Hump Day Hilarity – actual study: 'diesel trains may expose passengers to diesel exhaust'

From  the “I can’t believe we needed a study to determine this” and Hansen’s Death Trains department, the actual unedited press release is below, commentary follows.

mp40-6041


Diesel trains may expose passengers to exhaust

Levels of certain airborne pollutants are up to nine times higher in train cars directly behind diesel locomotives than on a busy city street

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY OF APPLIED SCIENCE & ENGINEERING

A new study from U of T Engineering finds that diesel trains may expose passengers to elevated levels of certain pollutants, especially if they are sitting directly behind the locomotive.

“Imagine yourself driving down a busy highway in a convertible, and spending your entire commute sitting behind a very large diesel truck,” said Greg Evans, a professor of Chemical Engineering and director of the Southern Ontario Centre for Atmospheric Aerosol Research (SOCAAR). “That’s comparable to the levels we see here.”

Evans and Dr. Cheol-Heon Jeong, a senior research associate at SOCAAR, measured the concentration of airborne particles using two types of portable instruments: one that detects black carbon (BC) and one that detects ultrafine particles (UFP).

“Black carbon is essentially soot, and is formed right in the cylinder of the diesel engine,” said Evans. UFP are formed when gases in the exhaust condense into microscopic particles less than 100 nanometres in diameter, or about 1000 times smaller than the width of a human hair.

Studies have linked both BC and UFP to detrimental health effects, although evidence is still emerging and not conclusive. However, both measurements also act as proxies for the complex mixture of gases in diesel exhaust, which is an established carcinogen and associated with respiratory, cardiovascular and reproductive health effects.

In prior research, Evans and his team have found elevated levels of BC and UFP next to busy streets and highways. One day, Jeong left the sensors turned on during his morning commute on the train — it wasn’t until he saw the data that he and Evans realized how high the numbers were inside cars pulled by diesel locomotives.

“We were quite surprised, and after making confirmation measurements we got in touch with Metrolinx to let them know of the potential issue,” said Evans. Metrolinx is the transit authority for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area.

Over the course of 43 trips, the team gathered more data from inside commuter train cars. They also took measurements while walking along busy streets in downtown Toronto for comparison. In a paper published in Atmospheric Environment, they report that:

  • Cars being pulled by diesel trains and located directly behind the locomotive had an average of nine times the levels of BC and UFP compared to air next to a busy city street.
  • Cars being pushed by diesel trains during a return trip had air that was generally cleaner than that next to busy city streets.
  • When being pulled, cars in the middle of the trains had levels three times lower than the front-most cars. The average BC and UFP concentrations across all pulled cars was about five times higher than on city streets.

“The health and safety of our customers and staff is our number one priority, which is precisely why we’ve supported the work of Dr. Evans and his research team,” said Greg Percy, Chief Operating Officer for Metrolinx. “We welcome any findings that can help us run a healthier, safer transit service and we’re hopeful this work will result in improvements that will be applied throughout the industry and within other public transit agencies in Canada and abroad.”

Percy said that Metrolinx is taking a number of steps to address the issue, such as installing high-efficiency filters in the ventilation systems of its train cars. The organization is also moving to locomotives with improved emissions standards and to electrified service on key routes, which will eliminate the diesel emissions altogether.

Evans and his team are currently working with Metrolinx and SNC Lavalin to test the new improved filters for the air intake vents. Preliminary results are positive. “Installing the higher grade filters did produce a marked improvement, with an 80 per cent reduction in the levels of black carbon,” said Evans.

“Metrolinx has been very supportive of our research.” said Jeong. “Our collaboration with them is most welcome as it will help translate our research findings into action. Further research is also required to evaluate in-transit exposure for all types of diesel-powered passenger trains.”

In the meantime, there are practical steps that passengers can take. “I would advise pregnant women and passengers with heart or respiratory health problems not to travel in the front car,” said Evans. But he would not necessarily suggest avoiding the train entirely.

“I commute by train on a regular basis myself and have done so for years,” said Evans. “As an air quality researcher, I want to see a reduction in overall emissions, and trains are a more efficient system than people commuting in their cars. I don’t want to discourage people from taking transit, or alarm them unduly, but there is an issue here. It underscores the importance of train electrification, which will address this indoor air issue in addition to helping to combat climate change.”

###


In related top level science news:

  • If you drive a Volkswagen Diesel car you may be exposed to diesel exhaust, though not at the levels indicated by Volkswagen test results.
  • If you have a wood stove in your home, you may be exposed to wood smoke.
  • If you drive a semi-truck, you may be exposed to diesel exhaust.
  • If you live in the city, versus the country, you may be exposed to more particulate based pollution due to greater density of diesel autos, buses, and trucks.
  • If you lived in the 19th century, and rode a train powered by a steam locomotive, you may have been exposed to high levels of smoke with dangerous particulates in it. That’s probably why you are dead now.

Funding is desperately needed to ascertain the answers to the above burning issues.

And finally, the money quote:

“It underscores the importance of train electrification, which will address this indoor air issue in addition to helping to combat climate change.”

Well, maybe, maybe not. In Ontario they might have hydro-power running the trains, but in the USA Northeast, mostly coal power plants. I don’t know of any trains that run on wind and solar, but I’m sure if somebody invents one, it will be initially lauded as a huge success until that first cloudy and windless day on the commute.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
154 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J
February 8, 2017 10:25 am

An utterly fact free press release.
They claim 9 times higher in the first car.
But no actual numbers of the concentration of particles for any scenario, the middle car, or street corners.
No data, no way to evaluate any actual risk..

J
Reply to  J
February 8, 2017 1:57 pm

But they claim 9X higher in the front car. But what if the other cars have 1 0.1micrometer particle per cubic meter. So 9X is 9 particle per meter. There is no perspective if this is any sort of hazard or above any sort of recognized industrial health and safety guidelines.
No quantitative data. No way to access the risk or significance. When I ride the train I see no smoke in the cars, and don’t smell exhaust, so in the trains I ride, levels must be pretty low.

Johann Wundersamer
February 8, 2017 10:59 am

ALL american diesel trucks
sport exhaust pipes blasting min.6 meters above ground level.

Bryan A
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
February 8, 2017 12:39 pm

Only the Tractor Trailer rigs (18 wheelers). F150 diesel and C1500 diesel models are 2′ max above ground level. Have yet to see a 1/2 ton diesel with 20′ tall pipes

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Bryan A
February 10, 2017 2:06 am

Thanks for the info!

rocketscientist
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
February 8, 2017 12:41 pm

And of course all the diesel exhaust remains 6m above the ground. [faceplam]

Resourceguy
February 8, 2017 11:04 am

Universities represent one of the places where the 80-20 Rule does not hold. One must revert to the 90-10 Rule to make sense of them.

February 8, 2017 11:05 am

Now, not that I condone the habit (which I have subsequently quit), but I actually had a woman come up to me on the train platform and complain about my smoking. I couldn’t hear her very well as we were standing right next to a running turbo charged 16 cylinder, 50 liter displacement, diesel engine in a confined space. At about 3k rpm, that’s good for what – 1.5-2.5 m3/s of particulate laden diesel exhaust? But it’s my cigarette that’s gonna trigger your panic attack.

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
February 8, 2017 11:10 am

So what have these characters found, an actual hazard or not?
How fantastic that they have a new toy (is that what this is about – willy enhancement?) that can see these UFPs yet even they sat there is no positively identified problem even with things (PM2.5s) that are 25 times bigger.
So, there is a hazard from cancerous chemicals in diesel smoke? What about the primary metabolite of alcohol consumption – acetaldehyde. There’s one desperately unpleasant chemical yet doctors the world over say up to 20ml of alcohol per day may even be good for you.
Please lads, without any actual anything in your research, this is just noise.
As if Climate Scientists didn’t make enough of that already and is, arguably a bigger hazard than what you think you’ve found.
It distracts from Real Problems. If you’ve not found or identified a *real* danger, keep it under your hat. OK?
Otherwise its verging on terrorism.

Johann Wundersamer
February 8, 2017 11:38 am
Rhoda R
February 8, 2017 11:49 am

I keep hearing about black carbon. Is there any carbon that isn’t black?

Neil Jordan
February 8, 2017 11:50 am

Smoke? That’s not smoke. This is smoke:
https://youtu.be/6OgSNQOTw2U
Here is one, emitting combined carbon and condensed true greenhouse gas water vapor.:
https://youtu.be/LHI5VHBwIfI

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Neil Jordan
February 10, 2017 2:09 am

Yes, so I remember the 70ies!

February 8, 2017 12:00 pm

This article did not mention CO2 or AGW or CC. It was just about “conventional” pollution. Whether you agree with them or take the view that anything coming from any kind of environmentalist must be fabricated nonsense, it is really silly to go on about this post as alarmist or warmist. The point they make about using electric trains is not only valid as a way of reducing point-of-use pollution, but electric trains in my experience seem to have way better acceleration, which is a huge asset for a commuter railway. They can also do regenerative braking which puts power back in the grid and reduces the amount of particulate crud from brake pads getting into in the air (the trains in question have disk brakes).

rocketscientist
Reply to  Smart Rock
February 8, 2017 12:51 pm

Smart Rock,
You seem to have overlooked the fact that diesel powered trains are electric. They simply carry the electricity generator along with them. The “locomotive engine” is merely a large diesel/electric generator that supplies power to the electric motors that drive the wheels. This does require that the locomotive also generate enough power to move the generator and all its fuel along the tracks as well as the remainder of the train and its payload. But, it does not require overhead (or 3rd rail) infrastructure to conduct the electricity to the wheel motors. Anyone who ignores the attendant costs (both monetary and energy-wise) of installing and maintaining this additional infrastructure is ignorant or dishonest, and only contributes to the confusion by using poor accounting.

rd50
Reply to  rocketscientist
February 8, 2017 2:07 pm

About time for someone to get the facts straight. Thanks.

Reply to  rocketscientist
February 8, 2017 2:34 pm

Not all diesels are electric. I’ve seen mechanical and hydraulic transmissions….

Reply to  rocketscientist
February 8, 2017 4:12 pm

Wouldn’t you know it, the plan is to “electrify” those GO trains, with all the “attendant costs (both monetary and energy-wise) of installing and maintaining this additional infrastructure…).

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  rocketscientist
February 10, 2017 2:11 am

v’ !

Johann Wundersamer
February 8, 2017 12:17 pm

Short explanation:
A tractor, the trailer is a cooler loaded with butter.
The hot exhaust pipe passes the defective cooler and the entire load, pure fat, gets on fire.
That’s why since 1999 ALL truck exhaust pipes are under strict controll.

Stephen Richards
February 8, 2017 12:27 pm

30000 passengers have died from the fumes this year alone, we estimate UN and NYT /SARC

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Stephen Richards
February 10, 2017 2:13 am

Stephen Richards on February 8, 2017 at 12:27 pm
30000 passengers have died from the fumes this year alone, we estimate UN and NYT /SARC
And they never set it in relation to all about death rate!

Ron Tuohimaa
February 8, 2017 1:00 pm

In minus 40-degree weather in Val-d’Or, Quebec several years ago, an associate from Australia wondered how may feet fresh urine would have to travel off a high cliff before it froze. I see a grant coming.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Ron Tuohimaa
February 8, 2017 2:24 pm

…or Griffy.

Gareth Phillips
February 8, 2017 1:35 pm

Interesting that the Netherlands are planning for their railways to be run from power produced from wind turbines. Here is an interesting tool for those interested in exactly how much Europe produces from wind turbines.
https://windeurope.org/about-wind/daily-wind/

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
February 8, 2017 3:12 pm

See John in Oz February 8, 2017 at 3:01 pm

February 8, 2017 2:30 pm

In Ontario they might have hydro-power running the trains, but in the USA Northeast, mostly coal power plants.

Oh dont be quite so disingenuous. Its a darn sight easier to get better fuel efficiency and way less particulate sulphur and NOx emissions in a fossil power station than in a fossil diesel engine, and you can put the power station where the people aren’t.
Trains ain’t goin’ nowhere ‘cept along them tracks, and they are ultimately best ‘lectrified and there is no way round that.
Anyway., then you can have nookooleer trains, innit?

Reply to  Leo Smith
February 8, 2017 4:17 pm

Those trains go right past the Pickering nuclear power station. I imagine that would be the predominant power source. Niagara Falls is near 100 miles away.

jaffa
February 8, 2017 2:39 pm

“cars in the middle of the trains had levels three times lower than the front-most cars”
“three times lower”………. is this acceptable scientific language these days? Or can I continue to assume such things are only written by idiots?

Retired Kit P
Reply to  jaffa
February 8, 2017 5:05 pm

Written by idiots.
The correct method of analyzing pollution is to measure it and compare it to the regulatory limits. Workers who spend 8 hours a day are usually the limiting exposure.
There is no smoking gun. There is no problem.

February 8, 2017 4:34 pm

Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
Considering that millions of commuters have been riding those trains for decades around the world and that the health risks, if any get lost in the noise, I’m not sure what the issue is. The fact is that the modern well maintained diesel locomotive is about as efficient as any electric when it comes to pollution aspects. When you have a heavy traffic situation like the NY region, parts of Europe and Japan, electrics pay off in faster acceleration and top speeds depending on the requirements and lose because of the higher up front costs for infrastructure. Wind and solar would just add intermittency to an already bumpy load curve. The load curve issue has been around as long as electric railroads. That and the transmission losses over long distances are why electric railroads have never predominated after dieselization.

Timo Soren
February 8, 2017 5:09 pm

An analogy: “Most fruits emit a gas ethylene, and it’s made right in the fruit! Not that I want to alarm anyone, but pregnant women or asthma patient should probably not walk the produce aisle. Not to overly alarm any but there is an issue here.”
Well, yeah, a near idiotic desire to find trouble everywhere you look as to generate funding.

February 8, 2017 8:55 pm

And here I always thought exhaust came from the caboose.

eyesonu
February 8, 2017 10:06 pm

Solution seems simple to me:
If you are afraid of sharks, don’t swim in the ocean.
If you are afraid of horses, don’t ride one.
If you don’t like the train, don’t ride it.

David Sivyer
February 9, 2017 1:55 am

“When being pulled, cars in the middle of the trains had levels three times lower than the front-most cars..”
I’ll have a yarn with my bank about making things smaller by multiplication…too easy!

Admad
February 9, 2017 2:35 am

“Diesel trains may expose passengers to exhaust” – translation Give Me A Grant To Research The Bleedin’ Obvious

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Admad
February 10, 2017 2:21 am

Admad on February 9, 2017 at 2:35 am
“Diesel trains may expose passengers to exhaust”
As in the Dieselloks – it all depends on the air conditioning!

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Admad
February 10, 2017 2:25 am

That is – particles filters in the air intakes.

February 9, 2017 6:04 am

OMG, the old steam engines must have taken us all to the brink of extinction! How did anyone survive?

Berényi Péter
February 9, 2017 8:48 am

Ah, particulate pollution… This is why locomotives used to have tall chimneys in the good olden days.comment image

Reply to  Berényi Péter
February 9, 2017 10:51 am

Wow, what a beauty.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Berényi Péter
February 9, 2017 2:05 pm

It’s a wood-burner with a balloon spark arrestor system.
Biomass !!

Neil Jordan
Reply to  1saveenergy
February 9, 2017 10:56 pm

Yes. Wood (biomass) burners are alive and healthy in the USA.
https://youtu.be/3U2D20I5zMI

SocietalNorm
February 9, 2017 3:28 pm

I was quite surprised that the paper included this:
““We were quite surprised”

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  SocietalNorm
February 10, 2017 2:28 am

SocietalNorm on February 9, 2017 at 3:28 pm
I was quite surprised that the paper included this:
““We were quite surprised”
Yep, astounding!