Author
Listed:
- Junhui Chen
(School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Sichuan Academy of Environmental Sciences, Chengdu 620041, China
Sichuan Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Moving Source Pollution and Control, Chengdu 620041, China)
- Yuan Li
(Sichuan Academy of Environmental Sciences, Chengdu 620041, China
Sichuan Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Moving Source Pollution and Control, Chengdu 620041, China)
- Zhongwei Meng
(School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xihua University, Chengdu 610039, China)
- Xiaoqiong Feng
(Sichuan Province Environmental Protection Technology Engineering Co., Ltd., Chengdu 620041, China)
- Junjie Wang
(Sichuan Academy of Environmental Sciences, Chengdu 620041, China)
- Honghui Zhou
(Sichuan Academy of Environmental Sciences, Chengdu 620041, China
Sichuan Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Moving Source Pollution and Control, Chengdu 620041, China)
- Junjie Li
(Sichuan Academy of Environmental Sciences, Chengdu 620041, China
Sichuan Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Moving Source Pollution and Control, Chengdu 620041, China)
- Jiacheng Shi
(Sichuan Academy of Environmental Sciences, Chengdu 620041, China
Sichuan Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Moving Source Pollution and Control, Chengdu 620041, China)
- Qiang Chen
(Sichuan Academy of Environmental Sciences, Chengdu 620041, China)
- Hongle Shi
(Sichuan Academy of Environmental Sciences, Chengdu 620041, China)
- Shuxiao Wang
(School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)
Abstract
With the acceleration of urban construction, the pollutant emission of non-road mobile machinery such as construction machinery is becoming more and more prominent. In this paper, a portable emissions measurement system (PEMS) tested the emissions of eight different types of construction machinery under actual operating conditions and was used for idling, walking, and working under the different emission reduction techniques. The results showed that the pollutant emission of construction machinery is affected by the pollutant contribution of working conditions. According to different emission reduction techniques, the diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) can reduce carbon monoxide (CO) by 41.6–94.8% and hydrocarbon (HC) by 92.7–95.1%, catalytic diesel particulate filter (CDPF) can reduce particulate matter (PM) by 87.1–99.5%, and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) using urea as a reducing agent can reduce nitrogen oxides (NO x ) by 60.3% to 80.5%. Copper-based SCR is better than vanadium-based SCR in NO x reduction. In addition, the study found that when the enhanced 3DOC + CDPF emission reduction technique is used on forklifts, DOC has a “low-temperature saturation effect”, which will reduce the emission reduction effect of CO and THC. The use of Burner + DOC + CDPF emission reduction techniques and fuel injection heating process will increase CO’s emission factors by 3.2–3.5 and 4.4–6.7 times compared with the actual operating conditions.
Suggested Citation
Junhui Chen & Yuan Li & Zhongwei Meng & Xiaoqiong Feng & Junjie Wang & Honghui Zhou & Junjie Li & Jiacheng Shi & Qiang Chen & Hongle Shi & Shuxiao Wang, 2022.
"Study on Emission Characteristics and Emission Reduction Effect for Construction Machinery under Actual Operating Conditions Using a Portable Emission Measurement System (Pems),"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-15, August.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9546-:d:879465
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Maksymilian Mądziel, 2023.
"Vehicle Emission Models and Traffic Simulators: A Review,"
Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-31, May.
- Andrzej Ziółkowski & Paweł Fuć & Piotr Lijewski & Aleks Jagielski & Maciej Bednarek & Władysław Kusiak, 2022.
"Analysis of Exhaust Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles on Different Applications,"
Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-21, October.
- Asmat Ullah Khan & Lizhen Huang, 2023.
"Toward Zero Emission Construction: A Comparative Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Diesel, Hybrid, and Electric Excavators,"
Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-18, August.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9546-:d:879465. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.