[Stoves] Between PM 2.5 and PM 10

[Paul Anderson]

Julien,

Thanks.   Very useful.

How can we have access to the entire article?

May I suggest that these types of articles (IF behind a pay-wall) should 
be "block purchased" by GACC for use by Stovers aroung the world.   
"Penny wise and pound foolish" to not acquire and circulate such items 
but to sponsor expensive conferences.

I want to know what the authors considered to be   "FD-TLUD stoves".    
And did they test    ND-TLUD stoves????

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 6/7/2013 10:18 PM, Julien Winter wrote:
> Hello Stovers;
>
> The following study specifically measures nanoparticle production from
> cookstoves and shows how the size of emission particulates decreases
> from 3-stone to rocket to FD-TLUD stoves.
>
> Just, B; Rogak, S; Kandlikar, M (2013) Characterization of ultrafine
> particulate matter from traditional and improved biomass cookstoves.
> Environmental Science & Technology  47: 3506-3512   Doi:
> 10.1021/Es304351P
>
> Abstract: Biomass combustion in cookstoves has a substantial impact on
> human health, affects CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and black carbon
> (BC) and organic carbon (OC) affect the earth's radiative balance.
> Various initiatives propose to replace traditional fires with
> "improved" (nontraditional) cookstoves to offset negative local and
> global effects. In this laboratory study, we compared the size,
> composition, and morphology of ultrafine particulate emissions from a
> "three-stone" traditional fire to those from two improved stove
> designs (one "rocket", one "gasifier"). Measurement tools included a
> scanning mobility particle sizer, PTFE and quartz filter samples, and
> transmission electron microscopy. In the improved stoves, particulate
> mass (PM) emissions factors were much lower although median particle
> size was also lower: 35 and 24 nm for the rocket and gasifier,
> respectively, vs 61 nm for the three-stone fire. Particles from
> improved stoves formed clearly defined chain agglomerates and
> independent spheres with little evidence of volatile matter and had a
> higher proportion of BC to total PM, although overall BC emissions
> factors were fairly uniform. The 3-fold increase in quantities of
> sub-30 nm particles from improved cookstoves warrants further
> consideration by health scientists, with due consideration to the
> higher combustion efficiencies of improved cookstoves.
>
>
> As the authors point out, there needs to be more study into
> nanoparticle production under actual conditions of stove use and with
> various qualities of fuels.
>
> We don't know that much about the chemistry and human toxicology of
> nanoparticles from cookstoves.   It would seem to me that this work is
> urgent.  When it is done, we may find that the health risks associated
> with nanoparticles from stoves is way less than nanoparticles from
> gasification of municipal solid waste and other industrial settings.
> A Youtube lecture on nanoparticles by Dr. Vyvyan Howard can be found
> here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2s6pr0N3vg
>
> Any health risks associated with nanoparticles will have to be
> balanced against human welfare and ecological benefits of improved
> cook stoves.  That is something that needs to be explained to people
> (like me) involved in rural development who have to know that improved
> cookstoves can be safely recommended as part a development package.
>
> Of course, this nanoparticle business really needs sorting out,
> because it could also have serious implications for any substantive
> production of biochar around the world.
>
> All the best,
> Julien
>
>