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

[Paul Anderson]

To all Stovers,

The two messages below from China are of interest.  They came via Kirk 
Smith, and I am sending them onward to the Stoves and Stove listservs.

Paul

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 3/25/2016 8:00 PM, Kirk R. Smith wrote:
>
> Sorry not to convey these earlier, but we are giving a training course 
> this week to the Royal Gov of Bhutan and it has been very hectic.   
> Below are responses from the two major authors of the paper/k
>
> -------------------------
>
> Dear John, Paul, and others,
>
> Thank you very much for your comments and for the information 
> provided. Sorry for not reply sooner, since I was on a business trip 
> and was not able to check and reply my emails regularly.
>
> My group has not get involved directly in standard development. This 
> study was only one of a series experiments to look at emissions of air 
> pollutants from various combination of stoves and fuels and to 
> evaluate potential health impact of solid fuel cooking in China. The 
> paper is one of many emission papers published by us (you can find 
> them if interested).
>
> As mentioned by the first author, Mr. Chen, that one of our 
> collaborators provided us with this opportunity to run this experiment 
> using a stove we did not test before. Our intention is to add more 
> diversity to our database, and has no direct connection to standard 
> development, we would like to contribute to the process in the future 
> though.
>
> I have to repeat the statement made by Kirk that China is a large 
> country with a huge population who are still using solid fuel for 
> cooking. According to our survey conducted in 2013-2014, more than 40% 
> of rural household were using solid fuel for cooking up to 2012. The 
> population affected in terms of health is even higher than the total 
> population of the United States. Our effort, just like the efforts 
> made by many other Chinese scientists and even foreign experts, is to 
> provide sound scientific evidences for policy makers to develop 
> effective and practical abatement strategy to reduce its health 
> impacts, without any commercial interest.
>
> To us, the field of standard for cooking stove is totally new. 
> Although we are not familiar with the process, but I would like to say 
> that the value and benefit of any international standard will be 
> jeopardized without enough input from China (and India as well) where 
> a large number of solid fuel cooking stoves are in operation.
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Prof. Shu Tao, Peking University
>
> -----------------
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> I am so appreciated that the research article raised so many interests 
> and debates on it.
>
> Prof. Paul Anderson and Mitchell John are focusing on the 
> reasonability and necessity for establishing a general international 
> test. In my opinion, also stated in the paper, a well-accepted test is 
> necessity, though there is a long way to go (like Prof. Anderson said: 
> cost time, money, implementation expenditures), especially in the so 
> big China or other developing areas all over the world.
>
> When evaluate the efficiency or emission performance in lab test, the 
> results would have the comparability if under a same water boiling 
> test. It is why so many experts around the world are pushing a 
> well-accepted international test. Their work is respectable and 
> meaningful.
>
> Limited to the lab condition and resources, we could only compare two 
> protocols with three typical commercial gasifier cookstoves in the 
> research paper. Definitely, many other stoves and real cooking or 
> heating procedures which actually used in rural China or other 
> countries were not included. And we claimed no business objectives. In 
> the further study, we should made more efforts to cover more. In 
> addition, some more collaborations are very welcomed with all of you, 
> if you need further solid step in the China field research.
>
> Some other comments on the paper are also very welcome.
>
> Many thanks to all of your attention again!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Yuanchen Chen (First author, supervised by Prof. Shu Tao)
>
> Peking University,
>
> chenyuanchen1988 at gmail.com <mailto:chenyuanchen1988 at gmail.com>
>
>
>
> -----原始邮件-----
> *发件人:*"Kirk R. Smith" <krksmith at berkeley.edu 
> <mailto:krksmith at berkeley.edu>>
> *发送时间:*2016-03-24 07:29:52 (星期 四)
> *收件人:* "Tao Shu" <taos at pku.edu.cn <mailto:taos at pku.edu.cn>>, 
> "Yuanchen Chen" <chenyuanchen1988 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:chenyuanchen1988 at gmail.com>>
> *抄送:*
> *主**题:* FW: Quick comment on developing international standards -- 
> RE: [stove] Comparison of stove testing procedures
>
> Do you want to respond to the comments on the paper below? (See my 
> initial response just below ) .  If you send to me, I can convey to 
> the others with a copy to you.    It is ok if you prefer not to respond/k
>
> *From:*Kirk R. Smith [mailto:krksmith at berkeley.edu 
> <mailto:krksmith at berkeley.edu>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2016 6:23 AM
> *To:* 'Dr. N.K.Ganguly:DBT NII'
> *Cc:* 'stove at lists.berkeley.edu <mailto:stove at lists.berkeley.edu>'; 
> 'Stoves and biofuels network'
> *Subject:* RE: Quick comment on developing international standards -- 
> RE: [stove] Comparison of stove testing procedures
>
> I have passed these comments on to my Chinese colleagues who have 
> these concerns.  I might add, however, that the work presented in the 
> paper, which is part of the thesis of the first author supervised by 
> Prof Tao,  the senior author, supports the benefits of such 
> international efforts that engage the most knowledgeable independent 
> stakeholders. A peer-reviewed article with empirical measurements 
> would, I should think, be a welcome bit of information informing that 
> process along with many other inputs to be considered.
>
> Perhaps China,  having had its own methods in place longer than any 
> other country, can be excused a bit for concerns that methods and 
> standards being proposed are suited to conditions there.  Also, please 
> keep in mind that journal articles take some time to come out and 
> information about such international activities may not reach everyone 
> in every sector for some time as well.  And that China is a big place 
> – not everyone engaged in stoves will know each other or be equally 
> connected to efforts elsewhere.
>
> I am sure no insult was intended about ongoing efforts, which indeed 
> are welcomed by all of us/k
>
> p.s. As this subject is fairly arcane to most readers of this 
> listserver, which has been promised to its recipients as just that, 
> i.e., not a blog with back and forth exchanges, can I suggest that 
> those interested in this subject go “offline”.  I am happy to be 
> involved in future emails directed to those with specific interest.  
> Thanks very much.
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Mitchell, John <Mitchell.John at epa.gov 
> <mailto:Mitchell.John at epa.gov>> wrote:
>
> 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 14^th 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/webinarsAdditionally, 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> 
> [mailto: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 <mailto:stove at lists.berkeley.edu>; 
> Stoves and biofuels network <Stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org 
> <mailto: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
>
> -- 
> This email was Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. 
> http://www.sophos.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list go to:
> https://calmail.berkeley.edu/manage/list/reminder/stove@lists.berkeley.edu
>
>
>
> Shu TAO, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University
>
> 陶澍，北京大学城市与环境学院
>
> taos at pku.edu.cn <mailto:taos at pku.edu.cn>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160325/6b48d90b/attachment.html>