Energy for Sustainable Development 81 (2024) 101498

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy for Sustainable Development

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/energy-for-sustainable-development

Is methanol a clean, efficient, healthy and safe cooking solution for Africa?
Experiences of benefits, challenges and prospects for diffusion
David Kimemia * , Ashley Van Niekerk
Institute for Social and Health Sciences, University of South Africa, P.O. Box 1087, Lenasia 1820, South Africa
Violence, Injury and Social Asymmetries Research Unit (VISARU), South African Medical Research Council, P.O. Box 19070, Tygerberg 7505, South Africa

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: An estimated 970 million Africans lack access to clean cooking and largely depend on the combustion of un­
Clean cooking processed biomass and low-grade kerosene in leaky stoves. Many people are therefore regularly exposed to risks
SDG 7 of health losses from household air pollution, burn injuries, and conflagrations. This unprecedented energy and
Energy transition
health challenge underscores the urgency to scale up access to clean energy. Although LPG is widely promoted
Alcohol fuels
Methanol stoves
across the continent as a clean alternative, it’s yet to attain widespread usage due to limited access. Conversely,
renewable alcohol fuels, such as methanol, with comparable clean combustion characteristics to LPG, have
received less attention. This article utilises a narrative review approach to offer a critique of alcohol fuel use with
illustrations from four African regions. The reviewed literature includes recent research on the use of methanol
and ethanol fuels in the continent and seminal work on the use of alcohol stoves. The aim is to enhance
comprehension of the experienced benefits and challenges of using alcohol fuels, and how to deploy them more
widely. The results indicate that alcohol-fuelled stoves perform satisfactorily in ease of use, energy efficiency,
and emissions abatement, and could complement proven clean cooking solutions. However, these fuels, espe­
cially methanol, while posing less of a conflagration risk compared to more widely used fuels such as kerosene,
still pose an elevated poisoning risk if ingested or on dermal contact. Considerations of its adoption should
therefore incorporate specific policy protections against the possible health threats, including regulations that
prescribe fuel denaturing, safe packaging and clear labelling, and compulsory appliance standards. The article
builds on transitions research, focussing on the social, health and safety aspects of feasible and scalable clean
energy options, with implications especially for energy planners and policy makers on the African continent.

Introduction for cooking services (IEA, 2022). This calls for concerted energy tran­
sition efforts and an expanded basket of solutions to enable people to
Energy services are critical to people’s lives, especially for the pro­ move away from pollutant fuels to clean cooking technologies.
vision of hot meals, warmth, light and cooling. The lack of access to In 2015 the UN adopted Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7 to
modern energy, commonly referred to as energy poverty, remains a guide nations in the transition to modern energy for all by 2030 (UNDP,
challenge in the Global South, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa 2018). The envisaged energy transition is expected to promote social
(Samarakoon, 2019). People in energy poverty often resort to the use of justice and equity, and support improvements in human health and
raw solid fuels and low-grade liquid hydrocarbons. The fuels are usually wellbeing. However, to achieve this transition, energy planners should
burnt in rudimentary combustion technologies that emit toxic products take cognisance of key social, technological, regulatory, and financial
of incomplete combustion, such as, CO, black carbon (BC), and partic­ factors that can catalyse and shape what are principally slow evolu­
ulate matter (Shen et al., 2018; Jin et al., 2022). The two most frequently tionary processes. These include integrated awareness of consumer
used culprit fuels are traditional biomass in rural settings and illumi­ preferences, knowledge, and behaviours, technology clustering within a
nating kerosene in urban peripheries. The social, economic and health vibrant marketplace, stringent standards enforcement, and financial
impacts of energy poverty in Africa are huge with an estimated 970 instruments that enable technology acquisition and sustained and safe
million people relying on dirty fuels and substandard, leaky appliances use, amongst others (Edomah et al., 2020; Shankar et al., 2020).

* Corresponding author at: Institute for Social and Health Sciences, University of South Africa, P.O. Box 1087, Lenasia 1820, South Africa.
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Kimemia).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2024.101498
Received 22 April 2024; Received in revised form 4 June 2024; Accepted 14 June 2024
Available online 17 June 2024
0973-0826/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of International Energy Initiative. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
D. Kimemia and A. Van Niekerk Energy for Sustainable Development 81 (2024) 101498

Globally, LPG is regarded as the gold standard of clean household chronic poisoning and can have significant morbidity and mortality if
cooking due to good combustion efficiency and ease of distribution left untreated (Ashurst & Nappe, 2023). Such poisoning is associated
(Adjei-Mantey & Takeuchi, 2021; Van Leewen et al., 2017). However, with nervous system symptoms, metabolic acidosis, vision loss, and
frequent price hikes, distribution challenges and shortages have pre­ gastrointestinal problems, with death in severe cases (Moon, 2017).
vented sustained LPG adoption on the African continent (Ahunu, 2015). Short term exposure limits for methanol are similar to those of kerosene
Other clean cooking fuel choices may include electricity, biogas, pro­ and gasoline and lower than those of ethanol (Puzzolo et al., 2019).
cessed biomass, and alcohol fuels (ethanol and methanol). It is argued Young children, alcohol abusers and suicidal individuals are at risk of
that alcohol fuels are the cleanest liquid fuels that can also be produced ingestion. Domestic settings that are cramped and impoverished with
on the continent (Ohimain, 2012) and could thus create a security of limited appropriate storage and where there may thus be easier access
supply alongside health promotion and safety benefits. Of these, meth­ may elevate the risk especially for the young. Methanol may also be used
anol is the least used despite being cheaper to produce and having in place of ethanol with other agents as a source of abuse via inhalation
comparable combustion credentials to gaseous fuels (Maurya, Muthu­ (Moon, 2017). Methanol use in domestic settings thus requires utmost
kumar, et al., 2022). Currently only a small fraction of the abundant carefulness that will require awareness education on avoidance of
methanol stocks go to domestic fuel markets with the rest used as in­ exposure and emergency responses, clear labelling, appropriate leak­
dustrial solvents and in transportation. proof fuel packaging, and efficient and safe stoves. In addition, the
This contribution is based on a narrative review approach that crit­ stoves should be constructed of durable materials, easy to refill without
ically analyses and integrates current and seminal research on alcohol risk of spilling and safe to use.
cookstoves with a specific focus on African countries. The scope is Methanol (CH3OH), if compared with hydrogen (H2) that is a novel
limited to qualitative illustrations of the benefits, challenges and feasi­ and currently considered a promising energy carrier, scores favourably
bility of alcohol-fuelled stoves in regionally-representative Sub-Saharan in terms of ease of transportation and storage, cost-effectiveness,
countries, and indications of the safety, health and policy safeguards availability of low-cost domestic stoves, and ability to utilise released
required for their diffusion. Author perspectives are provided as policy CO2 as a raw material (Gumber & Gurumoorthy, 2018). On the other
recommendations in the discussion and conclusion sections. The huge hand, hydrogen surpasses methanol as non-toxic and the cleanest fuel
backlogs for universal access to modern energy in Africa calls for a available, its only combustion product being water, and therefore could
diversified approach in clean fuel choices and stoves, the aim being to be the ultimate solution to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 (US
combat the household energy crisis, and promote health and social Dept of Energy, 2022). However, hydrogen has not yet found application
justice (Gill-Wiehl & Kammen, 2022). as a scalable domestic fuel since the conversion technologies (e.g. stoves,
heaters etc.) are not as yet available, fuel is expensive to produce, and
Methanol and alcohol fuels not easy to store, transport, or combust safely (Topriska, 2016). Both
methanol and hydrogen can be produced through blue or green path­
Methanol (CH3OH), also called methyl alcohol or wood alcohol, is ways and could play complementary roles in the transition away from
the simplest alcohol fuel that can be obtained from any carbon source, fossil fuel economy (Garcia et al., 2021).
including biomass, coal, gas, and carbon dioxide. It has a similar con­ Studies have been published on benefits and feasibility of domestic
sistency and resemblance to water, and is mostly manufactured through methanol cookstoves and heaters in the Global South. Some of the
the liquefaction of coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process or the con­ studies have looked at the potential for methanol stoves and by exten­
version of natural gas to synthetic liquid fuel. Alternatively, ‘renewable sion methanol-ethanol blends to replace conventional domestic energy
methanol’ can be produced through the carbon capture and recycling carriers such as coal, raw biomass, and/or kerosene. Huo et al. (2021)
process and hydrogenation (Olah, 2013). This fossil-free syngas route to analysed the economics, emissions, and energy consumption of meth­
methanol has recently received a lot of attention (Tountas et al., 2021). anol heating systems (MHS) in China and reported that MHS emitted 66
In 2021 the global production capacity of methanol reached approxi­ % less CO2 and 95 % less NOx and Sox than coal heaters and used
mately 160 million metric tons (~202 billion litres) (Fernandez, 2022). significantly less energy overall. They concluded that MHS can be an
Most of the methanol is used as an industrial solvent with approximately ideal substitute for coal to electricity and coal to gas heating systems in
40 % utilised as transport fuel (Cambray, 2021; Sasol, 2021) and only a settings that lack adequate grid connection or gas supplies. Methanol is
small fraction going into the domestic fuel market. It’s use as a fuel is currently being used in several Chinese provinces as a clean alternative
nonetheless not new, having been used in France over a century ago for fuel for boilers and stoves, with thousands of such boilers implemented
lighting, cooking, and heating (Posner, 1975). Today most methanol is in diverse locations since 2016 (Huo et al., 2021). Despite the increasing
available in homes as a constituent of paint thinners, varnishes, wind­ international interest, there are only a few African countries that have
shield wiper fluid, adhesives, and antifreeze (Gaffney et al., 2008). experimented on and piloted domestic methanol and ethanol stoves, but
When used in stoves, methanol burns with a clear to blue flame and with encouraging results (Puzzolo et al., 2016; Stokes & Ebbeson, 2005).
does not produce visible smoke or soot deposits. It’s combustion in an Although examples of methanol use on the continent indicate that it’s
efficient stove produces very low carbon dioxide and particulate matter not the cheapest fuel, it’s clean combustion characteristics and health
and negligible emissions of nitrogen dioxide (approx. Three times lower promotion benefits vis-à-vis the conventional fuels increase its appeal as
than kerosene) (Marquez & Hobson, 2018; Maurya, Muthukumar, et al., a viable alternative (Northcross et al., 2016).
2022). Methanol stove’s thermal efficiency of ~65 % is comparable to
that of LPG and biogas stoves (Goeppert et al., 2014; Ohimain, 2012). Review method
Furthermore, methanol cookstoves yield a CO/CO2 ratio of 0.005
compared to the prescribed limit of 0.02 set by e.g. the South African Narrative review approach
Bureau of Standards for kerosene stoves (SANS1906:2012). Since it’s
miscible with water, small fires can be doused thus preventing the The overarching approach for this article is that of a narrative re­
conflagrations that are common with domestic kerosene. Unlike ethanol view, which allows researchers to describe what’s known on a topic
that is a more widely used alcohol fuel, methanol is less expensive to while conducting an examination of the literature (Sukhera, 2022). The
produce and doesn’t pose a potential food versus fuel conflict (Ohimain, article reviewed the benefits, challenges and potential use of alcohol
2012). cookstoves in Africa, with a particular accent on methanol fuel that is
However, methanol is acutely toxic to human beings if swallowed, marginally cleaner than ethanol and cheaper to produce. We scanned
inhaled or in contact with the skin, and highly flammable in liquid or peer-reviewed energy research, government literature, and programme
vapor phase (Sasol, 2021). Methanol exposure causes acute rather than reports recently published in Africa, and focussed on work published in

2
D. Kimemia and A. Van Niekerk Energy for Sustainable Development 81 (2024) 101498

countries representative of four African regions, i.e. Nigeria (West Af­ 2015).
rica), Kenya (East Africa), Ethiopia (Horn of Africa), and South Africa
(Southern Africa). This approach was considered suitable considering Low-income household energy system
the paucity of publications on the use of alcohol stoves on the continent. With regards to the cooking activities of a typical low-income com­
The article highlights recent examples of alcohol stove dissemination munity, inputs of the energy system include the fuel and ingredients
programmes and discusses user experiences in terms of benefits and used in food preparation, while the cooking process includes the stove
challenges and the prospects for large scale diffusion to boost the and pot assembly, all of which takes place within the physical home
achievement of clean cooking targets. environment (Fig. 1). Apart from the desired outputs of food and heat,
The search terms used in this review included “alcohol cookstove there is also undesired by-products of the process. This waste stream
interventions in Africa, ethanol stoves in Africa, and use of methanol includes combustion emissions (CO and PM2.5), and hazards of burn
stoves in Africa”. The search terms generated over 120 items that injuries, toxic fuel poisonings, and accidental fires. The seriousness of
included project reports, news articles, government reports, and pub­ such energy waste streams depends inter alia on fuel characteristics, the
lished programme evaluations on ethanol or methanol cookstoves or a stability and efficiency of the combustion technology (Kimemia & Van
blend of the fuels. An initial scan eliminated reports of low relevance and Niekerk, 2017), human factors related to stove and fuel handling
poor detailing leaving about 100 publications that were critically (Kimemia et al., 2018), while immediate spatial, home structural and
reviewed, with about ninety of these being included in the review list. community features may exacerbate exposure to heating appliances, hot
substances or fires (Van Niekerk, Reimers, et al., 2006).

Conceptual framework
Social and environmental factors
Intervention planners need to take cognizance of the social context of
The article posits a sociotechnical energy transition model that takes
communities targeted in an energy intervention. In the case of estab­
account of the multiple socio-cultural, community systems, and fuel-
lished clean and safe cookstoves, the foremost point to consider is a
appliance factors to be considered in the diffusion of alternative en­
technology-fit with user circumstances and preferences, especially the
ergy technologies especially in energy impoverished settings. The model
cooking of common local dishes as demanded by typical cooking styles
integrates human and social factors, the physical environment (e.g.
(Rhodes et al., 2014). In addition, users increasingly prefer a cookstove
housing and spatial arrangements) and technological factors, and their
that is fast in terms of task performance, can be operated easily and
influence on the energy system of a low-income household. It further
safely, and has no visible smoke emissions (Gill-Wiehl et al., 2021;
enables complementary insights on transformative transitions and rec­
Kimemia & Annegarn, 2016). Furthermore, the fuel should be afford­
ognises that technologies alone cannot drive sustainable energy transi­
able, well-packaged, and widely available in outlets proximate to resi­
tions without taking into account the complexities of human-technology
dential areas.
interactions and the underlying social contexts.
Low income communities often reside in congested settlements and
Such a conceptual basis is highlighted as an important aspect of
in simple, spatially-constrained dwellings that have no form of energy
transitioning communities to alternative energy since it provides an
efficiency (Kimemia et al., 2018). The settlements often lack formal
integrated understanding of the key factors that may enable or hinder
energy supplies (e.g. electricity or piped gas) and even when these are
sustained uptake (Moloney et al., 2010). Important considerations in the
available, most of the residents may not afford the tariffs. A majority of
sociotechnical transition model include components of the household
these communities are energy-poor and therefore survive energy-wise
energy system, human and social factors of energy users and their living
on inefficient and unsafe flame combustion appliances that heighten
conditions, and the specific technological attributes of stove-fuel com­
the risk of burn injuries and conflagrations. Cookstoves destined for such
bination(s) (Li et al., 2015). Hitherto, integrated approaches have
markets must therefore not only be affordable but also contextually-
generally been overlooked in energy access programmes and policy
relevant and safe to use in spatially-constrained spaces.
making and thus contributed to the dismal performance of many alter­
native energy initiatives (Gill-Wiehl & Kammen, 2022; Rupf et al.,

Fig. 1. Sociotechnical energy transition model (adapted after Annegarn, 2021).

3
D. Kimemia and A. Van Niekerk Energy for Sustainable Development 81 (2024) 101498

Key technological factors the fuel, lack of fail-safe safety features on the appliance, and sometimes
Technological factors refer to thermal, safety, and emissions per­ user negligence. The noted risks include burn injuries and conflagra­
formance attributes of the stove-fuel combination. In this regard, the tions, poisonings, and asphyxiations. However, methanol can be a safe
attributes deemed most important in assessing the performance of do­ and useful product for a range of applications, including as a domestic
mestic stoves include firepower, energy efficiency, emissions (CO and fuel, if it’s properly labelled, packaged, handled and stored carefully,
PM2.5), mechanical stability of stove-pot assembly, temperature of and used in well-designed appliances. Methanol safety can be further
touchable-parts, controllability, and durability (Kimemia & Van Nie­ enabled through awareness education and stringent safety norms and
kerk, 2017) (Table 1). specific precautions that are clearly displayed on fuel containers and
Standards and regulations are important to ensure that only appliances (Table 2). The safety information should be emphasised with
approved technologies with the right set of attributes are sold to the standard hazard pictograms that inform that the product is toxic, highly
users in a particular country or region. The standards should specify flammable, and explosive. Below we review each of the common risks
thermal, safety, and emissions performance requirements of a candidate and hazards with a view to understanding how to safely integrate
technology. In addition, specifications could require liquid fuels that methanol fuel into household energy systems.
pose poisoning dangers to be denatured with a bitterant and to be
packaged in child-proof containers. Fuel and appliance standards should Burn injuries and conflagrations
therefore be accompanied by strict compliance enforcement to safe­ Burn injuries remain a global public health concern especially in the
guard against the risk of injuries from impaired stoves. WHO Africa and South-East Asia regions (WHO, 2023). The culprit
combustion technologies that are responsible for most burn incidents in
Results Africa and Asia are the wick-type kerosene stoves and flame-based light
sources (e.g. lanterns and candles) (Kumar & Tripathi, 2003; Mehta
Methanol risks and mitigation et al., 2023; Peck et al., 2008; Ombati et al., 2013), with a majority of the
injuries being scalds and contact burns.
Methanol is commonly characterised as highly flammable and toxic; Although burn incidents and deaths are reducing worldwide, the rate
and therefore undue exposure to the liquid or vapours may adversely of child burn fatalities is approximately seven times higher in LMICs
affect human safety, health and wellbeing (Yadav et al., 2021). A few than in HICs (Smolle et al., 2017). Non-fatal burns are a leading cause of
studies have investigated and reported on safety and health risks of morbidity and significantly contribute to disability-adjusted life-years
methanol and other alcohol-fuelled appliances in the home environ­ (DALYs) in LMICs, with survivors experiencing lengthy hospital stays,
ment. A majority of the highlighted incidents are related to the nature of expensive treatment, disfigurement, stigmatisation and often life-long
trauma. Burn epidemiology indicates that older females and young
Table 1 children have higher risks of injuries and deaths from burns compared to
Key stove technological attributes. other persons in the households (Mehta et al., 2023). Other risk factors
for burn exposure include poor social economic status, use of open fires
Attribute Description
for cooking and heating, children’s proximity to fires, use of kerosene,
Firepower (kW) The firepower of a stove signifies the effectiveness of
alcohol and drug abuse, and inadequate appliance safety measures (Van
task performance. Ideally, a cookstove should produce
at least 1 kW of gross firepower (SANS1906:2012,
Niekerk, Seedat, et al., 2006, Van Niekerk, 2022; Govender et al., 2020).
Ed3.1). Comparisons between simple single-burner Methanol’s risk for burn injuries arises from the extreme flamma­
kerosene stoves and methanol stoves of similar size bility of liquid and vapor phases when near a source of ignition, and the
indicate greater firepower for kerosene stoves due to nearly invisible flame (Methanol Institute, 2018; Posner, 1975). It is
higher heating values (Maurya, Muthukumar, et al.,
highlighted that the vapours are slightly heavier than air and therefore
2022).
Energy efficiency (%) This attribute signifies the degree to which the may inadvertently accumulate at ground level or migrate to a source of
chemical potential energy of the fuel is transferred to ignition and flash back (Methanol Institute, 2018). Vapours accumu­
the cookpot (useful heat). Stoves with an energy lated in confined spaces that have inadequate air mixing may explode if
efficiency of 50 % and above are rated high, between
ignited, while methanol containers may rupture violently if exposed to
30 % and 50 % are rated moderate, while a thermal
efficiency of 30 % and below is classified low (ISO,
fire or excessive heat (Methanol Institute, 2018). However, compared
2012). with gasoline, methanol spills are harder to ignite, burn at a slower rate,
Emissions (CO g/MJ and CO and PM2.5 are the two most important products of and with less heat intensity, and its vapours require four times the
PM2.5 mg/MJ) incomplete combustion in household environment ( concentration of gasoline vapours in air for ignition to occur. Further­
WHO, 2022). The International Standards
more, the autoignition temperature of methanol is 467 ◦ C compared to
Organization (ISO) places stoves that emit ≤3 g/MJ
CO and ≤ 5 mg/MJ PM2.5 in top tier 5 of voluntary 222 ◦ C for gasoline (Reeds & Lerner, 1973). A WHO global burn injuries
performance targets (ISO, 2012).
Mechanical stability A stove should not topple or slide easily when in use. A
higher tilt angle implies a more mechanically stable Table 2
appliance, i.e., it can withstand a greater lateral or Methanol dangers and safeguards.
longitudinal force before turning onto its side (
Risk Key predisposing factors Mitigation
Johnson & Bryden, 2015). A mechanically unstable
identification
appliance could cause accidental fires or result in burn
injuries from spilt hot liquids and foods. Burns and Refilling a lit stove; keeping Education awareness, stove
Temperature of touchable- Parts of a stove that are handled in normal operation, conflagrations spare fuel near a fire source; designs that prevent refilling
parts (◦ C) such as the flame regulator and the stove handles, children proximity to a lit when lit
should not get hotter than 42 ◦ C to reduce the risk of appliance
contact burns (SANS1906:2012 Ed3.1). Ingestion Adulterated alcohol, abuse, Policy and regulations,
Controllability A stove with a higher range of possible power level Poisonings negligence education awareness, bottles
settings is more versatile than one with a lower range with child-proof caps, safe
of controllability. The different power levels enable storage
the cook to move from high to medium power or Inhalation Fuel evaporation, incomplete Well-designed stoves, airtight
simmer position as demanded of the cooking cycle. toxicity combustion burn surface cap, well-
Durability Durability refers to useful lifespan of the appliance ventilated combustion space
depending on material and sturdiness of construction ( Dermal toxicity Refilling spills Safety gloves, rinsing hands
Kimemia & Van Niekerk, 2017). after handling fuel

4
D. Kimemia and A. Van Niekerk Energy for Sustainable Development 81 (2024) 101498

register indicates that ethanol fuel, biomass and electricity are jointly formaldehyde may arise from incomplete combustion of methanol
responsible for approx. 6 % of cookstove-related burns, much less risky during the burn cycle. Exposure to methanol vapours in the home may
than kerosene (19 %), LPG (37 %), and natural gas (38 %) (Mehta et al., also arise from fuel evaporation during refilling and immediately after
2023). extinguishing the appliance, and ‘breathing losses’ from stored fuel. The
Log and Moi (2018) analysed burn risks from methanol and ethanol most common health effects of long-term exposure to low levels of
heaters and fireplaces and found that most severe incidents were related methanol vapor is CNS symptoms (headache, dizziness, nausea, numb­
to refilling operations, which led to ignition of the fuel container vapor ness etc.) and ocular effects (Ernstgård et al., 2005). Extended human
phase. Expansion of the ignited gas then led to ejection of burning fuel exposure to methanol vapor may cause effects qualitatively similar to
from the container onto the appliance user or persons nearby, resulting those from relatively high levels of acute exposure, however, there are
in significant burn surface areas. Similar burn incidents and scenarios documented cases of full recovery when the exposure ceases. The use of
have been noted while refilling methanol for chemistry demonstrations methanol stoves, heaters, or lamps in a poorly ventilated room heightens
and ethanol handling in medical practice (Log & Moi, 2018). It is the risk of inhalation toxicity and should be discouraged and avoided.
concluded that the root causes of these unfortunate incidents are the Methanol toxicity exposures could also occur from direct contact
near-stoichiometric vapor pressure of alcohol fuels and the close prox­ with skin. This happens when methanol removes oils from skin, causing
imity of the fuel container to the burning fuel. Thus, the need to educate it to dry up and crack, followed by absorption into the blood stream
the current and potential users of methanol stoves and fireplaces never (Medina, 2014). Documented cases of fatalities from skin are few and
to refill a lit appliance nor to open a fuel container near a naked flame. have mainly involved young children (Kleiman et al., 2009). The main
Early studies regarding burns associated with the use of emergent bio­ risk factor for dermal exposure when using methanol appliances is
ethanol heaters include Kraemer et al. (2011), who warned of the during refilling episodes and could be prevented by wearing protective
underestimated fire and burn injury risks amongst uniformed users. gloves and/or rinsing the hands thoroughly immediately after each
Later studies (e.g., by Guillaume et al., 2013; van Zoonen et al., 2024; refill.
Heald & Muller, 2016) provided aetiologies of specific burn cases,
including causative substances and appliances, severity, and outcomes. Methanol technology versus conventional kerosene stoves
These and other later studies have clearly demonstrated the dangers of
trying to refill lit alcohol-fuelled heaters, fireplaces and cookstoves. In Africa and elsewhere in the Global South, methanol stoves and
Burn risks from domestic energy carriers and appliances could be other alcohol-fuelled cookstoves are mostly promoted as an alternative
adequately addressed through safety awareness education that is to conventional stoves, especially kerosene appliances that are
tailored to specific technologies and audiences, with periodic reminders commonly associated with negative health impacts (Makonese et al.,
to ensure that the risk is still understood and that new consumers are 2020; Maurya, Palanisamy, et al., 2022). A comparison between meth­
properly instructed. The safety education module should feature one-on- anol and kerosene stoves shows that the former performs at the top tier
one verbal inductions, videos and pamphlets illustrations, and picto­ of improved stoves in terms of energy efficiency and cleanliness. In this
grams and text messages on the device and fuel containers. regard methanol posts at least 65 % energy efficiency compared to 44 %
for kerosene wick stoves (Kimemia & Van Niekerk, 2017). In addition,
Methanol toxicity and poisonings risks methanol stoves produce very low CO and PM2.5 and negligible Nox
Perhaps the greatest health risk of methanol use at home is the toxic (Masekameni et al., 2015). Methanol stove’s squat construction also
nature of the fuel and the inherent potential to cause deleterious health ensures greater mechanical stability than the cylindrically-shaped sin­
effects if undue exposure occurs. The main exposure pathways are gle-burner kerosene stoves, thus reducing mishaps during cooking.
dermal contact, inhalation, and ingestion (Table 2). Of these, ingestion is Further comparisons between methanol and kerosene stoves shows
the most dangerous exposure route, with common health effects that the latter have no handles and therefore users have to hold them by
including irreversible vision loss or death in severe cases. Historical and the stove body that gets heated up after prolonged use. This aspect
recent accounts of serious methanol poisoning have been as a result of contributes to the high risks of burn injuries in kerosene stoves espe­
ingesting tainted alcohol products, e.g. in the USA (Flomenbaum et al., cially when users unwittingly handle or move heated stoves (Mehta
2006; Kane et al., 1968), Romania (Levy et al., 2003), Kenya and Libya et al., 2023). With regards to controllability, alcohol stove designs have
(Rostrup et al., 2016), and Russia (Neufeld et al., 2016). As such the vast continued to evolve with a greater number of easily-adjustable power
majority of methanol ingestion cases occur as a result of abuse or wilful level settings compared to kerosene stove designs that have largely
negligence, whereby backstreet liquor distillers sell adulterated prod­ remained static. Alcohol stoves equally score highly in durability, with
ucts. Adulteration of alcohol with methanol is usually done to increase most of them being constructed of stainless steel or aluminium materials
potency, improve taste, and to increase profits (Manning & Kowalska, while the commonly-used kerosene stoves feature an inferior construc­
2021). Methanol poisoning cases have often led to mass fatalities, with tion of low-grade thin metal plates that greatly diminishes their useful
survivors suffering irreversible blindness (Manning & Kowalska, 2021). lifespan (Kimemia et al., 2018). The only aspects where kerosene stoves
Policy and regulatory solutions should be enacted and stringently trump methanol technology is in regards to running cost and toxicity
enforced to prevent the diversion of methanol fuel to the illicit brews elements, which can be adequately addressed through enabling policies
market. and protective safety precautions as highlighted in Sections 3.1.2 and
Methanol poisoning cases from inhalation and dermal contact are 4.1 of this article.
less common and mostly relate to occupational exposure, but also
methanol use at home for fuel and other purposes. Low levels of expo­ Alcohol stove programs in Africa
sure are easily metabolised by the human body and either excreted
unchanged in urine, in exhaled air, and in saliva (Ernstgård et al., 2005). Alcohol fuels have been used for household cooking in Africa for
The current methanol occupational limits are 200 ppm in air averaged some time, but have not yet been widely implemented or adopted in
over 8-or 10-h days and 40-h weeks (Kleiman et al., 2009). Toxicity Africa (Puzzolo et al., 2016), or in other parts of the world, especially
usually arises from overloading the digestive system, whereby the con­ HICs, where the case for its utility was superseded by the transition from
centration of toxic metabolic products of formaldehyde and formic acid liquid fuels to gaseous fuels (Stoner et al., 2021). In many African set­
becomes too high (Verhelst et al., 2019). In addition, although methanol tings, the uptake remains subdued without national government sup­
combustion results in lower emissions of criteria pollutants compared to port, with the latter directed at gaseous fuels as a supplement to
conventional fuels, it’s use may increase breathable pollutants of electricity (Ozier et al., 2018). However, interest is growing, with some
concern such as formaldehyde (Kavet & Nauss, 1990). The emissions of countries including Nigeria (ethanol-methanol blend), South Africa

5
D. Kimemia and A. Van Niekerk Energy for Sustainable Development 81 (2024) 101498

(mainly methanol), Kenya (ethanol) and Ethiopia (ethanol) leading the

use of alcohol fuels or blends on the continent (Benker-Coker et al.,
2018; Ozier et al., 2018). These countries have demonstrated the
feasibility of using alcohol fuels, with the uptake being larger in urban
than in rural areas due to better supply chains. Challenges that constrain
the diffusion of alcohol stoves throughout the continent include socio­
technical attributes such as toxicity concerns, cost, efficacy, regulatory
controls, lack of consumer awareness, and unavailability of products
(Adane et al., 2020). Presented below are the four examples of African
countries that have implemented community-level projects on alcohol
stoves.

Nigeria
One of the earliest ethanol-fuelled stove projects in Africa was
Project Gaia in Nigeria’s Niger Delta (Stokes & Ebbeson, 2005). The
project involved the distribution of the two-plate Dometic™ Stoves
(Fig. 2) and fuel, and was meant to promote a safer cooking system at a
commercial scale (Ozier et al., 2018). The fuel was denatured with
denatonium benzoate (Bitrex) to minimise the risk of accidental inges­
tion. The stoves featured a sturdy stainless-steel structure with a design
lifespan of 8–10 years and detachable fuel canisters that minimised fuel
handling and exposure risks. The distribution model enabled customers
to return empty fuel canisters and purchase newly-filled replacements
from designated retailers (Ozier et al., 2018). Evaluations in the Niger Fig. 3. Image of SA methanol stove (Courtesy of stove manufacturer).
Delta indicated that no fires were reported over the 3-year assessment
period and households regularly purchased an average 2.3 canisters of stoves are made in a manner that prevents spilling and leaking even
fuel per month (Ozier et al., 2018). Reports also indicated that the use of when turned upside down. The South African Bureau of Standards
ethanol stoves was associated with better health outcomes, e.g. (SABS) has recently published a methanol stove standard to provide
improved pregnancy outcomes, and consequently over 80 % of women guidance on the safety, emissions and thermal performance (SANS
participants gave away their kerosene stoves (Alexander et al., 2017; 2233:2023, Ed1.00). Several thousand stoves have been distributed over
Northcross et al., 2016). Due to the success of this project, a subsequent the last ten years mainly in the populous Gauteng province through
rollout of 2500 methanol-ethanol stoves was implemented in Lagos, manufacturer initiatives and government sponsorship. However, there
with initial evaluations indicating a high level of acceptancy (Ozier are no publicly available evaluation reports to indicate the social, safety
et al., 2018). and health promotion benefits, and challenges of the intervention.
Although the use of ethanol stoves had notable social and health Nevertheless there may have been health outcomes considering that
benefits, there were concerns that the use of cassava in its production undenatured methanol was distributed, i.e. without any bittering addi­
posed a food versus fuel conflict since cassava is a main staple in Nigeria. tives, although it had been distributed in 500 mL sachets which was
In addition, critiques argued that continued clearing of large tracts of intended to be used for a single refill. In reality, some interim fuel
forest to expand production may result in higher net CO2 emissions storage in unmarked bottles may have occurred with some consequent
(Ohimain, 2012). Other challenges included: logistical and financing exposure risk. Fuel cost may have been another concern since methanol
challenges for acquisition of stoves and fuel kits (Ozier et al., 2018), high retails at a higher price than kerosene that is meant to substitute (Baleka
inputs of water and energy in the production process, and high waste – personal opinion).
throughput (Ohimain, 2012).
Kenya
South Africa Regulatory restrictions limit the use of methanol as a domestic fuel in
Another country that has recently piloted methanol stoves is South Kenya due to cases of fatal poisoning from laced alcohol. However,
Africa, with at least three commercial stove manufacturers in 2021. The there’s a developing ethanol fuel market in the country that is backed by
common designs feature a single-burner stove that is made of a stainless a two-burner stove (Fig. 4) and modern fuel dispensing systems. The
steel frame and fixed fuel tank (Fig. 3). The manufacturers claim that the stove uses denatured bio-ethanol in line with published regulations (East
African, 2015) to discourage consumption. A ‘smart’ fuel canister sold

Fig. 2. Image of Dometic™ Stove (Courtesy of Project Gaia). Fig. 4. KOKO Cooker™ and bioethanol fuel canister (Courtesy KOKO website).

6
D. Kimemia and A. Van Niekerk Energy for Sustainable Development 81 (2024) 101498

with the stove is refillable at a fuel dispenser without risk of spilling, both fuels with a somewhat elevated poisoning risk for methanol
explosions or fires. Several thousand stoves have been sold since 2019 (Kimemia & Van Niekerk, 2017). The risk of conflagrations from
through the growing network of over 1000 agents. Blending ethanol methanol combustion is minimised by its miscibility with water, which
with methanol has been considered as a way to reduce costs, increase means small fires can be doused off unlike the case with kerosene. The
demand, and hopefully replace the risky kerosene stoves (Murray, latter may indicate that methanol may only be an interim replacement
2021). However, no evaluations or health outcome studies have been for kerosene, especially in community settings where the former has
published to indicate the range of benefits and/or challenges of the already been associated with burn injuries and accidental fires. We
initiatives. restate however that currently all combustion fuels still appear, based on
the available but limited research, to pose some level of risk and
therefore fuel labelling and safe bottling legislation, with safety
Ethiopia awareness and carefulness remain critical in their usage. Thus, consid­
eration of the use of methanol as a domestic fuel should take into ac­
Ethiopia has experimented with ethanol fuels for several years now. count the complex interplay of human, environmental and technological
Examples include the 1000 Dometic ethanol stove pilot study that was factors that may affect health risks as well as the diffusion of energy
implemented 20 years ago with support of the Shell Foundation. The interventions, as illustrated in the sociotechnical energy model (Fig. 1).
ethanol fuel was mainly produced from waste molasses, with proponents The use of methanol could therefore reduce the burden of illness
of the sector claiming there’s potentially enough ethanol in the country from domestic fuel combustion and ultimately promote public health in
to support rollouts of between 20,000 and 60,000 stoves (Stokes & the continent. In cultural contexts where wood fire or kerosene have
Crocco, 2005). An evaluation of a 9000 ethanol CleanCook™ stove been the mainstay, the introduction of clean combustion fuels like LPG
intervention (Fig. 5) in Ethiopia showed it reduced harmful emissions in and methanol may portend better transition outcomes instead of a
comparison to biomass and reduced particulate matter emissions frogmarch to induction electric hobs. However, each technology may be
(Benker-Coker et al., 2018). In addition, no accidents, injuries or fires evaluated according to perceived advantages, such as, cost-
were reported in the sampled households. The CleanCook™ is a double effectiveness, safety, and health promotion benefits. These assessments
burner with detachable fuel canister and a design configuration like the maybe affected by cognitive biases (e.g., fear of explosions in the case of
Dometic™ stove. The study indicated some potential for scaled-up gaseous fuels), which may be dispelled by educational awareness and
dissemination of ethanol stoves if the implementation model could learning-by-doing. Affordability and easy availability are equally
include stabilization of the ethanol supply, setting up of a fuel distri­ important factors to consider and may be the main reasons why risky
bution infrastructure, and ensuring wide availability of affordable fuel kerosene stoves have remained in use in low-income settings despite
and stoves (Benker-Coker et al., 2018). There are, as far as could be safety concerns (Panday & Mafu, 2007).
determined, no published reports to indicate if the scale-up was imple­ The key limiting factors to widespread uptake of methanol stoves is
mented and the outcomes thereof. the toxic nature of the fuel, limited availability of fuel and stoves, cost,
Despite the noted benefits in the rollout of bioethanol stoves in and lack of awareness of the benefits. One way of minimising the pos­
Ethiopia, the projects encountered a few challenges at planning and sibility of poisoning is by denaturing methanol with a bitterant to
implementation stages. The challenges included low awareness of discourage oral intake (Stokes, 2005). Exposure risks can further be
ethanol as a cooking fuel, high price of stoves since these are imported mitigated with clear fuel labelling and safety instructions that
and levied import duties and VAT, and high fuel cost to the consumers in discourage dermal contact and fumes inhalation, controlled fuel distri­
comparison to electricity that was relatively cheaper in Ethiopia bution, fuel packaging in canisters that allow spill-proof refilling, and
(Benker-Coker et al., 2018). In addition, there were challenges in practical user education for all users irrespective of literacy or age. In
securing investment capital for local manufacturing and requisite policy addition, blending ethanol with methanol has been suggested as a good
support to ensure the affordability of appliances (Benker-Coker et al., way of extending the benefits of alcohol fuels more cost-effectively while
2018). minimising poisoning dangers (Luttrell, 2011).
The standardisation of alcohol stove manufacturing and fuel pack­
Discussion aging could boost their appeal and diffusion in the African market,
especially as a transitional replacement for kerosene in settings where
This analysis has highlighted the worsening challenge of clean the risk of community conflagrations has been high but where electri­
cooking in Africa and the underutilised potential of alcohol fuelled fication or other alternative cannot be adopted. Efforts in this area
stoves. Methanol in particular burns cleanly like gaseous fuels and would ideally include specifications for denaturization, thermal and
therefore satisfies WHO indoor air quality guidelines and ISO voluntary emissions performance, service and spare parts backup, and safe fuel
performance targets for cookstoves (WHO, 2014; WHO, 2022). dispensing systems. These standards could be adopted and enforced
Compared to kerosene stoves, methanol stoves have significantly lower across the continent. In this case the newly published methanol stove
CO and PM2.5 emissions, well below guideline thresholds (Masekameni standards by South African Bureau of Standards in 2023 (SANS
et al., 2015; WHO, 2014). However, fuel toxicity is about the same for 2233:2023, Ed1.00) and the innovative ethanol dispensing systems in
Kenya (Murray, 2021) are good considerations for continental adoption.
In addition, appliances and fuel should be widely available and
competitively priced to address some of the causes of improved stoves
dis-adoption. Knowledge gaps on the benefits of alcohol fuelled stoves
and how to use them safely could be addressed through remedial com­
munity awareness education especially in areas where supply chains for
fuels and appliances exist. Studies indicate that user education and
involvement in project implementation are important components of
successful interventions (Middlemiss et al., 2023).
A just transition to clean and safe cookstoves may not be achieved
without the representation and participation of a wide range of stake­
holders in energy planning and management (Spath et al., 2022). The
different stakeholders ideally include national and local governments,
Fig. 5. CleanCook stove (Courtesy of Cleancook Sweden AB website). civil society, community groups, and the private sector. A logical

7
D. Kimemia and A. Van Niekerk Energy for Sustainable Development 81 (2024) 101498

starting point in planning a transition to clean cookstoves is the iden­ contexts and a differentiated design of transition pathways. However,
tification of the relevant stakeholders, their competencies and capac­ despite the noted challenges there are several African countries that
ities, and potential roles in the transition. In the case of methanol stoves could embark on and successfully implement the recommendations as
a multistakeholder transition forum under governmental leadership part of their community energization efforts. A cooperative approach
could assess and recommend denaturization standards, appropriate through an African-centred energization plan could facilitate the
stove technology and fuel dispensing infrastructure, fuel affordability envisaged transition to promising clean cooking fuels, of which meth­
vis-à-vis available alternatives, and key actors in the value chain. In anol is one alternative. Such a Marshal Plan could be coordinated
addition, human capital development and capacitation should be rec­ through the AU and the respective regional economic blocks through
ognised as a central pilar of the transition (Todd & McCauley, 2021), their energy, environment and health initiatives. Fuel affordability
with practical training offered to stove users, fuel retailers, and main­ could be enabled through public action that lowers or eliminates taxes
tenance technicians. The forum should also look at the policy regime on methanol meant for domestic fuel, targeted subsidies on stoves and
with a view to ensure that there are clear guidelines to support and fuel refills, efficient distribution systems and economies of scale. The
enable the acquisition of clean and safe energy technologies. Research ultimate aim is to make methanol and similar clean fuels a safe, viable
indicates that a bottom-up multistakeholder approach produces the best and affordable alternative to kerosene and other polluting fuels. This
outcomes in the introduction of emergent technologies such as methanol would incrementally reduce the huge burden of illness and strain on
stoves, boosting their effectiveness and sustainability (Sherman & Ford, public health resources from pollutant fuels and inefficient stoves.
2014). Moreover, the diffusion of clean combustion fuels and requisite efficient
appliances that emit fewer criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases
Conclusion and policy recommendations promises a good return on investment through climate protection.

Millions of Africans still lack access to clean cooking services despite CRediT authorship contribution statement
efforts expended in electrification, clean biomass cookstove pro­
grammes, and LPG promotion. We have argued in this article that in David Kimemia: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original
order to make meaningful progress towards 2030 clean cooking targets, draft, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Ashley Van Niekerk:
domestic energy users on the continent should be given a diversified Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.
choice of clean energy technologies. One of those choices that is often
overlooked in cookstove programmes is alcohol fuels, particularly
methanol that is sustainably produced without posing a food versus fuel Declaration of competing interest
conflict and comparatively cheaper than ethanol. The technology for
dispensing and burning this fuel safely and cleanly exists with initial The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
indications that it is improving, although there is still limited published interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
outcome studies from implementation sites. What is needed are imme­ the work reported in this paper.
diate impact and longer-term user evaluations, measures to protect
communities against fuel toxicity (through denaturization, distribution Acknowledgements
and packaging controls), and political goodwill in terms of policy and
budgetary support so that the fledgling sector could grow beyond pilot The study was funded by the University of South Africa (UNISA)
projects to large scale diffusion. Since fuel stacking is a widespread through a grant to the Institute for Social and Health Sciences (ISHS) and
phenomenon in the continent, more clean fuels and stove choices could the South African Medical Research Council through a grant to the
ensure a cleaner stack. Furthermore, vibrant competition in the do­ Violence, Injury and Social Asymmetries Research Unit (VISARU).
mestic energy marketplace may result in cleaner, more efficient, and
cost-effective products.
References
Based on the foregoing, we make the following policy recommen­
dations as regards the diffusion of methanol stoves in Africa: Adane, M., Alene, G., Mereta, S., et al. (2020). Facilitators and barriers to improved
cookstove adoption: A community-based cross-sectional study in Northwest
Ethiopia. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 25, 14. https://doi.org/
• First, commission feasibility and post-intervention evaluation studies
10.1186/s12199-020-00851-y
in different sites and contexts to further clarify the health, social and Adjei-Mantey, K., & Takeuchi, K. (2021). Impact of LPG promotion program in Ghana:
economic impacts of domestic methanol cookstoves, and the en­ The role of distance to refill. Energy Policy, 158, Article 112578. https://doi.org/
ablers and barriers to widespread diffusion. 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112578
Ahunu, L. (2015). LPG promotion program. African Centre for Energy Policy. Available from
• Once safe use and feasibility is more substantively illustrated, enact LPG PROMOTION PROGRAM (acep.africa), 09/11/2022.
national and if possible African-wide policy on methanol fuel econ­ Alexander, D., Northcross, A., Wilson, N., Dutta, A., Pandya, R., Ibigbami, T., et al.
omy, including its application as a domestic clean cooking technol­ (2017). Randomized controlled ethanol cookstove intervention and blood pressure
in pregnant Nigerian women. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care
ogy. This should ideally include national and continental methanol Medicine, 195(12), 629–1639.
stove standards and fuel specifications, primarily geared towards Annegarn, H. (2021). Alternative technologies and fuels for domestic energy. Paper presented
efficient performance, safety, health promotion, and cost- at the no Paraffin! Campaign, 25 February 2021, Online symposium. Available from
PowerPoint Presentation (assaf.org.za), 26 Oct 2023.
effectiveness. Ashurst, J. V., & Nappe, T. (2023 Jan). Methanol Toxicity. In StatPearls. Treasure Island
• Conduct information campaigns to inform communities on the po­ (FL): StatPearls Publishing. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/N
tential of methanol stoves in the promotion of clean cooking, and the BK482121/, 16 Oct 2023.
Benker-Coker, M., Tadele, W., Milano, A., et al. (2018). A case study of the ethanol
necessary safety precautions. The information should especially be CleanCook stove intervention and potential scale-up in Ethiopia. Energy for
directed to low income households and role players in energy plan­ Sustainable Development, 46, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2018. 06.009
ning and intervention. Cambray, D. (2021). Methanol synthesis in South Africa Accessed from Science in Africa
http://www.scienceinafrica.com/biotechnology/industrial/methanol-synthesis-sou
th-africa.
We note that implementing these recommendations may be limited East African. (2015). Kenya’s methanol rules aimed at taming the ‘drink of death’. Available
by the prevailing heterogeneity in terms of political-economic configu­ from Kenya’s methanol rules aimed at taming the ‘drink of death’ - the East African, 09
rations, infrastructural constraints, and material conditions of diverse Nov 2022.
Edomah, N., Brazilian, M., & Sovacool, B. (2020). Sociotechnical typologies for national
African settings and the intra country inequalities. Therefore, a ‘one shoe energy transitions. Environmental Research Letters, 15, Article 111001. https://doi.
fits all’ approach won’t work and thus the need to consider local org/10.1088/1748-9326/abba54

8
D. Kimemia and A. Van Niekerk Energy for Sustainable Development 81 (2024) 101498

Ernstgård, L., Shibata, E., & Johanson, G. (2005). Uptake and disposition of inhaled Marquez, C., & Hobson, C. (2018). Renewable methanol report. Available from http://e
methanol vapor in humans. Toxicological Sciences, 88(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/ nerkem.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/MetInst_MethanolReport.pdf, 06 July
10.1093/toxsci/kfi281 2023.
Fernandez, L. (2022). Global production capacity of methanol, 2018–2021. Available from Masekameni, D., Makonese, T., & Annegarn, H. (2015). A comparison of emissions and
Methanol production capacity globally | Statista, 26 Oct 2022. thermal efficiency of three improved liquid fuel stoves. In Proceedings of the 23rd
Flomenbaum, N. E., Goldfrank, L. R., Hoffman, R. S., Howland, M. A., Lewin, N. A., & Conference on the Domestic Use of Energy, DUE 2015. 71-76. https://doi.org/10.1109/
Nelson, L. S. (2006). Goldfrank’s Toxicologic Emergencies (8th ed.). New York: DUE.2015.7102965
McGraw Hill. Maurya, P., Muthukumar, P., & Anandalakshmi, R. (2022). Methanol cookstove a
Gaffney, S., Moody, E., McKinley, M., et al. (2008). Worker exposure to methanol vapors potential alternative to LPG cookstove: Usability, safety, and sustainability studies.
during cleaning of semiconductor wafers in a manufacturing setting. Journal of Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 53(Part B), Article 102508. https://
Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 5, 313–324. doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102508
Garcia, G., Arriola, E., Chen, W., & Luna, M. (2021). A comprehensive review of Maurya, P., Palanisamy, M., Mahalingam, A., et al. (2022). Performance, economic and
hydrogen production from methanol thermochemical conversion for sustainability. pilot studies on canister-based methanol stove for household cooking application.
Energy, 217, Article 119384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy. 2020.119384 Energy for Sustainable Development, 66, 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Gill-Wiehl, A., & Kammen, D. (2022). A pro-health cookstove strategy to advance energy, esd.2021.11.006
social and ecological justice. Nature Energy. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022- Medina, E. (2014). Methanol hazards & safeguards: Lessons learned from the global
01126-2 supply chain. In Professional Safety, June 2014 (pp. 67–74). https://aeasseincludes.
Gill-Wiehl, A., Price, T., & Kammen, D. (2021). What’s in a stove? A review of the user assp.org/professionalsafety/pastissues/059/06/F3Medina_0614.pdf.
preferences in improved stove designs. Energy Research & Social Science, 81, Article Mehta, K., Thrikutam, N., Hoyte-Williams, P., Henry Falk, H., et al. (2023). Epidemiology
102281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102281 and outcomes of cooking- and cookstove-related burn injuries: A World Health
Goeppert, A., Czaun, M., Jones, J., Prakash, G., & Olah, G. (2014). Recycling of carbon Organization global burn registry report. Journal of Burn Care & Research, 44(3),
dioxide to methanol and derived products – Closing the loop. Chem Soc Review, 43 508–516. https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irab166
(23), 7957–8194. Methanol Institute. (2018). Methanol safety fact sheet. Available from https://www.
Govender, R., Hornsby, N., Kimemia, D., & Van Niekerk, A. (2020). The role of methanol.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018factsheet_methanolemergencyres
concomitant alcohol and drug use in increased risk for burn mortality outcomes. ponse.pdf, 20 March 2023.
Burns, 46, 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2019.11.002. Middlemiss, L., Stevens, M., Ambrosio-Albalá, P., Pellicer-Sifres, V., et al. (2023). How do
Guillaume, E., Loferme-Pedespan, N., Duclerget-Baudequin, A., Aymeric Raguideau, A., interventions for energy poverty and health work? Energy Policy, 180, Article
Fulton, R., & Lieval, L. (2013). Ethanol fireplaces: Safety matters. Safety Science, 57, 113684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113684
243–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.03.003. Moloney, S., Horne, R,. Fien J. Transitioning to low carbon communities—from
Gumber, S., & Gurumoorthy, A. (2018). Chapter–25 - methanol economy versus behaviour change to systemic change: Lessons from Australia. Energy Policy 38,
hydrogen economy. Editor(s): Angelo Basile, Francesco Dalena. Methanol Science and 7614–7623.
Engineering, 661–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63903-5.00025-X Moon, C. S. (2017). Estimations of the lethal and exposure doses for representative
Heald, A., & Muller, M. (2016). Severe burns due to biofuel heater injury: A case series. methanol symptoms in humans. Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
Burns, 42(2), e13–e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2015.04.013. 29, 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40557-017-0197-5
Huo, D., Du, Y., Wang, H., Zhao, J., & Li, W. (2021). Comprehensive analysis of rural Murray, G. (2021). Proceedings of the No Kerosene! Campaign: National Roundtable Webinar
heating by methanol heating stove: Economy, emissions, and energy consumption. Series, February/March 2021, Academy of Science of South Africa. Available from ASSAf
Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 155, 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Roundtable_Kerosene Campaign_FINAL.pdf, 07/11/2022.
j.psep.2021.08.028 Neufeld, M., Lachenmeier, D., Hausler, T., & Rehm, J. (2016). Surrogate alcohol
IEA. (2022). Africa’s Energy Outlook 2022: Affordable energy for all Africans is the containing methanol, social deprivation and public health in Novosibirsk, Russia. Int.
immediate and absolute priority. Available from www.iea.com. J. Drug Pol., 2016(37), 107–110.
ISO. (2012). IWA 11:2012 – Guidelines for evaluating Cookstove Performance. Geneva: Northcross, A., Shupler, M., Alexander, D., Olamijulo, J., Ibigbami, T., Ana, G., et al.
International Standards Organisation. (2016). Sustained usage of bioethanol cookstoves shown in an urban Nigerian city
Jin, R., Zheng, M., Yang, L., Zhang, Q., et al. (2022). Indoor exposure to products of via new SUMs algorithm. Energy for Sustainable Development, 35, 35–40.
incomplete combustion of household fuels in rural Tibetan Plateau. Environmental Ohimain, E. I. (2012). The benefits and potential impacts of household cooking fuel
Science & Technology, 56(8), 4711–4714. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est. 1c05298 substitution with bio-ethanol produced from cassava feedstock in Nigeria. Energy for
Johnson, N. G., & Bryden, K. M. (2015). Field-based safety guidelines for solid fuel Sustainable Development, 16, 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.06.003
household cookstoves in developing countries. Energy for Sustainable Development, Olah, G. A. (2013). Towards oil independence through renewable methanol chemistry.
25, 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2015.01.002 Angewandte Chemie (International Ed. in English), 52(1), 104–1077. https://doi.org/
Kane, R. L., Talbert, W., Harlan, J., et al. (1968). A methanol poisoning outbreak in 10.1002/anie.201204995
Kentucky. A clinical epidemiologic study. Archives of Environmental Health, 17, Ombati, A. N., Ndaguatha, P. L. W., & Wanjeri, J. (2013). Risk factors for kerosene stove
119–129. explosion burns seen at Kenyatta National Hospital in Kenya. Burns, 39(3), 501–506.
Kavet, R., & Nauss, K. (1990). The toxicity of inhaled methanol vapours. Toxicity, 21(1), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2012.07.008
21–50. Ozier, A., Charron, D., Chung, S., Sarma, D., et al. (2018). Building a consumer market
Kimemia, D., & Annegarn, H. (2016). Domestic LPG interventions in South Africa: for ethanol-methanol cooking fuel in Lagos, Nigeria. Energy for Sustainable
Challenges and lessons. Energy Policy, 93, 150–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Development, 46, 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2018.06.007
enpol.2016.03.005 Panday, S., & Mafu, S. (2007). Limited choices: An exploratory study on paraffin use in
Kimemia, D., & Van Niekerk, A. (2017). Cookstove options for safety and health: KwaZulu Nata. Available from Microsoft Word – Paraffin Safety Report Final 070510.
Comparative analysis of technological and usability attributes. Energy Policy, 105, doc (hsrc.ac.za), 23/10/2023.
451–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.022 Peck, M., Kruger, G., & van der Merwe, A. (2008). Burns and fires from non-electric
Kimemia, D., Van Niekerk, A., Govender, R., & Seedat, M. (2018). Burns and fires in domestic appliances in low and middle-income countries: Part I. The scope of the
South Africa’s informal settlements: Have approved kerosene stoves improved problem. Burns, 34(3), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2007. 08.014
safety? Burns, 44, 969–979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns. 2017.11.006 Posner, H. (1975). Biohazards of methanol in proposed new uses. Journal of Toxicology
Kleiman, R., Nickle, R., & Shwartz, M. (2009). Inhalational Methanol Toxicity. Journal of and Environmental Health, 1, 153–171.
Medical Toxicology, 5 (3), 158–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03161229.pdf Puzzolo, E., Pope, D., Stanistreet, D., Rehfuess, E., et al. (2016). Clean fuels for resource-
Kraemer, R., Knobloch, K., Lorenzen, J., Breuing, K. H., Koennecker, S., et al. (2011). poor settings: A systematic review of barriers and enablers to adoption and sustained
Severe burn injuries caused by bioethanol-design fireplaces-an Overview on use. Environmental Research, 146, 218–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
recreational fire threats. Journal of Burn Care & Research, 32, 173–177. envres.2016.01.002
Kumar, V., & Tripathi, C. (2003). 2003. Fatal accidental burns in married women. Legal Puzzolo, E., Zerriffi, H., Carter, E., Clemens, H., Stokes, H., Jagger, P., et al. (2019).
Medicine, 5, 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1344-6223(03)00075-0 Supply Considerations for Scaling up Clean Cooking Fuels for Household Energy in
Levy, P., Hexdall, A., Gordon, P., Boeriu, C., et al. (2003). Methanol contamination of Low- and Middle-Income Countries. GeoHealth, 3, 370–390. https://doi.org/
Romanian home-distilled alcohol. J Toxicol/Clin Toxicol, 41, 23–28. 10.1029/2019GH000208
Li, F., Trutnevyte, E., & Strachan, N. (2015). A review of socio-technical energy transition Reeds, B., & Lerner, M. (1973). Methanol: A versatile fuel for immediate use. Science, 182
(STET) models. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 100, 290–305. https:// (4119), 1299–1304.
doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.017 Rhodes, E., Dreibelbis, R., Klasen, E., Naithani, N., & Baliddawa, J. (2014). Behavioral
Log, T., & Moi, A. (2018). Ethanol and methanol burn risks in the home environment. attitudes and preferences in cooking practices with traditional open-fire stoves in
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), 2379. Peru, Nepal, and Kenya: Implications for improved cookstove interventions.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112379 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11, 10310–10326.
Luttrell, W. E. (2011). Methanol: Toxic tips. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety, 18(5), https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph111010310
56–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jchas.2011.07.007 Rostrup, M., Edwards, J. K., Abukalish, M., Ezzabi, M., Some, D., et al. (2016). The
Makonese, T., Annegarn, H., & Meyer, J. (2020). Performance, economic and pilot methanol poisoning outbreaks in Libya 2013 and Kenya. PLoS One, 11, Article
studies on canister-based methanol stove for household cooking application. Energy e0152676.
for Sustainable Development, 55, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2019.12.002 Rupf, G. V., Bahri, P. A., de Boer, K., & McHenry, M. P. (2015). Barriers and opportunities
Manning, L., & Kowalska, A. (2021). Illicit alcohol: Public health risk of methanol of biogas dissemination in Sub-Saharan Africa and lessons learned from Rwanda,
poisoning and policy mitigation strategies. Foods, 10(7), 1625. https://doi.org/ Tanzania, China, India, and Nepal. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52,
10.3390/foods10071625 468–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.107

9
D. Kimemia and A. Van Niekerk Energy for Sustainable Development 81 (2024) 101498

Samarakoon, S. (2019). A justice and wellbeing centered framework for analysing energy Todd, I., & McCauley, D. (2021). Assessing policy barriers to the energy transition in
poverty in the Global South. Ecological Economics, 165, Article 106385. https://doi. South Africa. Energy Policy, 158, Article 112529.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106385 Topriska, E. (2016). Hydrogen could become the new fuel for cooking. Available from htt
SANS 1906:2012. South African National Standard: Non-pressure kerosene stoves and ps://theconversation.com/hydrogen-could-become-the-new-fuel-for-cooking-here
heaters, Edition 3.1. SABS, Pretoria. s-how-66241, 15 Oct 2023.
SANS 2233:2023 (Ed. 1.00). South African National Standard: Methanol combustion Tountas, A., Ozin, G., & Sain, M. (2021). Continuous reactor for renewable methanol.
appliances for cooking, heating and illumination. SABS, Pretoria. Green Chemistry, 23, 340–353.
Sasol. (2021). Safety data sheet: Methanol Accessed from https://products.sasol.co UNDP. (2018). Accelerating SDG 7 achievement: Interlinkages between energy, poverty,
m/pic/products/home/grades/ZA/5methanol-technical-grade/index.html, 2022/ and inequalities. Policy Brief 08. Available from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.
02/03. org/content/documents/17480PB8.pdf, 14 July 2022.
Shankar, A., Quinn, A., Dickinson, K., et al. (2020). Everybody stacks: Lessons from US Dept of Energy. (2022). Alternative fuels data centre. Available from https://afdc.
household energy case studies to inform design principles for clean energy energy.gov/fuels/properties, 29 June 2022.
transitions. Energy Policy, 141, Article 111468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Van Leewen, R., Evans, A., & Hyseni, B. (2017). Increasing the use of liquefied petroleum gas
enpol.2020.111468 in cooking in developing countries. A knowledge note series for the energy and extractives
Shen, G., Hays, M., Smith, K., Williams, C., et al. (2018). Evaluating the Performance of global practice, World Bank, 2017.
Household Liquefied Petroleum Gas Cookstoves. Environmental Science & Technology, Van Niekerk A, Burn-related injuries. Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Global Public
52, 904–915. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05155 Health, doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190632366.013.305.
Sherman, M. H., & Ford, J. (2014). Stakeholder engagement in adaptation interventions: Van Niekerk, A., Reimers, A., & Laflamme, L. (2006). Area characteristics and
An evaluation of projects in developing nations. Climate Policy, 14(3), 417–441. determinants of hospitalised childhood burn injury: A study in the city of Cape
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.859501 Town. Public Health, 120(2), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. puhe.2005.08.015
Smolle, C., Cambiaso-Daniel, J., Forbes, A., & Wurzer, P. (2017). Recent Trends in Burn Van Niekerk, A., Seedat, M., Menckel, E., & Laflamme, L. (2006). Caregiver experiences,
Epidemiology Worldwide: A Systematic Review. Burns, 43(2), 249–257. https://doi. contextualizations and understandings of the burn injury to their child. Accounts
org/10.1016/j.burns.2016.08.013 from low-income settings in South Africa. Child: Care, Health and Development, 33(3),
Spath, P., Castán Broto, V., Bawakyillenuo, S., et al. (2022). The governance of energy 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00724.x
transitions in Africa: A sketch of plural perspectives. Energ Sustain Soc, 12(51). van Zoonen, E., van Eck, I., van Baar, M., Meij-de Vries, A., van Schie, C., & van der
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-022-00380-2 Vlies, C. (2024). Aetiology of bioethanol related burn accidents: A qualitative study.
Stokes, H. (2005). Alcohol fuels (ethanol and methanol): safety. In Presentation at ETHOS Burns, 50(3), 733–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2023.12.007.
conference (pp. 29–30). Verhelst, S., Turner, J., & Sileghem, L. (2019). Methanol as a fuel for internal combustion
Stokes, H., & Crocco, R. (2005). The reality of methanol use as a cooking fuel in developing engines. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 70, 43–48. https://doi.org/
countries. Available from THE REALITY OF METHANOL USE (projectgaia.com), 10/11/ 10.1016/j.pecs.2018.10.001
2022. WHO. (2014). WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: Household fuel combustion. Available
Stokes, H., & Ebbeson, B. (2005). Project Gaia: Commercialising a new stove and new from WHO Guidelines for indoor air quality: Household fuel combustion, 09 Nov 2022.
fuel in Africa. Boiling Point, 50, 31–33. WHO. (2022). Standards for cookstove performance: Guidance and resources. Available from
Stoner, O., Lewis, J., Martinez, I., et al. (2021). Household cooking fuel estimates at iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/364679/WHO-HEP-ECH-AQH-2022.7-eng.pdf?
global and country level for 1990 to 2030. Nature Communications. https://doi.org/ sequence=1, 26 Oct 2023.
10.1038/s41467-021-26036-x WHO. (2023). Burns, available from Burns (who.int), 19 March 2024.
Sukhera, V. (2022). Narrative reviews: Flexible, rigorous, and practical. Journal of Yadav, O., Valera, H., Dulani, D., Krishnan, U., & Agarwal, A. K. (2021). Safety Aspects of
Graduate Medical Education, 14(4), 414–417. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22- Methanol as Fuel. In A. K. Agarwal, H. Valera, M. Pexa, & J. Čedík (Eds.), Methanol.
00480.1 Energy, Environment, and Sustainability. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-981-16-1280-0_5.

10