Any idea how much PM2.5 from this lot please?

Technical questions that one would like posed to experts
(scientists) in fields related to particulate pollution.

Any idea how much PM2.5 from this lot please?

Postby swiper » Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:34 am

Approximately 31,000 hectares were burnt in 579 separate locations across the state. Extrapolating from limited data on residual biomass (Slijepcevic 2001), it is estimated that about 3 million tonnes of solid wood fuel was burnt, excluding fine fuels, peat and duff.

(see why we have the highest incidences of non skin cancer and asthma)
swiper
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:47 am
Location: Australia

Open fires: 200 mcg/m3 and higher from wildfires...

Postby Ernest Grolimund » Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:23 pm

The Am Lung Assn gave me a report on woodsmoke entitled " Critical Review of the Health Effects of Woodsmoke" by Naeher, Phd, et al, for the Air Health Effects Div. of Health Canada, 2005. In it, was a section on Forest Fire and Agricultural Burning. There, mean levels of pm2.5 were reported to be 190 mcg/m3 in Brazil. This is all approximate of course. Mean CO was 4 ppm. Mean Benzene was 11 mcg/m3. Indonesia reported 1,800 mcg/m3 of pm2.5 close to fires. Kuala Lumpur reported levels from 36-285 mcg/m3 pm2.5. All these levels can kill if the exposure lasts long enough according to what I have read from Dr. David Brown's report on outdoor wood boilers.

I do not have scanning abilities to send this information by e-mail. You may be able to find this on www.Maine.Gov/DEP . In their material on woodburning, they posted this same Naeher report, as I remember.

Swiper is in a bad situation and so is pm2.5 Mary. I pray for both. Perhaps Shirley or Woodnyet can dig out this report for you and if I find a better website trail I will try to post it. I am quoting figures from this report. Note that CAR has posted articles on China cities having pm2.5 levels up to 200 mcg/m3 and an EPA worker told me that the EPA has measured pm2.5 in woodburning towns at 300 mcg/m3, peak hourly I presume. Sorry I do not always write things up as good as Pm2.5 Mary, but I'm trying to help.
Ernest Grolimund
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:52 pm
Location: Maine

Postby swiper » Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:43 am

Thanks Shirley and Ernest thanks for the lead...I will follow along those lines.

3 million tonnes of solid wood fuel was deliberately burnt in the smallest state of Tasmania!

If you have a look at http://www.cleanairtas.com ,on the opening page you will see a map with circles overlaid on it showing how far the particulates will travel, depending on weather conditions.

So please spread the word that Australia is not a place to visit if you value your health.
swiper
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:47 am
Location: Australia

Postby turning_blue » Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:14 am

Will do! I also will continue to spread the word on facebook etc.
User avatar
turning_blue
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:45 am

Australian fire pollution monitoring

Postby Ernest Grolimund » Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:30 am

Woody recently posted some real monitoring for pm and other pollutants at pm monitors from the wodburning you seem to be afflicted with. Check it out! in NEWS. Plot pm on map and consult with environmental scientists in Gov. to work the pm values back closer to the fires. As I understand it, the pm is cut in half with a thousand ft of distance. See the Government. They are saying pm is 4 times the standard at the monitors which I presume to be about 140 mcg/m3 pm2.5. This value is enough to kill and your pm is at least this. This may prove your case!!!
Ernest Grolimund
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:52 pm
Location: Maine

Re: Open fires: 200 mcg/m3 and higher from wildfires...

Postby Dorre » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:44 am

Ernest Grolimund wrote:The Am Lung Assn gave me a report on woodsmoke entitled " Critical Review of the Health Effects of Woodsmoke" by Naeher, Phd, et al, for the Air Health Effects Div. of Health Canada, 2005. In it, was a section on Forest Fire and Agricultural Burning. There, mean levels of pm2.5 were reported to be 190 mcg/m3 in Brazil. This is all approximate of course. Mean CO was 4 ppm. Mean Benzene was 11 mcg/m3. Indonesia reported 1,800 mcg/m3 of pm2.5 close to fires. Kuala Lumpur reported levels from 36-285 mcg/m3 pm2.5. All these levels can kill if the exposure lasts long enough according to what I have read from Dr. David Brown's report on outdoor wood boilers.

There's a link to an electronic copy of the final published document at: http://www.3sc.net/airqual/ - look for:

Latest Air Pollution Research News
January 2007
Woodsmoke health effects: a review - Naeher LP, Brauer M, Lipsett M, et al. Inhal Toxicol. 2007 Jan;19(1):67-106 Abstract | Full Text (Acrobat pdf 2 MB)

I also have an electronic copy of the earlier report: Critical Review of the Health Effects of Woodsmoke" - email me if you'd like a copy of this - it's pretty similar to the final published report.
Dorre
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:44 am

Re: Any idea how much PM2.5 from this lot please?

Postby swiper » Sat Jan 09, 2010 8:57 am

Here is an interesting article on this topic that was just released....
http://www.environment.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=7609
It refers to PM10's
swiper
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Any idea how much PM2.5 from this lot please?

Postby Wilberforce » Sat Jan 09, 2010 4:13 pm

This government report sounds like so much propaganda. They seem to be downplaying the negative
health effect of smoke from forestry burning:
"...domestic solid fuel heating contributed 41% of the total PM10 particle emissions in Tasmania, while
forest burning (categorised above) contributed 3%. That is, domestic wood heaters were estimated to
contribute to the airshed about 14 times the amount of particle pollution as forest burning."


How convenient of them to leave out the fact that "heating contributed 41% of the total " occurs over
a much wider land area (entire provinces), and over a much longer time frame (annual) than the "3%"
of PM which is contributed by forest burning, which occurs in much smaller areas (acres), and short
time frame (hours).

That's kind of like the difference between observing a burning house at a safe distance, vs being trapped
inside of that smoke-filled burning house, so to speak.
User avatar
Wilberforce
 
Posts: 5967
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Re: Any idea how much PM2.5 from this lot please?

Postby Dorre » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:53 pm

Woodnyet wrote:This government report sounds like so much propaganda. They seem to be downplaying the negative
health effect of smoke from forestry burning:

Actually, they were admitted to a stuff-up. The National Pollutant Inventory value of 260 tonnes per year will be revised upwards to between 86,000 and 120,000 tonnes, 330 and 460 times greater than the original estimate.
Dorre
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:44 am

Re: Any idea how much PM2.5 from this lot please?

Postby swiper » Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:24 am

Yes this was bad. The smoky wet regeneration burns were 'conveniently' ignored.
In anyone's language, an underestimation of that magnitude of fine particle tonneage is a BIG mistake.
The report is only preliminary and figures could even turn out to be worse.
Dorre do you know who would have supplied the underestimated figures to the NPI?
swiper
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:47 am
Location: Australia


Return to For the Experts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron