German SVO emmisions study shows 1/2 the mutagenicity of diesel

"..results show that the mutagen potential of the particle emissions of rapeseed oil fuel is only half so high compared with Diesel fuel.."

http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/159605551/m/1031054912

Nice.

But didn't I read somewhere that biodiesel and SVO/WVO made for smaller particulate, which can be even more dangerous to the lungs?

This is like claiming a cigarette that only has half the tar only has half the cancer risk....

Now I'm not discounting the adverse health effects of fossil fuels, but, unless one is using hydrogen as fuel, there is nothing positive about any exhaust gas from anything that is burned.

I won't argue about the lower CO2, CO, and soot from bio-fuels, but alluding to a reduced cancer risk is pushing things.

.

"But didn't I read somewhere that biodiesel and SVO/WVO made for smaller particulate, which can be even more dangerous to the lungs?"

Yes. read that too. But wasn't that about asthma and reduced lung capacity?

"The volume concentration is directly linked to the chemical fuel composition. In fact, it shows that the length of the fuel's molecule-chain influences the concentration.

With longer molecule-chain a lower concentration will be reached on a common-rail injection. Additionally, increasing engine's load generally increases also the emitted concentration. The vol. concentration is in this case reduced up to 50% using plant oil like unestered rapeseed oil! Surprisingly, the measured cylinder pressure during combustion of plant oils is consistently higher than diesel fuel.

On the other hand, the primary particle size depends not on the used fuel! Just the agglomeration size is essential higher up to 500nm. The common-rail injection with injection pressure up to 1800 bar causes a constant average primary particle size independant of used fuel. Also the gas analysis shows, that the combustion with plant oils in fact fundamentally do not change. The complete combustion remains constant using other fuels like plant oils. Just the NOx-emissions are inessential higher."

from:
http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/159605551/m/5131098412?r=5131098412#5131098412

Who are you quoting?

.

If anyone can find a comparison study of small particulates from gassers to diesels, I would like to see it. Numerous Internet searches have produced very little. It is possible that diesel is being singled out for this cancerous effect while gassers may or may not be as bad or worse.

Its the smallest particulates that make it into the lungs, as I understand it, while the big ones drop to the ground. Gassers apparently have plenty of small particulates while diesel has both small and larger ones. I know the chemical composition is also a bit different between the two types of fuel.

TM

"Who are you quoting?"

Darren_UK. last post to the infopop thread I linked to above.

I think he summarized or posted a translation of the summary of the Zahoransky R./Heinzmann Germany report.
Online versions of the report are incomplete and do not contain the quoted text.

The quoted text came directly from what I guess is a poster presentation creditied to Benjamin Dorn, Christian Wehmann, Richard Winterhalter and Richard A Zahoransky

As I stated I can't find it anywhere on-line.....

Best

Darren

Tin Man said:

If anyone can find a comparison study of small particulates from gassers to diesels, I would like to see it.

Click to expand...

Here are a few I've run across:


"...Emissions of extremely small particles (Dp < 10 nm) at high road speed may be very high (10**14 - 10**16 part./kg fuel) even for nominal low emitters [gassers]....

… Diesels contribute more large particles, consequently more mass, whereas SI engines contribute a greater number of small particles…."

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/829821-SQYKH6/native/829821.pdf


"…Are the risks from spark-ignition PM emissions really negligible relative to diesel PM?..."

http://www.healtheffects.org/Airtoxics/fujita.htm


"…Diesel exhaust particles have been shown to display a multimodal size distribution (Kerminen et al. 1997) and are mainly carbonaceous agglomerates below 100 nm in diameter, whereas particles emitted by gasoline vehicles are also mainly carbonaceous agglomerates but considerably smaller, ranging from 10 to 80 nm (Morawska and Zhang 2002)…."

http://www.ktl.fi/attachments/suomi/julkaisut/julkaisusarja_a/2005/2005a6.pdf


"…While during daytime, in the Plabutsch [high diesel traffic] a distinct soot mode with maximum concentrations around 80–100 nm was observed, the Kingsway [low diesel traffic] tunnel showed high particle concentrations in the nucleation mode with a median modal diameter in the size range D=25–35 nm and comparatively low concentrations in the soot mode…."

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/2215/2006/acp-6-2215-2006.pdf


"…Most of the particles added by the on-road fleet were below 50 nm in diameter….

…The higher the speed, the greater the particle concentration, and the smaller the particle size. This is a reasonable finding because at high vehicular speeds, particulate number emissions, especially from SI engines, increase with increased engine load, exhaust temperatures and exhaust flow…."

D. B. Kittelson, W. F. Watts and J. P. Johnson, Nanoparticle emissions on Minnesota highways. Atmospheric Environment, Volume 38, Issue 1, January 2004, Pages 9-19


"…SI engines emit a higher proportion of smaller particles than do diesels…"

D.B. Kittelson, W.F. Watts, J.P. Johnson, J. Schauer, and D.R. Lawson, On-road and laboratory evaluation of combustion aerosols—Part 2: Summary of spark ignition engine results. Journal of Aerosol Science, Volume 37, Issue 8, August 2006, Pages 931-949

Thanks!

Yes, these are mostly what I found. There are few others, and none that actually measure gasser particulate emissions in the lab like they do diesels. Seems like they just assume diesels are the culprits and ignore gassers, then generate news headlines. The public then thinks diesels are evil and ULEV gassers are angelic.

The idiots at Union of Concerned Scientists then put out rationalized blurbs that muddy the picture and make diesels out to be just not really acceptable with not enough real data as stated above.

Sigh.

TM

I completely agree with you.

I think these studies show that gas engines are not really innocuous with respect to PM emissions, especially in "real world" driving conditions (not the unrealistic FTP75 driving cycle that everyone bases vehicle emissions on).

Emission inventories aren't telling the real story either:





The UCS and other environmental groups are going to have a tough row to hoe to claim "diesels are dirty" anymore (if they ever really were).

wxman said:

The UCS and other environmental groups are going to have a tough row to hoe to claim "diesels are dirty" anymore (if they ever really were).

Click to expand...

Funny how UCS acts more and more like Exon-Mobil and tobacco lobby to seed doubt. One learned from the other, I guess...

wxman said:

The UCS and other environmental groups are going to have a tough row to hoe to claim "diesels are dirty" anymore (if they ever really were).

Click to expand...

Funny how UCS acts more and more like Exon-Mobil and the Tobacco Lobby to seed doubt with crap science. Monkey see, monkey do!