skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Verifying mixing in dilution tunnels How to ensure cookstove emissions samples are unbiased

Abstract

A well-mixed diluted sample is essential for unbiased measurement of cookstove emissions. Most cookstove testing labs employ a dilution tunnel, also referred to as a “duct,” to mix clean dilution air with cookstove emissions before sampling. It is important that the emissions be well-mixed and unbiased at the sampling port so that instruments can take representative samples of the emission plume. Some groups have employed mixing baffles to ensure the gaseous and aerosol emissions from cookstoves are well-mixed before reaching the sampling location [2, 4]. The goal of these baffles is to to dilute and mix the emissions stream with the room air entering the fume hood by creating a local zone of high turbulence. However, potential drawbacks of mixing baffles include increased flow resistance (larger blowers needed for the same exhaust flow), nuisance cleaning of baffles as soot collects, and, importantly, the potential for loss of PM2.5 particles on the baffles themselves, thus biasing results. A cookstove emission monitoring system with baffles will collect particles faster than the duct’s walls alone. This is mostly driven by the available surface area for deposition by processes of Brownian diffusion (through the boundary layer) and turbophoresis (i.e. impaction). The greater the surfacemore » area available for diffusive and advection-driven deposition to occur, the greater the particle loss will be at the sampling port. As a layer of larger particle “fuzz” builds on the mixing baffles, even greater PM2.5 loss could occur. The micro structure of the deposited aerosol will lead to increased rates of particle loss by interception and a tendency for smaller particles to deposit due to impaction on small features of the micro structure. If the flow stream could be well-mixed without the need for baffles, these drawbacks could be avoided and the cookstove emissions sampling system would be more robust.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [1];  [1];  [1]
  1. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
OSTI Identifier:
1414770
Report Number(s):
LBNL-2001088
ark:/13030/qt5g19965j
DOE Contract Number:
AC02-05CH11231
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY; 54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Citation Formats

Wilson, Daniel L., Rapp, Vi H., Caubel, Julien J., Chen, Sharon S., and Gadgil, Ashok J. Verifying mixing in dilution tunnels How to ensure cookstove emissions samples are unbiased. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.2172/1414770.
Wilson, Daniel L., Rapp, Vi H., Caubel, Julien J., Chen, Sharon S., & Gadgil, Ashok J. Verifying mixing in dilution tunnels How to ensure cookstove emissions samples are unbiased. United States. doi:10.2172/1414770.
Wilson, Daniel L., Rapp, Vi H., Caubel, Julien J., Chen, Sharon S., and Gadgil, Ashok J. 2017. "Verifying mixing in dilution tunnels How to ensure cookstove emissions samples are unbiased". United States. doi:10.2172/1414770. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1414770.
@article{osti_1414770,
title = {Verifying mixing in dilution tunnels How to ensure cookstove emissions samples are unbiased},
author = {Wilson, Daniel L. and Rapp, Vi H. and Caubel, Julien J. and Chen, Sharon S. and Gadgil, Ashok J.},
abstractNote = {A well-mixed diluted sample is essential for unbiased measurement of cookstove emissions. Most cookstove testing labs employ a dilution tunnel, also referred to as a “duct,” to mix clean dilution air with cookstove emissions before sampling. It is important that the emissions be well-mixed and unbiased at the sampling port so that instruments can take representative samples of the emission plume. Some groups have employed mixing baffles to ensure the gaseous and aerosol emissions from cookstoves are well-mixed before reaching the sampling location [2, 4]. The goal of these baffles is to to dilute and mix the emissions stream with the room air entering the fume hood by creating a local zone of high turbulence. However, potential drawbacks of mixing baffles include increased flow resistance (larger blowers needed for the same exhaust flow), nuisance cleaning of baffles as soot collects, and, importantly, the potential for loss of PM2.5 particles on the baffles themselves, thus biasing results. A cookstove emission monitoring system with baffles will collect particles faster than the duct’s walls alone. This is mostly driven by the available surface area for deposition by processes of Brownian diffusion (through the boundary layer) and turbophoresis (i.e. impaction). The greater the surface area available for diffusive and advection-driven deposition to occur, the greater the particle loss will be at the sampling port. As a layer of larger particle “fuzz” builds on the mixing baffles, even greater PM2.5 loss could occur. The micro structure of the deposited aerosol will lead to increased rates of particle loss by interception and a tendency for smaller particles to deposit due to impaction on small features of the micro structure. If the flow stream could be well-mixed without the need for baffles, these drawbacks could be avoided and the cookstove emissions sampling system would be more robust.},
doi = {10.2172/1414770},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = 2017,
month =
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • Black carbon (BC) emissions from traditional cooking fires and other sources are significant anthropogenic drivers of radiative forcing. Clean cookstoves present a more energy-efficient and cleaner-burning vehicle for cooking than traditional wood-burning stoves, yet many existing cookstoves reduce emissions by only modest amounts. Further research into cookstove use, fuel types, and verification of emissions is needed as adoption rates for such stoves remain low. Accelerated innovation requires techniques for measuring and verifying such cookstove performance. The overarching goal of the proposed program was to develop a low-cost, wireless instrument to provide a high-resolution profile of the cookstove BC emissions andmore » usage in the field. We proposed transferring the complexity of analysis away from the sampling hardware at the measurement site and to software at a centrally located server to easily analyze data from thousands of sampling instruments. We were able to build a low-cost field-based instrument that produces repeatable, low-cost estimates of cookstove usage, fuel estimates, and emission values with low variability. Emission values from our instrument were consistent with published ranges of emissions for similar stove and fuel types.« less
  • Traditional methods of cooking in developing regions of the world emit pollutants that endanger the lives of billions of people and contribute to climate change. This study quantifies the emission of pollutants from the Berkeley-Darfur Stove and the traditional three-stone fire at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory cookstove testing facility. The Berkeley-Darfur Stove was designed as a fuel efficient alternative to the three-stone fire to aid refugees in Darfur, who walk long distances from their camps and risk bodily harm in search of wood for cooking. A potential co-benefit of the more fuel efficient stove may be reduced pollutant emissions.more » This study measured emissions of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and sunlight-absorbing black carbon. It also measured climate-relevant optical properties of the emitted particulate matter. Pollutant monitors were calibrated specifically for measuring cookstove smoke.« less
  • Almost half of the world’s population still cooks on biomass cookstoves of poor efficiency and primitive design, such as three stone fires (TSF). Emissions from biomass cookstoves contribute to adverse health effects and climate change. A number of “improved cookstoves” with higher energy efficiency and lower emissions have been designed and promoted across the world. During the design development, and for selection of a stove for dissemination, the stove performance and emissions are commonly evaluated, communicated and compared using the arithmetic average of replicate tests made using a standardized laboratory-based test, commonly the water boiling test (WBT). However, published literaturemore » shows different WBT results reported from different laboratories for the same stove technology. Also, there is no agreement in the literature on how many replicate tests should be performed to ensure “significance” in the reported average performance. This matter has not received attention in the rapidly growing literature on stoves, and yet is crucial for estimating and communicating the performance of a stove, and for comparing the performance between stoves. We present results of statistical analyses using data from a number of replicate tests of performance and emission of the Berkeley-Darfur Stove (BDS) and the TSF under well-controlled laboratory conditions. We observed moderate variability in the test results for the TSF and BDS when measuring several characteristics. Here we focus on two as illustrative: time-to-boil and PM2.5 (particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter) emissions. We demonstrate that interpretation of the results comparing these stoves could be misleading if only a small number of replicates had been conducted. We then describe a practical approach, useful to both stove testers and designers, to assess the number of replicates needed to obtain useful data. Caution should be exercised in attaching high credibility to results based on only a few replicates of cookstove performance and emissions. Stove designers, testers, program implementers and decision makers should all benefit from improved awareness of the importance of adequate number of replicates required to produce practically useful test data.« less
  • The University of Denver in cooperation with the Desert Research Institute, U.S. EPA, and General Motors Corporation have successfully adapted the University of Denver's remote sensing system for vehicle exhaust to the measurement of vehicle emissions in a tunnel environment. Two studies conducted at the Fort McHenry Tunnel in Baltimore, MD and the Tuscarora Mountain Tunnel located west of Harrisburg, PA on the Pennsylvania Turnpike are described. The difficulties associated with remote sensing in a tunnel environment have led to a number of improvements in the remote sensing technology. Due to logistics and restrictions on placement of equipment in themore » Fort McHenry tunnel, a prototype periscope system was employed to optimize the height of the remote sensor's infrared beam path relative to vehicle exhaust plumes. At the Tuscarora Tunnel, first-time measurements of dual lane traffic were conducted using a single source and detector and two cameras for vehicle identification. This precluded the normal practice of directing traffic into a single lane which can alter normal driving patterns.« less
  • Motor vehicles are the main source of carbon monoxide (CO). Under multiple sponsorship, two major vehicle emissions studies were conducted: one in Fort McHenry tunnel (under the Baltimore Harbor) in June 1992 and the other in the Tuscarora Mountain tunnel in south-central Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Turnpike) in September 1992. The cars at both sites tended to be newer than elsewhere (median age was < 4 years), and much better maintained as judged by low CO/CO2 ratios and other emissions characteristics. Measured CO/CO2 ratios agreed with concurrent roadside infrared remote sensing measurements on light-duty vehicles. Remote sensing measurements on heavy-duty diesels weremore » obtained for the first time and were roughly in agreement with the regular (bag sampling) tunnel measurements in both CO/CO2 and HC/CO2 ratios.« less