4.7 Article

An assessment of the real-world driving gaseous emissions from a Euro 6 light-duty diesel vehicle using a portable emissions measurement system (PEMS)

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 174, 期 -, 页码 112-121

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.11.056

关键词

Real Driving Emissions (RDE); Portable emissions measurement system (PEMS); On-road emissions; Emissions conformity factor; Euro 6 emissions standard; Passenger cars

资金

  1. Universitat Politecnica de Valencia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent investigations demonstrated that real-world emissions usually exceed the levels achieved in the laboratory based type approval processes. By means of on-board emissions measurements, it has been shown that nitrogen oxides emitted by diesel engines substantially exceed the limit imposed by the Euro 6 regulation. Thus, with the aim of complementing the worldwide harmonized light vehicles test cycle, the real driving emissions cycle will be introduced after 1 September 2017 to regulate the vehicle emissions in real-world driving situations. This paper presents on-board gaseous emissions measurements from a Euro 6 light-duty diesel vehicle in a real-world driving route using a portable emissions measurement system. The test route characteristics follow the requirements imposed by the RDE regulation. The analysis of the raw emissions results suggests that the greatest amount of nitrogen oxides and nitrogen dioxide are emitted during the urban section of the test route, confirming that lower speeds with more accelerations and decelerations lead to higher nitrogen oxides emissions levels than constant high speeds. Moreover, the comparison of the two calculation methods proposed by the real driving emissions regulation has revealed emissions rates differences ranging from 10% to 45% depending on the pollutant emission and the trip section considered (urban or total). Thus, the nitrogen oxides emissions conformity factor slightly varies from one method to the other.

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