Real-world activity, fuel use, and emissions of diesel side-loader refuse trucks

Abstract Diesel refuse trucks have the worst fuel economy of onroad highway vehicles. The real-world effectiveness of recently introduced emission controls during low speed and low engine load driving has not been verified for these vehicles. A portable emission measurement system (PEMS) was used to measure rates of fuel use and emissions on six side-loader refuse trucks. The objectives were to: (1) characterize activity, fuel use, and emissions; (2) evaluate variability between cycles and trucks; and (3) compare results with the MOVES emission factor model. Quality assured data cover 210,000 s and 550 miles of operation during which the trucks collected 4200 cans and 50 tons of waste material. The average fuel economy was 2.6 mpg. Trash collection contributed 70%–80% of total fuel use and emissions. The daily activity Operating Mode (OpMode) distribution and cycle average fuel use and emissions is different from previously used cycles such as Central Business District (CBD), New York Garbage Truck (NYGT), and William H. Martin (WHM). NOx emission rates for trucks with selective catalytic reduction were over 90% lower than those for trucks without. Similarly, trucks with diesel particulate filters had over 90% lower particulate matter (PM) emissions than trucks without. Compared to unloaded trucks, loaded truck averaged 18% lower fuel economy while NOx and PM emissions were higher by 65% and 16%, respectively. MOVES predicted values are highly correlated to empirical data; however, MOVES estimates are 37% lower for NOx and 300% higher for PM emission rates. The data presented here can be used to develop more representative cycles and improve emission factors for side-loader refuse trucks, which in turn can improve the accuracy of refuse truck emission inventories.

[1]  H. Frey,et al.  Effects of Errors on Vehicle Emission Rates from Portable Emissions Measurement Systems , 2013 .

[2]  Žiga Ivanič,et al.  Data Collection and Development of New York City Refuse Truck Duty Cycle , 2007 .

[3]  Daniel K. Carder,et al.  Comparison of Regulated and Unregulated Exhaust Emissions From a Fleet of Multi-Fuel Solid Resource Collection Vehicles , 2010 .

[4]  Ralph D. Nine,et al.  Chassis Dynamometer Emission Measurements from Refuse Trucks Using Dual-Fuel™ Natural Gas Engines , 2003 .

[5]  Josias Zietsman,et al.  Evaluation of In-Use Emissions from Refuse Trucks , 2009 .

[6]  H Christopher Frey,et al.  In-use activity, fuel use, and emissions of heavy-duty diesel roll-off refuse trucks , 2015, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[7]  Thomas W Kirchstetter,et al.  Effects of diesel particle filter retrofits and accelerated fleet turnover on drayage truck emissions at the Port of Oakland. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[8]  H. Frey,et al.  In-use measurement of the activity, fuel use, and emissions of front-loader refuse trucks , 2014 .

[9]  Nigel N. Clark,et al.  Atmospheric emissions inventory data for heavy-duty vehicles , 1999 .

[10]  Bruce G Wilson,et al.  Fuel Consumption, Emissions Estimation, and Emissions Cost Estimates Using Global Positioning Data , 2007, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[11]  Nigel N. Clark,et al.  A Long Term Field Emissions Study of Natural Gas Fueled Refuse Haulers in New York City , 1998 .