CHAPTER 3

LOCAL AIR QUALITY

WHITE PAPER ON AIR QUALITY

AVIATION IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY:
STATE OF THE SCIENCE
R. MIAKE-LYE, AERODYNE RESEARCH, INC.,
BILLERICA MASSACHUSETTS, UNITED STATES
J.I. HILEMAN, US FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
WASHINGTON, DC, UNITED STATES
P. MADDEN, ROLLS ROYCE, DERBY, UNITED KINGDOM
E. FLEUTI, ZÜRICH AIRPORT, ZÜRICH, SWITZERLAND
B. T. BREM, EMPA, SWISS FEDERAL LABORATORIES FOR
MATERIALS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DÜBENDORF,
SWITZERLAND
S. ARUNACHALAM, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA,
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, UNITED STATES
T. ROETGER, INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT
ASSOCIATION, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
O. PENANHOAT, SNECMA, SAFRAN GROUP,
MOISSY CRAMAYEL, FRANCE
* This White Paper represents the summary of the scientific literature review undertaken by researchers and internationally-recognized experts. It does not represent a
consensus view of ICAO.

Summary
Aircraft produce emissions that react in the atmosphere to form pollutants that impact air quality. These
emissions have long been regulated through standards for aircraft engines for oxides of nitrogen (NOx),
carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons (UHC), and smoke, via a Smoke Number (SN). New standards
are being developed for non-volatile particulate matter (nvPM). Much is understood about how these and
other emissions affect air quality in airports and in the regions around them. Ongoing research efforts are
extending that understanding through better measurements and modelling. Work on PM is directed at
developing the new nvPM standard, and increasing the available data on aircraft engine PM emissions.
Alternative fuels have the potential to reduce PM emissions significantly. Emissions inventories are
developed to calculate the contributions of all emissions to the ambient burden of pollutant concentrations
that, in turn, are used to estimate the impacts on air quality and human health. Aircraft emissions at cruise
altitude can also propagate back to affect local and regional air quality, and estimates of this contribution
and the associated uncertainties have been calculated.

75
ICAO ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
CHAPTER 3
LOCAL AIR QUALITY

The impact of aircraft emissions on air quality was the concern that gave rise to the first State aircraft emissions regulations that
were imposed in the 1960s and 1970s. ICAO adopted stringent standards in 1981 that were applied to all in-production engines
in 1986. Air quality issues related to aircraft emissions were reviewed in the 2007 ICAO Environmental Report (ICAO, 2007),
covering technology and standards, operational measures, market-based measures, and airport charges guidance. Growing
interest in the effects of Particulate Matter (PM) on human health and climate has brought a new focus on measuring aircraft PM
emissions. Background and current issues of PM were summarized in the 2013 ICAO Environmental Report in the section titled
“Development of a Particulate Matter Standard for Aircraft Gas Turbine Engines” (ICAO, 2013).

Aircraft turbofans (> 26.7 kN thrust) are currently regulated for their emissions, which include oxides of nitrogen (NOx), unburned
hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and smoke. The smoke regulation also applies to engines with output ratings < 26.7
kN. Smoke emissions are mainly carbonaceous particles emitted as a product of incomplete combustion, and these particles
are now the subject of a proposed new standard that will regulate the number and mass of non-volatile particles (nvPM). Airport
emissions are also affected by emissions from other sources such as Auxiliary Power Units (APUs), ground service vehicles, and
include other sources such as ground transportation and power plants. These various emissions interact with each other, and
thus each contribution to the total regional inventory of pollutants must be quantified and evaluated as accurately as possible.

Aircraft engines are successfully meeting increasingly stringent emission requirements. However, more stringent and new re-
quirements are being considered as the understanding of emission impacts on the environment and human health is improved.
The need for a new nvPM standard that goes beyond the existing Smoke Number measurement is a prime example of this evo-
lution. Similarly, the ever-increasingly stringent standard for NOx is complemented by a growing concern over the impact of the
NO2 component of NOx (NOx consisting of NO plus NO2).

This report focuses on the impacts on air quality, as opposed to climate impacts, due to emissions from aircraft combustion
engines, including both propulsion engines and APUs. While it is understood that aviation operations include other sources of
emissions, they will not be further discussed or analyzed here. As the health and welfare impacts of particulate matter and
ozone are well understood and the underlying science has not changed since the last ISG review of aviation’s impact on surface
air quality, this review focuses on advances in the scientific community’s understanding of the emissions that come from the
aircraft tailpipe and how these emissions react and disperse in the atmosphere to form ground level PM and ozone (O3). There
is a continuing need to better understand the relative impacts of particle number versus particle mass, fine PM versus ultrafine
PM, as well as the relative toxicity of the various ambient and aviation PM components. However, there are no new results on
these issues to report at this time.

Measuring and Modelling Emissions

Figure 1 provides a representation of aircraft emissions and how a commercially available sampling system (AVL, 2015) and
they ultimately contribute to ambient pollutant concentrations OEMs have started to include nvPM measurements in engine
that impact public health and welfare. While aircraft emissions certifications. These are challenging measurements since
can be directly measured at the source and ambient pollutant particles are difficult to quantify with high accuracy, and this is
concentrations can be measured at any location, modelling compounded by the high temperature, high velocity environment
is required to attribute the contribution of aircraft to ambient present in the aircraft exhaust.
pollutant concentrations.
A particularly difficult challenge in the nvPM measurement
Ambient measurements in the vicinity of airports typically show arises due to the fact that there is not a straightforward way
little to no contribution from airport emissions (Zürich Airport, to calibrate PM instruments and there is not a clear chemical
2013). However, recent studies have shown elevated PM definition of the material that composes the nvPM. For gases,
number levels near airports (Hudda et al., 2014; Keuken, et al. a precise mixture can be prepared that simulates gaseous
2015). Measurement protocols and guidance are established emissions in the exhaust, which can then be used to calibrate
for criteria pollutants. However, the ambient measurement of measurements of species like NOx, HC, and CO. Conversely,
ultrafine particle number concentrations is not yet standardized. particle standards are neither easily prepared nor referenced.
This problem of the lack of a robust calibration standard,
Non-Volatile Particulate Matter (nvPM) combined with inherent uncertainties in the PM measurements
Emission Characterization and Quantification themselves, will need to be considered in how levels and
New sampling techniques have been developed and are being margins are established in setting the new nvPM standard.
finalized for quantifying nvPM mass and number emitted Furthermore, for the use of nvPM data in emission inventories,
from gas turbine engines (SAE, 2013). Various measurement an accurate and robust line loss correction methodology
campaigns have been performed to develop and assess the is essential. The line loss correction methodology is in the
operability of the sampling methodology (Crayford et al., 2012, process of being established with open questions regarding
Lobo et al., 2015). An instrument manufacturer has developed the magnitude of its uncertainty and its robustness.

76
ICAO ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
 CHAPTER 3
LOCAL AIR QUALITY

Figure 1. Schematic presentation of emissions, dispension, concentrations and impacts with their interaction at
airport level

Exhaust sampling campaigns, which were mainly focused on Such fuels need to meet the requirements of aviation operations,
the nvPM sampling methodology development, also improved yet may still allow for a range of specific fuel compositions, which
the knowledge on particle size distributions, particle effective lead to variations in emissions compared to conventional jet fuel.
density, morphology and internal structure of aircraft PM Their effects on air quality should be considered at airports that,
(Durdina, 2014; Johnson, 2015; Liati, 2014; Corbin, 2014). in the future, will provide alternative fuel blends. In evaluating
These properties are critical for the understanding of the fate Alternative Jet Fuel (AJF) candidates, the resulting changes in
and potential health impacts of these particles. These studies PM emissions have also been measured. Specifically, the lower
add to the body of data on aircraft engine PM emissions and the fuel aromatic and fuel sulphur levels with the majority of AJFs
volatile contributions to PM from sulfate and organics (Timko et under consideration have the potential to reduce PM emissions
al., 2010, Yu et al, 2010, Timko et al., 2013). from aircraft and APUs.

In addition to the main propulsion engines, aircraft can also Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (SPK) fuels are better understood
contribute particles due to PM arising from tyre and brake wear than other AJFs that are being considered by industry; they have
during landing and from operations. Recent work (ACRP, 2013) reduced PM emissions due to their lower aromatic composition
has quantified these emissions and, while important for inclusion and typically lower sulphur content. Figure 2 provides a
in a comprehensive inventory, their contributions compared summary of the wide range of PM mass and number emissions
to main engine emissions range from negligible for tyres and measurements that have been taken in recent years (note
brakes to modest for APU under routine operations. the figures refer to PM as black carbon). The measurements
consistently show that the reduced aromatic content of SPK
PM Emissions from Alternative Fuel fuels and blends of conventional jet fuel and SPK fuels results
Combustion in reduced PM. Similar reductions have also been observed for
The need for developing sustainable fuels for aviation has APUs (Lobo et al. 2015) and models have been developed for
sparked an interest in bio-derived fuels. Despite a range of accounting for fuel effects in PM mass and number emissions
existing commercial challenges, there are a number of concrete (Speth et al, 2014; Moore et al., 2015; Brem et al., 2015).
projects to start regular supply of sustainable alternative fuel
to airlines at some airports, such as LAX, AMS, OSL and BNE, It is important to note that AJFs offer a complementary route to
potentially already in 2015, at a blend ratio in the 1% range. reducing PM emissions to that offered by improved combustor
technologies that have been lowering PM emissions while using
standard jet fuels over the past decades.

77
ICAO ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
CHAPTER 3
LOCAL AIR QUALITY

Figure 2. Measured normalized black carbon (BC) number and mass emissions as a function of normalized aromatic
content and engine setting (Speth et al., 2014).

Emissions Inventories
Data on emissions provide the primary source values for In developing detailed airport inventories, the necessary data to
individual particulate or gaseous substances emitted by describe aircraft operations are not all available with sufficient
combustion, industrial or mechanical processes. The individual accuracy or granularity. Typical times-in-mode (especially
emissions are initially determined by measurements under a duration of taxi-in and out and turnaround) strongly depend on
controlled environment and set activity. For aircraft engines, the layout of each airport and on operational characteristics such
these emissions are usually measured at the engine exit plane. as preferred gate occupation, frequency of departure queues
and habits of APU use. Power setting profiles for take-off/climb
Emission inventories from aviation (or similarly from other sources) and approach depend on prescribed flight procedures (mainly
are produced by modelling the total amount of mass per time for noise abatement reasons) and also vary between airlines
period. These are modelled using measured emissions data in or aircraft types. At many airports they are not systematically
combination with known operational data for the use of aircraft in recorded even as average values. All of these effects result in
the airport for which the inventory is being developed (emissions noticeable uncertainties in modelling aircraft emissions.
= activities x emission factors). Often total airport inventories are
developed for a given time period, such as a total annual inventory. Emissions measurements help improve the creation of emissions
If further analysis is required, temporal and spatial resolution is inventories. For example, estimates of non-volatile PM (nvPM)
needed (Ref: ICAO, Doc 9889, Airport Air Quality Manual). from aircraft using Smoke Number (SN) are uncertain. Recent

Table 1. Level of understanding in airport emission inventory: green (good); yellow

(fair); red (poor) (Updated from Forum-AE, 2014)
78
ICAO ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
 CHAPTER 3
LOCAL AIR QUALITY

studies have shown that nvPM emissions estimated using SN As a percent of all transportation-related sources, commercial
value as in First Order Approximation 3 (FOA3) can underestimate aviation contributes about 6% for NOx, and 0.3 – 2.3% for the
actual nvPM quantities by a factor of ~3 (Stettler et al, 2013), and other pollutants. (Source: EC 2011)
these were corroborated in a recent study at the Los Angeles
International - a large U.S. airport (Penn et al, 2015). The use The topography around each airport, as well as time-varying
of certified data for evaluating nvPM engine emissions on wind direction and speed, can have a significant effect on the
operational phases will improve these estimates. dispersion of emissions. Non-aviation sources, especially the
pattern of roads accessing and surrounding airports, but also
Some of the gaps for the production of airport emission stationary industries, have a considerable impact on air quality,
inventories are displayed in Table 1. which is often larger than aircraft operations.

Model Emissions Dispersion and For the simplified characterization of air quality impacts and
Concentrations source attribution, emission inventories from various sources are
Substances once released into the atmosphere undergo a more often used as a surrogate. In the case of aircraft, the landing
or less rapid transformation based on ambient conditions and and take-off Cycle (LTO) is such an assumption. However, only
chemical properties. For instance, aircraft produces mainly NO or emissions up to approximately 3,000 ft above ground level
NO2 as a function of the power used on the different operational directly contribute to the surface concentrations near the airport;
phases; then, the transition between both forms or toward emissions above are dispersed more widely (Umweltbundesamt,
other nitrogen compounds is a function of ambient chemical 1992). To this end, emission inventories from aviation would
compounds that react with them, as well as temperature and have to be adjusted for that and the difference e.g. for NOx can
available sunlight. Gaseous aircraft emissions can influence the be 30-40% (EUROCONTROL, 2006).
local levels of ozone, and some can also eventually contribute
to ambient PM formation. Both the emitted particles and the Current tools and methods allow for more advanced modelling,
particle precursor gases contribute to ambient nucleation mode including not only airport related sources, but often also
particles, PM2.5, and PM10. In addition to chemical transformation, emissions from other contributors. Such overall modelling
atmospheric processing likewise includes dispersion over will enable the practitioner to actually compare modelled and
time and space, leading to spatially and temporally varying measured pollutant concentrations at selected receptor points
concentrations of the emitted pollutants and their resulting (i.e. measurement stations) and determine the contribution from
chemical and particle products. aviation. However, this requires substantial additional effort.
Studies show that airport related contributions quickly drop with
Assessing the concentrations in a regional airshed can be increasing distance from the source, as well in absolute values
done by either measuring them directly or estimating their as in relative share of contribution (Zurich Airport, 2013).
concentrations by modelling them based on emissions
inventories. The challenge lies in that measuring the ambient Aircraft emissions affect ambient air quality, specifically the
concentrations will always include all “contributing” emissions concentrations of O3, NO2, PM2.5 and Hazardous Air Pollutants
– whether aviation related or not. Modelling the concentrations (HAPs) or air toxics. The chemical reactions of aircraft-emitted
provides the option to only assess aviation related emissions species with other background chemicals often occur at
(source discriminated), but additional effort is needed to downwind distances of up to 200-300 km away from the airport
numerically model total ambient concentrations that includes (Arunachalam et al, 2011; Rissman et al, 2013). However, the
all sources and non-aviation background concentrations. In contribution of aircraft-related air quality impacts for PM2.5 to the
consequence, a careful interpretation and source apportionment total ambient air are often in the range of 1-5%, (the higher end of
of ambient measurements is necessary. this range applicable for large airports such as Atlanta Hartsfield
when modelled at fine resolution) and given the magnitudes of the
health-based air quality standards, do not lead to violations of air
Modelling the Contribution of Aircraft quality standards on their own. Furthermore, aircraft emissions
Emissions on Air Quality of NOx and SOx react with ammonia emitted from non-aviation
On a global scale, emissions from commercial aviation activity sources to form inorganic PM2.5 such as ammonium nitrate and
(due to LTO and cruise-mode) contribute to less than 3% of ammonium sulfate. In future years, aircraft-attributable PM2.5
total anthropogenic emissions for NOx, and even less (< 1%) levels are likely to be a stronger function of ambient NH3, and
for all other primary pollutants such as CO, NMVOC, PM10 and could lead to a disproportionate amount of inorganic PM2.5
SO2. However, on a local scale near large airports, such as formed greater than simply the growth in the aviation-emitted
Atlanta Hartsfield, aircraft emissions of NOx during LTO can be primary precursors (Woody et al, 2011). However, moving to a
as high as 5%. Transportation related sources contribute up to desulfurized jet fuel from the current levels will likely mitigate
46% for NOx, and between 4.6 – 32.7% for other pollutants. some of this projected contribution in the future.

79
ICAO ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
CHAPTER 3
LOCAL AIR QUALITY

Figure 3 shows the contribution of each of 66 U.S. airports to Cruise Emissions Impacts on Air Quality
total ambient PM2.5 in absolute and relative terms, and as a The FAA has been funding a multi-institute study3 to compare
function of annual LTO operations (Boone et al, 2015). Given the the impacts of emissions from commercial aircraft activities
complexity associated with the total PM2.5 formed from primary worldwide on surface ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter
and secondary components, one can see that the airport with (PM2.5; size less than 2.5 micrometers) global chemistry-climate
the highest LTO operations do not lead to the highest amount models. The models include climate-response models (CRMs)
of PM2.5. with interactive meteorology, chemical-transport models (CTMs)
with prescribed meteorology, and models that integrate aspects
of both. The models all used the same 2006 inventory of global
commercial aviation emissions.

All of the models in the study find that aircraft increase near-
surface ozone (0.4 to 1.9% globally) and the perturbations in the
Northern Hemisphere are highest in the winter, when ambient
ozone levels are lower and potentially of not as much concern
to human health compared to the higher ozone in the summer
months. Changes in surface-level PM2.5 in the CTMs (0.14
to 0.4%) and CRMs (-1.9 to 1.2%) appear to depend on the
background aerosol fields and these vary considerably among
the models. The inclusion of feedbacks in meteorology also
has a strong impact on the results. The CTMs tend to show an
increase in surface PM2.5 primarily over high-traffic regions in
the North American mid-latitudes. The CRMs, on the other hand,
demonstrate the effects of changing meteorological fields and
potential feedbacks on aviation emission impacts, and exhibit
Figure 3. Individual airport-attributable PM2.5 con- large perturbations over regions where natural emissions (e.g.,
tributions compared to all-source contributions as a soil dust and sea spray) are abundant.
function of airport operations (each dot represents one
of the top 66 U.S. airports, and the dotted line shows 1. At the time this draft white paper was assembled, the report was in review with
the % of airport-attributable PM2.5 compared to total the FAA. The research team consists of Stanford University, Massachusetts
PM2.5 from all sources) Institute of Technology, National Center for Atmospheric Research, NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center, Yale University, and the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
New classes of semi-volatile and intermediate volatility organic
compounds (S/IVOC) precursors that lead to the formation Non-
Traditional Secondary Organic Aerosols (NTSOA) have been identified
by recent smog-chamber studies (Miracolo et al, 2012). These
studies showed that traditional SOA models could under predict
traditional SOA formation by up to ~60% at engine loads of 4% and
~40% at 85%. However, when incorporated in comprehensive grid-
based models, these precursors led to relatively modest increases
in SOA formation, due to the relatively low levels of ambient organic
aerosols, but still contributed to about 24% of the total aircraft-
attributable PM2.5 (Woody et al, 2014).

The main uncertainties in ambient air quality studies lie in

understanding the effects of the granularity of models, and
the micro-meteorological and chemical reaction effects. The
granularity of models includes the information on emissions
(emission factors for the relevant sources, actual operations of
those sources, e.g. the APU) and the assessment of temporal
and spatial resolution. Microscale meteorological and chemical
reaction effects include issues like plume-rise and turbulence of
exhaust plumes and heterogeneous chemical reactions that are
currently not well modelled.

80
ICAO ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
 CHAPTER 3
LOCAL AIR QUALITY

References
ACRP Aircraft and Airport-Related Hazardous Air Pollutants, ACRP Report 7, Transportation Research Board, (2008) http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore.
ACRP, Measurement of Gaseous HAP Emissions from Idling Aircraft as a Function of Engine and Ambient Conditions, ACRP Report 63, Transportation Research Board,
(2012) http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore.
ACRP, Measurement of PM Emissions from Aircraft Auxiliary Power Units, Tires and Brakes, ACRP Report 97, Transportation Research Board, (2013) http://www.
national-academies.org/trb/bookstore.
Arunachalam, S., Wang, B., Davis, N., Baek, B.H., Levy, JI, (2011). Effect of Chemistry-Transport Model Scale and Resolution on Population Exposure to PM2.5 from
Aircraft Emissions during Landing and Takeoff, Atmos. Environ., 45(19):3294-3300.
Boone, S. S. Penn, J. Levy and S. Arunachalam (2015). Calculation of sensitivity coefficients for individual airport emissions in the continental United States using CMAQ-
DDM3D/PM, In Proceedings of the 34th International Technical Meeting on Air Pollution, Montpellier, France, May 2015.
Brem, B. T., L. Durdina, F. Siegerist, P. Beyerle, K. Bruderer, T. Rindlisbacher, S. Rocci-Denis, M. G. Andac, J. Zelina, O. Penanhoat and J. Wang (2015). Effects of Fuel,
Aromatic Content on Nonvolatile Particulate Emissions of an In-Production Aircraft Gas Turbine., Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015.
AVL, website as of June 2015: https://www.avl.com/aviation
Corbin, JC, B Sierau, M Gysel, M Laborde, A Keller, J Kim, A Petzold, TB Onasch, U Lohmann and AA Mensah. “Mass Spectrometry of Refractory Black Carbon Particles
from Six Sources: Carbon-Cluster and Oxygenated Ions.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 14, no. 5 (2014): 2591-2603.
Crayford, A., M. Johnson, R. Marsh, Yura Sevcenco, David Walters, P. Williams, A. Petzold, P. Bowen, J. Wang and D. Lister. “Studying, Sampling and Measuring of Aircraft
Particulate Emissions Iii - Specific Contract 02, Sample iii - Sc.02.” EASA, 2012.
Durdina, L., B. T. Brem, M. Abegglen, P. Lobo, T. Rindlisbacher, K. A. Thomson, G. J. Smallwood, D. E. Hagen, B. Sierau and J. Wang. “Determination of Pm Mass Emissions
from an Aircraft Turbine Engine Using Particle Effective Density.” Atmospheric Environment 99, (2014): 500–507.
EUROCONTROL, Airport Local Air Quality, Sensitivity Analysis Zurich Airport 2004, EEC/SEE/2006/033.
European Commission: Joint Research Centre (JRC)/Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL). Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research
(EDGAR), release version 4.2, available at: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu (last access: 25 September 2014), 2011.
Forum-AE. Local Air Quality Workshop, Manchester, 2014. Proceedings Day 1. Presentation Zurich Airport (www.forum-ae.eu)
Hudda, N., T Gould, K. Hartin, T.V. Larson, and S.A. Fruin, Emissions from an International Airport Increase Particle Number Concentrations 4‐fold at 10 km Downwind,
,Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 6628−6635.
ICAO: Environmental Report 2007,
ICAO: 2013 Environmental Report
Johnson, Tyler J., Jason S. Olfert, Jonathan P. R. Symonds, Mark Johnson, Theo Rindlisbacher, Jacob J. Swanson, Adam M. Boies, Kevin Thomson, Greg Smallwood,
David Walters, Yura Sevcenco, Andrew Crayford, Ramin Dastanpour, Steven N. Rogak, Lukas Durdina, Yeon Kyoung Bahk, Benjamin Brem and Jing Wang. “Effective
Density and Mass-Mobility Exponent of Aircraft Turbine Particulate Matter.” Journal of Propulsion and Power 31, no. 2 (2015): 573–582.
Keuken M.P., M. Moerman, P. Zandveld, J.S. Henzing, and G. Hoek, Total and size-resolved particle number and black carbon concentrations in urban areas near
Schiphol airport (the Netherlands), Atmospheric Environment 104 (2015) 132e142
Liati, Anthi, Benjamin T. Brem, Lukas Durdina, Melanie Vögtli, Yadira Arroyo Rojas Dasilva, Panayotis Dimopoulos Eggenschwiler and Jing Wang. “Electron Microscopic
Study of Soot Particulate Matter Emissions from Aircraft Turbine Engines.” Environmental science & technology 48, no. 18 (2014): 10975–10983.
Lobo, Prem, Lukas Durdina, Gregory J. Smallwood, Theodor Rindlisbacher, Frithjof Siegerist, Elizabeth A. Black, Zhenhong Yu, Amewu A. Mensah, Donald E. Hagen,
Richard C. Miake-Lye, Kevin A. Thomson, Benjamin T. Brem, Joel C. Corbin, Manuel Abegglen, Berko Sierau, Philip D. Whitefield and Jing Wang. “Measurement
of Aircraft Engine Non-Volatile Pm Emissions: Results of the Aviation - Particle Regulatory Instrument Demonstration Experiment (a-Pride) 4 Campaign.” Aerosol
Science and Technology, (2015): 00-00.
Lobo, P., S. Christie, B. Khandelwal, S. G. Blakey and D. W. Raper (2015). “Evaluation of Non-volatile Particulate Matter Emission Characteristics of an Aircraft Auxiliary
Power Unit with Varying Alternative Jet Fuel Blend Ratios. Energy & Fuels,
Moore, R. H., M. Shook, A. Beyersdorf, C. Corr, S. Herndon, W. B. Knighton, R. Miake-Lye, K. L. Thornhill, E. L. Winstead and Z. Yu (2015). “Influence of Jet Fuel Composition
on Aircraft Engine Emissions: A Synthesis of Aerosol Emissions Data from the NASA APEX, AAFEX, and ACCESS Missions.” Energy & Fuels 29(4): 2591-2600.
Miracolo, M., Hennigan, C., Ranjan, M., Nguyen, N., Gordon, T., Lipsky, E., Presto, A., Donahue, N., and Robinson, A.: Secondary aerosol formation from photochemical
aging of aircraft exhaust in a smog chamber, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 4135–4147, 2011.
Penn, S., S. Arunachalam, Y. Tripodis, W. Heiger-Bernays, JI Levy (2015). A comparison between monitoring and dispersion modeling approaches to assess the impact
of aviation on concentrations of black carbon and nitrogen oxides at Los Angeles International Airport, Science of the Total Environment, 05/2015; 527-528C:47-55.
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.147.
Rissman, J., Arunachalam, S., Woody, M., West, J. J., BenDor, T., and Binkowski, F. S. (2013). A plume-in-grid approach to characterize air quality impacts of aircraft
emissions at the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 9285-9302.
SAE, International. “Procedure for the Continuous Sampling and Measurement of Non-Volatile Particle Emissions from Aircraft Turbine Engines.” In E-31 Aircraft Exhaust
Emissions Measurement Committee, AIR 6241: SAE International, 2013.
Speth, R.L., Rojo, C., Malina, R., Barrett S.R.H., “Black carbon emissions reductions from combustion of alternative jet fuels,” Atmospheric Environment 105, pp. 37-42,
2015. DOI:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.01.040
Stettler, M.E.J., Jacob J. Swanson , Steven R. H. Barrett & Adam M. Boies (2013) Updated Correlation Between Aircraft Smoke Number and Black Carbon Concentration,
Aerosol Science and Technology, 47:11, 1205-1214, DOI:10.1080/02786826.2013.829908
Timko, M. T., Onasch, T. B., Northway, M. J., Jayne, J. T., Canagaratna, M. R., Herndon, S. C., Wood, E.C., Miake-Lye, R.C. and Knighton, W.B.. (2010). Gas Turbine Engine
Emissions - Part II: Chemical Properties of Particulate Matter. J. Eng. Gas Turb. Power –Trans. ASME, 132:061505.
Timko, M.T., S.E. Albo, T.B. Onasch, E.C. Fortner, Z Yu, R.C. Miake-Lye, M.R. Canagaratna, N.L. Ng, and D.R. Worsnop, Composition and Sources of the Organic Particle
Emissions from Aircraft Engines Aerosol Science and Technology, 48:61–73, 2014.
Umweltbundesamt, Germany, 1992: BImSchVwv, 1992-04-24, Section 2.4e
Woody, M. C., West, J. J., Jathar, S. H., Robinson, A. L., and Arunachalam, S. (2014): Estimates of non-traditional secondary organic aerosols from aircraft SVOC and
IVOC emissions using CMAQ, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 14, 30667-30703, doi:10.5194/acpd-14-30667-2014.
Woody, M., and S. Arunachalam (2013). Secondary organic aerosol produced from aircraft emissions at the Atlanta Airport: An advanced diagnostic investigation using
process analysis, Atmos. Environ., 76:101-109
Yu, Z.; D.S. Liscinsky; E.L., Winstead, B.S. True, M.T. Timko, A. Bhargava, S.C. Herndon, R.C. Miake-Lye, and B.E. Anderson, Characterization of Lubrication Oil Emissions
from Aircraft Engines, Environ. Sci. Technol. (2010), 44, 9530–9534.
Zurich Airport: Zurich Airport Regional Air Quality Study 2013. www.zurich-airport.com

81
ICAO ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT