Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

1

Paper Number: 2005-01-2145


Development of an Improved Gravimetric Method for the Mass
Measurement of Diesel Exhaust Gas Particles
Efthimios Zervas, Pascal Dorlne
Renault
Laurent Forti, Cyriaque Perrin
IFP
Jean-Claude Momique, Richard Monier
PSA
Didier Pingal, Batrice Lopez
UTAC
Copyright 2005 SAE International
ABSTRACT
The Particulate Measurement Programme (PMP) works
on the identification of a method to replace or complete
the existing particle mass (PM) measurement method.
The French PMP subgroup, composed by IFP, PSA
Peugeot-Citron, Renault and UTAC, proposes an
improved gravimetric method for the measurement of
emitted particles, and conducted an inter-laboratory test
to evaluate its performances. The technical programme
is based on tests carried out on a Euro3 Diesel
passenger car (PC), tested on the New European
Driving Cycle (NEDC). To achieve low particulate matter
(PM) emissions, the EGR is disconnected and a
paraffinic fuel is used. The regulated pollutants are also
measured. It is shown that the multiple filter weighing
and a 0.1 g balance instead of a 1 g one are not
necessary, as the first weighing and the 1 g balance
performances are satisfactory for type-approval
purposes. The use of one filter for the entire NEDC and
the decrease of flow through the tunnel from 12 to 9
m
3
/min increases the collected PM mass, without
influencing the measurement of regulated pollutants.
The collected PM mass is around 0.34-0.5 mg with
satisfactory levels of repeatability and reproducibility.
These results show that the proposed gravimetric
method can measure with good precision low PM
emissions, at least as low as 8 mg/km, with no change
on the existing facilities and without supplementary cost,
investment or staff training on new instruments.
INTRODUCTION
The current measurement of exhaust particles emitted
by Diesel vehicles is operated in European Union by a
gravimetric method. But, as emission standards become
more and more stringent, the current gravimetric method
reaches its limits. European regulations require that the
mass collected must be between 1 and 5 mg [1]. The
conditions typically used to achieve this target are a flow
through tunnel of about 12 m
3
/min and a flow through
filters of about 27 L/min. Four filters are used for a
particulate matter measurement on the New European
Driving Cycle (NEDC): two (primary and backup) for the
urban part of the cycle and two others (primary and
backup) for the extra-urban part. The current balances
have a readability of 1 g, but a higher readability will
probably be necessary for future regulations.
The Particulate Measurement Programme (PMP) of the
Working Party on Pollution and Energy (GRPE) of
United Nations at Geneva, works on the identification of
a method to replace or complete the existing particle
mass measurement method. [2]. The French PMP
subgroup, composed by IFP, PSA Peugeot-Citron,
Renault and UTAC, developed such a method and
conducted an inter-laboratory procedure to determine its
repeatability and reproducibility. The use of inter-
laboratory tests is the most adequate method for this
determination in the case of exhaust gas [3-5].
A Diesel passenger car is used in this study. To obtain
low particulate mass emissions (around 8 mg/km), the
exhaust gas re-circulation (EGR) is disconnected and a
paraffinic fuel, which produces low PM emissions [6-9],
is used. A pragmatic protocol, based on European type-
approval Type I test on the NEDC is employed. CO, HC,
NOx and CO
2
emissions are also measured and their
repeatability and reproducibility are compared with the
repeatability of the PM emissions. The influence of the
2
flow through the tunnel, of the multiple weighing and of
the balance readability is examined. The intra-laboratory
variability, reproducibility and repeatability on cold and
hot cycles of these measurements are also determined
in this work.
EXPERIMENTAL SECTION
As the current gravimetric method is adapted to the
Euro3 and Euro4 PM emissions level, a lower emission
vehicle is needed for this enhanced method. To achieve
lower emissions, a Euro3 Diesel vehicle is used with
disconnected EGR and fed with a paraffinic fuel. Table 1
presents the main characteristics of this vehicle used.
Characteristic Value
Type Citron Xsara
Inertia class (kg) 1360
Displacement (cm
3
) 2000
Number of cylinders 4
Injection system Common rail
Combustion system HDI
Emission limits Euro3
EGR type Disconnected
After-treatment device Oxidation catalyst
Table 1. Main characteristics of the passenger car used.
As fuel composition can influence PM emissions [10-14],
a paraffinic fuel, which produces lower PM emissions
than conventional Diesel fuels [6-9], is used in this study.
This fuel has been produced by blending several
paraffinic bases and is sulphur free. Its main
characteristics are presented in table 2.
The tests are performed on the New European Driving
Cycle and the regulated pollutants and CO
2
are
measured according to the current European
regulations. The flow through the tunnel is fixed to 9 and
12 m
3
/min. For each flow through the tunnel, two cold
and three hot cycles are performed. The absence of
water condensation is visually verified in the case of 9
m
3
/min. CO
2
concentration in bags is always below 3%.
For these four configurations (9 m
3
/min cold NEDC, 12
m
3
/min cold NEDC, 9 m
3
/min hot NEDC and 12 m
3
/min
hot NEDC), the flow through the filters is set between 35
and 40 L/min. The flow stability was 5%, conformed to
the current regulations.
The results between the four laboratories are regularly
verified and correlated using a reference passenger car.
This comparison shows a good correlation: a
reproducibility and repeatability RSD value of 15% and
7% respectively, for PM emissions of 0.028 g/km. As the
facilities of the four laboratories show a good correlation,
Lab1 is chosen to work at a flow of 80 L/min to study the
flow influence. To increase the PM collected mass, only
one filter is used on the entire NEDC. The backup filter
is not used, because the filter efficiency is high enough
to collect the majority of particles [15]. Moreover, the
collected PM mass on the backup filter is extremely low
at this low PM emissions, inducing high dispersion. The
filter type is Pallflex TX40, diameter 47mm for the three
laboratories (Lab2, 3 and 4). However, to achieve a
higher flow, a filter type with lower pressure drop
(Pallflex T60A20, diameter 47mm) is used in Lab1.
Under the experimental conditions used, the filter media
effects are not decoupled from the filter flow effects. The
filter holders are used at ambient temperature and are
not insulated or temperature controlled. Two types of
grounded balance, with resolution of 0.1 and 1 g, are
used. The influence of multiple weighing is also studied
in this work. Temperature in the weighing chambers is
212C, 211C, 255C and 222C respectively for
the four laboratories, while humidity is respectively
555% 505% 4510% 5010%.
Characteristic Value
Density at 15C (kg/m
3
) 772
Viscosity at 40C (mm
2
/s) 2.41
Distillation (C)
Initial Boiling Point 222
10% 238
50% 266
90% 287
Final Boiling Point 298
Cetane number >80
Sulphur content (ppm) <10
Table 2. Main fuel characteristics.
It has been presented that EGR influences PM
emissions. EGR promotes the soot formation [15],
increases the total particle number [16-18] and
decreases the median diameter [17]. These results
indicate that EGR disconnection produces lower particle
mass, but also changes the particle distribution.
However, we believe that this change does not influence
the results obtained.
The intra-laboratory variability (IVL) is expressed as the
1.96*RSD (relative standard deviation) of the measured
values. In this work, the reproducibility and repeatability
values are calculated according to the ISO 5725
standards [19] and are expressed as 1.96*RSD (with a
confidence region of 95%). These calculations are:
Mean value of each laboratory:
i
j i
i
n
m
Mean

=
,

(1)
3
Standard deviation of each laboratory:
) 1 (
) (
2
,
2
,

=

i i
j i j i i
i
n n
m m n
SD (2)
Relative standard deviation of each laboratory:
i
i
i
mean
SD
RSD * 100 = (3)

=
i
j i i
m n T
, 1
(4)

=
i
j i i
m n T
2
, 2
(5)

=
i
i
n T
3
(6)

=
i
i
n T
2
4
(7)

=
i
i i
RSD n T
2
5
) 1 ( (8)

=
4
2
3
3
5
3
2
1 3 2
6
) 1 (
) 1 ( T T
k T
T
k T
T T T
T (9)
Intra-laboratory variability,
i i
RSD ILV * 96 . 1 = (10)
Repeatability
3 1
3 5
) (
* 100 * 96 . 1
T T
k T T
= (11)
Reproducibility
3 1
6 3 5
) (
* 100 * 96 . 1
T T
T k T T +
=
(12)
With, n
i
=number of measurements of laboratory i
m
i, j
=value of j measurements of laboratory i
k

=number of laboratories
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
AVERAGE EMISSIONS OF CO, HC, NOx, CO
2
AND
PM
CO emissions
The average CO emissions are 0.26 g/km and 0.28 g/km
in the case of cold NEDC and lower, 0.06 g/km and 0.08
g/km in the case of the hot cycle, respectively for the
flow of 9 and 12m
3
/min (figure 1). CO emissions are
lower on hot NEDC because the oxidation catalyst is
already activated and oxidizes CO in the beginning of
the cycle.
1 2 3 4
Laboratory
0.00
0.02
0.04
C
O

(
g
/
k
m
)
Cold 9
Cold 12
Hot 9
Hot 12
0
40
80
120
1
.
9
6
*
R
S
D

(
%
)
Mean Value
Repeatability
Intra Lab
Variability
Reproducibility
0
20
40
60
A
b
s

D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

(
%
)
Mean Difference
Cold
Hot

Figure 1. Lower bars: emission of CO (in g/km) for the
four laboratories using 9 and 12 m
3
/min on cold and hot
NEDC, and mean values of all tests. Middle bars:
1.96*RSD of each laboratory variability (left bars) and
reproducibility and repeatability of the vehicle tested
(right bars). Only one test is performed in the case of
Lab1 for the cold 12m
3
/min configuration. Upper bars:
absolute difference between 9 and 12m
3
/min, expressed
as ABS(100*(CO
12
-CO
9
)/CO
12
).
The 1.96*RSD intra-laboratory variability is within 2%
and 68%. The reproducibility 1.96*RSD values are 86,
99, 99 and 100% for the four configurations (cold 9
m
3
/min, cold 12 m
3
/min, hot 9 m
3
/min and hot 12
m
3
/min), while the corresponding repeatability values are
30, 23, 42 and 46%. The 1.96*RSD values of the hot
tests are higher than the cold ones because of the lower
emissions [20], but there is no trend between 9 and 12
m
3
/min for the cold or hot tests.
The mean differences between 9 and 12m
3
/min are 9
and 28% for the cold and hot cycles. These values are
within 1.96*RSD repeatability and reproducibility values
indicating that, within the range tested, there is no
influence of the flow through the tunnel on CO
4
measurements.
HC emissions
The average HC emissions are 0.009 g/km and 0.009
g/km (cold cycle) and 0.006 g/km and 0.007 g/km (hot
cycle) for 9 and 12m
3
/min respectively (figure 2). As in
the case of CO, HC emissions are lower on hot NEDC
because the oxidation catalyst is already activated in the
beginning of the cycle, and thus more efficient for HC
oxidation.
1 2 3 4
Laboratory
0.000
0.008
0.016
H
C

(
g
/
k
m
)
Cold 9
Cold 12
Hot 9
Hot 12
0
100
200
1
.
9
6
*
R
S
D

(
%
)
Mean Value
Repeatability
Intra Lab
Variability
Reproducibility
0
20
40
A
b
s

D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

(
%
)
Mean Difference
Cold
Hot

Figure 2. Lower bars: emission of HC (in g/km) for the
four laboratories using 9 and 12 m
3
/min on cold and hot
NEDC, and mean values of all tests. Middle bars:
1.96*RSD of each laboratory variability (left bars) and
reproducibility and repeatability of the vehicle tested
(right bars). Upper bars: absolute difference between 9
and 12m
3
/min, expressed as ABS(100*(HC12-
HC9)/HC12).
The 1.96*RSD intra-laboratory variability of HC
emissions is within 5% and 111% for the four
configurations (cold 9 m
3
/min, cold 12 m
3
/min, hot 9
m
3
/min and hot 12 m
3
/min). The reproducibility
1.96*RSD values are 127, 132, 121 and 176% for the
four configurations, while the corresponding repeatability
values are 42, 12, 34 and 35%. The 1.96*RSD values of
the hot tests are generally slightly higher than those of
the cold ones because of the lower emissions [20], but
there is no trend between the 9 and 12 m
3
/min. Lab 1
presents quite high 1.96*RSD variability values because
one measurement is very different to others. This value
is not eliminated as it is not found to be an outlier
according to Cohran test [19].
The mean differences between 9 and 12 m
3
/min are 2
and 12% for the cold and hot cycles. These values are
within the 1.96*RSD repeatability and reproducibility
values indicating that, within the range tested, there is
no influence of the flow through the tunnel on HC
measurements.
NOx emissions
The mean NOx emissions are very high due to EGR
disconnection; they reach 0.86 g/km and 0.87 g/km (cold
cycle) and 0.91 g/km and 0.92 g/km (hot cycle) for 9 and
12 m
3
/min respectively (figure 3). NOx emissions are
similar for hot and cold cycles because there is no NOx
after-treatment.
1 2 3 4
Laboratory
0.0
0.5
1.0
N
O
x

(
g
/
k
m
)
Cold 9
Cold 12
Hot 9
Hot 12
0
4
8
1
.
9
6
*
R
S
D

(
%
)
Mean Value
Repeatability
Intra Lab
Variability
Reproducibility
0
2
4
A
b
s

D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

(
%
)
Mean Difference
Cold
Hot

Figure 3. Lower bars: emission of NOx (in g/km) for the
four laboratories using 9 and 12 m
3
/min on cold and hot
NEDC, and mean values of all tests. Middle bars:
1.96*RSD of each laboratory variability (left bars) and
reproducibility and repeatability of the vehicle tested
(right bars). Upper bars: absolute difference between 9
and 12m
3
/min, expressed as ABS(100*(NOx12-
NOx9)/NOx12).
5
The NOx 1.96*RSD values are lower than the 1.96*RSD
of other pollutants, because of the very high emissions.
The intra-laboratory 1.96*RSD variability is within 0.3%
and 5.1% for the four configurations. The reproducibility
1.96*RSD values are 2.9, 7.0, 6.8 and 7.4% respectively
for the four configurations (cold 9 m
3
/min, cold 12
m
3
/min, hot 9 m
3
/min and hot 12 m
3
/min), while the
corresponding repeatability values are 2.2, 2.0, 3.3 and
3.0%. The 1.96*RSD values of the cold and hot tests are
quite similar due to the similar NOx emissions.
The mean differences between 9 and 12 m
3
/min are very
low: 0.8 and 0.6% for the cold and hot cycles. These
values are within the 1.96*RSD repeatability and
reproducibility values indicating that, within the range
tested, there is no influence of the flow through the
tunnel on NOx measurements.
CO
2
emissions
The mean CO
2
emissions are 132.5 g/km and 133.3
g/km (cold cycle) and 119.7 g/km and 119.6 g/km (hot
NEDC) for 9 and 12 m
3
/min respectively (figure 4). CO
2

emissions are lower on hot NEDC because of the lower
frictions due to the higher oil temperature than on a cold
cycle.
1 2 3 4
Laboratory
100
120
140
C
O
2

(
g
/
k
m
)
Cold 9
Cold 12
Hot 9
Hot 12
0
4
8
1
.
9
6
*
R
S
D

(
%
)
Mean Value
Repeatability
Intra Lab
Variability
Reproducibility
0
1
2
A
b
s

D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

(
%
)
Mean Difference
Cold
Hot

Figure 4. Lower bars: emission of CO
2
(in g/km) for the
four laboratories using 9 and 12 m
3
/min on cold and hot
NEDC, and mean values of all tests. Middle bars:
1.96*RSD of each laboratory variability (left bars) and
reproducibility and repeatability of the vehicle tested
(right bars). Upper bars: absolute difference between 9
and 12m
3
/min, expressed as ABS(100*(CO
2 12
-CO
2
9
)/CO
2 12
).
The repeatability values of CO
2
are better than the
repeatability values of CO and HC: the 1.96*RSD intra-
laboratory variability values are less than 2.8%. The
reproducibility 1.96*RSD values are less than 6.7%,
while the repeatability values are less than 2.0%. The
mean differences between 9 and 12 m
3
/min are less
than 0.6% for cold and hot cycles. These low values
indicate that, within the range tested, there is no
influence of the flow through the tunnel on CO
2

emissions.
PM emissions
The mean PM emissions are 0.0082 g/km and 0.0082
g/km (cold NEDC) and 0.0074 g/km and 0.0072 g/km
(hot cycle) for 9 and 12 m
3
/min respectively (figure 5).
PM emissions are lower on hot NEDC because the
oxidation catalyst is already activated in the beginning of
the cycle and thus more efficient for SOF oxidation.
1 2 3 4
Laboratory
0
5
10
P
M

(
m
g
/
k
m
)
Cold 9
Cold 12
Hot 9
Hot 12
0
15
30
45
R
S
D

(
%
)
Mean Value
Repeatability
Intra Lab
Variability
Reproducibility
0
3
6
A
b
s

D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

(
%
)
Mean Difference
Cold
Hot

Figure 5. Lower bars: emission of PM (in g/km) for the
four laboratories using 9 and 12 m
3
/min on cold and hot
NEDC, and mean values of all tests. Middle
6
bars:1.96*RSD of each laboratory variability (left bars)
and reproducibility and repeatability of the vehicle tested
(right bars). Upper bars: absolute difference between 9
and 12m
3
/min, expressed as ABS(100*(PM
12
-
PM
9
)/PM
12
).
The 1.96*RSD intra-laboratory variability of PM
emissions is within 0.7% and 8.2% for the four
configurations tested (figure 5). Taking into account the
four laboratories, the reproducibility 1.96*RSD values
are 34, 30, 33 and 29% for the four configurations (cold
9 m
3
/min, cold 12 m
3
/min, hot 9 m
3
/min and hot 12
m
3
/min), while the corresponding repeatability values are
2, 4, 8 and 6%. These values are very similar to those
obtained when only the three laboratories using similar
flow through the filters are taken into account
(reproducibility 1.96*RSD values: 26, 30, 26 and 26%
respectively; repeatability 1.96*RSD values: 2, 4, 8 and
8% respectively), indicating that the flow of 35-40 L/min
or 80 L/min does not influence the measured PM
concentration. The 1.96*RSD values of the hot tests are
generally slightly higher than those of the cold ones
because of the lower emissions [15], but there is no
trend between 9 and 12 m
3
/min for the cold or hot tests.
The mean differences between 9 and 12 m
3
/min are 0.2
and 2.2% for the cold and hot cycles (figure 5). These
values are within the 1.96*RSD repeatability and
reproducibility values indicating that, within the range
tested, there is no influence of the flow through the
tunnel on PM concentration measurements.
Chase et al [15] presents a lower repeatability in filter
measurements and suggests that an important part of
PM mass corresponds to organic vapour which is
adsorbed from particles. However, the conditions
between the two studies are not the same, as this latter
study uses DPF equipped vehicles with lower PM
emissions (about 4-6 mg/mi).
INFLUENCE OF MULTIPLE WEIGHING
Each loaded and unloaded filter is weighed five times on
each balance. The mean value of the five weighing
values is compared with the first one (figure 6, only for
two labs). In the case of the 1 g balance, the mean
difference of the PM mass is very low: only 1.4%. The
0.1 g balance gives slightly better results, as the mean
difference is 0.16%. Due to the more important mass of
filters, these values are even lower in this case; the
mean differences are around 0.005-0.007% in the case
of unloaded and loaded filters for both balances. No
significant difference is observed between the two
laboratories.
The repeatability values of these measurements are
very good: the mean 1.96*RSD of the five weighing
values is less than 7.0% for the PM mass using the 1 g
balance, while the 0.1 g balance gives 1.1%. The
1.96*RSD values of loaded or unloaded filters are
extremely low, less than 0.04% in all cases. Generally,
the 1.96*RSD values are lower in the case of the 0.1 g
balance, while there is no trend between the unloaded
and loaded filters.
The above very low differences between the first and
five weighing values suggest that the multiple weighing
is not necessary. Only the first weighing is taken into
account for the following tests.
0 5 10 15 20
Test Number
1E-4
1E-3
1E-2
1E-1
1E+0
A
b
s

D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

(
%
)
1E-4
1E-3
1E-2
1E-1
1E+0
1E+1
1
.
9
6
*
R
S
D

(
%
)
Lab1
Lab4
PM mass 0.1g
PM mass 1g
Unloaded 0.1g
Unloaded 1g
Loaded 0.1g
Loaded 1g
1E+0
1E+1
1E+2
M
a
s
s

(
m
g
)

Figure 6. Bottom curves: mass of unloaded filters and
collected PM mass. Middle curves: absolute difference
(%) between the first and the mean weighing values,
expressed as Abs(100*(1
st
-MV)/1
st
). 1
st
=first weighing,
MV= mean weighing value. Upper bars: 1.96*RSD
values of each test multiple weighing. Values of two
laboratories: Lab1 and Lab4, using 0.1 and 1g
balances.
INFLUENCE OF BALANCE READABILITY (0.1 AND 1
g)
Figure 7 presents the influence of balance readability
(0.1 or 1 g) on filters weighing for Lab1 and Lab4. The
mean difference between the two balances is 2.4% in
the case of PM mass. The mean difference between the
values of unloaded and loaded filters using the two types
of balance is only 0.012% and 0.015%. These low
differences indicate that the obtained results are
practically equivalent and suggest that the performances
of the 1 g balance are satisfactory for type-approval
purposes at this PM emission level. Using higher
7
balance readability does not improve accuracy of PM
mass measurements at PM emission levels of about 8
mg/km.
INFLUENCE OF FLOW THROUGH TUNNEL (9 AND 12
m
3
/min) ON THE COLLECTED MASS
The previous section presented that a balance of 1 g is
well adapted for the measurement of particulate mass at
the emission level of 8 mg/km. However, the tests were
initially scheduled with a balance of 0.1 g, as we
believed that this balance would be better adapted; thus
the results of the 0.1 g balance are presented here.
Figure 8 presents the collected mass on the filters for
the flows through the tunnel of 9 and 12 m
3
/min. The
mean collected mass for the three laboratories using a
flow through the filters of 35-40 L/min+TX40 filters is
0.42 mg and 0.33 mg at 9 m
3
/min for the cold and hot
tests respectively, against 0.39 mg and 0.29 mg
respectively at 12 m
3
/min. The respective values of the
first laboratory are 0.68 mg, 0.56 mg, 0.59 mg and 0.50
mg (figure 8, bottom bars).
0 5 10 15 20
Test Number
0.000
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
A
b
s
o
l
u
t
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

(
%
)
Lab1
Lab4
Unloaded Filter
Loaded Filter
PM Mass

Figure 7. Influence of balance readability on the filter
weighing. Absolute difference (expressed as
Abs(100*(b
0.1
-b
1
)/b
0.1
) between the mean weighing value
of unloaded and loaded filters of a balance of 1 g (b
1
)
and 0.1 g (b
0.1
).
Middle bars of figure 8 present the normalized PM mass.
This is the value of PM mass multiplied by the flow
through the tunnel divided by the flow through the filters.
The differences are now lower than the collected PM
mass. The mean values are 0.093, 0.098, 0.085 and
0.087 mg*m
3
/L for the cold 9 m
3
/min, cold 12 m
3
/min, hot
9 m
3
/min and hot 12 m
3
/min tests respectively.
Practically, there is no difference between the flows of 9
and 12 m
3
/min and hot and cold tests (however, cold
tests present slightly higher values than hot ones). The
values of the three last laboratories are very close and
the first laboratory is now closer to the other three ones,
even if its results are lower. This is probably due to the
high flow of 80L/min inducing lower collection efficiency
on filters.
The intra-laboratory 1.96*RSD variability values of the
normalized values are quite low: within 0.2-18.2%, 5.9-
15.9%, 0.4-8.2% and 3.1-9.2% for the cold 9 m
3
/min,
cold 12 m
3
/min, hot 9 m
3
/min and hot 12 m
3
/min tests
respectively. The reproducibility 1.96*RSD values are
27.3, 23.6, 31.1 and 18.9% for the four configurations,
while the corresponding repeatability values are 7, 5.5,
10.6 and 7.1% (figure 8, upper curves). The 1.96*RSD
intra-laboratory variability, reproducibility and
repeatability values of the cold and hot tests are quite
similar. These values indicate that the normalized PM
mass measured from the four laboratories is similar
since it was found within the repeatability limits.
1 2 3 4
Laboratory
0.0
0.3
0.6
M
a
s
s

(
m
g
)
Cold 9
Cold 12
Hot 9
Hot 12
Mean Value
0
20
40
1
.
9
6
*
R
S
D

(
%
)
Intra Lab Variability
Repeatability
Reproductibility
0.00
0.08
0.16
M
a
s
s
*
T
u
n
n
e
l

F
l
o
w
/
F
i
l
t
e
r

F
l
o
w

(
m
g
*
m
3
/
L
)

Figure 8. Lower bars: influence of flow through the
tunnel on PM mass collected on filters. Each laboratory
mean value for cold and hot tests, and mean value of all
laboratories. Middle curves: normalized valued PM
mass: Mass*Flow through the tunnel/Flow through the
filters. Upper bars: Intra-laboratory variability,
reproducibility and repeatability of the normalized
collected PM mass.
CONCLUSIONS
A pragmatic protocol based on the New European
Driving Cycle is developed to measure PM
concentrations as low as 8 mg/km. This protocol is
8
based on the decrease of the flow through the tunnel
from 12 m
3
/min usually employed to 9 m
3
/min, and the
increase of the flow through filters from the usual value
of 27 L/min up to 35-40 L/min+TX40 filters or even 80
L/min+T60 filters. Based on these experimental
conditions (Euro3 vehicle, 2.0 L engine displacement),
the main conclusions of this study are the following:
- There is no influence of the flow through the tunnel
between 9 and 12 m
3
/min on the measurements of
regulated pollutants and CO
2
.
- The multiple filter weighing does not improve the
measurements accuracy, as the mean value is
practically identical to the first one.
- The repeatability of the 0.1 and 1 g balances are very
good. The performance of the last one is satisfactory for
type-approval purposes.
- In the case of a flow through the filters of 35-40
L/min+TX40 filters, the mean PM mass collected on the
filters is 0.33-0.42 mg with satisfactory levels of
reproducibility (1.96*RSD of 50-58%) and repeatability
(1.96*RSD of 6-14%). If the flow through the filters
reaches 80 L/min+T60 filters, the collected mass is 0.56-
0.68 mg. Under the conditions used, the collected mass
is sufficient for future type-approval purposes.
- The proposed gravimetric method can measure
precisely low PM concentrations, at least as low as 8
mg/km, with no change on the existing facilities and
without supplementary cost, investment or staff training
on new instruments.
REFERENCES
1. 1. Directives 70/220 and 91/441, http://europa.eu.int
2. UNECE, GRPE Particle measurement programme.
Programme overview (2001)
http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp
29grpe/infpapers_42.html
3. Hoekman S.K., Stanley R.M., Clark W.L., Siegel
W.O., Schlenker A.M., Biller W.F., 1995, CRC
Speciated Hydrocarbon Emissions Analysis Round
Robin Test Program, SAE Technical Papers Series
950780.
4. Lanning L.A., Clark W.L., Siegel W.O., Hoekman
S.K., Tanley R.M., Biller W.F., 1997, CRC
Hydrocarbon Emissions Analysis Round Robin Test
Program Phase II, SAE Technical Papers Series
971608.
5. Tejada S.B., Clark W., Biller W.F., 1997, CRC
Carbonyl Emissions Analysis Round Robin Program
- Phase II, SAE Technical Paper Series 971609.
6. J ohnson J .W., Berlowitz P.J ., Ryan D.F., Wittenbrink
R.J ., Genetti W.B., Ansell L.L., Kwon Y., Rickeard
D.J ., 2001, Emissions from Fischer-Tropsch diesel
fuels, SAE Technical Paper Series 2001-01-3518.
7. Schaberg P.W., Zarling D.D., Waytulonis R.W.,
Kittelson D.B., 2002, Exhaust particle number and
size distributions with conventional and Fischer-
Tropsch diesel fuels, SAE Technical Paper Series
2002-01-2727.
8. Schubert P.F., Russell B.J ., Freerks R.L. DeVore J .,
Fanick E.R., 2002, Impact of ultra-clean Fischer-
Tropsch diesel fuel on emissions in a light-duty
passenger car diesel engine, SAE Technical Paper
Series 2002-01-2725.
9. Alleman T.L., McCormick R.L., 2003, Fischer-
Tropsch diesel fuels. Properties and exhaust
emissions: A literature review, SAE Technical Paper
Series 2003-01-0763.
10. Betts W.E., Floysand S.A., Kvinge F., 1992, The
influence of diesel properties on particulate
emissions in European cars, SAE technical Paper
Series 922190.
11. Bertoli C., Del Giacomo N., Iorio B., Prati M.V.,
1993, The influence of fuel composition on
particulate emissions of DI Diesel Engines, SAE
Technical Paper Series 932733.
12. Rantanten L., Mikkonen S., Nylund L., P. Kociba,
Lappi M., Nylund N.O., 1993, Effect of fuel on the
regulated, unregulated and mutagenic emissions of
DI diesel engines, SAE Technical Paper Series
932686.
13. Forti L., Montagne X., Marez P., Pouille J .P., 1994,
The particulate number: a diesel engine test method
to characterise a fuel's tendency to form
particulates, SAE Technical Paper Series 942021.
14. Zervas E., Montagne X., Lahaye J ., 2001, Emission
of specific pollutants from a compression ignition
engine. Influence of fuel hydrotreatment and fuel/air
equivalence ratio, Atm. Environ., 35, 1301-1306.
15. Chase R.E., Duszkiewicz G.,Richert J .F., Lewis D.,
Maricq M.M. Xu N., 2004, PMm Measurement
Artifact: Organic Vapor Deposition on Different Filter
Media , SAE Technical Paper Series 2004-01-0967.
16. Kawano D., Kawai T., Naito H., Goto Y., Odaka M.,
Bachalo W., 2004, Comparative measurement of
nano-particulates in diesel engine exhaust gas by
laser-induced incandescence (LII) and scanning
mobility particle sizer (SMPS), SAE Technical Paper
Series 2004-01-1982.
17. Raux S., Forti L., Barbusse S., Plassat G., Pierron
L., Monier R., Momique J .C., Pain C., Dionnet B.,
Zervas E., Rouveirolles P., Dorlhene P., 2005,
French Program on the Impact of Engine
Technology on Particulate Emissions, Size
Distribution and Composition Heavy Duty Diesel
Study, SAE Technical Paper Series 2005-01-0190
18. Niemi S., Paanu T., Luarn M., 2004, Effect of
injection timing, EGR and EGR cooling on the
exhaust particle number and size distribution of an
off-road diesel engine, SAE Technical Paper Series
2004-01-1988.
19. ISO 5725-2, 1994, Eds. AFNOR, Paris.
20. Zervas E., Dorlhne P., Forti L., Perrin C., Momique
J .C., Monier R., Ing

H., Lopez B., Inter-laboratory
9
Test of Exhaust PM Using ELPI, Aerosol Sci. Technol., In press