Fuel 279 (2020) 118477

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Review article

A review on regulations, current status, effects and reduction strategies of T

emissions for marine diesel engines
⁎
Peiyong Nia, , Xiangli Wangb, Hu Lic
a
School of Mechanical Engineering, Nantong University, Nantong 226019, China
b
School of Electrical Engineering, Nantong University, Nantong 226019, China
c
School of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Marine diesel engines, which provide main power source for ships, mainly contribute to air pollution in ports
Marine diesel engines and coastal areas. Thus there is an increasing demand on tightening the emission standards for marine diesel
Emissions engines, which necessitates the research on various emission reduction strategies. This review covers emission
Alternative fuel regulations and emission factors (EFs), environmental effects and available emission reduction solutions for
Exhaust gas aftertreatment
marine diesel engines. Not only the establishment of the emission control areas (ECAs) in the regulations but also
many experiments show high concerns about the sulfur limits in fuels, sulfur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides
(NOx) emissions. Research results reveal that NOx emissions from marine diesel engines account for 50% of total
NOx in harbors and coastal regions. Sulfur content in fuel oil is an important parameter index that determines
the development direction of emission control technologies. Despites some issues, biodiesel, methanol and li-
quefied nature gas (LNG) play their important roles in reducing emissions as well as in replacing fossil energy,
being promising fuels for marine diesel engines. Fuel-water emulsion (FWE) and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
are effective treatment option for NOx emissions control. Common rail fuel injection is an effective fuel injection
strategy to achieve simultaneous reductions in particulate matter (PM) and NOx. Selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) and wet scrubbing are the most mature and effective exhaust aftertreatment methods for marine diesel
engines, which show 90% De-NOx efficiency and 95% De-SOx efficiency. It can be concluded that the integrated
multi-pollutant treatment for ship emissions holds great promise.

1. Introduction [4]. Additionally, compared to automotive fuels, the quality of marine

fuels is poor, which contributes to escalated emissions. For example,
Marine transportation has the advantages of large carrying capacity, heavy fuel oil (HFO) for propulsion of the ocean-going ships, is the
high safety and low operating cost compared to other transportations. lowest-grade of oil [5], and can produce high exhaust emissions [6].
However, in spite of these advantages, massive NOx, PM and SOx Marine diesel engines emit approximately 20 million tonnes of NOx, 10
emissions emitted from marine diesel engines cause serious environ- million tonnes of SOx and 1 million tonnes of PM every year [7].
mental pollutions in ports and coastal areas [1–3]. Due to the char- Moreover, there is growing concern about greenhouse gas (GHG)
acteristics of high mobility, large area and long duration of ship ac- emissions from ship engines [8,9]. NOx, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and
tivities, the impact on the environment and human health is intensified carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by ships account for 15%, 4–9%, and

Abbreviations: EFs, emission factors; ECAs, emission control areas; SOx, sulfur oxides; NOx, nitrogen oxides; LNG, liquefied nature gas; FWE, fuel-water emulsion;
EGR, exhaust gas recirculation; PM, particulate matter; SCR, selective catalytic reduction; HFO, heavy fuel oil; GHG, greenhouse gas; SO2, sulfur dioxide; CO2, carbon
dioxide; IMO, International Maritime Organization; MARPOL, Marine Agreement Regarding Oil Pollution Of Liability; CO, Carbon monoxide; EU, European Union;
US, United States; HC, hydrocarbon; CH4, methane; PN, particle number; DPF, diesel particulate filter; SECAs, SOx emission control areas; EPA, Environment
Protection Agency; NO2, nitrogen dioxide; NRMM, non-road mobile machinery; DF, dual fuel; NO, nitric oxide; PM2.5, fine particles; O3, Ozone; VOCs, volatile
organic compounds; MDO, marine diesel oil; IAH, intake air humidification; DWI, direct water injection; W/F, water to fuel; LP-SCR, low pressure selective catalytic
reduction; HP-SCR, high pressure selective catalytic reduction; DOC, diesel oxidation catalyst; CRT, continuously regenerating trap; ESP, electrostatic precipitator;
EHD ESP, electrohydrodynamically electrostatic precipitator; CCRT, catalyzed continuously regenerating trap; EGCS, exhaust gas cleaning system; NTP, non-thermal
plasma
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Ni).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118477
Received 3 May 2020; Received in revised form 27 May 2020; Accepted 18 June 2020
0016-2361/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Ni, et al. Fuel 279 (2020) 118477

2.7% of global anthropogenic pollution, respectively [10]. With the

growth of shipping industry and business activities, more gaseous and
particle emissions from maritime transportation will be discharged in
the forthcoming years.
To address this issue, the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) has implemented the Regulations for the Prevention of Air
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78 Annex VI). Governments have
also introduced regional ship emission standards. In recent years, the
European Union (EU) and the United States (US) have updated their
respective inland river ship emission standards, and China has also
promulgated the national standard for ship engine emission control for
the first time. The controlled emissions include not only NOx, PM, SOx,
carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbon (HC) and methane (CH4), but also
particle number (PN) [11].
On the other hand, there is an increasing demand for energy be-
cause of the increase of shipping activities. The annual crude oil used in
marine diesel engines is approximately 60 million barrels [12]. Hence,
considering the non-renewability of fossil fuels, it has become essential
to seek alternate fuels to meet the demand of shipping market. At Fig. 1. MARPOL Annex VI NOx emission limits after 2000 (Tier I), after 2011
present, the main alternate fuels commercially available for marine (Tier II) and after 2016 (Tier III) [29].
diesel engines include biodiesel, natural gas and methanol. Among
them, biodiesel has several advantages such as renewability, compat- diesel engines and the effects on environmental pollution are presented.
ibility of existing engines, low toxicity and environmentally friendly Besides, regulations and emissions levels of ship diesel engines and road
[13–15]. Biodiesel can be directly used for ship propulsion without diesel engines are briefly compared.
modifying the engine structure. Use of biodiesel is capable of decreasing
PM emission, but NOx emission may increase [16,17]. Anyway, bio- 2.1. Emission regulations
diesel is considered as a most promising and attractive alternative
[5,18]. Methanol is a technically feasible option for reducing ship Shipping transportation is considered to be a crucial source to global
emissions and there does not exist major problems in the supply chain environmental pollution. Therefore, it is necessary to regulate and
[19]. Similar to methanol, natural gas can reduce both NOx emission implement international maritime emission standards. In the MARPOL,
and PM emission [20,21]. It is also easy to see that lower sulfur content the limits for NOx emissions are presented graphically in Fig. 1. The
is a common feature of these clean fuels. In fact, the application of these NOx emission limits apply to both used and new marine diesel engines.
alternative fuels in marine diesel engines contributes to alleviating The Tier I and Tier II limits are global, but the Tier III standards only
energy shortage as well as emissions. apply to NOx ECAs. Additionally, the sulphur content in fuels must be
In order to deal with increasingly stringent emission regulations, limited because it can greatly increase SOx and PM emissions. The
three strategies for emission reductions are available for marine diesel sulphur content limit of marine fuels in SOx emission control areas
engines: fuel technologies, in-cylinder purification and exhaust gas (SECAs) decreased from 1.5% to 1% and to 0.1% in 2015, and the
aftertreatment [22]. In fuel technologies, the clean fuels in different maximum value globally declined from 4.5% to 3.5% and to 0.5% in
proportions are delivered to intake ports or cylinders for combustion 2020[29].
and if necessary, some additives are added to fuels [23–25]. As for in- Apart from IMO conventions, other maritime organisations, such as
cylinder purification, combustion optimization, addition of water and the US Environment Protection Agency (EPA), the EU and Ministry of
EGR are adopted. Exhaust gas aftertreatment can effectively reduce Environmental Protection of China, have also set maritime regulations
emissions whereas there is almost no penalty in the engine power and on the reduction of exhaust emissions.
fuel economy. Among them, SCR is used to decrease NOx emission and In the EPA’s regulation, ship engines are divided into three cate-
Diesel particulate filter (DPF) is used to remove PM emission. In addi- gories according to displacement per cylinder. Category 1 and Category
tion, a scrubber installed on a large ship as an aftertreatment device, 2 marine diesel engines are used as the propulsion power in many kinds
can effectively remove SOx emissions [26–28]. of vessels at and around ports. Category 3 includes large diesel engines
The above emission control technologies are not used in isolation. for ocean-going ships. Tables 1–3 show the allowed limits of exhaust
The choices depend on many factors, such as the emission levels of old emissions according to EPA Tier 3–4 for Categories 1 and 2 engines.
diesel engines and newly produced diesel engines, emission regulations, New category 3 engines are needed to meet Tier 1–3 NOx emission
classification of engine use, costs and environmental effects.
Nevertheless the combination and integration of multiple emission re- Table 1
duction technologies provide promising strategies to meet stricter EPA Tier 3 standards for marine diesel category 1 commercial engines and
emission regulations. This has great significance for global and regional diesel recreational engines [30].
pollutant prevention and control, and has remarkable social and eco- Power (P) Displacement (D) NOx + HC PM Date
logical environmental benefits. In this paper, the emission factors, en- kW dm3 per cylinder g/kWh g/kWh
vironmental effects and control technologies for marine diesel engines
P < 19 D < 0.9 7.5(7.5)a 0.40(0.40)a 2009
are reviewed and presented. The purpose of this paper is to provide
19 ≤ P < 75 D < 0.9 7.5(7.5)a 0.30(0.30)a 2009
some information related to air pollution from marine diesel engines 4.7(4.7)a 0.30(0.30)a 2014
and emission reduction strategies for researchers, engineers and ship 75 ≤ P < 3700 D < 0.9 5.4(5.8)a 0.14(0.15)a 2012
owners. 0.9 ≤ D < 1.2 5.4(5.8)a 0.12(0.14)a 2013
1.2 ≤ D < 2.5 5.6(5.8)a 0.11(0.12)a 2014
2.5 ≤ D < 3.5 5.6(5.8)a 0.11(0.12)a 2013
2. Emissions from marine diesel engines 3.5 ≤ D < 7 5.6(5.8)a 0.11(0.11)a 2012

In this section, firstly, the current emission regulations for marine a

The numbers in parentheses apply to high power density (greater
diesel engines are listed. Then, the results of emission levels of marine than35 kW/dm3) engines and diesel recreational engines.

2
P. Ni, et al. Fuel 279 (2020) 118477

Table 2 Table 5
EPA Tier 3 standards for marine diesel category 2 engines [29]. China I emission standards for marine engines [34].
Power (P) Displacement (D) NOx + HC PM Date Power (P) Displacement (D) CO NOx + HC CH4a PM Date
kW dm3 per cylinder g/kWh g/kWh
3
kW dm per cylinder g/kWh
P < 3700 7 ≤ D < 15 6.2 0.14 2013
15 ≤ D < 20 7.0 0.27 2014 P ≥ 37 D < 0.9 5.0 7.5 1.5 0.40 2018
20 ≤ D < 25 9.8 0.27 2014 0.9 ≤ D < 1.2 5.0 7.2 1.5 0.30
25 ≤ D < 30 11.0 0.27 2014 1.2 ≤ D < 5 5.0 7.2 1.5 0.20
5 ≤ D < 15 5.0 7.8 1.5 0.27
P < 3300 15 ≤ D < 20 5.0 8.7 1.6 0.50
P ≥ 3300 5.0 9.8 1.8 0.50
Table 3
20 ≤ D < 25 5.0 9.8 1.8 0.50
EPA Tier 4 standards for marine diesel category 1/2 engines [29]. 25 ≤ D < 30 5.0 11.0 2.0 0.50
Power (P) NOx HC PM Date
a
kW g/kWh g/kWh g/kWh Applicable to NG (including dual fuel, DF) engines only.

P ≥ 3700 1.8 0.19 0.12 2014 Table 6

1.8 0.19 0.06 2016
China II emission standards for marine engines[34].
2000 ≤ P < 3700 1.8 0.19 0.04 2014
1400 ≤ P < 2000 1.8 0.19 0.04 2016 Power (P) Displacement (D) CO NOx + HC CH4a PM Date
600 ≤ P < 1400 1.8 0.19 0.04 2017
3
kW dm per cylinder g/kWh

standards. P ≥ 37 D < 0.9 5.0 5.8 1.0 0.30 2021

0.9 ≤ D < 1.2 5.0 5.8 1.0 0.14
By contrast, except CO limit of 21.1 g/kWh, US EPA & California 1.2 ≤ D < 5 5.0 5.8 1.0 0.12
Emission Standards for heavy-duty onroad CI engines effective in 2015 P < 2000 5 ≤ D < 15 5.0 6.2 1.2 0.14
are more stringent, with HC, NOx and PM emission limits of 0.19, 0.03 2000 ≤ P < 3700 5.0 7.8 1.5 0.14
and 0.014 g/kWh respectively [31]. P ≥ 3700 5.0 7.8 1.5 0.27
P < 2000 15 ≤ D < 20 5.0 7.0 1.5 0.34
EU emission standards for off-road or non-road mobile machinery
2000 ≤ P < 3300 5.0 8.7 1.6 0.50
(NRMM) have evolved from Stage II to V. The new emission standard P ≥ 3300 5.0 9.8 1.8 0.50
State V, the tightest in the world, comes into effect in January 2018- P < 2000 20 ≤ D < 25 5.0 9.8 1.8 0.27
January 2020 for different engine types. Compared with Stage III A P ≥ 2000 5.0 9.8 1.8 0.50
standards, EU Stage V regulations adopted stricter emission limits for P < 2000 25 ≤ D < 30 5.0 11.0 2.0 0.27
P ≥ 2000 5.0 11.0 2.0 0.50
engines used in inland waterway vessels, shown in Table 4. It is worth
noting that the Stage V regulation differing from other marine regula- a
Applicable to NG (including dual fuel) engines only.
tions adopted PN emission limit for engines in inland waterway vessels.
In EU VI emission standards for heavy-duty onroad diesel engines, on-road heavy-duty engines are much stricter, and adopted the same
the limit of CO, HC, NOx, PM and PN is 1.5, 0.13,0.40, 0.01 g/kWh and limits of CO, HC, NOx, PM and PN as the EU VI emission standards [35].
8.0 × 1011 1/kWh respectively [33]. Obviously, emission standards for Besides, China VI emission standards for heavy-duty engines also set the
marine engines are much more relaxed than those for onroad heavy- NH3 limit of 10 ppm [35].
duty diesel engines used in trucks and buses. It can be seen that the European Union, the United States and China
To cut down pollutant emissions from marine engines, China has standards cover the four basic pollutants CO, HC, NOx and PM. It is
formulated and adopted some regulatory initiatives, such as China I/II worth noting that the EU NRMM Stage V also specifically proposed PN
Standards, IMO Annex VI Standards and domestic Emission Control control. Compared to China Stage II, both NRMM Stage V and EPA Tier
Areas. China I/II Standards are shown in Tables 5 and 6. China I/II 4 have further tightened the HC, NOx and PM limits. In addition, China
Standards apply to propulsion and auxiliary engines installed in inland Stage I and Stage II separately proposed CH4 emission limits with a
and coastal vessels. Chinese oceangoing vessels and foreign vessels range of 1.0–2.0 g/kWh. In comparison, the current Chinese standards
operating within Chinese waters are subject to the IMO Annex VI. have the most stringent restrictions on CH4 emissions from inland
Starting from September 1, 2018, all diesel engines installed on-board watercraft.
Chinese-flagged ships and imported ships applying for domestic trade in
the domestic ECAs are required to conform to the Annex VI Tier II NOx 2.2. Ship EFs
emission limits. From March 1, 2020, a carriage ban for fuel oils con-
taining more than 0.5% sulfur will be enforced for all ships without an EFs have been used to compile inventories of air pollutants and
exhaust gas cleaning system (scrubber) [34]. A 0.1% sulfur limit will quantify the influences of emissions on regional air quality and human
also apply to ships entering inland waterways and Hainan Island [34]. health. For ships, there are usually two kinds of emission factors: fuel-
In comparison to marine engines, China VI emission standards for based and power-based. Ship EFs are determined by measuring the
emissions from engine exhaust pipes or from gaseous plumes of ship
Table 4
emissions in real world. EFs of gaseous and particulate pollutants from
EU stage V emission standards for engines in inland waterway vessels [32]. ships for various purposes have been studied by many researchers.
Because engine emission sampling methods on board in real world
Power (P) CO HC NOx PM PN Date
are the same as those on the engine bench in the lab, on-board ship EFs
kW g/kWh 1/kWh are close to bench test engine EFs under the same engine operation
conditions. Cooper [36] measured emissions from 22 auxiliary engines
19 ≤ P < 75 5.00 4.70 a
0.30 – 2019 with the maximum power of 720 to 2675 kW on board six ships at berth
75 ≤ P < 3700 5.00 5.40a 0.14 – 2019
and found that the EFs for NOx, HC and CO varied considerably be-
3.50 1.00 2.10 0.10 – 2019
3.50 0.19 1.80 0.015 1 × 1012 2020 tween the different engine models and loads. Schrooten et al. [37] es-
timated EFs for the main engines and auxiliaries according to ship type
a
HC + NOx. and size class. The NOx EFs for the main engines from Spain are shown

3
P. Ni, et al. Fuel 279 (2020) 118477

Table 7 transport sharply decreased by more than 94% due to the use of ultra
NOx emission factors per vessel type and size class for Spain [37]. low sulphur fuels (10 ppm sulfur content maximum). In a port site in
NOx (g/kWh) Size (m) 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 Shanghai, ship emissions account for 36.4% of SO2 [48].
Because nitric oxide (NO) emissions from ships can be quickly
Bulk carrier < 150 15.7 15.4 14.5 13.7 13.1 converted to NO2 if there is sufficient ozone existing and NO2 is one of
≥150 17.3 16.6 15.8 14.9 14.2
the major air pollutants causing health concerns, many researches have
Chemical tanker < 150 14.5 14.3 13.4 12.8 12.3
150–250 16.6 16.0 15.4 14.5 13.9
been conducted to determine the effect of shipping NOx emissions on
> 250 17.3 16.4 15.7 14.7 14.1 atmospheric NO2. Ramacher et al. [49] simulated NO2 concentrations
Container ship < 150 14.2 14.1 13.0 12.6 12.6 from local shipping in three Baltic Sea harbour cities, as shown in Fig. 3.
150–250 16.6 15.7 14.8 14.2 14.1 They found that the maximum urban area affected by shipping NO2
> 250 16.6 15.8 14.8 14.3 14.2
emission with the concentration of above 5 μgm−3 reached up to
General cargo < 150 14.3 14.6 14.1 13.1 12.2
150–250 17.6 17.5 17.1 15.6 14.1 17.42 km2. Karl et al. [50] reported that the contribution of ship
> 250 17.6 17.6 17.1 15.6 14.1 emissions to annual average NO2 was above 40% over the Baltic Sea,
LG tanker < 150 14.2 14.2 13.3 12.6 12.2 22–28% for the entire Baltic Sea region and 16–20% in the coastal land
≥150 17.3 16.5 15.8 14.9 14.2
areas. In the Red Sea, due to maritime emissions, the NO2 concentration
Oil tanker < 150 14.5 14.2 12.8 12.4 12.5
150–250 17.1 16.0 14.8 14.2 14.1
spatially varied from 4.03 × 1014 to 41.39 × 1014 molecules/cm2[51].
> 250 17.2 16.1 14.9 14.3 14.2 Besides the above-mentioned gaseous pollutants, PM from ships,
Ro–Ro cargo < 150 14.1 14.1 13.2 12.5 12.1 especially fine particles (PM2.5) have a negative environmental impact.
150–250 14.4 14.5 13.9 13.4 13.0 In the northern EU area, the highest PM2.5 emissions from ships were
> 250 13.5 13.7 13.1 12.6 12.4
located in the near coast of the Netherlands, in the English Channel,
near the southeastern UK and along the busiest shipping lines in the
in Table 7. These results are helpful to air quality assessments in coastal Danish Straits and the Baltic Sea [52]. In urban Shanghai, ships con-
areas. Zhang et al. [38] reported that NOx and PM EFs of 25.8 g/kWh tributed 20–30% (2-7μgm−3) to all PM2.5 within 15 km of coastal and
and 2.09 g/kWh respectively for the two low-engine-power vessels riverside while emissions from ships in the inland off the costal line
were higher than that for the high-engine-power vessels. A similar si- contributed 0.5–2 μg m−3 to the PM2.5 [53].
tuation was also observed that fishing boats at low loads always had Ozone (O3) in the atmosphere on the surface of the earth is pro-
higher EFs for CO, PM and NO2 [39]. It is worth noting that the unit of duced by the photochemical reaction between NOx and volatile organic
EFs is very important and it is the g/kWh (or specific emissions) that compounds (VOCs). Because it plays a key role in the photochemical
shows the trends. Huang et al. [40] reported that EFs of a large cargo smog formation, O3 has attracted attention of researchers. In the
vessel were higher during maneuvering than during cruising. During Yangtze River Delta region of China, O3, greatly affected by the ship
cruising, the distance-based EFs of the gaseous and PM increased with emissions, had a high concentration of 50 μg m−3 in the ship track
increasing vessel speed. The fuel-based average EFs of organic pollu- region [54]. Over the Baltic Sea, because of ship emissions, annual
tants including PAHs and n-alkanes in PM from various vessels were mean O3 concentrations were 15%–25% higher than over land [50].
also reported by [41]. The chemical mechanism of ozone formation has been extensively
Different from above sampling from engine exhaust pipes, sampling studied [55–58]. In brief, it involves a NOx cycle and a ROx cycle. In
from the gaseous plumes can also be used to determine the EFs. Alfödy the NOx cycle, NO2 is split int NO and atomic oxygen which will then
et al. [42] measured SO2, NOx and PM emissions in the plumes of the combine with O2 to form O3. In the ROx cycle, the ROx radicals (RO,
passing ships. The results showed an obviously increasing trend for SO2 RO2, HO2 and OH) mainly from unsaturated VOCs oxidize NO to NO2
EFs with the increase of the engine power. A decreasing NOx emission which will then lead to formation of O3 by the NOx cycle.
factor was observed with the increase of the crankshaft speed. Lack
et al. [43] showed the decrease of shipping SO2 EFs from 49 g (kg 3. Emission reduction technologies
fuel)−1 to 4.3 g (kg fuel)−1 when the fuel sulfur decreased from 3.15%
to 0.07%. Beecken et al. [44] measured EFs of SO2, NOx and PM of 300 In this section, the three aspects of emissions reduction strategies for
ships in the Gulf of Finland and Neva Bay area. The results indicated a marine diesel engines including fuel technologies, combustion im-
bi-modal distribution of the SO2 EFs with an average of 4.6 g (kg provement and post-treatment, are presented and discussed.
fuel)−1in the lower mode and 18.2 g (kg fuel)−1in the higher mode and
a mono-modal distribution of the NOx EFs with an average of 58 g (kg 3.1. Clean alternative fuels
fuel)−1. Fig. 2 shows the frequency distribution of EFs for SO2, NOx and
PM. Ship fuels, such as HFO and marine diesel oil (MDO), have high
sulfur and ash contents, high viscosity and density. The high sulfur
content in fuels can cause a large amount of PM and SOx emissions from
2.3. Effect on environment ship engines [59,60]. Some clean fuels including biodiesel, methanol
and LNG are considered as appropriate alternative fuels for propulsion
Both primary pollutants from ships and secondary pollutants gen- of non-ocean-going ships and can reduce engine emissions due to low or
erated by primary pollutants discharged into the environment under the no sulfur content. The properties of alternatives fuels and traditional
influence of physicochemical factors have adverse impacts on the en- fossil fuels are listed in Table 8.
vironment. The concentrations of pollutants due to ships and their
contribution to atmospheric pollutants have been investigated by many 3.1.1. Biodiesel
researchers. Biodiesel contains about 11% oxygen and has a trivial amount of
Unidentified vessels in the Pearl River Delta of China contributed to sulphur and high centane number. Biodiesel can be applied to diesel
almost half of the overall ship gaseous emissions [45]. In the port of engines in a simple way by blending with any proportion of diesel. In
Leixões of Portugal, the docked ships contributed to more than 50% for spite of disadvantage of high production cost, biodiesel could be a good
NOX concentration, while the ships in transit contributed below 1% option for reducing diesel engine emissions (mainly SOx and particu-
[46]. Svindland [47] reported that the average annual SO2 emissions late) in shipping sectors.
from a feeder vessel in a pre- and post ECAs regulation were 4.243 and Emission tests of various marine diesel engines with biodiesel have
0.449 g per TEU-km respectively. In contrast, SO2 emissions of road been conducted by many researchers. Nikolic et al. [64] conducted an

4
P. Ni, et al. Fuel 279 (2020) 118477

Fig. 2. Frequency distribution of emission factors for SO2, NOx and PM [44].

experiment on a low-speed two-stroke engine fueled by 7% and 20% PM mass were reduced 67% and 79% respectively. The similar result on
blends of biodiesel with diesel and found a 30–70% reduction in SO2 the decrease of PM mass and PN when B10 was used in a marine diesel
emission, a 26–72% decrease in NOx and a 28–64% decrease in CO. The propulsion engine was reported [76]. However, there are reported
use of pure biodiesel in two small four-stroke marine craft diesel en- changes in particle number size distributions i.e. biodiesel can lead to
gines also showed a decrease in NOx emissions and an increase in CO increase of the nucleation mode particles and reduction in the accu-
emissions at light loads [65]. Gysel et al. [66] found a 4% reduction in mulation particles. Nabi and Hustand [77] conducted diesel engine
NOx emissions and a 10% increase in CO emissions from a marine experiments with MGO-Jatropha biodiesel blend and reported an ob-
vessel with the blend. The reduction in NOx emissions of biodiesel viously decreasing PN in the accumulation mode but an increasing PN
blend was also reported in two four-stroke six-cylinder supercharged in the nucleation mode. The similar finding was reported by Tan et al.
marine auxiliary diesel engines [67–69]. However, the use of biodiesel [78].
in some multi-cylinder marine diesel engines yielded higher NOx
emissions [70–73].
Because high oxygen content in biodiesel can promote the oxidation 3.1.2. Methanol
of soot particles, diesel engines with biodiesel generally show a re- Methanol is an oxygenated and sulfur-free fuel. Because it is can be
duction in PM mass and PN. Khan et al.[74] used algae biodiesel in a produced from a wide range of sources such as coal, natural gas and
marine vessel and found an overall reduction of 25% in PM2.5. Ushakov biomass [79], it is not a problem for methanol production. A major
et al. [75] conducted an experiment on a heavy-duty diesel engine with challenge, however, is immiscibility of methanol with diesel. Therefore,
fish oil fuel and reported that total particle concentration and overall engine modification including injection systems, fuel tanks and piping
is required when methanol is used in a marine diesel engine. Safe

5
P. Ni, et al. Fuel 279 (2020) 118477

Fig. 3. NO2 annual mean concentrations and contribution of local shipping to annual mean NO2 concentration [49].

storage of methanol on ships is also a concern due to the low flash 3.1.3. LNG
point. There are two main methods by which methanol can be used in LNG is mainly composed of methane and has several advantages
diesel engines: the premixed dual fuel [80–82], and the methanol-diesel over other fossil fuels, including higher thermal efficiency and lower
blend with additives or fuel mixing tools [83–85]. specific energy consumption, lower sulphur and carbon content. This
Methanol is regarded as a technically viable option to reduce makes it suitable for use as ship fuels. As of 1 May 2018 the world fleet
emissions from shipping [19]. Brynolf et al. [86] reported that me- totaled 253 LNG-fuelled vessels, growing by 36% over the past one year
thanol from natural gas as ship fuel would significantly improve the [90]. In terms of diesel engine propulsion system, two-stroke low speed
overall environmental performance as well as methanol derived from DF diesel engines and medium speed four-stroke low pressure DF en-
biomass. Gilbert et al. [87] found that methanol had a lower NOx gines are the most commonly used in LNG-fuelled ships [91–93]. The
emission factor (3 g/kWh) and a higher life-cycle GHG emission than representative low pressure gas injection system and high pressure in-
the conventional fuels. Zincir et al. [88] found that partially premixed jection system installed on two-stroke low speed diesel engines were
combustion of methanol in a marine engine at low speeds achieved developed by Wärtsilä and MAN respectively [94]. Accordingly, there
lower NOx emissions ranged from 0.3 to 1.4 g/kWh than the NOx Tier are two modes for injecting gas into the combustion chamber, including
III limits, zero SOx emissions and almost zero PM emissions. Ammar a pressure below 1.6 MPa [95], and high pressures of 25–30 MPa [96].
[89] found more than 75% reductions in NOx, SOx and PM emissions When used in four-stroke low speed engines, gas is injected into the
respectively from a methanol-diesel dual fuel engine installed on a intake port and ignited by a pilot injection of liquid fuel. The power of
cellular container ship. Paulauskiene et al. [61] reported that a blend the engines is within the range of 720 kW to 17.55 MW manufactured
with 10% biomethanol and 20% biodiesel was the most suitable alter- by Wärtsilä, MAN and MAK [93].
native fuel for marine applications. There are many studies on the environmental analysis of emissions
of marine diesel engines using LNG. Banawan et al. [97] reported that a

Table 8
Properties of biodiesel, methanol, LNG, HFO, MDO and diesel [5,23,61–63].
Property Biodiesel Methanol LNG HFO MDO Diesel

Density at 15 °C (kg/m3) 890 795 443.5 934.8 < 900 847

Viscosity at 40 °C (mm2/s) 4–6 0.58 – 24.27 (100 °C) < 11 2.72
Cetane number 50 3 > 20 > 35 51
Ash content (%) – – – 0.042 < 0.01 < 0.01
Calorific value (MJ/kg) 37.5 20.26 50 41.62 42 42.5
Oxygen mass fraction (%) 11 50 – 0.65 – 0
Sulphur (ppm) < 10 – – < 500000 < 200000 < 350

6
P. Ni, et al. Fuel 279 (2020) 118477

shift from diesel oil to DF (LNG/diesel) in a ship’s main engine showed water directly into the cylinder head with a separate nozzle or by al-
emissions reductions of 72% for NOx, 91% for SOx, 10% for CO2 and ternating fuel and water via a specially designed nozzle [104]. The
85% for PM. A statistical analysis for two stroke diesel engines using storage space, weight of water and the cost due to engine modification
HFO to LNG showed the decrease by LNG in average EFs of NOx, SOx, and special nozzles are practical concerns for the ship owner/operator.
CO2 and PM by 86%, 98%, 11% and 96% respectively[98]. Anderson The primary benefit of the DWI is that the timing and the mass of the
et al. [99] measured the emissions from a LNG powered ship with four injected water are variable and can be controlled. Bedford et al. [111]
DF engines of 30400 kW at different loads. They found that EFs of NOx, found that NOx emissions at 44% and 86% of full load decreased by
CO2, PN and PM for LNG were obviously lower than the values for about 46% and 70%, respectively. Chadwell and Dingle [112] also
marine fuel oils while CO and HC EFs were higher. Li et al. [100] also found that the DWI could reduce NOx by 42% without EGR and up to
observed similar results of emissions from a high-speed marine DF 82% with EGR. Sarvi et al. [113] found significant reduction in NOx
diesel engine. Besides good environmental effects, LNG as a ship fuel and slight decreases in HC, soot and PM by using DWI in a turbo-
also shows attractiveness in terms of cost effectiveness [97,101]. De- charged diesel engine.
spites disadvantages of LNG such as flammability, methane slip and
bunkering, the high thermal efficiency, good environmental benefit and
3.2.3. FWE
favorable price make it a sustainable alternative to traditional fuels to
This method involves injecting a FWE fuel into the cylinders using
be used in a marine DF diesel engine.
the original nozzles. FWE fuel is prepared by mixing water and diesel
fuel or other fuels homogeneously along with emulsifying agents using
3.2. Addition of water mechanical or ultrasonic emulsifiers. It is crucial for the formation of a
stable emulsion to ensure smooth running of an engine. The FWE sta-
Adding water directly or indirectly into the cylinders can reduce bility is influenced by many factors including type and content of
NOx emission in exhaust gas due to thermal, dilution and chemical emulsifying agents, water content and water droplet size, mixing speed
effects [102,103]. There are three methods of supplying water into the and time and dispersion types [114]. The most commonly used emul-
cylinders suitable for controlling NOx emissions in marine diesel en- sifiers are Span 80, Tween 60 and Tween 80 with the volume of below
gines: intake air humidification (IAH)/water injection, direct water 4% and the content of water is commonly 5–30% with droplet size of
injection (DWI) and fuel water emulsion. Table 9 shows qualitative below 40 μm [115].
comparison of water injection technologies. [−],[−−],[+]and [++] When the FWE fuel is injected into the combustion chamber, the
indicate a negative, more negative, positive and more positive effect, micro- explosion caused by water vaporization takes place because the
respectively. boiling point of fuel is different from that of water and causes secondary
atomization of emulsified fuel forming smaller droplets [116]. Thus, the
3.2.1. IAH fuel combustion is more efficient. Because of vaporization of water, the
In the IAH method, a set of injection water device requires to be peak combustion temperature is lowered and thus NOx formation is
installed on an engine to humidify the air. In the IAH systems several reduced. Most studies on water in diesel emulsion showed NOx and PM
key parameters need to be considered such as air temperature before reductions [109,117–120]. Some researches showed the increase in CO
and after humidification, water droplet size, humidification location, and HC emissions when using FWE fuel compared to diesel fuel
engine load and water to fuel (W/F) ratio, because they have significant [109,120–122], but there were opposite cases [117,123].
influence on engine emissions. In order to reduce more NOx, the hu- Besides lower pollutant emission and higher combustion efficiency,
midity of the air is kept as saturated as possible when it enters the FWE also has a cost advantage over other systems, because the engine
engine. If liquid water enters the cylinder with air, cylinder liner cor- structure does not need to be modified. The marine diesel engines op-
rosion problems may occur. Currently this method is widely used in erating on FWE fuel can reduce emissions and cut down the operating
large marine diesel engines. cost. However, FWE has a limit of fixed W/F ratio unable to adapt to the
Previous researches on IAH have focused on emissions of diesel requirement of different engine operating conditions. As with other
engines at different humidity. Nord [105] observed that NOx decreased water methods, corrosion of the fuel supply system is a concern.
by 51% while PM, HC and CO increased in a 6 cylinder diesel engine at
the intake humidity from 32 to 53 g water/kg dry air. Rahai et al. [106] 3.3. EGR
also observed a NOx reduction by 3.7% to 22.5% and increases in PM
and CO when the relative humidity was increased from 65% to 75% and EGR is a NOx emission reduction technology by recirculating part of
95% using a steam generator in a small diesel engine. Larbi N and exhaust gas back to the combustion chamber. After the recycled exhaust
Bessrour J [107] and Asad U et al. [108] also found similar results of and fresh air are mixed, the heat capacity of the mixture will increase
NOx reduction with the increased humidity. Subramanian [109] con- thus lowering the combustion temperature and reducing NOx emis-
cluded that FWE method was more effective in simultaneously reducing sions. Internal EGR and external EGR are two modes of EGR. In the
NO and smoke emissions than injection method. Ni and Wang [110] external EGR used in turbocharged diesel engines, it is subdivided into
numerically gave the explanation about NOx decrease and soot increase low pressure and high pressure loop EGR as shown in Fig. 4, according
with air humidity from the physical and chemical point of view. to the position of the bypass. In a low pressure loop EGR, practical
concerning issues include the fouling of diesel exhausts and special EGR
3.2.2. DWI pumping arrangement. To ensure that the turbine upstream pressure is
The DWI is another method for reducing NOx emission by injecting higher than the boost pressure, a throttle or a venturi tube is employed

Table 9
Evaluation of water based NOx reduction methods [104].
NOx reduction Effect on PM Variability of water addition Effect on cold start Lubricating oil dilution Expense

Inlet manifold water injection – – + none – –

DWI-separate nozzle – – ++ none – –
Diesel FWE + ++ – – – –
Stratified diesel-water-diesel injection ++ ++ ++ none none –

7
P. Ni, et al. Fuel 279 (2020) 118477

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of (a) Low pressure and (b) high pressure loop EGR [124].

in high pressure loop EGR. A variable geometry turbine is a good so- leading to lower NOx and PM emissions.
lution to supply the desired EGR driving pressure [124]. The high-pressure common rail fuel injection system has been ap-
The EGR method as well as the water injection method can effec- plied to marine diesel engines, such as W32CR engine [134], RT Flex
tively reduce NOx emission of marine diesel engines. Larbi and Bessrour engines [135], MAN 32/44CR engines and MAN 48/60 CR engines
[125] measured emissions from a six-cylinder marine diesel engine and [136]. These marine diesel engines can be operated with HFO. To meet
reported a NOx emission reduction of 12.3% at the EGR ratio of 10%. the requirement of low-cost, it is a trend for large-bore marine diesel
Verschaeren et al. [126] showed reductions of up to 70% of NOx engines to use HFO in high pressure common rail fuel injection systems.
emissions from a medium speed diesel engine with a high-pressure Distributed rail unit is also an important direction for high pressure
cooled EGR loop. Wang et al. [127] conducted an engine experiment in common rail fuel injection technology. To avoid the deformation of the
a marine diesel engine with EGR and found that NOx emissions de- common rail at higher operating temperature, it is reasonable to se-
creased by up to 76% in the ECAs-EGR modes while CO increased. Zu parate the common rail into several rail units and to divide the fuel
et al. [128] used a venturi high-pressure EGR device in a turbocharged supply into several high-pressure pumps, shown in Fig. 5.
diesel engine and reported that NOx emissions decreased by about 25% A few researches on high-pressure common rail fuel injection have
at the EGR rate of about 8%. shown obvious reductions in emissions from marine diesel engines. A
Recently, there is an attention on the importance of EGR control and pilot injection strategy in a two-stroke marine engine achieved a NOx
the development of modelling technique for EGR control. Thangaraja reduction of 15% [137]. Imperato et al. [138] conducted a large-bore
and Kannan [129] addressed the necessity of the EGR control for im- common rail engine experiment and reported that split injection re-
plementing advanced combustion concepts. Nielsen et al. [130] pre- duced NOx emission by 42% without engine efficiency losses and soot
sented a control-oriented model for the molar oxygen fraction in large increase. Goldsworthy [139] investigated the thermal efficiency and
two-stroke marine diesel engines with EGR. This nonlinear model exhaust emissions of a heavy duty common rail marine diesel engine
achieved EGR closed-loop control at steady-state and transient condi- with ethanol–water mixtures and found that NOx emission decreased
tions. Thereafter, Nielsen et al. [131,132] developed other EGR control significantly with pre-injection and main injection of diesel and the
methods for marine diesel engines and showed a reduction in smoke injection into the intake air of 93% ethanol/water mixture. Liu et al.
during loading transients. Llamas and Eriksson [133] also developed an [140] investigated effects of injection strategies on low-speed marine
EGR model controller for large marine diesel engines to be used to si- engines with the dual fuel of natural gas and diesel. It was found that
mulate the performance of EGR and various maneuvering scenarios of the appropriate pilot fuel injection timing and gas injection timing si-
ships. multaneously reduced NOx, HC, CO and soot. However, Imperato et al.
[141] reported that the pre-injection applied to a single-cylinder large-
3.4. High pressure common rail fuel injection bore diesel slightly reduced NOx and increased HC, CO and soot.

High pressure common rail injection technology has been greatly 3.5. Exhaust aftertreatment
developed in diesel engines due to the benefit from reduced emissions
and fuel consumption. In a common rail system, arbitrary timing and 3.5.1. De-NOx
multiple injections are available for NOx reduction. The high injection Current denitration technologies for marine diesels include SCR,
pressure enhances the fuel/air mixing and improves combustion lean burn NOx capture technology, and low temperature plasma-

8
P. Ni, et al. Fuel 279 (2020) 118477

Fig. 5. The MAN Diesel & Turbo CR injection system [135].

assisted catalysis technology. They are derived from land-based appli- simulated the flue gas flow under different size and best deflector ar-
cations. Among them, SCR is the most dominant and mature exhaust rangement. Zhu et al. [144] optimized the structure of HP-SCR system
gas after-treatment technology for controlling NOx emissions from and evaluated its performance. Verschaeren and Verhelst [145] in-
marine diesel engines. The urea–water solution is injected into the ex- vestigated the strategies of the higher exhaust temperature to allow
haust gas stream, where the reducing agent (NH3) generated by urea stable SCR operation. Ryu et al. [146] found that the SCR with a thinner
thermolysis reacts with NOx and O2 to form N2 and H2O. The reaction is metal catalyst reduced the engine exhaust gas pressure by 13%–28%.
favored by the presence of catalysts based on metal oxides such as V2O5 Ku et al. [147] investigated the effects of various factors on the con-
and WO3. version efficiency of urea solution. Besides, the high-efficiency and low-
According to the arrangement and configuration in the exhaust pi- pollution catalysts, catalyst deactivation, ammonia leakage, soot
peline, SCR systems are divided into low pressure selective catalytic blockage are also the focus of SCR research and development.
reduction (LP-SCR) and high pressure selective catalytic reduction (HP- Many ship experiments and engine bench tests have been conducted
SCR), shown in Fig. 6. The LP-SCR and HP-SCR system are installed on reducing NOx emission via the SCR. Lee [148] reported that the
after and before the turbine, respectively. HP-SCR can be used for either marine diesel with the SCR met IMO Tier III regulations. Gysel et al.
low- or high-sulfur fuel, but LP-SCR is only applicable for fuels with [149] reported that the SCR reduced NOx by ~92% in a tugboat with
sulfur content of not more than 0.1% due to the corrosion to the turbine two marine diesels. Lehtoranta et al. [150] conducted an experiment on
blades caused by sulphur oxides [142]. Compared with HP-SCR, LP-SCR a medium-speed marine diesel engine with the SCR and found an
has higher flexibility for the arrangement and less effect on the per- average reduction of NOx by 86.9% with HFO and 84.4% with light fuel
formance of the diesel engine and the turbine. It is noted that HP-SCR oil respectively. The results showed that the metal oxides formed by
has benefits of more compact design and higher exhaust heat utiliza- oxidation of higher concentration of metals in HFO enhanced the hy-
tion. Several valves are used to tune the gas flow to meet the require- drolysis. Jayaram and Nigam [151] conducted an experiment on three
ments of various engine operations and emission control modes. auxiliary engines on container vessels and reported that SCR reduced
Many simulation and experiment studies on SCR were carried out the NOx emission factor to 1.4–2.4 g/kWh which corresponded to a
such as structure design and optimization of vaporizer and mixer, spray reduction of 90–91% for HFO and 82–84% for marine distillate oil re-
of urea solution and performance improvement. Du et al. [143] spectively. Zhu et al. [152] reported that the weighted average of NOx

Fig. 6. LP-SCR and HP-SCR system [142].

9
P. Ni, et al. Fuel 279 (2020) 118477

with low-sulfur exhaust gas was 3.08 g/kWh, lower than that of the ESP component, onset voltage, sparkover voltage, voltage-current re-
IMO Tier III regulation while NOx with high-sulfur exhaust gas was lationship, particle size, dielectric constant and residence time need to
4.17 g/kWh, higher than that of the IMO Tier III regulation. be taken into account [163]. The ESP has several advantages such as
high efficiency even for ultrafine particles, low pressure drop with large
3.5.2. PM removal gas volume, low operating costs and high reliability.
Although there is currently no limiting value for PM in international Based on the ESP, the wet ESP, the electrohydrodynamically elec-
regulations, aftertreatment of PM has still received attentions due to the trostatic precipitator (EHD ESP) and the two stage ESP [164] were
harm of black smoke to human health and the environment. PM successively developed. Saiyasitpanich et al. [165] applied the wet ESP
aftertreatment technologies of marine diesel engines mainly include to a nonroad diesel engine with 500 ppm sulfur diesel fuel and found
DPF, diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC), continuously regenerating trap that 67–86% of mass- and number-based PM were removed. Yamamoto
(CRT), electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and wet washing [153]. How- et al. [166] reported that the mass collection efficiency of 92.9% within
ever, due to immaturity in PM removal, these technologies have not the particle-size range of 30–500 nm was achieved for a marine diesel
been widely deployed in marine diesel engines. engine equipped with an EHD ESP operated with HFO. Another study of
DPF is one of the most effective devices for diesel PM removal, the EHD ESP in a small diesel engine using light oil showed the mass
which have been widely used for diesel automobiles. The DPF has a collection efficiency of 73.8% for particle size of 20–500 nm and the PN
honeycomb structure filter to remove particles from the exhaust gas collection efficiency of over 90% for particle size of 300–5000 nm
through inertial collision, physical retention and gravity sedimentation. [167]. Kawakami et al. [168] found that the collection efficiency for
The PM collection efficiency of the DPF is higher than 90% [154,155]. particle size of 20–300 nm was over 90% for a diesel engine with a two
The continuously collected particles must be removed periodically. stage ESP. However, the collection efficiency within the particle-size
Otherwise the exhaust backpressure will increase, causing a decrease of range of below 20 nm was not reported. Unlike the DOC and the CRT,
the engine power. Accordingly, periodic DPF regeneration such as ex- the ESP is suitable for diesel engines with high sulfur fuels, especially
ternal heating, catalytic fuel additive, and fuel injection is indispensable for large low speed marine diesel engines. Despites some disadvantages
[156]. of ESP such as high capital costs, lower collection efficiency for high-
When operated with high sulfur fuel such as HFO, the DPF become and low-resistivity dust, it is a promising technology for PM removal of
ineffective due to the clogging of filter pores by the coarse particles and marine diesel engines.
catalyst deactivation by poisoning. To avoid filter blocking, it was
suggested that DPF should be used with less than 0.05% sulfur fuels 3.5.3. De-SOx
[157]. Despite this, a few tentative researches on DPF regeneration with The simplest De-SOx method is to use the non-sulfur or low-sulfur
high sulfur fuel are still ongoing. A diesel engine equipped with a DPF content fuel in marine diesel engines. However, it is not practical to use
with a fuel borne catalyst was tested with high sulfur fuel at 1369 ppm these fuels in all ships due to the price gap between the low sulfur oil
[158]. It was found that the soot particles were efficiently filtered and and high sulfur oil (HFO or residual oil). Therefore, besides using al-
that the filters are effectively regenerated during a short term. Kuwa- ternative clean fuels, exhaust aftertreatment methods seem to be more
hara et al. [159] investigated the DPF regeneration with nonthermal- feasible to reduce SOx emissions of ships.
plasma-induced ozone in a marine diesel engine with 750 ppm sulfur The commonly used De-SOx aftertreatment method is gas scrub-
fuel. The result showed a possibility of continuous regeneration at the bing, namely the exhaust gas cleaning system (EGCS), which is divided
exhaust temperature of 300℃. into the wet type and the dry type. Dry scrubbing was restrained in
The DOC is a device made from a ceramic or metal catalyst-coated ships due to heavy equipment, instability, large space occupation of
carrier and can oxidize 90% HC and CO emissions and soluble organic scrubbers [169]. Wet scrubbing is generally used in marine diesel en-
fraction of PM to form CO2 and H2O [160]. The commonly used cata- gines. Wet scrubbing includes open loop system, closed loop system and
lysts in the DOC are precious metal catalysts such as Pt and Pd. How- hybrid system [170]. Fig. 7 shows the open loop and closed loop EGCS
ever, the current DOC technology used in marine diesel engines re- arrangement. In the open loop system, the natural alkalinity in the
quires to be operated with low sulfur fuels, because high sulfur fuels seawater neutralizes SOx. In the closed loop system, the alkali liquid
cause catalyst deactivation by poisoning. Sulfur-resistant catalysts are formulated from water and sodium hydroxide is used to desulfurize
currently a need for the DOC. exhaust gases and washwater is continuously circulated. The open loop
A CRT system, developed by Johnson Matthey Inc., uses a DOC in system has several advantages such as low operational cost and simple
front of a DPF [161]. The CRT can simultaneously reduce PM, CO and system, but it has poor desulfurization efficiency due to low seawater
HC from diesel engines and consists of two processes. In the first pro- alkalinity and causes sea water pollution. The closed-loop system can
cess, besides the oxidization of HC and CO, part of NO is converted into overcome the defects of the open loop system and is used in any water
NO2 by the DOC. In the second process, soot trapped in the DPF was area with almost zero emissions to the ocean. However, the closed loop
oxidized by NO2 and O2 avoiding filter pores being clogged. The CRT system has a slightly higher operational cost compared with the open
can carry out continuous regeneration at most engine loads, instead of loop system. In some instances, a hybrid arrangement is operated in
using a supplemental heat source. The typical CRT system can reduce either open loop or closed loop modes as required, taking advantages of
PM, CO and VOCs by more than 85%, 80% and 70% respectively [161]. the open and loop systems, but has the disadvantages of high com-
The result from the 4-cylinder turbocharged diesel engine experiment plexity, high capital cost and large space occupation. The optimal so-
also showed a great decrease in soot mass concentrations and PN at lution for using the hybrid scrubber is to operate the scrubber in the
every engine loads [162]. To achieve reliable regeneration with lower high-efficiency closed loop mode in coastal areas and in the low-effi-
exhaust temperatures or lower NOx to PM ratio in the exhaust gas, a ciency open loop mode in the open sea.
catalyzed continuously regenerating trap (CCRT), which is the up- Caiazzo et al. [27] reported a capture efficiency of up to 93% for
grading product of the CRT, is developed and is widely used in NRMM. SO2 from a marine diesel engine with HFO by using the open loop
Just like the DPF and DOC, the CRT and CCRT are only suitable for system. Kuang et al. [171] concluded that the cascade-scrubbing solu-
marine diesel engines burning low sulfur fuels. tion achieved higher desulfurization efficiencies than the single open
ESP technology is also an important technology to capture PM from loop solution in a high-speed marine diesel engine. Wärtsilä has de-
diesel engines. In the ESP system, when the exhaust gas flows into the veloped a full wet scrubber portfolio and has more than 704 scrubbers
ESP, part of the ions generated by ionizing gases charge particles in a delivered or on order for more than 535 vessels up to the 3rd March
high-voltage electrostatic field and the charged particles will migrate to 2019 [172]. The closed desulfurization system developed by Wärtsilä
collecting plate under the action of electrostatic force. In designing the was installed on board the ‘MS Suula’ with both high sulphur (3.4%)

10
P. Ni, et al. Fuel 279 (2020) 118477

Fig. 7. Open loop and closed loop EGCS arrangement [170].

and low sulphur (1.5%) HFO and could achieve more than 98% de- of ships, the strategy cannot be applied in the ship exhaust pollution
sulfurization efficiency, 30–60% PM removal efficiency and 3–8% de- control. For this reason, integrated multi-pollutant control technologies
nitration efficiency at all loads and with all fuels [173]. MAN Diesel & for efficient emission control are receiving a lot of attentions.
Turbo tested three of the scrubber solutions on two-stroke engines in Because NO is the main NOx component in diesel exhaust, the
conjunction with some manufacturers and they showed high SOx and oxidation absorption method is often used to simultaneously remove
PM removal efficiency, as given in Table 10. Lehtoranta et al. [28] NOx and SOx. Zhou et al. [175] used a wet scrubbing method combined
investigated the emissions from a cruise ship with a hybrid sulfur with ozone injection method for De-SOx and De-NOx and found that
scrubber and a RoPax vessel with an open loop scrubber and reported 93% NOx and close to 100% SO2 were simultaneously removed. Bos-
that the scrubbers achieved effective decrease in SOx and low PM le- carato et al. [176] installed a monolithic Pt/Al2O3 oxidation catalyst
vels. However, the effect of a scrubber on PN was not unknown. and a seawater scrubber in a 1.5 MW marine engine and this integrated
configuration achieved significant abatement of emissions. However,
3.5.4. Multi-pollutant removal this system could hardly removel NOx if fuel sulpur is at 2%. Fang et al.
At present, the combination of different control technologies is often [177] used urea + KMnO4 solution to remove SO2 and NO and re-
used to control multi-pollutants from land-based stationary sources. ported that SO2 and NO were reduced by 98.78% and 53.05%, re-
However, due to space restriction, operational instability and high cost spectively. Han et al. [178] reported that the wet scrubbing system

11
P. Ni, et al. Fuel 279 (2020) 118477

Table 10 currently no report on the application of supergravity technology to the

Summary of scrubber solutions tested [174]. emission control of marine diesel engines. In any case, the use of su-
Participants Ship Scrubber SOx PM pergravity in control of emissions from marine diesel engines, espe-
information removal/ removal/ cially low-speed diesel engines, allowing for more time for chemical
% % and physical reactions, is worth investigating.
Clean Marine Banasol 73 (95, 35 (80,
MAN Diesel 7S50MC-C Salts add.) Salts add.)
3.6. Summary of emission reduction methods
& Turbo 9 MW
Although some of automobile engine emission control methods can
also be used for controlling marine diesel engine emissions, there are
Anlborg Tor Ficaria 100 79 differences between them. Ship emission control routes still have their
Industries 9L60MC-C (NaOH) own characteristics. Table 11 summarizes the effects of the above-
Alfa Laval 20 MW mentioned technologies on the reduction of marine diesel engine
DFDS emissions. Some of them have been applied to ships and there are also a
MAN Diesel
& Turbo
few in the research and development and experimental stages. When
choosing the suitable ship emission reduction routes, several factors
APM Alexander 96 73
should be considered, such as ship type and usage, power rating, capital
MAN Diesel Mærsk (NaOH)
& Turbo 7S50MC and operational costs, adaptability and compliance with the current and
9 MW future emission regulations.

4. Conclusions and future scope

using the NaClO solution achieved more than 60% De-NOx and close to Marine diesel engines play a significant role in marine transport.
100% De-SO2. However their exhaust emissions are less regulated and have caused
The non-thermal plasma (NTP) can be used to control NOx and PM serious concerns with regards to damages to the natural environment
emissions from marine diesel engines. Balachandran et al [179,180] and human health. With the ever increasing awareness of the concerns,
used microwave plasma in a two stoke marine diesel engine and found attentions have been paid to alleviate the emissions from the marine
almost 100% removal of NO and 90% removal of PM within the range sector. The aim of this paper is to review the emission standards for
of 10–365 nm. The result from a medium speed marine diesel engine marine diesel engines across the world and current status of marine
with NTP reactors also showed significant reductions in NO and PM diesel engine emissions, and examine various technologies and strate-
[181]. Kuwahara et al. [182] used the NTP combined with NOx ad- gies for reducing ship diesel engine emissions that can be used to meet
sorbents in a 1 MW marine diesel engine and reported excellent effi- increasingly stringent regulations. The following conclusions can be
ciency for NOx removal. However, PM removal test was not conducted. drawn for the emissions control of marine diesel engines.
Sulfates account for 40–80% of PM in ship exhaust gas [183,184].
Because sulfates are easily soluble in water, it is feasible to wash off a 1. More stringent emission regulations for marine diesel engine have
part of PM using the wet dust removal technology. In addition to re- been formulated, including the emission limits (encompassing
ducing most of the SOx, the aforementioned wet scrubbing can also newly added PN), fuel sulfur content, and setting up emission con-
reduce PM mass. However, the effect of the wet scrubbing on PN is trol areas.
rarely reported. The capture of ultrafine particles from diesel marine 2. There are several ways to determine the ship's EFs, such as in the
engines by the wet scrubbing system should be investigated. laboratory or on board, and from the exhaust pipes or from the
Supergravity is a new high efficiency chemical process strength- gaseous plumes. Ship EFs (g/kWh) at light-load conditions are al-
ening technology, which has the advantages of high mass transfer ef- ways higher than those at heavy-load operating modes.
ficiency, short contact time, small size of equipment. It is used in the 3. Air pollution from ships has become the main source of pollution in
fields of chemical industry, environmental protection and energy, and ports, coastal areas and some sea areas with dense shipping routes
can remove NOx, SOx, CO2 and PM [185]. Fig. 8 shows the three types and large ship flows, contributing up to 50% to NOx emissions.
of the reactors with different gas and liquid flow modes for the hy- 4. Switching traditional marine fuels to clean fuels including biodiesel,
pergravity technology. Chen et al. [186] conducted an experiment of air methanol and LNG is a promising solution for reducing emissions
pollutant removal in a rotating packed bed and showed emissions re- from marine diesel engines. Biodiesel and methanol are more sui-
duction for CO2 by 96.3%, SO2 by 99.4%, NOx by 95.9% and total table for small and medium-sized ships while LNG has been used in
suspended particulate by 83.4% respectively. However, there is large ships to achieve good cost-effectiveness.

Fig. 8. Hypergravity reactors with three gas and liquid flow modes: (a) countercurrent flow, (b) co-current flow and (c) cross flow [185].

12
P. Ni, et al. Fuel 279 (2020) 118477

Table 11
Available methods for reducing ship emissions.
Reduction method Potential reduction/% Reference

NOx PM SOx

Switching to clean fuel Biodiesel 5–70 80 70 [64,75]

Methanol 75 80 90 [88,89]
LNG 70–85 85–95 95 [97,98]
Addition of water IAH 5–50 – – [105,106]
DWI 40–70 – – [111,112]
FWE 50 – – [120,121]
EGR 10–70 – – [125–127]
Common rail fuel injection 10–40 40 – [138,140]
After-treatment SCR 90 – – [149–151]
DPF – 90 – [154,155]
CRT, CCRT – 90 – [161]
ESP – 90 – [166–168]
Wet scrubbing – 35–80 95 [174]
Wet scrubbing + oxidation absorption 50–90 – 95 [175,177,178]
NTP 95 90 – [179,180]

5. FWE and EGR are commonly used in marine diesel engines to reduce [3] Blasco J, Duran-Grados V, Hampel M, Moreno-Gutierrez J. Towards an integrated
NOx emissions. Common rail fuel injection has been used to large environmental risk assessment of emissions from ships’ propulsion systems.
Environ Int 2014;66:44–7.
marine diesel engines, showing a simultaneous reduction in PM and [4] Lonati G, Cernuschi S, Sidi S. Air quality impact assessment of at-berth ship
NOx without sacrificing engine performance. emissions: case study for the project of a new freight port. Sci Total Environ
6. SCR is the most important and effective exhaust aftertreatment 2010;409:192–200.
[5] Biodiesel as alternative fuel for marine diesel engine applications: A review. Renew
method for controlling marine diesel engine NOx emission with a Sustain Energy Rev 2018;94:127–42.
De-NOx efficiency of 90%. The wet scrubbing system can achieve [6] Kasper A, Aufdenblatten S, Forss A, Mohr M, Burtscher H. Particulate emissions
95% De-SOx, which is applied to large two-stroke marine diesel from a low-speed marine diesel engine. Aerosol Sci Tech 2007;41:24–32.
[7] IMO. Third IMO greenhouse gas study. International Maritime Organization; 2014.
engines operated with high sulfur fuels. The current DPF, CRT and
[8] Corbett JJ, Wang H, Winebrake JJ. The effectiveness and costs of speed reductions
CCRT systems are suitable for removing PM emissions of marine on emissions from international shipping. Transport Res D 2009;14:593–8.
diesel engines fueled with low sulfur fuels. ESP is a potential option [9] Leaper R. The role of slower vessel speeds in reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
underwater noise and collision risk to whales. Front Mar Sci 2019;6:505.
for capturing PM from marine diesel engines using high sulphur
[10] Tzannatos E. Ship emissions and their externalities for Greece. Atmos Environ
fuels. 2010;44(18):2194–202.
7. Most of the exhaust aftetreatment techniques are mature but they [11] EUR-Lex.Regulation (EU) 2016/1628 of the European Parliament and of the
need to be used with appropriate integration and combination to Council.https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
?uri=CELEX:32016R1628, [Accessed 12 August 2019].
achieve co-reduction of all pollutants and cost effective. [12] Reitz RD. Directions in internal combustion engine research. Combust Flame
8. Exhaust aftertreatment can be deployed jointly with clean fuels. This 2013;160:1–8.
paper reviewed currently available and in-service alternative fuels [13] Lapuerta M, Octavio Armas O, Ballesteros R, Fernández J. Diesel emissions from
biofuels derived from Spanish potential vegetable oils. Fuel 2005;84(6):773–80.
(biodiesel, methanol and LNG). Ammonia and hydrogen as potential [14] Johari A, Nyakuma BB, Mohd Nor SH, Mat R, Hashim H, Ahmad A, et al. The
future fuels should be investigated in the future. In addition, CRT challenges and prospects of palm oil based biodiesel in Malaysia. Energy
and CCRT catalyst deactivation by poisoning is an issue that needs 2015;81:255–61.
[15] Dharma S, Masjuki HH, Ong HC, Sebayang AH, Silitonga AS, Kusumo F, et al.
to be addressed. Then, new sulfur-resistant catalysts, ultra-fine Optimization of biodiesel production process for mixed Jatropha curcas–Ceiba
particle treatment technology, and integrated treatment technology pentandra biodiesel using response surface methodology. Energy Convers Manag
with cost-effective and automatic control are important develop- 2016;115:178–90.
[16] Raheman H, Ghadge SV. Performance of compression ignition engine with mahua
ment direction for ship exhaust emission control.
(Madhucaindica) biodiesel. Fuel 2007;86(16):2568–73.
[17] Basha SA, Gopal KR, Jebaraj S. A review on biodiesel production, combustion,
Declaration of Competing Interest emissions and performance. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(6–7):1628–34.
[18] Murugesan A, Umarani C, Subramanian R, Nedunchezhian N. Bio-diesel as an
alternative fuel for diesel engines-a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial 2009;13(3):653–62.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ- [19] Svanberg M, Ellis J, Lundgren J, Landälv I. Renewable methanol as a fuel for the
shipping industry. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;94:1217–28.
ence the work reported in this paper. [20] Afon Y, Ervin D. An assessment of air emissions from liquefied natural gas ships
using different power systems and different fuels. J Air Waste Manage
Acknowledgments 2008;58(3):404–11.
[21] Yu HL, Duan SL, Sun PT. Comparative analysis between natural gas/diesel (dual
fuel) and pure diesel on the marine diesel engine. J Eng Res 2015;3(4):111–25.
This work was supported by the National Key Research and [22] Jeevahan J, Mageshwaran G, Joseph GB, Raj RBD, Kannan RT. Various strategies
Development Program of China (Grant No. 2017YFE0116100) and the for reducing NOx emissions of biodiesel fuel used in conventional diesel engines: a
review. Chem Eng Commun 2017;204(10):1202–23.
Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education [23] Ryu Y, Lee Y, Nam J. Performance and emission characteristics of additives-en-
Institutions and Research (PAPD). hanced heavy fuel oil in large two-stroke marine diesel engine. Fuel
2016;182:850–6.
[24] Jq E, Zhang ZQ, Chen JW, Pham M, Zhao XH, Peng QG, et al. Performance and
Reference
emission evaluation of a marine diesel engine fueled by water biodiesel-diesel
emulsion blends with a fuel additive of a cerium oxide nanoparticle. Energy
[1] Fuglestvedt J, Berntsen T, Eyring V, Isaksen I, Lee DS, Sausen R. Shipping emis- Convers Manage 2018;169:194–205.
sions: from cooling to warming of impacts on health. Environ Sci Technol [25] Kumar C, Rana KB, Tripathi B, Nayyar A. Properties and effects of organic ad-
2009;43:9057–62. ditives on performance and emission characteristics of diesel engine: a compre-
[2] Viana M, Hammingh P, Colette A, Querol X, Degraeuwe B, de Vlieger I, et al. hensive review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2018;25:22475–98.
Impact of maritime transport emissions on coastal air quality in Europe. Atmos [26] An S, Nishida O. New application of seawater and electrolyzed seawater in air
Environ 2014;90:96–105. pollution control of marine diesel engine. JSME Int J B 2003;46(1):206–13.

13
P. Ni, et al. Fuel 279 (2020) 118477

[27] Caiazzo G, Langella G, Miccio F, Scala F. An Experimental investigation on sea- Environ Sci Technol 2019;53(3):1404–12.
water SO2 scrubbing for marine application. Environ Prog Sustain [58] Xiong Y, Du K. Source-resolved attribution of ground-level ozone formation po-
2012;24(4):168–76. tential from VOC emissions in Metropolitan Vancouver. BC. Sci Total Environ
[28] Lehtoranta K, Aakko-Saksa P, Murtonen T, Vesala H, Ntziachristos L, Rönkkö T, 2020;721:137698.
et al. Particulate mass and non-volatile particle number emissions from marine [59] Zetterdahl M, Moldanová J, Pei XY, Pathak RK, Demirdjian B. Impact of the 0.1%
engines using low-sulfur fuels, natural gas or scrubbers. Environ Sci Technol fuel sulfur content limit in SECA on particle and gaseous emissions from marine
2019;53(6):3315–22. vessels. Atmos Environ 2016;145:338–45.
[29] DieselNet.IMO Marine Engine Regulations.https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/ [60] Zhan X, Zhang Y, Liu YM, Zhao JR, Zhou YY, Wang XF, et al. Changes in SO2 level
inter/imo.php#other, [Accessed 17 May 2019]. and PM2.5 components in Shanghai driven by implementing the ship emission
[30] DieselNet.United States:marine diesel engines. https://www.dieselnet.com/stan- control. Environ Sci Technol 2019;53(19):11580–7.
dards/us/marine.php, [Accessed 14 May 2019]. [61] Paulauskiene T, Bucas M, Laukinaite A. Alternative fuels for marine applications:
[31] DieselNet.United States:Heavy-Duty Onroad Engines.https://www.dieselnet.com/ Biomethanol-biodiesel-diesel blends. Fuel 2019;248:161–7.
standards/us/hd.php, [Accessed 14 May 2019]. [62] Ning L, Duan QM, Chen ZM, Kou HL, Liu B, Yang B, et al. A comparative study on
[32] DieselNet.EU: Nonroad Engines.https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/eu/non- the combustion and emissions of a non-road common rail diesel engine fueled with
road.php, [Accessed 18 October 2019]. primary alcohol fuels (methanol, ethanol, and n-butanol)/diesel dual fuel. Fuel
[33] DieselNet. EU: Heavy-duty truck and bus engines.https://www.dieselnet.com/ 2020;266:117034.
standards/eu/hd.php#test, [Accessed 26 November 2019]. [63] Boretti A. Advances in diesel-LNG internal combustion engines. Appl Sci
[34] DieselNet.China: marine engines.https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cn/ 2020;10:1296.
marine.php, [Accessed 1 August 2019]. [64] Nikolic D, Marstijepovic N, Cvrk S, Gagic R, Filipovic I. Evaluation of pollutant
[35] DieselNet.China: heavy-duty engines.https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cn/ emissions from two-stroke marine diesel engine fueled with biodiesel produced
hd.php, [Accessed 25 April 2019]. from various waste oils and diesel blends. Brodogradnja 2017;64(4):81–90.
[36] Cooper DA. Exhaust emissions from ships at berth. Atmos Environ [65] Roskilly AP, Nanda SK, Wang YD, Chirkowski J. The performance and the gaseous
2003;37(27):3817–30. emissions of two small marine craft diesel engines fuelled with biodiesel. Appl
[37] Schrooten L, De Vlieger I, Panis LI, Chiffi C, Pastori E. Emissions of maritime Therm Eng 2008;28:872–80.
transport: a European reference system. Sci Total Environ 2009;408:318–23. [66] Gysel NR, Russell RL, Welch WA, Cocker DR, Ghosh S. Impact of sugarcane re-
[38] Zhang F, Chen YJ, Tian CG, Lou DM, Li J, Zhang G, et al. Emission factors for newable fuel on in-use gaseous and particulate matter emissions from a marine
gaseous and particulate pollutants from off shore diesel engine vessels in China. vessel. Energ Fuel 2014;28:4177–82.
Atmos Chem Phys 2016;16:6319–34. [67] Geng P, Mao HJ, Zhang YJ, Wei LJ, You K, Ju J, et al. Combustion characteristics
[39] Zhang F, Chen YJ, Chen Q, Feng YL, Shang Y, Yang X, et al. Real-world emission and NOx emissions of a waste cooking oil biodiesel blend in a marine auxiliary
factors of gaseous and particulate pollutants from marine fishing boats and their diesel engine. Appl Therm Eng 2017;115:947–54.
total emissions in China. Environ Sci Technol 2018;52(8):4910–9. [68] Wei LJ, Chen RP, Mao HJ, Geng P, Zhang YJ, You K. Combustion process and NOx
[40] Huang C, Hu QY, Wang HY, Qiao LP, Jing SA, Wang HL, et al. Emission factors of emissions of a marine auxiliary diesel engine fuelled with waste cooking oil bio-
particulate and gaseous compounds from a large cargo vessel operated under real- diesel blends. Energy 2018;144:73–80.
world conditions. Environ Pollut 2018;242:667–74. [69] Puškár M, Kopas M, Puškár D, Lumnitzer J, Faltinová E. Method for reduction of
[41] Zhang F, Chen YJ, Cui M, Feng YL, Yang X, Chen JM, et al. Emission factors and the NOX emissions in marine auxiliary diesel engine using the fuel mixtures con-
environmental implication of organic pollutants in PM emitted from various ves- taining biodiesel using HCCI combustion. Mar Pollut Bull 2018;127:752–60.
sels in China. Atmos Environ 2019;200:302–11. [70] Murillo S, Míguez JL, Porteiro J, Granada E, Morán JC. Performance and exhaust
[42] Alfödy B, Lööv JB, Lagler F, Mellqvist J, Berg N, Beecken J, et al. Measurements of emissions in the use of biodiesel in outboard diesel engines. Fuel
air pollution emission factors for marine transportation in SECA. Atmos Meas Tech 2007;86:1765–71.
2013;6:1777–91. [71] Cho SG. A study on the characteristics of exhaust emissions by biodiesel blend
[43] Lack DA, Cappa CD, Langridge J, Bahreini R, Buffaloe G, Brock C, et al. Impact of waste oil in marine diesel engine. J Korean Math Soc Power Syst Eng
fuel quality regulation and speed reductions on shipping emissions: implications 2015;19(2):90–5.
for climate and air quality. Environ Sci Technol 2011;45:9052–60. [72] Zhang ZQ, E JQ, Deng YW, Pham MH, Zuo W, Peng Q, et al. Effects of fatty acid
[44] Beecken J, Mellqvist J, Salo K, Ekholm J, Jalkanen JP, Johansson L, et al. Emission methyl esters proportion on combustion and emission characteristics of a biodiesel
factors of SO2, NOx and particles from ships in Neva Bay from ground-based and fueled marine diesel engine. Energ Convers Manage 2018; 159: 244–53.
helicopter-borne measurements and AIS-based modeling. Atmos Chem Phys [73] Ovaska T, Niemi S, Sirviö K, Nilsson O, Portin K, Asplund T. Effects of alternative
2015;15:5229–41. marine diesel fuels on the exhaust particle size distributions of an off-road diesel
[45] Zhang YQ, Fung JCH, Chan JWM, Lau AKH. The significance of incorporating engine. Appl Therm Eng 2019;150:1168–76.
unidentified vessels into AIS-based ship emission inventory. Atmos Environ [74] Khan MY, Russell RL, Welch WA, Cocker DR, Ghosh S. Impact of algae biofuel on
2019;203:102–13. in-use gaseous and particulate emissions from a marine vessel. Energy Fuel
[46] Sorte S, Arunachalam S, Naess B, Seppanen C, Rodrigues V, Valencia A, et al. 2012;26:6137–43.
Assessment of source contribution to air quality in an urban area close to a harbor: [75] Ushakov S, Valland H, Æsøy V. Combustion and emissions characteristics of fish
Case-study in Porto, Portugal. Sci Total Environ 2019;662:347–60. oil fuel in a heavy-duty diesel engine. Energ Convers Manage 2013;65:228–38.
[47] Svindland M. The environmental effects of emission control area regulations on [76] Wu G, Jiang GH, Yang ZY, Huang ZJ. Emission characteristics for waste cooking oil
short sea shipping in Northern Europe: the case of container feeder vessels. biodiesel blend in a marine diesel propulsion engine. Pol J Environ Stud
Transport Res D-Tr E 2016;61:423–30. 2019;28(3):2911–21.
[48] Wang XN, Shen Y, Lin YF, Pan J, Zhang Y, Louie PKK, et al. Atmospheric pollution [77] Nabi MN, Hustad JE. Influence of oxygenates on fine particle and regulated
from ships and its impact on local air quality at a port site in Shanghai. Atmos emissions from a diesel engine. Fuel 2012;93:181–8.
Chem Phys 2019;19:6315–30. [78] Tan PQ, Ruan SS, Hu ZY, Lou DM, Li H. Particle number emissions from a light-
[49] Ramacher MOP, Karl M, Bieser J, Jalkanen JP, Johansson L. Urban population duty diesel engine with biodiesel fuels under transient-state operating conditions.
exposure to NOx emissions from local shipping in three Baltic Sea harbour cities – Appl Energ 2014;113:22–31.
a generic approach. Atmos Chem Phys 2019;19:9153–79. [79] Yao CD, Pan W, Yao AR. Methanol fumigation in compression-ignition engines: a
[50] Karl M, Jonson JE, Uppstu A, Aulinger A, Prank M, Sofiev M, et al. Effects of ship critical review of recent academic and technological developments. Fuel
emissions on air quality in the Baltic Sea region simulated with three different 2017;209:713–32.
chemistry transport models. Atmos Chem Phys 2019;19:7019–53. [80] Wei LJ, Yao CD, Wang QG, Pan W, Han GP. Combustion and emission char-
[51] Alahmadi S, Al-Ahmadi K, Almeshari M. Spatial variation in the association be- acteristics of a turbocharged diesel engine using high premixed ratio of methanol
tween NO2 concentrations and shipping emissions in the Red Sea. Sci Total and diesel fuel. Fuel 2015;140:156–63.
Environ 2019;676:131–43. [81] Li G, Zhang CH, Li YY. Effects of diesel injection parameters on the rapid com-
[52] Johansson L, Jalkanen JP, Kalli J, Kukkonen J. The evolution of shipping emissions bustion and emissions of an HD common-rail diesel engine fueled with diesel-
and the costs of regulation changes in the northern EU area. Atmos Chem Phys methanol dual-fuel. Appl Therm Eng 2016;108:1214–25.
2013;13:11375–2189. [82] Wu TY, Yao AR, Yao CD, Pan W, Wei HY, Chen C, et al. Effect of diesel late-
[53] Liu ZM, Lu XH, Feng JN, Fan QZ, Zhang Y, Yang X. Influence of ship emissions on injection on combustion and emissions characteristics of diesel/methanol dual fuel
urban air quality: a comprehensive study using highly time-resolved online mea- engine. Fuel 2018;233:317–27.
surements and numerical simulation in Shanghai. Environ Sci Technol [83] Sayin C, Ozsezen AN, Canakci M. The influence of operating parameters on the
2017;51(1):202–11. performance and emissions of a DI diesel engine using methanol-blended-diesel
[54] Wang RN, Tie XX, Li GH, Zhao SY, Long X, Lasse Johansson, et al. Effect of ship fuel. Fuel 2010;89:1407–14.
emissions on O3 in the Yangtze River Delta region of China: analysis of WRF-Chem [84] Kuma C, Rana KB, Tripathi B. Effect of diesel-methanol-nitromethane blends
modeling. Sci Total Environ 2019;683:360–70. combustion on VCR stationary CI engine performance and exhaust emissions.
[55] Chen LH, Bao KJ, Li KW, Lv B, Bao ZE, Lin C, et al. Ozone and secondary organic Environ Sci Pollut R 2019;26(7):6517–31.
aerosol formation of toluene/NOx irradiations under complex pollution scenarios. [85] Jamrozik A. The effect of the alcohol content in the fuel mixture on the perfor-
Aerosol Air Qual Res 2016;17(7):1760–71. mance and emissions of a direct injection diesel engine fueled with diesel-me-
[56] Wang T, Xue LK, Brimblecombe P, Lam YF, Li L, Zhang L. Ozone pollution in thanol and diesel-ethanol blends. Energ Convers Manage 2017;148:461–76.
China: a review of concentrations, meteorological influences, chemical precursors, [86] Brynolf S, Fridell E, Andersson K. Environmental assessment of marine fuels: li-
and effects. Sci Total Environ 2017;575:1582–96. quefied natural gas, liquefied biogas, methanol and bio-methanol. J Clean Prod
[57] Wang P, Chen Y, Hu JL, Zhang HL, Ying Q. Attribution of tropospheric Ozone to 2016;74:86–95.
NOx and VOC emissions: considering Ozone formation in the transition regime. [87] Gilbert P, Walsh C, Traut M, Kesieme U, Pazouki K, Murphy A. Assessment of full

14
P. Ni, et al. Fuel 279 (2020) 118477

life-cycle air emissions of alternative shipping fuels. J Clean Prod diesel engine with water-in-diesel emulsion and EGR: an experimental study. Fuel
2018;172:855–66. 2011;90(11):3179–92.
[88] Zincir B, Deniz C, Tunér M. Investigation of environmental, operational and eco- [121] Lin CY, Wang KH. Diesel engine performance and emission characteristics using
nomic performance of methanol partially premixed combustion at slow speed three-phase emulsions as fuel. Fuel 2004;83(4–5):537–45.
operation of a marine engine. J Clean Prod 2019;235:1006–19. [122] Lif A, Stark M, Nydén M, Holmberg K. Fuel emulsions and microemulsions based
[89] Ammar NR. An environmental and economic analysis of methanol fuel for a cel- on Fischer-Tropsch diesel. Colloid Surface A 2010;354(1–3):91–8.
lular container ship. Transport Res D-Tr E 2019;69:66–76. [123] Alahmer A, Yamin J, Sakhrieh A, Hamdan MA. Engine performance using emul-
[90] Riviera Newsletters.Big boys join the LNG-fuelled fleet.https://www.rivieramm. sified diesel fuel. Energ Convers Manage 2010;51(8):1708–13.
com/news-content-hub/big-boys-join-the-lng-fuelled-fleet-24821, [Accessed 8 [124] Zheng M, Reader GT, Hawley JG. Diesel engine exhaust gas recirculation––a re-
November 2019]. view on advanced and novel concepts. Energ Convers Manage
[91] Sinha RP, Wan Nik WMN. Investigation of propulsion system for large LNG ships. 2004;45(6):883–900.
In: Proceedings of the IOP conference series: materials science and engineering; [125] Larbi N, Bessrour J. Measurement and simulation of pollutant emissions from
2012. marine diesel combustion engine and their reduction by exhaust gas recirculation.
[92] Sharafian A, Blomerus P, Mérida W. Natural gas as a ship fuel: assessment of J Mech Sci Technol 2008;22(11):2263–73.
greenhouse gas and air pollutant reduction potential. Energ Policy 2019; 131: [126] Verschaeren R, Schaepdryver W, Serruys T, Bastiaen M, Vervaeke L, Verhelst S.
332–46. Experimental study of NOx reduction on a medium speed heavy duty diesel engine
[93] Fernández IA, Gómez MR, Gómez JR. Review of propulsion systems on LNG car- by the application of EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) and Miller timing. Energy
riers. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;67:1395–411. 2014;76:614–21.
[94] Ekanem Attah E, Bucknall R. An analysis of the energy efficiency of LNG ships [127] Wang ZG, Zhou S, Feng YM, Zhu YQ. Research of NOx reduction on a low-speed
powering options using the EEDI. Ocean Eng 2015;110:62–74. two-stroke marine diesel engine by using EGR (exhaust gas recirculation)-CB
[95] Romero Gómez J, Romero Gómez M, Lopez Bernal J, Baaliña Insua A. Analysis and (cylinder bypass) and EGB (exhaust gas bypass). Int J Hydrogen Energ
efficiency enhancement of a boil-off gas reliquefaction system with cascade cycle 2017;42(30):19337–45.
on board LNG carriers. Energy Convers Manag 2015;94:261–74. [128] Zu XH, Yang CL, Wang HC, Wang YY. Experimental study on diesel engine exhaust
[96] Shin Y, Lee YP. Design of a boil-off natural gas reliquefaction control system for gas recirculation performance and optimum exhaust gas recirculation rate de-
LNG carriers. Appl Energ 2009;86(1):37–44. termination method. Roy Soc Open Sci 2019;6(6):181907.
[97] Banawan AA, EI Gohary MM, Sadek IS. Environmental and economical benefits of [129] Thangaraja J, Kannan C. Effect of exhaust gas recirculation on advanced diesel
changing from marine diesel oil to natural-gas fuel for short-voyage high-power combustion and alternate fuels - A review. Energ Convers Manage
passenger ships. P I Mech Eng M-J Eng 2009; 224(2): 103–13. 2016;180:169–84.
[98] Elgohary MM, Seddiek IS, Salem AM. Overview of alternative fuels with emphasis [130] Nielsen KV, Blanke M, Eriksson L, Vejlgaard-Laursen M. Control-oriented model of
on the potential of liquefied natural gas as future marine fuel. P I Mech Eng M-J molar scavenge oxygen fraction for exhaust recirculation in large diesel engines. J
Eng 2014;229(4):365–75. Dyn Syst-T ASME 2016;139(2):021007.
[99] Anderson M, Salo K, Fridell E. Particle- and gaseous emissions from a LNG pow- [131] Nielsen KV, Blanke M, Eriksson L, Vejlgaard-Laursen M. Adaptive feed forward
ered ship. Environ Sci Technol 2015;49(20):12568–75. control of exhaust recirculation in large diesel engines. Control Eng Pract
[100] Li JH, Wu BB, Mao GP. Research on the performance and emission characteristics 2017;65:26–35.
of the LNG diesel marine engine. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2015;27:945–54. [132] Nielsen KV, Blanke M, Eriksson L, Vejlgaard-Laursen M. Marine diesel engine
[101] Ammar NR. Environmental and cost-effectiveness comparison of dual fuel pro- control to meet emission requirements and maintain maneuverability. Control Eng
pulsion options for emissions reduction onboard LNG carriers. Brodogradnja Pract 2018;76:12–21.
2019;70(3):61–77. [133] Llamas X, Eriksson L. Control-oriented modeling of two-stroke diesel engines with
[102] Shah S, Maiboom A, Tauzia X, Hétet J. Experimental study of inlet manifold water exhaust gas recirculation for marine applications. P I Mech Eng M-J Eng
injection on a common rail HSDI automobile diesel engine, compared to EGR with 2019;233(2):551–74.
respect to PM and NOx emissions and specific consumption.SAE Paper 2009-01- [134] Wärtsilä. First Wärtsilä 32 engines with common rail injection. https://www.
1439; 2009. wartsila.com/media/news/03-03-2003-first-wartsila-32-engines-with-common-
[103] Chybowski L, Laskowski R, Gawdzińska K. An overview of systems supplying rail-injection,[Accessed 26 November].
water into the combustion chamber of diesel engines to decrease the amount of [135] Wärtsilä. The Sulzer rT-flex common-rail system described. http://www.die-
nitrogen oxides in exhaust gas. J Mar Sci Technol 2015;20(3):393–405. selduck.info/machine/01%20prime%20movers/rt_flex/2004%20Wartsila
[104] Prior A, Jääskeläinen H, Walsh J. NOx emission study: an investigation of water- %20RT%20Flex%20desc.pdf, [Accessed 23 April 2019].
based emission control technologies. Ottawa: Fleetway Inc; 2005. [136] MAN Diesel & Turbo. MAN Diesel & Turbo common rail design & field experience.
[105] Nord K. Particles and emissions from a diesel engine equipped with a humid air https://marine.man-es.com/docs/default-source/shopwaredocuments/common-
motor system. SAE Paper 2001-01-3616; 2001. rail6d4a00a89677406b92e2a18b9edb80a2.pdf?sfvrsn=5a3d4061_3,[Accessed
[106] Rahai HR, Shamloo E, Bonifacio JR. Investigation of the effect of a humid air 21 April 2019].
system on diesel NOx and PM emissions of a small engines. SAE Paper 2011-01- [137] Andreadis P, Zompanakis A, Chryssakis C, Kaiktsis L. Effect of the fuel injection
0692; 2011. parameters and emissions formation in a large-bore marine diesel engine. Int J
[107] Larbi N, Bessrour J. Measurement and simulation of pollutant emissions from Engine Res 2011;12:14–29.
marine diesel combustion engine and their reduction by water injection. Adv Eng [138] Imperato M, Kaario O, Sarjovaara T, Larmi M. Split fuel injection and Miller cycle
Softw 2010;41:898–906. in a large-bore engine. Appl Energ 2016;162:289–97.
[108] Asad U, Kelly C, Wang MP, Tjong J. Effects of intake air humidity on the NOx [139] Goldsworthy L. Fumigation of a heavy duty common rail marine diesel engine
emissions and performance of a light-duty diesel engine. ICEF2012-92027; 2012. with ethanol–water mixtures. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2013;47:48–59.
[109] Subramanian KA. A comparison of water–diesel emulsion and timed injection of [140] Liu HF, Li JR, Wang JT, Wu CH, Liu B, Dong JJ, et al. Effects of injection strategies
water into the intake manifold of a diesel engine for simultaneous control of NO on low-speed marine engines using the dual fuel of high-pressure direct-injection
and smoke emissions. Energy Convers Manage 2011;52(2):849–57. natural gas and diesel. Energy Sci Eng 2019;7(5):1994–2010.
[110] Ni PY, Wang XL. Modeling the formation of NOx and soot emissions in a diesel [141] Imperato M, Kaario O, Larmi M, Sarjovaara T. Emission reduction methods and
engine at different humidity. Int J Green Energy 2012;9(8):815–28. split fuel injection in a marine four-stroke engine. J Mar Sci Technol
[111] Bedford F, Rutland C, Dittrich P, Raab A, Wirbeleit F. Effects of direct water in- 2017;23(1):94–103.
jection on di diesel engine combustion. SAE Paper 2000-01-2938; 2000. [142] MAN B&W. MAN B&W two-stroke marine engines emission project guide for
[112] Chadwell CJ, Dingle PJ. Effects of diesel and water co-injection with-real control MarpolAnnex = 6 \* ROMANVI regulations.https://marine.man-es.com/applica-
time control on diesel engine performance and emission. SAE Paper 2008-01- tions/projectguides/2stroke/content/special_pg/PG_7020-0145-10v2.pdf,
1190; 2008. [Accessed 26 November 2019].
[113] Sarvi A, Kilpinen P, Zevenhoven R. Emissions from large-scale medium-speed [143] Du J, Li RN, Wu X, Zhang Y. Study on optimization simulation of SCR denitration
diesel engines: 3. Influence of direct water injection and common rail. Fuel Process system for marine diesel engine. Pol Marit Res 2018;25(s3):13–21.
Technol 2009;90(2):222–31. [144] Zhu YQ, Zhang RP, Zhou S, Huang C, Feng YM, Shreka M, et al. Performance
[114] Ghannam MT, Selim MYE. Stability behavior of water-in-diesel fuel emulsion. Pet optimization of high-pressure SCR system in a marine diesel engine. Part = 1 *
Sci Technol 2009;27:396–411. ROMAN I: flow optimization and analysis. Top Catal 2019;62(1–4):27–39.
[115] Mondal PK, Mandal BK. A comprehensive review on the feasibility of using water [145] Verschaeren R, Verhelst S. Increasing exhaust temperature to enable after-treat-
emulsified diesel as a CI engine fuel. Fuel 2019;237:937–60. ment operation on a two-stage turbo-charged medium speed marine diesel engine.
[116] Park S, Woo S, Kim H, Lee K. The characteristics of spray using diesel water Energy 2018;147:681–7.
emulsified fuel in a diesel engine. Appl Energy 2016;176:209–20. [146] Ryu Y, Kim H, Cho W, Nam J. Installation and characteristics of ureaselective
[117] Attia AMA, Kulchitskiy AR. Influence of the structure of water-in-fuel emulsion on catalytic reduction systems for nitrogen oxide reduction in marine diesel engine. P
diesel engine performance. Fuel 2014;116:703–8. I Mech Eng M-J Eng 2017;231(3):760–7.
[118] Ithnin AM, Yahya J, Ahmad MA, Ramlan NA, Abdul Kadir H, Sidik NAC, et al. [147] Ku KW, Hong JG, Park CW, Chung KY, Sohn SH. Effects of various factors on the
Emulsifier-free Water-in-Diesel emulsion fuel: Its stability behaviour, engine per- conversion efficiency of urea solution in a urea selective catalytic reduction
formance and exhaust emission. Fuel 2018:454–62. system. Energ Fuel 2014;28(9):5959–67.
[119] Vigneswaran R, Annamalai A, Dhinesh B, Krishnamoorthy R. Experimental in- [148] Lee C. Performance evaluation of a urea-selective catalytic reduction system in a
vestigation of unmodified diesel engine performance, combustion and emission marine diesel engine. P I Mech Eng M-J Eng 2017;231(3):801–8.
with multipurpose additive along with water-in-diesel emulsion fuel. Energ [149] Gysel NR, Russell RL, Welch WA, Cocker DR. Impact of aftertreatment technolo-
Convers Manage 2018;172:370–80. gies on the in-use gaseous and particulate matter emissions from a tugboat. Energ
[120] Maiboom A, Tauzia X. NOx and PM emissions reduction on an automotive HSDI Fuel 2016;30(1):684–9.

15
P. Ni, et al. Fuel 279 (2020) 118477

[150] Lehtoranta K, Vesala H, Koponen P, Korhonen S. Selective catalytic reduction fuels. Transport Res D-TRE 2014;28:6–18.
operation with heavy fuel oil: NOx, NH3, and particle emissions. Environ Sci [170] Lloyd’s Register. Exhaust gas cleaning systems: Guidelines for the management of
Technol 2015;49(7):4735–41. consumables and waste products. https://www.lr.org/en/sulphur-2020/,
[151] Jayaram V, Nigam A. Effectiveness of emission control technologies for auxiliary [Accessed 11 December 2019].
engines on ocean-going vessels. J Air Waste Manage 2011;61(1):14–21. [171] Kuang M, Wang JX, Hui XH, Yang GH. Seawater/seawater cascade-scrubbing
[152] Zhu YQ, Xia C, Shreka M, Wang ZG, Yuan L, Zhou S, et al. Combustion and desulfurization performance for exhaust gas of a 162-kW marine diesel engine. J
emission characteristics for a marine low-speed diesel engine with high-pressure Environ Eng 2020;146(1):04019090.
SCR system. Environ Sci Pollut R 2020;27(12):12851–65. [172] Wärtsilä Corporation. Experience Counts. https://www.wartsila.com/marine/
[153] Di Natale F, Carotenuto C. Particulate matter in marine diesel engines build/exhaust-treatment#SOxReduction, [Accessed 11 December 2019].
exhausts:Emissions and control strategies. Transport Res D-Tr E 2015;40:166–91. [173] Wärtsilä Corporation. Wärtsilä scrubbers first to be certified to combat marine
[154] Palma V, Ciambelli P, Meloni E, Sin A. Catalytic DPF microwave assisted active sulphur oxide emissions. https://www.wartsila.com/media/news/10-09-2009-
regeneration. Fuel 2015;140:50–61. wartsila-scrubbers-first-to-be-certified-to-combat-marine-sulphur-oxide-emissions,
[155] Jang J, Lee Y, Kwon O. Comparison of fuel efficiency and exhaust emissions be- [Accessed 11 December 2019].
tween the aged and new DPF systems of Euro 5 diesel passenger car. Int J Auto [174] MAN Diesel & Turbo. Operation on low-sulphur fuels. https://marine.man-es.
Tech 2017;18(5):751–8. com/docs/librariesprovider6/technical-papers/operation-on-low-sulphur-fuels.
[156] Stamatellou AM, Stamatelos A. Overview of Diesel particulate filter systems sizing pdf?sfvrsn=38635aa2_20, [Accessed 11 February 2015].
approaches. Appl Therm Eng 2017;121:537–46. [175] Zhou S, Zhou JX, Feng YM, Zhu YQ. Marine emission pollution abatement using
[157] Corbett JJ, Winebrake JJ, Green EH. An assessment of technologies for reducing ozone oxidation by a wet scrubbing method. Ind Eng Chem Res
regional short-lived climate forcers emitted by ships with implications for Arctic 2016;55(20):5825–31.
shipping. Carbon Manag 2010;1(2):207–25. [176] Boscarato I, Hickey N, Kašpar J, Prati MV, Mariani A. Green shipping: Marine
[158] Mayer ACR, Czerwinski J, Bonsack P, Karvonen L, Xian L, Mooney J. DPF systems engine pollution abatement using a combined catalyst/seawater scrubber system.
for high sulfur fuels. SAE Paper 2011–01-0605;:2011. 1. Effect of catalyst. J Catal 2015;328:248–57.
[159] Kuwahara T, Yoshida K, Hanamoto K, Sato K, Kuroki T, Okubo M. Effect of exhaust [177] Fang P, Cen CP, Wang XM, Tang ZJ, Tang ZX, Chen DS. Simultaneous removal of
gas temperature on oxidation of marine diesel emission particulates with non- SO2, NO and Hg0 by wet scrubbing using urea+KMnO4 solution. Fuel Process
thermal-plasma-induced ozone. Ozone-Sci Eng 2015;37:518–26. Technol 2013;106:645–53.
[160] Makoto H, Koichi S, Shoichi I. The effects of flow-through type oxidation catalysts [178] Han ZT, Liu BJ, Yang SL, Pan XX, Yan ZJ. NOx removal from simulated marine
on the particulate reduction of 1990s diesel engines. SAE Paper 900600; 1990. exhaust gas by wet scrubbing using NaClO solution. J Chem 2017. 9340856.
[161] Johnson Matthey Inc. Johnson Matthey CRT® technology for diesel emissions. [179] Balachandran W, Manivannan N, Beleca R, Abbod M. Reduction of NOx and PM in
https://matthey.com/en/products-and-services/emission-control-technologies/ marine diesel engine exhaust gas using microwave plasma. J Phys Conf Ser
stationary-emissions-control/johnson-matthey-crt-technology-for-diesel-emis- 2015;646:012053.
sions, [Accessed 6 December 2019]. [180] Balachandran W, Manivannan N, Beleca R, Abbod M, Brennen D, Alozie NS, et al.
[162] Caliskan H, Mori K. Environmental, enviroeconomic and enhanced thermo- Nonthermal plasma system for marine diesel engine emission control. IEEE Trans
dynamic analyses of a diesel engine with diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) and Ind Appl 2016;52(3):2496–505.
diesel particulate filter (DPF) after treatment systems. Energy 2017;128:128–44. [181] Hołub M, Kalisiak S, Borkowsk T, Mysków J, Brandenburg R. The influence of
[163] Sudrajad A, Yusof AF. Review of electrostatic precipitator device for reduce of direct non-thermal plasma treatment on particulate matter (PM) and NOx in the
diesel engine particulate matter. Energy Procedia 2015;68:370–80. exhaust of marine diesel engines. Pol J Environ Stud 2010;19(6):1199–211.
[164] Jaworek A, Marchewicz A, Sobczyk AT, Krupa A, Czech T. Two-stage electrostatic [182] Kuwahara T, Yoshida K, Kuroki T, Hanamoto K, Sato K, Okubo M. Pilot-scale
precipitators for the reduction of PM2.5 particle emission. Prog Energ Combust aftertreatment using nonthermal plasma reduction of adsorbed NOx in marine
2018;67:206–33. diesel-engine exhaust gas. Plasma Chem Plasma P 2014; 34 (1):65−81.
[165] Saiyasitpanich P, Keener TC, Lu MM, Liang FY, Khang SJ. Control of diesel gaseous [183] Agrawal H, Malloy QGJ, Welch WA, Wayne Miller J, Cocker DR. In-use gaseous
and particulate emissions with a tube-type wet electrostatic precipitator. J Air and particulate matter emissions from a modern ocean going container vessel.
Waste Manage 2008;58(10):1311–7. Atmosc Environ 2008;42:5504–10.
[166] Yamamoto T, Mimura T, Otsuka N, Ito Y, Ehara Y, Zukeran A. Diesel PM collection [184] Lack DA, Corbett JJ, Onasch T, Lerner B, Massoli P, Quinn PK, et al. Particulate
for marine and automobile emissions using EHD electrostatic precipitators. IEEE T emissions from commercial shipping: Chemical, physical, and optical properties. J
Ind Appl 2010;46(4):1606–12. Geophys Res-Atmos 2009;114:D00F04.
[167] Kawakami H, Sakurai T, Ehara Y, Yamamoto T, Zukeran A. Performance char- [185] Pan SY, Wang PC, Chen Q, Jiang WJ, Chu YH, Chiang PC. Development of high-
acteristics between horizontally and vertically oriented electrodes EHD ESP for gravity technology for removing particulate and gaseous pollutant emissions:
collection of low-resistive diesel particulates. J Electrostat 2013;71(6):1117–23. principles and applications. J Clean Prod 2017;149:540–56.
[168] Kawakami H, Zukeran A, Yasumoto K, Kuboshima M, Ehara Y, Yamamoto T. [186] Chen TL, Fang YK, Pei SL, Pan SY, Chen YH, Chiang PC. Development and de-
Diesel exhaust particle reduction using electrostatic precipitator. Int J Plasma ployment of integrated air pollution control, CO2 capture and product utilization
Environ Sci Technol 2011;5(2):179–84. via a high-gravity process: comprehensive performance evaluation. Environ Pollut
[169] Brynolf S, Magnusson M, Fridell E, Andersson K. Compliance possibilities for the 2019; 252:1464–75.
future ECA regulations through the use of abatement technologies or change of

16