Emission Control Science and Technology

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 103–112 | Cite as

Comparison of Full Flow Dilution, Partial Flow Dilution, and Raw Exhaust Particle Number Measurements

  • M. Yusuf Khan
  • Sagar Sharma
  • Chet Mun Liew
  • Abhay Joshi
  • Daniel Barnes
  • Nathan Scott
  • Benjamin Mensen
  • Tanfeng Cao
  • Yang Li
  • Shirish A. Shimpi
  • Montajir Rahman


The European regulations for heavy-duty engines allow full flow and partial flow dilution particle number (PN) measurements. This study focuses on the comparison of PN measurements from full flow systems (CVS) and partial flow dilution systems (PFDS), as well as from undiluted (RAW) exhaust. The impact of measurement location on PN count was evaluated on four engines in different test cells with the use of advanced AVL particle counter (APC) 489 and a Horiba MEXA -2100 solid particle counting system (SPCS). The APCs were used to measure diluted exhaust either from the CVS tunnel or from the PFDS, whereas SPCS was used to measure from either RAW exhaust or CVS tunnel. The SPCS used an additional direct sampling unit (DSU) for RAW measurements. The particle concentration reduction factor (PCRF) of 1000 was selected for all APC units, whereas SPCS PCRF was changed depending upon measurement location to ensure condensation particle counter (CPC) concentration remains within 10,000 particles/cm3. The insignificant differences in RAW PN measurements were found when PCRF settings of 2180, 11883, and 23990 were selected. The repeatability of APC at PFDS, determined from the engine without DPF, was within 2%, as expected. Similarly, repeatability of SPCS varied between 0.4 and 3.2% when RAW measurements were taken at engine-out (EO) and system-out (SO) locations. At the brake-specific PN (BSPN) level of 1013, the CVS, PFDS, and RAW were within ~ 13%. At the BSPN level of 1011, the RAW measurements were 7.9 ± 13.7% higher than CVS. Overall, on an average, the RAW PN measurements were within ± 15% of the reference measurement locations.


Particle number APC SPCS Dilution sampling unit Particle concentration reduction factor Percent difference 



AVL particle counter


brake-specific particle number


coefficient of variation


condensation particle counter


constant volume sampler


diesel exhaust fluid


dilution factor


diesel oxidation catalyst


diesel particulate filter


direct sampling unit


engine out


federal test procedure


manual steady state


non-road transient cycle


particle concentration reduction factor


partial flow dilution system


particulate matter


particle measurement programme


particle number


first stage of dilution


secondary dilution


ramped modal cycle


raw transient emissions


selective catalyst reduction


system out


solid particle counting system


world harmonized transient cycle


wide range continuous diluter



Authors would like to acknowledge Rohit Umrani and Himanshu Kapoor from Cummins Inc. for allowing the use of their test cells for PN measurements and Dave Munday from Horiba Automotive Test Systems for providing Horiba MEXA -2100 SPCS unit for demonstration at Cummins Technical Center, Columbus, IN, USA.


  1. 1.
    Ferin, J., Oberdorster, G., Penny, D.: Pulmonary retention of ultrafine and fine particles in rats. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Bio. 6, 535–542 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seaton, A., Tran, L., Aitken, R., Donaldson, K.: Safety of nano-materials interdisciplinary research centre nanoparticles, human health hazard and regulation. J. R. Soc. Interface. 7, S119–S129 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oberdorster, G., Utell, M.J.: Ultrafine particles in the urban air: to the respiratory tract-and beyond? Health Perspect. 110, A440–A441 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Furuta, C., Noda, S., Li, C., Suzuki, A., et al.: Nitrophenols isolated from diesel exhaust particles regulate steroidogenic gene expression and steroid synthesis in the human H295R adrenocortical cell line. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 229, 109–120 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer “IARC: DIESEL ENGINE EXHAUST CARCINOGENIC”, IARC Press Release N213, (2012)
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Shinozaki, O., Shinoyama, E., and Saito, K.: Trapping performance of diesel particulate filters. SAE Technical Paper 900107 (1990).
  10. 10.
    Kitagawa, J., Asami, S., Uehara, K., and Hijikata, T.: Improvement of pore size distribution of wall flow type diesel particulate filter. SAE Technical Paper 920144 (1992).
  11. 11.
    May, J., Bosteels, D., Nichol, A., Andersson, J., and Such, C.: The application of emissions control technologies to a low-emissions engine to evaluate the capabilities of future systems for European and world-harmonised regulations, 16. Aachener Kolloquium Fahrzeug- und Motorentechnik, (2007). Retrieved from
  12. 12.
    Andersson, J., Mamakos, T., Martini, G., Giechaskiel, B.: Particle measurement programme (PMP) heavy-duty interlaboratory correlation exercise (ILCE_HD) final report. (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Otsuki, Y., Shinohara, M., and Asano, I.: Evaluation of exhaust particle emissions from a DI diesel engine using a solid particle counting system with direct sampling unit. SAE Technical Paper 2011–01-2057 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khan, M.Y., Shimpi, S.A. & Martin, W.T.: Emiss. Control Sci. Technol. 1, 298.
  15. 15.
    Asano, I., et al.: Development of solid particle measurement system for engine exhaust emission. Trans. Soc. Automotive Eng. Japan. 30(3), 43–48 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Asano, I., et al.: Investigation of soot emission behavior using a solid particle counting system. 2007 JSAE Annual Congress (Fall) Proceedings, pp. 13–16. No.115–07 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kusaka, T., et al.: Real time solid particle counting system MEXA-1000SPCS. HORIBA Readout, pp. 50–59, English Edition No.13 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giechaskiel, B., Mamakos, A., Andersson, J., Dilara, P., Martini, G., Schindler, W., Bergmann, A.: Measurement of automotive nonvolatile particle number emissions within the European legislative framework: a review. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 46(7), 719–749 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giechaskiel, B., Carriero, M., Martini, G., Bergmann, A. et al.: Comparison of particle number measurements from the full dilution tunnel, the tailpipe and two partial flow systems. SAE Technical Paper 2010–01-1299 (2010).
  20. 20.
    Cavina, N., Poggio, L., Bedogni, F., Rossi, V., et al.: Benchmark comparison of commercially available systems for particle number measurement. SAE Technical Paper 2013–24-0182 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robinson, M., Backhaus, J., Foley, R., and Liu, Z.: The effect of diesel exhaust fluid dosing on tailpipe particle number emissions. SAE Technical Paper 2016–01-0995 (2016).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Yusuf Khan
    • 1
  • Sagar Sharma
    • 1
  • Chet Mun Liew
    • 1
  • Abhay Joshi
    • 1
  • Daniel Barnes
    • 1
  • Nathan Scott
    • 1
  • Benjamin Mensen
    • 1
  • Tanfeng Cao
    • 1
  • Yang Li
    • 1
  • Shirish A. Shimpi
    • 1
  • Montajir Rahman
    • 2
  1. 1.Cummins Inc.ColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Horiba Automotive Test SystemsAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations