Discussions This discussion paper is/has been under review for the journal Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT) Please refer to the corresponding final paper in AMT if available Discussion Paper Open Access Atmospheric Measurement Techniques Atmos Meas Tech Discuss., 6, 10617–10651, 2013 www.atmos-meas-tech-discuss.net/6/10617/2013/ doi:10.5194/amtd-6-10617-2013 © Author(s) 2013 CC Attribution 3.0 License | 1 J Beecken , J Mellqvist , K Salo , J Ekholm , and J.-P Jalkanen Chalmers University of Technology, Earth and Space Sciences, Gothenburg, Sweden Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland Received: 12 July 2013 – Accepted: 11 November 2013 – Published: December 2013 Correspondence to: J Beecken (beecken@chalmers.se) Discussion Paper Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union | Discussion Paper | 10617 6, 10617–10651, 2013 Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Abstract Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | Discussion Paper Airborne emission measurements of SO2, NOx and particles from individual ships using sniffer technique AMTD Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion Discussion Paper | 10618 | 25 Discussion Paper 20 Ships emit large quantities of air pollutants and it is necessary to reduce these to improve air quality (Corbett et al., 2007; European Commission, 2009) Most countries have ratified the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Marpol Annex VI protocol and EU has adopted directive 2012/33/EU which sets limits on nitrogen oxides (NOx ) and sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) emissions from ship exhausts The regulation includes a global cap of sulfur fuel content (SFC) and contains provisions allowing for establishment of special SO2 and NOx Emission Control Areas, i.e SECA and NECA The Baltic Sea, the North Sea, English Channel and the coastal waters around US and Canada are designated as SECA while the North American area also is a NECA Following the IMO regulation there will be a global cap of 0.5 % SFC used by vessels from 2020 AMTD 6, 10617–10651, 2013 Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Abstract Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | Introduction Discussion Paper 15 | 10 A dedicated system for airborne ship emission measurements of SO2 , NOx and particles has been developed and used from several small aircrafts The system has been adapted for fast response measurements at Hz and the use of several of the instruments is unique The uncertainty of the given data is about 20.3 % for SO2 and 23.8 % for NOx emission factors Multiple measurements of 158 ships measured from the air on the Baltic and North Sea during 2011 and 2012 show emission factors of 18.8 ± 6.5 g kg−1 , 66.6 ± 23.4 g kg−1 , and 1.8 ± 1.3 × 1016 particles kg−1 for SO2 , NOx fuel fuel fuel and particle number respectively The particle size distributions were measured for particle diameters between 15 and 560 nm The mean sizes of the particles are between 50 and 62 nm dependent on the distance to the source and the number size distribution is mono-modal Concerning the sulfur fuel content 85 % of the ships comply with the IMO limits The sulfur emission has decreased compared to earlier measurements from 2007 to 2009 The presented method can be implemented for regular ship compliance monitoring Discussion Paper Abstract Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion 10619 | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper 25 AMTD 6, 10617–10651, 2013 Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Abstract Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | 20 Discussion Paper 15 | 10 Discussion Paper In the SECAs the used SFC must not exceed 0.1 % from 2015 The IMO regulation regarding NOx is more complicated than for SO2 , since NOx production is dependent on the nature of the combustion process rather than being related to fuel composition IMO has therefore chosen emission limits (resolution MEPC.177(58)) that correspond to the total NOx emission in gram per axial shaft energy produced from the engine in kWh These limits depend on the engine type and they are therefore given vs the rated rotational speed of the specific engines Ships built between 2000 and 2010 should emit less than a certain limit (tier 1) while ships built after 2011 should emit 20 % less (tier 2) In NECA the emissions should be 80 % lower than tier by 2016 (tier 3), although this time limit is presently being renegotiated within IMO There are several ways available for the shipping companies to adapt to the new regulations It is possible to use alternative fuel i.e liquefied natural gas (LNG) or methanol Abatement techniques to reduce both NOx and SO2 emissions are available However these possibilities are limited due to high costs for investments in often technologies which are under ongoing development Therefore it is believed that there will be a higher demand and higher prices on low sulfur fuels in the future In the SECA the cost for ship transport will increase by 50–70 % due to increased fuel costs (Kalli et al., 2009) There will hence be considerable economic incentive not to comply with SECA regulation Today the fuel of the ships is controlled by Port State Control authorities conducting random checks of bunker delivery notes, fuel logs and occasional fuel sample analyses in harbors This is time consuming and few ships are being controlled There is no available technique able to control what fuel is used in the open sea and in general it is considered easy to tamper with the usage of fuel, especially since ships are using several tanks, often with different fuel Here we present airborne emission measurements of emission factors in mass of emitted pollutant per amount of consumed fuel for individual ships One valuable use of such data is as input data for modeling of the environmental impact of shipping A new type of ship emission model that has emerged recently calculates instantaneous emissions of ships based on ship movement from Automatic Identification System (AIS), Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion 10620 | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper 25 AMTD 6, 10617–10651, 2013 Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Abstract Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | 20 Discussion Paper 15 | 10 Discussion Paper ship propulsion (Alföldy et al., 2012) calculations and emission factors (Jalkanen et al., 2009, 2012) The latter are taken from laboratory tests and occasional on board measurements (Moldanova et al., 2009; Petzold et al., 2004, 2008) The emission factors depend on engine type, fuel type, use of abatement equipment and load In general there are large uncertainties in the emission factors for some species, such as particles, and within the SECAs there is additional uncertainty in how well the IMO legislation will be respected regarding fuel use and abatement technologies There is hence substantial need for efficient techniques for remote measurements of real ship emissions The airborne sniffer system described here has been developed as part of a Swedish national project named Identification of gross polluting ships (IGPS) (Mellqvist and Berg, 2010, 2013; Mellqvist et al., 2008) aimed at developing a remote surveillance system to control whether individual ships obeys the IMO legislation of reduced sulphur fuel content (SFC) and NOx emissions, as discussed above (Alföldy et al., 2012) The sniffer system is usually combined with an optical system (Mellqvist and Berg, 2013) that can be used as a first alert system and also to quantify the emission in g s−1 , but this will not be discussed further here The principle of the sniffer method is to obtain emission factors in g pollutant per kg fuel by measuring the ratio of the concentration of the pollutant vs the concentration of CO2 , inside the emission plume of the ships This principle has been employed in several other studies both from the air, ships and harbors (Alföldy et al., 2012; Balzani Lööv et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2005; Mellqvist and Berg, 2013; Mellqvist et al., 2008; Sinha et al., 2003) but for a relatively small number of vessels Here we demonstrate a dedicated system meant for routine surveillance of ship emissions from small airplanes and other platforms The system includes a fast electrical mobility system to measure particle number size distribution, used here in flight for the first time and a custom made cavity ring down system for fast airborne plume measurements of CO2 and CH4 In addition we show unique measurements of 158 individual ships carried out on several occasions per ship in the North and Baltic Seas from a helicopter and two different Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion Discussion Paper airplanes during 2011 and 2012 This data is compared to data from 2007/2008 (Mellqvist and Berg, 2010, 2013) The emission data for the individual ships has been interpreted against IMO limits and ship and engine type This paper gives recommendations for how future compliance monitoring of ship emissions could be carried out Methods | 2.1 Instrumentation 10 15 | Discussion Paper 20 | A flight modified Picarro G-2301 is used to monitor the concentration of CO2 in the air This instrument is a greenhouse gas monitor based on cavity ring-down spectroscopy (CRDS) (O’Keefe and Deacon, 1988) The instrument is capable of measuring CO2 , CH4 and relative humidity (RH), the latter for correction issues The measurements are conducted sequentially with a time response t90 , i.e the time to reach from 10 % to 90 % of the sample value of less than s The measurement mode was modified in order to obtain as many measurements as possible during the short time in which the aircraft traverses a plume Depending on the needs, a low or high flow mode can be selected, with either one or two CO2 measurements per second for each flow setting In the latter case, the time slot for the measurement of CH4 is replaced by a second CO2 sample within the same sequence During the conducted measurement flights the high flow, Hz CO2 mode was used 10621 Discussion Paper 2.1.1 CO2 instrumentation 6, 10617–10651, 2013 Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Abstract Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | With the setup presented herein concentrations of CO2 , SO2 , NOx and sub micrometer aerosol particles are measured Discussion Paper In this section the instrumentation, calibration methods and uncertainties are presented A description of the measurement campaigns and the plume sampling procedure is given here AMTD Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion | Discussion Paper 10 A modified Thermo 43i-TLE trace gas monitor was applied This instrument analyzes the volume mixing ratio of SO2 , VMR(SO2 ), in air by stimulating fluorescence by UV light (Luke, 1997) The detected intensity of fluorescence light is proportional to the volume mixing ratio of SO2 molecules in the sample gas In order to gain a higher flow for faster sampling, a hydrocarbon stripper and the flow meter were removed from the monitor which resulted in a flow rate of LPM The t90 is about s and the sample rate was set to Hz The Thermo 43i-TLE shows some cross response to NO and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) The VMR (SO2 ) reading increases by 1.5 % of the actual VMR(NO) In this study, this error was reduced by simultaneous measurements of NOx assuming that the fraction of NO is 80 % (Alföldy et al., 2012) The cross-response of PAH is not important since these species are only present at small levels in ship plumes (Williams et al., 2009) Discussion Paper 2.1.2 SO2 instrumentation AMTD 6, 10617–10651, 2013 Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | Abstract 15 25 The particle number size distributions ranging from 5.6 to 560 nm of the emitted plumes were also measured in flight This was done using the TSI 3090 engine exhaust particle sizer (EEPS) The EEPS is developed for the monitoring of size distributions of aerosol | 10622 Discussion Paper 2.1.4 Particle instrumentation | 20 The NOx measurements were performed with a Thermo 42i-TL trace gas monitor This instrument measures the VMR(NO) by chemiluminescence caused by the reaction of NO with ozone (Kley and McFarland, 1980) The intensity of the detected chemiluminescent light is proportional to the VMR(NO) molecules In order to measure the volume mixing ratio of NOx , the instrument was run in a mode in which NO2 is first converted to NO The sample flow was LPM, which results in t90 of less than s and the sample rate Hz Discussion Paper 2.1.3 NOx instrumentation Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion | Discussion Paper 10 Discussion Paper particles in exhaust gases from combustion engines It features 10 Hz simultaneous sampling of 32 measurement channels between 5.6 nm and 560 nm and has a sample flow of 10 LPM with a t90 of 0.5 s The data was integrated for s intervals Particles in the sample air are charged and size selected according to the size dependent mobility in an electrical field (Johnson et al., 2004) The charged particles impact on electrometer plates and the number concentrations in the different size bins are achieved as the generated current The EEPS has been used for onboard monitoring of ship emissions (Hallquist et al., 2013) and stationary ship plume measurements (Jonsson et al., 2011) in earlier studies The EEPS was found to be suitable for this kind of airborne plume measurements and was to our knowledge used for the first time on an aircraft When the EEPS was operated onboard an airplane, it was connected to an isokinetic inlet for which the flow was optimized for the airspeed during plume measurement There was no isokinetic inlet used for the helicopter based measurements, because the airspeed of the helicopter during measurement was much lower AMTD 6, 10617–10651, 2013 Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | Abstract 20 | 10623 Discussion Paper Emission factors in weight g kg−1 or particles kg−1 are obtained as the ratio of the fuel fuel pollutant x vs the volume mixing ratio of CO2 In practice the volume mixing ratios of all measured species are first summed along the plume transect ( [x]) and then these values are normalized against the corresponding sum for CO2 In Fig the volume mixing ratios for CO2 , SO2 and NOx and the total concentration of particle number are shown for one transect through the emission plume The carbon fuel content is required for the calculation of the emission factors Studies show it is 87±1.5 %; for marine gas oil, marine diesel oil and residual oil (Cooper, 2003; Tuttle, 1995) For the calculations it is assumed that this fraction remains unchanged after fuel burning and that all burnt carbon is emitted as CO2 Hence the SO2 emission −1 factor, EF(SO2 ), in g kgfuel using the atomic respectively molar masses for C and SO2 | 25 2.2 Calculation of emission factors Discussion Paper 15 Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion EF (SO2 ) m(fuel) = M(SO2 ) · M(C)/0.87 · SO2,ppb CO2,ppm (1) (2) M(NO2 ) · M(C)/0.87 · NO2,ppb CO2,ppm = 3.33 NO2,ppb CO2,ppm (3) | The specific fuel oil consumption (SFOC) in terms of mass of consumed fuel per axial shaft power is retrieved from the STEAM model (Jalkanen et al., 2009, 2012) It 10624 Discussion Paper m(fuel) = | m(NO2 ) Discussion Paper CO2,ppm AMTD 6, 10617–10651, 2013 Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Abstract Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | SO2,ppb The NOx emission factor in g kg−1 is calculated accordingly in Eq (3) Most of the NOx fuel emission is in form of NO (Alföldy et al., 2012) Nonetheless, for these calculations the molecular mass of NOx is assumed to be the molecular mass of NO2 following IMO guidelines (MEPC, 2008) EF(NOx ) g kg−1 = fuel 25 CO2,ppm The values of SO2 were corrected for the interference of NO The cross-sensitivity of the modified instrument was experimentally found to be 1.5 % A NO to NOx ratio of around 80 % is assumed (Alföldy et al., 2012) Hence, for samples where NOx was measured, [SO2 ] was subtracted by 1.2 % of [NOx ] over the same plume sample For samples without measured NOx data, modeled data from the STEAM database (Jalkanen et al., 2009, 2012) for the NOx to CO2 ratios multiplied with measured CO2 data was used for the correction instead Where neither measured nor modeled NOx −1 data was available, the EF(NOx ) was assumed to be 65 g kgfuel which was the median value of the measured EF(NOx ) of other ships The missing NOx data for correction of the SO2 data was then retrieved with Eq (3) in combination with the measured CO2 data For the calculation of the sulfur fuel content (SFC), it is assumed that all sulfur is emitted as SO2 Hence the SFC is calculated by M(S) · SO2,ppb m(S) = = 0.232 SFC [%] = m(fuel) M(C)/0.87 · CO2,ppm 20 = 4.64 SO2,ppb Discussion Paper 15 = m(SO2 ) | 10 g kg−1 fuel Discussion Paper can be calculated by Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion EFkWh (NOx )[g kWh−1 ] = EF (NOx ) · SFOC(load) | (4) The emission factor for particle number EF(PN) is calculated in Eq (5) as the sum of the total concentration of the particle number, [PN], with an assumed emission factor −1 of CO2 of 3.2 kg kgfuel (Hobbs et al., 2000) EF(PN)[particles kg−1 ]= fuel [PN] [CO2 ] · EF (CO2 ) (5) Discussion Paper 10 Discussion Paper corresponds to SFOC data supplied by the engine manufacturer through the IHS Fairplay World Shipping Encyclopedia (IHS, 2009), corrected for the estimated load from the ship speed using correction curves supplied by engine manufacturers The current SFOC value for the measured ship was taken from the STEAM database as a function of the ship’s speed at the time of the measurement The SFOC data is used for the calculation of the NOx emission per produced energy EFkWh (NOx ) in AMTD 6, 10617–10651, 2013 Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | Abstract n · ln Dp GMD [nm] = and N GSD [nm] = n · ln Dp − ln (GMD) N 1/2 (7) | In Eqs (6) and (7) n is the number concentration in the Channel, N the integrated number concentration and Dp the particle diameter, i.e the midpoint of the channel 10625 Discussion Paper (6) | 20 For the calculation of the particle mass distribution, the particle density is assumed −3 to be g cm The emission factor for particle mass, EF(PM), was then calculated correspondingly to Eq (5) by substituting [PN] with [PM] The Geometric Mean Diameter (GMD) and the corresponding Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD) were calculated for the size-resolved particle number concentrations by Discussion Paper 15 Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion Discussion Paper | 25 The plumes of 158 different ships have been analyzed Some ships were repeatedly measured on different occasions so in total 174 plumes were analyzed The plumes were usually traversed several times for each occasion to improve the statistical validity of the measurements An average of the precision for all measurements was calculated as the median value of the individual 1-σ uncertainties of the respective | 10626 Discussion Paper 2.4 Uncertainties AMTD 6, 10617–10651, 2013 Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Abstract Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | 20 Discussion Paper 15 | 10 The measurements of volume mixing ratios taken inside the ship plumes are analyzed relative to the background and therefore offset errors can be neglected The accuracy over the dynamic range of interest was assured by frequent calibrations with standard gases, obtained from AGA and Air Liquide with mixing accuracies for CO2 of % and for SO2 and NOx around % Usually the gases were measured from gas cylinders containing about 204 ppb NOx , 401 and 407 ppb SO2 as well as 370.5 and 410.6 ppm CO2 , respectively During the last campaign, a standard Thermo 146i Dynamic Gas Calibrator was used instead together with a Thermo 1160 Zero Air Supply, mixing highly concentrated SO2 and NOx , both at 60 ppm, with filtered zero air Mixing ratios of 400 ppb for SO2 and 300 ppb for NOx were used for calibration with the dynamic gas calibrator The results were used to calculate a time series of respective calibration factors and offsets which in turn were used to post calibrate the plume measurements The calibrations were usually carried out on the ground before and after the measurement flights The average precision of the measurements of the calibration gases was found to be negligible small for CO2 , 1.6 % for SO2 and 0.5 % for NOx The calibration factors that were applied to the measured values are linear interpolated values from the nearest calibrations The estimated interpolation error is the average of the standard deviations between adjacent calibration factors This yields 0.1 % for CO2 , 5.4 % for SO2 and 6.3 % for NOx Discussion Paper 2.3 Calibrations Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion 66.6 ± 23.4 a a 2.9 ± 0.2 52.2 ± 3.7b 30 ± 23 ± EF(PN) 1016 kg−1 fuel Number of Ships Location (Year) 13.1 ± 4.4 2.8 ± 1.6 1.8 ± 1.3 174 Open sea, (2011/2012) Open sea (2000) Open sea (2002) Open sea (2004) Open Sea (2007) Open Sea (2007) Open sea (2006) Open sea (2004) Test rig, 85–100 % load Harbor (2010) Harbor (2009) a 22.3 ± 1.1 65.5 ± 3.3b 20 ± 13 ± 4.0 ± 0.4 4.6 ± 1.4 1.36 ± 0.24 39.3 73.4 14.2 59.7 ± 0.5 c 65.7 ± 0.3 20.1 ± 0.1 13.2 ± 10.4 66.4 ± 9.1 e 5.3 1.3 ± 0.2 3.77 ± 1.3 0.39 ± 0.14f 2.05 ± 0.11 a 14 18b > 200 e 49 ± 7.5 4.3 ± 0.6f 6.2 ± 0.6b 4.5 ± 1.8 e 1.0 ± 0.2 1.4 ± 0.2f 3.4 ± 1.3 2.55 ± 0.11 734 a 0.8 1.8b 53.7 497 | 18.8 ± 6.5 EF(PM) g kg−1 fuel Discussion Paper This study (airborne) Sinha (2003) (airborne) Chen (2005) (airborne) Petzold (2008) (airborne/on board) Moldanova (2009) (on board) Murphy (2009) (airborne/on board) Williams (2009)d (ship borne) Lack (2010) (airborne) Petzold (2010) (test-bed, stack) Jonsson (2011) (land-based) Alföldy (2012) (land-based) EF(NOx ) g kWh−1 6, 10617–10651, 2013 Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Abstract Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | EF(NOx ) g kg−1 fuel Discussion Paper EF(SO2 ) g kg−1 fuel | Reference (platform) Discussion Paper Table Comparison of the emission factors found in this study with literature AMTD a Discussion Paper Distillate fuel b Residual oil c Calculated from known SFC d Averaged data, only moving ships e Before fuel switch to low sulfur fuel f After fuel switch to low sulfur fuel | 10644 Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion Discussion Paper AMTD 6, 10617–10651, 2013 | Discussion Paper Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | Abstract Discussion Paper | | 10645 Discussion Paper Fig Example of a plume transect measurement The volume mixing ratios of CO2 , SO2 and NOx are measured The presented total concentration, TC(PN) of particles is calculated from the measurement of the particle number over size distribution The volume mixing ratios and particle concentration above the respective baselines (black line) are summed along the transect path The ratio of the areas (light grey) for SO2 , NOx and TC(PN) to CO2 is proportional to the respective emission factor expressed in g kg−1 and particles kg−1 , respectively fuel fuel Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion Discussion Paper AMTD 6, 10617–10651, 2013 | Discussion Paper Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | Abstract Discussion Paper | | 10646 Discussion Paper Fig Map showing the flight tracks over the monitored sea regions for the different measurement campaigns; Roskilde (10–23 June 2011), Kiel (28 September–2 October 2011), Ostend (30 May–1 June 2012) and Roskilde (28 August–6 September 2012) Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion Discussion Paper AMTD 6, 10617–10651, 2013 | Discussion Paper Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | Abstract Discussion Paper Discussion Paper | 10647 | Fig Instruments, mounted in racks, for ready installation in the Partenavia P68B airplane behind The particle inlet can be seen on top of the fuselage (picture taken by B Schneider, enviscope GmbH) Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion Discussion Paper AMTD 6, 10617–10651, 2013 | Discussion Paper Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | Abstract | Discussion Paper | 10648 Discussion Paper Fig Map for real-time navigation purpose that is presented to the operator by the IGPS software showing the current locations of surrounding ships and aircraft from the received Automatic Identification System (AIS) data sent by the ships The different size of the ships corresponds to their Gross Tonnage The blue circles around the aircraft’s location indicate the distance to the ships and the time to reach these The two white circles give information about the ships’ locations relative to the aircraft with respect to north and the current course of the aircraft respectively Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion Discussion Paper AMTD 6, 10617–10651, 2013 | Discussion Paper Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | Abstract Discussion Paper | Fig Histogram of the emission factor of SO2 , EF(SO2 ), from airborne measurements for four campaigns in the years 2011 and 2012 The inset shows according results from earlier campaigns between 2007 and 2009 The comparison indicates a reduction of EF(SO2 ) This coincides with the reduction of the limit of sulfer in fuel to % The corresping values for the sulfur fuel content can be optained by dividing the EF(SO2 ) by 20 Discussion Paper 10649 | Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion Discussion Paper AMTD 6, 10617–10651, 2013 | Discussion Paper Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | Abstract Discussion Paper | Fig Histogram of the NOx emission factor, EF(NOx ), relative to the amount of consumed fuel from airborne measurements for three campaigns in the years 2011 and 2012 Discussion Paper 10650 | Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion Discussion Paper AMTD 6, 10617–10651, 2013 | Discussion Paper Airborne emission measurements of individual ships J Beecken et al Title Page Introduction Conclusions References Tables Figures Back Close | Abstract Discussion Paper | Fig Emission factors of particle number (PN) and particle mass (PM) related to the SO2 emission factor The results were binned for the SO2 emission factor The ticks on the x-axis correspond to the bin edges The numbers in square brackets indicate the number of individual plume transects distributed for different SO2 emission factors The square-shaped markers indicate the values which were taken into account for the calculation of the linear regressions Discussion Paper 10651 | Full Screen / Esc Printer-friendly Version Interactive Discussion Airborne Emission Measurements of SO2, NOx and Particles from Individual Ships using Sniffer Technique - Supplementary Material - J Beecken1, J Mellqvist1, K Salo1, J Ekholm1 and J.-P Jalkanen2 [1]Chalmers University of Technology, Earth and Space Sciences, Gothenburg, Sweden [2]Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland Correspondence to: J Beecken (beecken@chalmers.se) NOx Source IMO Date mean EF(SO2) mean EF(NOx) (0:measurement, SOG [g/kg_fuel] ± [%] [g/kg_fuel] ± [%] 1:STEAM, [kn] 2:default) Number of traverses 7016474 29 September 2011 3.33 ± 0.00 7.04 ± 0.00 7225922 30 September 2011 22.86 ± 4.36 73.52 ± 24.06 10.0 7360162 11 June 2011 1.88 ± 0.00 55.82 ± 0.00 12.5 7420223 30 May 2012 3.14 ± 53.87 65.68 ± 36.38 10.6 7500451 30 May 2012 26.84 ± 21.29 44.13 ± 28.91 7637448 30 May 2012 2.95 ± 121.12 66.96 ± 35.28 12.2 7703259 15 June 2011 10.15 ± 0.00 57.77 ± 0.00 9.6 7721249 28 June 2011 11.32 ± 36.64 80.04 ± 0.21 12.2 7803190 13 June 2011 19.17 ± 0.10 63.24 ± 0.00 19.0 7928158 30 September 2011 25.73 ± 0.00 46.26 ± 0.00 8.6 8020599 29 June 2011 20.64 ± 22.21 66.93 ± 0.00 16.3 8131893 04 September 2012 32.87 ± 26.23 46.00 ± 12.66 8.2 8202381 30 May 2012 19.01 ± 7.34 113.36 ± 16.58 13.1 8207795 31 May 2012 22.28 ± 6.14 93.87 ± 6.25 13.2 8225498 11 June 2011 17.30 ± 26.96 79.20 ± 0.31 11.9 8302246 31 August 2012 16.74 ± 0.00 93.95 ± 0.00 14.6 8306981 29 September 2011 23.47 ± 16.28 69.61 ± 40.64 11.7 8312057 29 June 2011 14.86 ± 24.25 91.86 ± 0.63 12.3 8312100 11 June 2011 11.38 ± 0.00 81.84 ± 0.00 10.5 8401444 10 June 2011 14.29 ± 21.12 69.81 ± 0.21 17.6 8422034 15 June 2011 19.22 ± 0.00 63.33 ± 0.00 12.3 8512401 29 June 2011 16.58 ± 40.91 96.14 ± 1.17 17.9 10 8521804 30 September 2011 27.80 ± 57.76 55.81 ± 67.03 16.1 8608195 30 September 2011 25.05 ± 5.03 95.34 ± 15.92 8618358 04 September 2012 21.32 ± 21.48 69.78 ± 22.65 14.1 8618358 06 September 2012 15.92 ± 20.72 101.62 ± 29.57 16.8 8703232 13 June 2011 18.78 ± 0.00 71.78 ± 0.00 17.5 8705383 29 June 2011 16.25 ± 0.00 72.30 ± 0.00 16.3 8903155 13 June 2011 19.69 ± 0.00 72.42 ± 0.00 15.0 8917596 29 August 2012 16.26 ± 22.39 78.98 ± 3.85 15.8 8993887 02 October 2011 20.62 ± 0.00 26.12 ± 0.00 9010163 15 June 2011 19.88 ± 15.00 72.43 ± 1.69 17.5 9010163 29 June 2011 26.42 ± 93.88 70.90 ± 3.21 16.6 9010163 05 September 2012 16.58 ± 6.29 64.94 ± 12.40 17.1 9010917 15 June 2011 27.88 ± 0.00 66.19 ± 0.00 14.1 9016923 15 June 2011 20.37 ± 0.00 64.57 ± 0.00 11.9 9031260 28 September 2011 8.68 ± 87.54 34.19 ± 76.40 9.6 9046368 29 August 2012 16.17 ± 7.09 74.39 ± 12.00 13.2 9073086 01 June 2012 23.63 ± 26.63 48.77 ± 44.99 7.3 9077587 01 October 2011 21.28 ± 14.91 58.59 ± 12.99 10.8 9082879 01 October 2011 19.47 ± 27.77 74.94 ± 26.29 13.0 9104902 29 September 2011 -0.59 ± 84.55 83.68 ± 0.20 15.2 9106986 31 May 2012 40.55 ± 17.96 70.59 ± 1.20 9.1 9114737 30 September 2011 2.80 ± 139.93 22.80 ± 133.41 10.1 9115975 28 September 2011 13.69 ± 0.00 51.23 ± 0.00 11.7 9124471 01 June 2012 24.85 ± 11.42 55.89 ± 17.65 9131797 13 June 2011 19.03 ± 13.47 72.37 ± 0.00 15.1 9131797 27 June 2011 8.54 ± 0.00 72.37 ± 0.00 15.3 9131797 28 August 2012 18.63 ± 15.27 65.36 ± 22.49 15.4 9131797 06 September 2012 21.97 ± 3.57 66.97 ± 8.04 16.3 9133915 01 September 2012 17.61 ± 13.49 56.53 ± 9.10 16.1 9137997 04 September 2012 16.93 ± 9.65 52.45 ± 24.93 18.0 9144419 31 August 2012 14.54 ± 19.43 70.52 ± 0.14 14.7 4 9144512 05 September 2012 21.38 ± 0.00 69.38 ± 0.00 10.9 9158458 13 June 2011 20.64 ± 0.00 65.00 ± 0.00 9166845 01 June 2012 19.17 ± 15.15 70.54 ± 14.04 5.7 9168946 02 October 2011 13.75 ± 7.52 20.72 ± 13.76 0.4 9173329 30 June 2011 15.82 ± 0.00 67.09 ± 0.00 15.6 9177959 01 June 2012 21.83 ± 31.05 63.81 ± 26.72 13.9 9181077 01 September 2012 13.61 ± 0.00 73.23 ± 0.00 18.1 9182368 30 May 2012 25.13 ± 28.89 160.86 ± 24.95 17.1 9184029 01 June 2012 22.84 ± 34.10 79.67 ± 19.27 17.5 9187916 13 June 2011 18.05 ± 0.00 61.41 ± 0.00 11.9 9187916 28 September 2011 26.31 ± 19.52 74.01 ± 46.77 13.9 9188427 10 June 2011 12.98 ± 0.00 71.27 ± 0.00 19.4 9188518 03 September 2012 14.24 ± 9.97 49.93 ± 1.76 17.5 9194000 13 June 2011 17.24 ± 9.99 65.00 ± 0.00 9194012 13 June 2011 18.75 ± 18.08 65.00 ± 0.00 2 9194074 30 September 2011 22.70 ± 11.92 97.84 ± 25.57 11.9 9197521 31 August 2012 18.78 ± 7.47 66.93 ± 0.00 14.9 9198941 15 June 2011 42.42 ± 31.34 68.81 ± 0.23 17.3 9198941 29 June 2011 40.69 ± 12.51 76.92 ± 0.01 23.4 9202546 06 September 2012 21.94 ± 0.00 77.45 ± 0.00 15.3 9205964 31 May 2012 27.69 ± 5.28 61.79 ± 63.66 19.3 9207883 06 September 2012 17.15 ± 0.00 77.60 ± 0.00 18.1 9212589 11 June 2011 16.75 ± 0.00 64.85 ± 0.00 12.9 9217230 03 September 2012 20.51 ± 22.85 65.30 ± 20.65 16.3 9217230 06 September 2012 21.69 ± 0.62 69.21 ± 13.24 17.1 9217242 15 June 2011 17.36 ± 9.50 78.86 ± 0.00 18.1 9217242 27 June 2011 15.27 ± 0.00 78.85 ± 0.00 18.3 9217242 03 September 2012 16.84 ± 11.29 48.90 ± 10.65 17.2 9218014 31 May 2012 28.51 ± 8.47 60.63 ± 19.48 16.0 9222118 02 October 2011 8.07 ± 62.49 21.95 ± 28.82 7.4 9227326 31 May 2012 23.49 ± 8.68 83.34 ± 0.44 16.4 9230098 04 September 2012 21.31 ± 0.00 55.69 ± 0.00 9231846 30 September 2011 17.87 ± 16.49 38.47 ± 34.96 9233234 29 August 2012 26.95 ± 22.11 51.75 ± 14.07 10.4 9235892 16 June 2011 11.24 ± 19.52 74.44 ± 0.00 16.2 9244192 28 September 2011 19.03 ± 73.11 68.52 ± 10.55 15.7 9244295 01 October 2011 20.18 ± 35.73 28.53 ± 21.58 6.8 9250373 01 June 2012 5.55 ± 110.40 59.50 ± 59.84 10.6 9251652 11 June 2011 17.82 ± 0.00 75.64 ± 0.00 13.3 9256078 01 October 2011 20.31 ± 1.30 76.43 ± 2.81 13.6 9259599 10 June 2011 12.52 ± 15.55 101.94 ± 0.11 12.7 9259599 27 June 2011 16.53 ± 0.00 100.50 ± 0.00 12.0 9261401 01 October 2011 17.33 ± 17.23 58.00 ± 11.30 13.8 9265756 01 October 2011 22.28 ± 0.00 74.50 ± 0.00 9266853 13 June 2011 17.69 ± 0.00 104.37 ± 0.00 14.4 9268837 01 June 2012 21.88 ± 17.32 48.21 ± 14.49 10.7 9276561 11 June 2011 20.28 ± 0.00 91.47 ± 0.00 10.3 9276561 30 June 2011 15.06 ± 24.14 101.36 ± 0.19 12.9 9278234 28 September 2011 20.27 ± 15.47 79.20 ± 22.39 18.7 9278234 30 September 2011 15.00 ± 24.78 61.92 ± 30.67 20.5 9286554 31 May 2012 24.86 ± 19.26 68.55 ± 12.86 15.4 9288722 27 June 2011 15.14 ± 25.45 104.41 ± 0.00 14.4 9290684 27 June 2011 22.33 ± 0.00 63.53 ± 0.00 11.4 9290842 02 October 2011 20.99 ± 55.28 89.24 ± 67.35 14.4 9292101 15 June 2011 14.87 ± 14.42 99.41 ± 0.42 14.2 9294288 01 June 2012 19.07 ± 36.17 51.02 ± 50.27 12.4 9296195 31 August 2012 30.34 ± 36.46 65.00 ± 0.00 9297591 01 October 2011 19.37 ± 0.00 45.44 ± 0.00 17.0 9299733 01 September 2012 19.49 ± 38.82 77.46 ± 53.70 14.5 9301926 31 August 2012 13.80 ± 38.59 83.02 ± 0.17 15.1 9307671 31 August 2012 18.49 ± 30.34 77.15 ± 54.80 13.2 9312195 15 June 2011 17.32 ± 25.78 72.14 ± 0.30 16.7 9313216 01 October 2011 17.88 ± 41.25 47.89 ± 44.86 9317755 31 May 2012 18.59 ± 13.37 98.54 ± 0.18 13.1 9318486 05 September 2012 21.53 ± 0.00 97.19 ± 0.00 15.3 9319466 05 September 2012 15.76 ± 16.73 78.89 ± 14.60 20.2 9320556 28 June 2011 15.57 ± 25.71 78.34 ± 0.01 22.9 9321677 27 June 2011 15.73 ± 8.52 104.46 ± 0.03 15.3 9328637 03 September 2012 10.16 ± 0.00 72.57 ± 0.00 17.5 9332066 31 May 2012 23.60 ± 9.49 99.08 ± 0.15 14.2 9332157 02 October 2011 16.93 ± 3.14 60.45 ± 15.84 10.9 9336256 15 June 2011 18.72 ± 0.15 77.38 ± 0.00 21.5 9336505 30 September 2011 14.76 ± 10.59 110.98 ± 11.21 14.9 9340453 01 October 2011 22.33 ± 14.65 64.23 ± 17.31 14.0 9346689 15 June 2011 18.88 ± 0.00 53.51 ± 0.00 9.4 9349863 29 September 2011 23.43 ± 18.38 63.42 ± 3.84 18.6 9350721 30 September 2011 22.70 ± 32.51 58.66 ± 38.24 17.6 9352298 01 September 2012 12.92 ± 84.93 45.77 ± 41.60 12.7 9363027 31 May 2012 24.06 ± 36.07 111.73 ± 47.29 12.6 9366287 03 September 2012 18.34 ± 0.00 77.39 ± 0.00 13.1 9369007 15 June 2011 19.18 ± 3.24 61.82 ± 0.10 16.9 9376828 04 September 2012 22.72 ± 0.89 133.92 ± 2.04 11.3 9382190 31 May 2012 19.96 ± 9.07 52.80 ± 0.07 11.1 9382750 31 May 2012 43.86 ± 5.29 81.62 ± 0.00 10.7 9384095 16 June 2011 18.80 ± 14.68 73.13 ± 0.00 13.5 9384095 29 June 2011 14.78 ± 47.33 70.56 ± 0.22 12.6 9387425 29 June 2011 18.97 ± 6.60 84.60 ± 0.08 19.2 9388522 31 May 2012 21.12 ± 5.81 57.66 ± 0.60 13.4 9390305 29 September 2011 15.11 ± 67.93 43.36 ± 9.14 12.5 9396696 31 August 2012 16.95 ± 28.56 67.71 ± 0.15 15.2 9398448 02 October 2011 18.78 ± 0.00 53.41 ± 0.00 9399480 13 June 2011 22.40 ± 26.73 85.56 ± 0.41 12.5 9406582 11 June 2011 6.26 ± 0.00 53.85 ± 0.00 8.5 9407093 29 September 2011 27.06 ± 11.01 70.78 ± 69.68 9413420 15 June 2011 18.07 ± 24.08 84.45 ± 0.00 12.8 9417799 01 June 2012 21.85 ± 17.61 44.88 ± 4.42 13.1 9423449 30 June 2011 15.83 ± 18.20 61.37 ± 0.00 14.6 9430193 06 September 2012 18.93 ± 8.39 62.10 ± 40.70 14.3 9432220 01 October 2011 21.38 ± 28.24 73.68 ± 21.30 15.3 9440796 31 May 2012 21.95 ± 14.49 100.13 ± 16.75 13.4 9440801 01 June 2012 17.80 ± 12.61 39.92 ± 53.40 18.0 9447902 01 June 2012 22.87 ± 14.71 107.02 ± 56.74 9448035 06 September 2012 20.44 ± 9.19 57.17 ± 13.62 9451991 31 May 2012 26.28 ± 9.71 81.14 ± 10.27 9458080 02 October 2011 25.07 ± 21.34 57.71 ± 59.72 16.4 9458535 31 August 2012 15.40 ± 0.00 65.00 ± 0.00 9460241 29 June 2011 19.24 ± 30.71 61.37 ± 0.19 13.4 9461350 01 October 2011 15.04 ± 30.84 58.73 ± 36.59 9.4 9466350 31 August 2012 19.53 ± 9.66 76.86 ± 29.41 9480980 01 June 2012 21.34 ± 28.59 62.19 ± 41.08 9483499 31 August 2012 9.66 ± 4.99 65.00 ± 0.00 9483516 05 September 2012 17.07 ± 8.18 71.79 ± 23.01 12.7 9511533 13 June 2011 15.08 ± 40.92 88.95 ± 0.43 13.6 9511533 27 June 2011 18.66 ± 2.84 89.00 ± 0.00 15.3 9525900 31 May 2012 26.17 ± 8.86 65.00 ± 0.00 9536935 10 June 2011 17.81 ± 0.00 54.76 ± 0.00 13.1 9558907 30 September 2011 14.70 ± 0.00 73.69 ± 0.00 13.6 9567453 16 June 2011 18.75 ± 18.49 85.92 ± 0.24 13.1 9569994 27 June 2011 17.05 ± 4.94 87.29 ± 0.00 13.7 9591571 01 October 2011 16.71 ± 15.67 52.49 ± 18.86 15.4 9592288 31 August 2012 8.51 ± 0.00 48.88 ± 0.00 11.8 4 Copyright of Atmospheric Measurement Techniques Discussions is the property of Copernicus Gesellschaft mbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use ... 722 5 922 30 September 20 11 22 .86 ± 4.36 73. 52 ± 24 .06 10.0 73601 62 11 June 20 11 1.88 ± 0.00 55. 82 ± 0.00 12. 5 7 420 223 30 May 20 12 3.14 ± 53.87 65.68 ± 36.38 10.6 7500451 30 May 20 12 26.84 ± 21 .29 ... 927 6561 30 June 20 11 15.06 ± 24 .14 101.36 ± 0.19 12. 9 927 823 4 28 September 20 11 20 .27 ± 15.47 79 .20 ± 22 .39 18.7 927 823 4 30 September 20 11 15.00 ± 24 .78 61. 92 ± 30.67 20 .5 928 6554 31 May 20 12. .. 63 .24 ± 0.00 19.0 7 928 158 30 September 20 11 25 .73 ± 0.00 46 .26 ± 0.00 8.6 8 020 599 29 June 20 11 20 .64 ± 22 .21 66.93 ± 0.00 16.3 8131893 04 September 20 12 32. 87 ± 26 .23 46.00 ± 12. 66 8 .2 820 2381