The comparison of source contributions from residential coal and low-smoke fuels,using CMB modeling,in South Africa

D-grade residential coal is being widely used as a fuel source for heating and cooking by most of the lower-income urban communities in South Africa. Emissions from residential coal combustion have been a major cause of elevated air pollution levels in the industrialized areas of South Africa. The adverse health effects resulting from exposure to residential coal combustion emissions have been a major public concern for many years. To address this, the Department of Minerals and Energy of South Africa conducted a macro-scale experiment in the township of Qalabotjha during the winter of 1997 to assess the technical and social benefits of combusting low-smoke fuels.This paper reports the PM_2.5 and PM₁₀ chemical mass-balance (CMB) source apportionment results from Qalabotjha during a 30-day sampling period, including a 10-day period when a large proportion of low-smoke fuels was combusted. Though emission rates of D-grade coal and low-smoke fuels may vary, their chemical abundances are too similar to be separated in CMB calculations. The source apportionment study confirmed that residential coal combustion is by far the greatest source of air pollution, accounting for 62.1% of PM_2.5 and 42.6% of PM₁₀ at the three Qalabotjha sites. Biomass burning is also a major source, accounting for 13.8% of PM_2.5 and 19.9% of PM₁₀. Fugitive dust is only significant in the coarse particle fraction, accounting for 11.3% of PM₁₀. Contributions from secondary ammonium sulfate are three–four times greater than from ammonium nitrate, accounting for 5–6% of PM mass. Minor contributions (less than 1%) were found for power plant fly ash, motor vehicle exhaust, and agricultural lime. Average PM_2.5 and PM₁₀ mass decreased by 20 and 25%, respectively, from the D-grade coal combustion period (days 1–10) to the majority of the low-smoke fuel period (days 11–20). Relative source contribution estimates (SCE) were quite similar among the three sampling periods for PM_2.5, and were quite different for PM₁₀ during the second period when 14% higher residential coal combustion and 9% lower biomass burning source contributions were found.