4.7 Article

PCDD/F and aromatic emissions from simulated forest and grassland fires

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 42, 期 34, 页码 7997-8006

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.06.046

关键词

PCDD; PCDF; Fire; Biomass; Emissions; Pollution; Forest; Grass

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Emissions of polychlorinated dibenzodioxin and polychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDD/F) from simulated grassland and forest fires were quantitatively sampled to derive emission factors in support of PCDD/F inventory development. Grasses from Kentucky and Minnesota; forest shrubs from California and Florida; and pine forest biomass from the Piedmont region of North Carolina, western North Carolina, and coastal Oregon were collected and tested in a burn facility that mimicked a prescribed fire in the natural environment scenario. Ambient sampling methods for PCDD/F were variously accompanied by real-time measurements of major aromatic species, including benzene, toluene, naphthalene, and styrene. Emission factors in mass of toxic equivalent (TEQ) of PCDD/F per kg of carbon burned (kg(Cb)) for the two grasses averaged 0.32 ng TEQ/kg(Cb). Burn tests (n = 27) on forest biomass from the five sources show PCDD/F emission factors ranging from 0.3 to 26.3 ng TEQ/kg(Cb), with a mean and median of 5.8 and 3.3 ng TEQ/kg(Cb), respectively. Variation of the forest green/brown needle content, sample size, burn scenario, and facility ventilation rate showed no consistent effects on PCDD/F emissions. For forest burns, 30-35% of the PCDD and 50-55% of the PCDF emissions occurred during the flaming period from 0 to 5 min, while the highest emission factors (per mass of carbon burned) were recorded during the smoldering period from 5 to 60 min. Emissions of PCDD/F exceeded those present in the raw biomass by a factor of four, confirming PCDD/F formation from combustion rather than from simple surface volatilization. The majority of the PCDD/F partitions to the emissions rather than the ash. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据