Subscriber access provided by UNIV OF DURHAM
Article
Secondary organic aerosol production from gasoline vehicle exhaust: Effects of engine technology, cold start, and emission certification standard Yunliang Zhao, Andrew T. Lambe, Rawad Saleh, Georges Saliba, and Allen L. Robinson Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05045 • Publication Date (Web): 05 Jan 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on January 5, 2018
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 37
Environmental Science & Technology
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12
Secondary organic aerosol production from gasoline vehicle exhaust: Effects of engine technology, cold start, and emission certification standard Yunliang Zhao1, Andrew T. Lambe2, Rawad Saleh1,3, Georges Saliba1, Allen L. Robinson1,* 1 Department of Mechanical Engineering and Center for Atmospheric Particle Studies, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 15213; 2 Aerodyne Research Inc., Billerica, MA, USA, 01821; 3 Now at: College of Engineering, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA, 30602.
*Correspondence to:
[email protected] Abstract: Secondary organic aerosol (SOA) formation from dilute exhaust from 16
13
gasoline vehicles was investigated using a Potential Aerosol Mass (PAM)
14
oxidation flow reactor during chassis dynamometer testing using the cold-start
15
unified cycle (UC). Ten vehicles were equipped with gasoline direct injection
16
engines (GDI vehicles) and six with port fuel injection engines (PFI vehicles)
17
certified to a wide range of emissions standards. We measured similar SOA
18
production from GDI and PFI vehicles certified to the same emissions standard;
19
less SOA production from vehicles certified to stricter emissions standards; and,
20
after accounting for differences in gas-particle partitioning, similar effective SOA
21
yields across different engine technologies and certification standards. Therefore
22
the ongoing, dramatic shift from PFI to GDI vehicles in the United States should
23
not alter the contribution of gasoline vehicles to ambient SOA and the natural
24
replacement of older vehicles with newer ones certified to stricter emissions
25
standards should reduce atmospheric SOA levels. Compared to hot operations,
26
cold-start exhaust had lower effective SOA yields, but still contributed more SOA
27
overall because of substantially higher organic gas emissions. We demonstrate
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
1
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 2 of 37
28
that the PAM reactor can be used as a screening tool for vehicle SOA production
29
by carefully accounting for the effects of the large variations in emission rates.
30 31
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
2
Page 3 of 37
Environmental Science & Technology
32 33
1. Introduction Fine particulate matter causes adverse health effects and alters global
34
climate.1, 2 Secondary organic aerosol (SOA), formed through photo-oxidation of
35
organic vapors in the atmosphere, is a major component of fine particulate matter
36
even in urban environments.1, 3 Recent studies suggest that gasoline vehicles
37
may be the dominant source of SOA in urban areas such as Los Angeles.4-7
38
However, SOA formation is complex and uncertain; there is an active, ongoing
39
debate surrounding SOA formation from gasoline vehicles and other on-road
40
sources.8 This uncertainty complicates the development of effective control
41
strategies to reduce human exposure to fine particulate matter.
42 43
Recent studies have investigated SOA formation from dilute gasoline
44
vehicle exhaust primarily using smog chambers9-12 but also with oxidation flow
45
reactors.13, 14 These studies demonstrate that SOA production typically exceeds
46
the direct particulate matter emissions after an hour or two of photo-oxidation at
47
typical daytime conditions.9-12 Chamber experiments also demonstrate that NOx
48
levels can strongly affect SOA formation from gasoline vehicle exhaust.11 Finally,
49
vehicles certified to more stringent emissions produce less SOA than vehicles
50
certified to less stringent standards, qualitatively mirroring trends in organic gas
51
emissions.9, 11
52 53 54
Although past studies have provided substantial insight, important gaps remain in our understanding of SOA formation from gasoline vehicle exhaust due
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
3
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 4 of 37
55
to changing engine technology and emissions certification standards. California
56
and the federal government are both phasing in new, more stringent regulations
57
(LEV III and Tier 3, respectively). These standards meet or exceed the most
58
stringent existing regulations, the California super ultra-low emission vehicle
59
(SULEV) standard. In addition, largely driven by increases in the corporate
60
average fuel economy standards15, 16, a dramatic change in gasoline vehicle
61
engine technology is occurring in the United States. Historically, the U.S. fleet
62
has been dominated by vehicles equipped with port-fuel injection engines (PFI
63
vehicles), but the market share of vehicles equipped with gasoline direct injection
64
engines (GDI vehicles) has increased dramatically over the past decade,
65
reaching ~50% of new gasoline vehicles sold in the United States in 2016.15
66 67
SOA production from vehicles certified to the most stringent existing
68
emissions standard, California SULEV, has not yet been quantified through
69
photo-oxidation experiments.11 It has only been estimated using measured
70
chemical composition of organic gas emissions11, 17, but these estimates are
71
uncertain due to a combination of incomplete speciation and uncertainty in SOA
72
models.8, 11
73 74
SOA formation from dilute exhaust from PFI vehicles has been extensively
75
studied across a wide range of emissions standards/model years.9, 11 Previous
76
studies have also characterized the primary emissions from GDI vehicles,
77
including particle number and mass17-22, gaseous pollutants17, 23, 24 and non-
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
4
Page 5 of 37
Environmental Science & Technology
78
methane organic gas (NMOG) composition,17, 18, 22-25 but few studies have
79
characterized SOA production from GDI vehicles. One study did not
80
quantitatively measure SOA production from the GDI vehicles11 and the other
81
only measured SOA formation from one GDI vehicle.13, 14 Data for one vehicle
82
are not sufficient as there can be substantial vehicle-to-vehicle variability in
83
emissions due to differences in engine design (e.g. spray versus wall-guided
84
GDI), engine calibration (e.g. spark timing, valve timing, etc.), emission control
85
technologies, and vehicle age and maintenance history.17, 26
86 87
The published chemical composition data of NMOG emissions may
88
provide some insight into the potential differences in SOA formation between GDI
89
and PFI vehicles. Zimmerman et al.18 reports that GDI vehicle exhaust is
90
enriched in aromatics compared to PFI exhaust. Since aromatics are an
91
important class of SOA precursors11, 27, this suggests GDI vehicle exhaust may
92
have enhanced SOA formation potential compared to PFI vehicles. However,
93
they only tested one make and model of GDI vehicles, raising concerns about
94
generalizability. Saliba et al. 17 tested a larger, more diverse fleet and found no
95
systematic differences in SOA precursor emissions between GDI and PFI
96
vehicles, suggesting no differences in SOA production. However, both studies
97
only quantified a fraction of SOA precursors in gasoline exhaust11; furthermore,
98
there are substantial uncertainties in theoretical estimates of SOA formation.1, 11
99
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
5
Environmental Science & Technology
100
Page 6 of 37
Our understanding of SOA formation from gasoline vehicle exhaust, such
101
as the effects of changes in NOx levels on SOA formation11, is primarily based on
102
smog chamber experiments. Smog chamber experiments are complex and time
103
consuming (for example, chambers are often cleaned for 12 hr between
104
experiments). Smog chamber experiments are typical batch processes, making it
105
difficult to investigate the effects of operating conditions such as cold-start versus
106
hot operations on SOA formation.14, 28 Improved tools are needed to more
107
routinely assess the SOA formation from gasoline vehicle exhaust.
108 109
Oxidation flow reactors (OFRs) have also been used to study SOA
110
production. OFRs have short residence time, which creates the potential for more
111
real-time and routine measurements.28 OFRs have been used to investigate SOA
112
formation from individual species29, vehicle/engine emissions13, 14, 30, 31 and
113
atmospheric organics.32, 33 SOA composition measured in OFRs strongly
114
resembles that in the atmosphere and similar results can be obtained from OFRs
115
and smog chambers.34, 35 However, OFRs have not been used with vehicles
116
operated over transient cycles sampled using the constant volume samplers –
117
the approached used for vehicle certification testing.
118 119
In this study, we investigated SOA formation from a fleet of 16 on-road
120
gasoline vehicles using a Potential Aerosol Mass OFR (PAM reactor, hereafter)
121
during chassis dynamometer testing. The test fleet consisted of both PFI and
122
GDI vehicles certified to a range of emissions standards from federal Tier0 to
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
6
Page 7 of 37
Environmental Science & Technology
123
California super-ultra low emission vehicles (SULEV). We investigate the effects
124
of GDI technology, tightening of emissions standards, and cold-start versus hot-
125
stabilized operations on SOA formation. Finally, we evaluate the use of an OFR
126
as screening tool for SOA production from on-road gasoline vehicle exhaust.
127
Detailed primary emissions data from this test campaign are reported in Saliba et
128
al.17 and Drozd et al.25.
129
2. Methods
130
2.1 Test fleet, fuel and test cycle
131
Dilute tailpipe exhaust from gasoline vehicles was photo-oxidized using a
132
PAM reactor during chassis dynamometer testing at the California Air Resources
133
Board’s (CARB) Haagen-Smit Laboratory. The schematic of the experimental
134
setup is shown in Figure S1 in Supporting Information (SI).
135 136
The test fleet consisted of 16 light-duty gasoline vehicles recruited from the
137
California in-use, on-road fleet. Details on the test fleet are in Table S1 in SI. For
138
discussion, vehicles are categorized by emissions certification standard (in
139
parentheses): 1 pre-LEV vehicle (U.S. Tier0), 3 LEV vehicles (California Low
140
emission vehicle), 5 ULEV (California Ultra-low emission vehicle) and 7 SULEV
141
vehicles (California Super ultra-low and partial zero emission vehicles). The
142
number of the GDI vehicle(s) was 1 LEV, 2 ULEV, and 5 SULEV with the
143
remaining vehicles in each category being PFI vehicles.
144
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
7
Environmental Science & Technology
145
Although we categorized vehicles based on engine technology (GDI
146
versus PFI), the tailpipe emissions depend on the details of engine design,
147
engine calibration, aftertreatment system, vehicle age, and maintenance history.
148
Vehicles in the same nominal category (e.g. SULEV GDI vehicles) can have
149
important differences, such as spray- versus wall-guided fuel injection systems,
150
that affect tailpipe emissions.19, 36 We characterized tailpipe, not engine-out,
151
emissions because tailpipe emissions are what impact air quality.
Page 8 of 37
152 153
All vehicles were tested using the cold-start Unified Cycle (UC), which is
154
widely used for emissions testing. The speed trace of the UC is shown in Figure
155
1a; it is a transient cycle with two starts, rapid accelerations, and both start-stop
156
and high-speed operations. It is similar in the overall duration and distance to the
157
Federal Test Procedure (FTP), but it was developed specifically to represent
158
driving in Southern California. Like the FTP, the UC is divided into three driving
159
phases, which we refer to as bags (Figure 1a). During each UC bag, dilute
160
exhaust is collected inside separate Tedlar bags; the exhaust in each bag is then
161
analyzed to determine average emissions for each bag. Bag 1 is cold-start (first
162
five minutes of the driving cycle); bag 2 is hot stabilized operation; and bag 3
163
repeats bag 1 but is hot-start. Between bags 2 and 3 there is a 10-min hot soak
164
when the vehicle is not operated and no sampling is performed.
165 166 167
Prior to testing, each vehicle was preconditioned with an overnight soak and without evaporative canister purge. Each vehicle was refueled at the CARB
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
8
Page 9 of 37
Environmental Science & Technology
168
Haagen-Smit Laboratory with the same commercial gasoline fuel that met the
169
California summertime fuel standard. Major fuel components included 49%
170
paraffins, 25% aromatics, 14% olefins, and 10% ethanol (wt%); additional fuel
171
composition data are in Saliba et al.17.
172
2.2 Photo-oxidation Experiments The photo-oxidation experiments were carried out using a PAM reactor.30,
173 174
37
175
equipped with four mercury lamps (BHK, Inc) and fluorinated ethylene propylene
176
(FEP) sleeves.30, 37 The mercury lamps have peak emissions intensity at 185 nm
177
and 254 nm, which produces hydroxyl (OH) radicals via the reactions of H2O +
178
hv185 OH + H followed by H + O2 HO2 and O3 + hv254 O(1D) + O2,
179
followed by O(1D) + H2O 2OH. The average residence time inside the PAM
180
reactor was ~100 s.
The PAM reactor is a 13-L cylindrical tube (46 cm L ×22 cm diameter)
181 182
During the dynamometer test the entire tailpipe exhaust from each vehicle
183
was sampled using a constant volume sampler (CVS) following the Code of
184
Federal Regulations Title 40, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 86. The CVS diluted
185
the emissions by a factor of ~10-40 using air treated by high-efficiency particulate
186
(HEPA) filters. A slipstream of the dilute exhaust from the CVS was sampled into
187
the PAM reactor through a heated, silcosteel® stainless steel transfer line,
188
maintained at ~47°C. There was no additional dilution beyond that provided by
189
the CVS.
190
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
9
Environmental Science & Technology
191
Page 10 of 37
The particles that exited the PAM reactor were characterized using a
192
scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS, TSI classifier model 3080, CPC model
193
3772 or 3776) and a high-resolution time-of-flight aerosol mass spectrometer
194
(HR-ToF-AMS, Aerodyne Research, Inc.). SMPS and AMS measurements were
195
performed for the first 1.5 min and 1.0 min every two min, respectively.
196 197
To reduce background levels, the PAM reactor was flushed with HEPA-
198
filter and activated carbon treated air with all four lamps turned on for 20 min
199
prior to each experiment. Following flushing, CVS dilution air with no exhaust
200
was drawn through the reactor for 10 minutes to determine SOA production from
201
background organics. The median SOA production from background organics
202
corresponds to 4%, 9% and 23% of the median SOA measured during bag 1, 2
203
and 3, respectively. However, this dynamic blank may underestimate the SOA
204
production from background organics during an experiment with vehicle exhaust
205
because of differences in the condensational sink of the suspended particles
206
inside the PAM reactor (see SI).
207 208
2.2.1 Estimation of OH Exposure. The integrated OH exposure inside the PAM
209
reactor was determined using off-line calibrations.30, 38 The OH exposure
210
depends strongly on the reactivity (concentration) of the vehicle exhaust inside
211
the PAM reactor.39-41 We used the measured exhaust composition and the
212
method of Peng et al.41 to estimate the OH exposure during each experiment.
213
Calculated OH exposures ranged from 1.1×109 molec cm-3 s to 1.2×1011 molec
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
10
Page 11 of 37
Environmental Science & Technology
214
cm-3 s, which was about a factor of 40 lower than when the PAM reactor was not
215
operated with vehicle exhaust (3.7×1011 molec cm-3 s).
216 217
2.2.2 Effects of Gas-Phase CO2 on AMS Organic Aerosol Measurements.
218
The high CO2 concentrations in vehicle exhaust can bias the HR-ToF-AMS
219
measurement at low organic aerosol (OA) concentrations.42 To correct for this
220
interference, we determined the relationship between the CO2 mixing ratio and
221
the AMS signal of m/z 44. These measurements were made while sampling
222
gasoline vehicle exhaust through the PAM reactor with the mercury lamps turned
223
off to eliminate photo-oxidation. The resulting correction is minor given the high
224
OA concentrations during the photo-oxidation experiments, consistent with
225
Collier and Zhang.42
226 227
2.2.3 Split of POA and SOA. We determined the split between primary OA
228
(POA) and SOA during photo-oxidation experiments using the AMS measured
229
C4H9+ mass fragment (m/z 57) as the tracer for POA.43, 44 This fragment is
230
abundant in the AMS mass spectra of gasoline-vehicle POA. Presto et al.43
231
shows that the POA-SOA split for aged gasoline vehicle exhaust determined
232
using m/z 57 as the POA tracer agrees well with other estimates.
233 234
We estimated the POA concentration during the photo-oxidation
235
experiments using the measured mass concentration of m/z 57 and the average
236
fraction of m/z 57 in POA (10.6%). The SOA concentration was the difference
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
11
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 12 of 37
237
between the total measured OA and the calculated POA concentration. We
238
determined the mass fraction of m/z 57 in POA (10.6%) by conducting
239
experiments with the PAM reactor mercury lamps turned-off experiments (no
240
photo-oxidation). This fraction of m/z 57 in POA was essentially constant across
241
all lights-off experiments; for example, linear regression of the mass
242
concentrations of m/z 57 to other mass fragments produced by hydrocarbons in
243
POA, such as m/z 43, 71, 85, 41, 55, 69 (SI, Figure S2), yields an R2 >0.9 across
244
the set of experiments. Furthermore, during the photo-oxidation experiments, the
245
ratios between m/z 57 and other hydrocarbon fragments, such as m/z 69 and 71,
246
remain the same as those measured during lights-off experiments, suggesting
247
that m/z 57 is a good POA tracer for gasoline vehicle exhaust.
248 249
2.2.4 Correcting for PAM reactor transit time. To associate the measured
250
SOA production with specific UC bags, we corrected the SOA data for the transit
251
time delay of the exhaust inside the PAM reactor.37 The issue is illustrated in
252
Figure 1c, which plots the measured SOA production from a typical vehicle test.
253
After the vehicle was turned off at the end of bags 2 and 3 it took approximately 3
254
min for the OA signal at the PAM reactor outlet to return to background levels.
255
This delay reflects the time it takes for the exhaust to pass through the PAM
256
reactor.
257 258 259
To better align the measured SOA production with each UC bag, we defined the bag-1 SOA production as the sum of SOA measured during bag 1
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
12
Page 13 of 37
Environmental Science & Technology
260
sampling and the SOA formed in the first 3 min of bag 2 (indicated by the
261
hatched area in Figure 1c). We defined bag-2 SOA production as the SOA
262
produced starting 3 min after UC entered bag 2 until 3 min after the conclusion of
263
bag 2. Finally, we defined the bag-3 SOA production as the SOA measured
264
during bag 3 plus that produced 3 min after the conclusion of bag 3.
265 266
Correcting for the transit time delay alters the distribution of SOA
267
production by UC bag. It increases the SOA production attributed to bag 1 (cold
268
start) by about a factor of two, but only reduces the SOA production attributed to
269
bag-2 by about 10%. The simple 3-min shift used here is imperfect correction
270
because the exhaust sample experiences a distribution of transit times inside the
271
PAM reactor. 37 However, it is adequate for characterizing SOA production by UC
272
bag, but not by the many, very rapid individual changes that occur during the UC
273
(Figure 1a). Improving our understanding of the temporal variation of the SOA
274
production during transient vehicle testing will require more detailed
275
characterization of the distribution transit time inside the reactor and potentially
276
improved reactor designs.
277
2.3 Characterization of Primary Emissions
278
The gas-phase primary emissions were characterized by sampling the
279
exhaust directly from the CVS, upstream of the PAM reactor, using an AMA 4000
280
system (AVL North America, Inc.).45 Total gas-phase organics were measured by
281
flame ionization detection (FID), methane by gas chromatography-FID, NOx by
282
chemiluminescence, and CO and CO2 by nondispersive infrared detection.45 The
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
13
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 14 of 37
283
gas-phase organics include both hydrocarbons and oxygenated compounds. For
284
discussion, we define the organics measured by FID as total organic gases. Non-
285
methane organic gases (NMOG) are the difference between total organic gases
286
and methane. The primary emissions data from these vehicles are described in
287
Saliba et al.17.
288 Although we speciated the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions,
289 290
we used the average NMOG composition profile reported by a companion
291
study11 to analyze the SOA production data. Zhao et al.11 reports a much more
292
comprehensive suite of SOA precursor emissions, including intermediate
293
volatility and semi-volatile organic compounds (IVOCs and SVOCs), than
294
analyzed by this study. Zhao et al.11 also tested a substantially larger number of
295
vehicles, using the same test procedures and a very similar fuel as this study.
296
The composition of the VOC emissions measured here (hydrocarbons with
297
carbon number ≤12) agrees well with the average NMOG profile from Zhao et
298
al.11.
299
2.4 Effective SOA yields
300
The effective SOA yield of gasoline vehicle exhaust during each
301
photooxidation experiment is defined as the ratio of the measured SOA mass to
302
the calculated mass (∆M) of reacted SOA precursors,11
303
∆ = ∑[ ] × (1 − ,×[]×∆ )
(1)
304
where [HCi] is the initial concentration of the SOA precursor i (µg m-3); kOH,i is its
305
hydroxyl (OH) radical reaction rate constant (25°C, molecules cm-3); and [OH]×∆t
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
14
Page 15 of 37
Environmental Science & Technology
306
is the OH exposure for each experiment calculated using the method of Peng et
307
al.41. [HCi] is calculated using the mass concentration of total NMOG measured
308
in each experiment multiplied by the average mass fraction of HCi in NMOG
309
reported in Zhao et al.11. SVOC concentrations were corrected for the gas-
310
particle partitioning using the measured OA concentration in each experiment
311
and the volatility distribution of POA emissions.46 More discussion of SOA
312
precursors and OH reaction rate constants is provided in SI.
313
2.5 Emission Factors
314
NMOG and OA emissions in this study are reported as fuel-based
315
emission factors, calculated using a fuel-carbon-mass-balance approach.26 For
316
each UC bag, the measured, background-corrected pollutant concentrations
317
were divided by the total fuel carbon in the tailpipe emissions calculated as the
318
sum of the carbon in the measured, background-corrected CO2, CO and NMOG
319
concentrations. The measured fuel-carbon fraction (0.82) was used to convert
320
fuel-carbon into mass of fuel burned.25 Our fuel-based estimates can be
321
converted to distance-based ones using the measured fuel economy for each
322
experiment in Table S1.
323
3. Results and Discussion
324
Figures 1b and 1c show time series of NMOG and OA (SOA+POA)
325
concentrations measured during a photo-oxidation experiment with a SULEV
326
vehicle. The NMOG concentration in bag 1 (cold start) is about a factor of 6
327
greater than those in bags 2 and 3 (hot operation). The POA concentration in bag
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
15
Environmental Science & Technology
328
1 is also much higher than those in bags 2 and 3. These trends reflect the high
329
emissions during cold-start operation (bag 1) before the catalytic converter
330
reaches its lights-off temperature.25 However, the SOA concentrations in bag 2
331
are substantially higher than in bag 1. This is unexpected given the trends in
332
NMOG emissions; it suggests that the SOA formation in bag 2 is significantly
333
different from that in bag 1. Similar relative mass distributions of NMOG
334
emissions and SOA production by UC bag were measured across all tests
335
(Figure 2).
336
3.1 Interpreting PAM reactor data and SOA production by UC bag
Page 16 of 37
337
Figures 2a and 2b present box-whisker plots of the distributions of
338
background-corrected NMOG emissions and transit-time corrected estimates of
339
SOA production by UC bag for all tests. The median vehicle produces twice as
340
much SOA in bag 2 than bag 1 while the median NMOG emissions in bag 2 are
341
about ten times lower than in bag 1. This is potentially surprising as one might
342
expect that lower NMOG emissions should lead to less SOA production.
343
However, SOA production depends on the effective SOA yield, the concentration
344
of SOA precursors, and the extent of oxidation. In addition, only a subset of
345
NMOG emissions are SOA precursors.
346 347
The unexpected trend in SOA production versus NMOG emissions by UC
348
bag is primarily driven by how oxidation inside the PAM reactor responds to the
349
large (about a factor of ten) changes in emission rates between cold-start and hot
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
16
Page 17 of 37
Environmental Science & Technology
350
operations. This complicates interpretation of PAM reactor data for vehicles
351
operated over transient test cycles like the cold-start UC.
352 353
One major effect of changing emissions rates between cold-start and hot
354
operations is that pollutant concentrations inside the PAM reactor are reduced
355
substantially during the hot operation, which, in turn, changes the extent of
356
oxidation. Figure 2c plots distributions of the OH exposure by UC bag over the
357
entire set of experiments. For the median experiment, the OH exposure in bag 2
358
is five times greater than bag 1 reflecting the changes in OH reactivity inside the
359
PAM reactor between cold-start and hot operations. SOA production increases
360
approximately linearly with the OH exposure for exposures less than 12-h
361
atmospherically equivalent oxidation.5, 30, 32, 47 Therefore, the differences in OH
362
exposures likely contribute about a factor of 5 difference in SOA production
363
between bags 1 and 2 assuming the similar amount and composition of SOA
364
precursors in these two bags. While very important, a factor of 5 is still
365
considerably less than the factor of 20 needed to explain the observed
366
differences in SOA formation between bags 1 and 2, measured by the ratio of
367
SOA production to total NMOG emissions.
368 369
Another factor contributing to the differences in bag-1 and 2 SOA
370
production is changes in the NMOG composition, specifically SOA precursor
371
emissions. Although catalyst light off dramatically reduces the total NMOG
372
emissions (Figure 1c), Zhao et al.46 finds that IVOC emissions as a fraction of
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
17
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 18 of 37
373
total NMOG are enriched during the hot operation (such as bags 2 and 3)
374
compared to the cold-start operation (bag 1). IVOCs form SOA efficiently.46, 48-50
375
Therefore, enrichment of IVOCs increases the SOA formation potential of the
376
emissions, potentially increasing the SOA production in bags 2 and 3 compared
377
to bag 1.
378 379
To quantify the effects of differences in the OH exposure and NMOG
380
composition, we converted the SOA production data into effective SOA yields
381
(Figure 2d). We first calculated the effective SOA yields using the bag-specific
382
OH exposure and the cold-start NMOG composition data (i.e. not accounting for
383
differences in composition by UC bag). The median effective SOA yield of bag 1
384
is 0.2, which is similar to estimates from chamber experiments under high-NOx
385
conditions.11 However, a median effective SOA yield of 1.0 is needed to explain
386
bag-2 SOA production. This is substantially higher than yields of dilute gasoline
387
exhaust measured in chamber experiments even under low-NOx conditions.11
388 389
The second yield estimate shown in Figure 2d accounts for differences in
390
NMOG composition between cold-start and hot operations. For this estimate, we
391
include the additional IVOC emissions from hot operations measured by Zhao et
392
al. 46 in our calculation of bag-2 and 3 effective SOA yields. This means there is
393
more reacted SOA precursor mass, which reduces the bag-2 effective yield to
394
0.6, about a factor of 3 higher than the effective SOA yield for bag 1 exhaust
395
(Figure 2d). The higher bag-2 SOA yield reflects the IVOC enrichment of the
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
18
Page 19 of 37
Environmental Science & Technology
396
NMOG emission during hot operations. The differences in SOA yields are not
397
due to changes in gas/particle partitioning as the median OA concentration in
398
bag 2 is less than in bag 1.
399 400
The bag 2 data may overestimate the hot-operation SOA yield due to
401
uncertainty in the correction for background organics (see SI). The median
402
contribution of background organics to total NMOG across all vehicle tests was
403
7% and 66% in bags 1 and 2, respectively. The relatively high levels of
404
background organics in bag 2 are due to a combination of the CVS dilution air
405
not being treated with activated carbon and the very low emissions during hot
406
operations, especially for vehicles certified to stringent standards. Although
407
Figure 2b shows background-corrected SOA production, we measured the
408
background SOA production using CVS dilution air without exhaust. This
409
approach likely underestimates the contribution of background organics because
410
of differences in condensational sinks (see SI). For comparison, the NMOG
411
composition data of Zhao et al. 46 suggests that the effective SOA yield of hot-
412
operation NMOG emissions is about 1.6 higher than that of cold-start emissions
413
at an OA concentration of 10 µg m-3.
414 415
The median effective SOA in bag 3 is expected to be similar to bag 2 as
416
both are hot-operations. We attribute the lower bag-3 effective SOA yield plotted
417
in Figure 2 to differences OA concentration.
418
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
19
Environmental Science & Technology
419 420
Page 20 of 37
3.2 SOA production by vehicle class Given the complexity in interpreting PAM-reactor data by UC bag, we
421
focus our comparison of SOA production by vehicle class on the bag 1 data (cold
422
start). This provides a consistent set of data; the same conclusions are reached if
423
you compare data for different bags, for example using bag 2 instead of bag 1
424
data. In addition, the high emissions during cold start reduce the relative
425
importance of background organics and create a relatively high condensational
426
sink which ensures that semivolatile oxidation products reach partitioning
427
equilibrium inside the PAM reactor (Figure S3). The cold-start SOA production
428
corresponds to approximately 2 hours of atmospheric oxidation at an average
429
OH concentration of 1.5 x 106 molecules cm-3.
430 431
Figure 3 presents the measured bag-1 SOA production (Figure 3a) and
432
NMOG emissions (Figure 3b) by vehicle class. Figure 3a shows less SOA
433
production from vehicles that meet more stringent emissions standards. For
434
example, SOA production from median SULEV certified vehicle is 90% lower
435
than the median pre-LEV vehicles. The reduction is 60% from LEV to SULEV.
436
Therefore tightening NMOG emissions standards reduces SOA production,
437
which is consistent with both smog chamber studies and expectations based on
438
NMOG emission rates.11, 17 However, previous studies did not quantify SOA
439
formation from SULEV vehicles because the exhaust concentrations were too
440
low relative to the background.11
441
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
20
Page 21 of 37
442
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 3a also provides the first comparison of measured SOA production
443
between PFI and GDI vehicles across the wide range of emissions standards.
444
There are no statistically significant differences in SOA production from PFI and
445
GDI vehicles certified to the same emission standard. This suggests that the
446
ongoing, dramatic shift from PFI to GDI vehicles in the US vehicle fleet should
447
not alter atmospheric SOA production.
448 449
The reductions in the measured SOA production are moderately
450
correlated (R2 =0.4) with changes in NMOG emissions (Figure S4). This
451
underscores that tightening of NMOG emissions standards reduces SOA
452
production from gasoline vehicles effectively.
453 454
To illustrate the influence of other factors beyond NMOG emissions on
455
SOA production, Figure 4 plots the bag-1 effective SOA yields versus OA
456
concentrations. Converting the SOA production data to yields accounts for any
457
experiment-to-experiment differences in OH exposure. The effectives yields are
458
correlated to OA concentrations (R2=0.6) with higher SOA yields at higher OA
459
concentrations. We attribute this to shifts in gas/particle partitioning of
460
semivolatile organics.51
461 462
Figure 4 indicates that there are no systematic differences in effective
463
SOA yields for GDI or PFI vehicles. This confirms the hypothesis of Saliba et al.17
464
that there are no differences in SOA formation between PFI and GDI vehicles.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
21
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 22 of 37
465 466 467
3.3 Comparisons with smog chamber data Figure 4 compares the effective SOA yields measured with the PAM
468
reactor to smog chamber data from our previous study focusing on PFI
469
vehicles.11 The PAM results are consistent with the high-NOx chamber data;
470
however, the low NOx chamber experiments have much higher yields than the
471
PAM measurements. This underscores the importance of both atmospheric
472
chemistry and gas/particle partitioning on SOA formation.
473 474
Figure 4 also compares the PAM-reactor yields with published
475
parameterizations of SOA formation from single ring aromatics and n-alkanes
476
derived from smog chamber experiments (see SI). The PAM-reactor yields are
477
more sensitive to the OA concentration than chamber based parameterizations,
478
suggesting that SOA formed in the PAM reactor is more volatile than the
479
published parameterizations.
480 481
The apparent inconsistency between our measurements and single
482
compound data could be due to many factors. For example, chamber
483
experiments indicate that the SOA volatility varies widely by compound.52, 53
484
However, SOA parameterizations are only available for a small subset of the
485
organics in vehicle exhaust.48, 50, 53 Therefore the published parameterizations for
486
single compounds might not represent SOA formation from the complex mixture
487
of gasoline vehicle exhaust. In addition, the higher surface area/condensational
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
22
Page 23 of 37
Environmental Science & Technology
488
sinks of suspended particles in the PAM reactor experiments promotes
489
condensation of organic vapors, potentially resulting in less oxidized SOA.54
490
Future studies are needed to investigate the relationship of the SOA volatility and
491
chemical evolution of real emissions with the OH exposure and condensational
492
sink of suspended particles.
493
4. Implications
494
The PAM reactor, as well as other OFRs, can be used to characterize
495
SOA formation from motor vehicle exhaust, including identification of high-
496
emitters, comparison of vehicles equipped with different engine and
497
aftertreatment technologies, and quantification of the effects of vehicle operations.
498
However, the SOA yield analysis presented in Figures 2 and 4 highlight the
499
complexity of interpreting the PAM-reactor data and other measurements of SOA
500
formation. The data illustrate the significant effects of OH reactivity, chemical
501
composition of SOA precursors, OA concentrations, and condensational sinks of
502
suspended particles on SOA production. One can draw robust conclusions
503
among a set of vehicles by carefully accounting for these factors. Interpretation is
504
especially challenging for transient vehicle testing, which often features very
505
large changes in pollutant emission rates between cold start and hot operations.
506
Future OFR studies of vehicle exhaust should consider using additional dilution
507
to increase the OH exposure of cold-start emissions and activated carbon treated
508
dilution air in the CVS to reduce the contribution of background organics during
509
hot operations.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
23
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 24 of 37
510 511
Our results indicate that SOA production from both PFI and GDI vehicles
512
has been substantially reduced through the tightening of NMOG emissions
513
standards. Our SULEV data suggest that this trend will continue with the
514
implementation of the new federal Tier 3 and California LEV III standards. In
515
addition, we find no difference in SOA production between PFI and GDI vehicles
516
certified to the same standard. This suggests that the ongoing, dramatic shift
517
from PFI to GDI vehicles in the US vehicle fleet should not alter SOA production.
518
However, SOA production also depends on atmospheric conditions, specifically
519
the NOx regime (Figure 4); therefore only tightening NMOG emissions standards
520
may not be enough to reduce urban SOA levels.11
521 522
We find that the effective SOA yields of hot operations are about a factor
523
of 3 higher than cold-start operations. However, cold-start emissions contribute
524
90% of the total UC NMOG emissions. Therefore, we expect cold-start emissions
525
contribute the majority of the SOA production from the UC cycle. Although this
526
conclusion appears to contradict the measured distribution of SOA production
527
shown in Figure 2, one must account for differences in oxidant exposure, OA
528
concentration, and precursor concentrations.
529 530
Following the approach of Saliba et al.17 (see equation (2) in Saliba et
531
al.17), we estimated the distance that must be traveled under hot operations to
532
match the SOA production from one cold start. The analysis requires multiplying
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
24
Page 25 of 37
Environmental Science & Technology
533
the bag-1 and bag-2 SOA precursor emission rates by their corresponding
534
effective SOA yields. The median vehicle tested here must be driven about 30
535
miles to match the SOA production from one cold start. Given that we likely
536
overestimate the bag-2 effective SOA yield (see SI), 30 miles may be a lower
537
bound. As a reference, the daily average trip length in the United States is 9.7
538
miles.55 Therefore, if the UC is representative of US driving patterns, specifically
539
commuting, and if our test fleet is representative of the in-use fleet, then our
540
results indicate that the majority of SOA formation from gasoline vehicle exhaust
541
is from cold-start emissions.
542 543
Supporting Information.
544 545 546 547
Estimation of effective SOA yields, condensational sinks of suspended particles and background correction, and six figures and one table.
548
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Notes
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
25
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 26 of 37
549
Acknowledgements:
550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558
The authors would like to thank the excellent and dedicated personnel at the California Air Resources Board, especially at the Haagen–Smit Laboratory. Financial support was provided by the California Air Resources Board (Contract #12-318 and #14-345) and US Environmental Protection Agency (Assistance Agreement RD83587301). The California Air Resources Board also provided substantial in-kind support for vehicle procurement, testing, and emissions characterization. A. T. Lambe acknowledges support from the Atmospheric Chemistry Program of the National Science Foundation under grant AGS1537446. The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this paper are those of the authors and should not be construed as an official position of the funding agencies.
559
References:
560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591
1. Hallquist, M.; Wenger, J. C.; Baltensperger, U.; Rudich, Y.; Simpson, D.; Claeys, M.; Dommen, J.; Donahue, N. M.; George, C.; Goldstein, A. H.; Hamilton, J. F.; Herrmann, H.; Hoffmann, T.; Iinuma, Y.; Jang, M.; Jenkin, M. E.; Jimenez, J. L.; Kiendler-Scharr, A.; Maenhaut, W.; McFiggans, G.; Mentel, T. F.; Monod, A.; Prevot, A. S. H.; Seinfeld, J. H.; Surratt, J. D.; Szmigielski, R.; Wildt, J., The formation, properties and impact of secondary organic aerosol: current and emerging issues. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2009, 9, (14), 5155-5236. 2. HEI Health Effects Institute. State of Global Air 2017. Special Report.; Boston MA: Health Effects Institiute, 2017. 3. Jimenez, J. L.; Canagaratna, M. R.; Donahue, N. M.; Prevot, A. S. H.; Zhang, Q.; Kroll, J. H.; DeCarlo, P. F.; Allan, J. D.; Coe, H.; Ng, N. L.; Aiken, A. C.; Docherty, K. S.; Ulbrich, I. M.; Grieshop, A. P.; Robinson, A. L.; Duplissy, J.; Smith, J. D.; Wilson, K. R.; Lanz, V. A.; Hueglin, C.; Sun, Y. L.; Tian, J.; Laaksonen, A.; Raatikainen, T.; Rautiainen, J.; Vaattovaara, P.; Ehn, M.; Kulmala, M.; Tomlinson, J. M.; Collins, D. R.; Cubison, M. J.; Dunlea, E. J.; Huffman, J. A.; Onasch, T. B.; Alfarra, M. R.; Williams, P. I.; Bower, K.; Kondo, Y.; Schneider, J.; Drewnick, F.; Borrmann, S.; Weimer, S.; Demerjian, K.; Salcedo, D.; Cottrell, L.; Griffin, R.; Takami, A.; Miyoshi, T.; Hatakeyama, S.; Shimono, A.; Sun, J. Y.; Zhang, Y. M.; Dzepina, K.; Kimmel, J. R.; Sueper, D.; Jayne, J. T.; Herndon, S. C.; Trimborn, A. M.; Williams, L. R.; Wood, E. C.; Middlebrook, A. M.; Kolb, C. E.; Baltensperger, U.; Worsnop, D. R., Evolution of Organic Aerosols in the Atmosphere. Science 2009, 326, (5959), 1525-1529. 4. Bahreini, R.; Middlebrook, A. M.; de Gouw, J. A.; Warneke, C.; Trainer, M.; Brock, C. A.; Stark, H.; Brown, S. S.; Dube, W. P.; Gilman, J. B.; Hall, K.; Holloway, J. S.; Kuster, W. C.; Perring, A. E.; Prevot, A. S. H.; Schwarz, J. P.; Spackman, J. R.; Szidat, S.; Wagner, N. L.; Weber, R. J.; Zotter, P.; Parrish, D. D., Gasoline emissions dominate over diesel in formation of secondary organic aerosol mass. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2012, 39, L06805. 5. Hayes, P. L.; Ortega, A. M.; Cubison, M. J.; Froyd, K. D.; Zhao, Y.; Cliff, S. S.; Hu, W. W.; Toohey, D. W.; Flynn, J. H.; Lefer, B. L.; Grossberg, N.; Alvarez, S.; Rappenglueck, B.; Taylor, J. W.; Allan, J. D.; Holloway, J. S.; Gilman, J. B.; Kuster, W. C.; De Gouw, J. A.; Massoli, P.; Zhang, X.; Liu, J.; Weber, R. J.; Corrigan, A. L.; Russell, L. M.; Isaacman, G.; Worton, D. R.; Kreisberg, N. M.; Goldstein, A. H.;
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
26
Page 27 of 37
592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637
Environmental Science & Technology
Thalman, R.; Waxman, E. M.; Volkamer, R.; Lin, Y. H.; Surratt, J. D.; Kleindienst, T. E.; Offenberg, J. H.; Dusanter, S.; Griffith, S.; Stevens, P. S.; Brioude, J.; Angevine, W. M.; Jimenez, J. L., Organic aerosol composition and sources in Pasadena, California, during the 2010 CalNex campaign. J. Geophys. Res. 2013, 118, (16), 9233-9257. 6. Jathar, S. H.; Woody, M.; Pye, H. O. T.; Baker, K. R.; Robinson, A. L., Chemical transport model simulations of organic aerosol in southern California: model evaluation and gasoline and diesel source contributions. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2017, 17, (6), 43054318. 7. Platt, S. M.; El Haddad, I.; Pieber, S. M.; Zardini, A. A.; Suarez-Bertoa, R.; Clairotte, M.; Daellenbach, K. R.; Huang, R. J.; Slowik, J. G.; Hellebust, S.; TemimeRoussel, B.; Marchand, N.; de Gouw, J.; Jimenez, J. L.; Hayes, P. L.; Robinson, A. L.; Baltensperger, U.; Astorga, C.; Prevot, A. S. H., Gasoline cars produce more carbonaceous particulate matter than modern filter-equipped diesel cars. Scientific Reports 2017, 7. 8. Gentner, D. R.; Jathar, S. H.; Gordon, T. D.; Bahreini, R.; Day, D. A.; El Haddad, I.; Hayes, P. L.; Pieber, S. M.; Platt, S. M.; de Gouw, J.; Goldstein, A. H.; Harley, R. A.; Jimenez, J. L.; Prevot, A. S. H.; Robinson, A. L., Review of Urban Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation from Gasoline and Diesel Motor Vehicle Emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, (3), 1074-1093. 9. Gordon, T. D.; Presto, A. A.; May, A. A.; Nguyen, N. T.; Lipsky, E. M.; Donahue, N. M.; Gutierrez, A.; Zhang, M.; Maddox, C.; Rieger, P.; Chattopadhyay, S.; Maldonado, H.; Maricq, M. M.; Robinson, A. L., Secondary organic aerosol formation exceeds primary particulate matter emissions for light-duty gasoline vehicles. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2014, 14, (9), 4661-4678. 10. Platt, S. M.; El Haddad, I.; Zardini, A. A.; Clairotte, M.; Astorga, C.; Wolf, R.; Slowik, J. G.; Temime-Roussel, B.; Marchand, N.; Jezek, I.; Drinovec, L.; Mocnik, G.; Mohler, O.; Richter, R.; Barmet, P.; Bianchi, F.; Baltensperger, U.; Prevot, A. S. H., Secondary organic aerosol formation from gasoline vehicle emissions in a new mobile environmental reaction chamber. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2013, 13, (18), 9141-9158. 11. Zhao, Y. L.; Saleh, R.; Saliba, G.; Presto, A. A.; Gordon, T. D.; Drozd, G. T.; Goldstein, A. H.; Donahue, N. M.; Robinson, A. L., Reducing secondary organic aerosol formation from gasoline vehicle exhaust. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2017, 114, (27), 6984-6989. 12. Nordin, E. Z.; Eriksson, A. C.; Roldin, P.; Nilsson, P. T.; Carlsson, J. E.; Kajos, M. K.; Hellen, H.; Wittbom, C.; Rissler, J.; Londahl, J.; Swietlicki, E.; Svenningsson, B.; Bohgard, M.; Kulmala, M.; Hallquist, M.; Pagels, J. H., Secondary organic aerosol formation from idling gasoline passenger vehicle emissions investigated in a smog chamber. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2013, 13, (12), 6101-6116. 13. Timonen, H.; Karjalainen, P.; Saukko, E.; Saarikoski, S.; Aakko-Saksa, P.; Simonen, P.; Murtonen, T.; Dal Maso, M.; Kuuluvainen, H.; Bloss, M.; Ahlberg, E.; Svenningsson, B.; Pagels, J.; Brune, W. H.; Keskinen, J.; Worsnop, D. R.; Hillamo, R.; Ronkko, T., Influence of fuel ethanol content on primary emissions and secondary aerosol formation potential for a modern flex-fuel gasoline vehicle. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2017, 17, (8), 5311-5329. 14. Karjalainen, P.; Timonen, H.; Saukko, E.; Kuuluvainen, H.; Saarikoski, S.; Aakko-Saksa, P.; Murtonen, T.; Bloss, M.; Dal Maso, M.; Simonen, P.; Ahlberg, E.;
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
27
Environmental Science & Technology
638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682
Page 28 of 37
Svenningsson, B.; Brune, W. H.; Hillamo, R.; Keskinen, J.; Ronkko, T., Time-resolved characterization of primary particle emissions and secondary particle formation from a modern gasoline passenger car. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2016, 16, (13), 8559-8570. 15. Davis, S. C.; Williams, S. E.; Boundy, R. G.; Moore, S. 2015 Vehicle Technologies Market Report.; https://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/1255689-vehicletechnologies-market-report, 2016. 16. USEPA; USDOT, United States Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation. 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Fed. Regist. 2012, 77, (199), 62623–63200. 17. Saliba, G.; Saleh, R.; Zhao, Y.; Presto, A. A.; Lambe, A. T.; Frodin, B.; Sardar, S.; Maldonado, H.; Maddox, C.; May, A. A.; Drozd, G. T.; Goldstein, A. H.; Russell, L. M.; Hagen, F.; Robinson, A. L., Comparison of Gasoline Direct-Injection (GDI) and Port Fuel Injection (PFI) Vehicle Emissions: Emission Certification Standards, Cold-Start, Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation Potential, and Potential Climate Impacts. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, (11), 6542-6552. 18. Zimmerman, N.; Wang, J. M.; Jeong, C. H.; Ramos, M.; Hilker, N.; Healy, R. M.; Sabaliauskas, K.; Wallace, J. S.; Evans, G. J., Field Measurements of Gasoline Direct Injection Emission Factors: Spatial and Seasonal Variability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, (4), 2035-2043. 19. Bahreini, R.; Xue, J.; Johnson, K.; Durbin, T.; Quiros, D.; Hu, S.; Huai, T.; Ayala, A.; Jung, H., Characterizing emissions and optical properties of particulate matter from PFI and GDI light-duty gasoline vehicles. J. Aerosol Sci. 2015, 90, 144-153. 20. Fushimi, A.; Kondo, Y.; Kobayashi, S.; Fujitani, Y.; Saitoh, K.; Takami, A.; Tanabe, K., Chemical Composition and Source of Fine and Nanoparticles from Recent Direct Injection Gasoline Passenger Cars: Effects of Fuel and Ambient Temperature. Atmos. Environ. 2016, 124, 77-84. 21. Khalek, I. A.; Bougher, T.; Jetter, J. J., Particle Emissions from a 2009 Gasoline Direct Injection Engine Using Different Commercially Available Fuels. SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr 2010, 3, 623-637. 22. Liang, B.; Ge, Y.; Tan, J.; Han, X.; Gao, L.; Hao, L.; Ye, W.; Dai, P., Comparison of PM Emissions from a Gasoline Direct Injected (GDI) Vehicle and a Port Fuel Injected (PFI) Vehicle Measured by Electrical Low Pressure Impactor (ELPI) with Two Fuels: Gasoline and M15 Methanol Gasoline. . J. Aerosol Sci. 2013, 57, 22-31. 23. Cole, R. L.; Poola, R. B.; Sekar, R., Exhaust Emissions of a Vehicle with a Gasoline Direct-Injection Engine. SAE Tech. Pap. 1998, doi: 10.4271/982605. 24. Myung, C. L.; Choi, K.; Kim, J.; Lim, Y.; Lee, J.; Park, S., Comparative Study of Regulated and Unregulated Toxic Emissions Characteristics from a Spark Ignition Direct Injection Light-Duty Vehicle Fueled with Gasoline and Liquid Phase LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas). Energy 2012, 44, 189-196. 25. Drozd, G. T.; Zhao, Y. L.; Saliba, G.; Frodin, B.; Maddox, C.; Weber, R. J.; Chang, M. C. O.; Maldonado, H.; Sardar, S.; Robinson, A. L.; Goldstein, A. H., Time Resolved Measurements of Speciated Tailpipe Emissions from Motor Vehicles: Trends with Emission Control Technology, Cold Start Effects, and Speciation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, (24), 13592-13599.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
28
Page 29 of 37
683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727
Environmental Science & Technology
26. May, A. A.; Nguyen, N. T.; Presto, A. A.; Gordon, T. D.; Lipsky, E. M.; Karve, M.; Gutierrez, A.; Robertson, W. H.; Zhang, M.; Brandow, C.; Chang, O.; Chen, S. Y.; Cicero-Fernandez, P.; Dinkins, L.; Fuentes, M.; Huang, S. M.; Ling, R.; Long, J.; Maddox, C.; Massetti, J.; McCauley, E.; Miguel, A.; Na, K.; Ong, R.; Pang, Y. B.; Rieger, P.; Sax, T.; Truong, T.; Vo, T.; Chattopadhyay, S.; Maldonado, H.; Maricq, M. M.; Robinson, A. L., Gas- and particle-phase primary emissions from in-use, on-road gasoline and diesel vehicles. Atmos. Environ. 2014, 88, 247-260. 27. Gentner, D. R.; Isaacman, G.; Worton, D. R.; Chan, A. W. H.; Dallmann, T. R.; Davis, L.; Liu, S.; Day, D. A.; Russell, L. M.; Wilson, K. R.; Weber, R.; Guha, A.; Harley, R. A.; Goldstein, A. H., Elucidating secondary organic aerosol from diesel and gasoline vehicles through detailed characterization of organic carbon emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2012, 109, (45), 18318-18323. 28. Simonen, P.; Saukko, E.; Karjalainen, P.; Timonen, H.; Bloss, M.; Aakko-Saksa, P.; Ronkko, T.; Keskinen, J.; Dal Maso, M., A new oxidation flow reactor for measuring secondary aerosol formation of rapidly changing emission sources. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques 2017, 10, (4), 1519-1537. 29. Lambe, A. T.; Onasch, T. B.; Croasdale, D. R.; Wright, J. P.; Martin, A. T.; Franklin, J. P.; Massoli, P.; Kroll, J. H.; Canagaratna, M. R.; Brune, W. H.; Worsnop, D. R.; Davidovits, P., Transitions from Functionalization to Fragmentation Reactions of Laboratory Secondary Organic Aerosol (SOA) Generated from the OH Oxidation of Alkane Precursors. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, (10), 5430-5437. 30. Tkacik, D. S.; Lambe, A. T.; Jathar, S.; Li, X.; Presto, A. A.; Zhao, Y. L.; Blake, D.; Meinardi, S.; Jayne, J. T.; Croteau, P. L.; Robinson, A. L., Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation from in-Use Motor Vehicle Emissions Using a Potential Aerosol Mass Reactor. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, (19), 11235-11242. 31. Jathar, S. H.; Friedman, B.; Galang, A. A.; Link, M. F.; Brophy, P.; Volckens, J.; Eluri, S.; Farmer, D. K., Linking Load, Fuel, and Emission Controls to Photochemical Production of Secondary Organic Aerosol from a Diesel Engine. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, (3), 1377-1386. 32. Ortega, A. M.; Hayes, P. L.; Peng, Z.; Palm, B. B.; Hu, W. W.; Day, D. A.; Li, R.; Cubison, M. J.; Brune, W. H.; Graus, M.; Warneke, C.; Gilman, J. B.; Kuster, W. C.; de Gouw, J.; Gutierrez-Montes, C.; Jimenez, J. L., Real-time measurements of secondary organic aerosol formation and aging from ambient air in an oxidation flow reactor in the Los Angeles area. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2016, 16, (11), 7411-7433. 33. Palm, B. B.; Campuzano-Jost, P.; Ortega, A. M.; Day, D. A.; Kaser, L.; Jud, W.; Karl, T.; Hansel, A.; Hunter, J. F.; Cross, E. S.; Kroll, J. H.; Peng, Z.; Brune, W. H.; Jimenez, J. L., In situ secondary organic aerosol formation from ambient pine forest air using an oxidation flow reactor. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2016, 16, (5), 2943-2970. 34. Bahreini, R.; Middlebrook, A. M.; Brock, C. A.; de Gouw, J. A.; McKeen, S. A.; Williams, L. R.; Daumit, K. E.; Lambe, A. T.; Massoli, P.; Canagaratna, M. R.; Ahmadov, R.; Carrasquillo, A. J.; Cross, E. S.; Ervens, B.; Holloway, J. S.; Hunter, J. F.; Onasch, T. B.; Pollack, I. B.; Roberts, J. M.; Ryerson, T. B.; Warneke, C.; Davidovits, P.; Worsnop, D. R.; Kroll, J. H., Mass Spectral Analysis of Organic Aerosol Formed Downwind of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Field Studies and Laboratory Confirmations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, (15), 8025-8034.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
29
Environmental Science & Technology
728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772
Page 30 of 37
35. Bruns, E. A.; El Haddad, I.; Keller, A.; Klein, F.; Kumar, N. K.; Pieber, S. M.; Corbin, J. C.; Slowik, J. G.; Brune, W. H.; Baltensperger, U.; Prevot, A. S. H., Intercomparison of laboratory smog chamber and flow reactor systems on organic aerosol yield and composition. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques 2015, 8, (6), 2315-2332. 36. Zhang, S.; McMahon, W., Particulate Emissions for LEV II Light-Duty Gasoline Direct Injection Vehicles. SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr 2012, 5, 637-646. 37. Lambe, A. T.; Ahern, A. T.; Williams, L. R.; Slowik, J. G.; Wong, J. P. S.; Abbatt, J. P. D.; Brune, W. H.; Ng, N. L.; Wright, J. P.; Croasdale, D. R.; Worsnop, D. R.; Davidovits, P.; Onasch, T. B., Characterization of aerosol photooxidation flow reactors: heterogeneous oxidation, secondary organic aerosol formation and cloud condensation nuclei activity measurements. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques 2011, 4, (3), 445-461. 38. Kang, E.; Root, M. J.; Toohey, D. W.; Brune, W. H., Introducing the concept of Potential Aerosol Mass (PAM). Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2007, 7, (22), 5727-5744. 39. Li, R.; Palm, B. B.; Ortega, A. M.; Hlywiak, J.; Hu, W. W.; Peng, Z.; Day, D. A.; Knote, C.; Brune, W. H.; de Gouw, J. A.; Jimenez, J. L., Modeling the Radical Chemistry in an Oxidation Flow Reactor: Radical Formation and Recycling, Sensitivities, and the OH Exposure Estimation Equation. J. Phys. Chem. A 2015, 119, (19), 4418-4432. 40. Peng, Z.; Day, D. A.; Stark, H.; Li, R.; Lee-Taylor, J.; Palm, B. B.; Brune, W. H.; Jimenez, J. L., HOx radical chemistry in oxidation flow reactors with low-pressure mercury lamps systematically examined by modeling. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques 2015, 8, (11), 4863-4890. 41. Peng, Z.; Day, D. A.; Ortega, A. M.; Palm, B. B.; Hu, W. W.; Stark, H.; Li, R.; Tsigaridis, K.; Brune, W. H.; Jimenez, J. L., Non-OH chemistry in oxidation flow reactors for the study of atmospheric chemistry systematically examined by modeling. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2016, 16, (7), 4283-4305. 42. Collier, S.; Zhang, Q., Gas-Phase CO2 Subtraction for Improved Measurements of the Organic Aerosol Mass Concentration and Oxidation Degree by an Aerosol Mass Spectrometer. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, (24), 14324-14331. 43. Presto, A. A.; Gordon, T. D.; Robinson, A. L., Primary to secondary organic aerosol: evolution of organic emissions from mobile combustion sources. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2014, 14, (10), 5015-5036. 44. Sage, A. M.; Weitkamp, E. A.; Robinson, A. L.; Donahue, N. M., Evolving mass spectra of the oxidized component of organic aerosol: results from aerosol mass spectrometer analyses of aged diesel emissions. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2008, 8, (5), 11391152. 45. USGPO, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Title 40, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 86: Control of Emissions From New and In-use Highway Vehicles and Engines. In http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=c56ff4e0ab7f442c7e8babf29cc6e4c2&mc=true&node=pt40.19.86&rgn=div5, 2014. 46. Zhao, Y.; Nguyen, N. T.; Presto, A. A.; Hennigan, C. J.; May, A. A.; Robinson, A. L., Intermediate Volatility Organic Compound Emissions from On-Road Gasoline Vehicles and Small Off-Road Gasoline Engines. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 45544563.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
30
Page 31 of 37
773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808
Environmental Science & Technology
47. de Gouw, J. A.; Brock, C. A.; Atlas, E. L.; Bates, T. S.; Fehsenfeld, F. C.; Goldan, P. D.; Holloway, J. S.; Kuster, W. C.; Lerner, B. M.; Matthew, B. M.; Middlebrook, A. M.; Onasch, T. B.; Peltier, R. E.; Quinn, P. K.; Senff, C. J.; Stohl, A.; Sullivan, A. P.; Trainer, M.; Warneke, C.; Weber, R. J.; Williams, E. J., Sources of particulate matter in the northeastern United States in summer: 1. Direct emissions and secondary formation of organic matter in urban plumes. J. Geophys. Res. 2008, 113, (D8). 48. Chan, A. W. H.; Kautzman, K. E.; Chhabra, P. S.; Surratt, J. D.; Chan, M. N.; Crounse, J. D.; Kurten, A.; Wennberg, P. O.; Flagan, R. C.; Seinfeld, J. H., Secondary organic aerosol formation from photooxidation of naphthalene and alkylnaphthalenes: implications for oxidation of intermediate volatility organic compounds (IVOCs). Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2009, 9, (9), 3049-3060. 49. Lim, Y. B.; Ziemann, P. J., Effects of Molecular Structure on Aerosol Yields from OH Radical-Initiated Reactions of Linear, Branched, and Cyclic Alkanes in the Presence of NOx. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, (7), 2328–2334. 50. Presto, A. A.; Miracolo, M. A.; Donahue, N. M.; Robinson, A. L., Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation from High-NOx Photo-Oxidation of Low Volatility Precursors: n-Alkanes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, (6), 2029-2034. 51. Donahue, N. M.; Robinson, A. L.; Stanier, C. O.; Pandis, S. N., Coupled partitioning, dilution, and chemical aging of semivolatile organics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, (8), 2635-2643. 52. Carlton, A. G.; Bhave, P. V.; Napelenok, S. L.; Edney, E. D.; Sarwar, G.; Pinder, R. W.; Pouliot, G. A.; Houyoux, M., Model Representation of Secondary Organic Aerosol in CMAQv4.7. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, (22), 8553-8560. 53. Ng, N. L.; Kroll, J. H.; Chan, A. W. H.; Chhabra, P. S.; Flagan, R. C.; Seinfeld, J. H., Secondary organic aerosol formation from m-xylene, toluene, and benzene. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2007, 7, (14), 3909-3922. 54. Lambe, A. T.; Chhabra, P. S.; Onasch, T. B.; Brune, W. H.; Hunter, J. F.; Kroll, J. H.; Cummings, M. J.; Brogan, J. F.; Parmar, Y.; Worsnop, D. R.; Kolb, C. E.; Davidovits, P., Effect of oxidant concentration, exposure time, and seed particles on secondary organic aerosol chemical composition and yield. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2015, 15, (6), 3063-3075. 55. FHA, United States Department of Transportation Summary of Travel Trends: 2009 National Household Travel Survey. http://nhts.ornl.gov/download.shtml%5Cnhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en& btnG=Search&q=intitle:2009+National+Household+Travel+Survey#9
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
31
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 32 of 37
809
Figures
810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852
Figure 1. Results from a typical experiment. (a) Driving speed for the UC with vertical dashed lines indicating the different UC driving phases, defined as bags 1, 2 and 3; (b) concentrations of NMOG entering the PAM reactor and (c) concentrations of OA (SOA +POA) exiting the reactor during a photo-oxidation experiment with a SULEV vehicle. The concentrations of NMOG, OA, SOA and POA presented here are not corrected for background organics. OA concentrations were measured every other minute for one minute. We assume that the 1-min average represents the OA concentration in the previous and subsequent 30 s of the measurement. SOA production measured in the first 180 s in bag 2 (hatched bars) is considered as SOA production from the exhaust from the bag 1 due to the transit time delay inside the PAM reactor. Figure 2. Box-whisker plots from all PAM experiments of (a) NMOG emissions, (b) SOA production, and (c) OH exposure by UC bag. (d) Median effective SOA yield by UC bag. Results in (a) and (b) are expressed as mass fraction of total NMOG emissions or SOA production across the entire UC cycle. The atmospheric equivalent aging time in (c) is calculated assuming an average OH concentration of 1.5×106 molecules cm-3. The effective SOA yield in each bag in (d) is shown for two cases: 1) differences in OH exposure (grey bar) and (2) differences in OH exposure and chemical composition (blue bar). The boxes represent the 25th and 75th percentiles with the centerline being the median. The whiskers represent the 10th and 90th percentiles.
Figure 3. Box-whisker plots of the cold start (bag 1) (a) SOA production and (b) NMOG emissions sorted by vehicle emission certification standard. The number of vehicles in each category (the number of GDI vehicles in parentheses) is 1(0), 3 (1), 5 (2), 7(5) for pre-LEV, LEV, ULEV and SULEV, respectively. Symbols indicate the average ± one standard deviation for GDI and PFI vehicles in each category. The boxes represent the 25th and 75th percentiles with the centerline being the median. The whiskers represent the 10th and 90th percentiles. Figure 4. Scatter plot of effective SOA yields versus OA concentration measured during the cold start operation (bag 1). The dashed line is a linear regression (y=0.0038*x; R2=0.6). The average effective SOA yields and OA concentrations (± one standard deviation) for pre-LEV, LEV and ULEV vehicles measured during smog chamber experiments are also shown for comparison11. The thick grey line indicates the relationship between the effective SOA yields and OA concentration using published parameterizations derived from chamber experiments with individual aromatic compounds and n-alkanes. The thickness of the grey line indicates the variation in the predicted SOA yields due to differences in OH exposures -- the thicker the line the more variation. For the table of content use only
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
32
Page 33 of 37
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 1. Results from a typical experiment. (a) Driving speed for the UC with vertical dashed lines indicating the UC driving phases, defined as bag 1, 2 and 3; (b) concentrations of NMOG entering the PAM reactor and (c) concentrations of OA (SOA +POA) exiting the reactor during a photo-oxidation experiment with a SULEV vehicle. The concentrations of NMOG, OA, SOA and POA presented here are not corrected for background organics. OA concentrations were measured every other minute for one minute. We assume that the 1-min average of OA represents the OA concentration in the previous and subsequent 30 s of the measurement. SOA production measured in the first 180 s in the bag 2 (hatched bars) is considered as SOA production from the exhaust from the bag 1 due to the transit time delay inside the PAM reactor. 206x169mm (300 x 300 DPI)
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 2. Box-whisker plots from all PAM experiments of (a) NMOG emissions, (b) SOA production, and (c) OH exposure by UC bag. (d) Median effective SOA yield by UC bag. Results in (a) and (b) are expressed as mass fraction of total NMOG emissions or SOA production across the entire UC cycle. The atmospheric equivalent aging time in (c) is calculated assuming an average OH concentration of 1.5×106 molecules cm3. The effective SOA yield in each bag in (d) is shown for two cases: 1) differences in OH exposure (grey bar) and (2) differences in OH exposure and chemical composition (blue bar). The boxes represent the 25th and 75th percentiles with the centerline being the median. The whiskers represent the 10th and 90th percentiles. 192x139mm (300 x 300 DPI)
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 34 of 37
Page 35 of 37
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 3. Box-whisker plots of the cold start (bag 1) (a) SOA production and (b) NMOG emissions sorted by vehicle emission standard. The number of vehicles in each category (the number of GDI vehicles in parentheses) is 1(0), 3 (1), 5 (2), 7(5) for pre-LEV, LEV, ULEV and SULEV, respectively. Symbols indicate the average ± one standard deviation for GDI and PFI vehicles in each category. The boxes represent the 25th and 75th percentiles with the centerline being the median. The whiskers represent the 10th and 90th percentiles. 70x105mm (300 x 300 DPI)
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 4. Scatter plot of effective SOA yields versus OA concentration measured during the cold start operation (bag 1). The dashed line is a linear regression (y=0.0038*x; R2=0.6). The average effective SOA yields and OA concentrations (± one standard deviation) for pre-LEV, LEV and ULEV vehicles measured during smog chamber experiments are also shown for comparison11. The thick grey line indicates the relationship between the effective SOA yields and OA concentration using published parameterizations derived from chamber experiments with individual aromatic compounds and n-alkanes. The thickness of the grey line indicates the variation in the predicted SOA yields due to differences in OH exposures -- the thicker the line the more variation. 132x143mm (300 x 300 DPI)
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 36 of 37
Page 37 of 37
Environmental Science & Technology
For the table of content use only 76x70mm (300 x 300 DPI)
ACS Paragon Plus Environment