[Stoves] comparative stove emission test, what's next??

[Jean-François Rozis]

Dear stovers,

when I read the recent messages, it seems time to stop illusion starting 
with the international standard test.

1.  area where biomass is collected:  if sustainable (yes it occurs..), 
stove has to provide more service (water sterilizing, maybe lighting of 
we progress on this topic..) and overall a better combustion, no toxic 
smokes, which test the donor need: *a comparative stove emissions field 
test (to be developed within stovers community, not achieved)
*
If not sustainable: the need is fuelwood saving stoves with above 
qualities to permit sustainable dissemination (real user interest) 
and/or implement sustainable biomass production.(comparative fuelwood 
consumption field test, yet achieved)

2. area where biomass is purchased, the easiest context where lot of us 
met large successes (good for our ego :-) ), first to reduce the 
consumption (main interest of user), so the donor to facilitate 
introduction of this new equipment, need just a comparative field test 
the most accurate one

I recommend any donor to not spend money to choose a stove for 
dissemination in a simple labo test with correct or not correct formulas 
made in a specific accredited lab, the risk is too high. Labo test is 
just to improve one promising model (internal parameters with specific 
methodology), or compare existing stove with new one with locally 
adapted procedure (local pots, local representative water qty, local 
representative way of cooking of main dish, for a representative family 
size, main used local fuel, tests repeated three times, same times, with 
statistically acceptable averaged mean). In this conditions labo test 
will follow field tendency.


3. *the future now*, what we need to complete our panel of tests (labo 
comparative test adapted to  local conditions ok, field comparative test 
ok)  it's a *comparative field emissions test,* not based on one hundred 
CCT (too costly to be reproduced, it's the goal not??), but taking 
around 10 families by homogeneous community, one week with traditional 
stove, one week with new one (to avoid climate influence, you made the 
follow up 5 by 5, 5 with traditional, 5 with new one during one week), 
and all equipped with mobile extraction hoods, where we will be able to 
register CO levels and particle levels (on CO2 basis).
Is it feasible or not?? The problem with UCB monitoring in the 
surroundings is the variability (air ventilation, air flow..), 
extraction hood is the minimum for credibility. Either with two 
extraction hoods (to reduce the costs) you can follow two families in 
same time, and make sufficient sampling to obtain statistically  
acceptable averaged mean to say ok there is a difference or not between 
the two stoves and to quantify it with known level of accuracy ..and you 
can extrapolate for your future dissemination (repeat of course the test 
in wet/dry season, hot/cold season).
Contrary to what I read sometimes  in the stove literature, if you fix 
the fuel type (representative of the season, same for every family, to 
avoid water content variation) and distribute it there are no influence 
in level of consumption,  family users are smart  to understand interest 
of the work done, be sure.


Fully available to validate this field test in Cambodia, if Bond or 
Nordica, emissions specialists are ready to advise us on wich kind of 
instrumentation we can use.


Ok , to be continued


-- 
Jean-François Rozis
Tel : 0467643816