the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Measurement report: In-depth characterization of ship emissions during operations in a Mediterranean port
Abstract. A summertime field campaign was conducted in Marseille, one of the major cruise and ferry ports in the Mediterranean to provide comprehensive analysis of in-port ship emissions. High-temporal-resolution data were simultaneously collected from two monitoring stations deployed in port area to examine the composition in both gas and particulate phases. More than 350 individual plumes were captured from a variety of ships and operational phases. Gaseous emissions are predominantly composed of NOx (86 %) and CO (12 %), with SO2 and CH4 each accounting for about 1 %. Although NMVOCs make up less than 0.1 % of the gaseous phase, they can be as high as 10% under specific operational conditions. Submicron particles (PM1) are mainly composed of organics (75 %), black carbon (21 %), and sulphate (4 %) not balanced with ammonium. Among the ship-related characteristics investigated, the operational phase is the most influential with a threefold increase on PM1 emissions, along with higher relative contributions of BC and sulphate, and detection of vanadium, nickel, and iron during “manoeuvring/navigation” compared to “at berth”. Pollutant levels in the port are higher than those found at the urban background site, with average concentrations of NOx, PM1, and particle number (PN) up to twice as high. Analysis of the maximum concentrations reveals pollutants such as SO2 and metals, including Vanadium and Nickel, are 2 to 10 times higher in the port area. This study provides robust support for enhancing source apportionment and emission inventories, both of which are crucial for assessing air, health, and climate impacts of shipping.
- Preprint
(3066 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3088 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2903', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Oct 2024
This manuscript reports on the emissions of particle and gas phase species from ships at a major port in Europe. The authors utilized ship emission plumes measured in situ, capturing real-world variations in ship type and operating conditions, to report emission factors of different species. This is especially relevant to the scientific community as there have been major changes in ship emission regulations in recent years.
- Major comments
Line 363 mentions using a statistical test to determine differences between different ship/operation categories, however, the rest of the manuscript only occasionally mentions statistical differences. Many of the figures show results that look similar, and it would be useful to identify which differences are statistically significant.
There are a lot of figures, and some of them show similar data (i.e figure 11 shows the same data as figure 12 and 13, just not broken down by different categories. Same with figure 14, 15 and 16). The authors might consider if there is a way to combine some of these figures.
- Minor comments
Line 58: Although there are some details on the MARPOL convention regulations, a few additional clarifications would be useful to expand these results to other locations. For example.
- Is the port in an ECA, and how far offshore does this extend.
- Please expand on the usage of SCR systems. It is discussed that these allow for higher sulfur fuels in the ECA, are these also required offshore? Is there any information on how common these systems are? It is also noted that these scrubbers are shut down in the harbor (line 445) - Does this increase the sulfur emissions?
Line 292: “As shown Figure 3, CPBF indicates that the highest concentrations typically occur when the measurement sites are downwind of the mooring berths or the ships' access lanes to the port”. Where are the referred to berths and access lanes. Is this to the northwest of the CPF site?
Typographical comments
Line 79: The acronym MGO is not defined
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2903-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2903', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Dec 2024
This work examines the chemical composition of gas and particle phases at two sites of the Marseille Mediterranean port. They provide a complete description of the monitoring conditions and data processing for the selection of specific plumes and calculation of the emissions factors to suggest possible source contributions. An individual description of pollutants behaviors is provided together with the influence of the ships operational phases, aging of the plumes and sulfur content of the fuels. Therefore, this study provides interesting insights of ship emissions at port areas for the scientific community.
Major comments
Line 217: The atmospheric background was calculated using a low pass time series. Then for tuning, plumes without returning to the baseline were not considered in the analysis. How is the baseline considered and what is the impact of the background calculation on it?
Line 305: For OA, there is an increase in the average concentrations during the night, which the authors associated to the influence of the land breeze regime. Can that be a consequence of the nighttime radical chemistry? Then, for the NMVOCS, concentrations also increased at night, if those are coming from urban emissions, can the authors comment about the behavior of the other anthropogenic pollutants measured?
Line 328 and 450: What is the impact of the criteria of exclusion of plumes into the analysis of the selected ones? Are they representative of traffic periods?
Line 835: Authors mentioned this study provides robust support for assessing air quality in the ports and along the text, they highlight the influence of the sulfur content on the emissions factors. Therefore, can the authors conclude on the limitations of the plume selections and the impact of the use of different fuels and ship classifications on this observation?
Technical details
Line 183 : Data records were purchased from (incomplete)
Line 678: PM1, add subindex
Check acronyms definitions as some are defined multiple times: OA, BC
Line 813: check spelling for “n manouevring”
Table S11 and Table S6 are hard to read, can the authors increase the size?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2903-RC2
Data sets
Time series of high temporal resolution observations of atmospheric pollutants in a Mediterranean port in June 2021 L. Le Berre et al. https://doi.org/10.57932/90FFEBBE-94C3-4356-A073-78EC9E014B1D
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
273 | 66 | 170 | 509 | 22 | 6 | 7 |
- HTML: 273
- PDF: 66
- XML: 170
- Total: 509
- Supplement: 22
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1