Evaluation of Noₓ Emission and Dispersion From Marine Ships in Klaipeda Sea Port

Abstract

Trinitrotoluene (TNT), a commonly used explosive for military and industrial applications, can cause serious environmental pollution. 28-day laboratory pot experiment was carried out applying bioaugmentation using laboratory selected bacterial strains as inoculum, biostimulation with molasses and cabbage leaf extract, and phytoremediation using rye and blue fenugreek to study the effect of these treatments on TNT removal and changes in soil microbial community responsible for contaminant degradation. Chemical analyses revealed significant decreases in TNT concentrations, including reduction of some of the TNT to its amino derivates during the 28-day tests. The combination of bioaugmentation-biostimulation approach coupled with rye cultivation had the most profound effect on TNT degradation. Although plants enhanced the total microbial community abundance, blue fenugreek cultivation did not significantly affect the TNT degradation rate. The results from molecular analyses suggested the survival and elevation of the introduced bacterial strains throughout the experiment. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Nõ lvak, H.; Truu, J.; Limane, B.; Truu, M.; Cepurnieks, G.; Bartkevičs, V.; Juhanson, J.; Muter, O. 2013. Microbial community changes in TNT spiked soil bioremediation trial using biostimulation, phytoremediation and bioaugmentation, Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management 21(3): 153Á162. http://dx.

Shipping emissions in the Iberian Peninsula and the impacts on air quality

“…inland areas (Corbett et al, 2007;Eyring et al, 2009). Over the past 10 years, interest has been growing in studying the impact on air quality of maritime emissions in cities and ports using experimental measures (Contini et al, 2011;Merico et al, 2016Merico et al, , 2017Pandolfi et al, 2011;Viana et al, 2015;Wang et al, 2019) and applying air quality models (AQMs) at local, regional, and global levels (Abrutytė et al, 2014;Aksoyoglu et al, 2016;Aulinger et al, 2016;Barregard et al, 2019;Chen et al, 2017Chen et al, , 2018EEA, 2013;Lauer et al, 2007;Liu et al, 2017;Marelle et al, 2016;Marmer and Langmann, 2005;Matthias et al, 2016;Monteiro et al, 2018;Sotiropoulou and Tagaris, 2017). Nevertheless, the use of AQMs, such as CMAQ, WRF, CAMx, EMEP/MSC-W, and others, entails inevitable sources of uncertainties and some limitations, mostly conditioned by the resolution of the models, the methodological limitations as a result of the complexity of air quality assessment, the quality of the meteorological, data and the reliability of emissions inventories (Karl et al, 2019).…”

“…In the third version, improvements include methods to compensate for the lack of technical information on some ships and satellite data in some regions, as well as some refinements allowing users to take into account legislative regulations (emission control areas, on-board emission abatement equipment, and fuel sulfur content) Johansson et al, 2017). The majority of the studies on the impact of shipping emissions on air quality were performed for global scales (Dalsøren et al, 2009;Lauer et al, 2007) using the OsloCTM2, CMAQ, and ECHAM5/MESSy1-MADE models; continental scales were also addressed (Aksoyoglu et al, 2016;Marelle et al, 2016;Ramacher et al, 2019;Sotiropoulou and Tagaris, 2017), especially in the Asian region (Chen et al, 2018;Liu et al, 2017;Zhang et al, 2017), using models with coarser resolutions (CAMx, WRF/Chem, CMAQ, and GISS-E2 global models). There are only a few studies based on modelling results that considered the impacts of shipping emissions at a local scale (Abrutytė et al, 2014;Aulinger et al, 2016;Matthias et al, 2016;Monteiro et al, 2018;Vutukuru and Dabdub, 2008).…”

“…The majority of the studies on the impact of shipping emissions on air quality were performed for global scales (Dalsøren et al, 2009;Lauer et al, 2007) using the OsloCTM2, CMAQ, and ECHAM5/MESSy1-MADE models; continental scales were also addressed (Aksoyoglu et al, 2016;Marelle et al, 2016;Ramacher et al, 2019;Sotiropoulou and Tagaris, 2017), especially in the Asian region (Chen et al, 2018;Liu et al, 2017;Zhang et al, 2017), using models with coarser resolutions (CAMx, WRF/Chem, CMAQ, and GISS-E2 global models). There are only a few studies based on modelling results that considered the impacts of shipping emissions at a local scale (Abrutytė et al, 2014;Aulinger et al, 2016;Matthias et al, 2016;Monteiro et al, 2018;Vutukuru and Dabdub, 2008). Moreover, only a few have used STEAM to estimate shipping emissions, namely for the North Sea (Aulinger et al, 2016;Jonson et al, 2015), Baltic Sea ( Barregard et al, 2019;Jonson et al, 2015), and northern Norway region (Marelle et al, 2016).…”

Shipping emissions in the Iberian Peninsula and its impacts on air quality

“…the past 10 years, interest has been growing in studying the impact on air quality of maritime emissions in cities and ports using experimental measures (Contini et al, 2011;Merico et al, 2016Merico et al, , 2017Pandolfi et al, 2011;Viana et al, 2015;Wang et al, 2019) and applying air quality models (AQMs) at local, regional and global levels (Abrutytė et al, 2014;Aksoyoglu et al, 2016;Aulinger et al, 2016;Barregard et al, 2019;Chen et al, 2017Chen et al, , 2018Eyring et al, 2007;Lauer et al, 2007;Liu et al, 2017;Marelle et al, 2016;Marmer and Langmann, 2005;Matthias et al, 2016;Monteiro et al, 2018;Sotiropoulou and Tagaris, 2017). Nevertheless, the use of AQMs, such as CMAQ, WRF, CAMx, EMEP MSC-W and others entails inevitable sources of uncertainties and some limitations, mostly conditioned by the resolution of the models, the methodological limitations as a result of the complexity of air quality assessment, the quality of the meteorological data and, the reliability of emissions inventories (Karl et al, 2019).…”

“…shipping emissions in local scale (Abrutytė et al, 2014;Aulinger et al, 2016;Matthias et al, 2016;Monteiro et al, 2018;Vutukuru and Dabdub, 2008). Moreover, only few have used STEAM to estimate shipping emissions, namely for the North Sea (Aulinger et al, 2016;Jonson et al, 2015), Baltic Sea (Barregard et al, 2019;Jonson et al, 2015) and northern Norway region (Marelle et al, 2016).…”