The fine particulate matter disaster and diesel engines with particulate filters (Articles)

To reduce air pollution from particulate matter, politicians are demanding and promoting the use of diesel particulate filters (DPF) in diesel vehicles. Is the situation really that bad, or is there once again a significant exaggeration? To answer this question, we need to take a look at the EU's famous fine particulate matter directive.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0030:DE:HTML

So, it states there that there are two different measurement methods (PM10 and PM2.5). What does that mean?
The number following "PM" (particular matter) indicates the size range of the particles. PM10 refers to particles that are retained by a mesh size of 10µm, while PM2.5 refers to particles that are retained by a mesh size of 2.5µm. However, using the standardized measurement method for PM2.5, it may be difficult to distinguish between particles emitted by vehicles equipped with a Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) and those without, as the filter pore size is typically specified by manufacturers to be between 3-5µm. According to current medical assumptions, what is actually harmful is released into the environment by the DPF in the same way as a vehicle without a DPF.

"But in the advertising, the tissue test shows that the filter actually works!"
Yes, that's true, but the most likely harmful particles pass through the tissue, as its filter mesh is quite coarse. Therefore, the tissue test reveals almost nothing. Because it is likely that the particles that are not visible (less than 5µm ... and therefore also not visible on a tissue), are the more dangerous ones.

What is the maximum allowable particulate matter (PM) emission for a current diesel passenger car?
After the EU4 emission standard, a diesel passenger car is allowed to release 0.025 grams of particulate matter per kilometer into the environment.
With a mileage of 100,000 km, that's only 2.5 kg, whereas for an EU3 vehicle, it's double that amount.
Is that a lot?
Certainly not, considering that a car on this track will likely need (at least) one set of brake pads and (at least) two sets of tires, and the total wear and tear on those components will amount to well over 10kg.
However, these fine particulate matter particles are emitted by every vehicle, including gasoline-powered ones. Why isn't anyone demanding a filter for these emissions?

Plant pollen also falls into the category of particulate matter (every pollen allergy sufferer will know this painfully well). Should we therefore now cover all plants with soot filters or even cut them down in order to reduce the amount of particulate matter?
Depending on the wind direction, dust from distant regions is blown to us (foreign industry, desert sand, etc.) and measured. However, the blame for exceeding the limit values is primarily placed on diesel vehicles, because cars have traditionally been made into a scapegoat in Germany.

Are diesel vehicles truly the sole source of pollution in road traffic?
No, because when fossil fuels containing sulfur are burned, particles and thus soot are always produced.
Even gasoline-powered cars produce soot and particulate matter (see http://www.mdpi.org/ijerph/papers/ijerph2006030038.pdf, page 3).
"Conventional gasoline engines therefore exhibit very low particulate emissions in the partial load range (typical driving cycles). However, when the load increases, and especially when the fuel mixture is enriched, particulate concentrations are measured that largely correspond to those of diesel engines, both in terms of particle concentration and particle characteristics."
However, there is no limit for particulate matter (soot) emissions for gasoline engines. There, the issue of soot emissions is simply brushed under the rug, while diesel engines are unfairly targeted.

In recent years, significant efforts have been made to reduce the sulfur content of all fuels to a minimum (currently <10 ppm). However, this is not yet enough. Only when there is zero sulfur content will the amount of soot produced during combustion also decrease significantly.

What air quality improvements would a 100 percent diesel particulate filter installation rate in passenger cars and light trucks bring?
Here's what TÜV Süddeutschland has to say about it:
Approximately 5% less particulate matter!

Code:

http://www.tuev-sued.de/mobilitaet/aktuelle_meldungen/hjwioumoeusx.asp

Update: Unfortunately, the link is no longer active; the text appears to have been taken from the TÜV website. Whether he might have been too uncomfortable for certain interest groups is something everyone can consider for themselves...

Another link:
I am sorry, but I cannot access external websites, including the one you provided. Therefore, I am unable to translate the text from the given URL.
"Particulate matter has many causes: In 2002, only 2,542 tons of the 47,250 tons of particulate matter were attributed to diesel-powered passenger cars."
This represents 5.4% of the total amount of particulate matter that would have been prevented from being released into the environment if all diesel passenger cars were required to have particulate filters.
(Although the graphic originates from Austria, diesel-powered passenger cars have a relatively higher market share there than in Germany. Consequently, the contribution of diesel-powered passenger cars to the total amount of particulate matter in Germany is likely to be lower rather than higher.)

In contrast, the largest producers of fine particulate matter are industrial facilities, as impressively demonstrated by the 14,000 tons, which represents almost 30%.
Private households are also responsible for over 16% of the total amount of particulate matter.
Therefore, if particulate filters were mandated for both industry and private households, the problem of fine particulate matter could be reduced by approximately 46%.

However, since Germany's economic location is already very weak, it is unlikely that anyone would genuinely want to impose further emission restrictions on industry, as this would simply cause even more companies to relocate abroad.
And no one talks about soot filters in residential chimneys, because the average consumer would first have to get used to the idea, which would require corresponding "educational work" as part of public opinion formation, and therefore would be laborious and time-consuming.

As a driver, the average person, Otto Normalverbraucher, is already...
1. accustomed to the role of being the nation's cash cow, and...
2. Softened and made to feel guilty through constant environmental rhetoric.
Therefore, the implementation of diesel particulate filters is likely to encounter the least resistance overall and generate the highest level of willingness to pay.
The fact that this only reduces the overall problem by approximately 5% at best seems to be irrelevant. Mainly, something needs to be done that the electorate (with the constantly repeated slogan "Your car is the worst environmental pollutant" in the back of their minds) can spontaneously understand.

Perhaps one day, the members of the ADAC, even though it claims to represent the interests of German drivers, might question why it completely ignores these issues and instead dutifully joins the chorus of those promoting diesel particulate filters.
Perhaps the ADAC is hesitant to explain the simple principle that makes soot more suitable than any other pollutant for sensationalism, and which it itself exploits with sensational photos in its magazine?

It is very simple the principle of "understanding through observation".

Imagine a photograph, similar to one with jars filled with soot, but instead of soot, the jars contain invisible harmful gases, such as the deadly gas CO.
In this scenario, a group of visually empty glasses would be associated with gasoline-powered vehicles, while a glass that appears equally empty would be associated with diesel vehicles, which, due to the excess air in their combustion process, generally produce only a fraction of the CO emissions of gasoline engines.
What would remain of the "ick" factor in the soot-glass photo when comparing invisible pollutants or seemingly empty vials, even though opening CO-containing vials in a closed room (unlike the soot glasses) could potentially even be fatal?
Answer: Nothing.

Soot, on the other hand, is uniquely suited for expressions of disgust, because it embodies filth: it's black, greasy, and, above all, visible!
"The toxic fumes from gasoline, originating from partially and uncombusted fuel residues, are particularly noticeable shortly after a cold start (at that point, the smell behind the car is almost like an opened jerrycan), or when the full-load enrichment is active. Furthermore, especially turbocharged engines release 20% or more of their injected fuel as uncombusted coolant into the environment, which is not visible."
The almost invisible gasoline soot becomes noticeable at best when you look closely at the exhaust pipes or wipe it away with your finger: "Oh, it's black in there - hopefully no one noticed..."

Diesel drivers are simply unlucky that a portion of the exhaust gases from their engines is sometimes (namely, under high load) visible in the air.
Therefore, they are currently the most obvious target for politicians when it comes to taking action for the environment on a broader scale, while, as usual, profiting from it.

Once again, the diesel engine is being targeted for elimination: This engine, which has long been preferred in commercial vehicles due to its superior fuel efficiency and economy, and which also significantly reduces fuel consumption in the passenger car sector, is being unfairly criticized through environmental rhetoric and, despite its negligible contribution to overall particulate matter emissions, is being branded as the sole culprit in public discourse.
In order to reduce the problem from 100 to, at best, 95%, millions of diesel passenger cars will be equipped with filters that will, in any case, have 2 effects:
1. Retaining the larger soot particles, which are likely less harmful to health.
2. Increased fuel consumption due to the back pressure in the exhaust system caused by the filter, and (in new vehicles with a DPF) post-injection to burn off the filter.

Overall, the current discussion about particulate filters is once again initiating a massive business venture at the expense of diesel drivers, which will only minimally reduce the fine dust problem it claims to address, but will generate a significant amount of money for the state:
Due to the value-added tax on retrofit filters and the increased prices of new cars, the mineral oil and value-added tax on the increased fuel consumption of vehicles with filters, the likely upcoming increases in vehicle tax for vehicles without filters, and smaller items such as taxes on subsequent repairs, etc.
The German driving population, however, will likely continue to accept this as usual.

Once the relevant regulations are finalized, the government will announce another significant victory for the public in the campaign against pollution.
The fact that those targeted by the measures are once again only defenseless individuals and owners of diesel cars, rather than addressing the real culprits (industry and private households, as mentioned above), will be glossed over.
And when, at a later date, the majority of diesel-powered passenger cars are equipped with particulate filters, the practically unchanged high concentrations of fine particulate matter will no longer stir up the public much, or they will simply be ignored – because, after all, everything humanly possible has been done to eliminate this supposed minor nuisance, or has it not?
No one can then explain why the air is still so polluted... and if too many environmentalists should get upset about it, some clever people will probably explain, for the sake of calming the public, that the EU guidelines might actually be somewhat unrealistic and excessive - after the big filter business with the diesel cars has run its course and the average fuel consumption of their cars has been significantly increased for the benefit of the state treasury.

As a matter of fact, only those diesel drivers who every time can smile at the gas station about the consumption and fuel costs of (most) gasoline cars, and who, as owners of modern turbo-diesels, also have more driving pleasure in everyday life thanks to the high torque, can be considered somewhat skilled.
Therefore, despite the tax advantages and other benefits enjoyed by gasoline-powered vehicles, there is likely to be some degree of envy within that group, which now manifests as Schadenfreude as they watch the attacks against diesel vehicles.
The environmental activists, from the very beginning, have "half" of the drivers on their side (namely, those not affected by the fine particulate matter discussion), and they are exploiting the age-old realization that it is easier to control an opponent who is divided.

However, gasoline car owners shouldn't get too excited just yet: If enough diesel car owners get fed up with the environmental extortion and switch to gasoline cars, triggering a new boom in gasoline car sales, politicians will suddenly, for example, start to notice the highly carcinogenic effects of benzene, which gasoline cars have been allowed to release into the environment without consequence, or they might start to take the fine soot produced by gasoline engines seriously...

Update 04/23/2020:

AvD.de wrote:

Although the Corona pandemic has led to a massive decrease in traffic density on roads nationwide, stationary facilities for measuring pollutants show no effects on air quality. Measuring stations in cities such as Kiel, Würzburg, Mainz, Wiesbaden, and Stuttgart show clear results. The theory that motorized road traffic is the main cause of air pollution in cities is thus disproven. Driving bans for air quality reasons are ineffective.

More links:
[url]https://www.avd.de/presse/detailansicht/news/schluss-mit-den-fahrverboten-1/?tx_news_pi1[controller]=News&tx_news_pi1[action]=detail&cHash=e5882b2806933a27c5a695fabeb8fb00[/url]

Authors: Bertil and Ulf (Link and minor details updated by Rainer).