Advertisement

Characterizing emissions from open burning of military food waste and ration packaging compositions

  • Thomas Dominguez
  • Johanna Aurell
  • Brian Gullett
  • Robert Eninger
  • Dirk Yamamoto
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Emissions from open burning of military food waste and ration packaging compositions were characterized in response to health concerns from open burning disposal of waste, such as at military forward operating bases. Emissions from current and prototype Meals, Ready-to-Eat (MREs), and material options for their associated fiberboard packaging were quantified to assess contributions of the individual components. MREs account for 67–100% of the particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and -furans (PCDDs/PCDFs) emissions when burned in unison with the current fiberboard container and liner. The majority of the particles emitted from these burns are of median diameter 2.5 µm (PM2.5). Metal emission factors were similar regardless of waste composition. Measurements of VOCs and PAHs indicate that targeted replacement of MRE components may be more effective in reducing emissions than variation of fiberboard-packaging types. Despite MRE composition variation, equivalent emission factors for PM, PAH, VOC, and PCDD/PCDF were seen. Similarly, for fiberboard packaging, composition variations exhibited essentially equivalent PM, PAH, VOC, and PCDD/PCDF emission factors amongst themselves. This study demonstrated a composition-specific analysis of waste burn emissions, assessing the impact of waste component substitution using military rations.

Keywords

Emissions Food waste composition Military packaging Open burning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The views expressed within this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the United States Government. This work was funded by the Department of Defense’s Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP, Project WP-201218). Special thanks to Dr. Jo Ann Ratto at the US Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center (NSRDEC) for providing test materials, technical expertise, and the opportunity to characterize military waste emissions; Lt Col David Kempisty for his input and feedback on the polymers; Paul Freeman (undergraduate student volunteer at US EPA) for assisting with MRE waste characterization and emission sampling; and Dennis Tabor (US EPA) for PAH and PCDD/PCDF analyses. Thanks to Dr. Dahman Touati and Steve Terll (ARCADIS-US, Inc.) for OBTF assistance.

Supplementary material

10163_2017_652_MOESM1_ESM.docx (11.1 mb)
Comprehensive data tables and figures can be found within Online Resource 1 (DOCX 11355 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    US Army (2006) TB MED 593: Guidelines for field waste management, www.apd.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/tbmed593.pdf
  2. 2.
    Aurell J, Gullett BK, Yamamoto D (2012) Emissions from open burning of simulated military waste from forward operating bases. Environ Sci Technol 46:11004–11012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Woodall BD, Yamamoto DP, Gullett BK, Touati A (2012) Emissions from small-scale burns of simulated deployed US military waste. Environ Sci Technol 46:10997–11003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Institute of Medicine (2011) Long-term health consequences of exposure to burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. doi: 10.17226/13209 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2012) Special issue—health effects of deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq. J Occup Environ Med 54Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barrett A, Cardello A (eds) (2012) Military food engineering and ration technology. DEStech Publications, Inc. US Army Natick, Soldier RD&E Center, 978-1-60595-049-5Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feagans JM, Jahann DA, Barkin JS (2010) Meals ready to eat: a brief history and clinical vignette with discussion on civilian applications. Mil Med 175:194–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Institute of Medicine (2005) Nutrient composition of rations for short-term, high-intensity combat operations. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. doi: 10.17226/11325 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ratto JA, Farrell R, D’Souza N, et al (2012) Lightweight and compostable fiberboard for the military, US Army Natick, Soldier RD&E Center, Natick/TR-12/023Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    DoD Combat Feeding Directorate (2014) Polymer nanocomposites for packaging applications. US Army Natick, Soldier RD&E Center, OPSEC 03-284Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mohanty AK, Misra M, Nalwa HS (eds) (2009) Packaging nanotechnology. American Scientific Publishers, Stevenson RanchGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thellen C, Schirmer S, Ratto JA et al (2009) Co-extrusion of multilayer poly(m-xylylene adipimide) nanocomposite films for high oxygen barrier packaging applications. J Memb Sci 340:45–51. doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2009.05.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    US EPA Hazardous Air Pollution List. Clean Air Act: Title 42—The public health and welfare. US Government Printing Office. 2008. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title42/pdf/USCODE-2008-title42-chap85.pdf. Accessed 5 May 2014
  14. 14.
    WHO—IARC (2015) Agents classified by the IARC monographs, vol 1–119. https://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsAlphaOrder.pdf
  15. 15.
    Pickering RW, Pickering RW (1999) A toxicological review of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. J Toxicol Cutaneous Ocul Toxicol 18:101–135. doi: 10.3109/15569529909037562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keith LH (2015) The source of US EPA’s sixteen PAH priority pollutants. Polycycl Aromat Compd 35:147–160. doi: 10.1080/10406638.2014.892886 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    US EPA (2003) Exposure and human health reassessment of 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and related compounds. EPA/600/P-001C Rev. Draft. EPA, Off. Res. Dev., Natl. Cent. Environ. AssessGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Samoli E, Peng R, Ramsay T et al (2008) Acute effects of ambient particulate matter on mortality in Europe and North America: results from the APHENA study. Environ Health Perspect 1480:1480–1486. doi: 10.1289/ehp.11345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grandesso E, Gullett BK, Touati A, Tabor D (2011) Effect of moisture, charge size, and chlorine concentration on PCDD/F emissions from simulated open burning of forest biomass. Environ Sci Technol 45:3887–3894. doi: 10.1021/es103686t CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aurell J, Gullett BK, Tabor D (2015) Emissions from southeastern US Grasslands and pine savannas: comparison of aerial and ground field measurements with laboratory burns. Atmos Environ 111:170–178. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lemieux PM, Lutes CC, Santoianni DA (2004) Emissions of organic air toxics from open burning: a comprehensive review. Prog Energy Combust Sci. doi: 10.1016/j.pecs.2003.08.001 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aurell J, Gullett BK, Pressley C et al (2011) Aerostat-lofted instrument and sampling method for determination of emissions from open area sources. Chemosphere 85:806–811. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.06.075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aurell J, Gullett BK (2013) Emission factors from aerial and ground measurements of field and laboratory forest burns in the southeastern US: PM2.5, black and brown carbon, VOC, and PCDD/PCDF. Environ Sci Technol 47:8443–8452. doi: 10.1021/es402101k Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aurell J, Gullett BK (2010) Aerostat sampling of PCDD/PCDF emissions from the Gulf oil spill in situ burns. Environ Sci Technol 44:9431–9437. doi: 10.1021/es103554y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hall PM, Krajewski C, Smith D (2005) Development of a high-efficiency sampling pump for personal sampling of particulate matter. Houston, TXGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    US EPA (1999) Compendium method IO-3.3: Determination of metals in ambient particulate matter using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectroscopyGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    US EPA (1999) Compendium method TO-15: determination of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In: Air collected in specially-prepared canisters and analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    C.F.R. § 60 (2014) Appendix A-7 to part 60-test methods 19 through 25E—method 25C-determination of nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) in MSW landfill gasesGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    US EPA (1999) Compendium method TO-9A: determination of polychlorinated, polybrominated and brominated/chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in ambient airGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    US EPA (1999) Compendium method TO-13A: determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in ambient air using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    US EPA (2014) Method 3A: determination of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations in emissions from stationary sources (instrumental analyzer procedure)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    US CENTCOM (2009) US CENTCOM Regulation 200-2, Environmental Quality: CENTCOM Contingency Environmental Guidance, MacDill Air Force Base, FL. https://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/pdf/CENTCOM_ITTR_CCR_200-2-1.pdf
  33. 33.
    Patel SJ (2002) Deep partial thickness burn after contact with a Meal Ready-To-Eat heater. Mil Med 167:167–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Defense Logistics Agency (2003) Military specification, MIL-R-44398B, ration supplement, Flameless Heater, For Meal, Ready-to-EatGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lundin L, Gullett B, Carroll WF et al (2013) The effect of developing nations’ municipal waste composition on PCDD/PCDF emissions from open burning. Atmos Environ 79:433–441. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.06.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hardy C, Conard SG, Regelbrugge JC, Teesdale DR (1996) Smoke emissions from prescribed burning of southern California chaparral. USDA For Serv Pacific Northwest Res Stn Res, PapCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Reid JS, Koppmann R, Eck TF, Eleuterio DP (2005) A review of biomass burning emissions part II: intensive physical properties of biomass burning particles. Atmos Chem Phys 5:799–825. doi: 10.5194/acp-5-799-2005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ward DE, Hardy CC (1991) Smoke emissions from wildland fires. Environ Int 17:117–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Urbanski SP (2013) Combustion efficiency and emission factors for wildfire-season fires in mixed conifer forests of the northern Rocky Mountains, US. Atmos Chem Phys 13:7241–7262. doi: 10.5194/acp-13-7241-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Van den Berg M, Birnbaum LS, Denison M et al (2006) The 2005 World Health organization reevaluation of human and mammalian toxic equivalency factors for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. Toxicol Sci 93:223–241. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfl055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Larsen JC, Larsen PB (1998) Chemical carcinogens. In: Harrison RM, Hester RE (eds) Air pollution and health. Royal Society of Chemistry, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Laursen KK, Ferek RJ, Hobbs PV, Rasmussen RA (1992) Emission factors for particles, elemental carbon, and trace gases from the Kuwait oil fires. J Geophys Res Atmos 97:14491–14497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Liu DHF, Lipták BG (1999) Hazardous waste and solid waste. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Barnes M (2016) Emissions from burning simulated military waste in a gasification waste-to-energy system. Air Force Institute of Technology, OhioGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gullett BK, Lemieux PM, Lutes CC et al (2001) Emissions of PCDD/F from uncontrolled, domestic waste burning. Chemosphere 43:721–725. doi: 10.1016/S0045-6535(00)00425-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK (outside the USA) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Dominguez
    • 1
  • Johanna Aurell
    • 2
  • Brian Gullett
    • 3
  • Robert Eninger
    • 1
  • Dirk Yamamoto
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Systems Engineering and ManagementU.S. Air Force Institute of TechnologyOhioUSA
  2. 2.Energy Technology and Materials DivisionUniversity of Dayton Research InstituteDaytonUSA
  3. 3.National Risk Management Research LaboratoryU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and DevelopmentResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  4. 4.STS Systems Integration LLCDaytonUSA

Personalised recommendations