Spatially Resolved Emission Factors to Reduce Uncertainties in Air Pollutant Emission Estimates from the Residential Sector

Xinlei Liu,Guofeng Shen,Laiguo Chen,Zhe Qian,Ningning Zhang,Yuanchen Chen,Yingjun Chen,Junji Cao,Hefa Cheng,Wei Du,Bengang Li,Gang Li,Yaojie Li,Xiaoming Liang,Ming Liu,Haitao Lu,Zhihan Luo,Yuxuan Ren,Yong Zhang,Dongqiang Zhu,Shu Tao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c08568
2021-03-15
Abstract:The residential sector is a major source of air pollutant emission inventory uncertainties. A nationwide field emission measurement campaign was conducted in rural China to evaluate the variabilities of realistic emission factors (EFs) from indoor solid fuel combustion. For a total of 1313 burning events, the overall average EFs (±standard deviation) of PM<sub>2.5</sub> were 8.93 ± 6.95 and 7.33 ± 9.01 g/kg for biomass and coals, respectively, and 89.3 ± 51.2 and 114 ± 87 g/kg for CO. Higher EFs were found from burning of uncompressed straws, while lower EFs were found from processed biomass pellets, coal briquettes, and relatively clean anthracite coals. Modified combustion efficiency was found to be the most significant factor associated with variations in CO EFs, whereas for PM<sub>2.5</sub>, fuel and stove differences determined its variations. Weak correlations between PM<sub>2.5</sub> and CO indicated high uncertainties in using CO as a surrogate for PM<sub>2.5</sub>. EFs accurately fit log-normal distributions, and obvious spatial heterogeneity was observed attributed to different fuel–stove combinations across the country. Emission estimation variabilities, which are determined by the interquartile ranges divided by the median values, were notably reduced when spatially resolved EFs were adopted in the inventory.The Supporting Information is available free of charge at <a class="ext-link" href="/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c08568?goto=supporting-info">https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c08568</a>.Sample size and province number across fuel–stove combinations; fuel C content of measured solid fuels; PM<sub>2.5</sub> and CO EFs of crop straw and fuel wood derived from different plants; correlation of EFs between PM<sub>2.5</sub> and CO for different solid fuels; summation of particulate matter and CO EFs from solid fuel combustion in China; multiple comparisons of PM<sub>2.5</sub> and CO EFs among different provinces; PM<sub>2.5</sub> and CO EFs for different fuel–stove combinations; spatial distribution of sampling sites; linear regression of experimental versus sensitivity analysis model-predicted EFs; comparison of log-normal and normal distributions for PM<sub>2.5</sub> and CO EFs; correlation of PM<sub>2.5</sub> EFs with CO EFs; comparisons of PM<sub>2.5</sub> and CO EFs among different fuels and stoves, and between usages of heating versus cooking, indoor versus outdoor stove sites, and stove with versus without stove chimneys; provincial distributions of misestimated emissions and population-weighted misestimated emissions by considering provincial variations in EFs; emission densities of PM<sub>2.5</sub> and CO; and contributions of emissions from each fuel to the total (<a class="ext-link" href="/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.0c08568/suppl_file/es0c08568_si_001.pdf">PDF</a>)This article has not yet been cited by other publications.
environmental sciences,engineering, environmental
What problem does this paper attempt to address?