,2,3-cd]pyrene
Emissions
22.1
269.8
370.25
620.05
109.6
136.2
231.6
411.8
421.3
4.7
43.3
533.05
11.75
261.8
157.9
650.95
711.55
1368
223.65
245
52.95
398.35
92.75
92.3
81.2
78.9
86.85
99.35
0.55
112.7
68.55
1 Source: Lemieux and Ryan, 1993
ฐ Compound of Interest not on HAP list
3.3.4 - Automobile Shredder Fluff
When automobiles are recycled, the carcasses are typically shredded, and the metallic
components are separated from the non-metallic components using a combination of
magnetic or gravimetric methods (cyclones or floatation). The non-metallic residue is
called automobile shredder "fluff. The fluff is then usually baled and landfilled.
Occasionally the bales of shredder fluff can catch fire. Combustion of automobile
components (e.g., tires, seats, floor mats) was one of the sources presented in the original
Gerstle and Kemnitz study in 1967. Ryan and Lutes, 1993, reported on a laboratory
simulation study where small quantities of shredder fluff were combusted, and extremely
high organic emissions resulted, exceeding 200 g per kg of fluff combusted. Emissions
of PCDDs/Fs were exceedingly high, although only PCDD/F homologues were analyzed
rather than specific isomers, which prevented calculation of TEQ units. Air toxics from
automobile shredder residue combustion are listed in Table 3-9.
3-15
-------
Table 3-9 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Open Burning of Automobile Shredder
Residue1 (mg/kg burned)
Class
VOCs
SVOCs
PAHs
PCDDs/Fs
Compound
acetaldehvde
acrolein
acetonitrile
acrvlonitrile
methyl furan2
benzene
toluene
chlorobenzene
m/p-xylene
stvrene
ethyl benzene
1,2-dichlorobenzene^
benzaldehyde^
benzenebutanenitrile2
biphenyl
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
caprolactam
ethyltoluene^
ethynyl benzene^
methylethylphenol2
phenol
phenylethanone^
phthalic anhydride
quaterphenyf
terphenyf
trimethylbenzene2
naphthalene
acenaphthylene
acenaphthene
fluorene
phenanthrene
anthracene
fluoroanthene
pyrene
benzofalanthracene
chrysene
benzofb&klfluoranthene
benzofalpyrene
indenoM ,2,3-cdlpyrene
dibenzofa.hlanthracene
benzofq.hjlperylene
TCDD
PeCDD
HxCDD
HpCDD
OCDD
TCDF
PeCDF
HxCDF
HpCDF
OCDF
Total PCDDs/Fs
Emissions
761.7
1678.2
804.7
772.3
54.3
9583.7
10692.8
1718.0
1678.0
6528.0
2400.0
110.0
1690.0
3340.0
330.0
2058.0
177.0
140.0
460.0
260.0
990.0
1080.0
230.0
37.0
40.0
140.0
883.3
150.0
13.3
38.0
231.3
35.7
88.3
67.3
22.7
27.3
32.3
14.7
23.3
5.0
6.3
0.16
0.30
0.13
0.08
0.03
1.80
1.40
0.40
0.10
0.05
4.45
Source: Ryan and Lutes, 1993
ฐ Compound of interest not on HAP list
3-16
-------
3.3.5 - Open Burning of Fiberglass
Fiberglass is used as a construction material for low-cost outbuildings such as sheds.
It is also commonly used in boat construction. In response to requests from state and
local environmental agencies, the EPA performed a laboratory simulation of open
burning of various types of fiberglass materials (Lutes and Ryan, 1993). Numerous air
toxics were measured in that study, a summary of which is shown in Table 3-10.
Table 3-10 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Open Burning of Fiberglass1 (mg/kg burned)
Class
VOCs
SVOCs
Compound
chloromethane
vinyl chloride
bromomethane
chloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene2
acetone^
trans-1 ,2-dichloroethene^
1,1-dichloroethane2
chloroform
1,1,1-trichloroethane^
carbon tetrachloride
benzene
1,2-dichloroethane^
trichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane^
bromodichloromethane^
cis-1 ,3-dichloropropene
toluene
trans-1 ,3-dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-trichloroethane
tetrachloroethene
dibromochloroethane^
chlorobenzene
ethyl benzene
m.p-xylene
o-xylene
styrene
bromoform
1 ,1 ,2,2-tetrachloroethane
1 ,2-dichlorobenzene^
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-dichlorobenzene
acetophenone
benzole acid^
biphenyl
cumene^
dibenzofuran
n,n-diethylaniline
di-n-butylphthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2-methylnaphthalene2
2-cresol
3/4-cresol
phenol
Emissions
Boating Industry
435.9
0.8
1.7
0.8
0.8
155.6
0.3
0.8
36.9
0.5
0.6
5921.3
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.7
3633.2
7.6
0.8
0.9
0.9
2.0
700.7
468.0
4.5
0.9
2.6
1.5
1.8
1.1
77.0
1288.0
689.0
105.0
89.0
125.0
328.0
Building Industry
420.8
772.6
158.0
23.9
10,472.7
4723.7
2686.0
1523.2
8.1
9931.6
286.0
781.0
1936.0
251.0
945.0
353.0
24.0
60.0
516.0
400.0
1731.0
6830.0
Continued
3-17
-------
Table 3-10 - Continued
Class
PAHs
Compound
acenaphthene
acenaphthvlene
anthracene
benzofalanthracene
benzofalpyrene
benzofblfluoranthene
benzofq.hjlpervlene
benzofklfluoranthene
chrysene
dibenzofa.hlanthracene
fluoranthene
fluorene
indenoM ,2,3-cdlpyrene
naphthalene
phenanthrene
pyrene
Emissions
Boating Industry
533.0
353.0
171.0
86.0
284.0
33.0
48.0
323.0
16.0
314.0
453.0
28.0
1913.0
902.0
Building Industry
733.0
202.0
214.0
72.0
458.0
694.0
409.0
5915.0
2156.0
Source: Lutes and Ryan, 1993
: Compound of interest not on HAP list
3.3.6 - Agricultural Plastic
Agricultural activities frequently result in the open burning of plastic materials.
Pesticides, including Thimet and Atrazine, are delivered in plastic bags, which are
commonly burned in the open in the farm fields. Oberacker et al., 1992, performed a
series of tests in which air toxics from this practice were measured. Measurements were
made from burning empty bags from both types of pesticides and from burning bags that
had trace amounts of residual pesticides remaining in the bags. PCDD/F measurements
were made on the Atrazine bag tests, and those results suggest that the Atrazine traces
remaining in the bags contributed to the PCDDs/Fs rather than the bags themselves.
These results are summarized in Table 3-11, using the assumption that each bag weighed
O.lkg.
Sheets of black plastic film are used in agricultural settings for mulching purposes,
such as ground moisture and weed control. At the end of the growing season, this film is
gathered in a pile and burned in the open. Linak et al., 1989, performed a laboratory
simulation to evaluate emissions of air toxics from this practice. The results from this
laboratory simulation were not presented in units that could be converted to emission
factors; however, there was some additional work done during this study during which
mutagenicity of the analytical extracts was measured using bioassay techniques.
3.3.7 - Structural Fires
Although criteria pollutant data and non-speciated VOC data from structural fires are
presented in EIIP and a paper by Brown et al., 1989, no data on air toxic emissions from
structural fires could be found.
3-18
-------
Table 3-11 - Emissions of Air Toxics from Open Burning of Pesticide Bags1 (mg/kg
burned)
Class
VOCs
SVOCs
PAHs
PCDDs/Fs
Compound
acetone2
benzene
2-butanone
chloromethane
ethvlbenzene
methylene chloride
stvrene
toluene
xylenes
phenol
2-cresol
4-cresol
2,4-dimethylphenol2
2-methylnaphthalene2
benzole acid2
dibenzofuran
diethvlphthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
thimet2
atrazine2
naphthalene
acenaphthalene
fluorene
phenanthrene
fluoranthene
pyrene
TCDD
PeCDD
HxCDD
HpCDD
OCDD
TCDF
PeCDF
HxCDF
HpCDF
OCDF
TEQ
Emissions
Empty
Thimet Bags
140.0
50.0
120.0
10.0
50.0
40.0
140.0
70.0
110.0
84.0
37.0
12.0
8.0
4.0
370.0
12.0
4.0
13.0
3.0
3.0
Thimet Bags
630.0
850.0
100.0
70.0
50.0
840.0
120.0
360.0
110.0
130.0
60.0
100.0
30.0
20.0
8.0
8.0
180.0
230.0
30.0
9.0
20.0
6.0
6.0
Empty
Atrazine Bags
140.0
120.0
20.0
10.0
10.0
30.0
20.0
20.0
8.0
49.0
Atrazine Bags
220.0
220.0
30.0
10.0
20.0
220.0
90.0
120.0
10.0
20.0
3.0
10.0
90.0
3.0
420.0
130.0
8.0(1 0'b)
2.7(1 0'b)
1.0(10'4)
4.0(1 0'3)
6.7(1 0'b)
3.3(1 0'3)
3.3(1 0'b)
9.0(1 0'B)
Source: Oberacker et al., 1992 (assuming each bag weighed 0.1 kg)
: Compound of interest not on HAP list
3.3.8 - Vehicle Fires
This category of burning refers to fires of the vehicle itself, such an automobile or
train. Emissions from any cargo the vehicle would be carrying are covered separately,
such as under liquid fuels. Although criteria pollutant data from vehicular fires are
presented in AP-42 and EIIP, they were derived primarily from Gerstle and Kemnitz,
1967, and no data on air toxic emissions could be found from this source.
3-19
-------
3.3.9 - Construction Debris
No sources of data on emissions of criteria pollutants or air toxics from open burning
of construction debris could be found. Given the prevalence of this practice and its
similarities to other sources that have been found to be significant, such as open burning
of household waste in barrels, this source presents a potentially important data gap that
should be addressed.
3.3.10 - Grain Silo Fires
No sources of data on emissions of criteria pollutants or air toxics from grain silo
fires could be found.
3.3.11 Open Burning of Electronics Waste
As the quantity of discarded computer equipment and other consumer electronics
increases, the possibility of open burning as a disposal technique becomes more likely.
There are reports of sham recycling activities in developing countries where open burning
is used on electronics waste (Hileman, 2002), but no emissions data were found.
3.4 - Miscellaneous Fuels
3.4.1 - Copper Wire Reclamation
Copper wire is frequently coated with a plastic insulation material. It is a common
practice in many parts of the world to use open burning to remove the insulation so that
the underlying copper wire can be reclaimed for value. Current understanding of the
formation mechanisms of PCDDs/Fs proposes copper-based catalysts as an important
contributor to PCDD/F emissions. The presence of significant quantities of copper and,
possibly, chlorine coupled with the oxygen-limited combustion conditions found in open
burning suggest that copper wire reclamation activities might be a significant source of
PCDDs/Fs. Ambient sampling for PAHs was performed in the vicinity of areas where
scrap metal was recovered by open burning and found elevated levels of PAHs near the
operation (Tsai et al., 1995a; Tsai et al., 1995b). Another study was performed to
examine the mutagenicity of airborne particulates near an operation where copper wire
was reclaimed by open burning (Lee et al., 1994). Another article presented PCDD/F
results from surface and ash sampling at a metal recovery facility where open burning
was used (Harnly et al., 1995) that showed parts per million levels of PCDDs/Fs in ash
samples. However, none of these studies presented data that could be converted into
emission factors for comparison to other sources. Although this practice is uncommon in
the U.S., it is still widely practiced in developing countries. This source could be a
potentially important data gap in the preparation of dioxin inventory documents.
3.4.2 - Fireworks
The detonation of fireworks, although an infrequent occurrence, typically occurs over
a wide area during a fairly short time interval. Local concentrations of pollutants have
been shown to increase during those times (Noordjik, 1993). There have been several
studies that attempted to estimate emissions due to fireworks. Dyke et al., 1997,
3-20
-------
measured emissions during "bonfire night" in England, which involves bonfires and
fireworks in an annual event. They found a fourfold increase in the ambient
concentrations of PCDDs/Fs during bonfire night but were not able to attribute emissions
to any given source, and emission factors were not calculated. Fleischer et al., 1999,
performed a laboratory study where fireworks were set off and the residues analyzed for
PCDDs/Fs. They found very low or non-detectable concentrations of most of the
congeners and only found significant concentrations of OCDD and OCDF. The authors
postulated that the increased levels of PCDDs/Fs that were found by Dyke et al. were
probably due to the bonfires and not the fireworks. Another study on emissions from
fireworks examined only metals (Perry, 1999).
3-21
-------
4.0 - EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
Based on all of the data that were collected and presented in Section 3.0, Table 4-1
was constructed to visualize the completeness of the data set. As can be seen from this
table, some sources are better-characterized than others, some are poorly characterized,
and some are not characterized at all. PAH data are available for all of the sources, and
VOC data are available for most of the sources. Non-PAH semivolatile data are limited
for most sources. Carbonyl and PCDD/F data are non-existent for most sources.
Because of the lack of robustness of the data set between sources, it is not possible to
directly compare speciated organics as a whole. Rather, the approach that will be taken is
to compare sources by selecting certain key pollutants within general classes of
pollutants. For the purposes of this analysis, measurements within sources were averaged
so that a single value could be used for that source. When available, error bars have been
added to illustrate the range of emission values for that source; if the lower error bar is
missing, it means that the lower bound was zero, and could not be displayed on a semi-
logarithmic plot.
Of the VOCs, benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes, and styrene were selected for
comparison. They are commonly produced during combustion processes, and data are
available for most of the sources. Figure 4-1 shows the relative quantities of the VOCs
produced across all the sources for which data were available. The biomass sources
generally had less emissions of VOCs than the other sources. In particular, the sources
where significant amounts of polymer plastics were involved (automobile shredder
residue, fiberglass) produced fairly prodigious amounts of VOCs, approaching percent
levels of the initial mass of material. The pesticide bags, although made from plastics,
did not show as high of emissions as other sources containing large quantities of plastics.
It is possible that in those experiments, ambient air influx was sufficient to allow more
efficient combustion of the material.
For the SVOCs, naphthalene, benzo[a]pyrene, and total non-naphthalene PAHs were
chosen for comparison. It must be noted that, for agricultural burning, naphthalene was
not included because of the reference's authors' doubts on the veracity of the data.
Figure 4-2 compares the SVOC emissions from the various sources (note the logarithmic
scale). As was the case with the VOCs, the combustion of biomass produced less SVOCs
than combustion of various man-made products. Pool fires of liquid fuels produced
significant amounts of PAHs. However, the tire fires and combustion of fiberglass
produced the most PAHs. Tire fires produced nearly 100 mg of benzo[a]pyrene per kg of
tire combusted.
4-1
-------
Table 4-1 - Summary of Available Data
VOCs
SVOCs/PAHS
Carbonyls
Total PCDDs/Fs
TEQ PCDDs/Fs
Total PCBs
TEQ PCBs
CO
LL
CO
p
o
LL
O)
rescribed Burnin
Q.
X
X
X
X
X
O)
'E
00
IE
o
O)
X
X
X
X
CO
.Q
CD
Q
O)
CO
CD
O
a
CO
X
X
CD
00
1
CO
>
X
CO
LL
Q.
E
CO
U
nimal Carcasses
<
CO
CD
LL
CT
-1
X
X
X
X
ccidental Fires
<
O)
c
c
^
00
.c
CO
CO
H
"E
CO
o
CO
00
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
Q.
b
Q
O)
c
00
a
CO
CO
LL
a
CO
CO
CD
CD
H
X
X
CD
a
CO
CD
Q_
CD
a
utomobile Shred
<
X
X
X
berglass
LL
X
X
ft
gricultural Plastii
<
X
X
tructural Fires
w
CO
E
CD
O
CD
>
00
onstruction Debr
o
00
E
LL
_O
w
S
O
c
o
CO
CO
o
CD
QL
e
CD
Q.
Q.
O
O
reworks
LL
-------
Figure 4-1 - VOCs from Open Burning Sources (mg/kg burned)
4-3
-------
Figure 4-2 - SVOCs from Open Burning Sources (mg/kg burned)
4-4
-------
The available data for carbonyls is much more limited. For this analysis,
formaldehyde was chosen as the compound for comparison between sources. Figure 4-3
illustrates the relative emissions of formaldehyde from open burning. Although the data
set is much more limited, the combustion of biomass produced significantly more
formaldehyde than the other open burning sources. This is likely due to the high levels of
elemental oxygen bound within the cellulose structures found in biomass.
CD
O
Ll_
l3>
C
'c
DO
T3
CD
.Q
O
2
Q_
CD
c
co
^
o
.
CD
CO
O
T3
CO
TD
CO
O
CO
m
Q)
^
en
Q)
T3
TD
O
cij
CO
CD
CO
m
Q)
T3
O
"w
Q)
D_
Figure 4-3 - Formaldehyde from Open Burning Sources (mg/kg burned)
4-5
-------
Emissions of PCDDs/Fs showed significant differences between somewhat similar
sources. As can be seen in Figure 4-4, open burning of agricultural residues such as
wheat and rice straw produced almost 2 orders of magnitude less PCDDs/Fs per kg of
material burned than forest fires, both on a total and a TEQ basis. Open burning of
household waste in barrels shows similar emissions to that of forest fires. Automobile
shredder residue emitted several orders of magnitude higher PCDDs/Fs than any of the
other sources. This is likely due to the smoldering combustion that occurred during the
fluff combustion experiments (Ryan and Lutes, 1993). During the backyard burning
experiments (Lemieux et al., 2002) it was found that the smoldering combustion stage
produced higher levels of PCDDs/Fs from that source than the flaming combustion stage.
Automobile shredder fluff contains significant amounts of copper (from shredded
electrical components), and chlorine (from vinyl seat cushions), which are consistent with
formation of PCDDs/Fs. Given the high degree of variability between sources and within
sources, it is not likely that PCDD/F emissions could be estimated with even a poor
degree of certainty without the presence of test data. Given the magnitude of the
PCDD/F annual emissions for the U.S. (ซ 1 kg TEQ/yr), the possibility exists that
additional test data for different sources could significantly improve the accuracy of the
inventory. Particular sources of concern for which additional data would be useful
include:
Forest fires
Land-clearing debris
Construction debris
4-6
-------
Figure 4-4 - PCDDs/Fs from Open Burning Sources (mg/kg burned)
4-7
-------
5.0-CONCLUSIONS
5.1-Purpose of Document
The purpose of this document is:
To report on types of open burning activities and the availability of organic air toxics
emissions data;
To report on methodologies for developing open burning air toxics emissions data,
including methods for measuring emissions and for converting the data into forms
useful for emissions inventory development and source emissions comparisons;
To compare emissions of different organic air toxic pollutants within open burning
source classifications on a per mass of material burned basis;
To compare emissions of different organic air toxic pollutants from open burning in
general on a per mass of material burned basis;
5.2 - Summary of Findings
A detailed literature search was performed to collect and collate available data
reporting emissions of organic air toxics from open burning sources. Availability of data
varied according to the source and the class of air toxics of interest. VOC and PAH data
were available for many of the sources. Non-PAH SVOC data were available for several
sources. Carbonyl and PCDD/F data were available for only a few sources. There were
several sources for which no emissions data were available at all. Several observations
were made of the data including:
Biomass open burning sources typically emitted less VOCs than anthropogenic
sources per kg of material burned, particularly those where polymers were concerned.
Biomass open burning sources typically emitted less SVOCs and PAHs than
anthropogenic sources per kg of material burned. Burning pools of crude oil and diesel
fuel produced significant amounts of PAHs relative to other types of open burning. PAH
emissions were highest when combustion of polymers was taking place.
Based on very limited data, biomass open burning sources typically produced higher
levels of carbonyls than anthropogenic sources per kg of material burned, probably due to
oxygenated structures resulting from thermal decomposition of cellulose.
Based on very limited data, PCDD/F emissions per kg of material burned varied
greatly from source to source, and exhibited significant variations within source
categories. This high degree of variation is likely due to a combination of factors,
including fuel composition, fuel heating value, bulk density, oxygen transport, and
combustion conditions. This highlights the importance of having acceptable test data for
PCDD/F emissions from open burning so that contributions of sources to the overall
PCDD/F emissions inventory can be better quantified.
5.3-Data Gaps and Recommendations
Several sources appear to have the potential for being significant sources of
pollutants, and for some of the compounds that are considered persistent bioaccumulative
5-1
-------
toxics (PBTs), including PCDDs/Fs, PAHs, and hexachlorobenzene, there exists
potentially important data gaps that should be filled by additional research. Particular
sources of concern for which additional data would be useful include:
Forest fires;
Land-clearing debris;
Landfill fires and burning dumps;
Construction debris;
Copper wire reclamation.
5-2
-------
6.0-REFERENCES
Andreae, M.O. and P. Merlet (2001) "Emission of Trace Gases and Aerosols from
Biomass Burning," GlobalBiogeochemical Cycles, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 955-966.
Booher, L.E. and B. Janke (1997) "Air Emissions from Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fires
During Controlled Burning," American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, Vol. 58,
No. 5, pp. 359-365.
Brown, N.J., R.L. Dod, F.W. Mowrer, T. Novakov, and R.B. Williamson (1989) "Smoke
Emission Factors from Medium-Scale Fires: Part 1," Aerosol Science and Technology,
Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 2-19.
Clark, C., K. Meardon, and D. Russell (1991) Burning Tires for Fuel and Tire Pyrolysis:
Air Implications, EPA-450/3-91-024 (NTIS PB92-145358), December.
Delmas, R., J.P. Lacaux, and D. Brocard (1995) "Determination of Biomass Burning
Emission Factors: Methods and Results," Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
Vol. 38, pp. 181-204.
Dyke, P., P. Coleman, and R. James (1997) "Dioxins in Ambient Air, Bonfire Night
1994," Chemosphere. Vol. 34, No. 5-7, pp. 1191-1201.
Ettala, M., P. Rahkonen, E. Rossi, J. Mangs, and O. Keski-Rahkonen (1996) "Landfill
Fires in Finland," Waste Management & Research, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 377-384.
Fingas, M., K. Li, F. Ackerman, M.C. Bissonnette, P. Lambert, G. Halley, R. Nelson, J.
Belanger, and J.R.P. Pare (1993) "The Newfoundland In-Situ Oil Burn Experiment -
NOBE," Spill Technology Newsletter, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 1-20.
Fingas, M.F., K. Li, F. Ackerman, P.R. Campagna, R.D. Turpin, S.J. Getty, M.F. Soleki,
MJ. Trespalacios, Z. Wang, J. Pare, J. Belanger, M. Bissonnette, J. Mullin, and EJ.
Tennyson (1996) "Emissions from Mesoscale In Situ Oil Fires: The Mobile 1991
Experiments," Spill Science & Technology Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 123-137.
Fingas, M., P. Lambert, F. Ackerman, B. Fieldhouse, R. Nelson, M. Goldthorp, M. Punt,
S. Whiticar, P. Campagna, D. Mickunas, R. Turpin, R. Nadeau, S. Schuetz, M. Morganti,
F. Roy, and R.A. Hiltabrand (1998) "Particulate and Carbon Dioxide Emissions from
Diesel Fires: The Mobile 1997 Experiments," in Proceedings of the Twenty-First Arctic
and Marine Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar, pp. 569-598.
Fingas, M., F. Ackerman, P. Lambert, K. Li, Z. Wang, R. Nelson, M. Goldthorp, R.
Turpin, P. Campagna, S. Schuetz, M. Morganti, and R. Hiltabrand (1999) "Studies of
Emissions from Oil Fires," in Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Arctic and Marine Oil
Spill Technical Seminar, pp. 467-518.
6-1
-------
Fleischer, O., H. Wichmann, and W. Lorenz (1999) "Release of Poly chlorinated
Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans by Setting off Fireworks," Chemosphere, Vol. 39,
No. 6, pp. 925-932.
Gerstle, R.W. and D.A. Kemnitz (1967) "Atmospheric Emissions from Open Burning,"
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 324-327.
Grant, W.B., R.H. Kagann, and W.A. McClenny (1992) "Optical Remote Measurement
of Toxic Gases," Air & Waste Management Association Journal, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 18-29.
Gullett, B.K., P.M. Lemieux, C.C. Lutes, C.K. Winterrowd, and D.L. Winters (2001)
"PCDD/F Emissions from Uncontrolled Domestic Waste Burning," Chemosphere, Vol.
43, No. 4-7, pp. 721-725.
Gullett, B. and A. Touati (2002a) "PCDD/F Emissions from Forest Fires," submitted to
Atmospheric Environment, May 2002.
Gullett, B. and A. Touati (2002b) "PCDD/F Emissions from Agricultural Field Burning,"
Organohalogen Compounds, Vol. 56, pp. 135-138.
Harnly, M., R. Stephens, C. McLaughlin, J. Marcotte, M. Petreas, and L. Goldman
(1995) "Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin and Dibenzofuran Contamination at Metal
Recovery Facilities, Open Burn Sites, and a Railroad Car Incineration Facility,"
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 677-684.
Hashmonay, R. A., M.G. Yost, and C.F. Wu (1999) "Computed Tomography of Air
Pollutants Using Radial Scanning Path-Integrated Optical Remote Sensing," Atmospheric
Environment, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 267-274.
Hashmonay, R.A. and M.G. Yost (1999) "On the Application of OP-FTIR Spectroscopy
to Measure Aerosols: Observations of Water Droplets," Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp. 1141-1144.
Hashmonay, R.A., D.F. Natshke, K. Wagoner, D.B. Harris, E.L. Thompson, and M.G.
Yost (2001) "Field Evaluation of a Method for Estimating Gaseous Fluxes from Area
Sources Using Open-Path Fourier Transform Infrared," Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 35, No. 11, pp. 2309-2313.
Hawaii (1997) Dept. of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism. Energy,
Resources, and Technology Division. Inventory of Hawaii greenhouse gas emissions;
estimates for 1990, by the Energy, Resources, and Technology Division, Dept. of
Business, Economic Development, and Tourism and the Clean Air Branch, Dept. of
Health, State of Hawaii. Honolulu: 1997. Greenhouse gases-Hawaii. I. Hawaii. Dept. of
Health. Clean Air Branch. TD885.5.G73.H38.
6-2
-------
Higgins, K.F., A.D. Kruse, and J.L. Piehl (1989). Prescribed burning guidelines in the
Northern Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperative Extension Service,
South Dakota State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture EC 760. Jamestown,
ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/tools/burning/burning.htm (Version 16JUL97).
Hileman, B. (2002) "Electronic Waste," Chemical & Engineering News, July 1, pp. 15-
18.
Husain, T. (1994) "Kuwaiti Oil Fires - Source Estimates and Plume Characterization,"
Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 28, No. 13, pp. 2149-2158.
Illinois Institute of Natural Resources (1978) Environmental Health Resource Center
Advisory Report on the Potential Health Effects of Leaf Burning, IINR Document 78/19,
EHRC Document No. 19.
Jenkins, B.M., D.P.Y. Chang, and O.G. Raabe (1990) "Development of Test Procedures
to Determine Emissions from Open Burning of Agricultural and Forestry Wastes,"
California State Air Resources Board, ARB-R-90-432 (NTIS PB90-172305).
Jenkins B.M., A.D. Jones, S.Q. Turn, and R.B. Williams (1996a) "Emission Factors for
Poly cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons from Biomass Burning," Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 2462-2469.
Jenkins B.M., A.D. Jones, S.Q. Turn, and R.B. Williams (1996b) "Particle
Concentrations, Gas-Particle Partitioning, and Species Intercorrelations for Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) Emitted During Biomass Burning," Atmospheric
Environment, Vol. 30, No. 22, pp. 3825-3835.
Jenkins, B.M., S.Q. Turn, R.B. Williams, M. Goronea, andH. Abd-el-Fattah (1996c)
"Atmospheric Pollutant Emission Factors from Open Burning of Agricultural and Forest
Biomass by Wind Tunnel Simulations, Volume 1," California State Air Resources Board,
(NTISPB97-133037).
Jenkins, B.M., S.Q. Turn, R.B. Williams, M. Goronea, andH. Abd-el-Fattah (1996d)
"Atmospheric Pollutant Emission Factors from Open Burning of Agricultural and Forest
Biomass by Wind Tunnel Simulations, Volume 2," California State Air Resources Board,
(NTISPB97-126940).
Jenkins, B.M., S.Q. Turn, R.B. Williams, M. Goronea, and H. Abd-el-Fattah (1996e)
"Atmospheric Pollutant Emission Factors from Open Burning of Agricultural and Forest
Biomass by Wind Tunnel Simulations, Volume 3," California State Air Resources Board,
(NTISPB97-132369).
Kearney, A.T. (1990) Scrap Tire Use/Disposal Study , Prepared for the Scrap Tire
Management Council, September.
6-3
-------
Kjallstrand, J., O. Ramnas, and G. Peterson (2000) "Methoxyphenols from Burning of
Scandinavian Forest Plant Materials," Chemosphere, Vol. 41, No. 5, pp. 735-741.
Lee, H., T. Lin, R. Shieh, and S. Bian (1994) "Mutagenicity of Airborne Particulates
from Combustion of Electric Cables in a Waste Metal Retrieval Area" Mutation
Research, Vol. 324, No. 1-2, pp. 77-84.
Lemieux, P.M. and D.M. DeMarini (1992) "Mutagenicity of Emissions from the
Simulated Open Burning of Scrap Rubber Tires," EPA-600/R-92-127 (NTIS PB92-
217009) July.
Lemieux, P.M. and J.V. Ryan (1993) "Characterization of Air Pollutants Emitted from a
Simulated Scrap Tire Fire," Air and Waste Management Association Journal, Vol. 43,
No. 8, pp. 1106-1115, August.
Lemieux, P.M. (1997) "Evaluation of Emissions from the Open Burning of Household
Waste in Barrels," EPA-600/R-97-134a (Volume 1) (NTIS PB98-127343) and EPA-
600/R-97-134b (Volume 2) (NTIS PB98-127350).
Lemieux, P.M., C.C. Lutes, J.A. Abbott, and K.M. Aldous (2000) "Emissions of
Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans from the Open
Burning of Household Waste in Barrels," Environmental Science and Technology, Vol.
34, No. 3, pp. 377-384.
Lemieux, P.M., B.K. Gullett, C.C. Lutes, C.K. Winterrowd, and D.L. Winters (2002)
"Variables Affecting Emissions of PCDDs/Fs from Uncontrolled Combustion of
Household Waste in Barrels," submitted to Journal of the Air and Waste Management
Association.
Linak, W.P., J.V. Ryan, E. Perry, R.W. Williams, and D.M. DeMarini (1989) "Chemical
and Biological Characterization of Products of Incomplete Combustion from the
Simulated Field Burning of Agricultural Plastic," Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 836-846.
Lutes, C.C. and J.V. Ryan (1993) "Characterization of Air Emissions from the Simulated
Open Combustion of Fiberglass Materials," EPA-600/R-93-239 (NTIS PB94-136231).
Lutes, C.C. and P.H. Kariher (1996) "Evaluation of Emissions from the Open Burning of
Land-Clearing Debris," EPA-600/R-96-128 (NTIS PB97-115356).
Masclet, P., H. Cachier, C. Liousse, and H. Wortham (1995) "Emissions of Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Savanna Fires," Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, Vol. 22,
No. 1-2, pp. 41-54.
6-4
-------
Noordijk, H. (1993) "Air Pollution Caused by Fireworks during the Turn of the Year
1992-1993, Rijksinstituut voor de Volksgezondheid en Milieuhygiene, Netherlands,"
Report No. RIVM-722103001 (in Dutch).
Oberacker, D.A., P.C. Lin, G.M. Shaul, D.T. Ferguson, V.S. Engleman, T.W. Jackson,
J.S. Chapman, J.D. Evans, RJ. Martrano, and L.L. Evey (1992) "Characterization of
Emissions Formed From Open Burning of Pesticide Bags," Pesticide and Waste
Management, Vol. 510, pp. 79-94.
Oros, D.R. and B.R.T. Simoneit (2001a) "Identification and Emission Factors of
Molecular Tracers in Organic Aerosols from Biomass Burning. Part 1. Temperature
Climate Conifers," Applied Geochemistry., Vol. 16, No. 13, pp. 1513-1544.
Oros, D.R. and B.R.T. Simoneit (2001b) "Identification and Emission Factors of
Molecular Tracers in Organic Aerosols from Biomass Burning. Part 2. Deciduous Trees,"
Applied Geochemistry., Vol. 16, No. 13,1545-1565.
Perry, K.D. (1999) "Effects of Outdoor Pyrotechnic Displays on the Regional Air Quality
of Western Washington State, " Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association,
Vol. 49, pp. 146-155.
Pettersson, K., C.A. Bostroem, and A.B. Antonsson (1996) "Fires in Landfills.
Monitoring of Air Pollutants in the Work Environment and Emissions to the Ambient Air
During Fire Fighting," Swedish Environmental Research Inst. Report No. IVL-B-1211
(in Swedish).
Pirnie, M. (1991) "Air Emissions Associated with the Combustion of Scrap Tires for
Energy Recovery," Prepared for the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority, May.
Prange, J.A., M. Cook, O. Papke, J.F. Muller, and R. Weber (2002) "PCDDs/Fs in the
Atmosphere and Combusted Material During a Forest Fire in Queensland, Australia,"
Organohalogen Compounds, Vol. 59, pp. 207-210.
Reisman, J.I. (1997) Air Emissions from Scrap Tire Combustion, EPA-600/R-97-115
(NTIS PB98-111701) October.
Ross, J.L., R.J. Ferek, and P.V. Hobbs (1996) "Particle and Gas Emissions from an In
Situ Burn of Crude Oil on the Ocean," Journal of the Air and Waste Management
Association, Vol. 46, pp. 251-259.
Ruokojarvi, P., J. Ruuskanen, M. Ettala, P. Rahkonen, and J. Tarhanen (1995)
"Formation of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons and Poly chlorinated Organic Compounds in
Municipal Waste Landfill Fires," Chemosphere, Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 3899-3908.
Ryan, J.V. (1989) "Characterization of Emissions from the Simulated Open Burning of
Scrap Tires," EPA-600/2-89-054 (NTIS PB90-126004) October.
6-5
-------
Ryan, J.V. and C.C. Lutes (1993) "Characterization of Emissions from the Simulated
Open Burning of Non-Metallic Automobile Shredder Residue," EPA-600/R-93-044
(NTIS PB93-0172914) March.
Simoneit, B.R.T., W.F. Rogge, Q. Lange, and R. Jaffec (2000) "Molecular
Characterization of Smoke from Campfire Burning of Pine Wood," Chemosphere -
Global Change Science. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 107-122.
Sladek, T.A. (1987) Workshop on Disposal Techniques with Energy Recovery for
Scrapped Vehicle Tires , City and County of Denver, The Energy Task Force of the
Urban Consortium for Technology Initiatives, U.S. Department of Energy, Denver, CO,
101 pp, February.
Stevens, R., J. Pinto, Y. Mamane, J. Ondov, M. Abdulraheem, N. Al-Majed, M. Sadek,
W. Cofer, W. Ellenson, and R. Kellog (1993) "Chemical and Physical Properties of
Emissions from Kuwaiti Oil Fires," Water Science and Technology, Vol. 27, No. 7-8, pp.
223-233.
Tsai, J., B. Peng, S. Lin, and D. Lee (1995a) "Effects of Open-Air Burning of Metal
Scrap on Ambient Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Concentrations," The Science of the
Total Environment, Vol. 164, No. 1, pp. 9-17.
Tsai, J. and D. Lee (1995b) "Continuous Monitoring of Ambient Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons Near Open-Air Burning of Metal Scraps," Toxicological and
Environmental Chemistry, Vol. 50, No. 1-4, pp, 109-118.
U.S. Congress (1991) Section 1038, H.R. 2950 Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991. First Session of the 102nd Congress. Enacted December 18.
U.S. EPA (1991) Office of Solid Waste, Summary of Markets for Scrap Tires,
EPA/530/SW-90-074b, October.
U.S. EPA (1996a) AP-42, Fifth Edition Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources.
U.S. EPA (1996b) AP-42, Chapter 13.1 Wildfires and Prescribed Burning.
U.S. EPA (2000) "Public Review Draft: Exposure and Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachloro Dibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds," National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, EPA-600/P-00-001Bb, September.
U.S. EPA, web address, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/188polls.html
Winberry, W.T., N.T. Murphy, and R.M. Riggan (1988a) Compendium Method TO-14:
"The Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ambient Air using SUMMAฎ
Passivated Canister Sampling and Gas Chromatographic Analysis," in Compendium of
6-6
-------
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.
Winberry, W.T., N.T. Murphy, and R.M. Riggan (1988b) 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.
Yamasoe, M.A., P. Artaxo, A.L.H. Miguel, and A.G. Allen (2000) "Chemical
Composition of Aerosol Particulates from Direct Emissions of Vegetation Fires in the
Amazon Basin: Water-Soluble Species and Trace Elements," Atmospheric Environment,
Vol. 34, No. 10, pp. 1641-1653.
6-7
-------
NRMRL-RTP-253
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. RE PORT NO.
EPA/600/R-02/076
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Emissions of Organic Air Toxics from Open Burning
5. REPORT DATE
October 2002
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORS
Paul M. Lemieux
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
See Section 12.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
None, In-house
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 11/01 -08/02
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA project officer is Paul M. Lemieux, MD E-305-01, Phone (919) 541-0962.
16. ABSTRACT
A detailed literature search was performed to collect and collate available data reporting emissions
of organic air toxics from open burning sources. Availability of data varied according to the source
and the class of air toxics of interest, and there were several sources for which no emissions data
were available at all. Several observations were made including 1) biomass open burning sources
typically emitted less VOCs than open burning sources with anthropogenic fuels on a mass emitted
per mass burned basis, particularly those where polymers were concerned; 2) biomass open
burning sources typically emitted less SVOCs and PAHs than anthropogenic sources on a mass
emitted per mass burned basis; burning pools of crude oil and diesel fuel produced significant
amounts of PAHs relative to other types of open burning; PAH emissions were highest when
combustion of polymers was taking place; 3) based on very limited data, biomass open burning
sources typically produced higher levels of carbonyls than anthropogenic sources on a mass
emitted per mass burned basis, probably due to oxygenated structures resulting from thermal
decomposition of cellulose. Local burn conditions could significantly change these relative levels.
Based on very limited data, PCDD/F emissions varied greatly from source to source and exhibited
significant variations within source categories.
17.
KEYWORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Organic Compounds
Chemical Properties
Toxicity
Dioxins
Furans
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
13B
07C
07D
06T
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
58
Release to Public
20. SECURITY CLASS (This Page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77 ) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
6-8
forms/admin/techrpt.frm 7/8/99 pad
------- |