Evaluation of EDAR vehicle emissions remote sensing technology

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Evaluation of EDAR vehicle emissions remote sensing technology. / Ropkins, Karl; DeFries, Timothy H.; Pope, Francis; Green, David C.; Kemper, Jim; Kishan, Sandeep; Fuller, Gary W.; Li, Hu; Sidebottom, Jim; Crilley, Leigh R.; Kramer, Louisa; Bloss, William J.; Stewart Hager, J.

In: Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 609, 31.12.2017, p. 1464-1474.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Ropkins, K, DeFries, TH, Pope, F, Green, DC, Kemper, J, Kishan, S, Fuller, GW, Li, H, Sidebottom, J, Crilley, LR, Kramer, L, Bloss, WJ & Stewart Hager, J 2017, 'Evaluation of EDAR vehicle emissions remote sensing technology', Science of the Total Environment, vol. 609, pp. 1464-1474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.137

APA

Ropkins, K., DeFries, T. H., Pope, F., Green, D. C., Kemper, J., Kishan, S., ... Stewart Hager, J. (2017). Evaluation of EDAR vehicle emissions remote sensing technology. Science of the Total Environment, 609, 1464-1474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.137

Vancouver

Author

Ropkins, Karl ; DeFries, Timothy H. ; Pope, Francis ; Green, David C. ; Kemper, Jim ; Kishan, Sandeep ; Fuller, Gary W. ; Li, Hu ; Sidebottom, Jim ; Crilley, Leigh R. ; Kramer, Louisa ; Bloss, William J. ; Stewart Hager, J. / Evaluation of EDAR vehicle emissions remote sensing technology. In: Science of the Total Environment. 2017 ; Vol. 609. pp. 1464-1474.

Bibtex

@article{1d9d9d1c8a824922bb0c79b7a1b30085,
title = "Evaluation of EDAR vehicle emissions remote sensing technology",
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 100 ppm for CO, 10 to 30 ppm for NO, 15 to 35 ppmC for CH4, and, depending on vehicle speed, 100 to 400 ppmC3 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.",
keywords = "Car chaser, EDAR, PEMS, Remote sensing, SNIFFER, Vehicle emissions, VERSS",
author = "Karl Ropkins and DeFries, {Timothy H.} and Francis Pope and Green, {David C.} and Jim Kemper and Sandeep Kishan and Fuller, {Gary W.} and Hu Li and Jim Sidebottom and Crilley, {Leigh R.} and Louisa Kramer and Bloss, {William J.} and {Stewart Hager}, J.",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "31",
doi = "10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.137",
language = "English",
volume = "609",
pages = "1464--1474",
journal = "Science of the Total Environment",
issn = "0048-9697",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of EDAR vehicle emissions remote sensing technology

AU - Ropkins, Karl

AU - DeFries, Timothy H.

AU - Pope, Francis

AU - Green, David C.

AU - Kemper, Jim

AU - Kishan, Sandeep

AU - Fuller, Gary W.

AU - Li, Hu

AU - Sidebottom, Jim

AU - Crilley, Leigh R.

AU - Kramer, Louisa

AU - Bloss, William J.

AU - Stewart Hager, J.

PY - 2017/12/31

Y1 - 2017/12/31

N2 - 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 100 ppm for CO, 10 to 30 ppm for NO, 15 to 35 ppmC for CH4, and, depending on vehicle speed, 100 to 400 ppmC3 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.

AB - 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 100 ppm for CO, 10 to 30 ppm for NO, 15 to 35 ppmC for CH4, and, depending on vehicle speed, 100 to 400 ppmC3 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.

KW - Car chaser

KW - EDAR

KW - PEMS

KW - Remote sensing

KW - SNIFFER

KW - Vehicle emissions

KW - VERSS

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026823985&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.137

DO - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.137

M3 - Article

VL - 609

SP - 1464

EP - 1474

JO - Science of the Total Environment

JF - Science of the Total Environment

SN - 0048-9697

ER -