United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Control Technology Center
EPA-600/R-96-128
October 1996
&EPA
EVALUATION OF EMISSIONS FROM THE OPEN
BURNING OF LAND-CLEARING DEBRIS
control
technology center
-------
EVALUATION OF EMISSIONS FROM THE OPEN BURNING OF
LAND-CLEARING DEBRIS
FINAL REPORT
By:
Christopher C. Lutes and Peter H. Kariher
Acurex Environmental Corporation
4915 Prospectus Drive
P.O.Box 13109
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
EPA Contract No. 68-D4-0005
W.A. 0-62, 1-20, and 2-15
EPA Project Officer: Paul M. Lemieux
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
in
-------
ABSTRACT
The exposure of persons to combustion emissions during land-clearing activities has become
an issue of increasing concern. This study identifies and quantifies a broad range of air pollutants
that are discharged during small-scale, simulated, open combustion of land-clearing debris and
reports these emissions relative to the mass of material combusted. Two types of land-clearing
debris (representing the typical land-clearing debris found in Florida and Tennessee; primarily
wood and other organic debris) were combusted in a facility designed to simulate open burning.
One debris sample was also combusted in the same facility using a simulated air curtain incinerator.
Volatile, semivolatile, and particulate-bound organics were collected and analyzed by gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). The emphasis of analyses was placed on the
quantification of hazardous air pollutants listed in Title III of the Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAAs) of 1990, although further efforts were made to identify and quantify other major organic
components. Fixed combustion gases (carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, oxygen,
and total hydrocarbons) were monitored continuously throughout the test period.
This project succeeded in producing estimated emissions data for a broad range of atmospheric
pollutants from a simulated open debris combustion process. Both air concentrations within the
facility where combustion was taking place and estimated emissions expressed as mass of pollutant
per mass of debris material consumed by combustion were reported for volatile, semivolatile, and
parti culate-bound organics, typical combustion gases, and parti culate. Substantial emissions of a
large number of pollutants including carbon monoxide, Particulate Matter less than 10 and 2.5 pm
in diameter (PMio and PM2 5), benzene, acetone, toluene, ethyl benzene, pinene, naphthalene,
phenol, and 14 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were observed.
These tests did not provide conclusive evidence regarding the effectiveness of air curtain
combustors in reducing emissions. While the emissions of some pollutants seemed to be
decreased, others were unchanged or, in a few cases, appeared to increase.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ABSTRACT ii
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF FIGURES v
PREFACE vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
2.1 SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH 4
2.2 OPEN BURNING SIMULATION FACILITY 5
2.2.1 BurnHut 5
2.2.2 Sample Shed 7
2.2.3 Hazardous Air Pollutants Mobile Laboratory (HAPML) 8
2.3 TEST PROCEDURE 8
2.4 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 10
2.4.1 Continuous Emission Monitors (CEMs) and Thermocouples 10
2.4.2 Volatile Organic Sampling and Analysis 10
2.4.3 Dichotomous Sampling for Total PMio and PM2 5 Particulate 11
2.4.4 Particulate/Semivolatile Organic Sampling 12
2.5 DATA PROCESSING 13
3.0 DATA, RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION 14
3.1 COMBUSTION CONDITIONS, CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITOR, AND
TOTAL PARTICIPATE RESULTS 14
3.2 PARTICULATE MATTER RESULTS 15
3.3 VOLATILE ORGANIC RESULTS 16
Table of Contents (Continued)
Section Page
3.4 SEMIVOLATILE AND PARTICULATE BOUND ORGANIC RESULTS 17
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 20
5.0 REFERENCES 21
APPENDIX A
QUALITY CONTROL EVALUATION REPORT A-l
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Mass of Debris Burned During Testing 24
2 Typical Combustion Gases 25
3 Particulate Data 26
4 Targeted Volatiles Concentrations 27
5 Targeted Volatile Compounds Estimated Emissions 29
6 Concentration of Tentatively Identified Volatiles 31
7 Estimated Emissions of Tentatively Identified Volatiles 32
8 Targeted Semivolatile Compounds, Mass per Sample 33
9 Targeted Semivolatile Compounds, Concentration in Burn Hut 37
10 Targeted Semivolatile Compounds, Estimated Emissions 41
11 Semivolatile Tentatively Identified Compounds 45
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
age
1 Aerial View of the Open Burning Simulation Facility 49
2 Schematic Diagram of Burn Hut 50
3 Blower Placement Detail 51
4 Box Details 52
5 Weight of Burn Material for Test No. 1 - Tenn no Blower 53
6 Weight of Burn Material for Test No. 2 - Tenn no Blower 54
7 Weight of Burn Material for Test No. 3 - Florida no Blower 55
8 Weight of Burn Material for Test No. 4 - Florida no Blower 56
9 Weight of Burn Material for Test No. 6 - Tenn with Blower 57
10 Weight of Burn Material for Test No. 7 - Tenn with Blower 58
11 CO Concentration for Test No. 1 - Tenn no Blower 59
12 CO Concentration for Test No. 2 - Tenn no Blower 60
13 CO Concentration for Test No. 3 - Florida no Blower 61
14 CO Concentration for Test No. 4 - Florida no Blower 62
15 CO Concentration for Test No. 5 - Hut Blank 63
16 CO Concentration for Test No. 6 - Tenn with Blower 64
17 CO Concentration for Test No. 7 - Tenn with Blower 65
18 CO Concentration for Test No. 8 -Hut Blank 2 66
19 CO2 Concentration for Test No. 1 - Tenn no Blower 67
20 CO2 Concentration for Test No. 2 - Tenn no Blower 68
21 CO2 Concentration for Test No. 3 - Florida no Blower 69
22 CO2 Concentration for Test No. 4 - Florida no Blower 70
23 COi Concentration for Test No. 5 - Hut Blank 71
24 CO2 Concentration for Test No. 6 - Tenn with Blower 72
25 CO2 Concentration for Test No. 7 - Tenn with Blower 73
26 COi Concentration for Test No. 8 - Hut Blank 2 74
27 THC Concentration for Test No. 1 - Tenn no Blower 75
28 THC Concentration for Test No. 2 - Tenn no Blower 76
29 THC Concentration for Test No. 3 - Florida no Blower 77
(continued)
VI
-------
age
LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)
30 THC Concentration for Test No. 4 - Florida no Blower 78
31 THC Concentration for Test No. 5 - Hut Blank 79
32 THC Concentration for Test No. 6 - Tenn with Blower 80
33 THC Concentration for Test No. 7 - Tenn with Blower 81
34 THC Concentration for Test No. 8 - Hut Blank 2 82
35 Percent O2 Concentration for Test No. 1 - Tenn no Blower 83
36 Percent O2 Concentration for Test No. 2 - Tenn no Blower 84
37 Percent O2 Concentration for Test No. 3 - Florida no Blower 85
38 Percent O2 Concentration for Test No. 4 - Florida no Blower 86
39 Percent O2 Concentration for Test No. 5 -Hut Blank 87
40 Percent O2 Concentration for Test No. 6 - Tenn with Blower 88
41 Percent O2 Concentration for Test No. 7 - Tenn with Blower 89
42 Percent O2 Concentration for Test No. 8 -Hut Blank 2 90
43 NO Concentration for Test No. 1 - Tenn no Blower 91
44 NO Concentration for Test No. 2 - Tenn no Blower 92
45 NO Concentration for Test No. 3 - Florida no Blower 93
46 NO Concentration for Test No. 4 - Florida no Blower 94
47 NO Concentration for Test No. 5 -Hut Blank 95
48 NO Concentration for Test No. 6 - Tenn with Blower 96
49 NO Concentration for Test No. 7 - Tenn with Blower 97
50 NO Concentration for Test No. 8 -Hut Blank 2 98
vn
-------
PREFACE
The CTC was established by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to provide technical assistance to state and local air
pollution control agencies. Three levels of assistance can be accessed through the CTC. First, a CTC
HOTLINE (919-541-0800) has been established to provide telephone assistance on matters relating
to air pollution control technology. Second, more in-depth engineering assistance can be provided
when appropriate. Third, the CTC can provide technical guidance through publication of technical
guidance documents, development of personal computer software, and presentation of workshops on
control technology matters.
The technical guidance projects, such as this one, focus on topics of national or regional interest
that are identified through contact with state and local agencies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Jeff Ryan (who now works for the
U.S. EPA), Dom Mancini, John Foley, Chris Pressley, Jeff Quinto, Ray Thomas, Ron Harris, Ann
Drago, and Mitch Howell of Acurex Environmental; Bill Hahne, Broward County, FL; Bill Ford, U.S.
Department of Agriculture; Lloyd Gravitt, State of Tennessee; and Ted Wheeler of Air Burners Inc.
Vlll
-------
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
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. For instance, in Detroit, the problem of municipal burning of brush,
logs and stumps became so severe that in September 1958 the mayor appointed a committee to study
this problem among others. This eventually led to the design and construction of a specially
designed incinerator in 1961-62 for brush and log burning, which was more complex than an air
curtain incinerator, at a cost of $250,000. * In many locations open burning or the use of simple "air
curtain incinerators" is still the method of choice for the disposal of these materials.
An evaluation of literature on emissions from open air burning of debris shows a limited
amount of information on emission factors for specific pollutants measured in such a way that
emissions could be estimated and therefore modeled. However, Gerstle and Kemnitz2 did measure
emission factors for the open burning of "landscape refuse such as lawn clippings, leaves, and tree
branches" for carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), total hydrocarbons (THC),
formaldehyde, total organic acids, nitric oxide (NO), total particulate and nine poly-aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) species. Emissions of PAH species detected ranged from 0.03 to 1.3 g/ton
(units are original authors') of material initially present (3xlO"5 to 1.3xlO"3 g/kg material initially
present). THC emissions were measured as 30 Ib/ton of original material (13 g/kg of original
material) and total particulate emissions were measured as 17 Ib/ton (units are original authors) of
original material (7.6 g/kg of original material). EPA has compiled emissions factors from the
-------
prescribed burning of "Logging slash debris, Dozer piled Conifer" including estimates for PM2 5,
PM10, total particulate, and CO.3 These factors are provided for various fire conditions and soil
contents. Values for total particulate range from 5 to 35 g/kg.
The literature on wood/biomass combustion under other circumstances can also provide some
guidance for the levels of pollutants expected under open burning conditions. Smith and Thorneloe4
have measured the following emission factors (g/kg dry fuel) for wood burned in a third world cook
stove: CO2 = 1620, CO = 99, CH4 = 9, total nonmethane hydrocarbon =12, total suspended
particulate = 2. Boubel and coworkers5 determined emission factors from burning grass stubble and
straw for particulate, CO2, CO, olefins, and ethylene. THC emissions ranged from 4 to 19 Ib/ton (units
are original authors') (2 to 9 g/kg) of grass burned and particulate ranged from 10 to 17 Ibs/ton (4 to
8 g/kg). Emission factors from wood stove and wood in fireplaces have also been compiled3'6'7'8 for
PAHs, aldehydes, phenols and typical combustion gases. For instance, Cooper6 reports emissions
factors for fireplaces of 19 g/kg (42.5 Ib/ton) of fuel for volatile hydrocarbons, 9.1 g/kg (20.3 Ib/ton)
for total particulate and 0.00018 g/kg (0.00040 Ib/ton) to 0.01 g/kg (0.0216 Ib/ton) for various PAH
species. Radke et al9 estimate an emission factor of four percent or 40 g/kg (89.6 Ib/ton) for total
particulate from an "86 acre conifer slash fire of logging debris" based on airborne measurements.
EPA has also compiled emission factors for forest fires3 for total particulate, CO, THC, and NOx. The
value for total particulate is 8.5 g/kg (19.04 Ib/ton) and for THC is 12 g/kg (26.88 Ib/ton). Extensive
literature on biomass burning from a global warming perspective exists;10'11'12 however, most of these
papers report estimated global total emissions or emissions ratios relative to CO2 rather than emissions
factors.
Several similarities can be drawn from the literature reviewed. Most of the available data
focus on only a few classes of pollutants. The list of pollutants for which emission factors are
available does not include most of the air toxic compounds listed in the Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAAs) of 1990. However, the rough order of magnitude agreement in the total particulate and
THC emission factors reviewed over a wide variety of source types is notable.
-------
Local air regulatory agencies, including those in Tennessee and Broward County, Florida,
requested that more detailed information on the emissions from these processes be made available.
Therefore, the Control Technology Center (CTC) steering committee proposed a research project
examining emissions from the open burning of debris.
In response to these concerns, through the guidance of EPA's Air Pollution Prevention and
Control Division (APPCD), a study was undertaken to measure emissions from the simulated open
combustion of land-clearing debris. This study included replicated simulated open burning tests of
debris from Florida and Tennessee and replicate tests with a simulated air curtain incinerator for the
Tennessee debris. The study was designed to collect, identify, and quantify a wide range of air
emissions and to report these emissions per mass of debris material combusted. The emphasis of
these analyses was placed on the quantification of air toxics compounds listed in the CAAAs,
although further efforts were made to identify and semiquantify other major organic components.
-------
SECTION 2.0
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
2.1 SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
The project consisted of a replicated study to collect and qualitatively and quantitatively
characterize organic and particulate emissions resulting from the simulated open combustion of land
clearing debris. Small quantities (11.3 to 17.8 kg [25 to 39 lb]) of wood, sticks, twigs, leaves and
organic matter were combusted in a refractory lined pit within a test facility specifically designed to
simulate open-combustion conditions. Sampling was conducted within the facility through a
modified dichotomous sampler using 142 mm filter heads for PM2 5 and PM1Q particulate sampling.
Volatile organics were sampled using SUMMA® canisters and semivolatiles were sampled using a
PUF/XAD TO-13 sampling train. A portion of the combustion effluent was diverted to an adjacent
sampling facility via an induced draft duct. A portion of the sample from the induced draft duct was
also analyzed by a series of continuous emission monitors for CO2, CO, nitric oxide (NO), oxygen
(O2), and THC. The organic constituents were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively using a
gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS). Measured concentrations were related to dilution air
volumes and measured net mass of debris combusted to derive emission rates. The EPA's Open
Burning Simulation Facility used in this study is further described in Section 2.2. This facility has
been used in similar projects.13'14'15'16'17'18
2.2 OPEN BURNING SIMULATION FACILITY
This facility consists of three primary components: the burn hut, the sample shed, and the
Hazardous Air Pollutants Mobile Laboratory (HAPML).
2.2.1 Burn Hut
The burn hut (Figures 1 and 2) is an outbuilding with a 2.7 x 3.4 m (8.9 x 11.1 ft) floor area
and a sloping roof with a minimum height of 1.9 m (6.3 ft) and a maximum height of 2.2 m (7.3 ft),
modified for small-scale, open-combustion simulation experiments. The building has been fitted
with an air handling system, which during this study delivered 43.6 to 45.4 m3/min (1,540 to 1,603
ft3/min). This air handling unit supplies air at ground level to both sides of the burn hut. The flow
-------
rate was sufficient to maintain an approximately constant positive pressure within the facility. Thus it
could be assumed that the outflow rate from the facility was equal to this inflow rate. At this flow
rate, the effective air exchange rate of the burn hut is 2.3 to 2.4 exchanges/min. Two residential type
electric fans were placed in the hut to ensure thorough mixing. The test material for the burning of
debris was combusted in a steel rectangular box lined with approximately one inch of refractory. The
box dimensions were 91- x 46- x 41-cm deep (36- x 18- x 16-in deep). A pyramidal, metal
deflector shield was located 0.9 to 1.2 m (3 to 4 ft) over the hearth to deflect flames, protect the
ceiling, and enhance ambient mixing. The sample transport duct, 17-cm (6.6-in) OD stove pipe, was
located directly over the deflector shield. This duct transported a representative sample from the
burn hut atmosphere to the sampling shed located adjacent to the burn hut (Figure 1). To minimize
heat loss and condensation of organics, the duct was insulated outside the burn hut. The inner walls
and ceiling of the burn hut were covered with 1.6-mm (1/16 in) aluminum sheeting to provide an
inert surface within the test facility. To provide a highly clean, inert surface within the test facility, all
surfaces within the burn hut were completely lined with Tedlar® sheet material (approximately 0.06
mm thick) and sealed with HVAC grade aluminum faced tape (Part No. 6A062, W. W. Grainger).
A simulated air curtain combustor was constructed for the tests of this system based on an
analysis of specifications of pilot- and full-scale units of this type.19"23 Dimensions of this unit as
built, as well as its location within the burn hut, are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The blower selected
for this work was a Gast Model R4110-2. At 60 Hz this blower is capable of a maximum pressure of
52-in (13,000 pascals) of water and a maximum flow of 92 CFM (2600 1/min). The blower system
was tuned based on a visual observation of the combustion performance during the preliminary test
to accurately simulate the performance of known pilot- and full-scale units.19"23 The flow was
adjusted to enhance the combustion rate, avoid entraining ash out of the refractory lined pit, and to
achieve a vortex shaped flame and smoke pattern as shown in the work of Witt22 and Belcher.20 The
air curtain was tested using the Airdata multimeter with a flowhood system. The flow rate of the air
was tested by placing the hood over the air curtain manifold and sealed to minimize air leaks.
Velocities were checked using an Alnor® hot wire anemometer placed directly in front of the
opening. Flow measurements for the air curtain system gave velocities ranging from 61 to 69 m/s
-------
(200 to 225 ft/s or 136 to 153 mph) and flow rates of approximately 2.52 m3/min (89 ft3/min).
These velocities appear to be comparable to full scale systems based on data from Hahne (85 to 100
mph)19 and Ford and Rogers "up to 165 mi/h."23
Debris for these combustion tests was obtained with the assistance of state/local environmental
personnel in two different jurisdictions. The samples were collected in solid wood crates and shipped
to Research Triangle Park, NC. The material was stored at ambient temperatures and humidities and
burned as received. The subsamples for each test were manually selected by test personnel to obtain,
as representative as possible, a subsample while also arranging the materials in such a way as to ensure
that the combustion process started easily. The materials were placed in the burn pit based on the
technician's experience in laying fires, in a similar manner that a construction worker might arrange
the materials from a small land clearing operation before ignition.
Visual observations of the debris samples were made and documented before combustion.
The sample collected from the State of Tennessee included a wide range of different sizes of
materials. A substantial percentage of the material (twigs, leaves, conifer needles, conifer cones, etc.)
would act as "kindling" or "tinder." The balance of the material was larger branches or logs. At least
one extremely large section of tree trunk was included that required splitting with hand tools before it
could be introduced into the refractory burn pit. The sample received from the state of Florida
appeared to include much less fine material. The vast majority of this sample was branches and limbs
that appeared to be coated with soil and in some cases mold.
Attempts were made to measure the moisture content of the wood samples before combustion
using a Delmehorst Instrument Company RDX-1 tester. These attempts were judged to be unreliable
and unsuccessful because the instrument requires a setting dependent on the species of wood. The
test personnel were unable to make conclusive identification of species and observed that the results
varied strongly dependent on the instrument setting. Therefore, these results have not been reported.
Given limited project resources no further attempts to measure the moisture content of the fuel wood
were made.
Also located in the burn hut were inlets for various sampling devices; the inlet for the volatiles
sampling train was located within the burn hut, the SUMMA® canister and balance of the sampling
train were located on the exterior to the burn hut. The inlet and sampling media for the dichotomous
-------
sampler and particulate and semivolatile organic sampler were located within the burn hut. The meter
box and pumps for these trains were located in an adjacent sample shed.
2.2.2 Sample Shed
The sample shed (Figure 1) contained the majority of the required sampling equipment: the
particulate Dichot pump and meter box, the PUF/XAD-2 pumps and meter box, and the particulate
removal device for the continuous emission monitors (CEMs). A digital readout/control for the
platform scale was remotely operated from the sample shed. Volatiles were sampled using a ri -in
(0.64 cm) Teflon line inserted through a hole in the back of the burn hut. This line was filtered to
0.2 urn particle size and regulated using a 0 to 50 ml/min mass flow controller.
CEM samples were extracted from a sampling manifold within the duct. The manifold
consists of 9.5-mm (3/8-in) OD stainless steel probes positioned in the sample transport duct so that
the probe orifice faced the direction of sample flow. The sample stream was pulled from the burn
hut into the sample shed under a vacuum by an induced draft (ID) fan located downstream of the
sample manifold. A heated filter box and heated sample line carried the sample gas to the Hazardous
Air Pollutants Mobile Laboratory (HAPML).
2.2.3 Hazardous Air Pollutants Mobile Laboratory (HAPML)
The HAPML (Figure 1) was used for the continuous monitoring of the fixed combustion
gases. A heated (121 °C [250 °F]), particulate-free gaseous sample was extracted from the sample
manifold and routed to individual analyzers for continuous measurement. A portion of the heated
sample was routed to the THC analyzer. The remaining portion of the sample stream was further
conditioned for moisture removal by a refrigeration condenser and silica gel before being routed to
the O2, CO2, and CO analyzers. The gas stream for NO was obtained from a location between the
refrigeration condenser and desiccant. The analog output of the individual analyzers was recorded
by a computerized data acquisition system that recorded all readings at 30-s intervals. The data
acquisition system was also used to record weights from the platform scale and a series of eight
thermocouples located in the burn hut, air conditioner input ducts, and sample transport duct.
2.3 TEST PROCEDURE
Before each test, a sample of debris was removed from the crate of either Florida or
Tennessee samples and placed in the refractory burn box (RBB). The wood and other materials were
-------
arranged in the RBB to allow for easy lighting and total consumption of burn material. For these
tests 11.3 to 17.8 kg (25 to 39 Ib) of material was placed in the RBB. Before and after each test, or
before and after each change of sample media (if this occurred more frequently) all sampling trains
were leak checked. Before the beginning of each test day at least 15 min of background data were
acquired on the CEMs, thermocouples, and the scale platform. The burn was then ignited by a brief
application of a handheld propane torch, which was removed before sampling began. During a
typical test, sufficient combustion began after less than 5 min of torch operation. The air curtain was
started immediately after the removal of the lighting torch in tests involving this system. All sampling
started 2 min after removal of the torch from the burn hut. This 2 min period was designed to ensure
exhaust of any propane combustion byproducts.
To allow an adequate time period for all necessary samples to be obtained, some tests had
another charge of debris added. Combustion of charge was allowed to go to apparent completion (as
signified by unchanging weight and near background concentrations of combustion gases) before
completion of the run. Combustion of one charge was allowed to go to apparent completion before
another charge was introduced.
A "hut blank" test, in which the propane torch was briefly introduced into the facility but no
debris was combusted, was conducted for comparison purposes. In addition, various field and
laboratory blank samples were collected for each sampling train, as appropriate.
All dry gas meters were calibrated against a Bell Prover or wet test meter. The air inputs into the hut
from the air handling system were measured in triplicate before and after each set of tests using an
Airdata backpressure/temperature compensated flowgrid airflow system. To make these
measurements, a flowgrid (Airdata Flow Meter CFM-88, Shortridge Instruments Inc., Scottsdale, AZ)
was placed in front of the air conditioner openings in a pattern to traverse the entire opening. During
these tests, the door of the burn hut was closed with both air conditioners running to maintain, as
nearly as possible, the conditions during a test.
-------
2.4 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS
2.4.1 CEMs and Thermocouples
Fixed combustion gases CO2, CO, NO, O2, and THC were monitored continuously throughout
the test period through the sampling manifold. The analog voltage output from each CEM
instrument, as well as, a set of eight K-type thermocouples was interfaced with a computerized data
acquisition system (Labtech Notebook using two EXP-16 data acquisition boards). Data was
collected over a 30-s timed average and were automatically stored electronically. Each CEM was
calibrated prior to each test. The calibration consisted of at least three points: zero, span, mid-point.
After introducing the zero and adjusting, span gases were used to adjust the gain, and a mid-point
calibration gas was introduced to verify analyzer linearity. The instrument was considered linear if
the measured value differs from the known by less than two percent of the full scale of the operating
range. At the conclusion of testing for the day the response of the instrument was again checked by
introducing all the span gases. The instrument was considered to have remained within adequate
calibration if the response to this span gas was within 15 percent of its certified value. All span gases
used were certified by the manufacturer. All span and zero gases were delivered at a constant
pressure and flow identical to those used during sampling. This was done to avoid biasing the sample
gas measurements with respect to the calibration gas measurements. A calibration gas was allowed to
flow through the entire system from the heated filter box to the analyzer to test for system sample
bias on one occasion. Thermocouples calibration checks were conducted once during the test
sequence using an ice bath slurry and a boiling water bath.
2.4.2 Volatile Organic Sampling and Analysis
Volatile organics were sampled into SUMMA® canisters and analyzed according to Method
TO-14.24 The canisters were cleaned before each experiment by five sequential evacuations and
refillings with purified nitrogen. Ten percent of each batch of canisters were tested before use to
ensure adequate cleaning. The SUMMA® canisters were located exterior to the burn hut with a
Teflon® sample probe drawing directly from the rear of the burn hut. The sample was collected
through a train consisting of the Teflon® tubing probe followed by a particulate filter and mass flow
controller. The dead volume of this system was minimal compared to the sample volume. A diagram
-------
of a similar sampling system is provided in the cited method (TO-14, Figure 2). The filter and
delivery system was not heated because the area to be sampled from (the burn hut) was very close to
ambient temperature. A field blank canister sample was obtained by filling a canister with zero grade
air at the sampling site. Method TO-14's instructions for capillary column GC/MS analysis in the full
scan mode were used, although Method TO-14 contains provisions for other analytical methods that
were not used in this study. Compound identification was based on retention time and the agreement
of the mass spectra of the unknown to mass spectra of known standards. A multipoint calibration was
performed before analysis for a targeted group of analytes to establish response factors (RFs).
Quantification was then based on an external standard method using these RFs and the integrated
responses for each identified compound. Beyond those compounds targeted up to the 20 highest
abundance peaks were to be tentatively identified based on spectra identification. The program used
for this tentative identification attempts to identify all nontargeted peaks with areas greater then 10
percent of that of the nearest eluting standard.
2.4.3 Dichotomous Sampling for Total PM1Q and PM2; Particulate
The Dichotomous Sampler was operated in accordance with the operating manual25 and the
provisions of the EPA's "Reference Method for the Determination of PM1Q in the Atmosphere."26
The method of operation of the sampling train for this project differed from the operating manual in
several respects: (1) due to constraints of facility size, the sampler location criteria in Section 5.1 was
modified, (2) the flow through the sampler was measured by a separate dry gas meter as discussed in
Section 4.2 of the facility manual rather than by rotameter as discussed in the operating manual and
(3) the filter holders were modified to accept a 142 mm Teflon® filter. However, rotameters were
used to provide an instantaneous real time readout of flow rate to guide flow adjustment. All filters
were desiccated before taring and stored in a desiccator after sampling, until weighing.
2.4.4 Particulate/Semivolatile Organic Sampling
Total particulate-phase organics were sampled using a Graseby PS-1 sampler operated within
the burn hut. This train which is designed to comply with EPA's ambient sampling method TO-1327
consisted of an open-faced filter holder followed by a Polyurethane Foam (PUF) sandwiched XAD-2
bed vapor trap. The target flow rate for this sampler as stated in TO-13 is 200 to 280 1/min (7 to 9.8
10
-------
ft3/min). This flow rate is designed to achieve low detection limits for the quantification of generally
dilute ambient concentrations. Because this sampler does not have a particulate size separation
device, considerably lower flow rates can be used. Due to the expected high concentrations of
analytes in these tests we operated this sampler at approximately 28.3 1/min (1 ft3/min). The
temperature of air entering the train and within the PUF cartridge was assessed during preliminary
tests to decide if further precautions were necessary to cool the system. Due to high temperatures in
the burn hut, additional cooling was required and a copper cooling coil was fabricated to enclose the
exterior of the PUF module. The method of operation of this sampling train was different from
method TO-13 in the listed respects: (1) due to constraints of facility size, the sampler location
criteria in Section 11.3.2 of TO-13 were modified, (2) the flow through the sampler was measured
by a separate dry gas meter as discussed in Section 4.2 of the Burn Hut Facility Manual rather than a
venturi and magnehilic gauge as discussed in TO-13, (3) analysis will be as described in this
document.
The PUF pieces were cleaned using methylene chloride in a Sohxlet extractor and stored in
sealed Tedlar bags before preparation of the PUF/XAD-2® cartridge. The XAD-2 resin was cleaned
and Quality Control checked (QC'd) as outlined in Lentzen.28 XAD-2 was maintained under
refrigeration (4 °C) in an amber bottle when not in use. Train recovery follows Draft Method 3542
to the greatest extent feasible.29
The semivolatile and particulate phase organic sample was collected with 110-mm diameter
filters (Pallflex 2500 QAT-UP), and a glass and stainless steel cartridge containing PUF/XAD-2® resin
sorbent. All semivolatile organic samples were stored in sealed Tedlar® bags and maintained under
refrigeration (4 °C) before extraction. The filter and cartridge were then extracted together in
methylene chloride. A Sohxlet extractor was constructed to house the PUF/XAD-2® catridge and
keep the solvent rinse level above the rim of the cartridge. The samples were concentrated using a
rotary evaporator until the volume was approximately 5 ml, then the sample was transferred to a
nitrogen blowdown vial. The samples were then concentrated using a nitrogen blowdown and hot
water bath until a final volume of 1 ml was obtained. The samples were then transferred to a 2-ml
11
-------
crimp cap vial with septum until injection on the GC/MSD. Analysis was based on EPA Method
8270.30
2.5 DATA PROCESSING
After the completion of the chemical analyses, analyte concentration data were coupled with
sample volume, facility air flow, and combustible material mass loss data to derive estimated emissions
(expressed as mass of analyte produced per mass of debris material consumed in the combustion
process).
12
-------
SECTION 3.0
DATA, RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION
3.1 COMBUSTION CONDITIONS, CEM, AND TOTAL
PARTICULATE RESULTS
The mass of material combusted in each test and the mass of ash obtained are summarized in
Table 1. Note that in test No. 4 (Figure 8) the starting weight was determined to be 14.4 kg even
though some momentary perterbations were seen most likely due to activities of the test staff during
fuel lighting. In test No. 6 the start mass is the sum of two additions of debris material. In Table 1
and subsequent tables and figures the tests with the air curtain incinerator operable have been
designated as "with blower" for brevity. CEM data, weight loss data, and visual observations indicated
that the vast majority of the combustion of each charge of Tennessee material in the no blower cases
was completed in a 60 min time period. The majority of the Florida material in the no blower
condition in each charge appeared to be consumed in 100 min. The majority of the Tennessee
material in the with blower tests was consumed in 40 to 60 min per charge (Figures 5 through 10).
When comparing the weight/time curves, it is clear that the use of blower results in a much faster
burning rate (Figures 9 and 10) than that without the blower (Figures 5 and 6). In these and
subsequent figures "time 0:" is the beginning time of debris material ignition. Table 2 summarizes
the estimated emissions derived from real time measurements of CO, THC, and NO and the average
concentrations during combustion of CO2 and O2. The data quality for these observations is
generally good (see Appendix A); however, the results for O2 in test No. 7 and NO in test No. 1
should be viewed with caution due to data quality indicator failures. The substantial observed CO
emissions (Figures 11 through 18 and Table 2), are a concern because CO is believed to be the
primary cause of death of most fire victims.31 Substantial CO2 production was also observed (Figures
19 through 26 and Table 2). High concentrations of THC were observed (Figures 27 through 34 and
Table 2). This is in reasonable qualitative agreement with the results of GC/MS volatiles analysis (see
Section 3.3). Oxygen in the burn hut atmosphere was not dramatically depleted during these tests
(Figures 35 through 42 and Table 2). Low NO emission levels were observed (Table 2 and Figures
43 through 50).
13
-------
The time profile of emissions of CO, CO2, NO and THC shows a sharp, narrow peak over the
first 20 min of the Tennessee sample, no blower tests. The time profile of the emissions of these
pollutants is markedly different in the Florida sample, no blower and Tennessee sample with blower
tests. In these two sets of tests, the emissions tend to rise and fall gradually with the maximum being
reached from 20 to 80 minutes after the initiation of the test.
Estimated emissions on a mass emitted per mass consumed by combustion basis of CO and
THC appear broadly similar for the Tennessee and Florida materials in the no blower case (Table 2).
These values appear to agree within a factor of two with those measured by Gerstle and Kemnitz2 for
"Landscape Refuse." Estimated emissions of CO and THC for the Tennessee material appear to be
little impacted or at best slightly decreased by the use of the air curtain incinerator (Table 2).
3.2 PARTICULATE MATTER RESULTS
Substantial emissions of PM10 and PM2 5 particulate matter were observed with both types of
debris materials combusted (Table 3). Particulate catches on a mass/volume basis during hut blank
tests were at least 10 fold lower than during any actual combustion test (Table 3). This indicates that
the majority of particulate collected was actual combustion emissions and not particulate being
resuspended from the burn hut walls or present in the ambient air fed into the facility. Estimated
emissions (on a mass particulate per mass material combusted basis) from the Tennessee material
appeared to be substantially higher than those from the Florida material. The Tennessee material
without the blower gave fairly consistent values in replicate tests. The Tennessee material with the
blower, in one case, gave a value that appeared similar to the value without the blower. In the next
(duplicate) test, it gave values somewhat lower than those typical without the blower. However, in this
test the sample was only obtained for a short period due to an equipment malfuntion and the flowrate
did not meet data quality indicator goals (see Appendix A). In other tests data quality was acceptable
for this measurement. Data shown in Table 3 indicate that the use of air curtains result in higher
particulate concentrations. Note that the Tennesse sample with blower tests showed somewhat higher
facility air concentrations of particulate than the Tennesse sample, no blower tests. However this was
compensated for by the higher mass combusted in the with blower tests resulting in similar estimated
emissions with and without the blower. In almost all cases, regardless of source of material or use of
14
-------
blower a majority of the PM10 appears to be composed of very fine material (<2.5(om diameter). This
is an important observation because many believe that fine particulate is more strongly associated
with health effects then coarse particulate.32'33 Our average estimated PM10 emissions agree within
±25 percent to those measured by Gerstle and Kimnitz2 for total particulate, perhaps due to this
predominance of fine particulate.
3.3 VOLATILE ORGANIC RESULTS
The volatile organic data set produced from these tests included concentration measurements
for more than 55 targeted and several dozen tentatively identified species. Targeted species are
defined as those for which the analytical instrument was specifically calibrated. Tentatively identified
species are other compounds found in the sample that can be tentatively identified through searches
of mass spectral libraries checked by investigator examination of the mass spectral match.
Compounds for which this tentative identification process was not successful are listed as "unknown"
along with the tentantively identified compounds. Approximately 19 of the targeted species were
consistently detectable. The results of the volatiles analyses of the targeted analytes are presented in
Table 4 in concentration terms and in Table 5 as estimated emissions on a mass of pollutant per mass
of material consumed by combustion basis. The results of the volatiles analyses for tentatively
identified analytes are presented in Table 6 in concentration terms and in Table 7 on an estimated
emissions basis. Data quality indicators for volatile analyses were generally good (see Appendix A).
Various hydrocarbon, aromatic, and oxygenated species such as benzene, acetone, toluene,
ethyl benzene, m,p-xylene, pinene, limonene, naphthalene and styrene were among the highest
concentration targeted volatiles observed. In general, emissions of these species were higher with the
Tennessee material than in the Florida material. This trend was most dramatic for pinene and
limonene, two compounds which belong to the terpene group that is often isolated from plants.34
Several targeted chlorinated species also appear to be emitted at lower levels. These species
show differing and more erratic patterns of emission. The high levels of chloromethane emissions
seen during the Florida material tests are especially interesting.
15
-------
The data set is inconclusive on the effect of the air curtain incinerator on volatiles emissions.
Emissions of many compounds appear unchanged, and while some species appear to be emitted at a
lower rate with the air curtain in operation, emissions of others may be increased.
Alkenes, ketones, heteroaromatics and alkyl substituted aromatics are prominent among the
tentatively identified volatile compounds.
3.4 SEMIVOLATILE AND PARTICULATE BOUND ORGANIC RESULTS
More then 100 semivolatile species were targeted in these analyses. The results of these
analyses are reported in Table 8 in terms of mass per sample, Table 9 in terms of mass per unit
volume of air in the burn hut and in Table 10 in terms of mass emitted per mass of debris consumed
by combustion (estimated emission). Data quality indicator goals for these analyses, discussed in
detail in Appendix A indicate that concentrations reported in test No. 3 and 6 may be modestly over
estimated. Approximately 23 of these species were consistently detected in the combustion samples
at levels significantly above blank levels. Fourteen of these twenty-three species are Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). These have been detected in numerous studies of wood combustion
(see Section 1.0) so their appearance in a study of the combustion of land clearing debris is expected.
The range of estimated emissions reported in this document agree broadly with those reported by
Cooper for various PAH species from wood combustion in fireplaces.6 Four of the twenty-three
species detected were phenol and its methyl substituted derivatives. Phenols have also been
previously established as wood combustion byproducts (see Section 1.0). The values measured here
for estimated emissions of phenol are slightly higher then those measured by Cooper for wood
combustion in fireplaces.6 The remaining five consistently detected species were biphenyl, styrene,
cumene, 2-methylnapthalene and dibenzofuran.
The results of the tests without the air curtain incinerator showed that concentrations of
individual semivolatile species were usually similar for the Florida and Tennessee materials, but a few
species were emitted at a moderately higher rate from the combustion of the Tennessee material. A
brief analysis of this data set suggests that for most semivolatile species no discernable difference in
emission factor between the with and without air curtain incinerator tests can be observed. However
for a few species, such as pyrene, benzo(a)pyrene and biphenyl the use of the air curtain does appear
to reduce emissions.
16
-------
The fact that the air curtain did not significantly alter emissions is an interesting observation.
This is in spite of the fact that the combustion during air curtain runs was significantly improved
from a visual standpoint. It may be that cooling by the forced air may quench some of the
combustion reactions at the outer edges of the burning mass, and the high velocities carry the
products of incomplete combustion away before they can react with the hot gases in the flames.
Numerous tentatively identified species were also identified in the semivolatile analyses
(Table 11). Tentatively identified species are other compounds found in the sample that can be
tentatively identified through searches of mass spectral libraries checked by investigator examination
of the mass spectral match. Quantitation of these species should be considered approximate.
Compounds for which this tentative identification process was not successful are listed as "unknown"
along with the tentatively identified compounds. These species consist primarily of alkylated and
oxygenated aromatics, heteroaromatics, and polyaromatics.
17
-------
SECTION 4.0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This project succeeded in producing estimated emissions data for a broad range of atmospheric
pollutants from a simulated open debris combustion process. Both air pollutant concentrations within
the facility where combustion was taking place and estimated emissions expressed as mass of
pollutant per mass of debris material consumed by combustion were reported for volatile,
semivolatile, and particulate bound organics, typical combustion gases, and particulate. Substantial
emissions of a large number of pollutants including CO, PM10, PMj 5, benzene, acetone, toluene, ethyl
benzene, pinene, naphthalene, phenol, and fourteen polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were observed.
These tests did not provide conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of air curtain blowers in reducing
emissions. While the emissions of some pollutants seemed to be decreased slightly others were
unchanged or, even in a few cases, appeared to increase. A definitive assessment of the value of the
air curtain device requires a detailed statistical and relative risk analysis. Measurements of a variety of
pollutants in the emissions of full-scale models of this device operating under realistic work site
conditions would also be helpful.
This project has yielded estimated emissions values for open debris combustion processes that
can be used to assess the risks of these processes.
18
-------
SECTION 5.0
REFERENCES
iSterling M., "Brush and Trunk Burning Plant in the City of Detroit," JAPCA 15(12)582, 1965.
2Gerstle R.W. and D.A. Kemnitz, "Atmospheric Emissions from Open Burning," JAPCA, 17(5):327, 1967.
3"Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, AP-
42, 4th ed, Volume 1 (GPO 055-000-00251-7), September 1985. Also Supplements through D
(1991).
4Smith K.R. and S.A. Thorneloe, "Household Fuels in Developing Countries: Global Warming, Health, and
Energy Implications," In: Proceedings: the 1992 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Mitigation Research
Symposium, EPA-600/R-94-008 (NTIS PB94-132180), USEPA, Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory, pp. 5-61 thru 5-80, January 1994.
5Boubel R.W. etal. "Emissions from Burning Grass Stubble and Straw," JAPCA 19(7)497-500, 1969.
6Cooper J.A., "Environmental Impact of Residential Wood Combustion Emissions and Its Implications,"
JAPCA, 30(8):855-861, 1980.
7Hall R.E. and D. G. DeAngelis, "EPA's Research Program for Controlling Residential Wood Combustion
Emissions," JAPCA, 30(8):862-867, 1980.
8Dasch J.M., "Particulate and Gaseous Emissions from Wood-Burning Fireplaces," ES&T, 16(10):639-45,
1982.
9Radke L.F. etal. "Airborne Studies of Particles and Gases from Forest Fires," JAPCA, 28(l):30-4, 1978.
10Crutzen P.J. et al. "Tropospheric Chemical Composition Measurements in Brazil During the Dry Season," J.
of Atmospheric Chemistry, 2:233-56, 1985.
uCrutzen P.J. and M.O. Andreae, "Biomass Burning in the Tropics: Impact on Atmospheric Chemistry and
Biogeochemical Cycles," Science 250: 1669-1678, 1990.
i2Houghton R.A., "The Global Effects of Tropical Deforestation," ES&T, 24(4) 414-22, 1990.
i3Linak W.P., J.V. Ryan, E. Perry, R. Williams, and D. Demarini, "Chemical and Biological Characterization of
Products of Incomplete Combustion from the Simulated Field Burning of Agricultural Plastic." JAPCA,
39(6):836-846, 1989.
14Ryan J.V., Characterization of Emissions from the Simulated Open Burning of Scrap Tires, EPA-600/2-89-
054 (NTIS PB90-126004), October 1989.
isKariher P., M. Tufts, and L. Hamel, Evaluation of VOC Emissions from Heated Roofing Asphalt EPA-600/2-
91-061 (NTIS PB92-115286), November 1991.
i6Ryan J.V., and C.C. Lutes, Characterization of Emissions from the Simulated Open- Burning of Non-Metallic
Automobile Shredder Residue. EPA-600/R-93-044 (NTIS PB93-172914), March 1993.
17Lutes C.C., R.J. Thomas, and R. Burnette, Evaluation of Emissions From Paving Asphalts. EPA-600/R-94-135
(NTIS PB95-129110), August 1994.
18Lutes C.C. and J.V. Ryan, Characterization of Air Emissions from the Simulated Open Combustion of
Fiberglass Materials. EPA-600/R-93-239(NTIS PB94-136231), December 1993.
19Personal Communication with Bill Hahne, Broward County (FL) Government, 1995.
19
-------
20Belcher R., "Air Curtain Destructor," Washington Highway News, June 1971, p!6-17.
2iBurckle J.O., J.A. Dorsey, and B.T. Riley, "The Effects of the Operating Variables and Refuse Types on the
Emissions from A Pilot-Scale Trench Incinerator," Proceedings of the 1968 National Incinerator Conference,
Sponsored by the ASME Incinerator Division, p34-41.
22Witt P.A., "Disposal of Solid Wastes," Chemical Engineering, October 4, 1971, p67.
23Ford W.B. and A. Rogers, "Air Curtain Incinerator™ System Test for Disposal of Large Animal Carcasses,"
in U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, "Foreign Animal Disease
Report," Summer 1994, Number 22-2, p8-9.
24Compendium Method TO-14 "The Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ambient Air Using
SUMMA® Passivated Canister Sampling and Gas Chromatographic Analysis," Quality Assurance Division,
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.S. EPA, 1988.
25"Operator's and Instruction Manual, Manual Dichotomous Sampler Model 241," Graseby/Anderson, General
Metal Works, Village of Cleves, OH, May 1990.
2640 - Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1-51, Part 50, Appendix J. Revised July 1, 1993, Office of the Federal
Register, National Archives and Records Administration. Method 8280 in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Wastes. Vol. IB, Field Manual Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846 EPA, November 1986.
27Compendium 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," EPA-600/4-89-017 (NTIS PB90-116989), Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment
Laboratory, U.S. EPA, 1988.
28Lentzen D.E., D.E. Wagoner, E.D. Estes, and W.F. Gutknecht, "IERL-RTP Procedures Manual: Level 1
Environmental Assessment (Second Edition)," EPA-600/7-78-201 (NTIS PB 293-735), pp. 26-142, October
1978.
28Draft Method 3542: "Preparation of Modified Method 5 (SW846-Method 0010) Train Components For
Analysis by SW-846 Method 8270," Revision 0, Test Methods For Evaluating Solid Waste. Volume IB, SW-
846 EPA, January 1995.
29EPA Method 8270: "Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry For Semivolatile Organics: Capillary Column
Technique," Test Methods For Evaluating Solid Waste. Volume IB, Third Edition, SW-846, November 1986.
31Gad S.C. and R.C. Anderson, Combustion Toxiclology. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 1990, pp 66,155, 176-
92.
32Chow J.C. "Critical Review: Measurement Methods to Determine Compliance with Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Suspended Particles," Journal of Air & Waste Management Association 45:320-82, 1995.
33Watson J.G. et al. "1995 Critical Review Discussion Measurement Methods to Determine Compliance With
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Suspended Particles," Journal of Air & Waste Management Association.
45:666-84, 1995.
34Solomons T.W.G. Organic Chemistry, 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1984 p 985-6.
20
-------
TABLE 1. MASS OF DEBRIS BURNED DURING TESTING
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Test
Conditions
TN No Blower
TN No Blower
FL No Blower
FL No Blower
Hut Blank
TN With Blower
TN With Blower
Hut Blank
Date
1/31/95
2/1/95
2/2/95
2/3/95
2/15/95
2/22/95
2/23/95
2/24/95
Start Mass
(kg)
11.3
12.3
11.8
14.4
0.0
20.3
17.8
0.0
Final Mass
(kg)
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mass Burned
(kg)
11.3
9.9
11.8
13.5
0.0
20.3
17.8
0.0
-------
TABLE 2. TYPICAL COMBUSTION GASES
Average Concentration During Combustion
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Test
Description
TN No Blower
TN No Blower
FL No Blower
FL No Blower
Hut Blank
TN With Blower
TN With Blower
Hut Blank
CO
ppm
43
25
37
33
1
40
34
2
NO
ppm
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
-0.3
0.7
0.1
C02
ppm
509
687
431
1153
328
589
427
94
THC
ppm
29.5
10.4
17.5
9.5
1.2
21.3
17.4
0.9
02
%
21.7
22.8
21.9
22.2
21.9
21.7
19.5
22.6
Estimated Emissions
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Test
Description
TN No Blower
TN No Blower
FL No Blower
FL No Blower
Hut Blank
TN With Blower
TN With Blower
Hut Blank
CO
g/kg
23
16
19
15
NA
12
1 1
NA
NO
g/kg
0.37
0.05
0.03
0.09
NA
-0.10
0.24
NA
CO2
g/kg
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
THC
g/kg
16
6
9
4
NA
7
6
NA
02
g/kg
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not Applicable
-------
TABLES. PARTICULATE DATA
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Test Conditions
TN No Blower
TN No Blower
FL No Blower
FL No Blower
Hut Blank
TN With Blower
TN With Blower
Hut Blank
Concentration
PM2.5
mg/m3
30.51
18.75
3.95
11.63
0.11
45.15
35.73
0.07
Concentration
PM10
mg/m3
36.30
19.13
17.54
11.90
0.29
45.77
37.82
0.26
Estimated
Emissions PM 2.5
g/kg
14.13
10.04
1.75
4.56
NA
12.07
8.33
NA
Estimated
Emissions PM 10
g/kg
16.81
10.25
7.75
4.66
NA
12.23
8.82
NA
Note: Run 7 particulate data questionable due to flow rate problems (see Appendix A)
-------
TABLE 4. TARGETED VOLATILE CONCENTRATIONS (ng\l)
Test No.
Sample ID
Compound Name
dichlorodifluoromethane
dichlorotetrafluoroethane
chloromethane
vinyl chloride
1,3-butadiene
bromomethane
chloroethane
trichlorofluoromethane
dichlorotrifluoroethane
trichlorotrifluoroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
acetone
carbon disulfide
methylene chloride
3-methylpentane
1,1-dichloroethane
butyl methyl ether
cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene
2-butanone
ethyl acetate
chloroform
1,1 ,1-trichloroethane
carbon tetrachloride
benzene
1,2-dichloroethane
trichloroethene
1 ,2-dichloropropane
cis-1 ,3-dichloropropene
dimethyl disulfide
4-methyl-2-pentanone
octane
toluene
trans-1 ,3-dichloropropene
1,1 ,2-trichloroethane
tetrachloroethene
butyl acetate
1,2-dibromoethane
chlorobenzene
nonane
ethyl benzene
m,p-xylene
o-xylene
styrene
pinene
1,1 ,2,2-tetrachloroethane
decane
4-ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
MDL
1.64
4.26
0.61
0.56
0.22
0.44
1.02
0.62
0.62
0.46
0.59
0.24
0.32
1.70
0.35
0.19
0.42
0.25
0.30
0.36
1.61
0.39
2.17
1.03
0.39
0.46
0.51
0.70
0.39
0.41
0.47
0.38
0.87
0.31
0.35
0.48
0.51
0.22
0.52
0.37
0.23
0.58
0.31
0.56
0.42
0.58
0.49
0.54
1.11
PQL
5.40
14.07
2.06
2.55
2.23
3.88
3.37
5.61
6.22
7.67
3.96
2.41
3.17
5.62
3.53
4.04
4.18
3.97
2.98
3.61
5.31
5.45
7.17
3.40
4.43
5.46
4.62
4.61
3.86
4.10
4.66
3.77
4.61
5.50
6.78
4.75
7.68
4.60
5.20
4.34
4.34
4.34
4.26
5.57
6.87
5.80
4.92
4.92
4.92
1
TN
nb
nd
nd
13
nd
304
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
483
nd
8
nd
nd
nd
nd
91
91
nd
nd
nd
747
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
18
447
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
80
193
45
165
117
nd
nd
63
1 1
39
2
TN
nb
nd
nd
1 1
nd
216
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
370
nd
7
nd
nd
nd
31
68
68
nd
nd
nd
606
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
12
333
9
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
54
130
32
130
255
nd
nd
44
7
26
3
FL
nb
nd
nd
301
nd
245
4
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
474
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
71
92
92
nd
nd
nd
585
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1 1
332
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
47
103
35
90
nd
nd
nd
28
7
25
4
FL
nb
nd
nd
141
nd
104
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
213
nd
4
nd
nd
6
84
41
41
nd
nd
nd
337
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
7
166
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
24
46
1 7
43
nd
nd
nd
12
nd
1 1
5
Hut
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
6
nd
4
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
6
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
8
4
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
6
TN
wb
nd
nd
14
nd
506
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
675
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
106
113
112
nd
nd
nd
1023
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
617
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
101
324
65
220
300
nd
nd
102
13
57
7
TN
wb
nd
nd
18
nd
494
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
434
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
46
67
67
nd
nd
nd
956
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
18
752
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
124
533
66
305
438
nd
7
181
19
90
8
Hut
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1 1
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
4
nd
nd
nd
nd
6
nd
nd
4
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
-------
TABLE 4. TARGETED VOLATILE CONCENTRATIONS (ng\l)
Test No.
Sample ID
Compound Name
limonene
1 ,3-dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
benzyl chloride
undecane
1 ,2-dichlorobenzene
dodecane
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobutadiene
naphthalene
MDL
0.56
0.33
0.23
0.52
0.64
0.25
0.70
0.51
0.40
0.53
PQL
5.57
6.02
6.02
5.18
6.38
6.02
6.95
7.43
10.68
5.29
1
TN
nb
213
nd
nd
5
10
nd
8
nd
nd
148
2
TN
nb
157
nd
nd
nd
7
nd
nd
nd
nd
136
3
FL
nb
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
109
4
FL
nb
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
60
5
Hut
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
6
TN
wb
192
nd
nd
7
9
nd
7
nd
nd
157
7
TN
wb
326
nd
nd
10
21
nd
13
nd
nd
186
8
Hut
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nb = no blower, wb = with blower, nd = not detected
-------
TABLE 5. TARGETED VOLATILE COMPOUNDS ESTIMATED EMISSIONS (mg\kg)
Test No.
Sample ID
Compound Name
dichlorodifluoromethane
dichlorotetrafluoroethane
chloromethane
vinyl chloride
1 ,3-butadiene
bromomethane
chloroethane
trichlorofluoromethane
dichlorotrifluoroethane
trichlorotrifluoroethane
1 ,1-dichloroethene
acetone
carbon disulfide
methylene chloride
3-methylpentane
1 ,1-dichloroethane
butyl methyl ether
cis-1 ,2-dichloroethene
2-butanone
ethyl acetate
chloroform
1 ,1 ,1-trichloroethane
carbon tetrachloride
benzene
1 ,2-dichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
cis-1 ,3-dichloropropene
dimethyl disulfide
4-methyl-2-pentanone
octane
toluene
trans-1 ,3-dichloropropene
1 ,1 ,2-trichloroethane
tetrachloroethene
butyl acetate
1 ,2-dibromoethane
chlorobenzene
nonane
ethyl benzene
m,p-xylene
1
TN
nb
<2
<7
6
<1
141
<2
<2
<3
<3
<4
<2
224
<1
4
<2
<2
<2
<2
42
42
<2
<3
<3
346
<2
<3
<2
<2
<2
<2
8
207
<2
<3
<3
<2
<4
<2
<2
37
89
2
TN
nb
<3
<8
6
<1
1 16
<2
<2
<3
<3
<4
<2
198
<2
4
<2
<2
<2
16
36
36
<3
<3
<4
325
<2
<3
<2
<2
<2
<2
6
179
5
<3
<4
<3
<4
<2
<3
29
70
3
FL
nb
<2
<6
133
<1
108
2
<1
<2
<3
<3
<2
209
<1
<2
<2
<2
<2
31
40
40
<2
<2
<3
258
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
5
147
<2
<2
<3
<2
<3
<2
<2
21
46
4
FL
nb
<2
<6
55
<1
41
<2
<1
<2
<2
<3
<2
84
<1
2
<1
<2
2
33
16
16
<2
<2
<3
132
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
3
65
<2
<2
<3
<2
<3
<2
<2
9
18
5
Hut
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
TN
wb
<1
<4
4
<1
135
<1
<1
<1
<2
<2
<1
180
<1
<2
<1
<1
<1
28
30
30
<1
<1
<2
273
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
165
<1
<1
<2
<1
<2
<1
<1
27
86
7
TN
wb
<2
<4
5
<1
140
<1
<1
<2
<2
<2
<1
123
<1
<2
<1
<1
<1
13
19
19
<2
<2
<2
270
<1
<2
<1
<1
<1
<1
5
212
<1
<2
<2
<1
<2
<1
<1
35
151
8
Hut
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 5. TARGETED VOLATILE COMPOUNDS ESTIMATED EMISSIONS (mg\kg)
Test No.
Sample ID
Compound Name
o-xylene
styrene
pinene
1 ,1 ,2,2-tetrachloroethane
decane
4-ethyltoluene
1 ,3,5-trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
limonene
1 ,3-dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
benzyl chloride
undecane
1 ,2-dichlorobenzene
dodecane
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobutadiene
naphthalene
1
TN
nb
21
76
54
<3
<3
29
5
18
99
<3
<3
2
4
<3
4
<3
<5
69
2
TN
nb
17
70
137
<4
<3
23
4
14
84
<3
<3
<3
4
<3
<4
<4
<6
73
3
FL
nb
15
40
<2
<3
<3
12
3
1 1
<2
<3
<3
<2
<3
<3
<3
<3
<5
48
4
FL
nb
7
17
<2
<3
<2
5
<2
4
<2
<2
<2
<2
<3
<2
<3
<3
<4
24
5
Hut
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
TN
wb
17
59
80
<2
<2
27
4
15
51
<2
<2
2
2
<2
2
<2
<3
42
7
TN
wb
19
86
124
<2
2
51
5
25
92
<2
<2
3
6
<2
4
<2
<3
53
8
Hut
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
nb = no blower, wb = with blower, NA = not applicable, nd = not detected
-------
TABLE 6. CONCENTRATION OF TENATIVELY IDENTIFIED VOLATILES (ng/l)
Rentention
Time (min)
6.79
7.72
11.68
11.82
12.34
13.36
13.85
15.50
15.88
16.31
16.50
17.01
17.36
19.23
20.03
20.29
20.64
23.14
24.36
25.79
25.91
26.56
27.52
27.68
28.22
29.03
29.13
29.45
29.59
29.68
30.33
30.56
31.00
31.52
31.67
31.87
32.25
32.13
33.12
Test No.
Compound
2-methyl-1 -propene
unknown
1,3-pentadiene
furan
unknown
1 ,3-cyclopentadiene
methyl ester acetic acid
2,5-dihydro-furan
2-methyl-2-propenal
2-methyl-1 ,3-pentadiene
2-methyl-furan
3-buten-2-one
2-butanone
acetic acid
3-methyl-2-buten-2-one
2,5-dimethyl-furan
2-pentanone
1-(2-furanyl)-ethanone
cyclopentanone
2-furancarboxaldehyde
2-cyclopenten-1 -one
1 -(acetyloxy)-2-propanone
2-methyl-2-cyclopenten-1-one
1-(1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-ethenone
unknown cyclic or unsaturated HC
benzaldehyde
5-methyl-2-furancarboxaldehyde
benzofuran
3-methyl-2-cyclopenten-1-one
unknown
phenol
1 ,2-propadienyl-benzene
methyl(1 -methylethenyl)-benzene
1-(1-propynyl)-cyclohexene
2-methyl-phenol
7-methyl-benzofuran
3-methyl-phenol
5,6-dimethyl-indan
2-nitro-phenol
1
TN
nb
136
188
133
76
354
332
335
162
42
55
206
50
66
34
62
51
40
40
61
45
41
43
44
2
TN
nb
102
159
124
98
67
262
62
262
280
138
37
174
48
57
61
38
33
77
49
41
50
0
46
3
FL
nb
84
207
106
55
319
273
260
222
29
24
26
19
167
48
30
28
45
19
34
24
28
59
4
FL
nb
154
103
72
261
28
268
159
178
98
1 1
1 1
170
27
16
20
28
18
22
20
1 4
1 1
14
1 1
5
Hut
Blank
14
5
7
23
3
2
2
6
TN
wb
217
391
659
291
388
113
69
353
486
262
49
228
56
51
56
125
37
52
68
33
32
41
7
TN
wb
135
275
691
185
90
90
181
309
125
63
161
64
127
160
44
51
55
57
77
60
8
Hut
Blank
9
12
5
3
35
2
2
5
9
Field
Blank
nb = no blower, wb= with blower
-------
TABLE 7. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS - TENATIVELY IDENTIFIED VOLATILES (mg/kg)
Rentention
Time (min)
6.79
7.72
11.68
11.82
12.34
13.36
13.85
15.50
15.88
16.31
16.50
17.01
17.36
19.23
20.03
20.29
20.64
23.14
24.36
25.79
25.91
26.56
27.52
27.68
28.22
29.03
29.13
29.45
29.59
29.68
30.33
30.56
31.00
31.52
31.67
31.87
32.25
32.13
33.12
Test No.
Compound
2-methyl-1 -propene
unknown
1,3-pentadiene
furan
unknown
1 ,3-cyclopentadiene
methyl ester acetic acid
2,5-dihydro-furan
2-methyl-2-propenal
2-methyl-1 ,3-pentadiene
2-methyl-furan
3-buten-2-one
2-butanone
acetic acid
3-methyl-2-buten-2-one
2,5-dimethyl-furan
2-pentanone
1-(2-furanyl)-ethanone
cyclopentanone
2-furancarboxaldehyde
2-cyclopenten-1 -one
1 -(acetyloxy)-2-propanone
2-methyl-2-cyclopenten-1-one
1-(1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-ethenone
unknown cyclic or unsaturated HC
benzaldehyde
5-methyl-2-furancarboxaldehyde
benzofuran
3-methyl-2-cyclopenten-1-one
unknown
phenol
1 ,2-propadienyl-benzene
methyl(1 -methylethenyl)-benzene
1-(1-propynyl)-cyclohexene
2-methyl-phenol
7-methyl-benzofuran
3-methyl-phenol
5,6-dimethyl-indan
2-nitro-phenol
1
TN
nb
63
87
62
35
164
154
155
75
20
25
95
23
31
16
29
24
18
19
28
21
19
20
20
2
TN
nb
55
85
66
53
36
140
33
140
150
74
20
93
25
31
33
20
18
41
26
22
27
25
3
FL
nb
37
91
47
24
141
121
115
98
13
10
1 1
9
74
21
13
12
20
9
15
1 1
12
4
FL
nb
61
40
28
102
1 1
105
62
70
38
4
4
67
1 1
6
8
1 1
7
9
8
5
4
6
5
Hut
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
TN
wb
58
105
176
78
104
30
18
94
130
70
13
61
15
1 4
15
33
10
1 4
18
9
8
1 1
7
TN
wb
381
111
1954
523
254
253
512
874
352
177
454
182
360
452
124
143
154
160
217
169
8
Hut
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
Field
Hut
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
nb= no blower, wb= with blower
-------
TABLE 8. TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS, MASS PER SAMPLE (ug)
Test No.
Target Compounds
Chlorobenzene
Styrene
Cumene
1 ,1-Biphenyl
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-methyl-N-nitroso-Ethanamine
N-ethyl-N-nitroso-Ethanamine
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Aniline
Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl Alcohol
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
2-Methylphenol
Acetophenone
Hexachloroethane
Methyl-Be nzenamine
3&4-methylphenol
N-nitrosodipropylamine
Nitrobenzene
1-Nitrosopiperidine
Isophorone
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
2,4-Dichlorophenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Methoxybenzenamine
MDL
1.23
2.58
1.02
1.21
-
-
-
-
0.97
0.97
0.97
5.14
-
10.62
2.72
-
1.15
1.21
PQL
20
20
20
1 0
20
1 0
10
20
1 0
20
10
20
1 0
20
10
1 0
10
1 0
10
Solvent
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1
TN
nb
nd
130
105
29
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
210
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
80
nd
nd
nd
150
nd
nd
nd
nd
60
nd
nd
nd
100
nd
2
TN
nb
nd
75
17
1 9
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
400
nd
nd
nd
nd
250
nd
160
nd
nd
nd
280
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
150
nd
3
FL
nb
nd
31
1 1
1 7
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
370
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
140
nd
nd
nd
290
nd
nd
nd
nd
120
nd
nd
nd
100
nd
4
FL
nb
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
290
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
70
nd
nd
nd
170
nd
nd
nd
nd
50
nd
nd
nd
70
nd
5
Hut
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
34
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1
nd
6
TN
wb
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1 10
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
40
nd
nd
nd
90
nd
nd
nd
nd
30
nd
nd
nd
30
nd
7
TN
wb
nd
140
150
4
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
790
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
260
nd
nd
nd
300
nd
nd
nd
nd
140
nd
nd
nd
150
nd
8
Hut
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
29
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1
nd
9
Field
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
-------
TABLE 8. TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS, MASS PER SAMPLE (ug)
Test No.
Target Compounds
2-Nitrophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Hexachloropropene
4-Chloroaniline
Hexachlorobutadiene
N-butyl-N-nitroso-butanamine
4-chloro-3-methyl-phenol
2-methylnaphthalene
4-chloro-2-methylbenzenamine
1 ,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,5-trichlorophenol
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,3,4-trichlorophenol
2-chloronaphthalene
1-chloronaphthalene
4-chloroquinoline
2-nitroaniline
3-nitroaniline
Acenaphthylene
Dimethylphthalate
2,6-dinitrotoluene
Acenaphthene
4-nitroaniline
2,4-dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Pentachlorobenzene
2,4-dinitrotoluene
5-nitroquinoline
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
MDL
-
-
-
-
-
4.73
4.32
4.73
4.73
1.12
0.74
-
1
2.38
0.79
0.86
-
2.38
-
-
PQL
10
20
20
20
10
20
20
1 0
20
20
1 0
20
50
50
1 0
50
50
20
20
20
Solvent
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1
TN
nb
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
50
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
68
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
28
nd
nd
nd
nd
2
TN
nb
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
34
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
29
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
9
nd
nd
nd
nd
3
FL
nb
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
48
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
38
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
23
nd
nd
nd
nd
4
FL
nb
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
27
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
27
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
17
nd
nd
nd
nd
5
Hut
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
6
TN
wb
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
86
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
8
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
12
nd
nd
nd
nd
7
TN
wb
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
43
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
63
nd
nd
1 1
nd
nd
38
nd
nd
nd
nd
8
Hut
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
9
Field
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
-------
TABLE 8. TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS, MASS PER SAMPLE (ug)
Test No.
Target Compounds
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol
2,3,4,5-tetrachlorophenol
4-nitrophenol
Fluorene
Diethyl phthalate
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
2-methyl-5-nitrobenzenamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-methyl-4,6-dinitro phenol
Azobenzene
Diphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Phenacetin
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Azoxybenzene
Pentachloroaniline
Dibutyl phthalate
2-nitro-N-phenylbenzenamine
4-nitro-1 -oxide-quinoline
Methapyrilene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
N-methyl-4-(phenylazo)-benzenamine
P-dimethylaminoazobenzene
Benzyl butyl phthalate
N-2-fluorenylacetamide
Chrysene
MDL
-
-
0.83
-
-
-
-
0.64
4.19
-
0.55
0.59
-
-
-
-
-
0.32
0.33
-
-
-
-
0.23
PQL
20
20
50
10
1 0
20
1 0
50
20
20
1 0
20
20
20
20
10
20
20
1 0
20
20
10
1 0
Solvent
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
10
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1
TN
nb
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
33
8
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
13
1 7
nd
nd
nd
nd
7
2
TN
nb
nd
nd
nd
4
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
48
9
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
15
9
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
3
FL
nb
nd
nd
nd
1 7
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
23
7
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1
1 4
nd
nd
nd
nd
5
4
FL
nb
nd
nd
nd
1 0
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
23
5
nd
nd
1
nd
nd
nd
nd
9
nd
nd
nd
nd
3
5
Hut
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1
1
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1
nd
nd
6
TN
wb
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
68
1 7
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
18
9
nd
nd
1
nd
4
7
TN
wb
nd
nd
nd
1 9
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
51
1 1
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
12
7
nd
nd
nd
nd
2
8
Hut
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
9
Field
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
-------
TABLE 8. TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS, MASS PER SAMPLE (ug)
Test No.
Target Compounds
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-N-octyl phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3-methylcholanthrene
Dibenz(a,j)acridine
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
MDL
0.24
0.52
-
0.7
0.28
-
-
0.62
0.64
0.52
PQL
1 0
10
10
1 0
10
Solvent
Blank
nd
40
300
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1
TN
nb
5
27
104
7
nd
8
3
nd
nd
2
nd
3
2
TN
nb
nd
4
20
1
nd
1
3
nd
nd
2
nd
4
3
FL
nb
4
43
60
5
nd
5
1
nd
nd
2
nd
4
4
FL
nb
2
24
39
3
nd
3
2
nd
nd
nd
nd
3
5
Hut
Blank
nd
71
50
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
3
6
TN
wb
3
230
70
6
nd
7
2
nd
nd
3
1
2
7
TN
wb
2
27
68
3
nd
3
1
nd
nd
1
nd
1
8
Hut
Blank
nd
nd
7
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
9
Field
Blank
nd
22
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nb= no blower, wb= with blower, nd = not detected
-------
TABLE 9. TARGETED SEMI VOLATILE COMPOUNDS, CONCENTRATION IN BURN HUT (ug/m3)
Test No.
Target Compounds
Chlorobenzene
Styrene
Cumene
1 ,1-Biphenyl
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-methyl-N-nitroso-Ethanamine
N-ethyl-N-nitroso-Ethanamine
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Aniline
Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl Alcohol
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
2-Methylphenol
Acetophenone
Hexachloroethane
Methyl-Benzenamine
3&4-m ethyl phenol
N-nitrosodipropylamine
Nitrobenzene
1-Nitrosopiperidine
Isophorone
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Solvent
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
TN
nb
nd
50.2
40.6
11.0
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
81.1
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
30.9
nd
nd
nd
58.0
nd
nd
nd
nd
23.2
nd
nd
2
TN
nb
nd
29.2
6.6
7.4
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
155.7
nd
nd
nd
nd
97.3
nd
62.3
nd
nd
nd
109.0
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
3
FL
nb
nd
12.3
4.4
6.8
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
147.0
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
55.6
nd
nd
nd
115.2
nd
nd
nd
nd
47.7
nd
nd
4
FL
nb
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
111.7
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
27.0
nd
nd
nd
65.5
nd
nd
nd
nd
19.3
nd
nd
5
Hut
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
13.3
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
6
TN
wb
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
44.6
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
16.2
nd
nd
nd
36.5
nd
nd
nd
nd
12.2
nd
nd
7
TN
wb
nd
59.5
63.8
1.7
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
335.8
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
110.5
nd
nd
nd
127.5
nd
nd
nd
nd
59.5
nd
nd
8
Hut
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
11.7
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
9
Field
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 9. TARGETED SEMI VOLATILE COMPOUNDS, CONCENTRATION IN BURN HUT (ug/m3)
Test No.
Target Compounds
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Methoxybenzenamine
2-Nitrophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Hexachloropropene
4-Chloroaniline
Hexachlorobutadiene
N-butyl-N-nitroso-butanamine
4-chloro-3-m ethyl-phenol
2-methylnaphthalene
4-chloro-2-methylbenzenamine
1 ,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,5-trichlorophenol
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
2,3,4-trichlorophenol
2-chloronaphthalene
1 -chloronaphthalene
4-chloroquinoline
2-nitroaniline
3-nitroaniline
Acenaphthylene
Dimethylphthalate
2,6-dinitrotoluene
Acenaphthene
4-nitroaniline
Solvent
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
TN
nb
nd
38.6
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
19.2
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
26.2
nd
nd
nd
nd
2
TN
nb
nd
58.4
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
13.4
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
11.1
nd
nd
nd
nd
3
FL
nb
nd
39.7
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
19.1
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
15.1
nd
nd
nd
nd
4
FL
nb
nd
27.0
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
10.4
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
10.4
nd
nd
nd
nd
5
Hut
Blank
nd
0.5
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
6
TN
wb
nd
12.2
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
34.9
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
3.2
nd
nd
nd
nd
7
TN
wb
nd
63.8
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
18.3
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
26.8
nd
nd
4.7
nd
8
Hut
Blank
nd
0.4
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
9
Field
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 9. TARGETED SEMI VOLATILE COMPOUNDS, CONCENTRATION IN BURN HUT (ug/m3)
Test No.
Target Compounds
2,4-dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Pentachlorobenzene
2,4-dinitrotoluene
5-nitroquinoline
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol
2,3,4,5-tetrachlorophenol
4-nitrophenol
Fluorene
Diethyl phthalate
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
2-methyl-5-nitrobenzenamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
Azobenzene
Diphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Phenacetin
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Azoxybenzene
Pentachloroaniline
Dibutyl phthalate
2-nitro-N-phenylbenzenamine
Solvent
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
TN
nb
nd
10.9
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
12.9
3.1
nd
nd
nd
nd
2
TN
nb
nd
3.4
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1.7
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
18.8
3.6
nd
nd
nd
nd
3
FL
nb
nd
9.1
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
6.8
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
9.1
2.8
nd
nd
nd
nd
4
FL
nb
nd
6.5
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
3.9
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
8.9
1.9
nd
nd
0.4
nd
5
Hut
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.2
0.3
nd
nd
nd
nd
6
TN
wb
nd
4.9
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
27.6
6.9
nd
nd
nd
nd
7
TN
wb
nd
16.2
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
8.1
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
21.7
4.7
nd
nd
nd
nd
8
Hut
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
9
Field
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 9. TARGETED SEMI VOLATILE COMPOUNDS, CONCENTRATION IN BURN HUT (ug/m3)
Test No.
Target Compounds
4-nitro-1 -oxide-quinoline
Methapyrilene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
N-methyl-4-(phenylazo)-benzenamine
P-dimethylaminoazobenzene
Benzyl butyl phthalate
N-2-fluorenylacetamide
Chrysene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-N-octyl phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3-methylcholanthrene
Dibenz(aj)acridine
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Solvent
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
TN
nb
nd
nd
4.9
6.5
nd
nd
nd
nd
2.6
2.0
10.3
40.3
2.8
nd
3.2
1.0
nd
nd
0.9
nd
1.0
2
TN
nb
nd
nd
5.6
3.3
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1.5
7.7
0.4
nd
0.5
1.0
nd
nd
0.9
nd
1.4
3
FL
nb
nd
nd
0.4
5.6
nd
nd
nd
nd
2.0
1.6
17.1
23.8
2.0
nd
2.0
0.4
nd
nd
0.8
nd
1.6
4
FL
nb
nd
nd
nd
3.5
nd
nd
nd
nd
1.2
0.8
9.2
15.0
1.2
nd
1.2
0.8
nd
nd
nd
nd
1.2
5
Hut
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.2
nd
nd
nd
27.9
19.7
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1.0
6
TN
wb
nd
nd
7.3
3.7
nd
nd
0.4
nd
1.6
1.2
93.3
28.4
2.4
nd
2.8
0.8
nd
nd
1.2
0.4
0.8
7
TN
wb
nd
nd
5.1
3.0
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.9
0.9
11.5
28.9
1.3
nd
1.3
0.4
nd
nd
0.4
nd
0.4
8
Hut
Blank
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
2.8
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
9
Field
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
nb= no blower, wb = with blower, NA= not applicable, nd = not detected
-------
TABLE 10. TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS, ESTIMATED EMISSIONS (mg/kg)
Test No.
Target Compounds
Chlorobenzene
Styrene
Cumene
1 ,1-Biphenyl
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-methyl-N-nitroso-Ethanamine
N-ethyl-N-nitroso-Ethanamine
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Aniline
Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl Alcohol
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
2-Methylphenol
Acetophenone
Hexachloroethane
Methyl-Benzenamine
3&4-m ethyl phenol
N-nitrosodipropylamine
Nitrobenzene
1-Nitrosopiperidine
Isophorone
2, 4-Di methyl phenol
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Solvent
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
TN
nb
nd
23.27
18.79
5.10
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
37.58
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
14.32
nd
nd
nd
26.84
nd
nd
nd
nd
10.74
nd
nd
2
TN
nb
nd
15.64
3.55
3.96
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
83.43
nd
nd
nd
nd
52.15
nd
33.37
nd
nd
nd
58.40
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
3
FL
nb
nd
5.44
1.93
2.98
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
64.93
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
24.57
nd
nd
nd
50.89
nd
nd
nd
nd
21.06
nd
nd
4
FL
nb
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
43.77
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
10.57
nd
nd
nd
25.66
nd
nd
nd
nd
7.55
nd
nd
5
Hut
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
TN
wb
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
11.92
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
4.34
nd
nd
nd
9.76
nd
nd
nd
nd
3.25
nd
nd
7
TN
wb
nd
16.84
18.04
0.48
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
95.00
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
31.27
nd
nd
nd
36.08
nd
nd
nd
nd
16.84
nd
nd
8
Hut
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
Field
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 10. TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS, ESTIMATED EMISSIONS (mg/kg)
Test No.
Target Compounds
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Methoxybenzenamine
2-Nitrophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Hexachloropropene
4-Chloroaniline
Hexachlorobutadiene
N-butyl-N-nitroso-butanamine
4-chloro-3-m ethyl-phenol
2-methylnaphthalene
4-chloro-2-methylbenzenamine
1 ,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,5-trichlorophenol
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
2,3,4-trichlorophenol
2-chloronaphthalene
1 -chloronaphthalene
4-chloroquinoline
2-nitroaniline
3-nitroaniline
Acenaphthylene
Dimethylphthalate
2,6-dinitrotoluene
Acenaphthene
4-nitroaniline
Solvent
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
TN
nb
nd
17.90
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
8.88
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
12.11
nd
nd
nd
nd
2
TN
nb
nd
31.29
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
7.18
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
5.96
nd
nd
nd
nd
3
FL
nb
nd
17.55
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
8.42
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
6.67
nd
nd
nd
nd
4
FL
nb
nd
10.57
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
4.08
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
4.08
nd
nd
nd
nd
5
Hut
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
TN
wb
nd
3.25
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
9.32
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.87
nd
nd
nd
nd
7
TN
wb
nd
18.04
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
5.17
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
7.58
nd
nd
1.32
nd
8
Hut
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
Field
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 10. TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS, ESTIMATED EMISSIONS (mg/kg)
Test No.
Target Compounds
2,4-dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Pentachlorobenzene
2,4-dinitrotoluene
5-nitroquinoline
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol
2,3,4,5-tetrachlorophenol
4-nitrophenol
Fluorene
Diethyl phthalate
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
2-methyl-5-nitrobenzenamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
Azobenzene
Diphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Phenacetin
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Azoxybenzene
Pentachloroaniline
Dibutyl phthalate
2-nitro-N-phenylbenzenamine
Solvent
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
TN
nb
nd
5.07
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
5.96
1.44
nd
nd
nd
nd
2
TN
nb
nd
1.82
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.89
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
10.05
1.93
nd
nd
nd
nd
3
FL
nb
nd
4.04
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
2.98
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
4.04
1.23
nd
nd
nd
nd
4
FL
nb
nd
2.57
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1.51
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
3.47
0.75
nd
nd
0.15
nd
5
Hut
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
TN
wb
nd
1.30
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
7.37
1.84
nd
nd
nd
nd
7
TN
wb
nd
4.57
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
2.28
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
6.13
1.32
nd
nd
nd
nd
8
Hut
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
Field
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 10. TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS, ESTIMATED EMISSIONS (mg/kg)
Test No.
Target Compounds
4-nitro-1 -oxide-quinoline
Methapyrilene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
N-methyl-4-(phenylazo)-benzenamine
P-dimethylaminoazobenzene
Benzyl butyl phthalate
N-2-fluorenylacetamide
Chrysene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-N-octyl phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3-methylcholanthrene
Dibenz(aj)acridine
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Solvent
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
TN
nb
nd
nd
2.26
3.03
nd
nd
nd
nd
1.20
0.94
4.79
18.65
1.32
nd
1.46
0.47
nd
nd
0.43
nd
0.45
2
TN
nb
nd
nd
3.03
1.79
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.78
4.13
0.20
nd
0.26
0.55
nd
nd
0.48
nd
0.74
3
FL
nb
nd
nd
0.18
2.46
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.88
0.70
7.55
10.53
0.88
nd
0.88
0.18
nd
nd
0.35
nd
0.70
4
FL
nb
nd
nd
nd
1.36
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.45
0.30
3.62
5.89
0.45
nd
0.45
0.30
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.45
5
Hut
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
TN
wb
nd
nd
1.95
0.98
nd
nd
0.11
nd
0.43
0.33
24.93
7.59
0.65
nd
0.76
0.22
nd
nd
0.33
0.11
0.22
7
TN
wb
nd
nd
1.44
0.84
nd
nd
nd
nd
0.24
0.24
3.25
8.18
0.36
nd
0.36
0.12
nd
nd
0.12
nd
0.12
8
Hut
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
Field
Blank
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
nb= no blower, wb = with blower, NA= not applicable, nd = not detected
-------
TABLE 11. SEMIVOLATILE TENATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
TN No Blower Test #1
Compound
dimethyl furan
ethylbenzene
m,p-xylene
alpha. -pinene
d-limonene
indene
dimethyl phenol isomer
methoxy methyl phenol
ethyl methoxy phenol
1-methyl naphthalene
methoxy propyl phenol
hydroxy-methoxy-benzaldehyde
dimethyl naphthalene isomer
dimethylbiphenyl
dimethoxy-propenyl phenol
hydroxy-dimethoxy-benzaldehyde
9h-fluoren-9-One
methyl anthracene isomer
dimethyl phenanthrene isomer
unknown hydrocarbon
unknown hydrocarbon
unknown hydrocarbon
unknown hydrocarbon
trimethyl phenanthrene isomer
tetrahydrochrysene
unknown hydrocarbon
triphenylphosphine oxide
Retention Time (min)
5.2
5.66
5.87
7.27
9.27
9.58
12.04
12.22
13.44
13.83
14.63
15.26
15.29
16.67
17.56
18.34
19.14
21.02
22.18
22.92
22.95
22.99
23.11
23.14
24.24
24.9
26.44
Mass of Analyte (ug)
12
2
7
3
14
6
3
15
7
1
16
6
3
42
3
5
4
3
5
60
75
29
32
20
31
52
154
Concentration (ug/m3)
4.6
0.6
2.5
1.2
5.3
2.4
1.2
5.6
2.7
0.4
6.2
2.3
1.2
16.0
1.2
1.9
1.5
1.2
1.9
23.2
29.0
11.0
12.2
7.7
12.0
20.1
59.5
Emission Factor (mg/kg)
2.15
0.27
1.17
0.54
2.45
1.09
0.54
2.60
1.25
0.18
2.86
1.07
0.54
7.43
0.54
0.89
0.72
0.54
0.89
10.74
13.42
5.10
5.64
3.58
5.55
9.31
27.57
TN No Blower Test #2
ethylbenzene
m,p-xylene
alpha. -pinene
camphene
trimethyl benzene isomer
methyl-methylethyl cyclohexene
indene
methoxy phenol
tetramethylcyclohexadiene
methoxy methyl phenol
dimethoxy phenol
hydroxy methoxy benzaldehyde
ethenyl naphthalene
9h-fluorene-methyl
dimethoxy-propenyl-phenol
dimethylethyl-phenol
methyl phenanthrene isomer
methyl phenanthrene isomer
methyl phenanthrene isomer
tetrahydro naphthalene isomer
dimethyl phenanthrene isomer
tetramethyl phenanthrene isomer
phenanthrenecarboxylic acid
triphenyl phosphine oxide
anthracenedione-tetramethyl
4.49
4.65
5.85
6.12
7.09
7.76
8.03
9.06
9.57
10.78
13.22
13.96
14.07
15.95
16.38
18.21
19.66
19.87
19.91
20.45
21.14
22.77
23.87
25.69
26.5
6
39
55
3
5
92
30
21
4
10
19
3
2
1
2
24
10
3
9
14
10
14
18
27
1
2.1
15.2
21.4
1.2
1.9
35.7
11.7
8.2
1.6
3.9
7.2
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.8
9.3
3.9
1.2
3.5
5.5
3.9
5.5
7.0
10.5
0.4
1.15
8.13
11.47
0.63
1.04
19.12
6.26
4.38
0.83
2.09
3.86
0.63
0.42
0.21
0.42
5.01
2.09
0.63
1.88
2.92
2.09
2.92
3.75
5.63
0.21
-------
TABLE 11. CONTINUED
FL No Blower Test #3
Compound
dimethyl furan
xylene
benzofuran
indene
methyl indene isomer
ethyl phenol
dimethyl phenol isomer
dimethoxy benzene isomer
methoxy-ethyl phenol isomer
methoxy-ethyl phenol isomer
dimethylnaphthalene isomer
dimethylnaphthalene isomer
methoxy-propenyl phenol isomer
dimethylbiphenyl
trimethylnapthalene isomer
dimethoxy-propenyl phenol isomer
ethanone,1-(4-hydroxy-3,5-dimethoxy)
1h-indene,1-phenyl isomer
methyl pyrene isomer
triphenylphosphine oxide
Retention Time (min)
5.24
6.4
8.6
9.55
11.36
11.5
12.05
12.17
13.32
13.43
15.07
15.1
15.16
16.67
17.04
18.67
19.13
20.7
24.13
26.43
Mass of Analyte (ug)
220
18
3
48
2
1
8
6
1
5
3
2
3
32
12
2
4
1
1
239
Concentration (ug/m3)
87.4
7.2
1.2
19.1
0.8
0.4
3.2
2.4
0.4
2.0
1.2
0.8
1.2
12.7
4.8
0.8
1.6
0.4
0.4
95.0
Emission Factor (mg/kg)
38.60
3.16
0.53
8.42
0.35
0.18
1.40
1.05
0.18
0.88
0.53
0.35
0.53
5.62
2.11
0.35
0.70
0.18
0.18
41.94
FL No Blower Test #4
dimethyl furan
furanmethanol
2-furancarboxaldehyde,5-methyl
benzonitrile
benzofuran
methyl furan isomer
methoxy methyl phenol isomer
ethyl methoxy phenol isomer
1-methylnaphthalene
dimethoxy phenol isomer
dimethylnaphthalene isomer
dimethylnaphthalene isomer
methoxy propenyl phenol isomer
ethyl-biphenyl isomer
trimethylnaphthalene isomer
hydroxy-dimethoxy benzaldehyde isomer
phenol,2,6-dimethoxy-4-(2-propenyl)
9h-fluoren-9-One
bis-dimethylethyl phenol isomer
triphenyl phosphine
triphenylphosphine oxide
phenol, 4, 4'-butylidenebis[2-(1 ,1-dimethyl-5-methyl)
5.2
5.85
8.1
8.47
8.65
10.59
12.11
13.37
13.8
14.38
15.04
15.07
15.13
16.55
17.03
18.31
18.64
19.11
19.3
23.21
26.43
27.43
66
7
10
2
7
3
7
7
2
32
1
3
2
2
5
3
4
4
3
7
300
27
25.4
2.7
3.9
0.8
2.7
1.2
2.7
2.7
0.8
12.3
0.4
1.2
0.8
0.8
1.9
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.2
2.7
115.5
10.4
9.96
1.06
1.51
0.30
1.06
0.45
1.06
1.06
0.30
4.83
0.15
0.45
0.30
0.30
0.75
0.45
0.60
0.60
0.45
1.06
45.28
4.08
-------
TABLE 11. CONTINUED
Hut Blank Test #5
Compound
unknown hydrocarbon
unknown hydrocarbon
Retention Time (min)
11.3
28.24
Mass of Analyte (ug)
115
28
Concentration (ug/m3)
45.0
11.0
Emission Factor (mg/kg)
NA
NA
TN With Blower Test #6
dimethylfuran
xylene
. alpha. -pinene
benzofuran
limonene
indene
methoxy phenol isomer
dimethyl octatriene isomer
ethyl phenol isomer
methoxy methyl phenol isomer
ethyl methoxy phenol isomer
9h-fluoren-9-one
dimethyl phenanthrene isomer
1-phenanthrenecarboxylic acid, 1,2,
hexyl naphthalene isomer
5.42
5.99
7.39
8.78
9.34
9.65
10.76
11.1
12.29
12.32
13.58
19.28
22.3
24.8
30.19
16
18
26
12
21
8
15
5
15
7
6
6
4
7
12
6.5
7.3
10.5
4.9
8.5
3.2
6.1
2.0
6.1
2.8
2.4
2.4
1.6
2.8
4.9
1.73
1.95
2.82
1.30
2.28
0.87
1.63
0.54
1.63
0.76
0.65
0.65
0.43
0.76
1.30
-------
TABLE 11. CONCLUDED
Tenn. With Blower Test #7
Compound
xylenes
. alpha. -pinene
.beta.-pinene
.beta.-myrcene
tetramethylcyclohexadiene isomer
diethyl benzene isomer
trimethyl benzene isomer
indene
tetramethylbenzene isomer
azulene
ethyl phenol isomer
dimethylphenol isomer
cyclooctatetraene isomer
ethylmethoxy phenol isomer
methyl benzenediol isomer
ethenyl naphthalene isomer
methoxy-propenyl phenol isomer
methyl-biphenyl isomer
9h-fluoren-9-one
methyl phenanthrene isomer
methyl phenanthrene isomer
dimethylphenanthrene isomer
phenylnaphthalene isomer
phenylmethylnaphthalene isomer
phenylmethyl naphthalene isomer
tetramethylphenanthrene isomer
tetrahydrochrysene isomer
1-phenanthrenecarboxylic acid, 1 ,2
triphenylphosphine oxide
tetrahydroxyanthracenedione isomer
Retention Time (min)
5.93
7.3
8.24
8.29
8.37
9.2
9.24
9.6
9.83
11.55
12.11
12.13
12.69
13.47
14.35
15.47
15.81
17.07
19.26
20.86
21.1
21.87
22.28
23.11
23.62
23.82
24.43
24.78
26.76
27.4
Mass of Analyte (ug)
77
63
8
4
7
35
42
7
2
3
15
6
2
6
4
4
9
2
7
4
3
2
10
3
22
140
51
70
10
9
Concentration (ug/m3)
32.7
26.8
3.4
1.7
3.0
14.9
17.9
3.0
0.9
1.3
6.4
2.6
0.9
2.6
1.7
1.7
3.8
0.9
3.0
1.7
1.3
0.9
4.3
1.3
9.4
59.5
21.7
29.8
4.3
3.8
Emission Factor (mg/kg)
9.26
7.58
0.96
0.48
0.84
4.21
5.05
0.84
0.24
0.36
1.80
0.72
0.24
0.72
0.48
0.48
1.08
0.24
0.84
0.48
0.36
0.24
1.20
0.36
2.65
16.84
6.13
8.42
1.20
1.08
Hut Blank Test #8
none
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
SAMPLE
SHED
INSULATED
SAMPLE
DUCT
HEATED SAMPLE LINi
°2 I
CO
2 :
THC -
BURN
HUT
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
MOBILE LABORATORY
NO - - CO -
\
Figure 1. Aerial View of the Open Burning Simulation Facility
-------
5 D
\ S
A I
B P
A I
Figure 2. Schematic Diagram of Burn Hut
-------
r
j
Figure 3. Blower Placement Detail
-------
i
n
^- 2" x 2" Steel Tube Suppports
SIDE ELEVATIDN
Figure 4. Box Details
-------
20.00T
-15
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 5. Weight of Burn Material for Test No. 1 - Tenn No Blower
-------
D)
.E
D)
'(I)
20.00T
18.00
16.00
14.00-
12.00--N
10.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
-15
0.00
25
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 6. Weight of Burn Material for Test No. 2 - Tenn No Blower
-------
20.00T
D)
.E
D)
'a>
25
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 7. Weight of Burn Material for Test No. 3 - Florida No Blower
-------
D)
.E
D)
'a>
20 T
18
16
14-
10-
8
6-
4 -
2
-15
25
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 8. Weight of Burn Material for Test No. 4 - Florida No Blower
-------
20.00T
D)
.E
D)
-15
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 9. Weight of Burn Material for Test No. 6 - Tenn with Blower
-------
20.00T
_ 18.00,
-15
-0:60
25
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 10. Weight of Burn Material for Test No. 7 - Tenn with Blower
-------
a
a
\^>
c
o
CD
o
c
o
O
200 T
180-
160-
140-
120-
100-
-15
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 11. CO Concentration for Test No. 1 - Tenn no Blower
-------
a
a
c
o
'4-1
CO
i_
4-1
tl)
O
c
o
O
-15
200 T
180
45
65
85
105
125
Time (min)
Figure 12. CO Concentration for Test No. 2 - Tenn no Blower
-------
200 T
180
160
140-
Q.
a
\^>
c
o
CD
o
c
o
O
120
100
80
60
40-
20
-15
25
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 13. CO Concentration for Test No. 3 - Florida no Blower
-------
a
a
^~s
o
c
a>
o
c
o
O
200 T
180-
160-
140-
120-
100-
80-
60-
40-
20-
-15
25
45
65
85
105
125
Time (min)
Figure 14. CO Concentration for Test No. 4 - Florida no Blower
-------
a
a
^~s
o
c
a>
o
c
o
O
200 T
180-
160-
140-
120-
100-
80-
60-
40-
20-
^^yv^v>VN^^/l>svVKv^^'^
-15
25
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 15. CO Concentration for Test No. 5 - Hut Blank
-------
E
a
a
\^>
c
o
_
4-1
c
tl)
o
o
O
200 T
180-
160-
140-
120-
100-
80-
60-
40-
20- i
-15
25
45
65
85
105
125
Time (min)
Figure 16. CO Concentration for Test No. 6 - Tenn with Blower
-------
E
a
a
^~s
o
_
4-1
c
y>
o
o
o
200 T
180
160
140-
120
100
80
60
-15
105
125
Figure 17. CO Concentration for Test No. 7 - Tenn with Blower
-------
200 T
180
160
140-
E
a
a
^~s
o
_
4-1
c
y>
o
o
o
120
100
80
60
40-
20
-15
25
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 18. CO Concentration for Test No. 8 - Hut Blank
-------
o
o
o
0.4T
0.35
-15
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 19. C02 Concentration for Test No. 1 - Tenn no Blower
-------
o
_
4-1
c
y>
o
o
o
0.4T
0.35-
25
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 20. C02 Concentration for Test No. 2 - Tenn no Blower
-------
o
_
4-1
tl)
O
c
o
O
0.4T
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15-
0.1 --
0.05-
-15
25
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 21. C02 Concentration for Test No. 3 - Florida no Blower
-------
o
0
o
0.4T
0.35
25
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 22. C02 Concentration for Test No. 4 - Florida no Blower
-------
0.4T
0.35-
0.3-
0.25-
0.2-
o
0
o
0.15-
-15
0.1 -
0.05-
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 23. C02 Concentration for Test No. 5 - Hut Blank
-------
so
ffv
C
0
'4-1
CO
i_
4-1
tl)
o
c
o
O
0.4 T
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15-
0.1 -
-15
25
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 24. C02 Concentration for Test No. 6 - Tenn with Blower
-------
0.4T
0.35
0.3
so
ffv
C
0
4-1
CO
1_
4-1
tl)
o
c
o
O
-15
0.25
0.2
0.15-
0.1 --
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 25. C02 Concentration for Test No. 7 - Tenn with Blower
-------
0.4T
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
o
o
o
0.15
0.1
0.05
25
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 26. C02 Concentration for Test No. 8 - Hut Blank 2
-------
100T
-15
45
Time (min)
65
85
105
125
Figure 27. THC Concentration for Test No. 1 - Tenn no Blower
-------
a
a
\^>
c
o
'4-1
CO
1_
4-1
tl)
O
c
o
O
100T
90-
80-
-15
45
65
85
105
125
Time (min)
Figure 28. THC Concentration for Test No. 2 - Tenn no Blower
-------
E
a
a
c
o
o
0
o
-15
100T
90
45
65
85
105
125
Time (min)
Figure 29. THC Concentration for Test No. 3 - Florida no Blower
-------
100T
90
80
70-
Q.
a
^~s
o
60
50-
c
a>
o
c
o
O
40-
-15
30
20
45
65
85
105
125
Time (min)
Figure 30. THC Concentration for Test No. 4 - Florida no Blower
-------
100T
90-
80-
70-
a
a
^~s
o
c
a>
o
c
o
O
60-
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
-15
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 31. THC Concentration for Test No. 5 - Hut Blank
-------
E
a
a
^~s
o
_
4-1
c
a>
o
c
o
O
-15
100T
90
80
70-
60
50-
40-
30
20
45
65
85
105
125
Time (min)
Figure 32. THC Concentration for Test No. 6 - Tenn with Blower
-------
100T
a
a
^~s
o
CD
o
c
o
O
-15
105
125
Figure 33. THC Concentration for Test No. 7 - Tenn with Blower
-------
100T
90
80
70-
E
a
a
\^>
c
o
_
4-1
c
tl)
o
o
O
60
50-
40-
-15
30
20
45
65
85
105
125
Time (min)
Figure 34. THC Concentration for Test No. 8 - Hut Blank 2
-------
20
15 --
c
o
'4-1
CO
1_
4-1
tl)
O
c
o
O
10-
5 --
-15
25
45
65
85
105
125
Time (min)
Figure 35. Percent 02 Concentration for Test No. 1 - Tenn no Blower
-------
20-
15-
o
0
o
10-
-15
5 -
25
45
65
85
105
125
Time (min)
Figure 36. Percent 02 Concentration for Test No. 2 - Tenn no Blower
-------
20
a
a
^~s
o
15-
(D
O
c
o
O
10-
5 -
-15
25 45 65 85 105
Time (min)
125
Figure 37. Percent 02 Concentration for Test No. 3 - Florida no Blower
-------
20-
15-
c
a>
o
c
o
O
10-
5 -
-15
25
45
65
85
105
125
Time (min)
Figure 38. Percent 02 Concentration for Test No. 4 - Florida no Blower
-------
20-
15 --
c
o
'4-1
CO
1_
4-1
tl)
O
c
o
O
10-
5 -
-15
25
45
65
85
105
125
Time (min)
Figure 39. Percent 02 Concentration for Test No. 5 - Hut Blank
-------
20-
15 --
so
ffv
C
0
'4-1
CO
i_
4-1
tl)
o
c
o
O
10-
5 -
-15
25
45
65
85
105
125
Time (min)
Figure 40. Percent 02 Concentration for Test No. 6 - Tenn with Blower
-------
15 --
o
0
o
10-
5 --
-15
25
45 65
Time (min)
85
105
125
Figure 41. Percent 02 Concentration for Test No. 7 - Tenn with Blower
-------
20
15 --
c
a>
o
c
o
O
10--
-15
5 -
25
45
65
85
105
125
Time (min)
Figure 42. Percent 02 Concentration for Test No. 8 - Hut Blank 2
-------
-15
45
65
85
105
125
Time (min)
Figure 43. NO Concentration for Test No. 1 - Tenn no Blower
-------
a
a
^~s
o
_
4-1
tl)
O
c
o
O
7 -
6
5 -
4 -
3
-15
25
45
125
Time (min)
Figure 44. NO Concentration for Test No. 2 - Tenn no Blower
-------
a
a
8 T
7 --
6
5 --
4 --
CD
o
c
o
O
-15
3
2
25
45
125
-1 -1
Time (min)
Figure 45. NO Concentration for Test No. 3 - Florida no Blower
-------
a
a
^~s
o
_
4-1
c
a>
o
c
o
O
7 --
6
5 --
4 -
3
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
Time (min)
Figure 46. NO Concentration for Test No. 4 - Florida no Blower
-------
7 --
6
~ 5 +
a
a
^~s
o
5 4 +
0)
o
c
o
O 3 +
2
1 --
j^y^j^^\/^^
i * EH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-15 5 25 45 65 85 105 125
Time (min)
Figure 47. NO Concentration for Test No. 5 - Hut Blank
-------
1 --
6
5 --
E
a
a
^~s
o
4 -
_
4-1
c
a>
o
c
o
O
-15
3
2
1 --
125
Time (min)
Figure 48. NO Concentration for Test No. 6 - Tenn with Blower
-------
8 T
7 --
6
a
a
^~s
o
_
4-1
c
a>
o
c
o
O
5 --
4 -
3
-15
2
105
125
Figure 49. NO Concentration for Test No. 7 - Tenn with Blower
-------
E
a
a
c
o
'4-1
CO
i_
4-1
c
tl)
o
o
O
8 T
7 --
6 --
5 --
4 --
3 --
2 --
1 --
AVW M JftrtAMr-A/uvArAArArv /i/M
-------
APPENDIX A
QUALITY CONTROL EVALUATION REPORT
This project was conducted under the guidance of an EPA-approved QA Test Plan (APPCD
Category III) and an approved Facility Manual for the test facility. These documents establish data
quality objectives suitable for this study. The quality control measures employed during this study
were used to ensure that the data collected would be suitable to measure air emissions resulting from a
debris open burning process.
Table A-l presents the data quality indicator (DQI) summaries for accuracy, precision, and
completeness achieved during testing along with the planned DQI goals for each measurement or
analysis performed. In general, the intended DQI goals were achieved. In several instances, however,
targeted DQI goals were not achieved or could not be assessed from the available data.
The achieved data quality for CEMs is summarized in Table A-l and detailed in Tables A-2
and A-3. The CEM precision almost always passed the five percent of full scale criterion established.
In several tests one of the multiple span gases checked failed, but was only slightly beyond the
expected range. In two test/instrument (O2 for test 7 and NO for test 1) combinations, the observed
failures were so severe as to cast serious doubt on the usefulness of the data.
The observed accuracy was calculated based on a flow-through test of the entire sampling
system and was compared to a five percent of full scale criterion. The analyzers passed this criterion
in all instances. It should be noted, however, that the formulation of this criterion masks a significant
negative bias (when viewed in terms of percent of measured value or actual concentration) for the
upper part of the calibrated range, on the CO2 analyzer. The measured values for CO2 did not
approach the upper part of the calibrated range however. A significant variability also exists (when
viewed in terms of percent of measured value or actual concentration) in the performance of the NO
analyzer.
The achieved data quality for volatile organic measurements is summarized in Table A-1 and
detailed in Tables A-4 and A-5. Accuracy measurement based upon a laboratory prepared field
control VOC canister which was taken into the field and returned for analysis is shown in Table A-4.
-------
Acceptable accuracy was achieved for 56 of the 59 compounds tested. Recovery measurements for
the volatile samples were acceptable in all instances (Table A-5). Data were not available to assess
volatile organic analysis precision.
The achieved data quality for semivolatile samples is summarized in Table A-l and detailed
in Table A-6. The analytical staff failed to prepare matrix spike samples or spike surrogates (which
would normally be done post sampling but before analysis). This limits the degree to which the data
quality of these measurements can be evaluated. Recovery data for a presampling surrogate were
available, however, and passed the criterion (18-120 percent) in five of seven instances. The two
failures of this recovery surrogate were exceedances of the recovery criterion (135 and 173 percent).
This would tend to indicate that reported concentrations and estimated emissions for semivolatile
compounds in these two tests may be modestly overestimated.
The achieved data quality for particulate (dichotomous) sampler flowrate is summarized in
Table A-l and detailed in Table A-7. The accuracy of this flow rate easily met the 25 percent bias
criterion in all but one of eight instances. In test 7 the flow rate was substantially inaccurate due to
the melting of the sample line. Thus it is not surprising that the precision between replicate tests was
well within criterion for three or four pairs of tests, but not acceptable for the Tennessee with blower
pair which includes
test 7.
The achieved data accuracy for the weight measurements is detailed in Table A-8. The high
capacity scale (>1,000 Ib) used is readable only to +/- 0.2 Ib. It meets the stated 15 percent accuracy
criterion over the vast majority of the range of interest for these tests (seven of eight masses tested). It
is somewhat less accurate (25 percent), due to readability, for the lowest test weight used. However, in
these tests the primary application of this device was to measure weight changes over the entire course
of a test in which the mass change was between 11 and 20 kg (24 and 44 Ib). An examaniation of
Table A-8 will show that this scale would have measured the weight change quite adequately in this
application. For instance, using the lightest and heaviest calibration weights reported as the
hypothetical preburn and postburn weights would yield a measured weight change of 29.4 Ib
compared to a true weight change of 29.5 Ib.
-------
Although it is not a data quality objective, the close agreement noted in many places in the
test to previous studies of combustion of similar wood based materials is a valuable crosscheck on
overall data quality. In summary, the data quality objectives set forth have been adequately met in
most cases, and the data collected from this study are sufficent to meet project objectives.
QA\QC requirements apply to this project. Data are supported by QA\QC documentation as
required by the U.S. EPA's QA Policy.
-------
TABLE A-1. DATA QUALITY INDICATOR SUMMARY FOR CRITICAL MEASUREMENTS
Measurement
O2
CO2
GO
THC
NO
Volatile Organic Analysis
Semivolatile and Particulate
Bound Organic Analysis
Dichotomous Sampler Flow
Rate
Weight
Objective
Accuracy
(%) Bias
5
5
5
5
5
NA
NA
25
15
Objective Acccuracy as
QA/QC Recovery
(%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
40-120
40-120
NA
NA
Objective
Precision
%RPD
5
5
5
5
5
30
30
25
15
Objective
Recovery
(%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
50-150
18-120
NA
NA
Objective
Completeness
(%)
70
70
70
70
70
75
70
90
100
Achieved
Accuracy
(%) Bias
4
1
1
1
1
NA
NA
SOT4
SOT5
Achieved Accuracy as
QA/QC Recovery
(%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SOT1
NM
NA
NA
Achieved
Precision
(%) RPD
-2.6
0.6
1.2
-0.2
1.1
NM
NM
SOT4
NM
Achieved
Recovery
(%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SOT2
SOT3
NA
NA
Achieved
Completeness
(%)
88
100
100
100
88
100
100
88
100
Note: SOT = See Other Table, NM = not measured, NA = not applicable
See table A-4
See table A-5.
See table A-6.
See table A-7.
See table A-8.
-------
TABLE A-2. CEM CALIBRATION PRECISION BASED ON % RPD
BETWEEN PRE AND POST CALIBRATION
Test
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Test Conditions
TN No Blower
TN No Blower
FL No Blower
FL No Blower
Hut Blank
TN With Blower
TN With Blower
Hut Blank
DATE
1/31/95
2/1/95
2/2/95
2/3/95
2/15/95
2/22/95
2/23/95
2/24/95
02
3 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
2 / 1L
0 / 3HML
3 / 0
GO
2 / 1M
3 / 0
2 / 1H
3 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
C02
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
NO
3 / 1H1
4 / 0
3 / 1H
4 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
THC
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
Note: # cals to pass / # cals to fail, QA test plan states a 5% of full scale precision requirement
L - low span gas or zero failed on post calibration
M - mid range span gas failed on post calibration
H — high range span gas failed on post calibration
-------
Table A-3. ACCURACY OF CEMs
Gas Used
O2 (%)
CO (ppm)
Concentration
17.3
18.4
19.9
0
251
510
System Bias Result
17.9
19.2
20.7
0
269
518
% Difference of Full Scale
3
4
4
0
2
1
NO (ppm)
0
5
10
0
6.3
8.3
0
1
-2
CO2 (%)
0
0.46
1
1.56
0
0.42
1
1.2
0
0
0
-4
THC (ppm)
0
31
90
449
0
34
73
439
0
0
-2
-1
Note: QA test plan states a 5% of full scale accuracy DQO.
% Difference is calculated off full scale.
These data based on a flow through check of sampling system.
-------
TABLE A-2. CEM CALIBRATION PRECISION BASED ON % RPD
BETWEEN PRE AND POST CALIBRATION
Test
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Test Conditions
TN No Blower
TN No Blower
FL No Blower
FL No Blower
Hut Blank
TN With Blower
TN With Blower
Hut Blank
DATE
1/31/95
2/1/95
2/2/95
2/3/95
2/15/95
2/22/95
2/23/95
2/24/95
02
3 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
2 / 1L
0 / 3HML
3 / 0
GO
2 / 1M
3 / 0
2 / 1H
3 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
C02
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
NO
3 / 1H1
4 / 0
3 / 1H
4 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
3 / 0
THC
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
4 / 0
Note: # cals to pass / # cals to fail, QA test plan states a 5% of full scale precision requirement
L - low span gas or zero failed on post calibration
M - mid range span gas failed on post calibration
H — high range span gas failed on post calibration
Pagel
-------
Table A-5. SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR VOC CANISTERS
Compound
bromochloro methane
d4-1 ,2-dichloroethane
1,4-difluorobenzene
d8-toluene
d5-chlorobenzene
4-bromofluorobenzene
Field
Control
%
110
99
101
104
102
97
Test No.
1
%
90
91
97
94
99
98
Test No.
2
%
101
97
100
106
105
107
Test No.
3
%
96
94
97
102
102
100
Test No.
4
%
95
93
97
100
99
95
Test No.
5
%
90
95
96
96
98
93
Test No.
6
%
87
88
95
94
97
99
Test No.
7
%
85
96
91
91
92
95
Test No.
8
%
86
91
92
90
89
97
Field
Blank
%
100
98
97
100
99
94
Note: QA test plan states a 50-150% recovery criterion
-------
TABLE A-6. RECOVERIES OF 13C12 BENZO(ghi) PERYLENE
PRE-SAMPLING SPIKE
Test
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Test Conditions
TN No Blower
TN No Blower
FL No Blower
FL No Blower
Hut Blank
TN With Blower
TN With Blower
Hut Blank
Date
1/31/95
2/1/95
2/2/95
2/3/95
2/15/95
2/22/95
2/23/95
2/24/95
Amount
Spiked
(ng)
NS
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
Amount
Recovered
(ng)
0.06
5.55
8.65
5.58
5.21
6.75
4.88
4.98
Amount
Recovered
(%)
NA
55.5
173
111.6
104.2
135
97.6
99.6
Pass /
Fail
(P/F)
NA
P
F
P
P
F
P
P
Note: QA test plan states a 18-120% recovery criterion, NS = not spiked, NA = not applicable
Pagel
-------
TABLE A-7. PARTICULATE FLOWRATE DQIGs
Test Conditions
TN No Blower
TN No Blower
FL No Blower
FL No Blower
Hut Blank
TN With Blower
TN With Blower
Hut Blank
Date
1/31/95
2/1/95
2/2/95
2/3/95
2/15/95
2/22/95
2/23/95
2/24/95
Accuracy
(%)
-3.9
-4.0
-7.4
-4.8
-0.8
-8.6
-48.5
-7.1
Precision
(%)
0.1
3.5
-84.3
-3.3
Pagel
-------
TABLE A-8. WEIGHT ACCURACY CHECK
Test Weight Ibs
1
3
6.1
6.6
7.4
1 1
17
30.5
Observed
Weight Ibs
0.8
2.8
5.6
6.6
7.2
1 1
16.8
30.2
Bias (% of
measured
value)
25.00
7.14
8.93
0.00
2.78
0.00
1.19
0.99
Note: The QA Test Plan states a 15% bias DC
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/R-96/128
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Evaluation of Emissions from the Open Burning of
Land-clearing Debris
5. REPORT DATE
October 1996
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Christopher C. Lutes and Peter H. Kariher
8.PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Acurex Environmental Corporation
P.O. Box 13109
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D4-0005, Tasks 0-62
1-9n cmrl 9-1 5
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE' OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final: 10/94-7/95
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
APPCD project officer is Paul M. Lemieux, Mail Drop 65, 919/541-0962
16. ABSTRACT
The report identifies and quantifies a broad range of pollutants that are discharged during small-
scale, simulated, open combustion of land-clearing debris and reports these emissions relative to the
mass of material combusted. Two types of land-clearing debris (representing the typical land-
clearing debris found in Florida and Tennessee; primarily wood and other organic debris) were
combusted in a facility designed to simulate open burning. One debris sample was also combusted
in the same facility using a simulated air curtain incinerator. Volatile, semivolatile, and particulate-
bound organics were collected and analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. The
emphasis of analyses was on the quantification of hazardous air pollutants listed in Title III of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, although further efforts were made to identify and quantify
other major organic components. Fixed combustion gases (carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitric
oxide, oxygen, and total hydrocarbons) were monitored continuously throughout the test period. The
project produced estimated emissions data for a broad range of atmospheric pollutants from a
simulated open debris combustion process. Tests did not provide conclusive evidence of the
effectiveness of air curtain combustors in reducing emissions: some emissions decreased, others
were unchanged, still others seemed to increase.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERM
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution Incinerators
Combustion
Land
Emission
Wood
Organic Compounds Air Curtains
Dilution Prevention
Stationary Sources
Dpen Burning
and Clearing
)ebris
iazardous Air Pollutants
HAPs)
13B
21B
05C
14G
11L
07C
13M
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
117
20. SECURITY CLASS (This Page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
A-12
------- |