本研究藉由對機車定檢站發放機車檢測調修問卷，進行都會區及鄉村區之車齡、觸媒及調修效用等資訊調查，以了解區域性機車排放CO及HC之影響因素及差異性；並針對“調修”效用進行解析，對定檢站調修制度進行有效性研究。 研究顯示區域性影響主要反應在四行程機車CO及HC排放濃度，四行程機車CO排放濃度都會區為1.7%、鄉村區為1.3%，HC排放濃度都會區為449 ppm、鄉村區為348 ppm，都會區排放濃度皆高於鄉村區；區域性對二行程機車排放濃度影響無統計顯著性。裝設觸媒影響主要反應在二、四行程機車CO排放濃度，皆為無觸媒機車高於有觸媒機車，二行程機車CO排放濃度無觸媒為3.4%、有觸媒為2.9%；四行程機車CO排放濃度無觸媒為1.9%、有觸媒為1.4%。裝設觸媒對改善CO排放濃度有統計顯著性；觸媒對二、四行程機車HC排放濃度無統計上之顯著性。 以車體動力計實驗結果顯示，四行程無觸媒機車CO及HC排放係數為13.47 g/km、0.85 g/km，裝設新觸媒後降為5.14 g/km、0.427 g/km， CO及HC排放改善效率分別為62%及56%。
調修機車對降低不符合法規標準之二、四行程機車CO及HC排放濃度皆有統計顯著性，研究顯示二、四行程機車調修前CO及HC排放濃度越高則調修後減量效果越好。二、四行程機車調修後CO排放濃度減量比例分別集中在1-2.5%、3.5-5.5%，調修對CO排放濃度減量效用四行程機車高於二行程機車；二、四行程機車調修後HC排放濃度減量比例分別集中在1000-3000 ppm、0-500 ppm，調修對HC排放濃度減量效用二行程機車高於四行程機車。不符合法規標準之二、
四行程機車調修項目大部分為調整空燃比或清理空氣濾清器及火星圔積碳；研究顯示二、四行程機車CO及HC排放濃度改善效用最高為同時調整空燃比及清理空氣濾清器&火星圔積碳。 推估機車調修後CO及HC削減量相對全國機車排放量比例，研究顯示調修後CO排放削減量二、四行程機車分別佔全國二、四行程機車之4.4%、3.2%；調修後HC排放削減量二、四行程機車分別佔全國二、四行程機車之1.2%、1.2%，調修對CO減量效果高於HC。

This study investigates the CO and HC emission concentration for motorcycles that attributed to vehicle age, catalyst, and tuneup in urban and rural area in Taiwan. Exhaust testing data of motorcycles in idle test mode were collected through questionnaire to the motorcyclists that stop for smoke-check at inspection station in several cities around Taiwan. Moreover, high-polluted motorcycles were tested again after tuneup that included change of parts (lubricant oil, air filter, spark plug, and air cleaner) to assess the effect of tuneup on emission reduction. Total data were collected from the questionnaires. In order to differentiate the significance effects, a statistical analysis was conducted. The results indicated that CO and HC emissions are significant different in urban and rural area, especial for four-stroke motorcycles. The emissions of CO are 1.7 and 1.3%, and HC are 449 and 348 ppm for urban and rural area, respectively. The concentrations for both air pollutants are higher than rural area in urban.
Catalyst installation may effect on CO emissions regardless of two- or four-stroke engine. For the two-stroke motorcycles, the average CO emission is 3.4% for motorcycles without catalyst and 2.9% for those with catalyst. For the four-stroke motorcycles, the average CO emission is 1.9% for motorcycles without catalyst and 1.4% for those with catalyst. In contrast, catalyst installation shows no significant effects on HC emissions for both of two- or four-stroke motorcycles. From the result of chassis dynamometer test shows that the CO emission factors are 13.5 and 5.14 g/km for without and with catalyst, respectively, in the tested four-stroke motorcycle. And the HC emission factors are 0.85 g/km for the motorcycle with no catalyst and 0.43 g/km for the one with catalyst.
The emission reductions are 62% for CO and 56% for HC. For the high-polluted motorcycles, the result indicated that the tuneup may reduce CO and HC emission concentrations of two- and four-stoke motorcycles. The result shows that the motorcycle with higher CO and HC concentration may get higher emission reduction caused by tuning. The reductions of CO concentration caused by tuneup are 2-2.5% and 5-5.5% for two- and four-stoke motorcycles, respectively. For HC concentrations, the reductions are 2-3000 ppm、0-500 ppm for two- and four-stoke motorcycles, respectively. In order to estimate the effect of tuneup on emission, we calculated the CO and HC emission reduction of motorcycles from whole country. The result shows that the CO emission will be reduced by 4.4% from two-stroke motorcycles and 3.2% from four-stroke motorcycles. For HC emission, the reduction percentages are 1.2% for both of two- and four-stoke motorcycles. This result implied that the tuneup is more effective on two-stroke than four-stroke motorcycles.

Bruehlmann, S., Forss, A. M., Steffen, D., Heeb, N. V., (2005) ”Benzene:
A Secondary Pollutant Formed in the Three-Way Catalyst”,
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol.39, pp.331-338.
California I/M Review Committee,(1989)”Evaluation of the California
Smog Check Program”, Second Report to the Legislature, 45pages.
Chan, C. C., Nien, C. K., Tasi, C. Y., Her, G. R., (1995) “Comparison of
Tail Pipe Emissions from Motorcycle and Passenger Cars”, J. Air & Waste Management Association, Vol.45(2), pp.116-124.
Czerwinski, J., Wili Ph. and Comte, P., (2003) “Emission Factors and Influences on Particle Emissions of Modern 2-Stroke Scooters”, Final report, Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL)
Heeb, N. V., (2002) ”Pre- and post-catalyst-, fuel-, velocity- and acceleration dependent benzene emission data of gasoline-driven EURO-2 passenger cars and light duty vehicles”, Atmospheric Environment, Vol.36, pp.4745-4756
Heeb, N. V., (2000) ” Velocity-dependent emission factors of benzene,toluene and C2-benzenes of a passenger car equipped with and without a regulated 3-way catalyst” Atmospheric Environment, Vol.34,pp.1123-1137.
Horng, R. F. , (2004) “ Effects of heating energy and heating position on the conversion characteristics of the catalyst of a four-stroke motorcycle engine in cold start conditions”, Energy Conversion and Management, Vol.45, pp.2113-2126.
Jia, L. W., Zhou, W. L., Shen, M. Q., Wang, J., Lin, M. Q., (2006) “The investigation of emission characteristics and carbon deposition over motorcycle monolith catalytic converter using different fuels”,Atmospheric Environment, Vol.40, pp.2002-2010.
Kent, J. H., Allen, G. H., Rule, G., (1978) “A Driving Cycle for Sydney,Transportation Research”, Vol.12, No.3, pp.147-152.
Kuhler, M., Karstens, D., (1978) “Improved Driving Cycle for Testing Automotive Exhaust Emission”, SAE paper 780650.
Leonidas, Zissis,(2000) “Speed-dependent representative emission factors for catalyst passenger cars and influencing parameters”, Atmos.,Environ., vol.34, pp.4611-4619.
Marc, R., Rob, G., and Rick, W.,(1998) “Real-World Emission from Conventional Passenger Cars”, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol.48, pp.502-515.
Pierson, W. R., Gerler, A. W., (1990) “Comparison of the SCAQS Tunnel Study with Other On-Road Vehicle Emission Data”, J. A&WMA.,Vol.40.
Roberto, David, (2003) “Experimental analysis of emission deterioration factor for ligh duty catalytic vehicles case study: Santiago, Chile”,Transportation Research Part D, Vol.8, pp.315-322.
Saxer, (2006) “Benzene, toluene and C2-benzene emissions of 4-stroke motorbikes: Benefits and risks of the current TWC technology”,Atmospheric Environment, Vol.40, pp.6053-6065.
Watson, H. C., Milkins. E. E., (1983) “Perdicting Fuel Consumption and Emission Transferring Chassis Dynamometer Results to Real Driving Condition”, SAE paper830435.
交通部統計處資訊服務網站，http://www.motc.gov.tw/
環保署網站，http://www.epa.gov.tw/
環保署移動污染源管制網，http://mobile.epa.gov.tw/
中華民國統計資訊網，http://www.stat.gov.tw/
行政院環保署，機車排氣定期檢驗站品質管理與查核專案工作計畫，EPA-91-FA13-03-91A006，2002
行政院環保署，機車污染防制技術趨勢探討及管制策略研擬，NSC 92-EPA -Z-005-001，2003
行政院環保署，使用中汽油車空氣污染管制中程策略推動暨減量有效性評析 93-EPA-Z-006-002(2003)
行政院環保署，機車排氣檢驗站品質管理與資料應用平台建置專案工作計畫，EPA-96-FA13-03-A032，2006
工業技術研究院機械與系統研究所，“交通工具空氣污染檢驗管制核章作業專案計畫”，行政院環境保護署計畫 (2000)
台灣地區排放量資料庫排放量推估手冊TEDS4.2
台灣地區排放量資料庫排放量推估手冊TEDS6.1
三陽機車操作手冊
機械工業雜誌，271 期，機車排氣污染管制與未來技術策略
機械工業雜誌，272 期，汽機車年平均行駛里程分析
葉惠芬，冷熱啟動測試機車排放揮發性有機物特徵之差異研究，國立成功大學碩士論文，2004
黃靖雄，現代低公害省油汽車淨化裝置之研究，全華科技圖書股份有限公司，台北，1982
吳欣璇，使用中機車定檢成效評估與污染排放推估，國立成功大學碩士論文，2001
陳子秦，汽油車氣態污染物之排放劣化與行駛里程相關性研究，國立成功大學碩士論文，2006
林志峰，屏東縣機車行車型態與排放係數之調查研究，中山大學碩士論文，1999
翁閎政，機車排氣之揮發性有機物特徵及光化反應性研究，國立成功大學碩士論文，1998
何文淵，汽油車引擎廢氣揮發性有機物成分及光化反應潛勢，國立成功大學碩士論文，1999
劉育穎，機車排放醛酮化合物特徵與光化反應性研究，國立成功大學碩士論文，2000
王文正，以實際道路行車型態作動力計測試之機車排放係數研究，中山大學碩士論文，2001
張安伶，油品成分對機車引擎排放氣態污染物影響研究，國立成功大學碩士論文(2004)
陳宜佳，汽車排放空氣污染物控制對策減量評估研究，國立成功大學碩士論文(1998)