## Sukh Sidhu, Moshan Kahandawala, Anne Chauvin, Alexander Morgan, Saikumar Chalivendra, Kavya Muddasani, Anupriya Krishnan, Aditya Nagulapalli Sustainable Environmental Technologies Group Energy and Environmental Engineering Division University of Dayton Research Institute 300 College Park, Dayton, OH 45469-0141



## Brian Gullett, Johanna Aurell, Abderrahmane Touati*, Dennis Tabor U. S. Environmental Protection Agency National Risk Management Research Laboratory Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

## * ARCADIS U.S., Inc. 4915 Prospectus Drive, Suite F Durham, NC, 27711 

# Toxic Air Emissions from Burning Wood and Agricultural Plastics 

# – A Cone Calorimeter Study

# Objective

 Characterize emissions

 Wood commonly used in boilers in the great lakes and upstate NY region  Waste Agricultural Plastics  Investigate use of the Cone Calorimeter as a tool to obtain data on emissions from biomass and waste combustion

# Experimental System Cone Calorimeter Fire testing equipment that mimics well ventilated combustion under a constant heat flux and air flow Cone Calorimeter data:  

## Mass loss rate  

## Smoke number  

## CO/CO 2 

## production rates  

## O 2 

## consumption rate  

## Temp. and Pressure  

## Heat Release Rate (HRR) and other flammability data Sampling Train: 1) Iso-kinetic Sampling Train 2) Total Sampling Train

# Schematic of Total Sampling Train

T1 T2

T3

T4

T5PUF cartridges 

# Experimental System Total Sampling Train Coupled with UDRI Cone Calorimeter Cone Heater

•4 PUFs - 2” Thick x 4” Diameter •3 Filters - 8” x 10” Modified Method TO9A Pump outlet line connected to exhaust duct Cooling water system

Impinger To pump Condenser Filter

Chiller Cone Heater 

## Total Sampling Train

PUF

# Experimental Conditions

 Sample size ~ 10 x 10 cm (ASTM)  Air flow rate of 15 l/s (900 LPM)  Constant heat flux of 50 kW/m 2 

# (cone temperature of ~760° C)  Total gas flow was sampled

# Types of Wood Tested

Ash Sugar Maple

Pine Red Oak

Wood Pellets

# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter Total Mass Burned per Sample

Type of Wood Burned Total Mass Burned per Sample (g ) Ash 175.3 Sugar Maple 178.6 Pine 130.6 Red Oak 156.9 Wood Pellets 173.8

### Note: Pine Wood, Red Oak and Pellets data obtained from EPA 

## Type of Wood C, wt% Cl, ppm S, wt% Ash, wt% Moisture, wt% Ash 51.20 0.3 <0.05 0.75 9.00 Sugar Maple 50.03 1 <0.05 1.10 9.00 Pine 51.72 36 <0.05 0.44 9.68 Red Oak 48.70 38 <0.05 1.46 22.52 Pellets 50.10 44 <0.50 0.52 7.24 

# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter Analyses of Wood Samples

# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter Heat Release Data and Flammability Sample # Time to Peak Time to Time to Peak Average Total Heat Avg. Effective MAHRE FIGRA Description Ignition HRR Peak HRR HRR - Tig HRR Release Heat of Comb. (s) (kW/m2) (s) (s) (kW/m2) (MJ/m2) (MJ/kg) (kW/m2) Ash 1 34 220 58 24 123 162.1 11.33 125 3.79 2 36 249 58 22 135 161.4 11.41 134 4.29 3 48 260 66 18 130 162.2 11.22 131 3.94 STDEV 8 21 5 3 6 0.4 0.10 5 0.25 Average Data 39 243 61 21 130 161.9 11.32 130 4.01 Pine 1 5 295 29 24 118 165.7 16.67 198 10.17 2 18 263 38 20 110 136.1 13.79 146 6.93 3 7 260 34 27 124 165.1 16.55 168 7.64 STDEV 7 19 5 4 7 16.9 1.63 26 1.70 Average Data 10 273 34 24 117 155.6 15.67 170 8.24 Sugar Maple 1 36 252 55 19 133 170.8 11.98 140 4.58 2 30 254 59 29 108 166.9 11.67 141 4.30 3 32 275 63 31 128 164.2 11.60 144 4.37 STDEV 3 13 4 6 14 3.3 0.20 2 0.15 Average Data 33 260 59 26 123 167.3 11.75 142 4.42 Red Oak 1 28 236 47 19 110 160.0 11.80 130 5.02 2 34 223 58 24 111 161.6 11.62 125 3.85 3 28 218 50 22 111 167.1 12.12 122 4.35 STDEV 3 9 6 3 1 3.7 0.25 4 0.59 Average Data 30 226 52 22 111 162.9 11.85 126 4.41 Wood 1 52 485 612 560 229 163.9 12.37 230 0.79 Pellets 2 52 461 636 584 223 165.5 12.44 226 0.72 3 56 341 697 641 210 164.9 12.52 208 0.49 STDEV 2 77 44 42 10 0.8 0.08 12 0.16 Average Data 53 429 648 595 221 164.8 12.44 221 0.67



### MAHRE - Maximum average heat rate emission FIGRA - Fire growth rate

# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter Smoke Release Sample # Sample Starting Total Weight % Total Smoke Description Thickness Mass Mass Loss Lost Release (mm) (g) (g) (%) (m 2/m 2 ) Ash 1 24.4 163.3 126.9 77.7 507 2 24.1 162.7 125.1 76.9 634 3 23.3 163.8 125.6 76.7 642 STDEV 0.55 0.6 0.9 0.6 75 Average Data 23.9 163.3 125.9 77.1 594 Pine 1 25.6 104.8 87.8 83.7 2623 2 25.3 106.1 86.6 81.6 690 3 25.6 106.2 88.7 83.5 2614 STDEV 0.17 0.8 1.1 1.2 1113 Average Data 25.5 105.7 87.7 83.0 1976 Sugar Maple 1 24.6 153.8 122.1 79.4 383 2 25.4 158.2 125.9 79.6 222 3 25.6 162.4 124.6 76.7 376 STDEV 0.49 4.3 1.9 1.6 91 Average Data 25.2 158.2 124.2 78.6 327 Red Oak 1 25.0 149.4 116.5 78.0 111 2 24.7 149.6 116.5 77.9 72 3 24.7 148.6 115.6 77.8 149 STDEV 0.16 0.5 0.5 0.1 39 Average Data 24.8 149.2 116.2 77.9 111 Wood 1 29.7 169.2 132.5 78.3 431 Pellets 2 29.7 169.4 133.0 78.5 459 3 29.7 169.1 131.6 77.8 517 STDEV 0.00 0.2 0.7 0.3 44 Average Data 29.7 169.2 132.4 78.2 469

# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter CO/CO2 

# Emission Factors Sample # Description Pre Post Pre Post Ignition Ignition Ignition Ignition Ash 1 0.004 0.007 0.870 1.22 2 0.003 0.007 0.590 1.19 3 0.009 0.007 0.570 1.20 STDEV 0.003 0.000 0.168 0.02 Average Data 0.006 0.007 0.677 1.20 Pine 1 0.000 0.015 0.000 1.58 2 0.000 0.009 0.590 1.42 3 0.000 0.014 - 1.57 STDEV 0.000 0.003 - 0.09 Average Data 0.000 0.013 - 1.52 Sugar Maple 1 0.004 0.006 0.610 1.26 2 0.001 0.009 0.550 1.27 3 0.002 0.007 0.660 1.20 STDEV 0.001 0.001 0.055 0.04 Average Data 0.002 0.007 0.607 1.24 Red Oak 1 0.003 0.006 0.610 1.28 2 0.003 0.006 1.040 1.29 3 0.002 0.008 0.740 1.30 STDEV 0.001 0.001 0.221 0.01 Average Data 0.003 0.007 0.797 1.29 Wood 1 0.001 0.006 0.410 1.24 Pellets 2 0.001 0.006 0.450 1.24 3 0.003 0.006 0.390 1.23 STDEV 0.001 0.000 0.031 0.01 Average Data 0.001 0.006 0.417 1.24 CO Yield (kg/kg) CO 2Yield (kg/kg)

# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter Particulate Mass (PM) Emission Factors

Type of Wood PM, g/kg fuel in Ash 5.6 Sugar Maple 5.5 Pine 29.5 Red Oak 2.1 Wood Pellets 5.6

# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter PCDD/F Emission Factors Analyte Ash, g/kg fuel in Sugar Maple, g/kg fuel in Pine, g/kg fuel in Red Oak, g/kg fuel in Pellets, g/kg fuel in (ND=0, EMPC=EMPC) 2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.27E-12 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 6.50E-11 2.02E-11 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 6.67E-11 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 7.47E-10 1.01E-10 0.00E+00 6.95E-11 4.54E-11 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 2.41E-10 4.13E-11 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.52E-11 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1.85E-09 3.31E-10 6.28E-10 2.70E-10 2.36E-10 OCDD 1.21E-09 4.31E-10 2.21E-09 5.19E-10 5.46E-10 2,3,7,8-TCDF 9.01E-11 1.85E-10 2.15E-10 1.13E-10 1.12E-10 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 1.13E-10 2.52E-10 3.32E-10 1.41E-10 1.39E-10 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 3.18E-10 4.01E-10 4.64E-10 2.30E-10 0.00E+00 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 2.88E-10 1.61E-10 2.19E-10 1.36E-10 8.40E-11 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1.29E-10 1.55E-10 2.07E-10 1.11E-10 8.05E-11 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 7.59E-11 1.62E-10 2.61E-10 1.10E-10 7.94E-11 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.37E-10 0.00E+00 9.66E-11 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1.80E-10 1.72E-10 2.33E-10 1.52E-10 1.20E-10 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 4.20E-11 8.06E-11 0.00E+00 7.14E-11 5.22E-11 OCDF 1.40E-10 7.95E-11 4.18E-10 1.10E-10 1.17E-10 Totals TCDDs 6.62E-10 2.75E-09 1.61E-09 1.33E-09 6.56E-10 PeCDDs 8.84E-10 2.44E-10 1.49E-10 1.75E-10 5.57E-11 HxCDDs 2.46E-09 3.17E-10 0.00E+00 2.08E-10 2.12E-10 HpCDDs 2.65E-09 5.16E-10 9.26E-10 1.81E-10 2.36E-10 OCDD 1.21E-09 4.31E-10 2.21E-09 5.19E-10 5.46E-10 TCDFs 4.35E-09 9.01E-09 8.42E-09 4.85E-09 5.67E-09 PeCDFs 2.71E-09 4.29E-09 5.12E-09 2.60E-09 2.04E-09 HxCDFs 1.29E-09 1.49E-09 1.19E-09 1.07E-09 5.75E-10 HpCDFs 2.22E-10 2.53E-10 4.85E-10 3.23E-10 1.85E-10 OCDF 1.40E-10 7.95E-11 4.18E-10 1.10E-10 1.17E-10 Total PCDD/Fs (ND=0; EMPC=0) 1.66E-08 1.93E-08 2.01E-08 1.13E-08 1.03E-08 Total PCDD/Fs (ND=0; EMPC=EMPC) 1.84E-08 2.03E-08 2.55E-08 1.39E-08 1.18E-08 Total PCDD/Fs (2378-X ND=DL; EMPC=EMPC) 1.85E-08 2.04E-08 2.64E-08 1.40E-08 1.18E-08 WHO-2005 TEQ (ND=0; EMPC=0) 3.26E-10 2.27E-10 2.17E-10 1.14E-10 4.58E-11 WHO-2005 TEQ (ND=0; EMPC=EMPC) 3.49E-10 2.35E-10 2.73E-10 1.33E-10 6.67E-11 WHO-2005 TEQ (ND=DL; EMPC=EMPC) 3.71E-10 2.52E-10 5.05E-10 1.99E-10 9.84E-11

## Additional PAHs 

# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter PAH Emission Factors

Naphthalene 1.18E-03 2.36E-04 1.49E-03 2.31E-04 4.14E-04 Acenaphthylene 1.83E-03 8.34E-04 3.00E-02 3.68E-04 1.16E-03 Acenaphthene 1.06E-04 2.64E-05 4.40E-04 1.29E-05 2.94E-05 Fluorene 3.01E-04 1.35E-04 4.97E-03 7.71E-05 1.69E-04 Phenanthrene 1.07E-03 5.35E-04 4.33E-03 2.73E-04 8.40E-04 Anthracene 1.67E-04 9.29E-05 2.41E-03 3.63E-05 1.35E-04 Fluoranthene 6.39E-04 3.38E-04 1.75E-03 1.41E-04 5.17E-04 Pyrene 1.44E-04 6.22E-05 1.60E-04 5.88E-05 1.28E-04 Benzo(a)Anthracene 8.50E-05 4.46E-05 1.70E-03 1.80E-05 6.67E-05 Chrysene 1.03E-04 4.64E-05 1.74E-03 1.99E-05 6.96E-05 Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 2.13E-04 9.57E-05 4.21E-03 3.73E-05 1.46E-04 Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 9.41E-05 3.99E-05 2.22E-03 1.58E-05 7.54E-05 Benzo(a)Pyrene 1.06E-04 9.35E-05 2.26E-03 3.27E-05 1.37E-04 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 1.29E-04 7.45E-05 2.77E-03 3.28E-05 1.39E-04 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 1.56E-05 6.89E-06 6.00E-04 4.86E-06 1.08E-05 Benzo(ghi)Perylene 1.67E-04 7.39E-05 3.89E-03 4.12E-05 1.71E-04 Total 16 EPA PAHs 6.35E-03 2.74E-03 6.50E-02 1.40E-03 4.21E-03 2-Methylnaphthalene 1.71E-04 4.56E-05 6.82E-04 4.68E-05 6.21E-05 Benzo(e)Pyrene 9.41E-05 4.71E-05 1.58E-03 1.88E-05 8.34E-05 Perylene 3.87E-05 4.10E-05 1.23E-03 2.13E-05 7.08E-05 Ash, g/kg fuel in Sugar Maple, g/kg fuel in Pine, g/kg fuel in Red Oak, g/kg fuel in Pellets, g/kg fuel in AnalyteAnalyte Ash, g/kg fuel in Pine, g/kg fuel in Red Oak, g/kg fuel in Pellets, g/kg fuel in 1,2,3,5 -Tetrachlorobenzene 1.64E -07 4.28E -08 1.71E -07 3.62E -08 1,2,4,5 -Tetrachlorobenzene 1.52E -07 4.84E -08 1.37E -07 3.88E -08 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene 5.42E -07 1.56E -07 4.60E -07 1.22E -07 Pentachlorobenzene 1.03E -06 7.89E -07 4.24E -07 6.56E -07 Hexachlorobenzene 3.57E -07 4.77E -07 3.07E -07 2.88E -07 Total (Tetra to Hexa) Clbz 2.25E-06 1.51E-06 1.50E-06 1.14E-06 Hexachlorobutadiene 7.93E -09 0.00E+00 1.12E -08 1.81E -08 

# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter Chlorobenzenes / Chlorobutadiene Emission Factors

# Outdoor Wood Fired Hydronic Heaters (OWHH)

The Central Boiler Classic CL 5036 The Central Boiler E-Classic 2300

The ACT pellet burner – CAT fire The AFB Econoburn Gasification Boiler Unit Model Technology Central Boiler Classic CL5036 Single stage Combustion Process Central Boiler E-Classic 2300 Three stage Combustion Process Australian Pellet burner by ACT Two-stage Combustion Process The AFB Econoburn

Gasification boiler Two-stage: Combustion and Gasification with heat storage

# Outdoor Wood - Fired Hydronic Heater (OWHH) Testing Facility Setup (US EPA, NC)

# EPA vs.UDRI CO2 

# Emission Factors

• The total CO 2 

### emission factors from the cone calorimeter are slightly higher than most of the OWHHs except for the ACT where wood pellets were burned. •When compared, the CO 2 

### emission factors from CL5036 are ~85% of ash and ~65% of red oak and from the E2300 and AFB are ~70% of red oak emission factors from the cone calorimeter. The CO 2 

### emission factors from the cone calorimeter are ~90% of the ACT for wood pellets. Fuel EPA UDRI g/kg fuel in CL 5036 E2300 ACT AFB Cone Calorimeter Red Oak 1330 ( ± 29) 1560 ( ± 37) - 1537 ( ± 136) 2087 Pine 1529 ( ± 177) - - - - Ash 1556 ( ± 34) - - - 1880 Wood Pellets - - 1817 ( ± 2) - 1653 Sugar Maple - - - - 1847

# EPA vs.UDRI CO Emission Factors

• With the exception of the ACT (where CO emission factors are comparable), the total CO emission factors from the cone calorimeter are an order of magnitude less than the OWHHs. Fuel EPA UDRI g/kg fuel in CL 5036 E2300 ACT AFB Cone Calorimeter Red Oak 194 ( ± 20) 117 ( ± 17) - 127 ( ± 60) 9 Pine 190 ( ± 38) - - - 13 Ash 205 ( ± 22) - - - 13 Wood Pellets - - 8 ( ± 3) - 7 Sugar Maple - - - - 9

# EPA vs.UDRI Combustion Efficiency*

* Calculated based on [C of CO 2

### ] / [C of (CO + CO 2 

### )] x 100% 

## Fuel EPA UDRI % CL 5036 E2300 ACT AFB Cone Calorimeter Red Oak 81.35 89.46 - 88.51 99.33 Pine 83.66 - - - - Ash 82.85 - - - 98.93 Wood Pellets - - 99.31 - 99.34 Sugar Maple - - - - 99.24

# EPA vs.UDRI Particulate Mass (PM) Emission Factors

• The PM emission factors from the cone calorimeter are lower when compared to CL 5036 (by a factor of ~ 1 . 5 for Pine, 5 for Ash and 11 for Red Oak), within experimental uncertainty comparable to E 2300 and AFB, and is higher than from ACT (by a factor of ~3 ) . Fuel EPA UDRI g/kg fuel in CL 5036 E2300 ACT AFB Cone Calorimeter Red Oak 23.92 ( ±0.86) 4.48 ( ± 2.47) - 2.96 ( ±0.83) 2.1 Pine 46.42 ( ± 6.95) - - - 29.5 Ash 28.48 - - - 5.6 Wood Pellets - - 1.70 ( ± 1.11) - 5.6 Sugar Maple - - - - 5.5

# EPA vs.UDRI WHO-2005 TEQ PCDD/F Emission Factors

Fuel EPA UDRI g/kg fuel in CL 5036 E2300 ACT AFB Cone Calorimeter Red Oak 1.05E -09 ( ±7.58E - 10) 1.10E - 10 ( ± 2.15E - 11) - 7.95E - 11 ( ±7.69E - 12) 1.33E - 10 Pine 6.27E - 10 ( ± 2.10E - 10) - - - 2.73E - 10 Ash 3.81E - 10 ( ± 5.33E - 11) - - - 3.49E - 10 Wood Pellets - - 2.80E - 10 - 6.67E - 11 Sugar Maple - - - - 2.35E - 10

# EPA vs.UDRI PAH (16 EPA) Emission Factors

• When compared to the cone calorimeter experiments, the PAH emission factors from the OWHHs are about two orders of magnitude higher and don’t follow the same trend. Fuel EPA UDRI g/kg fuel in CL 5036 E2300 ACT AFB Cone Calorimeter Red Oak 4.48E -01 1.61E -01 - 2.23E -01 1.40E -03 Pine 1.54E+00 - - - 6.50E -02 Ash 2.83E+00 - - - 6.35E -03 Wood Pellets - - 4.44E -01 - 4.21E -03 Sugar Maple - - - - 2.74E -03

# Environmental Impact from Burning Wood

Pollutants Units per ton of fuel in Emission Factors Est. Min Est. Max. PM g 590 53370 WHO- 2005 TEQ PCDD/F* ng 67 1808 PAH g 1 2830 *Calculated based on world health organization toxic equivalency factors given in 2005 for

PCDD/Fs

# Conclusions  From the four types of wood and the wood pellets burned Pine has the highest flammability and emissions for most of the emissions characterized.  The PM emission factors from the cone are less than those from conventional OWHH and similar to advanced OWHH.  The PCDD/F emission factors from both the cone and OWHH tests are in the same order of magnitude.  The PAH emission factors from the cone are up to two orders of magnitude less than the OWHH.  The differences are attributed to the two different combustion conditions i.e. the well ventilated condition in the cone tests vs. the oxygen starved conditions in the conventional OWHHs.  The emission factors from OWHHs with advanced technologies (higher combustion efficiencies) are closer to the emission factors observed with the cone calorimeter.  It is recommended that if the cone calorimeter is to be used as a viable tool to obtain emission factors more representative of emissions from OWHHs that a range of conditions (i.e. from well ventilated to oxygen starved) be investigated.

# Agricultural Plastics Tested

Polypropylene Nursery pots Polyethylene Silage bags

HDPE Jars

# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter Total Mass Burned per Sample

Type of Agricultural Plastics B urned Total Mass Burned per Sample (g) PP Nursery pots 57.1 PE Silage bags 56.2 HDPE Jars 54.9

# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter Analyses of Agricultural Plastic Samples

Type of Agricultural Plastics C, wt% Cl, ppm S, wt% Ash, wt% PP Nursery pots 97.58 <200 <0.04 <0.6 PE Silage bags 98.72 <200 <0.04 <0.6 HDPE Jars 99.15 <200 <0.06 <0.5Sample Description # Time to Peak Time to Time to Peak Average Total Heat Avg. Effective MAHRE FIGRA Ignition HRR Peak HRR HRR - Tig HRR Release Heat of Comb. (s) (kW/m2) (s) (s) (kW/m2) (MJ/m2) (MJ/kg) (kW/m2) PE Silage bags 1 26 441 133 107 291 43.7 43.32 259 3.32 2 19 476 95 76 253 43.6 43.02 276 5.01 3 27 510 129 102 276 43.7 43.26 284 3.95 STDEV 4 35 21 17 19 0.1 0.16 13 0.85 Average Data 24 476 119 95 274 43.7 43.20 273 4.09 PP Nursery pots 1 36 503 64 28 283 41.6 42.41 278 7.86 2 28 483 50 22 273 41.0 41.21 286 9.66 3 36 516 63 27 347 41.4 - 274 8.19 STDEV 5 17 8 3 40 0 0.85 6 0.96 Average Data 33 501 59 26 301 41.3 41.81 279 8.57 HDPE Jars 1 39 409 171 132 294 42.1 41.96 232 2.39 2 38 445 167 129 314 42.3 41.84 245 2.67 3 35 447 94 59 321 42.0 41.26 253 4.76 STDEV 2 21 43 41 14 0 0.37 11 1.30 Average Data 37 434 144 107 309 42.1 41.69 243 3.27 

# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter Heat Release Data and Flammability

MAHRE - Maximum average heat rate emission FIGRA - Fire growth rate

# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter Smoke Release

Sample Description # Sample Thickness Starting Mass Total Mass loss Weight lost Total Smoke Release (mm) (g) (g) (%) (m2/m2) PE Silage bags 1 27.9 10.0 10.1 100.9 445 2 27.9 10.1 10.1 100.5 434 3 27.9 10.1 10.1 100.5 409 STDEV 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 18 Average Data 27.9 10.1 10.1 100.6 429 PP Nursery pots 1 27.9 10.1 9.8 97.2 538 2 27.9 10.0 9.9 99.0 562 3 27.9 10.1 - - 529 STDEV 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.3 17 Average Data 27.9 10.1 9.9 98.1 543 HDPE Jars 1 27.9 10.0 10.0 99.8 484 2 27.9 10.0 10.1 100.8 445 3 27.9 10.0 10.2 101.7 449 STDEV 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 22 Average Data 27.9 10.0 10.1 100.8 459Sample Description # CO Yield(kg/kg) CO2 Yield (kg/kg) Pre Ignition Post Ignition Pre Ignition Post Ignition Polyethylene Silage bags 1 0.001 0.030 1.75 2.93 2 0.000 0.030 3.20 2.82 3 0.008 0.030 1.27 2.86 STDEV 0.004 0.000 1.00 0.06 Average Data 0.003 0.030 2.07 2.87 Polypropylene Nursery pots 1 0.005 0.040 1.75 2.74 2 0.002 0.040 1.00 2.69 STDEV 0.002 0.000 0.53 0.04 Average Data 0.004 0.040 1.38 2.72 HDPE Jars 1 0.035 0.030 1.84 2.91 2 0.044 0.030 3.14 2.87 3 0.025 0.030 2.52 2.79 STDEV 0.010 0.000 0.65 0.06 Average Data 0.035 0.030 2.50 2.86 

# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter CO/CO2 

# Emission Factors

# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter Particulate Mass (PM) Emission Factors

Type of Agricultural Plastics PM , g/kg fuel in PP Nursery pots 74.43 PE Silage bags 64.23 HDPE Jars 76.68PP Nursery pots PE Silage bags HDPE Jars (ND=0, EMPC=EMPC) 2,3,7,8-TCDD 6.36E-11 1.90E-11 0.00E+00 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1.11E-10 3.90E-11 0.00E+00 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.00E+00 1.04E-10 0.00E+00 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 4.26E-10 3.70E-10 2.57E-10 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 2.03E-10 1.80E-10 1.68E-10 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 2.05E-09 2.01E-09 1.49E-09 OCDD 3.61E-09 3.90E-09 2.71E-09 2,3,7,8-TCDF 2.19E-09 7.94E-10 1.27E-09 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 4.40E-09 1.35E-09 1.48E-09 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 4.76E-09 1.58E-09 1.44E-09 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 2.63E-09 9.56E-10 7.76E-10 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 3.03E-09 8.22E-10 6.08E-10 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 3.27E-09 8.86E-10 5.28E-10 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 2.15E-09 8.97E-10 4.92E-10 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 2.08E-09 4.93E-10 3.33E-10 OCDF 1.35E-09 6.67E-10 3.99E-10 Totals TCDDs 2.01E-09 2.14E-09 4.15E-09 PeCDDs 1.09E-09 6.69E-10 9.25E-10 HxCDDs 1.23E-09 2.35E-09 1.45E-09 HpCDDs 2.05E-09 2.01E-09 1.49E-09 OCDD 3.61E-09 3.90E-09 2.71E-09 TCDFs 7.04E-08 3.10E-08 9.62E-08 PeCDFs 6.43E-08 1.94E-08 1.89E-08 HxCDFs 3.36E-08 9.77E-09 5.83E-09 HpCDFs 7.50E-09 1.85E-09 3.33E-10 OCDF 1.35E-09 6.67E-10 3.99E-10 Total PCDD/Fs (ND=0; EMPC=0) 1.87E-07 7.37E-08 1.32E-07 Total PCDD/Fs (ND=0; EMPC=EMPC) 1.91E-07 7.63E-08 1.44E-07 Total PCDD/Fs (2378-X ND=DL; EMPC=EMPC) 1.91E-07 7.65E-08 1.44E-07 WHO-2005 TEQ (ND=0; EMPC=0) 2.80E-09 9.32E-10 3.81E-10 WHO-2005 TEQ (ND=0; EMPC=EMPC) 2.98E-09 1.02E-09 8.62E-10 WHO-2005 TEQ (ND=DL; EMPC=EMPC) 2.99E-09 1.03E-09 1.01E-09 g/kg fuel in Analyte



# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter PCDD/F Emission Factors

# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter PAH Emission Factors

Additional PAHs Analyte PP Nursery pots PE Silage bags HDPE Jars g/kg fuel in Naphthalene 9.21E -03 8.31E -03 2.93E -03 Acenaphthylene 3.31E -03 2.70E -03 8.52E -03 Acenaphthene 1.89E -03 1.06E -03 6.78E -03 Fluorene 1.37E -02 1.19E -02 1.70E -02 Phenanthrene 3.99E -03 4.02E -03 9.56E -03 Anthracene 5.71E -03 5.46E -03 1.34E -02 Fluoranthene 3.43E -03 3.56E -03 7.85E -03 Pyrene 3.01E -04 3.56E -04 6.32E -04 Benzo(a)Anthracene 5.01E -03 4.22E -03 1.00E -02 Chrysene 4.85E -03 4.18E -03 9.11E -03 Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 6.25E -03 4.50E -03 1.09E -02 Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5.24E -03 3.27E -03 1.02E -02 Benzo(a)Pyrene 7.06E -03 6.01E -03 1.48E -02 Indeno(1,2,3 -cd)Pyrene 1.12E -02 8.22E -03 1.95E -02 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 1.52E -03 8.11E -04 1.88E -03 Benzo(ghi)Perylene 1.18E -02 9.31E -03 2.39E -02 Total 16 PAHs 9.45E-02 3.39E-01 1.67E-01 2 - Methylnaphthalene 2.80E -03 2.58E -03 1.73E -03 Benzo(e)Pyrene 5.29E -03 4.18E -03 8.52E -03 Perylene 2.82E -03 1.78E -03 2.30E -02

# UDRI – Cone Calorimeter Chlorobenzenes/ Chlorobutadiene Emission Factors

Analyte PP Nursery pots PE Silage bags HDPE Jars g/kg fuel in 1,2,3,5 -Tetrachlorobenzene 8.09E -07 4.06E -07 5.99E -08 1,2,4,5 -Tetrachlorobenzene 8.56E -07 2.08E -07 6.76E -08 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene 2.80E -06 8.91E -07 1.84E -07 Pentachlorobenzene 5.80E -07 7.14E -07 1.20E -06 Hexachlorobenzene 1.06E -06 1.30E -06 1.91E -06 Total (Tetra to Hexa)Clbz 6.11E-06 3.52E-06 3.42E-06 Hexachlorobutadiene 4.97E -08 7.49E -08 5.79E -08

# Open Burn Test Facility (OBTF) at US EPA, NC

T = thermocouples ; PUF = polyurethane foam absorbent; CEM = control emission monitors ; THC = total hydrocarbons ; dP = differential pressure.Sample Description # CO Yield CO 2 Yield g/kg fuel in PP Nursery pots 1 1.0 3576 2 1.5 3576 3 1.1 3576 4 0.8 3577 STDEV 0.32 0.50 Average Data 1.1 3576 PE Silage bags 1 1.6 3575 2 1.6 3575 3 1.3 3576 4 1.3 3576 STDEV 0.17 0.27 Average Data 1.4 3576 

# EPA – OBTF CO/CO2 

# Emission Factors

Type of Agricultural Plastics EPA – OBTF UDRI – C one Calorimeter CO CO2 CO CO2 g/kg fuel in PP Nursery pots 1.1 3576 43.5 4090 PE Silage bags 1.4 3576 33.0 4943 HDPE Jars - - 64.7 5357

## Type of Agricultural Plastics EPA – OBTF UDRI – Cone Calorimeter % PP Nursery pots 99.95 98.36 PE Silage bags 99.94 98.96 HDPE Jars - 98.14 

# EPA vs.UDRI Combustion Efficiency*

* Calculated based on [C of CO 2

### ] / [C of (CO + CO 2 

### )] x 100%Particulate Mass (PM) PP Nursery pots PE Silage bags g/kg fuel in PM 10 0.0070 0.0073 PM 2.5 0.0073 0.0114 Total 0.0074 0.0078 

# EPA – OBTF Particulate Mass(PM) Emission Factors

Type of Agricultural Plastic EPA – OBTF (PM 10+2.5) UDRI – Cone calorimeter (PM) g/kg fuel in PP Nursery pots 0.0074 74.43 PE Silage bags 0.0078 64.23 HDPE Jars - 76.68



### Note: The differences in PM yields between the cone and OBTF data is because in the cone tests the total particles generated were sampled where as in the OBTF tests only size selected particle sampling was performed i.e. PM < 10 **μ**m and PM < 2.5 **μ**mAnalyte PP Nursery pots PE Silage bags g/kg fuel in 2,3,7,8- TCDD 0.00E+00 4.15E - 11 1,2,3,7,8- PeCDD 1.51E - 10 4.00E - 10 1,2,3,4,7,8- HxCDD 6.47E - 12 4.52E - 12 1,2,3,6,7,8- HxCDD 2.83E- 11 3.40E - 11 1,2,3,7,8,9- HxCDD 1.13E- 11 2.23E - 11 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- HpCDD 7.65E- 12 9.06E - 12 OCDD 5.36E- 13 3.62E - 13 2,3,7,8- TCDD 8.85E- 11 1.15E- 10 1,2,3,7,8- PeCDF 3.08E - 11 3.23E- 11 2,3,4,7,8- PeCDF 6.08E - 10 5.21E- 10 1,2,3,4,7,8- HxCDF 2.39E - 10 2.12E- 10 1,2,3,6,7,8- HxCDF 1.81E- 10 1.62E- 10 2,3,4,6,7,8- HxCDF 1.40E- 11 2.19E- 11 1,2,3,7,8,9- HxCDF 1.83E- 10 1.98E - 10 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- HpCDF 4.69E- 11 5.34E - 11 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- HpCDF 8.08E- 12 4.64E - 12 OCDF 4.82E - 13 2.58E - 13 Totals TCDDs 1.08E - 08 1.56E - 08 PeCDDs 4.01E - 09 5.58E - 09 HxCDDs 3.58E- 09 2.76E - 09 HpCDDs 1.61E- 09 1.51E - 09 OCDD 1.79E- 09 8.27E - 10 TCDFs 3.63E- 08 5.48E - 08 PeCDFs 2.82E- 08 2.74E- 08 HxCDFs 1.79E- 08 1.64E- 08 HpCDFs 6.44E - 09 6.58E- 09 OCDF 1.61E - 09 8.60E- 10 Total PCDD/Fs (ND=O,EMPC=EMPC) 1.12E- 07 1.32E- 07 WHO - 2005 TEQ (ND=0,EMPC=EMPC) 4.10E- 10 6.76E- 10 

# EPA – OBTF PCDD/F Emission Factors

Analyte EPA – OBTF UDRI – Cone Calorimeter PP Nursery pots PE Silage bags PP Nursery pots PE Silage bags HDPE Jars g/kg fuel in Total PCDD/Fs (ND=0; EMPC=EMPC) 1.12E -07 1.32E -07 1.91E -07 7.63E -08 1.44E -07 WHO-2005 TEQ P CDD/Fs (ND=0;EMPC=EMPC) 4.10E - 10 6.76E - 10 2.98E -09 1.02E -09 8.62E - 10

# EPA – OBTF PAH Emission Factors

Analyte OBTF PP Nursery pots PE Silage bags g/kg fuel in Naphthalene 5.88E -02 7.48E -02 Acenaphthylene 2.47E -02 2.75E -02 Acenaphthene 6.96E -04 9.09E -04 Fluorene 4.50E -03 5.95E -03 Phenanthrene 1.55E -02 1.48E -02 Anthracene 2.32E -03 2.75E -03 Fluoranthene 1.35E -02 6.61E -03 Pyrene 9.91E -03 8.63E -03 Benzo(a) anthracene 1.15E -03 7.80E -04 Chrysene 1.52E -03 7.96E -04 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.27E -03 9.99E -04 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5.75E -04 4.55E -04 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.49E -03 1.42E -03 Indeno(1,2,3 -cd)pyrene 1.49E -03 1.42E -03 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.47E -04 7.30E -05 Benzo(ghi)perylene 1.49E -03 7.63E -04 Total 16 EPA PAHs 1.39E-01 1.49E-01

Type of Agricultural Plastic Total 16 EPA PAHs EPA – OBTF UDRI – Cone calorimeter g/kg fuel in PP Nursery pots 1.39E-01 9.45E-02 PE Silage bags 1.49E-01 3.39E-01 HDPE Jars - 1.67E-01

# Environmental Impact from Burning Agricultural Plastics

Pollutants Units per ton of fuel in Emission Factors Est. Min Est. Max. PM (2.5 + 10 **μ** m) g 7.4 7.8 WHO- 2005 TEQ PCDD/F ng 410 2980 PAH g 95 339 *Calculated based on world health organization toxic equivalency factors given in 2005 for

PCDD/Fs

# Conclusions  From the three types of agricultural plastics burned, the cone tests show that polypropylene nursery pots have the highest emission factors for most of the emissions characterized.  Although differences were observed in the emission factors for the plastics tested with the cone calorimeter, the emission factors from the OBTF are similar for the two plastics tested and are within experimental uncertainty.  Except for PM (where differences were observed due to the sampling methods), the emission factors from OBTF and Cone Calorimeter are similar in magnitude and within experimental uncertainty.  Thus, the cone calorimeter setup can be used to obtain emission factors under well ventilated conditions similar to the open burn scenario.

# Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the financial support of the Great Lakes Commission, and project manager Anna Soehl for her patience and efforts in seeing the completion of this study. We would also like to thank Dr . Brian Gullett and his staff at US EPA for providing the OWHH and Open Burn test facilities (Research Triangle Park, NC) for this study.

# Thank You! Questions?