[Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves

Thu Jun 1 09:45:44 CDT 2017

Jim,

Thank you for the corrections.   I have never seen or used either Stove 
4 or Stove 10, but I should have remember #4  and paid more attention 
before sending my comments.  So I change my earlier comment:

> THIS IS OUT:    #4.  Stove Tec Prototype.  Lousy choice to be representing TLUD-FA stoves.  This is old by TLUD standards.
> It was tested years ago with great results.   Only one unit ever made, as far as I know..

THIS IS IN:    #4.  Stove Tec Prototype.  Acceptable choice for showing low emissions of TLUD-ND stoves because it was tested in earlier studies, but it is not reprsentative of existing, in production, TLUD-ND stoves.  #4 is old by TLUD standards.
It was tested years ago with great results.   Only one unit ever made, as far as I know..

Further Interpretations.
On the summary Figure 5 of the article (I think I am not allowed to 
paste it here, but maybe Jim as a co-author of the artilce might be able 
to put that one Figure 5 onto a Listserv message), there are 3 
measurement scales relating to particulate sizes:

1.  PM measured as <2.5 MICRO meter    Which is < 2500 nm. This is the 
most used measurement about bad particulates

2.  UFP (Ultra fine particles) measured with diameter less than 100 nm 
(Nanometer).  100 nm = 0.1 micrometer.

3.  Fractions of particles smaller than 30 nm.  [This is a fraction or 
percentage, with values for Alcohol and LPG (42 to 22% respectively 
being not much differenent from the Jiko Poa (rocket) stoves with low 
moisture and high moisture wood.  Even the 3-stone fire at about 46%  
.   So I do not know much about interpreting those results, and make no 
further comments about these fractions.]

A.  In PM2.5 and UFP, the 3-stone fire is the worst or second worst, and 
the three burners Alcohol and LPG and Kerosene (all very industrially 
processed fuels) are the best.  No surprises there.

B.  Of all the units with solid fuel (wood and 1 with rice husk and one 
charcoal), the two best (lowest emissions) are the Philips 
high-turbulance (fan-jet) stove (which is not operated as a TLUD stove) 
and the Stove 4 TLUD-ND with pellet fuel.  Clearly lower PN2.5 readings 
(about half of the readings for rice husk and charcoal.  YES, they beat 
CHARCOAL in the PARTICULATE MATTER emissions.   The forced-air Philips 
and the TLUD-ND have PM<2.5 about 90 to 100 units (mg/MJ), about 1/7th 
of the PM 2.5 of the 3-stone fire (over 700) and MUCH less than the 460 
to 520  units of the two rocket stoves.  .

C.  The wort result result in PM<2.5 was the #10, the low moisture wood 
in the Philips Natural Draft, which was NOT a rocket (side feed) stove, 
and might have been operated as a TLUD-ND.   Even if operated as a 
TLUD-ND, it was not a good representative.

COMMENT:  I believe that other TLUD-ND stoves (Champion, Prime/Nurhuda, 
Harris Wonderwerk, Peko Pe) will work as well or even better than Stove 
#4.   We will need another study to show that. But at this point based 
on the reported research, ONCE AGAIN the TLUD stoves are the BEST of the 
wood-burning devices.   AND it was done with NATURAL DRAFT.  We need to 
see good comparative testing that also includes the Mimi-Moto and the 
FAABulous and experimental TLUD-FA stoves.

NOTE:  This is comparative testing.   The results can also be expressed 
in the Tier terminology.   (or should that be spelled TEAR 
terminology??(wink).    By comparison, LPG and alcohol are cleaner than 
the TLUD stoves, but TLUDs are getting cleaner and cleaner, AND they 
have advantages that LPG and alcohol and kerosene can never have.  
Factor in the issues of fuel supply, fuel price, stove price, and many 
other things, it is high time for the stove community to take notice of 
the TLUD stoves and to get into gear to support them.

I am available to assist anyone regarding TLUD advancement.

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 6/1/2017 6:58 AM, Jetter, James wrote:
> Dear Paul and Crispin:
>
> We welcome recommendations from you and the stovers for models to test in the future, depending on priorities and the availability of resources for our testing.
>
> Following are minor clarifications on Paul’s comments, below.
>
> Stove 4 was a natural-draft (not forced-draft) TLUD with pellet fuel.
>
> Stove 10 was a natural-draft (but not a rocket) stove - not a side-feed stove.
>
> Regards,
> Jim
>
> From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott [mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 1:29 AM
> To: Paul Anderson <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; ndesai at alum.mit.edu; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Cc: Jetter, James <Jetter.Jim at epa.gov>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves
>
> Dear Paul
>
> I generally concur with your comments about the selection. Jim, I have a suggestion: how about asking the stovers for recommendations for models and then do another set of tests?
>
> I am particularly pleased to see some parallel tests using far more realistic fuel moisture choices. I don't believe anything about emissions from a stove using fuel with 5% a moisture content. ‎Fuel moisture has a powerful influence on emissions of PM and VOC's.
>
> I would recommend stoves that have had at least 1000 sales on a commercial basis (excludes stoves bought by an org and given away) and those which are seen by 'us' to be representative of the state of the art.
>
> Included in that category are the TLUD made by Sujatha and one or more models from Prime and Dr Nurhuda.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
>
> Stovers,
>
> I previously asked:
> On 5/31/2017 11:22 AM, Paul Anderson wrote:
>
>
>
> 11 fuel-stove combinations covering a variety of fuels and different stoves are investigated for UFP emissions and PNSD.
> I am interested in knowing if those 11 included what I consider to be the better versions of TLUD stoves, both natural draft and forced air.
>
> I have now seen the article, and provide comments ABOUT THE STOVES SELECTED.   This is NOT about the quality of measurements, etc.
>
> 1.  For purposes of review comments, I am allowed to provide some selected information from  the publication:
>
>
> **********************************
> Of interest (to me) are numbers 4, 6, 10, and 11.
>   #4.  Stove Tec Prototype.  Lousy choice to be representing TLUD-FA stoves.  This is old by TLUD standards.
> It was tested years ago with great results.   Only one unit ever made, as far as I know..
>
> #6.  Belonio TLUD-FA (or FD) with rice husk fuel.  Poor choice.  Again, an older stove that did not go into
> [much] production, and using a non-woody fuel when all other comparisons of solid fuels are wood.
>
> #10.  Although Philips, it is a rocket stove, and not of main interest.
> #12.   The Philips high-turbulance fan-jet stove.   This is NOT designed for nor used in TLUD fashion.
>
> Net result:  This research tells us information that is of very little use and is not representative of the state of
> the art of TLUD stoves, whether FA or ND.
>
> ***************************************
> Crispin also guided me to another study by essentially the same group:
> "Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Fine Particulate Matter Emitted
> from Burning Kerosene, Liquid Petroleum Gas, and Wood Fuels in
> Household Cookstoves"
> Guofeng Shen,† William Preston,‡ Seth M. Ebersviller,§ Craig Williams,‡ Jerroll W. Faircloth,∥
> James J. Jetter,*,⊥ and Michael D. Hays⊥
>
> The solid-fuel (wood) stoves in this study were
> "(iii) wood (10 and 30% moisture content on a wet basis) in a forced-draft fan stove, and (iv) wood
> in a natural-draft rocket cookstove."
>
> Rockets did not do well (and not an issue with me).   But the "forced-draft fan stove" that also was not optimal is
> of interest to me.   What TLUD-FA stove did they choose?   An "Eco-chula XXL" which is seen at:
> http://www.ecochula.co.in/xxl.html
>
> I my opinion, that was a terrible choice, (large diameter gives worse emissions, and is not representative of household cooking) and therefore the TLUD-FA  results of this study are not representative.   From the TLUD perspective, this study only contributed to the PERCEPTION (erroneous in my opinion) that TLUD-FA stoves are not very good.
>
> The Mimi Moto TLUD-FA has been available since 2015.   That would have been a much better choice.
> And certainly the Champion TLUD-ND  (available since about 2008) is the best choice for that category stove, but is never included.
>
> FYI, Except for the BEIA project in Uganda with the Mwoto TLUD-ND, I have never been asked about what TLUD stoves might best be include in testing or in research projects.    Never.      Not by EPA or CSU or Aprovecho or Berkeley or D-Lab or anyone else.
>
> Paul
>
> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> Email:  mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu
> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website:  http://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/
>