|
|
Effects of ambient temperature on regulated gaseous and particulate emissions from gasoline-, E10- and M15-fueled vehicles |
Rencheng Zhu1, Jingnan Hu2,3(), Liqiang He2, Lei Zu2, Xiaofeng Bao2, Yitu Lai4, Sheng Su4 |
1. School of Ecology and Environment, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China 2. Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China 3. National Joint Research Center for Tracking Key Problems in Air Pollution Control, Beijing 100012, China 4. Xiamen Environment Protection Vehicle Emission Control Technology Center, Xiamen 361023, China |
|
|
Abstract • Emissions from two sedans were tested with gasoline, E10 and M15 at 30°C and -7°C. • As the temperature decreased, the PM, PN and BC emissions increased with all fuels. • Particulate emissions with E10 and M15 were more sensitive to the temperature. • The PN and BC generated during cold start-up dominated those over the WLTC. Ambient temperature has substantial impacts on vehicle emissions, but the impacts may differ between traditional and alcohol gasolines. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of temperature on gaseous and particulate emissions with both traditional and alcohol gasoline. Regulated gaseous, particle mass (PM), particle number (PN) and black carbon (BC) emissions from typical passenger vehicles were separately quantified with gasoline, E10 (10% ethanol and 90% gasoline by volume) and M15 (15% methanol and 85% gasoline by volume) at both 30°C and -7°C. The particulate emissions with all fuels increased significantly with decreased temperature. The PM emissions with E10 were only 48.0%–50.7% of those with gasoline at 30°C but increased to 59.2%-79.4% at -7°C. The PM emissions with M15 were comparable to those with gasoline at 30°C, but at -7°C, the average PM emissions were higher than those with gasoline. The variation trend of PN emissions was similar to that of PM emissions with changes in the fuel and temperature. At 30°C, the BC emissions were lower with E10 and M15 than with gasoline in most cases, but E10 and M15 might emit more BC than gasoline at -7°C, especially M15. The results of the transient PN and BC emission rates show that particulate emissions were dominated mainly by those emitted during the cold-start moment. Overall, the particulate emissions with E10 and M15 were more easily affected by ambient temperature, and the advantages of E10 and M15 in controlling particulate emissions declined as the ambient temperature decreased.
|
Keywords
Particle mass
Particle number
Black carbon
Alcohol gasoline
Low temperature
|
Corresponding Author(s):
Jingnan Hu
|
Issue Date: 06 August 2020
|
|
1 |
K Aikawa, T Sakurai, J J Jetter (2010). Development of a predictive model for gasoline vehicle particulate matter emissions. SAE International Journal of Fuels and Lubricants, 3(2): 610–622
https://doi.org/10.4271/2010-01-2115
|
2 |
R M Balabin, R Z Syunyaev, S A Karpov (2007). Molar enthalpy of vaporization of ethanol–gasoline mixtures and their colloid state. Fuel, 86(3): 323–327
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2006.08.008
|
3 |
P Bielaczyc, A Szczotka, J Woodburn (2014). The impact of fuel ethanol content on particulate emissions from light-duty vehicles featuring spark ignition engines. SAE International Journal of Fuels and Lubricants, 7(1): 224–235
https://doi.org/10.4271/2014-01-1463
|
4 |
T W Chan, E Meloche, J Kubsh, R Brezny, D Rosenblatt, G Rideout (2013). Impact of ambient temperature on gaseous and particle emissions from a direct injection gasoline vehicle and its implications on particle filtration. SAE International Journal of Fuels and Lubricants, 6(2): 350–371
https://doi.org/10.4271/2013-01-0527
|
5 |
L Chen, R Stone (2011). Measurement of enthalpies of vaporization of isooctane and ethanol blends and their effects on PM emissions from a GDI engine. Energy & Fuels, 25(3): 1254–1259
https://doi.org/10.1021/ef1015796
|
6 |
L Chen, R Stone, D Richardson (2012). A study of mixture preparation and PM emissions using a direct injection engine fuelled with stoichiometric gasoline/ethanol blends. Fuel, 96: 120–130
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.12.070
|
7 |
Y Chen , Y Zhou, X Zhao (2020). PM2.5 over north China based on MODIS AOD and effect of meteorological elements during 2003–2015. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 14(2): 23
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-019-1202-8
|
8 |
K Choi, J Kim, A Ko, C L Myung, S Park, J Lee (2013). Size-resolved engine exhaust aerosol characteristics in a metal foam particulate filter for GDI light-duty vehicle. Journal of Aerosol Science, 57: 1–13
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2012.11.002
|
9 |
K Choi, J Kim, C L Myung, M Lee, S Kwon, Y Lee, S Park (2012). Effect of the mixture preparation on the nanoparticle characteristics of gasoline direct-injection vehicles. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part D, Journal of Automobile Engineering, 226(11): 1514–1524
https://doi.org/10.1177/0954407012445534
|
10 |
H Cui, W Chen, W Dai, H Liu, X Wang, K He (2015). Source apportionment of PM2.5 in Guangzhou combining observation data analysis and chemical transport model simulation. Atmospheric Environment, 116: 262–271
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.06.054
|
11 |
C Dardiotis, G Fontaras, A Marotta, G Martini, U Manfredi (2015). Emissions of modern light duty ethanol flex-fuel vehicles over different operating and environmental conditions. Fuel, 140: 531–540
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.09.085
|
12 |
C Dardiotis, G Martini, A Marotta, U Manfredi (2013). Low-temperature cold-start gaseous emissions of late technology passenger cars. Applied Energy, 111: 468–478
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.04.093
|
13 |
B Doğan, D Erol, H Yaman, E Kodanli (2017). The effect of ethanol-gasoline blends on performance and exhaust emissions of a spark ignition engine through exergy analysis. Applied Thermal Engineering, 120: 433–443
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.04.012
|
14 |
R L Furey, K L Perry (1991). Composition and Reactivity of Fuel Vapor Emissions from Gasoline-Oxygenate Blends. SAE Technical Paper No. 912429
|
15 |
C M Gong, J Li, J K Li, W X Li, Q Gao, X J Liu (2011). Effects of ambient temperature on firing behavior and unregulated emissions of spark-ignition methanol and liquefied petroleum gas/methanol engines during cold start. Fuel, 90(1): 19–25
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2010.08.012
|
16 |
A Gupta, P Mishra (2019). Optimization of emission characteristics of spark ignition engine with chambered straight muffler running in methanol blend: An engine development technique for environmental sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 238: 117778
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117778
|
17 |
L He, J Hu, S Zhang, Y Wu, R Zhu, L Zu, X Bao, Y Lai, S Su (2018). The impact from the direct injection and multi-port fuel injection technologies for gasoline vehicles on solid particle number and black carbon emissions. Applied Energy, 226: 819–826
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.050
|
18 |
G Karavalakis, T D Durbin, M Shrivastava, Z Zheng, M Villela, H Jung (2012). Impacts of ethanol fuel level on emissions of regulated and unregulated pollutants from a fleet of gasoline light-duty vehicles. Fuel, 93: 549–558
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.09.021
|
19 |
G Karavalakis, D Short, D Vu, M Villela, A Asa-Awuku, T D Durbin (2014). Evaluating the regulated emissions, air toxics, ultrafine particles, and black carbon from SI-PFI and SI-DI vehicles operating on different ethanol and iso-butanol blends. Fuel, 128: 410–421
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.03.016
|
20 |
L Li, Y Ge, M Wang, Z Peng, Y Song, L Zhang, W Yuan (2015). Exhaust and evaporative emissions from motorcycles fueled with ethanol gasoline blends. Science of the Total Environment, 502: 627–631
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.09.068
|
21 |
B Liang, Y Ge, J Tan, X Han, L Gao, L Hao, W Ye, P Dai (2013). Comparison of PM emissions from a gasoline direct injected (GDI) vehicle and a port fuel injected (PFI) vehicle measured by electrical low pressure impactor (ELPI) with two fuels: Gasoline and M15 methanol gasoline. Journal of Aerosol Science, 57: 22–31
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2012.11.008
|
22 |
M M Maricq, J J Szente, K Jahr (2012). The impact of ethanol fuel blends on PM emissions from a light-duty GDI vehicle. Aerosol Science and Technology, 46(5): 576–583
https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2011.648780
|
23 |
G Martini, E Paffumi, M De Gennaro, G Mellios (2014). European type-approval test procedure for evaporative emissions from passenger cars against real-world mobility data from two Italian provinces. Science of the Total Environment, 487: 506–520
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.04.053
|
24 |
E Sadeghinezhad, S N Kazi, A Badarudin, H Togun, M N M Zubir, C S Oon, S Gharehkhani (2014). Sustainability and environmental impact of ethanol as a biofuel. Reviews in Chemical Engineering, 30(1): 51–72
https://doi.org/10.1515/revce-2013-0024
|
25 |
H A K Shahad, S K Wabdan (2015). Effect of operating conditions on pollutants concentration emitted from a spark ignition engine fueled with gasoline bioethanol blends. Journal of Renewable Energy, 2015: 1–7
https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/170896
|
26 |
J M E Storey, T L Barone, K M Norman, S A Lewis (2010). Ethanol blend effects on direct injection spark-ignition gasoline vehicle particulate matter emissions. SAE International Journal of Fuels and Lubricants, 3(2): 650–659
https://doi.org/10.4271/2010-01-2129
|
27 |
R Suarez-Bertoa, A A Zardini, H Keuken, C Astorga (2015). Impact of ethanol containing gasoline blends on emissions from a flex-fuel vehicle tested over the Worldwide Harmonized Light Duty Test Cycle (WLTC). Fuel, 143: 173–182
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.10.076
|
28 |
A Überall, R Otte, P Eilts, J Krahl (2015). A literature research about particle emissions from engines with direct gasoline injection and the potential to reduce these emissions. Fuel, 147: 203–207
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.01.012
|
29 |
M P Walsh (2014). PM2.5: Global progress in controlling the motor vehicle contribution. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 8(1): 1–17
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-014-0634-4
|
30 |
X Wang, Y Ge, L Liu, Z Peng, L Hao, H Yin, Y Ding, J Wang (2015). Evaluation on toxic reduction and fuel economy of a gasoline direct injection-(GDI-) powered passenger car fueled with methanol–gasoline blends with various substitution ratios. Applied Energy, 157: 134–143
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.023
|
31 |
X Wu, S Zhang, X Guo, Z Yang, J Liu, L He, Z Zheng, L Han, H Liu, Y Wu (2019). Aseessment of ethanol blended fuels for gasoline vehicles in China: Fuell economy, regulated gaseous pollutants and particulated matter. Environmental Pollution, 253: 731–740
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.07.045
|
32 |
W Yinhui, Z Rong, Q Yanhong, P Jianfei, L Mengren, L Jianrong, W Yusheng, H Min, S Shijin (2016). The impact of fuel compositions on the particulate emissions of direct injection gasoline engine. Fuel, 166: 543–552
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.11.019
|
33 |
X Zheng, S Lu, L Yang, M Yan, G Xu, X Wu, L Fu, Y Wu (2020). Real-world fuel consumption of light-duty passenger vehicles using on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 14(2): 33
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-019-1212-6
|
34 |
R Zhu, J Hu, X Bao, L He, Y Lai, L Zu, Y Li, S Su (2016). Tailpipe emissions from gasoline direct injection (GDI) and port fuel injection (PFI) vehicles at both low and high ambient temperatures. Environmental Pollution, 216: 223–234
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.05.066
|
35 |
R Zhu, J Hu, X Bao, L He, Y Lai, L Zu, Y Li, S Su (2017a). Investigation of tailpipe and evaporative emissions from China IV and Tier 2 passenger vehicles with different gasolines. Transportation Research Part D, Transport and Environment, 50: 305–315
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.10.027
|
36 |
R Zhu, J Hu, X Bao, L He, L Zu (2017b). Effects of aromatics, olefins and distillation temperatures (T50 & T90) on particle mass and number emissions from gasoline direct injection (GDI) vehicles. Energy Policy, 101: 185–193
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.022
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
|
Shared |
|
|
|
|
|
Discussed |
|
|
|
|