State Key Joint Laboratory of ESPC, School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.
State Key Joint Laboratory of ESPC, School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.
Sci Total Environ. 2018 Jun 1;625:1476-1485. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.033. Epub 2018 Jan 12.
Marine trade has significantly expanded over the past decades aiding to the economic development of the maritime countries, yet, this has been associated with a considerable increase in pollution emission from shipping operation. This study aims at considering both sides of the spectrum at the same time, which is including both public and shipping business. Of the key significance would be to optimize the operation of the shipping industry, such that its impact on air pollution is minimized, without, however, significant escalation of its cost, and therefore to protect the whole seaborne trade. To do this, we considered the impacts of three control strategies, including the current emission control area (ECA) design, as well two additional ones. Thus the first scenario (DECA1) was based on the China's domestic emission control area (DECA), which was set up in 2016. The DECA1 scale was only 12 nautical miles, which was much smaller than the emission control areas in US or Europe. We defined the second scenario (DECA2), by stretching the zone to 200 nautical miles towards the ocean, modeling it on the ECA in North America. The third scenario (DECA3), on the other hand, expanded the 12 nautical miles control zone along the whole coastline. To investigate the impact of shipping emissions on air quality, a shipping emission calculation model and an air quality simulation model were used, and Pearl River Delta (PRD), China was chosen to serve as a case study. The study demonstrated that in 2013 marine shipping emissions contributed on average 0.33 and 0.60μg·m, respectively to the land SO and PM concentrations in the PRD, and that the concentrations were high along the coastline. The DECA1 policy could effectively reduce SO and PM concentrations in the port regions, and the average reduction in the land area were 9.54% and 2.7%, respectively. Compared with DECA1, DECA2 would not measurably improve the air quality, while DECA3 would effectively decrease the pollution in the entire coast area. Thus, instead of expanding emission control area far to the ocean, it is more effective to control emissions along the coastline to secure the best air quality and lower the health impacts. By doing this, 19 million dollars of fuel cost could be saved per year. The saved cost could help the ship owners to endure, considering the current low profits of the seaborne trade, and thus to protect the overall growth of the economy.
过去几十年来，海洋贸易大幅增长，促进了沿海国家的经济发展，但与此同时，航运业务的污染排放也大幅增加。本研究旨在同时考虑两个方面，即公众和航运业。关键是要优化航运业的运营，使航运业对空气污染的影响最小化，而不会显著增加其成本，从而保护整个海运贸易。为此，我们考虑了三种控制策略的影响，包括当前的排放控制区 (ECA) 设计以及另外两种策略。因此，第一个方案 (DECA1) 基于中国于 2016 年设立的国内排放控制区 (DECA)。DECA1 的规模仅为 12 海里，远小于美国或欧洲的排放控制区。我们定义了第二个方案 (DECA2)，即将该区域向海洋延伸 200 海里，仿照北美的 ECA 进行建模。另一方面，第三个方案 (DECA3) 将 12 海里的控制区沿着整个海岸线扩展。为了研究航运排放对空气质量的影响，我们使用了航运排放计算模型和空气质量模拟模型，并选择中国珠江三角洲 (PRD) 作为案例研究。研究表明，2013 年，海洋航运排放平均分别为 PRD 陆地 SO 和 PM 浓度贡献了 0.33 和 0.60μg·m，并且在沿海地区浓度较高。DECA1 政策可以有效降低港口地区的 SO 和 PM 浓度，陆地面积的平均降幅分别为 9.54%和 2.7%。与 DECA1 相比，DECA2 不会显著改善空气质量，而 DECA3 则可以有效降低整个沿海地区的污染。因此，与其将排放控制区扩大到远海，不如沿着海岸线控制排放，以确保最佳的空气质量并降低健康影响。通过这样做，可以每年节省 1900 万美元的燃料成本。节省的成本可以帮助船东在当前海运贸易利润较低的情况下维持生计，从而保护经济的整体增长。
