4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Exhaust toxicity evaluation in a gas turbine engine fueled by aviation fuel containing synthesized hydrocarbons

期刊

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/AEAT-11-2018-0277

关键词

Biofuels; Exhaust gases; Hydroprocessed esters and fatty acid; Toxicity; Turbine engine performance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the toxicological impacts of exhaust generated during the combustion process of aviation fuel containing synthesized hydrocarbons. Design/methodology/approach Tests on aircraft turbine engines in full scale are complex and expensive. Therefore, a miniature turbojet engine was used in this paper as a source of exhaust gases. Toxicity was tested using innovative BAT-CELL Bio-Ambient Cell method, which consists of determination of real toxic impact of the exhaust gases on the human lung A549 and mouse L929 cells. The research was of a comparative nature. The engine was powered by a conventional jet fuel and a blend of conventional jet fuel with synthesized hydrocarbons. Findings The results show that the BAT-CELL method allows determination of the real exhaust toxicity during the combustion process in a turbine engine. The addition of a synthetic component to conventional jet fuel affected the reduction of toxicity of exhaust gases. It was confirmed for both tested cell lines. Originality/value In the literature related to the area of aviation, numerous publications in the field of testing the emission of exhaust gaseous components, particulates or volatile organic compounds can be found. However, there is a lack of research related to the evaluation of the real exhaust toxicity. In addition, it appears that the data given in aviation sector, mainly related to the emission levels of gaseous exhaust components (CO, Nox and HC) and particulate matters, might be insufficient. To fully describe the engine exhaust emissions, they should be supplemented with additional tests, i.e. in terms of toxicity.

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

4.3
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