Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

ISSN: 1096-2247 (Print) 2162-2906 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20

Remote Sensing-Based Estimates of Annual and

Seasonal Emissions from Crop Residue Burning in
the Contiguous United States

Jessica L. McCarty

To cite this article: Jessica L. McCarty (2011) Remote Sensing-Based Estimates of Annual and
Seasonal Emissions from Crop Residue Burning in the Contiguous United States, Journal of the
Air & Waste Management Association, 61:1, 22-34, DOI: 10.3155/1047-3289.61.1.22

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.61.1.22

Published online: 10 Oct 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2722

View related articles

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20
TECHNICAL PAPER
Remote Sensing-Based Estimates of Annual and Seasonal
Emissions from Crop Residue Burning in the Contiguous
United States
Jessica L. McCarty
Department of Geography and Geosciences, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY
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] ⱕ 2.5 ␮m in aerodynamic diam-
eter), and PM10 (PM ⱕ 10 ␮m in aerodynamic diameter).
Cropland burned area and associated crop types were
derived from Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradi-
ometer (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 resi-
due 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, Cal-
ifornia, 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
IMPLICATIONS
Current national emission inventories for the United States
do not include targeted emission calculations from crop
residue burning and rely on expert knowledge for crop
residue burned area and subsequent emission estimates.
The objective of this study is to quantify crop residue burn-
ing emissions in the CONUS through the use of remote
sensing-based products. The results of this study represent
the first emission estimates from crop residue burning in
the CONUS derived from the independent source of satel-
lite data and can be used to revise existing emissions
inventories of agricultural sources at a near-national level.
22 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
ISSN:1047-3289 J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 61:22–34
DOI:10.3155/1047-3289.61.1.22
Copyright 2011 Air & Waste Management Association
approximately 70% of all crop residue burning and asso-
ciated emissions. Estimates of CO and CH4 from agricul-
tural 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.
INTRODUCTION
Crop residue burning is a global practice.1–5 In the con-
tiguous United States (CONUS), crop residue burning is
an inexpensive and effective method to remove excess
residue that facilitates planting, controls pests and weeds,
and provides ash fertilization.6 – 8 Crop residue burning in
the CONUS occurs mainly in the spring (April to June)
and fall (October to December), with some summer (July
to September) and winter (January to March) burning
associated with the specific crop types of Kentucky blue-
grass and sugarcane, respectively.9
Crop residue burning emissions are a source of par-
ticulate and gaseous emissions that can be important in
the regional context of air quality.10 –12 Previous attempts
to quantify crop residue burning and its emissions relied
on governmental statistics and lacked a precise characteriza-
tion of the temporal and spatial distribution of burning.13,14
Often assumptions of burned area, emission factors, and/or
combustion completeness were also used.15–17 Current crop
residue burning emission estimates generalize burning as
one land-use class (i.e., agriculture) that do not specify par-
ticular crop types in emissions calculations.18 –20
This analysis used remote sensing techniques to
quantify burned area and crop type for subsequent emis-
sion estimates. The use of remote sensing-based burned
area products allowed for a high temporal resolution for
the analysis of emissions, whereas the crop-type maps
permitted the calculations of crop-specific emissions. Car-
bon emissions and atmospheric species that negatively
impact air quality were the focus of this analysis. The
carbon species included carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon
monoxide (CO), and methane (CH4), which are impor-
tant greenhouse gases and are essential to quantify the
sinks and sources of carbon in North America for carbon
management purposes.21 The air quality species were CO,
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), PM2.5 (par-
ticulate matter [PM] ⱕ 2.5 ␮m in aerodynamic diameter),
Volume 61 January 2011

and PM10 (PM ⱕ 10 ␮m in aerodynamic diameter), which
represent a subset of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards that are monitored by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) as mandated by the 1990 Clean
Air Act.22 This analysis refers to the emissions of CO, NO2,
SO2, PM2.5, and PM10 as air quality emissions to differen-
tiate from the carbon emissions. Carbon and air quality
emissions were calculated for eight crop types that repre-
sent approximately 90% of crop residue burning in the
CONUS.2,7,10 –12 These eight crop types are Kentucky blue-
grass seed, corn, cotton, rice, soy, sugarcane, wheat, and
an “other/fallow” crop class. Recent studies have illus-
trated the utility, accuracy, and consistency of using re-
mote sensing to quantify crop residue burning.1,2,9,23,24
Crop-type-specific emissions were calculated for the years
2003–2007. The 5-yr carbon and air quality emissions re-
sulting from this analysis were subsequently evaluated
through comparisons with existing emission estimates of
agricultural burning from global and North American stud-
ies. The results from this analysis were also compared with
wildland (i.e., forest fire) emissions and EPA publications on
national air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
DATA AND METHODS
Remote Sensing Estimates of Burned Area
To create burned area estimates for the fire emissions anal-
ysis, a regionally adapted hybrid method of mapping
burned area in crop-dominated landscapes was used.24 This
method combines changes in surface reflectance due to
burning, with locations of ongoing burning provided by
active fire detections. Two Collection 5 Moderate Resolution
Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) products were utilized
in this approach: the 500-m MODIS 8-day Surface Reflec-
tance Product (MOD09A1)25 and the 1-km MODIS Active
Fire Product (MOD14/MYD14).26 MODIS 8-day differencing
of normalized burn ratio (dNBR) burned area maps were
derived for each MODIS tile in the CONUS and combined
with MODIS active fire counts calibrated into area. The
dNBR approach utilizes the spectral response of the 2.1-␮m
short-wave infrared (IR) MODIS band to detect burned pix-
els. Areas undetected by the dNBR approach were mapped
by calibrating the 1-km MODIS active fire product into area
using coincidental high resolution (15 m) Advanced Space-
borne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER)
data. On the basis of the analysis of the high-resolution
imagery, the 1-km MODIS active fire points were found to
be approximately equal to the average regional field size.
The overall accuracy of the hybrid approach, which com-
bined 500-m MODIS dNBR images with 1-km MODIS active
fire points calibrated into area, was determined to be 84%
when compared with in situ data collected during several
field campaigns and high to moderate resolution burn scar
maps developed from 15-m ASTER, 30-m Landsat Thematic
Mapper (TM), and 56-m Advanced Wide Field Sensor (AWiFS)
data. An in-depth description of the hybrid burned area
methodology, validation methodology and results, and
crop residue burned area estimates for the CONUS is fur-
ther explained in McCarty et al.9
Remote Sensing Estimates of Crop Type
Crop-type information for this analysis was taken from re-
gional crop-type maps following the classification tree
Volume 61 January 2011
McCarty
method developed by Hansen et al.27 As previously men-
tioned, this analysis targeted the crop types of Kentucky
bluegrass, corn, cotton, rice, soybean, sugarcane, wheat, and
other and/or fallow rotation crop class. These eight target
crops were readily mapped using satellite data because of
their good spectral separability in the near-IR range of
0.841– 0.876 ␮m (MODIS band 2) and the separability
among the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)
values. Previous research found the classification tree ap-
proach and the use of red, near IR, and NDVI to be effective
in distinguishing crop types across state and regional
scales.28,29 The classification tree approach was utilized to
produce regional and seasonal (spring and fall) crop-type
classifications using the multiyear and multitemporal
250-m MODIS U.S. VI product, which is a 16-day composite
of red, near-IR, and NDVI bands. Moderate-resolution (30
and 56 m) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Cropland
Data Layer (CDL) images were utilized to extract training
and validation pixels of the targeted crop types.30 For the
time period in question (2003–2007), CDL images of 10
states were used. Accuracy of the regional crop-type maps
was determined through error matrices comparing the CDL
validation pixels averaged to 250 m with the classified re-
gional crop-type maps. The percent of correctly classified
pixels per regional classification ranged from 73 to 91%. A
visual assessment of spatial crop patterns in Arkansas, Mis-
sissippi, and Washington showed good agreement between
the 250-m MODIS crop-type maps and the higher resolution
CDL. Because of this reasonable range in accuracy, these
crop-type maps were used to assign burned area pixels and
active fire detections a corresponding crop type for emission
estimates.
Emission Factor Database
Emission factors (g species emitted per kg⫺1 biomass
burned) were assigned to the eight target crop types from
the published literature for the selected atmospheric species
of CO2, CO, CH4, NO2, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10.8,11,31–39 To
develop the crop-type emission factor database, atmo-
spheric species with two emission factor values were re-
ported as the mean plus or minus half of the range (x ⫾
range). This reporting scheme was used for the CO2 emis-
sion factors for bluegrass and corn, the PM2.5 emission fac-
tors for soy and cotton, and the PM10 emission factor for
sugarcane. Atmospheric species with three or more emission
factor values from the literature were reported as means and
standard deviations (x ⫾ s). Emission factors with a single
measurement were reported without an uncertainty esti-
mate. This reporting follows the methodology developed by
Andreae and Merlet.34 Table 1 shows the emission factors
used in this analysis.
Emission Calculations
This analysis estimated pyrogenic emissions from agricul-
tural burning using the bottom-up methodology devel-
oped by Seiler and Crutzen.40
Emissions ⫽ A ⫻ B ⫻ CE ⫻ e i (1)
where A is cropland burned area, B is the fuel load variable
(mass of biomass per area), CE is the combustion efficiency
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 23
McCarty
Table 1. Emission factors for crop types (g/kg).
CO2 CH4 CO
Bluegrass11,32–34,36,37 1550 ⫾ 50.2 5.11 ⫾ 4.32 91.0 ⫾ 43.8
Corn11,31–34,37,39 1520 2.24 ⫾ 0.49 53.1 ⫾ 24.1
Cotton33,34,37,39 1520 3.30 ⫾ 1.04 73.1 ⫾ 15.4
Rice31,33,34,36–38 1520 2.09 ⫾ 0.94 52.6 ⫾ 28.1
Soy31,33,34,37,39 1520 3.15 ⫾ 1.00 68.9 ⫾ 24.5
Sugarcane11,33,34,37,39 1520 1.19 ⫾ 1.31 58.5 ⫾ 27.5
Wheat8,11,31–39 1630 ⫾ 136 2.12 ⫾ 1.20 55.1 ⫾ 22.0
Other8,11,31–39 1520 ⫾ 93.4 2.82 ⫾ 1.47 63.9 ⫾ 26.5
Notes: References used for the calculation of each crop-specific emission factor are listed with each crop name in subscript notation. All numbers are rounded
to three significant figures.
(fraction of biomass consumed by fire), and ei is the emis-
sion factor for species i (mass of species per mass of biomass
burned). For this analysis, B, CE, and ei are crop-type depen-
dent. Variable A was derived from remote sensing-based
cropland burned area estimates, with an associated crop
type from the satellite crop-type classification maps assigned
to variable A. Combustion efficiency (CE) is dependent on
the moisture content of the fuels.41 Examples of crop residue
burning during several field campaigns demonstrated that
farmers waited for crop residues to dry (i.e., low moisture
content) before burning, with the exclusion of sugarcane,
which is always burned before harvest and while vegetation
is still green. The CE values were derived from expert knowl-
edge from agriculture extension agents in Arkansas, Louisi-
ana, Florida, Kansas, and Washington during field cam-
paigns in 2004, 2005, and 2006 as well as from the scientific
literature.11,36 CE variables ranged from 0.65 for cotton and
sugarcane to 0.75 for corn, rice, soybean, and other/fallow
crops to 0.85 for wheat and bluegrass. These values are in
good agreement with the CE value of 0.88 used by EPA in
the Greenhouse Gas Inventory.42 An earlier EPA CE value
was not used because it was a best-guess estimate of com-
bustion completeness of all types of biomass.43
This analysis did not calculate fuel load after the fuel
load methodology outlined in the EPA Greenhouse Gas
Inventory,42 in which fuel load for crop residue burning was
the product of annual crop production, residue-to-crop ra-
tio, and dry matter of residue. The fuel load values in the
EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory were an update of the pre-
viously published EPA-42 publication of all crop residue fuel
loads.44 The updated EPA fuel load calculation was not used
for three important reasons. First, the annual fuel loadings
for wheat, rice, sugarcane, and corn varied less than 10%,
which was directly linked to the near-static annual produc-
tion of crops in the CONUS.45– 49 Secondly, the residue-to-
crop ratio (the amount of crop residue left on the field after
harvest) used by EPA50 did not match the residue-to-crop
ratio statistics gathered from in-field collaborators.51 Includ-
ing the residue-to-crop ratio statistics in a fuel loads calcu-
lation can be misleading because the amount of residue
remaining in the field is determined by what type of me-
chanical harvesting tool was used to harvest the crops and
how long the residues were left to weather in the field before
burning. Finally, residue dry matter content used by EPA
was calculated from three or fewer samples of specific crop
types in Northern California,52 which are not representative
of all crops and cropping locations in the CONUS. Residue
24 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
NO2 SO2 PM2.5 PM10
2.16 ⫾ 0.64 0.40 11.6 ⫾ 7.69 15.8 ⫾ 10.4
2.30 ⫾ 1.59 1.19 ⫾ 1.85 4.97 ⫾ 0.93 10.7 ⫾ 10.3
3.44 ⫾ 1.63 1.57 ⫾ 2.08 6.19 ⫾ 3.23 8.87
3.12 ⫾ 1.25 1.38 ⫾ 1.72 5.76 ⫾ 4.82 3.31 ⫾ 0.22
3.16 ⫾ 1.44 1.56 ⫾ 2.08 6.19 ⫾ 3.23 8.87
3.03 ⫾ 1.65 1.66 ⫾ 2.00 4.35 ⫾ 0.57 4.92 ⫾ 0.73
1.99 ⫾ 0.83 0.44 ⫾ 0.04 4.03 ⫾ 1.46 6.61 ⫾ 2.98
2.80 ⫾ 1.29 1.17 ⫾ 1.39 6.16 ⫾ 3.13 8.50 ⫾ 4.93
dry matter content for sugarcane was also problematic be-
cause this sample was taken from Hawaii, where sugar yields
are 3 times higher than the CONUS.42 In general, the up-
dated EPA fuel load calculations in the EPA Greenhouse Gas
Inventory42 did not match the fuel load estimates gathered
by extension agents through a process of bailing and weigh-
ing remaining residues in wheat fields in Arkansas, Kansas,
and Washington. However, fuel load estimates from in-field
collaborators strongly agreed with the fuel load values re-
ported in the EPA AP-42 publication.44 Therefore, variable B
was assigned to each crop type from the EPA AP-42 publi-
cation44—fuel load values considered to be the standard for
crop residue emission calculations8,11 and that were verified
by in-field collaborators—with the exceptions of the fuel
load values for bluegrass36 and for the other crop/fallow
class, which was calculated as the average of the fuel load
values for the other crops.
Uncertainties and Errors
The emission factors used in this analysis represent a
limited sample. Two or more scientific sources were avail-
able for CH4, CO, NO2, and PM2.5 (Table 1). Two or more
sources were not available for CO2 emissions factors for
the crop types of corn, cotton, rice, soy, and sugarcane.
All CO2 emissions factors for these crops were taken from
Andreae and Merlet,34 which was also the source for the
SO2 emission factor for bluegrass. PM10 emission factors
for cotton and soy were taken from one published
source.39 Table 2 shows the range of emission factor val-
ues for all atmospheric species.
All of the emission factors utilized in this analysis
were derived from three main methods: controlled burns
in laboratories,8,32,36 –38 control burns in the field,35,37
or expert knowledge estimations based on laboratory-
and/or field-derived emission factors of similar crop
and/or vegetation types.11,31,33,34,37,39 Despite these differ-
ent methodologies to produce emission factors, in general
there was moderate agreement between the various emis-
sion factor sources (Table 2). The atmospheric species of
CO and SO2 had the largest ranges, which resulted in
standard deviation values that were often greater than or
equal to 50% of the value of the calculated mean. On the
basis of this range comparison, it is possible that the SO2
and NO2 emission factors from the U.K. Emission Factor
Database are uncertain.33 The SO2 and NO2 emission fac-
tors from the U.K. Emission Factor Database are approxi-
mately 2 times larger than the smallest SO2 and NO2
Volume 61 January 2011
 McCarty

Table 2. Range of emission factor values for crop types (g/kg).

Crop CO2 CH4 CO NO2 SO2 PM2.5 PM10

Bluegrass11,32–34,36,37 1520–1590 2.70–12.8 51.8–171 1.42–2.55 0.40 3.90–22.0 8.70–27.8

Corn11,31–34,37,39 1520 1.70–2.70 28.3–92.0 0.66–5.32 0.20–3.96 3.90–5.98 4.70–26.1
Cotton33,34,37,39 1520 2.70–4.50 58.0–92.0 2.50–5.32 0.34–3.96 3.90–8.48 8.87
Rice31,33,34,36–38 1520 0.72–2.70 27.0–92.0 2.30–5.30 0.40–3.96 2.95–12.96 3.15–3.46
Soy31,33,34,37,39 1520 2.25–4.50 27.0–92.0 2.32–5.32 0.40–3.96 3.90–8.48 8.87
Sugarcane11,33,34,37,39 1520 0.41–2.70 25.5–92.0 1.40–5.32 0.40–3.96 3.90–4.99 4.40–5.43
Wheat8,11,31–39 1520–1780 0.45–4.27 21.1–92.0 1.42–2.90 0.40–0.47 0.80–5.44 4.40–11.0
Other/fallow8,11,31–39 1520–1780 0.41–4.50 21.1–92.0 0.66–5.32 0.20–3.96 0.80–22.0 3.15–27.8

Notes: References used for crop-specific emission factor ranges are listed with each crop name in subscript notation. All numbers are rounded to three significant
figures.

emission factors from the literature for the crops of corn,
cotton, rice, soybean, and sugarcane. Published sources of
emission factors derived from laboratory experiments
showed a similar relationship for wheat and bluegrass.8,36
Therefore, this analysis did include the SO2 and NO2
emission factors from the U.K. Emission Factor Database33
for the calculation of average emission factors for crop
residue burning emissions (Table 1).
Several sources provided error ranges for emission
factors.8,31,34 –36,38 This analysis calculated the cumulative
error for all emission factors from the literature and this
analysis (i.e., error from the literature plus the error cal-
culated from this analysis [⫾ s]). Table 3 shows the total
error for all emission factors. On average, the total emis-
sion factor error accounts for approximately 13% of the
average CO2 emission factors for all crop types used in
this analysis, 62% of the CH4 emission factors, 264% of
CO emission factors, 83% of the NO2 emission factors,
133% of the SO2 emission factors, 52% of the PM2.5 emis-
sion factors, and 55% of the PM10 emission factors.
Clearly, current emission factors for crop residue burning
contain a high level of uncertainty when the total error is
considered.
Published emission factors do not provide for calcu-
lating seasonal difference in spring versus fall burning of
crop residues for all atmospheric species. Differences be-
tween spring and fall emissions from crop residue burning
are expected because of increased moisture content in
residues, and thus less efficient burning, during the
spring. Spring and fall emission factors have been devel-
oped for wheat in Washington only for the atmospheric
species of CO2, CH4, CO, and PM2.5.8,35 The spring emis-
sion factors for CH4, CO, and PM2.5 were an average of 44,
40, and 36% less than the fall emissions factors, respec-
tively. However, the CO2 emission factor for spring wheat
residues was 3% higher than the fall emission factor for
wheat.35 This analysis assumed that moisture content of
crop residues from the spring harvest within the CONUS
will vary considerably over time and space; for example,
the moisture content of wheat residues in Washington
would not be the same for wheat residues in Arkansas.
Because of the lack of seasonal emission factors in the
literature, this analysis did not account for seasonal emis-
sion differences for wheat residue burning. Thus, all emis-
sion factors for spring and fall wheat burning from all
sources were averaged and reported as means and stan-
dard deviation (x ⫾ s) (Table 1). The lack of seasonality in
emission factors for the emissions calculations of crop
residue burning does create an uncertainty whereby emis-
sions for certain atmospheric species during the spring
harvest may be underestimated (CO2) or overestimated
(CH4, CO, and PM2.5).
Further uncertainty is present in this analysis because
of the paucity of direct monitoring data available for
which to compare the results of this bottom-up emission
estimate. Much of the current air quality and/or emissions
monitoring systems and networks are focused on urban
areas, such as the EPA Air Quality System53 that focuses its
monitoring sites primarily in towns and cities. Without
the direct ground-based emissions data from monitoring
networks,54 further uncertainty estimations of the fitness

Table 3. Error range of emission factor values for crop types (g/kg).

Crop CO2 CH4 CO NO2 SO2 PM2.5 PM10

Bluegrass ⫾245 ⫾7.10 ⫾155 ⫾1.64 ⫾0.40 ⫾12.4 ⫾16.3

Corn ⫾177 ⫾0.53 ⫾193 ⫾2.59 ⫾2.25 ⫾0.93 ⫾9.32
Cotton ⫾177 ⫾1.04 ⫾99.4 ⫾2.63 ⫾2.48 ⫾2.29 —
Rice ⫾177 ⫾0.99 ⫾194 ⫾2.25 ⫾2.12 ⫾5.12 ⫾0.15
Soy ⫾177 ⫾0.81 ⫾184 ⫾2.44 ⫾2.48 ⫾2.29 —
Sugarcane ⫾177 ⫾1.31 ⫾112 ⫾2.65 ⫾2.40 ⫾0.57 ⫾0.52
Wheat ⫾323 ⫾1.40 ⫾199 ⫾1.83 ⫾0.44 ⫾2.39 ⫾2.98
Other/fallow ⫾208 ⫾1.88 ⫾163 ⫾2.29 ⫾1.79 ⫾3.72 ⫾4.19

Notes: – indicates no error calculations (i.e., one source for the emission factor with no available error estimate). Total error for other/fallow crop calculated as
the average of the emission factor error for bluegrass, corn, cotton, rice, soy, sugarcane, and wheat. All numbers are rounded to three significant figures.

Volume 61 January 2011 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 25
McCarty
of the bottom-up crop residue burning emissions from
this analysis could not be quantified.
A considerable amount of inherent uncertainty was
present during the calculation of crop residue burning
emissions. This analysis showed that the total errors from
emission factors for crop residue burning range from 13%
(CO2) to 264% (CO) of the mean emission factor value
used to calculate emission in this analysis. The remote
sensing approaches used to calculate burned area and
associated crop type also contained error. The cropland
burned area product had an area estimation accuracy that
ranged from 78 to 90%, with an average percent estima-
tion accuracy of 84% (error of 16%). The regional crop-
type maps had an average accuracy of 84% (error of 16%).
Misclassification errors in the crop-type maps could pro-
duce incorrect emission estimates by assigning the wrong
crop type to a burned area or active fire detection in the
emissions calculations. Finally, fuel load and CE values
also contain uncertainty because many of the fuel load
values in the literature were derived from expert knowl-
edge and laboratory studies using limited samples. Quan-
tifying the total error from emission factors, burned area,
assigned crop type, fuel load, and combustion complete-
ness to calculated emissions would require iterations of
the emissions modeling with varying values of the input
parameters within their respective error ranges because
there is a nonlinear relationship between the input pa-
rameters and the calculated emissions.55 In general, this
analysis concludes that there is moderate amount of un-
certainty in these emission calculations related to errors
associated with the emission factors and the other input
parameters of burned area, assigned crop type, fuel load,
and combustion completeness.
RESULTS
State and County Emissions
The states with the highest annual CO emissions are (in
descending order) Florida, Washington, Idaho, Texas, Cali-
fornia, Arkansas, Kansas, South Dakota, Louisiana, Oregon,
North Dakota, Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma, Montana,
Illinois, Arizona, and Indiana (Table 4). States with the high-
est PM2.5 and PM10 emissions are (in descending order)
Florida, Idaho, Washington, Arkansas, California, Texas,
and Kansas. Consistently, six states (Arkansas, California,
Florida, Idaho, Texas, and Washington) had the highest
carbon and air quality emissions; not surprisingly, these six
states represented the highest percent of total emissions.
Arkansas, California, Florida, Idaho, Texas, and Washington
account for a total of 51% of all CO2 emissions, 52% of CO
emissions, and 46% of CH4 emissions from crop residue
burning annually. These six states also emitted the majority of
PM2.5 and PM10, representing 62 and 50% of total emissions,
respectively. The state with the most crop residue burning
emissions was Florida, which emitted 17% of all annual CO2,
CO, and PM2.5 emissions, 12% of all annual PM10 emissions,
and 9.5% of all CH4 emissions from crop residue burning.
The emission calculations were repeated with the
substitution of the upper estimate of the emission factors
from Table 1. These upper estimates were calculated as the
average plus the standard deviation (three or more
sources) or half of the range (two sources); emission fac-
tors derived from only one source retained the same
26 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
value. The pattern of emissions in the CONUS was similar,
with Idaho, Florida, Arkansas, Texas, Washington, and
California (in descending order) remaining the top six
source states for emissions. The upper estimate of emis-
sions were 10% higher than the average total CO2 emis-
sions, 38% higher than the total CH4, 72% higher than
the total CO, 42% higher than the total NO2, 57% higher
than the total SO2, 35% higher than the total PM2.5, and
30% higher than the total PM10.
The spatial distributions of the most significant air qual-
ity emissions in terms of highest emissions (CO) and health
impacts (CO and PM2.5) were mapped according to average
percent of total emissions. For CO and PM2.5, the average
annual percent of total emissions per state was calculated as
2.1% of total emissions. Therefore, states with percent of
total CO and PM2.5 emissions greater than the mean of 2.1%
were considered above-average sources of these emissions.
Much of the CO and PM2.5 emissions were concentrated in
the Great Plains, the Mississippi Delta, and along the Pacific
Coast. The highest average annual percent of total CO emis-
sions occurred in Florida with 16.7% of total CO emissions
from all states. Washington, Idaho, and Texas emitted 8,
7.7, and 7.3% of total CO emissions, respectively. California,
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Oregon, and South Dakota
emitted between 3.3 and 6.7% of total CO emissions. Four
other states also exceeded the mean of 2.1% of total CO
emissions: Colorado, Missouri, North Dakota, and Okla-
homa. Florida and Idaho had the highest percent of total
PM2.5 emissions with 16.7 and 12.5% of total emissions,
respectively. The states of Arkansas, California, Texas, and
Washington emitted 8.3% of total PM2.5 emissions, respec-
tively. Nine states individually emitted 4.2% of total PM2.5
emissions: Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Dakota. This
analysis expected the major Kentucky bluegrass seed pro-
ducing states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington to have
above-average PM2.5 emissions because of the high bluegrass
seed PM2.5 emission factor, which is nearly twice the value of
the next highest PM2.5 emissions factors of cotton and soy. The
remaining states showed significant burning in rice (Arkansas,
California, Texas), wheat (Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Mis-
souri, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington),
and sugarcane (Florida, Louisiana) growing areas.
The county-level distribution of CO and PM2.5 emissions
from crop residue burning reveal that within source states,
much of the crop residue burning is clustered in a few counties
(e.g., Florida, Texas) and/or a small subregion (e.g., Arkansas,
Washington, California) (Figures 1 and 2). Additionally, al-
though there is a strong spatial similarity between the CO and
PM2.5 county-level emissions, there were more than 30 fewer
counties with above-average PM2.5 emissions. This difference
occurred mainly in wheat-producing regions in the Great
Plains, the Rocky Mountain West, and the Pacific Northwest.
The total population in the counties and cities con-
tained within and/or contiguous to crop residue burn-
ing areas was approximately 15.5 million people ac-
cording to the 2007 and 2008 population estimates
from the U.S. Census Bureau56,57 (Figure 3). This popu-
lation, potentially affected by crop residue burning, is
approximately 5.2% of the total population of the
CONUS. Within the states, the proportion of people liv-
ing within these source areas is higher; for example,
Volume 61 January 2011
 McCarty

Table 4. Annual carbon and air quality emissions from crop residue burning by state averaged over the years 2003–2007.

State CO2 CH4 CO NO2 SO2 PM2.5 PM10

Alabama 0.04 0.07 1.70 0.08 0.03 0.15 0.24

Arizona 0.13 0.06 2.78 0.24 0.09 0.09 0.11
Arkansas 0.46 0.70 16.8 0.82 0.33 1.57 2.10
California 0.51 0.14 11.4 0.96 0.36 0.17 0.24
Colorado 0.23 0.30 8.14 0.36 0.11 0.67 1.14
Delaware 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.01 4.00 ⫻ 10⫺3 0.02 0.03
Florida 1.32 1.00 47.6 2.50 1.34 3.60 4.00
Georgia 0.05 0.08 1.90 0.08 0.03 0.16 0.26
Idaho 0.50 1.16 22.5 0.77 0.21 2.38 3.41
Illinois 0.14 0.23 5.40 0.25 0.11 0.50 0.80
Indiana 0.12 0.20 4.50 0.20 0.09 0.41 0.71
Iowa 0.11 0.20 4.30 0.20 0.08 0.38 0.64
Kansas 0.32 0.50 11.6 0.51 0.17 0.98 1.62
Kentucky 0.01 0.02 0.43 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.07
Louisiana 0.26 0.33 10.0 0.50 0.20 0.86 1.03
Maine 2.00 ⫻ 10⫺3 3.00 ⫻ 10⫺3 0.06 3.00 ⫻ 10⫺3 1.00 ⫻ 10⫺3 0.01 0.01
Maryland 0.01 0.02 0.40 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.07
Michigan 0.10 0.16 3.70 0.17 0.07 0.30 0.60
Minnesota 0.10 0.15 3.60 0.16 0.06 0.30 0.50
Mississippi 0.08 0.13 3.10 0.15 0.06 0.29 0.37
Missouri 0.22 0.33 8.00 0.37 0.15 0.73 1.07
Montana 0.18 0.27 6.49 0.29 0.10 0.55 0.90
Nebraska 0.11 0.18 4.24 0.19 0.08 0.38 0.65
Nevada 0.02 0.03 0.73 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.07
New Jersey 0.01 0.02 0.40 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.07
New Mexico 0.03 0.04 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.10
New York 0.02 0.03 0.76 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.13
North Carolina 0.04 0.08 1.70 0.08 0.03 0.15 0.23
North Dakota 0.23 0.34 8.50 0.37 0.12 0.72 1.15
Ohio 0.08 0.13 3.00 0.14 0.06 0.30 0.50
Oklahoma 0.20 0.30 7.40 0.30 0.10 0.60 1.10
Oregon 0.19 0.45 8.57 0.30 0.08 0.92 1.31
Pennsylvania 0.02 0.03 0.70 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.11
Rhode Island 2.40 ⫻ 10⫺4 4.00 ⫻ 10⫺4 8.20 ⫻ 10⫺3 4.00 ⫻ 10⫺4 2.00 ⫻ 10⫺4 8.00 ⫻ 10⫺4 1.02 ⫻ 10⫺3
South Carolina 0.03 0.05 1.12 0.05 0.02 0.10 0.20
South Dakota 0.29 0.40 10.2 0.44 0.12 0.82 1.37
Tennessee 0.02 0.04 0.85 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.12
Texas 0.55 0.80 21.0 1.04 0.51 1.90 2.30
Utah 0.11 0.17 4.15 0.18 0.07 0.36 0.60
Vermont 4.00 ⫻ 10⫺3 0.00 0.15 0.00 3.00 ⫻ 10⫺3 0.01 0.02
Virginia 0.01 0.02 0.40 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.07
Washington 0.56 1.06 22.6 0.83 0.21 2.16 3.25
West Virginia 4.00 ⫻ 10⫺3 0.00 0.15 0.01 3.00 ⫻ 10⫺3 0.01 0.03
Wisconsin 0.10 0.15 3.50 0.15 0.10 0.30 0.60
Wyoming 0.07 0.10 2.49 0.11 0.04 0.22 0.35
Total 7.59 10.5 278.1 13.1 5.24 23.6 34.3

Notes: CO2 reported in Tg yr⫺1; all other species reported in Gg yr⫺1. Connecticut, Maine, and New Hampshire are omitted from the table because of zero
emissions from crop residue burning. All numbers are rounded to three significant figures.

13.8% of the total population in Texas lives in counties,
with the highest emissions being from crop residue burn-
ing. In Washington, 17.5% of the state’s population re-
sides in the source counties, which is similar to California
(17.3%) and Florida (17.9%). Approximately 25% of the
population in Arkansas lives in the source counties and
almost half of the population of Idaho (46.6%) resides in
the counties with the highest emissions from crop residue
burning. At the very least, 1 in 10 people in the states of
Arkansas, California, Florida, Idaho, Texas, and Washing-
ton live near the consistent source of emissions from crop
residue burning.
Monthly and Seasonal Variability of Regional
Emissions
A regional analysis of calculated emissions was com-
pleted in which regions were defined as the EPA re-
gions. Five EPA regions (4, 6, 10, 8, and 7) were deter-
mined to be the main sources of emissions from crop
residue burning (Figure 4). These five source regions
represent approximately 82% of CO2, 94% of CH4, 91%
of CO, 86% of NO2 and SO2, and 95% of PM2.5 and
PM10 emissions for the CONUS.
The monthly distribution of average CO emissions
from crop residue burning for five EPA source regions

Volume 61 January 2011 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 27
McCarty

Figure 1. Average annual CO emissions (Gg) from crop residue burning by county for the CONUS (projection: Albers Equal Area Conic).

showed that nearly every region experienced peaks of
CO emissions between the months of April to July and
September to November, corresponding to the spring
harvest and fall harvest that occurs throughout much
of the CONUS (Figure 5). Region 4 was an exception.
Although there was a small spring peak between April
and June and an increase of burning beginning in Sep-
tember, the largest peaks of CO emissions for region 4
spanned from November to February. The multiyear
harvest was directly related to the sugarcane harvesting
in Florida, which occurs between October and March.58
Region 6, with sugarcane growing areas in Louisiana
and Texas, showed a smaller decrease in emissions in
November and December compared with the other re-
gions but retained higher emissions levels.
Emissions from these five major source regions
showed considerable seasonal variability. This analysis
defined seasons as winter (January to March); spring
(April to June), summer (July to September), and fall (Oc-
tober to December). In general, the highest average

Figure 2. Average annual PM2.5 emissions (Gg) from crop residue burning by county for the CONUS (projection: Albers Equal Area Conic).

28 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 61 January 2011
 McCarty

Figure 3. Source counties of crop residue burning emissions. Cities contained within and/or contiguous to these source counties are labeled
(projection: Albers Equal Area Conic).

monthly emissions of CO for the EPA source regions had a continual increase in emissions from winter to
occurred in the spring and fall. Region 8, dominated by spring, leveled off in summer related to the continuing
summer wheat harvesting in the northern Great Plains, wheat harvest, and a decrease in the fall. Similarly, region

Figure 4. EPA source regions of crop residue burning emissions (projection: Albers Equal Area Conic).

Volume 61 January 2011 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 29
McCarty
0.014
0.012
0.010
0.008
Tg/month
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
Jan Feb Mar Apr
Figure 5. Monthly distribution of average CO emissions from crop residue burning by EPA source region for years 2003–2007.
6 has spring and summer wheat harvesting in the south-
ern Great Plains, but it showed a sharp increase in emis-
sions in the fall because of sugarcane and rice harvesting
in the Mississippi Delta and Texas. Regions 7 and 10 had
similar trends with a peak in summer burning and nearly
equal amounts of burning in the spring and fall. Both of
these regions are home to major wheat production, with
the most burning in region 7 during the summer and the
most wheat residue burning in region 10 during the
spring, summer, and fall because of a double wheat crop
system. Higher summer burning (in July and August) in
region 10 is also due to Kentucky bluegrass seed harvest-
ing (Figure 5). The seasonality of CO emissions for region
4 is nearly the opposite of the other regions, with the
lowest amount of burning in spring and summer, and the
most burning in winter and fall, particularly November
through February, because of sugarcane in Florida and the
fall harvest of rice and soy in other southeastern states.
Between the years 2003 and 2007, 34% of all emissions
originated from sugarcane residue burning (Figure 6). Wheat
residue burning accounted for 22% of all emissions, fol-
lowed by rice with 14% of total emissions. Other crops/
fallow, Kentucky bluegrass seed, soybean, cotton, corn, and
Figure 6. Average contribution of emissions by crop type for the
EPA source regions for years 2003–2007.
30 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Region 4
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 10
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
lentils accounted for 10% or less of all emissions, respec-
tively. The results do not match the EPA estimate of crop
residue burning by crop type. EPA estimates that 77% of all
crop residue burning emissions are released from corn and
soybean residue burning, with only 23% of emissions attrib-
uted to sugarcane (3%), wheat (10%), and rice (10%).42
Interannual Variability of Crop Residue
Burning Emissions for the CONUS
On average, annual crop residue burning in the CONUS
emitted 6.1 Tg of CO2, 8.9 Gg of CH4, and 232.4 Gg of CO
per year (Table 5). PM10 and PM2.5 emissions were an
average of 28.5 and 20.9 Gg, respectively. NO2 and SO2
were less, with average emissions of 10.6 and 4.4 Gg,
respectively. Emissions from CO, PM2.5, and PM10 were
the most significant in terms of quantity.
The average interannual variability was higher for the
emissions of CO, NO2, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10 than the
carbon emissions of CO2 and CH4 (Table 5). The highest
average interannual variability was calculated for SO2 at
13.4%, followed by NO2 at 9.7%. Particulate emissions
from crop residue burning, PM2.5 and PM10, had an aver-
age interannual variability of 7.2%, slightly below the CO
average interannual variability of 7.8%. In general, in
addition to SO2, air quality and carbon emissions from
crop residue burning in the CONUS varied less than 10%
interannually.
COMPARISON WITH PUBLISHED EMISSION
ESTIMATES
Comparison with Agricultural Emissions
The results of this analysis were compared with global esti-
mates of crop residue burning17,34 and North American es-
timates of agricultural burning.18 Two of these studies, An-
dreae and Merlet34 and Wiedinmyer et al.,18 grouped all
agricultural emissions and did not specify by crop type.
Yevich and Logan17 did specify by crop type, although that
study and this analysis did not completely share the same
crop types; that is, Kentucky bluegrass seed. The CONUS
crop residue burning accounted for an average of 1% of total
global CO2, CO, CH4, PM2.5, and SO2 emissions from crop
residue burning calculated by Andreae and Merlet34
Volume 61 January 2011
 McCarty

Table 5. Total and average carbon and air quality emissions from crop residue burning for the CONUS, 2003–2007, including interannual variability.

Years CO2 CH4 CO NO2 SO2 PM2.5 PM10

2003 6.46 9.03 247 11.6 4.95 21.9 29.4

2004 6.03 8.95 234 10.7 4.41 21.3 28.1
2005 6.07 9.14 234 10.6 4.29 21.4 29.1
2006 5.72 8.19 208 9.22 3.60 18.8 26.4
2007 6.15 9.07 239 11.0 4.59 21.4 29.3
Total 30.5 44.4 1160 53.0 21.8 105 142
Average 6.09 8.87 232 10.6 4.37 20.9 28.5
Average interannual variability (⫾ value) 0.31 0.52 18.0 1.03 0.59 1.51 1.95
Average interannual variability (%) 5.07 5.90 7.76 9.70 13.5 7.20 7.03

Notes: CO2 reported in Tg yr⫺1; all other species reported in Gg yr⫺1. All numbers are rounded to three significant figures.

(Table 6). Comparing the three atmospheric species of
CO2, CO, and CH4, calculated by Andreae and Merlet34
and Yevich and Logan,17 the average CONUS emissions
for the same species (i.e., an averaging of the comparison
percentages for CO2, CO, and CH4) accounted for 0.6 and
2.1% of total global emissions from these two sources,
respectively. The North American estimates from Wiedin-
myer et al.18 included all forms of agricultural burning in
much of Central America, Mexico, the United States, and
Canada. Estimates from this study accounted for an aver-
age of 15.1% of total CO and PM2.5 emissions from agricul-
tural burning in North America.18 Although crop residue
burning in the CONUS was a minor source of agricultural
burning emissions on a global scale, it appeared to be a
significant source within North America.
Comparison with Wildfire Emissions
Wildfire emissions are an important source of carbon and air
quality emissions at the global, continental, and regional
scale.34,40,59,60 CONUS crop residue burning emissions were
compared with North American estimates of forest fires and
total pyrogenic emissions from all burning sources for the
United States, including Alaska and Hawaii.18 CONUS crop
residue burning emissions accounted for approximately
0.5% of total emissions of CO and PM2.5 from forest fires in
North America (Table 6). However, crop residue burning did
account for a higher average of emissions in the United
States, averaging 1.5% of total CO2, CO, CH4, PM2.5, and
SO2 emissions from all fires.
Implications for the EPA National Emissions
Inventory
The EPA National Emissions Inventory (NEI) currently
includes pyrogenic sources of air pollution. In 2002, the
NEI did provide explicit emission estimates from fires,
grouped together in one class that included agricultural
fires, prescribed/slash burning, wildfires, structural fires,
and other burning.61 The 2002 NEI burning estimates for
agricultural fires were limited to 23 states and included
burning activity ranging from pasture maintenance fires,
burn piles, and crop residue burning.19 Subsequent NEI
reports for 2005 and 2008 have relied on the agricultural
fire emissions estimated from 2002. The average emis-
sions from this analysis were compared with the 2002 NEI
fire emissions. The average annual crop residue burning
emissions from this analysis accounted for approximately
1.4% of total CO, 1.5% of total PM2.5, 1.7% of total PM10,
and 0.3% of total SO2 emissions of all burning activity
reported in the 2002 NEI. Future NEI reports would ben-
efit from separating different categories of fire activities to
determine the relative contributions of the different burn-
ing sources and whether agricultural burning (i.e., crop

Table 6. Comparison of global, continental, and U.S. agricultural, forest, and total burning emissions with estimated emissions from this analysis.

Source Scale (Land Cover) CO2 CO CH4 PM2.5 SO2

Andreae and Merlet34 Global (agricultural) 818 50.0 1.50 2.10 0.22
Yevich and Logan17 Global (agricultural) 140 23.0 1.00 — —
Wiedinmyer et al.18 North America (agricultural) — 1.62 — 0.13 —
Wiedinmyer et al.18 North America (forest) — 44.2 — 5.10 —
Wiedinmyer et al.18 United States (total pyrogenic) 356 19.8 1.00 2.40 0.16
This analysis CONUS 6.09 0.23 8.88 ⫻ 10⫺3 2.09 ⫻ 10⫺2 4.37 ⫻ 10⫺3
Andreae and Merlet34 Percent CONUS cropland fire emissions 0.74 0.46 0.59 1.00 1.98
Yevich and Logan17 Percent CONUS cropland fire emissions 4.35 1.01 0.89 — —
Wiedinmyer et al.18: North Percent CONUS cropland fire emissions — 14.3 — 15.9 —
America (agricultural)
Wiedinmyer et al.18: North Percent CONUS cropland fires emissions — 0.53 — 0.41 —
America (forest)
Wiedinmyer et al.18: United States Percent CONUS cropland fires emissions 1.71 1.17 0.89 0.87 2.73
(total pyrogenic)

Notes: The percent CONUS cropland fire emission values were calculated by dividing the average CONUS crop residue burning emissions by the published
estimates of agricultural, forest, and total burning emissions. Emissions are reported in Tg yr⫺1. All numbers are rounded to three significant figures.

Volume 61 January 2011 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 31
McCarty

residue fire emissions) is a significant contributor to total
pyrogenic emissions.
Implications for the EPA Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Inventory
EPA annually prepares an inventory of national green-
house gas sources and sinks for the United States. The
most recent publication, the 2008 Inventory of Green-
house Gas Emissions and Sinks,42 included CH4 and CO
emissions estimates from field burning of agricultural res-
idues for the years 1990 –2006. Crops included in the EPA
Greenhouse Gas Inventory included barley, corn, pea-
nuts, rice, soybean, sugarcane, and wheat. This analysis
did not include barley and peanuts; however, emissions
from these two crops accounted for less than 3% of the
total emissions reported by the EPA. Methodologies for
emission estimates were different, with the largest diver-
gence coming from the emission factors, the fraction of
residue burned (CE), fuel load, and the burned area esti-
mates. The greatest uncertainty in the EPA emissions cal-
culations was fuel load (discussed below), noted in the
Greenhouse Gas Inventory document.42 In the case of the
emission factors, the EPA greenhouse inventory used their
own emission factors from the EPA AP-42 document43
and this analysis used calculated emission factors from
the scientific literature that included the EPA emission
factors, as reported by Dennis et al.11 The CE factor used
by the EPA was 0.88, 15% higher than the average CE
factor used by this analysis of 0.75. As for burned area, the
EPA assumed that 3% of the area for all targeted crops
burned, except for rice.42 Burned rice acreages were taken
from state estimates. Combining these estimates, the EPA
assumed a cropland burned area that was on average 2
times the area that was detected by the hybrid remote
sensing approach used in this analysis.9
Fuel loads have been noted as having high uncertainty
values in bottom-up emissions calculations.62 As previously
mentioned, the EPA methodology for fuel load calculation
outlined in the Greenhouse Gas Inventory42 was not uti-
lized in this analysis. Four crops common to this analysis
and the 2008 EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory were corn,
rice, sugarcane, and wheat. The EPA Greenhouse Gas Inven-
tory estimated emissions using higher fuel load variables for
the crops of rice (33% higher) and sugarcane (71%). The fuel
load values from this analysis and the Greenhouse Gas In-
ventory were the same for wheat: Both studies utilized an
estimate of 2752 kg/ha. Corn was the exception, with this
analysis utilizing a fuel load estimate that was 38% higher
than the EPA’s fuel load variable.
Table 7 shows the comparison of the 2008 EPA esti-
mates with this analysis, including the crop residue burn-
ing emissions calculated using the average emissions fac-
tors and the maximum emission factors. This analysis
estimated CH4 and CO emissions to be an average of 78
and 73% less than the EPA estimates, respectively. Using
the maximum emission factors, the average annual emis-
sions from crop residue burning for CH4 and CO were
0.017 and 0.972 Tg, respectively. These maximum CH4
and CO emissions were 52 and 23% higher than the
emissions calculated from the average emission factors,
respectively. The CH4 and CO emission estimates calcu-
lated using the maximum emission factor values ac-
counted for 50 and 119%, respectively, of the average
annual EPA estimation of CH4 and CO emissions from
crop residue burning. On the basis of the results of this
analysis, it is likely that the EPA is overestimating CH4 emis-
sions from crop residue burning. However, the CO emis-
sions reported by the EPA fall within the range of emission
estimates from this analysis calculated using the average and
maximum emission factors. Therefore, the EPA estimation
of CO emissions of crop residue burning appears reasonable.
Crop residue burning emissions are a minor source of
CH4 emissions compared with the CH4 emissions from
other agricultural sources. Crop residue burning emis-
sions accounted for less than 1% of the annual emissions
from enteric fermentation, manure management, and rice
cultivation reported in the EPA Greenhouse Gas Inven-
tory.42 Specifically, crop residue burning in the CONUS
accounted for an average 0.11% of annual CH4 emissions
from enteric fermentation, 0.15% of manure manage-
ments, and 0.45% of rice cultivation.
The USDA also compiles a Greenhouse Gas Inventory
focused on CH4 and CO emissions from agricultural and
forestry sources using the crop residue burning emission
estimates from the EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory.63 The
USDA ranks the states of Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Ne-
braska, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Arkansas, Ohio, and
South Dakota (in descending order) as the largest sources

Table 7. Comparison of CH4 and CO emissions from crop residue burning estimated by the 2008 EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory with results from this
analysis for 2003–2006.

Species 2003 2004 2005 2006 Average

EPA CH4 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

CO 0.80 0.88 0.86 0.83 0.84
This analysis (average emission factors) CH4 9.00 ⫻ 10⫺3 9.00 ⫻ 10⫺3 9.00 ⫻ 10⫺3 8.00 ⫻ 10⫺3 9.00 ⫻ 10⫺3
CO 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.23
This analysis (maximum emission factors) CH4 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
CO 1.05 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00
Percent CONUS cropland burning emissions in the CH4 22.5 22.5 22.5 20.0 21.9
EPA estimates from average emissions (%) CO 31.3 26.1 26.7 25.3 27.4
Percent CONUS cropland burning emissions in the CH4 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
EPA estimates from maximum emissions (%) CO 131 114 116 116 119

Notes: Emissions from this analysis calculated using the average emission factors and the maximum emission factors. Emissions are reported in Tg yr⫺1. All
numbers are rounded to three significant figures.

32 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 61 January 2011

of CH4 emissions. In general, this analysis showed that a
different set of states are the main sources of CH4 emis-
sions from crop residue burning (in descending order):
Idaho, Washington, Florida, Texas, Arkansas, Kansas, Or-
egon, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Missouri. The
states of Arkansas, Kansas, and South Dakota were shared
between the two studies. The USDA Greenhouse Gas In-
ventory overestimates the contribution of crop residue
burning emissions from the midwestern states of Illinois,
Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Ohio.
CONCLUSIONS
Most crop residue burning emissions in the CONUS were
emitted in the spring, summer, and fall. CONUS crop resi-
due burning emissions had an average interannual variabil-
ity of ⫾10%, ranging from 5.1% for CO2 and 13.4% for SO2.
Six states emitted the most air quality and carbon emissions
from crop residue burning (ranked in descending order):
Florida, Washington, Texas, California, Idaho, and Arkan-
sas. These six states accounted for 50% of PM10, 51% of
CO2, 52% of CO, and 63% of PM2.5. Florida alone emitted
17% of all annual CO2, CO, and PM2.5 emissions as well as
12% of all annual PM10 emissions from crop residue burn-
ing. From a regional perspective, EPA regions 4, 6, 10, 8, and
7 (in descending order) were the main sources of emissions.
These five EPA regions, comprising the southeastern United
States, the Great Plains, and the Pacific Northwest, repre-
sented 85% of all emission for crop residue burning for the
atmospheric species of CO2, CO, CH4, NO2, SO2, PM2.5, and
PM10. Approximately 70% of all crop residue burning emis-
sions in the EPA source regions originated from the three
crops of sugarcane, wheat, and rice.
Compared with estimates of all agricultural burning
emissions in North America, which included all types of
agricultural burning, which included slash-and-burn, land
clearing, pasture maintenance, etc., the CONUS crop residue
burning emissions represented 15% of total emissions. CONUS
crop residue burning emissions were also significantly less
than estimated wildfire emissions. Forest fire emissions in
North America of CO and PM2.5 were significantly higher
than the estimates from this analysis, with cropland burn-
ing being approximately equivalent to 0.5% of North
American forest fire emissions. At the national level, crop
residue burning emission estimates accounted for 1.5% of
total CO2, CO, CH4, PM2.5, and SO2 emissions from all
pyrogenic emissions in the United States, including
Alaska and Hawaii. Results from this analysis show that
crop residue burning emission estimates accounted for
6% of total emissions from current fire emission estimates
reported by the EPA NEI.
This analysis provided an independent assessment of
crop residue burning not dependent on the self-reporting of
state agencies. Future EPA reports could incorporate this
work to better account for crop residue burning. Compared
with this study, the EPA reports, which have relied on self-
reporting, consistently overestimated cropland burned area
by a factor of 2 and overestimated crop residue burning CH4
emissions in the Midwest instead of the southeastern United
States and Pacific Northwest. The EPA estimates of CO and
CH4 were 73–78% higher than the CO and CH4 emission
estimates from this analysis, respectively. However, when
Volume 61 January 2011
McCarty
emissions are calculated using the maximum emission fac-
tor values, the EPA estimates of CH4 were 50% higher than
this analysis whereas the EPA estimates of CO were 19%
lower than this analysis. On the basis of these results, it is
likely that the EPA is overestimating CH4 emissions but
current CO emissions are well within the ranges estimated
by this analysis. This analysis also showed that crop residue
burning emissions are a minor source of CH4 emissions
(⬍1%) compared with the CH4 emissions from other agri-
cultural sources, specifically enteric fermentation, manure
management, and rice cultivation.
REFERENCES
1. Korontzi, S.; McCarty, J.; Loboda, T.; Kumar, S.; Justice, C.O. Global
Distribution of Agricultural Fires from Three Years of MODIS Data;
Global Biogeochem. Cy. 2006, 20, 2021; doi: 10.1029/2005GB002529.
2. McCarty, J.L.; Justice, C.O.; Korontzi, S. Agricultural Burning in the
Southeastern United States Detected by MODIS; Remote Sens. Environ.
2007, 108, 151-162; doi:10.1016/j.rse.2006.03.020.
3. Witham, C.; Manning, A. Impacts of Russian Biomass Burning on UK
Air Quality; Atmos. Environ. 2007, 41, 8075-8090; doi: 10.1016/j.
atmosenv.2007.06.058.
4. Yang, S.J.; He, H.P.; Lu, S.L.; Chen, D.; Zhu, J.X. Quantification of Crop
Residue Burning in the Field and Its Influence on Ambient Air Quality
in Suqian, China; Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 1961-1969; doi:10.1016/
j.atmosenv.2007.12.007.
5. Chen, K.S.; Wang, H.K.; Peng, Y.P.; Wang, W.C.; Chen, C.H.; Lai, C.H.
Effects of Open Burning of Rice Straw on Concentration of Atmospheric
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Central Taiwan; J. Air & Waste
Manage. Assoc. 2008, 58, 1318-1327; doi: 10.3155-1047-3289.58.10.1318.
6. Wulfhorst, J.D.; Van Tassell, L.; Johnson, B.; Holman, J.; Thill, D. An
Industry Amidst Conflict and Change: Practices and Perceptions of Idaho’s
Bluegrass Seed Producers; RES-165; University of Idaho College of Agri-
cultural and Life Sciences: Moscow, ID, 2006.
7. Canode, C.L.; Law, A.G. Thatch and Tiller Size as Influenced by Resi-
due Management in Kentucky Bluegrass Seed Management; Agron. J.
1979, 71, 289-291.
8. Dhammapala, R.; Claiborn, C.; Corkill, J.; Gullett, B. Particulate Emis-
sions from Wheat and Kentucky Bluegrass Stubble Burning in Eastern
Washington and Northern Idaho; Atmos. Environ. 2006, 40, 1007-
1015; doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.11.018.
9. McCarty, J.L.; Korontzi, S.; Justice, C.O.; Loboda, T. The Spatial and
Temporal Distribution of Crop Residue Burning in the Contiguous
United States; Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 5701-5712; doi:10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2009.07.009.
10. Jenkins, B.M.; Turn, S.Q.; Williams, R.B. Atmospheric Emissions from
Agricultural Burning in California: Determination of Burn Fractions,
Distribution Factors, and Crop-Specific Contributions; Agr. Ecosyst.
Environ. 1992, 38, 313-330; doi:10.1016/0167-8809(92)90153-3.
11. Dennis, A.; Fraser, M.; Anderson, S.; Allen, D. Air Pollutant Emis-
sions Associated with Forest, Grassland, and Agricultural Burning in
Texas; Atmos. Environ. 2002, 36, 3779-3792; doi:10.1016/S1352-
2310(02)00219-4.
12. Jimenez, J.R.; Claiborn, C.S.; Dhammapala, R.S.; Simpson, C.D. Methoxy-
phenols and Levoglucosan Ratios in PM2.5 from Wheat and Kentucky
Bluegrass Stubble Burning in Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho;
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 7824-7829.
13. Ezcurra, A.T.; de Zárate, I.O.; Lacaux, J.-P.; Dinh, P.-V. In Biomass
Burning and Global Change; Levine, J.S., Ed.; Massachusetts Institute of
Technology: Cambridge, MA, 1996; pp 73-78.
14. Zhang, Y.; Cao, M.; Wang, X.; Yao, H. In Biomass Burning and Global
Change; Levine, J.S., Ed.; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cam-
bridge, MA, 1996; pp 764-770.
15. Andreae, M.O. In Global Biomass Burning: Atmospheric, Climatic, and
Biosphere Implications; Levine, J.S., Ed.; Massachusetts Institute of
Technology: Cambridge, MA, 1991; pp 3-21.
16. Hao, W.M.; Liu, M.-H. Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Tropical Bio-
mass; Global Biogeochem. Cy. 1994, 21, 495-503; doi:10.1029/94GB02086.
17. Yevich, R.; Logan, J.A. An Assessment of Biofuel Use and Burning of
Agricultural Waste in the Developing World; Global Biogeochem. Cy.
2003, 17, 1095; doi:10.1029/2002GB001952.
18. Wiedinmyer, C.; Quayle, B.; Geron, C.; Belote, A.; McKenzie, D.;
Zhang, X.; O’Neill, S.; Wynne, K.K. Estimating Emissions from Fires in
North America for Air Quality Modeling; Atmos. Environ. 2006, 40,
3419-3432; doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.02.010.
19. Pouliot, G.; Pace, T.; Roy, B.; Pierce, T.; Mobley, D. Development of a
Biomass Burning Emissions Inventory by Combining Satellite and
Ground-Based Information; J. Appl. Remote Sens. 2008, 2, 021501;
doi:10.1117/1.2939551.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 33
McCarty
20. Al-Saadi, J.; Soja, A.; Pierce, R.B.; Szykman, J.; Wiedinmyer, C.; Em-
mons, L.; Kondragunta, S.; Zhang, X.; Kittaka, C.; Schaack, T.; Bow-
man, K. Intercomparison of Near-Real-Time Biomass Burning Emis-
sions Estimates Constrained by Satellite Fire Data; J. Appl. Remote Sens.
2008, 2, 021504; doi:10.1117/1.2948785.
21. North American Carbon Program; available at http://www.esig.ucar.edu/
nacp/nacp.pdf (accessed 2010).
22. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency; available at http://epa.gov/air/criteria.html (accessed 2010).
23. Korontzi, S.; McCarty, J.; Justice, C. Monitoring Agricultural Burning in
the Mississippi River Valley Region from the Moderate Resolution Imag-
ing Spectroradiometer (MODIS); J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 2008, 58,
1235-1239; doi:10.3155-1047-3289.58.9.1235.
24. McCarty, J.L.; Loboda, T.; Trigg, S. A Hybrid Remote Sensing Approach
to Quantifying Crop Residue Burning in the United States; Appl. Eng.
Agric. 2008, 24, 515-527.
25. Vermote, E.F.; El Saleous, N.Z.; Justice, C.O. Atmospheric Correction
of MODIS Data in the Visible to Middle Infrared: First Results; Remote
Sens. Environ. 2002, 83, 97-111; doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00089-5.
26. Giglio, L.; Descloitres, J.; Justice, C.O.; Kaufman, Y.J. An Enhanced
Contextual Fire Detection Algorithm for MODIS; Remote Sens. Environ.
2003, 87, 273-282; doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(03)00184-6.
27. Hansen, M.C.; DeFries, R.S.; Townshend, J.R.G.; Marufu, L.; Sohlberg,
R. Development of a MODIS Tree Cover Validation Data Set for West-
ern Province, Zambia; Remote Sens. Environ. 2002, 83, 320-335; doi:
10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00080-9.
28. Wardlow, B.D.; Kastens, J.H.; Egbert, S.L. Using USDA Crop Progress
Data and MODIS Time-Series NDVI for Regional-Scale Evaluation of
Greenup Onset Date; Photogramm. Eng. Rem. S. 2006, 72, 1225-1234.
29. Chang, J.; Hansen, M.C.; Pittman, K.; Carroll, M.; Dimiceli, C. Corn and
Soybean Mapping in the United States Using MODIS Time-Series Data
Sets; Agron. J. 2007, 99, 1654-1664; doi:10.2134/agronj2007.0170.
30. A History of the Cropland Data Layer at NASS; U.S. Department of
Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service; available at http://
www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/CDL_History_MEC.pdf (accessed
2010).
31. IPCC Emission Factors Database; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change; available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/main.php
(accessed 2006).
32. Jenkins, B.M.; Turn, S.Q.; Williams, R.B. Atmospheric Pollutant Emission
Factors from Open Burning of Agricultural and Forest Biomass by Wind
Tunnel Simulations; Vol. 2, Project No. A932-126; California Air Re-
sources Board: Sacramento, CA, 1996.
33. United Kingdom Emission Factor Database; U.K. National Atmospheric
Emissions Inventory; available at http://www.naei.org.uk/emissions/
selection.php (accessed 2006).
34. Andreae, M.O.; Merlet, P. Emission of Trace Gases and Aerosols from
Biomass Burning; Global Biogeochem. Cy. 2001, 15, 955-966; doi:
10.1029/2000GB001382.
35. Cereal-Grain Residue Open-Field Burning Emissions Study; Air Sciences;
available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/aginfo/research_pdf_
files/FinalWheat_081303.pdf (accessed 2006).
36. Quantifying Post-Harvest Emissions from Bluegrass Seed Production Field
Burning; Washington State Department of Ecology, Air Quality, Ag
Burning Research; available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/aginfo/
research_pdf_files/FinalKBGEmissionStudyReport_4504.pdf (accessed 2006).
37. Lemieux, P.M.; Lutes, C.C.; Santoianni, D.A. Emissions of Organic Air
Toxics from Open Burning: A Comprehensive Review; Prog. Energ.
Combus. 2004, 30, 1-32; doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2003.08.001.
38. Hays, M.D.; Fine, P.M.; Geron, C.D.; Kleemand, M.J.; Gullett, B.K.
Open Burning of Agricultural Biomass: Physical and Chemical Prop-
erties of Particle-Phase Emissions; Atmos. Environ. 2005, 39, 6747-
6764; doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.07.072.
39. Integrated Assessment Update and 2018 Emissions Inventory for Pre-
scribed Fire, Wildfire, and Agricultural Burning; Western Regional Air
Partnership; available at http://www.wrapair.org/forums/fejf/
documents/emissions/WGA2018report20051123.pdf (accessed 2008).
40. Seiler, W.; Crutzen, P.J. Estimates of Gross and Net Fluxes of Carbon
between the Biosphere and the Atmosphere from Biomass Burning;
Climatic Change 1980, 2, 207-247; doi:10.1007/BF00137988.
41. Kasischke, E.S.; Penner, J.E. Improving Global Estimates of Atmo-
spheric Emissions from Biomass Burning; J. Geophys. Res. 2004, 109,
1-9; doi:10.1029/2004JD004972.
42. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 –2006; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; available at http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_CR.pdf (accessed 2008).
43. International Anthropogenic Methane Emissions: Estimates for 1990; EPA 230-R-
93-010; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 1994.
44. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point
and Area Sources; 5th ed., AP-42 (GPO 055-000-00500-1); U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency: Research Triangle Park, NC, 1992.
45. 2003 Acreage; Agricultural Statistics Board, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; available at http://
34 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre//2000s/2003/Acre-06-30-2003.pdf
(accessed 2007).
46. 2004 Acreage; Agricultural Statistics Board, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; available at http://
usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre//2000s/2004/Acre-06-30-2004.pdf
(accessed 2007).
47. 2005 Acreage; Agricultural Statistics Board, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; available at http://
usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre//2000s/2005/Acre-06-30-2005.pdf
(accessed 2007).
48. 2006 Acreage; Agricultural Statistics Board, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; available at http://
usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre//2000s/2006/Acre-06-30-2006.pdf
(accessed 2007).
49. 2007 Acreage; Agricultural Statistics Board, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; available at http://
usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bba/acrg0607.pdf (accessed
2007).
50. Strehler, A.; Stutzle, G. In Biomass: Regenerable Energy, Hall, D.O., Over-
end, R.P., Eds.; Elsevier: London, United Kingdom, 1987; pp 75-102.
51. Cramer, G. Kansas State University, Wichita, KS. Personal communication,
2008.
52. Turn, S.Q.; Jenkins, B.M.; Chow, J.C.; Pritchett, L.C.; Campbell, D.;
Cahill, T.; Whalen, S.A. Elemental Characterization of Particulate Mat-
ter Emitted from Biomass Burning: Wind Tunnel Derived Source Pro-
files for Herbaceous and Wood Fuels; J. Geophys. Res. 1997, 102,
3863-3699; doi:10.1029/96JD02979.
53. EPA Air Quality Systems Database; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/data/aqsdb.html (accessed 2010).
54. Hoff, R.; Zhang, H.; Jordan, N.; Prados, A.; Engel-Cox, J.; Huff, A.;
Weber, S.; Zell, E.; Kondragunta, S.; Szykman, J.; Johns, B.; Dimmick,
F.; Wimmers, A.; Al-Saadi, J.; Kittaka, C. Applications of the Three-
Dimensional Air Quality System to Western U.S. Air Quality: IDEA,
Smog Blog, Smog Stories, AirQuest, and the Remote Sensing Informa-
tion Gateway; J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 2009, 59, 980-989; doi:
10.3155-1047-3289.59.8.980.
55. Kühlwein, J.; Friedrich, R. Uncertainties of Modeling Emissions from
Road Transport; Atmos. Environ. 2000, 34, 4603-4610; doi:10.1016/
S1352-2310(00)00302-2.
56. 2007 Population Estimate; U.S. Census Bureau; available at https://
factfinder.census.gov (accessed 2009).
57. 2008 Population Estimate; U.S. Census Bureau; available at https://
factfinder.census.gov (accessed 2009).
58. Florida Sugarcane Handbook; University of Florida, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Science, Florida Cooperative Extension Service: Gaines-
ville, FL; available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/SC/SC03200.pdf (ac-
cessed 2008).
59. Liu, Y. Variability of Wildland Fire Emissions across the Contiguous
United States; Atmos. Environ. 2004, 38, 3489-3499; doi:10.1016/j.
atmosenv.2004.02.004.
60. Yokelson, R.J.; Christian, T.J.; Karl, T.G.; Guenther, A. The Tropical
Forest and Fire Emissions Experiment: Laboratory Fire Measurements
and Synthesis of Campaign Data; Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2008, 8, 3509-
3527; doi:10.5194/acp-8-3509-2008.
61. 2002 National Emissions Inventory Booklet; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002neibooklet.pdf
(accessed 2008).
62. Korontzi, S.; Roy, D.P.; Justice, C.O.; Ward, D.E. Modeling and
Sensitivity Analysis of Fire Emissions in Southern Africa during
SAFARI 2000; Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 92, 255-275; doi:10.1016/
j.rse.2004.06.010.
63. U.S. Agriculture and Forestry Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 1990 –2005; U.S.
Department of Agriculture Global Change Program Office; available at
http://www.usda.gov/oce/global_change/AFGGInventory1990_2005.htm (ac-
cessed 2008).
About the Author
Jessica L. McCarty is an assistant professor in the De-
partment of Geography & Geosciences at the University
of Louisville in Louisville, KY. Please address correspon-
dence to: Jessica L. McCarty, 206 Lutz Hall, Department
of Geography & Geosciences, University of Louisville,
Louisville, KY 40292; phone: ⫹1-502-852-2697; fax: ⫹1-
502-852-4560; e-mail: j.mccarty@louisville.edu.
Volume 61 January 2011