[Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves

Wed May 31 14:05:41 CDT 2017

Nikhil, 

Let’s leap to conclusions based on an abstracts, or bullets, without reading the full article. That way it is easy to ascribe intents, purposes, and outcomes that were not intended by the authors. If you just read abstracts, how credible are your conclusions about anything? I guess if you are the leading expert on cookstoves and health then you can just read the headlines and forget about the content. Or, you could take the work seriously and discuss the work directly with the authors, some of whom are subscribed to this discussion list. Call Jim Jetter at EPA or pay him a visit. He’d be happy to discuss these research with you.  

Many of the research papers that I forward to the list are published by the American Chemical Society. It is cheaper to become an ACS member and subscribe to the journals than to pay $40 for each paper.   

Crispin has distinguished between inherent (fuel) and combustion emissions. The latter should be further divided into emissions that are due to the stove design and those due to how the stove is operated. The Shen paper should be read with that in mind to see if the way the device has been operated has an impact on the emissions.  Differences in emissions at high power, low power, startup, steady state, are discussed. Morphology of the particles and organic vs inorganic composition is discussed. Occurrence of soot is identified. The study points out the lack of data for particulate emissions from cookstoves compared with other combustion sources. You can check the documentation cited in the study. 

The paper can be found at:

A Laboratory Comparison of Emission Factors, Number Size Distributions, and Morphology of Ultrafine Particles from 11 Different Household Cookstove-Fuel Systems Guofeng Shen, Chethan K. Gaddam, Seth M. Ebersviller, Randy L. Vander Wal, Craig Williams, Jerroll W. Faircloth, James J. Jetter and Michael D. Hays Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP

DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05928

Publication Date (Web): May 24, 2017

Copyright © 2017, American Chemical Society

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b05928

The stoves and fuels tested are described in the free Supplemental Information at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.6b05928

Tom

From: Paul Anderson [mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:23 AM
To: ndesai at alum.mit.edu; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Cc: Darpan Das <darpandasiitb at gmail.com>; Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com>; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>; Cecil Cook <cec1863 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves

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 <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu> 
Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com <http://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:  <mailto:Jetter.jim at epa.gov> Jetter.jim at epa.gov.

Abstract

  <http://pubs.acs.org/appl/literatum/publisher/achs/journals/content/esthag/0/esthag.ahead-of-print/acs.est.6b05928/20170524/images/medium/es-2016-05928m_0008.gif> 

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 (F30) 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 F30 (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 F30 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/20170531/93451faa/attachment.html>