Literature DB >> 29426175

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

Luxi Zhou1, Kirk R Baker2, Sergey L Napelenok2, George Pouliot2, Robert Elleman3, Susan M O'Neill4, Shawn P Urbanski5, David C Wong2.   

Abstract

Crop residue burning is a common land management practice that results in emissions of a variety of pollutants with negative health impacts. Modeling systems are used to estimate air quality impacts of crop residue burning to support retrospective regulatory assessments and also for forecasting purposes. Ground and airborne measurements from a recent field experiment in the Pacific Northwest focused on cropland residue burning was used to evaluate model performance in capturing surface and aloft impacts from the burning events. The Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model was used to simulate multiple crop residue burns with 2 km grid spacing using field-specific information and also more general assumptions traditionally used to support National Emission Inventory based assessments. Field study specific information, which includes area burned, fuel consumption, and combustion completeness, resulted in increased biomass consumption by 123 tons (60% increase) on average compared to consumption estimated with default methods in the National Emission Inventory (NEI) process. Buoyancy heat flux, a key parameter for model predicted fire plume rise, estimated from fuel loading obtained from field measurements can be 30% to 200% more than when estimated using default field information. The increased buoyancy heat flux resulted in higher plume rise by 30% to 80%. This evaluation indicates that the regulatory air quality modeling system can replicate intensity and transport (horizontal and vertical) features for crop residue burning in this region when region-specific information is used to inform emissions and plume rise calculations. Further, previous vertical emissions allocation treatment of putting all cropland residue burning in the surface layer does not compare well with measured plume structure and these types of burns should be modeled more similarly to prescribed fires such that plume rise is based on an estimate of buoyancy.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Air quality modeling; Biomass burning; CMAQ; Emissions; Smoke plume

Year:  2018        PMID: 29426175      PMCID: PMC5955395          DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.237

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  15 in total

1.  The spatial and temporal distribution of crop residue burning in the contiguous United States.

Authors:  Jessica L McCarty; Stefania Korontzi; Christopher O Justice; Tatiana Loboda
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2009-08-03       Impact factor: 7.963

2.  Aerostat-based sampling of emissions from open burning and open detonation of military ordnance.

Authors:  Johanna Aurell; Brian K Gullett; Dennis Tabor; Ryan K Williams; William Mitchell; Michael R Kemme
Journal:  J Hazard Mater       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 10.588

3.  The recent and future health burden of air pollution apportioned across U.S. sectors.

Authors:  Neal Fann; Charles M Fulcher; Kirk Baker
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 9.028

4.  Simulating smoke transport from wildland fires with a regional-scale air quality model: sensitivity to spatiotemporal allocation of fire emissions.

Authors:  Fernando Garcia-Menendez; Yongtao Hu; Mehmet T Odman
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2014-06-27       Impact factor: 7.963

5.  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

6.  Wildfire-specific Fine Particulate Matter and Risk of Hospital Admissions in Urban and Rural Counties.

Authors:  Jia Coco Liu; Ander Wilson; Loretta J Mickley; Francesca Dominici; Keita Ebisu; Yun Wang; Melissa P Sulprizio; Roger D Peng; Xu Yue; Ji-Young Son; G Brooke Anderson; Michelle L Bell
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 4.822

7.  Emission factors from aerial and ground measurements of field and laboratory forest burns in the southeastern US: PM2.5, black and brown carbon, VOC, and PCDD/PCDF.

Authors:  Johanna Aurell; Brian K Gullett
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2013-07-29       Impact factor: 9.028

8.  Peat bog wildfire smoke exposure in rural North Carolina is associated with cardiopulmonary emergency department visits assessed through syndromic surveillance.

Authors:  Ana G Rappold; Susan L Stone; Wayne E Cascio; Lucas M Neas; Vasu J Kilaru; Martha Sue Carraway; James J Szykman; Amy Ising; William E Cleve; John T Meredith; Heather Vaughan-Batten; Lana Deyneka; Robert B Devlin
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 9.  Critical Review of Health Impacts of Wildfire Smoke Exposure.

Authors:  Colleen E Reid; Michael Brauer; Fay H Johnston; Michael Jerrett; John R Balmes; Catherine T Elliott
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  Surface dimming by the 2013 Rim Fire simulated by a sectional aerosol model.

Authors:  Pengfei Yu; Owen B Toon; Charles G Bardeen; Anthony Bucholtz; Karen H Rosenlof; Pablo E Saide; Arlindo Da Silva; Luke D Ziemba; Kenneth L Thornhill; Jose-Luis Jimenez; Pedro Campuzano-Jost; Joshua P Schwarz; Anne E Perring; Karl D Froyd; N L Wagner; Michael J Mills; Jeffrey S Reid
Journal:  J Geophys Res Atmos       Date:  2016-06-18       Impact factor: 4.261

View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Fire behavior and smoke modeling: Model improvement and measurement needs for next-generation smoke research and forecasting systems.

Authors:  Yongqiang Liu; Adam Kochanski; Kirk R Baker; William Mell; Rodman Linn; Ronan Paugam; Jan Mandel; Aime Fournier; Mary Ann Jenkins; Scott Goodrick; Gary Achtemeier; Fengjun Zhao; Roger Ottmar; Nancy Hf French; Narasimhan Larkin; Timothy Brown; Andrew Hudak; Matthew Dickinson; Brian Potter; Craig Clements; Shawn Urbanski; Susan Prichard; Adam Watts; Derek McNamara
Journal:  Int J Wildland Fire       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 3.200

3.  Assessing PM2.5 Model Performance for the Conterminous U.S. with Comparison to Model Performance Statistics from 2007-2015.

Authors:  James T Kelly; Shannon N Koplitz; Kirk R Baker; Amara L Holder; Havala O T Pye; Benjamin N Murphy; Jesse O Bash; Barron H Henderson; Norm Possiel; Heather Simon; Alison M Eyth; Carey Jang; Sharon Phillips; Brian Timin
Journal:  Atmos Environ (1994)       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 4.798

4.  Characterizing grassland fire activity in the Flint Hills region and air quality using satellite and routine surface monitor data.

Authors:  K R Baker; S N Koplitz; K M Foley; L Avey; A Hawkins
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2019-01-02       Impact factor: 7.963

5.  An evaluation of empirical and statistically based smoke plume injection height parametrisations used within air quality models.

Authors:  Joseph L Wilkins; George Pouliot; Thomas Pierce; Amber Soja; Hyundeok Choi; Emily Gargulinski; Robert Gilliam; Jeffrey Vukovich; Matthew S Landis
Journal:  Int J Wildland Fire       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 3.398

Review 6.  Wildfire and prescribed burning impacts on air quality in the United States.

Authors:  Daniel A Jaffe; Susan M O'Neill; Narasimhan K Larkin; Amara L Holder; David L Peterson; Jessica E Halofsky; Ana G Rappold
Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 2.235

7.  Predicting wildfire particulate matter and hypothetical re-emission of radiological Cs-137 contamination incidents.

Authors:  Kirk R Baker; Sang Don Lee; Paul Lemieux; Scott Hudson; Benjamin N Murphy; Jesse O Bash; Shannon N Koplitz; Thien Khoi V Nguyen; Wei Min Hao; Stephen Baker; Emily Lincoln
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2021-07-05       Impact factor: 10.753

8.  The Fire and Smoke Model Evaluation Experiment-A Plan for Integrated, Large Fire-Atmosphere Field Campaigns.

Authors:  Susan Prichard; N Sim Larkin; Roger Ottmar; Nancy H F French; Kirk Baker; Tim Brown; Craig Clements; Matt Dickinson; Andrew Hudak; Adam Kochanski; Rod Linn; Yongqiang Liu; Brian Potter; William Mell; Danielle Tanzer; Shawn Urbanski; Adam Watts
Journal:  Atmosphere (Basel)       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 2.686

9.  Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Prescribed Burning in Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystems.

Authors:  Andrew R Whitehill; Ingrid George; Russell Long; Kirk R Baker; Matthew Landis
Journal:  Atmosphere (Basel)       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 2.686

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.