| Literature DB >> 24198720 |
Halil Saraçoğlu1, Cengiz Deniz, Alper Kılıç.
Abstract
Maritime transportation is a major source of climate change and air pollution. Shipping emissions cause severe impacts on health and environment. These effects of emissions are emerged especially in territorial waters, inland seas, canals, straits, bays, and port regions. In this paper, exhaust gas emissions from ships in Izmir Port, which is one of the main ports in Turkey, are calculated by the ship activity-based methodology. Total emissions from ships in the port is estimated as 1923 ton y⁻¹ for NO(x), 1405 ton y⁻¹ for SO₂, 82753 ton y⁻¹ for CO₂, ton y⁻¹ for HC, and 165 ton y⁻¹ for PM in the year 2007. These emissions are classified regarding operation modes and types of ships. The results are compared with the other studies including amounts of exhaust pollutants generated by ships. According to the findings, it is clear that the ships calling the Izmir Port are important air polluting causes of the Izmir city and its surroundings.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24198720 PMCID: PMC3807719 DOI: 10.1155/2013/218324
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Study Region-Izmir Gulf.
Ship Particulars at Izmir Port for the year 2007.
| Number of ships | Max | Min | Average | Median | Std Dev. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical | 3 | GRT | 5998 | 4358 | 5115 | 4989 | 827 |
| ME kW | 6564 | 1560 | 4008 | 3900 | 2504 | ||
| ME rpm | 580 | 210 | 444 | 542 | 204 | ||
| DG kW | 330 | 300 | 310 | 300 | 17 | ||
| 4 | Berth Time | 91 | 30 | 65 | 69 | 25 | |
|
| |||||||
| Container | 260 | GRT | 75590 | 959 | 19055 | 14821 | 14601 |
| ME kW | 68470 | 550 | 13592 | 10130 | 11960 | ||
| ME rpm | 960 | 65 | 254 | 127 | 217 | ||
| DG kW | 1000 | 100 | 458 | 440 | 161 | ||
| 1567 | Berth Time | 120 | 1 | 21 | 19 | 11 | |
|
| |||||||
| General cargo | 502 | GRT | 50681 | 393 | 4262 | 2531 | 5406 |
| ME kW | 21000 | 170 | 2650 | 1609 | 3036 | ||
| ME rpm | 1200 | 79 | 538 | 500 | 258 | ||
| DG kW | 1000 | 50 | 272 | 245 | 137 | ||
| 976 | Berth Time | 376 | 3 | 39 | 28 | 37 | |
|
| |||||||
| Passenger | 19 | GRT | 114147 | 2889 | 52014 | 22080 | 46874 |
| ME kW | 72000 | 1200 | 25517 | 10294 | 26239 | ||
| ME rpm | 750 | 78 | 450 | 450 | 209 | ||
| DG kW | 800 | 200 | 531 | 525 | 220 | ||
| 141 | Berth Time | 61 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 8 | |
|
| |||||||
| Ro-Ro | 16 | GRT | 60942 | 37710 | 47168 | 51714 | 8751 |
| ME kW | 60942 | 37710 | 47168 | 51714 | 8751 | ||
| ME rpm | 113 | 100 | 111 | 112 | 3 | ||
| DG kW | 1180 | 310 | 674 | 500 | 249 | ||
| 81 | Berth Time | 36 | 3 | 13 | 13 | 6 | |
|
| |||||||
| Tanker | 30 | GRT | 25487 | 6650 | 13955 | 11450 | 6474 |
| ME kW | 16550 | 1030 | 6727 | 6480 | 3260 | ||
| ME rpm | 950 | 102 | 235 | 140 | 213 | ||
| DG kW | 750 | 200 | 406 | 400 | 149 | ||
| 34 | Berth Time | 113 | 19 | 43 | 41 | 21 | |
|
| |||||||
| All Ships | 830 | GRT | 114147 | 393 | 11169 | 4968 | 15712 |
| ME kW | 72000 | 170 | 6911 | 3150 | 9962 | ||
| ME rpm | 1200 | 65 | 427 | 450 | 279 | ||
| DG kW | 1180 | 50 | 349 | 330 | 181 | ||
| 2803 | Berth Time | 376 | 1 | 27 | 20 | 25 | |
Figure 2The flow chart for the used ship activity-based method.
Load factors of main engine and generators according to operational modes.
| Operational mode | Main engine load | Generator load |
|---|---|---|
| Cruising | %40 | %30 |
| Maneuvering | %40 | %50 |
| Hotelling | %20 | %40 |
Average ship speed of the ships called Izmir Port.
| Ship type | Ship speed (km/h) |
|---|---|
| Chemical tanker | 27.78 |
| Container | 37.04 |
| General cargo | 25.93 |
| Passenger | 37.04 |
| RO-RO | 33.34 |
| Tanker | 25.93 |
Emission factors used in the calculation (g/kWh).
| Ship types | NO | SO2 | CO2 | HC | PM | SFC | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cru | Hotel | Man | Cru | Hotel | Man | Cru | Hotel | Man | Cru | Hotel | Man | Cru | Hotel | Man | Cru | Hotel | Man | |
| Chemical T. | 16.3 | 13.3 | 13.3 | 11.0 | 12.2 | 12.2 | 650 | 716 | 715 | 0.55 | 1.00 | 1.04 | 1.34 | 1.50 | 1.60 | 204 | 225 | 225 |
| Container | 17.3 | 13.5 | 13.8 | 10.8 | 12.3 | 12.0 | 635 | 720 | 705 | 0.57 | 0.50 | 1.19 | 1.56 | 0.90 | 1.73 | 200 | 226 | 222 |
| Gen. Cargo | 16.2 | 13.4 | 13.2 | 10.9 | 12.2 | 12.1 | 649 | 721 | 715 | 0.54 | 0.50 | 1.03 | 1.28 | 0.90 | 1.59 | 204 | 227 | 225 |
| Passenger | 13.2 | 13.2 | 11.8 | 11.8 | 12.3 | 12.6 | 697 | 725 | 747 | 0.46 | 0.50 | 0.97 | 0.81 | 0.90 | 1.71 | 219 | 228 | 235 |
| Ro-Ro | 15.3 | 13.3 | 12.8 | 11.1 | 12.3 | 12.2 | 655 | 722 | 719 | 0.52 | 0.50 | 1.06 | 1.17 | 0.90 | 1.68 | 206 | 227 | 226 |
| Tanker | 14.8 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 11.7 | 12.6 | 12.7 | 690 | 743 | 745 | 0.50 | 1.10 | 1.10 | 1.43 | 1.70 | 1.82 | 217 | 234 | 235 |
Figure 3Comparison of ME Powers with Default.
Figure 4Total exhaust emissions during ship operational modes.
Figure 5Total exhausts emissions according to ship types.
NO percentage according to ship type and operation mode.
| Ships | Percentage of NO | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cruising | Maneuvering | Hotelling | |||||
| ME | AE | ME | AE | ME | AE | ||
| Chemical tanker | 0-72 | 0-9 | 0-7 | 0-3 | 0-2 | 0-7 | 0-100 |
| Container | 67-75 | 59-4 | 72-8 | 64-2 | 69-4 | 58-7 | 66-100 |
| General cargo | 11-60 | 29-10 | 10-6 | 23-3 | 15-5 | 32-18 | 14-100 |
| Passenger | 19-85 | 5-1 | 14-6 | 6-1 | 14-4 | 7-3 | 16-100 |
| Ro-Ro | 3-74 | 5-7 | 3-9 | 5-3 | 2-2 | 2-5 | 3-100 |
| Tanker | 1-67 | 1-9 | 1-8 | 1-2 | 1-4 | 1-10 | 1-100 |
| All ships | 100-74 | 100-4 | 100-8 | 100-2 | 100-4 | 100-8 | 100-100 |
Land-based emissions in (t y−1).
| Air pollutant sources | NO | SO | PM |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domestic heating | 1.124 | 5.693 | 11.159 |
| Traffic | 19.418 | 1.862 | 1.351 |
| Industry | 2.631 | 5.539 | 3.941 |
| Shipping | 1.923 | 1.405 | 165 |
Comparison of shipping emissions on the different ports (t y−1).
| Port | Ships call | NO | SO2 | HC | PM | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aberdeen | — | 376 | 52 | — | 14 | [ |
| Copenhagen | — | 743 | 162 | — | 13 | [ |
| Oakland | 1.916 | 2.484 | 1.413 | — | 219.5 | [ |
| JN-New Bombay | 2.900 | 397 | 56 | — | 221 | [ |
| Port Arthur | — | 1716 | 833 | — | 133 | [ |
| Izmir | 2.806 | 1.923 | 1.405 | 74 | 165 | In this study |
Shipping emissions at Turkish ports (t y−1).
| Turkish ports | Ships call | NO | SO2 | CO2 | PM | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Izmit Gulf | 11.645 | 5.356 | 4.305 | 254.261 | 232 | [ |
| Ambarlı Port | 5.432 | 845 | 242 | 78.590 | 36 | [ |
| Çandarlı Gulf | 7.520 | 632 | 574 | 33.848 | 32 | [ |
| Izmir Port | 2.806 | 1.923 | 1.405 | 82.753 | 165 | This study |