Advertisement

Dynamics of ultrafine particles inside a roadway tunnel

  • V. K. MishraEmail author
  • M. L. Aggarwal
  • P. Berghmans
  • E. Frijns
  • L. Int Panis
  • K. M. Chacko
Article

Abstract

Size-segregated ultrafine particles from motor vehicles were investigated in the Craeybeckx tunnel (E19 motorway, Antwerp, Belgium) at two measurement sites, at 100 and 300 m inside the tunnel, respectively, during March 2008. It was observed that out of the three size modes, nucleation, Aitken, and accumulation, Aitken mode was the most dominant size fraction inside the tunnel. The diurnal variation in ultrafine particle (UFP) levels closely follows the vehicular traffic inside the tunnel, which was maximum during office rush hours, both in the morning and evening and minimum during night-time around 3 am. The tunnel data showed very high growth rates in comparison with free atmosphere. The average condensation sink during the growth period was 14.1–17.3 × 10−2 s−1. The average growth rate (GR) of geometric mean diameter was found to be 18.6 ± 2.45 nm h−1. It was observed that increase in Aitken mode was related to the numbers of heavy-duty vehicles (HDV), as they emit mainly in the Aitken mode. The higher Aitken mode during traffic jams correlated well with HDV numbers. At the end of the tunnel, sudden dilution leading to fast coagulation was responsible for the sudden drop in the UFP number concentration.

Keywords

Tunnel measurements UFP Vehicular traffic SMPS Aitken mode 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the logistical support during the entire sampling period and traffic count data provided by the Flemish traffic department and Craeybeckx tunnel authority. Part of this research was supported by the Belgian Federal Science policy in the SHAPES project under the SSD program. The authors also acknowledge the academic and infrastructural support provided by the Shriram Institute For Industrial Research, Delhi, India. Especially to the Director, Dr. K.M. Chacko, and Deputy Director, Dr. M.L. Aggarwal for their valuable support.

References

  1. Abraham, J. L., Siwinski, G., & Hunt, A. (2002). Ultrafine particulate exposures in indoor, outdoor, personal and mobile environments: effects of diesel, traffic, pottery kiln, cooking and HEPA filtration on micro-environmental particle number concentration. Ann. Occup. Hyg., 46(Supplement 1), 406–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abu-Allaban, M., Gillies, J. A., Gertler, A. W., Clayton, R., & Proffitt, D. (2002). Determination of on-road PM10 and PM2.5 emission rates using roadside measurements (pp. 377–384). GRAZ: Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Transport and Air Pollution.Google Scholar
  3. Barone, T., Lall, A. A., Zhu, Y., Yu, R., & Friedlander, S. K. (2006). Inertial deposition of nanoparticle chain aggregates: theory and comparison with impactor data for ultrafine atmospheric aerosols. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 669–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birmili, W., Stratmann, F., Wiedensohler, A., Covert, D., Russell, L. M., & Berg, O. (1997). Determination of differential mobility analyzer transfer functions using identical instruments in series. Aerosol Science and Technology, 27, 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, D. R., Pui, D. Y. H., Hummes, D., Fissan, H., Quant, F. R., & Sem, G. J. (1998). Design and evaluation of a nanometer aerosol differential mobility analyzer (Nano-DMA). Journal of Aerosol Science, 29, 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colberg, C. A., Tona, B., Catone, G., Sangiorgio, C., Stahel, W. A., Sturm, P., & Staehelin, J. (2005). Statistical analysis of the vehicle pollutant emissions derived from several European road tunnel studies. Atmospheric Environment, 39, 2499–2511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. European Commission (2008). COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 459/2012, Amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as Regards Emissions from Light Passenger and Commercial Vehicles (Euro 6) of 29 May 2012. Available on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1447739990827&uri=CELEX:32012R0459.
  8. Fuchs, N. A., & Sutugin, A. G. (1971). Highly dispersed aerosols. In G. M. Hidy, & J. R. Brock (Eds.), Topics in current aerosol research. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  9. Gertler, A. W., Gillies, J. A., & Pierson, W. R. (2000). An assessment of the mobile source contribution to PM10 and PM2.5 in the United States. Water Air and Soil Pollution, 123(1–4), 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gertler, A. W., Abu-Allaban, M., Coulombe, W., Gillies, J. A., Pierson, W. P., Rogers, F. C., Sagebiel, J. C., Tarnay, L., & Cahill, T. A. (2001). Measurements of mobile source particulate emissions in a highway tunnel. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 27(1–4), 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heal, M. R., Kumar, P., & Harrison, R. M. (2012). Particles, air quality, policy and health. Chemical Society Reviews, 41(19), 6606–6630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. John, C., Friedrich, R., Staehelin, J., Schläpfer, K., & Stahel, W. A. (1999). Comparison of emission factors for road traffic from a tunnel study (Gubrist tunnel, Switzerland). Atm. Environment, 33, 3367–3376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kerminen, V. M., KariLehtinen, E., Anttila, J. T., & Kulmala, M. (2004). Dynamics of atmospheric nucleation mode particles: a timescale analysis. Tellus B, 56, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kerminen, V. M., & Kulmala, M. (2002). Analytical formulae connecting the “real” and “apparent” nucleation rate and the nucleus number concentration for atmospheric nucleation events. Journal of Aerosol Science, 33, 609–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kittelson, D.B., Megan, A., Winthrop Jr., F.W. (1999) Review of diesel particulate matter sampling. Downloadable from www.me.umn.edu/centers/cdr/reports/EPA_report3.pdf.
  16. Kulmala, M., Vehkamaki, H., Petaja, T., Dal Maso, M., Lauri, A., Kerminen, V., Birmilli, W., & McMurry, P. (2004). Formation and growth rates of ultrafine atmospheric particles: a review of observations. Journal of Aerosol Science, 35, 143–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kumar P, Britter R, Langley D. (2007a). Street versus rooftop level concentrations of fine particles in a Cambridge street canyon. In: 6th international conference on urban air quality Limassol, Cyprus, 27–29 March 2007, vol. 147; p. 135–8. ISBN: 978–1-905313-46-4.Google Scholar
  18. Kumar, P., Fennell, P., Britter, R. (2007b). Measurements and dispersion behaviour of particles in various size ranges (5 nm > Dp < 1000 nm) in a Cambridge street canyon. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Harmonisation within Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes Cambridge, UK, 2–5 July 2007. p. 368–72.Google Scholar
  19. Kumar, P., Fennell, P., & Britter, R. (2008). Measurements of particles in the 5–1000 nm range close to road level in an urban street canyon. The Science of the Total Environment, 390, 437–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lall, A. A., & Friedlander, S. K. (2006). On-line measurement of ultrafine aggregate surface area and volume distributions by electrical mobility analysis: I. Theoretical Analysis. J. Aerosol Sci., 37, 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu, S., Hu, M., Wehner, B., Wiedensohler, A., & Cheng, Y. (2008). Aerosol number size distribution and new particle formation at a rural/coastal site in pearl river delta (PRD) of China. Atmospheric Environment, 42, 6284–6295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Minoura, H., Takekawa, H., & Terada, S. (2009). Roadside nanoparticles corresponding to vehicle emissions during one signal cycle. Atmospheric Environment, 43, 546–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murugavel, P., & Chate, D. M. (2009). Generation and growth of aerosols over Pune, India. Atmospheric Environment, 43, 820–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Panis, L. I., Geus, B. D., Vandenbulcke, G., Willems, H., Degraeuwe, B., Bleux, N., Mishra, V., Thomas, I., & Meeusen, R. (2010). Exposure to particulate matter in traffic: a comparison of cyclists and car passengers. Atmospheric Environment, 44, 2263–2270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Park, K., Kittelson, D. B., Zachariah, M. R., & McMurry, P. H. (2004). Measurement of inherent material density of nanoparticle agglomerates. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Phuleria, H. C., Geller, M. D., Fine, P. M., & Sioutas, C. (2006). Size-resolved emissions of organic tracers from light-and heavy-duty vehicles measured in a California roadway tunnel. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(13), 4109–4118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Seinfeld, J. H., & Pandis, S. N. (1998). Atmospheric chemistry and physics: from air pollution to climate change. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  28. Sturm, P. J., Rodler, J., Lechner, B., & Almbauer, R. A. (2001). Validation of emission factors for road vehicles based on street tunnel measurements. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 27(1–4), 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sternbeck, J., Sjödin, A., & Andreasson, K. (2002). Metal emissions from road traffic and the influence of re-suspension—results from two tunnel studies. Atmospheric Environment, 36, 4735–4744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ulevicius, V., & Mordas, G. (2002). On-road vehicle fine particle emissions from measurements in a Vilnus tunnel. (pp. 372–376). GRAZ: Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Transport and Air Pollution.Google Scholar
  31. Weingartner, E., Keller, C., Stahel, W. A., Burtscher, H., & Baltensperger, U. (1997). Aerosol emission in a road tunnel. Atmospheric Environment, 31, 451–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang, K. M., & Wexler, A. S. (2004). Evolution of particle number distribution near roadways—part I: analysis of aerosol dynamics and its implications for engine emission measurement. Atmospheric Environment, 38, 6643–6653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. K. Mishra
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • M. L. Aggarwal
    • 1
  • P. Berghmans
    • 2
  • E. Frijns
    • 2
  • L. Int Panis
    • 2
  • K. M. Chacko
    • 1
  1. 1.Shriram Institute for Industrial ResearchDelhiIndia
  2. 2.VITO, Flemish Institute for Technological ResearchMolBelgium

Personalised recommendations