Health costs due to outdoor air pollution by traffic

Emission factors of air pollutants from CNG-gasoline bi-fuel vehicles: Part I. Black carbon

Compressed natural gas (CNG) is considered to be a "cleaner" fuel compared to other fossil fuels. Therefore, it is used as an alternative fuel in motor vehicles to reduce emissions of air pollutants in transportation. To quantify "how clean" burning CNG is compared to burning gasoline, quantification of pollutant emissions under the same driving conditions for motor vehicles with different fuels is needed. In this study, a fleet of bi-fuel vehicles was selected to measure the emissions of black carbon (BC), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbon (HC) and nitrogen oxide (NO_x) for driving in CNG mode and gasoline mode respectively under the same set of constant speeds and accelerations. Comparison of emission factors (EFs) for the vehicles burning CNG and gasoline are discussed. This part of the paper series reports BC EFs for bi-fuel vehicles driving on the real road, which were measured using an in situ method. Our results show that burning CNG will lead to 54%-83% reduction in BC emissions per kilometer, depending on actual driving conditions. These comparisons show that CNG is a cleaner fuel than gasoline for motor vehicles in terms of BC emissions and provide a viable option for reducing BC emissions cause by transportation.

Are emissions of black carbon from gasoline vehicles overestimated? Real-time, in situ measurement of black carbon emission factors

Accurately quantifying black carbon (BC) emission factors (EFs) is a prerequisite for estimation of BC emission inventory. BC EFs determined by measuring BC at the roadside or chasing a vehicle on-road may introduce large uncertainty for low emission vehicles. In this study, BC concentrations were measured inside the tailpipe of gasoline vehicles with different engine sizes under different driving modes to determine the respective EFs. BC EFs ranged from 0.005-7.14 mg/kg-fuel under the speeds of 20-70 km/h, 0.05-28.95 mg/kg-fuel under the accelerations of 0.5-1.5m/s(2). Although the water vapor in the sampling stream could result in an average of 12% negative bias, the BC EFs are significantly lower than the published results obtained with roadside or chasing vehicle measurement. It is suggested to conduct measurement at the tailpipe of gasoline vehicles instead of in the atmosphere behind the vehicles to reduce the uncertainty from fluctuation in ambient BC concentration.