Imperial College London
Portrait Picture

DrGaryFuller

Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health

Senior Lecturer in Air Quality Measurement
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

g.fuller Website

 
 
//

Location

 

Sir Michael Uren HubWhite City Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Ropkins:2017:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.137,
author = {Ropkins, K and DeFries, TH and Pope, F and Green, DC and Kemper, J and Kishan, S and Fuller, GW and Li, H and Sidebottom, J and Crilley, LR and Kramer, L and Bloss, WJ and Stewart, Hager J},
doi = {10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.137},
journal = {Science of the Total Environment},
pages = {1464--1474},
title = {Evaluation of EDAR vehicle emissions remote sensing technology},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.137},
volume = {609},
year = {2017}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
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.
AU  - Ropkins,K
AU  - DeFries,TH
AU  - Pope,F
AU  - Green,DC
AU  - Kemper,J
AU  - Kishan,S
AU  - Fuller,GW
AU  - Li,H
AU  - Sidebottom,J
AU  - Crilley,LR
AU  - Kramer,L
AU  - Bloss,WJ
AU  - Stewart,Hager J
DO  - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.137
EP  - 1474
PY  - 2017///
SN  - 0048-9697
SP  - 1464
TI  - Evaluation of EDAR vehicle emissions remote sensing technology
T2  - Science of the Total Environment
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.137
UR  - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026823985&partnerID=8YFLogxK
VL  - 609
ER  -
Download