Comparing emission rates derived from a model with those estimated using a plume-based approach and quantifying the contribution of vehicle classes to on-road emissions and air quality
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study presents a comparison of fleet average emission factor (s) derived from a traffic emission model with EFs estimated using plume-based measurements, including an investigation of the contribution of vehicle classes to carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO<sub>x</sub>), and elemental carbon (EC) along an urban corridor. To this end, a field campaign was conducted over one week in June 2016 on an arterial road in Toronto, Canada. Traffic data were collected using a traffic camera and a radar, whereas air quality was characterized using two monitoring stations: one located at ground level and another at the rooftop of a four-story building. A traffic simulation model was calibrated and validated, and second-by-second speed profiles for all vehicle trajectories were extracted to model emissions. In addition, dispersion modeling was conducted to identify the extent to which differences in emissions translate to differences in near-road concentrations. The results indicate that modeled EFs for CO and NO<sub>x</sub> are twice as high as plume-based EFs. Besides, modeled results indicate that transit bus emissions accounted for 60% and 70% of the total emissions of NO<sub>x</sub> and EC, respectively. Transit bus emission rates in g/passenger·km for NO<sub>x</sub> and EC were up to 8 and 22 times, respectively, the emission rates of passenger cars. In contrast, the Toronto streetcars, which are electrically fueled, were found to improve near-road air quality despite their negative impact on traffic speeds. Finally, we observe that the difference in estimated concentrations derived from the two methods is not as large as the difference in estimated emissions due to the influence of meteorology and of the urban background given that the study network is located in a busy downtown area. <i>Implications</i>: This study presents a comparison of fleet average emission factor (s) derived from a traffic emission model with EFs estimated using plume-based measurements, including an investigation of the contribution of vehicle classes to various pollutants. Besides, dispersion modeling was conducted to identify the extent to which differences in emissions translate to differences in near-road concentrations. It was observed that the difference in estimated concentrations derived from the two methods is not as large as the difference in estimated emissions due to the influence of meteorology and of the urban background, as the study network is located in a busy downtown area.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».