Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, The University of British Columbia , 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6T 1Z4.
Resource Optimization Initiative, No. 66, first Floor, first Cross, Domlur Layout, Bangalore 560 071, India.
Environ Sci Technol. 2016 Jul 5;50(13):7228-38. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b06208. Epub 2016 Jun 15.
Efforts to introduce more efficient stoves increasingly leverage carbon-finance to scale up dissemination of interventions. We conducted a randomized intervention study to evaluate a Clean Development Mechanism approved stove replacement impact on fuelwood usage, and climate and health-relevant air pollutants. We randomly assigned 187 households to either receive the intervention or to continue using traditional stoves. Measurements of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and absorbance were conducted in cooking areas, village center and at upwind background site. There were minor and overlapping seasonal differences (post- minus preintervention change) between control and intervention groups for median (95% CI) fuel use (-0.60 (-1.02, -0.22) vs -0.52 (-1.07, 0.00) kg day(-1)), and 24 h absorbance (35 (18, 60) vs 36 (22, 50) × 10(-6) m(-1)); for 24 h PM2.5, there was a higher (139 (61,229) vs 73(-6, 156) μg m(-3))) increase in control compared to intervention homes between the two seasons. Forty percent of the intervention homes continued using traditional stoves. For intervention homes, absorbance-to-mass ratios suggest a higher proportion of black carbon in PM2.5 emitted from intervention compared with traditional stoves. Absent of field-based evaluation, stove interventions may be pursued that fail to realize expected carbon reductions or anticipated health and climate cobenefits.
为了推广干预措施,引入更高效炉灶的努力越来越多地利用碳融资。我们进行了一项随机干预研究,以评估清洁发展机制批准的炉灶更换对薪材使用以及与气候和健康相关的空气污染物的影响。我们随机分配 187 户家庭接受干预或继续使用传统炉灶。在烹饪区、村庄中心和上风背景点进行了细颗粒物(PM2.5)和吸光度的测量。对照组和干预组在燃料使用量(中位数(95%CI):-0.60(-1.02,-0.22)vs-0.52(-1.07,0.00)kg/天)和 24 小时吸光度(35(18,60)vs 36(22,50)×10(-6) m(-1))方面存在较小且重叠的季节性差异(干预后减去干预前的变化);对于 24 小时 PM2.5,两个季节之间对照组的增加量(139(61,229)vs 73(-6,156)μg/m(-3))明显更高。40%的干预家庭继续使用传统炉灶。对于干预家庭,吸光度与质量比表明,与传统炉灶相比,干预炉灶排放的 PM2.5 中黑碳的比例更高。如果没有现场评估,可能会追求炉灶干预措施,而这些措施无法实现预期的碳减排或预期的健康和气候协同效益。