<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><span>Paul, Kirk et al</span><br><span></span><br><span> Thanks to you both for this exchange. I only respond to be sure that Paul's first question is answered. I think that Kirk was not saying that. He maybe was referring to a standard for PM 2.5</span><br><span></span><br><span> The second point below contradicts the first. I truncate most of the exchange except that pertinent to these two items and a third.</span><br><span></span><br><span> The third is on Kirk's reference to BAP. . Googling says this is </span><span>benzo a pyrene - a PAH (polyaromatic hydrocarbon) produced both in cigarettes and wood stoves - some are carcinogenic and probably/possibly/maybe BAP is one of the worst. I believe these are not now being measured in standard stove testing and wonder if they should be. Since PAHs are associated with higher temperatures than typically found in TLUDs, might pyrolyzing stoves show up better?</span></div><div> </div><div> I add Jim Jetter and Dean Still to get their thoughts as well. Most likely the best work on BAP will have been done by Kirk and his groups, but he may not have looked at any pyrolyzing stoves.</div><div>This probably is an expensive test.<br><span></span><br><span></span> See excerpt below.</div><div><br><span></span>Ron<br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>On Jun 4, 2013, at 10:31 PM, Paul Anderson <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>Dear Kirk,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Your reply (below) is quite useful, and I hope the Stovers on the Listserv will read it. And it leads to further questions:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>1. Did I understand correctly? You say that HALF of a single cigarette per day (directly inhaled) is equal to the PM 2.5 inhaled (as "secondary" smoke in the kitchen) by a cook or child who is in a typically poorly enclosed "smoky kitchen" with a 3-stone fire . WOW!!</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>2. And that a</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>typical open wood cookfire produces about 400 cigarettes an hour worth of PM2.5</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>(that I assume can also be inside a poorly enclosed cooking space). If a person takes 12 minutes to smoke one cigarette, that is 5 per hour for one person. So the 3-stone fire creates a smoky environment that is the equivalent of 80 persons smoking 5 cigarettes per hour in an enclosed space. That helps explain the smoke billowing out under the eaves and through the door and cracks of many "kitchens" with 3-stone fires. (Did I express that correctly?)</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#0023a3"> <long snip then Kirk said. - we need explanation of "the levels"></font></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Not an answerable question since small children do not smoke (who knows how much they would breath in if they did). For an adult, the levels are a about half a cigarette or so equivalent in daily dose (PM2.5 inhaled), depending of course on how polluted the house is. In terms of secondhand tobacco smoke, a typical open wood cookfire produces about 400 cigarettes an hour worth of PM2.5. More in terms of some other pollutants, for example BAP.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> <snipped rest></blockquote><br></div><div>Ron</div><div></div></body></html>