More pollution inhaled in a car than on a bike.
- Thread starter User
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Fab Foodie
hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
- Location
- Kirton, Devon.
Fark facts!
gavroche
Getting old but not past it
- Location
- North Wales
I will be 67 in three weeks time and wonder how I am still alive after breathing all that polluted air since birth. I think it is all exaggerated by scientists for whatever reason and don't take any notice of it all.
Wobblers
Euthermic
- Location
- Minkowski Space
Are you sure that this assertion has nothing at all to do with the fact that you drive a thumping great diesel?
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
How much air inside a cars cabin actually comes through the vents?
stowie
Legendary Member
[QUOTE 4991664, member: 9609"]the link you give only takes me to a page that gives a very brief abstract to what is a 'pay per view' article. So I guess I'm not seeing what you are seeing?. Is it saying that air filtration in cars does not work ? I am led to believe that pollen filters remove all PM2.5, is that not the case? and even without pollen filters does setting the ventillation to 'recirc' (like I do when i go through the tyne tunnel) not limit how much pollution I am exposed to when driving through a heavily polluted enviroment. I reckon if you cycled through the tyne tunnel you would cough for an entire month, in my van with ventilation set to recirc I don't even smell it.[/QUOTE]
Even in re-circulation mode a certain amount of outside air will be mixed in. A car cabin cannot be hermetically sealed, for one thing it would have people passing out from oxygen deprivation if they forgot to switch back to fresh air before they used up all the cabin oxygen...
The issue with car cabin air is that the intakes are generally in exactly the place where the most pollution is found - low down just behind the source of the pollution (the vehicle in front).
Pollen filters do take out the biggest particles, but there are smaller particles it won't touch and neither will it do much about the real worrying pollution (N0x). Worrying because it is difficult to measure and hasn't been included in vehicle excise pricing like CO2 so it appears manufacturers have gamed the system pretty extensively.
NOx is a pretty nasty mixture of pollution although it can be quite short lived - weather conditions often cause it to break down with oxygen and generate ozone - itself a pretty horrid pollutant at ground level. Because of the nature of NOx, proximity is important in the calculation for exposure - sitting right in front of the source is worse than even simply standing a small distance away.
As an aside, in real world testing studies have found that the latest specification HGVs emit less NOx than a standard Euro VI car (latest standard). This is because HGVs are tested in real world conditions and need a whole bunch of scrubbing technology on the exhaust to get through the test. Cars go through a less realistic test cycle and so get passed without the need for all this expensive stuff. The upshot is that studies showed even diesel cars with Euro VI compliance can emit over twice the NOx of a HGV. New regulations will make a bit of a difference, but it is predicted diesel cars still won't catch up, and each new tightening regulation makes diesel more expensive and complicated for car use/
Even in re-circulation mode a certain amount of outside air will be mixed in. A car cabin cannot be hermetically sealed, for one thing it would have people passing out from oxygen deprivation if they forgot to switch back to fresh air before they used up all the cabin oxygen...
The issue with car cabin air is that the intakes are generally in exactly the place where the most pollution is found - low down just behind the source of the pollution (the vehicle in front).
Pollen filters do take out the biggest particles, but there are smaller particles it won't touch and neither will it do much about the real worrying pollution (N0x). Worrying because it is difficult to measure and hasn't been included in vehicle excise pricing like CO2 so it appears manufacturers have gamed the system pretty extensively.
NOx is a pretty nasty mixture of pollution although it can be quite short lived - weather conditions often cause it to break down with oxygen and generate ozone - itself a pretty horrid pollutant at ground level. Because of the nature of NOx, proximity is important in the calculation for exposure - sitting right in front of the source is worse than even simply standing a small distance away.
As an aside, in real world testing studies have found that the latest specification HGVs emit less NOx than a standard Euro VI car (latest standard). This is because HGVs are tested in real world conditions and need a whole bunch of scrubbing technology on the exhaust to get through the test. Cars go through a less realistic test cycle and so get passed without the need for all this expensive stuff. The upshot is that studies showed even diesel cars with Euro VI compliance can emit over twice the NOx of a HGV. New regulations will make a bit of a difference, but it is predicted diesel cars still won't catch up, and each new tightening regulation makes diesel more expensive and complicated for car use/
Randy Butternubs
Über Member
Isn't it Euro 6 compliance that basically necessitates Urea/Adblue systems such as those found on HGVs in order to get the NOx emissions down? And Euro 6 cars still emit more NOx than HGVs? I'd be really interested in any info explaining why.
Last edited:
Nigel-YZ1
Guru
- Location
- Somewhere else... maybe soon.
I thought the cabin intakes were just below the windscreen? They have been on all the cars I've owned.
Tanis8472
Guru
Yep, the scuttle panel.
Not to worry, we soon won't need to follow euro standards much longer.
Not to worry, we soon won't need to follow euro standards much longer.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Just because you haven't snuffed it doesn't many others haven't.
Julia9054
Guru
- Location
- Knaresborough
Absolutely! Why listen to people who have spent years studying something when you can just go with "wot i fink"
gavroche
Getting old but not past it
- Location
- North Wales
If you were to listen to all the experts / scientists all the time, you wouldn't dare get out of bed because of all those dangers out there. Just live your life every day and come what may.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
The reason you've survived to the age of 67 is because of the very experts and scientists you deride, who over the centuries have brought about improved nutrition and advances in healthcare.
I do live my life every day, but I don't smoke, drink minimally, and take exercise because in the great card game of life that gives me the best possible hand. If you want to puff the Galoises for breakfast and buy a jar of leeches whenever you get a sniffle then be my guest.
I do live my life every day, but I don't smoke, drink minimally, and take exercise because in the great card game of life that gives me the best possible hand. If you want to puff the Galoises for breakfast and buy a jar of leeches whenever you get a sniffle then be my guest.
kingrollo
Guru
[QUOTE 4991401, member: 45"]Research is in. Fill your boots...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412016304585?via=ihub[/QUOTE]
Its like those reports that say you are just as visible in all back gear as those wearing high viz. The reports IMO sets out to defy the obvious - and builds a very comprehensive case. In practical terms I believe you are more exposed to pollution on a bike.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412016304585?via=ihub[/QUOTE]
Its like those reports that say you are just as visible in all back gear as those wearing high viz. The reports IMO sets out to defy the obvious - and builds a very comprehensive case. In practical terms I believe you are more exposed to pollution on a bike.
