Downloaded from https://iranpaper.

ir
https://www.tarjomano.com/order

Atmospheric Environment 63 (2012) 239e249

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Atmospheric Environment
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv

Emissions characterization of residential wood-fired hydronic heater technologies

John S. Kinsey a, *, Abderrahmane Touati b, Tiffany L.B. Yelverton a, Johanna Aurell c, Seung-Hyun Cho d,
William P. Linak a, Brian K. Gullett a
a
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, MD E343-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA
b
ARCADIS-U.S., Inc., 4915-F Prospectus Drive, Durham, NC 27713, USA
c
National Research Council, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, MD E363-01,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA
d
Oak Ridge Institute for Science Eduction, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, MD E363-01,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

< Four residential wood-fired hydronic heaters were tested with multiple fuels.
< Combustion efficiency as well as gas and particle emissions were determined.
< The emissions varied widely depending on the technology and fuel utilized.
< The pellet-burning appliance had the highest efficiency and lowest emissions.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Residential wood-fired hydronic heaters (RWHHs) can negatively impact the local ambient air quality
Received 28 June 2012 and thus are an environmental concern in wood burning areas of the U. S. Only a few studies have been
Received in revised form conducted which characterize the emissions from RWHHs. To address the lack of emissions data, a study
27 August 2012
was conducted on four appliances of differing design using multiple fuel types to determine their
Accepted 29 August 2012
thermal, boiler, and combustion efficiency as well as the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon
monoxide (CO), total hydrocarbons (THC), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), total particulate matter
Keywords:
(PM) mass, and particle number as well as particle size distribution (PSD). Three of these appliances were
Residential wood-fired hydronic heaters
Thermal efficiency
fired with split-log cordwood with the fourth unit using hardwood pellets. The measured thermal
Gaseous emissions efficiencies for the appliances tested varied from 22 to 44% and the combustion efficiencies from 81 to
Particle emissions 98%. Depending on appliance and fuel type, the emission factors ranged from about 1300 to 1800 g kg
1
dry fuel for CO2, 8e190 g kg
1 dry fuel for CO, <1e54 g kg
1 dry fuel for THC and 6e120 mg kg
1 for N2O.
For the particle phase pollutants, the PM mass emission factors ranged from 0.31 to 47 g kg
1 dry fuel
and the PM number emission factors from 8.5  1010 to 2.4  1014 particles kg
1 dry fuel, also depending
on the appliance and fuel tested. The PSD for all four appliances indicated a well established accumu-
lation mode with evidence of a nucleation mode present for Appliances A and B. The average median
aerodynamic particle diameters observed for the four appliances ranged from 84 to 187 nm while
burning red oak or pellets. In general, the pellet-burning appliance had the highest overall operating
efficiency and lowest emissions of the four units tested.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

Residential wood-fired hydronic heaters (RWHHs), commonly

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 9195414121; fax: þ1 9195410359.
E-mail addresses: kinsey.john@epa.gov (J.S. Kinsey), dahman.touati@arcadis-
us.com (A. Touati), yelverton.tiffany@epa.gov (T.L.B. Yelverton), aurell.johanna@
epa.gov (J. Aurell), scho@rti.org (S.-H. Cho), linak.bill@epa.gov (W.P. Linak),
gullet.brian@epa.gov (B.K. Gullett).
referred to incorrectly as residential wood boilers, are a cost-
effective means of home heating but also emit pollutants that are
of environmental concern in wood burning areas of the U. S. such as
the northeast. Emissions from these appliances can negatively
impact the ambient air quality, increase the risk for adverse health
effects, and can be a source of neighborhood complaints (Miller et al.,

1352-2310/$ e see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.08.064
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
240 J.S. Kinsey et al. / Atmospheric Environment 63 (2012) 239e249
2010; Schreiber and Chinery, 2008; Brown et al., 2007; Johnson,
2006). For example, Johnson (2006) reported ambient PM2.5
(particles  2.5 mm in aerodynamic diameter) concentrations as high
as 8800 mg m
3 (15 s average) with 1-h averages of 416 mg m
3
determined 15e45 m downwind of the RWHH. According to one
estimate (Rector et al., 2006), a single conventional RWHH can emit
fine particulate matter (PM) emissions equivalent to 22 U. S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) certified wood stoves, 205 oil-
fired furnaces, or as many as 8000 natural gas-fired appliances. For
this reason, a number of northeastern States have developed regu-
lations for RWHHs and EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) has developed a program for manufacturers of
these devices to promote the availability of cleaner burning equip-
ment (NESCAUM, 2007; USEPA, 2011a). OAQPS has also included
RWHHs in a proposed revision to the New Source Performance
Standard for residential wood burning equipment (USEPA, 2011b).
Most conventional RWHHs are very simple devices consisting of
a firebox surrounded by a water jacket with the exhaust gases
vented through a short stack. RWHHs are not boilers since only hot
water, not steam, is produced by the unit. The heater is normally
housed either in an outdoor shelter with underground water lines
running to and from the residence or in a space within the resi-
dence. Conventional RWHHs are designed to cycle from full load to
idle. At idle the fuel smolders at a low temperature and under
oxygen-starved conditions resulting in an average thermal energy
efficiency of only w43% (Schreiber and Chinery, 2008). These
design features make RWHHs a unique emission source unlike
other residential wood burning appliances and can also promote
formation of high concentrations of potentially harmful pollutants,
including fine particles and unoxidized organic compounds
(Johnson, 2011). Besides the batch loading of large amounts of
wood, traditional RWHH combustion chamber design also facili-
tates the loading and combustion of non-wood materials, such as
household waste (e.g., paper, plastic, and packaging). The use of
RWHHs to burn waste is similar to the use of burn barrels and burn
piles, which are known sources of polychlorinated dibenzodioxins,
dibenzofurans (PCDDs/Fs), and other persistent bio-accumulative
toxic (PBT) emissions (Lemieux, 1997).
With the advent of tighter PM standards, new technologies are
starting to enter and impact the RWHH market. These recent
market entries include gasification units, primarily of European
design (Albrecht, 2007), heat storage redesigns (Brady, 2007), add-
on catalyst units, pellet burners, and afterburner technologies,
either by way of retrofit or combustion chamber redesign. It is,
however, unclear how well these retrofits and new technologies
will reduce emissions.
Fig. 1. Basic design of RWHHs tested which include: (a) up-draft combustion (maximum output 38 kW); (b) down-draft combustion (maximum output 50 kW); (c) bottom fed
pellet burner (maximum output 40 kW); and (d) combustion and gasification (maximum output 44 kW) appliances.
https://www.tarjomano.com/order
Few studies have been conducted to characterize the PM
emissions from RWHHs. Valenti and Clayton (1998) determined PM
emission factors ranging from 490 to 1300 mg MJ
1 (9e25 g kg
1
dry fuel) heat input for two conventional appliances tested using
EPA Reference Test Methods 5G and 28 (USEPA, 2000a; USEPA,
2000b). In another study, Johansson et al. (2004) measured PM
emissions ranging from 90 to 2200 mg MJ
1 heat input for a single
stage up-draft unit, 18e89 mg MJ
1 heat input for an improved
multi-stage down-draft appliance, and 12e64 mg MJ
1 heat input
for a pellet burning RWHH. Finally, Allen and Rector (2008) deter-
mined a PM emission rate for a conventional RWHH (no catalyst) in
the range of 24e265 g h
1 depending on wood type.
To improve the understanding of the air pollutant emissions
from both conventional and improved RWHHs, a study was con-
ducted by EPA’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory in
Research Triangle Park, NC on four appliances of differing design
using multiple fuel types. The complete study is described in the
final report for the program (Gullett et al., 2012). Reported here is
the thermal performance of the appliances tested plus the emission
results for carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), total
hydrocarbons (THC), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), total PM
mass, particle number, and particle size distributions. The
remainder of the emission data collected during the program are
provided elsewhere (Hays et al., 2012; Aurell et al., 2012).
2. Description of appliances
The first appliance tested (Appliance A–Fig. 1a) is a widely used
traditional design with a single-stage, updraft combustion process
that occurs in a rectangular firebox surrounded by a high capacity
water jacket having a heat exchanger surface area of 6.87 m2. The
hot flue gases are vented by natural convection through a stainless
steel insulated stack connected to a rear exhaust outlet. The oper-
ating temperature range (76.7 C  5.6  C) of the water in the
recirculation loop to the heat load is controlled using a digital
temperature controller. When the lower temperature limit is
reached, the damper opens (“ON” Mode or high fire), and when the
high temperature limit is reached, the damper closes (“OFF” Mode
or smoldering). The heat load demand has a direct effect on the
frequency and the duration of each component of the ON/OFF cycle.
A nominal twice daily charging of the unit is needed for these
appliances to simulate actual in-use operation.
The second unit (Appliance B–Fig. 1b) is an improved version of
Appliance A by the same manufacturer which employs a three-
stage combustion process in which wood is gasified in the
primary combustion firebox and the hot gases are forced
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
https://www.tarjomano.com/order

J.S. Kinsey et al. / Atmospheric Environment 63 (2012) 239e249 241

downward and mixed with pre-heated air in a secondary chamber. Appliance A was tested using three fuel types: seasoned red oak
Final combustion occurs in a third, high temperature reaction as the baseline fuel; seasoned red oak with supplementary resi-
chamber. Like the first appliance, the heat flow of this unit is dential refuse; and unseasoned white pine as described above.
regulated by the opening and closing of an air damper with the unit Between each new fuel, the unit was “conditioned” by burning out
charged twice per day during testing. However, unlike Appliance A, with a hot burn (i.e., no damper cycling) of red oak. The other two
primary and secondary air flow is provided by a fan and not by cordwood burning units (Appliances B and D) were tested only
natural convection. with seasoned red oak. The pellet burner (Appliance C) used only
The third RWHH tested (Appliance C–Fig. 1c), is a two-stage hardwood pellets.
pellet burning unit in which combustion occurs on a round
burner plate (hearth) where primary air is supplied. Secondary air
4. Experimental
is introduced through a ring above the burner plate. Fuel is auto-
matically screw-conveyed from the bottom of the hearth. Operation
4.1. Experimental apparatus
of the screw feeder is regulated by a thermostat and fans modulate
on the measured oxygen level in the exhaust gas, maintaining 8e
Fig. S-2 of the Supplemental Data depicts the components of the
10% (volume) oxygen. Note that this unit could not be operated at
RWHH test facility. As shown, the flue gas was ducted into the
optimal conditions due to the heat load demand described below.
facility for ease of sampling and subsequent treatment in an air
The final appliance tested (Appliance D–Fig. 1d), a two-stage
pollution control system (APCS). The duct work configuration and
downdraft heater with both gasification and combustion cham-
flows were designed to adhere to American Society for Testing and
bers, is designed for use with heat storage. Multiple inlets provide
Materials Method E2515 (ASTM, 2007). The stack from the RWHH is
air for ignition, combustion, and gasification. Air is added to the
0.2 m in outside diameter and is 2.44 m in length.
upper combustion zone to initiate combustion and a variable speed
A conical capture hood was installed above the outlet of the
induced draft fan pulls the primary supply air downward through
appliance stack to entrain the unit exhaust and ambient dilution air.
the fuel, intensifying combustion. Secondary pre-heated air is
A canvas shroud was hung from the circumference of the capture
added to the lower portion of the chamber producing temperatures
hood to further ensure complete collection of emissions without
higher than 980  C at this location. The temperature of the water
wind gust effects. The cone is connected to a 0.25 m outside
jacket is controlled by a draft fan controller. When the temperature
diameter stainless steel duct surrounded by an outdoor sampling
of the water jacket is below the set-point (71  C), the speed of the
platform outfitted with four vertically-oriented, 0.076 m inside
draft fan is raised to maximum revolutions, forcing air into the
diameter ports to support particulate sampling and continuous
combustion chamber. The fan remains on as long as the unit is
gaseous emission monitoring. The diluted and cooled exhaust gases
operational. This unit is designed to burn fuel quickly and transfer
are transferred indoors to the testing facility through a 0.25 m
heat to water stored in an insulated tank from which heat is
outside diameter, 12 m long stainless steel duct. Multiple sampling
subsequently provided to the residence. In lieu of its normal heat
ports were installed in the duct to accommodate sensitive
storage tank, a 29 kW water-to-air heat exchanger was installed in
measurement equipment. By the time the exhaust reaches the
series with the primary heat exchanger. Specifications for each unit
sampling ports, the temperatures within the dilution sampling duct
tested are provided in the Supplemental Data.
are as much as 50  C above the inlet ambient air to the building
depending on dilution ratio. The ducting system moved w20 dry
standard m3 min
1 of air flow, which correlates to an approximate
3. Fuel types and composition
dilution ratio ranging from 5:1 to 10:1 from the RWHH stack.
The four appliances were operated in a mode where hot water
Two wood types and one hardwood pellet brand were tested.
was continuously circulated through the unit’s water jacket and
The baseline fuel throughout the test program was locally obtained,
a water/water heat exchanger connected to the test facility’s chilled
seasoned, and quarter-split red oak (Quercus rubra) cordwood,
(w10  C) water system to simulate the heat load. The piping system
a common fuel for the U. S. that is also readily available in North
consisted of two 25.4 mm outside diameter flexible water lines
Carolina. Red oak was also co-fired with 4.5% by weight of refuse to
covered with high density urethane insulation and an outer jacket.
simulate situations in which residential waste is co-combusted for
The same piping system was used for all four units tested. The inlet
ignition or disposal purposes (Lemieux, 1997). Unseasoned, local,
and outlet temperatures of both the chilled water and hot water re-
split eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) was also tested to address
circulated to the RWHH were monitored using Type K thermo-
situations in which freshly cut, more marginal fuel, is burned. The
couples and the chilled water flow rate was controlled using
length of all of the split wood was approximately 40e50 cm. Finally,
a proportional valve. The load demand was managed (see Fig. S-3 of
hardwood pellets purchased locally in North Carolina from Amer-
the Supplemental Data) using both the outlet chilled water
ican Wood Fibers, USA were also evaluated in the study. The pellets
temperature and flow rate.
are made of sawdust as obtained from different wood processing
industries and consisted of a blend of hardwood (no bark), mostly
oak, with a diameter of w6 mm. 4.2. Appliance operating protocol
The ultimate and proximate analyses of all fuels tested are re-
ported in the Supplemental Data. Cordwood fuel moisture was also The heat load profile (Fig. S-4 in the Supplemental Data) used
determined using a handheld Delmhorst RDX-1 wood moisture throughout the testing program was derived from a simulation
meter for three to four measurements on each of eight pieces of program for heat demand developed by the U. S. National Renew-
split wood chosen randomly from each charge. The test average able Energy Laboratory (NREL, 2010) for a 232 m2 home in Syracuse,
moisture content of the various fuels determined by the Delmhorst New York, using an averaged hour-per-hour heat load for the first
instrument was w27e38% for the red oak and w36% for the white two weeks of January. The average daily heat load for the first two
pine. The difference in moisture content between the fuel analyses weeks in January, as calculated by Brookhaven National Laboratory
and Delmhorst data is probably due to the two month delay in from 25 years of weather data, is about 827 MJ. The heat load
submitting the samples for analysis which may have dried out the demand was simulated by the water/water heat exchanger coupled
samples. to the building chilled water supply, as described previously.
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
https://www.tarjomano.com/order

242 J.S. Kinsey et al. / Atmospheric Environment 63 (2012) 239e249

For Appliances A and B (Fig. 1a and b), the unit was first pre-

Measurement location
heated by burning a load of approximately 45 kg of the tested

RWHH stack/indoor

RWHH stack/indoor

RWHH stack/indoor
fuel to establish a bed of hot coals. Thereafter, the firebox was filled

Outdoor platform
Indoor platform

Indoor platform

Indoor platform

Indoor platform

Indoor platform

Indoor platform
to capacity with wood logs to start the test, averaging a full charge
of 115  7 kg for Appliance A and 91  1 kg for Appliance B. For the

platform

platform

platform
oak plus refuse tests of Appliance A, the average charge was
95  5 kg of oak wood supplemented with 4.5 kg of mixed
household refuse (see Lemieux, 1997).
Before charging, the moisture content of a representative
subsample of cordwood was measured and recorded as described

Sampling frequency

Multiple per cycle

previously. After addition of the initial fuel charge, Appliance A and

Up to 8 per cycle
8e12 per cycle
B were allowed to cycle between low (smoldering) and high

Continuous

Continuous

Continuous

Continuous

Continuous

Continuous

Continuous
(flaming) combustion conditions, as required to meet the heat load
demand. The appliance output is controlled according to the
difference between the actual and set point temperatures of the
water exiting the appliance.
The twice daily charging cycle of Appliance A and B, and the
temporally variant load demand, resulted in unique fuel cycle/load

Integrated sampling
characteristics throughout the 24 h day. To fully characterize
emissions under all conditions, sampling on Appliance A was

Grab samples

Grab samples
initially conducted throughout a 24-h period which was cost

Real time

Real time

Real time

Real time

Real time

Real time

Real time
Duration
prohibitive. After completing triplicate testing of Appliance A with
the red oak, the continuous emissions data generated during were
reviewed and the two successive 12-h charging periods were
determined to be virtually identical. Therefore, it was deemed
sufficient to characterize only a single 12-h load demand to

Heated FID with methane

approximate the emissions for an entire day.

Heated flame ionization

Non-dispersive infrared

Non-dispersive infrared
Measurement/analysis

The pellet burner, Appliance C (Fig. 1c), was fitted with an

Gas chromatography
Gravimetric analysis

Cascade impactor þ
automatic startup and control unit that regulates heater operation Sunset analyzer
according to operator-set parameters based on the fuel type and

detector (FID)

electrometers
Paramagnetic

Microbalance
cleaning cycles. The unit was operated at 8.8e10 kW, considerably
principle

below its optimal firing rate of 12e40 kW, while satisfying the heat

(NDIR)

(NDIR)

cutter
load profile. The pellet burner operates in an on-demand fuel mode
and was programmed to follow a modulation sequence consistent
with the low heat demand required. This operating protocol
allowed the complete 24-h fuel load to be effectively compressed
California Analytical Instruments

J.U.M. Engineering Model 109A

into a 6-h period.

Tapering element oscillating

Thermo Electron Model 48/

Finally, for Appliance D (Fig. 1d), the unit was pre-heated with Modified HewlettePackard
California Analytical ZRH

approximately 3e4 kg of red oak for about 5 min after which the

Electrical low pressure

microbalance (TEOM)a
Pre-fired quartz filters
47-mm quartz filters

firebox was filled with 28e30 kg of split logs to start the tests.
Beckman Model 755

Rosemount 880A

During the startup, an internal water circulation pump distributed

impactor (ELPI)
Instrument(s)

Model 5890A

heated water to prevent cold and hot water spots. The heater was
Model 300M

operated under a scenario simulating the manufacturer’s recom-

mended hot water storage unit (w3100 L capacity and 44 kW)
through use of a second water-to-air heat exchanger added in series
with the water/water heat exchanger used for the other units. The
two heat exchangers were able to pull heat out of the water at
a higher rate than required by the load cycle to allow the unit to
Health (NIOSH) Method 5040

The TEOM data are not reported due to low reliability.

On-line gas chromatograph

continue combustion over a period of time of about 3.5 h without

On-line cascade impactor
Occupational Safety and
ASTM Method 2515-07

overheating and shutdown of the heater. A single full charge of the

National Institute for

appliance was found to supply between 80 and 85% of the 24-h

On-line gravimetry
EPA Method 10B

daily energy load required by the load cycle.

EPA Method 3A

EPA Method 3A

EPA Method 3C

Methane cutter
Method(s)

4.3. Emission measurement methods

(GC)
Sampling and analytical methods.

Emission sampling was conducted on a suite of pollutants

(Table 1), consisting of both continuous measurements and time-
integrated sampling to determine key appliance operating param-
concentration and

eters as well as gas- and particle-phase emissions. Time-integrated

elemental carbon

size distribution

sampling was started immediately after adding the main fuel

concentration
Particle number
Organic carbon/

charge to the appliance, with continuous monitoring conducted

Particle mass
Oxygen (O2)

throughout the entire heat load cycle. The continuous measure-

Pollutant

Total PM

ments included temperature and flow throughout the system, as

Table 1

THC

N2O

CH4
CO2

well as additional temperature measurements conducted in loca-

CO

tions such as the stack and dilution tunnel. The frequency of filter
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
J.S. Kinsey et al. / Atmospheric Environment 63 (2012) 239e249
change-outs was increased for Appliance A in response to excessive
loading on the filters to avoid compromise of isokineticity. The data
obtained from conventional time-integrated methods were
considered “reference” data and thus used to evaluate the data
obtained from the continuous measurement techniques.
As shown in Table 1, the CO, CO2, THC, and total PM mass time-
integrated measurements were made using published EPA or ASTM
test methods. For N2O, a modified HewlettePackard Model 5890A
gas chromatograph equipped with a Ni-63 electron capture
detector was employed to make these measurements. This system
is equipped with a two-position, 10-port valve that enables sample
back-flushing to eliminate unneeded later-eluting components that
are not desired (likely including moisture). During sampling, a slip
stream of the post-combustion gas stream was pulled through
a fixed 1 mL sample loop via a small vacuum pump. N2O concen-
tration ranges between 300 and 800 ppb were sampled success-
fully using this technique (Ryan and Karns, 1993; Kramlich and
Linak, 1994). In the case of CH4, a J.U.M. Engineering Model 109A
total hydrocarbon analyzer equipped with a methane cutter was
used. The Model 109A features a dual detector/dual electrometer
design to provide three continuous, simultaneous signals of THC,
methane, and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC). Finally, the
particle number concentrations and size distributions were deter-
mined using a Dekati Electrical Low Pressure Impactor [ELPI]
(Kinsey et al., 2006) with a secondary dilution of 10:1 to reduce the
PM concentrations to within its operating range.
4.4. Thermal calculations
Thermal efficiency is used to determine the overall ability of the
system to generate and transfer useful heat to meet load demand.
Thermal efficiency in this project was defined as the heat delivered
to the water/water heat exchanger (heat output) divided by the
calculated energy input of the fuel (higher heating value or HHV).
“Boiler” efficiency is calculated using a modified Heat Loss Method
(ASME, 1998) which consists of subtracting the flue gas heat losses
from the HHV of the fuel burned. The modified calculation does not
account for radiation/convection losses from the heater jacket and
transfer lines or the effectiveness of the external heat exchanger.
The energy losses in the system include sensible heat losses from
the stack, latent heat loss due to hydrogen conversion to steam,
heat loss due to moisture in the fuel and air, and heat losses from
incomplete combustion resulting in formation of CO rather than
CO2. Finally, combustion efficiency is used to evaluate the ability of
the RWHH to burn the fuel completely. Combustion efficiency is
a measure of the completeness of carbon oxidation and was
calculated by measurement of CO2 divided by CO2 þ CO þ THC and
was evaluated throughout each run.
4.5. Emission calculations
The concentrations of the various pollutants were determined
using the procedure in the published method or directly from the
instrument for the real time analyzers. These concentrations were
then corrected back to stack conditions, if necessary, using the
dilution ratio determined from the concentrations of CO2 in the
stack vs. that determined in the indoor duct. Emission factors for
the target pollutants were then calculated in terms of mass of fuel
burned (g kg
1 dry fuel), thermal input (g MJ
1), and thermal
output (g MJ
1). The mass of fuel burned was determined indirectly
by calculating the carbon emitted by the fuel and converting this
value to the mass of fuel burned using the fuel composition
determined by the ultimate and proximate analysis. The thermal
input was determined using the HHV of the fuel charged to the unit
and the useful output heat calculated using the inlet and outlet
https://www.tarjomano.com/order
243
temperatures of the cooling water loop used to simulate the heat
load demand.
5. Experimental results
5.1. Thermal performance
Average thermal efficiencies for the available unit/fuel combi-
nations operating under a cyclical mode are shown in Fig. 2a.
Appliance A averaged a thermal efficiency of 27% for all nine runs
(i.e., three fuels), Appliance B averaged 30% for three runs, and
Appliance C averaged 44% for three runs. Thermal efficiencies are
not available for Appliance D because measurements of the thermal
flows through the water/air heat exchanger were not recorded. The
thermal efficiencies for Appliances A, B, and C, ranging from 22% to
44%, can be compared with similar measurements for oil and
natural gas fired residential systems ranging from 86% to 92% and
79% to 90%, respectively (McDonald, 2009). The relatively low
thermal efficiencies for Appliance A and B are due mainly to their
damper cycling (open and closed).
Boiler efficiencies were calculated only for Appliance C and D
because the cyclic mode of operation of Appliances A and B made
accurate measurement of stack flow rates difficult and unreliable.
The average boiler efficiencies are shown in Fig. 2b. Appliance C
averaged a boiler efficiency of 86% for the three runs, and Appliance
D averaged 83% for the three runs. The boiler efficiency for Appli-
ance C was averaged over the whole testing cycle. Boiler efficiency
was calculated for Appliance D from the start of the heating process
until the unit output failed to match the unit set point temperature.
For our system, this occurred after 2e2.5 h. For this unit, no cycling
of the process was allowed, and the heat load demand required that
the unit operate at full burn rate during the whole test period.
The combustion efficiency calculated for each unit is provided in
Fig. 2c. Appliance A averaged a combustion efficiency of 81% for all
nine runs (i.e., three fuels), Appliance B averaged 86% for three runs,
Appliance C averaged 98% for three runs, and Appliance D averaged
90% for three runs. Appliances A and B showed lower combustion
efficiencies than Appliance C, probably due to the design of the
units which accommodate a large span of heat load demand
through the ON and OFF mode of damper operation rather than
through fuel feed modulation and heat storage. When the damper
is closed, the reduced air flow causes smoldering and poor
combustion, lowering combustion efficiency. For Appliance C, the
cycling process seems to have little or no detrimental effect on the
combustion efficiency since the process regulates fuel feed without
stopping air flow thus allowing better burn out of the volatile
organics. Appliance D was operated without cycling, resulting in
better combustion efficiency than Appliances A and B burning the
same wood species.
5.2. Gas-phase emissions
Average CO2, CO, and THC emission factors for the various
appliance/fuel combinations are shown in Fig. 3a. The CO2 emission
factors range from a low of about 1300 g kg
1 dry fuel for Appliance
A burning oak to a high of about 1800 g kg
1 dry fuel for Appliance
C using pellets. The higher CO2 emissions for Appliance C are due to
the considerably higher combustion efficiency (Fig. 2c) observed
for this unit.
With respect to CO and THC (Fig. 3a), a similar trend was
observed with the CO emission factors ranging from a high of
w190 g kg
1 dry fuel for Appliance A burning oak to a low of
w8 g kg
1 dry fuel for the pellet heater (Appliance C). Similarly, for
THC, the highest emissions were observed for the burning of oak in
Appliance A (w54 g kg
1 dry fuel) with the lowest emissions
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
https://www.tarjomano.com/order

244 J.S. Kinsey et al. / Atmospheric Environment 63 (2012) 239e249

Fig. 2. Percent thermal efficiency (a), “boiler” efficiency (b), and combustion efficiency (c) for the four appliances tested. Note that thermal efficiency data are not available for
Appliance D and boiler efficiency data are only available for Appliances C and D (see text) (Error bars ¼ 1s uncertainty).

determined for Appliance C (<1 g kg
1 dry fuel). These trends are
reflective of the lower combustion efficiency of Appliance A as
compared to the other units tested (Fig. 2c). In addition, the
emissions for Appliance C are also generally lower since the
combustion, although still cyclic, is comparatively steady
throughout the 6-h burn cycle, whereas the combustion rates of the
other appliances are much more variable, especially Appliances A
and B with their ON/OFF damper cycling.
Fig. 3b provides the available N2O emission factors determined
in the study. As shown, the pellet heater (Appliance C) had the
highest N2O emissions at w120 mg kg
1 dry fuel and Appliance A
burning pine exhibited the lowest emissions at w6 mg kg
1 dry
fuel. In combustion systems, N2O is believed to be formed early in
the flame if fuel nitrogen is available primarily via homogeneous
reactions between NCO and NH with NO. At high temperatures,
however, N2O is destroyed primarily by reaction with H (Kramlich
and Linak, 1994). The result is that N2O formation is often inversely
correlated to system temperatures, although fuel composition is
important. Thus, the variation of N2O emissions between the four
units observed here is likely related to the characteristic operating
temperature of each unit which is a function of their design.
Very limited data are available for the CH4 emissions from
Appliance A burning oak during one 24-h run. In this test, the CH4
emissions represented about 4% of the overall THC measured by the
California Analytical FID analyzer (w3 g kg
1 dry wood). Unfortu-
nately, no trends or other observations can be determined from this
single test of one appliance burning one fuel type.
Appliances A and B were found to exhibit the highest overall
emissions of unburned combustion products such as CO mainly due
to the opening and closing of the damper by which the fuel bed
alternates between flaming and smoldering conditions. To illus-
trate the cyclic nature of these emissions as compared to the other
RWHHs tested, Fig. 4 provides example time histories of the CO
concentration for all appliances tested. As shown in Fig. 4a and b,
both Appliances A and B have highly variable emissions during each
damper opening with Appliance A exhibiting exceptionally high CO
concentrations reflective of its conventional design. In addition, the
magnitude of the CO concentrations from these appliances also
tends to decrease over time as the fuel charge is consumed.
Appliance C (Fig. 4c), although still cyclic, shows a much more
reproducible concentration history as compared to Appliances A
and B indicative of its demand-controlled fuel feeding mechanism.
Finally, Appliance D (Fig. 4d) shows high CO concentrations early in
the burn which, like Appliance A and B, decrease over time as the
single fuel charge is consumed. These trends must be considered
when reviewing the average emission factors provided above.
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
https://www.tarjomano.com/order

J.S. Kinsey et al. / Atmospheric Environment 63 (2012) 239e249 245

Fig. 3. Average emission factors measured for: (a) CO2, CO, and THC; and (b) N2O (Error bars ¼ 1s uncertainty).

5.3. PM emissions
Average total PM emissions are shown in Fig. 5a as compared to
the EPA-certified wood stove and zero clearance fireplace tested by
Kinsey et al. (2009). As indicated by these data, there is a wide
range of PM emissions depending on both appliance and fuel type.
For Appliance A, the PM emissions vary between approximately 25
and 47 g kg
1 dry fuel with the emissions from the red oak and red
oak plus refuse being generally similar (w24 g kg
1 dry fuel). The
PM emissions almost double, however, when unseasoned white
pine is burned in the same unit.
For the other three appliances shown in Fig. 5a, only one fuel
type was tested. Appliances B and D burned red oak cordwood and
Appliance C burned hardwood pellets. Average emissions for these
units ranged from 4.6 g kg
1 dry fuel for Appliance B, 0.31 g kg
1
dry fuel for Appliance C, and 3.3 g kg
1 dry fuel for Appliance D.
Lower PM emissions from these three units reflect the more
advanced technologies and generally higher combustion efficien-
cies compared to the older Appliance A design. Appliance B
employs a secondary combustion chamber and larger thermal
mass. Appliance C uses a consistent uniform fuel and a more
steady-state, but still cyclic, fuel feeding approach. The lower
emissions from Appliance D are probably related to both its two-
stage gasifier/combustor and its thermal storage design, where
batches of fuel are burned during short, highly intensive, presum-
ably more efficient, periods and the extracted heat is stored for
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
246 J.S. Kinsey et al. / Atmospheric Environment 63 (2012) 239e249
Fig. 4. CO concentration histories as measured in the appliance stack for: (a) Appliance A burning red oak; (b) Appliance B burning red oak; (c) Appliance C burning pellets; and (d)
Appliance D burning red oak.
future demand. Due to our inability to measure the thermal flows
properly through the heat storage, the thermal output for Appli-
ance D was estimated using the heat loss method (boiler efficiency).
As also shown in Fig. 5a, the traditional RWHH design (Appliance
A) burning oak has about 8 times the PM mass emissions on a per
unit fuel basis as an EPA-certified wood stove and approximately
twice the emissions of an uncontrolled zero clearance fireplace.
Appliances B and D burning the same fuel, on the other hand, have
almost comparable emissions to the certified wood stove and less
than half the emissions of the zero clearance fireplace. These results
have major implications for wood burning areas of the U. S. where
the use of wood for home heating is an important contributor to
non-attainment of the PM2.5 ambient air quality standard.
The PM number emission factors for particles w40 nm
(aerodynamic diameter) are provided in Fig. 5b. As shown in this
figure, Appliance A again had the highest emissions in terms of the
number of particles per unit fuel weight as compared to the other
three appliances. Comparing the three appliances using red oak,
Appliance A had more than a factor of three times the emissions of
Appliance B and approximately 1.5 times the emissions of Appli-
ance D. Again, the emission reductions for Appliance B and D likely
reflect the more advanced technology and higher combustion
efficiency of these appliances. The particle number emissions of the
more efficient Appliance C (8.5  1010 particles kg
1 dry fuel), were
small as compared to the other three appliances regardless of fuel
type. However, the particle number emissions, unlike particle mass,
are not conserved. Particle number concentrations are dependent
https://www.tarjomano.com/order
on a number of gas-to-particle conversion processes as well as
concentration dependent losses such as coagulation and agglom-
eration which tend to increase particle size.
PM samples of diluted emissions from Appliances A, B, and C
were collected on filters at ambient temperatures and analyzed for
inorganic ash elements by X-ray fluorescence and carbon by
thermal optical transmittance (TOT). Besides total carbon, the TOT
analysis also provides information about the carbon partitioning
between elemental and organic forms. Results from these analyses
were then combined to yield relative mass fractions of 10 inorganic
ash species (stable oxides assumed), elemental carbon, and organic
carbon (see Table S-6 of the Supplemental Data). PM from Appli-
ance A was composed primarily (92%) of organic carbon, followed
by elemental carbon (7%), and inorganic elements (<1%). PM from
Appliance B was composed of smaller percentages of organic
carbon (80%) and elemental carbon (5%) and a larger fraction of
inorganic ash species (15%) presumably due to its improved
combustion efficiency. Finally, Appliance C, the most efficient unit
tested, produced PM composed of 25% organic carbon, 38%
elemental carbon, and 37% inorganic ash species. Potassium was
the largest inorganic element measured with smaller concentra-
tions of sodium, silicon, sulfur, chlorine, calcium, iron, copper, zinc,
and phosphorus.
Finally, test-averaged, differential number particle size distri-
butions (PSDs) for the four appliances are shown in Fig. 6. Only red
oak data, or hardwood pellets in the case of Appliance C, is
included. As shown in Fig. 6a and b, both Appliances A and B exhibit
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
https://www.tarjomano.com/order

J.S. Kinsey et al. / Atmospheric Environment 63 (2012) 239e249 247

Fig. 5. Average measured emission factors for: (a) total PM mass; and (b) total particle number (Error bars ¼ 1s uncertainty).

characteristic bimodal PSDs with median aerodynamic particle
diameters of 150 and 120 nm, respectively. These PSDs indicate the
presence of well defined accumulation modes (between 90 and
200 nm) as well as evidence of a smaller nuclei mode below the size
cut point of the last impactor stage, probably the result of nucle-
ation of volatile and semi-volatile organics. The bimodal PSD
suggests that each system is sufficiently supersaturated to mainly
force homogeneous nucleation of organic species rather than
condensation of these species onto black carbon particles gener-
ated in the flame. The major difference between the two units is the
particle concentration which is almost an order of magnitude lower
for Appliance B, reflecting the addition of secondary combustion to
the traditional Appliance A design. In addition, since coagulation
processes are directly related to particle number concentrations,
the higher particle number concentration seen for Appliance A
results in the generally larger particle diameters shown in Fig. 6a.
The Appliance B PSD (Fig. 6b) shows less evidence of a large nuclei
mode, consistent with lower relative organic emissions, lower
partial pressures, and preferential heterogeneous condensation on
existing particles rather than homogeneous condensation to form
nuclei as was the case for Appliance A.
Appliances C and D (Fig. 6c and d), on the other hand, both show
single mode PSDs with median aerodynamic particle diameters of
187 and 84 nm, respectively, indicative of the different combustion
technologies and fuels used in these two units. Differences in the
two data sets suggest differences in soot formation and organic gas-
to-particle conversion, perhaps due to differences in temperature
profiles, dilution, or operation between the two appliances. The
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
248 J.S. Kinsey et al. / Atmospheric Environment 63 (2012) 239e249
Fig. 6. Average differential number particle size distributions for: (a) Appliance A burning red oak; (b) Appliance B burning red oak; (c) Appliance C burning hardwood pellets; and
(d) Appliance D burning red oak.
lack of a measured nuclei mode for these appliances also suggests
that supersaturation is insufficient to promote the homogeneous
nucleation of additional particles. The small differences in the PSDs
for units C and D could be the result of differences in particle
composition (relative amounts of organic carbon, elemental carbon
and inorganic ash species) and differences in the time/temperature
profiles experienced by these PM forming emissions.
Based on the above results, it can be seen that both the oper-
ating efficiency and quantity of air pollutants generated are
dependent on appliance design and fuel type. With regard to effi-
ciency, the trend of Appliance C > Appliance D > Appliance
B > Appliance A is a result of the combustion technology employed
and, in the case of Appliances A and B, the highly cyclic damper
operation. In the case of CO, THC, and total PM mass emissions, the
trend is just opposite with Appliance A > Appliance B > Appliance
D > Appliance C. Such a trend might be anticipated since the less
efficient appliances will tend to have generally higher emission
levels. From the experimental data, Appliance C burning hardwood
pellets appears to be the best overall choice for both high operating
efficiency and low emissions.
Acknowledgment and disclaimer
Major financial support for this project was provided by the New
York State Energy Research and Development Authority under
https://www.tarjomano.com/order
Contract No. 10665 (Ellen Burkhard, Project Manager). We would
also like to thank Brookhaven National Laboratories (T. Butcher) for
assistance with the heat load calculations. The views expressed in
this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This
document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency policy and approved for publication.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not consti-
tute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.08.064.
References
Albrecht, R., 2007. Ultra-low emissions European wood and biomass combustion
technology. In: Residential Wood Combustion Workshop. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA.
Allen, G., Rector, L., 2008. Contribution of Wood Smoke to Particulate Matter Levels in
Connecticut. Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM),
Boston, MA. http://www.nescaum.org/documents/source-characterization-of-
outdoor-wood-furnaces/ (accessed 07.08.12.).
ASME, 1998. Fired Steam Generators. Power Test Code PTC4-1998. American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY.
 Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
J.S. Kinsey et al. / Atmospheric Environment 63 (2012) 239e249
ASTM, 2007. Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions Collected by a Dilution
Tunnel. Method E2515e07. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1520/E2515-07. www.astm.org.
Aurell, J., Gullett, B.K., Tabor, D., Touati, A., Oudejans, L., 2012. Semi-volatile and
volatile organic compound emissions from wood-fired hydronic heaters.
Environmental Science and Technology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es301197d.
Brady, B., 2007. Michigan’s OWHH experience. In: Residential Wood Combustion
Workshop. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA.
Brown, D.R., Callahan, B.G., Boissevain, A.L., 2007. An assessment of risk from
particulate released from outdoor wood boilers. Human & Ecological Risk
Assessment 13, 191e208.
Gullett, B., Dodder, R., Gilmour, I., Hays, M., Kinsey, J., Linak, W., Loughlin, D.,
Oudejans, L., Yelverton, T., 2012. Environmental, Energy Market, and Health
Characterization of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies. Report No.12e15.
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Albany, NY.
Hays, M.D., Gullett, B., King, C., Robinson, J., 2012. Characterization of carbonaceous
aerosols emitted from outdoor wood boilers. Energy & Fuels 25, 5632e5638.
Johansson, L.S., Leckner, B., Gustavsson, L., Cooper, D., Tullin, C., Potter, A., 2004.
Emission characteristics of modern and old-type residential boilers fired with
wood logs and wood pellets. Atmospheric Environment 38, 4183e4195.
Johnson, P.R.S., 2006. In-field ambient fine particle monitoring of an outdoor wood
boiler: public health concerns. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 12,
1153e1170.
Johnson, P., 2011. Adverse health effects, exposure threats, and regulatory chal-
lenges relating to outdoor wood boilers and residential wood combustion. EM
Magazine, 8e12, January [ISSN 1088-9981].
Kinsey, J.S., Mitchell, W.A., Squier, W.C., Linna, K., King, F.G., Logan, R., Dong, Y.,
Thompson, G.J., Clark, N.N., 2006. Evaluation of methods for the determination
of diesel-generated fine particulate matter: physical characterization results.
Aerosol Science 37, 63e87.
Kinsey, J.S., Kariher, P.H., Dong, Y., 2009. Evaluation of methods for the physical
characterization of the fine particle emissions from two residential wood
combustion appliances. Atmospheric Environment 43, 4959e4967.
Kramlich, J.C., Linak, W.P., 1994. Nitrous oxide behavior in the atmosphere and in
combustion and industrial systems. Progress in Energy & Combustion Science
20, 149e202.
Lemieux, P.M., 1997. Evaluation of Emissions from the Open Burning of Household
Waste in Barrels. Report No. EPA/600/R-97e134a, vol. 1. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
https://www.tarjomano.com/order
249
McDonald, R., 2009. Evaluation of Gas, Oil and Wood Pellet Fueled Residential
Heating System Emissions Characteristics. Report No. BNL-91286-2009-IR.
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY.
Miller, P.J., Allen, G., Rector, L., 2010. Spatial Modeling and Monitoring of Residential
Woodsmoke Across a Non-urban Upstate New York Region. Final Report 10e02.
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Albany, NY.
NESCAUM, 2007. NESCAUM Model Regulation for Outdoor Hydronic Heaters.
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), Boston, MA.
http://www.nescaum.org/topics/outdoor-hydronic-heaters (accessed 01.03.12.).
U. S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 2010. Energy 10Ò Model. http://
www.nrel.gov/buildings/energy10.html (accessed 22.03.12.).
Rector, L., Allen, G., Johnson, P., 2006. Assessment of Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers.
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), Boston, MA.
http://www.nescaum.org/documents/assessment-of-outdoor-wood-fired-
boilers (accessed 07.08.12.).
Ryan, J.V., Karns, S.A., 1993. Development of Sampling and Analytical Methodologies
for the Measurement of Nitrous Oxide from Fossil Fuel Combustion Sources.
Report No. EPA/600/R-93e088. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Schreiber, J., Chinery, R., 2008. Smoke Gets in Your Lungs: Outdoor Boilers in New
York State. Office of the Attorney General, State of New York, Albany, NY. http://
www.oag.state.ny.us/bureaus/environmental/pdfs/Smoke%20Gets%20in%
20Your%20Lungs%20Revised%20March%202008.pdf (accessed 01.03.12.).
USEPA, 2000a. Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from Wood Heaters
(Dilution Tunnel Sampling Location). Reference Method 5G. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/
promgate/m-05g.pdf (Last accessed 01.03.12.).
USEPA, 2000b. Certification and Auditing of Wood Heaters. Reference Method 28.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. http://www.
epa.gov/ttn/emc/promgate/m-28.pdf (accessed 01.03.12.).
USEPA, 2011a. Burn Wise. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/participation.html#hydronic (accessed
29.02.12.).
USEPA, 2011b. Revision of New Source Performance Standards for New Residential
Wood Heaters e Pre-Proposal. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/byRIN/2060-AP93
(accessed 29.02.12.).
Valenti, J.C., Clayton, R.K., 1998. Emissions from Outdoor Wood-Burning Residential
Hot Water Furnaces. Report No. EPA-600/R-98e017. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.