Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 15: 2104–2114, 2015

Copyright © Taiwan Association for Aerosol Research

ISSN: 1680-8584 print / 2071-1409 online
doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2015.03.0167

A Biomass Combustion Chamber: Design, Evaluation, and a Case Study of Wheat

Straw Combustion Emission Tests

Jie Tian1,2,3, Judith C. Chow1,4, Junji Cao1,5* Yongming Han1,2*, Haiyan Ni1,3, L.-W. Antony Chen1,4,
Xiaoliang Wang1,4, Rujin Huang1, Hans Moosmüller4, John G. Watson1,4
1
Key Laboratory of Aerosol Chemistry & Physics (KLACP), Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Xi’an 710061, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology (SKLLQG), Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Xi’an 710061, China
3
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
4
Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, Nevada 89512, USA
5
Institute of Global Environmental Change, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China

ABSTRACT

Open biomass burning is a significant source of trace gases and particulate pollutants on a global scale and plays an
important role in both atmospheric chemistry and climate change. To study the emission characteristics of biomass
burning, with a focus on crop residue combustion in Northwest China, a combustion chamber was established. This paper
describes the design, structure, and operating principles of the chamber. A series of evaluation tests were conducted,
demonstrating its applicability in emission studies. The combustion chamber was equipped with a thermoanemometer and
a dilution sampler as well as multiple sampling ports for interfacing with different monitors. A case study of wheat straw
combustion was performed to demonstrate reproducibility and comparability of the derived emission factors with prior
studies. The combustion chamber may be applied to develop emission factors to update emission inventories and source
profiles for improving source apportionment.

Keywords: Combustion chamber; Dilution sampling; Open burning; Biomass; Emission factor.

INTRODUCTION (CH4), ~2.7 Tg of non-methane volatile organic compounds

Biomass burning includes the open burning of crop
residues, forest fires, and grassland fires. It is a large source of
many trace gases and fine particulate matter (PM, usually
measured as PM2.5, particles with aerodynamic diameters
< 2.5 µm) that cause adverse health hazards, visibility
impairment, and other environmental impacts on regional
and global scale (Crutzen and Andreae, 1990; Andreae, 1991;
Penner et al., 1992; Duan et al., 2004; Li et al., 2010;
Huang et al., 2012b; Malamakal et al., 2013). In China,
~180 terragram [Tg, 1012 grams] of biomass was openly
burned in the mid-1990s, emitting ~280 Tg of carbon dioxide
(CO2), ~16 Tg of carbon monoxide (CO), ~0.82 Tg of
reactive nitrogen oxides (NOx), ~0.08 Tg of sulfur dioxide
(SO2), ~0.23 Tg of ammonia (NH3), ~0.54 Tg of methane
*
Corresponding author.
Tel.: +86-29-62336205; Fax: +86-29-62336234
E-mail address: cao@loess.llqg.ac.cn;
yongming@ieecas.cn
(NMVOCs), ~0.73 Tg of organic carbon (OC), and ~0.11
Tg of black carbon (BC) (Streets et al., 2003). Crop-residue
burning on agricultural lands is commonly used to eliminate
waste after harvesting, it accounted for ~60% of CO2, ~63%
of CO, ~51% of NOx, ~50% of SO2, ~61% of NH3, ~56%
of CH4, ~63% of NMVOCs, ~49% of OC, and ~73% of
BC of open burning in China (Streets et al., 2003).
Only a few emission characterization studies have been
conducted in China (Li et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2008;
Zhang et al., 2013), with inventory estimates (Streets et
al., 2003; Yan et al., 2006; Huang et al., 2012a) based on
emission factors (EFs) extrapolated from measurements
taken elsewhere (e.g., Andreae and Merlet, 2001; Akagi et
al., 2011). Detailed multi-pollutant source profiles for
PM2.5 and VOCs emissions are lacking, but these are needed
for speciated emission inventories and source apportionment
(Li et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2014).
U.S. EPA’s SPECIATE database (Simon et al., 2010) does
not include measurements from China, and unrepresentative
profiles can lead to biases in source contribution estimates
(Watson et al., 2002).
Real-world emission characterization is preferred to
 Tian et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 15: 2104–2114, 2015
acquire EFs and source profiles (e.g., Yokelson et al., 2008;
Watson et al., 2012), but it limits the ability to evaluate a
large number of fuels and burning conditions (Lobert et
al., 1991; Lobert and Warnatz, 1993). Laboratory tests
complement field measurements that allow for: 1) use of
more complex instrumentation to measure a larger range of
pollutants; 2) better control of dilution and cooling to account
for condensation and near-source chemistry; 3) separation of
emissions from specific burning phases, especially flaming
and smoldering; 4) comparison of different fuels and fuel
conditions, such as moisture content and soil content, that
can guide more efficient burning (McMeeking et al., 2009;
Chen et al., 2010); and 5) evaluation of emission uncertainties
through replicate tests (Yokelson et al., 2008; Burling et
al., 2010).
An open burning simulation chamber was established to
acquire multi-pollutant emission rates and source profiles
of crop residue combustion at the Institute of Earth
Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IEECAS).
Combustion of wheat straw, a major form of crop residues
in North/Northwest China, and its reproducibility is
demonstrated.
THE BIOMASS COMBUSTION CHAMBER
Previous simulation facilities and their applications are
evaluated to optimize the design, as summarized in Table
S-1 (Supporting Information). Laboratory tests use small
quantities (approximately 10 g to 13.6 kg) of fuel burned
under controlled combustion conditions with portions of
the exhaust directed to various continuous and integrated
(e.g., filters, canisters, and adsorbents) sampling systems.
The following combustion chamber features were
identified and incorporated: 1) a tilting stage to evaluate
heading and backing fires [i.e., flames moving with and
against the wind, respectively]; 2) provision for diluting
and aging of samples prior to collection to allow for vapor
condensation and fast chemical reactions (Hildemann et
al., 1989; Lipsky and Robinson, 2005; Watson et al., 2012;
ISO, 2013); 3) control of combustion air and outlet flows
to simulate flaming and smoldering phase of combustion;
and 4) availability of numerous sampling ports and sufficient
throughput to accommodate multi-pollutant measurements.
The schematic of the combustion chamber is illustrated
in Fig. 1. The 3 mm thick aluminum is used to withstand
high combustion temperatures with dimensions of 1.8 m
(L) × 1.8 m (W) × 2.2 m (H) and a volume of ~8 m3. No
rubber, plastics, greases, or oils are used to minimize organic
contamination. Valves on the top and bottom of the chamber
allow for chamber sealing and control of combustion air and
updraft speeds. The combustion air inlet is preceded by High
Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters (3M Company,
St Paul, MN, USA) with nominal filtration efficiencies of
95% for > 0.3 µm PM, and an air blower. Fuels of 50–300 g
(depending on study objectives) are placed on the fuel tray
during tests, and ignited by a butane pilot light. A ~0.15 m2
fuel tray is affixed to 0.6 m (L) × 0.6 m (W) × 0.55 m (H)
stage at the center of the chamber that can be adjusted to
different angles to simulate different wind directions (i.e.,
2105
heading and backing fires). An electric fan mixes the smoke
within the chamber. This is accompanied by a lamp inside
the chamber (with switch outside) allowing the fire to be
observed and recorded through a window. The initial fuel
and final residual masses are weighted using a balance
with a resolution of ± 0.1 g.
Exhaust is drawn from the chamber through a 0.15 m
diameter exhaust duct by a venting fan with adjustable speed.
The thermoanemometer (960 probe, TSI Inc., Shoreview,
MN, USA) measures gas velocity, temperature, and pressure
in the duct. Sampling ports in the duct allow for extraction
of the exhaust into various devices, including the dilution
sampler (Model 18, Baldwin Environmental Inc., Reno,
NV, USA). Three non-dispersive infrared CO2 sensors (PP
Systems, Amesbury, MA, USA) are used to measure CO2
concentrations in the undiluted effluent, dilution (ambient)
air, and diluted plume at 1-sec resolution, respectively.
Dilution ratios range from 0 to 40. The smoke residence time
in the dilution tunnel is 4–11 s to allow for condensation,
coagulation, and rapid reactions before sampling. Tests
were made to evaluate: 1) the enclosure seal; 2) uniformity of
exhaust flow and pollutant concentrations across the exhaust
duct; 3) stability of the air flow; and 4) PM levels in the
combustion and dilution air.
To perform a leak test, the top and bottom valves were
closed and the electric fans inside the chamber were switched
on. Approximately 30 g of biomass, loosely packed on the
stage, was burned to produce CO2. CO2 concentration was
continuously monitored by a Q Trak (TSI Inc., Shoreview,
MN, USA) located inside the chamber. Fig. 2 shows a rapid
increase of CO2, ~1200 s after ignition, from the background
level of ~510 ppm to a maximum of ~3200 ppm (1500 s;
fired died before 1500 s). After the burn was completed,
the CO2 concentration declined by only ~2% after more than
30 min. The valves, venting fan, and blower were opened at
~3300 s, the CO2 concentration reduced to below ~50% of
the peak concentration within 1 minutes achieved back
ground levels after another 9 min.
Sampling probes may draw the effluent from different
parts of the exhaust duct, which is valid if there is a
homogeneous distribution across the duct’s cross-section.
An inertial droplet separator (IDS) nozzle, sampling the
smoke isokinetically (Baldwin et al., 2012), was inserted into
one of the sampling ports at various distances from the duct’s
centerline (Fig. 3(a)), with CO2 concentrations varied by
< 5% from the average concentration of 1240 ppm (Fig. 3(b)).
Flow velocities, measured with a thermoanemometer at five
different positions, also reported < 5% variation from the
average velocity of 3.6 m s–1 (Fig. 4).
Fig. 5 shows the stability of CO2 concentrations with the
venting fan and blower turned on. Background CO2 was about
550 ppm, while a 100,000 ppm CO2 stream was introduced
into the combustion chamber. The CO2 concentration
increased gradually to a steady-state level of ~919 ppm with a
standard deviation (SD) of 24 ppm, ~240 s after injection.
Since average ambient PM2.5 concentrations in Xi’an
achieve 375 µg m–3 in winter and 131 µg m–3 in summer
owing to contributions from biomass burning, coal
combustion, and vehicle exhaust (Cao et al., 2005, 2007),
 2106
Tian et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 15: 2104–2114, 2015

Fig. 1. Schematic of the combustion chamber. The smoke are first diluted by a dilution sampler (Model 18, Baldwin Environmental Inc., Reno, NV, USA), then collected
and sampled by three parallel filter packs, three CO2 sensors (PP Systems, Amesbury, MA, USA), a CO analyzer (Thermo 48i, Thermo Scientific Inc., Franklin, MA,
USA), and a DustTrak (Model 8543, TSI Inc., Shoreview, MW, USA). The listed flow rates are for operation with a flow-based dilution ratio of 5 (see Eq. (3) in the text)
which can be adjusted by changing the dilution air and make-up flows. The undiluted, diluted, and ambient CO2 concentrations measured by corresponding CO2 sensors
can be used in Eq. (4) to calculate CO2-based dilution ratio. The chamber is based on an original design from a DRI team led by Dr. Hans Moosmüller.
 Tian et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 15: 2104–2114, 2015 2107

3500
rising stage steady stage decline stage
3000

2500
CO2 (ppm)

2000

1500

1000

500
ignition
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Time (s)
Fig. 2. Changes in the CO2 concentrations during the leak test.

(a)
2000

1800
Stack CO2 (ppm)

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

1 2 3 4 5
Measurement point
(b)
Fig. 3. (a) Gas and effluent velocity measurement locations across the sampling duct; and (b) CO2 concentrations
corresponding to locations in (a), demonstrating concentration homogeneity and that sampling at a single location provides
a reasonable estimate of emission rates and composition.
2108 Tian et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 15: 2104–2114, 2015

5.0

4.5

Velocity (m s )
4.0
-1

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0
1 2 3 4 5
Measurement point
Fig. 4. Velocities across the sampling duct, showing a maximum of 3.7% reduction from the average velocity of 3.64 m s–1
near the duct wall and a maximum of 3.4% increase from the average at the duct center. See Fig. 3(a) for corresponding
measurement points.

1100

1000

900
Stack CO2 (ppm)

800 (91924) ppm

700

600

500

400
CO2 injection

0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320

Time (s)
Fig. 5. Example of a CO2 injection to the combustion chamber, approximately 240 seconds are needed to obtain equilibrium
concentrations within the dilution chamber.

both combustion and dilution air needs to be filtered. The
combustion air introduced into the chamber is preceded by
High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters and an air
blower. Fig. 6 shows the variation of PM2.5 concentration
measured with a DustTrak (Wang et al., 2009) before and
after HEPA filtration with a dilution ratio of ~5. The
dilution air is generated by a compressor, and filtered by
actived carbon and a HEPA filter (Wang et al., 2012a).
Filtration reduced PM2.5 levels from 55 µg m–3 to 2 µg m–3,
corresponding to a removal efficiency of > 95%. For other
pollutants, such as CO, NOx, and SO2, the background
concentration can be measured to correct for emission
calculation.
EMISSION FACTORS FOR WHEAT STRAW
COMBUSTION
Wheat straw was collected from Hebei Province, China,
and stored at ambient temperature (~20°C) and humidity
(35 to 45%) for at least one month before the experiment.
Its characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The wheat
straw (~100 g) and ashes were weighed before and after
each burn. For each of the five replicate burns, wheat straw
was stacked horizontally on the fuel tray (Fig. 1), and ignited
with a butane pilot lighter. Each burn lasted ~30 min from
ignition until concentrations of measured pollutants (i.e.,
CO2, CO, and PM2.5) returned to the background levels.
Dilution ratio was ~5 for each test. PM2.5 samples were
collected on three parallel 47-mm filters (1 Teflon-
membrane filter (2 µm pore size, R2PJ047, Pall Life
Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI, USA), and 2 quartz microfiber
filters (QM/A, Whatman, Midstone, Kent, England) of the
dilution sampler at a flow rate of 5 L min–1 per channel.
 Tian et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 15: 2104–2114, 2015 2109

0.08
Ave concentration before purification
Ave concentration after purification
0.06
PM2.5 (mg m )
-3

-3
0.055 mg m
0.04

0.02

0.00 -3
0.002 mg m

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (s)
Fig. 6. PM2.5 mass concentrations before and after purification by High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters.

Table 1. Tested wheat straw composition*.

Proximate analysis (as received, mass %) Ultimate analysis (dry basis, mass %)
Moisture 8.30
C 47.34
Volatile matter 71.78
Ash 6.28
N 0.30
Fixed carbon 13.64
* Proximate and Ultimate analysis were conducted to determine the carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) content in dry mass. In
addition, moisture, volatile matter, ash, and fixed carbon content were measured. See details in Liao et al. (2004).

Gravimetric analysis was conducted on the Teflon membrane
filters after 24-hr equilibrium at ~25°C and 35% relative
humidity using a microbalance with a ± 1 µg sensitivity
(Sartorius, Göttingen, Germany). Total carbon (TC), organic
carbon (OC) elemental carbon (EC), and their thermal carbon
fraction were determined on quartz fiber filters with a
Desert Research Institute (DRI) Model 2001 Thermal/Optical
Carbon Analyzer (Atmoslytic Inc., Calabasas, CA, USA)
following the IMPROVE_A thermal/ optical protocol (Chow
et al., 2007). Real-time measurements of CO2, CO and PM2.5
were made at 1-s resolution.
Emission factors were calculated by dividing the mass of
pollutant released by the mass of the consumed fuel, and
expressed as grams of emission per kilogram of dry fuel
consumed (g kg–1) (Andreae and Merlet, 2001). For CO2
and CO, the time-integrated EFi is:
t  t sample
where CDil,i is the diluted concentration of pollutant i in
mg m–3 under standard conditions (temperature [TStd] =
293 K and pressure [PStd] = 1 atm); tsample is the sampling
duration in seconds; VStk is the average stack flow velocity
in m s–1 at standard conditions; D is the stack cross section
in m2; mfuel is the fuel consumption in g determined from
the difference of initial and final fuel weights; mfilter is the
mass of pollutants collected on the filter in mg; Qfilter is the
sampling volume through the filter in m3 at standard
temperature and pressure (Wang et al., 2012a). DR is the
dilution ratio, controlled by the flow balance (i.e., the ratio
of sample flow (from stack) and total inflow (sample flow
+ dilution flow)) of the dilution sampler, where:
Total Inflow or Outflow
Flow-Based DR  (3)
Sample Flow

 C Dil,i  DR  VStk  D Total inflow equals total outflow, which is the sum of
flows through all the filter packs, online monitors, and
EFi  t 1
(1)
m fuel make-up flow. DR can also be verified by CO2 concentrations
(CO2-Based DR) measured at the exhaust duct (undiluted
and for particulate pollutants (i.e., PM2.5, OC and EC), the CO2,Stk), sampler (diluted CO2,Dil), and background (ambient
EFp is: CO2,Bkg). Thus:

m filter  DR  t sample  VStk  D CO 2,Stk  CO 2,Bkg

EFp  (2) CO 2 -Based DR = (4)
Qfilter  mfuel CO 2,Dil  CO 2,Bkg
2110 Tian et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 15: 2104–2114, 2015

The agreement of the two DR estimates (Flow-Based
and CO2-Based DR) indicates that either method is sufficient
to obtain an accurate EF.
Emissions vary between different burning phases (e.g.,
flaming versus smoldering), which can be differentiated by
combustion efficiency (CE) - the ratio of carbon (C) emitted
as CO2 to the total amount of C emitted (Ward and Hardy,
1991).When only CO2 and CO are monitored, CE can be
simplified as the modified combustion efficiency (MCE),
defined as:
CO 2
MCE  (5)
CO 2  CO
When ∆CO2 and ∆CO exceed the molar mixing ratio,
MCE indicates the relative importance of flaming and
smoldering combustion (Koppmann et al., 2005; Chen et
al., 2007). MCE is typically close to 1 during the flaming
phase, and ranges between 0.7 and 0.9 for the smoldering
phase (Hao and Ward, 1993; Yokelson et al., 1997; Reid et
al., 2005).
Table 2 shows the PM2.5 mass collected on the three
parallel filters from each of the five replicate wheat straw
combustion tests. The consistent results between both
types of filters and among replicates, as indicated by the
low relative standard deviations (RSD) of PM2.5 mass
(< 10%), demonstrate the capability of the system and
reproducibility of the results. The mass on Teflon filter
was always more than that on quartz fiber filters. PM2.5
samples were collected on three parallel 47-mm filters (1
Teflon-membrane filter and 2 quartz microfiber filters) of
the dilution sampler at a flow rate of 5 L min–1 per channel.
So theoretically, the mass on these three filters from each
test should be the same. However, it becomes complex
when considering the positive and negative sampling
artifacts. Adsorption of organic vapors onto the quartz filters
leads to overestimation of the PM2.5 mass load (positive
artifact), while volatilization of the collected PM from the
filter results in the underestimate of the PM2.5 mass load
(negative artifact) (Turpin et al., 2000). Positive and negative
artifacts occur simultaneously and hence are difficult to
isolate and quantify. Previous studies report that the
positive artifact appears to dominate on samples taken with
bare quartz filters (Turpin et al., 1994; Kirchstetter et al.,
2001), so it is reasonable to expect more mass on quartz
filters than on Teflon. However, quartz filters are known to
be fragile and may be prone to fiber loss during weighing,
handling, and sampling, which may cause weight loss on
quartz filter. The mass difference between quartz and
Teflon filters ranged from 8.6% to 14.5%, which falls into
a reasonable range considering the sampling and handling
uncertainty.
The homogeneity of PM2.5 filter deposits was also tested
by dividing the quartz filter from one channel into four
quadrants for separate carbon analyses. Average carbon
concentration are presented in Table 3, good reproducibility
was found with RSD ranging from 3–9% for TC, 3–9% for
OC, and 1–10% for EC.
Response to combustion emissions by the real-time
instruments is usually delayed due to the time it takes to travel
from the sample probe to the sensor and the residence time in
each instrument’s sensing volume. The delays vary with
instrument and need to be accounted for in order to align
instrumental responses for post-sampling data processing
(Wang et al., 2012b). Instruments were first sampled with
ambient air for a few minutes to obtain background readings.
Then a match was lit near the inlet of the sampling probe
to measure time delays. Table 4 shows the delays determined
for each instrument to detect a 10% change from background
concentration. Delay times of 11–16 s were determined
relative to the DustTrak, since the DustTrak responds first
(i.e., the delay time of DustTrak was assumed to be 0).
The data were processed to calculate the EFs and MCE
following Eqs. (1) to (5) (parameters used to estimate EF
were listed in Table S-2, and the calculated EFs are presented
in Table 5). MCE were > 0.9 for all five tests, in this study,
indicating flaming-dominated combustion. Average EFs were
1460 ± 99 g kg–1 for CO2, and 56.6 ± 7.9 g kg–1 for CO.
These levels are in reasonable agreement with published
those values (Li et al., 2007; Sahai et al., 2007; Cao et al.,
2008; Zhang et al., 2008), which were mostly in the range
of 1377 to 1787 g kg–1 for CO2, and 28 to 141 g kg–1 for
CO. Differences in the EFs could be attributed to the fuel
properties, such as bulk densities, size, and moisture, which
could affect burning conditions, and further affect the EFs
(ASI et al., 2003; McMeeking et al., 2009; Chen et al.,
2010). For example, the relative higher CO2 EF, and lower
CO EF reported by Sahai et al. (2007) was associated with
its higher combustion efficiency. The average PM2.5 EF for
wheat straw was 5.41 ± 0.41 g kg–1, lower than the 7.6 g kg–1
reported by Li et al. (2007), but higher than the 4.71 ± 0.04
g kg–1 reported by Hays et al. (2005). The OC and EC EFs

Table 2. PM2.5 mass on each filter (mg) for the five replicate wheat straw combustion tests.
PM2.5 Mass Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Average** SD** RSD (%)**
Filter 1 (Q)* 0.375 0.372 0.358 0.388 0.389 0.376 0.012 3.3
Filter 2 (Q)* 0.347 0.354 0.352 0.371 0.347 0.354 0.010 2.9
Filter 3 (T)* 0.380 0.414 0.393 0.425 0.393 0.401 0.018 4.5
Average*** 0.367 0.380 0.368 0.395 0.376
SD*** 0.018 0.031 0.022 0.027 0.025
RSD (%)*** 4.9 8.1 6.0 6.9 6.6
* Q means quartz microfiber filter, and T means Teflon-membrane filter;
** Average, standard deviation (SD), and relative standard deviations (RSD) for each test;
*** Average, SD, and RSD for the five replicate tests. With the stable system, experiments have a good reproducibility.
 Tian et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 15: 2104–2114, 2015 2111

Table 3. Average concentrations of total carbon, organic carbon, element carbon, and their thermal fractions measured
from each quadrant of sample filter (µg cm–2) for the five replicate wheat straw combustion tests.
Quadrant TC OC EC OC1 OC2 OC3 OC4 EC1 EC2 EC3 OP
1 9.82 8.25 1.57 0.54 1.61 2.46 2.50 2.71 0 0 1.14
2 10.44 8.70 1.74 0.58 1.63 2.81 2.98 2.44 0 0 0.70
3 9.81 8.35 1.46 0.63 1.66 2.45 2.48 2.59 0 0 1.13
Test 1 4 9.60 8.05 1.55 0.55 1.64 2.45 2.84 2.12 0 0 0.57
Average 9.92 8.34 1.58
SD 0.36 0.27 0.12
RSD (%) 3.7 3.3 7.4
1 10.79 7.87 2.92 0.56 1.61 2.28 2.34 4.00 0 0 1.08
2 11.81 8.33 3.48 0.63 1.85 2.54 2.78 4.01 0 0 0.53
3 11.93 8.51 3.42 0.63 1.83 2.62 2.92 3.91 0.02 0 0.51
Test 2 4 12.31 8.83 3.48 0.68 1.80 2.91 2.81 4.02 0.09 0 0.63
Average 11.71 8.39 3.33
SD 0.65 0.40 0.27
RSD (%) 5.5 4.8 8.2
1 9.68 6.05 3.63 0.49 1.39 1.84 1.89 4.07 0 0 0.44
2 11.29 7.07 4.22 0.71 1.65 2.37 2.31 4.23 0.02 0 0.03
3 10.38 6.96 3.42 0.51 1.56 2.26 2.46 3.18 0.11 0.30 0.17
Test 3 4 10.44 6.77 3.67 0.68 1.52 2.16 1.99 4.09 0 0 0.42
Average 10.45 6.71 3.74
SD 0.66 0.46 0.34
RSD (%) 6.3 6.8 9.1
1 12.56 9.85 2.71 0.53 1.97 3.75 3.51 2.54 0.09 0.17 0.09
2 12.46 9.68 2.78 0.54 2.02 3.56 3.30 2.67 0.13 0.24 0.26
3 11.39 8.58 2.81 0.43 1.81 3.03 3.25 2.47 0.10 0.30 0.06
Test 4 4 11.47 8.65 2.82 0.46 1.85 2.99 3.33 2.36 0.15 0.33 0.02
Average 11.97 9.19 2.78
SD 0.63 0.67 0.05
RSD (%) 5.2 7.3 1.8
1 10.57 7.91 2.66 0.68 1.68 2.36 2.66 3.19 0 0 0.53
2 11.61 8.89 2.72 0.76 1.81 2.60 2.31 4.11 0.02 0 1.41
3 11.46 8.63 2.83 0.66 1.92 2.56 2.85 3.45 0.02 0 0.64
Test 5 4 9.69 7.26 2.43 0.46 1.39 2.33 2.24 3.27 0 0 0.84
Average 10.83 8.17 2.66
SD 0.89 0.74 0.17
RSD (%) 8.2 9.0 6.3
Carbon analysis follows IMPROVE_A protocol (Chow et al., 2007). OC1 (140°C), OC2 (280°C), OC3 (480°C), and OC4
(580°C) are OC evolved in 100% helium atmosphere, EC1 (580°C), EC2 (740°C), and EC3 (840°C) are EC evolved in 98%
helium/2% oxygen atmosphere. Pyrolyzed carbon (OP) is optically monitored by the IMPROVE thermal/optical
reflectance (TOR) carbon analysis protocol (Chow et al., 1993, 2001), when OC = OC1 + OC2 + OC3 + OC4 + OP; EC =
EC1 + EC2 + EC3 – OP; TC = OC + EC.

Table 4. Delay time for each instrument.

Elapsed time to first 10% change Delayed time relative to
Measurement
from background (sec) DustTrak (sec)
DustTrak, PM2.5 mass 72 0
Thermo 48i, CO 83 11
CO2 analyzer, stack CO2 86 14
CO2 analyzer, diluted CO2 88 16

were 1.39 ± 0.20, and 0.50 ± 0.15 g kg–1, respectively. These lower combustion efficiencies.
values fall within the range (1.23–2.7 g kg–1 for OC, and
0.35–0.79 g kg–1 for EC) reported in the literature (Turn et CONCLUSION
al., 1997; Hays et al., 2005; Li et al., 2007; Dhammapala
et al., 2007), in which the highest EC EF correspond with A combustion chamber was designed and tested, and a
2112 Tian et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 15: 2104–2114, 2015

series of tests were conducted to verify its performance in

0.35 ± 0.16 Dhammapala et al. (2007)

terms of the enclosure seal against gas/particle loss, flow

Zhang et al. (2008)

Sahai et al. (2007)

Hays et al. (2005)

Turn et al. (1997)
stability and uniformity in the stack, and purification of the

Cao et al. (2008)

Li et al. (2007)
dilution air. In this study, the combustion chamber was
References

this study equipped with a dilution sampler and real-time instruments

for measuring multi-pollutant emissions (e.g., CO2, CO,
PM2.5, OC, and EC). Data obtained from wheat straw
burning, with a focus on its emission factors and combustion
efficiencies, were reported to demonstrate the reproducibility
of the results and comparability with prior studies. Biomass of
interest in Northwest China can be burned in the combustion
0.49 ± 0.12
0.50 ± 0.15

0.79 chamber to develop emission factors for refining emission

0.52
EC

inventories and source profiles for more accurate source

apportionment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1.23 ± 0.03
1.39 ± 0.20
Table 5. Comparison of emission factors in wheat straw burning among studies.

2.7 ± 1.0

1.9 ± 1.1
OC

2.1

This study was supported by the Chinese Academy of

Sciences (XDB05060500, XDA05100402, KZZD-EW-04),
the project from National Science Foundation of China
(41230641), the State Key Laboratory of Loess & Quaternary
4.71 ± 0.04
5.41 ± 0.41
EF (g kg–1)

7.6 ± 4.1

3 ± 0.6

Geology (SKLLQG1417), the Ministry of Science of

PM2.5

Technology (2013FY112700) and Shaanxi Province

(2012KTZB03-01). The authors thank the assistance of Mr.
Rick Purcell at DRI for designing the combustion chamber
57.8 ± 24.8

period.
56.6 ± 7.9

141 ± 15
60 ± 23

28 ± 20
CO

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary data associated with this article can be

1378 ± 431
1460 ± 99

1470 ± 46
1558 ± 86
1787 ± 35

found in the online version at http://www.aaqr.org.

CO2

REFERENCES

Akagi, S., Yokelson, R.J., Wiedinmyer, C., Alvarado, M.,

0.92 ± 0.03b

0.97 ± 0.02b
0.93 ± 0.02a

0.92 ± 0.01a
combustion

0.94–0.96b
efficiency

Reid, J., Karl, T., Crounse, J. and Wennberg, P. (2011).

0.86b

Emission Factors for Open and Domestic Biomass Burning

for Use in Atmospheric Models. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11:
4039–4072.
Andreae, M. (1991). Biomass Burning-Its History, Use,
weight of moisture
straw burned content

and Distribution and Its Impact on Environmental

9.59*

14**
8.3*

9.6*
8.8*
(%)

7*

Quality and Global Climate. In Global Biomass Burning:

* as received, mass%.; **dry weight basis, mass%.

Atmospheric, Climatic, and Biospheric Implications.

Levine, J.S. (Ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. pp. 3–21.
0.5–1.9 kg
each time

China field measurement 40–60 kg

Andreae, M.O. and Merlet, P. (2001). Emission of Trace

~100 g

~750 g

Gases and Aerosols from Biomass Burning. Global

Biogeochem. Cycles 15: 955–966.
ASI (Air Sciences Inc.) (2003). Final Reprot: Cereal-Grain
Residue Open-Field Burning Emissions Study. Project
field measurement

152-02.
burning tower
measurement

wind tunnel
approach

Baldwin, T.A., Watson, J.G. and Neulicht, R. (2012). New

chamber

chamber
chamber

chamber

Test Method for Measuring Fine Particulate Matter

(PM2.5) in Wet Stacks. Proceedings, Air Quality
Measurement Methods and Technology. Air & Waste
a. MCE; b. CE;

Management Association. Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 88-1–88-6.

Burling, I., Yokelson, R.J., Griffith, D.W., Johnson, T.J.,
location

China
China

China

Veres, P., Roberts, J., Warneke, C., Urbanski, S., Reardon,

India
USA
USA
USA

J. and Weise, D. (2010). Laboratory Measurements of

Trace Gas Emissions from Biomass Burning of Fuel
 Tian et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 15: 2104–2114, 2015
Types from the Southeastern and Southwestern United
States. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10: 11115–11130.
Cao, G., Zhang, X., Gong, S. and Zheng, F. (2008).
Investigation on Emission Factors of Particulate Matter
and Gaseous Pollutants from Crop Residue Burning. J.
Environ. Sci. 20: 50–55.
Cao, J., Wu, F., Chow, J., Lee, S., Li, Y., Chen, S., An, Z.,
Fung, K., Watson, J. and Zhu, C. (2005). Characterization
and Source Apportionment of Atmospheric Organic and
Elemental Carbon during Fall and Winter of 2003 in
Xi'an, China. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 5: 3127–3137.
Cao, J., Lee, S., Chow, J.C., Watson, J.G., Ho, K., Zhang,
R., Jin, Z., Shen, Z., Chen, G. and Kang, Y. (2007).
Spatial and Seasonal Distributions of Carbonaceous
Aerosols over China. J. Geophys. Res. 112: D22S11,
doi: 10.1029/2006JD008205.
Chen, L.W.A., Moosmüller, H., Arnott, W.P., Chow, J.C.,
Watson, J.G., Susott, R.A., Babbitt, R.E., Wold, C.E.,
Lincoln, E.N. and Hao, W.M. (2007). Emissions from
Laboratory Combustion of Wildland Fuels: Emission
Factors and Source Profiles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41:
4317–4325.
Chen, L.W.A., Verburg, P., Shackelford, A., Zhu, D., Susfalk,
R., Chow, J. and Watson, J. (2010). Moisture Effects on
Carbon and Nitrogen Emission from Burning of Wildland
Biomass. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10: 6617–6625.
Chow, J.C., Watson, J.G., Pritchett, L.C., Pierson, W.R.,
Frazier, C.A. and Purcell, R.G. (1993). The DRI
Thermal/Optical Reflectance Carbon Analysis System:
Description, Evaluation and Applications in US Air
Quality Studies. Atmos. Environ. 27: 1185–1201.
Chow, J.C., Watson, J.G., Crow, D., Lowenthal, D.H. and
Merrifield, T. (2001). Comparison of IMPROVE and
NIOSH Carbon Measurements. Aerosol Sci. Technol.
34: 23–34.
Chow, J.C., Watson, J.G., Chen, L.W.A., Chang, M.O.,
Robinson, N.F., Trimble, D. and Kohl, S. (2007). The
IMPROVE_A Temperature Protocol for Thermal/Optical
Carbon Analysis: Maintaining Consistency with a Long-
Term Database. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 57: 1014–
1023.
Crutzen, P.J. and Andreae, M.O. (1990). Biomass Burning
in the Tropics: Impact on Atmospheric Chemistry and
Biogeochemical Cycles. Science 250: 1669–1678.
Dhammapala, R., Claiborn, C., Jimenez, J., Corkill, J.,
Gullett, B., Simpson, C. and Paulsen, M. (2007). Emission
Factors of PAHs, Methoxyphenols, Levoglucosan,
Elemental Carbon and Organic Carbon from Simulated
Wheat and Kentucky Bluegrass Stubble Burns. Atmos.
Environ. 41: 2660–2669.
Duan, F., Liu, X., Yu, T. and Cachier, H. (2004).
Identification and Estimate of Biomass Burning
Contribution to the Urban Aerosol Organic Carbon
Concentrations in Beijing. Atmos. Environ. 38: 1275–
1282.
Hao, W.M. and Ward, D.E. (1993). Methane Production
from Global Biomass Burning. J. Geophys. Res. 98:
20657–20661.
Hays, M.D., Fine, P.M., Geron, C.D., Kleeman, M.J. and
2113
Gullett, B.K. (2005). Open Burning of Agricultural
Biomass: Physical and Chemical Properties of Particle-
Phase Emissions. Atmos. Environ. 39: 6747–6764.
Hildemann, L., Cass, G. and Markowski, G. (1989). A
Dilution Stack Sampler for Collection of Organic Aerosol
Emissions: Design, Characterization and Field Tests.
Aerosol Sci. Technol. 10: 193–204.
Huang, X., Li, M., Li, J. and Song, Y. (2012a). A High-
Resolution Emission Inventory of Crop Burning in
Fields in China Based on MODIS Thermal Anomalies/Fire
Products. Atmos. Environ. 50: 9–15.
Huang, X., Song, Y., Li, M., Li, J. and Zhu, T. (2012b).
Harvest Season, High Polluted Season in East China.
Environ. Res. Lett. 7: 044033.
ISO (2013). ISO 25597:2013: Stationary Source Emissions--
Test Method for Determining PM2.5 and PM10 Mass in
Stack Gases Using Cyclone Samplers and Sample Dilution.
Prepared by International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva, Switzerland.
Kirchstetter, T.W., Corrigan, C.E. and Novakov, T. (2001).
Laboratory and Field Investigation of the Adsorption of
Gaseous Organic Compounds onto Quartz Filters.
Atmos. Environ. 35: 1663–1671.
Koppmann, R., Czapiewski, K.V. and Reid, J. (2005). A
Review of Biomass Burning Emissions, Part I: Gaseous
Emissions of Carbon Monoxide, Methane, Volatile Organic
Compounds, and Nitrogen Containing Compounds. Atmos.
Chem. Phys. Discuss. 5: 10455–10516.
Li, W., Shao, L. and Buseck, P. (2010). Haze Types in
Beijing and the Influence of Agricultural Biomass Burning.
Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10: 8119–8130.
Li, X., Wang, S., Duan, L., Hao, J., Li, C., Chen, Y. and
Yang, L. (2007). Particulate and Trace Gas Emissions
from Open Burning of Wheat Straw and Corn Stover in
China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41: 6052–6058.
Liao, C., Wu, C. and Huang, H. (2004). Chemical Elemental
Characteristics of Biomass Fuels in China. Biomass
Bioenergy 27: 119–130.
Lipsky, E.M. and Robinson, A.L. (2005). Design and
Evaluation of a Portable Dilution Sampling System for
Measuring Fine Particle Emissions. Aerosol Sci. Technol.
39: 542–553.
Lobert, J., Scharffe, D. and Hao, W.M. (1991).
Experimental Evaluation of Biomass Burning Emissions-
Nitrogen and Carbon Containing Compounds. In Global
Biomass Burning: Atmospheric, Climatic, and Biospheric
Implications. Levine, J.S. (Ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA, pp. 289–304.
Lobert, J.M. and Warnatz, J. (1993). Emissions from the
Combustion Process in Vegetation. In Fire in the
Environment: The Ecological, Atmospheric and Climatic
Importance of Vegetation Fires. Crutzen, P.J. and
Goldammer, J.G. (Eds.), pp. 15–39.
Malamakal, T., Chen, L.W.A., Wang, X., Green, M.C.,
Gronstal, S., Chow, J.C. and Watson, J.G. (2013).
Prescribed Burn Smoke Impact in the Lake Tahoe
Basin: Model Simulation and Field Verification. Int. J.
Environ. Pollut. 52: 225–243.
McMeeking, G.R., Kreidenweis, S.M., Baker, S., Carrico,
2114 Tian et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 15: 2104–2114, 2015
C.M., Chow, J.C., Collett, J.L., Hao, W.M., Holden,
A.S., Kirchstetter, T.W. and Malm, W.C. (2009).
Emissions of Trace Gases and Aerosols during the Open
Combustion of Biomass in the Laboratory. J. Geophys.
Res. 114: 19210, doi: 10.1029/2009JD011836.
Penner, J.E., Dickinson, R.E. and O'Neill, C.A. (1992).
Effects of Aerosol from Biomass Burning on the Global
Radiation Budget. Science 256: 1432–1434.
Reid, J., Koppmann, R., Eck, T. and Eleuterio, D. (2005). A
Review of Biomass Burning Emissions Part II: Intensive
Physical Properties of Biomass Burning Particles. Atmos.
Chem. Phys. 5: 799–825.
Sahai, S., Sharma, C., Singh, D., Dixit, C., Singh, N., Sharma,
P., Singh, K., Bhatt, S., Ghude, S. and Gupta, V. (2007).
A Study for Development of Emission Factors for Trace
Gases and Carbonaceous Particulate Species from in
Situ Burning of Wheat Straw in Agricultural Fields in
India. Atmos. Environ. 41: 9173–9186.
Simon, H., Beck, L., Bhave, P.V., Divita, F., Hsu, Y.,
Luecken, D., Mobley, J.D., Pouliot, G.A., Reff, A. and
Sarwar, G. (2010). The Development and Uses of EPA's
SPECIATE Database. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 1: 196–206.
Streets, D., Yarber, K., Woo, J.H. and Carmichael, G.
(2003). Biomass Burning in Asia: Annual and Seasonal
Estimates and Atmospheric Emissions. Global
Biogeochem. Cycles 17: 1099.
Turn, S.Q., Jenkins, B.M., Chow, J.C., Pritchett, L.C.,
Campbell, D., Cahill, T. and Whalen, S.A. (1997).
Elemental Characterization of Particulate Matter Emitted
from Biomass Burning: Wind Tunnel Derived Source
Profiles for Herbaceous and Wood Fuels. J. Geophys.
Res. 102: 3683.
Turpin, B.J., Huntzicker, J.J. and Hering, S.V. (1994).
Investigation of Organic Aerosol Sampling Artifacts in
the Los Angeles Basin. Atmos. Environ. 28: 3061–3071.
Turpin, B.J., Saxena, P. and Andrews, E. (2000).
Measuring and Simulating Particulate Organics in the
Atmosphere: Problems and Prospects. Atmos. Environ.
34: 2983–3013.
Wang, H., Lou, S., Huang, C., Qiao, L., Tang, X., Chen,
C., Zeng, L., Wang, Q., Zhou, M. and Lu, S. (2014).
Source Profiles of Volatile Organic Compounds from
Biomass Burning in Yangtze River Delta, China.
Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 14: 818–828.
Wang, X., Chancellor, G., Evenstad, J., Farnsworth, J.E.,
Hase, A., Olson, G.M., Sreenath, A. and Agarwal, J.K.
(2009). A Novel Optical Instrument for Estimating Size
Segregated Aerosol Mass Concentration in Real Time.
Aerosol Sci. Technol. 43: 939–950.
Wang, X., Watson, J., Chow, J., Kohl, S., Chen, L., Sodeman,
D., Legge, A. and Percy, K. (2012a). Measurement of
Real-World Stack Emissions with a Dilution Sampling
System. In Alberta Oil Sands: Energy, Industry and the
Environment. Percy, K.E. (Ed.), Elsevier Press, Oxford,
UK. pp. 171–192.
Wang, X., Watson, J.G., Chow, J.C., Gronstal, S. and Kohl,
S.D. (2012b). An Efficient Multipollutant System for
Measuring Real-World Emissions from Stationary and
Mobile Sources. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 12: 145–160.
Ward, D.E. and Hardy, C.C. (1991) Smoke Emissions
from Wildland Fires. Environ. Int. 17: 117–134.
Watson, J.G., Zhu, T., Chow, J.C., Engelbrecht, J., Fujita,
E.M. and Wilson, W.E. (2002). Receptor Modeling
Application Framework for Particle Source
Apportionment. Chemosphere 49: 1093–1136.
Watson, J., Chow, J., Wang, X., Kohl, S., Chen, L. and
Etyemezian, V. (2012). Overview of Real-World Emission
Characterization Methods. In Alberta Oil Sands: Energy,
Industry, and the Environment. Percy, K.E. (Ed.), Elsevier
Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 145–170.
Yan, X., Ohara, T. and Akimoto, H. (2006). Bottom-Up
Estimate of Biomass Burning in Mainland China. Atmos.
Environ. 40: 5262–5273.
Yokelson, R.J., Susott, R., Ward, D.E., Reardon, J. and
Griffith, D.W. (1997). Emissions from Smoldering
Combustion of Biomass Measured by Open-Path Fourier
Transform Infrared Spectroscopy. J. Geophys. Res. 102:
18865–18877.
Yokelson, R.J., Christian, T.J., Karl, T. and Guenther, A.
(2008). The Tropical Forest and Fire Emissions
Experiment: Laboratory Fire Measurements and Synthesis
of Campaign Data. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 8: 3509–3527.
Zhang, H., Ye, X., Cheng, T., Chen, J., Yang, X., Wang, L.
and Zhang, R. (2008). A Laboratory Study of Agricultural
Crop Residue Combustion in China: Emission Factors
and Emission Inventory. Atmos. Environ. 42: 8432–8441.
Zhang, Y., Shao, M., Lin, Y., Luan, S., Mao, N., Chen, W.
and Wang, M. (2013). Emission Inventory of
Carbonaceous Pollutants from Biomass Burning in the
Pearl River Delta Region, China. Atmos. Environ. 76:
189–199.
Zhang, Y.X., Shao, M., Zhang, Y.H., Zeng, L.M., He,
L.Y., Zhu, B., Wei, Y.J. and Zhu, X.L. (2007). Source
Profiles of Particulate Organic Matters Emitted from
Cereal Straw Burnings. J. Environ. Sci. 19: 167–175.
Received for review, March 17, 2015
Revised, May 11, 2015
Accepted, May 26, 2015
 Supporting Information for “A Biomass Combustion Chamber: Design,

Evaluation, and a Case Study of Wheat Straw Combustion Emission

Tests”

Jie Tian1,2,3, Judith C. Chow1,4, Junji Cao1,5, Yongming Han1,2, Haiyan Ni1,3,

L.-W. Antony Chen1,4, Xiaoliang Wang1,4, Rujin Huang1, Hans Moosmüller4,

John G. Watson1,4

1
Key Laboratory of Aerosol Chemistry & Physics (KLACP), Institute of Earth Environment,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xi’an 710061, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology (SKLLQG), Institute of Earth
Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xi’an 710061, China
3
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
4
Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno,
Nevada 89512, USA
5
Institute of Global Environmental Change, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China

This file is 19 pages in total, including Tables S-1 and S-2.

*Corresponding authors. Tel.: +86-29-62336205; Fax: +86-29-62336234;

E-mail addresses: cao@loess.llqg.ac.cn; yongming@ieecas.cn
Table S-1. Summary of combustion chambers with their locations, specifications, basic parameters measured, and references to their use.
Location &Specifications
1
Air Pollution Research Center of the University of
California at Riverside, California, U.S.
(Burning tower). A duct (made of tempered
aluminum) in the form of an inverted funnel was placed
over a burning platform (8 ft in diameter) positioned on
a balance. An anemometer and a thermocouple was
equipped in the exit stack to continuously measure air
flow and temperature, respectively. Measurements were
taken at ~ 731 cm from the burning source.
2
Department of Atmospheric Chemistry, Max Planck
Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
A stainless steel hood in the form of an inverted
funnel was placed over a 60 x 60 cm burning table on a
high-resolution balance placed on a frame which stood
on the ground outside to avoid vibrations. The platform
could be tilted up to 45° from horizontal to simulate
different wind directions. An electrical fan at the exit
duct provided during low-temperature combustion to
minimize the escape of non-ducted emissions. All the
major part were made of stainless steel and mounted in a
mobile trailer, which also contained most of the
equipment required for carrying out the experiment. An
anemometer was used to measure the flow rate of stack
gases. Temperature sensors were equipped to determine
both stack gas and fuel temperatures. Fresh exhaust for
chemical analysis was sampled from the stack
(approximately 2m above the burning platform).
Fuel, Fire Ignition and Maintenance
Range bursh (both dry and green), barley and
rice stubble, and prunings from vaious fruit and nut
trees in California. 25lb range bursh, 15lb barley,
15lb rice stubble, and 25lb prunings were burned for
each individual burning test.
A given weight of plant material was placed on
the burning platform. One pound of barley straw
was placed under woody and green plant material to
assist in starting the fire. A small amount of alcohol
was thrown on the edge of the pile of waste and
ignited. Burning was usually conducted in the
morning hours when winds were minimum.
Tropical grasses from savanna regions and also
agricultural wastes (both were dry).
Parameters Measured Applications
Continuous records of CO,
The burning tower was applied to study emission of
CO2, and total hydrocarbon
CO2, CO, gaseous HC, formaldehyde, organic acids, NOx,
(HC) concentrations were made
particulate matter (PM), and polynyclear hydrocarbons from
throughout the fire. Three grab
burning of municipal refuse, landscape refuse and automobile
samples for individual HC
components (did not report where the fuel came) (Gerstle and
(ethene, alkene, and saturates
Kemnitz, 1967), PM emissions, CO, CO2, total HC, NOx
plus acetylenes) analysis were
emission from grass stubble and straw collected from Oregon
made, one each being taken near
(Boubel et al., 1969), PM, CO and hydrocarbons emitted
to the time of the temperature
from burning of agricultural waste collected from California
peak, the HC peak, and at the
(Darley, 1977).
end of the fire.
The burn facility also characterized N2O emission from
burning savanna grass, straw, hay, oak, pine needles and litter
CO2, CO, non-methane
of pine forest (Hao et al., 1991); nitrogen and carbon
hydrocarbons (NMHC) and CH4
containing compounds from burning of savanna grass, wood,
as well as most important
hay, straw, and forest fuels (Lobert et al., 1991);
nitrogen-containing species:
HOx-producing gases (i.e., formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,
NOx (NO and NO2), NH3, some
methanol and acetone) from the burning of savanna grasses
cyanogen compounds such as
(Holzinger et al., 1999), major gaseous and particulate
hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and
species (i.e., CO2, CO, CH3COOH, HCOOH, NOx, NH3,
acetonitrile (CH3CN), and
HONO, HNO3, HCl, total volatile inorganic Cl and Br, SO2
nitrous oxide (N2O).
and particulate C, N, and major ions) emission from burns of
southern African biomass (Keene et al., 2006).
Table S-1, Continued
Location &Specifications Fuel, Fire Ignition and Maintenance Parameters Measured Applications
Biomass samples representing Amazon forest native
species (collected in the deforestation arc, near the town of
Alta Floresta, state of Mato Grosso, Brazil) with moisture
content ranging from 9%~11%, in terms of mass of moisture

3
per total mass. Approximately 1.5kg of biomass was used for
National Institute for Space Research, Brazil. São Paulo State
each experiment.
University (Universidade Estadual Paulista, UNESP), Brazil
A known amount of biomass loosely packed on the CO, CO2, NOx, and
Similar to the burning apparatus employed by Lobert et al. (1991, /
burning table was ignited by an LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) unburned hydrocarbons
1990), with the difference that the burning table of 1m ×1m in this
blowpipe. Biomass samples for each burning were composed
study against 60 cm×60 cm in the previous studies.
of only one native species of the Amazonian forest. They were
formed by 90% of twigs (mass percentage) with 2 cm2
maximum cross-sectional area; the remaining were pieces of
sticks and leaves of the same native species. Each experiment
lasted 20-30min from ignition up to fuel bed cooling.
4
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711
Household waste (e.g., paper, plastic, food waste,
(EPA's Open Burning Test Facility (OBTF))The facility was a
textile/leather, wood, glass/ceramics, metal… etc.). The initial The U.S. EPA’s Open Burning Test
~20m3 (3.35m (L) × 2.72 m (W) × 2.21 m (H)) burn hut , with a 0.208
mass ranged from 6.4 kg to 13.6 kg per test, and the amount O2, CO2, CO and total Facility (OBTF) yielded emissions from
m3 steel burn barrel placed on a balance in the center. The barrel was
actually burned varied from 46.6% to 68.1%. hydrocarbons (THCs), HCl, burning of U.S. household waste (Gullett
sandblasted prior to use to remove any potential contaminants that
Before each test, the material to be combusted was placed PM2.5, polychlorinated et al., 2001; Lemieux, 1997), forest fuels
would bias emission measurements. High-volume air handlers
in the barrel; air flow through the facility was initiated; the dibenzo-p-dioxins and (Gullett and Touati, 2003; Hays et al.,
provided metered dilution air into the burn hut yielding approximately
material to be combusted was then ignited for a short period polychlorinated 2002) and crop residues (Dhammapala et
2.46 air exchanges per minute. Additional fans were set up inside the
(< 3min) using a propane torch. Sampling was initiated at least dibenzofurans al., 2006; Dhammapala et al., 2007;
burn hut to enhance mixing within the hut. There were thermocouples
2min after removal of the propane flame, terminated when the (PCDDs/PCDFs) Gullett et al., 2006; Hays et al., 2005;
to measure temperature of sample duct, fuel, inlet air, flame, etc.
burn mass did not change over an extended period. The Kleeman et al., 2008).
Ambient air samplers were positioned inside the interior of the
sampling duration for each test ranged from 62min to 91min.
facility, and samples for the continuous emission monitors (CEMs)
were collected from the sampling duct located on the wall with its
inlet erected over the barrel.
Table S-1, Continued
Location &Specifications Fuel, Fire Ignition and Maintenance Parameters Measured Applications
5
(Simulation Fire Test (SIFT) chamber). The chamber
had a dimension of 4×3×2m3 sizes and having 0.2 μm Garden biomasses collected from Delhi, India, namely grass, leaves, twigs
high-efficiency particulate arrester (HEPA) filter bank at the and mixtures of these three. The biomasses were air-dried. 15~100g biomass
3 -1
inlet side. At the other end, induced draft (ID, 1m s ) had was burned per test.
Gaseous products such as NOx,
been provided to evacuate the chamber before the start of each The chamber was completely evacuated before the start-up of the
CO, HC and CO2; particulate
experiment. Before the ID, a pack of pre-filter had been experiment to remove residual aerosol and gases of the previous experiment. /
emission and particle size
provided. In the centre of the chamber was a pan of an Initially 2ml of methylated sprit was burnt, which was used to initiate fire of
distribution
electronic balance, where the biomass burned. Particulate and biomasses during various experiments. The combustion was generally
gaseous samples were collected from the roof of the chamber, completed in 6-10min. After homogenisation, air samples were collected or
2m from the burning source. monitored. The duration of sampling is 5min.

6
Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
A 60cm×60cm tiltable metal plate attached to a balance
was placed under a static ventilation inverted funnel, which
Dried European conifer species, savanna grass, African hardwood, and
was connected to a chimney leading to a 32.6 m3 container.
German and Indonesian peat. water-soluble organic carbon
Two fans located at the side of the container leaded the
All biomass fuels were weighed prior to and during the experiment. The (WSOC), water-insoluble organic
emission continuously to the container during the experiment,
biomass fuels were ignited using a butane burner. The biomass fuel was carbon (WISOC), OC,EC, inorganic
where the smoke was diluted with the ambient air with an
combusted continuously for approximately one hour to maintain fresh smoke in ions, n-alkanes, n-alkenes, PAHs,
average flow rate of 3.8 m3/min. Online gaseous (e.g., CO,
the container. The smoke was sampled continuously for approximately 50 to 60 oxy-PAHs, lignin decomposition /
CO2, NO) measurements were taken from a chimney above
min during the course of stable combustion. Then the chimney connecting the products, nitrophenols, resin acids,
the funnel. The aerosol samples were drawn to a dilution
fireplace to the dilution container was switched from a bypass position to the and cellulose and hemicellulose
tunnel (which was connected to particle sampling devices)
sampling position to fill the container volume with emissions from combustion. decomposition products. CO, CO2,
with a flow rate of 11.5 L/min using a stainless steel tube
A small piece of biomass fuel of known mass was added to the fireplace NO
(~1.5m length and 25 mm internal diameter). The residence
regularly in order to keep the fire from extinguishing.
time of the gas and particle mixture in the sampling system
was kept to a maximum of 9 min to minimize particle
modification in the sampling system.
Table S-1, Continued
Location &Specifications
7
The Fire Sciences Laboratory (FSL) of the US
Forest Service in Missoula, Montana
The main combustion chamber was a square
room with internal dimensions 12.4 m (L) × 12.4
m (W) × 19.6 m (H) and a total volume of ~3000
m3. An exhaust stack, with an inverted funnel at
the bottom narrowed from a 3.6 m diameter
opening to the1.6 m stack diameter, located at the
center of the room began 2.1 m above the floor
and extended through the chamber ceiling. A
46cm×61cm horizontal metal tray, namely fuel
bed, positioned on a balance and located directly
beneath the inverted funnel. Sampling ports that
originated near the center of the stack flow and
passed through the walls of the exhaust stack were
located ~16.5 m above the floor, and were
accessed from a measurement platform (where
temperature, pressure, trace gases, particulate
measurements were deployed) near the ceiling.
Fuel, Fire Ignition and Maintenance Parameters Measured
33 different plant species, included the chaparral
species chamise, manzanita, and ceanothus, and species
common to the southeastern United States (common reed,
hickory, kudzu, needlegrass rush, rhododendron, cord
grass, sawgrass, titi, and wax myrtle). Fuel that were too
moist to burn were dried at 35~40 °C for 48-72h. Initial
fuel masses ranged from 25 g to 2500 g depending on the
objective of the experiment and desired emission
concentrations; most were between 100 g and 250 g. gas-phase
Fuels were stacked horizontally on the fuel bed to CO, CH4,
facilitate ignition, except for two large fuel mass burns hydrocarbons,
(2500 g) when fuels were stacked in a cylindrical wire SO2, NO, NO2, HNO3,
cage. Several methods were used to ignite the fuel. Dry and particle-phase
fuels were ignited using a butane pilot lighter applied organic carbon (OC),
briefly to the edge of the fuel bed. Fuels with high fuel elemental carbon (EC),
2- - -
moistures required the application of a propane torch or SO4 , NO3 , Cl , Na ,
+ +
heated metal coils for a significant period of time, in some K , and NH4
cases continuously, to maintain the fire. Both ignition
methods often resulted in a propagating flame front that
moved through the fuel bed and simultaneous flaming and
smoldering combustion in different parts of the fuel bed.
There were also fuels placed on a lattice of heating tape
that was soaked with 15g of ethanol, which was vaporized
and ignited on heating, uniformly igniting the fuel bed.
Applications
The Forest Service Fire Science Laboratory (FSL) used a large
combustion chamber (a total volume of ~3000 m3) with wildland
fuels to study emission factors/ratios, source profiles and organic
markers (Bertschi et al., 2003; Burling et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2007;
Chen et al., 2006; Christian et al., 2003; Freeborn et al., 2008; Friedli
et al., 2003; Goode et al., 1999; Griffith et al., 1991; Lee et al., 2010;
Levin et al., 2010; Mazzoleni et al., 2007; McMeeking et al., 2009;
Obrist et al., 2007; Sullivan et al., 2008; Warneke et al., 2011;
CO2, Yokelson et al., 2011; Yokelson et al., 2008; Yokelson et al., 1996);
C2–4 different emission characteristics during the flaming and smoldering
NH3, phases (Lee et al., 2010; McMeeking et al., 2009; Yokelson et al.,
1997); the size, morphology and microstructure of particles
(Chakrabarty et al., 2006); aerosol hygroscopicity, cloud
condensation nuclei (CCN) and ice nuclei (IN) activity (Carrico et al.,
2010; DeMott et al., 2009; Petters et al., 2009a; Petters et al., 2009b);
+
and optical properties of smoke particles (Lewis et al., 2009; Lewis et
al., 2008; Mack et al., 2010). Recently, Stockwell et al. (2014) used
open-path Fourier transform infrared (OP-FTIR) spectroscopy system
and other instruments to measure trace gases, including CO2, CO,
CH4, ethyne (C2H2), propylene (C3H6), formaldehyde (HCHO),
formic acid (HCOOH), methanol (CH3OH), acetic acid (CH3COOH),
glycolaldehyde (C2H4O2), furan (C4H4O), water (H2O), nitric oxide
(NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitrous acid (HONO), NH3, hydrogen
cyanide (HCN), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and SO2 (Stockwell et al.,
2014).
Table S-1, Continued
Location & Specifications Fuel, Fire Ignition and Maintenance Parameters Measured Applications
8
Desert Research Institute Division of Atmospheric
Sciences, USA
CO, CO2, H2O, aerosol
The flow dilution is controlled through an The fire is either ignited with a propane torch or using a heated coil. Once the fuel is lit,
particle number and size
adjustable speed exhaust fan. By changing the speed it is allowed to burn until the fire stops. Ponderosa pine needles – 50 grams – dry (8.2%
distributions, NO, NO2,
of the fan, the amount of room air sucked into the moisture content), Cheat grass – 40 grams – dry (6.7% moisture content), Alaskan peat– 22
NOx, aerosol light /
chamber is controlled, thus the dilution rate. At grams at 25% and 20 grams 50% moisture content), Siberian peat – 23 grams (25% and 50%
absorption, and black carbon
maximum flow rate, 1 m3 per min air is pulled into moisture content), and Florida swamp peat– 25 grams (25% moisture content) were burned.
concentrations are measured
the chamber that is 8 m3 in volume. At this flow
continuously.
rate, the smoke temperature is immediately cooled
to room temperature.
9
Fudan University, China
The experimental system consisted of a
custom-made combustion stove (60 cm in diameter Three major agricultural crop residues in China: rice, wheat, and corn straws. The rice
80cm in height) and a stainless-steel environmental straw was collected from a rural field in the suburbs of Shanghai, and the wheat and corn This burning facility was
3
aerosol chamber of 4.5m , equipped with a set of straw were from a rural region in Hebei province, China. About 20g of straw was burned for used to determine particle
analytical instruments. The top of the stove was each experiment. size distribution and
connected to the aerosol chamber through a stainless Agricultural crop straw was weighed before and after each burning, and the unburned polycyclic aromatic
NOx (NO and NO2), CO,
steel tube (diameter16mm). Air was introduced into fraction and ash were collected for weighing. Before each burning, the chamber was purged hydrocarbons (PAHs)
CO2, particulate number
the combustion stove through a port on the bottom. by scrubbing and blowing air and then vacuumed to below 100 Pa. The agricultural crop emissions from the burning of
concentrations
A hygroclip monitor was used to measure the straw was ignited with a propane torch in the stove. Then, the smoke produced was rice, wheat, and corn straws,
temperature and relative humidity (RH) inside the introduced into the chamber immediately by turning on the controlling valve until the three major agricultural crop
chamber. A mixing fan was installed at the bottom pressure between the inside and the outside was equal. In the experimental processes, residues in China (Zhang et
of the chamber to give the air in the chamber full ambient air was introduced into the chamber through an activated charcoal filter and a filter, al., 2011).
mixture. This system was able to control to maintain the pressure equilibrium in the chamber.
temperature from 203K to 373K and pressure from
14Pa to 0.22MPa.
Table S-1, Continued
Location &Specifications Fuel, Fire Ignition and Maintenance Parameters Measured Applications
Rice straw, maize residue and forest leaf litter (average moisture content was 9.32%,
6.51% and 12.20%, respectively) were collected from Chiang Mai Province, Thailand. 10g
10
Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, sample was used in the burning of maize residue and leaf litter, 20g was used in rice straw
Thailand burning.
A stainless steel burning facility consists of a Before the burning, air inside the storage chamber was pumped out to reach a near vacuum
burning chamber (0.50m in diameter, 1.20m in condition. A biomass sample was put into a basket inside the burning chamber. Liquefied CO, NO, NO2, SO2. PM10,
height) equipped with a burning basket and a petroleum gas was used for ignition. The burning of each fuel type took about 1 min and the and ions in PM10 (HCOO-, Cl-,
/
temperature sensor, and a storage chamber temperature of the burning was between 500 and 800°C. After the fuel was burned out, a valve NO3-, PO43-,SO42-, Na+, NH4+,
(0.85m in diameter, 2.0m in height) equipped set up between the burning chamber and the storage chamber was opened. The pollutants K+, Ca2+, Mg2+)
with a Minivol Portable Air Sampler (Airmetrics, emitted from the burning were drawn into the storage chamber. Concentrations of gases
USA), gas analyzer (350-XL, Testo, Germany) including CO, NO, NO2 and SO2 were continuously measured for approximately 5 min using a
and vacuum pump (FY-1.5B, Mizu, Thailand). gas analyzer. After that, the air inside the storage chamber was drawn out using an air sampler
at a flow rate of 5 L min-1 and the PM10 were collected on a pure quartz fiber filter (47 mm,
Whatman, UK) for 5 h.
11
Peking University, China
A stainless steel hood with skirt was erected
over a combustion pan (dimensions 1.5×1.5m2)
which was placed on an electronic balance.
CO2, CO, non-methane
Smoke emitted was collected by the hood before
Air-dried rice straw and sugarcane leaves collected from cultivated land in Pearl River hydrocarbons (NMHCs),
going through a custom-made dilution tunnel and
Delta (PRD) region, China. 300~994g biomass were burned for each test. oxygenated volatile organic /
residence chamber. A S-type pitot tube and a
The biomass was stacked horizontally on a burning pan. compounds (OVOCs), PM10,
temperature senor was equipped in the dilution
PM2.5, OC and EC in PM2.5
tunnel. The residence chamber had a volume of
50L, which needed about 30s for air flow to pass
prior to particle sampling. Temperature in the
residence chamber was not higher than 40°C.
 Location &Specifications Fuel, Fire Ignition and Maintenance Parameters Measured Applications
12
Institute of Agro-Environmental & Forest Biology (IBAF), National
Research Council (CNR), Italy
Dried leaf litter of Quercus robur collected from
The stainless steel chamber had a size of 106cm (L) × 80cm (W) × 50cm
Mediterranean forest areas (~50g for each test).
(H) with an exhaust chimney in 10 cm diameter. A 16cm×16cm stainless steel
The biomass was placed on the burning basket, and the
burning basket covered by a grid placed on a high resolution balance was
epiradiometer was placed just above the fuel at a distance of 1cm
equipped with to burn biomass. An adjustable electrical fan was placed at the CO, CO2, VOCs, PM. /
for ignition. The fan speed was regulated to maintain a constant
bottom of the chamber to deliver air to the chamber. The chamber was also
air flow of 0.7 m/s inside the chimney to provide a good
equipped with a data logger to store the air flow rate measured by an
circulation of air within the chamber ensuring a good supply of
anemometer, a thermocouple to record temperature of the fuel bed and exit
oxygen.
stack gas during the combustion, an epiradiometer placed just over fuel bed
and two different sampling lines.
Detailed description please refer to: 1. (Darley et al., 1966); 2. (Lobert et al., 1990); 3. (Soares Neto et al., 2011); 4. (Lemieux et al., 2000); 5. (Kamalak Kannan et al., 2004); 6. (Iinuma et al., 2007); 7.
(McMeeking et al., 2009); 8. Personal communication; 9. (Zhang et al., 2008); 10. (Sillapapiromsuk et al., 2013); 11. (Zhang et al., 2013); 12. (Lusini et al., 2014).
Table S-2. Parameters used to estimate EFs taking one wheat straw combustion test
as an example.
CO2b COb PM2.5c OCc ECc
tsample (s) 450 450 450 450 450
a -3
∑CDil,i (mg m ) 357713 13969 / / /
mfilter (mg) / / 0.124 0.031 0.010
3
Qfilter (m ) / / 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375
DR 5 5 5 5 5
-1
VStk (m s ) 3.86 3.86 3.86 3.86 3.86
2
D (m ) 0.0177 0.0177 0.0177 0.0177 0.0177
mfuel (g) 85.37 85.37 85.37 85.37 85.37
EF(g/kg) 1431 55.90 5.95 1.49 0.48
a. ∑CDil,i is an integral value during the whole sampling from t=1 to t=tsample;
b. EF was calculated by Equation (1) in the text;
c. EF was calculated by Equation (2) in the text.
References:
Bertschi, I., Yokelson, R.J., Ward, D.E., Babbitt, R.E., Susott, R.A., Goode, J.G. and

Hao, W.M. (2003). Trace Gas and Particle Emissions from Fires in Large Diameter

and Belowground Biomass Fuels. J. Geophys. Res-Atmos. 108 (D13): 8472, doi:

10.1029/2002JD002100.

Boubel, R.W., Darley, E.F. and Schuck, E.A. (1969). Emissions from Burning Grass

Stubble and Straw. J. Air. Pollut. Contr. Assoc. 19: 497-500.

Burling, I., Yokelson, R.J., Griffith, D.W., Johnson, T.J., Veres, P., Roberts, J.,

Warneke, C., Urbanski, S., Reardon, J. and Weise, D. (2010). Laboratory

Measurements of Trace Gas Emissions from Biomass Burning of Fuel Types from

the Southeastern and Southwestern United States. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10:

11115-11130.

Carrico, C., Petters, M., Kreidenweis, S., Sullivan, A., McMeeking, G., Levin, E.,

Engling, G., Malm, W. and Collett Jr, J. (2010). Water Uptake and Chemical

Composition of Fresh Aerosols Generated in Open Burning of Biomass. Atmos.

Chem. Phys. 10: 5165-5178.

Chakrabarty, R.K., Moosmüller, H., Garro, M.A., Arnott, W.P., Walker, J., Susott,

R.A., Babbitt, R.E., Wold, C.E., Lincoln, E.N. and Hao, W.M. (2006). Emissions

from the Laboratory Combustion of Wildland Fuels: Particle Morphology and Size.

J. Geophys. Res-Atmos. 111: D07204, doi: 10.1029/2005JD006659.

Chen, L.W.A., Moosmüller, H., Arnott, W.P., Chow, J.C., Watson, J.G., Susott, R.A.,

Babbitt, R.E., Wold, C.E., Lincoln, E.N. and Hao, W.M. (2007). Emissions from
 Laboratory Combustion of Wildland Fuels: Emission Factors and Source Profiles.

Environ. Sci. Technol. 41: 4317-4325.

Chen, L.W.A., Moosmüller, H., Arnott, W.P., Chow, J.C., Watson, J.G., Susott, R.A.,

Babbitt, R.E., Wold, C.E., Lincoln, E.N. and Hao, W.M. (2006). Particle Emissions

from Laboratory Combustion of Wildland Fuels: In Situ Optical and Mass

Measurements. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33: L04803, doi: 10.1029/2005GL024838.

Christian, T.J., Kleiss, B., R. J, Y., R, H., Crutzen, P.J., W. M, H., H.Saharjo, B. and

Ward, D.E. (2003). Comprehensive Labortory Measurements of Biomass-Burning

Emissions: 1. Emissions from Indonesian, African, and Other Fuels. J. Geophys.

Res. 108 (D23): 4719, doi: 10.1029/2003JD003704.

Darley, E.F. (1977). Emission Factors from Burning Agricultural Wastes Collected in

California. State Air Pollution Research Center, University of California, Riverside.

Darley, E.F., Burleson, F., Mateer, E., Middleton, J.T. and Osterli, V. (1966).

Contribution of Burning of Agricultural Wastes to Photochemical Air Pollution. J.

Air. Pollut. Contr. Assoc. 16: 685-690.

DeMott, P.J., Petters, M.D., Prenni, A.J., Carrico, C.M., Kreidenweis, S.M., Collett,

J.L. and Moosmüller, H. (2009). Ice Nucleation Behavior of Biomass Combustion

Particles at Cirrus Temperatures. J. Geophys. Res-Atmos. 114: D16205, doi:

10.1029/2009JD012036.

Dhammapala, R., Claiborn, C., Corkill, J. and Gullett, B. (2006). Particulate

Emissions from Wheat and Kentucky Bluegrass Stubble Burning in Eastern

Washington and Northern Idaho. Atmos. Environ. 40: 1007-1015.

Dhammapala, R., Claiborn, C., Jimenez, J., Corkill, J., Gullett, B., Simpson, C. and

Paulsen, M. (2007). Emission Factors of PAHs, Methoxyphenols, Levoglucosan,

Elemental Carbon and Organic Carbon from Simulated Wheat and Kentucky

Bluegrass Stubble Burns. Atmos. Environ. 41: 2660-2669.

Freeborn, P.H., Wooster, M.J., Hao, W.M., Ryan, C.A., Nordgren, B.L., Baker, S.P.

and Ichoku, C. (2008). Relationships Between Energy Release, Fuel Mass Loss,

and Trace Gas and Aerosol Emissions during Laboratory Biomass Fires. J.

Geophys. Res-Atmos. 113: D01301, doi: 10.1029/2007JD008679.

Friedli, H.R., Radke, L.F., Lu, J.Y., Banic, C.M., Leaitch, W.R. and MacPherson, J.I.

(2003). Mercury Emissions from Burning of Biomass from Temperate North

American forests: Laboratory and Airborne Measurements. Atmos. Environ. 37:

253-267.

Gerstle, R. and Kemnitz, D. (1967). Atmospheric Emissions from Open Burning. J.

Air. Pollut. Contr. Assoc. 17: 324-327.

Goode, J.G., Yokelson, R.J., Susott, R.A. and Ward, D.E. (1999). Trace Gas

Emissions from Laboratory Biomass Fires Measured by Open‐Path Fourier

Transform Infrared Spectroscopy: Fires in Grass and Surface Fuels. J. Geophys.

Res-Atmos. 104: 21237-21245.

Griffith, D.W.T., Mankin, W.G., Coffey, M.T., Ward, D.E. and Riebau, A. (1991).

FTIR Remote Sensing of Biomass Burning Emissions of CO2, CO, CH4, CH2O,

NO, NO2, NH3, and N2O. Global Biomass Burning: Atmospheric, Climatic, and
 Biospheric Implications, Levine, J.S. (Eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. p.

230-241.

Gullett, B.K., Lemieux, P.M., Lutes, C.C., Winterrowd, C.K. and Winters, D.L.

(2001). Emissions of PCDD/F from Uncontrolled, Domestic Waste Burning.

Chemosphere. 43: 721-725.

Gullett, B.K. and Touati, A. (2003). PCDD/F Emissions from Forest Fire Simulations.

Atmos. Environ. 37: 803-813.

Gullett, B.K., Touati, A., Huwe, J. and Hakk, H. (2006). PCDD and PCDF Emissions

from Simulated Sugarcane Field Burning. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40: 6228-6234.

Hao, W.M., Scharffe, D., Lobert, J. and Grutzen, P. (1991). Emissions of N2O from

the Burning of Biomass in an Experimental System. Geophys. Res. Lett. 18:

999-1002.

Hays, M.D., Fine, P.M., Geron, C.D., Kleeman, M.J. and Gullett, B.K. (2005). Open

Burning of Agricultural Biomass: Physical and Chemical Properties of

Particle-Phase Emissions. Atmos. Environ. 39: 6747-6764.

Hays, M.D., Geron, C.D., Linna, K.J., Smith, N.D. and Schauer, J.J. (2002).

Speciation of Gas-Phase and Fine Particle Emissions from Burning of Foliar Fuels.

Environ. Sci. Technol. 36: 2281-2295.

Holzinger, R., Warneke, C., Hansel, A., Jordan, A., Lindinger, W., Scharffe, D.H.,

Schade, G. and Crutzen, P.J. (1999). Biomass Burning as a Source of

Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde, Methanol, Acetone, Acetonitrile, and Hydrogen

Cyanide. Geophys. Res. Lett. 26: 1161-1164.

Iinuma, Y., Brüggemann, E., Gnauk, T., Müller, K., Andreae, M., Helas, G., Parmar,

R. and Herrmann, H. (2007). Source Characterization of Biomass Burning Particles:

The Combustion of Selected European Conifers, African Hardwood, Savanna

Grass, and German and Indonesian Peat. J. Geophys. Res-Atmos. 112: D08209, doi:

10.1029/2006JD007120.

Kamalak Kannan, G., Gupta, M. and Chandra Kapoor, J. (2004). Estimation of

Gaseous Products and Particulate Matter Emission from Garden Biomass

Combustion in a Simulation Fire Test Chamber. Atmos. Environ. 38: 6701-6710.

Keene, W.C., Lobert, J.M., Crutzen, P.J., Maben, J.R., Scharffe, D.H., Landmann, T.,

Hély, C. and Brain, C. (2006). Emissions of Major Gaseous and Particulate Species

during Experimental Burns of Southern African Biomass. J. Geophys. Res-Atmos.

111: D04301, doi: 10.1029/2005JD006319.

Kleeman, M.J., Robert, M.A., Riddle, S.G., Fine, P.M., Hays, M.D., Schauer, J.J. and

Hannigan, M.P. (2008). Size Distribution of Trace Organic Species Emitted from

Biomass Combustion and Meat Charbroiling. Atmos. Environ. 42: 3059-3075.

Lee, T., Sullivan, A.P., Mack, L., Jimenez, J.L., Kreidenweis, S.M., Onasch, T.B.,

Worsnop, D.R., Malm, W., Wold, C.E. and Hao, W.M. (2010). Chemical Smoke

Marker Emissions during Flaming and Smoldering Phases of Laboratory Open

Burning of Wildland Fuels. Aerosol. Sci. Tech. 44: 1-5.

Lemieux, P.M. (1997). Evaluation of Emissions from the Open Burning of Household

Waste in Barrels. EPA, EPA-600/R-97-134a.

Lemieux, P.M., Lutes, C.C., Abbott, J.A. and Aldous, K.M. (2000). Emissions of

Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans from the

Open Burning of Household Waste in Barrels. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34: 377-384.

Levin, E., McMeeking, G., Carrico, C., Mack, L., Kreidenweis, S., Wold, C.,

Moosmüller, H., Arnott, W., Hao, W. and Collett, J. (2010). Biomass Burning

Smoke Aerosol Properties Measured during Fire Laboratory at Missoula

Experiments (FLAME). J. Geophys. Res-Atmos. 115: D18210, doi:

10.1029/2009JD013601.

Lewis, K., Arnott, W., Moosmüller, H., Chakrabarty, R., Carrico, C., Kreidenweis, S.,

Day, D., Malm, W., Laskin, A. and Jimenez, J. (2009). Reduction in Biomass

Burning Aerosol Light Absorption upon Humidification: Roles of

Inorganically-Induced Hygroscopicity, Particle Collapse, and Photoacoustic Heat

and Mass Transfer. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 9: 8949-8966.

Lewis, K., Arnott, W.P., Moosmüller, H. and Wold, C.E. (2008). Strong Spectral

Variation of Biomass Smoke Light Absorption and Single Scattering Albedo

Observed with a Novel Dual‐Wavelength Photoacoustic Instrument. J. Geophys.

Res-Atmos. 113: D16203, doi: 10.1029/2007JD009699.

Lobert, J., Davis, M., Crowcier, C. and Richardson Jr, J. (1990). Importance of

Biomass Burning in the Atmospheric Budgets of Nitrogen-Containing Gases.

Nature. 346: 552-554.

Lobert, J., Scharffe, D. and Hao, W.M. (1991). Experimental Evaluation of Biomass

Burning Emissions-Nitrogen and Carbon Containing Compounds. Global Biomass

 Burning-Atmospheric, Climatic, and Biospheric Implications, Levine, J.S. (Eds.),

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. p. 289-304.

Lusini, I., Pallozzi, E., Corona, P., Ciccioli, P. and Calfapietra, C. (2014). Novel

Application of a Combustion Chamber for Experimental Assessment of Biomass

Burning Emission. Atmos. Environ. 94: 117-125.

Mack, L., Levin, E., Kreidenweis, S., Obrist, D., Moosmüller, H., Lewis, K., Arnott,

W., McMeeking, G., Sullivan, A. and Wold, C. (2010). Optical Closure

Experiments for Biomass Smoke Aerosols. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10: 9017-9026.

Mazzoleni, L.R., Zielinska, B. and Moosmüller, H. (2007). Emissions of

Levoglucosan, Methoxy Phenols, and Organic Acids from Prescribed Burns,

Laboratory Combustion of Wildland Fuels, and Residential Wood Combustion.

Environ. Sci. Technol. 41: 2115-2122.

McMeeking, G.R., Kreidenweis, S.M., Baker, S., Carrico, C.M., Chow, J.C., Collett,

J.L., Hao, W.M., Holden, A.S., Kirchstetter, T.W., Malm, W.C., Moosmüller, H.,

Sullivan, A.P. and Wold, C.E. (2009). Emissions of Trace Gases and Aerosols

during the Open Combustion of Biomass in the Laboratory. J. Geophys. Res. 114:

D19210, doi: 10.1029/2009JD011836.

Obrist, D., Moosmüller, H., Schürmann, R., Chen, L.-W.A. and Kreidenweis, S.M.

(2007). Particulate-Phase and Gaseous Elemental Mercury Emissions during

Biomass Combustion: Controlling Factors and Correlation with Particulate Matter

Emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42: 721-727.

Petters, M.D., Carrico, C.M., Kreidenweis, S.M., Prenni, A.J., DeMott, P.J., Collett,

J.L. and Moosmueller, H. (2009a). Cloud Condensation Nucleation Activity of

Biomass Burning Aerosol. J. Geophys. Res-Atmos. 114: D22205, doi:

10.1029/2009JD012353.

Petters, M.D., Parsons, M.T., Prenni, A.J., DeMott, P.J., Kreidenweis, S.M., Carrico,

C.M., Sullivan, A.P., McMeeking, G.R., Levin, E. and Wold, C.E. (2009b). Ice

Nuclei Emissions from Biomass Burning. J. Geophys. Res-Atmos. 114: D07209,

doi: 10.1029/2008JD011532.

Sillapapiromsuk, S., Chantara, S., Tengjaroenkul, U., Prasitwattanaseree, S. and

Prapamontol, T. (2013). Determination of PM10 and Its Ion Composition Emitted

from Biomass Burning in the Chamber for Estimation of Open Burning Emissions.

Chemosphere. 93: 1912-1919.

Soares Neto, T., Carvalho Jr, J., Cortez, E., Azevedo, R., Oliveira, R., Fidalgo, W.

and Santos, J. (2011). Laboratory Evaluation of Amazon Forest Biomass Burning

Emissions. Atmos. Environ. 45: 7455-7461.

Stockwell, C.E., Yokelson, R.J., Kreidenweis, S.M., Robinson, A.L., DeMott, P.J.,

Sullivan, R.C., Reardon, J., Ryan, K.C., Griffith, D.W.T. and Stevens, L. (2014).

Trace Gas Emissions from Combustion of Peat, Crop Residue, Domestic Biofuels,

Grasses, and other Fuels: Configuration and Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)

Component of the Fourth Fire Lab at Missoula Experiment (FLAME-4). Atmos.

Chem. Phys. 14: 9727-9754.

Sullivan, A., Holden, A., Patterson, L., McMeeking, G., Kreidenweis, S., Malm, W.,

Hao, W., Wold, C. and Collett, J. (2008). A Method for Smoke Marker

Measurements and Its Potential Application for Determining the Contribution of

Biomass Burning from Wildfires and Prescribed Fires to Ambient PM2.5 Organic

Carbon. J. Geophys. Res-Atmos. 113: D22302, doi: 10.1029/2008JD010216.

Warneke, C., Roberts, J.M., Veres, P., Gilman, J., Kuster, W.C., Burling, I., Yokelson,

R. and de Gouw, J.A. (2011). VOC Identification and Inter-Comparison from

Laboratory Biomass Burning Using PTR-MS and PIT-MS. Int. J. Mass. Spectrom.

303: 6-14.

Yokelson, R.J., Burling, I., Urbanski, S., Atlas, E., Adachi, K., Buseck, P.,

Wiedinmyer, C., Akagi, S., Toohey, D. and Wold, C. (2011). Trace Gas and

Particle Emissions from Open Biomass Burning in Mexico. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11:

6787-6808.

Yokelson, R.J., Christian, T.J., Karl, T. and Guenther, A. (2008). The Tropical Forest

and Fire Emissions Experiment: Laboratory Fire Measurements and Synthesis of

Campaign Data. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 8: 3509-3527.

Yokelson, R.J., Griffith, D.W. and Ward, D.E. (1996). Open‐Path Fourier Transform

Infrared Studies of Large‐Scale Laboratory Biomass Fires. J. Geophys. Res-Atmos.

101: 21067-21080.

Yokelson, R.J., Susott, R., Ward, D.E., Reardon, J. and Griffith, D.W. (1997).

Emissions from Smoldering Combustion of Biomass Measured by Open‐Path

 Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy. J. Geophys. Res-Atmos. 102:

18865-18877.

Zhang, H., Hu, D., Chen, J., Ye, X., Wang, S.X., Hao, J.M., Wang, L., Zhang, R. and

An, Z. (2011). Particle Size Distribution and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Emissions from Agricultural Crop Residue Burning. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45:

5477-5482.

Zhang, H., Ye, X., Cheng, T., Chen, J., Yang, X., Wang, L. and Zhang, R. (2008). A

Laboratory Study of Agricultural Crop Residue Combustion in China: Emission

Factors and Emission Inventory. Atmos. Environ. 42: 8432-8441.

Zhang, Y., Shao, M., Lin, Y., Luan, S., Mao, N., Chen, W. and Wang, M. (2013).

Emission Inventory of Carbonaceous Pollutants from Biomass Burning in the Pearl

River Delta Region, China. Atmos. Environ. 76: 189-199.