Research and implementation efforts are frequently pursued with insufficient coordination with supporting organizations, which, in many cases has led to widespread implementation of so called "improved" stoves that have sometimes failed to deliver on the promise of reducing IAP. Cookstove implementation efforts have often achieved mixed results because of the combined technical and social complexities related to design of alternative stoves and personal and cultural preferences of targeted communities of improvement. Substantial variations in emissions and fuel consumption have been observed across ranges of cookstove designs and between laboratory and field test conditions. At present, a standard testing mechanism does not exist to establish the true impact of alternative cookstove designs as well as descriptive language for exposure. Stove testing studies is not always consistent depending largely on the discipline of investigators and their scientific specialization.Health assessments  while increasing in frequency and focus, remain too limited to draw many connections to cookstove interventions and significant reductions in exposures to IAP and associated health risks.