• Integrating locally appropriate technologies to enhance practical applications • Optimizing production efficiency to lower costs while boosting community income • Empowering local innovators through skill development and participatory initiatives • Driving long-term economic, social, and environmental sustainability This study presents comparative evaluation of the thermal efficiency, combustion performance, and socioeconomic outcomes of three biomass stove designs commonly used in rural households and small-scale production: an improved stove with optimized airflow, a brick-built stove, and a 200-L drum stove with air injection. Laboratory testing revealed that the enhanced stove achieved thermal efficiency of 31.98%, compared to 28.02% for the brick-built stove and 17.55% for the drum stove, representing efficiency improvements of 3.96 and 14.43% points, respectively. Heat retention was assessed by monitoring the post-combustion temperature decay of the cooking vessel under identical conditions. The improved stove exhibited a slower temperature decline, indicating more effective heat utilization within the combustion–cooking system. Field evaluations in sugar palm processing, tie-dye textile production, and blue crab processing confirmed the laboratory trends. In the tie-dye textile group, fabric output per production cycle increased by approximately 100%, while fuel consumption and processing time per batch decreased. Result showed lower thermal efficiency than the improved design but offered longer service life and reduced maintenance needs, resulting in lower cumulative operating costs. Socioeconomic surveys identified initial cost and familiarity with traditional stove designs as key adoption factors. Nevertheless, reductions in fuel use and processing time associated with the improved stove indicate tangible long-term economic benefits. Overall, the results demonstrate that biomass stove designs incorporating optimized combustion geometry and airflow management can improve thermal efficiency by more than 14% points and deliver consistent productivity gains across rural production contexts, linking engineering performance with practical socioeconomic outcomes.
Khuawaraphan et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: