Brake Pad Dust Can Be More Toxic Than Exhaust Emissions, Study Says (theguardian.com) 96
Bruce66423 shares a report from The Guardian: Microscopic particles emitted from brake pads can be more toxic than those emitted in diesel vehicle exhaust, a study has found. This research shows that even with a move to electric vehicles, pollution from cars may not be able to be eradicated. The researchers found that a higher concentration of copper in some commonly used brake pads was associated with increased harmful effects on sensitive cells from people's lungs, as a result of particles being breathed in.
Exposure to pollution generated by cars, vans and lorries has been previously been linked to an increased risk of lung and heart disease. While past attention has mainly concentrated on exhaust emissions, particles are also released into the air from tyre, road and brake pad wear. These emissions are largely unregulated by legislation and the study found that these âoenon-exhaustâ pollution sources are now responsible for the majority of vehicle particulate matter emissions in the UK and parts of Europe, with brake dust the main contributor among them.
[...] The scientists examined the effects on lung health of particulate matter from four different types of brake pad with differing chemical compositions; low metallic, semi-metallic, non-asbestos organic and hybrid-ceramic. Results showed that of the four types of brake pads, non-asbestos organic pads were the most potent at inducing inflammation and other markers of toxicity, and were found to be more toxic to human lung cells than diesel exhaust particles. Ceramic pads were the second most toxic. Dr. Ian Mudway, senior lecturer at the school of public health at Imperial College London, cautioned that while the research on brake pad emissions appears sound, it is premature to conclude they are worse than diesel exhaust due to "uncontrolled variables" like brake disc types and particle composition.
Slashdot reader Bruce66423 also notes it "doesn't discuss the significance of regenerative breaking, which is a feature of at least some electric cars [that reduces brake pad wear by using the electric motor to slow down the vehicle and recover energy]."
The research has been published in the journal Particle and Fibre Technology.
Exposure to pollution generated by cars, vans and lorries has been previously been linked to an increased risk of lung and heart disease. While past attention has mainly concentrated on exhaust emissions, particles are also released into the air from tyre, road and brake pad wear. These emissions are largely unregulated by legislation and the study found that these âoenon-exhaustâ pollution sources are now responsible for the majority of vehicle particulate matter emissions in the UK and parts of Europe, with brake dust the main contributor among them.
[...] The scientists examined the effects on lung health of particulate matter from four different types of brake pad with differing chemical compositions; low metallic, semi-metallic, non-asbestos organic and hybrid-ceramic. Results showed that of the four types of brake pads, non-asbestos organic pads were the most potent at inducing inflammation and other markers of toxicity, and were found to be more toxic to human lung cells than diesel exhaust particles. Ceramic pads were the second most toxic. Dr. Ian Mudway, senior lecturer at the school of public health at Imperial College London, cautioned that while the research on brake pad emissions appears sound, it is premature to conclude they are worse than diesel exhaust due to "uncontrolled variables" like brake disc types and particle composition.
Slashdot reader Bruce66423 also notes it "doesn't discuss the significance of regenerative breaking, which is a feature of at least some electric cars [that reduces brake pad wear by using the electric motor to slow down the vehicle and recover energy]."
The research has been published in the journal Particle and Fibre Technology.
Re: Asbestos is Toxic? (Score:5, Informative)
Most brake pads contain little to no asbestos. Hasn't had the stuff for decades.
On the EV front, I rarely apply the brakes. I've serviced the brakes once in over 210,000 miles and that was because the got rusty from disuse.
So, though not perfect, the EV contributed less per mile.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that's what gets me about this article. All the anti-car people are spinning this as, "SEE, EVs DON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM!" Except, they literally do? It's indeed quite common for EV brakes to rust from disuse. I'd wager usage rates are ~2 orders of magnitude less than that of ICE brakes. So you're talking about such small quantities of brake dust from EVs that is it even worth discussing?
You can't attack EVs over direct emissions at all.
You can over indirect emissions, but it's a really weak attac
Re: (Score:3)
It's also important to remember that even if EVs don't 100% solve the problem, perfect must not be the enemy of good. A 99% improvement is an important stepping stone to buy time to find that last 1% solution.
Re: (Score:1)
Not surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
I also wonder about the long-term environmental affects of tire particles as well. Tires wear and the material goes... everywhere near the roads.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Not surprised (Score:2)
And Los Angeles channels it directly into the ocean, along with a lot of other crap that really wouldn't be if this city had even the slightest clue about water management.
Re: (Score:2)
Now comrade, we know you aren't a native English speaker so don't lecture on language, nor on history or mathematics. Putin isn't paying you for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Particles from abrasion of the road surface are also known to be dangerous to inhale.
Studded winter tires are the worst offenders. For that reason, studded tires are forbidden on selected inner-city roads in some countries that have cold winters and that type of tire is common.
Re: (Score:2)
Salt is creating many other problems.
When you live in rural areas studded tires are the only well working alternative.
Re: Not surprised (Score:3)
When you hear ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Most cars can use engine compression to brake as well, though the usual argument is do you want to save the brakes which are cheap to replace, or the transmission, which costs a lot of money to replace?
The only time you really want to use the engine braking is going downhill where you might overheat the brakes and make them ineffective for an emergency stop.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Not a problem if you have no transmission!
Re: (Score:2)
Most cars can use engine compression to brake as well
No they don't. You're confusing two different concepts. You are talking about engine braking - the retarding forces in the engine not being fired slowing the vehicle while nothing in the engine changes - during the compression stroke the engine is slowed, during the following stroke that stored energy is released. It's a gentle process.
The parent is talking about compression breaking, an active system that opens the valves of the engine at the end of the compression stroke to release all pressure in the cyl
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but braking, or "breaking" as used by /. intelligentsia, is merely slowing down, so compression braking is just using the engine to slow down.
But, of course, most cars have automatic transmissions, almost all of which preclude the use of the engine in slowing down the car. It is a fact that passengers do NOT have engine braking in the sense that large diesel vehicles do, but very few offer any form of even the mildest engine braking.
Re: When you hear ... (Score:2)
With small cars, they can do a kind of Jake if they are hybrids. The rear differential of a car is a 3 ring gear set, with o = a + b where all are rpm, o is axle, an and b are wheels. You do a modified version of that gear set where a is electric motor, b is ICE, and o is output to wheels. To brake, you reverse the electric motor or let it go. You can collect juice to recharge by letting it go, or to brake hard you can put in juice reversing the direction of a. You can take it all the way to a stop this way
Re: (Score:2)
A jake is specifically and only when you're opening the valves at the right/wrong time. What you're talking about is instead like a retarder, although we all just call it regenerative braking when it's done the recharging way. Nobody is doing it the other way on anything bigger than a toy. On heavy trucks there are two main popular options; Allison (and probably other) transmissions are offered with a fluid-based retarder which is essentially like half of a torque converter, off at the other end from the ac
Re: (Score:2)
Just keep your muffler in place and I wouldn't react to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Or just get an EV. Regen covers 99% of your braking needs if you are a good driver, and doesn't produce any brake dust. Saves you money by recharging the battery too.
"Ride the pedal" (Score:3)
Slashdot reader Bruce66423 also notes it "doesn't discuss the significance of regenerative breaking, which is a feature of at least some electric cars [that reduces brake pad wear by using the electric motor to slow down the vehicle and recover energy]."
Some cars have a feature that can be enabled where you rarely need to use the brake pedal at all - you just 'ride' the accelerator to the speed you need, and simply release it to have the car automatically brake when the accelerator isn't depressed at all (which usually uses regen braking). You of course need to use the brake pedal for a full or emergency stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Not actually relevant. You're talking about single pedal mode on EVs. While single pedal mode typically limits the braking to only regen breaking, it's no different to you stepping on the brake. These systems are essentially brake by wire first. It doesn't matter if you configure your car to single pedal mode, or drive it normally, or use adaptive cruise control. Stepping on the brake pedal will engage regen braking first until you step on it hard enough to warrant the brake callipers closing.
An EV rarely u
Re: (Score:2)
And single pedal mode is inferior to two pedal mode. A driver has more control pressing a pedal than "not pressing" it.
Single pedal only exists because Tesla could not figure out how to blend regen and conventional brakes. It's just one of countless examples of how Tesla's terrible engineering has made cars worse and its buyers dumber.
Re: (Score:2)
You of course need to use the brake pedal for a full or emergency stop.
I'm not suggesting that they do work this way, but I don't think there's any good reason why an EV shouldn't be able to come to a full stop by just letting up on the pedal. It works great for R/C cars. These days even they have traction control, regenerative braking, and anti-skid "braking" (although there are generally either no sensors, or only the ones in the motor.) In fact, it's even common for them to have steering-based yaw control, especially drift cars, though it's not all that uncommon for dirt ra
Then its lucky (Score:2)
Re:Then its lucky (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't touch my coffee break.
If you did mean brakes then it's interpreted differently.
Re: Then its lucky (Score:2)
If it moves it wears (Score:4, Funny)
Of course you can't eliminate pollution. (Score:5, Insightful)
Duh. You can't totally get rid of all pollution involved with personal transport.
That doesn't mean you can't _reduce_ it drastically, and it doesn't mean you should go 'Welp, can't be perfect, might as well roll coal.'
Re: (Score:2)
Simple problem, simple solution (Score:1)
don't brake.
Okay okay. That's silly. We still need to slow down. Can't use brake pads....use jake brakes. Guess we'll all need to switch to diesels...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or EVs
Re: Simple problem, simple solution (Score:1)
That's dumb. If you're going to carry around a diesel for braking, may as well use it dor power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The main argument against diesels is that Americans can't make a decent diesel engine, and presumably don't know how to drive them: torque is produced in a very narrow band, and at relatively low RPM - so a lot off gear chan
Re: Simple problem, simple solution (Score:2)
Or switch to ceramic brakes (Score:2)
Much less dust and much less toxic and better than standard metal brakes in most conditions.
reading is hard... (Score:1)
Or switch to ceramic brakes - Much less dust and much less toxic and better than standard metal brakes in most conditions.
LOL
Re: (Score:1)
Second most = Les than. As I said. Still living in your head rent free.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah someone pointing out you're stupid in a direct reply to you doesn't mean you're living in anyone's head. That not how that phrase works or what it means.
Ironically your attempt to use this phrase just reinforced that you seem to only ever say stupid things.
Re: (Score:2)
He says to an AC, using an insult so tired that only a MAGAt would think it is funny.
But yeah, "second most", that's a bigger than usual win for you.
Re: Or switch to ceramic brakes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ceramics do have longer stopping distances, but they're not much worse than any OEM pads on common vehicles. Even performance vehicles commonly don't come with any special pads until they are the really high end models. Most of the time you can cut your stopping distance substantially by installing EBC yellows, unless you've got carbon brakes. Equally, most of the time you're not going to make stopping distance much worse no matter what your pad choice is, unless it disintegrates.
Do we actually breathe that much brake dust? (Score:2)
Usually, when we're on the roads, we're in our cars, with the air conditioner or heater on, in recirculate mode. This keeps both the exhaust pollution, and most likely the brake dust pollution, outside.
The study used a "test rig" to generate the brake dust particles. Presumably the lung tissue was then exposed to the dust. This procedure is in no way representative of the amount and types of dust that people would actually inhale.
Re: (Score:2)
Like, when your commute is over and you've stopped your car in the driveway of your home, you get out and sigh loudly while thinking of another day wasted in the rat race.
The answer, of course, is obvious. Plant a thick row of bushes and turn off your engine when you approach the house. If you aim for the bushes on arrival you won't have to hit the brakes.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more a problem for everyone around you, those following you and so on. Brakes are often used at intersections so don't live at an intersection.
Re: Do we actually breathe that much brake dust? (Score:2)
Do you live near a road? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Usually, when we're on the roads, we're in our cars, with the air conditioner or heater on, in recirculate mode. This keeps both the exhaust pollution, and most likely the brake dust pollution, outside.
You won't be happy if you spend a lot of time in your vehicle with the windows up and the HVAC on recirculate mode. I'm pretty sure most cars always have some minimum fresh air intake so you don't hypoxia yourself, but heavy recirculation still becomes unpleasant quite quickly. It's good for a short time behind an old diesel truck, not for constant driving.
That said any normal, recent car has a cabin air filter, so there is that. Rolling down the windows is most certainly going to be much worse than u
Re: Do we actually breathe that much brake dust? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Do we actually breathe that much brake dust? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Usually, when we're on the roads, we're in our cars, with the air conditioner or heater on, in recirculate mode.
You're making some assumptions that the world drives the car the strange way you do. Firstly most people do not drive around with recirculate mode on. Including when running the heater. In every car I've driven there's a good warning indicator to remind you that you're on recirculate mode with the heater on - your windscreen fogs up. - Rainy parts of the world.
Also what do you mean recirculate mode? Don't you drive with your windows down? Or if you're fancy enough with your roof down? - temperate parts of t
Re: (Score:2)
and you think that's good news?
Here's some more good news, those particles are only breathed in once, so just as long as they aren't breathed in by you, there's no problem, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Usually, when we're on the roads, we're in our cars, with the air conditioner or heater on, in recirculate mode. This keeps both the exhaust pollution, and most likely the brake dust pollution, outside.
If it did, you would be dead from asphyxiation. QED, it does not.
Also tire particulate (Score:2)
There really isn't any reason not to be transitioning the public
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I would expect them to go down, as the most dangerous drivers (drunk drivers) are taken off the road.
Drunk driving is dangerous, but distracted drivers are just as dangerous. Insurance rates never really go down. I expect they will continue to increase for all drivers due to inflation.
I am sure rate of increase will eventually be greater for the models of vehicles that have higher average annual costs on the insurer
due to claims and less for the model vehicles that don't.
Your self-driving car model migh
Re: (Score:2)
"I expect they will continue to increase for all drivers due to inflation."
What underlying costs of insurance are governed by inflation?
Re: (Score:2)
There really isn't any reason not to be transitioning the public transportation.
Plenty of reasons for people to not accept public transportation.
1. Freedom. When you drive your own car you can stop anywhere you want en-route spur of the moment. You could explore places you wouldn't even get to see otherwise. Public transportation is In part prison: your origin is predetermined, and you can only join and disembark at exactly certain destinations and at specific times. You can't prepare to depart earl
Re: (Score:2)
You can tell which people have never used a functioning public transport system, by the crazy stuff they say that doesn't match reality. I do enjoy having people tell me my life cannot possibly work...
I was going to to a rebuttal but I don't think you'd pay attention so I'm just going to agree enthusiastically with you.
1. True dat. Trains are prisons which I've can travel in without a license, paid in cash and have a beer at the same at time. Just like prisons. Also I can't get off at any stop because reaso
Re: (Score:2)
"You can tell which people have never used a functioning public transport system, by the crazy stuff they say that doesn't match reality. I do enjoy having people tell me my life cannot possibly work...
I was going to to a rebuttal but I don't think you'd pay attention so I'm just going to agree enthusiastically with you."
No one has said your life cannot possibly work. The claim was that there was no reason not to transition to public transportation. That is false and the OP listed reasons why. It is a fa
Re: (Score:2)
That is false and the OP listed reasons why. It is a fact that other cultures are more successful with public transportation than the US, there are reasons for that.
There is reason for that, and it is called greed [wikipedia.org]. The idea that we cannot serve most of our populations with public transportation because of the shapes of our cities is stupid and wrong, and therefore also tiresome.
Re: (Score:2)
At least this time you're willing to admit that what you're promoting is awful.
Re: (Score:2)
There's this old lie again. Knew it would appear here, and you'd be the one posting it.
"For a long time there was a mystery surrounding where tires went when they wore down."
No, it was never, ever a mystery.
"The answer is you're breathing them"
No, that's your FUD. They produce particulates, but as this article claims, at a rate LOWER than brakes do.
"They become an ultra fine particulate and that's the smog you see in just about every modern city in a first world nation."
No, that's NOT "the smog".
"We have
See the light! We need pollution! (Score:2)
I prefer to inhale my brake pad dust, tire rubber, and carbon monoxide like it was intended: right from the sources. You insensitive clods! Why question my life choices? Asbestos is GOOD for you! And that rubber lung effect, it's great for ensuring you lungs stay nice and elastic! Oh, and don't get that poison MMR shot because it's totally suspect because that natural immunity is really cool. I want to have a pox and measles party! Hell, the only way the human race will survive is if you actually get all th
Another reason for EVs (Score:1)
Re: Another reason for EVs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the sarcasm in the parent's post.
Re: Another reason for EVs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With predominantly downshifting, the actual brakes on my car are barely used.
Not arguing against EVs, just wanted to brag. ;)
The only times I use brakes as a rule are a) when some jagoff cuts me off, b) at lights in town c) on the offramp, and d) when parking, and even on the ramp I'm doing around half of the job with the engine. I want my brakes to be cool by the time I park.
"Studies" Always Suck (Score:2)
The vast majority of published "studies" are entirely bogus, even when they aren't actually fraudulent. The "study" is unreproducible, often the result of a "meta-analysis" of incompatible data, looking for ANYTHING above the level of statistical noise.
Re: (Score:3)
Before posting your heartfelt beliefs on subjects I am guessing you have no background in, first read the original article:
https://particleandfibretoxico... [biomedcentral.com]
This study is remarkably well done, with a very focused set of questions and goals, exemplary methods, and critically analyzed results.
It is 100% reproducible in the sense that anyone with a comparable lab can read their methods and redo the study exactly. Whether they get the same results is of course why studies are replicated, but this one is so prec
Re: (Score:2)
This study is remarkably well done, with a very focused set of questions and goals, exemplary methods
The study can be good science, but there is still the problem about sufficiency of the questions.
A big question is How much of these dusts are people actually exposed to. So what if they're comparitively more toxic when the actual exposure of people to them is minuscule by comparison?
Re: (Score:3)
Completely true, and point well made.
Like most studies, the one here cannot answer all questions. They did something very focused - they collected brake wear dust from simulated real world driving conditions, then tested for toxicity of the dust in cultures of human pulmonary alveolocytes (lung cells) using collected particles of the size that actually makes their way by inhalation to the pulmonary alveoli.
They demonstrated significant toxics effects.
As you said, "So what if they're comparitively more toxi
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an interesting study: It turns out being worthless anti-science nutjob who will criticise the name of something being a "study" without even reading the material or offering any discussion of why you think it may be problematic isn't just reserved for the modern day moron with a low UI.
Go take your rubbish comment to an anti-vax forum.
No shit (Score:2)
You're telling me there's people who thought you could grind up a brake pad into a fine powder and snort it without consequence?
Second most toxic pad (Score:2)
You know what's a more toxic pad than a brake pad? A maxi.
Oh c’mon (Score:3)
“the study found that these âoenon-exhaustâ pollution sources are now responsible for the majority of vehicle particulate matter emissions”
Ie, the study deliberately excludes exhaust gases from consideration and only focused on PM. Which is OK given that it’s scientific, and that means it will need a sharp focus, but then the journos have over-read it dramatically. For vehicles, exhaust gases are a larger threat to human and animal health than PM. And those *do* get eliminated with the move to EVs. For PMs, it’s important to note that the size of the particle matters, as it affects how long it stays suspended in the air and thus is breathable. And it turns out that PM from brake and tyre dust is larger, and thus is suspended for less time, than exhaust PM.
Re: (Score:2)
but then the journos have over-read it dramatically
Scientific reporting these days is absolutely rubbish. Not only did they not recognised the study only focused on one area of pollution, they also assumed EVs use brake pads like a normal car. They don't. In many cases a modern EV will spend nearly all of its time regenerative breaking only. You need to really slam your foot on the brake to engage the pads in many cars.
This shit has been going on to a long time, and it's annoying to correct. It's like those people who believe most plastic in the ocean comes
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalist corruption of journalism is one of the our biggest problems and it's not clear that it is reversible. Democracy relies on an informed electorate, this is how it is attacked. Journalism is corrupt but it is also dying, and what is replacing it stands no chance of ever meeting a minimum standard of objectivity.
EVs are not the solution? (Score:2)
The study is good but the conclusion in TFS is a bit ignorant. Specifically the bit: This research shows that even with a move to electric vehicles, pollution from cars may not be able to be eradicated.
I have an EV. It has been probably about 2 weeks since I engaged my brakes pads, and the only reason I did it back then is because I did a road trip so my car was charged to 100% and regenerative breaking was disabled. I can see on my dash when the break pads engage. I can hear it too, because they rarely get
more research FUD (Score:2)
"This research shows that even with a move to electric vehicles, pollution from cars may not be able to be eradicated."
Which is fine. because the "move to electric vehicles" is not intended to "eradicate" all forms of pollution, it is to support the transition to renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gasses.
"...particles are also released into the air from tyre, road and brake pad wear...these âoenon-exhaustâ pollution sources are now responsible for the majority of vehicle particulate matter emi