NY.gov Portal State Agency Listing Search all of NY.gov
D E C banner
D E C banner

Disclaimer

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has added a link to a translation service developed by Microsoft Inc., entitled Bing Translator, as a convenience to visitors to the DEC website who speak languages other than English.

Additional information can be found at DEC's Language Assistance Page.

Continuously Regenerating Particulate Filters

Performance and Durability Evaluation of Continuously Regenerating Particulate Filters on Diesel Powered Urban Buses at NY City Transit

  • Thomas Lanni, Division of Air Resources, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
  • Sougato Chatterjee, Ray Conway, Hassan Windawi, Diesel Emission Control Systems, Johnson Matthey, CSD
  • Deborah Rosenblatt, Environment Canada
  • Christopher Bush, Dana Lowell, New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority
  • James Evans, Equilon Enterprises LLC
  • Robert McLean, Corning Inc.
  • Steven Levy, Rad Energy

Summary

Particulate emission from diesel engines is one of the most important pollutants in urban areas. As a result, particulate emission control from urban bus diesel engines using particle filter technology is being evaluated at several locations in the US. A project entitled "Clean Diesel Demonstration Program" was initiated by NY City Transit under the supervision of NY State DEC and with active participation from Johnson Matthey, Corning, Equilon, Environment Canada and Rad Energy.

Under this program, several NY City transit buses with DDC Series 50 engines were equipped with continuously regenerating diesel particulate filters (the CRTTM system from Johnson Matthey) and were operated with ultra low sulfur diesel (<30 ppm S) in transit service in Manhattan beginning in February 2000. The first phase of the program, reported here, consisted of a pilot project to verify the emissions reduction capability of the continuously regenerating diesel particulate filter technology with baseline emissions testing. The buses were evaluated over a 8-9 month period for operations, maintainability and durability of the particulate filter, including extensive emissions testing under transient cycles on a chassis dynamometer.

The on-road operational data over eight months showed stable exhaust back pressure with the particle filters, indicating successful filter regeneration. No adverse operational or maintenance issues were observed which could be attributed to the filter system. The emissions results from the first phase of testing exhibited >90% reductions in CO, HC and PM with the particulate filter. In addition, >99% reductions in carbonyls and up to 80% destruction of PAH and N-PAH were also achieved.

Regulated Emission Test Results for DDC S50 Powered NYCTA Buses 6019 and 6065
Bus ID Test Cycle Configuration Fuel FE
mpg
CO2
g/mile
NOx
g/mile
THC
g/mile
CO
g/mile
PM
g/mile
NYCTA #6019 CBD OEM LSD 3.3 2942 25.6 0.18 1.8 0.22
NYCTA #6019 CBD OEM ULSD 3.4 2948 25.6 0.06 1.2 0.19
NYCTA #6019 CBD CRDPF ULSD 3.1 3236 26.4 0.03 0.16 0.04
% Reduction baseline to ULSD -0.2 0.0 66.7 34.7 15
% Reduction Baseline to ULSD & CRDPF -10.0 -3.1 83.3 91.4 82
NYCTA #6019 NYBUS OEM LSD 1.5 6483 70.3 0.91 13 0.65
NYCTA #6019 NYBUS CRDPF ULSD 1.4 7177 70.3 0.06 0.23 0.04
% Reduction Baseline to ULSD & CRDPF -10.7 -4.3 93.4 98.3 95.4
NYCTA #6065 CBD OEM LSD 3.3 2897 23.3 0.26 2.1 0.21
NYCTA #6065 CBD OEM ULSD 3.5 2884 25.1 0.04 1.6 0.14
NYCTA #6065 CBD CRDPF ULSD 3.7 2679 23.8 0 0.09 0.01
% Reduction Baseline to ULSD 0.5 -7.6 85.7 23.9 31
% Reduction Baseline to ULSD & CRDPF 7.5 -2.1 100.0 95.9 95
Non-regulated and Toxics Emissions Test Results for DDC S50 Powered Buses 6019 and 6065
Bus ID Test Cycle Configuration Fuel Carbonyl
mg/mile
PAH
µg/mile
NO2PAH
µg/mile
SO4
mg/mile
SO2
mg/mile
SOF
%
OC
mg/mile
EC
mg/mile
TC
mg/mile
#6019 CBD OEM LSD 73 62 5 62 270 59 29 90 119
#6019 CBD OEM ULSD 66 49 3.4 2.8 21 n/r 33 111 145
#6019 CBD CRDPF ULSD bdl 14 1.5 13 7 bdl 6.6 1.5 8.1
% Reduction baseline LSD to ULSD 10 22 32 95 92 -14 -23 -22
% Reduction baseline LSD to ULSD with CRDPF >99 78 70 79 97 >99 77 98 93
#6019 NYB OEM LSD 294 201 23 37 620 54 109 403 512
#6019 NYB CRDPF ULSD bdl 42 1.3 1.3 14.5 bdl bdl bdl bdl
% Reduction baseline LSD to ULSD with CRDPF 79 94 96 98 >99 >99 >99 >99
#6065 CBD OEM LSD 77 66 3.8 37 316 65 42 90 133
#6065 CBD OEM ULSD 70 63 2.6 3.9 31 68 26 82 110
#6065 CBD CRDPF ULSD 0.9 15 0.5 2.6* 7.4 bdl bdl bdl bdl
% Reduction baseline LSD to ULSD 9 5 32 89 90 -5 38 9 17
% Reduction baseline LSD to ULSD with CRDPF 99 78 87 93 98 >99 >99 >99 >99
  • OC = Organic Carbon
  • EC = Elemental Carbon
  • SOF = Soluble Organic Fraction
  • n/r = not reportable
  • bdl = below detection limit
  • * = large amount of error associated with this value analysis