journal of environmental sciences 125 (2023) 266–276

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/jes

Variability of fuel consumption and CO2 emissions

of a gasoline passenger car under multiple
in-laboratory and on-road testing conditions

Boya Zhou 1, Liqiang He 2,∗, Shijian Zhang 1, Rui Wang 1, Luowei Zhang 1,
Mengliang Li 1, Yu Liu 1, Shaojun Zhang 2,3,4, Ye Wu 2,3,4, Jiming Hao 2,3,4
1 China Automotive Technology and Research Center Co., Ltd. Tianjin 300300, China
2 School of Environment, State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, Tsinghua
University, Beijing 100084, China
3 State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Sources and Control of Air Pollution Complex, Beijing 100084,

China
4 Beijing Laboratory of Environmental Frontier Technologies, School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing

100084, China

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

Article history: An increasing divergence regarding fuel consumption (and/or CO2 emissions) between real-
Received 1 November 2021 world and type-approval values for light-duty gasoline vehicles (LDGVs) has posed severe
Revised 27 December 2021 challenges to mitigating greenhouse gases (GHGs) and achieving carbon emissions peak and
Accepted 28 December 2021 neutrality. To address this divergence issue, laboratory test cycles with more real-featured
Available online 4 January 2022 and transient traffic patterns have been developed recently, for example, the China Light-
duty Vehicle Test Cycle for Passenger cars (CLTC-P). We collected fuel consumption and
Keywords: CO2 emissions data of a LDGV under various conditions based on laboratory chassis dy-
Fuel consumption namometer and on-road tests. Laboratory results showed that both standard test cycles
CO2 emissions and setting methods of road load affected fuel consumption slightly, with variations of less
Light-duty gasoline vehicle (LDGV) than 4%. Compared to the type-approval value, laboratory and on-road fuel consumption of
Real driving the tested LDGV over the CLTC-P increased by 9% and 34% under the reference condition
(i.e., air conditioning off, automatic stop and start (STT) on and two passengers). On-road
measurement results indicated that fuel consumption under the low-speed phase of the
CLTC-P increased by 12% due to the STT off, although only a 4% increase on average over
the entire cycle. More fuel consumption increases (52%) were attributed to air conditioning
usage and full passenger capacity. Strong correlations (R2 > 0.9) between relative fuel con-
sumption and average speed were also identified. Under traffic congestion (average speed
below 25 km/hr), fuel consumption was highly sensitive to changes in vehicle speed. Thus,
we suggest that real-world driving conditions cannot be ignored when evaluating the fuel
economy and GHGs reduction of LDGVs.
© 2022 The Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of
Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V.

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail: helq@tsinghua.edu.cn (L. He).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2021.12.042
1001-0742/© 2022 The Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V.
 journal of environmental sciences 125 (2023) 266–276
Introduction
The rapid socio-economic development and urbanization
over the past two decades have spurred substantial trans-
portation demands demonstrated by skyrocketing vehicle
ownership (National Bureau of Statistic of China NBSC
2021; European Environment Agency EEA 2021; United States
Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics U.S. BTS 2021), which poses severe challenges
to ensuring energy security and alleviating climate change
(Ntziachristos et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2017). Transportation is a
major consumer of fossil energy and consequently an impor-
tant contributor to greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as 28.6% of
total GHG emissions in 2019 for the US (United States Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency U.S. EPA 2021) and 26% in 2018
for the European Union (EU) (European Environment Agency
EEA 2020). Among all transportation sectors, road vehicles
are the largest source in China, accounting for up to 84.1%
of total transportation GHG emissions, 50.9% of which origi-
nate from light-duty vehicles (Ministry of Ecology and Envi-
ronment of the People’s Republic of China MEE 2020). Mitigat-
ing GHG emissions (mainly carbon dioxide (CO2 )) from road
vehicles has been identified as an essential task in China,
responding to the Paris Climate Agreement (i.e., limit global
warming to below 2°C preferably to 1.5°C, compared to pre-
industrial levels) and national climate goals (e.g., to achieve
carbon emissions peak before 2030 and carbon neutrality
by 2060).
To reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption, fuel econ-
omy or CO2 emission standards have been implemented by
most of the world’s major vehicle markets (e.g., China, Eu-
rope, the US, and Japan). Taking light-duty gasoline vehicles
(LDGVs) as an example, China has issued the first fuel con-
sumption standards for individual vehicle models in 2004,
which took effect in two phases (i.e., Phase I in 2005 and
Phase II in 2008). In contrast, Phase III adopted in 2012 and
Phase IV in 2016 not only specify per-vehicle fuel consump-
tion limits but also set corporate-average fuel consumption
(CAFC) targets for each manufacturer, targeting a fleet-average
fuel consumption of 6.9 L/100 km in 2015 and 5.0 L/100 km
in 2020 (MIIT, 2015). China now is implementing the Phase V
fuel consumption standards that took effect on July 1, 2021,
with a target of 4.0 L/100 km (95 g CO2 /km) by 2025 (SAMR and
SA, 2021). It is worth noting that worldwide progress on fuel
economy standards is also remarkable in other major vehi-
cle markets. For example, the first US fuel economy stan-
dard for light-duty vehicles can date back to 1975, aiming
to double the fleet average fuel economy of passenger cars
from 13.6 miles per gallon (mpg) (1974) to 27.5 mpg (1985),
while the current standards (i.e., 2012 rule) set a target of
an estimated 52.5 mpg (89 g CO2 /km) for passenger cars
by 2025 (Tietge et al., 2017). Since 2009 the EU has also set
binding CO2 targets mandating each passenger car manu-
facturer shall comply with an average CO2 emission at 130
g/km (2015) and 95 g/km (2021) under type-approval proce-
dures (European Commission EC, 2009). These progressively
stringent fuel economy standards have posed substantial im-
pacts on the global automotive industry, motivating the appli-
cation of numerous technologies and fuel improvements that
267
can save fuel and reduce CO2 emissions, such as gasoline di-
rect injection (GDI) (He et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2019), turbocharg-
ing (Edwards et al., 2008), vehicle lightweighting and down-
sizing (He et al., 2020), powertrain electrification (Wu et al.,
2012), alternative or blended fuels (Liu et al., 2019; Wu et al.,
2019) and better fuel properties (Zhu et al., 2017; Wen et al.,
2020).
Increasingly stringent fuel economy standards and up-
dated technologies have succeeded in reducing declared fuel
consumption and CO2 emission values measured in the lab-
oratory under standard testing protocols. However, there is
still widespread suspicion about these values, given that they
rarely reflect real-world fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.
Previous studies have pointed out the divergence between
the real-world performance and official type-approval values,
meanwhile noting that its range becomes wider over time
(Fontaras et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2020). Based on real-world
fuel consumption data of more than 1.5 million passenger
cars from China, the EU, the US, and Japan, the international
council on clean transportation (ICCT) reported that the di-
vergence increased from an 8% to 14% range in 2001 to a
25% to 40% range in 2014 and that the growth in the diver-
gence was much more pronounced in China and the EU than
in the US (Tietge et al., 2017). The reasons for the growth of
the divergence in the above regions are probably a complex
combination of various factors, however considerable stud-
ies in China and the EU reveal that the design weaknesses of
the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) is the leading reason
(Marotta et al., 2015; Zheng et al., 2020; Xing et al., 2021). In con-
trast, no unambiguous evidence of systematic manipulation is
available in the US and Japan (Tietge et al., 2017). To address
the laboratory-to-road divergence issues of exhaust pollutant
emissions as well as fuel consumption, the Worldwide Harmo-
nized Light Vehicles Test Cycle (WLTC) has been developed by
the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
as the type-approval cycle, instead of the NEDC. The latest reg-
ulations in China, the EU, and Japan have already adopted the
WLTC (MEP and AQSIQ, 2016; SAMR and SA, 2021; EU, 2017;
MOE, 2015). China also developed the China light-duty vehi-
cle test cycle for passenger cars (CLTC–P) based on more lo-
cal features of real-world road traffic (SAMR and SA, 2019).
Both the WLTC and CLTC-P exhibit more real-featured and
transient traffic patterns, compared to the NEDC. In addition,
other factors have been identified that cause the increasing
divergence between real-world performance and official type-
approval values. The boundary conditions specified in the lab-
oratory test procedures of current fuel economy regulations
are generally loose and unrealistic (e.g., restricted use of ve-
hicle auxiliary systems and lower augmented vehicle mass)
(Zhang et al., 2014; Marotta et al., 2015; Fontaras et al., 2017).
Hence, to achieve real-world benefits, it is very necessary to
convert the type-approval values measured in the laboratory
into on-road fuel savings and emission reductions.
This study aims to clarify the divergence regarding fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions between laboratory and on-
road measurements and evaluate the impacts from on-road
driving conditions (e.g., air conditioning on, full loads, aver-
age vehicle speed). We recruited a typical GDI passenger car
in China and collected its fuel consumption and CO2 emis-
sions data. Laboratory tests over the standard test cycles (i.e.,
268 journal of environmental sciences 125 (2023) 266–276

CLTC-P, NEDC, and WLTC) were first conducted on a chassis

dynamometer. Then on-road measurements were performed
over the CLTC-P cycle on the high-speed loop test road by us-
ing a fuel consumption flow meter. Our findings can provide
meaningful first-hand data to policymakers and researchers,
and enhance their understanding regarding the impact of real
driving conditions on fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.

1. Materials and methods

1.1. Vehicle information

The comparative experiment of fuel consumption based on

chassis dynamometer tests and on-road measurements was
conducted in 2017. One LDGV in compliance with the China
5 (Euro 5 equivalent) emission standard was recruited from
a well-known Chinese automobile manufacturer. This tested
car is a sport utility vehicle (SUV) equipped with three-way
catalytic converters to control exhaust emissions. Market
gasoline from a certified gas station was used throughout this
study and the fuel quality complied with Beijing VI standards
with a sulfur content below 10 mg/kg. The detailed vehicle and
fuel specifications are: production year 2017, odometer ∼9000
km, curb mass 1709 kg, automatic transmission, inline four-
cylinder engine, direct-injection fuel supply, turbocharged air
intake, displacement 2.0 L, power rating 140 kW, and gasoline
with the research octane number of 92 as fuel.
1.2. Test cycles and experimental procedures
Three standard test cycles (i.e., the CLTC-P, NEDC and WLTC,
see Fig. 1) were selected to evaluate the fuel consumption
and CO2 emission characteristics of the tested vehicle. The
CLTC-P comprises three phases with different allocation of
driving conditions, namely, low-speed phase (average speed
of 13.1 km/hr), medium-speed phase (30.7 km/hr) and high-
speed phase (50.9 km/hr), respectively. The total distance of
the entire CLTC-P cycle is 14.5 km, and the duration is 1800
sec (SAMR and SA, 2019). The NEDC consists of four repe-
titions of urban driving segments (i.e., Econonic Commins-
sion for Europe (ECE) 15) featured with low engine load and
low vehicle speed, followed by the extra-urban driving cy-
cle (EUDC) which represents more aggressive and high-speed
driving modes with a maximum vehicle speed of 120 km/hr
(MEP and AQSIQ, 2013; Marotta et al., 2015). The Class 3b WLTC
applicable to the highest power-to-mass vehicle categories
(81.9 W/kg for the tested vehicle), includes low-speed (18.9
km/hr), medium-speed (39.5 km/hr), high-speed (56.6 km/hr),
and extra high-speed (92.0 km/hr) phases, characterized by
more dynamic vehicle speed profile, lower stop duration and
higher travel mileage (EU, 2017). The selected parameters of
the three cycles are summarized in Table S1.
The vehicle was tested as received. Before each test, we
carefully checked and demonstrated the normal status of the
vehicle including engine and after-treatment systems. Fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions are determined by the vehi-
cle’s driving resistances (e.g., aerodynamic drag, rolling resis-
tance, inertia resistances) affected by driving conditions and
vehicle load mass, the powertrain’s efficiency, and the energy
Fig. 1 – Vehicle speed profiles of (a) the China light-duty
vehicle test cycle for passenger cars (CLTC-P), (b) the New
European Driving Cycle (NEDC) and (c) the Worldwide
Harmonized Light Vehicles Test Cycle (WLTC) Class 3b. ECE
15: Econonic Comminssion for Europe 15; EUDC:
extra-urban driving cycle.
consumption of potentially activated auxiliary devices (e.g.,
air conditioning and entertainment systems, lights, and horn)
(Zhang et al., 2021; Kühlwein, 2016; EU, 2017). In this study, we
focused on the impact of driving conditions (including road
load coefficients, test cycles, vehicle load mass), automatic
stop and start (STT) system, and major auxiliary equipment
(i.e., air conditioning) on fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.
Laboratory tests were first performed on a chassis dy-
namometer, which was employed to simulate the driving re-
sistances (i.e., road loads) imposed on the vehicle. In this
study, three CLTC-P tests, two NEDC tests and one WLTC test
with different road loads were conducted (Table 1). Road load
refers to the forces resisting the vehicle forward motion and
is approximated by the three coefficients of a second-order
polynomial (EU, 2017; MEP and AQSIQ, 2016), as Eq. (1):
F = f 0 + f 1 × v + f 2 × v2 (1)
where F (N) is the road load force as a function of vehicle
speed, f0 (N), f1 (N•hr/km), f2 (N•hr2 /km2 ) are the applicable
road load coefficients, respectively, and v (km/hr) is the vehicle
speed.
To accurately measure the fuel consumption and pollutant
emissions, the vehicle on the chassis dynamometer needs to
overcome running resistances comparable to normal on-road
 journal of environmental sciences 125 (2023) 266–276 269

Table 1 – Summary of testing conditions.

Chassis dynamometer tests

Driving condition Reference condition Reference condition Reference condition

Driving cycle CLTC-P NEDC WLTC
Determined method of road load Look-up table (1) Look-up table (1) Calculation (1)
coefficients (Test number) Coast-down (1) Coast-down (1)
Calculation (1)
Passengers 2 2 2
Windows Closed Closed Closed
Air conditioning Off Off Off
Automatic stop and start (STT) On On On
Ambient temperature 30°C
Relative humidity 45%

On-road measurements

Driving condition Reference condition STT off STT off and full load
Driving cycle CLTC-P CLTC-P CLTC-P
Test number 1 2 1
Passengers 2 2 5
Windows Closed Closed Closed
Air conditioning Off Off On
STT On Off Off
Ambient temperature 30-32°C
Relative humidity 72%-78%

driving. There are several methods to determine the road load
coefficients of a test vehicle in current regulations (EU, 2017).
During our experiments, the road load coefficients of each test
were determined by different methods to evaluate the impact
of driving resistances, including look-up table method based
on the vehicle reference mass (i.e., curb mass augmented
by 100 kg), on-road coast-down test, and calculation method
based on vehicle parameters (i.e., test mass, vehicle width, and
height). In this study, the look-up table method and on-road
coast-down method comply with China 5 emission standard
(MEP and AQSIQ, 2013), and the calculation method for default
road load meets with China 6 emission standards (MEP and
AQSIQ, 2016). Three road load curves for the tested vehicle are
illustrated in Fig. S1a.
Then on-road measurements were carried out over the
CLTC-P cycle on a high-speed loop test road to compare the
difference in fuel consumption between laboratory and on-
road tests and evaluate the impacts from the typical real-
world driving conditions (Table 1), for example, STT off, high
load mass and air conditioning usage. Throughout our tests,
auxiliary devices of the tested vehicle were switched off or de-
activated, except as indicated in Table 1. It should be worth
noting that the same passengers (including driver) were se-
lected for multiple tests without personnel replacement dur-
ing the entire test.
Reference condition: a test condition at an ambient tem-
perature of about 30°C with the air conditioning off, window
closed, automatic stop and start (STT) on and two passengers
seated in the tested LDGV; STT off: switching off the STT sys-
tem in the case of reference condtion; STT off and full load:
compared to the reference condition, the STT system was
turned off, passengers were increased from 2 to a full occu-
pancy (i.e., 5 people), and the air conditioning was adjusted
and set to the inner circulation blowing mode according to
the temperature of 22°C and the automatic air volume setting
scheme.
1.3. Measurement systems and data processing
All the chassis dynamometer tests were conducted in
the China Automotive Technology and Research Center
(CATARC)’s laboratory in Tianjin, China, where the fuel con-
sumption testing capability has been qualified by the Ministry
of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) of China. A 48-
inch, 2-wheel-drive light-duty chassis dynamometer (Model
4000 2WD MIM, BURKE E. PORTER Machinery Company, USA)
was used to operate the standard test cycles (i.e., CLTC-P,
NEDC, and WLTC in this study). A constant volume sampler
(Model CVS 7200, HORIBA, Japan) integrated with an analysis
system (Model MEXA-7200, HORIBA, Japan) was employed to
measure gaseous emissions (e.g., CO2 , carbon monoxide (CO),
total hydrocarbon (THC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx )). According
to the recommendatory standard (i.e., GB/T 19233-2020), the
distance-specific fuel consumption is calculated by the carbon
balance method, as Eq. (2).
100  
FC = × 0.273 × EFCO2 + 0.429 × EFCO + 0.866 × EFTHC
D × WC
(2)
where FC (L/100 km) is the fuel consumption, D (g/L) is the
density of gasoline, WC is the ratio of carbon mass to the total
fuel mass, 0.866 for gasoline, EFCO2 (g/km), EFCO (g/km), and
EFTHC (g/km) are the distance-specific emission factors of CO2 ,
CO, and THC, respectively.
On-road fuel consumption measurements over the CLTC-
P were performed on a high-speed loop test road with a to-
tal length of 7.85 km in Yancheng, Jiangsu Province, China.
270 journal of environmental sciences 125 (2023) 266–276
To achieve CLTC-P curve following, an advanced driving assis-
tance system developed by the School of Vehicle and Mobil-
ity, Tsinghua University was applied during the on-road tests.
Fig. S2 presents that the on-road vehicle speed profiles are al-
most within the error criteria as time changes. The error du-
ration of each on-road CLTC-P test was kept within 60 sec,
accounting for less than 3.4% of the total test time (i.e., 1800
sec), and the speed readjustment could be performed within
0.7 sec (Table S2), implying that the CLTC-P cycle can be accu-
rately simulated during the on-road tests. Real-time fuel con-
sumption was collected by a fuel consumption flow meter in-
cluding a gasoline flow meter (Model YT-985/826, Aite, China)
and a speedometer (Model YT-1000, Aite, China). Based on
the instantaneous fuel rate and vehicle speed, fuel consump-
tion (L/100 km) for each operating trip were estimated with
Eq. (3).
T
100 t=1 FRt
FC = T (3)
t=1 vt
where FRt (L/hr) is the instantaneous fuel rate at second t, vt
(km/hr) is the instantaneous vehicle speed at second t, and T
(sec) is the number of seconds for an operating trip.
Furthermore, on-road CO2 emission factors were estimated
by approximate back-calculation based on the carbon balance
method, as given in Eq. (4). It should be pointed out that the
CO and THC were ignored due to their low contribution to
fuel consumption (Zhang et al., 2014). For this tested vehicle,
the results of our laboratory tests show that CO and THC are
responsible for an average share of less than 1% of fuel con-
sumption.
FC × D × WC
EFCO2 = (4)
27.3
The technical specifications of the main laboratory and
on-road analyzers are illustrated in Table S3. For each test,
the installation, calibration, measurement, and verification
of the above analyzers followed the instructions issued by
the instrument manufacturers and the relevant official stan-
dards (e.g., GB/T 19233-2008 and GB 18352.6-2016) to en-
sure measurement accuracy. In addition, the same pro-
fessional driver who is skilled and trained operated the
tested vehicle throughout the laboratory and on-road driving
tests.
2. Results and discussion
2.1. Fuel consumption and CO2 emissions over the
standard cycles with various road load coefficients
According to the current certification requirements, the fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions of LDGVs are normally mea-
sured on a chassis dynamometer under defined driving pa-
rameters (e.g., standard test cycles) and specific external con-
ditions (e.g., road load coefficients and ambient conditions)
(Tietge et al., 2017). In this study, a direct-injection gasoline
SUV was tested to address the different impacts of the stan-
dard test cycles and road load coefficients on vehicle fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions. Fig. 2 presents the detailed
distance-specific fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of each
laboratory test under the reference condition. Our measure-
ment results indicate that the fuel consumption and CO2
emissions show a slight upward as the driving resistances in-
crease. For example, when the road load coefficients are ob-
tained by the look-up table method, fuel consumption and
CO2 emission factor of the test vehicle over the CLTC-P are 8.35
L/100 km and 197 g/km. Since driving resistances determined
by look-up table method, on-road coast-down test, and calcu-
lation method increases in order (Fig. S1a), the fuel consump-
tion values based on coast-down test and calculation method
are higher 2.1% and 3.4% than the look-up table method, re-
spectively. Further, the fuel consumption under three different
CLTC-P phases (i.e., low-, medium- and high-speed phases)
is calculated. The discrepancy of fuel consumption and CO2
emissions mainly occurred under the low-speed and medium-
speed phases. Compared to the look-up table method, the fuel
consumption increases by 0.8%-6.0% for the coast-down test
and 3.4%-6.5% for the calculation method (Fig. S2). However,
there is a very small distinction under the high-speed phase
(-0.6% and 1.1%). A possible reason is that the differences re-
garding road loads gradually decrease as the vehicle speed in-
creases (Fig. S1b).
Obviously, the results over different standard cycles also
confirmed that the fuel consumption and CO2 emissions in-
crease with the increase of road load coefficients (Fig. 2). We
clearly observe that various aspects of inter-cycle distinctions
lead to different impacts on fuel consumption and CO2 emis-
sions. Average fuel consumption values of the tested vehi-
cle over the CLTC-P, NEDC, and WLTC are 8.50±0.14 L/100
km (N=3, the test number and hereinafter), 8.46±0.03 L/100
km (N=2), and 8.82 L/100 km (N=1), respectively. Note that
the fuel consumption over the NEDC is on average 8.4%
higher than the corresponding type-approval value of the
tested vehicle (7.8 L/100 km) with a standard deviation of
0.4%, which is consistent with the finding (9%±8%) reported
by Marotta et al. (2015). This is probably because, unlike the
test conditions in this study (Table S4), manufactures tend
to prefer more fuel-saving conditions (e.g., calm wind, low
load mass, and low road slope) for coast-down parameters set
during the type approval, although fuel consumption mea-
surments are also conducted by using the NEDC. The corre-
sponding CO2 emissions over the above three test cycles are
199±3 g/km (N=3), 200±1 g/km (N=2), and 206 g/km (N=1), re-
spectively. We further estimated the ratio of WLTC to CLTC-P
fuel consumption using the same road load coefficients (i.e.,
determined by the calculation method) with a value of 1.02.
The WLTC cycle is expected to increase fuel consumptions
and CO2 emissions might be attributed to the fact that the
higher proportions of transient and aggressive driving condi-
tions (e.g., higher acceleration and speed) in the WLTC than
the CLTC-P (Fig. 1 and Table S1) resulting in stronger accel-
eration forces and more fuel usage during vehicle operating
(Mock et al., 2014; He et al., 2018). Moreover, a lower idling
share in the WLTC (12.6%), roughly about half that of the CLTP-
P (22.1%), allows for a smaller fuel-saving benefit from acti-
vated STT systems, which might cause a slightly higher fuel
consumption growth than the CLTC-P. For the ratio NEDC to
CLTC-P, a similar value of 1.00±0.01 is found, although the
CLTC-P possesses more transient driving conditions. It is evi-
 journal of environmental sciences 125 (2023) 266–276 271

Fig. 2 – (a) Fuel consumption and (b) CO2 emissions with different road load coefficients over various test cycles under
reference condition.

dent from our results that the difference in fuel consumption

among these three test cycles is not significant, which agrees
with several previous studies of the European Commission’s
Joint Research Centre (JRC) (Marotta et al., 2015; Pavlovic et al.,
2016). More descriptions of test cycle conversions among
worldwide light-duty vehicle fuel consumption (or CO2 emis-
sions) have been reported by Kühlwein et al. (2014).

2.2. Comparisons of laboratory and on-road fuel

consumption and CO2 emissions over the CLTC-P

To minimize the effects of vehicle configuration, operating

conditions, driving behaviors that could cause significant dis-
crepancies in fuel economy between the laboratory test and
real-world driving, we conducted a comparative experiment
using the same vehicle, with the same professional driver,
over the same standard test cycle. As shown in Fig. 3, on-road
fuel consumption and CO2 emission of the tested vehicle over
the CLTC-P are 10.44 L/100 km and 248 g/km under reference
condition, approximately 23% higher than those measured on
the chassis dynamometer in the laboratory and 34% higher
than the type-approval figure (7.8 L/100 km). An on-road test
study based on 60 passenger cars indicated real-world fuel
consumption is 30%±12% higher than type-approval figures
(Zhang et al., 2014). This great divergence, far higher than
that between the three standard test cycles, might be at-
tributed to a series of easily neglect factors, such as weather
conditions (e.g., wind, rain, and snow), road characteristics
(e.g., morphology, grade, and road surface) and vehicle turning
(Fontaras et al., 2017). These are prone to affect real-world fuel
Fig. 3 – Comparisons of laboratory and (a, b) on-road fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions but are currently difficult to
consumption and (c, d) CO2 emissions under the reference
reflect in chassis dynamometer tests. For example, a wind ve-
condition.
locity of 3 m/sec could cause changes in aerodynamic resis-
tance, either positive or negative, by up to 10% (Ligterink et al.,
2016), with respect to change in fuel consumption of about
272 journal of environmental sciences 125 (2023) 266–276
2% on average (Fontaras and Samaras, 2010). Additionally, ve-
hicles require more power output to overcome their gravity
when driving uphill than on flat roads. Park and Rakha (2005)
reported that a 1.5% increase in road grade may trigger a 9% in-
crease in fuel consumption. It is noted that the selected high-
speed loop road has very slight uphill and downhill slopes,
rather than using a fixed road grade as in the laboratory (zero
degrees set in this study).
Besides the vehicle driving tests, we collected large
amounts of real-world fuel consumption data from 3239
owners of the same model vehicle with a total mileage of
27.06 million kilometers by using XiaoXiongYouHao, a Chinese
mobile application that allows users to track and compare
their fuel consumption. It is necessary to highlight that the
driving behaviors of these vehicle owners were completely
autonomous without any interference. This means that the
impact on fuel consumption from real driving factors, includ-
ing air conditioning, loads, road characteristics, weather con-
ditions, fuel variations, vehicle maintenance, driving behav-
iors, etc., were not intentionally removed. Coincidentally, the
average fuel consumption of 10.42 L/100 km from XiaoXiongY-
ouHao, is not significantly different from that of on-road CLTC-
P test under the reference condition. Likewise, the result is 23%
and 34% higher than in-lab CLTC-P and official certification
value, respectively. This finding is new evidence implying that
chassis dynamometer testing is overestimating the fuel effi-
ciency of vehicles. The innovation center for energy and trans-
portation (iCET) in the past few years has also identified the
great gap between XiaoXiongYouHao and type-approval fuel
consumption in the Chinese vehicle market (Qin et al., 2016;
Ding et al., 2015). Qin et al. (2016) demonstrated that the aver-
age gap increase was up to 31% in 2015 for the LDGVs equipped
with automatic transmission based on a set of fuel consump-
tion data from nearly 600,000 users of XiaoXiongYouHao.
Average fuel consumption values under low-, medium-
and high-speed phase of the CLTC-P in the laboratory are
12.37±0.21, 7.58±0.25, and 7.84±0.07 L/100 km, with corre-
sponding CO2 emission factors of 290±4, 178±5 and 184±2
g/km, respectively (Fig. 3b and d). We can observe that on-road
fuel consumption values under CLTC-P medium- and high-
speed phases are higher by 24% and 38% than those in the
laboratory, and the CO2 emission results are comparable. In
contrast, there is no significant divergence between labora-
tory and on-road fuel consumption and CO2 emissions un-
der the CLTC-P low-speed phase. This finding may be under-
standable because, unlike the laboratory chassis dynamome-
ter, the road selected in this study is a high-speed loop runway
where not only the differences in headwinds and road char-
acteristics between the laboratory and actual road, but also
crosswinds, vehicle turning or changing lanes, etc., could ad-
ditionally increase the vehicle driving resistance coefficients,
especially the quadratic one, thus resulting in much greater
impact on the vehicle driving performances at high speeds
(Fontaras et al., 2017).
2.3. Impacts from STT and vehicle loads on the on-road
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
Besides the above on-road test under the reference condition,
we explored the impact of the STT system, air conditioning,
and load mass on real-world fuel consumption and CO2 emis-
sions. Fig. 4 illustrates the results obtained from on-road mea-
surements over the CLTC-P that the fuel consumption and
CO2 emission changes are strongly associated with on-road
driving conditions. We confirmed that the use of STT systems
in vehicles could provide benefits to fuel-saving (Sales et al.,
2017; Prati et al., 2018). With the STT system off, it is obviously
found that average fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of
the tested vehicle over the CLTC-P are 10.89 L/100 km and 259
g/km, 4% higher than those under the reference condition. In
the case of vehicles deactivated with the STT systems, fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions may increase to some ex-
tent, especially under driving conditions that include long pe-
riods of idling (e.g., urban road and congestion conditions). As
shown in Fig. 4, fuel consumption and CO2 emissions under
low- and medium-speed phases of the CLTC-P increase by 12%
and 4% on average, due to the STT system being turned off.
However, for the CLTC-P high-speed phase with a low propor-
tion of idling (∼5.5%), the effect of the STT system is extremely
slight (lower than 1%). This is attributed to the fact that the
STT system could shut down the engine during vehicle stop
phases and ideally reduce idling emissions to zero.
The impact of activated auxiliary devices and increased
payloads on fuel consumption and CO2 emissions are also
concerned in our study. We focused on evaluating on-road
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions under the scenario of
air conditioning usage (set 22°C with internal air circula-
tion) and full passenger capacity with five passengers (here-
inafter referred to as full load). The fuel consumption and
CO2 emission factor over the CLTC-P under full load increase
by 52%, compared to those under the reference condition. In
addition, we observe that full load leads to a significant in-
crease in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions under each
phase of the CLTC-P, 81% for the low-speed phase, 48% for
the medium-speed phase, and 43% for the high-speed phase
(Fig. 4). Several previous studies also demonstrated the im-
pact of air conditioning and load mass on fuel consumption
or CO2 emissions. Air conditioning, one of single largest aux-
iliary systems for LDGVs, is a key device deteriorating the fuel
economy (Lee et al., 2013), due to the extra increase of engine
loads (He et al., 2018). Lee et al., (2013) claimed that increase
rates of LDGV fuel consumption with air conditioning on ver-
sus off were ∼25% at a vehicle speed of 50 km/hr, ∼35% at 75
km/hr, and even up to 90% during idling operation. However,
Zacharof and Fontaras (2016) estimated that the average in-
crease in fuel consumption was only ∼9% due to air condition-
ing usage. The large variation in these studies may be owing
to the lack of consensus on the measurement conditions (e.g.,
air conditioning operation setting, ambient temperature, and
vehicle speed profile). The increase of vehicle load mass can
increase fuel consumption because it demands more power to
accelerate the vehicle during acceleration phases and rolling
resistance is increased proportionally (Fontaras et al., 2017). It
has generally been reported a 100 kg increase account for a 5%
to 10% increase in fuel consumption (Mickūnaitis et al., 2007;
Fontaras et al., 2010). In this study, the full passenger capacity
was increased by three passengers compared to the reference
condition, roughly 200 kg.
Traffic conditions have been recognized as a substantial
impact on the fuel economy of LDGVs (Zhang et al., 2014;
 journal of environmental sciences 125 (2023) 266–276
Fig. 4 – Estimated increase in (a) fuel consumption and (b) CO2 emission over the CLTC-P phases under different on-road
driving conditions.
Fig. 5 – Correlations of relative fuel consumption and
average vehicle speed under 11 short trips of the CLTC-P.
Zheng et al., 2020). To better illustrate the impact of real-world
driving mode on fuel consumption, we divided the CLTC-P into
eleven short trips determined by the idling times and calcu-
lated the fuel consumption of each short trip (Fig. S4). Our
results indicate that average speed may be a dominant fac-
tor affecting fuel consumption. A strong relationship (R2 ≥
0.93) is identified between relative fuel consumption and the
average speed of the short trips (Fig. 5). We find that a dra-
matic increase in fuel consumption under traffic congestion
due to its lower average speed and frequent vehicle speed
variability (i.e., accelerations and decelerations) (Bigazzi and
Clifton, 2015). In contrast, the fuel consumption is less sen-
273
sitive to average vehicle speed exceeding 25 km/hr. Based on
the fitting functions, we conducted the sensitivity analysis to
quantitatively evaluate the impact of average speed on fuel
consumption. When average vehicle speed decreased from 25
to 10 km/hr, representing typical traffic congestions, fuel con-
sumption was estimated to increase by 63%, while the varia-
tion in fuel consumption from 25 to 45 km/hr ranged from -5%
to 8%.
3. Conclusions
Fuel consumption and CO2 emissions data of a GDI passenger
car were collected over the standard test cycles (e.g., CLTC-
P, NEDC, and WLTC) based on chassis dynamometer tests in
the laboratory and on-road measurements on a high-speed
loop test road. Laboratory testing results indicate that there
are slight variations, less than 4%, in fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions between the three sets of road load coefficients
specified according to different methods (i.e., look-up table,
coast-down test and calculation method), although they tend
to increase with the increase of road loads. Likewise, the dif-
ferences in the in-lab fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
between the three standard cycles mentioned above are also
not significant. Average fuel consumption values are 8.50±0.14
L/100 km over the CLTC-P, 8.46±0.03 L/100 km over the NEDC,
and 8.82 L/100 km over the WLTC, with the corresponding CO2
emissions of 199±3, 200±1, and 206 g/km, respectively. We ob-
serve that the fuel consumption over the NEDC was on av-
erage 8.4%±0.4% higher than the corresponding NEDC type-
approval value of the tested vehicle (7.8 L/100 km).
According to a comparative experiment over the CLTC-P,
we find that on-road fuel consumption and CO2 emissions are
10.44 L/100 km and 248 g/km, approximately 23% higher than
those measured in the laboratory and 34% higher than the
type-approval value. Coincidentally, average fuel consump-
274 journal of environmental sciences 125 (2023) 266–276
tion estimated by a large amount of real-world data collected
from XiaoXiongYouHao is not significantly different from the
on-road CLTC-P testing value (10.42 L/100 km), further demon-
strating the overestimation of vehicle’s fuel economy by the
laboratory tests. We also explore the impact of the STT system,
air conditioning, and vehicle load mass on fuel consumption.
Our measurement results indicate that the fuel consumption
and CO2 emissions over the entire CLTC-P increase by approx-
imately 4% due to the STT system off, and we observe that
the increase mostly occurs at low- and medium-speed phases
where the idling share is comparatively high. It is crucial not-
ing that air conditioning usage and full load (i.e., full passen-
ger capacity for LDGVs) increase more fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions by up to 52% over the CLTC-P. Of these, the
low-, medium- and high-speed phases of the CLTC-P increase
by 81%, 48%, and 43%, respectively. Furthermore, we identi-
fied strong correlations (R2 > 0.9) between relative fuel con-
sumption and average vehicle speed of short trips. Under traf-
fic congestion, fuel consumption increases dramatically. For
example, fuel consumption was estimated to increase by 63%
when vehicle speed decreased for 25 to 10 km/hr. Therefore,
real-world driving conditions cannot be ignored when evalu-
ating the fuel consumption and GHG emissions of LDGVs. We
suggest that future regulation designs regarding fuel economy
and GHGs reduction should take full consideration of these
complicated affecting factors and move from controlled lab-
oratory to real-world road as pollutant emission regulations
have done (e.g., the real driving emission (RDE) standard).
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing fi-
nancial interests or personal relationships that could have ap-
peared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was sponsored by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Nos. 52170111 and 41977180) and the
first China First Automobile Works (FAW)-Volkswagen China
Environmental Protection Foundation automobile environ-
mental protection innovation leading plan. The contents of
this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and do
not necessarily represent the official views of the sponsors.
Appendix A Supplementary data
Supplementary material associated with this article can be
found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.jes.2021.12.042.
references
Bigazzi, A.Y., Clifton, K.J., 2015. Modeling the effects of congestion
on fuel economy for advanced power train vehicles.
Transport. Plan. Techn. 38 (2), 149–161.
Ding, D., Ben Dror, M., Kang, L., An, F., 2015. Real-world and
certified fuel consumption gap anlaysis. The Innovation
Center for Energy and Transportation.. Available: https:
//www.efchina.org/Attachments/Report/report- ctp- 20150810/
real- world- and- certified- fuel- consumption- gap- analysis .
Accessed September 25, 2021.
Edwards, S., Müller, R., Feldhaus, G., Finkeldei, T., Neubauer, M.,
2008. The reduction of CO2 emissions from a turbocharged DI
gasoline engine through optimised cooling system control.
MTZ worldwide 69, 12–17.
European Environment Agency (EEA), 2020. Annual European
Union greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2018 and inventory
report 2020.. Available
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/
european- union- greenhouse- gas- inventory- 2020 . Accessed
September 30, 2021.
European Commission (EC), 2009. Regulation No. 443/2009 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 setting
emission performance standards for new passenger cars as
part of the Community’s integrated approach to reduce CO2
from light-duty vehicles. Available:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:
2009:140:0001:0015:EN:PDF. Accessed September 30, 2021.
European Environment Agency (EEA), 2021. Size of the vehicle
fleet in Europe.. Available:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data- and- maps/indicators/
size- of- the- vehicle- fleet/size- of- the- vehicle- fleet- 10 .
Accessed September 25, 2021.
European Union (EU), 2017. Commission Regulation (EU)
2017/1151 of 1 June 2017 supplementing Regulation (EC) No
715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on
type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions
from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and
Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance
information, amending Directive 2007/46/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council, Commission Regulation (EC)
No 692/2008 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1230/2012
and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008.
Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R1151&from=IT. Accessed September
27, 2021.
Fontaras, G., Samaras, Z., 2010. On the way to 130 g
CO2 /km—Estimating the future characteristics of the average
European passenger car. Energy Policy 38, 1826–1833.
Fontaras, G., Zacharof, N., Ciuffo, B., 2017. Fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions from passenger cars in Europe - Laboratory
versus real-world emissions. Prog. Energ. Combust. 60, 97–131.
He, L., Hu, J., Zhang, S., Wu, Y., Zhu, R., Zu, L., et al., 2018. The
impact from the direct injection and multi-port fuel injection
technologies for gasoline vehicles on solid particle number
and black carbon emissions. Appl. Energy 226, 819–826.
He, X., Kim, H., Wallington, T., Zhang, S., Shen, W., Kleine, R.D.,
et al., 2020. Cradle-to-gate greenhouse gas (GHG) burdens for
aluminum and steel production and cradle-to-grave GHG
benefits of vehicle lightweighting in China. Resour. Conserv.
Recy. 152, 104497.
Kühlwein, J., German, J., Bandivadekar, A., 2014. Development of
test cycle conversion factors among worldwide light-duty
vehicle CO2 emission standards. The International Council on
Clean Transportation, Berlin. Available.
Kühlwein, J., 2016. Driving resistances of light-duty vehicles in
Europe: present situation, trends, and scenarios for 2025
(White paper). The International Council on Clean
Transportation. Available.
Lee, J., Kim, J., Park, J., Bae, C., 2013. Effect of the air-conditioning
system on the fuel economy in a gasoline engine vehicle. P. I.
Mech. Eng. D J. Aut. 227, 66–77.
 journal of environmental sciences 125 (2023) 266–276
Ligterink, N., Smokers, R., Spreen, J., Mock, P., Tietge, U., 2016. TNO
report.
Liu, H., Wang, X., Zhang, D., Dong, F., Liu, X., Yang, Y., et al., 2019.
Investigation on blending effects of gasoline fuel with
n-butanol, DMF, and ethanol on the fuel consumption and
harmful emissions in a GDI vehicle. Energies 12, 1845.
Marotta, A., Pavlovic, J., Ciuffo, B., Serra, S., Fontaras, G., 2015.
Gaseous emissions from light-duty vehicles: Moving from
NEDC to the new WLTP test procedure. Environ. Sci. Technol.
49, 8315–8322.
Mickūnaitis, V., Pikūnas, A., Mackoit, I., 2007. Reducing fuel
consumption and CO2 emission in motor cars. Transport 22,
160–163.
Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of
China (MEE), 2020. China mobile source environmental
management annual report (in Chinese). Available
http://www.mee.gov.cn/hjzl/sthjzk/ydyhjgl/202008/
P020200811521365906550.pdf . Accessed
September 21, 2021.
Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of
China (MEP) and Administration of Quality Supervision and
Inspection Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China
(AQSIQ), 2013. Limits and measurement methods for
emissions from light-duty vehicles (China 5), GB 18352.5-2013
(in Chinese). Available: http://www.mee.gov.cn/ywgz/fgbz/bz/
bzwb/dqhjbh/dqydywrwpfbz/201309/t20130917_260352.shtml
. Accessed September 27, 2021.
Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of
China (MEP) and Administration of Quality Supervision and
Inspection Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China
(AQSIQ), 2016. Limits and measurement methods for
emissions from light-duty vehicles (China 6), GB 18352.6-2016
(in Chinese). Available http://www.mee.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/bgg/
201612/t20161223_369497.htm . Accessed September 27, 2021.
Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People’s
Republic of China (MIIT), 2015. Interpretation of the Phase IV
of fuel consumption limits for passenger cars (in Chinese).
Available https://www.miit.gov.cn/zwgk/zcjd/art/2020/
art_b3c3769150d041daac282a6c951b1524.html . Accessed
September 27, 2021.
Ministry of the Environment of Japan (MOE), 2015. Light-duty:
New Post Long-Term Standards (In Japanese). Available
http://www.env.go.jp/air/car/gas_kisei/kisei.pdf . Accessed
August 18, 2021.
Mock, P., Tietge, U., Bandivadekar, A., German, J., 2014. The WLTP:
How a new test procedure for cars will affect fuel
consumption values in the EU. The International Council on
Clean Transportation, Berlin. Available:.
National Bureau of Statistic of China (NBSC), 2021. China energy
statistical yearbook 2020 (in Chinese). Available
http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2021/indexch.htm .
Accessed September 25, 2021.
Ntziachristos, L., Mellios, G., Tsokolis, D., Keller, M., Hausberger, S.,
Ligterink, N., et al., 2014. In-use vs. type-approval fuel
consumption of current passenger cars in Europe. Energy
Policy 67, 403–411.
Pavlovic, J., Marotta, A., Ciuffo, B., 2016. CO2 emissions and energy
demands of vehicles tested under the NEDC and the new
WLTP type approval test procedures. Appl. Energy 177,
661–670.
Prati, M., Costagliola, M.A., Pagliara, F., Mastantuono, E., 2018.
Idling vehicle emissions and fuel consumption in urban use:
Influence of the stop&start technology. In: 2018 IEEE
International Conference on Environment and Electrical
Engineering and 2018 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power
Systems Europe (EEEIC /I&CPS Europe), pp. 1–4.
Qin, L., Ben Dror, M., Kang, L., Sun, H., An, F., 2016. Real-world and
certified fuel consumption gap analysis 2016 (in Chinese). The
275
Innovation Center for Energy and Transportation, Beijing.
Available.
Sales, L.C., Souza, L.G., Monteiro, L.G., Rodrigues, M.S., Borges, F.R.,
2017. Comparison of energy consumption and CO2 reduction
with combined application of the start and stop and
intelligent alternator in a flex fuel vehicle. SAE Technical
Paper No. 2017-36-0115.
State Administration for Market Regulation of People’s Republic
of China (SAMR) and Standardization Administration of
People’s Republic of China (SA), 2019. China automotive test
cycle-Part 1: Light-duty vehicles. GB/T 38146.1-2019 (in
Chinese). Available: http://c.gb688.cn/bzgk/gb/showGb?type=
online&hcno=83CCA04B91B9B5FC6F19BD54E23320B7.
Accessed September 30, 2021.
State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s
Republic of China (SAMR), Standardization Administration of
the People’s Republic of China (SA), 2021. Fuel consumption
limits for passenger cars. GB 19578-2021 (in Chinese).
Available: http://c.gb688.cn/bzgk/gb/showGb?type=
online&hcno=57DA347FDF48E4743786873E5B2D670A .
Accessed September 30, 2021.
Tietge, U., Díaz, S., Yang, Z., Mock, P., 2017. From laboratory to road
international: A comparison of official and real-world fuel
consumption and CO2 values for passenger cars in Europe,
the United States, China, and Japan. The International Council
on Clean Transportation, Berlin. Available:.
United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (U.S. BTS), 2021. National
Transportation Statistics of the United States. Available https:
//www.bts.dot.gov/topics/national- transportation- statistics .
Accessed September 30, 2021.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2021.
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
1990-2019. Available https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/
inventory- us- greenhouse- gas- emissions- and- sinks .
Accessed September 30, 2021.
Wen, M., Zhang, C., Yue, Z., Liu, X., Yang, Y., Dong, F., et al., 2020.
Effects of gasoline octane number on fuel consumption and
emissions in two vehicles equipped with GDI and PFI
spark-ignition engine. J. Energ. Eng. 146, 04020069.
Wu, X., Zhang, S., Guo, X., Yang, Z., Liu, J., He, L., 2019. Assessment
of ethanol blended fuels for gasoline vehicles in China: Fuel
economy, regulated gaseous pollutants and particulate
matter. Environ. Pollut. 253, 731–740.
Wu, Y., Yang, Z., Lin, B., Liu, H., Wang, R., Zhou, B., et al., 2012.
Energy consumption and CO2 emission impacts of vehicle
electrification in three developed regions of China. Energy
Policy 48, 537–550.
Wu, Y., Zhang, S., Hao, J., Liu, H., Wu, X., Hu, J., et al., 2017. On-road
vehicle emissions and their control in China: A review and
outlook. Sci. Total Environ. 574, 332–349.
Xing, J., Liu, D., Jiang, S., Yu, H., Liu, Y., 2021. Research on energy
consumption test methods of light-duty pure electric vehicles
based on China automobile test driving cycle. In: IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, p. 835.
Zacharof, N, Fontaras, G., 2016. Review of in use factors affecting
the fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of passenger cars.
JRC science for policy report. European Commission Joint
Research Centre, Ispra (VA). Available.
Zhang, D., Gao, J., Tang, D., Wu, X., Shi, J., Chen, J., et al., 2021.
Switching on auxiliary devices in vehicular fuel efficiency
tests can help cut CO2 emissions by millions of tons. One
Earth 4, 135–145.
Zhang, S., Wu, Y., Liu, H., Huang, R., Un, P., Zhou, Y., et al., 2014.
Real-world fuel consumption and CO2 (carbon dioxide)
emissions by driving conditions for light-duty passenger
vehicles in China. Energy 69, 247–257.
276 journal of environmental sciences 125 (2023) 266–276

Zheng, X., Lu, S., Yang, L., Yan, M., Xu, G., Wu, X., et al., 2020. Zhu, R., Hu, J., Bao, X., He, L., Zu, L., 2017. Effects of aromatics,
Real-world fuel consumption of light-duty passenger vehicles olefins and distillation temperatures (T50 & T90) on particle
using on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems. Front. Environ. Sci. mass and number emissions from gasoline direct injection
Eng. 14, 1–10. (GDI) vehicles. Energy Policy 101, 185–193.