4.8 Article

Emission factors for carbonaceous particles and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from residential coal combustion in China

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 6, Pages 1861-1867

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es0493650

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Emission factors of carbonaceous particles, including black carbon (BC) and organic carbon (OC), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were determined for five coals, which ranged in- maturity from sub-bituminous to anthracite. They were burned in the form of honeycomb briquettes in a residential coalstove, one of the most common fuel/stove combinations in China. Smoke samples were taken through dilution sampling equipment, with a high volume sampler that could simultaneously collect emissions in both particulate and gaseous phases, and a cascade impactor that could segregate particles into six fractions. Particulate BC and OC were analyzed by a thermal-optical method, and PAHs in emissions of both phases were analyzed by GC-MS. Burning of bituminous coals produced the highest emission factors of particulate matter (12.91 g/kg), BC (0.28 g/kg), OC (7.82 g/kg), and 20 PAHs (210.6 mg/kg) on the basis of burned dry ash-free (daf) coal, while the anthracite honeycomb-briquette was the cleanest household coal fuel. The size-segregated results show that more than 94% of the particles were submicron, and calculated mass median aerodynamic diameters (MMAD) of all particles were under 0.3 mu m. Based on the coal consumption in the residential sector of China, 290.24 Gg (gigagrams) of particulate matter, 5.36 Gg Of BC, 170.33 Gg of OC, and 4.72 Gg of 20 PAHs mass were emitted annually from household honeycomb-briquette burning during 2000. Anthracite coal should be selected preferentially and more advanced burning conditions should be applied in domestic combustion, from the viewpoint of both climate change and adverse health effects,

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available