Inland shipping is pivotal to the comprehensive transport system of China. However, ship emission has become a major air polluter in inland river regions, and relevant emission inventories are urgently needed. Currently, the Automatic identification System based (AIS-based)emission model is widely used in calculating the ocean-going ship emission inventory. However, due to the lack of AIS data in the river area, the inland ship emission inventory mainly uses the fuel consumption method. With the continuous improvement of AIS data quality in the river area, the AIS-based emission model can be adopted in the development of inland ship emission inventory. However, there are few studies on the evaluation of the accuracy of the inland ship emissions using the AIS-based emission model. This study makes a comparison between test data and model-calculated data to evaluate the accuracy of the AIS-based emission models. Inland ship activities are divided into being at berth, maneuvering (port departure and port arrival), and on cruise modes in an AIS-based emission model. The model-calculated CO₂, HC, and NOx emission rates can cover those onboard emission test data, but the values from the model are much lower. The total average ratios of test data to model-calculated data for CO₂, CO, HC, and NOx are 2.66, 19.12, 2.46, and 3.16 when engine loads are below 60%. In upstream cruise mode, average emission rates of CO₂, CO, HC, and NOx from the real-world test are 1.91–6.48, 8.78–27.83, 3.05–8.96, and 4.06–5.96 times higher than those from the AIS-based model, respectively. However, those are only 1.08–1.51, 6.74–9.67, 2.03–3.75, and 1.65–2.75 times higher than those from the AIS-based model in downstream cruise mode.

To further improve air quality in China, especially ozone and fine particulate matter (PM_2.5), additional reductions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are needed. Evaporative emissions from internal combustion engines (ICE) and hybrid vehicles are known to be an important source of VOCs in urban cities, which can be efficiently reduced through the introduction of more stringent regulatory standards. The most stringent global standards for evaporative emissions are the U.S. Tier 3 light-duty vehicle standards. This study compares the evaporative emissions of light-duty ICE vehicles designed to China 6 and U.S. Tier 3 regulations for both China and U.S. test conditions. Data are analyzed from manufacturer testing of full vehicle evaporative emissions conducted in the laboratory following U.S. Tier 3 and China 6 certification test methods utilizing Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determination (SHED) chambers equipped with Flame Ionization Detection (FID) analyzers. Vehicles designed to U.S. Tier 3 standards are observed to have 64% lower diurnal and hot soak evaporative emissions and 98% lower canister bleed emissions relative to vehicles designed to China 6 standards. U.S. Tier 3, U.S. Tier 2, and China 6 light-duty evaporative emission certification values submitted by manufacturers are also compared. The average of all current U.S. Tier 3 certifications is, on average, 52.4% lower than the average of all China 6 certifications. The results from the testing and data analysis of five vehicles, with comparison to the certification data, suggest that the introduction of standards equivalent in stringency to U.S. Tier 3 in China can significantly reduce evaporative emissions relative to China 6.

In order to study the gasoline working capacity and durability of the carbon canister, the gasoline working capacity test of the carbon canister was conducted under different test conditions. The results showed that the gasoline working capacity of the canister carbon decreased with the increase of fuel vapor loading rate. The fuel vapor volume ratio of the inlet has little effect on the gasoline working capacity. After 300 gasoline working capacity test cycles, the working capacity of butane decreased by about 20%. The fuel vapor adsorption amount in first cycle of each carbon canister is far greater than the desorption amount in first cycle, and also far greater than the adsorption and desorption amount in the subsequent cycles, which indicated that a large amount of fuel vapor occupied the active sites after the first use of the carbon canister and cannot desorb.

As exhaust emission standards continue to tighten, evaporative emissions have attracted increasing attention, while information on motorcycles, particularly older models, remains limited. In this study, seven China II and China III motorcycles with engine displacement between 50 and 150 mL were tested using a sealed housing for evaporative determination (SHED), including standardized hot soak and 1 h diurnal breathing loss (DBL) measurements; an additional non-replicated 12 h laboratory-reproduced temperature-profile test was conducted as an exploratory comparison. Across the displacement-matched China II and China III motorcycles, DBL decreased from 6.17–11.12 g to 0.33–0.57 g, corresponding to pairwise reductions of approximately 91–97%, while hot soak loss (HSL) decreased from approximately 1.2–1.6 g to 0.07–0.29 g, corresponding to reductions of approximately 82–95%. These differences coincided with multiple evaporative-emission-control upgrades introduced with China III, including activated-carbon canisters, improved fuel-system sealing, and closed-crankcase ventilation; their individual contributions could not be isolated. In a vehicle-specific comparison between two 150 China III motorcycles, the electronic fuel injection (EFI) equipped motorcycle exhibited 66.9% lower DBL than the carburetor-equipped motorcycle, although this single comparison cannot establish a general EFI effect. The exploratory 12 h test also yielded higher cumulative DBL than the standardized 1 h procedure; however, because test duration, temperature amplitude, and temperature-change rate differed simultaneously, the individual contribution of these factors could not be separated.

Based on the EPA running loss test procedure, running loss tests were conducted on two China6-conventional gasoline vehicles (ICE) and two battery electric vehicles (BEV). During testing, pollutants was sampled by summa tanks. The test results show that the THC emissions of BEV were about 50% of those of ICE vehicles. There is a significant difference in the composition between ICE vehicle and BEV. The emission of BEV during running is mainly composed of OVOCs and a small amount of alkanes, while ICE vehicles is mainly composed of alkanes, aromatics, and OVOCs. The ratio of OVOCs/alkanes in BEV is between 2.5 and 3.5, and the ratio of OVOCs/alkanes in ICE vehicle is between 2 and 4.