construction of a photocatalytic de- polluting field site in the leopold ii tunnel of brussels

Construction of a photocatalytic de-polluting field site in the Leopold II tunnel of Brussels

Dr. Eng. Anne BeeldensDr. Eng. Elia Boonen

Belgian Road Research [email protected]

Life+ PhotoPAQ Conference Lyon, April 15-17th 2014

2

Life+ PhotoPAQ Conference “Photocatalysis: Science and Application for Urban Air Quality”, Lyon, April 15-17 2014

Life+-project PHOTOPAQ: Action I2

Action I2: application of photocatalytic, cement based materials on the side walls and the roof of the Leopold II tunnel in Brussels and rigorous measurement of effect on air pollution inside

Improvement of urban air quality !?

CTG

See data on photopaq.ircelyon.univ-lyon1.fr

adsorbtion and decomposition

pollutants

TX productTX product

UVradiation

adsorption and decomposition

pollutants

TX productTX product

UVradiation

Une caractérisation complète de la qualité de l’airA full characterization of the air quality

3

Station 1 Station 2

Section rénovée / Renovated section

Parois photocatalytiques – quel impact sur la qualité de l’air?Photocatalytic walls – impact on the air quality

?

Tunnel Léopold II : la campagne de mesuresTunnel Léopold II : The field campaign

4

Station 1 Station 2

Section rénovée / Renovated section

OzoneNOx / NOy

(Many) VOCsCO / CO2

Particles (size + composition)

Une caractérisation complète de la qualité de l’airA full characterization of the air quality

Tunnel Léopold II : la campagne de mesuresTunnel Léopold II : the field campaign

5


Chronology of field testing

Set-up of the tunnel campaign Preparation and implementation of first application – 70 m long

Set-up of tender specifications Selection of contractor(s) to perform the works Follow-up of the renovation works

Preparative (small) tunnel campaign – June 2011 First tunnel campaign – September 2011 Intermediate measurements in order to optimize the

illumination and the material efficiency and to control the activation capacity of the material under tunnel conditions

Preparation and implementation of second application – 160 m long

Set-up of tender specifications Selection of contractor(s) to perform the works Follow-up of the renovation works

Second tunnel campaign – January 2013

6


Set-up of the tunnel field campaigns

Selection of field site: accessibility – pollution – possibility to apply the photocatalytic material and UV lighting

Inspection of selected tunnel site (visits with partners,…) Collection of existing data (pollution [inside and outside

tunnel], traffic, meteorology,…) Contact and cooperation with local tunnel authorities

(MRBC) Contact with Brussels’ air quality network (IBGE)

7


Selection of field site: collection of data

0:30

1:30

2:30

3:30

4:30

5:30

6:30

7:30

8:30

9:30

10:3

0

11:3

0

12:3

0

13:3

0

14:3

0

15:3

0

16:3

0

17:3

0

18:3

0

19:3

0

20:3

0

21:3

0

22:3

0

23:3

0

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

NO2 [µg/m3]

Time in UT (Universal Time)

NO2 at 41LEC1 - TUNNEL LEOPOLD II - CentreAverage SUNDAY, SATURDAY and WORKING DAY

Summer Period : April - September 2008

Sunday Saturday Working Day

Measuring stations in Brussels area and measured parameters:

8


Leopold II tunnel: location of field site

Tunnel segment of ± 200m

Traffic: up to 65 000 vehicles per day

9


Location of field site for tunnel campaigns

10


Leopold II tunnel: inside view of test site

11


Tunnel campaign: technical rooms for instrumentation

12


Tunnel campaigns: field strategy

(1) Monitor the targeted pollutants before and after the application of the active material

(2) Monitor the targeted pollutants at the same time at two measurement sites in two very comparable locations up- and down-wind of the active tunnel section.(3) Monitoring of the pollutants at the downwind site with the UV irradiation on and off.

13


Measurements in the tunnel

Pre-measuring campaign – small campaign June 2011 (with BUW)

Preparation of samples for laboratory control

First measuring campaign – September 2011

Preliminary campaign (lab) to illustrate the activation possibility of the material inside the tunnel

Preparation of second tunnel campaign

Second tunnel campaign – January 2013

Dismantling of the test site

Control of tunnel material afterwards

14


First tunnel campaign: timing

Pre-campaign in June 2011 (routine measurement NOx and CO2)

Application in August 2011 (cleaning, application, lighting)

Intensive measurement campaign in September 2011 (9th-23rd):

FRONT MAINNOx Leipzig IRCELYON + BRRCCO2 BUW BUWNO2 LOPAP BUWHONO BUWO3 LISA ICAREERMOVOC LISACartridge samples carbonyls ICARE + IFTVOCs (X) (Y)Online HCHO ICARE BUWAMS IFTSMPS IRCELYONImpactor Stg IFTPTR-MS ICAREWind speed (Z)Light intensity (Z)

15


Preparation and implementation of first application 70 m long – photocatalytic material on ceiling and upper

part of the wall Material provided by partner Italcementi Design and provision of lamps by DISANO

Set-up of tender specifications Selection of contractor(s) to perform the works: VSE

Preparative test in order to optimize the application of the material, supervised by Italcementi

Visits to the tunnel in order to prepare planning and installation

Follow-up of the renovation works

16


Typical equipment for application

17


17

First tunnel campaign: execution

18


Much less „lamps off“ data… NO2 higher errors (NO2<NOx)

NOx: X/CO2 emissions ratios, all west wind data:

May be a small dark reaction of NO2

No photo-degradation for NO, NO2 !

Upper limit NOx photo-degradation: <±2 %

x/CO2 slopes: NO (up) NO (down) NO2(up) NO2 (down) NOx (up) NOx (down)all data 2.04E-03 2.07E-03 7.92E-04 7.57E-04 2.80E-03 2.83E-03

lamps off 1.89E-03 1.88E-03 8.20E-04 7.79E-04 2.68E-03 2.66E-03lamps on 2.05E-03 2.08E-03 7.82E-04 7.46E-04 2.81E-03 2.82E-03

First tunnel campaign: results (September 2011 - BUW)

19


Activation of tunnel samples under UV??

• Tests according to ISO 22197-1 (2007) with NOin = 1ppmV, RH = 50%, F = 3l/min, A = 20x10 cm², and I = 4 W/m²

• Tunnel samples put inside Leopold II tunnel at side walls, tested afterwards + effect of UV-A and/or washing treatment

• To check possible (re)activation of samples under tunnel conditions (soot deposit, tunnel air,…)

ISO-container“Dirty” sample

“Clean” sample

“Washed” sample

20


Before tunnel (15/02/2012):

Reduction NO ≈ 37%Reduction NOx ≈ 33%

Just after tunnel (~180h inside) (23/02/2012):

Large production of “NO2” (400ppb), no NO reaction (other photochemistry) !?

4W/m² UV-A

Photocatalytic activity before and just after one week in tunnel (testing BRRC, march 2012)

21


Activity after one week in tunnel + UV-A treatment and/or washing of sample (lab)

After tunnel + 121h UV (4W/m²):(29/02/2012)

Reduction NO ≈ 3,5%Reduction NOx ≈ 1%

No increase of activity anymore!

After tunnel + 121h UV and “soft” washing of surface (rinsing & wait until constant mass again):(05/03/2012)Reduction NO ≈ 12,5%Reduction NOx ≈ 7,5%

22


Why second campaign is needed?

The activation rate of the product was not sufficient (see tests)

=> unexpected, severe de-activation process!

The length of the test section was too short: only 70 m was covered with the product

The light intensity was not high enough (~ 1 W/m² UV-A)

Preliminary testing round BRRC for second tunnel campaign (see further)

Conclusions for second tunnel campaign: Longer length: 160 m Boosted product: more activation Higher light intensity (4 W/m²)

23


Preliminary testing BRRC prior to second campaign• Tests following ISO 22197-1 (2007) with NOin = 1ppmV,

RH = 50%, F = 3l/min, A = 20x10 cm², and I = 4 W/m²

• 3 types of product tested on concrete blocks:ISO-container

“Clean” sample

Boosted Cementitious coatingPhotocatalytic paint Photocatalytic coating

With preconditioning:- 120h UV (at 10 W/m²)*- Rinsing every 12h*

No treatmentWith brush (23% water)

With trowel (16% water)

* manufacturer’s guidelines

Brushed Sprayed

24


Preparation of the samples

• For each product, one sample was kept in the dark and put directly in tunnel without prior exposure to UV!

• Total of ten (!) samples put inside the tunnel:

• Testing for NOx degradation (ISO):• Before entering tunnel• Just after tunnel (6 days)• After tunnel + UV treatment (4 W/m²)

25


Product Preconditioning

NO-reduction NOx-reduction NO-reduction NOx-reduction NO-reduction NOx-reduction NO-reduction NOx-reduction

photocatalytic paint

1 1 layer primer + 1 layer paint 101h UV (10 W/m²), water 81% 51% 62% 42% 79% 40% - -

2 1 layer primer + 2 layers paint 113h UV (10 W/m²), water 72% 40% 46% 30% 74% 36% - -

3 1 layer primer + 2 layers paint none 6% 4% 5% 2% 70% 38% - -4 1 layer primer + 2 layers paint dark conditions 5% 0% 71% 38% - -

cement-based coating5 1 layer with trowel none 59% 54% 23% -38% 48% 32% - -6 1 layer with trowel dark conditions 26% -28% 39% 26% 38% 29%7 2 layers with brush none 60% 55% 23% -46% 40% 26% - -8 2 layers with brush dark conditions 24% -58% 36% 23% 36% 28%

transparent dispersion9 1 x product + 1 x hydrofuge none 72% 61% 40% -30% 52% 28% 36% 15%10 1 x product + 1 x hydrofuge dark conditions 36% -79% 42% 18% 29% 8%

Efficiency before tunnel Efficiency after tunnel Efficiency after UV activation (6 days under 4 W/m²)

Efficiency after rinsing with water

Summary of results

26


New sampling point (Bottom)

Map of the technical room:

Front site(sampling point)

Old sampling point(Main site)

Entrance of chamber

Set-up for second tunnel campaign

27


Lighting design (DISANO)

Transition zone at exit – possibly extra lights necessary Very strong lights (400 W * 212 ) => on/of will not be a

single switch – by preference by technician of VSE – what would be the frequency?

photocatalytic zone

transition zone

28


Impact study of new lighting system on drivers in tunnel segment

Asked for by Brussels Authorities: OK => green light in October 2012

29


Second tunnel campaign, Execution: application of product and lighting (November-December 2012)

Cleaning of the walls and ceiling Mixing and spraying of the product Installation of UV light – transition zone Activation period !

30


Second tunnel campaign: PROBLEMS WITH LIGHTING!!

Breaking of glass upon switch-on of lamps! Defects in armature/lamps? Too small lamp holding? Significant fraction of light in UV-B range => heating?

Þ Installation of metallic shutters inside lamps to solve problemÞ Phocatalytic material 6 weeks without UV!

31


Second campaign, Measuring equipment: front and bottom site (january 2013)

Unfortunately, cold and humid conditions

33


BUT: Second tunnel campaign results

TOO LOW LIGHT INTENSITY

HIGH RH INSIDE TUNNEL (70-90%)

PhotoPaq, 2013

Results from 25.01. 16:00 - 29.01. 7:00 (NO/NO2) or -31.01. 7:00 (NOx) used

All Data west wind w.o. ventilation Light on [ppb/ppm] Light off [ppb/ppm] All dataNO/CO2 front 2.58 2.39 2.49NO/CO2 bottom 2.57 2.51 2.54NO2/CO2 front 0.53 0.46 0.50NO2/CO2 bottom 0.53 0.58 0.55NOx/CO2 front 3.18 3.05 3.11NOx/CO2 bottom 3.1 3.09 3.09NO2/NOx front 0.18 0.17 0.175NO2/NOx bottom 0.17 0.19 0.179

low wind speedNOx/CO2 front 3.24 3.11NOx/CO2 bottom 3.23 3.25high wind speedNOx/CO2 front 2.93 2.96NOx/CO2 bottom 2.95 2.99

Photocatalytic results January 2013 Also no reduction with the modified NOx/CO2 evaluation

Differences are not significant…

With goodwill (assuming the numbers have no error…):

NOx reduction could be 2-3%

But: errors are of the same magnitude!

35


Photocatalytic activity of tunnel samples, january 2013• Tests according to ISO 22197-1 (2007) with NOin = 1ppmV, RH =

50%, F = 3l/min, A = 20x10 cm², and I = 2-4-10 W/m² + one test with RH ~ 75%

• Tunnel samples made & kept inside Leopold II tunnel with boosted TX-material from second measurement campaign (dec – jan 2013)

• Clean reference sample kept at BRRC premises“Clean” reference sample

“Dirty” tunnel samples

36


Summary of results on tunnel samples, BRRC

Hence, combination of:- Too much passivation: ca. 6 weeks without UV! - Too low light intensity:

2 versus 4 W/m²- Too high RH during

campaign 75 versus 50% RH

V cm3 S cm2 F cm3/s trxn s100 200 50 2

Conditions decay NOx [%] Co [ppm] ct_NOx [ppm] k_NOx [s-1] deposition velocity [cm/s] gamma_NOxRH 50%, 4 W/m² 16 1 0,84 0,09 0,044 3,80E-06RH 50%, 2 W/m² 11,5 1 0,885 0,06 0,031 2,66E-06RH 75%, 2 W/m² 3,5 1 0,965 0,02 0,009 7,77E-07reference sampleRH 50%, 2 W/m² 47,5 1 0,525 0,32 0,161 1,41E-05

4 W/m² 63 1 0,37 0,50 0,249 2,17E-05

Factor 10!

37


Conclusions and perspectives

PhotoPAQ’s Leopold II field campaigns proved to be a unique real world and fully comprehensive assessment of effect of photocatalytic construction materials on air pollution inside a tunnel environment

A lot of useful information was gathered concerning air pollution dynamics inside tunnels and setting up of a tunnel field campaign

Recommendations for proper use of photocatalytic materials

Model tool for extrapolation to estimate the expected pollution reduction in other urban tunnel sites

38


Thank you for your attention!

construction of a photocatalytic de- polluting field site in the leopold ii tunnel of brussels

Documents

air pollution

outside tunnel

tunnel conditionspreparation

tunnel campaignpreparation

tunnel of brusselsdr

life photopaq conference

application of photocatalytic

life project photopaq