You are on page 1of 12

Environ Model Assess DOI 10.

1007/s10666-010-9244-0

Development of Spatial and Temporal Emission Inventory for Crop Residue Field Burning
Thongchai Kanabkaew & Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh

Received: 26 January 2010 / Accepted: 18 October 2010 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract Accurate emission inventory (EI) is the foremost requirement for air quality management. Specifically, air quality modeling requires EI with adequate spatial and temporal distributions. The development of such EI is always challenging, especially for sporadic emission sources such as biomass open burning. The country of Thailand produces a large amount of various crops annually, of which rough (unmilled) rice alone accounted for over 30 million tonnes in 2007. The crop residues are normally burned in the field that generates large emissions of air pollutants and climate forcers. We present here an attempt at a multipollutant EI for crop residue field burning in Thailand. Available country-specific and regional primary data were thoroughly scrutinized to select the most realistic values for the best, low and high emission estimates. In the base year of 2007, the best emission estimates in Gigagrams were as follows: particulate matter as PM2.5, 128; particulate matter as PM10, 143; sulfur dioxide (SO2), 4; carbon dioxide (CO2), 21,400; carbon monoxide (CO), 1,453; oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 42; ammonia (NH3), 59; methane (CH4), 132; non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC), 108; elemental carbon (EC), 10; and organic carbon (OC), 54. Rice straw burning was by far the largest contributor to the total emissions, especially during the dry season and in the central part of the country. Only a limited number of EIs for crop residue open burning were reported for Thailand but with significant discrepancies. Our best estimates were comparable but generally higher than other studies. Analysis for emission uncertainty, taking into account possible variations in activity data and emission factors, shows considerable gaps between low and high estimates. The difference between the low and high EI estimates for particulate
T. Kanabkaew : N. T. Kim Oanh (*) Environmental Engineering and Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand e-mail: kimoanh@ait.ac.th

matter and for particulate EC and OC varied between 80% and +80% while those for CO2 and CO varied between 60% and +230%. Further, the crop production data of Thailand were used as a proxy to disaggregate the emissions to obtain spatial (76 provinces) and temporal (monthly) distribution. The provincial emissions were also disaggregated on a 0.1 0.1 grid net and to hourly profiles that can be directly used for dispersion modeling. Keywords Crop residue . Open burning . Air pollution . Gridded emission . Hourly emission . Thailand 1 Introduction Field burning of crop residues after harvest is a common practice in many countries. In developing countries, which normally have an agriculture-based economy, a large quantity of crop residues is produced annually and burned directly in the field. A number of studies indicate that this activity can significantly affect local air quality and human health [1]. It can also be a leading cause of such regional scale phenomena as the atmospheric brown clouds [2, 3] that can affect the regional and global climate. However, this significant source of air pollution is still mostly overlooked in air quality management programs in many countries. Proper quantification of the air pollution generated by crop residue burning would stimulate formulation of an appropriate national air quality policy and international cooperation to effectively control these emissions. Nevertheless, there is still no comprehensive emission inventory (EI) of this source due to challenges related to uncertainties of emission factors and burning activity data. The existing EIs for Asia either have a preliminary estimate of this open burning emission on a regional scale [4] or do not report this source [5]. Thailand is an agriculture-based country with the main crops being rice, cassavas, and sugarcane. Most farmers burn

T. Kanabkaew, N.T. Kim Oanh

the crop residues directly in the field to ease preparation for the next crops. This activity has been reported to adversely affect air quality in terms of PM10 (particles with the size less than 10 m) and CO (carbon monoxide) in the surrounding areas during the burning periods [6, 7]. Source apportionment studies for the Bangkok Metropolitan Region (BMR) have identified a significant contribution (3040%) of biomass burning to PM2.5 (particles with the size less than 2.5 m) air pollution [8, 9]. The dense haze covering the Chiang Mai province and the northern region of the country during March and April is believed to have causal links to open burning of crop residues and forest fires [10]. No biomass burning emissions were considered in the current official EI of Thailand, which was prepared by the Pollution Control Department (PCD) for the base year of 1997 [11]. Also, this PCD EI covers only the BMR which includes Bangkok, Nonthaburi, Pathumthani, Nakhonpathom, Samuthprakarn, and Samuthsakorn. An updated EI for 2004 with temporal profiles was reported by Pham et al. [12], but only for point sources (power plants and industrial facilities). There have been a few research attempts to update the EI for Thailand [13, 14], mostly with the emission factors (EFs) taken from international sources outside Asia such as from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA AP-42) [15], Jenkins et al. [16], and Andreae and Merlet [17]. This study aims to contribute to the current emission database of the country by focusing on the EI for crop residue field burning for the entire country of Thailand in 2007 with necessary spatial and temporal profiles suitable for air quality modeling purposes. The considered air pollutants included particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), particulate elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC), and gaseous emissions, i.e., CO, carbon dioxide (CO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC), methane (CH4), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and ammonia (NH3). EFs from the country and regional specific data in Asia (China, India, and Indonesia) were also compiled and used for the emission estimates.

EAx,i =Annual emission rate (grams) M i = Amount of burned crop residues in a year (kilogram dry mass of residue) EFx,i =Emission factors of species x and crop type i (grams per kilogram dry mass of residue). The amount of field-burned crop residues was estimated based on the total annual crop production data using Eq. 2. Mi Pi Ni Di Bi hi where, P =Crop production (kg) N =Crop specific residue-to-production ratio D =Dry matter-to-crop residue ratio B =Fraction of dry matter residues that are burned in the field =Crop specific burn efficiency ratio (fraction oxidized during combustion). We considered 12 main crops of the country, the residues of which are subject to open burning (Table 1). The activity data were from 2007, the base year of this inventory. A wide variety of data taken from literature and surveys were compiled and values considered relevant for Thailand were selected to use in Equations 1 and 2 to produce the EI. The selection of a particular value to be used for the EI was made based on the following priority: (1) specific data for Thailand such as from the Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency (DEDE) [18, 19], Office of Agriculture Economics (OAE) [20], and Energy for Environment Foundation (EFE) [21], (2) primary data generated from similar Asian countries, and (3) other data sources providing relevant information. A compilation of literature available data for crop residue field burning and the selected values used in this study is given in Table 1. The data are presented for eight groups of crop residues: rice, maize and sorghum, soybean, potato, jute and cotton, groundnut and mung bean, sugarcane, and cassava. The production (P) data of various crops in Thailand in 2007 were taken from OAE [20] for each of the 76 provinces of the country. Note that the fraction of crop residues burned in the field (B) is not readily available and it is a source of uncertainty [4]. A wide range of values has been used in reported EIs. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [22] suggests using a value of 0.25 for developing countries and <0.10 for developed countries, but country-specific data are recommended where available. Zhang et al. [23] suggest a range of 0.010.5 for rural areas of China. Street et al. [4] used a value of 0.25 for South Asia and 2

2 Methodology 2.1 Annual Emission Estimation Emission rates from the crop residue burning were calculated using Eq. 1. X EA x;i Mi EFx;i 1
i

where, x =Pollutant species i =Crop types

Emission Inventory for Crop Residue Field Burning Table 1 Compiled and selected values for estimating amount of crop residue burning (M) Parameter Crop type Rice Maize and sorghum Soybean Potato Jute and cotton Groundnut and mung bean Sugarcane Root/tubers (cassava)

Available data Residue to crop ratio (N)

1.19a 1.76c 1.2e 0.85c

0.48h 0.61j i 0.90 0.30j Burn efficiency ratio () 0.89c 0.92c 0.85e 0.35e Selected value for best estimate in this study Residue to crop ratio (N) 1.19 0.19 Dry matter-to-crop residue 0.85 0.4 ratio (D) Fraction burned in field (B) 0.90;0.48n 0.61 Burn efficiency ratio () 0.89 0.92 Actual crop product in 2007 30,110 3,717 (P; 1,000 tonnes)l

Dry matter-to-crop residue ratio (D) Fraction burned in field (B)m

0.19a 2.0c 1.85e 1.4f 0.4c

1.5b 0.21c 2.1f 0.71c 0.76k

0.5b

3.0b 2.1f

1.5b 2.1f

0.45g 1.0

0.8d 1.0k

0.8d 1.0

0.24a 0.3c 0.5e 1.6f 0.71c 0.55j

0.12a 0.2c

0.71c 0.41j

0.68c

0.9g

0.9g

0.9g

0.68c

0.68c

1.5 0.71 0.76 0.68 204

0.5 0.45 1.00 0.9 126

3.0 0.8 1.00 0.9 5

1.5 0.8 1.00 0.9 176

0.24 0.71 0.55 0.68 64,365

0.12 0.71 0.41 0.68 26,915

In this table, 12 main crops were grouped into eight groups regarding their similarity and available data
a

DEDE [19], biomass potential for energy production in Thailand Yang et al. [24], primary data for crop residue burning in China GAPF EI Manual [25], primary data for India Street et al. [4], data were likely to be from various area sources Penner et al. [26], data selected for developing countries estimated from various literatures IPCC [22], default value from IPCC EI manual DEDE [18], non-exploited rice straw in Thailand

b c

d e f

Jingura and Matengaifa [27], primary data for Zimbabwe

g h i j

Tipayarom and Kim Oanh [7], survey data of rice straw burning in central Thailand EFE [21], non-exploited crop residues in Thailand in 2007 Sajjakulnukit et al. [28], surplus availability of crop residues in Thailand Street et al. [4] noted that B is the component with a large uncertainty and needs details specific data of open burning practices OAE [20], annual crop product in year 2007: specific data for Thailand Factor of 0.90 was applied for central Thailand while 0.48 was for the rest area of the country

k l

m n

0.17 for the remaining countries in the region in their Asian EI. In this study, we selected the B values for various crops based mainly on reported data by relevant governmental agencies in Thailand [1821]. Tipayarom [6] conducted a survey for the Pathumthani province of the central part of Thailand and shows that farmers burn rice straw (RS) in the field whenever weather permits and around 90% of RS are field-burned in this part of the country. Therefore, to

produce the best estimate for rice, a value of 0.9 [6] was applied for the central region of the country while in other regions a B value of 0.48 suggested by DEDE [18] was used. There are two rice crops commonly grown in Thailand: the major crop (Rice I) is harvested mainly during November and December and the second crop (Rice II) is harvested during March and April. In the central part of the country, i.e., the Chaopraya delta, a third crop of

T. Kanabkaew, N.T. Kim Oanh

rice is also produced which is harvested during the wet season when field burning of RS is not generally possible. This crop accounts for around 10% of the total rice production. Data on crop residue used in Thailand power generation sector were analyzed to explore if other significant RS utilization takes place in the country. Overall, only three out of 77 biomass power plants use field crop residues (mainly RS) for power generation while the rest mainly use bagasse and rice husks which, in principle, are not subject to field burning [19]. Thus, only a small portion of RS may be used for this purpose. Emission factor is expressed in grams of released pollutant per kilogram of burned dry matter of crop residues. Country-specific EFs are available only for RS [29]. A few publications [17, 30, 31] present EF for general crop residues which is a best guess without giving specific information for each crop type. The compiled relevant values and the selected values of EF for best estimates in this study are presented in Table 2. The selection of EFs was made based on the following criteria/priority: 1) EFs for specific types of crops to be used when available; otherwise EF for general crop residues (combined crops) would be used. 2) Primary EF data measured in Thailand to be the first choice, followed by values generated for other similar Asian countries (China, India, and Indonesia) due to their general similarity in climate and cultivation methods. In cases where there are no data available for the Asian region, relevant data from other parts of the world would be used. For example, for RS we used the average EF reported in Kim Oanh et al. [29] for the best estimates. For low and high estimates, EFs were selected from the lower and higher values of the EF ranges reported in literature. 3) EFs derived for open burning were considered more relevant than those measured for cookstoves. 4) For crop residues other than RS, if more than one EF value were obtained after step 3, the highest value in Table 2 was selected. This indicates that our EI would provide a more conservative estimate in this regard. 5) EFs for PM (PM2.5, PM10) and composition (OC and EC) must be satisfied the condition of PM2.5 PM10 and EC+OC<PM2.5.

activities are presented in Table 3. The fraction of residues burned in the field has been recognized as a source of large uncertainty and was reported with wide ranges of values [4, 22]. For the best estimate of RS burning we used B =0.9 (survey data by Tipayarom [6]) for the central part of Thailand and 0.48 [18] for other parts of the country, as mentioned above. The B =0.30 for RS (recommended by EFE [21]) was used for the low estimate and B =0.90 [6] was used for the high estimate for the entire country. To account for uncertainty in EFs, we used the low and high values of the EF range for RS burning provided by all data sources (in Table 2) for the low and high estimates, respectively. For other crops, a value of B =0.17 as recommended by Street et al. [4] for Asian countries was applied for the low estimate, whereas B =1.0 (100% burned) was assumed for the high estimate. For these crops, no variation in EF was considered due to the limited data points available in literature, thus only the selected EF presented in Table 2 were used. These crop residues contribute much less than RS, so they would not be expected to change the total crop residue emission estimates significantly. 2.2 Spatial and Temporal Allocation Profiles Spatial and temporal distributions of crop residue open burning emissions strongly depend on agricultural practices such as harvesting cycles, types of crops, and climate conditions (dry or wet seasons). Fire detection using the MODIS hotspot method often fails to detect short-lived fires of the crop residue burning that may happen at times other than those when the satellite passes over the country. Also, the spatial scale of MODIS hotspot with 1 pixel of 1 km2 would be much larger than the average rice paddy (several hundred square meters); hence, it may not be able to represent the actual burning area. Thus, another proxy is necessary. In this study, we used the quantity of crop production, i.e., provincial and monthly crop production data to calculate the provincial and monthly emission distribution. Hourly emissions were calculated based on a local survey of 110 local farmer households of seven districts in Pathumthani, Thailand [7] which indicates that straw from Rice I and Rice II crops are normally subject to field burning within 27 days after harvest of each paddy at any time between 1100 and 1700 hours. 2.2.1 Spatial Allocation Profiles

To assess the uncertainty of emission estimates, we considered possible variations of two important factors: (1) fraction of residues that are burned in the field and (2) EF. The low, best, and high values of the selected EFs and

Spatial distribution was first made based on provincial crop production data from OAE [20] and further disaggregated to a grid net of 0.10.1 resolution over the whole country. The calculation for spatial distribution of emission

Emission Inventory for Crop Residue Field Burning Table 2 Compiled emission factors and selected values for crop residue burning
Pollutants Crop residue type (g/kg dry mass of residue) Rice Available data PM2.5 PM10 PM SO2 CO2 CO NOx NH3 CH4 NMVOC EC OC PM2.5 PM10m SO2 CO2 CO NOx NH3 CH4 NMVOC EC OC 0.51 ; 0.49 ; 0.86 ; 0.52 2.99 ; 2.01 ; 1.96 8.3 9.1 0.18 1,177 93 2.28 4.10 9.59 7.0 0.51 2.99
b f k b f g k

Maize and sorghum

Jute and cotton

Sugarcane

Combined crops

3.2a; 8.3b 3.46 ; 9.1


a b

11.7c; 4.1d 6.21 ; 4.3


a d

3.8d 4.0 4.53f 1,345f 105.82f 2.49


f d

3.9e 13e; 8.05h 0.40e; 0.216h 1,515e; 1,130h

6.28f; 5.3g 0.62a; 0.18f 1,162a; 1,177b; 1,674f; 791i; 1,216j 31.39a; 93b; 67.98f; 64.2i; 179.9j 2.84 ; 2.28 ; 1.81 4.10 9.59
j j a f i

4.4d; 5.31f; 12g; 1.68h 0.2a; 0.44c; 0.04f; 0.015h 1,314a; 1,350c; 2,327f; 1,160h; 1,262i 38.78a; 53c; 36.4d; 67.64f; 40.3h; 114.7i 0.75 ; 4.3 ; 1.7 ; 3.60 ; 1.27 ; 1.28 0.68 ; 0.7
c d c d h a c d f h i

4.1d; 7.0g

34.7d 2.6 1.0 0.4 2.2


d d d d g

92e; 86.3h 0.70h 1.30e 2.7e; 4.56h 7.0e 0.69e; 0.47l 3.3e; 0.7l

4.4 ; 1.5 ; 1.60 10 ; 4.4


c c c d f

0.35 ; 0.95 ; 0.96 ; 0.78 3.9 ; 2.25 ; 2.21 4.1 4.3 0.44 2,327 114.7 4.3 0.68 4.4 10 0.95 2.25
f k

0.82 1.83 3.9 4.53

f,k f,k

0.78

Selected values for best estimate in this study 3.8 4.0 0.216 1,130 34.7 2.6 1.0 0.4 2.2 0.78 3.3 3.9 8.05 0.216 1,130 86.3 0.70 1.30 4.56 7.0 0.47 0.7

0.216 1,345 105.82 2.49 1.30 4.56 7.0 0.82 1.83

EFs of combined crop residues were applied to those unavailable data, i.e., soybean, potato, groundnut, mung bean, and cassava
a

Jenkins et al. [16], EFs from tunnel simulations in U.S. Kim Oanh et al. [29], EFs for field burning rice straw in Thailand Dennis et al. [33], EFs for crop residue burning in Texas, U.S. Li et al. [32], EFs for the burning of wheat straw and corn stover in China Andreae and Merlet [17], Best guess based on literature information available Penner et al. [26], data selected for developing countries estimated from various literatures Zhang et al. [30], EFs are applicable for maize and averaged for crop residues of household stoves in China

b c

d e f

Cao et al. [34], EFs for field crop residue burning in China

g h i j

Zhang et al. [23], primary data for the burning of rice, wheat and corn straws in China Christian et al. [35], EFs from laboratory measurements of biomass burning in Indonesia Cao et al. [36], EFs from experiment testing for EC and OC in China Due to the lack of data, EFs of PM10 for combined crop residues were selected based on available EFs of PM Reddy and Venkataraman [31], EFs for EC and OC from crop residue burning in India and the estimation was based on PM=4.9 g/kg

k l

of a particular pollutant in a province was done using the following equation: EPi;m EA;i Fi;m where EPi,m =Annual emission of burning of crop type i in province m (m =1, 76) in grams (g) or other consistent mass unit 3

EA =Annual emission rate of the whole country in grams (g) or other consistent mass unit Fi,m =Ratio of crop type i production in province m (Pi,m) and the total production in the whole country (TPi,country) as seen in Eq. 4. Fi;m Pi;m TPi;country 4

T. Kanabkaew, N.T. Kim Oanh Table 3 Selected values for estimation of uncertainty using low and high ranges Parameters Fraction burn in field (B) Crop types/pollutants Rice straw Other crops Low estimation 0.30 0.17 Best estimation 0.90 (central area); 0.48 (other area) 0.61 (maize and sorghum); 0.76 (soybean); 1.0 (potato; groundnut and mung bean; jute and cotton); 0.55 (sugarcane); 0.41 (cassava) 8.3 9.1 0.18 1,177 93 2.28 4.10 9.59 7.0 0.51 2.99 High estimation 0.90 1.0

Emission factors (EF; g/kg dry mass of residue)

PM2.5 PM10 SO2 CO2 CO NOx NH3 CH4 NMVOC EC OC

3.2 3.46 0.18 791 64.2 1.81 4.10 9.59 7.0 0.49 1.96

8.3 9.1 0.62 1,674 179.9 2.84 4.10 9.59 7.0 0.52 2.99

2.2.2 Temporal Allocation Profiles Similar to spatial segregation, Eqs. 3 and 4 were also used to segregate the annual emissions into monthly emissions; however, in this case EA represents the total annual emissions rate over the study area, e.g., a selected province or the entire country, and m indicates the months in a year (m =1, 12). The monthly productions summarized in Table 4 were used as a proxy for the monthly amount of crop residues burned. The monthly productions were taken from the data provided by OAE [20], which is the average for the whole country, not for each province. Therefore, for rice, the major crop for which residue is subject to field burning,

the monthly production for each province was obtained from the direct communication with the OAE.

3 Results and Discussion 3.1 Annual Emissions We discuss in this section the best estimates of emissions. Assessment of EI uncertainty is presented in Section 3.4. The best estimates of annual pollutant emission for each considered crop are presented in Table 5. The total emissions from crop residue field burning of Thailand in

Table 4 Monthly crop production in the country used for temporal profile allocation Crop Monthly production in percent Jan Total rice Maize Sorghum Soybean Potato Jute Cotton Groundnut Mung bean Sugarcane Cassava 3.19 6.24 38.2 0.15 12.6 0.63 5.81 1.70 8.10 31.8 21.1 Feb 2.60 1.05 23.1 1.77 16.5 0.22 0.03 3.61 2.60 27.1 12.9 Mar 4.85 0.51 5.16 29.5 39.4 Apr 6.87 0.53 27.5 21.2 May 3.81 0.05 Jun 2.88 0.02 Jul 2.99 Aug 3.64 10.4 4.62 0.98 18.8 17.6 4.70 1.98 Sep 3.87 24.7 8.53 1.85 30.7 2.85 16.5 1.80 4.07 Oct 6.80 22.2 11.1 0.86 32.9 16.4 9.51 7.20 6.79 Nov 36.3 18.7 5.66 12.0 1.48 14.4 42.3 9.47 24.9 11.2 Dec 22.2 15.5 27.8 2.87 4.58 1.77 32.7 7.82 26.7 18.1 18.5

1.92 0.58 0.58

9.47 10.6 19.5 11.5

14.4 7.30 3.29 4.77

5.95 2.40 0.27 3.40

1.49

2.55 3.70 1.55

2.25

Blank cell means no data (no crop product was reported during those months)

Emission Inventory for Crop Residue Field Burning 30.1 8.79 3.51E-01 5.29E-03 7.86E-02 1.78E-02 9.22E-03 1.33E-02 3.65E-02 8.27E-02 13.5 4.44E-01 53.5

2007, in Gigagrams (Gg), are roughly as follows: PM2.5, 128; PM10, 143; SO2, 4; CO2, 21,400; CO, 1,453; NOx, 42; NH3, 59; CH4, 132; NMVOC, 108; EC, 10; and OC, 54. Overall, for most pollutants, RS burning contributes the largest emission share, followed by sugarcane and cassava crop residue burning. Other crops such as maize, sorghum, soybean, potato, jute, cotton, groundnut, and mung bean have relatively small contributions. The contribution of RS burning to overall emissions from crop residue burning (averaged over all pollutants) is 80%, ranking from 63% (EC) to 95% (CH4), which is justified by the countrys large rice production. A high production of rough (unmilled) rice in 2007, over 30 million tonnes, in combination with a high residue-tocrop ratio (Table 1) explains this significant emission contribution. The results of our study are presented in Table 6 together with other EI data available for Thailand for comparison. Note that not all pollutants are reported in other EIs for Thailand. The Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research (CGRER) at the University of Iowa [37] specifically reports crop residue burning while another global EI, the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) [38], reports emissions from all biomass burning. Significant differences are observed among the cited works which are most likely due to the differences in EFs, activity data used, and base year of the estimates. CGRER [37] generally reports higher country emissions from all sources for most pollutants as compared to other EIs presented in Table 6. Overall, the earlier studies indicate that biomass burning contributes significantly to the total emissions in the country, e.g., the shares for CO, CO2, NMVOC, and NOx are 42%, 25%, 26%, and 13%, respectively, based on CGRER [37] data for the base year of 2006 and 66%, 14%, 31% and 24%, respectively, based on the EDGAR [38] data for 2000. CGRER [37] data also show significant contributions from biomass burning to EC and OC emissions (42% and 64%); however, no PM2.5 and PM10 data are reported for biomass burning in these emission databases. Our emission estimates for all crop residue burning and for RS burning, in particular, are mostly higher than the values given by CGRER [37]. Our values are also higher than the data reported by Gadde et al. [14] which averaged over 20022006. The most significant difference is perhaps in the selection of fraction burned in the fields (B). Specifically, we used B =0.9 for RS burning in the central area based on a local survey [6] and values for other crops from relevant information sources of Thailand [1821, 28]. The B value used in CGRER [37] is 0.17 for all crops and Gadde et al.s [14] is 0.48 for RS, which would certainly result in lower amounts of residues burned.

OC

NMVOC

5.14 1.50 1.48E-01 2.23E-03 5.28E-02 70.5 20.6 1.56 2.35E-02 7.86E-01 96.6 28.2 6.87E-01 1.03E-02 5.12E-01 41.3 12.1 1.06E-01 1.60E-03 1.46E-01 937 273 17.9 2.69E-01 9.69 11,900 3,460 363 5.47 127 1.81 5.29E-01 6.87E-02 1.03E-03 2.42E-02 91.7 26.7 6.71E-01 1.01E-02 9.04E-01 83.6 24.4 6.40E-01 9.63E-03 4.38E-01 Rice I Rice II Maize Sorghum Soybean 23.0 6.70 6.71E-01 1.01E-02 7.86E-02

EC

CH4

NH3

NOx

Table 5 Annual emission best estimates for crop residue field burning in Thailand, 2007

CO

CO2

Annual estimation (Gg)

PM10

PM2.5

Crop

Potato Jute Cotton Groundnut Mung bean Sugarcane Cassava Total

9.93E-02 1.96E-02 2.84E-02 2.03E-01 4.61E-01 15.6 2.48 128

2.05E-01 2.28E-02 3.30E-02 4.20E-01 9.51E-01 16.4 5.11 143

5.50E-03 1.09E-03 1.57E-03 1.13E-02 2.55E-02 8.86E-01 1.37E-01 3.50

SO2

28.8 6.77 9.80 59.0 133 4,640 717 21,400

2.20 5.33E-01 7.71E-01 4.50 10.2 142 54.8 1,450

1.78E-02 1.25E-02 1.81E-02 3.65E-02 8.27E-02 10.7 4.44E-01 41.7

3.31E-02 6.55E-03 9.47E-03 6.78E-02 1.54E-01 4.10 8.25E-01 58.8

1.16E-01 2.30E-02 3.32E-02 2.38E-01 5.39E-01 1.64 2.89 132

1.78E-01 3.53E-02 5.10E-02 3.65E-01 8.27E-01 9.02 4.44 108

1.20E-02 4.13E-03 5.98E-03 2.45E-02 5.55E-02 3.20 2.98E-01 10.4

T. Kanabkaew, N.T. Kim Oanh Table 6 Emission estimates for Thailand from different sources Species Annual emission estimate (Gg) for different base years This study All crop residues PM2.5 PM10 SO2 CO2 CO NOx NH3 CH4 NMVOC EC OC
a

Gaddea Rice straw 108 118 2 15,300 1,210 30 53 125 91 7 39 Rice straw 108 31 17 12,207 290 26 10 33

Vongmahadlekb All biomass All sources

CGRERc All crop residues All biomass All sources 388 475 1,327 350,930 12,416 1,467 388 3,567 3,570 84 394

EDGARd All biomass All sources

PCDe Other sources

128 143 4 21,400 1,450 42 59 132 108 10 54

514 21 4,213 158 61 283 30 192

1,277 886 9,466 790 439 2,583 136 326

3 11,600 704 29 10 21 120 5 25

28 87,819 5,227 189 69 293 932 35 253

59 30,869 6,474 301

1,306 214,191 9,839 1,246

38 (TPM) 240 464 329 177 36

515

1,669

Gadde et al. [14], base year 20022006 (activity data are averaged from 2002 to 2006) Vongmahadlek et al. [13], base year is 2005

b c

CGRER [37], base year is 2006, no PM2.5 and PM10 reported for biomass burning (http://www.cgrer.uiowa.edu/EMISSION_DATA_new/ index_16.html) EDGAR [38], base year is 2000 (http://www.mnp.nl/edgar/) PCD [11], base year is 1997, only total particulate matter (TPM) is reported (no size segregation), for BMR and no biomass burning emission.

d e

Our results for PM2.5, CO2, and NOx are comparable to those from Gadde et al. [14], but CO emissions for RS burning in our study are about four times higher. This was caused by different EFs and activity data used as mentioned above. In this study, we applied the EFs produced by the field RS burning experiments in Thailand [29] for most of the studied pollutants. For other pollutants that are not given in Kim Oanh et al. [29] (NOx, SO2, NH3, CH4, and NMVOC), EFs from relevant sources were used. Note that our PM10 EI was higher than PM2.5 that meets criteria no. 5 above; however, the difference between PM2.5 and PM10 was small suggesting that majority of particulate matters emitted from this field burning activity would belong to fine particle size range. The EFs for other crops (besides RS) used in our studies were selected mainly from Asian regional data with the intention to realistically represent conditions in Thailand; however, due to the selection of the upper values among the EF ranks available, as mentioned above, the emission estimates for non-RS crop residue burning should be considered as conservative ones. Nevertheless, this would not significantly affect the overall crop residue burning emission results, as these non-RS residues contribute only 20% of the total emissions.

The contribution of crop residue field burning emissions (obtained in this study) to the countrys total emission data reported by Vongmahadlek et al. [13] was assessed for eight pollutants which shows 11% for PM10, 15% for CO, 13% for NH3, 5% for NOx, 4% for NMVOC, 7% for EC, 17% for OC, and less than 1% for SO2. These values are considerably higher than the contribution estimated based on data reported by CGRER [37], which are around 14% for most pollutants. The official EI data by PCD [11] for the base year of 1997, presented in Table 6, were only for a part of the country, the BMR domain, and that no biomass burning emission was included. 3.2 Spatial Emission Distribution Emissions were initially disaggregated according to the administrative boundary of all 76 provinces in Thailand to obtain annual provincial emissions. The central part of the country has the highest crop residue field burning emissions, followed by the northeastern, northern, and southern plains. This coincides with the rice plantation pattern that is dominant in the central region (along the Chaopraya River). In this central part of Thailand, two or more crops are produced in each year as discussed earlier.

Emission Inventory for Crop Residue Field Burning

Intensive field burning of crop residue in the provinces adversely affects the local air quality in the surrounding areas. In particular, the higher emissions in the surrounding provinces of large urban areas, such as Bangkok, Khon Kaen, and Chiang Mai contribute substantially to air pollution in those cities. Smoke from intensive RS burning in Pathumthani in the dry season, for example, is transported toward Bangkok city following the northeast monsoon direction [7]. For future modeling studies, we overlaid a grid net with a resolution of 0.10.1 (1212 km) on the map of the provincial emissions of each pollutant. As an example,

Fig. 2 Monthly profile for crop residue open burning emissions

Fig. 1 visualizes the spatial distribution of annual estimation for PM2.5. 3.3 Temporal Emission Distribution Monthly emission fractions of the combined crop residue emissions are shown in Fig. 2. For RS, the monthly emissions of each province were also determined. It is clearly seen that major crop residue burning emissions occur during the dry season (OctoberApril) and peak in November and December when the Rice I crop and many other crops are being harvested. In fact, the dry season is the most polluted season, with higher particulate matter levels in the country which may be due to a number of causes such as stagnant atmosphere, lack of wet removal, and enhanced long-range transport of emissions from upwind regions. In addition, more intensive crop residue field burning is also considered as an important factor for elevated air pollution in the dry season [3941]. An hourly emission profile can be further proposed based on the survey data of RS field burning in the central part of Thailand [6], which show that farmers normally conduct field burning from 11001700 hours (Fig. 3). Data for other crops residue burning were not available;

Fig. 1 Spatial distribution of PM2.5 emission from crop residue open burning in Thailand (0.10.1 grids)

Fig. 3 Hourly profile for crop residue open burning emissions

T. Kanabkaew, N.T. Kim Oanh Fig. 4 Uncertainty assessment of crop residue open burning
600

500

400

Gg/year

300

214.0
200

128.0
100

143.1

145.3 58.8

131.5 41.7

108.4 53.5 10.4

3.5
0 NOx NH3 CH4 NMVOC PM2.5 PM10 SO2 CO2 (x100) CO (x10)

however, as RS open burning contributes about 80% of the emissions, it can be used to represent the overall hourly emission profiles for crop residue burning in the country, especially in the central part of the country (around BMR). Hourly profile information is important for dispersion modeling, e.g., photochemical smog modeling. The highest emission occurs around noon when intensive insolation presents would enhance ozone formation from its precursors (NO x and NMVOC) in urban areas surrounded by agricultural fields. Ozone air pollution is now recognized as an important air quality issue in Thailand. Together with particulate air pollution, ozone regularly exceeds national ambient air quality standards in large urban areas [42]. 3.4 Uncertainty Assessment The result of EI uncertainty assessment is shown in Fig. 4. Average uncertainty ranged from 60% to +140%. A lower uncertainty was obtained for particulate species, including EC and OC which ranged from around 80% to +80%. For gaseous species, i.e., CO2 and CO, the uncertainty was high (from 60% to +230%). Both variations in EFs and activity data (amounts of residue burned) contributed to these wide ranges of the uncertainty. In particular, the EF of CO2 is expected to have less variation as it depends mainly on the carbon content of fuels; however, a large range of CO2 EF was also found in literature (from 790 to 1,670 g/kg RS, as shown in Table 3) which would cause the wide range of CO2 emission estimates.

4 Conclusions Field burning of crop residue contributes significantly to the countrys total air pollution. More importantly, these emissions peak during the dry polluted season which further enhances the build-up of high ambient air pollution. RS field burning contributes the largest share (80%) of the total crop residue burning emissions in Thailand, followed by sugarcane and cassava. The provinces located in the central, northeastern, and northern parts of the country have the largest crop residue burning emissions, coinciding with the rice production distribution pattern. The production data (provincial and monthly) are useful proxies to calculate the spatial and temporal distribution of emissions. The resulting gridded and monthly/hourly emission profiles can be directly used for further dispersion modeling studies. The uncertainty assessments show significant variations between low and high emission estimates, from 60% to +140% on average. The countrys operational emission database should be updated with realistic data on crop and other biomass burning sources. Information on large amounts of air pollution emitted from the field burning activity would help to raise awareness in the implementation of nonburning alternatives to minimize adverse effects on local air quality, the atmosphere, and the climate.
Acknowledgments The air quality research group at AIT is acknowledged for their kind support and information exchange. Government sectors in Thailand (OAE, DEDE, PCD, EFE) and other partners are sincerely thanked for their provision of relevant data for the emission inventory.

OC

EC

Emission Inventory for Crop Residue Field Burning

References
1. Jacobs, J., Kreutzer, R., & Smith, D. (1997). Rice burning and asthma hospitalizations, Butte County, California, 19831992. Environmental Health Perspectives, 105(9), 980985. 2. UNEP and C4. (2002). The Asian brown cloud: Climate and other environmental impacts. Nairobi: United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP). 3. Gustafsson, ., Krus, M., Zencak, Z., Sheesley, R. J., Granat, L., Engstrm, E., et al. (2009). Brown clouds over South Asia: Biomass or fossil fuel combustion? Science, 323, 495498. 4. Streets, D. G., Yarber, K. F., Woo, J. H., & Carmichael, G. R. (2003). Biomass burning in Asia: Annual and seasonal estimates and atmospheric emissions. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 17(4), 10991118. 5. Ohara, T., Akimoto, H., Kurokawa, J., Horii, N., Yamaji, K., Yan, X., et al. (2007). An Asian emission inventory of anthropogenic emission sources for the period 19802020. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7(16), 44194444. 6. Tipayarom, D. (2004). Source characterization for air pollution emission from open rice-straw burning in Thailand. M. Eng. Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand 7. Tipayarom, D., & Kim Oanh, N. T. (2007). Effects from open rice straw burning emission on air quality in the Bangkok Metropolitan Region. Science Asia, 33(3), 339345. 8. Upadhyay, N. (2002). Source apportionment of fine and coarse fraction of particulate matters in Bangkok Metropolitan Region by receptor modeling. M. Eng. Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand 9. Kittiruangpol, P. (2002). Source apportionment of fine and coarse particulate matters in Bangkok Metropolitan Region using positive matrix factorization receptor model. M. Sc. Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand 10. PCD. (2007). Annual report: Bangkok air quality in 2007. Bangkok: Pollution Control Department (PCD). 11. PCD. (2000). Air emission source database update and ambient air quality impact assessment in Bangkok Metropolitan Region. Bangkok: Pollution Control Department (PCD). 12. Pham, T. B. T., Manomaiphiboon, K., & Vongmahadlek, C. (2008). Development of an inventory and temporal allocation profiles of emissions from power plants and industrial facilities in Thailand. The Science of the Total Environment, 397(13), 103118. 13. Vongmahadlek, C., Pham, T. B. T., Satayopas, B., & Thongboonchu, N. (2009). A compilation and development of spatial and temporal profiles of high-resolution emissions inventory over Thailand. Journal of the Air Waste Management Association, 59 (7), 845856. 14. Gadde, B., Bonnet, S., Menke, C., & Garivait, S. (2009). Air pollutant emissions from rice straw open field burning in India, Thailand and the Philippines. Environmental Pollution, 157(5), 15541558. 15. US EPA AP-42 (2009). Compilation of air pollutant emission factors, volume 1: Stationary point and area sources (open burning). http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch02/final/c02s05. pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2009. 16. Jenkins, B. M., Turn, S. Q., Williams, R. B., Goronea, M., & Abd-el-Fattah, H. (1996). Atmospheric pollutant emission factors from open burning of agricultural and forest biomass by wind tunnel simulations, volume 1. California: California State Air Resources Board. 17. Andreae, M. O., & Merlet, P. (2001). Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 15(4), 955966.

18. DEDE. (2003). Rice in Thailand. Bangkok: Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency (DEDE). 19. DEDE. (2007). Biomass energy. Bangkok: Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency (DEDE). 20. OAE. (2007). Thailand agricultural statistic yearbook in 2007. Bangkok: Office of Agriculture Economics (OAE). 21. EFE. (2009). Final report: Study on biomass resources management for alternative energy in macro level. Bangkok: Energy for Environment Foundation (EFE). 22. IPCC. (1996). Revised IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Reference Manual (Vol. 3). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 23. Zhang, H., Ye, X., Cheng, T., Chen, J., Yang, X., Wang, L., et al. (2008). A laboratory study of agricultural crop residue combustion in China: emission factors and emission inventory. Atmospheric Environment, 42(36), 84328441. 24. Yang, S., He, H., Lu, S., Chen, D., & Zhu, J. (2008). Quantification of crop residue burning in the field and its influence on ambient air quality in Suqian, China. Atmospheric Environment, 42(9), 19611969. 25. GAPF. (2007). The global atmospheric pollution forum air pollutant emissions inventory manual (version 1.3). Global Atmospheric Pollution Forum (GAPF), Stockholm Environment Institute. 26. Penner, J.E., Chuang, C.C., Liousse, C. (1996). The contribution of carbonaceous aerosols to climate change. 14th International Conference on Nucleation and Atmospheric Aerosols, 2630 August 1996, Helisinki, Finland. 27. Jingura, R. M., & Matengaifa, R. (2008). The potential for energy production from crop residues in Zimbabwe. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32(12), 12871292. 28. Sajjakulnukit, B., Yingyua, R., Maneekhao, V., Pongnarintasut, V., Bhattacharya, S. C., & Salam, P. A. (2005). Assessment of sustainable energy potential of non-plantation biomass resources in Thailand. Biomass and Bioenergy, 29(3), 214224. 29. Kim Oanh, N. T., Thuy, L. B., Tipayarom, D., Manadhar, D. R., Pongkiatkul, P., Simpson, C. D., Liu, S. L-J. (2010). Characterization of particulate matter emission from open burning of rice straw. Atmospheric Environment. (in press). 30. Zhang, J., Smith, K. R., Ma, Y., Ye, S., Jiang, F., Qi, W., et al. (2000). Greenhouse gases and other airborne pollutants from household stoves in China: a database for emission factors. Atmospheric Environment, 34(26), 45374549. 31. Reddy, M. S., & Venkataraman, C. (2002). Inventory of aerosol and sulphur dioxide emissions from India. Part IIbiomass combustion. Atmospheric Environment, 36(4), 699712. 32. Li, X., Wang, S., Duan, L., Hao, J., Li, C., Chen, Y., et al. (2007). Particulate and trace gas emissions from open burning of wheat straw and corn stover in China. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(17), 60526058. 33. Dennis, A., Fraser, M., Anderson, S., & Allen, D. (2002). Air pollutant emissions associated with forest, grassland, and agricultural burning in Texas. Atmospheric Environment, 36(23), 37793792. 34. Cao, G., Zhang, X., Gong, S., & Zheng, F. (2008). Investigation on emission factors of particulate matter and gaseous pollutants from crop residue burning. Environmental Sciences, 20(1), 5055. 35. Christian, T. J., Kleiss, B., Yokelson, R. J., Holzinger, R., Crutzen, P. J., Hao, W. M., et al. (2003). Comprehensive laboratory measurements of biomass-burning emissions: 1. Emissions from Indonesian, African, and other fuels. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108(D23), 47194732. 36. Cao, G., Zhang, X., & Zheng, F. (2006). Inventory of black carbon and organic carbon emissions from China. Atmospheric Environment, 40(34), 65166527.

T. Kanabkaew, N.T. Kim Oanh 37. CGRER. (2009). Emission data: 2006 Asia emissions for INTEXB. The Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research, the University of Iowa, http://www.cgrer.uiowa.edu/EMISSION_ DATA_new/index_16.html. Accessed 1 Sept 2009. 38. EDGAR. (2009). Emission database for global atmospheric research (EDGAR). http://www.mnp.nl/edgar/model/. Accessed 1 Sept 2009. 39. Leelasakultum, K. (2009). The Chiangmai haze episode in March 2007: Cause investigation and exposure assessment. M. Eng. Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand 40. Kim Oanh, N. T., Upadhyay, N., Zhuang, Y. H., Hao, Z. P., Murthy, D. V. S., Lestari, P., et al. (2006). Particulate air pollution in six Asian cities: Spatial and temporal distributions, and associated sources. Atmospheric Environment, 40(18), 33673380. 41. Pongkiatkul, P., & Kim Oanh, N. T. (2007). Assessment of potential long-range transport of particulate air pollution using trajectory modeling and monitoring data. Atmospheric Research, 85(1), 317. 42. PCD. (2008). Regional area air quality data. Pollution Control Department (PCD), Bangkok, Thailand, http://www.pcd.go.th/ AirQuality/Regional/Default.cfm. Accessed 5 Dec 2008.

You might also like