AComparisonof VariousSourcesof AutomotiveEmissions

McKee, Herbert C.; Mills, Kenneth D.

doi:10.1080/00022470.1961.10468031

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studying the results of the FID and infrared analyzer for automobile exhaust with different fuels showed that FID results were higher than the infrared analyzer results. A similar study performed by McKee and Mills also showed that the FID results were higher than the infrared analyzer results and the ratios observed were 0.9-2.4 [8]. Similar studies by Jones and Jackson also agreed with the results of this study [9].…”

Section: Literature Surveysupporting

confidence: 90%

Evaluation of heavy-duty engine exhaust hydrocarbon and non-methane hydrocarbon analysis methods

Muralidharan¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of Heavy-Duty Engine Exhaust Hydrocarbon and Non-Methane Hydrocarbon Analysis Methods Abishek Muralidharan The harmful environmental and health effects of automobile exhaust constituents have necessitated their regulation in many countries. The constituents of concern from diesel fueled engines are oxides of nitrogen (NO x), hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter. Hydrocarbons combine with the oxides of nitrogen in a photochemical reaction, aided by sunlight, to form ozone which is a major constituent of smog. However methane does not aid in smog formation and is excluded from the present United States on-road hydrocarbon regulation. Flame ionization detectors (FID) are the preferred detectors for hydrocarbon measurement from compression ignition internal combustion engines. Regulatory requirement for nonmethane hydrocarbon measurement involve the determination of total hydrocarbon using a FID-based analyzer and methane measurement using gas chromatographs (GC) and subtraction of these two values. New regulatory standards allow the use of non-methane cutter equipped analyzers for on-line determination of exhaust methane content. The SAE J1151 standard GC method and an in-house GC method, incorporated at West Virginia University (WVU), were compared for correlation in methane measurements. The total hydrocarbon measurements from the WVU method were compared with bench analyzer results. A non-methane cutter equipped California Analytical Instruments (CAI) heated FID hydrocarbon analyzer capable of continuous methane measurements was evaluated for correlation with the SAE J1151 GC method. Day-today repeatability of the analyzer and SAE J1151 GC method was studied.

show abstract

Section: Literature Surveysupporting

confidence: 90%