the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Four-dimensional aircraft emission inventory dataset of Landing and takeoff cycle in China (2019–2023)
Abstract. The rapid growth of the aviation industry has resulted in aircraft emissions during landing and takeoff (LTO), which have direct and increasingly adverse impacts on air quality and human health. An accurate and high-resolution LTO emission inventory is crucial for investigating these adverse effects, with the LTO emission having unique three-dimensional spatial characteristics and typical hourly temporal variations. This study integrated the emission calculation and flight trajectory recognition methods to establish a four-dimensional aircraft emission inventory dataset of China’s LTO cycle (4D-LTO emission inventory dataset) from 2019 to 2023. The dataset has a high spatial-temporal resolution (hourly, 0.03° × 0.03° × 34 height layers) and incorporates calculation emissions accurately. Moreover, the actual taxi out/in time for each flight was determined by a statistical model of taxi time and some aircraft in schedule based on 38,000,000 flights. Each flight’s climb/approach time was also obtained based on mixing layer height (MLH) and the height-time nonlinear relationship. Additionally, we calculated the LTO emission for China’s flight, establishing the hourly emission inventory based on each mode’s running time, emission index, and fuel flow. We obtained the flight trajectory core of each airport based on measured flight trajectories and the Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) to depict the spatial distribution. Then, each flight’s takeoff/landing direction and trajectory were identified from the wind direction and relative departure/arrival airport position. The findings indicate that the impact of COVID-19 has reduced the LTO number in 2020–2022 to 73.1 %, 77.6 %, and 48.7 % of 2019 levels, respectively. However, by 2023, the LTO number has rapidly bounced back to 95.3 % of 2019 levels. The recovery rate during daytime (6:00–23:00) was 41.6 % higher than night-time (0:00–5:00). The emissions of various pollutants were measured as follows: HC, CO, NOx, PM, and SO2 are 3.2 Gg, 46.1 Gg, 62.3 Gg, 1.1 Gg and 18.4 Gg. LTO emissions’ horizontal characteristic is the distance along the runway and spread. This elongated distribution will be hidden if a rough grid (e.g., 0.36°×0.36°) and the emissions are evenly distributed. Moreover, LTO emissions height characteristic ‘decreases with height,’ and the maximum height varies with MLH. Emissions above the standard height set by the International Civil Aviation Organization standard height (~915 m) are not estimated. For example, NOx emissions above 915 m during various months make up an average of 24.6 % (9.9 %–37.5 %) in the LTO cycle, indicating the emissions are significantly underestimated when using the ICAO method. Compared with conventional spatial allocation methods, our dataset provides a more accurate representation of the actual LTO situation in both horizontal and height at different times. Our 4D-LTO emission inventory dataset and its adaptable methodology are valuable resources for researching temporal and spatial variations, air quality, and health impacts of aircraft emissions in the LTO cycle. The dataset can be accessed from https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13908440 (Lang et al., 2024).
- Preprint
(3131 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-494', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Dec 2024
Comments to the Author
The aircraft engine emissions have important impacts on air quality in and around airports and the potential exposure of nearby residential populations. The impact study of aircraft emission relies on the detailed and accurate emission information. This paper provides a detailed information about four-dimensional aircraft emission for landing and takeoff cycle from 2019 to 2023 based on the flight time and trajectory information. It could provide useful basis to further study of the environmental impacts. Overall, this MS is well-structured and is appropriate for the scope of the Earth System Science Data journal. There are several necessary revisions should be made before the manuscript could be considered for publication acceptance.
- Introduction: It should be stated how much China aircraft emissions contributes to global aircraft emissions. This provides a general context for global implications in terms of pollution that emphasizes the importance of better estimates of the specific emissions mentioned in this study.
- What is the content of Section 2.1.2?
- Section 2.1: The time-in-mode was described in detail in emissions calculation, however, other input data such as emission factors for different flight modes (taxi, takeoff, climb, and approach) were not sourced or calculated.
- Provide a table summarizing the emission factors used for key pollutants or cite the references.
- Section 2.2: It is recommended to cite more classical literature on the application of the DBSCAN algorithm in this field.
- While the DBSCAN algorithm is referenced for flight trajectory recognition, the paper does not provide a detailed explanation of its parameters (e.g., minimum points, radius).
- Section 3: What is the basis for determining the high-resolution spatial grid (0.03° × 0.03° × 34 vertical layers)?
- Does this resolution significantly improve the representation of emissions compared to conventional models with fewer layers?
- Section 3.2: The data in this paragraph is messy to show as a list, can it be shown as a table or some other form?
- Section 4: The study area is China, and the literature of the comparative study is better supplemented with more studies of Chinese airports.
- For the result of emission during 2020-2023, while the authors compare results with previous ICAO-based methods, the statistical measures of validation (e.g., R², RMSE) are not clearly presented.
- It should be further clarified the datasets used for validation, including observational data from airports and other inventory results.
- Line 444: The results mention a rebound in emissions by 2023 to 95.3% of 2019 levels, but this observation is not broken down by pollutant or flight mode.
- Apart from NOx, other pollutants such as HC and PM are not discussed in detail, why? and what are their specific temporal and spatial patterns?
- Line 460: The emissions above 915 m account for 24.6%, what is the significance of this finding? Does this altitude range impact local air quality differently than ground-level emissions?
- Health impacts are mentioned in the introduction, but there is no specific health-related discussion in the discussion, specific pollutants such as NOx and PM2.5 are known to cause respiratory and cardiovascular issues, please add or cite references.
- The dataset is established for China, how can the methodology be applied to other regions with different aviation?
- Linking the conclusion to wider global challenges such as climate change or international emissions reduction targets for aviation will be better.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-494-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ying Zhou, 01 Mar 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-494/essd-2024-494-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2024-494', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Dec 2024
This study presents a four-dimensional aircraft emission inventory of the LTO cycle in China. The author first calculated the air pollutant emissions during the LTO cycles with the ICAO method with modeled running time and aircraft type-specified emission factors. Then flight altitude and horizontal trajectory was identified for emission allocations. The developed methods aim to construct the flight trajectories without using the ADS-B data that have limited availability. This study objective is attractive; however, the descripting of the methods lacks some critical details and the model performance is not fully evaluated. More information is needed for readers to evaluate the quality of the presented emission data.
- To calculate the flight emission, the author collected all aircraft types and proportion of engine types for each aircraft type to get a weighted EI and EF. Thus the accuracy of the engine proportion significantly affect the calculation accuracy. Are the proportion data with complete coverage and varying year by year? If not, please provides the details and add uncertainty discussion.
- The section 2.1.2 Climb and approach time calculation is missing.
- The author constructed a model to estimate the aircraft’s taxi time in order to fill the missingness in actual taxi time data; however, there lacks figures or tables to summarize the coverage and quality of actual taxi time data that were used for model fitting, making it hard to evaluate the representativeness of the model. The consistency of exponential relationship between deltaT and T0 with N in different years need to be presented by fitting the exponential relationship with each year’s data separately and comparing the fitted parameter. The R2 of deltaT and N is 0.1 for taxi in in PEK, indicating poor correlation. The fitting effect of deltaT and T0 in other airports is nor presented. A summary of the overall performance of the model is critical for readers to consider this method.
- The flight altitude was modeled following a previous study. The author should summarize this model here rather than only provide a citation.
- The AMDAR data were used to identify flight horizontal trajectory, but information on the AMDAR data is missing.
- The description of the application of DBSCAN method is not clear. What are the inputs of DBSCAN? Why the trajectory is high dimension (besides longitude, latitude, and altitude) and the dimension was set to 25?
- The performance of taxi time model is represented by PEK and the performance of trajectory cluster is represented by PVG. Why these two airports are selected? I am wondering the model performance at other airports.
- The uncertainty calculation section is full of uncertainty. How did the author calculate the distribution parameters of each terms with uncertainty and what are these parameters used in the final calculation? The uncertainty ranges were only presented at two airports with PEK shows uncertainty in emission calculation and PVG shows uncertainty in spatial distribution. What is the overall uncertainty of this emission inventory?
- Some previous studies, e.g. Teoh et al., 2024 and Zhang et al., 2022, used ADS-B data to estimate the aviation emissions at a high spatiotemporal resolution. What is the major advantage of this study compared to those previous studies? Please also compare the estimated aviation emissions to other emission inventories, e.g. EDGAR, EMEP, AERO2k et al.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-494-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ying Zhou, 01 Mar 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-494/essd-2024-494-AC2-supplement.pdf
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-494', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Dec 2024
Comments to the Author
The aircraft engine emissions have important impacts on air quality in and around airports and the potential exposure of nearby residential populations. The impact study of aircraft emission relies on the detailed and accurate emission information. This paper provides a detailed information about four-dimensional aircraft emission for landing and takeoff cycle from 2019 to 2023 based on the flight time and trajectory information. It could provide useful basis to further study of the environmental impacts. Overall, this MS is well-structured and is appropriate for the scope of the Earth System Science Data journal. There are several necessary revisions should be made before the manuscript could be considered for publication acceptance.
- Introduction: It should be stated how much China aircraft emissions contributes to global aircraft emissions. This provides a general context for global implications in terms of pollution that emphasizes the importance of better estimates of the specific emissions mentioned in this study.
- What is the content of Section 2.1.2?
- Section 2.1: The time-in-mode was described in detail in emissions calculation, however, other input data such as emission factors for different flight modes (taxi, takeoff, climb, and approach) were not sourced or calculated.
- Provide a table summarizing the emission factors used for key pollutants or cite the references.
- Section 2.2: It is recommended to cite more classical literature on the application of the DBSCAN algorithm in this field.
- While the DBSCAN algorithm is referenced for flight trajectory recognition, the paper does not provide a detailed explanation of its parameters (e.g., minimum points, radius).
- Section 3: What is the basis for determining the high-resolution spatial grid (0.03° × 0.03° × 34 vertical layers)?
- Does this resolution significantly improve the representation of emissions compared to conventional models with fewer layers?
- Section 3.2: The data in this paragraph is messy to show as a list, can it be shown as a table or some other form?
- Section 4: The study area is China, and the literature of the comparative study is better supplemented with more studies of Chinese airports.
- For the result of emission during 2020-2023, while the authors compare results with previous ICAO-based methods, the statistical measures of validation (e.g., R², RMSE) are not clearly presented.
- It should be further clarified the datasets used for validation, including observational data from airports and other inventory results.
- Line 444: The results mention a rebound in emissions by 2023 to 95.3% of 2019 levels, but this observation is not broken down by pollutant or flight mode.
- Apart from NOx, other pollutants such as HC and PM are not discussed in detail, why? and what are their specific temporal and spatial patterns?
- Line 460: The emissions above 915 m account for 24.6%, what is the significance of this finding? Does this altitude range impact local air quality differently than ground-level emissions?
- Health impacts are mentioned in the introduction, but there is no specific health-related discussion in the discussion, specific pollutants such as NOx and PM2.5 are known to cause respiratory and cardiovascular issues, please add or cite references.
- The dataset is established for China, how can the methodology be applied to other regions with different aviation?
- Linking the conclusion to wider global challenges such as climate change or international emissions reduction targets for aviation will be better.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-494-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ying Zhou, 01 Mar 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-494/essd-2024-494-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2024-494', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Dec 2024
This study presents a four-dimensional aircraft emission inventory of the LTO cycle in China. The author first calculated the air pollutant emissions during the LTO cycles with the ICAO method with modeled running time and aircraft type-specified emission factors. Then flight altitude and horizontal trajectory was identified for emission allocations. The developed methods aim to construct the flight trajectories without using the ADS-B data that have limited availability. This study objective is attractive; however, the descripting of the methods lacks some critical details and the model performance is not fully evaluated. More information is needed for readers to evaluate the quality of the presented emission data.
- To calculate the flight emission, the author collected all aircraft types and proportion of engine types for each aircraft type to get a weighted EI and EF. Thus the accuracy of the engine proportion significantly affect the calculation accuracy. Are the proportion data with complete coverage and varying year by year? If not, please provides the details and add uncertainty discussion.
- The section 2.1.2 Climb and approach time calculation is missing.
- The author constructed a model to estimate the aircraft’s taxi time in order to fill the missingness in actual taxi time data; however, there lacks figures or tables to summarize the coverage and quality of actual taxi time data that were used for model fitting, making it hard to evaluate the representativeness of the model. The consistency of exponential relationship between deltaT and T0 with N in different years need to be presented by fitting the exponential relationship with each year’s data separately and comparing the fitted parameter. The R2 of deltaT and N is 0.1 for taxi in in PEK, indicating poor correlation. The fitting effect of deltaT and T0 in other airports is nor presented. A summary of the overall performance of the model is critical for readers to consider this method.
- The flight altitude was modeled following a previous study. The author should summarize this model here rather than only provide a citation.
- The AMDAR data were used to identify flight horizontal trajectory, but information on the AMDAR data is missing.
- The description of the application of DBSCAN method is not clear. What are the inputs of DBSCAN? Why the trajectory is high dimension (besides longitude, latitude, and altitude) and the dimension was set to 25?
- The performance of taxi time model is represented by PEK and the performance of trajectory cluster is represented by PVG. Why these two airports are selected? I am wondering the model performance at other airports.
- The uncertainty calculation section is full of uncertainty. How did the author calculate the distribution parameters of each terms with uncertainty and what are these parameters used in the final calculation? The uncertainty ranges were only presented at two airports with PEK shows uncertainty in emission calculation and PVG shows uncertainty in spatial distribution. What is the overall uncertainty of this emission inventory?
- Some previous studies, e.g. Teoh et al., 2024 and Zhang et al., 2022, used ADS-B data to estimate the aviation emissions at a high spatiotemporal resolution. What is the major advantage of this study compared to those previous studies? Please also compare the estimated aviation emissions to other emission inventories, e.g. EDGAR, EMEP, AERO2k et al.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-494-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ying Zhou, 01 Mar 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-494/essd-2024-494-AC2-supplement.pdf
Data sets
Four-dimensional aircraft emission inventory dataset of Landing and take-off cycle in China from 2019 to 2023 JianLei Lang et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13908440
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
345 | 52 | 20 | 417 | 21 | 24 |
- HTML: 345
- PDF: 52
- XML: 20
- Total: 417
- BibTeX: 21
- EndNote: 24
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1