Impact of Prescribed Fire Emissions on Ambient PM2.5 and Its Components in the Southeastern US

IF 9.6 Q1 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
ACS Environmental Au Pub Date : 2026-05-20 Epub Date: 2026-04-08 DOI:10.1021/acsenvironau.6c00072
Kamal J. Maji, Zongrun Li, Yongtao Hu, Jennifer D. Stowell, Chad W. Milando, Ambarish Vaidyanathan, Gregory A. Wellenius, Patrick L. Kinney, Armistead G. Russell, M. Talat Odman
{"title":"Impact of Prescribed Fire Emissions on Ambient PM2.5 and Its Components in the Southeastern US","authors":"Kamal J. Maji,&nbsp;Zongrun Li,&nbsp;Yongtao Hu,&nbsp;Jennifer D. Stowell,&nbsp;Chad W. Milando,&nbsp;Ambarish Vaidyanathan,&nbsp;Gregory A. Wellenius,&nbsp;Patrick L. Kinney,&nbsp;Armistead G. Russell,&nbsp;M. Talat Odman","doi":"10.1021/acsenvironau.6c00072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Under the framework of the United\r\nNations Sustainable Development\r\nGoals, mitigating global PM<sub>2.5</sub> exposure, which poses a\r\nsubstantial health threat, has become a critical global priority.\r\nHowever, in the southeastern United States (US), the increased use\r\nof prescribed fire (PF) or controlled burning as a predominant management\r\ntool to prevent destructive wildfires is a major source of PM<sub>2.5</sub>. Despite widespread smoke exposure in this region, the\r\nconcentrations of PF-induced PM<sub>2.5</sub> (PF–PM<sub>2.5</sub>), its chemical composition, and its seasonal variability remain\r\npoorly understood. Moreover, it is important to quantify the contribution\r\nof PF to black carbon in the atmosphere to assess the climatic impact\r\nof these burns. We employed a multistage modeling framework to estimate\r\nyear-round, long-term effects of PF on air quality. The framework\r\nintegrates a chemical transport model with a data-fusion approach\r\nto estimate 24 h average PF–PM<sub>2.5</sub> and its components\r\n[elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), nitrate (NO<span><span><sup>–</sup><sub>3</sub></span></span>), sulfate\r\n(SO<span><span><sup>2–</sup><sub>4</sub></span></span>), and others] attributable to PF from 2013 to 2021 in 12 southeastern\r\nUS. We estimated average PF–PM<sub>2.5</sub> to be 0.50 ±\r\n0.20 μg/m<sup>3</sup> (mean ± SD), which was approximately\r\n8% of the ambient PM<sub>2.5</sub>. The hot spots with a high PF–PM<sub>2.5</sub> concentration appeared over southeast Alabama, southwest\r\nGeorgia, and northwestern Florida. From 2013–2021, average\r\nPF–PM<sub>2.5</sub> contributed 0.85 ± 0.17 μg/m<sup>3</sup> (12% of ambient PM<sub>2.5</sub>) in Georgia and 0.83 ±\r\n0.16 μg/m<sup>3</sup> (11% of ambient PM<sub>2.5</sub>) in Alabama.\r\nHowever, during the extensive burning season (January–April),\r\naverage PF–PM<sub>2.5</sub> levels accounted for 1.38 ±\r\n0.31 μg/m<sup>3</sup> (20% of ambient PM<sub>2.5</sub>) in Georgia\r\nand 1.11 ± 0.27 μg/m<sup>3</sup> (16% of ambient PM<sub>2.5</sub>) in Alabama. The 2013–2021 average PF-EC value was\r\n0.067 ± 0.028 μg/m<sup>3</sup> over the 12 states, which\r\nwas 27% of ambient EC and increased to 35% of ambient EC during the\r\nextensive burning season (0.091 ± 0.045 μg/m<sup>3</sup>). The average PF-OC concentration was also high, 0.23 ± 0.09\r\nμg/m<sup>3</sup> (13% of ambient OC); however, average concentrations\r\nof PF-NO<span><span><sup>-</sup><sub>3</sub></span></span>, PF-SO<span><span><sup>2-</sup><sub>4</sub></span></span>, and other components were very low during the study period. The\r\nPF–PM<sub>2.5</sub> and its components’ concentrations\r\nwere highly dependent on place and season. This data set can be used\r\nas a tool to aid in understanding the interplay between forest management,\r\nair quality, and human health in the southeastern US.</p>","PeriodicalId":29801,"journal":{"name":"ACS Environmental Au","volume":"6 3","pages":"523–538"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Environmental Au","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenvironau.6c00072","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Under the framework of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, mitigating global PM2.5 exposure, which poses a substantial health threat, has become a critical global priority. However, in the southeastern United States (US), the increased use of prescribed fire (PF) or controlled burning as a predominant management tool to prevent destructive wildfires is a major source of PM2.5. Despite widespread smoke exposure in this region, the concentrations of PF-induced PM2.5 (PF–PM2.5), its chemical composition, and its seasonal variability remain poorly understood. Moreover, it is important to quantify the contribution of PF to black carbon in the atmosphere to assess the climatic impact of these burns. We employed a multistage modeling framework to estimate year-round, long-term effects of PF on air quality. The framework integrates a chemical transport model with a data-fusion approach to estimate 24 h average PF–PM2.5 and its components [elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), nitrate (NO–3), sulfate (SO2–4), and others] attributable to PF from 2013 to 2021 in 12 southeastern US. We estimated average PF–PM2.5 to be 0.50 ± 0.20 μg/m3 (mean ± SD), which was approximately 8% of the ambient PM2.5. The hot spots with a high PF–PM2.5 concentration appeared over southeast Alabama, southwest Georgia, and northwestern Florida. From 2013–2021, average PF–PM2.5 contributed 0.85 ± 0.17 μg/m3 (12% of ambient PM2.5) in Georgia and 0.83 ± 0.16 μg/m3 (11% of ambient PM2.5) in Alabama. However, during the extensive burning season (January–April), average PF–PM2.5 levels accounted for 1.38 ± 0.31 μg/m3 (20% of ambient PM2.5) in Georgia and 1.11 ± 0.27 μg/m3 (16% of ambient PM2.5) in Alabama. The 2013–2021 average PF-EC value was 0.067 ± 0.028 μg/m3 over the 12 states, which was 27% of ambient EC and increased to 35% of ambient EC during the extensive burning season (0.091 ± 0.045 μg/m3). The average PF-OC concentration was also high, 0.23 ± 0.09 μg/m3 (13% of ambient OC); however, average concentrations of PF-NO-3, PF-SO2-4, and other components were very low during the study period. The PF–PM2.5 and its components’ concentrations were highly dependent on place and season. This data set can be used as a tool to aid in understanding the interplay between forest management, air quality, and human health in the southeastern US.

Abstract Image

美国东南部规定火灾排放对环境PM2.5及其成分的影响
在联合国可持续发展目标的框架下,减轻对健康构成重大威胁的全球PM2.5暴露已成为一项关键的全球优先事项。然而,在美国东南部,越来越多地使用规定火灾(PF)或控制燃烧作为防止破坏性野火的主要管理工具,是PM2.5的主要来源。尽管该地区广泛存在烟雾暴露,但人们对PF-PM2.5的浓度、化学成分及其季节性变化仍知之甚少。此外,量化PF对大气中黑碳的贡献以评估这些燃烧对气候的影响也很重要。我们采用了一个多阶段建模框架来估计PF对空气质量的全年长期影响。该框架将化学传输模型与数据融合方法相结合,用于估计2013年至2021年美国东南部12个地区24小时平均PF- pm2.5及其成分[元素碳(EC)、有机碳(OC)、硝酸盐(NO3 -)、硫酸盐(SO4 2-)等]可归因于PF。我们估计平均PF-PM2.5为0.50±0.20 μg/m3(平均值±SD),约为环境PM2.5的8%。PF-PM2.5浓度高的热点地区出现在阿拉巴马州东南部、乔治亚州西南部和佛罗里达州西北部。2013-2021年,乔治亚州的平均PF-PM2.5贡献0.85±0.17 μg/m3(占环境PM2.5的12%),阿拉巴马州的平均PF-PM2.5贡献0.83±0.16 μg/m3(占环境PM2.5的11%)。然而,在大面积燃烧季节(1 - 4月),乔治亚州的平均PF-PM2.5水平为1.38±0.31 μg/m3(占环境PM2.5的20%),阿拉巴马州为1.11±0.27 μg/m3(占环境PM2.5的16%)。2013-2021年12个州的平均PF-EC值为0.067±0.028 μg/m3,占环境EC的27%,在大面积燃烧季节增加到35%(0.091±0.045 μg/m3)。f -OC的平均浓度也很高,为0.23±0.09 μg/m3(占环境OC的13%);然而,在研究期间,PF-NO3 -、PF-SO4 - 2 -和其他组分的平均浓度很低。pm2.5及其组分浓度具有高度的地点和季节依赖性。该数据集可作为一种工具,帮助了解美国东南部森林管理、空气质量和人类健康之间的相互作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Environmental Au
ACS Environmental Au 环境科学-
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: ACS Environmental Au is an open access journal which publishes experimental research and theoretical results in all aspects of environmental science and technology both pure and applied. Short letters comprehensive articles reviews and perspectives are welcome in the following areas:Alternative EnergyAnthropogenic Impacts on Atmosphere Soil or WaterBiogeochemical CyclingBiomass or Wastes as ResourcesContaminants in Aquatic and Terrestrial EnvironmentsEnvironmental Data ScienceEcotoxicology and Public HealthEnergy and ClimateEnvironmental Modeling Processes and Measurement Methods and TechnologiesEnvironmental Nanotechnology and BiotechnologyGreen ChemistryGreen Manufacturing and EngineeringRisk assessment Regulatory Frameworks and Life-Cycle AssessmentsTreatment and Resource Recovery and Waste Management
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书