4.7 Article

Comparison of methodologies estimating emissions of aircraft pollutants, environmental impact assessment around airports

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW
Volume 31, Issue 3, Pages 240-252

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.09.001

Keywords

Aircraft; Pollutant emissions; Emission factors; Methods; Assessment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Air transportation growth has increased continuously over the years. The rise in air transport activity has been accompanied by an increase in the amount of energy used to provide air transportation services. It is also assumed to increase environmental impacts, in particular pollutant emissions. Traditionally, the environmental impacts of atmospheric emissions from aircraft have been addressed in two separate ways: aircraft pollutant emissions occurring during the landing and take-off (LTO) phase (local pollutant emissions) which is the focus of this study, and the non-LTO phase (global/regional pollutant emissions). Aircraft pollutant emissions are an important source of pollution and directly or indirectly harmfully affect human health, ecosystems and cultural heritage. There are many methods to asses pollutant emissions used by various countries. However, using different and separate methodology will cause a variation in results, some lack of information and the use of certain methods will require justification and reliability that must be demonstrated and proven. In relation to this issue, this paper presents identification, comparison and reviews of some of the methodologies of aircraft pollutant assessment from the past, present and future expectations of some studies and projects focusing on emissions factors, fuel consumption, and uncertainty. This paper also provides reliable information on the impacts of aircraft pollutant emissions in short term and long term predictions. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available