Next Article in Journal
Introduction of Al into the HPM-1 Framework by In Situ Generated Seeds as an Alternative Methodology
Previous Article in Journal
Thin Cap Fibroatheroma Detection in Virtual Histology Images Using Geometric and Texture Features
Article Menu
Issue 9 (September) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8(9), 1633; https://doi.org/10.3390/app8091633

Comparison of Portable Emissions Measurement Systems (PEMS) with Laboratory Grade Equipment

1
LAETA, IDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
2
European Commission–Joint Research Centre, Directorate for Energy, Transport and Climate, Sustainable Transport Unit, 21027 Ispra, VA, Italy
3
Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research (IN+/IST), University of Lisbon–Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
4
ADEM/ISEL/IPL, Instituto Superior de Engenharia de Lisboa, Rua Conselheiro Emídio Navarro 1, 1959-007 Lisbon, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 10 August 2018 / Revised: 7 September 2018 / Accepted: 10 September 2018 / Published: 12 September 2018
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental and Sustainable Science and Technology)
Full-Text   |   PDF [3376 KB, uploaded 12 September 2018]   |  

Abstract

Real-driving emissions (RDE) testing with portable emissions measurement systems (PEMS) during the type approval and in-service conformity of light-duty vehicles was recently introduced in the European Union legislation. In this paper, three PEMS were compared with laboratory analyzers connected to the tailpipe and the dilution tunnel. The tests were conducted with two Euro 6 vehicles (one gasoline and one diesel) performing the World harmonized Light vehicles Test Cycle (WLTC) and a pre-recorded RDE cycle on a chassis dynamometer. The results showed that the differences of the PEMS gas analyzers compared to the laboratory references were typically within 2% for CO2 and 5% for NOx. The CO2 and NOx mass emissions were within 10% and 15%, respectively, with only a few exceptions. The exhaust flow rate measurements were within 10% at low speeds (urban conditions), and 5% at higher speeds. These results confirm the legislated permitted tolerances and the 2017 PEMS uncertainty estimates. View Full-Text
Keywords: Portable Emissions Measurement System (PEMS); Worldwide harmonized Light vehicles Test cycle (WLTC); Real Driving Emissions (RDE); conformity factor (CF); validation test; CO2; NOx; exhaust flow meter (EFM); measurement uncertainty Portable Emissions Measurement System (PEMS); Worldwide harmonized Light vehicles Test cycle (WLTC); Real Driving Emissions (RDE); conformity factor (CF); validation test; CO2; NOx; exhaust flow meter (EFM); measurement uncertainty
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Varella, R.A.; Giechaskiel, B.; Sousa, L.; Duarte, G. Comparison of Portable Emissions Measurement Systems (PEMS) with Laboratory Grade Equipment. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1633.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Appl. Sci. EISSN 2076-3417 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top