MEASUREMENT OF AIR TOXICS IN THE CABINS OF COMMUTER VEHICLES UNDER SUMMER AND WINTER
CONDITIONS IN OTTAWA, CANADA
Deniz Karman, Oznur Oguz(*), and Gultekin Akay(*)
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carleton University
1125 Colonel By Drive, K1S 5B6 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada(*) Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
Lisa A. Graham Environmental Technology Centre, Environment Canada
3439 River Road, K1A 0H3 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
11TH CRC ON-ROAD VEHICLE EMISSIONS WORKSHOP
San Diego, California
March 26-28, 2001
Overview
• Overall study(*) objectives• In-vehicle sampling• Results & Discussion• Comparisons• Conclusions
(*) The in-vehicle study is part of a larger project entitled “Measurement and Modelling of Motor Vehicle Related Air Pollution along Urban Streets”
Overall Study Objectives
• To establish a database of motor vehicle related toxic substance concentrations and PM2.5 mass concentrations at nose-level along a busy downtown street by measurements in the two extremes of weather (Summer and Winter) in a typical Canadian city.
• To compare and correlate the short term (2 hour periods of peak traffic volume) concentrations of toxic substances and fine particulate matter measured at nose-level with the regional air quality monitoring data of longer duration (24 hours) measured at other urban sites.
Overall Study Objectives
• To compare and correlate the short-term concentrations of toxic substances measured at nose-level with the in-vehicle concentrations on typical commuting trips.
• To determine the contribution of motor vehicle traffic to the measured toxic substance concentrations and fine particulate matter by comparisons with motor vehicle emission data.
Ambient air quality monitoring at a bus station on a busy urban sidewalk - Slater Street, Ottawa
• Ambient sampling stations constructed at ETC for roadside measurement of VOC, PM2.5, and carbonyl compounds
• Oznur Oguz, a visiting • Oznur Oguz taking
roadside measurements in January 2000, Slater Street, Ottawa.
• Windchill:
- 51 C ( - 60 F)
• Evacuated 1 L Summa canister with flow controller and pressure gauge
• 1 L/min personal sampling pump and DNPH cartridge
• Used in car and bus
In-vehicle sampling program for VOC and carbonyl compounds
• 15 Winter days (January-February 2000)• 15 Summer days (July-August 2000)• 2 sampling periods, 8-9 A.M. and 4-5 P.M. • Routes and vehicles:
– Bus: 30-45 min route along main “downtown” streets, different bus for different sessions
– Car: 30-45 commute along an arterial route that combines rural and urban settings. ~ 10 year old vehicles Nissan (Winter) and Aries (Summer)
Winter concentrations (ug/m3)Compound In-car In-bus Roadside Car/Road Bus/RoadBenzene 5.06 ± 2.69 3.38 ± 1.38 4.24 ± 3.17 1.2 0.8Toluene 18.05 ± 14.48 9.62 ± 5.15 14.41 ± 13.74 1.3 0.7Ethylbenzene 3.09 ± 3.24 2.58 ± 1.23 2.49 ± 2.62 1.2 1.0m,p-xylene 9.25 ± 9.97 6.93 ± 3.29 7.33 ± 7.41 1.3 0.9o-xylene 3.93 ± 4.15 3.04 ± 1.29 2.87 ± 2.88 1.4 1.11,3-butadiene BDL BDL 0.38 ± 0.64 NA NAFormaldehyde 7.00 ± 2.60 3.50 ± 3.36 3.89 ± 1.59 1.8 0.9Acetaldehyde 2.00 ± 2.04 2.50 ± 2.46 2.80 ± 1.17 0.7 0.9
Summer concentrations (ug/m3)Compound In-car In-bus Roadside Car/Road Bus/RoadBenzene 5.33 ± 1.50 3.46 ± 1.00 2.16 ± 0.86 2.5 1.6Toluene 15.66 ± 7.45 11.53 ± 3.58 7.75 ± 3.04 2.0 1.5Ethylbenzene 2.90 ± 1.30 3.57 ± 1.77 1.36 ± 0.78 2.1 2.6m,p-xylene 6.00 ± 2.32 7.06 ± 2.77 3.17 ± 1.84 1.9 2.2o-xylene 2.23 ± 0.81 2.85 ± 1.01 1.20 ± 0.73 1.9 2.41,3-butadiene 1.13 ± 0.81 1.08 ± 0.58 0.81 ± 0.48 1.4 1.3Formaldehyde 10.40 ± 2.39 10.50 ± 2.97 8.19 ± 11.55 1.3 1.3Acetaldehyde 6.01 ± 1.97 5.93 ± 2.05 2.39 ± 0.61 2.5 2.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Ottaw
a, in
-car
, wint
er 2
000
Ottaw
a, in
-car
, sum
mer 2
000
Ottaw
a, in
-bus
, wint
er 2
000
Ottaw
a, in
-bus
, sum
mer 2
000
Toro
nto,
wint
er 1
994
Toro
nto,
sum
mer 1
994
Raleigh
, NC, 1
988
Birming
ham, U
K, 199
6
Bosto
n, w
inter
198
9
New Je
rsey
, wint
er 1
991
Sydne
y, A
ustra
lia, 1
996
(AM)
Sydne
y, A
ustra
lia, 1
996
(PM)
Ben
zene
con
cent
ratio
n (u
g/m
3)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 100 200 300 400 500
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 50 100 150
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 100 200 300 400
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 50 100 150
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 100 200 300 400 500
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 100 200 300 400 500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 50 100 150 200
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 20 40 60 80
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 50 100 150 200
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 50 100 150 200
PARAFFINS OLEFINS AROMATICS PARAFFINS OLEFINS AROMATICS
OLEFINS
AROMATICS
TNMHC
SCATTER PLOT MATRICES OF TOTAL IDENTIFIED NMHC & SPECIES GROUPS
(IN-CAR-WINTER) (IN-CAR-SUMMER)
acetylene
propylene
2m-butane
isoprene
TNMHC
ethylene acetylene propylene 2m-butane
toluene
m&p xylene
toluene m&p xylene isoprene
SCATTER PLOT MATRIX FOR SOME ABUNDANT NMHC COMPONENTS (winter-in-car)
Note: A few suspected sessions and blank or zero values were not used.
acetylene
propylene
2m-butane
isoprene
TNMHC
ethylene acetylene propylene 2m-butane isoprene
toluene
m&p xylene
toluene m&p xylene
SCATTER PLOT MATRIX FOR SOME ABUNDANT NMHC COMPONENTS (winter-street)
Note: Blank or zero values were not used.
FINGERPRINTS OF IN-CAR NMHC COMPOUNDS (WINTER)
18JanAM
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ng
/L)
18JanAM
20JanPM
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
20JanPM
24JanAM
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
24JanAM
24JanPM
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
24JanPM
18JanPM
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
18JanPM
20JanAM
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
20JanAM
FINGERPRINTS OF SLATER STREET NMHC COMPOUNDS (WINTER)
18 JAN-7:30 FINGERPRINT
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
18 JAN-7:30FINGERPRINT
18 JAN-3:30 FINGERPRINT
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
18 JAN-3:30FINGERPRINT
20 JAN-7:30 FINGERPRINT
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
20 JAN-7:30FINGERPRINT
20 JAN-3:30 FINGERPRINT
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
20 JAN-3:30FINGERPRINT
24 JAN-7:30 FINGERPRINT
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
24 JAN-7:30FINGERPRINT
24 JAN-3:30 FINGERPRINT
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
24 JAN-3:30FINGERPRINT
Conclusions
• High variability in all species concentrations among sessions
• In-vehicle concentrations generally higher than roadside
• Strong correlations among certain species• Concentrations measured in this study are in the
lower end of the range of comparable concentrations from other studies
Current work:
– Statistical analysis of in vehicle (VOC and carbonyl) and roadside (VOC, carbonyl, PM2.5) data nearly complete. Full dataset to be available on web site.
– CMB Modelling for VOCs and PM2.5
Acknowledgement
• Funding for the study was provided by:• TSRI - Health Canada (Toxic Substances Research
Initiative)• The in-vehicle sampling was accomplished with the
combined efforts of Sandra Bayne, Norm Meyer, Lianne Noseworthy and Mod Keetile.
• All contributions are gratefully acknowledged:
Top Related