4.7 Article

Emissions of hydrogen cyanide from on-road gasoline and diesel vehicles

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 131, 期 -, 页码 185-195

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.01.050

关键词

Hydrogen cyanide; Biodiesel; Diesel; Gasoline; Emission factor; PFI; GDI; Biomass burning

资金

  1. Particles and Related Emission Project (PERD) [C11.008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is considered a marker for biomass burning emissions and is a component of vehicle exhaust. Despite its potential health impacts, vehicular HCN emissions estimates and their contribution to regional budgets are highly uncertain. In the current study, Proton Transfer Reaction Time of Flight-Mass Spectrometry (PTR-ToF-MS) was used to measure HCN emission factors from the exhaust of individual diesel, biodiesel and gasoline vehicles. Laboratory emissions data as a function of fuel type and driving mode were combined with ambient measurement data and model predictions. The results indicate that gasoline vehicles have the highest emissions of HCN (relative to diesel fuel) and that biodiesel fuel has the potential to significantly reduce HCN emissions even at realistic 5% blend levels. The data further demonstrate that gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines emit more HCN than their port fuel injection (PFI) counterparts, suggesting that the expected full transition of vehicle fleets to GDI will increase HCN emissions. Ambient measurements of HCN in a traffic dominated area of Toronto, Canada were strongly correlated to vehicle emission markers and consistent with regional air quality model predictions of ambient air HCN, indicating that vehicle emissions of HCN are the dominant source of exposure in urban areas. The results further indicate that additional work is required to quantify HCN emissions from the modern vehicle fleet, particularly in light of continuously changing engine, fuel and after-treatment technologies. Crown Copyright (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据