Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 27e34

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biomass and Bioenergy

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Research paper

Evaluation of the performance of improved biomass cooking stoves

with different solid biomass fuel types
R. Suresh a, V.K. Singh b, J.K. Malik a, A. Datta a, *, R.C. Pal c
a
Division of Earth Sciences and Climate Change, The Energy and Resources Institute, Darbari Seth Block, India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, 110 00, India
b
University of Coimbra-MIT Portugal Program, Coimbra, Portugal
c
Social Transformation Division, The Energy and Resources Institute, Darbari Seth Block, India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We have studied the performance of different types of improved solid biomass cookstoves (Two natural
Received 15 December 2014 draft and one forced draft) in comparison to the traditional cookstove (control) while preparing a
Received in revised form particular meal with a variety of solid biomass fuels (e.g. fuel wood, dung cake and crop residue). Five
3 June 2016
replicates of each type of cookstove and fuel were maintained. The study was conducted in an Indian
Accepted 8 August 2016
Available online 22 September 2016
rural kitchen. There was no significant difference in the indoor concentrations of PM2.5 and CO when
natural draft and traditional cookstoves were used with any type of solid fuel. However, significantly
lower concentrations of PM2.5 and CO were recorded with forced draft stoves compared to others. While
Keywords:
Biomass cookstove
cooking with different types of solid biomass fuels, the concentrations of PM2.5 and CO in the indoor
Solid biomass fuel environment were decreased by 21e57% and 30e74% respectively with the forced draft cookstove in
Indoor air pollution comparison to the traditional cookstove. The fuel consumption, cooking duration and thermal efficiency
Thermal efficiency of a particular stove to prepare a particular amount of food also differ depending on the type of the solid
fuel used for the cooking purpose. The thermal efficiency of traditional, natural draft and FD cookstoves
were in the range of 15e17%, 16e27% and 30e35% respectively for different types of solid biomass fuels.
However, further studies on the performance of stoves are required based on the size and type of fuel
wood or crop residues.
© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Consumption of the solid biomass fuel for the domestic cooking
and space heating is an important source of atmospheric pollutants
which lead to local or global climate change vis-
a-vis adverse
chronic effects on human health. Inefficient burning of the solid
biomass fuel releases large amount of pollutants like particulate
matter (mainly PM2.5), black carbon (BC), Organic carbon (OC),
carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulphur dioxide
(SO2), ammonia, benzene, formaldehyde etc. [1]. Among these
gaseous pollutants, incomplete burning of the solid biomass fuel is
the major source of CO [2]. These pollutants are closely associated
with several pulmonary, cardio-vascular, retinal and dermatolog-
ical diseases [3] and exposure to CO in particular may incur tissue
hypoxia in the babies in the womb. The median diameter of the
particles emitted during the burning of solid biomass fuel in the
cookstove is in the range of PM2.5 [4]. It is reported that the PM2.5
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: arindam.datta@teri.res.in (A. Datta).
can travel deep into the respiratory system [5], as a result the
exposure to the PM2.5 alone has accounted for 3.1 million deaths
and around 3.1% of global disability adjusted life years during 2010
[6]. Moreover, the burning of the solid biomass fuel in the domestic
kitchen is liable for about 1.6 million deaths per annum [7].
However, solid biomass fuel is still an important source of en-
ergy for domestic cooking and space heating. It provides more than
11% of the total energy demand of the world [8,9]. It has been
estimated that about 3 billion people in the world use the solid
biomass fuel for cooking purposes [10]. More than half of this
population resides in the rural areas of the developing countries.
Villagers in the developing countries use the solid biomass like
twigs, wood, shrubs, crop residue, animal waste or dung etc. to
meet their heating and cooking energy need. Traditionally, such
biomasses are burnt in a low efficient crude combustion device like
the three-stone fire stove to get the required energy for cooking.
The burning efficiency of this type of stove is very low and releases
large amounts of harmful pollutants due to incomplete burning of
the solid biomass fuel. On the other side, the three-stone fire stove
consumes large amount of solid biomass due to its low burning

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.08.002
0961-9534/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
28 R. Suresh et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 27e34
efficiency which may additionally lead to deforestation and soil
erosion. However, immediate shift from solid biomass cooking fuels
to so called modern fuel is far away dream as the international price
of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG), will continue to increase faster than
rural incomes and large governmental subsidy on LPG for the rural
areas will affect the annual budget of the country.
Worldwide, attempts have been made since 1940 to improve the
performance of the solid biomass cookstoves. The improved cook-
stove consumes less amount of the solid biomass fuel following its
high efficiency of burning. This not only improves the health and
livelihood of the user but also mitigate the climate change by
reducing the amount of emission of different atmospheric pollut-
ants and decreasing the burden on the forest [11]. Failure in the
performance of the improved cookstoves in the preliminary phases
attributed to lack of testing, incompatibility in the opening of the
stove and size of cooking pots, lack of research on burning physics
and stove engineering etc. So far, the Chinese National Cookstove
project during ‘90s is the most successful project in this aspect [12].
UNDP and World Bank have funded several improved cookstove
projects in different countries during last 4 decades. However, till
date, only 25% of the solid biomass fuel users have access to
improved cookstoves [13].
Solid biomass fuel accounts for more than 80% of total fuel used
for domestic cooking in India [14]. Fuel wood, dung cake and crop
residue are the primary cooking fuel for about 90% of solid biomass
fuel using households of the country [14]. In India, burning of the
solid biomass fuel accounts for more than half a million of pre-
mature deaths, 4% of total greenhouse gas emission and more than
30% of total BC emission per annum [15]. The improved cookstove
project was first launched in India during 1985 (National program
on improved chullah). However, lack of formal scientific monitoring
made it difficult to evaluate the performance of different designs of
cookstoves [16]. During 2009, the government of India has
launched the National Biomass Cookstove Initiatives with a revised
standard for stove design and large number of test centers all over
the country [17].
Dozens of organizations have developed projects to promote
cookstoves as health interventions since the mid ‘90s in India, but
only a few organizations have been able to scale up beyond few
thousand stoves [18]. These numbers are impressive, but are not
sufficient to impact public health at the large population scale of
the country. More recently, large commercial manufacturers such
as TARA, Envirofit (Rocket stove), Philips (forced stove) and many
other smaller organizations have introduced stove models, based
on improved designs and materials, that claim better performance
on thermal and ecological factors following the standard set by the
government of India [19]. However, commercialization of cook-
stoves raises important questions about the appropriateness of
different models of service delivery when public health and global
environment is at stake. The comparison of different improved
cookstove models based on standard testing protocols is necessary
to estimate the performance of different technologies in compared
to the conventional one [20].
Studies suggested that the improved cookstoves may be able to
reduce the solid biomass fuel consumption by 19e66% [21]. A
controlled study of different cookstoves reported that the fuel
consumption in rocket-type stoves was reduced by 33% compared
to the traditional cookstoves; while the CO and PM emissions were
reduced by 75% and 46% respectively, as compared to the tradi-
tional cookstove [22]. While, some TLUD-type forced draft cook-
stoves recorded 40% reduction in fuel consumption and 90%
reduction in PM emission compared to the traditional cookstoves
[20]. Arora et al. [23] have compared different standard test pro-
cedures available in India to test the solid biomass cookstoves. They
have reported that the PM emission from the same cookstove was
55% lower with bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) test procedures in
comparing to the Water Boiling Test (WBT); while CO emission was
higher with the BIS test procedure. This suggests the importance of
involvement of the same procedure to test the ecological and health
benefits of each stove. There is a significant effect of cooking cycle
on the emission and efficiency of cookstoves [24]. However, most of
the reported tests of the improved cookstoves were conducted
under controlled conditions with commercially available
condensed solid biomass fuel. The operating conditions of the stove
may significantly differ in the rural areas than the controlled
environment. Additionally, none of the commercially available
cookstoves had been tested with the crop residues or dung cake as
fuel [16].
This study intends to compare the performance of three
different types of improved cookstoves with three different types of
the solid biomass fuels (e.g. fuel wood, dung cake and crop residue)
under the normal cooking environment of the rural India. The
performance of the improved cookstoves were tested over the
traditional cookstove, based on the parameters, (a) consumption of
specific fuel; (b) duration of cooking and (c) concentration of pol-
lutants (PM2.5 and CO) inside the kitchen during the cooking time
using standard methodology. Additionally, this study also tested
the thermal efficiency of different types of cookstoves with
different solid biomass fuel types.
2. Materials and methods
The thermal efficiency and specific fuel consumption in various
cookstoves with different types of solid biomass fuel were evalu-
ated following the International standard method of water boiling
test (WBT) [25] and controlled cooking test (CCT), respectively [26].
A common standard meal (rice and pulse e dal) was selected for
this study. Same amount of pulse (skinned green gram: 200 g) and
rice (500 g) were taken during each cooking time. The pulse and
rice were cleaned with water and 1.5 L of water was kept aside for
adding throughout the cooking. The pulse and rice were frequently
stirred until they were completely cooked. A flat bottom aluminum
pot with lid was used as the cooking vessel.
2.1. Study site
Tests were carried out in a simulated village kitchen (length x
width x height: 2.8 m
2.6 m
3.3 m) set up in the Jagadeeshpur
block (Lat: 26.272726 N, Long: 81.373583 E) of Sultanpur district of
the state of Uttar Pradesh, India. There were two open doors and
one open window to ensure adequate ventilation in the kitchen.
Village women were provided training to use all improved cook-
stove types and used them regularly for one week prior to the
commencement of the experiment. Cooks were performed the
cooking without any interference from the research team.
2.2. The solid biomass fuel used in the study
Three different types of locally available solid biomass fuels e
fuel wood (FW), dung cake (CDC) and crop residue (CR: mixture of
mustard stalks and lentil sticks) e were used during the study. The
most commonly available FW in the village was Babul (Acacia
Nilotica). The dung cakes were locally prepared from cattle dung in
round shape by the households and crop residues were collected
from local crop fields. The moisture content of each fuel was
measured with a portable digital moisture meter, (Delhorst make,
USA J-2000 model) during the experiment. The moisture content of
the FW was in the range of 9e13% throughout the experiment. All
solid fuels were made into nearly same size (length: 10 cm; width:
4 cm; thickness: 4 cm) to maintain nearly similar airspace within
 R. Suresh et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 27e34
the fuel while burning in the cookstoves. The amount of solid
biomass fuels used in the cookstoves was measured using a digital
scale (Make: Equal UNIQUE; range: 0e15 kg; resolution: 1 g). The
standardized cooking task with the same type of solid biomass fuel
(F) was conducted five times in each type of stove (S).
2.3. Cookstove models used in the study
Three different models of improved cookstove (one forced draft
and two natural draft) were used in the study along with traditional
cookstove as control (Fig. 1). Five replicates of each type of stove
were maintained in the study.
The traditional stove used in the experiment was locally made
single pot mud stove (Fig. 1). The stove was coated with a thick layer
of mud and allowed to dry. It was a U-shaped semi enclosed mud
stove or chulha with an opening in the front for feeding the fuel.
Three small humps at the top rim of the enclosure were used to
provide support for the cooking pot and to create an entry for
secondary air needed for the combustion of flammable gases as
well as an exit for the exhaust gas.
A TLUD-type forced draft cookstove was used in the study. The
forced air jets in the forced draft (FD) cookstove provide better
Fig. 1. Different models of cook stove used in the study. A. Traditional cook stove; B. Natural draft improved cook stove (ND1); C: Natural draft improved cook stove (ND2); D. Forced
draft improved cook stove.
29
mixing of the flame, gases and air. A battery operated fan at the
bottom of the FD stove was run at maximum speed throughout the
cooking time to provide excess air supply to the flame (Fig. 1).
Two natural draft rocket-type cookstoves were included in the
present study. One of the natural draft improved cookstoves used in
the study was designed with an insulated combustion chamber
(Diameter: 10 cm; length: 26 cm) that cuts down the energy loss
and maintains heat inside the chamber wall (ND1) (Fig. 1). The
outer body of the stove is made of mild steel with an inner cylin-
drical fire brick shell. The stove had a wood grate, which was made
of mild steel painted with heat resistant aluminum color. The outer
body of the other natural draft cookstove (ND2) was made with the
galvanized iron sheet. It was having a flame controller with a
galvanized iron mess to divide the inner compartment into fuel
compartment and flame compartment (Fig. 1).
Kerosene (5 mle10 ml) was used for the initial ignition of the
fuel in each type of stove.
2.4. Measurements of different parameters in the kitchen during the
experiment
Four parameters were measured to study the performance of
30 R. Suresh et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 27e34
different cookstoves with different solid biomass fuel e concen-
trations of (a) PM2.5 and (b) CO in the kitchen room during cooking;
(c) fuel consumed to cook a specific amount of food (specific fuel
consumption); (d) cooking duration of a specific amount of food.
Parameter c) and d) were included to estimate the thermal ef-
ficiency of each stove type while using a specific type of solid
biomass fuel.
2.4.1. Measurements of PM2.5 and CO in the kitchen room
The measurement of PM2.5 was conducted with low volume air
sampling pump (Model: Universal; SKC Ltd., Dorset, United
Kingdom). The PM2.5 were collected using a BGI cyclone equipped
with 37 mm diameter Teflon® filter at a flow rate of 1.5 L min1. Air
was drawn through the cyclone pre-selectors by battery operated
constant flow sampling pump. The air flow in the pump was cali-
brated with rotameter before and after each set of sampling. Filters
were kept in a desiccator for 24 h prior to weighing before and after
collection of the sample. The PM2.5 concentration (mg m3) was
calculated by dividing the blank corrected increase in filter mass
with the total volume of air sampled.
A portable electrochemical cell based CO monitor (Model:
Dr€ager Pac® III, Draeger Safety Inc., Pittsburgh, USA) was used to
measure the concentration of CO in the kitchen room. The mini-
mum detectable limit of the instrument was 0.02 mg m3 with
0.01 mg m3 resolution. The instrument was calibrated before the
starting of experiment on each day with 910 mg m3 CO in nitrogen
standard (MSC-307; Master Standard, Mumbai, India).
Concentrations of PM2.5 and CO in the kitchen room (without
any cooking activities) were measured continuously for two days
(at 8 h interval) prior to the starting of the experiment to get the
background concentrations of PM2.5 (55 mg m3) and CO (0 mg m3).
Instruments were placed at a distance of 1 m from the edge of
the combustion zone, 1.45 m above the floor and 1.5 m away
(horizontally) from open doors and windows (Fig. 2). PM2.5 and CO
concentrations in the kitchen were measured continuously
throughout the cooking period and concentrations were reported
after subtracting the respective background concentrations.
2.5. Statistical analysis
The database of different parameters was then statistically
analyzed using ANOVA (Analysis of Variance). Fischer's Least Sig-
nificant Difference (LSD) test was employed to analyze the differ-
ence between cookstoves and fuel types for each parameter. A
mixed ANOVA was employed to study all possible interactions in
the study. In the first case, the parameter was analyzed only ac-
cording to the type of cookstove (S) used. In the second case, only
the fuel type (F) was considered and the type of cookstove was
ignored. Finally, both fuel (F) and cookstove (S) types were
considered together for the ANOVA. SPSS-21(IBN corp., USA) was
used for the statistical analysis of the database.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Variation of different parameters based on different stove types
3.1.1. Variation in indoor concentrations of PM2.5 and CO
Significant differences in the concentration of PM2.5 (Fcalc ¼ 5.4;
Fcrit ¼ 3.2) and CO (Fcalc ¼ 34.0; Fcrit ¼ 3.2) in the kitchen room were
observed with the use of different types of cookstoves (Table 1). The
concentration of PM2.5 and CO were significantly lower with FD
(PM2.5 ¼ 699 ± 68 mg m3 and CO ¼ 8 ± 1 mg m3) compared to
other cookstove types. Kar et al. [27] and MacKarty et al. [22] have
also reported lower PM2.5 and CO emission from the FD. However,
there were no significant differences in the concentration of PM2.5
and CO in the kitchen room with the use of ND type and traditional
cookstoves. In caparison to the traditional cookstove, 49% reduction
in the indoor concentration of PM2.5 was recorded with the use of
FD across different fuel types. The concentration of PM2.5 (mg m3)
with different type of stoves followed the order; ND2
(1442 ± 120) > Traditional (1383 ± 170) > ND1 (1345 ± 57) > FD
(699 ± 68), while the concentration of CO (mg m3) in the kitchen
room with different type of stoves followed the order; Traditional
(18 ± 2) > ND2 (17 ± 2) > ND1 (17 ± 1) > FD (8 ± 1). Muralidharan
et al. [28] have also reported similar reduction in PM2.5 and CO
concentration with FD type cookstove with FW in a rural kitchen of
Western India. Studies from other developing countries have also
reported significant reduction in the concentration of PM2.5 and CO
in the kitchen with FD type cookstoves [29,30]. The excess air
provided in the FD type stove helps to maintain the flame and
complete burning of the fuel which converts the fuel into carbon di-
oxide and water. Thus the burning of solid fuel in the FD type stoves
reduces the emission of CO. Surprisingly, the emission of PM2.5
from ND1 was significantly higher than that of the traditional mud
stove during the cooking period. Kar et al. [27] have reported higher
concentration of black carbon in the breathing zone with ND stoves
compared to that of the traditional stoves. Significantly higher
emission of PM2.5 compared to the traditional stove during to the
burning of solid fuel in the ND2 cookstoves may attribute to
significantly lower supply of air (oxygen) in the flaming zone in the
ND2 in comparison to that of the traditional stove. This might have
increased the PM2.5 emission from the ND2 cookstove in compar-
ison to others. However, the percent reduction in the emission of
PM2.5 and CO with the use of FD stove can also varied based on the
technical specification and materials used in fabrications in FD
stoves [31].
3.1.2. Variation in specific fuel consumptions
The specific fuel consumption i.e. quantity of fuel consumed to
cook a given amount of food under a standard cooking task, was
significantly different according to the type of stove used
(Fcalc ¼ 28.6; Fcrit ¼ 2.8). The specific fuel consumption for all types
of solid biomass fuels was significantly lower with FD type cook-
stoves, while it was significantly higher with traditional mud
cookstoves (Fig. 3). However, there was no statistically significant
variation of the specific fuel consumptions among the ND stoves
selected for the study. The specific fuel consumption (g kg1) fol-
lowed the order; Traditional (1163 ± 131) > ND1 (993 ± 201) > ND2
(986 ± 223) > FD (588 ± 132). Solid fuel burns under insufficient air
(oxygen) for total combustion in the traditional cookstoves, which
reduces the total amount of heat generation during the burning of
the solid fuel in the traditional cookstoves. Additionally, the design
of the traditional cookstove does not reduce the heat loss from the
stove materials. On the other hand, solid fuels are burnt under
excess air (oxygen) to assure complete combustion in the FD
cookstoves. The excess air additionally maintains the flame of the
inflammable gases released during the pyrolysis of solid fuel. The
design of the FD cookstove reduces the excess heat loss from the
wall of the stove during the burning of the solid fuels. All these lead
to the requirement of less amount of fuel for the generation of
specific amount of heat to prepare a specific amount of food in the
FD cookstoves.
3.1.3. Variation in duration of cooking
The duration of cooking for the same cooking task is also
dependent on the amount of heat generation and utilization of heat
by the specific type of stove. The cooking duration during the
present study was significantly different in different type of stoves
(Fcalc ¼ 7.5; Fcrit ¼ 2.8). Traditional and FD type stoves had signifi-
cantly lower durations of cooking. The duration of cooking (min)
 R. Suresh et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 27e34 31

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the set-up of the measuring equipment inside the kitchen.

Table 1
Concentration of PM2.5 and CO in the kitchen environment using different types of solid biomass fuels and cook stoves while preparing same amount of food.

Stove Fuel

CDC FW CR Mean (stove)

3 3 3 3 3 3
PM2.5 (mg m ) CO (mg m ) PM2.5 (mg m ) CO (mg m ) PM2.5 (mg m ) CO (mg m ) PM2.5 (mg m3) CO (mg m3)
c d b b a b B
Traditional 2242 (±82) 26 (±1) 1055 (±61) 7 (±1) 854 (±104) 21 (±1) 1383 (±170) 18b (±2)
ND1 1439b (±160) 20c (±1) 1373c (±32) 6b (±0) 1223b (±26) 23b (±2) 1345B (±57) 17b (±2)
ND2 1244a (±54) 16b (±1) 1976d (±41) 12c (±0) 1106a (±194) 22b (±1) 1442B (±120) 17b (±1)
FD 960a (±9) 7a (±1) 470a (±28) 2a (±0) 666a (±132) 14a (±0) 699A (±68) 8a (±1)

Mean (Fuel_total) 1471C (±117) 172 (±2) 1218B (±126) 71 (±1) 962A (±77) 202 (±1)

Fuel (F)
Fcalc 34.2 65.0 217.0 66.4 3.8 10.5
FCrit 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
LSD (5%) 328.7 3.5 148.9 1.6 450.9 4.1

Fuel_total
FCalc 5.4 34.0
FCritical 3.2 3.2
LSD (5%) 316.0 3.5

Stove (S)
FCalc 9.5 6.9
FCritical 2.8 2.8
LSD (5%) 377.7 5.9

F
S
FCalc 21.8 17.8
FCritical 2.3 2.3

CDC: Dung cake; FW: Fuel wood; CR: Crop residue.

Mean of five replicate observations. Values in the parenthesis indicate standard error of mean.
In a column mean followed by a common alphabet is not significantly different (p < 0.05) with Fisher's Least Significant Difference (LSD) test.
Mean (Fuel_total) values with a common alphabet (upper case) and common letter are not significantly (p < 0.05) different with Fisher's LSD test.
32 R. Suresh et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 27e34
followed the order; ND2 (86 ± 11) > ND1 (82 ± 9) > Traditional
(76 ± 10) > FD (70 ± 7) (Fig. 4). Higher cooking duration in the ND1
and ND2 cookstoves irrespective of the solid fuel may attribute to
the lower level of heat generation compared to that of the FD stove
due to the comparatively lower amount of air (oxygen) flow in the
ND1 and ND2 stoves. Earlier, Arora et al. [32] have reported
significantly lower cooking duration with FD cookstoves, compared
to other improved cookstoves from a lab based study. Fig. 4 in-
dicates that the cooking duration was significantly lower in FD
cookstove compared to others when FW and CR were used as the
solid fuel. As mentioned earlier, the generation of heat from the
burning of solid fuel is higher in the FD stoves while heat loss is
comparatively lower in the FD stoves. These consecutively reduce
the cooking duration of a specific amount of food. In the traditional
cookstove, wind flow in the stove bottom is increased manually
with a country fan or blower which may increase the heat gener-
ation and accelerate the cooking process to reduce the cooking
during compared to that of the ND cookstoves.
3.2. Variation of different parameters based on different fuel types
Apart from the type of cookstove, the type of solid fuel used in
the cookstove significantly affects the emission of pollutants,
duration of cooking and the amount of fuel used for the preparation
of a specific fuel.
3.2.1. Variation in indoor concentrations of PM2.5 and CO
The concentrations of PM2.5 and CO varied with type of fuel used
for cooking (Fcalc ¼ 5.4; FCrit ¼ 3.16 and Fcalc ¼ 34; FCrit ¼ 3.16
respectively) (Table 1). Compared to other fuel, the concentration of
PM2.5 was significantly lower when CR was used as fuel
(962 ± 77 mg m3); while CO concentration (7 ± 1 mg m3) was
significantly lower when FW was used as fuel. The concentration of
PM2.5 (mg m3) with different types of solid fuel followed the order;
CDC (1471 ± 117) > FW (1218 ± 126) > CR (962 ± 77). Significantly
higher concentration of PM2.5 in the emission from the burning of
the CDC may attribute to the smoldering process of burning of CDC
under low temperature and high ash content of CDC with low
Fig. 3. Specific consumption (g) of different type of solid fuels in different cook stoves
to prepare 1 kg of specific food material. Bars indicates mean of five replicate obser-
vations. Error bar at the top of the bars indicates standard error of mean. Bar followed
by a common alphabet (small) among the fuel type indicates no significant difference
(p < 0.05) in mean value with Fisher's Least Significant Difference (LSD) test. Stove
types with common alphabet (capital) at the top are not significantly different
(p < 0.05) with Fisher's LSD test. ND1 and ND2: Natural draft improved cook stove; FD:
Forced draft improved cook stove. CDC: Dung cake; FW: Fuel wood (babul); CR: Crop
residue (mustard and lentil stem).
Fig. 4. Duration of cooking to prepare a specific amount of food in different type of
cook stoves with different solid biomass fuels. Bars indicates mean of five replicate
observations. Error bar at the top of the bars indicates standard error of mean. Bar
followed by a common alphabet (small) among the fuel type indicates no significant
difference (p < 0.05) in mean value with Fisher's Least Significant Difference (LSD) test.
Stove types with common alphabet (capital) at the top are not significantly different
(p < 0.05) with Fisher's LSD test. ND1 and ND2: Natural draft improved cook stove; FD:
Forced draft improved cook stove. CDC: Dung cake; FW: Fuel wood (babul); CR: Crop
residue (mustard and lentil stem).
density [33,34]. CR mainly burns under the flaming phase of
biomass burning due to its lower burning point and as a result
emits lesser amount of PM [35]. Lower ash content in the CR may
also attribute to significantly lower PM2.5 emission during the
burning of the CR compared to the burning of the FW [36]. Sen et al.
[37] have also reported significantly lower PM emission from the
burning of the CR compared to FW in a controlled environment test.
The concentration of CO (mg m3) in the kitchen room followed the
order; CR (20 ± 1) > CDC (17 ± 2) > FW (7 ± 1). Large amount of CR
burns at a time due to lower burning point of the fuel. This lead to
low oxygen condition around the fuel and incomplete combustion
which lead to the significantly higher emission of CO from the
burning of CR compared to FW. On the other side, the carbon
content of CDC is higher than that of the FW and the CDC under
goes smoldering under low temperature. Thus CDC emits signifi-
cantly larger amount of CO compared to FW (Table 1). While, FW
initially starts burning under the flaming phase and then the major
part of the burning process undergoes through pyrolysis. Excess
amount of air (oxygen) around the FW allows the burning of the
flammable gases released during the pyrolysis and maintains high
temperature around the FW. This high temperature facilitates the
oxidation of the CO which may have formed during the pyrolysis
process in the FW under low oxygen condition.
3.2.2. Variation of total consumptions of different fuels
Significant variation in the specific fuel consumption was
observed with change in the type of fuel used for cooking
(Fcalc ¼ 14.2; Fcrit ¼ 3.2). The specific fuel consumption was signif-
icantly higher when CDC was used as fuel. Specific fuel consump-
tion (g kg1) followed the order; CDC (1148 ± 243) > CR
(868 ± 236) > FW (782 ± 202). CDC undergoes smoldering at a
lower temperature which attributes to significantly higher
requirement of the CDC to generate a particular amount of heat to
prepare a specific amount of food. On the other hand, higher
temperature of the flame around the FW due to the release of the
flammable gases from the pyrolysis of FW generates significantly
larger amount of heat than that of other solid fuels. This signifi-
cantly decreases the amount of FW requirement for the preparation
 R. Suresh et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 27e34
of a particular amount of fuel compared to other solid fuels.
3.2.3. Variation in duration of cooking
The type of fuel used also significantly influenced the duration
of cooking (Fcalc ¼ 38.9; Fcrit ¼ 3.2). The duration of cooking was
significantly high when CDC was used as fuel. This may attribute to
low temperature smoldering of the CDC almost throughout the
burning period. Due to the low temperate of burning, the heat
generated from the CDC was lower than other solid fuels; which
lead to significantly higher cooking duration for the specific
amount food, when CDC was used as the fuel. The duration of
cooking (min) with different solid fuels to prepare a specific
amount of food followed the order; CDC (90 ± 10) > FW
(75 ± 6) > CR (71 ± 6). However, there is no significant difference in
the cooking duration when FW and CR were used as the fuel.
Although the process of burning is different in FW and CR, but there
is no significant difference in the amount of heat generation which
may have attributed to similar duration of cooking with FW and CR
to prepare a specific amount of food.
Earlier studies have also suggested the performance of cook-
stoves depends on the type of biomass cooking fuels [32].
3.3. Thermal efficiency
Test results of the thermal efficiency of all types of stoves with
different fuel types are shown in Fig. 5. The thermal efficiency (cold
start, hot start and simmer phase) of traditional and ND cookstoves
were in the range of 14e19% and 21e28% respectively for all types
of solid fuels used in the present study. However, the thermal ef-
ficiency of FD stoves was in the range of 30e37% with different
types of solid fuels used in the present study. In general the thermal
efficiency of different types of cookstoves used in the present study
followed the order; FD > ND > Traditional (Fig. 5). However, when
different types of fuels were used in the FD stove, the thermal ef-
ficiency of the FD stove was recorded significantly higher with FW
followed by CDC and CR. Lower thermal efficiency of FD stoves with
CR may be attributed to the significantly higher consumption of CR
(Fig. 3). Within the traditional and ND cookstoves, higher thermal
efficiency was obtained when CR was used as the fuel, followed by
FW and CDC. CR burns early in the traditional cookstoves due to its
very low burning point. This makes it difficult to maintain the
simmering phase of the thermal efficiency test in the traditional
stove with CR, which may have attributed to higher thermal effi-
ciency of traditional and ND cookstoves when CR was used as the
fuel. However, there was no significant difference in the thermal
efficiency of traditional and ND cookstoves when FW and CDC were
Fig. 5. Thermal efficiency of different cook stoves with different solid biomass fuel
type. FW: Fuel wood (babul); CDC: Dung cake; CR: Crop residue (mustard and lentil
stem). Bars indicate mean of five replicate observations. Error bar at the top of the
mean bars indicates standard error of mean.
33
separately used as the fuel (Fig. 5). Interestingly, no significant
difference was recorded in the thermal efficiency of CDC and FW in
different types cookstoves. Singh et al. [38] have also reported no
significant difference in the thermal efficiency of different types of
cookstoves when FW and CDC were used as fuel.
4. Conclusion
Efficient combustion of biomass fuel in the improved cookstoves
increases the flame temperature which reduces the amount of fuel
and cooking duration required to cook a particular amount of food.
The cooking duration and consumption of specific type of fuel in
the present study were lower in all the studied improved cookstove
compared to the traditional. Among different improved cookstoves,
the thermal efficiency of the FD type cookstove was significantly
higher with different types of solid biomass fuels used in the pre-
sent study. This further reduces the cooking duration and amount
of fuel required to cook a particular amount of food in the FD type
improved cookstoves. By encouraging the complete combustion of
fuel, improved (FD, ND1 and ND2) cookstoves reduces the PM2.5
and CO emission during the burning of the solid biomass fuel,
which was reflected in lower concentrations of pollutants in the
indoor environment of the kitchen during the study period. The
percent reduction of PM2.5 and CO emission from the improved
cookstove depends on their thermal efficiency and design to supply
the air (oxygen) to the fuel during the burning and the type of solid
biomass fuel used. As a result, PM2.5 and CO concentrations in the
indoor kitchen environment were significantly lower with FD type
cookstoves than other cookstoves used in the present study with
different types of solid biomass fuels. However, percent reduction
of PM2.5 and CO concentration in the kitchen room with improved
cookstoves varied significantly with the type of solid biomass fuels.
The present study was conducted with trained cook to maintain
the similarity in operation of different types of cookstoves. How-
ever, under real life situation the operating conditions may increase
the indoor concentrations of PM2.5 and CO while using improved
cookstoves than that reported in the present study. Operational
tests of the improved cook stove in individual sampled rural
households are necessary to estimate their emission level and
performance during actual operation. However, the present study
can support the development of simulation models to estimate the
PM2.5 and CO concentrations in the kitchen room while using
improved cooking stove with different solid biomass fuel types.
Acknowledgements
Authors are thankful to gs1:Department of Science and Tech-
nology, India for providing financial support for this study. Authors
are also grateful to Dr R K Pachauri and Mr I H Rehman of TERI for
providing guidance during the course of study. The field coordi-
nation and continuous support of our field staff Mahesh Kumar is
greatly appreciated. The cooperation of the local cook was invalu-
able. Finally, without the warm response and support of the vil-
lagers, the study would have not been possible.
References
[1] C.A. Roden, T.C. Bond, S. Conway, A.B.O. Pinel, N. MacCarty, D. Still, Laboratory
and field investigations of particulate and carbon monoxide emissions from
traditional and improved cookstoves, Atmos. Environ. 43 (6) (2009)
1170e1181.
[2] T. Halloway, H. Levy, P. Kasibhatla, Global distribution of carbon monoxide,
Geophys. Res. Lett. 105 (2000) 12123e12147.
[3] M. Ezzati, B.M. Mbinda, D.M. Kammen, Comparison of emissions and resi-
dential exposure from traditional and improved cookstoves in Kenya, Environ.
Sci. Technol. 34 (4) (2010) 578e583.
[4] C. L'Orange, J. Volckens, M. DeFoort, Influence of stove type and cooking pot
34 R. Suresh et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 95 (2016) 27e34
temperature on particulate matter emissions from biomass cookstoves, En-
ergy Sustain. Dev. 16 (4) (2012) 448e455.
[5] Y.F. Xing, Y.H. Xu, M.H. Shi, Y.X. Lian, The impact of PM2.5 on the human
respiratory system, J. Thors. Dis. 8 (2016) E69eE74.
[6] S.S. Lim, T. Vos, A.D. Flaxman, G. Danaei, K. Shibuiya, H. Adair-Rohani, et al.,
A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to
67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990e2010: a systematic
analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010, Lancet 380 (2012)
2224e2260.
[7] WHO [World Health Organization], Household Air Pollution and Health. Fact
Sheet N 292, 2014.
[8] J. Minnen, E.V. Ierland, J. Nabuurs, Terrestrial carbon sinks and biomass, in:
Ierland EC van, J. Gupta, M.T.J. Kok (Eds.), Issues in International Climate
Policy: Theory and Policy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2003, pp. 137e170.
[9] J. Goldemberg, S. Coelho, Renewable energy-traditional biomass vs modern
biomass, Energy Policy (2004) 711e714.
[10] IEA [International Energy Agency], World Energy Outlook, 2014 [cited 2014
December 10] Available from: http://www.iea.org.
[11] S.F. Baldwin, Biomass Stoves: Engineering Design, Development, and
Dissemination, Volunteers in Technical Assistance, Verginia, USA, 1987.
[12] K. Smith, K. Deng, A chinese national improved stove program for the 21st
century to promote rural social and economic development, Energy Policy
Res. 1 (2010) 23e35.
[13] G. Legros, I. Havet, N. Bruce, S. Bonjour, The Energy Access Situation in
Developing Countries, WHO and UNDP. United Nation Development Program,
New York, USA, 2009.
[14] India Census, Fuel Used for Cooking, 2011 [cited 2015 January 10]. Available
from: http://censusindia.gov.in/.
[15] NFHS [National Family Health Survey], Third National Family Health Survey
2005e06, 2009 [cited 2014 December 10] Available from: www.rchiips.org/
nfhs/nfhs3.shtml.
[16] C. Venkataraman, A.D. Sagar, G. Habib, K. Smith, The national initiative for
advanced biomass cookstoves: the benefits of clean combustion, Energy
Sustain. Dev. 14 (2) (2010) 63e72.
[17] MNRE [Ministry of New and Renewable Energy], Govt. Of India. National
Biomass Cookstove Program, 2012 [cited 2014 December, 14] Available from:
www.mnre.gov.in.
[18] R. Bailis, A. Cowan, V. Berrueta, O. Masera, Arresting the killer in the kitchen:
the promises and pitfalls of commercializing improved cookstoves, World
Dev. 37 (10) (2009) 1694e1705.
[19] MNRE [Ministry of New and Renewable Energy], Govt. Of India. National
Biomass Cookstove Initiative, 2009 [cited 2010 March 30] Available from:
http://www.mnre.gov.in.
[20] N. MacCarty, D. Still, D. Ogle, Fuel use and emissions performance of fifty
cooking stoves in the laboratory and related benchmarks of performance,
Energy Sustain. Dev. 14 (3) (2010) 161e171.
[21] R. Bailis, V. Berrueta, C. Chengappa, K. Dutta, R. Edwards, O. Masera, D. Still,
K.R. Smith, Performance testing for monitoring improved biomass stove in-
terventions:experiences of the household energy and health project, Energy
Sustain. Dev. 11 (2) (2007a) 57e70.
[22] N. MacCarty, D. Still, D. Ogle, T. Drouin, Assessing Cookstove Performance:
Field and Lab Studies of Three Rocket Stoves Comparing the Open Fire and
Traditional Stoves in tamil nadu, India on Measures of Time to Cook, Fuel Use,
Total Emissions, and Indoor Air Pollution, Aprovecho Research Center, Oregon,
USA, 2008 [cited 2014 December 10]. Available from: www.aprovecho.org/
lab/rad.
[23] P. Arora, P. Das, S. Jain, V.V.N. Kishore, A laboratory based comparative study
of Indian biomass cookstove testing protocol and Water Boiling Test, Energy
Sustain. Dev. 21 (2014a) 81e88.
[24] P. Arora, S. Jain, K. Sachdeva, Laboratory based assessment of cookstove
performance using energy and emission parameters for North Indian cooking
cycle, Biomass Bioenergy 69 (2014b) 211e221.
[25] R. Bailis, D. Ogle, N. MacCarty, D. Still, The Water Boiling Test (WBT) Version
3.0, Household energy and health program, Shell Foundation, 2007b, p. 38.
[26] R. Bailis, Stove Performance Testing Protocols: CCT, Shell Foundation, Uni-
versity of California, Berkeley, 2007.
[27] A. Kar, I.H. Rehman, J. Burney, S.P. Puppala, R. Suresh, L. Singh, T. Ahmed,
N. Ramanathan, V. Ramanathan, Real-time assessment of black carbon
pollution in indian households due to traditional and improved biomass
cookstoves, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (5) (2012) 2993e3000.
[28] V. Muralidharan, T.E. Sussan, S. Limaye, K. Koehler, D.L. Williams, A.M. Rule,
S. Juvekar, S. Salvi, S. Biswal, Field testing of alternative cookstove perfor-
mance in a rural setting of western India, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12
(2015) 1773e1787.
[29] D. Pennise, S. Brant, S.M. Agbeve, W. Quaye, F. Mengesha, W. Tadele,
T. Wofchuck, Indoor air quality impacts of an improved wood stove in Ghana
and an ethanol stove in Ethiopia, Energy Sustain. Dev. 13 (2009) 71e76.
[30] C.D.L. Sota, J. Lumbreras, J. Mazorra, A. Narros, L. Fernandez, R. Borge, Effec-
tiveness of improved cookstoves to reduce indoor air pollution in developing
countries. The case of the casamance natural subregion, western Africa,
J. Geosci. Environ. Prot. 2 (2014) 1e5.
[31] P. Raman, J. Murali, D. Sakthivadevel, V.S. Vigneswaran, Performance evalu-
ation of three types of forced draft cookstoves using fuel wood and coconut
shell, Biomass Bioenergy 49 (2013) 333e340.
[32] P. Arora, S. Jain, K. Sachdeva, Physical characterization of particulate matter
emitted from wood combustion in improved and traditional cookstoves, En-
ergy Sus. Dev. 17 (2013) 497e503.
[33] J.B. Kandpal, R.C. Maheswari, T.C. Kandpal, Indoor air pollution from the
combustion of wood and dung cake and their processed fuels in domestic
cooking stoves, Energy Convers. Manag. 33 (1995) 1073e1079.
[34] C. Venkataraman, G.U.M. Rao, Emission factors of carbon monoxide and size-
resolved aerosol from biofuel combustion, Environ. Sci. Technol. 35 (2001)
2100e2107.
[35] T. Saud, M. Saxena, D.P. Singh, Saraswati M. Dahiya, S.K. Sharma, A. Datta,
R. Gadi, T.K. Mondal, Spatial variation of chemical constituents from the
burning of commonly used biomass fuels in rural areas of the Indo-Gangetic
Plain (IGP), India, Atmos. Environ. 71 (2013) 158e169.
[36] C. Venkataraman, G. Negi, S.B. Sardar, R. Rastogi, Size distributions of poly-
cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in aerosol emissions from biofuel combustion,
Aerosol Sci. 33 (2002) 503e518.
[37] A. Sen, T.K. Mandal, S.K. Sharma, M. Saxena, N.C. Gupta, R. Gautam, A. Gupta,
T. Gill, S. Rani, T. Saud, D.P. Singh, R. Gadi, Chemical properties of emission
from biomass fuels used in the rural sector of the western region of India,
Atmos. Environ. 99 (2014) 411e424.
[38] V.K. Singh, R. Suresh, S.F. Farzana, Experimental Study for Energy Efficient
Cooking Devices Based on Solid Biomass Fuel and its Sustainability for Rural
India, FOSET (Forum of Scientists, Engineers & Technologies), 9th All India
People's Technology Congress, Kolkata, India, 8-9 February, 2013.