[Stoves] Fwd: Re: Between PM 2.5 and PM 10
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Wed Jun 5 21:43:58 CDT 2013
Dear Rebecca,
Thanks for writing. Your reference to very open outdoor kitchens is
very important. I am not able to respond to your questions. I hope that
others can do so.
Paul
Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 6/5/2013 11:43 AM, Rebecca A. Vermeer wrote:
> Hello Paul,
> THANK YOU VERY MUCH for raising this very important topic as it
> concerns me deeply. I come from a family of 6 in the Philippines – 2
> died of cancer (pancreas -mother & breast- sister) and 1 is battling
> with it (prostate –brother); in all cases, the cancer had spread to
> other parts of the body. The household I was raised in had a well
> ventilated kitchen but black soot was evident on the inside roof from
> the use of traditional wood burning cookstoves (kalan). I am acutely
> aware of the harmful effects on health and the carcinogenic properties
> of smoke and this concern has been my motivating force in the
> development of the Eco-Kalan. The HAP studies I have seen so far are
> of confined indoor areas. My questions are:
> 1) Do you know of any HAP studies of OUTDOOR KITCHENS such as shown in
> my photos above?
> 2) Is there a way that particulate and other emissions can be
> measured accurately for outdoor or well ventilated kitchens? –these
> outdoor kitchens are common in the Philippines.
> 3) Are you aware of the harmful effects of extreme radiant heat
> generated by open-fire cooking (and other traditional cookstoves) but
> which the energy efficient rocket stoves have addressed successfully?
> 4) Have you considered the fact that there are rocket type stoves
> that use 80% + less fuel and I therefore deduce, 80%+ less particulate
> and other emissions than open-fire and other traditional cookstoves?
> 5) Don’t you think outdoor kitchens can further reduce any remaining
> harmful effects of using fuel efficient and COOL COOKING rocket stoves?
> 6) If stove testing were to factor in 4) and 5), where do you think
> these Tier 1 or Tier 2 stoves would sit?
> I look forward to meeting you again, Paul.
> Warm regards,
> Rebecca Vermeer
> *From:* Paul Anderson <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 05, 2013 5:47 AM
> *To:* Kirk Smith <mailto:krksmith at berkeley.edu> ; Discussion of
> biomass cooking stoves <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> ; Hugh
> McLaughlin <mailto:wastemin1 at verizon.net> ; Jay Smith
> <mailto:j.smith at harborhomes.org> ; Doc Anderson
> <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
> *Subject:* [Stoves] Fwd: Re: Between PM 2.5 and PM 10
> Again, thanks to Kirk for some VERY interesting inputs of
> expert-comments and data that I and many other Stovers do not
> sufficiently appreciate. His attachment gives valuable ammunition for
> the fight against Household Air Pollution (HAP)
>
> A quote from the linked report by CNN:
>> In the poorer regions, such as South Asia and most of Sub-Saharan
>> Africa, where cooking with solid fuels is common, household air
>> pollution is the most important single risk factor for women and girls.
>
> Kirk wrote:
>> Yes, at least a reliable 95% reduction in emissions over open fires,
>> which actually are not well characterized.
> PSA: And if open fires are not well characterized (partly because
> there are so many different configurations and fuels), our baseline
> data is also rather "loose". And our own understanding (by experienced
> Stovers who design and make stoves) is also with problems because so
> much of stove production is really of stoves that contribute little to
> the HEALTH solutions (but do reduce forest destruction). Too many
> are merely Tier 1 or Tier 2 for PM and CO emissions. But that is
> "techy-talk."
>
> I am trying to get to a better "visualization" (or written expression)
> of HAP amounts that are sufficiently low to make a major difference.
>
> Kirk concluded with "Stay tuned." so I await his reply to my comment
> that I repeat here:
>> Another way of saying the same thing: When the current technology
>> /equipment for testing stove emissions is in use (such as for 75
>> minutes, which is 30 minutes to boil plus 45 minutes for simmer),
>> what would be the equivalent of passive smoke from how many
>> cigarettes that would equal the Tier 0, 1, 2, 3, and Tier 4 levels?
>> Think of this as one person smoking (exhaling smoke) under the hood
>> of the equipment. [Added: or into a small kitchen-size area.]
>>
>> I think that these comparisons can be useful, but only when we have
>> some numbers will we be able to see if the info is useful.
>
> I hope that someone is forwarding these messages to people (medical
> types, etc.) who are not subscribed to the Stoves Listserv. I have
> been assured in the past that leadership in the GACC does monitor the
> Stoves List messages. But I am not sure that other groups such as
> ACESS and regional groups do monitor and do forward useful messages to
> their contacts.
>
> PLUG: This summer at Stove Camp at Aprovecho (22 - 26 July) we will
> be measuring emissions for different comparisons about emissions (same
> equipment, but not just WBT data). As one of the main presenters and
> organizers of the activities, I hope that many of you will consider
> attending.
>
> Paul (and be sure to read the attached document)
>
> Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
> Email:psanders at ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website:www.drtlud.com
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Between PM 2.5 and PM 10
> Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:08:07 -0700
> From: Kirk R. Smith mailto:krksmith at berkeley.edu
> To: Paul Anderson mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu
>
>
>
> At 09:31 PM 6/4/2013, you wrote:
>
> >Dear Kirk,
> >
> >Your reply (below) is quite useful, and I hope the Stovers on the
> >Listserv will read it. And it leads to further questions:
> >
> >1. Did I understand correctly? You say that HALF of a single
> >cigarette per day (directly inhaled) is equal to the PM 2.5 inhaled
> >(as "secondary" smoke in the kitchen) by a cook or child who is in a
> >typically poorly enclosed "smoky kitchen" with a 3-stone fire . WOW!!
>
> Cannot say exactly for the child, but yes for an adult. Worse thing
> you can do is stick burning stuff in your mouth. Next worse is have
> a bunch of it burning in your house (HAP: household air
> pollution). Next is having someone else sticking in their mouth near
> you. And not even so great having it burning somewhere in your
> city. See the post on the CNN website:
> http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/18/tackling-the-worlds-forgotten-killer/
>
>
> >2. And that a
> >>typical open wood cookfire produces about 400 cigarettes an hour
> >>worth of PM2.5
> >(that I assume can also be inside a poorly enclosed cooking
> >space). If a person takes 12 minutes to smoke one cigarette, that
> >is 5 per hour for one person. So the 3-stone fire creates a smoky
> >environment that is the equivalent of 80 persons smoking 5
> >cigarettes per hour in an enclosed space. That helps explain the
> >smoke billowing out under the eaves and through the door and cracks
> >of many "kitchens" with 3-stone fires.
> >(Did I express that correctly?)
>
> yes
>
>
> >I was in one of these kitchens 10 days ago in Uganda, and I sat low
> >to the floor because higher up was so horrible. But being in such a
> >setting even for many hours would only equal the equivalent of half
> >of one cigarette that is inhaled per day. BUT THAT CONSTITUTES THE
> >FOURTH WORSE HEALTH HAZARD FOR PEOPLE IN THE LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES.
>
> Yes, the exposure response relationship is highly non-linear. For
> example, the heart disease risk for a secondhand tobacco smoker is
> maybe 1.8 while the risk for active smoking is perhaps 2.5. And yet
> the active smoker experiences hundreds of times more dose (say 60
> versus 20,000 ug/m3 equivalent). HAP is in between (at around
> 300). Thus, burden from smoking, while bigger, is not orders of
> magnitude so - 6 million premature deaths annually compared to 3-4
> for HAP. See the attached commentary.
>
>
> >3. And from the above, can we say the following:
> >Improved biomass-burning cookstoves need to be soooo clean burning
> >that the air in the kitchen should cleaner than that of a kitchen in
> >which only 10? or 5? (or 2? or how many?) cigarettes are smoked per hour.
> >Of course the number will vary depending on the openness or
> >enclosed-ness of the kitchen.
>
> Yes, at least a reliable 95% reduction in emissions over open fires,
> which actually are not well characterized. To be reliably 95%, it
> probably means 99% reduction in controlled testing. A cigarette
> emits 12 mg, roughly. Probably need to limit to no more than a few
> per day (equivalent) to meet the WHO IT-1 guideline of 35 ug/m3 mean,
> depending on household size and ventilation rate. We are developing
> these relationships more formally in the WHO Indoor AIr Quality
> Guidelines Expert Group -- also using a monte carlo approach to
> express results as probabilities. In its second draft and under
> review at present. Plan is that the WHO guidelines will be
> incorporated into the final ISO standards down the road.
>
> Stay tuned.
>
>
> >Another way of saying the same thing: When the current technology
> >/equipment for testing stove emissions is in use (such as for 75
> >minutes, which is 30 minutes to boil plus 45 minutes for simmer),
> >what would be the equivalent of passive smoke from how many
> >cigarettes that would equal the Tier 0, 1, 2, 3, and Tier 4
> >levels? Think of this a one person smoking (exhaling smoke) under
> >the hood of the equipment.
> >
> >I think that these comparisons can be useful, but only when we have
> >some numbers will we be able to see if the info is useful.
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
> >Email:psanders at ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> >Website:www.drtlud.com
> >
> >On 6/4/2013 5:40 PM, Kirk R. Smith wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>At 02:30 PM 6/4/2013, you wrote:
> >>
> >>>Thank you to Kirk Smith for his reply (below for all Stove
> >>>Listmembers to read).
> >>>
> >>>I think someone told me that <2.5 PM cannot be seen. But if
> >>>there is a lot of it, is it visibly detectable (like the haze of a
> >>>smoky room, or is that just the larger particles that we are seeing?)
> >>
> >>yes, but the coefficient of haze measured in outdoor settings is
> >>highly correlated with PM2.5, but only if adjusted for humidity.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Related question: For a small child besides it mother in a smoky
> >>>cooking shack, cooking "typically" 2 - 3 times per day, what is
> >>>the "equivalent" as expressed in cigarettes smoked per
> >>>day? And can that be expressed as equivalent of SECONDARY
> >>>smoke from being in a room with smokers in it (but that becomes
> >>>confused because of room size and number of smokers in it)?
> >>
> >>Not an answerable question since small children do not smoke (who
> >>knows how much they would breath in if they did). For an adult,
> >>the levels are a about half a cigarette or so equivalent in daily
> >>dose (PM2.5 inhaled), depending of course on how polluted the house is.
> >>In terms of secondhand tobacco smoke, a typical open wood cookfire
> >>produces about 400 cigarettes an hour worth of PM2.5. More in
> >>terms of some other pollutants, for example BAP.
> >>
> >>All this is laid out in some detail in my book "Biofuels, Air
> >>Pollution, and Health" (Plenum, 1987)/k
> >>
> >>
> >>>I am trying to visualize this as a mother/cook smoking cigarettes,
> >>>and as a baby or a 2-year old child smoking cigarettes (an
> >>>unnatural but powerful visual image).
> >>>
> >>>Paul
> >>>
> >>>Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
> >>>Email:psanders at ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> >>>Website:www.drtlud.com
> >>>
> >>>On 6/4/2013 9:15 AM, Kirk R. Smith wrote:
> >>>>Quick responses below
> >>>>
> >>>>At 06:27 AM 6/4/2013, Paul Anderson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Stovers,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Please tell me or direct me to an explanation of the impact of
> >>>>>the PM that is BETWEEN PM 2.5 and PM 10.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I believe that the experts say that under 2.5 is the bad stuff
> >>>>>for respiratory health, and that over 10 is not sufficiently
> >>>>>important even to be measured.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, material over PM10 generally is caught in the upper
> >>>>respiratory system (nose, etc) and does not penetrate the body
> >>>>sufficiently to be a health hazard. May be a nuisance, of
> >>>>course. Major reviews of health impacts, however, show that the
> >>>>fine fraction (less than 2.5) is the best single indicator for
> >>>>health, but that the coarse fraction (between 2.5-10) also shows
> >>>>effects. Thus, no agency has abandoned PM10 regs, but most are
> >>>>moving to add PM2.5 regs as well.
> >>>>Issue for measurements right at the combustion source is that
> >>>>nearly all is PM2.5.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Is PM size 10 to 25 (twenty five) ( 50 or 100) "visible"?
> >>>>>Detectable to the nose or eyes?
> >>>>
> >>>>yes, which is a reason that perception is not a great indicator of hazard
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>What causes cataracts?
> >>>>
> >>>>not known for sure, but probably from internal, not external
> >>>>exposure to combustion-related pollutants in any case. Chemical
> >>>>carried to the eye through the blood. Eye is well protected
> >>>>externally. Need to think of PM2.5 as the best indicator of a
> >>>>mixture, not that itself causes all effects. Like "tar" for
> >>>>cigarettes, which is essentially PM2.5
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>How important is the PM larger than 2.5?
> >>>>
> >>>>See above.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Please forward this inquiry to the stove-medical people who are
> >>>>>not readers of this Listserv.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Paul
> >>>>>
> >>>>>--
> >>>>>Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
> >>>>>Email:psanders at ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> >>>>>Website:www.drtlud.com
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130605/aae0b1bc/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list