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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".