Environ. Sci. Technol.
2010, 44, 3594–3600
Vehicle-Specific Emissions Modeling
Based upon on-Road Measurements
H. CHRISTOPHER FREY,*
KAISHAN ZHANG, AND
NAGUI M. ROUPHAIL
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental
Engineering, North Carolina State University,
Campus Box 7908, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7908
Received September 18, 2009. Revised manuscript received
March 7, 2010. Accepted March 24, 2010.
Vehicle-specific microscale fuel use and emissions rate
models are developed based upon real-world hot-stabilized
tailpipe measurements made using a portable emissions
measurement system. Consecutive averaging periods of one
to three multiples of the response time are used to compare two
semiempirical physically based modeling schemes. One
scheme is based on internally observable variables (IOVs),
such as engine speed and manifold absolute pressure, while
the other is based on externally observable variables (EOVs),
such as speed, acceleration, and road grade. For NO, HC,
and CO emission rates, the average R2 ranged from 0.41 to 0.66
for the former and from 0.17 to 0.30 for the latter. The EOV
models have R2 for CO2 of 0.43 to 0.79 versus 0.99 for the IOV
models. The models are sensitive to episodic events in
driving cycles such as high acceleration. Intervehicle and
fleet average modeling approaches are compared; the former
account for microscale variations that might be useful for
some types of assessments. EOV-based models have practical
value for traffic management or simulation applications since
IOVs usually are not available or not used for emission estimation.
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to develop an approach for
microscale estimation of vehicle-specific emissions based
on real-world data, in order to support long-term future
development of more accurate and robust approaches for
emissions estimation. An accurate assessment of highway
vehicle emissions is essential for effective air-quality man-
agement, and emission estimates are needed at various spatial
and temporal scales, including macro-, meso-, and microscale
(1). Macroscale refers to urban or regional emission inven-
tories based on aggregated data. Mesoscale refers to sub-
regional estimates, such as for urban corridors. Microscale
refers to nearly instantaneous vehicle emissions at specific
locations, such as an intersection or segment of roadway.
These different scales support different types of analyses.
For example, many existing traffic demand models produce
mesoscale estimates of average vehicle speeds for roadway
links (2). However, because vehicle emissions are highly
episodic, there is a critical need to better quantify the local
effect of traffic control measures and other factors that
contribute to variability in vehicle speed and acceleration
(1). For example, microscopic simulation models such as
AIMSUN (3) need to be calibrated using microscale fuel and
emissions data from real-world measurements.
* Corresponding author e-mail: frey@ncsu.edu.
3594 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 44, NO. 9, 2010
Emissions factor models should quantify the relation-
ship between emissions, vehicle dynamics (e.g., speed and
acceleration), and roadway infrastructure (e.g., road grade)
at multiple scales (1). Since microscale emissions estimates
can be aggregated over space and time to produce meso-
or macroscale estimates, an ability to accurately estimate
microscale emission factors is a key step toward develop-
ment of a highly flexible vehicle emissions estimation
system.
Currently, the most widely used emission factor model,
MOBILE6 (1) in the U.S. and COPERT (4) in Europe, is
appropriate for macro- and mesoscale estimates of vehicle
fleet emissions but is not applicable at the microscale or to
individual vehicles. Alternative methods for emissions es-
timation applicable to the meso- and microscale have been
explored for a number of years, including stratification of
empirical data, statistical regression, neural network, and
physically based approaches. Modal-based approaches in-
volve stratification of data based on speed and acceleration,
vehicle specific power (VSP), or other factors and are derived
either based on a priori definitions of modes or from a
statistical analysis of data using methods such as hierarchical
tree-based regression (5). Examples of these types of models
include HBEFA (6), ARTEMIS (7), Ecogest (8) in Europe, and
CORSIM (9) in the U.S. Modal-based approaches are the
foundation of the MOVES model that is under development
to replace MOBILE6 (10). Statistically based approaches
include least-squares linear regressions and time series
modeling, among others (11-14). A neural network attempts
to predict emissions by training the network with known
emissions and vehicle activity data sets (15). Physically based
approaches typically attempt to explicitly model the physics
and chemistry of pollutant formation and control taking into
account detailed characteristics of the vehicle and its
operation (16-18). Examples include the Comprehensive
Modal Emissions Model (CMEM) and Physical Emission Rate
Estimator (PERE) models (17, 18).
The advantage of the modal approaches is that they do
not require fitting of an analytical model and thus do not
introduce errors that might occur if the model is not a good
fit to the data. However, such models inherently involve a
significant amount of averaging of data, since a mode typically
represents the average emissions for a significant proportion
of the vehicle activity pattern. This may be adequate for
mesoscale purposes but can reduce the model’s explanatory
power and potentially limit its usefulness for microscale
applications.
Statistically based approaches typically involve fitting a
model to empirical data. For some types of models, such as
higher order polynomials, the terms in the model may or
may not have any physical interpretation. For example, the
product of speed (v) and acceleration (a) is a surrogate for
power demand (av), while a3v3 does not have an explicit
physical interpretation or relevance. However, if properly
formulated, statistically based models can be both physically
plausible while offering a useful degree of explanatory power.
A key challenge, however, is whether such models can be
developed appropriately for use in microscale emissions
estimation.
The physically based approaches typically have sub-
stantial requirements for input data that limit their
practicality for general application. However, simplified
models that have a physical basis may offer a substantial
degree of explanatory power. For example, VSP, which is
a function of speed, acceleration, and road grade, is an
excellent predictor of vehicle fuel use (16). Because
10.1021/es902835h  2010 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 04/08/2010
emissions of many pollutants have a significant relation-
ship to fuel use, VSP is also a useful explanatory variable
for vehicle emissions (5).
The objectives of this paper are to (1) characterize and
account for autocorrelation in vehicle fuel use and emission
rates; (2) compare and evaluate alternative microscale
vehicle-specific models based on EOVs and IOVs; and (3)
compare vehicle-specific versus fleet average models.
Experimental Section
This section describes methodologies for (1) on-road data
collection; (2) development of data sets for model building
and validation; (3) selection of vehicle-specific fuel use and
emissions modeling approaches; and (4) model evaluation.
On-Road Data Collection. In order to capture a substantial
range of intravehicle variability, data were collected exten-
sively for three “primary” vehicles using a portable emissions
measurement system (PEMS) and were supplemented with
fewer data on each of seven additional secondary vehicles
(19). The measurements were made using the Montana
system PEMS manufactured by Clean Air Technology In-
ternational, Inc.
The primary vehicles were operated by three drivers on
three alternative routes between each of two origin/destina-
tion (O/D) pairs. On average, there were 65 h of second-
by-second data collected over a three week period for each
primary vehicle, involving an average of 14 runs on each
route and travel direction. The routes included a variety of
roadway facility types (i.e., feeder/collector street, minor
arterial, major arterial, freeway) and road grades (varying
between approximately plus or minus eight percent). Data
were collected in both travel directions on each route for
both morning and afternoon weekday time periods, thereby
capturing both peak and off-peak traffic flow.
Based on analysis of data collected for the primary
vehicles, an estimate was made of the minimum field data
requirement necessary to adequately quantify intravehicle
variability in emissions. For each secondary vehicle, data
collection occurred on preferred routes typically during one
day by one driver.
Development of Data Sets for Model Building and
Validation. The field data were stratified into two data sets.
One was used to build models, and the other was used to
validate the models. In order for both data sets to have similar
vehicle dynamics, trips from the same route were randomly
but proportionally selected form each data set. Approximately
75% of all trips on a route were selected to populate the
modeling data set, and the other 25% were included in the
validation data set. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) two
sample test (20) was used to confirm that the two data sets
had nonsignificant differences in vehicle speed and ac-
celeration distributions.
Selection of Vehicle-Specific Fuel Use and Emissions
Modeling Approaches. Model specification takes into ac-
count the selection of a regression methodology, averaging
time, and explanatory variables.
Regression Approach. Both nonparametric and parametric
regression approaches can be used for emissions modeling.
However, nonparametric regression (NPR) models do not
provide an explicit mathematical equation for model inter-
pretation (21-24) and thus were not used.
A linear regression model can be a linear combination of
“basis functions” which may be nonlinear. In order to have
confidence in the predictive ability of a regression model,
each variable in the model should have a physical inter-
pretation. In order to produce unbiased estimates of the
model parameters, the model residuals should have constant
variance with a zero mean and be independently and
identically distributed (iid).
In some cases, a model with a physically based inter-
pretation cannot be simplified to a linear combination of
basis functions and may be inherently nonlinear. In these
cases, nonlinear regression is used. Nonlinear regression is
more sensitive to outliers (25).
An assessment was made of the use of the Box-Cox
transformation (BCT) in order to eliminate heteroscedasticity
in the residuals. However, when variables are back-
transformed, predictions of the model are biased and have
to be corrected. The bias-corrected back-transformed models
were found to perform more poorly than models fit directly
to the data without the BCT. Therefore, BCT was not further
applied.
Averaging Time. The assumption of iid residuals is often
not valid for models fit to raw second-by-second emissions
data, since the vehicle activity and emissions in one second
is dependent on activity and emissions in recent seconds.
For example, an engine typically does not run at high RPM
in one second unless it had been run at moderate to high
RPM in the previous second. The response time of the PEMS
emissions sensors are longer than the rate at which data are
reported (26, 27), which imposes a correlation in the
measured values even if the true emissions are changing
independently every second. A technique for reducing the
influence of autocorrelation and accounting for response
time is to stratify the data and work with average, rather than
continuous, values in each strata. Therefore, models were
developed based on consecutive averages of vehicle activity
and emission data that were equal to or greater than the
response time of the emissions sensors and that include the
most significant autocorrelated lags.
Modeling Schemes. The vehicle-specific microscale emis-
sions models were developed taking into consideration their
potential applications. One possible future application is to
couple such models with transportation microsimulation
models that estimate externally (to the vehicle) observable
information such as speed and acceleration of individual
vehicles on a roadway network as well as characterize
infrastructure features such as road grade. Another is to use
the models as part of an in-vehicle information system that
could report to a driver or a traffic management facility real-
time fuel use and emissions. Such information could guide
real-time decision making regarding driver behavior, traffic
control, or routing. An in-vehicle model could access
internally observable data from the on-board diagnostic
(OBD) system, such as engine speed (ES), intake air tem-
perature (IAT), and manifold absolute pressure (MAP). A key
question is whether a model based on internally observable
variables (IOVs) is more accurate or precise than one based
on externally observable variables (EOVs).
Internally Observable Variables Model (IOVM). ES and MAP
were used as explanatory variables because they are sig-
nificant factors in fuel injection control (28) and are strongly
influenced by vehicle dynamics such as speed and acceleration.
The formation of CO and HC are intimately coupled with
the fuel combustion process whereas NO formation is
assumed to occur as part of postflame processes (28). These
processes account for engine-out emissions prior to the
catalytic converter. One modeling approach is used to
estimate fuel use and emission rates of HC and CO, while
another is used to model NO emissions. The former were
modeled as (model 1 in Table 1)
¯∆t
m i ) aiP̄mapS̄engine∆t (1)
where m j i∆t ) average mass flow rate for specie i (fuel, CO,
HC) for a consecutive averaging period ∆t, g/s, Pmap )
Manifold Absolute Pressure (MAP), kPa, Sengine ) Engine Speed
(ES) in revolutions per minute, rpm, PjmapSengine∆t ) average
of the product of Pmap and Sengine for a consecutive, averaging
VOL. 44, NO. 9, 2010 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 3595
period ∆t, ai ) model coefficient for specie i, and ∆t )
duration of the averaging period (seconds).
The NO formation rate in the engine is assumed to be
based on a simplified Zeldovich mechanism (28)
d[NO] 6 × 1016 -69090
dt
)
T0.5
exp
T (
[O2]e0.5[N2]e
where (d[NO])/(dt) ) NO formation rate (mol/cm3-s), T )
gas temperature in the cylinder (K), [O2]e ) equilibrium
concentration of O2 (mol/cm3), and [N2]e ) equilibrium
concentration of N2 (mol/cm3).
However, T, [O2]e, and [N2]e are not measured by PEMS
or reported by OBD system, these are not observable. [O2]e
and [N2]e are a function of the cylinder gas temperature and
pressure. An assumption is made that the engine gas
temperature is proportional to fuel use. The resultant
functional form is (model 2 in Table 1)
VSP ) v{a(1 + ε) + gr + gCR} +
2
Fv ( )
1 3 CDA
m
(4)
where a ) vehicle acceleration (m/s2), A ) vehicle frontal
area (m2), CD ) aerodynamic drag coefficient (dimensionless),
CR ) rolling resistance coefficient (dimensionless, ∼ 0.0135),
g ) acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s2), m ) vehicle mass (in
) (2)
metric tons), r ) road grade, v ) vehicle speed (m/s), VSP
) Vehicle Specific Power (kw/ton), ε ) mass factor accounting
for the rotational masses (∼ 0.1), and F ) ambient air density
(1.207 kg/m3 at 20 °C).
The aerodynamic drag term in eq 4 varies by vehicle. For
example, the difference could be a factor of 2 between a
compact car and a full size passenger car (18). However, the
aerodynamic drag term is relatively small for urban driving
compared to the other terms and does not significantly effect
the estimates of VSP.
For each vehicle, individual terms in eq 4 were used as
basis functions in a linear regression model (model 12 in
Table 1)

( )
_ _ _ _ _
_∆t aNO -bNO mj∆t ) A0,j + Ajav∆t + Bjv∆t + Cjvr∆t + Djv3∆t + εj (5)
mNO ) exp (3)
(P̄mapS̄engine∆t)0.5 _∆t
PmapSengine where av j ∆t ) average of the product av, for a consecutive
averaging, period of duration ∆t (km2/h2s), εj ) model residual
for specie j, j ) specie (i.e., NO, HC, CO, CO2, and fuel use),
where m j NO∆t ) average mass emission rate for NO for a j j∆t ) average of mass emission rate specie j for a consecutive,
m
consecutive averaging period ∆t, g/s, and aNO, bNO ) model averaging period of duration ∆t (g/s), vj∆t ) average of v for
coefficients. a consecutive averaging period of duration ∆t (km/h), vr j ∆t
The “R” statistical package (29) was used to fit eqs 1 and ) average of vr for a consecutive averaging period of duration
3 to PEMS data for each vehicle. ∆t (km/h), vj3∆t ) average of v3 for a consecutive averaging
Externally Observable Variables Model (EOVM). VSP is a period of duration ∆t (km3/h3), and A0, j, A j, B j, C j, D j )
measure of load on a vehicle and is defined as the power per model coefficients for specie j. The model intercept A0,j
unit mass to overcome inertial acceleration (power demand), represents the fuel use or emissions rate when the vehicle
rolling resistance, road grade, and aerodynamic drag (16) is idling.

TABLE 1. Comparison of Goodness-of-Fit for Alternative Modeling Approachese

coefficient of determination (R2)
averaging intercept
model explanatory variables type of inputsd time (s) included NO HC CO fuel
a a
1 P̄mapSengine IOV 12/18 N 0.40 0.55 0.60 0.99
aNO
_
(PmapSengine) 0.5
exp
( -bNO
_
PmapSengine )
2a IOV 12/18a N 0.43 n/a n/a n/a
3b MERi,(i)1 to 14) EOV 1 NA 0.06 0.18 0.14 0.56
4 v,a,r EOV 1 Y 0.06 0.21 0.14 0.48
5 VSP EOV 1 Y 0.04 0.21 0.10 0.46
6 V̄SP EOV 5 Y 0.08 0.26 0.17 0.60
7 v, v3,av,r EOV 1 Y 0.06 0.24 0.16 0.54
8 v̄, v̄3, āv, r¯ EOV 5 Y 0.10 0.28 0.22 0.65
9 viaj(i,j)1,2,3) EOV 1 Y 0.07 0.18 0.16 0.56
10 VSPt, VSPt-1,VSPt-2,VSPt-3 EOV 1 Y 0.01 0.25 0.15 0.46
11c VSPt,εt EOV 1 Y 0.72 0.86 0.73 0.87
12a v̄, v̄3, āv, v̄r EOV 12/18a Y 0.16 0.22 0.32 0.71
13a v̄, v̄3, āv, v̄r EOV 12/18a N 0.35 0.48 0.58 0.89
14 v,a,r, Pmap,Sengine,CT,TP,IAT IOV and EOV 1 Y 0.17 0.46 0.22 0.95
a
Consecutive averages of both dependent and independent variables were used for modeling. The averaging time
interval is 18 s for NO and is 12 s for the others. b MER - modal emission rates. In this model, measured values were
compared with VSP-based modal emission rates, which are very similar to the MOVES model. The MOVES model uses
VSP-based modes that are also stratified by speed. The modal modeling approach in MOVES is based in part on a
comparison of modal modeling approaches evaluated by Frey et al. (5) that included the same VSP modal method as used
here, along with a method based on binning by both VSP and speed. The results for estimates of cycle average emission
rates are very similar for these two modal binning approaches. c This model is time series regression with serial errors
(TSRSE). The second term (vt) in this model is further modeled as a 5th order autoregressive (AR) model. Higher order AR
model did not significantly improve the explanatory power. d IOV - internal observable variables; EOV - external observable
variables. e Models were fit to PEMS data from a 2005 Chevrolet Cavalier using linear regression unless noted. “X j ” in this
table indicates that consecutive averages of both dependent and independent variables are used for modeling.

3596 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 44, NO. 9, 2010

 Model Evaluation. The purpose of model evaluation is to
(1) compare and select from among several alternative
averaging times; (2) demonstrate the sensitivity of the model
predictions to microscale features of driving cycles such as
idle, acceleration, cruise, and deceleration; and (3) demon-
strate the application of the models to predict fuel use and
emissions.
Both IOVM and EOVM were developed from modeling
data sets for each vehicle. These models were used to predict
emissions and fuel use for comparison to validation values.
The model development and comparisons were done for
various averaging times.
In order to evaluate the sensitivity of the models to
different driving cycles (intercycle variability) and to assess
the ability of the models to make microscale predictions for
a given cycle (intracycle variability), the models were used
to predict fuel use and emissions for a selected set of standard
and empirical driving cycles. These cycles included four
chassis dynamometer cycles and four representative real-
world cycles from field data collection. The four dynamometer
cycles include Bags 1, 2, and 3 of the Federal Test Procedure
(FTP), US06, New York City Cycle (NYCC), and California
LA92.
For the EOVMs, the model inputs are second-by-second
speed profiles, from which acceleration can be inferred. Road
grade was assumed to be zero. Average emissions for the
various cycles were estimated using the EOVMs. Emissions
from the FTP cycle were selected as the benchmark for cycle
comparisons. Similar assessments for intercycle comparisons
were done using MOBILE6.
For the IOVMs, only real world driving cycles could be
used for assessment because vehicle-specific engine data
were available for these but not for the dynamometer cycles.
Results and Discussion
Results are presented for (a) choice of averaging time; (b)
selection of modeling approach; (c) model evaluation; (d)
sensitivity of models to microscale events; and (e) comparison
of fleet-average models and vehicle-specific models.
Averaging Time. The effect of averaging time on model
performance and model response to changes in driving
conditions was evaluated. An increase in averaging time leads
to an increase in R2, reduced influence of autocorrelation,
and a decrease in residual variance. However, a long averaging
time will smear out the effect on emissions of microscale
events. Three multiples of the gas analyzer response time
was selected for the averaging time. Hence, the averaging
time for NO is 18 s, and for the other pollutants and fuel use
it is 12 s (26).
Modeling Approaches. Several modeling schemes were
compared with respect to goodness-of-fit using data for a
2005 Chevrolet Cavalier with 2.2 L engine. As shown in Table
1, these include a VSP binning approach (model 3), linear
and polynomial regression (models 4-10, 14), time series
approaches such as moving averages (MA) and time series
regression with serial errors (TSRSE) (30) (models 9 and 10,
respectively), and physically based approaches (models 1
and 2).
In nearly all cases, the best goodness-of-fit for fuel use or
a given pollutant emission rate was produced by models 1,
2, 11, and 13. The lowest R2 among these four models for a
given pollutant is typically higher than the R2 values for any
other model (except model 14 applied to fuel use). The highest
R2 values for NO, HC, and CO were obtained with the TSRSE
model. However, because this model requires knowledge of
prior model residuals, it cannot be used to make predictions.
It illustrates, however, that there is autocorrelation in the
residuals of model predictions. This motivates the use of
methods that either account for or reduce the effect of
autocorrelation. The attempt to account for autocorrelation
by considering lag effects in the explanatory variables, as
embodied in model 10, produces a fairly poor goodness-
of-fit for all pollutants and thus is not an effective approach.
An alternative is to use consecutive averaging times in an
attempt to “average out” autocorrelation effects. Models 1,
2, and 13 use consecutive averages and produce R2 values
that are quite high for fuel use (and CO2 emissions) and imply
that approximately 35 to 60% of the variability in the
emissions of the other pollutants can be explained. Overall,
for IOVMs, models 1 and 2 are the most practical basis for
more extensive exploration; for EOVMs, the approach of
model 12 is chosen instead of model 13 because (1) both
have the same modeling structure except model 13 does not
include an intercept and (2) excluding an intercept in a linear
regression model provides a better goodness-of-fit but results
in biased estimates of model coefficients. However, an
intercept is not included in model 1 because ES and MAP
cannot be zero if the engine is on, whereas vehicle speed can
be zero. For model 2, an intercept is not necessary because
nonlinear regression is used.
Model Evaluation. IOVMs and EOVMs were developed
for each of the three primary and seven secondary vehicles.
Each model was fit to the modeling data set. The goodness-
of-fit is assessed based on the slope and R2 of a parity plot
of predicted versus actual average mass rates for each
consecutive averaging time period. The slope is an indicator
of model accuracy, while the R2 is an indicator of model
precision. Furthermore, the models were applied to the
validation data sets to make independent predictions of
emissions and fuel use. The model predictions for the
validation data were plotted versus the actual values and a
slope, and R2 for the trend line was assessed. Ideally, the
goodness-of-fit for the validation data set should be similar
to that of the modeling data set.
The results of goodness-of-fit for the IOVMs are given in
Table 2. As expected, the slope in the modeling domain is
unity for all vehicles. The slope in the validation domain
varies depending on the robustness of the model in explaining
variability in the validation data. In most cases, the slope in
the validation domain is close to one, with average values
among the 10 vehicles for each pollutant ranging from 1.00
to 1.05. In only four cases does the slope differ from unity
by more than 20%, primarily for HC (in three cases) and CO
(in one case). For each pollutant, the average of the slopes
among all 10 vehicles does not differ significantly from unity.
Thus, the IOVM approach is robust with respect to inter-
vehicle differences.
However, the portion of intravehicle variability explained
by the models varies among the vehicles. On average, 40 to
99% of the variability can be explained for a given pollutant
or for fuel use. However, there are isolated cases in which
the R2 values are very low. For example, R2 values of less than
0.3 occur for 6 cases in Table 2, of which 4 are for CO, 1 is
for HC, and 1 is for NO. The low R2 values for CO are likely
to be associated with vehicles that have highly pronounced
fuel enrichment characteristics, which in turn are associated
with short episodes of high CO emissions. The data were not
further stratified to attempt to isolate possible enrichment
episodes because the average duration of fuel enrichment is
less than 2 s, which is much shorter than the averaging time
used in the models. Furthermore, enrichment events are
sensitive to the response of the catalytic converter, whose
performance (in terms of second-by-second control efficiency
by pollutant) is mostly unobservable even when OBD data
are available.
The goodness-of-fit is excellent for fuel use for both
modeling and validation data sets for all 10 vehicles, with an
average R2 of 0.99 and an average slope of 1. Furthermore,
there is little variability in either of these values among the
10 vehicles.
VOL. 44, NO. 9, 2010 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 3597
TABLE 2. Goodness-of-Fit of Vehicle-Specific Internally-Observable Variable Models (IOVM) for NO, HC, CO, and Fuel Use for Ten
Vehicles Using Time-Averaged Engine Speed and Manifold Absolute Pressurea
NO HC CO Fuel
modeling validation modeling validation modeling validation modeling validation
b 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
vehicles Rm Slm Rv Slv Rm Slm Rv Slv Rm Slm Rv Slv Rm Slm R2v Slv
2005 Chevrolet Cavalier 2.2 L 0.43 1 0.43 1.02 0.54 1 0.56 0.99 0.61 1 0.59 1.05 >0.99 1 >0.99 1.00
2005 Dodge Caravan 3.3 L 0.10 1 0.10 1.16e 0.67 1 0.67 1.04 0.03 1 0.03 0.69e >0.99 1 >0.99 1.01
2005 Chevrolet Tahoe 5.3 L 0.50 1 0.50 1.02 0.59 1 0.59 1.20e 0.60 1 0.60 1.04 >0.99 1 >0.99 1.00
1997 Honda Accord 2.2 L 0.75 1 0.75 1.18e 0.70 1 0.69 0.78e 0.62 1 0.61 1.03 >0.99 1 >0.99 1.00
1998 Plymouth Breeze 2.4 L 0.75 1 0.74 0.99 0.44 1 0.43 1.00 0.48 1 0.49 1.02 >0.99 1 >0.99 0.99
2004 Dodge Stratus 2.7 L 0.75 1 0.75 1.19e 0.70 1 0.69 0.78e 0.62 1 0.61 1.03 >0.99 1 >0.99 0.99
1997 Dodge Caravan 3.3 L 0.92 1 0.90 1.01 0.88 1 0.88 1.05 0.67 1 0.67 1.00 >0.99 1 >0.99 1.00
2000 Dodge Caravan 3.3 L 0.84 1 0.84 1.00 0.06 1 0.10 1.07 0.05 1 0.05 1.09e >0.99 1 >0.99 1.00
2002 Dodge Caravan 3.3 L 0.72 1 0.68 1.00 0.74 1 0.81 1.49e 0.26 1 0.29 1.04 >0.99 1 >0.99 1.00
2000 Ford Crown Victoria 4.6 Lc 0.86 1 0.84 0.96e 0.82 1 0.83 1.01 0.12 1 0.12 1.08 >0.99 1 >0.99 1.00
average 0.66 1 0.65 1.05 0.60 1 0.62 1.04 0.41 1 0.41 1.01 >0.99 1 >0.99 1
0.10 0.10 0.99 0.060 0.10 0.78 0.03 0.03 0.69
range - 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - >0.99 1 >0.99 1
0.92 0.90 1.19 0.88 0.88 1.49 0.67 0.77 1.09
a
Unless otherwise noted, the functional forms of the models (model 2 for NO, and model 1 for HC, CO, and Fuel) are

NO:mNO )
_∆t aNO
_∆t
(PmapSengine) 0.5
exp
( -bNO
_∆t
PmapSengine )
¯∆t
HC, CO, Fuel:m i ) aiP̄mapS̄engine∆t

where aNO, bNO, and ai are fitted constants; m̄i and m̄NO are average mass rate, g/s Pmap is manifold absolute pressure, kPa; Sengine
is engine speed, rpm; P̄mapSengine is average of the product of Pmap and Sengine for a consecutive averaging period; and ∆t is the
duration for the averaging period (seconds). b Year, manufacturer, model, and engine size are indicated. c For this vehicle,
Pmap was not available from the on-board diagnostics (OBD) link. However, intake mass air flow, mIAF (g/s) is reported by
the OBD link. Hence, the model used here is

NO:mNO )
_∆t aNO
_∆t
(mIAF)0.5
exp
( ) -bNO
_∆t
mIAF
¯∆t
HC, CO, Fuel:mi ) aim̄IAF∆t

The averaging time for NO is 18 s and 12 s for other pollutants and fuel use. R2 and slope are based upon the model of actual
measurements vs model predicting values. R2m and Slm -R2 and slope using data from modeling databases; R2v and Slv - R2 and
slope using data from validation databases. e The numbers in italics indicate that the slope is significantly different from
unity.

The goodness-of-fit for the validation data is very similar
to that for the modeling data, indicating consistent perfor-
mance of the models.
MAP for the Ford vehicle was not reported by the OBD
system; however, air intake flow rate was reported. Thus, for
this vehicle only, intake flow rate was used as an IOV. The
R2 for fuel use and CO2 emissions is greater than 0.99 and
ranges from 0.10 to 0.86 for other pollutants.
The goodness-of-fit and model evaluation results for
EOVMs are given in Table 3. For a given vehicle and pollutant
the R2 values are typically lower for the EOVM than for the
IOVM. The average EOVM R2 values for a given pollutant are
0.17 to 0.59. Compared to IOVMs, the average decrease in
the R2 values for EOVMs is -0.36, -0.37, -0.24, and -0.40
for NO, HC, and CO emissions and fuel use, respectively.
The R2 values for EOVMs are similar for the validation and
calibration data. The slope of the validation cases is between
0.9 to 1.1 for 30 of the 40 pollutant/fuel and vehicle
combinations. The average of the slopes does not significantly
differ from unity.
Both IOVMs and EOVMs were developed based on tailpipe
emissions. The tailpipe emissions are also influenced by the
catalytic conversion efficiency (CCE). However, this influence
cannot be quantified because needed data such as engine out
emissions and exhaust temperature are not observable with
OBD and PEMS data. One reason that R2 for fuel use is better
than for NO, CO, and HC is that the latter three are significantly
influenced by CCE, whereas the former is not.
Sensitivity of Models to Microscale Events. The sensitivity
of cycle average gram per mile emission rates to eight selected
driving cycles, including five standardized and four empirical
cycles, was evaluated for both the EOVMs and MOBILE6.
Relative trends in these normalized emission rates versus
average cycle speeds were compared between the EOVMs
and MOBILE6. In the EOVMs, second-by-second speed
profiles with corresponding average speeds are used as input.
For MOBILE6, average speed is specified as an input. For
CO, HC, and NO, the qualitative trends for the EOVM and
MOBILE6 were similar for cycles with average speeds lower
than that of the FTP: typically, the emission rate increases
as the average cycle speed decreases. The EOVMs predicted
larger increases in emissions rates as cycle average speed
was reduced. For example, for CO, the emission rate at an
average speed of 7 mph is a factor of 1.4 greater than for the
FTP based on MOBILE6 and a factor of 2.1 greater based on
the average of the EOVMs for the 10 vehicles. At average
speeds higher than that of the FTP up to 65 mph, MOBILE6
predicts an increase in average emission rate for NOx and
CO and a decrease for HC. On average over the 10 vehicles,
the EOVMs predict a decrease in average emission rate for
all three of these pollutants, but there is substantial inter-
vehicle variability in which some vehicles have higher average
emission rates at the higher speeds. For CO2, MOBILE6 uses
a constant emission rate and therefore a comparison was
not made. The EOVMs predict that the CO2 emission rate
decreases significantly as average cycle speed increases up

3598 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 44, NO. 9, 2010

TABLE 3. Goodness-of-Fit of Vehicle-Specific Externally-Observable Variable Models (EOVM) for NO, HC, CO, and Fuel Use for Ten
Vehicles Using Time-Averaged Speed, Acceleration, and Road Gradea
NO HC CO Fuel
modeling validation modeling validation modeling validation modeling validation
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
vehicle Rm Slm Rv Slv Rm Slm Rv Slv Rm Slm Rv Slv Rm Slm R2v Slv
2005 Chevrolet Cavalier2.2 L 0.16 1.00 0.16 0.99 0.22 1.00 0.20 0.94b 0.32 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.70 0.99
2005 Dodge Caravan 3.3 L 0.05 1.00 0.05 1.04 0.32 1.00 0.33 1.01 0.02 1.00 0.02 0.94b 0.77 1.00 0.77 1.00
2005 Chevrolet Tahoe 5.3 L 0.24 1.00 0.23 0.98 0.20 1.00 0.19 0.98 0.24 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.62 1.00 0.61 1.00
1997 Honda Accord 2.2 L 0.11 1.00 0.15 1.26b 0.03 1.00 0.08 1.09b 0.06 1.00 0.07 1.56b 0.17 1.00 0.26 1.45b
1998 Plymouth Breeze 2.4 L 0.56 1.00 0.55 0.98 0.29 1.00 0.24 0.97b 0.33 1.00 0.32 0.98 0.79 1.00 0.80 1.00
2004 Dodge Stratus 2.7 L 0.44 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.47 1.02 0.41 1.00 0.42 1.15b 0.46 1.00 0.42 0.97b
1997 Dodge Caravan 3.3 L 0.31 1.00 0.35 0.88b 0.21 1.00 0.25 0.91b 0.14 1.00 0.12 0.90b 0.43 1.00 0.47 0.99
2000 Dodge Caravan 3.3 L 0.52 1.00 0.53 1.01 0.02 1.00 0.03 1.09b 0.04 1.00 0.04 1.19b 0.79 1.00 0.80 1.01
2002 Dodge Caravan 3.3 L 0.36 1.00 0.36 0.93b 0.28 1.00 0.29 0.85b 0.14 1.00 0.13 0.97b 0.71 1.00 0.74 1.00
2000 Ford Crown Victoria 4.6 L 0.27 1.00 0.20 1.16b 0.24 1.00 0.16 0.87b 0.02 1.00 0.03 1.25b 0.46 1.00 0.42 0.97b
average 0.30 1.00 0.30 1.02 0.23 1.00 0.22 0.97 0.17 1 0.17 1.09 0.59 1 0.60 1.04
0.05 0.05 0.36 0.02 0.03 0.85 0.02 0.02 0.94 0.43 0.35 0.97
range - 1.00 - - - 1.00 - - - 1 - - - 1 - -
0.56 0.55 1.16 0.46 0.47 1.09 0.41 0.42 1.25 0.79 0.80 1.45
a
The model form (model 12) is
_ _ _ _ _
mj∆t ) A0,j + Ajav∆t + Bjv∆t + Cjvr∆t + Djv3∆t + εj

The averaging time period for NO is 18 s and 12 s for the others with nonzero corresponding average speed. R2 and slope are
based upon the model of actual measurements vs model predicting values. R2m and Slm -R2 and slope using data from modeling
databases; R2v and Slv - R2 and slope using data from validation databases. b The numbers in italics indicate that the slope
is significantly different from unity.

to approximately 50 mph. At speeds higher than ap-

proximately 60 to 65 mph, the CO2 emission rate increases
with average speed.
MOBILE6 does not explicitly account for microscale
variation in acceleration. However, since both microscale
acceleration and speed are explicit inputs for EOVMs, EOVMs
are sensitive to microscale events in vehicle dynamics. For
example, as shown in Figure 1, a peak in the speed profile
corresponds to a peak in emissions. Although a longer
averaging time leads to lower spatial resolution, the NOx
EOVM with 18 s averaging time is still able to capture episodic
emissions events. A shorter averaging time produces a larger
shorter duration peak in emissions.
Fleet-Average versus Vehicle-Specific Models. Emissions
hotspots at specific locations identified for one vehicle were
not hotspots for another, and the trend in variation of
emissions over distance is not the same for each vehicle (31).
Thus, it is worthwhile to develop vehicle-specific models for
a variety of applications, such as near roadside human
exposure assessment.
Vehicle-specific models were compared to a “fleet” model
to assess the benefits of the former. Data collected from all
vehicles for this study were combined to form a “fleet” data
set from which fleet-based models similar to model 12 of
Table 1 were fit. Emission rates estimated by the fleet models
were compared to the weighted averages of emissions
predicted by vehicle-specific models for selected driving
cycles and for the same set of vehicles. The weighting was
based upon the amount of data for individual vehicles used
to develop the fleet model. Comparing the EOV fleet model
with the weighted average of vehicle-specific models, the
differences in average NO, HC, and CO emission rates ranged
from -37 to 83% depending on the pollutant and driving FIGURE 1. Microscale prediction of NO and HC emissions using
cycle. For fuel use, the differences were relatively small, externally observable variables models (EOVMs) (model 12) for
ranging from -5 to 7%. These differences indicate that there a 2005 Chevrolet Cavalier with 2.2 L engine.
is substantial intervehicle variability in emissions that is In general, IOVMs have higher explanatory power than
averaged out in the fleet model. For a large flow of vehicles, EOVMs. When IOVs are available, IOVMs are preferred.
this is appropriate. However, in order to capture episodic However, EOVMs may have more practical value for traffic
emissions at high spatial and temporal resolution, vehicle- management such as arterial signalization and level of service
specific models may be useful. The details are given in the determination (32) and simulation since IOVs usually are
SI. not available or not used for emission estimation. Over the

VOL. 44, NO. 9, 2010 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 3599

entire trip, total fuel use and emissions estimated by IOVMs
and EOVMs are comparable. For example, for HC and fuel
use, the relative difference between IOVMs and EOVMs is
approximately 10% for all three primary vehicles over all
trips. For NO and CO, depending on averaging time and
vehicle, the difference varied from 9 to 65%. IOVMs predict
more fuel use and emissions than EOVMs, except for NO.
Supporting Information Available
Texts, figures, and tables pertinent to this paper. These
materials include (1) summary of data collection activities;
(2) exploratory analysis of PEMS data; (3) documentation of
model parameters; (4) comparison of IOVMs and EOVMs;
(5) evaluation of application of an EOVM model for microscale
prediction of emissions; (6) evaluation of Box-Cox trans-
formation; (7) identification and comparison of statistical
summaries for alternative average time intervals of activities
and emissions; (8) time series regression with serial errors;
(9) evaluation of vehicle-specific models for multiple averag-
ing times, vehicles, driving cycles, and comparisons to
MOBILE6; (10) assessment of intervehicle variability in model
parameters and predictions; (11) assessment of “Open loop”
fuel enrichment; (12) relationship between fuel use and CO2
emissions; (13) VSP-based modal approach for emissions
modeling, and (14) minimum data requirement. This material
is available free of charge via the Internet at http://
pubs.acs.org.
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon research supported by the
National Science Foundation under Grant No. CMS-0230506.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations
expressed in this document are those of the author(s) and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science
Foundation. Drs. Bibhuti Bhattacharyya, David Dickey, and
Jerome Sacks provided advice on statistical procedures.
Literature Cited
(1) National Research Council. Modeling Mobile Source Emissions;
National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2000.
(2) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). CORSIM User Guide;
U.S. Department of Transportation: Washington, DC, 1996.
(3) Transport Simulation Systems. AIMSUN Version 4.1 User
Manual; 2002.
(4) Cloke, J.; Boulter, P.; Davies, G. P.; Hickman, A. J.; Layeld, R. E.;
McCrae, I. S.; Nelson, P. M. Traffic management and air quality
research programme. TRL Report 327; 1998; p 70.
(5) Frey, H. C.; Unal, A.; Chen, J.; Li, S.; Xuan, C. Methodology for
Developing Modal Emission Rates for EPA’s Multi-scale Motor
Vehicle & Equipment Emission System; EPA420-R-02-027; Pre-
pared by North Carolina State University for Office of Trans-
portation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency: Ann Arbor, MI, 2002.
(6) Colberga, C. A.; Tonab, B.; Stahelb, W. A.; Meierc, M.; Staehelina,
J. Comparison of a road traffic emission model (HBEFA) with
emissions derived from measurements in the Gubrist road
tunnel, Switzerland. Atmos. Environ. 2005, 39, 4703–4714.
(7) André, M.; Keller, M.; Sjödin, A.; Gadrat, M.; Crae, I. C.; Dilara,
P. the ARTEMIS European Tools for Estimating the Transport
Pollutant Emissions, the 18th Annual International Emission
Inventory Conference, “Comprehensive Inventories -Leveraging
Technology and Resources”, Baltimore, Maryland,April 14-17,
2009.
(8) Silva, C. M.; Farias, T. L.; Frey, H. C.; Rouphail, N. M. Evaluation
of numerical models for simulation of real-world hot-
stabilized fuel consumption and emissions of gasoline light-
3600 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 44, NO. 9, 2010
duty vehicles. Trans. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 2006, 11
(5), 377–385.
(9) Halati, A.; Lieu, H.; Walker, H. CORSIM-corridor traffic simula-
tion model, Proceedings of the Traffic Congestion and Traffic
Safety in the 21st century: Challenges, Innovations, and Op-
portunities, Chicago, IL,June 8-11, 1997.
(10) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Roadmap to MOVES
2004; EPA420-S-05-002; Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Ann Arbor, MI, 2005.
(11) Sturm, P. J.; Almbauer, R. A.; Sudy, C.; Pucher, K. Application
of computational methods for the determination of traffic
emissions. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 1997, 47 (11), 1204–1210.
(12) West, B.; McGill, R.; Hodgson, J. W.; Sluder, S. Development of
data-based, light-duty modal emissions and fuel consumption
models; Paper 972910; Society of Automotive Engineers: War-
rendale, PA, 1997.
(13) Joumard, R.; Jost, P.; Hickman, J.; Hassel, D. Hot passenger car
emissions modeling as a function of instantaneous speed and
acceleration. Sci. Total Environ. 1995, 169 (1-3), 167–174.
(14) Ahn, K.; Hesham, R.; Trani, A.; Aerde, M. V. Estimating vehicle
fuel consumption and emissions based on instantaneous speed
and acceleration level. Transp. Eng. 2002, 128 (2), 182–190.
(15) Thompson, G. J.; Atkinson, C. M.; Clark, N. N.; Long, T. W.;
Hansevack, E. Neural network modeling of the emissions and
performance of a heavy-duty diesel engine. J. Aut. 2000, 214 (2),
111–126.
(16) Jiménez-Palacios, J. L. Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts In-
stitute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, 1999.
(17) Barth, M.; An, F.; Norbeck, J.; Ross, M. Modal emissions
modeling: a physical approach. Transp. Res. Rec. 1996, 1520,
81–88.
(18) Nam, E. K. Proof of Concept Investigation for the Physical
Estimation Rate Estimator (PERE) for MOVES; EPA 420-R-03-
005; Prepared by Ford Research and Advanced Engineering for
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency: Ann Arbor, MI, 2003.
(19) Frey, H. C.; Zhang, K.; Rouphail, N. M. Fuel use and emissions
comparisons for alternative routes, vehicles, road grade and
time of day using in-use measurements. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2008, 42 (7), 2483–2489.
(20) Durbin, J. Distribution theory for tests based on the sample
distribution function; SIAM: 1973.
(21) Hastie, T. J.; Tibshirani, R. J. Generalized Additive Models;
Chapman and Hall: London, 1990.
(22) Simonoff, J. S. Smoothing Methods in Statistics; Springer-Verlag:
New York, 1996.
(23) Bowman, A. W.; Azzalini, A. Applied Smoothing Techniques for
Data Analysis: The Kernel Approach with S-plus Illustrations;
Oxford: New York, 1997.
(24) Schimek, M. G. Smoothing and Regression; John Wiley and Sons:
New York, 2000.
(25) Bates, D. M.; Watts, D. G. Nonlinear Regression Analysis and Its
Applications; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1988.
(26) Zhang, K.; Frey, H. C. Evaluation of response time of a portable
system for in-use vehicle tailpipe emissions measurement.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42 (1), 221–227.
(27) Arieli, R.; Van Liew, H. D. Corrections for the response time and
delay of mass spectrometers. J. Appl. Physiol. 1981, 51 (6), 1417–
1422.
(28) Heywood, J. B. Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals;
McGraw-Hill: New York, 1988.
(29) The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R; 2005. http://
www.r-project.org (accessed December 16, 2005).
(30) Shumway, R. H.; Stoffer, D. S. Time Series Analysis and Its
Applications; Springer-Verlag: New York, 2000.
(31) Frey, H. C.; Zhang, K. Spatial and Temporal Analysis of Real-
World Empirical Fuel Use and Emissions, Proceedings of the
100th Annual Exhibition & Conference of the Air & Waste
Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA, June 2007.
(32) Unal, A.; Rouphail, N.; Frey, H. C. Effect of Arterial Signalization
and Level of Service on Measured Vehicle Emissions. Transp.
Res. Rec. 2003, 1842, 47–56.
ES902835H