null  null
Emissions from burning
plastics in domestic
fireplaces, household
stoves and boilers with
special focus on
persistent organic
pollutants
Alan Watson
May 2012
Emissions from burning plastics in domestic fireplaces, household stoves and
boilers with special focus on persistent organic pollutants
–
A literature review
DRAFT
Prepared for Arnika
by
Alan Watson C.Eng
Public Interest Consultants,
Uplands Court, Eaton Crescent, Swansea SA1 4QR
May 2012
1
“This publication has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union and co-financed by
the Czech Development Agency and Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs within the Programme of Czech
Development Cooperation, and Global Greengrants Fund. Its content is sole responsibility of Arnika
Association and Center of Environmental Solutions and can under no circumstances be regarded as
reflecting the position of the European Union and/or other co-sponsors. “
The European Commission is the EU’s executive body.
“The European Union is made up of 27 Member States who have decided to gradually link together their know-how, resources and destinies. Together, during a period of
enlargement of 50 years, they have built a zone of stability, democracy and sustainable development whilst maintaining cultural diversity, tolerance and individual freedoms.
The European Union is committed to sharing its achievements and its values with countries and peoples beyond its borders”.
2
Contents:
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................4
Combustion Equipment and Fuels: ....................................................................................................................7
Inventories and Emission Factors ......................................................................................................................9
Published Guidance .........................................................................................................................................21
Plastics, chlorine and the possible causes of elevated emissions of POPs......................................................24
Mixed Plastic- Is it better to Recyle or Incinerate? ..........................................................................................26
Coal Combustion ..............................................................................................................................................27
Emissions and Emission Factors .......................................................................................................................30
Particulate Emissions .......................................................................................................................................31
PAH Emissions ..................................................................................................................................................32
Ash Disposal .....................................................................................................................................................35
Bans on Waste Burning, New Equipment, Good Combustion Control and Minimising Emissions .................36
Biomass Reference List ....................................................................................................................................38
ANNEX 1 ...........................................................................................................................................................44
Definitions: ...................................................................................................................................................44
ANNEX 2 ...........................................................................................................................................................45
Is it better to recycle or incinerate mixed Plastic Waste ? ..........................................................................45
ANNEX 3 ...........................................................................................................................................................48
UNECE Default Emission Factors: ................................................................................................................48
ANNEX 3 ...........................................................................................................................................................50
Compilation of emission factors from the literature (BiPRO, 2009)...........................................................50
ANNEX 4: Different domestic heating appliences types ..................................................................................64
3
Introduction
Pollution from domestic sources has become the focus of increasing research and regulatory attention in
recent years. This is mainly because major efforts towards the reduction of certain emissions to air in the
industrial sector have been successful1,2. Emissions of Persistent Organic Pollutants (‘POPs’) - most notably
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/polychlorinated dibenzofurans (“PCDD/PCDF” or, more commonly
simply “dioxins”) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s)3 have been particularly important because
of the serious health and environmental impacts.
Overall emissions of dioxins to air have decreased considerably and the European inventory, for example,
estimates that emissions of dioxin to air from legally operating waste incinerators fell from 4,000
grammes/year in 1985 to between 178 and 232 grammes/year in 20054. The consequence is that
domestic emissions to air now form a much higher proportion of the total emissions than was previously
the case.
As a result of this reduction of industrial emissions it is now commonly claimed that domestic burning of
waste has far higher emission factors than waste incineration. The European Commission, for example,
say that “One kg of waste openly burned may cause the same amount of dioxin emissions as 10 tonnes of
waste burned in a modern incineration plant”5. Reports from the Czech Republic claim that the emissions
of dioxin from domestic combustion in a single village are similar to those from large incinerators6.
These claims are rather misleading as the emission factors relate only to air emissions7 and far more
dioxins in modern incinerators partition to the ash residues than are emitted to air. These residues are
commonly landfilled in sites which are not protective of the environment8. In some countries, such as the
Czech Republic, it is common practice to use residues from incineration in construction projects 9. The
Stockholm Convention applies to emissions of POPs to all media and it is important that this is applied in
practice when discussing different technologies and abatement techniques. Failing to properly address the
At least in part – and sometimes almost entirely - by capturing the dioxins in the emissions to air in filters and thus
increasing the dioxin content of flue gas residues which are subsequently landfilled.
2 BiPRO. (2009). Information exchange on reduction of dioxin emissions from domestic sources ref:
070307/2007/481007/MAR/C4. European Commission
3 PAHs are defined as POPs under the UNECE POPs Protocol – although they are not POPs under the Stockholm
Convention. The consequence is that in Europe they are treated in a similar way to Stockholm POPs under the EU POPs
legislation (Regulation 850/2004, as amended).
4 Quass, U., Fermann, M., & Broker, G. (2004). The european dioxin air emission inventory project - final results.
Chemosphere, 54(9), 1319-1327
5 European Commission. (2009). Reduction of dioxin emissions from domestic sources. European Commission
6 Horák, J. & Hopan, F. (2009). Může jedna vesnice vyprodukovat tolik dioxinů jako velká spalovna odpadu? (In Czech - can
one village produce as much dioxins as a large waste incinerator?). Topenářství Instalace, (6), 36-38.
7 In the case of the Horák paper there also seems to be an underestimate of the emissions from incinerators when
compared with the Czech PRTR reporting.
8 Macleod, C., Duarte-Davidson, R., Fisher, B., Ng, B., Willey, D., Shi, J. P., Pollard, S. (2006). Modeling human exposures to
air pollution control (APC) residues released from landfills in England and Wales. Environment International, 32(4), 500–
509.
Macleod, C., Duarte-Davidson, R., Fisher, B., Ng, B., Willey, D., Shi, J. P., . . . Pollard, S. (2007). Erratum to "Modelling human
exposures to air pollution control (APC) residues released from landfills in England and Wales" [environment
international 32 (2006) 500-509]. Environment International, 33(8), 1123-218
Weber, R., Watson, A., Forter, M., & Oliaei, F. (2011). Review article: Persistent organic pollutants and landfills - a review of
past experiences and future challenges. Waste Management & Research, 29(1), 107-121. doi:10.1177/0734242x10390730
9 Petrlik, J. & Ryder, R. (2005). After incineration: The toxic ash problem April 2005 <http://Www.Ipen.Org,>. Prague –
Manchester: “Keep the Promise, Eliminate POPs!” Campaign and Dioxin, PCBs and Waste Working Group of the
International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN)
1
4
issue can lead to simple diversion of POPs from air to soil rather than their elimination as required by the
Convention. The practical implications are that the failure to address emissions to all media is likely to
focus solutions on emission abatement and scrubbing rather than substitution of the original pre-cursors.
There is enormous variability in the emissions of PAHs from domestic sources and the emission factors are
subject to high levels of uncertainty. There are indications, however, that in some countries with high
reliance on biomass and coal for domestic heating and cooking residential emissions might be the amongst
the largest emission sources of PAHs.
There remains a live debate about the relative importance of emissions of POPs from domestic sources but
whether they are the largest source or not. The available evidence certainly indicates that waste
combustion in domestic conditions can be a significant generator of dioxins and, particularly, of PAHs.
These emissions should therefore be reduced and eliminated where possible – not least because the WHOrecommended maximum intake level for dioxins is still exceeded by up to 50% of the population 10.
Furthermore smoke from the use of coal, wood, biomass for domestic cooking and heating has been
associated with a variety of health outcomes including lung cancer 11. Around 3 billion people are exposed
to smoke from domestic combustion worldwide and whilst most of the impacts are likely to be related to
combustion in more primitive conditions than in most of Europe the annual global health burden of indoor
air pollution from solid-fuel use, is estimated to be 2 million deaths and > 33 million disability-adjusted life
years12.
According to the European Commission domestic sources with potential for high emissions of dioxins
include13:
•
•
•
Heating and cooking with coal, wood or other biomass such as peat and straw in simple ovens
Domestic combustion of waste or treated wood
Backyard waste burning of waste
The report is one component of projects aimed at reducing emissions from these sources in the Czech
Republic and other Central and East European Countries with particular emphasis on domestic combustion
in fireplaces, stoves and boilers and where waste is burned with coal or biomass14. The literature review is
therefore based on publications relevant to European countries where such data has been published. In
some cases studies carried out in comparable conditions in other parts of the world have been used to
supplement these.
It became clear at an early stage in this review that in comparison to emissions of POPs from municipal
waste combustion, literature reports on emissions from small-scale biofuel and other domestic heating
sources are scarce15. The review by BiPRO for the European Commission16 reported 90 studies relating to
the (then) current state of knowledge on dioxin releases from domestic sources. Only a small number of
these were relevant to the specific concerns relating to the co-combustion of plastics or waste in domestic
European Commission. (2009). Reduction of dioxin emissions from domestic sources. European Commission
Hosgood, H. D. ,. I., Boffetta, P., Greenland, S., Lee, Y. -C. A., McLaughlin, J., Seow, A., et al. (2010). In-Home coal and wood
use and lung cancer risk: A pooled analysis of the international lung cancer consortium. Environ Health Perspect, 118(12)
12 WHO (2009). Global health risks : Mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization
13 European Commission. (2009). Reduction of dioxin emissions from domestic sources. European Commission
14 Mainly wood but whilst peat burning is unusual in much of the CEE region it is still common in Belarus.
15 Hedman, B., Näslund, M., & Marklund, S. (2006). Emission of PCDD/F, PCB, and HCB from combustion of firewood and
pellets in residential stoves and boilers. Environ Sci Technol, 40(16), 4968-4975. doi:10.1021/es052418
16 BiPRO.
(2009). Information exchange on reduction of dioxin emissions from domestic sources ref:
070307/2007/481007/MAR/C4. European Commission
10
11
5
situations. This represents an important gap in the scientific literature given the apparent significance of
domestic sources in the dioxin inventories relied upon by the European Commission and other policy
makers. Ironically their consultants, BiPro, comment that “Dioxin emissions are currently not a driving
force for environmental policy in the domestic sector”.
6
Combustion Equipment and Fuels:
According to the UNECE Guidebook, the relevant types of appliances for domestic combustion can be
characterised as:
Fireplaces - usually very simple combustion chamber, with or without front door, in which fuels are
oxidised to obtain thermal energy, which is transferred to the dwelling mainly by radiation.
Stoves - simple appliance in which fuels are combusted to obtain thermal energy, which is transferred to
the interior of the building by radiation and convection
Boilers - any technical apparatus in which fuels are oxidised in order to generate thermal energy, which is
transferred to water or steam
More full definitions and descriptions are included in Annex 1.
These appliances burn mainly solid fuels including hard coal, brown coal, patent fuels, brown coal
briquettes, coke, charcoal, peat, solid biomass fuels. In the case of stoves and, especially, boilers, natural
gas or liquid fuels (kerosene, gas oil, gas/diesel oil, residual oil, residual fuel oil etc) may be used as
alternative fuels 17.
Household wastes, possibly including plastics, if burned with solid fuels may be used either continuously,
intermittently or for start-up. Co-combustion of coal and wastes is usually practiced in residential stoves
and an average of between 5 and 10 times higher emission factors according to Kubica18.
Both biomass and fossil fuel are used extensively for domestic heating, especially in developed countries
and in countries with economies in transition. Coal, light fuel oil and natural gas are the main sources of
fossil fuel used for domestic heating and fossil fuels are burned in devices ranging from “small stoker fired
furnaces” to “highly sophisticated boiler/burner systems for central heat generation in large multi unit
residential buildings” (UNEP, 2005). Coal and biomass are also burned on residential grates and stoves
which also range in sophistication from very basic to those with advanced air control and catalytic flue gas
treatment.
Combustion for domestic heating generally takes place in two types of boilers (UNEP, 2005):
Central heating systems - Coal is still commonly used as a fuel in some CEE countries but these systems
increasingly use oil or gas19 in a large furnace to heat water, which then is circulated through the building
EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory Guidebook, Version 4 (2006 Edition) Technical Report No 11/2006. Available From
Http://reports.eea.europa.eu/EMEPCORINAIR4/en/page002.html. (2006).. European Environmental Agency
18 Kubica, K., Paradiz, B., & Dilara, P. (2007). Small combustion installations: Techniques, emissions and measures for
emission reductions. Joint Research Centre Scientific and Technical Reports, EUR. It is interesting to note that the source
for this was indicated to be Grochowalski yet the cited original work, in Polish, did not appear to relate to domestic
emissions. Nonetheless Grochowalksi has published several papers attributing high levels of ambient dioxin
concentrations to residential incineration of waste in stoves burning black coal. See, for example, Grochowalski, .,
Chrz szcz, R., & Wybraniec, S. ( 995). Determination of PCDFs/PCDDs in ambient air from Cracow city, Poland.
Organohalogen Compounds , 21, 321-326
19 The Polish NIP, for example, says “combustion processes, in particular in individual furnaces, undergo gradual
modernization and treatment of exhaust gases from coal-fired boiler houses is improving, with small, high-efficiency oil- or
17
7
to release its heat in decentralised radiators20. These modern systems are typically highly efficient and
fairly clean burning leaving little to no residue for disposal.
Individual stoves - mostly burn solid fuels and mainly coal. These are located in each room of the building
or inside the wall to provide direct access to several rooms at the same time. The stoves consist of fairly
small furnaces but provide a system for air to circulate inside the stove around the furnace. These systems
are typically older, less efficient and less clean burning. Also bottom ash resulting from the inert content of
the fuel is generated and must be disposed of. Some of these systems are also capable of burning oil or gas
(UNEP, 2005).
Data on total usage of the various fuel option in the range of residential combustion appliances is generally
poor and relies heavily on unvalidated estimations.
gas-fired boiler houses being built”. This shift to oil and gas is an action point in the Czech NIP which emphasizes “Focus on
the decreasing POPs emissions conditioned especially by the increase of the natural gas proportion in the households”
20 underfloor heating is becoming more popular as an alternative to radiators
8
Inventories and Emission Factors
Inventories for emissions of dioxins are not normally derived from direct measurements but are usually
calculated based on statistical data of fuel consumption - activity rates (‘AR’) – which are then multiplied
by emission factors (EFs). Thus the total emissions of a pollutant are calculated on the basis:
where
Epollutant = the emission of the specified pollutant,
ARfuelconsumption = the activity rate for fuel consumption,
EFpollutant = the emission factor for this pollutant.
The EFs indicate the amount of dioxins released when a given amount of fuel goes through the combustion
process and the two most widely recognised sources are the UNEP Dioxin Toolkit and the Emission
Inventory Guidebooks published by the European Environment Agency for which the UNECE’s Task Force
on Emission Inventories and Projections has responsibility for the technical content of the chapters. The
latest version of the UNECE guidance was published in 200921 and uses the default emission factors
published in 2006 22 for PCDD/PCDF emissions from hard coal of 800 ng I-TEQ/GJ with a 95%ile confidence
range of 300 – 1,200 ng I-TEQ/GJ. For biomass the default emission factor was 700 ng I-TEQ/GJ with a
95%ile confidence range of 500 – 1,000 ng I-TEQ/GJ.
UNECE
Medium
Medium
Small Advanced
Pellet
Guidebook
size
size
Advanced
1A4bi
Domestic Advanced boiler manual
stove
Default EF
Fireplace
boiler
boiler automatic
Residential
Stoves
stove
(<50
boiler
<1
ng I(50kW (1 -50
boiler
kWth) <1 MW
MW
TEQ/GJ
1MW)
MW)
Coal
800
500
1000
500
500
200
400
100
40
Coal
300*
200
100
2
briquettes
300
Wood
700
800
800
(and
500
300
500
50
200
30
fireplace)
Liquid
10
NA
10
10
10
10
fuels
Gaseous
0.5
1.V
1.V
NA
2
2
fuels
EMEP/EEA
Emission
Inventory
Guidebook,
Technical
Report
No
9/2009.
Available
From
Http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009. (2009). EMEP/EEA emission
inventory guidebook, technical report no 9/2009. Available from http://Www.Eea.Europa.Eu/publications/emep-eeaemission-inventory-guidebook-2009. European Environmental Agency
22 EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory Guidebook, Version 4 (2006 Edition) Technical Report No 11/2006. Available From
Http://reports.eea.europa.eu/EMEPCORINAIR4/en/page002.html. (2006).. European Environmental Agency
21
9
Specific
default
EFs
for
different
types
of
domestic
appliances
in
the
UNECE
Guidebook
The Second Edition of the UNEP dioxin toolkit (UNEP, 2005) is an important tool that has been prepared to
assist in the implementation of the Stockholm Convention. Because of controversy over a number of
emission factors, notably those relating to biomass, it has not yet been adopted by the Conference of the
Parties and is currently being updated with lower emission factors for biomass and open burning which will
change the balance between “industrial” and “non-industrial”. These revisions are likely to impact upon
the combustion of wood and the co-combustion of wastes. In spite of the controversy over the emission
factors in the toolkit the default emission factors relevant to this review are significantly lower than used
by UNECE:
Ranges of emission factors (EFs, blue dots) applied by European Member States to estimate dioxin emissions into the air from
domestic combustion Ref EC2009
This makes an enormous difference to the estimates of total emissions.
In determining emission factors for the various source categories UNEP assumed that combustion devices
were “reasonably well-operated and maintained…in order to maximize heat output”. In practice higher
emissions may be found in use where appliances are operated less effectively but there is very limited data
to assess this.
Emissions to air were considered by UNEP in all cases and in the case of coal combustion, residues were
also considered as a potential release vector.
For the UNEP toolkit four groups of emission factors were derived from studies undertaken in Austria,
Belgium, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. The emission
factors established by UNEP on the assumption that only the coal burned leads to PCDD/PCDF releases
associated with the disposal of ash, were:
10
Emission Factors - µg
TEQ/TJ of Fossil Fuel
Burned Air
Concentrations - ng
TEQ/kg Ash Residue
15,000
30,000
2. Coal fired stoves
100
5,000
3. Oil fired stoves
10
NA
41030
NA
Classification
1. High chlorine coal-fired stoves
4. Natural gas fired stoves
Releases to air are the predominant vector for fossil fuel combustion. For coal, two classes of emission
factors are proposed since there are two distinct ranges of PCDD/PCDF emissions reported in the
literature. The default emission factor for coal fired stoves was derived from “mean values reported
between 1.6 and 50 μg TEQ/t of coal burned, which is reported from most European countries”.
UNEP claimed that the values reported for domestic coal combustion “are fairly consistent between 1 and
7 μg TEQ/t of coal burned” (UNEP, 2005). Thus, an average value of 3 μg TEQ/t was chosen for typical coal.
Based on an average heating value of 30 MJ/kg for coal, a default emission factor of about 100 μg TEQ/TJ
was calculated.
UNEP note much higher values of 910 μg TEQ/t were reported in an Austrian study. Emission factors in the
same range (between 108.5 μg TEQ/t and 663.9 μg I-TEQ/t) were reported by Kubica in 2004 for small
residential stoves when coal from Poland was burned. These high values may be due to the high chlorine
content which ranges from traces to 0.4 % and maxima up to 1.5 % of chlorine. UNEP used an average of
400 μg I-TEQ/t of coal burned and with an average heating value of 25 MJ/kg for bituminous and similar
coal to calculate a class 1 default emission factor of 15,000 μg TEQ/TJ. Obviously use of these very high,
and very uncertain, emission factors can give the impression that coal burning alone is a major dioxin
source. The values in the literature do not support the use of such high emission factors as averages and
they should be applied with caution in exceptional circumstances. They may, however, be more relevant
for situations where waste is being burned which can add chlorine to the waste stream and is well known
to be associated with higher dioxin formation. The Stockholm BAT/BEP guidance notes, for example, that
“it is important to avoid waste loads containing high chlorine content and/or bromine content, whether
inorganic such as salts, or halogenated organics such as PVC (Lemieux et al. 2003).
The co-incineration of waste is, however, common practice in solid fuel- fired appliances. It should be
strongly discouraged through policies and awareness campaigns. Many studies show that combustion of
chlorine containing waste such as PVC, leads to increased formation of unintentional persistent organic
pollutants as shown in Table 7 (Gullett et al 1999). A regulation specifying standard fuels could be
implemented. This is also valid for such fuels as treated wood, waste oil, transformer oil, plastics and other
combustible waste”.
Table 7 from the guidance, derived from Gullett23 shows the Relation of PCDD/PCDF emission factors to
the PVC content in burned material:
Gullett, B. K., Lemieux, P. M., Lutes, C. C., Winterrowd, C. K., & Winters, D. L. (1999). PCDD/F emissions from
uncontrolled, domestic waste burning. Organohalogen Compounds, 41, 27-30. Gullett, B. K., Lemieux, P. M., Lutes, C. C.,
Winterrowd, C. K., & Winters, D. L. (2001). Emissions of PCDD/F from uncontrolled, domestic waste burning.
Chemosphere, 43(4-7), 721-725
23
11
PVC content [%]
0
0.2
1
7.5
Average Emission factor in I-TEQ/kg (ng)
14
80
200
4,900
2 - 28
9 -150
180 - 240
3,500 - 6,700
Range I-TEQ/kg (ng)
The default emission factor for class 3 and 4 4 as defined by UNEP (see Table on previous page) are low
and not relevant to this review.
PCDD/PCDF in the fly ash residue of coal combustion has been analysed and concentrations between 4 and
42,000 ng TEQ/kg ash were reported by Dumler-Gradl24. For a first estimate, an emission factor of 5,000 ng
TEQ/kg ash should be used in the Toolkit. UNEP found no emission factors for the high chlorine coals from
Poland but suggested that as a first approximation the upper values of the measured data from DumlerGradl25 could be used for class 1(High chlorine coal-fired stoves) residues. The chlorine content of these
coals is upto about 1.5%.
The toolkit approach has been critiqued in detail by Costner 26 and is currently in the process of major
revision. For open burning, for example, which was one of the most contentious areas many of the
emission factors are being substantially reduced. The open burning of waste, perhaps most relevant to
many of the emission factors discussed in this review, is being dramatically reduced and the emissions to
land and in residues have practically been eliminated from the calculations :
From the presentation: Progress on Toolkit group 6 Open Burning Processes by Heidi Fiedler
27
Activity Rates:
Dumler-Gradl, R., Thoma, H., & Vierle, O. (2005). Research program on dioxin/furan concentration in chimney soot from
house heating systems in the bavarian area. Organohalogen Compounds, 24, 115-118
25 Dumler-Gradl, Op-cit
26 Costner, P. (2008). Comments and recommendations for UNEP’s standardized toolkit for identification and
quantification of dioxin and furan releases, edition 2.1, December 2005 prepared on behalf of IPEN October 2008.
27 Sixth Toolkit Expert Meeting, Geneva November 2011
24
12
Activity rates for fuels are based on national energy statistics, and provide reliable consumption data for
coal, oil and gas. However, data for wood combustion are much less reliable because not all wood that is
combusted is commercially traded. Data concerning the burning of waste are typically very rough
estimates due to the often illegal nature of this activity.
Major difficulties include the unknown amounts of the different fuel types burned in single-room heating
stoves or open chimneys – not least because there are strong indications in the literature that these are
more important emission sources than central heating appliances (Geueke et al., 2000; Moche and
Thanner, 1998, 2000) (BiPRO, 2009).
The available data for domestic heating in the Czech Republic based on data from the 2011 Census28 shows
that the approximate split between different systems is (in percentage of households):
- 35% - large/medium scale disrict heating
- 40% - natural gas
- 8% - electricity
- 9% - coal, coke, brown coal briquetes (approx. 346,000 households)
- 8% - wood (approx. 293,000 households).
It is clear that a significant minority of the population use heating methods of concern to this report and
the breakdown of fuel consumption for the Czech Republic reflects this. Although the usage of coal has
fallen from 2006 there are indications that it is now increasing again in response to rises in alternative fuel
prices:
Spotřeba paliv a energií v domácnostech, ČR (TJ)
Rok
2006
Černé
uhlí
Hnědo
tříděné
Hnědé uheln
Autor
a
Kvalita údaje
uhlí
é
dat
černouh
tříděné briket
elné
y
kaly a
granulát
MPO konečný údaj 26 883 3 066
3 254
Koks
Biomasa
LPG
Zemní
plyn
Elektřin
a
CZT
Ostat
ní
Celkem
1 100
46 498
1 332
106 216
54 712
50 570
2007
MPO
konečný údaj
19 594
2 902
2 887
687
53 992
951
94 778
52 725
47 626
640 294 271
830 276 972
2008
MPO
17 243
3 458
1 734
687
51 519
928
94 985
52 930
47 971
1 090 272 545
2009
MPO
17 243
4 610
1 864
1 100
50 376
928
95 576
52 873
46 654
1 397 272 621
2010
MPO
konečný údaj
předběžný
údaj
předběžný
údaj
18 810
4 610
2 641
687
56 174
232
110 830
54 101
50 165
298 250
Spotřeba paliv a energií v domácnostech, ČR (% množství energie obsažené v jednotlivých zdrojích)
Rok
Autor
dat
2006
MPO
2007
MPO
2008
MPO
2009
MPO
2010
MPO
Kvalita
údaje
konečný
údaj
konečný
údaj
konečný
údaj
předběžný
údaj
předběžný
údaj
Hnědé
uhlí
tříděné
Hnědouhelné
brikety
9,1
1,0
7,1
Biomasa
1,1
0,4
15,8
0,5
36,1
18,6
17,2
0,2
1,0
1,0
0,2
19,5
0,3
34,2
19,0
17,2
0,3
6,3
1,3
0,6
0,3
18,9
0,3
34,9
19,4
17,6
0,4
6,3
1,7
0,7
0,4
18,5
0,3
35,1
19,4
17,1
0,5
6,3
1,5
0,2
18,8
0,1
37,2
18,1
16,8
Elektřina
29
Koloničný, J., Horák, J., Petránková, J., & Ševčíková, S. P. (20
13
LPG
Zemní
plyn
Koks
Domestic fuel use in the Czech Republic
28
Černé uhlí
tříděné a
černouhelné
kaly a
granulát
). Kotle malých výkonů na pevná paliva
CZT
Ostatní
The Polish NIP indicates that the municipal and housing sector is the dominant source of PCDD/F emissions
“as the main fuel used in this sector is hard coal” with an annual consumption of 9 million tonnes. The NIP
calculates that with household furnace emissions at the rate of 18mg TEQ PCDD/F/Gg of carbon, this is
equivalent to emission of 162g TEQ/year which is 50.4% of the total dioxins into the air countrywide. This
sector is also claimed to be responsible for 17.3% of HCB releases and 59.4% of PCB releases. The
conclusions of the NIP are that “emissions from household furnaces in total emissions of all pollutants listed
in Annex C to the Convention still undisputedly have the dominant share (sic)”30 – a conclusion which does
not reflect the high level of uncertainty associated the emission factors.
The Czech NIP31 is more forthright about these uncertainties saying: “In the Czech Republic, similarly to
other countries of the EU….what concerns the non-industrial sources (solid fuel combustion in households,
household waste combustion, fires, accidents etc.) then their contribution cannot be accurately estimated”
(sic) .
The European Inventory and the Community Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention:
The European Community Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention 32 (‘CIP’) complements the
national plans of the EU Member States and was adopted on 9 th March 200733.
The foundation stone for the CIP is a new dioxin inventory largely based on a report for the European
Commission by consultants BiPRO 34. In relation to domestic sources of dioxins the CIP says:
“The contribution of domestic sources to certain POP emissions is becoming increasingly important in
relative terms. It was estimated that these sources may contribute with as much as 45 % of total emissions
of PCDD/F to air in the EU (BiPRO, 2006). Domestic sources include residential heating with wood and coal;
open burning of waste and co-combustion of waste for heating purposes”.
Source http://issar.cenia.cz/issar/page.php?id=1711
Note that: Hnede uhli - bown coal
Hnedouhelne brikety - brown coal briquetes
Cerne uhli ..... - black coal
Koks - coke
Bimasa - biomass
LPG - Liquified Petroleum Gas
Zemni plyn - natural gas
Elektrina - electicity
CZT - central heating systems
Ostatni - others
Celkem - Total
30 nd: “The main source of dioxin emissions into the air from fuel combustion processes is the housing sector using
individual furnaces and heating boilers fired with coal fuels and biomass and using kitchen furnaces fired with such fuels
to prepare meals and drinking water. The problem of PCDD/F emissions from this sources is important not only due to
their share in total dioxins and furans emissions in Poland (over 36%) but also due to the generally inadequate waste
incineration and co-incineration conditions in furnaces and ovens.”
31 Czech Republic (2006). The national implementation plan for implementation of Stockholm Convention in the Czech
republic. Brno
32 Commision of the European Communities (2007). Community implementation plan for the Stockholm convention on
persistent organic pollutants - Commision staff working document SEC(2007) 341, 9.3.2007. Brussels.
29
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pops/index_en.htm
BiPRO (2006, July 25). Identification, assessment and prioritisation of EU measures to reduce releases of unintentionally
produced/released persistent organic pollutants REFERENCE:O7.010401/2005/419391/MAR/D4 FINAL REPORT.
Brussels: Beratungsgesellschaft für integrierte Problemlösungen for the European Commission.
33
34
14
There is undoubtedly significant uncertainty about the actual contribution made by these domestic
sources. Whilst a range of figures have been used most estimates still represent a large proportion of the
total emissions to air. A later report by the same consultants, for example, includes a pie chart from the
European Commission website indicating 22% from residential combustion with a further 15% from open
burning:
Major sources for atmospheric dioxin emissions in the European Union in the year 2006 [BiPRO, 2009 with the original source
attributed to: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/dioxin/reduction.htm]
The 2006 BiPRO report upon which the EU Community Implementation Plan was based is an unusual
scientific/policy report – it covers a wide range of technical and political issues and contains over 355
pages yet it does not appear to contain even a single properly referenced citation. Few clues are given as
to sources of the information the consultants have relied upon and this makes it extremely difficult to use
effectively as it is difficult to fully understand the context of the information presented or to give
appropriate weight to the credibility of the conclusions - or even recommendations. As the report forms
the basis for the implementation of many important aspects of the Stockholm Convention in the EU this is
a serious concern.
The inventory presented by BiPRO suggests that the main sources of emissions of dioxins to air in the EU25 are:
• Residential combustion (~ 30%)
• Open burning of waste (backyard burning) (~15%)
• Wood preservation (~15%)
• Iron and steel industry (~ 8%)
• Power production, non-ferrous metals, chemical industry (~ 5% each)
It should be noted that emissions to air are estimated to represent only about 20% of the total emissions
of dioxins - the majority of dioxins are found in residues and the CIP says that the most important sectors
for discharge of PCDD/PCDF via residues are municipal solid waste (35%), municipal solid waste
incineration (16.5%), power production (18.6%), the ferrous metal industry with electric arc furnaces
(10.3%) and sinter plants (8.4%).
The CIP graphically illustrates the inventory using a figure from the BiPRO report:
15
A full explanation or justification for the high emissions attributed to wood combustion, in particular,
should have been made and included in the BiPRO review.
The new BiPRO inventory relied largely on national reporting to EMEP. The collated data suggests that
emissions to air for the EU25 are35:
Sector
Estimated
emission of
PCDD and PCDF
to Air (g TEQ/y)
Total waste incinerator
270
Based on country reporting to EMEP
~5
MSWI
20
Calculation based on concentrations and
toolkit emission factor (good FGT)
0.5
0.5 - 1.3
Total metal
400
Based on EPER 2001 (EU 15)
1.IX
Not available
Iron & steel
207
Extrapolation from UK EMEP reporting
1.VII
0.1 - 10
Sinter
500
Based on POP waste study
2.V
0.3 - 20
EAF
170
Based on POP waste study
2.IV
Coke production
20
UNEP toolkit
0.3
Primary copper
0.03
UNEP toolkit
0.01
Secondary copper
80
Data base
POP waste
Emission
factor (µg
TEQ/t)
Range EF
Not available
0.3 - 3
80
5 -800
Secondary aluminium
60
POP waste
28.IX
Toolkit 0.5 150
Secondary zinc
2.5
POP waste
2.VI
0.3 - 100
Lead
1
Country reporting
0.5
0.5 - 80
Cement
11
Country reporting
0.05
0.05 - 5
35
Table 5-3 page 59
16
Lime
2
Toolkit (good dust abatement)
0.07
7
Country reporting
0.1
0.06 - 4.5
Extrapolated from EMEP data
0.1
0.0003 - 0.95
6
Country reporting
0.1
0.06 - 1.3
Fertizilers
1
EPER
Pharmaceuticals
10
EPER
Power production
fossil fuels
350
Based on country reporting to EMEP
0.24
-0.01 - 1
Power production
biomass
1.7
POP waste
0.3
0.06 - 13
Based on country reporting to EMEP
50
0.002 - 225
Pulp and Paper
Chemical Industry
Refinery
Residental combustion
~ 160
1.300
0.02 - 10
Road transport
60
Country reporting
0.2
0.00 - 3.5
Marine transport
1.7
0.1 - 4
Based on country reporting
0.25
Air transport
1
Country reports EMEP
0.1
Railroad transport
10
Based on country reporting to EMEP
2.IX
Open burning
800
Based on UNEP Toolkit
300
60 - 1000
Agricultural waste
52
Country reporting
5
0.5 - 30
Crematoria
7
Based on country reporting to OSPAR
5
0.4 - 90
Animal carcasses
130
Extrapolated from BE data
Wood preservation
1000
Country reporting on creosote/PCP
Shredder
2
0.3 - 500
0.1
0.02 - 3.3
Taking residential combustion as just one example to illustrate the difficulties that follow from an attempt
to examine slightly deeper into the date presented in this table: We can see that the table indicates that
residential combustion was by far the largest single source of emissions to air at 1,300 g of the 5,644
total36 or 23%37 .
It is anomalous how the ratio of emission factors given in the table is 0.002 – 225 i.e. a ratio of 112,500
from max to min which is inconsistent with the ‘cross check’ which claims a range of ‘concentration data
from literature’ (uncited) between 100 to 7,000 g TEQ/y i.e. a ratio of only 70 from max to min. Clearly the
‘cross check’ did not use the full range of emission factors given in the range of emission factors in Table 53.
The emission factors used in the European Inventory covered a range from 1 to 500 μg I-TEQ/t based on
levels of fuel’s contamination. Obviously assumptions based on either end of this range can make a very
large impact on total emissions:
Clean wood
Slightly contaminated (without PCP)
Strongly contaminated (with PCP)
1
50
500
It is worth noting, as a comparison with the 23% contribution from residential combustion claimed by
BiPRO, that a study by Lee38 for the UK Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs measured a
a total which was not included in the report
It is not clear why BiPRO listed it as >30% in Figure 5-2 –was this an error? Similarly it is unclear how Figure 5-3 finds it
to be c.1,500 thus adding an additional 200g (more than the entire claimed emissions from the chemical industry) to the
inventory table.
‘cross check’ from the toolkit indicates that the emissions should be 200g and this was claimed by
BiPRO to be validation yet the factor claimed to have been used of 50 ug/t is the toolkit average factor based on ‘slightly
contaminated bio-mass’!
38 Lee RG, Coleman P, Jones JL, Jones KC, Lohmann R (2005) Emission factors and importance of PCDD/Fs, PCBs, PCNs,
PAHs and PM10 from the domestic burning of coal and wood in the U.K. Environ Sci Technol 39:1436-1447
36
37
17
range of emissions from the domestic burning of coal and wood in the UK and found that the proportion of
the total inventory was very small in relation to dioxin and PCB emissions. They concluded that “total
emission from the domestic burning of coal and wood (at ca. 7 g TEQ/a), or just 2% of total emissions” :
Estimated Inputs from the Domestic Burning of Coal and Wood to the U.K. Atmosphere and Potential
Contribution to the National Inventory
Est total emissions
U.K. NAEI
for 1998
c
% due to
domestic
burning
other
estimates
90% (5)
coal
wood
2.40E+06
7.21E+05
420
31
2685
17%
3.VII
0.9
13
36%
ΣPCBs (kg/a)
21
0.5
2840
0.1%
ΣCI4-8DD/Fs (g/a)
555
36
40100
1%
7.II
0.1
401
2%
ΣPCNs (kg/a)
1.VI
0.09
284
1%
PM10 (kt/a)
25
5.VII
210
15%
amount (t/a)
Σ PAHs (t/a)
BaP (t/a)
a
a
ΣTEQ (g/a)
b
a) EF for coal and PM10 from ref. 5 b) van den Berg et al., ref 16
12% (2)
c) Ref 33
The BiPRO inventory is rather different from the original ‘final’ European Stage II Dioxin inventory 39 though
slightly closer to the update published in 200440. This suggests that non-industrial sources generated
between 952 and 2,257 grammes41 of the total inventory of 1,963 to 3,752 grammes of dioxin emissions.
Between 116 and 187 grammes were estimated to arise from the illegal domestic incineration of
household waste; between 82 and 337 grammes from the residential combustion of coal and lignite in
boilers, stoves and fireplaces and between 523 and 969 grammes from the residential combustion of wood
in boilers, stoves and fireplaces. This was therefore estimated to be by far the largest source of dioxin
emissions. Together the emissions from domestic solid fuel combustion (wood and coal) were therefore
assessed to make up more than 60% of all non-industrial PCDD/F emissions:
These data, by contrast with the BiPRO results, are for the EU17 rather than EU25. It appears that the
results closest to the BiPRO inventory are the 2005 maxima - although there are some major unexplained
changes including the preservation of wood 118 – 310 g in Quass and 1,000 g in BiPRO: Fossil fuel power
plants 350 g in BiPRO vs. 50 -67 in Quass etc. These may in part be explained by the rather high emissions
in the new countries 42 but a more clear breakdown is essential to allow informed consideration of the
results and to avoid the need for such speculation.
Comparison of year 1985 maximum emission estimates with year 2005 estimates for all considered source types
01
0202
2005
1985 upper
estimate
SNAP
Reduction/increases (%)
Min
Max
Max
Min
Power plants
Fossil fuels
666
50
69
-92
-90
Res. Combustion: boilers, stoves,
fireplaces
Wood
989
523
969
-47
-2
Trend
↓↓↓↓
↓
90%
reduction
likely?
Yes
No
Quass, U., Fermann, M. W., & Broker, G. (2000). Steps towards a European dioxin emission inventory. Chemosphere, 40(911), 1125-1129
40 Quass, U., Fermann, M., & Broker, G. (2004). The european dioxin air emission inventory project - final results.
Chemosphere, 54(9), 1319-1327
41 All values in grammes here are ment in g TEQ/year.
39
42
18
0202
0301
Res. Combustion: boilers, stoves,
fireplaces
Combustion in industry/boilers, gas
turbines, stationary engines
Coal/lignite
900
82
337
-91
-63
↓↓↓
No
238
39
78
-84
-67
↓↓↓
No
No
030301
Sinter plants
1650
387
470
-77
-71
030308
Secondary zinc production
450
20
20
-96
-96
030309
Secondary copper production
29
15
17
-49
-40
030310
Secondary aluminium production
65
21
60
-68
-7
30311
Cement
21
14
50
-32
+137
↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓
↓↓
↓↓
↔
030326
Other: metal reclamation from cables
750
40
50
-95
-93
↓↓↓↓
Yes
040207
Electric furnace steel plant
120
141
172
+17
+43
↑
No
040309
Other: non-ferrous metal foundries
50
38
72
-25
+44
↔
No
040309
Other: sintering of special materials and
drossing facilities
200
1
1
-100
-100
↓↓↓↓
Yes
060406
Preservation of wood
390
118
310
-70
-20
No
0701
Road transport
Yes
No
No
No
262
41
60
-84
-77
↓↓
↓↓↓
4000
178
232
-96
-94
↓↓↓↓
Yes
No
090201
Inc. of domestic or municipal wastes
Legal
combustion
090201
Inc. of domestic or municipal wastes
Illegal
(domestic)
combustion
200
116
187
-42
-6
↓
No
090202
Inc. of industrial wastes
Hazardous
waste
300
16
45
-95
-85
↓↓↓
No
090207
Inc. of hospital wastes
2000
51
161
-97
-92
↓↓↓↓
Yes
090901
Cremation: Inc. of corpses
28
13
22
-55
-23
382
60
371
-84
-3
Total of sources considered (g I-TEQ/year)
13690
1963
3752
-86
-73
Industrial sources (g I-TEQ/year)
10539
1011
1495
-90
-86
Non-industrial sources (g I-TEQ/year)
3151
952
2257
-70
-28
↓↓
↓↓
↓↓↓
↓↓↓
↓↓
No
Fires
1201
No
No
No
No
Unfortunately it is also not possible to work out the break down the distribution between air, water and
land of each of the POPS effectively in the process specific notes in the BiPRO report.
No justification is given for the choice of emission factors by BiPRO even when wide ranges are presented
in the summary tables. More appropriate emission factors for burning agricultural residues and open
burning of waste would be those proposed by Costner :
Dioxin Emission Factors with Strongest Scientific Support to Date
Emission factor for
releases to air
Emission factor for
releases to land
Emission factor for
releases to residues
ng TEQ/kg
Forest fires, grassland and
moor fires
Agricultural residues, open
burning
Domestic waste, open
burning
0.125 - 0.5
0.02 - 0.05
0.5 - 0.8
0.02 - 0.05
No PVC content, 0%
4.4 - 14
0.3
Moderate PVC content, 0.2%
or less
17 - 79
0.3 - 343
19
High PVC content, 1.0 - 7.5%
Landfill/open dump fires
200 - 5,000
343 - 892
23 - 46
120 - 170
The emission factors for coal and wood are discussed further below.
The BiPRO review of emissions from domestic heating and combustion concluded:
 The main domestic sources of dioxins are heating and cooking with solid fuels and burning of
waste.
 The compilation of information on current knowledge on EFs showed that existing EFs are
associated with considerable uncertainty and that the development of detailed EFs in the field of
solid fuels might be difficult to achieve as differences in on-the-ground combustion conditions are
the predominant parameter for resulting emissions, and conditions of the standardised
measurements used for determination of EFs are hardly ever met.
 Considering that considerable amounts of MSW are illegally combusted even in countries, with
strict enforcement traditions, highly specific EFs may give the illusion of a precision in emission
estimates that does not exist.
 Dioxin emissions are currently not a driving force for environmental policy in the domestic sector
but emission reduction potentials are high and even simple means can reduce emissions by up to
80%.
 Reduction of dioxins from domestic sources is achieved by direct measures such as a ban of
domestic waste burning. Such a ban would be desirable in all Member States.
 Other policies such as those related to climate change and clean air contribute to the reduction of
domestic dioxin emissions.
 Awareness raising and education on the potential health and environmental effects of dioxins is
crucial for public acceptance and application of measures that reduce dioxin emissions.
 Information exchange, coordination and harmonisation of emission data in estimating national
dioxin emissions are necessary to obtain more reliable and comparable inventories. Per capita fuel
consumption, fuel type used and climatic conditions vary considerably within the EU.
The final report provided detailed information to individually assess the reduction potential for domestic
dioxin sources in each Member State.
20
Published Guidance
Stockholm Convention BAT/BEP guidance Guidelines on best available techniques and provisional
guidance on best environmental practices
The Stockholm Convention’s “Guidelines on best available techniques and provisional guidance on best
environmental practices” (“BAT/BEP Guidelines”) 43 indicate that “open burning may still be a last resort
where there are no alternative disposal or recovery methods due to inadequate infrastructure; where
sanitary disposal is required to control disease or pests; or in the case of disaster or other emergency
(Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy 2004)”. They emphasise, however, that “household wastes should
never be burnt in indoor residential combustion devices such as stoves, fireplaces or furnaces” (see section
VI.C of the guidelines).
Residential combustion sources Summary
This section considers the combustion of wood, coal, gas, as well as other organic matter mainly for
residential heating and cooking. Combustion takes place in hand-fired stoves or fireplaces or, in the case of
larger central heating systems, in automatically fired installations. Studies have shown that significant
levels of chemicals listed in Annex C of the Stockholm Convention are released from residential
combustion sources. The amount of chemicals released depends primarily on the fuel used (household
waste, sea- salt laden driftwood and treated wood are significant sources of PCDD/PCDF) as well as
combustion efficiency. The efficiency of combustion depends upon the combustion temperature, how well
the gases are mixed, residence time, sufficient oxygen and the fuel properties. Given their large numbers,
residential combustion appliances contribute noticeably to overall releases of chemicals listed in Annex C.
The use of efficient combustion of clean, untreated fuels for cooking and heating is of primary importance
for reducing the formation and release of chemicals listed in Annex C. Strategies to minimize releases of
chemicals listed in Annex C from residential combustion sources include public education, awareness and
training programmes on the proper use of the appliances, use of appropriate fuels and the health impacts
from uncontrolled residential combustion. The abatement technologies commonly used in industrial
settings are not generally available for smaller residential heating and cooking appliances. However, the
use of well-designed stoves with good operation can be effective in reducing chemicals listed in Annex C,
with the important added benefit of improving indoor air quality.
Best available techniques include enclosed low emission burners with ducted flues and the use of dry, wellseasoned wood. For countries or regions where these fuels and appliances are not available, best available
techniques and best environmental practices for residential combustion include ensuring separation of
household waste from fuel to avoid burning of such waste in cooking and heating appliances. In all
countries the use of treated wood or sea-salt laden driftwood and the use of plastics as a firelighter or fuel
should be avoided.
Cooking and heating with wood is a common and significant practice in all countries of the world. Any
action for reducing the emissions of chemicals listed in Annex C from residential combustion will also have
to take into consideration local social, cultural and economic factors. Case studies from Australia and New
Zealand are provided to highlight this.
Comparative PCDD/PCDF emission factors from the combustion of clean and contaminated wood
Stockholm Convention (2007, May). Guidelines on best available techniques and provisional guidance on best
environmental practices relevant to article 5 and annex C of the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants adopted at COP 3, May 2007. Geneva, Switzerland
43
21
Comparative PCDD/PCDF emission factors from the combustion of clean and contaminated
wood
Emission factors: µg
TEQ/TJ of biomass burnt
a
to air
Concentration: ng TEQ/kg
ash residue
Contaminated wood/biomass-fired
stoves
1,500
1,000
Virgin wood/biomass-fired stoves
100
10
Appliance type
a) TJ = terajoule = 1 x 1012 joule
The BAT/BEP guidelines note that “Measurable levels of tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins (TCDD) have been
found in chimney soot and in bottom ash from wood-burning stoves and fireplaces. Chimney deposits from
residential wood burning have been found to have PCDD/PCDF congener profiles similar to those in flue
gases from municipal waste incinerators. This indicates that wood used in residential combustion
appliances may be highly contaminated, and inappropriate materials such as plastics may also be used as
fuel sources”.
This is hardly surprising because, as the guidelines note, “there is little control over emissions from
residential sources. Most stoves and fireplaces are poorly operated with inadequate oxygen levels and low
turbulence of burning gases (due to overloading or use of over-large wood feed items). In such
circumstances combustion releases not only gaseous pollutants but solid pollutants containing
PCDD/PCDF, which constitute releases to land”.
The potential problems are summarised in tabular form:
Appliances
Fuel
Typical potential problems
Central furnaces
Room heaters
Fireplaces
Natural or liquefied
petroleum gas
Cracked heat exchanger
enough air to burn fuel properly
Defective/blocked flue
Maladjusted burner
Not
Central furnaces
Oil
Cracked heat exchanger
enough air to burn fuel properly
Defective/blocked flue
Maladjusted burner
Not
Central heaters
Room heaters
Wood
Cracked heat exchanger
enough air to burn fuel properly
Defective/blocked flue
Green or treated wood
Not
Central furnaces
Stoves
Coal
Cracked heat exchanger
enough air to burn fuel properly
Defective grate
Defective or blocked flue
Low-quality coal
High moisture content of fuel
Not
Ranges
Ovens
Natural or liquefied
petroleum gas
Not enough air to burn fuel properly
Maladjusted burner
Misuse as a room heater
Room heaters
Central heaters
Kerosene
Improper adjustment
Wrong fuel (not K-1)
Wrong wick or wick height
Not enought air to burn fuel properly
22
Stoves
Fireplaces
Wood
Coal
Not enough air to burn fuel properly
Defective/blocked flue
Green or treated wood
Cracked heat exchanger or firebox
Inappropiate fuel such as residental
refuge
Water heaters
Natural or liquefied
petroleum gas
Not enough air to burn fuel properly
Defective/blocked flue
Maladjusted burner
(extracted from CPSC, USEPA & American Lung Association, 2004, What You Should Know about
Combustion Appliances and Indoor Air Pollution. CPSC Document 452, Consumer Product Safety
Commission)
23
Plastics, chlorine and the possible causes of elevated emissions of POPs
UNECE confirms that the emissions of PCDD/PCDFs are highly dependent on the conditions under which
cooling of the combustion and exhaust gases is carried out. Carbon, chlorine, a catalyst and oxygen excess
are necessary for the formation of PCDD/PCDF.
The emissions of HCB from combustion processes are very uncertain but, on the whole, processes resulting
in PCDD/F formation lead also to HCB emissions.
PCDD/PCDFs are released as a consequence of the de-novo synthesis in the temperature interval between
180 oC and 400 oC 44.
PCDD/PCDF emissions can be significantly influenced by the common practice to use paper, paper board or
small wood pieces in varying amounts, even wood shavings and plastic.
Some households will certainly burn household wastes on their domestic fires either to reduce fuel costs
or to avoid disposal fees.
The single more important source of chlorine in municipal solid waste (MSW) is PVC 45 which provides
approximately 50% of the chlorine content. This means half the hydrogen chloride in the combustion
gases from MSW incinerators is likely to be PVC derived but the contribution to domestic sources is far
more uncertain.
There are very few studies investigating emissions in these circumstances but BiPRO in their review for the
European Commission relied on work by Hedman to conclude that the whilst co-combustion of paper with
wood fuels does not seem to change the emissions the addition of plastics raises the emissions by a factor
of ten. They commented that the same conclusions result from a number of further studies (e.g. Enviros
2006) that do not provide specific measurement results but only mean or min.-max values. If contaminated
wood is burned, emissions are reported to range from 785 – 28,570 μg TEQ/TJ (11-400 μg/t).
Hübner46 reported that they found the highest emissions from domestic heating appliances using solid
fuels when “relevant amounts” of other combustible material such as household wastes were co-fired or
used to facilitate lightning the fires. In general they found that it is “a common practice to use paper, paper
board or small wood pieces in varying amounts, even wood shavings and plastic, to speed up the
incineration”. They also noted that the combustion of waste materials on previous days or weeks might
have had an effect on the PCDD/F concentrations in samples taken later as contaminated soot can be
expelled days after its formation. It is well established that this “memory effect” can have significant
Karasek, F. W., & Dickson, L. C. (1987). Model studies of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin formation during municipal
refuse incineration. Science, 237(4816), 754-756. doi:10.1126/science.361660
45 The production of PVC may exceed 30 million tonnes by 2010. The main applications of PVC in Europe are the building
sector, which accounts for 57% of all uses. In addition, PVC is used in many applications like household appliances (18%),
packaging (9%), electric and electronic equipment (7%), automotive equipment (7%), furniture (1%) and other applications
(1%). Consequently, to these statistics, the PVC waste amount will increase significantly, and the disposal of these wastes
which include municipal and industrial waste is now recognised to be a major environmental problem
Quoted in Saeed, L., Tohka, A., Haapala, M., & Zevenhoven, R. (2004). Pyrolysis and combustion of PVC, pvc-wood and pvccoal mixtures in a two-stage fluidized bed process. Fuel Processing Technology, 85(14), 1565-1583
44
Hübner, C., Boos, R., & Prey, T. (2005). In-field measurements of PCDD/F emissions from domestic heating appliances for
solid fuels. Chemosphere, 58(3), 367-372. doi:doi: 10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00702-1
46
24
implications for increased emissions in combustion equipment.
Chlorine-containing plastic waste gave rise to relatively high emissions of approximately 310 ng(WHOTEQ)/ kg over the whole combustion cycle 47.
Wevers48 reported mean air emission factors of 24.4 ng TEQ/kg and 350 ng TEQ/kg when burning the
combustible portion of household waste with untreated and treated wood respectively in wood stoves for
household heating.
Syc49 recently reported the first data set of emission factors of selected pollutants from combustion of five
fuel types (lignite, bituminous coal, spruce, beech, and maize) in six different domestic heating appliances
of various combustion designs.
The researchers studies the effect of fuel as well as the effect of boiler type in a total of 46 combustion
runs. during which numerous EFs were measured, including the EFs of particulate matter (PM), carbon
monoxide, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), hexachlorobenzene (HxCBz), polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and furans (PCDD/F), etc.
The highest EFs of non-chlorinated pollutants were measured for old-type boilers with over-fire and underfire designs and with manual stoking and natural draft. Emissions of these pollutants from modern-type
boilers (automatic, downdraft) were a factor of 10 or more lower.
The authors concluded that the decisive factor for emission rate of non-chlorinated pollutants was the type
of appliance; the type of fuel plays only a minor role. Emissions of chlorinated pollutants were proportional
mainly to the chlorine content in fuel, but the type of appliance also influenced the rate of emissions
significantly. Surprisingly, higher EFs of PCDD/F from combustion of chlorinated bituminous coal were
observed for modern-type boilers (downdraft, automatic) than for old-type ones. On the other hand, when
bituminous coal was burned, higher emissions of HxCBz were found for old-type boilers than for moderntype ones.
Gullet established emission factors for three fuels in San Francisco – although the authors did not
specifically address the concerns associated with the burning of plastics they did test ‘artificial logs’. The
artificial logs were from a single manufacturer and were made of “wax and sawdust”. These logs had
notably elevated chlorine concentration compared with oak and pine although the authors note that
“considerable variation in composition is expected across manufacturers, as this is a formulated product
with different constituents and regional sources of materials”:
Fuel properties
Oak
Pine
Artificial logs
Ultimate Analysis (Moisture Free)
Carbon (%)
48.09
49.73
70.37
Hedman, B., Näslund, M., & Marklund, S. (2006). Emission of PCDD/F, PCB, and HCB from combustion of firewood and
pellets in residential stoves and boilers. Environ Sci Technol, 40(16), 4968-4975. doi:10.1021/es052418
48 Wevers, M., De Fre, R., Vanermen, G., 2003. PCDD/F and PAH emissions from domestic heating appliances with solid fuel.
Organohalogen Cpds. 63: 2 ‐24. See also Launhardt, T. & Thoma, H. (2000). Investigation on organic pollutants from a
domestic heating system using various solid biofuels. Chemosphere, 40(9–11), 1149-1157
49 Šyc, M., Horák, J., Hopan, F., Krpec, K., Tomšej, T., Ocelka, T., et al. (2011). Effect of fuels and domestic heating appliance
types on emission factors of selected organic pollutants. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(21), 9427-9434
47
25
Hydrogen (%)
6.16
6.39
X.88
Nitrogen (%)
<0.5
<0.5
0.55
Sulfur (%)
<0.05
<.05
0.13
Chlorine (ppm)
<50
<50
437
Ash (%)
0.66
0.27
0.44
Oxygen (%, by differ.)
45.09
43.61
17.63
Heat of combustion (MJ/kg)
19.0
19.7
34.0
Proximate Analysis (Moisture Free) (%)
Volatile matter
84.36
90.7
92.44
Ash (%)
0.66
0.27
0.44
Fixed carbon (by difference)
14.98
9.03
7.XII
Average Moisture Content (%)
Oven drying method
16.2
8.7
1.0
Moisture meter
17.3
8.8
1.0
Average PCDD/F emissions factors ranged from 0.25 to 1.4 ng toxic equivalency (TEQ)/ kg of wood burned
for natural wood fuels and 2.4 ng TEQ/ kg for artificial logs.
Mixed Plastic- Is it better to Recyle or Incinerate?
The question of whether it is better to recycle or burn plastic waste from an overall life cycle perspective is
an important one. Kukačka50 claimed in a research report that “incineration and gasification seem to be
the most advantageous procedures for mixed plastic waste energy recovery“ and “in view of high costs
connected with plastic waste transport” recommended a network of large and small incinerators and
gasification plants across the Czech Republic. This claims need careful scrutiny as they are inconsistent
with the results of meta-reviews of life cycle assessments for plastics recovery. An important example
relates to the work of the UK Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP). This is a governmental
research organisaton which undertook a specialist review of international studies titled “Environmental
Benefits of Recycling”51. The review shows how increased recycling is helping to tackle climate change and
emphasises the importance of recycling over incineration and landfill as the appropriate way forward. Of
particular relevance here is that the evidence from WRAP concludes “In the vast majority of cases, the
recycling of materials has greater environmental benefits than incineration or landfill”. A more detailed
review of this research is included in Annex 2.
Kukačka, J., Raschman, R. 20 0: Possibilities of municipal plastic waste energy recovery Odpadové fórum (Waste
Management Forum) 10/2010; 14 – 16.
50
WRAP (2006). Environmental Benefits of Recycling - An international review of life cycle comparisons for key materials
in the UK Recycling Sector Sep 2006. Banbury, Waste Resources Action Programme,.
51
26
Coal Combustion
Coal consumption currently contributes approximately 27% of the world’s total primary energy supply
(OECD/IEA, 2011)52 but in some countries where the percentage contribution from coal is much higher notably China where about 69–76% of the primary energy requirements in China (NBSC, 2009 - quoted by
Shen 201053). The unusually heavy reliance on coal in China, both for commercial and domestic use, helps
to explains why so much of the current research on the combustion of coal in domestic uses comes from
China:
Although lower than China domestic use of coal is still relatively high in many parts of Eastern Europe –
particularly in Poland which is the world’s 9th largest coal producer.
Stage 1 of the European Emissions Inventory (Quass, Fermann & Bröker, 1997)54 said that whilst it is “quite
obvious” that domestic wood combustion is of significant relevance for the total emission of PCDD/F in
Europe that coal and lignite combustion in residential plants “contribute only to a minor degree”.
This may be considered a little surprising given the levels of chlorine that are found in some coals
compared with domestic wood. Tillman, for example, demonstrates that with whilst chlorine
concentrations are significantly higher in plant materials than in various deposits of coal the exceptions
include wood fuels and a number of other biomass materials, 55.
chlorine
concentration
in coal (ppm)
chlorine
concentration
in coal ash
(ppm)
Maritza West
150
290
Sofia
80
290
Elhovo
90
210
Maritza East
200
500
country
Bulgaria
coal
OECD/IEA, 2011, Key World Energy Statistics 2011, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
Shen, G., Wang, W., Yang, Y., Zhu, C., Min, Y., Xue, M., Ding, J., Li, W., Wang, B., Shen, H., Wang, R., Wang, X. & Tao, S., 2010,
Emission factors and particulate matter size distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from residential coal
combustions in rural Northern China, Atmospheric Environment, 44(39), pp. 5237-43
54 Quass, U., Fermann, M., & Bröker, G. ( 997). The European dioxin emission inventory stage I volumes 1 - 2. prepared by the
North Rhine Westphalia State Environment Agency on behalf of the European Commission, Directorate General for
Environment (DG ENV) Contract No.: 96/771/3040/DEB/E1
55 Tillman, D. A., Duong, D., & Miller, B. (2009). Chlorine in solid fuels fired in pulverized fuel boilers — sources, forms,
reactions, and consequences: A literature review. Energy & Fuels, 23(7), 3379-3391
52
53
27
Australia
USA
Japan
Canada
Bobov Dol
360
1150
Balkan
150
390
Ebenezer
370
2910
Wambo
360
2950
Blair Athol
440
3930
Lithgow
480
2250
Moura
710
6890
Usibelli (Alaska)
90
970
Black Thunder
200
3190
Illinois
750
6470
Taiheyo
1090
4700
Akabira
110
220
Sunagawa
200
660
Takashima
230
2800
Coal Valley
140
1370
Fording River
280
2720
South Africa Ermelo
260
2430
China
Datong
210
1590
Ukraine
Donbass
500
3420
biomass
Cl concentration
(% in dry fuel)
alfalfa stems
0.50
wheat straw
0.23
rice hulls
0.12
rice straw
0.58
switchgrass
0.19
switchgrass (2) - WI
0.03
bagasse
0.03
willow wood
0.01
hybrid poplar
0.01
softwood sawdust
0.052
right of way trimmings
0.01
short rotation poplar
0.01
almond shells
0.01
almond hulls
0.02
olive pits
0.04
demolition wood
0.05
urban wood waste
0.06
corn stover (1)
0.22
corn stover (2)
0.72
corn stover (3)
0.23
There is good evidence, however, that the emissions from domestic coal uses are significantly more
hazardous to the users than wood and this is reflected in much higher levels of lung cancer reported by
Hosgood56:
Hosgood, H. D. ,. I., Boffetta, P., Greenland, S., Lee,
Y. -C. A., McLaughlin, J., Seow, A., et al. (2010). In-Home coal and Wood
28
56
Lignite combustion may be a specific problem in Germany (the largest producer in the EU mainly from the
former area of East Germany) and Poland (the third largest) but the use of lignite shows a falling trend and
the EU dioxin Inventory commented that “it is likely to decrease to a level as in the western part of
Germany within a few years with the rise of living standards in the former East- Germany”.
Use and Lung Cancer Risk: A pooled analysis of the International Lung
Cancer Consortium. Environ Health Perspect, 118(12).
29
Emissions and Emission Factors
One of the most striking features of the data relating to emissions from domestic combustion is the
enormous range even from a single source. Bignal, for example, reported gaseous and particulate phase
measurements for 16 PAHs in the stack of a woodchip-fired 50 kW boiler used for domestic heating57. The
concentrations of PAHs in both gas and particle phases varied from 1.3 to 1631.7 μg/m3. The mean CO and
NO concentrations varied from 96 to 6002 ppm and from 28 to 359 ppm. A large number of studies have
been performed on wood and coal burning and the majority demonstrate similar variations and thus a
very broad range of emission factors could be calculated depending on the fuel and stove types together
with their operating conditions. A summary of the data collated by BiPRO (BiPRO, 2009) on these studies
is included in Annex 3.
Kubica58 says that emissions of both PAHs and VOCs depend on the volatile matter of fuels that are
combusted in the same devices (stove, boilers, etc. particularly when fuelled by hand. The exchange of
coal by coke or smokeless solid fuels decreased PAH emission by about 99%.
In general emissions caused by incomplete combustion are mainly a result of insufficient mixing of
combustion air and fuel in the combustion chamber which is a fuel-rich combustion zone, an overall lack of
oxygen, low temperatures, short residence times and in special cases such as the combustion of coke and
the final stage of solid fuel combustion in fixed bed techniques low radical concentrations 59. Obviously
these circumstances and operating conditions can have significant effects on the co-combustion of
household waste. As discussed above, however, there are too few studies of the emissions from burning
waste, and too wide a combination of appliances operational conditions, to be able to derive robust
emission factors for waste combustion.
The approach by UNEP has been to use emission factors similar to those for fuels with high chlorine
concentrations.
Bignal, K. L., Langridge, S., & Zhou, J. L. (2008). Release of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and
particulate matter from biomass combustion in a wood-fired boiler under varying boiler conditions. Atmospheric
Environment, 42(39), 8863-8871
58 Kubica, K., Paradiz, B., & Dilara, P. (2007). Small combustion installations: Techniques, emissions and measures for
emission reductions. Joint Research Centre Scientific and Technical Reports, EUR
59 Kubica 2007 op cit.
57
30
Particulate Emissions
In recent years the evidence associating particulate emissions from combustion processes with health
impacts has become much stronger and it is now generally accepted that there can be serious chronic
impacts associated with even small increases in ambient particulate levels. The evidence is particularly
compelling in relation to the effects of the smallest particulates60. This is of direct relevance to residential
combustion as most of the probable human carcinogenic PAHs are reported to be associated with
particulate matter and especially in fine mode particles in ambient air61. The fine particles may thus act as
a carrier of carcinogenic material into the alveolar region of the human lung and thus provide a direct
pathway into the blood stream.
Fine particulate matter is more harmful as it can penetrate deeper into the lungs. A number of studies
have shown that the emissions from modern residential biomass combustion technologies are dominated
by submicron particles (< 1 μm). The mass concentration of particles larger than 10 μm is normally < 10 %
for small combustion installations 62,63,64.
A few studies have examined the difference in the emission factors and composition profiles between field
emissions and laboratory chamber combustion65,66,67, 68,69. It has been reported that that both PM and CO
emissions from actual cooking practice seem to be significantly higher than those measured in laboratory
simulated combustion70.
For a detailed review see: Cormier, S. A., Lomnicki, S., Backes, W., & Dellinger, B. (2006). Origin and health impacts of
emissions of toxic by-products and fine particles from combustion and thermal treatment of hazardous wastes and
materials.
Environmental
Health
Perspectives,
114(6),
810-7
<
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1480527/pdf/ehp0114-000810.pdf> and a report by Professor Vyvyan
Howard presented as evidence to a public inquiry in Eire: Howard, C. V. (2009). Statement of evidence to an bord pleanála
on
particulate
emissions
and
health,
proposed
Ringaskiddy
waste-to-energy
facility
<
http://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/Documents/qJ13291/J169937.pdf>
61 Ravindra, K., Sokhi, R., & Van Grieken, R. (2008). Atmospheric polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Source attribution,
emission factors and regulation. Atmospheric Environment, 42(13), 2895-2921
62 Hays M.D., Smith N.D., Kinsey J., Dongb Y., Kariherb P. (2003). ‘Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon size distributions in
aerosols from appliances of residential wood combustion as determined by direct thermal desorption — GC/MS’, Aerosol
Science, 34, pp. 1061–1084, 2003.
63 Boman Ch., Nordin
., Boström D., and Öhman M. (2004). ‘Characterization of Inorganic Particulate Matter from
Residential Combustion of Pelletized Biomass Fuels’, Energy&Fuels 8, pp. 338–348, 2004
64 Ehrlich Ch., Noll G., Kalkoff W.-D. (200 ). ‘Overview of investigations on aerosols from combustion (including biomass)
in Germany’, pp. 50 in erosols from Biomass Combustion, ISBN 3-908705-00-2, International Seminar at 27.6.2001 in
Zurich by IEA Bioenergy Task 32 and Swiss Federal Office of Energy, Verenum, Zurich 2001,
65 Dhammapala, R., Claiborn, C., Simpson, C., Jimenez, J., 2007. Emission factor from wheat and Kentucky bluegrass stubble
burning: comparison of field and simulated burn experiments. Atmospheric Environment 41, 1512-1520
66 Jimenez, J.R., Claiborn, C.S., Dhammapala, R.S., Simpson, C.D., 2007. Methoxyphenols and levoglucosan ratios in PM
2.5
from wheat and Kentucky bluegrass stubble burning in eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Environmental Science &
Technology 41, 7824-7829.
67 Roden, C.A., Bond, T.C., Conway, S., Pinel, A.B.O., 2006. Emission factors and real- time optical properties of particles
emitted from traditional wood burning cookstoves. Environmental Science & Technology 40, 6750-6757.
68 Roden, C. A., Bond, T. C., Conway, S., Osorto Pinel, A. B., MacCarty, N., & Still, D. (2009). Laboratory and field
investigations of particulate and carbon monoxide emissions from traditional and improved cookstoves. Atmospheric
Environment, 43(6), 1170-1181.
69 Shen, G., Wang, W., Yang, Y., Zhu, C., Min, Y., Xue, M., et al. (2010). Emission factors and particulate matter size
distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from residential coal combustions in rural northern China. Atmospheric
Environment, 44(39), 5237-5243
70 Roden, C. A., Bond, T. C., Conway, S., Osorto Pinel, A. B., MacCarty, N., & Still, D. (2009). Laboratory and field
investigations of particulate and carbon monoxide emissions from traditional and improved cookstoves. Atmospheric
Environment, 43(6), 1170-1181.
60
31
PAH Emissions
Over the past two decades there has been growing interest in the polluting effects of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs). The main concern is the carcinogenic effects of some PAHs - indeed some of them
are among the strongest known carcinogens71. There is also increasingly strong evidence associating PAH
and associated particulate exposure with adverse impacts on pregnancy outcomes with sufficient evidence
to infer a causal link between air pollution and infant death, mainly related to particulates, with PAHs
being more likley responsible for intrauterine growth retardation 72. These concerns have been reflected
by PAHs gaining a higher profile in international environmental agreements and legislation such as the
UNECE POPs Protocol where, unlike under the Stockholm Convention, they are defined as POPs. The
consequence is that they are treated in a similar way to Stockholm POPs under the EU POPs legislation
(Regulation 850/2004, as amended).
It is well known that relatively low combustion temperature combined with limited oxygen supply often
yield higher PAHs emissions in residential combustion73. Smouldering combustion emit 4–5 times more
PAHs than flaming combustion and PAH emission factors for all fuels increase with decreasing combustion
efficiency 74. The emissions are therefore very sensitive to the skill and care with which stoves and fires are
operated and there are consequently high uncertainties in the estimation of total emission and the
calculations of emission factors75,76,77,78.
Notwithstanding the high level of uncertainty there is evidence that residential combustion is the major
source of at least some of the important PAHs:
Ravindra, K., Sokhi, R., & Van Grieken, R. (2008). Atmospheric polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Source attribution,
emission factors and regulation. Atmospheric Environment, 42(13), 2895-2921
72 Sram, R. J., Binkova, B., Dejmek, J., & Bobak, M. (2005). Ambient air pollution and pregnancy outcomes: A review of the
literature. Environ Health Perspect, 113(4), 375-82
73 Chen, Y., Sheng, G., Bi, X., Feng, Y., Mai, B., & Fu, J. (2005). Emission factors for carbonaceous particles and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons from residential coal combustion in China. Environmental Science & Technology, 39(6), 1861-1867
74 Jenkins, B.M., Jones, A.D., Turn, S.Q., Williams, R.B., 1996. Emission factors for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from
biomass burning. Environmental Science and Technology 30, 2462–2469.
75 Roden, C. A., Bond, T. C., Conway, S., & Pinel, A. B. O. (2006). Emission factors and real-time optical properties of particles
emitted from traditional wood burning cookstoves. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(21), 6750-6757
76 Gullett, B. K., Touati, A., & Hays, M. D. (2003). PCDD/F, PCB, hxcbz, PAH, and PM emission factors for fireplace and
woodstove combustion in the San Francisco bay region. Environ Sci Technol, 37(9), 1758-65.
77 Xu, S.S., Liu, W.X., Tao, S., 2006. Emission of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in China. Environmental Science &
Technology 40, 702-708
78 Oanh, N.T.K., Albina, D.O., Ping, L., Wang, X., 2005. Emission of particulate matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
from select cookstove-fuel systems in Asia. Biomass & Bioenergy 28, 579-590.
71
32
From Kakareka
79
Other work by Kakareka detected the highest PAH emissions in Belarus from domestic waste and wood
waste combustion. Lowest levels of PAH emission are from peat briquette combustion80. They found a
wide variation in the PAH concentration of off-gases from the burning of firewood with different types of
wood. Birch firewood was reported to give the largest PAH emissions with pine giving lower emission
levels81.
There is far from universal agreement on the contribution of residential combustion to total PAH emissions
– although there is stronger consensus in relation to certain PAHs such as BaP . In the UK, for example, Lee
reports that the National Atmospheric Emission Inventory estimates suggest emissions of 2,700 t/a for the
16 US-EPA PAHs and that the Inventory data shows residential combustion accounts for approximately
20% (ca. 500 t/a). This is close to the 17% contribution estimated by Lee. Various PAHs may make
different contributions, for BaP the NAEI estimates annual emissions of 13 t, of which approximately 30%
were due to residential combustion whilst Lee estimated 36% making this source the biggest single
emitter of BaP. In each case the major contribution came from coal burning82.
Attempts have recently been made to validate the source contribution in the Czech Republic 83 but the
main PAH source categories examined (road traffic, residential wood combustion, residential and industrial
Kakareka, S. (n.d.). Test study of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons emission sources . Minsk, Belarus: Institute for
Problems of Natural Resources Use & Ecology. Retrieved April 30, 2012, from the UNEP database,
http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/pcdd_activities/projects/cat3_energyconv/Annex%20XII_Kakareka%20Belarus%20Fur
nace.pd
80 Kakareka, S. V., Kukharchyk, T. I., & Khomich, V. S. (2005). Study of PAH emission from the solid fuels combustion in
residential furnaces. Environmental Pollution, 133(2), 383-387.
81 Kakareka, S. V., Kukharchyk, T. I., & Khomich, V. S. (2005). Study of PAH emission from the solid fuels combustion in
residential furnaces. Environmental Pollution, 133(2), 383-387.
82 Applying the EFs determined in the Lee study puts the total emission from the domestic burning of coal and wood in the
UK at ca. 7 g TEQ/a, or just 2% of total emissions. This is very different from the claims made in the Czech Republic
discussed earlier.
83 Dvorská,
., Komprdová, K., Lammel, G., Klánová, J., & Plachá, H. (20 2). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in
background air in central Europe – seasonal levels and limitations for source apportionment. Atmospheric Environment,
46, 147-154
79
33
coal combustion) could not be validated due to the similarity of the reference PAH profiles between from
source together with the variability of ambient reference PAH profiles. It was suggested that the commonly
studied set of EPA PAHs is not source category specific and thus not suitable for source apportionment.
Until more work is done on this issue then the high proportion of emissions attributed to domestic
emissions should be considered as an unvalidated hypothesis rather than as fact.
PAH emission factors have been established for coal combustion in the past and there is now more interest
in establishing good data for residential coal stove emissions – particularly in China where domestic
consumption of coal is particularly high84,85,86,87. A number of studies have investigated PAH emissions
from different combinations of fuel/coal and stoves88,89,90. Most of the work, however, has been carried
out in laboratories rather than under real household combustion conditions.
Chen, Y.J., Bi, X.H., Mai, B.X., Sheng, G.Y., Fu, J.M., 2004. Emission characterization of particulate/gaseous phases and size
association for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from residential coal combustion. Fuel 83, 781-790.
85 Chen, Y., Sheng, G., Bi, X., Feng, Y., Mai, B., Fu, J., 2005. Emission factors for carbonaceous particles and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons from residential coal combustion in China. Environmental Science & Technology 39, 1861-1867.
86 Liu, W.X., Dou, H., Wei, Z.C., Chang, B., Qiu, W.X., Liu, Y., Tao, S., 2009. Emission characteristics of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons from combustion of different residential coals in North China. Science of the Total Environment 407, 14361446.
87 Shen, G., Wang, W., Yang, Y., Zhu, C., Min, Y., Xue, M., et al. (2010). Emission factors and particulate matter size
distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from residential coal combustions in rural northern China. Atmospheric
Environment, 44(39), 5237-5243
88 Chen, Y.J., Bi, X.H., Mai, B.X., Sheng, G.Y., Fu, J.M., 2004. Emission characterization of particulate/gaseous phases and size
association for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from residential coal combustion. Fuel 83, 781-790.
89 Chen, Y., Sheng, G., Bi, X., Feng, Y., Mai, B., Fu, J., 2005. Emission factors for carbonaceous particles and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons from residential coal combustion in China. Environmental Science & Technology 39, 1861-1867.
90 Liu, W.X., Dou, H., Wei, Z.C., Chang, B., Qiu, W.X., Liu, Y., Tao, S., 2009. Emission characteristics of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons from combustion of different residential coals in North China. Science of the Total Environment 407, 14361446.
84
34
Ash Disposal
The BAT/BEP guidelines advise that the primary emission of chemicals listed in Annex C from residential
combustion is to air. They add “Ash and soot are also released and, when arising from clean wood or
biomass combustion, typically contain only small quantities of chemicals listed in Annex C. Minor amounts
of ash may be safely used for fertilizer (sic) as long as it is not spread in the same place on a regular basis.
Larger quantities should be disposed of in a sanitary landfill”.
Whether this is prudent or not depends largely upon the combustion of co-contaminants, including heavy
metals such as lead from painted wood. All these contaminants could render the ash completely
unsuitable - and even hazardous -for use as fertiliser. The possibility of high levels of dioxin contamination
cannot be discounted. T draft UNEP dioxin toolkit gives reasonably high emission factors for household
heating and cooking using biomass contaminated with, for example, waste wood (1 μg TEQ/kg ash91) and,
although no source reference is given, much higher levels of contamination from high chlorine coal fired
stoves (30 μg TEQ/kg ash) and even for coal fired stoves (5 μg TEQ/kg ash).
The levels of dioxin in ashes from high chlorine coal fired stoves would thus be twice the (high) provisional
low POPs level and, if correct, then special precautions would need to be taken to avoid contamination of
food and associated risks to human health. The spreading of ash in areas where hens have access must be
anticipated as particular risk92.
Based on Wunderli, S., Zennegg, M., Dolezal, I. S., Noger, D., & Hasler, P. (1996). Levels and congener pattern of
PCDD/PCDF in fly and bottom ash from waste wood and natural wood burned in small to medium sized wood firing
facilities in switzerland. Organohalogen Compounds, 27, 231-36.
92 Petrlik, J. & DiGangi, J. (2005, April). The egg report - contamination of chicken eggs from 17 countries by dioxins, PCBs and
hexachlorobenzene . Dioxin, PCBs and Waste Working Group of the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN)
91
35
Bans on Waste Burning, New Equipment, Good Combustion Control and
Minimising Emissions
Bans and restrictions on burning of waste
The most obvious approach to reducing emissions associated with the burning of wastes and plastics is to
introduce legislation to outlaw the practice. This is now widespread in the EU where many member states
have already taken measures to restrict the burning of waste by introducing legal bans as can be seen in
the figure below:
The emissions of PCDD/PCDFs and other emissions can be significantly reduced by the replacement of old
and existing combustion equipment and the introduction of advanced combustion techniques for solid
fuels and the European Commission/BiPRO (BiPRO, 2009) indicate that the replacement of a simple wood
or coal oven with an advanced boiler fired with the same (solid) fuel results in a reduction of dioxin
emissions of more than 95%:
36
Dioxin emissions and reduction potential as a function of appliance type and fuel (per average household) (BiPRO, 2009)
The Stockholm Convention’s BAT/BEP guidelines include useful information on reducing emissions from
household stoves and boilers and emphasise that the complete combustion of fuel is important for
ensuring low emissions and efficient operation of the appliance.
This can be achieved by ensuring the following:
 Sufficient firing temperature;
 Sufficient airflow to provide enough oxygen for combustion;
 Avoidance of fuel overloading (more than the fire can burn efficiently);
 Sufficient mixing of air and the hot gases given off by the fire.
Specific measures to achieve these desired outcomes are:
 Good-quality, dry fuel;
 Collecting and seasoning wood to ensure it is dry when burnt;
 Ensuring adequate airflow (for example, preventing incoming air from being blocked by pieces of
wood;
 Enough space in the firebox for optimal airflow.
There is some evidence that processing fuel into forms which encourage more homogeneous combustion
can also be effective at reducing pollution.
37
Biomass Reference List
Aamand, L. E. & Leckner, B. (1991). Oxidation of volatile nitrogen compounds during combustion in
circulating fluidized bed boilers. Energy & Fuels, 5(6), 809-815.
Aamand, L. E., Leckner, B., & Andersson, S. (1991). Formation of nitrous oxide in circulating fluidized-bed
boilers. Energy & Fuels, 5(6), 815-823.
Anthony, E. J., Jia, L., & Granatstein, D. L. (2001). Dioxin and furan formation in FBC boilers. Environmental
Science & Technology, 35(14), 3002-3007.
Anthony, E. J., Talbot, R. E., Jia, L., & Granatstein, D. L. (2000). Agglomeration and fouling in three industrial
petroleum coke-fired CFBC boilers due to carbonation and sulfation. Energy & Fuels, 14(5), 1021-1027.
Aykan, K. (2006). Evaluation of the potential air pollution from fuel combustion in industrial boilers in
kocaeli, turkey. Fuel, 85(12–13), 1894-1903.
Bari, M. A., Baumbach, G., Brodbeck, J., Struschka, M., Kuch, B., Dreher, W., et al. (2011). Characterisation
of particulates and carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in wintertime wood-fired heating in
residential areas. Atmospheric Environment, 45(40), 7627-7634.
Barišid, V., Klingstedt, F., Kilpinen, P., & Hupa, M. (2005). Kinetics of the catalytic decomposition of N2O
over bed materials from industrial circulating fluidized-bed boilers burning biomass fuels and wastes.
Energy & Fuels, 19(6), 2340-2349.
Barišid, V., Neyestanaki, A. K., Klingstedt, F., Kilpinen, P., Eränen, K., & Hupa, M. (2004). Catalytic
decomposition of N2O over the bed material from circulating fluidized-bed (CFB) boilers burning
biomass fuels and wastes. Energy & Fuels, 18(6), 1909-1920.
Bazooyar, B., Ghorbani, A., & Shariati, A. (2011). Combustion performance and emissions of petrodiesel
and biodiesels based on various vegetable oils in a semi industrial boiler. Fuel, 90(10), 3078-3092.
Becidan, M. & Sørum, L. (2009). Consequences of unwanted local reducing conditions in biomass-fired
boilers on chemistry and operation: A thermodynamic evaluation. Energy & Fuels, 24(3), 1559-1564.
Benson, S. A., Hurley, J. P., Zygarlicke, C. J., Steadman, E. N., & Erickson, T. A. (1993). Predicting ash
behavior in utility boilers. Energy & Fuels, 7(6), 746-754.
Bhargava, A., Dlugogorski, B. Z., & Kennedy, E. M. (2002). Emission of polyaromatic hydrocarbons,
polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans from fires of wood chips.
Fire Safety Journal, 37(7), 659-672.
Boman, C., Pettersson, E., Westerholm, R., Boström, D., & Nordin, A. (2011). Stove performance and
emission characteristics in residential wood log and pellet combustion, part 1: Pellet stoves. Energy &
Fuels, 25(1), 307-314.
Brandt, C., Kunde, R., Dobmeier, B., Schnelle-Kreis, J., Orasche, J., Schmoeckel, G., et al. (2011). Ambient
PM10 concentrations from wood combustion – emission modeling and dispersion calculation for the
city area of augsburg, germany. Atmospheric Environment, 45(20), 3466-3474.
Breivik, K., Vestreng, V., Rozovskaya, O., & Pacyna, J. M. (2006). Atmospheric emissions of some pops in
europe: A discussion of existing inventories and data needs. Environmental Science & Policy, 9(7-8),
663-674.
Cabrol, L. & Rowley, P. (n.d.). Towards low carbon homes–A simulation analysis of building-integrated airsource heat pump systems. Energy and Buildings, (0).
Cao, Y., Zhou, H., Jiang, W., Chen, C. -W., & Pan, W. -P. (2010). Studies of the fate of sulfur trioxide in coalfired utility boilers based on modified selected condensation methods. Environmental Science &
Technology, 44(9), 3429-3434.
Chandrasekaran, S. R., Laing, J. R., Holsen, T. M., Raja, S., & Hopke, P. K. (2011). Emission characterization
and efficiency measurements of high-efficiency wood boilers. Energy & Fuels, 25(11), 5015-5021.
Chelemuge, Namioka, T., Yoshikawa, K., Takeshita, M., & Fujiwara, K. (n.d.). Commercial-Scale
demonstration of pollutant emission reduction and energy saving for industrial boilers by employing
38
water/oil emulsified fuel. Applied Energy, (0).
Chen, Q., Finney, K., Li, H., Zhang, X., Zhou, J., Sharifi, V., et al. (2012). Condensing boiler applications in the
process industry. Applied Energy, 89(1), 30-36.
Crouch, J. & Houck, J. E. (2004). Comment on "PCDD/F, PCB, hxcbz, PAH, and PM emission factors for
fireplace and woodstove combustion in the san francisco bay region". Environ Sci Technol, 38(6), 19101.
Economopoulos, E. (1997). Management of space heating emissions for effective abatement of urban
smoke and SO2 pollution. Atmospheric Environment, 31(9), 1327-1337.
Edgerton, S. A., Khalil, M. A. K., & Rasmussen, R. A. (1986). Source emission characterization of residential
wood-burning stoves and fireplaces: Fine particle methyl chloride ratios for use in chemical mass
balance modeling. Environmental Science & Technology, 20(8), 803-807.
Enestam, S., Boman, C., Niemi, J., Boström, D., Backman, R., Mäkelä, K., et al. (2011). Occurrence of zinc
and lead in aerosols and deposits in the fluidized-bed combustion of recovered waste wood. Part 1:
Samples from boilers. Energy & Fuels, 25(4), 1396-1404.
Ferrandon, M., Berg, M., & Björnbom, E. (1999). Thermal stability of metal-supported catalysts for
reduction of cold-start emissions in a wood-fired domestic boiler. Catalysis Today, 53(4), 647-659.
Fiedler, F. & Persson, T. (2009). Carbon monoxide emissions of combined pellet and solar heating systems.
Applied Energy, 86(2), 135-143.
Frandsen, F. J. (2009). Ash research from palm coast, florida to banff, canada: Entry of biomass in modern
power boilers†. Energy & Fuels, 23(7), 3347-3378.
Frank, F. (2004). The state of the art of small-scale pellet-based heating systems and relevant regulations in
sweden, austria and germany. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8(3), 201-221.
Frederick, W. J. & Vakkilainen, E. K. (2003). Sintering and structure development in alkali metal salt
deposits formed in kraft recovery boilers. Energy & Fuels, 17(6), 1501-1509.
Frederick, W. J., Vakkilainen, E. K., Tran, H. N., & Lien, S. J. (2004). The conditions for boiler bank plugging
by submicrometer sodium salt (fume) particles in kraft recovery boilers. Energy & Fuels, 18(3), 795803.
Gañan, J., Al-Kassir, A., González, J. F., Turegano, J., & Miranda, A. B. (2005). Experimental study of fire tube
boilers performance for public heating. Applied Thermal Engineering, 25(11–12), 1650-1656.
Ge, S., Xu, Chow, J. C., Watson, J., Sheng, Q., Liu, W., et al. (2004). Emissions of air pollutants from
household stoves: Honeycomb coal versus coal cake. Environmental Science & Technology, 38(17),
4612-4618.
Geng, C., Wang, K., Wang, W., Chen, J., Liu, X., & Liu, H. (2012). Smog chamber study on the evolution of
fume from residential coal combustion. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China), 24(1), 169-176.
Ghafghazi, S., Sowlati, T., Sokhansanj, S., Bi, X., & Melin, S. (2011). Particulate matter emissions from
combustion of wood in district heating applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(6),
3019-3028.
Grimmer, G., Jacob, J., Naujack, K. W., & Dettbarn, G. (1983). Determination of polycyclic aromatic
compounds emitted from brown-coal-fired residential stoves by gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry, 55(6), 892-900.
Gullett, B. K., Touati, A., & Hays, M. D. (2003). PCDD/F, PCB, hxcbz, PAH, and PM emission factors for
fireplace and woodstove combustion in the san francisco bay region. Environ Sci Technol, 37(9), 175865.
Gustavsson, L. & Joelsson, A. (2007). Energy conservation and conversion of electrical heating systems in
detached houses. Energy and Buildings, 39(6), 717-726.
Gustavsson, L. & Karlsson (2002). A system perspective on the heating of detached houses. Energy Policy,
30(7), 553-574.
Hackel, S. & Pertzborn, A. (2011). Effective design and operation of hybrid ground-source heat pumps:
Three case studies. Energy and Buildings, 43(12), 3497-3504.
Hawthorne, S. B., Krieger, M. S., Miller, D. J., & Mathiason, M. B. (1989). Collection and quantitation of
39
methoxylated phenol tracers for atmospheric pollution from residential wood stoves. Environmental
Science & Technology, 23(4), 470-475.
Hays, M. D., Gullett, B., King, C., Robinson, J., Preston, W., & Touati, A. (2011). Characterization of
carbonaceous aerosols emitted from outdoor wood boilers (with spreadsheet). Energy & Fuels, 25(12),
5632-5638.
Hedman, B., Näslund, M., & Marklund, S. (2006). Emission of PCDD/F, PCB, and HCB from combustion of
firewood and pellets in residential stoves and boilers. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(16),
4968-4975.
Huang, J., Hopke, P. K., Choi, H. -D., Laing, J. R., Cui, H., Zananski, T. J., et al. (2011). Mercury (hg) emissions
from domestic biomass combustion for space heating. Chemosphere, 84(11), 1694-1699.
Hunt, G. T., Wolf, P., & Fennelly, P. F. (1986). Incineration of polychlorinated biphenyls in high efficiency
boilers: A viable disposal option. Environmental Science & Technology, 18(3), 171-179.
Hurley, J. P. & Benson, S. A. (1995). Ash deposition at low temperatures in boilers burning high-calcium
coals 1. Problem definition. Energy & Fuels, 9(5), 775-781.
Hübner, C., Boos, R., & Prey, T. (2005). In-Field measurements of PCDD/F emissions from domestic heating
appliances for solid fuels. Chemosphere, 58(3), 367-372.
Itkonen, A. O. & Jantunen, M. J. (1986). Emissions and particle-size distribution of some metallic elements
of two peat/oil-fired boilers. Environmental Science & Technology, 20(4), 335-341.
Jalava, P. I., Happo, M. S., Kelz, J., Brunner, T., Hakulinen, P., Mäki-Paakkanen, J., et al. (n.d.). In vitro
toxicological characterization of particulate emissions from residential biomass heating systems based
on old and new technologies. Atmospheric Environment, (0).
Jensen, P. A., Frandsen, F. J., Hansen, J., Dam-Johansen, K., Henriksen, N., & Hörlyck, S. (2004). SEM
investigation of superheater deposits from biomass-fired boilers. Energy & Fuels, 18(2), 378-384.
Jensen, P. A., Stenholm, M., & Hald, P. (1997). Deposition investigation in straw-fired boilers. Energy &
Fuels, 11(5), 1048-1055.
Jia, L., Anthony, E. J., & Laursen, K. (2003). Effect of caso4 on the strength development of sorbents in CFBC
boilers firing high-sulfur fuels. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 42(14), 3245-3249.
Johansson, L. S., Tullin, C., Leckner, B., & Sjövall, P. (2003). Particle emissions from biomass combustion in
small combustors. Biomass and Bioenergy, 25(4), 435-446.
Jou, C. -J. G., Lee, C. -L., Tsai, C. -H., & Wang, H. P. (2007). Reduction of energy cost and CO2 emission for
the boilers in a full-scale refinery plant by adding waste hydrogen-rich fuel gas. Energy & Fuels, 22(1),
564-569.
Juda-Rezler, K., Reizer, M., & Oudinet, J. -P. (2011). Determination and analysis of PM10 source
apportionment during episodes of air pollution in central eastern european urban areas: The case of
wintertime 2006. Atmospheric Environment, 45(36), 6557-6566.
Launhardt, T. & Thoma, H. (2000). Investigation on organic pollutants from a domestic heating system
using various solid biofuels. Chemosphere, 40(9–11), 1149-1157.
Leckner, B., Karlsson, M., Dam-Johansen, K., Weinell, C. E., Kilpinen, P., & Hupa, M. (1991). Influence of
additives on selective noncatalytic reduction of nitric oxide with ammonia in circulating fluidized bed
boilers. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 30(11), 2396-2404.
Li, F., Zhai, J., Fu, X., & Sheng, G. (2006). Characterization of fly ashes from circulating fluidized bed
combustion (CFBC) boilers cofiring coal and petroleum coke. Energy & Fuels, 20(4), 1411-1417.
Li, S., Yang, H., Zhang, H., Liu, Q., Lu, J., & Yue, G. (2009). Postcombustion and its influences in 135 mwe
CFB boilers. Energy & Fuels, 23(9), 4311-4317.
Li, X., Wu, W., Zhang, X., Shi, W., & Wang, B. (n.d.). Energy saving potential of low temperature hot water
system based on air source absorption heat pump. Applied Thermal Engineering, (0).
Lillieblad, L., Szpila, A., Strand, M., Pagels, J., Rupar-Gadd, K., Gudmundsson, A., et al. (2004). Boiler
operation influence on the emissions of submicrometer-sized particles and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons from biomass-fired grate boilers. Energy & Fuels, 18(2), 410-417.
Lin, S. -L., Lee, W. -J., Chang, S. -S., Lee, C. -F., Lee, L. -F., Lin, C. -S., et al. (2011). Energy savings and
40
emission reduction of traditional pollutants, particulate matter, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
using solvent-containing water emulsified heavy fuel oil in boilers. Energy & Fuels, 25(4), 1537-1546.
Lind, T., Hokkinen, J., Jokiniemi, J. K., Hillamo, R., Makkonen, U., Raukola, A., et al. (2005). Electrostatic
precipitator performance and trace element emissions from two kraft recovery boilers. Environmental
Science & Technology, 40(2), 584-589.
Liu, X., Wang, W., Liu, H., Geng, C., Zhang, W., Wang, H., et al. (2010). Number size distribution of particles
emitted from two kinds of typical boilers in a coal-fired power plant in china. Energy & Fuels, 24(3),
1677-1681.
Lundgren, J., Hermansson, R., & Dahl, J. (2004a). Experimental studies during heat load fluctuations in a
500 kw wood-chips fired boiler. Biomass and Bioenergy, 26(3), 255-267.
Lundgren, J., Hermansson, R., & Dahl, J. (2004b). Experimental studies of a biomass boiler suitable for small
district heating systems. Biomass and Bioenergy, 26(5), 443-453.
Lyngfelt, A., Aamand, L. -E., & Leckner, B. (1995). Obtaining low N2O, NO, and SO2 emissions from
circulating fluidized bed boilers by reversing the air staging conditions. Energy & Fuels, 9(2), 386-387.
Macor, A. & Pavanello, P. (2009). Performance and emissions of biodiesel in a boiler for residential heating.
Energy, 34(12), 2025-2032.
Martani, C., Lee, D., Robinson, P., Britter, R., & Ratti, C. (n.d.). ENERNET: Studying the dynamic relationship
between building occupancy and energy consumption. Energy and Buildings, (0).
Mattila, H., Virtanen, T., Vartiainen, T., & Ruuskanen, J. (1992). Emissions of polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and dibenzofurans in flue gas from co-combustion of mixed plastics with coal and bark.
Chemosphere, 25(11), 1599-1609.
Mcauley, M. (2003). The combustion hazard of plastic domestic heating oil tanks and their contents.
Science & Justice, 43(3), 145-148.
Mikkanen, P., Kauppinen, E. I., Pyykönen, J., Jokiniemi, J. K., Aurela, M., Vakkilainen, E. K., et al. (1999).
Alkali salt ash formation in four finnish industrial recovery boilers. Energy & Fuels, 13(4), 778-795.
Nielsen, H. P., Frandsen, F. J., & Dam-Johansen, K. (1999). Lab-Scale investigations of high-temperature
corrosion phenomena in straw-fired boilers. Energy & Fuels, 13(6), 1114-1121.
Northcross, A. L., Hammond, S. K., & Smith, K. R. (n.d.). Dioxin inhalation doses from wood combustion in
indoor cookfires. Atmospheric Environment, (0).
Northrop, P. S., Levendis, Y. A., & Gavalas, G. R. (1991). Combustion characteristics of carbonaceous
residues from heavy oil fired boilers. Energy & Fuels, 5(4), 587-594.
Nuutinen, L. H., Tiainen, M. S., Virtanen, M. E., Enestam, S. H., & Laitinen, R. S. (2003). Coating layers on
bed particles during biomass fuel combustion in fluidized-bed boilers. Energy & Fuels, 18(1), 127-139.
Olsson, M. & Kjällstrand, J. (2006). Low emissions from wood burning in an ecolabelled residential boiler.
Atmospheric Environment, 40(6), 1148-1158.
Ozil, F., Tschamber, V., Haas, F., & Trouvé, G. (2009). Efficiency of catalytic processes for the reduction of
CO and VOC emissions from wood combustion in domestic fireplaces. Fuel Processing Technology,
90(9), 1053-1061.
Patterson, T., Esteves, S., Dinsdale, R., & Guwy, A. (2011). Life cycle assessment of biogas infrastructure
options on a regional scale. Bioresource Technology, 102(15), 7313-7323.
Pettersson, E., Boman, C., Westerholm, R., Boström, D., & Nordin, A. (2011). Stove performance and
emission characteristics in residential wood log and pellet combustion, part 2: Wood stove. Energy &
Fuels, 25(1), 315-323.
Riva, G., Pedretti, E. F., Toscano, G., Duca, D., & Pizzi, A. (2011). Determination of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in domestic pellet stove emissions. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(10), 4261-4267.
Rogge, W. F., Hildemann, L. M., Mazurek, M. A., Cass, G. R., & Simoneit, B. R. T. (1997). Sources of fine
organic aerosol. 8. Boilers burning no. 2 distillate fuel oil. Environmental Science & Technology, 31(10),
2731-2737.
Rossi, B., Marique, A. -F., Glaumann, M., & Reiter, S. (2012). Life-Cycle assessment of residential buildings
in three different european locations, basic tool. Building and Environment, 51(0), 395-401.
41
Shen, G., Wang, W., Yang, Y., Ding, J., Xue, M., Min, Y., et al. (2011). Emissions of pahs from indoor crop
residue burning in a typical rural stove: Emission factors, size distributions, and gas−particle
partitioning. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(4), 1206-1212.
Shen, G., Yang, Y., Wang, W., Tao, S., Zhu, C., Min, Y., et al. (2010). Emission factors of particulate matter
and elemental carbon for crop residues and coals burned in typical household stoves in china.
Environmental Science & Technology, 44(18), 7157-7162.
Shimoda, Y., Okamura, T., Yamaguchi, Y., Yamaguchi, Y., Taniguchi, A., & Morikawa, T. (2010). City-Level
energy and CO2 reduction effect by introducing new residential water heaters. Energy, 35(12), 48804891.
Sippula, O., Hokkinen, J., Puustinen, H., Yli-Pirilä, P., & Jokiniemi, J. (2009). Comparison of particle
emissions from small heavy fuel oil and wood-fired boilers. Atmospheric Environment, 43(32), 48554864.
Sippula, O., Hytönen, K., Tissari, J., Raunemaa, T., & Jokiniemi, J. (2007). Effect of wood fuel on the
emissions from a top-feed pellet stove. Energy & Fuels, 21(2), 1151-1160.
Skrifvars, B. -, Öhman, M., Nordin, A., & Hupa, M. (1999). Predicting bed agglomeration tendencies for
biomass fuels fired in FBC boilers: A comparison of three different prediction methods. Energy & Fuels,
13(2), 359-363.
Snäkin, S. (2000). An engineering model for heating energy and emission assessment the case of north
karelia, finland. Applied Energy, 67(4), 353-381.
Song, T. & Wang, Y. (2012). Carbon dioxide fluxes from an urban area in beijing. Atmospheric Research,
106(0), 139-149.
Srivastava, R. K., Hutson, N., Martin, B., Princiotta, F., & Staudt, J. (2006). Control of mercury emissions
from coal-fired electric utility boilers. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(5), 1385-1393.
Šyc, M., Horák, J., Hopan, F., Krpec, K., Tomšej, T., Ocelka, T., et al. (2011). Effect of fuels and domestic
heating appliance types on emission factors of selected organic pollutants. Environmental Science &
Technology, 45(21), 9427-9434.
Takkinen, S., Hyppänen, T., Saastamoinen, J., & Pikkarainen, T. (2011). Experimental and modeling study of
sulfur capture by limestone in selected conditions of air-fired and oxy-fuel circulating fluidized-bed
boilers. Energy & Fuels, 25(7), 2968-2979.
Tiainen, M., Daavitsainen, J., & Laitinen, R. S. (2002). The role of amorphous material in ash on the
agglomeration problems in FB boilers. A powder XRD and SEM-EDS study. Energy & Fuels, 16(4), 871877.
Tillman*, D. A., Duong, D., & Miller, B. (2009). Chlorine in solid fuels fired in pulverized fuel boilers —
sources, forms, reactions, and consequences: A literature review†. Energy & Fuels, 23(7), 3379-3391.
Traynor, G. W., Apte, M. G., Carruthers, A. R., Dillworth, J. F., Grimsrud, D. T., & Gundel, L. A. (1987). Indoor
air pollution due to emissions from wood-burning stoves. Environmental Science & Technology, 21(7),
691-697.
Valentine, J. R., Shim, H. -S., Davis, K. A., Seo, S. -I., & Kim, T. -H. (2006). CFD evaluation of waterwall
wastage in coal-fired utility boilers. Energy & Fuels, 21(1), 242-249.
van Loo, S. & Koppejan, J. (2008). The handbook of biomass combustion and co-firing. Earthscan
Publications Ltd. .
Verma, V. K., Bram, S., & De Ruyck, J. (2009). Small scale biomass heating systems: Standards, quality
labelling and market driving factors – an EU outlook. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(10), 1393-1402.
Verma, V. K., Bram, S., Delattin, F., Laha, P., Vandendael, I., Hubin, A., et al. (2012). Agro-Pellets for
domestic heating boilers: Standard laboratory and real life performance. Applied Energy, 90(1), 17-23.
Verma, V. K., Bram, S., Gauthier, G., & De Ruyck, J. (2011). Evaluation of the performance of a multi-fuel
domestic boiler with respect to the existing european standard and quality labels: Part-1. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 35(1), 80-89.
Wallace, L., Wang, F., Howard-Reed, C., & Persily, A. (2008). Contribution of gas and electric stoves to
residential ultrafine particle concentrations between 2 and 64 nm: Size distributions and emission and
42
coagulation rates. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(23), 8641-8647.
Wallace, L. A., Emmerich, S. J., & Howard-Reed, C. (2004). Source strengths of ultrafine and fine particles
due to cooking with a gas stove. Environmental Science & Technology, 38(8), 2304-2311.
Wan, K. K., Li, D. H., Pan, W., & Lam, J. C. (n.d.). Impact of climate change on building energy use in
different climate zones and mitigation and adaptation implications. Applied Energy, (0).
Wang, H. -C., Jiao, W. -L., Zou, P. -H., & Liu, J. -C. (2010). Analysis of an effective solution to excessive heat
supply in a city primary heating network using gas-fired boilers for peak-load compensation. Energy
and Buildings, 42(11), 2090-2097.
Wang, W., Si, X., Yang, H., Zhang, H., & Lu, J. (2010). Heat-Transfer model of the rotary ash cooler used in
circulating fluidized-bed boilers. Energy & Fuels, 24(4), 2570-2575.
Whitman, T., Nicholson, C. F., Torres, D., & Lehmann, J. (2011). Climate change impact of biochar cook
stoves in western kenyan farm households: System dynamics model analysis. Environmental Science &
Technology, 45(8), 3687-3694.
Wornat, M. J., Ledesma, E. B., Sandrowitz, A. K., Roth, M. J., Dawsey, S. M., Qiao, Y. -L., et al. (2001).
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons identified in soot extracts from domestic coal-burning stoves of
henan province, china. Environmental Science & Technology, 35(10), 1943-1952.
Wu, Y., Charland, J. -, Anthony, E. J., & Jia, L. (2004). A study on the reactivation of five fly ashes from
commercial circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers. Energy & Fuels, 18(3), 830-834.
Xiao, X., Yang, H., Zhang, H., Lu, J., & Yue, G. (2005). Research on carbon content in fly ash from circulating
fluidized bed boilers. Energy & Fuels, 19(4), 1520-1525.
Zheng, L., Zhou, H., Wang, C., & Cen, K. (2008). Combining support vector regression and ant colony
optimization to reduce nox emissions in coal-fired utility boilers. Energy & Fuels, 22(2), 1034-1040.
Zhi, G., Chen, Y., Feng, Y., Xiong, S., Li, J., Zhang, G., et al. (2008). Emission characteristics of carbonaceous
particles from various residential coal-stoves in china. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(9),
3310-3315.
Zhi, G., Peng, C., Chen, Y., Liu, D., Sheng, G., & Fu, J. (2009). Deployment of coal briquettes and improved
stoves: Possibly an option for both environment and climate. Environmental Science & Technology,
43(15), 5586-5591.
Zhou, W., Marquez, A., Moyeda, D., Nareddy, S., Frato, J., Yu, G., et al. (2010). Design and test of a selective
noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) system for full-scale refinery CO boilers to achieve high nox removal.
Energy & Fuels, 24(7), 3936-3941.
Zhou, W., Swanson, L., Moyeda, D., & Xu, G. (2010). Process evaluation of biomass cofiring and reburning
in utility boilers. Energy & Fuels, 24(8), 4510-4517.
Zhou, Y., Zhang, M., Xu, T., & Hui, S. (2009). Effect of opposing tangential primary air jets on the flue gas
velocity deviation for large-scale tangentially fired boilers. Energy & Fuels, 23(11), 5375-5382.
43
ANNEX 1
Definitions:
Fireplaces: Simple radiation device used as supplemental heating appliance primarily for aesthetic reasons.
Can be subdivided into solid or gas fuelled, open, partly closed and closed; constructed as brick/cut stone
or cast iron/steel. Open fireplaces usually have a very low efficiency and significant emissions, partly closed
fireplaces are retrofitted with doors and other devices to increase their efficiency. Closed fireplaces have
doors, systems for air distribution and discharge of exhaust gases. Efficiency is >50% with similar emissions
to stoves, so that they can be rated in the same category.
Stoves: Stoves are mainly simple combustion devices (radiation or heat storing) used for heating and
cooking purposes Conventional up-draught stoves, using only primary supply air from below corresponding
to over-fire boilers have an efficiency of 40-50%. This technology is used in the majority of older appliances
and is associated with higher emissions. Classic energy efficient stove have an efficiency of 55-70% and
lower emissions due to secondary air supply (down-draught combustion technology corresponding to
under-fire boiler). Advanced stoves are characterised by multiple air inlets and pre-heating of secondary air
and achieve 70% efficiency at full load and lower emissions. Pellet stoves are equipped with a fan and air
supply control system to improve combustion conditions, resulting in high efficiency 80-90% and low
emissions. Heat storing stoves achieve efficiency of 60-80%.
Boilers: Boilers have a nominal capacity of 12-50 kW and are widespread in temperate regions. According
to the combustion process applied boilers can be differentiated into over-fire boilers (cheap simple) and
under-fire and inverse-fire boilers (advanced boilers) with increasing combustion efficiency. The simplest
boilers are over-fire boilers for wood logs. The principle is that combustion takes place in the whole fuel
batch as in wood-stoves with only primary air supply. Combustion in the cheap and simple over-fire boilers
is not optimal and efficiency is similar to conventional stoves. In under-fire boilers the fuel is burning
mainly from the bottom with also secondary air supply. The under-fire boiler can normally be switch
between under-fire and over-fire by a flue gas valve. In advance under-fire coal boiler gasification and
partial combustion takes place in the bottom of the fuel storage and the final, major combustion takes
place in a separate combustion chamber. Inverse-fire or down-draught boilers have the primary
combustion air supply above the fuel This group of boilers comprises downdraught wood boilers as state of
the art for lump wood, stoker coal burners for coal with high efficiency over a wide load range and wood
pellet boilers with high efficiency and emissions comparable to liquid fuel boilers. Combustion in under-fire
and inverse fire boilers is more stable resulting in higher efficiency and lower emissions. Besides
combustion technology, a differentiation can be made with respect to the feeding of boilers and stoves
into overfed (the fuel is fed from above into the combustion chamber) and underfed (the fuel is fed from
above into the combustion chamber). These differences in technology are especially important and used in
modern automated biomass or coal (retort boilers) fired appliances.
44
ANNEX 2
Is it better to recycle or incinerate mixed Plastic Waste ?
Kukačka (Kukačka 2010)93 claimed in a report for the Czech Government that “incineration and gasification
seem to be the most advantageous procedures for mixed plastic waste energy recovery“ and “in view of
high costs connected with plastic waste transport” recommended a network of large and small incinerators
and gasification plants across the Czech Republic. This claims need careful scrutiny as they are inconsistent
with the results of meta-reviews of life cycle assessments for plastics recovery. An important example
relates to the work of the UK Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP). This is a governmental
research organisaton which undertook a specialist review of international studies titled “Environmental
Benefits of Recycling” (WRAP 2006)94. The review shows how increased recycling is helping to tackle
climate change and emphasises the importance of recycling over incineration and landfill as the
appropriate way forward. Of particular relevance here is that the evidence from WRAP concludes “In the
vast majority of cases, the recycling of materials has greater environmental benefits than incineration or
landfill”. WRAP also concluded:
14. The message of this 2006 study is unequivocal. Recycling is good for the environment, saves energy,
reduces raw material extraction and combats climate change. It has a vital role to play as waste and
resource strategies are reviewed to meet the challenges posed by European Directives, as well as in moving
the UK towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production, and in combating climate
change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
WRAP tabulated the results of their review showing the numbers of studies in each category:
Overall environmental preffrence of waste management options across all reviewed scenarios
Recycling v Incineration
Material
Recycling v Landfill
Recycling
Incineration
No preference
Recycling
Landfill
No preference
Paper
22
6
9
12
0
1
Glass
8
0
1
14
2
0
Plastics
32
8
2
15
0
0
Aluminium
10
1
0
7
0
0
Steel
8
1
0
11
0
0
6
0
0
80
16
12
65
2
1
Wood
Aggregates
Totals
Incineration v Landfill
Recycling v Mixed
Grand Total
Kukačka, J., Raschman, R. 20 0: Possibilities of municipal plastic waste energy recovery Odpadové fórum (Waste
Management Forum) 10/2010; 14 – 16.
93
WRAP (2006). Environmental Benefits of Recycling - An international review of life cycle comparisons for key materials
in the UK Recycling Sector Sep 2006. Banbury, Waste Resources Action Programme,.
94
45
Material
Recycling
Incineration
No preference
Recycling
Mixed
No preference
1
0
0
12
0
0
Plastics
2
0
1
60
Aluminium
2
0
0
20
7
0
0
7
12
0
1
Paper
Glass
63
25
Steel
Wood
Aggregates
Totals
6
12
0
0
201
Out of 40 reviews only 20% supported incineration over recycling. This is remarkable considering that
several of the original papers were supported by the waste disposal industry in an attempt to justify less
recycling and more disposal. When the original papers are examined it is clear that these tended to make
assumptions that are known to favour incineration such as the displacement of high carbon electricity
generation. When future projected carbon intensities of displaced generation are substituted then few if
any of the papers maintain the support for incineration over recycling.
In 2010 WRAP updated this 2006 review of waste management options (Michaud, Farrant et al. 2010)95.
They assessed 55 ‘state of the art’ LCAs on paper and cardboard, glass, plastics, aluminium, steel, wood
and aggregates and the conclusion, they said again “was clear – most studies show that recycling offers
more environmental benefits and lower environmental impacts than the other waste management
options”.
The results confirm that mechanical recycling is the best waste management option in respect of the
change potential, depletion of natural resources and energy demand impacts. The analysis highlights again
that these benefits of recycling are mainly achieved by avoiding production of virgin plastics.
The environmental benefits are maximised by collection of good quality material (to limit the rejected
fraction) and by replacement of virgin plastics on a high ratio (1 to 1).
Incineration with energy recovery performs poorly with respect to climate change impact, but pyrolysis
appears to be an emerging option regarding all indicators assessed, though this was only analysed in two
LCA studies.
WRAP concludes that:
“Looking to the future, as the UK moves to a lower carbon energy mix, collection quality improves and
recycling technology develops, then recycling will become increasingly favoured over energy recovery for all
impact categories”.
It is not surprising, therefore, that climate change economist Nicholas Stern wrote (Stern 2009):
“Recycling is already making a major contribution to keeping down emissions. Indeed, its scale is so little
appreciated that it might be described as one of the 'best kept secrets' in energy and climate change....New
technologies for separating out forms of waste could also have a great impact.”
A specific review for WRAP assessing the life cycle options for mixed plastics (Shonfield 2008) 96 rated
incineration by far the worst option in terms of climate change impacts (see gaphs below) as well as being
in the worst 25% for human toxicity potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, acidification
potential and abiotic depletion:
Michaud, J.-C., Bio Intelligence Service,, L. Farrant, et al. (2010). Environmental Benefits of Recycling - 2010 update An
updated review of life cycle comparisons for key materials in the UK recycling sector SAP097 16 March 2010. Banbury
WRAP Waste Resources Action Programme.
95
Shonfield, P. (2008). LCA of management options for mixed waste plastics. Banbury: Waste Resources Action Programme
WRAP
96
46
Furthermore other research by consultants Oakdene Hollins for WRAP (WRAP 2008) 97 demonstrated that
even exports of plastics over very long distances, such as to China, did not change the conclusions that
recycling was a better from a carbon emissions perspective.
WRAP (2008). CO2 impacts of transporting the UK’s recovered paper and plastic bottles to China. Banbury: Oakdene
Hollins and critically reviewed by ERM for Waste Resources Action Programme
97
47
ANNEX 3
UNECE Default Emission Factors:
Hard Coal and Brown Coal:
Tier 1 default emission factors
Code
Name
NFR Source Category
1.A.4.b.i
Residential plants
Fuel
Hard Coal and Brown Coal
Not applicable
Aldrin, Chlordane, Chlordecone, Dieldrin, Endrin, Heptachlor, Heptabromo-biphenyl, Mirex,
Toxaphene, HCH, DDT, PCP, SCCP
Not estimated
Total 4 PAHs
Pollutant
Value
NOx
CO
NMVOC
SOx
NH3
TSP
PM10
PM2.5
Pb
Cd
Hg
As
Cr
Cu
Ni
110
4600
484
900
0.3
444
404
398
130
1.V
5.I
2.V
11.II
22.III
12.VII
g/GJ
g/GJ
g/GJ
g/GJ
g/GJ
g/GJ
g/GJ
g/GJ
mg/GJ
mg/GJ
mg/GJ
mg/GJ
mg/GJ
mg/GJ
mg/GJ
1
mg/GJ
Se
Unit
95% confidence interval
Lower
Upper
36
200
3000
7000
250
840
300
1000
0.1
7
80
600
76
480
72
480
100
200
0.5
3
3
6
1.V
5
10
15
20
30
10
20
1
2.IV
Reference
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Expert judgement based on
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Zn
220
mg/GJ
120
300
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
PCB
170
µg/GJ
85
260
Kakareka et. al (2004)
PCDD/F
800
ng I-TEQ/GJ
300
1200
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Benzo(a)pyrene
230
mg/GJ
60
300
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
330
mg/GJ
102
480
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
130
mg/GJ
60
180
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
110
mg/GJ
48
144
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
HCB
0.62
µg/GJ
0.31
1.II
Guidebook (2006) chapter B216
Note: 900 g/GJ of sulphur dioxine corresponds to 1.2% S of coal fuel or lower heating value on a dry basis 24 GJ/t and
average sulphur retention in ash as value of 0.1
Biomass
Tier 1 default emission factors
Code
NFR Source Category
48
1.A.4.b.i
Name
Residential plants
Fuel
Not applicable
Not estimated
Pollutant
NOx
CO
NMVOC
SOx
NH3
TSP
PM10
PM2.5
Pb
Cd
Hg
As
Cr
Cu
Ni
Se
Zn
PCB
PCDD/F
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
HCB
49
Biomass
Aldrin, Chlordane, Chlordecone, Dieldrin, Endrin, Heptachlor, Heptabromo-biphenyl,
Mirex, Toxaphene, HCH, DDT, PCP, SCCP
Total 4 PAHs
95% confidence interval
Value
Unit
Reference
Lower
Upper
74.5
g/GJ
30
150
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
5300
g/GJ
4000
6500
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
925
g/GJ
400
1500
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
20
g/GJ
10
30
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
3.VIII
g/GJ
3.04
14
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
730
g/GJ
500
1260
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
695
g/GJ
475
1200
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
695
g/GJ
475
1190
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
40
mg/GJ
10
60
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
1,4
mg/GJ
0.1
2.5
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
0,5
mg/GJ
0.2
0.6
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
1
mg/GJ
0.3
2.5
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
2.9
mg/GJ
1
10
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
8.6
mg/GJ
0.5
11.2
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
4.4
mg/GJ
1
250
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
0.5
mg/GJ
0.25
0.75
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
130
mg/GJ
60
250
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
0.06
mg/GJ
0.012
0.3
Kakareka et. al (2004)
700
ng I-TEQ/GJ
500
1000
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
210
mg/GJ
130
300
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
220
mg/GJ
150
260
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
130
mg/GJ
60
180
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
140
mg/GJ
80
200
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
6
µg/GJ
3
9
EMEP/CORINAIR B216
ANNEX 3
Compilation of emission factors from the literature (BiPRO, 2009)
Range of EF for coal combustion in different domesic appliances in the EU (цg TEQ/TJ)
Year
Short reference
Domestic appliance (type)
1999
Thanner & Moche
2002
AT
stovetyp 1
low priced multi-fuel stove
~1999
1999
Thanner & Moche
2002
AT
stovetyp 1
low priced multi-fuel stove
~1999
1999
Thanner & Moche
2002
AT
stovetyp 2
cast iron stove for coke
~1979
1999
Thanner & Moche
2002
AT
1999
Thanner & Moche
2002
AT
1999/2000
Boos et at. 2005
resp. Hübner et al.
2005
AT
Single stove (continuous
burning)
~1960
wood, coal
29
1999/2000
Boos et at. 2005
resp. Hübner et al.
2005
AT
Single stove (continuous
burning)
1990
wood, coal
27
1999/2000
Boos et at. 2005
resp. Hübner et al.
2005
AT
Stingle stove (kitchen)
~1970
wood, coal
130
1999/2000
Boos et at. 2005
resp. Hübner et al.
2005
AT
Stingle stove (kitchen)
~1970
wood, coal
48
1999/2000
Boos et at. 2005
resp. Hübner et al.
2005
AT
Stingle stove (kitchen)
1985
wood, coal
2,400
1999/2000
Boos et at. 2005
resp. Hübner et al.
2005
AT
Residential heating boiler for
solid fuels
1981
coke
71
1999/2000
Boos et at. 2005
resp. Hübner et al.
2005
AT
Residential heating boiler for
solid fuels
1999
coke
87
1999/2000
Boos et at. 2005
resp. Hübner et al.
2005
AT
Residential heating boiler for
solid fuels
1978
coke
280
1999/2000
Boos et at. 2005
resp. Hübner et al.
2005
AT
Residential heating boiler for
solid fuels
1987
coke
380
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
fireplace
~1986
lignite briquette
61
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
fireplace
~1986
lignite briquette
38
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
fireplace
~1986
lignite briquette
11
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
fireplace
~1986
lignite briquette
8
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
lignite briquette
37
50
stovetyp 2
cast iron stove for coke
stovetyp 3
danish style cast iron wood
stove
Manufacture
~1979
~1990
Fuel
EF air
MS
coal
Poland
coke Czech
Republic
coal
Poland
coke Czech
Republic
coal
Poland
цg TEQ/TJ
8,990
9,470
12,100
11,700
1,500
1,980
4,190
3,640
8,620
1,560
860
3,230
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
lignite briquette
62
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
lignite briquette
19
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
lignite briquette
16
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
lignite briquette
13
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
lignite briquette
19
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
lignite briquette
10
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
lignite briquette
11
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
boiler 2
~1987-90
lignite briquette
20
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
boiler 2
~1987-90
lignite briquette
49
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
boiler 2
~1987-90
lignite briquette
21
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
boiler 2
~1987-90
lignite briquette
35
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
lignite briquette
32
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
lignite briquette
2
31
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
lignite briquette
2
20
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
lignite briquette
2
17
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
lignite briquette
2
33
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
lignite briquette
2
14
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
boiler 2
~1987-90
lignite briquette
2
19
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
boiler 2
~1987-90
lignite briquette
2
32
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
lignite briquette
3
54
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
lignite briquette
3
25
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
lignite briquette
3
15
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
lignite briquette
3
12
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
lignite briquette
3
27
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
lignite briquette
3
12
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
boiler 2
~1987-90
lignite briquette
3
17
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
boiler 2
~1987-90
lignite briquette
3
30
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
Anthracite 1
24
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
Anthracite 1
31
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
Anthracite 1
21
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
Anthracite 1
20
51
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
Anthracite 1
10
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
Anthracite 1
13
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
Anthracite 1
6
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
Anthracite 1
10
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Boiler 1
~1986/87
Anthracite 1
14
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Boiler 1
~1986/87
Anthracite 1
13
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
fireplace
~1987
hard coal
briquettes
81
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
fireplace
~1987
hard coal
briquettes
68
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
fireplace
~1987
hard coal
briquettes
47
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
fireplace
~1987
hard coal
briquettes
31
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
hard coal
briquettes
21
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
hard coal
briquettes
19
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
hard coal
briquettes
11
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
hard coal
briquettes
23
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
hard coal
briquettes
18
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
hard coal
briquettes
17
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
hard coal
briquettes
7
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
hard coal
briquettes
10
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
hard coal coke
50
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
hard coal coke
69
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
hard coal coke
23
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Stove continuous burning
~1982
hard coal coke
36
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
hard coal coke
18
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
hard coal coke
49
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
hard coal coke
28
1994/1995
Erken et al. 1996
DE
Continuous heating device
~1985
hard coal coke
20
120.81)
?
Hobson et al. 2003
UK
Domestic open fire <5 kW
?
Yorkshire
housecoal
?
Davies et al. 1992
UK
Domestic open fire <5 kW
?
Smokeless coal,
bituminous coal
anthracite
87.5 - 2381)
?
Lignite Germany
70; 581)
?
Lignite Czech
Rep.
20; 211)
?
Anthracite
95,1751)
?
52
Geueke et al. 2000
DE
Stoves
?
Grochowalski 2002
Williams et al. 2001
?
Hard coal
Poland
633; 1,4301)
?
Coal
6,000;
11,0001)
?
Coal J
285
Coal W
804; 540.1
?
Lignite Germany
117.61)
?
Lignite Czech
Rep.
39.41)
?
Anthracite
1451)
?
Hardcoal briq.
Ger.
310.41)
?
Coke Germany
26.61)
?
Hardcoal Poland
1,1271)
?
Lignite Germany
192.9
?
Lignite Czech
Rep.
69.41)
?
Anthracite
364.31)
?
Hardcoal briq.
Ger.
186.71)
?
Coke Germany
90.31)
?
Hardcoal Poland
3,6871)
Small and medium boiler,
non controlled combustion
?
Coal
1042)
Small and medium boiler,
party controlled combustion
?
Coal
422)
?
High rank coal
and products
27.4
?
High rank coals
20.3
?
Briquettes
37.3
?
Coke from hight
rank coals
39.4
?
Brown coal
briquettes
23.3
PL
Stoves
PL
Household, advanced manual
fuelled boiler, 30 kW
Stove A,
Simple design
?
Quass et al. 2000
DE
Stove B,
Modern design
?
?
Kakareka et al.
2003
Pfeiffer et al. 2000b
BY
DE
Fireplaces, stoves and boilers
(households)
1)
Original factors in g/kg of fuels, for recalculation HU of 24 GJ/t (d.b.) for hard coal was, of 17 GJ/t (d.b.) for lignite and brown
coal, of 30 GJ/t (d.b.) for anthracite, of 30 GJ/t (d.b.) for coke were assumed
2)
Original factors in цg TEQ/Mg of fuels (default emission factors), recalculated
Range of dioxin emission factors from domestic coal combustion in the UK
53
Year
2006
Short
Reference
Type of
appliances
Enviros
2006
Domestic
heating
Type of fuel
Specification
(mean, median,
min, max)
EF air цg
TEQ/t
min
2
max
50
min
1.V
max
100
Smokeless coal/anthracite
(SSF)
Bituminous coal
Range of EF for coal combustion in different domesic appliances in the EU
Year
Short reference
MS
~2000
Quass et al. 2000
DE
~2000
Quass et al. 2000
~2000
Quass et al. 2000
Domestic appliance
(type)
EF air
Fuel
mean
цg
TEQ/TJ
Lignite DE
2.00
DE
Lignite CZ
0.67
DE
Anthracite
DE
4.35
Hard coal
briq. DE
7.46
Stove A
through-burning,
only primary air supply
Manufacture
1955-62
~2000
Quass et al. 2000
DE
~2000
Quass et al. 2000
DE
Coke DE
0.85
~2000
Quass et al. 2000
DE
Hard coal PL
27.05
~2000
Quass et al. 2000
DE
Lignite DE
3.28
~2000
Quass et al. 2000
DE
Lignite CZ
1.18
DE
Anthracite
DE
10.93
Hard coal
briq. DE
4.48
~2000
Quass et al. 2000
Stove B
under-burning,
thermostat,
+ secondary air supply
1983
~2000
Quass et al. 2000
DE
~2000
Quass et al. 2000
DE
Coke DE
2.89
~2000
Quass et al. 2000
DE
Hard coal PL
88.49
1999
Thanner & Moche
2002
AT
coal Poland
251.67
265.02
338.75
327.67
1999
Thanner & Moche
2002
AT
coke Czech
Republic
42.66
56.41
1999
Thanner & Moche
2002
AT
coal Poland
117.21
101.84
241.32
1999
Thanner & Moche
2002
AT
coke Czech
Republic
44.45
24.38
1999
Thanner & Moche
2002
coal Poland
90.49
~2000
stovetyp 1
low priced multi-fuel
stove
~1999
stovetyp 2
cast iron stove for coke
~1979
AT
stovetyp 2
danish style cst iron
wood stove
~1990
Kubica 2003
PL
Boiler
"Julian" coal
(nut)
8.40
~2000
Kubica 2003
PL
Boiler
"Wujek" coal
(nut)
26.30
~2000
Kubica 2003
PL
Boiler
"Wujek" coal
(pae)
7.5
~2000
Kubica 2003
PL
Boiler
~2000
Kubica 2003
PL
Boiler
54
Briquettes of
"Wujek" coal
and Sawdust
9.90
7.6
~2000
Kubica 2003
PL
Boiler
"Wujek" coal
and Sawdust
22.3
~2000
Kubica 2003
PL
Boiler
"Wujek" coal
and Rape
straw
23.4
~2000
Kubica 2003
PL
Retort boiler 25kW
"Julian" coal
(pea)
1.70
2000
Lee et al. 2005
UK
Open fire
House coal
3
2000
Lohmat et al.
2006
Uk
modelling
coal
3
2002
Schleicher et al.
2002
Dk
Garden grill
Briquettes
type A
11
2002
Schleicher et al.
2002
DK
Garden grill
Briquettes
type B
6
Dioxin concentrations in exhaust gas from combustion of different types of coal briquettes
Conc. air
Year
Short reference
MS
Domestic appliance (type)
Manufacture
Fuel
~1994
Thuß et al. 1995 &
1997
DE
tiled stove with air circulation
?
"salt" coal briquettes
(2,000 ppm w/w Cl)
0.087
~1994
Thuß et al. 1995 &
1997
DE
tiled stove with air circulation
?
"salt" coal briquettes
(2,000 ppm w/w Cl)
0.134
~1994
Thuß et al. 1995 &
1997
DE
tiled stove with air circulation
?
"salt" coal briquettes
(2,000 ppm w/w Cl)
0.106
~1994
Thuß et al. 1995 &
1997
DE
tiled stove with air circulation
?
"normal" coal briquettes
(300 ppm w/w Cl)
0.013
~1994
Thuß et al. 1995 &
1997
DE
tiled stove with air circulation
?
"normal" coal briquettes
(300 ppm w/w Cl)
0.021
~1994
Thuß et al. 1995 &
1997
DE
tiled stove with air circulation
?
"normal" coal briquettes
(300 ppm w/w Cl)
0.01
mean
цg
TEQ/TJ
Range of EF for wood combustion in different domesic appliances in the EU (цg TEQ/TJ)
EF air
Year
1999
55
Short
reference
Thanner &
Moche 2002
MS
AT
Domestic appliance
(type)
Manufacture
Fuel
stovetyp 1
low priced multi-fuel
stove
~1999
beech wood
70
20
690
stovetyp 2
cast iron stove for coke
~1979
beech wood
70
260
630
цg TEQ/TJ
stovetyp 3
danish style cast iron
wood stove
1999/2000
Boos et al.
2005 resp.
Hübner
AT
Single stove (continuous
burning)
~1990
beech wood
550
270
~1985
wood
2,300
~1985
wood briquettes (oak)
27
1990
wood (logs)
150
~1985
beech wood (logs)
23
~1960
1990
1999/2000
Boos et al.
2005 resp.
Hübner et al.
2005
~1970
AT
Single stove (kitchen)
Residential heating boiler
for solid fuels
1999/2000
Boos et al.
2005 resp.
Hübner et al.
2005
AT
Residential heating boiler,
fan-assistant
Automatic charged wood
heating boiler
fireplace
1994/1995
Erken et al.
1996
DE
stove continuously
operating
continuous heating device
56
29
27
1,000
1980
wood (small logs)
150
1993
wood logs (beech oak)
73
~1970
~1970
Single stove (tiled stove)
beech wood, lignite
briquettes
wood, lignite
briquettes
spruce wood (small
logs)
spruce wood, lignite
briquettes
wood, lignite
briquettes
130
48
1985
wood, coal
2,400
1956
beech wood (logs)
4,500
1990
beech wood (logs)
45
1998
beech wood (logs)
120
1983
wood
30
1988
wood
72
1986
wood
82
1983
wood
86
1979
wood
2,600
1990
wood
18
1989
wood
21
1999
pelleted wood
2
1992
wood chips
3
1982
wood chips
6
1991
wood chips
2,000
~1987
birch wood
38
~1987
birch wood
11
~1987
birch wood
4
~1987
birch wood
3
~1982
birch wood
34
~1982
birch wood
23
~1982
birch wood
13
~1982
birch wood
14
~1985
birch wood
10
~1985
birch wood
28
~1985
birch wood
10
~1985
birch wood
9
boiler 2
Pfeiffer et al.
2000b
~1987-90
birch wood
16
~1987-90
birch wood
18
~1987-90
birch wood
11
~1987-90
birch wood
12
?
natural wood
29.5
Fireplaces, stoves and
boilers (households)
DE
Range of EF for wood combustion in different domesic appliances in the EU
EF air
Year
Short reference
MS
Domestic appliance (type)
1999
Thanner & Moche
2002
AT
stovetyp 1
low priced multi-fuel stove
~1999
beech wood
1999
Thanner & Moche
2002
AT
stovetyp 2
cast iron stove for coke
~1979
beech wood
1999
Thanner & Moche
2002
AT
~1990
beech wood
~2000
Kubica 2003
PL
stovetyp 3
danish style cast iron
wood stove
boiler 35kW
?
33.20
~2000
Kubica 2003
PL
boiler 35kW
?
lump wood
wooden briquettes
(sawdust)
~2000
Kubica 2003
PL
65 kW
low capacity boiler
?
rape straw
13.40
~2000
Kubica 2003
PL
65 kW
low capacity boiler
?
wheat-rye strav
12.40
~1996
Pfeiffer et al.
2000a
DE
1989
wood
0.63
~1996
Pfeiffer et al.
2000a
DE
1990
wood
0.76
~1996
Pfeiffer et al.
2000a
DE
1990
wood
0.44
~1996
Pfeiffer et al.
2000a
DE
1990
wood
0.14
~2005
Hedman et al. 2006
SE
boiler for pellet fuel or oil
?
wood pellets
11.0
~2005
Hedman et al. 2006
SE
boiler for pellet fuel or oil
wood pellets
2.0
SE
boiler with two separate
fireplaces, one for oil, one
for solid fuels (wood or
coke)
wood pellets
6.0
~2005
57
Hedman et al. 2006
masonry heater open
(prim. air) / open (sec. air)
tiled-stove heating insert
open (prim. air) / open
(sec. air)
tiled-stove heating insert
medium (prim. air) / open
(sec. air)
tiled-stove heating insert
closed (prim. air) / open
(sec. air)
Manufacture
Fuel
mean
цg TEQ/TJ
1.03
(1.56)
0.24
10.68
1.13
4.07
9.77
8.49
4.17
2.00
~2005
Hedman et al. 2006
SE
~2005
Hedman et al. 2006
SE
~2005
Hedman et al. 2006
boiler with two separate
fireplaces, one for oil, one
for solid fuels (wood or
coke)
boiler with two separate
fireplaces, one for oil, one
for solid fuels (wood or
coke)
birchwood
12.00
coniferous wood
6.3
SE
boiler with two separate
fireplaces, one for oil, one
for solid fuels (wood or
coke)
birchwood + paper
5.0
birchwood + paper +
plastic
290
birchwood
2.8
~2005
Hedman et al. 2006
SE
boiler with two separate
fireplaces, one for oil, one
for solid fuels (wood or
coke)
~2005
Hedman et al. 2006
SE
modern wood boiler
~2005
Hedman et al. 2006
SE
modern wood boiler
birchwood
1.2
~2005
Hedman et al. 2006
SE
modern wood boiler
coniferous woos
1.2
~2005
Hedman et al. 2006
SE
modern wood stove
birchwood
3.5
~2005
Hedman et al. 2006
SE
modern wood stove
birchwood
5.9
1991/1993 Vikelsøe et al. 1994
DK
4 types of stove
wood
1.9
?
?
2000
Lee et al. 2005
UK
open fire
wood
0.6
2000
Lohman et al. 2005
UK
modelling
wood
0.2
~2004
Gönczi et al. 2005
Schleicher et al.
2002
Schleicher et al.
2002
Schleicher et al.
2002
SE
steel barrel
4.4
DK
wood stove
DK
wood stove
DK
wood stove
straw
air dried birch
firewood
kiln dried beech
wood, without bark
air dried birch
firewood
2002
2002
2002
5.1
1.9
0.61
2002
Schleicher et al.
2002
DK
wood stove
kiln dried beech
wood, without bark
0.64
2002
Schleicher et al.
2002
DK
19 kW stoker boiler
wood pellets
0.53
2002
Schleicher et al.
2002
DK
19 kW stoker boiler
wood pellets
0.21
DK
19 kW stoker boiler
straw
5.3
DK
19 kW stoker boiler
straw
9.2
2002
2002
Schleicher et al.
2002
Schleicher et al.
2002
Range of dioxin concentrations in exhaust gas and of EF for wood combustion in different domesic appliances
Year
Short
reference
Type of appliances
Type of fuel
air (ng
3
TEQ/m )
EF air (цg
TEQ/t)
~1995
Collet 2000
3 MW industrial
boiler + bag filter
bark & sawdust
0.019
0.32
~1995
Collet 2000
2.4 MW industrial
boiler + bag filter
wood chips & sawdust
0.011
0.05
58
2001/2002
Gullet et al.
2003
woodstoves,
fireplaces
min
0.0004
0.25
artificial log
max
mean
0.0025
0.0006
1.4
2.4
oak, pine
2005
Glasius et al. five wood stoves and
2005
one wood boiler
wood chips & sawdust
min (12 samples)
0.3
2005
Glasius et al. five wood stoves and
2005
one wood boiler
wood chips & sawdust
max
17.7
min (26 samples
from 13 houses)
0.027
max
mean
median
140
19
3
2007
1997
~1994
Glasius et al.
2007
12 wood stoves and
one wood boiler
wood
2 MW, with bag filter
wood, "non-doped" (0.6
ppm PCP)
1.28
11.5
2 MW, with bag filter
wood, "doped" (2036 ppm PCP)
2.33
21.0
400 kW pilot
installation,
optimum conditions
wood pallets treated
with PCP (0.1% PCP)
min
0.063
0.76
max
0.186
2.23
min
0.019
max
min
max
mean
mean
min
max
min
max
0.076
2.7
14.42
0.028
114
Collet 2000
Schatowitz
et al. 1994
various furnaces
(6 - 850 kW)
beech wood sticks,
natural wood chips,
uncoated chipboard
chips
waste wood chips
charcoal
household waste
Enviros 2006
wood stove
open fireplace
untreated wood
2006
Enviros 2006
wood stove
open fireplace
contaminated wood
2003
Allemand
2003
open fireplaces
wood
mean***
1.8
stoves
wood
mean***
1.8
closed fireplaces
wood
mean***
1.8
boilers (old)
wood
mean***
1.8
boilers (class 1)
wood
mean***
1.8
2003
2003
2003
2003
Allemand
2003
Allemand
2003
Allemand
2003
Allemand
2003
2003
Allemand
2003
boilers (class 3)
wood
mean***
1.8
2003
Allemand
2003
<9MW industrial or
collectvice heating
installations
wood
mean***
0.72
min
0.004
max
0.01
2000
59
0.043
11
11
400
2006
Baggio et al.
30 kW gasifying
2001
boiler (reverse flame)
wood log (beech)
Dioxin concentrations in exhaust gas from combustion of different types of wood and other biomass
Year
1992/1993
Short reference
Kolenda et al.
1994
MS
DE
Domestic appliance (type)
hand fed chute incinerator
Year of
manufacture
Fuel
Conc. air
mean ng
3
TEQ/Nm
?
wood blocks,
coated and
uncoated
plywood, wood
residues
1.05
0.45
1992/1993
Kolenda et al.
1994
DE
hand fed chute incinerator
?
wood blocks,
coated and
uncoated
plywood, wood
residues
~1998
Launhardt &
Thoma 2000
DE
multi-fuel furnace with an automtic
charging and electronic control unit
~1997/1998
spruce wood chipped
0.052
~1998
Launhardt &
Thoma 2000
DE
multi-fuel furnace with an automtic
charging and electronic control unit
~1997/1998
wheat straw pelleted, chopped
0.656
~1998
Launhardt &
Thoma 2000
DE
multi-fuel furnace with an automtic
charging and electronic control unit
~1997/1998
hay (set aside
land) - pellated,
chopped
0.891
~1998
Launhardt &
Thoma 2000
DE
multi-fuel furnace with an automtic
charging and electronic control unit
~1997/1998
triticale (whole
crop) - pelleted,
chopped
0.052
~1997
Launhardt et al.
1998
DE
tied stove with "modern"
combustion technology (design for
wood combustion) upward burning
early nineties
birch
0.0043
~1997
Launhardt et al.
1998
DE
tied stove with "modern"
combustion technology (design for
wood combustion) upward burning
early nineties
conifer
0.006
~1997
Launhardt et al.
1998
DE
tied stove with "modern"
combustion technology (design for
wood combustion) upward burning
early nineties
spruce (humid)
0.011
~1997
Launhardt et al.
1998
DE
tied stove with "modern"
combustion technology (design for
wood combustion) upward burning
early nineties
conifers
briquettes type A
0.015
~1997
Launhardt et al.
1998
DE
tied stove with "modern"
combustion technology (design for
wood combustion) upward burning
early nineties
conifers
briquettes type B
0.022
~1997
Launhardt et al.
1998
DE
tied stove with "old" combustion
technology (design for wood
combustion) upward burning
70s to 80s
conifer
0.015
~1997
Launhardt et al.
1998
DE
tied stove with "old" combustion
technology (design for wood
combustion) upward burning
70s to 80s
conifer
0.007
~1997
Launhardt et al.
1998
DE
wood boiler (with flue blower and
combustion control) downward
burning
early nineties
birch
0.003
60
~1997
Launhardt et al.
1998
DE
wood boiler (with flue blower and
combustion control) downward
burning
early nineties
birch
0.003
~1997
Launhardt et al.
1998
DE
wood boiler (with flue blower and
combustion control) downward
burning
early nineties
birch
0.007
~1997
Launhardt et al.
1998
DE
wood boiler (with flue blower and
combustion control) downward
burning
early nineties
conifer
0.004
~1997
Launhardt et al.
1998
DE
wood boiler (with flue blower and
combustion control) downward
burning
early nineties
spruce
0.015
~1997
Launhardt et al.
1998
DE
wood boiler (with flue blower and
combustion control) downward
burning
early nineties
spruce chips
0.004
DE
wood-burning fireplace upward
burning
early nineties
conifer
0.011
DK
4 types of stoves
wood
0.18
1996
wood fibre board,
hard
≤0.016
FR
NON-domestic boiler, equipped
with multi-cyclone flue gas
treatment
1998
wood particle
board,
melaminated
0.084
wood particle
board (nonchloride
hardener)
≤0.014
plywood (with
non-chlorice
phenolic resine)
0.016
wood particle
board (chloride
based hardener)
0.016
bark
0.07
wooden pallets
0.13
wooden pallets
0.02
wooden pallets
0.05
natural wood and
wood with a few
additives
0.05
particular wood
(containing PCP,
with mixed
painted wood…)
1.80
~1997
1991/1993
2000
2000
Launhardt et al.
1998
Vikelsøe et al.
1994
Raventos et al.
2000
Raventos et al.
2000
FR
NON-domestic boiler, equipped
with multi-cyclone flue gas
treatment
1998
2000
Raventos et al.
2000
FR
NON-domestic boiler, equipped
with multi-cyclone flue gas
treatment
1998
1999
Deroubaix 1999
FR
NON-domestic boiler, collective
heating installation, equipped with
multi-cyclone flue gas treatment
1998
1999
Deroubaix 1999
FR
NON-domestic boiler, collective
heating installation, equipped with
multi-cyclone flue gas treatment
2003
Allemand 2003
FR
industrial or collective heating
boiler
FR
industrial or collective heating
boiler
2003
Allemand 2003
1998
?
Resources for previous table:
(1) Prevedouros, K.; Brorstr€om-Lund_en, E.; Halsall, C. J.; Jones,
K. C.; Lee, R. G. M.; Sweetman, A. J. Seasonal and long-term trends in
61
atmospheric PAH concentrations: evidence and implications. Environ.
Pollut. 2004, 128, 17–27.
(2) Breivik, K.; Vestreng, V.; Rozovskaya, O.; Pacyna, J. M. Atmospheric
emissions of some POPs in Europe: a discussion of existing
inventories and data needs. Environ. Sci. Policy. 2006, 9, 663–674.
(3) Quass, U.; Fermann, M.; Br€oker, G. The European Dioxin Air
Emission Inventory Project;Final Results. Chemosphere 2004,
54, 1319–1327.
(4) Gullett, B. K.; Touati, A.; Hays, M. D. PCDD/F, PCB, HxCBz,
PAH, and PM emission factors for fireplace and woodstove combustion
in the San Francisco Bay region. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 1758–
1765.
(5) Hedman, B.; Naslund, M.; Marklund, S. Emission of PCDD/F,
PCB, and HCB from combustion of firewood and pellets in residental
stoves and boilers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 4968–4675.
(6) Bignal, K. L.; Langrudge, S.; Zhou, J. L. Release of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and particulate matter from
biomass combustion in a wood-fired boiler under varying boiler conditions.
Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 8863–8871.
(7) Wevers, M.; De Fr_e, R.; Vanermen, G. PCDD/F and PAH
emissions from domestic heating appliances with solid fuel. Organohalogen
Compd. 2003, 63, 21–24.
(8) H€ubner, C.; Boos, R.; Prey, T. In-field measurments of PCDD/F
emissions from domestic heating appliances for solid fuels. Chemosphere
2005, 58, 367–372.
(9) Johansson, L. S.; Leckner, B.; Gustavsson, L.; Cooper, D.; Tullin,
C.; Potter, A. Emission characteristics of modern and old-type residential
boilers fired with wood logs and wood pellets. Atmos. Environ. 2004,
38, 4183–4195.
(10) Lee, R. G. M.; Coleman, P.; Jones, J. L.; Lohmann, R. Emission
factors and importance of PCDD/Fs, PCBs, PCNs, PAHs and PM10
from the domestic burning of coal and wood in the U.K. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2005, 39, 1436–1447.
(11) Hedberg, E.; Kristensson, A.; Ohlsson, M.; Johansson, C.;
Johansson, P. A.; Swietlicki, E.; Vesely, V.; Wideqvist, U.; Westerholm,
R. Chemical and physical characterization of emission from birch wood
combustion in a wood stove. Atmos. Environ. 2002, 36, 4823–4837.
(12) Launhardt, T.; Thoma, H. Investigation on organic pollutants
from a domestic heating system using various solid biofuels. Chemosphere
2000, 40, 1149–1157.
(13) Kinsey, J. S.; Kariher, P. H.; Dong, Y. Evaluation of methods for
the physical characterization of the fine particle emissions from two
residential wood combustion appliances. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43,
4959–4967.
(14) Lavric, E. D.; Konnov, A. A.; De Ruyck, J. Dioxin levels in wood
combustion: A review. Biomass Bioenergy 2004, 26, 115–145.
(15) Ravindra, K.; Sokhi, R.; Van Grieken, R. Atmospheric polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons: Source attribution, emission factors and
regulation. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 2895–2921.
(16) Junninen, H.; Mønster, J.; Rey, M.; Cancelinha, J.; Douglas, K.;
62
et al. Quantifying the impact of residential heating on the urban air
quality in a typical European coal combustion region. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2009, 43, 7964–7970.
(17) van Loo, S.; Koppejan, J. The Handbook of Biomass Combustion
& Co-firing; Earthscan: London, 2008.
(18) Hor_ak, J.; Hopan, F.; Krpec, K.; Dej, D.; Kuba_cka, M.; Pek_arek,
V.; _Syc, M.; Ocelka, T.; Tom_sej, T.; Mach_alek, P. Determination of
emission factors for combusting solid fuels in residential combustion
appliances. Organohalogen Compd. 2008, 70, 2470–2473.
(19) Hor_ak, J.; Hopan, F.; _Syc, M.; Mach_alek, P.; Krpec, K.; Ocelka,
T.; Tom_sej, T. Estimation of selected pollutants emission from solid
fuels combustion in small appliances. Chem. Listy 2011, 105 (11).
(20) McDonald, D. J.; Zielinska, B.; Fujita, E. M.; Sagebiel, J. C.;
Chow, J. C.; Watson, J. G. Fine particle and gaseous emission rates from
residential wood combustion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 2080–
2091.
(21) Kubica, K.; Paradiz, B.; Dilara, P. Small combustion installations:
Techniques, emissions and measures for emission reduction. Joint
Research Centre Scientific and Technical Reports, EUR 23214 EN,
2007.
(22) Kastanski, E.; Vamvuka, D.; Grammelis, P.; Kakaras, E. Thermogravimetric
studies of the behavior of lignite-biomass blends during
devolatilization. Fuel Process. Technol. 2002, 77_78, 159–166.
63
Annex 4: Different domestic heating appliences types
Picture and following graphs are From: Šyc, M., Horák, J., Hopan, F., Krpec, K., Tomšej, T., Ocelka, T., et al.
(2011). Effect of fuels and domestic heating appliance types on emission factors of selected organic
pollutants. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(21), 9427-9434.
Boiler 1 is a hot water over-fire boiler with manual stoking and natural draft (see Figure 1a). The whole fuel
batch is combusted at one time, and the operation of the facility is periodical. Primary air (P) is blown
under the water-cooled fixed grate (1) through an automatic draft-regulating damper in the ash pit door
(see Figure 1a). A secondary air (S) inlet into the gas combustion zone is in the fuel feeding door and can be
manually regulated with a damper. The recommended fuels are coke, bituminous coal, and wood logs;
lignite is also possible.
Boiler 2 is an under-fire boiler with natural draft and manual stoking (see Figure 1b). The boiler can be
divided into three parts: a fuel storage (1), a combustion chamber (2), and a gas flow chamber (3).
Devolatilization and partial combustion occurs in a small part of fuel in the bottom of the fuel storage,
while main combustion takes place in the follow-up combustion chamber. Primary air (P) is supplied
through a damper in the fuel feeding door. Secondary air (S) is led through a channel to the combustion
chamber; tertiary air is supplied sidewards to the combustion chamber as well. Rotary grates (4) are placed
64
below the fuel storage and the combustion chamber. The recommended fuel is lignite, but other solid fuels
can be used as well.
Boiler 3 is a modern under-fire boiler (see Figure 1c) with forced draft and automatic stoking by a screw
conveyor (1). The upper part of the boiler is a lamellate heat exchanger (2). The lower part is a combustion
chamber formed by an iron grate (3), a ceramic heat reflector (4), a retort for fuel feeding (5), and an air
mixing system (6). Primary air (P) is supplied by a fan (7) to the air mixing system. There is an ash chamber
(8) situated under the combustion chamber. The recommended fuels are lignite and biomass pellets. Other
solid fuels with required granulometry can be combusted as well.
Boiler 4 is a modern downdraft boiler with manual stoking and forced draft by a draw-off fan (see Figure
1d). The boiler consists of two chambers; the upper one is for fuel storage (1) and the lower one is a
combustion chamber (2). The chambers are divided by a special rotating burner (4). Primary air (P) is
supplied to the combustion chamber from above through the batch of fuel and a special cast-iron grate (3).
Secondary air (S) is supplied to the grate. The recommended fuels are lignite, but wood logs and other
solid fuels can be used as well.
Boiler 5 is a modern downdraft boiler with manual stoking and forced draft by a draw-off fan. It has a
similar construction to boiler 4 with larger chambers. It is for wood combustion only and has a stationary
fire-clay grate. The recommended fuel is wood logs.
Stove 6 is a modern S-draft stove with grate (1) and periodical combustion operation (see Figure 1e).
Figure 2. Mean values of emission factors of CO, PM, TOC, and PAH with standard deviations. PAH is the
sum of 10 polyaromatic hydrocarbons: fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo[a]anthracene, chrysene,
benzo[b]fluoranthene,
benzo[k]fluoranthene,
benzo[a]pyrene,
benzo[g,h,i]perylene,
dibenzo[a,h]anthracene, and indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene.
65
Mean values of emission factors of PeCBz and HxCBz with standard deviations. Runs 1–3 of PCBz were not
analysed due to matrix effects. Run 32–34 were based on only two values.
Figure 4. Emission factors of PCB and PCDD/F. PCB is the sum of PCBs 77, 81, 105, 114, 118, 123, 126, 156,
157, 167, 169, 170, 180, and 189. PCDD/F is the sum of tetra- to octa-CDD/F. TEQ values were determined
according to EN 1948.
66
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement