the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 17 Mar 2025
The role of fuel and environmental conditions on the amount and composition of primary, fresh, and aged aerosol emissions originating from diesel- and gasoline-operated auxiliary heaters of passenger cars
Abstract. Fuel-operated auxiliary heaters (AH) are potentially significant additional sources of particle and gas phase pollution from vehicles, but information on their emissions is scarce. Especially understanding of AH exhaust−originated secondary aerosol formation is lacking. In this study, we measured the gas and particle emissions, including secondary emissions, of diesel- and gasoline-operated AHs used in passenger cars. Investigation revealed the importance of peak emissions during start and shutdown events of the heaters and differences between emissions of gasoline and diesel fuelled AHs. Namely, gasoline-operated AHs produced particles also under steady-state operating conditions, while their diesel counterparts did not. Furthermore, ambient air temperature was observed to impact the emission profiles, with, for example, higher NOx and particle mass emissions but lower particle number emissions observed in outdoor (−19 to −7 ℃) measurements compared to laboratory measurements (+25 ℃). However, further quantification is necessary to fully quantify the temperature-related effects to AH emissions. Our findings highlight the importance of characterizing also the atmospherically aged aerosols, specifically secondary organic aerosol formation, which was here simulated both by an environmental chamber and by an oxidation flow reactor. The particle mass in photochemically aged aerosols surpassed the fresh exhaust particulate mass emissions by 1 to 3 orders of magnitude, with the increase depending mainly on fuel, combustion conditions, and aging methods. Further research into formation pathways of secondary aerosols from precursors is still needed as well as quantification of vehicle fleet level AH emissions to enable estimation of atmospheric and air quality effects of AH usage.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2331 KB)
-
Supplement
(1409 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2331 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1409 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-540', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Apr 2025
The authors measured the emissions of air pollutants from fuel-operated auxiliary heaters (AHs) in passenger cars. They estimated the emission factors (EFs) both outdoors (−19 to −7 ℃) and in the laboratory (+25 ℃), and evaluated the temperature dependence of the EFs. They also estimated secondary emissions using an environmental chamber and an oxidation flow reactor. In general, this manuscript is well written, and provides useful information on the emission characteristics of AHs, which are not well understood to date. However, I have several concerns as listed below.
(1) The authors evaluated the EFs of secondary pollutants. As well known (e.g., Hallquist et al., 2009; doi:10.5194/acp-9-5155-2009), formation yields of secondary organic aerosol (SOA) are strongly affected by the air temperature, exposure to oxidants (e.g., OH exposure), NOx levels, concentrations of seed particles, and so on. In this manuscript, the EFs of secondary pollutants are summarized in Figure 9, but the experimental conditions are not properly reported. I recommend the authors to state the air temperature, OH exposure, and NOx levels (or NOx/HC ratio) of individual experiments for fair comparison.
For example, the emissions of fresh PM mass and OGCs from the renewable diesel case were greater than those from the regular diesel case, whereas the aged PM mass was greater for the renewable fuel (L584-585). Without the information on the experimental conditions, we cannot assess whether this difference is explained by the different experimental conditions or by the different precursor composition.
(2) Standard deviations (SDs) of EFs for both outdoor and laboratory measurement are shown in Tables 1 and 2, but the SDs of EFs for laboratory measurement are not shown in Figure 9. I recommend the authors to clearly state the numbers of laboratory measurements under individual conditions and the meaning of SDs in Tables 1 and 2.
(3) Information on aftertreatment devices on the AH (e.g., particulate filters, oxidation catalyst) is helpful to readers.Specific comments:
L251-253: Let me confirm the meaning of the “preheating”. Is it the whole heating cycle of AH, including ignition and shutdown? I could not correctly understand the meaning of this word, and the clarification of this word is helpful.
L350: Is this temperature dependence consistent with that of gasoline and diesel vehicles?
L377: typo (“were had”)
L458-460: Do you mean enhanced new particle formation from extremely low volatile organic compounds (ELVOCs) or from VOC? A simple explanation with references is helpful to the readers. (If you mean ELVOCs, is the comparison between the HC emissions and new particle formation significant?)
L499-501: “9 and 1.1 mg kg-1”: Is this for fresh mass or for “fresh and aged mass”? I could not correctly understand the meaning of “the fresh and aged PM mass” for “fresh AH exhausts”.
L538: typo (“+ Impact of aging on AAEs?”)Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-540-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Henri Oikarinen, 18 Jun 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-540', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 May 2025
The manuscript by Oikarinen et al. reports experimental data for emission of both gas and particulate matter species from fuel-operated auxiliary heaters. The experiments include operation of the heater under a winter-time condition, making the study to be relevant to understand the real environment. Overall, the experiments seem to be well-conducted, and the data are well organized. The dataset would be useful for understanding the urban environment. Though the manuscript is a good report of data, all the employed measurement methods are well-established ones (i.e., contribution to the advancement to atmospheric measurement technique is unclear). The reviewer is not sure if the manuscript fits well with the scope of the journal. The reviewer leaves this concern to the editor. Regarding the main content of the manuscript, I only have a few minor comments.
Line317
The authors report emission of HCl. Is Cl included in fuel, or other material of the heater?
Line336
Emission of SO2 is reported. Could the authors clarify the sulfur contents of the fuels that were employed for the experiment? It could influence the emission factor of SO2.
Line380
It is interesting that usage of the renewable diesel influences the emission of OGCs. Could the authors add further descriptions about the cause?
Line 369
The reported particle number concentration is in the range of 10^7 # cm-3. Could the coincidence issue influence particle counting by the CPC for this high concentration range? If so, how much?
Line 430
Units are missing.
Figure 7
It would be interesting to show organic mass spectra, and discuss the data in detail.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-540-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Henri Oikarinen, 18 Jun 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-540', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Apr 2025
The authors measured the emissions of air pollutants from fuel-operated auxiliary heaters (AHs) in passenger cars. They estimated the emission factors (EFs) both outdoors (−19 to −7 ℃) and in the laboratory (+25 ℃), and evaluated the temperature dependence of the EFs. They also estimated secondary emissions using an environmental chamber and an oxidation flow reactor. In general, this manuscript is well written, and provides useful information on the emission characteristics of AHs, which are not well understood to date. However, I have several concerns as listed below.
(1) The authors evaluated the EFs of secondary pollutants. As well known (e.g., Hallquist et al., 2009; doi:10.5194/acp-9-5155-2009), formation yields of secondary organic aerosol (SOA) are strongly affected by the air temperature, exposure to oxidants (e.g., OH exposure), NOx levels, concentrations of seed particles, and so on. In this manuscript, the EFs of secondary pollutants are summarized in Figure 9, but the experimental conditions are not properly reported. I recommend the authors to state the air temperature, OH exposure, and NOx levels (or NOx/HC ratio) of individual experiments for fair comparison.
For example, the emissions of fresh PM mass and OGCs from the renewable diesel case were greater than those from the regular diesel case, whereas the aged PM mass was greater for the renewable fuel (L584-585). Without the information on the experimental conditions, we cannot assess whether this difference is explained by the different experimental conditions or by the different precursor composition.
(2) Standard deviations (SDs) of EFs for both outdoor and laboratory measurement are shown in Tables 1 and 2, but the SDs of EFs for laboratory measurement are not shown in Figure 9. I recommend the authors to clearly state the numbers of laboratory measurements under individual conditions and the meaning of SDs in Tables 1 and 2.
(3) Information on aftertreatment devices on the AH (e.g., particulate filters, oxidation catalyst) is helpful to readers.Specific comments:
L251-253: Let me confirm the meaning of the “preheating”. Is it the whole heating cycle of AH, including ignition and shutdown? I could not correctly understand the meaning of this word, and the clarification of this word is helpful.
L350: Is this temperature dependence consistent with that of gasoline and diesel vehicles?
L377: typo (“were had”)
L458-460: Do you mean enhanced new particle formation from extremely low volatile organic compounds (ELVOCs) or from VOC? A simple explanation with references is helpful to the readers. (If you mean ELVOCs, is the comparison between the HC emissions and new particle formation significant?)
L499-501: “9 and 1.1 mg kg-1”: Is this for fresh mass or for “fresh and aged mass”? I could not correctly understand the meaning of “the fresh and aged PM mass” for “fresh AH exhausts”.
L538: typo (“+ Impact of aging on AAEs?”)Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-540-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Henri Oikarinen, 18 Jun 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-540', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 May 2025
The manuscript by Oikarinen et al. reports experimental data for emission of both gas and particulate matter species from fuel-operated auxiliary heaters. The experiments include operation of the heater under a winter-time condition, making the study to be relevant to understand the real environment. Overall, the experiments seem to be well-conducted, and the data are well organized. The dataset would be useful for understanding the urban environment. Though the manuscript is a good report of data, all the employed measurement methods are well-established ones (i.e., contribution to the advancement to atmospheric measurement technique is unclear). The reviewer is not sure if the manuscript fits well with the scope of the journal. The reviewer leaves this concern to the editor. Regarding the main content of the manuscript, I only have a few minor comments.
Line317
The authors report emission of HCl. Is Cl included in fuel, or other material of the heater?
Line336
Emission of SO2 is reported. Could the authors clarify the sulfur contents of the fuels that were employed for the experiment? It could influence the emission factor of SO2.
Line380
It is interesting that usage of the renewable diesel influences the emission of OGCs. Could the authors add further descriptions about the cause?
Line 369
The reported particle number concentration is in the range of 10^7 # cm-3. Could the coincidence issue influence particle counting by the CPC for this high concentration range? If so, how much?
Line 430
Units are missing.
Figure 7
It would be interesting to show organic mass spectra, and discuss the data in detail.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-540-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Henri Oikarinen, 18 Jun 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 386 | 54 | 20 | 460 | 27 | 16 | 31 |
- HTML: 386
- PDF: 54
- XML: 20
- Total: 460
- Supplement: 27
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 31
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Anni Hartikainen
Pauli Simonen
Miska Olin
Ukko-Ville Mäkinen
Petteri Marjanen
Laura Salo
Ville Silvonen
Sampsa Martikainen
Jussi Hoivala
Mika Ihalainen
Pasi Miettinen
Pasi Yli-Pirilä
Olli Sippula
Santtu Mikkonen
Panu Karjalainen
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2331 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1409 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper