Characteristics of typical non-road machinery emissions in China by using portable emission measurement system

Fu, Mingliang; Ge, Yunshan; Tan, Jianwei; Zhang, Tao; Bin, Liang

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.07.095

Cited by 84 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, the average EF PM for different excavators ranged from 96.5 to 2323 mg kg −1 fuel, with an average of 829 ± 806 mg kg −1 fuel. The EF PM values of the excavators reported by Fu et al (2012) are within the range of EF PM values in this study. The wide range of EF PM values here could be attributed to differences in emission standards for the excavators.…”

Section: Fuel-based Pm Emission Factors For Excavator Exhaustsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Three operational modes were selected for the excavators to reflect actual use conditions, such as idling, moving, and working. Further descriptions of these three modes can be found in Fu et al (2012). In addition, consistent sampling times for the different modes were not strictly required in this study as long as sufficient amounts of PM were collected to conduct the subsequent chemical analysis.…”

Section: Diesel Vehicle and Operation Mode Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The wide range of EF PM values here could be attributed to differences in emission standards for the excavators. Those tested by Fu et al (2012) included stage 1 and stage 2 emission standards, whereas the excavators in this study were used with the emissions standards of pre-stage 1 and stage 2.…”

Section: Fuel-based Pm Emission Factors For Excavator Exhaustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…was predicted for uncontrolled standards) (MEPPRC, 2014 Thus far, only one study in China, by Fu et al (2012), provided EF PM of 12 excavators using a portable emission measurement system (PEMS) under different operation modes. On-board measurements need to be expanded to improve the localization of EF PM for non-road diesel vehicles in China as soon as possible owing to the complexity of real-world conditions, including the lagging diesel quality and changing emission standards.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wu et al (2016) reported the detailed chemical composition of PM 2.5 emitted from China III and China IV diesel trucks, including the OC, EC, WSIs, and element contents. In 2012, Fu et al (2012) were the first to test 12 excavators using on-board test in China, although only the optically based EF PM was given.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Measurement of PM and its chemical composition in real-world emissions from non-road and on-road diesel vehicles

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. With the rapid growth in the number of both non-road and on-road diesel vehicles, the adverse effects of particulate matter (PM) and its constituents on air quality and human health have attracted increasing attentions. However, studies on the characteristics of PM and its composition emitted from diesel vehicles are still scarce, especially under real-world driving conditions. In this study, six excavators and five trucks that provided a wide range of emission standards and operation modes were tested, and PM emissions and their constituents -including organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), water-soluble ions (WSIs), elements, and organic species like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), n-alkanes, and hopanes -as well as steranes were analyzed and characterized. The average emission factors for PM (EF PM ) from excavator and truck emissions were 829 ± 806 and 498 ± 234 mg kg −1 fuel, respectively. EF PM and PM constituents were significantly affected by fuel quality, operational mode, and emission standards. A significant correlation (R 2 = 0.79, p < 0.01) was found between EF PM for excavators and the sulfur contents in fuel. The highest average EF PM for working excavators was 904 ± 979 mg kg −1 fuel as a higher engine load required in this mode. From pre-stage 1 to stage 2, the average EF PM for excavators decreased by 58 %. For trucks, the average nonhighway EF PM at 548 ± 311 mg kg −1 fuel was higher than the highway EF PM at 497 ± 231 mg kg −1 fuel. Moreover, the reduction rates were 63.5 and 65.6 % when switched from China II and III to China IV standards, respectively. Generally, the PM composition emitted from excavators was dominated by OC (39.2 ± 21.0 %) and EC (33.3 ± 25.9 %); PM from trucks was dominated by EC (26.9 ± 20.8 %), OC (9.89 ± 12 %), and WSIs (4.67 ± 5.74 %). The average OC / EC ratios for idling and working excavators were 3 to 4 times higher than those for moving excavators. Although the EF PM for excavators and trucks was reduced with the constraint of regulations, the element fractions for excavators increased from 0.49 % in pre-stage 1 to 3.03 % in stage 2, and the fraction of WSIs for the China IV truck was 5 times higher than the average value of all other-level trucks. Furthermore, as compared with other diesel vehicles, wide ranges were found for excavators of the ratios of benzo operation modes. A comparison of our results with those in the literature revealed that on-board measurement data more accurately reflect actual conditions. Although the fractions of the 16 priority PAHs in PM from the excavator and truck emissions were similar, the equivalent concentrations of total benzo[a]pyrene of excavators were 31 times than that for trucks, implying that more attention should be paid to non-road vehicle emissions.

show abstract

Section: Fuel-based Pm Emission Factors For Excavator Exhaustsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Diesel Vehicle and Operation Mode Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fuel-based Pm Emission Factors For Excavator Exhaustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations