[Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves

[Paul Anderson]

All,

Thank you to Nikhil for providing the correct link.

Unfortunately, the full article is behind a paywall.   $40 to too much 
for me to pay just to know what are the
> 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.   
Can anyone with access to the article please send to us the info on what 
stoves were included?

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 5/31/2017 8:31 AM, Nikhil Desai wrote:
> Paul:
>
> Yes, there is a mismatch between the abstract and the 
> article. Correction below.
>
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b05928
>
>
>   A Laboratory Comparison of Emission Factors, Number Size
>   Distributions, and Morphology of Ultrafine Particles from 11
>   Different Household Cookstove-Fuel Systems
>
> Guofeng Shen <http://pubs.acs.org/author/Shen%2C+Guofeng>†, Chethan K. 
> Gaddam <http://pubs.acs.org/author/Gaddam%2C+Chethan+K>§, Seth M. 
> Ebersviller <http://pubs.acs.org/author/Ebersviller%2C+Seth+M>‡, Randy 
> L. Vander Wal <http://pubs.acs.org/author/Vander+Wal%2C+Randy+L>§, 
> Craig Williams <http://pubs.acs.org/author/Williams%2C+Craig>∥, 
> Jerroll W. Faircloth 
> <http://pubs.acs.org/author/Faircloth%2C+Jerroll+W>⊥, James J. Jetter 
> <http://pubs.acs.org/author/Jetter%2C+James+J>* 
> <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b05928#cor1>#<http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9621-4139>, 
> and Michael D. Hays <http://pubs.acs.org/author/Hays%2C+Michael+D>#
> † Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE), U.S. 
> Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, 
> 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
> 27709, United States
> ‡ University of Findlay, 1000 North Main Street, Findlay, Ohio 45840, 
> United States
> § John and Willie Leone Family Department of Energy and Mineral 
> Engineering and the EMS Energy Institute, Penn State University, 
> University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, United States
> ∥ CSS-Dynamac Inc., 1910 Sedwick Road, Durham, North Carolina 27713, 
> United States
> ⊥ Jacobs Technology Inc., 600 William Northern Boulevard, Tullahoma, 
> Tennessee 37388, United States
> # Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection 
> Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North 
> Carolina 27709, United States
> Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
> *DOI: *10.1021/acs.est.6b05928
> Publication Date (Web): May 9, 2017
> Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society
> *Tel.: 919-541-4830; fax: 919-541-2157; e-mail: Jetter.jim at epa.gov 
> <mailto:Jetter.jim at epa.gov>.
>
>
>     Abstract
>
> Abstract Image
>
> Ultrafine particle (UFP) emissions and particle number size 
> distributions (PNSD) are critical in the evaluation of air pollution 
> impacts; however, data on UFP number emissions from cookstoves, which 
> are a major source of many pollutants, are limited. In this study, 11 
> fuel-stove combinations covering a variety of fuels and different 
> stoves are investigated for UFP emissions and PNSD. The combustion of 
> LPG and alcohol (∼1011 particles per useful energy delivered, 
> particles/MJd), and kerosene (∼1013 particles/MJd), produced emissions 
> that were lower by 2–3 orders of magnitude than solid fuels 
> (1014–1015 particles/MJd). Three different PNSD types—unimodal 
> distributions with peaks ∼30–40 nm, unimodal distributions with peaks 
> <30 nm, and bimodal distributions—were observed as the result of both 
> fuel and stove effects. The fractions of particles smaller than 30 nm 
> (/F/30) varied among the tested systems, ranging from 13% to 88%. The 
> burning of LPG and alcohol had the lowest PM2.5 mass emissions, UFP 
> number emissions, and /F/30 (13–21% for LPG and 35–41% for alcohol). 
> Emissions of PM2.5 and UFP from kerosene were also low compared with 
> solid fuel burning but had a relatively high /F/30 value of 
> approximately 73–80%.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nikhil Desai
> (India +91) 909 995 2080
> /Skype: nikhildesai888/
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170531/c54b4d4e/attachment.html>