4.8 Article

Fugitive Emissions and Health Implications of Plancha-Type Stoves

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 52, 期 18, 页码 10848-10855

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b01704

关键词

-

资金

  1. UNAM
  2. PAPIIT [IT-101315]
  3. SENER CONACYT [2014 246911]
  4. Global Alliance for Clean Cookstove (GACC) [RFP-14-1]
  5. US EPA STAR [R835423]
  6. EPA [673467, R835423] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plancha-type stoves have been widely disseminated in Mexico and Central America, but the contribution of fugitive emissions from these stoves to indoor air concentrations has been poorly quantified. In this study, fugitive emissions were measured for four plancha-type cookstoves most disseminated in Mexico (Patsari, ONIL, Ecostufa, and Mera-Mera). In controlled testing, fugitive emissions from plancha-type chimney stoves (n = 15 for each stove) were on average 5 +/- 3% for PM2.5 and 1 +/- 1% for CO, much lower than defaults in WHO Guidelines (25 +/- 10%). Using a Monte Carlo single zone model with locally measured parameters, average kitchen concentrations resulting from fugitive emissions were 15 9 mu g/m(3) for PM2.5 and 0.06 +/- 0.04 mg/m(3) for CO. On the basis of these models, plancha-type stoves meet benchmarks for WHO Air Quality Guidelines (AQG) Interim Target I for PM2.5 and the 24 h AQG for CO, respectively, with on average 97% of homes meeting the guideline for PM2.5. Similarly, all four plancha-type stoves were ISO IWA Tier 4 for indoor emissions of CO and Tier 3 for indoor emissions of PM2.5. Three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis was used to estimate neighborhood pollution impacts of upstream chimney emissions. When chimney emissions were included as background concentrations combined with indoor contributions from fugitive emissions, plancha-type stoves would still meet the WHO AQG Annual Interim Target I for PM2.5 and the 24 h AQG for CO for the scenario modeled in this study.

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