Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characterization of Emissions from Liquid Fuel and Propane Open Burns

  • Published:
Fire Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The effect of accidental fires are simulated to understand the response of items such as vehicles, fuel tanks, and military ordnance and to remediate the effects through re-design of the items or changes in operational procedures. The comparative combustion emissions of using jet propellant (JP-5) liquid fuel pools or a propane manifold grid to simulate the effects of accidental fires was investigated. A helium-filled tethered aerostat was used to maneuver an instrument package into the open fire plumes to measure CO, CO2, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and elemental/organic/total carbon (EC/OC/TC). The results showed that all emissions except CO2 were significantly higher from JP-5 burns than from propane. The major portion of the PM mass from fires of both fuels was less than 1 µm in diameter and differed in carbon content. The PM2.5 emission factor from JP-5 burns (129 ± 23 g/kg Fuelc) was approximately 150 times higher than the PM2.5 emission factor from propane burns (0.89 ± 0.21 g/kg Fuelc). The PAH emissions as well as some VOCs were more than one hundred times higher for the JP-5 burns than the propane burns. Using the propane test method to study flammability responses, the environmental impact of PM2.5, PAHs, and VOCs would be reduced by 2300, 700, and 100 times per test, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. STANAG 4240 Edition2 (April 2003) NATO liquid fuel/external fire, munition test procedures.

  2. Department of Defense Test Method Standard MIL-STD-2105D (April 2011) Hazard assessment tests for non-nuclear munitions

  3. TB 700-2 NAVSEAINST 8020.5C, 11A-1-47, DLAR 8220.1 (May 2004) Joint Technical Bulletin, Department of Defense Ammunition and Explosives Hazard Classification Procedures

  4. Jiang CM, Li YT, Huang H, Zhao JL, Wang Z, Zhang JZ (2016) Experimental study of burning rate in large-scale rectangular pool fire. J Fire Sci 34:323–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sikanen T, Hostikka S (2016) Modeling and simulation of liquid pool fires with in-depth radiation absorption and heat transfer. Fire Saf J 80:95–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Frederickson K, KearneySP, Grasser TW (2011) Laser-induced incandescence measurements of soot in turbulent pool fires. Appl Opt 50:A49–A59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Frederickson K, Kearney SP, Luketa A, Hewson JC, Grasser TW (2010) Dual-pump CARS measurements of temperature and oxygen in a turbulent methanol-fueled pool fire. Combust Sci Technol 182:941–959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hubble D, Yagla J, Washburn E, Ford K (2015) Development and characterization of a propane fueled fast cook-off burner. Insensitive munitions and energetic materials technology symposium, Rome, Italy. http://imemg.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/7B2-17109-Development-and-Characterization-of-a-Propane-Fueled-Fast-Cookoff-burner.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2016

  9. Toreheim J, Jansson A, Connedahl K (2015) Pimp my flames—how to create a hot environment. insensitive munitions and energetic materials technology symposium, Rome, Italy. http://imemg.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/7B1-17194-Pimp-my-Flames-How-to-Create-a-Hot-Environment.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2016

  10. Toreheim J, Evers B, Möllerström P (2013) The sand bed burner and the adiabatic surface temperature probe—the future equipment for fast cook off testing. Insensitive munitions and energetic materials technology symposium, San Diego, USA

  11. Yagla J, Griffiths D, Busic J (2012) Heat flux and thermal response measurements for designing a propane fuel fast cook-off test apparatus. Insensitive munitions and energetic materials technology symposium, Las Vegas

  12. Aurell J, Gullett BK, Yamamoto D (2012) Emissions from open burning of simulated military waste from forward operating bases. Environ Sci Technol 46:11004–11012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. U.S. EPA Method 10A. Determination of carbon monoxide emissions in certifying continuous emission monitoring systems at petroleum refineries. https://www3.epa.gov/ttnemc01/promgate/m-10a.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2016

  14. U.S. EPA Method 3A (1989) Determination of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations in emissions from stationary sources (instrumental analyzer procedure). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m-03a.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2014

  15. 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix L (1987) Reference method for the determination of particulate matter as PM2.5 in the atmosphere. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2014-title40-vol2/pdf/CFR-2014-title40-vol2-part50-appL.pdf. Accessed 22 Nov 2016

  16. U.S. EPA Method TO-13A (1999) Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in ambient air using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/airtox/to-13arr.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2017

  17. U.S. EPA Compendium Method TO-15 (1999) Determination of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in air collected in specially-prepared canisters and analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/airtox/to-15r.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2015

  18. U.S. EPA Method 25C. Determination of nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) in landfill gases. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m-25c.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2016

  19. Khan B, Hays MD, Geron C, Jetter J (2012) Differences in the OC/EC ratios that characterize ambient and source aerosols due to thermal-optical analysis. Aerosol Sci Technol 46:127–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. U.S. EPA Compendium Method TO-11A (1999) Determination of formaldehyde in ambient air using adsorbent cartridge followed by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/airtox/to-11ar.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2016

  21. Laursen KK, Ferek R, Hobbs P, Rasmussen RA (1992) Emission factors for particles, elemental carbon, and trace gases from the Kuwait oil fires. J Geophys Res 97:14491–14497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ward DE, Hao WM (1991) Projections of emissions from burning of biomass for use in studies of global climate and atmospheric chemistry. Air Waste Manag Assoc June 16–21:91–128. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_journals/1991/rmrs_1991_ward_d001.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2017

  23. Gullett BK, Aurell J, Holder A, Mitchell W, Greenwell D, Hays M, Conmy R, Tabor D, Preston W, George I, Abrahamson JP, Vander Wal R, Holder E (2016) Characterization of emissions and residues from simulations of the deepwater horizon surface oil burns. Mar Pollut Bull 117:392–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Larsen JC, Larsen PB (1998) Chemical carcinogens. In: Hester RE, Harrison RM (eds) Air pollution and health. The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, pp 33–56

    Google Scholar 

  25. Seltman HJ (2015) Experimental design and analysis. Carnegie mellon university. http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~hseltman/309/Book/Book.pdf. Accessed 5 Jun 2017

  26. U.S. Department of Energy. Carbon dioxide emissions coefficients by fuel. U.S. Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.cfm. Accessed 28 July 2016

  27. U.S. EPA AP-42 (1993) Liquefied petroleum gas combustion. https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/bgdocs/b01s05.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2016

  28. Middlebrook AM, Murphy DM, Ahmadov R, Atlas EL, Bahreini R, Blake DR, Brioude J, de Gouw JA, Fehsenfeld FC, Frost GJ, Holloway JS, Lack DA, Langridge JM, Lueb RA, McKeen SA, Meagher JF, Meinardi S, Neuman JA, Nowak JB, Parrish DD, Peischl J, Perring AE, Pollack IB, Roberts JM, Ryerson TB, Schwarz JP, Spackman JR, Warneke C, Ravishankara AR (2012) Air quality implications of the deepwater horizon oil spill. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:20280–20285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Perring AE, Schwarz JP, Spackman JR, Bahreini R, de Gouw JA, Gao RS, Holloway JS, Lack DA, Langridge JM, Peischl J, Middlebrook AM, Ryerson TB, Warneke C, Watts LA, Fahey DW (2011) Characteristics of black carbon aerosol from a surface oil burn during the deepwater horizon oil spill. Geophys Res Lett 38:5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chow JC. Watson JG, Lowenthal DH, Chen LWA, Motallebi N (2011) PM2.5 source profiles for black and organic carbon emission inventories. Atmos Environ 45:5407–5414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. U.S. EPA Hazardous Air Pollution List (2008) Clean Air Act: Title 42—the public health and welfare. U.S. Government Printing Office. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title42/pdf/USCODE-2008-title42-chap85.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2014

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate the support of the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, Project # WP-201320, and Dr. Robin Nissan, the Area Lead. Project Management was provided by Dr. Alex Morgan (University of Dayton Research Institute) through the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (Mr. Dave Madden). Aerostat flight operations and test burns were conducted by Mr. Adam Broad (NSWC-Dahlgren). Dr. Ingrid George conducted the carbonyl analyses and Dr. Mingjie Xie, post-doctoral fellow at U.S EPA through the Oak Ridge Institute for Science Education, performed the PM carbon analysis. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. EPA. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Dayton Research Institute, 300 College Park, Dayton, OH, 45469, USA

    Johanna Aurell

  2. Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division, Dahlgren, VA, 22485, USA

    David Hubble

  3. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA

    Brian K. Gullett, Amara Holder & Dennis Tabor

  4. Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, CA, 93555, USA

    Ephraim Washburn

Authors
  1. Johanna Aurell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Hubble
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brian K. Gullett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amara Holder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ephraim Washburn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dennis Tabor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian K. Gullett.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aurell, J., Hubble, D., Gullett, B.K. et al. Characterization of Emissions from Liquid Fuel and Propane Open Burns. Fire Technol 53, 2023–2038 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-017-0670-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-017-0670-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation