Potential of user training for reducing emissions of firewood stoves

Emissions from wood-burning stoves contribute to local air pollution. However, it is difficult to determine the real emissions from such stoves, especially due to unknown user behaviour, which can have a large impact on emissions. In this study, the low-cost emission reduction measure “user training” was evaluated to determine its emission reduction potential on firewood stoves. Two sets of tests were carried out. First, a field measurement campaign was conducted in Styria (Austria) with four wood stoves, where gaseous and particulate emissions were measured before and after a user training on optimised heating behaviour (e.g. ignition mode, fuel properties and placement in the combustion chamber, air supply). Gaseous emissions (carbon monoxide – CO, organic gaseous compounds – OGC) were measured continuously, while particulates were measured in batches, in undiluted and hot as well as in diluted and cooled flue gas in parallel with a specific field measurement setup. In addition, particle filters were analysed to quantify the concentration of the carcinogenic compound benzo(a)pyrene (BaP). Second, user training workshops were conducted. These tests had a simple measurement setup in order to increase the number of tests. Thus, only CO emissions were evaluated. The results show that real life emissions in the field are high and have a high variability compared to laboratory tests and official type test results. However, user training showed a significant reduction of CO, OGC, TSP and BaP emissions of 42%, 57%, 45% and 76% (median), respectively. In addition, TSPsum (sum of hot and cooled particle emission samples) emissions decreased by 39% (median) after user training. The relative reduction rates of all batches show that the highest emission reduction potential was identified for BaP, with a reduction rate of up to 97%. The results of the workshop tests confirmed the high variability in user behavior and the range for the emission reduction potentials, with a median CO reduction of 41%. The emission reduction potential of the user training measure is comparable to state-of-the-art technological measures such as electrostatic precipitators and catalysts. However, these measures are costly and require a high level of technical sophistication. User training, on the other hand, is relatively cheap, easy to implement and suitable for all users. Of course, there is some risk that trained end-users will revert to their old habits, leading to higher emissions again. Therefore, regular training may be necessary to maintain the higher level of performance. As we did not assess this aspect in our work, further research would be needed to prove this theory.