新PFASs限制法案提案下汽车空调替代制冷剂的对比与展望  

Comparison and Prospect of Alternative Refrigerants for MAC Based on New PFASs Restriction Regulation Proposal

作　　者：任兆龙 管燕 殷翔[1] 宋昱龙 曹锋[1] Ren Zhaolong;Guan Yan;Yin Xiang;Song Yulong;Cao Feng(School of Energy and Power Engineering,Xi′an Jiaotong University,Xi′an,710049,China)

机构地区：[1]西安交通大学能源与动力工程学院,西安710049

出　　处：《制冷学报》2024年第4期1-13,共13页Journal of Refrigeration

基　　金：国家重点研发计划(2022YFE0208000)资助项目。

摘　　要：随着基加利修正案在中国的通过实施,在我国汽车空调领域逐渐减少或淘汰R134a制冷剂已变成不可回避的事实,而目前国际上最主要的汽车空调替代制冷剂为R1234yf、CO_(2)和R290,目前我国在3种替代制冷剂的选用方面还没有明确方向。德国等5国也在近日提出了对PFASs的限制法案建议,R1234yf也被纳入了受限名单,使用前景不容乐观。在此背景下,从环保性、安全性、经济性以及系统性能等方面对R1234yf、CO_(2)和R290进行对比,总结了相关的研究成果和结论,并对最新的PFAS物质限制法案提案中涉及汽车空调的内容进行整理和分析,为我国汽车空调领域替代制冷剂的研究提供方向,并以此为基础对未来汽车空调替代制冷剂的选择进行展望。With the adoption and implementation of the Kigali Amendment in China,the R134a refrigerant has gradually reduced and could be eliminated in China′s mobile air conditioning(MAC).Currently,the most important alternative refrigerants for MAC are R1234yf,CO_(2),and R290;however,China has no criteria for the selection of these three refrigerants.Recently,Germany and five other countries have proposed regulations to restrict PFASs,and R1234yf has also been included in the restricted list;therefore,the prospect of R1234yf is not optimistic.In this context,this study compares R1234yf,CO_(2),and R290 in terms of environmental protection,safety,economy,and system performance.Relevant research results and conclusions are summarized,and the latest PFAS substance restriction proposal involving MAC was organized and analyzed.These efforts provide direction for the research of alternative refrigerants in the field of MAC in China,which may be used as a basis for the selection of alternative refrigerants for MAC in the future.

关 键 词：汽车空调 替代制冷剂 CO_(2) R1234yf R290 

分 类 号：TB612[一般工业技术—制冷工程] U463.851[机械工程—车辆工程]