See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259158774

A comprehensive review on biomass cookstoves and a systematic approach

for modern cookstove design

Article in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · February 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.039

CITATIONS READS

187 3,278

2 authors:

Milind P. Kshirsagar Vilas R Kalamkar

St Vincent Pallotti College of Engineering & Technology Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology
12 PUBLICATIONS 299 CITATIONS 47 PUBLICATIONS 832 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Solar lab View project

solar water pumping View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Milind P. Kshirsagar on 24 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

A comprehensive review on biomass cookstoves and a systematic

approach for modern cookstove design
Milind P. Kshirsagar a,n, Vilas R. Kalamkar b
a
St Vincent Pallotti College of Engineering and Technology, Nagpur, Wardha road, Maharashtra, India
b
Visveswaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Improved biomass cookstoves has been a topic of research for more than 40 years, but still 2.6 billion people
Received 14 May 2013 cook over an open biomass fire. A large volume of information on the biomass cookstoves though widely
Received in revised form scattered, is available in the literature. This paper gives a comprehensive review of the available literature on
25 September 2013
biomass cookstoves. The review covers a detailed discussion on various aspects of biomass cookstoves: historic
Accepted 19 October 2013
overview, performance characteristics, cooking accessories, testing protocols, barriers to dissemination and
Available online 22 November 2013
adoption, and future pathways. In addition, comparison of energy and emissions performance for different
Keywords: biomass cookstoves is given. Data is obtained from reliable sources, arranged logically, plotted carefully, and
Biomass cookstoves analyzed to draw some interesting conclusions. Learning from the review and comparison made, is used to
Improved cookstoves propose a novel “Systematic Approach for Modern Cookstove Design”.
Efficiency
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Emissions
Testing protocols
Design considerations
Systematic approach.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581
2. Biomass cookstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582
2.1. Historic overview of biomass cookstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582
2.1.1. Early history (time immemorial—1950) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582
2.1.2. The recent past (1950–2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582
2.1.3. The new millennium (2000—to date) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582
2.2. Classification of biomass cookstoves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583
2.2.1. Traditional versus improved and advanced cookstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583
2.2.2. Natural draft versus forced draft cookstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583
2.2.3. Direct combustion type versus gasifier type cookstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
2.2.4. Mono-function versus multi-function cookstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
2.2.5. Domestic versus institutional type cookstoves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
2.2.6. Chimney stoves versus stoves without chimney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
2.2.7. Fixed versus portable cookstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
2.2.8. Mud, ceramic, metallic, cement, and hybrid cookstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586
2.2.9. Fuel wood, charcoal, agri-residue, dung cake and other fuel cookstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586

Abbreviations: TSF, three stone fire; ICS, improved cookstove; IAP, indoor air pollution; CO, carbon monoxide; PM, particulate matter; ARC, Aprovecho Research Center;
NPIC, Indian National Programme on Improved Chulhas; NISP, Chinese National Improved Stove Programme; MNRE, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy; EPA,
Environmental Protection Agency; CDM, clean development mechanism; NBCI, National Biomass Cook stove Initiative; ABS, advanced biomass stove; VITA, Volunteers in
Technical Assistance; TLUD, top lift updraft stove; TEG, thermo-electric generator; WBT, water boiling test; CWBT, comparative water boiling test; CCT, controlled cooking
test; HTP, heterogeneous testing protocol; KPT, kitchen performance test; SUMs, stove use monitors; UFT, uncontrolled field test; UCT, uncontrolled cooking test; BCT,
burning cycle test; CDT, cookstove durability testing; CFD, computational fluid dynamics; NGOs, non-governmental organizations; ISO, International Standards Organization;
IWA, International Workshop Agreement; TOP, tiers of performance
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 91 8600565759.
E-mail address: milindpkshirsagar@rediffmail.com (M.P. Kshirsagar).

1364-0321/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.039
 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603 581

2.3. Supplementary cooking accessories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587

2.3.1. Skirts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587
2.3.2. Haybox or retained heat cookers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588
2.3.3. Customized pots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588
2.3.4. Thermo-electric generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588
3. Protocols for biomass cookstove testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588
3.1. Laboratory tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588
3.1.1. Water boiling test (WBT). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588
3.1.2. Controlled cooking test (CCT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588
3.1.3. Heterogeneous testing protocol (HTP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589
3.2. Field tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589
3.2.1. Kitchen performance test (KPT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589
3.2.2. Stove use monitors (SUMs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589
3.2.3. Uncontrolled cooking test (UCT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589
3.2.4. Burning cycle test (BCT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589
3.3. Other stove testing protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590
4. Comparison of energy and emissions performance for different biomass cookstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590
5. Barriers to dissemination and adoption of biomass cookstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594
5.1. Institutional barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594
5.2. Economic and financial barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594
5.3. Policy barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595
5.4. Social and behavioral barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595
5.5. Technical and quality related barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595
5.6. Information and Interaction Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595
6. Road to future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595
6.1. In-depth engineering analysis for developing new advanced stoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595
6.2. Universal stove testing protocol and benchmarking a cookstove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596
6.3. Commercialization of cookstove technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596
7. Proposed modern cookstove design methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596
7.1. Important considerations in modern cookstove design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596
7.2. Proposed systematic approach for modern cookstove design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597
7.2.1. Problem identification and definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597
7.2.2. Problem analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597
7.2.3. Conceptual design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598
7.2.4. Engineering design for best possible solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599
7.2.5. Construction, testing and evaluation of a prototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599
7.2.6. Detailed design and its communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599
7.2.7. Production, quality testing and dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600
7.2.8. Field-testing and validation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600
7.2.9. Performance monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600
8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600

1. Introduction pollution (IAP); time and cost of obtaining fuel; risk of violence
against women and children gathering fuel in conflict areas;
In the era of spacecrafts, computers, and electronic gadgets, about consequent climate change and deforestation. Hence, in the “Bio-
2.6 billion people do not have access to clean cooking facilities; and if mass Cookstoves Technical Meeting” held on January 2011, the
predictions are believed the approximately same number will still be expert team on cookstove technologies set new benchmarks for ICS:
so in 2030 [1]. About 1.6 million people die prematurely per year; from “at least 90% emissions reductions and 50% fuel savings over
indoor air pollution, resulting from solid-fuel cooking; causing more baseline technology (three-stone fire)” [7].
than 2% of the whole world diseases (4% in the poorest nations) [2]. Currently more than 160 cook stove programmes are running
Cooking with solid biofuels also has a significant global impact on, in the world, across different nations [8]. Since 1970s, the
greenhouse gas and black carbon emissions, accounting for 1–3% of all laboratory, the field, and the policy aspects of biomass cookstoves
human generated global warming [3]. Venkataraman et al. concludes have been studied under ICS projects by many renowned research-
that, the solid biofuel combustion is the dominant source of global ers like Samuel Baldwin [9], Barnes, Smith [10,11], Prasad [12], and
black carbon emissions, with as much as 42% of total black carbon Bryden [13]. Numerous studies conducted by such researchers,
emissions in India [4]. The heavy dependence on biomass resources helped build a database regarding various issues related to
and their inefficient utilization can be a significant source of defor- cookstoves such as design, development, testing, materials, dis-
estation and resulting climate change, as observed in studies con- semination and field performance. Unfortunately, much of the
ducted independently, in six Tanzanian cities [5] and three urban literature is widely spread, and it is hard to get a good outline of
regions of Ethiopia [6]. the subject. This review paper is an effort to address the need for
As a solution to these global problems, energy and emission concise and simplified discourse; on scientific knowledge related
efficient ICSs can reduce: diseases, by decreasing indoor air to biomass cookstoves.
582 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603

2. Biomass cookstoves scientific studies, steadily evolved during the mid 1980s. During
this phase, a strong technical base for the cookstoves was laid
“Biomass cookstove” is a physical structure that contains air- because of heat transfer and fluid mechanics studies [9,12];
fuel combustion for heat release, and subsequently, directs the systematic testing and design procedures were also gradually
heat of combustion towards a cooking target (pot/pan/griddle). established [18,19]. A large number of ICS models were developed
Besides cooking, stoves provide useful energy for space/water and disseminated during this phase; with stove programmes in
heating, in-house lighting, fish/meat smoking, and grain/flour India and China being two major events. However Barnes et al.
roasting. The same device in many cultures, serves more than [10] conclude that the stove programmes executed between the
one of these functions. Modern cookstoves guarantee more than a 1980s and the early 1990s, were not much successful.
plain fire; features such as high efficiency, low emissions, and The “third phase”, of stove development, which began at the
safety of the user. According to the wide range of food habits, start of 1990s, shifted researchers' focus on the consumer needs,
socio-cultural factors, and fuel type available; there exist, no of such as smoke reduction in kitchens, user's safety, and conveni-
cookstove designs across the world whether traditional or ence in the stove use. The “third phase” combines additional
improved. environmental issues with the previous motivations of fuel sav-
ings. Single pot stoves without chimney or artisan made metal
2.1. Historic overview of biomass cookstoves stoves, were the major stove types developed and disseminated
during this period.
Cookstoves are as old as the human history. They have evolved Amongst important events during the recent past was the
in numerous shapes and sizes, made up of varied materials, and “Indian National Programme on Improved Chulhas” (NPIC), first as
adapted to different cultures and cuisines, with the advent of time. a demonstration programme from 1983 to 1984, then on a full-
fledged scale in 1985 [20,21]. It resulted in the development of
more than 60 stove designs and Over 35 million stoves dissemina-
2.1.1. Early history (time immemorial—1950) tion [22,23]. Another impact programme during this period was
Evidence is present, for the biomass fuel use within the caves of “The Chinese National Improved Stoves Programme” (NISP), which
Peking man as early as 500,000 years ago [14]. From ancient times, has been addressed as the “World's largest publicly financed
while styles and methods of cooking have developed, the “arche- initiative to improve stoves” [24]. Between 1982 and 1992, the
typal” stove, which is today's “traditional stove” or the “three- NISP introduced some 129 million improved biomass and coal
stone fire (TSF)” has been as it was formed, for around 12,000 stoves, in rural areas [25]. With more than 100 million cookstoves
years now [15]. The “archetypal” stove remains predominant in still used, NISP is one of the successful stove programmes [26].
the entire world up to the 18th century, and in the rural areas of
many developing countries even to date. It was by the Industrial
Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries that the modern cooking 2.1.3. The new millennium (2000—to date)
technologies began. A book published in 1802 (London): “Essays, In 2002, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) India
Political, Economical, and Philosophical” by Count Rumford, has deemed NPIC a failure, stopping funding to the programme, and
descriptions of research on fireplaces, ovens and boilers [16]. passing the responsibility to the states [20,23]. However, after
more than a decade of decline, the interest in household energy
2.1.2. The recent past (1950–2000) (and hence ICS) emerged again at the international level. In 2002,
In 1950s, the Gandhian organizations in India initiate the at the “World Summit on Sustainable Development” held in
process of biomass cookstove development, labeled the “classic Johannesburg, the “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA)
phase” by Kirk Smith; focusing mainly on the reduction of the launched the “Partnership for Clean Indoor Air”, to address the
smoke exposure in kitchens, with the introduction of chimney environmental health risk faced by people using traditional
stoves [16,17]. However, no scientific research and development of biomass fuels indoors. In another favorable development, the
the ICS took place until the late 1970s or the early 1980s. “Clean Development Mechanism” (CDM), in February 2008,
It was the 1970s' oil crisis, which made the world pay attention included cookstove programmes in their agenda under “smaller
to the energy issues; and as an answer to the fuel wood crisis and decentralized projects”, by revising the programmatic guide-
consequent deforestation, ICS received attention. Westhoff [15] lines [27]. Because of this, about 14 cookstove projects are
identifies the period between the 1970 and the 1980 as marking registered as “Programmes of Activities” with CDM as on May
the “first wave” of improved stove development. Then predictions 2013 [28]. In December 2009, rejuvenating the efforts of providing
to the effect that, high biofuel use will cause deforestation and clean cooking services to its people, the Government of India
escalated poverty; motivated the “first wave” or “energy phase” or launched, “The National Biomass Cook stove Initiative” (NBCI) with
“first phase” of stove development. The focus of designers in the goal “Our aim is to achieve the quality of energy services from
“energy phase” was on achieving fuel savings, through increased cookstoves comparable to that from other clean energy sources
efficiencies, with smoke reduction being a secondary issue [9,17]. such as LPG” [22]. In September 2010, the U.S. Department of State
It was during this period, that improved cookstove movement and EPA helped launch “The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves”
began in the Africa at Sahel, after the severe drought of the at New York. United Nations Foundation, comprising over 600
late 1970s. The Guatemala earthquake of 1976 in Central partners, is leading the alliance with the goal of creating the global
America introduced the ICSs to the region, especially, the “Lorena market for energy and emissions efficiency cookstoves, to solve
stove” [15]. The famous Aprovecho Research Center (ARC) multiple issues associated with the cookstove use. The Alliance’s
came to existence in 1976 with the aim of facilitating the rese- goal calls for 100 million homes to adopt “clean and efficient
arch, development, and dissemination of the clean cookstove stoves and fuels by 2020”.
technologies. Health and environmental concerns, in addition to fuel effi-
During 1980–1990, when the issues associated with the use of ciency are the main motivations of present day stove programmes.
traditional stoves such as women-empowerment, enhancement of However, as with the earlier phases, the majority of these have
livelihoods, and natural resource conservation gained interna- been unable to scale up significantly [29]. Even today, only 40% of
tional recognition, “phoenix” period or “second phase” of stove the people in developing countries have access to modern fuels for
development started [17]. Superior stove designs based on cooking [30]. Out of the people relying on solid-fuels for cooking in
 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603 583

Fig. 1. Percentage of people having access to ICS in some of the developing countries.n
Data Source: The energy access situation in developing countries: a review focusing on the least developed countries and sub-Saharan Africa [30].

developing countries, only 30% have access to ICSs [30]. In most of materials for serving the purpose. The goal of an ICS design is to
these nations, access to ICSs is available to less than one-fourth of improve upon the shortcomings of the traditional stoves, while
the people using solid-fuels (Fig. 1). However, access is much still ensuring lower cost and ease of use. A few common design
higher in some countries such as China, Thailand, and Brazil [30]. strategies are placing a fuel-grate under the burning fuel, provision
Instead of mixed results obtained so far; some 166 million ICSs are of low density and specific heat walls for enclosing fire, provision
still in use, as an inheritance of the efforts of all cookstove of a short internal chimney above the fire, designing properly sized
initiatives of the past [26]. channels for forcing heat into the pot, and use of insulation. There
exists a number of ICSs able to reduce emissions by 40–75%,
2.2. Classification of biomass cookstoves increase fuel efficiency by almost 30% [31,32] and reduce global
warming potential up to 40–60% [36]. The most famous categories
Fig. 2 shows a diagrammatic representation of biomass of ICS are “Rocket” stoves and Gasifier stoves.
cookstoves classification.
2.2.1.3. Advanced biomass stoves. Advanced biomass stoves (ABS)
2.2.1. Traditional versus improved and advanced cookstoves are recently developed, factory-manufactured cookstoves, based
2.2.1.1. Traditional cookstoves. Traditional stoves have developed on modern technical and product development research; and
over thousands of years, according to local culture and food standards that include higher efficiency, lower emissions, better
practices. These stoves are least costly, and the users are familiar safety and enhanced durability [22,26]. These next-generation
with their operation; and hence are widely accepted in society. cookstoves commonly have advanced features, such as induced
Traditional stoves are of two types, the first being “three-stone or forced airflow for cleaner burning. ABS, enables factory-based
fire”, a fire built directly on the ground using three stones, and production, undergoes thorough quality testing, and hence
placing a cooking target at the top. The main disadvantage of TSF is increases the possibility of accurate reproduction of the design
its low efficiency, however, did perform better compared to some in all the stoves. Although current ABS shows significant emissions
of the ICS in lab tests [31,32]. Laboratory investigations for TSF reductions over traditional stoves, LPG-like emission levels are yet
have shown moderate time to boil, high fuel consumption, high CO to reach [22]. Currently, there are two broad categories of
and PM emissions, and low thermal efficiency of about 20% ABSs available, Gasifier stoves with two-stage combustion and
[31,32]; beside this, TSF is the least safe stove, mainly because of the improved “Rocket” stoves with one-stage combustion.
exposed fire [31]. An example of “Rocket” stove type ABS are “Envirofit International’s
The second type of traditional stove is “Built-in stove” or “Mud- Family of Rocket Stoves” claiming to reduce fuel use by 60%, CO
stove”, which is a modification of the TSF. A “Built-in Stove” is a emissions by 60%, and black carbon by 40%. Another example is the
semi-permanent mud structure that encloses fire from at least ‘StoveTec’ from ARC which claims to use 40–50% less fuel, about half
three directions, other than the ground itself. Examples include the cooking time, and emitting 50–75% less smoke as compared to
chullah, angithi, and haroo in India [33]; traditional mogogo and TSF [26]. Gasifier type ABS models include “Oorja” and “Philips”
Jiko in Africa; and Plancha in central and south America [15,34,35]. stoves (India) [33,37,38].
Built-in stoves provide some advantages over TSF: enclosed fire
and hence reduction in radiation losses; restricted fuel feeding at a 2.2.2. Natural draft versus forced draft cookstoves
time, thereby limiting fuel use; and enclosed gas path, which Nearly all the earlier domestic cookstoves (Traditional and
lessens the entrainment of ambient air. However, reducing the Improved) were free convection driven. Free convective stoves
amount of primary air supply to the fuel can result in incomplete even now are inevitable because of low-cost and ease of manu-
combustion, leading to increase in IAP. The mud stove testing in facturing. However, the most promising among ICSs are forced
the laboratory have shown fast boiling, high CO/PM emissions, draft or fan-operated stoves. Stoves equipped with fans create
average thermal efficiency of about 29%, and moderate safety high-velocity air jets that mix fuel, air, and flame. Cookstoves with
rating, mainly, because of enclosed fire [31]. fans not only reduce emissions through improved combustion, but
also improve heat transfer to the cooking vessel.
2.2.1.2. Improved cookstoves. The “Improved Cookstove” is a While most stoves were of free convective type, Reed and
cookstove designed using certain scientific principles, to assist Larson [39] built a fan based stove in 1996 from an earlier version
better combustion and heat transfer, for improving emissions and described in La Fontaine and Reed [40]. Initially, these stoves were
efficiency performance; it may also utilize modern construction economically unaffordable, partly due to the high cost of the fan
584 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603

Traditional Cookstoves

On the basis of use of Technology

Improved/ Advanced Cookstoves

Natural Draft Cookstoves

On the basis of type of Draft used
Forced Draft Cookstoves

Direct Combustion type Cookstoves

On the basis of Combustion type
Gasifier type Cookstoves

Domestic Cookstoves
On the basis of Application type
Community Cookstoves

Mono-function Cookstoves
On the basis of Purpose served
Multi- functions Cookstoves
Biomass
Cookstove
Cookstoves with Chimney
On the basis of Chimney use
Cookstoves without Chimney

Portable Cookstoves
On the basis of Portability
Fixed Cookstoves

Mud Cookstoves

Metallic Cookstoves

Cement Cookstoves
On the basis of construction
Materials Ceramic Cookstoves

Hybrid Cookstoves

Fuel-wood Cookstoves

Charcoal Cookstoves

Agri-residue Cookstoves
On the basis of Fuel type used
Dung cake Cookstoves

Miscellaneous and Multi-fuel Cookstoves

Fig. 2. Classification of biomass cookstoves.

and the power to operate the fan; however, these problems solves performance [41]; particularly, a “side feed fan stove” by
with the availability of computer-based fans at relatively low price ARC [42]. A study performed by Witt [43] on fan stoves: “Gusto
and use of the thermo-electric generator. In studies performed Wood Flame stove”, “Tom Reed Woodgas”, and “the Witt Alpha
by ARC, the forced draft stoves in comparison to natural draft Prototype”, indicates on average reduction in fuel use by 40%; in
stoves consumed on average 37% less fuel, emit 80% less CO and CO by 75% and in PM by about 90%; as compared to TSF. In Gasifier
negligible PM [31]. fan stove category, we have “Oorja” and “Philips” stoves from India
Both, “Rocket” and Gasifier stoves use a fan. Some fan operated [33,37,38]. Some drawbacks of existing fan-operated stoves are
“Rocket” stove has shown very good efficiency and emission poor controllability, longer time to ignite, inability to perform long
 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603 585

unattended cooking, need of electric supply/battery and high Champier et al. [49] studied a modern-day multi-function
capital cost. cookstove, coupled with a thermo-electric generator, which will
provide light, and electricity for electronic devices, apart from
2.2.3. Direct combustion type versus gasifier type cookstoves cooking. There is another category of modern-day multi-function
2.2.3.1. Direct combustion type cookstoves. Combustion is the stoves: Gasifier cookstoves producing biochar. Biochar is a
process, where the fuel burns with air to release chemical energy charcoal-like byproduct of the gasification process, which can
stored in it. The majority of the stoves is a direct combustion type of increase agricultural productivity by retaining water and nutrients
stoves, where solid-fuel burns directly. The most famous amongst in soil, and protecting soil microbes. Whitman and Lehmann [50]
direct combustion stove is design of Larry Winiarski at ARC: the were first to propose the use of cookstoves for the biochar
popular “Rocket stove” [13]. The “Rocket stove” design is available for production, as a mean of mitigating climate change. The first-
last 30 years, and according to estimates about a half million “Rocket generation pyrolytic cookstoves in Kenya use crop residues, shrub
stoves” are in use worldwide [36]. In several studies “Rocket stoves” and tree waste as a fuel; and reduce fuel use by 27% over
have proven their mettle, as the best amongst the category, and traditional cookstoves, while yielding useful biochar [51,52].
sometimes even better than Gasifier stoves [31,32,38]. Examples of Sparrevik et al. tested TLUD stoves for simultaneous cooking and
“Rocket” type direct combustion stoves are “Envirofit International’s biochar production, in Zambia [53].
Family of Rocket Stoves”; ‘StoveTec’ and “Side Feed Fan Stove” from
ARC [26,42] (see Section 2.2.1 and Section 2.2.2). The “Gusto Wood 2.2.5. Domestic versus institutional type cookstoves
Flame Stove” in North America is another example [43]. Domestic cookstove can meet the cooking needs of a family
(about five or six members). All the stove models discussed so far
2.2.3.2. Gasifier type cookstoves. In the gasifier stove, combustion are of domestic type.
takes place in two stages. In the first stage, the fuel burns to release On the contrary, institutional or community cookstoves serve
gases; in the second stage at the upper side of the stove, air mixes, and for large-scale cooking finding application in restaurants, hostels,
burns these gases. La Fontaine and Reed [40] in 1996 developed a free schools, religious places, etc. Most of the community stoves at
convection based Gasifier stove, ‘Woodgas’; subsequently the forced present are inefficient three stone stoves. Early versions of com-
convection version of it with a 3-W blower, the “Turbo Stove” [44,45]. munity or institutional stoves were “Kesari-200” (India) [54] and
The gasifier stoves are also available with and without fan. A quite “Institutional Coal-Saving Cookstove” (China) [48]. There are many
popular Gasifier-blower type stove is “Philips” stove by Royal Philips institutional models developed particularly in Nepal, for example,
Electronics of the Netherlands, which can burn the short piece of “ESAP Model Two Pot Hole” stove [16]. In India, institutional
wood; about 10 cm in length [38]. Jetter et al. found that the “Philips version of “Oorja” stove suitable for restaurants, canteens and
model HD4010”, a gasifier-blower stove, reduced CO and PM hostels are commercially available under the brand name “Oorja
emissions in the laboratory by 90% relative to TSF [32]. Kar et al. Jumbo” [55]. A large no of the institutional “Rocket” stove are in
discovered that “Philips” stove reduced black carbon emissions in the use in Kenyan schools [56], Malawi [57] and Uganda [58].
field by 77% than a traditional, mud cookstove [46]. “Philips” stoves are
available with a controllable electric fan, powered by a rechargeable 2.2.6. Chimney stoves versus stoves without chimney
battery or thermo-electric generator. Another famous version of the A chimney is used to remove smoke from the stove combustion
forced draft gasifier stove is “Oorja” with high efficiency over 35% and chamber and away from the user. Attaching this vertical structure
low CO emissions [38]. “Oorja” is available only in rechargeable battery to the stove generally ensures, a rapid air movement through the
version. stove, leading to better combustion and reduced IAP. However,
Natural draft versions of gasifier stoves include “Vesto” (Swazi- chimney stoves are less efficient, and expensive (due to chimney).
land) [47], “Champion”, “Karve” and “Sampada” (India) [38,16]. In addition, chimney requires maintenance, as blocking of unclean
There are different models of gasifier cookstoves in operation in chimney from the soot reduces stove’s draft. Monitoring groups in
countries such as China and Philippines [47]. Jetter et al. tested India after some years of stove installation observed, the mean
some of the popular natural draft gasifier stoves: “Philips model performance of chimney stove “astra” being much lower than
HD4008”, “Sampada”, and “Mayon Turbo Stove 7000”; and calculate expected [59]. Some of the most popular chimney types of stoves
approximate efficiency of 35%, 27%, and 28.5%, respectively [38]. are “Uganda 2-pot” (Uganda), “Patsari” (Mexico); “Justa” and
Gasifier stoves generally are quick-heated, energy and emissions “Ecostove” (Central America); and “Onil” (Guatemala) [31,32],
efficient, lightweight, portable, and produce biochar. However, most of which are griddle stoves. According to studies by ARC,
gasifier stoves are costly, batch feed, slow to ignite and fuel specific, the chimney-stoves are slower to boil and consume more fuel,
making them very useful in those situations, but unsuitable in most although a chimney removes almost 99% of the emissions from the
other places. The gasifier stoves though commercialized, are yet to kitchen [31].
scale up.
2.2.7. Fixed versus portable cookstoves
2.2.4. Mono-function versus multi-function cookstoves Metallic and ceramic ICSs suitable for indoor or outdoor move-
A mono-function stove serves a single purpose; such as cooking, ment are portable in nature. In hot developing countries, during
water/space heating, fish/meat smoking, baking, milk simmering, summer, cooking takes place in the courtyard to reduce the
grain/flour roasting, etc. Most of the stoves are of a mono function additional heat from the stove; and in winter, inside the home, to
type. Multi-function or multipurpose stoves, apart from cooking, can keep the space warm [33]. In Northern India, traditional portable
also serve additional purposes such as water heating, space heating, mud stove “Uthaao chullah” is a primary cooking device [33]. All
simmering of milk, fish or meat smoking, roasting and production of modern ABSs (discussed in Section 2.2.1), such as Gasifier and
light or Biochar. Due to cold weather in China, there exists many ICS “Rocket” stoves are also portable in nature.
for cooking and simultaneous space heating from early stages, for Most of the mud stoves, multi-pot stoves, and chimney stoves
example “Domestic Fuel-Saving Heating Stove” (1991) and “Model LX are generally heavier to move; and are of fixed type. Earlier
Cooking/Heating Coal Stove” [48]. Similarly, in cold regions of Pakistan, versions of fixed cookstoves were “Abhinav”, “Akash” and “Alok”
some cookstoves like “Bukhari”, MA-II and I; are in use for cooking and (India) [54]; and “Model PT High-Efficiency Composite Stove” and
space heating [16]. “Model FL Series Fuel-Saving Composite Stove” (China) [48]. The
586 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603

recent versions are “Uganda 2-pot” (Uganda), “Patsari” (Mexico); are of hybrid type where the combustion chamber is of ceramic
“Justa” and “Ecostove” (Central America); and “Onil” (Guatemala) material, and the outer body is metallic, for example “StoveTec”
[31,32]. Fixed type of stoves is further sub-divided based on the [26], “Philips Power Stove HD4012” [32], “Oorja” [37], and “Side
number of potholes; examples are single pothole stove, “Grih- Feed Fan Stove” from ARC [42].
laxmi” (India); double pothole stove, “Onil” and “Uganda-2-pot”;
and triple pothole stove, “astra” [31,81]. 2.2.9. Fuel wood, charcoal, agri-residue, dung cake and other fuel
cookstoves
2.2.8. Mud, ceramic, metallic, cement, and hybrid cookstoves 2.2.9.1. Fuel wood ICS. Wood fuel is the principal source of
2.2.8.1. Mud stoves. These stoves use local organic construction household energy in developing countries [65]. A majority of
materials such as clay, sand, mica, straw, grass, sawdust, or dung. ICSs uses wood as a fuel. Widely used stoves in this category is
Typically, the mixture consists of soil/clay and organic binding the “6-brick rocket stove”, used in refugee camps in Africa [32];
material, with dung for extra adhesion. There are many traditional “WFP Rocket stove” developed by ARC, “Envirofit G-3300 Stove”,
and improved cookstove designs varying in local materials used, “Philips models HD4008 and HD4012”, “Sampada” gasifier stove,
number of potholes provided, chimney use, etc. Most of the earliest “StoveTec Greenfire Wood Stove”, “Berkeley–Darfur Stove” [32,38],
models from Indian sub-continent were mud stoves, for example and the VITA stove designed by Dr. Baldwin [31].
“Improved Single Mouth Cooking Stove” (1982-Bangladesh) and
“Anagi” (1986-Sri Lanka) [16]. Recent examples of mud stoves are 2.2.9.2. Charcoal ICS. A large fraction of urban populations in the
“Improved Clay Stove” (Darfur) [60], “Rocket mud stove” (Uganda) [61] developing countries relies on charcoal for cooking. Africa
and “mud stove by Escorts Foundation” (Pakistan) [16]. Custom-built produces about half of the world’s charcoal, to use as a domestic
mud stoves in India are “Astra” and “Parvati” [62]. fuel in much of the eastern and northern regions [5,65]. Some of
Mud stoves are the cheapest type of stoves available, after the the countries, like Thailand in Asia, consume charcoal extensively
TSF. However, mud stoves are insects damage prone, weather, and as a household fuel; however, in Latin America, charcoal is not a
overfeeding of fuel; hence need higher maintenance, and serve for major household fuel [65]. There are many cookstove models
a lifespan of usually one-two years only [20]. developed exclusively for charcoal burning. Widely used models
in Africa are “Kenyan Charcoal Jiko” [38], “Mali Charcoal” (Mali),
2.2.8.2. Ceramic stoves. Ceramic stoves also use clay, sand, mica, “Gyapa Charcoal” (Ghana) [31], “UCODEA charcoal stove” (Uganda)
straw, grass, sawdust combined with organic binding materials. and “Lakech” stove (Ethiopia) [32]. Laura Clough [61] tested many
The difference in mud stoves and the ceramic stoves is that the African charcoal stoves, to calculate average efficiency of 34%, with
ceramic stoves are ablaze in a high temperature kiln resulting in better a reduction in fuel use up to 71% and in IAP up to 85% (over TSF);
durability, insulation, and finish. Some examples include the “Mogogo” though some charcoal stove exhibits a reverse trend.
and “Maendaleo” (East Africa) [60]. All modern ceramic stoves have
metal cladding, over the ceramic body, for protection purpose; for 2.2.9.3. Crop residues ICS. In regions where wood fuel is scarce,
examples “Lakech charcoal stove” (Ethiopia) [6], “New Lao Stove” crop residue is an important source of cooking fuel. Crop residue
(Cambodia); “Gyapa”, “Uhai” and “Ceramic Jiko” (Kenya); and includes seasonally available materials like stalk, straw, husk, pod,
“StoveTec Prototype Charcoal Stove” [31,61]. Ceramic stoves are cobs, shell, and leaves of various crops. There are some gasifier
more robust than mud stoves, if ablaze correctly. However, Ceramic stoves exclusively designed for burning crop residues, like “TN
stoves are costly and difficult to construct than the mud stoves, require Orient JXQ-10” (China) that burns straw and other biomass
maintenance, and have limited flexibility for different pot sizes. residues; rice husk burning stoves like “BMC Rice Husk Gas
Stove” (Philippines), “MJ Rice Husk Gas Stove” (Indonesia),
2.2.8.3. Metallic stoves. These are the stoves constructed from steel, “Mayon Turbo Stove 7000” (The Philippines and The Gambia)
sheet metal, or heavy metals like cast iron. The metallic stoves include and “Models 150 and 250” (Vietnam) [47]. “Jinqilin CKQ-80I Stove”
“Domestic Metal Stove” (Jumla), a special purpose stove designed for from China uses corncobs as primary fuel [38].
high altitude cooking in Nepal; and “Bukhari”, MA-II and I [16]. Some
recent metallic stoves include the “Vesto” [60], “Envirofit G-3300 2.2.9.4. Dung cake ICS. There are many regions, where people use
Stove”, “Philips Natural Draft Stove HD4008”, “Berkeley-Darfur Stove”, animal dung as fuel for cookstoves, in absence of sufficient
VITA stove [31], “metallic Jiko” (Africa) [32]; “Vikram”, “Harsha”, and quantities of wood. Cow dung is a major cooking fuel in North
“Magh stove” (India) [63,64]. India along with agro-residues or fuel wood [63,37], and there
Metallic stoves are lightweight, portable, quick heating, dur- exist exclusively dung cake consuming traditional stove for milk
able, require little maintenance, and are available in many models simmering, called “Hara” [20]. However, exclusively dung specific
in different colors. Disadvantages are prone to corrosion, the risk ICS has not been designed yet.
of burns, and are costliest.
2.2.9.5. Miscellaneous and multi fuel types ICS. Some stoves in India,
2.2.8.4. Cement stoves. There are many ICS models constructed of uses loose biomass as a fuel; such as sawdust in “Vivek” and
cement. Some of the earliest models include “WS Fuel-Saving metallic “tube stove”; and leafy biomass in gasifier type
Composite Stove” from china [48]; and the “Laxmi” stove from “Pulverised fuel stove” [16,66]. Loose biomass is pelletized for
India which was originally a mud stove, however, in the later years use in some stoves, like “Oorja” [37] or briquetted as in Chinese
of the NPIC, cement versions of such stoves were launched; other “TLUD Daxu Stove” [47]. China designed a number of coal and
examples include “Astra” and “Priya” stoves [54]. The “Mirt” stove, coal-briquette burning stoves from mid 1980s to early 1990s [48].
made from cement and pumice in Ethiopia since early 1990s, have Traditional cookstoves can burn multiple fuels like wood, crop
reported life span of eight years with the fuel efficiency of up to residue and dung cakes. To fulfill the same purpose researchers
40% over the TSF [6]. designed some multi-fuel stoves. Earlier versions of fixed cookstoves
like “Abhinav”, “Akash” and “Alok”, (India) were all multi-fuel types of
2.2.8.5. Hybrid stoves. These modern prefabricated stoves use stoves [54]. In modern stoves, “Vesto” (Swaziland) and the “Magh-3G”
more than one type of materials like mud, cement, metal or (India) are designed to burn all types of biomass for cooking [47].
ceramic. Almost all modern charcoal stoves [6,31,61] and ABSs Cambodians use “NLS” (New Lao Stove), originally designed for
 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603 587

Table 1
Additional important information on the cookstove testing protocols.

Protocol and Equipments and Parameters measured Important parameters determined/ Salient features
type materials used calculated

WBT 4.1.2 Weighing scale Time Fuel consumed  Everything except stove type is under control
(Lab) Thermometer Temperature of water, air Water boiled and vaporized  Useful for design phase and for stove comparison
Moisture meter Air relative humidity Time to boil and simmer purpose
Timer Weight of pot Thermal efficiency  Quick, simple and reproducible
Standard pot(s) Weight of fuel Burning rate  Do not predict stove utilization pattern or user
Water Weight of Specific fuel consumption satisfaction or adoption of cookstove
charcoal þcontainer  Not suitable for predicting performance in rea
Fuel Local boiling point Firepower and Turn down ratio l household
Flue gas analyzer Dimensions of fuel Net change in char weight
Wood moisture content Carbon concentration
Pressure, Hood flow rate Emissions /liter of water
CO, PM, CO2 Mass emission factors

CCT 2.0 (Lab) Weighing scale Time of cooking Weight of food cooked  Useful for stove comparison purpose
Thermometer Temperature of air Weight of char remaining  Determines best possible in real households,
Moisture meter Weight of fuel used Fuel consumed but not what is achieved in real stove use
Timer Weight of potþ cooked Specific fuel consumption  Do not predict stove utilization pattern or user
food satisfaction and adoption of cookstove
Standard pot(s) Weight of Total cooking time
charcoal þcontainer
Food Local boiling point
Fuel Dimensions of fuel
Fuel moisture content

HTP (Lab) Weighing scale Time Fuel consumed, Time to boil  Test the stoves using the range of pots and fuels
Moisture meter Temperature of water Thermal efficiency  Better to assess different fuel/stove combinations
Timer Weight of water and fuel Burning rate  Not suitable for predicting actual household
Water Wood moisture content Specific fuel consumption performance
Different pots CO, CO2 Firepower, Turn down ratio
Different fuels Emissions/liter of water
Flue gas analyzer CO/CO2 ratio

KPT 3.0 (Field) Pots and other Daily fuel consumed Daily fuel use  Useful during actual stove dissemination process
cooking utensils Fuel in stock everyday Fuel use per capita  Assess the actual impact on fuel use, stove
Moisture meter Daily fuel collected Daily energy use utilization patterns and user satisfaction
Fuel moisture content Energy use per capita  Unable to measure efficiency and cooking time
No of people in  Uncertain measurements
household

UCT (Field) Weighing scale Time of cooking Weight of food cooked  Covers a more no of variables
Timer Weight of fuel used Fuel consumed and burn rate  Quick assessment of single meal stove use
Household pot(s) Weight of potþ cooked Specific fuel consumption  A type of lab test and not totally suitable for real
food performance check
Food Weight of charcoal Total cooking time
Fuel Local boiling point Total Energy Consumed
Dimensions of fuel Energy consumption rate

BCT (Field þ Weighing scale Time Nominal combustion efficiency  Provides opportunities to close the gap
Lab) Thermometer CO, CO2 emissions rate Burn cycles for daily cooking between lab and field
Moisture meter Temperature of water Fuel consumed  Standardized while matching local circumstances
Timer Weight of pot, Weight of Water boiled & vaporized
fuel
Water, Fuel Weight of charcoal þ Time to boil & simmer
container
Flue gas analyzer Local boiling point Thermal efficiency
Emission hood Wood moisture content Burning rate, Fire power
Local pot(s) Hood flow rate Specific fuel consumption

SUMs (Field) Temperature sensors Temperature changes Stove utilization pattern  Able to measure emission & stove utilizati
CO sensors CO concentrations Emissions pattern on pattern
PM sensors PM concentrations  Unable to predict efficiency, cooking time, fuel use,
firepower and user satisfaction

burning wood and charcoal, for burning garment waste from factories 2.3.1. Skirts
as well [32]. A skirt is a simple metallic ring that is slightly larger in
diameter than the pot, and surrounds it circumferentially. Mac-
Carty et al. in their study on fifty cooking stoves concludes that,
2.3. Supplementary cooking accessories the use of a pot skirt can lead to reduction in fuel use and
emissions, by 25–30% [67]. However, whether a skirt will be
These accessories improve efficiency and emission perfor- effective or not, is not a straightforward issue. It may be effective
mance of an ICS. under certain conditions, while being ineffective in others, as has
588 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603

been observed experimentally [68–70]. The famous ‘StoveTec’ and the other two. Lee et al. [82] have given a good comparison of these
‘Envirofit’ models come with a metal skirts [71]. three testing methods, based on different parameters.

2.3.2. Haybox or retained heat cookers 3.1. Laboratory tests

Haybox or “Retained heat cooker” is a container insulated with
grass, straw, cloth or banana leaves; and has a tightly fitting lid. Laboratory testing is a type of “Controlled test” [83], intended
The use-procedure involves; bringing a cooking pot with food to a to provide repeatable and reproducible results. The main char-
boil, and allowing simmering for a few minutes; then taking the acteristics tested in the laboratory are performance characteristics
pot off the stove, to place it into the haybox to cover by the lid. The such as combustion quality and emissions, thermal efficiency and
insulated and airtight box holds the heat in the boiling pot, and heat transfer, power range, safety and durability. Laboratory
the food cooks without consuming additional fuel. Haybox in testing is suitable to identify areas of poor performance, and to
addition to providing higher efficiency allows for unattended determine the effect of a design alteration on the performance.
cooking. Hayboxes are portable, and easy to make. However, it is These tests are easier, quicker, and less costly to conduct; however,
suitable only for long duration, slow-cooking foods (legumes and disclose only the performance of a stove under controlled condi-
grains); and training, and practice are required for successful use. tions, and not what stove achieves in real household situation.
The ICS model “Save80” from Africa, come with a Styrofoam
haybox. Don O’Neal [72] has given a detailed guideline of design-
3.1.1. Water boiling test (WBT)
ing haybox or “Retained Heat Cookers”.
This is a lab-based test, designed to explore the basic features
of stove performance under controlled setting. It is also useful in
2.3.3. Customized pots
the field, to determine whether the stove building is as per design
Customized pot is a pot designed, especially for use with a
criteria or not. Many organizations all over the world have used
particular ICS model, to achieve higher energy efficiency. The
revised VITA-1985 WBT protocols, for example, WBT versions of
customized pot maximizes stove performance, at the same time
NPIC and NISP [48,54]. The WBT test protocol, which is originally
ensuring ease of use. Several special-purpose customized pots like
for wood stoves, is also suitable for charcoal stoves with some
“sloped-sided pot”, “finned pot”, “super pot”, and “Off Fire Reboil-
modifications [31,32,70]. In 2003, WBT was revised to include
ing pot” have shown efficiency enhancement along with ICS
“Excel spreadsheets” to help users with calculations [84]. Recently,
[60,73–75]. While customized pots increase the heat transfer
the latest version of WBT, Version 4, was open for public comment,
significantly, the question of making a customized pot at afford-
and was still under review. A corrected version of the WBT data
able cost remains unanswered.
calculation spreadsheet 4.1.2 is now available [85]. The WBT
protocol consists of the three phases: “High power cold start”,
2.3.4. Thermo-electric generators “High power hot start” and “Low power”. Results from the first
Modern ABSs uses a fan that needs a power source, and a two phases are useful to find the difference in stove performance,
promising option is the thermo-electric generator (TEG) (although from the cold and hot start. Similarly, results of last two phases are
some stoves use chargeable battery) [37]. TEG is able to harness a useful to find the difference in stove performance, between low
stove’s temperature gradient, to produce power on demand for fan power and high power operation. Features like simplicity, ease of
use; and use a small fraction of the stove’s thermal energy for the conduction and quick to do procedures make WBT most widely
purpose. An economic analysis indicated a smaller payback period used testing protocol; accounting for 73% of all the tests performed
for use of TEG in cookstoves, compared to the batteries [76]. The on cookstoves [86]. However, controlled conditions and perfor-
“Philips Model HD4010” is equipped with a TEG [32]. Several other mance by trained technicians gives only a gross estimate of actual
researchers are working on the development of TEG for biomass household cooking, and is not useful to predict field performance.
cookstoves [77–79]. Taylor [87] gives a detailed discussion of the shortcomings of WBT.
One of the largest obstacles to the acceptance of clean stoves is Table 1 provides additional important information for the protocol.
that, they do not give off the light unlike traditional stoves; and Jean-François Rozis [88] proposes, “The Comparative Water
TEG can solve this problem. Initial testing and calculations by Boiling Test” (CWBT); a version of WBT modified for the cambo-
researchers have shown that, the TEG is a feasible and relatively dian cooking habits. CWBT aims at duplicating the actual cooking
cheap solution for obtaining light from the stove [49,80]. conditions as closely as possible, but is useful only for comparing
the fuel savings potential of different cookstoves, under similar-
3. Protocols for biomass cookstove testing use conditions. CWBT is simple; require minimum equipment,
easy to conduct in the field, and use simplified calculations. Two
Standard cook stove testing protocols are developing from the last fuel specific versions are available for wood and charcoal.
thirty years. Testing is helpful for comparing stove models of different
genres, gaining in-depth knowledge of the different stove design 3.1.2. Controlled cooking test (CCT)
parameter; and understanding the processes of combustion, fluid This is an “Efficacy test”, [83] to evaluate cookstove perfor-
mechanics, and heat transfer inside the stove. Theodorovic was the mance in a controlled situation, using locally available fuels, pots;
first person, to conduct laboratory tests on biofuel burning stoves in and prevailing cooking practices. CCT also takes place under
Egypt, in 1954; followed by Singer, in Indonesia in 1961, on the fixed controlled settings to use the stove to its best potential, but while
mud stove [81]. To standardize cookstove performance testing meth- cooking real meals in actual households. The test measures the
ods, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) quantity of fuel used, while the real cook prepares a simple meal
arranged a number of workshops, in 1982 [18]. Volunteers in Technical on the stove. The CCT is a more suitable lab based stove testing
Assistance (VITA) led the efforts, resulting in the three protocols for the method, for predicting real household performance. The test
cookstove performance testing: water boiling test (WBT), kitchen reveals the best possible performance of the stove in households,
performance test (KPT), and controlled cooking test (CCT). VITA but not what is actually achievable in the field. The CCT as well
publication released in 1985, remains the most popular text for evolved from the previous efforts of VITA International Standards
cookstove testing, until recently [19]. WBT and its variations have for stove efficiency [19]. However, the modified CCT protocols are
become a well-liked standard for cookstove testing, as compared to now increasingly used for stove testing [46,56,60,71,89–94]. CCT,
 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603 589

which acts as a bridge between WBT and KPT, accounts for 12% of More increasingly, researchers are also using emission sensors, for
all the tests performed on cookstoves [86]. Table 1 provides monitoring CO and PM. This method is suitable to replace survey
additional important information for the protocol. methods, for determining reliable estimates of stove utilization.
These devices have enabled and simplified; the systematic data
3.1.3. Heterogeneous testing protocol (HTP) collection of the critical stove parameters. SUMs can measure the
In real households, the normal practice is to use multiple pot temperature and emissions concentration changes over a period,
sizes with same stove, and to operate the stove at different store it in the memory of the data logger, and transmit wirelessly.
firepower as per the cooking needs. However, the use of different The temperature profile of the cook stove is prepared from the
pot sizes and firepower variations, which change the flow pattern data obtained from SUMs, to establish stove utilization patterns.
inside the stove, lead to variations in emissions concentration as SUMs are relatively cheap, reliable, accurate, safe, and easy to
well. Hence, the University of Johannesburg, SeTAR Centre, devel- install and maintain. Using SUMs Zuk et al. studied the impact of
ops a laboratory testing protocol called “Heterogeneous Testing “Patsari stove” on fine PM concentrations in rural Mexican homes,
Protocol”; that requires each stove to perform realistic cooking and calculated reduction in PM concentrations by 71% near the
tasks, at three different power levels; using the range of pots and stove and 58% in the kitchen [100]. A similar study conducted in
fuels [95]. India, one year after the “Sukhad” stoves installations in Bundelk-
While testing the same stove with the WBT and the HTP [96], hand region, identifies a reduction in CO concentrations of 70%
parameters like efficiency and time to boil shows similar results; and in PM concentrations of 44% [101].
however, there are fine differences in the objective of the methods. Many types of sensors, including UCB particle and temperature
The HTP aims to evaluate the stove parameters, for a range of sensors, electrochemical CO sensor, low-cost temperature loggers,
conditions, whereas, the WBT measures the same parameters, when LED using sensors, photoelectric sensor; and miniaturized aerosol
performing a single task. While testing the same stove by both the filter Sampler (MAS) with a cell phone are used as SUMs [33,102–
methods, the researchers found differences in other parameters such 106]. On 9th April, 2010, three companies ‘BioLite’, “Electronically
as firepower, fuel burn rate, specific fuel consumption, and turn down Monitoring Ecosystems”, and “Berkeley Air Monitoring Group”,
ratio [96]. The HTP claims to better assess different fuel/stove along with the “Sri Ramachandra University in Chennai” (India)
combinations, than WBT; however, it is also a type of lab test and is secured first place in “The second annual Wireless Innovation
not much popular for stove evaluation [86]. Project” by The “Vodafone Americas Foundation and mHealth
Alliance” [107]. Although SUMs are getting popular among stove
researchers, they can only measure stove utilization pattern and
3.2. Field tests
emissions; and not the other crucial parameters such as efficiency,
fuel consumption, etc. Burwen and Levine [108] conducted a trial
By itself, laboratory testing is inappropriate for verifying real-world
of ICS, in rural Ghana along with SUMs to quantify changes in fuel
performance of cookstoves. Real users do not use a stove in a
use, exposure to smoke, and self-reported health benefits.
controlled, repeatable, and reproducible scientific way. In a study on
some traditional and ICSs, Roden et al. [97] found that, field measured
PM for actual cooking were three times, those measured during
simulated cooking in the laboratory. Hence, it is necessary to test a 3.2.3. Uncontrolled cooking test (UCT)
stove in real household situation. Field-testing providing a kind of The UCT, which measures performance for single events,
reality check on the stove performance is an essential requirement of evaluates performance of the cookstove for a type of meal,
modern cookstove programmes. These “Effectiveness tests” [83] can operated according to the locally prevailing cooking practice.
be extremely useful, mainly in the early stages of stove diffusion. Researchers take the readings of fuel used and the food cooked
However, such tests are expensive, difficult, and time taking. only, while the user prepares a dish of his/her choice. The UCT is a
low-cost, rapid, and more cost-effective method, to produce less
3.2.1. Kitchen performance test (KPT) varied data set than the KPT. However, it is not a widely used field
The kitchen performance test (KPT) is a type of field test, carried test, by the researchers [86]; however, Robinson et al. conducted
out in actual kitchens. Through KPT, researchers assess the actual 29 UCTs in the rural area of northern Mozambique for wood-
effect of ICS on household fuel use; and study qualitative stove burning TSF [109]. The University of Johannesburg, SeTAR Centre,
performance aspects, through household surveys. Researchers conduct develops the UCT. Compared to CCT, the UCT studies more
KPTs generally during the actual stove dissemination process, with variables like food type and mass, fuel quantity and its moisture
actual users cooking on the stoves as usual. The KPT as well has content, cooking time and user’s way of operation [109].
evolved, from the previous efforts of VITA International Standards for
stove efficiency [19]. Since then, it has undergone relatively little
change, although efforts are going on to improve the test 3.2.4. Burning cycle test (BCT)
[81,89,92,93,98]. In a study conducted by Granderson et al. in Johnson et al. suggests performance criteria called burning
Guatemalan Highlands, although other studies have shown the cycle test (BCT), which consists of measuring emission rates and
“Plancha stove” to be very effective in reducing IAP, the KPT indicates “nominal combustion efficiency ratio” (the fraction of fuel carbon
that it offered no benefits with respect to fuel use [99]. emitted as CO2), during daily burn cycles in a real household [110].
KPT, when conducted carefully, provides the best hint of how the Subsequently, the BCT involves conducting lab tests; using similar
stove will perform in the real household scenario. However, it is one of fuel type and composition; to recreate the distribution of emis-
the most challenging ways to test a stove, as it interferes with user’s sions rates and combustion efficiencies (and hence the field burn
daily activities; and hence used by fewer researchers [86]. In addition, cycles). The protocol is useful to conduct stove testing during the
the measurements taken are more uncertain, due to error prone design phase, by comparing alterations with the previous itera-
nature of real kitchens conditions as compared to the lab settings. tions of the stove. The BCT provides opportunities to close the gap
between lab and field; standardized while matching local circum-
3.2.2. Stove use monitors (SUMs) stances. BCT assists in promoting development, of stoves with
This is a new development, installing electronic temperature higher combustion and heat transfer efficiencies, while enabling
data loggers inside the cookstoves, in order to monitor stove use. preliminary emissions estimates of greenhouse gases [110].
590 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603

3.3. Other stove testing protocols performance. Hence, it will be appropriate to compare different
stove designs with the help of some common protocol to evaluate
Means [111] proposes a new approach of cookstove durability relative merits and demerits. For the purpose a biomass cookstove
testing (CDT), to conduct systematic tests under controlled lab-settings is characterized by the combustion type, fuel type, draft type,
and in the field, to predict the life of different stove components under combustion chamber type, feed type, use of chimney and that of
actual use. The CDT proposes to test various physical stove compo- any type of cooking accessories (as discussed in Section 2.3).
nents like grates, coatings, and other metallic parts. Test like CDT, is In addition, safety ratings and cost of different models are also
much required in view of reports, that concern for ICS durability is one given in Table 2. These 31 stoves fell under eight main categories:
of the major reasons impeding efficient adoption of ICS [112]. MNRE traditional stoves without combustion chambers (TS), wood burn-
India recommends durability criteria for the combustion unit: “to last ing stoves without chimney (WSWC), wood-burning stoves with
for at least 10,000 cycles, with a performance degradation of less than chimneys (WSC), rocket-type stoves (RS), charcoal-burning stoves
1% per 1000 cycles” [113]. (CS), gasifier stoves without fan (GS), gasifier stoves with fan (GSF),
Cookstove safety is another matter, generally not given and direct combustion forced draft stove (FD).
expected attention. Stoves may possibly cause severe burns, scalds In Table 3 are given results of WBTs performed on different
from hot liquids/food, and cuts from sharp metallic edges. cookstove models from two different sources. A comparison of
In extreme cases, stoves may cause loss of property by setting results between earlier WBTs performed by these two agencies
the house on fire. Initial phases of stove development must (EPA and ARC) has shown a good agreement and shown that the
eliminate these undesirable possibilities. Johnson [114] has given results for WBT are replicable for the same stove and fuel tested at
detailed safety guidelines and testing procedures, for the evalua- different locations [32,67]. Plotting the data collected for different
tion of injury risk from a cookstoves; furthermore given are safety parameters like firepower, time to boil, specific energy consump-
ratings for various cookstoves. tion, thermal efficiency, CO emissions, and PM emissions; some
interesting graphical results are obtained. Following key point are
observed from the graphical results obtained from comparison of
4. Comparison of energy and emissions performance these 31 cookstoves:
for different biomass cookstoves
1. Firepower is energy released by fuel combustion per second.
As already discussed, there are several types of cookstoves Many foods require low power simmering after initial high
available, different in type, construction, principle of operation and power boil. More power is required for quick boiling than to

Table 2
Comparative of different cookstoves based on salient features.

Sr. Stove type/model name Combustion Draft type Combustion Fuel type Feed type Accessories Chimney Safety Approx. Ref.
no type chamber used use ratings cost (US$)
type

1. 3 Stone fire D N — W, O C — — Poor — [31,114]

2. Mud/sawdust stove D N Mud W, O C — — Fair — [31,114]
3. VITA stove D N M W C — — Poor 2 [31,114]
4. Ghana wood stove D N M W C — — Fair 5 [31,114]
5. Upesi portable stove D N Cr W C — — — 9.5 [38]
6. Philips stove HD4008 D N M W, O C — — — 31 [38]
7. Berkeley-Darfur stove D N M W C P, S — — 25 [38]
8. Patsari stove D N Br W C — Y Fair 35 [31,114]
9. Uganda 2-pot stove R N Br W C P Y Fair 40 [31,114]
10. Ecostove R N Cr W C — Y Fair 67 [31,114]
11. Onil stove R N Cr W C — Y Best 72 [31,114]
12. Justa stove R N Cr W C — Y Good 75 [31,114]
13. Envirofit G-3300 stove R N M W C S — — 31 [38]
14. StoveTec greenfire stove R N Cr W, O C S — — 9 [38]
15. StoveTec prototype stove R N Cr Ch B P, S — — — [38]
16. Mali charcoal stove D N M Ch C — — Fair 2.4 [31,114]
17. Gyapa charcoal stove D N Cr Ch B — — Fair 5.9 [31,114]
18. GERES new lao stove D N Cr Ch, W B — — — 3.5 [38]
19. Jiko, ceramic D N Cr Ch B — — — — [38]
20. Jiko, metal D N M Ch B — — — — [38]
21. Kenya ceramic jiko D N Cr Ch B — — — 6 [38]
22. Kenya uhai stove D N Cr Ch B — — — 11 [38]
23. StoveTec TLUD stove G N Cr O B S — — — [38]
24. Sampada gasifier stove G N M W, O C — — — 38 [38]
25. Philips stove HD4012 G F Cr W, O C — — — 89 [38]
26. Wood gas fan stove G F M W B — — Fair 99 [31,114]
27. Belonio rice husk stove G F M RH B — — — 40 [38]
28. Mayon turbo stove 7000 G F M RH, O C — — — 15 [38]
29. Oorja stove G F Cr O B — — — 35 [38, 46]
30. Jinqilin CKQ-80I stove G F M O, W C — Y — 100 [38]
31. Wood flame fan stove D F M W B — — Best 229 [31,114]

D - Direct Combustion type, G - Gasifier Type, N - Natural Draft Type, F - Forced Draft Type, M - Metallic Chamber, Cr- Ceramic Chamber, C - Continuous Fed, B - Batch Fed,
S – Pot Skirt, P – Customized Pot, Y – Chimney used, Br – Brick Chamber, Ch – Charcoal as a fuel, W – Wood as a fuel, RH – Rice husk, O-Other biomass as a fuel, R – Rocket
type direct combustion.
 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603 591

Table 3
WBT results for different cookstoves.

Sr. Stove type/model Fire power (W) Time to boil Specific energy Thermal CO emissions PM emissions Ref.
no name (min) consumption (kJ/l) efficiency (%) (g/l) (mg/l)

CS HS LP CS HS CS HS LPa CS HS LP CSa HSa LPa CSa HSa LPa

1 3 Stone fire 7761 8243 3130 24 30 2024 2160 1807 19 20 26 3.635 4.032 7.305 238.2 277.1 215.0 [31]
2 Mud/sawdust stove 7,801 8,004 2,078 18 14 1,293 1,223 1364 28 31 44 2.399 2.228 7.392 265.2 324.8 175.4 [31]
3 VITA stove 8,129 7,944 2,385 14 14 1,122 1,149 1175 29 31 34 3.393 3.622 5.052 283.5 392.2 92.2 [31]
4 Ghana wood stove 6,774 6,207 3,298 24 20 1,619 1,298 1580 24 27 23 3.705 2.441 7.010 653.0 414.9 323.5 [31]
5 Upesi portable stove 5,445 5,489 4,552 29 28 1,959 1,908 3029 22.6 23.8 na 5.485 4.388 6.663 415.3 398.8 351.3 [38]
6 Philips stove HD4008 3,704 3,659 1,923 27 28 1,244 1,263 1219 34.2 34.6 na 0.746 1.895 1.950 344.6 266.5 307.2 [38]
7 Berkeley–Darfur stove 2,668 3,165 2,194 38 30 1,279 1,173 1456 36.1 38.6 na 2.302 2.346 4.222 106.2 144.3 190.7 [38]
8 Patsari stove 8,212 8,439 4,253 40 30 1,869 1,463 2599 20 24 14 1.286 1.083 2.702 71.9 69.3 105.3 [31]
9 Uganda 2-pot stove 6,577 7,580 2,550 19 14 843 759 1475 40 45 33 1.189 1.153 3.284 62.6 72.2 68.2 [31]
10 Ecostove 8,998 9,626 4,531 48 30 5,338 3,642 2989 13 16 16 8.116 4.008 3.546 851.8 642.3 273.3 [31]
11 Onil stove 10,829 10,489 4,796 30 26 1,942 1,474 2592 18 22 13 2.673 1.399 4.267 111.7 112.0 156.6 [31]
12 Justa stove 8,203 8,685 4,180 55 39 2,437 2,006 2493 17 21 14 2.354 1.556 2.870 83.2 78.6 77.6 [31]
13 Envirofit G-3300 stove 4,359 4,864 2,161 20 17 1,047 1,004 1381 38 40.7 na 2.094 2.008 3.591 189.5 195.8 116.0 [38]
14 StoveTec Greenfire stove 3,916 5,054 1,852 24 21 1,182 1,297 1182 35.4 33.1 na 2.364 2.983 2.836 180.8 245.1 148.9 [38]
15 StoveTec prototype stove 2,603 3,999 1,009 33 23 1,042 1,108 623 37.9 34.3 na 5.21 6.87 4.670 151.1 140.7 67.9 [38]
16 Mali charcoal stove 5,859 5,443 2,586 35 43 2,081 2,321 1759 17 18 27 12.7 13.24 9.588 50.2 38.7 7.6 [31]
17 Gyapa charcoal stove 5,790 6,735 3,174 34 23 2,035 1,821 1674 18 19 34 15.58 12.73 12.884 102.5 96.7 17.7 [31]
18 GERES New lao stove 5,864 6,934 1,856 30 14 2,194 1,223 1173 17.8 31.7 na 7.898 8.683 7.743 252.3 143.1 50.4 [38]
19 Jiko, ceramicb 3,400 3,299 1,148 30 12 3,185 1,197 2054 13.9 36.6 na 22.3 11.73 18.488 445.9 101.7 135.6 [38]
20 Jiko, Metalb 2,724 2,924 1,256 35 16 2,957 1,492 2321 15.1 33.4 na 19.52 13.58 16.944 541.1 59.7 41.8 [38]
21 Kenya ceramic jiko 3,859 3,595 975 38 23 1,830 1,031 610 23.2 31.4 na 12.26 12.48 4.208 194.0 61.9 20.1 [38]
22 Kenya uhai stove 3,332 5,073 1,246 37 19 1,546 1,211 788 27.1 33.1 na 11.44 8.961 5.042 185.5 71.4 12.6 [38]
23 StoveTec TLUD stoveb 1,375 1,569 1,280 23 18 972 907 2483 52.7 53.8 na 0.486 0.454 2.234 48.6 44.4 77.0 [38]
24 Sampada gasifier stove 5,421 5,626 4,043 23 21 1,533 1,437 2781 26.7 28.5 na 3.373 3.88 3.337 256.0 250.0 378.2 [38]
25 Philips stove HD4012 4,588 5,166 1,696 19 15 1,088 966 1086 36.2 40.5 na 2.285 0.097 0.651 29.4 19.3 29.3 [38]
26 Wood gas fan stove 2,656 2,761 1,400 24 24 755 755 1132 45 46 46 0.549 0.549 0.823 2.2 2.2 3.2 [31]
27 Belonio rice husk stoveb 1,696 1,447 1,288 16 16 817 703 2174 42.8 49.4 na 6.291 4.921 12.824 66.2 68.2 526.0 [38]
28 Mayon turbo stove 7000 3,748 3,800 3,362 34 35 1,615 1,681 3486 29.3 28.3 na 6.299 6.052 11.851 237.4 216.8 662.3 [38]
29 Oorja stoveb 1,775 2,565 1,417 32 22 1,717 1,513 2633 32.1 37.2 na 1.03 1.059 11.323 61.8 19.7 194.9 [38]
30 Jinqilin CKQ-80I stove 13,030 10,610 8,008 25 18 3,953 2,315 5809 9.8 17 na 18.97 10.42 20.913 506.0 585.7 1376.8 [38]
31 Wood flame fan stove 4,093 4,003 2,059 20 19 816 856 1266 42 42 42 0.919 0.72 1.022 0.9 6.7 5.7 [31]

All data to boil and simmer 5 l of water for 45 min.

a
Data presented in the column is taken as it is from Ref. [31], whereas the data from Ref. [38] is modified and converted to equivalent unit from the source data.
b
WBT conducted with 2 l of water.

Fig. 3. Fire power and turn-down ratios for different stoves.

simmer. Fig. 3 shows the average boil (high) firepower and the stove firepower can be controlled. A higher TDR means the
simmer (low) firepower for all the stoves. The ratio of the boil scope for variation of the stove firepower, if needed. Fig. 3
and simmer firepower is termed as the turn-down ratio (TDR), shows that most of the direct combustion type stoves have
which is an indicator of ability of the stove to be “turned TDR more than 6, unlike gasifier stoves with TDR less than
down” from boil to simmer phase, and the extent to which 6 for most of the cases. It means that the direct combustion
592 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603

Fig. 4. High power thermal efficiency for different stoves.

Fig. 5. Specific energy consumption for different stoves.

60
60
Thermal Efficiency for high power phase (%)
Thermal Efficiency for simmer phase (%)

50
50

40
40

30
30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000
Specific Energy Consumption for Simmer phase Specific Energy Consumption for High Power phase
(MJ/Liter) (MJ/Liter)

Fig. 6. Variation of thermal efficiency with specific energy consumption.

 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603 593

type stoves will provide better control over fire than the agreement in data points is not very high and no linear relation-
gasifiers will in general. ship exists between the two.
2. In stove literature, “efficiency” is sometimes a misunderstood 3. It can be observed from Fig. 4 that gasifier and rocket type
word, and it is assumed that high thermal efficiency means stoves (without chimney) are the most efficient stoves
low fuel consumption. However, it is only a measure of designed so far.
fraction of fuel energy, which reaches the cooking pot. Inter- 4. Chimney stoves are least efficient amongst all, and some of them
estingly, energy transferred to cooking pot is calculated by are worse than the traditional stoves. Even gasifier stove “Jinqilin
measuring the quantity of water evaporated and provides no CKQ-80I” unlike other gasifiers is having poor efficiency and the
clue of how much of this is useful for actual cooking process. probable cause is use of chimney. The other reason for poor
The basic fact about cooking is a lot of water evaporated by performance of chimney stoves is a relatively large amount of
highly efficient stove does not cook food faster than a thermal mass and resulting low fire temperatures.
moderate simmering. Opting for a cookstove based on high 5. Again, gasifier and rocket type stoves (without chimney) are least
thermal efficiency may result in the stove that is not as fuel specific energy consuming stoves (Fig. 5). Chimney stoves are
efficient as possible. An alternative approach called “specific showing highest specific energy consumption per liter of water.
energy consumption” was suggested in 1985 by VITA, Which is 6. Here we can make very important observation that puts
the fuel or energy used per unit of food cooked (or water ‘rocket type stoves’ ahead of ‘gasifier stoves’. If we observe
boiled and simmered) [19]. Hence, “Specific Consumption” is Fig. 5 carefully we can note that rocket type stoves (without
the more reliable indicator of stove performance than the fan) are better than the gasifier stoves with fan when it comes
“Thermal efficiency”. Figs. 4 and 5 shows respectively the high to specific energy consumption per liter of water. The high-
power thermal efficiency and the specific energy consumption for energy consumption by gasifier stoves during boiling is due to
different stoves. Fig. 6 shows that the two stove performance low firepower and low turn-down ratio. Pre-boiling state of
measures are somehow inversely related, the higher efficiency is the low- power gasifier stoves is longer than high-powered
associated with the lower specific energy consumption; but the stoves, evaporating more amount of water, which leads to high

Fig. 7. CO emissions for different stoves.

Fig. 8. PM emissions for different stoves.

594 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603

efficiency (as shown in Fig. 4), although fuel is consumed for a bureaucracy have complicated and hampered many programmes
longer period, increasing specific energy consumption. in the developing world [10,115].
7. Although charcoal stoves have displayed good thermal effi-
ciency and low specific energy consumption one need to 5.2. Economic and financial barriers
remember that this does not include the energy lost when
the charcoal is made from wood. The true energy consumption Evidence suggests that, one major obstacle to rapid ICS diffu-
and emissions of the charcoal stoves should at least double sion is stove price [10,112,116]. Improved cookstoves, which costs
[67], what is measured and shown in Figs. 4 and 5. $20–$85, are typically more expensive than local traditional stoves
8. The fact, which is evident from Fig. 7, is the worst performers [117]. Although in the end improved stoves save money, the initial
when it comes to CO emissions are charcoal stoves; surpris- investment required may prevent poor people from purchasing
ingly followed by many gasifier stoves. the stove. One of the obvious reasons for the success of China’s
9. PM emissions for charcoal stoves unlike CO emissions are the NISP is its higher rural income and purchasing capacity, than other
least amongst all categories as shown in Fig. 8. Charcoal is developing nations [25]. In Ethiopia, higher income increased
generally a low-smoke fuel, and hence emits less PM than adoption rates of “Mirt” and “Lakech” stoves [6].
most of the wood burning stoves. A variety of approaches, such as microfinance services, loans,
10. With good turn-down ratio, high thermal efficiency, low and financial incentives; are applicable to make household energy
specific energy consumption, and lowest emissions, the best technologies more affordable. Originally established for social
stove amongst all is “Wood flame fan stove”. However, it is the progression in poverty removal “the microfinance institutions”
costliest stove amongst all. gives a possible convenient path [118–120]. Microfinance can help
11. The second best category is “rocket stoves” with all good to overcome initial investment costs. Furthermore, the marketing
features along with two of the gasifier stoves “Philips stove channels of existing microfinance institutions are useful for
HD4012” and “Wood Gas Fan Stove”. cookstove distribution. Many other potential financing sources
12. The other important fact observed is factory made, mass-pro- such as “Global Environment Facility”, “Climate Investment
duced, quality tested stoves such as “Wood flame fan stove”, Funds”, and “International Finance Corporation” are available [26].
“Philips stove HD4012”, “Wood Gas Fan Stove”, “Envirofit G-3300 Some researchers have argued that, for rapid and far-reaching
Stove”, “StoveTec Green fire Stove” are the best on all the fronts. cookstove adoption, financial incentives for users and manufacturers
So, it is concluded here that, what affects the stove performance is are indispensable [31,121,122]. However, subsidies are not mandatory
not only the principle of operation or design of stove, but also the for a successful cookstove programme; the best example being China’s
manner in which it is manufactured. NISP, where government’s financial contribution to the programme
13. Use of a accessories like ‘pot skirt’ and ‘customized pots’ can lead was less than 15%; and that as well restricted to “training, adminis-
to reduction in fuel consumption as well as harmful emissions. tration and promotion” [25]. Evidences from Peru suggest that,
14. Use of fan (forced air) is found to be energy efficient (Figs. 4 and5), providing stoves even free of cost is no guarantee of high use of ICS;
but not necessarily emission efficient (Figs. 7 and 8). for example just 45% of households in 26 villages in Peru, used ICSs
that were provided free of charge [123].
The report of MNRE India [113] proposes a concept of con-
tinually decreasing subsidies. Gradually decreasing subsidies will
5. Barriers to dissemination and adoption of biomass make the stoves reasonably priced for the poor, while still
cookstoves providing enough space for commercialization in the long term.
The model was rated successful in “Ethiopia’s Cooking Efficiency
No ICS programme can achieve its goals unless people adopt Improvement and New Fuels Marketing Project”, during 1989 to
and then use the stoves in the long term. While attractive for 1995 [113]. Government could provide a small continually dimin-
economic, health, social and environmental perspectives, ICSs ishing subsidy for the purchase of ICS by the poor people initially;
need to overcome many barriers to achieve faster adoption rates. which shall end, once a successful commercial market, creating
affordable cook stoves is established. MNRE [113] proposes; region
5.1. Institutional barriers specific, model specific and user-income specific, flexible subsidy
structure; with definite end date (with annual assessment and
A key factor influencing the implementation of ICSs pro- subsidy decrease by 10–20% per year).
gramme, anywhere, is the existing institutional infrastructure. Another way of promoting ICSs could be a “conditional cash
Important issues are the availability of R&D centers, training transfer scheme”. Under a conditional cash transfer program, the
venues, technology and information exchange, multilevel monitor- government pays a cash amount to the poor households, in
ing mechanism (certification and quality control), promotional exchange of fulfilling certain behavioral pattern (commonly for
agencies and after sales support and services [10,26,115]. Four children’s education and health). The conditional cash transfer
types of institutional structures are in existence among the ICS programme for the initiation of the cookstoves, will pay a small
programs: Institution led by a Government agency, NGO/private but effective cash amount to the households, for actual stove use.
partnership, semi-governmental structure, and fully commercial The initiative can attract more people towards ICSs, and will make
private companies. Engaging local government is important, from them accustomed to it. Over a finite time, the user will recognize
point of view of general achievement of programme objectives; the advantages of the ICS, and continue the use, even in the
and has added benefits in policy forming, coordination at the local absence of any government-aided financial benefits [113].
level, effective awareness raising, and monitoring. Whereas the For the reduction in capital cost of ICSs MNRE recommends a
role of entrepreneurs and NGOs can be helpful in creating aware- partial or full waver of the taxes on stoves. The report also
ness, establishing a commercial market and providing after sales proposes several other measures like advanced subsidy payment
support and services. Although the role of local government is to the manufacturer; micro-credit loans to enterprises, entrepre-
important in policy forming, the programmes with the greatest neurs, and self-help groups, to manufacture/sell cookstoves; and
success rate in the past were those, in which the government was guaranteed advanced purchase of cookstoves for government’s
not involved in the production or sale of the improved stove [10]. own undertakings. Using funds for competence building and
Concentric planning and dependence on multiple layers of motivation rather than subsidizing stoves, would develop a
 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603 595

sustainable system whereby, users will pay the full costs of with local pots and other manufacturing/design defects [119]. Many
cookstoves for their own good. ICS allows use of only certain sizes of fuel wood pieces, thus
constraining the choice of fuels [10,32,37].
5.3. Policy barriers Another technical barrier is the lack of tools and methods, to
monitor and quantify the performance of the ICS in ways that are
Though government assistance in the past, has often done objective, systematic, cost-effective, and scalable. However, such
more damage than help in the household energy market, it could monitoring of ICS is now getting easier with the new generation of
play a useful role from policymaking point of view. Several sensors and IT-based SUMs.
governments provide capital subsidies for competitive household
fuels, such as LPG and Kerosene, which leads to price distortion;
and needs mitigation [10,117]. In addition, the inappropriate 5.6. Information and Interaction Barriers
subsidies for the production of ICSs are not useful, as well.
Government of India provided a minimum of 50% of subsidy “An alternative theory of technology diffusion” suggests that,
during NPIC directly to the stove manufacturers; hence, the the factor that limits the technology diffusion in the society is
manufacturers never paid attention to the consumer’s preferences, information; and the consumer already using the technology is the
which leads to low adoption rate. In addition, the poorly targeted most reliable source of information [131]. In a study conducted in
subsidy leads to misuse; a brief account is present in the literature rural Mexico, researchers suggest a “people-centered close inter-
[16,115]. The large subsidy also subdued the commercial sector action approach”, as a measure for effective dissemination [128].
efforts In India, to develop and manufacture competitive improved In China, women were involved in extensive field-testing and
stoves [23,115]. Therefore, instead of providing the generous discussions regarding what they wanted in a stove, which can be a
subsidy to consumer, governments can assist in formulating a major reason for success of NISP [115]. In Guatemala, the follow-up
policy framework, which provides incentives to private sector visits and participation of users were instrumental in a successful
operators to engage in the production, distribution, and sale of ICS intervention [127].
improved stoves. The elements of such a policy framework may In this connection, the performance monitoring of stoves is an
include; technical support, training, and assistance in market inevitable component of any ICS programme, as information
research as in the case of NISP in China [25,115]. related to stove performance is essential for designing next-
generation cookstoves. For better technology diffusion, the gov-
5.4. Social and behavioral barriers ernment can initiate informative programmes; like awareness
programmes within communities for fuel resource availability,
Improved cookstoves do not usually serve the additional local necessity of sustainable fuel harvesting and benefits of ICS.
needs fulfilled by traditional stoves such as lighting, space heating,
food smoking, repelling insects, drying of a thatched roof, providing a
social gathering place and burning multiple fuels [124,125]. When any 6. Road to future
of these needs remain unfulfilled, and are valued more than the fuel
and time saving; ICS rejection occurs. A “very successful stove project” 6.1. In-depth engineering analysis for developing new advanced
in Ghana, found to be a failure a decade later, as the stoves were not stoves
suitable for making the local dishes [115]. In India the “Harsha” and
“Vikram” natural draft stoves; while technically inferior, emerge to Because of the presence of the complex phenomenon like fuel
have more of the desirable stove qualities, expressed by households; combustion, fluid mechanics, heat transfer, and their close inter-
as compared to “Oorja” and “Philips” of ABS category, due to existing actions; a cookstove is an engineering device that needs multi-
cooking practices [63]. Developing high-quality cookstoves suitable for faceted treatment. In the summary report of “Biomass Cookstoves
mass production is necessary, but users need to be involved in the Technical Meeting”, the expert team stressed for, the improved
early stages of the programme, in order to ensure compatibility with understanding of fluid mechanics and heat transfer phenomenon
local practices. occurring inside the stove [7]. Typical cook stoves, including TSF
Women’s participation is another essential component of a can have combustion efficiencies well above 90%; however, heat
successful ICS programme. Several researchers have addressed transfer efficiencies normally are in the range of 10–40% [13].
gender issue, in ICS dissemination and adoption programmes. Therefore, the heat transfer efficiency is the most important
They reiterated that, woman’s genuine participation and scope of parameter to improve stove performance further. However,
their income earning opportunities, embedded in the program; is increasing heat transfer and overall efficiency, is sometimes at
a prerequisite for success [115,126,127]. the cost of combustion efficiency; increasing IAP [3]. So it is
required to optimize the “holistic” performance of the stove.
5.5. Technical and quality related barriers Starting with the early efforts of Prasad [12] and Baldwin [9],
various researchers performed many heat-transfer studies, identi-
A study conducted in rural Mexico suggests, “The technology- fying number of variables for engineering design of a stove.
centered approach” for effective stove dissemination, by evolving Important variables are grate area, the shape of the combustion
better quality stoves [128]. The quality is a very important issue, as chamber; its diameter, height and volume; bulk flow rate, tem-
evidenced by the low adoption of inferior quality NPIC stoves, not perature distribution, excess air ratio, primary to secondary air
offering the assured firewood savings [11,115]. Nepal et al found that ratio, fuel dimensions and moisture content, fuel bed height and
ICS in Nepal as well, do not yield reductions in the demand for porosity, effect of the skirt and the firepower [68–70,73,132–136].
firewood [129]. In Peru, cookstove programme suffers due to poor Recently, many independent researchers proposed the computa-
stove quality, lack of expected gains in fuel efficiency, and the difficulty tional fluid dynamics (CFD) models for the design analysis and
or changes in cooking methods required for successful use [123]. optimization of biomass stoves [7,69,113,137–142]. Many modern
A study in a rural district of the Guatemala observes that, about 67% of ABS manufacturers are using CFD and heat transfer modeling, along
“Plancha stoves” in use, developed structural defects [35]. There are with rigorous efficiency, emissions, durability testing; for geometry
several examples cited in the literature, of ICS failed due to technical and materials optimization [26]. Miller [141] provides a detailed
problems; like a blocked chimney [130] cracking clay liners, mismatch literature review of, the CFD and heat transfer models applied to
596 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603

natural convection stoves. Some researchers have used Genetic Algo- recognizes the failure of the laboratory testing in fully reflecting
rithms along with CFD, for the stove optimization purpose [142,143]. field performance, and recommends the inclusion of the factors in
A committed engineering approach to materials development is future developments. Starting with Tier 0 for TSF, the performance
must, to balance between the constraints of lower costs and higher results of emissions and efficiency for the majority of the ICSs put
performance. Cookstoves require a variety of materials for different them in Tiers 1 and 2. Only the ABSs like Fan stoves and Gasifier
components such as the combustion chamber; its insulation and stoves are rated as Tier 3 or Tier 4 cookstoves [38,86].
envelope; grate, stand, chimney, and various accessories (see Section
2.3). These materials need to sustain relatively high temperatures, 6.3. Commercialization of cookstove technology
temperature fluctuations, destructive chemical environments, and
physical stress. Material considerations for a cookstove include func- The failures of government and charitable efforts, at the large-
tionality, safety, durability, cost, availability, and manufacturability. The scale sustained adoption of ICSs, shifted the focus on commercial
integrated materials engineering approach including the use of and market driven approach. The most successful stove pro-
experimental data, operating conditions’ simulations and computa- gramme to date; China’s NISP combined a central thrust with
tional design tools is required. Specifically, there is a need, to develop locally coordinated efforts, to create a sustainable commercial
systematic procedures and mathematical models for performing market for stoves [25]. Similarly, NGO funding in the early 1980s
“accelerated life-cycle testing”, accounting for a wide range of para- developed the “Kenya Ceramic Jiko” charcoal stove, but over time,
meters [7]. Good engineering principles along with standard mass the stove production gets commercialized; which has seen wide
production methods, matched by the effective involvement of local success with 2 million stoves in use as of 2002 [117]. Another
artisans and users, are necessary for widespread use of ICS [10]. successful cookstove commercialization programme is of “Anagi”
stove in Sri Lanka, currently in use at 30% of urban and 23% of rural
6.2. Universal stove testing protocol and benchmarking a cookstove Sri Lankan households, with the number of stoves reaching
3 million [147]. Commercialization of “Anagi” takes a time span
Laboratory tests can enhance stove design, and field tests are of about three decades in four distinguishable phases. First stage
important to authenticate real household stove performance. included stove design and testing in coordination with the NGO,
In spite of this significance, a universal standardized stove testing followed by a second stage of large-scale dissemination ultimately
protocol is not yet established. There are some practical difficulties ending in market’s collapse, but still resulting in awareness raising.
with the existing dominant protocols: unsuitability for batch- Third stage, learning from the second stage adopted appropriate
loaded stoves, the methodology to determine turndown ratio stove design and commercialization strategy. Finally, the diversi-
and, the wide gap between the lab tests and the field tests. The fication stage with de-centralize technical expertise and dissemi-
shortcomings of laboratory and field-testing protocols have hin- nation reached rural poor. In Rwanda, alterations made in
dered previous cookstove programmes, as in the “Lorena stove response to users’ feedback on the stove’s size, quality, color, type,
project” from Central America and NPIC in India [87]. and door construction; made the commercialization possible, off-
A range of tests is likely to be needed to cover all phases of course high charcoal prize being another major reason [10]. These
stove design and use, variety of fuels, field conditions, and cooking cases suggest commercialization and not the charitable efforts, as
practices. Recent developments include a new publicly evaluated the solution to ICSs dissemination barriers.
version of the WBT protocol [84,85]. Johnson et al., as discussed in The essential ingredients of a successful commercialized stove
Section 3.2.4; propose the lab reproduction of the burn cycle, programme are: uninterrupted programme through different phases,
corresponding to the emissions measured from the field; for better sharing global experience with local entrepreneurs; involvement of
stove ability prediction [110]. The debate is still on; whether to Government, semi-government, NGOs and finally private sector in
judge a stove performance by a single set for efficiency and transitioning to a commercialized market; adequate market research,
emissions, at a single power; or a set of these parameters, as a consumer responsive product design, field monitoring and appropriate
function of the fuel burn rate or input power. Some new testing customers targeting [10,11,115,25,113,117,147]. Though the recent
protocols that evaluate different performance indicators at multi- developments in ICSs are encouraging, the larger-scale adoption and
ple powers, using multiple fuels, could overcome some limitations commercialization is not an easy task. Major barriers involve high
of the current framework of laboratory and field tests [95]. costs; low income of potential customers, and hence low profit
“Partnership for Clean Indoor Air” and the “Global Alliance for margins; high marketing and promotional costs, limited market
Clean Cookstoves” jointly organized, “ISO International Workshop research, large regional differences in cooking practices, low cookstove
on Cookstoves” in February 2012, at the Hague, Netherlands. acceptance and adoption, lack of awareness for health and environ-
At the workshop, more than 90 stakeholders finalized and unan- mental benefits, limited available financial sources, and subsidized
imously approved an “ISO International Workshop Agreement” price of alternative household technologies [117,122,147].
(IWA) [144]. Building on the “Lima Consensus”, [145] the IWA However, new sources of the Carbon finance from CDM can
provides a skeleton for cookstoves’ benchmarking. The IWA stimulate large-scale adoption of the ICS, by reducing the stove
proposes “Tiers of Performance” (TOP), for four crucial parameters; purchase price, as in the case of “Ugastove” in Uganda [27,148].
like Fuel consumption (Efficiency), Emissions (CO and PM), Indoor Stringent monitoring practices mandatory during the crediting
Emissions (CO and PM), and Safety [146]. Based upon these period of the Carbon projects, are also supportive of long-term
different performance indicators a stove receives a rating, some- sustainable use of cookstoves.
where between Tier 0 to Tier 4, “0” being the worst performer and
“4” the best. Each stove may have up to four (4) ratings, one each
for Efficiency, Emissions, Indoor Emissions, and Safety. The lowest 7. Proposed modern cookstove design methodology
tier from the individual metrics for that indicator decides each of
the four ratings. The IWA includes TOP for the WBT 4.1.2 [85] and 7.1. Important considerations in modern cookstove design
for the “Biomass Stove Safety Protocol” [114]; and provides a
framework to establish TOP for additional test protocols. The There are three major considerations while designing a cookstove:
“Workshop” recommends that, in the future, protocols based on technical, social and economical. Social considerations depend upon
appropriate performance indicator need to develop for durability prevailing cultural and local needs and constraints, and are a pre-
and emissions (both health and climate related). The IWA, also requisite for long-term adoption of a cookstove by the society.
 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603 597

Cookstove Design Considerations

Social Technical Economical

Considerations Considerations Considerations

Food Capital cost

Habits Process & Materials & Safety & Environmental
Performance Durability Cooking comfort Considerations
Considerations Considerations Considerations

Local Fuel cost

fuel Heat Transfer related Health
resources Parameters Considerations

Functional Maintenance
Requirement Fluid Dynamics related Global Warming cost
Parameters Considerations

Combustion related
Parameters

Fig. 9. Important considerations for cookstove design.

Technical considerations such as high efficiency, low emissions, consumer’ profile. To this can be added engineering aspirations on
material durability, and user’s safety are at the heart of the current the basis of the worldwide stove-research outcomes; such as fuel
R&D activities in cookstove design. Finally, cost effectiveness deter- saving, cleaner indoor atmosphere, environmental damage miti-
mines the pay back period of the investment, and therefore is very gation, use of alternative biomass fuels, lower house-fire risk and
important for successful cookstove dissemination. Although classified burns, cooking comfort and durability of the stove. Socioeconomic
in different categories most of the major and sub criterion mentioned aspirations such as generation of employment and consequent
in Fig. 9 are dependent on each other. For example, technical and income from stove manufacturing, sales and after services,
economical considerations are inseparable, as the cost effectiveness reduced risk of gender-based violence can be included.
usually depends upon the technical performance of the stove.

7.2. Proposed systematic approach for modern cookstove design

7.2.2. Problem analysis
The aim of analysis phase is development of a workable and well-
Different cookstove models can have different requirements; and
defined design space for the problem, within which one can scienti-
hence different design considerations as described in previous section;
fically search for the solution. The problem is tried on technical, social,
however, a standard systematic approach to cookstove design is highly
and economical front at a go. Technical parameters to quantify at the
desirable. While the technical studies discussed earlier provide some
end of problem analysis are power output of the stove, cooking time
insights in cookstove design, none of them presents a systematic
for targeted energy output, targeted specific energy consumption,
approach to achieve the solution appropriate for the given situation.
efficiency, and emission levels. Socially or culturally related parameters
Hence, a “Nine-step standard systematic approach for modern cook-
to settle are preferable fuel and pot type, preferable dimensions for
stove design” (Fig. 10) is proposed (major activities involved during a
ensuring cooking comfort (diameter, height, pot to top distance,
particular step are also listed side by side):
ground to bottom clearance), standard stove operating procedures
and practices. Problem analysis also includes the market research and
7.2.1. Problem identification and definition economic feasibility analysis. The information regarding initial cost,
The first step in any design process is the identification of need market demand, consumer expectations, and type of the targeted
or existing problem. In case of the cookstoves the user’s needs as application (domestic/commercial/institutional) must be collected
per prevailing food culture and local environment shall be studied through inputs from users’ community, individual consumer surveys,
in depth, for example local food habits, cooking practices, func- communication with similar sales organizations and product outlets.
tional requirements of stove, fuel type in use and its consumption, Economic feasibility analysis must be carried out, taking in to
conventional pot size/shape, climate type, and user’s future cook- considerations capital and running cost, subsidies available (if any),
ing aspirations. A survey for collecting information related to the possible financing sources, cost of competitive technology and esti-
site and the households is recommended for building the ‘targeted mated savings due to use of the improved stove; to calculate payback
598 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603

1.1 Site and household survey

1. Problem Identification 1.2 Building of targeted consumer profile
& Definition 1.3 Deciding on engineering & socioeconomic
aspirations

2.1 Defining the technical requirements &

2. Problem Analysis constraints
2.2 Defining influencing social parameters
2.3 Market research & feasibility analysis

3. Conceptual Design 3.1 Developing different conceptual designs

3.2 Judgment of the best conceptual design
Iterative
Redesign
Considerations
No satisfied?

Yes
4.1 Finalizing design parameters for initial
4. Engineering Design physical system
4.2 Modeling of the stove/components
Iterative 4.3 Simulation of the stove/components
Redesign 4.4 Evaluation of different designs

Long-term Research & Development

4.5 Optimization of the problem
Design
4.6 Communication of optimized design
Iterative Redesign

acceptable? No

Yes

Optimized Design

5.1 Construction of the stove prototype

5. Construction, Testing & 5.2 Lab testing as per standard protocols
Evaluation of the Prototype 5.3 Evaluation of the results & validation of
earlier design process.

Appropriate
No match obtained?

Yes 6.1 Detailing of specifications, materials, etc

6.2 Presentation of above details with
6. Detailed Design & Its appropriate communication mode
Communication

7.1 Mass production of the stove

7. Production, Quality Testing &
7.2 Factory testing for quality assurance
Dissemination 7.3 Dissemination of the stove
7.4 Conduction of trials using CCT

8. Field-Testing & Validation 8.1 Conduction of field-tests like KPT, BCT,

UCT, CDT, etc.

9.1 Installation of electronic data loggers

9. Performance Monitoring 9.2 Post stove- intervention survey

A Successful Cookstove
Design

Fig. 10. A systematic approach for cookstove design.

period of the investment made. The problem is finally stated in the 7.2.3. Conceptual design
form of a quantified and qualified set of technical, social, and Based upon the design space defined in terms of requirements
economical requirements and/or constraints. and constraints, a stove researcher must develop different design
 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603 599

alternatives catering to the need or problem. These designs may An acceptable design, which satisfies the given stove requirements
include modification of existing popular stove design, recombina- without constraints violation is chosen. Therefore, the simulation
tion of different stove designs, or full product design from scrap. results are compared with the problem statement to determine if
Having developed apparently feasible ideas for solving the pro- acceptability of a particular design. If the design violates the con-
blem, these ideas must be reduced in number, based on the straints or does not fulfill the requirements, a different design is
requirements and constraints as developed earlier. For the pur- selected, simulated, and evaluated. The process is repeated until one
pose, these collective requirements and constraints are classified gets an acceptable design.
as ‘Necessary considerations’ and ‘Adjustable considerations’. Now a day, it is equally essential to optimize the stove design,
‘Necessary considerations’ includes rigid-constraints such as the which while contenting within the constraints forced by efficiency,
locally available fuel resources and prevailing cooking practices; emissions, economics, safety, and other related considerations; will
and mandatory requirements such as the local and international perform the task in desired manner. Optimization involves maximiza-
benchmarks for emissions, efficiency and safety (discussed in tion or minimization of a chosen variable (the objective function)
detail in Sections 3 and 6.2). ‘Adjustable considerations’ such as related to quantities like efficiency, specific consumption, heat transfer,
appearance, provision of heat regulation, durability, and main- emissions, cost etc. The acceptable designs are subjected to optimiza-
tenance requirements can be relaxed, if demanded by the better tion to satisfy the given stove requirements and constraints. Depend-
complementary considerations. A preliminary stove design that ing on the available form of the simulation results, various
does not comply with the ‘Necessary considerations’ shall be optimization methods are applicable. However, the most popular
rejected or modified; however, design can proceed even by algorithm for the stove purpose is Genetic algorithms which mimic
partially fulfilling the ‘Adjustable requirements’. Deciding the final the process of natural selection and survival of the fittest and is well
concept shall be typically a group decision made by researchers suited for evaluating non-linear search spaces frequently involved in
and consumers through a continuous dialogue. stove design. A sensitivity analysis can also be performed. In addition,
technical and economical considerations are carefully included to
settle tradeoffs, to obtain the final design. The last step in the
7.2.4. Engineering design for best possible solution engineering design process is the design specifications communication
The next stage is to use fundamental and applied principles of for fabrication and prototype development.
science and engineering to generate valid solutions for the chosen
conceptual design, while focusing on the quantitative as well as 7.2.5. Construction, testing and evaluation of a prototype
qualitative aspects. Mostly what we have in the name of engineer- Prototyping involve building either full-size or scaled model of
ing analysis is empirical correlations developed by earlier research- the stove to evaluate further the merits of the design. All the
ers; however, modern analysis tools such as mathematical modeling of scientific methods mentioned in the previous phase require
different physical phenomenon, dimensional analysis, energy and validation by experimentation on the complete physical prototype
exergy analysis, numerical simulation, and CFD simulation are increas- or separate simulation models for different phenomenon/compo-
ingly used. These modern tools are necessary for having insight of nents (if required). In addition, to judge stove performance,
stove function and establishing qualitative trends for the variation of laboratory testing of the prototype is must. Testing ensures that
different parameters within stove. However, general design principles the stove meets recommended global and local benchmarks
developed by earlier researchers such as introducing a grate below the (discussed earlier in Sections 3.1 and 6.2). Testing is also important
fuel bed, controlling combustion air flow, preheating of incoming air, for validation of results obtained by earlier stages like mathema-
heating and burning the tips of the sticks only, maintaining constant tical modeling, numerical simulation, and optimization. Simula-
cross-sectional area throughout the cookstove, provision of a good tion accuracy can also be estimated by making comparison
insulation to the outskirt of the cookstove must be followed wherever between the simulation results and experimental data. Therefore,
possible [149]. All the technical consideration shown in Fig. 9 usually it is important to obtain an accurate linkage between the math-
form part of the engineering design process. ematical model and the actual stove prototype. It helps in
The first step in the engineering design is finalizing design discovering the possible problems in the stove design before mass
parameters for ‘initial physical system’; such as fuel type (processed production and matching the stove-characteristics such as appear-
or unprocessed), combustion type (direct or gasified), and heat ance, materials, and performance closely with the consumer
transfer type (forced or free). The next step is to model and analyze expectation. If a very bad match is obtained with earlier results,
various components of the stove. Modeling of the stove components is the whole process of engineering design may be reiterated using
a process of formulation of mathematical equations applying the basic inputs from experimentation. The process keep on repeating,
conservation equation, which governs the behavior of the actual stove reiterating, re-specifying, and re-designing until a good match is
component. obtained between mathematical and experimental results.
The next step is simulation; the process of subjecting an individual
stove component model or combined stove model to various bound- 7.2.6. Detailed design and its communication
ary or operating conditions, to determine their behavioral character- Detail designing is process of developing micro-specification of
istics. Numerical methods are used most of the times to solve the all the components of stoves (combustion chamber, walls, insula-
equations obtained from modeling, particularly the nonlinear partial tion, grate, pot type/geometry, control mechanism, skirt, custo-
and ordinary differential equations frequently appearing in stove mized pot, fan, TEG, inbuilt temperature/emission sensors, etc).
design. Next step is obtaining the discretized equations using the Detailed design may include overall geometry and configuration of
numerical methods such as the FDM and FVM for execution on the the stove, list of different components of stove, chosen materials
computer, yielding a numerical model, and subjecting it to different for each component, particulars of different components, ranges of
design variables values, across the range decided by the constraints. operating cooking conditions and power requirement.
The numerical models are executed on computers due to the presence These details can be communicated using engineering draw-
of complexities in the governing equations, several combined sub- ings (for dimensions and tolerances), specification sheets, and
models for the different stove components, complicated geometry, computer-aided design (CAD) software. Results for numerical
and complicated boundary conditions. The integration of empirical simulation and prototype testing can also be included as charts
correlations, material properties, and experimental data increases and graphs. A detailed report must be prepared for all the
complications further. activities carried so far. The information must be supplied in
600 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603

sufficient details so that the fabrication facilities can proceed for multi-stage process, in which more than one device is routinely used,
production of the stove. It may include suggestion on manufactur- a practice sometimes called “stacking” [8,128,148]. Hence, a large
ing processes suitable for different components of stove also. number of stove designs are required to meet the diversity of fuels,
pots, foods, cooking methods, price-points, and aesthetics. We cannot
7.2.7. Production, quality testing and dissemination force the new stoves upon the consumers; they must be clearly better
The next step is obviously factory production of the stove based than the current cooking practices that users switch to it on their own.
upon the design details obtained from the previous phase. Quality It is essential to sell well-fabricated, good quality, inexpensive stoves,
assurance is an integral part of any manufacturing process now a with prompt after-sale services. Today’s modern generation stove,
day and hence the stove must be extensively tested over the manufactured completely in factories, after adequate market research,
expected range of cooking conditions. Reliability of the stove over based upon technically optimized designs, and rigorous quality control
its life span can also be assessed by conducting ‘accelerated tests’. assurance is a new ray of hope. In many studies, these factory-
These tests verify and ascertain the design specifications, while manufactured stoves have proven their superiority over traditional
ensuring the satisfactory stove performance; validate and improve or artisan-built stoves [71,91]. Commercial cook stove operations
the earlier model of the stove; establish safety levels during worldwide has demonstrated ability to scale up, proving that the
cooking, and help to obtain the stove performance characteristics. financial sustainability with adequate profits is possible, in case of ICS
Based upon the actual measurements these tests are useful for enterprises [37,117].
iterative improvements in the stove design. Finally, the stove can Scientific principles of combustion, fluid mechanics, and heat
be disseminated through different governmental, non-govern- transfer are already under study, but require further integration.
mental, and private agencies. Various activities involved in the We need experimentally validated user-friendly mathematical and
process of dissemination are advertising in different media, computational tools, to go beyond empirical methods. Finally, we need
demonstration of the stove functioning to consumers, conduction to focus on developing the cookstove technologies to publicize, how
of CCT to evaluate stove performance in actual kitchen under close we imitate the performance of LPG (the most aspired cooking-
controlled conditions, installation at site if required, training to appliances); off-course with biomass fuels, whether unprocessed,
stove operator to maximize gain and sales through different lightly processed, palletized or briquetted [150].
channels. Lastly, only affordable and technically optimized stoves are not
enough to create acceptance in the society. We need to identify
7.2.8. Field-testing and validation and unite; the decisive socio-cultural, natural, and local resource
As discussed earlier (Sections 3.2 and 6.2) laboratory testing is conditions, with economics and modern technology. The building
inappropriate for verifying real-world performance of cookstoves, blocks of the successful ICS program identified from this review
and hence field-testing for verification of laboratory and factory are research and development, universal testing standards and
claimed performance is must. Standard protocols like KPT, BCT, benchmarks, monitoring mechanisms; involvement of private-
and UCT can be used for the purpose. A useful feedback can be sector interest, supported by governmental institutions; innova-
provided to iterative design process from these field tests. tive financing models and sources, and collective effort of the
enthusiastic stakeholders. All of this is essential, if we want to
7.2.9. Performance monitoring deploy hundreds of better stove models to millions of poor people.
This includes installing electronic temperature data loggers and
emissions sensors inside the cookstoves (inbuilt or site installed), in
order to monitor stove use by the consumer. This is an important step Acknowledgements
for systematic data collection of the critical stove parameters and
determining reliable estimates of stove utilization pattern. At the end The authors would like to thank Dr. Kirk R. Smith and “House-
of the programme period, the post-intervention survey is recom- hold Energy, Climate, and Health Research Group”, At University of
mended, in order to gain information on realistic scenario of the stove California, Berkeley for sharing a rich database of research articles
use impact. Stove performance can also be monitored parallel to after for a good cause. Authors would also like to thank Dr. Dean Still
sale services such as repair and maintenance. and research group at “Aprovecho Research Center (ARC)” for
Finally, a stove model like any other product must go through driving the technical revolution in the field of cookstoves and
continuous design iterations, to satisfy consumer’s need over a sharing there quality research as open source.
long term. For long-term sustainable adoption of cookstoves, use
of key learning from all nine steps in iterative manner is necessary.
Often, the technical information necessary for engineering design References
of a new stove model is not available, and can be obtained from
the literature on relevant stove processes and components. The [1] IEA, International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2012-Executive
research and development database interacts with entire design Summary. France, November 2012. 〈http://www.iea.org/publications/freepu
activities as shown in Fig. 10, and supply various inputs across blications/publication/English.pdf〉.
[2] Haines A, McMichael AJ, Smith KR, Roberts I, Woodcock J, Markandya A, et al.
different stove development stages. Efforts are made by earlier to Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions:
the present-day researchers to store and provide free access to the overview and implications for policy makers. Lancet 2009;374(9707):
cookstove research activities literature. Database by ARC, and 2104–14, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61759-1.
[3] Smith KR. Health, energy, and greenhouse-gas impacts of biomass combus-
“Household Energy, Climate, and Health Research Group”, tion in household stoves. Energ Sustainable Dev 1994;1(4):23–9.
At Global Environmental Health, University of California, Berkeley [4] Venkataraman C, Habib G, Eiguren-Fernandez A, Miguel AH, Friedlander SK.
are two biggest sources for stove research documentation. Residential biofuels in south Asia: carbonaceous aerosol emissions and
climate impacts. Science 2005;307(5714):1454–6, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.1104359.
[5] Mwampamba TH. Has the woodfuel crisis returned? Urban charcoal con-
8. Conclusion sumption in Tanzania and its implications to present and future forest
availability Energy Policy 2007;35(8):4221–34, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
About half the people across the world use different types of enpol.2007.02.010.
[6] Damte A, Koch SF. Clean fuel-saving technology adoption in Urban Ethiopia.
biomass fuels, to cook a large number of dishes in diverse ways. Department of Economics, University of Pretoria, South Africa; 2011. Work-
Furthermore, adoption and sustained usage of stoves is a complex, ing paper 229.
 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603 601

[7] U.S. Department of Energy. Biomass cookstoves technical meeting: summary [35] Boy E, Bruce N, Smith KR, Hernandez R. Fuel efficiency of an improved wood
report. Alexandria, VA: 2011. Funded by office of energy efficiency and burning stove in rural Guatemala: implications for health, environment and
renewable energy. development. Energ Sustainable Dev 2000;4(2):21–9.
[8] Ruiz-Mercado I, Masera O, Zamora H, Smith KR. Adoption and sustained use [36] Mac Carty N, Ogle D, Still D, Bond T, Roden C. A laboratory comparison of the
of improved cookstoves. Energy Policy 2011;39:7557–66, http://dx.doi.org/ global warming impact of five major types of biomass cooking stoves. Energ
10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.028. Sustainable Dev 2008;12(2):56–65.
[9] Samuel B. Biomass stoves: engineering design. Arlington, VA: Volunteers in [37] Mukunda HS, Dasappa S, Paul PJ, Rajan NKS, Yagnaraman M, Ravi kumar D,
Technical Assistance; 1987 (Development, and Dissemination). et al. Gasifier stoves—science, technology and field outreach. Curr Sci
[10] Barnes DF, Openshaw K, Smith KR, Plas R. What makes people cook with 2010;98:627–38.
improved biomass stoves. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 1994 (Technical [38] Jetter J, Zhao Y, Smith KR, Khan B, Yelverton T, DeCarlo P, et al. Pollutant
Paper, 242, Energy Series). emissions and energy efficiency under controlled conditions for household
[11] Barnes DF, Openshaw K, Smith KR, Plas R. The design and diffusion of biomass cookstoves and implications for metrics useful in setting interna-
improved cooking stoves. World Bank Res Obs 1993;8(2):119–41. tional test standards. Environ Sci Technol 2012;46:10827–34, http://dx.doi.
[12] Prasad KK, Bussmann P,Visser P, Delsing J, Claus J, Sulilatu W, et al. Some org/10.1021/es301693f.
studies on open fires, shielded fires and heavy stoves. K. Krishna Prasad, [39] Reed TB, Larson R. A wood-gas stove for developing countries. In: Develop-
editor. A report, the wood burning stove group, Departments of Applied ments in thermochemical biomass conversion conference; 1996 May 20–24,
Physics and Mechanical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology Banff, Canada. Ed. A. V. Bridgwater, Blackie Academic Press; 1996.
and Division of Technology for Society, TNO, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands; [40] La Fontaine H, Reed TB. An inverted downdraft wood-gas stove and charcoal
1981. producer. In: Energy from biomass and Wastes XV; D. Klass, editor; 1993,
[13] Bryden M, Still D, Scott P, Hoffa G, Ogle D, Bailis R, et al. Design principles for Washington DC.
wood burning cook stoves. Cottage grove, OR: Aprovecho Research Center; [41] Still D, MacCarty N. Developing stoves to achieve the “50%/90%” future:
London: Shell Foundation; Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection stoves in use that address health and climate issues. In: ETHOS conference;
Agency; 2006. Available from: 〈http://www.pciaonline.org/files/Design-Prin 2011. January 28-30, Kirkland, Washington.
ciples-English-June-28.pdf〉. [42] MacCarty N, Cedar J. The side-feed fan stove. In: ETHOS conference; 2010.
[14] Bronowski J. The ascent of man. Boston: Little Brow and Company; 1973. January 29–31, Kirkland, Washington.
[15] Westhoff B, Germann D. Stove images: a documentation of improved and [43] Witt MJ. An improved wood cookstove: harnessing fan driven forced draft
traditional Stoves in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Germany: Brandes & for cleaner combustion. Hartford CT: Trinity College; Cottage Grove, OR:
Apsel Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main; 1995. Aprovecho Research Center; May 2005. Available from: 〈http://www.aprove
[16] Rahman ML. Improved cooking stoves in South Asia. Islamabad, Pakistan: cho.org/lab/pubs/rl/stove-design/doc/24/raw〉.
SAARC Energy Centre; 2010. [44] Reed TB, Walt R. The “Turbo” wood-gas stove. In: Biomass proceedings of the
[17] Smith KR. Dialectics of improved stoves. Econ Polit Weekly 1989;24(10): fourth conference of the Americas; 1999, Oakland, Ca. editor RP Overend and
517–22. E Chornet, Pergamon Press; 1999.
[18] VITA, Volunteers in Technical Assistance. Testing the efficiency of wood [45] Reed TB, Anselmo E, Kircher K. Testing and modeling the wood-gas
burning cookstoves: provisional international standards. Mt. Rainier, Mary- turbostove. In: Progress in thermo chemical biomass conversion conference;
2000 Sept. 17- 22. Tyrol, Austria.
land, USA; 1982.
[19] VITA, Volunteers in Technical Assistance. Testing the efficiency of wood [46] Kar A, Rehman IH, Burney J, Puppala SP, Suresh R, Singh L, et al. Real-time
assessment of black carbon pollution in Indian households due to traditional
burning cookstoves: international standards. Arlington, Virginia; 1985.
and improved biomass cookstoves. Environ Sci Technol 2012;46:2993–3000.
[20] Kishore VVN, Ramana PV. Improved cookstoves in rural India: how improved
[47] Roth C. Microgasification: cooking on gas from biomass. Eschborn, Germany:
are they? A critique of the perceived benefits from the National Program-
GIZ HERA—Poverty-oriented Basic Energy Service, 1st ed.; January 2011.
meme on Improved Chulhas (NPIC) Energy 2002;27:47–63.
Available from: 〈http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Pub
[21] Hanbar RD, Karve P. National Programmeme on Improved Chulha of the
lications/HERA-IZ%20micro-gasification%20manual%20V1.0%20January%
Government of India: an overview. Energ Sustainable Dev 2002;6(2):49–56.
202011.pdf〉.
[22] Venkataraman C, Sagar AD, Habib G, Lam N, Smith KR. The Indian National
[48] FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; FAO regional
Initiative for Advanced Biomass Cookstoves: the benefits of clean combus-
wood energy development programmeme in Asia. Chinese fuel saving
tion. Energ Sustainable Dev 2010;14:63–72, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
stoves: a compendium. Field document no. 40. Bangkok, Thailand; 1993.
esd.2010.04.005.
[49] Champier D, Bédécarrats Jean-Pierre, Kousksou T, Rivaletto M, Strub F,
[23] Greenglass N, Smith KR. Current improved cookstove (ICS) activities in South
Pignolet P. Study of a thermoelectric generator incorporated in a
Asia: a web-based survey. WHRC/IIMB project, Clean Energy Technologies:
multifunction wood stove. Energy 2011;36(3):1518–26, http://dx.doi.org/
Sustainable Development and Climate Co-Benefits in India (CETSCO), Version
10.1016/j.energy.2011.01.012.
1.1; Sept 26 2006.
[50] Whitman T, Lehmann J. Biochar—one way forward for soil carbon in offset
[24] Zhang X, Smith KR. Programmemes promoting improved household stoves
mechanisms in Africa? Environ Sci Policy 2009;12:1024–7.
in China. Boiling Point 2005:50.
[51] Torres-Rojas D, Lehmann J, Hobbs P, Joseph S, Neufeldt H. Biomass avail-
[25] Smith KR, Shuhua G, Kun H, Daxiong Q. One hundred million improved
ability, energy consumption and biochar production in rural households of
cookstoves in China: how was it done? World Dev. 1993;21(6):941–61. Western Kenya. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:3537–46.
[26] The World Bank. Household cookstoves, environment, health, and climate [52] Torres D. Biochar production with cook stoves and use as a soil conditioner
change, a new look at an old problem. Washington, DC; 2011. in Western Kenya. Master thesis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University; 2011.
[27] Blunck M, Griebenow C, Rammelt M, Zimm C. Carbon markets for improved [53] Sparrevik M, Field JL, Martinsen V, Breedveld GD, Cornelissen G. Life cycle
cooking stoves, a GIZ guide for project operators. Eschborn, Germany: GIZ- assessment to evaluate the environmental impact of biochar implementa-
HERA—poverty-oriented Basic Energy Services, 4th revised ed.; January 2011. tion in conservation agriculture in Zambia. Environ Sci Technol 2013; 47 (3),
[28] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [Internet]. CDM 1206–1215 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es302720k.
4 Project Cycle Search4Programmeme of Activities (Cited 24/04/2013). [54] FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; FAO regional
Germany: Available from 〈http://cdm.unfccc.int/ProgrammemeOfActivities/ wood energy development programmeme in Asia. Indian improved cook-
index.html〉. stoves: a compendium. Field document no. 41. Bangkok, Thailand; 1993.
[29] Bailis R, Cowan A, Berrueta V, Masera O. Arresting the killer in the kitchen: [55] First Energy Pvt. Ltd [Internet]. Pune, India. (Cited 1st May; 2013). Available
the promises and pitfalls of commercialising improved Cookstoves. World Dev. from: http://www.firstenergy.in/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Oorja_3_%20Jumbo_
2009 2009;37(10):1694–705, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.03.004. %20A4_%20Folder_%20Eng_web.pdf.
[30] Legros Gwénaëlle, Havet Ines, Bruce Nigel, Bonjour Sophie. The energy access [56] Adkins E, Chen J, Winiecki J, Koinei P, Modi V. Testing institutional biomass
situation in developing countries: a review focusing on the least developed cookstoves in rural Kenyan schools for the Millennium Villages Project.
countries and sub-Saharan Africa. New York. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Energ Sustainable Dev 2010;14:186–93.
Organization; 2009 (USA: United Nations Development Programmeme). [57] Habermehl H. Costs and benefits of efficient institutional cook stoves in
[31] Still D, MacCarty N, Ogle D, Bond T, Bryden M. Test results of cook stove Malawi. Eschborn, Germany: HERA - GTZ Household Energy Programmeme;
performance. Cottage Grove, OR: Aprovecho Research Center; London: Shell 2008.
Foundation; Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2011. [58] Kabuleta RK., editor. Institutional stove manual 2nd ed. Kampala, Uganda:
Available from: 〈http://www.pciaonline.org/resources/test-results-cook- Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (MEMD), Promotion of Renew-
stove-performance〉. able Energy and Energy Efficiency Programmeme (PREEEP); November 2008.
[32] Jetter JJ, Kariher P. Solid-fuel household cook stoves: characterization of Supported by the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ).
performance and emissions. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33(2):294–305. [59] Shastri CM, Sangeetha G, Ravindranath NH. Dissemination of efficient astra
[33] Mukhopadhyay R, Sambandam S, Pillarisetti A, Jack D, Mukhopadhyay K, stove: case study of a successful entrepreneur in Sirsi, India. Energ Sustain-
Balakrishnan K, et al. Cooking practices, air quality, and the acceptability of able Dev 2002;6(2):63–7.
advanced cookstoves in Haryana, India: an exploratory study to inform [60] USAID, United States Agency for International Development. Fuel-efficient
large-scale interventions. Glob Health Action 2012;5:19016. http://dx.doi. stove programmes in Humanitarian settings: an implementer”s toolkit.
org/10.3402/gha.v5i0.19016. Washington DC; June 2010.
[34] Sesan TA. What’s cooking? Participatory and market approaches to stove [61] Clough L. The improved cookstove sector in East Africa: experience from the
development in Nigeria and Kenya. PhD thesis. U.K: University of Notting- developing energy enterprise programmeme (DEEP). London, U.K.: GVEP
ham; July 2011. International; 2012.
602 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603

[62] Barnes DF, Kumar P, Openshaw K. Cleaner hearths, better homes; new stoves test. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of
for India and the developing world. New Delhi, India: Oxford University California, Berkeley; November 2011. Funded by U.S. Department of Energy.
Press; 2012. [92] Bailis R, Berrueta V, Chengappa C, Dutta K, Edwards R, Masera O, et al.
[63] Lambe F, Atteridge A. Putting the cook before the stove: a user-centred Performance testing for monitoring improved biomass stove interventions:
approach to understanding household energy decision-making: a case study experiences of the household energy and health project. Energ Sustainable
of Haryana State, Northern India. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environ- Dev 2007;11(2):57–70.
ment Institute; 2012. Working Paper 2012-03. [93] Berrueta VM, Edwards RD, Masera OR. Energy performance of wood-burning
[64] Reddy NSB. Understanding stoves for environment and humanity. Hertogen- cookstoves in Michoacán, Mexico. Renewable Energy 2008;33:859–70.
bosch, Netherlands: MetaMeta; 2012. Available from: 〈http://www.metameta. [94] Vaccari M, Vitali F, Mazzù A. Improved cookstove as an appropriate
nl/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Understanding-Stoves-okt-10-web technology for the Logone Valley (Chad–Cameroon): analysis of fuel and
version.pdf〉. cost savings. Renewable Energy 2012;47:45–54.
[65] Rosemarie Y, Logan JA. An assessment of biofuel use and burning of [95] Robinson J, Pemberton-Pigott C, Makonese T, Annegarn H. Heterogeneous
agricultural waste in the developing world. Glob Biogeochem Cycles stove testing protocols for emissions and thermal performance. In: The 18th
2003;17(4):1095, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002GB001952, 2003. domestic use of energy conference; 2010. Cape Peninsula University of
[66] Dixit CSB, Paul PJ, Mukunda HS, Part I. Experimental studies on a pulverised Technology, Cape Town.
fuel stove. Biomass Bioenergy 2006;30:673–83. [96] Makonese T, Robinson J, Pemberton-Pigott C, Annegarn HJ, A preliminary
[67] MacCarty N, Still D, Ogle D. Fuel use and emissions performance of fifty comparison between the heterogeneous protocols and the water boiling test.
cooking stoves in the laboratory and related benchmarks of performance. In: The 19th international conference on the domestic use of energy; 2011
Energ Sustainable Dev 2010;14(3):161–71. April 11-13; Cape Town, South Africa.
[68] Andreatta D, Wohlgemuth A. An investigation of skirts. In: ETHOS con- [97] Roden CA, Bond TC, Conway S, Pinel ABO, MacCarty N, Still D. Laboratory and
ference; 2010 January 29–31; Kirkland, Washington. field investigations of particulate and carbon monoxide emissions from
[69] Wohlgemuth A, Mazumder S, Andreatta D. Computational heat transfer traditional and improved cookstoves. Atmos Environ 2008;xxx:1–12.
analysis and design of third-world cookstoves. J Therm Sci Eng Appl 2009;1 [98] Bailis R, Smith KR, Edwards R. Kitchen performance test (KPT), Version 3.0.
(041001):1–10. Berkeley, California: University of California Berkeley; London: Shell Foun-
[70] Kshirsagar MP. Experimental study for improving energy efficiency of dation, Household Energy and Health Programmeme; January 2007.
charcoal stove. J Sci Ind Res 2009;68:412–6. [99] Granderson J, Sandhu JS, Vasquez D, Ramirez E, Smith KR. Fuel use and
[71] Pennise D, Charron D, Wofchuck T, Rouse J, Huntet A. Evaluation of design analysis of improved wood burning cookstoves in the Guatemalan
manufactured wood stoves in Dadaab refugee camps. Washington DC: Highlands. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33(2):306–15.
United States Agency for International Development. Prepared by Berkeley [100] Zuk M, Rojas L, Blanco S, Serrano P, Cruz J, Angeles F. The impact of improved
Air Monitoring Group; 2010. wood-burning stoves on fine particulate matter concentrations in rural
[72] O’Neal D. Guide to designing retained heat cookers. Addison, TX: HELPS Mexican homes. J Exposure Sci Environ Epidemiol 2006:1–9, http://dx.doi.
International; Washington DC: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; July org/10.1038/sj.jes.7500499.
2007. [101] Chengappa C, Edwards R, Bajpai R, Shields KN, Smith KR. Impact of improved
[73] Andreatta DA. Report on some heat transfer experiments. In: ETHOS cookstoves on indoor air quality in the Bundelkhand region in India. Energ
conference; 2005 January 29–30. Seattle, Washington. Sustainable Dev 2007;XI(2):33–44.
[74] Wan Z. The off fire reboiling pot: improvement to cooking pot design [102] Masera O, Edwards R, Arnez CA, Berrueta V, Johnson M, Bracho LR, et al.
contributes to eco-protection. Boiling Point 2010;58:30–1. Impact of Patsari improved cookstoves on indoor air quality in Michoacán,
[75] Berick A. Design of an energy saving cook pot. In: ETHOS conference; 2007 Mexico. Energ Sustainable Dev 2007;XI(2):45–56.
January 26-28. Seattle, Washington. [103] Armendáriz-Arnez C, Edwards RD, Johnson M, Rosas IA, Espinosa F, Masera OR.
[76] Lertsatitthanakorn C. Electrical performance analysis and economic evalua- Indoor particle size distributions in homes with open fires and improved
tion of combined biomass cook stove thermoelectric (BITE) generator. Patsari cook stoves. Atmos Environ 2010;44:2881–6.
Bioresour Technol 2007;98:1670–4. [104] Ruiz-Mercado I, Lam NL, Canuz E, Davila G, Smith KR. Low-cost temperature
[77] Champier D, Bedecarrats JP, Rivaletto M, Strub F. Thermoelectric power loggers as stove use monitors (SUMs). Boiling Point 2008;55:16–8.
generation from biomass cook stoves. Energy 2009;xxx:1–8. [105] Chowdhury Z, Campanella L, Gray C, Masud AA, Marter-Kenyon J, Pennise D,
[78] Nuwayhid RY, Shihadeh A, Ghaddar N. Development and testing of a et al. Measurement and modeling of indoor air pollution in rural households
domestic woodstove thermoelectric generator with natural convection cool- with multiple stove interventions in Yunnan, China. Atmos Environ
ing. Energy Convers Manage 2005;46:1631–43. 2013;67:161–9.
[79] O”Shaughnessy SM, Deasy MJ, Kinsella CE, Doyle JV, Robinson AJ. Small scale [106] Ramanathan N, Lukac M, Ahmed T, Kard A, Praveen PS, Honles T. A cellphone
electricity generation from a portable biomass cookstove: prototype design based system for large-scale monitoring of black carbon. Atmos Environ
and preliminary results. Appl Energy 2013;102:374–85. 2011;45:4481–7.
[80] Mastbergen D, Willson B. Generating light from stoves using a thermoelectric [107] 100 Million Stoves A Wireless stove use monitoring system: Winner of
generator. ETHOS conference; 2005 January 29-30. Seattle, Washington. Wireless Innovation Project, Household Energy Network (HEDON); Wed 21
[81] Sharma SK. Improved solid biomass burning cookstoves: a development of April 2010. 〈http://www.hedon.info/article1957&highlight=sums〉.
manual. Bangkok, Thailand: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United [108] Burwen J, Levine DI. A rapid assessment randomized-controlled trial of
Nations; 1993. Field document no. 44. improved cookstoves in rural Ghana. Energ Sustainable Dev 2012;16:328–38.
[82] Lee CM, Chandler C, Lazarus M, Johnson FX. Assessing the Climate Impacts of [109] Robinson J, Ibraimo M, Pemberton-Pigott C. The uncontrolled cooking test:
Cookstove Projects: issues in emissions accounting. Stockholm, Sweden: measuring three-stone fire performance in northern Mozambique. In: The
Stockholm Environment Institute; 2012. Working Paper 2013-01. 19th international conference domestic use of energy; 2011April 12–13. Cape
[83] Smith KR, Dutta K, Chengappa C, Gusain PPS, Masera O, Berrueta V, et al. Town, South Africa.
Monitoring and evaluation of improved biomass cookstove programmes for [110] Johnson M, Edwards R, Berrueta V, Masera O. New approaches to perfor-
indoor air quality and stove performance: conclusions from the household mance testing of improved cookstoves. Environ Sci Technol 2010;44
energy and Health Project. Energ Sustainable Dev 2007;XI(2):5–18. (1):368–74.
[84] Bailis R, Ogle D, MacCarty N, Still D, Smith KR, Edwards R. The water boiling [111] Means P. Cookstove durability testing. In: ETHOS conference; 2013 January
test (WBT) version 3.0. London: Shell Foundation, Household Energy and 25-27; Seattle, Washington.
Health Programmeme 2003, revised; 2007. [112] Levine DI, Cotterman C. What impedes efficient product adoption? Evidence
[85] Water Boiling Test, version 4.1.2. Cookstove emissions and efficiency, in a from randomized variation in sales offers for improved cookstoves in Uganda.
controlled laboratory setting; October 1, 2009. Available from: 〈http://www. Berkeley, California: Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Uni-
pciaonline.org/files/WBT4.1.2_0_0.pdf〉. versity of California; 2012. Working Paper Series. Availablable from: 〈http://
[86] Berkeley Air Monitoring Group. Stove performance inventory report. Berke- www.cleancookstoves.org/resources_files/what-impedes-efficient.pdf〉.
ley, CA; October 2012. Prepared for Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, [113] Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India. New initiative
United Nations Foundation. for development and deployment of improved cookstoves: recommended
[87] Taylor III RP. The uses of laboratory testing of biomass cookstoves and the action plan, final report. New Delhi, India; 2010. Prepared by IIT, New Delhi
shortcomings of the dominant U.S. protocol. Master thesis. Ames, Iowa: Iowa and TERI, New Delhi.
State University; 2009. UMI Number: 1464414. [114] Johnson NG. Risk analysis and safety evaluation of household stoves in
[88] Household Energy Network [Internet]. Jean-François Rozis. Comparative developing nations. Master’s thesis. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University; 2005.
water boiling test (CWBT). Available from: 〈http://www.hedon.info/Compar [115] Sinha B. The Indian stove programmeme: an insider’s view-the role of
ativeWaterBoilingTest?bl=y〉. society, politics, economics and education. Boiling Point 2002;48:23–6.
[89] Bailis R, Ogle D, Still D, Smith KR, Edwards R. Stove performance testing [116] Terrado EN, Eitel B. Pilot commercialization of improved cookstoves in
protocols. Berkeley, CA: University of California-Berkeley; London: Shell Nicaragua. Washington, DC: Energy Sector Management Assistance Pro-
Foundation, Household energy and health programmeme; 2004. gramme (ESMAP); 2005. ESMAP Technical Paper- 085.
[90] Adkins E, Tyler E, Wang J, Siriri D, Modi V. Field testing and survey evaluation [117] Shrimali G, Slaski X, Thurber Mark C, Hisham Zerriffi. Improved stoves in
of household biomass cookstoves in rural sub-Saharan Africa. Energ Sustain- India: a study of sustainable business models. Energy Policy 2011;39
able Dev 2010;14:172–85. (12):7543–56, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.031.
[91] Lask K, Jones J, Booker K, Ceballos C, Yang N, Gadgil A. Performance of [118] Rao PSC, Miller JB, Wang YD, Byrne JB. Energy-microfinance intervention for
charcoal cookstoves for Haiti, Part 2: Results from the controlled cooking below poverty line households in India. Energy Policy 2009;37:1694–712.
 M.P. Kshirsagar, V.R. Kalamkar / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30 (2014) 580–603 603

[119] Gifford ML. A Global Review of Cookstove Programmes. MS thesis. Berkeley, [136] Agenbroad JN. A Simplified model for understanding natural convection
California: University of California, Energy and Resources Group; 2010. driven biomass cooking stoves. MS thesis. Colorado: Colorado State Uni-
[120] USAID, United States Agency for International Development; Winrock inter- versity, Department of Mechanical Engineering; summer; 2010.
national. Commercialization of improved cookstoves for reduced indoor air [137] Weerasinghe WMSR, Kumara UDL. CFD approach for modeling of combus-
pollution in urban slums of northwest Bangladesh. Washington DC; May tion of a semi enclosed cooking stove. In: The international conference on
2009. mechanical engineering; 2003. Dhaka, Bangladesh.
[121] Masera OR, Díaz R, Berrueta V. From cookstoves to cooking systems: the [138] Misra JS. Considering value of information when using CFD in design. MS
integrated programme on sustainable household energy use in Mexico. thesis. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University; 2009.
Energ Sustainable Dev 2005;IX(1):25–36. [139] Ravi MR, Kohli S, Ray A. Use of CFD simulation as a design tool for biomass
[122] Rai K, McDonald J, editors. Cookstoves and markets: experiences, successes stoves. Energ Sustainable Dev 2002;VI(2):20–7.
and opportunities. London, U. K.: GVEP International; December 2009. [140] Varunkumar S, Rajan NKS, Mukunda HS. Experimental and computational
[123] Adrianzén MMA. Improved stove adoption in the Northern Peruvian Andes. studies on a gasifier based stove. Energy Convers Manage 2011;53:135–41.
PhD thesis. Vancouver, Canada: The University of British Columbia; March [141] Miller-Lionberg DD. A fine resolution CFD simulation approach for biomass
2011. cook stove development. MS thesis. Colorado: Colorado State University,
[124] Manibog RF. Improved cooking stoves in developing countries: problems and Department of Mechanical Engineering; Spring 2011.
opportunities. Ann Rev Energy 1984;9:199–227. [142] Burnham-Slipper H. Breeding a better stove: the use of computational fluid
[125] Yuntenwi EAT. Improved biomass cookstoves—a strategy towards mitigating dynamics and genetic algorithms to optimise a wood burning stove for
indoor air pollution and deforestation, a case study of the North West Eritrea. PhD thesis. U. K.: University of Nottingham; 2008.
Province of Cameroon. PhD dissertation. Cottbus, Germany: Brandenburg [143] Bryden KM, Ashlock DA, McCorkle DS, Urban GL. Optimization of heat
University of Technology; 2008. transfer utilizing graph based evolutionary algorithms. Int J Heat Fluid Flow
[126] Malhotra P, Neudoerffer RC, Dutta S. A participatory process for designing
2003;24:267–77.
cooking energy programmemes with women. Biomass Bioenergy 2004;26
[144] Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) [Internet]. Washington DC: Winrock
(2):147–69.
International Copyright © 2004-2009 (Cited; 2 May 2013). ISO International
[127] Figueres NR. Rings of fire assessing the use of efficient cook stoves in rural
Workshop on clean and efficient cookstoves. Available from: 〈http://www.
Guatemala. Undergraduate honors thesis. Durham, NC: Sanford School of
pciaonline.org/news/cookstoves-iwa-unanimously-approved〉.
Public Policy, Duke University; 2010.
[145] Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) [Internet]. Washington DC: Winrock
[128] Troncoso K, Castillo A, Merino L, Lazos E, Masera OR. Understanding an
International Copyright © 2004-2009 (Cited; 2 May 2013). Lima consensus
improved cookstove programme in rural Mexico: an analysis from the
on stove performance rating. Available from: 〈http://www.pciaonline.org/
implementers perspective. Energy Policy 2011;39:7600–8.
[129] Nepal M, Nepal A, Grimsrude K. Unbelievable but improved cookstoves are files/Lima_Consensus_Signed.pdf〉.
not helpful in reducing firewood demand in Nepal. Environ Dev Econ [146] Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) [Internet]. Washington DC: Winrock
2010;16:1–23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X10000409. International Copyright © 2004-2009 (Cited; 2 May 2013). ISO International
[130] Dutta K, Shields KN, Edwards R, Smith KR. Impact of improved biomass Workshop on clean and efficient cookstoves; workshop resolutions. Available
cookstoves on indoor air quality near Pune, India. Energ Sustainable Dev from: 〈http://www.pciaonline.org/files/ISO-IWA-Cookstoves.pdf〉.
2007;XI(2):19–32. [147] Nissanka R. Scale-Up and commercialization of improved cookstoves in Sri
[131] Bhattacharya S, Cropper ML. Options for energy efficiency in India and Lanka: lessons learnt from the Anagi experience. Nairobi, Kenya: Policy
barriers to their adoption—a scoping study. Washington, DC: Resources for Innovation Systems for Clean Energy Security (PISCES); Rugby, U. K.: Practical
the future; 2010. Discussion Paper, RFF DP 10-20. Action Consulting; 2009.
[132] Zube DJ. Heat transfer efficiency of biomass cookstoves. MS thesis. Fort [148] Wang X, Franco J, Masera OR, Troncoso K, Rivera MX. What have we learned
Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Department of Mechanical Engineer- about household biomass cooking in Central America? Washington, DC:
ing; summer; 2010. Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme (ESMAP); The World
[133] Gupta Rajesh, Mittal ND. Fluid flow and heat transfer in a single-pan wood Bank; 2005. Report no. 76222.
stove. Int J Eng Sci Technol 2010;2(9):4312–24. [149] Kumar M, Kumar S, Tyagi SK. Design, development and technological
[134] Andreatta D. Temperature and heat flux distributions around a Pot. In: advancement in the biomass cookstoves: a review. Renewable Sustainable
ETHOS conference; 2006 January 27-29; Seattle, Washington. Energy Rev 2013;26:265–85.
[135] Castillo T. Experimental investigation of the velocities in three small biomass [150] Smith KR, Dutta K. Cooking with gas, editorial. Energ Sustainable Dev
cookstoves. MS thesis. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University; 2011. 2011;15:115–6.

View publication stats