Literature DB >> 23155860

Comparison of the MOVES2010a, MOBILE6.2, and EMFAC2007 mobile source emission models with on-road traffic tunnel and remote sensing measurements.

Eric M Fujita1, David E Campbell, Barbara Zielinska, Judith C Chow, Christian E Lindhjem, Allison DenBleyker, Gary A Bishop, Brent G Schuchmann, Donald H Stedman, Douglas R Lawson.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The Desert Research Institute conducted an on-road mobile source emission study at a traffic tunnel in Van Nuys, California, in August 2010 to measure fleet-averaged, fuel-based emission factors. The study also included remote sensing device (RSD) measurements by the University of Denver of 13,000 vehicles near the tunnel. The tunnel and RSD fleet-averaged emission factors were compared in blind fashion with the corresponding modeled factors calculated by ENVIRON International Corporation using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) MOVES2010a (Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator) and MOBILE6.2 mobile source emission models, and California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) EMFAC2007 (EMission FACtors) emission model. With some exceptions, the fleet-averaged tunnel, RSD, and modeled carbon monoxide (CO) and oxide of nitrogen (NO(x)) emission factors were in reasonable agreement (+/- 25%). The nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emission factors (specifically the running evaporative emissions) predicted by MOVES were insensitive to ambient temperature as compared with the tunnel measurements and the MOBILE- and EMFAC-predicted emission factors, resulting in underestimation of the measured NMHC/NO(x) ratios at higher ambient temperatures. Although predicted NMHC/NO(x) ratios are in good agreement with the measured ratios during cooler sampling periods, the measured NMHC/NO(x) ratios are 3.1, 1.7, and 1.4 times higher than those predicted by the MOVES, MOBILE, and EMFAC models, respectively, during high-temperature periods. Although the MOVES NO(x) emission factors were generally higher than the measured factors, most differences were not significant considering the variations in the modeled factors using alternative vehicle operating cycles to represent the driving conditions in the tunnel. The three models predicted large differences in NO(x) and particle emissions and in the relative contributions of diesel and gasoline vehicles to total NO(x) and particulate carbon (TC) emissions in the tunnel. IMPLICATIONS: Although advances have been made to mobile source emission models over the past two decades, the evidence that mobile source emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons in urban areas were underestimated by as much as a factor of 2-3 in past inventories underscores the need for on-going verification of emission inventories. Results suggest that there is an overall increase in motor vehicle NMHC emissions on hot days that is not fully accounted for by the emission models. Hot temperatures and concomitant higher ratios of NMHC emissions relative to NO(x) both contribute to more rapid and efficient formation of ozone. Also, the ability of EPA's MOVES model to simulate varying vehicle operating modes places increased importance on the choice of operatingmodes to evaluate project-level emissions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23155860     DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2012.699016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc        ISSN: 1096-2247            Impact factor:   2.235


  8 in total

1.  The contribution of evaporative emissions from gasoline vehicles to the volatile organic compound inventory in Mexico City.

Authors:  I Schifter; L Díaz; R Rodríguez; C González-Macías
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2014-02-14       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Why do Models Overestimate Surface Ozone in the Southeastern United States?

Authors:  Katherine R Travis; Daniel J Jacob; Jenny A Fisher; Patrick S Kim; Eloise A Marais; Lei Zhu; Karen Yu; Christopher C Miller; Robert M Yantosca; Melissa P Sulprizio; Anne M Thompson; Paul O Wennberg; John D Crounse; Jason M St Clair; Ronald C Cohen; Joshua L Laughner; Jack E Dibb; Samuel R Hall; Kirk Ullmann; Glenn M Wolfe; Illana B Pollack; Jeff Peischl; Jonathan A Neuman; Xianliang Zhou
Journal:  Atmos Chem Phys       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 6.133

3.  CAMx Ozone Source Attribution in the Eastern United States using Guidance from Observations during DISCOVER-AQ Maryland.

Authors:  Daniel L Goldberg; Timothy P Vinciguerra; Daniel C Anderson; Linda Hembeck; Timothy P Canty; Sheryl H Ehrman; Douglas K Martins; Ryan M Stauffer; Anne M Thompson; Ross J Salawitch; Russell R Dickerson
Journal:  Geophys Res Lett       Date:  2016-02-12       Impact factor: 4.720

4.  Sensitivity analysis of the near-road dispersion model RLINE - an evaluation at Detroit, Michigan.

Authors:  Chad W Milando; Stuart A Batterman
Journal:  Atmos Environ (1994)       Date:  2018-03-21       Impact factor: 4.798

5.  Four Decades of United States Mobile Source Pollutants: Spatial-Temporal Trends Assessed by Ground-Based Monitors, Air Quality Models, and Satellites.

Authors:  Lucas R F Henneman; Huizhong Shen; Christian Hogrefe; Armistead G Russell; Corwin M Zigler
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2021-01-05       Impact factor: 9.028

6.  Trends in on-road vehicle emissions and ambient air quality in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, from the late 1990s through 2009.

Authors:  Krish Vijayaraghavan; Allison DenBleyker; Lan Ma; Chris Lindhjem; Greg Yarwood
Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 2.235

7.  RISK EFFECTS OF NEAR-ROADWAY POLLUTANTS AND ASTHMA STATUS ON BRONCHITIC SYMPTOMS IN CHILDREN.

Authors:  Robert Urman; Sandrah Eckel; Huiyu Deng; Kiros Berhane; Ed Avol; Fred Lurmann; Rob McConnell; Frank Gilliland
Journal:  Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2018-06

8.  Connecting Air Quality with Emotional Well-Being and Neighborhood Infrastructure in a US City.

Authors:  Raj M Lal; Kirti Das; Yingling Fan; Karoline K Barkjohn; Nisha Botchwey; Anu Ramaswami; Armistead G Russell
Journal:  Environ Health Insights       Date:  2020-05-03
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.