3 ms·

The source might be "A REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE ON THE POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF LEAF BLOWERS" found here: https://ww2.arb.ca.go

by ammar2 3y ago

The source might be "A REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE ON THE POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF LEAF BLOWERS" found here: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/Health%20and%20Environmental%20Impacts%20of%20Leaf%20Blowers.pdf https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/Health%20... This is the table in the source: +--------------------+-------------------+-------------+---------------+ | | Exhaust Emissions | New vehicle | Older vehicle | +--------------------+-------------------+-------------+---------------+ | Hydrocarbons | 199.26 | 0.39 | 201.9 | | Carbon Monoxide | 423.53 | 15.97 | 1310 | | Particulate Matter | 6.43 | 0.13 | 0.78 | | Fugitive Dust | 48.6-1031 | N/A | N/A | +--------------------+-------------------+-------------+---------------+ and the accompanying text: > Another way to visualize the data is to compare emissions for a given amount of leaf blower operation to miles traveled by car. The Air Resources Board regularly publishes such emissions benchmarks. Thus, for the average 1999 leaf blower and car data presented in Table 9, we calculate that hydrocarbon emissions from one-half hour of leaf blower operation equal about 7,700 miles of driving, at 30 miles per hour average speed. The carbon monoxide emission benchmark is signficantly different. For carbon monoxide, one-half hour of leaf blower useage would be equivalent to about 440 miles of automobile travel at 30 miles per hour average speed.

aidenn0 3y ago
For those not reading closely note that Hydrocarbons != Carbon. A New vehicle will burn fairly completely (if you include the cat as part of the process), leaving a miniscule amount of hydrocarbons (incompletely burned fuel) and a small amount of CO. The catalytic converter will oxidize hydrocarbons, CO and NO2 leaving almost entirely N2 CO2 and H2O (and in fuels with significant sulfer, hydrogen sulfide which has its own issues).
- Gordonjcp 3y ago
  > New vehicle will burn fairly completely (if you include the cat as part of the process), leaving a miniscule amount of hydrocarbons (incompletely burned fuel) and a small amount of CO So will old ones, if you run them on the right fuel. My 25-year-old Range Rover has a 4.6 litre engine adapted to run on propane which is - under the right circumstances - a *negative* emission vehicle. It can have measurably less CO and HC in the exhaust than in the intake air (city air heavily contaminated with CO and HC for example from bus engines).

by ammar2 3y ago

aidenn0 3y ago

For those not reading closely note that Hydrocarbons != Carbon. A New vehicle will burn fairly completely (if you include the cat as part of the process), leaving a miniscule amount of hydrocarbons (incompletely burned fuel) and a small amount of CO. The catalytic converter will oxidize hydrocarbons, CO and NO2 leaving almost entirely N2 CO2 and H2O (and in fuels with significant sulfer, hydrogen sulfide which has its own issues).

Gordonjcp 3y ago
> New vehicle will burn fairly completely (if you include the cat as part of the process), leaving a miniscule amount of hydrocarbons (incompletely burned fuel) and a small amount of CO So will old ones, if you run them on the right fuel. My 25-year-old Range Rover has a 4.6 litre engine adapted to run on propane which is - under the right circumstances - a *negative* emission vehicle. It can have measurably less CO and HC in the exhaust than in the intake air (city air heavily contaminated with CO and HC for example from bus engines).