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

Wed Mar 23 11:13:54 CDT 2016

Stovers

For the record I would like to point out that there is a fundamental
disagreement about what is supposed to be contained in WG2- Part 2 and while
it appeared to me to have been resolved through discussion in January, the
descriptions below are not aligned with that discussion. That can go to the
relevant group offline.

I see no advantage for the stove community to take the discussions about the
paper in question, the testing in China and the claims made for exceeding
the WHO IAQG guidelines. That this matter and several others that have been
causing a lot of problems for stove projects on the ground is not 'news',
and in the past, taking them offline has failed to resolve them.

They include but are not limited to:

The scientific validity of some performance metrics

The correctness of some of the interim calculations

The appropriateness of some metrics as performance rating criteria

The use of stove performance numbers to underwrite an air quality indicator

The use of a single or three box model to model exposure based on a stove
test

The appropriateness of the test cycle chosen to represent product
performance

The worthiness of arbitrary test cycle results for stove rating and
selection

The assumption that all PM2.5 particles have the same toxicity

When it comes to product regulation at the national level, there is an
inherent expectation that the test and rating method will predict
performance so the government regulator knows if a product is acceptable for
public use or good enough to meet policy objectives.  Obviously if a test
cannot predict what the product does, or will do, with reasonable
confidence, that test or rating system is not skilled enough to use as a
national standard.

Many countries already have stove performance standards. In order to have an
ISO standard replace a national standard, it will have to at least as good a
job because it will displace it. 

Stove tests (which are models of future average performance) and exposure
models (which are models of future, average exposure to a stove in kitchens)
can be very helpful.  The history of the WBT lab test in particular, even
from its authors and supporters, is that it does not predict performance in
use. The principles underlying its construction are present in all tests
that attempt to have a 'standard' test cycle for the reason of 'comparing
them all on an equal basis'. Such a comparison is pointless. Stoves are like
cars - there is no point in testing all cars on a single common cycle in
order to 'rate them against each other' with a common drive cycle when there
are so many different cars with different markets and functions and user
requirements. No one accepts that. Why should the regulators of stoves?

We cannot coast into the future on the coattails of past heroic efforts,
however well-intentioned.

Regards

Crispin

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/20160323/1afff5b5/attachment.html>