Shen Huizhong, Luo Zhihan, Xiong Rui, Liu Xinlei, Zhang Lu, Li Yaojie, Du Wei, Chen Yuanchen, Cheng Hefa, Shen Guofeng, Tao Shu
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, China.
Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China.
Environ Int. 2021 Dec;157:106841. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106841. Epub 2021 Aug 23.
A large population does not have access to modern household energy and relies on solid fuels such as coal and biomass fuels. Burning of these solid fuels in low-efficiency home stoves produces high amounts of multiple air pollutants, causing severe air pollution and adverse health outcomes. In evaluating impacts on human health and climate, it is critical to understand the formation and emission processes of air pollutants from these combustion sources. Air pollutant emission factors (EFs) from indoor solid fuel combustion usually highly vary among different testing protocols, fuel-stove systems, sampling and analysis instruments, and environmental conditions. In this critical review, we focus on the latest developments in pollutant emission factor studies, with emphases on the difference between lab and field studies, fugitive emission quantification, and factors that contribute to variabilities in EFs. Field studies are expected to provide more realistic EFs for emission inventories since lab studies typically do not simulate real-world burning conditions well. However, the latter has considerable advantages in evaluating formation mechanisms and variational influencing factors in observed pollutant EFs. One main challenge in field emission measurement is the suitable emission sampling system. Reasons for the field and lab differences have yet to be fully elucidated, and operator behavior can have a significant impact on such differences. Fuel properties and stove designs affect emissions, and the variations are complexly affected by several factors. Stove classification is a challenge in the comparison of EF results from different studies. Lab- and field-based methods for quantifying fugitive emissions, as an important contributor to indoor air pollution, have been developed, and priority work is to develop a database covering different fuel-stove combinations. Studies on the dynamics of the combustion process and evolution of air pollutant formation and emissions are scarce, and these factors should be an important aspect of future work.
大量人口无法获得现代家用能源,依赖煤炭和生物质燃料等固体燃料。这些固体燃料在低效家用炉灶中燃烧会产生大量多种空气污染物,导致严重的空气污染和不良健康后果。在评估对人类健康和气候的影响时,了解这些燃烧源产生的空气污染物的形成和排放过程至关重要。室内固体燃料燃烧产生的空气污染物排放因子(EFs)通常因不同的测试方案、燃料-炉灶系统、采样和分析仪器以及环境条件而有很大差异。在这篇批判性综述中,我们关注污染物排放因子研究的最新进展,重点是实验室研究和实地研究之间的差异、无组织排放量化以及导致排放因子变化的因素。实地研究有望为排放清单提供更现实的排放因子,因为实验室研究通常不能很好地模拟实际燃烧条件。然而,后者在评估观测到的污染物排放因子的形成机制和变化影响因素方面具有相当大的优势。实地排放测量的一个主要挑战是合适的排放采样系统。实地和实验室差异的原因尚未完全阐明,操作人员的行为可能对这种差异产生重大影响。燃料特性和炉灶设计会影响排放,且这些变化受到多种因素的复杂影响。炉灶分类是比较不同研究的排放因子结果时面临的一个挑战。已经开发了基于实验室和实地的无组织排放量化方法,无组织排放是室内空气污染的一个重要来源,优先工作是建立一个涵盖不同燃料-炉灶组合的数据库。关于燃烧过程动力学以及空气污染物形成和排放演变的研究很少,这些因素应是未来工作的一个重要方面。