Developing a real-world testing protocol for evaluating particulate and greenhouse gas emissions from Australian wood heaters.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Wood heater smoke is one of the most important sources of air pollution in Australia and leads to several hundred avoidable deaths every year. (Borchers Arriagada et al., 2024) <br>Reducing this substantial burden requires a well-coordinated, funded and multifaceted approach. This includes the development of much safer, less polluting wood combustion appliances than those currently available (Pearce & Scott, 2021), enforcement of local environmental laws to protect neighbours affected by polluting emissions, and incentives, education and regulation to support behaviour change away from highly polluting heating choices and practices (Johnston et al., 2013; Kirkby & McNeill, 2020). <br>The development of safer and less polluting wood heaters requires an emissions testing protocol designed for evaluating the magnitude of polluting emissions that occur when appliances are used in the community. However, such a protocol does not currently exist in regulatory approaches in Australia. The testing protocol used in current Australian and New Zealand Standards (AS/NZS4012-4013), does not reflect typical wood heater operations in a household and as a result, grossly under-estimates emissions that occur when the appliances are used after sale (Johnston et al., 2023). Lowering of existing wood heater emission limits over many years, within the AS/NZS4012-4013 protocol, has not led to any documented reductions in community air pollution from wood heaters nor improvements in community health. <br>Countries in regions with similar air quality problems from wood heaters, such as New Zealand, North America, and Europe face similar problems with wood heaters and are moving towards real-world testing protocols (Marin et al., 2022; Marius et al., 2017; Schön et al.). Standards based on real world testing have been shown to result in rapid technological advancements with much cleaner, ultra-low emissions appliances. (Pearce & Scott, 2020, 2021). However, Australia cannot simply adopt these approaches. We need to develop our own testing methods due to our different dominant fuels (Eucalypt hardwoods) which burn differently to softwoods such as pine, which are largely used in NZ, North America and Europe. <br>Here we report on work undertaken by the University of Tasmania using their purpose-built facility in FireLab3 for undertaking emissions and efficiency testing of wood heaters. The team have developed the Tasmania Protocol, a reproducible protocol for burning hardwoods in a wide range of heating appliances in a way that much more closely aligns with burning practices common in the community than the AS/NZS4012-4013 (Appendix 1). <br>Implementation of the new protocol, with appropriate independent governance and auditing and enforcement, will provide an opportunity for innovation and reform in wood heater design for vastly improved air quality and community health, enabling Australians to benefit from existing and new low emissions technologies. It will also enable more realistic characterisation of the magnitude of climate forcing emissions from wood heaters used in the community. In addition to specifying a new testing protocol, several specific recommendations are made for ongoing research, governance and enforcement of wood heater testing standards and protocols. Implementation of these procedures and protocols will enable considerably improved, and long overdue, community health protection from the harmful impacts of wood heater pollution in Australia.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».