Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

ISSN: 1096-2247 (Print) 2162-2906 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20

Fine particulate speciation profile and emission

factor of municipal solid waste incinerator
established by dilution sampling method

Hsi-Hsien Yang, Shao-Wei Luo, Kuei-Ting Lee, Jhin-Yan Wu, Chun Wei Chang
& Pei Feng Chu

To cite this article: Hsi-Hsien Yang, Shao-Wei Luo, Kuei-Ting Lee, Jhin-Yan Wu, Chun Wei Chang
& Pei Feng Chu (2016): Fine particulate speciation profile and emission factor of municipal
solid waste incinerator established by dilution sampling method, Journal of the Air & Waste
Management Association, DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2016.1184195

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2016.1184195

Accepted author version posted online: 01

Jul 2016.
Published online: 01 Jul 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 10

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20

Download by: [Library Services City University London] Date: 06 July 2016, At: 19:02
 Fine particulate speciation profile and emission factor of
municipal solid waste incinerator established by dilution
sampling method

Hsi-Hsien Yanga*, Shao-Wei Luoa, Kuei-Ting Leea, Jhin-Yan Wua,

t
Chun Wei Changb, Pei Feng Chub

ip
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

cr
a
Department of Environmental Engineering and Management, Chaoyang
University of Technology, Wufeng, Taichung 41349, Taiwan.

us
b
Plant Affairs Department, Sino Environmental Services Corporation, Taipei
11469, Taiwan.

an
M
Revised Manuscript for
“Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association”
ed

*
Corresponding author: Hsi-Hsien Yang
Address:
Department of Environmental Engineering and Management,
pt

Chaoyang University of Technology.

No.168, Jifeng E. Rd., Wufeng Township,
Taichung County 41349,
ce

Taiwan (R.O.C.)
Tel: 886-4-23323000 Ext. 4451
Fax: 886-4-23742365
Ac

E-mail: hhyang@cyut.edu.tw
 Hsi-Hsien Yanga*, Shao-Wei Luoa, Kuei-Ting Leea, Jhin-Yan Wua, Chun Wei Changb,
Pei Feng Chub

a
Department of Environmental Engineering and Management, Chaoyang University of
Technology, Taichung, Taiwan; bPlant Affairs Department, Sino Environmental Services

t
Corporation, Taipei, Taiwan.

ip
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

ABSTRACT

cr
In this study, fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) emitted from a municipal solid waste

us
incinerator (MSWI) was collected using dilution sampling method. Chemical
compositions of the collected PM 2.5 samples, including carbon content, metal elements
and water-soluble ions were analyzed. Traditional in-stack hot sampling was
an
simultaneously conducted to compare the influences of dilution on PM 2.5 emissions and
the characteristics of the bonded chemical species. The results, established by dilution
M
sampling method, show that PM 2.5 and total particulate matter (TPM) emission factors
were 61.6 ± 4.52 and 66.1 ± 5.27 g ton-waste-1, respectively. The average ratio of
PM 2.5 /TPM is 0.93, indicating that over 90% of PM emission from the MSWI was fine
ed

particulate. The major chemical species in PM 2.5 included OC (organic carbon), Cl-,
NH 4 +, EC (elemental carbon) and Si, which account for 69.7% of PM 2.5 mass. OC was
pt

from the unburned carbon in the exhaust, which adsorbed onto the particulate during the
cooling process. High Cl- emission is primarily attributable to wastes containing plastic
ce

bags made of polyvinyl chloride, salt in kitchen refuse and waste biomass, etc. Minor
elements which account for 0.01-1% of PM 2.5 mass included SO 4 2-, K+, Na, K, NO 3 -, Al,
Ca2+, Zn, Ca, Cu, Fe, Pb and Mg. The mean ratio of dilution method/in-stack hot method
Ac

was 0.454. The content of water-soluble ions (Cl-, SO 4 2-, NO 3 -) were significantly
enriched in PM 2.5 via gas-to-particle conversion in the dilution process. Results indicate
that in-stack hot sampling would underestimate levels of these species in PM 2.5 .
 Introduction
Incineration has been a main municipal solid waste treatment method in many countries
which lack landfill sites in urban communities. Incineration can effectively reduce the
waste volume and recover its energy content to generate electricity and heat. Municipal
solid waste is an extremely heterogeneous material that contains manufactured and
natural components, including paper, plastics, textiles, food wastes, yard wastes and other

t
ip
organic materials, as well as inorganic materials such as glass, metals, dirt and
miscellaneous other components (Hasselriis and Licata, 1996). The incineration process
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

cr
can generate air pollutants (Yuan et al., 2005; Chang et al., 2009) and affect ambient air
quality near the incinerator (Hu et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2014).

us
Particulate matter (PM) is one of the air pollutants emitted from incinerators.
Atmospheric particulates have potentially adverse impacts on human health through

an
inhalation and respiratory deposition. Fine particulate (PM 2.5 , aerodynamic size less than
2.5 µm) is especially harmful as it can be transported deep into the alveolar region of the
lungs and the bloodstream (Pope et al., 2004; Mills et al., 2009). Chemical properties of
M
particulate also play an important role affecting human health. It is quite essential to
characterize PM 2.5 and estimate its contributions to the atmosphere from emission
ed

sources.
Characterizing PM emissions directly from emission sources provides reliable
emission data for identifying their contributions to ambient air and for designing
pt

corresponding control measures to be in compliance with government rules. Traditional

in-stack hot filter method has been the most practical way to measure PM 2.5 emissions
ce

from stationary sources. Most databases, such as USEPA AP-42, are based on the in-stack
hot filter method. However, in-stack measurement data from emission sources do not
Ac

allow for normal dilution and cooling that occur in a plume and they may not reflect the
variability of actual emissions over time (Yang et al., 1998; Lee et al., 2008; Yang et al.,
2015). Additionally, hot exhaust sampling is not appropriate for receptor modeling
studies. In contrast, diluted exhaust sampling performs well for collecting particles from
combustion sources (Watson et al., 2002). The dilution sampling method simulates the
cooling and dilution processes of the exhaust flue gas after emission from the stack. The
cooling and dilution process allows gases or vapors to nucleate and condense on existing
 particulates similar to processes that occur in the atmosphere. Furthermore, ambient air
methods can be used to sample and analyze the diluted flue gas, which provide ambient-
comparable PM speciation profiles from stationary sources (Li et al., 2011). Dilution
sampling provides a more representative measurement of PM 2.5 for source apportionment
and health-risk assessment than traditional in-stack hot filter method (England et al.,
2007).

t
The dilution sampling method has been used to develop PM 2.5 emission factors and

ip
speciation profiles from various stationary sources (Hidemann et al., 1991; Lee et al.,
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

cr
2000; Fine et al., 2001; Watson et al., 2001; Lipsky et al., 2004; Li et al., 2011). PM 2.5
emission from MSWI by dilution method has never been performed nor reported in the

us
literature. In this study, PM 2.5 samples from a MSWI were collected simultaneously by
dilution sampling technique and traditional in-stack method. PM 2.5 emission factors and
chemical speciation profiles were established. The influences of dilution on measurement
an
of PM 2.5 emission and chemical characteristics were investigated.
M
Materials and methods
Sampling plan and the MSWI
ed

In this study, PM 2.5 emission from a MSWI was measured using dilution sampling
technique. The MSWI selected in this study is located in central Taiwan. Its capacity is
pt

900 tons/day with 2 stoker-type furnaces (450 ton d-1 for each furnace). Solid wastes are
fed into the combustion chambers by gravity. The designed combustion temperature is
ce

850–1050℃ and the designed heating value is 2300 kcal kg-1. The fumes leaving the
furnaces enter a boiler allowing the recovery of thermal energy. Air pollution control
Ac

devices include selective non-catalytic reduction, semi-dry lime scrubber, activated

carbon injection and bag-house filter. The flue gas, after passing through air pollution
control devices, is emitted through a gas stack 100 m in height situated at the end of the
system. The sampling port is located > 8 stack diameters downstream and > 2 stack
diameters upstream from any point of flow turbulence. The dimension of the sampling
plate is sufficient enough for dilution and in-stack sampling simultaneously. The physical
and chemical properties of the municipal solid waste are listed in Table 1.
 Samplings were conducted from January 22 to January 27, 2015 with one sample taken
each day. The operative conditions of the main parameters and exhaust gas properties of
the MSWI during the sampling campaign are listed in Table 2. The parameters and
exhaust gas properties were measured online. Stack temperature was 157 ± 1.87℃. The
combustion chamber temperature was 948 ± 8.85℃ and the oxygen content was 10.4 ±
0.22%. The relatively low oxygen content indicates that the wastes were well combusted.

t
ip
The low standard deviations of this incineration plant's operating parameters imply rather
stable operating conditions.
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

cr
Sampling equipment and method

us
The dilution sampling system used in this study was provided by Environmental Supply

an
Company which meets USEPA CTM039 requirements. The dilution sampling system is
shown schematically in Fig. 1. The sampling train consists of sample extraction and
collection equipment as well as dilution supply air equipment for supplying clean, dry
M
mixing air. The stack gas sample extraction and collection equipment includes PM 2.5
cyclone, nozzle, pitot tube, probe liner, differential pressure transducers, heating system,
sample venture, mixing cone, residence chamber, exhaust air blower and sensors for
ed

relative humidity and temperature. The dilution air supply equipment includes
dehumidifier, cooler, dilution air blower, HEPA filter, dilution venture, and sensors for
pt

relative humidity and temperature.

In the dilution method the sample gas is diluted and cooled prior to collection on a
ce

142-mm Teflon filter. A PM2.5 cyclone is installed after the sampling probe and no in-
stack filter is installed. Stack gas is extracted at a pre-determined constant sampling rate
Ac

to achieve near 100% (80%-120%) isokinetic sampling ratios through the in-stack PM2.5
cyclone. The cyclone separates particles with nominal aerodynamic diameters of greater
than 2.5 µm, and allows particles less than or equal to 2.5 µm, plus stack gases, to
continue through the heated sample probe and heated sample venturi to be diluted and
cooled in the mixing cone and residence chamber, where nucleation, coagulation and
condensational growth occur, before being captured by a 142-mm filter. Filtered,
dehumidified, and temperature-adjusted dilution air is added to the stack gas sample
 (containing only particle diameters smaller than 2.5 µm) in a mixing cone. After mixing
dilution air and stack sample gas to allow for particulate condensation, PM2.5 is captured
onto a quartz filter. The exposed surfaces of the cyclone, probe, sample venturi, and
venturi-cone connector tube are rinsed with acetone. The mixing cone, residence
chamber, and filter holder inlet are first rinsed with DI water, then with acetone. The
rinses are evaporated until dry and desiccated, then weighed to determine PM2.5 for each

t
sample fraction. The filter is desiccated and weighed. The water, acetone and filter

ip
masses are summed up to determine PM2.5 concentration. Gravimetric mass obtained
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

cr
from the dilution sampling system is measured with a microbalance with a resolution of 1
µg (Sartorius balance, model Cubis 6.6S-DF) inside a humidity chamber maintained at a

us
temperature of 20-23℃ and relative humidity of 30-40% for 24 hrs.
In this study, stack parameters including temperature, pressure, volumetric flow rate
and moisture content were monitored for calculating PM 2.5 emission concentration.
an
Before each sampling, the dilution sampling system was cleaned with a rinse of distilled,
deionized water followed with an acetone rinse to remove residues that might
M
contaminate the sample. Leak checking was performed before and after sampling. A
maximum of 2% of the total flow through the sampler was allowed for leakage. A
previous study tested various dilution ratios (from 20 to 50) and showed that total PM 2.5
ed

mass concentrations were not affected by the dilution ratio (England et al., 2007). In this
study, the dilution ratio was 30 and sampling time was 3 hrs in order to collect sufficient
pt

sample for chemical analysis.

Conventional in-stack PM 2.5 sampling was performed simultaneously with dilution
ce

sampling. An APEX XC-5000 Automated Isokinetic Sampling Console sampling system

which meets USEPA Methods 201A and 202 requirements was used to measure filterable
and condensable PM 2.5 , respectively. The main equipment for Method 201A includes
Ac

front nozzle, PM 2.5 cyclone, filter holder, Pitot tube and stainless steel (with glass liner)
sampling tube, vacuum pump and computer control console. Particulates with diameter
smaller than 2.5 µm are sucked through the cyclone and are primarily collected on a 47
mm filter. Method 202 equipment includes a condenser, water dropout impinger,
modified Greenburg Smith impinger and condensable PM filter. Condensable PM 2.5 is
mainly collected in the water dropout impinger and the (backup) modified Greenburg
 Smith impinger. Condensable PM 2.5 is collected by condenser, dry impingers, pipelines
and a backup Teflon filter after filterable PM is removed by a 47 mm filter. A detailed
description of this sampling method and materials can be found elsewhere (Yang et al.,
2014).

Chemical composition analysis

t
ip
In addition to PM 2.5 mass concentration, chemical compositions of the collected PM 2.5
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

cr
samples were analyzed in this study. PM 2.5 samples were also collected in three parallel
filter packs operated at 16.7 L min-1 located down from the dilution chamber designed for

us
chemical analysis. One filter pack was installed with a 47-mm Teflon-membrane filter
used to determine metal element analysis. The second and third filter packs were 47-mm
quartz filters for organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and ion analyses.
an
The filter used for OC and EC analysis was baked at 900℃ for 4 hrs to remove the
background organic carbon of the filter. OC and EC were determined, with a
M
thermal/optical carbon analyzer (DRI, model 2001, Reno, USA) using the Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) protocol. For water-soluble
ion analysis, the PM 2.5 filter sample was extracted with distilled deionized water in an
ed

ultrasonicator (Branson, model 5210) for 120 mins. The extracted samples were filtered
by a 0.4 µm filter and then analyzed for ions (NH 4 +, Cl-, NO 3 -, SO 4 2-) by ion
pt

chromatography (IC, Dionex, model DX-120). The eluent was 1.8 mM Na 2 CO 3 /1.7 mM
NaHCO 3 for anion and 20 mM methane sulfonic acid for cation analysis, respectively.
ce

Anion standards from High-Purity Standards (1033506 and 1034819) and cation standard
from AccuStandard (210125090) were used to make calibration lines of the measured
species. The R2 of the calibrations were all higher than 0.995. Blank and duplicate tests
Ac

were conducted for quality control.

For metal analysis, the PM 2.5 filter sample was digested with acid mixture (HNO 3 :
HCl = 1: 3) on a hot plate for 1 hr. The digested sample was analyzed for metal elements
(Al, Ca, Fe, Mg, Mn, Si, Na, K, Pb, Zn, Ni, V, Cu, Cd, Mo, Co, Se, Sr, As, Ba, Sb, Se,
Sn) by inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometer (ICP-OES, Thermo
Scientific, model iCAP 6000 Series). A standard reference material (SRM 1649) was used
 for QA/QC. The recoveries of most target elements are within ± 10%. Calibration lines
were made according to the Merck standard (1.09492.0100). Blank and duplicate tests
were conducted for quality control. Calibration verification was also performed during
sample analysis. A new calibration line should be made when the bias is higher than ±
10%.

t
Results and discussion

ip
PM 2.5 and TPM concentrations
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

cr
The in-stack PM 2.5 mass concentration was determined as:

us
C PM2.5 = (m f + m a + m w )/V s(std) (1)

an
Where C PM2.5 = Concentration of PM2.5 (mg Nm-3)
m f = Mass of particulate matter collected on the filter (mg)
M
m a = Mass of particulate matter recovered from mixing cone, residence chamber
and filter holder inlet with acetone (mg)
ed

m w = Mass of particulate matter recovered from mixing cone, residence chamber

and filter holder inlet with water (mg)
V s(std) = Volume of stack gas sampled (Nm3, dry)
pt

V s(std) = Q s(std) t run (2)

ce

Where Q s(std) = Sample flow rate (Nm3 min-1, dry)

Ac

t run = Total actual run time (min)

Flow rates were corrected to normal conditions (1 atmosphere and 293 K) and thus the
PM 2.5 concentrations reported are for standard condition. PM 2.5 concentrations were
converted with 11% of O 2 . PM 2.5 concentration is 10.2 ± 0.67 mg Nm-3 (Table 3). The
low standard deviation indicates stable operation of both incineration and air pollution
control devices. Until now, no data for PM 2.5 mass concentration collected by dilution
sampling method is found in the literature for comparison with our study. More research
 is needed in the future.
Total particulate matter (TPM) concentration is also listed in Table 3. TPM
concentration is the concentration of PM 2.5 plus the emission of PM higher than 2.5 µm.
TPM concentration is 11.0 ± 0.78 mg Nm-3 and the ratio of PM 2.5 /TPM is 0.93 ± 0.01
(Table 3). The results indicate that over 90% of PM emission from MSWI is fine
particulate. Both PM 2.5 and TPM mean-mass emission factors and uncertainties based on

t
dilution sampling are listed in Table 3. The emission factor is reported as PM emission in

ip
grams per ton of incinerated waste. PM 2.5 and TPM emission factors are 61.6 ± 4.52 and
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

66.1 ± 5.27 g ton-waste-1, respectively. Many previous studies have investigated the

cr
influences of MSWI on ambient air quality. Some showed significant effects of MSWI on

us
the particle and/or the particle-bonded elements of surrounding air (Hu et al., 2003; Mao
et al., 2007), while some other studies indicated that the contribution of particulate from
MSWI is negligible (Venturini et al., 2013; Buonanno and Morawska, 2015). The
an
emission factors estimated by dilution sampling technique in this study provide valuable
and reliable data for the assessment of the contribution of MSWI to the atmosphere.
M
PM 2.5 chemical speciation profile
ed

The percentage of analyzed species accounting for PM 2.5 is shown in Fig. 2 with y-axis in
logarithmic scale. The species analyzed in this study were categorized into three groups:
pt

major elements (PM 2.5 mass e 1%), minor elements (PM 2.5 mass between 0.01-1%) and
trace elements (PM 2.5 mass < 0.01%). The mass closure percentage of the analyzed
ce

species for PM 2.5 is 73.6 ± 8.41%. About 25% of the PM 2.5 mass was not accounted for.
The analyzed species in this study are likely present in the particulate as oxidized form,
and oxygen would contribute a significant fraction of sample mass. When reconstructed
Ac

by the same factors as Chen et al. (2013), the mass closure was increased 96.2 ± 11.8%.
The PM 2.5 mass closure percentage for in-stack samples of the analyzed species is 62.6 ±
13.2%, which is lower than the diluted samples.
Table 1 lists the major compositions and properties of the municipal solid waste. The
municipal waste comes from residences, schools, streets, recreational sites, and
administrative offices, etc. The composition of waste is important for explaining the
 chemical characteristics of the emitted PM 2.5 . The major elements in PM 2.5 include OC,
Cl-, NH 4 +, EC and Si. These 5 species accounted for 69.7% of PM 2.5 mass. Total carbon
(sum of EC and OC) accounted for 33.1% of PM 2.5 mass. The average ratio of OC/EC
was 1.73. The loss on ignition of ash residue of this MSWI is around 3.2%, indicating a
high combustion efficiency of this plant. Regardless, there is still unburned carbon in the
exhaust, which adsorbed onto the particulate during the cooling process. The high Cl-

t
emission is primarily contributed by wastes containing plastic bags made of polyvinyl

ip
chloride, the salt in kitchen waste and waste biomass, etc. Si might come from soil, glass
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

and ceramics in the waste. NH 4 + can be formed from the combustion process of kitchen

cr
waste, wood and garden trimmings. Previous study has also measured high Si and NH 4 +

us
emissions from the incinerator (Morawska and Zhang, 2002).
The minor elements in PM 2.5 include SO 4 2-, K+, Na, K, NO 3 -, Al, Ca2+, Zn, Ca, Cu, Fe,
Pb and Mg. The K emission is attributable to condiments in kitchen waste. Combustion
an
of wood and grass would also result in K emission. The emission of Ca is caused by the
addition of limestone in the air pollution device for removal of acid gas. Although metals
M
are recycled before waste incineration, some metal was frequently present in the solid
waste (Hasselriis and Licata, 1996; Singh et al., 2002; Hu et al., 2003). Other trace
elements in PM 2.5 are Mn, Ni, Cr, Sn, Sb, Ba, Cd, Se, Mo, V, Sr, Co, As. These elements
ed

accounted for less than 0.05% of PM 2.5 mass. Even with low emission of these elements,
they were frequently found in the incinerator stack (e.g. Hasselriis and Licata, 1996;
pt

Wang et al., 2001). In the review article of Morawska and Zhang (2002), the mass
percentage accounting for particulate matter higher than 10% included NH 4 +, Cl, SO 4 2-,
ce

OC. The mass fractions of NO 3 -, Na, EC, Si were between 1% and 10%. The mass
fractions in the literature were similar with the results in our study. The comparison
shows that although the municipal waste compositions might be somewhat different for
Ac

different countries and areas, the mass fractions of the emitted particulate matter are quite
similar.
Comparison with in-stack sampling
PM 2.5. The extremely bulky dilution sampling equipment is quite difficult to operate to
measure PM 2.5 emission for most plants with limited space for sampling plates. Today, in-
stack filter/impinger method is still the most practical way to collect PM 2.5 samples from
 stationary sources. Most published emission factors and profiles are based on traditional
in-stack sampling techniques. However, it is important and necessary to compare
measurement results between dilution sampling and in-stack sampling methods.
The PM 2.5 emission concentrations measured using dilution and in-stack sampling
techniques are listed in Table 4. Both filterable and condensable PM 2.5 concentrations for
in-stack sampling method are shown. PM 2.5 emission concentration is 28.4 ± 17.0 mg

t
Nm-3 using in-stack sampling method, with a much higher standard deviation than

ip
dilution sampling method. The coefficients of variance (COV) of filterable and
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

cr
condensable PM measurement results are 11.3% and 60.3%, respectively (Table 4),
showing that the high variation of the measurement results using in-stack method come

us
primarily from condensable PM measurement.
PM 2.5 emission concentration is higher using in-stack sampling than dilution sampling
method. The mean ratio of dilution method/in-stack method is 0.454. For in-stack
an
sampling method, condensable PM is much higher than filterable PM (Table 4). Previous
studies have indicated that impinger test method for condensable PM might exit potential
M
positive artifacts caused by absorption and reaction of SO 2 and organic compounds
within the chilled impinger train, which contribute to the sample (Corio and Sherwell,
2000; England et al., 2007). To reduce the artifact, USEPA has made some improvements
ed

in the test method (USEPA Method 202, implemented in 2011), including using a dry
impinger and made a nitrogen purge mandatory to remove dissolved SO 2 , etc. The
pt

comparison of dilution sampling and in-stack sampling method for most previous studies
in the literature used the “old” in-stack method. The in-stack measurement method used
ce

in this study is the newly amended version with the improvement of artifact reduction.
The results of this study show that PM 2.5 emission is higher for in-stack sampling
method, even though the potential artifact is reduced in the new method
Ac

Chemical composition. The influence of dilution on chemical compositions of PM 2.5 can

be evaluated using an enrichment factor (EF), which is defined as:

EFi = x i,dilute / x i,in-stack (3)

 where x i,dilute and x i,in-stack is the PM 2.5 mass fraction of chemical species i in the diluted
and in-stack sample, respectively. An enrichment factor greater than 1.0 implies that the
species is enriched in the diluted sample compared to the in-stack sample; an enrichment
factor equal to 1.0 means no difference between the dilution and in-stack sampling
methods for that species (Lipsky et al., 2004).
Enrichment factors of the analyzed species for the dilution and in-stack PM 2.5 samples

t
are shown in Fig. 3. Most species have an EF of around 1.0, indicating that the mass

ip
fraction of the species of the diluted sample is the same as that in the in-stack hot sample.
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

cr
These species are primarily low volatile elements, such as Al, Ca, Fe, Mg and Mn. Some
more-volatile elements, such as Pb, As and Se have higher EFs than other elements,

us
indicating that these elements are enriched in the dilution process. The EFs of water-
soluble ions are significantly higher than 1.0. Note that the EF of NH 4 + is also higher than
1.0. The EF of NH 4 + is not shown in Fig. 3 since its concentration in hot-stack sample
an
was below detection limit. The results show that these water-soluble ions are enriched in
the dilution process. SO 4 2- and NO 3 - tend to be formed via gas-to-particle conversion
M
within the dilution sampler. These acidic anions promote the gas-to-particle conversion of
gas-phase NH 3 to form NH 4 + to neutralize the particles. NH 3 preferentially reacts with
SO 4 2-, then NO 3 -, and subsequently Cl-. The EF of Cl- is higher than SO 4 2- and NO 3 -,
ed

indicating that there is sufficient NH 3 to react with SO 4 2- and NO 3 - present in the stack
gas and the excess amount of NH 3 to react with Cl- to form NH 4 Cl.
pt

Conclusions
ce

Dilution sampling method was performed to measure PM 2.5 emission from a MSWI.
Ac

Carbon content, metal elements and water-soluble ions in PM 2.5 were analyzed. PM 2.5
emission factors and the chemical speciation profile of PM 2.5 were established. PM 2.5
concentration was 11.1 ± 0.73 mg Nm-3 and PM 2.5 emission factor was 61.6 ± 4.52 g ton-
waste-1, respectively. The ratio of PM 2.5 /TPM was 0.93 ± 0.01, showing PM emission
from MSWI is mainly fine particulate. OC, Cl-, NH 4 +, EC and Si are the major species in
PM 2.5 , which accounted for 69.7% of PM 2.5 mass. EC and OC accounted for 33.1% of
PM 2.5 mass. High Cl- emission is primary contributed by wastes containing plastic bags
 made of polyvinyl chloride, salt in kitchen waste and waste biomass, etc. Si might come
from soil, glass and ceramics in the waste. The minor elements in PM 2.5 accounted for
0.01~1% of PM 2.5 , which include SO 4 2-, K+, Na, K, NO 3 -, Al, Ca2+, Zn, Ca, Cu, Fe, Pb
and Mg.
To compare the influences of dilution on PM 2.5 emissions and the characteristics of the
bounded chemical species, traditional in-stack sampling was simultaneously conducted.

t
PM 2.5 emission concentration was 31.0 ± 18.5 mg/Nm3 using in-stack sampling method,

ip
with a much higher standard deviation than dilution sampling method. The high variation
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

cr
of the measurement results using in-stack method come primarily from condensable PM
measurement. PM 2.5 emission concentration is higher using in-stack sampling than using

us
dilution sampling method. The mean ratio of dilution method/in-stack method is 0.454.
The content of water-soluble ions (Cl-, SO 4 2-, NO 3 -) are significantly enriched in PM 2.5
via gas-to-particle conversion in the dilution process. The dilution sampling method
an
provides a more reliable estimation of PM 2.5 chemical emission to the atmosphere.
M
References
ed

Buonanno, G., and L. Morawska. 2015. Ultrafine particle emission of waste incinerators
and comparison to the exposure of urban citizens. Waste Manage. 37:75-81.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2014.03.008
pt

Chang, C.Y., C.F. Wang, D.T. Mui, M.T. Cheng, and H.L. Chiang. 2009. Characteristics
of elements in waste ashes from a solid waste incinerator in Taiwan. J. Hazard. Mater.
ce

165:766-773. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.10.059
Chen, S.C., S.C. Hsu, C.J. Tsai, C.C.K. Chou, N.H. Lin, C.T. Lee, G.D. Roam, and D.Y.H.
Ac

Pui. 2013. Dynamic variations of ultrafine, fine and coarse particles at the Lu-Lin
background site in East Asia. Atmos. Environ. 78:154-162.
doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.05.029
Corio, L.A., and J. Sherwell. 2000. In-stack condensable particulate matter measurements
and issues. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 50:207-218.
doi:10.1080/10473289.2000.10464002
 England, G.C., J.G. Watson, J.C. Chow, B. Zielinska, M.C.O. Chang, K.R. Loos, and
G.M. Hidy. 2007. Dilution-Based emissions sampling from stationary sources: part 1-
compact sampler methodology and performance. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 57:65-
78. doi:10.1080/10473289.2007.10465291
Fine, P.M., G.R. Cass, and B.R.T. Simoneit. 2001. Chemical characterization of fine

t
particle emissions from fireplace combustion of woods grown in the northeastern

ip
united states. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35:2665-2675. doi:10.1021/es001466k
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

cr
Hartenstein, H.U., and M. Horvay. 1996. Overview of municipal waste incineration
industry in west Europe (based on the German experience). J. Hazard. Mater. 47:19-

us
30. doi:10.1016/0304-3894(95)00124-7
Hidemann, L.M., G.R. Markowski, and G.R. Cass. 1991. Chemical composition of
emissions from urban sources of fine organic aerosol. Environ. Sci. Technol. 25:744-
759.
an
Hu, C.W., M.R. Chao, K.Y. Wu, G.P. Chang-Chien, W.J. Lee, L.W. Chang, and W.S. Lee.
M
2003. Characterization of multiple airborne particulate metals in the surroundings of a
municipal waste incinerator in Taiwan. Atmos Environ. 37:2845-2852.
doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(03)00208-5
ed

Lee, S.W., T. Herage, I. He, and B. Young. 2008. Particulate characteristics data for the
management of PM 2.5 emissions from stationary combustion sources. Powder Technol.
pt

180:145-150. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2007.03.025
Lee, S.W., R. Pomalis, and B. Kan. 2000. A New methodology for source characterization
ce

of oil combustion particulate matter. Fuel Process. Technol. 65-66:189-202.

doi:10.1016/S0378-3820(99)00086-7
Ac

Li, X., S. Wang, L. Duan, J. Hao, and Z. Long. 2011. Design of a compact dilution
sampler for stationary combustion sources. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 61:1124-
1130.
Lipsky, E.M., N.J. Pekney, G.F. Walbert, W.J. O’Dowd, M.C. Freeman, and A.L.
Robinson. 2004. Effects of dilution sampling on fine particle emissions from
pulverized coal combustion. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 38:574-587.
doi:10.1080/02786820490479851
 Mao, I.F., C.N. Chen, Y.C. Lin, and M.L. Chen. 2007. Airborne particle PM 2.5 /PM 10 mass
distribution and particle-bound PAH concentrations near a medical waste incinerator.
Atmos Environ. 41:2467-2475. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.04.064
Morawska, L., and J. Zhang. 2002. Combustion sources of particles. 1. Health relevance
and source signatures. Chemosphere. 49:1045-1058. doi:10.1016/S0045-
6535(02)00241-2

t
ip
Mills, N.L., K. Donaldson, P.W. Hadoke, N.A. Boon, W. MacNee, F.R. Cassee, T.
Sandström, A. Blomberg, and D.E. Newby. 2009. Adverse cardiovascular effects of air
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

cr
pollution. Nat. Clin. Pract. Cardiovasc. Med. 6:36-44. doi:10.1038/ncpcardio1399
Pope, III.C.A., R.T. Burnett, G.D. Thurston, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, and J.J.

us
Godleski. 2004. Cardiovascular mortality and long-term exposure to particulate air
pollution: epidemiological evidence of general pathophysiological pathways of

an
disease. Circulation. 109:71-77. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000108927.80044.7F
Singh, M., P.A. Jaques, and C. Sioutas. 2002. Size distribution and diurnal characteristics
of particle-bound metals in source and receptor sites of the Los Angeles basin. Atmos.
M
Environ. 36:1675–1689. doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00166-8
USEPA, 2004. Conditional test method (CTM) 039. Measurement of PM2.5 and PM10
ed

emissions by dilution sampling (constant sampling rate procedures).

Venturini, E., I. Vassura, L. Ferroni, S. Raffo, F. Passarini, D.C.S. Beddows, and R.M.
Harrison. 2013. Bulk deposition close to a municipal solid waste incinerator: one
pt

source among many. Sci. Total Environ. 456-457:392-403.

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.097
ce

Wang, K.S., K.Y. Chiang, C.C. Tsai, and C.J. Sun. 2001. The effects of FeCl 3 on the
distribution of the heavy metals Cd, Cu, Cr and Zn in a simulated multimetal
Ac

incineration system. Environ Int. 26:257-263. doi:10.1016/S0160-4120(00)00115-X

Waston, J.G., J.C. Chow, and J.E. Houck. 2001. PM 2.5 chemical source profiles for
vehicle exhaust, vegetative burning, geological material, and coal burning in
northwestern Colorado during 1995. Chemosphere. 43:1141-1151.
Watson, J.G., T. Zhu, J.C. Chow, J. Engelbrecht, E.M. Fujita, and W.E. Wilson. 2002.
Receptor modeling application framework for particle source apportionment.
Chemosphere. 49:1093-1136. doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00243-6
 Yang, H.H., K.T. Lee, Y.S. Hsieh., S.W. Luo, and R.J. Huang. 2015. Emission
characteristics and chemical compositions of both filterable and condensable fine
particulate from steel plants. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 15:1672---1680.
doi:10.4209/aaqr.2015.06.0398
Yang, H.H., K.T. Lee, Y.S. Hsieh, S.W. Luo, and M.S. Li. 2014. Filterable and
condensable fine particulate emissions from stationary sources. Aerosol Air Qual. Res.

t
14:2010-2016. doi:10.4209/aaqr.2014.08.0078

ip
Yang, H.H., W.J. Lee, S.J. Chen, and S.O. Lai. 1998. PAH emission from various
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

cr
industrial stacks. J. Hazard. Mater. 60:159-174. doi:10.1016/S0304-3894(98)00089-2
Yuan, C.S., H.Y. Lin, C.H. Wu, and M.H. Liu. 2005. Partition and size distribution of

us
heavy metals in the flue gas from municipal solid waste incinerators in Taiwan.
Chemosphere. 59:135-145. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.09.095

an
Zhang, M., S. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Z. Xu, G. Feng, and M. Ren. 2014. Influence of a
municipal solid waste incinerator on ambient air PCDD/F levels: A comparison of
running and non-running periods. Sci. Total Environ. 491-492:34-41.
M
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.100

About the Authors

ed

Hsi-Hsien Yang is a research professor at Department of Environmental Engineering and

Management, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung, Taiwan.
Shao-Wei Luo, Kuei-Ting Lee and Jhin-Yan Wu are atmospheric scientists at
pt

Department of Environmental Engineering and Management, Chaoyang University of

Technology, Taichung, Taiwan.
Chun Wei Chang is the Principal Engineer at Plant Affairs Department, Sino
ce

Environmental Services Corporation, Taipei, Taiwan.

Pei Feng Chu is the Vice President at Plant Affairs Department, Sino Environmental
Services Corporation, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ac

Implications
PM 2.5 samples from a municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) were collected
simultaneously by dilution sampling technique and traditional in-stack method. PM 2.5
emission factors and chemical speciation profiles were established. Dilution sampling
provides more reliable data than in-stack hot sampling. The results can be applied to
estimate the PM 2.5 emission inventories of MSWI and the source profile can be used for
contribution estimate of chemical mass balance modeling.
 Tables

Table 1 Physical and chemical properties of the municipal solid waste

Properties Value
Bulk density (kg m-3) 161
Paper 32.9
Plastics 23.9

t
Textiles 3.54

ip
Combustibles Wood, garden trimmings 2.12
(%) Kitchen waste 29.1
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

Physical Leather, Rubber 0.41

cr
composition Other combustibles 0.80
(dry basis) Total 92.7

us
Metal 0.31
Glass 1.40
Noncombustibles
Ceramics 0.00
(%)
Other noncombustibles 5.56

Proximate
analysis
an Total
Moisture
Ash
7.27
55.9
5.73
(%) Combustibles 38.4
M
Carbon 20.8
Hydrogen 3.16
Chemical Oxygen 13.7
Chemical
ed

composition Nitrogen 0.30

analysis
(Wet basis) Sulfur 0.13
(%)
Chlorine 0.07
Phosphorus 0.06
pt

Potassium 0.24
Heating value High heating value 2500
(kcal kg-1) Low heating value 1990
ce
Ac
 Table 2 Stack temperature and exhaust gas compositions during sampling.
Parameters Mean Stdev
3 -1
Flow rate (Nm h ) 4210 69.3
Combustion chamber
948 8.85
temperature (℃)
Temperature before
166 0.43
baghouse (℃)
Stack temperature (℃) 157 1.87

t
O 2 (vol%) 10.4 0.22

ip
H 2 O (vol%) 22.2 0.00
CO (ppm) 17.5 1.57
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

SO x (ppm) 4.96 1.40

cr
HCl (ppm) 16.4 1.59
NO x (ppm) 84.1 3.37
Opacity (%) 2.31 0.04

us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
 Table 3 PM 2.5 and TPM concentrations and emission factors.
Items Concentrations (mg Nm-3) Emission factor (g ton-waste-1)
PM 2.5 10.2 ± 0.67 61.6 ± 4.52
TPM 11.0 ± 0.78 66.1 ± 5.27
PM 2.5 /TPM 0.93 ± 0.01

t
ip
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
 Table 4 PM 2.5 emission concentrations for dilution and in-stack sampling methods.
-3 In-stack (mg Nm-3)
Dilution (mg Nm )
Sum Filterable PM Condensable PM
Run 1 10.8 20.4 0.32 20.1
Run 2 9.94 13.4 0.26 13.2
Run 3 10.8 52.4 0.33 52.1
Run 4 9.42 27.5 0.27 27.2
Mean 10.2 28.4 0.29 28.1
Stdev 0.67 17.0 0.03 17.0

t
COV (%) 6.52 59.8 11.3 60.3

ip
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
 Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

Ac
ce
List of figure captions

Fig. 1. Dilution sampling system.

pt
ed
M
an
us
cr
ip
t
 Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

Ac
ce
pt
Fig. 2. PM 2.5 chemical speciation profile.

ed
M
an
us
cr
ip
t
 Fig. 3. Enrichment factors of the analyzed species for the dilution and in-stack PM 2.5
samples.

t
ip
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 19:02 06 July 2016

cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac