skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Airborne measurements of western U.S. wildfire emissions: Comparison with prescribed burning and air quality implications: Western U.S. Wildfire Emissions

Abstract

Wildfires emit significant amounts of pollutants that degrade air quality. Plumes from three wildfires in the western U.S. were measured from aircraft during the Studies of Emissions and Atmospheric Composition, Clouds and Climate Coupling by Regional Surveys (SEAC4RS) and the Biomass Burning Observation Project (BBOP), both in summer 2013. This study reports an extensive set of emission factors (EFs) for over 80 gases and 5 components of submicron particulate matter (PM 1) from these temperate wildfires. These include rarely, or never before, measured oxygenated volatile organic compounds and multifunctional organic nitrates. The observed EFs are compared with previous measurements of temperate wildfires, boreal forest fires, and temperate prescribed fires. Furthermore, the wildfires emitted high amounts of PM 1 (with organic aerosol (OA) dominating the mass) with an average EF that is more than 2 times the EFs for prescribed fires. The measured EFs were used to estimate the annual wildfire emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, total nonmethane organic compounds, and PM 1 from 11 western U.S. states. The estimated gas emissions are generally comparable with the 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). However, our PM 1 emission estimate (1530 ± 570 Gg yr -1) is over 3 times that ofmore » the NEI PM2.5 estimate and is also higher than the PM2.5 emitted from all other sources in these states in the NEI. This study indicates that the source of OA from biomass burning in the western states is significantly underestimated. Additionally, our results indicate that prescribed burning may be an effective method to reduce fine particle emissions.« less

Authors:
ORCiD logo [1]; ORCiD logo [2]; ORCiD logo [3];  [3];  [4]; ORCiD logo [5]; ORCiD logo [6]; ORCiD logo [7]; ORCiD logo [8];  [4];  [9]; ORCiD logo [10]; ORCiD logo [11]; ORCiD logo [6]; ORCiD logo [12];  [13];  [14]; ORCiD logo [15];  [6]; ORCiD logo [2] more »;  [16]; ORCiD logo [17]; ORCiD logo [18]; ORCiD logo [19]; ORCiD logo [6]; ORCiD logo [20]; ORCiD logo [21]; ORCiD logo [22];  [12];  [16]; ORCiD logo [23];  [16]; ORCiD logo [24];  [2]; ORCiD logo [11]; ORCiD logo [25]; ORCiD logo [26]; ORCiD logo [27] « less
  1. Georgia Inst. of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States). School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences; Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, CO (United States). Cooperative Inst. for Research in Environmental Sciences, Dept. of Chemistry
  2. Georgia Inst. of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States). School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
  3. Univ. of Montana, Missoula, MT (United States). Dept. of Chemistry
  4. Univ. of California, Irvine, CA (United States). Dept. of Chemistry
  5. Univ. of Montana, Missoula, MT (United States). Dept. of Chemistry; Univ. of Innsbruck (Austria). Inst. of Ion Physics and Applied Physics
  6. Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, CO (United States). Cooperative Inst. for Research in Environmental Sciences, Dept. of Chemistry
  7. Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder Colorado USA; Department of Chemistry, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder Colorado USA
  8. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA (United States); California State Univ. (CalState), San Bernardino, CA (United States). Dept. of Chemistry
  9. Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States). Earth and Environmental Sciences Division; Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (United States). Dept. of Atmospheric Oceanic and Space Sciences
  10. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA (United States); Science Systems and Applications Inc., Hampton, VA (United States)
  11. California Inst. of Technology (CalTech), Pasadena, CA (United States). Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences
  12. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA (United States)
  13. Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States). Earth and Environmental Sciences Division
  14. Aerodyne Research Inc., Billerica, MA (United States). Center for Aerosol and Cloud Chemistry
  15. Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt Maryland USA
  16. Brookhaven National Lab. (BNL), Upton, NY (United States). Environmental and Climate Sciences Dept.
  17. Department of Chemistry, University of California, Irvine California USA
  18. Department of Chemistry, University of Oslo, Oslo Norway
  19. Center for Aerosol and Cloud Chemistry, Aerodyne Research Inc., Billerica Massachusetts USA
  20. Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, CO (United States). Cooperative Inst. for Research in Environmental Sciences; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Boulder, CO (United States). Earth System Research Lab.
  21. Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, CO (United States). Cooperative Inst. for Research in Environmental Sciences; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Boulder, CO (United States). Earth System Research Lab.; Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO (United States). Dept. of Atmospheric Science
  22. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Boulder, CO (United States). Earth System Research Lab.
  23. Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States). Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division
  24. California Inst. of Technology (CalTech), Pasadena, CA (United States). Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences; NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, MD (United States). Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Lab.; Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC), Baltimore, MD (United States). Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology
  25. California Inst. of Technology (CalTech), Pasadena, CA (United States). Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, Division of Engineering and Applied Science
  26. Univ. of Innsbruck (Austria). Inst. of Ion Physics and Applied Physics; Univ. of Oslo (Norway). Dept. of Chemistry
  27. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, MD (United States). Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Lab.; Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC), Baltimore, MD (United States). Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Upton, NY (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC), Biological and Environmental Research (BER) (SC-23); National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
OSTI Identifier:
1399686
Report Number(s):
BNL-114410-2017-JA
Journal ID: ISSN 2169-897X; R&D Project: 2019‐BNL-EE630EECA-Budg; KP1701000; TRN: US1702968
Grant/Contract Number:
SC0012704
Resource Type:
Journal Article: Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 122; Journal Issue: 11; Journal ID: ISSN 2169-897X
Publisher:
American Geophysical Union
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
58 GEOSCIENCES; 54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Citation Formats

Liu, Xiaoxi, Huey, L. Gregory, Yokelson, Robert J., Selimovic, Vanessa, Simpson, Isobel J., Müller, Markus, Jimenez, Jose L., Campuzano-Jost, Pedro, Beyersdorf, Andreas J., Blake, Donald R., Butterfield, Zachary, Choi, Yonghoon, Crounse, John D., Day, Douglas A., Diskin, Glenn S., Dubey, Manvendra K., Fortner, Edward, Hanisco, Thomas F., Hu, Weiwei, King, Laura E., Kleinman, Lawrence, Meinardi, Simone, Mikoviny, Tomas, Onasch, Timothy B., Palm, Brett B., Peischl, Jeff, Pollack, Ilana B., Ryerson, Thomas B., Sachse, Glen W., Sedlacek, Arthur J., Shilling, John E., Springston, Stephen, St. Clair, Jason M., Tanner, David J., Teng, Alexander P., Wennberg, Paul O., Wisthaler, Armin, and Wolfe, Glenn M.. Airborne measurements of western U.S. wildfire emissions: Comparison with prescribed burning and air quality implications: Western U.S. Wildfire Emissions. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1002/2016JD026315.
Liu, Xiaoxi, Huey, L. Gregory, Yokelson, Robert J., Selimovic, Vanessa, Simpson, Isobel J., Müller, Markus, Jimenez, Jose L., Campuzano-Jost, Pedro, Beyersdorf, Andreas J., Blake, Donald R., Butterfield, Zachary, Choi, Yonghoon, Crounse, John D., Day, Douglas A., Diskin, Glenn S., Dubey, Manvendra K., Fortner, Edward, Hanisco, Thomas F., Hu, Weiwei, King, Laura E., Kleinman, Lawrence, Meinardi, Simone, Mikoviny, Tomas, Onasch, Timothy B., Palm, Brett B., Peischl, Jeff, Pollack, Ilana B., Ryerson, Thomas B., Sachse, Glen W., Sedlacek, Arthur J., Shilling, John E., Springston, Stephen, St. Clair, Jason M., Tanner, David J., Teng, Alexander P., Wennberg, Paul O., Wisthaler, Armin, & Wolfe, Glenn M.. Airborne measurements of western U.S. wildfire emissions: Comparison with prescribed burning and air quality implications: Western U.S. Wildfire Emissions. United States. doi:10.1002/2016JD026315.
Liu, Xiaoxi, Huey, L. Gregory, Yokelson, Robert J., Selimovic, Vanessa, Simpson, Isobel J., Müller, Markus, Jimenez, Jose L., Campuzano-Jost, Pedro, Beyersdorf, Andreas J., Blake, Donald R., Butterfield, Zachary, Choi, Yonghoon, Crounse, John D., Day, Douglas A., Diskin, Glenn S., Dubey, Manvendra K., Fortner, Edward, Hanisco, Thomas F., Hu, Weiwei, King, Laura E., Kleinman, Lawrence, Meinardi, Simone, Mikoviny, Tomas, Onasch, Timothy B., Palm, Brett B., Peischl, Jeff, Pollack, Ilana B., Ryerson, Thomas B., Sachse, Glen W., Sedlacek, Arthur J., Shilling, John E., Springston, Stephen, St. Clair, Jason M., Tanner, David J., Teng, Alexander P., Wennberg, Paul O., Wisthaler, Armin, and Wolfe, Glenn M.. Wed . "Airborne measurements of western U.S. wildfire emissions: Comparison with prescribed burning and air quality implications: Western U.S. Wildfire Emissions". United States. doi:10.1002/2016JD026315.
@article{osti_1399686,
title = {Airborne measurements of western U.S. wildfire emissions: Comparison with prescribed burning and air quality implications: Western U.S. Wildfire Emissions},
author = {Liu, Xiaoxi and Huey, L. Gregory and Yokelson, Robert J. and Selimovic, Vanessa and Simpson, Isobel J. and Müller, Markus and Jimenez, Jose L. and Campuzano-Jost, Pedro and Beyersdorf, Andreas J. and Blake, Donald R. and Butterfield, Zachary and Choi, Yonghoon and Crounse, John D. and Day, Douglas A. and Diskin, Glenn S. and Dubey, Manvendra K. and Fortner, Edward and Hanisco, Thomas F. and Hu, Weiwei and King, Laura E. and Kleinman, Lawrence and Meinardi, Simone and Mikoviny, Tomas and Onasch, Timothy B. and Palm, Brett B. and Peischl, Jeff and Pollack, Ilana B. and Ryerson, Thomas B. and Sachse, Glen W. and Sedlacek, Arthur J. and Shilling, John E. and Springston, Stephen and St. Clair, Jason M. and Tanner, David J. and Teng, Alexander P. and Wennberg, Paul O. and Wisthaler, Armin and Wolfe, Glenn M.},
abstractNote = {Wildfires emit significant amounts of pollutants that degrade air quality. Plumes from three wildfires in the western U.S. were measured from aircraft during the Studies of Emissions and Atmospheric Composition, Clouds and Climate Coupling by Regional Surveys (SEAC4RS) and the Biomass Burning Observation Project (BBOP), both in summer 2013. This study reports an extensive set of emission factors (EFs) for over 80 gases and 5 components of submicron particulate matter (PM1) from these temperate wildfires. These include rarely, or never before, measured oxygenated volatile organic compounds and multifunctional organic nitrates. The observed EFs are compared with previous measurements of temperate wildfires, boreal forest fires, and temperate prescribed fires. Furthermore, the wildfires emitted high amounts of PM1 (with organic aerosol (OA) dominating the mass) with an average EF that is more than 2 times the EFs for prescribed fires. The measured EFs were used to estimate the annual wildfire emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, total nonmethane organic compounds, and PM1 from 11 western U.S. states. The estimated gas emissions are generally comparable with the 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). However, our PM1 emission estimate (1530 ± 570 Gg yr-1) is over 3 times that of the NEI PM2.5 estimate and is also higher than the PM2.5 emitted from all other sources in these states in the NEI. This study indicates that the source of OA from biomass burning in the western states is significantly underestimated. Additionally, our results indicate that prescribed burning may be an effective method to reduce fine particle emissions.},
doi = {10.1002/2016JD026315},
journal = {Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres},
number = 11,
volume = 122,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 14 00:00:00 EDT 2017},
month = {Wed Jun 14 00:00:00 EDT 2017}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
This content will become publicly available on June 14, 2018
Publisher's Version of Record

Save / Share:
  • Wildfires emit significant amounts of pollutants that degrade air quality. Plumes from three wildfires in the western U.S. were measured from aircraft during the Studies of Emissions and Atmospheric Composition, Clouds, and Climate Coupling by Regional Surveys (SEAC4RS) and the Biomass Burning Observation Project (BBOP), both in summer 2013. This study reports an extensive set of emission factors (EFs) for over 80 gases and 5 components of submicron particulate matter (PM1) from these temperate wildfires. These include rarely, or never before, measured oxygenated volatile organic compounds and multifunctional organic nitrates. The observed EFs are compared with previous measurements of temperatemore » wildfires, boreal forest fires, and temperate prescribed fires. The wildfires emitted high amounts of PM1 (with organic aerosol (OA) dominating the mass) with an average EF that is more than two times the EFs for prescribed fires. The measured EFs were used to estimate the annual wildfire emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, total nonmethane organic compounds, and PM1 from 11 western U.S. states. The estimated gas emissions are generally comparable with the 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). However, our PM1 emission estimate (1530 ± 570 Gg yr-1) is over three times that of the NEI PM2.5 estimate and is also higher than the PM2.5 emitted from all other sources in these states in the NEI. This study indicates that the source of OA from BB in the western states is significantly underestimated. In addition, our results indicate prescribed burning may be an effective method to reduce fine particle emissions.« less
  • Fuel moisture content, woody fuel and duff consumption, fire behavior, and smoke plumes were monitored on four prescribed burns located on the Oakridge Ranger District of the Willamette National Forest. The measured fuel moisture, fuel consumption, and fire behavior data were used to validate an Emissions Production Model (EPM) which predicts fuel consumption, heat release rates, and smoke emissions for a smoke dispersion model called Simple Approach Smoke Estimation Model (SASEM). Both EPM and SASEM have been combined together into a single program called Tiered Smoke Air Resource System (TSARS). Several comparisons were made between predicted results from EPM andmore » measured values to help determine the level of accuracy which could be expected for different levels of data input effort. In-plume sampling procedures using tethered equipment for sampling of particulate matter and gaseous pollutants were designed, developed, and acquired during this study. Because the objective of this study was to evaluate the model under the July 1 to Labor Day burning ban meteorological conditions, sampling was scheduled only for the summer months. For each study year, a meteorological pattern occurred that severely limited sampling. The summers for all three study years in general were extremely dry; prohibiting burning due to fire danger. Therefore, a smaller number of units were burned than that planned. 29 refs., 16 figs., 19 tabs.« less
  • Isoprene and monoterpene emission rates are essential inputs for atmospheric chemistry models that simulate atmospheric oxidant and particle distributions. Process studies of the biochemical and physiological mechanisms controlling these emissions are advancing our understanding and the accuracy of model predictions but efforts to quantify regional emissions have been limited by a lack of constraints on regional distributions of ecosystem emission capacities. We used an airborne wavelet-based eddy covariance measurement technique to characterize isoprene and monoterpene fluxes with high spatial resolution during the 2013 SAS (Southeast Atmosphere Study) in the southeastern United States. The fluxes measured by direct eddy covariance weremore » comparable to emissions independently estimated using an indirect inverse modeling approach. Isoprene emission factors based on the aircraft wavelet flux estimates for high isoprene chemotypes (e.g., oaks) were similar to the MEGAN2.1 biogenic emission model estimates for landscapes dominated by oaks. Aircraft flux measurement estimates for landscapes with fewer isoprene emitting trees (e.g., pine plantations), were about a factor of two lower than MEGAN2.1 model estimates. The tendency for high isoprene emitters in these landscapes to occur in the shaded understory, where light dependent isoprene emissions are diminished, may explain the lower than expected emissions. This result demonstrates the importance of accurately representing the vertical profile of isoprene emitting biomass in biogenic emission models. Airborne measurement-based emission factors for high monoterpene chemotypes agreed with MEGAN2.1 in landscapes dominated by pine (high monoterpene chemotype) trees but were more than a factor of three higher than model estimates for landscapes dominated by oak (relatively low monoterpene emitting) trees. This results suggests that unaccounted processes, such as floral emissions or light dependent monoterpene emissions, or vegetation other than high monoterpene emitting trees may be an important source of monoterpene emissions in those landscapes and should be identified and included in biogenic emission models.« less
  • Results of a study evaluating a number of emission control strategies leading to the development of a plan for attainment of the national secondary air quality standards for particulates in the Metropolitan Boston Region are presented. Source distributions for particulates, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides are diagrammed. Strategies were evaluated for emission reduction potential, cost, and feasibility. An annual inspection and periodic maintenance program for all sources to assure optimum combustion conditions was selected for use.
  • Management of smoke from prescribed fires requires knowledge of fuel quantity and the amount and composition of the smoke produced by the fire to minimize adverse impacts on human health. A five-year study produced new emissions information for more than 100 trace gases and particulate matter in smoke for fuel types found in the southern United States of America using state-of-the-art instrumentation in both laboratory and field experiments. Emission factors for flaming, smoldering, and residual smoldering were developed. Agreement between laboratory and field-derived emission factors was generally good in most cases. Reference spectra of over 50 wildland fire gas-phase smokemore » components were added to a publicly-available database to support identification via infrared spectroscopy. Fuel loading for the field experiments was similar to previously measured fuels. This article summarizes the results of a five-year study to better understand the composition of smoke during all phases of burning for such forests.« less