# Measurable Outcomes of a Woodstove Changeout

on the Nez Perce Reservation

Final Report

September 8, 2009

by

Tony J. Ward, Ph.D.

The University of Montana – Missoula

Center for Environmental Health Sciences

Skaggs Building 160

Missoula, MT 59812

Office: (406) 243-4092

Fax: (406) 243-2807

# 1.0 Executive Summary

During the winters of 2006/2007, 2007/2008, and 2008/2009, a woodstove changeout program

was conducted in Kamiah and Lapwai, Idaho on th e Nez Perce Reservation. In addition to the

replacement of old stoves with EPA-certified stoves, air sampling was conducted within 16

homes to measure the improvement in air quality before and after the changeouts on a home-byhome basis. A second objective of this project was to educate partic ipating households on the

health effects of being exposed to smoke from wood burning stoves, and how to operate the new

stoves most efficiently.

PM 2.5 

# samples were collected within the common area (rooms where the st oves were located) of

16 homes both before and after th e installation of the cleaner burning EPA- certified stoves.

During the sampling, indoor PM 2.5 

# mass, Organic Carbon (OC), Elemental Carbon (EC), and

chemical markers of woodsmoke (vanillin, acetovanillone, guaiaco l, 4-ethylguaiacol,

levoglucosan, abietic acid, and de hydroabietic acid) were measure d. For the first winter season

(2006/2007), the study established baseline PM 2.5 

# concentrations within five homes in

Lapwai/Kamiah. For the 2007/2008 wi nter, baseline (pre-changeout) PM 2.5 

# measurements were

collected within 11 additional homes. The old w oodstoves in these 16 homes were then removed

and new EPA-certified woodstoves were installed. The majority of post changeout air quality

measurements were conducte d during the winter of 2008/2009.

For the 15 homes (note that Home 14 did not have a complete dataset), the median prechangeout PM 2.5 

# mass (as measured by TSI DustTraks) was 39.2±45.7 μg/m 3 

# , with a median

post-changeout concentr ation of 19.0±47.5μg/m 3 

# . This resulted in a 52% reduction in indoor

PM 2.5 

# (including a 60% reduction in PM 2.5 

# spikes) when the old stoves were replaced with EPAcertified stoves. OC/EC results show that the PM 2.5 

# mass measured within the homes was

heavily enriched with the OC fr action, with a minimal contribution from the EC fraction. Out of

the seven chemical markers of w oodsmoke tracked in this program, levoglucosan had the highest

measured concentrations. Levoglucosan show ed a 63% reduction following the changeout,

confirming that woodsmoke – related PM 2.5 

# were reduced within the homes as a result of the

woodstove changeout. It is also unlikely that ambient PM 2.5 

# contributed to indoor levels of

PM 2.5 

# measured within the homes, as the indoor levels were much more elevated when

compared to out door levels.

Another significant finding of th e project was that targeted edu cation and outreach is a critical

component of the overall succes s of the program. Homeowners need to be provided with

specific instructions on how to operate their new stove, and addi tional visits may need to be

made to the home in an effort to ensure that the residents learn best bur n practices for their new

stoves. In summary, the results of the Nez Pe rce woodstove changeout program suggest that

replacing old, polluting woodstoves with EPA-certified stoves can be used to improve the indoor

air quality within woodstove homes.

2

# 2.0 Introduction

In several rural valley lo cations throughout the northern Rocky Mountains, the major source of

wintertim e ambient PM 2.5 

# has been identified as woodsmoke from residential woodstoves (Ward

and Smith, 2005; Ward et al., 2006). In many of these valley co mmunities, woodstoves also

serve as the prim ary source of home hea ting throughout the cold winter months. The Consumer

Product Safety Comm ission estimates that there are 8.9 million woodstoves in use in the U.S.,

and they are the most intensively used type of space heater with an average annual usage per

heater of 2100 hours (Zam ula, 1989; AQMWG, 2005).

One strategy of reducing ambient emissions of residential woodsmoke PM 2.5 

# is by changing out

old woodstoves with new, cl eaner-burning EPA-certified woodstoves. An EPA certified

woodstove is defined as a stove that has been independently tested by an accredited laboratory,

and meets a PM emissions limit of 7.5 g/hr fo r noncatalytic wood stoves and 4.1 g/hr for

catalytic wood stoves. While ol der uncertified stoves and firepl aces release 40 to 60 grams of

smoke per hour, new EPA-certifi ed stoves typically produce only 2 to 5 grams of smoke per

hour.

Even though old woodstoves are consider ed significant sources of ambient PM 2.5 

# , they have also

been shown to be signif icant sources of indoor PM 2.5 

# . In a 20-home study conducted in Libby,

Montana, indoor PM 2.5 

# samples were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of a woodstove

changeout on the indoor environment. Results from this study showed that average PM 2.5



# concentrations and maximum PM 2.5 

# concentrations were reduced by 71% and 76%, respectively

(as measured by TSI DustTraks) when old stoves were replaced with EPA-certified stoves (Ward

et al., 2008). The results from this study suggest ed that replacing an ol d stove with a new EPAcertified stove can be an effective tool in improving indoor resi dential air quality.

The goal of the Nez Perce project was to evaluate the effectiveness of a woodstove changeout on

indoor air quality within 16 homes in Lapwai an d Kamiah. In this report, we present the

methodologies used throughout the project, results, and a summary of our findings.

3.0 Experimental Design

Indoor PM 2.5 

# samples were collected within 16 homes in Lapwai and Kamiah throughout the

winters of 2006/2007, 2007/2008, and 2008/2009, respectivel y. Both of these communities have

populations of approximately 1,100 inhabitants, and rely heavily on the use of woodstoves for

residential home heating. To participate in the study, homes had to be non-smoking, occupied by

a tribal member, have an asthmatic child, and us e older model woodstoves as the primary source

of heat. The Nez Perce Tribe’s Environmenta l Restoration and Waste Management (ERWM)

Air Quality Program promoted th e project and recruited homes through a number of outreach

methods. These include: articles and advertisements in the local and tribal newspapers, letters to

tribal members with woodstoves, presentations to community groups, and informational booths

at community events. Also, by working closely with Nimiipuu Health, short questionnaires were

available at both clinics in Lapwai and Kamiah. Originally, the in tent was to sample 8 homes in

each community for a total of16 homes. However, due to recruitment challenges, 9 homes were

sampled in Lapwai, with 7 homes in Kamiah.

3

# 3.1 Residential Air Sampling

Students from the Northwest Indi an College (Distance Learning Ce nter), as well as an intern

from ERWM were trained by The University of Montana to collect air samples. ERWM staff

also received training on sampler operati on. Sixteen homes were measured for PM 2.5 

# mass,

Organic Carbon (OC), Elemental Carbon (EC), and chemical markers of wood smoke both

before and after the changeout.

In each home there were two samplers: a DustTr ak (Model 8520) that continuously measured

PM 2.5 

# mass averaged over 60-second intervals, and a SKC, Inc. Leland pump/Personal

Environmental Monitor (PEM) sampler fitted with a 37-mm quartz filter for OC/EC and

chemical marker of wood smoke analyses. The goal of the sampling program was to collect

samples within each home at least twice during th e winter period (November - March), with each

sampling episode consisting of 24 to 48 hours. For each of the homes, indoor samples were

collected within the same room of the residen ce that the woodstove was located, usually in the

common area (living room). Both the DustTrak and Leland/PEM were co-located during the

sampling event, and placed approximately 3-5 feet off of the ground.

From January through March 2007, indoor PM 2.5 

# samples were collected within 5 homes in

Lapwai and Kamiah to esta blish a baseline for indoor PM 2.5 

# concentrations before a woodstove

changeout. For the 2007/2008 winter , baseline (pre changeout) PM 2.5 

# measurements were

collected within 11 additional homes. The major ity of post changeout measures were conducted

during the winter of 2008/2009.

A comprehensive Quality Assurance/Qualit y Control (QA/QC) program was employed

throughout the sampling program. Using a Bios DryC al flow meter, the flow rate on the Leland

pump/PEM was measured both before and after each sampling event. Quartz filter field blanks

were collected for approximately every 10 sa mples (10%). Field personnel followed the

recommended maintenance and cleaning schedu les for the DustTrak and Leland/PEM as

described in their respective manuals throughout th e program. The DustTrak was zeroed prior to

each sampling event, with results documented on datasheets.

3.2 Activity Logs

In order to accurately assess the air sampling results within each of the homes, it is important to

consider the many variables that may contribute to PM 2.5 

# exposures. During each sampling

event, the home owner was asked to record some of the activities that occurred in the home

during the day of sampling. Data collected in th ese home activity logs included the recording of

wood burning, cooking, any cigarette smoking, and cleaning activities.

3.3 Ambient Air Data

At both the Kamiah and Lapwai ambient mon itoring sites, a tapered element oscillating

microbalance (TEOM) conti nuously measures ambient PM 2.5 

# . Ambient PM 2.5 

# data were

provided by ERWM to The University of Montan a to investigate the possibility of ambient

PM 2.5 

# influences on the indoor environm ents.

4

# 3.4 PM 2.5 

# Analyses

Analyses conducted on the 37-mm prefired quartz filters provided information on how much of

the indoor PM resulted specifically from w ood combustion, and not from other types of

combustion sources such as diesel exhaust. A ll quartz filter samples, field blanks, and trip

blanks were delivered to The University of Mont ana’s Center for Environmental Health Sciences

(UM-CEHS) in Missoula, MT for processing. At UM -CEHS, the filters were split into two equal

halves.

For the OC/EC analyses, one half of the exposed PM 2.5 

# filters were shipped in coolers to Chester

LabNet (Tigard, Oregon) for analysis by Thermal Optical Reflectance. Chester LabNet employs

a comprehensive analytical laboratory QA/QC progr am. The other half of the quartz filter was

analyzed for chemical markers of woodsmoke including vanillin, acetovanillone, guaiacol, 4-

ethylguaiacol (all methoxyphenols) , levoglucosan (a sugar an hydride), abietic acid, and

dehydroabietic acid (resin acids) at The Univer sity of Montana following an analytical method

refined by Bergauff et al. (Bergau ff et al., 2008). This method was a dapted from methods

reported previously by Schauer et al. (2001) and Sim pson et al. (2005) Briefly, half of each

filter is spiked with deuterat ed recov ery standards, placed in a vial, and extracted by

ultrasonication using ethyl acetate containing 3.6 mM triethylamine. The extract is filtered,

reduced in volume to approximately 500 μ L and split into two equal fractions. One fraction is

evaporated to dryness and derivatized with N- O- bis(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide,

trimethylchlorosilane and trimethylsilylimidazole to convert the sugar anhydrides and the abietic

acids to their trimethylsilyl deri vatives. The second fraction is treated with a 2:3 mixture of

acetic anhydride:triethyl amine to generate the acetate derivatives of the methoxyphenols. Both

sample fractions were analyzed by GC/MS on a Hewlett-Packard GC/MSD (GC Model 6890,

MSD Model 5973) using an HP-5ms capillary colu mn or equivalent. A comprehensive QA/QC

program was employed throughout the analytical pr ogram, including the analysis of blanks to

address artifact contamination (both from sampling and analytic al activities), and spikes to

address analyte recovery.

We were especially interested in measuring the levels of levoglucosan in this study.

Levoglucosan (1,6-anhydro- β -D-glucopyranose) is a pyrolysis product of cellulose (Simoneit et

al., 1999; Nolte et al., 2001), and is genera lly a major organic component of biomass

combustion-related particulate matter (Simoneit and Elias, 2001; Lee et al., 2005). It is

frequently used as a tracer for biomass burning because it is produced at relatively high levels,

and is stable in the atmosphere (Simoneit et al., 1999).

3.5 Purchase and Installation of EPA Woodstoves

The first five EPA-certified woodstoves were installed by Anderson’s Masonry Hearth & Home

(Missoula, Montana) on October 26, 2007. The second set (11) of EPA-certified stoves were

installed in April 2008. It should be noted that the stoves were “bur ned off” (i.e. the first burn in

the stove occurred outdoors for at least 8 hours) before installation within the homes. Also, the

old stoves were recycled after they were removed. An external consulta nt (Mr. Jerry Marquez)

was then used to ensure that the 16 installati ons were conducted according to code. Mr. Marquez

originally traveled to Lapwai and Kamiah on November 10-11, 2007 to inspect the first five

installations conducted by Anderson’s. He trav eled back to Lapwai and Kamiah in April 2008,

following the second set of installations. During each visit, Mr. Marquez spoke to the home5

# owners abou t best operating practices for the new stoves. Mr. Marquez also submitted short

reports summarizing his findings.

4.0 Results

The goal of the sampling program was to collect as many samples as possible within the 16

homes both before and after the stove changeout in an effort to evaluate the potential

improvement in indoor air quality. Some homes had only one 24-hour sample collected pre- and

post changeout, while other homes had up to five 24-hour samples collected. As the DustTrak

was often set to run for 48-hours (while the Lela nd samplers ran for 24 hours), the DustTrak data

had to be formatted in an effort to make the applicable comparisons. Therefore, during data

analysis, the 48-hour DustTrak runs were separated out into indi vidual 24-hour events so they

could be directly compared with the 24-hour OC/EC and chemical markers of woodsmoke

concentrations. When comparing the pre- and post- change in i ndoor concentrations within each

of the homes, the average of the 24-hour pre- and post-changeout concen trations were used.

Before final concentrations were calculated for PM 2.5 

# , OC/EC, and chemical markers of

woodsmoke, each 24-hour sample run collected in each of the 16 houses was carefully

scrutinized to ensure that the data was of the hi ghest technical quality. Any sample run that did

not have adequate collection times (24 or 48 hour s) or sufficient flow rates (~10 L/min for the

Leland/PEM) was discarded from the final datase t. Additional results were excluded from the

final calculations when abnormal events occurred during the sampling events (pitch on stove or

blocked chimney), when the new stove was not ope rated correctly during the sampling event, or

when the woodstove was not used at all during th e sampling event. Appendix A lists all of the

DustTrak and Leland sample runs that were ex cluded from the final data calculations, while

Appendix B lists all of the DustTrak and Leland sample run parameters collected throughout the

program.

Though the goal of each sampling event was to collect both a DustTrak (PM 2.5 

# mass) and

Leland/PEM (OC/EC and chemical markers of woodsmoke) sample, there were several

occasions where only a successful DustTrak run wa s collected. Therefore, in this report, we

present the final results in three ways: 1) only PM 2.5 

# mass (medians, maximums, and minimums)

for all pre- and post-changeout sample runs ( not including those sample runs that had poor

QA/QC, and/or had some type of malfunction or a bnormal event), 2) those sample days that had

complete data sets (i.e. mass, OC/EC, and chem ical markers of woodsmoke), and 3) those homes

that had some type of additional education a nd outreach training within the home following the

changeout. As there is a large standard devia tion when looking at the pre- and post-changeout

PM 2.5 

# results (because of high PM 2.5 

# levels in some of the sample runs), results are presented in

median concentrations (instead of averages) when evaluating the impact of the woodstove

changeout.

4.1 PM 2.5 

# Mass Results for all Pre- and Po st-Changeout Sampling Episodes

Table 1 presents the overall PM 2.5 

# sampling program results, in cluding the pre- and postchangeout medians, minimum, and maximum mass c oncentrations. Figure 1 presents the preand post-changeout average PM 2.5 

# concentrations measured with in each of the 16 homes in a

graphical format, while Appendix C presents all of the PM 2.5 

# results measured within each of the

homes. None of the results are blank correcte d. Note that Tables 1 and Appendix C (and Figure

6

# 1) do not include those sam ple runs that had poor QA/QC, and/or had so me type of malfunction

or abnormal event.

Table 1: PM 2.5 

# Concentration ± Standard Deviation Sampling Results

Median of the

24-hour PM 2.5



# Concentrations

(μg/m 3 

# ) Minimum PM 2.5 

# (μg/m 3 

# ) Maximum

PM 2.5 

# (μg/m 3 

# )

Pre Changeout Concentrations 39.2±45.7 4.5±6.2 437.5±572.4

Post Changeout Concentrations 19.0±47.5 3.5±11.6 175.5±354.0

Difference -52% -22% -60%



# Figure 1: Indoor Residential PM 2.5 

# Mass Comparisons (μg/m 3 

# )

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 200.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16



# HomePM2.5Concentration (ug/m3)



# Avg PM2.5 Pre (ug/m3)

Avg PM2.5 Post (ug/m3)



# 4.1.1 PM 2.5 

# Mass Results

When comparing the median pre- and post-chan geout results, there was a 52% reduction in

indoor PM 2.5 

# , while maximum spike concentrations were reduced by 60%. Prior to the Nez

Perce changeout, eight of the homes had 24-hour average PM 2.5 

# concentrations above 35 μ g/m 3



# (EPA 24-hour PM 2.5 

# National Ambient Air Quality Standa rd (NAAQS) for comparison), with

the maximum observed 24-hour average concentration of 188.0 μ g/m 3 

# measured in Home 16.

Following the changeouts, four homes still ha d 24-hour average concentrations above 35 μ g/m 3



# . The maximum observed 24-hour average concen tration in the post-measurements was 197.4

μ g/m 3 

# (Home 16). Home 14 did not have a complete dataset to allow comparison.

Unlike the Libby woodstove changeout program wh ere there were substa ntial reductions in

average and maximum PM 2.5 

# within each of the study homes, not all of the Nez Perce homes

showed clear reductions following th e changeout. When looking at th e final results, five of the

16 homes had higher PM 2.5 

# concentrations following the change out. Some of these results can

be explained by looking at the note s documented in the sample run datasheets, as well as in the

activity logs for each of the homes. The datash eets and activity logs included the following

notations:

7

#  Hom e 2 (Post): This home had issues w ith pitch on top of the stove. A further

discussion is provided on page 10.

 Home 5 (Post): On 2/10/09, the PM 2.5 

# concentrations rose between 18:00 and 18:30.

The homeowner noted “frying” at 18:30. The homeowner also loaded their woodstove at

18:00, and stoked the woodstove at 18:30. The DustTrak recorded PM 2.5 

# spikes between

~19:20 and 19:45. The homeowner stoked the woodstove at 19:45.

 Home 9 (Post): The datasheet recorded th at the wood was “wet, some dry” during the

2/23/09 and 2/24/09 sample dates.

o On 2/23/09, PM 2.5 

# concentrations spiked betwee n 11:00-11:30. This could be

explained by the incense burning and smudging recorded on the home activity

log.

o At ~12:45, PM 2.5 

# concentrations spiked to ~4000 μg/m 3 

# . As there was a notation

in the datasheets that th e windows were opened with the “door propped open”,

some unknown event occurred resulting in elevated levels of indoor PM 2.5



# .

o At 15:55, PM 2.5 

# concentrations spiked dur ing the boiling of kouse kouse.

o On 2/24/09, the monitor spiked at aro und 01:23am. The homeowner recorded

“stoked” at ‘023’. It is possible that this ev ent caused the spike.

 Home 16: Both pre- and post- changeout concentrations were elevated within Home 16.

During the post-sampling events, the homeow ner said that everything in the home was

normal, yet the indoor levels were still cons istently high. It should be noted that the

homeowner only operated the stove during the first 24 hours on 2/17/09, and the stove

was not used at all on 2/18/09. Therefor e, the 24-hour concentration (109.1 μg/m 3 

# ) for

2/18/09-2/19/09 was removed from the final ca lculations. The homeowner also described

their burning as “light” compared to a “typical winter day”. From the home activity log,

“open windows-all day and night” was recorde d. This suggests the likelihood of other

indoor air quality issues in the home unrelated to woodstove usage. These might include:

o (Pre): From home activity log: “A pot of orange p eels, cloves, and cinnamon on

the woodstove.”

o (Post): On 2/17/09, the DustTrak began running at 11:30. There was a spike of

838 μ g/m 3 

# at that time. The home activity l og indicated “fryi ng” at 11:00. The

levels remained above 600 μ g/m 3 

# for the next two hours.

o The presence of a dog within the residence.

 Participants such as Home 4 (10.2 μg/m 3 

# ) and Home 5 (8.2 μg/m 3 

# ) had low prechangeout PM 2.5 

# concentrations, making it difficult to achieve an overall reduction when

comparing with the post-changeout sampling events.

4.2 PM 2.5 

# Mass, OC/EC, and Woodsmok e Marker Results for Sample Days with Complete

Datasets

Table 2 presents the PM 2.5 

# and OC/EC results for those homes (pre- and post-changeout) with

complete data sets, while Table 3 presents th e program medians for the chemical markers of

woodsmoke. A complete dataset is define d as a successful DustTrak sample (PM 2.5 

# mass,

maximum PM 2.5 

# , and minimum PM 2.5 

# ) and quartz filter (OC/EC and chemical markers of

woodsmoke) collected. None of the results are bl ank corrected. Note that the units in Table 2

are in μg/m 3 

# , while the units in Table 3 are in ng/m 3 

# . The PM 2.5 

# mass, OC/EC/TC for each of

the homes with complete data se ts are presented in Appendix D.

8

# Table 2: Results for P M 2.5 

# and OC/EC/TC – Homes with Complete Datasets

Median

PM 2.5 

# (μg/m 3 

# ) Minimum

PM 2.5 

# (μg/m 3 

# ) Maximum

PM 2.5 

# (μg/m 3 

# ) OC

(μg/m 3 

# ) EC

(μg/m 3 

# ) TC

(μg/m 3 

# )

Pre Changeout 21.6±57.5 5.0±6.6 254.0±731.1 16.9±15.3 0.3±0.4 17.2±15.5

Post Changeout 18.4±54.1 4.0±13.4 145.0±278.3 13.4±11.0 0.7±0.4 14.0±11.3

Difference -15% -20% -43% -21% +120% -19%



# Table 3: Results for Chemical Markers of Woodsmoke – Homes with Complete Datasets

Levoglucosan

(ng/m 3 

# ) Dehydroabietic

acid (ng/m 3 

# ) Abietic acid

(ng/m 3 

# ) Vanillin

(ng/m 3 

# ) Acetovanillone

(ng/m 3 

# ) Guaiacol

(ng/m 3 

# ) 4-

Ethylguaiacol

(ng/m 3 

# )

Pre

Changeout 645.1±1315.3 113.0±147.7 11.3±118.7 0.5±2.3 0.3±9.2 0.9±256.0 0.8±0.8

Post

Changeout 238.1±310.1 0.3±37.1 41.5±40.3 0.5±4.4 0.3±0.0 0.3±0.4 0.1±0.4

Difference -63% -100% +267.0% No Change No Change -62% -92%



# 4.2.1 PM 2.5 

# Mass and OC/EC Results (Homes with Complete Datasets)

When looking at the PM 2.5 

# mass results in those homes with compete data sets, there was a 15%

reduction in indoor PM 2.5 

# , while maximum spike concentrations were reduced by 43%. OC/EC

results show that the PM 2.5 

# mass measured within the homes is heavily enriched with the OC

fraction, with a minimal contribution from the EC fraction. Even though there was an overall

increase in EC following the changeout, levels we re still extremely low when compared to OC.

The 21% reduction in OC correlate s with the 15% reduction in PM 2.5 

# mass, suggesting that the

introduction of the EPA certified woodstove s directly impacts the OC fraction of PM 2.5



# .

4.2.2 Chemical Markers of Woodsmoke (Homes with Complete Datasets)

Out of the seven chemical markers of woodsmoke tracked in this program, levoglucosan was

found in the highest concentrati ons. Levoglucosan showed a 63% reduction in concentrations

following the changeout, with dehydroabietic ac id showing nearly a 100% reduction. Abietic

acid actually increased following the changeout, which is a trend we have observed in the Libby

woodstove changeout program (Ward et al., 200 8). Very low levels of methoxyphenols were

measured in this program, likely due to low levels found in the particle ph ase within the homes.

The levoglucosan results confirm that woodsmoke – related PM 2.5 

# were reduced within the

homes as a result of the woodstove changeout.

4.3 Impact of Education and Outreach Following the Changeout

Following the installation of EPA-certified w oodstoves, some of the homes had higher PM 2.5



# concentrations measured inside the homes after the changeout when compared to pre-changeout

levels. After determining the causes of these el evated concentrations, ERWM staff worked with

the home owners to deliver additional training. As a result of this education/outreach effort,

PM 2.5 

# concentrations were lowered within four homes as demonstrated by followup sampling

events. Both Table 4 and Figure 2 present the pr e-changeout results, the initial post-changeout

measurements (Post 1), and then those results m easured within each of the four homes following

9

# the outreach /education provided to the homeowner (P ost 2). A discussion of the issues within

each of the four homes is presented below.

Table 4: PM 2.5 

# and OC/EC/TC Results Following Outreach/Education

Pre-Changeout

Average PM 2.5 

# (μg/m 3 

# ) Post 1 Changeout

Average PM 2.5 

# (μg/m 3 

# ) Post 2 Changeout

Average PM 2.5 

# (μg/m 3 

# )

Home 2 20.8 322.7 58.2

Home 6 42.4 63.1 18.4

Home 11 14.0 125.9 12.1

Home 13 47.9 2412.0 12.0



# Figure 2: PM 2.5 

# Mass (μg/m 3 

# ) Measured in Homes Following Outreach/Education

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0

Pre Post 1 Post 2

Sampling EventPM2.5Concentration (ug/m3)



# Home 2

Home 6

Home 11

Home 13



# Note: The bars in Figure 2 for Post 1, Home 2 (322.7 μg/m 3 

# ) and Post 1, Home 13 (2412.0

μg/m 3 

# ) are modified to fit the graph.

Home 2. The homeowner was drying wood on top of their new stove, and a layer of pitch was

deposited on the top of the stove. This resulted in elevated PM 2.5 

# concentrations measured

during the Post 1 event. ERWM staff worked w ith the homeowner to get most of it removed.

Following the removal of the pitch, PM 2.5 

# levels within the home were dramatically reduced

(Post 2).

Home 6. The homeowners were not opening the draft completely when using their woodstove,

therefore shutting down the fire too quickly. Th e glass door was dirty and creosote built up in

their chimney. ERWM staff met with the homeown er to discuss proper burning techniques using

their new stove. Following this additional training, the second pos t-sample (Post 2) showed a

reduction when compared to the fi rst post-sample event (Post 1).

Home 11. The homeowner was leaving the woodstove do or cracked when using the new stove.

ERWM staff met with the homeowner, and explaine d that the stove operated differently than the

10

# old stove. F ollowing this addi tional training, a dramatic improvement in air quality was

achieved as demonstrated by the Post 2 sample event.

Home 13. The homeowner had not recently cleaned the chimney, therefore smoke accumulated

within the home while using the new woodstove . ERWM staff met with the homeowner and

explained that the chimney needed to be cleaned. Following the cleaning, the PM 2.5



# concentrations were reduced within the home.

The results from these four homes demonstrate that education and outre ach strategies following

the changeout can greatly improve the opera tion (and therefore reduce the levels of PM 2.5 

# within

the homes) of the newly installed stoves.

4.4 Ambient PM 2.5 

# Impact on the Indoor Environment

Ambient PM 2.5 

# levels vary widely by season in Lapwai and Kamiah. Before the project began,

we had intended to compare the ambient a nd indoor mass to determine if ambient PM 2.5



# influenced indoor PM 2.5 

# concentrations. After reviewi ng both the indoor and ambient PM 2.5 

# data

sets, it is likely that the ambient PM 2.5 

# had an insignificant in fluence on the indoor PM 2.5 

# measured in this study. As shown in Appendix C, the indoor levels are far more elevated when

compared to the ambient levels during the same time periods. The results from this study

suggest that indoor sources (i .e. cooking, cleaning, and woodst ove use) dominate the indoor

PM 2.5 

# levels within ea ch of the 16 homes.

4.5 QA/QC Results

Quartz filter field blanks were analyzed for approximately every 10 samples (10%) collected in

the field. Results of these analyses showed no artifact contamination in the blanks. Table 5

presents the blank results, as well as the mi nimum detection limits (MDLs) for each of the

parameters measured throughout the program. For PM 2.5 

# mass, MDLs are reported in the

DustTrak manual. MDLs for OC and EC we re reported by the contracted laboratory in μ g. To

calculate the final MDLs, the values for OC a nd EC, respectively, were divided by the average

volume collected with the Leland pump / PEM during each sample run (14 L/min).

Table 5: Minimum Detection Limits

Parameter Blank Results MDLs

PM 2.5 

# 0.000 mg/m 3 

# 0.001 mg/m 3



# OC 0.5 μ g/m 3 

# 0.098 μ g/m 3



# EC 0.02 μ g/m 3 

# 0.007 μ g/m 3



# Levoglucosan 52.0 ng/m 3 

# 7.7 ng/m 3



# Dehydroabietic Acid 48.6 ng/m 3 

# 0.6 ng/m 3



# Abietic Acid 0.02 ng/m 3 

# 0.5 ng/m 3



# Vanillin 0.03 ng/m 3 

# 0.9 ng/m 3



# Acetovanillone 0.02 ng/m 3 

# 0.5 ng/m 3



# Guaiacol 0.8 ng/m 3 

# 0.03 ng/m 3



# 4 Ethyl Guaiacol 0.4 ng/m 3 

# 0.1 ng/m 3



# 5.0 Challenges Faced and Lessons Learned

In addition to the finding that indoor air quality was improved as a result of the woodstove

changeout, another significant finding of the project was that targeted education and outreach is a

critical component of the overall success of the program. Homeowners need to be given specific

11

# instructions on how to operate their new stove, and additional visits m ay need to be made to the

home to ensure that the residents learn best burn practices for their new stoves.

For the Nez Perce woodstove ch angeout, initial outreach/educa tion/training was conducted by

Mr. Jerry Marquez shortly after each home recei ved their new stove. In addition to inspecting

the stove installations, he ta lked with the homeowners about their new stove and burning

practices, and also provided them with a handout on best burn practices. In addition to this

effort, ERWM staff provided the homeowners w ith a packet of information (DVD, wood smoke

information, asthma information, materials for kids, and manual for the stove). Although

important, this outreach and education strategy did not work for every home, and additional

strategies were needed.

After some of the post-changeout meas urements showed an increase in PM 2.5 

# levels, ERWM

staff decided to provide a “new stove refresher” to the homes. They met with homeowners to

show them an Environment Canada film on burning techniques, with each home receiving a

specific, step-by-step protocol on how to use their new stove. It was also learned that directions

need to be clearly spoken and written down, and that providing too much educational material

can overwhelm the homeowner. The materials need to be concise, and should be reviewed in

detail with the homeowner during the home visit.

Additional lessons were learned in this proj ect, including the results from Home 13 that

demonstrated that new stoves do not operate properly when the chimney has not been cleaned.

In addition, Home 9’s data indi cated that burning wet wood can create high levels of smoke

within the home. Finally, for future changeout s, it is recommended that when people sign up to

participate in a stove changeout, they should go to a mandatory meeting where videos are shown

on burning practices and wood stor age, with handouts provided to the homeowner describing

best burn practices. After the new stoves have b een installed, it is recommended that additional

in-home training be conducted to ensure that the homeowner is successfully using their new

stove.

6.0 References

Air Quality Management Work Group (AQMWG). (2005). Recommendations to the Clean Air

Act Advisory Committee. Washington, D.C.

Bergauff, M., Ward, T., Noonan, C., and Palmer C.P., (2008). Determ ination and evaluation of

selected organic chemical tracers for w ood smoke in airbourne particulate matter, Int. J.

Environ. Anal. Chem. , 88(7): 473-486.

Lee, S., Baumann, K., Schauer. J.J., Sheesley, R. J., Naeher, L.P., Meinardi, S., et al., (2005)

Gaseous and particulate emissions fr om prescribed burning in Georgia. Environ. Sci.

Tech., 39, 9049-9056.

Nolte, C.G., Schauer, J.J., Cass, G.R., and Simoneit, B.R., (2001). Highly polar organic

compounds present in wood smoke and in the ambient atmosphere. Environ. Sci.

Technol. , 35, 1912-1919.

12

# Schauer, J.J., Kleem an, M.J., Cass, G.R., and Si moneit, B.R., (2001). Measurement of emissions

from air pollution sources. 3. C1-C29 organi c compounds from fire place combustion of

wood. Environ. Sci. Technol. , 35, 1716-1728.

Simoneit, B., Schauer, J., Nolte, C., Oros, D., E lias, V., Fraser, M., et al., (1999). Levoglucosan,

a tracer for cellulose in biomass burning and atmospheric particles. Atmos. Environ. 33,

173-182.

Simoneit, B.R., and Elias, V.O., (2001). Detec ting organic tracers from biomass burning in the

atmosphere. Mar. Pollut. Bull. , 42, 805-810.

Simpson, C.D., Paulsen, M., Dills, R.L., Liu, L.J ., and Kalman, D.A., (2005). Determination of

methoxyphenols in ambient atmospheric particulate matter: tracers for wood combustion.

Environ. Sci. Technol. , 39, 631-637.

Ward, T.J., and Smith, G., (2005). The 2000/2001 Missoula valley PM 2.5 

# chemical mass balance

study, including the 2000 wildfire seas on - seasonal source apportionment. Atmos.

Environ. , 39, 709-717.

Ward, T.J., Rinehart, L., and Lange, T., (2006). The 2003/2004 Libby, Montana PM 2.5 

# source

apportionment research study. Aero. Sci. Tech. , 40, 166-177.

Ward, T.J., Palmer, C., Bergauff, M., Hooper, K., and Noonan, C., (2008). Results of a

Residential Indoor PM 2.5 

# Sampling Program Before and After a Woodstove Changeout,

Indoor Air , 18: 408–415.

Zamula, W.W., (1989). Room heating equipm ent exposure survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Consumer Product Safety Comm ission, Directorate for Economic Analysis, Report No.:

OMB Control No. 3041-0083.

13

# 14 Appendix A

DustTrak samples that were excluded from the overall dataset.

Home Sample Date Reason

11 – Pre Changeout 12/20/06 1-second averages instead of 1-minute.

11 - Pre Changeout 1/9/07 Only ran 533 minutes

11 – Pre Changeout 2/7/07 Only ran 29 minutes.

12 – Pre Changeout 1/16/08-1/17/08 Only ran 987 minutes.

12 – Pre Changeout 1/19/08 1-second averages instead of 1-minute – ran 516 minutes.

13 – Pre Changeout 12/5/07-12/6/07 Only ran 476 minutes

14 – Pre Changeout 1/29/08 Only ran 1 minute.

14 – Pre Changeout 2/29/08 Only ran 210 minutes.

16 – Pre Changeout 1/15/07 1-second averages instead of 1-minute – ran 533 minutes.

1 - Post Changeout 2/5/09-2/6/09 No fire built on 2/5/09

2 - Post Changeout 2/2/09–2/4/09 Pitch on stove was causing lots of smoke.

5 - Post Changeout 2/9/09 Only ran 619 minutes.

6 - Post Changeout 1/30/09–2/1/09 Homeowner was not using stove correctly.

11 - Post Changeout 3/17/08–3/19/08 Homeowner was not using stove correctly. Leaving the door open.

13 - Post Changeout 1/22/09-1/23/09 Homeowner had not yet cleaned the chimney.

14-Post Changeout 2/24/09-2/26/09 Did not use their woodstove.

14 – Post Changeout 3/5/2009 Only ran 257 minutes.

16 – Post Changeout 1/13/09-1/15/09 No data recorded.

16-Post Changeout 2/18/09-2/19/09 Woodstove not used on this sample day.



# Quartz filter (Leland/PEM) samples that were excluded from the overall dataset.

Home Sample Date Reason

7 – Pre Changeout 2/19/08-2/20/08 From Datasheet: “Put two filters into the PEM”

8 – Pre Changeout 1/22/07 From Datasheet: “Battery died”

8 – Pre Changeout 1/23/07 From Datasheet: “Pump died”

11 – Pre Changeout 2/5/07-2/6/07 Initial and final flows too low.

11 – Pre Changeout 2/7/07-2/8/07 Initial and final flows too low.

16 – Pre Changeout 1/31/07-2/1/07 No final flow rate or Leland final flow rate recorded.

6 – Post Changeout 2/26/09-2/27/09 No final sample time recorded.

11 – Post Changeout 3/18/08-3/19/08 No final sample time recorded.

14 – Post Changeout 3/18/08-3/19/08 No final sample time recorded.Appendix BDustTrak Sampler Data: Pre Changeout Sample RunsHomeStart DateStartTimeEnd DateEndTimeTotalsampletime(min)LoggingInterval(sec)Avg.PM 2.5(mg/m3)MinPM2.5(mg/m3)Date MinTimeMinMaxPM 2.5(mg/m3)Date MaxTimeMaxDustTrakzeroedNotes111/27/20079:0411/29/20079:042880600.120.00711/27/200711:151.84411/27/200712:16yesOk11/29/20079:3711/30/20079:371440600.0220.00811/29/200715:200.1611/30/20074:25yesOk211/19/20079:3411/21/20079:342880600.0210.00511/19/20079:350.16511/20/200717:33yesOk312/3/20079:4412/6/20079:444320600.0190.00412/5/20076:160.25412/5/20079:52yesOk41/8/200819:091/10/200819:092880600.010.0011/9/200813:440.051/10/200811:08yesOk51/14/200813:451/16/200813:452880600.00801/14/200813:460.0871/14/200813:47yesOk61/29/200714:091/31/200714:092880600.050.0111/31/20076:540.5731/30/200714:29yesH3-1 and 2 Lapwai? – ok1/31/200714:502/2/200714:472877600.0350.0072/2/20073:330.3772/1/200716:10yesH3-3 and 4 Lapwai?, H3-C.Guzman_2[1] – ok72/18/20089:452/20/20089:452880600.0430.0042/19/200812:322.0372/18/200817:08yesOk3/18/200815:303/19/200815:301440600.0320.0033/18/200815:300.3183/18/200820:09yesOk81/22/200713:141/24/200713:142880600.0260.0031/24/20076:420.6021/23/200716:50yesH1, sample 1 and 2? – ok3/5/200715:443/7/200715:442880600.0790.0053/5/200717:354.033/6/200720:02yesH1, sample 3 and 4? – ok91/24/200714:351/26/200714:352880600.0450.0031/25/200713:401.441/24/200716:45yesOk1012/11/200716:2912/14/200716:374328600.0710.01612/12/20071:562.77212/12/200717:20yesRan for 3 days – ok1112/20/200614:0712/20/200623:055331do not use - 1 second averages.1/8/200710:111/8/2007yesnodata151/9/200712:4012:50nodata1/10/200713:07nodata1/9/200712:561/9/200721:4953310.0070.0011/9/200721:020.5641/9/200721:22yes,13:07Incompletedataset2/5/20079:402/7/20079:402880600.0160.0042/6/200716:400.22/7/20079:38yesneed to check file- can't find file,assume OK.2/7/200719:402/7/200720:0929600.0150.0122/7/200719:490.32/7/200720:09yesno datasheet - do not use - time is29 min.2/8/200712:292/9/200712:291440600.010.0042/8/200715:540.0642/9/20079:45yesno datasheet - can't find file -assume OK.121/8/200810:001/9/200810:00nodatasheet1/16/200818:591/17/200811:26987600.0230.0161/16/200819:000.1221/16/200820:47no datasheet, only ran 987 minutes.1/19/200813:021/19/200821:3851610.0290.0161/19/200820:494.4011/19/200815:12no datasheet, don't use - 1 secaverages, ran for 516 minutes.1/28/200817:291/29/200817:291440600.0270.0121/29/200815:320.291/28/200822:29yesOk3/20/200819:593/22/200819:592880600.0070.0023/22/200818:430.0353/20/200820:20yesOk1312/5/200716:2912/6/20070:25476600.0370.01212/5/200723:580.10412/5/200717:29yes12/11/200716:2912/14/200716:374328600.0710.01612/12/20071:562.77212/12/200717:20yes2/26/200817:592/28/200817:592880600.0130.0042/28/200815:510.0382/27/200818:21yesOk141/29/200819:291/29/200819:301600.0120.0121/29/200819:300.0121/29/200819:30no datasheet - don't use - only 1minute sample.2/29/200811:342/29/200815:04210600.0050.0042/29/200812:130.0072/29/200811:46no datasheet - only ran 210minutes - do not use.2/29/200818:593/2/200818:592880600.0360.0063/1/20088:041.7173/1/200817:48yesOk153/3/200816:593/5/200816:592880600.0220.0023/4/20086:300.2783/4/200816:26yesOk161/15/200712:331/15/200721:2753310.4490.0521/15/200715:313.4341/15/200714:38yesno datasheet - 1 sec averages – donot use.1/16/200713:291/17/200713:291448600.1540.0721/16/200721:290.5851/16/200716:29yesno datasheet or file- assume OK.1/30/20079:102/1/20079:102880600.19201/30/20079:100.4651/31/200715:53yesFrom datasheet: "She had a pot oforange peels, cloves, and cinnamonon the woodstove." - ok - no file.2/1/200710:202/3/200710:202880600.2010.0172/2/200712:230.912/1/200718:24yesOk16DustTrak Sampler Data: Post Changeout Sample RunsHomeStart DateStartTimeEnd DateEndTimeTotalsampletime(min)LoggingInterval(sec)Avg.PM 2.5(mg/m3)MinPM2.5(mg/m3)Date MinTimeMinMaxPM 2.5(mg/m3)Date MaxTimeMaxDustTrakzeroedNotes12/4/200910:552/6/200910:552880600.0330.0072/5/20095:090.3032/5/200912:29yesOk3/11/200910:553/13/200910:552880600.0370.0043/12/200917:391.7163/11/200914:03yesOk22/2/20099:502/4/20099:502880600.3230.0122/4/20099:353.8082/2/200919:58yesFrom datasheet: "Pitch burnt on totop of stove." - not ok3/4/20099:143/6/20099:142880600.0580.0023/5/20097:100.773/4/200920:55yesOk31/26/200913:401/28/200913:402880600.0140.0031/28/20092:020.3741/27/20099:38yesFrom datasheet: "Power outageearly Tuesday (1/27/09)." – ok412/19/200810:2412/21/200810:242880600.020.00412/21/20084:230.22812/21/20086:03yesOk52/9/200912:292/9/200922:48619600.0340.0052/9/200920:560.1572/9/200913:04yesFrom datasheet: "Returned to houseand found DustTrak turned off.Saved test and set back up." - runonly 619 minutes.2/10/200912:502/11/200912:501440600.0490.0022/11/20096:110.7192/10/200919:19yesOk61/30/200813:592/1/200813:592880600.0630.0032/1/20086:502.3022/1/200813:37yesFrom datasheet: "Homeowner washaving problems operating thestoves. Smoke spilling out intoroom." – ok2/26/200910:592/28/20092:302371600.0170.0032/26/200916:110.2422/27/200920:54yesFrom datasheet: "Homeowner saidpower was accidentally turned offearly Saturday (2/28/09) morning."- almost a full 48 hours.71/28/200914:391/30/200914:392880600.0180.0021/30/20093:250.1661/28/200920:13yesOk82/11/200813:242/13/200813:242880600.0180.0032/13/20085:350.1872/12/200821:36yesok - says D. Henry on datasheet,but correct address.912/29/200812:2412/31/200812:242880600.014012/30/20083:050.53812/29/200819:05yesOk172/23/200910:292/25/200910:292880600.1270.0022/24/200917:354.1412/23/200912:49yesOk101/28/200918:401/30/200918:402880600.0330.0041/29/200915:390.3651/30/200910:03yesOk113/17/200818:593/19/200818:592880600.1260.0043/17/200819:022.7813/19/200812:26yesFrom datasheet: "May 7' 08: JohnaBoulafentis: Kayla told me thatJulie keeps her door crackedthroughout most of the day. Whenshe loads in themorning she keepsthe door cracked and during theafternoon because the kids say thatit’s too hot inside." – ok1/26/200910:401/28/200910:402880600.0120.0021/27/20097:380.1141/27/20098:09yesOk122/19/200914:292/21/200914:292880600.010.0032/20/200916:010.0522/21/20097:49yesOk131/22/200916:301/23/200916:141425602.4120.0271/23/200916:087.8191/22/200917:04yesFrom datasheet: "I don't know whyit only ran for 23:45 because whenI checked it was running fine." -ran for only one day.2/12/200917:592/14/200917:592880600.0120.0012/14/200917:430.1752/13/200916:32no datasheet, but there is aDustTrak file - ok.142/24/200910:592/26/20099:432804600.0650.0062/26/20095:530.4072/25/200913:39no datasheet, but there is aDustTrak file - ok. - did run 76minutes short.3/5/200912:293/5/200916:46257600.110.0023/5/200912:300.2043/5/200913:17no datasheet, but there is aDustTrak file - ran for only 257minutes - not good.152/10/200912:582/12/200912:582880600.0190.0022/10/200917:240.0742/12/200910:50yesOk161/13/200911:101/15/200911:10From datasheet: "Yes, the batterieswere going out, but it was runningfine until I unplugged it. Also, therewas no data on the Dk."2/17/200911:292/19/200911:292880600.1530.0322/19/20098:170.8382/17/200911:32no datasheet, but there is aDustTrak file - ok.18Leland/PEM Sampler Data: Pre Changeout Sample RunsHomeStart DateStartTimeEnd DateEndTimeInitialMeasuredFlow Rate(LPM)FinalMeasuredFlow Rate(LPM)Avg CalcMeasuredFlowRate(LPM)Avg FlowRate FromLeland(LPM)Total Timefrom Leland(min)Total CalcMeasuredVolume (m3)TotalVolume,from Leland(L)Notes111/27/20079:0511/28/20079:059.9299.7859.85710144014.1914400Ok11/28/20079:2511/29/20079:259.9059.8849.89510144014.2514400Ok11/29/20079:2011/30/20079:2010.039.98910.01010144014.4114400Ok211/19/20079:3511/20/20079:359.999.5319.76110144014.0614400Ok11/20/20079:4011/21/20079:409.8310.139.98010144014.3714400Ok312/3/20079:5012/4/20079:509.999.539.76010144014.0614400Ok12/4/200710:1512/5/200710:1510.049.9810.01010144014.4114400Ok12/5/200710:3512/6/200710:359.7459.429.58310144013.8014400Ok41/8/200819:151/9/200819:159.7389.339.53410144013.7314400Ok1/9/200819:301/10/200819:309.539.9899.76010144014.0514400Ok51/14/200813:451/15/200813:4510.019.899.95010144014.3314400Ok1/15/200814:001/16/200814:009.95610.6810.31810144014.8614400Ok61/29/20071/30/2007No sample collected1/30/20071/31/2007No sample collected1/31/200714:102/1/200714:109.5159.1979.35611.5144013.4716560H3-S1 or H3_3?2/1/200714:252/2/200714:259.1979.0219.10911.5144013.1216560H3-S2 or H3_4?72/18/20089:452/19/20089:4510.0089.9829.99510144014.3914400Ok2/19/20089:552/20/20089.8638.6499.256108237.626161Put 2 filters into the PEM- bad sample – notOK.3/18/200814:203/19/200814:2010.0359.97110.00310144014.4014400Ok81/22/200713:151/23/200710.0410.0409.512883Battery died - bad sample - not OK.1/23/20071/24/2007Pump died - bad sample - not OK.193/5/200715:303/6/200715:308.418.3718.39112144012.0817014From datasheet, may be H1-4 or H1-3. – ok3/6/20073/7/2007Nosamplecollected91/24/20071/25/2007Nosamplecollected1/25/20071/26/2007Nosamplecollected1012/12/200715:1612/13/200715:1610.029.8739.94710144014.3214400No total sample time, or final time. Can'ttell if ran 1440. Assume OK.12/13/200717:1812/14/200717:1810.019.5569.78310144014.0914400Ok1112/20/200614:0712/21/200614:0710.029.4639.74210.7144014.0315408Ok1/8/200710:001/9/200710:0011.59.4410.47011.5144015.08Ok1/9/200712:501/10/200712:501440Bad sample - not OK.1/10/200713:061/11/200713:061440Bad sample - not OK.2/5/20079:152/6/20079:158.6846.8547.76911.6144011.1916704Flow too low - not OK.2/6/20079:222/7/20079:229.6848.7619.22311.1144013.2815984Ok2/7/20079:442/8/20079:447.0839.7178.40011.1144012.1015984Flow too low - not OK.2/8/200710:112/9/200710:119.9929.9019.94711.1144014.3215984Ok121/8/200816:351/9/200816:3510.019.4369.72310144014.0014400Ok1/28/200817:301/29/200817:3010.039.4819.75610144014.0514400Ok132/26/200817:502/27/200817:5110.019.69.80510144114.1314410Ok2/27/200818:402/28/200818:199.999.689.83510141913.9614194Ok142/29/200818:053/1/200818:059.99199.49610144013.6714400Ok3/1/200818:103/2/200818:1010.028.929.47010144013.6414400Ok153/3/200816:303/4/200816:30108.679.33510144013.4414400Ok3/4/200817:233/5/200817:239.998.939.46010144013.6214400Ok161/15/200712:311/16/200712:3110.0110.0110.01010.7144014.41Ok1/16/2007Nodatasheet201/31/20079:032/1/20079:039.4089.40811.4144013.55No final flow rate - cannot use.2/1/200710:122/2/200710:129.3899.38911.6144013.5214365No final flow rate, but Leland total volumelooks OK.2/2/200712:122/3/200712:128.1649.3398.75211.6144012.6016704Initial flow very low - still use? – OK153/3/200816:303/4/200816:30108.679.33510144013.4414400Ok3/4/200817:233/5/200817:239.998.939.46010144013.6214400Ok161/15/200712:311/16/200712:3110.0110.0110.01010.7144014.41Ok1/16/2007NodatasheetLeland/PEM Sampler Data: Post Changeout Sample RunsHomeStart DateStartTimeEnd DateEndTimeInitialMeasuredFlow Rate(LPM)FinalMeasuredFlow Rate(LPM)Avg CalcMeasuredFlow Rate(LPM)Avg FlowRate FromLeland(LPM)Total Timefrom Leland(min)Total CalcMeasuredVolume (m3)TotalVolume,from Leland(L)Notes12/4/200910:502/5/200910:5010.02210.07610.04910144014.4714400Ok2/5/200911:162/6/200911:1610.0689.6489.85810144014.2014400Ok22/2/20099:432/3/20099:4310.04710.14910.09810144014.5414400From datasheet: "Pitch burnt on to stove". -will need to take out for final calcs.2/3/20099:572/4/20099:579.98610.20810.09710144014.5414400From datasheet: "Pitch burnt on to stove". -will need to take out for final calcs.3/4/20099:153/5/20099:1510.01310.01310144014.4214400No final flow, but Leland volume looks OK.-assume OK.3/5/20099:303/6/20099:309.7689.519.63910144013.8814400Ok31/26/200913:301/27/200913:3010.0249.6469.83510144014.1614400From datasheet: "Power outage earlyTuesday (1/27/09) morning". - OK1/27/200913:501/28/200913:5010.0139.8839.94810144014.3314400Ok412/19/200810:2412/20/200810:2410.1059.1859.64510144013.8914400From datasheet: "Had problems getting finalflow rate. Only sampled w/ Leland for 24hours."52/9/200912:102/10/200912:1010.0729.779.92110144014.2914400Ok2/10/200912:452/11/200912:459.9279.889.90410144014.2614400Ok2161/30/200813:501/31/200813:509.9529.7219.83710144014.1614400From datasheet: "Homeowner said stove wasspitting smoke back into room."1/31/200814:052/1/200814:059.99810.15310.07610144014.5114400Ok2/26/200911:0010.08910.18210.136101440Tui named this sample Post 1 - no finalsample time info - cannot use - not OK2/27/200911:102/28/200911:1010.0119.5799.79510144014.1014400Tui named this sample Post – OK71/28/200914:301/29/200914:3010.0139.9079.96010144014.3414400Ok1/29/200914:481/30/200914:489.9699.7549.86210144014.2014400Ok82/11/200813:1510.0029.6799.84110144014.1714400No final flow, but Leland volume looks OK.-assume OK.2/12/200813:202/13/200813:209.91710.8110.36410144014.9214400Ok912/29/200812:2012/30/200812:2010.00510.3510.17810144014.6614400Ok12/30/200812:5012/31/200812:5010.0619.9269.99410144014.3914400Ok2/23/200910:202/24/200910:2010.019.7569.88310144014.2314400Tui named this sample Post 2 - OK.101/28/200919:051/29/200919:059.9499.4039.67610144013.9314400Ok1/29/200919:251/30/200919:259.999.6519.82110144014.1414400Kayla named this sample Post 1 - ok.113/17/200818:033/18/200818:039.999.879.93010144014.3014400Ok3/18/20083/19/200810.0110.0101014400no final flow or final time info - do not use.1/26/200910:401/27/200910:40109.5099.75510144014.0514400Kayla named this sample Post 2 / She keepsher woodstove door cracked - ok.1/27/200911:031/28/200911:039.9029.3019.60210144013.8314400Kayla named this sample Post 2 / She keepsher woodstove door cracked - ok.122/19/200913:302/20/200913:309.939.359.64010144013.8814400Ok2/20/200918:002/21/200918:00109.6539.82710144014.1514400Ok131/22/200916:201/23/200916:20109.539.76510144014.0614400Ok1/23/200916:451/24/200916:459.9669.9129.93910144014.3114400Kayla named this sample Post 1 - ok142/24/200910:352/25/200910:3510.019.659.83010144014.1614400Ok2/25/20092/26/200910.0210.02010144014.4314400No start / stop time, and no final flow - can'tuse.2223152/10/200913:302/11/200913:309.99.519.70510144013.9814400Ok2/11/200913:502/12/200913:509.959.5689.75910144014.0514400Kayla named this sample Post 1 – ok161/13/200911:101/14/200911:109.99.5659.73310144014.0114400Ok1/14/200911:201/15/200911:209.99.59.70010144013.9714400Kayla named this sample Post 1 – ok2/17/200911:122/18/200911:129.9459.3069.62610144013.8614400Kayla named this sample Post 2 – ok2/18/200911:242/19/200911:249.969.59.73010144014.0114400Kayla named this sample Post 2 – okAppendix CIndividual Home and Ambient PMR2.5RResults (μg/mP3P) – Mass OnlyHomeAmbientPM2.5(24-hrAverage)IndoorAveragePM2.5IndoorMinimumPM2.5IndoorMaximumPM2.5HomeAmbientPM2.5(24-hrAverage)IndoorAveragePM2.5IndoorMinimumPM2.5IndoorMaximumPM2.51 –Pre4.187.08.31205.39 –Pre3.344.83.0803.51 –Post2.330.16.3607.79 –Post1.470.32.01235.8DifferenceNA-65%-24%-50%DifferenceNA+57%-33%+54%2 –Pre6.320.86.5108.510 –Pre14.570.720.31246.72 –Post1.158.22.5535.010 –Post8.132.54.0233.5DifferenceNA+180%-62%+393%DifferenceNA-54%-80%-81%3 –Pre2.519.04.0254.011 –Pre6.414.04.0154.73 –Post4.014.33.5218.011 –Post7.612.14.095.0DifferenceNA-25%-13%-14%DifferenceNA-14%NoChange-39%4 –Pre1.910.22.036.012 –Pre3.313.86.3110.74 –Post5.619.85.0175.512 –Post5.110.13.543.5DifferenceNA+95%+150%+388%DifferenceNA-27%-45%-61%5 –Pre1.88.21.568.513 –Pre9.947.911.61676.45 –Post2.049.02.0719.013 –Post7.012.01.5110.0DifferenceNA+494%+33%+950%DifferenceNA-75%-87%-93%6 –Pre2.742.410.3437.514 –Pre3.635.77.5964.06 –Post1.918.43.5157.514 –PostNo DataNo DataNo DataNo DataDifferenceNA-57%-66%-64%DifferenceNANANANA7 –Pre3.339.24.01350.015 –Pre3.921.63.0186.07 –Post2.518.33.0102.015 –Post5.519.02.074.0DifferenceNA-53%-25%-92%DifferenceNA-12%-33%-60%8 –Pre3.052.14.51278.816 –Pre7.6188.021.2667.08 –Post1.218.44.0145.016 –Post5.1197.448.0838.0DifferenceNA-65%-11%-89%DifferenceNA+5%+126%+26%Appendix DIndividual Home PMR2.5Rand OC/EC/TC Results (μg/mP3P) - Homes with CompleteDatasetsHomeAveragePM2.5(μg/m3)MinimumPM2.5(μg/m3)MaximumPM2.5(μg/m3)OC(μg/m3)EC(μg/m3)TC (μg/m3)1 –Pre87.08.31205.326.71.027.61 –Post16.57.060.012.40.412.8Difference-81%-16%-95%-53%-59%-54%2 –Pre20.86.5108.59.80.310.22 –Post58.22.5535.031.40.732.1Difference+180%-62%+393%+219%+98%+216%3 –Pre19.04.0254.011.70.211.93 –Post14.33.5218.014.91.316.2Difference-25%-13%-14%+27%+565%+36%4 –Pre10.22.036.016.90.317.24 –Post15.06.0123.013.40.614.0Difference+48%+200%+242%-21%+107%-19%5 –Pre8.21.568.510.10.0210.15 –Post49.02.0719.023.10.723.8Difference+494%+33%+950%+129%+4282%+136%7 –Pre52.45.02037.017.01.318.37 –Post18.33.0102.012.31.013.3Difference-65%-40%-95%-28%-24%-27%8 –Pre47.75.0440.034.10.234.38 –Post18.44.0145.010.50.110.6Difference-61%-20%-67%-69%-55%-69%10 –Pre92.922.51841.528.70.529.210 –Post32.54.0233.58.60.89.4Difference-65%-82%-87%-70%+77%-68%11 –Pre16.04.0200.08.80.49.111 –Post12.14.095.010.40.811.1Difference-25%No Change-53%+18%+100%+22%15 –Pre21.63.0186.013.90.0413.915 –Post19.02.074.016.90.417.3Difference-12%-33%-60%+22%+1134%+25%16 –Pre201.017.0910.060.20.961.116 –Post197.448.0838.044.71.746.3Difference-2%+182%-8%-26%+77%-24%Note that the following homes did nothave matched pairs: 6, 9, 12, 13, and 14.Individual Home Chemical Markersof Woodsmoke Results (ng/m3) - Homes withComplete DatasetsHomeLevoglucosanDehydroabieticacidAbieticacidVanillinAcetovanilloneGuaiacol4-Ethylguaiacol1 –Pre4707.10.3162.80.50.30.91.21 –Post294.70.30.30.50.30.020.1Difference-94%No Change-100%NoChangeNo Change-98%-96%2 –Pre963.5334.684.90.50.30.71.42 –Post344.00.318.014.90.30.30.1Difference-64%-100%-79%+3212%No Change-60%-97%3 –Pre585.6113.066.95.321.6293.70.43 –Post136.20.341.50.50.30.20.3Difference-77%-100%-38%-92%-99%-100%-19%4 –Pre876.7162.04.12.822.8559.70.14 –Post3.90.30.30.50.30.10.1Difference-100%-100%-94%-84%-99%-100%-39%5 –Pre647.8158.25.96.913.2555.60.25 –Post176.20.341.60.50.31.20.1Difference-73%-100%+607%-94%-98%-100%-76%7 –Pre1609.3532.0395.50.50.30.92.07 –Post310.916.855.30.50.30.80.2Difference-81%-97%-86%NoChangeNo Change-13%-90%8 –Pre3.988.64.70.50.3No DataNo Data8 –Post3.916.80.30.50.30.61.4DifferenceNo Change-81%-95%NoChangeNo Change--------------10 –Pre382.0100.2112.70.50.30.70.510 –Post807.533.546.80.50.30.020.1Difference111%-67%-58%NoChangeNo Change-98%-86%11 –Pre379.5133.611.30.50.3No DataNo Data11 –Post125.798.1123.80.50.30.80.4Difference-67%-27%+994%NoChangeNo Change--------------15 –Pre3.963.50.30.50.30.021.815 –Post238.192.486.90.50.31.00.2Difference+6084%+45%+34670%NoChangeNo Change+6435%-89%16 –Pre645.1105.07.90.50.3No DataNo Data16 –Post971.90.30.30.50.30.30.1Difference+51%-100%-97%NoChangeNo Change--------------Note that the following homes did nothave matched pairs: 6, 9, 12, 13, and 14.