Laboratory and On-Road Evaluation of a GPF-Equipped Gasoline Vehicle

Suarez-Bertoa, Ricardo; Lähde, Tero; Pavlovic, Jelica; Valverde, V.; Clairotte, Michaël; Giechaskiel, Barouch

doi:10.3390/catal9080678

Cited by 24 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… Tailpipe studies: Laboratory studies that compared PMP systems at the tailpipe and the dilution tunnel [ 28 , 36 ]. Emissions monitoring: Laboratory and on-road assessment of various vehicles [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. Unpublished data: Internal data of older vehicles (non DPF diesel vehicles, or GDIs emitting >6 × 10 12 p/km).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparisons of Laboratory and On-Road Type-Approval Cycles with Idling Emissions. Implications for Periodical Technical Inspection (PTI) Sensors

Giechaskiel

Lähde

Suarez-Bertoa

et al. 2020

Sensors

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the type approval of compression ignition (diesel) and gasoline direct injection vehicles, a particle number (PN) limit of 6 × 1011 p/km is applicable. Diesel vehicles in circulation need to pass a periodical technical inspection (PTI) test, typically every two years, after the first four years of circulation. However, often the applicable smoke tests or on-board diagnostic (OBD) fault checks cannot identify malfunctions of the diesel particulate filters (DPFs). There are also serious concerns that a few high emitters are responsible for the majority of the emissions. For these reasons, a new PTI procedure at idle run with PN systems is under investigation. The correlations between type approval cycles and idle emissions are limited, especially for positive (spark) ignition vehicles. In this study the type approval PN emissions of 32 compression ignition and 56 spark ignition vehicles were compared to their idle PN concentrations from laboratory and on-road tests. The results confirmed that the idle test is applicable for diesel vehicles. The scatter for the spark ignition vehicles was much larger. Nevertheless, the proposed limit for diesel vehicles was also shown to be applicable for these vehicles. The technical specifications of the PTI sensors based on these findings were also discussed.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Emissions monitoring: Laboratory and on-road assessment of various vehicles [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparisons of Laboratory and On-Road Type-Approval Cycles with Idling Emissions. Implications for Periodical Technical Inspection (PTI) Sensors

Giechaskiel

Lähde

Suarez-Bertoa

et al. 2020

Sensors

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the second test, NO x emissions were consistently lower. For more details on the regulated emissions of this vehicle in the laboratory and on-road please see [41]. NO emissions from the gasoline vehicles were also substantially lower than those measured from the diesel vehicles tested (up to 69 mg/km lower during the Route-1 tests; see Tables 3 and 4).…”

Section: On-road Emissions From the Gasoline Vehiclesmentioning

confidence: 95%

Regulated and Non-Regulated Emissions from Euro 6 Diesel, Gasoline and CNG Vehicles under Real-World Driving Conditions

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The transport sector is one of the main sources air pollutants. Different exhaust after-treatment systems have been implemented over the years to control the emissions of criteria pollutants. However, while reducing the emissions of the target compounds these systems can lead to the emissions of other pollutants and/or greenhouse gases such as NH 3 or N 2 O. Following the implementation of the Real Driving Emissions (RDE) test procedure in the EU, vehicles have been equipped with more complex after-treatment configurations. The impact that these technologies may have on the emissions of non-regulated pollutants during real-world driving have not been evaluated until now. In the current study we present the on-road emissions of a series of non-regulated pollutants, including NH 3 , N 2 O, CH 4 and HCHO, measured with a portable FTIR from a series of Euro 6d, Euro 6c and Euro 6d-TEMP, gasoline diesel and compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles during real-world testing. The obtained results show that it is possible to measure N 2 O, NH 3 , CH 4 and HCHO during on-road operation. The results also highlight the importance of the measurement of the emissions of these pollutants during real-world driving, as the emissions of NH 3 (a particulate matter precursor) and those of N 2 O and CH 4 (green-house gases) can be high from some vehicle technologies. NH 3 emissions were up to 49 mg/km for gasoline passenger cars, up to 69 mg/km for the CNG light-commercial vehicle and up to 17 mg/km a diesel passenger car equipped with a selective catalytic reduction system (SCR). On the other hand, N 2 O and CH 4 emissions accounted for up to 9.8 g CO 2 eqv/km for a diesel passenger car equipped with a combination of diesel oxidation catalysts (DOC), lean NO x traps (LNT), SCR and possibly an ammonia slip catalyst ASC.Atmosphere 2020, 11, 204 2 of 18 organic compounds (NMVOCs) and CH 4 are the main precursors of ground-level (tropospheric) O 3 . Aiming at improving Europe's air quality, policy actions have increasingly been taken to address transport-related air pollution. At European Union (EU) level, this has included the regulation of emissions by setting emission standards (Euro 1 to Euro 6) or by setting requirements for fuel quality.To meet these standards, passenger cars have been equipped with different emission control systems. Thus, three-way catalytic converters (TWC) are commonly used to reduce the emissions of CO, hydrocarbons (HC) and NO x from gasoline cars. In the case of diesel cars, CO and HC emissions are reduced using diesel oxidation catalysts (DOC), and NO x emissions using selective catalytic reduction systems (SCR), lean NO x traps (LNT) or a combination of both. While reducing the emissions of the target compounds these systems can lead to the emissions of other pollutants that are not currently regulated for the passenger cars in the EU. The emitted pollutants include NH 3 [2,3] and N 2 O. In fact, several laboratory-based studies have indicated that vehicle emissions of NH 3 and N 2 O are linked to the use o...

show abstract

“…Today, PEMS are part of the European regulation [75]. In addition, many researchers use them for on-road studies [76,77,78]. As it is not possible to quantify the measurement uncertainty in every study, the previous analysis gave the expected range for various commercial instruments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Solid Particle Number (SPN) Portable Emissions Measurement Systems (PEMS) in the European Legislation: A Review

Giechaskiel

Bonnel

Perujo

et al. 2019

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Portable emissions measurement systems (PEMS) for gaseous pollutants were firstly introduced in the United States regulation to check the in-use compliance of heavy-duty engines, avoiding the high costs of removing the engine and testing it on a dynamometer in the laboratory. In Europe, the in-service conformity of heavy-duty engines has been checked with PEMS for gaseous pollutants since 2014. To strengthen emissions regulations with a view to minimise the differences between on-road and laboratory emission levels in some cases, PEMS testing, including solid particle number (SPN), was introduced for the type-approval of light-duty vehicles in Europe in 2017 and for in-service conformity in 2019. SPN-PEMS for heavy-duty engines will be introduced in 2021. This paper gives an overview of the studies for SPN-PEMS from early 2013 with the first prototypes until the latest testing and improvements in 2019. The first prototype diffusion charger (DC) based systems had high differences from the reference laboratory systems at the first light-duty vehicles campaign. Tightening of the technical requirements and improvements from the instrument manufacturers resulted in differences of around 50%. Similar differences were found in an inter-laboratory comparison exercise with the best performing DC- and CPC- (condensation particle counter) based system. The heavy-duty evaluation phase at a single lab and later at various European laboratories revealed higher differences due to the small size of the urea generated particles and their high charge at elevated temperatures. This issue, along with robustness at low ambient temperatures, was addressed by the instrument manufacturers bringing the measurement uncertainty to the 50% levels. This measurement uncertainty needs to be considered at the on-road emission results measured with PEMS.

show abstract

Laboratory and On-Road Evaluation of a GPF-Equipped Gasoline Vehicle

Cited by 24 publications

References 59 publications

Comparisons of Laboratory and On-Road Type-Approval Cycles with Idling Emissions. Implications for Periodical Technical Inspection (PTI) Sensors

Comparisons of Laboratory and On-Road Type-Approval Cycles with Idling Emissions. Implications for Periodical Technical Inspection (PTI) Sensors

Regulated and Non-Regulated Emissions from Euro 6 Diesel, Gasoline and CNG Vehicles under Real-World Driving Conditions

Solid Particle Number (SPN) Portable Emissions Measurement Systems (PEMS) in the European Legislation: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About