A Comparison of Filter Types in the Collection and Gravimetric Determination of Airborne Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Microns (PM25)

ABSTRACT

Five identical, collocated, low-volume samplers were operated to collect airborne particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM₂₅). Five commercially available filter types were installed in the samplers to compare the gravimetric determination of PM_2.5 concentrations in the atmosphere. The filters were rotated through the five samplers for two study periods—one in summer and one in winter. The study was performed in Sheridan, WY, in close proximity to a gravimetric laboratory to minimize the introduction of errors associated with sample handling. Rigorous quality assurance procedures were employed throughout the study.Four of the five filter types provided comparable gravimetric determinations of airborne PM_2.5.     

Application of the US decision support tool for materials and waste management

The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) launched the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) in 2002 to help reduce waste and move towards more sustainable resource consumption. The objective of the RCC is to help communities, industries, and the public think in terms of materials management rather than waste disposal. Reducing cost, finding more efficient and effective strategies to manage municipal waste, and thinking in terms of materials management requires a holistic approach that considers life-cycle environmental tradeoffs. The US EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory has led the development of a municipal solid waste decision support tool (MSW-DST). The computer software can be used to calculate life-cycle environmental tradeoffs and full costs of different waste management or materials recovery programs. The environmental methodology is based on the use of life-cycle assessment and the cost methodology is based on the use of full-cost accounting. Life-cycle inventory (LCI) environmental impacts and costs are calculated from the point of collection, handling, transport, treatment, and disposal. For any materials that are recovered for recycling, offsets are calculated to reflect potential emissions savings from use of virgin materials. The use of the MSW-DST provides a standardized format and consistent basis to compare alternatives. This paper provides an illustration of how the MSW-DST can be used by evaluating ten management strategies for a hypothetical medium-sized community to compare the life-cycle environmental and cost tradeoffs. The LCI results from the MSW-DST are then used as inputs into another US EPA tool, the Tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts, to convert the LCI results into impact indicators. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how the MSW-DST can be used to identify and balance multiple criteria (costs and environmental impacts) when evaluating options for materials and waste management. This type of approach is needed in identifying strategies that lead to reduced waste and more sustainable resource consumption. This helps to meet the goals established in the US EPA's Resource Conservation Challenge.     

CCA-treated wood disposed in landfills and life-cycle trade-offs with waste-to-energy and MSW landfill disposal

Chromated copper arsenate (CCA)-treated wood is a preservative treated wood construction product that grew in use in the 1970s for both residential and industrial applications. Although some countries have banned the use of the product for some applications, others have not, and the product continues to enter the waste stream from construction, demolition and remodeling projects. CCA-treated wood as a solid waste is managed in various ways throughout the world. In the US, CCA-treated wood is disposed primarily within landfills; however some of the wood is combusted in waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities. In other countries, the predominant disposal option for wood, sometimes including CCA-treated wood, is combustion for the production of energy. This paper presents an estimate of the quantity of CCA-treated wood entering the disposal stream in the US, as well as an examination of the trade-offs between landfilling and WTE combustion of CCA-treated wood through a life-cycle assessment and decision support tool (MSW DST). Based upon production statistics, the estimated life span and the phaseout of CCA-treated wood, recent disposal projections estimate the peak US disposal rate to occur in 2008, at 9.7 million m(3). CCA-treated wood, when disposed with construction and demolition (C&D) debris and municipal solid waste (MSW), has been found to increase arsenic and chromium concentrations in leachate. For this reason, and because MSW landfills are lined, MSW landfills have been recommended as a preferred disposal option over unlined C&D debris landfills. Between landfilling and WTE for the same mass of CCA-treated wood, WTE is more expensive (nearly twice the cost), but when operated in accordance with US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) regulations, it produces energy and does not emit fossil carbon emissions. If the wood is managed via WTE, less landfill area is required, which could be an influential trade-off in some countries. Although metals are concentrated in the ash in the WTE scenario, the MSW landfill scenario releases a greater amount of arsenic from leachate in a more dilute form. The WTE scenario releases more chromium from the ash on an annual basis. The WTE facility and subsequent ash disposal greatly concentrates the chromium, often oxidizing it to the more toxic and mobile Cr(VI) form. Elevated arsenic and chromium concentrations in the ash leachate may increase leachate management costs.     

Practical life cycle assessment through streamlining

Life cycle assessment (LCA) provides a concept, framework, and method to identify and evaluate the environmental burdens of products and processes. An ongoing concern of companies trying to implement LCA is the value of LCA in supporting actual decisions versus the resources and time needed to conduct a “full” LCA. In response to these concerns, there has been a lot of activity surrounding the “streamlining” of LCA to keep it more manageable yet provide useful and acceptably accurate results. This article explores the concept of streamlining, discusses where and how streamlining decisions can be made in an LCA, and presents issues related to conducting more streamlined LCAs. Due to the wide variety of purposes and scenarios in which LCAs are conducted, it is difficult to devise a one-size-fits-all method for streamlining. Instead, we have focused on presenting the streamlining options in the context of major decision points that are common to most LCAs.