DPF's

[grober]

I moved this from another thread about PCS.
I have kept quiet on this issue for some time but I guess its time to address it.

REMOVING THE DIESEL PARTICULATE FILTER FROM YOUR CAR IS A SOCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE ACT. Despite all the gainsayers comments on this ---by removing the diesel particulate filter from your car you will almost certainly going to damage the health of others particularly children in an urban environment. Diesel Particulate Matter | Air Toxics in New England | US EPA The excuse that "its only me" doesn't wash since if everyone did this it totally defeats the purpose of the legislation which is designed to apply to all vehicles since to be effective it must be ubiquitously applied. At least in that respect its democratic. It's undoubtedly a poorly implemented system and causes a lot of heartache to car owners. This should not detract from the purpose of such systems which is based on sound medical evidence. This issue has been surrounded by poor legislation, as has been said, where emphasis has been placed on achieving certain limits but has not addressed the practical implementation and maintenance of such systems in the longer term. Rather than "opt out" of this poorly implemented system by removing the offending DPF's, I would rather see forum members campaigning for improvements to the legislation surrounding this issue. Rest assured the " window of opportunity" for people retrospectively removing their DPF's or catalytic converter from their car is going to disappear very soon as legislators become aware of people trying to circumvent what is basically sensible in principle and tighten vehicle inspection.
I would approach the problem in a different way. A manufacturer fits a anti pollution device to a car to meet legislation be it a DPF or a Catalytic Convertor together with associated electronic monitoring and control electronics [ usually the Engine ECU] The responsibility for the maintenance of said system SHOULD REMAIN WITH THE MANUFACTURER for a reasonable period of time ---say ten years. Result would be similar to the following -------- DPF blocked = regenerated/REPAIRED FOC by the manufacturer. Catalytic converter fails other than by gross negligence/misfuelling = repaired /replaced FOC by the manufacturer. Expect then almost immediate improvements in catalytic converter and DPF technologies and maintenance . Where people are justifiably aggrieved is where legislation forces regulation on consumers but then allows free market forces to hold sway in its implementation--- which of course many see as simply a way to extract more money from their customers.
So don't knock DPF's they are a good idea poorly implemented.

 

[nick mercedes]

I moved this from another thread about PCS.
I have kept quiet on this issue for some time but I guess its time to address it.

I thought the new MOT regs mean that anything missing it's cats or DPF will fail anyway?

 

[crockers]

I note you drive a petrol car.

 

[martyz]

"Hollowing" out catalytic converters is equally as bad,as is de-cat pipes til MOT.

 

[st4]

In actual fact, diesels emit more particulate matter by MASS. These are therefore in the PM10 bracket and the mucas in the nasal passage prevents this passing to the blood stream.

A petrol car on the other hand, emits less particulate matter, but the stuff that comes out lies in the PM2.5 bracket which is more harmful to human health as it can pass directly through the nasal passages and into human blood.

Removing a DPF will do **** all to the well being of humans, and will allow the car to use less fuel and reduce the CO2.

DPF removal should be actively encouraged.

 

[grober]

It's a hugely complex subject and size distribution measurement is often influenced by the measurement techniques employed. e.g. http://www.me.umn.edu/centers/cdr/reports/EPAreport3.pdf And you have to ask why would the EEC put such large environmental constraints on its present very shaky economic development if there wasn't pretty sound evidence for deleterious health effects from particulates for its citizens. Of course the "emerging economies" of the world are largely unencumbered by such legislation but there are lots of questions to be asked about their governments' ultimate concern for the welfare of the majority of their citizens.

 

[rascalmaster]

so... you swapping to a diesel then, Graeme? lol

 

[st4]

I'd love to put straight through pipes in my V6CDi, remove EGR. Reckon there would be near brabus D6 performance without the unreliablity associated with emissions control regs. Odd bit of black smoke but is it worse than these stinky buses that take 1 or 2 people at a time through the centre of Glasgow as they are too fat to walk.

 

[Dieselman]

In actual fact, diesels emit more particulate matter by MASS. These are therefore in the PM10 bracket and the mucas in the nasal passage prevents this passing to the blood stream.

A petrol car on the other hand, emits less particulate matter, but the stuff that comes out lies in the PM2.5 bracket which is more harmful to human health as it can pass directly through the nasal passages and into human blood.

Removing a DPF will do **** all to the well being of humans, and will allow the car to use less fuel and reduce the CO2.

DPF removal should be actively encouraged.

And you have to ask why would the EEC put such large environmental constraints on its present very shaky economic development if there wasn't pretty sound evidence for deleterious health effects from particulates for its citizens.

Politicians the world over are governed by pressure groups and hysteria.
The EU introduced Catalytic converters based on 1970 USA reports. people forget that Cats just convert local toxic gasses into Co2, but need fuel to do this, so actually cause more fuel to be consumed so even more Co2 to be produced.

Afaik, there is no record of diesel particulates causing health issues, even after a 50 year study by the World Health organisation.

*** is correct, Diesels emit more particulates by mass due to them being larger PM10, but petrols emit more by volume because they are PM2.5 and smaller, which will pass through the lung wall into the bloodstream.

The issue with particulates is blood thickening.

I would be very wary of any USA papers as last I knew the long term study they are all based on, which did show health deterioration of elderly, infirmed and ill people on high particulate days, was carried out in a town where there were no diesel engined vehicles, even the busses were petrol.

 

[grober]

Politicians the world over are governed by pressure groups and hysteria.

And you think that the the transport industry , oil companies and car manufacturers don't have hugely efficient lobbying organisations too, together with lots of angry politically motivated car owners who see any form of regulation as some sort of threat to their freedom??

The EU introduced Catalytic converters based on 1970 USA reports. people forget that Cats just convert local toxic gasses into Co2, but need fuel to do this, so actually cause more fuel to be consumed so even more Co2 to be produced.
Mmm --- CO2 ----or Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulphur , unburnt aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons Hydrogen sulphide etc etc its a toughie?

Afaik, there is no record of diesel particulates causing health issues, even after a 50 year study by the World Health organisation.
Took me all of 2 minutes to find this http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/ehc/en/229_part_IV.pdf and this is before considering any generalised micro-climatic effects---- remember the SMOG associated with London and latterly of Los Angeles Smog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

*** is correct, Diesels emit more particulates by mass due to them being larger PM10, but petrols emit more by volume because they are PM2.5 and smaller, which will pass through the lung wall into the bloodstream.
Many of the carcinogenic effects associated with diesel particulates are associated with the PAH's that are adsorbed on the particulate surfaces and thus independent of size being of molecular dimensions

The issue with particulates is blood thickening.
I would be very wary of any USA papers as last I knew the long term study they are all based on, which did show health deterioration of elderly, infirmed and ill people on high particulate days, was carried out in a town where there were no diesel engined vehicles, even the busses were petrol.

I very much doubt that all the EPA papers on particulates are based on one flawed survey ----published scientific work simply does work that way. For any one researcher postulating a theory there are 5 others ready to tear it down if it doesn't stand scrutiny by peer review.

 

[Dieselman]

Mmm --- CO2 ----or Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulphur , unburnt aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons Hydrogen sulphide etc etc its a toughie?
Not much Sulpher left in road fuel now.


remember the SMOG associated with London and latterly of Los Angeles .

SMOG in British Cities was due to coal fires and industrial pollution and was completely stopped as a result of the clean air act a long time ago. It has nothing to do with diesel particulates.
Your point about Los Angeles proves the point. How many diesel vehicles are there in Los Angeles...NONE.


Many of the carcinogenic effects associated with diesel particulates are associated
What carconagenic effects have been proven to be a result of diesel particulates. petrol output contains many more noxious substances, which are more readily absorbed.

 

[markjay]

...if everyone did this it totally defeats the purpose of the legislation which is designed to apply to all vehicles since to be effective it must be ubiquitously applied...

How is DPF related to legislation?

 

[st4]

How is DPF related to legislation?

EU5 and EU6 regulations relating to particulate matter by mass will mean they'll be needed to meet these, unless fuel is made a lot cleaner.

 

[markjay]

EU5 and EU6 regulations relating to particulate matter by mass will mean they'll be needed to meet these, unless fuel is made a lot cleaner.

I am assuming that EU5 and EU6 relate to particulate emissions in general, but do not stipulate DPF, i.e. it is down to car manufacturers to decide what technologies they use to meet the new emissions requirements?

 

[st4]

I am assuming that EU5 and EU6 relate to particulate emissions in general, but do not stipulate DPF, i.e. it is down to car manufacturers to decide what technologies they use to meet the new emissions requirements?

And since EU5 no manufacturer has come up with a solution. EU4 could be met without a DPF. EU5 and 6 no.

Its a bit like me saying to you, climb Mt Everest in three days, lets debate whether you should take a pair of walking boots or should you attempt the treck in your loafers. You might be able to do it, but no one has ever done it for its nigh on impossible.

 

[markjay]

...a helicopter?

 

[wemorgan]

Nice analogy Steve. I've seen people at the summit of Ben Nevis in jeans and trainers, whilst I was in full winter mountain gear. Who was the fool on that day - me for spending ££££ on kit or them for experiencing the same views as I did having gone to Primark that morning?

The view

ps. yes I know this has nothing to do with DPF - just thought I'd chip in anyway

 

[Dieselman]

Nice analogy Steve. I've seen people at the summit of Ben Nevis in jeans and trainers, whilst I was in full winter mountain gear. Who was the fool on that day - me for spending ££££ on kit or them for experiencing the same views as I did having gone to Primark that morning?

I took a trip up Nevis in shorts, T-shirt, fleece and boots. It was a scorching day and ran out of water, having to refill form the stream on the way back down.

When I got to the top my hands turned blue...

The average daily temperature at the top of Nevis, taken every day for 20 years is....0.7c.

 

[grober]

Not much Sulphur left in road fuel now.--- why would the oil companies bother removing it? -- to meet environmental regs i.e. avoid poisoning catalytic converters among other things


remember the SMOG associated with London and latterly of Los Angeles .

SMOG has nothing to do with diesel particulates.

It has everything to do with a history of the uncontrolled release particulates of whatever size generated by the combustion of hydrocarbons which increasingly today includes vehicle engines.


Your point about Los Angeles proves the point. How many diesel vehicles are there in Los Angeles...NONE.

but there were huge number of petrol vehicles back then inthe 70s with no catalytic converters producing many more particulates than now - while back then the predominant fuel was petrol that's not the case in recent years particularly wrt commercial vehicles. The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles





What carcinogenic effects have been proven to be a result of diesel particulates. petrol output contains many more noxious substances, which are more readily absorbed.[/QUOTE]

As I tried to explain the particulate matter acts as a concentration vector for adsorbed poly-aromatic hydrocarbons PAH's You breath in the particulates which then desorb the molecules of these carcinogenic substances on to the surface of the lungs where they can be absorbed into the bloodstream. Its almost impossible to prove a direct mechanistic link of a potential carcinogenic chemical to subsequent disease in humans. Its mainly derived from animal analogue experiments and Epidemiological evidence. Most chemical effects involve the damage of DNA causing mutation in the cell. There are built in repair mechanisms but if they fail uncontrolled cell proliferation can occur leading tumour formation which eventually leads to organ disfunction and death. This can happen years later to exposure and makes proving causative links very difficult. In the end it comes down to evidence based probability rather than a definitive answer. It was the basis for establishing the causative link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer which of course some people still don't believe. Funnily enough this also involves the inhalation of combustion particulate vectors albeit in rather more concentrated form.

 

[Dieselman]

As I tried to explain the particulate matter acts as a concentration vector for adsorbed poly-aromatic hydrocarbons PAH's You breath in the particulates which then desorb the molecules of these carcinogenic substances on to the surface of the lungs where they can be absorbed into the bloodstream.
Its almost impossible to prove a direct mechanistic link of a potential carcinogenic chemical to subsequent disease in humans. Its mainly derived from animal analogue experiments and Epidemiological evidence.

It as already been commented that larger PM10 don't pass through the lung wall, so diesel particulates are unlikely to transmit much of these pollutants.

Animal experiments have been carried out, but the smoke concentration is far higher than real life.