4.7 Article

Air pollutant emissions and mitigation potential through the adoption of semi-coke coals and improved heating stoves: Field evaluation of a pilot intervention program in rural China

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 240, 期 -, 页码 661-669

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.04.110

关键词

Field measurement; Domestic heating stoves; Semi-coke coal; Air pollutant emissions; Emission factor

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology [2015DFG92090, 2017YFC0211403]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pollutant emissions from incomplete combustion of raw coal in low-efficiency residential heating stoves greatly contribute to winter haze in China. Semi-coke coals and improved heating stoves are expected to lower air pollutant emissions and are vigorously promoted by the Chinese government in many national and local plans. In this study, the thermal performance and air pollutant emissions from semi-coke combustion in improved heating stoves were measured in a pilot rural county and compared to the baseline of burning raw coal to quantify the mitigation potential of air pollutant emissions. A total of five stove-fuel combinations were tested, and 27 samples from 27 different volunteered households were obtained. The heating efficiency of improved stoves increased, but fuel consumption appeared higher with more useful energy output compared to traditional stoves. The emission factors of PM2,5, SO2, and CO2 of semi-coke burning in specified improved stoves were lower than the baseline of burning raw coal chunk, but no significant NOx and CO decreases were observed. The total amount of PM2,5 and SO2 emissions per household in one heating season was lower, but CO, CO2, and NOx increased when semi coke coal and specified improved stoves were deployed. Most differences were not statistically significant due to the limited samples and large variation, indicating that further evaluation would be needed to make conclusions that could be considered for policy. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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