Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Emission factors of CO2, CO and CH4 from Sumatran peatland fires in 2013 based on shipboard measurements Cover

Emission factors of CO2, CO and CH4 from Sumatran peatland fires in 2013 based on shipboard measurements

Open Access
|Jan 2017

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1.

The shipping route of the VOS ships in South-East Asia: southbound route (Japan to Indonesia; green); northbound Asia and Borneo routes (Indonesia–Japan; orange and red). The area surrounded by the dashed square around Peninsula Malaysia was divided into two regions for the analysis, as shown in the inset (Malay area, blue; Malacca and Singapore area, magenta).

Fig. 2.

CO distribution around Malay Peninsula observed by the two VOS ships during the period from mid-June to mid-August 2013. The CO distribution is shown separately for each voyage (TF1, M/V Trans Future 1; FW, M/V Fujitrans World), and the dry mole fractions of CO are plotted along the shipping route. The CO enhancement episodes are numbered individually, and CO data during the episodes are represented by black-rimmed dots, with the episode duration presented below the episode number.

Fig. 3.

Temporal variation of the 1-h-mean CO dry mole fractions (upper panels) along with the monthly CO anomaly for June, July and August from 2008 to 2013 (lower panels) observed in the Malay area and the Malacca and Singapore area. The coloured dashed lines in the lower panels represent linear interpolations to account for missing data.

Fig. 4.

Distribution of monthly fire radiative power (FRP) intensity with a spatial resolution of 0.25° × 0.25° over Sumatra from May to September 2013. The area over Sumatra surrounded by the dashed square line indicates the study area used for detailed analysis in this study.

Fig. 5.

Time series for the daily FRP value for Sumatra (black line) and the study area (red line) in June, July and August 2013. The vertical dashed lines indicate CO peak times for each CO enhancement episode (shown in Figure 2), using the following colour codes: blue for the Trans Future 1, green for the Fujitrans World. The colour codes for the episode numbers indicate the estimated transport time for the air masses from the study area to the VOS ship (cyan, up to 1 day; magenta, 2 days; orange, 4 days) based on the backward trajectory analysis; black codes indicate no air mass history that pass directly over the study area. Note that the daily FRP values were derived from discrete MODIS FRP observation.

Fig. 6.

Monthly column data for the distribution of CO from AIRS data for South-East Asia in June, July and August 2013.

Fig. 7.

Daily CO column distribution from the AIRS data for South-East Asia from 17 to 22 June 2013. The ship’s route and daily positions are indicated by dashed lines and thick black lines, respectively.

Fig. 8.

Temporal variations of the 10-min mean CO2, CO and CH4 during the four selected CO enhancement episodes (EP1, EP2, EP3 and EP9). The variations of these gases during the shaded periods were associated with peatland fire emission from the study area, which was identified based on the CO2-normarized enhancement ratio for CO.

Table 1.

Calculated CO2-normalized enhancement ratios (EnR) for the characterized biomass burning peaks and the estimated average emission factors (EF values) based on the carbon mass balance method and based on GFED4.1s.

MonthPeak (EP)CO2-normalized EnR (ppb/ppm)Average EF value (g/kg dry matter)COCH4CO2COCH4Present studyJunePeak 1 (EP1)150 (9)12.3 (0.6)1650 (165)158 (18)7.4 (0.8)Peak 2 (EP2)150 (18)9.2 (0.6)1654 (165)158 (17)5.5 (0.6)Peak 3 (EP2)137 (6)11.5 (0.4)1670 (167)146 (16)7.0 (0.7)Peak 4 (EP3)127 (12)10.3 (0.9)1686 (169)136 (18)6.3 (0.8)JulyPeak 5 (EP9)137 (8)10.8 (0.6)1621 (162)141 (16)6.4 (0.7)GFED4.1sJune––1676 (18)156 (38)13.5 (4.9)July––1666 (18)133 (34)10.4 (4.3)

[i] Notes: Numbers in parentheses for the CO2-normalized EnR denote the standard errors for the reduced major axis regression. For the average EF values, the numbers in parentheses represent the estimated errors propagated from the uncertainty of the carbon content (F C ) and the regression errors for the present study, and represent the standard deviations of the EF values for each grid cell in the study area for GFED4.1s.

Table 2.

Estimated optimal emission factors (EF values) for the peat used in GFED4.1s, and values reported in past studies.

Study area/samplePeak (present study)/no. samples (previous studies)EF of peat (g/kg dry matter)CO2COCH4Present studyNorth-central SumatraPeak 1 (EP1)16562139.4Peak 2 (EP2)16642146.0Peak 3 (EP2)16921916.0Peak 4 (EP3)17231747.4Peak 5 (EP9)15792359.0Average (SD)1663 (54)205 (23)7.6 (1.6)Christian et al. (2003)South Sumatra peat11703210.320.8Huijnen et al. (2016)South Borneo111594 (61)255 (39)7.4 (2.3)Stockwell et al. (2016)South Borneo351564 (77)291 (49)9.51 (4.74)

[i] Notes: Numbers in parentheses for the EF values in the present study represent the standard deviation of the five optimal EF values; those for Huijnen et al. (2016) and Stockwell et al. (2016) are the standard deviation of the EF values based on their observations.

Table 3.

Estimated fire emission of CO2, CO and CH4 from the study area in June based on GFED4.1s using the estimated typical and the GFED4.1s-recommended emission factors for peat fires, and the emission estimates from a previous study.

MethodEF values for peat firesCO2 (Tg)CO (Tg)CH4 (Tg)GFED4.1sPresent study106.129.830.41GFED4.1s-recommended105.039.760.85Gaveau et al. (2014)GFED4.1s-recommended94.84 ± 44.4210.98 ± 5.471.06 ± 0.54
Language: English
Page range: 1399047 - 1399047
Submitted on: May 24, 2017
Accepted on: Oct 25, 2017
Published on: Jan 1, 2017
Published by: Stockholm University Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2017 Hideki Nara, Hiroshi Tanimoto, Yasunori Tohjima, Hitoshi Mukai, Yukihiro Nojiri, Toshinobu Machida, published by Stockholm University Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.