Emissions Test: Car Vs. Truck Vs. Leaf Blower Emissions Test: Car Vs

Home / Car Reviews / Emissions Test: Car vs. Truck vs. Leaf Blower Emissions Test: Car vs. Truck vs. Leaf Blower by Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor December 5th, 2011

Share:    

Stinky Is Absolute, Not Relative Even in the complex, expensive and highly political world of emissions testing and certification, rumors are a bitch. And in California — where various government agencies bring to bear the world's toughest vehicle emissions regulations on the most dense car enthusiast population anywhere — it pays to investigate rumors.

So that's what we're doing.

You've probably heard stories about the emissions of today's cars being cleaner than lawn equipment, about modern cars actually cleaning the air and about the pre-emissions-control era when birds fell from the stinking sky. So have we. We're all about busting myths, so we concocted an investigation to find the truth. Forget about the birds, but those other rumors, well, we've got them covered.

Big, Small and Handheld Early on, we decided to go big. We'd run this emissions test at a real-deal emissions lab rather than a smog check station or asking Magrath to inhale at the tailpipes and offer commentary on their bouquets.   It would have been easy to load this test in favor of the vehicles by hand- picking the cleanest combustion-powered vehicle we could find. No, only the biggest, baddest truck will do, and they don't come much bigger or badder than the 2011 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor Crew Cab. Acting as a counterweight in perception to this pickup is our long-term 2012 Fiat 500.

The vehicles are absolutely poles apart. The Raptor packs a 411-horsepower 6.2-liter V8, weighs more than 6,200 pounds and has the aerodynamics of Mount Rushmore. The dollop-size Fiat weighs a mere 2,350 pounds and has a 1.4-liter four that generates less than one-fourth the amount of power as the Raptor. They couldn't be more different, and capturing extremes is the idea.

Like you, we made a trip Home Depot to buy a leaf blower. And like all trips to Home Depot, we lost 3 hours and bought more than we intended. In this case we ended up with two leaf blowers — a two-stroke backpack-style job and a handheld four-stroke unit. The two-stroke leaf blower in this test is an Echo PB-500T, a model that sits in the middle of the manufacturer's range of backpack-style offerings. It's powered by a 50.8cc two-stroke air-cooled single-cylinder engine. The Ryobi is a RY09440 model that brings a 30cc four- stroke engine. Yes, we're pitting a 6,210cc truck against a 30cc leaf blower.

Two-stroke engines have high power density, making them the engine of choice among commercial and prosumer-grade leaf blowers, but they emit more pollutants than four-strokes. The four-stroke leaf blower in this test is the Fiat to the two-stroke's Raptor. That was the idea, anyway.

Making the Sausage It turns out that our local branch of the American Automobile Association (AAA), Auto Club of Southern California, runs exactly the kind of emissions lab we had in mind. It's called the Automotive Research Center, and it's in Diamond Bar, California. There, the fine people of AAA ran full FTP 75 emissions cycles on the Raptor and the 500.

The FTP 75 cycle is one of the primary yardsticks in the U.S. certification of light-duty vehicle emissions and fuel economy. It consists of — stay with us here — three major sub-tests called phases, each of which is defined by a

  specific pattern of speed versus time. Phase 1 is a 505-second cold-start cycle and is followed by Phase 2, which is a "stabilized" test that lasts 864 seconds. Phase 3 is a repeat of the Phase 1 test, the only difference being that it is performed when the engine is fully warmed.

All three phases of the FTP 75 are run with the vehicle strapped to a chassis dynamometer. But before the FTP 75 can be run, an elaborate pretest sequence is carried out for each vehicle. We'll spare you the details, but suffice it to say that it is very thorough, very tedious and very time-consuming. This pretest procedure takes the better part of a 24-hour period to carry out per vehicle.

Once the pretest is complete, the roller-turning, emissions-gathering part of the FTP 75 can be performed. Here, the vehicle is "driven" by a skilled technician on the dyno over a prescribed pattern of speed versus time while the exhaust is sampled and bagged. If the speed of the vehicle (as measured by the dynamometer) falls outside of a narrow band, the test is voided and the whole expensive process must be repeated, including that protracted pretest process. A technician that flubs with any kind of frequency has a very short career in this field.

It's worth noting that the load on the dyno rollers is adjusted to reflect the aerodynamics and drivetrain loss of the vehicle being tested. So the Raptor is indeed being asked to work harder at a given speed than the Fiat, just as they'd do in the real world.

Comparing Apples to Kumquats: Creating the Leaf Blower Test Cycle The FTP 75 test simulates 11.04 miles driven over 31.2 minutes and includes idle periods, accelerations, decelerations and cruising. This driving cycle works great when testing things that boast driven wheels: less so for leaf blowers which, of course, don't.

Therefore we needed to come up with a test for the leaf blowers that provided a basis of comparison to the vehicles, yet still reflects the way lawn equipment is actually used in practice. Observe leaf blowers in the wild and you'll find

  they are very often operated at either full whack or idle. Our test would have to mimic this usage pattern.

It didn't have to be leaf blowers. We considered testing lawnmowers or string trimmers, but they introduce an element of complexity — load. To properly load those devices we'd need the resistance provided by grass and shrubs, and there wasn't time to grow a lush enough lawn in Auto Club's dyno cell. That's why we settled on leaf blowers — they have essentially one knob, and that's blower speed.

With these factors in mind, the test we crafted for the leaf blowers followed the FTP 75's duration and speed-up/slow-down pattern with a twist — we substituted vehicle speed with leaf blower speed. We gave the blowers full speed during the cruise periods defined by the FTP 75. The idle periods remained idle periods and boom, there's our leaf blower emissions test.

The Results During the FTP 75 test, exhaust gas from the vehicle's tailpipe is captured and analyzed by laboratory-grade equipment that's so expensive it makes the Kentucky Derby look like the Pinewood Derby. This lab equipment measures all kinds of compounds coming out of the tailpipe but the three we will focus on are those with which EPA and CARB are primarily concerned, namely, non- methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO).

What's that? Fewer words and more numbers? Here, then, are pollutants measured during our testing expressed in weighted grams per minute:

NMHC NOx CO 2011 Ford Raptor 0.005 0.005 0.276 2012 Fiat 500 0.016 0.010 0.192 Ryobi 4-stroke leaf blower 0.182 0.031 3.714 Echo 2-stroke leaf blower 1.495 0.010 6.445

  Distilling the above results, the four-stroke Ryobi leaf blower kicked out 6.8 times more NOx, 13.5 times more CO and more than 36 times more NMHC than the Raptor.

The two-stroke leaf blower was worse still, generating 23 times the CO and nearly 300 times more NMHC than the crew cab pickup. Let's put that in perspective. To equal the hydrocarbon emissions of about a half-hour of yard work with this two-stroke leaf blower, you'd have to drive a Raptor for 3,887 miles, or the distance from Northern Texas to Anchorage, Alaska.

Clearly, engine displacement plays little part in the concentrations of these pollutants. Consider that the Fiat 500 produced more than double the NOx and more than three times the hydrocarbons of the truck. A close look at the vehicles' underhood emissions labels sheds further light — the Fiat 500 is classed as LEV-II, whereas the Raptor in California trim is ULEV-II. The Raptor's emissions control equipment is simply more capable. It's only in the production of carbon dioxide (CO2) — not yet directly regulated by EPA or CARB — where the Raptor is the higher emitter.

Here, I'll Tie One Hand Behind My Back Maybe you think the above test was unduly hard on the leaf blowers. To evaluate that notion, we ran a follow-up test on the leaf blowers. We simply started them up and let them idle for 505 seconds — the duration of the Phase 1 portion of the FTP 75 — while collecting their emissions. Idling, that's all, nothing else. The only way the leaf blowers could produce fewer emissions than this is if they were shut off.

We then compared the leaf blowers' idle test results to those of the vehicles running their Phase 1 driving cycle of the FTP 75 test. Remember, this is the 505-second cold-start portion of the test, which is when the vehicles produce the majority of their total emissions since their catalytic converters are still waking up.

In other words, this is a best-case scenario for the leaf blowers and a worst- case scenario for the vehicles. The data below are expressed in grams per minute:

  NMHC NOx CO Phase 1 - 2011 Ford Raptor 0.021 0.013 0.725 Phase 1 - 2012 Fiat 500 0.075 0.032 0.544 Idling - Ryobi 4-stroke leaf blower 0.077 0.002 1.822 Idling - Echo 2-stroke leaf blower 1.367 0.000 2.043

Here, the overall picture improves only slightly for the leaf blowers. Of note is that NOx is near zero for the lawn equipment. This is logical, as the formation of NOx tracks with combustion temperature, which is lowest at idle. Carbon monoxide output of the lowest-emitting Ryobi leaf blower outstrips that of both door-slammers combined, and the two-stroke Echo in particular still belches out several times more hydrocarbons than the vehicles.

You'd have to drive a Raptor 235 miles — stopping every 505 seconds and doing cold restarts — to emit the same level of hydrocarbons as simply idling the two-stroke leaf blower for less than 10 minutes.

Drive a Raptor. Clean the Air Remember that crazy-expensive lab equipment that measures exhaust emissions? It also measures the emissions makeup of the ambient air that the vehicles draw in through their intake tracts. This is important because, well, what if your emissions lab was located next to a natural gas vent? Only by measuring what goes into and out of the vehicle and comparing the differences can the vehicle's contribution to emissions be accurately assessed.

Here's why you should care. When the Raptor (and the Fiat) was running Phase 2 of its tests on the dyno, it was cleaning the air of hydrocarbons. Yes, there were actually fewer hydrocarbons in the Raptor's exhaust than in the air it — and we — breathed. In the Raptor's case, the ambient air contained 2.821 ppm of total hydrocarbons, and the amount of total hydrocarbons coming out the Raptor's tailpipe measured 2.639 ppm.

So if you want to go green, ditch the yard equipment and blow leaves using a Raptor.   The manufacturer provided Edmunds the Raptor for the purposes of evaluation.

by Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor December 5th, 2011

Share:    

Other research topics

Research Buying

Leasing Selling

News Maintenance

Auto Insurance Safety

Fuel Economy Driving Tips

Technology How To

 

2% back in rewards on all your shipping supplies for Rewards Members.

Compare dealer price quotes

Honda

Fit

Pricing near 19971

Basic LX

$16,190

Compare Dealer Prices

 

Well Equipped Sport

$18,400

Compare Dealer Prices

Loaded EX-L

$20,620

Compare Dealer Prices

  Leave a comment

Comment As ...

ykphil Yellowknife NWT Posts: 1 November 2019

I am so glad I live in a truck camper sitting on top of my F350 diesel. No leaf blower needed

luke_mj Posts: 1 November 2016 edited November 2016

Tremendous article and research, Edmunds, thank you. Our organization references it frequently when consulting our clients. With respect, let me add that as alarming as these numbers are, they don't include the key factor of CO2. This is not the fault of Edmunds. Despite CO2 being the major human contributor to global warming and climate change, the EPA simply hasn't yet fully addressed the issue of CO2 emissions from SOREs (small offroad gas engines). Since the EPA doesn't measure it, there's no CO2 regulation for the manufacturers, and therefore, all the research and evidence about how hazardous gas lawn and garden equipment is still doesn't include this critical pollutant. So, how much CO2 comes out of these machines? Well, our partner and science advisor Dr. Jamie Banks, PhD co-authored an authoritative study (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/banks.pdf) which indicates that a full 76% of the pollutants from SOREs are CO2! That means the jaw dropping Edmunds findings above are only a quarter of the full story. For more information about gas emissions in the lawn and garden industry, and advice about how to transition to cleaner, quieter, healthier, zero-emission battery electric tools, check out http://www.AGZA.net. Peace.

brixton Posts: 1 February 2016

another reason to hate those noisy @#$% leaf blowers. Also, way to go car makers!

stever Posts: 52,462 November 2014 edited November 2014

My manual rake works ﬁne, doesn't raise much dust and doesn't disturb the neighbors.

tridoc927 Posts: 1 November 2014

I'm so glad I bought an electric leaf blower! Most popular vehicles

  Popular New Cars New Acura MDX New Acura RDX New Audi Q5 New BMW 3 Series New BMW X3 New Buick Enclave New Cadillac Escalade New Chevrolet Equinox New Chrysler 300

See more 

Join Edmunds Receive pricing updates, shopping tips & more!

email address Sign Up

      

Help About Us Contact Us Careers Aﬃliate Program Dealer Center Your Ad Choices UPDATED - Privacy Statement Visitor Agreement Accessibility Site Map Do Not Sell My Info

 

 1 QuietCommunities.org

COVID-19 and Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers: A Lethal Combination

Abstract This memorandum discusses three specific problems that gas-powered leaf blowers (GLBs) present during the COVID-19 crisis, including: (i) an increased risk of complications and death from COVID-19 due to the fine particulate matter generated by GLBs; (ii) the sleep, concentration, and other health problems caused by the noise generated by GLBs, which is interfering with the ability of adults and children who are trying to work, learn, and rest at home; and (iii) the disproportionate risks of COVID-19-related illness that landscape workers face as a result of working with GLBs. The authors review the existing literature on the health and environmental problems associated with GLBs and recommend a moratorium on the use of GLBs (and possibly electric/battery blowers too) during the pandemic, as well as a longer-term plan that includes a phase-out of GLBs and help to transition the landscape industry to cleaner, quieter, and healthier alternatives.

Date: April 27, 2020 Last revised: May 3, 2020

QuietCommunities.org is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to transition landscape maintenance to low noise, zero emissions practices with positive solutions to protect the health of workers, children, the public and the environment. v.1.2_20200503 Copyright © 2020 Quiet Communities, Inc. 2 QuietCommunities.org

M E M O R A N D U M

Re: COVID-19 and Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers: Date: April 27, 2020 A Lethal Combination Last revised May 3, 2020

PART I: Issue

Gas-powered leaf blowers (GLBs) present three specific problems during the current COVID-19 crisis:

1. Pollution from GLBs Increases Risk of Complications and Death from COVID-19. It is well established that air pollution from GLBs, including fine particulate matter, is hazardous to lung functioning and our respiratory and overall health [1-4]. In fact, both short-term and long-term exposures to fine particulates are known to be harmful [1-4]. This month, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health released the results of a study that specifically linked that type of pollution (i.e., fine particulate matter) to a higher risk of complications and death from COVID-19 infection [5, 5a]. They found that a one-microgram increase in concentration of fine particulate matter is associated with an 8% increase1 in risk of death from COVID-19 infection [5]. This is extremely important because a single commercial GLB emits tens of millions of micrograms of fine particulate per hour [6-7] at ground level where it is easily inhaled. And these particles may stay suspended in the air for a week or longer [8].

2. Noise from GLBs creates other health problems. The penetrating noise from two-stroke GLBs not only poses threats to hearing but also causes stress-mediated disorders such as heart disease, psychological disturbances, and metabolic abnormalities, some of which raise the risk of complications from COVID-19 [9-10]. In addition, GLB noise interrupts concentration and impairs recovery from illness and interferes with children’s learning and with people’s ability to work at home [11-12]—which is of special concern as we shelter in place during the COVID-19 crisis. Vitally important is the situation of first responders and other health care workers—especially those working night shifts—who are unable to sleep during the day because of GLB noise [13- 14].

3. Landscape Workers Face Disproportionate Risks from COVID-19 Due to GLBs. Pollution from GLBs is emitted in close proximity to human airways and is thus easily inhaled by landscape workers [6, 15-20]. These emissions include fine particulates, volatile organic compounds, and carbon monoxide, all of which are known to be associated with higher risks of diseases, including cancer, heart and lung disease, developmental disorders infection, and death (including from COVID-19) [1- 6, 21-25]. In fact, a number of medical societies [26] and agencies including NIOSH [27] and the California Air Resources Board [16, 21] have acknowledged/raised concerns about the problem. The risk to workers is compounded by the fact that landscape crews are often asked to simultaneously operate multiple GLBs (in violation of industry guidelines) [28-29]). In addition, landscape workers are often asked to ride together in trucks and are unable to maintain safe physical distance. As a result of these conditions, workers are exposed to extraordinary levels of pollution, putting them at higher risk of complications and death from COVID-19 and increasing the chance they will spread the virus to their families and co-workers. It is important to note that many landscape workers are minorities who, statistically speaking, are already at higher risk of COVID infection and mortality [30].

1 Their preliminary results from a smaller dataset indicated a 15% increase in risk, as reported in The NY Times [5a]. QuietCommunities.org is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to transition landscape maintenance to low noise, zero emissions practices with positive solutions to protect the health of workers, children, the public and the environment. v.1.2_20200503 Copyright © 2020 Quiet Communities, Inc. 3 QuietCommunities.org

PART II: Action Required

In light of the COVID-19 crisis, policymakers must act immediately to protect the public from the health hazards posed by GLBs. Specifically, policymakers must:

• Impose an emergency moratorium on the use of GLBs (and ideally on the use of electric/battery blowers too). • Educate the public (including landscape workers) about the risks associated with GLBs, including those associated with the COVID-19 pandemic • Remind landscapers that their workers must wear masks and follow social distancing rules. • Adopt a longer-term plan to promote the use of cleaner, healthier alternatives, such as raking and electric/battery equipment.

Such a moratorium will not affect the ability of landscapers to continue working during the pandemic. They are and should remain “essential workers.” A moratorium requires only that landscapers: (i) stop using GLBs to blow grass clippings and dust during weekly maintenance, and (ii) shift to manual tools (or possibly electric/battery powered tools) for larger jobs (i.e., fall/spring cleanups). For a more detailed discussion of the mechanics and feasibility of such a transition, see Part V.

Several towns in the U.S. have already imposed emergency moratoriums due to the pandemic. (See Exhibit A for a Sample Emergency Order). As one mayor noted,

“COVID-19 is fundamentally an insidious respiratory condition . . . having particulates of dust and dung blown into the air with the force that a leaf blower brings creates a HAZMAT situation. We breathe those particulates; they are getting into and irritating our lungs. Particulates hang in the air for hours after a leaf-blower has been shut off… our neighborhood streets are far more active, especially during the daylight hours when our children would be -- under normal conditions -- in school” [31].

In addition to the above emergency measures, policymakers should also take steps over the longer term to promote the permanent conversion to cleaner, quieter, and healthier alternatives (see Part V).

PART III: The Problems with GLBs

The negative effects of noise and pollution from GLBs have been known for a long time. Indeed, they cause or contribute to the following serious health [1-4, 8-10, 21-25] and environmental [32-33] problems:

• Heart disease, hypertension, heart attacks, heart failure, and strokes • Lung disease, including asthma, COPD, and acute respiratory infection • Cancer • Hearing damage, including hearing loss, tinnitus, and hyperacusis • Neurological disorders, including dementia, autism, and Reynaud’s syndrome • Developmental, reproductive, and metabolic disorders, as well as psychological problems • Learning and concentration issues, especially in children • Contamination of air, soil, and water • Loss of vegetation, insects, and biodiversity QuietCommunities.org is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to transition landscape maintenance to low noise, zero emissions practices with positive solutions to protect the health of workers, children, the public and the environment. v.1.2_20200503 Copyright © 2020 Quiet Communities, Inc. 4 QuietCommunities.org

Why are GLBs so problematic?

1. GLBs have especially “dirty” engines. Most GLBs have two-stroke engines that run on a combination of gasoline and oil. Two-stroke engines feed more of the fuel/oil mixture than is necessary into the combustion chamber, which means that as much as 30% of the fuel/oil mixture escapes unburned into the atmosphere [21]. Thus, exhaust emissions from GLBs consist of both unburned fuel and products of combustion. Research shows that GLBs produce large amounts of carbon monoxide (which is toxic), hydrocarbons (which are toxic, carcinogenic, and ozone- forming), and fine particulates (which are toxic, carcinogenic and now known to raise the risk for COVID-19 death) [6, 15-21]. In fact, the main hydrocarbons produced by GLBs (benzene, butadiene, and formaldehyde) are listed among the four top-ranking cancer-causing compounds [34]. One independent vehicle emissions testing lab found that, when it comes to producing hydrocarbons, running a GLB for 30 minutes was the same as driving a Ford F-150 truck from Texas to Alaska [35]. More recently, the California Air Resources Board equated the pollution from an hour of GLB use to driving 1,100 miles in a 2017 Toyota Camry [36]. California air quality officials state that in 2020, leaf blowers and other small gas engines used in lawn maintenance and gardening will create more [hydrocarbon-based] ozone pollution than all of the passenger cars in the state [20]. The fine particulates produced by GLBs are also concerning. Short-term and long-term exposure have both been linked to serious health effects and higher risk of death [1-4]. In 2013, the World Health Organization concluded that fine particulate matter is associated with increased cancer incidence, specifically lung and bladder cancers [37]. And GLBs produce copious amounts of fine particulates. Indeed, a single commercial backpack GLB can produce 30 million micrograms of fine particulates every hour [6-7]. And these particles may stay suspended in the air for a week or longer [8].

2. GLBs disperse other harmful materials. In addition to exhaust pollution, the powerful air jet (150- 280 mph) of a single GLB can disperse up to five pounds of coarser particulates from the ground into the air every hour—particles that may carry pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, animal droppings, spores, fungi, pollens, brake-lining dust, tire residue, heavy metals—all detrimental to our respiratory and general health [21]. (See video [38]). It is important to note that, while electric/battery-powered blowers eliminate the problem of exhaust pollution, they too may disperse harmful coarser substances from the ground.2

3. GLBs operate close to humans. Unlike emissions from power plants and industrial sources, pollution from GLBs is emitted at ground level, where it is easily inhaled. Indeed, for workers, this may be especially hazardous [6, 15-20] (See video [39]). Tests of several commercial GLB models show that concentrations of ultrafine particles (the most hazardous type of fine particulates) were found to be up to 54 times higher within a few feet of use than in a busy highway intersection in Los Angeles [18-19].

4. GLB noise is harmful, travels long distances, and penetrates walls and windows. Popular models of commercial GLBs emit noise that exceeds 100 decibels at the source and are 76-83 decibels at 50 feet [40].3 According to the US CDC and NIOSH,4 the maximum recommended

2 Because the jet velocities of electric/battery blowers are lower (150-170 mph), they typically create smaller plumes of particulates and debris [40]. Moreover, due to concerns about battery life, landscapers tend to use electric/battery blowers more judiciously and at lower power settings, which also reduces the dispersion of ground-sourced particulates and debris. 3 The occupational standard (NIOSH) is 85 decibels averaged over an 8-hour day. 4 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) QuietCommunities.org is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to transition landscape maintenance to low noise, zero emissions practices with positive solutions to protect the health of workers, children, the public and the environment. v.1.2_20200503 Copyright © 2020 Quiet Communities, Inc. 5 QuietCommunities.org

exposure to 100 decibel noise is 15 minutes [41-42]).5 Landscapers operate GLBs for hours a day, several days a week, often in groups of 2 or more, thereby exposing themselves and members of the public to chronic levels of harmful noise (see video [43]). The adverse effects of such noise on hearing and our general health is well documented and include heart disease, sleep disturbance, psychological, cognitive and learning problems, and metabolic abnormalities [9-10]. Noise in excess of 60 decibels increases risk of heart disease [10]. In addition, GLB noise has a strong low frequency component, enabling it to travel long distances and penetrate walls and windows [44-46]. Low frequency noise is of special concern to health, as stated in the WHO Guidelines on Community Noise [47]. A single GLB can affect 90-100 homes in a densely populated neighborhood [48] with harmful noise levels (≥55 decibels, defined by WHO and EPA [47, 49]). People especially affected by GLB noise include people working from home, children schooling at home, night workers (including first responders and health care workers), those affected with autism and sensory processing disorders, and veterans and others with post-traumatic stress disorder [13, 50-52].

5. GLBs and spread of COVID-19 and other diseases. Preliminary studies from Italy have found the presence of the COVID-19 virus on coarse airborne particulates, raising the possibility that airborne particulates contributed to the rapid spread of COVID-19 in hard-hit regions of that country [53-54]. In addition, a study of landscape workers in Martha’s Vineyard showed that those operating leaf blowers were at increased risk for tularemia (a contagious, potentially life-threatening bacterial infection), presumably due to the aerosolization of the bacteria and infected materials [55]. A recent study from China suggests that strong airflow from a restaurant air conditioning system helped spread the COVID-19 virus [56]. These studies raise the possibility that air flow from GLBs is a source of transmission for COVID-19.

6. GLBs harm the environment, wildlife, and ecosystems. GLBs consume hundreds of millions of gallons of gasoline every year, generate tens of millions of tons of CO2, spill tens of millions of gallons of fuel into soil and storm drains, and add toxic, non-recyclable waste to landfills [6, 57-59]. The high velocity air jets of GLBs destroy nests and habitats, desiccate pollen, sap, other natural plant substances, and injure or destroy birds, small mammals, and beneficial insects that live in the leaf litter [33, 60-61]. Instead of nurturing our landscapes, GLBs damage plants, remove beneficial topsoil and mulch, and desiccate soil. In fact, experts say that leaving grass clippings and leaves in place is actually beneficial to the environment and healthy for the lawn [62-63].

7. Non-compliant and excessive use of GLBs compound the threat. Landscapers routinely violate industry recommendations and local government regulations on the proper use of GLBs [28-29, 64]. As noted above, instead of using just one at a time, it is common to see two, three or more GLBs used simultaneously, even on small properties. Moreover, instead of running these machines at the lowest possible throttle to reduce noise and dust, GLBs are typically run at full throttle, generating tremendous noise and large clouds of ground particulate matter and dust [64]. Landscapers are also using GLBs more frequently and not just for large cleanups or leaf removal. In many parts of the country, landscapers are using GLBs every week to blow grass clippings—a practice that, as noted above, is unnecessary and environmentally unsound. Landscapers have also been spotted using these machines for unusual/inappropriate tasks such as sand and snow removal (see videos [65-66]). These practices have even raised the concern of a major industry lobbyist who recommends the use of quieter blowers [64].

5 The decibel scale is logarithmic. Small increases in decibel level mean sharp decreases in permissible exposure times. QuietCommunities.org is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to transition landscape maintenance to low noise, zero emissions practices with positive solutions to protect the health of workers, children, the public and the environment. v.1.2_20200503 Copyright © 2020 Quiet Communities, Inc. 6 QuietCommunities.org

PART IV: Current State of Leaf Blower Regulation

Two hundred cities/towns across the U.S. have already enacted some form of legislation to restrict or ban the use of GLBs (Exhibit B). In addition, four counties (one each in Arizona, California, Maryland and Virginia) have done the same. The state of Hawaii has statewide restrictions on use [67] and has considered banning them entirely [68], as have California and Illinois, more recently [69-70]. Ann Arbor, MI has banned all 2-stroke engines in its downtown area [71]. But many other jurisdictions have failed to act—and health professionals are concerned. Major health and environmental organizations, including the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [41], the American Lung Association, the National Institutes of Health, physician groups in California, New York (Exhibit C), and Utah, and various medical societies, have warned against their use and/or the use of gas-powered lawn and garden equipment. The Medical Society of the State of New York and the Massachusetts Medical Society have both passed resolutions discouraging the use of GLBs because of their detrimental effects on workers and public health (Exhibit D).

PART V: How Can We Permanently Transition to Cleaner, Quieter, Healthier Practices? Transitioning to cleaner, quieter, healthier equipment is a 3-step process, one that provides immediate benefits to the community while simultaneously giving landscapers time to acquire and adapt to greener technology.

Step 1. Adopt an emergency moratorium on GLBs (and ideally, on the use of electric/battery blowers too) (see Part II above).

Step 2: Ban the use of GLBs during “summer” and “winter” months. Policymakers should encourage municipalities to adopt a ban on the use of any GLBs, EXCEPT for two brief periods in the spring and fall to allow for large seasonal cleanups.

As noted above, blowing grass clippings weekly (i.e., the primary purpose of summer use) is not only unnecessary, it negatively affects lawn, soil, and plant health [63]. Similarly, the weekly blowing of dust and debris or the winter blowing of snow, especially with 200+ mph air jets, is unnecessary, hazardous to health, and contrary to industry recommendations [28-29, 64]. Rakes and brooms (possibly supplemented with electric/battery blowers,) represents a practical alternative for routine clean-up work. Street sweepers, not leaf blowers, should be used to safely remove sand from roads in northern states.

We note that such a ban on GLBs should not affect the cost of weekly service. By abandoning weekly blowing with GLBs, landscapers will save time (i.e., lower labor costs) and money (i.e., lower fuel and maintenance costs). In fact, those savings can offset the price of larger clean-ups with greener (zero emissions, low noise) equipment and may allow landscapers to service more customers and/or become more profitable. This could be a triple win: for the public, landscapers, and the environment.

Step 3. Phase Out the Use of GLBs Entirely. In addition to the moratorium and ban described above, policymakers should encourage municipalities to adopt regulations that phase out the use of GLBs entirely (i.e., ban GLBs even for large seasonal cleanups). Such a ban should be phased in over a sufficient period (e.g., 18-24 months) to give landscapers time to transition to greener and healthier alternatives.

The American Green Zone Alliance (AGZA) actively assists municipalities, schools, and businesses in transitioning to zero emissions, low noise practices. According to AGZA President, Dan Mabe, the operating costs of battery/electric equipment are a fraction of the costs of gas equipment because of avoided fuel and maintenance costs [58]. And those savings can help defray the cost of new, greener equipment. However, the initial high capital cost of establishing battery banks adequate for commercial workloads and the need for proper training of operators must be taken into consideration. To help finance that transition, landscapers could charge a small premium for green landscaping (including hand raking)—at least initially. Many clients who use landscaping services can afford this and many people, when surveyed, have indicated they are willing to pay a bit more for quieter/cleaner landscaping [72]. Crowdsourcing is another potential source of funding. In addition, municipalities, donors, and other stakeholders can establish financial incentives and loan programs to help landscapers transition. At the same time, nonprofits and other experts can (i) guide the selection of the “right” equipment, (ii) educate and train workers (e.g., safety, charging infrastructure, operation, care), and (iii) demonstrate how Return on Investment can be achieved and profitability increased. All stakeholders should help raise awareness of the dangers of GLBs and the need for cleaner, quieter, and healthier equipment. There is no doubt this can be accomplished. Today, around 200 companies operate exclusively with electric- or battery-operated machines and/or manual tools [73] and entire municipalities and school districts are operating with electric and manual tools for all routine maintenance. These cities and schools have been certified as AGZA Green Zones® and have substantially reduced toxic and carcinogenic emissions, noise, waste, and carbon dioxide [74].

PART VI: Conclusion

The new and serious threats posed by the COVID-19 pandemic highlight the dangers posed by GLBs and require immediate intervention. The pollution and noise discharged by these machines are hazardous to the health of workers, the public, and the environment. Policy makers need to take immediate action to stop their use during the pandemic and also take steps to transition the industry to cleaner, quieter, healthier equipment and practices through appropriate policies and regulation.

We thank the following people for their input and review on this document: Jamie L Banks, Caroline Birenbaum, Marilyn Bracken, Robert Elon, Marea Hatziolos, John “Grif” Johnson, Dan Mabe, Rick Reibstein, and Valerie Seiling Jacobs.

References

1. American Lung Association. Particle Pollution. Accessed 4/19/20. 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2019) Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter- Final Report, EPA/600/R-19/188. Accessed 4/19/20. 3. Thurston GD, Kipen H, Annesi-Maesano I, et al (2017) A joint ERS/ATS policy statement: what constitutes an adverse health effect of air pollution? An analytical framework, Eur Resp J 4. Paulin L, Hansel N (2016) Particulate air pollution and impaired lung function, F1000Res, Feb 22. 5. Wu X, Nethery RC, Sabath MB, et al. Exposure to air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United States: A nationwide cross-sectional study. Report (as of April 24, 2020), Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Dept of Biostatistics; 5a. Earlier report (as of April 5, 2020) covered in Wilson M (2020) Meanwhile, in the Suburbs: Leaf Blower Drama, The New York Times, April 10. 6. Banks JL, McConnell R (2015) National Emissions from Lawn and Garden Equipment, presented at the International Emissions Inventory Conference, San Diego, April 13-16. 7. Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling: Spark-Ignition, US Environmental Protection Agency, July 2010, EPA-420-R-10-019, NR-010-f. 8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2018) Report on the Environment: Particulate Matter Emissions. 9. Basner M, Babisch W, Davis A, et al (2014). Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health. Lancet 383: 1325–32. 10. Munzel T, Schmidt FP, Steven S, et al (2018) Environmental noise and the cardiovascular system. J Amer Coll Cardiol 71:88-697. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.12.015. 11. Propper D (2020). Some villages banning leaf blowers amid coronavirus work at home orders. Journal News, April 17. 12. Wilson M (2020) Meanwhile, in the Suburbs: Leaf Blower Drama, New York Times, April 10. 13. Fink DJ, Post-Hearing Statement of Daniel Fink, M.D., to the Washington, D.C. City Council’s Committee of the Whole Regarding the Leaf Blower Amendment Act of 2017 (Bill No. 22-234), July 2, 2018. 14. Letter from K Jubanyik, MD, April 19, 2020. 15. Volckens J, Braddock J, Snow RF, et al. Emissions profile from new and in-use handheld, 2-stroke engines. Atmospheric Environment 2007;41:640-649. 16. California Air Resources Board (2018) Summary Document: Operator Exposure to Emissions from Lawn and Garden Equipment, October 12. 17. Baldauf R. Fortune C, Weinstein J, et al (2006) Air contaminant exposures during the operation of lawn and garden equipment. J Expos Sci Environ Epidemiol 16:362–370 18. Silverstein S, Boiko-Weyrauch A (2017) Noisy, but that’s not all: Leaf blowers flagged as prodigious polluters -- and possible health threat, FairWarning, September 19. 19. Dekeyan HC, Steedman-Lyde J. Health Science Associates. Industrial Hygiene Survey. HSA Project 170335LA. September 14, 2017. 20. Gorn, David (2017) More Pollution Than Cars? Gas-Powered Gardening Equipment Poses the Next Air Quality Threat, KQED News, February 13. 21. California Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency. Mobile Source Control Division (2000) A Report to the California Legislature on the Potential Health and Environmental Impacts of Leaf Blowers. Accessed 4/19/20. 22. American Heart Association. Facts: Danger in the Air -Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease. Accessed 4/19/20. 23. American Lung Association, Ozone, Accessed 4/19/20. 24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013) Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants. EPA/600/R-10/076F. QuietCommunities.org is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to transition landscape maintenance to low noise, zero emissions practices with positive solutions to protect the health of workers, children, the public and the environment. v.1.2_20200503 Copyright © 2020 Quiet Communities, Inc. 9 QuietCommunities.org

25. Raz R, Roberts AL, Lyall K, et al (2015) Autism Spectrum Disorder and Particulate Matter Air Pollution before, during, and after Pregnancy: A Nested Case–Control Analysis within the Nurses’ Health Study II Cohort. Environ Health Perspect 123(3):264-70. 26. Massachusetts Medical Society (2017) Policy of the Massachusetts Medical Society Concerning Gas Powered Leaf Blowers, April 29. 27. Study participants wanted: NIOSH to explore hazards in landscaping and groundskeeping (2020) Safety & Health, Feb 25. 28. Leaf Blower: A Training Manual in the Proper Use of Leaf Blowers. Echo, Inc. Accessed 4/19/20 at A Training Manual in the Proper Use of Leaf Blowers 29. A Guide to Safe and Courteous Use. OPEI/Stihl. 30. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020) COVID-19 in Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups, Page last reviewed April 22. 31. Order to ban leaf blower use for the during of the COVID-19 pandemic from Ken Wray, Mayor, Village of Sleepy Hollow, NY, April 3, 2020. 32. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015). Gasoline Spills Fact Sheet. February 26. 33. Leaf blowers fatal to declining insects, Germans warned. BBC News, November 19, 2019. 34. Loh MM, Levy JI, Spengler JD, et al (2007) Ranking Cancer Risks of Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants in the United States, Environ Health Perspect 115:1160–1168. 35. Edmunds.com, Emissions Test: Car vs. Truck vs. Leaf Blower, 2011. Video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDxQIHoTmxs 36. California Air Resources Board (2017) Small Engine Fact Sheet. 37. International Agency for Research in Cancer, World Health Organization (2013) Air Pollution and Cancer. K Straif, A Cohen, J Samet (Eds), Scientific Publication 161, Lyon Cedex FR:IARC, 2013. 38. Quiet Communities, Inc., Good morning commuters, please detour (video), October 22, 2013, http://youtu.be/FFzBKmxzq_U 39. Quiet Communities, Inc., Blower hygiene (video), April 21, 2014, http://youtu.be/5hRC37Q7b8E 40. Johnson, T (2019) Best backpack blower shootout, opereviews.com, December 26. 41. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2017) Too Loud, Too Long. CDC Vital Signs. 42. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIOSH. Noise and hearing loss prevention: Guidance and regulations. Accessed 4/20/20. 43. Quiet Communities, Inc. Next Door Decibels (video), April 28, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCLmE6C9sGk 44. Walker E, Banks, JL (2017) Characteristics of Lawn and Garden Equipment Sound: A Community Pilot Study. J Environ Toxicol Stu 1(1) doi http://dx.doi.org/10.16966/jets.106 45. Pollock C, Sparks G, Banks JL (2018) Lawn and Garden Equipment Sound: A Comparison of Gas and Battery Electric Equipment. J Environ Toxicol Stud 2(2): dx.doi.org/10.16966/2576-6430.118 46. Pasanen T, Rytkonen E, Sorainen E (2004). Leaf Blower Noise. Joint Baltic-Nordic Acoustics Meeting 2004, June 8-10, Mariehamn, Åland BNAM2004-2. Accessed 4/19/20. 47. World Health Organization (1999) Guidelines for Community Noise. Berglund B, Lindvall TM, Schwela DH (Eds). Geneva. 48. Banks JL. Report in Support of the Leaf Blower Regulation Amendment Act of 2017, Bill 22-234 DC Council of the Whole, Washington D.C. City Council, July 2, 2018. 49. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Washington, DC:US Environmental Protection Agency, March 1974, Publication 550/9-74-004. 50. Van Kamp I, Davies H (2013) Noise and health in vulnerable groups. Noise and Health 15:153-159. 51. Fagelson MA (2007) The association between tinnitus and posttraumatic stress disorder. Am J Audiol 16:107-117.

52. Center for Hearing and Communication. The impact of noise on childhood cognitive development: Poor classroom acoustics: The invisible reason Johnny can’t read. Accessed 4/19/20. 53. Setti L, Passarini F, De Gennaro G, et al (2020) Evaluation of the potential relationship between Particulate Matter (PM) pollution and COVID-19 infection spread in Italy. A report from the Italian Society of Environmental Medicine, University of Bologna, and University of Bari. 54. Setti L, Passarini F, De Gennaro G, et al (2020) SARS-Cov-2 RNA Found on Particulate Matter of Bergamo in Northern Italy: First Preliminary Evidence (not yet peer reviewed), medRxiv 55. Feldman KA, Stiles-Enos D, Julian K, et al (2003) Tularemia on Martha’s Vineyard: Seroprevalence and occupational risk. Emerging Infectious Diseases 9:350-354. 56. Lu J, Gu J, Li K, et al (2020) COVID-19 Outbreak Associated with Air Conditioning in Restaurant, Guangzhou, China, 2020, Emerg Infect Dis. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2607.200764 57. US Department of Energy (2010) Fact #635. Fuel Consumption from Lawn and Garden Equipment, August 9. 58. Dan Mabe, American Green Zone Alliance, Studio City, CA, personal communication. 59. Steinberg, T. (2006). American Green, The Obsessive Quest for the Perfect Lawn. W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0-393-06084-5. 60. Green Jay Landscaping (2019) Blog: Why leaf blowers & lawn care practices are hazardous to our health, April 1. 61. Knoedler M, Baranow M, Dix K (2017) Pollinator Protection in Williamstown, MA. Williams College. 62. Mizejewski D (2014). What to do with fallen leaves. A blog of the National Wildlife Federation, November 12. 63. University of Minnesota Extension, What to do with lawn clippings? Accessed 4/20/20 64. Will L (2018) Industry specialist warns leaf blower bans are coming if changes are not made, Total Landscape Care, Jan 18. 65. Quiet Communities, Inc., Spring clean-up (video), April 21, 2014, http://youtu.be/mskgTda07HI 66. Quiet Communities, Inc. Blowing deep snow on a roof (video), January 30, 2015, https://youtu.be/iXLEycUrvjs 67. Quiet Communities, Inc., Ordinance database, last update March 2020. 68. David M-E (2010) Hawaii lawmakers seek tough restrictions on leaf blowers. Hawaii News Now, March 10. 69. Benoit C (2020) California looking to ban gas-powered lawnmowers, leaf blowers. Elecktrek.com, January 9. 70. Proposal Filed to Ban Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers in Illinois (2020) WCSJ, February 17. 71. Stanton R (2019) Ann Arbor bans 2-cycle leaf blowers, other equipment downtown. Michigan Live, July 29. 72. Marea Hatziolos, personal communication, from discussions with residents in Chevy Chase, MD, 2019. 73. Quiet Communities, Inc. Database of eco-friendly landscapers. 74. AGZA Green Zones® at agza.net

Jamie L Banks, PhD, MS*

Quiet Communities, Inc., PO Box 533, Lincoln, MA 01773

Robert McConnell, Environmental Engineer

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109

Abstract

Background: The contribution of gasoline-powered lawn and garden equipment (GLGE) to air pollutant emissions in the United States has not been extensively studied. Goal: Our goal is to provide annual US and state-level emissions estimates of volatile organic compounds (VOC): criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide [CO], nitrogen oxides [NOx], particulate matter [PM] <10 microns, including PM < 2.5 microns [PM 10, PM2.5]; and carbon dioxide (CO2) from GLGE, with a focus on 2-stroke engines. Methods: Pollutant emissions data were extracted from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2011 and 2018 modeling platform (version 6), for GLGE (Source Code Classifications 2260004021−2265004071), and equipment population data were obtained from the EPA’s nonroad model. Data were sorted by equipment type and characteristics. Aggregate and equipment-specific emissions were calculated and compared with emissions from all gasoline-fueled nonroad equipment. Results are presented as descriptive statistics. Results: In 2011, approximately 26.7 million tons of pollutants were emitted by GLGE (VOC=461,800; CO=5,793,200; NOx=68,500, PM10=20,700; CO2=20,382,400), accounting for 24%−45% of all nonroad gasoline emissions. Gasoline-powered landscape maintenance equipment (GLME; leaf blowers/vacuums, and trimmers, edgers, brush cutters) accounted for 43% of VOCs and around 50% of fine PM. Two-stroke engines were responsible for the vast majority of fine PM from GLME. State data (California, New York, Texas, Illinois, and Florida), 2018 projections, and additional comparisons are presented. Methodological issues are discussed. Conclusions: GLGE accounts for a major portion of US nonroad gasoline emissions. Two-stroke engines are an important source of VOCs and criteria pollutants.

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

Gasoline-powered lawn and garden equipment (GLGE) ranging from string trimmers to stump grinders and tractors is a source of high levels of localized emissions that includes hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and carbon dioxide (CO2).1-4 Workers using commercial equipment are exposed when they are close to the emitting sources several hours each day, several days a week in seasons of use. Other members of the public, including children, may also be exposed to high levels of emissions from commercial landscape maintenance equipment (GLME) such as leaf blowers, trimmers, and mowers, used routinely around residential neighborhoods, schools, parks, and other public spaces. The commercial landscape maintenance industry has experienced strong growth over the last 15 years and depends largely on gasoline-powered equipment for most tasks once performed manually. These factors are raising concerns about the health impacts of GLGE emissions on workers and the public.

Extensive evidence exists on the adverse health effects of exhaust emissions and other fine particulates which include cardiovascular disease, stroke, respiratory disease, cancer, neurological conditions, premature death, and effects on prenatal development.5-13 Short term and long term exposures are implicated. However, GLGE as a source of these emissions has received little attention. Understanding the characteristics of GLGE and GLME emissions can help estimate potential health impacts of these close-to-the-source emissions.

The goal of this study was to characterize annual emissions from GLGE at the national level and in selected states and to estimate the contribution of GLME to those emissions. Special attention is paid to 2-stroke GLME engines. The emissions contributions from the four of the five most populated states are derived from the NEI, and for California, from the emissions inventory of the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

METHODS

Study Design

The GLGE emissions analyzed are total volatile organic compounds (VOC) and individual VOCs (benzene, 1,3 butadiene, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde); criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide [CO], nitrogen oxides [NOx], particulate matter [PM] <10 microns, including PM < 2.5 microns [PM 10, PM2.5]); and carbon dioxide (CO2). Equipment pollutant data were extracted from SCC summary reports from the EPA’s 2011 and 2018 modeling platform (version 6), and equipment population data were obtained from the Nonroad model. GLGE included the equipment in TABLE 1 and identified by Source Code Classifications 2260004021−2265004071. The GLME subset is defined as leaf blowers/vacuums; trimmers/edgers/brush cutters; and mowers. Groupings of equipment, eg, leaf blowers/vacuums, were predefined by the NEI.

“All Emissions” are defined as all emissions from stationary and mobile sources, excluding biogenic and naturally occurring emissions. “All Nonroad Emissions” are defined as all emissions from the equipment types accounted for within the Nonroad model; note that this does not include emissions from commercial marine, rail, and aircraft sources. “Gasoline Nonroad Emissions” are defined as emissions from gasoline fueled equipment accounted for within the Nonroad model. National emissions were analyzed by type of equipment and engine configuration as shown in TABLE 1. All results are presented as descriptive statistics.

Table 1. Categorization scheme for analysis of GLGE emissions Type of Equipment Engine Configuration GLME Leaf Blowers/Vacuums 2 stroke, 4 stroke Trimmers/Edgers/Cutters 2 stroke, 4 stroke Mowers 4 stroke Other GLGE Chain Saws 2 stroke, 4 stroke Rotary Tillers 2 stroke, 4 stroke Snowblowers 2 stroke, 4 stroke Turf Equipment 2 stroke, 4 stroke Chippers/stump grinders 4 stroke Tractors 4 stroke Shredders 4 stroke Other 4 stroke

Analyses All analyses except for the 2018 projections represent 2011 estimates.

Equipment Populations The national populations of all types of GLGE were obtained from the Nonroad model. The contribution of each type to the whole population was determined.

Contributions of All Nonroad and GLGE Sources

All Nonroad Emissions were compared to All Emissions. GLGE emissions were then calculated and compared with All Nonroad Emissions and All Emissions.

Contribution of Landscape Maintenance Equipment to GLGE Emissions

GLME emissions and their contribution to GLGE and All Nonroad Emissions were analyzed. Additional analyses were conducted to examine the relative contributions of 2-stroke GLME engine emissions.

Projected Growth of GLGE Emissions: 2011−2018 GLGE emissions projected for 2018 were obtained from the EPA’s 2018 modeling platform, version 6, and compared with 2011 emissions.

GLGE Emissions in the Five Largest States

State level emissions data from the five most populated states (US Census) – California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas – were extracted and analyzed. Estimates of GLGE emissions for Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas were based on 2011 data from the EPA’s 2011 modeling platform, version 6. Estimates of GLGE emission for California were based on data from the CARB’s OFFROAD2007 Model and estimated for 2012. No adjustments were made for potential differences in annual emissions between 2011 and 2012 California data. The program structure of the OFFROAD2007 Model provides a general overview of the methodology used to estimate emissions from off-road sources (http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/pubs/offroad_overview.pdf ).

Each state’s contribution to national GLGE Emissions was calculated and compared with its contributions to the US landscape maintenance labor force and the US population. Labor force statistics were sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2013 reports ( www.bls.oes ) and population data from the 2011 US Census.

Nonroad Air Emissions Model EPA developed a nonroad air emissions model in the 1990s to provide estimates of emissions from most types of nonroad equipment, including construction equipment, recreational marine vessels, and lawn and garden equipment (LGE). The model is referred to simply as the “Nonroad” model, and it has been updated a number of times since its creation. Documentation for the model exists as a number of technical reports available on EPA’s website (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm ). Total emissions are determined by summing the exhaust and evaporative emission components.14, 15 The preponderance of emissions from Nonroad equipment occurs as exhaust emissions due to the combustion of fuel. The methodologies for determining exhaust emissions are summarized below. Exhaust Emissions from Nonroad Engines

The Nonroad model uses the following equation to calculate exhaust emissions from nonroad engines (ref: Median): Emissions = (Pop) x (Power) x (LF) x (A) x (EF) Where Pop = Engine population Power = Average Power (hp) LF = Load factor (fraction of available power) A = Activity (hrs/yr) EF = Emission factor (g/hp-hr) The derivation of the default model data for each factor from the above equation is discussed below. a. Equipment populations and average power (horsepower) The technical report titled “Nonroad Engine Population Estimates” 16 indicates that equipment population data for most types of equipment were obtained from Power Systems Research, an independent marketing research firm, although in some instances other data source were used. Of interest for this analysis, for many LGE categories EPA used sales data obtained from equipment manufacturers during the development of its Phase 1 emission standards for small (less than 25 hp) gasoline fueled nonroad engines. This was done for the following LGE categories: lawn mowers, trimmers/edgers/brush cutters, leaf blowers/vacuums, and chainsaws. The report notes that an equipment population base year of either 1996 or 1998 was used for the LGE types. Once estimates of equipment populations were derived, information obtained by the state of California was used to divide the equipment between the residential and commercial sectors. This step was needed because of the large difference in usage patterns between these two sectors. TABLE 2 below contains an extract of data from Table 3 of the Nonroad Engine Population report mentioned above, and illustrates how the split between residential and commercial equipment was apportioned for a number of LGE types.

Table 2. Percentage split between residential and commercial equipment

SCC code Application Horsepower Residential Commercial categories (% of equipment (% of population) equipment population) 22xx004010 Lawn mowers All 96.3 3.7 22xx004011 22xx004025 Trimmers/edgers/cutters 0-1 hp 100 0 22xx004026 1-3 hp 85.3 14.7 > 3 hp 0 100 22xx004020 Chainsaws 0-1 hp 100 0 22xx004021 1-3 hp 97.0 3 > 3 hp 0 100 22xx004030 Leaf blowers/vacuums 0-1 hp 100 0 22xx004031 1-3 hp 92.5 7.5 > 3 hp 0 100

i. Geographic allocation of residential LGE Populations (except snowblowers)

The Nonroad model uses US Census data on one and two unit housing to allocate national equipment populations to the county level. The population documentation report mentioned above notes that other variables are likely to also affect the distribution of LGE population, such as average yard size. However, no consistent, reliable data surrogates could be found to apportion the national level equipment populations based on these alternative factors, and so the model relies solely upon US Census data on one and two unit housing to allocate national LGE population data to the county level. ii. Geographic allocation of commercial L&G Equipment Populations (except snowblowers)

The Nonroad model uses the number of employees in the landscaping services industry to dis- aggregate national level LGE population data to the county level. This was accomplished using data from the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS); specifically, for NAICS code 561730, landscaping services. iii. Equipment population projections

The Nonroad model enables the user to obtain estimates of emissions for years other than the base year used for equipment populations. This is accomplished by the development of processes to handle the growth in equipment populations due to the purchase of new equipment as years pass, and adjustments made to account for the scrappage of old equipment. The reader is referred to the EPA technical reports “Nonroad Engine Growth Estimates,” 17 and “Calculation of Age Distributions in the Nonroad Model – Growth and Scrappage” 18 for further information on these topics. Both of these reports are available on the EPA website (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm). b. Activity levels and load factors.

Equipment populations and horsepower levels alone are not sufficient for determining emissions from nonroad equipment; assumptions about frequency and patterns of use must also be made. The EPA report, “Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions Modeling”19 describes how the Nonroad model assigns default activity levels, in hours per year, and

load factors in performing its calculations. Load factors are needed to account for the fact that equipment is not typically used at full power 100% of the time; load factors reflect that and are presented in terms of average percent of full power for the equipment as it is used. The activity levels and load factors for small (< or = to 25 hp) spark-ignition engines for many LGE types was taken from data supplied to EPA during the comment period for the regulation of these engines. TABLE 3 below contains an extract of the default activity data, in annual hours of equipment use, and load factor data, expressed as fraction of full power, taken from Table 6 of the above mentioned report. Table 3. Example default activity levels and load factors for LGE

Equipment type Use Activity level Load factor (Annual hours) (fraction of full power) Lawn mowers Residential 25 0.33 Commercial 406 0.33 Trimmers/Edgers/Cutters Residential 9 0.91 Commercial 137 0.91 Leaf blowers\Vacuums Residential 10 0.94 Commercial 282 0.94 Chainsaws Residential 13 0.70 Commercial 303 0.70

c. Emission factors EPA’s documentation for the source of the emission factors used within the Nonroad model are contained in the following two reports: “Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling: Compression-Ignition” 20 and “Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling: Spark-Ignition.” 21 Information pertaining to LGE contained in the latter report is discussed below. Emission factors for spark-ignition engines rated at less than 25 hp were segregated into 5 engine classes based on primary use of the engine (handheld vs. non-handheld), and engine size according to engine displacement. Beginning in 1997, engines designed for both handheld and non-handheld applications became subject to several phases of regulation geared towards reducing fuel consumption (expressed in terms of brake-specific fuel consumption [BSFC]) and producing fewer air emissions in the combustion process. TABLE 4 below contains an extract of information from Table 1 of the Exhaust Emissions 2010 report, and shows the impact of EPA’s regulation on one such class of engines: small, hand-held, gasoline fueled two-stroke engines. Table 4: Impact of regulation on small*, hand-held, gasoline fueled two stroke engines

Engine Tech Type HC CO NOx PM BSFC (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) (lb/hp-hr) Baseline 261.00 718,87 0.97 7.7 1.365 Phase 1 219.99 480.31 0.78 7.7 1.184 Phase 2 (with catalyst) 26.87 141.69 1.49 7.7 0.822 BSFC: Brake-specific fuel consumption; CO: carbon monoxide; HC: hydrocarbon; NOx: nitrogen oxides; PM: particulate matter * These emission factors are for engines sized from 0 to 1 hp.

Other factors also influence the combustion related exhaust emissions from nonroad engines, such as fuel type, ambient temperature, and deterioration of equipment with age and use. The reader is referred to the EPA web-site (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm) for additional information on these topics.

RESULTS

Equipment Populations

Approximately 121 million pieces of GLGE are estimated to be in use in the United States (FIGURE 1 ). GLME accounts for two-thirds of all GLGE of which lawn mowers are the most numerous, followed by trimmers/edgers/ brush cutters, and then leaf blowers/vacuums. Projections from 2011 indicate a 13% increase across all equipment types after the combined effect of new equipment purchases and scrappage of old equipment are evaluated, resulting in an estimated 136 million pieces of GLGE in use by 2018.

Contribution of Nonroad Emissions to All Emissions

All Nonroad sources account for approximately 242 million tons of pollutants each year, accounting for 17% of all VOC emissions, 12% of NOx emissions, 29% of CO emissions, 4% of CO2 emissions, 2% of PM10 emissions, and 5% of PM2.5 emissions.

All Nonroad Emissions account for a substantial percentage of All Emissions of benzene (25%), 1,3 butadiene (22%), CO (29%), PM10 (2%), and PM2.5 (5%). Because of the relatively small contribution of GLGE CO2 to All Emissions (0.3%), it is not further considered in this report.

Contribution of GLGE to All Emissions and Nonroad Emissions

GLGE emitted approximately 6.3 million tons of VOCs (461,800) and criteria pollutants (CO=5,793,200; NOx=68,500, PM10=20,700 [19,000 of which is PM2.5]), and 20.4 million tons of CO2 in 2011. GLGE represented nearly 4% of All Emissions of VOCs and 12% of All Emissions of CO 7

(FIGURE 2 ). GLGE fine PM emissions constitute a fraction of a percent of All Emissions of fine PM, but is a major Nonroad source, accounting for nearly 13% of All Nonroad Emissions of fine PM and more than one-third of Gasoline Nonroad Emissions of fine PM.

Analysis of individual VOC emissions shows that GLGE contributes nearly 8% of All Emissions of both benzene and 1,3 butadiene ( FIGURE 3 ). Within All Nonroad Emissions and Gasoline Nonroad Emissions, GLGE accounts for nearly one-third or more of benzene and 1,3 butadiene emissions, and also becomes a major source of aldehyde and formaldehyde emissions from Gasoline Nonroad sources.

Contribution of GLME to GLGE Emissions

Compared with the GLGE contributions of Nonroad Gasoline Emissions shown in FIGURE 2 , contributions of VOCs and fine PM emissions from GLME are disproportionately high, and for NOx and CO, are disproportionately low ( FIGURE 4 ). Small GLME engines account for more than 40% of VOC emissions and one-half of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from GLGE. Close to 90% of fine PM emissions from GLME come from 2-stroke engines (FIGURE 5 ).

Projected Growth of GLGE Emissions: 2011−2018

By 2018, the annual tonnage of ozone precursors, VOCs and NOx, emitted by GLGE is projected to decrease substantially from 2011, as more of the in-use fleet becomes represented by equipment built to meet EPA nonroad emission standards. CO emissions remain comparable to 2011 levels, while CO2 and fine PM emissions are projected to increase modestly.

Table 5: Estimated Change in GLGE Emissions, 2018 vs 2011

Emissions % Change

VOCs -20.9% NOx -31.1% CO -4.9% CO2 12.3% PM 10 8.2% PM 2.5 8.4%

GLGE Emissions in the Five Most Populated States

When considered together, GLGE emissions from California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas constitute approximately one-quarter of national GLGE emissions.

Florida’s GLGE emissions were 1.4 to 2.1-times higher compared with emissions in states having the next highest level of emissions in each GLGE pollutant category, and 2.2 to 4.4-times higher compared with emissions in states having the lowest level of emissions in each GLGE pollutant category (FIGURE 6 ).

For Florida, Illinois, and New York, state-specific contributions of GLGE emissions compared to the national total were relatively consistent with their contributions to the national population and the national grounds maintenance workforce. For California, its GLGE emission contribution was one-fifth that of its contribution to the national population and to the national grounds maintenance workforce. For Texas, its GLGE emission contribution was 40%−50% that of its contribution to the national population and to the national grounds maintenance workforce (FIGURE 7 ).

DISCUSSION

The main findings of this study are: 1) GLGE is a prevalent source of toxic and carcinogenic emissions; 2) GLGE contributes substantially to nonroad emissions of benzene,1,3 butadiene, formaldehyde, CO, and fine PM; 3) GLME accounts for a disproportionately large share of VOC and fine PM emissions; 4) 2-stroke engines account for most fine PM emissions from GLME; 5) VOCs and NOx are projected to decrease substantially by 2018; CO emissions remain comparable to 2011 levels; and CO2 and fine PM emissions are projected to increase modestly; and 6) the GLGE emissions contributions from the the largest states are not always consistent with contributions to national population and national grounds maintenance workforce.

The large volume of emissions from GLGE found in this study is consistent with findings previously reported by the EPA 1 and from other studies.2-4 The very substantial contribution of VOC, in particular benzene and 1,3 butadiene, deserves attention especially because of their localized nature.

While VOC emissions are expected decrease 21% on average by 2018, the rates of equipment replacement on which those projections are based are only approximated.

Adverse health effects from the GLGE emissions are well known. Benzene, 1,3 butadiene, and formaldehyde are listed among the four top ranking cancer-causing compounds.22 They cause lymphomas, leukemias, and other types of cancer (International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization).23, 24 Ground level ozone (formed by VOCs and NOx in the presence of sunlight) and fine PM cause or contribute to early death, heart attack, stroke, congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cancer.5-11 Growing evidence suggests these pollutants also contribute to developmental and neurological disorders, including autism.7-9, 12, 13 The mounting evidence on the dangers of short term exposure are especially concerning. 7, 9, 11

The high levels of VOCs and fine PM from GLME are health risks for workers and other members of the public close to the emitting source. Although no studies of grounds maintenance workers were found, studies of gas station workers have shown that regular exposure to gasoline vapors can produce hematological and immunological abnormalities and elevate the risk of cancer.25-27 In addition, children, seniors, and persons with chronic illnesses are especially vulnerable to the negative health impacts of GLME emissions.28 Routine use of GLME in the vicinity of residential neighborhoods, schools, parks, and other public spaces may be exposing the public to unnecessary and preventable health risks. New equipment standards do not affect fine PM emissions; in fact, those emissions are expected to increase.

School buses represent another example of a close-to-emitting source in which children are subjected to increased exposure from diesel exhaust.29 Tests of school buses found that diesel exhaust entering through the front door of the bus results in elevated levels of PM over time. When queuing, PM built up rapidly in the bus cabin when the front doors were open.

The variation in emissions levels observed among the five most populated states should be explored further. The reasons for the high emissions contribution from Florida and relatively low emissions contributions from Texas and California are not clear. Differences between CARB data and NEI data may account for some of the difference between California and other states. For example, the NEI baseline equipment population data are older compared with those of CARB. Other factors that may be involved include but are not limited to emissions estimation procedure, geographic and climate factors, regulations and their effectiveness, and efforts to promote cleaner alternatives.

This study has several limitations. Not all potentially harmful emissions were characterized; for example, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Other limitations concern the source data. Although the NEI is a comprehensive source of GLGE emissions data, the accuracy of the reported data is uncertain. Baseline equipment population data for the Nonroad model is 15−20 years old and does not account for growth of the commercial industry. This older population data supplies emission estimates to NEI, which in turn is used to create EPA’s 2011 and 2018 modeling platforms. Although the residential and commercial CARB inventories and activity data are newer, they depend largely upon telephone survey data.30, 31 Methodological weaknesses with the commercial survey data are discussed in the survey report.31 For both data sources, the rates of replacement of older equipment by newer, cleaner equipment that meets the newer Phase 3 standards 32 can only be approximated.

CONCLUSIONS

GLGE is an important source of toxic and carcinogenic exhaust and fine particulate matter. Improved reporting and monitoring of localized GLGE emissions should be implemented. Medical and scientific organizations should increase public awareness of GLGE and GLME and identify GLGE as an important local source of dangerous air pollutants. Communities and environmental, public health, and other government agencies should create policies and programs to protect the public from GLGE air pollutants and promote non-polluting alternatives.

REFERENCES

1. Michaels H. “NONROAD Overview,” Presented at the 2012 International Emission Inventory Conference of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Tampa, Florida, August 16, 2012. 2. Volckens J, Braddock J, Snow RF, et al. “Emissions Profile From New and In-Use Handheld, 2- Stroke Engines,” Atmospheric Environment 2007;41:640-649. 3. Volckens J, Olson DA, Hays MD. “Carbonaceous Species Emitted from Handheld Two-Stroke Engines,” Atmospheric Environment 2008;42:1239-1248. 4. Shipchandler R. VOC Emissions from Gas Powered Leaf Blowers in the Chicago Metropolitan Region. Waste Management and Research Center Report. Illinois Waste Management and Research Center, February 2008, TN08-093. 5. American Heart Association. Facts: Danger in the Air -Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease. Accessed 1/6/14 at http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Advocate/IssuesandCampaigns/Advocacy- Fact-Sheets_UCM_450256_Article.jsp 6. American Lung Association. State of the Air 2014. 7. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter- Final Report , US Environmental Protection Agency, December 2009, EPA/600/R-08/139F. 8. Provisional Assessment of Recent Studies on Health Effects of Particulate Matter Exposure , US Environmental Protection Agency, December 2012, EPA/600/R-12/056F,. 9. Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants , US Environmental Protection Agency, 2013, EPA/600/R-10/076F. 10. Air Pollution and Cancer , K Straif, A Cohen, J Samet (Eds), Scientific Publication 161, International Agency for Research in Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon Cedex FR:IARC, 2013. 11. Shah ASV, Lee KK, McAllister DA, et al. “Short Term Exposure to Air Pollution and Stroke: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” BMJ 2015;350:h1295. 12. Raz R, Roberts AL, Lyall K, Hart JE, Just AC, Laden F, Weisskopf MG. “Autism Spectrum Disorder and Particulate Matter Air Pollution Before, During, and After Pregnancy: A Nested Case- Control Analysis within the Nurses' Health Study II Cohort,” Environ Health Perspect. 2015 Mar;123(3):264-70. 13. Power MC, Kioumourtzoglou M-A, Hart JE, et al. “The Relation Between Past Exposure to Fine Particulate Pollution and Prevalent Anxiety: Observational Cohort Study,” BMJ 2015;350:h1111. 14. Nonroad Evaporative Emission Rates , US Environmental Protection Agency, July 2010, EPA-420- R-10-021, NR-012-d. 15. Refueling Emissions for Nonroad Engine Modeling , US Environmental Protection Agency, April 2004, EPA420-P-04-013, NR-013-b. 16. Nonroad Engine Population Estimates , US Environmental Protection Agency, July 2010, EPA-420- R-10-017, NR-006e. 17. Nonroad Engine Growth Estimate , US Environmental Protection Agency, April 2004, EPA420-P- 04-008, NR-008c. 18. Calculation of Age Distributions in the Nonroad Model: Growth and Scrappage , US Environmental Protection Agency, December 2005, EPA420-R-05-018, NR-007c. 19. Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, July 2010, EPA-420-R-10-016, NR-005d. 20. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling: Compression-Ignition , US Environmental Protection Agency, July 2010, EPA-420-R-10-018, NR-009d. 21. Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling: Spark-Ignition, US Environmental Protection Agency, July 2010, EPA-420-R-10-019, NR-010-f. 22. Loh MM, Levy JI, Spengler JD, et al. “Ranking Cancer Risks of Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants in the United States,” Environ Health Perspect 2007; 115:1160–1168.

23. Baan R, Gross Y, Straif K et al on behalf of the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. “A Review of Human Carcinogens—Part F: Chemical Agents and Related Occupations,” Lancet Oncology 2009; 10:1143-1144. 24. Report on Carcinogens 13 th Edition, 2014. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 25. Lynge E, Andersen A, Nilsson R, et al. “Risk of Cancer and Exposure to Gasoline Vapors,” Am J Epidemiol 1997;145:445-458. 26. Tunsaringkarn T, Prueksasit T, Kitwattanavong M, et al. “Cancer Risk Analysis of Benzene, Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde on Gasoline Station Workers,” Journal of Environmental Engineering and Ecological Science 2012, 1:1.http://dx.doi.org/10.7243/2050-1323-1-1. 27. Moro AM, Brucker N, Charão MF, et al. “Early Hematological and Immunological Alterations in Gasoline Station Attendants Exposed to Benzene,” Environ Res. 2015;137C:349-356. 28. State of the Air , 2014, American Lung Association. 29. Hill LB, Zimmerman NJ, Gooch J . A Multi-City Investigation of the Effectiveness of Retrofit Emissions Controls in Reducing Exposures to Particulate Matter in School Buses, Clean Air Task Force, January 2005. 30. 2012 California Survey of Residential Lawn and Garden Equipment Owners: Population and Activity, California Air Resources Board. 31. Acquisition and Analysis of Commercial and Institutional Lawn and Garden Population and Activity Data: Final Report , August 8, 2006, Eastern Research Group, Inc. for the California Air Resources Board. 32. EPA Finalizes Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines, Equipment, and Vessels , US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, September 2008, EPA420-F-08-013.

SOCIETY

BAN PASSED ON GAS-POWERED LEAF BLOWERS IN VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT

By Marcus Solis

Thursday, September 24, 2020

The Village of Larchmont Board of Trustees unanimously passed a ban on gas- powered leaf blowers effective January 1, 2022.

LARCHMONT, Westchester County (WABC) -- Cleaning up your yard will be a bit more difﬁcult for residents and gardeners in the Village of Larchmont in the future. The Village of Larchmont Board of Trustees unanimously passed a ban on gas-powered leaf blowers effective January 1, 2022.

It's the ﬁrst complete ban in the Northeast United States.

They also limited electric leaf blowers to April for spring clean-up, and October 15 to December 15 for fall clean-up.

There could be temporary allowances for extreme weather events as determined by the mayor.

Residents were directed to notify their gardeners. The ban is for all properties, residential and commercial.

NEXT Breakfast Habits That Are Ruining Your Day Landscapers say the blowers might have to be supplemented by old- fashioned raking. According to some, the additional time, could cost their clients.

Those in favor of the gas-powered leaf blower ban cited environmental emissions and the destruction of insect and wildlife habitats that they say are critical to pollination.

Studies have shown the emissions from a 2-stroke gasoline engine in one hour are comparable to that of 17 cars. In addition, the hurricane-force winds stir up breathable particulates and damage topsoil.

Then there's the ear-splitting noise, which has become more of an issue during the pandemic with many working and going to school from home.

Violators face ﬁnes, and not just those operating the equipment. Homeowners who hired them could also be ticketed as well. It's a whole new landscape indeed.

ALSO READ: Face masks required for children at CT day care

------* More Northern Suburbs news * Send us a news tip * Download the abc7NY app for breaking news alerts * Follow us on YouTube

Report a correction or typo

Free Coronavirus Test In Delaware Keep Yourself and Your Community Safe. Locate Your Nearest Testing Location A… Curative | Sponsored Here Are the 28 Coolest Gifts of 2020 ZangDeal | Sponsored

How To Help Dark Spots Fade (Effortless 2-minute Routine) Gundry MD | Sponsored

Man Who Predicted 2020 Crash Says "Now Is The Time" The Legacy Report | Sponsored

Quicken Loans Urges Homeowners To Switch To A 15-Year… Quicken Loans NMLS #3030 | Sponsored

1 Important Trick Most Mac Users Are Unaware of.. Be the First Mac User to Know! MacKeeper | Sponsored

Do This Instead of Cleaning Gutters (It's Genius) LeafFilter | Sponsored

COVID-19: Dr. Fauci reveals when he thinks life will return to…

ABC News presidential election results map

Go to ABC7NY.COM

Full Site Interest-Based Ads Privacy Policy Public Inspection File Children's Privacy Policy Your California Privacy Rights Terms of Use Copyright © 2020 ABC, Inc., WABC-TV New York. All Rights Reserved. https://nyti.ms/2nA5dzA

360 VIEW On Banning Leaf Blowers

By Ronda Kaysen

March 17, 2017

New Yorkers who leave the city for the suburbs often do so for three reasons: schools, space and silence. The silence, it turns out, can be a problem.

Most suburban streets are certainly free of blaring horns, wailing sirens and, sometimes, even people. But come springtime, they vibrate with the hum of lawn mowers, edgers, trimmers and leaf blowers; the accompanying noise continues until the last leaves fall from the trees in early December.

In Maplewood, N.J., the desire to keep all that space manicured is on a collision course with a longing for quiet.

Disgruntled residents say that noise from lawn equipment rattles windows and eardrums, while the fumes pollute the air. Landscapers and other homeowners, meanwhile, insist that the equipment is necessary to maintain a town that looks as if it’s from a Norman Rockwell painting, with Tudor- and Queen Anne-style mansions framed by green lawns and leafy trees.

Now Maplewood is considering a ban on one of the noisiest and dirtiest tools in the landscaper’s arsenal: the leaf blower.

On March 21, the Township Committee will vote on an ordinance to prohibit commercial use of blowers from May 15 through Sept. 30. The rule would expand a pilot program enacted last spring, increasing the ﬁne for violations to $500 for a ﬁrst offense and $1,000 for the second offense. Stricter limits would be set on the days and hours that professionals could use blowers the rest of the year. If it passes, Maplewood would join a growing number of communities that have curbed the use of leaf blowers.

The noise “is just something that gets into your bones and even when it stops, you’re still hearing that sound,” said Jamie Banks, the founder of Quiet Communities, a group that advocates quieter lawn maintenance equipment. “And it’s not just the noise. It’s the pollution.”

Lawns are a big deal in the suburbs, especially in a community where a four-bedroom house can cost over $1 million. Town council meetings attracted dozens of anxious landscapers and frustrated residents. On a local Facebook page, SOMa Lounge, residents complained that the pilot ban hamstrung their gardeners, leaving their yards looking unkempt, with grass suffocating beneath piles of clippings. Supporters of the rule cheered the silence.

“I never in my wildest dreams thought this leaf blower issue would have been so controversial,” said Nancy Adams, 59, the deputy mayor of Maplewood and a driving force behind the new rule.

Leaf blowers are beloved and reviled for the same reason: They are powerful. Strapped in a pack to a worker’s back, these blowers plow through leaves, grass clippings, debris and light snow, making it possible for a landscaper to quickly clear a property. A 2017 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report lists leaf blowers as a common noise that can contribute to permanent hearing loss. Most landscapers use leaf blowers with two-stroke engines, which are light enough to carry but produce signiﬁcant exhaust and noise. The gas and oil mix together, and about a third of it does not combust. As a result, pollutants that have been linked to cancers, heart disease, asthma and other serious ailments escape into the air.

In 2011, Edmunds, the car reviewer, compared a two-stroke-engine leaf blower with a Ford F-150 Raptor pickup truck, ﬁnding that a half-hour of yardwork produced the same amount of hydrocarbon emissions as a 3,887-mile drive in the truck. In other words: Blow leaves from your lawn, or drive from Maplewood to Juneau, Alaska. Your choice.

Landscapers say that the leaf blower is an essential tool and, when used properly, is not a nuisance. “If they’re used at half speed, which is signiﬁcantly lower in noise volume, they’re much more efﬁcient,” said Paul Mendelsohn, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Landscape Professionals. As for the leaf blower bans: “I really don’t think they’re fair,” he said.

Two seemingly unrelated trends may also be contributing to the problem. The number of people working from home is growing and so too is the lawn care industry. Between 2002 and 2016, the number of professional ground maintenance workers, including supervisors, grew by 85 percent to 1.6 million, according to Quiet Communities.

What does it look like when those two forces collide? For that, I spoke with Susan Greeley, 48, a ﬁlm programmer who works out of her three-bedroom house in Maplewood. She moved from Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn, three years ago in search of quiet but has instead found this: Every Tuesday, the landscapers arrive at 8 a.m. For the next seven hours, they move from one house to the next, ﬁlling her home with cacophony.

At times, the noise is so loud she has to retreat to the basement to take work calls, and she is unable to watch the ﬁlms she needs to review. “We were basically trapped in our home with this deafening noise and this disgusting smell,” she said. “It’s far beyond an annoyance.”

Last year’s ban, she said, “was fantastic,” reducing the intrusion substantially.

But landscaping troubles are not universal. After all, misery is relative. Erika Imranyi, 38, a book editor who moved from Jersey City to South Orange, next to Maplewood, in November ﬁnds her new neighborhood “eerily quiet,” although she has yet to experience a suburban summer.

“There was one car alarm in Jersey City that would go off constantly,” she recalled. “It would honk for a few minutes and then stop, and you’d have this moment of relief, and then suddenly it would start again and you’d think you were losing your mind. I’ll take a leaf blower any day.”

James Nathenson, 68, a retired banker who lives in Maplewood, said, “It’s never been to me an issue that is worthy of a lot of agitation.” Instead of passing new laws, Mr. Nathenson suggests that the town enforce existing rules that limit hours and decibels. “See how that works,” he said.

Indeed, enforcement can be a problem. Nearby Montclair has had a similar ban in place since 1994, and some landscapers ﬂout it, arguing that it is unevenly enforced, partly because the town uses leaf blowers to maintain public property. “I don’t look at it as breaking the law, I look at it as I’m doing my job,” said Richard Galioto, an owner of King and I Landscaping in Bloomﬁeld, which services Montclair. Mr. Galioto is a vocal critic of the policy, which he thinks is discriminatory. “I’ll do it 365 days a year if I have to,” he said. So that leaves people like Fred Chichester, 79, of Montclair, to play the role of leaf blower police. When he hears the blowers roar, he gets into his 1998 Ford Escort wagon, one of his seven cars, and looks for the culprits, suing them in municipal court for violating the ban. He has taken landscapers to court about 20 times over the years.

“The local judge knows him well,” said his wife, Patricia C. Kenschaft, 77, a retired math professor who mows her lawn with a manual reel mower. “He usually wins.”

Ultimately, landscapers say that restrictions breed shabbier results. “The properties aren’t as pretty as we’d like them to be,” said Alan Bella Jr., a landscaper who services Maplewood. “It comes down to cosmetics.”

Cosmetics, though, are a matter of taste. Must a lawn be perfectly clean to be perfect?

More sustainable plantings, for example, require less maintenance. Leaving leaves and grass clippings to mulch in place would reduce the need for blowers, and add nutrients to the soil. And landscapers could invest in cleaner and quieter equipment. “There are other ways to do the job,” Dr. Banks, of Quiet Communities, said. “Landscaping used to be more than scorched earth cleanup.”

A version of this article appears in print on March 19, 2017, Section RE, Page 4 of the New York edition with the headline: The Noisy Price of a Pretty Lawn

PRODUCTS TECHNOLOGY YOUR EG

Submit

POWER+ 650 CFM BLOWER LB6504

2538 Reviews

The EGO POWER+ 650 CFM Blower is the most powerful Drag to cordless blower in the industry, gas spin or cordless! Learn More

BUY NOW: ORDER ONLINE & SHIP TO HOME

Where to Buy

Learn About All Congurations

< 1 2 3 >

WHY THIS BLOWER IS AWESOME PRODUCTS TECHNOLOGY YOUR EG

Submit

TURBO BUTTON

Easily move heavy debris by pushing the turbo button for 650 CFM. PRODUCTS TECHNOLOGY YOUR EG

Submit

VARIABLE SPEED DIAL WITH LOCK ON BUTTON

Choose between speeds of 225-500 CFM for ultimate control. PRODUCTS TECHNOLOGY YOUR EG

Submit

HIGH-EFFICIENCY BRUSHLESS MOTOR

Delivers longer run time, low vibrations and an extended motor life. PRODUCTS TECHNOLOGY YOUR EG

Submit

90 MINUTE RUN TIME

With the 5.0 Ah 56V ARC Lithium™ Battery get over 90 minutes of run time.

DETAILS The industry’s most powerful blower is here! Introducing the 650 CFM EGO POWER+

Blower. With air speeds that compare to a category 5P hRuOrDrUicCaTSne of 18T0EC MHNPOHLO, GthYis blowYeOrUR EG can move wet leaves, rocks, mud, snow and more. With an all new lock on speed control Sudbimalit, you can adjust your speed from 250 CFM to 500 CFM. When you are ready to move the heavy debris hit the turbo button for 650 CFM! All of this industry leading power is combined with industry leading run times; over 90 minutes of continuous run time. The high-efficiency brushless motor delivers longer run time, low vibrations and an extended motor life. Turbine fan engineering, inspired by advanced aeronautics technology, performs better than premium gas-powered models. The included flat and tapered nozzles make clearing debris in all conditions easy. This quiet, light-weight and compact blower gets the job done faster and quieter than gas! Experience Power Beyond Belief without the noise, fuss and fumes. TECH SPECS

Turbo Button delivers a staggering 650 CFM

Variable-speed control dial delivers 225-500 CFM Cruise Control Speed Dial Over 90 minutes of run time: 15 minutes on Turbo; 200 minutes on low with 5.0Ah Battery Flat and tapered nozzle attachments included Brushless Motor Weather-resistant construction Ergonomic design for superb balance and user comfort 5-year limited warranty

View The Manual CONFIGURATPIROODUNCTS TECHNOLOGY YOUR EG POWER+ 650 CFM Blower Submit

LB6500 LB65

Type Blower Only Blower with Bat

5.0 A Battery Not Included inclu

Stand Charger Not Included inclu

Where to Buy Where t

Buy Now on Buy No Amazon.com Lowes

Buy No AceHardw

Buy No Amazo PRODUCTS TECHNOLOGY YOUR EG

Submit YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

POWER+ 530 CFM BLOWER

The EGO POWER+ 530 CFM Blower is equipped with a high-efficiency brushless motor that delivers a lightweight, compact design for longer runtime, reduced vibrations and extended motor life.

View Product

PARTS & ACCESSORIES GUTTER ATTACHMENT FOR EGO LEAF BLOWERS

Clean your gutters with ease usiPnRg OthDeU ECTGSO gutterT EaCttHaNchOmLOeGnYt and YOUR EG your POWER+ Blower. Compatible with the LB5300, LB5750, LB5800,

Submit and LB6500 blower models. View Detail

EGO BLOWER STRAP (FOR MODELS LB5300, LB5750, LB5800 & LB6500)

The blower strap is designed specically for use with EGO POWER+ 56-Volt 530 CFM, 575 CFM, 580 CFM & 650 CFM cordless blower. View Detail

EGO BLOWER SPREAD NOZZLE

The blower nozzle accessory is compatible with the EGO POWER+ 580 CFM blower (LB5800). Add this accessory for increased control of the air ow. View Detail

EGO ROUND BLOWER NOZZLE (FOR MODELS LB5800, LB6500, LBX6000)

Increase the versatility of your EGO POWER + Blowers. View Detail

EGO FLAT BLOWER NOZZLE (FOR MODELS LB5800 LB6500

A WORTHY UPGRADE OVER THE 530 CFM VERSION ...instant throttle response vs old 530, had a PRODUCTS TECHNOLOGY YOUR EG little delay from when you pulled the trigger and the motor kicked in. A lot more power, 2 Submit extra nozzles and the 5.0 battery make it a worthy upgrade. I sold all my sthil products after my first Ego blower experience

Chris Hamer

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Which battery is compatible with this tool? 

Which charger can I use with my batteries? 

What is the warranty on this tool? 

Can I use this blower with snow? 

Can I adjust the air velocity of this blower? 

Is there a strap available for this tool?  HOW-TO VIDEOS Watch helpful videos about popular tool featurePsR.ODUCTS TECHNOLOGY YOUR EG

View Videos For All EGO Products Submit

OUR CUSTOMERS LOVE TO SHOW OFF THEIR EGO

Upload Your Photo Use #powerbeyondbelief



 

REVIEWS Write A Review

Rating Snapshot Select a row below to filter reviews. 5 ☆ 2119

4 ☆ 293 PRODUCTS TECHNOLOGY YOUR EG 3 ☆ 53

2 ☆ 25 Submit 1 ☆ 48

Average Customer Ratings

Overall ☆☆☆☆☆ 4.7

Quality of 4.7 Product

Value of Product 4.3

Most Helpful Favorable Review ☆☆☆☆☆ Eric55 · 9 months ago Good Power with design improvement.

This is my third EGO blower. All of the blowers are still working but I wanted something with more … Show Full Review

70 of 81 people found this helpful

See more 4 and 5 star reviews

Most Helpful Critical Review ☆☆☆☆☆☆ Groundwire123 · 6 months ago Dead on arrival. Common problem. Horrible support

I bought this cuz I was expecting some great results as was suggested on some YouTube videos I've be… Show Full Review

22 of 25 people found this helpful

See more 1, 2, and 3 star reviews

1–8 of 2538 Reviews ? Sort by: Most Relevant ▼ ≡

☆☆☆☆☆ Eric55 · 9 months ago Avatar ♂ Good Power with design improvement. image This is my third EGO blower. All of the blowers are still working but I wanted something with more power than the 580 model. This model PRODUCTS TECHNOLOGY YOUR EG does provide additional power and is well balanced even with the 5ah battery. While this Submimayt sound silly one of my favorite features is the addition of the screw hole in the unit so I can easily mount it easily on the wall. Combining the other design improvements along with the 5ah battery with fuel gauge makes the unit a worthwhile investment. It is a bit expensive compared to some of the competition but sometimes you get what you pay for. Thank you EGO engineers for listening to customer feedback and improving the functionality.

Originally posted on Power+ 650 CFM Blower with 5.0Ah battery and standard charger

Helpful? Yes · 70 No · 11 Report

☆☆☆☆☆ HDrumBoy · 7 months ago ♂ Toy Worth Bragging About

I decided that the time & money I spent on gas, Quality of Product spark plugs, cord replacement, etc. for a tool that gets the lease usage time during yard work was no longer worth the time. Thanks to my Value of Product neighbor, a lawn expert, who introduced me to his Ego blower. All the YouTube videos were also unanimous about the product. This blower looks so cool that it's hard to believe the quality AND THE POWER. Google: How much do gas leaf blowers pollute? Compared to an average large car, one hour of operation of a leaf blower emits 498 times as much hydrocarbons, 49 times as much particulate matter and 26 times as much carbon monoxide. To think I can now use a blower inside my house . . . . EGO, you guys are setting the bar.

Incentivized Review No

✔ Yes, I recommend this product. PRODUCTS TECHNOLOGY YOUR EG

Submit Originally posted on Power+ 650 CFM Blower with 5.0Ah battery and standard charger

Helpful? Yes · 7 No · 1 Report

☆☆☆☆☆ lilmickmick · 7 months ago ♀ wishing I had bought it sooner

This blower is phenomenal Quality of Product I can’t wait for more leaves !!

Incentivized Review No Value of Product ✔ Yes, I recommend this product.

Originally posted on Power+ 650 CFM Blower with 5.0Ah battery and standard charger

Helpful? Yes · 4 No · 0 Report

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ M Shoozee · 7 months ago ♂ Versatile and powerful for all sorts of jobs.

This is my first battery operated garden tool. I've only used it once on the yard but for my 1/2 acre lot, it's more than enough to clean up the yard, driveway, and sidewalk. I have a gas trimmer and mower so I can mow in any weather and not worry about run time or power. But when it comes to having a blower, I love the convenience of battery power. There's no fumes from gas so I've used it in the shop and to blow off car mats that have been washed. Next I think I'll try it on my rig to dry it after I get it washed. Only reason I gave four starts is that PRODUCTS TECHNOLOGY YOUR EG I've only had it for a few weeks. If it stands the test of time? It's a five star product. Submit

Originally posted on Power+ 650 CFM Blower with 5.0Ah battery and standard charger

Helpful? Yes · 5 No · 1 Report

☆☆☆☆☆☆ Groundwire123 · 6 months ago ♂ Dead on arrival. Common problem. Horrible support

I bought this cuz I was expecting some great Quality of Product results as was suggested on some YouTube videos I've been watching. Works great for about 10 minutes. then went to pull the switch Value of Product just as always and it quit working. I did every troubleshooting step mentioned on your website. and every other troubleshooting step I can think of just being an experienced contractor. Something broke internally. sure enough I'm not the only one to have this problem. After much research I found lots of people with this issue. I will never buy one of your products. Tried reaching out to you over the phone, haven't gotten a response in days. I'm making my own YouTube video review of this and your customer support.

Incentivized Review No

✘ No, I do not recommend this product.

Originally posted on Power+ 650 CFM Blower with 5.0Ah battery and standard charger

Helpful? Yes · 22 No · 3 Report

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ Dane123 · 16 hours ago ♂ Lot of power very little runtime.

It has a lot of power definitely no trade off from Quality of Product gas and the power department. Battery life is tragic. Huge tradeoff from gas in that Value of Product department. The battery life is exaggerated big time. Most of the time I get 20 minutes. So I'm PRODUCTS TECHNOLOGY YOUR EG going to order another battery and then I found out they are $229.... Submit Incentivized Review No

✘ No, I do not recommend this product.

Originally posted on Power+ 650 CFM Blower with 5.0Ah battery and standard charger

Helpful? Yes · 0 No · 0 Report

☆☆☆☆☆ Gulfcoastkennels on IG · 8 months ago ♂ POWER

This blower is crazy powerful I absolutely love it. Quality of Product I use it for all it's intended uses and a couple more like drying my cars this weekend and drying off my kennels after I was them out. This Value of Product thing has more power than my old gas leaf blower. Not to mention very easy to use, so easy in fact my 9 year old handles it with no issue.

Incentivized Review No

✔ Yes, I recommend this product.

Originally posted on Power+ 650 CFM Blower with 5.0Ah battery and standard charger Helpful? Yes · 6 No · 0 Report PRODUCTS TECHNOLOGY YOUR EG

☆☆☆☆☆ Bob from Vanc · 3 months ago Submit ♂ Moved from a Stihl gas blower

I recently purchased this blower after having a Quality of Product very good and dependable Stihl gas still blower. We moved into a new home and landscaped with no lawn so the regular, but limited, use of a Value of Product gas blower did not make sense. I also wanted another purpose for the blower: to dry my vehicle after I wash it. The new vehicle is a real pain to dry so I thought I would give it a go. I am extremely happy with the unit and it has filled all of my needs. I am sure the neighbors are happy to not hear the loud two-cycle engine of the gas blower too. It has every bit as much power as the Stihl unit but without the fuss of the gas and tune-ups. I am very happy with the Ego blower.

Incentivized Review No

✔ Yes, I recommend this product.

Originally posted on Power+ 650 CFM Blower with 5.0Ah battery and standard charger

Helpful? Yes · 3 No · 0 Report

1–8 of 2538 Reviews ◄ ►

Enter your email address Sign Up     PRODUCTS TECHNOLOGY YOUR EG Residential Products Your EGO Terms & Conditions

SuCbommit mercial Products Shop EGO Privacy Policy Technology About EGO Warranty Policy

FAQs Contact Us Videos