Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 6 (2022) 100263

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/case-studies-in-chemical-
and-environmental-engineering

Case Report

The evaluation of the impact on the quality of the atmosphere of all

activities carried out in the ports of Naples and Salerno
Luigia Mocerino a, *, Furio Cascetta b, Armando Cartenì b, Massimo Dentice d’Accadia a,
Daniele Gallo b, Franco Quaranta a
a
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Naples “Federico II”, Naples, Italy
b
Department of Engineering, University of Campania “Luigia Vanvitelli”, Aversa, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The scope of this paper is to quantify the environmental impact due to the gaseous emissions in the ports of
Emissions inventory in port Naples and Salerno (south Italy), keeping into account all the main sources of pollution in ports: ships, traffic,
GHG services, public buildings, lighting, etc. A “bottom-up” methodology has been applied to the maritime sector and
Non-GHG
a collection of data on energy consumption was gathered to evaluate the environmental impact due to other
Ships
AIS data
activities. As a result, a careful assessment of the impact of such ports as regards Green House Gases (GHG) and
non-GHG pollutants has been obtained.

1. Introduction 6]; according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Anthropogenic activities, i.e. all those related to human life on earth,
involve an alteration of the natural balance of the ecosystem and pro­
duce local effects in terms of pollution and contamination of air, water,
soil and therefore the food chain, in the directly affected areas. However,
the most important impact is on a global scale with climate changes
affecting millions of people. Global temperature rises, increase of ul­
traviolet radiation, extreme weather phenomena, melting of glaciers and
rising levels of the ocean are some of the effects of such changes on the
environment [1]. Agriculture, industry, energy production and transport
are some examples of activities that intrinsically determine greenhouse
gasses, pollution and alteration of the normal habitat and influence the
energy balance of the climate scheme. The Paris Climate conference
(COP21) gave a strong input to global policies aimed at reducing
greenhouses gas emissions into the atmosphere [2–4]. The Carbon di­
oxide (CO2), is certainly the main contributor among the Green House
Gases, but in addition to this there are Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide
(N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), Sulphur
Hexafluoride (SF6) and Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3) [4]. The so-called
CO2eq, that is used to measure the impact of all these seven gases on
global warming, converts the emissions in terms of various other gases
into an amount of carbon dioxide producing an equivalent greenhouse
effect in the time unit. The transport sector is one of the main causes of
climate change, on a global scale, and of air pollution on a local scale [5,
report (AR5) it is responsible of 14% of the CO2eq [4]. There are other
type of emissions, especially in the transport sector, called non-GHG that
produce a different effect at a local level on the air quality and a negative
impact on human health. As well known, in fact, diesel engines produce
a range of emissions, including carbon monoxide (CO), high fractions of
water vapor (H2O), nitrogen oxides (NOx, mostly NO), Sulphur oxides
(SOx), unburned hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter (PM), Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC) and ash. Emissions of these pollutants vary
between different engines and depend on some variables such as ignition
timing, speed, and load and air/fuel ratio. Although local emissions are a
small fraction of global transport emissions they can have serious effects
on human health, especially in coastal areas and water cities [7]. Ac­
cording to the Third IMO GHG Study, in 2012, the shipping sector
produced about 0.938 Giga tonnes (Gt) CO2 and 0.961 Gt CO2eq (that
means 2.2% and 2.1% of the global emissions respectively). The
contribution of maritime traffic to global emissions, on a local scale
instead, is estimated in 0.0056 Gt of NOX and 0.0053 Gt of SOX [7,8].
In this paper, a classic “bottom-up” methodology has been applied to
the maritime sector; starting from an inventory of ships in ports and a
detailed calendar of the operation carried out, the emissions have been
evaluated using emission factors. In addition, as regards other sources in
ports, a collection of data on the energy consumption was performed
and, by applying calculation and forecasting methods, it has been
possible to evaluate the environmental impact due to the emissions from

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: luigia.mocerino@unina.it (L. Mocerino).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2022.100263
Received 21 September 2022; Received in revised form 7 October 2022; Accepted 8 October 2022
Available online 10 October 2022
2666-0164/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
L. Mocerino et al.
Fig. 1. The port of Naples.
Fig. 2. The port of Salerno.
Fig. 3. Fleet arriving at Naples in 2018.
these sources.
2. Case studies: the ports of Naples and Salerno
Located in the center of the Mediterranean Sea, the Port of Naples
(Fig. 1) with 75 berths (11 km) is also one of the largest ports of the
Mediterranean in terms of quantity and diversity of traffics [9,10]. The
second port of Campania in terms of importance is certainly the port of
Salerno only in recent years has grown very strongly in terms of traffic
and infrastructures present [10] (Fig. 2). The port of Naples is divided
into two main areas, with different types of traffic and different
geographical position. The west end, closer to downtown, is dedicated to
passenger traffic and features three sub-areas: pier Beverello, with hy­
drofoil service connecting the town to the main islands in the Gulf; pier
2
Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 6 (2022) 100263
Angioino, for cruise ships; Quay Porta di Massa and Piliero, piers used
for long-range ferryboats. The eastern area is dedicated to commercial
vessels and is equipped with several spaces for handling and storage of
liquid and dry cargo and containers (see Fig. 3).
On a national scale, the port was confirmed third in Italy (after
Civitavecchia and Venice) for cruise traffic in 2019. The passenger
traffic is certainly one of the strengths of the port: according to the latest
statistics, in 2019 cruise passengers were 1.266.704 (22.659 in 2020 due
to the restrictions related to the COVID-19) and the total number of
passengers (cruise, local and ferry) was as large as 7.386.689 (3.301.347
in 2020) [10]. The data updated to 2019, compared to those of 2018,
show an increase of +16.9% in the number of TEUs (681.929), and
+4.39% in the tons of liquid cargo transported by bulk carriers. As
regards the port of Salerno, according to the latest statistics, in 2019
cruise passengers were 1.266.704 and the total number of passengers
(cruise, local and ferry) was as large as 7.386.689 (3.301.347 in 2020).
The data updated to 2019, compared to those of 2018, show an increase
of +16.9% in the number of TEUs (681.929), +4.39% in the tons of
liquid cargo transported by bulk carriers. According to the latest sta­
tistics, in 2020, the number of containers has been of 315.680 (− 8.64%
compared to 2019); from January to October the number Ro-Ro unit has
been of 220.108 (+6.55% compared to 2020). The cruise traffic in the
first ten months of 2019 has been of 92.522 passenger while in the same
period the total number of passenger (cruise, ferry and local) has been
358.256 [11].
3. Methodology
Fuel consumption and emissions vary depending on the engine’s
rated power output, and then on the ship’s operational phase such as
cruising, at berth, and maneuvering. In our evaluation, the operations
and the phases considered to calculate emissions will be defined as
navigation in port (as in arrival and departure at slow speed), maneu­
vering, and hoteling at berth. As well known, to evaluate the atmo­
spheric impact of a fleets or of a port, at least two aspect should be
considered: the amount of emissions and the location where they are
produced. Based on these two variables two different approaches are
possible: bottom-up or top-down [12]. In the full top-down approach,
total emissions are evaluated without considering the characteristics of
the single ships and are later geographically located and assigned to the
different ships [13]. In the full bottom-up approach, emissions from a
single vessel are considered over a certain period of time and the ag­
gregation of the emissions produced by all the ships gives an estimate of
the total emissions. By aggregating these estimates over time and over
the fleet it is possible to estimate the total emissions. The bottom-up
method needs information on the ship’s characteristics such as ship
category, mission profile, size, engine and fuel type, total power deliv­
ered, and movements, as well as the corresponding fuel consumption
and emission factors [7,14–17]. A complete and detailed bottom-up
procedure, used in this application, includes the following stages:
acquisition of arrival and departure schedule of the specific port and
category and characterization of ships, analysis of the routes (within the
port), estimation of total power installed on board and of the power used
in the different phases in port, estimation emissions and of the envi­
ronmental impact by using a dispersion model. In this framework the
starting point has been the Automatic Identification System (AIS) data
essentially subdivided in dynamic and static [18,19]. The dynamic AIS
data have been largely processed using customized MATLAB code
strings created in-house. The spatial coordinates (latitude, longitude)
have been used for a reconstruction of the routes while speed and time
data were used to make calendars. The built Matlab code allows the
organization of the arrival and departure calendars of the ships and the
definition of the various phases in port. In particular, the lines of code
analyze every single record in terms of time and position data, and
speed. Overall, the code can distinguish between arrival in port (in), port
navigation (navigation), start-stop on the quay (mooring), possible
L. Mocerino et al.
Table 1
Emission factors for NOX (g/kWh) TIER III.
Engine type HSD MSD SSD
Phase/Fuel BFO MGO BFO MGO BFO MGO
Main engine (Cruise) 11,8 11,2 13 12,3 16,9 15,8
Main engine (Maneuv., 9,5 8,9 10,4 9,9 13,5 12,7
Hoteling)
Auxiliary (Cruise, Maneuv., 10,8 10,2 13,7 13
Hoteling)
starting and stopping of the engines, end stop on the quay, exit from the
port (out). Each of these phases is characterized by a unique combina­
tion of speed and time delta related to neighbouring records and loca­
tions [20]. The static part of the AIS data was used as starting point for
the data collection. For an accurate estimation of the emission rates,
indeed, a database of all the ships visiting the port of Naples and Salerno
in 2018 has been realized. The information collected are: ship category,
name/IMO number, gross tonnage (GT) and deadweight (DWT) from
static AIS data; length (L), width (B), and draft (T) [m]; total power
installed on-board (Pin kW) and type of engines; maximum speed (v in
kn); number of passengers, cars, containers from sectorial studies,
websites, ship-owners and similar sources.
Once the database has been completed, emission rates of CO2, NOX,
SOX, and PM have been calculated. For the pollutants having a local
scale effect (NOx, SOx, and PM), the reference adopted is the recent
EMEP-EEA guideline [21]. The input data necessary are the total power
installed onboard, the type of engine in-stalled onboard (High Speed
Diesel-HSD, Medium Speed Diesel-MSD, and Slow Speed Diesel-SSD),
and the type of fuel used (Bunker Fuel Oil-BFO, Marine Diesel
Oil-MDO, Marine Gas Oil-MGO). For each ship category, the adopted
procedure gives 213 g/kWh for HSD or MSD engines using BFO/M­
DO/MGO, 195 and 185 g/kWh for SSD using, respectively, MDO or
MGO. According to AIS data, three typical speeds for each category of
ships were identified: two of arrival, departure, and navigation in the
port (generally at low speed). These average speeds have been used to
calculate the power of main engines in each of the three phases. Ac­
cording with EMEP-EEA, 2019, the total power of auxiliary engines has
been evaluated starting from the total power on board and using specific
load factors; during the navigation phase, a load factor of 30% of the
MCR is assumed for the auxiliary engines, for the hoteling phase, for all
categories an engine loads of 20% on main engines and 40% (60% for
tankers) on auxiliaries has been assumed. Finally, the emissions for each
ship and operational phase in port have been estimated using the
emission factors shown in Table 1. Due to the lack of precise data about
the duration of the individual manoeuvre and the possible presence of
tugs, the emissions occurring during the manoeuvres have been incor­
porated into the pure navigation phases defined.
As regard CO2, according to ANNEX 17 RESOLUTION MEPC.233
(65), the emission factor 3.1144 g(CO2)/g(fuel) has been used. Starting
from an average value of the main and auxiliary engine power delivered
in port, for each ship and with the specific fuel consumption (g/kWh), an
estimate of an average hourly rate (kg/h) of CO2 emitted by each ship
when engaged in port operations can be obtained. From the analysis of
the landing calendars (based on AIS data), the total time spent in port
(loading and unloading goods and/or passengers, navigation, maneu­
vering, and mooring) has been obtained.
4. Results
4.1. Fleets
The database of ships arrived in the port of Naples (2018) includes
more than 1.000.000 records associated with 922 objects, generally
identified by their MMSI and grouped in categories (Fig. 2). Among
them, those corresponding to stationary objects or to ships lacking
3
Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 6 (2022) 100263
Fig. 4. Fleet arriving at Salerno in 2018.
adequate information have been removed because not relevant for our
scopes (141 elements have been deleted which means 84965 records and
7.95% of the total records).
The category “Others” includes numerous ship such as Aggregates
and Vehicle Carrier, Anchor Handling Vessel, Grab Hopper Dredger,
Hopper barge, Patrol Vessel, Special Vessel Research-Survey Vessel,
Asphalt/Bitumen/Bunkering Tanker, and others. All these categories as
regard the port of Naples have never more than 3 ships. As concerns the
port of Salerno, 4731 records have been acquired and groped according
to this Fig. 4.
Once calculated the emissions for each category, the total value of
the CO2 emissions related to both commercial and passenger ships
arriving at the port of Naples has been obtained and reported in Fig. 5.
This value will be useful to estimate the weight that the shipping sector
has on the environmental impact of the entire port compared to other
sources of emissions. The arrival, navigation and stay in the port of 765
ships, the total number of ships considered excluding military ships and
small pleasure boats, results in a total emission of 266.358,23 t of CO2 in
a year (reference year 2018). Similar results can be obtained for Salerno.
The arrival, navigation, and mooring in the port of 118 different ships
during the year (obviously with high frequency of arrivals and de­
partures), the total number of ships considered which excludes military
ships and small pleasure boats, involves an emission total of 16.533 t of
CO2 in one year (reference year 2018). In order to extend the assessment
to CO2 equivalent and given the low level of GHG emissions other than
CO2, the lines of the Third IMO GHG Study 2014 which identifies the
increase in the mass of GHG in about 2.5% compared to that of CO2
alone have been followed [8]. Based on this assumption, the equivalent
CO2 emissions from ships in the Port of Naples and Salerno for the year
2018 can be assessed respectively as 273,017 t and 16,946 t. As regards
NOX and PM, the results obtained for Naples are 9605 t and 17 t,
respectively; for Salerno, the emissions are 350 t for NOX and 17 t for
PM.
4.2. Emissions from other sources
4.2.1. Road transport methodology and results
The estimation of pollutant emissions from road traffic within the
ports of Naples and Salerno has been performed in terms of Global
Warming Potential (GWP) which quantify the climate effects (in carbon
footprint) of climate-altering greenhouse gases [22]. Generally, the
carbon footprint is measured in tons equiv. CO2eq by multiplying the
emissions of each GHG by its GWP value which represents the ratio
between the heating caused by a GHG over a specific time interval (e.g.,
100 years) and the heating caused by the same amount of CO2 over the
same time period:
∑
CO2equiv = GWPi ⋅Ei (1)
i
∑
Ei = Fc (Ei )⋅mc (2)
c
where: GWPi is the global warming potential value relative to the i-th
L. Mocerino et al. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 6 (2022) 100263

Fig. 5. CO2 (t) for the port of Naples.

Table 2 Table 3
The GHG emissions by road traffic for the port of Naples and Salerno (tons of Energy consumptions from road traffic for the port of Naples and Salerno
CO2equiv). (estimation for the year 2019).
Vehicle typology Port of Naples Port of Salerno Vehicle typology Port of Naples Port of Salerno

tons (%) tons (%) (tep) (MWh) (tep) (MWh)

Cars 56.4 4.7% 7.03 1.5% Cars 16.6 193.0 2.1 24.0
Light Freight Vehicles 103.1 8.5% 21.6 4.6% Light Freight Vehicles 29.6 345.0 6.2 72.0
Heavy Freight Vehicles 1049 86.8% 440 93.9% Heavy Freight Vehicles 345.0 4,010.0 134.0 1,560.0
Total 1209 100% 468 100% Total 391.0 4,550.0 143.0 1,660.0

GHG [22]; Ei is the total road emission relative the i-th climate-altering
GHG; Fc(Ei) is the unitary emission factor relative to the c-th vehicular
category (i.e. car, Light Freight or Heavy Freight Vehicles); mc is a
measure of the road activity equal to obtained ad product between the
total number vehicles of c category circulating within the ports of
Naples/Salerno (nc) and the average yearly distance travelled by the
c-th vehicular category within the two ports (lc) [23,24]. The unitary
emission factors, Fc(Ei), have been estimated starting from the data
produced by ISPRA [25] and coherently with the EU COPERT emission
model developed by the European Environment Agency (EEA) as part of
the CORINAIR program providing the average emissions broken down
by single emitted component and by vehicle category [25,26]. Precisely
the input variables of the applied estimation model were:
- Vehicle fleet composition (nc) in terms of number of vehicles per
time unit, engine capacity (for cars), and weight (for freight vehicles)
[27];
- Average traffic condition in terms of average speed and km travelled
(lc) per time unit;
- Fuel typology consumed per single vehicle category (as % distribu­
tion between diesel, petrol, LGP, and methane) that influence the
estimation of the Fc(Ei) [27];
- Climate conditions, in terms of maximum and minimum tempera­
tures in the time period and relative to the application case study.
The estimation results relative to the port of Naples are reported in
the Table 2 below: the GHG emissions is equal to 1,208.50 tons/year of
which 4,7% emitted by cars, 8,5% by Light Freight Vehicles and 86,8%
by Heavy Freight Vehicles. The GHG emissions imputable to the port of
Salerno are 468.82 tons/year of which 1,5% emitted by cars, 4,6% by
Light Freight Vehicles and 93,9% by Heavy Freight Vehicles.
Jointly with GHG emissions, the road traffic energy consumption
were also estimated through the unit consumption coefficient estimated
by ARPA Lombardy and ISPRA [28,29] valid for the case study of Italy.
The total consumption relative to the port of Naples and Salerno are
reported in Table 3 as tons of equivalent petroleum (tep) and in MWh.
4.2.2. Building and other activities: methodology and results
To estimate the climate-changing emissions (and other harmful
emissions of interest, in particular: NOx and PM10) attributable to port
activities, net of those due to road traffic and boats maneuvering within
the port, a census was taken, aimed at determining the consumption of
electricity and fuels of the main port operators, as well as those directly
attributable to the activities of the local Port Authority (buildings and
public lighting). Unfortunately, the sample analyzed was not exhaustive,
since many operators active in the port area did not provide the required
consumption data; however, the data collected are representative,
including the consumptions of the Port Authority and those attributable
to the most significant port operators. The data collected are shown

4
L. Mocerino et al. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 6 (2022) 100263

Table 4 Table 9
GHG emission factors adopted for the consumption of electricity and fuels of Summary output.
“land-side” activities. Tons of CO2(eq) Naples Salerno
Emission factor Electrical energy Natural gas Diesel oil GPL
Land-side emissions (withdrawal of electricity from the 11,300.0 2,100.0
(tCO2eq/MWh) 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 public network and fuel consumption, net of those due
to transport)
Land-side emissions (vehicular traffic in the port area) 1,210.0 469.0
Sea-side emissions (navigation and maneuvering) 273,000.0 16,900.0
Table 5
Consumption of electricity and “land-side” fuels for activities other than trans­
port – year 2018.
Sector Consumptions (MWh)

Electric Natural gas Diesel oil LPG Total

energy

P.A. - public 1.1 1.1

lighting
P.A. - buildings 2.1 2.1
Port operators 27.0 3.3 33.0 91.0 63.0
Total 30.0 3.3 33.0 91.0 66.0

Table 6
Greenhouse gas emissions corresponding to electricity and fuel consumption due
to land-side activities (net of transport).
Sector Electric energy Natural gas Diesel oil LPG

P.A. - public lighting 312.0

Fig. 6. Overall of emissions.
P.A. - buildings 597.0
Port operators 7.5 633.0 7.4 18.0
are resumed in Table 6. Other harmful emissions (NOx, PM10 and
PM2.5) ascribable to the consumptions, have been calculated based on
Table 7 the emission factors available in Table 7; results obtained are reported in
Emission factors adopted for the calculation of NOx and PM emissions due to the Table 8.
consumption of electricity and fuels of land-side activities (net of transport) – With regard to electricity, the emission factors provided by ISPRA
values in kg/MWh. with regard to power production in Italy (reference year 2018) have
Species Emission factors (kg/MWh) been used; just for PM2.5, an estimate was made based on the mix of
fuels used in national electricity production in 2018 and on the emission
Electrical energy Natural gas Diesel oil GPL
factors reported [30]. Obviously, the emissions due to the consumption
NOx 0.2500 0.1050 4.6800 0.1050 of electricity are to be considered “indirect”, that is, they do not occur
PM10 0.0033 0.0007 0.0504 0.0072
PM2.5 0.0030 0.0007 0.0504 0.0072
within the perimeter of the ports: indeed, currently, the electricity
consumed is entirely taken from the public network. As for diesel fuel, in
the absence of more detailed information, the use in reciprocating en­
gines has considered as prevalent: so, the corresponding emission factor
Table 8
was used, significantly higher than that regarding thermal uses.
NOx and PM emissions due to electricity and fuel consumption of land-side
activities (net of transport).
5. Discussion and benchmark
Sector Consumption (MWh)

Electric energy NG Diesel LPG Total For the reference year, Table 9 shows the summary output for the
Public lighting 1.1 1.1 port of Naples and Salerno. It should be remembered that public light­
Buildings 2.1 2.1 ing, buildings, and port operators fall into the first category.
Port operators 26.6 3.3 32.6 91.0 62.6 In the following Fig. 6 the percentage impact of the various fonts of
Total 29.8 3.3 32.6 910 65.8
emission of CO2 is reported with reference to the System port Authority
(Naples and Salerno).
below, divided, for each of the ports analyzed, into three categories: Alternative estimation methods are available in the literature and
public lighting and offices/buildings of the local Port Authority (P.A) can be used to validate the global results obtained and reported in
and port operators. The corresponding total consumption is equal to Table 9 and Fig. 7. In particular, one of the most recent and detailed is
8.868 toe (tonne of oil equivalent) (calculated by applying to electricity the standardized tool developed by Ref. [30], based on the World Port
the conversion factor to primary energy currently used in Italy, i.e.: Climate Initiative (WPCI) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
0.187 × 10− 3 toe/kWh (ARERA - Regulatory Authority for Energy, Change guidelines and GHG Protocol. This tool can calculate, by using
Networks and Environment, EEN n. 3/08). In accordance with the Ital­ Excel and Visual basic, the Carbon Footprint and is designed for port
ian Guidelines for the Climate and energy plans in ports [30], the authorities. In this tool, according to WPCI guidelines, the activities in
calculation of GHG emissions (tons of CO2eq) corresponding to the the port are divided into three scopes: port direct sources (cargo
consumption reported in Table 5 was carried out by applying the handling, boilers, and sources owned and operated by port authority)
emission factors reported in Table 4. port indirect sources (purchased electricity for example), and other in­
In particular, the emission factor for electricity consumption is pro­ direct sources (ships, trucks, train and similar). The results obtained are
vided by the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection – ISPRA [29, reported in this screen of the output report of the tool.
30]); for fuels, the values reported by ISPRA were used [30]. The results As shown from both table and pie diagram, the results are in good

5
L. Mocerino et al.
Fig. 7. CO2 emissions for the Port of Naples provided by the tool presented in Ref. [30].
agreement with those obtained in this work, confirming the reliability of
the methodology adopted (285,510 t vs 282,015.82 t, with almost the
same percentage obtained for ships in port). The results can be easily
compared with some of the main Italian port authorities. The port Au­
thority of Western Ligurian Sea (ports of Genoa, and Savona-Vado
Ligure) in 2018, has 1.383.504 MWh of energy consumption relating
to ships mooring and maneuvering in port, corresponding to 81% of the
total port activities that take place there, of which 91% moored. The
emissions of CO2 and CO2(eq) related to ships are respectively 465.302
and 469.429 t (approximately 80% of the total) [31]. The Port System
Authority of the Northern Tyrrhenian Sea has estimated, for 2018,
1.108,83 t of CO2(eq)) related to the passenger area and 19.533,12 t for
the cargo area (corresponding to 93.24% of the global emissions of the
related port system which includes Livorno, Piombino, Elba, and Cap­
raia) [32,33]. For 2020, the ports of Venice and Chioggia have estimated
137.842 tons of CO2 corresponding to about 80% of the total [34]. From
this benchmark, for all port authorities, the weight of ship traffic always
exceeds 80% of total emissions, in line with what was found in our case
study.
6. Conclusions
The system “port” constitutes a field very articulated where civil and
transport industry, interact with major impacts from the point of view of
energy and environment. In this context, renewable energies will
increasingly play a key role in addressing climate change in a cost-
effective way, while strengthening energy security, creating growth
and jobs. The reform of the Italian Port System, which has the primary
objective of improving competitiveness, is directing the industry to­
wards solutions that make fewer impact activities in port areas, identi­
fying in improving the environment one of the factors of
competitiveness of ports. The next few years will be crucial to select
alternative fuels for ships (such as hydrogen, ammonia, methanol,
biogas, biodiesel, electricity in batteries), even if the use of many of
these is limited by economic and technological factors, including the
availability of infrastructures for bunkering. The Port System Authority
of the Central Tyrrhenian Sea is currently developing a carbon neutral
energy transition strategy, aiming at a strong reduction of carbon
emissions from its shipping and industrial activities by 2030, in agree­
ment with the EU Green Deal that sets an emissions reduction target of
90% for EU port cities, by 2050. The plan will be mainly based on the
following strategies: progressive electrification of docks (“cold ironing”)
and road transport; introduction of push-and-pull policies promoting
and supporting the use of e-fuels, especially during navigation in port,
manoeuvering and hoteling at berth; introduction of local renewable
energies (mainly photovoltaic, wind and wave turbines, heat pumps) to
meet the energy request of buildings and sea-side industrial activities in
the port areas. Such strategy will be analyzed in a future work.
The results obtained with this method of CO2 estimation will allow
the port authority to better understand the carbon footprint of its ac­
tivities and will be the basis for an improvement in port infrastructures
and logistics, aimed at reducing the environmental impact of the ports.
The outcomes obtained are in line with other estimation methods used
6
Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 6 (2022) 100263
for the same port and in line with the results for other Italian ports
subjected to the same analysis. These comparisons obviously increase
the robustness and validity of the estimation method. The method used
in this paper has several strengths, in particular: it considers the emis­
sions from the main sources of emissions, uses a reproducible method,
for most sources of issue real data were used (no estimation used), and
considers the emissions of all categories of ships. Possible improvements
of the method would be, for example, greater levels of detail of vehicular
traffic in port and real fuel consumption data of ships in port. These
aspects, together with the others mentioned above, will be analyzed in
future works.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
Acknowledgements
The research and the elaborations presented in this work have been
made possible thanks to the cooperation of the Port Authority of the
Central Tyrrhenian Sea in the persons of the President, dr. Pietro Spirito,
of dr. Gennaro Cammino and dr. Gianluca Esposito.
References
[1] J. Gao, S. Kovats, S. Vardoulakis, P. Wilkinson, A. Woodward, J. Li, S. Gu, H. Wu,
J. Wang, X. Song, Y. Zhai, J. Zhao, Q. Liu, Public health co-benefits of greenhouse
gas emissions reduction: a systematic review, Sci. Total Environ. 627 (2018)
388–402, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.193.
[2] M. Kalajdžić, M. Vasilev, N. Momčilović, Power reduction considerations for bulk
carriers with respect to novel energy efficiency regulations, Brodogradnja: Teorija i
praksa brodogradnje i pomorske tehnike 73 (2) (2022) 79–92.
[3] N.R. Ammar, Environmental and cost-effectiveness comparison of dual fuel
propulsion options for emissions reduction onboard LNG carriers, Brodogradnja:
Teorija i praksa brodogradnje i pomorske tehnike 70 (3) (2019) 61–77.
[4] V. Stanić, M. Hadjina, N. Fafandjel, T. Matulja, Toward shipbuilding 4.0-an
industry 4.0 changing the face of the shipbuilding industry, Brodogradnja: Teorija i
praksa brodogradnje i pomorske tehnike 69 (3) (2018) 111–128.
[5] R. Zalacko, M. Zöldy, G. Simongáti, Comparison of alternative propulsion system-A
case study of a passenger ship used in public transport, Brodogradnja: Teorija i
praksa brodogradnje i pomorske tehnike 72 (2) (2021) 1–18.
[6] L. Mocerino, F. Quaranta, E. Rizzuto, Climate Changes and Maritime
Transportation: A State of the Art. Technology And Science For the Ships Of the
Future, 2018, pp. 1005–1013, https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-870-9-1005.
[7] L. Mocerino, F. Murena, F. Quaranta, D. Toscano, A methodology for the design of
an effective air quality monitoring network in port areas, Sci. Rep. 10 (1) (2020)
1–10.
[8] IMO, Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014, vol. 327, International Maritime
Organization (IMO), 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0912-3.
[9] F. Murena, L. Mocerino, F. Quaranta, D. Toscano, Impact on Air Quality of Cruise
Ship Emissions in Naples, vol. 187, Italy. Atmospheric Environment, 2018, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.05.056.
[10] ADSP Tirreno Centrale, 1st May 2022, https://adsptirrenocentrale.it.
[11] ADSP Tirreno Centrale, 1st May 2022, https://adsptirrenocentrale.
it/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/10_Bollettino-statistico-10- mesi-2020.pdf, 2022.
L. Mocerino et al.
[12] A. Miola, B. Ciuffo, Estimating air emissions from ships: meta-analysis of modelling
approaches and available data sources, Atmos. Environ. 45 (13) (2011)
2242–2251.
[13] M. Tichavska, B. Tovar, Port-city exhaust emission model: an application to cruise
and ferry operations in Las Palmas Port, Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 78 (2015)
347–360, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2015.05.021.
[14] D. Chen, N. Zhao, J. Lang, Y. Zhou, X. Wang, Y. Li, Y. Zhao, X. Guo, Contribution of
ship emissions to the concentration of PM2.5: a comprehensive study using AIS
data and WRF/Chem model in Bohai Rim Region, China, Sci. Total Environ.
610–611 (2018) 1476–1486, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2017.07.255.
[15] Q. Fan, Y. Zhang, W. Ma, H. Ma, J. Feng, Q. Yu, X. Yang, S.K.W. Ng, Q. Fu, L. Chen,
Spatial and seasonal dynamics of ship emissions over the yangtze river delta and
east China sea and their potential environmental influence, Environ. Sci. Technol.
50 (3) (2016) 1322–1329, https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.5B03965/SUPPL_
FILE/ES5B03965_SI_001.PDF.
[16] E. Merico, A. Gambaro, A. Argiriou, A. Alebic-Juretic, E. Barbaro, D. Cesari,
L. Chasapidis, S. Dimopoulos, A. Dinoi, A. Donateo, C. Giannaros, C. Gregoris,
A. Karagiannidis, A.G. Konstandopoulos, T. Ivoševic, N. Liora, D. Melas, B. Mifka,
I. Orlic, A. Poupkou, K. Sarovic, A. Tsakis, R. Giua, T. Pastore, A. Nocioni,
D. Contini, Atmospheric impact of ship traffic in four Adriatic-Ionian port-cities:
comparison and harmonization of different approaches, Transport. Res. Transport
Environ. 50 (2017) 431–445, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRD.2016.11.016.
[17] H. Saxe, T. Larsen, Air pollution from ships in three Danish ports, Atmos. Environ.
38 (24) (2004) 4057–4067, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2004.03.055.
[18] IMO, 1st May 2022, http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Navigation/Pages
/AIS.aspx.
[19] SPIRE, 1st May 2022, https://spire.com/.
[20] D. Toscano, F. Murena, F. Quaranta, L. Mocerino, Assessment of the impact of ship
emissions on air quality based on a complete annual emission inventory using AIS
Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 6 (2022) 100263
data for the port of Naples, Ocean Eng. 232 (2021), 109166, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.OCEANENG.2021.109166.
[21] E.E.E.A. EMEP, EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook, European
Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2019.
[22] http://www.ghgprotocol. org/files/ghgp/tools/Global-Warming-Potential-Values.
pdf accessed 1st May 2022.
[23] Port Authority of Naples, Port of Naples Development Plan. Passenger and Freight
Trend Estimation, 2012.
[24] Port Authority of Salerno, Technical-functional Adaptation of the Commercial Port
of Salerno, Study of environmental impact, 2013.
[25] ISPRA, Database of Average Road Transport Emission Factors in Italy, 2020.
[26] Emisia, COPERT, 2020, 1st May 2022, https://www.emisia.com/utilities/copert/.
[27] ACI, Province of Naples and Salerno Vehicular Fleet Composition, vol. 2019, 2020.
[28] A.R.P.A. Lombardy, Air Emissions Inventory for Italy, 2012.
[29] ISPRA, 2019, 1st May 2022, https://www.isprambiente.gov.it/files2019/pubblica
zioni/rapporti/R_303_19_gas_serra_settore_elettrico.pdf.
[30] S. Azarkamand, G. Ferré, R.M. Darbra, Calculating the carbon footprint in ports by
using a standardized tool, Sci. Total Environ. 734 (2020), 139407.
[31] ISPRA, 1st May 2022, http://www.sinanet.isprambiente.it/it/sia-ispra/serie-stori
che-emissioni/fattori-di-emissione-per-le-sorgenti-di-combustione-stazionarie-in-it
alia/view, 2020.
[32] Port of Genova, 1st May 2022, https://www.portsofgenoa.com/components/com
_publiccompetitions/includes/.
[33] Porti Alto Tirreno, 2021, 1st May 2022, https://www.portialtotirreno.it/wp-cont
ent/uploads/2021/10/DEASP.pdf.
[34] Assoporti, 2019, 1st May 2022, http://www.assoporti.
it/media/6858/deasp-adsp-mare-adriatico-sett Nord.pdf.