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
. 2017 Feb:150:395-406.
doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.11.034. Epub 2016 Nov 12.

Emissions from prescribed burning of timber slash piles in Oregon

Johanna Aurell  1 , Brian K Gullett  2 , Dennis Tabor  2 , Nick Yonker  3
Affiliations

Emissions from prescribed burning of timber slash piles in Oregon

Johanna Aurell et al. Atmos Environ (1994). 2017 Feb.

Abstract

Emissions from burning piles of post-harvest timber slash (Douglas fir) in Grande Ronde, Oregon were sampled using an instrument platform lofted into the plume using a tether- controlled aerostat or balloon. Emissions of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, particulate matter (PM2.5), black carbon, ultraviolet absorbing PM, elemental/organic carbon, filter-based metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated dibenzodioxins/dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDF), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were sampled to determine emission factors, the amount of pollutant formed per amount of biomass burned. The effect on emissions from covering the piles with polyethylene (PE) sheets to prevent fuel wetting versus uncovered piles was also determined. Results showed that the uncovered ("wet") piles burned with lower combustion efficiency and higher emission factors for VOCs, PM2.5, PCDD/PCDF, and PAHs. Removal of the PE prior to ignition, variation of PE size, and changing PE thickness resulted in no statistical distinction between emissions. Results suggest that dry piles, whether covered with PE or not, exhibited statistically significant lower emissions than wet piles due to better combustion efficiency.

Keywords: Emission factors; moisture; pile cover; polyethylene; timber slash.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Typical burn pile, uncovered.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Aerostat with Flyer (Left) and Flyer close up (Right).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Typical concentration traces of CO2, CO, BC, PM2.5 and modified combustion efficiency (MCE) for Dry and Wet burns. Traces displayed in 60 seconds moving average.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
PM2.5 results. Inset chart shows Wet versus DRY (PE-covered and uncovered). Error bars represents 1 standard deviation if nothing else stated.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
The relationship between PM2.5 emission factor and combustion quality (modified combustion efficiency, MCE).
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Comparison of PM2.5 emission factors at 4 min intervals throughout the burn durations, comparing the combined WET and combined DRY results.
Figure 7.
Figure 7.
BC, EC, UVPM, OC and TC results. Inset chart shows Wet versus DRY (PE- covered and uncovered). Error bars represents relative difference if nothing else stated.
Figure 8.
Figure 8.
BC and EC in relationship to modified combustion efficiency (MCE).
Figure 9.
Figure 9.
VOC results. Error bars represent one standard deviation for WET burns and DRY combined burns, and relative difference for DRY uncovered burns. * = On U.S EPA’s list of hazardous air pollutants.
Figure 10.
Figure 10.
The effect of modified combustion efficiency (MCE) on select VOC emission factors.
Figure 11.
Figure 11.
PCDD/PCDF emission factors in ng TEQ/kg biomass consumed. Error bars represent 1 standard deviation if nothing else stated.
Figure 12.
Figure 12.
PCDD/PCDF emission factors in ng TEQ/kg biomass consumed by group versus MCE.
Figure 13.
Figure 13.
Average PAH emission factors for each category.
Figure 14.
Figure 14.
Comparison of PAH emission factors and PM2.5 emission factors.
Figure 15.
Figure 15.
Comparison of PAH emission factors with modified combustion efficiency (MCE).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Cross, J. C., Turnblom, E.C., and Ettl, G.J. Biomass production on the Olympic and Kitsap Peninsulas, Washington: updated logging residue ratios, slash pile volume-to-weight ratios, and supply curves for selected locations. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-872. USDA, For. Serv., Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, 2013
    1. Trofymow JA; Coopes NC; Hayhurts D, Comparison of remote sensing and ground-based methods for determining residue burn pile wood volumes and biomass. Can. J. For. Res. 2014, 44, 182–194.
    1. Wright, C. S.; Balog, C. S.; Kelly, J. W., Estimating volume, biomass, and potential emissions of hand-piled fuels. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station January 2010, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-805.
    1. Springsteen B; Christofk T; Eubanks S; Mason T; Clavin C; Storey B, Emission Reductions from Woody Biomass Waste for Energy as an Alternative to Open Burning. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc 2011, 61 (1), 63–68. - PubMed
    1. Oregon Department of Forestry. Smoke Management rules: Best Burn Practices; Emission Reduction Techniques. Division 48: OAR 629–048-0210. Oregon Department of Forestry and Department of Environmental Quality; 2014.

LinkOut - more resources