Testing & Comparing Stoves Tami C. Bond Nathan M. Newmark Distinguished Professor Director, Center for Applied Collaboration on Human Environments (CACHE) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign May 30, 2017 @ Stoves With Heat/CCAC-ICCI-GACC Warsaw, Poland

Some ideas about testing Update on ISO work Thoughts on testing cooking systems Thoughts on measurement challenges

ISO (International Organization for Standardization) work Standards

ISO TC 285 “Clean cookstoves & clean cooking solutions” Scope: Cooking stoves and cooking stoves that are also used for heating Tech. Committee approved by member bodies of ISO In-person meetings Nairobi (2013), Antigua (2014), Accra (2015), Kathmandu (2017) 25 member countries, 15 observing countries, 7 external liaisons Standards

ISO TC 285 - Scope “Clean cookstoves & clean cooking solutions” WG1: Conceptual Framework WG2: Harmonized Laboratory Test Protocols WG3: Field Testing Methods WG4: Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment Fuels Task Group Communications Task Group Standards

ISO TC 285 – Current work “Clean cookstoves & clean cooking solutions” WG1: Conceptual Framework Terms and Definitions Document (Harmonization) – Going out for review WG2: Harmonized Laboratory Test Protocols Controlled Laboratory Test – Going to Draft International Standard (DIS) Stage WG3: Field Testing Methods Addressing comments, then go to DIS Standards

Other relevant standards Chinese standards for biomass stoves – cover heating stoves Testing protocols available in U.S. and Europe Standards

Testing the System’s Performance (Perhaps) relevant perspective from cookstove testing After this, positive spinxxx System Performance

Definition (from WG1) Cooking System: The combination of cookstove, fuel, cooking equipment, cooking environment (including ventilation) and cooking practice. System Performance

Role of designers: Adapt the cookstove system to the user’s impact metrics household fuel consumption indoor air concentration outdoor air concentration exposure risk of harm kitchen system adoption of stove use of alternative stoves ventilation family members’ activity user influences on the cookstove system maintenance fuel choice user habits cooking needs Role of designers: Adapt the cookstove system to the user’s environment cookstove system stove fuel cooking vessel task operating procedure performance metrics fuel consumption emission per MJ safety rating Bond, Annegarn et al.: A Conceptual Framework for the Development of Testing Protocols for Clean and Efficient Cookstoves (in prep) System Performance

Field observations of emission factors haven’t matched laboratory observations. Roden et al. Atmospheric Environment 43, 2009 System Performance

That’s because field operation does not match laboratory operation. Johnson et al. Environmental Science and Technology 44, 368-374, 2010 System Performance

Lab vs field – implications? There is widespread proof that current lab performance doesn’t match in-use performance Especially for particulate matter We need to isolate the aspects of the system that are responsible. System Performance

Measurement Considerations

Programmatic relevance Reported performance metrics should be Impact per service e.g. fuel per MJ delivered, emission per MJ delivered Measurement

Measurement of variable sources To get a representative sample… How long do we need to measure? How many units do we need to measure? What operating sequence should be followed? Must include ignition For large programs & atmospheric modeling, we care only about average (but real) impact. Measurement

Measuring black carbon Still difficult, because: No firm definition that corresponds to tractable measurement method But we use absorption or thermal-optical anyway Need LOTS of dilution to bring measurement within range. Measurement

Measuring particulate matter Big differences in protocols, because: Dilution/temperature affects measurement of semi-volatile species, i.e. organic carbon Can’t measure hot. Semi-volatile organic carbon is a major contributor to PM Next measurement headache! “Volatility basis set” approach gaining favor Measurement