Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 240252

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e i a r

Comparison of methodologies estimating emissions of aircraft pollutants, environmental impact assessment around airports
Jermanto S. Kurniawan , S. Khardi 1
INRETS-LTE, 25, avenue Franois Mitterrand, 69675 Bron cedex, France, Kampus Baru UI Depok - Indonesia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
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 justication and reliability that must be demonstrated and proven. In relation to this issue, this paper presents identication, 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. 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 18 March 2010 Received in revised form 21 September 2010 Accepted 23 September 2010 Available online 16 October 2010 Keywords: Aircraft Pollutant emissions Emission factors Methods Assessment

Contents 1. 2. 3. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The literature review . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Pollutant emissions source . . . 3.2. Identication of various methods 4. Discussions and comparison . . . . . . 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of assessments and measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 241 241 241 242 248 251 251 251

Abbreviations: ALAQS, Airport Local Air Quality Study; APU, Auxiliary Power Unit; CAEP, Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection; CH4, Methane; CO, Carbon monoxide; CO2, Carbon dioxide; EEA, European Environment Agency; EI, Emission indices; EIS, Emission Indices Sheets; EMEP, European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; FAA, Federal Aviation Administration; GIS, Geographic Information System; H2O, Water vapor; HAPs, Hazardous air pollutants; HC, Hydrocarbon; ICAO, International Civil Aviation Organization; IFR, Instrument Flight Rules; IPCC, International Panel of Climate Change; ISA, International Standard Atmosphere; LAQ, Local air quality; LTO, Landing and take-off; MEET, Methodologies for Estimating air pollutant Emissions from Transport; NMVOC, Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compounds; NOx, Nitrogen oxides; OD, Origin and destination; PM, Particulate matter; SOx, Sulphur oxides; TBEC, Thrust Based Emission Calculator; TIM, Time in Modes; VFR, Visual Flight Rules; VOC, Volatile Organic Compounds. Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 4 72 14 26 13; fax: +33 4 72 14 25 20. E-mail addresses: Jermanto.kurniawan@inrets.fr (J.S. Kurniawan), Salah.khardi@inrets.fr (S. Khardi). 1 Tel.: + 33 4 72 14 24 79; fax: + 33 4 72 14 25 20. 0195-9255/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.09.001

J.S. Kurniawan, S. Khardi / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 240252

241

1. Introduction Air transportation growth has increased continuously over the years. However, the growth has not been uniform and varies from country to country. The general increase in air transport activity has been accompanied by a rise in the amount of energy used to provide air transportation services. Along with the increase in air transport activity and energy consumption increased environmental impacts are assumed. Traditionally, the environmental impact of atmospheric emissions from aircraft has been addressed in two separate ways. On the one hand, air quality impacts from aviation have been considered by regulators, airports and aircraft manufacturers, focusing mainly on the emissions from aircraft occurring during the landing and take-off phases (LTO cycle) of aircraft operations (local pollutant emissions). On the other hand, studies on the environmental impact of aircraft emissions occurring in other ight phases such as climb and cruise (non-LTO cycle) have focused mainly on their inuence on climate change, stratospheric ozone and UV-radiation (global/regional pollutant emissions). The environmental impact of air trafc is often mainly associated with noise nuisance, smoke and gaseous emissions of carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, including methane and nitrogen oxides (NOx include nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide), sulphur oxides in the vicinity of airports. Particles (such as particulate matter PM2.5 and PM10) present the most serious adverse health impacts from aircraft pollutant emissions. These have been controlled by implementation of standards and certication of aircraft engines. For this purpose the ICAO has dened reference emissions LTO cycle, with specic thrust settings and so-called Time in Modes for each operating mode, which reects all aircraft operations in the boundary layer below the so-called inversion height (usually at about 1 km) (Olivier, 1991; ICAO, 2007a,b). Aircraft pollutant emissions have been of concern since the beginning of commercial aviation. The continuing growth in air trafc and increasing public awareness have made environmental considerations one of the most critical aspects of commercial aviation. This means that pollutant emissions from aviation activity are expected to grow and increase by factors 1.6 to 10, depending on the fuel use scenario (IPCC, 1999; Antoine, 2004; FAA, 2005). Conscious of this problem, engine manufacturers have developed low-emission combustors, and made them available as options. These combustors have been adopted by airlines operating in European airports with strict pollutant emissions controls, in Sweden and Switzerland, for example (Antoine, 2004; Celikel et al., 2005a,b). Over the past several years, the pollutant emission indices have declined steadily as shown Fig. 1. However, considerably more progress has been made with HC and CO than NOx (FAA, 2005). Current emission regulations have focused on local air quality in the vicinity of airports. ICAO has set an environmental goal to limit and reduce the effects of aircraft pollutant emissions on local air quality from aircraft operations (ICAO, 2007a,b). Operations of aircraft are usually divided into two main parts (EEA/EMEP, 2009): The LTO cycle dened by ICAO (1993) includes all activities near the airport that take place below the altitude of 3000 ft (914 m). This therefore includes taxi-in and out, take-off, climb-out and approach-landing. Cruise is dened as all activities that take place at altitude above 3000 ft (914 m). No upper limit altitude is given. Cruise includes climb from the end of climb-out in the LTO cycle to the cruise altitude, cruise, and descent from cruise altitudes to the start of LTO operations of landing. Method for measurement, prediction and assessment of environmental problems such as aircraft pollutant emissions have been

carried out. The use of certain methods will require justication and reliability that must be demonstrated and proven. Various methods have been adopted for the assessment of aircraft pollutant emissions. The use of different and separate methodologies causes a variation in results and there is some lack of information as shown in Table 1. This is because the gaps or differences in data availability, accuracy data input, and in-certainties in knowledge on the inuence of engine ageing, the operational aircraft conguration, and atmospheric conditions on the pollutant emissions and their dispersions (Kalivoda and Kudrna, 1997; IPCC, 1999; Sourdine_II, 2005). In order to provide reliable information on the impacts of aircraft pollutant emissions, this paper identies, reviews and compares various methods of pollutant emissions assessment and evaluates the reliable methods to use in terms of accuracy, application, capability and problem of the uncertainty data and model. 2. Objectives The objectives of this paper are: identication, review and comparison of various methods assessing aircraft pollutant emissions and evaluation of the reliable methods to use in terms of accuracy, application, and capability. 3. The literature review 3.1. Pollutant emissions source Emissions from aircraft originate from fuel burned in aircraft engines. Aircraft jet engines produce CO2, H2O, NOx, CO, SOx, unburned or partially combusted hydrocarbons also known as VOC, particulates and other trace compounds (FAA, 2005; ICAO, 2007a,b). A small subset of the VOCs and particulates are considered hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Aircraft engine emissions are roughly composed of about 70% CO2, a little less than 30% H2O, and less than 1% each of NOx, CO, SOx, VOC, particulates, and other trace components including HAPs. About 10% of aircraft emissions of all types, except HC and CO, are produced during airport ground level operations and during landing and take-off. The bulk of aircraft emissions (90%) occur at higher altitudes. For HC and CO, the split is closer to 30% ground level emissions and 70% at higher altitudes (FAA, 2005). Emission from combustion processes CO2 is the product of complete combustion of hydrocarbon fuels like gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel. Carbon in fuel combines with oxygen in the air to produce CO2. Water vapor is the other product of complete combustion as hydrogen in the fuel combines with oxygen in the air to produce H2O. Nitrogen oxides are produced when air passes through high temperature/high pressure combustion and nitrogen and oxygen present in the air combine to form NOx (FAA, 2005). Hydrocarbons are emitted due to incomplete fuel combustion by an engine. Carbon monoxide is formed due to the incomplete combustion of the carbon in the fuel. Sulphur oxides are produced when small quantities of sulphur, present in essentially all hydrocarbon fuels, combine with oxygen from the air during combustion. Particulates small particles that form as a result of incomplete combustion, and are small enough to be inhaled. Particulates can be solid or liquid. Ozone (O3) is not emitted directly into the air but is formed by the reaction of VOCs and NOx in the presence of heat and sunlight. Ozone forms readily in the atmosphere and is the primary constituent of smog. For this reason it is an important consideration in the environmental impact of aviation (FAA, 2005; ICAO, 2007a,b). Compared to other sources, aviation emissions are a relatively small contributor to air quality concerns both with regard to local air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. While small, however, aviation emissions cannot be ignored (FAA, 2005).

242

J.S. Kurniawan, S. Khardi / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 240252

Fig. 1. Local air quality pollutants have declined steadily over the past several years (FAA, 2005).

Emissions will be dependent on the fuel type, aircraft type, engine type, engine load and ying altitude. Two types of fuel are used. Gasoline is used in small piston engine aircraft only. Most aircraft run on kerosene and the bulk of fuel used for aviation is kerosene (Rypdal, 2009). In general, two types of engines exist; reciprocating piston engines and gas turbines (Olivier, 1991; EEA/EMEP, 2009).

3.2. Identication of various methods of assessments and measurements There have been a few studies of aircraft pollutant emissions. Some of these studies focused on measurement of aircraft pollutant emissions such as using remote sensing and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) emission spectroscopy (Heland and Schafer, 1998; Schafer, 2001; Schafer et al., 2003), visible spectroscopy/miniature differential absorption spectroscopy (Melamed et al., 2003), ICAO methodology to calculate the total NOx emissions from aircraft during Engine Ground Running (Morris and Buttress, 2005), using the chromatographic analysis to determine carbon species emissions (Anderson et al., 2006), open path devices to determine real in-use emission indices of aircraft (Schumann et al., 2007) and the methodology of on-wing commercial aircraft measurement by collecting samples from engines using a probe positioned behind the exhaust nozzle of the aircraft (Agrawal et al., 2008). Other studies focused on modeling and assessing the local and regional impact of aircraft pollutant emissions. Moussiopoulos et al. (1997) quantied the potential impact of emissions from a planned airport on the Athens basin using an Eulerian dispersion model. Dameris et al. (1998), in a rst approach to estimate the sensitiveness of the atmosphere on aircraft NOx emissions, used the coupled 3-D

Table 1 Emission Indices from some references in (g/kg). References Emission indices (g/kg) CO2 ECAC MEET Olivier Sourdine II 3100 3150 3220 3149 H2O 1240 1240 1250 1230 SO2 1.00 0.84

dynamic-chemical model ECHAM3/CHEM. Plummera et al. (2001) used regional-scale models to assess the effects of various hydrocarbon and NOx emission control strategies on ozone concentrations. Yu et al. (2004) used the nonparametric regression method to estimate the average concentration of pollutants such as SO2 and CO as a function of wind direction and speed based upon recorded data. Pison and Menut (2004) quantied the impact of aircraft emissions on ozone concentrations over Paris areas using a mesoscale air quality model, CHIMERE, with 150 150 km2 resolution and a vertical extension of 3100 m. Unal et al. (2005) quantied the impact of aircraft emissions on regional air quality, especially in regards to PM2.5 and ozone using a rst-order approximation where emission rates are a function of smoke number (SN) and fuel ow rate for different engine types in different modes of operation. Gauss et al. (2005) used a 3-D chemical transport model including comprehensive chemistry schemes for the troposphere and the stratosphere in order to take into account all chemical processes relevant for the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere region (UTLS). Kesgin (2006), estimating aircraft LTO emissions (HC, CO, NOx and SO2) using MEET and the ICAO Engine Exhaust Emission Databank. Sidiropoulos et al. (2005) calculated emission factors for selected airports following the analytical methodology incorporated in the EMEP/CORINAIR2 Atmospheric Emission Inventory guidebook and the ICAO Engine Exhaust Emission Databank. Graver and Frey (2009) created an airliner emissions inventory for RaleighDurham International Airport, based on Environmental Protection Agency and Tier 2 methodology of International Panel of Climate Change. This methodology is also described in EEA/EMEP Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook. Wayson et al. (2009) used the First Order Approximation (FOA) 3.0 methodology to estimate PM emissions from certied commercial aircraft engines within the vicinity of airports. FOA3.0 provides a greater condence in the estimation of PM from certied commercial aircraft at airports. This method is developed by Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection. Some methodologies of assessment have been used by some studies to estimate aircraft pollutant emissions such as ICAO, EPA, EEA/EMEP, MEET, ALAQS and SOURDINE II methodology, thus this paper will describe and compare those methods to understand which method provides a reliable assessment for estimating aircraft pollutant emissions at the airport.

Now known as the EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook.

J.S. Kurniawan, S. Khardi / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 240252

243

ICAO sets emission standards for jet engines. These are the basis of FAA aircraft engine performance certication standards, established through EPA regulations. ICAO has covered three approaches to quantifying aircraft engine emissions, two in detail and one in overview: simple approach, advanced approach and sophisticated approach (ICAO, 2007a,b). a. Simple Approach is the least complicated approach, requires the minimum amount of data and provides the highest level of uncertainty often resulting in an over estimation of aircraft emissions. This approach considers the emission pollutant of NOx, CO, HC, SO2 and CO2. The formula used for calculating pollutant emissions does not account for specic engine types, operational modes or TIM as it assumes that the conditions under study are the same or similar to the default data being used. Emission of Species X in kg = Number of LTO cycles Emission Factor b. Advanced approach reects an increased level of renement regarding aircraft types, emission indices calculations and TIM. This approach represents a more accurate estimation of aircraft engine emissions compared to the simple approach and considers the pollutant emissions of NOx, CO and HC.     Eij = TIMjk 60 FFjk = 1000 EIjk NEj where: Eij EIjk Total emissions of pollutant i (e.g. NOx, CO, or HC), in grams, produced by aircraft type j for one LTO cycle. the emission indices for pollutant i (e.g. NOx, CO, or HC), in grams per pollutant per kilogram of fuel (g/kg of fuel), in mode k (e.g. takeoff, climb out, idle and approach) for each engine used on aircraft type j. Fuel ow for mode k (e.g. takeoff, climb out, idle and approach), in kilograms per second (kg/s), for each engine used on aircraft type j. Time-in-mode for mode k (e.g. idle, approach, climb out, and takeoff), in minutes, for aircraft type j. Number of engines used on aircraft type j. 2 1

Typical or actual throttle settings used during reverse thrust operation. Actual aircraft/engine conguration data. Actual fuel ow data. Actual idle engine-type idle speeds. Typical or actual throttle settings for approach take off and climb out (e.g. reduced thrust take-off procedures). Approach and climb proles. Frequency of less than all engine taxi operation. Using actual performance and operational data, engine emissions factors can be calculated using programs such as the Boeing Fuel Flow Method 2 or the Deutsches Zentrum fr Luft- und Raumfahrt Method (ICAO, 2007a,b). Once the actual eet engine emission factors, times-in-mode and fuel ows are known, the LTO emissions are calculated using the Eq. (2) that is used in the advanced approach, where: Eij EIjk Total emissions of pollutant i (e.g. NOx, CO, or HC), in grams, produced by aircraft type j for one LTO cycle. Performance based emission index for pollutant i (e.g. NOx, CO, or HC), in grams per pollutant per kilogram of fuel (g/kg of fuel), in mode k (e.g. takeoff, climb out, idle and approach) for each engine used on aircraft type j. Fuel ow for mode k (e.g. takeoff, climb out, idle and approach), in kilograms per second (kg/s), for each engine used on aircraft type j. Time-in-mode based on aircraft operational performance for mode k (e.g. idle, approach, climb out, and takeoff), in minutes, for aircraft type j. Number of engines used on aircraft type j.

FFjk

TIMjk

NEj

FFjk

TIMjk NEj

An example of pollutant emissions calculation in LTO cycle is shown in Table 2: aircraft type: B737 400; engine type: JT8D-17 (Pratt and Whitney); TIM fuel ow and emission indices are based on ICAO Engine Exhaust Emission Databank (ICAO, 2009). This calculation uses an advanced approach methodology. EPA recommended emissions calculation methodology for a given airport in any given year and can be summarized in six steps: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Determine the mixing height to be used to dene a LTO cycle. Determine airport activity in terms of the number of LTOs. Dene the eet make-up at the airport. Select emission factors. Estimate TIM. Calculate emissions based on the airport activity, TIM, and aircraft emission factors.

c. Sophisticated approach is provided in overview, will be further developed in CAEP/83 and is expected to best reect actual aircraft emissions. Use of this approach requires a greater knowledge of aircraft and engine operations and the use of propriety data or models that are not normally available in the public domain. The actual and rened data required for the analysis is obtained from real-time measurements under this approach. The data and information typically required for computing aircraft engine emissions using the sophisticated approach are listed as follows: Times-in-mode measurements for different aircraft/engine types under different load, route and meteorological conditions. Reverse thrust deployment measurements for different aircraft/ engine types under different meteorological conditions. Airport meteorological conditions, where modeling of aircraft/ engine performance accounts for variation in meteorological conditions. Frequency and type of engine test runs. Frequency of operational aircraft towing. Airport infrastructure and constraints (e.g. runway length).
3 The eighth meeting of the CAEP assists the Council in formulating new policies and adopting new Standards on aircraft noise and aircraft engine emissions. CAEP has held seven meetings, usually at three-year intervals.

Steps two through ve are repeated for each type of aircraft using a given airport. This methodology is essentially the same as that used in the FAA Aircraft Engine Emissions Database (FAEED) model (EPA, 1999). For Time in Mode calculations, the duration of the approach and climb-out modes depends largely on the mixing height selected. EPA guidance provides approach and climb-out times for a default mixing height of 3000 ft, and a procedure for adjusting these times for different mixing heights. The adjustments are calculated using the equation below (EPA, 1999): Climb-out: TIMadj = TIMadj Approach: Mixing Height 3000 ! 4 ! Mixing Height500 3000500 3

TIMadj = TIMadj

244

J.S. Kurniawan, S. Khardi / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 240252

Table 2 Total emissions in LTO cycle using ICAO methodology. Mode TIM min Idle/taxi Approach Climb out Takeoff LTO total emissions (g) and fuel (kg) 26 4 2.2 0.7 Fuel ow per engine used kg/s 0.147 0.354 0.997 1.245 Emission indices per mode each engine (g/kg of fuel) NOx 3.3 6.1 15.23 19.2 CO 31 8.54 1 0.74 HC 10.2 1.96 0.79 0.69 229 85 132 52 498 Fuel (kg) Total emission (g) NOx 757 518 2004 1004 4283 CO 7109 726 132 39 8005 HC 2339 167 104 36 2646

For emissions calculation, the total emissions per LTO cycle for a given aircraft type is calculated using the following equation: Eij = TIMjk FFjk = 1000 EFijk NEj 5

where: TIMjk = Time in Mode k (min) for aircraft type j; FFjk = fuel ow for mode k (lb/min or kg/min) for each engine used on aircraft type j; EFijk = weighted-average emission factor for pollutant i, in pounds of pollutant per 1000 lb of fuel (kilograms pollutant per 1000 kg fuel), for aircraft type j in operating mode k; NEj = number of engines on aircraft type j. The weighted-average emission factor per 1000 lb of fuel is calculated as follows   NMj EFijk = m = 1 Xmj EFimk 6

number of LTOs for aircraft type j; and N = the total number of aircraft types. An example of pollutant emissions calculation in LTO cycle is shown in Table 3: aircraft type: B737 400; engine type: JT8D-17 (Pratt and Whitney); TIM (ICAO Databank); fuel ow and emission indices are based on Modal Emission Rates Civil Aircraft Engines Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports and Air Forces Bases. Mixing height is assumed: 3000 ft (in LTO cycle). EEA/EMEP uses a decision tree (Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3) to select the methods for estimating the emissions from aviation that are applicable to all nations (EEA/EMEP, 2009). When estimating aviation emissions the following should be considered: use as detailed information as is available; if the source category is a key source, then a Tier 2 or Tier 3 method must be used for estimating the emissions. Table 4 summarizes the data required to use the three Tiers in terms of activity measure and the degree of technology stratication required for the category 1 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) ights. It will often be the case that the overall emissions for category 2 Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and category 3 Civil Helicopters ights are sufciently small and the statistics available is so poor, that a Tier 1 approach for these portions of aviation is appropriate (EEA/EMEP, 2009). The Tier 1 and Tier 2 methodologies are both based on LTO data and fuel used is assumed equal fuel sold. The emission estimation can be made following either the Tier 1 or Tier 2 methodology. For estimating the total emissions of CO2, SO2 and heavy metals the Tier methodology is sufcient, as the emissions of these pollutants are dependent on the fuel only and not technology (EEA/EMEP, 2009). The emissions of PM10 or PM2.5 are aircraft and payload dependent. Therefore, when estimating the total emissions of these pollutants, it may be appropriate to consider the aircraft activity in more details, using the Tier 2 methodology. The Tier 3 methodology may be used to assess an independent estimate of fuel and CO2 emissions from domestic air trafc. The Tier 1 approach for aviation emissions is based on quantity of fuel consumption data for aviation split by LTO and cruise for domestic and international ights separately. The method uses a simple approach to estimate the split of fuel use between cruise and

where: EFimk = the emission factor for pollutant i, in pounds of pollutant per 1000 lb of fuel (or kilograms pollutant per 1000 kg fuel), for engine model m and operating mode k; Xmj = the fraction of aircraft type j with engine model m; NMj = the total number of engine models associated with aircraft type j. Note that, for a given aircraft type j, the sum of Xmj for all engine models associated with aircraft j is 1. Once the preceding calculations are performed for each aircraft type, total emissions for that aircraft type are computed by multiplying the emissions for one LTO cycle by the number of LTO cycles at a given location:   Ei = Eij LTOj 7

where Eij = the total emissions for pollutant i from aircraft type j; LTOj = the number of LTOs for aircraft type j. The total emissions for each aircraft type are summed to yield total commercial exhaust emissions for the facility as shown in the following:
N

ETi = j =

  Eij LTOj

where ETi = the total emissions for pollutant i from all aircraft types; Eij = the emissions of pollutant i from aircraft type j; LTOj = the
Table 3 Total emissions in LTO cycle using EPA methodology. Mode TIM min Taxi in Taxi out Approach Climb out Takeoff LTO total emissions (g) and fuel (kg) 7 19 4 2.2 0.7 Fuel ow per engine used kg/s 0.15 0.15 0.35 1.00 1.25

Emission indices per mode each engine (kg/1000 kg) NOx 3.29 3.29 6.23 15.26 19.30 CO 29.56 29.56 8.13 1.01 0.75 HC 9.57 9.57 1.86 0.75 0.66

Fuel (kg)

Total emission (kg per 1000 kg) NOx CO 1828 4962 692 133 39 7655 HC 592 1607 158 99 35 2490

61.81 167.70 84.98 131.79 52.26 499

204 552 530 2012 1011 4309

J.S. Kurniawan, S. Khardi / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 240252 Table 4 Input data required for the three Tiers of inventory methodology (EEA/EMEP, 2009). Activity Tier 1 Fuel sales sub-divided into domestic and international usage. Total LTO numbers for domestic and international. Fuel sales sub-divided into domestic and international use, as for Tier 1. LTO numbers for domestic and international, per aircraft type. Data for each ight containing aircraft type and ight distance, sub-divided into domestic and international. Technology stratication Use average eet mix (i.e. generic aircraft EFs) and average factors for LTO and cruise. Use of aircraft specic LTO EFs and average EFs for cruise. Use specic aircraft type data from the accompanying spreadsheet to this chapter, available from http://eea. europa.eu/emep-eeaguidebook

245

The algorithms are the same as for the Tier 1 approach (EEA/EMEP, 2009): Epollutant = ARfuel
consumption; aircraft type

EFpollutant;

aircraft type

12

Tier 2

Tier 3

LTO. This approach was labeled the very simple methodology. This approach considered emission pollutants SO2, CO2, CO, NOx, NMVOC, CH4, N2O, and PM2.5. The Tier 1 approach for pollutant emissions calculation uses the general equation (EEA/EMEP, 2009): Epollutant = ARfuel
consumption

EFpollutant

where: Epollutant = annual emission of pollutant for each of the LTO and cruise phases of domestic and international ights; ARfuel consumption = activity rate by fuel consumption for each of the ight phases and trip types; EFpollutant = emission factor of pollutant for the respective ight phase and trip type. Tier 1 emission factors (EFPollutant and fuel type) assume an averaged technology for the eet, and knowledge of the number of domestic and international LTO cycles for the nation. Default emission factors and fuel use (jet kerosene and aviation gasoline) are available in the EEA/EMEP Guidebook 2009 and some of those are shown in Table 5. Emission factors are given on a representative aircraft basis. Where statistics are available for fuel use and the number of LTOs by domestic and international ights, the assumptions on LTO fuel consumption below can be used to split these data by LTO and cruise using the following equation: Total fuel = LTO fuel cruise fuel where: LTO fuel = number of LTOs fuel consumption per LTO 11 10

The Tier 2 approach applies if it is possible to obtain information on LTO per aircraft type but there is no information available on cruise distances. The level of details for this methodology is the aircraft types used for both domestic and international aviation, together with the number of LTO carried out by the various aircraft types. This approach considers emission pollutants SO2, CO2, CO, NOx, NMVOC, CH4, N2O, and PM2.5.

where: Epollutant = annual emission of pollutant for each of the LTO and cruise phases of domestic and international ights; ARfuel consumption, aircraft type = activity rate by fuel consumption for each of the ight phases and trip types for each aircraft type; EFpollutant, aircraft type = emission factor of pollutant for the respective ight phase and trip type for each aircraft type. This methodology is not relevant for technology abatement approach (EEA/EMEP, 2009). The Tier 3 methodologies are based on actual ight movement data, either for Tier 3A origin and destination (OD) data or for Tier 3B full ight trajectory information. These methodologies are bottom-up, ight-based, rather than top-down calculation-based on the fuel consumed. Tier 3A takes into account cruise emissions for different ight distances. Hence details on the origin (departure) and destination (arrival) airports and aircraft type are needed to use this approach, for both domestic and international ights. In Tier 3A, inventories are modeled using average fuel consumption and emissions data for the LTO phase and various cruise phase lengths, for an array of representative aircraft categories. The data used in Tier 3A methodology takes into account that the amount of emissions generated varies between phases of ight. The methodology also takes into account that fuel burn is related to ight distance, while recognizing that fuel burn can be comparably higher on relatively short distances than on longer routes. This is because aircraft use a higher amount of fuel per distance for the LTO cycle compared to the cruise phase as shown in Table 5. Tier 3B methodology is distinguished from Tier 3A by the calculation of fuel burnt and emissions throughout the full trajectory of each ight segment using aircraft and engine specic aerodynamic performance information. To use Tier 3B, sophisticated computer models are required to address all the equipment, performance and trajectory variables and calculations for all ights in a given year. Models used for Tier 3B level can generally specify output in terms of aircraft, engine, airport, region, and global, as well as by latitude, longitude, altitude and time, for fuel burn and emissions of CO, HC, CO2, H2O, NOx, and SOx. To be used in preparing annual inventory submissions, the Tier 3B model must calculate aircraft emissions from input data that take into account air trafc changes, aircraft equipment changes, or any input-variable scenario. The components of Tier 3B models are ideally incorporated so that they can be readily updated; therefore the models are dynamic and can remain current with evolving data and methodologies. EEA/EMEP only described the algorithm of the Tier 3 methodology related to Tier 3A. As for Tier 2, the emission factors are calculated on a ight by ight basis using emission factors and the fuel used for all the components of a ight (LTO cycle) available from the accompanying spreadsheet (EEA/EMEP Guidebook 2009) for the representative jet and turboprop aircraft types (EEA/EMEP, 2009).

Table 5 Emission factors and fuel use for the Tier 1 methodology using jet kerosene as fuel (EEA/EMEP, 2009). Fuel Domestic LTO (kg/LTO)average eet (B737-400) Cruise (kg/ton)average eet (B737-400) International LTO (kg/LTO)average eet (short distance, B737-400) LTO (kg/LTO)average eet (B767) Cruise (kg/ton)average eet (B767) 825 SO2 0.8 1.0 CO2 2600 3150 CO 11.8 2.0 NOx 8.3 10.3 NMVOC 0.5 0.1 CH4 0.1 0 N2O 0.1 0.1 PM2.5 0.07 0.20

825 1617

0.8 1.6 1.0

2600 5094 3150

11.8 6.1 1.1

8.3 26.0 12.8

0.5 0.2 0.5

0.1 0.0 0.0

0.1 0.2 0.1

0.07 0.15 0.20

246

J.S. Kurniawan, S. Khardi / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 240252

The uncertainties of the estimated aircraft pollutant emissions are closely associated with the emission factors. The use of representative emission factors in Tier 1 approach may contribute signicantly to the uncertainty. The uncertainty may lie between 2030% for LTO and 20 45% for the cruise factors. In Tier 2, there is a high uncertainty associated with the cruise emission factors and Tier 3, the uncertainty of different LTO factors is approximately 510%. For cruise, the uncertainties are assumed to be 1540% (EEA/EMEP, 2009). An example of pollutant emissions calculation in LTO cycle is shown in Table 6: aircraft type: B737 400; engine type: JT8D-17 (Pratt and Whitney). All numbers in Table 6 are based on spreadsheet database in EEA/ EMEP emission guidebook 2009. MEET has a methodology to estimate the air pollutant emissions for the ight of an aircraft based on the duration of specic operational states (engine start, taxi-out, take-off, climb, cruise, descent, landing, taxi-in and ground operations) and the corresponding specic emission factors. Using typical ight proles (for each aircraft type separately), with the common cruising altitude of the aircraft and the ight distance being the basic parameters, the total fuel consumption can be estimated. MEET describes three main classes of air transport that can be distinguished when analyzing its operational and emission related characteristics: ights performed under IFR, military operational air trafc, ights performed under VFR. There are some minor overlaps between the classes. However, each category has its own typical data set available for trafc characteristics and engine emissions. Accuracy of data input is different for the three categories; however they contribute to total air transport emissions. About 60% to 80% of emissions originate from IFR ights. Normally IFR ights are operated as ights controlled by Air Trafc Services (ATS) within controlled airspace only and generally ights with civil aircraft (Kalivoda and Kudrna, 1997). Emission indices for IFR ights, i.e. the mass of pollutant produced per mass of fuel used, are provided for 9 typical operational conditions, which combine to cover most of an aircraft's operation during a ight. Flights performed under VFR generally are not operated as controlled ights so neither a Flight Plan nor detailed information on the route own is available. However, VFR ights represent less than 5% of fuel consumption and pollutant emissions caused by air trafc are generally emitted at lower altitudes than IFR ights often even within the planetary boundary layer (Kalivoda and Kudrna, 1997). The basic formula for one ight (for a specic aircraft/engine combination, i.e., different engine types for the same machine are treated as different aircrafts) is:

This formula is a compilation and reformulation of the basic approach from Kalivoda and Kudrna (1997) by Keller and Haan (1998), where E [g] total emission of air pollutant j [] indices running over the 9 operational states, i.e., engine start, taxi-out, take-off, climb, cruise, descent, landing, taxi-in and ground operations Tj [s] duration of operational stage j FCj [kg fuel/s] fuel consumption during operational stage j EIj [g poll./kg fuel] emission indices of pollutant for operational stage j Emission indices for IFR ights for each aircraft/engine are given in Emission Indices Sheets (EIS). Calculation has to be carried out for 9 operational states (OS). Input for the calculation using the aircraft emission indices sheets for a complete mission from airport to airport has to be: aircraft type total distance between the two airports cruise altitude. Additional information is needed: average duration of taxi-out average duration of taxi-in. EIS were produced by MEET covering all the information necessary for a calculation. NOx, HC and CO emission indices and fuel consumption are available in EIS. The methodology and data set provided will enable users to build air trafc emission inventories for a region (spatial resolution N10 km), to assess the impact of changes in the number of aircraft movements, and to assess impacts from changing the distance own (e.g. reducing time spent in holding patterns). There are some gaps and uncertainties in knowledge on the inuence of real in-ight ambient environment conditions and maintenance and ageing of engines, on the emissions as well as on the actual amount of emissions from starting up aircraft engines, additional aircraft related ground operations like refueling and operating APU and turboprop, piston (Kalivoda and Kudrna, 1997). An example of pollutant emissions calculation in LTO cycle is shown Table 7: aircraft type: B737 400; engine type: JT8D-17 (Pratt and Whitney); TIM (DUR = duration) and specic fuel consumption (SFC); fuel and emission indices are based on EIS MEET database, assumed CRALT: 3000 ft (in LTO cycle). Fuel and emission indices of NOx in descent and climb out mode are calculated by using Eqs. (14) and (15), where c1, c2, c3, c4, d1, d2, d3 and d4 are the coefcients provided by EIS MEET. c1 + c2 CRALT + c3 CRALT + c4 CRALT
2 2 3

14
3

d1 + d2 CRALT + d3 CRALT + d4 CRALT

15

E = j = 1 Tj FCj EIj

13

Emission Indices of CO and HC in descent mode are calculated by using Eqs. (16) and (17), where a1, a2, b1 and b2 are the coefcients provided by EIS MEET. a1 + a2 lnCRALT 16 17

Table 6 Total emission in LTO cycle using EEA/EMEP methodology. Mode Taxi out Takeoff Climb out Approach Landing Taxi in LTO total emissions (g) and fuel (kg) Fuel (kg) 92 43 113 74 92 413 NOx (g) 392 796 1927 620 392 4127 HC (g) 161 2 5 5 161 333 CO (g) 2763 39 101 250 2763 5915

b1 + b2 lnCRALT

Emission Indices of CO and HC in climb out mode are calculated by using Eqs. (18) and (19), where a1, a2, b1 and b2 are the coefcients provided by EIS MEET. a1 + a2 = CRALT b1 + b2 = CRALT 18 19

J.S. Kurniawan, S. Khardi / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 240252 Table 7 Total emission in LTO cycle using MEET methodology. Mode Fuel per engine used kg Taxi out Taxi in Landing Descent 141 106 36 6 Emission indices per mode each engine (g/kg of fuel) NOx 3.147 3.149 19.152 4.44 CO 33.3 33.302 0.715 19.51 HC 10.6 10.598 0.468 6.29 TIM c1, c2, c3, c4 d1, d2, d3, d4 a1 , a2 b1, b2

247

Total emissions (g)

DUR (s) 480 360 15

SFC (kg/s) 0.2946 0.29461 2.42267

Coef. fuel

Coef. EI NOx

Coef. EI CO

Coef. EI HC

NOx 445 334 696 28

CO 4709 3532 26 124

HC 1499 1124 17 40

Climb out

145

17.51

0.52

1.004

4.061 4.426E04 9.164E08 5.344E12 90.20 8.386E02 1.929E06 4.656E11 45 2.42289

3.702 3.710E04 2.071E07 3.388E13 19.38 6.940E04 2.511E08 3.831E13

28.74 6.026

8.772 1.881

0.5235 1.115

1.006 5.412

2544

76

146

Takeoff LTO total emissions (g) and fuel (kg)

109 544

19.151

0.725

0.468

2088 6136

79 8546

51 2877

ALAQS aims to promote best practice methods for airport LAQ analysis concerning issues such as emissions inventory, dispersion, and the data required for the calculations, including emission factors, operational data, and aircraft landing and take-off proles. ALAQS methodology consists of developing Pan-European emission inventory methodology with spatial information and future application of dispersion modeling to this inventory with use of GIS technologies. The toolset and database to support ALAQS of European airports are (Celikel et al., 2009): Pan-European ALAQS central databank for emission factors of different sources: all related emissions factors for different pollution sources are dened and aggregated from different sources and harmonized in Access database. This will provide the opportunity to change or compare different emissions factors used for the same type of sources. Scalable approach for developing emission inventory and dispersion modeling. ALAQS-AV GIS application. Flight operations encompass the entire LTO cycle as dened by the ICAO. Emissions of each aircraft type are computed by knowing the emission factors for the aircraft engines at each power setting (or mode of operation and the time spent in each mode). The emission factors included in the ALAQS-AV emission inventory database are CO, HC, NOx, SOx and PM10. SOx and PM10 emission factors are not included in the ICAO aircraft engine database, so substitute indicative gures were used instead. In ALAQS-AV methodology for a specic scenario, an aircraft movements table is prepared for this specic period. For each movement: date, time, aircraft type, arrival/departure ag, gate (stand) and runway are specied. The ALAQS-AV toolset uses the movements table to calculate hourly emissions at gates, taxiways, queues and runways. Aircraft exhaust emissions are calculated for the following operating modes: Engine start Taxi-in and taxi-out (TX, 7% thrust) Queuing (TX, 7% thrust) Approach (AP, 30% thrust) Landing roll (AP, 30% thrust) Take-off roll (TO, 100% thrust) Climb-out (CL, 85% thrust)

indices for the appropriate engine thrust setting engaged. Data is extracted from the system database (i.e. aircraft-engine combination, number of engines etc.). The equation is shown as follows: ACe = FFmode EFmode T N 20

where ACe = Aircraft total engine emissions, per LTO cycle; FFmode = Fuel ow rate (kg/s) per engine in mode; EFmode = Emission factor (kg/kg) per engine in mode; T = Time in Mode (s); N = Number of engines. Aircraft pollutant emissions factors included in the ALAQS-AV database originate from EDMS 4 and are similar to the ICAO methodology. The ALAQS-AV dispersion modeling studies is initially focused on using the Lagrangian dispersion model that already exists in LASPORT (LASAT).5 The ALAQS-AV methodology is recommended by Celikel et al. (2005a,b), because it is based on individual movements (arrivals and departures) and better suited for airport use as they allow the precise 4D repartition of the emissions. In addition ALAQS-AV has the advantage of being a GIS based application, so that inventory and dispersion results can be presented with other geo-referenced information. The Sourdine II project objectives were to suggest and evaluate new innovative procedures for reducing the impact of emissions and aircraft noise on the ground (Sourdine_II, 2005). For the emission assessments of the Sourdine II (SII) Noise Abatement Procedures (NAPs), a specic tool called TBEC has been developed. This tool calculates aircraft emission levels associated to a given Integrated Noise Model (INM)-like ight prole, on the basis of the ICAO Engine Exhaust Emissions Data Bank. The TBEC is a Microsoft Access application which has been specially developed for Sourdine II in order to calculate aircraft emissions HC, CO, NOx, SO2, CO2, H2O, VOC, and Total Organic Gases (TOG) resulting from the different SII procedures. It uses the ICAO Engine Exhaust Emissions Data Bank, which provides, for a large series of engine types, fuel ow (kg/s) and emission indices (g/kg of fuel) at four specic engine power settings (from idle to full take-off power). The overall principle of TBEC consists of calculating (by interpolations) emission levels, based on the actual thrust along the vertical xed-point proles associated to the SII procedures.
4 A tool for calculating and modeling emission dispersion, stand for Emission Dispersion Modeling System. 5 A program system for the calculation of airport-related pollutant emissions and concentrations in the lower atmosphere, it was developed in 2002 (LASPORT, www. janicke.de/data/lasport/lasport-2.0.pdf).

Except for engine start emissions aircraft engine emissions during a particular operating mode of the LTO cycle are given by the product of the Time in Mode, the fuel ow rate and the emission

248

J.S. Kurniawan, S. Khardi / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 240252

The emission level of pollutant ELseg is expressed as: ELseg = Tseg EFseg Pi + EFseg Pi = EIPi FFseg CNTseg 100 Max StaticThrust Pseg Pi  EFseg Pi Pi + 1 Pi
+ 1

! 21 EFseg Pi 22

The original MEET data is used in a software tool called AvioMEET based on the data published in the Emission Indices Sheets of MEET. However, the inventory tool AvioMEET already includes some improvements: Aircraft types are added like Boeing B737-400, B737/500/600/700/ 800, B747-400, ATR42, ATR72, BAe 146, etc. Emission Indices were harmonized with ANCAT/EC26 data within the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Emission Inventory Guide Book Fuel consumption and emissions for climb to 3000 ft and nal approach down from 3000 ft necessary to calculate ground related emissions are added for COST 3197 category Fuel consumption and emissions for climb to 3000 ft and nal approach down from 3000 ft necessary to calculate ground related emissions are added for ICAO category. AvioMEET generated an emission prole for the components CO2, H2O, SO2, NOx, CO and HC. The minimum input data to generate such an emission prole is aircraft type, number of aircraft on this mission and distance of mission in km. The AvioMEET inventory tool cannot be used to estimate emissions properly according to Kyoto Protocol option 8 (Allocation to the Party of emissions generated in its national space and 3D methodology). Only MEET methodology and its emission function can, (Kalivoda and Bukovnik, 2005). 4. Discussions and comparison ICAO and EEA/EMEP have three approaches to quantifying aircraft pollutant emissions. The approaches are simple approach, advanced approach and sophisticated approach for ICAO and Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 for EEA/EMEP. These approaches depend on the level of accuracy or complexity need. The simple approach uses the most common type of engine in operation internationally for the aircraft type. The emissions factor is provided in terms of kg of each emission species per LTO cycle per aircraft. These have been calculated based on the representative engine type for each generic aircraft type and using ICAO TIM, fuel ows, thrust settings and other basic assumptions. Therefore, there is high uncertainty for calculating pollutant emissions in this method. The Tier 1 approach is based on the premise that data on the quantities of fuel sold for aviation use are available. It also assumes that the annual quantity of fuel used is the same as that sold. The information on the country's total number of LTOs needs to be available, preferably also the destination for international LTOs, together with general knowledge about the aircraft types. ICAO databank of Time in Mode is used by this approach and the emissions factors and fuel ows are provided by EEA/EMEP databank. The uncertainty may lie between 2030% for LTO factors and 2045% cruise factors because of the use of the representative emissions factors as described by EEA/EMEP guidebook. The advanced approach represents a more accurate estimation of aircraft engine emissions compared to simple approach because it attempts to account for the specic engine model on the aircraft. The emissions factor, TIM and fuel ows are based on ICAO databank. The Tier 2 methodology is a top-down (fuel sold) methodology that uses statistics on aviation fuel consumption (split by domestic and international). To split the fuel use by LTO and cruise, detailed LTO activity and knowledge of aircraft eet composition are needed to provide a more accurate estimation. Fuel ows and emissions factors are based on EEA/EMEP databank and TIM is based on ICAO databank.
Working Group of Abatement of Nuisances caused by Air Transport. Coordination research activities of estimation of pollutant emissions from transportation as well as fuel consumption.
7 6

Pseg =

23

where: EFseg(Pi) = the emission ow for the segment associated to power setting Pi (in g/s); Pi = one of the tabulated engine power setting for which emission indices are provided in the data bank (7%, 30%, 85% or 100%); EI(Pi) = the emission indices associated to power setting Pi (in g/kg of fuel); Pseg = the segment-specic power setting (%); CNTseg = the average corrected net thrust (lb) on the segment, calculated using the input CNT values at the two end-points of the segment; MaxStaticThrust = the engine-specic maximum sea level static thrust, available in the INM database (lb); ELseg = the emission level of the pollutant produced on the segment (g); Tseg = the duration (in seconds) of the ight segment. Tseg is calculated using the distance between the two end-points of the segment, divided by the average speed of the aircraft on the segment; Pi and Pi + 1 are the two tabulated power setting values bounding Pseg (%). To calculate emission levels of different pollutants, it is necessary to have fuel ow information along the ight proles. It was originally planned to approximate these by interpolations on input thrust values, as the ICAO databank provides fuel ow data associated to specic power settings. However, the ICAO CAEP's Modeling Working Group (WG2) considered that estimating fuel ow based on thrust was unsatisfactory without having a greater knowledge of individual aircraft/engine performance parameters. The TBEC tool remains a prototype with several limitations. Further investigations need to be carried out in order to rene and validate its modeling principles. Emission results produced with such a tool should therefore be taken with caution and analyzed in a relative way (i.e. relative variations of emission levels between the SII procedures and a baseline/reference procedure). The limitation of TBEC is that it does not take into account the variation of the emission indices with altitude due to temperature and pressure changes. Indeed, the ICAO databank provides emission indices for International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) conditions; these are, however, assumed to be valid for altitudes below 3000 ft. Another limitation is due to the assumption that emission indices vary linearly with the thrust level, which is obviously not the case in real life. CO2, SO2 and H2O emission levels are directly proportional to the calculated fuel burn and are estimated using the following emission coefcients (Sourdine_II, 2005). The ARTEMIS Assessment and reliability of transport emission models and inventory systems combined the experience from different emission calculation models and other research in order to harmonize the methodology for emissions estimation at the national and international level. The project developed a harmonized emission model for all transport modes, which aims to provide consistent emission estimates at the national, international and regional level. This requires rst of all additional basic research and a better understanding of the causes of the differences, mainly with respect to emission factors. The estimation of aircraft pollutant emissions methodology of EEA/ EMEP and MEET are used by ARTEMIS. This project applied existing knowledge and closed some of the major gaps for updating the existing emission database (primarily MEET data) for the inuence of maintenance and ageing of engines on emissions, aircraft/engine combinations not covered in the current database, i.e. turboprops, new airframes or former Soviet aircraft and allocation of emissions.

J.S. Kurniawan, S. Khardi / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 240252 Table 8 Comparison of results of the methodology calculation in LTO Total Emissions. ICAO EEA/EMEP EPA MEET Difference of ICAO EEA/EMEP Fuel (kg) 498 413 LTO total emissions (g) NOx 4283 4127 CO 8005 5915 HC 2646 333 499 4309 7655 2490 544 6136 8546 2877 17% 4% 26% 87% EPA 0.2% 0.6% 4% 6% MEET 9% 43% 7% 9% Taxi Approach Climb out Takeoff 757 518 2004 1004 784 620 1928 796 756 530 2012 1011 779 724 2544 2088 Table 10 Comparison of results of NOx calculation per mode. NOx (g) ICAO EEA/EMEP EPA MEET Differences of ICAO EEA/EMEP 4% 20% 4% 21% EPA 0.1% 2% 0.4% 0.7%

249

MEET 3% 40% 27% 108%

The sophisticated approach has a greater level of accuracy; the actual and rened data required for the analysis is obtained from realtime measurements. These data and information characterize the actual eet composition in terms of aircraft types and engine combinations, TIM, thrust levels, fuel ows, and possibly combustor operating conditions for all phases of ground-based and take-off operations. This approach is almost similar to Tier 3 methodology. The Tier 3 methodologies are based on actual ight movement data, either for Tier 3A OD data or for Tier 3B full ight trajectory information. Hence these methodologies are bottom-up, ight-based, rather than top-down calculation-based on the fuel consumed. Similar to Tier 1 and Tier 2, fuel ows and emissions factors are based on EEA/EMEP databank and TIM is based on ICAO databank. EEA/EMEP estimates that uncertainty of different LTO factors is approximately 510% and 1540% for cruise. EPA emission calculation is almost similar to the ICAO methodology. The difference is in the emission factors calculation, EPA used the emission factors which is based on the weighted-average emission factors that represents the average emission factors per LTO cycle for all engine models used on a particular type of aircraft. Total emissions for each aircraft type are computed by multiplying the emissions for one LTO cycle by the number of LTO cycles then summed to yield total commercial exhaust emissions. TIM calculation from ICAO databank is adjusted by calculating duration mixing height of climb out and approach. ALAQS, MEET and SOURDINE II use almost the same method created by the ICAO. ALAQS describes ight operations encompassing the entire LTO cycle as dened by the ICAO. Emissions of each aircraft type are computed by knowing the emission factors for the aircraft's specic engines at each power setting or mode of operation and the time spent in each mode. In ALAQS methodology for a specic scenario, an aircraft movements table is prepared for this specic period. For each movement: date, time, aircraft type, arrival/departure ag, gate (stand) and runway are specied. ALAQS has a toolset to calculate hourly emissions at gates, taxiways, queues and runways. The advantage of using ALAQS is that ALAQS methodology can be developed with spatial information and future application of dispersion modeling to this inventory with use of GIS technologies. However, ALAQS is used only for calculating Total engine emissions in LTO cycle dened by the ICAO. And there are some uncertainties about the accuracy or the consistency of the data used. For example for emission inventories it is important to gather all the necessary information about the pollution sources, their operations and appropriate emission factors.

Whilst MEET uses emission factors based on engine certication data in the ICAO Engine Exhaust Emission Databank, it contains data sets of thrust (engine performance), fuel ow and emissions of components CO, NOx and HC which apply to four different power settings and also based on EIS. The methodology and data set provided will enable users to build air trafc emission inventories for a region (spatial resolution N 10 km), to assess the impact of changes in the number of aircraft movements, and to assess impacts from changing the distance own. The advantage of using MEET methodology is that MEET can be used for calculated air trafc emissions not only locally but also regionally. The MEET methodology is also used by Kesgin and ARTEMIS. Sourdine II has innovative procedures to assess emission from aircraft using a specic tool called TBEC. The overall calculation principle consists of estimating the fuel burn and emission level produced by each segment and summing them (over the ight prole) to obtain the total fuel burn and emission of each pollutant. However, this method is similar to the ICAO methodology. The limitation of TBEC is that it does not take into account the variation of the emission indices with altitude due to temperature and pressure changes. The pollutant emissions of NOx, CO and HC have been considered by all methodologies. However, only EEA/EMEP Tier 3 methodology has considered all pollutant emissions. ICAO considers the pollutant emissions of NOx, CO, HC, SO2, CO2 and SOx. Whilst EEA/EMEP considers pollutant emissions of CO, NOx, NMVOC, CH4, N2O, PM2.5, CO2, SO2, PM10 and pollutant emissions of VOC, NOx, CO and SO2 considered by EPA. Since the methodology of ALAQS and Sourdine II used ICAO methodology, these methodologies do not take into account the comparison of the example calculation. The summary of comparison of ICAO, EEA/EMEP, EPA and MEET methodologies calculation is shown in Tables 813. The comparison of calculation results of those

Table 11 Comparison of results of CO calculation per mode. CO (g) ICAO EEA/EMEP EPA MEET Differences of ICAO EEA/EMEP Taxi Approach Climb out Takeoff 7109 726 132 389 5526 250 101 39 6790 692 133 39 8241 150 76 79 22% 66% 23% 0.3% EPA 5% 5% 1% 2% MEET 16% 80% 42% 104%

Table 9 Comparison of results of fuel calculation per mode. Fuel (kg) ICAO EEA/EMEP EPA MEET Differences of ICAO EEA/EMEP Taxi Approach Climb out Takeoff 229 85 132 52 184 74 113 43 230 85 132 52 248 43 145 109 20% 13% 15% 18% EPA 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% MEET 8% 50% 10% 109%

Table 12 Comparison of results of HC calculation per mode. HC (g) ICAO EEA/EMEP EPA MEET Differences of ICAO EEA/EMEP Taxi Approach Climb out Takeoff 2339 167 104 36 321 5 5 2 2199 158 99 35 2623 57 146 51 86% 97% 95% 96% EPA 6% 5% 5% 4% MEET 12% 66% 40% 41%

250

Table 13 Comparison of Methodology. Parameter ICAO Simple approach Fleet aircraft/engines Identication combinations of aircraft types Advanced approach Identication of aircraft and engine types Sophisticated approach Actual eet composition in terms of aircraft types and engine combination Rened values (e.g. with consideration of performance) Identication of aircraft types and engine combination EPA EEA/EMEP Tier 1 Identication of Aircraft fuel consumption by domestic and international ight separately ICAO databank Tier 2 Identication of aircraft types and fuel consumption for both domestic and international ight Tier 3 Actual ight movement data in terms of aircraft types and ight distance Identication of aircraft types and engine performance Identication of aircraft types Identication of aircraft and engine types in actual types and ight movement data engine types MEET ALAQS SOURDINE II

TIM

Emission factor

N/A (indirectly accounted for via UNFCCa LTO emission factors) UNFCC LTO Emission Factors by Aircraft type

ICAO Databank Certication values adjusted if possible to reect airport specic information ICAO Databank Certication values

Rened values using actual performance and operational data Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No Rened values using actual performance and operational data Number of actual aircraft movement by aircraft engine combination uncertainty if actual performance and operational data not available No

Adjustment calculation of mixing height (duration of climb out and approach) from ICAO Databank Rened values using weighted average emission factor per aircraft type per LTO

ICAO databank

ICAO databank

ICAO databank J.S. Kurniawan, S. Khardi / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 240252

EEA/EMEP emission factor databank

ICAO databank and Emission Indices Sheets of MEET

ICAO databank

ICAO databank

Pollutants NOx CO HC SO2 CO2 SOx VOC CH4 N2 O PM10 PM2.5 H2O TOG LTO Fuel ow

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Yes UNFCC LTO Emission Factors by Aircraft type

Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No ICAO Databank Certication values

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No No No Yes Rened values using performance and operational data

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes EEA/EMEP databank

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Movements

Number of aircraft movement by aircraft type

Number of aircraft movement by aircraft engine combination

Number of aircraft Number of aircraft movement by aircraft movement by domestic and engine combination international ight

Number of aircraft movement by domestic and international ight

Uncertainty

High uncertainty in representative engine type, TIM No

uncertainty if actual performance and operational data not available

uncertainty in forecast of growth aircraft activity

2030% for LTO factor and 2045% cruise factor

High uncertainty associated with the emission factor

Number of actual aircraft movement by domestic and international ight 510% for LTO factor and 15 40% cruise factor

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No Yes ICAO databank and Emission Indices Sheets of MEET using Air Trafc Emission Simulation Number of aircraft movement by aircraft type and engine combination uncertainty in ageing of engine

Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes ICAO databank

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes ICAO databank

Number of aircraft movement (actual/generated simulation) by aircraft type, engine type, date, time, type of operation, gate and runway. uncertainty in consistency of data used

Number of aircraft movement by aircraft type and engine type emission indices vary linearly with thrust level

GIS information
a

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

J.S. Kurniawan, S. Khardi / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 240252

251

methodologies in Table 8 has shown that there are some differences in results of fuel consumption and pollutant emissions. A fuel consumption and pollutant emission of EPA's calculation in LTO Total emissions has almost the same results compared to ICAO calculation of about 0.2% of fuel ow, 0.6% of NOx, 4% of CO and 6% of HC. Also in MEET methodology, it has almost the same result in CO and HC calculation of about 7% and 9% differences of ICAO. However, there is a big difference of calculation in HC between EEA/EMEP and ICAO of about 87%. This is because of high uncertainty for LTO cycles in EEA/EMEP methodology. The differences are also shown per mode methodology calculation. Tables 912 show the comparison results of the methodology calculation per mode aircraft movement. The MEET methodology has big differences in results compared to the ICAO of about more than 100% or over two times of fuel consumption, NOx, and CO in takeoff mode. However, in total LTO cycle, MEET does not have big differences in results compared to ICAO. EPA methodology has almost the same results compared to the ICAO methodology between 0.1% and 6% in each mode. The difference is only time use in taxi mode, EPA uses Taxi-in and Taxi-out mode Time and ICAO uses Idle Time for taxi.

References
Agrawal H, Sawant AA, Jansen K, Wayne Miller J, Cocker III DR. Characterization of chemical and particulate emissions from aircraft engines. Atmos Environ 2008;42: 438092. Anderson B, Chen G, Blake D. Hydrocarbon emissions from a modern commercial airliner. Atmos Environ 2006;40:360112. Antoine NE. Aircraft Optimization for Minimal Environmental Impact [dissertation]. Stanford University; 2004. [Cited 2009 December]. Available from: http://scholar.google.fr/ scholar?q=Antoine+N.+Aircraft+Optimization+for+Minimal+Environmental+ Impact&hl=fr&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart. Celikel A, Duchene N, Fuller I, Fleuti E, Hofmann P. Airport Local Air Quality Modeling: Zurich Airport Emission Inventory Using Three Methodologies. [Cited 2009 October]. Available from:http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/gallery/content/public/ document/eec/conference/paper/2005/007_Zurich_Airport_emissions.pdf2005. Celikel A, Fuller I, Silue M, Peeters S, Duchene N. Airport Local Air Quality Studies (ALAQS). Concept Document Issue 2.1. EEC/SEE/2005/003. 2006. Sponsored by Eurocontrol EATM. Celikel A, Peeters S, Silue M. Airport Local Air Quality Studies (ALAQS). [Cited 2009 October]. Available from:http://www.isa-software.com/Alaqsstudy. Dameris M, Grewe V, Kohler I, Sausen P, Bruehl C, Grooss J, et al. Impact of aircraft NOx emissions on tropospheric and stratospheric ozone. Part II: 3-D model results. Atmos Environ 1998;32:318599. EEA/EMEP. Emission Inventory Guidebook; 2009. EPA. Evaluation of Air Pollutant Emissions from Subsonic Commercial Jet Aircraft; 1999 Apr. Report No.: EPA 420-R-99-013. FAA. Aviation & Emissions A Primer. Ofce Environment and Energy; 2005. Gauss M, Isaksen I, Lee D, Sovde O. Impact of aircraft NOx emissions on the atmosphere tradeoffs to reduce the impact. Atmos Chem Phys Discuss 2005;5:12255311. Graver B, Frey H. Estimation of Air Carrier Emissions at RaleighDurham International Airport. Paper 2009-A-486-AWMAProceedings 102nd Annual Conference and Exhibition; 2009 Jun 1619. Detroit, Michigan: Air & Waste Management Association; 2009. Heland J, Schafer K. Determination of major combustion products in aircraft exhausts FTIR emission spectroscopy. Atmos Environ 1998;32:306772. ICAO. International Standards and Recommended Practices, Environmental Protection Annex 16. Volume II Aircraft Engine Emissions. second ed. 1993. ICAO. Airport Local Air Quality Guidance Manual; 2007a. ICAO. Environmental Report; 2007b. ICAO. Engine Exhaust Emissions Databank; 2009. IPCC. Aviation and Global Atmosphere Report; 1999. Kalivoda M, Bukovnik M. Final Report on Air Trafc Emissions. ARTEMIS; 2005 Mar. Report No.: 2001-002-030. Kalivoda M, Kudrna M. Methodologies for Estimating Emissions from Air Trafc; 1997 Oct. MEET Project, Contract No.: ST-96-SC.204. Keller M, Haan Pd. Intermodal Comparison of Atmospheric Pollutant Emission. INFRAS AG; 1998 Oct. Report No.: B75320-8. Sponsored by the Federal Ofce for Education and Sciences. Kesgin U. Aircraft emissions at Turkish airports. Energy 2006;31:37284. LASPORT. A program system for the calculation of airport-related pollutant emissions and concentrations in the lower atmosphere. [Cited 2010 February]. Available from:http://www.janicke.de/data/lasport/lasport-2.0.pdf. Melamed M, Solomon S, Daniel J, Langford A, Portmann R, Ryerson T, et al. Measuring reactive nitrogen emissions from point sources using visible spectroscopy from aircraft. J Environ Monit 2003;5:2934. Morris K, Buttress J. An estimation of the total NOx emissions resulting from aircraft Engine Ground Running at Heathrow airport. British Airways Environmental Affairs; 2005 Oct. Report No.: ENV/KMM/1127/14.18. Moussiopoulos N, Sahm P, Karatzas K, Papalexiou S, Karagiannidis A. Assessing the impact of the new Athens airport to urban air quality with contemporary air pollution models. Atmos Environ 1997;31:1497511. Olivier JGJ. Inventory of Aircraft Emissions: A Review of Recent Literatur, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. [Cited 2009 November]. Available from:http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/736301008.html. Pison I, Menut L. Quantication of the impact of aircraft trafc emissions on tropospheric ozone over Paris area. Atmos Environ 2004;38:97183. Plummera D, McConnell J, Neary L, Kominski J, Benoit R, Drummond J, et al. Assessment of emissions data for the Toronto region using aircraft-based measurements and an air quality model. Atmos Environ 2001;35:645363. Rypdal K. Aircraft Emission. [Cited 2009 November]. Available from:http://www. ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/2_5_Aircraft.pdf. Schafer K. Non-intrusive measurements of aircraft and rocket exhaust emissions. Air Space Eur 2001;3:1048. Schafer K, Jahn C, Sturm P, Lechner B, Bacher M. Aircraft emission measurements by remote sensing methodologies at airports. Atmos Environ 2003;37:526171. Schumann G, Schafer K, Jahn C, Hoffmann H, Bauerfeind M, Fleuti E, et al. The impact of NOx, CO and VOC emissions on the air quality of Zurich airport. Atmos Environ 2007:10318. Sidiropoulos C, Ikonomopoulos A, Stratioti A, Tsilingiridis G. Comparison of typical LTO cycle emissions with aircraft engine and airport specic emissions for Greek airports. Proceeding of the 9th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology; 2005. Sep 1-3; Rhodes Island, Greece. Sourdine_II. Airport Noise and Emission Modeling Methodology; 2005. Contract No.: G4RD-CT-2000-00394. Unal A, Hu Y, Chang M, Odman M, Russell A. Airport related emissions and impacts on air quality: application to the Atlanta international airport. Atmos Environ 2005;39: 578798.

5. Conclusion It has been shown that a variety of different methodologies has been and is being used for assessment of aircraft pollutant emissions both historically and around the world. The use of different methodologies causes a variation in results of pollutant emissions in LTO cycle. Emission factor for aircraft pollutants assessment is commonly based on the ICAO engine exhaust emission database that contains data sets of thrust (engine performance), fuel ow and component emissions. For various organizations in the EU and the United States, the fundamental approaches of analysis and management or control of aircraft pollutant emissions are similar. They used the methodology to calculate pollutant emissions by using the LTO cycle method provided by ICAO. Each methodology has advantages and disadvantages to the method. To choose which is the best method to be used to calculate the pollutant emissions from aircraft precisely is difcult to decide and needs to be proven. This paper has reviewed the main signicant methodologies for assessing the aircraft pollutant emissions and compared those methodologies. Since ICAO methodology has been used by some organizations and projects, therefore this methodology is the most reliable to be used to asses pollutant emissions in LTO cycle. The example calculation has shown that ICAO methodology is almost the same as EPA methodology. However, if we need to assess impacts from changing the distance own, impact of changes in the number of aircraft movement, calculating air trafc emissions locally and regionally, then MEET methodology can be used for estimating aircraft pollutant emissions. Although this methodology still needs some improvement because there are some gaps and uncertainties in the results of calculation of aircraft pollutant emissions of about two times compared to ICAO calculation. However, if the dispersion model is to be considered, then the ALAQS methodology is more reliable to use.

Acknowledgements This work is performed in the framework of the cooperation between University of Indonesia (Indonesia), INRETS (France) and Ministry of Transportation (Indonesia). The authors wish to thank the above contributors for their support.

252

J.S. Kurniawan, S. Khardi / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (2011) 240252 Salah Khardi is a physicist and researcher, Ph.D.-HDR, in Laboratory of Transports and Environment The French National Institute for Transport and Safety Research (INRETS) France. His research activities focus on aircraft noise and aircraft pollutant emissions and airport environmental capacities. He is also a lecturer in different universities and responsible for Ph.D. candidates.

Wayson R, Fleming G, Lovinelli R. Methodology to estimate particulate matter emissions from certied commercial aircraft engines. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 2009;59:91-100. Yu K, Cheung Y, Cheung T, Henry R. Identifying the impact of large urban airports on local air quality by nonparametric regression. Atmos Environ 2004;38:45017. Jermanto Kurniawan graduated from the Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Indonesia in 1997. He received a Master of Transportation at Bandung Institute of Technology in 2003. Since 2008, he is a student for the Doctoral Program at the Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Indonesia. Beside that he is working as a government employee in the Ministry of Transportation Indonesia, Directorat General of Civil Aviation, Directorat of Airports since 1998 and until now. He is working at INRETS France in the framework of the Cooperation between University of Indonesia, INRETS France and the Ministry of Transportation Indonesia since September 2009 as a researcher on environmental impact of aircraft noise and pollutant emissions.