throbber
CATALYTIC
`AIR POLLUTION
`CONTROL
`Commercial Technology
`
`Second Edition
`
`Ronald M. Heck and Robert J. Farrauto
`with Suresh T. Gulati
`
`i.1
`
`ffiWILEY-
`~ INTERSCIENCE
`A JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., PUBLICATION
`
`1
`
`JM 1011
`
`

`
`This book is printed on acid-free paper.@
`
`Copyright © 2002 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. All rights reserved.
`
`Published simultaneously in Canada.
`
`No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any
`form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise,
`except as permitted under Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without
`either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the
`appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA
`01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 750-4744. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be
`addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New
`York, NY 10158-0012, (212) 850-6011, fax (212) 850-6008, E-Mail: PERMREQ@WILEY.COM.
`
`For ordering and cutomer service information please call F800-CALL-WILEY.
`
`Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available.
`
`ISBN 0-471-43624-0
`
`Printed in the United States of America.
`
`10987654
`
`2
`
`

`
`8 Diesel Engine Emissions
`
`8.1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Driving behind a diesel bus or truck, whether on a highway or in a city, often is
`an unpleasant experience because of its emissions. The black smoke, or soot, is
`the most visible, but other, less visible pollutants are also present. The emis(cid:173)
`sions from a diesel engine are composed of three phases: solids, liquids, and
`gases. The combined solids and liquids are called particulates, or total particu(cid:173)
`late matter (PM), and are composed of dry carbon (soot), inorganic oxides
`primaiily as sulfates, and liquids. When diesel fuel (Song et al. 2000) is burned,
`a portion of the sulfur is oxidized to sulfate that, upon reaction with the mois(cid:173)
`ture in the exhaust, becomes H2S04. The liquids are a combination of un(cid:173)
`burned diesel fuel and lubricating oils, called the soluble organic fi'actions
`(SOFs) or volatile organic fractions (VOFs), which form discrete aerosols and/
`or are adsorbed within the dry carbon particles (Zelenka et al. 1990). Gaseous
`hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide are the
`constituents that make up the third phase. Figure 8.1 gives a breakdown of
`diesel particulates from what would be considered a wet exhaust, specifically, a
`high liquid or SOF content.
`The SOF shown is 35% lube and 20% fuel for a total of 55%. Other engines
`may generate a dry exhaust in which the SOF is lower, where the balance is
`primarily dry carbon. Diesel emissions are clearly more complex than those from
`a gasoline engine, and hence their catalytic treatment is more complicated and
`requires new technology.
`The popularity of diesel engines is derived primarily from their fuel effi(cid:173)
`ciency relative to the gasoline spark-ignited engine. Diesels operate very lean of
`stoichiometric, with air: fuel ratios greater than about 22. They have good fuel
`economy, producing less C02. It is not uncommon for a diesel engine to have a
`life of l 111.lillon IT11ies, or about 10 times that of the gasoline e1lgi1le. The diesel
`fuel and air mixture is highly compressed raising the gas temperature to the
`point of combustion. Its lean nature results in a cooler combustion with less
`gaseous NOx, CO, and HC emissions than its gasoline counterpart. The design
`of the combustion process, however, result~ in high particulate emission levels.
`Engine manufacturers have made great progress in redesigning the engine (fuel
`injectors, timing, and so on) to minimize particulate emissions (Farrauto et al.
`1992a). The units of measurement for particulates are grams per brake-horse(cid:173)
`power generated in an hour, or g/(bhp·h). For example, in 1986, particulate
`emissions from a typical diesel truck engine were 0.6 g/(bhp·h). By 1990 man-
`
`186
`
`3
`
`

`
`8.1
`
`INTROD\_JCTION
`
`187
`
`Lube SOF
`35%
`
`Dry carbon or soot
`43%
`
`Fuel SOF
`20%
`
`Figure 8.1 Diesel particulate emission breakdown: pie chart showing components of
`diesel particulates.
`
`NewYork
`Non-freeway
`297 sec.
`
`[
`
`Los Angeles t
`
`Non-freeway
`300 sec.
`
`Normalized torque (%)
`
`Los Angeles
`Freeway
`305 sec.
`
`t
`
`New York
`Freeway
`297 sec.
`
`120
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`0
`
`'i
`
`11 I
`
`~I
`
`I '
`
`Ill
`
`200
`
`800
`
`1000
`
`1200
`
`~I I' i
`
`I
`
`600
`400
`Time (seconds)
`Figure 8.2 U.S. heavy-duty transient cycle for diesel trucks.
`
`ufacturers had redesigned the engine to reduce the particulates to 0.25 g/bhp·h.
`In the Uiiited States~ einissions are n1easiired over a siai1daidized Federal Test
`Procedure (FTP), a trace of which is shown in Figure 8.2.
`The FTP simulates U.S. truck driving conditions. The Clean Air Amend(cid:173)
`ment of 1990 required that by 1994 particulate emissions be reduced to 0.1 g/
`(bhp·h) for trucks and no greater than 0.07 g/(bhp·h) for buses. Catalysts were
`effectively used to bring engines into compliance with the standards (Neitz
`1991). During the late 1990s, the use of catalyst was curtailed since engine
`manufacturers made substantial progress in producing cleaner engines to meet
`the particulate emissions. However, the newer NOx and particulate regulations
`will need catalysts in 2002 to meet these requirements.
`
`lS
`lS
`lS(cid:173)
`nd
`
`~u­
`les
`~d,
`tlS-
`111-
`ms
`id/
`ms
`the
`of
`r, a
`
`nes
`;: lS
`om
`md
`
`::ffi-
`1 of
`fuel
`1e a
`es el
`the
`less
`sign
`rels.
`fuel
`t al.
`1rse(cid:173)
`Llate
`1an-
`
`4
`
`

`
`188
`
`DIESEL ENGINE EMISSIONS
`
`TABLE 8.1 Emission Regulations for U.S. Trucks
`
`HC
`NOx
`PM
`
`1994
`
`1.3
`5
`0.1
`
`1998
`
`1.3
`4
`0.1
`
`2003
`
`0.5
`2
`0.1
`
`2007
`
`0.5
`2
`0.01
`
`2009
`
`0.14
`0.2
`0.01
`
`2010
`
`0.14
`0.2
`0.01
`
`8.2 WORLDWIDE DIESEL EMISSION STANDARDS
`
`Diesel emission control is being addressed worldwide. In the United States,
`Europe, and Japan essentially all of the trucks and buses operate with diesel(cid:173)
`fueled engines. In Europe, the favorable price of diesel fuel relative to gasoline
`has resulted in a large number of diesel fueled passenger cars. Trucks are used
`to ship goods; buses to transport groups of people (usually within urban areas),
`and passenger cars are utilized for individual or small groups in both urban and
`rural locations. Consequently, the allowable emission standards differ for each
`application. Furthermore, the terrain in the United States, Japan, and Europe
`differ sufficiently that the test conditions must reflect local driving habits. Each
`vehicle must meet specific emission standards as measured in standardized
`driving cycles that reflect the duty cycle anticipated for the particular engine.
`Within the United States, a significant reduction in particulates for heavy(cid:173)
`duty trucks came in 1994: from 0.25 to 0.10 g/(bhp·h) (grams per brake horse(cid:173)
`power per hour), as measured during the U.S. heavy-duty (HD) FTP transient
`cycle. This test reflects a continuous measure of emissions during various
`speeds and loads in different U.S. cities, as shown in Figure 8.2. Each task re(cid:173)
`sults in a different exhaust temperature and flow condition. Thus the catalyst
`must convert the particulates over a broad range of conditions. The U.S. stan(cid:173)
`dards for HD trucks for HC, NOx, and PM remained unchanged up until 1998,
`after wlu~h a decrease in NOx from 5 to 4 g/(bhp·h) was required. Tlus is a
`significant challenge for which a catalyst solution is still currently under intense
`investigation. The catalyst must decompose or reduce NOx in diesel exhausts
`and other lean environments. Presently the engine control strategy of exhaust
`gas recycle (EGR) is being used to reduce the engine out NOx emissions. The
`emissions regulations for HD trucks out to the year 2010 in the units of
`g/(bhp:fif are- smnmarized in Table 8-.1. The years Inentioned show the k:ey
`changes in emission regulations for HC, NOx, and PM. PM reductions are ex(cid:173)
`pected to change dramatically in the year 2007, and this will require new tech(cid:173)
`nologies.
`Japanese standards for 1994, for trucks in a weight class above 1265 lb, re(cid:173)
`quired particulate emissions < 0.2 g/mi, which were be met by engine mod(cid:173)
`ifications alone and thus will not require catalysts. Proposed new standards are
`for both diesel passenger cars and trucks. The standards for passenger cars and
`trucks for the 2002/03 timeframe are shown in Table 8.2.
`
`5
`
`

`
`8.2 WORLDWIDE DIESEL EMISSION STANDARDS
`
`189
`
`TABLE8.2
`
`Emission Standards (2002/03) for Japanese Passenger Cars and Trucks
`
`Small Cars
`( < 1.25 tons)
`
`Medium Cars
`(> 1.25 tons)
`
`Small Trucks
`( < 1.7 tons)
`
`Medium Trucks
`(1. 7-2.5 tons)
`
`HC
`co
`NOx
`PM
`
`0.12
`0.63
`0.28
`0.052
`
`0.12
`0.63
`0.3
`0.056
`
`0.12
`0.63
`0.28
`0.052
`
`0.12
`0.63
`0.49
`0.06
`
`TABLE 8.3
`
`Emissions Standards (2005) for Japanese Passenger Cars
`
`Small Cars
`(<1.25 tons),
`2002
`
`Small Cars
`(> 1.25 tons),
`2005
`
`Medium Car
`(<l.25 tons),
`2002
`
`Medium Cars
`(>l.25 tons),
`2005
`
`HC
`co
`NOx
`PM
`
`0.12
`0.63
`0.28
`0.052
`
`0.06
`0.315
`0.14
`0.026
`
`0.12
`0.63
`0.3
`0.056
`
`0.06
`0.315
`0.15
`0.028
`
`TABLE 8.4 Japanese Heavy Duty Truck Standards for
`Various Years
`
`HC
`co
`NOx
`PM
`
`2000
`
`2.9
`7.4
`0.45
`0.25
`
`2003/04
`
`0.87
`2.22
`0.338
`0.18
`
`Standards for the year 2005 for passenger cars are shown in Table 8.3.
`The units for-Japai1ese passenger car a11d truck tegulatioi1S are given in
`g/lun. The HD truck regulations in Japan are shown in Table 8.4.
`In Europe, passenger cars must meet standards reflecting both urban (BCE)
`conditions and high-speed extra urban driving (EUDC). These cycles are shown
`as Figure 8.3a, b. The cycle A test combines the emissions from both the BCE
`and EUDC modes. The catalyst inlet temperatures are cool (200-250°C) for
`the BCE mode but increase to 300-550°C, depending on the engine, for the
`EUDC mode; therefore, the catalyst must function over a broad temperature
`range. For European heavy-duty truck applications, a 13-mode steady-state
`
`10
`
`L4
`2
`)1
`
`~s,
`~1-
`ne
`ed
`s),
`1d
`ch
`pe
`ch
`ed
`
`'Y-
`
`:nt
`us
`~e-
`1st
`.n(cid:173)
`)8,
`:a
`tse
`sts
`ist
`he
`of
`:ey
`~x-
`~h-
`
`re(cid:173)
`>d(cid:173)
`i.re
`nd
`
`6
`
`

`
`190
`
`DIESEL ENGINE EMISSIONS
`
`Speed (Km/hr)
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0+--'-~-'-~-',-~~~~-'---r-~"--~~~~~~--1--1
`50
`150
`200
`0
`100
`Time (seconds)
`(a)
`
`Speed (Km/hr)
`
`140.----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`
`120
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0+-~~.-~----.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-'-~~
`250
`200
`100
`50
`300
`0
`400
`150
`350
`
`Time (seconds)
`(b)
`Figure 8.3 European cycle A: (a) ECE 15 urban cycle (city driving); (b) EUDC extra
`urban driving cycle (highway driving).
`
`test with various loads/torques and speeds is utilized. This test puts emphasis
`on the high-temperature performance of the catalyst, reflecting high-load con(cid:173)
`ditions. At such high temperatures, minimum generation of sulfate by catalytic
`oxidation of gaseous S02 becomes the most demanding requirement. The Eu(cid:173)
`ropean emission regulations for passenger cars are shown in Table 8.5.
`The information in Table 8.5 reflects the years where there are changes in
`the emission regulations. The European regulations for HD trucks are shown in
`Table 8.6.
`
`7
`
`

`
`TABLE 8.5 Emission Standards to 2010 for European Passenger Cars
`
`8.3 NOx-PARTICULATE TRADEOFF
`
`191
`
`co
`HC+NOx
`PM
`
`1994
`
`2.88
`0.87
`0.14
`
`1996
`
`1.06
`0.63
`0.08
`
`2000
`
`0.64
`0.5
`0.05
`
`2005
`
`0.5
`0.25
`0.025
`
`TABLE 8.6 Emission Standards to 2010 for European Trucks
`
`HC
`co
`NOx
`PM
`
`1994
`
`1.1
`8
`4.5
`0.36
`
`1996
`
`1.1
`7
`4
`0.15
`
`2000
`
`0.66
`5
`2.1
`0.1
`
`2005
`
`0.46
`3.5
`1.5
`0.02
`
`2008
`
`0.5
`0.25
`0.025
`
`2008
`
`0.46
`2
`1.5
`0.02
`
`2010
`
`0.25
`0.125
`0.0125
`
`2010
`
`0.46
`2
`1.5
`0.02
`
`Emission units are given in g/kWh. Again, the information in Table 8.6 re(cid:173)
`flects the years where there are changes in the emission regulations.
`
`8.3 NOx-PARTICULATE TRADEOFF
`
`The control of particulate emissions and NOx represent significant challenges
`to the diesel engine manufacturer because they are coupled inversely. When the
`engine operates cooler, it produces less NOx but more particulate. At higher
`temperatures combustion is more complete, generating less particulate but
`more NOx. This is referred to as the NOx-particulate tradeoff; when one is high
`the other is low.
`A commonly engine management strategy to control NOx is exhaust gas re(cid:173)
`circulation (EGR). Part of the exhaust of 0 2 and enriched in H20 and C02, is
`recycled back to the combustion chamber. The presence of the H20 and C0 2
`reduces the average combustion temperature, limiting NOx production. This
`leads to greater particulate and especially dry soot formation and lower fuel
`economy.
`If a downstream NOx reduction system were discovered the engine could be
`operated without EGR and consequently much hotter minimizing particulates
`with the additional NOx reduced downstream. The other possibility is to use
`EGR, which decreases NOx formation, and treat the dry soot downstream
`provided a reduction technology were available.
`For this reason there has been an enormous amount of research and devel(cid:173)
`opment with the goal of finding catalyst technology, which, when located down(cid:173)
`stream from the combustion chamber, will reduce NOx and/or particulates.
`
`:tra
`
`LSlS
`)n(cid:173)
`rtic
`~u-
`
`' 111
`l 111
`
`·,.;-.
`
`'!:
`
`'f
`
`' . ~
`
`8
`
`

`
`f
`
`192
`
`DIESEL ENGINE EMISSIONS
`
`Since particulates are composed primarily of dry soot and SOF, the search for
`reduction technologies is threefold: (1) SOF, (2) dry soot, and (3) NOx.
`This chapter discusses progress in treating all three pollutants.
`
`8.4 ANALYTIC PROCEDURES
`
`Analysis of the diesel exhaust is much more complicated than that of the
`internal-combustion (IC) engine because of the three phases of pollutants pres(cid:173)
`ent (Cuthbertson and Shore 1988). The Federal Test Procedure defines "par(cid:173)
`ticulates" as matter that is collected on a filter at 52°C to condense SOF. The
`particulates are collected in a dilution tunnel, which cools the exhaust to the
`required temperature. Because of the hygroscopic nature of the sulfates, the filter
`must be further conditio'ned in a controlled atmosphere to equilibrate the water
`content. The unburned fuel and lubricating oil is extracted from the filter with
`methylene chloride, making it the soluble organic fraction (SOF). It is then in(cid:173)
`jected into a gas chromatograph (GC), where a capillary column separates the
`fuel from the lube fraction. In this manner, the effectiveness of the catalyst to(cid:173)
`wards converting each component of the SOF can be assessed. Some labo(cid:173)
`ratories volatilize the unburned fuel and lube directly from the filter into the
`GC. This gives a volatile organic fraction or VOF. The results are essentially
`equivalent to the SOF ni.ethod.
`Another portion of the conditioned filter is then extracted with water to dis(cid:173)
`solve the sulfate. The aqueous solution is then injected into an ion chromato(cid:173)
`graph for sulfate analysis. The dry carbon is obtained by difference, or in some
`cases can be subjected to the1111al analysis for a burnoff after the extraction
`steps, to complete the material balance.
`
`8.5 DIESEL OXIDATION CATALYST FOR TREATING SOF
`PORTION OF PARTICULATES
`
`Unlike those of gasoline engines, diesel gaseous HC and CO emissions are rel(cid:173)
`atively low, so they did not need to be reduced to meet the 1994 U.S. truck
`standards. Thus, the problem was to reduce the particulates. The dry carbon
`engine_ out emissions can be reduced by engjne modification, but this causes an
`increase in SOF. One approach to meet emission requirements was to have the
`catalyst oxidize the SOF (which represents up to about 65% of the particulate),
`thereby greatly reducing the total particulates emitted (Porter et al. 1991).
`The engine-out particulate sulfate emissions have been reduced by decreas(cid:173)
`ing the fuel sulfur content from the pre-1994 value of 0.2-0.3% to the 1994
`value of 0.05%. These alone account for a drop of from 0.005 to 0.01 g/bhp·h
`of particulates as sulphate.
`A combination of reduced fuel sulfur, the presence of a catalyst to reduce
`the SOF, and engine modifications to decrease the dry carbon emitted would
`
`9
`
`

`
`8.5 DIESEL OXIDATION CATALYST FOR TREATING SOF PORTION
`
`193
`
`bring U.S. trucks into compliance with standards for 1994 (Farrauto et al.
`1992a), provided suitable catalysts could be developed.
`
`8.5.1 Catalytic Oxidation of the SOF
`
`The manufacturers of trucks sold in the United States preferred a flowthrough
`monolithic honeycomb catalyst structurally similar to that used in the gasoline
`engine. Given the composition of the diesel exhaust and the particulate reduc(cid:173)
`tions required, new and different catalyst formulations would be necessary. The
`general idea was for the catalyst to oxidize the SOF without oxidizing the S0 2
`to sulfate. For such a system to function, the dry soot had to be further reduced
`to eliminate plugging of the channels of the monolith. The engine design pa(cid:173)
`rameters that had to be modified to allow for reduction in the dry soot resulted
`in an increase in the SOF, which could then be oxidized by the catalyst.
`The cool operating condition of the engine requires that the catalyst first
`adsorb and retain the SOF at low temperatures (i.e., idle), followed by its
`combustion as the exhaust temperature reaches lightoff (i.e., 200-250°C):
`
`(8.1)
`
`Catalyst design required an organophilic surface to enhance SOF adsorption
`at low temperatures. The surface area and pore size also had to be optimized
`to enhance condensation and maintain a high adsorption capacity for the low
`temperature idle conditions. The SOF would then volatilize and catalytically
`oxidize as the exhaust temperature heated up (Voss et al. 1994b).
`An extremely important catalytic property was low activity towards the ox(cid:173)
`idation of the gaseous S02 to S03, the latter that quickly forms sulfate partic:.
`ulates after reaction with H20:
`
`,.J:
`~'.
`
`(8.2)
`
`This was quite challenging because catalysts with high activity for oxidizing the
`SOF would also enhance S0 2 conversion. Thus, a highly selective catalyst was
`required.
`Catalysts containing precious metal such as Pt and Pd were considered the
`most likely candidates because they do have good low-temperature activity for
`hydrocarbon conversions. However, they are also very active for the S0 2 oxi(cid:173)
`dafiOn reaction. In oi1e catalyst the additioi1 ofV20 5 was fouiid fo suppre-ss the
`activity of the Pt for the S0 2 conversion reaction without diminishing the rate
`of the SOF oxidation reaction (Beckmann et al. 1992; Domesle et al. 1992;
`Wyatt et al. 1993).
`Another approach utilized Pd as the catalytic metal because its intrinsic S02
`activity is generally lower than that of Pt but still has reasonable SOF activity
`(Horiuchi et al. 1991). Still another approach was to completely eliminate the
`use of precious metals and to rely on base metal oxides to catalytically oxidize
`the SOF (Farrauto et al. 1993) without oxidizing the S02 .
`
`or
`
`he
`~s-
`
`lr(cid:173)
`he
`he
`:er
`:er
`;th
`m(cid:173)
`he
`:o(cid:173)
`)0-
`he
`lly
`
`.lS(cid:173)
`to-
`11e
`on
`
`·el(cid:173)
`LCk
`ion
`an
`! the
`. :e),
`
`as(cid:173)
`>94
`p·h
`
`LlCe
`uld
`
`10
`
`

`
`194
`
`DIESEL ENGINE EMISSIONS
`
`Mass emissions (g/BHP-hr)
`I rncarbon m!SOF DS03+H20 I
`
`0.14
`
`0.12
`
`0.1
`
`0.08
`
`0.06
`
`0.04
`
`0.02
`
`0
`
`5.9 BASE 5 Pt
`
`40 Pt
`
`10.3 BASE 5 Pt
`
`40 Pt
`
`5.9 L Engine, Maximum T = 300°c
`10.3 L Engine, Maximum T= 475°C
`
`Figure 8.4 Particulate emissions exiting from two different engines and two different
`catalysts.
`
`Although catalysts with reduced activity for the S02 ---+ S03 reaction were
`found, catalytic generation of sulfate was still a major contributor to partic(cid:173)
`ulates at temperatures in excess of ""400°C. Since some S03 was inevitable and
`Al203 washcoated catalysts deactivate due to formation of Ah(S04)3, alterna(cid:173)
`tive carrier materials had to be used. Titanium oxide (Beckmann et al. 1992;
`Domesle et al. 1992), silicon dioxide (Ball and Stack 1990), and zirconium ox(cid:173)
`ide (Horiuchi et al. 1991) are sufficiently inactive towards reaction with S03
`and thus could be used as carriers for the Pt and/ or Pd metals. They could also
`be prepared with the proper pore size to adsorb the SOF at low temperatures.
`The U.S. heavy-duty FTP test simulates the driving cycle of a diesel truck,
`including idle/low-load to high-speed/high-load conditions. The composition
`and temperature of the exhaust depend on the type of engine. This, in turn,
`influences the function of the catalyst. For example, a 10.3-liter engine has a
`particulate composition composed of 30% SOF, whereas the SOF represents
`40% of the particulates in a 5.9-liter engine. The temperature histograms ge~1-:­
`erated during the U.S. FTP test show the exhaust from the 10.3-liter engine
`to operate up to 475°C, whereas the smaller (5.9-liter) engine never exceeds
`300°C. The performance of the catalyst would have to be much different for
`treating the exhausts from these two engines. To illustrate the importance of
`matching the catalyst performance with the exhaust characteristics, Figure 8.4
`compares two platinum containing catalysts installed in the exhausts of the
`10.3- and 5.9-liter engines.
`A completely alternative approach was taken by (Farrauto et al. 1993; Far(cid:173)
`rauto and Voss 1996) when they discovered that a specially activated Ce02
`
`11
`
`

`
`8.5 DIESEL OXIDATION CATALYST FOR TREATING SOF PORTION
`
`195
`
`when physically blended with y-Alz03 (50: 50 wt%) produced a highly active
`catalyst for the SOF conversion. The mechanism proposed by the authors was
`that the SOF was adsorbed into the pore structure of the catalyst during cold
`( <200°C) operation. When the engine exhaust exceeded 200°C, the SOP volat(cid:173)
`ized and catalytically converted on the Ce0 2 component to C02 and H20.
`Greater detail is available in the literature (Farrauto and Voss 1996). Traces of
`CO were produced so a small amount of Pt (0.5 g/ft3) was added to complete
`the oxidation of the CO and any residual hydrocarbon. Surprisingly, when the
`Pt was deposited on the Ce0 2 directly, it further decreased the oxidation of
`S0 2 (Farrauto et al. 1993). A version of this catalyst on a monolith is still used
`today on medium-duty trucks and buses throughout the world.
`
`8.5.2 Commercial Diesel Oxidation Catalysts for Trucks
`
`The catalysts used on U.S. trucks are monolithic honeycomb structures of cor(cid:173)
`dierite with 200-400 cells per square inch (cpsi). The catalyzed washcoat is de(cid:173)
`posited onto the walls of each channel at a loading of about 2 g/in 3 and is
`typically no more than ""40-80 µm in the thickest locations (corners or fillets)
`on the monolith. The first-generation Engelhard catalyst is composed of ""50%
`catalytically active Ce0 2 in combination with an equal amount of y-Alz03 with
`small amounts of Pt (0.5-2 g/ft3) for truck and bus applications in the United
`States and Europe (Farrauto et al. 1993; Farrauto et al. 1995) and (Farrauto
`and Voss 1996). A joint venture between Nippon Shokubai and Degussa (now
`DMC2) promoted the use of a combination of Pd (40 g/ft3) supported on zir(cid:173)
`conia with various promoter oxides such as the rare earths for trucks (Horiuchi
`et al. 1991).
`The catalyst volume as a general rule equals the displacement volume of the
`engine. Therefore, a 6-liter medium-duty truck engine has about 6 liters of cat(cid:173)
`alyst. The catalyst is contained in a steel can with a mounting material made of
`a ceramic wrapped around its outside diameter to ensure mechanical integrity
`and resistance to vibration (Clerc et al. 1993). Space velocities vary between
`""20,000 and ""250,000 h- 1, depending on the duty cycle of the vehicle. Cata(cid:173)
`lyst diameters are 7-10 in. (17.78-25.40 cm), with lengths of 5-7 in. (12.7-
`17.18 cm) for trucks.
`Two studies by the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association
`_(MECA) sh,o\V the performa11ce of tl1e curren_t c;qn1111t::r~ially availe.ble tech(cid:173)
`nologies for DOC application for trucks. The importance of fuel sulfur was
`also mentioned in these studies. Although this study did not reveal the compo(cid:173)
`sition or the suppliers of the DOCs evaluated, the perfom1ance can be viewed
`in reference to the new emission regulations (MECA 1999a,b). Following are
`the conclusions from these studies:
`
`· The test program demonstrated that advanced exhaust emission control
`technology can be used to meet the program targets of a 0.03 g/(bhp·h)
`PM emission level combined with a 1.5 NOx + HC emission level for stan-
`
`.·1 ••
`
`ent
`
`ere
`tic-
`md
`na-
`92;
`ox-
`;03
`Llso
`~s.
`LCk,
`. :10n
`1 irn,
`LS a
`~nts
`ren-
`' . --
`sllle
`~eds
`for
`~ of
`8.4
`the
`
`--
`
`Far-
`e02
`
`12
`
`

`
`196
`
`DIESEL ENGINE EMISSIONS
`
`dard no. 2 diesel fuel (368 ppm) and a 0.01-g/(bhp·h) PM emission level
`combined with a 1.5 NOx + HC emission level for lower sulfur no. 2 diesel
`fuel (54 ppm)
`• Commercially available diesel oxidation catalysts significantly reduced hy(cid:173)
`drocarbon, carbon monoxide, and particulate emissions from a diesel en(cid:173)
`gine over the heavy-duty engine FTP and off-cycle test points. Optimized
`catalyst systems can achieve emission reductions in excess of 35% for PM
`and 70% for HC and CO.
`· Diesel oxidation catalysts enable a current heavy-duty engine using stan(cid:173)
`dard no. 2 diesel fuel (368 ppm) to meet a particulate emission level of
`0.05 g/(bhp·h).
`• Diesel oxidation catalysts enable a current heavy-duty engine using 54
`ppm sulfur no. 2 diesel fuel to meet a particulate emission level of 0.046
`g/(bhp·h).
`• Diesel oxidation catalysts reduce toxic compounds in diesel exhaust, such
`as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, by an average of approximately 55% using
`standard no. 2 diesel fuel (368 ppm sulfur).
`• Reducing the sulfur content in the fuel from. 54 ppm to zero improved the
`performance of the catalyst.
`· Fuel sulfur restricts catalyst technology, due to the conversion of sulfur
`dioxide to sulfate at high exhaust temperatures. Gas-phase and SOF emis(cid:173)
`sion reductions are directly related to the catalyst activity. Highly active
`gas-phase catalysts will make a significant amount of sulfate over the FTP.
`While catalyst formulations can be designed to provide significant HC,
`CO, and PM control, utilizing low sulfur fuel increases the opportunity to
`use formulations which can achieve even greater HC, CO, and PM con(cid:173)
`trol.
`
`In 1999 most truck manufactures in the United States engineered the diesel
`oxidation catalyst off the exhaust system, with the exceptional of some fleets in
`California. However, it is expected that they will be reinstalled in 2002 because
`of more stringent emissions. Compositions and designs of the catalysts are con(cid:173)
`tilmously being modified as the emission standards become more severe and
`engine control technology more advanced.
`
`8.6 CATALYTIC REDUCTION OF EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL
`PASSENGER CARS
`
`. 8.6.l . The European Cycle
`
`An added benefit of the catalytic. treatment for reduction of SOF is the con(cid:173)
`version of the small quantities of unbu111ed gaseous HC and CO. Although the
`truck engine-out gaseous emissions are well within the standards in the United
`
`13
`
`

`
`8.6 CATALYTIC REDUCTION OF EMISSIONS
`
`197
`
`Mass Emissions (g/km)
`..................................... 1 .. E?.l!~ .... ~g.?. .... ~.~.~.~i.?.~.1~~.~1 .............................................................. .
`
`/ /
`
`Base
`
`2 Pt
`
`20 Pt
`European Cycle A
`2 Litre Engine, Max. T = 42o0c
`
`20 Pt+ I
`
`0.4
`
`0.3
`
`0.3
`
`0.2
`
`0.2
`
`0.1
`
`0.1
`
`0
`
`Figure 8.5 Passenger car particulates and gas-phase emissions using Pt-containing cat(cid:173)
`alysts for European cycle A. Catalyst 20 Pt+ I (Inhibitor) generates less particulate
`(sulfate) than does 20 Pt without inhibitor.
`
`States, their removal further cleans the exhaust. Furthermore, unburned or(cid:173)
`ganics are often odor-bearing aldehydes, benzopyrenes, ketones, butadienes,
`and so on. Hence their removal improves the quality of the exhaust. This is es(cid:173)
`pecially important for European diesel passenger car applications where stan(cid:173)
`dards require some reduction of the gaseous emissions by the catalyst. For
`passenger cars the standards are expressed in g/km.
`The European cycle A, shown in Figure 8.3, embraces the cool urban driv(cid:173)
`ing portion, called ECE, where the catalyst inlet temperature typically is below
`200°C, reflecting slow-moving traffic. During these cool conditions odors
`caused by partially oxidized hydrocarbons are generated. Odor reduction can
`be achieved by increasing the concentration of Pt in the catalyst as well as by
`incorporating hydrocarbon trapping materials in the formulation (see Section
`8.6.2). In the second portion of the test, reflecting high-speed highway driving
`and called EUDC, the maximum inlet temperature to the catalyst typically
`rises above 350°C.
`
`------ 8.6.2 Catalysts for Passenger Cars -
`
`The effectiveness of increasing amounts of Pt for converting HC and CO is
`clear from Figure 8.5.
`The catalyst designated 2 Pt contains 2 g/ft 3 of Pt supported on high-sur(cid:173)
`face-area Si02 . The 20 Pt catalyst contains 20 g/ft3 of Pt on the same carrier
`and shows the largest reduction in HC and CO emissions. The engine-out par(cid:173)
`ticulates of 0.15 g/km are composed of rv40% SOF; and the balance, dry car(cid:173)
`bon and traces of sulfate. A conversion of 100% of the SOF results in a 40%
`conversion of the particulates provided no additional sulfate is formed. The
`
`el
`. el
`
`y(cid:173)
`n-
`~d
`M
`
`.n(cid:173)
`of
`
`54
`46
`
`.ch
`ng
`
`che
`
`fur
`11s-
`1ve
`rP.
`IC,
`r to
`on-
`
`~sel
`s 111
`.use
`:on(cid:173)
`and
`
`:.;on(cid:173)
`L the
`tited
`
`14
`
`

`
`198
`
`DIESEL ENGINE EMISSIONS
`
`particulate emissions exiting from the 20 Pt catalyst are actually higher than the
`base emissions with no catalyst, due to formation of sulfate. This illustrates the
`issue of selectivity. The approach initially taken was to use high concentrations
`of Pt or Pd with added promoters, designated as I, to inhibit sulfate formation.
`The effectiveness of this approach is shown in the final data set in Figure 8.5, in
`which 20 Pt+ I is shown to control particulate make (i.e., sulfate make, relative
`to 20 Pt) while still reducing HC and CO. Inhibitors such as vanadium (Beck(cid:173)
`mann et al. 1992; Domesle et al. 1992) and rhodium (Fukano et al. 1993) have
`been shown to be effective in controlling sulfate make at high temperatures.
`The literature reports that the early Degussa (now DMC2
`) catalyst was com(cid:173)
`posed of combinations of Pt (20-60 g/ft 3), 3-10% V2 0 3 , and the balance Ti0 2
`(Beckmann et al. 1992; Domesle et al. 1992), Johnson-Matthey is believed to
`be using a variation of Pt and vanadia for selected applications (Wyatt et al.
`1993).
`Sulfate make was not a major problem during the ECE or cooler urban
`driving cycle, but the CO and hydrocarbon emissions were. In particular, the
`odors generated from the partially oxidized hydrocarbons were unacceptable,
`especially in an urban environment. To address this issue, Yavuz and his asso(cid:173)
`ciates in the 1990s (Yavuz et al. 2001) added specially treated zeolites to the
`catalyst that acted as traps adsorbing the hydrocarbons at low temperatures.
`As the exhaust temperature increased, the hydrocarbons desorbed and were
`oxidized on the Pt function of the catalyst. One typical catalyst was composed
`of Pt on Ce0 2 admixed with a zeolite such as beta, mordenite, and ZSM-5 all
`deposited on a monolith. The Ce0 2 functioned to oxidize the SOF while the Pt
`oxidized the CO and hydrocarbons released from the zeolite. A fom1 of this
`technology is still in use today, but improvements are always being made to
`improve the low-temperature performance (or lightoff) of the catalyst for CO
`and hydrocarbon oxidation, using a zeolite function for HC trapping (Standt
`and Konig 199 5).
`Typically the diesel oxidation catalyst is 3 x 5 in. or 4.66 x 3-6 in. long.
`They are housed in metallic exhaust systems similar to the gasoline catalyst.
`As we move into the new millennium, the movement to low-sulfur fuel will
`continue to provide more opp

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket