Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 64536464

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Atmospheric Environment
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv

Characteristics of cabin air quality in school buses in Central Texas

Donghyun Rim, Jeffrey Siegel, Jarett Spinhirne, Alba Webb, Elena McDonald-Buller*
Center for Energy and Environmental Resources, 10100 Burnet Road, Building 133, M/S R7100, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78758, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study assessed in-cabin concentrations of diesel-associated air pollutants in six school
Received 14 December 2007 buses with diesel engines during a typical route in suburban Austin, Texas. Air exchange
Received in revised form 27 March 2008 rates measured by SF6 decay were 2.604.55 h1. In-cabin concentrations of all pollutants
Accepted 18 April 2008
measured exhibited substantial variability across the range of tests even between buses of
similar age, mileage, and engine type. In-cabin NOx concentrations ranged from 44.7 to
Keywords:
148 ppb and were 1.310 times higher than roadway NOx concentrations. Mean in-cabin
Diesel
PM2.5 concentrations were 720 mg m3 and were generally lower than roadway levels.
Mobile sources
Indoor air In-cabin concentrations exhibited higher variability during cruising mode than frequent
stops. Mean in-cabin ultrane PM number concentrations were 610032,000 parti-
cles cm3 and were generally lower than roadway levels. Comparison of median concen-
trations indicated that in-cabin ultrane PM number concentrations were higher than or
approximately the same as the roadway concentrations, which implied that, by excluding
the bias caused by local trafc, ultrane PM levels were higher in the bus cabin than
outside of the bus. Cabin pollutant concentrations on three buses were measured prior
to and following the phased installation of a Donaldson Spiracle Crankcase Filtration
System and a Diesel Oxidation Catalyst. Following installation of the Spiracle, the Diesel
Oxidation Catalyst provided negligible or small additional reductions of in-cabin pollutant
levels. In-cabin concentration decreases with the Spiracle alone ranged from 24 to 37% for
NOx and 26 to 62% and 6.6 to 43% for PM2.5 and ultrane PM, respectively. Comparison of
the ranges of PM2.5 and ultrane PM variations between repetitive tests suggested that
retrot installation could not always be conclusively linked to the decrease of pollutant
levels in the bus cabin.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction size which facilitates deposition deep in the lung, many

Among the gaseous components of regulatory and
public concern in diesel exhaust are nitrogen oxides
(NOx), sulfur compounds, and hydrocarbons, including
formaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, and poly-
cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (USEPA, 2002). Diesel
particulate matter is composed of ne particles, with
organic components generally comprising 2040% of the
particle weight (USEPA, 2002). In addition to their small
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 512 471 2891; fax: 1 512 471 1720.
E-mail address: ecmb@mail.utexas.edu (E. McDonald-Buller).
of the organic components of diesel particulate matter
including PAHs are recognized as having carcinogenic
properties (USEPA, 2002).
Although a number of studies have been conducted to
measure in-vehicle concentrations of fuel-associated
pollutants inside passenger cars and buses (e.g. Chan
et al., 1991; Lawryk and Weisel, 1996; Jo and Park, 1999;
Rodes et al., 1998; Chan and Chung, 2003), those that
specically address cabin air quality in school buses with
diesel engines during typical commuting routes for school
children are more limited (Solomon et al., 2001; Wargo
et al., 2002; Behrentz et al., 2004, 2005; Sabin et al.,
2005a,b; Marshall and Behrentz, 2005; Hill et al., 2005;

1352-2310/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.04.030
6454 D. Rim et al. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 64536464

Hammond et al., 2007). Researchers characterized the 2. Methodology

range of in-cabin concentrations of black carbon, PAHs,
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particle counts, and ne particulate 2.1. Bus and route selection
matter (PM2.5) mass during school bus commutes in the Los
Angeles Unied School District (Behrentz et al., 2004, 2005; The study was conducted with six school buses of the
Sabin et al., 2005a,b). The Los Angeles Study included Round Rock Independent School District (RRISD) located
conventional diesel buses (1975, 1985, 1993, and 1998 within the ve-county Austin metropolitan area. The RRISD
model years), a 1998 diesel bus with a particle trap, and eet included 220 buses of a variety of model years and
a 2002 compressed natural gas (CNG) bus. Bus age, bus features (i.e. emission controls, air conditioning, etc.) at
type, and window position were all found to be important the time of project implementation. Buses were selected
variables affecting self-pollution (Behrentz et al., 2004; for the study through a semi-random process, which rst
Sabin et al., 2005a,b). Up to 0.3% of the air inside the cabin eliminated all buses that did not meet basic criteria (diesel
of older buses (circa 1975) with the windows closed was engines, standard size, no emission controls) and then
found to be due to self-pollution (Behrentz et al., 2004). applied a random number generator to select 10 buses
The Los Angeles Study and others (Batterman et al., from this shortened list. The six buses shown in Table 1
2002; Jo and Park, 1999; Wargo et al., 2002) indicate that were selected in order to achieve a sample with a range
pollutant concentrations measured at ambient monitoring of model years, with required emissions retrot compati-
stations are not necessarily representative of those inside bility, and with two buses that had fully operational air
passenger cars or bus cabins. Mean pollutant concentra- conditioning systems. All buses in the study had Interna-
tions inside buses were 29 times higher than measure- tional T444E engines with the exception of the oldest bus
ments at loading/unloading zones and 1.53 times higher (Bus 5) which had an International 6.9L engine.
than at bus stops in the Los Angeles Study. These results Testing occurred during July and early August of 2006.
were similar to those of Batterman et al. (2002) which indi- Only research team members and the driver were on-board
cated that VOC concentrations along bus routes and in buses during the tests. The driver and route were the same
buses exceeded concentrations at ambient regulatory for all of the tests. The route was a typical 42.4 km suburban
monitoring sites by a factor of 24 in Detroit, Michigan. school bus route and required approximately 100 min to
Wargo et al. (2002) found ne particulate matter (PM2.5) complete. The route consisted of 21 stops; 17 were in
concentrations measured on-board diesel school buses to suburban residential neighborhoods, one was along
be 510 times higher than levels measured at ambient a more congested multi-lane roadway, one was at an apart-
monitoring stations in Connecticut. ment complex, and two were at an elementary school and
Hill et al. (2005) conducted studies in Atlanta, Ann a middle school. With the exception of the schools, the
Arbor, and Chicago to examine the benets of different stops were approximately 30 s in duration. At the elemen-
retrot technologies including a diesel particulate lter tary and middle schools, the driver opened the door for as
(DPF), a Donaldson Spiracle Crankcase Filtration System long as was typical for the unloading of children and then
(CFS), and a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) on school bus pulled forward and idled with the front door closed as it
cabin air quality. The retrot technologies address different would be done in a bus queue.
sources of emissions: the DPF and DOC address tailpipe
emissions whereas a CFS is a closed crankcase ltration 2.2. Study design and instrumentation
device. The DPF in combination with a CFS and ultra low
sulfur diesel (ULSD) was the only retrot combination The project consisted of three phases of testing:
found to reduce emissions of PM2.5, ultrane PM, black
carbon, and PAHs (Hill et al., 2005). In a more recent study 1. Before retrots (all six buses listed in Table 1);
of DOC retrots, Hammond et al. (2007) measured 1526% 2. After installation of a Donaldson CFS (Buses 3, 4, and 6);
reductions in cabin concentrations of 0.021 mm PM and
due to the installation of a DOC in several buses in 3. After installation of a Donaldson DOC and a CFS (Buses 3,
Birmingham, AL. 4, and 6).
The primary purpose of the present study was to assess
cabin concentrations of diesel-associated air pollutants on A total of 15 tests were conducted: the 12 described
school buses during a typical route in the suburban Austin, above along with 3 additional tests that were repetitions
Texas area. Air exchange rates, NOx, PM2.5 mass, and ultra- for Bus 1 (2 tests) and Bus 2 (1 test) without retrots.
ne (0.011 mm) PM number concentrations were
measured in six school buses all with International diesel
Table 1
engines, but of varying ages, mileage, and operational air Bus characteristics
conditioning systems. Cabin pollutant concentrations on
Bus ID Bus Engine Air Odometer reading
three buses were measured prior to and following the no. make year conditioning (km)
phased installation of a CFS and then a DOC in combination
1 Bluebird 2001 No 158,086
with the CFS. The present study expands the number of 2 Bluebird 2001 No 141,688
buses examined before and after retrots in the United 3 Bluebird 2000 No 174,533
States, and assesses cabin air exchange rates and NOx 4 Thomas 1996 Yes 195,506
concentrations as well as PM2.5 and ultrane PM across 5 Wayne 1985 No 423,123
6 Thomas 1996 Yes n/a
a range of buses.
 D. Rim et al. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 64536464
A summary of the instruments used in the study and
their characteristics is provided in Table 2. The SF6 and
NOx analyzers were calibrated according to manufacturers
instructions at the beginning of every day of testing and
analysis. Span checks were performed on the NOx analyzer
before and after all bus runs. The PM2.5 instruments were
calibrated with gravimetric lter samples as described
below. All other instruments were calibrated at the begin-
ning and/or the end of the study by the manufacturer or
with reference standards (CO2 and ultrane PM). When
multiple instruments were used for both in-cabin and
roadway measurements (CO2, PM2.5, ultrane PM), these
instruments were co-located for 15 min approximately
once every other day of testing. In addition to the parame-
ters described above, a Vehicle-Tracking Inc. LandAirSea
Tracking GPS unit was used to track the route, elevation,
and speed during each run.
With the exception of the NONO2NOx monitor, which
required an external power source and, consequently, was
located near the front of the bus, instruments were secured
to the seats and sampled air in the center of the bus. The
NONO2NOx monitor was connected to both indoor and
roadway sampling lines and was periodically manually
switched to measure roadway conditions. The inlet of the
indoor sampling line was positioned in the center of the
bus cabin whereas the roadway sampling inlet was outside
of a front-left window. The outdoor temperature, relative
humidity and CO2 sensors remained at the bus yard during
the route. The TSI DustTrak and SidePak were used to
monitor PM2.5 concentrations outside and inside of the
bus, respectively. In a similar way, two TSI P-Traks were
used to monitor ultrane PM inside and outside of the
bus. Both roadway particle measurements were sampled
through 30 cm lengths of tubing though an open and taped
window at the approximate midpoint of the bus. Windows
remained closed for all tests and tightly sealed to the extent
possible around sampling lines. The research team attemp-
ted to minimize their movements to the extent possible
inside of the buses during the testing.
Table 2
Instruments used in the study and their characteristics
Measurement Instrument
Outdoor temperature Thermistor
Indoor temperature
Outdoor RHa Resistance
Indoor RHa
SF6 Gas Chromatograph/Electron
Capture Detector (GC/ECD)
Outdoor CO2 Nondispersive infrared (NDIR)
Indoor CO2
NO, NO2, NOx Chemiluminescence analyzer
PM2.5 Laser photometer
Ultrane PMb Condensation Particle
Counter (CPC)
a
Relative humidity.
b
In 0.011 mm size range.
6455
Air exchange rate was measured by decay of SF6. At the
beginning of the bus run, approximately 3 L of 0.1% SF6 was
released on the bus. An attempt was made to evenly
disperse the SF6 while walking up and down the aisle. After
15 min of mixing, a sample of bus air was taken and stored
in a sealed and purged Tedlar bag. For each SF6 decay test,
a total of 89 Tedlar bag air samples were collected with an
interval of approximately 10 min. Bags that were found to
be leaky or contaminated were excluded from the analysis.
The bags were later analyzed with a Lagus gas chromato-
graph/electron capture detector (GC/ECD), and the air
exchange rate was assessed as the best t slope to a plot
of the natural log of the ratio of concentration of SF6 to
the initial concentration vs. the time of the sample. This
method, based on a mass balance on SF6 assumes several
conditions including that the air in the bus was well-mixed
and that the air exchange rate was constant. Given that
mixing was imperfect and the air exchange rate varies
with bus speed, the standard error in the slope from the
regression was taken as the uncertainty in the air exchange
rate, rather than the much smaller uncertainty associated
with the instrument.
Air exchange rates were also estimated with a steady-
state mass balance for CO2. The CO2 emission rates in the
bus were estimated using average CO2 emission rate of
occupants in the bus (ASHRAE, 2005). The volume of the
air in the bus was measured as 4043 m3. In-cabin and
outside CO2 concentrations were averaged over approxi-
mately 1 h during the mid-test-period (3090 min after
the departure), and taken as the steady-state CO2 concen-
trations. Given the assumptions inherent to a mass balance,
particularly the assumptions of constant emissions and
steady-state conditions, it should be regarded as an approx-
imate estimate of the ventilation rate. The uncertainty of
estimating air exchange rate was based on an error
propagation for each term in the mass balance.
Because of the sensitivity of many optical PM2.5
instruments to the particles being measured, the PM2.5
instruments were calibrated with gravimetric lter
Brand Model no. Detection
limit/range
Onset Hobo U10/U12 20 to 70  C
TSI Q-Trak 8551 060  C
Onset Hobo U10/U12 2595%
TSI Q-Trak 8551 595%
Lagus Autotrac ATGM 0.05 ppb
(Linear range)
Tellaire 7001 1 ppm
TSI Q-Trak 8551
Thermo Electron 42C Trace Level 0.05 ppb
TSI AM510 SidePak 1 mg m3
8520 DustTrak
TSI 8525 PTrak 1 cm3
6456 D. Rim et al. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 64536464

samples collected using an SKC761-203B personal expo- 3. Results and discussion

sure monitor (PEM) badge connected to a 10 L min1
pump. Concentrations measured by the SidePak were
higher than concentrations measured using the lter
sampler by factor of 2.8; in contrast, the DustTrak yielded
concentrations that were lower by a factor of 2. All reported
PM2.5 concentrations were corrected with these factors.
Over the course of testing, several deviations from the
above protocol occurred as follows: the loss of NONO2
NOx indoor measurements on some runs and relatively
few or no NONO2NOx roadway measurements occurred
due to high temperature or sample line switching issues;
the periodic, rather than continuous, measurement of
roadway ultrane PM on several runs occurred because of
a malfunctioning instrument.
Table 3 lists the conditions and timing for each test.
Throughout this paper, all tests are referred to with a unique
test identication, shown in the rst column of Table 3,
where the rst number is the bus number, the next set of
characters determine whether there was no engine retrot
(NONE), a CFS installed (CFS), or both a CFS and a DOC
(CFSDOC), and the last lower case letter represents a repeti-
tion test. The tests were typically completed between 06:00
and 12:00 on the days of testing. Based on measurements
with a Hobo, the outdoor temperatures for all the tests
were 25.741.4  C. However, two nearby weather stations
(TCEQ Austin Northwest C3 and Audubon C38) close to
the testing site reported the outdoor temperatures of 24
35  C. The very hot outside temperatures for three tests
(2NONEa, 4NONE, 6NONE) reect periods of time where
the outdoor temperature sensor was likely in direct
sunlight, and, thus, these results as well as the correspond-
ing relative humidities should be interpreted with caution.
Each test typically had four or ve occupants on the bus
(one driver and three or four researchers). The number of
occupants is important when interpreting PM2.5 data.
PM2.5 can be resuspended by human activities (Abt et al.,
2000), and therefore would be expected to be higher on
bus runs with higher number of occupants and with
more activity.
Results of the tests are organized by identication of
different bus activities and in-cabin conditions, estimation
of air exchange rates, measurements of the pollutants, and
differences in pollutant concentrations after retrots.
3.1. Time in mode and in-cabin environment
Fig. 1 shows the duration of each bus operation mode for
each test. Five modes of operation are identied from the
test activity logs: idling front door closed (idle closed),
idling front door open (idle open), cruise, bus stops
(stop), and other. The bus stops represent frequent bus
stops for loading/unloading children in residential areas.
The largest portion of the other category is idling in the
bus yard with unknown or varying door position at the
beginning of the test. Because the same route was driven,
the duration of the test is relatively consistent, ranging
from approximately 102110 min with the exception of
two tests: 2NONEb and 6NONE. Both tests had a relatively
longer period in the bus yard at the beginning of the tests.
In all of the 15 tests, cruising was the most signicant mode
of operation of the buses, followed by bus stops and idling
with either the front door open or closed.
Bus cabin conditions, including in-cabin temperature
and relative humidity, are given in Table 4. During all tests,
the bus windows were closed, and air-conditioned buses
were operated in recirculation mode. Mean in-cabin
temperatures were 19.424.8  C in buses with air condi-
tioning (Bus 4 and Bus 6) and 28.433.8  C in non-air-
conditioned buses. The in-cabin relative humidity was
3942% in the air-conditioned buses and 5575% in the
non-air-conditioned buses, suggesting dehumidication
by the air-conditioner. In-cabin and outdoor temperatures
were substantially higher in this study than in the Los
Angeles Study (Behrentz et al., 2004, 2005; Sabin et al.,
2005a,b) where in-cabin temperatures were 2027  C and
relative humidity was 2953%.

Table 3
Test conditions

Test ID Bus Retrot Date Time of test (AM) No. of occupants Average outdoor conditions
statusa (incl. driver)
Temp. (SD) RHb CO2 (SD)
( C) (SD) (%) (ppm)
1NONEa 1 NONE 7/11/2006 8:3410:22 7 30.5 (1.8) 63 (7) 340 (10)
1NONEb 1 NONE 7/13/2006 6:408:31 6 27.8 (1.5) 72 (5) 344 (7)
1NONEc 1 NONE 8/2/2006 6:398:24 4 27.5 (0.2) 77 (1) 327 (5)
2NONEa 2 NONE 7/13/2006 10:0611:51 7 40.5 (2.2) 33 (5) 364 (10)
2NONEb 2 NONE 7/20/2006 6:248:22 5 28.4 (0.2) 69 (1) 354 (9)
3NONE 3 NONE 7/17/2006 6:428:23 5 28.3 (0.4) 68 (2) 360 (6)
3CFS 3 CFS 7/26/2006 6:198:04 5 25.7 (0.3) 81 (7) 341 (12)
3CFSDOC 3 CFSDOC 7/27/2006 6:127:52 5 26.3 (0.5) 73 (2) 353 (8)
4NONE 4 NONE 7/17/2006 9:0010:42 5 41.4 (4.0) 33 (8) 384 (7)
4CFS 4 CFS 7/27/2006 8:4510:33 5 28.7 (0.6) 68 (1) 342 (9)
4CFSDOC 4 CFSDOC 8/2/2006 9:1911:06 4 30.9 (1.0) 61 (5) 338 (9)
5NONE 5 NONE 7/18/2006 6:438:25 5 29.9 (1.4) 57 (4) 375 (11)
6NONE 6 NONE 7/18/2006 9:1411:17 5 39.6 (1.9) 33 (3) 385 (11)
6CFS 6 CFS 7/31/2006 6:188:04 4 27.3 (0.3) 75 (1) 326 (7)
6CFSDOC 6 CFSDOC 8/3/2006 7:058:53 4 28.1 (0.9) 74 (4) 338 (11)
a
CFS Spiracle only; CFSDOC Spiracle and DOC.
b
Relative humidity.
 D. Rim et al. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 64536464 6457

1NONEa 1NONEa
1NONEb 1NONEb
1NONEc 1NONEc
2NONEa 2NONEa
2NONEb 2NONEb
3NONE 3NONE
3CFS 3CFS
3CFSDOC 3CFSDOC
4NONE 4NONE
4CFS 4CFS
4CFSDOC
5NONE 4CFSDOC
6NONE 5NONE
6CFS 6NONE
6CFSDOC 6CFS
6CFSDOC
0 25 50 75 100 125
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Minutes
Air exchange rate (1/hr)
Cruise Stop Idle closed Idle open Other
SF6 CO2
Fig. 1. Duration (minutes) in each mode during each test.
Fig. 2. Bus cabin air exchange rates determined from SF6 and CO2
measurements.
3.2. Air exchange rates from SF6 and CO2 measurements
recirculation. Rodes et al. (1998) measured air exchange
Air exchange rates were determined from in-cabin SF6
rates of 1997 Ford Explorer, 1997 Ford Taurus and 1991
and CO2 concentrations. In-cabin air exchange rates based
Chevrolet Caprice at 55 mph with low ventilation setting,
on the exponential decay of SF6 concentration ranged
reporting air exchange rates of 13.5, 14 and 39 h1, respec-
from 2.60 to 4.55 h1 over the tests, as shown in Fig. 2. Vari-
tively. The air exchange rates observed in this study are
ations in the air exchange rates between tests on the same
larger than the rates in stationary cars reported by Park
bus are explained by differences in outdoor and in-cabin
et al. (1998), but much lower than the rates in vehicles at
temperatures, wind speed and direction, and bus speed.
55 mph reported by Rodes et al. (1998). The relatively large
3NONE exhibited the smallest air exchange rate whereas
volumes of the buses when compared to the smaller vehi-
4CFSDOC presented the largest air exchange rates. Air
cles, as well as a bus route with numerous stops and
conditioning, particularly the large holes in the rear of
periods of low speeds, likely contributed to these
the bus for the refrigerant lines, may have increased the
differences.
air exchange rate for Bus 4. However, air exchange rates
Fig. 2 also presents air exchange rates estimated with
for Bus 6, which also had air conditioning, were similar to
CO2 concentrations. The air exchange rates were 2.9
those of non-air-conditioned buses. More controlled
5.1 h1. For the CO2 results, the standard error in the air
measurements should be performed to ascertain the effect
exchange rate was approximately 20%, which is much
of air conditioning on air exchange rates. These air
larger than that of SF6 estimates. This high standard error
exchange rates are generally smaller than those reported
was mainly caused by uncertainties associated with the
by Fitz et al. (2003).
CO2 emission rate, non-constant CO2 concentrations, and
Park et al. (1998) measured air exchange rates for three
bus volume estimation. However, despite the large uncer-
stationary automobiles. The study reported rates of 13 h1
tainties, the air exchange rates from CO2 data exhibit
for windows closed with no outside air supply, and 1.8
a similar pattern to the SF6 results, suggesting that the
3.7 h1 for windows opened with the fan set on
use of CO2 as an air exchange measurement in vehicles
can provide a useful approximation to actual air exchange
rates, as long as additional uncertainty is acceptable.
Table 4
In-cabin environmental conditions

Test ID Temperature Relative humidity

3.3. NOx and NO2 concentrations
mean (SD) mean (SD)
( C) (%) In-cabin (mean and median) and roadway (median) NOx
1NONEa 33.8 (1.4) 61 (8) concentrations over the entire test, and in-cabin NOx
1NONEb 29.6 (1.1) 70 (5) concentrations (mean and median) for two modes of oper-
1NONEc 28.3 (1.1) 75 (3) ation (frequent stops/door openings and cruising) are
2NONEa 36.0 (1.5) 55 (3)
2NONEb 29.2 (0.9) 69 (2)
summarized in Table 5. Similar results for NO2 concentra-
3NONE 29.3 (1.2) 71 (2) tions are shown in Table 6. NO2 concentrations were deter-
3CFS 28.4 (0.8) 68 (1) mined as the difference between NOx and NO
3CFSDOC 27.6 (1) 71 (2) concentrations. During three early tests, 1NONEa, 1NONEb,
4NONE 24.5 (0.8) 42 (2)
and 2NONEa, the NOxNO2NO data collection was not
4CFS 24.3 (1.4) 41 (4)
4CFSDOC 24.8 (0.6) 41 (2) successful due to overheating of the instrument or power
5NONE 31.2 (2.4) 57 (6) failure. Tests of these buses in the same retrot conditions
6NONE 23.6 (1.1) 39 (3) were all repeated. As shown in Table 6, in-cabin NO2
6CFS 19.4 (1.8) 50 (6) concentrations were relatively low with little variability,
6CFSDOC 20.1 (1.5) 47 (5)
indicating that NO was the dominant component of NOx.
6458 D. Rim et al. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 64536464

Table 5
Bus in-cabin and roadway NOx concentrations

Test ID In-cabin Roadway Frequent stops Cruise with

and door openings occasional stops

No. of Mean (SD) Median Median Mean Median Mean (SD) Median
cabin (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) (SD) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
measurements (ppb)
1NONEc 69 64 (23) 67 15 61 (19) 63 71 (22) 71
2NONEb 93 120 (39) 120 80 97 (42) 88 130 (32) 130
3NONE 70 76 (31) 87 44 81 (26) 88 56 (26) 58
3CFS 71 48 (16) 44 12 56 (20) 61 41 (8.0) 42
3CFSDOC 52 45 (27) 48 37 47 (19) 53 45 (42) 23
4NONE 54 150 (36) 143 150 (38) 170 150 (35) 150
4CFS 72 96 (41) 96 9.3 120 (37) 120 81 (23) 89
4CFSDOC 69 100 (20) 100 18 99 (18) 100 100 (20) 99
5NONE 55 130 (23) 130 68 140 (24) 140 130 (27) 130
6NONE 99 130 (35) 110 30 130 (40) 100 120 (29) 110
6CFS 60 95 (42) 81 17 94 (34) 87 85 (50) 76
6CFSDOC 79 94 (37) 96 22 110 (35) 120 81 (27) 91

An example of this trend is also shown in Fig. 3a which
presents in-cabin concentrations for 3NONE during two
modes of bus operation: cruising and periods of frequent
stops. NOx concentrations closely track NO concentrations.
In-cabin NOx concentrations varied signicantly
between tests ranging from 45 to 150 ppb, as shown in
Table 5. For example, although 1NONEc and 2NONEb had
the same bus manufacturer and engine type, and similar
mileage and meteorological conditions, NOx concentrations
between the two tests differed by a factor of 2. The data for
the two different modes in Table 5 suggest no clear depen-
dency of in-cabin NOx concentration on bus operation
mode. Although in 9 tests out of 12, the mean NOx concen-
trations were higher during frequent stops than cruising
mode, concentration differences between the two modes
were generally within a standard deviation of each other.
The indistinct pattern of concentrations was also observed
for NO2, as shown in Table 6. These results suggest that in
addition to bus operation mode, in-cabin NOx concentra-
tions are associated with several factors such as wind direc-
tions, trafc, air exchange rate, and local air quality.
Table 5 shows that roadway NOx concentrations varied
widely over the tests ranging from 15 to 80 ppb. In-cabin
NOx concentrations were 1.310 times higher than roadway
NOx concentrations, depending on the test conditions.
Future studies should also examine the inuence of
roadway sampling line position in measuring self-pollution
as well as the potential inuence from confounding sour-
ces. In this study, the mean in-cabin NOx concentration in
the oldest bus (5NONE: 1985 model year) was the second
largest among all buses and approximately three times
higher than concentrations measured in newer buses. Beh-
rentz et al. (2004) reported self-pollution in the oldest bus
(1975 model year) in the Los Angeles Study to be as much as
10 times higher than in newer buses.
In-cabin NO2 concentrations in the study ranged from
10 to 31 ppb with a mean of 20 ppb. Behrentz et al.
(2005) reported NO2 concentrations of 34110 ppb with
a mean of 73 ppb for all six buses tested during commutes
on Los Angeles Unied School District bus routes, which
was markedly higher than the range reported in this study.
Similar to the current study, the Los Angeles Study included
routes with loading/unloading zones, bus stops, and bus
commutes. However, substantial differences existed
between the two studies including time in operating
mode, window position, bus engines and engine retrots,

Table 6
Bus in-cabin and roadway NO2 concentrations

Test ID In-cabin Roadway Frequent stops Cruise with

and door openings occasional stops

No. of Mean Median Median Mean Median Mean Median

cabin (SD) (ppb) (ppb) (SD) (ppb) (SD) (ppb)
meas. (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
1NONEc 69 15 (2.9) 16 3.1 14 (2.9) 14 16 (2) 17
2NONEb 93 25 (5.1) 23 29 21 (2.4) 21 24 (3.9) 23
3NONE 70 22 (2.8) 23 22 23 (3.1) 23 22 (2.6) 22
3CFS 71 15 (1.7) 14 5.4 15 (2.1) 15 14 (1) 14
3CFSDOC 52 18 (3.9) 17 18 18 (4.4) 19 15 (1.8) 14
4NONE 54 31 (5.0) 32 29 (4.7) 29 30 (5) 32
4CFS 72 14 (2.7) 14 7.0 13 (2.1) 13 15 (3) 14
4CFSDOC 69 22 (5.6) 23 7.8 22 (4.9) 23 22 (5.8) 24
5NONE 55 21 (5.9) 22 19 21 (5.7) 21 19 (7.5) 21
6NONE 99 29 (5.7) 29 26 28 (6.5) 25 29 (4) 30
6CFS 60 10 (3.0) 10 7.2 9.9 (3.3) 9.1 9.8 (2.8) 9.6
6CFSDOC 79 21 (6.3) 20 12 23 (7.4) 24 18 (3.4) 18
 D. Rim et al. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 64536464 6459

a Cruising Freq. Stop

b Cruising Freq. Stop
c Cruising Freq. Stop

Ultrafine PM (#/cm3)
NOX ,NO,NO2 (ppb)

150 150

PM2.5 (g/ m3)

150000
100 100 100000
50 50 50000

0 0 0
6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30
Time (hour) Time (hour) Time (hour)
NOx NO NO2 In-cabin Roadway In-cabin Roadway

In-cabin NOx, NO and NO2 PM2.5 Ultrafine PM

Fig. 3. Concentration proles for 3NONE during different modes of bus operation: (a) in-cabin NOx, NO and NO2, (b) in-cabin and roadway PM2.5, and (c) in-cabin
and roadway ultrane PM.

and ambient background concentrations. For example, the showing higher. The PM2.5 data for the two different modes
average background NOx concentration was 49 ppb for in Table 8 indicate no distinct dependency of PM2.5 concen-
the Los Angles Study and 15 ppb for the current study. tration on bus operation mode. Half of the tests show
higher mean PM2.5 concentration during frequent stops
3.4. PM2.5 mass concentrations than cruising. However, in-cabin concentrations also
exhibited higher variability when cruising than during
Table 7 summarizes in-cabin and roadway PM2.5 mass periods with frequent stops (Fig. 3b).
concentrations over the entire test, and Table 8 presents Mean in-cabin PM2.5 concentrations in this study were
PM2.5 mass concentrations during two different modes of 720 mg m3, and were lower than those reported for the
operation. Fig. 3b shows an example of a time-series of Los Angeles Study (Behrentz et al., 2004, 2005; Sabin
indoor and roadway concentrations for one experiment et al., 2005a,b) and by Hill et al. (2005). Although the Los
(3NONE). The time-series shows more frequent peaks for Angeles Study reported similar concentrations outside of
roadway concentrations than for in-cabin concentrations. the buses (20  2.4 mg m3) to this study, in-cabin PM2.5
These large variations in roadway PM2.5 concentrations concentrations during bus commutes were 2162 mg m3.
likely reect periods when buses were in heavy trafc. Hill et al. (2005) reported mean in-cabin concentrations
Mean in-cabin PM2.5 concentrations were less than or of 2176 mg m3 in Ann Arbor, 40163 mg m3 in Chicago,
equal to the mean roadway concentration with the excep- and 2377 mg m3 in Atlanta. They also reported PM2.5
tion of 2NONEb. This test had relatively high PM2.5 concen- concentrations outside of the buses of 1150 mg m3 in
trations at the beginning of the test during preparation Ann Arbor, 3958 mg m3 in Chicago, and 1365 mg m3 in
activities. Median PM2.5 concentrations, which are less Atlanta.
affected by the large peaks in cabin concentrations, showed Although PM2.5 concentrations were expected to
no discernable pattern, with six tests having lower in-cabin increase with the number of occupants in the bus because
than roadway PM2.5 concentrations and the remaining nine of occupant activities, no such correlation was found,

Table 7
Bus in-cabin and roadway PM2.5 mass concentrations

Test ID In-cabin Roadway

No. of Mean (SD) Median No. of Mean (SD) Median

measurements (mg m3) (mg m3) measurements (mg m3) (mg m3)
1NONEa 648 16 (6) 15 648 19 (14) 16
1NONEb 657 20 (5) 19 575 25 (20) 18
1NONEc 627 20 (5) 19 630 28 (13) 24
2NONEa 631 16 (6) 15 630 19 (12) 14
2NONEb 601 18 (8) 15 586 12 (11) 8
3NONE 606 19 (9) 19 606 27 (67) 10
3CFS 607 7 (2) 7 581 7 (9) 6
3CFSDOC 600 10 (2) 9 600 11 (5) 10
4NONE 602 11 (4) 10 595 14 (16) 8
4CFS 648 8 (2) 7 639 17 (13) 14
4CFSDOC 597 8 (2) 7 590 21 (8) 18
5NONE 612 9 (2) 9 607 10 (10) 8
6NONE 614 13 (5) 11 1212 14 (20) 7
6CFS 636 9 (4) 9 609 16 (16) 8
6CFSDOC 639 14 (5) 14 641 33 (17) 28
6460 D. Rim et al. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 64536464

Table 8 concentrations with the exception of 1NONEa and

In-cabin PM2.5 mass concentrations for frequent stops and cruise 5NONE. High roadway mean concentrations were associ-
Test ID Frequent stops and Cruise with ated with intermittent sources that caused large peaks in
door openings occasional stops the roadway concentration prole, as shown in Fig. 3c
Mean (SD) Median Mean (SD) Median which is a time-series plot for 3NONE. However, the
(mg m3) (mg m3) (mg m3) (mg m3) comparison of median concentrations indicated that in-
1NONEa 15 (3) 14 19 (7) 17 cabin ultrane PM concentrations were higher than or
1NONEb 17 (3) 16 22 (6) 21 approximately the same as roadway concentrations.
1NONEc 19 (4) 19 21 (6) 20
Among all of the tests, the largest in-cabin and roadway
2NONEa 15 (3) 15 17 (6) 15
2NONEb 13 (4) 12 20 (8) 18
ultrane PM concentrations were associated with the old-
3NONE 20 (7) 20 17 (8) 16 est bus (5NONE); mean in-cabin concentrations between
3CFS 9 (2) 8 6 (2) 7 this bus and newer buses differed by as much as a factor
3CFSDOC 10 (2) 9 9 (3) 9 of 5.
4NONE 9 (3) 9 10 (3) 9
The data for the two different modes in Table 10 indicate
4CFS 8 (2) 8 7 (3) 7
4CFSDOC 8 (1) 8 7 (1) 6 that the mean ultrane PM concentrations were higher
5NONE 9 (2) 9 9 (1) 8 during frequent stops than cruising mode in 10 tests out
6NONE 11 (3) 10 13 (5) 12 of 15. However, concentration differences between the
6CFS 9 (3) 8 8 (4) 9 two modes were generally within a standard deviation of
6CFSDOC 14 (4) 15 12 (6) 12
each other.
This study and the study by Hill et al. (2005) observed
widely varying roadway concentrations. In-cabin ultrane
implying that the in-cabin PM2.5 mass concentrations were PM concentrations in this study were generally lower in
instead affected by outside sources. Kittelson (1998) noted mean and higher in median than roadway concentrations.
that by number almost all of the particles from diesel The lower mean in-cabin concentration in this study is in
engine exhaust are less than 0.05 mm, and would therefore contrast with Hill et al. (2005) who reported mean concen-
be unlikely to affect the PM2.5 concentrations because of trations that were well above roadway concentrations.
the low mass of very small particles. This implies that Mean in-cabin ultrane PM number concentrations
even if a number of particles emitted from the bus exhaust in this study were 610032,000 particles cm3. These
inltrate the bus cabin, their contributions to PM2.5 mass results were lower than the measurements by Hill et al.
concentrations may be relatively low. Accordingly, in-cabin (2005), who reported mean in-cabin concentrations of
PM2.5 mass concentration may not be the best indicator of 950053,000 particles cm3 for 15 buses in Ann Arbor,
human exposure to diesel exhaust, and in general is not 30,00075,000 particles cm3 for 6 buses in Chicago, and
a sensitive indicator of vehicle emissions, in part due to 700050,000 particles cm3 for 6 buses in Atlanta.
substantial background of both primary and secondary The pattern of greater median ultrane PM concentra-
aerosols in the ne particle mode. Thus, ultrane PM tion in-cabin vs. on the roadways is apparent, especially
concentration which counts particle numbers rather than in comparison with the PM2.5 data. It does seem likely
mass could potentially provide more informative data for that diesel exhaust inltrates the bus cabin. However, it is
evaluating self-pollution from diesel exhaust. However, as difcult to generalize the extent of self-pollution due to
discussed in further detail below, Hill et al. (2005) sug- the small sample sizes and many variable factors that
gested that PM2.5 increases in the bus cabin may be associ- occurred during the tests. The use of an exhaust tracer,
ated with emissions that originate from the crankcase (oil such as that done by Behrentz et al. (2004), would allow
droplets/mist) rather than the tailpipe. for more precise quantication of self-pollution.

3.5. Ultrane PM number concentration 3.6. Impacts of retrots

Tables 9 and 10 present ultrane PM number concentra-
tions across all tests and for two modes of operation,
respectively. For tests conducted prior to July 26th, two
TSI PTrak devices were operated, and the numbers of in-
cabin and roadway measurements were similar. After July
26th one of the PTrak devices stopped functioning, and
thereafter only one PTrak device operated periodically for
both in-cabin and roadway measurements resulting in
fewer measurements, particularly for roadway samples.
In general, roadway ultrane PM concentrations
exhibited much higher variability than in-cabin concentra-
tions with the exception of 1NONEa. This test had many
unexplained large spikes for in-cabin concentrations which
may have been due to instrument malfunction, given the
excessive heat on that day. Mean in-cabin ultrane PM
concentrations were generally lower than roadway
The testing program was designed as a phased installa-
tion of the Spiracle CFS followed by the addition of a DOC
for Buses 3, 4, and 6. Fig. 4 shows concentration proles
of NOx, PM2.5, and ultrane PM observed for the three buses
before and after retrots. In each graph, time zero repre-
sents when the bus was idling in the bus yard before the
trip.
The indoor concentration proles in Fig. 4 indicate that
the concentrations of NOx, PM2.5, ultrane PM observed
following the installation of retrots were similar to or
lower than those observed before the retrots. However,
there is very little difference between the two retrot pack-
ages, suggesting minimal marginal impact of adding a DOC.
Absolute and percent differences in the mean concen-
trations of each pollutant before and after the installation
of each retrot package are presented in Fig. 5. Negative
 D. Rim et al. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 64536464 6461

Table 9
Bus in-cabin and roadway ultrane PM number concentrations

Test ID In-cabin Roadway

No. of Mean (SD) Median No. of Mean (SD) Median

measurements (particles cm3) (particles cm3) measurements (particles cm3) (particles cm3)
1NONEa 477 6290 (2280) 5900 366 15,100 (18,900) 5600
1NONEb 639 15,000 (26,300) 5580 641 8890 (2080) 8770
1NONEc 466 6910 (2690) 6750 101 8770 (7480) 5960
2NONEa 452 6050 (3930) 4410 326 7430 (9230) 4050
2NONEb 582 15,900 (5240) 15,200 580 17,200 (21,300) 8750
3NONE 597 24,100 (11,600) 22,800 602 25,200 (35,000) 10,800
3CFS 573 13,800 (5410) 13,200
3CFSDOC 510 8740 (3540) 8940 82 9200 (1980) 9160
4NONE 583 13,100 (3670) 12,200 591 15,000 (17,600) 8730
4CFS 546 8060 (3000) 7600 102 8340 (5330) 6730
4CFSDOC 460 6180 (1440) 5900 120 7240 (6730) 4830
5NONE 588 32,300 (13,400) 30,500 607 24,400 (31,700) 12,400
6NONE 603 9360 (2260) 9130 611 15,800 (19,500) 8730
6CFS 486 8740 (4570) 8210 108 8630 (6100) 6630
6CFSDOC 528 10,000 (4890) 9320 108 15,900 (16,500) 9650

absolute differences in concentrations indicate lower in-
cabin concentrations observed when the retrot package
was installed. In most cases, in-cabin concentrations of all
pollutants showed a decrease following the installation of
a CFS, although the magnitude of the decrease varied
depending on the specic bus and pollutant. The large error
bars in Fig. 5 are reective of the larger variations in in-
cabin and roadway concentrations discussed above.
Fig. 5a indicates that the concentration decrease with
Spiracle CFS installation ranged from 28 to 52 ppb (24
37%) for NOx and 8 to 19 ppb (3665%) for NO2. However,
other factors existing during the tests also could have
contributed to lower in-cabin NOx concentrations. For
example, lower roadway concentrations and higher air
exchange rates were observed for the tests with the
Spiracle CFS installation. The data in Fig. 5b suggest that
the addition of the DOC contributed little or no changes
to in-cabin NOx and NO2 concentrations.
Fig. 5a also illustrates decreases of 412 mg cm3 (26
62%) and 62010,400 cm3 (6.643%) for in-cabin PM2.5
and ultrane PM concentrations, respectively, following
CFS installation. Reduction of in-cabin PM2.5 occurred
even with high roadway PM2.5 concentrations and a small
number of occupants (Bus 4 and Bus 6). Greater reductions
of PM2.5 relative to ultrane PM are likely to be due to the
fact that the CFS is a crankcase device and therefore would
remove oil mists and other large particles in the engine. Hill
et al. (2005) reported that PM2.5 increases in the bus cabin
were associated with crankcase emission rather than tail-
pipe emission. However, any health effects from the oil
mist in the crankcase would likely be different than those
from diesel exhaust and this should be considered when
evaluating exposure impacts and selecting retrots.
Although in-cabin ultrane PM concentrations in this study
decreased with CFS installation, roadway concentrations
were generally also lower during the post-retrot tests,
complicating the analysis of these results. Hill et al.
(2005) reported lower in-cabin ultrane PM concentrations
after the installation of a CFS on a bus in Ann Arbor. As
shown in Fig. 5b, no obvious additional in-cabin PM2.5
reductions were found with the addition of a DOC once
the CFS had been installed.

Table 10
Ultrane PM number concentrations for frequent stops and cruise

Test ID Frequent stops Cruise with

and door openings occasional stops

Mean (SD) Median Mean (SD) Median

(particles cm3) (particles cm3) (particles cm3) (particles cm3)
1NONEa 6040 (819) 6310 6430 (2190) 5800
1NONEb 10,100 (13,000) 4360 8540 (16,700) 4390
1NONEc 7030 (1850) 6950 7490 (3220) 7830
2NONEa 6950 (3020) 5730 4590 (2990) 3650
2NONEb 12,800 (4690) 12,400 17,700 (3530) 17,200
3NONE 27,200 (11,100) 22,900 20,100 (9310) 21,700
3CFS 16,300 (5920) 15,300 11,700 (4780) 11,800
3CFSDOC 9090 (2230) 9530 8290 (4320) 7950
4NONE 11,900 (3320) 12,000 13,300 (2950) 12,300
4CFS 8780 (2140) 8030 7560 (2710) 7200
4CFSDOC 6240 (1110) 5980 6010 (1850) 5760
5NONE 34,500 (7670) 32,400 33,100 (154,500) 28,400
6NONE 9040 (3130) 7780 9190 (951) 9240
6CFS 8570 (4480) 7340 7240 (3620) 8130
6CFSDOC 10,700 (2920) 9540 9520 (7100) 8490
6462 D. Rim et al. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 64536464

a b c

Ultrafine PM (#/cm3)
150 45 45000

PM2.5 (g/m3)
NOX (ppb)

100 30 30000

50 15 15000

0 0 0
0 .5 1 1.5 2 0 .5 1 1.5 2 0 .5 1 1.5 2
Time (hour) Time (hour) Time (hour)
NONE CFS CFS&DOC NONE CFS CFS&DOC NONE CFS CFS&DOC

Bus 3: NOx Bus 3: PM2.5 Bus 3: Ultrafine PM

d e f

Ultrafine PM (#/cm3)
240 PM2.5 (g/m3) 30 30000
NOX (ppb)

180
20 20000
120
10 10000
60
0 0 0
0 .5 1 1.5 2 0 .5 1 1.5 2 0 .5 1 1.5 2
Time (hour) Time (hour) Time (hour)
NONE CFS CFS&DOC NONE CFS CFS&DOC NONE CFS CFS&DOC

Bus 4: NOx Bus 4: PM2.5 Bus 4: Ultrafine PM

g h i

Ultrafine PM (#/cm3)
240 30000
PM2.5 (g/m3)

60
NOX (ppb)

180
45 20000
120
30
10000
60 15
0 0 0
0 .5 1 1.5 2 0 .5 1 1.5 2 0 .5 1 1.5 2
Time (hour) Time (hour) Time (hour)
NONE CFS CFS&DOC NONE CFS CFS&DOC NONE CFS CFS&DOC

Bus 6: NOx Bus 6: PM2.5 Bus 6: Ultrafine PM

Fig. 4. NOx, PM2.5, and ultrane PM concentrations before and after Crankcase Filtration System (CFS) retrots and both CFS and Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC)
retrots for Bus 3: (a) NOx, (b) PM2.5, and (c) ultrane PM; Bus 4: (d) NOx, (e) PM2.5, and (f) ultrane PM; and Bus 6: (g) NOx, (h) PM2.5, and (i) ultrane PM.

Reduction of ultrane PM was observed for Buses 3 and
4 with the addition of a DOC, which was much smaller
than the reduction due to the CFS. In contrast, Bus 6 which
had a very high roadway concentration during the test
with the DOC, showed negligible reduction of in-cabin
ultrane PM. The differences in the results suggest that
the reduction of in-cabin ultrane PM might have been
the consequences of low roadway concentrations or differ-
ences in air exchange rates, rather than retrot installa-
tion. Hill et al. (2005) found a change from 28,000
50,000 to 31,00038,000 particles cm3 after the addition
of a DOC and a CFS. They concluded that, on average, the
retrots lead to no reduction of ultrane PM. However,
Hammond et al. (2007) used similar instrumentation to
that reported here and in Hill et al. (2005) and reported
1526% reductions in ultrane PM concentrations on
several buses with DOCs. Thus, based on the results of
this study and those previously reported, the impact of
a DOC on in-cabin ultrane PM concentrations appears
to depend on the specic bus and trafc, among other
factors.
Among the three buses, Bus 3 showed the largest reduc-
tions of both PM2.5 mass and ultrane number PM concen-
trations. Bus 4 and Bus 6 had air conditioning which often
includes air lters or leads to particle losses in the ducts
and other components. This may have caused the decrease
of PM concentrations in the bus cabin irrespective of the
retrots and reduced the contribution of self-pollution to
in-cabin PM concentration.
The variability of in-cabin pollutant concentrations
between repetitive tests was compared with the vari-
ability in pollutant reductions observed with the installa-
tion of retrots. Tests without the retrot installation
were performed three times for Bus 1 and twice for Bus
 D. Rim et al. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 64536464 6463

a 20 5
b
20

Ultrafine PM(103/cm3)
NOX (ppb), NO2 (ppb) 7
0 0

Ultrafine PM(103/cm3)
5

NOX (ppb), NO2 (ppb)

36 0
-20 -5 0

PM2.5 (g/m3)
54 65 7

PM2.5 (g/m3)
26 22
-40 38 -10 -20 28 31 -5
29
29 10
-60 -15 -10
37 -40 53
-80 -20 -15
24 62 -60
-100 43 -25 52 -20
35 -80 41 -25
-120 -30 25 64
32 -30
-100
NOX NO2 PM2.5 Ultrafine PM NOX NO2 PM2.5 Ultrafine PM

Bus 3 Bus 4 Bus 6 Bus 3 Bus 4 Bus 6

Differences after CFS installation Differences after CFS&DOC installation

Fig. 5. Difference in pollutant concentrations prior to and following installation of the (a) Spiracle CFS and (b) Spiracle CFS and DOC. Axes indicate absolute
changes, and numbers below all bars indicate relative reductions.

2. The repetitive tests were compared to the reference 4. Conclusions

tests (1NONEa, 2NONEa). Fig. 6 illustrates the differences
in mean in-cabin concentrations between the repeated The current study assessed in-cabin concentrations of
tests and reference tests. The variations observed with diesel-associated air pollutants in six school buses, all
repetitions were 23 mg cm3 (118%) for PM2.5 and with International diesel engines, but of varying ages,
87009900 cm3 (54163%) for ultrane PM. High vari- mileage, and operational air conditioning systems, during
ability in ultrane PM concentrations in the bus cabin a typical route in suburban Austin, Texas. Air exchange rates
was likely due to the variability in roadway measured by SF6 decay were 2.604.55 h1 and were lower
concentrations. than those reported in other studies with smaller vehicles.
Comparison of Fig. 5 with Fig. 6 suggests that the range Air exchange rates from CO2 measurements showed
of PM2.5 variation between repetitive tests (118%) was a similar pattern to the SF6 results, suggesting that CO2
generally lower than the PM2.5 reductions observed with data can provide a useful approximation to air exchange
the retrot (863%). This would imply that the CFS is rates, as long as increased uncertainty is acceptable. The
effective for reducing in-cabin PM2.5. In contrast, the measurements data showed substantial variability in bus
comparison also indicated that the range of ultrane PM cabin concentrations of all pollutants across the range of
variations between repetitive tests (54163%) was tests, even between buses of similar age, mileage, and
substantially higher than the reduction of ultrane PM engine type.
after retrot installation (764%). This suggests that the Cabin pollutant concentrations on three buses were
retrot installation could not be conclusively linked to the measured prior to and following retrot installation.
decrease of ultrane PM in the bus cabin. Following installation of the Spiracle Crankcase Filtration
System, the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst provided negligible
or small additional reductions of in-cabin pollutant concen-
trations. In-cabin concentration decreases with the Spiracle
20 163
ranged from 24 to 37% for NOx and 26 to 62% and 6.6 to 43%
13
for PM2.5 and ultrane PM, respectively. Comparison of the
Ultrafine PM (103/cm3)

10
ranges of PM2.5 and ultrane PM variations between repet-
itive tests suggested that retrot installation could not
PM2.5 (g/m3)

0
always be conclusively linked to the decrease of pollutant
-10 1 concentrations in the bus cabin.
18
-20
Acknowledgments
-30

54 We express our deepest gratitude to Hazel Barbour of

58
-40 the Central Texas Adopt-A-School Bus Program, and Dan
Test1: 1NONEb 1NONEb 2NONEa Roberts, Director of Transportation for the Round Rock
Test2: 1NONEa 1NONEc 2NONEb Independent School District (RRISD). We thank Ron Seres,
PM2.5 Ultrafine PM the bus driver for all of the tests, as well as Dennis Thomp-
son and the RRISD bus maintenance staff who provided in-
Fig. 6. Differences in pollutant concentrations between repetitive tests of kind support for the installation of the retrots. We thank
the same bus without retrot installation. Gabriel Beko of the Technical University of Denmark, David
6464 D. Rim et al. / Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 64536464
Allen of The University of Texas at Austin and Ramon
Alvarez of Environmental Defense Fund for their insights
and assistance. We also express our appreciation to the
Donaldson Company, Inc. and to David Hitchcock of the
Houston Advanced Research Center. Although preparation
of this manuscript is based on work supported by the State
of Texas through a Grant from the Houston Advanced
Research Center, Texas Environmental Research Consor-
tium and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, it
does not necessarily reect the views of these agencies
and no ofcial endorsement should be inferred.
References
Abt, E., Suh, H.H., Allen, G., Koutrakis, P., 2000. Characterization of indoor
particle sources: a study conducted in the metropolitan Boston area.
Environmental Health Perspectives 108 (1), 3544.
ASHRAE, 2005. ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals. American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA
(Chapter 8).
Batterman, S.A., Peng, C.Y., Braun, J., 2002. Levels and composition of vola-
tile organic compounds on commuting routes in Detroit, Michigan.
Atmospheric Environment 36 (3940), 60156030.
Behrentz, E., Fitz, D.R., Pankratz, D.V., Sabin, L.D., Colome, S.D., Fruin, S.A.,
Winer, A.M., 2004. Measuring self-pollution in school buses using
a tracer gas technique. Atmospheric Environment 38 (23), 37353746.
Behrentz, E., Sabin, L.D., Winer, A.M., Jeong, S., Fitz, D.R., Pankratz, D.V.,
Colome, S.D., Fruin, S.A., 2005. Relative importance of school bus-
related microenvironments to childrens pollutant exposure. Journal
of the Air and Waste Management Association 55 (10), 14181430.
Chan, C.C., Spengler, J.D., Ozkaynak, H., Lefkopoulou, M., 1991. Commuter
exposures to VOCs in Boston, Massachusetts. Journal of the Air and
Waste Management Association 41 (12), 15941600.
Chan, A.T., Chung, M.W., 2003. Indooroutdoor air quality relationships in
vehicle: effect of driving environment and ventilation modes. Atmo-
spheric Environment 37 (27), 37953808.
Fitz, D.R., Winer A.M., Colome S., Behrentz, E., Sabin, L.D., Lee, S.J., Wong,
K., Kozawa, K., 2003. Characterizing the range of childrens pollutant
exposure during school bus commutes. California Air Resources Board
Report 00-322, Sacramento, CA.
Hammond, D.M., Lalor, M.M., Jones, S.L., 2007. In-vehicle measurement of
particle number concentrations on school buses equipped with diesel
retrots. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 179, 217225.
Hill, L.B., Zimmerman, N.B., Gooch, J., 2005. A Multi-City Investigation of
the Effectiveness of Retrot Emissions Controls in Reducing Expo-
sures to Particulate Matter in School Buses. Clean Air Task Force,
Boston, MA.
Jo, W.K., Park, K.H., 1999. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in
the passenger side and the back seat of automobiles. Journal of Expo-
sure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 9 (3), 217227.
Kittelson, D.B., 1998. Engines and nanoparticles: a review. Journal of Aero-
sol Science 29 (56), 575588.
Lawryk, N.J., Weisel, C.P., 1996. Concentrations of volatile organic
compounds in the passenger compartments of automobiles. Environ-
mental Science and Technology 30 (3), 810816.
Marshall, J.D., Behrentz, E., 2005. Vehicle self-pollution intake fraction:
childrens exposure to school bus emissions. Environmental Science
and Technology 39 (8), 25592563.
Park, J.H., Spengler, J.D., Yoon, D.W., Dumyahn, T., Lee, K., Ozkaynak, H.,
1998. Measurement of air exchange rate of stationary vehicles and
estimation of in-vehicle exposure. Journal of Exposure Analysis and
Environmental Epidemiology 8 (1), 6578.
Rodes, C., Sheldon, L., Whitaker, D., Clayton, A., Fitzgerald, K., Flanagan, J.,
1998. Measuring concentrations of selected pollutants inside Califor-
nia vehicles. California Air Resources Board Report 95-339, Sacra-
mento, CA.
Sabin, L.D., Behrentz, E., Winer, A.M., Jeong, S., Fitz, D.R., Pankratz, D.V.,
Colome, S.D., Fruin, S.A., 2005a. Characterizing the range of childrens
air pollutant exposure during school bus commutes. Journal of Expo-
sure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 15 (5), 377387.
Sabin, L.D., Kozawa, K., Behrentz, E., Winer, A.M., Fitz, D.R., Pankratz, D.V.,
Colome, S.D., Fruin, S.A., 2005b. Analysis of real-time variables
affecting childrens exposure to diesel-related pollutants during
school bus commutes in Los Angeles. Atmospheric Environment 39
(29), 52435254.
Solomon, G.M., Campbell, T.R., Feuer, G.R., Masters, J., Samkian, A., Paul, K.
A., 2001. No Breathing in the Aisles: Diesel Exhaust Inside School
Buses. Natural Resources Defense Council and Coalition for Clean
Air, New York, NY.
USEPA, 2002. Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust,
EPA/600/8-90/057F. National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, D.C.
Wargo, J., Brown, D., Cullen, M., Addiss, S., Alderman, N., 2002. Childrens
Exposure to Diesel Exhaust on School Buses. Environmental and
Human Health, Inc., North Haven, CT.