How many replicate tests are needed to test cookstove performance and emissions? — Three is not always adequate

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 the 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, the statistics section of the test protocol contains some debatable concepts and in certain cases, easily misinterpreted recommendations. Also, there is no agreement in the literature on how many replicate tests should be performed to ensure ?confidence? in the reported average performance (with three being the most common number of replicates). This matter has not received sufficient 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 illustrate an application 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. Here we focus on two as illustrative: time-to-boil and emissions of PM2.5 (particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 ?m in diameter). We demonstrate that an 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 from previously untested stoves with unknown variability.

[1]  J. Jetter,et al.  Solid-fuel household cook stoves: characterization of performance and emissions. , 2009 .

[2]  Linfield Brown,et al.  Statistics for Environmental Engineers , 2002 .

[3]  Tami C. Bond,et al.  Laboratory and field investigations of particulate and carbon monoxide emissions from traditional and improved cookstoves , 2009 .

[4]  David Hinkley,et al.  Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife , 2008 .

[5]  T. Kirchstetter.  QUANTIFICATION OF BLACK CARBON AND OTHER POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM A TRADITIONAL AND AN IMPROVED COOKSTOVE , 2014 .

[6]  Gregory W. Corder,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for Non-Statisticians: A Step-by-Step Approach , 2009 .

[7]  Nordica MacCarty,et al.  Fuel use and emissions performance of fifty cooking stoves in the laboratory and related benchmarks of performance , 2010 .

[8]  Ken R. Smith,et al.  Performance testing for monitoring improved biomass stove interventions: experiences of the Household Energy and Health Project , 2007 .

[9]  Alan D. Lopez,et al.  A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 , 2012, The Lancet.

[10]  Jessica Granderson,et al.  Fuel use and design analysis of improved woodburning cookstoves in the Guatemalan Highlands , 2009 .

[11]  M. R. Spiegel.  Mathematical handbook of formulas and tables , 1968 .

[12]  Jasper V. Wall,et al.  Practical Statistics for Astronomers , 2003 .

[13]  M. Kenward,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 2007 .

[14]  Ken R. Smith,et al.  Monitoring and evaluation of improved biomass cookstove programs for indoor air quality and stove performance: conclusions from the Household Energy and Health Project , 2007 .

[15]  Alan D. Lopez,et al.  Comparative quantification of health risks. Global and regional burden of disease attributable to selected major risk factors. Volume 1. , 2004 .

[16]  P. M. Berthouex,et al.  Statistics for Environmental Engineers, Second Edition , 2002 .

[17]  V. Ramanathan,et al.  Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon , 2008 .

[18]  B. Weinhold.  Indoor PM Pollution and Elevated Blood Pressure: Cardiovascular Impact of Indoor Biomass Burning , 2011, Environmental health perspectives.

[19]  Stephen L. R. Ellison,et al.  Practical Statistics for the Analytical Scientist: A Bench Guide , 2009 .

[20]  Energy and Development , 2011 .

[21]  B. Efron.  Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife , 1979 .

[22]  J. Einax.  Stephen L.R. Ellison, Vicki J. Barwick, Trevor J. Duguid Farrant: Practical statistics for the analytical scientist. A bench guide, 2nd ed. , 2010 .

[23]  Tami C. Bond,et al.  A laboratory comparison of the global warming impact of five major types of biomass cooking stoves , 2008 .

[24]  Odelle L. Hadley.  Measured Black Carbon Deposition on the Sierra Nevada Snow Pack and Implication for Snow Pack Retreat , 2010 .

[25]  Kirk R. Smith,et al.  Pollutant emissions and energy efficiency under controlled conditions for household biomass cookstoves and implications for metrics useful in setting international test standards. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[26]  J. Taylor.  An Introduction to Error Analysis , 1982 .

[27]  Khalid Rehman Hakeem,et al.  Biomass and Bioenergy , 2014, Springer International Publishing.

[28]  V. Joshi,et al.  GREENHOUSE GASES FROM SMALL-SCALE COMBUSTION DEVICES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: PHASE IIA Household Stoves in India , 2000 .