4.7 Article

Experimental analysis of evaporative emissions of ethanol-blended gasoline in automotive tanks at different temperature conditions

期刊

FUEL
卷 304, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2021.121427

关键词

Evaporative emissions; Automotive fuel tanks; Experimental analysis; Carbon canister; Diurnal breathing losses

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Automobiles are significant sources of VOCs and VVOCs, with emissions regulated by strict European and international standards due to their adverse effects on human health and the environment. Experimental tests showed that environmental temperature and filling levels greatly influence emissions.
Automobiles are major sources of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Very Volatile Organic Compounds (VVOCs), which are emitted not only from their tailpipes while running but also as evaporative emissions from gasoline fueled vehicle tanks and supply systems; these emissions are the main source of pollution for both standard and hybrid vehicles. VOCs and VVOCs can have significant effects on human health and environment, so emissions are subject to many regulations, both European and international, that are becoming increasingly stringent every year. In this paper, an experimental activity has been carried out to evaluate the fuel vapor generation from gasoline-filled fuel tanks. These experimental tests have been conducted by means of a Variable Temperature mini-SHED in Stellantis N.V. laboratories, at the Pomigliano Technical Center, in Italy. Different conditions of temperature and filling levels have been analyzed by monitoring the fuel vapors coming from the tank to the carbon canister. Tests have been divided in two groups with both constant and variable temperatures, by following standard temperature cycles, defined by regulations. Results are presented in terms of vapor temperature profiles and canister mass variation; they demonstrate the high influence of the environment temperature and of the filling levels on the emission.

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