Effects of waste cooking oil-based biodiesel on the toxic organic pollutant emissions from a diesel engine

Self Cite

The emissions of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) from diesel engines is becoming more important due to their proximity to human beings compared to stationary sources whose emission have been well controlled over the years. The selective catalytic reduction (SCR) have been adopted in the heavy-duty diesel engine (HDDE) to reduce the nitrogen oxide (NO x ). SCR has also been reported to reduce the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). However, the memory effect and reformation of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) during SCR operation are not well understood. This study investigated the effect of Copper-zeolite SCR (CuZ SCR) on PCDD/F, PCB, polybrominated dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran (PBDD/F), and polybrominated biphenyl (PBB) emissions from a HDDE at 50% and 75% engine load. Notably, PCDD/F and PCB toxicity emissions increased by 78.4% and 201%, respectively. The dominant PCDD/F congeners were OCDD, OCDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD, and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and PCB-105, PCB-118 and PCB-77 for PCBs. More PCDFs were formed compared to PCDDs and lower chlorinated congeners increased more than the higher chlorinated ones. There was also an increase of PBDD/F concentrations from undetectable levels (ND) to 0.247 pg TEQ Nm -3 (4.00 pg TEQ L -1 ) after the SCR. However, only 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpBDF and OBDF contributed to the concentrations. PBBs was the only compound measured that reduced after the SCR. The only congener detected before and after the SCR was PBB 15. Consequently, the CuZ SCR could be a source of POPs under mid and high engine loads in this study. Further detail research is required to focus on the formation of POPs on the catalyst surfaces and structures.

Section: Pbdd/f Concentrationssupporting

confidence: 78%

Effects of Selective Catalytic Reduction on the Emissions of Persistent Organic Pollutants from a Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine

Cheruiyot

Wang

Lin

et al. 2017

Self Cite

“…Many factors, such as fuels, engine types, test modes, after treatment technologies that can affect PCDD/F emissions from vehicles have been discussed in previous study and review articles (Heeb et al, 2007;Chuang et al, 2010Chuang et al, , 2011Chang et al, 2014b;Rey et al, 2014;Mwangi et al, 2015). Here we aim to focus on how to conduct vehicular exhaust samplings to obtain better quality data to estimate PCDD/F emission factors from mobile sources.…”

Section: Pcdd/f Emissions From Mobile Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Overview of PCDD/F Inventories and Emission Factors from Stationary and Mobile Sources: What We Know and What is Missing

Cheruiyot

Lee

Yan

et al. 2016

Self Cite

This overview attempts to outline what we currently know about the PCDD/F emission inventories and the source categories therein. Besides the best available control techniques, suggestions are offered on how to reduce the PCDD/F emission factors and emission quantity of some important PCDD/F emission sources. The PCDD/F combustion sources can be classified as either stationary or mobile or minimally/uncontrolled combustion sources. The major stationary sources of PCDD/Fs are metal production processes, waste incineration, heat and power plants, and fly ash treatment plant. Crematories, vehicles, residential boilers and stoves are of key concern due to their proximity to residential areas and their relatively lower lying stacks and exhaust gases, which may result in great impact to their surrounding environment.Moreover, we offered our perspectives on how to improve the quality and representative of the PCDD/F emission factors to attain PCDD/F inventories which correspond more to reality. These points of view include: (1) PCDD/F contributions during start-up procedures of MSWIs should be considered, (2) the sampling times of stack flue gases for EAFs and secondary metal smelters should correspond to whole smelting process stages, (3) longer flue gas sampling time should be executed for power plants, (4) direct exhaust samplings from tailpipes for mobile sources, (5) development of an open burn testing facility that can reflect the real open burning conditions, and (6) long-term sampling techniques like AMESA are suggested to used exclusively for the most contributed PCDD/F stationary sources.

“…Tsai et al (2016) reported that addition of 20% or 40% biodiesel to pure diesel (D100) could reduce PCDD/F, PCB, PBDD/F and PBDE emissions in the exhaust gas from the diesel engine generator. Chang et al (2014a) also found that WCO-based biodiesel blends could reduce PAH, PCDD/F, PCB, PBDD/F and PBDE emissions from a diesel engine. These previous studies all support the findings of the current investigation.…”

Section: Comprehensive Discussion Among Four Pops Emitted From Dieselmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Diesel engine exhausts (DEEs) may cause adverse health effects due to their varied chemical compositions, which include carbonaceous matter (Cheng et al, 2015), trace metals (Lin et al, 2005;Lin et al, 2008), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Lin et al, 2012;Lin et al, 2017) and even persistent organic pollutants (POPs) (Gullett and Ryan, 2002;Chang et al, 2014a;Chen et al, 2017). In urban areas, the emissions emitted from diesel engines contain pollutants harmful to human health, such as carcinogens * Corresponding author.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Persistent Organic Pollutant Reductions from a Diesel Engine Generator Fueled with Waste Cooking Oil-based Biodiesel Blended with Butanol and Acetone

Tsai

Lin

Chen

et al. 2017

This investigation focuses on the effects on emissions of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) (polychlorinated dibenzop-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PBDD/Fs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)) from a diesel engine fuelled by 20 vol% waste cooking oil-based biodiesel (W20) blended with various fractions of dehydrate/hydrous butanol (B/B′) and acetone (A/A′). The emission concentrations of the POPs were in the order PBDE ≫ PBDD/F > PCB > PCDD/F, regardless of the blending fuel or engine load. The POP with highest concentration was PBDE, being 2-3 times that of the others. Conversely, the magnitude of emitted toxicity followed the order PCDD/F > PCB ≈ PBDD/F, while PCDD/F emissions had about 10 times the toxicity concentrations of PCBs and PBDD/Fs. Among the dioxin compounds, the emissions of PCDDs represented 46-73% (average 57%) and 50-72% (average 59%) of total PCDD/F mass and toxicity concentrations, respectively, and were which and were thus significantly higher than those of PCDFs. The non-ortho-PCB contributed almost all toxicity (~100%) of 14 dioxin-like-PCBs, even though its contribution in mass was only 9-32% (average 16%) among the congeners. Similarly, PBDFs accounted for ~100% of toxicity of PBDD/Fs. Additionally, deca-BDEs contributed to most of the mass emissions of PBDEs (47.0-90.5%, 82.4% in average), while nona-BDEs and tri-to octaBDEs only contributed 10% and 8%, respectively. The reductions of the absolute mass concentrations of POPs from W20 were in the order PBDEs >> PBDD/Fs > PCDD/Fs ≈ PCBs for all multi-component diesel blends. The reduction fractions of POPs were in the order PCDD/F > PCB ≈ PBDD/F > PBDE, and those of TEQ were PCDD/F > PCB > PBDD/F. Thus, the addition of butanol and acetone, whether pure or hydrous, could further lower the POP emissions from W20.