Advertisement

Emission Control Science and Technology

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 247–259 | Cite as

Evaluation of Partial Flow Dilution Systems for Very Low PM Mass Measurements

  • Liem Pham
  • Jiacheng Yang
  • Kent Johnson
  • Thomas Durbin
  • Georgios Karavalakis
  • Wayne Miller
  • David Kittelson
  • Heejung S. Jung
Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Particulate matter (PM) mass measurement methodologies were improved considerably with the application of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1065 for the 2007 standards for heavy-duty engines that emphasized PM. However, there is still a need to improve the understanding of and the confidence in mass measurements for light-duty vehicles, which are now being subjected to more stringent PM standards. The purpose of this study is to evaluate commercially available partial flow dilutors (PFDs), with a particular focus on their equivalency with the standard constant volume sampler (CVS) tunnel method and the ability to provide reproducible measurements at low PM emission levels. For the main PFD comparison, simultaneous testing was conducted with the three PFDs, over federal test procedure (FTP) and US06 tests. The results of the calibrations and proportionality tests all showed good performance for the PFDs. The exhaust flow meters (EFMs) for the PFDs showed measurements within 2% or less of a calibration source. The PFDs also showed good level proportionality and can easily meet the CFR 1066 requirements for light-duty vehicles and 1065 requirements for all tests performed. Larger differences were seen for the main comparisons between the CVS and the different PFDs during the FTP testing, with the relative difference of PM emissions between the PFDs and the CVS varying from − 16.5 to − 0.6%, with an average pooled difference of − 8.5%. These FTP differences only represented 0.00 to 0.11 mg/mile on an absolute basis, however, and could be attributed to difficulties making and weighing filter mass measurements at such low levels. For the US06 cycle, the differences between the PFDs and the CVS were not statistically significant and ranged from − 6.7 to − 0.7% and up to 0.07 mg/mile.

Keywords

Particle emission Vehicle emission Emission control Particle measurements 

Abbreviations

σ

Standard deviation

Bag

Phase of the FTP bag measurement system

CE-CERT

College of Engineering-Center for Environmental Research and Technology (University of California, Riverside)

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CO

Carbon monoxide

CO2

Carbon dioxide

CVS

Constant volume sampling

DF

Dilution factor

EC

Elemental carbon as defined by NIOSH methods

EFM

Exhaust flow meter

EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency

E10

Ten percent ethanol in gasoline blend by weight

FFV

Filter face velocity

FTP

Federal test procedure

GDI

Gasoline direct injection

ID

Inner diameter

ISO

International Organization for Standardization

LDVS

Light-duty vehicles

LEV

Low-emission vehicle

MFC

Mass flow controller

NIOSH

National Institutes of Safety and Health method

NIST

National Institute for Standards and Technology

OC

Organic carbon

OD

Outer diameter

PFD

Partial flow dilution system

PM

Particulate matter

PTFE

Polytetrafluoroethylene

SEE

Standard error estimate

US06

US06 test cycle

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Mr. Mark Villela, Mr. Daniel Gomez, Mr. Kurt Bumiller, and Mr. Edward O’Neil of the University of California, Riverside, for their contributions in conducting the emissions testing for this program. The authors acknowledge Ms. Lauren Ackock and Ms. Grace Johnson for their contributions in filter weighing.

Funding Information

The authors acknowledge funding from the Coordinating Research Council under the E-99-2 project.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

40825_2018_99_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.2 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1238 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Foote, E., Maricq, M., Sherman, M., Carpenter, D., et al.: Evaluation of partial flow dilution methodology for light duty partiulate mass measurement. SAE Tech. Pap. 2013-01-1567 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.4271/2013-01-1567
  2. 2.
    Khalek, I., Ullman, T., Shimpi, S., Jackson, C., et al.: Performance of partial flow sampling systems relative to full flow CVS for determination of particulate emissions under steady-state and transient diesel engine operation. SAE Technical Paper 2002-01-1718 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.4271/2002-01-1718
  3. 3.
    Sun, E., McMahon, W., Peterson, D., Wong, J., et al.: Evaluation of an enhanced constant volume sampling system and a bag mini diluter for near zero exhaust emission testing. SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-0684 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.4271/2005-01-0684
  4. 4.
    Schweizer, T., Stein, H.: A new approach to particulate measurement on transient test cycles: partial flow dilution as alternative to CVS full flow systems. SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-1134 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.4271/2000-01-1134
  5. 5.
    Thiel, W., Hornreich, C., Mörsch, O., and Seifert, G.: Problems of partial sample systems for modal raw exhaust mass emission measurement. SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-0779 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.4271/2003-01-0779
  6. 6.
    Mishra, P., Iyer, S., Klinikowski, D.: Uncertainties in emissions measurements in a partial flow sampling system. SAE Technical Paper 2015-26-0096 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.4271/2015-26-0096
  7. 7.
    CFR, Code of Federal Regulations, 40 Parts, PART 1065—engine-testing procedures. Available at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr1065_main_02.tpl (2011)
  8. 8.
    Khalek, I.A.: 2007 Diesel particulate measurement research; Coordinating Research Council (CRC) report E-66 phase 1; CRC: Alpharetta (2005). Available at http://www.crcao.org/publications/emissions/index.html
  9. 9.
    Khalek, I.A.: 2007 Diesel particulate measurement research; Coordinating Research Council (CRC) report E-66 phase 2; CRC: Alpharetta (2006). Available at http://www.crcao.org/publications/emissions/index.html
  10. 10.
    Khalek, I.A.: 2007 diesel particulate measurement research; Coordinating Research Council (CRC) report E-66 Phase 3; CRC: Alpharetta, (2007). Available at http://www.crcao.org/publications/emissions/index.html
  11. 11.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: EPA proposes tier 3 tailpipe and evaporative emission and vehicle fuel standards. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-F-13-018a (2013). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/documents/tier3/420f13018a.pdf
  12. 12.
    CARB: Staff report: LEV III PM, technical support document—development of particulate matter mass standard for future light-duty vehicles. (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    CFR, Code of Federal Regulations, 40 Parts, PART 1066—Vehicle-testing procedures. Available at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr1066_main_02.tpl (2012)
  14. 14.
    Ntziachristos, L., Samaras, Z.: The potential of a partial-flow constant dilution ratio sampling system as a candidate for vehicle exhaust aerosol measurements. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 60(10), 1223–1236 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.60.10.1223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xue, J., Johnson, K., Durbin, T., Russell, R., et al.: Very low particle matter mass measurements from light-duty vehicles. Submitted Aerosol Science and Technology, July 2017Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hood, J.F., Silvis, W.M.: Predicting and preventing water condensation in sampled vehicle exhaust for optima CVS dilution. SAE Tech. Pap. 1, 1998-02-23 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.4271/980404
  17. 17.
    Maricq, M.M., Chase, R.E., Podsiadlik, D.H., Vogt, R.: Vehicle exhaust particle size distributions: a comparison of tailpipe and dilution tunnel measurements. SAE Tech. Pap., 1999-01-1461 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.4271/1999-01-1461
  18. 18.
    Kittelson, D., Arnold, M., Watts, W.F.: Final report: review of diesel particulate matter sampling methods. Available at: http://www.me.umn.edu/centers/cdr/reports/EPAreport3.pdf
  19. 19.
    Maricq, M., Szente, J., Harwell, A., Loos, M.: Impact of aggressive drive cycles on motor vehicle exhaust PM emissions. J. Aerosol Sci. 113, 1–11 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of California, RiversideRiversideUSA
  2. 2.College of Engineering-Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT)University of California, RiversideRiversideUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations