Studies on the global climate change and the measures to be taken to alleviate the problem have long emphasized the critical importance of this issue for humanity’s future. The impact of exhaust gas emissions from maritime transport on air quality and global climate change is also examined by scientists. In particular, the restrictions imposed by the law-makers like International Maritime Organization (IMO) and European Union (EU) on maritime shipping to improve air quality requires flag states, ships, ship owners and seamen to reduce ship emissions. In this study, Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), Particulate Matter (PM) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions of ships coming to Turkey’s four important ports (Ambarlı, Izmir, Mersin and Kocaeli ports) are theoretically calculated with two bottom-up methods. Port durations and ship technical data are the real data obtained by following the ships coming to all ports for 1-year period. Based on the emission calculations for all ports, container vessels, which are the most common vessel types, were selected and emission estimation models were obtained for cruising, maneuvering and port operating modes depending on the type and gross tonnage (GRT) of these vessels. The emission estimation models obtained from the study can be used to estimate approximate exhaust gas emissions from container ships with known GRT values and to model ship-based air pollution. When the average error margins are analyzed, it was estimated with 2.03% error in cruising mode, 1.63% in maneuvering mode and 9.44% in port mode for container ships according to the GRT in the ports of Turkey.
StyhreLWinnesHBlackJ, et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from ships in ports – case studies in four continents. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ2017; 54: 212–224.
2.
MerkO.Shipping emissions in ports. Discuss Pap2014; 20: 37.
3.
NunesRAOAlvim-FerrazMCMMartinsFG, et al. Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal. Environ Pollut2017; 231: 1370–1379.
4.
ÜnlügençogluKAlarçinF. The assessment of air quality in the Port of Ambarli and several districts of Istanbul. Int J Glob Warm2020; 20(1): 1.
EkmekçioğluAÜnlügençoğluKÇelebiUB. Ship emission estimation for Izmir and Mersin international ports – Turkey. J Therm Eng2019; 5(10): 184–195.
7.
BilgiliLCelebiUB. Developing a new green ship approach for flue gas emission estimation of bulk carriers. Measurement2018; 120(July): 121–127.
8.
BilgiliLCelebiUB. An investigation of the effect of ship capacity to shipping emissions. Environ Ecol Res2017; 5(2): 112–116, 2017.
9.
EkmekçioğluA. Calculation of ship-based emissions by numerical methods. MSc. Thesis, Yıldız Technical University, 2020.
10.
BilgiliLCelebiUBMertT. Estimation of ship exhaust gas emissions. Acad J Sci2015; 4(1): 107–114.
11.
ENTEC. Defra UK Ship Emissions Inventory. Final Report, 2010.
12.
AlverFSaraçBAAlver ŞahinÜ. Estimating of shipping emissions in the Samsun Port from 2010 to 2015. Atmos Pollut Res2018; 9(5): 822–828.
13.
EPA - Office of Transportation Air Quality. Methodologies for estimating port-related and goods movement mobile source emission inventories. February, p.202, 2020.
14.
BilgiliLCelebiUB. Emission estimation of cargo ships according to ship main dimensions and annual emisson footprint calculation. Fresenius Environ Bull2015; 24(3B): 1054–1062.
15.
HosseiniSMSaifoddinAShirmohammadiR, et al. Forecasting of CO2 emissions in Iran based on time series and regression analysis. Energy Rep2019; 5(May): 619–631.
16.
CullinaneKTsengPHWilmsmeierG. Estimation of container ship emissions at berth in Taiwan. Int J Sustain Transp2016; 10(5): 466–474.
17.
GoldsworthyLGoldsworthyB. Modelling of ship engine exhaust emissions in ports and extensive coastal waters based on terrestrial AIS data - an Australian case study. Environ Model Softw2015; 63: 45–60.
18.
ÜnlügençoğluKAlarçinFKökkülünkG. Estimation of shipping emissions via novel developed data collecting and calculation software: a case study for the region of Ambarli Port. Int J Glob Warm2019; 19: 293–307.
19.
Di NataleFCarotenutoC. Particulate matter in marine diesel engines exhausts: emissions and control strategies. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ2015; 40(600): 166–191.
20.
Moreno-GutiérrezJCalderayFSaboridoN, et al. Methodologies for estimating shipping emissions and energy consumption: a comparative analysis of current methods. Energy2015; 86: 603–616.
21.
HuangLWenYGengX, et al. Estimation and spatio-temporal analysis of ship exhaust emission in a port area. Ocean Eng2017; 140: 401–411.
22.
JahangiriSNikolovaNTenekedjievK. An improved emission inventory method for estimating engine exhaust emissions from ships. Sustain Environ Res2018; 28(6): 374–381.
23.
JalkanenJPJohanssonLKukkonenJ. A comprehensive inventory of ship traffic exhaust emissions in the European sea areas in 2011. Atmos Chem Phys2016; 16(1): 71–84.
24.
KontovasCA. Integration of air quality and climate change policies in shipping: the case of sulfur emissions regulation. Mar Policy2020; 113(January): 103815.
25.
LarsenUPierobonLBaldiF, et al. Development of a model for the prediction of the fuel consumption and nitrogen oxides emission trade-off for large ships. Energy2015; 80: 545–555.
26.
LiLYangJ. A new method of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions estimation at the provincial-level: a case study of Shandong Province, China. Sci Total Environ2020; 700: 134384.
27.
MaragkogianniAPapaefthimiouS. Evaluating the social cost of cruise ships air emissions in major ports of Greece. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ2015; 36: 10–17.
28.
MartinetSLiuYJean-SoroL, et al. In-situ estimation of non-regulated pollutant emission factors in an urban area of Nantes, France, with fleet composition characterization. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ2019; 76(October): 193–210.
29.
RødsethKLWangsnessPBSchøyenH. How do economies of density in container handling operations affect ships’ time and emissions in port? Evidence from Norwegian container terminals. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ2018; 59(February): 385–399.
30.
SimJ. A carbon emission evaluation model for a container terminal. J Clean Prod2018; 186: 526–533.
31.
El-TaybanyAMoustafaMMMansourM, et al. Quantification of the exhaust emissions from seagoing ships in Suez Canal waterway. Alexandria Eng J2019; 58(1): 19–25.
32.
VianaMHamminghPColetteA, et al. Impact of maritime transport emissions on coastal air quality in Europe. Atmos Environ2014; 90: 96–105.
33.
ChengCWHuaJHwangDS. Nitrogen oxide emission calculation for post-Panamax container ships by using engine operation power probability as weighting factor: a slow-steaming case. J Air Waste Manag Assoc2018; 68(6): 588–597.
34.
ZisTNorthRJAngeloudisP, et al. Evaluation of cold ironing and speed reduction policies to reduce ship emissions near and at ports. Marit Econ Logist2014; 16(4): 371–398.
35.
SaxeHLarsenT. Air pollution from ships in three Danish ports. Atmos Environ2004; 38(24): 4057–4067.
36.
DragovićBTzannatosETselentisV, et al. Ship emissions and their externalities in cruise ports. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ2018; 61: 289–300.
37.
TzannatosE. Ship emissions and their externalities for the port of Piraeus – Greece. Atmos Environ2010; 44(3): 400–407.
38.
DavarzaniHFahimniaBBellM, et al. Greening ports and maritime logistics: a review. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ2016; 48: 473–487.
39.
ZisTPV. Green ports. In: PsaraftisH (ed.) Sustainable shipping: a cross-disciplinary view. Cham: Springer, 2019, pp.407–432.
40.
BergqvistRMoniosJ. Green ports in theory and practice. In: BergqvistRMoniosJ (eds) Green ports; inland and seaside sustainable transportation strategies. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier, 2019, pp.1–17.
41.
FrankEBouckaertRR. Conditional density estimation with class probability estimators. In: ZhouZHWashioT (eds) Advances in machine learning. ACML 2009. Lecture notes in computer science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009, vol. 5828, pp.65–81.
FrankEBouckaertRR. Conditional density estimation with class probability estimators. In: ZhouZHWashioT. (eds) Advances in Machine Learning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5828. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 65…81.
