Thermal performance of gasifier cooking stoves: A systematic literature review

Md Insiat Islam Rabby; Md Wasi Uddin; Mahafuzur Rahman Sheikh; Humayun Kabir Bhuiyan; Tazeen Afrin Mumu; Fabliha Islam; Afsana Sultana

doi:10.12688/f1000research.126890.1

Home Browse Thermal performance of gasifier cooking stoves: A systematic literature...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Systematic Review

Thermal performance of gasifier cooking stoves: A systematic literature review

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]

Md Insiat Islam Rabby ¹, Md Wasi Uddin¹, Mahafuzur Rahman Sheikh², [...] Humayun Kabir Bhuiyan¹, Tazeen Afrin Mumu¹, Fabliha Islam¹, Afsana Sultana¹

Md Insiat Islam Rabby ¹, Md Wasi Uddin¹, [...] Mahafuzur Rahman Sheikh², Humayun Kabir Bhuiyan¹, Tazeen Afrin Mumu¹, Fabliha Islam¹, Afsana Sultana¹

PUBLISHED 10 Jan 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Mechanical Engineering, Military Institute of Science and Technology, Mirpur, Dhaka, 1200, Bangladesh
² Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia

Md Insiat Islam Rabby
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Md Wasi Uddin
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Mahafuzur Rahman Sheikh
Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing

Humayun Kabir Bhuiyan
Roles: Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Tazeen Afrin Mumu
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Fabliha Islam
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Afsana Sultana
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the International Conference on Clean Energy Systems and Technologies collection.

Abstract

A systematic literature review was conducted to summarize the overall thermal performance of different gasified cooking stoves from the available literature. For this purpose, available studies from the last 14 years (2008 to 2022) were searched using different search strings. After screening, a total of 28 articles were selected for this literature review. Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases were used as search strings by applying “Gasifier cooking stove” AND “producer gas cooking stove” AND “thermal performance” keywords. This review uncovers different gasified cooking stoves, cooking fuels, and fabrication materials besides overall thermal performances. The result shows that the overall thermal performance of different gasified cooking stoves was 5.88% to 91% depending on the design and burning fuels. The premixed producer gas burner with a swirl vane stove provided the highest overall thermal performance range, which was 84% to 91%, and the updraft gasified stove provided the lowest performance, which was 5.88% to 8.79%. The result also demonstrates that the wood pellets cooking fuel provided the highest thermal performance and corn straw briquette fuel provided the lowest for gasified cooking stoves. The overall thermal performance of wood pellets was 38.5% and corn straw briquette was 10.86%.

Keywords

Gasified cooking stoves, thermal performance, cooking fuels and literature review.

Corresponding author: Md Insiat Islam Rabby

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2023 Rabby MII et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Rabby MII, Uddin MW, Sheikh MR et al. Thermal performance of gasifier cooking stoves: A systematic literature review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2023, 12:38 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126890.1) First published: 10 Jan 2023, 12:38 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126890.1) Latest published: 05 Jul 2023, 12:38 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126890.2)

Introduction

One of the largest energy-consuming sectors in developing nations is the cooking sector, and this sector requires a large amount of energy and effort as it is a commonplace daily activity. Biomass fuel, natural gas, oil, and coal are the predominant sources of energy for cooking sector, and the majority of the inhabitants in developing countries rely on conventional fuels, typically wood and agricultural residues. Approximately three billion people worldwide, 41% of households, rely on solid biomass fuels (biomass such as wood, crop residues, dung, charcoal, and coal) for cooking due to the affordability or availability of these fuels, especially in developing countries in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (Bonjour et al., 2013). The majorities of the conventional cooking are perpetrated over open flames, which burn inefficiently and result in significant emissions. It is worth to be mentioned that, in 2010, about 3.5 million premature deaths globally were caused by household air pollution (Lim et al., 2012), and it also contributed to outdoor air pollution, which resulted in an additional 370,000 deaths and 9.9 million disability-adjusted life worldwide (Chafe et al., 2014). Furthermore, household emissions can stimulate lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic bronchitis, cardiovascular diseases, low birth weight, stillbirth, and acute lower respiratory infections (Amegah & Jaakkola, 2016). Excessive uses of solid fuels have pernicious effects on human health, regional environment, and global climate (Smith et al., 2004). Due to the pernicious impact on human health that results in sophisticated diseases, global temperature rise, hazardous gas emissions, and excessive time waste in conventional cooking, the advancement of heat generation techniques in cooking stoves become significant.

To concoct an improved cooing stove, it must requires substantial improvements in combustion efficiency as well as increased fuel efficiency compared to conventional stoves (Venkataraman et al., 2010). In the first decade of the 1940s, the development of biomass-based cooking stoves commenced in India, and these stoves were known as improved mud cooking stoves. Then another study (Raju, 1954) reported the development of the upgraded multi-pot mud cooking stoves for Indian rural households. Afterwards, an upsurge in better cooking stoves appeared due to the world's focus shifted to environmental concerns and energy conservation measures. These cooking stoves were created and built using engineering principles, making them more effective and long-lasting than the conventional open fired cooking stove. Investigators are currently attempting to design cooking stoves that are more ecologic and sustainable as well as more energy and thermally efficient. To date, several different types of improved cooking stoves have been designed and investigated, i.e. patsari cooking stoves (Cynthia et al., 2008), mirt cook stove (Dresen et al., 2014), gasifier cook stove (Carter et al., 2014), wick stove (Dinesha et al., 2019), pellet stoves (Boman et al., 2011), radiant stoves (Pantangi et al., 2011), etc. From the above verities, gasifier cook stove is one of the potential energy efficient and environment friendly cook stove.

The process of transforming solid or liquid feed stocks into usable gaseous or other chemical fuels that may be combusted to produce thermal energy is known as gasification. Fuel with a small amount of air is delivered into a closed container so that the fuel can be partially combusted to generate the required heat for gasification. The fundamental idea of gasification is that it is a thermochemical process that uses the reactions of drying, pyrolysis, oxidation, and reduction to turn solid fuel into a combustible gas (producer gas) (Basu, 2010). In a gasifier cook stove, biomass is gasified in the reactor to generate syngas, thereafter, syngas is burned in the burner in order to obtain producer gas flame (Susastriawan et al., 2021). On the contrary, biomass is directly combusted with the presence of excess air and produced heat and flue gas.

Due to the eclectic amount of highly appealing characteristics of gasifier cookstoves, including high efficiency, smoke-free safe combustion, uniform and steady flame, simplicity of controlling the flame, and operational capability for long periods (Raman et al., 2014), the advancement of gasifier cooking stoves became significant. Therefore, to date, several research studies had been performed on the design and development of gasifier cooking stoves with the goal of increasing efficiency and dwindling emission such as producer gas stove with bluff-body shape in burner (Susastriawan et al., 2021), producer gas stove (Panwar et al., 2011; Punnarapong et al., 2017), Chinese gasifier stove (Carter et al., 2014), natural-draft gasifier cookstoves (Hailu, 2022; Tryner et al., 2014), fixed bed advanced micro-gasifier cook stove (Sakthivadivel & Iniyan, 2017), inverted downdraft gasifier (Narnaware & Pareek, 2016; Ojolo et al., 2012; Osei et al., 2020), biomass gasifier cookstove (Panwar & Rathore, 2015), top-lit updraft gasifier cookstove (Scharler et al., 2021), advance micro-gasifier stove (Sakthivadivel et al., 2019; Wamalwa et al., 2017), rice husk gas stove (Ndindeng et al., 2019), natural and force draft gasifiers stove (Getahun et al., 2018), and natural cross draft (Nwakaire & Ugwuishiwu, 2015). However, to the authors’ best knowledge, no proper systematic reviews have already been conducted on the overall thermal performance of gasifier cook stoves, with an emphasis on types of gasifier stoves, cooking fuels, location of investigation, and materials to fabricate stoves. Therefore, in this study, a systematic review has been performed to consolidate all the technical works published on the thermal performance of gasifier cooking stoves as well as further analyse the areas on which additional studies should be focused for future research trajectory.

Methods

A typical research methodology steps for systematic review of Tranfield et al. (2003) are considered which are given in Figure 1 wherein the 1^st stage is known as “Define” which is subdivided by steps as “Identification of need for a literature review” and “Development of a literature review protocol”. The 2^nd stage known as “Collect and Select” which is also consist of two steps- “Identification of documents” and “Selection of relevant documents”. Simultaneously, the 3^rd stage is “Analyse” which is categorized as documents and Data extraction steps. Meanwhile, the final stage is “Result” indicates the last steps “Documents Finding” wherein collected all documentation are reviewed significantly for extracting knowledge from gathered information.

Figure 1. Summary of study selection design.

Search and selection strategy

A literature search was conducted to cover the period from January 2008 to August 2022. Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Science Direct databases were selected as search strings. EndNote X 9.0 software was used to exclude duplicates from searched data. The protocol of the review discussed in Table 1. Moreover, the system for search string database is presented in Table 2 where the process to search articles in different considered database is discussed.

Table 1. Protocol of review.

Items	Descriptions
Keywords	Gasifier cooking stove, producer gas cooking stove, thermal performance and emission of pollutants
Boolean Operators	“AND” between Keywords; OR between Database search fields.
Search Fields	Abstract; Title; Keywords;
Exclusion Criteria	Household survey study, review article, articles that did not determine thermal performance or emission of pollutants
Language	English
Publication Type	Article
Time Window	January 2008 to August 2022

Table 2. Search String database modification system.

Database	Search string
Google scholar	Title: (“Gasifier cooking stove” AND “producer gas cooking stove” AND “thermal performance”) Refined by: Language (English) AND Research Area: (Engineering) AND Document Type: (Article)
Wed of science	Title: (“Gasifier cooking stove” AND “producer gas cooking stove” AND “thermal performance” OR Abstract: (“Gasifier cooking stove” AND “producer gas cooking stove” AND “thermal performance”) OR Keywords: (“Gasifier cooking stove” AND “producer gas cooking stove” AND “thermal performance”)
Science direct	Title: (“Gasifier cooking stove” AND “producer gas cooking stove” AND “thermal performance”) OR Abstract: (“Gasifier cooking stove” AND “producer gas cooking stove” AND “thermal performance”) OR Keywords: (“Gasifier cooking stove” AND “producer gas cooking stove” AND “thermal performance”)
Scopus	Title: (“Gasifier cooking stove” AND “producer gas cooking stove” AND “thermal performance”) OR Abstract: (“Gasifier cooking stove” AND “producer gas cooking stove” AND “thermal performance”) OR Keywords: (“Gasifier cooking stove” AND “producer gas cooking stove” AND “thermal performance”) AND limit-to (subject area “engineering”) AND limit-to (exact keyword “gasifier cooking stove”) OR limit- to (exact keyword “producer gas cooking stove”) OR LIMIT- TO (exact keyword “thermal performance”)

Data extraction and analysis

To conduct this study, the author, date, name and types of study, study location, stoves types, material used, fuels/energy sources, thermal performances and emission of pollutants were reported by using Microsoft Excel.

Results and discussion

A total of 1153 articles initially identified. After removing duplicates, checking title, abstract and full text, 28 were found eligible based on the predetermined exclusion and inclusion criteria for this study. Among the 28 selected articles, all conducted their investigation on gasified cooking stoves experimentally and only 3 articles performed numerical/computational analysis beside experimental study.

Publication year

The publications year of the selected articles is summarized in Figure 2, which was obtained from Table 3. The figure shows that the selected articles were published in 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2012 and 2008. The result also highlights that the highest amount of research on gasified cooking stoves was conducted in 2019 at 18% and the lowest amount of research was conducted in 2012 at only 4%. From the beginning to the mid of the current year 2022 almost 14% studies were identified from the selected literature which reflects that the investigation demand on gasified cooking stoves is recently also a high priority to researchers.

Figure 2. Year wise publications percentages.

Table 3. Summary of findings reported in selected articles.

Authors	Gasified stove types	Study types	Study locations	Material used	Fuel/energy source	Thermal Efficiency
Hailu, 2022	Natural draft	Experimental	Not mentioned	Steel sheet or cast iron	Eucalyptus, bamboo, and sawdust-cow dung briquettes	29.85%, 28.43% and 23.76% for eucalyptus, sawdust-cow dung briquette, and bamboo
Himanshu et al., 2022	Forced draft with separate secondary and primary air fans	Experimental and computational	India	Not mentioned	Biomass pellets	41-43%
Gutiérrez et al., 2022	General gasified	Experimental	Not mentioned	Not mentioned	Wood pellets and wood chips from pine patula as fuels;	25.2% for pellets and 24.1% for chips.
Varunkumar et al., 2012	General gasified	Experimental and computational	Not mentioned	Not mentioned	Wood	45– 47%
Scharler et al., 2021	Top-lit updraft	Experiment and Numerical	Not mentioned	Not mentioned	Wood pellets and rice hull pellets	42%
Susastriawan et al., 2021	Producer gas stove with bluff-body shape in burner	Experimental	Indonesia	Mild Steel	Rice husk and sawdust wastes	17.6%
Andika and Nelwan, 2020	Updraft	Experimental	Not mentioned	Carbon steel for chamber and ceramic wool for insulation	Cassava peel	5.88 to 8.79%
Osei et al., 2020	Inverted downdraft	Experimental	Ghana	Stainless steel	Rice husk	30.5-38.1%
Ahmad et al., 2019	Top-lit updraft (TLUD) with remote burner and fuel reactor	Experimental	China	Not mentioned	Peanut shell pellets, corn cobs, wood chips	31.4±1.2 for peanut shell pellets, 27.1±0.9% for corn cobs and 23.3±0.7% for wood chips.
Desale, 2019	Forced draft	Experimental	India	Stainless steel	Neem stalk	36.47%
Getahun et al., 2018	Natural and forced draft	Experimental	Ethiopia	Not mentioned	Charcoal	22.7% and 25% for natural draft and forced draft respectively.
Ndindeng et al., 2019	Rua rice husk stove (RRHS), Viet rice husk stove (VRHS), Paul Oliver 150 rice husk stove (PO150), Paul Olivier 250 rice husk stove (PO250) and Mayon rice husk gasifier stove (MYN)	Experimental	Sub-sahara africa	Stainless steel and cast iron	Rice husk	11% for MYN gasifier while 30% for PO150 and 20% for other stoves.
Sakthivadivel et al., 2019	Advanced micro	Experimental	Not mentioned	Carbon steel	Coconut shells, tamarind pellet and Prosopis juliflora	36.7 ± 0.4%, 37 ± 0.4% and 38 ± 0.4%, for coconut shells, Prosopis juliflora and tamarind seed pellets, respectively.
Punnarapong et al., 2017	Premixed producer gas burner with a swirl vane	Experimental	Thailand	Ceramic fiber and steel sheet	Charcoal	84 – 91%
Sakthivadivel & S. Iniyan, 2017	Fixed bed advanced micro	Experiment	India	Carbon steel	Biomass fuels like coconut shells, prosopis Juliflora and wood pellets	36.7%, 36% and 38.5% for coconut shell, Prosopis Juliflora and wood pellets, respectively
Wamalwa et al., 2017	Micro	Experimental	Kenya	Not mentioned	Saw dust pellets	36%
Ahmad et al., 2016	Top lit up-draft (TLUD)	Experimental	China	Not mentioned	Wood char, rice husk, corn cob, nut shell pellets and corn straw briquette	17.8%, 16.47%, 14.38%, 12.38% and 10.86% for woodchar, rice husk, corncob, and nut shell pellets and corn straw briquette, respectively.
Chen et al., 2016	Chinese three forced-draft	Experimental	China	Not mentioned	Pellets made with cornstalk and cow dung	16% to 43%
Narnaware & Pareek, 2016	Downdraft	Experimental	Not mentioned	Mild steel	Mango (magnifera indica), babul (prosopis julifera) and nim (azadirachta indica) wood	36 to 39%,
Panwar and Rathore, 2015	General gasified	Experimental	India	Mild steel	Biomass (Prosopis juliflora)	36.38%
Balakumar et al., 2015	Forced draft micro	Experimental	India	Not mentioned	Juliflora wood and Coconut shell	for high power hot and cold start 28% and 30% for coconut shell and 27% and 28% for juliflora wood.
Kumar et al., 2015	Chinese model (HX-20) updraft institutional	Experimental	Nepal	Not mentioned	Wood chips, rice husk and pellet	17.76%, 15.51% and 19.91% for wood chips, rice husk and pellet
J.N. Nwakaire & B.O. Ugwuishiwu, 2015	Natural cross draft	Experimental	Sub-saharan africa	Mild steel	Rice husk briquette	21.10%
Carter et al., 2014	Chinese general gasified	Experimental	China	Not mentioned	Processed (pelletized) biomass	22 to 33%.
Shahi et al., 2014	General gasified	Experimental	Nepal	Not mentioned	Pinusroxburgii (Salla) wood	34%
Tryner et al., 2014	Natural-draft semi	Experiment	Not mentioned	Steel sheet	Corn cobs and wood pellets	42%
Ojolo et al., 2012	Inverted downdraft	Experimental	Nigeria	Not mentioned	Biomass wood shaving	10.6%.
Panwar & Rathore, 2008	General gasified	Experimental	India	Mild steel	Babul wood and gas	26.5%

Identified gasified cooking stoves

From the literature search, this review identified different types of gasified cooking stoves wherein modification and improvement were applied. Based on the findings from Table 2 the identified gasified cooking stoves are summarized in few categories, which are:

1. Downdraft gasified stove: reverse-downdraft, inverted downdraft and biomass downdraft
2. Natural draft gasified stove: Natural draft and Natural cross draft
3. Forced draft gasified stove: forced draft, forced-draft pellet-fed semi gasifier, forced draft with separate secondary and primary air fans
4. Micro gasified stove: fixed bed advanced micro, advanced micro
5. Updraft gasifier cook stove: top-lit updraft (TLUD), Portable Top-Lit Up Draft, top-lit updraft (TLUD) with remote burner and fuel reactor, Chinese model (HX-20) updraft institutional
6. General gasified cooking stove: biomass, Chinese, biochar
7. Others: producer gas stove with bluff-body shape in burner, rice husk gasifier stove

The percentages of selected publications on the gasified cooking stoves are presented in Figure 3. The figure shows that the maximum articles worked on general gasified cooking stoves was 23%, while only 12% articles performed investigation on micro, and other gasified cooking stoves. Due to the easy design consideration and fabrication most of the studies considered general gasified cooking stoves for their investigation.

Figure 3. Identified gasified cooking stoves vs article publication percentages.

Investigation location

Most of the identified articles on different gasified gas stoves are conducted in Asian and African continents as due to energy security and crisis people in these continents for which people of these continents mainly depend on the biomass fuel driven cooking system. Country wise identified published articles from Table 3 are presented in Figure 4. Among the selected articles 71% mentioned their study location. The figure shows 11 different countries from Asian and African continent where the investigation on gasified cooking stoves were conducted. The figure also highlights that 21% published articles performed their studies in India, which is the highest while the lowest study was performed in Thailand, which was only 3%. The design, configuration and burning fuels for any cooking stoves usually develop and investigate based on the geographical locations, climate, environment and materials availability. Therefore, this finding will help researchers, organizations and government to investigate and implement this type of cooking stoves based on the geographical location so that the adoption rate of the research can increase.

Figure 4. Country wise publication percentages.

Materials to fabricate stoves

Cast iron, mild steel, metal, ceramic fiber, steel sheet, carbon steel and stainless steel were mainly used to make gasified cooking stoves. Among the selected articles for the current review, only 60% articles addressed the materials they used to fabricate their experimental gasified stove. The usage percentages of these materials in the published articles are presented in Figure 5. The figure shows that 15% published articles used mild steel which is the highest while 3% used ceramic fiber which is the lowest. The availability of mild steel in the investigated locations and higher thermal properties of stainless steel for cooking devices are the key reasons for applying it in production.

Figure 5. Applied materials for fabricating stove based on articles.

Cooking fuels

The fuels used in the cooking stoves are categorized in four types from the Table 2 and presented in Figure 6. The categories are wooden fuel, animals manure, cereals, charcoal and others. However, wooden fuels are classified in seven types, which are pellets, cassava peel, coconut shell, sized, shavings, chip and sawdust. Among the fuels wooden pellets fuels were used maximum. Peanut shell, cornstalk and cow dung, from pine patula, saw dust pellets, tamarind pellet, wood pellets and rice hull pellets are identified as wooden pellets fuels from selected articles. Moreover, Babul wood (Prosopis Juliflora), mango (magnifera indica), babul (prosopis julifera) and nim (azadirachta indica) wood, eucalyptus, bamboo and pinusroxburgii (Salla) wood are identified as sized wooden fuels. The rice husk, wheat straw and corncobs are categorized as cereal fuels while gas and briquettes are categorized in other types. In briquette fuels rice husk, sawdust-cow dung and corn straw are identified. This finding highlights the potential fuels to run a gasified cooking stove through which general people and research will be benefited.

Figure 6. Cooking fuels based on published articles.

Thermal performance of different gasified cooking stoves

The overall thermal performance of different gasified cooking stoves from Table 1 is identified 5.88% to 91% depends on the design and burning fuels. The thermal performances of the cooking stoves usually determine by using three approaches named water-boiling test, control cooking test and kitchen performance test. The overall thermal performance of different gasified cooking stoves obtained from selected studies is presented in Figure 7 and Table 4. Figure 7 shows that natural draft semi gasified cooking stove provide the highest overall thermal performance which was 42% while Mayon rice husk gasified stoves shows the lowest performance which was 11%. In the meantime, the overall thermal performance of stove was presented as range in the literature therefore this performance is summarized in Table 5. Table 5 shows that premixed producer gas burner with a swirl vane stove provided the highest overall thermal performance range which was 84% to 91% and updraft gasified stove provided the lowest performance which was 5.88% to 8.79%. This overall thermal performance of the stoves usually varied due to the design and fuels applied in the experimental tests.

Figure 7. Overall thermal performance of different gasified cooking stoves.

Table 4. Overall thermal performance range.

Gasified stove types	Overall thermal performance
General gasified	24% to 47%
Premixed producer gas burner with a swirl vane	84% to 91%
Chinese gasifier stove	22 to 33%
Inverted downdraft	10.6% to 38.1%
Top-lit updraft	10.86% to 42%
Natural draft	22.7% to 29.85%
Downdraft	36% to 39%
Forced draft	25% to 36.47%
Forced-draft Chinese three types	16% to 43%
Forced draft with separate secondary and primary air fans	41% to 43%
Updraft	5.88% to 8.79%

Table 5. Thermal performances of cooking fuels for gasified cooking stoves.

Cooking Fuel	Overall thermal performance
Coconut shell	36.70%
Prosopis Juliflora	36-37.4%
Wood pellets	38.50%
Tamarind seed pellets	38±0.4%
Eucalyptus	29.85%
Sawdust-cow dung briquette	28.43%
Bamboo	23.76%
Peanut shell pellets	31.4±1.2%
Corn cobs	12% to 28%
wood chips	17.76% to 24%
Wood char	17.80%
Rice husk	15.51% to 16.47%
Nut shell pellets	12.38%
Corn straw briquette	10.86%
Pellet	19.91%

Thermal performances of cooking fuels for gasified cooking stoves

Due to the different mechanical properties such as fuel consumption rate, calorific value, heating rate and fire point different cooking fuels provided different thermal performance presented in Table 3. To understand the insight of the thermal performance of different stoves for different cooking fuels a summarization table is created. The Table 5 presents the overall thermal performance for some cooking fuels that are directly mentioned in Table 1. From Table 5 it can be seen that wood pellets provided the highest thermal performance and corn straw briquette provided the lowest. The overall thermal performance of wood pellets was 38.5% and corn straw briquette was 10.86%.

Conclusion

In this current literature review the overall thermal performance of different gasified cooking stoves were explored. For this purpose, available literature from past 14 years from 2008 to 2022 were search by using different search strings and after screening a total of 28 articles were selected for this literature review. The key findings from the review are as follows:

i. Maximum studies on gasified cooking stoves were conducted on 2019, which was 18%, and the least minimum researches were conducted on 2012, which was only 4%. From the beginning to the mid of the current year 2022 almost 14% studies were identified from the selected literature which reflects that the investigation demand on gasified cooking stoves is recently also in high priority to researcher.
ii. The identified gasified cooking stoves from literature are classified in six groups named downdraft, updraft, natural draft, forced draft, micro, general gasified and others whereas the maximum articles worked on general gasified cooking stoves, which was 23%.
iii. 21% published articles on gasified cooking stoves performed their studies in India, which is the highest while the lowest study was performed in Thailand, which was only 3%.
iv. 15% published articles used mild steel to make gasified stove, which is the highest while only 3% used, ceramic fiber, which is the lowest.
v. The identified cooking fuels for gasified stoves are classified in four group which are wooden fuel, animals manure, cereals, charcoal and others whereas wooden fuel was applied most of the studies.
vi. The overall thermal performance of different gasified cooking stoves was 5.88% to 91% depends on the design and burning fuels. The premixed producer gas burner with a swirl vane stove provided the highest overall thermal performance range, which was 84% to 91%, and the updraft gasified stove provided the lowest performance, which was 5.88% to 8.79%.
vii. Among the coking fuels, the wood pellets provided the highest thermal performance and corn straw briquette provided the lowest for gasified cooking stove. The overall thermal performance of wood pellets was 38.5% and corn straw briquette was 10.86%.

The review recommends to analysis the impact of pollution rate of the identified gasified stove on women and children health. Moreover, the adoption rate among general, economic sustainability and lifecycle analysis of the identified gasified stoves can be more valuable for our community.

Data availability

Underlying data

All data underlying the results are available as part of the article and no additional source data are required.

Reporting guidelines

Figshare: PRISMA checklist and flowchart for ‘Thermal performance of gasifier cooking stoves: A systematic literature review’, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21747020.v2 (Uddin et al., 2022).

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

References

Ahmad R, Zhou Y, Zhao N, et al.: Performance investigation of top-lit updraft gasifier stove using different biomass fuels. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2019; 28(12A): 9835–9842.
Ahmad R, et al.: Performance analysis of a top lit updraft (TLUD) gasifier stove, operated with respect to fuel characteristics of multiple types of biomass feedstock. 2016 ASABE Annual International Meeting. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. 2016.
Amegah AK, Jaakkola JJ: Household air pollution and the sustainable development goals. Bull. World Health Organ. 2016; 94(3): 215–221. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Andika S, Nelwan LO: Design of an updraft gasification stove and its performance test with cassava peel as fuel. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2020; (Vol. 542(No. 1); p. 012049). IOP Publishing.
Balakumar A, Sakthivadivel D, Iniyan S, Prakash EJ: Experimental evaluation of a forced draft micro gasifier cook stove using juliflora wood and coconut shell. J. Chem. Pharm. Sci. 2015; 974: 2115.Reference Source
Basu P: Biomass Gasification and Pyrolysis: Practical Design and Theory. Academic Press;2010.
Boman C, Pettersson E, Westerholm R, et al.: Stove Performance and Emission Characteristics in Residential Wood Log and Pellet Combustion, Part 1: Pellet Stoves. Energy Fuel. 2011; 25(1): 307–314. Publisher Full Text
Bonjour S, Adair RH, Wolf J, et al.: Solid Fuel Use for Household Cooking: Country and Regional Estimates for 1980–2010. Environ. Health Perspect. 2013; 121(7): 784–790. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Carter EM, Shan M, Yang X, et al.: Pollutant emissions and energy efficiency of Chinese gasifier cooking stoves and implications for future intervention studies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014; 48(11): 6461–6467. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Chafe ZA, Brauer M, Klimont Z, et al.: Household Cooking with Solid Fuels Contributes to Ambient PM2.5 Air Pollution and the Burden of Disease. Environ. Health Perspect. 2014; 122(12): 1314–1320. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Chen Y, Shen G, Su S, et al.: Efficiencies and pollutant emissions from forced-draft biomass-pellet semi-gasifier stoves: Comparison of International and Chinese water boiling test protocols. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2016; 32: 22–30. Publisher Full Text
Cynthia A, Edwards R, Johnson M, et al.: Reduction in personal exposures to particulate matter and carbon monoxide as a result of the installation of a Patsari improved cook stove in Michoacan Mexico. Indoor Air. 2008; 18(2): 93–105. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Desale ETV: Performance evaluation of forced draft gasifier based cook stove by using neem stalk. Perform. Eval. 2019; 3(1).
Dinesha P, Kumar S, Rosen MA: Performance and emission analysis of a domestic wick stove using biofuel feedstock derived from waste cooking oil and sesame oil. Renew. Energy. 2019; 136: 342–351. Publisher Full Text
Dresen E, DeVries B, Herold M, et al.: Fuelwood Savings and Carbon Emission Reductions by the Use of Improved Cooking Stoves in an Afromontane Forest, Ethiopia. Landarzt. 2014; 3(3): 1137–1157. Publisher Full Text
Getahun E, Tessema D, Gabbiye N:Design and development of household gasifier cooking stoves: natural versus forced draft. International Conference on Advances of Science and Technology. Cham:Springer;2018; (pp. 298–314).
Gutiérrez J, Chica EL, Pérez JF: Parametric Analysis of a Gasification-Based Cookstove as a Function of Biomass Density, Gasification Behavior, Airflow Ratio, and Design. ACS omega. 2022; 7(9): 7481–7498. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Hailu A: Development and Performance Analysis of Top Lit Updraft: Natural Draft Gasifier Stoves with Various Feed Stocks. Heliyon. 2022; 8: e10163. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Himanshu, Pal K, Jain S, Tyagi S. K.: Energy and exergy analysis and emission reduction from forced draft gasifier cookstove models: a comparative study. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2022; 147(15): 8509–8521.Publisher Full Text
Nwakaire JN, Ugwuishiwu BO: Development of a Natural Cross Draft Gasifier Stove for Application in Rural Communities in Sub-Saharan Africa. J. Appl. Sci. 2015; 15: 1149–1157. Publisher Full Text
Kumar B, Shrestha KR, Ale BB: Performance evaluation of Chinese model (HX-20) updraft institutional gasifier stove in context of Nepal. 2015 Proceedings of IOE Graduate Conference. 2015; (pp. 155–159).
Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD, et al.: A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012; 380(9859): 2224–2260. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Narnaware S, Pareek D: Performance analysis of an inverted downdraft biomass gasifier cookstove and its impact on rural kitchen. International Energy Journal. 2016; 15(3).
Ndindeng SA, Wopereis M, Sanyang S, et al.: Evaluation of fan-assisted rice husk fuelled gasifier cookstoves for application in sub-Sahara Africa. Renew. Energy. 2019; 139: 924–935. Publisher Full Text
Ojolo SJ, Ismail SO, Orisaleye JI, et al.: Development of an inverted downdraft biomass gasifier cookstove. Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences. 2012; 3(3): 513–516.
Osei I, Kemausuor F, Commeh MK, et al.: Design, fabrication and evaluation of non-continuous inverted downdraft gasifier stove utilizing rice husk as feedstock. Scientific African. 2020; 8: e00414. Publisher Full Text
Pantangi VK, Mishra SC, Muthukumar P, et al.: Studies on porous radiant burners for LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) cooking applications. Energy. 2011; 36(10): 6074–6080. Publisher Full Text
Panwar NL, Rathore NS: Environment friendly biomass gasifier cookstove for community cooking. Environ. Technol. 2015; 36(18): 2308–2311. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Panwar NL, Salvi BL, Reddy VS: Performance evaluation of producer gas burner for industrial application. Biomass Bioenergy. 2011; 35(3): 1373–1377. Publisher Full Text
Panwar NL, Rathore NS: Design and performance evaluation of a 5 kW producer gas stove. Biomass Bioenergy. 2008; 32(12): 1349–1352. Publisher Full Text
Punnarapong P, Sucharitakul T, Tippayawong N: Performance evaluation of premixed burner fueled with biomass derived producer gas. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2017; 9: 40–46. Publisher Full Text
Raju SP: Smokeless kitchens for the millions. Christian Literature Society;1954.
Raman P, Ram NK, Gupta R: Development, design and performance analysis of a forced draft clean combustion cookstove powered by a thermo electric generator with multi-utility options. Energy. 2014; 69: 813–825. Publisher Full Text
Sakthivadivel D, Kumar PG, Iniyan S: Computational modeling and performance evaluation of an advanced micro-gasifier cookstove with optimum air injection. Biofuels. 2019.
Sakthivadivel D, Iniyan S: Combustion characteristics of biomass fuels in a fixed bed micro-gasifier cook stove. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2017; 31(2): 995–1002. Publisher Full Text
Scharler R, Archan G, Rakos C, et al.: Emission minimization of a top-lit updraft gasifier cookstove based on experiments and detailed CFD analyses. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021; 247: 114755. Publisher Full Text
Shahi B, Thapa B, Chuhan G, et al.: Developing an Innovative Gasification Based Bio-char Stove in Nepal. J. Inst. Eng. 2014; 10(1): 25–33. Publisher Full Text
Smith KR, Mehta S, Maeusezahl-Feuz M: Indoor air pollution from household use of solid fuels. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks: Global and Regional Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected Major Risk Factors. 2004; 2: 1435–1493.
Susastriawan AAP, Purwanto Y, Sidharta BW, et al.: Producer gas stove: Design, fabrication, and evaluation of thermal performance. J. King Saud Univ. Eng. Sci. 2021. Publisher Full Text
Tryner J, Willson BD, Marchese AJ: The effects of fuel type and stove design on emissions and efficiency of natural-draft semi-gasifier biomass cookstoves. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2014; 23: 99–109. Publisher Full Text
Uddin MW, Rabby MII, Sheikh MR, et al.: Checklist and Flow diagram. figshare. Figure.2022. Publisher Full Text
Varunkumar S, Rajan NKS, Mukunda HS: Experimental and computational studies on a gasifier based stove. Energy Convers. Manag. 2012; 53(1): 135–141. Publisher Full Text
Venkataraman C, Sagar AD, Habib G, et al.: The Indian National Initiative for Advanced Biomass Cookstoves: The benefits of clean combustion. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2010; 14(2): 63–72. Publisher Full Text
Wamalwa P, Nyaanga D, Owino G: Development of an experimental biomass micro gasifier cook stove. IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 2017; 14(5): 6–10.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 10 Jan 2023