Search

In Australia and New Zealand (NZ) domestic wood heater emissions contribute to a substantial community burden of air pollution-related illness and death. Despite increasingly stringent emission standards for wood heaters in Australia, there has been frustratingly little progress in reducing ambient air pollution from this source. In contrast, Environment Canterbury NZ, has made impressive progress driving innovation in wood heater designs to improve air quality. Interventions have included the 2014 introduction of a new performance testing standard, the Canterbury Method One (CM1) that is used to define a class of Ultra Low Emission Burners (ULEBs). CM1 testing is conducted under conditions intended to simulate typical home usage and includes the heater's start-up phase which generates a significant portion of pollutant emissions. It is primarily designed to test the performance of appliances burning softwoods, the main source of fuel in NZ. We aimed to: (1) design a protocol based on the CM1 for testing appliances burning Australian hardwoods, and (2) conduct preliminary evaluations of exiting ULEBs fuelled with hardwoods as a test-of-concept for ULEBs in Australia. The main variation was that we used a single burn phase with double the weight of wood compared with the standard CM1. We tested two certified ULEBs of different designs using our protocol. Emissions from hardwood fuels were higher than for softwoods as anticipated because the appliances we tested had been optimised for softwood combustion. However, the overall performance of both heaters was promising. Our results provide proof-ofconcept that ULEBs could potentially be optimised for hardwoods and have a place in strategies for reducing the harm from air pollution in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The authors outline the difference between content and performance standards and the rationale for standard setting at a medical college. The principles of the college's standard setting processes for the written and objective structured clinical examination summative assessments are discussed in greater detail.Conclusion: There is no evidence of any single standard setting method to be the best. Multiple methods exist and will have varied results when applied. The judgement of a panel of subject experts remains an important component of the standard setting process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]