Characterization of Emissions Formed from Open Burning of Pesticide Bags

Oberacker, Donald A.; Lin, Peng; Shaul, G. M.; Ferguson, David; Engleman, V.S.; Jackson, T.; Chapman, J. S.; Evans, John; Martrano, Raymond J.; Evey, Linda L.

doi:10.1021/bk-1992-0510.ch007

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar high-efficiency combustion of plastic bags is reported by Stockwell (2016). Plastic bag EFs are in the same 3), likely due to different plastic materials and burning conditions (Park et al, 2013;Lemieux et al, 2004;Oberacker et al, 1992;Stockwell et al, 2016;Jayarathne et al, 2018;Stockwell, 2016;Wu et al, 2021).…”

Section: Emission Factors (Efs) For Criteria Pollutantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of gas and particle emissions from open burning of household solid waste from South Africa

Wang,

Firouzkouhi,

Chow

et al. 2023

Atmos. Chem. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Open burning of household and municipal solid waste is a frequent 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. In this study, laboratory combustion experiments were conducted to characterize gas and particle emissions from 10 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 (MCEs). 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 content, resulting in the highest EFs for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Emissions are similar for vegetation with 0 % and 20 % moisture content; however, EFs for CO and particulate matter (PM) from the vegetation with 50 % moisture content are 3 and 20–30 times, respectively, those from 0 % and 20 % moisture content. 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.

show abstract

Section: Emission Factors (Efs) For Criteria Pollutantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of gas and particle emissions from open burning of household solid waste from South Africa

Wang,

Firouzkouhi,

Chow

et al. 2023

Atmos. Chem. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adebona et al [63] noted several products of incomeplete combustion, polyaromatic hydrocarbons and low levels of dioxins in open burning tests on 22.7 kg insecticide bags. Oberacker et al [64] noted that after burning bags containing phorate, 2% of the phorate was released into the air and 0.5% remained in the solid residues. Felsot et al [22] reported that bags containing atrazine released 13% of the remaining product into the air while 25% remained as residue.…”

Section: Open Burningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disposal and Treatment Methods for Pesticide Containing Wastewaters: Critical Review and Comparative Analysis

Mariam¹,

Abdel

2012

JEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pesticides provide the primary means for controlling organisms that compete with man for food and fibre or cause injury to man, livestock and crops. They played a vital role in the economic production of wide ranges of vegetable, fruit, cereal, forage, fibre and oil crops which now constitute a large part of successful agricultural industry in many countries. After application to the target areas, pesticide residues are removed from applicators by rinsing with water which results in the formation of a toxic wastewater that represents a disposal problem for many farmers. Pesticides can adversely affect people, pets, livestock and wildlife in addition to the pests they are intended to destroy. The phenomenon of biomagnification of some pesticides has resulted in reproductive failure of some fish species and egg shell thinning of birds such as peregrine falcons, sparrow hawk and eagle owls. Pesticide toxicity to humans include skin and eye irritation and skin cancer. Therefore, care must be exercised in the application, disposal and treatment of pesticides. Currently, disposal of pesticide wastewater is carried out by: 1) land cultivation, 2) dumping in soil pits, plastic pits and concrete pits or on land and in extreme cases in streams near the rinsing operation, 3) use of evaporation beds and 4) land filling. These methods of disposal are unsafe as the surface run off will reach streams, rivers and lakes and the infiltration of the wastewater into the local soil will eventually reach ground water. The treatment methods currently used for pesticide wastewater include: 1) incineration (incinerators and open burning), 2) chemical treatments (O3/UV, hydrolysis, Fenton oxidation and KPEG), 3) physical treatments (inorganic, organic absorbents and activated carbon) and 4) biological treatments (composting, bioaugmentation and phytoremediation). Therefore, the choice of safe, on farm disposal techniques for agricultural pesticides is very important. A comparative analysis was performed on 18 methods of pesticide disposal/treatment using six criteria: containment, detoxification ability, cost, time, suitability for on farm use, size and evaporation efficiency. The results indicated that of the 18 methods evaluated, 9 scored above 80/100 and can be used on farm. They were organic absorbents (97), composting (94), bioaugmentation (92), inorganic absorbents (90), Fenton oxidation (86), O3/UV (83), activated carbon (82), hydrolysis (82), and land cultivation (80). The other methods are not suitable for on farm use as they suffered from containment problems, high cost and variability of effectiveness

show abstract