4.8 Review

Nanoparticle emissions from residential wood combustion: A critical literature review, characterization, and recommendations

期刊

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
卷 103, 期 -, 页码 515-528

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.007

关键词

Biomass; Wood stoves; Nanoparticle; Emissions; Regulations

资金

  1. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) [29697, 63038]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increased use of wood as a heating fuel in residential and small commercial buildings has increased concern about potential environmental and safety impacts, specifically particulate matter (PM) emissions in the nanometer range. Larger particles (> 2.5 mu m) can be effectively removed from exhaust streams by emission control devices. However, nanoparticles (NP), due to their size, are more difficult to capture in exhaust flue gases. In addition, NPs have a higher surface to volume ratio, allowing them to absorb organic compounds, causing them to be more reactive than their larger counterparts. This review focuses on the NPs produced from residential wood heating devices. Current emission regulations do not reflect the NP count or type produced from residential wood combustion, although most published studies show that a significant portion of the particles produced during combustion is in the nano-size range. Fuel type, device type and combustion periods have all shown to impact, at various degrees, the NPs produced. Contrary to common expectations, it appears that modern units may generate a higher count of NPs, although emitting less particulate mass than older units. This investigation supports arguments of needed particle type and count regulations in addition to the current mass based emission regulations. In addition to a critical review and analysis, recommendations are made regarding future testing, monitoring and environmental impact studies that address the significance of NP emissions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据