Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Nov 15.
Published in final edited form as: Sci Total Environ. 2021 Jul 5;795:148872. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148872

Table 1.

133Cs emissions and fuel content for laboratory burns done in March 2016 (Hao et al., 2018) and February 2018.

Run Fuel type Fuel measurements Ambient PM2.5 Ambient Coarse PM
Fuel Weight (kg) Fuel Burned (kg) Cs Fuel Weight (g) Cs per Fuel Weight (g/kg) Total Cs in PM2.5 (g) Cs emitted of total fuel burned (g/kg) % Cs emitted of Cs fuel Total Cs in coarse PM (g) Cs emitted of total fuel burned (g/kg) % Cs emitted of Cs fuel
March 2016 run 6 Pine needle 5.55 5.2 9.6 1.7 0.03 0.006 0.004 0.00 0.000 0.00
March 2016 run 7 Pine needle 5.24 4.9 13.3 2.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00
March 2016 run 8 Pine needle 5.16 4.8 10.8 2.1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00
Feb 2018 run 1 (blank) Pine needle 6.65 6.35 0.04 0.0066 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00
Feb 2018 run 2 (blank) Sage 5.82 5.60 0.05 0.0085 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00
Feb 2018 run 3 Pine needle 6.29 5.84 8.81 1.4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00
Feb 2018 run 4 Pine needle 6.29 5.79 8.81 1.4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00
Feb 2018 run 5 Pine needle 6.32 5.85 8.84 1.4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.05 0.008 0.52
Feb 2018 run 6 Sage 6.15 5.91 9.84 1.6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00
Feb 2018 run 7 Sage 6.20 5.94 14.26 2.3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00
Feb 2018 run 8 Sage 5.80 5.51 9.87 1.7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.04 0.008 0.46