Citation

Muralidharan V, Sussan TE, Limaye S, Koehler K, Williams DL, Rule AM, Juvekar S, Breysse PN, Salvi S, Biswal S. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015; 12(2): 1773-1787.

Affiliation

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. sbiswal@jhu.edu.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015, MDPI: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute)

DOI

10.3390/ijerph120201773

PMID

25654775

Abstract

Nearly three billion people use solid fuels for cooking and heating, which leads to extremely high levels of household air pollution and is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Many stove manufacturers have developed alternative cookstoves (ACSs) that are aimed at reducing emissions and fuel consumption. Here, we tested a traditional clay chulha cookstove (TCS) and five commercially available ACSs, including both natural draft (Greenway Smart Stove, Envirofit PCS-1) and forced draft stoves (BioLite HomeStove, Philips Woodstove HD4012, and Eco-Chulha XXL), in a test kitchen in a rural village of western India. Compared to the TCS, the ACSs produced significant reductions in particulate matter less than 2.5 µm (PM2.5) and CO concentrations (Envirofit: 22%/16%, Greenway: 24%/42%, BioLite: 40%/35%, Philips: 66%/55% and Eco-Chulha: 61%/42%), which persisted after normalization for fuel consumption or useful energy. PM2.5 and CO concentrations were lower for forced draft stoves than natural draft stoves. Furthermore, the Philips and Eco-Chulha units exhibited higher cooking efficiency than the TCS. Despite significant reductions in concentrations, all ACSs failed to achieve PM2.5 levels that are considered safe by the World Health Organization (ACSs: 277-714 μg/m3 or 11-28 fold higher than the WHO recommendation of 25 μg/m3).

Language: en