Field Emission Measurements of Solid Fuel Stoves in Yunnan, China Demonstrate Dominant Causes of Uncertainty in Household Emission Inventories

Thompson, Ryan; Li, Jihua; Weyant, Cheryl; Edwards, Rufus; Lan, Qing; Rothman, Nathaniel; Hu, Wei; Dang, Jin; Dang, Andy; Smith, Kirk R.; Bond, Tami C.

doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b07040

Cited by 33 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The resulting perturbations of the atmospheric burdens of trace gases and aerosols have important consequences for climate, biogeochemical cycles, and human health. Aerosols from biomass burning affect the regional and global radiation balance and impact cloud properties and precipitation (Andreae et al, 2004;Andreae and Rosenfeld, 2008;Rosenfeld et al, 2008Rosenfeld et al, , 2014Ward et al, 2012;Tosca et al, 2013;Jiang et al, 2016;Braga et al, 2017;Cecchini et al, 2017;Hamilton et al, 2018;Thornhill et al, 2018). By shifting the proportions of direct and indirect solar radiation, they also influence primary productivity and thereby forest growth and agricultural production (Artaxo et al, 2009;Rap et al, 2015;Malavelle et al, 2019;McKendry et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning – an updated assessment

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the publication of the compilation of biomass burning emission factors by Andreae and Merlet (2001), a large number of studies have greatly expanded the amount of available data on emissions from various types of biomass burning. Using essentially the same methodology as Andreae and Merlet (2001), this paper presents an updated compilation of emission factors. The data from over 370 published studies were critically evaluated and integrated into a consistent format. Several new categories of biomass burning were added, and the number of species for which emission data are presented was increased from 93 to 121. Where field data are still insufficient, estimates based on appropriate extrapolation techniques are proposed. For key species, the updated emission factors are compared with previously published values. Based on these emission factors and published global activity estimates, I have derived estimates of pyrogenic emissions for important species released by the various types of biomass burning.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning – an updated assessment

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considerable effort has gone into quantifying the magnitude of open biomass burning by remote sensing approaches (Mouillot et al, 2006;Reid et al, 2009;Mieville et al, 2010;Wiedinmyer et al, 2011;Kaiser 20 et al, 2012;Ichoku and Ellison, 2014;Darmenov and da Silva, 2015;Chuvieco et al, 2016;van der Werf et al, 2017), but the estimates in these studies of the annual amounts of carbon released still range over a factor of three from 1.5 to 4.7 Pg a -1 . A model intercomparison based on state-of-the-art dynamic global vegetation models (DVGMs) yielded an even wider range of 1.0 to 4.9 Pg a -1 (Li et al, 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning – An updated assessment

Andreae¹

2019

Preprint

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> Since the publication of the compilation of biomass burning emission factors by Andreae and Merlet (2001), a large number of studies has greatly expanded the amount of available data on emissions from various types of biomass burning. Using essentially the same methodology as Andreae and Merlet (2001), this paper presents an updated compilation of emission factors. The data from over 350 published studies were critically evaluated and integrated into a consistent format. Several new categories of biomass burning have been added, and the number of species for which emission data are presented has been increased from 93 to 121. Where field data are still insufficient, estimates based on appropriate extrapolation techniques are proposed. Based on these emission factors and published global activity estimates, I have derived estimates of pyrogenic emissions for important species emitted by the various types of biomass burning.</p>

show abstract

“…As seen with CO, PM 2.5 emission factors from biogas and LPG stoves (7.4 and 9.5 mg MJ −1 , respectively) were substantially lower than emissions from traditional biofuel (130-1250 mg MJ −1 ) [18] or coal (630 ± 450 mg MJ −1 ) [19]. Emissions from biogas and LPG were lower than from improved biomass stoves measured in the field, such as the Philips stove (280 ± 40 mg MJ −1 ) [27], and were lower than the lowest emitting biomass stove measured in the laboratory by Jetter et al (2012), which was the StoveTec TLUD, emitting about 50 mg MJ −1 [28].…”

Section: Biogas and Lpg: Particulate Mattermentioning

confidence: 87%

“…In context, the CO emission factors from both biogas and LPG were low compared to typical biomass fuel combustion (35-130 g kg −1 , 2-9 g MJ −1 , Table S6 in Weyant et al 2019) [18], or coal combustion (5.8 ± 2 g MJ −1 ) [19]. The emission factors were also low compared to field observations of improved solid fuel stoves, such as gasifiers (about 6 ± 2 g MJ −1 ) [26] and forced draft stoves (4 g MJ −1 ) [27].…”

Section: Biogas and Lpg: Carbon Monoxidementioning

confidence: 92%

“…Emissions were measured with custom instrumentation (Fumitron, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and Musakonak Gobargas, Mountain Air Engineering). The Fumitron is similar to and modeled from designs used previously for cookstove emission measurements [17][18][19]. Concentrations were measured of CO 2 , CO, PM 2.5 , OC, EC, and particle light scattering and absorption (Tricolor Absorption Photometer, Betchtel).…”

Section: Emission Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In-Field Emission Measurements from Biogas and Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Stoves

Weyant

Thompson²,

Lam

et al. 2019

Atmosphere

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Household air pollution from solid fuel cooking causes millions of deaths each year and contributes to climate change. These emissions can be reduced if households transition to cleaner cooking fuels such as LPG or biogas, yet emission measurements during actual use are limited. Six LPG and 57 biogas cooking event emissions were measured during typical cooking practices in Nepal. Emission factors are reported for elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), and carbon monoxide (CO) and compared to measurements from wood stoves in the same households. Biogas cooking emission factors were 7.4 ± 10.9 mg MJ −1 for PM 2.5 and 0.2 ± 0.3 mg MJ −1 for EC on a fuel energy basis, and were not significantly different from LPG stoves (9.5 ± 6.8 mg MJ −1 for PM 2.5 and 0.3 ± 0.3 mg MJ −1 for EC, p > 0.05). Wood stoves emitted 50 times more PM 2.5 than biogas on a fuel energy basis and 230 times more EC. EC emissions were about 3% of total particle emissions from biogas and LPG stoves. Most PM 2.5 emissions from gas stoves were attributed to food frying and stove ignition (90%), not the gas fuel (10%), implying that there is a limit to emission reductions that can be achieved with improved fuels.Atmosphere 2019, 10, 729 2 of 15 households [10]. Electricity access requires large infrastructure development and often, in rural or developing regions, has not provided sufficient power levels or reliability required for cooking. Nonetheless, these clean fuels are rapidly penetrating into cooking markets.Biogas is a less common cooking fuel and is a mixture of gases produced from anaerobic digestion of carbonaceous material, such as brush, leaves, dung, and agricultural waste, which are also commonly directly combusted as solid fuels for cooking. Biogas digester feedstocks are generated or collected freely by many rural households, so systems generally have low operating costs and are not reliant on distribution networks beyond the household or community, yet upfront installation costs can be prohibitively high for many households.Biogas has global use for household cooking, and has been promoted by governments and NGOs for decades. In India, 0.4% of households use biogas as a primary fuel (about one million households), and many more likely use it a as secondary fuel [11]. There is evidence that biogas systems exhibit a high level of sustained use, unlike many improved biomass household cooking technologies in South Asia [12]. Digesters that are over 15 years old can be found in and around Kathmandu valley.Laboratory-based measurements of biogas stoves suggest pollutant emissions are low and similar to LPG [13,14]; however, no field-based assessments exist to confirm whether biogas in actual homes exhibit similar levels of performance, and field measurements of LPG emissions are also rare, consisting of only a few water boiling tests [13][14][15]. Field emission measurements include factors that are not typically tested in current laboratory methods, including user variability, fuel variability, and emis...

show abstract

Field Emission Measurements of Solid Fuel Stoves in Yunnan, China Demonstrate Dominant Causes of Uncertainty in Household Emission Inventories

Cited by 33 publications

References 46 publications

Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning – an updated assessment

Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning – an updated assessment

Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning – An updated assessment

In-Field Emission Measurements from Biogas and Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Stoves

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About