五种台式电烹饪器具的能耗比较

IF 3.2 4区 工程技术 Q3 ENERGY & FUELS
Hozen Ricchie Rose, Rubén O. Morawicki
{"title":"五种台式电烹饪器具的能耗比较","authors":"Hozen Ricchie Rose,&nbsp;Rubén O. Morawicki","doi":"10.1007/s12053-023-10181-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This research tested the energy consumption and efficiency of five electric tabletop appliances (cooktops) used in home cooking, specifically induction, infrared, resistance plate, resistance coil, and electric pot. The water boiling test with a cold start was used to determine the energy consumption and the efficiency for each appliance with variable volumes of water—500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 mL—and two pot sizes of 3 and 5 quarts. The effect of cold vs. hot start was evaluated with one water volume, 1000 mL, on all appliances. The electric pot was studied with and without insulation to determine if it is worth insulating the pot that comes un-insulated from the factory. Also, the appliances were subjected to simulated simmering tests to determine which device was more efficient in slow cooking. Of the five appliances tested, the induction cooktop and the electric pot were the most energy efficient and took the least time to boil water. Moreover, the energy efficiency and heating time were similar for the induction matched with the smaller pot and the electric pot. Induction lost efficiency by approximately ten percentage points when used with the large pot, thus reinforcing the importance of matching the pot size with the heating element. During the simmering experiments, induction proved easier than resistance coil to control the temperature in the culinary simmering band, from 85 to 100 °C; however, the energy consumption difference between induction and resistance coil was unclear.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":537,"journal":{"name":"Energy Efficiency","volume":"16 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the energy consumption of five tabletop electric cooking appliances\",\"authors\":\"Hozen Ricchie Rose,&nbsp;Rubén O. Morawicki\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12053-023-10181-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This research tested the energy consumption and efficiency of five electric tabletop appliances (cooktops) used in home cooking, specifically induction, infrared, resistance plate, resistance coil, and electric pot. The water boiling test with a cold start was used to determine the energy consumption and the efficiency for each appliance with variable volumes of water—500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 mL—and two pot sizes of 3 and 5 quarts. The effect of cold vs. hot start was evaluated with one water volume, 1000 mL, on all appliances. The electric pot was studied with and without insulation to determine if it is worth insulating the pot that comes un-insulated from the factory. Also, the appliances were subjected to simulated simmering tests to determine which device was more efficient in slow cooking. Of the five appliances tested, the induction cooktop and the electric pot were the most energy efficient and took the least time to boil water. Moreover, the energy efficiency and heating time were similar for the induction matched with the smaller pot and the electric pot. Induction lost efficiency by approximately ten percentage points when used with the large pot, thus reinforcing the importance of matching the pot size with the heating element. During the simmering experiments, induction proved easier than resistance coil to control the temperature in the culinary simmering band, from 85 to 100 °C; however, the energy consumption difference between induction and resistance coil was unclear.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":537,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Energy Efficiency\",\"volume\":\"16 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Energy Efficiency\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12053-023-10181-x\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENERGY & FUELS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Efficiency","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12053-023-10181-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究测试了五种家用电器(灶台)的能耗和效率,分别是感应式、红外线式、电阻板式、电阻线圈式和电锅式。采用冷启动沸水试验,确定了不同体积水(500、1000、1500、2000 ml)和3夸脱和5夸脱两种锅的能耗和效率。用1000毫升的水对所有电器进行冷启动和热启动的效果评估。对带绝缘和不带绝缘的电锅进行了研究,以确定是否值得对出厂时未绝缘的电锅进行绝缘。此外,这些设备还进行了模拟慢炖测试,以确定哪种设备在慢炖中更有效。在测试的五种电器中,电磁炉和电锅是最节能的,烧水的时间最短。此外,与小锅和电锅匹配的感应效率和加热时间相似。当与大锅匹配时,感应效率下降了大约10个百分点,从而加强了锅大小与加热元件匹配的重要性。在慢炖实验中,感应比电阻线圈更容易控制烹饪慢炖带的温度,从85到100°C;然而,感应线圈和电阻线圈之间的能量消耗差异尚不清楚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of the energy consumption of five tabletop electric cooking appliances

Comparison of the energy consumption of five tabletop electric cooking appliances

This research tested the energy consumption and efficiency of five electric tabletop appliances (cooktops) used in home cooking, specifically induction, infrared, resistance plate, resistance coil, and electric pot. The water boiling test with a cold start was used to determine the energy consumption and the efficiency for each appliance with variable volumes of water—500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 mL—and two pot sizes of 3 and 5 quarts. The effect of cold vs. hot start was evaluated with one water volume, 1000 mL, on all appliances. The electric pot was studied with and without insulation to determine if it is worth insulating the pot that comes un-insulated from the factory. Also, the appliances were subjected to simulated simmering tests to determine which device was more efficient in slow cooking. Of the five appliances tested, the induction cooktop and the electric pot were the most energy efficient and took the least time to boil water. Moreover, the energy efficiency and heating time were similar for the induction matched with the smaller pot and the electric pot. Induction lost efficiency by approximately ten percentage points when used with the large pot, thus reinforcing the importance of matching the pot size with the heating element. During the simmering experiments, induction proved easier than resistance coil to control the temperature in the culinary simmering band, from 85 to 100 °C; however, the energy consumption difference between induction and resistance coil was unclear.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency ENERGY & FUELS-ENERGY & FUELS
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
6.50%
发文量
59
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Energy Efficiency covers wide-ranging aspects of energy efficiency in the residential, tertiary, industrial and transport sectors. Coverage includes a number of different topics and disciplines including energy efficiency policies at local, regional, national and international levels; long term impact of energy efficiency; technologies to improve energy efficiency; consumer behavior and the dynamics of consumption; socio-economic impacts of energy efficiency measures; energy efficiency as a virtual utility; transportation issues; building issues; energy management systems and energy services; energy planning and risk assessment; energy efficiency in developing countries and economies in transition; non-energy benefits of energy efficiency and opportunities for policy integration; energy education and training, and emerging technologies. See Aims and Scope for more details.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信