United States
                Environmental Protection
                Agency
 Air and Energy Engineering
 Research Laboratory
 Research Triangle Park NC 27711
               Research and Development
 EPA/600/S7-90/019 Jan. 1991
EPA       Project Summary
                Field  Performance  of Advanced
                Technology Woodstoves  in
                Glens  Falls,  NY,  1988-89
               Stockton G. Barnett
                 Participate emissions trends were
               evaluated for three models of catalytic
               and  two models  of  non-catalytic
               woodstoves under "in-home" burning
               conditions during the 1988-89 heating
               season in Glens Falls, NY. The results
               (averaging 9.4 g/h and 9.4 g/kg) showed
               about a 55% reduction in emissions
               compared to conventional woodstoves
               and demonstrate that the emissions per-
               formance of new woodstove technolo-
               gies has improved compared to that of
               stoves in earlier field studies. Emissions
               for the non-catalytic stoves were about
               50-55% and for the best performing
               catalytic stove about 80% lower than
               conventional woodstoves. Two of the
               catalytic stove models displayed el-
               evated emissions; in one case, a signifi-
               cant degradation trend developed; and
               in the other, emissions were elevated
               throughout  the test period. Leaky by-
               pass systemsappearto be a major cause,
               a> well as catalyst deterioration result-
               ing from lack of flame shielding and
               inadequate air/fuel mixing. Field emis-
               sions, exceed laboratory certification
               values on average by 2.5 times, but this
               ratio  varies  considerably among the
               stove models. Causes of these discrep-
               ancies include quality control problems
               with tolerances in production stoves,
               emissions deterioration  over time, and
               inadequacies in stove design introduced
               asthe result of attempts to design stoves
               to pass a certification test which utilizes
               conditions  different from those en-
               countered in the field.
  This Project Summary was developed
by ERA'S Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, NC, to announce key findings of
the research project that is fully docu-
mented In a separate report of the same
title (see Project Report ordering Infor-
mation at back).


Introduction
  This report summarizes results from par-
ticulate emissions tests cpnducted on five
woodstove models in homes in Glens Falls,
NY, during the 1988-89 wood-burning sea-
son. With the introduction of the catalytic
combustor for use in woodstoves by Corn-
ing Glass Works in 1980, the production of
clean-burning woodstoves appeared fea-
sible. Research and regulatory activity aimed
at producing low-emissions appliances in-
creased rapidly for both catalytic and non-
catalytic designs. Since woodstove devel-
opment and evaluation activities were
generally conducted under laboratory con-
ditions, the effectiveness of laboratory-
certified clean-burning technologies under
real-world in-home conditions was unknown.
More recent research efforts have been
directed toward evaluating in-home perfor-
mance.
  Findings of the 1988-89 study include:

• The  overall average particulate emis-
  sions from  the new technology
• woodstoves was 9.4 g/h (9.4 g/kg). This
  represents a 55-60% reduction in emis-
  sions compared to the  21.3 g/h rate for
                                                               Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
 conventional stoves measured in earlier
 field studios, and demonstrates that cur-
 rent technology is capable of significantly
 reducing particulate emissions  from
 woodstoves.

> The overall average burn rate was 1.09
 dry kg/h, average wood moisture  was
 27% dry  basis (21% wet basis), and
 average draft was -0.074 in. water col-
 umn  (249 Pa). Average stack  oxygen
 was 15.4%, and net thermal efficiencies
 ranged from about 48 (Country Comfort
 CC150)to 67% (Country Flame BBF-6).

1 The  woodstove model with the lowest
 emissions, the catalytic Country Flame
 BBF-6, had average emissions of 4.6 g/h
 (4.1 g/kg), approaching the  1990 EPA
 certification limit of 4.0 g/h (Figure 1).
 These emissions are about 80% lower
 than those of conventional woodstoves.

> The  emissions of the other  four stove
 models appear statistically to constitute a
 single population, about twice as high as
 the Country Flame's.
                          • The two brands of non-catalytic stoves,
                            the Regency R3/R9  and the Country
                            Comfort CC150, averaged 9.3 g/h (8.2 g/
                            kg) and 11.3 g/h (11.2 g/kg), respectively.
                            These values are about 50% lower than
                            those for conventional stoves, and are
                            higher than the 7.5 g/h 1990 EPA certifi-
                            cation limit for these stoves.

                          • Two of the three catalytic stove models
                            did not perform up to expectations in
                            most homes tested. In four out of five
                            homes, the Blaze King Royal Heir expe-
                            rienced  a significant trend in  perfor-
                            mance degradation which began after 1
                            month of stove operation.  The Oregon
                            Woodstove displayed generally elevated
                            emissions performance throughout the
                            test period.

                          Conclusions       "
                            Examination of the stoves during and
                          after the emissions testing period revealed
                          the failure of a small number of identifiable
                          components as the cause of emissions
                          degradation, and identified areas of poten-
                          tial premature component failure.
                                                         1. Blaze King Royal Heir 2200 (catalytic):
                                                          Warping of some bypass support ar-
                                                          eas developed, causing leaks around
                                                          the catalyst. Partial catalyst failure
                                                          probably occurred in some stoves, in-
                                                          duced, at least in part, by lack of flame
                                                          impingement shielding and high inter-
                                                          nal catalyst temperatures.

                                                         Z.Oregon  Woodstove (catalytic):  By-
                                                          passes generally fitted loosely, caus-
                                                          ing leaks around the catalyst. Bypass
                                                          control  mechanisms would not close
                                                          the bypass consistently.

                                                         3. Regency R3/R9 (non-catalytic): Some
                                                          baffles oxidized and/or warped.

                                                         4. Country Comfort CC150 (non-cata-
                                                          lytic): Oxidation and warping of bypass
                                                      	sypBPjtjireasjoccurred.____	
                                                         In general, several aspects of stove de-
                                                       sign should  be followed to ensure a long-
                                                       lasting, clean-burning woodstove:

                                                         •\.Catalytic Stoves: Bypasses and by-
                                                          pass supports must be of sufficiently
                                                          heavy construction to  resist warping
           I
           I
14-

13-

12-

11-

10-

 9 -

 8-

 7 -

 6 -

 5-

 4 -

 3-

 2-

 1 -

 0
                                                                                     12.5
                                                        11.4
                                          9.8
4.6
                                                                       9.2
                                                                ~7
                       ,-,=,-.<... . ,..~-. „	 	 ».	1 " " T ,~

       Country F.       Blaze K.        Oregon        Regency

                                          Stove Brand
                                                                                                   11.4
                                                                                                        V7
                                                                                  CC150
                                                                                             CC W/O Bobst
         FJguro 1.  Average emissions for all test runs by stove brand.

-------
    and oxidation. The catalyst should be
    flame-protected and large enough to
    minimize internal peak temperatures.
    Air and fuel must be thoroughly mixed
    toproduceevencatalysttemperatures,
    and the stove should be tuned as rich
    as possible to reduce peak catalyst
    temperatures.

  2. Non-catalytic stoves: Baffles and other
    internal parts must be able to resist the
    oxidation,  warping,  and crumbling
    caused by  high temperatures. If it is
    necessary to use a bypass, the guide-
    lines for catalytic stoves apply.
  In-home performance of four of the five
stove brands did not agree closely with the
certification emissions values, exceeding
those values by up to four times as much.
On the other hand, the EPA-weighted certi-
fication emissions values and the results for
the in-home tests on the remaining stove
brand, the Country Flame BBF-6, were
nearly identical.
   In-home burning conditions  produce
stack gases that are about twice as diluted
as those produced by the Douglas fir cribs
used  in the certification tests.  In-home
drafts are almost twice as high as those
experienced in the certification process.
These differences appear to have a nega-
tive impact on new stove designs since
such designs are developed to produce low
emissions underthe certification conditions.
   A computer emissions model was devel-
oped for the  non-catalytic stoves. Emis-
sions tend to be lowest when average burn
rate is high, stack draft is high, and wood
moisture is low.
  A relatively high average net thermal ef-
ficiency of 67% was attained by the Country
Flame BBF-6 stoves. Efficiencies of about
50-55% (similar to those of conventional
stoves)  were common with  most  non-
catalytic stoves, primarily as the result of
relatively high levels of excess  air and high
stack temperatures.
  Conclusions cannot be drawn at this time
regarding the comparative performance of
the two catalyst brands used in the study
(Corning and Panasonic). Sample size is
small and performance from stove to stove
is too varied.

-------
 S. Bamettis with OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., Beaverton, OR 97005.
 Robert C, McCrtllls is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
 The complete report, consists of two volumes entitled "Field Performance of Advanced
    Technology Woodstoves in Glens Falls, NY, 1988-89:"
         "Volume l"(OrderNo. PB 91-125 641/AS; Cost:$17.00, subject to change)
         "Volume II. Technical Appendices" (Order No. PB 91-125 658/AS; Cost:
         $31.00, subject to change)
 Both volumes of this report will be available only from:
         National Technical Information Service
         5285 Port Royal Road
         Springfield, VA 22161
         Telephone: 703-487-4650
 The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
         Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental
Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
      BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
         EPA
   PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

EPA/600/S7-90/019

-------