Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jan:184:18-24.
doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.07.036. Epub 2013 Sep 6.

Field measurement on the emissions of PM, OC, EC and PAHs from indoor crop straw burning in rural China

Siye Wei  1 , Guofeng Shen, Yanyan Zhang, Miao Xue, Han Xie, Pengchuan Lin, Yuanchen Chen, Xilong Wang, Shu Tao
Affiliations

Field measurement on the emissions of PM, OC, EC and PAHs from indoor crop straw burning in rural China

Siye Wei et al. Environ Pollut. 2014 Jan.

Abstract

Field measurements were conducted to measure emission factors of particulate matter (EFPM), organic carbon (EFOC), elemental carbon (EFEC), 28 parent polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (EF28pPAHs), and 4 oxygenated PAHs (EF4oPAHs) for four types of crop straws burned in two stoves with similar structure but different ages. The average EFPM, EFOC, EFEC, EF28pPAHs, and EF4oPAHs were 9.1 ± 5.7 (1.8-22 as range), 2.6 ± 2.9 (0.30-12), 1.1 ± 1.2 (0.086-5.5), 0.26 ± 0.19 (0.076-0.96), 0.011 ± 0.14 (1.3 × 10(-4) - 0.063) g/kg, respectively. Much high EF28pPAHs was observed in field compared with the laboratory derived EFs and significant difference in EF28pPAHs was identified among different crop residues, indicating considerable underestimation when laboratory derived EFs were used in the inventory. The field measured EFPM, EFOC, and EFEC were significantly affected by stove age and the EFs of carbonaceous particles for the 15-year old stove were approximately 2.5 times of those for the 1-year old stove.

Keywords: Carbonaceous particulate matter; Field measurement; Indoor crop straw burning; Influencing factor; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Composition profiles of the measured pPAHs and oPAHs for crop residue burned in the new (1 year) and old (15 years) stoves. The results are arithmetic means (bars) and standard deviations (sticks) of the four crop residues. The compounds are 28 parent PAHs (1. NAP, 2. ACY, 3. ACE, 4. FLO, 5. PHE, 6. ANT, 7. FLA, 8. PYR, 9. RET, 10. BcP, 11. CPP, 12. BaA, 13. CHR, 14. BbF, 15. BkF, 16. BeP, 17. BaP, 18. PER, 19. IcdP, 20. DahA, 21. BghiP, 22. DacP, 23. DalP, 24. DaeF, 25. COR, 26. DaeP, 27. DaiP, and 28. DahP) and 4 oxygenated PAHs (29. 9FO, 30. ATQ, 31. BZO, 32. BaAQ).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of EFPM, EFOC, EFEC, EF16pPAH, and EF4oPAH (from left to right) for indoor crop residue burning in China from (A) laboratory chamber tests, (B) stove combustions in simulated kitchens, and (C) field measurements (this study). Means and standard deviations are shown. EF16pPAH are shown in log-scale.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Relationship between EFPM and EFOC (open) and between EFPM and EFEC (blue) for the two stoves tested in the field experiment. The two stoves were marked with either circles (1-year stove) or diamonds (15-year stove).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Factor loading plot of the first two principal components derived from a principle component analysis. (1. NAP, 2. ACY, 3. ACE, 4. FLO, 5. PHE, 6. ANT, 7. FLA, 8. PYR, 9. RET, 10. BcP, 11. CPP, 12. BaA, 13. CHR, 14. BbF, 15. BkF, 16. BeP, 17. BaP, 18. PER, 19. IcdP, 20. DahA, 21. BghiP, 22. DacP, 23. DalP, 24. DaeF, 25. COR, 26. DaeP, 27. DaiP, and 28. DahP).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Relationship between EFs of 9FO, ATQ, and BaAQ (from left to right) and EFs of their corresponding parent PAHs for crop straws burned in a 1-year old stove (top row) and a 15-year old stove (bottom row).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Anenberg S, Balakrishnan K, Jetter J, Masera O, Metha S, Moss J, Ramanathan V. Cleaner cooking solutions to achieve health, climate, and economic cobenefits. Environmental Science & Technology. 2013;47:3944–3952. - PubMed
    1. Bhattacharya S, Albina D, Khaing A. Effects of selected parameters on performance and emission of biomass-fired cookstoves. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2002;23(5):387–395.
    1. Bond T, Streets D, Yarber K, Nelson S, Woo J, Klimont Z. A technology-based global inventory of black and organic carbon emissions from combustion. Journal of Geophysical Research. 2004;109:D14203.
    1. Cao G, Zhang X, Gong S, Zheng F. Investigation on emission factors of particulate matter and gaseous pollutants from crop residue burning. Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2008;20:50–55. - PubMed
    1. Chen Y, Roden C, Bond T. Characterizing biofuel combustion with patterns of real-time emission data (PaRTED) Environmental Science & Technology. 2012;46(11):6110–6117. - PubMed

Publication types