knowledgevschaos
Harmless
Posts: 41
Registered: 9-8-2023
Location: Sci-Hub and the hardware store
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hungry for information
|
|
"Smart Burn": What's in it?
Hello everyone.
In my local hardware store I noticed a product called smart burn. It is a little steel cylinder, crimped at both ends, which sits in a little metal
tray in your fire place. In the heat of the fire, its contents are supposed to vaporize, which has some catalytic effect and is supposed to increase
efficiency, reduce smoke, and clean soot out of the chimney.
I couldn't find the ingredients anywhere, so does anyone have any speculation on what this could be? It claims that it is non toxic and non corrosive.
It says that it is some kind of catalyst. I would like to test it, but I don't know how I would approach it, and they are quite expensive too.
https://www.smartburn.com.au/viewStory/see-works
What could be in this, and is it worth testing?
Thanks.
Know thy incompatibilities
|
|
|
yobbo II
National Hazard
Posts: 764
Registered: 28-3-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Fake claims.
|
|
|
B(a)P
International Hazard
Posts: 1139
Registered: 29-9-2019
Member Is Offline
Mood: Festive
|
|
I have wondered about these myself. I do recall reading a study that showed they were effective. I couldn't find the one I previously read, but I
found this one.
Edit - couldn't get the link to work, now attached
[Edited on 19-10-2023 by B(a)P]
Attachment: Community-wide distribution of a catalytic device to reduce winte.pdf (2.6MB)
This file has been downloaded 242 times
|
|
|
metalresearcher
National Hazard
Posts: 758
Registered: 7-9-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Reactive
|
|
The catalyst presumably vaporizes, whioech means that it is consumable and the device has to be refilled / replaced after a certain amount of firings
of the wood stove.
|
|
|
knowledgevschaos
Harmless
Posts: 41
Registered: 9-8-2023
Location: Sci-Hub and the hardware store
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hungry for information
|
|
Metalresearcher: Yes, they need to be replaced every 3 months.
B(a)P: That's a good article. It seems like it says the catalysts did not decrease the level of pollution, however. A fair amount of the participants
observed cleaner glass and other stuff, so I don't think the claims they make are totally false, although they may have been exaggerated.
Does anyone have any idea what this stuff could actually be? My guess would be an oxidizer of some kind, or a metallic compound like those used in
catalytic converters, however there are obvious problems with each of these ideas. Another thought, the composition seems like a trade secret. Would
there be potential legal consequences for analyzing it and revealing the composition?
|
|
|
yobbo II
National Hazard
Posts: 764
Registered: 28-3-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
https://www.google.com/search?q=stuff+to+reduce+soot+in+chim...
I am inclined to treat the 'soot reducers' like the HOH in cars.
According to this link soot reducers contain Ammonium Chloride and Copper Chloride.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+in+contained+in+soot+re...
Seeing that I might go out and buy some!
I am presuming that the product that you are showing is something similar.
It's no substitute for a sweep.
The word 'smart' is nowadays placed before everything to get it to sell.
Yob
[Edited on 19-10-2023 by yobbo II]
[Edited on 19-10-2023 by yobbo II]
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It's plausible that something like ammonium sulphate or chloride would slowly evaporate and give rise to essentially sulphuric hydrohcloric acid in
the fumes.
And strong acids catalyse a lot of reactions.
So the idea's not actually impossible.
But the evidence says "they tried it and it didn't work".
(And I'm not sure you could get away with describing copper chloride as non-toxic)
|
|
|
metalresearcher
National Hazard
Posts: 758
Registered: 7-9-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Reactive
|
|
"B(a)P: That's a good article. It seems like it says the catalysts did not decrease the level of pollution, however. A fair amount of the participants
observed cleaner glass and other stuff, so I don't think the claims they make are totally false, although they may have been exaggerated."
I think so as well. There are however also catalysts which can be installed in the flue just outside of the stove with, indeed PGM catalysts like in
gasoline cars. Another concept is the two chamber stove in which the wood is burned in the first and unburnt PAHs are burned in the second chamber.
But the best way of burning firewood is only using seasoned dry logs and no painted or impregnated wood. Pine wood also contains oily products (resin
!) which burn very well, but produce more pollutants.
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4618
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
Their experiment didn’t work, but they concede that their experimental method may be flawed, so the
device isn’t necessarily a dud:
| Quote: | Generation of particulate air pollution is highly variable between individual wood heaters and dependent upon operation of the heater. Within a
community, only a relatively small proportion of households tend to produce the majority of particulate emissions. If the 20% of households missed by
the intervention included a high proportion of households in this high emissions group, it is possible that even large reduction in emission from
heaters that are already burning efficiently, will not be measurable if these were not the main source of community wide air pollution.
|
And it would make sense if the people who were most eager to use the device were already following
responsible practices to run their stoves efficiently.
|
|
|
B(a)P
International Hazard
Posts: 1139
Registered: 29-9-2019
Member Is Offline
Mood: Festive
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by knowledgevschaos  | Metalresearcher: Yes, they need to be replaced every 3 months.
B(a)P: That's a good article. It seems like it says the catalysts did not decrease the level of pollution, however. A fair amount of the participants
observed cleaner glass and other stuff, so I don't think the claims they make are totally false, although they may have been exaggerated.
|
I lived in the town quoted in the study for a while. It has a serious air pollution issue in winter, it would take a huge participation to influence a
measurable difference. The town consists of over 10,000 dwellings all within a basin formed by the local topography. Wood fired heating is extremely
popular, so every winter when they get still nights and inversion events (which is regularly) the town gets blanketed with wood smoke.
I am not saying the product works, just giving some context to the observation that the air quality was not improved.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1725
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Sure, but that's just another "you can't prove it doesn't work".
It's not beyond the realms of possibility, but that's a low bar to pass.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
B(a)P
International Hazard
Posts: 1139
Registered: 29-9-2019
Member Is Offline
Mood: Festive
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen | Sure, but that's just another "you can't prove it doesn't work".
It's not beyond the realms of possibility, but that's a low bar to pass. |
Not really, what I am actually saying is their measure of effectiveness is not a good one because of local conditions.
|
|
|
yobbo II
National Hazard
Posts: 764
Registered: 28-3-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by unionised | It's plausible that something like ammonium sulphate or chloride would slowly evaporate and give rise to essentially sulphuric hydrohcloric acid in
the fumes.
|
Then there is the issue of sulphuric/hydrohcloric acid going into the atmosphere.
|
|
|
knowledgevschaos
Harmless
Posts: 41
Registered: 9-8-2023
Location: Sci-Hub and the hardware store
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hungry for information
|
|
I would be disappointed if such an expensive unit contained nothing more interesting than mere copper chloride. Also, the website says that if the
ingredients flow out of the container, it would be an off white colour, so this might not be copper chloride. Could still be ammonium chloride though.
How harmless does something have to be in order to be claimed to be non-toxic? Could a poisonous compound like copper chloride be argued as non-toxic
if it is present in non poisonous quantities?
|
|
|
B(a)P
International Hazard
Posts: 1139
Registered: 29-9-2019
Member Is Offline
Mood: Festive
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by knowledgevschaos | I would be disappointed if such an expensive unit contained nothing more interesting than mere copper chloride. Also, the website says that if the
ingredients flow out of the container, it would be an off white colour, so this might not be copper chloride. Could still be ammonium chloride though.
How harmless does something have to be in order to be claimed to be non-toxic? Could a poisonous compound like copper chloride be argued as non-toxic
if it is present in non poisonous quantities? |
Copper chloride would need to be specifically called out on the SDS and it is not.
|
|
|
metalresearcher
National Hazard
Posts: 758
Registered: 7-9-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Reactive
|
|
What I notice that Smartburn Australia is the only supplier in the world, so it appears that it does not sell very well. Otherwise, in this more
pollution aware world, woodstove users (and there are a lot !) would like to use it to mitigate PM and PAH pollution.
|
|
|
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
Posts: 2799
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Big
|
|
It really doesn't seem like a very good measure of effectiveness -- why wouldn't you just meter the actual smoke coming out of the chimney instead of
air quality far from the source? I have heard of an atmospheric phenomenon called "wind" that can affect the distribution of pollutants and make it
difficult to measure the effects of a small point source.
Anyway, I found another study claiming that some effects were measured. Still weird that the tests are done like this.
Attachment: Comparing_the_effectiveness_of_education.pdf (263kB)
This file has been downloaded 188 times
edit: I think the reason it hasn't caught on is that even if there is some reduction, it doesn't change the fact that wood burning is still extremely
polluting and tends to be most common in areas afflicted by severe poverty. If you reduce the pollution by half it's still a lot, so it's not really
changing the fundamentals of the situation:
| Quote: | In laboratory tests, SmartBurn has been associated with substantial
reductions (up to 50%) in wood heater emissions. |
[Edited on 21-10-2023 by clearly_not_atara]
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
