Literature DB >> 28800689

Evaluation of EDAR vehicle emissions remote sensing technology.

Karl Ropkins1, Timothy H DeFries2, Francis Pope3, David C Green4, Jim Kemper5, Sandeep Kishan2, Gary W Fuller4, Hu Li6, Jim Sidebottom7, Leigh R Crilley3, Louisa Kramer3, William J Bloss3, J Stewart Hager8.   

Abstract

Despite much work in recent years, vehicle emissions remain a significant contributor in many areas where air quality standards are under threat. Policy-makers are actively exploring options for next generation vehicle emission control and local fleet management policies, and new monitoring technologies to aid these activities. Therefore, we report here on findings from two separate but complementary blind evaluation studies of one new-to-market real-world monitoring option, HEAT LLC's Emission Detection And Reporting system or EDAR, an above-road open path instrument that uses Differential Absorption LIDAR to provide a highly sensitive and selective measure of passing vehicle emissions. The first study, by Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and Eastern Research Group, was a simulated exhaust gas test exercise used to investigate the instrumental accuracy of the EDAR. Here, CO, NO, CH4 and C3H8 measurements were found to exhibit high linearity, low bias, and low drift over a wide range of concentrations and vehicle speeds. Instrument accuracy was high (R2 0.996 for CO, 0.998 for NO; 0.983 for CH4; and 0.976 for C3H8) and detection limits were 50 to 100ppm for CO, 10 to 30ppm for NO, 15 to 35ppmC for CH4, and, depending on vehicle speed, 100 to 400ppmC3 for C3H8. The second study, by the Universities of Birmingham and Leeds and King's College London, used the comparison of EDAR, on-board Portable Emissions Measurement System (PEMS) and car chaser (SNIFFER) system measurements collected under real-world conditions to investigate in situ EDAR performance. Given the analytical challenges associated with aligning these very different measurements, the observed agreements (e.g. EDAR versus PEMS R2 0.92 for CO/CO2; 0.97 for NO/CO2; ca. 0.82 for NO2/CO2; and, 0.94 for PM/CO2) were all highly encouraging and indicate that EDAR also provides a representative measure of vehicle emissions under real-world conditions.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Car chaser; EDAR; PEMS; Remote sensing; SNIFFER; VERSS; Vehicle emissions

Year:  2017        PMID: 28800689     DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.137

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  4 in total

1.  Automatic and Fast Recognition of On-Road High-Emitting Vehicles Using an Optical Remote Sensing System.

Authors:  Hao Xie; Yujun Zhang; Ying He; Kun You; Boqiang Fan; Dongqi Yu; Mengqi Li
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 3.576

2.  Evaluation of Solid Particle Number Sensors for Periodic Technical Inspection of Passenger Cars.

Authors:  Anastasios Melas; Tommaso Selleri; Ricardo Suarez-Bertoa; Barouch Giechaskiel
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-13       Impact factor: 3.576

3.  Impacts of emergency health protection measures upon air quality, traffic and public health: evidence from Oxford, UK.

Authors:  Ajit Singh; Suzanne E Bartington; Congbo Song; Omid Ghaffarpasand; Martin Kraftl; Zongbo Shi; Francis D Pope; Brian Stacey; James Hall; G Neil Thomas; William J Bloss; Felix C P Leach
Journal:  Environ Pollut       Date:  2021-11-26       Impact factor: 8.071

4.  Rapid detection of high-emitting vehicles by on-road remote sensing technology improves urban air quality.

Authors:  Yuhan Huang; Casey K C Lee; Yat-Shing Yam; Wai-Chuen Mok; John L Zhou; Yuan Zhuang; Nic C Surawski; Bruce Organ; Edward F C Chan
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2022-02-02       Impact factor: 14.136

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.