[Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves

Tom Miles tmiles at trmiles.com
Wed May 31 15:33:59 CDT 2017


I was responding to posts on the list by Crispin, Paul, and you. If you are so concerned about “context”, consider the specific context of the research paper instead of using it as cannon fodder for your favorite themes. My previous unanswered question is, ”So, what?” What are your solutions to the litany of issues that you keep repeating? If everything is so wrong how do we make it right? What are the compelling health arguments for improving cookstoves? What are the appropriate metrics? 

 

From: Nikhil Desai [mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 12:55 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Cc: Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com>; Jim Jetter <jetter.jim at epa.gov>; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>; Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves

 

Tom: 

Are you commenting on my OFFLIST comment ONLIST without putting up my entire comment? 

If not, what specifically are you upset about? The "abstracts, or bullets" you accuse me of disparaging are not from this paper (Shen, et al. 2017) you mis-posted the link to. 

I have read many such papers in the past, and in this Abstract (Shen et al., 2017), the authors readily admit "data on UFP number emissions from cookstoves, which are a major source of many pollutants, are limited", which led to my comments about WHO and the Malawi study. I made no conclusion except implicitly endorse the authors' vies that cookstove emission data are limited. 

 

I challenge anybody to provide me with a list of emission factors and concentrations, exposures data for the cohort that died from 2008 to 2015 and upon which IHME "burden of disease" numbers are made up. 

You have no basis claiming that "Let’s leap to conclusions based on an abstracts, or bullets, without reading the full article.". You did that, not me. 

 

The bullets I quoted are from the Bruce et al, (2015) piece I had read a long time back, and the second one - Burnett, et al. (2014) I had reviewed and critiqued on this list back last September. 

I request you to read twice and think twice before alleging falsehoods about me. Complaining that what I write is "rant", when you don't spend the time to read, makes me feel you really don't care to examine the data and methods behind what passes as the "evidence base" for the benefits of "clean cooking" (in Bruce, et al. and GACC words, LPG and electricity, if you read the link to Bruce paper and also read the "implementation science" paper in January this year with Sumi Mehta of GACC and Kirk Smith.) 

For the record, I have given up any hopes of discovering any facts or insights from what passes as "scientific" papers these days, at least not by paying for them. My primary interests are economics, politics, integrity of public expenditures, and culture, as they affect policymaking for household energy. Along the way, I have picked up a lot on agriculture, power systems,nutrition, health, environment, what not. 

Anybody who has any problem with my opinions is welcome to challenge my statements, not impugn my motives or dismiss what may pass as my knowledge. Assume my ignorance at your own risk; only I know my ignorance. 

Nikhil



PS: I have read Jetter's research on-and-off from 2009 on. He was kind enough to provide me with a copy of his presentation in 2012 which I used, with his permission and proper citation, in a report on climate change resilience (see attached slide). I would most certainly like to see him

PPS: "the leading expert on cookstoves and health"? As recognized by publications in Lancet? Go please read Kirk Smith in the original before pandering to second-rate or worse co-authors of his. There is not much to say about "cookstoves and health", only about "fuels, combustion, and observed disease incidence". Everything else is glib marketing to the gullible. Prove me wrong, please! 

PPPS: Feel free to comment on my OFFLIST response to Paul which you and others were cc'd on. But please also provide the text of what I wrote and then point out just what you have a problem with and why. I do take everybody's work seriously - which is why I point out the errors and limitations, instead of just going along with groupthink clapping. 




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai

(India +91) 909 995 2080 <tel:+91%2090999%2052080> 
Skype: nikhildesai888

 

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com <mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com> > wrote:

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 <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu> ] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:23 AM
To: ndesai at alum.mit.edu <mailto:ndesai at alum.mit.edu> ; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> >
Cc: Darpan Das <darpandasiitb at gmail.com <mailto:darpandasiitb at gmail.com> >; Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com <mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com> >; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com> >; Cecil Cook <cec1863 at gmail.com <mailto: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 <tel:(309)%20452-7072> 
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 <tel:(919)%20541-4830> ; fax: 919-541-2157 <tel:(919)%20541-2157> ; 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 <tel:+91%2090999%2052080> 
Skype: nikhildesai888

 

 


_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto: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/



 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170531/9982bf5d/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list