Literature DB >> 21305885

Remote sensing-based estimates of annual and seasonal emissions from crop residue burning in the contiguous United States.

Jessica L McCarty1.   

Abstract

Crop residue burning is an extensive agricultural practice in the contiguous United States (CONUS). This analysis presents the results of a remote sensing-based study of crop residue burning emissions in the CONUS for the time period 2003-2007 for the atmospheric species of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2, sulfur dioxide (SO2), PM2.5 (particulate matter [PM] < or = 2.5 microm in aerodynamic diameter), and PM10 (PM < or = 10 microm in aerodynamic diameter). Cropland burned area and associated crop types were derived from Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) products. Emission factors, fuel load, and combustion completeness estimates were derived from the scientific literature, governmental reports, and expert knowledge. Emissions were calculated using the bottom-up approach in which emissions are the product of burned area, fuel load, and combustion completeness for each specific crop type. On average, annual crop residue burning in the CONUS emitted 6.1 Tg of CO2, 8.9 Gg of CH4, 232.4 Gg of CO, 10.6 Gg of NO2, 4.4 Gg of SO2, 20.9 Gg of PM2.5, and 28.5 Gg of PM10. These emissions remained fairly consistent, with an average interannual variability of crop residue burning emissions of +/- 10%. The states with the highest emissions were Arkansas, California, Florida, Idaho, Texas, and Washington. Most emissions were clustered in the southeastern United States, the Great Plains, and the Pacific Northwest. Air quality and carbon emissions were concentrated in the spring, summer, and fall, with an exception because of winter harvesting of sugarcane in Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. Sugarcane, wheat, and rice residues accounted for approximately 70% of all crop residue burning and associated emissions. Estimates of CO and CH4 from agricultural waste burning by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency were 73 and 78% higher than the CO and CH4 emission estimates from this analysis, respectively. This analysis also showed that crop residue burning emissions are a minor source of CH4 emissions (< 1%) compared with the CH4 emissions from other agricultural sources, specifically enteric fermentation, manure management, and rice cultivation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21305885     DOI: 10.3155/1047-3289.61.1.22

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc        ISSN: 1096-2247            Impact factor:   2.235


  10 in total

1.  Applying land use regression model to estimate spatial variation of PM₂.₅ in Beijing, China.

Authors:  Jiansheng Wu; Jiacheng Li; Jian Peng; Weifeng Li; Guang Xu; Chengcheng Dong
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 2.  Reflecting on progress since the 2005 NARSTO emissions inventory report.

Authors:  Melissa Day; George Pouliot; Sherri Hunt; Kirk R Baker; Megan Beardsley; Gregory Frost; David Mobley; Heather Simon; Barron B Henderson; Tiffany Yelverton; Venkatesh Rao
Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 2.235

3.  Development of the crop residue and rangeland burning in the 2014 National Emissions Inventory using information from multiple sources.

Authors:  George Pouliot; Venkatesh Rao; Jessica L McCarty; Amber Soja
Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 2.235

4.  Modeling crop residue burning experiments to evaluate smoke emissions and plume transport.

Authors:  Luxi Zhou; Kirk R Baker; Sergey L Napelenok; George Pouliot; Robert Elleman; Susan M O'Neill; Shawn P Urbanski; David C Wong
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2018-02-03       Impact factor: 7.963

5.  Emissions from prescribed burning of agricultural fields in the Pacific Northwest.

Authors:  A L Holder; B K Gullett; S P Urbanski; R Elleman; S O'Neill; D Tabor; W Mitchell; K R Baker
Journal:  Atmos Environ (1994)       Date:  2017       Impact factor: 4.798

Review 6.  Respiratory and allergic health effects in children living near agriculture: A review.

Authors:  Yoshira Ornelas Van Horne; Shohreh F Farzan; Mitiasoa Razafy; Jill E Johnston
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2022-04-04       Impact factor: 10.753

7.  Fields and forests in flames: vegetation smoke & human health.

Authors:  Bob Weinhold
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Impacts of Sugarcane Fires on Air Quality and Public Health in South Florida.

Authors:  Holly K Nowell; Charles Wirks; Maria Val Martin; Aaron van Donkelaar; Randall V Martin; Christopher K Uejio; Christopher D Holmes
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2022-08-05       Impact factor: 11.035

9.  Management and climate contributions to satellite-derived active fire trends in the contiguous United States.

Authors:  Hsiao-Wen Lin; Jessica L McCarty; Dongdong Wang; Brendan M Rogers; Douglas C Morton; G James Collatz; Yufang Jin; James T Randerson
Journal:  J Geophys Res Biogeosci       Date:  2014-04-28       Impact factor: 3.822

10.  Comparing bioenergy production sites in the Southeastern US regarding ecosystem service supply and demand.

Authors:  Markus A Meyer; Tanzila Chand; Joerg A Priess
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.