Fuel 278 (2020) 118340

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

Fuel consumption and emission performance from light-duty conventional/ T

hybrid-electric vehicles over different cycles and real driving tests
Yachao Wanga, Chunxiao Haoa,b, Yunshan Gea, , Lijun Haoa, Jianwei Tana, Xin Wanga,
⁎

Pengyu Zhangc, Yuan Wanga, Weidong Tiana, Zhiqi Linc, Jian Lic
a
National Laboratory of Automotive Performance & Emission Test, School of Mechanical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
b
State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Vehicle Emission Control and Simulation, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China
c
Beijing Hyundai Motor Company, Beijing 101300, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Many studies have found that WLTC (The Worldwide harmonized Light vehicles Test Cycles) doesn’t accord well
Hybrid vehicle to real driving in different regions and it’s necessary to develop local test cycles. China announced its local test
Fuel consumption cycle in 2019: CLTC (China light-duty vehicle test cycle). To evaluate vehicle emission under different cycles,
Regulated emissions one conventional gasoline vehicle and its hybrid counterpart were tested on the chassis dynamometer following
CLTC
CLTC, WLTC, and RDE (Real Driving Emission). The fuel consumption between WLTC and RDE is at the same
WLTC
Real driving simulation
level. While for the conventional, CLTC fuel consumption is 8.41% higher than WLTC and for the hybrid, it’s
20.23% lower than WLTC. To get better vehicle fuel efficiency, vehicle application scenarios must be considered.
Frequent re-start and longer warm-up time of the hybrid leads to high CO emission than the conventional. High
engine speed could result in instantaneous CO spikes and with these spikes, 25% of the total CO could be emitted
in less than 10 s. For the conventional, NOx emitted during engine warm-up occupied 85.39%, 87.02%, 43.06%,
31.98%, and 55.43% of the total NOx respectively for CLTC, WLTC and three RDE tests. NOx emitted from the
hybrid is less than 10% of the conventional due to lower engine load and less fuel enrichment. Hybrid particle
emission is under good control with the equipment of the gasoline particle filter, but the regeneration might
increase thin particle exposure to the public. For most pollutants, CLTC doesn't close the gap between laboratory
tests and real driving.

1. Introduction it [3]. Increasingly stringent emission regulations continue to reduce

Passenger or personal mobility-related fuel consumption accounted
for 61% of total world transportation energy consumption in 2012.
Light-duty vehicles show the largest absolute increase (15 quadrillion
Btu) from 2012 to 2040 among the passenger modes of travel [1]. The
global transportation sector is a major source of this health burden
through its contribution to elevated fine particulate matter, ozone, and
nitrogen dioxide concentrations. Transportation activities produce
tailpipe emissions, evaporative emissions, resuspension of road dust,
and particles from brake and tire wear [2].
Ambitious automotive emission regulations by the European Union
launched Europe as a worldwide leader in the late 1990s and to date,
the global car markets remain dominated by EU law or derivatives from
pollutant limits, and from gas to particle, more and more pollutants
were taken into control. As part of this process, the European Union has
introduced new emission regulations in 2014, replacing Euro 5 with
Euro 6, and China also announced China 6 regulation in 2016. Except
for the stricter pollutants limit, one of the most significant updates for
the China 6/Euro 6 is that NEDC is replaced by WLTC [4]. NEDC has
been criticized for being too smooth and underloaded for typical ve-
hicle operation [5,6]. Meanwhile, China-6 regulation sets a technology
neutral particle number limit for all light-duty passenger vehicles, and
former studies found that acceleration and high EGR rates could result
in higher particle number emission [7,8].
Pavlovic et al. found that, compared to NEDC, the fuel consumption
and energy demand for WLTC is 1%–11% and 26%–44% higher

Abbreviations: WLTC, the worldwide harmonized light vehicles test cycles; CLTC, China light-duty vehicle test cycle; RDE, real driving emission; GPF, gasoline
particle filter; NEDC, new European driving cycle; CNG, compressed natural gas; GDI, gasoline direct injection; TWC, three-way catalyst; BSFC, brake-specific fuel
consumption; NDIR, non-dispersive InfraRed; CLD, chemi-luminescence detector; CPC, condensation particle counter
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: geyunshan@bit.edu.cn (Y. Ge).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118340
Received 11 April 2020; Received in revised form 27 May 2020; Accepted 6 June 2020
Available online 24 June 2020
0016-2361/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Wang, et al.
respectively. The higher vehicle inertia and road loads along with the
higher vehicle speeds are the key parameters that contribute to the
increased CO2 emissions and vehicle energy demand [9,10]. Bielaczyc
et al. also concluded that significantly increasing vehicle inertia has a
noticeable impact on energy demand and hence the CO2 emission/fuel
consumption gap between NEDC and WLTC [11]. The significant dif-
ference in other pollutant emissions is also found between NEDC and
WLTC, and both increases and decreases from the NEDC baseline were
observed [11–13].
NEDC, WLTC, or other test cycles may not accord well to the local
real driving condition. It is found that there is a significant gap between
laboratory tests and real driving in both fuel consumption and pollu-
tants emission. For the conventional, Duarte et al. found that the RDE
fuel consumption was on average 23.9% and 16.3% higher than certi-
fication values of NEDC and WLTC respectively [14]. Rašić et al. get a
similar conclusion: the CO2 emissions of both RDE-based routes were
above the type-approval limits with CNG exceeding the type-approval
limits by 6–35% and with gasoline exceeding the type-approval limits
by 66–85% [15]. With three hybrid diesel vehicles tested, Franco et al.
reported the on-road CO2 emissions were higher than the certification
values by 52%–178% [16]. Different driving style during the RDE tests
also has a significant influence on the test results [17–19]. Many re-
searchers are trying to make the local driving cycle [20–23] and China
also announced CLTC in 2019 [24]. Moreover, both the EU and China
have taken RDE test as part of the vehicle certification.
Imdat et al. have found that hybrid-electric vehicles are more eco-
nomical than conventional vehicles although they produce almost the
same power [25]. Using thermoelectric elements, the energy re-
cuperation from heat to electricity in the exhaust, also shown its po-
tential to improve the vehicle economy [26]. Compared to conventional
gasoline vehicles, hybrid-electric vehicles could reduce the cold-start
extra emissions by 30% to 85% [27], but a large amount of pollutants
are emitted during the cold-start period. With one hybrid hydrogen-
gasoline engine-powered passenger car tested under NEDC, Changwei,
et al. found that starting an SI engine with H2 is effective in reducing
HC and CO emissions [28].
To find out whether CLTC could close the gap between laboratory
tests and real driving, one gasoline passenger vehicle and its hybrid
electric counterpart from same model series were tested following
CLTC, WLTC, and RDE. Fuel consumption (counted in g/km CO2) and
emissions (CO, NOx, and PN) performance were analyzed. RDE tests
were simulated on the chassis dynamometer so that the reproducibility
and comparability could be ensured. This paper also provides some
advice for GPF regeneration strategy and the public exposure to thin
particles emitted during GPF regeneration could be reduced.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Vehicle information
One conventional vehicle and its hybrid counterpart from the same
model series with the same dimensions were tested. The conventional
vehicle is powered by a gasoline internal combustion engine while the
hybrid is equipped with the hybrid electric power system. The con-
ventional gets a more powerful engine than its hybrid counterpart and
the curb weight for the hybrid is heavier because of extra mass from the
battery and electric motor. Vehicles are under good maintenance.
Table 1 shows the main characteristics of the test vehicles.
2.2. Description of the test cycles
Vehicles were tested under CLTC, WLTC, and three RDE tests. CLTC
is developed depending on the real driving condition of China and it is
composed of three phases (low speed, medium speed, and high speed).
WLTC is composed of four phases (low speed, medium speed, high
speed, and extra-high speed). Both WLTC and CLTC consists of 1800 s.
2
Fuel 278 (2020) 118340
Table 1
Main characteristics of the test vehicles.
Conventional Hybrid
Curb weight (kg) 1317 1545
Engine type Gasoline, 1.6L, GDI, N/A, Gasoline, 1.6L, GDI, N/A,
95.3 kW@6300 rpm 77.2 kW@ 5700 rpm
Exhaust after- TWC TWC + cGPF
treatment
Emission category China-6 China-6
Electric motor power – 25.4
(kW)
Battery voltage(V) – 350
Battery capacity(Ah) – 37
Compared to the WLTC, CLTC gets a lower speed and acceleration.
Three RDE tests were conducted on the same route (located in
Beijing, China) with different set-out times in the normal workday and
the boundary conditions are within China-6 RDE regulation. The in-
stantaneous vehicle speed and the altitude information of the three tests
were recorded and with this information entered into the control
system of the chassis dynamometer, the RDE tests could be simulated
on the chassis dynamometer. Simulating the RDE tests on the dynam-
ometer could ensure reproducibility and comparability of the test re-
sults. Fig. 1 presents the velocity profiles for the test cycles.
The specific information about the test cycles is presented in
Table 2. MAX_V*A represents maximum “speed multiply by accelera-
tion”. The average speed of the CLTC three periods is much lower than
the RDE tests. For urban driving, RDE is 39.65%–92.28% higher than
CLTC (low speed period). For rural, RDE is 141.43%–145.57% higher
than CLTC (medium speed period). For motorway, RDE is
97.68%–104.18% higher than CLTC (high speed period). Compared to
CLTC, WLTC has a similar average speed with RDE tests.
2.3. Experimental section
With the time-solved speed and altitude profile, described in Section
2.2, entered into the control system of the chassis dynamometer, the
real driving emission tests could be simulated on the chassis dynam-
ometer. The road load coefficients are provided by the vehicle manu-
facturer. The cold-start was achieved either by cooling the vehicle with
an overnight soak or by implementing a forced cool-down with the
cooling fan and the hybrid battery state of charge is set to the equili-
brium battery level [29]. Test temperature is around 20 °C. The fuel
used for the test is purchased from a certain supplier. The Normal
mode, rather than Sport or Economic mode is used for the test. China-6
regulation set CO, NOx, and PN limits for RDE tests, so these pollutants
were measured during the tests [4].
HORIBA OBS-ONE, one PEMS certificated by the authority, is used
for the emission analysis. HORIBA OBS-ONE uses the heated NDIR
analyzer to measure CO and CO2 and CLD is used to measure NOx
concentration. For the gaseous pollutants, the analyzer sample flow rate
is around 2.5 L/min. Particle number is measured by CPC and the
sample flow rate is 0.7 L/min. Both the gaseous pollutants and particles
were measured in volume concentration. With Pitot (pressure differ-
ence), exhaust pressure, and temperature measurement, the exhaust
flow rate could be determined. Table 3. illustrated measure precision.
The validation test was conducted to make sure that the emission
analyzer is in good situation. The analyzer was calibrated with blend
gas which has specific concentrations to make sure that zero-drift and
pollutants reading were within the regulated ranges. Fig. 2 illustrated
the schematic diagram of the test system.
2.4. Data processing
Since the boundary condition of the moving average window
Y. Wang, et al. Fuel 278 (2020) 118340

Fig. 1. Velocity profiles of test cycles.

method might underestimate the NOx emission [30], all the test data Table 3
was processed through the raw distance-specific method. The raw ex- Measurement precision.
haust emissions were measured as volume concentration and with the Items Unit Precision
exhaust volume flow rate, the instantaneous emission flow rate can be
calculated out. All the symbols used in the equations were illustrated in CO2 ppm Within ± 0.3% of full scale or ± 2.0% of readings
Appendix Table 5. CO ppm Within ± 0.3% of full scale or ± 2.0% of readings
NOx ppm Within ± 0.3% of full scale or ± 2.0% of readings
For gas pollutants: PN #/m3 Within ± 10% of readings
Flowmeter m3/s Within ± 1.0% of full scale
gas,i 3
mgas,i = × cgas,i × q× 10
gas,e
mPN = cPN × q
In the formula, mgas,i is the instantaneous emission flow rate for
pollutant i (g/s); ρgas,i is the density for pollutant i (kg/m3); ρgas,e is the In the formula, mPN is the instantaneous PN flow rate (#/s); cPN is
density for the exhaust gas (kg/m3); cgas,i is the volume concentration the particle concentration (#/m3); q is the exhaust volume flow rate
for pollutant i (ppm); q is the exhaust volume flow rate (m3/s). (m3/s).
For particle number: Integrating the instantaneous emission flow rate and vehicle speed

Table 2
Characteristics of CLTC, WLTC and three RDE test routes.
Time Distance Max Speed Average Average Average MAX Reletive Positive Acceleration Deceleration Cruise Idle Ratio
(s) (km) (km/h) Speed Run_Speed Acceleration V*A Acceleration Ratio Ratio Ratio (%)
(km/h) (km/h) (m/s2) (m2/s3) (m/s2) (%) (%) (%)

CLTC 1800 14.48 114.00 28.96 37.18 0.45 27.91 0.17 28.61 26.44 22.83 22.11
Low 674 2.45 48.10 13.09 20.19 0.42 9.76 0.14 22.26 21.51 21.07 35.16
Medium 693 5.91 71.20 30.68 38.24 0.46 22.71 0.16 30.45 28.43 21.36 19.77
High 433 6.12 114.00 50.90 53.89 0.46 27.91 0.18 35.57 30.95 27.94 5.54
WLTC 1800 23.27 131.30 46.53 53.69 0.56 21.46 0.17 29.83 28.22 29.17 12.78
P1 589 3.09 56.50 18.91 25.66 0.62 12.04 0.22 25.64 28.86 20.37 25.13
P2 433 4.76 76.60 39.54 44.47 0.59 18.08 0.22 33.95 28.18 27.02 10.85
P3 455 7.16 97.40 56.66 60.66 0.58 18.26 0.14 28.13 27.25 38.24 6.37
P4 323 8.25 131.30 91.99 94.03 0.41 21.46 0.13 34.37 28.48 35.29 1.86
RDE1 5726 76.61 108.80 48.20 54.83 0.45 29.92 0.12 27.87 23.80 36.71 11.61
Urban 3560 24.89 59.74 25.17 31.27 0.51 21.47 0.19 31.85 25.03 24.44 18.68
Rural 1196 24.61 89.98 74.07 74.07 0.33 29.92 0.07 21.57 20.15 58.28 0.00
Motorway 970 27.11 108.80 100.62 100.62 0.25 17.47 0.05 21.03 23.81 55.15 0.00
RDE2 6907 76.58 112.80 39.90 49.53 0.49 33.02 0.13 27.26 24.16 30.26 18.31
Urban 4751 24.13 59.97 18.28 25.45 0.54 19.14 0.22 30.54 25.53 17.30 26.63
Rural 1190 24.56 89.65 74.31 74.31 0.33 32.53 0.07 21.51 21.68 56.81 0.00
Motorway 966 27.89 112.76 103.93 103.93 0.32 33.02 0.06 18.22 20.50 61.28 0.00
RDE3 5971 76.60 111.80 46.20 57.37 0.62 75.87 0.17 25.67 26.60 28.94 18.79
Urban 3827 23.93 60.00 22.51 32.34 0.74 32.43 0.29 28.27 28.38 14.03 29.32
Rural 1147 24.00 89.86 75.34 75.34 0.37 75.87 0.08 21.19 25.89 52.92 0.00
Motorway 997 28.67 111.80 103.51 103.51 0.29 26.58 0.06 20.86 20.56 58.58 0.00

3
Y. Wang, et al.
Sample Line
Pitot
Cooling Fan
Flowmeter Line
Chassis Dynamometer
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the test system.
could calculate the distance-specific emission factor (g/km or #/km).
Vehicle instantaneous wheel power demand is also calculated:
p = (f1 × v+ f2 × v 2 + f3 × v 3 + m× a× v)/3600
In the formula, p is the vehicle instantaneous wheel power demand
(kW); f is the resistance coefficient (for the conventional, f1 = 101.436,
f2 = 0.76653, f3 = 0.026648; for the hybrid, f1 = 108.5, f2 = 0.921,
f3 = 0.02617); v is the vehicle speed (km/h); a is the vehicle accel-
eration (m/s2); m is the vehicle mass (kg).
There is a strong linear correlation between CO2 emission and fuel
consumption [31] so the vehicle fuel consumption could be calculated
out according to CO2 emission. According to the EU, the coefficient
between CO2 emission and fuel consumption is around 23.2 (100 g/L)
[32]. So vehicle fuel consumption could be calculated:
F=
MCO2
fF
In the formula, F is the vehicle distance-specific fuel consumption
(L/100 km); MCO2 is the distance-specific CO2 emission (g/km);
fF = 23.2 (100 g/L) is the coefficient.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Vehicle acceleration and engine load distribution
Fig. 3 presents the acceleration distribution in terms of velocity for
the test cycles. Compared to the WLTC, CLTC gets a more concentrated
distribution: with the acceleration varying from −1 m/s2 to 1 m/s2
while the acceleration for WLTC varies from around −1.5 m/s2 to
1.5 m/s2. Three RDE tests don’t show a similar pattern with the WLTC
or CLTC. For the RDE tests, compared to the WLTC and CLTC, one of the
most significant characteristics is the larger deceleration: many points
locate at the area with deceleration lower than −1.5 m/s2. Moreover,
there are significant concentrations at three speed ranges: from 30 km/
h to 50 km/h, from 70 km/h to 80 km/h, from 100 km/h to 110 km/h.
This concentration is associated with the speed limits of the test route
(around 60 km/h for the urban, around 90 km/h for the rural and
around 120 km/h for the motorway) and the tendency for the co-
ordination of speed between drivers to maintain a uniform running
speed [33–35]. WLTC and CLTC don’t have this concentration.
Fig. 4 illustrates the engine speed and load under different test cy-
cles. Three RDE tests have a similar distribution and only RDE1 is il-
lustrated. The conventional distribution appears as a triangle and the
hybrid is an oval. The maximum load for the conventional could reach
around 70%, while the hybrid seldom exceeds 50%. For the conven-
tional, most of the engine speed located at 600 ~ 2300 rpm,
600 ~ 3200 rpm, 600 ~ 2700 rpm respectively for CLTC, WLT, and
RDE. Three hybrid tests get similar speed intervals: 1000 ~ 3000 rpm.
Fuel 278 (2020) 118340
Gas Analyzer
Laptop
Sample Line PN Analyzer
Flowmeter
According to the BSFC contour [36], compared to the conventional, the
hybrid engine is operated at the low BSFC condition, and this could be
used to explain the difference in fuel consumption in the following
section.
3.2. Fuel consumption
Fig. 5 shows the fuel consumption of tested vehicles. For the con-
ventional vehicle, CLTC gets the highest fuel consumption, which is
about 8.41% higher than WLTC. Three periods fuel consumption of
CLTC is 13.32 L/100 km, 7.14 L/100 k, and 6.99 L/100 km respec-
tively. For WLTC four periods, the fuel consumption is 11.14 L/100 km,
7.08 L/100 km, 6.35 L/100 km, and 7.28 L/100 km. CLTC low speed
period significantly increases the CLTC total fuel consumption. The
average speed of CLTC low speed period is only 13.09 km/h. This
means the engine speed and load are quite low (seen in Fig. 4) and BSFC
is quite high at these conditions [36]. That’s why CLTC gets the highest
fuel consumption for the conventional.
For the hybrid, the pattern between CLTC and WLTC is different.
WLTC fuel consumption is 25.36% higher than CLTC. Three periods fuel
consumption of CLTC is 3.54 L/100 km, 4.73 L/100 km, and 6.59 L/
100 km respectively. For WLTC four periods, the fuel consumption is
9.18 L/100 km, 8.25 L/100 km, 5.49 L/100 km, and 5.77 L/100 km.
CLTC gets lower speed spikes than WLTC and lower speed means lower
power demand. The hybrid vehicle could be powered by the electric
motor under the lower power demand condition. That’s why, compared
to the WLTC, the engine re-start for CLTC is less frequent leading to
lower fuel consumption. The engine running time is illustrated in Fig. 6.
Fig. 7 shows the instantaneous wheel power demand and CLTC
average power demand (3.63 kW) is lower than WLTC average power
demand (6.60 kW). Depending on the control strategy, if the electric
motor could cover the wheel power demand, the engine won’t work.
fuel consumption of the hybrid hinges on several key factors: the power
of the electric motor, the power and capacity of the battery, battery
state of charg, and the control strategy. And with other vehicles tested,
the fuel consumption patterns between the conventional and the hybrid
might be different.
RDE1, RDE2, and RDE3 show similar fuel consumption patterns in
both conventional vehicle and hybrid vehicle: RDE2 is the highest,
RDE3 the second, and RDE1 the lowest. This is determined by the road
traffic condition and driving style (seen in Table 2): traffic congestion
(longer test time) and aggressive driving results in higher fuel con-
sumption. Compared to the conventional, the fuel consumption is
around 0.43 L/100 km lower for the hybrid during three RDE tests.
Fig. 8 illustrates the fuel consumption in urban, rural, and motorway
during RDE tests. Hybrid fuel consumption is around 35% lower than
the conventional in urban because hybrid vehicles are more effective
for densely populated cities [37]. In rural and motorway, the hybrid
4
Y. Wang, et al. Fuel 278 (2020) 118340

Fig. 3. Acceleration VS Velocity for test cycles.

vehicle gets a higher fuel consumption due to the heavier vehicle mass. driving habits are smoother than other regions. But compared to CLTC,
To achieve lower fuel consumption, vehicle application scenarios must fuel consumption of WLTC is more similar to RDE in both conventional
be considered: if the vehicle is mainly running in the densely populated tests and hybrid tests. CLTC doesn’t close the fuel consumption gap
cities, the hybrid is a plausible choice, otherwise, the conventional. between laboratory test and real driving.
Compared to WLTC, the significantly higher RDE fuel consumption/
CO2 emissions are expected and have been repeatedly reported in re-
3.3. CO emission
cent studies for different vehicle types [14,29,38]. In this paper, the
WLTC gets a higher or at least the same level fuel consumptions than
Compared to the conventional vehicle, the hybrid vehicle CO
the RDE test. This might be a result of different driving habits: China's
emission factor is higher in all test cycles (seen in Fig. 9). One reason is

Fig. 4. Engine load VS speed distribution (Capital letter C represents the conventional test vehicle and H represents the hybrid test vehicle).

5
Y. Wang, et al.
Fig. 5. Fuel consumption.
the longer warming up time for the hybrid. Frequent start-stop rather
than constant running means the hybrid takes much more time to warm
up the engine and the catalyst. It cost over 1500 s for the hybrid engine
to get fully warmed (coolant reached 70 °C) during CLTC, while con-
ventional one only takes around 300 s. Warming up period could sig-
nificantly increase the CO emission because of the enriched fuel-air
mixture, the deterioration of fuel vaporization and incomplete com-
bustion [39–42]. Even the engine and the catalyst is fully warmed, the
frequent start-stop also increase the CO emission due to the worse air-
fuel mixture and incomplete combustion during re-start [43].
For the hybrid, the catalyst will reach the light-off temperature
within 100 s since the engine was started. Huang et al. speculate high
hybrid emission is because of the consequently larger temperature
variations in the TWC of hybrid cars [37]. But in our observation, once
the catalysts reached the light-off temperature (around 500 °C), it won’t
drop down lower than the light-off temperature during the engine-stop
period. So larger temperature variation isn’t the reason for increased
CO emission for the hybrid.
As shown in Fig. 10, the CO emission spikes occur in the warm-up
period and high power demand period (always on the motorway with
high engine speed). Different from the conventional vehicle, when the
Fig. 6. Engine speed for the hybrid vehicle during CLTC and WLTC.
6
Fuel 278 (2020) 118340
tests started, the hybrid won’t start the engine immediately. The engine
will start until the power demand is beyond the electric motor or the
battery needs to be charged. This means there is no “Idle period” for the
hybrid engine, and the engine will power the generator or the wheel
immediately when it’s started. That’s the reason for the hybrid higher
cold-start emission spike [44]. With increased engine load, the con-
ventional may also have a higher cold-start CO spikes.
The instantaneous CO mass emission spike occurs at high engine
load periods with the engine speed reaching around 5000 rpm and the
instantaneous mass emission rate could reach around 1 g/s. These
spikes last less than 10 s while more than 25% of the total CO was
emitted. With the engine speed reaching 5000 rpm, there is less time for
the fuel droplets to mix and evaporate, resulting in locally rich regions
and incomplete combustion [45]. The CO formed during hydrocarbon
combustion couldn’t be fully oxidized into CO2 in these locally rich
regions, resulting in high CO emission [36]. For the conventional ve-
hicle, RDE3 has a higher AVG_A & RPA than RDE1 and RDE2, but the
CO emission factor of RDE3 is lower than the other two. The similar
pattern occurs between CLTC and WLTC. This may indicate in-
stantaneous operating condition has a more significant effect than the
average operating condition on CO emission. High instantaneous
Y. Wang, et al. Fuel 278 (2020) 118340

Fig. 7. Time-solved wheel power for the hybrid vehicle during CLTC and WLTC.

emission conditions should be the focus of the future CO control.
For the hybrid, CLTC is over 50% higher than other test cycles. For
the hybrid, besides the high instantaneous CO emission, the CO emis-
sion is determined by the number of the engine re-start, engine running
time since each star, and the interval between adjacent starts. Longer
interval and shorter running time mean the engine couldn’t be fully
warmed, leading to higher CO emission. It could be seen in Fig. 6 that
the interval between adjacent starts during CLTC is quite long (even
over 300 s) and engine running time since each start is quite short (less
than 10 s) and the coolant temperature is only 48 °C at the 1000 s of the
test. That’s why hybrid CLTC gets the highest CO emission.
3.4. NOx emission
Most of the passenger vehicle is fueled with gasoline in China, and
the NOx isn’t the main concern of it. But China-6 still sets a NOx limit
for passenger vehicles: 60 mg/km for China-6a, 35 mg/km for China-
6b; and 2.1 is recommended as the conformity factor for RDE tests [4].
Except for the conventional CLTC, all the other tests are within the
China-6a NOx limit (seen in Fig. 11).
From Fig. 12, there are significant spikes for the conventional
during warm-up (until engine coolant reached 70 °C) period and warm-
up NOx mass emission is 0.76 g (85.39% of the total NOx), 1.14 g
(87.02% of the total NOx), 0.62 g (43.06% of the total NOx), 0.79 g
(31.98% of the total NOx) and 0.51 g (55.43% of the total NOx) re-
spectively for the 5 conventional tests. Low engine temperature during
warm-up period leads to worse fuel-vaporing/mixture for GDI vehicles
and results in locally rich regions near the chamber wall as fuel is di-
rectly injected to these areas. The amount of NO formed near the flame
increases rapidly as the fuel-air ratio increases and the rapidly formed
NO is termed as “prompt NO” [46]. Meanwhile, the catalyst
temperature is below the light-off temperature so that the NOx formed
during combustion couldn’t be converted into N2. That’s why a large
amount of NOx is emitted during the warm-up period. For the hybrid,
CLTC gets the highest NOx emission due to its longest warm-up time (it
takes over 1500 s while for WLTC warm-up takes around 650 s).
With a large amount of NOx emitted during the warm-up period, the
shorter the distance, the higher the distance-specific NOx emission.
CLTC and WLTC test distance is around 1/4 ~ 1/3 of the RDE test,
leading to the highest distance-specific NOx emission. With a light-duty
diesel vehicle equipped with the lean NOx trap (LNT) tested, Luján et al.
tested a Euro 6 light-duty diesel vehicle under real driving condition
and found that the removal of the cold start period from the urban data
leads to a raw emissions reduction of 3.7% in g/km NOx emission [47].
The reduction, with warm-up NOx data excluded, is over 30% for RDE
tests in this paper and this is much higher than Luján’s results. For
gasoline vehicles, NOx concentrates in the cold-start period while for
diesel vehicles, NOx increases with engine load [48]. That’s why the
gasoline gets a higher reduction than diesel when cold start data is
excluded.
Compared with the conventional vehicle, 5 hybrid tests showed an
obvious reduction in NOx emission. One reason is, with the electric
motor, the power output of the hybrid engine is lower than the con-
ventional, so the in-cylinder combustion temperature is also reduced
accordingly [44]. One of the most important factors for NOx generation
is enough high temperature, so lower temperature means less genera-
tion of the NOx [36]. As shown in Fig. 13, fuel was also less enriched of
the hybrid vehicle, so that the formation of prompt NO is reduced.
Meanwhile, the equipment of the cGPF is one of the reasons for the
lower NOx emission as NOx could be the oxidant during GPF re-
generation [49].

Fig. 8. Fuel consumption in urban, rural and motorway.

7
Y. Wang, et al. Fuel 278 (2020) 118340

Fig. 9. CO emission results.

3.5. PN emission
As shown in Fig. 14, all the tests are within the China-6b limits
(6.0*1011#/km). For the conventional, CLTC gets the highest distance-
specific PN emission: 4.17*1011 #/km and as shown in Table 4, nearly
30% of the PN is emitted during the warm-up section. For WLTC, over
40% of the PN was emitted during the warm-up section and the warm-
up PN portion of three RDE tests is around 15%. For the GDI engine,
during engine warm-up, the fuel will be injected on the cold piston and
cylinder wall. Low temperature limits the fuel vaporing so that the air-
fuel mixture is inhomogeneous, leading to locally incomplete combus-
tion and the increment of PN [45,50,51]. Ko et al. reported the warm-
up PN friction of the GDI vehicle could reach over 50% under real
driving conditions in the winter season [52]. In the present paper, with
vehicles tested at 20 °C, warm-up PN is around 15% of the total PN.
This may indicate that ambient temperature has a significant effect on
GDI vehicle PN characteristics: the lower the ambient temperature, the
higher the cold-start PN portion. With the efficient control of the cold-
start PN, the PN emission factor could be significantly reduced. Opti-
mizing the hardware and calibration is a plausible solution to reduce
warm-up PN [53].
Many research found that, without particle filter, hybrid vehicles
may emit more particles than the conventional one [54,55]. In this
paper, with GPF equipped, the hybrid vehicle PN doesn’t show a sig-
nificant increase compared to its conventional counterpart. But the
distribution of the PN is different between the conventional and the

Fig. 10. Instantaneous CO emission.

8
Y. Wang, et al. Fuel 278 (2020) 118340

Fig. 11. NOx emission results.

hybrid. Fig. 15 illustrates the instantaneous PN emission rate. Unlike
the conventional test vehicle, no PN spikes were observed during the
warm-up period of the hybrid, but there are significant spikes when the
hybrid engine is fully warmed. These spikes occupied 60.75%–84.81%
of the total PN depending on the test cycles.
These spikes are related to the GPF regeneration. Fig. 16 illustrates
the time-resolved catalyst temperature and PN emission. Czerwinski
et al. noticed the GPF self-regeneration is associated with extremely
high exhaust temperature: 650–700 °C [56]. The first spike occurs when
the catalyst reached around 700 °C and this is when the GPF re-
generation starts: when the filter temperature reaches around 700 °C,
the previously cumulated particles are oxidized into smaller particles
and these small particles escape from the filter resulting in the in-
stantaneous PN spikes [57,58].
The spikes get lower and lower as tests go on. This is because once
the generation starts, the cumulated particles in the filter are getting
less and less. Fig. 17 illustrates the instantaneous PN distribution at
various lambda. Most of the high instantaneous PN was observed at
lean fuel condition (lambda > 1), as the oxygen left in the exhaust gas
could be the oxidant during the GPF regeneration.
For the hybrid test vehicle, with GPF equipped, more little particles
were emitted in the urban due to the regeneration takes place in urban
(as shown in Fig. 15). This might mean more thin particle exposure to
the public and thin particles might bring more health hazards [59]. The
public exposure could be significantly reduced if the regeneration could
take place in rural/motorway. Placing the GPF farther away from the
engine might be a feasible solution. By this means, GPF temperature
could be reduced and at the proper location, the GPF could reach

Fig. 12. Instantaneous NOx emission.

9
Y. Wang, et al. Fuel 278 (2020) 118340

Fig. 13. Lambda distribution during RDE test.

regeneration temperature only in rural/motorway. There is less fuel cut Table 4

in rural/motorway so that extra air is needed to serve as the oxidant for PN emission and the portion of warm-up (for the conventional)/Regeneration
regeneration. By this means, the total PN may not get a decrease, but (for the hybrid) PN.
the exposure to the public could be reduced significantly. Total PN (#) Cold-start PN (#) Portion (%)

Conentional CLTC 6.32E12 2.40E12 29.75

4. Conclusion WLTC 6.60E12 2.71E12 41.06
RDE1 1.82E13 3.28E12 18.02
Gaseous and particle emissions were measured on a pair of vehicles RDE2 2.34E13 3.08E12 13.16
RDE3 1.89E13 2.76E12 14.60
(one conventional and its hybrid counterpart from the same model
series) tested over three driving cycles (CLTC, WLTC, and RDE). With Total PN (#) Regeneration PN (#) Portion (%)
the RDE tests simulated on the chassis dynamometer, the reproduci-
Hybrid CLTC 4.25E12 3.24E12 76.24
bility and comparability of the RDE test results are ensured. All three WLTC 8.84E12 5.37E12 60.75
kinds of cycles were successfully executed and with the obtained re- RDE1 1.29E13 9.02E12 69.92
sults, the following conclusion could be made. RDE2 2.30E13 1.83E13 79.57
According to the test speed and engine load, compared with CLTC, RDE3 2.37E13 2.01E13 84.81

WLTC is more similar to the RDE test. For most pollutants, CLTC doesn’t
close the gap between laboratory tests and real driving because the
consumption. Compared to the CLTC, WLTC gets a more similar fuel
average speed of the CLTC is quite low. More study is needed to verify
consumption with the RDE tests for both the conventional and the
whether CLTC, compared with WLTC, is more similar to China’s real
hybrid. This may indicate, compared to CLTC, WLTC is more similar to
driving. The following is the elaboration of the main conclusion:
the real driving condition of China. Hybrid fuel consumption is around
For the conventional, CLTC gets the highest fuel consumption, while
35% lower than the conventional in urban, but it’s around 15% higher
for the hybrid, CLTC gets the lowest fuel consumption. This is because,
in rural/motorway. To get better fuel efficiency, vehicle application
compared to WLTC/RDE, CLTC gets the lowest average speed: for the
scenarios must be considered.
conventional, low speed means the engine is operated at high BSFC
All the tests meet the China-6b CO limit (500 mg/km) and the hy-
condition, leading to higher fuel consumption; for the hybrid, lower
brid has a much higher CO mission than the conventional due to the
speed means less working time of the engine, leading to lower fuel

Fig. 14. PN emission results.

10
Y. Wang, et al.
Fig. 15. Instantaneous PN emissiona) CLTC b) WLTC c) RDE1 d) RDE2 e) RDE3.
longer warm-up time for the engine/catalyst and worse air-fuel mix-
ture, worse vaporization and worse combustion during the engine re-
start. Hybrid CLTC gets the highest CO emission factor as it takes over
1500 s to get fully warmed. The instantaneous CO mass emission might
reach 1 g/s at the high engine speed period and 25% of the total CO
could be emitted in less than 10 s due to these spikes. High in-
stantaneous emission conditions should be the focus of future emission
control.
Except for the conventional CLTC, all the other tests are within the
China-6a NOx limit (60 mg/km). Because of enriched fuel and low
catalyst temperature, the warm-up NOx portion of the five conventional
tests is 85.39%, 87.02%, 43.06%, 31.98%, and 55.43% respectively.
For the hybrid, lower load and less enriched fuel limit the NOx gen-
eration, and during GPF regeneration, some of the NOx is consumed as
the oxidant. This is why the hybrid gets a much lower NOx emission.
For the conventional vehicle, a large amount of NOx is emitted during
Fig. 16. Time-resolved catalyst temperature and PN emission.
11
Fuel 278 (2020) 118340
the warm-up section, so the shorter the test distance, the higher the
distance-specific NOx emission factor. That’s why CLTC and WLTC get
higher distance-specific NOx emission than RDE tests. With better
control of warm-up NOx, the NOx emission factor could reduce at least
30% for conventional RDE tests.
All the tests meet the China-6b PN limits (6.0*1011#/km). With the
equipment of the GPF, hybrid PN emission is significantly reduced. For
the conventional, cold-start PN occupied 30%, 40%, and 15% of the
total PN respectively for CLTC, WLTC, and RDE tests. The lower the
ambient temperature, the higher the cold-start PN portion. For the
hybrid equipped with GPF, the instantaneous PN spikes were observed
after the engine is fully warmed. This is a result of regeneration of the
GPF: with the GPF temperature reaching around 700 °C and
lambda > 1, the regeneration starts. The particles filtered on the GPF
were oxidized to smaller particles and escaped from the filter leading to
the observed spikes. These regeneration particles occupied over 60%
Y. Wang, et al. Fuel 278 (2020) 118340

Fig. 17. Lambda-PN distribution.

(with the highest reached 84.81%) of the total particles. GPF re-
generation brings more thin particle exposure to the public as the re-
generation takes place in urban areas. Placing the GPF farther away
from the engine may make the regeneration take place in rural or
highway and the public exposure is reduced. By this means, the dis-
tance-specific PN emission may not decrease, but the public exposure
could be reduced significantly. No pattern was found between PN
emission and test cycles.
Funding
This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology
of the People’s Republic of China [grant numbers 2017YFF0211802-2].
Declaration of Competing Interest
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yachao Wang: Investigation, Methodology, Data curation, Writing
- original draft, Writing - review & editing. Chunxiao Hao: Data
curation, Writing - original draft. Yunshan Ge: Conceptualization,
Validation, Supervision. Lijun Hao: Data curation, Writing - original
draft. Jianwei Tan: Data curation, Writing - original draft. Xin Wang:
Data curation, Writing - original draft. Pengyu Zhang: Data curation,
Writing - original draft. Yuan Wang: Investigation, Visualization.
Weidong Tian: Investigation, Visualization. Zhiqi Lin: Investigation,
Visualization. Jian Li: Investigation, Visualization.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

Appendix A

See Table 5.

Table 5
Symbols used in the equations.
Symbols Implication Unit

mgas,i instantaneous emission flow rate for pollutant i g/s

ρgas,i density for pollutant i kg/m3
ρgas,e density for the exhaust gas kg/m3
cgas,i volume concentration for pollutant i ppm
q exhaust volume flow rate m3/s
mPN instantaneous PN flow rate #/s
cPN particle concentration #/m3
p vehicle instantaneous wheel power demand kW
f resistance coefficients N·(km/h)−1 for f1
N·(km/h)−2 for f2
N·(km/h)−3 for f3
v vehicle speed km/h
a vehicle acceleration m/s2
m vehicle mass kg
F vehicle distance-specific fuel consumption L/100 km
MCO2 distance-specific CO2 emission g/km
fF coefficient between CO2 emission and fuel 100 g/L
consumption

12
Y. Wang, et al.
Appendix B. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118340.
References
[1] Energy Information Administration (EIA). Transportation Sector Energy
Consumption. Int Energy Outlook 2016 2016;2016:127–37.
[2] Anenberg S, Miller J, Henze D, Minjares R. A global snapshot of the air pollution-
related health impacts of transportation sector emissions in 2010 and 2015. Int
Counc Clean Transp 2019:55.
[3] Hooftman N, Messagie M, Van Mierlo J, Coosemans T. A review of the European
passenger car regulations – real driving emissions vs local air quality. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2018;86:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.01.012.
[4] Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China. GB18352.6-
2016.Limits and measurement methods for emissions from light-duty vehicles
(China VI). Beijing: China Environmental Science Press; 2016.
[5] Sileghem L, Bosteels D, May J, Favre C, Verhelst S. Analysis of vehicle emission
measurements on the new WLTC, the NEDC and the CADC. Transp Res Part D
Transp Environ 2014;32:70–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.07.008.
[6] Weiss M, Bonnel P, Kühlwein J, Provenza A, Lambrecht U, Alessandrini S, et al. Will
Euro 6 reduce the NO x emissions of new diesel cars? – Insights from on-road tests
with Portable Emissions Measurement Systems (PEMS). Atmos Environ
2012;62:657–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.08.056.
[7] Tan Pqiang, Li Y, Hu Zyuan, Lou Dming. Investigation of nitrogen oxides, particle
number, and size distribution on a light-duty diesel car with B10 and G10 fuels. Fuel
2017;197:373–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.02.042.
[8] Han J, Wang S, Maria Vittori R, Somers LMT. Experimental study of the combustion
and emission characteristics of oxygenated fuels on a heavy-duty diesel engine. Fuel
2020;268:117219https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117219.
[9] Pavlovic J, Marotta A, Ciuffo B. CO2 emissions and energy demands of vehicles
tested under the NEDC and the new WLTP type approval test procedures. Appl
Energy 2016;177:661–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.05.110.
[10] Degraeuwe B, Weiss M. Does the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) really fail to
capture the NOX emissions of diesel cars in Europe? Environ Pollut
2017;222:234–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.12.050.
[11] Bielaczyc P, Woodburn J, Szczotka A. Exhaust emissions of gaseous and solid pol-
lutants measured over the NEDC, FTP-75 and WLTC chassis dynamometer driving
cycles. SAE Tech Pap 2016. https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-1008.
[12] Merkisz J, Pielecha J, Bielaczyc P, Woodburn J. Analysis of emission factors in RDE
tests as well as in NEDC and WLTC chassis dynamometer tests. SAE Tech Pap 2016.
https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-0980.
[13] Ko J, Jin D, Jang W, Myung CL, Kwon S, Park S. Comparative investigation of NOx
emission characteristics from a Euro 6-compliant diesel passenger car over the
NEDC and WLTC at various ambient temperatures. Appl Energy 2017;187:652–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.11.105.
[14] Duarte GO, Gonçalves GA, Farias TL. Analysis of fuel consumption and pollutant
emissions of regulated and alternative driving cycles based on real-world mea-
surements. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 2016;44:43–54. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.trd.2016.02.009.
[15] Rašić D, Rodman Oprešnik S, Seljak T, Vihar R, Baškovič UŽ, Wechtersbach T, et al.
RDE-based assessment of a factory bi-fuel CNG/gasoline light-duty vehicle. Atmos
Environ 2017;167:523–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.08.055.
[16] Franco V, Zacharopoulou T, Hammer J, Schmidt H, Mock P, Weiss M, et al.
Evaluation of exhaust emissions from three diesel-hybrid cars and simulation of
after-treatment systems for ultralow real-world NOx emissions. Environ Sci Technol
2016;50:13151–9. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b03585.
[17] Gallus J, Kirchner U, Vogt R, Benter T. Impact of driving style and road grade on
gaseous exhaust emissions of passenger vehicles measured by a Portable Emission
Measurement System (PEMS). Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 2017;52:215–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.011.
[18] Franco V, Posada Sánchez F, German J, Mock P. Real-world exhaust emissions from
modern diesel cars/ ICCT – The International Council On Clean Transportation
2014.
[19] Fonseca González N, Casanova Kindelán J, Espinosa Zapata F. Influence of driving
style on fuel consumption and emissions in diesel-powered passenger car. 18th Int
Symp Transp Air Pollution 2010:1–6.
[20] Ho SH, Wong YD, Chang VWC. Developing Singapore Driving Cycle for passenger
cars to estimate fuel consumption and vehicular emissions. Atmos Environ
2014;97:353–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.08.042.
[21] Donateo T, Giovinazzi M. Building a cycle for real driving emissions. Energy Proc
2017;126:891–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.307.
[22] Stasinopoulos P, Shiwakoti N, Seidl T, Wong A. Comparison of Melbourne driving
characteristics with the NEDC and WLTC. ATRF 2018 – Australas Transp Res Forum
2018, Proc 2018;101:1–11.
[23] Arun NH, Mahesh S, Ramadurai G, Shiva Nagendra SM. Development of driving
cycles for passenger cars and motorcycles in Chennai, India. Sustain Cities Soc
2017;32:508–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.05.001.
[24] General Administration of Quality Supervision I and Q of the PR of C. GB/T 38146.
1-2019.China Automotive Driving Cycle Part I: Light-duty vehicles. Beijing:
Standards Press of China; 2019.
[25] Taymaz I, Benli M. Emissions and fuel economy for a hybrid vehicle. Fuel
13
Fuel 278 (2020) 118340
2014;115:812–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.04.045.
[26] Durand T, Dimopoulos Eggenschwiler P, Tang Y, Liao Y, Landmann D. Potential of
energy recuperation in the exhaust gas of state of the art light duty vehicles with
thermoelectric elements. Fuel 2018;224:271–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.
2018.03.078.
[27] Alvarez R, Weilenmann M. Effect of low ambient temperature on fuel consumption
and pollutant and CO 2 emissions of hybrid electric vehicles in real-world condi-
tions. Fuel 2012;97:119–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.01.022.
[28] Ji C, Wang S, Zhang B, Liu X. Emissions performance of a hybrid hydrogen-gasoline
engine-powered passenger car under the New European Driving Cycle. Fuel
2013;106:873–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.01.011.
[29] Pavlovic J, Ciuffo B, Fontaras G, Valverde V, Marotta A. How much difference in
type-approval CO2 emissions from passenger cars in Europe can be expected from
changing to the new test procedure (NEDC vs WLTP)? Transp Res Part A Policy
Pract 2018;111:136–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.02.002.
[30] Mendoza-Villafuerte P, Suarez-Bertoa R, Giechaskiel B, Riccobono F, Bulgheroni C,
Astorga C, et al. NOx, NH3, N2O and PN real driving emissions from a Euro VI
heavy-duty vehicle. Impact of regulatory on-road test conditions on emissions. Sci
Total Environ 2017(609):546–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.
168.
[31] Gao Y, Checkel MD. Experimental measurement of on-road CO2 emission and fuel
consumption functions. SAE Tech Pap 2007. https://doi.org/10.4271/2007-01-
1610.
[32] Reducing CO2 emissions from passenger cars - before 2020 | Climate Action n.d.
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars_en#tab-0-0 (accessed
March 30, 2020).
[33] Mera Z, Fonseca N, López JM, Casanova J. Analysis of the high instantaneous NOx
emissions from Euro 6 diesel passenger cars under real driving conditions. Appl
Energy 2019;242:1074–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.120.
[34] Elvik R. A restatement of the case for speed limits. Transp Policy 2010;17:196–204.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.12.006.
[35] Elvik R. A review of game-theoretic models of road user behaviour. Accid Anal Prev
2014;62:388–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.06.016.
[36] Heywood JB. Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, Second Editio[1]
Heywood JB. Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, Second Edition. 2nd
edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2018.n. 2nd editio. New York:
McGraw-Hill Education; 2018.
[37] Huang Y, Surawski NC, Organ B, Zhou JL, Tang OHH, Chan EFC. Fuel consumption
and emissions performance under real driving: comparison between hybrid and
conventional vehicles. Sci Total Environ 2019;659:275–82. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.349.
[38] Fontaras G, Ciuffo B, Zacharof N, Tsiakmakis S, Marotta A, Pavlovic J, et al. The
difference between reported and real-world CO 2 emissions: how much improve-
ment can be expected by WLTP introduction? Transp Res Proc 2017;25:3933–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.333.
[39] Zhu G, Liu J, Fu J, Xu Z, Guo Q, Zhao H. Experimental study on combustion and
emission characteristics of turbocharged gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine
under cold start new European driving cycle (NEDC). Fuel 2018;215:272–84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.10.048.
[40] Park C, Lee S, Yi U. Effects of engine operating conditions on particle emissions of
lean-burn gasoline direct-injection engine. Energy 2016;115:1148–55. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.09.051.
[41] Bielaczyc P, Merkisz J. Cold start emissions investigation at different ambient
temperature conditions. SAE Tech Pap 1998. https://doi.org/10.4271/980401.
[42] Weilenmann M, Favez JY, Alvarez R. Cold-start emissions of modern passenger cars
at different low ambient temperatures and their evolution over vehicle legislation
categories. Atmos Environ 2009;43:2419–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.
2009.02.005.
[43] Yu S, Dong G, Li L. Transient characteristics of emissions during engine start/stop
operation employing a conventional gasoline engine for HEV application. Int J
Automot Technol 2008;9:543–9.
[44] Pham A, Jeftic M. Characterization of Gaseous emissions from blended plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles during high-power cold-starts. SAE Tech Pap 2018:1–9.
https://doi.org/10.4271/2018-01-0428.
[45] Chen L, Liang Z, Zhang X, Shuai S. Characterizing particulate matter emissions from
GDI and PFI vehicles under transient and cold start conditions. Fuel
2017;189:131–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.10.055.
[46] Bowman CT. Kinetics of pollutant formation and destruction in combustion. Prog
Energy Combust Sci 1975;1:33–45.
[47] Luján JM, Bermúdez V, Dolz V, Monsalve-Serrano J. An assessment of the real-
world driving gaseous emissions from a Euro 6 light-duty diesel vehicle using a
portable emissions measurement system (PEMS). Atmos Environ 2018;174:112–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.11.056.
[48] Zhu L, Zhang W, Liu W, Huang Z. Experimental study on particulate and NOx
emissions of a diesel engine fueled with ultra low sulfur diesel, RME-diesel blends
and PME-diesel blends. Sci Total Environ 2010;408:1050–8. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.056.
[49] Xia W, Zheng Y, He X, Yang D, Shao H, Remias J, et al. Catalyzed gasoline parti-
culate filter (GPF) Performance: effect of driving cycle fuel, catalyst coating. SAE
Y. Wang, et al.
Tech Pap 2017. https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-2366.
[50] Sgro LA, Sementa P, Vaglieco BM, Rusciano G, D’Anna A, Minutolo P. Investigating
the origin of nuclei particles in GDI engine exhausts. Combust Flame
2012;159:1687–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2011.12.013.
[51] Kim N, Cho S, Min K. A study on the combustion and emission characteristics of an
SI engine under full load conditions with ethanol port injection and gasoline direct
injection. Fuel 2015;158:725–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.06.025.
[52] Ko J, Kim K, Chung W, Myung CL, Park S. Characteristics of on-road particle
number (PN) emissions from a GDI vehicle depending on a catalytic stripper (CS)
and a metal-foam gasoline particulate filter (GPF). Fuel 2019;238:363–74. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.10.091.
[53] McAllister M, Smith S, Kapus P, Vidmar K, Hochnetz A. EU6c particle number on a
full size SUV – engine out or GPF? SAE Int J Fuels Lubr 2014;7:995–1003. https://
doi.org/10.4271/2014-01-2848.
[54] Kontses A, Triantafyllopoulos G, Ntziachristos L, Samaras Z. Particle number (PN)
emissions from gasoline, diesel, LPG, CNG and hybrid-electric light-duty vehicles
14
Fuel 278 (2020) 118340
under real-world driving conditions. Atmos Environ 2019;117126.
[55] Yang Z, Ge Y, Thomas D, Wang X, Su S, Li H, et al. Real driving particle number
(PN) emissions from China-6 compliant PFI and GDI hybrid electrical vehicles.
Atmos Environ 2019;199:70–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.11.037.
[56] Czerwinski J, Comte P, Engelmann D, Heeb N, Muñoz M, Bonsack P, et al. PN-
emissions of gasoline cars MPI and potentials of GPF. SAE Tech Pap 2018:1–13.
https://doi.org/10.4271/2018-01-0363.
[57] Chan TW, Meloche E, Kubsh J, Brezny R. Black carbon emissions in gasoline exhaust
and a reduction alternative with a gasoline particulate filter. Environ Sci Technol
2014;48:6027–34. https://doi.org/10.1021/es501791b.
[58] Jang J, Lee J, Choi Y, Park S. Reduction of particle emissions from gasoline vehicles
with direct fuel injection systems using a gasoline particulate filter. Sci Total
Environ 2018;644:1418–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.362.
[59] Franck U, Odeh S, Wiedensohler A, Wehner B, Herbarth O. The effect of particle size
on cardiovascular disorders – the smaller the worse. Sci Total Environ
2011;409:4217–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.049.