McCormick, Graboski, Alleman, and Yanowitz TECHNICAL PAPER

ISSN 1047-3289 J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 50:1992-1998

Copyright 2000 Air & Waste Management Association

Idle Emissions from Heavy-Duty Diesel and Natural Gas Vehicles at High Altitude
Robert L. McCormick, Michael S. Graboski, Teresa L. Alleman, and Janet Yanowitz Colorado Institute for Fuels and Engine Research, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado

ABSTRACT Idle emissions of total hydrocarbon (THC), CO, NOx, and particulate matter (PM) were measured from 24 heavyduty diesel-fueled (12 trucks and 12 buses) and 4 heavyduty compressed natural gas (CNG)-fueled vehicles. The volatile organic fraction (VOF) of PM and aldehyde emissions were also measured for many of the diesel vehicles. Experiments were conducted at 1609 m above sea level using a full exhaust flow dilution tunnel method identical to that used for heavy-duty engine Federal Test Procedure (FTP) testing. Diesel trucks averaged 0.170 g/min THC, 1.183 g/min CO, 1.416 g/min NOx, and 0.030 g/min PM. Diesel buses averaged 0.137 g/min THC, 1.326 g/min CO, 2.015 g/min NOx, and 0.048 g/min PM. Results are compared to idle emission factors from the MOBILE5 and PART5 inventory models. The models significantly (4575%) overestimate emissions of THC and CO in comparison with results measured from the fleet of vehicles examined in this study. Measured NOx emissions were significantly higher (30100%) than model predictions. For the pre-1999 (pre-consent decree) truck engines examined in this study, idle NOx emissions increased with

model year with a linear fit (r2 = 0.6). PART5 nationwide fleet average emissions are within 1 order of magnitude of emissions for the group of vehicles tested in this study. Aldehyde emissions for bus idling averaged 6 mg/min. The VOF averaged 19% of total PM for buses and 49% for trucks. CNG vehicle idle emissions averaged 1.435 g/min for THC, 1.119 g/min for CO, 0.267 g/min for NOx, and 0.003 g/min for PM. The g/min PM emissions are only a small fraction of g/min PM emissions during vehicle driving. However, idle emissions of NOx, CO, and THC are significant in comparison with driving emissions. INTRODUCTION An understanding of idling emissions from heavy-duty vehicles is important for air quality modeling, for design of garage ventilation systems,1 and for other purposes. Most cities have ordinances that prohibit idling for extended periods, and there have been a number of campaigns to voluntarily limit idling. Emissions reduction during idling and the impact of extended idling on engine performance have been addressed by several authors.2-4 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has employed the MOBILE5b and PART5 emission factor models to estimate fleet-average idle emissions as of 1998, including those for heavy-duty vehicles.5 These estimates are shown in Table 1 and are stated to be first-order approximations.5 Also shown in Table 1 is the effect of altitude on gaseous emissions obtained by running the MOBILE5b model for the 1997 in-use fleet. The PART5 model does not allow altitude as input. The PART5 idle emission factors are based on data obtained from engine manufacturers,6 presumably from engine dynamometer testing under engine certification conditions. MOBILE5 factors are obtained from an algorithm that converts low speed (2.5 mph) g/mi emissions to g/min idle emissions.7 The MOBILE5 factors are also obtained from engine certification data. In this study, idle emissions from heavy-duty diesel and compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles have been measured using exhaust sampling methods identical to those used in engine certification testing; thus, the results should be directly comparable
Volume 50 November 2000

IMPLICATIONS Idling of diesel vehicles is common, and many municipalities limit the length of time that diesel trucks and buses can idle. Idle emissions are considered in air pollution inventory models such as MOBILE5 and PART5, and are also important in the design of garage ventilation systems. However, this paper presents the first published data on idle emissions from diesel vehicles. Emissions factors employed by the inventory models are based on engine manufacturers data and on extrapolation from low-speed driving emissions. Here we report idle emissions from 24 heavyduty diesel-fueled and 4 heavy-duty CNG-fueled vehicles using procedures comparable to those used in engine certification testing. Regulated pollutant emissions (THC, CO, NOx, and PM), as well as VOF and aldehyde emissions, are reported. Diesel vehicles may be a significant source of carcinogenic aldehydes. The results are compared with idle emissions factors obtained from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inventory models.

1992 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

McCormick, Graboski, Alleman, and Yanowitz

Table 1. Fleet-average heavy-duty diesel vehicle (>8501 lb GVW) idle emission factors as estimated by MOBILE5b and PART5 models (25 C, g/min). Pollutant THC CO NO x PM
a

Low Altitudea 0.208 1.57 0.917 0.043

Low Altitudeb 0.217 1.60 0.989

High Altitudeb 0.489 2.52 0.989

Reported in ref 5 and based on MOBILE5b and PART5 for all heavy-duty vehicles in service (sales weighted for each engine model) in 1998; bComputed using MOBILE5b for the 1997 fleet (sales weighted) at 1676 m (5500 ft).

to emission factors from the models. To our knowledge, no data on in-use heavy-duty vehicle idle emissions have previously been reported. We report idle emissions from 10 Class 8 trucks, one Class 7 truck, one school bus, and 12 transit buses fueled by diesel. A medium-duty postal van and three buses fueled by CNG were also tested. Note that school bus engines are regulated as truck engines rather than as transit bus engines. Prior to 1993, emission standards for truck and bus engines were identical. Since that time, transit bus engines have had to meet a lower particulate matter (PM) emission standard. This is typically accomplished by using a different electronic calibration, for example, changing the engine computer program to alter injection timing and lower the engine power rating. Emissions of total hydrocarbon (THC), CO, NOx, and PM are reported, as are the PM volatile organic fraction (VOF) and total aldehyde emissions for many of the diesel vehicles. The VOF consists of unburned fuel, lube oil, and partial combustion and pyrolysis products such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and nitro-arenes that are known or suspected carcinogens.8 Some aldehydes are also known carcinogens. METHODS All trucks were tested hot, within 20 min of the completion of a chassis dynamometer driving cycle. Buses were either tested hot immediately after arrival at the test lab, or were cold started at an ambient temperature of 10 C or higher. Hot-start and cold-start emissions under these conditions do not appear to be significantly different and, therefore, all of the data are considered together. Idle emissions were measured over a 20-min period using a full flow dilution tunnel setup. This system samples the total exhaust flow, is typically used for engine and chassis dynamometer testing, and has been described previously.9,10 Testing was conducted at a nominal ambient temperature of 20 C. Intake air temperature was filtered and controlled to 25 C and an absolute humidity of 10.7 g moisture/kg dry air. These conditions are the reference conditions for heavyduty engine certification testing in the United States.11 Note
Volume 50 November 2000

that testing was conducted at 1609 m above sea level. Emissions of CO, THC, NOx, and PM are reported in g/min. All gas mass emissions are determined by background-corrected, flow-compensated integration of the instantaneous mass rates. Analyzers include a continuous flame-ionization detector for THC, nondispersive infrared (NDIR) for CO, and chemiluminescence for NOx. Emission calibration gases are 1% EPA Protocol Standards. Total PM is collected on Pallflex T60A20 70-mm filters. PM is sampled through a secondary tunnel that insures a filtered gas temperature below 52 C (126 F) and a sampling flow rate that is proportional to the exhaust flow rate. Particle filter handling and weighing are conducted in a yellow-light, constant-humidity weight room held at 9 2 C (48 4 F) dew point, 50% nominal relative humidity, and a temperature of 22 1 C (72 2 F). All PM conditions conform to those described in the Code of Federal Regulations for heavy-duty engine certification.11 While the particle measuring system collects total PM, note that more than 90% of diesel particles are smaller than 1 mm.12 The VOF was determined from the same filters acquired for PM mass emissions using a procedure developed by Navistar.13 A vacuum oven is maintained at 225 C with a vacuum level greater than 20 in. Hg and a very low flow of purge air. Particulate filters equilibrated in a constant-temperature, constant-humidity weight room are weighed and then inserted into the oven. Vacuum and purge airflow are initiated, and filters are maintained in the oven for 2.53.0 hr. The oven is then pressurized and the filters removed. After re-equilibration in the weight room, the filters are weighed and the VOF is determined as the difference between the initial and final weights. The VOF mass determined by this method is comparable to the soluble organic fraction (SOF) mass determined by dichloromethane extraction.14 Aldehyde samples were proportionally collected on SUPELCO LpDNPH air monitoring cartridges. Total aldehyde as formaldehyde equivalent is determined by a commercial testing laboratory using EPA Method TO-11. The DNPH sorbents are extracted and the extract analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with UV detection for aldehydes including formaldehyde, acetaldehyde , propionaldehyde, hexanal, heptanal, octanal or caprylaldehyde, nonal, and decanal or dapraldehyde. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Tables 2 and 3 report vehicle and engine characteristics, as well as idle emission results in g/min, for diesel- and CNGfueled vehicles, respectively. All of the CNG vehicles, as well as diesel buses 1009, 1010, 1011, and 1012, were equipped with exhaust oxidation catalysts. For the CNG vehicles, the catalyst is designed to lower emissions of nonmethane HCs, which are almost entirely unburned fuel
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1993

McCormick, Graboski, Alleman, and Yanowitz

components. For the diesel buses, the catalyst is designed to lower PM emissions by combustion of the VOF (or SOF). Examination of the diesel truck and bus average emissions shows that the EPA fleet average emission factors listed in Table 1 are reasonable first-order approximations. More quantitatively, in comparison with the MOBILE5b fleetaverage high altitude estimates, average measured THC emissions were 6575% lower and CO emissions were 4555% lower than the estimated factors. NOx emissions
Table 2. Vehicle description and measured idle emissions for diesel vehicles. Vehicle Model Year Engine Engine Family Odometer GVW, lb THC, g/min 0.168 0.625 0.131 0.101 0.060 0.209 0.140 0.103 0.171 0.115 0.109 0.103 0.170 0.038 0.030 0.161 0.318 0.181 0.215 0.108 0.130 0.222 0.070 0.094 0.078 0.137 CO, g/min 0.352 1.718 1.119 0.790 0.726 1.656 1.123 0.828 1.823 0.891 2.138 1.035 1.183 1.740 1.238 0.785 2.156 1.624 0.967 0.930 1.733 2.345 0.763 1.143 0.491 1.326 NO , x g/min 0.424 1.579 1.045 1.280 1.429 1.385 1.551 1.361 1.784 1.919 1.524 1.705 1.416 1.979 2.109 2.165 2.406 2.738 2.767 2.698 2.352 1.147 1.030 1.743 1.051 2.015 PM, g/min 0.023 0.103 0.018 0.032 0.028 0.023 0.036 0.024 0.022 0.017 0.018 0.019 0.030 0.106 0.047 0.047 0.173 0.031 0.037 0.060 0.019 0.021 0.006 0.017 0.007 0.048 VOF, % of PM 36 24 88 53 36 67 32 63 67 56 58 56 49 8.2 7.3 21 18 14 2.8 7.4 35 32 32 19 Aldehyde, g/min 0.0128 0.0092 0.0064 0.0053 0.0066 0.0075 0.0068 0.0080 0.0072 0.0003 0.006

are generally not affected by altitude and are significantly higher than predicted by the models. The measured NOx factor for trucks was roughly 30% higher, and for buses it was roughly 100% higher. The measured PM emissions factor for buses is within 12% of the estimated factor for all heavy-duty vehicles. Truck PM emissions are 30% lower than the estimated factor. Aldehyde emissions for bus idling averaged 6 mg/min. VOF averaged 19% of total PM for buses and 49% of PM for trucks. The VOF from buses equipped

Rental Truck School Bus Truck 764 Truck 779 Truck 780 Truck 778 Truck 804 Truck 803 Truck 884 Truck 921 Truck 885 Truck 911 Truck Average Bus 5054 Bus 5021 Bus 1710 Bus 1717 Bus 1510 Bus 1501 Bus 1936 Bus 1937 Bus 1009 Bus 1010 Bus 1011 Bus 1012 Bus Average
a

1999 1989 1990 1991 1991 1992 1992 1992 1995 1998 1995 1997

Nav. T444E, 7.3 L, 175 hp Nav. DT466, 7.6 L, 210 hp DDC S60, 12.7 L, 450 hp DDC S60, 12.7 L, 450 hp DDC S60, 12.7 L, 450 hp DDC S60, 12.7 L, 450 hp DDC S60, 12.7 L, 450 hp DDC S60, 12.7 L, 450 hp DDC S60, 12.7 L, 360 hp DDC S60, 11.1 L, 330 hp DDC S60, 12.7 L, 360 hp DDC S60, 11.1 L, 365 hp

XNVXH0444ANA DT466a LDD12.7FZAO MDD12.7FZAX MDD12.7FZAX MDD12.7FZAX NDD12.7FZA9 NDD12.7FZA9 SDD12.EJDARA WDDXH1V.1EH8 SDD12.EJDARA VDD11.EJDABA

1350 23,519 331,238 430,680 443,634 434,129 336,415 337,686 140,476 36,736 231,170 82,576

25,900 34,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000

1993 1993 1991 1991 1987 1987 1998 1998 1997 1997 1997 1997

DDC S50, 8.5 L, 250 hp DDC S50, 8.5 L, 250 hp DDC 6V92, 9.0 L, 330 hp DDC 6V92, 9.0 L, 330 hp DDC 8V92, 12.1 L, 370 hp DDC 8V92, 12.1 L, 370 hp DDC S60, 12.7 L, 430 hp DDC S60, 12.7 L, 430 hp Cum. ISB, 5.9 L, 175 hp Cum. ISB, 5.9 L, 175 hp Cum. ISB, 5.9 L, 175 hp Cum. ISB, 5.9 L, 175 hp

P00085FZK7 P00085FZK7 80677B28 80677B28 80677AV0 80677AV0 6067GK2B 6067GK2B VCE359DJDARA VCE359DJDARA VCE359DJDARA VCE359DJDARA

36,707 25,829 210,194 28,248 121,742 228,085 36,306 33,743 9632 18,672 7302 27,111

38,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 18,780 18,780 18,780 18,780

This engine was originally a 1980 engine rebuilt to meet the 1989 emission standards. A 1989 engine family name was not attached to this engine.

Table 3. Vehicle description and measured idle emissions for CNG vehicles. Vehicle Postal Van Bus 1013 Bus 1014 Bus 1015 Model Year 1997 1997 1997 1997 Engine Cum. B5.9G, 5.9 L, 150 hp Cum. B5.9G, 5.9 L, 195 hp Cum. B5.9G, 5.9 L, 195 hp Cum. B5.9G, 5.9 L, 195 hp CNG Bus Average Engine Family VCE359D1CARA VCE359D1CAAAa VCE359D1CAAAa VCE359D1CAAAa Odometer 12,194 12,918 9410 14,833 GVW, lb THC, g/min 15,200 18,780 18,780 18,780 6.07 0.303 0.275 0.529 1.435 CO, g/min 5.50 0.024 0.071 0 1.119 NOx, g/min PM, g/min 0.92 0.142 0.137 0.138 0.267 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.003

Low-emission vehicle certification.

Volume 50 November 2000

1994 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

McCormick, Graboski, Alleman, and Yanowitz

with two-stroke engines (DDC 6V92 and 8V92) is not significantly different from the VOF emitted by vehicles equipped with four-stroke engines. As noted previously for driving emissions, CNG vehicle idle emissions of NOx and PM are much lower than those from diesel vehicles.15,16 Several authors have previously reported a significant effect of altitude on diesel PM, CO, and HC emissions during engine dynamometer testing.17 Most recently, Yanowitz and co-workers have presented an analysis that suggests PM emissions for a typical Class 8 truck at 1600 m above sea level are as much as 0.85 g/mi higher than common driving cycles are.18 The effect of altitude is probably most pronounced at idle and low engine speeds where the turbocharger is not generating significant intake air compression. Measured CO and HC idle emissions for the tested fleet are even lower than what is predicted for low altitude using MOBILE5. The effect of altitude on heavy-duty emissions, both idling and driving, remains poorly quantified. Measured PM emissions are compared with the PART5 factors for various model year ranges in Figure 1. PM emission factors for different model years were obtained from the PART5 Users Guide.6 Note that the PART5 Users Guide indicates that the model uses a single idle PM emission factor for all heavy-duty vehicles in a given range of model years (pre-1988, 19881990, 19911993, and 1994). These numbers should not be confused with the fleet averages used in Table 1, which are weighted by the number of vehicles in each model year range. The PART5 factors are a good approximation for the post-1990 trucks, but fail to predict bus idle emissions even approximately (error of 50% or more). In particular, it is notable that some 19911993 buses (from model years having an idle emissions factor in PART5 of 0.031 g/min) exhibit idle emissions levels similar to those predicted for pre-1988 vehicles (0.090 g/min). Figure 2 compares measured THC emissions with emission factors from MOBILE5b. A single emissions factor is obtained from the model for all heavy-duty diesel vehicles

Percent Difference between Model and Measured

Figure 1. Plots comparing measured idle emissions of PM with idle emissions factors (average for model year) from the PART5 Users Guide.6
Volume 50 November 2000

Figure 2. Plots comparing measured idle emissions of THC with idle emissions factors (average for model year) obtained from MOBILE5b.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1995

THC Emissions (MOBILE5Measured) MOBILE5

Idle THC Emission Factors from MOBILE5, g/min.

McCormick, Graboski, Alleman, and Yanowitz

Figure 3. Plots comparing measured idle emissions of CO with idle emissions factors (average for model year) obtained from MOBILE5b.

Figure 4. Plots comparing measured idle emissions of NOx with idle emissions factors (average for model year) obtained from MOBILE5b.

of a given model year. For the model years tested here, MOBILE5b emission factors are all roughly 0.45 g/min regardless of model year, while measured emissions ranged from 0.03 to 0.63 g/min. Figure 3 reports the same comparison for CO. The MOBILE5b factors are all roughly 2.3 g/min, while measured emissions ranged from 0.5 to 2.4 g/min. For both THC and CO, the MOBILE5b model significantly overestimates emissions for nearly every vehicle tested. A comparison of MOBILE5b factors with measured NOx emissions is shown in Figure 4. MOBILE5b predicts average NOx emissions to range from 0.7 to 1.3 g/min, while measured emissions ranged from 1.0 to 2.8 g/min. The model underpredicts NOx emissions in almost every case by more than 50% and, in many cases, by more than 100%. No significant trends for measured emissions as a function of model year were observed for THC or CO. PM emissions exhibited a weak decreasing trend with model year. A significant model-year trend was observed for NOx emissions if the 1999 model year truck was excluded from the
1996 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

analysis. For these trucks, there was a linear trend (r2 = 0.6, slope significant at the 95% confidence level) of increasing idle NOx emissions with model year, as shown in Figure 5. For buses, there was a downward trend of NOx emissions with model year (r2 = 0.4, slope significant at the 95% confidence level). The trend for truck NOx emissions is based primarily on a group of very similar trucks with engines from a single manufacturer. Additional data on a much broader range of engine models and vehicle types will be required to confirm this finding. Exclusion of the 1999 model year truck from this analysis is justified by the conditions of the 1998 consent decree between the U.S. government and diesel engine manufacturers. Post-consent decree engines would be expected to have lower NOx emissions under some operating conditions, as observed. All of the trucks,19 as well as several of the buses15 and all of the CNG vehicles,16 have also been tested while driving various cycles on the chassis dynamometer. A comparison of idling emissions with driving emissions showed that idling emissions were significant. The g/min emissions
Volume 50 November 2000

McCormick, Graboski, Alleman, and Yanowitz

Figure 5. Effect of engine model year on idle emissions of NOx.

Figure 6. Comparison of idling and driving emissions for diesel vehicles; g/min idle emissions divided by g/min emissions over two driving cycles: Urban Dynamometer Driving Cycle (UDDS) for trucks and Central Business District (CBD) for buses.
Volume 50 November 2000 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1997

McCormick, Graboski, Alleman, and Yanowitz

for driving cycles were calculated by multiplying the g/mi emissions by the miles driven and dividing by the time taken to drive the cycle. A comparison of idling and driving cycle emissions is shown in Figure 6, where the ratio of idle/driving emissions is plotted as a function of model year. Idle PM emissions were only a small fraction of driving emissions, 10% at most and in many cases less than 1%. Idle NOx emissions were typically 1020% of driving emissions, although much higher for the 1997 model year buses. Idle CO emissions ranged from roughly 5 to 75% of driving CO emissions. Idle THC emissions ranged from 1 to more than 5 times driving emissions levels. CNG vehicle PM emissions were very low in comparison with diesel vehicles and exhibited similar emission rates for idling and driving. CNG idle emissions of gaseous pollutants were also significant relative to driving emissions (not shown in Figure 6), and at similar ratios to driving emissions, as observed for diesel vehicles. While the small data set reported here improves our knowledge of heavy-duty vehicle idle emissions, a number of important questions remain unanswered. Data from many more vehicles operating with engines from a broader range of engine manufacturers are necessary for accurate emissions factors that can be used in air quality modeling. Low altitude and low ambient temperature data are also needed. Also, since engine temperatures are much lower while idling than while driving, the specific toxic compounds and their concentrations in the semi-volatile and extractable fractions of PM may be very different than those for driving. Thus, health effects for occupational exposure to diesel exhaust in a garage or truck stop setting (i.e., idle emissions) may be very different than for exposure to exhaust generated while driving. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the Denver Regional Air Quality Council, and the Denver Regional Transportation District. The authors wish to thank the Coors Brewing Co. for use of the Class 8 trucks and the Denver Regional Transportation District for use of the buses. REFERENCES
1. 2. Lavoie, J.; Roberge, B.; Lambert, J.; Lazure, L. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1993, 54, 426-431. Ghaffarpour, M.R.; Baranescu, R.; Doan, T. Combustion Noise and Emissions Reduction at Idle in Diesel Engines through Numerical Analysis. Presented at the ASME-ICE Division Spring Technical Conference, Marietta, OH, April 2326, 1995. Van den Berg, A.J.; Riemer, P.W.F.; Smith, A.Y. Energy Convers. Manage. 1995, 37, 879-884. Anonymous. Truck News 1998, 18 (1), 61. 5. 6. Idling Vehicle Emissions; EPA420-F-98-014; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, April 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Draft Users Guide to PART5: A Program for Calculating Particle Emissions from Motor Vehicles; EPA-AAAQAB-94-2; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, February 1995. Brzezinski, D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Private communication, July 19, 1999. Report on Carcinogens, 8th ed.; Summary; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC, 1998. McCormick, R.L.; Graboski, M.S.; Newlin, A.W.; Ross, J.D. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 1997, 42, 784-791. Yanowitz, J.; Graboski, M.S.; Ryan, L.B.A.; Alleman, T.L.; McCormick, R.L. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999, 33, 209-216. Control of Air Pollution from New and In-Use Motor Vehicle Engines: Certification and Test Procedures; Code of Federal Regulations, Part 86, Title 40, Subpart N. Kittelson, D.B. J. Aerosol Sci. 1998, 29, 575-588. Sienicki, E. Navistar International Corporation. Private communication, 1994. Chemical Methods for the Measurement of Unregulated Diesel Emissions; CRC Report No. 551; Coordinating Research Council: Washington, DC, August 1987. Clark, N.N.; Gautam, M.; Rapp, B.L.; Lyons, D.W.; Graboski, M.S.; McCormick, R.L.; Alleman, T.L.; Norton, P. SAE Technical Paper 199901-1469; Society of Automotive Engineers: Warrendale, PA, 1999. McCormick, R.L.; Graboski, M.S.; Alleman, T.L.; Herring, A.M.; Nelson, P. SAE Technical Paper 1999-01-1507; Society of Automotive Engineers: Warrendale, PA, 1999. Graboski, M.S.; McCormick, R.L. SAE Technical Paper 961947 and references therein; Society of Automotive Engineers: Warrendale, PA, 1996. Yanowitz, J.; McCormick, R.L.; Graboski, M.S. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 724-740. McCormick, R.L.; Alleman, T.L.; Graboski, M.S. Emission Testing of Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Phase 1; Final Report to Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; June 30, 1999 (available from the authors).

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

3. 4.

About the Authors Dr. Robert L. McCormick (corresponding author) is managing director of the Colorado Institute for Fuels and Engine Research (CIFER) at the Colorado School of Mines and can be contacted at e-mail: rlmccorm@mines.edu; or phone: 303-273-3967. Dr. Michael S. Graboski is executive director of CIFER. Ms. Teresa L. Alleman is laboratory manager at CIFER. Ms. Janet Yanowitz is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Environmental Science and Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines. The mailing address for all of these individuals is CIFER, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401-1887.

1998 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Volume 50 November 2000