More Than Concentration Reduction: Contributions of Oxidation Technologies to Alleviating Aerosol Toxicity from Diesel Engines
Di Wu,Anyuan Cheng,Yuankai Shao,Yaoqiang Huo,Dongmei Cai,Qian Wang,Xiang Ding,Anlin Liu,Cheng Huang,Shuibing Wang,Hong Zhang,Yingjun Chen,Jianmin Chen,Qing Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00069
2022-03-21
Abstract:The quantitative role of aftertreatment technologies in particulate matter (PM)-induced toxicities remains unclear. This study reports the efficacy of aftertreatment technologies on PM-related toxicity as well as the chemical-specific contribution to PM-induced reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) contributed ∼68% of engine-out PM2.5-induced ROS generation. Implementation of a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) in a diesel engine could mitigate ∼76.2% of PAHs content per unit mass of PM2.5 and remove ∼28.1% of PM2.5-induced ROS generation. Furthermore, the addition of a diesel particulate filter (DPF) could stepwise reduce ∼21.7% of the PAH content and remove ∼52.2% of PM2.5-induced ROS generation. Due to the lack of aftertreatment control devices, shipping-emitted PM2.5 induced (7.4 ± 5.5)-fold higher ROS generation than those emitted from heavy-duty diesel vehicles at equal mass concentrations when burning the same diesel fuels, while the implementation of DOC and DPF devices on marine diesel engines could reduce 89.6 ± 3.6% of PM emissions and further mitigate 97.9 ± 34.6% of PM-induced ROS-adjusted emissions. These results suggest that the utilization of oxidation technologies in marine diesel engines would be an effective way to alleviate health burden risks.The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00069.Specifications of aftertreatment devices (Text S1); field measurements of ships (Text S2); analysis approach (Text S3); effects of aftertreatment devices on mass concentrations of PAHs (Text S4); composition discrepancies of PM2.5 emitted from ships and HDDVs (Text S5); unequal BaPeq and Creq values of PM2.5 emitted from ships and HDDVs (Text S6); specifications for the experimental engine (Table S1); parameters of tested heavy-duty diesel vehicles (Table S2); technical information on tested vessels (Table S3); substance names, abbreviations, and toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for the 16 U.S. EPA priority PAHs (Table S4); 10 selected toxic metals, their abbreviations, and their TEFs estimated from carcinogenic risk parameters (inhalation unit risk) obtained from the U.S. EPA website (Table S5); major emission control measures used with heavy-duty diesel vehicles and ships during the past decade (Table S6); schematic diagram for a bench test of an engine and aftertreatment devices for the tested engine and sampling site locations (Figure S1); schematic diagram of the sampling system for ship emissions (Figure S2); schematic diagram of the sampling system for heavy-duty diesel vehicle emissions (Figure S3); mass concentrations of 16 PAHs per unit mass of PM2.5 observed at engine out, DOC out, DPF out, and ASC out (Figure S4); emission profiles of PM2.5 emitted from ships and heavy duty diesel vehicles (Figure S5); BaPeq and Creq values of ship- and HDDV-emitted PM2.5 (Figure S6) (PDF)This article has not yet been cited by other publications.
environmental sciences,engineering, environmental