Brake wear gives 16%–55% by mass to total non-exhaust traffic related PM10 emissions in urban environments. While engines have become cleaner in the past decades, few improvements were made to lower non-exhaust emission until recently. Researchers have developed several experimental methods over the past years to assess brake emissions. However, observations tend to differ from a method to another with respect to many disciplines, ranging from particle system characterization to brake cycles, and it remains difficult to compare results of different research groups. It is so crucial to get a consensus on the standard experimental method. The following article lists limits which influence measurements and has to be taken into account when comparing works from different laboratories. This article also discusses how to design tests to get a relevant braking particle system characterization.
YanFWinijkulEJungS, et al. Global emission projections of particulate matter (PM): I. Exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles. Atmos Environ2011; 45(28): 4830–4844.
2.
HulskotteJHJRoskamGDvan der GonHD. Elemental composition of current automotive braking materials and derived air emission factors. Atmos Environ2014; 99: 436–445.
GrigoratosTMartiniG. Brake wear particle emissions: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res2015; 22(4): 2491–2504.
6.
ThorpeAHarrisonRM. Sources and properties of non-exhaust particulate matter from road traffic: a review. Sci Total Environ2008; 400(1): 270–282.
7.
HaginoHOyamaMSasakiS. Laboratory testing of airborne brake wear particle emissions using a dynamometer system under urban city driving cycles. Atmos Environ2016; 131: 269–278.
8.
EEAE. Air quality in Europe - 2015 report. Report no. 5/2015, 2015. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
9.
ErikssonMBergmanFJacobsonS. On the nature of tribological contact in automotive brakes. Wear2002; 252(1): 26–36.
LiuLUrchBPoonR, et al. Effects of ambient coarse, fine, and ultrafine particles and their biological constituents on systemic biomarkers: a controlled human exposure study. Environ Health Perspect2015; 123(6): 534–540.
15.
AlemaniMNoskoOMetinozI, et al. A study on emission of airborne wear particles from car brake friction Pairs. SAE Int J Mater Manf2015; 9(1): 147–157.
16.
NoskoOVanhanenJOlofssonU. Emission of 1.3–10 nm airborne particles from brake materials. Aerosol Sci Technol2017; 51(1): 91–96.
17.
WahlströmJOlanderLOlofssonU. A pin-on-disc study focusing on how different load levels affect the concentration and size distribution of airborne wear particles from the disc brake materials. Tribol Lett2012; 46(2): 195–204.
18.
MaJOlofssonULyuY, et al. A comparison of airborne particles generated from disk brake contacts: induction versus frictional heating. Tribol Lett2020; 68(1): 38.
19.
PerriconeGMatĕjkaVAlemaniM, et al. A test stand study on the volatile emissions of a passenger car brake assembly. Atmosphere2019; 10(5): 263.
20.
MathissenMGrochowiczJSchmidtC, et al. A novel real-world braking cycle for studying brake wear particle emissions. Wear2018; 414–415: 219–226.
21.
MalequeMADyutiSRahmanMM. Material selection method in design of automotive brake disc. In: Proceedings of the world congress on engineering, London, UK, 30 June–2 July 2010, vol. III, p.5.
22.
ChanDStachowiakGW. Review of automotive brake friction materials. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2004; 218(9): 953–966.
23.
PerriconeGWahlströmJOlofssonU. Towards a test stand for standardized measurements of the brake emissions. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2016; 230(11): 1521–1528.
24.
HaginoHOyamaMSasakiS. Airborne brake wear particle emission due to braking and accelerating. Wear2015; 334–335: 44–48.
25.
WahlströmJSöderbergAOlanderL, et al. A pin-on-disc simulation of airborne wear particles from disc brakes. Wear2010; 268(5–6): 763–769.
26.
NoskoOOlofssonU. Effective density of airborne wear particles from car brake materials. J Aerosol Sci2017; 107: 94–106.
27.
AlemaniMWahlströmJOlofssonU. On the influence of car brake system parameters on particulate matter emissions. Wear2018; 396–397: 67–74.
28.
WahlströmJOlofssonU. A field study of airborne particle emissions from automotive disc brakes. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2015; 229(6): 747–757.
29.
KukutschováJMoravecPTomášekV, et al. On airborne nano/micro-sized wear particles released from low-metallic automotive brakes. Environ Pollut2011; 159(4): 998–1006.
30.
MathissenMGrigoratosTLahdeT, et al. Brake wear particle emissions of a passenger car measured on a chassis dynamometer. Atmosphere2019; 10(9): 556.
31.
NoskoOAlemaniMOlofssonU. Temperature effect on emission of airborne wear particles from car brakes. In: Proceedings of Europe’s braking conference and exhibition, Dresden, Germany, 2015, p.18.
32.
PerriconeGMatějkaVAlemaniM, et al. A concept for reducing PM 10 emissions for car brakes by 50%. Wear2018; 396–397: 135–145.
33.
NoskoOAlemaniMOlofssonU. Characterisation of airborne particles emitted from car brake materials. In: 6th World tribology congress, Beijing, China, 17–22 September 2017, p.5.
34.
CiudinRVermaPCGialanellaS, et al. Wear debris materials from brake systems: environmental and health issues. WIT Trans Ecol Environ2014; 191: 1423–1434.
35.
AlemaniMPerriconeGOlofssonU, et al. A proposed dyno bench test cycle to study particle emissions from disk brakes. In: Conference paper from Eurobrake 2014, Lille, France, 13–15 May 2014. London: FISITA.
GramstatSCserhatiASchroederM, et al. Brake particle emission measurements - testing method and results. SAE Int J Engines2017; 10(4): 1841–1846.
38.
PerriconeGAlemaniMMetinözI, et al. Towards the ranking of airborne particle emissions from car brakes – a system approach. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2017; 231(6): 781–797.
39.
DemuynckJBosteelsDDe PaepeM, et al. Recommendations for the new WLTP cycle based on an analysis of vehicle emission measurements on NEDC and CADC. Energy Policy2012; 49: 234–242.
40.
KukutschováJRoubíčekVMalachováK, et al. Wear mechanism in automotive brake materials, wear debris and its potential environmental impact. Wear2009; 267(5–8): 807–817.
41.
IijimaASatoKYanoK, et al. Particle size and composition distribution analysis of automotive brake abrasion dusts for the evaluation of antimony sources of airborne particulate matter. Atmos Environ2007; 41(23): 4908–4919.
42.
ShinJYimIKwonS-B, et al. Evaluation of temperature effects on brake wear particles using clustered heatmaps. Environ Eng Res2019; 24(4): 680–689.
43.
ÖsterleWBreschHDörfelI, et al. Surface film formation and dust generation during brake performance tests. New York, NY: The Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 2009.
44.
AlemaniMWahlströmJMatějkaV, et al. Scaling effects of measuring disc brake airborne particulate matter emissions – a comparison of a pin-on-disc tribometer and an inertia dynamometer bench under dragging conditions. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering Tribology2018; 232(12): 1538–1547.
45.
KwakJKimHLeeJ, et al. Characterization of non-exhaust coarse and fine particles from on-road driving and laboratory measurements. Sci Total Environ2013; 458–460: 273–282.
46.
Farwick zum HagenFHMathissenMGrabiecT, et al. On-road vehicle measurements of brake wear particle emissions. Atmos Environ 15 2019; 217: 116943.
47.
HaginoH. Feasible methodology for brake wear particles measurement and characterization. In: 45th PMP meeting, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy, 7–8 November 2017, p.19.
48.
ShabanianSRRahimiMShahhosseiniM, et al. CFD and experimental studies on heat transfer enhancement in an air cooler equipped with different tube inserts. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer2011; 38(3): 383–390.
49.
AgudeloC. PMP-45-15 LINK Design considerations for brake emission measurements. 2017.
50.
BremboS.p.A. REBRAKE: a brake test stand for particles measurement and collection. 2016.
51.
AnsaloniSSinAMoisoM. PMP-48-19 ITT presentation. 7–8 November 2018, Ispra, Italy.
52.
KulkarniPBaronPAWillekeK. Aerosol measurement: principles, techniques, and applications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2011, p.904.
53.
DennisRSamplesWRAndersonDM, et al. Isokinetic sampling probes. Ind Eng Chem1957; 49(2): 294–302.
54.
WilcoxJD. Isokinetic flow and sampling. J Air Pollut Control Assoc1956; 5(4): 226–245.
55.
BreuerMBaytekinHTMatidaEA. Prediction of aerosol deposition in 90° bends using LES and an efficient Lagrangian tracking method. J Aerosol Sci2006; 37(11): 1407–1428.
56.
SunKLuL. Particle flow behavior of distribution and deposition throughout 90° bends: analysis of influencing factors. J Aerosol Sci2013; 65: 26–41.
57.
ParkSHKimHOHanYT, et al. Wall loss rate of polydispersed aerosols. Aerosol Sci Technol2001; 35(3): 710–717.
58.
KimDSParkSHSongYM, et al. Brownian coagulation of polydisperse aerosols in the transition regime. J Aerosol Sci2003; 34(7): 859–868.
59.
SherwoodTWeiJ. Interfacial phenomena in liquid extraction. Ind Eng Chem1957; 49(6): 1030–1034.
60.
SulaimanMClimentEHammoutiA, et al. Mass transfer towards a reactive particle in a fluid flow: numerical simulations and modeling. Chem Eng Sci2019; 199: 496–507.
61.
DelattrePFriedlanderSK. Aerosol coagulation and diffusion in a turbulent jet. Ind Eng Chem Fund1978; 17(3): 189–194.
62.
BerroukASLaurenceD. Stochastic modelling of aerosol deposition for LES of 90° bend turbulent flow. Int J Heat Fluid Flow2008; 29(4): 1010–1028.
63.
BluesteinAMVentersRBohlD, et al. Turbulent flow through a ducted elbow and plugged tee geometry: an experimental and numerical study. J Fluids Eng2019; 141(8): 081101–081101-14.
64.
ChengYSWangCS. Motion of particles in bends of circular pipes. Atmos Environ1981; 15(3): 301–306.
65.
CongXCYangGSQuJH, et al. A model for evaluating the particle penetration efficiency in a ninety-degree bend with a circular-cross section in laminar and turbulent flow regions. Powder Technol2017; 305: 771–781.
66.
CraneRIEvansRI. Inertial deposition of particles in a bent pipe. J Aerosol Sci1977; 8: 161–170.
67.
PuiDYHRomay-NovasFLiuBYH. Experimental study of particle deposition in bends of circular cross section. Aerosol Sci Technol1987; 7(3): 301–315.
68.
SunKLuLJiangH. A numerical study of bend-induced particle deposition in and behind duct bends. Build Environ2012; 52: 77–87.
69.
TsaiC-JPuiDYH. Numerical study of particle deposition in bends of a circular cross-section-laminar flow regime. Aerosol Sci Technol1990; 12(4): 813–831.
70.
ZhangPRobertsRMBénardA. Computational guidelines and an empirical model for particle deposition in curved pipes using an Eulerian-Lagrangian approach. J Aerosol Sci2012; 53: 1–20.
71.
MuyshondtAMcFarlandARAnandNK. Deposition of aerosol particles in contraction fittings. Aerosol Sci Technol1996; 24(3): 205–216.
72.
von der WeidenS-LDrewnickFBorrmannS. Particle loss calculator – a new software tool for the assessment of the performance of aerosol inlet systems. Atmos Meas Tech2009; 2(2): 479–494.
73.
ChenQAhmadiG. Deposition of particles in a turbulent pipe flow. J Aerosol Sci1997; 28(5): 789–796.
74.
PozorskiJ. Models of turbulent flows and particle dynamics. In: MinierJ-PPozorskiJ (eds) Particles in wall-bounded turbulent flows: deposition, re-suspension and agglomeration [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp.97–150.
75.
ReynoldsAM. A Lagrangian stochastic model for heavy particle deposition. J Colloid Interface Sci1999; 215(1): 85–91.
76.
WoodNB. A simple method for the calculation of turbulent deposition to smooth and rough surfaces. J Aerosol Sci1981; 12(3): 275–290.
77.
BandyopadhyayPRBalasubramanianR. Vortex Reynolds number in turbulent boundary layers. Theor Comput Fluid Dyn1995; 7(2): 101–117.
78.
HudmanMHughMB. Large eddy simulation of turbulent pipe flow. In: Second international conference on CFD in the minerals and process industries, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, December 1999, pp.369–374. Melbourne: CSIRO Australia.
79.
LiuXZhangYWuQ, et al. Study on the key structure parameters of a gravity settling chamber based on a flow field simulation. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech2019; 13(1): 377–395.
80.
HusseinTHruškaADohányosováP, et al. Deposition rates on smooth surfaces and coagulation of aerosol particles inside a test chamber. Atmos Environ2009; 43(4): 905–914.
81.
HusseinTKubincováLDžumbováL, et al. Deposition of aerosol particles on rough surfaces inside a test chamber. Build Environ2009; 44(10): 2056–2063.
82.
ZhaoBWuJ. Particle deposition in indoor environments: analysis of influencing factors. J Hazard Mater2007; 147(1): 439–448.
83.
Van LeussenW. Aggregation of particles, settling velocity of mud flocs a review. In: DronkersJvan LeussenW (eds) Physical processes in estuaries. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1988, pp.347–403.
84.
KeshaniSDaudWRWNourouziMM, et al. Spray drying: an overview on wall deposition, process and modeling. J Food Eng2015; 146: 152–162.
85.
LaiACK. Investigation of electrostatic forces on particle deposition in a test chamber. Indoor Built Environ2006; 15(2): 179–186.
86.
StellingCMarkAPapastavrouG, et al. Showing particles their place: deterministic colloid immobilization by gold nanomeshes. Nanoscale2016; 8(30): 14556–14564.
87.
YuK-PLeeW-MGPengC-J, et al. Effects of roughness, dielectric constant and electrical resistivity of wall on deposition of submicron particles driven by ionic air purifier. J Environ Chem Eng2017; 5(4): 3108–3114.
88.
PratsinisSEKimK-S. Particle coagulation, diffusion and thermophoresis in laminar tube flows. J Aerosol Sci1989; 20(1): 101–111.
89.
WalshJKWeimerAWHrenyaCM. Thermophoretic deposition of aerosol particles in laminar tube flow with mixed convection. J Aerosol Sci2006; 37(6): 715–734.
90.
WahlströmJLyuYMatjekaV, et al. A pin-on-disc tribometer study of disc brake contact pairs with respect to wear and airborne particle emissions. Wear2017; 384–385: 124–130.
PriceHDStahlmeckeBArthurR, et al. Comparison of instruments for particle number size distribution measurements in air quality monitoring. J Aerosol Sci2014; 76: 48–55.
97.
PetersTMOttDO’ShaughnessyPT. Comparison of the Grimm 1.108 and 1.109 portable aerosol spectrometer to the TSI 3321 aerodynamic particle sizer for dry particles. Ann Occup Hyg2006; 50(8): 843–850.
98.
TuchTHMirmeATammE, et al. Comparison of two particle-size spectrometers for ambient aerosol measurements. Atmos Environ2000; 34(1): 139–149.
99.
StöberW. A note on the aerodynamic diameter and the mobility of non-spherical aerosol particles. J Aerosol Sci1971; 2(4): 453–456.
100.
ThomasDCharvetABardin-MonnierN, et al. Aerosol filtration. Oxford: Elsevier, ISTE Press, 2016, p.228.
101.
SandersPGXuNDalkaTM, et al. Airborne brake wear debris: size distributions, composition, and a comparison of dynamometer and vehicle tests. Environ Sci Technol2003; 37(18): 4060–4069.
