Andrey Khlystov and Dave Campbell

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Statistical evaluation of model uncertainties in Copert III, by I. Kioutsioukis & S. Tarantola (JRC, I)
Advertisements

Getting on the MOVES: Using Dynameq and the US EPA MOVES Model to Measure the Air Pollution Emissions TRPC – Smart Corridors Project Chris Breiland Fehr.
LABORATORY OF APPLIED THERMODYNAMICS ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY THESSALONIKI SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING European Database of Vehicle.
MASS EMISSION RATES AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF PM 2.5 EMISSIONS FROM TWO MOTORCYCLES Deniz Karman and Colin Welburn Department of Civil and Environmental.
European approaches to transport data collection and analysis for strategic policy and impact evaluation TRB 92 nd Annual Meeting Session 824: Transport.
Emission Factor Modeling Graciela Lubertino, HGAC.
Sources of PM 2.5 Carbon in the SE U.S. RPO National Work Group Meeting December 3-4, 2002.
Emissions of Size-Segregated Aerosols from On-Road Vehicles in the Caldecott Tunnel Jonathan O. Allen SCOS97 -- NARSTO Data Analysis Conference15 February.
CARBON FRACTIONS & Southern Nevada Air Quality Study (SNAQS) Judith Chow Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV February 5, 2002.
1 Travel Model Application for Highway Vehicle Emission Estimation Ho-Chuan Chen, Ph.D., P.E. King County Department of Transportation Seattle, Washington.
ENAC-SSIE Laboratoire de Pollution de l'Air Bogotá air quality Colombia, 2003.
VII. How might current analysis methods be enhanced or combined to obtain more information about the nature of OC, EC, and other carbon fractions in filter.
1 Motor Vehicle Emission Control in Japan Better Air Quality Workshop 2002 ( 16th Dec 2002 ) Environmental Management Bureau, Ministry of the Environment.
Solutions: Preventing and Reducing Air Pollution
B.H. Baek and Catherine Seppanen Institute for the Environment-UNC at Chapel Hill Allison DenBleyker, Chris Lindhjem and Michele Jimenez ENVIRON International.
COG DTP/DEP Staff Eulalie Lucas and Erin Morrow DTP Sunil Kumar DEP Testing of EPA’S MOVES Model Travel Management Subcommittee May 26, 2009 MOVES: Motor.
The ARTEMIS tools for estimating the transport pollutant emissions Artemis project - EC DG Tren COST346 - Heavy duty vehicles emissions M. André, INRETS,
Instrumented Vehicle BAQ Instrumented In-Use-Vehicles, a Versatile Tool to Measure Emissions BAQ 2004 Agra, India Dec 2004 Instrumented In-Use-Vehicles,
The Impact of Air Pollution on Human Health Fernando Holguin MD MPH Associate Professor of medicine and Pediatrics Director, Clinical and Translational.
Air quality and health impact assessment AQ information at the regional scale, urban background scale and street scale past, present and future air quality.
Air Quality and Transport Study of the Los Angeles Basin Bo Tan M.S Student Department of Atmospheric sciences University of Nevada Reno – Desert Research.
COMPARISON OF LINK-BASED AND SMOKE PROCESSED MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS OVER THE GREATER TORONTO AREA Junhua Zhang 1, Craig Stroud 1, Michael D. Moran 1,
Igor Trpevski University of St. Cyril and Methodius Skopje,
CO 2 Emissions from Cars, Trucks & Buses in the Metropolitan Washington Region Presentation to the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board.
Ambient Air Monitoring Networks 2010 CMAS Conference Chapel Hill, NC October 13, 2010 Rich Scheffe, Sharon Phillips, Wyatt Appel, Lew Weinstock, Tim Hanley,
Emission Inventories and EI Data Sets Sarah Kelly, ITEP Les Benedict, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe.
It’s Easy to Quantify Changes in GHG Emissions from Cars and Light Trucks – Right? Presented to: SACOG Panel Discussion April 16, 2009 Presented by: Bob.
2015 INTERNATIONAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY CONFERENCE: APRIL 14, 2015 DEVELOPING CALIFORNIA EMISSION INVENTORIES: INNOVATION AND CHALLENGES.
P. Otorepec, M. Gregorič IVZ RS Use of rutinely collected air pollution and health data on local level for simple evaluation of health impact.
Talking About Air Toxics John D. Wilson Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention
Model Evaluation Comparing Model Output to Ambient Data Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, California.
Missoula Air Quality Conformity Analysis Required by Federal and Montana Clean Air Act – Transportation-specific air quality requirements enacted in Federal.
COG/DTP Staff Eulalie Lucas and Erin Morrow Comments on Draft MOVES 2009 International Emission Inventory Conference April 16-17, 2009 Baltimore,Maryland.
Class Project Report, May 2005 ME/ChE 449 Sustainable Air Quality Highway Transportation: Trends from 1970 to 2002 and Beyond By Scott Kaminski Instructor.
Class Project Report, May 2005 ME/ChE 449 Sustainable Air Quality Highway Transportation: Trends from 1970 to 2002 and Beyond By Scott Kaminski Instructor.
Class Project Report, May 2005 ME/ChE 449 Sustainable Air Quality Highway Transportation: Trends from 1970 to 2002 and Beyond By Scott Kaminski Instructor.
Estimating PM 2.5 from MODIS and MISR AOD Aaron van Donkelaar and Randall Martin March 2009.
Georgia Institute of Technology SUPPORTING INTEX THROUGH INTEGRATED ANALYSIS OF SATELLITE AND SUB-ORBITAL MEASUREMENTS WITH GLOBAL AND REGIONAL 3-D MODELS:
1 Air Pollution Automobile Emissions: An Overview Emissions from an individual car
Fairbanks PM 2.5 Source Apportionment Using the Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) Model Tony Ward, Ph.D. The University of Montana Center for Environmental Health.
Air pollution in other cities - and how to avoid it.
Kanok Boriboonsomsin, Guoyuan Wu, Peng Hao, and Matthew Barth
Assessment of transport emissions in Megacities the case of Delhi after CNG introduction 1,2Ragini Kumari, 2Luc Int Panis, 2Rudi Torfs 1SES, JNU,New Delhi,
SMOKE-MOVES Processing
Stephen Reid, Hilary Hafner, Yuan Du Sonoma Technology, Inc.
MOVES-Based NOx Analyses for Urban Case Studies in Texas
COPERT 4 Training 3. General Methodology.
B.H. Baek, Alejandro Valencia, and Michelle Snyder
The Transportation & Air Quality Research Group
Developing a Real-Time Energy and Environmental Monitoring System
Zissis Samaras Professor
NONROAD Model Sensitivity to Temperature
Preparation of Fine Particulate Emissions Inventories
Calculation of evaporative emissions with COPERT Giorgos Mellios
vkm in transport modelling
Impacts of hydrogen pathways vs
Continuous measurement of airborne particles and gases
Uncertainties influencing dynamic evaluation of ozone trends
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Sensitivity Analysis Update
Presented By: George Noel – Volpe Mark Glaze - FHWA 1/13/2014
Brief Synopsis of Air Quality and Local/Regional Meteorology
Emission and Air Quality Trends Review
Alexey Gusev, Victor Shatalov, Olga Rozovskaya, Nadejda Vulyh
A Review of Time Integrated PM2.5 Monitoring Data in the United States
George Noel and Dr. Roger Wayson
WRAP Modeling Forum, San Diego
U.S. Perspective on Particulate Matter and Ozone
Highlights on Statewide Strategies Benefitting Communities
Updating a Fuel-based Inventory of Vehicle Emissions
Presentation transcript:

Andrey Khlystov and Dave Campbell Real world emissions of NOx and other pollutants in the Ft. McHenry tunnel Andrey Khlystov and Dave Campbell 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512 U.S.A.

Study objectives Analyze emissions in Ft.McHenry road tunnel (US I-95) Establish source profiles Determine fleet average emission factors (EFs) Quantify evaporative emissions Compare results with other tunnel studies Evaluate performance of mobile source emission models

I-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel (FMT) Four bores, two each direction, two lanes per bore Light-duty (LD) vehicles are allowed in all bores Heavy-duty (HD) directed into the right-hand bores Speed limit is 55 mph From Pierson et al., 1996

Sample collection and analysis Season Background (BG) Bore 3 (LD) Bore 4 (LD+HD) Summer 2015 19 12 Winter 2015 16 14 Pollutant Sampling method Analysis method CO, CO2, NOX Ultra-fine particles Continuous monitors VOC (PAMS) Canister GC-MS/FID Carbonyls DNPH HPLC-UV PM2.5 for SVOC TIGF/XAD GC-MS OC/EC Quartz filter TOR Elements & ions Teflon filter XRF & IC

Miovision Scout traffic camera (FMT east portal) Vehicle Category Light Duty (LD) Motorcycles Cars Light Goods Vehicles Heavy Duty (HD) Buses Single Unit Trucks Articulated Trucks

Traffic counts in winter

Traffic counts in summer

Derivation of emission factors

Comparison with previous FMT study Year EFC (g/kg-C) Heavy Duty Light Duty CO NOx PM2.5 2015 Winter 5.2 ± 2.4 34.0 ± 5.4 0.93 ± 1.0 10.0 ± 0.8 4.8 ± 1.7 0.26 ± 0.32 Summer 8.7 ± 3.0 20.6 ± 0.70 ± 0.12 9.7 ± 0.9 1.9 ± 0.5 0.03 ± 0.04 1992 Summer* 7.7 ± 23.5 50.2 ± 7.2 NA 72.6 ± 6.6 14.7 ± 2.0

Comparison with previous studies (LD)

Comparison with previous studies (HD)

Speciated emission factors Gases Particles

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) A general reduction for most MSAT is observed relative to earlier studies.

MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014a) EPA’s MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) is a state-of-the-science emission modeling system that estimates emissions for mobile sources at the national, county, and project level for criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and air toxics. Approach for evaluation: MOVES was run in Project mode with ‘Zone and Link’ geographic bounds to allow us to specify actual driving and meteorological conditions (temperature and RH) Average driving profiles measured in the tunnel were used. MSAT emissions were estimated for three different fleet compositions – LD dominated (fraction LD >90%), high fraction of HD (HD fraction 30-40%), and mixed (10 - 15% HD), and compared to observations at the corresponding fleet compositions.

Driving profiles (speed and power)

Sensitivity of MOVES output to T and RH

MOVES2014 vs. observations MOVES generally overestimates emissions “LD”: > 95% LD “Mix”: 10 – 15% HD “HiHD”: 30 – 45%HD

MOVES2014 vs. observations (PAHs)

Back to the measurements

Light Duty NOx emission factors (real-time data during LD-only periods) Linear fit EF =1.9 ± 0.5 g/kg-C EF =3.3 g/kg-C EF =6.7 g/kg-C

Bore 3, real-time data EFHD,i = [EFFA,i – (1-fHD,i)×EFLD] / fHD,i Scenario 1: EFLD = 3.3 g/kg-C Scenario 2: EFLD = 5.5 g/kg-C

Bore 4, real-time data EFHD,i = [EFFA,i – (1-fHD,i)×EFLD] / fHD,i Scenario 1: EFLD = 5.3 g/kg-C Scenario 1: EFLD = 22 g/kg-C

Summary Fleet average EFc were determined for criteria and non- criteria pollutants in winter and summer months at Ft. McHenry tunnel. Compared to previous studies: Significant reductions in EFs for most pollutants. MSAT pollutants generally decreased. MOVES2014a was compared to observations, generally overestimates pollutant emissions. Assumptions underlying EF determination need to be carefully evaluated

Acknowledgements Health Effects Institute, grant 4947-RFPA14-1/15-1 Maryland Transportation Authority