ISSN 1674-8484 汽车安全与节能学报, 第 8 卷 第 3 期 , 2017 年 02/13

CN 11-5904/U J Automotive Safety and Energy, Vol. 8 No. 3, 2017 226 — 238

Particulate Matter Emissions from Gasoline Direct Injection

Engines: Research Review
FANG Tiegang 1, WANG Libing 1, WANG Zhi 2
(1. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA;
2. State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

Abstract: Gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines produce more particulate matter (PM) emissions compared
with port fuel injection (PFI) engines. Facing the upcoming stringent regulations in Europe and China, much
attention has been paid to reduce the PM emissions of GDI engines. This article provided a brief overview of the
research works on particulate matter emissions of gasoline engines, especially for GDI engines to reduce the
particulate matter emission, and to meet the requirement of the upcoming stringent regulation. First, discussed
the formation of particulate matter in gasoline engines and the difference between GDI and PFI engines. Then,
analyzed the mechanisms leading to the GDI engines’ higher PM emission. Moreover, summarized some recent
research and development trends of studies on particulate emissions of GDI engines. At last, discussed different
approaches to reduce the particle emissions of GDI engines. The results show that gasoline particle filter (GPF)
has good potential to be a suitable and cost effective solution, even when considering the fuel consumption and
carbon dioxide penalties.
Key words: vehicle engines; particulate matter (PM) emissions; particle number (PN); gasoline direct injection
(GDI); gasoline particulate filter (GPF)

汽油直喷发动机的颗粒物排放研究综述 ( 英文 )
方铁钢 1 ，王利兵 1，王 志 2
（1. 北卡罗莱纳州州立大学 机械与航空工程系，Raleigh, NC 27695，美国；
2. 清华大学 汽车安全与能源国家重点实验室，北京 100084，中国）

摘  要：相比于多点电喷 (PFI) 发动机，汽油直喷 (GDI) 发动机会产生更多的颗粒物 (PM) 排放。目

前欧洲和中国即将实施更严格的排放法规，尤其对直喷发动机有颗粒物数目 (PN) 的要求。为了满足
即将到来的严格的排放标准，降低直喷发动机颗粒物排放，本文概略综述了汽油发动机的颗粒物排
放（尤其是汽油直喷发动机）的研究工作。讨论了汽油发动机产生颗粒物的过程，对比了直喷和歧管喷
射的不同。分析了直喷发动机产生高颗粒物排放的机理。总结了近期关于直喷发动机的研究趋势。讨
论了不同降低直喷发动机颗粒物排放的方法。结果表明：即便考虑到燃油消耗和二氧化碳增加的情况，
汽油机颗粒物过滤器 (GPF) 仍有潜力成为合适并有性价比的一种解决方案。

关键词：汽车发动机；颗粒物 (PM) 排放；颗粒数 (PN) ；汽油直喷 (GDI) ；汽油颗粒过滤器 (GPF)

中图分类号：TK 417 文献标识码：A DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2017.03.002

收稿日期 / Received ：2017-08-15。

基金项目 / Supported by ：汽车安全与能源国家重点实验室开放基金 (KF16082)。
第一作者 / First author ：FANG Tiegang/ 方铁钢 (1973 － )，男 ( 汉 )，河北，教授。E-mail: tfang2@ncsu.edu。
第二作者 / Second author ：WANG Libing/ 王利兵 (1989 － )，男 ( 汉 )，陕西，博士研究生。E-mail: lwang36@ncsu.edu。
FANG Tiegang, et al: Particulate Matter Emissions from Gasoline Direct Injection Engines: Research Review
Introduction
Gasoline engines have been playing an irreplaceable role in
ground transportation and commercial applications, with the
advantages of gasoline fuels: high energy density and easy
transportability. Gasoline (excluding fuel ethanol) accounted
for 55% of total U.S. transportation energy use in 2016 [1], as
shown in Figure 1. Total gasoline consumption (including
fuel ethanol added to gasoline) for transportation averaged
about 9 million barrels (1.427 ×106 m3) per day. Meantime,
the consumption of crude oil has reached a new level. In 2016,
China alone consumed 556 million tons of oil, and its oil
dependence has become more than 65% [2], which poses the
urgent need to improve the thermal efficiency of engines in
order to reduce oil consumption and dependence.
diesel2
gasoline2
(petroleum)
(petroleum)
21％
55％
jet fuel
(petroleum)
12％
other
natural gas biofuels
4％ 4％ 4％
1. Based on energy content;
2. Motor gasoline and aviation gas; excludes ethanol;
3. Excludes biodiesel;
4. Electricity, liquefied petroleum gas, lubricants, residual
fuel oil, and other fuels.
Fig. 1  2016 USA Transportation Energy Source/Fuel [1]
With the wide popularity, gasoline engines have been a major
contributor to the air pollutant emissions, including carbon
monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbon (UHC), oxides of
nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), and greenhouse gases.
This continues to be a matter of great concern, especially in
large crowded metropolis cities, where the air condition is
greatly affected by the large amount of running engines. This
issue has been drawing more and more attentions and extensive
research activities have been carried out in recent years to
reduce fuel consumption and pollutant emission of automobile
engines.
Gasoline direct injection (GDI), as an emerging technology,
has been considered to have the potential to satisfy the
stringent emission requirements and becomes more popular
in recent markets of spark-ignition (SI) engines. GDI engines
227
have been rapidly adopted by the automotive industry over
the recent years, from 2.3 percent of production for model
year 2008 vehicles to over 45 percent expected production for
model year 2015 [3]. In a GDI engine, the fuel is pressurized
and injected via a common rail fuel injection system directly
into the combustion chamber of each cylinder as opposed to
the more conventional multi-point port fuel injection (PFI)
technique. The incorporation of direct injection strategy into
a spark-ignition engine offers several improvements including
enhanced fuel economy, higher compression ratio, reduced
knock tendency and improved transient response [4]. It was
reported that the fuel efficiency or miles per gallon (MPG) of
vehicles driven by GDI engines is about 5%~10% higher than
those using port fuel injection (PFI) engines [5-6]. In spite of
these advantages, many studies have indicated that the mixture
schemes and combustion mechanisms of the GDI engines result
in significantly higher amounts of particulate matter (PM) than
the traditional PFI engines or diesel engines that have been
equipped with particulate filters, especially during the cold-
start phase and at high acceleration operation conditions [7-8].
The purpose of this article is to provide a brief overview of
the research works on particulate matter emissions of gasoline
engines, especially gasoline direction injection (GDI) engines.
First, the formation of particulate matter in gasoline engines
and the difference between GDI and PFI engines are discussed.
Then the mechanisms leading to the GDI engines’higher
PM emission are analyzed. Recent research and development
trends of studies on particulate emissions of GDI engines are
summarized. In order to meet the requirement of the upcoming
stringent regulations, different approaches are also proposed
and discussed in this article.
1  Particulate Matter
1.1  Particulate Formation
Particulate matter is a general term for all solid and liquid
particles suspended in air, many of which are hazardous.
Particulate Matter (PM) has been a focus of air pollution
research because a number of findings indicate that airborne
particles have resulted in major environmental and health
problems such as deteriorating visibility, adverse effects on
human health [9], and direct and indirect impacts on climate [10].
Due to the fact that the total number of vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) by gasoline-powered vehicles in urban centers greatly
exceeds that of diesels, gasoline vehicles may contribute up to
68% of the vehicle engine-generated particulate mass and 90%
of the particulate number in these areas [11]. Medical findings
indicate that adverse health effects are caused by aerosol
particles in the ultrafine (diameter < 100 nm) size range that
are associated with traffic, where internal combustion engines
are the main source [7].
Soot is a major component of solid particulate matter. It is
often believed that the conversion of liquid phase hydrocarbons
to soot and finally to gas phase during combustion happens
in six steps, namely pyrolysis, nucleation, surface growth,
 228 J Automotive Safety and Energy Vol. 8 No. 3, 2017

coalescence, agglomeration, and oxidation [12]. The overall pressure, temperature, injection parameters and fuel structure,
process is shown in Figure 2 schematically. The physical while soot formation and oxidation rates depend mainly on
process of soot formation depends on various conditions like temperature and pressure of reaction.

Precursors Nuclei Primary Particles Agglomerates

C2H2
fuel

Pyrolysis Nucleation coalescence Agglomeration

Surface
PHA Growth

Fig. 2  Particulates Formation [12]

Hayes et al. [11] conducted a series of experiments to study plug for ignition by the air flow formed by the special design of
the factors which affect gasoline engine PM emission. They the piston top. Less fuel-air mixing time is available for GDI
demonstrated that liquid fuel in the combustion chamber, engines compared to PFI engines, in which fuel mixes with the
combustion temperatures, and fuel type have critical influences air intake upstream of the intake valve (Figure 4C) [15].
in PM formation, while the lubricating oil and catalytic
However, the disadvantage of the GDI technology is an
converter do not [13]. They believed that PM production
increase in particle number emission compared to the PFI
from in-cylinder liquid fuel is presumably associated with
technology. Because of partially fuel-rich zones and the
the ignition of liquid fuel and subsequent locally fuel-rich
impingement of fuel on piston and cylinder surfaces, GDI
diffusion burning. In addition to the particles formed by
engines produce more particulate matter than PFI engines
heterogeneous-phase combustion, particles may also be formed [16-17]
. Even if compared to diesel exhaust particle number
by homogeneous or gas-phase combustion, particularly under
(PN) concentrations, the GDI PN concentrations are higher
rich conditions [14].
than diesel engines with a diesel particulate filter (DPF) [18].
Schreiber et al. [19] pointed out that compared to diesel engines
1.2  Comparing GDI with PFI
with particulate filters, the GDI engines generated a larger
The importance of studying particle emissions from gasoline
engines has been increasing not only because of the incoming
particle emission regulations, but also because PFI has been New vehicles by fuel delivery system:
gradually replaced by GDI technologies. The percentage of
the GDI vehicles in the fleet is growing fast these years [15], as
shown in Figure 3. There are two major classes of injection
systems for GDI engines: spray-guided and wall-guided,
PFI GDI PFI
which differ in where the fuel is injected into the cylinder, the
piston design, and the fuel injection strategy. For the spray-
guided systems (Figure 4A), some of the fuel spray is directed
toward the spark plug for ignition, while the remaining fuel is
dispersed into the remainder of the cylinder. The wall-guided 2009 2015
systems (Figure 4B) primarily rely on piston top geometry
for fuel-air mixing and the fuel spray is injected near the wall Fig. 3  Rise of GDI Vehicle Percentage in North America [15]
toward the piston top where it is redirected toward the spark

A A A B B B C C C

Fig. 4  Injection Systems for (A) Spray-guided, (B) Wall-guided GDI Engines and (C) the Injection System for a Typical PFI Engine [15]
FANG Tiegang, et al: Particulate Matter Emissions from Gasoline Direct Injection Engines: Research Review 229

number of smaller particles. Zimmerman et al. [15] assessed the
climate trade-offs of replacing PFI vehicles with more fuel-
efficient GDI vehicles. The GDI vehicles consume less fuel,
thus producing less greenhouse gas, but they produce more PM
(black carbon or soot). They proposed that from a 20-year time
horizon GWP (global warming potential) analysis, average fuel
economy improvements ranging from 0.14% to 14% with GDI
vehicles are required to offset black carbon-induced warming.
In order to better understand variations in chemical
composition of particulate matter from emissions of GDI
vehicles versus a PFI vehicle, Lee et al. [20] measured high
time resolution chemical composition of PM emissions from
GDI and PFI vehicles. The mean emission rates for GDI (10.1
μg/km) was slightly higher than PFI (9.1 μg/km) because of
stratified-charge operation. Liang et al. [21] tested two gasoline
passenger vehicles (one GDI and one PFI) over the cold start
New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) with two fuels: gasoline
and M15 methanol gasoline (a mixture with 15% volume of
methanol and 75% volume of gasoline). The results show that
for each vehicle, the total PM numbers measured and estimated
PM masses for M15 are lower than those for gasoline, as shown
in Figures 5 and 6. For each fuel, PM masses and total PM
numbers from the GDI vehicle are higher than those from the
PFI one.
5 Short et al. [24] tested three light-duty PFI and two GDI vehicles
4 blends. Results show that GDI vehicles emit more PM and
PN / (10-12·km-1)
Zhu et al. [22] compared tailpipe emissions from GDI and PFI
vehicles at both low and high ambient temperatures with
conventional gasoline and ethanol-blended gasoline (E10).
Results show that the fuel consumption of the GDI vehicles was
lower than the PFI vehicles under all test conditions, and the
GDI vehicles had lower CO2 emissions compared with the PFI
vehicles. They concluded that the ambient temperature mainly
affected the PM emissions during start-up. On the other hand,
in most cases, both the GDI and PFI vehicles emitted more
small particles (diameter <23 nm) than large particles (diameter
>23 nm).
The EPA Federal Test Procedure, as a series of tests defined by
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has been used
for certification and fuel economy measurement of passenger
cars (excluding light trucks and heavy-duty vehicles). The
current procedure has been updated in 2008 and includes
four tests: city driving (the FTP-75 proper), highway driving
(HWFET), aggressive driving (SFTP US06), and optional air
conditioning test (SFTP SC03). Bahreini et al. [23] tested two
GDI vehicles (spray-guided and wall-guided GDI, respectively)
and a conventional PFI vehicle over the Federal Test Procedure
(FTP) and Supplemental FTP (US06) driving cycles. Results
show that the highest emission factors of BC (EFBC) and
extinction (EFext) were observed for the wall-guided GDI
engine, regardless of the driving cycle.
over the FTP, with various ethanol and iso-butanol gasoline
twice as much black carbon compared to PFI vehicles. The

3 results also indicate that vehicles operating conditions can

PM number limit value in Euro 5
for compression ignition vehicles greatly impact the average composition of particles regardless
2 of fuel composition. In another research, Short et al. [25]
tested seven 2012 model year vehicles, which include one
1 PFI configured hybrid vehicle, one PFI vehicle, and five wall-
guided, stoichiometrically operated GDI vehicles. Results show
black carbon concentrations were higher for the GDI vehicles
0
than others, indicating a potential climate impact for increased
GDI (gasoline) GDI (M15) PFI (gasoline) PFI (M15)
GDI vehicle percentage.

Fig. 5  PM Mass of the Four Combinations [21]

2  Particulate Matter of GDI Engines
2.1  A Closer Look at the PM Formation in GDI
15 Engines
The major sources of PM emissions of GDI engines are
believed to be different from those in PFI engines. There are
PM / (mg·km-1)

10 several factors that contribute to the high level of GDI-engine

PM limit value in Euro 5 particulate matter emissions. In the first place, even though
for gasoline direct injection vehicles GDI engines adopt homogeneous stoichiometric premixed
5 combustion, rather than diffusion combustion, the homogeneity
of the air/fuel mixture is lower than PFI engines because the
fuel-air mixing time is limited. Therefore, the mixing quality
0 results in certain regions of high temperature and low oxygen
GDI (gasoline) GDI (M15) PFI (gasoline) PFI (M15) level within the cylinder. This locally-rich gaseous mixture
further results in significant endothermic pyrolysis reactions
Fig. 6  Total Particle Number of the Four Combinations [21] that contribute to particulate matter formation. On the other
 230 J Automotive Safety and Energy Vol. 8 No. 3, 2017

hand, when the fuel injection occurs, a certain amount of a naturally aspirated lean-burn GDI engine. They found that
gasoline fuel may impinge on the piston. The small amount of the PM concentration would increase dramatically at an excess
fuel in direct contact with the high temperature piston surface air ratio of 1.5, when lean combustion with a stratified mixture
evaporates quickly and forms a vapor film, which slows down occurred. This was believed to be the transition point between
the heat transfer process with the vapor’s much higher thermal the premixed flames and the stratified flames.
resistance than that of the liquid. This prevents the rest of the
Using electron microscopy, Liati et al. [37] investigated soot PM
fuel from evaporating quickly. Then diffusion combustion
generated by a typical state-of-the-art GDI (Euro VI) vehicle
occurs in this circumstance, which is called pool fires [26].
during NEDC and Worldwide harmonized Light vehicles Test
Because of the poor air/fuel mixing conditions in diffusion
Cycles (WLTC). The study reveals primary particles between
combustion, more PM can be generated. This phenomenon
around 4–55 nm in diameter with the majority being < 20 nm
contributes primarily to soot formation in both homogenous
during all driven cycles. They also pointed out that the cold
and stratified modes [27]. Moreover, certain incompletely
start phase accounts for around 25% of the particle emissions
vaporized liquid fuel drops in the cylinder might also lead to
of the entire cycle. The predominance of sub-20 nm primary
diffusion flame [28]. The major composition of engine-emitted
particles is potentially more hazardous to human health,
PM includes elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon and ash
[29] considering the higher surface/volume ratio compared to larger
. During the soot formation process, fuel molecules are
particles of the same total volume. Injection system parameters,
fragmented into simpler molecules and act as soot precursors,
such as the injection pressure and injector condition, are also
such as C2H2 and C2H4. These precursors form particles nuclei
important in influencing the GDI engine PM characteristics.
with size less than around 5 nm [30]. Then hydrocarbons or
He et al. [38] studied various injection pressures (3.3–6.8
hydrocarbon fragments condense on nuclei and dehydrogenation
MPa) in a wall-guided GDI engine and found increasing fuel
occurs in high temperature and layered microstructures of elemental
injection pressure reduces PN emissions because of smaller
carbon are formed when particles grow larger [31]. Choi et al. [32]
fuel droplet size and faster fuel-air mixing. They pointed out
showed that GDI soot contains an order of magnitude higher
that cold engine conditions produce higher PN emissions than
ash fraction than conventional diesel soot.
hot engine conditions because of slower fuel vaporization and
Attar et al. [33] conducted measurements of particulate thus less fuel-air homogeneity. Matousek et al. [39] investigated
emissions on a single cylinder spray-guided GDI engine with the injection pressure effects in a single-cylinder GDI engine
injectors of different spray angles and different fuel flow rates, and found that the PN emission was reduced by 70% using 20
under different engine speeds/loads. Their results provide MPa instead of 10 MPa injection pressure.
more information upon the ffects of fuel wetting and mixture
On the other hand, for spray guided GDI engines, Wang
preparation on particulate emissions. For early injection timing,
et al. [40] showed that high injection pressure improves the
the major reason for PM emissions was fuel impingement on
particle emissions from a GDI engine because of better spray
the piston surface, while for late injection timing the major
atomization. Results show that by increasing the injection
reason was poor fuel-air mixture. They also showed that the
pressure from 5 MPa to 15 MPa, the PM and PN emissions
fuel impingement on piston and diffusion flame usually lead
were reduced by up to 22% and 78%, respectively. Bonatesta
to PM size distributions with a peak in accumulation mode
et al. [41] experimentally measured engine-out soot emissions
(particle diameter ≥ 50 nm), while insufficient mixing time
of a GDI engine at different loads. As shown in Figure 7, there
resulted in size distributions with a peak in nucleation mode
(around 10-15 nm).

1,000 0.5
Mass Soot Concentration / (μg·L-1)

2.2  Studies on PM Emission of GDI Engines

Because of the smaller size of emitted particles from GDI 0.4
engines [34], PM of GDI engines is more toxic than diesel 800
engines. PM emission issues from GDI engines are now a
BMEP / kPa

0.3
widely held concern and draw more attention from researchers.
600
Chen et al. [35] measured the particle emissions from GDI and
0.2
PFI vehicles under the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC).
The first phase of the ECE 15 cycle within the NEDC was 400
examined to evaluate the cold start effect on particulate matter 0.1

emissions. Results show that even though the first phase of

ECE 15 cycle only occupies 1/6 of the time of the NEDC, the 200
cold start emissions account for more than 50% of the total 15 20 25 30 35 40
particle emissions for GDI vehicle during the entire NEDC n / (100 r·min-1)
in terms of both particle number and mass. Park et al. [36]
evaluated the effects of combustion strategy and excess air Fig. 7  Computed Soot Mass Concentration, as a Function
ratio on the PM concentrations and particle size distribution for of Engine Speed and Load (BMEP) [41]
FANG Tiegang, et al: Particulate Matter Emissions from Gasoline Direct Injection Engines: Research Review
are two major regions for soot mass emission: at high engine
load and low speed region, in which soot mass concentration
increases rapidly; at moderate speed and load region, in which
soot mass concentration increases slightly slower (BMEP =
brake mean effective pressure). Johansson et al. [42] used two
identical engines, one optical and one metal, to examine how
intake boost influences combustion and particulate emission
formation in a spray-guided GDI engine. Results show
that nucleation mode particulates increase with increasing
boost, while agglomeration mode particulates decrease with
increasing boost pressure. Exhaust gas turbocharger can also
influence nano-scale particulate matter number emissions from
a GDI engine [43], as shown in Figure 8.
105
Num. Conc. Emission / (L-1)
104
103
PRE POST PRE POST
DR5 DR100
Nucleation Mode Accumulation Mode
Fig. 8  Number Concentration Emissions (Nucleation and
Accumulation Modes, and Total) for both Pre- and
Post-Turbocharger under Different Dilution
Conditions. (DR = Dilution Ratio) [43]
3  Regulations
3.1  Euro 6
Euro 6 is the sixth incarnation of the European Union directive
to reduce harmful pollutants from vehicle exhausts. The
Euro 6 standard was introduced in September 2015. The aim
of Euro 6 is to reduce levels of harmful car and van exhaust
emissions, both in petrol and diesel cars. This includes nitrogen
oxide (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons [total
hydrocarbon (THC) and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC)]
and particulate matter (PM). The effect of reducing these
pollutants can also mean improved fuel economy and lower
CO2 emissions. One thing to note is that the PN emission limit
of 6×1011/km (equal to diesel) becomes mandatory for direct-
injection gasoline -engines.
Euro 6 emissions standards (petrol):
CO: 1.0 g/km;
HC: 100 mg/km;
NOx: 60 mg/km;
PM: 5 mg/km (direct injection only);
PN: 6.0×1011 /km (direct injection only).
231
From Figure 9, it can be seen that the new particulate matter
and particulate number requirements are very stringent,
especially for GDI engines.
10 Lean stratified GDi
Stoichiometric GDi
MPFI EURO6 Proposal
1
PN / (1012·km-1)
Engineering Targel 70%
0.1
Various Gasoline Powered Vehicles
EURO4 Calibration, NEDC
0.01 0.1 1 10
PM / (mg·km ) -1
Fig. 9  Vehicle Emission Proposal for EURO 6
(First Step Engineering Target: 70%) [44]
3.2  US Tier 3
The US Environmental Protection Agency finalized the Light-
PRE POST Duty Tier 3 regulations in April 2014. It Starts in model
DR125 year 2017—2018 for cars <6 000 pound (2.721 t) (one year
Total later for larger cars) and is fully phased-in by 2025. Eventual
harmonization of passenger car and light-duty truck standards
leads to 30 mg/mile (18.64 mg/km) combined non-methane
organic gases (NMOG) plus NOx, nominally 80% tighter than
Tier 2 Bin 5 (fleet average)[45].
3.3  China 6 Regulations
In December 2016, China’s Ministry of Environmental
Protection (MEP) issued the final China 6 light-duty vehicle
regulations. Table 1 provides a summary of key parts of the
regulation. These fuel neutral standards will be phased in
over two steps, with China 6a regulations enforced in 2020
and China 6b enforced starting 2023. China 6a includes a PN
limit of 6×1011 particles/km, which is the same as Euro 6, and
monitoring of real driving emissions (RDE) testing results [45].
Full RDE compliance will be enforced starting 2023.
Key differences from Euro 6 regulations include much tighter
limits in 2023 (6b) on criteria pollutants (CO & HC emission
limits lower by factor of 2, NOx lower by about 40%, and 33%
lower allowable PM); durability requirements increased in
2023 to 2.0×105 km, compared to 1.6×105 km in Europe; PN
limit applied to all engines (diesel, gasoline direct, and port-
fueled injection), while these apply to only diesel and GDI
(gasoline direct injection) engines in Europe [46].
Type testing will be done by the OEM (Original Equipment
Manufacturers; auto companies), conducted at certified labs and
the test report will be submitted to authorities. Gas emissions,
PM and PN testing will be done using the WLTC (world-
 232 J Automotive Safety and Energy Vol. 8 No. 3, 2017

Table 1  Emission Limits under China 6a and 6b Regulations [47]

Vehicle Category a, PM Emission / (mg·km-1) PN Emission b /

Regulations
Test Mass, mT / t CO THC NMHC NOx N2O PM (1011•km-1)
I All 700 100 68 60 20 4.5 6
≤ 1.305 700 100 68 60 20 4.5 6
China 6a
II 1.305~1.760 880 130 90 75 25 4.5 6
>1.760 1000 160 108 82 30 4.5 6
I All 500 50 35 35 20 3 6
≤ 1.305 500 50 35 35 20 3 6
China 6b
II 1.305~1.760 630 65 45 45 25 3 6
>1.760 740 80 55 50 30 3 6
NMHC——non-methane hydrocarbons
a-Category I refers to passenger vehicles not exceeding 2.500 kg t of maximum mass and not exceeding six seats, and Category II refers
to all other light-duty vehicles.
b-Before July 1, 2020, a transitioning PN limit of 6.0×1012 / km applies on gasoline cars.

harmonized light-duty test cycle) after cold-start at both normal
and low ambient temperatures. Major regions such as Beijing
may adopt regulations sooner than the rest of the nation [46].
Type testing will be done by the OEM (Original Equipment
Manufacturers; auto companies), conducted at certified
labs and the test report will be submitted to authorities. Gas
emissions, PM (particulate mass), and PN testing will be done
using the WLTC (world-harmonized light-duty test cycle) after
cold-start at both normal and low ambient temperatures. Major
regions such as Beijing may adopt regulations sooner than the
rest of the nation [46].
4  Approaches to Reduce PM Emissions of GDI
Engines
4.1  Gasoline Particle Filter (GPF)
Stringent particulate matter (PM) emissions standards have
mandated installations of diesel particulate filters (DPF) in
diesel engines. Now due to the upcoming PM requirement
on GDI engines, gasoline particulate filters (GPF) have been
developed for targeting the reduction of PM emissions from
GDI engines [48]. Facing the Particulate Number (PN) limit
of 6×1011 km-1 (Euro 6) for all GDI vehicles registered in
Europe after September 2017, at this stage one major effective
technology that would bring the PN emissions of GDI vehicles
below 6×1011 km-1 is wall flow particulate filters optimized for
gasoline vehicles (GPF) [49]. Based on these, it is expected to
have a widespread application of GPF on GDI vehicles.
[50]
Chan et al. studied the black carbon mass and solid particle
number emissions from two pairs of GDI vehicles and PFI
vehicles over the U.S. Federal Test Procedure 75 (FTP-75)
and US06 Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (US06) drive
cycles. They found that the use of a GPF reduced black carbon
emissions from the selected GDI vehicles by 73%~88% at
various ambient temperatures over the FTP-75 phase 1 drive
cycle. On the other hand, over the US06 drive cycle, the GPF
reduced black carbon mass emissions from the GDI vehicles by
59%~80% at various temperatures. Myung et al. [51] evaluated
the particle formation and reduction characteristics at the
engine-out position, after a three-way catalyst (TWC) and a
metal foam GPF. Results show that the PN concentration of the
GPF-GDI vehicle was significantly reduced to 3.95×1011 /km
for the FTP-75 mode. They also found that the amount of
nucleation mode particles below 23 nm was substantially
reduced for the GPF-GDI vehicle.
Johnson [52] pointed out that the broad use of GPF might
depend on cost, fuel consumption considerations, and green
marketing. Spiess et al. [53] investigated the application of
catalyzed gasoline particulate filters to a modern GDI vehicle,
showing that the filter can act as additional catalytic converter
besides the designated good filtration efficiency. The results
demonstrate that different filtration performances exist for each
individual position of the filter in the exhaust aftertreatment
system. They suggested that the filtration efficiency of GPF
could be optimized as well as minimizing pressure drop
simultaneously, by selecting an optimized GPF location.
Mamakos et al. [54] studied the cost effectiveness of GPF
solutions. They evaluated the GPF emission reduction, while
considering any fuel consumption and CO2 penalties. Their
results provided evidences to show that a GPF installation can
be a cost effective solution. They also made a projection of
sales of vehicles equipped with different types of engines in
Europe, as shown in Figure 10.
Taking all the above observations into consideration, it can
be seen that GPFs can be a suitable solution to comply with
the upcoming Euro 6 regulation. Although PM is primarily
composed of combustible material, it contains incombustible
components or ash. Over the service life of GPFs, the
accumulation of ash might lead to an increase in pressure drop.
Therefore, it is important to understand the impact of GPF over
the entire vehicle's service life [52].
The addition of GPF systems usually introduces added exhaust
system backpressure that may reduce power output and fuel
FANG Tiegang, et al: Particulate Matter Emissions from Gasoline Direct Injection Engines: Research Review
25
Projected sales of different vehicle technologies
20
15
in EU27 / 106
10
PFI
5 period is the time when a GDI engine usually produces a large
0
1995 2000
Fig. 10  Projected Sales of Vehicles in EU 27 Member States,
for the Three Scenarios Examined, Categorized
according to the Engine Concept [54]
economy [44]. Moreover, that backpressure can gradually
increase during the filter service life due to deposition of more
inorganic ash particles derived from incombustible oil additives
and other sources. Custer et al. [55] utilized an accelerated
aging system by accumulating oil-derived ash in GPF samples,
simulating extended on-vehicle operation. The GPFs in their
experiments were aged to a series of levels: the final load
of 3, 6.1, 12.2, 20.3 and 30.5 g/L corresponds to equivalent.
Their results indicate that 50% of ash was collected from
engine oil sources. Results also show that ash was observed to
penetrate up to 50 μm into the filter wall but does not appear
to completely fill filter surface pores. However, the effect of
ash and soot on GPF filtration performance can be another
factor to consider. Lambert [56] showed that accumulation of
low amounts of soot and ash on the filter wall can lead to large
increase in filtration efficiency. Their experimental results
showed filtration efficiency improved from around 60% under
clean conditions to 90% with accumulation of 80 mg/L of soot
and to 80% with 1 g of ash. While the role of ash in increasing
filtration efficiency and pressure drop is understood, the effect
of lubricant oil properties on the ash and its impact on GPF
performance has also been studied by Shao et al. [57]. Results
indicated that oil formulation has a significant impact on
particulate composition and emission rates; a higher SASH oil
level increases the ash loading and GPF backpressure.
4.2  Fuel Components
Fuel composition and properties naturally affect the combustion
characteristics and the resulting particulates. Addition of
components with different resistance to volatilization, may
lead to different particulates formation[46, 57]. Ethanol-gasoline
blended fuels have been widely used in markets these years, as
ethanol addition lowers life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions
233
and harmful pollutant emissions [59]. The impacts of different
mixtures of ethanol/gasoline blend on PM emissions for GDI
engine are important, as the characteristics of PM emissions
in GDI engines are closely related to fuel properties[31]. Maricq
et al. [60] examined how ethanol–gasoline blends impact PM
Diesel emissions from GDI vehicles, using fuel ranging from E0
(base gasoline) to E45 (45% ethanol). Results show that when
the ethanol content increases to greater than 30%, there is a
statistically significant 30%–45% reduction in PM mass and
number emissions. However, the particle size is not affected
Sc. 1
by the ethanol content. As discussed before, the cold start
Sc. 2
Sc. 3 percentage of PM emissions in the entire driving cycle. To
GDI
investigate the effect of ethanol addition on cold operation
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 conditions, Dimou et al. [61] measured the particulate number
Year distributions at different engine coolant temperature (ECT)
of 0-40 ℃ for different ethanol/gasoline blends (E0 to E85).
Their results show that for all ethanol/gasoline mixtures, PN
increases modestly when the engine coolant temperature is
lowered. However, they found that the number distributions
are insensitive to the ethanol content of the fuel. Results also
indicated that PN values are insensitive to the fuel ethanol
content when the coolant temperature is above 20 ℃. Zhu et al.
also showed that E10 could reduce the generation of particulate
emissions efficiently over the cold-start tests, compared with
gasoline [62].
The development of methanol industry in recent years may
bring new opportunities for methanol as well. Wang et al. [63]
examined emissions from a 1.8 L GDI passenger car running
the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) using conventional
gasoline and three gasoline-methanol samples with 15%,
25% and 40% methanol substitution (M15, M25 and M40).
Results show that gasohol samples were able to decrease
33.2%–40.2% tailpipe PM emissions compared with gasoline,
while increasing the PN simultaneously. This is caused by the
increased number of nuclei-mode particles.
The detailed fuel types have an obvious influence on the
relative proportions of individual particles. Xing et al.
[64]
showed that fuel with more olefins produced a higher
percentage of organic particles compared to the gasoline
characterized by lower olefin content, while the fuel with
more aromatics produced a higher percentage of soot particles.
They also found that the E10 gasoline gave rise to a lower
percentage of soot particles compared to the fuel with more
olefins. Zhu et al. [65] also showed reducing the aromatic content
significantly decreased both the PM and PN emissions over the
entire drive cycle. Their results showed that reducing the olefin
content from 23% to 10% slightly decreased the PM emissions,
especially in the high-speed conditions.
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) has been adopted as an
automotive fuel because of its potential for reducing emissions
and relatively low fuel price. In direct injection liquefied
petroleum gas engine, because the liquid LPG fuel vaporizes
very fast in a short time, the amount of homogeneous mixture
 234 J Automotive Safety and Energy
is increased [66]. Thus, an LPG-DI engine can have better cold
start performance than a GDI engine. To evaluate the potential
of a dedicated LPG-DI vehicle, Myung et al. [67] investigated
several engine control parameters related to the characteristics
of mixture preparation and nano-particle emissions. They
found that the reduction rate of the PN concentration with LPG
application could reach approximately 98% (FTP-75 mode)
compared to the GDI vehicle.
As a multifunctional fuel additive, Methyl-cyclopentadienyl
Manganese Tricarbonyl (MMT) has been widely used in the
unleaded gasoline to boost octane rating and antiknock of the
fuel, and its effect on PM emissions needs to be examined.
Geng et al. [68] investigated the impact of fuel (ultralow
sulfur gasoline with the additive MMT) on the combustion
characteristic and particulate matter (PM) emissions in a
GDI research engine. They used four different fuels: EURO
V gasoline fuel with less than 8 ppm by weight of sulfur
as the baseline (MMT0), MMT8, MMT12 and MMT18.
Results showed that the total particulate mass and number
concentrations significantly increase with the increase of the
MMT content in the test fuels.
4.3  New Combustion Concept for GDI Engine PM
Reduction
Low temperature combustion (LTC) is one of the promising
approaches for simultaneously reducing NOx and PM emissions
with high efficiency. One way to achieve this ultra-efficient
and clean combustion on gasoline fuels is gasoline partially-
premixed compression ignition (PPCI). In PPCI, fuel is directly
injected into the cylinder and partially but not fully premixed
prior to the start of heat release. Initial studies of PPCI were
carried out in 2005 by Kalghatgi [69] and Johansson [70]. In
Johansson’s study, a high octane fuel was injected late on the
compression stroke of a boosted diesel engine. The injection
process was completed prior to the start of combustion,
enabling mixing of the fuel and air prior to heat release.
Results show PPCI demonstrated very good potential for high
fuel efficiency with low engine-out NOx and PM emissions.
This early work also indicated that gasoline-like fuels with high
resistance to autoignition are preferred for PPCI.
Since then, PPCI has drawn a lot of attention and studies have
been conducted. Delphi and partners have been developing
a multi-cylinder engine concept for PPCI combustion with
current US market gasoline (RON91). Delphi uses the term
Gasoline Direct Injection Compression Ignition (GDCI) in
reference to this combustion process[71]. The GDCI engine
concept combines concepts from both diesel and spark-ignited
engine technology [72]. The compression ratio is high like diesel
engines. There is no intake throttling and the mixture is leaner.
GDCI utilizes a low-temperature combustion process to realize
PPCI. Multiple injections of gasoline (RON91) vaporize and
mix very quickly at low injection pressure typical of direct
injected gasoline engines[73].
Vol. 8 No. 3, 2017
In a Delphi’s earlier study [71], they developed a GDCI single
cylinder engine for full-time operation over the speed-load
map. By using GDCI and other control strategies [multiple-late
injection (MLI) and cooled exhaust gas recirculation（EGR） ],
they were able to achieve low-temperature combustion. Results
showed good potential for very high efficiency, low NOx, and
low PM over the full speed-load range. In another study [74], Delphi
showed that the particulate emissions of GDCI engine can be
near levels for filtered room air, indicating good potential to
eliminate aftertreatment for PM. In 2014 [75], Delphi designed
and built a four-cylinder, 1.8L engine based on extensive
simulations and single-cylinder engine tests. This four-cylinder
engine has a 15:1 compression ratio and a central-mounted
injector with zero swirl [75]. Results indicated that NOx and
PM emissions can be below targets of 0.2 g/kWh and FSN 0.1,
respectively, at idle and low load. They then further tested the
GDCI engine over a wider range of engine speeds and showed
that cooled EGR enabled low-temperature combustion with
very low NOx and PM emission[72]. Results show that minimum
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption（BSFC）was measured at
213 g/kWh at 1 800 r/min and IMEP of 1.2 MPa.
In order to meet stringent US Tier 3 emissions standards with
diesel-like fuel efficiency, in 2016, Delphi built the second
generation 1.8-L GDCI engine [73]. Test results showed good
improvement in BSFC over the first generation GDCI engines,
while meeting targets for engine out emissions, combustion
noise and stability. Results also indicated that the engine is
capable of stable low load low speed operation with very low
NOx and PM emissions [73].
4.4  Exhaust Gas Recirculation and other Operations
Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) has been widely used in
modern engines, recirculating part of the exhaust gas back
to the engine cylinders to modify charge composition and
temperature in order to reduce emissions in general and
NOx emissions in particular. EGR can also have a significant
effect on the particle size distribution. Although most of the
particles in the EGR that re-enter the cylinder are oxidized and
converted into CO2, some of the particles may survive and can
grow substantially[76].
Xie et al. [77] investigated the influence of hot EGR on
the engine combustion and particle number emission
characteristics on a GDI engine. Results indicated when the
hot EGR ratio increases to 20%, not only BSFC but also the
NOx and particle number emissions are reduced by about 7%,
87% and 36%, respectively. They also showed that the largest
improvements of BSFC, NOx and particle number emissions
were obtained at low-medium speed and medium load engine
conditions by hot EGR addition.
Exhaust gas fuel reforming is a new thermochemical recovery
technique, which utilizes the engine exhaust gas heat, CO2
and H2O to produce a hydrogen-rich gas named reformate [78].
Bogarra et al. [78] studied the effects of reformate combustion
FANG Tiegang, et al: Particulate Matter Emissions from Gasoline Direct Injection Engines: Research Review
as a supplementary fuel to gasoline on PM emissions. Results
show that the reformate combustion can decrease notably the
engine PM emissions. However, reformate combustion was
found to remove soot more efficiently than the volatile PM.
In another research, Bogarra et al. [79] concluded that the PM
reduction with reforming exhaust gas recirculation is more
evident when the soot fraction is higher.
Whelan et al. [80] investigated the effect of a three-way catalytic
converter and sampling dilution ratio on nano-scale exhaust
particulate matter emissions from a GDI engine during cold-
start and warm-up transients. They observed that the total
particle number density could be reduced up to 65% by the
three-way catalytic converter during the cold-start test. They
also showed that the dilution ratio of the exhaust sample has
a substantial effect on the particulate matter number and size
distribution. On the other hand, valve timing and spark timing
can also play roles in affecting particulate emission. Rodriguez
et al. [81] examined the effect of valve timing during cold
crank-start and cold fast-idle on the emissions. Results show
that delaying the intake valve opening improves the mixture
formation process and results in more than 25% reduction of
the PM/PN emissions during cold crank-start. As for cold fast-
idle, early exhaust valve phasing substantially reduces the
particulate emissions. Bermúdez et al. [82] assessed pollutants
emission and aftertreatment efficiency in a 2.0-L four-
cylinder GTDI engine. Their results show that PM emissions
also decrease as spark timing being advanced in all the tested
conditions.
5  Conclusions
The major advantages of a gasoline direct injection (GDI)
engine (higher power, improved fuel economy) have made
GDI technology an attractive option for gasoline engines.
The percentage of GDI vehicles has been rising quickly these
years. Despite the advantages, the GDI combustion mechanism
produces more particulate emissions (PM), especially during
the cold start phase and during transient operation. Many
studies show that GDI engines have increased particulate
matter emissions when compared with port fuel injection (PFI)
engines. Meanwhile, more stringent regulations have been
mandated around the world, Europe proposed the third stage
of their real driving emission (RDE) regulations, the main
point of which covers PN emissions from GDI vehicles. The
regulation begins in September 2017 and is fully phased-in
September 2018, which is expected to drive the use of gasoline
particulate filters. China also finalized next round light-duty
vehicle emission regulations, beginning in 2020. China is
implementing them in two stages, with the second stage being
about 30%–40% tighter than Euro 6 in 2023.
In this paper, an attempt has been made to do a relatively
comprehensive review on the particulate emission of gasoline
engines, especially GDI engines. Various studies have shown
that GDI engines not only produce more particulate matter
emission than PFI engines, but also produce smaller particles
235
than both PFI engines and diesel engines. This, on one hand,
means that the particle number emissions of GDI engines are
even higher than its counterparts and, on the other hand, means
that the particulate emission of GDI engines are more toxic to
public health, considering the higher surface and surface/volume
ratio compared to larger particles of the same total volume.
The reasons behind GDI engines’ higher PM are analyzed. The
formation mechanisms of excessive PM in GDI engines are
different from PFI engines. The major PM in GDI engines are
formed from sources such as locally rich gaseous mixtures,
incompletely volatilized liquid fuel drops, and pool fires from
fuel films formed on the piston top and other surfaces. The
effect of different fuel components on the PM emission of GDI
engines is also discussed. The addition of ethanol (E10) could
reduce the generation of particulate emissions efficiently over
the cold-start tests, but the improvement becomes minor when
engine is hot.
In order to meet both PM and PN requirement of the regulation,
different approaches are discussed. Exhaust gas recirculation
(EGR) and exhaust gas fuel reforming can have positive impact
on reducing the particulate matter emission, while changing
the particle size distribution. Among the approaches, gasoline
particle filter (GPF) shows good potential to be a suitable
and cost effective solution, even when considering the fuel
consumption and carbon dioxide penalties. In addition, over
the service life of a GPF, the accumulation of ash might lead to
an increase in both backpressure and filter efficiency. Further
improvements are still needed to better reduce the particulate
matter emission of GDI engines and increase the effectiveness
of gasoline particle filter.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported in part by the State Key Laboratory
of Automotive Safety and Energy under Project No. KF16082.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies.
References / 参考文献
[1] USA Energy Information Administration. Energy use for
transportation - energy explained, Your guide to understanding
energy: Energy information administration [R/OL].（2017-05-
17）. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_
transportation.
[2] CNPC Economics & Technology Research Institute. Domestic and
foreign oil and gas industry development report [R/OL]. (2017-01-
12). http://news.cnpc.com.cn/system/2017/01/13/001629933.shtml
[3] US EPA Organization. Midterm evaluation of light-duty vehicle
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for model years 2022-
2025 [R/OL]. (2016-10-06). https://www.epa.gov/regulations-
emissions-vehicles-and-engines/midterm-evaluation-light-duty-
vehicle-greenhouse-gas-ghg
[4] Zhao F, Lai M C, Harrington D L. Automotive spark-ignited
direct-injection gasoline engines [J]. Prog Energy Combust Sci,
 236 J Automotive Safety and Energy
1999, 25: 437–562.
[5] Imoehl W, Gestri L, Maragliulo M, et al. A DOE Approach to
engine deposit testing used to optimize the design of a gasoline
direct injector seat and orifice [J]. SAE Int'l J Fuels Lubr, 2012, 5:
1078–1095.
[6] Überall A, Otte R, Eilts P, et al. A literature research about
particle emissions from engines with direct gasoline injection
and the potential to reduce these emissions [J]. Fuel. 2015, 147:
203–207.
[7] Myung CL, Park S. Exhaust nanoparticle emissions from internal
combustion engines: A review [J]. Int'l J Automot Technol, 2012,
13: 9–22.
[8] Bielaczyc P, Szczotka A, Woodburn J. The effect of a low ambient
temperature on the cold-start emissions and fuel consumption
of passenger cars [J]. Proc Inst Mech Engineers, Part D: J
Automobile Engineering. 2011, 225(9): 1253-1264.　 [25] Short D Z, Vu D, Durbin T D, et al. Components of particle
[9] Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J. Nanotoxicology: an
emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles [J].
Environ Health Perspect, 2005, 113: 823–839.
[10] Bond T C, Doherty S J, Fahey D W, et al. Bounding the role of
black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment [J]. J
Geophys Res Atmos, 2013, 118: 5380–5552.
[11] Kayes D, Hochgreb S. Mechanisms of particulate matter formation
in spark-ignition engines 1: Effect of engine operating conditions
[J]. Environ Sci Technol, 1999, 33: 3957–3967.
[12] Mohankumar S, Senthilkumar P. Particulate matter formation
and its control methodologies for diesel engine: A comprehensive
review [J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017,
80: 1227–1238.
[13] Kayes D, Hochgreb S. Mechanisms of particulate matter forma-
tion in spark-ignition engines 2: Effect of fuel, oil, and catalyst
parameters [J]. Environ Sci Technol, 1999, 33: 3968–3377.
[14] Kayes D, Hochgreb S. Mechanisms of particulate matter
formation in spark-ignition engines 3 ：Model of pm formation [J].
Environ Sci Technol, 1999, 33: 3978–3992.
[15] Zimmerman N, Wang J, Jeong C, et al. Assessing the climate
trade-offs of gasoline direct injection engines [J]. Envir Sci
Technol, 2016, 50: 8385–8392.
[16] Karjalainen P, Pirjola L, Heikkilä J, et al. Exhaust particles of
modern gasoline vehicles: A laboratory and an on-road study [J].
Atmospheric Envir, 2014, 97: 262–270.
[17] Zimmerman N, Wang J M, Jeong C H, et al. Field measurements
of gasoline direct injection emission factors: spatial and seasonal
variability [J]. Envir Sci Technol, 2016, 50: 2035–2043.
[18] Mathis U, Mohr M, Forss A M. Comprehensive particle
characterization of modern gasoline and diesel passenger cars
at low ambient temperatures [J]. Atmospheric Envir, 2005, 39:
107–117.
[19] Schreiber D, Forss A M, Mohr M, et al. Particle characterisation
of modern CNG, gasoline and diesel passenger cars [R]. SAE
Tech Paper, 2007-24–0123.
[20] Lee J T, Son J, Kim J, et al. Comparison of chemical composition
of particulate matter emitted from a gasoline direct injected (GDI)
vehicle and a port fuel injected (PFI) vehicle using high resolution
time of flight aerosol mass spectrometer (HR-ToF-AMS) [J].
Asian J Atmospheric Envir, 2016, 10: 51–56.
Vol. 8 No. 3, 2017
[21] LIANG Bin, GE Yunshan, TAN Jianwei, et al. Comparison of PM
emissions from a gasoline direct injected (GDI) vehicle and a port
fuel injected (PFI) vehicle measured by electrical low pressure
impactor (ELPI) with two fuels: Gasoline and M15 methanol
gasoline [J]. J Aerosol Sci, 2013, 57: 22–31.
[22] ZHU Rensheng, HU Jingnan, BAO Xiaofeng, et al. Tailpipe
emissions from gasoline direct injection (GDI) and port fuel
injection (PFI) vehicles at both low and high ambient temperatures
[J]. Envir Pollution, 2016, 216: 223–234.
[23] Bahreini R, Xue J, Johnson K, et al. Characterizing emissions and
optical properties of particulate matter from PFI and GDI light-
duty gasoline vehicles [J]. J Aerosol Sci, 2015, 90: 144–153.
[24] Short D Z, Vu D, Durbin T D, et al. Particle speciation of
emissions from iso-butanol and ethanol blended gasoline in light-
duty vehicles [J]. J Aerosol Sci, 2015, 84: 39–52.
emissions from light-duty spark-ignition vehicles with varying
aromatic content and octane rating in gasoline [J]. Envir Sci
Technol, 2015, 49: 10682–10691.
[26] Drake M C, Fansler T D, Solomon A S, et al. Piston Fuel Films
as a Source of Smoke and Hydrocarbon Emissions from a Wall-
Controlled Spark-Ignited Direct-Injection Engine [R]. SAE Tech
Paper, 2003-01–0547.
[27] Velji A, Yeom K, Wagner U, et al. Investigations of the Formation
and Oxidation of Soot Inside a Direct Injection Spark Ignition
Engine Using Advanced Laser-Techniques [R]. SAE Tech Paper,
2010-01–0352.
[28] Maricq M M, Podsiadlik D H, Brehob D D, et al. Particulate
Emissions from a Direct-Injection Spark-Ignition (DISI) Engine
[R]. SAE Tech Paper, 1999-01–1530.
[29] Giechaskiel B, Maricq M, Ntziachristos L, et al. Review of motor
vehicle particulate emissions sampling and measurement: From
smoke and filter mass to particle number [J]. J Aerosol Sci, 2014,
67: 48–86.
[30] Sgro L A, Sementa P, Vaglieco B M, et al. Investigating the origin
of nuclei particles in GDI engine exhausts [J]. Combustion and
Flame, 2012, 159: 1687–1692.
[31] LUO Yueqi, ZHU Lei, FANG Junhua, et al. Size distribution,
chemical composition and oxidation reactivity of particulate
matter from gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine fueled with
ethanol-gasoline fuel [J]. Appl Thermal Engineering, 2015, 89:
647–655.
[32] Choi S, Seong H. Oxidation characteristics of gasoline direct-
injection (GDI) engine soot: Catalytic effects of ash and modified
kinetic correlation [J]. Combustion and Flame, 2015, 162:
2371–2389.
[33] Attar M A , Xu H. Correlations between particulate matter
emissions and gasoline direct injection spray characteristics [J]. J
Aerosol Sci, 2016, 102: 128–141.
[34] AN Yanzhao, TENG Shengping, PEI Yiqiang, et al. An
experimental study of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and soot
emissions from a GDI engine fueled with commercial gasoline [J].
Fuel, 2016, 164: 160–171.
[35] CHEN Longfei, LIANG Zhirong, ZHANG Xin, et al.
Characterizing particulate matter emissions from GDI and PFI
vehicles under transient and cold start conditions [J]. Fuel, 2017,
FANG Tiegang, et al: Particulate Matter Emissions from Gasoline Direct Injection Engines: Research Review
189: 131–140.
[36] Park C, Lee S, Yi U. Effects of engine operating conditions on
particle emissions of lean-burn gasoline direct-injection engine [J].
Energy. 2016, 115: 1148–1155.
[37] Liati A, Schreiber D, Dimopoulos Eggenschwiler P, et al. Electron
microscopic characterization of soot particulate matter emitted
by modern direct injection gasoline engines [J]. Combustion and
Flame, 2016, 166: 307–315.
[38] He X, Ratcliff M A, Zigler B T. Effects of gasoline direct injection
engine operating parameters on particle number emissions [J].
Energy Fuels, 2012, 26: 2014–2027.
[39] Matousek T, Dageforde H, Bertsch M. Influence of injection
pressures up to 300 bar on particle emissions in a GDI engine [C/
OL]// 17th ETH Conf Combustion Generated Nanoparticles, 2013.
(2013-06-26). http://www.nanoparticles.ch/archive/2013_ETH-
NPC-17.pdf.
[40] WANG Chongming, XU Hongming, Herreros JM, et al. Impact of
fuel and injection system on particle emissions from a GDI engine
[J]. Appl Energy, 2014, 132: 178–191.
[41] Bonatesta F, Chiappetta E, La Rocca A. Part-load particulate
matter from a GDI engine and the connection with combustion
characteristics [J]. Appl Energy, 2014, 124: 366–76.
[42] Johansson A N, Dahlander P. Experimental investigation of the
influence of boost on combustion and particulate emissions in
optical and metal SGDI-engines operated in stratified mode [J].
SAE Int'l J Engines, 2016, 9: 807–818.
[43] Cucchi M, Samuel S. Influence of the exhaust gas turbocharger on
nano-scale particulate matter emissions from a GDI spark ignition
engine [J]. Appl Therm Engineering, 2015, 76: 167–174.
[44] Piock W, Hoffmann G, Berndorfer A, et al. Strategies towards
meeting future particulate matter emission requirements in
homogeneous gasoline direct injection engines [J]. SAE Int'l J
Engines, 2011, 4: 1455–1468.
[45] Johnson T. Vehicular emissions in review [J]. SAE Int'l J
Engines, 2014, 7: 1207–1227.
[46] Johnson T, Joshi A. Review of vehicle engine efficiency and
emissions [R]. SAE Tech Paper, 2017-01–0907.
[47] HE Hui and YANG Liuhanzi. China’s stage 6 emission standard
for new light-duty vehicles (final rule) [R/OL]. International
Council on Clean Transportation. (2017-03-16). ). http://www.
theicct.org/china-stage-6-emission-standard-new-LDVs-final-rule.
[48] Seong H, Choi S. Oxidation-derived maturing process of soot,
dependent on O2–NO2 mixtures and temperatures [J]. Carbon,
2015, 93: 1068–1076.
[49] Mikulic I, Koelman H, Majkowski S, et al. A study about
particle filter application on a state-of-the-art homogeneous
turbocharged 2L DI gasoline engine [C/OL]// Aachener Kolloqu-
ium, (2010-06-10). https://circabc.europa.eu/webdav/CircaBC/
GROW/automotive/Library/commission_expert/vehicle_emiss-
ions/109th_meeting_2011/Dow_AC_Kolloquium_final%20(2).pdf
[50] Chan TW, Meloche E, Kubsh J, et al. Black carbon emissions
in gasoline exhaust and a reduction alternative with a gasoline
particulate filter [J]. Envir Sci Technol, 2014, 48: 6027–6034.
[51] Myung C L, Kim J, Jang W, et al. Nanoparticle filtration
characteristics of advanced metal foam media for a spark ignition
direct injection engine in steady engine operating conditions and
237
vehicle test modes [J]. Energies, 2015, 8: 1865–1881.
[52] Johnson T V. Review of vehicular emissions trends [J]. SAE Int'l
J Engines, 2015, 8: 1152–1167.
[53] Spiess S, Wong K F, Richter J M, et al. Investigations of emission
control systems for gasoline direct injection engines with a focus
on removal of particulate emissions [J]. Top Catal, 2013, 56: 434–439.
[54] Mamakos A, Steininger N, Martini G, et al. Cost effectiveness of
particulate filter installation on direct injection gasoline vehicles
[J]. Atmospheric Envir, 2013, 77: 16–23.
[55] Custer N, Kamp C J, Sappok A, et al. Lubricant-derived ash
impact on gasoline particulate filter performance [J]. SAE Int'l J
Engines, 2016, 9: 1604–1614.
[56] Lambert C. Gasoline Particle Filter Development [C/
OL]// (2016-04-07). http://cleers.org/wp-content/uploads/
formidable/3/2016CLEERS_Lambert.pdf.
[57] Shao H, Lam W, Remias J, et al. Effect of lubricant oil properties
on the performance of gasoline particulate filter (GPF) [J]. SAE
Int'l J Fuels Lubr, 2016, 9: 650–658.
[58] Barrientos E J, Anderson J E, Maricq M M, et al. Particulate
matter indices using fuel smoke point for vehicle emissions with
gasoline, ethanol blends, and butanol blends [J]. Combust &
Flame, 2016, 167: 308–319.
[59] Chu S, Majumdar A. Opportunities and challenges for a sustainable
energy future : Nature research [J]. Nature, 2012, 488: 294-303.
[60] Maricq M, Szente J, Jahr K. The impact of ethanol fuel blends on
PM emissions from a light-duty GDI vehicle [J]. Aerosol Sci and
Tech, 2012, 46: 576-583.
[61] Dimou I, Kar K, Cheng W. Particulate matter emissions from
a direct injection spark ignition engine under cold fast idle
conditions for ethanol-gasoline blends [J]. SAE Int'l J Engines,
2011, 4: 1738–1746.
[62] ZHU Rensheng, HU Jingnan, BAO Xiaofeng, et al. Impact of
alcohol gasoline on fuel consumption and tailpipe emissions of
a China IV passenger car [C/OL]// Proc 35th Chin Control Conf,
(2016-08-29). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7554762/?reload
=true.
[63] WANG Xin, GE Yunshan, LIU Linin, et al. Evaluation on toxic
reduction and fuel economy of a gasoline direct injection- (GDI-)
powered passenger car fueled with methanol–gasoline blends with
various substitution ratios [J]. Appl Energy, 2015, 157: 134–143.
[64] XING Jiaoping, SHAO Longyi, ZHENG Rong, et al. Individual
particles emitted from gasoline engines: Impact of engine types,
engine loads and fuel components [J]. J Cleaner Production,
2017, 149: 461-471
[65] ZHU Rensheng, HU Jingnan, BAO Xiaofeng, et al. Effects of
aromatics, olefins and distillation temperatures (T50 & T90) on
particle mass and number emissions from gasoline direct injection
(GDI) vehicles [J]. Energy Policy, 2017, 101: 185–193.
[66] GONG Changming, HUANG Kuo, DENG Baoqing, et al. Catalyst
light-off behavior of a spark-ignition LPG (liquefied petroleum
gas) engine during cold start [J]. Energy, 2011, 36: 53–59.
[67] Myung C L, Kim J, Choi K, et al. Comparative study of engine
control strategies for particulate emissions from direct injection
light-duty vehicle fueled with gasoline and liquid phase liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG) [J]. Fuel, 2012, 94: 348–355.
[68] GENG Peng, ZHANG Hui. Combustion and emission
 238 J Automotive Safety and Energy Vol. 8 No. 3, 2017

characteristics of a direct-injection gasoline engine using the

MMT fuel additive gasoline [J]. Fuel, 2015, 144: 380–387.
Dr. FANG Tiegang
[69] Kalghatgi G T. Auto-Ignition Quality of Practical Fuels and
Implications for Fuel Requirements of Future SI and HCCI
He is a professor in the Mechanical and Aerospace
Engines [R]. SAE Tech Paper, 2005-01–0239.
Engineering Department at North Carolina State
[70] Johansson, B. High-load partially premixed combustion in a
heavy-duty diesel engine high-load partially premixed combustion University. He obtained his Bachelor of Engineering
in a heavy-duty diesel engine [C/OL]// Diesel Engine Emissions degree from the Automotive Engineering Department
Reduction (DEER) Conf, 2005(2005-08-25). https://www.erc.wisc.
with a minor from the Computer Science and Technology
edu/documents/symp13-Johansson.pdf.
Department of Tsinghua University. Before receiving
[71] Sellnau M C, Sinnamon J, Hoyer K, et al. Full-time gasoline
direct-injection compression ignition (GDCI) for high efficiency his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-
and low NOx and PM [J]. SAE Int'l J Engines, 2012, 5: 300–114. Champaign, he obtained his Master of Sciences degree
[72] Sellnau M, Moore W, Sinnamon J, et al. GDCI multi-cylinder from the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
engine for high fuel efficiency and low emissions [J]. SAE Int'l J
Department at Rutgers University. His research interests
Engines, 2015,8:775–1190.
include internal combustion engines, alternative fuels
[73] Sellnau M, Foster M, Moore W, et al. Second generation GDCI
multi-cylinder engine for high fuel efficiency and US Tier 3 including biofuels, high-pressure spray combustion,
emissions [J]. SAE Int'l J Engines, 2016, 9: 1002–1120. soot, liquid breakup and atomization, optical diagnostics
[74] Sellnau MC, Sinnamon J, Hoyer K, et al. Part-load operation of on reacting flows, heat and mass transfer, and fluid
gasoline direct-injection compression ignition (GDCI) engine [R].
mechanics. He is a member of a few professional
SAE Tech Paper, 2013-01–0272.
[75] Sellnau M, Foster M, Hoyer K, et al. Development of a gasoline societies including the Combustion Institute, the Society
direct injection compression ignition (GDCI) engine [J]. SAE Int'l of Automotive Engineers (SAE), the Institute for Liquid
J. Engines, 2014, 7: 835–151. Atomization and Spray Systems (ILASS), the American
[76] Kittelson D, Kraft M. Particle formation and models in internal
Society of Engineering Education (ASEE), and the
combustion engines [R/OL]// Cambridge : Cambridge Centre for
Computational Chemical Engineering. (2014-01-31). https://como. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).
cheng.cam.ac.uk/preprints/c4e-Preprint-142.pdf.
[77] XIE Fangxi, HONG Wei, SU Yan, et al. Effect of external hot
EGR dilution on combustion, performance and particulate 方铁钢  博士
emissions of a GDI engine [J]. Energy Conve and Managt, 2017,
142: 69–81. 方铁钢博士现在是北卡罗莱纳州州立大学 (NC State
[78] Bogarra M, Herreros J M, Tsolakis A, et al. Study of particulate University) 机械与航空工程系的教授。毕业于清华
matter and gaseous emissions in gasoline direct injection engine
using on-board exhaust gas fuel reforming [J]. Appl Energy, 2016,
大学汽车工程系，获计算机科学与技术系第二学士
180: 245–255. 学位，其后于罗格斯大学（Rutgers University）获硕
[79] Bogarra-Macias M, Herreros-Arellano J M M, Tsolakis A, et al.
士学位，于伊利诺伊大学（University of Illinois at
Reformate exhaust gas recirculation (REGR) effect on particulate
matter (PM), soot oxidation and three way catalyst (TWC) Urbana-Champaign）获得博士学位。研究方向包括：
performance in gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines [J]. SAE 内燃机、可替代燃料及生物燃料、高压喷雾燃烧、
Int'l J Engines, 2015, 9: 305–314.
碳烟生成、液滴破碎及雾化、化学反应流体的光学
[80] Whelan I, Timoney D, Smith W, et al. The effect of a three-way
catalytic converter on particulate matter from a gasoline direct- 测量、传热传质及流体力学。是燃烧协会、国际自
injection engine during cold-start [J]. SAE Int'l J Engines, ,
动机工程师学会 (SAE)、国际液体雾化与喷雾系统
2013, 6: 1035–1045.
[81] Rodriguez J F, Cheng W K. Reduction of cold-start emissions 学会 (ILASS)、美国工程教育学会 (ASEE) 和美国
through valve timing in a GDI engine [J]. SAE Int'l J Engines, 机械工程师学会 (ASME) 等学会的会员。
2016, 9: 1220–1229.
[82] Bermúdez V, Luján J M, Climent H, et al. Assessment of
pollutants emission and aftert-reatment efficiency in a GTDi
engine including cooled LP-EGR system under different steady-
state operating conditions [J]. Appl Energy, 2015, 158: 459–473.