Environ. Sci. Technol.
2011, 45, 666–672
Optical Remote Sensing to Quantify
Fugitive Particulate Mass Emissions
from Stationary Short-Term and
Mobile Continuous Sources: Part II.
Field Applications
KE DU*
Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Xiamen, China
WANGKI YUEN, WEI WANG, AND
MARK J. ROOD
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Illinois, 205 N. Mathews Ave, Urbana,
Illinois 61820, United States
RAVI M. VARMA
Department of Physics, National Institute of Technology
Calicut, Calicut 673601, India
RAM A. HASHMONAY
ENVIRON, 88 VilCom Circle, Suite 185, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina 27514, United States
BYUNG J. KIM AND MICHAEL R. KEMME
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, 2902
Newmark Dr., Champaign, Illinois 61826-9005, United States
Received June 4, 2010. Revised manuscript received
October 15, 2010. Accepted November 14, 2010.
Quantification of emissions of fugitive particulate matter
(PM) into the atmosphere from military training operations is
of interest by the United States Department of Defense. A new
range-resolved optical remote sensing (ORS) method was
developed to quantify fugitive PM emissions from puff sources
(i.e., artillery back blasts), ground-level mobile sources (i.e.,
movement of tracked vehicles), and elevated mobile sources
(i.e., airborne helicopters) in desert areas that are prone to
generating fugitive dust plumes. Real-time, in situ mass
concentration profiles for PM mass with particle diameters
<10 µm (PM10) and <2.5 µm (PM2.5) were obtained across the
dust plumes that were generated by these activities with this
new method. Back blasts caused during artillery firing
were characterized as a stationary short-term puff source
whose plumes typically dispersed to <10 m above the ground
with durations of 10-30 s. Fugitive PM emissions caused by
artillery back blasts were related to the zone charge and ranged
from 51 to 463 g PM/firing for PM10 and 9 to 176 g PM/firing
for PM2.5. Movement of tracked vehicles and flying helicopters
was characterized as mobile continuous sources whose
plumes typically dispersed 30-50 m above the ground with
durations of 100-200 s. Fugitive PM emissions caused by moving
* Corresponding author phone: +86-592-6190767; e-mail:
kdu@iue.ac.cn.
666 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 45, NO. 2, 2011
tracked vehicles ranged from 8.3 to 72.5 kg PM/km for PM10
and 1.1 to 17.2 kg PM/km for PM2.5, and there was no obvious
correlation between PM emission and vehicle speed. The
emission factor for the helicopter flying at 3 m above the ground
ranged from 14.5 to 114.1 kg PM/km for PM10 and 5.0 to 39.5
kg PM/km for PM2.5, depending on the velocity of the helicopter
and type of soil it flies over. Fugitive PM emissions by an
airborne helicopter were correlated with helicopter speed for
a particular soil type. The results from this range-resolved
ORS method were also compared with the data obtained with
another path-integrated ORS method and a Flux Tower
method.
1. Introduction
Fugitive particulate matter (PM) emissions into the atmo-
sphere have been characterized with emission factors for a
variety of activities such as traveling vehicles on roads (1),
agriculture activities (2) (3), and natural wind erosion (4).
These dust plumes are of interest due to their ability to reduce
visibility and the need to characterize their emission proper-
ties for PM emission inventories. Particles with diameters
<10 µm (PM10) were shown to reduce visibility from local (5)
(6) to global scales (7).
Military training and testing operations at the United
States Department of Defense (DoD) facilities in desert areas
generate fugitive dust plumes (8). The dust generating
activities studied in this research included back blast from
firing artillery, movement of tracked vehicles, and airborne
helicopters. Many DoD installations are close to Federal Class
I areas. PM emissions from training and testing activities
within those installations have caused concerns about
compliance with the Regional Haze Rule. In addition,
quantification of emission factors for these sources is
important to develop emission inventories as well as to serve
as the source term for air quality modeling to predict the
ambient PM concentrations at and near DoD facilities.
Therefore, characterizing fugitive PM emissions from military
training and testing activities is among the top priorities of
the environmental quality/compliance technology research
and development of DoD.
Improvements in optical remote sensing (ORS) technolo-
gies and methodologies have led to the development of new
methods to characterize fugitive PM emissions. In a study
to quantify PM10 emissions from agricultural tilling in
California, light detection and ranging (lidar) profiles were
used to verify the heights and shapes of plumes that were
derived from a point-sampling method (9). Vertically scan-
ning lidar measurements were also compared with the results
from point measurement coupled inverse modeling for
determining emission rates from point and diffuse area
sources. The comparison showed good agreement (10). Also,
an open path-laser transmissometer (OP-LT) was coupled
with vertically distributed dust monitors to determine the
dust mass fluxes across a vertical plane (11).
A novel ORS method was developed with this research
using a vertically scanning micropulse lidar (MPL, National
Aeronautical and Space Administration, Model Type 4, Sigma
Space Corp.) mounted on an automated positioner (AL-4011-
1E, Orbit Communication Systems Inc.), two open path-
Fourier transform infrared spectrometers (OP-FTIR, IMACC,
Inc., and Midac, Inc.), two OP-LTs (IMACC Inc.), and
anemometers (R.M. Young Inc., Model 09101) to characterize
dust plume geometry and to quantify PM mass concentra-
tions and emission factors for select military activities. This
10.1021/es101906v  2011 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 12/13/2010
ORS method was previously described but is succinctly
described here for clarity (12). The MPL signals were
processed to describe time-dependent one-dimensional (1-
D) and then two-dimensional (2-D) PM light extinction
profiles across the dust plumes. OP-FTIRs and OP-LTs
determined the particle size distributions of the PM and the
PM’s light extinction mass extinction efficiencies (12). The
light extinction profiles and the light extinction efficiencies
were used to compute the 2-D real-time dust mass con-
centrations along the entire optical path of the MPL when
intersecting the plumes. The PM mass emissions were then
calculated by integrating the real-time 2-D mass concentra-
tion profiles with the concurrent wind speed and direction
measurements. In addition, the plume’s properties, such as
its dimensions, were characterized based upon the 2-D real-
time PM mass concentration profiles.
2. Site Locations, Emission Source Types, and Field
Sampling Methods
Fugitive PM plumes generated by back blast from firing
artillery, movement of tracked vehicles, and airborne heli-
copters are described here. The types of sources and ground
surfaces were selected to represent the frequently used
operational conditions that generate fugitive dust at DoD
training and testing facilities. For each activity, the plumes
were characterized, and emission factors were determined
under select operating conditions with the range-resolved
ORS (RR-ORS) method (13). Results are presented in this
paper and are compared with the results obtained with the
path-integrated ORS (PI-ORS) (14) and Flux Tower (15, 16)
methods to quantify fugitive PM emissions.
This RR-ORS method is with a spatial resolution of up to
15 m and temporal resolution up to 1 s. The MPL was located
300-500 m away from the plume, and its optical path was
scanned radially in the vertical direction with the positioner
to characterize plumes that were up to 40 m high and up to
100 m wide (13).
2.1. Fugitive PM Emissions from Puff Sources (i.e., Back
Blasts during Firing of Artillery). The MPL operated in a
weatherproofed and temperature-controlled trailer that was
located 400 m away from the two OP-FTIR/OP-LT systems.
The OP-FTIR/OP-LT systems were set up 50 m downwind
from the artillery and directed toward the retroreflectors.
One OP-FTIR/OP-LT system had a horizontal optical path
collinear with the MPL’s laser path. The other OP-FTIR/OP-
LT system had an optical path in the same vertical plane but
with a slant angle. The retroreflectors for the OP-FTIR/OP-
LT systems were located 100 m horizontally from the OP-
FTIR/OP-LT systems but on the opposite side of MPL. The
retroreflectors were 1.5 m above the ground and 10 m above
the ground (ref 13, Figure 2). The centerline of the plume
was located between the OP-FTIRs/OP-LTs and their re-
spective retroreflectors (Figure 2, ref 13). Each corner of the
trailer was lifted with a hydraulic jack to stabilize the trailer
and the optical path of the MPL’s laser. The direction of the
MPL’s optical path was fixed in the horizontal direction and
directed perpendicular to the wind’s direction. A 1.3 cm wide
and 2.4 m high metal pole was used as the reflective target
and was located 600-1000 m away from the MPL and in the
optical path of the MPL so that the backscatter signals from
the reflective target and plume did not overlap. Two
anemometers were located on the scissor lift at the same
location as the retroreflectors. The MPL and OP-FTIR/OP-
LT systems continuously collected data during the firing of
the artillery. Dust emissions from the firing of two artillery
with projectile models M549A1 and M107 were measured
for charge zones 2 and 8S, respectively. Charge zones were
selected based on how far the projectiles were to travel. The
larger the charge zone number, the more energy is transferred
to the ground when the artillery fires the projectile.
2.2. Fugitive PM Emissions from Ground-Level Mobile
Sources (i.e., Movement of Tracked Vehicles). The same
ORS systems that were used to measure fugitive PM emissions
from artillery back blasts were also deployed to measure dust
emissions from the movement of tracked vehicles at YTC.
However, the MPL was mounted on a positioner for the MPL’s
laser beam to scan radially in the vertical direction through
the plumes. The MPL was operated parallel to the paths
of the tracked vehicles and was located 30 m downwind from
the vehicle path and 300 m away from the two sets of OP-
FTIRs/OP-LTs (Figure 3, ref 13). A 1.2 m high × 2.4 m wide
metal mesh was used instead of the previously described
metal pole as the reflective target to provide a larger and
more stable target for the MPL. This reflective target was
located on the opposite side of the plumes from the MPL so
that backscatter signals from the reflective target and plume
did not overlap. Two anemometers were located on the scissor
lift at the same location as the retroreflectors. Two sets of the
OP-FTIR/OP-LT systems were operated parallel and within
1 m of the MPL’s optical path but were offset 300 m from the
MPL so they were located within the dust plumes. Two
retroreflectors were aligned at a horizontal distance of 90 m
away from their respective OP-FTIR/OP-LT systems. One
retroreflector was 1.5 m above the ground and the other one
was 10 m above the ground (Figure 3, ref 13). The ORS systems
continuously collected data during the movement of the
tracked vehicles. Two types of ground surfaces were evaluated
during this field campaign. One surface had an unimproved
road with bare soil on the road and the other one was initially
covered with desert vegetation, but the vegetation cover was
removed, and the bare soil was exposed after a few trips of
tracked vehicle movement along the desert vegetation.
2.3. Fugitive PM Emissions from an Elevated Mobile
Source (i.e., Airborne Helicopter). The field configuration
of the ORS systems to measure fugitive PM emissions from
an airborne helicopter was similar to that used for the tracked-
vehicle field campaign. A Bell 210 helicopter flew parallel to
the optical paths of the ORS instruments at 100-150 m
upwind of their optical paths. When approaching the test
site, the helicopter first descended to a height of 3 m above
the ground and flew over the test site at a constant speed for
at least 100 m and then withdrew. Two types of sites were
evaluated during this field campaign. One site is called “Desert
Pavement,” which was covered with gravel. The other site is
called “Disturbed Soil,” which was covered with a 2-5 cm
thick layer of dry loose soil.
The MPL was deployed parallel to the two OP-FTIR/OP-
LT systems, which had a horizontal optical path of 130 m.
However, the MPL was operated 300-500 m away from the
OP-FTIR/OP-LT systems to compensate for the MPL’s optics
requirements (13), with the OP-FTIR/OP-LT systems located
in the plumes. The MPL’s reflective mesh target was located
700 m from the MPL along the optical path of the MPL so
that backscatter signals from the MPL and plume did not
overlap. One OP-FTIR/OP-LT system operated horizontally
while the other system operated at a slant angle with its
retroreflector located 10 m above the ground. The ORS
continuously collected data during the helicopter tests
(Figure 4 in ref 13).
Three research groups participated in this field campaign.
Each of the three groups simultaneously measured the PM
mass emission for the same source using a different method.
University of Illinois in collaboration with a consulting
company, ARCADIS, and Construction Engineering Research
Lab (CERL) of the U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, developed the “RR-ORS” method.
ARCADIS developed a method based on path-integrated
measurements with two sets OP-FTIRs/OP-LTs to determine
VOL. 45, NO. 2, 2011 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 667
the optical properties of the plume, two anemometers to
determine the wind’s velocity and direction, and the MPL to
determine the geometry of the plume to quantify PM10 and
PM 2.5 fluxes and mass emission factors (12) and is referred
to here as the “PI-ORS” method. The Desert Research Institute
(DRI) used up to three flux towers with extractive point
measurements devices mounted on the towers. Two 15 m
and one 9 m tall towers were typically located 50 m downwind
from the source (17). Five pairs of calibrated PM10 and PM2.5
samplers (TSI 8520 DustTraks) were installed at five levels
on each of the towers to measure the PM mass concentrations.
These mass concentrations were then combined with
measured wind speed and direction values and the duration
for each event to determine PM mass emission factors. This
method is referred to here as “Flux Tower” method.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Fugitive PM Emissions from Back Blasts during Firing
of Artillery. PM emission factors for artillery back blasts with
select projectile type, charge model, and charge zone are
described in Table 1. The larger charge zone, with more power
dissipated upon firing, provided more PM due to the back
blast. The arithmetic mean ( standard deviation for PM10/
PM2.5 emission factors for the M107 projectile, with M3A1
propelling charge, and 2 charge zone was 192 ( 65 g PM/
firing/62 ( 200 g PM/firing, respectively. The arithmetic mean
( standard deviation for PM10/PM2.5 emission factors for the
M549A1 projectile, with M203A1 propelling charge, and 8S
charge zone was 301 ( 67 g PM/firing/109 ( 155 g PM/firing,
respectively.
PM mass emission factors for PM10 and PM2.5 were also
obtained with the PI-ORS (14) and Flux Tower methods (17)
for these artillery operations and compared in Figure 1. The
vertical bars in Figure 1 are the arithmetic means, and the
lines on the bars are standard deviations of the PM emission
factors for the artillery back blasts. All three measurement
methods show a similar trend of PM emissions with respect
of charge zone (i.e., the larger the charge zone, the more PM
is emitted). All three groups of measurements show similar
ratios between the mean emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 with
mean ( standard deviations for PM2.5/PM10 of 0.34 ( 0.24
for charge zone 2 and 0.41 ( 0.13 for charge zone 8S. However,
the PM emission results provided by the ORS methods are
larger than for the Flux Tower measurements for six of the
eight tests. It is also important to note that the relative
standard deviations (standard deviation/mean) for the PM
emission factors were larger for the ORS techniques than the
Flux Tower technique with all relative standard deviations
> 0.5, possibly due to the uncertainties in wind direction,
local turbulence, heterogeneous, and fast-changing profiles
through the plumes, especially for the upper heights of the
plumes.
3.2. Fugitive PM Emissions from Movement of Tracked
Vehicles. The tracked vehicles that were tested as part of this
field campaign were the M113 tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle
(BFV), and M1A1 tank. Data obtained from measurements
by the ORS systems and the anemometers were integrated
using the method described in ref 13 to calculate the PM
emission factors for each vehicle type, vehicle speed, and
surface type.
The mass emission factors of PM10 obtained with RR-ORS
method were compared with those obtained with PI-ORS
method (14) in Figure 2 for all the three vehicles. Fugitive PM
emissions from the same sources were also measured using
Flux Tower method but during different days (15) and are
also compared to results from the ORS results in Figure 2.
It should be noted that some discrepancies exist between
the results from ORS method and Flux Tower method. Testing
dust emissions at different times is one of the reasons for
disagreement between the two methods. Other possible
668 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 45, NO. 2, 2011
reasons could be the difference in detected portion of the
plumes. Flux tower method relied on the sensors installed
on the 10-15 m high towers. With the high sensor density
of one sensor per two meters, Flux Tower method provides
measurements at much higher spatial and temporal resolu-
tion than ORS method in the lower part of the plumes, whose
scanning paths are 10-15 m apart and scanning cycles are
10-15 s long. However, the plumes were detected with the
MPL as high as 50 m, which can be seen from both profiles
in manuscript Part I. Another possible influence in the results
is the degree of data filtering that occurred for each method.
The ORS technique used all test results unless there was a
clear physical justification to not include the results in the
report (e.g., wind direction or scanning angle caused the
plume to miss the MPL’s measurement plane), which may
not be the same as Flux Tower method. Both methods have
advantages as well as drawbacks, and we cannot say which
one is better. It might be better to use Flux Tower method
for low altitude plumes and ORS method for high altitude
and/or elevated plumes.
Figure 2 describes how PM10 mass emission factors vary
with vehicle speed during the events that the tracked vehicles
traveled. Statistical hypothesis tests show that there is no
significant linear dependence of PM emission factor on
vehicle speed for all three types of tracked vehicles at the
confidence level of 95% (0.68 < p < 0.95). The average emis-
sion factors for each type of vehicle are 1.25 × 103 g PM10/km
for the BFV, 4.74 × 103 g PM10/km for the M1A1, and 2.10 ×
103 g PM10/km for the M113.
Figure 2 also compares the results obtained with the three
PM mass emission measurement methods. For PM10, the
average emission factor determined with RR-ORS and PI-
ORS consistently agreed with each other within an absolute
difference of 12%. Statistical hypothesis tests show that there
is no statistical difference for the average emission factors
determined with the RR-ORS and PI-ORS methods at the
confidence level of 95% (0.12 < p < 0.96). The results obtained
with the Flux Tower method are presented in Figure 2. Overall,
the average PM emissions for all vehicle speeds for the Flux
Tower are 100% larger than for the RR-ORS. However, as
indicated before, the Flux Tower results were obtained at the
same base but at different times than the ORS measurements.
Figure 3 describes the dependence of PM2.5 mass emission
factors on vehicle type and speed for the two ORS measure-
ment methods. As with the PM10 emission factors, the PM2.5
emission factors did not show strong correlation with the
vehicle speed. Statistical hypothesis tests show that there is
no significant linear dependence of PM emission factor on
vehicle speed for all three types of tracked vehicles at the
confidence level of 95% (0.26 < p < 0.84). The average emission
factors for each type of vehicle are 2.66 × 103 g PM2.5/km for
the BFV, 9.32 × 103 g PM2.5/km for the M1A1, and 5.15 × 103
g PM2.5/km for the M113. Statistical hypothesis tests for PM2.5
emission factors show that there is no statistical difference
for the average emission factors determined with the RR-
ORS and PI-ORS methods at the confidence level of 95%
(0.30 < p < 0.82). PM emission results for the Flux Tower
method were not included in this comparison because the
PM2.5 emission factors were not examined using the Flux
Tower method (15).
Large variations were observed in the mass emission
factors for PM10 and PM2.5 that were obtained with both ORS
methods. For example, the relative standard deviations for
PM10 and PM2.5 are both 70% for the range-resolved ORS
method, and 40 and 90% for PM10 and PM2.5, respectively,
for path-integrated ORS method. Factors that could cause
such large fluctuation in PM emission factors include the
following: (a) variable local winds; (b) inhomogeneous surface
of the ground so that the vehicle did not travel exactly along
the same path during each test; and (c) changing surface
 TABLE 1. Fugitive PM Mass Emission Factors for Artillery Back Blast, Movement of Tracked Vehicles, and an Airborne Helicopter as Determined with the Range-Resolved ORS Method
PM emission factor and standard deviation
PM10 PM2.5
wind speed wind direction operating parameter
(standard deviation) (standard deviation) (charge zone or vehicle/ emission factor standard
PM generator test condition m/sec degree from North helicopter speed) no. of tests unit mean standard deviation mean deviation
projectile model:M107 3.3 (0.5) 303.1 (9.2) charge zone ) 2 2 192.3 64.7 62.4 200.4
artillery back blast g PM/firing
projectile model:M549A1 3.3 (1.2) 278.1 (22.4) charge zone ) 8S 7 301.4 67.3 109.2 154.9
8 km/h 1.4 × 104 1.3 × 104 2.2 × 103 2.0 × 103
24 km/h 1.3 × 104 -a 1.8 × 103 -a
bradley 3.0 (1.2) 256.1 (43.2) 7 g PM/km
32 km/h 1.4 × 104 7.6 × 103 3.0 × 103 1.3 × 101
40 km/h 1.4 × 104 4.3 × 102 3.2 × 103 7.6 × 102
8 km/h 1.7 × 104 1.4 × 104 1.1 × 103 1.3 × 102
16 km/h 5.8 × 104 5.3 × 104 9.1 × 103 1.0 × 104
tracked vehicle M1A1 7.2 (1.2) 291.5 (14.5) 24 km/h 14 g PM/km 7.2 × 104 6.2 × 104 1.7 × 104 1.3 × 104
32 km/h 1.4 × 104 4.3 × 102 3.2 × 103 7.6 × 102
40 km/h 1.1 × 104 -a 2.9 × 103 -a
16 km/h 8.3 × 103 6.3 × 103 2.3 × 103 2.2 × 103
24 km/h 9.5 × 103 -a 2.2 × 103 -a
M113 2.8 (1.2) 228.5 (32.7) 7 g PM/km
32 km/h 1.0 × 104 -a 2.3 × 103 -a
40 km/h 3.7 × 104 3.0 × 104 8.9 × 103 9.0 × 103
15 km/h 6.1 × 104 2.0 × 104 2.1 × 104 7.0 × 102
desert pavement 4.8 (1.4) 163.1 (19.5) 30 km/h 25 g PM/km 4.3 × 104 3.0 × 104 1.5 × 104 1.1 × 103
60 km/h 1.4 × 104 1.5 × 104 5.0 × 103 5.2 × 102
helicopter 15 km/h 1.1 × 105 6.1 × 104 4.0 × 103 2.2 × 103
25-30 km/h 7.8 × 104 7.9 × 104 2.7 × 104 2.7 × 103
disturbed soil 3.7 (1.8) 219.2 (48.1) 42 g PM/km
35 km/h 6.8 × 104 3.5 × 104 2.4 × 104 1.2 × 103
45-60 km/h 2.2 × 104 1.7 × 104 7.6 × 103 5.9 × 102
a
Indicates no data available.

VOL. 45, NO. 2, 2011 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

9 669
FIGURE 1. Comparison of fugitive PM emission factors
determined by range-resolved ORS, path-integrated ORS (14),
and Flux Tower (17) based measurements.
FIGURE 2. Comparison of PM10 emission factors that were
determined with range-resolved ORS, path-integrated ORS (14),
and Flux Tower (15) based methods for three tracked vehicles.
FIGURE 3. Comparison of PM2.5 emission factors that were
determined with range-resolved ORS, and path-integrated ORS
(14) methods for three tracked vehicles.
condition after each trip of the tracked vehicle. Furthermore,
the patterns of the track may also impact on the amount of
670 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 45, NO. 2, 2011
FIGURE 4. Comparison of PM10 emission factors that were
determined with range-resolved ORS, path-integrated ORS (14),
and Flux Tower (16) methods for an airborne helicopter
traveling over desert pavement and disturbed soil surfaces.
FIGURE 5. Comparison of PM2.5 emission factors that were
determined with range-resolved ORS, path-integrated ORS (14),
and Flux Tower (16) based methods for an airborne helicopter
traveling over desert pavement and disturbed soil surfaces.
dust generated by the vehicle. Dust materials were incor-
porated into the track as the track pressed down on the surface
and then were lifted into the air when that tracks reached
the rear of the vehicle.
3.3. Fugitive PM Emissions from an Airborne Helicop-
ter. The rotary aircraft tested during this research is a Bell
210 helicopter. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from the airborne
helicopter were quantified for the two types of surfaces using
the RR-ORS method with a vertically scanning MPL, PI-ORS
method with fixed two-beam OP-FTIR/OP-LT (14), and the
Flux Tower method (16). The emission factors were grouped
based on the helicopter’s speed (Figures 4 and 5) for desert
pavement and disturbed soil surface conditions, respectively.
The vertical lines on the top of vertical bar in Figures 4 and
5 are standard deviations of the emission results for the same
helicopter speed and surface type. Statistical hypothesis tests
show that there is significant linear dependence of PM10 and
PM2.5 emission factors on helicopter speed for both surface
types at the confidence level of 95% (p < 0.05). The correlation
coefficients between the emission factor and helicopter speed
are high with the R2 of 0.995 and 0.992 for desert pavement
and disturbed soil surfaces, respectively. The decreasing
emission factor with increasing helicopter speed is reasonable
because (a) a slower helicopter had a longer time period to
entrain PM from the earth’s surface than for a faster helicopter
for the same horizontal distance traveled; and (b) the surface
shear stress increased with decreasing helicopter speed (16),
which resulted in higher PM emissions.
TABLE 2. Data Regressions for PM Emission Factors (EF, g PM/km) Versus Vehicle/Helicopter Speed (v, km/h) or Momentum (mv,
kg m/s)
dust generator test condition particle diameter range
PM10
Bradley
PM2.5
PM10
M1A1
PM2.5
tracked vehicle
PM10
M113
PM2.5
PM10
all three vehicles combined
PM2.5
PM10
desert pavement
PM2.5
helicopter
PM10
disturbed soil
PM2.5
PM emission results from the two ORS methods compare
well with the differences in PM10 emission factors of 14 and
10% for desert pavement and disturbed soil, respectively, for
the low helicopter speed (i.e., 15 km/h), when the largest
plumes were generated. As the helicopter speed increased,
the relative difference between the results obtained with the
two methods also increased. Statistical hypothesis tests show
that there is no statistically significant difference for the
average emission factors determined with the RR-ORS and
PI-ORS methods for desert pavement (p ) 0.11) at the
confidence level of 95%. However, there is a statistically
significant difference for disturbed soil (p ) 0.03). The RR-
ORS method yielded larger emission factors than the PI-ORS
method for disturbed soil surface. The same statistical
hypothesis tests for PM2.5 emissions indicate no statistically
significant difference for the average emission factors
determined with the RR-ORS and PI-ORS methods for desert
pavement (p ) 0.69) at the confidence level of 95%. However,
there is statistically significant difference for disturbed soil
(p ) 0.014). Higher emission factors were determined with
the RR-ORS method than the PI-ORS method for disturbed
soil surface. Nevertheless, all three methods showed the same
trend of decreasing PM emission factors with increasing
helicopter speed. Figures 4 and 5 also demonstrate that
disturbed soil is a larger PM source than desert pavement.
The disturbed soil surface has PM emission factors 50-88%
larger than desert pavement surface for PM10 and PM2.5 at
each helicopter speed category. Data regressions for PM10
and PM2.5 emission factors for tracked vehicles and airborne
helicopters are described in Table 2.
An exponential model was used for data regression for
tracked vehicles, while a linear model was used for the
helicopter in Table 2. This is because the dust emission
mechanism is more complicated for tracked vehicles than
for the helicopters. The exponential model provided higher
R2 values than the linear model for tracked vehicle results.
In addition, AP-42 also uses empirical expressions for
emission factors for vehicles traveling on unpaved roads with
an exponential format for vehicle speed. Therefore, an
exponential model was used for data regression for tracked
vehicles. However, helicopters ave different dust-generating
mechanism from tracked vehicles. The increased PM emis-
sion factors at lower helicopter speeds result from the longer
duration of exposure of the dust to the downward wind from
the rotor blades. The duration is linearly proportional to the
speed of the helicopter. Therefore, a linear model should be
used for the helicopter, which is confirmed by the high R2
values of the regression.
4. Discussion
Fugitive PM emission factors from three types of military
activities were determined for typical operating conditions
range of data used for
regression R2 regression
EF ) 13 647v0.0014 0.00
EF ) 1329.7v0.2038 0.31
EF ) 35 484v-0.0433 0.00
EF ) 387.04v0.8698 0.25
8 < v < 40 km/h
EF ) 1111.7v0.8596 0.56
EF ) 396.4v0.729 0.41
EF ) 115.33(mv)0.4177 0.22
EF ) 7.6638(mv)0.5068 0.25
EF ) -1016.1v + 74 868 0.995
EF ) -351.73v + 25 916 0.995
15 < v < 60km/h
EF ) -2417.6v + 14 9213 0.992
EF ) -836.86v + 51 651 0.992
and surface types using recently developed RR-ORS and PI-
ORS methods. In terms of showing plume PM mass distri-
bution profiles, RR-ORS is the preferred method because it
directly detects dust at different locations along the optical
paths, while the PI-ORS detects the total extinction along
the optical paths and relies on bivariate Gaussian model to
map the 2-D distribution. The PM-generating mechanisms
were different for these three military activities, which resulted
in different plume characteristics and emission factors. Back
blasts during artillery firing generated PM by transferring
the force generated by the detonation of the propellant to
the soil surface. The soil at the gun position was compressed
by the force and then rebounded. PM was injected into the
air and transported by the wind. Therefore, the amount of
dust emission from a single short-term puff depended on
the surface character and the force generated by the back
blast. Artillery firing plumes typically lasted for 10-30 s, and
the heights were less than 10 m. The larger amount of energy
exerted onto the ground caused a larger amount of PM to
be entrained into the air. (i.e., charge zone of 8S versus charge
zone of 2).
Mobile tracked vehicles and airborne helicopters con-
tinuously generated PM plumes when traveling and conse-
quently produced long-lasting and larger-sized plumes
comparing to those generated by short-term “puff” artillery
back blasts. The plumes generated by moving tracked vehicles
and airborne helicopters lasted for 100-200 s or even longer
for these field campaigns, and the plumes reached up to
50 m above the ground. Tracked vehicles emitted PM by
entraining the soil that was attached to the links of the tracks
when they reached the rear of the vehicle. The amount of
PM emitted per unit distance the vehicle traveled depended
more on the type of tracked vehicle and type of soil surface
than the speed of the vehicle.
However, the airborne helicopter did not physically
contact the surface of the soil like the tracked vehicles. The
helicopter generated dust emissions by blowing the topsoil
through its rotary wings (16). Therefore, the emission rates
depended on the surface properties of the soil and the
duration of the event. The duration of the event was linearly
correlated to the inverse of the helicopter speed. Field results
show good correlation (R2 > 0.99) between the emission factor
and the helicopter speed for each surface type.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the supporting staff from Yuma Proving
Ground and Yakima Training Center for coordinating the field
campaigns, and the following agencies that provided funds/
support for this research: Strategic Environmental Research
and Development Program (Project SI-1400); Fujian Science
and Technology Commission (No. 2010Y0056), Xiamen Dis-
VOL. 45, NO. 2, 2011 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 671
tinguished Young Scholar Award (No. 3502Z20105008), and the
NSFC (No. 41005081).
Literature Cited
(1) Etyemezian, V.; Kuhns, H.; Gillies, J.; Green, M.; Pitchford, M.;
Watson, J. Vehicle-based road dust emission measurement:
I - methods and calibration. Atmos. Environ. 2003, 37 (32), 4559–
4571.
(2) Wojcik, M. D.; Bingham, G. E.; Marchant, C. C.; Zavyalov, V. V.;
Ahlstrom, D. J.; Morre, K.; Wilkerson, T. D.; Hipps, L. E.; Martin,
R. S.; Hatfield, J. L.; Prueger, J. H. Lidar based particulate flux
measurements of agricultural field operations. In International
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS); 2008; pp
263-266.
(3) Holmén, B.; Miller, D.; Hiscox, A.; Yang, W.; Wang, J.; Sammis,
T.; Bottoms, R. Near-source particulate emissions and plume
dynamics from agricultural field operations. J. Atmos. Chem.
2007, 59 (2), 117–134.
(4) Xuan, J.; Liu, G. L.; Du, K. Dust emission inventory in Northern
China. Atmos. Environ. 2000, 34 (26), 4565–4570.
(5) Watson, J. G.; Chow, J. C.; Pace, T. G. Fugitive dust emissions.
In Air Pollution Engineering Manual; Reinhold, V. N., Ed.; Wiley:
New York, 2000.
(6) Watson, J. G.; Chow, J. C.; Lowenthal, D. H.; Cahill, C. F.;
Blumenthal, D. L.; Richards, L. W.; Gonzalez, Jorge, H. Aerosol
chemical and optical properties during the Mt Zirkel visibility
study. J. Environ. Quality 2001, 30 (4), 1118–1125.
(7) Mahowald, N. M.; Ballantine, J. A.; Feddema, J.; Ramankutty,
N. Global trends in visibility: implications for dust sources.
Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2007, 7, 3309–3339.
(8) SERDP Annual Report to Congress-Fiscal Year 2004.
(9) Holmén, B. A.; James, T. A.; Ashbaugh, L. L.; Flocchini, R. G.
Lidar-assisted measurement of PM10 emissions from agricul-
tural tilling in California’s San Joaquin Valley - Part I: lidar.
Atmos. Environ. 2001, 35 (19), 3251–3264.
(10) Wojcik, M. D.; Moore, K. D.; Martin, R. S. Successful strategies
for using lidar for particle characterization of point and diffuse
area sources. In Proceedings of the A&WMA International
Specialty Conference; Xi’An, China, 2010; Vol. 294, p 299.
672 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 45, NO. 2, 2011
(11) Hashmonay, R. A.; Kagann, R. H.; Rood, M. J.; Kim, B. J.;
Kemme, M. R.; Gillies, J. An advanced test method for
measuring fugitive dust emissions using a hybrid system of
optical remote sensing and point monitor techniques. In
Atmospheric and Biological Environmental Monitoring; Kim,
Y. J., Platt, U., Gu, M. B., Iwahashi, H., Eds.; Springer:
Netherlands, 2009; pp 73-81.
(12) Varma, R.; Hashmonay, R. A.; Du, K.; Rood, M. J.; Kim, B. J.;
Kemme, M. R. A novel methodology for fugitive dust emission
estimation using optical remote sensing. In Advanced Envi-
ronmental Monitoring; Kim, Y. J., Platt, U., Eds.; Springer-Verlag
GmbH: Netherlands, 2008; pp 143-154.
(13) Du, K.; Rood, M. J.; Welton, E. J.; Varma, R. M.; Hashmonay,
R. A.; Kim, B. J.; Kemme, M. R. Optical remote sensing to quantify
fugitive particulate mass emissions from stationary short-term
and mobile continuous sources: Part I. Method and examples.
Environ. Sci. Technol., DOI: 10.1021/es101904q.
(14) Kim, B. J.; Kemme, M. R.; Rood, M. J.; Du, K.; Yuen, W.; Wang,
W.; Hashmonay, R.; Varma, R. Development of emission factors
for dust generated by unique military activities. ERDC-CERL,
2010.
(15) Kuhns, H.; Gillies, J. A.; Etyemezian, V.; Nikolich, G.; King, J.;
Zhu, D.; Uppapalli, S.; Engelbrecht, J. Effect of soil type and
momentum on unpaved road particulate matter emissions from
wheeled and tracked vehicles. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2010, 44 (3),
193–202.
(16) Gillies, J. A.; Etyemezian, V.; Kuhns, H.; McAlpine, J. D.; King,
J.; Uppapalli, S.; Nikolich, G.; Engelbrecht, J. Dust emissions
created by low-level rotary-winged aircraft flight over desert
surfaces. Atmos. Environ. 2010, 44 (8), 1043–1053.
(17) Gillies, J. A.; Kuhns, H.; Engelbrecht, J. P.; Uppapalli, S.;
Etyemezian, V.; Nikolich, G. Particulate emissions from U.S.
Department of Defense artillery backblast testing. J. Air Waste
Manage. Assoc. 2007, 57 (5), 551–560.
ES101906V