Ultrafine particles in jet fuel emissions are responsible for serious health problems, study finds – GreenAir News

A study by consulting firm CE Delft on behalf of environmental group Transport & Environment (T&E) suggests that people living near busy airports are at risk of serious health problems as a result of exposure to ultrafine particles emitted by aircraft. It found that almost 52 million people, or more than 10% of Europe’s total population, live within 20 km of 32 of Europe’s busiest airports and are particularly exposed to ultrafine particles (UFP). This could be linked to the development of respiratory problems, cardiovascular problems and pregnancy problems, the study said. Extrapolating the diseases around Amsterdam Schiphol Airport to these 32 airports, the researchers estimate that UFP exposure from aviation could be linked to 280,000 cases of hypertension, 330,000 cases of diabetes and 18,000 cases of dementia. The amount of UFP emitted during flights depends largely on the composition of the jet fuel. The study estimated that using 100% hydrotreated jet fuel with very low sulfur and aromatics could reduce UFP emissions and health risks by up to 70%.

UFPs, which are smaller than 100 nanometers in diameter, or 1/1000^t the thickness of a human hair, are of particular concern because they penetrate deep into the human body and have been found in the blood, brain and placenta. Despite mounting evidence of harmful long-term health effects and mortality, T&E says the contamination remains largely under-researched and unregulated, and the study provides the first assessment of the scale of the problem caused by aviation-related UFPs.

In addition to high altitudes, where climate change-related effects such as contrails occur, UFPs from aircraft are also emitted during takeoff and landing, meaning that residents living near airports are particularly exposed, with those living within a 5km radius likely to breathe air containing an average of between 3,000 and 10,000 UFPs per cubic centimetre emitted by aircraft.

Because there is a correlation between people living near airports and lower incomes, T&E argues that the most vulnerable in society are most affected by air pollution. Although not specifically addressed in the study, airport staff working on the apron are among the most exposed to these emissions, “posing an unspecified but significant risk to their health,” the study warns.

“Can living near an airport make you sick? The tragic answer is yes,” said Carlos López de la Osa, technical manager for aviation at T&E. “Airplanes release fine particles that can be linked to lung and cardiovascular diseases. This hidden health crisis has been ignored by politicians who have put the growth of the aviation sector and business travel ahead of the health of their own citizens, often the poorest.”

T&E says there are a number of ways to address the problem: reducing air traffic at airports and limiting further expansion; switching to cleaner fuels through hydrotreating, a well-established process already used to remove sulfur from car and ship fuels; and using cleaner technologies such as sustainable aviation fuels and zero-emission aircraft. It estimates that hydrotreating fossil jet fuels, which adds hydrogen to the fuel, removing impurities and improving its composition/burning properties, could cost less than five cents per liter. Hydrotreating would have the added benefit of reducing contrails.

“It’s not often that an alarming problem affecting millions of people can be curbed, and at such low cost,” López de la Osa said. “The brutal fumes from airplanes can be drastically reduced if we clean up the fuel. The road and shipping sectors took this necessary step years ago, but the aviation world has dragged its feet.

“Reducing UFP emissions through the use of better quality aviation fuel would not only benefit people living near airports, but also the entire planet.”

The study added: “Although the costs of producing low-aromatic and low-sulfur fuels would be higher than the costs of producing conventional aviation fuels, the health and climate benefits outweigh these and other additional costs, so that economic welfare would increase when these fuels were used. Hence, there are good reasons to mandate or encourage their use.”

T&E recommends that sampling points be installed at and around EU airports to better determine UFP concentrations with a view to introducing UFP concentration targets in the next revision of the Ambient Air Quality Directive. It also calls for an EU aviation fuel standard with progressive reductions in aromatics and sulphur, “preparing the ecosystem for 0-aromatic, 0-sulphur SAF”.

Photo (Roger Cremers): Amsterdam Airport Schiphol