Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Selection of emission factor standards for estimating emissions from

diesel construction equipment in building construction in the
Australian context
Guomin Zhang a, *, Malindu Sandanayake a, Sujeeva Setunge a, Chunqing Li a, Jun Fang b
a
School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia
b
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China

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

Article history: Emissions from equipment usage and transportation at the construction stage are classified as the direct
Received 2 June 2016 emissions which include both greenhouse gas (GHG) and non-GHG emissions due to partial combustion
Received in revised form of fuel. Unavailability of a reliable and complete inventory restricts an accurate emission evaluation on
23 August 2016
construction work. The study attempts to review emission factor standards readily available worldwide
Accepted 15 October 2016
Available online xxx
for estimating emissions from construction equipment. Emission factors published by United States
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Australian National Greenhouse Accounts (AUS NGA),
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and European Environmental Agency (EEA) are
Keywords:
Emission factors
critically reviewed to identify their strengths and weaknesses. A selection process based on the avail-
Construction equipment ability and applicability is then developed to help identify the most suitable emission factor standards for
Environmental emissions estimating emissions from construction equipment in the Australian context. A case study indicates that
Australia a fuel based emission factor is more suitable for GHG emission estimation and a time based emission
Buildings factor is more appropriate for estimation of non-GHG emissions. However, the selection of emission
factor standards also depends on factors like the place of analysis (country of origin), data availability and
the scope of analysis. Therefore, suitable modifications and assumptions should be incorporated in order
to represent these factors.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction involvement of both greenhouse gas (GHG) and non-GHG

The sustainability perception at the construction stage of a
building has been stimulated over the past few years in the field
of built environment (Kibert, 2012). Minimising environmental
impacts caused by construction work are one of the major
aspects of achieving sustainability in building construction
(Lippiatt, 1998). The environmental emissions in building con-
struction consist of both direct and indirect emissions
(Sandanayake et al., 2016a). Direct emissions are described as
those emissions as a result of the major process considered while
indirect emissions are emissions at upstream processes of the
major process (Sandanayake et al., 2016a,b) Diesel construction
equipment is a significant source of emissions among these direct
emissions (Sandanayake et al., 2016b; Junnila et al., 2006).
Quantifying these emissions is complicated due to the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kevin.zhang@rmit.edu.au (G. Zhang).
emissions due to partial combustion of fuel.
An ideal mathematical model to estimate emissions from
construction equipment should be able to address both GHG and
non-GHG emissions. However, all these emissions have seldom been
considered in emission studies focusing on building construction (Seo
and Hwang, 2001; Guggemos and Horvath, 2005; Singh et al., 2011).
One reason is that the direct emissions at the construction stage carry
little significance over the whole life cycle of a building (Junnila et al.,
2006; Guggemos, 2003). The other, perhaps more important reason is
the challenge in selecting inputs and suitable emission factors
inventory for the mathematical model (Singh et al., 2011; Abanda
et al., 2013). Nevertheless certain studies have highlighted the
importance of these direct emissions due to the short term environ-
mental impacts which is an immediate threat to the public
(Sandanayake et al., 2016b). Therefore, the selection of inputs and
emission factors remains the issue which requires meticulous
consideration.
Even though most of the countries have their own standards to
evaluate GHG emissions, only a few developed countries have

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.068
0301-4797/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, G., et al., Selection of emission factor standards for estimating emissions from diesel construction
equipment in building construction in the Australian context, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2016.10.068
2 G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10
published emission factor standards for non-road equipment. For
instance, emission standards published by United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency (US EPA) (Sihabuddin and Ariaratnam,
2009) and European Environmental Authority comprise of non-
GHG emission factors for stationary equipment (EEA) (EEA, 2013;
IPCC, 2006; USEPA, 2002; AGGA, 2013). In carrying out an emis-
sion study at building construction in Australia, one such limitation
is a lack of comprehensive standards that provide non-GHG emis-
sion factors to evaluate emissions from non-road machines and
equipment. Therefore, it is important to investigate the possibility
of selecting the most appropriate emission factor inventory to
perform a comprehensive emission evaluation from construction
equipment used at building construction. The present study aims to
review the available emission factor standards to develop selection
criteria for comprehensive emission estimation from construction
equipment used in Australian building construction. Construction
equipment refers to the non-road machines and equipment used at
construction sites. The outcome of the study will be beneficial to
researchers who seek to execute a complete emission study at the
construction stage of a building.
2. Background - environmental impacts from diesel
construction equipment
a. Emissions from diesel equipment operation
Stationary construction equipment used in building construc-
tion is responsible for a number of gas and particle based emission
substances due to partial combustion of fossil fuel (Frey et al.,
2010a; Lewis et al., 2009a). Some of the gaseous emission sub-
stances consist of GHG emissions such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and
non-GHG emissions such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides
(NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and aromatic hydrocarbons (HC).
Primary and secondary particulate matters (PM) are the major
particle based emissions that especially affect the air quality in
metropolitan areas. The air quality in several Australian metro-
politan and rural areas has worsened, with reports showing the
amount of fine PM has exceeded its limit (ENVIRON, 2010).
The exact quantity of emissions from construction equipment
depends on operational parameters such as speed, engine load and
fuel consumption and machine parameters such as engine type, age
and usage (Frey et al., 2010a; Abolhasani et al., 2008; Lewis et al.,
2011). Besides, environmental parameters like air temperature
and humidity also affect the composition of emissions (ENVIRON,
2010). For instance, fuel with lower sulphur content tends to
emit lesser SO2 and PM compared to fuel with higher sulphur
content (A and Crankcase Emission, 2010).
b. Environmental impacts from diesel equipment operation
Fine particles (diameter between 2.5 and 10 mm) and very fine
particles (diameter less than 2.5 mm) present the greatest health
risk to respiratory system due to inhalation of these finer particles
(ENVIRON, 2010). Some of the health effects due to inhalation of PM
involve cardiac issues, lung damage, pulmonary disease and
oxidative stress (Sandanayake et al., 2016b; ENVIRON, 2010;
Hermann et al., 2007).
Apart from the health effect produced by particle based pol-
lutants, several other environmental impacts caused from gaseous
emissions are also predominant (Sandanayake et al., 2015, 2016b).
SO2 emissions are the root cause for acid rains while most of the
non-GHG emissions contribute to photochemical smog formation
(Sandanayake et al., 2016b). In addition to these emissions, CO2 is
the major source for global warming potential that affects the
global atmospheric temperature (Hermann et al., 2007).
Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, G., et al., Selection of emission factor standards for estimating emissions from diesel construction
equipment in building construction in the Australian context, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2016.10.068
3. Previous emission studies on construction equipment
This section aims to summarize the previous emission studies
on construction equipment. Table 2 provides a summary different
emission studies on construction equipment. These findings were
obtained from a web search in Google Scholar and Web of Science
under the keywords “emissions from construction equipment” and
“emissions from stationary equipment”. Some studies concentrated
on emissions from construction equipment while other studies
included emission evaluation on construction equipment in the
emission studies on buildings.
Frey et al. conducted a field study to analyse the fuel usage and
emissions from construction equipment (Frey et al., 2010b). The
results indicated that fuel based emission rates are less sensitive to
engine size and load while time based emission rates are highly
sensitive to engine characteristics. Lewis et al. attempted to analyse
the effect of engine idling on fuel usage and CO2 emissions (Lewis,
2009), in which the relationship between the fuel usage and CO2
emissions were extensively discussed and finally the use of a fuel
based emission factor for CO2 emissions calculations was recom-
mended. A similar emission study attempted to develop and anal-
yse the use of emission inventories for construction vehicles (Lewis
et al., 2009b). The study used a Portable Emission Measurement
System (PEMS) to measure emissions at site and used them in
comparing emissions estimated through US EPA standards. The
results indicated that non-CO2 emission evaluation from US EPA
inventory has less variation with the measured emission variations.
Emission studies on buildings have used both fuel and time
based models to calculate emissions from construction equip-
ment. Mao et al. deployed a fuel based emission evaluation to
estimate GHG emissions from construction equipment in a
comparative study on measuring emissions at the construction
stage of a building (Hong et al., 2015). A case study on emissions
during building construction in Hong Kong also used a fuel based
emission model to calculate GHG emissions from construction
equipment (Yan et al., 2010). Another case-specific emission
study on foundation construction effectively exploited fuel and
time based emission methodology to estimate GHG and non-
GHG emissions from construction equipment respectively
(Sandanayake et al., 2016b). Sihabuddin et al. used a similar time
based emission factors to evaluate both GHG and non-GHG
emissions from underground construction equipment due to
unavailability of fuel consumption data (Sihabuddin and
Ariaratnam, 2009). Guggemos et al. also utilised the usage
hours of the construction equipment to determine the emissions
from construction equipment. Apart from these studies, several
other emission studies have used fuel based emissions models
and time based emission models to estimate emissions from
construction equipment (Sandanayake et al., 2016a,b; Abanda
et al., 2013; Hong et al., 2015). The major advantage of the fuel
based models is the readily available fuel consumption data
while it is practically difficult to get the usage hours of each
machine for emission analysis. However past emission studies
have indicated that fuel based emission factor is more suitable
for CO2 emissions evaluation while a time based emission factor
is more appropriate for non-CO2 emissions (Frey et al., 2010a).
Moreover as observed in past studies from Table 1, the variables
in fuel based models can be easily altered to meet the objectives
of the researcher while time based models are similar in nature.
Since GHG emissions were the major concern on most the pre-
vious studies, fuel based models were more frequently used than
the time based models. Thus the study aims to compare fuel and
time based emission models to identify the validity of these
statements and the applicability of the same in the Australian
context.
 G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10 3

Table 1
Various emission models used in different studies to measure emissions from construction equipment.

No Model type Variable Evaluation basis Reference

1 Fuel based Weight of fuel GHG emissions (Millstein and Harley, 2009; Cole, 1998)
2 Fuel based Quantity and density of fuel GHG emissions (Millstein and Harley, 2009)
3 Fuel based Quantity of fuel GHG emissions (Yan et al., 2010; Mao et al., 2013)
4 Time based Power, Usage and efficiency GHG/non-GHG emissions (Sandanayake et al., 2016a,b; Sihabuddin and Ariaratnam, 2009)

4. Review of international emission standards
In view of investigating the applicability of various emission
standards for the Australian context, seven major emission stan-
dards are reviewed in the following section. The review involves a
basic description followed up by a comparison of the standards to
choose the most suitable for the comparative analysis. These
standards are selected based on the availability, countries where
machines are imported to Australia, reputation and extensiveness
of the standards. With these considerations, emissions standards
published by United States Environmental Protection Agency (US
EPA), European Environment Agency (EEA) in European Union,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Australian
National Greenhouse Gas Accounts (AUS NGA), China, and Japan are
reviewed to identify the potential advantages and disadvantages in
estimating emissions from construction equipment, in order to
select suitable emission standards to supplement the emission
assessment in the Australian context.
Each reviewed standards for emission factors are published by
corresponding countries to cater their desired scope and objectives.
These emission factors standards can be mainly categorised into
fuel and time based emission factors. Fuel based emission factors
estimate emissions based on the amount of fuel consumed, and
time based emission factors estimate emissions based on the
duration and the machine characteristics.
reviewing most recent technical and socio-economic information
with regards to climatic changes (IPCC, 2007). Thus factors pub-
lished by IPCC are most frequently used and widely accepted across
the globe. The IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas In-
ventories are designed for countries to prepare and report in-
ventories of greenhouse gases. Usually these GHG emissions
include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide
(N2O). The database divides the energy sector into exploitation of
primary energy sources, conversion of primary energy sources,
distribution and transmission of fuels and use of fuels in stationary
and mobile machines. Emission may come from either combustion,
fugitive emissions or escape without combustion.
Three tiers of emission standards are provided for determina-
tion of GHG emissions from stationary equipment. These three tier
approaches are provided based on the detailed input data avail-
ability on construction machines. Tier 1 is an approximated method
which estimates emissions based on a default average emission
factor. Emission factors in this tier carry a lot of uncertainties. In Tier
2 approach the default emission factors are replaced by a country
specific emissions factor. Tier 3 approach requires energy models
which enables manual assessment and gives a more accurate
estimation of emissions. IPCC standards are widely adopted in
emission studies to estimate emissions. However one drawback of
this standard is the lack of details in estimation methodology for
emissions from construction equipment.

a. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) standards
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an inter-
national agency which constantly undertakes assessments on cli-
matic change. It is a scientific entity and is responsible for
b. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)
standards
US EPA is a governmental agency with the responsibility of
safeguarding the environment and human health. It establishes

Table 2
Summary of different studies carried out on emissions from construction and stationary equipment.

Pollution substance Country Area of study Standard Reference

CO2,CO,CH4,N2O,NOx,SO2
CO, NOx, THC, PM
CO, carbon and PM
NOx, PM, THC, CO, CO2
NO, NO2, NOx, SO2,
Dust emission
CO. NOx
CO, NOx, VOC
HC,CO,NOx,PM,SO2,CO2
CO, NOx, VOC
HC,CO,NOx,PM,CO2
HC,CO,NOx,PM,SO2,CO2
HC,CO,NOx,PM,CO2
HC, CO, NOx, PM
HC,CO,NOx,PM,CO2
HC,CO,NOx,PM,CO2
NOx
China Emissions from household stoves Experimental (Zhang et al., 2000)
Korea Air pollutant emission factors of construction equipment Experimental (Jung et al., 2009)
China Characterization of on-road vehicle emission factors Experimental (Westerdahl et al., 2009)
Europe Road vehicle emission factors development Experimental (Franco et al., 2013)
Switzerland Long-term real-world road traffic emission factors Experimental (Hueglin et al., 2006)
USA Development of dust emission factors for fugitive emission sources Experimental (Cowherd et al., 1974)
Denmark Particle and trace gas emission factors under urban Experimental (Ketzel et al., 2003)
driving conditions
Switzerland Comparison of measured and model-calculated EU (Hueglin et al., 2006;
real-world traffic emissions Corsmeier et al., 2005)
USA Methodology for estimating emissions in underground US EPA (Sihabuddin and
utility construction operations Ariaratnam, 2009)
Switzerland Comparison of a road traffic emission model with emission factors EU (Colberg et al., 2005;
John et al., 1999)
N/A Validation of road vehicle and traffic emission models e (Smit et al., 2010)
USA A fuel-based assessment of off-road diesel engine emissions US EPA (Kean et al., 2000)
USA Revised estimates of construction activity and emissions US EPA (Millstein and Harley, 2009)
USA Field procedures for real-world measurements of emissions US EPA (Rasdorf et al., 2010)
from diesel construction vehicles
USA Comparison of non-road diesel engine emissions data sources US EPA (Lewis et al., 2009a)
USA Comprehensive field study of fuel use and emissions of Experimental (Frey et al., 2010a;
non-road diesel construction equipment Lewis et al., 2011)
Austria Emission factors for heavy-duty vehicles Experimental (Hausberger et al., 2003)

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, G., et al., Selection of emission factor standards for estimating emissions from diesel construction
equipment in building construction in the Australian context, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2016.10.068
4 G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10
standards and undertakes assessment through various studies and
research to enhance environmental protection (Sihabuddin and
Ariaratnam, 2009). It also takes initiative to improve public
awareness by conducting various awareness programs. The emis-
sion standards published by US EPA are based on engine power and
model year. Furthermore, emissions from engines are classified into
four tiers (A and Crankcase Emission, 2010). Tier 1, initially
implemented in 1994 for machines of power over 37 kW was
reintroduced in 1998 for equipment less than 37 kW. Tier 2 and Tier
3 standards were introduced for all equipment to be phased in
years 2000e2008 (ENVIRON, 2010). Tier 4 standard was introduced
in 2004 with regards to the US Clean Diesel Rule (Bahner et al.,
2007). The standard was phased for years between 2004 and
2015 which reduces PM and NOx emissions by 90%. The provided
exhaust emission factor is further modified based on the deterio-
ration, total age and practical emission conditions (A and Crankcase
Emission, 2010; Sandanayake et al., 2015). The US EPA standard
covers emission standards for pollutants such as CO2, CO, NOx, PM,
SO2 and HC (USEPA, 2002).
c. Australian National Greenhouse Gas Accounts (NGA) standards
Australian National Greenhouse Gas Accounts factors have
been prepared for estimating greenhouse gas emissions. The
responsibility of the publication is held by the Department of
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (AGGA, 2013). The default
emission factors published by the Department are according to
international standards and are frequently reviewed and referred
to by international experts (AGGA, 2013). These factors are deter-
mined simultaneously with Australian Greenhouse Emissions
Information System (AGEIS) to maintain the consistency of all the
inventories (AGGA, 2013).
The report provides emission factors for four different green-
house gases which are Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4),
Nitrous Dioxide (NO2) and synthetic gases (HFCs, SF6, CF4, and
C2F6). These factors are standardized in terms of carbon dioxide
equivalent. The emission factors published divide emissions into
three different categories as shown below.
- Direct emissions (Scope 1 emissions) - Emissions from fuel use,
energy use and waste disposal etc.
- Indirect emissions (Scope 2 emissions) e Emissions from pur-
chased and consumed electricity in carbon dioxide equivalent
- Various other indirect emissions (Scope 3 emissions) e Emis-
sions from extraction and transportation of fuels, emissions
from electricity lost in extraction and production of burned fuel.
When determining environmental emissions of construction
activities these emission factors have one important advantage of
division of emissions into stationary energy emissions and
transport fuel emissions. It further categorises fuel combustion
based on the type of fuel used, i.e., solid fuels, liquid fuels and
gaseous fuels. Thus these emission factors provide a solid founda-
tion for comparison of emissions from different fuel types.
d. European Environment Agency (EEA) standards
European Environment Agency (EEA) is an agency of the
European Union whose task is to provide independent infor-
mation about environment. The major objective of EEA is to
effectively collect, analyse and distribute emission data across
Europe to the interested parties (Nelson, 1999). The inventory
guidebook published by EEA provides emission details of several
sectors such as agriculture, industrial processes, waste and
natural sources. The emissions from non-road mobile sources are
Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, G., et al., Selection of emission factor standards for estimating emissions from diesel construction
equipment in building construction in the Australian context, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2016.10.068
Table 3
Machine characteristics according to EEA classification (EEA, 2013).
Machine type Fuel Used Power range (kW)
Asphalt/concrete pavers Diesel 15e160
Plate compactors/rammers Diesel 2e21
Rollers Diesel 2e390
Mini excavators/trenchers Diesel 10e40
Excavators Diesel 50e500
Cement and mortar mixers Diesel 5e40
Cranes Diesel 100e250
Graders/scrapers Diesel 50e190
Bulldozers Diesel 30e250
Loaders/backhoes Diesel 10e130
Fork lifts Diesel 20e100
Cement and mortar mixers Diesel 1e40
provided under industrial processes. It provides a basic
description of the machinery included. Table 3 summarizes the
typical construction equipment used in construction with their
characteristics.
EEA Emission standards for non-road equipment were initiated
in two stages based on the engine power: Stage I implemented in
1999 and Stage II implemented from 2001 to 2004. These two
standards covered almost all types of construction equipment. In
2004, Stage III and Stage IV standards were introduced from 2006
to 2013 and from 2014 respectively which involves emission factors
for marine engines used in waterway vessels (An and Sauer, 2004;
Faiz et al., 1996).
EEA suggests three approaches to estimate the emissions from
construction equipment. The first approach also called Tier 1
default approach involves calculation of emissions using the fuel
consumption in source category together with a default emission
factor provided by EEA. Tier 1 emission factors are categorised
based on the fuel type and the source category. Tier 2 technology-
dependent approach is similar to tier 1 approach, and the difference
lies that the emission factors in Tier 2 undergo a further charac-
terisation of the technology type. Thus this classification allows
more comprehensive analysis. Tier 3 equipment specific and
technology stratified approach is a method adopted from US EPA
methodology which takes into account equipment characteristics
in calculating the emissions.
e. Other emission standards
Chinese emission standards for non-road machines and equip-
ment were developed in 2008 (DieselNet, 2015). They are jointly
published by the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) and
the Standardization Administration of China (SAC). These standards
are based on EU stage I and II standards for non-road construction
equipment. The standards also cover a range of smaller capacity
machines which pertains to US Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards. Emission
standards are categorised machines up to 560 kW. Emission stan-
dards for HC, CO, NOx and PM are provided in two power catego-
risations of stage I/II and stage III/IV emission standards. Apart from
these nationally accepted standards, local or environmental stan-
dards may be available for industries which have outputs with high
impacts to environment. However the emission standards for non-
road machines and equipment are not well developed compared
to the mobile vehicle emission standards (DieselNet, 2015).
Emission standards for non-road machines issued by Japan are
based on 19e560 kW (DieselNet, 2015). Emissions such as HC, CO,
NOx and PM are included in these standards. Even though the
standards are similar to US and EU standards they are not
completely adopted from these standards. The Japanese standards
categorise vehicles based on the engines manufactured between
2006-08 and 2011-16 (DieselNet, 2015). Power categorisation
 G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10 5

Table 4
Comparison of different emission factors that can be used to evaluate emissions of construction machines and equipment.

Emission Factor Advantages Disadvantages Applicability in Australia References

inventory

IPCC Tier 1 Easy computation steps
factors Good for basic type analysis
when less data is available
Tier 2 Easy computation like earlier
approach
Fewer uncertainties than tier
1 approach
Tier 3 Most comprehensive analysis
out of the three to evaluate
emissions from stationary
machines
Takes technology into account
when calculating emissions
Simple equation to determine
the emissions
US EPA factors Can be used for more
comprehensive analyses
Unique emission factor for each
machine
Easy computation steps
Easy comparison of emission
patterns of different equipment
Covers a number of pollutant
substances than others
Australian National Data collection is much easier
Greenhouse Gas All factors are in CO2
accounts equivalents, so comparison is
easier
Emissions due to electricity
generation are included
Easy computation steps for the
formula provided
Carbon content factors for fuels
are provided
Can be used effectively when
fuel use for each activity is
known
EEA Tier 1 Easy to compute
standards Good for basic type analysis
Tier 2 More comprehensive than tier
1 approach
Tier 3 Best approach to evaluate
emissions from construction
equipment out of the three
methods
Similar to US EPA approach
Not comprehensive
Contain uncertainties
Not comprehensive
Contain uncertainties
Time consuming
More complicated in carrying
out the analysis
Practical difficulty in evaluation
of a complicated flow of
activities
Specific data is required for
analysis. Thus data collection
will be difficult
Calculation is a little
complicated
Some conversion factors
(mobile machines) can be
country specific
Emission categorisation based
on fuel type and use may not
correct all the times
Only covers certain greenhouse
gas emissions
Factors in CO2 equivalents units
sometimes make the analysis
difficult because most of
emissions are in grams or joule
equivalents
Not comprehensive
Many contain a lot of
uncertainties
Data collection can be difficult
Can be used for basic analysis
Variation of emissions from
different machines cannot be
identified significantly
Ideal for evaluation of
emissions from machines use
Only Greenhouse gas can be
determined, which may be a
drawback when construction
equipment is considered
Ideal for evaluation of
emissions from machinery use
Comparison of different
construction activities can be
done effectively
Emissions from electricity is not
included
Need to define the assumptions
properly before the analysis
Difficult to differentiate
between emissions of two
machines with same fuel use
System boundary can be
extended by including
emissions from material
production as well
Analysis can be done just by
knowing the fuel use of each
equipment
Energy of construction
materials is not being
accounted for
Can be used for basic analyses
Comparative better than other
approaches although not as
effective as tier 3 or US EPA
approach
Ideal for evaluation of
emissions from machinery use
although not comprehensive
like US EPA approach
(Seo and Hwang, 2001; IPCC,
2007; Suppiah et al., 2007;
Olivier and Peters, 2005;
Robertson et al., 2000;
Segalstad, 1998; Zabalza
Bribi
an et al., 2011; Chang and
Kendall, 2011; Gentil et al.,
2009; Fridley, 2008; Joseph
et al., 2009; Reveised, 2006;
Schneider and Moss, 1999; Li
et al., 2001; Alcamo et al., 1995)
(Frey et al., 2010a; Abolhasani
et al., 2008; Lewis et al., 2011;
Lewis, 2009a,b; Millstein and
Harley, 2009; Kean et al., 2000;
Rasdorf et al., 2010; Dallmann
and Harley, 2010; Frey et al.,
2008; Fruergaard et al., 2009;
Pokharel et al., 2002;
Chowdhury et al., 2010)
(Fruergaard et al., 2009; Wood
and Cowie, 2004; Subak et al.,
1993; Russell-Smith et al.,
2009)
(Kurokawa et al., 2013;
Kurniawan and Khardi, 2011;
Velthof et al., 2012; Pires and
Martinho, 2013; Antanasijevi
c
et al., 2013)

divides vehicles into five groups starting from 19 kW to 560 kW.
The regulations report published by Central Environmental Council
(CEC) in 2008 recommends further referring to US EPA and EEA
standards for better emissions for non-road vehicles. One drawback
of the standard is the lack of consideration of practical operational
conditions which is crucial factor for construction equipment
emissions. Moreover lack of reference of Japanese standards in
worldwide applications is another limitation of adopting these
standards in Australian studies.
5. Comparison of emission standards for the comparative
analysis
The six emission standards reviewed are compared with each
other based on several parameters before choosing the most
appropriate emission standards for comparative analysis. A pub-
lished report on non-road diesel engines states that the applica-
bility of US and EU emissions standards to Australian sold
construction equipment engines are 100% and 58% respectively
(ENVIRON, 2010). Moreover US, EU and IPCC standards are
frequently referenced worldwide in several emission studies
compared to other emission standards (Guggemos, 2003;
Sihabuddin and Ariaratnam, 2009; Guggemos and Horvath, 2006;
Suppiah et al., 2007; Olivier and Peters, 2005). US emission stan-
dards involve machines of larger range (less than 8 kW to more
than 560 kW) compared to other emission standards. Although
Japan's emission standards are similar to US and EU, the availability,
applicability and complexity makes them not equivalent to these
standards. Moreover, smaller machines are not included in Japa-
nese emission standards. Nevertheless, Chinese emission standards
involve standards for smaller machines but they are in reference
with US standards. However their emission standard for larger
engines are primarily based on EU standards (ENVIRON, 2010).
Since studies have shown that fuel based emission standards are
more suitable for GHG emission estimation while time and ma-
chine based emission standard is better for non-GHG emission
evaluations. In view of all these parameters, four emission stan-
dards, two fuel based emission standards: AGGA and IPCC emission

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, G., et al., Selection of emission factor standards for estimating emissions from diesel construction
equipment in building construction in the Australian context, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2016.10.068
6 G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10

Fig. 1. Guideline for selecting emission factor standards for construction equipment.

standards and two time based emission standards: US and EU
standards are selected for the comparative analysis.
A comparison summarising the four standards with their
applicability, advantages and disadvantages are shown in Table 4.
The comparison is solely based on the applicability of these emis-
sion factors on evaluating emissions from non-road construction
equipment.
6. Development of a selection procedure
Construction equipment predominantly emits CO2 emissions as
a GHG. Therefore herein CO2 emissions also refer to GHG emissions
and non-CO2 emissions refer to non-GHG emissions. The emission
studies reviewed in the preceding section highlight that country
specific emission factor inventory is the most precise selection to
measure actual emissions from construction equipment. In absence
of a country specific emission standard, selection of the most
accurate standard to conduct an in-depth emission analysis on
construction equipment is critical. Since these emissions involve
both CO2 and non-CO2 emissions, selection of emission factor
standard for both pollutant substances should be included to un-
dertake a comprehensive emissions study. Studies have shown that
CO2 emissions mainly depend on the fuel consumption and the
composition (Frey et al., 2010a). Thus if accurate fuel consumption
data is available, a fuel based emission factor inventory should be
used to estimate CO2 emissions from construction equipment.
Accordingly, the standard published by Australian National
Greenhouse Gas Accounts as a fuel based standard, is chosen to
estimate greenhouse gas emissions. However for Australian
context, such a standard is not available for measuring non-CO2
emissions from construction equipment.
Therefore, a selection procedure outlined in Fig. 1 can be
executed to help choose the most accurate and appropriate
inventory for estimating emissions from construction equipment.
Factors like availability of the standard, applicability of the standard
in the Australian context, reputation and inclusiveness of the
emission standard are taken into account when developing the
selection procedure. The selection procedure is divided into stan-
dards selection for CO2 and non-CO2 emissions. For CO2 emissions,
the selection procedure is based on availability of country specific
inventory, availability of accurate fuel consumption data and
availability of fuel usage at equipment level. For non-CO2 emissions,
the selection procedure is categorised on availability of the
country specific inventory, and availability data at activity and
equipment level.
The selection procedure uses standards developed for different
countries and regions. Therefore prior to using these emission
factor standards, it is important to address the carbon content
variations in fuel, geographical variations, climatic and temperature
variations. However, if these standards are used to compare emis-
sions from two machines at the same location, the impacts from
these variations can be assumed to be neutralised.
7. Case study
a. Methodology
A study is carried out to compare the CO2 emissions and non-
CO2 emissions from different construction equipment using the
four emission factors standards. i.e., Australian Greenhouse
Accounts factors, US EPA factors, IPCC Tier 1 approach and EEA
approach. A case study available on field emissions calculation on
non-road diesel construction equipment was used for the
comparative analysis (Frey et al., 2010b). The case study used a
portable emission measurement system (PEMS) to measure actual
emissions from construction equipment. The sensitivity of the

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, G., et al., Selection of emission factor standards for estimating emissions from diesel construction
equipment in building construction in the Australian context, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2016.10.068
 G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10 7

Table 5
Input data for the CO2 emission comparison analysis.

Equipmenta Activity Power (hp) Tier Model year Displacement (l) Use (hr)

BH 1 Load truck 88 2 2004 4.0 3.1

BH 2 Move material 88 1 1999 4.2 1.32
BH 3 Move soil 88 1 2000 4.2 1.12
BD 1 Stock pile 95 1 2002 5.0 3.83
BD 2 Stock pile 90 1 2003 3.9 1.56
EX 1 Excavate soil 254 1 2001 8.3 0.68
EX 2 Excavate soil 138 2 2003 6.4 2.65
EX 3 Move soil 93 1 1998 3.9 3.56
a
BH - Backhoe, BD e Bulldozer, EX - Excavator.

system was found to be ± 10% (Sandhu and Frey, 2013). For CO2 c. Time based emission estimation models
emissions comparison, eight construction machines are used as
shown in Table 5 which includes backhoes, bulldozers and exca- Emissions for both GHG and non-GHG emissions can be esti-
vators. For non-CO2 emissions comparison in the case study, only mated using the equation below.
three excavators are used (EX 1, EX 2 and EX 3) as equipment level
information was only available for the excavators to be used in the Emissions ¼ EF*P*h*LF*N (3)
comparative analysis. Several studies have stated that CO, NOx
emissions carry more significance among non-CO2 emissions from Where: P is the rated power in hp, h is the use of equipment in
construction equipment (Guggemos, 2003; Sihabuddin and hours, LF is the load factor and N is the number of equipment
Ariaratnam, 2009). Therefore, only CO and NOx are compared considered. The corresponding emission factors and the other
with the actual emissions as for non-GHG comparison for the case variables for EU standards are given in EEA report (EEA, 2013) and
study. the emission factor calculation for US EPA corresponds to the
Emission estimation models used for the comparative analysis following methodology.
are discussed in fuel based and time based emission models.
44
CO2 emission factor ðEFCO2 Þ ¼ ðBSFC  453:6  HCÞ *0:87
12
b. Fuel based emission estimation models
(4)
The following equation can be deployed to estimate GHG BSFC is the brake specific fuel consumption in lb/hp-hr, 453.6 is
emissions based on the fuel consumption of the equipment, using the conversion of lb to grams, 0.87 is the carbon mass fraction of
AGGA, IPCC and EEA Tier 1 standard. diesel, (44/12) is the ratio of CO2 mass to carbon mass and HC is the
adjusted emission factor hydro carbon emissions.
Q E  e Emission factor for hydro carbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO),
Emissions ðkgs of GHGÞ ¼ (1) nitrous oxide (NOx) in g/lb-hr can be calculated using the following
1000
equation.
Where Q is the quantity of fuel used in kL, E is the energy content
factor in GJ/kL and e is the emission factor in kg/GJ. Corresponding EFadj for HC; CO; NOx ¼ EFSS TAF  DF (5)
emission factor and energy content factor values can be obtained
Where EFadj is the adjusted emission factor HC, TAF is transient
from the IPCC report (IPCC, 2007), AGGA report (AGGA, 2013) and
adjustment factor and DF is the deterioration factor which can be
EEA report (EEA, 2013).
calculated using the equation below.
Emission estimation from EEA Tier 2 approach comprehends the
following equation.  
DF ¼ 1 þ A*ðAge FactorÞb (6)

E ¼ FCj;c *EFi;j;c;t (2)

100.00%
Where, FCj,c is the fuel consumption of fuel type j for the
equipment category c, EFi,j,c,t is the average emission factor for
pollutant i for fuel type j for equipment category c and technol- 80.00%
percentage variation from actual

ogy type t.
60.00%

Table 6 IPCC
40.00%
CO2 emissions estimated using different standards. US EPA
Machine CO2 emissions in kgs EEA
20.00%
Actual results Aus. NGA US EPA IPCC Tier 1 EEA AUS NGA
BH1 7.2 9.02 8.15 10.3 8.87 0.00%
BH2 34.16 41.71 26.45 47.66 41.06 BH1 BH2 BH3 BD1 BD2 EX1 EX2 EX3
BH3 16.94 20.69 13.12 23.63 20.36
BD1 68.94 83.89 126.36 95.85 82.57 -20.00%
BD2 57.98 70.29 62.67 80.31 69.18
EX1 42.16 51.22 53.94 58.53 50.42
-40.00%
EX2 111.3 135.20 114.31 154.48 133.07
EX3 96.12 116.96 114.98 133.64 115.12
Fig. 2. Percentage of CO2 emissions variation of different approaches with the actual.

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, G., et al., Selection of emission factor standards for estimating emissions from diesel construction
equipment in building construction in the Australian context, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2016.10.068
8 G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10

Table 7
Non-CO2 emissions from different approaches (in kgs).

Machine EEA Tier 1 EEA Tier 3 US EPA Actual emissions

CO NOx CO NOx CO NOx CO NOx

EX1 205.61 523.18 180.39 699.39 117.22 623.75 131.71 668.68

EX2 542.69 1380.93 496.52 1126.71 287.17 929.16 361.02 976.09
EX3 469.49 1194.67 259.34 1340.64 251.99 1149.44 266.05 1677.3

A and b are constants for a given pollutant/technology type, and
age factor is the fraction of median life expected. TAF value is
classified for different equipment.
8. Results and discussions
a. CO2 emissions comparison
CO2 emissions were compared between the AUS NGA, IPCC Tier
1 approach, US EPA and EEA standards.
The results of CO2 emissions calculations using all the four stan-
dards are tabulated in Table 6. It is seen that none of the approaches
are able to calculate the results precisely. Therefore, to understand
the variations of emissions from different approaches, the deviation
of emissions from actual results are graphed. The results from Fig. 2
show a uniform pattern for IPCC, EEA and AUS NGA while US EPA
method shows a scattered pattern. One reason is that US EPA assumes
a constant BSFC value which may not be correct for reflecting the
actual operation of construction equipment. This is because the fuel
consumption differs according to the activity of the equipment.
Therefore, using a time based emission factor to calculate CO2 emis-
sions are not as accurate as using a fuel based emission factor. The
other reason is that studies have shown that CO2 emissions depend
only on the fuel consumption and the composition of the fuel (Lewis
et al., 2009a). This observation can be further justified because both
EEA Tier 1 and Tier 2 provide same emission factors for CO2 emissions.
The reason for variation of emissions from fuel based emission factors
is because the study is based in USA and the carbon content of fuel is
different to that from Australia and Europe. Moreover, Tier 1 IPCC
approach is a default approach which is approximate and hence
shows more variation than the other two. Therefore, it is best to use a
country specific fuel based emission factors for calculation of CO2
emissions from construction equipment wherever possible. How-
ever, in absence of a country specific emission it is best to use a fuel
based emission factor with the proper adjustments and assumptions.
b. Non-CO2 (non-GHG) emissions comparison
Non-CO2 emissions were compared between US EPA approach
and EEA Tier 1 and Tier 3 approaches, with results shown in
Table 7. As seen from the values, none of the emissions match the
actual emissions. Therefore, the variation of emissions from the
actual results is calculated to understand the percentage of devi-
ation of different approaches with the actual emissions. Fig. 3 &
Fig. 4 shows the CO and NOx emission deviations from the actual
respectively. It is seen that US EPA results seem to be the most
accurate with less deviation from the actual. Therefore, in the
absence of a country specific emission factor inventory US EPA is
the most accurate inventory for non-CO2 (non-GHG) emissions
estimation. Moreover, fuel based emission factors (EEA Tier 1)
overestimate the non-GHG emissions from construction equip-
ment (Lewis et al., 2009b). These results justify the fact that non-
GHG emissions are dependent on machine characteristics than the
fuel characteristics (Lewis et al., 2009b).
9. Conclusions and suggestions
An ideal emission study at construction stage should include
both CO2 and non-CO2 emissions because emissions from con-
struction equipment involve the same due to partial combustion of
fuel. Selecting the most appropriate emission factor inventory is
one of the major complications that make this emission evaluation
more complex. An inaccurate inventory can lead to distorted re-
sults. The present study reviewed four major standards available to
estimate CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from construction equipment.
A selection procedure is developed based on the reviewed stan-
dards and the observations obtained from the previous emission
studies to select the most suitable and accurate inventory for
emission estimation from construction equipment. The developed
selection procedure can assist the researchers to select the most
suitable emission standards for emission analysis from construc-
tion equipment in Australia.
A case study was used to compare the actual emissions with the
estimated emissions from different approaches. The results are
further used to investigate the validity and the implementation of
the selection procedure developed. The results indicated that for
both CO2 and non-CO2 emissions, in absence of a country specific
emission standard, the selection process suggested in the study can
be utilised effectively for the Australian context. It is confirmed that
CO2 emissions mainly depend on the fuel consumption and the

50.00% 50.00%

40.00% 40.00%
percentage variation from

percentage variation from

30.00% 30.00%
EEA tier 1 EEA tier 1
actual

actual

20.00% EEA tier 3 20.00% EEA tier 3

US EPA US EPA
10.00% 10.00%

0.00% 0.00%
EX1 EX2 EX3 EX1 EX2 EX3
-10.00% -10.00%

Fig. 3. CO variations of different approaches with the actual. Fig. 4. NOx variations of different approaches with the actual.

Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, G., et al., Selection of emission factor standards for estimating emissions from diesel construction
equipment in building construction in the Australian context, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2016.10.068
 G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10
composition. Thus if accurate fuel consumption data is available, a
fuel based emission standard would be more appropriate to esti-
mate CO2 emissions from construction equipment. If Australian
context is considered, the standards published by Australian Na-
tional Greenhouse Accounts can be effectively used to estimate
greenhouse gas emissions. The results from the case study indicate
that non-CO2 emissions depend on the machine characteristics
more and therefore emission standards such as the one published
by US EPA would be more appropriate for non-CO2 emissions
estimation. However, to use such an inventory, specific information
is required on equipment and activity level. The selection process
developed in the study provides a basic guideline in choosing the
most accurate emission factor inventory for construction equip-
ment in absence of a country specific emission standard.
Future studies are encouraged on further validating the pro-
cedure using various case studies and developing a separate
emission factor standard for construction equipment in Australia as
construction equipment demonstrates unique emission patterns.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support
from Brookfield Multiplex Pty Ltd for carrying out this research
project.
References
USEPA, Crankcase Emission Factors for Non-Road Engine Modeling-Compression-
Ignition, in Environmental Protection Agency. Air and Radiation Office. USA.
2010, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
Abanda, F.H., Tah, J.H.M., Cheung, F.K.T., 2013. Mathematical modelling of embodied
energy, greenhouse gases, waste, timeecost parameters of building projects: a
review. Build. Environ. 59 (0), 23e37.
Abolhasani, S., et al., 2008. Real-world in-use activity, fuel use, and emissions for
nonroad construction vehicles: a case study for excavators. J. Air & Waste
Manag. Assoc. 58 (8), 1033e1046.
AGGA, 2013. Australian National Greenhouse Gas Accounts. Available from: http://
www.climatechange.gov.au/.
Alcamo, J., et al., 1995. An evaluation of the IPCC IS92 emission scenarios. In:
Research Report-international Institute for Applied Systems Analysis IIASA RR.
An, F., Sauer, A., 2004. Comparison of passenger vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse
gas emission standards around the world. Pew Cent. Glob. Clim. Change 25.
Antanasijevi
c, D.Z., et al., 2013. PM10 emission forecasting using artificial neural
networks and genetic algorithm input variable optimization. Sci. Total Environ.
443, 511e519.
Bahner, M.A., et al., 2007. Use of black carbon and organic carbon inventories for
projections and mitigation analysis. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Inter-
national Emission Inventory Conference Emission Inventories: Integration
Analysis and Communications, Raleigh.
Chang, B., Kendall, A., 2011. Life cycle greenhouse gas assessment of infrastructure
construction for California's high-speed rail system. Transp. Res. Part D Transp.
Environ. 16 (6), 429e434.
Chowdhury, R., Apul, D., Fry, T., 2010. A life cycle based environmental impacts
assessment of construction materials used in road construction. Resources
Conserv. Recycl. 54 (4), 250e255.
Colberg, C.A., et al., 2005. Comparison of a road traffic emission model (HBEFA) with
emissions derived from measurements in the Gubrist road tunnel, Switzerland.
Atmos. Environ. 39 (26), 4703e4714.
Cole, R.J., 1998. Energy and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the con-
struction of alternative structural systems. Build. Environ. 34 (3), 335e348.
Corsmeier, U., et al., 2005. Comparison of measured and model-calculated real-
world traffic emissions. Atmos. Environ. 39 (31), 5760e5775.
Cowherd, C., et al., 1974. Development of emission factors for fugitive dust
sources. Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection
Agency.
Dallmann, T.R., Harley, R.A., 2010. Evaluation of mobile source emission trends in
the United States. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. (1984e2012) 115 (D14).
DieselNet, 2015. Emission Standards [cited 2015 08/23]; Available from: https://
www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/nonroad.php.
EEA, 2013. EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook.
ENVIRON, 2010. Cleaner Non-road Diesel Engine Project - Recommendations and
Measures. NSW, Australia.
Faiz, A., Weaver, C.S., Walsh, M.P., 1996. Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Stan-
dards and Technologies for Controlling Emissions. World Bank Publications.
Franco, V., et al., 2013. Road vehicle emission factors development: a review. Atmos.
Environ. 70 (0), 84e97.
Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, G., et al., Selection of emission factor standards for estimating emissions from diesel construction
equipment in building construction in the Australian context, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2016.10.068
9
Frey, H.C., et al., 2008. Characterization of real-world activity, fuel use, and
emissions for selected motor graders fueled with petroleum diesel and B20
biodiesel. J. Air & Waste Manag. Assoc. 58 (10), 1274e1287.
Frey, H., Rasdorf, W., Lewis, P., 2010. Comprehensive field study of fuel use and
emissions of nonroad diesel construction equipment. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp.
Res. Board 2158 (-1), 69e76.
Frey, H.C., Rasdorf, W., Lewis, P., 2010. Comprehensive field study of fuel use and
emissions of nonroad diesel construction equipment. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp.
Res. Board 2158 (1), 69e76.
Fridley, D.G., 2008. Estimating total energy consumption and emissions of China's
commercial and office buildings.
Fruergaard, T., Astrup, T., Ekvall, T., 2009. Energy use and recovery in waste man-
agement and implications for accounting of greenhouse gases and global
warming contributions. Waste Manag. Res. 27 (8), 724e737.
Gentil, E., Christensen, T.H., Aoustin, E., 2009. Greenhouse gas accounting and waste
management. Waste Manag. Res. 27 (8), 696e706.
Guggemos, A.A., 2003. Environmental Impacts of On-site Construction Processes:
Focus on Structural Frames. University of California, Berkeley.
Guggemos, A.A., Horvath, A., 2005. Comparison of environmental effects of steel-
and concrete-framed buildings. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 11 (2), 93e101.
Guggemos, A.A., Horvath, A., 2006. Decision-support tool for assessing the envi-
ronmental effects of constructing commercial buildings. J. Archit. Eng. 12 (4),
187e195.
Hausberger, S., et al., 2003. Emission factors for heavy-duty vehicles and validation
by tunnel measurements. Atmos. Environ. 37 (37), 5237e5245.
Hermann, B., Kroeze, C., Jawjit, W., 2007. Assessing environmental performance by
combining life cycle assessment, multi-criteria analysis and environmental
performance indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (18), 1787e1796.
Hong, J., et al., 2015. Greenhouse gas emissions during the construction phase of a
building: a case study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 103, 249e259.
Hueglin, C., Buchmann, B., Weber, R.O., 2006. Long-term observation of real-world
road traffic emission factors on a motorway in Switzerland. Atmos. Environ. 40
(20), 3696e3709.
IPCC, 2006. Stationary Combustion, p. 47.
IPCC, 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
John, C., et al., 1999. Comparison of emission factors for road traffic from a tunnel
study (Gubrist tunnel, Switzerland) and from emission modeling. Atmos. En-
viron. 33 (20), 3367e3376.
Joseph, J., Patil, R., Gupta, S., 2009. Estimation of air pollutant emission loads from
construction and operational activities of a port and harbour in Mumbai, India.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 159 (1e4), 85e98.
Jung, S.-W., et al., 2009. A study on calculation of air pollutants emission factors for
construction equipment. J. Korean Soc. Atmos. Environ. 25 (3), 188e195.
Junnila, S., Horvath, A., Guggemos, A., 2006. Life-cycle assessment of office buildings
in Europe and the United States. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 12 (1), 10e17.
Kean, A.J., Sawyer, R.F., Harley, R.A., 2000. A fuel-based assessment of off-road diesel
engine emissions. J. Air & Waste Manag. Assoc. 50 (11), 1929e1939.
Ketzel, M., et al., 2003. Particle and trace gas emission factors under urban driving
conditions in Copenhagen based on street and roof-level observations. Atmos.
Environ. 37 (20), 2735e2749.
Kibert, C.J., 2012. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery:
Green Building Design and Delivery. John Wiley & Sons.
Kurniawan, J.S., Khardi, S., 2011. Comparison of methodologies estimating emissions
of aircraft pollutants, environmental impact assessment around airports.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 31 (3), 240e252.
Kurokawa, J., et al., 2013. Emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases over
Asian regions during 2000e2008: regional Emission inventory in ASia (REAS)
version 2. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13 (21), 11019e11058.
Lewis, M.P., 2009. Estimating Fuel Use and Emission Rates of Nonroad Diesel
Construction Equipment Performing Representative Duty Cycles. ProQuest.
Lewis, P., et al., 2009a. Requirements and incentives for reducing construction
vehicle emissions and comparison of nonroad diesel engine emissions data
sources. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 135 (5), 341e351.
Lewis, P., Frey, H.C., Rasdorf, W., 2009b. Development and use of emissions
inventories for construction vehicles. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2123
(1), 46e53.
Lewis, P., Leming, M., Rasdorf, W., 2011. Impact of engine idling on fuel use and CO 2
emissions of nonroad diesel construction equipment. J. Manag. Eng. 28 (1),
31e38.
Li, C., et al., 2001. Comparing a process-based agro-ecosystem model to the IPCC
methodology for developing a national inventory of N2O emissions from arable
lands in China. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 60 (1e3), 159e175.
Lippiatt, B., 1998. Building for environmental and economic sustainability (BEES).
In: Construction and the environment. CIB World Congress on, in G€ avle,
Sweden June.
Mao, C., et al., 2013. Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions between off-
site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: two case studies of
residential projects. Energy Build. 66 (0), 165e176.
Millstein, D.E., Harley, R.A., 2009. Revised estimates of construction activity and
emissions: effects on ozone and elemental carbon concentrations in southern
California. Atmos. Environ. 43 (40), 6328e6335.
Nelson, D.A., 1999. European environment agency. Colo. J. Int'l Envtl. L. Pol'y 10,
153.
Olivier, J.G., Peters, J.A., 2005. CO2 from non-energy use of fuels: a global, regional
and national perspective based on the IPCC Tier 1 approach. Resources Conserv.
10 G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10
Recycl. 45 (3), 210e225.
Pires, A., Martinho, G., 2013. Life cycle assessment of a waste lubricant oil
management system. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (1), 102e112.
Pokharel, S.S., Bishop, G.A., Stedman, D.H., 2002. An on-road motor vehicle
emissions inventory for Denver: an efficient alternative to modeling. Atmos.
Environ. 36 (33), 5177e5184.
Rasdorf, W., et al., 2010. Field procedures for real-world measurements of emissions
from diesel construction vehicles. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 16 (3), 216e225.
Reveised, I., 2006. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories.
Kanagawa, Japan.
Robertson, G.P., Paul, E.A., Harwood, R.R., 2000. Greenhouse gases in intensive
agriculture: contributions of individual gases to the radiative forcing of the
atmosphere. Science 289 (5486), 1922e1925.
Russell-Smith, J., et al., 2009. Improving estimates of savanna burning emissions for
greenhouse accounting in northern Australia: limitations, challenges, applica-
tions. Int. J. Wildland Fire 18 (1), 1e18.
Sandanayake, M., et al., 2015. Environmental emissions of construction equipment
usage in pile foundation construction processda case study. In: Shen, L., Ye, K.,
Mao, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Advance-
ment of Construction Management and Real Estate. Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
pp. 327e339.
Sandanayake, M., et al., 2016a. Models and method for estimation and comparison
of direct emissions in building construction in Australia and a case study.
Energy Build. 126, 128e138.
Sandanayake, M., Zhang, G., Setunge, S., 2016b. Environmental emissions at foundation
construction stage of buildings e two case studies. Build. Environ. 95, 189e198.
Sandhu, G., Frey, H., 2013. Effects of errors on vehicle emission rates from portable
emissions measurement systems. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board (2340):
p. 10e19.
Schneider, S., Moss, R., 1999. Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR. Recommendations to
lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. Unpublished
document.
Segalstad, T.V., 1998. Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and
anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect
Global Warming” dogma. In: Global Warming the Continuing Debate. European
Please cite this article in press as: Zhang, G., et al., Selection of emission factor standards for estimating emissions from diesel construction
equipment in building construction in the Australian context, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2016.10.068
Science and Environmental Forum, Cambridge, UK.
Seo, S., Hwang, Y., 2001. Estimation of CO2 emissions in life cycle of residential
buildings. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 127 (5), 414e418.
Sihabuddin, S.S., Ariaratnam, S.T., 2009. Methodology for estimating emissions in
underground utility construction operations. Journal of Engineering. Des.
Technol. 7 (1), 37e64.
Singh, A., Berghorn, G., Joshi, S., Syal, M., 2011. Review of life-cycle assessment
applications in building construction. J. Archit. Eng. 17 (1), 15e23.
Smit, R., Ntziachristos, L., Boulter, P., 2010. Validation of road vehicle and traffic
emission models e a review and meta-analysis. Atmos. Environ. 44 (25),
2943e2953.
Subak, S., Raskin, P., Von Hippel, D., 1993. National greenhouse gas accounts:
current anthropogenic sources and sinks. Clim. Change 25 (1), 15e58.
Suppiah, R., et al., 2007. Australian climate change projections derived from
simulations performed for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. Aust. Meteorol.
Mag. 56 (3), 131e152.
USEPA, 2002. Crankcase Emission Factors for Non-road Engine Modeling-
compression-ignition. Environmental Protection Agency. Air and Radiation
Office, USA.
Velthof, G., et al., 2012. A model for inventory of ammonia emissions from agri-
culture in The Netherlands. Atmos. Environ. 46, 248e255.
Westerdahl, D., et al., 2009. Characterization of on-road vehicle emission factors
and microenvironmental air quality in Beijing, China. Atmos. Environ. 43 (3),
697e705.
Wood, S., Cowie, A., 2004. A review of greenhouse gas emission factors for fertiliser
production.
Yan, H., et al., 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions in building construction: a case study
of One Peking in Hong Kong. Build. Environ. 45 (4), 949e955.
Zabalza Bribia
n, I., Valero Capilla, A., Aranda Uso

n, A., 2011. Life cycle assessment of
building materials: comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts
and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Build. Environ. 46
(5), 1133e1140.
Zhang, J., et al., 2000. Greenhouse gases and other airborne pollutants from
household stoves in China: a database for emission factors. Atmos. Environ. 34
(26), 4537e4549.