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

Certified Wood Stove Models with U.S. EPA Certifica tion Emission Values

and

A Comparison between In-Home Uncertified and Certi fied 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 48 th 

# 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 t he 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 e mission 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 w ith 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 l aboratory 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 s tudies included in this evaluation. These were

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

(VPI) sampler. Laboratory measurements were made us ing 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 VP I 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 measure d emissions directly by method 5H,

method 5G, or both. Where necessary, Method 5G val ues 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 measuremen ts 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 emission s 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 alway s reported.) For the certified models there

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

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

AWES samples, 65 valid VPI samples and 20 individua l 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 id entified and the fuel species (or type), fuel

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

uncertified wood stoves like criteria were consider ed 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 ef ficiency values for the efficiency adjusted

emissions comparisons made here. While both source s 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 misce llaneous studies with the laboratory operation

of certified models suggests that the NSPS and AP-4 2 values are reasonable for the in-home

operation of stoves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

value.

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

demonstrated uncertainty of the certification testi ng 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 th e emission rate and emission factor means

of these three categories of certification values f or 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 o f 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 ca tegories, the means for uncertified stoves are

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

ES4 confirm that certified stoves do have substanti ally lower particulate emissions under realworld, in-home usage as compared to uncertified mod els.

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

efficiency of certified stoves as compared to uncer tified 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 adjus ted for efficiency is 52% of that uncertified

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

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

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

burn rates have been strongly implicated in affecti ng 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 emi ssion 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 c learly 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.ivFigure ES1. Emission Rates by Test Run versus EPACertification Values for Stove Models . (“Lab” refers to tests conducted in thelaboratory using consumer burn practices not EPA Method 28.)vFigure ES2. Mean Emission Rates, Standard Deviations around Means, and EPA Certification Values by Stove Model. (Each stovemodel was assigned a stove code.)viFigure ES3. Mean Emission Rates for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified Stoves by Low, Medium, and High CertificationCategories. The mean of all certified emission rates is 47% of the mean of all uncertified emission rates (10.4/22.2 X 100%).viiFigure ES4. Mean Emission Factors for UncertifiedStoves and for Certified Stoves by Low, Medium, andHigh CertificationCategories. The mean of all certified emission factors is 64% of the mean of all uncertified emissionfactors (10.3/16.0 X 100%).viiiFigure ES5. Comparison of the Mean Effective Emission Factor of Certified Cordwood Stoves (Adjusted for Efficiency) with the Mean EmissionFactor of Uncertified Stoves.The mean of all certified emission factors adjustedfor efficiency is 52% of the mean of all uncertifiedemission factors (8.3/16.0 X 100%).

# ix



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

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

Method 28.)

# x

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

Tests. (“Lab” refers to tests conducted in the labo ratory 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 Lo w, Medium and

High Certification Categories 19

3 Efficiencies of Cordwood Stoves 29

4 (Part 1) Certified Stove Field Data – Automated W oodstove

Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath Falls, OR 33

4 (Part 2) Certified Stove Field Data – Automated W oodstove

Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath Falls, OR 36

5 (Part 1) Certified Stove Field Data – Automated W oodstove

Emission Sampler (AWES), Portland, OR 39

5 (Part 2) Certified Stove Field Data – Automated W oodstove

Emission Sampler (AWES), Portland, OR 42

6 (Part 1) Certified Stove Field Data – Automated W oodstove

Emission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YK 44

6 (Part 2) Certified Stove Field Data – Automated W oodstove

Emission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YK 45

7 (Part 1) Certified Stove Field Data – Automated W oodstove

Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Falls, NY 46

7 (Part 2) Certified Stove Field Data – Automated W oodstove

Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Falls, NY 51

8 Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechni c

Institute (VPI) Crested Butte, CO 56

# xiii



# 9 Laboratory Tests Simulating In-Home Use of Certi fied

Wood Stoves 65

10 Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodst ove

Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath Falls, OR 68

11 Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodst ove

Emission Sampler (AWES), Portland, OR 69

12 Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodst ove

Emission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YK 71

13 Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated Woodst ove

Emission Sampler (AWES), New York and Vermont 7 6

14 Uncertified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytec hnic

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 Certifica tion 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 Cate gories vi

ES4 Mean Emission Factors for Uncertified Stoves an d for Certified

Stoves by Low, Medium, and High Certification Cate gories vii

ES5 Comparison of the Mean Effective Emission Facto r 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 Certificati on Values for

Stove Models 4

2 Emission Rates by Test Run versus Burn Rates – Ce rtified 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 – Un certified 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 – Al l 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 Moisture s – 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 Moistur es – Uncertified

Stoves Only 14

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

13 Emission Factors by Test Run versus Wood Moistur es – 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 f or Certified

Stoves by Low, Medium, and High Certification Cate gories 20

16 Mean Emission Factors for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified

Stoves by Low, Medium, and High Certification Cate gories 21

17 Median Emission Rates for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified

Stoves by Low, Medium, and High Certification Cate gories 22

18 Median Emission Factors for Uncertified Stoves a nd for Certified

Stoves by Low, Medium, and High Certification Cate gories 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 t he 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 e mission 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 a nd mean uncertified emission factors because

higher efficiencies correspond to less fuel being b urned 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 st oves were reviewed. Published U.S. EPA

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

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

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

Woodstove Emissions Sampler (AWES) 1 

# and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) sampl er 2



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

homes in Klamath Falls, OR 3-6 

# , Portland, OR 6-9 

# , Whitehorse, YK 10 

# , Glens Falls, NY 11-12, 

# as well

as other areas in upstate New York and Vermont 13 

# . The VPI sampler was deployed in homes in

Crested Butte, CO 14-18 

# . The field studies were sponsored by the U.S. Dep artment of Energy

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

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

York State Energy Research and Development Authorit y.

Laboratory studies collected emissions utilizing ei ther 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 BPA 7 

# , the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency 19, 20 

# , and Environment Canada 21-23



# .

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

models were reviewed. The names of the certified s tove 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 deter mined 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 va lid 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 certificat ion 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 criteri a were considered necessary for a valid sample

except, of course, there were no certification valu es.

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

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

here 24 

# . The method used to convert 5G laboratory test re sults to 5H equivalents was as specified

in 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A, Method 5G. Laborator y 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. Th e conversion equations are presented in

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

methods used in the field studies and laboratory te sts 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 datab ase 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 certificat ion 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 emissi on rate for given sample is larger than the

certification value.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

noted that while there is no statistical trend, hig her 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. EP A certification value for each stove

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

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

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

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 o f 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 da ta 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 d raft (height, condition, and geometry of

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

(8) barometric pressure (home elevation and meteoro logical 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 afore mentioned 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 studie s, and the laboratory studies were calculated

using different end points, which causes the burn r ates 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-ho me 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 comparis on of repetitive testing of the same wood

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

although the certification testing process is certa inly capable of reliably distinguishing between

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

performance 25,26



# .

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

demonstrated uncertainty of the certification testi ng process, means and medians by certification

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

(3-5 g/h), and (3) High (> 5g/h). Table 2 and acco mpanying 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 b e seen, the U.S. EPA certification values do

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

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

EPA certification values do not predict the magnitu de 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 certif ied stove categories, the means and medians

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

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

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

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

efficiency of certified stoves as compared to uncer tified stoves should be taken into

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

heating demand and hence less emissions would be pr oduced. 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 me an (Figure 15).4Figure 1. Emission Rates by Test Run versus EPA Certification Values for Stove Models. (“Lab” refersto tests conducted in thelaboratory using consumer burn practices not EPA Method 28.)5Figure 2. Emission Rates by Test Run versus Burn Rates – Certified Stoves Only. (Burn rate data areas reported in the various inhome AWES studies, in-home VPI studies, and laboratory studies that simulate in-home usage with cordwood. They are not asdescribed in 40CFR Part 60 Appendix A Method 28 forcertification.)6Figure 3. Emission Factors by Test Run versus BurnRates – Certified Stoves Only. (Burn rate data are as reported in the various inhome AWES studies, in-home VPI studies, and laboratory studies that simulate in-home usage with cordwood. They are not asdescribed in 40CFR Part 60 Appendix A Method 28 forcertification.)7Figure 4. Emission Rates by Test Run versus Burn Rates – Uncertified Stoves Only. (Burn rate data are as reported in the various inhome AWES studies, in-home VPI studies, and laboratory studies that simulate in-home usage with cordwood. They are not asdescribed in 40CFR Part 60 Appendix A Method 28 forcertification.)8Figure 5. Emission Factors by Test Run versus BurnRates – Uncertified Stoves Only. (Burn rate dataare as reported in the variousin-home AWES studies, in-home VPI studies, and laboratory studies that simulate in-home usage with cordwood. They are not asdescribed in 40CFR Part 60 Appendix A Method 28 forcertification.)9Figure 6. Emission Rates by Test Run versus Burn Rates – All Stoves. (Burn rate data are as reportedin the various in-home AWESstudies, in-home VPI studies, and laboratory studies that simulate in-home usage with cordwood. Theyare not as described in 40CFRPart 60 Appendix A Method 28 for certification.)10Figure 7. Emission Factors by Test Run versus BurnRates – All Stoves. (Burn rate data are as reported in the various in-home AWESstudies, in-home VPI studies, and laboratory studies that simulate in-home usage with cordwood. Theyare not as described in 40CFRPart 60 Appendix A Method 28 for certification.)11Figure 8. Emission Rates by Test Run versus Wood Moistures – Certified Stoves Only. (“Lab” refers totests conducted in thelaboratory using consumer burn practices not EPA Method 28.)12Figure 9. Emission Factors by Test Run versus WoodMoistures – Certified Stoves Only. (“Lab” refersto tests conducted in thelaboratory using consumer burn practices not EPA Method 28.)13Figure 10. Emission Rates by Test Run versus WoodMoistures – Uncertified Stoves Only. (“Lab” refersto tests conducted in thelaboratory using consumer burn practices not EPA Method 28.)14Figure 11. Emission Factors by Test Run versus Wood Moistures – Uncertified Stoves Only. (“Lab” refers to tests conducted in thelaboratory using consumer burn practices not EPA Method 28.)15Figure12. Emission Rates by Test Run versus Wood Moistures – All Stoves. (“Lab” refers to tests conducted in the laboratory usingconsumer burn practices not EPA Method 28.)16Figure 13. Emission Factors by Test Run versus Wood Moistures – All Stoves. (“Lab” refers to tests conducted in the laboratoryusing consumer burn practices not EPA Method 28.)

# 17 

# Table 1

Mean Emission Rates, Standard Deviations around Mea ns, 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 Mea ns, 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 Deviation s around Means, and EPA Certification

Values by Stove Model

Table 2

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

Stoves by Low, Medium and High Certification Catego ries

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 1.520Figure 15. Mean Emission Rates for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified Stoves by Low, Medium, and High Certification Categories21Figure 16. Mean Emission Factors for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified Stoves by Low, Medium, andHigh CertificationCategories22Figure 17. Median Emission Rates for Uncertified Stoves and for Certified Stoves by Low, Medium, andHigh CertificationCategories23Figure 18. Median Emission Factors for UncertifiedStoves and for Certified Stoves by Low, Medium, and High CertificationCategories24Figure19. Comparison of the Mean Effective Emission Factor of Certified Cordwood Stoves (Adjusted forEfficiency) with the Mean EmissionFactor 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 Polytechni c Institute (VPI) sampler.

The AWES was developed to quantify emissions of par ticles 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 int egrated samples necessary to provide mean

values.

Studies conducted with the AWES provided the majori ty of the database used for particulate

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

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

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

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

Detailed descriptions of its principles of operatio n, supporting laboratory requirements,

calibration, associated data reduction and uncertai nty 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 ap pliance in study homes. For woodstove

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

foot above the flue collar of the stove. Sample wa s 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 collect ion, the

chimney gas was passed through silica gel to protec t 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 applianc e 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 c omponent of the AWES was the data

logging system. The system recorded date, time, ox ygen 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 estim ation of total chimney gas flow during

sampling which was needed for the subsequent calcul ation of emission rates and emission

factors. The record of chimney gas temperatures al lowed 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 wh ich used the AWES, the AWES was

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

further programed to turn the sampling pump on duri ng the programmed two minute sampling

time only if the woodstove was in operation as dete rmined by the chimney temperature in order

# 26



# to avoid collection of sample material when the app liance was not in operation. A threshold

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

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

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

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

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

the wood stove chimney while the stove was in opera tion. 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-evacuat ed 74 liter cylinder. The desired sample flow

was obtained by the use of a metering valve. A sol enoid 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 temperat ure 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 rate s (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 rate s (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 calcu lated with either equations 1 or 2 for the

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

equation:

M5H = (1.619) X (M5G) 0.905 

# (3)

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

simultaneous AWES-M5G and VPI-M5G tests for use in AP-42 24



# .

It should be noted that the equation specified in 4 0 CFR Part 60 Appendix A Method 28 for the

conversion of Method 5G data into Method 5H equival ency is:

M5H = (1.82) X (M5G) 0.83 

# (4)

# 27



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

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

(5G1 and 5G3) to 5H have the greatest limitations a t 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 rates 27 

# . While this issue adds uncertainty to the compari son of in-home emission

values and certification values, particularly for s tove models with lower certification values, the

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

For the AWES, and VPI data, as per the AP-42 suppor t document instructions 24 

# , 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 t he laboratory data if a 5H equivalent emission

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

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

obtain an emission factor.

5. Burn Rates

Burn rates are simply calculated by dividing the dr y 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 methods 28 

# . For

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

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

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

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

determined to be when the temperature dropped to 10 0° F in the chimney connector pipe at the

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

downstream of the flue collar and used 140° F as th e 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 w eight of the test fuel charge is 0.00 Kg (0.0

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

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

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

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

will cause a burn rate for the same fire as calcula ted 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. Thi s issue has profound significance for the

low burn rate specification and the weighting schem e in Method 28 28 

# , but has limited

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

However, the lack of a statistical trend between bu rn 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 par ticulate 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 co nducted not only do the differences in

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

to be considered. This is because wood heaters wit h 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 relat ive differences between pre-EPA-certified

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

estimations of the difference in characteristic emi ssion 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 benef it for certified wood heaters as compared to

uncertified ones may be conservative. This is beca use 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 efficie ncy. (Poor condition is often the reason for

their replacement.)

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

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

claimed for Oregon certified wood heaters at that t ime 29-31 

# . The default values are 63% for

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

lists efficiencies which are also based on a limite d 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 ave rage

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

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

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

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

higher than efficiencies under real-world in-home u se.

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 fo r 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 suspec ted that it over predicts the efficiency of

certified non-catalytic heaters in real-world, in-h ome 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 i t 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 a nd 70% certified non-catalytic cordwood stoves. Da ta in Table

3 are from references 29-33. Recent anecdotal info rmation suggests that the percentage of catalytic s toves 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 co rdwood 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 stov es and are discussed in Section 7.2.

6.1 Certified Stove Database

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

in Klamath Falls included certified stoves 3-6 

# . Table 5 is the AWES database for certified stove s

in Portland, OR. Three studies conducted in Portla nd included certified stoves 6-8 

# . Table 6 is the

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

stoves 10 

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

Falls included certified stoves 11,12 

# . For the Klamath Falls, Portland, and Glens Falls databases

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

the tables.

Each of the AWES data tables for certified stoves f or 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 wh en there was more than one stove of a given

model evaluated in this study, and whether the stov e 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 use d for fuel, and (6) the fuel moisture on a dry

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

resistance pin-type moisture meter. Moisture measu rements 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 uni t number, its CAT/NC status and the AWES

study sample identification number. Part 2 then li sts: (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 em ission rate and burn rate, and (6) the

certification value in g/h obtained from U.S. EPA w oodstove 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 Develop ment) with co-sponsorship from the

Town of Crested Butte and the Colorado Department o f 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 season 14 

# . No useful data for certified stoves were obtaina ble from that study due in part

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

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

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

96 heating seasons 15-17 

# . Some homes were revisited in several studies. Th ese 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 i n the 1989-90 heating season study and some

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

kept intentionally confidential were able to be ide ntified 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 lon g-term for laboratory testing with the VPI

sampler in Virginia with simulated in-home burning conditions 18 

# . 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 f irst phase of the study. This was a

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

fuel moisture and stove air setting, again with sim ulated 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-catalyt ic (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 o btained 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



# BPA 7



# . One study was sponsored by the U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency 20 

# . One study

was sponsored by Environment Canada 23 

# . Several other studies that were designed to simu late

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

unusable due to the incomplete reporting of key dat a.

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 cod e, 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 rat e in g/h on a 5H equivalent basis, (9) the 5H

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

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

EPA woodstove certification lists for each stove mo del.

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

manufacturers have re-certified models and redesign ed models while maintaining the same

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

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

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

the model status.

7.2 Uncertified Stove Database

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

conducted in Klamath Falls included uncertified sto ves 4,5 

# . Table 11 is the AWES database for

uncertified stoves in Portland, OR. Two studies co nducted in Portland included uncertified

stoves 7,9 

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

Whitehorse included uncertified stoves 10 

# . Table 13 is the AWES database for upstate New Yo rk

and Vermont. One study conducted in upstate New Yo rk and Vermont included uncertified

stoves 13



# .

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 f uel, (4) the fuel moisture on a dry basis (db),

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

(6) the emission rate in g/h as reported in the stu dies, (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 th ough these unusual models were uncertified

they were not included in the database. Only model s that would be considered usual, wellestablished commercially available models were incl uded.

# 32



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

Butte that included uncertified stoves 14,15 

# . During the development of the VPI sampler one ru n

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 num ber, (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 stud y, (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 emiss ion 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 BPA 7 

# . Two studies were sponsored by the U.S. Environme ntal Protection Agency 19, 20



# . Two studies were sponsored by Environment Canada 21-22 

# . 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 r eporting 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 de scription, (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 equ ivalent emission factor (g/kg) either directly

reported in the study or calculated from the 5H eq uivalent emission rate and burn rate.33Table 4Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath Falls, ORRun#Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CATLocation, Year,Ref.#Study SampleIdentificationFuel Tree SpeciesFuel Moisture(% db)1 Stove Code 20, Stove #1, NC Klamath Falls, OR,1990, Ref 3CKO101 50% LodgepolePine, 50% Laurel26.82CK0102 Lodgepole Pine 19.53CK0103 Lodgepole Pine 17.74CK0104 Lodgepole Pine 17.551992, Ref. 5 KF0501 Lodgepole Pine 12.76 Stove Code 20, Stove #2, NC Klamath Falls, OR,1990, Ref. 3CK0202 Lodgepole Pine 14.37CK0203 Lodgepole Pine 17.98CK0204 Lodgepole Pine 16.99 Stove Code 20, Stove #3, NC Klamath Falls, OR,1990, Ref. 3CK0301 Red Fir 17.610CK0302 Red Fir 17.511CK0303 Red Fir 16.412CK0304 Red Fir 16.2131999, Ref 6 KF02, Run A Ponderosa Pine 20.814KF02, Run B Ponderosa Pine 21.515KF02, Run C Ponderosa Pine 19.616 Stove Code 22, Stove 1,CAT Klamath Falls,OR,1990, Ref. 4H-1, CAT, wk 2 Yellow Pine 10.017H-1, CAT, wk 3 60% Juniper, 40%Red Fir21.418Klamath Falls, OR,1992, Ref. 5KF0201 Lodgepole Pine 8.919 Stove Code 29, NC Klamath Falls, OR,1990, Ref. 4H-2, NC, wk 2 Juniper 19.120H-2, NC, wk 3 Juniper 18.434Table 4 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath Falls, ORRun#Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CATLocation, Year,Ref.#Study SampleIdentificationFuel Tree SpeciesFuel Moisture(% db)21 Stove Code 16, CAT Klamath Falls, OR,1992, Ref 4H-3, CAT, wk 2 White Fir 19.722H-3, CAT, wk 3 White Fir 19.6231992, Ref 5 KF0301 Lodgepole Pine 15.124 Stove Code 4, Stove 1, NC Klamath Falls, OR,1990, Ref. 4H-4, NC, wk 2 50% LodgepolePine, 25% Juniper,35% Oak13.425H-4, NC, wk 3 Juniper 70%, Oak30%12.9261992, Ref. 5 KF0101 Lodgepole Pine,Juniper10.627 Stove Code 30, NC Klamath Falls, OR,1990,Ref. 4H-5, NC, wk 2 Juniper 17.628H-5, NC, wk 3 Juniper 15.0291992, Ref. 5 KF0401 Lodgepole Pine,Douglas Fir13.9301999, Ref. 6 KF03, Run B 95% LodgepolePine, 5% Juniper14.6, 13.231KF03, Run C 95% LodgepolePine, 5% Juniper18.8, 18.332 Stove Code 22, Stove 2, CAT Klamath Falls, OR,1990, Ref. 4H-6, CAT, wk 2 Red Fir 21.233H-6, CAT, wk 3 50% Red Fir, 50%Lodgepole Pine22.734 Stove Code 21, NC Klamath Falls, OR,1999, Ref. 6KF01, Run A Lodgepole Pine 20.235KF01, Run B Lodgepole Pine 24.536KF01, Run C Ponderosa Pine 31.435Table 4 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath Falls, ORRun#Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CATLocation, Year,Ref.#Study SampleIdentificationFuel Tree SpeciesFuel Moisture(% db)37 Stove Code 22, CAT, Stove 3 Klamath Falls, OR,1999, Ref. 6KF04, Run A 50% LodgepolePine, 50% DouglasFir21.8, 21.438KF04, Run B Lodgepole Pine 19.539 Stove Code 20, Stove #4, NCKlamath Falss, OR,1999, Ref. 6KF05, Run A Juniper 10.440KF05, Run B Juniper 9.841KF05, Run C Juniper 11.342 Stove Code 13, NC Klamath Falls, OR,1999, Ref. 6KF06, Run A Lodgepole Pine 11.743 Stove Code 39, NC Klamath Falls, OR,1999, Ref. 6KF07, Run A Lodgepole Pine 12.644KF07, Run B Lodgepole Pine 11.745KF07, Run C Lodgepole Pine 15.846 Stove Code 35, NC Klamath Falls, OR,1999, Ref. 6KF08, Run A Ponderosa Pine 26.847KF08, Run B Ponderosa Pine 25.448KF08, Run C Ponderosa Pine 15.736Table 4Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath Falls, ORRun#Stove Model Code,Unit #, NC/CATStudy SampleIdentificationBurn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)CertificationValue1 Stove Code 20, Stove#1, NCCKO101 0.94 4.77 4.46 5.0 5.3 3.42 CK0102 0.91 5.95 5.44 5.9 6.53 CK0103 0.95 5.31 5.05 5.5 5.84 CK0104 0.75 7.01 5.27 5.7 7.65 KF0501 1.40 3.73 5.21 5.7 4.16 Stove Code 20, Stove#2, NCCK0202 0.87 7.01 6.07 6.5 7.4 3.47 CK0203 0.72 14.86 10.68 10.4 14.48 CK0204 0.80 17.42 13.91 13.0 16.29 Stove Code 20, Stove#3, NCCK0301 0.99 2.66 2.62 3.2 3.2 3.410 CK0302 1.02 2.73 2.78 3.3 3.311 CK0303 1.25 2.81 3.52 4.1 3.312 CK0304 1.58 2.93 4.64 5.2 3.313 KF02, Run A 1.0 5.7 5.5 5.9 5.914 KF02, Run B 1.0 5.1 5.3 5.8 5.815 KF02, Run C 0.9 5.5 4.9 5.4 6.016 Stove Code 22, Stove1,CATH-1, CAT, wk 2 1.36 3.6 4.9 5.4 4.0 3.717 H-1, CAT, wk 3 0.94 8.9 8.4 8.5 9.018 KF0201 1.47 6.66 9.80 9.7 6.619 Stove Code 29, NC H-2, NC, wk 2 0.96 6.8 6.6 6.97.2 4.420 H-2, NC, wk 3 0.81 6.0 4.9 5.4 6.737Table 4 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath Falls, ORRun#Stove Model Code,Unit #, NC/CATStudy SampleIdentificationBurn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionFactor(g/kg)CertificationValue21 Stove Code 16, CAT H-3, CAT, wk 2 1.02 4.9 5.0 5.5 5.4 3.122 H-3, CAT, wk 3 0.95 5.8 5.5 5.9 6.323 KF0301 1.27 10.87 13.79 12.9 10.124 Stove Code 4, Stove 1,NCH-4, NC, wk 2 1.50 2.2 3.4 4.0 2.6 2.125 H-4, NC, wk 3 1.20 2.6 5.9 6.3 5.326 KF0101 1.35 5.04 6.79 7.1 5.327 Stove Code 30, NC H-5, NC, wk 2 0.97 6.5 6.2 6.66.8 4.528 H-5, NC, wk 3 0.78 7.5 5.9 6.3 8.129 KF0401 1.15 2.77 3.17 3.7 3.330 KF03, Run B 0.8 3.7 3.7 4.3 5.331 KF03, Run C 0.9 1.9 1.7 2.2 2.532 Stove Code 22, Stove2, CATH-6, CAT, wk 2 1.34 4.9 6.6 6.9 5.2 3.733 H-6, CAT, wk 3 1.14 7.1 8.1 8.2 7.234 Stove Code 21, NC KF01, Run A 1.2 7.8 9.5 9.47.8 3.635 KF01, Run B 1.2 8.7 10.8 10.5 8.736 KF01, Run C 1.4 4.8 6.5 6.8 4.938Table 4 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Klamath Falls, ORRun#Stove Model Code,Unit #, NC/CATStudy SampleIdentificationBurn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionFactor(g/kg)CertificationValue37 Stove Code 22, CAT,Stove 3KF04, Run A 0.9 17.5 15.8 14.4 16.0 3.738 KF04, Run B 1.1 14.2 15.1 13.9 12.639 Stove Code 20, Stove#4, NCKF05, Run A 0.8 5.2 4.3 4.8 6.0 3.440 KF05, Run B 0.9 7.2 6.1 6.5 7.241 KF05, Run C 1.0 2.8 2.8 3.4 3.442 Stove Code 13, NC KF06, Run A 0.7 6.0 4.0 4.5 6.5 2.943 Stove Code 39, NC KF07, Run A 0.8 9,9 8.3 8.4 10.5 6.644 KF07, Run B 0.7 7.9 5.9 6.3 9.045 KF07, Run C 1.2 8.2 9.7 9.6 8.046 Stove Code 35, NC KF08, Run A 1.1 8.9 9.9 9.7 8.9 5.747 KF08, Run B 1.1 12.3 13.6 12.7 11.648 KF08, Run C 1.2 5.2 6.3 6.7 5.539Table 5Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Portland, ORRun#Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CATLocation, Year,Ref.#Study SampleIdentificationFuel Tree SpeciesFuel Moisture(% db)49 Stove Code 18, CAT Portland, OR, 1999,Ref. 6P01, Run A Douglas Fir 24.050P01, Run B Douglas Fir 21.051P01, Run C Douglas Fir 22.852 Stove Code 19, NC Portland, OR, 1999,Ref .6P02, Run A 20% Maple, 5%Douglas Fir, 75%Alder105.3, 36.4, 106.653P02, Run B Oak 18.554P02, Run C 50% Douglas Fir,50% Oak35.4, 19.155 Stove Code 3, NC Portland, OR, 1999,Ref. 6P03, Run A Douglas Fir 18.356P03, Run B Douglas Fir 18.357P03, Run C 50% Douglas Fir,50% Birch19.858 Stove Code 33, CAT Portland, OR, 1999,Ref. 6P04, Run A Oak 18.359P04, Run B Oak 18.560P04, Run C Oak 18.461 Stove Code 26, CAT Portland, OR, 1999,Ref. 6P05, Run A 50% LodgepolePine, 50% Cherry20.6, 18.162P05, Run B 50% LodgepolePine, 50% Cherry19.8, 18.263P05, Run C 50% LodgepolePine, 50% Cherry19.3, 18.840Table 5 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Portland, ORRun#Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CATLocation, Year,Ref.#Study SampleIdentificationFuel Tree SpeciesFuel Moisture(% db)64 Stove Code 20, Stove #5, NC Portland, OR, 1999,Ref. 3P06, Run A 20% Maple, 5%Douglas Fir, 75%Alder*105.3, 36.4, 106.665P06, Run B 20% Maple, 5%Douglas Fir, 75%Alder*104.2, 38, 112.166P06, Run C 20% Maple, 5%Douglas Fir, 75%Alder101.1, 35.4, 107.967 Stove Code 40, NC Portland, OR, 1999,Ref. 3P07, Run A 20% Maple, 5%Douglas Fir, 75%Alder*105.3, 36.4, 106.668P07, Run B 20% Maple, 5%Douglas Fir, 75%Alder*104.2, 38, 112.169P07, Run C Douglas Fir 24.870 Stove Code 1, Stove 1, CAT Portland, OR, 1999,Ref. 3P08, Run A 10% Douglas Fir,90% Oak21.8, 25.171P08, Run B 10% Douglas Fir,90% Oak21.9, 25.4*Same wood was used for runs 64 and 67 and for runs65 and 68.41Table 5 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Portland, ORRun#Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CATLocation, Year,Ref.#Study SampleIdentificationFuel Tree SpeciesFuel Moisture(% db)72 Stove Code 20, Stove #6, NC Portland, OR, 1988,Ref. 7P04,1 50% LodgepolePine, 50% DouglasFir16.5, 11.373P04,2 50% LodgepolePine, 50% DouglasFir19.8, 11.374P04,3 33% Douglas Fir,33% Alder, 34%Maple24.5, 21.3, 18.975P04,4 50% Maple, 50%Alder25.0, 25.376P04,5 50% Maple, 50%Alder21.7, 19.577 Stove Code 2, CAT Portland, OR, 1988,Ref. 7P02,1 Apple 12.978P02,2 Douglas Fir 15.679P02,3 20% Apple, 80%Douglas Fir16.2, 17.680P02,4 20% Apple, 80%Douglas Fir16.2, 17.081Portland, OR, 1988,Ref. 8SP1 Douglas Fir 16.442Table 5Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Portland, ORRun#Stove Model Code,Unit #, NC/CATStudy SampleIdentificationBurn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionFactor(g/kg)CertificationValue49 Stove Code 18, CAT P01, Run A 1.2 15.0 18.4 16.413.7 3.150 P01, Run B 1.2 12.9 16.0 14.6 12.151 P01, Run C 1.3 13.5 16.9 15.3 11.752 Stove Code 19, NC P02, Run A 0.6 19.4 12.3 11.719.5 3.353 P02, Run B 0.8 17.5 13.3 12.5 15.654 P02, Run C 0.7 14.3 10.3 10.1 14.455 Stove Code 3, NC P03, Run A 0.8 5.9 4.7 5.2 6.5 1.956 P03, Run B 1.0 7.1 7.4 7.6 7.657 P03, Run C 1.0 5.8 5.8 6.2 6.258 Stove Code 33, CAT P04, Run A 0.7 5.4 4.0 4.5 6.5 5.259 P04, Run B 0.9 5.0 4.7 5.2 5.860 P04, Run C 0.7 5.9 3.9 4.5 6.461 Stove Code 26, CAT P05, Run A 2.0 7.0 14.3 13.36.6 4.162 P05, Run B 0.8 6.4 5.3 5.8 7.263 P05, Run C 0.9 4.4 4.2 4.7 5.343Table 5 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Portland, ORRun#Stove Model CodeUnit #, NC/CATStudy SampleIdentificationBurn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionFactor(g/kg)CertificationValue64 Stove Code 20, Stove#5, NCP06, Run A 1.5 9.1 13.5 12.6 8.4 3.465 P06, Run B 1.3 14.7 18.9 16.8 12.966 P06, Run C 1.1 8.7 10.0 9.8 8.967 Stove Code 40, NC P07, Run A 1.4 18.4 26.6 22.316.0 7.468 P07, Run B 1.5 18.5 27.7 23.1 15.469 P07, Run C 1.9 20.8 40.3 31.7 16.770 Stove Code 1, Stove 1,CATP08, Run A 1.3 17.1 23.0 19.8 15.2 1.671 P08, Run B 1.6 15.5 25.2 21.4 13.372 Stove Code 20, Stove#6, NCP04,1 1.29 5.3 6.9 7.2 5.6 3.473 P04,2 0.99 10.1 10.0 9.8 9.974 P04,3 0.90 12.1 10.9 10.6 11.775 P04,4 0.65 10.3 6.7 7.0 10.876 P04,5 0.70 9.9 6.9 7.2 10.377 Stove Code 2, CAT P02,1 1.07 2.5 2.7 3.3 3.1 1.978 P02,2 0.95 4.4 4.2 4.7 5.079 P02,3 0.87 5.4 4.7 5.2 6.080 P02,4 0.79 5.4 4.3 4.8 6.181 SP1 0.70 5.8 4.3 4.8 6.944Table 6Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YKRun#Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CATLocation, Year,Ref.#Study SampleIdentificationFuel Tree SpeciesFuel Moisture(% db)82 Stove Code 31, Stove 1, NC Whitehorse, YK,1987, Ref.10W04,5 Lodgepole Pine 12.783W04,6 Lodgepole Pine 15.384W04,7 Lodgepole Pine 13.885W04,8 50% Spruce, 50%Lodgepole Pine31.9, 15.686W04,9 50% Spruce, 50%Lodgepole Pine16.2, 16.287 Stove Code 31, Stove 2, NC Whitehorse, YK,1987, Ref.10W09,5 Lodgepole Pine 15.988W09,6 Lodgepole Pine 19.089W09,7 Lodgepole Pine 17.790W09,8 Spruce 21.591W09,9 Spruce 32.845Table 6Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YKRun#Stove Model Code,Unit #, NC/CATStudy SampleIdentificationBurn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionFactor(g/kg)CertificationValue82 Stove Code 31, Stove1, NCW04,5 1.66 8.1 10.5 10.2 6.2 4.683 W04,6 1.47 8.5 9.2 9.2 6.284 W04,7 1.73 3.5 5.3 5.8 3.385 W04,8 1.37 10.7 12.8 12.1 8.886 W04,9 1.02 9.3 10.3 10.1 9.987 Stove Code 31, Stove2, NCW09,5 1.01 19.2 19.4 17.1 17.0 4.688 W09,6 0.84 21.8 18.3 16.3 19.489 W09,7 0.91 18.7 17.1 15.4 16.990 W09,8 1.06 16.8 17.9 16.0 15.191 W09,9 0.85 26.0 22.2 19.2 22.646Table 7Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Falls, NYRun#Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CATLocation, Year,Ref.#Study SampleIdentificationFuel Tree SpeciesFuel Moisture(% db)92 Stove Code 8, CAT, Stove 1 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y01,2 Hardwoods 32.893Y01,3 Hardwoods 32.894Y01,4 Hardwoods 32.895Y01,5 Hardwoods 32.896Glens Falls, NY,1990, Ref. 122ndyr 80% Maple, 20%Ash28.097 Stove Code 8, CAT, Stove 2 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y02,1 Hardwoods 21.898Y02,2 Hardwoods 21.899Y02,3 Hardwoods 21.8100Y02,4 Hardwoods 21.8101Y02,5 Hardwoods 21.8102 Stove Code 8, CAT, Stove 3 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y12,1 Hardwoods 33.7103Y12,2 Hardwoods 33.7104Y12,3 Hardwoods 33.7105Y12,4 Hardwoods 33.7106 Stove Code 8, CAT, Stove 4 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y23,1 Hardwoods 20.9107Y23,2 Hardwoods 20.9108Y23,3 Hardwoods 20.9109Y23,4 Hardwoods 20.9110Y23,5 Hardwoods 20.9111 Stove Code 8, CAT, Stove 5 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref117Y25,1 Hardwoods 35.3112Y25,2 Hardwoods 35.3113Y25,3 Hardwoods 35.3114Y25,4 Hardwoods 35.3115Y25,5 Hardwoods 35.347Table 7 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Falls, NYRun#Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CATLocation, Year,Ref.#Study SampleIdentificationFuel Tree SpeciesFuel Moisture(% db)116 Stove Code 41, NC, Stove 1 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y04,1 Hardwoods 22.5117Y04,2 Hardwoods 22.5118Y04,3 Hardwoods 22.5119Y04,4 Hardwoods 22.5120Y04,5 Hardwoods 22.5121 Stove Code 41, NC, Stove 2 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y06,1 Hardwoods 23.1122Y06,2 Hardwoods 23.1123Y06,3 Hardwoods 23.1124Y06,4 Hardwoods 23.1125Y06,5 Hardwoods 23.1126 Stove Code 41, NC, Stove 3 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y08,2 Hardwoods 33.9127Y08,3 Hardwoods 33.9128Y08,4 Hardwoods 33.9129Y08,5 Hardwoods 33.9130 Stove Code 41, NC, Stove 4 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y11,1 Hardwoods 24.5131Y11,2 Hardwoods 24.5132Y11,3 Hardwoods 24.5133Y11,4 Hardwoods 24.5134Y11,5 Hardwoods 24.5135 Stove Code 41, NC, Stove 5 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y21,1 Hardwoods 22.9136Y21,2 Hardwoods 22.9137Y21,3 Hardwoods 22.9138Y21,4 Hardwoods 22.9139Y21,5 Hardwoods 22.948Table 7 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Falls, NYRun#Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CATLocation, Year,Ref.#Study SampleIdentificationFuel Tree SpeciesFuel Moisture(% db)140 Stove Code 15, CAT, Stove 1 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y07,1 Hardwoods 21.7141Y07,2 Hardwoods 21.7142Y07,3 Hardwoods 21.7143Y07,4 Hardwoods 21.7144Y07,5 Hardwoods 21.7145 Stove Code 15, CAT, Stove 2 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y010,1 Hardwoods 28.2146Y010,2 Hardwoods 28.2147Y010,3 Hardwoods 28.2148Y010,4 Hardwoods 40.5149Y010,5 Hardwoods 40.5150Glens Falls, NY,1990, Ref. 122ndyr 70% Beech, 20%Oak, 10% Birch28.0151 Stove Code 15, CAT, Stove 3 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y13,1 Hardwoods 27.8152Y13,2 Hardwoods 27.8153Y13,3 Hardwoods 27.8154Y13,4 Hardwoods 27.8155Y13,5 Hardwoods 27.81562ndyr 55% Oak, 35%Maple, 10% Beech27.0157 Stove Code 15, CAT, Stove 4 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y14,1 Hardwoods 27.2158Y14,2 Hardwoods 27.2159Y14,3 Hardwoods 27.2160Y14,4 Hardwoods 27.2161Glens Falls, NY,1990, Ref. 122ndyr Ash 26.049Table 7 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Falls, NYRun#Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CATLocation, Year,Ref.#Study SampleIdentificationFuel Tree SpeciesFuel Moisture(% db)162 Stove Code 15, CAT, Stove 5 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y19,1 Hardwoods 23.9163Y19,2 Hardwoods 23.9164Y19,3 Hardwoods 23.9165Y19,5 Hardwoods 23.9166Glens Falls, NY,1990, Ref. 122ndyr Maple 26.0167 Stove Code 12, CAT, Stove 1 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y03,1 Hardwoods 27.5168Y03,2 Hardwoods 27.5169Y03,3 Hardwoods 27.5170Y03,4 Hardwoods 27.5171Y03,5 Hardwoods 27.5172 Stove Code 12, CAT, Stove 2 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.12Y05,1 Hardwoods 27.6173Y05,2 Hardwoods 27.6174Y05,3 Hardwoods 27.6175Y05,4 Hardwoods 27.6176Y05,5 Hardwoods 27.6177 Stove Code 12, CAT, Stove 3 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y09,1 Hardwoods 22.2178Y09,2 Hardwoods 22.2179Y09,4 Hardwoods 22.2180Y09,5 Hardwoods 22.2181 Stove Code 12, CAT, Stove 4 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y22,1 Hardwoods 35.1182Y22,2 Hardwoods 35.1183Y22,3 Hardwoods 35.1184Y22,4 Hardwoods 35.1185Y22,5 Hardwoods 35.150Table 7 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data (Part 1) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Falls, NYRun#Stove Model Code, Unit #, NC/CATLocation, Year,Ref.#Study SampleIdentificationFuel Tree SpeciesFuel Moisture(% db)186 Stove Code 27, NC, Stove 1 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y15,2 Hardwoods 17.5187Y15,3 Hardwoods 17.5188Y15,4 Hardwoods 17.5189Y15,5 Hardwoods 17.5190 Stove Code 27, NC, Stove 2 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y16,1 Hardwoods 23.7191Y16,2 Hardwoods 23.7192Y16,3 Hardwoods 23.7193Y16,4 Hardwoods 23.7194Y16,5 Hardwoods 23.7195 Stove Code 27, NC, Stove 3 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y17,1 Hardwoods 33.1196Y17,2 Hardwoods 33.1197Y17,3 Hardwoods 33.1198Y17,4 Hardwoods 33.1199Y17,5 Hardwoods 33.1200 Stove Code 27, NC, Stove 4 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y20,1 Hardwoods 23.0201Y20,2 Hardwoods 23.0202Y20,3 Hardwoods 23.0203Y20,4 Hardwoods 23.0204Y20,5 Hardwoods 23.0205 Stove Code 27, NC, Stove 5 Glens Falls, NY,1989, Ref.11Y24,2 Hardwoods 23.8206Y24,3 Hardwoods 23.8207Y24,4 Hardwoods 23.8208Y24,5 Hardwoods 24.1†Maple was the dominant species; beech, oak, ash andcherry were also common51Table 7Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Falls, NYRun#Stove Mode Code,Unit #, NC/CATStudy SampleIdentificationBurn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)CertificationValue92 Stove Code 8, CAT,Stove 1Y01,2 1.00 4.1 4.1 4.6 4.6 2.593 Y01,3 0.86 5.1 4.4 4.9 5.794 Y01,4 0.69 3.9 2.7 3.3 4.795 Y01,5 0.84 5.0 4.2 4.7 5.696 2ndyr 0.71 17.06 12.09 11.5 16.297 Stove Code 8, CAT,Stove 2Y02,1 2,49 3.9 9.8 9.7 3.9 2.598 Y02,2 2.19 3.7 8.1 8.2 3.899 Y02,3 2.49 4.2 10.5 10.2 4.1100 Y02,4 2.01 8.5 17.0 15.3 7.6101 Y02,5 1.76 10.8 19.0 16.8 9.6102 Stove Code 8, CAT,Stove 3Y12,1 1.00 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 2.5103 Y12,2 1.16 4.9 5.7 6.1 5.3104 Y12,3 1.02 10.7 10.9 10.6 10.4106 Y12,4 0.89 9.0 8.1 8.2 9.2107 Stove Code 8, CAT,Stove 4Y23,1 0.71 9.2 6.5 6.8 9.6 2.5107 Y23,2 1.25 8.6 10.8 10.5 8.4108 Y23,3 1.50 11.9 17.8 15.9 10.6109 Y23,4 1.17 13.5 15.8 14.4 12.3110 Y23,5 0.99 14.2 14.1 13.1 13.2111 Stove Code 8, CAT,Stove 5Y25,1 1.07 7.0 7.5 7.7 7.2 2.5112 Y25,2 0.93 6.8 6.3 6.7 7.2113 Y25,3 0.85 11.7 10.0 9.8 11.6114 Y25,4 1.07 17.9 19.1 16.9 15.8115 Y25,5 1.02 16.9 17.2 15.5 15.252Table 7 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Falls, NYRun#Stove Model Code,Unit #, NC/CATStudy SampleIdentificationBurn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)CertificationValue116 Stove Code 41, NC,Stove 1Y04,1 1.10 14.5 15.9 14.5 13.27.5117 Y04,2 1.10 9.2 10.2 10.0 9.1118 Y04,3 0.71 6.4 4.6 5.1 7.2119 Y04,4 0.87 12.3 10.7 10.4 11.9120 Y04,5 0.73 11.8 8.7 8.7 12.0121 Stove Code 41, NC,Stove 2Y06,1 0.83 13.2 10.9 10.6 12.77.5122 Y06,2 0.81 9.2 7.5 7.7 9.5123 Y06,3 0.80 13.1 10.5 10.2 12.8124 Y06,4 0.63 10.8 6.8 7.1 11.3125 Y06,5 0.62 16.0 9.9 9.7 15.7126 Stove Code 41, NC,Stove 3Y08,2 1.23 10.0 12.3 11.7 9.57.5127 Y08,3 1.39 12.6 17.5 15.7 11.3128 Y08,4 1.01 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.5129 Y08,5 0.88 13.6 12.0 11.4 13.0130 Stove Code 41, NC,Stove 4Y11,1 0.55 42.7 23.5 20.1 36.67.5131 Y11,2 0.52 22.3 11.6 11.1 21.4132 Y11,3 0.39 36.7 14.3 13.3 34.0133 Y11,4 0.37 52.0 19.2 17.0 45.9134 Y11,5 0.39 44.0 17.0 15.3 39.3135 Stove Code 41, NC,Stove 5Y21,1 1.29 12.4 16.1 14.7 11.47.5136 Y21,2 1.54 7.2 11.0 10.6 6.9137 Y21,3 1.39 9.6 13.4 12.6 9.0138 Y21,4 1.31 10.8 14.1 13.1 10.0139 Y21,5 1.14 12.4 14.2 13.2 11.653Table 7 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Falls, NYRun#Stove Model Code,Unit #, NC/CATStudy SampleIdentificationBurn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)CertificationValue140 Stove Code 15, CAT,Stove 1Y07,1 0.94 2.6 2.4 3.0 3.1 3.0141 Y07,2 1.17 1.8 2.1 2.6 2.3142 Y07,3 1.16 2.5 2.9 3.5 3.0143 Y07,4 0.96 3.2 3.0 3.6 3.7144 Y07,5 0.93 4.4 4.1 4.6 5.0145 Stove Code 15, CAT,Stove 2Y010,1 1.02 2.8 2.9 3.5 3.4 3.0146 Y010,2 1.13 3.4 3.8 4.4 3.9147 Y010,3 1.12 4.9 5.5 5.9 5.3148 Y010,4 0.64 4.2 2.7 3.3 5.1149 Y010,5 0.89 7.4 6.5 6.8 7.7150 2ndyr 0.78 7.39 5.79 6.2 8.0151 Stove Code 15, CAT,Stove 3Y13,1 1.44 2.2 3.2 3.8 2.6 3.0152 Y13,2 1.53 5.1 7.8 8.0 5.2153 Y13,3 1.56 5.1 8.0 8.1 5.2154 Y13,4 1.50 6.0 9.1 9.1 6.0155 Y13,5 1.08 11.4 12.4 11.8 10.9156 2ndyr 0.59 26.32 15.65 14.3 24.3157 Stove Code 15, CAT,Stove 4Y14,1 1.11 5.2 5.8 6.2 5.6 3.0158 Y14,2 1.28 3.2 4.1 4.6 3.6159 Y14,3 1.33 4.9 6.5 6.8 5.1160 Y14,4 1.36 4.8 6.5 6.8 5.0161 2ndyr 1.33 7.02 9.34 9.3 7.054Table 7 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Falls, NYRun#Stove Model Code,Unit #, NC/CATStudy SampleIdentificationBurn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)CertificationValue162 Stove Code 15, CAT,Stove 5Y19,1 0.57 4.1 2.3 2.9 5.0 3.0163 Y19,2 1.14 2.1 2.4 3.0 2.6164 Y19,3 0.34 1.9 0.6 0.9 2.7165 Y19,5 0.91 2.0 1.9 2.4 2.7166 2ndyr 1.13 1.56 1.77 2.3 2.0167 Stove Code 12, CAT,Stove 1Y03,1 0.68 7.0 4.8 5.3 7.8 2.7168 Y03,2 0.86 13.4 11.6 11.1 12.9169 Y03,3 0.72 4.0 2.9 3.5 4.8170 Y03,4 0.84 5.9 5.0 5.5 6.5171 Y03,5 0.75 6.6 4.9 5.4 7.2172 Stove Code 12, CAT,Stove 2Y05,1 1.28 5.9 7.5 7.7 6.0 2.7173 Y05,2 1.26 6.0 7.6 7.8 6.2174 Y05,3 1.23 9.4 11.6 11.1 9.0175 Y05,4 1.13 13.2 14.9 13.7 12.2176 Y05,5 0.79 10.3 8.1 8.2 10.4177 Stove Code 12, CAT,Stove 3Y09,1 1.53 8.0 12.2 11.6 7.6 2.7178 Y09,2 1.51 9.7 14.7 13.6 9.0179 Y09,4 1.22 12.2 14.9 13.7 11.3180 Y09,5 0.95 10.8 10.3 10.1 10.6181 Stove Code 12, CAT,Stove 4Y22,1 1.20 15.7 18.8 16.7 13.9 2.7182 Y22,2 1.14 8.8 10.0 9.8 8.6183 Y22,3 1.59 13.5 21.4 18.6 11.7184 Y22,4 1.48 15.9 23.6 20.2 13.7185 Y22,5 0.86 12.2 10.5 10.2 11.955Table 7 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data (Part 2) – Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES), Glens Falls, NYRun#Stove Model Code,Unit #, NC/CATStudy SampleIdentificationBurn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)CertificationValue186 Stove Code 27, NC,Stove 1Y15,2 1.11 7.1 7.9 8.1 7.3 4.2187 Y15,3 1.18 8.5 10.0 9.8 8.3188 Y15,4 1.13 9.2 10.4 10.1 9.0189 Y15,5 0.81 4.3 3.5 4.1 5.0190 Stove Code 27, NC,Stove 2Y16,1 0.82 13.2 10.8 10.5 12.8 4.2191 Y16,2 0.90 9.1 7.9 8.1 9.0192 Y16,3 0.96 9.7 9.3 9.2 9.6193 Y16,4 1.06 9.2 9.7 9.6 9.0194 Y16,5 0.96 15.0 14.4 13.3 13.9195 Stove Code 27, NC,Stove 3Y17,1 1.36 11.0 15.0 13.8 10.2 4.2196 Y17,2 1.37 10.8 14.8 13.7 10.0197 Y17,3 1.32 10.4 13.7 12.8 9.7198 Y17,4 1.57 8.6 13.5 12.6 8.0199 Y17,5 1.34 12.2 16.3 14.8 11.1200 Stove Code 27, NC,Stove 4Y20,1 1.47 4.4 6.5 6.8 4.7 4.2201 Y20,2 1.35 5.3 7.2 7.5 5.5202 Y20,3 0.95 4.5 4.2 4.7 5.0203 Y20,4 1.01 4.1 4.1 4.6 4.6204 Y20,5 0.67 5.5 3.7 4.3 6.4205 Stove Code 27, NC,Stove 5Y24,2 0.90 5.5 4.9 5.4 6.0 4.2206 Y24,3 1.13 5.2 5.9 6.3 5.6207 Y24,4 1.23 5.0 6.2 6.6 5.3208 Y24,5 1.45 10.4 15.1 13.9 9.656Table 8Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CORun#Stove Model Code, Unit #,NC/CAT, Year, Ref. #Fuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)Cert.Value1 Stove Code 9, CAT, 89/90,Ref. 15Lodgepole Pine 16.56 0.93 7.2 6.6 6.3 6.8 2.5215.30 0.88 6.1 5.4 5.3 6.0315.50 0.82 6.7 5.5 5.4 6.5413.30 0.91 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.5514.60 0.75 6.5 4.9 4.8 6.4613.40 0.77 7.1 5.5 5.4 7.07 91/92, Ref. 16 Pine 17.4 0.98 13.9 13.6 12.2 12.5817.7 0.90 13.9 12.5 11.3 12.6935.2 0.74 10.7 7.9 7.5 10.11019.4 0.95 10.5 9.9 9.2 9.611 1998, Ref.18 (lab test) Pine 9.6 1.224 14.2 17.415.3 12.512 Stove Code 34, CAT, Stove1, 89/90, Ref.15980% Apple, 20%Pine12.90 0.76 5.4 4.1 4.1 5.4 5.51312.90 0.66 7.6 5.0 4.9 7.41413.30 0.62 8.1 5.1 5.0 8.11514.20 0.70 7.7 5.4 5.3 7.51614.50 0.76 7.0 5.3 5.2 6.81713.00 0.61 11.4 7.0 6.7 11.018 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Apple 21.6 1.301 13.7 17.8 15.6 12.01910.5 1.568 5.4 8.5 8.0 5.120 Stove Code 32, NC, 89/90,Ref. 15Pine 14.96 1.54 2.4 3.7 3.7 2.4 5.121 13.46 1.82 7.8 14.2 12.7 7.022 13.81 2.02 5.5 11.1 10.2 5.057Table 8 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CORun#Stove Model Code, Unit #,NC/CAT, Year, Ref. #Fuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)Cert.Value23 12.46 1.80 5.2 9.4 8.7 4.92416.16 1.67 3.1 5.1 5.0 3.02416.50 1.76 5.4 9.5 8.8 5.026 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Aspen 12.0 1.301 13.7 17.8 15.6 12.027 Stove Code 37, Stove 1 NC,89/90, Ref. 15Pine 12.46 0.86 7.4 6.4 6.2 7.2 6.42814.09 0.87 5.9 5.1 5.0 5.82914.40 0.89 9.8 8.8 8.2 9.23012.80 0.68 17.8 12.2 11.1 16.33115.00 0.64 26.8 17.2 15.2 23.73213.40 0.55 18.7 10.3 9.5 17.333 91/92, Ref. 16 Spruce 27.2 0.60 17.2 10.4 9.6 16.034 Pine 17.9 0.87 13.1 11.4 10.4 12.03541.4 0.99 21.3 21.1 18.3 18.43646.5 0.59 27.0 15.9 14.1 23.937 95/96, Ref. 17 Softwood 12.2 0.66 3.1 2.0 2.1 3.2389.9 0.54 21.6 11.5 10.5 19.43912.3 0.75 8.6 6.4 6.2 8.24013.2 0.49 15.2 7.4 7.0 14.341 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Douglas Fir 48.5 1.36120.8 28.3 23.9 17.54222.6 1.269 7.2 9.1 8.5 6.743 Stove Code 1, Stove 2,CAT, 91/92, Ref. 16Apple, Pine 17.8 0.64 38.4 24.5 20.9 32.7 1.658Table 8 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CORun#Stove Model Code, Unit #,NC/CAT, Year, Ref. #Fuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)Cert.Value44 18.7 0.50 31.0 15.5 13.8 27.64516.3 0.71 47.6 33.6 27.9 39.34629.9 0.64 33.3 21.3 18.4 28.847 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Pine 10.5 1.079 7.2 7.77.3 6.848 Stove Code 38, NC, 91/92,Ref. 16Pine 21.9 0.74 5.5 4.1 4.1 5.5 6.44923.3 0.97 8.5 8.2 7.7 8.05027.6 0.96 11.8 11.3 10.3 10.851 Stove Code 17, CAT,91/92, Ref. 16Pine 21.0 0.89 18.4 16.4 14.5 16.3 3.15217.3 0.63 18.3 11.6 10.6 16.85321.6 0.70 10.8 7.5 7.1 10.254 Stove Code 23, CAT,91/92, Ref. 16Apple17.4 1.37 3.6 5.0 4.9 3.6 3.85518.6 1.25 7.5 9.5 8.8 7.156 Spruce20.7 1.06 21.7 23.1 19.8 18.75718.1 1.00 13.4 13.5 12.2 12.258 Stove Code 1, Stove 3,CAT, 91/92, Ref. 16Pine 13.0 0.87 7.4 6.4 6.2 7.1 1.65911.5 1.14 14.8 16.8 14.8 13.060 Stove Code 7, CAT, 91/92,Ref. 16Spruce38.1 0.88 24.8 6.2 6.0 6.8 2.46124.5 1.35 17.7 9.0 8.4 6.26225.8 1.24 21.9 8.4 7.9 6.459Table 8 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CORun#Stove Model Code, Unit #,NC/CAT, Year, Ref. #Fuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)Cert.Value63 Apple, Pine 26.8 0.95 8.5 5.2 5.1 5.464 Stove Code 28, CAT, 91/92,Ref. 16Oak, Pine 38.1 0.68 9.2 21.8 18.8 27.7 4.36524.5 0.73 12.3 24.0 20.5 28.16625.8 0.77 10.9 27.1 22.9 29.86726.8 0.66 7.9 8.1 7.6 11.668 Stove Code 25, CAT, 91/92,Ref. 16Apple, Pine 32.1 0.64 19.0 12.1 11.0 17.2 4.06940.0 0.56 18.5 10.3 9.5 17.07045.2 0.51 22.8 11.7 10.7 20.97133.5 0.40 12.9 5.2 5.1 12.772 Stove Code 34, CAT, Stove2, 95/96, Ref. 17Pine 11.2 0.80 25.1 20.0 17.4 21.7 5.57313.7 0.69 18.7 12.9 11.7 16.974 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Pine 17.6 1.525 14.4 21.9 18.9 12.47513.1 1.579 9.3 14.6 13.1 8.3769.2 1.609 5.5 8.9 8.3 5.2779.2 1.584 5.2 8.2 7.7 4.978 Stove Code 6, CAT, Stove1, 95/96, Ref. 17Softwood 15.1 0.69 44.1 30.4 25.5 36.9 2.27914.7 0.75 32.8 24.2 20.7 27.68012.8 1.01 35.7 35.5 29.3 29.08114.4 0.85 32.5 27.5 23.2 27.382 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Pine 11.6 0.960 9.8 9.48.7 9.160Table 8 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CORun#Stove Model Code, Unit #,NC/CAT, Year, Ref. #Fuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)Cert.Value83 10.1 1.079 10.2 11.0 10.1 9.384 Stove Code 6, CAT, Stove2, 95/96, Ref. 17Softwood 13.0 0.90 6.5 5.8 5.6 6.3 2.28516.6 0.84 9.6 8.0 7.5 9.08614.2 0.83 11.9 9.8 9.1 10.98713.7 0.71 12.6 8.9 8.3 11.788 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Pine 12.4 1.227 5.6 6.96.6 5.489 Stove Code 6, CAT, Stove3, 95/96, Ref. 17Softwood 13.3 0.62 24.5 15.0 13.4 21.6 2.29013.2 0.62 43.8 26.7 22.6 36.59111.9 0.55 19.6 10.8 9.9 18.092 Stove Code 6, CAT, Stove4, 95/96, Ref. 17Pine 14.1 0.60 22.1 13.2 11.9 19.8 2.29313.9 0.48 37.3 17.6 15.5 32.29413.3 0.76 27.0 20.3 17.6 23.29510.2 0.69 27.2 18.5 16.2 23.59612.2 0.62 31.2 19.1 16.7 26.997 Stove Code 24, CAT,95/96, Ref. 16Pine, Oak 32.8 0.80 21.5 17.0 15.0 18.7 3.89852.3 0.90 23.4 20.9 18.1 20.19955.9 1.12 19.6 21.8 18.8 16.810033.4 1.11 22.4 24.6 21.0 18.9101 1998, Ref. 18 (lab tests) Pine 11.7 1.652 6.4 10.6 9.8 5.961Table 8 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CORun#Stove Model Code, Unit #,NC/CAT, Year, Ref. #Fuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)Cert.Value102 Stove Code 1, Stove 4,CAT, 95/96, Ref. 17Hardwood,Softwood13.0 0.73 8.0 5.7 5.5 7.6 1.610311.8 0.56 11.1 6.1 5.9 10.510412.1 0.89 14.1 12.4 11.2 12.610512.4 0.83 11.2 9.2 8.6 10.3106 Stove Code 14, NC, Stove1, 95/96, Ref. 17Pine 9.3 1.54 4.4 6.7 6.4 4.2 3.0107 Stove Code 14, NC, Stove2, 95/96, Ref. 17Softwood 12.7 0.75 4.3 3.2 3.3 4.4 3.0108 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Pine 11.6 1.040 8..328.7 8.1 7.810911.6 1.058 8.31 8.8 8.2 7.8110 Stove Code 10, NC, 95/96,Ref. 17Pine 17.4 0.73 8.0 5.7 5.5 7.6 2.611115.5 0.56 11.1 6.1 5.9 10.511220.5 0.89 14.1 12.4 11.2 12.611321.1 0.83 11.2 9.2 8.6 10.3114 1998, Ref. 18 (lab test) Pine 10.4 1.789 3.1 5.5 5.4 3.0115 Stove Code 4, NC, Stove 2,95/96, Ref. 17Aspen 18.0 1.62 2.8 4.4 4.4 2.7 2.111618.5 1.30 11.5 14.8 13.2 10.211728.4 1.12 6.9 7.6 7.2 6.411822.0 1.25 3.6 4.5 4.5 3.662Table 8 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CORun#Stove Model Code, Unit #,NC/CAT, Year, Ref. #Fuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)Cert.Value119 Stove Code 37, NC, Stove2, 95/96 Ref. 17Softwood 11.0 0.92 12.5 11.3 10.3 11.2 6.412010.7 0.67 14.0 9.3 8.7 12.91219.8 0.63 8.5 5.3 5.2 8.212210.3 0.57 9.9 5.6 5.5 9.61238.3 0.70 7.3 5.1 5.0 7.21246.8 0.75 4.7 3.5 3.6 4.7125 Stove Code 27, NC, Stove6, 1998, Ref.18 (lab test)Pine 10.6 1.168 2.6 3.0 3.1 2.6 4.2126 Stove Code 37, NC, Stove3, 1998, Ref 18 (new stove,12 tests, parametric study)Douglas Fir 33.4 1.34 18.3 24.4 20.8 15.6 6.4127 Black Locust 13.3 1.12 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.3128 Douglas Fir 8.2 1.76 4.6 8.1 7.6 4.3129 Black Locust 11.0 0.97 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.8130 Black Locust 24.2 1.43 10.8 15.5 13.8 9.6131 Douglas Fir 30.0 1.07 19.9 21.2 18.3 17.1132 Black Locust 13.3 1.57 4.4 7.0 6.7 4.3133 Black Locust 26.8 1.47 5.7 8.4 7.9 5.4134 Douglas Fir 28.7 1.57 11.9 18.6 16.3 10.4135 Douglas Fir 8.7 1.44 3.7 5.3 5.2 3.6136 Douglas Fir 8.5 0.88 9.5 8.4 7.9 9.0137 Black Locust 30.3 0.94 18.6 17.4 15.3 16.363Table 8 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CORun#Stove Mode Code, Unit #,NC/CAT, Year, Ref. #Fuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)Cert.Value138 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 22.2 2.1139 Black Locust 11.9 1.03 7.4 3.7 3.7 3.6140 Douglas Fir 9.1 1.07 12.1 8.1 7.6 7.1141 Black Locust 11.0 0.71 8.6 5.8 5.6 7.9142 Black Locust 27.9 0.94 22.1 15.5 13.8 14.7143 Douglas Fir 29.2 0.66 23.9 21.2 18.3 27.8144 Black Locust 12.2 1.17 10.8 7.0 6.7 5.7145 Black Locust 33.1 1.02 11.9 8.4 7.9 7.7146 Douglas Fir 29.5 1.21 17.4 18.6 16.3 13.5147 Douglas Fir 9.7 0.86 17.9 5.3 5.2 6.0148 Douglas Fir 9.1 0.74 15.5 8.4 7.9 10.7149 Black Locust 29.6 0.73 19.4 17.4 15.3 21.0150 Stove Code 6, CAT, Stove5, 1998, Ref. 18 (new stove,8 tests, parametric study)Douglas Fir 8.4 1.91 8.3 16.3 14.4 7.6 2.2151 Black Locust 10.0 1.15 5.4 6.2 6.0 5.2152 Douglas Fir 29.4 0.88 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6153 Black Locust 12.3 1.98 11.7 23.0 19.8 10.0154 Black Locust 29.7 1.76 6.3 11.1 10.2 5.8155 Douglas Fir 33.7 1.70 9.1 15.4 13.7 8.1156 Douglas Fir 9.1 0.99 9.2 9.0 8.4 8.5157 Black Locust 26.6 0.93 6.3 5.8 5.6 6.164Table 8 (cont.)Certified Stove Field Data – Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CORun#Stove Model Code, Unit #,NC/CAT, Year, Ref. #Fuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)Cert.Value158 Stove Code 22, CAT, Stove4, 1998 Ref. 18 (new stove,8 tests, parametric study)Douglas Fir 8.7 2.35 4.7 11.0 10.1 4.3 3.7159 Black Locust 9.5 0.92 17.0 15.7 13.9 15.2160 Douglas Fir 29.9 1.16 9.1 10.5 9.7 8.3161 Black Locust 11.4 2.13 5.2 11.1 10.2 4.8162 Black Locust 30.5 2.12 8.1 17.2 15.2 7.1163 Douglas Fir 35.5 2.02 8.6 17.3 15.2 7.5164 Douglas Fir 9.1 0.93 12.7 11.8 10.8 11.6165 Black Locust 29.9 0.78 7.8 6.1 5.9 7.665Table 9Laboratory Tests Simulating the In-Home Use of Certified Wood StovesRun#Test, Year,Ref.Stove Model Code,CAT/NCDescription of RunFuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)BurnRate(kg/h)5HEmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionFactor(g/kg)Cert.Value1 BPA, 1988,Ref. 7Stove Code 2, CAT Portland, OR, burncycleDouglas Fir 19.92 0.73 2.8 3.8* 1.92Northeast burncycle50% Red Oak,50% Sugar Maple27.4 1.22 2.1 1.72*3 EPA, 2000,Ref.20Stove Code 11, CAT Homeowner cycle,cold startOak 28 1.92 39.6 20.6 2.74Homeowner cycle,cold start28 2.15 47.0 21.85Homeowner cycle,cold start28 1.26 7.0 5.56Homeowner cycle,cold start28 2.33 26.8 11.57Homeowner cycle,cold start28 3.05 25.2 8.28Homeowner cycle,cold start28 1.36 17.7 13.09Homeowner cycle,cold start13.5 2.92 17.7 6.110Homeowner cycle,cold start12.6 1.38 6.8 4.911Homeowner cycle,hot start28 1.31 8.7 6.612Homeowner cycle,cold start17.2 2.64 8.0 3.013Homeowner cycle,cold start14.4 1.33 4.1 3.166Table 9 (cont.)Laboratory Tests Simulating the In-Home Use of Certified Wood StovesRun#Test,Year, Ref.Stove ModelCode, CAT/NCDescription of RunFuel TreeSpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)BurnRate(kg/h)5H EmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)Cert.Value14 EPA,2000,Ref.20Stove Code 4,NC, Stove 3Homeowner cycle,cold startOak 28 1.50 61.4 41.0 2.115 Homeowner cycle,cold start28 1.61 41.8 26.016 Homeowner cycle,cold start13.6 1.71 41.5 24.217 Homeowner cycle,cold start14.1 1.31 43.8 33.418 Homeowner cycle,cold start13 1.70 39.3 23.119 Homeowner cycle,cold start14.9 4.15 14.8 3.620 Homeowner cycle,cold start12.7 1.57 48.3 30.821 EC, 2009,Ref. 23Stove Code 4,NC, Stove 4Softwood/LowBR/Cold StartDouglasFir16.71 1.61 11.40 2.68 2.122 Softwood/LowBR/Cold Start16.66 1.77 9.50 2.6223 Hardwood/LowBR/Cold StartMaple 22.29 1.71 8.17 3.9924 Hardwood/LowBR/Cold Start21.71 1.71 10.72 3.2125 Softwood/HighBR/Hot StartDouglasFir18.19 1.73 10.79 0.9326 Softwood/LowBR/Hot Start17.06 3.90 9.15 0.7967Table 9 (cont.)Laboratory Tests Simulating the In-Home Use of Certified Wood StovesRun#Test,Year, Ref.Stove ModelCode, CAT/NCDescription of RunFuelTreeSpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)BurnRate(kg/h)5HEmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionFactor(g/kg)Cert.Value27 Hardwood/High BR/HotStartMaple 21.80 2.87 3.46 1.028 Hardwood/Low BR/Hot Start23.15 2.78 5.74 1.229 EC, 2009,Ref. 23Stove Code 36,NCSoftwood/Low BR/ColdStartDouglasFir19.83 1.08 11.40 10.55 5.930 Softwood/Low BR/ColdStart20.92 1.10 9.81 8.6231 Hardwood/Low BR/ColdStartMaple 22.10 1.27 8.33 6.4332 Hardwood/Low BR/ColdStart20.12 1.34 11.19 7.9933 Softwood/High BR/Hot Start DouglasFir17.98 3.37 11.28 3.2034 Softwood/Low BR/Hot Start 18.04 2.92 9.41 3.1435 Hardwood/High BR/HotStartMaple 21.80 2.87 3.26 1.2136 Hardwood/Low BR/Hot Start23.15 2.78 5.66 2.06*Calculated from emission rate and burn rate.68Table 10Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated WoodstoveEmission Sampler (AWES), Klamath Falls, ORRun#Study Sample I.D., Ref. Year,Ref. #Fuel Tree SpeciesAverageFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionFactor(g/kg)1 H-1, wk 1, 1990, Ref. 4 90 %Yellow Pine10 % LodgepolePine8.3 2.18 10.8 23.6 20.2 9.32 H-2, wk 1, 1990 Ref. 4 50% Yellow Pine50% Cedar15.8 1.55 34.5 55.3 41.4 26.73 H-3, wk 1, 1990, Ref. 4 100% White Fir 18.2 1.7829.0 51.6 39.0 21.94 KF0601, 1992, Ref. 5 Lodgepole PineAlder20.9 2.06 27.21 56.68 42.2 20.55 KF0701, 1992, Ref. 5 Lodgepole Pine 10.1 1.11 36.25 40.07 31.5 28.46 KF0801, 1992, Ref. 5 Lodgepole Pine 11.5 1.31 50.40 66.13 48.1 36.77 KF0901, 1992, Ref. 5 Lodgepole Pine 11.1 1.41 12.97 18.25 16.3 11.669Table 11Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated WoodstoveEmission Sampler (AWES), Portland, ORRun#Study Sample I.D. Ref.Year, Ref. #Fuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)8 H001, wk 1, 1987, Ref. 9 80% Maple20% Alder42.038.21.16 33.2 38.6 30.6 26.49 H001, wk 2, 1987, Ref. 9 80% Maple20% Alder41.939.90.90 27.2 24.6 20.9 23.310 H002, wk 1, 1987, Ref. 9 60% Alder40% Douglas Fir22.019.01.10 26.6 29.3 24.2 22.011 H002, wk 2, 1987, Ref. 9 34% Alder33% Douglas Fir33% Maple24.425.132.70.93 29.1 27.1 22.7 24.412 Home P03, 1, 1988, Ref. 7 90% Maple10% Alder25.317.91.68 13.3 22.3 19.3 11.513 Home P03, 2, 1988, Ref. 7 90% Maple10% Alder25.115.41.26 7.7 9.7 9.6 7.614 Home P03, 3, 1988, Ref. 7 50% Maple50% Alder30.819.41.02 10.5 10.8 10.5 10.315 Home P03, 4, 1988, Ref. 7 50% Maple50% Alder35.825.90.94 10.1 9.5 9.4 10.016 Home P03, 5, 1988, Ref. 7 50% Maple50% Alder25.423.81.25 13.4 16.7 15.1 12.117 Home P05, 1, 1988, Ref.7 75% Alder25% Douglas Fir16.615.31.37 21.4 29.4 24.3 17.818 Home P05, 2, 1988, Ref.7 75% Alder25% Douglas Fir16.615.71.12 25.6 28.7 23.8 21.319 Home P05, 3, 1988, Ref.7 33% Douglas Fir34% Alder33% Maple15.719.916.40.94 22.9 21.4 18.6 19.870Table 11 (cont.)Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated WoodstoveEmission Sampler (AWES), Portland, ORRun#Study Sample I.D.,Ref.Year, Ref. #Fuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionFactor(g/kg)20 Home P05, 4, 1988, Ref.7 50% Maple50% Alder17.321.91.01 26.7 27.1 22.7 22.521 Home P05, 5, 1988, Ref.7 50% Maple50% Alder17.720.90.92 22.7 20.9 18.3 19.871Table 12Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated WoodstoveEmission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YK (data fromref. 10, 1987)Run#Study Sample I.D.*Fuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor(g/kg)22 W01,1 Lodgepole Pine 16.8 1.93 25.8 49.8 37.9 19.623 W01,2 Lodgepole Pine 14.5 1.32 23.1 30.4 25.0 18.924 W01,4 Lodgepole Pine 30.1 1.26 20.5 25.8 21.8 17.325 W01,5 Lodgepole Pine 13.5 1.53 22.2 33.9 27.4 17.926 W01,6 Lodgepole Pine 15.2 1.58 17.8 28.1 23.4 14.827 W01,7 Lodgepole Pine 15.8 2.15 10.7 22.9 19.7 9.228 W01,8 Lodgepole Pine 14.8 1.12 22.7 25.5 21.6 19.329 W01,9 Lodgepole Pine 15.6 0.79 22.7 18.0 16.1 20.430 W02,1 Lodgepole Pine 17.2 1.45 20.0 28.9 24.0 16.531 W02,2 Lodgepole Pine 19.8 1.29 13.3 17.2 15.5 12.032 W02,3 Spruce 28.9 1.46 11.8 17.3 15.6 10.733 W02,4 50% LodgepolePine50% Spruce41.815.10.90 12.8 11.5 11.0 12.334 W02,5bc Lodgepole Pine 18.0 1.21 41.7 50.3 38.231.635 W02,6 Lodgepole Pine 21.8 0.86 44.5 38.5 30.5 35.536 W02,8 95% Spruce5% LodgepolePine33.017.50.75 23.6 17.7 15.9 21.237 W02,9 Spruce 24.1 0.56 23.3 13.1 12.3 22.038 W03,1 Lodgepole Pine 15.4 1.18 4.8 5.7 6.1 5.239 W03,2 Lodgepole Pine 14.3 1.04 8.3 8.6 8.7 8.372Table 12 (cont.)Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated WoodstoveEmission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YK (data fromref. 10, 1987)Run#Study Sample I.D.*Fuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)40 W03,3 99% Spruce1% Lodgepole Pine40.417.31.31 10.2 13.3 12.5 9.541 W03,4 50% Spruce50% Lodgepole Pine40.114.61.44 7.0 10.1 9.9 6.942 W04,1 Lodgepole Pine 16.6 1.90 21.4 40.7 32.0 16.843 W04,2 Lodgepole Pine 15.8 1.25 23.3 29.2 24.2 19.344 W04,3 90% Spruce10% Lodgepole Pine30.211.72.01 17.8 35.7 28.6 14.245 W04, 4 50% Spruce50% Lodgepole Pine25.418.31.87 14.1 26.3 22.1 11.846 W05,1 50% Lodgepole Pine50% Spruce17.919.21.67 6.5 10.9 10.6 6.347 W05,2 Lodgepole Pine 16.1 1.59 8.9 14.1 13.1 8.248 W05,3 90% Spruce10% Lodgepole Pine43.413.71.64 8.1 13.4 12.6 7.749 W05,4 50% Spruce50% Lodgepole Pine30.713.61.73 10.8 18.7 16.6 9.650 W05,5bc Lodgepole Pine 13.8 1.66 10.1 16.8 15.29.251 W05,6bc Lodgepole Pine 14.6 1.47 11.2 16.5 15.010.273Table 12 (cont.)Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated WoodstoveEmission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YK (data fromref. 10, 1987)Run#Study Sample I.D.*Fuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)52 W05,8bc 95% Spruce5% LodgepolePine32.414.41.37 15.6 21.3 18.5 13.553 W05,9bc Lodgepole Pine 28.3 1.02 9.3 9.5 9.4 9.254 W06,1 Lodgepole Pine 16.2 1.16 16.5 19.2 17.0 14.755 W06,3 Spruce 29.5 1.23 15.3 18.8 16.7 13.656 W06,4 Spruce 19.8 1.31 12.0 15.7 14.4 11.057 W06,5 Lodgepole Pine 16.6 1.11 17.2 19.1 16.9 15.258 W06,6 Lodgepole Pine 16.5 0.77 27.4 20.9 18.3 23.759 W06,7 Lodgepole Pine 19.4 1.14 14.1 16.1 14.7 12.961 W06,9 Spruce 37.9 0.61 16.5 10.0 9.8 16.162 W07,2 Lodgepole Pine 20.1 1.88 17.5 32.8 26.7 14.263 W07,3 80% Spruce20% LodgepolePine21.218.72.12 10.1 21.5 18.7 8.864 W07,4 50% Spruce50% LodgepolePine21.219.12.57 13.6 35.0 28.2 11.065 W08,2 Lodgepole Pine 20.4 1.50 15.0 22.5 19.4 12.966 W08,3 Spruce 19.9 1.30 24.1 31.3 25.6 19.767 W08,4 Spruce 32.4 1.90 16.7 31.7 25.9 13.674Table 12 (cont.)Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated WoodstoveEmission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YK (data fromref. 10, 1987)Run#Study Sample I.D.*Fuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)68 W08,5bc Lodgepole Pine 19.6 1.16 22.4 26.1 22.019.069 W08,6bc Lodgepole Pine 15.8 1.58 10.1 15.9 14.59.270 W08,7bc Lodgepole Pine 16.4 1.78 20.3 36.1 28.916.271 W08,8bc Spruce 27.0 1.29 24.1 31.2 25.6 19.872 W08,9bc Spruce 26.1 1.09 26.3 28.7 23.8 21.973 W09,1 Lodgepole Pine 18.0 0.93 19.5 18.2 16.2 17.574 W09,2 Lodgepole Pine 17.2 0.70 25.4 17.7 15.9 22.775 W09,3 Spruce 23.8 0.88 12.8 11.3 10.9 12.476 W10,1 Lodgepole Pine 18.3 1.28 22.4 28.6 23.8 18.677 W10,2 Lodgepole Pine 16.0 1.15 14.4 16.5 15.0 13.078 W10,3 Spruce 17.5 1.44 15.6 22.5 19.4 13.579 W10,4 Spruce 31.6 1.49 16.5 24.6 20.9 14.080 W10,5 Lodgepole Pine 16.5 1.36 25.8 34.9 28.1 20.781 W10,6 Lodgepole Pine 16.7 1.09 24.3 26.4 22.2 20.482 W10,7 Lodgepole Pine 18.7 1.10 36.7 40.5 31.8 28.983 W10,8 Spruce 21.7 1.85 14.6 27.1 22.7 12.384 W10,9 Spruce 37.8 1.42 14.8 21.0 18.3 12.985 W11,1 Lodgepole Pine 17.0 2.37 4.4 10.5 10.2 4.386 W11,2 Lodgepole Pine 17.8 2.02 7.0 14.1 13.1 6.587 W11,3 Spruce 30.8 2.02 11.7 23.6 20.2 10.088 W11,4 Spruce 32.8 2.60 7.2 18.9 16.8 6.575Table 12 (cont.)Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated WoodstoveEmission Sampler (AWES), Whitehorse, YK (data fromref. 10, 1987)Run#Study Sample I.D.*Fuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)89 W12,1 Lodgepole Pine 12.1 1.76 15.1 26.7 22.4 12.790 W12,2 Lodgepole Pine 13.7 1.44 14.1 20.3 17.8 12.491 W12,3 Lodgepole Pine 20.0 1.49 16.6 24.7 21.0 14.192 W12,4 Lodgepole Pine 18.1 1.82 16.2 29.4 24.3 13.493 W12,5bc Lodgepole Pine 18.7 1.82 19.7 36.0 28.815.894 W12,6bc Lodgepole Pine 15.3 1.78 8.8 15.8 14.4 8.195 W12,7bc Lodgepole Pine 13.9 1.45 23.9 34.7 28.019.396 W12,8bc 95% Spruce5% LodgepolePine43.213.51.40 20.1 28.2 23.5 16.897 W12,9bc Lodgepole Pine 12.5 1.13 16.9 19.0 16.814.998 W13,2 Lodgepole Pine 20.6 1.85 17.9 33.0 26.8 14.599 W13,3 Spruce 26.8 1.74 15.4 26.7 22.4 12.9100 W13,5 Lodgepole Pine 16.1 1.29 25.7 33.2 26.9 20.9101 W13,6 Lodgepole Pine 15.7 1.35 12.2 16.4 14.9 11.0102 W13,7 Lodgepole Pine 19.1 1.19 19.3 22.9 19.7 16.6103 W13,8 80% Spruce20% LodgepolePine19.618.10.89 19.6 17.5 15.7 17.7104 W13,9 Spruce 18.6 0.89 20.0 17.8 15.9 17.9105 W14,1 Lodgepole Pine 17.7 1.16 21.4 24.7 21.0 18.1106 W14,2 Lodgepole Pine 19.0 1.07 23.9 25.7 21.7 20.3107 W14,3 Spruce 22.7 1.04 31.4 32.6 26.5 25.5108 W14,4 Spruce 26.3 1.71 16.4 28.0 23.3 13.6*bc = before catalytic retrofit device76Table 13Uncertified Stove Field Data – Automated WoodstoveEmission Sampler (AWES), New York and Vermont (datafrom ref. 13, 1987)Run#Study Sample I.D.Fuel Tree SpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)109 V06-1 Mixed hardwoods 26.5 2.45 1.2 2.9 3.5 1.4110 V06-2 Mixed hardwoods 26.6 1.60 2.9 4.7 5.2 3.3111 V06-3 Mixed hardwoods 27.5 1.59 19.1 30.4 25.015.7112 V06-5 Mixed hardwoods 25.0 1.52 8.4 12.7 12.0 7.9113 V06-6 Mixed hardwoods 28.0 1.86 9.3 17.3 15.6 8.4114 V09-1 Mixed hardwoods 41.2 1.12 13.7 15.4 14.112.6115 V14-1 Mixed hardwoods 23.0 1.67 10.2 16.9 15.39.1116 V14-2 Mixed hardwoods 28.2 1.45 16.3 23.5 20.113.9117 V14-3 Mixed hardwoods 26.3 0.92 22.0 20.3 17.819.4118 N08-3 Mixed hardwoods 29.7 1.92 13.8 26.5 22.311.6119 N08-4 Mixed hardwoods 24.7 1.91 17.1 32.6 26.513.9120 N08-6 Mixed hardwoods 26.5 2.19 12.2 26.6 22.410.2121 N08-7 Mixed hardwoods 29.5 2.00 15.4 30.9 25.412.7122 N14-6 Mixed hardwoods 35.2 2.45 13.9 34.0 27.511.2123 N14-7 Mixed hardwoods 41.0 1.57 18.4 29.0 24.015.3124 N16-1 Mixed hardwoods 26.0 1.55 9.0 13.9 13.0 8.477Table 14Uncertified Stove Field Data – Virginia PolytechnicInstitute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CORun#Study Sample I.D., Ref. Year,Ref. #Fuel TreeSpecies*FuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor(g/kg)125 Run 1, Conv.01, 1989, Ref.14 ND 13.3 1.60 6.5610.5 9.7 6.0126 Run 5, Conv.01, 1989, Ref.14 ND 12.4 1.09 14.3115.6 13.9 12.7127 Run 12, Conv.01, 1989, Ref.14 ND 11.9 1.57 15.16 23.8 20.4 13.0128 Run 20, Conv.01, 1989, Ref.14 ND 13.5 2.45 9.2222.6 19.4 7.9129 Run 40, Conv.01, 1989, Ref.14 ND 19.7 1.89 10.09 35.7 29.5 15.6130 Run 3, Conv. 02, 1989, Ref.14 ND 13.5 0.84 8.697.3 6.9 8.3131 Run 8, Conv. 02, 1989, Ref.14 ND 17.2 0.72 14.86 10.7 9.8 13.7132 Run 16, Conv. 02, 1989, Ref.14 ND 18.6 0.93 12.04 11.2 10.3 11.0133 Run 24, Conv. 02, 1989, Ref.14 ND 19.7 1.30 12.23 15.9 14.1 10.9134 Run 30, Conv. 02, 1989, Ref.14 ND 14.2 1.57 6.50 10.2 9.4 6.0135 Run 4 Conv. 03, 1989, Ref.14 ND 9.5 1.77 18.3632.5 27.1 15.3136 Run 9, Conv. 03, 1989, Ref.14 ND 11.2 0.98 17.35 17 15.0 15.3137 Run 15, Conv. 03, 1989, Ref.14 ND 8.9 1.34 19.63 26.3 22.3 16.7138 Run 23, Conv. 03, 1989, Ref.14 ND 10.7 1.43 16.57 23.7 20.3 14.2139 Run 10 Conv. 04, 1989, Ref.14 ND 45.0 0.76 17.63 13.4 12.1 15.9140 Run 17, Conv. 04, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 45.3 0.79 21.14 16.7 14.8 18.7141 Run 22, Conv. 04, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 47.9 0.84 28.93 24.3 20.8 24.7142 Run 28, Conv. 04, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 42.2 0.99 23.13 22.9 19.7 19.9143 Run 11 Conv. 05, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 10.2 1.03 31.65 32.6 27.1 26.4144 Run 18, Conv. 05, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 10.0 1.23 26.50 32.6 27.1 22.1145 Run 25, Conv. 05, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 9.8 1.33 35.19 46.8 37.7 28.4146 Run 29, Conv. 05, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 10.1 1.22 39.02 47.6 38.3 31.4147 Run 31, Conv. 06, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 12.,4 1.03 26.31 27.1 22.9 22.3148 Run 33, Conv. 06, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 11.9 1.03 25.83 26.6 22.6 21.9149 Run 38, Conv. 06, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 11.2 1.06 29.17 31.5 26.3 24.878Table 14 (cont.)Uncertified Stove Field Data – Virginia PolytechnicInstitute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CORun#Study Sample I.D., Ref. Year,Ref. #Fuel TreeSpecies*FuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)150 Run 32, Conv. 07, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 24.6 0.91 20.22 18.4 16.1 17.7151 Run 36, Conv. 07, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 18.9 1.20 18.08 21.7 18.7 15.6152 Run 41, Conv. 07, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 37.5 1.29 20.47 26.4 22.4 17.4153 Run 34, Conv. 08, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 12.5 0.68 14.71 10.0 9.2 13.6154 Run 39, Conv. 08, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 12.2 2.13 10.66 22.7 19.5 9.2155 Run 43, Conv. 08, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 10.0 1.81 23.26 42.1 34.3 18.9156 Run 35, Conv. 09, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 16.0 2.52 25.56 64.4 50.5 20.0157 Run 42, Conv. 09, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 15.7 1.67 20.36 34.0 28.2 16.9158 Run 45, Conv. 09, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 15.3 1.69 26.98 45.6 36.9 21.8159 Run 37, Conv. 10, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 32.9 1.13 24.42 27.6 23.3 20.6160 Run 44, Conv. 11, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 12.1 1.25 37.60 47.0 37.9 30.3161 Run 46, Conv. 11, 1989, Ref. 14 ND 10.3 1.34 25.60 61.1 48.1 35.9162 Run 1, Conv. 01, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 8.86 1.45 11.9 17.3 15.2 10.5163 Run 6, Conv. 01, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 9.06 1.76 8.7 15.2 13.5 7.7164 Run 15, Conv. 1, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 11.46 1.6413.8 22.8 19.6 11.9165 Run 22, Conv. 01 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 11.76 1.716.1 10.4 9.6 5.6166 Run 3, Conv. 03, 1991, Ref. 15 25% Oak75% Pinion Pine12.26 1.67 13.4 22.4 19.3 11.5167 Run 9, Conv. 03, 1991, Ref. 15 25% Oak75% Pinion Pine11.56 1.70 11.7 20.0 17.4 10.2168 Run 17, Conv. 03, 1991, Ref. 15 25% Oak75% Pinion Pine11.46 1.76 12.6 22.2 19.1 10.979Table 14 (cont.)Uncertified Stove Field Data – Virginia PolytechnicInstitute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CORun#Study Sample I.D., Ref. Year,Ref. #Fuel TreeSpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5H EmissionFactor (g/kg)169 Run 21, Conv. 03, 1991, Ref. 15 25% Oak75% Pinion Pine11.16 1.74 16.7 29.1 24.5 14.1170 Run 4, Conv. 04, 1991, Ref. 15 50% Oak50% Pine25.86 1.63 24.8 40.4 33.0 20.2171 Run 8, Conv. 04, 1991, Ref. 15 50% Oak50% Pine26.76 1.97 19.4 38.3 31.4 16.0172 Run 14, Conv. 04, 1991, Ref. 15 50% Oak50% Pine31.76 1.55 19.1 29.6 24.9 16.0173 Run 26, Conv. 04, 1991, Ref. 15 50% Oak50% Pine27.56 1.48 31.1 46.1 37.2 25.2174 Run 13, Conv. 05, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 12.16 1.8022.1 39.8 32.6 18.1175 Run 20, Conv. 05, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 12.56 1.6137.4 60.2 47.5 29.5176 Run 25, Conv. 05, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 14.46 1.2135.6 43.2 35.1 29.0177 Run 29, Conv. 05, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 14.46 1.4234.2 48.3 38.8 27.4178 Run 32, Conv. 09, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 9.46 1.8222.6 41.3 33.7 18.5179 Run 36, Conv. 09, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 11.96 1.8923.3 44.2 35.8 19.0180 Run 42, Conv. 09, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 15.16 1.4624.0 35.1 29.0 19.9181 Run 53, Conv. 09, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 9.36 1.6133.3 53.7 42.8 26.6182 Run 33, Conv. 10, 1991, Ref. 15 50% Oak50% Pine22.16 1.86 30.1 56.0 44.4 23.9183 Run 37, Conv. 10, 1991, Ref. 15 50% Oak50% Pine26.76 1.88 18.5 34.7 28.7 15.3184 Run 43, Conv. 10, 1991, Ref. 15 50% Oak50% Pine28.06 1.96 14.1 27.7 23.4 11.9185 Run 34, Conv. 11, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 15.36 1.3432.3 43.4 35.2 26.3186 Run 39, Conv. 11, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 15.46 1.2225.6 31.4 26.2 21.580Table 14 (cont.)Uncertified Stove Field Data – Virginia PolytechnicInstitute (VPI) Sampler, Crested Butte, CORun#Study Sample I.D., Ref. Year,Ref. #Fuel TreeSpeciesFuelMoisture(% db)Burn Rate(dry kg/h)EmissionFactor(g/kg)EmissionRate(g/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionFactor(g/kg)187 Run 45, Conv. 11, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 15.46 1.3825.1 34.7 28.7 20.8188 Run 50, Conv. 11, 1991, Ref. 15 Pine 14.26 1.3632.0 43.7 35.5 26.1189 VPI 6, Conv 1 (lab), 1989,Ref.14Oak 54 2.5 28.1 68.9 53.7 21.5*The fuel tree species for runs for which there areno data was assumed to be either pine or oak or amixture of both based on other studies in Crested Butte.81Table 15Laboratory Tests Simulating the In-Home Use of Uncertified Wood StovesRun#Study, Year,Ref. #Study SampleDescriptionDescription of TestFuel TreeSpeciesMoisture(% db)BurnRate(drykg/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionFactor(g/kg)1 BPA, 1988,Ref. 7L01 Portland OR burn cycle Douglas Fir 26.2 0.96 24.6 25.6*2 EPA, 2000, Ref20Test 5 Homeowner cycle, coldstartOak 28 4.29 25.7 63 Test 628 4.27 20.5 4.84 Test 2818.7 3.56 24.4 6.95 EC, 2006, Ref.22Stove 1 “Fashion representativeof normal in-home use.”Burn rate endpoint100°F.Oak cordwood, Douglasfir kindlingOak 18.5 2.08 25.8 8.66 Stove 21.44 11.4 67 Stove 31.76 4.5 1.88 Insert1.69 54.9 25.29 Stove 42.07 8.3 2.910 VPI/SRI, 1989,Ref.19 (EPA)SRI 1, Conv. 2 “Began with cold stoveand ended with up tothree kilograms of fuelin stove, fueling patternswere deliberately varied”Pine 13 2.0 50.3 25.3*11 SRI 4, Conv. 2 Pine 11 1.2 28.3 17.7*12 SRI 7, Conv 3 Pine 10 0.9 44.8 48.7*82Table 15 (cont.)Laboratory Tests Simulating the In-Home Use of Uncertified Wood StovesRun#Study, Year,Ref. #Study SampleDescriptionDescription of TestFuel TreeSpeciesMoisture(% db)BurnRate(drykg/h)5HEmissionRate (g/h)5HEmissionFactor(g/kg)13 CCRL, 1991,Ref. 21 (EC)Non-Catalyst Stove “typical wood fuel inactual home use, splitfirewood”Maple 38.5 1.0 11.2 11.2141.0 7.6 7.6151.0 27.7 27.7161.2 19.7 16.4171.5 15.9 10.6181.6 17.2 10.8191.9 9.6 5.1202.4 13.2 5.5*Calculated from emission rate and burn rate.

# 83



# 7. References

1. Houck, J.E., Simons, C.A., Burnet, P.G. and Mer rill, 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, E PA 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 th e VPI Sampler, J .Air Waste. Manage.

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

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

Canada Centre for Minerals and Energy Technology; E nergy, 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., 200 0, Long-Term Performance of EPA-Certified

Phase 2 Woodstoves, Klamath Falls and Portland, Ore gon: 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 Evaluati on of New Technology Woodstoves,

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

Bonneville Power Administration, Task G, DOE/BP-185 08-6.

8. Simons, C.A. and Houck, J. E., 1988, Particulat e 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 Eva luation of Catalytic Retrofit Devices, State

of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality Repo rt.

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

Efficient Woodheat Demonstration, The City of White horse, Yukon.

11. Barnett, S.G., 1990, Field Performance of Advan ced 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 Pe rformance of Advanced Technology

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

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

# 84



# 13. Burnet, R., 1988, The Northeast Cooperative Wo odstove Study, U.S. Environmental

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

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

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

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

by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univers ity, 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 Cr ested Butte, Colorado Department of

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

Development, under EPA Grant A00818389 Regional App lied 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 coopera tive agreement CR819599-01-0.)

17. Correll, R., Jaasma, D.R., and Mukkamala, Y., 1 997, Field Performance of Woodburing

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

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

18. Champion, M. and Jaasma. D.R., 1998, Degradatio n 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 Researc h, Inc. Santa Fe, NM, 1989.

20. McCrillis, R.C., Wood Stove Emissions: Particle Size and Chemical C omposition , 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, Reducti on of Fireplace and Woodstove Pollutant

Emissions through the Use of Manufactured Firelogs, AWMA, paper 91-129.1 proceedings 84 th



# 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 E nvironment Canada report.

23. Pitzman, L., Clark, J., Christensen, T., and Ho uck, 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-010 2, prepared for Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.

# 85



# 25. Curkeet, R. and Ferguson, R., 2010, EPA Wood He ater Test Method Variability Study,

Analysis of Uncertainty, Repeatability and Reproduc ibility Based on the EPA Accredited

Laboratory Proficiency Test Database, report to Hea rth, Patio, and Barbecue Association.

26. Curkeet, R., 2011, A Butterfly in the Room, Hea rth & Home Magazine, March 2011, pp. 98-

102.

27. Ferguson, R., 2010, EPA Wood Heater Emission Te st Method Comparison Study, final

report to the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Associatio n.

28. Houck, J.E., Clark, J. and Christensen, T., 200 9, Evaluation of Method 28 Wood Heater Burn

Rates, report to the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Ass ociation.

29. U.S. Federal Register, “Standards for Particula te 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. 5 2, 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 E fficiency for EPA Certified Non-Catalytic

Wood Heaters, report prepared for the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association.