Atmospheric Pollution Research 10 (2019) 656–664

HOSTED BY Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Atmospheric Pollution Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apr

Dust emission from crushing of hard rock aggregates T

∗
Marjo Sairanen , Mikael Rinne
Aalto University, Department of Civil Engineering, FI-00076, Espoo, Finland

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Dust constitutes one of the major environmental concerns near many aggregate quarries, with crushing often
Aggregate being the most significant source. In this study, dust emissions and dispersion measurements were conducted
Crushing under real operating conditions at six aggregate quarries in southern Finland. Five of them represent granitic
Dust mass concentration rocks and one a limestone quarry.
Open-pit quarry
Dust concentrations during crushing were measured at varying distances with time intervals of five seconds.
PM10
TSP
The variation in dust concentration was high within all the measured distances, ranging from 10 to 200 m.
Crushing produces mainly coarse (TSP and PM10) dust particles, which settle near the dust source. The mass
concentration of coarse particles in this investigation varied from few tens of μg/m3 to over 6.5 × 103 μg/m3
downwind from the crusher.
The mass concentration of fine particles (PM2.5 and PM1) ranged between ten μg/m3 and few hundreds of μg/
m3 downwind from the crusher. The fine particles originated mainly from machinery used in the quarries and
remote sources, such as nearby traffic.
In quarries operating with secondary crushing, the background concentrations were achieved approximately
from a 350 m distance for coarse particles. Local dust sources, such as hauling, impacted the results inside the
quarry. Crushing produced more dust compared to comparable studies for drilling. The dust concentrations at
the limestone quarry were approximately 50% of concentrations measured at quarries with granitic rocks.

1. Introduction aggregate production are potential sources of dust emission.

Geologically Finland is part of the old Fennoscandian Shield. The
hard, crystalline Precambrian bedrock is prevalent, covered by a thin
layer of young and loose glacial soils. This study investigates quarries
located in granitic and metamorphic formations, also including one
quarry representing Precambrian metamorphic limestone.
The aggregates from the rock mass are extracted by drilling and
blasting. The blasting aims to detach the material from the bedrock to a
size that is suitable for loading and hauling and transportation on a
conveyor belt. Crushers also have specifications for the maximum block
size. Oversize rock blocks are split by means of a hydraulic impact
hammer or by drilling and blasting. Jaw crushers are mainly used for
primary crushing in Finnish hard rock quarries. Crushing usually in-
cludes several crushing phases. Typically, a crushing circuit includes
two or three crushing units, but up to five crushing units can be applied.
Secondary and tertiary crushers are usually cone or gyratory crushers.
An impact crusher is rarely used with hard rock materials due to
wearing. Commonly, an encapsulated sieve is adopted together with
every crushing unit apart from the primary crusher. All processes of
Dust constitutes a major environmental concern in many quarries,
with crushing suggested as the most significant source of it (Bada et al.,
2013; Petavratzi et al., 2005; Sairanen et al., 2018). Dust from drilling
has been previously examined in two natural stone quarries, and dril-
ling capacity affected on dust concentration at 5 m distance from the
drill, but the effect vanished already at 10 m distance (Sairanen and
Selonen, 2018). Blasting produces a high, short-term -two to three
minutes long- dust peak, which spreads over the quarry area with the
prevailing wind (Abdollahisharif et al., 2016). The quarry area itself
and hauling are also significant dust sources (Reed, 2003), especially,
during dry and windy weather conditions. All dust sources in quarries,
that is drilling (Sairanen and Selonen, 2018), blasting (Abdollahisharif
et al., 2016), crushing (Bada et al., 2013) and hauling (Reed, 2003), are
reported to produce coarse-grained dust.
Total suspended particles (TSP) represent particles ranging from
10 μm to 100 μm, while 30 μm aerodynamic diameter is commonly
applied to represent TSP (EPA, 1995). PM10 and PM2.5 are particles
suspended in air which passes through a size-selective inlet with a 50%
efficiency cut-off at 10 μm and 2.5 μm aerodynamic diameter,

Peer review under responsibility of Turkish National Committee for Air Pollution Research and Control.
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: marjo.sairanen@gmail.com (M. Sairanen), mikael.rinne@aalto.fi (M. Rinne).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2018.11.007
Received 26 August 2018; Received in revised form 9 November 2018; Accepted 14 November 2018
Available online 19 November 2018
1309-1042/ © 2019 Turkish National Committee for Air Pollution Research and Control. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Sairanen, M. Rinne Atmospheric Pollution Research 10 (2019) 656–664

respectively (SFS-EN 12341 2014; SFS-EN 16450 2017). PM2.5 or
smaller particles are usually referred to as fine particles (EPA, 1995)
and PM10 or larger particles as coarse particles (Hinds, 1999).
Previous studies have reported highly varying results of dust pro-
duced from quarrying: PM10 concentrations measured within a quarry
area vary between 40 μg/m3 (Almeida et al., 2002) and 210 × 103 μg/
m3 (Madungwe and Mukonzvi, 2012). According to the Office of
Deputy Prime Minister (2003), particles of size above 30 μm form the
greatest proportion of dust in quarries and these particles deposit
within 100 m from the source. However, Cattle et al. (2012) observed in
dust deposition measurements that dust spreads several kilometres
away from the quarries.
Dust measurements in real operating conditions are demanding due
to the large number of variables, such as weather conditions, study
setup and measurement points, influencing the results. Because dust
measurements in quarries indicate highly varying results (e.g. Sairanen
et al., 2018), studies of similar setups in diverse types of quarries are
needed to better understand dust emission, concentration variation and
dust concentration decrease with increasing distance (i.e. dust reten-
tion).
This study assesses dust emission and dispersion from crushing in
open-pit quarries. Measurements were conducted in six aggregate
quarries, labelled from 1 to 6, where the crusher is assumed to be the
most significant source of dust. Measurements were made under real
operating conditions with optical measurement device. Measurements
under real operating conditions according to same study setup are not
frequently made in several quarries. Results are needed to evaluate the
environmental impact and to prevent the harmful effects associated
with crushing.
Dust emissions have been assessed from a total number of 55 × 103
samples, which were measured during two-day period in each quarry.
The differences between quarries are analysed and the impacts of
varying weather conditions are evaluated. Dust retention and the dis-
tance where background concentration is achieved are assessed.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Quarries and production devices
Dust measurements were conducted in six aggregate quarries, all
located in hard rock formations (Table 1.) Quarries 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are
open pits producing aggregates from upcoming industrial building
ground. Quarry 3 is an open-pit quarry with industrial minerals, fol-
lowing processes similar to aggregate quarries. Quarries 4 and 6 are
located in the same upcoming industrial area but operated in different
days. They produced different aggregates with their own crushing cir-
cuits.
All quarries applied drill and blast to extract the rock, followed by
crushing and sieving. The crushed rock was transported to storage piles
or to further processing. The drilling, located on top of the quarry bench
(Fig. 1), was occasionally present in Quarries 2, 4, 5 and 6 during the
measurement days. In Quarries 4, 5 and 6, the drilling located from
downwind or from crosswind from the measurement locations (Fig. 1).
In Quarry 2, drilling and hydraulic impact hammering occurred occa-
sionally near the crusher windward and Quarry 5 located between two
roads with a high amount of traffic.
Several different types of crushers and crushing circuits were ap-
plied in the studied quarries (Table 1). All crushers were mobile and
had a partial encapsulation of conveyors and crushing units installed
already in the manufacturing plant. The number of crushing units
varied between two and four and the volume of produced aggregates
between 170 t/h and 450 t/h. The majority of the quarries (1, 3, 4 and
5) applied secondary crushing, i.e., the production included two
crushing units. Quarries 2 and 6 applied tertiary crushing, relying on
three and four crushing units, respectively. No dust prevention tech-
niques, like watering, were applied during the measurements due to
risk of freezing. This enabled observation of dust emissions from a
crusher with a high rate of dust generation.
2.2. Dust sampling equipment and sampling interval
Four sets of particle sizes were measured simultaneously (TSP,
PM10, PM2.5 and PM1) with the Turnkey Osiris nephelometer. When
measuring all sizes at the same time, the maximum capacity of the
nephelometer is approximately 6 × 103 μg/m3. When only TSP is
measured, a concentration of up to 60 × 103 μg/m3 can be measured.
The Turnkey Osiris nephelometer is standardised for PM10 fraction of
up to 100 μg/m3 (Turnkey Instruments Ltd, 2009, 2014).
TPS and PM10 are considered coarse particles and PM2.5 and PM1
fine particles. PM10 and PM2.5 have limit values determined in legis-
lation, e.g. in the USA and EU regions. Therefore, PM10 and PM2.5 are
adopted in this study to represent coarse and fine particles,

Table 1
Description of studied aggregate quarries.
Quarry Rock typea Crushing units Crusher type Crushing capacity Produced Other activities present in the
(t/h) aggregates quarry

1 Granodiorite (Pl, Q, Pfs) 2 Primary: LT110 200 0–32 mm End products transported by wheel
Secondary: LT300GPB loaders and trucks
2 Mica gneiss (Pl, Q, Bio, Pfs) 3 Primary: Sandvik 440 170–200 0–32 mm Drilling (part time)
Secondary: Metso 300 GB 0–11 mm Hydraulic impact hammering (part
Tertiary: Metso 1100 time)
End products transported by wheel
loaders and trucks
3 Limestone (Dol.), gneiss (Pl, Q, Pfs, Bio), 2 Primary: LT 125 400–450 0–32 mm End products transported by wheel
amphibolite (Pl, Hbl, Bio) Secondary: LT300GP loaders and trucks
4 Mica gneiss (Pl, Q, Pfs, Bio) 2 Primary: Metso 125 400 0–90 mm Drilling
Secondary: Metso 550S Hydraulic impact hammering
End products transported by wheel
loaders and trucks
5 Microcline granite (Pfs, Q, Pfs), pyroxene 2 Primary: Sandvik 1208 200 0–32 mm Drilling
gneiss (Q, Pfs, Pl, Pyr) Secondary: Metso Hydraulic impact hammering
Nordberg LT300GPB End products transported by wheel
loaders and trucks
6 Mica gneiss (Pl, Q, Bio, Pfs) 4 Primary: Metso 125 250–300 0–8 mm Drilling
Secondary: Metso 550S 8–16 mm Hydraulic impact hammering
Tertiary: Two Sandvik End products transported by wheel
4800H loaders and trucks

a
Pl = Plagioclase, Q = Quartz, Pfs = Potassium feldspar, Bio = Biotite, Dol = Dolomite, Hbl = Hornblende, Pyr = Pyroxene.

657
M. Sairanen, M. Rinne Atmospheric Pollution Research 10 (2019) 656–664

Fig. 1. Schematic presentation of the layout for measurements. The distance from the crusher is shown as meters. DW = downwind, UW = upwind, CW = crosswind.

respectively.
A sampling interval of five seconds was used with 15 min periods for
each location. During one period, 180 samples were taken in each lo-
cation. Occasionally, the sampling period differed from the planned
15 min due to changes or malfunction in aggregate production. A total
amount of 55 × 103 samples was measured and the number of samples
varied between the quarries from 5,263 to 13,225 (Supplementary
Material A, Table A1).
The background concentrations were measured to control for the
effect of nearby sources and long-distance dust concentrations from
unknown sources. The background concentration was measured with a
sampling interval of 300 s and approximately 200 samples were mea-
sured in each quarry.

2.3. Measurement setup

Dust mass concentrations were measured near the crushers at dif-

ferent distances from downwind (DW), upwind (UW) and crosswind
(CW) directions (see Figs. 1, 2a and b). The measurements were made at
the same elevation as the crusher under real operating conditions. No
adjustments on aggregate production were made due to dust mea-
surements. The directions and distances of the nephelometer varied
between quarries due to site-specific features and the crusher location.
Quarry faces prevented measurements typically at one direction, be-
cause the mobile crusher located beside a quarry bench. The haul roads,
storage piles and sometimes other equipment, such as reserve crushing
units, restricted the measurement locations and adjustments had to be
made, resulting in incoherent measurement locations. Also, the em-
phasis on receiving measurements from DW direction made it ob-
ligatory to use proximate locations for the measurement. The accuracy
of the distance between the crusher and the nephelometer was ± 1 m.
The sampling height was 1.5 m, which represents breathing height.
Measurements were made during active daytime quarry operations
and during the night time to measure the background concentration.
The measurements were mainly conducted during two subsequent days
and the nephelometers were operated by a trained operator. The
background concentration was measured during the night between Fig. 2. A: Dust measurement from downwind direction. Wind transports dust
these two days and the measurement was unmanned. towards the nephelometer. As shown in this figure, the ground was covered
The background concentrations at night were measured inside the with snow in most cases and the temperature was below or close to 0 °C.B. Dust
quarry within few tens of meters from the crushing circuit, to gain re- measurement from upwind direction from the tertiary crusher and second sieve.
sults representing the background concentration of the quarry area it- Wind transports dust away from the nephelometer. Aggregates were dripped
around the mobile crusher.
self. Background concentration measurements were unachievable out-
side the quarry area due to risk of theft and restrictions in the
availability of power for the nephelometers. (Supplementary Material A, Table A1).
Two nephelometers were applied. The first one was placed in a The other of the two nephelometers was located at different dis-
stationary measurement location, i.e., the stationary nephelometer re- tances at different wind directions (Figs. 1, 2a and b) and all the other
maining in the same location during the entire daytime measurement measurement locations were sampled with it. The minimum number of
controlling the changes in the source. The DW direction was preferred locations for measurements were in Quarry 1 with seven locations,
in stationary measurement location selection. The same stationary while most measurement locations, 17 altogether, were in Quarry 6
measurement location was used during both measurement days, if (Supplementary Material A, Table A1).
possible. In Quarries 4, 5 and 6 the stationary measurement location The samples for analysing the moisture content of aggregates were
varied during the measurement days due to altering wind direction taken from the aggregate heaps during the dust measurements.

658
M. Sairanen, M. Rinne
Aggregate samples were collected with a plastic shovel into Rilsan©
bags, which are commonly used in soil sampling including volatile
compounds, thanks to the low rates of diffusion through the bag. Three
samples of all different aggregates produced during the measurement
were collected from the aggregate heap under the conveyors. The mass
percentage of moisture was analysed in an accredited laboratory ac-
cording to the Finnish national standard SFS-EN 1097-5 (2008).
2.4. Weather conditions
The measurements were conducted during the winter because the
applicability of dust prevention by watering is restricted due to
freezing. During the winter months, concentration of dust close to the
crushing circuit is particularly intensive due to low moisture content
and dilution of the air. The ground was covered with snow in most cases
and the temperature was below or close to 0 °C. The snow cover and
frozen ground reduced the dust emission from the quarry surfaces, re-
presenting optimal weather conditions reducing noise caused by a dusty
environment.
The EasyWeather weather station observed and recorded prevailing
weather conditions. Data from national weather stations located near
Quarries 1–6 ensured that we could gather climatic winter weather
conditions despite several local interruptions. The average climatic
parameters calculated from national weather stations data were tem-
perature, relative humidity and wind speed (Supplementary Material A,
Table A2). The most affecting weather parameter, wind direction, was
observed straight from the EasyWeather weather station probe, to en-
sure conditions remaining constant during the measurements.
The impact of weather conditions on dust mass concentrations were
assessed by analysing the data from the stationary measurement loca-
tion samples, owing to the vastest amount of data available. Quarry 6 is
excluded from the analysis of weather conditions effects due to the
large proportion (> 70%) of measurements exceeding measurement
capacity (concentrations over 6.5 × 103 μg/m3).
3. Results from dust emission measurements
3.1. Dust mass concentration
Typical mass concentration variation was significant, varying be-
tween 1 and 6.5 × 103 μg/m3 and from 1 to more than 650 μg/m3 for
the coarse (TSP and PM10) and fine particles (PM2.5 and PM1), re-
spectively. The capacity of the nephelometer (6 × 103 μg/m3) was oc-
casionally exceeded when measuring near the crusher (10–100 m) from
DW direction (see Fig. 3) and (5–80 m) from CW direction. The capacity
was exceeded especially for coarse particles and during tertiary
crushing. Dust concentrations during production and background con-
centrations in different quarries (1–6) are represented in detail in
Supplementary Material B (Tables B1 and B2).
The background concentrations of coarse particles were roughly
30 μg TSP/m3 and 16 μg PM10/m3 (Supplementary Material B, Table
B1). For fine particles, background concentrations were approximately
3.7 μg PM2.5/m3 and 1.4 μg PM1/m3 (Supplementary Material B, Table
B2). In Quarry 6, the measurement of background concentration suf-
fered from nephelometer malfunction and therefore, the background
concentration from Quarry 4 (same open-pit as Quarry 6) is applied to
Quarry 6.
The concentrations were in general highest at the DW measurement
locations and the lowest at UW from the crusher. Dust emissions
measured from CW locations were within range between results mea-
sured from DW and UW (Supplementary Material B).
Median mass concentrations were lower compared to average mass
concentrations: the average concentrations of coarse particles were
approximately two to six times higher than the median concentrations.
The average concentrations were approximately one to two times the
median concentration for fine particles. When considering the
659
Atmospheric Pollution Research 10 (2019) 656–664
environmental effects of dust, the average mass concentration was as-
sumed to be more representative compared to the median values to
avoid underestimation of concentration.
The average concentration was low compared to the measured
concentration peaks (Figs. 3 and 4). Concentration peaks were observed
first in the closest measurement location (DW30) and with a delay in
more remote measurement locations (e.g. 50 m onwards, see Figs. 3 and
4). Concentration peaks descend with increasing distance.
The coarse particle concentrations measured from the stationary
station (DW30) exceeded the nephelometer measurement capacity
(Fig. 3). The operator was unable to observe the overrun during the
sampling and was therefore unavailable to adjust the location to meet
the capacity of the nephelometer.
Crushing has a significant effect on dust concentration at DW di-
rection, which is seen from the major drop in dust mass concentration
level during the break in crushing (Figs. 3 and 4). The concentration
drops quickly, within a minute, to a lower level, when the mobile
crusher was on pause. During the break in aggregate production, PM10
and PM2.5 levels were 2% and 3%, respectively, compared to the con-
centration of a production. The concentration during the break in
crushing was approximately twice the background concentration.
The PM10 concentration was 60%, PM2.5 6% and PM1 was 2% of
TSP concentration, on average. Only the results with samples less than
5% exceeding nephelometer measurement capacity, were taken into
account when calculating these percentages.
3.2. Effect of weather conditions on dust concentration
Decreasing concentration with increasing wind speed was observed
in Quarries 3, in 4 on the second measurement day and in 5 on the first
measurement day. An opposite result was observed in Quarry 5 on the
second measurement day. Other quarries showed no correlation be-
tween wind speed and dust mass concentration (Supplementary
Material C, Fig. C1).
Decreasing concentration with increasing relative humidity was
observed in Quarries 3, in 4 on the second measurement day and in 5 on
the first measurement day. A different result was observed, as was for
wind speed, in Quarry 5 on the second measurement day
(Supplementary Material C, Fig. C2).
When comparing dust concentrations and average moisture con-
tents of the aggregate in Quarries 1, 4 and 5, applying secondary
crushing of granitic rocks, the highest moisture content (6.7%, Quarry
4) resulted from the lowest dust concentrations (Supplementary
Material C, Fig. C3). In Quarry 4, the DW20 concentration was 1800 μg
PM10/m3, whereas in other quarries (1 and 5), at 2.5 times farther away
from the dust source, the DW50 concentration was nearly the same,
1700 μg PM10/m3. The production capacity in Quarry 4 was two times
higher (400 t/h) compared to other quarries (1 and 5, 200 t/h). Quar-
ries 1 and 5 had concentrations same order of magnitude, despite the
difference in product moisture content: 3.2% and 0.8%, respectively.
4. Dust concentration and distance
Dust concentration decreases rapidly with increasing distance at all
wind directions and all size categories (TSP, PM10, PM2.5 and PM1). As
expected, the decrease is the most pronounced at the UW direction.
However, exceptions were observed for all wind directions.
Concentrations higher than expected were measured from DW in
Quarry 3, UW in Quarry 4 and CW in Quarries 2, 4 and 6. Because dust
retention is similar in all size categories, the decrease in PM10 and PM2.5
represent coarse and fine particles, respectively (see Figs. 5 and 6).
The distance was estimated for the DW direction from the source to
the point where the background dust concentration is achieved. The
decrease in DW direction is slower compared to CW and UW directions,
hence retention in DW direction is important for assessing how far the
dust may propagate from the quarry. Dust retention to distance was
M. Sairanen, M. Rinne Atmospheric Pollution Research 10 (2019) 656–664

Fig. 3. PM10 concentration during crushing at a constant

distance of 30 m (grey line) downwind (DW) from the
crusher. Black line shows PM10 concentration at 50 m, 75 m,
100 m, and 125 m from the crusher from downwind direc-
tion. The maximum measured concentration was
6.5 × 103 μg/m3, which exceeds the nephelometer mea-
surement capacity.

Fig. 4. PM2.5 concentration during crushing at 30 m (grey line) downwind (DW) from the crusher. Black line shows PM10 concentration at 50 m, 75 m, 100 m, and
125 m from the crusher from downwind direction.

estimated via the best fitting curve. Exponential curves yielded the CPM10 = 5106.9 × exp-0.024X (2)
highest correlation coefficient (R2) on average. Exponential function
CPM2.5 = 203.99 × exp-0.016X (3)
has also been applied to dust retention modelling (e.g. Reed, 2005).
The results from Quarry 5 are assumed to represent good quality CPM1 = 47.93 × exp-0.021X (4)
since the DW direction involved seven measurement locations and the
correlation coefficient (R2) value for dust decay is high (0.8–0.9). Other where CTSP, CPM10, CPM2.5 and CPM1 are concentrations in μg/m3 of TSP,
quarries showed higher variance in results. Therefore, only the distance PM10, PM2.5 and PM1, respectively. X is the distance from the crusher in
where background concentration is achieved is presented for other meters.
quarries (Table 2). Exponential dust retention formulas are given for The distances where background concentration (see Supplementary
Quarry 5, which applied secondary crushing. Material B) is achieved are presented in Table 2. Both Quarries, 2 and 6,
Decrease in dust concentration downwind from the source during that provide tentative results of the distance where background con-
secondary crushing can be expressed for all studied particle sizes: centration is achieved, applied tertiary crushing (Table 2).

CTSP = 5248.6 × exp-0.0019X (1)

660
M. Sairanen, M. Rinne
Fig. 5. PM10 concentration from downwind (DW) direction. Distance from the crusher to the measurement location. Eksp. (Quarry 5) is the exponential dust decay
curve for Quarry 5.
5. Discussion
5.1. Dust mass concentration levels
According to the measurement made in this study, the majority of
dust formed during the crushing consists of coarse particles (TSP and
PM10). The results are in accordance with previous observations (e.g.
Cattle et al., 2012; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003). The fine
particle emissions were mainly low, few tens of μg/m3, especially for
PM1. This indicates that fine particles originate largely from equipment,
for example, combustion engines in the quarrying machine. Dominance
of coarse particles is supported by the ratio of average and median
concentrations: the average concentrations of coarse particles is two to
six times higher than the median concentrations, whereas the ratio of
average and median concentration of fine particles is only one to two.
Therefore, the concentration of fine particles reflected less the effect of
aggregate production, leading to median concentrations close to
average.
5.1.1. Concentrations compared to previous studies
In this study, the measured concentrations of coarse particles near
Fig. 6. PM2.5 concentration from downwind direction (DW). Distance from the crusher to the measurement location. Eksp. (Quarry 5) is the exponential dust decay
curve for Quarry 5.
661
Atmospheric Pollution Research 10 (2019) 656–664
the crusher at DW direction are in the same order of magnitude, few
thousands of μg/m3, as reported for crushing by Bada et al. (2013),
Degan et al. (2013), Olusegun et al. (2009), Saha and Padhy (2011),
and Sivacoumar et al. (2006, 2009).
Almost ten times higher TSP and PM10 concentrations compared to
this study have been reported previously by Junttila et al. (1996, 1997).
Instead, Almeida et al. (2002) found concentration results in a granite
quarry approximately 10% of the concentrations measured in this
study. Our results differ from previous studies: we used a different
setup, the quarries studied had improved dust prevention equipment,
and weather conditions affect dust concentration detected in the air.
Significantly lower concentrations for coarse particles (mainly few
hundreds of μg/m3) near the crusher were observed by Almeida et al.
(2002) and Bluvshtein et al. (2011). Both measured dust concentration
in a limestone quarry and their results align with the results reached in
this study from limestone Quarry 3, which had lower concentration
results compared to the other quarries. Nevertheless, only slightly lower
concentration results (approximately a thousand μg/m3) for coarse
particles in a limestone quarry has been yielded by Chang (2004)
compared to coarse particle concentration in this study in granite
quarries.
M. Sairanen, M. Rinne
Table 2
Distances where background concentration is achieved in downwind direction and correlation coefficient R2 of dust retention curve in parentheses.
Particle size category Quarry 1 (m) Quarry 2 (m)
a
TSP N.A. 777 (0.2)
PM10 N.A. 743a (0.2)
PM2.5 N.A. 211a (0.4)
PM1 N.A. 101a (0.6)
N.A. = Not available, less than three measurement locations.
N.R.R. = Not reliable results available due to anomalies in measurement.
a
Tentative result. More than 5% of samples exceeded the capacity of the measuring device (max 6 × 103 μg/m3).
PM2.5 concentration in previous studies (Bada et al., 2013; Chang,
2004) was in the same order of magnitude (roughly 100–200 μg/m3) as
in this study.
5.1.2. Crushing vs. drilling
When comparing dust emissions from this study to dust emissions
from drilling reported by Sairanen and Selonen (2018), the results show
that crushing produces more dust and more coarse particles compared
to drilling. Both studies applied the same setup in similar weather
conditions. At 50 m DW direction, the concentration of coarse particles
of crushing was approximately 20 times higher compared to drilling.
Fine particle concentration was ten times higher than what was ob-
served for drilling.
The measurement capacity of the Osiris nephelometer was occa-
sionally exceeded at 50 m and even at 100 m DW, especially when
several crushing units were simultaneously in use. Near drilling, the
exceeding results with the same sampling setup and equipment was
observed only 5–20 m at DW direction.
PM10 concentration was 60% of TSP concentration of crushing,
whereas the same percentage for drilling was nearly 70%. The PM2.5
concentration percentage of TSP concentration was 6% and 17% for
crushing and drilling, respectively.
5.1.3. Secondary and tertiary crushing
All quarries adopted primary and secondary crushing, two of them
also tertiary crushing (Table 1). The number of crushing units applied
in the crushing circuit had a significant effect on dust concentration.
Tertiary crushing generated about twice the amount of PM10 (3400 μg/
m3) compared to secondary crushing (1700 μg/m3), when measured
from DW50. Tertiary crushing generated two to three times as much
PM2.5 (130–200 μg/m3) compared to secondary crushing (70–80 μg/
m3).
The largest number of samples exceeding the measurement capacity
was found in Quarry 6, where the number of crushing units was the
highest (tertiary crushing with four crushing units). This confirms the
observations that the number of crushing units influences dust emis-
sions. The increase in the number of crushing units yields the smallest
particle size of the aggregate and increases the timespan in which the
rock material is within the process and therefore, it increases the dust
emission from the crushing. This was also noted by Petavratzi et al.
(2007) in laboratory conditions, where the tumbling time showed a
similar effect on dust concentration.
For secondary crushing of granitic rock material, the amount of
measurements exceeding nephelometers measurement capacity for
distances of DW50 or closer were about 10%, whereas for limestone,
the corresponding value was below 5%. For tertiary crushing, the
percentages of exceeding results diminished with increasing distance
from 90% to 10% from DW10 and DW60, respectively. Because of the
large amount of measurements exceeding nephelometer measurement
capacity, the results from tertiary crushing (Quarries 2 and 6) are in-
dicative.
5.1.4. Weather conditions and other affecting parameters
The increase in wind speed and relative humidity indicated a
Atmospheric Pollution Research 10 (2019) 656–664
Quarry 3 (m) Quarry 4 (m) Quarry 5 (m) Quarry 6 (m)
347 (0.4) 364 (0.90) 267 (0.9) 717a (0.1)
308 (0.4) 341 (0.99) 234 (0.9) 695a (0.1)
270 (0.2) N.R.R. 286 (0.9) 373a (0.2)
312 (0.1) N.R.R. 209 (0.8) 221a (0.4)
decrease in dust concentration in the air, while differing results ap-
peared. Beside differences in crushing circuits and production capa-
cities, different weather conditions during measurements appeared in
different quarries, which further complicates the reliability of these
findings. Modest variation in weather conditions during measurements
in each quarry constitutes the main reason for the incoherent results of
weather condition impacts. Longer sampling periods than those applied
in this study would enable observations of the concentration during
altering weather conditions.
The results suggest a reduction in dust concentration with in-
creasing product moisture, although different results appeared (e.g.
Quarry 1). In Quarry 4, which had the highest product moisture content
and twice the production capacity (400 t/h) compared to other quarries
applying secondary crushing, the dust concentration was the same or
lower when measuring from downwind direction. The effect of product
moisture on dust concentration is indicative since the restricted number
of aggregate samples (three per day per product).
In Quarry 3, the DW measurement line located alongside a haul
road. In the line, every other measurement location demonstrated
larger dust concentration results compared to the previous measure-
ment location, which situated closer to the dust source and should have
shown higher concentration results. These periodic changes in dust
concentrations suggest that the hauling affected the results. Hauling of
aggregates was steady during the measurement. It is possible that in the
measurement locations, different amounts of trucks passed by the ne-
phelometer during the sampling period. Hauling is assumed to be the
main reason behind incoherences in measurements also in other quar-
ries, for example in Quarries 4 and 6 in the CW direction. This ob-
servation is supported by Reed (2003), discovering hauling as the major
dust source in an open-pit quarry.
In Quarry 2, drilling and hydraulic impact hammering, which lo-
cated DW with respect to the dust measurements, lacked any notable
effect on concentration results, since both operated only short time
periods and drilling is generally shown to have significantly lower dust
emissions compared to crushing.
The location of Quarry 5 between two actively operated roads in-
fluenced the results of fine particles. Concentrations of fine particles
were slightly higher in Quarry 5 compared to other quarries applying
secondary crushing. Concentrations of coarse particles were similar in
all quarries applying secondary crushing of granitic rock material.
Traffic has been reported to be a major contributor of particles in urban
atmospheres (e.g. Voigtländer et al., 2006) and since coarse particles
settle quickly, the impact is expected to be seen in fine particles, which
was the case in Quarry 5.
Five quarries processed granitic rock material and one limestone,
and rock material was the most determining factor of dust emission
besides the number of crushing units in the crushing circuit. In quarries
applying secondary crushing, Quarry 3 processing limestone dust
emission was approximately 50% lower compared to other quarries
processing granitic rock material. This result is incoherent with the
conclusion drawn by EPA (2004), stating that the rock type is no major
variable for dust emissions at aggregate quarries. The result of this
study is indicative, since only one limestone quarry was included in the
study. Similar concentration levels for limestone quarries, as measured
662
M. Sairanen, M. Rinne
in this research, have been observed in other studies as well (e.g.
Almeida et al., 2002; Bluvshtein et al., 2011).
5.2. Dust retention
The background concentration of all particle sizes was achieved
within a distance of 209–364 m from the dust source in quarries ap-
plying secondary crushing. The background concentration was attained
at 216–364 m distance for coarse particles and at 209–312 m distance
for fine particles (Table 2). The unexpected result of fine particle con-
centration reaching background concentration within a shorter distance
than coarse particles, is assumed to be a consequence of the nephel-
ometer inability to accurately measure such high concentrations of fine
particles as observed in this study. The Osiris nephelometer is stan-
dardised for PM10 fraction for concentration range 0–100 μg/m3. The
standardization for coarse particle and for lower concentration than
measured, is the main reason behind this incoherent result.
Considering the distance where the background concentration is
achieved near the aggregate quarries applying secondary crushing, a
generalisation of 350 m is applicable to coarse particles. This approx-
imation avoids underestimation in most of the cases. This means that
dust mass concentration measurements should be conducted at short
distances from the quarry boundary or even inside the quarry.
Nevertheless, over 50 m distance from the mobile crusher is re-
commended to avoid results exceeding measurement capacity.
Low correlation of dust retention with distance was observed for
quarries (2 and 6) which applied tertiary crushing. This is a con-
sequence of the large amount of measurements exceeding the mea-
suring capacity of the nephelometer.
Background concentration measurements conducted during the
night time may have caused an underestimation of the background
concentration. At night, the dust concentration is lower due to lack of
dust sources, such as traffic. This is supported by the dust concentration
measurement made over an interruption in production, during which
concentration was observed to be two times the background con-
centration. The background concentration measurements during the
night are justifiable to gain measurements during weather conditions
and locations similar to crushing dust measurements. Breaks lasting
several days in the aggregate production appear usually only during the
summer, mainly in July. The impact of weather conditions when
comparing winter and summer times is estimated to be greater than the
impact of background concentration measurement occurring at non-
dusty times of the day, owing e.g. to the absence of dust originating
from the quarry area in winter.
Even though the background concentrations may be under-
estimated, the background concentrations were reached within
209–364 m from the crusher (Table 2). This is longer compared to
Reed's (2003) results for PM10, in which the quarry haul road dust
concentration reached background concentration approximately at
30 m distance. On the other hand, these distances are only 30% of the
1 km distance reported by Sivacoumar et al. (2006).
The certainty of the distance in which the background concentration
is achieved is increased by the possible underestimation of background
concentration. The generalisation of 350 m for coarse particles as a
distance where background concentration is achieved is therefore ap-
plicable concerning dust emission from production for aggregate
quarries processing hard rocks with secondary crushing.
6. Conclusions
Crushing produces mainly coarse (TSP and PM10) dust particles
which settle near the dust source. The mass concentration of coarse
particles varied from few tens of μg/m3 to over 6 × 103 μg/m3 down-
wind from the crusher. The mass concentration of fine particles (PM2.5
and PM1) ranged between ten μg/m3 and few hundreds of μg/m3
downwind from the crusher. Fine particles originate mainly from the
663
Atmospheric Pollution Research 10 (2019) 656–664
machinery used in the quarries and from remote sources.
In the limestone quarry, measured dust concentrations were ap-
proximately 50% of concentrations measured at other quarries pro-
cessing granitic rock material. Crushing generates more dust and more
coarse particles compared to drilling. Local dust sources, such as
hauling, have an impact on dust mass concentrations causing incon-
sistencies and fluctuation in the results. The number of crushers in
operation increases the dust emissions.
In quarries operating with secondary crushing, the background
concentrations were achieved approximately from a 350 m distance for
coarse particles. The results suggest that dust formed in quarries ap-
plying tertiary crushing spread to a wider area.
Declarations of interest
We wish to draw the attention of the Editor to the following facts
which may be considered as potential conflicts of interest. The first
author is employed since July 2016th in construction company NCC
Industry Oy, which also produces aggregates. NCC Industry Oy is ex-
cluded via contract from the research work conducted by the first au-
thor. Research measurements have been made during year 2013.
Research received funding from impartial K.H. Renlund foundation,
which had no involvement with content.
Acknowledgements
Fjäder Group Oy, KK-Murskaus Oy, Lemminkäinen Infra Oy,
Nordkalk Oy, NCC Industry Oy, Palovuoren Kivi Oy and Rudus Oy are
acknowledged for access to the quarries and the crushing sites. The site
personnel are thanked for their support during the measurements. FCG
Finnish Consulting Group Oy is acknowledged for the usage of Osiris
nephelometers. Dr Olavi Selonen (Åbo Akademi University) is thanked
for his valuable support with defining rock types and reviewing the
manuscript. Doctor of Science (Tech), Lecturer of English Pia
Lappalainen from Aalto University is thanked for the language check.
K.H. Renlund foundation made this research possible with their fi-
nancial support. Three reviewers are thanked for their valuable com-
ments for improving the quality of manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2018.11.007.
References
Almeida, I.T., Eston, S.M., de Assunção, J.V., 2002. Characterization of suspended par-
ticulate matter in mining areas in São Paulo, Brazil. Int. J. Surf. Min. Reclamat.
Environ. 16 (3), 171–179.
Abdollahisharif, J., Bakhtavar, E., Nourizadeh, H., 2016. Monitoring and assessment of
pollutants resulting from bench-blasting operations. J. Min. Environ. 7 (1), 109–118.
Bada, B.S., Olatunde, K.A., Akande, O.A., 2013. Air quality assessment in the vicinity of
quarry site. Environ. Nat. Resour. Res. 3 (2), 111–115.
Bluvshtein, N., Mahrer, Y., Sandler, A., Rytwo, G., 2011. Evaluating the impact of a
limestone quarry on suspended and accumulated dust. Atmos. Environ. 45,
1732–1739.
Cattle, S.R., Hemi, K., Pearson, G.L., Sanderson, T., 2012. Distinguishing and character-
izing point-source mining dust and diffuse-source dust deposits in a semi-arid district
of eastern Australia. Aeolian Res. 6, 21–29.
Chang, C.T., 2004. Assessment of influential range and characteristics of fugitive dust in
limestone extraction process. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 54 (2), 141–148.
Degan, G.A., Lippiello, D., Pinzari, M., 2013. Monitoring airborne dust in an Italian basalt
quarry: comparison between sampling methods. Air Pollut. XXI 174, 75–84.
Hinds, W.C. (Ed.), 1999. Aerosol Technology: Properties, Behaviour and Measurement of
Airborne Particles, 2nd ed. Wiley-Interscience, New York, pp. 1–14.
Junttila, S., Tossavainen, A., Hartikainen, T., Härmä, P., Korhonen, K., Suominen, V., Pyy,
L., 1996. Airborne mineral fibers and quartz dust in precambrian metamorphic
limestone and dolomite mines in Finland. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg 11 (8),
1075–1080.
Junttila, S., Tossavainen, A., Hartikainen, T., Härmä, P., Korhonen, K., Suominen, V., Pyy,
L., 1997. Airborne mineral dust at nine crushed rock plants in Finland. Appl. Occup.
Environ. Hyg 12 (12), 882–886.
M. Sairanen, M. Rinne
Madungwe, E., Mukonzvi, T., 2012. Assessment of distribution and composition of quarry
mine dust: case of Pomona stone quarries, Harare. Atmos. Climate Sci. 2 52-29.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003. Mineral Policy Statement 2: Controlling and
Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England. MPS2, U.K.
Olusegun, O., Adeniyi, A., Adeola, G.T., 2009. Impact of granite quarrying on the health
of workers and nearby residents in Abeokuta Ogun state, Nigeria. Ethiopian J.
Environ. Stud. Manag. 2 (1), 1–11.
Petavratzi, E., Kingman, S.W., Lowndes, I., 2005. Particulates from mining operations: a
review of sources, effects and regulations. Miner. Eng. 18, 1183–1199.
Petavratzi, E., Kingman, S.W., Lowndes, I., 2007. Assessment of the dustiness and the dust
liberation mechanisms of limestone quarry operations. Chem. Eng. Process 46,
1412–1423.
Reed, W.R., 2003. An improved model for prediction of PM10 from surface mining op-
erations. Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University. In: Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor in Philosophy in Mining and Minerals Engineering. Blacksburg, Virginia.
Reed, W.R., 2005. Significant Dust Dispersion Models for Mining Operations, IC 9478
Information Circular/2005. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health.
Saha, D.C., Padhy, P.K., 2011. Effects of stone crushing industry on Shorea robusta and
Madhuca indica foliage in Lalpahari forest. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2, 463–476.
Sairanen, M., Rinne, M., Selonen, O., 2018. A review of dust emission dispersions in rock
aggregate and natural stone quarries. Int. J. Surf. Min. Reclamat. Environ. 32 (3),
196–220.
Sairanen, M., Selonen, O., 2018. Dust formed during drilling in natural stone quarries.
Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 77, 1249–1262.
SFS-EN 1097-5, 2008. Tests for Mechanical and Physical Properties of Aggregates. Part 5:
Determination of the Water Content by Drying in a Ventilated Oven, second ed.
Finnish Association of Construction Product Industries RTT The European Standard
664
Atmospheric Pollution Research 10 (2019) 656–664
EN 1097-5:2008 has the status of a Finnish national standard.
SFS-EN 12341, 2014. Ambient Air. Standard Gravimetric Measurement Method for the
Determination of the PM10 or PM2,5 Mass Concentration of Suspended Particulate
Matter. Finnish Standards Association SFS. The European Standard EN 12341:2014
Has the Status of a Finnish National Standard.
SFS-EN 16450, 2017. Ambient Air. Automated Measuring Systems for the Measurement of
the Concentration of Particulate Matter (PM10; PM2,5). Finnish Standards
Association SFS The European Standard EN 16450:2017 Has the Status of a Finnish
National Standard.
Sivacoumar, R., Jayabalou, R., Swarnalatha, S., Balakrishnan, B., 2006. Particulate matter
from stone crushing industry: size distribution and health effects. J. Environ. Eng.
132 (3), 405–414.
Sivacoumar, R., Raj, S.M., Chinnadurai, S.J., Jayabalou, R., 2009. Modelling of fugitive
dust emission and control measures in stone crushing industry. J. Environ. Monit. 11,
987–997.
Turnkey Instruments Ltd, 2009. Osiris, operating instructions. http://www.turnkey-
instruments.com/images/documents/Osiris-Operating-Instructions.pdf accessed in
March 2014.
Turnkey Instruments Ltd, 2014. Topas & Osiris, environmental monitor, training manual.
http://www.turnkey-instruments.com/images/documents/Topas-Osiris-Monitor-
Training-Manual.pdf accessed in March 2014.
U.S. EPA, 1995. fifth ed. AP 42, vol. I (Chapter 13): Miscellaneous Sources. http://www3.
epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s02.pdf accessed in October 2015.
U.S. EPA, 2004. Response to Comments, AP42 Section 11.19.2 Crushed Stone Processing
and Pulverized Mineral Processing. 23.2.2004 Draft. http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/
ap42/ch11/related/rel_11s1902.pdf accessed in October 2015.
Voigtländer, J., Tuch, T., Birmili, W., Wiedensohler, A., 2006. Correlation between traffic
density and particle size distribution in a street canyon and the dependence on wind
direction. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 6, 4275–4286.