A Comparison of Particulate Emission Rates from the In-Home Use of 

Certified Wood Stove Models with U.S. EPA Certification Emission Values 

 and 

 A Comparison between In-Home Uncertified and Certified Wood Stove 

Particulate Emissions 

Prepared for: 

John Crouch 

Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association 

7509 Madison Ave, Suite 204D 

Citrus Heights, CA 95610 

Prepared by: 

James E. Houck, Ph.D. 

7494 SW 48th Ave. 

Portland, OR 97219-1404 

(503) 244-8543 

jbchouck@comcast.net

February 1, 2012
ii 

Executive Summary 

The ability of wood stove NSPS certification values to predict field rankings among wood stove 

models and the degree to which they correspond to the magnitude of actual in-situ emissions for 

a given model were investigated. In addition, real-world emissions from certified wood stove 

models were compared to uncertified models. Both emission rates (g/h) and emission factors 

(g/kg) were used in that comparison. The effect of efficiencies on emissions was also taken into 

consideration in the comparison of mean certified with mean uncertified emission factors 

because higher efficiencies correspond to less fuel being burned to satisfy a given heating 

demand; effectively lowering emissions of certified models. 

Emission data from in-home sampling programs plus laboratory studies designed to simulate inhome use of wood stoves were reviewed. Two sampling systems that have undergone U.S. EPA 

quality assurance reviews were used for the field studies included in this evaluation. These were 

the Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES) and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute 

(VPI) sampler. Laboratory measurements were made using either Methods 5G or 5H (40 CFR 

Part 60 Appendix A) while the stoves were operated in a fashion simulating in-home burning 

conditions. The methods used to convert AWES and VPI data to method 5H equivalent data 

were developed as part of the documentation for AP-42 Section 1.10 Residential Wood Stoves 

and were followed here. Laboratory programs measured emissions directly by method 5H, 

method 5G, or both. Where necessary, Method 5G values were converted to 5H equivalent 

values as per 40CFR Part 60 Appendix A. 

Published U.S. EPA certification values in units of grams/hour (g/h) were compared to measured 

5H adjusted emission rates (g/h) for each certified woodstove model. Throughout this evaluation 

“5H equivalent” emission factors and emission rates were used. 

A robust database comprised of 618 total measurements was used for this evaluation. For the 

certified stoves, in total 409 emissions tests from 85 wood stoves comprised of 41 models were 

reviewed. For the uncertified stoves, 209 emissions tests on 62 stoves were reviewed. (The 

number of uncertified models included in the tests could not be determined as the specific 

uncertified models used in the tests were not always reported.) For the certified models there 

were 208 valid AWES samples and 165 valid VPI samples in the database. In addition, there 

were 36 individual valid laboratory samples. For the uncertified models there were 124 valid 

AWES samples, 65 valid VPI samples and 20 individual valid laboratory samples. 

For certified wood stoves, to be considered valid, a sample had to be for a certified wood stove 

model for which the certification value could be identified and the fuel species (or type), fuel 

moisture (% dry basis), and burn rate (dry kg/h) have had to been reported. Similarly, for 

uncertified wood stoves like criteria were considered necessary for a valid sample except, of 

course, there were no certification values. 

The average of the default efficiencies reported in the CFR as part of the NSPS and the 

efficiencies tabulated in AP-42 were used as the efficiency values for the efficiency adjusted 

emissions comparisons made here. While both sources are based on limited data, they represent 

arguably the best and most credible efficiency data available. A cursory review of older 
iii 

efficiency studies for uncertified models and miscellaneous studies with the laboratory operation 

of certified models suggests that the NSPS and AP-42 values are reasonable for the in-home 

operation of stoves. 

Figure ES1 is a plot of the individual emission rates (g/h) determined for each of the 409 valid 

“real-world” samples versus the U.S. EPA certification values for each certified stove model. 

Figure ES2 shows the U.S. EPA certification value for each stove model and the mean emission 

rate for each stove model averaged across all samples for that stove model. As can be seen from 

the figures, there is no correlation between certification values and the in situ emission rates and 

in most cases the magnitude of the emission rate for given sample is larger than the certification 

value. 

To mitigate (and to “smooth”) the impact of the various in-home conditions on emissions and the 

demonstrated uncertainty of the certification testing process, means by certification category 

were compiled. The three certification categories were: (1) Low (<3 g/h), (2) Medium (3-5 g/h), 

and (3) High (> 5g/h). Figures ES3 and ES4 show the emission rate and emission factor means 

of these three categories of certification values for the stoves from which they were measured. 

As can be seen, even when grouped by category, the U.S. EPA certification values do not predict 

the relative ranking of the stoves under real-world use. In fact, the “Low” category had higher 

mean emission rate and factor values than the “High” category. In addition, the U.S. EPA 

certification values do not predict the magnitude of the real-world emissions. The overall 

average of all 409 samples was 10.5 g/h as compared to the average certification value of the 41 

certified stove models reviewed here of 3.9 g/h. 

In addition to the means for the certified stove categories, the means for uncertified stoves are 

also shown in Figures ES3 and ES4. The data for uncertified stoves shown in Figures ES3 and 

ES4 confirm that certified stoves do have substantially lower particulate emissions under realworld, in-home usage as compared to uncertified models. 

Finally, when comparing particulate emissions on the basis of emission factors, the greater 

efficiency of certified stoves as compared to uncertified stoves was taken into consideration as 

less fuel would be burned in a stove with a higher efficiency to satisfy the same heating demand 

and hence less emissions would be produced. Figure ES5 shows that the effective mean 

emission factor of certified wood stoves when adjusted for efficiency is 52% of that uncertified 

ones which compares favorably with the fact that the mean emission rate of certified wood 

stoves is 47% of the uncertified wood stove mean (Figure ES3). 

While it was not among the primary objectives of this study, because both wood moistures and 

burn rates have been strongly implicated in affecting emissions from wood stoves and because 

both parameters were quantified in the studies from which the data compiled here were obtained, 

burn rates and wood moistures were plotted against emission rates and emission factors. Figures 

ES6 and ES7 are the plots of emission rates and emission factors versus the burn rate and wood 

moisture data. As can be seen in reviewing Figures ES5 and ES6 any clear relationship that these 

two parameters alone might have with emissions is clearly obscured by other real-world 

variables. It should, however, be noted that while there is no statistical trend Figure ES6 shows 

that higher emission factors (g/kg) are more common at lower burn rates. 
Figure ES1. Emission Rates by Test Run versus EPA Certification Values for Stove Models . (“Lab” refers to tlaboratory using consumer burn practices not EPA Method 28.) 
Figure ES2. Mean Emission Rates, Standard Deviations around Means, and EPA Certification Values by Stove 

model was assigned a stove code.) 
Figure ES3. Mean Emission Rates for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified Stoves by Low, Medium, and High CCategories. The mean of all certified emission rates is 47% of the mean of all uncertified emission rates (10.4/22
Figure ES4. Mean Emission Factors for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified Stoves by Low, Medium, and High Categories. The mean of all certified emission factors is 64% of the mean of all uncertified emission factors (10.
Figure ES5. Comparison of the Mean Effective Emission Factor of Certified Cordwood Stoves (Adjusted for Efficiency) wFactor of Uncertified Stoves. The mean of all certified emission factors adjusted for efficiency is 52% of the mean 

emission factors (8.3/16.0 X 100%). 
ix 

Figure ES6. Emision Rates (top) and Emission Factors (bottom) versus Burn Rates for All Stove 

Tests. (“Lab” refers to tests conducted in the laboratory using consumer burn practices not EPA 

Method 28.) 
x 

Figure ES7. Emision Rates (top) and Emission Factors (bottom) versus Wood Moisutre for All Stove 

Tests. (“Lab” refers to tests conducted in the laboratory using consumer burn practices not EPA Method

28.) 
xi 

Table of Contents 

 Page 

Executive Summary ii 

List of Tables xii 

List of Figures xiv 

1. Introduction 1 

2. Results and Discussion 2 

3. Description of the AWES and VPI Samplers 25

4. Conversion Equations 26 

5. Burn Rates 27 

6. Efficiencies 28 

7. Database 29 

 7.1 Certified Stove Database 29 

 7.2 Uncertified Stove Database 31 

8. References 83 
xii 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

1 Mean Emission Rates, Standard Deviations around Means, 

 and EPA Certification Values by Stove Model 17

2 Overall Data Summary – Mean and Median Emission Rates 

 for Uncertified Stoves and Certified Stoves by Low, Medium and 

 High Certification Categories 19 

3 Efficiencies of Cordwood Stoves 29 

4 (Part 1) Certified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove 

 Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath Falls, OR 33 

4 (Part 2) Certified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove 

 Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath Falls, OR 36 

5 (Part 1) Certified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove 

 Emission Sampler (AWES), Portland, OR 39 

5 (Part 2) Certified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove 

 Emission Sampler (AWES), Portland, OR 42 

6 (Part 1) Certified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove 

 Emission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YK 44 

6 (Part 2) Certified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove 

 Emission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YK 45 

7 (Part 1) Certified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove 

 Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Falls, NY 46 

7 (Part 2) Certified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove 

 Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Falls, NY 51 

8 Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic 

 Institute (VPI) Crested Butte, CO 56 
xiii 

9 Laboratory Tests Simulating In-Home Use of Certified 

 Wood Stoves 65 

10 Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove 

 Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath Falls, OR 68 

11 Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove 

 Emission Sampler (AWES), Portland, OR 69 

12 Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove 

 Emission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YK 71 

13 Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove 

 Emission Sampler (AWES), New York and Vermont 76 

14 Uncertified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic 

 Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CO 77 

15 Laboratory Tests Simulating the In-Home Use of 

 Uncertified Wood Stoves 81 
xiv 

List of Figures 

Figure Page 

ES1 Emission Rates by Test Run versus EPA Certification Values for 

 Stove Models iv 

ES2 Mean Emission Rates, Standard Deviations around Means, and 

 EPA Certification Values by Stove Model v 

ES3 Mean Emission Rates for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified 

 Stoves by Low, Medium, and High Certification Categories vi 

ES4 Mean Emission Factors for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified 

 Stoves by Low, Medium, and High Certification Categories vii 

ES5 Comparison of the Mean Effective Emission Factor of Certified 

 Cordwood Stoves (Adjusted for Efficiency) with the Mean Emission 

 Factor of Uncertified Stoves viii 

ES6 Emision Rates and Emission Factors versus Burn Rates for 

 All Stove Tests ix 

 ES7 Emision Rates and Emission Factors versus Wood Moisutre 

 for All Stove Tests x 

1 Emission Rates by Test Run versus EPA Certification Values for 

 Stove Models 4 

2 Emission Rates by Test Run versus Burn Rates – Certified Stoves Only 5 

3 Emission Factors by Test Run versus Burn Rates – Certified Stoves Only 6 

4 Emission Rates by Test Run versus Burn Rates – Uncertified Stoves Only 7 

5 Emission Factors by Test Run versus Burn Rates – Uncertified Stoves Only 8 

6 Emission Rates by Test Run versus Burn Rates – All Stoves 9 

7 Emission Factors by Test Run versus Burn Rates – All Stoves 10 

8 Emission Rates by Test Run versus Wood Moistures – Certified 

 Stoves Only 11 
xv 

9 Emission Factors by Test Run versus Wood Moistures – Certified 

 Stoves Only 12 

10 Emission Rates by Test Run versus Wood Moistures – Uncertified 

 Stoves Only 

 13 

11 Emission Factors by Test Run versus Wood Moistures – Uncertified 

 Stoves Only 14 

12 Emission Rates by Test Run versus Wood Moistures – All Stoves 15 

13 Emission Factors by Test Run versus Wood Moistures – All Stoves 16 

14 Mean Emissions Rates, Standard Deviations around Means, 

 and EPA Certification Values by Stove Model 19

15 Mean Emission Rates for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified 

 Stoves by Low, Medium, and High Certification Categories 20 

 

16 Mean Emission Factors for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified 

 Stoves by Low, Medium, and High Certification Categories 21 

17 Median Emission Rates for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified 

 Stoves by Low, Medium, and High Certification Categories 22 

18 Median Emission Factors for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified 

 Stoves by Low, Medium, and High Certification Categories 23 

19 Comparison of the Mean Effective Emission Factor of 

 Certified Cordwood Stoves (Adjusted for Efficiency) with the Mean 

 Emission Factor of Uncertified Stoves 24
1 

1. Introduction 

The ability of wood stove NSPS certification values to predict field rankings among wood stove 

models and the degree to which they correspond to the magnitude of actual in-situ emissions for 

a given model were investigated. In addition, real-world emissions from certified wood stove 

models were compared to uncertified models. Both emission rates (g/h) and emission factors 

(g/kg) were used in the comparison. The effect of efficiencies on emissions were also taken into 

consideration in the comparison of mean certified and mean uncertified emission factors because 

higher efficiencies correspond to less fuel being burned to satisfy a given heating demand 

effectively lowering emissions. Emission data from in-home sampling programs plus laboratory 

studies designed to simulate in-home use of wood stoves were reviewed. Published U.S. EPA 

certification values in units of grams/hour (g/h) were compared to measured 5H adjusted 

emission rates (g/h) for each certified woodstove model. 

The in-situ data were collected with two sampling systems. These were the Automated 

Woodstove Emissions Sampler (AWES)1 and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) sampler

2

. 

A description of these samplers is provided as Section 3. The AWES system was deployed in 

homes in Klamath Falls, OR3-6, Portland, OR6-9, Whitehorse, YK10, Glens Falls, NY11-12, as well 

as other areas in upstate New York and Vermont13. The VPI sampler was deployed in homes in 

Crested Butte, CO14-18. The field studies were sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy 

BPA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada, Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality, Wood Heating Alliance, CONEG Policy Research Center, and the New 

York State Energy Research and Development Authority. 

Laboratory studies collected emissions utilizing either the U.S. EPA reference method 5G or 5H 

with the stoves operating as they would normally be operated in homes. The laboratory studies 

were sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy BPA7, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency19, 20, and Environment Canada21-23

. 

For the certified stoves, in total 409 emissions tests from 85 wood stoves comprised of 41 

models were reviewed. The names of the certified stove models were intentionally not identified 

in this report but instead each model was provided a unique model code number. For the 

uncertified stoves, the models were not identified in some of the studies hence the total number 

of stove models that make up the database cannot be determined, however the total number 

stoves for which data were collected could be determined and was 62. A total of 209 emissions 

tests were conducted with uncertified models. 

The in-situ samples were generally collected over a time period of approximately one week each. 

For the certified models there were 208 valid AWES samples and 165 valid VPI samples in the 

database. In addition, there were 36 individual valid laboratory samples. For the uncertified 

models there were 124 valid AWES samples, 65 valid VPI samples and 20 individual valid 

laboratory samples. For certified wood stoves, to be considered valid a sample had to be for a 

certified wood stove model for which the certification value could be identified and the fuel 

species (or type), fuel moisture (% dry basis), and burn rate (dry kg/h) have had to been reported. 
2 

Similarly, for uncertified wood stoves like criteria were considered necessary for a valid sample 

except, of course, there were no certification values. 

The methods used to convert AWES and VPI data to method 5H equivalent data were developed 

as part of the documentation for AP-42 Section 1.10 Residential Wood Stoves and were followed 

here24. The method used to convert 5G laboratory test results to 5H equivalents was as specified 

in 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A, Method 5G. Laboratory programs measured emissions directly 

by method 5H, method 5G, or both. Where necessary, Method 5G values were converted 5H 

values as per 40CFR Part 60 Appendix A. 

The results are summarized in following Section 2. As previously noted a description of the 

AWES and VPI samplers is provided in Section 3. The conversion equations are presented in 

Section 4. A discussion on the methods used to determine burn rates and the differences in 

methods used in the field studies and laboratory tests simulating in home burn patterns using 

cordwood as compared to that used in Method 28 are provided in Section 5. A brief discussion 

of efficiencies is provided in Section 6. The database is provided in tabular form as Section 7. 

References are provided as Section 8. 

2. Results and Discussion 

Figure 1 is a plot of the individual emission rates (g/h) determined for each of the 409 valid 

“real-world” samples versus the U.S. EPA certification values for each certified stove model. As 

can be seen in the figure, there is no correlation between certification values and the emission 

rates and in most cases the magnitude of the emission rate for given sample is larger than the 

certification value. 

Because both wood moistures and burn rates have been strongly implicated in affecting 

emissions from wood stoves and because both parameters were quantified in the studies from 

which the data compiled here were obtained, burn rates and wood moistures were plotted against 

emission rates and factors (Figures 2-13). The burn rate and wood moisture data were shown in 

three ways: (1) certified stoves only, (2) uncertified stoves only, and (3) all stoves. As can be 

seen in reviewing Figures 2-13, any clear relationship that these two parameters alone might 

have with emissions is clearly obscured by other real-world variables. It should, however, be 

noted that while there is no statistical trend, higher emission factors (g/kg) are more common at 

lower burn rates (Figures 3, 5 and 7). 

Table 1 and accompanying Figure 14 show the U.S. EPA certification value for each stove 

model and the mean emission rate for each stove model averaged across all samples for that 

stove model. In some cases, data from more than one unit comprises the “stove model” mean. 

The data in Table 1 and Figure 14 are arranged in ascending order from the lowest certification 

value to the highest. As can be seen in reviewing the data in Tables 1 and Figure 14, the U.S. 

EPA certification values are not good predicators of the relative ranking of emissions from 

individual models or the actual magnitude of their emissions. 
3 

A caveat needs to be considered in reviewing the data shown in Table 1 and Figure 14. Many 

different in-home parameters may affect emissions. Notably these are: (1) wood moisture, (2) 

burn rate, (3) the species of tree used for fuel, (4) wood fuel piece size and shape, (5) kindling 

practices and wood addition patterns, (6) chimney draft (height, condition, and geometry of 

chimney and chimney connectors), (7) the stove’s condition (new versus various levels of wear), 

(8) barometric pressure (home elevation and meteorological conditions), and (9) hot versus cold 

starts. The caveat is that the data shown in Table 1 and Figure 14 did not (and within reason 

could not) account for the effect of all nine aforementioned variables and hence different stove 

model averages were comprised of measurements made under different sets of real-world 

conditions and for that reason may not be directly comparable. It should also be noted that burn 

rates reported for the AWES studies, the VPI studies, and the laboratory studies were calculated 

using different end points, which causes the burn rates not to be directly comparable among all 

studies. The methods used to determine burn rates are discussed in detail in Section 5. 

Adding to the lack of correlation between the in-home data and the certification data is the large 

uncertainty that has been seen in the certification test results themselves. Primarily by using U.S. 

EPA proficiency data, which allows for the comparison of repetitive testing of the same wood 

stove model (within a given laboratory and among laboratories) it has been concluded that 

although the certification testing process is certainly capable of reliably distinguishing between 

good and bad performance, it cannot reliably distinguish between “good, better and best” 

performance25,26

. 

To mitigate (and to “smooth”) the impact of the various in-home conditions and the 

demonstrated uncertainty of the certification testing process, means and medians by certification 

category were compiled. The three certification categories were: (1) Low (<3 g/h), (2) Medium 

(3-5 g/h), and (3) High (> 5g/h). Table 2 and accompanying Figures 15-18 show the emission 

rate and emission factor means and medians of these three categories of certification values for 

the stoves from which they were measured. As can be seen, the U.S. EPA certification values do 

not predict the relative ranking of the stoves under real-world use. In fact, the “Low” category 

had higher mean emission rate and factor values than the “High” category. In addition, the U.S. 

EPA certification values do not predict the magnitude of the real-world emissions. The overall 

average of all 409 samples was 10.5 g/h as compared to the average certification value of the 41 

stove models reviewed here of 3.9 g/h. 

In addition to the means and medians for the certified stove categories, the means and medians 

for uncertified stoves are also shown in Table 2 and associated Figures 15-18. The data for 

uncertified stoves shown in Table 2 confirm that certified stoves do have substantially lower 

particulate emissions under real-world, in-home usage as compared to uncertified models. 

Finally, when comparing particulate emissions on the basis of emission factors, the greater 

efficiency of certified stoves as compared to uncertified stoves should be taken into 

consideration as less fuel would be burned in a stove with a higher efficiency to satisfy the same 

heating demand and hence less emissions would be produced. Figure 19 shows that the effective 

mean emission factor of certified wood stoves when adjusted for efficiency is 52% of that 

uncertified ones which compares favorably with the fact that the mean emission rate of certified 

wood stoves is 47% of the uncertified wood stove mean (Figure 15). 
Figure 1. Emission Rates by Test Run versus EPA Certification Values for Stove Models. (“Lab” refers to tests laboratory using consumer burn practices not EPA Method 28.) 
Figure 2. Emission Rates by Test Run versus Burn Rates – Certified Stoves Only. (Burn rate data are as reporte

home AWES studies, in-home VPI studies, and laboratory studies that simulate in-home usage with cordwood. Tdescribed in 40CFR Part 60 Appendix A Method 28 for certification.) 
Figure 3. Emission Factors by Test Run versus Burn Rates – Certified Stoves Only. (Burn rate data are as reporhome AWES studies, in-home VPI studies, and laboratory studies that simulate in-home usage with cordwood. Tdescribed in 40CFR Part 60 Appendix A Method 28 for certification.) 
Figure 4. Emission Rates by Test Run versus Burn Rates – Uncertified Stoves Only. (Burn rate data are as repo

home AWES studies, in-home VPI studies, and laboratory studies that simulate in-home usage with cordwood. Tdescribed in 40CFR Part 60 Appendix A Method 28 for certification.) 
Figure 5. Emission Factors by Test Run versus Burn Rates – Uncertified Stoves Only. (Burn rate data are as repin-home AWES studies, in-home VPI studies, and laboratory studies that simulate in-home usage with cordwooddescribed in 40CFR Part 60 Appendix A Method 28 for certification.) 
Figure 6. Emission Rates by Test Run versus Burn Rates – All Stoves. (Burn rate data are as reported in the var

studies, in-home VPI studies, and laboratory studies that simulate in-home usage with cordwood. They are not aPart 60 Appendix A Method 28 for certification.) 
Figure 7. Emission Factors by Test Run versus Burn Rates – All Stoves. (Burn rate data are as reported in the vastudies, in-home VPI studies, and laboratory studies that simulate in-home usage with cordwood. They are not aPart 60 Appendix A Method 28 for certification.) 
Figure 8. Emission Rates by Test Run versus Wood Moistures – Certified Stoves Only. (“Lab” refers to tests co

laboratory using consumer burn practices not EPA Method 28.) 
Figure 9. Emission Factors by Test Run versus Wood Moistures – Certified Stoves Only. (“Lab” refers to tests 

laboratory using consumer burn practices not EPA Method 28.) 
Figure 10. Emission Rates by Test Run versus Wood Moistures – Uncertified Stoves Only. (“Lab” refers to test

laboratory using consumer burn practices not EPA Method 28.) 
Figure 11. Emission Factors by Test Run versus Wood Moistures – Uncertified Stoves Only. (“Lab” refers to telaboratory using consumer burn practices not EPA Method 28.) 
Figure12. Emission Rates by Test Run versus Wood Moistures – All Stoves. (“Lab” refers to tests conducted in consumer burn practices not EPA Method 28.) 
Figure 13. Emission Factors by Test Run versus Wood Moistures – All Stoves. (“Lab” refers to tests conducted 

using consumer burn practices not EPA Method 28.) 
17 

Table 1 

Mean Emission Rates, Standard Deviations around Means, and EPA Certification Values by 

Stove Model 

Stove

Code 

EPA Cert. Value (g/h) 5H Mean (g/h) S.D. # of Stoves Total Runs 

1 1.6 14.0 7.2 4 13 

2 1.9 4.0 1.2 2 7 

3 1.9 6.3 1.2 1 3 

4 2.1 17.0 18.8 4 22 

5 2.1 10.8 5.8 1 12 

6 2.2 13.4 6.8 5 27 

7 2.4 6.8 1.6 1 4 

8 2.5 9.8 4.3 5 24 

9 2.5 7.7 3.9 1 11 

10 2.6 7.3 2.6 1 5 

11 2.7 19.0 14.3 1 11 

12 2.7 10.7 4.6 4 19 

13 2.9 4.5 - 1 1 

14 3.0 6.5 2.3 2 4 

15 3.0 5.5 3.1 5 27 

16 3.1 8.1 4.1 1 3 

17 3.1 10.7 3.7 1 3 

18 3.1 15.4 0.9 1 3 

19 3.3 11.4 1.2 1 3 

20 3.4 7.2 3.3 6 26 

21 3.6 8.9 1.9 1 3 

22 3.7 10.5 3.3 4 15 

23 3.8 11.4 6.3 1 4 

24 3.8 16.5 4.4 1 5 

25 4.0 9.1 2.7 1 4 
18 

Table 1 (cont.) 

Mean Emission Rates, Standard Deviations around Means, and EPA Certification Values by 

Stove Model 

Stove

Code 

EPA Cert. Value (g/h) 5H Mean (g/h) S.D. # of Stoves Total Runs 

26 4.1 7.9 4.7 1 3 

27 4.2 8.9 3.7 6 24 

28 4.3 17.5 6.8 1 4 

29 4.4 6.2 - 1 2 

30 4.5 4.6 1.8 1 5 

31 4.6 13.1 4.3 2 10 

32 5.1 9.3 4.1 1 7 

33 5.2 4.7 0.4 1 3 

34 5.5 9.4 5.0 2 14 

35 5.7 9.7 3.0 1 3 

36 5.9 8.6 2.8 1 8 

37 6.4 9.8 5.3 3 34 

38 6.4 7.4 3.1 1 3 

39 6.6 8.1 1.7 1 3 

40 7.4 25.7 5.2 1 3 

41 7.5 11.8 3.4 5 24 
19 

Figure 14. Mean Emission Rates, Standard Deviations around Means, and EPA Certification 

Values by Stove Model 

Table 2 

Overall Data Summary – Mean and Median Emission Rates for Uncertified Stoves and Certified 

Stoves by Low, Medium and High Certification Categories 

Category EPA 

Cert. 

Value 

5H Emission Rate 

(g/h) 

5H Emission Factor (g/kg) # of 

Stove 

Models

Total 

# of 

Stoves

# of 

Runs

Mean S.D. Median Mean S.D. Median 

Low < 3 g/h 11.9 9.8 8.4 11.2 8.5 8.2 13 31 159 

Medium 3-5 g/h 8.9 4.7 8.1 8.9 5.6 7.2 18 37 148 

High > 5 g/h 10.3 5.2 9.5 11.0 7.5 9.2 10 17 102 

All Certified 1.6-7.5* 10.4 7.3 8.6 10.3 7.4 8.1 41 85 409 

All Uncertified − 22.2 9.9 20.9 16.0 7.3 15.3 − 62 209 

All Stoves − 14.4 10.0 11.6 12.2 7.8 10.4 − 147 618 

*The mean of all 41 stove certification values is 3.9 g/h with a standard deviation of 1.5
Figure 15. Mean Emission Rates for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified Stoves by Low, Medium, and High Ce
Figure 16. Mean Emission Factors for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified Stoves by Low, Medium, and High C

Categories
Figure 17. Median Emission Rates for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified Stoves by Low, Medium, and High CCategories 
Figure 18. Median Emission Factors for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified Stoves by Low, Medium, and High Categories 
Figure19. Comparison of the Mean Effective Emission Factor of Certified Cordwood Stoves (Adjusted for Efficiency) witFactor of Uncertified Stoves 
25 

3. Description of the AWES and VPI Samplers 

Two samplers were used to collect the in-home data. They were the automated woodstove 

emission sampler (AWES) and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) sampler. 

The AWES was developed to quantify emissions of particles from residential wood burning 

appliances while they were in normal in-home use. It was small in size and operated unattended 

in home settings. Due to the temporal variability in emissions from wood burning appliances, 

the AWES was also designed to collect long-term integrated samples necessary to provide mean 

values. 

Studies conducted with the AWES provided the majority of the database used for particulate 

emission factor development by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for residential wood 

combustion. The AWES was used to quantify emissions from woodstoves, masonry heaters, 

pellet stoves, and fireplaces. Due to its extensive use, the AWES underwent U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency supported quality assurance evaluations during the period 1986 to 1992. 

Detailed descriptions of its principles of operation, supporting laboratory requirements, 

calibration, associated data reduction and uncertainty estimates were published in U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy reports and in various quality 

assurance plans. 

The AWES was placed adjacent to the wood-burning appliance in study homes. For woodstove 

applications, a stainless steel inlet probe was typically attached to the chimney (stove pipe) one 

foot above the flue collar of the stove. Sample was withdrawn at a rate of approximately one 

liter per minute. The flow rate was maintained by a calibrated orifice. Particulate samples, 

including condensible particles, were captured with a heated filter followed by an XAD-2 resin 

cartridge. All interconnecting tubing, holders and hardware exposed to the sample were made 

either of stainless steel or Teflon to maintain sample integrity. After sample collection, the 

chimney gas was passed through silica gel to protect downstream components from condensate. 

The oxygen content of the chimney gas was measured with an electrochemical cell. The sample 

flow was then returned to the wood-burning appliance chimney above the point where the 

sample was withdrawn. Room temperature and chimney gas temperature were measured with 

type K thermocouples. The chimney gas temperature was measured within the chimney at the 

same location as the sample was withdrawn. A key component of the AWES was the data 

logging system. The system recorded date, time, oxygen content, room temperature, and 

chimney gas temperature at regular intervals. The oxygen content of the chimney gas, along 

with the mass of wood burned, allowed for the estimation of total chimney gas flow during 

sampling which was needed for the subsequent calculation of emission rates and emission 

factors. The record of chimney gas temperatures allowed for the total time of appliance 

operation over the course of the sampling duration to be determined. In addition to data 

recording, the system was programed to control the sampling frequency, sampling duration and 

sampling period. For example, in the last study which used the AWES, the AWES was 

programed to sample for two minutes once every 15 minutes for one week. The system was 

further programed to turn the sampling pump on during the programmed two minute sampling 

time only if the woodstove was in operation as determined by the chimney temperature in order 
26 

to avoid collection of sample material when the appliance was not in operation. A threshold 

chimney temperature of 100°F was used as an indicator of woodstove operation. 

The VPI sampler was designed for similar in-home application as the AWES. It however was 

only ever deployed in Crested Butte, CO and in a follow-up laboratory study of Crested Butte 

stoves. It relied on an evacuated 74 liter cylinder to withdraw a sample from the woodstove 

chimney rather than a pump as did the AWES. The VPI sampler continuously drew sample from 

the wood stove chimney while the stove was in operation. The flue gases passed through a 

quartz probe, Teflon line, and a 30 ml glass trap. The glass trap collected condensate and 

particles. The sample was them passed through two 47 mm glass fiber filters and dried with 

calcium sulfate before passing into the pre-evacuated 74 liter cylinder. The desired sample flow 

was obtained by the use of a metering valve. A solenoid valve activated by a temperature 

controller allowed sample to flow only during stove operation. The sample gas collected in the 

cylinder was later analyzed for carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. A 3 mm diameter sheathed 

thermocouple connected to a temperature controller sensed when the gas temperature beside the 

tip of the quartz probe was above the pre-set “on” temperature of 140° F. An time elapsed meter 

and a solenoid valve were turned on by the temperature controller. The time elapsed meter 

readings defined when the flue gas temperature was above the “on” temperature of 140° F and 

when the stove was in operation. 

4. Conversion Equations 

The equation that was used to convert emission rates (g/h) measured with the AWES system into 

Method 5G equivalency is: 

M5G = (0.8635) X (AWES)0.9289 (1) 

The equation that was used to convert emission rates (g/h) measured with the VPI system into 

Method 5G equivalency is: 

M5G = (0.6748) X (VPI)1.007 (2) 

Once a Method 5G equivalent emission rate was calculated with either equations 1 or 2 for the 

AWES data or VPI data, respectively, it then was converted to Method 5H equivalency by the 

equation: 

M5H = (1.619) X (M5G)0.905 (3) 

These conversion equations were developed by performing linear regressions on data taken from 

simultaneous AWES-M5G and VPI-M5G tests for use in AP-4224

. 

It should be noted that the equation specified in 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A Method 28 for the 

conversion of Method 5G data into Method 5H equivalency is: 

M5H = (1.82) X (M5G)0.83 (4) 
27 

Equations 3 and 4 do produce slightly different results, although not enough to affect the overall 

findings of this evaluation. More significant is the fact that the conversion from Method 5G 

(5G1 and 5G3) to 5H have the greatest limitations at the lower emission rates with the highest 

percentage difference between a converted 5G to 5H number and a “true” 5H number at the 

lower emission rates27. While this issue adds uncertainty to the comparison of in-home emission 

values and certification values, particularly for stove models with lower certification values, the 

effect is not large enough to impact the overall findings of this study. 

For the AWES, and VPI data, as per the AP-42 support document instructions24, once 5H 

equivalent emission rate values were calculated by equations 1-3, 5H equivalent emission factors 

were calculated by dividing by the burn rate. For the laboratory data if a 5H equivalent emission 

factor was reported it was placed directly into this database. If only an emission rate was 

available (5H or a 5G valued converted to 5H by equation 4) it was divided by the burn rate to 

obtain an emission factor. 

5. Burn Rates 

Burn rates are simply calculated by dividing the dry mass of wood burned by the duration of the 

fire. The duration of the fire has been defined a number of ways by different test methods28. For 

a given fire, methods for defining the fire duration that produce a larger numerical value produce 

a smaller calculated burn rate and vice versa because the burn rate is a simple ratio and the mass 

of wood in the numerator remains unchanged. The AWES system monitored temperature in the 

connector chimney pipe at one foot above the wood heater. The endpoint of a “burn” was 

determined to be when the temperature dropped to 100° F in the chimney connector pipe at the 

one-foot monitoring point. Similarly, the VPI sampler monitored temperature at 0.3 meters 

downstream of the flue collar and used 140° F as the endpoint temperature. In contrast to the 

“one-foot, 100° F” and “0.3 meter 140° F” endpoints used to calculate burn rates from the 

AWES and VPI data, respectively, the NSPS Method 28 test procedures use an endpoint defined 

as “The test run is completed when the remaining weight of the test fuel charge is 0.00 Kg (0.0 

lb).” In other words the end-point of the burn as defined by Method 28 is essentially when the 

mass of fuel remaining is less than the detection limit of the scale or about 0.1 lb. The 

temperature at one-foot above the wood heater is generally well above 100/140° F when the 

remaining weight of the test fuel charge reaches the detection limit of the scale. This dichotomy 

will cause a burn rate for the same fire as calculated by the Method 28 test procedure to be 

numerically larger than would be defined by the one-foot, 100° F and 0.3 meter, 140° F 

endpoints used with the AWES and VPI samplers. This issue has profound significance for the 

low burn rate specification and the weighting scheme in Method 2828 , but has limited 

significance for this paper, since Method 28 data are not included in the data sets analyzed here. 

However, the lack of a statistical trend between burn rate and emission rate in the AWES, VPI, 

and in-home simulated laboratory data, as shown in Figures 2-7, is an important point and is 

illustrative of the number of factors affecting particulate emissions besides burn rates alone. 
28 

6. Efficiencies 

Certified wood heaters are more efficient than pre-EPA-certified conventional wood heaters. 

When a particulate reduction benefit analysis is conducted not only do the differences in 

emission factors need to be taken into consideration but the differences in efficiencies also need 

to be considered. This is because wood heaters with higher efficiencies will burn less wood, 

which means less total particulate emissions for a given heating demand. Even though there is 

uncertainty in reported efficiency values the relative differences between pre-EPA-certified 

conventional cordwood heaters and certified cordwood heaters, not the absolute values allow 

estimations of the difference in characteristic emission levels. It should be noted that the relative

difference between uncertified and certified stoves may be greater than tabulated here and 

correspondingly the magnitude of the emission benefit for certified wood heaters as compared to 

uncertified ones may be conservative. This is because the only efficiency values tabulated for 

uncertified wood heaters are provided in AP-42 and are believed to be based on a limited number 

of uncertified heaters in reasonable working order. However, many uncertified heaters that are 

replaced are in poor condition and have low efficiency. (Poor condition is often the reason for 

their replacement.) 

The NSPS wood certification protocol does not require efficiency to be measured but assigns 

default values which were set at one standard deviation below the mean efficiency values 

claimed for Oregon certified wood heaters at that time29-31. The default values are 63% for 

certified non-catalytic wood heaters and 72% for certified catalytic wood heaters. AP-42 also 

lists efficiencies which are also based on a limited number of data points. The efficiency for 

conventional wood heaters listed in AP-42 is 54%. The efficiency for both catalytic and noncatalytic wood heaters listed in AP-42 is 68%32. For AP-42 it was assumed while the efficiency 

of a new catalytic wood heater is higher than a new non-catalytic wood heater, the catalytic 

stove’s performance will degrade more rapidly than the non-catalytic stove and hence on average 

their efficiencies over their lifetimes will be the same. A third data source is a paper recently 

provided to EPA by HPBA entitled, “An Evaluation of Overall Efficiency for EPA Certified 

Non-catalytic Wood Heaters”33. This paper includes CSA B415.1-2010 weighted average 

efficiency values for 68 EPA certified non-catalytic wood heaters which meet the Washington 

State emission standard (PM emissions ≤ 4.5 g/h). It should be noted that these latter efficiency 

values were developed in large part to support marketing claims and to document efficiency 

levels under optimal conditions needed to receive federal tax credits and as such may tend to be 

higher than efficiencies under real-world in-home use. 

Table 3 shows the default efficiency values listed in the NSPS regulations, the values listed in 

AP-42, and the mean weighted average efficiency for non-catalytic heaters from the HPBA 

report. The average of the NSPS data and the AP-42 data was used to adjust the certified stove 

emission factors to an effective emission factor for comparison with uncertified stove emission 

factors. The efficiency value from the data in the HPBA report, while shown in Table 3, was not 

used in the calculation of the mean as it is suspected that it over predicts the efficiency of 

certified non-catalytic heaters in real-world, in-home use plus it did not contain enough data for 

catalytic heaters to provide a meaningful average. It is interesting to note that while not 

appropriate to use in the calculation of averages it does support the reasonableness of the other 

data. 
29 

Table 3 

Efficiencies of Cordwood Stoves 

Category AP-42 NSPS 

Default 

HPBA 

report 

Average 

Uncertified Conventional 

Cordwood Stove 

54% - - 54% 

Certified Non-Catalytic 

Cordwood Stove 

68% 63% 71%† 66% 

Certified Catalytic Cordwood 

Stove 

68% 72% - 70% 

All Certified Cordwood Stoves - - - 67%* 

*Based on 30% certified catalytic cordwood stoves and 70% certified non-catalytic cordwood stoves. Data in Table 

3 are from references 29-33. Recent anecdotal information suggests that the percentage of catalytic stoves now sold 

may be lower than the 1990’s estimate of 30%. 

†Not used in average, see text for explanation. 

In summary, the higher efficiencies of certified cordwood heaters as compared to conventional 

cordwood heaters should be taken into consideration. The fact that certified cordwood heaters 

use less wood than conventional woodstoves for the same heating demand means that less PM 

will be emitted. 

7. Database 

The database is provided in Tables 4-15. Tables 4-9 are for certified stoves and are discussed in 

Section 7.1. Tables 10-15 are for uncertified stoves and are discussed in Section 7.2. 

6.1 Certified Stove Database 

Table 4 is the AWES database for certified stoves in Klamath Falls, OR. Four studies conducted 

in Klamath Falls included certified stoves3-6. Table 5 is the AWES database for certified stoves 

in Portland, OR. Three studies conducted in Portland included certified stoves6-8. Table 6 is the 

AWES database for Whitehorse, YK. One study conducted in Whitehorse included certified 

stoves10. Table 7 is the AWES database for Glens Falls NY. Two studies conducted in Glens 

Falls included certified stoves11,12. For the Klamath Falls, Portland, and Glens Falls databases 

some stoves were tested in more than one study (houses were revisited) and are shown as such in 

the tables. 

Each of the AWES data tables for certified stoves for the different cities is in two parts due to the 

number of parameters tabulated. Part 1 contains: (1) the run number assigned the sample in this 

study, (2) the stove model code, the unit number when there was more than one stove of a given 

model evaluated in this study, and whether the stove is catalytic (CAT) or non-catalytic (NC), (3) 

the year of the AWES study and the reference to the study, (4) the sample identification number 
30 

in the AWES study, (5) the tree species or type used for fuel, and (6) the fuel moisture on a dry 

basis (db). It should be noted that the typical method for measuring moisture is with a hand-held 

resistance pin-type moisture meter. Moisture measurements with this type of meter have a high 

uncertainty when the moisture is in excess of 35%. Part 2 repeats the run number assigned the 

sample in this study, the stove model code, the unit number, its CAT/NC status and the AWES 

study sample identification number. Part 2 then lists: (1) the burn rate in dry kg/h, (2) the 

emission factor in grams/dry kg fuel as reported in the study, (3) the emission rate in g/h as 

reported in the studies, (4) the emission rate in g/h converted to the 5H equivalent value, (5) the 

5H emission factor (g/kg) calculated from the 5H emission rate and burn rate, and (6) the 

certification value in g/h obtained from U.S. EPA woodstove certification lists for each stove 

model. 

Table 8 is the VPI database for Crested Butte, CO. Five studies were funded by the USEPA 

(EPA Region 8 or EPA Office of Research and Development) with co-sponsorship from the 

Town of Crested Butte and the Colorado Department of Health for the first two studies. The first 

four studies were field conducted in Crested Butte 14-17. The first was conducted in the 1988-89 

heating season14. No useful data for certified stoves were obtainable from that study due in part 

to its age, the fact that most stoves were either conventional stoves or coal stoves, and that the 

models of the certified stoves were intentionally kept confidential. Three more studies were 

conducted in homes in Crested Butte. They were conducted in the 1989-90, 1991-92 and 1995-

96 heating seasons15-17. Some homes were revisited in several studies. These multi-season data 

are included in Table 8 for individual stove models tested in more than one heating season. All 

the certified stove models were kept confidential in the 1989-90 heating season study and some 

were kept confidential in the 1991-22 heating season study. A portion of the models that were 

kept intentionally confidential were able to be identified by cross-reference using information 

from the fifth study that was conducted in 1998. For this study, 12 of the used certified stoves 

were removed from homes for evaluation of their long-term for laboratory testing with the VPI 

sampler in Virginia with simulated in-home burning conditions18. Also four new stoves were 

tested with the VPI sampler using the Crested Butte cordwood. These stoves were the same 

models as four of the used stoves examined in the first phase of the study. This was a 

parametric laboratory study using the VPI sampler and examined the variables of fuel species, 

fuel moisture and stove air setting, again with simulated in-home burning scenarios. All 1998 

data are included in Table 8. . 

 

Table 8 contains: (1) the run number assigned the sample in this study, (2) the stove model code, 

the unit number when there was more than one stove of a given model evaluated in this study, 

whether the stove is catalytic (CAT) or non-catalytic (NC), and the reference to the VPI study, 

(3) the tree species or type used for fuel, (4) the fuel moisture on a dry basis (db), (5) the burn 

rate in dry kg/h, (6) the emission factor in grams/dry kg fuel as reported in the study, (7) the 

emission rate in g/h as reported in the studies, (7) the emission rate in g/h converted to the 5H 

equivalent value, (8), the 5H emission factor (g/kg) calculated from the 5H emission rate and 

burn rate, and (9) the certification value in g/h obtained from U.S. EPA woodstove certification 

lists for each stove model. 

Table 9 contains laboratory data for three studies that used cordwood and simulated the in-home 

operation of a certified wood stove. One study was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy 
31 

BPA7.

 One study was sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency20. One study 

was sponsored by Environment Canada23. Several other studies that were designed to simulate 

the in-home use of certified wood stoves were reviewed in the conduct of this work but were 

unusable due to the incomplete reporting of key data. 

Table 9 contains: (1) the run number assigned the sample in this study, (2) the test sponsor and 

the reference to the study, (3) the stove model code, the unit number when there was more than 

one stove of a given model evaluated in this study, and whether the stove is catalytic (CAT) or 

non-catalytic (NC), (4) the description of the run regarding how it relates to the normal in-home 

use of a wood stove, (5) the tree species used for fuel, (6) the fuel moisture on a dry basis (db), 

(7) the burn rate in dry kg/h, (8) the emission rate in g/h on a 5H equivalent basis, (9) the 5H 

equivalent emission factor (g/kg) either directly reported in the study or calculated from the 5H 

equivalent emission rate and burn rate, and (10) the certification value in g/h obtained from U.S. 

EPA woodstove certification lists for each stove model. 

It should be noted that the U.S EPA has periodically updated its list of certified wood stoves. As 

manufacturers have re-certified models and redesigned models while maintaining the same 

model or similar model designations, archived copies of the U.S. EPA lists in the time frame of 

each study were used to acquire the correct certification value applicable to a given model. In 

some cases ancillary information such as photographs or heat output ranges were used to confirm 

the model status. 

7.2 Uncertified Stove Database 

Table 10 is the AWES database for uncertified stoves in Klamath Falls, OR. Two studies 

conducted in Klamath Falls included uncertified stoves4,5. Table 11 is the AWES database for 

uncertified stoves in Portland, OR. Two studies conducted in Portland included uncertified 

stoves7,9. Table 12 is the AWES database for Whitehorse, YK. One study conducted in 

Whitehorse included uncertified stoves10. Table 13 is the AWES database for upstate New York 

and Vermont. One study conducted in upstate New York and Vermont included uncertified 

stoves13. 

Each of the AWES data tables for uncertified stoves for the different cities/regions contain: (1) 

the run number assigned the sample in this study, (2) the sample identification number in the 

AWES study, (3) the tree species or type used for fuel, (4) the fuel moisture on a dry basis (db), 

(4) the burn rate in dry kg/h, (5) the emission factor in grams/dry kg fuel as reported in the study, 

(6) the emission rate in g/h as reported in the studies, (7) the emission rate in g/h converted to the

5H equivalent value, and (8) the 5H emission factor (g/kg) calculated from the 5H emission rate 

and burn rate. In several of the AWES studies with uncertified stoves unusual experimental and 

“high tech.” woodstove models were tested. Even though these unusual models were uncertified 

they were not included in the database. Only models that would be considered usual, wellestablished commercially available models were included. 
32 

Table 14 is the VPI database for Crested Butte, CO. Two studies were conducted in Crested 

Butte that included uncertified stoves14,15. During the development of the VPI sampler one run 

was conducted in the laboratory using cordwood and that data point is also included in the Table. 

Table 14 contains: (1) the run number assigned the sample in this study, (2) the study sample 

I.D. and run number, and the reference year and number, (3) the tree species or type used for 

fuel, (4) the fuel moisture on a dry basis (db), (5) the burn rate in dry kg/h, (6) the emission 

factor in grams/dry kg fuel as reported in the study, (7) the emission rate in g/h as reported in the 

studies, (8) the emission rate in g/h converted to the 5H equivalent value, and (9) the 5H 

emission factor (g/kg) calculated from the 5H emission rate and burn rate.. 

Table 15 contains laboratory data for five studies that used cordwood and simulated the in-home 

operation of an uncertified wood stove. One study was sponsored by the U.S. Department of 

Energy BPA7. Two studies were sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency19, 20. 

Two studies were sponsored by Environment Canada21-22. Several other studies that were 

designed to simulate the in-home use of uncertified wood stoves were reviewed in the conduct of 

this work but were unusable due to the incomplete reporting of key data. 

Table 15 contains: (1) the run number assigned the sample in this study, (2) the test sponsor and 

the reference to the study, (3) the study sample description, (4) the description of the run 

regarding how it relates to the normal in-home use of a wood stove, (5) the tree species used for 

fuel, (6) the fuel moisture on a dry basis (db), (7) the burn rate in dry kg/h, (8) the emission rate 

in g/h on a 5H equivalent basis, and (9) the 5H equivalent emission factor (g/kg) either directly 

reported in the study or calculated from the 5H equivalent emission rate and burn rate. 
Table 4 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath F

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT Location, Year, 

Ref.# 

Study Sample Identification 

Fuel Tree Species 

1 Stove Code 20, Stove #1, NC Klamath Falls, OR, 

1990, Ref 3 

CKO101 50% Lodgepole 

Pine, 50% Laurel 

2 CK0102 Lodgepole Pine 3 CK0103 Lodgepole Pine 4 CK0104 Lodgepole Pine 5 1992, Ref. 5 KF0501 Lodgepole Pine 6 Stove Code 20, Stove #2, NC Klamath Falls, OR, 

1990, Ref. 3 

CK0202 Lodgepole Pine 

7 CK0203 Lodgepole Pine 8 CK0204 Lodgepole Pine 9 Stove Code 20, Stove #3, NC Klamath Falls, OR, 

1990, Ref. 3 

CK0301 Red Fir 

10 CK0302 Red Fir 11 CK0303 Red Fir 12 CK0304 Red Fir 13 1999, Ref 6 KF02, Run A Ponderosa Pine 14 KF02, Run B Ponderosa Pine 15 KF02, Run C Ponderosa Pine 16 Stove Code 22, Stove 1,CAT Klamath Falls, 

OR,1990, Ref. 4 

H-1, CAT, wk 2 Yellow Pine 

17 H-1, CAT, wk 3 60% Juniper, 40% 

Red Fir 

18 Klamath Falls, OR, 

1992, Ref. 5 

KF0201 Lodgepole Pine 

19 Stove Code 29, NC Klamath Falls, OR, 

1990, Ref. 4 

H-2, NC, wk 2 Juniper 

20 H-2, NC, wk 3 Juniper 
Table 4 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath F

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT Location, Year, 

Ref.# 

Study Sample Identification 

Fuel Tree Species 

21 Stove Code 16, CAT Klamath Falls, OR, 

1992, Ref 4 

H-3, CAT, wk 2 White Fir 

22 H-3, CAT, wk 3 White Fir 23 1992, Ref 5 KF0301 Lodgepole Pine 24 Stove Code 4, Stove 1, NC Klamath Falls, OR, 

1990, Ref. 4 

H-4, NC, wk 2 50% Lodgepole 

Pine, 25% Juniper, 35% Oak 

25 H-4, NC, wk 3 Juniper 70%, Oak 

30% 

26 1992, Ref. 5 KF0101 Lodgepole Pine, 

Juniper 

27 Stove Code 30, NC Klamath Falls, OR, 

1990, Ref. 4 

H-5, NC, wk 2 Juniper 

28 H-5, NC, wk 3 Juniper 29 1992, Ref. 5 KF0401 Lodgepole Pine, 

Douglas Fir 

30 1999, Ref. 6 KF03, Run B 95% Lodgepole 

Pine, 5% Juniper 

31 KF03, Run C 95% Lodgepole 

Pine, 5% Juniper 

32 Stove Code 22, Stove 2, CAT Klamath Falls, OR, 

1990, Ref. 4 

H-6, CAT, wk 2 Red Fir 

33 H-6, CAT, wk 3 50% Red Fir, 50% 

Lodgepole Pine 

34 Stove Code 21, NC Klamath Falls, OR, 

1999, Ref. 6 

KF01, Run A Lodgepole Pine 

35 KF01, Run B Lodgepole Pine 36 KF01, Run C Ponderosa Pine 
Table 4 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath F

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT Location, Year, 

Ref.# 

Study Sample Identification 

Fuel Tree Species 

37 Stove Code 22, CAT, Stove 3 Klamath Falls, OR, 

1999, Ref. 6 

KF04, Run A 50% Lodgepole 

Pine, 50% Douglas Fir 

38 KF04, Run B Lodgepole Pine 39 Stove Code 20, Stove #4, NC Klamath Falss, OR, 

1999, Ref. 6 

KF05, Run A Juniper 

40 KF05, Run B Juniper 41 KF05, Run C Juniper 42 Stove Code 13, NC Klamath Falls, OR, 

1999, Ref. 6 

KF06, Run A Lodgepole Pine 

43 Stove Code 39, NC Klamath Falls, OR, 

1999, Ref. 6 

KF07, Run A Lodgepole Pine 

44 KF07, Run B Lodgepole Pine 45 KF07, Run C Lodgepole Pine 46 Stove Code 35, NC Klamath Falls, OR, 

1999, Ref. 6 

KF08, Run A Ponderosa Pine 

47 KF08, Run B Ponderosa Pine 48 KF08, Run C Ponderosa Pine 
Table 4 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath F

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT 

Study Sample Identification 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmisFactor (g

1 Stove Code 20, Stove 

#1, NC 

CKO101 0.94 4.77 4.46 5.0 5.3 

2 CK0102 0.91 5.95 5.44 5.9 6.5 3 CK0103 0.95 5.31 5.05 5.5 5.8 4 CK0104 0.75 7.01 5.27 5.7 7.6 5 KF0501 1.40 3.73 5.21 5.7 4.1 6 Stove Code 20, Stove 

#2, NC 

CK0202 0.87 7.01 6.07 6.5 7.4 

7 CK0203 0.72 14.86 10.68 10.4 14.4 8 CK0204 0.80 17.42 13.91 13.0 16.2 9 Stove Code 20, Stove 

#3, NC 

CK0301 0.99 2.66 2.62 3.2 3.2 

10 CK0302 1.02 2.73 2.78 3.3 3.3 11 CK0303 1.25 2.81 3.52 4.1 3.3 12 CK0304 1.58 2.93 4.64 5.2 3.3 13 KF02, Run A 1.0 5.7 5.5 5.9 5.9 14 KF02, Run B 1.0 5.1 5.3 5.8 5.8 15 KF02, Run C 0.9 5.5 4.9 5.4 6.0 16 Stove Code 22, Stove 

1,CAT 

H-1, CAT, wk 2 1.36 3.6 4.9 5.4 4.0 

17 H-1, CAT, wk 3 0.94 8.9 8.4 8.5 9.0 18 KF0201 1.47 6.66 9.80 9.7 6.6 19 Stove Code 29, NC H-2, NC, wk 2 0.96 6.8 6.6 6.9 7.2 20 H-2, NC, wk 3 0.81 6.0 4.9 5.4 6.7 
Table 4 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath F

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT 

Study Sample Identification 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmissFacto(g/kg) 

21 Stove Code 16, CAT H-3, CAT, wk 2 1.02 4.9 5.0 5.5 5.4 22 H-3, CAT, wk 3 0.95 5.8 5.5 5.9 6.3 23 KF0301 1.27 10.87 13.79 12.9 10.1 24 Stove Code 4, Stove 1, 

NC 

H-4, NC, wk 2 1.50 2.2 3.4 4.0 2.6 

25 H-4, NC, wk 3 1.20 2.6 5.9 6.3 5.3 26 KF0101 1.35 5.04 6.79 7.1 5.3 27 Stove Code 30, NC H-5, NC, wk 2 0.97 6.5 6.2 6.6 6.8 28 H-5, NC, wk 3 0.78 7.5 5.9 6.3 8.1 29 KF0401 1.15 2.77 3.17 3.7 3.3 30 KF03, Run B 0.8 3.7 3.7 4.3 5.3 31 KF03, Run C 0.9 1.9 1.7 2.2 2.5 32 Stove Code 22, Stove 

2, CAT 

H-6, CAT, wk 2 1.34 4.9 6.6 6.9 5.2 

33 H-6, CAT, wk 3 1.14 7.1 8.1 8.2 7.2 34 Stove Code 21, NC KF01, Run A 1.2 7.8 9.5 9.4 7.8 35 KF01, Run B 1.2 8.7 10.8 10.5 8.7 36 KF01, Run C 1.4 4.8 6.5 6.8 4.9 
Table 4 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath F

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT 

Study Sample Identification 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H Emission Rate(g/h) 

5H EmFac(g/k

37 Stove Code 22, CAT, 

Stove 3 

KF04, Run A 0.9 17.5 15.8 14.4 16.0 

38 KF04, Run B 1.1 14.2 15.1 13.9 12.6 39 Stove Code 20, Stove 

#4, NC 

KF05, Run A 0.8 5.2 4.3 4.8 6.0 

40 KF05, Run B 0.9 7.2 6.1 6.5 7.2 41 KF05, Run C 1.0 2.8 2.8 3.4 3.4 42 Stove Code 13, NC KF06, Run A 0.7 6.0 4.0 4.5 6.5 43 Stove Code 39, NC KF07, Run A 0.8 9,9 8.3 8.4 10.5 44 KF07, Run B 0.7 7.9 5.9 6.3 9.0 45 KF07, Run C 1.2 8.2 9.7 9.6 8.0 46 Stove Code 35, NC KF08, Run A 1.1 8.9 9.9 9.7 8.9 47 KF08, Run B 1.1 12.3 13.6 12.7 11.6 48 KF08, Run C 1.2 5.2 6.3 6.7 5.5 
Table 5 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Portlan

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT Location, Year, 

Ref.# 

Study Sample Identification 

Fuel Tree Species 

49 Stove Code 18, CAT Portland, OR, 1999, 

Ref. 6 

P01, Run A Douglas Fir 

50 P01, Run B Douglas Fir 51 P01, Run C Douglas Fir 52 Stove Code 19, NC Portland, OR, 1999, 

Ref .6 

P02, Run A 20% Maple, 5% 

Douglas Fir, 75% Alder 

53 P02, Run B Oak 54 P02, Run C 50% Douglas Fir, 

50% Oak 

55 Stove Code 3, NC Portland, OR, 1999, 

Ref. 6 

P03, Run A Douglas Fir 

56 P03, Run B Douglas Fir 57 P03, Run C 50% Douglas Fir, 

50% Birch 

58 Stove Code 33, CAT Portland, OR, 1999, 

Ref. 6 

P04, Run A Oak 

59 P04, Run B Oak 60 P04, Run C Oak 61 Stove Code 26, CAT Portland, OR, 1999, 

Ref. 6 

P05, Run A 50% Lodgepole 

Pine, 50% Cherry 

62 P05, Run B 50% Lodgepole 

Pine, 50% Cherry 

63 P05, Run C 50% Lodgepole 

Pine, 50% Cherry 
Table 5 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Portlan

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT Location, Year, 

Ref.# 

Study Sample Identification 

Fuel Tree Species 

64 Stove Code 20, Stove #5, NC Portland, OR, 1999,

Ref. 3 

P06, Run A 20% Maple, 5% 

Douglas Fir, 75% Alder* 

65 P06, Run B 20% Maple, 5% 

Douglas Fir, 75% Alder* 

66 P06, Run C 20% Maple, 5% 

Douglas Fir, 75% Alder 

67 Stove Code 40, NC Portland, OR, 1999, 

Ref. 3 

P07, Run A 20% Maple, 5% 

Douglas Fir, 75% Alder* 

68 P07, Run B 20% Maple, 5% 

Douglas Fir, 75% Alder* 

69 P07, Run C Douglas Fir 70 Stove Code 1, Stove 1, CAT Portland, OR, 1999, 

Ref. 3 

P08, Run A 10% Douglas Fir, 

90% Oak 

71 P08, Run B 10% Douglas Fir, 

90% Oak 

*Same wood was used for runs 64 and 67 and for runs 65 and 68. 
Table 5 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Portlan

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT Location, Year, 

Ref.# 

Study Sample Identification 

Fuel Tree Species 

72 Stove Code 20, Stove #6, NC Portland, OR, 1988, 

Ref. 7 

P04,1 50% Lodgepole 

Pine, 50% Douglas Fir 

73 P04,2 50% Lodgepole 

Pine, 50% Douglas Fir 

74 P04,3 33% Douglas Fir, 

33% Alder, 34% Maple 

75 P04,4 50% Maple, 50% 

Alder 

76 P04,5 50% Maple, 50% 

Alder 

77 Stove Code 2, CAT Portland, OR, 1988, 

Ref. 7 

P02,1 Apple 

78 P02,2 Douglas Fir 79 P02,3 20% Apple, 80% 

Douglas Fir 

80 P02,4 20% Apple, 80% 

Douglas Fir 

81 Portland, OR, 1988, 

Ref. 8 

SP1 Douglas Fir 
Table 5 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Portlan

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT 

Study Sample Identification 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmissFacto(g/kg) 

49 Stove Code 18, CAT P01, Run A 1.2 15.0 18.4 16.4 13.7 50 P01, Run B 1.2 12.9 16.0 14.6 12.1 51 P01, Run C 1.3 13.5 16.9 15.3 11.7 52 Stove Code 19, NC P02, Run A 0.6 19.4 12.3 11.7 19.5 53 P02, Run B 0.8 17.5 13.3 12.5 15.6 54 P02, Run C 0.7 14.3 10.3 10.1 14.4 55 Stove Code 3, NC P03, Run A 0.8 5.9 4.7 5.2 6.5 56 P03, Run B 1.0 7.1 7.4 7.6 7.6 57 P03, Run C 1.0 5.8 5.8 6.2 6.2 58 Stove Code 33, CAT P04, Run A 0.7 5.4 4.0 4.5 6.5 59 P04, Run B 0.9 5.0 4.7 5.2 5.8 60 P04, Run C 0.7 5.9 3.9 4.5 6.4 61 Stove Code 26, CAT P05, Run A 2.0 7.0 14.3 13.3 6.6 62 P05, Run B 0.8 6.4 5.3 5.8 7.2 63 P05, Run C 0.9 4.4 4.2 4.7 5.3 
Table 5 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Portlan

Run# 

Stove Model Code Unit #, NC/CAT 

Study Sample Identification 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmFac(g/k

64 Stove Code 20, Stove 

#5, NC 

P06, Run A 1.5 9.1 13.5 12.6 8.4 

65 P06, Run B 1.3 14.7 18.9 16.8 12.9 66 P06, Run C 1.1 8.7 10.0 9.8 8.9 67 Stove Code 40, NC P07, Run A 1.4 18.4 26.6 22.3 16.0 68 P07, Run B 1.5 18.5 27.7 23.1 15.4 69 P07, Run C 1.9 20.8 40.3 31.7 16.7 70 Stove Code 1, Stove 1, 

CAT 

P08, Run A 1.3 17.1 23.0 19.8 15.2 

71 P08, Run B 1.6 15.5 25.2 21.4 13.3 72 Stove Code 20, Stove 

#6, NC 

P04,1 1.29 5.3 6.9 7.2 5.6 

73 P04,2 0.99 10.1 10.0 9.8 9.9 74 P04,3 0.90 12.1 10.9 10.6 11.7 75 P04,4 0.65 10.3 6.7 7.0 10.8 76 P04,5 0.70 9.9 6.9 7.2 10.3 77 Stove Code 2, CAT P02,1 1.07 2.5 2.7 3.3 3.1 78 P02,2 0.95 4.4 4.2 4.7 5.0 79 P02,3 0.87 5.4 4.7 5.2 6.0 80 P02,4 0.79 5.4 4.3 4.8 6.1 81 SP1 0.70 5.8 4.3 4.8 6.9 
Table 6 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Whiteho

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT Location, Year, 

Ref.# 

Study Sample Identification 

Fuel Tree Species 

82 Stove Code 31, Stove 1, NC Whitehorse, YK, 

1987, Ref.10 

W04,5 Lodgepole Pine 

83 W04,6 Lodgepole Pine 84 W04,7 Lodgepole Pine 85 W04,8 50% Spruce, 50% 

Lodgepole Pine 

86 W04,9 50% Spruce, 50% 

Lodgepole Pine 

87 Stove Code 31, Stove 2, NC Whitehorse, YK, 

1987, Ref.10 

W09,5 Lodgepole Pine 

88 W09,6 Lodgepole Pine 89 W09,7 Lodgepole Pine 90 W09,8 Spruce 91 W09,9 Spruce 
Table 6 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Whiteho

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT 

Study Sample Identification 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmFac(g/k

82 Stove Code 31, Stove 

1, NC 

W04,5 1.66 8.1 10.5 10.2 6.2 

83 W04,6 1.47 8.5 9.2 9.2 6.2 84 W04,7 1.73 3.5 5.3 5.8 3.3 85 W04,8 1.37 10.7 12.8 12.1 8.8 86 W04,9 1.02 9.3 10.3 10.1 9.9 87 Stove Code 31, Stove 

2, NC 

W09,5 1.01 19.2 19.4 17.1 17.0 

88 W09,6 0.84 21.8 18.3 16.3 19.4 89 W09,7 0.91 18.7 17.1 15.4 16.9 90 W09,8 1.06 16.8 17.9 16.0 15.91 W09,9 0.85 26.0 22.2 19.2 22.6 
Table 7 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Fa

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT Location, Year, 

Ref.# 

Study Sample Identification 

Fuel Tree Species 

92 Stove Code 8, CAT, Stove 1 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y01,2 Hardwoods 

93 Y01,3 Hardwoods 94 Y01,4 Hardwoods 95 Y01,5 Hardwoods 96 Glens Falls, NY, 

1990, Ref. 12 

2ndyr 80% Maple, 20% 

Ash 

97 Stove Code 8, CAT, Stove 2 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y02,1 Hardwoods 

98 Y02,2 Hardwoods 99 Y02,3 Hardwoods 100 Y02,4 Hardwoods 101 Y02,5 Hardwoods 102 Stove Code 8, CAT, Stove 3 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y12,1 Hardwoods 

103 Y12,2 Hardwoods 104 Y12,3 Hardwoods 105 Y12,4 Hardwoods 106 Stove Code 8, CAT, Stove 4 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y23,1 Hardwoods 

107 Y23,2 Hardwoods 108 Y23,3 Hardwoods 109 Y23,4 Hardwoods 110 Y23,5 Hardwoods 111 Stove Code 8, CAT, Stove 5 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref117 

Y25,1 Hardwoods 

112 Y25,2 Hardwoods 113 Y25,3 Hardwoods 114 Y25,4 Hardwoods 115 Y25,5 Hardwoods 
Table 7 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Fa

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT Location, Year, 

Ref.# 

Study Sample Identification 

Fuel Tree Species 

116 Stove Code 41, NC, Stove 1 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y04,1 Hardwoods 

117 Y04,2 Hardwoods 118 Y04,3 Hardwoods 119 Y04,4 Hardwoods 120 Y04,5 Hardwoods 121 Stove Code 41, NC, Stove 2 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y06,1 Hardwoods 

122 Y06,2 Hardwoods 123 Y06,3 Hardwoods 124 Y06,4 Hardwoods 125 Y06,5 Hardwoods 126 Stove Code 41, NC, Stove 3 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y08,2 Hardwoods 

127 Y08,3 Hardwoods 128 Y08,4 Hardwoods 129 Y08,5 Hardwoods 130 Stove Code 41, NC, Stove 4 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y11,1 Hardwoods 

131 Y11,2 Hardwoods 132 Y11,3 Hardwoods 133 Y11,4 Hardwoods 134 Y11,5 Hardwoods 135 Stove Code 41, NC, Stove 5 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y21,1 Hardwoods 

136 Y21,2 Hardwoods 137 Y21,3 Hardwoods 138 Y21,4 Hardwoods 139 Y21,5 Hardwoods 
Table 7 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Fa

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT Location, Year, 

Ref.# 

Study Sample Identification 

Fuel Tree Species 

140 Stove Code 15, CAT, Stove 1 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y07,1 Hardwoods 

141 Y07,2 Hardwoods 142 Y07,3 Hardwoods 143 Y07,4 Hardwoods 144 Y07,5 Hardwoods 145 Stove Code 15, CAT, Stove 2 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y010,1 Hardwoods 

146 Y010,2 Hardwoods 147 Y010,3 Hardwoods 148 Y010,4 Hardwoods 149 Y010,5 Hardwoods 150 Glens Falls, NY, 

1990, Ref. 12 

2ndyr 70% Beech, 20% 

Oak, 10% Birch 

151 Stove Code 15, CAT, Stove 3 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y13,1 Hardwoods 

152 Y13,2 Hardwoods 153 Y13,3 Hardwoods 154 Y13,4 Hardwoods 155 Y13,5 Hardwoods 156 2ndyr 55% Oak, 35% 

Maple, 10% Beech 

157 Stove Code 15, CAT, Stove 4 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y14,1 Hardwoods 

158 Y14,2 Hardwoods 159 Y14,3 Hardwoods 160 Y14,4 Hardwoods 161 Glens Falls, NY, 

1990, Ref. 12 

2ndyr Ash 
Table 7 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Fa

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT Location, Year, 

Ref.# 

Study Sample Identification 

Fuel Tree Species 

162 Stove Code 15, CAT, Stove 5 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y19,1 Hardwoods 

163 Y19,2 Hardwoods 164 Y19,3 Hardwoods 165 Y19,5 Hardwoods 166 Glens Falls, NY, 

1990, Ref. 12 

2ndyr Maple 

167 Stove Code 12, CAT, Stove 1 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y03,1 Hardwoods 

168 Y03,2 Hardwoods 169 Y03,3 Hardwoods 170 Y03,4 Hardwoods 171 Y03,5 Hardwoods 172 Stove Code 12, CAT, Stove 2 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.12 

Y05,1 Hardwoods 

173 Y05,2 Hardwoods 174 Y05,3 Hardwoods 175 Y05,4 Hardwoods 176 Y05,5 Hardwoods 177 Stove Code 12, CAT, Stove 3 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y09,1 Hardwoods 

178 Y09,2 Hardwoods 179 Y09,4 Hardwoods 180 Y09,5 Hardwoods 181 Stove Code 12, CAT, Stove 4 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y22,1 Hardwoods 

182 Y22,2 Hardwoods 183 Y22,3 Hardwoods 184 Y22,4 Hardwoods 185 Y22,5 Hardwoods 
Table 7 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Fa

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT Location, Year, 

Ref.# 

Study Sample Identification 

Fuel Tree Species 

186 Stove Code 27, NC, Stove 1 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y15,2 Hardwoods 

187 Y15,3 Hardwoods 188 Y15,4 Hardwoods 189 Y15,5 Hardwoods 190 Stove Code 27, NC, Stove 2 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y16,1 Hardwoods 

191 Y16,2 Hardwoods 192 Y16,3 Hardwoods 193 Y16,4 Hardwoods 194 Y16,5 Hardwoods 195 Stove Code 27, NC, Stove 3 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y17,1 Hardwoods 

196 Y17,2 Hardwoods 197 Y17,3 Hardwoods 198 Y17,4 Hardwoods 199 Y17,5 Hardwoods 200 Stove Code 27, NC, Stove 4 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y20,1 Hardwoods 

201 Y20,2 Hardwoods 202 Y20,3 Hardwoods 203 Y20,4 Hardwoods 204 Y20,5 Hardwoods 205 Stove Code 27, NC, Stove 5 Glens Falls, NY, 

1989, Ref.11 

Y24,2 Hardwoods 

206 Y24,3 Hardwoods 207 Y24,4 Hardwoods 208 Y24,5 Hardwoods †Maple was the dominant species; beech, oak, ash and cherry were also common
Table 7 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Fa

Run# 

Stove Mode Code, Unit #, NC/CAT 

Study Sample Identification 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmFactor 

92 Stove Code 8, CAT, 

Stove 1 

Y01,2 1.00 4.1 4.1 4.6 4.6 

93 Y01,3 0.86 5.1 4.4 4.9 5.7 94 Y01,4 0.69 3.9 2.7 3.3 4.7 95 Y01,5 0.84 5.0 4.2 4.7 5.6 96 2ndyr 0.71 17.06 12.09 11.5 16.2 97 Stove Code 8, CAT, 

Stove 2 

Y02,1 2,49 3.9 9.8 9.7 3.9 

98 Y02,2 2.19 3.7 8.1 8.2 3.8 99 Y02,3 2.49 4.2 10.5 10.2 4.1 100 Y02,4 2.01 8.5 17.0 15.3 7.6 101 Y02,5 1.76 10.8 19.0 16.8 9.6 102 Stove Code 8, CAT, 

Stove 3 

Y12,1 1.00 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 

103 Y12,2 1.16 4.9 5.7 6.1 5.3 104 Y12,3 1.02 10.7 10.9 10.6 10.4 106 Y12,4 0.89 9.0 8.1 8.2 9.2 107 Stove Code 8, CAT, 

Stove 4 

Y23,1 0.71 9.2 6.5 6.8 9.6 

107 Y23,2 1.25 8.6 10.8 10.5 8.4 108 Y23,3 1.50 11.9 17.8 15.9 10.6 109 Y23,4 1.17 13.5 15.8 14.4 12.3 110 Y23,5 0.99 14.2 14.1 13.1 13.2 111 Stove Code 8, CAT, 

Stove 5 

Y25,1 1.07 7.0 7.5 7.7 7.2 

112 Y25,2 0.93 6.8 6.3 6.7 7.2 113 Y25,3 0.85 11.7 10.0 9.8 11.6 114 Y25,4 1.07 17.9 19.1 16.9 15.8 115 Y25,5 1.02 16.9 17.2 15.5 15.2 
Table 7 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Fa

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT 

Study Sample Identification 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmFactor 

116 Stove Code 41, NC, 

Stove 1 

Y04,1 1.10 14.5 15.9 14.5 

117 Y04,2 1.10 9.2 10.2 10.0 118 Y04,3 0.71 6.4 4.6 5.1 119 Y04,4 0.87 12.3 10.7 10.4 120 Y04,5 0.73 11.8 8.7 8.7 121 Stove Code 41, NC, 

Stove 2 

Y06,1 0.83 13.2 10.9 10.6 

122 Y06,2 0.81 9.2 7.5 7.7 123 Y06,3 0.80 13.1 10.5 10.2 124 Y06,4 0.63 10.8 6.8 7.1 125 Y06,5 0.62 16.0 9.9 9.7 126 Stove Code 41, NC, 

Stove 3 

Y08,2 1.23 10.0 12.3 11.7 

127 Y08,3 1.39 12.6 17.5 15.7 128 Y08,4 1.01 8.4 8.5 8.6 129 Y08,5 0.88 13.6 12.0 11.4 130 Stove Code 41, NC, 

Stove 4 

Y11,1 0.55 42.7 23.5 20.1 

131 Y11,2 0.52 22.3 11.6 11.1 132 Y11,3 0.39 36.7 14.3 13.3 133 Y11,4 0.37 52.0 19.2 17.0 134 Y11,5 0.39 44.0 17.0 15.3 135 Stove Code 41, NC, 

Stove 5 

Y21,1 1.29 12.4 16.1 14.7 

136 Y21,2 1.54 7.2 11.0 10.6 137 Y21,3 1.39 9.6 13.4 12.6 138 Y21,4 1.31 10.8 14.1 13.1 139 Y21,5 1.14 12.4 14.2 13.2 
Table 7 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Fa

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT 

Study Sample Identification 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmiFactor (

140 Stove Code 15, CAT, 

Stove 1 

Y07,1 0.94 2.6 2.4 3.0 3.1 

141 Y07,2 1.17 1.8 2.1 2.6 2.3 142 Y07,3 1.16 2.5 2.9 3.5 3.0 143 Y07,4 0.96 3.2 3.0 3.6 3.7 144 Y07,5 0.93 4.4 4.1 4.6 5.0 145 Stove Code 15, CAT, 

Stove 2 

Y010,1 1.02 2.8 2.9 3.5 3.4 

146 Y010,2 1.13 3.4 3.8 4.4 3.9 147 Y010,3 1.12 4.9 5.5 5.9 5.3 148 Y010,4 0.64 4.2 2.7 3.3 5.1 149 Y010,5 0.89 7.4 6.5 6.8 7.7 150 2ndyr 0.78 7.39 5.79 6.2 8.0 151 Stove Code 15, CAT, 

Stove 3 

Y13,1 1.44 2.2 3.2 3.8 2.6 

152 Y13,2 1.53 5.1 7.8 8.0 5.2 153 Y13,3 1.56 5.1 8.0 8.1 5.2 154 Y13,4 1.50 6.0 9.1 9.1 6.0 155 Y13,5 1.08 11.4 12.4 11.8 10.9 156 2ndyr 0.59 26.32 15.65 14.3 24.3 157 Stove Code 15, CAT, 

Stove 4 

Y14,1 1.11 5.2 5.8 6.2 5.6 

158 Y14,2 1.28 3.2 4.1 4.6 3.6 159 Y14,3 1.33 4.9 6.5 6.8 5.1 160 Y14,4 1.36 4.8 6.5 6.8 5.0 161 2ndyr 1.33 7.02 9.34 9.3 7.0 
Table 7 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Fa

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT 

Study Sample Identification 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmiFactor (

162 Stove Code 15, CAT, 

Stove 5 

Y19,1 0.57 4.1 2.3 2.9 5.0 

163 Y19,2 1.14 2.1 2.4 3.0 2.6 164 Y19,3 0.34 1.9 0.6 0.9 2.7 165 Y19,5 0.91 2.0 1.9 2.4 2.7 166 2ndyr 1.13 1.56 1.77 2.3 2.0 167 Stove Code 12, CAT, 

Stove 1 

Y03,1 0.68 7.0 4.8 5.3 7.8 

168 Y03,2 0.86 13.4 11.6 11.1 12.9 169 Y03,3 0.72 4.0 2.9 3.5 4.8 170 Y03,4 0.84 5.9 5.0 5.5 6.5 171 Y03,5 0.75 6.6 4.9 5.4 7.2 172 Stove Code 12, CAT, 

Stove 2 

Y05,1 1.28 5.9 7.5 7.7 6.0 

173 Y05,2 1.26 6.0 7.6 7.8 6.2 174 Y05,3 1.23 9.4 11.6 11.1 9.0 175 Y05,4 1.13 13.2 14.9 13.7 12.2 176 Y05,5 0.79 10.3 8.1 8.2 10.4 177 Stove Code 12, CAT, 

Stove 3 

Y09,1 1.53 8.0 12.2 11.6 7.6 

178 Y09,2 1.51 9.7 14.7 13.6 9.0 179 Y09,4 1.22 12.2 14.9 13.7 11.3 180 Y09,5 0.95 10.8 10.3 10.1 10.6 181 Stove Code 12, CAT, 

Stove 4 

Y22,1 1.20 15.7 18.8 16.7 13.9 

182 Y22,2 1.14 8.8 10.0 9.8 8.6 183 Y22,3 1.59 13.5 21.4 18.6 11.7 184 Y22,4 1.48 15.9 23.6 20.2 13.7 185 Y22,5 0.86 12.2 10.5 10.2 11.9 
Table 7 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Fa

Run# 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT 

Study Sample Identification 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmiFactor (

186 Stove Code 27, NC, 

Stove 1 

Y15,2 1.11 7.1 7.9 8.1 7.3 

187 Y15,3 1.18 8.5 10.0 9.8 8.3 188 Y15,4 1.13 9.2 10.4 10.1 9.0 189 Y15,5 0.81 4.3 3.5 4.1 5.0 190 Stove Code 27, NC, 

Stove 2 

Y16,1 0.82 13.2 10.8 10.5 12.8 

191 Y16,2 0.90 9.1 7.9 8.1 9.0 192 Y16,3 0.96 9.7 9.3 9.2 9.6 193 Y16,4 1.06 9.2 9.7 9.6 9.0 194 Y16,5 0.96 15.0 14.4 13.3 13.9 195 Stove Code 27, NC, 

Stove 3 

Y17,1 1.36 11.0 15.0 13.8 10.2 

196 Y17,2 1.37 10.8 14.8 13.7 10.0 197 Y17,3 1.32 10.4 13.7 12.8 9.7 198 Y17,4 1.57 8.6 13.5 12.6 8.0 199 Y17,5 1.34 12.2 16.3 14.8 11.1 200 Stove Code 27, NC, 

Stove 4 

Y20,1 1.47 4.4 6.5 6.8 4.7 

201 Y20,2 1.35 5.3 7.2 7.5 5.5 202 Y20,3 0.95 4.5 4.2 4.7 5.0 203 Y20,4 1.01 4.1 4.1 4.6 4.6 204 Y20,5 0.67 5.5 3.7 4.3 6.4 205 Stove Code 27, NC, 

Stove 5 

Y24,2 0.90 5.5 4.9 5.4 6.0 

206 Y24,3 1.13 5.2 5.9 6.3 5.6 207 Y24,4 1.23 5.0 6.2 6.6 5.3 208 Y24,5 1.45 10.4 15.1 13.9 9.6 
Table 8 

Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CO 

Run # 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT, Year, Ref. # 

Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H Emission Rate (g/h

1 Stove Code 9, CAT, 89/90, 

Ref. 15 

Lodgepole Pine 16.56 0.93 7.2 6.6 6.3 

2 15.30 0.88 6.1 5.4 5.3 3 15.50 0.82 6.7 5.5 5.4 4 13.30 0.91 2.3 2.1 2.2 5 14.60 0.75 6.5 4.9 4.8 6 13.40 0.77 7.1 5.5 5.4 7 91/92, Ref. 16 Pine 17.4 0.98 13.9 13.6 12.2 8 17.7 0.90 13.9 12.5 11.3 9 35.2 0.74 10.7 7.9 7.5 10 19.4 0.95 10.5 9.9 9.2 11 1998, Ref.18 (lab test) Pine 9.6 1.224 14.2 17.4 15.3 12 Stove Code 34, CAT, Stove 

1, 89/90, Ref.159 

80% Apple, 20% Pine 

12.90 0.76 5.4 4.1 4.1 

13 12.90 0.66 7.6 5.0 4.9 14 13.30 0.62 8.1 5.1 5.0 15 14.20 0.70 7.7 5.4 5.3 16 14.50 0.76 7.0 5.3 5.2 17 13.00 0.61 11.4 7.0 6.7 18 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Apple 21.6 1.301 13.7 17.8 15.6 19 10.5 1.568 5.4 8.5 8.0 20 Stove Code 32, NC, 89/90, 

Ref. 15 

Pine 14.96 1.54 2.4 3.7 3.7 

21 13.46 1.82 7.8 14.2 12.7 22 13.81 2.02 5.5 11.1 10.2 
Table 8 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CO 

Run # 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT, Year, Ref. # 

Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H Emission Rate (g/h

23 12.46 1.80 5.2 9.4 8.7 24 16.16 1.67 3.1 5.1 5.0 24 16.50 1.76 5.4 9.5 8.8 26 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Aspen 12.0 1.301 13.7 17.8 15.6 27 Stove Code 37, Stove 1 NC, 

89/90, Ref. 15 

Pine 12.46 0.86 7.4 6.4 6.2 

28 14.09 0.87 5.9 5.1 5.0 29 14.40 0.89 9.8 8.8 8.2 30 12.80 0.68 17.8 12.2 11.1 31 15.00 0.64 26.8 17.2 15.2 32 13.40 0.55 18.7 10.3 9.5 33 91/92, Ref. 16 Spruce 27.2 0.60 17.2 10.4 9.6 34 Pine 17.9 0.87 13.1 11.4 10.4 35 41.4 0.99 21.3 21.1 18.3 36 46.5 0.59 27.0 15.9 14.1 37 95/96, Ref. 17 Softwood 12.2 0.66 3.1 2.0 2.1 38 9.9 0.54 21.6 11.5 10.5 39 12.3 0.75 8.6 6.4 6.2 40 13.2 0.49 15.2 7.4 7.0 41 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Douglas Fir 48.5 1.361 20.8 28.3 23.9 42 22.6 1.269 7.2 9.1 8.5 43 Stove Code 1, Stove 2, 

CAT, 91/92, Ref. 16 

Apple, Pine 17.8 0.64 38.4 24.5 20.9 
Table 8 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CO 

Run # 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT, Year, Ref. # 

Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmissioRate (g/

44 18.7 0.50 31.0 15.5 13.8 45 16.3 0.71 47.6 33.6 27.9 46 29.9 0.64 33.3 21.3 18.4 47 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Pine 10.5 1.079 7.2 7.7 7.3 48 Stove Code 38, NC, 91/92, 

Ref. 16 

Pine 21.9 0.74 5.5 4.1 4.1 

49 23.3 0.97 8.5 8.2 7.7 50 27.6 0.96 11.8 11.3 10.3 51 Stove Code 17, CAT, 

91/92, Ref. 16 

Pine 21.0 0.89 18.4 16.4 14.5 

52 17.3 0.63 18.3 11.6 10.6 53 21.6 0.70 10.8 7.5 7.1 54 Stove Code 23, CAT, 

91/92, Ref. 16 

Apple 17.4 1.37 3.6 5.0 4.9 

55 18.6 1.25 7.5 9.5 8.8 56 Spruce 20.7 1.06 21.7 23.1 19.8 57 18.1 1.00 13.4 13.5 12.2 58 Stove Code 1, Stove 3, 

CAT, 91/92, Ref. 16 

Pine 13.0 0.87 7.4 6.4 6.2 

59 11.5 1.14 14.8 16.8 14.8 60 Stove Code 7, CAT, 91/92, 

Ref. 16 

Spruce 38.1 0.88 24.8 6.2 6.0 

61 24.5 1.35 17.7 9.0 8.4 62 25.8 1.24 21.9 8.4 7.9 
Table 8 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CO 

Run # 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT, Year, Ref. # 

Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmissioRate (g

63 Apple, Pine 26.8 0.95 8.5 5.2 5.1 64 Stove Code 28, CAT, 91/92, 

Ref. 16 

Oak, Pine 38.1 0.68 9.2 21.8 18.8 

65 24.5 0.73 12.3 24.0 20.5 66 25.8 0.77 10.9 27.1 22.9 67 26.8 0.66 7.9 8.1 7.6 68 Stove Code 25, CAT, 91/92, 

Ref. 16 

Apple, Pine 32.1 0.64 19.0 12.1 11.0 

69 40.0 0.56 18.5 10.3 9.5 70 45.2 0.51 22.8 11.7 10.7 71 33.5 0.40 12.9 5.2 5.1 72 Stove Code 34, CAT, Stove 

2, 95/96, Ref. 17 

Pine 11.2 0.80 25.1 20.0 17.4 

73 13.7 0.69 18.7 12.9 11.7 74 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Pine 17.6 1.525 14.4 21.9 18.9 75 13.1 1.579 9.3 14.6 13.1 76 9.2 1.609 5.5 8.9 8.3 77 9.2 1.584 5.2 8.2 7.7 78 Stove Code 6, CAT, Stove 

1, 95/96, Ref. 17 

Softwood 15.1 0.69 44.1 30.4 25.5 

79 14.7 0.75 32.8 24.2 20.7 80 12.8 1.01 35.7 35.5 29.3 81 14.4 0.85 32.5 27.5 23.2 82 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Pine 11.6 0.960 9.8 9.4 8.7 
Table 8 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CO 

Run # 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT, Year, Ref. # 

Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmissioRate (g/

83 10.1 1.079 10.2 11.0 10.1 84 Stove Code 6, CAT, Stove 

2, 95/96, Ref. 17 

Softwood 13.0 0.90 6.5 5.8 5.6 

85 16.6 0.84 9.6 8.0 7.5 86 14.2 0.83 11.9 9.8 9.1 87 13.7 0.71 12.6 8.9 8.3 88 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Pine 12.4 1.227 5.6 6.9 6.6 89 Stove Code 6, CAT, Stove 

3, 95/96, Ref. 17 

Softwood 13.3 0.62 24.5 15.0 13.4 

90 13.2 0.62 43.8 26.7 22.6 91 11.9 0.55 19.6 10.8 9.9 92 Stove Code 6, CAT, Stove 

4, 95/96, Ref. 17 

Pine 14.1 0.60 22.1 13.2 11.9 

93 13.9 0.48 37.3 17.6 15.5 94 13.3 0.76 27.0 20.3 17.6 95 10.2 0.69 27.2 18.5 16.2 96 12.2 0.62 31.2 19.1 16.7 97 Stove Code 24, CAT, 

95/96, Ref. 16 

Pine, Oak 32.8 0.80 21.5 17.0 15.0 

98 52.3 0.90 23.4 20.9 18.1 99 55.9 1.12 19.6 21.8 18.8 100 33.4 1.11 22.4 24.6 21.0 101 1998, Ref. 18 (lab tests) Pine 11.7 1.652 6.4 10.6 9.8 
Table 8 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CO 

Run # 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT, Year, Ref. # 

Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmissioRate (g/

102 Stove Code 1, Stove 4, 

CAT, 95/96, Ref. 17 

Hardwood, Softwood 

13.0 0.73 8.0 5.7 5.5 

103 11.8 0.56 11.1 6.1 5.9 104 12.1 0.89 14.1 12.4 11.2 105 12.4 0.83 11.2 9.2 8.6 106 Stove Code 14, NC, Stove 

1, 95/96, Ref. 17 

Pine 9.3 1.54 4.4 6.7 6.4 

107 Stove Code 14, NC, Stove 

2, 95/96, Ref. 17 

Softwood 12.7 0.75 4.3 3.2 3.3 

108 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Pine 11.6 1.040 8..32 8.7 8.1 109 11.6 1.058 8.31 8.8 8.2 110 Stove Code 10, NC, 95/96, 

Ref. 17 

Pine 17.4 0.73 8.0 5.7 5.5 

111 15.5 0.56 11.1 6.1 5.9 112 20.5 0.89 14.1 12.4 11.2 113 21.1 0.83 11.2 9.2 8.6 114 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Pine 10.4 1.789 3.1 5.5 5.4 115 Stove Code 4, NC, Stove 2, 

95/96, Ref. 17 

Aspen 18.0 1.62 2.8 4.4 4.4 

116 18.5 1.30 11.5 14.8 13.2 117 28.4 1.12 6.9 7.6 7.2 118 22.0 1.25 3.6 4.5 4.5 
Table 8 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CO 

Run # 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT, Year, Ref. # 

Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmissioRate (g/

119 Stove Code 37, NC, Stove 

2, 95/96 Ref. 17 

Softwood 11.0 0.92 12.5 11.3 10.3 

120 10.7 0.67 14.0 9.3 8.7 121 9.8 0.63 8.5 5.3 5.2 122 10.3 0.57 9.9 5.6 5.5 123 8.3 0.70 7.3 5.1 5.0 124 6.8 0.75 4.7 3.5 3.6 125 Stove Code 27, NC, Stove 

6, 1998, Ref.18 (lab test) 

Pine 10.6 1.168 2.6 3.0 3.1 

126 Stove Code 37, NC, Stove 

3, 1998, Ref 18 (new stove, 12 tests, parametric study) 

Douglas Fir 33.4 1.34 18.3 24.4 20.8 

127 Black Locust 13.3 1.12 3.3 3.7 3.7 128 Douglas Fir 8.2 1.76 4.6 8.1 7.6 129 Black Locust 11.0 0.97 6.0 5.8 5.6 130 Black Locust 24.2 1.43 10.8 15.5 13.8 131 Douglas Fir 30.0 1.07 19.9 21.2 18.3 132 Black Locust 13.3 1.57 4.4 7.0 6.7 133 Black Locust 26.8 1.47 5.7 8.4 7.9 134 Douglas Fir 28.7 1.57 11.9 18.6 16.3 135 Douglas Fir 8.7 1.44 3.7 5.3 5.2 136 Douglas Fir 8.5 0.88 9.5 8.4 7.9 137 Black Locust 30.3 0.94 18.6 17.4 15.3 
Table 8 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CO 

Run # 

Stove Mode Code, Unit #, NC/CAT, Year, Ref. # 

Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H Emission Rate (g/h

138 Stove Code 32, NC, 1998, 

Ref. 18 (new stove, 12 tests, parametric study) 

Douglas Fir 30.9 0.94 26.8 24.4 20.8 

139 Black Locust 11.9 1.03 7.4 3.7 3.7 140 Douglas Fir 9.1 1.07 12.1 8.1 7.6 141 Black Locust 11.0 0.71 8.6 5.8 5.6 142 Black Locust 27.9 0.94 22.1 15.5 13.8 143 Douglas Fir 29.2 0.66 23.9 21.2 18.3 144 Black Locust 12.2 1.17 10.8 7.0 6.7 145 Black Locust 33.1 1.02 11.9 8.4 7.9 146 Douglas Fir 29.5 1.21 17.4 18.6 16.3 147 Douglas Fir 9.7 0.86 17.9 5.3 5.2 148 Douglas Fir 9.1 0.74 15.5 8.4 7.9 149 Black Locust 29.6 0.73 19.4 17.4 15.3 150 Stove Code 6, CAT, Stove 

5, 1998, Ref. 18 (new stove, 8 tests, parametric study) 

Douglas Fir 8.4 1.91 8.3 16.3 14.4 

151 Black Locust 10.0 1.15 5.4 6.2 6.0 152 Douglas Fir 29.4 0.88 4.6 4.0 4.0 153 Black Locust 12.3 1.98 11.7 23.0 19.8 154 Black Locust 29.7 1.76 6.3 11.1 10.2 155 Douglas Fir 33.7 1.70 9.1 15.4 13.7 156 Douglas Fir 9.1 0.99 9.2 9.0 8.4 157 Black Locust 26.6 0.93 6.3 5.8 5.6 
Table 8 (cont.) 

Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CO 

Run # 

Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CAT, Year, Ref. # 

Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmissioRate (g/

158 Stove Code 22, CAT, Stove 

4, 1998 Ref. 18 (new stove, 8 tests, parametric study) 

Douglas Fir 8.7 2.35 4.7 11.0 10.1 

159 Black Locust 9.5 0.92 17.0 15.7 13.9 160 Douglas Fir 29.9 1.16 9.1 10.5 9.7 161 Black Locust 11.4 2.13 5.2 11.1 10.2 162 Black Locust 30.5 2.12 8.1 17.2 15.2 163 Douglas Fir 35.5 2.02 8.6 17.3 15.2 164 Douglas Fir 9.1 0.93 12.7 11.8 10.8 165 Black Locust 29.9 0.78 7.8 6.1 5.9 
Table 9 

Laboratory Tests Simulating the In-Home Use of Certified Wood Stoves 

Run# 

Test, Year, Ref. 

Stove Model Code, CAT/NC 

Description of Run Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (kg/h)

5H EmisRate (g/h) 

1 BPA, 1988, 

Ref. 7 

Stove Code 2, CAT Portland, OR, burn 

cycle 

Douglas Fir 19.92 0.73 2.8 

2 Northeast burn 

cycle 

50% Red Oak, 50% Sugar Maple 

27.4 1.22 2.1 

3 EPA, 2000, 

Ref.20 

Stove Code 11, CAT Homeowner cycle, 

cold start 

Oak 28 1.92 39.6 

4 Homeowner cycle, 

cold start 

28 2.15 47.0 

5 Homeowner cycle, 

cold start 

28 1.26 7.0 

6 Homeowner cycle, 

cold start 

28 2.33 26.8 

7 Homeowner cycle, 

cold start 

28 3.05 25.2 

8 Homeowner cycle, 

cold start 

28 1.36 17.7 

9 Homeowner cycle, 

cold start 

13.5 2.92 17.7 

10 Homeowner cycle, 

cold start 

12.6 1.38 6.8 

11 Homeowner cycle, 

hot start 

28 1.31 8.7 

12 Homeowner cycle, 

cold start 

17.2 2.64 8.0 

13 Homeowner cycle, 

cold start 

14.4 1.33 4.1 
Table 9 (cont.) 

Laboratory Tests Simulating the In-Home Use of Certified Wood Stoves 

Run# 

Test, Year, Ref. 

Stove Model Code, CAT/NC 

Description of Run Fuel Tree 

Species 

Fuel Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (kg/h) 

5H Emission Rate (g/h) 

14 EPA, 

2000, Ref.20 

Stove Code 4, NC, Stove 3 

Homeowner cycle, cold start 

Oak 28 1.50 61.4 

15 Homeowner cycle, 

cold start 

28 1.61 41.8 

16 Homeowner cycle, 

cold start 

13.6 1.71 41.5 

17 Homeowner cycle, 

cold start 

14.1 1.31 43.8 

18 Homeowner cycle, 

cold start 

13 1.70 39.3 

19 Homeowner cycle, 

cold start 

14.9 4.15 14.8 

20 Homeowner cycle, 

cold start 

12.7 1.57 48.3 

21 EC, 2009, 

Ref. 23 

Stove Code 4, NC, Stove 4 

Softwood/Low BR/Cold Start 

Douglas Fir 

16.71 1.61 11.40 

22 Softwood/Low 

BR/Cold Start 

16.66 1.77 9.50 

23 Hardwood/Low 

BR/Cold Start 

Maple 22.29 1.71 8.17 

24 Hardwood/Low 

BR/Cold Start 

21.71 1.71 10.72 

25 Softwood/High 

BR/Hot Start 

Douglas Fir 

18.19 1.73 10.79 

26 Softwood/Low 

BR/Hot Start 

17.06 3.90 9.15 
Table 9 (cont.) 

Laboratory Tests Simulating the In-Home Use of Certified Wood Stoves 

Run# 

Test, Year, Ref. 

Stove Model Code, CAT/NC 

Description of Run Fuel 

Tree Species 

Fuel Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (kg/h) 

5H EmissioRate (g/h) 

27 Hardwood/High BR/Hot 

Start 

Maple 21.80 2.87 3.46 

28 Hardwood/Low BR/Hot Start 23.15 2.78 5.74 29 EC, 2009, 

Ref. 23 

Stove Code 36, NC 

Softwood/Low BR/Cold Start 

Douglas Fir 

19.83 1.08 11.40 

30 Softwood/Low BR/Cold 

Start 

20.92 1.10 9.81 

31 Hardwood/Low BR/Cold 

Start 

Maple 22.10 1.27 8.33 

32 Hardwood/Low BR/Cold 

Start 

20.12 1.34 11.19 

33 Softwood/High BR/Hot Start Douglas 

Fir 

17.98 3.37 11.28 

34 Softwood/Low BR/Hot Start 18.04 2.92 9.41 35 Hardwood/High BR/Hot 

Start 

Maple 21.80 2.87 3.26 

36 Hardwood/Low BR/Hot Start 23.15 2.78 5.66 *Calculated from emission rate and burn rate. 
Table 10 

Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath Fal

Run # 

Study Sample I.D., Ref. Year, Ref. # 

Fuel Tree Species Average 

Fuel Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5ER

1 H-1, wk 1, 1990, Ref. 4 90 %Yellow Pine 

10 % Lodgepole Pine 

8.3 2.18 10.8 23.6 2

2 H-2, wk 1, 1990 Ref. 4 50% Yellow Pine 

50% Cedar 

15.8 1.55 34.5 55.3 4

3 H-3, wk 1, 1990, Ref. 4 100% White Fir 18.2 1.78 29.0 51.6 34 KF0601, 1992, Ref. 5 Lodgepole Pine 

Alder 

20.9 2.06 27.21 56.68 4

5 KF0701, 1992, Ref. 5 Lodgepole Pine 10.1 1.11 36.25 40.07 36 KF0801, 1992, Ref. 5 Lodgepole Pine 11.5 1.31 50.40 66.13 47 KF0901, 1992, Ref. 5 Lodgepole Pine 11.1 1.41 12.97 18.25 1
Table 11 

Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Portland, 

Run # 

Study Sample I.D. Ref. Year, Ref. # 

Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmRat

8 H001, wk 1, 1987, Ref. 9 80% Maple 

20% Alder 

42.0 38.2 

1.16 33.2 38.6 30.6 

9 H001, wk 2, 1987, Ref. 9 80% Maple 

20% Alder 

41.9 39.9 

0.90 27.2 24.6 20.9 

10 H002, wk 1, 1987, Ref. 9 60% Alder 

40% Douglas Fir 

22.0 19.0 

1.10 26.6 29.3 24.2 

11 H002, wk 2, 1987, Ref. 9 34% Alder 

33% Douglas Fir 33% Maple 

24.4 25.1 32.7 

0.93 29.1 27.1 22.7 

12 Home P03, 1, 1988, Ref. 7 90% Maple 

10% Alder 

25.3 17.9 

1.68 13.3 22.3 19.3 

13 Home P03, 2, 1988, Ref. 7 90% Maple 

10% Alder 

25.1 15.4 

1.26 7.7 9.7 9.6 

14 Home P03, 3, 1988, Ref. 7 50% Maple 

50% Alder 

30.8 19.4 

1.02 10.5 10.8 10.5 

15 Home P03, 4, 1988, Ref. 7 50% Maple 

50% Alder 

35.8 25.9 

0.94 10.1 9.5 9.4 

16 Home P03, 5, 1988, Ref. 7 50% Maple 

50% Alder 

25.4 23.8 

1.25 13.4 16.7 15.

17 Home P05, 1, 1988, Ref.7 75% Alder 

25% Douglas Fir 

16.6 15.3 

1.37 21.4 29.4 24.3 

18 Home P05, 2, 1988, Ref.7 75% Alder 

25% Douglas Fir 

16.6 15.7 

1.12 25.6 28.7 23.8 

19 Home P05, 3, 1988, Ref.7 33% Douglas Fir 

34% Alder 33% Maple 

15.7 19.9 16.4 

0.94 22.9 21.4 18.6 
Table 11 (cont.) 

Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Portland, 

Run # 

Study Sample I.D.,Ref. Year, Ref. # 

Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmRa

20 Home P05, 4, 1988, Ref.7 50% Maple 

50% Alder 

17.3 21.9 

1.01 26.7 27.1 22

21 Home P05, 5, 1988, Ref.7 50% Maple 

50% Alder 

17.7 20.9 

0.92 22.7 20.9 18
Table 12 

Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YK (data fr

Run # 

Study Sample I.D.* Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmRat

22 W01,1 Lodgepole Pine 16.8 1.93 25.8 49.8 37.23 W01,2 Lodgepole Pine 14.5 1.32 23.1 30.4 25.24 W01,4 Lodgepole Pine 30.1 1.26 20.5 25.8 21.25 W01,5 Lodgepole Pine 13.5 1.53 22.2 33.9 27.26 W01,6 Lodgepole Pine 15.2 1.58 17.8 28.1 23.27 W01,7 Lodgepole Pine 15.8 2.15 10.7 22.9 19.28 W01,8 Lodgepole Pine 14.8 1.12 22.7 25.5 21.29 W01,9 Lodgepole Pine 15.6 0.79 22.7 18.0 16.30 W02,1 Lodgepole Pine 17.2 1.45 20.0 28.9 24.31 W02,2 Lodgepole Pine 19.8 1.29 13.3 17.2 15.32 W02,3 Spruce 28.9 1.46 11.8 17.3 15.33 W02,4 50% Lodgepole 

Pine 50% Spruce 

41.8 15.1 

0.90 12.8 11.5 11.

34 W02,5bc Lodgepole Pine 18.0 1.21 41.7 50.3 38.35 W02,6 Lodgepole Pine 21.8 0.86 44.5 38.5 30.36 W02,8 95% Spruce 

5% Lodgepole Pine 

33.0 17.5 

0.75 23.6 17.7 15.

37 W02,9 Spruce 24.1 0.56 23.3 13.1 12.38 W03,1 Lodgepole Pine 15.4 1.18 4.8 5.7 6.1 39 W03,2 Lodgepole Pine 14.3 1.04 8.3 8.6 8.7 
Table 12 (cont.) 

Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YK (data fr

Run # 

Study Sample I.D.* Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmRat

40 W03,3 99% Spruce 

1% Lodgepole Pine 

40.4 17.3 

1.31 10.2 13.3 12.5 

41 W03,4 50% Spruce 

50% Lodgepole Pine 

40.1 14.6 

1.44 7.0 10.1 9.9 

42 W04,1 Lodgepole Pine 16.6 1.90 21.4 40.7 32.0 43 W04,2 Lodgepole Pine 15.8 1.25 23.3 29.2 24.2 44 W04,3 90% Spruce 

10% Lodgepole Pine 

30.2 11.7 

2.01 17.8 35.7 28.6 

45 W04, 4 50% Spruce 

50% Lodgepole Pine 

25.4 18.3 

1.87 14.1 26.3 22.

46 W05,1 50% Lodgepole Pine 

50% Spruce 

17.9 19.2 

1.67 6.5 10.9 10.6 

47 W05,2 Lodgepole Pine 16.1 1.59 8.9 14.1 13.48 W05,3 90% Spruce 

10% Lodgepole Pine 

43.4 13.7 

1.64 8.1 13.4 12.6 

49 W05,4 50% Spruce 

50% Lodgepole Pine 

30.7 13.6 

1.73 10.8 18.7 16.6 

50 W05,5bc Lodgepole Pine 13.8 1.66 10.1 16.8 15.2 51 W05,6bc Lodgepole Pine 14.6 1.47 11.2 16.5 15.0 
Table 12 (cont.) 

Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YK (data fr

Run # 

Study Sample I.D.* Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmissiRate (g

52 W05,8bc 95% Spruce 

5% Lodgepole Pine 

32.4 14.4 

1.37 15.6 21.3 18.5 

53 W05,9bc Lodgepole Pine 28.3 1.02 9.3 9.5 9.4 54 W06,1 Lodgepole Pine 16.2 1.16 16.5 19.2 17.0 55 W06,3 Spruce 29.5 1.23 15.3 18.8 16.7 56 W06,4 Spruce 19.8 1.31 12.0 15.7 14.4 57 W06,5 Lodgepole Pine 16.6 1.11 17.2 19.1 16.9 58 W06,6 Lodgepole Pine 16.5 0.77 27.4 20.9 18.3 59 W06,7 Lodgepole Pine 19.4 1.14 14.1 16.1 14.7 61 W06,9 Spruce 37.9 0.61 16.5 10.0 9.8 62 W07,2 Lodgepole Pine 20.1 1.88 17.5 32.8 26.7 63 W07,3 80% Spruce 

20% Lodgepole Pine 

21.2 18.7 

2.12 10.1 21.5 18.7 

64 W07,4 50% Spruce 

50% Lodgepole Pine 

21.2 19.1 

2.57 13.6 35.0 28.2 

65 W08,2 Lodgepole Pine 20.4 1.50 15.0 22.5 19.4 66 W08,3 Spruce 19.9 1.30 24.1 31.3 25.6 67 W08,4 Spruce 32.4 1.90 16.7 31.7 25.9 
Table 12 (cont.) 

Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YK (data fr

Run # 

Study Sample I.D.* Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmissiRate (g

68 W08,5bc Lodgepole Pine 19.6 1.16 22.4 26.1 22.0 69 W08,6bc Lodgepole Pine 15.8 1.58 10.1 15.9 14.5 70 W08,7bc Lodgepole Pine 16.4 1.78 20.3 36.1 28.9 71 W08,8bc Spruce 27.0 1.29 24.1 31.2 25.6 72 W08,9bc Spruce 26.1 1.09 26.3 28.7 23.8 73 W09,1 Lodgepole Pine 18.0 0.93 19.5 18.2 16.2 74 W09,2 Lodgepole Pine 17.2 0.70 25.4 17.7 15.9 75 W09,3 Spruce 23.8 0.88 12.8 11.3 10.9 76 W10,1 Lodgepole Pine 18.3 1.28 22.4 28.6 23.8 77 W10,2 Lodgepole Pine 16.0 1.15 14.4 16.5 15.0 78 W10,3 Spruce 17.5 1.44 15.6 22.5 19.4 79 W10,4 Spruce 31.6 1.49 16.5 24.6 20.9 80 W10,5 Lodgepole Pine 16.5 1.36 25.8 34.9 28.1 81 W10,6 Lodgepole Pine 16.7 1.09 24.3 26.4 22.2 82 W10,7 Lodgepole Pine 18.7 1.10 36.7 40.5 31.8 83 W10,8 Spruce 21.7 1.85 14.6 27.1 22.7 84 W10,9 Spruce 37.8 1.42 14.8 21.0 18.3 85 W11,1 Lodgepole Pine 17.0 2.37 4.4 10.5 10.2 86 W11,2 Lodgepole Pine 17.8 2.02 7.0 14.1 13.1 87 W11,3 Spruce 30.8 2.02 11.7 23.6 20.2 88 W11,4 Spruce 32.8 2.60 7.2 18.9 16.8 
Table 12 (cont.) 

Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YK (data fr

Run # 

Study Sample I.D.* Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmissiRate (g

89 W12,1 Lodgepole Pine 12.1 1.76 15.1 26.7 22.4 90 W12,2 Lodgepole Pine 13.7 1.44 14.1 20.3 17.8 91 W12,3 Lodgepole Pine 20.0 1.49 16.6 24.7 21.0 92 W12,4 Lodgepole Pine 18.1 1.82 16.2 29.4 24.3 93 W12,5bc Lodgepole Pine 18.7 1.82 19.7 36.0 28.8 94 W12,6bc Lodgepole Pine 15.3 1.78 8.8 15.8 14.4 95 W12,7bc Lodgepole Pine 13.9 1.45 23.9 34.7 28.0 96 W12,8bc 95% Spruce 

5% Lodgepole Pine 

43.2 13.5 

1.40 20.1 28.2 23.5 

97 W12,9bc Lodgepole Pine 12.5 1.13 16.9 19.0 16.8 98 W13,2 Lodgepole Pine 20.6 1.85 17.9 33.0 26.8 99 W13,3 Spruce 26.8 1.74 15.4 26.7 22.4 100 W13,5 Lodgepole Pine 16.1 1.29 25.7 33.2 26.9 101 W13,6 Lodgepole Pine 15.7 1.35 12.2 16.4 14.9 102 W13,7 Lodgepole Pine 19.1 1.19 19.3 22.9 19.7 103 W13,8 80% Spruce 

20% Lodgepole Pine 

19.6 18.1 

0.89 19.6 17.5 15.7 

104 W13,9 Spruce 18.6 0.89 20.0 17.8 15.9 105 W14,1 Lodgepole Pine 17.7 1.16 21.4 24.7 21.0 106 W14,2 Lodgepole Pine 19.0 1.07 23.9 25.7 21.7 107 W14,3 Spruce 22.7 1.04 31.4 32.6 26.5 108 W14,4 Spruce 26.3 1.71 16.4 28.0 23.3 

*bc = before catalytic retrofit device 
Table 13 

Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), New York and Vermont (da

Run # 

Study Sample I.D. Fuel Tree Species Fuel 

Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmissioRate (g

109 V06-1 Mixed hardwoods 26.5 2.45 1.2 2.9 3.5 110 V06-2 Mixed hardwoods 26.6 1.60 2.9 4.7 5.2 111 V06-3 Mixed hardwoods 27.5 1.59 19.1 30.4 25.0 112 V06-5 Mixed hardwoods 25.0 1.52 8.4 12.7 12.0 113 V06-6 Mixed hardwoods 28.0 1.86 9.3 17.3 15.6 114 V09-1 Mixed hardwoods 41.2 1.12 13.7 15.4 14.1 115 V14-1 Mixed hardwoods 23.0 1.67 10.2 16.9 15.3 116 V14-2 Mixed hardwoods 28.2 1.45 16.3 23.5 20.1 117 V14-3 Mixed hardwoods 26.3 0.92 22.0 20.3 17.8 118 N08-3 Mixed hardwoods 29.7 1.92 13.8 26.5 22.3 119 N08-4 Mixed hardwoods 24.7 1.91 17.1 32.6 26.5 120 N08-6 Mixed hardwoods 26.5 2.19 12.2 26.6 22.4 121 N08-7 Mixed hardwoods 29.5 2.00 15.4 30.9 25.4 122 N14-6 Mixed hardwoods 35.2 2.45 13.9 34.0 27.5 123 N14-7 Mixed hardwoods 41.0 1.57 18.4 29.0 24.0 124 N16-1 Mixed hardwoods 26.0 1.55 9.0 13.9 13.0 
Table 14 

Uncertified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, C

Run # 

Study Sample I.D., Ref. Year, Ref. # 

Fuel Tree Species* 

Fuel Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

5H EmRa

125 Run 1, Conv.01, 1989, Ref.14 ND 13.3 1.60 6.56 10.5 9.7 126 Run 5, Conv.01, 1989, Ref.14 ND 12.4 1.09 14.31 15.6 13127 Run 12, Conv.01, 1989, Ref.14 ND 11.9 1.57 15.16 23.8 20128 Run 20, Conv.01, 1989, Ref.14 ND 13.5 2.45 9.22 22.6 19129 Run 40, Conv.01, 1989, Ref.14 ND 19.7 1.89 10.09 35.7 29130 Run 3, Conv. 02, 1989, Ref.14 ND 13.5 0.84 8.69 7.3 6.9 131 Run 8, Conv. 02, 1989, Ref.14 ND 17.2 0.72 14.86 10.7 9.132 Run 16, Conv. 02, 1989, Ref.14 ND 18.6 0.93 12.04 11.2 10133 Run 24, Conv. 02, 1989, Ref.14 ND 19.7 1.30 12.23 15.9 14134 Run 30, Conv. 02, 1989, Ref.14 ND 14.2 1.57 6.50 10.2 9.4 135 Run 4 Conv. 03, 1989, Ref.14 ND 9.5 1.77 18.36 32.5 27136 Run 9, Conv. 03, 1989, Ref.14 ND 11.2 0.98 17.35 17 15137 Run 15, Conv. 03, 1989, Ref.14 ND 8.9 1.34 19.63 26.3 22138 Run 23, Conv. 03, 1989, Ref.14 ND 10.7 1.43 16.57 23.7 20139 Run 10 Conv. 04, 1989, Ref.14 ND 45.0 0.76 17.63 13.4 12140 Run 17, Conv. 04, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 45.3 0.79 21.14 16.7 14141 Run 22, Conv. 04, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 47.9 0.84 28.93 24.3 20142 Run 28, Conv. 04, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 42.2 0.99 23.13 22.9 19143 Run 11 Conv. 05, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 10.2 1.03 31.65 32.6 27144 Run 18, Conv. 05, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 10.0 1.23 26.50 32.6 27145 Run 25, Conv. 05, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 9.8 1.33 35.19 46.8 37146 Run 29, Conv. 05, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 10.1 1.22 39.02 47.6 38147 Run 31, Conv. 06, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 12.,4 1.03 26.31 27.1 22148 Run 33, Conv. 06, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 11.9 1.03 25.83 26.6 22149 Run 38, Conv. 06, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 11.2 1.06 29.17 31.5 26
Table 14 (cont.) 

Uncertified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, C

Run # 

Study Sample I.D., Ref. Year, Ref. # 

Fuel Tree Species* 

Fuel Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

150 Run 32, Conv. 07, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 24.6 0.91 20.22 18.4 151 Run 36, Conv. 07, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 18.9 1.20 18.08 21.7 152 Run 41, Conv. 07, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 37.5 1.29 20.47 26.4 153 Run 34, Conv. 08, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 12.5 0.68 14.71 10.0 154 Run 39, Conv. 08, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 12.2 2.13 10.66 22.7 155 Run 43, Conv. 08, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 10.0 1.81 23.26 42.1 156 Run 35, Conv. 09, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 16.0 2.52 25.56 64.4 157 Run 42, Conv. 09, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 15.7 1.67 20.36 34.0 158 Run 45, Conv. 09, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 15.3 1.69 26.98 45.6 159 Run 37, Conv. 10, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 32.9 1.13 24.42 27.6 160 Run 44, Conv. 11, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 12.1 1.25 37.60 47.0 161 Run 46, Conv. 11, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 10.3 1.34 25.60 61.1 162 Run 1, Conv. 01, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 8.86 1.45 11.9 17.3 163 Run 6, Conv. 01, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 9.06 1.76 8.7 15.2 164 Run 15, Conv. 1, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 11.46 1.64 13.8 22.8 165 Run 22, Conv. 01 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 11.76 1.71 6.1 10.4 166 Run 3, Conv. 03, 1991, Ref. 15 25% Oak 

75% Pinion Pine 

12.26 1.67 13.4 22.4 

167 Run 9, Conv. 03, 1991, Ref. 15 25% Oak 

75% Pinion Pine 

11.56 1.70 11.7 20.0 

168 Run 17, Conv. 03, 1991, Ref. 15 25% Oak 

75% Pinion Pine 

11.46 1.76 12.6 22.2 
Table 14 (cont.) 

Uncertified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, C

Run # 

Study Sample I.D., Ref. Year, Ref. # 

Fuel Tree Species 

Fuel Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

Emission Rate (g/h) 

169 Run 21, Conv. 03, 1991, Ref. 15 25% Oak 

75% Pinion Pine 

11.16 1.74 16.7 29.1 

170 Run 4, Conv. 04, 1991, Ref. 15 50% Oak 

50% Pine 

25.86 1.63 24.8 40.4 

171 Run 8, Conv. 04, 1991, Ref. 15 50% Oak 

50% Pine 

26.76 1.97 19.4 38.3 

172 Run 14, Conv. 04, 1991, Ref. 15 50% Oak 

50% Pine 

31.76 1.55 19.1 29.6 

173 Run 26, Conv. 04, 1991, Ref. 15 50% Oak 

50% Pine 

27.56 1.48 31.1 46.1 

174 Run 13, Conv. 05, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 12.16 1.80 22.1 39.8 175 Run 20, Conv. 05, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 12.56 1.61 37.4 60.2 176 Run 25, Conv. 05, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 14.46 1.21 35.6 43.2 177 Run 29, Conv. 05, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 14.46 1.42 34.2 48.3 178 Run 32, Conv. 09, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 9.46 1.82 22.6 41.3 179 Run 36, Conv. 09, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 11.96 1.89 23.3 44.2 180 Run 42, Conv. 09, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 15.16 1.46 24.0 35.1 181 Run 53, Conv. 09, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 9.36 1.61 33.3 53.7 182 Run 33, Conv. 10, 1991, Ref. 15 50% Oak 

50% Pine 

22.16 1.86 30.1 56.0 

183 Run 37, Conv. 10, 1991, Ref. 15 50% Oak 

50% Pine 

26.76 1.88 18.5 34.7 

184 Run 43, Conv. 10, 1991, Ref. 15 50% Oak 

50% Pine 

28.06 1.96 14.1 27.7 

185 Run 34, Conv. 11, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 15.36 1.34 32.3 43.4 186 Run 39, Conv. 11, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 15.46 1.22 25.6 31.4 
Table 14 (cont.) 

Uncertified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, C

Run # 

Study Sample I.D., Ref. Year, Ref. # 

Fuel Tree Species 

Fuel Moisture (% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

Emission Factor (g/kg) 

EmissionRate (g/h) 

5H EmiRat

187 Run 45, Conv. 11, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 15.46 1.38 25.1 34.7 28.7 188 Run 50, Conv. 11, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 14.26 1.36 32.0 43.7 35.5 189 VPI 6, Conv 1 (lab), 1989, 

Ref.14 

Oak 54 2.5 28.1 68.9 53.7 

*The fuel tree species for runs for which there are no data was assumed to be either pine or oak or a mixture of both based on other stud
Table 15 

Laboratory Tests Simulating the In-Home Use of Uncertified Wood Stoves 

Run # 

Study, Year, Ref. # 

Study Sample Description 

Description of Test Fuel Tree 

Species 

Moisture(% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

5H EmRat

1 BPA, 1988, 

Ref. 7 

L01 Portland OR burn cycle Douglas Fir 26.2 0.96 24.

2 EPA, 2000, Ref 

20 

Test 5 Homeowner cycle, cold 

start 

Oak 28 4.29 25.

3 Test 6 28 4.27 20.4 Test 28 18.7 3.56 24.5 EC, 2006, Ref. 

22 

Stove 1 “Fashion representative 

of normal in-home use.” Burn rate endpoint 100°F. Oak cordwood, Douglas fir kindling 

Oak 18.5 2.08 25.

6 Stove 2 1.44 11.7 Stove 3 1.76 4.5 8 Insert 1.69 54.9 Stove 4 2.07 8.3 10 VPI/SRI, 1989, 

Ref.19 (EPA) 

SRI 1, Conv. 2 “Began with cold stove 

and ended with up to three kilograms of fuel in stove, fueling patterns were deliberately varied”

Pine 13 2.0 50.

11 SRI 4, Conv. 2 Pine 11 1.2 28.12 SRI 7, Conv 3 Pine 10 0.9 44.
Table 15 (cont.) 

Laboratory Tests Simulating the In-Home Use of Uncertified Wood Stoves 

Run # 

Study, Year, Ref. # 

Study Sample Description 

Description of Test Fuel Tree 

Species 

Moisture(% db) 

Burn Rate (dry kg/h) 

5H EmRat

13 CCRL, 1991, 

Ref. 21 (EC) 

Non-Catalyst Stove “typical wood fuel in 

actual home use, split firewood” 

Maple 38.5 1.0 11.2 

14 1.0 7.6 15 1.0 27.7 16 1.2 19.7 17 1.5 15.9 18 1.6 17.2 19 1.9 9.6 20 2.4 13.2 *Calculated from emission rate and burn rate. 
83 

7. References 

1. Houck, J.E., Simons, C.A., Burnet, P.G. and Merrill, R.G., 1986, A System to Obtain TimeIntegrated Woodstove Emission Samples, Proceedings of the 1986 EPA/APCA Symposium on 

Measurement of Toxic Air Pollutants, pp. 724-731, EPA Report No. 600/9-86-013. 

2. Jaasma, D.R., Champion, M.C. and Shelton, J.W., 1990, Woodstove Smoke and CO 

Emissions: Comparison of Reference Methods with the VPI Sampler, J .Air Waste. Manage. 

Assoc., V. 40, pp. 866-871. 

3. Barnett, S.G., 1990, In-Home Evaluation of Emission Characteristics of EPACertified High Technology Non-Catalytic Woodstoves in Klamath Falls, Oregon, 1990, 

Canada Centre for Minerals and Energy Technology; Energy, Mines, and Resources. 

4. Dernbach, S., 1990, Woodstove Field Performance in Klamath Falls, Oregon 

Wood Heating Alliance, Washington D.C. 

5. Barnett, S.G. and Bighouse, R.D., 1992, In-home Demonstration of the Reduction of 

Woodstove Emissions from the Use of Densified Logs, Bonneville Power Administration 

DOE/BP-35836-1. 

6. Fisher, L.H., Houck, J.E., and Tiegs, P.E., 2000, Long-Term Performance of EPA-Certified 

Phase 2 Woodstoves, Klamath Falls and Portland, Oregon: 1998/1999, EPA-600/R-00-100. 

7. Christiansen, P.D., Houck, J.E., and Pritchett, L.C., 1988, Woodstove Emission Sampling 

Methods Comparability Analysis and In-situ Evaluation of New Technology Woodstoves, 

U.S. Department of Energy Pacific Northwest and Alaska Regional Biomass Program, 

Bonneville Power Administration, Task G, DOE/BP-18508-6. 

8. Simons, C.A. and Houck, J. E., 1988, Particulate Emission Test, Emission Control System 

Inspection and Leak Check, Blaze King Stove in Home P02, Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality 

9. Simons, C. A., 1987, An In-Situ Performance Evaluation of Catalytic Retrofit Devices, State 

of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality Report. 

10. Simons, C.A., Christiansen, P.D., Pritchett, L.C., and Beyerman, G.A., 1987, Whitehorse 

Efficient Woodheat Demonstration, The City of Whitehorse, Yukon. 

11. Barnett, S.G., 1990, Field Performance of Advanced Technology Woodstoves in Glens Falls 

NY, 1988-89, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/7-90-019a. 

12. Barnett, S.G. and Fesperman, J., 1990, Field Performance of Advanced Technology 

Woodstoves in Their Second Season of Use in Glens Falls, New York, 1990, Canada Centre for 

Minerals and Energy Technology; Energy, Mines, and Resources. 
84 

13. Burnet, R., 1988, The Northeast Cooperative Woodstove Study, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA/600/S7-87/026. 

14. Jaasma, D.R., and Champion, M.R., 1989, Field Performance of Woodburning Stoves in 

Crested Butte during the 1988-89 Heating Season, report submitted to Town of Crested Butte, 

Colorado Department of Health, and Region 8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, prepared 

by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 

15. Jaasma, D.R., Champion, M.R., and Gundappa, M., 1991, Field Performance of 

Wood-burning and Coal-burning Appliances in Crested Butte during the 1989-90 Heating 

Season, EPA-600/7-91-005. (Submitted to Town of Crested Butte, Colorado Department of 

Health, Region 8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA Office of Research and 

Development, under EPA Grant A00818389 Regional Applied Research Emphasis Program.) 

16. Jaasma, D.R., Stern, C.H., and Champion, M.R., 1994, Field Performance of 

Woodburning Stoves in Crested Butte during the 1991-92 Heating Season, EPA-600/R94-061. (Submitted to USEPA, ORD under EPA cooperative agreement CR819599-01-0.) 

17. Correll, R., Jaasma, D.R., and Mukkamala, Y., 1997, Field Performance of Woodburing 

Stoves in Colorado during the 1995-96 Heating Season, EPA-600/R-97-112. (Submitted to 

USEPA, ORD under EPA cooperative agreement CR819599-01-0.) 

18. Champion, M. and Jaasma. D.R., 1998, Degradation of Emissions Control Performance of 

Wood Stoves in Crested Butte, CO, EPA-600/R-987-158. (Submitted to USEPA, ORD.) 

19. “Tests on the VTES PM Sampler”, Shelton Research, Inc. Santa Fe, NM, 1989. 

20. McCrillis, R.C., Wood Stove Emissions: Particle Size and Chemical Composition, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 2000, EPA-600/R-00-050. 

21. Hayden, A.C.S. and Braaten, R.W., 1991, Reduction of Fireplace and Woodstove Pollutant 

Emissions through the Use of Manufactured Firelogs, AWMA, paper 91-129.1 proceedings 84th

Annual Meeting, Vancouver, BC. 

22. Pitzman, L., Eagle, B., Smith, R., and Houck, J.E., 2006, Conventional Heater Baseline 

Study, Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association and Environment Canada report. 

23. Pitzman, L., Clark, J., Christensen, T., and Houck, J., 2009, Verification of Emission Factors, 

U.S. EPA Certified Wood Heaters, Environment Canada report. 

24. E.H.Pechan & Associates, 1993, Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 1.10, 

Residential Wood Stoves, EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0102, prepared for Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 
85 

25. Curkeet, R. and Ferguson, R., 2010, EPA Wood Heater Test Method Variability Study, 

Analysis of Uncertainty, Repeatability and Reproducibility Based on the EPA Accredited 

Laboratory Proficiency Test Database, report to Hearth, Patio, and Barbecue Association. 

26. Curkeet, R., 2011, A Butterfly in the Room, Hearth & Home Magazine, March 2011, pp. 98-

102. 

27. Ferguson, R., 2010, EPA Wood Heater Emission Test Method Comparison Study, final 

report to the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association. 

28. Houck, J.E., Clark, J. and Christensen, T., 2009, Evaluation of Method 28 Wood Heater Burn 

Rates, report to the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association. 

29. U.S. Federal Register, “Standards for Particulate Matter”, February 26, 1988, v. 53, n. 38, 

Section 60.536. 

30. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, “Standard of Performance for New Residential Wood 

Heaters”, February, 2000, 40 CFR, Part 60, Subpart AAA. 

31. U.S. Federal Register, February 18, 1987, v. 52, 4994, 5012. 

32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors – 

Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, AP-42, Chapter 1.10, Residential Wood Stoves, 

Research Triangle Park, NC, revised October 1996, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s10.pdf. 

33. Ferguson, R., 2011, An Evaluation of Overall Efficiency for EPA Certified Non-Catalytic 

Wood Heaters, report prepared for the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association.