the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 15 May 2023
Characterization of Gas and Particle Emissions from Open Burning of Household Solid Waste
Abstract. Open burning of household and municipal solid waste is a common practice in many developing countries. Due to limited resources for collection and proper disposal, solid waste is often disposed of in neighborhoods and open burned in piles to reduce odors and create space for incoming waste. Emissions from these ground-level and low-temperature burns cause air pollution, leading to adverse health effects among community residents. This study conducted laboratory combustion experiments to characterize gas and particle emissions from ten waste categories representative of those burned in South Africa: paper, leather/rubber, textiles, plastic bottles, plastic bags, vegetation (with three different moisture content levels), food discards, and combined materials. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) were measured in real-time to calculate modified combustion efficiencies (MCE). MCE is used along with video observations to determine fuel-based emission factors (EFs) during flaming and smoldering phases as well as the entire combustion process. Fuel elemental composition and moisture content have strong influences on emissions. Plastic bags have the highest carbon content and the highest combustion efficiency, leading to the highest EFs for CO2. Textiles have the highest nitrogen and sulfur contents, resulting in the highest EFs for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Emissions are similar for vegetation with 0 % and 20 % moisture contents; however, EFs for CO and particulate matter (PM) from the vegetation with 50 % moisture content are 3 and 30 times, respectively, emissions from 0 % and 20 % moisture contents. This study also shows that neglecting carbon in the ash and PM can lead to significant overestimation of EFs. Results from this study are applicable to emission inventory improvements as well as air quality management to assess the health and climate effects of household waste open burning.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2441 KB)
-
Supplement
(6183 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2441 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(6183 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-866', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Jun 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xiaoliang Wang, 23 Jun 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-866', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Jun 2023
Summary:
This article presents results and analysis from laboratory experiments to investigate gaseous and particle emissions from the burning of household solid waste common to South Africa. The authors provide elemental analysis, fuel-based emission factors from smoldering and flaming phases of combustion, and literature comparisons for emissions from the burning of the separated waste products and also combined waste. Generally, this was a very well written and well-structured paper that offers important results on a poorly characterized emission source. The experimental design is well thought out and neatly lays out results from a very complicated and diverse emission source. The use of ash and PM in the carbon mass balance equation and the subsequent calculation of fuel-based emission factors demonstrates the high quality of the experiment and provide, I think, the most important results of the paper, which is that ash and PM have a significant share of the carbon mass balance in smoldering emissions. Finally, the authors do a good job contextualizing the separated burns compared to the combined burns in the discussion section, by suggesting that emission factors from separated burn materials may not perfectly reflect the emissions from combined burns due to different burn conditions. I have very few comments or edit suggestions for this manuscript. The paper covers the globally important topic of emissions from open burning of solid waste and delivers novel results. I recommend this manuscript for final publication in ACP with only a few minor revisions.
Comments:
Line 74: “However, particle emissions are not often measured in these studies.” What studies do the authors refer to here? Yokelson et al. and Jayarathne et al. both use filter- based particle sampling and Stockwell et al. 2016 makes BC measurements of garbage burning. More context is needed here.
Figure 1: Is there a reason for the order of the categories in the bar graph? Just a suggestion for readability, and not a requirement, but it may help if the categories were sorted by mass %.
Line 85: Can the authors elaborate on if the floor mat is composed of petroleum-based materials (i.e. synthetic) or natural (i.e. cowhide and natural rubber) since these are likely to have different emission factors. The floor mat appears to be synthetic but it should be specified.
Line 172 Carbon is misspelled ‘caron’
Line 189 “…likely formed from re-condensation of evaporated plastic molecules”. Could the authors elaborate on this suggestion on why the aerosol emissions were highest from plastic bottle burning? Wouldn’t condensation of vaporized plastic be true for the plastic bags and synthetic rubber as well? I assume this conclusion comes from the extent of smoldering phase compared to flaming phase?
Figure 4: Can the authors explain why nitrogen oxide emissions are observed from plastic bag combustion and not from plastic bottle burning?
Figure 6: I find it interesting that the OC and EC PM2.5 mass fractions are similar for the plastic bags and combined burning. Does this suggest that when plastic bags are contained in garbage the plastic burning dominates the total emissions? Or does it suggest that when plastic bags are contained in the garbage it increases the higher efficiency flaming emissions of the combined refuse?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-866-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xiaoliang Wang, 28 Jun 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-866', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Jun 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Xiaoliang Wang, 23 Jun 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-866', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Jun 2023
Summary:
This article presents results and analysis from laboratory experiments to investigate gaseous and particle emissions from the burning of household solid waste common to South Africa. The authors provide elemental analysis, fuel-based emission factors from smoldering and flaming phases of combustion, and literature comparisons for emissions from the burning of the separated waste products and also combined waste. Generally, this was a very well written and well-structured paper that offers important results on a poorly characterized emission source. The experimental design is well thought out and neatly lays out results from a very complicated and diverse emission source. The use of ash and PM in the carbon mass balance equation and the subsequent calculation of fuel-based emission factors demonstrates the high quality of the experiment and provide, I think, the most important results of the paper, which is that ash and PM have a significant share of the carbon mass balance in smoldering emissions. Finally, the authors do a good job contextualizing the separated burns compared to the combined burns in the discussion section, by suggesting that emission factors from separated burn materials may not perfectly reflect the emissions from combined burns due to different burn conditions. I have very few comments or edit suggestions for this manuscript. The paper covers the globally important topic of emissions from open burning of solid waste and delivers novel results. I recommend this manuscript for final publication in ACP with only a few minor revisions.
Comments:
Line 74: “However, particle emissions are not often measured in these studies.” What studies do the authors refer to here? Yokelson et al. and Jayarathne et al. both use filter- based particle sampling and Stockwell et al. 2016 makes BC measurements of garbage burning. More context is needed here.
Figure 1: Is there a reason for the order of the categories in the bar graph? Just a suggestion for readability, and not a requirement, but it may help if the categories were sorted by mass %.
Line 85: Can the authors elaborate on if the floor mat is composed of petroleum-based materials (i.e. synthetic) or natural (i.e. cowhide and natural rubber) since these are likely to have different emission factors. The floor mat appears to be synthetic but it should be specified.
Line 172 Carbon is misspelled ‘caron’
Line 189 “…likely formed from re-condensation of evaporated plastic molecules”. Could the authors elaborate on this suggestion on why the aerosol emissions were highest from plastic bottle burning? Wouldn’t condensation of vaporized plastic be true for the plastic bags and synthetic rubber as well? I assume this conclusion comes from the extent of smoldering phase compared to flaming phase?
Figure 4: Can the authors explain why nitrogen oxide emissions are observed from plastic bag combustion and not from plastic bottle burning?
Figure 6: I find it interesting that the OC and EC PM2.5 mass fractions are similar for the plastic bags and combined burning. Does this suggest that when plastic bags are contained in garbage the plastic burning dominates the total emissions? Or does it suggest that when plastic bags are contained in the garbage it increases the higher efficiency flaming emissions of the combined refuse?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-866-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xiaoliang Wang, 28 Jun 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 364 | 116 | 16 | 496 | 23 | 3 | 7 |
- HTML: 364
- PDF: 116
- XML: 16
- Total: 496
- Supplement: 23
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Hatef Firouzkouhi
Judith C. Chow
John G. Watson
Warren Carter
Alexandra S. M. De Vos
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2441 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(6183 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper