Detailed Characterization and Profiles of Crankcase and Diesel Particulate Matter Exhaust Emissions Using Speciated Organics BARBARA ZIELINSKA,* ,† DAVID CAMPBELL, † DOUGLAS R. LAWSON, ‡ ROBERT G. IRESON, § CHRISTOPHER S. WEAVER, | THOMAS W. HESTERBERG, ⊥ TIMOTHY LARSON, # MARK DAVEY, ∇ AND L.-J. SALLY LIU ∇ , O Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, Nevada 89512-1095, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393, Air Quality Management Consulting, Greenbrae, California 94904, Engine Fuel & Emissions Engineering, Inc., Rancho Cordova, California 95742, International Truck and Engine Corporation, Warrenville, Illinois 60555, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98105, and Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Basel, CH-4051 Basel, Switzerland Received December 7, 2007. Revised manuscript received March 5, 2008. Accepted May 15, 2008. A monitoring campaign was conducted in August -September 2005 to compare different experimental approaches quantifying school bus self-pollution. As part of this monitoring campaign, a detailed characterization of PM 2.5 diesel engine emissions from the tailpipe and crankcase emissions from the road draft tubes was performed. To distinguish between tailpipe and crankcase vent emissions, a deuterated alkane, n-hexatriacontane- d 74 ( n-C 36 D 74 ) was added to the engine oil to serve as an intentional quantitative tracer for lubricating oil PM emissions. This paper focuses on the detailed chemical speciation of crankcase and tailpipe PM emissions from two school buses used in this study. We found that organic carbon emission rates were generally higher from the crankcase than from the tailpipe for these two school buses, while elemental carbon contributed significantly only in the tailpipe emissions. The n-C 36 D 74 that was added to the engine oil was emitted at higher rates from the crankcase than the tailpipe. Tracers of engine oil (hopanes and steranes) were present in much higher proportion in crankcase emissions. Particle-associated PAH emission rates were generally very low ( <1 µg/km), but more PAH species were present in crankcase than in tailpipe emissions. The speciation of samples collected in the bus cabins was consistent with most of the bus self-pollution originating from crankcase emissions. Introduction The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recent regula- tions required all new on-road diesel vehicles to change to low-emission engines and ultralow-sulfur fuels by 2007 (1). The rule includes two components: (1) emission standards; and (2) diesel fuel regulation. The first component of the regulation introduces new, very stringent emission standards for diesel particulate matter (PM, 0.01 g/bhp-hr), oxides of nitrogen (NOx , 0.20 g/bhp-hr), and nonmethane hydrocar- bons (NMHC, 0.14 g/bhp-hr). The diesel fuel regulation limits the sulfur content in on-highway diesel fuel to 15 ppm, down from 500 ppm. In spring 2003, the U.S. EPA announced a nationwide voluntary school bus retrofit initiative (see http:// www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus) that established a cost-shared grant program to assist school districts in retrofitting and upgrading their bus fleets. In July 2003, the state of Washington legislature enacted a statewide “Diesel Solutions” program (see http://www.pscleanair.org/programs/dieselso- lutions) that provides 25 million dollars by 2008 to retrofit diesel school buses with cleaner-burning fuels and engines, making it one of the largest and most active voluntary school bus retrofit programs in the country. This program may substantially reduce potential in-cabin exposures to bus self- pollution, especially to students and drivers who ride school buses daily. Although recent work (2) suggests the possibility that PM emissions from the crankcase vent, in addition to tailpipe emissions, may contribute to in-cabin PM, no studies have examined detailed organic compositions of PM in these emission sources of the school bus. We conducted a monitoring campaign in summer 2005 to compare different experimental approaches quantifying school bus self-pollution (3). As part of this monitoring campaign, a detailed characterization of PM2.5 diesel engine emissions from the tailpipe and from the crankcase via the road draft tube was performed. To distinguish between tailpipe and crankcase vent emissions, a deuterated alkane, n-hexatriacontane-d74 (n-C 36 D 74 ) was added to the engine oil, and organometallic iridium (Ir) complex was added to the diesel fuel. These served as intentional quantitative tracers for lubricating oil and fuel combustion PM emissions, respectively. The results from this novel dual tracer method for bus self-pollution estimates are described in separate papers (3, 4). This paper focuses on the detailed chemical speciation of crankcase and tailpipe PM emissions from two school buses used in this study. These data served as important inputs for our other papers (3–5) and demonstrated that crankcase and tailpipe emissions could be differentiated using specific organic tracers. Experimental Section Study Design. Two Seattle school buses equipped with diesel oxidation catalysts were monitored: Bus 1 was a newer 2002 model with 49,012 miles and Bus 2 was an older 1999 model with 79,482 miles. Source sampling used an on-board dilution tunnel (RAVEM) (6) to collect PM2.5 samples from the tailpipe or the crankcase of each bus. Buses were driven along regular routes, including stops, and three 30-min isokinetic samples were collected for each bus from the tailpipe, followed by three 15- to 20-min crankcase sampling runs in which all * Corresponding author phone: 775-674-7066; fax: 775-674-7060; e-mail: [email protected]. † Desert Research Institute. ‡ National Renewable Energy Laboratory. § Air Quality Management Consulting. | Engine Fuel & Emissions Engineering, Inc. ⊥ International Truck and Engine Corporation. # Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington. ∇ Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sci- ences, University of Washington. O University of Basel. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 5661–5666 10.1021/es703065h CCC: $40.75 2008 American Chemical Society VOL. 42, NO. 15, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 5661 Published on Web 06/28/2008
24
Embed
Detailed Characterization and Profiles of Crankcase and Diesel … · 2020-03-24 · Detailed Characterization and Profiles of Crankcase and Diesel Particulate Matter Exhaust Emissions
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Detailed Characterization andProfiles of Crankcase and DieselParticulate Matter ExhaustEmissions Using Speciated OrganicsB A R B A R A Z I E L I N S K A , * , †
D A V I D C A M P B E L L , †
D O U G L A S R . L A W S O N , ‡
R O B E R T G . I R E S O N , §
C H R I S T O P H E R S . W E A V E R , |
T H O M A S W . H E S T E R B E R G , ⊥
T I M O T H Y L A R S O N , # M A R K D A V E Y , ∇ A N DL . - J . S A L L Y L I U ∇ , O
Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway,Reno, Nevada 89512-1095, National Renewable EnergyLaboratory, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393, Air QualityManagement Consulting, Greenbrae, California 94904, EngineFuel & Emissions Engineering, Inc., Rancho Cordova,California 95742, International Truck and EngineCorporation, Warrenville, Illinois 60555, Department of Civiland Environmental Engineering, and Department ofEnvironmental and Occupational Health Sciences, Universityof Washington, Seattle, Washington 98105, and Institute ofSocial and Preventive Medicine, University of Basel,CH-4051 Basel, Switzerland
Received December 7, 2007. Revised manuscript receivedMarch 5, 2008. Accepted May 15, 2008.
A monitoring campaign was conducted in August-September2005 to compare different experimental approaches quantifyingschool bus self-pollution. As part of this monitoring campaign,a detailed characterization of PM2.5 diesel engine emissionsfrom the tailpipe and crankcase emissions from the road drafttubes was performed. To distinguish between tailpipe andcrankcaseventemissions,adeuteratedalkane,n-hexatriacontane-d74 (n-C36D74) was added to the engine oil to serve as anintentional quantitative tracer for lubricating oil PM emissions.This paper focuses on the detailed chemical speciation ofcrankcase and tailpipe PM emissions from two school busesused in this study. We found that organic carbon emission rateswere generally higher from the crankcase than from thetailpipe for these two school buses, while elemental carboncontributedsignificantlyonly in thetailpipeemissions.Then-C36D74that was added to the engine oil was emitted at higher ratesfromthecrankcasethanthetailpipe.Tracersofengineoil (hopanesand steranes) were present in much higher proportion incrankcase emissions. Particle-associated PAH emission rates
were generally very low (<1 µg/km), but more PAH specieswere present in crankcase than in tailpipe emissions. Thespeciation of samples collected in the bus cabins was consistentwith most of the bus self-pollution originating from crankcaseemissions.
IntroductionThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recent regula-tions required all new on-road diesel vehicles to change tolow-emission engines and ultralow-sulfur fuels by 2007 (1).The rule includes two components: (1) emission standards;and (2) diesel fuel regulation. The first component of theregulation introduces new, very stringent emission standardsfor diesel particulate matter (PM, 0.01 g/bhp-hr), oxides ofnitrogen (NOx, 0.20 g/bhp-hr), and nonmethane hydrocar-bons (NMHC, 0.14 g/bhp-hr). The diesel fuel regulation limitsthe sulfur content in on-highway diesel fuel to 15 ppm, downfrom 500 ppm. In spring 2003, the U.S. EPA announced anationwide voluntary school bus retrofit initiative (see http://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus) that established a cost-sharedgrant program to assist school districts in retrofitting andupgrading their bus fleets. In July 2003, the state ofWashington legislature enacted a statewide “Diesel Solutions”program (see http://www.pscleanair.org/programs/dieselso-lutions) that provides 25 million dollars by 2008 to retrofitdiesel school buses with cleaner-burning fuels and engines,making it one of the largest and most active voluntary schoolbus retrofit programs in the country. This program maysubstantially reduce potential in-cabin exposures to bus self-pollution, especially to students and drivers who ride schoolbuses daily. Although recent work (2) suggests the possibilitythat PM emissions from the crankcase vent, in addition totailpipe emissions, may contribute to in-cabin PM, no studieshave examined detailed organic compositions of PM in theseemission sources of the school bus.
We conducted a monitoring campaign in summer 2005to compare different experimental approaches quantifyingschool bus self-pollution (3). As part of this monitoringcampaign, a detailed characterization of PM2.5 diesel engineemissions from the tailpipe and from the crankcase via theroad draft tube was performed. To distinguish betweentailpipe and crankcase vent emissions, a deuterated alkane,n-hexatriacontane-d74 (n-C36D74) was added to the engineoil, and organometallic iridium (Ir) complex was added tothe diesel fuel. These served as intentional quantitative tracersfor lubricating oil and fuel combustion PM emissions,respectively. The results from this novel dual tracer methodfor bus self-pollution estimates are described in separatepapers (3, 4). This paper focuses on the detailed chemicalspeciation of crankcase and tailpipe PM emissions from twoschool buses used in this study. These data served asimportant inputs for our other papers (3–5) and demonstratedthat crankcase and tailpipe emissions could be differentiatedusing specific organic tracers.
Experimental SectionStudy Design. Two Seattle school buses equipped with dieseloxidation catalysts were monitored: Bus 1 was a newer 2002model with 49,012 miles and Bus 2 was an older 1999 modelwith 79,482 miles. Source sampling used an on-board dilutiontunnel (RAVEM) (6) to collect PM2.5 samples from the tailpipeor the crankcase of each bus. Buses were driven along regularroutes, including stops, and three 30-min isokinetic sampleswere collected for each bus from the tailpipe, followed bythree 15- to 20-min crankcase sampling runs in which all
† Desert Research Institute.‡ National Renewable Energy Laboratory.§ Air Quality Management Consulting.| Engine Fuel & Emissions Engineering, Inc.⊥ International Truck and Engine Corporation.# Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
of Washington.∇ Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sci-
ences, University of Washington.O University of Basel.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 5661–5666
10.1021/es703065h CCC: $40.75 2008 American Chemical Society VOL. 42, NO. 15, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 5661
Published on Web 06/28/2008
exhaust air from the road draft tube was directed into thedilution tunnel. The details of the on-board dilution tunnelsampling are provided in the Supporting Information.Samplers equipped with 2.5 µm cutpoint impactor inlets and47 mm Teflon (Gelman, RPJ047) filters for mass and elementsor quartz fiber (Pallflex, 2500 QAT-UP) filters for organic andelemental carbon and detailed organic speciation were used.An additional sampler was operated upstream of the exhaustinlet to the dilution system as the sampling tunnel blank,alternating between a Teflon and quartz filter for each run.Prior to sampling, 100 g of n-C36D74 (Cambridge IsotopeLaboratories, Inc.) was added to approximately 20 quarts ofnew lubricating oil, which was added to the first bus followingan oil change, with additional oil added to bring the engineoil up to normal operating levels. This oil was drained fromthe first bus and used to refill the second bus prior to thetesting of the second bus. An organo-metallic coordinationcomplex of iridium was dissolved in a small amount of tolueneand added to the fuel of each bus to yield an approximateconcentration of 10 mg of Ir per gallon of fuel, as describedby Ireson et al. (4).
To quantify the levels and major sources of a bus’s self-pollution, we performed in-cabin sampling when buses weredriven along their regular routes. In addition, we monitoredon-road background levels using a lead vehicle that wasdriven approximately 5 min ahead of the bus with its windowswide open. The details of these sampling methods aredescribed in another paper (3).
Sample Analysis. Teflon filters were analyzed for PM massby gravimetry. Quartz filters were analyzed for “organic” and“elemental” carbon (OC/EC) and for potential organic markercompounds, which are key inputs into receptor models. A0.56 cm2 punch from the prefired, quartz-fiber filters wasanalyzed by the Thermal-Optical Reflectance (TOR) methodfor OC/EC, using the IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring ofProtected Visual Environments) temperature/oxygen cycle(7, 8). The minimum detection limit (MDL) for this methodis 0.8 and 6.2 µg of EC and OC, respectively, per 47 mm filter.
After taking a punch for TOR analysis, quartz filters werespiked with the following deuterated internal standards:chrysene-d12, pyrene-d12, benz[a]anthracene-d12, benzo[a]py-rene-d12, benzo[e]pyrene-d12, benzo[k]fluoranthene-d12, ben-zo[g,h,i]perylene-d12, coronene-d12, cholestane-d50, 1-nitro-pyrene-d9, n-hexadecane-d34, n-eicosane-d42, n-tetracosane-d50, n-octacosane-d58, and n-triacontane-d62. The sampleswere extracted with dichloromethane followed by n-hexaneutilizing a pressurized fluid extraction method with acceler-ated solvent extractor (Dionex Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA).The extracts were then concentrated by rotary evaporationat 20 °C under gentle vacuum to ∼1 mL and filtered through0.45 mm Acrodiscs (Gelman Scientific), rinsing the sampleflask twice with 1 mL of dichloromethane (CH2Cl2) each time.Approximately 100 µL of toluene was added to the sampleand CH2Cl2 /hexane was evaporated under a gentle streamof nitrogen.
The extracts were analyzed for polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAH) and alkanes with a Varian Star 3400CXgas chromatograph equipped with an 8200CX automaticsampler interfaced to a Varian Saturn 4000 ion trap gaschromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS), operated inan electron impact (EI) ionization mode and selective ionstorage (SIS) analysis mode. Splitless injections (1 µL) weremade onto a phenylmethylsilicone fused-silica capillarycolumn (30 m, 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 µm film thickness; DB-5ms, J&W Scientific). The GC operating conditions were asfollows: for PAH, 75 °C for 2 min; 14 °C/min to 300 °C; 10°C/min to 325 °C; hold at 325 °C for 8 min; and for alkanes,70 to 300 °C hold for 4.5 min; 40 °C/min to 325 °C; hold at325 °C for 12 min.
Hopanes and steranes were analyzed using the Varian1200 triple quadrupole gas chromatograph/mass spectrom-eter (GC/MS/MS) system with CP-8400 autosampler, oper-ating in EI and multiple ion detection (MID) mode. Splitlessinjections (1 µL) were made onto a phenylmethylsiliconefused-silica capillary column (30 m, 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 µmfilm thickness; Chrompack Factor four VF-5 ms). The GCoperating conditions were as follows: 85 °C for 2 min; 12°C/min to 200 °C; 8 °C/min to 320 °C; hold at 320 °C for 8min.
1-Nitropyrene (1-NP) was quantified using the Varian 1200GC/MS/MS system operating in negative chemical ionization(NICI) mode. Injections (1 µL) were made in the cool-on-column mode (90 °C injection temperature, 50 °C/min to320 °C) onto a 30 m long × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 µm film thickness50% phenylmethylsilicone fused-silica capillary column (DB-17 ms, J&W Scientific). The GC oven operating conditionswere as follows: 90 °C for 2 min; 12 °C/min to 210 °C; 10°C/min to 250 °C; hold at 250 °C for 2 min, 20 °C/min to 320°C; hold at 320 °C for 16 min. Methane was used as a CIreagent gas. The MS/MS method was used to detect 1-NP.The molecular ions of 1-NP and deuterated internal standard1-NP-d9 (m/z 247 and 256, respectively) were isolated by thefirst quadrupole (Q1) and fragmented by collision with argonat 15 V in the collision cell. The second quad (Q2) was setto monitor [M - NO]+ fragment ion at m/z 217 and 226,respectively. Use of the NICI GC/MS/MS technique allowsfor quantification of 1-NP without the necessity of rigoroussample precleaning.
Samples were quantified by comparing the response ofthe deuterated internal standards to the analyte of interest.Analyte response was referenced to five-point calibrationcurves created from standard solutions made with certifiedPAH mixtures purchased from Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., ACCUStandards, Ultra SCI and CDN, Inc. The National Instituteof Standards and Technology Standard Reference Materials(SRM 1941 and 2260a) served as reference standards for QA/QC purposes. Alkane calibration solutions were made fromcertified alkane mixtures obtained from Chiron (Norway),ACCU Standard, and Ultra SCI. NIST SRM 2266, containingfive hopanes and five steranes, was used for preparingcalibration solutions for hopanes/steranes. The remaininghopanes and steranes were identified based on comparisonof their mass spectra and retention time with data availablein the literature (9–11). Compounds for which authenticstandards were not available were quantified based on theresponse factor of standards most closely matched instructure and retention characteristics. For 1-nitropyrene,calibration solutions were made from NIST SRM 2265. TheMDL is approximately 20 pg/µL for PAH, alkanes, andhopanes/steranes, and 0.5 pg/µL for nitro-PAH.
Lubrication oil and fuel samples were obtained from thevehicles immediately after emissions sampling and wereanalyzed for PAH, alkanes, and hopanes/steranes. The oilswere cleaned and fractionated prior to analysis using themethod described by Wang et al. (9). Cleanup was conductedon a 12 mL Supelco solid phase extraction (SPE) cartridgepacked with 2 g of SiOH. Cartridges were placed on a vacuummanifold and conditioned prior to cleanup with 14 mL ofhexane. Prior to cleanup, oils and fuels were diluted in hexane(100 and 300 µL/mL, respectively). Three hundred microlitersof the diluted oil or fuel were spiked onto a SPE cartridgealong with 100 µL of deuterated internal standard mixturedescribed above. Samples were eluted with 8 mL of hexanefollowed by 10 mL of benzene/hexane (1:1). Both fractionswere combined, evaporated to 1 mL, and analyzed for PAH,alkanes, hopanes, and steranes by GC/MS, as describedabove.
Emission Rates Calculations. The measured sourceconcentration from each filter sample was corrected for
background air contaminants contained in the dilution airby subtracting the measured concentration of the corre-sponding dilution air filter samples. The dilution air con-centrations were adjusted before subtraction to compensatefor the fraction of air in the source samples that was producedby the engine, using the following equation:
CadjS )Cm
S -CmB (1- 1
DF) (1)
where CadjS ≡ concentration in diluted source air adjusted for
background; CmS ≡ concentration as measured in diluted
source air; CmB ≡ concentration as measured in background
(dilution) air [For crankcase emissions source testing, whentwo dilution air samples were collected each day, the dailyaverage concentration was subtracted from each sourcesample.]; and DF ≡ dilution factor (ratio of diluted air volumeto source volume).
The resulting background-adjusted concentrations werethen converted to total emissions for each test (mg per cycle)by multiplying by the total volume of air that passed throughthe dilution chamber (Vmix):
ET )CadjS ·Vmix (2)
From this total emissions value (ET), emission rates in mg/km or mg/sec were calculated by dividing by the total distancedriven or the total sampling time, respectively.
Results and DiscussionThe crankcase and tailpipe emission rates of species mea-sured during this study for Bus 1 and Bus 2 are presented inTable S1 in the Supporting Information. The detailedspeciations of in-cabin bus and lead vehicle samples arepresented in Supporting Information Tables S2 and S3,respectively.
PM2.5 Mass and Organic/Elemental Carbon EmissionRates. Figure 1 shows the average crankcase (CK) and tailpipe(TP) fine PM, organic, and elemental carbon emission ratesfor Bus 1 (B1) and Bus 2 (B2). The data in this figure areaveraged over three separate runs for each bus and thestandard deviations between the runs are also shown. Asdescribed in the Experimental Section, the buses were drivenalong their regular routes, including stops, and the crankcaseand tailpipe emission samples were collected using an on-board dilution tunnel (6). Thus, the variations in PM, OC,and EC emission rates are expected, since they are highlydependent on driving modes, which were not standardizedbut varied according to actual traffic conditions. Two OC/EC measurements from Bus 1 tailpipe emissions sample wereinvalidated, due to a suspected leak during sampling, and
one PM value was lower than expected (4). Figure 1 illustratesthat the OC/EC ratio is very different for crankcase andtailpipe emissions; while OC dominates crankcase emissions,both OC and EC are important for tailpipe emissions withEC a larger contributor to PM than OC.
Figure 2 shows the OC and EC fractions for these samples.Carbon fractions in the IMPROVE method correspond totemperature steps of 120 °C (OC1), 250 °C (OC2), 450 °C(OC3), and 550 °C (OC4) in a nonoxidizing helium atmo-sphere, and at 550 °C (EC1), 700 °C (EC2), and 850 °C (EC3)in an oxidizing atmosphere. The IMPROVE TOR method usesvariable hold times of 150-580 s at each heating stage sothat carbon responses return to baseline values (7). As Figure2 shows, the crankcase emissions are composed mostly ofOC1 and OC2 fractions, whereas tailpipe emissions containall four OC fractions and EC1 and EC2 fractions.
All samples collected in the Bus 1 and 2 cabins containa higher proportion of OC than EC (see Table S2, SupportingInformation, average OC/EC ratio 7 and 4 for Bus 1 and 2,respectively), which is consistent with the observation (2–5)that the majority of the self-pollution in the bus cabins is notdue to tailpipe emissions.
Organic Tracer Emissions. Several classes of particle-associated organic compounds were analyzed for this study,including alkanes, n-alkylcyclohexanes, PAH, hopanes/steranes, and nitro-PAH (1-nitropyrene) as potential tracersfor crankcase and tailpipe emissions. The emission rates forindividual species and their in-cabin and lead-vehicleconcentrations are shown in the Supporting Information(Tables S1-S3).
Hopanes and Steranes. Hopanes and steranes are com-pounds present in crude oil as a result of the decompositionof sterols and other biomass and they are not byproducts ofcombustion (10). They have been used as molecular markersfor vehicle emissions and are higher in vehicles that emit oil(10–14). Figure 3 shows total hopane and sterane emissionsas a percentage of total carbon (TC ) OC + EC) measuredby the IMPROVE protocol. Only one valid sample wasavailable for TPB1, thus no standard deviations are shown.As expected, crankcase emissions contain a much higherproportion of hopanes/steranes than tailpipe emissions.
The in-cabin concentrations of hopanes and steranes(Table S2) support the conclusion that the majority of theself-pollution in the buses originated from crankcase emis-sions (3–5). These concentrations are much higher (by a factorof 4-9) when the buses are driven with closed windows thanwith open windows. In addition, as Figure S1 (SupportingInformation) shows, the total concentrations of hopanes andsteranes in background air (as measured by a lead vehicle,Table S3) are much lower than in-cabin concentrations withthe windows closed.
The lube oil and fuel samples from the two buses wereanalyzed for the same organic species (with exception of
FIGURE 1. Average crankcase (CK) and tailpipe (TP) fine PM,and organic (OC) and elemental (EC) carbon emission rates forBus 1 (B1) and Bus 2 (B2). Error bars are standard deviationsbetween the runs (only one valid OC/EC measurement forTPB1).
FIGURE 2. OC and EC fraction emission rates for crankcase(CK) and tailpipe (TP) samples. See text for definitions of ECand OC fractions.
1-nitropyrene) as emission samples. Figure 4a and b showthe comparison of individual hopanes and steranes species,respectively, in the lube oil (in µg/g) and crankcase emissions(in µg/km) for Bus 1 and 2. The composition of hopanes andsteranes in crankcase emissions follow closely the lube oilcomposition. Although the concentrations of these species
are much lower in tailpipe emissions, their profiles areessentially the same (see Table S1).
Alkanes. n-Alkanes and n-alkylcyclohexanes constituteup to 1% of total carbon (TC)OC+EC) emissions, as shownin Figure 5. Deuterated n-hexatriacontane that was added tothe lube oil as an intentional tracer is much more abundantin crankcase than tailpipe emissions. Since no solid adsorbentwas used following the filter to account for the gas-phaseportion of semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC), onlyn-alkanes greater than C20 are shown, as those are pre-dominantly distributed to the particle phase. However, theconcentrations of alkanes from C14 up to C40 (includingbranched alkanes norfarnesane, farnesane, norpristane,pristane, and phytane) were measured in emissions and dieselfuel/lube oil, as shown in Table S1 (Supporting Information).
The concentrations of n-alkanes and n-alkylcyclohexaneswere also higher in the cabins of the buses driven withwindows closed than open, by a factor of 2-3 (Table S2).Also, the concentrations of n-hexatriacontane-d74 were muchhigher in the cabins of buses driven with windows closedthan measured by the lead vehicle (Table S3). The contribu-tion of the crankcase and tailpipe emissions to the bus self-pollution is discussed in our other papers (3–5).
Figure 6a and b compare the distribution of n-alkanesand n-alkylcyclohexanes, respectively, in the fuel and lubeoil obtained from both school buses after the sampling(the mean concentrations in fuel and lube oil are used). Theconcentrations of n-alkanes >C24 are not reported in thelube oil, since their identification is highly uncertain due tothe presence of the large hump, known as the unresolvedcomplex mixture (UCM) in the chromatograms, whichinterferes with the chromatographic separations of n-alkanesin the range of C25-C36. The UCM is due to the presenceof many higher molecular weight (mw) branched alkanesand alkylated cycloalkanes that have very similar massspectra. This complex mixture causes coelutions and theretention time shift of n-alkanes that is difficult to predict.It has been recently reported (15) that molecular sievetreatment of lube oil removes the superimposed UCM humpthus allowing the correct identification and quantificationsof n-alkanes in the range of C25-C36, that were otherwisegreatly overestimated.
As shown in Figure 6, the concentrations of alkanes andn-alkylcyclohexanes peak at nC14-nC16 and C7-C8-cyclo-hexanes, respectively, for diesel fuel, whereas for the lube oilthese concentrations peak at nC20-nC23 and C17-C18cyclohexanes, respectively. The n-alkane and n-alkylcyclo-hexane profiles for crankcase emissions resemble moreclosely the lube oil profile than tailpipe emission profile(Figure S2, Supporting Information). The carbon preferenceindex (CPI), defined as the ratio of the sum of the odd carbonnumber n-alkanes homologue to the sum of even carbonnumber homologue should be close to 1 for materials ofanthropogenic origin, such as fuel and oil. Consequently, forthe n-alkanes in the C14-C40 range, the CPIs are 0.81, 0.86,1.00, and 1.2 for fuel, oil, crankcase, and tailpipe emissions,respectively. The CPIs for in-cabin n-alkanes are 1.4 and 2.2for the buses driven with closed and open windows,respectively. For lead vehicle measurements, the mean CPIis close to 2. This indicates the contribution of outsideambient air to in-cabin concentrations when the bus windowsare open.
The concentrations of n-hexatriacontane-d74 in the lubeoil were 2.2 and 1.4 mg/g for Buses 1 and 2, respectively. Asmentioned in the Experimental Section, the oil from the firstbus was drained and reused for the second bus. Since someoil was left in the first bus and more lube oil was added tothe second bus, the concentration of n-hexatriacontane-d74
is lower for the second bus.
FIGURE 3. Total hopane and sterane emissions as a percentageof total carbon (TC) for crankcase (CK) and tailpipe (TP)samples. Error bars are standard deviations between the runs.
FIGURE 4. Comparison of individual hopanes (a) and steranesspecies (b) in the lube oil (in µg/g) and crankcase emissions(in µg/km) for Buses 1 and 2. The abbreviations are as follows:hop13 ) 18r(H)-22,29,30-trisnorneohopane; hop15 ) 17r(H)-22,29,30-trisnorhopane; hop17 ) 17r(H),21�(H)-29-norhopane;hop19 ) 17r(H),21�(H)-hopane; hop21 ) 22S-17r(H),21�(H)-30-homohopane; hop22 ) 22R-17r(H),21�(H)-30-homohopane; hop23)17�(H),21�(H)-hopane;hop24)22S-17r(H),21�(H)-30,31-bishomo-hopane; hop25 ) 22R-17r(H),21�(H)-30,31-bishomohopane; hop26) 22S-17r(H),21�(H)-30,31,32-trishomohopane; hop27 ) 22R-17r-(H),21�(H)-30,31,32-trishomohopane; ster42 ) 20S-5r(H),14r(H),-17r(H)-cholestane; ster43 ) 20R-5r(H),14�(H),17�(H)-cholestane;ster44 ) 20S-5r(H),14�(H),17�(H)-cholestane; ster45_40 ) 20R-5r(H),14r(H),17r(H)-cholestane and 20S-13�(H),17r(H)-diasti-gmastane; ster46 ) 20S-5r(H),14r(H),17r(H)-ergostane; ster47 )20R-5r(H),14�(H),17�(H)-ergostane; ster48_41 ) 20S-5r(H),14�-(H),17�(H)-ergostane and 20R-13r(H),17�(H)-diastigmastane;ster49 ) 20R-5r(H),14r(H),17r(H)-ergostane; ster50 ) 20S-5r-(H),14r(H),17r(H)-stigmastane; ster51 ) 20R-5r(H),14�(H),17�(H)-stigmastane; ster52 ) 20S-5r(H),14�(H),17�(H)-stigmastane;ster53 ) 20R-5r(H),14r(H),17r(H)-stigmastane.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Since no solid ad-sorbent was used with the quartz filter, only 19 particle-associated PAHs and oxy-PAHs were quantified (see TableS1 for PAH emission rates). Figure 7 shows the crankcaseand tailpipe emissions of selected PAHs and oxy-PAHsexpressed as the percentage of total carbon and comparesthem with the average lube oil PAH concentrations. As canbe seen from this figure and Table S1, the abundance ofparticle-associated PAH is very low in both diesel crankcaseand tailpipe emissions. This is consistent with the previousreports (13, 14). However, more PAH species are present incrankcase than tailpipe emissions; only benzo(e)pyrene (BeP)and benzo(b), (j), and (k)-fluoranthanes (due to the coelutionproblem these three isomers are quantified together) areconsistently present in tailpipe emissions. In addition,benzo(c)phenanthrene (BcPh), benzanthrone, and ben-z(a)anthracene-7,12-dione (BaA-7,12-dione) are detected insome tailpipe emission samples. In contrast, all PAH speciesare consistently present (although in very low concentrations)in crankcase emissions.
The same PAH species were detected in the lubricatingoil samples from both buses, and their concentrations werehigher in the oil from Bus 2, as expected (since this oil was
already used once in the Bus 1). However, as Figure 8 shows,the PAH patterns in the crankcase emissions and lube oilsamples are not similar. The concentrations of the 19 PAHspecies in diesel fuel are negligible (see Table S1). Similarly,the in-cabin bus and lead vehicle PAH concentrations arevery low (Tables S2 and S3), although for Bus 2 theseconcentrations are significantly higher (by a factor of 3) whenthe bus windows are closed.
1-Nitropyrene. Because 1-nitropyrene is considered tobe a tracer for diesel emissions, it was quantified in crankcaseand tailpipe emission samples. It was not detected inquantifiable amounts in crankcase emissions, but it waspresent in tailpipe emissions. 1-Nitropyrene emission rateswere 0.34 and 1.0 µg/km for Bus 1 and 2, respectively. Similaremissions rates were reported for current technology dieselvehicles in the previous study (13). Since the sampling timewas short (30 min) it is likely that 1-nitropyrene is thecombustion product and not the artifact produced duringsampling on the filter (16). The lube oil and fuel sampleswere not analyzed for this compound; however it would berather unlikely to find it there. Although 1-nitropyrene wasdetected in several in-cabin bus and lead vehicle samples(Table S2 and S3), its concentrations were extremely low (inthe range of 1-2 pg/m3), and no consistent pattern wasobserved.
FIGURE 5. n-Alkanes and n-alkylcyclohexanes emissions as a percentage of total carbon (TC) for crankcase (CK) and tailpipe (TP)samples.
FIGURE 6. Distribution of n-alkanes (a) and n-alkylcyclo-hexanes (b), in the fuel and lube oil obtained from both schoolbuses. nCx ) n-alkane with x carbon numbers (i.e., nC14 )n-tetradecane); Cx-Cyhx ) Cx: n-alkyl with x carbon numbers,where Cyhx ) cyclohexane (i.e., C7-Cyhx ) n-heptylcyclo-hexane).
FIGURE 7. Comparison of crankcase (CK) and tailpipe (TP)emissions of selected PAHs and oxy-PAH from Buses 1 and 2(B1 and B2) expressed as the percentage of total carbon withthe average lube oil PAH concentrations. The abbreviations areas follows: BcPh ) benzo(c)phenanthrene; BaA ) benz(a)-anthracene; Chr/Tphe ) chrysene/triphenylene; 7-MeBaA ) 7-methylbenz(a)anthracene; BaA-7,12-dione ) benz(a)anthracene-7,12-dione; B(b+j+k)F ) benzo(b+j+k)fluoranthene; BeP ) ben-zo(e)pyrene; BaP ) benzo(a)pyrene; Per ) perylene; 7-MeBaP) 7-methylbenzo(a)pyrene; B(ghi)Per ) benzo(ghi)perylene;In[123-cd]P ) indeno[123-cd]pyrene; DB(ah+ac)A ) dibenzo-(ah+ac)anthracene; coronene.
AcknowledgmentsFinancial support for this work was provided by the DOEOffice of Vehicle Technologies through the National Renew-able Energy Laboratory (Dr. James Eberhardt, Chief Scientist)and by the National Institute of Environmental HealthSciences (#1R01ES12657-01A1). We thank Mr. Mark McDanieland Mrs. Anna Cunningham of Organic Analytical Laboratoryof DRI for help in sample collection and analyses.
Supporting Information AvailableTables S1-S3 list the crankcase and tailpipe emission ratesof species measured during this study, and the detailedspeciations of in-cabin bus and lead vehicle samples. FigureS1 illustrates hopanes and steranes concentrations in buscabins and in ambient air. This information is available freeof charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org
Literature Cited(1) U.S. EPA. Federal Register, 40 CFR, Parts 69, 80 and 86, January
18, 2001.(2) Hill, L. B.; Zimmerman, N. J.; Gooch, J. A. A Multi-city
Investigation of the Effectiveness of Retrofit Emissions Controlsin Reducing Exposures to Pariculate Matter in School Buses;Clean Air Task Force: Boston, MA, 2005 (available at http://www.catf.us/publications/view/82).
(3) Liu, L.-J. S., Webber W. L., Davey, M., Lawson, D. R., Ireson,R. G., Zielinska, B., Ondov, J. M., Weaver, C. S., Lapin, C. A.,Easter, M., Hesterberg, T. W., Larson, T. Estimating Self-Pollutionfrom Diesel School Buses Using Three Methods. submitted toEnviron. Sci. Technol.
(4) Ireson, R.; Ondov, J.; Zielinska, B.; Weaver, C.; Easter, M.; Lawson,D.; Hesterberg, T.; Davey, M.; and Liu, L-J.S. Development andDemonstration of a Dual Intentional Tracer Method forQuantifying In-Cabin Concentrations of Tailpipe and CrankcasePM2.5 in School Buses. Environ. Sci. Technol (in preparation).
(5) Larson, T., Webber, W., Zielinska, B., Ireson, R., Liu, L-J.S. Sourceapportionment of PM2.5 inside a diesel school bus: a comparisonof weighted partial least squares regression and chemical massbalance with a synthetic tracer-based method. Environ. Sci.Technol (in preparation).
(6) Weaver, C. S.; Petty, L. E. Reproducibility and accuracy of on-board emissions measurements using the RAVEM system;SAEPaper 2004-01-0965; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, 2004.
(7) Chow, J. C.; Watson, J. G.; Pritchett, L. C.; Pierson, W. R.; Frazier,C. A.; Purcell, R. G. The DRI Thermal/Optical Reflectance carbonanalysis system: Description, evaluation and applications inU.S. air quality studies. Atmos. Environ. 1993, 27A, 1185–1201.
(8) Chow, J. C.; Watson, J. G.; Crow, D.; Lowenthal, D. H.; Merrifield,T. Comparison of IMPROVE and NIOSH carbon measurements.Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2001, 34, 23–34.
(9) Wang, Z.; Fingas, M.; Li, K. Fractionation of a light crude oil andidentification and quantification of aliphatic, aromatic, andbiomarker compounds by GC-FID and GC-MS. Part II. J. Chro-matogr. Sci. 1994, 32, 367–382.
(10) Simoneit, B. R. T. Application of molecular marker analysis tovehicular exhaust for source reconciliation. Int. J. Environ. Anal.Chem. 1985, 22, 203–233.
(11) Rogge, W. F.; Hildemann, L. M.; Mazurek, M. A.; Cass, G. R.;Simoneit, B. R. T. Sources of Fine Organic Aerosol 2. Noncatalystand Catalyst-Equipped Automobiles and Heavy-Duty DieselTrucks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1993, 27, 636–651.
(12) Fraser, M. P.; Cass, G. R.; Simoneit, B. R. T. Particle-Phase OrganicCompounds Emitted from Motor Vehicle Exhaust and in UrbanAtmosphere. Atmos. Environ. 1999, 33, 2715–2724.
(13) Zielinska, B.; Sagebiel, J.; McDonald, J. D.; Whitney, K.; Lawson,D. R. Emission Rates and Comparative Chemical Compositionfrom Selected In-Use Diesel and Gasoline-Fueled Vehicles. J.Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 2004, 54, 1138–1150.
(14) Fujita, E. M.; Zielinska, B.; Campbell, D. E.; Arnott, W. P.; Sagebiel,J. C.; Reinhart, L.; Chow, J. C.; Gabele, P. A.; Crews, W.; Snow,R.; Clark, N. N.; Wayne, W. S.; Lawson, D. R. Variations inspeciated emissions from spark-ignition and compression-ignition motor vehicles in California’s South Coast Air Basin.J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 2007, 57, 705–720.
(15) Caravaggio, G. A.; Charland, J.-P.; Macdonald, P.; Graham, L.n-Alkane profiles of engine lubricating oil and particulate matterby molecular sieve extraction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41(10), 3697–3701.
(16) Schuetzle, D.; Perez, J. M. Factors influencing the emissions ofnitrated-polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (nitro-PAH) fromdiesel engines. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 1983, 33, 751–755.
Detailed Characterization and Profiles of Crankcase and Diesel Particular Matter Exhaust Emissions Using Speciated Organics.
Barbara Zielinska1*, David Campbell1, Douglas R. Lawson2, Robert G. Ireson3 , Christopher S. Weaver4 , Thomas W. Hesterberg5, Timothy Larson6, Mark Davey7 and L.-J. Sally Liu7,8
1Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Pkwy, Reno, NV 89512-1095, 2National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401-3393, 3Air Quality Management Consulting, Greenbrae, CA 94904, 4Engine Fuel & Emissions Engineering, Inc., Rancho Cordova, CA 95742, 5International Truck and Engine Corporation, Warrenville, IL 60555, 6Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 7Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, 8Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Basel, CH-4051 Basel, Switzerland.
Supplemental Material
2
Details of Dilution Tunnel Sampling
Tailpipe and crankcase vent emissions testing was conducted using the Ride Along-Vehicle Emissions Measurement System (RAVEM) (1). RAVEM is a portable dilution tunnel based on proportional partial-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) from the vehicle exhaust pipe. Isokinetic sampling in the tailpipe and subsequent dilution produces a diluted exhaust stream comparable to that of full-flow CVS systems used in chassis and engine dynamometer testing, but allows measurements to be made on-board a moving vehicle (see http://www.efee.com/ravem.html for more information regarding RAVEM).For the tailpipe sampling, the RAVEM was mounted inside the bus, and the isokinetic partial-flow sampling was used (i.e. the normal RAVEM operating mode). To collect crankcase vent emission samples, the RAVEM dilution tunnel module was mounted on the front bumper of each bus, and the full flow from the road draft tube was ducted directly into the tunnel. A "road draft tube" is a tube (typically about 3/4 inch ID, made of rubber or steel) that carries gases from the rocker arm cover (near the top of the engine) vertically downward to near the bottom of the vehicle, where the end is exposed to the air. Its purpose is to ventilate the crankcase that is full of the hot lubricating oil that is being agitated by the motion of the pistons and crankshaft. Blowby gases that leak past the piston rings pass into the crankcase, where they mix with oil vapor and oil aerosol.From there, they pass via the road draft tube to the air under the vehicle. The venturi effect of air passing by the end of the tube creates a slight suction ("draft") that aids in the ventilation by drawing fresh air into the crankcase. For front-engine buses, the road draft tube discharge is typically about three feet forward (and thus directly upwind) of the firewall between the passenger compartment and the engine. This firewall has a number of penetrations, including those for the pedals and steering, that could allow air mixed with crankcase vapors to enter the passenger compartment.For crankcase sampling, we connected the end of the road draft tube to a liquid trap (a short section of 2 inch PVC pipe), then to a 1/2 inch ID rubber hose that was approximately 36 inches long. Purpose of the liquid trap was to collect any liquid that dripped from the road draft tube and prevent it from being drawn into the dilution tunnel.The other end of the rubber hose was connected to raw gas inlet of the RAVEM dilution tunnel. The throttle at the entrance to the dilution tunnel was adjusted to bring the pressure inside the tunnel slightly below atmospheric, thus simulating the slight suction due to the venturi effect on the end of the road draft tube. In operation, crankcase gases passed through the road draft tube and our sampling tube into the dilution tunnel, where they were mixed with filtered air. The tunnel control system was programmed to maintain a constant molar flow rate of 800 standard liters per minute out of the dilution tunnel. Pre-weighed 47 mm particulate filters were exposed to (1) the mixture of crankcase gas and filtered air and (2) the filtered air alone by drawing them through the filters at a controlled flow rate of 16.6 liters per minute. The filters were then reweighed to determine the PM mass collected on the filter, and from this, the PM mass contained in the crankcase emissions.
Table S1: Crankcase and tailpipe emission rates of measured species for Bus 1 and Bus 2 and these species concentrations in lube oil and diesel fuel used in these buses
Notes:CK: cranckase emissions, TP: tailpipe emissions; B1: bus 1; B2: bus2; a: standard deviation between individual bus runs; b: only one valid measurement; c: not measured; UCM: unresolved complex mixture
7
Table S2. The in-cabin concentrations (in ng/m3, unless indicated otherwise) of species measured from bus 1 and bus 2 emissions
Notes: a: B1: bus 1; B2: bus2; C: window closed; O: window open; AM: morning sampling; PM: afternoon sampling; b: n=number of bus runsc: the average is weighted according to sampling volumes of each run
12
Table S3. Ambient concentrations of the bus emissions species, as measured by the lead vehicle
Figure S1. Concentrations of hopanes and steranes in bus cabins and in ambient air as measured by the lead vehicle. B1: bus 1; B2: bus 2; C: window closed; O: window open; AM: morning sample; PM: afternoon sample; LV: lead vehicle
17
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
C14nC15
nC16nC17
nC18nC19
nC20nC21
nC22nC23
nC24nC25
nC26nC27
nC28nC29
nC30nC31
nC32nC33
nC34nC35
nC36nC37
nC38nC39
nC40
Oil
(ug
/g)
or
TP
B E
mis
sio
n r
ate
(ug
/km
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
CK
B E
mis
sio
n r
ate
(ug
/km
)
Oil TPB CKB
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
C7-Cyh
x
C8-Cyh
x
C9-Cyh
x
C10-C
yhx
C11-C
yhx
C12-C
yhx
C13-C
yhx
C14-C
yhx
C15-C
yhx
C16-C
yhx
C17-C
yhx
C18-C
yhx
C19-C
yhx
C20-C
yhx
Oil
(ug
/g)
or
TP
B E
mis
sio
n R
ate
(ug
/km
)
02468101214161820
CK
B E
mis
sio
n r
ate
(ug
/km
)
Oil TPB CKB
Figure S2. Comparison of n-alkanes (upper panel) and n-alkylcyclohexanes (lower panel) in average crankcase (CKB) and tailpipe (TPB) emissions profiles from both school buses with lube oil (Oil) composition
18
References:
1. Weaver C.S. and Petty L.E. Reproducibility and accuracy of on-board emissions measurements using the RAVEM system. SAE International, 2004, SAE Paper No.2004-01-0965