Study of Air Toxics Released from the Pre- Harvest Burning of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Results: VOCs (cont’d) In general, VOC EFs are lower than other reported EFs, including those for sugarcane. Differences attributed to: – Measurement technique – Sugarcane source, condition, and burning characteristics (i.e., CE) Table: VOC EF (mg/kg) comparison
Results: PM 2.5 CPM was not statistically higher (p=0.27) in the sample than in the method blanks neglected The average PM 2.5 EF was 2.49±0.66 g/kg (n=4) for dry leaf experiments. Agrees very well with current EFs and other agricultural burning studies. Table: PM EF (mg/kg) comparison
Page 1 and 2: A&WMA International Specialty Confe
Page 3 and 4: Introduction: Sugarcane EFs Current
Page 5 and 6: Methodology: Chamber Design A combu
Page 7 and 8: Methodology: PAHs Sampling and anal
Page 9 and 10: Methodology: PM 2.5 PM 2.5 sampling
Page 11 and 12: Results: Chamber CE Combustion effi
Page 13 and 14: Results: PAHs (cont’d) PAH EFs ar
Page 15 and 16: Results: Carbonyls • Total carbon
Page 17: Results: VOCs Benzene and toluene d
Page 21 and 22: HAPs Emission Estimates HAPs emissi
Page 23 and 24: HAP Emission Inventory Estimates (c
Page 25 and 26: Summary & Conclusions The data from

Study of Air Toxics Released from the Pre- Harvest Burning of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?