emission factors for biomass burning -...

REPORT 9 12/2016

EMISSION FACTORS

FOR BIOMASS

BURNING

AIRUSE LIFE 11 ENV/ES/584

Authors:

Report 9: Emission factors for biomass burning

AIRUSE LIFE 11 ENV/ES/584 1 / 26

INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3

2. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS .......................................................................................................5

3. EMISSION FACTORS ..................................................................................................................9

3.1. EMISSIONS FROM RESIDENTIAL BIOMASS COMBUSTION APPLIANCES ....................................10

3.2. EMISSIONS FROM A FLUIDISED BED REACTOR ..........................................................................16

4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................18

REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................19

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL .....................................................................................................22

1) EMISSION FACTORS FROM TRADITIONAL APPLIANCES (FIREPLACE VERSUS WOODTOVE) .........22

2) EMISSION FACTORS FROM A MODERN CERTIFIED WOODSTOVE ...................................................24

3) EMISSION FACTORS FROM A PELLET STOVE ...................................................................................25

4) EMISSION FACTORS FROM A FLUIDISED BED REACTOR .................................................................26



1. INTRODUCTION

Residential wood combustion (RWC) has been identified as an important source of air

pollution in many European urban and rural areas in Central and Northern Europe (e.g.

Puxbaum et al., 2007; Gelencsér et al., 2008; Schmidl et al., 2008; Bari et al., 2009, 2010;

Caseiro et al., 2009; Piazzalunga et al., 2011). Besides greenhouse gases, the emission of

carbonaceous particles under 10 or 2.5 µm (PM10 or PM2.5) from biomass combustion

deserves special attention. These particles are formed by a complex mixture of organic

compounds, normally referred to as organic carbon (OC), and a mass of carbon atoms (black

in colour) with a graphitic-like structure that is normally called elemental carbon (EC). EC

has optical and chemically catalytic properties, causing visibility reduction, positive radiative

forcing and an impact on atmospheric photochemistry (Chuang et al., 2003; Li et al., 2005).

On the other hand, OC presents light scattering properties and, since a significant fraction is

water soluble, participates in various aerosol-cloud interactions (Bates et al., 2005). OC

encompasses constituents known or suspected to be carcinogens, such as polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs), within which benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) is included (Bølling et al., 2009).

In the early fall of 2010 a survey questionnaire was conducted to assess RWC practices in the

18 districts of mainland Portugal (Gonçalves et al., 2012). The survey questionnaire allowed

estimating a total of about 2 Mt y-1

of domestic wood consumption in the country. RWC is

used by more than 3 million and a half inhabitants, which corresponds to 37% out of the

population. In the households where wood is frequently burned, 43% use fireplaces.

Woodstoves and traditional ovens represent about 24% of the total number of appliances. The

emissions of PM2.5 from RWC in Portugal (11 kt y-1

) account for 30% of the estimate for

different source activities. In Italy, Pastorello et al. (2011) undertook a RWC activity survey,

in the Lombardy region, in order to obtain information useful for the development of high

quality emission inventories at the local and regional scale and to provide input data to air

quality modelling and planning. The survey indicated that wood logs are typically the most

used fuel, mainly for domestic heating and hardly ever for cooking. Among appliances for

heating purposes, traditional combustion systems (open fireplace, traditional stove) were

found to represent 61% of the total appliances in the region; 27% are closed fireplaces and the

remaining 12% are innovative devices (or automatic stoves). Moreover, it has been estimated

that, in Lombardy, the impact of wood burning on PM10 ranged from about 5% to about 25%.

It is noteworthy the not negligible contribution of wood burning also in the large city of Milan

(PM10 from RWC = 6.0-16.5%), especially in view of effective abatement policies, which are

mandatory because of the very high PM levels registered during wintertime (Piazzalunga et

al., 2011). The regional emission inventory carried out in 2008 in the same Italian region

showed that RWC in small appliances is the major source of BaP, representing 77% (2.9 t y–1

)

of the total emissions (3.8 t y–1

). In particular, traditional woodstoves, closed fireplaces and

open fireplaces are the major contributors accounting, respectively, for 32%, 23% and 19%. It

should be noted that, due to its carcinogenicity, BaP is regulated in the European Union by the

4th

Air Quality Daughter Directive (2004/107/EC). Belis et al. (2011) conducted a study in

2007 and 2009 at ten air quality monitoring stations in the North Italian Po Plain and

Valtelline Valley. Emissions from biomass burning accounted for 74±32%, 79±18%,



85±33%, and 84±46% of all BaP sources, respectively, at a kerbside in Milan, six urban

background stations in the Po Plain, two rural background stations in the Po Plain, and an

urban background station in the Valtelline Valley. BaP measurements in 2010 were above the

target value threshold (1 ng m-3

annual average) at 38 % of the EMEP monitoring stations.

Exceedances are most predominant in central and eastern Europe, although they are also

observed in Bulgaria, Germany, Ireland, the United Kingdom, France and Greece (EEA,

2012).

Air pollution is usually not the first consequence that comes to mind when thinking about an

economic crisis, but new research out of economically downtrodden Greece has found that as

the price of heating oil increases, Greek residents are switching to burning cheaper material,

such as wood, to warm their homes, which is having an effect on the environment and

possibly public health. Air quality in the Greek city of Thessaloniki has worsened during the

recent economic crisis, because residents burn more wood and other types of biomass to keep

warm. A recent study has found a 30% increase in the concentration of fine particle (PM2.5)

emissions associated with RWC in 2012 and 2013 (Saffari et al., 2013). Evening samples

encompassed a higher proportion of organic matter (74%) compared with the morning

samples (58%), again suggesting more wood and biomass were used for heating in the

evening. Also, the concentrations of vanadium and nickel, which imply combustion of

residential fuel oil and industrial activity, were 30-40% lower in 2013 compared with 2012.

Although no similar study has been conducted in Portugal, some sales statistics indicate that

Portuguese people are also burning more wood. Moreover, in recent years there has been a

proliferation of companies selling RWC appliances. The certification processes are still being

discussed and there are no regulations in force in the country. In Spain, the Ministry of

Economy has encourage the installation of boilers as part of the 2004-2012 Energy Plan,

which aimed to promote the use of biomass, such as pellets, olive pit and almond shell, as an

energy source. Therefore, it has subsidized the installation of biomass boilers with up to 30%

of the investment cost.

Estimations of the contributions of RWC to PM2.5 or PM10 are hard to obtain, because

emission factors vary greatly with wood type and burning equipment (Gonçalves et al., 2011).

Moreover, the amounts and types of wood burned, the categories of burning appliances can

also differ significantly from region to region.

Biomass based heat and power production is an increasingly popular renewable energy

technology that shows overall greenhouse gas benefits. However, industrial combustion gives

rise to other airborne emissions, such as CO, and particulate matter. Currently, Portugal has 2

thermoelectric power plants with 22 MW capacity, consuming 269000 t y-1

of biomass

(Teixeira, 2009). However, 13 new power plants having a total capacity of 86.4 MW are in

construction. Nine co-generation power plants are installed in forestry sector industries, which

exploit biomass for heat production. It was estimated that energy production and industrial

combustion contribute to 3% and 20% of total PM10 emissions, respectively (APA, 2011).

However, national-level data on detailed emission factors from industrial combustion are non-

existent, pending further investigation.

The understanding of the emission processes as well as the databases covering the emission

factors from RWC and industrial burning of important trace gases and PM10/PM2.5 are still

very limited. This subject is of utmost importance, in particular in the Mediterranean region,

where the scarcity of information is more evident. The purpose of this research is focused on

fulfilling the need for detailed characterisation of emission profiles resulting from residential



and industrial combustion of the most prevalent biofuels in Southern Europe. This will

contribute with new data to improve emission inventories and will help in the adoption of air

pollution control measures.

2. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS

The Centre of Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM), one of the research units of the

University of Aveiro (UAVR), has built a biomass combustion facility (Fig. 1) where

different biofuels (Fig. 2) have been burned in disctint appliances (Fig. 3). The infrastructure

enables the continuous control and monitoring of different parameters (e.g. temperatures,

pressures, flows, etc.) at various points (e.g. combustion chamber, chimney, dilution tunnel).

Particles are collected under isokinetic conditions in a dilution tunnel located downstream of

the chimney, which consists of a tube of circular section with 11 m length and 0.20 m internal

diameter. During the combustion experiments, different parameters are continuously

controlled:

i) mass of the fuel in the grate at the combustion chamber and fuel

consumption rate (weight sensor - load cell DSEUROPE Model 535QD-A5)

ii) temperature profiles of the combustion flue gas inside the combustion

chamber and at the exit of the chimney (K-type thermocouples)

iii) combustion gas flow rate entering the combustion chamber in the stove

(mass flow meter, Kurz, Model: 500-2.0-P 40) and at the exit of the chimney

(a Pitot tube, Testo AG 808, and a K-type thermocouple)

iv) composition of combustion flue gases at the exit of the chimney:

a. CO2 and CO (non-dispersive infrared, Environnement MIR 9000).

b. Total hydrocarbons (Dyna-FID Hidrocarbon Gas Analyser, model SE-310)

c. O2 (paramagnetic, ADC model O2-700 with a Servomex Module).



Fig 1 - Schematic representation of the laboratory RWC facility



Fig. 2 - Biofuels whose emissions have been characterised. Upper group: biofuels burned in

fireplace and woodstoves. Bottom group: biofuels burned in a pellet stove.

Traditional fireplace

Operated manually in batch mode and with no control

of combustion air

Traditional woodstove

(Solzaima, Sahara, 9.8-18.2 kW)

Operated manually in batch mode and with handheld

control of combustion air



Eco-labelled chimney-type woodstove, 6 kW

Operated manually in batch mode

Pellet stove (Solzaima, Alpes, 9.5 kW)

Automatic feeding

Fig. 3 – RWC appliances for which emission factors have been obtained

Taking into account the proliferation of residual forest biomass power plants, especially in

Portugal, and their likely impact on atmospheric PM levels, the emissions from the

combustion of wood chips in a Fluidised Bed Reactor (FBR) under different stoichiometric

conditions were studied (Fig. 4). The reactor is a thermally insulated AISI 310 SS tube with

an internal diameter of 0.25 m and 3 m height. The bed is operated with silica sand particles

in the 0.25-1.00 mm size range. The combustion air is staged, with primary air through the

distributor plate and secondary air through a vertical tube located inside the freeboard. The

solid fuels are fed together with the secondary air, and discharged continuously at bed surface.

Pressure, temperature and composition of the combustion flue gas are monitored by means of

nine water-cooled sampling probes located at several heights; two are immersed in the dense

bed and the others are located along the freeboard. Each probe is equipped with a cooled

particle filter at the rear, a K-type thermocouple, and a cerablanket plug at the tip. O2 and CO2

are monitored by an on-line gas analysis system (ADC WA-558G), paramagnetic for O2

(ADC model 02-700 with a Servomex Module) and non-dispersive infra-red for CO2 (ADC

model SB-300). The flue gas is exhausted to the atmosphere after passing through a cyclone

separator and/or a bag filter. Particle sampling from the exhaust can be done before or after

the dust separators.



Dashed line - Electric circuit, Solid line - Pneumatic circuit, A - Primary air heating system, B - Sand bed, C - Bed solids level control, D -

Bed solids discharge, E - Bed solids discharge silo, F - Propane burner system, G - Port for visualisation of bed surface, H - Air flowmeter

(primary and secondary air), I - Control and command unit, J - Biomass feeder, K - Water-cooled gas sampling probe, L, M, P, Q - Command and gas distribution units (UCD0, UCD1, UCD2, UCD3), N - Gas sampling pump, O - Gas condensation unit for moisture

removal, R, S, T, U, V, W - Automatic on-line gas analysers, X - Electronic command unit (UCE1), Y - Computer data acquisition and

control system, Z - Exhaust duct to cyclone.

Fig. 4. Schematic representation of the pilot-scale installation.

In addition to the determination of emission factors (EFs) for combustion gases and particles

(PM2.5 or PM10), the particulate matter samples have been subjected to the determination of

their carbonaceous content (organic and elemental carbon, OC and EC) by a thermal-optical

technique (Pio et al., 2011).

3. EMISSION FACTORS

From the experimental results, four databases compiling the emission factors for CO, CO2,

PM10 or PM2.5, OC and EC resulting from the combustion of various biofuels in distinct

equipments were obtained (Supplementary Material):

1) Emission factors from traditional appliances (fireplace versus woodstove),

2) Emission factors from a modern certified woodstove,

3) Emission factors from a pellet stove,

4) Emission factors from a fluidised bed reactor.



3.1. Emissions from residential biomass combustion appliances

As expected, and in contrast to what was observed for CO, the CO2 emission factors increased

with increasing combustion temperature (Figs. 5 and 6), as a result of a more efficient

biomass fuel conversion at higher temperatures in the combustion chamber.

Among woods, the combustion of pine and beech generated the lowest particle emissions for

all types of burning appliances, while the highest levels were produced when olive, followed

by oak species, were burned. The fireplace was the combustion appliance with the highest

particle emissions. Due to the uncontrolled amount of combustion air admitted to the reaction

chamber, fireplaces operate with higher levels of excess air, presenting higher biomass

combustion rates and achieving lower temperatures.

Particle emissions from the fireplace, traditional cast iron stove, eco-labelled stove and pellet

stove were, respectively, in the following ranges: 312-1135, 149-703, 61-156 and 25-156 mg

MJ-1

biofuel burned (dry basis). Particle emissions from the fireplace were about 3, 12 and 15-

fold higher than those from the traditional woodstove, eco-labelled appliance and pellet stove,

respectively (Fig. 7). Emissions from the traditional woodstove exceeded 5 to 6 times those of

the two more modern combustion devices. However, even the pellet stove, for most of the

biofuels (Fig. 8), does not meet the emission limits stipulated in various countries (Table 1)

although it is believed that these emission limits are referred to measurements performed at

high temperature, excluding condensables. If condensables are taken into account these

emission limits might be equivalent to 170-150 mg MJ-1

) according to recent studies that

point to an underestimation of emission factors (up to 5 times) by the fact that this fraction is

not accounted for. Among all the biofuels tested, only pellets of type I comply with the limits.

It should be noted that these wood pellets possess ENplus quality certification. Wood pellets

with the DINplus mark meet the requirements of the European Standard DIN EN 14961-2

(quality class A1). The certificate ENplus not only fulfills the EN 14961-2 provisions, but

requires even stricter quality criteria. This quality seal stands for low emissions and trouble-

free heating with high energy value.

Particle emission factors from residential biomass combustion reported in the literature vary

widely (Tables 2 and 3), depending heavily on combustion technology.



Fig. 5 - CO, CO2 and PM2.5 emission factors for traditional appliances

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Emis

sio

n f

acto

rs (

g C

O2

kg-1

bio

fue

l, d

ry b

asis

)

Fireplace Traditional woodstove

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Emis

sio

n f

acto

rs (

g C

O k

g-1b

iofu

el,

dry

bas

is)

FireplaceTraditional woodstove

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Emis

sio

n f

acto

rs (

g P

M2.

5kg

-1b

iofu

el,

dry

bas

is)

Fireplace

Traditional woodstove



Fig.6 – Emission factors for the eco-labelled (chimney-type) woodstove

1520

1540

1560

1580

1600

1620

1640

1660

1680

Maritime pine Golden wattle Eucalypt Cork oak

CO

2(g

kg-1

, dry

bas

is)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


CO

(g

kg-1

, dry

bas

is)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00


PM

10(g

kg-

1, d

ry b

asis

)



Fig. 7- Particle emission factors for various residential combustion appliances

Fig. 8 – Particle emission factors for a pellet stove

Table 1. Particulate emission limits for solid fuel (biomass) combustion appliances in Europe,

UK and USA

Country Limit Apply factor (4.85) for comparison Convert to

g kg-1

Austria 60 mg MJ-1

290 mg MJ-1

5.8 g kg-1

Canada 4.5 g h-1

Denmark 50 mg MJ-1

242 mg MJ-1

4.8 g kg-1

10 g kg-1

Finland No limit

Germany (current) 50 mg MJ-1

242 mg MJ-1

4.8 g kg-1

Germany (01/01/2015) 27 mg MJ-1

131 mg MJ-1

2.6 g kg-1

Ireland 100 mg MJ-1

485 mg MJ-1

9.7 g kg-1

Netherland No limit

Sweden No limit

Switzerland 50 mg MJ-1

242 mg MJ-1

4.8 g kg-1

UK 7.5 g h-1

USA 7.5 g h-1

Southern European countries No limit

Table 2. Particle emission factors reported in the literature (mg particles emitted per

Megajoule of fuel burnt) for different types of combustion appliances (adapted from

Bølling et al., 2009)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Fireplace Traditional

woodstove

Eco-labelled

woodstove

Pellet stove

mg

MJ

-1(d

ry

ba

sis)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Pellet - type

I

Pellet - type

II

Pellet - type

III

Pellet - type

IV

Olive Pit Shell of Pine

Nuts

Almond

Shell

mg

MJ

-1(d

ry b

asi

s)



Combustion appliances

Emission factors

Reference Aprox. range

(mg MJ-1

)

Data used for

inventories

(mg MJ-1

)

Open fireplaces 160 - 910 800

160-447 a,1

860-910 a,2

Karvosenoja et al. (2008)

Nussbaumer et al. (2008)


Modern boilers for wood chips or logs 5-450 5-450 a,1


20-25 Jokiniemi et al. (2008)

30-100 Sternhufvud et al. (2004)

Pellet stoves and boilers 3-50 30 Karvosenoja et al. (2008)

10-50 a,1 and 2


20 Jokiniemi et al. (2008)

30 Sternhufvud et al. (2004)

miscanthus pellets 8*

Schmidl et al. (2011)

triticale pellets 120*

full load 8-11*

start up 8-34*

maloperation 3-21*

wood pellets 16-31* Kistler el al. (2012)

Chimney stoves

6kW 4 Portuguese wood types 114* Gonçalves et al. (2010)

6kW, 10kW Australian wood types+Briquetts 83* Schmidl et al. (2011)

8kW 12 Central European wood types 20-222* Kistler el al. (2012)

8kW Wood briquetts 32*

Conventional wood stoves 50-2100 700 Karvosenoja et al. (2008)

94-650 a,1


50-1932 a,2




Other conventional stoves,

including masonry heaters

and sauna stoves

30-140

140

30-100


Jokiniemi et al. (2008)

Conventional boilers for wood logs

without accumulator tank

50-2000

700


300-2000 a,1 and 2




with accumulator tank 50-250 80 Karvosenoja et al. (2008)

50-300 a,1 and 2


95 Sternhufvud et al. (2004)

arange of emission factors based on data from members of the International Energy Agency, as reported in Nussbaumer et al. (2008).

1 = measurement of particles at temperatures > 100°C, 2 = measurement of particles in dilution tunnel at temperatures < 100°C.

bdata from Puxbaum and Winiwarter (2011)

* mgPM10 MJ-1

B4: Emission factors for biomass burning


Page 15

Table 3. Particle emission factors (g kg-1

). Adapted from Fernandes et al. (2011)

Biofuel type Burning appliance PM2.5 emission factors PM10 emission factors Ref.

Birch wood Soapstone stove 0.1- 2.6 g PM2.5 kg-1 Hedberg et al. (2002)

Australian trees:

Modified commercial

stove

Fast burning conditions:

0.14-0.21 g PM2.5 kg-1 for wood (wet basis)

0.45-4.7 g PM2.5 kg-1 for leaves and branches

(wet basis)

Slow burning conditions:

0.12-0.48 g PM2.5 kg-1 for wood (wet basis)

3.3-4.9 g PM2.5 kg-1 for leaves and branches (wet

basis

Wardoyo et al. (2006)

Potted Gum (Corymbia citriodora),

Blue Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis),

Bloodwood (Eucalyptus intermedia),

Iron Bark (Eucalyptus crebra), and

Stringybark (Eucalyptus umbra).

Prevalent USA tree species

Non-catalytic stove 0.88-3.4 g PM2.5 kg-1 biomass (wet basis)

Fine et al. (2004) Catalytic stove 1.2-2.2 g PM2.5 kg-1 biomass (wet basis)

Fireplace 3.3-6.8 g PM2.5 kg-1 biomass (wet basis)

Acacia nilotica and briquettes

Indian traditional stoves

0.8-1.8 g PM10 kg-1 biomass

(dry basis) Venkataraman and Rao

(2001) Improved stoves


(dry basis)

Portuguese woods and briquettes

“Chimney type”

logwood stove


(dry basis)

Fernandes et al. (2011) Cast iron traditional

stove

5.17-12.8 g PM2.5 kg-1 biomass (dry basis)

Fireplace 6.89-20.1 g PM2.5 kg-1 biomass (dry basis)

Biofuel type Burning appliance OC/PM mass percentages EC/PM mass percentages Ref.

Chinese woody fuels Chinese stoves 19-59% (avg. 37%) 36-71% (avg. 47%) Li et al. (2009)

Wood Cook stoves in Honduras 28-65% (avg. 43%) 4-55% (avg. 21%) Roden et al. (2006)

Alpine woods Tiled stove (Kachelofen) 41-56% 9.8-31% Schmidl et al. (2008)

Portuguese woods and briquettes “Chimney type”

logwood stove

20-43% 11-37%

Fernandes et al. (2011)

Cast iron traditional

stove

39-55% 3-12%

Fireplace 40-52% 2-12%

B4: Emission factors for biomass burning


Page 16

In the fireplace and the old type stove, OC dominated the emissions, while more efficient

combustion in the “chimney-type” and pellet stoves contributed to 1.3 to 4.7-fold higher EC

relative fractions in PM (Table 4). The pellet stove presented more variable EC particle mass

fractions, ranging from 3% (olive pit) to 47% (shell of pine nuts). The EC-to-total carbon

(TC=OC+EC) ratios were, on average, 0.076, 0.164, 0.413 and 0.400 for the fireplace,

traditional woodstove, eco-labelled stove and pellet stove, respectively. An increase in the

ratios with increasing combustion temperature was generally observed. Bølling et al. (2009)

reported EC/TC ratios from 0.01 to 0.11 for low-temperature combustion in conventional

stoves, confirming that PM from these combustion conditions are dominated by OC.

Comparatively, EC/TC ratios for incomplete high-temperature combustion in stoves and

masonry heaters have been reported to range from approximately 0.5 to 0.75 (Bølling et al.,

2009). In the present study, OC contributed to approximately 55% of the fine particle mass in

the emissions from every wood species studied, representing, on average, 92 and 84% of total

carbon in PM2.5 emitted by the fireplace and woostove, respectively. This overwhelming

proportion of carbonaceous constituents in smoke particles from the low-temperature

combustion equipments of this study differs from the fly ash composition of modern

appliances with improved combustion conditions, good burn out and lower emissions of PM,

in which inorganic salts dominate.

Table 4. Particulate mass fractions (%) of organic and elemental carbon

Appliance OC EC

Fireplace 55 11 4.6 2.8

Traditional woodstove 53 7.2 11 9.9

Eco-labelled woodstove 30 9.9 22 13

Pellet stove 18 7.9 14 15

3.2. Emissions from a fluidised bed reactor

Some industries, such as pulp and paper mills, generate an important fraction of their energy

needs from biomass fuels derived from forest management activities and industrial process

streams. Forest residues and sewage sludge are produced in different processes in the pulp and

paper industry. Among the main routes for sewage sludge management (agriculture

application, combustion or landfilling), combustion seems to be an interesting option due to

three main aspects: i) volume reduction, ii) destruction of pathogen agents and organic

pollutants and iii) energy recovery. Co-combustion, i.e. the simultaneous combustion of two

or more fuels in the same plant for energy production, constitutes a promising option for

valorisation of some industrial wastes. Among the technologies available for co-combustion,

fluidised bed combustion is one of the most advantageous due to its fuel flexibility and

operating conditions. However, particulate emissions from the co-combustion of forest

biomass residues and sewage sludge from a pulp and paper industry are unknown.

Forest biomass residues from eucalyptus felling and sewage sludge from the pulp and paper

industry were used as fuel. Forest biomass residues and sewage sludge were air dried,



chopped and sieved in order to obtain particles in the size range of 1-5 mm. The final fuel was

composed of 40%wt of secondary sewage sludge and 60%wt of forest biomass residues.

An emission factor of 4.0 ± 0.2 g PM2.5·kg−1

of fuel (as burned) and 3.7 ± 0.5 g PM2.5·kg−1

of

fuel (as burned) was estimated for the flue gas before and after the cyclone, during the co-

combustion experiments. Total carbon represented a small fraction of PM2.5, with higher

TC/PM2.5 ratios before the cyclone (6.9%wt vs 1.9%wt, before and after the cyclone,

respectively). A significant fraction of TC is composed of OC. On average, this accounted for

97.1%wt and 68.7%wt of TC, before and after the cyclone, respectively.

Emissions from the combustion of two types of biomass that are typically used in Portugal in

industrial facilities for power and energy production were also studied. Wood chips from

eucalypt (Eucalyptus globulus) and pine (Pinus pinaster) were combusted in a FBR under

various stoichiometric conditions:

- Experiments E1 – eucalypt, 4.1 kg h-1

, 3.3±0.2 O2

- Experiments E2 – eucalypt, 4.4 kg h-1

, 4.0±0.3 O2

- Experiments LE – leachated eucalypt, 2.6 kg h-1

, 7.6±0.4 O2

- Experiments P1 – pine, 2.2 kg h-1

, 8.4±0.1 and 10.3±0.4 O2

- Experiments P2 – pine, 3.2 kg h-1

, 4.9±0.0 O2

The PM2.5 emission factors (after cyclone) for softwood combustion ranged between 15.3 ±

2.91 and 22.0 ± 2.31 (mg kg-1

of fuel, dry basis). The lowest PM2.5 emission factor was

observed when operating the reactor with high O2 content (P1). Particulate emissions increase

with the decrease of the stoichiometry (Fig. 9). Unlike residential combustion appliances that

present high carbonaceous content, combustion in a FBR generates low amounts of OC and

EC, representing, on average, 5.5 and 3.5% of the PM2.5 mass.

Fig. 9. Particle emission factors for a wood chips combusted in a BFR under different

stoichiometries

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

E1 E2 LE P1 P2

mg

kg-1

fue

l bu

rne

d (

dry

bas

is)



4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Results from several measurement studies, together with disaggregation of emissions factors

by technology and fuel type, lead to quite large differences, especially between old-type

residential appliances, which dominate in Southern European countries, versus modern

woodstoves and boilers with higher combustion efficiency.

With regard to human health, emission requirements for the eco-labelling of small-scale

combustion appliances for wood logs and pellets should be mandatory in all countries. The

requirement for selling only certified pellets should also be widespread. The product testing

should be performed by qualified and recognised laboratories. Similarly to what has already

been implemented in a few countries, other regulations should be imposed so that aspects

such as storage of wood logs or pellets and transportation are taken into account.

For areas that do not meet the national particle standards due in part to wood smoke, the local

jurisdiction may consider banning the use of non-certified woodstoves. National governments

and regional authorities should support voluntary woodstove and fireplace

replacement/retrofit programmes to motivate households to replace older technologies with

safer, more efficient, cleaner burning technologies. A plan for education and outreach to the

public should definitely be included when introducing burn ban ordinances or wood-burning

appliance replacement programmes. Financial incentives may be a necessity to encourage

households to replace or retrofit old wood-burning appliances.



REFERENCES

APA – Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente (2011) Emissões de Poluentes Atmosféricos por Concelho

2009: Gases acidificantes e eutrofizantes, precursores de ozono, partículas, metais pesados e

gases com efeito de estufa. Amadora, Portugal.

Bari M.A., Baumbach G., Kuch B., Scheffknech, G. (2010) Temporal variation and impact of wood

smoke pollution on a residential area in southern Germany. Atmospheric Environment 44,

3823-3832.

Bari M.A., Baumbach G., Kuch B., Scheffknecht G. (2009) Wood smoke as a source of particle-phase

organic compounds in residential areas. Atmospheric Environment 43, 4722-4732.

Bates T.S., Quinn P.K., Coffman D.J., Johnson J.E., Middlebrook A.M. (2005) Dominance of organic

aerosols in the marine boundary layer over the Gulf of Maine during NEAQS 2002 and their

role in aerosol light scattering Journal of Geophysical Research 110, D18202.

Belis C.A., Cancelinha J., Duane M., Forcina V., Pedroni V., Passarella R., Tanet G., Douglas K.,

Piazzalunga A., Bolzacchini E., Sangiorgi G., Perrone M.-G., Ferrero L., Fermo P., Larsend

B.R. (2011) Sources for PM air pollution in the Po Plain, Italy: I. Critical comparison of

methods for estimating biomass burning contributions to benzo(a)pyrene. Atmospheric

Environment 45, 7266-7275.

Bølling A.K., Pagels J., Yttri K.E., Barregard L., Sallsten G., Schwarze P.E., Boman C. (2009) Health

effects of residential wood smoke particles: the importance of combustion conditions and

physicochemical particle properties. Particle and Fibre Toxicology 6, 29. doi:10.1186/1743-

8977-6-29.

Caseiro A., Bauer H., Schmidl C., Pio C., Puxbaum H. (2009) Wood burning impact on PM10 in three

Austrian regions. Atmospheric Environment 43, 2186-2195.

Chuang P.Y., Duvall R.M., Bae M.S., Jefferson A., Schauer J.J., Yang H., Yu J.Z., Kim, J. (2003)

Observations of elemental carbon and absorption during ACE-Asia and implications for

aerosol radiative properties and climate forcing. Journal of Geophysical Research 108(D23),

8634.

European Environment Agency (2012) Air quality in Europe - 2012 report. EEA Report No 4/2012.

Copenhagen.

Fernandes A.P., Alves C.A., Gonçalves C., Tarelho L., Pio C., Schimdl C., Bauer H. (2011). Emission

factors from residential combustion appliances burning Portuguese biomass fuels. Journal of

Environmental Monitoring 13, 3196-3206.

Fine P., Cass G.R., Simoneit B.R.T. (2004) Chemical characterization of fine particle emissions from

the wood stove combustion of prevalent United States tree species. Environmenta Engireeng

Science 21, 705-721.

Gelencsér A., May B., Simpson D., Sanchez-Ochoa A., Kasper-Gieb, A., Puxbaum H., Caseiro A., Pio

C., Legrand M. (2008) Major sources of PM2.5 organic aerosols in Europe: predominance of

biomass burning and secondary organic aerosols (SOA). Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta

73 (13), A425.

Gianelle V., Colombi C., Caserini S., Ozgen S., Galante S., Marongiu A., Lanzani G. (2013)

Benzo(a)pyrene air concentrations and emission inventory in Lombardy region, Italy.

Atmospheric Pollution Research 4, 257‐266.



Gonçalves C., Alves C., Evtyugina M., Mirante F., Pio C., Caseiro A., Schmidl C., Bauer H.,

Carvalho F. (2010) Characterisation of PM10 emissions from wood stove combustion of

common woods grown in Portugal. Atmospheric Environment 44, 4474‐4480.

Gonçalves C., Alves C., Fernandes A.P., Monteiro C., Tarelho L., Evtyugina M., Pio C. (2011)

Organic compounds in PM2.5 emitted from fireplace and woodstove combustion of typical

Portuguese wood species. Atmospheric Environment. 45, 4533-4545.

Gonçalves C., Alves C., Pio C. (2012) Inventory of fine particulate organic compound emissions from

residential wood combustion in Portugal. Atmospheric Environment 50, 297-306.

Hedberg E., Kristensson A., Ohlsson M., Johansson C., Johansson P.A., Swietlicki E., Vesely E.,

Wideqvist U.,Westerholm R. (2002) Chemical and physical characterization of emissions

from birch wood combustion in a wood stove. Atmospheric Environment 36, 4823-4837.

Jokiniemi J., Hytönen K., Tissari J., Obernberger I., Brunner T., et al. (2008) Biomass combustion in

residential heating: particulate measurements, sampling, and physicochemcial and

toxicological characterisation. ISSN 0786-728 Final report of the project 'Biomass-PM' funded

by ERA-NET Bioenergy Programme 2007-2008.;University of Kuopio, Report 1/2008; 2008.

Karvosenoja N., Tainio M., Kupiainen K., Tuomisto J.T., Kukkonen J., Johansson M. (2008)

Evaluation of the emissions and uncertainties of PM2.5 originated from vehicular traffic and

domestic wood combustion in Finland. Boreal Environmental Research 13, 465-474.

Kistler M., Schmidl C., Padouvas E., Giebl H., Lohninge J., Ellinger R., Bauer H., Puxbaum H. (2012)

Odor, gaseous and PM10 emissions from small scale combustion of wood types indigenous to

Central Europe. Atmospheric Environment 51, 86-93

Li G., Zhang R., Fan J., Tie X. (2005) Impacts of black carbon aerosol on photolysis and ozone.

Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, D23206.

Li X.H., Wang S.X., Duan L., Hao J.M., Nie Y.F. (2009) Carbonaceous aerosol emissions from

household biofuel combustion in China. Environmental Science and Technology 43, 6076-

6081.

Nussbaumer T., Klippel N., Johansson L. (2008) Survey on measurements and emission factors on

particulate matter from biomass combustion in IEA countries [abstract]. 16th Eurpoean

Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 2- 6 June, Valencia, Spain 2008 [http://

www.verenum.ch/Publikationen/Biomass-Conf9.2.pdf].

Pastorello C., Caserini S., Galante S., Dilara P., Galletti F. (2011) Importance of activity data for

improving the residential wood combustion emission inventory at regional level. Atmospheric

Environment 45, 2869-2876.

Piazzalunga A., Belis C., Bernardoni V., Cazzuli O., Fermo P., Valli G., Vecchi R. (2011) Estimates

of wood burning contribution to PM by the macro-tracer method using tailored emission

factors. Atmospheric Environment 45, 6642-6649.

Pio C., Cerqueira M., Harrison R.M., Nunes T., Mirante F., Alves C., Oliveira C., Sanchez de la

Campa A., Artiñano B., Matos M. (2011) OC/EC Ratio Observations in Europe: Re-thinking

the approach for apportionment between primary and secondary organic carbon. Atmospheric

Environment. 45, 6121-6132.

Puxbaum H., Caseiro A., Sánchez-Ochoa A., Kasper-Giebl A., Claeys M., Gelencsé, A., Legrand M.,

Preunkert S., Pio C. (2007) Levoglucosan levels at background sites in Europe for assessing

the impact of biomass combustion on the European aerosol background. Journal of

Geophysical Research 112, D008114.

http://www.verenum.ch/Publikationen/Biomass-Conf9.2.pdf



Puxbaum H., Winiwarter W. (2011) Advances of Atmospheric Aerosol Research in Austria.

Compendium prepared by the Clean Air Commission of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

http://www.oeaw.ac.at/krl/publikation/documents/KRL_compendium_PM.pdf

Roden C.A., Bond T.C., Conway S., Pinel A.B.O. (2006) Emission factors and real-time optical

properties of particles emitted from traditional wood burning cookstoves. Environmental

Science and Technology 40, 6750-6757.

Saffari A., Daher N., Samara C., Voutsa D., Kouras A., Manoli E., Karagkiozidou O., Vlachokostas

C., Moussiopoulos N., Shafer M.M., Schauer J.J.,Sioutas C. (2013) Increased biomass

burning due to the economic crisis in Greece and its adverse impact on wintertime air quality

in Thessaloniki. Environmental Science & Technology 47, 13313-13320.

Schmidl C., Luisser M., Padouvas E., Lasselsberger L., Rzaca M., Ramirez-Santa Cruz C., Handler

M., Peng G., Bauer H., Puxbaum H. (2011) Particulate and gaseous emissions from manually

and automatically fired small scale combustion systems. Atmospheric Environment 4, 7443-

7454

Schmidl C., Marr I.L., Caseiro A., Kotianova P., Berner A., Bauer H., Kasper-Giebl A., Puxbaum H.

(2008). Chemical characterisation of fine particle emissions from wood stove combustion of

common woods growing in mid-European Alpine regions. Atmospheric Environment 42, 126-

141.

Schmidl C., Marr I.L., Caseiro A., Kotianová P., Berner A., Bauer H., Kasper-Giebl A., Puxbaum H.

(2008) Chemical characterisation of fine particle emissions from wood stove combustion of

common woods growing in mid-European Alpine regions. Atmospheric Environment 42, 126-

141.

Sternhufvud C., Karvosenoja N., Illerup J., Kindbom K., Lükewille A., Johansson M., Jensen D.

(2004) Particulate matter emissions and abatement options in residential wood burning in the

Nordic countries. ANP 2004:735 2004 [http://www.norden.org/is/utgafa/utgefid-efni/2004-

735/at_download/publicationfile]. Nordic Council of Ministers.

Teixeira L.M.A. (2009) Opções de utilização da biomassa florestal no context energético de Portugal.

Dissertação do Mestrado Integrado em Engenharia Mecânica. Faculdade de Engenharia da

Universidade do Porto. Portugal.

Venkataraman C., Rao G.U.M. (2001). Emission factors of carbon monoxide and size-resolved aerosol

from biofuel combustion. Environmental Science and Technology 35, 2100-2107.

Wardoyo A.Y.P., Morawska L., Ristovski Z.D., Marsh J. (2006) Quantification of particle number and

mass emission factors from combustion of Queensland trees. Environmental Science and

Technology 40, 5696-5703.

http://www.oeaw.ac.at/krl/publikation/documents/KRL_compendium_PM.pdf



SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

1) Emission factors from traditional appliances (fireplace versus woodtove)

References:

[1] GONÇALVES, C.; ALVES, C.; PIO, C. - Inventory of fine particulate organic compound emissions from

residential wood combustion in Portugal. Atmospheric Environment. 50 (2012) 297–306. doi:

10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.12.013.

[2] MARTINS, V. I. F. - Emissões de carbono particulado durante a queima doméstica de biomassa. [S.l.]:

Universidade de Aveiro, 2012

[3] DUARTE, M. A. C. - Emissões de compostos carbonosos pela queima doméstica de biomassa. [S.l.]:


[4] Vicente, E. A. D. - Medidas para mitigar as emissões da combustão doméstica de biomassa. [S.l.]:


[5] FERNANDES, A. P. et al. - Emission factors from residential combustion appliances burning Portuguese

biomass fuels. Journal of environmental monitoring: JEM. 13:11 (2011) 3196–206. doi:

10.1039/c1em10500k.

[6] SCHMIDL, C. et al. - Particulate and gaseous emissions from manually and automatically fired small

scale combustion systems. Atmospheric Environment. ISSN 13522310. 45:39 (2011) 7443–7454. doi:

10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.05.006.

Ref Fuel average std. average std. average std. average std. average std. average std.

Maritime pine 1735 132 51.10 6.89 6.90 3.60 2.90 1.30 0.62 0.49

Golden wattle 1697 69 61.80 3.79 7.80 6.20 3.50 3.10 0.34 0.26

Holm oak 1675 147 61.80 8.17 13.00 8.30 7.20 4.00 0.30 0.11

Eucalypt 1585 73 78.90 7.35 12.00 7.60 5.10 3.90 0.36 0.36

Olive 1743 193 81.00 8.02 21.00 10.00 9.10 5.70 0.39 0.16

Cork oak 1662 307 85.50 21.90 18.00 10.00 10.00 5.20 0.68 0.40

Portuguese oak 1641 41 78.50 17.60 14.00 9.70 6.10 3.40 0.32 0.20

Briquettes/Pellets 1691 55 58.30 16.90 12.00 7.70 5.90 4.20 0.29 0.25

European beech 1749 92 74.39 6.70 5.77 1.26 3.90 0.92 0.43 0.23

Pyrenean oak 1618 83 86.05 14.08 12.50 4.08 9.02 3.03 0.60 0.09

Black poplar 1765 179 115.78 11.73 14.01 5.09 10.51 3.37 0.79 0.19

Maritime pine 60.00 9.00 13.36 4.37 7.99 2.78 1.51 0.77

Eucalypt 84.00 2.90 20.23 2.85 11.66 1.67 0.39 0.04

Cork oak 87.00 10.20 13.78 2.85 8.33 1.91 0.60 0.15

Maritime pine 1670 251 57.10 19.00 5.20 4.30 2.50 2.50 0.61 0.43

Golden wattle 1584 413 96.50 24.00 7.90 4.30 4.10 2.65 0.29 0.18

Holm oak 1632 315 63.70 18.60 5.80 3.90 3.00 2.10 0.23 0.10

Eucalypt 1548 259 67.60 14.30 10.00 6.70 5.20 4.00 0.37 0.30

Olive 1725 320 64.90 15.70 8.70 4.50 4.60 2.20 0.46 0.24

Cork oak 1604 414 99.20 30.80 8.30 6.10 4.80 3.40 0.42 0.33

Portuguese oak 1573 200 85.90 12.80 13.00 8.30 6.20 4.60 0.32 0.15


European beech 1748 59 54.88 3.88 2.77 0.73 1.60 0.50 0.43 0.13

Pyrenean oak 1415 136 95.59 7.76 13.34 3.77 9.14 2.68 0.90 0.20

Black poplar 1879 29 84.07 4.85 4.38 1.40 2.86 1.10 0.88 0.05

Maritime pine 38.00 0.80 4.74 2.36 1.98 0.59 1.66 1.12

Eucalypt 47.00 4.20 7.61 2.46 4.15 1.35 0.60 0.22

Cork oak 54.00 9.40 5.56 2.87 2.97 1.83 0.50 0.03

Maritime pine 1623 30 65.81 12.45 6.50 1.59 3.06 2.08 1.88 0.71

European beech 1634 144 47.53 8.76 6.26 0.06 2.64 0.12 1.24 0.22

ECCO2 CO PM2.5 PM10 OC

EF [g.kg-1]

[4]

Woodstove

Fireplace

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]



Calorific value = 18.5 MJ kg-1

References:

[1]

GONÇALVES, C.; ALVES, C.; PIO, C. - Inventory of fine particulate organic compound

emissions from residential wood combustion in Portugal. Atmospheric Environment.

50:2012) 297–306. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.12.013.

[2] MARTINS, V. I. F. - Emissões de carbono particulado durante a queima doméstica de

biomassa. [S.l.]: Universidade de Aveiro, 2012

[3] DUARTE, M. A. C. - Emissões de compostos carbonosos pela queima doméstica de

biomassa. [S.l.]: Universidade de Aveiro, 2011

[4] Vicente, E. A. D. - Medidas para mitigar as emissões da combustão doméstica de biomassa.

[S.l.]: Universidade de Aveiro, 2013

[5]

FERNANDES, A. P. et al. - Emission factors from residential combustion appliances burning

Portuguese biomass fuels. Journal of environmental monitoring: JEM. 13:11 (2011) 3196–

206. doi: 10.1039/c1em10500k.

[6]

SCHMIDL, C. et al. - Particulate and gaseous emissions from manually and automatically

fired small scale combustion systems. Atmospheric Environment. ISSN 13522310. 45:39

(2011) 7443–7454. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.05.006.

Ref Fuel average std. average std. average std. average std. average std. average std.

Maritime pine 93784 7135 2762.16 372.43 372.97 194.59 156.76 70.27 33.51 26.49

Golden wattle 91730 3714 3340.54 204.86 421.62 335.14 189.19 167.57 18.38 14.05

Holm oak 90541 7946 3340.54 441.62 702.70 448.65 389.19 216.22 16.22 5.95

Eucalypt 85676 3930 4264.86 397.30 648.65 410.81 275.68 210.81 19.46 19.46

Olive 94216 10432 4378.38 433.51 1135.14 540.54 491.89 308.11 21.08 8.65

Cork oak 89838 16595 4621.62 1183.78 972.97 540.54 540.54 281.08 36.76 21.62

Portuguese oak 88703 2200 4243.24 951.35 756.76 524.32 329.73 183.78 17.30 10.81


European beech 94545 4966 4021.15 361.96 311.89 68.11 210.81 49.73 23.24 12.43

Pyrenean oak 87466 4482 4651.18 761.31 675.68 220.54 487.57 163.78 32.43 4.86

Black poplar 95406 9667 6258.36 634.20 757.30 275.14 568.11 182.16 42.70 10.27

Maritime pine 3243.24 486.49 0.00 0.00 722.42 235.96 431.88 150.08 81.86 41.46

Eucalypt 4540.54 156.76 0.00 0.00 1093.70 154.10 630.05 90.17 20.88 2.12

Cork oak 4702.70 551.35 0.00 0.00 744.86 154.13 450.14 103.50 32.45 8.17

Maritime pine 90270 13568 3086.49 1027.03 281.08 232.43 135.14 135.14 32.97 23.24

Golden wattle 85622 22324 5216.22 1297.30 427.03 232.43 221.62 143.24 15.68 9.73

Holm oak 88216 17027 3443.24 1005.41 313.51 210.81 162.16 113.51 12.43 5.41

Eucalypt 83676 14000 3654.05 772.97 540.54 362.16 281.08 216.22 20.00 16.22

Olive 93243 17297 3508.11 848.65 470.27 243.24 248.65 118.92 24.86 12.97

Cork oak 86703 22378 5362.16 1664.86 448.65 329.73 259.46 183.78 22.70 17.84

Portuguese oak 85027 10811 4643.24 691.89 702.70 448.65 335.14 248.65 17.30 8.11


European beech 94484 3176 2966.25 209.70 149.73 39.46 86.49 27.03 23.24 7.03

Pyrenean oak 76477 7369 5166.89 419.34 721.08 203.78 494.05 144.86 48.65 10.81

Black poplar 101586 1544 4544.21 262.23 236.76 75.68 154.59 59.46 47.57 2.70

Maritime pine 2054.05 43.24 256.09 127.43 107.00 32.15 89.80 60.59

Eucalypt 2540.54 227.03 411.50 132.78 224.35 73.05 32.28 11.85

Cork oak 2918.92 508.11 300.73 155.00 160.53 99.00 26.80 1.55

Maritime pine 87756 1639 3557.38 672.80 351.19 85.80 165.18 112.34 101.61 38.35

European beech 88298 7781 2569.00 473.58 338.19 3.33 142.95 6.30 67.29 11.90

EF [mg.MJ-1]

CO2 CO PM2.5 PM10 OC EC

Fireplace

[1]

[2]

[3]

Woodstove

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]



2) Emission factors from a modern certified woodstove

References:

[5]

FERNANDES, A. P. et al. - Emission factors from residential combustion appliances

burning Portuguese biomass fuels. Journal of environmental monitoring: JEM. 13:11

(2011) 3196–206. doi: 10.1039/c1em10500k.

[6]

SCHMIDL, C. et al. - Particulate and gaseous emissions from manually and automatically

fired small scale combustion systems. Atmospheric Environment. ISSN 13522310. 45:39

(2011) 7443–7454. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.05.006.

Fuel average std. average std. average std. average std. average std.

Maritime pine 1640 10 27.49 2.68 1.12 0.25 0.29 0.12 0.44 0.24

Golden wattle 1660 71 46.36 2.23 1.22 0.19 0.24 0.10 0.29 0.10

Eucalyptus 1580 9 40.48 8.97 2.07 0.85 0.66 0.31 0.27 0.19

Cork oak 1638 10 64.56 6.41 2.89 0.90 1.24 0.25 0.33 0.18

CO

Eco-labelled

woodstove

PM10

[5]

OC EC

EF [g kg-1]

CO2


Maritime pine 88649 525 1485.95 144.86 60.54 13.51 15.68 6.49 23.78 12.97

Golden wattle 89730 3819 2505.95 120.54 65.95 10.27 12.97 5.41 15.68 5.41

Eucalyptus 85405 461 2188.11 484.86 111.89 45.95 35.68 16.76 14.59 10.27

Cork oak 88541 525 3489.73 346.49 156.22 48.65 67.03 13.51 17.84 9.73

Eco-labelled

woodstove

EF [mg MJ-1]

COCO2 PM10 OC EC

[5]

EF [mg MJ-1]

Fuel average std. average std. average std. average std. average std. average std. average std.

Briquettes 939.33 72.77 37.60 33.10 27.36 24.09

Beech 1680.96 89.28 37.00 35.60 33.04 31.79

Oak 1813.66 71.86 29.80 22.20 21.41 15.95

Spruce 1339.82 79.55 32.90 28.30 26.17 22.51

EF [mg MJ-1]

CO2 CO PM10

Eco-labelled

woodstove[6]

OC EC

%PM10

OC EC



3) Emission factors from a pellet stove

All emission factors are in dry basis. Pellets of type I are the only certified.

OC/EC

PM10


Pellet - type I 1433 270.30 13.55 2.29 0.49 0.06 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.01 4.19

Pellet - type II 1577 102.33 2.63 1.04 1.51 0.24 0.25 0.15 0.24 0.15 1.03

Pellet - type III 1705 323.82 5.22 0.84 1.77 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.17 0.05 0.87

Pellet - type IV 1628 98.54 1.62 0.34 1.35 0.17 0.27 0.11 0.16 0.04 1.71

Olive Pit 1360 193.02 27.38 2.31 3.12 0.44 0.90 0.57 0.10 0.06 9.40

Shell of Pine Nuts 1594 466.50 13.69 5.68 2.19 0.63 0.35 0.06 1.02 0.44 0.34

Almond Shell 1768 117.63 16.91 4.12 2.07 0.07 0.22 0.06 0.13 0.02 1.73

EF [g.kg-1]

CO2 CO PM10 OC EC

EF [mg.kg-1]

EF [mg MJ-1] EF [μg MJ-1]

HHV (db) HHV (db)

Fuel MJ/kg kJ/kg average std. average std. average std. average std. average std.

Pellet - type I 19.85 19845 72206 13620 683 115 24.55 2.90 6.82 1.72 3.61 1.71

Pellet - type II 18.92 18916 83381 5410 139 55 79.90 12.54 13.24 7.83 36.77 11.58

Pellet - type III 18.85 18853 90419 17176 277 45 94.05 7.96 7.73 1.11 7.67 2.89

Pellet - type IV 19.26 19255 84545 5118 84 18 69.91 8.68 14.05 5.81 20.46 12.06

Olive Pit 19.99 19988 68020 9657 1370 116 156.07 21.81 45.07 28.64 8.85 5.21

Shell of Pine Nuts 20.18 20185 78949 23112 678 282 108.28 31.37 17.29 2.89 38.13 9.68

Almond Shell 19.92 19917 88788 5906 849 207 103.82 3.74 11.18 2.77 8.80 0.54

PM10 OC ECCO2 CO



4) Emission factors from a fluidised bed reactor

(a) Only concentration was reported (±14 %, dry basis)

(b) No information

(c) Before cyclone

(d) After cyclone

A.I. Calvo, L.A.C. Tarelho, E.R. Teixeira, C. Alves, T. Nunes, M. Duarte, E. Coz, D. Custodio, A. Castro, B.

Artiñano, R. Fraile. Particulate emissions from the co-combustion of forest biomass and sewage sludge in a

bubbling fluidised bed reactor. Fuel Processing Technology 114 (2013) 58-68.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2013.03.021


(a) (b) 4.00 (c) 0.20

3.70 (d) 0.50

Eucalypt, 4.4 kg/h 1655 37.01 17.77 4.38 0.80 0.51 0.35 0.18

Eucalypt, 4.1 kg/h 1657 31.43 45.51 3.88 0.96 0.21 0.53 0.22

Pine, 2.2 kg/h 1810 0.42 15.32 2.91 0.20 0.04 0.19 0.13

Pine, 3.2 kg/h 1746 5.22 22.01 2.31 4.00 2.70 2.56 1.26

Leachated eucalypt, 2.6 kg/h 1659 4.94 67.93 3.13 0.91 0.21 0.98 0.44

OC EC

Forest biomass residues from eucalyptus felling and sewage

sludge from the pulp and paper industry were used as fuel

EF [g.kg-1]

CO2 CO PM2.5

emission factors for biomass burning -...

Documents