4.7 Article

Impact of emission control areas on atmospheric pollutant emissions from major ocean-going ships entering the Shanghai Port, China

期刊

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
卷 142, 期 -, 页码 525-532

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.053

关键词

Ocean-going ships; Atmospheric pollutant emissions; Emission control areas; Sulfur; Shanghai Port

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71704103, 51879156, 71603162]
  2. Shanghai Pujiang Program [17PJC053]
  3. Shanghai Science & Technology Committee [15ZR1420400]
  4. Key Projects of Shanghai Soft Science Research Program [18692106600]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ocean-going ships are mostly driven by high-sulfur heavy fuel oil, which poses public health and environmental concerns. Emission control areas (ECA) have been developed for the regulatory control of the sulfur content in fuel. We tracked 28 sample vessels that entered and exited Shanghai Port, to understand how air pollutants, including oxysulfides (SOx), nitric oxide (NOx), and particulate matter smaller than 10 mu m (PM10), would change under the ECA regulations. Emission reductions vary with the types and sizes of the ships. In our sample pool, oil/chemical tankers and container ships have the highest decline rates of SOx emissions at 26.8%-56.4% and 17.4%-56.6%, respectively. Cruise ships, container ships, and liquefied gas carriers occupy the highest share ratios of pollutant emissions in the sample pool because of the higher average gross tonnage and correspondingly higher-rated power of the ships' main engines. As expected, SOx and PM10 emissions under hoteling conditions (operations while stationary at dock) can be considerably reduced by switching to low-sulfur fuel. Using fuel with the much lower sulfur content of 0.1% m/m in the ECA, the SOx and PM10 emissions of our sample pool could be reduced considerably by up to 94.4% and 78.3%, respectively, compared to the 0.5% m/m sulfur content used during ship hoteling.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据