[Stoves] Quick comment on developing international standards -- RE: [stove] Comparison of stove testing procedures

Tue Mar 22 15:27:26 CDT 2016

Paul,

Thanks for forwarding Kirk Smith's email with the abstract on a "Comparison of International and Chinese water boiling test protocols."

However, given your comment "It seems that some entities in the international leadership of clean cookstoves might be pushing for one test without sufficient attention to alternative testing methods," I want to remind you, and inform others on the distribution lists, about two things:

1.   how the ISO technical committee (TC285) working to develop voluntary international standards operates; and

2.   how Working Group #2 - which is charged with developing laboratory testing methods, is moving forward.

ISO Technical Committee 285 (TC285) currently has 28 countries participating, and 14 observing, with 10 international organization participating as well.  Here in the US, many of our colleagues are engaged in the activities of TC285.  We have 99 people from 63 organizations participating in the US Technical Advisory Group - with 33 experts participating in the four TC285 working groups.  All this is to say - the some entities in the international leadership of clean cookstoves - is us.  It is your colleagues in the US and around the world - we are the international leadership developing testing methods - it is not just one person or one organization who is the international leader.  In fact, the chairperson of TC 285, the chairs of the national committees, and the conveners and project leaders of all the working groups, are responsible for staying neutral and not pushing a specific idea.  In addition, these leaders are responsible for ensuring everyone has an opportunity to be heard and to facilitate a constructive discussion to bring different perspectives together.   Also, it is important to note that each country gets one vote.  So all the people on the USTAG have merge our perspectives into one, and that the USTAG's vote is just one vote out of 28.

In addition to keeping all participants in the USTAG informed and engaged, EPA and Winrock, with the support of the Global Alliance and the participation of TC285 leaders from Germany, Nepal, South Africa, and Uganda, have worked to keep all interested parties from around the world informed and engaged on TC285 activities, hosting a webinar on December 14th to update folks on the progress at the TC285 meeting in Accra that preceded the Forum.  That webinar can be found at http://www.pciaonline.org/webinars  Additionally, you will recall that there was a session at the January ETHOS Conference where we had representatives from each of the working groups report on their progress to date and upcoming plans

Regarding developing laboratory testing methods, Working Group 2 is moving forward on two tracks:

-      Part I is a "Standard [laboratory] test sequence for emissions and performance, safety, and durability" which has reached the committee draft stage.  In fact the voting on the committee draft has just concluded and the working group will soon be meeting to review 68 pages of comments - showing how engaged the international community is in developing this test sequence.  The purpose of Part I is to provide a standard test sequence to establish international comparability in measurements of cookstove emissions and efficiency.  There is a lot of flexibility within the standard test sequence as well - an option to test at just one or two power levels (versus all three), a plancha option, fuels, pots, etc.  So that the standard test sequence still wouldn't have everyone doing the exact same thing.

-      Part II is a "Contextual [laboratory] test sequence" which will be used for comparability within particular demographic settings.  The idea is to attempt to replicate local field conditions, as much as practical, in the lab.  Part II is in the early draft stage.

If you, or anyone copied on this email would like to be engaged in developing testing methods, I strongly encourage you to contact your country's standards development agency.  In the US that is the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the contact is Rachel Hawthorne, and she can be reached at rhawthorne at ansi.org<mailto:rhawthorne at ansi.org>  Folks outside the US can also contact Rachel and she can direct you the standards development agency in your country.  If anyone has questions about TC285 generally or about the USTAG, please contact me at mitchell.john at epa.gov<mailto:mitchell.john at epa.gov>

All the best,

John

From: stove-bounces at lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:stove-bounces at lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Anderson
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:22 PM
To: stove at lists.berkeley.edu; Stoves and biofuels network <Stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [stove] Comparison of stove testing procedures

Stovers,

Below is the abstract of a significant comparative study done in China.   We thank Kirk Smith and his Stove list (different from StoveS) for the information.

Spoiler alert:   Here is the punch line from the abstract:
Statistically significant differences
between the two [China and Internatonal WBT] protocols indicate the need for further efforts in emission tests and methodology development
before the release of a well-accepted international testing protocol.

Yes.  Should we be surprised.   It seems that some entities in the international leadership of clean cookstoves might be pushing for one test without sufficient attention to alternative testing methods.

Note (in abstract) that:
With longer burning duration and higher
power, the Chinese WBT had statistically higher efficiencies, gas temperature, and lower pollutant emissions

Sure!!!   Change the duration and power, expect different test results!!!

What is clear to me is that there should never be only one set of tests.   People around the world have very different ways of cooking.  High power in China, plancha stoves in Central America, two-arm cooking of thick foods in parts of Africa, long-simmering bean-meals vs. quick boil of rice meals, and on and on.   The people we are trying to serve want solutions that are appropriate for their circumstances.

Observation:  There seems to be a slow-down in the seeking of stove testing at the major testing centers that have equipment.   I can be shown to be incorrect if any testing centers would give us some statistics of numbers and types of tests that are being requested.

Of course I like the importance of emissions testing because the TLUDs and other micro-gasifiers consistently give superior results.   But most funding in the past has gone to less-qualified stoves.

Paul

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>

Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072

Website:  www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>
On 3/17/2016 1:08 PM, Kirk R. Smith wrote:
Can be downloaded from the website below/k

Efficiencies and pollutant emissions from forced-draft biomass-pellet semi-gasifier stoves: Comparison of International and Chinese water boiling test protocols
Yuanchen Chen, Guofeng Shen, Shu Su, Wei Du, Yibo Huangfu, Guangqing Liu, Xilong Wang, Baoshan Xing, Kirk R. Smith, Shu Tao
Energy for Sustainable Development 32 (2016) 22-30

Ab s t r a c t
Biomass fuels are widely combusted in rural China, producing numerous air pollutants with great adverse
impacts on human health. Some improved cookstoves and pellet fuels have been promoted. To evaluate the
performance of pellet-gasifier stoves, efficiencies and pollutant emissions were measured following International
and Chinese water boiling tests (WBTs). Compared with traditional stoves and unprocessed biomass fuels,
increased efficiencies and lower emissions of pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter
(PM), parent and derivative polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were revealed for pellet-gasifier stoves.
However, the calculated emission rates (ERs) of CO and PM2.5 cannot meet the ER targets recently suggested
by WHO indoor air quality guidelines (IAQGs). Better control of air mixing ratio and gross flow rates of primary
and secondary air supply greatly reduced emissions and increased efficiencies. Differences among testing protocols
are the key factors affecting the evaluation of stove performance. With longer burning duration and higher
power, the Chinese WBT had statistically higher efficiencies, gas temperature, and lower pollutant emissions
(p b 0.10) compared to those obtained through the International WBT. Statistically significant differences
between the two protocols indicate the need for further efforts in emission tests and methodology development
before the release of a well-accepted international testing protocol

---------------------------
Kirk R. Smith, MPH, PhD
Professor of Global Environmental Health
Chair, Graduate Group in Environmental Health Sciences
Director of the Global Health and Environment Program
School of Public Health
747 University Hall
University of California
Berkeley, California, 94720-7360
phone 1-510-643-0793; fax 642-5815
krksmith at berkeley.edu<mailto:krksmith at berkeley.edu>
http://www.kirkrsmith.org/

To unsubscribe from this list go to:

https://calmail.berkeley.edu/manage/list/reminder/stove@lists.berkeley.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160322/895efa13/attachment.html>