Mobile measurements of ship emissions in two harbour areas in Finland

Abstract

Abstract. Four measurement campaigns were performed in two different environments -inside the harbour areas in the city centre of Helsinki, and along the narrow shipping channel near the city of Turku, Finland -using a mobile laboratory van during winter and summer conditions in 2010-2011. The characteristics of gaseous (CO, CO 2 , SO 2 , NO, NO 2 , NO x ) and particulate (number and volume size distributions as well as PM 2.5 ) emissions for 11 ships regularly operating on the Baltic Sea were studied to determine the emission parameters. The highest particle concentrations were 1.5 × 10 6 and 1.6 × 10 5 cm −3 in Helsinki and Turku, respectively, and the particle number size distributions had two modes. The dominating mode peaked at 20-30 nm, and the accumulation mode at 80-100 nm. The majority of the particle mass was volatile, since after heating the sample to 265 • C, the particle volume of the studied ship decreased by around 70 %. The emission factors for NO x varied in the range of 25-100 g (kg fuel) −1 , for SO 2 in the range of 2.5-17.0 g (kg fuel) −1 , for particle number in the range of (0.32-2.26) × 10 16 # (kg fuel) −1 , and for PM 2.5 between 1.0-4.9 g (kg fuel) −1 . The ships equipped with SCR (selective catalytic reduction) had the lowest NO x emissions, whereas the ships with DWI (direct water injection) and HAMs (humid air motors) had the lowest SO 2 emissions but the highest particulate emissions. For all ships, the averaged fuel sulphur contents (FSCs) were less than 1 % (by mass) but none of them was below 0.1 % which will be the new EU directive starting 1 January 2015 in the SO x emission control areas; this indicates that ships operating on the Baltic Sea will face large challenges.

Ship emissions measurement in the Arctic by plume intercepts of the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker <i>Amundsen</i> from the <i>Polar 6</i> aircraft platform

“…von Glasow et al, 2003;Chen et al, 2005;Agrawal et al, 2008;Petzold et al, 2008Petzold et al, , 2010Petzold et al, , 2011Lack et al, 2009Lack et al, , 2011Williams et al, 2009;Berg et al, 2012;Khan et al, 2012a;Lack and Corbett, 2012;McLaren et al, 2012;Alföldy et al, 2013;Diesch et al, 2013;Eckhardt et al, 2013;Buffaloe et al, 2014;Cappa et al, 2014;Kivekäs et al, 2014;Balzani Lööv et al, 2014;Pirjola et al, 2014;Aliabadi et al, 2015;Beecken et al, 2015;Roiger et al, 2015;Marelle et al, 2016). However, studies that attempt to measure ship emissions in the Arctic from land, marine, and airborne platforms are limited (Eckhardt et al, 2013;Aliabadi et al, 2015;Roiger et al, 2015;Marelle et al, 2016).…”

A comprehensive inventory of ship traffic exhaust emissions in the European sea areas in 2011

“…However, a possible noncompliance by a fairly small fraction of ships would explain only a minor portion of the differences between the STEAM and EMEP inventories. More information on the compliance with EU regulations can be obtained either during Port State Control checks, or via relevant compliance monitoring schemes (Balzani et al, 2014;Berg et al, 2012;Beecken et al, , 2015Pirjola et al, 2014).…”

Characterization of the Particle Emission from Ships Operating at Sea Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

“…Airborne ship plume 61 measurements (Balzani Lööv et al 2014; Beecken et al 2014a; Berg et al 2012; Cappa et al 2014; Lack et al 2008; Lack et 62 al. 2009;Pirjola et al 2014a;Schreier et al 2015;Sinha et al 2003;Westerlund et al 2015) offer an alternative method of 63 in-situ measurements without requiring on-board monitoring stations. In the past the cost, the significant difficulties in 64 deployment of these systems, and the risk for manned aircrafts have limited their feasibility.…”