Effects of light duty gasoline vehicle emission standards in the United States on ozone and particulate matter

More stringent motor vehicle emission standards are being considered in the United States to attain national air quality standards for ozone and PM2.5. We modeled past, present and potential future US emission standards for on-road gasoline-fueled light duty vehicles (including both cars and light trucks) (LDVs) to assess incremental air quality benefits in the eastern US in 2022. The modeling results show that large benefits in ozone and PM2.5 (up to 16 ppb (14%) reductions in daily maximum 8-h ozone, up to 10 ppb (11%) reductions in the monthly mean of daily maximum 8-h ozone, up to 4.5 m gm � 3 (9%) reductions in maximum 24-h PM2.5 and up to 2.1 m gm � 3 (10%) reductions in the monthly mean PM2.5) accrued from the transition from Tier 1 to Tier 2 standards. However, the implementation of additional nationwide LDV controls similar to draft proposed California LEV III regulations would result in very small additional improvements in air quality by 2022 (up to 0.3 ppb (0.3%) reductions in daily maximum 8-h ozone, up to 0.2 ppb (0.2%) reductions in the monthly mean of daily maximum 8-h ozone, up to 0.1 m gm � 3 (0.5%) reductions in maximum 24-h PM 2.5 and up to 0.1 m gm � 3 (0.5%) reductions in the

[1]  G. Powers,et al.  A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 3 , 2008 .

[2]  Susan Collet,et al.  Air quality impacts of motor vehicle emissions in the south coast air basin: Current versus more stringent control scenario , 2012 .

[3]  Bonyoung Koo,et al.  Development and application of a three-dimensional aerosol chemical transport model, PMCAMx , 2007 .

[4]  Armistead G Russell,et al.  EPA Supersites Program-Related Emissions-Based Particulate Matter Modeling: Initial Applications and Advances , 2008, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[5]  Christian Hogrefe,et al.  Evaluating the performance of regional-scale photochemical modeling systems. Part III—Precursor predictions , 2001 .

[6]  Robert Vet,et al.  A revised parameterization for gaseous dry deposition in air-quality models , 2003 .

[7]  P. Palmer,et al.  Estimates of global terrestrial isoprene emissions using MEGAN (Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature) , 2006 .

[8]  Qi Ying,et al.  Particulate air quality model predictions using prognostic vs. diagnostic meteorology in central California , 2010 .

[9]  P. Adams,et al.  A temporally and spatially resolved ammonia emission inventory for dairy cows in the United States , 2004 .

[10]  Y. Roustan,et al.  Estimating the effect of on-road vehicle emission controls on future air quality in Paris, France , 2011 .

[11]  J. Lamarque,et al.  Description and evaluation of the Model for Ozone and Related chemical Tracers, version 4 (MOZART-4) , 2009 .

[12]  J F Louis,et al.  Guidance for the Performance Evaluation of Three-Dimensional Air Quality Modeling Systems for Particulate Matter and Visibility , 2000, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[13]  W. M. Griffin,et al.  Impact of dedicated E85 vehicle use on ozone and particulate matter in the US , 2011 .

[14]  A. Russell,et al.  PM and light extinction model performance metrics, goals, and criteria for three-dimensional air quality models , 2006 .

[15]  D. Hauglustaine,et al.  Present and future impact of aircraft, road traffic and shipping emissions on global tropospheric ozone , 2010 .