Methane slip from gas fuelled ships: a comprehensive summary based on measurement data

  • Sergey UshakovEmail author
  • Dag Stenersen
  • Per Magne Einang
Review article


Strict \({\rm NO}_x\) emission regulations set for marine vessels by Tier III standard make ship owners/operators finding new efficient methods fulfilling these requirements. Utilization of LNG as main fuel at the moment is one of the most promising solutions with lean burn spark ignited (LBSI) engines and low pressure dual fuel (LPDF) ones being of primary choice. Technology provides not only low \({\rm NO}_x\) levels, but also allows to reduce operational costs due to LNG currently being a cheaper fuel. The main drawback of low-pressure gas engines is rather high levels of methane slip, especially at low loads, as a result of poor fuel utilization due to low operational fuel–air ratios. Nevertheless, there are no standards that directly regulate methane slip for marine gas engines, but the topic starts to receive more and more attention due to the concerns associated with environmental effect of methane as well as due to ship operators analyzing ship data more thoroughly revealing substantial increase in gas fuel consumption at low loads. Presented study summarizes all gas engine technologies that are available for the maritime sector considering their current status and maturity and present a comprehensive measurement data summary for the main groups, namely LBSI and LPDF engines. The measurement data pool consists of both on-board and test-bed emission data revealing an interesting moments such as possible “overtuning” of engines for low \({\rm NO}_x\) resulting in excessive levels of methane slip, importance of on-board measurements due to their more realistic nature, utilization of non-perfections, such as fixed emission weight factors for loads, and in Tier III regulations. The article also quantitatively indicates the progress in gas technology development and provides updated specific emission factors for the considered gas engine types.


Methane slip Gas engine LBSI LPDF Ship emissions Tier III Measurements 



This work was jointly financed by the Centre for Research based Innovation (SFI) Smart Maritime and the NOx Fund of Norway. The authors also would like to acknowledge Ole Thonstad for performing the actual emission measurements and Ingebright Valberg (both SINTEF Ocean) for valuable comments on the technical aspects of the article.


  1. 1.
    UNCTAD (2017) Review of maritime transport 2017. Technical report, Geneva. Accessed 4 Sept 2018
  2. 2.
    Rogelj J, den Elzen M, Höhne N, Fransen T, Fekete H, Winkler H, Schaeffer R, Sha F, Riahi K, Meinshausen M (2016) Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 ÂřC. Nature 534(7609):631–639. (ISSN 0028-0836)
  3. 3.
    Fridell E, Steen E, Peterson K (2008) Primary particles in ship emissions. Atmos Environ 42(6):1160–1168. (ISSN 13522310) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Matthias V, Bewersdorff I, Aulinger A, Quante M (2010) The contribution of ship emissions to air pollution in the North Sea regions. Environ Pollut 158(6):2241–2250. (ISSN 02697491) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tao J, Zhang L, Cao J, Zhong L, Chen D, Yang Y, Chen D, Chen L, Zhang Z, Wu Y, Xia Y, Ye S, Zhang R (2017) Source apportionment of PM 2.5 at urban and suburban areas of the Pearl River Delta region, south China–with emphasis on ship emissions. Sci Total Environ 574:1559–1570. (ISSN 00489697) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corbett JJ, Winebrake JJ, Green EH, Kasibhatla P, Eyring V, Lauer A (2007) Mortality from ship emissions: a global assessment. Environ Sci Technol 41(24):8512–8518. (ISSN 0013-936X) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yau PS, Lee SC, Cheng Y, Huang Y, Lai SC, Xu XH (2013) Contribution of ship emissions to the fine particulate in the community near an international port in Hong Kong. Atmos Res 124:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Organization IM (2013) MARPOL annex VI and NTC 2008: with guidelines for implementation. International Maritime Organization, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cullinane K, Bergqvist R (2014) Emission control areas and their impact on maritime transport. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 28:1–5. (ISSN 13619209) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ushakov S, Valland H, Nielsen JB, Hennie E (2012) Particulate emission characteristics from medium-speed marine diesel engines. In: PACIFIC 2012 international maritime conferenceGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brynolf S, Magnusson M, Fridell E, Andersson K (2014a) Compliance possibilities for the future ECA regulations through the use of abatement technologies or change of fuels. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 28:6–18. (ISSN 13619209) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brynolf S, Fridell E, Andersson K (2014) Environmental assessment of marine fuels: liquefied natural gas, liquefied biogas, methanol and bio-methanol. J Clean Prod 74:86–95. (ISSN 09596526) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DenizC Zincir B (2016) Environmental and economical assessment of alternative marine fuels. J Clean Prod 113:438–449. (ISSN 09596526) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Andersson K (2017) Energy efficiency of alternative marine fuels from a life cycle perspective. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Maritime Energy Management. World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden, 24–25 January 2017Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aesoy V, Magne Einang P, Stenersen D, Hennie E, Valberg I (2011) LNG-fuelled engines and fuel systems for medium-speed engines in maritime applications. Technical report, institutionSAE Technical Paper. Accessed 2 Oct 2018
  16. 16.
    Murakami S, Baufeld T (2013) Current status and future strategies of gas engine development. In: CIMAC congress, Shanghai, 13–16 MayGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lauer T (2016) Impact of the fuel gas quality on the efficiency of a large gas engine. In: 28th CIMAC World congressGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    IAPH PEC (2018) Existing fleet and current orderbooks. Accessed 2 Oct 2018
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Calderón M, Illing D, Veiga J (2016) Facilities for bunkering of liquefied natural gas in ports. Transp Res Procedia 14:2431–2440. (ISSN 23521465) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burel F, Taccani R, Zuliani N (2013) Improving sustainability of maritime transport through utilization of liquefied natural gas (LNG) for propulsion. Energy 57:412–420. (ISSN 03605442) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. In: Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate changeGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Demirbas A (2010) Methane gas hydrate, green energy and technology. Springer, London. (ISBN 978-1-84882-871-1)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Feist MD, Landau M, Harte E (2010) The effect of fuel composition on performance and emissions of a variety of natural gas engines. SAE Int J Fuels Lubr 3(2010-01-1476):100–117.
  25. 25.
    Semin RAB (2008) A technical review of compressed natural gas as an alternative fuel for internal combustion engines. Am J Eng Appl Sci 1(4):302–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wei L, Geng P (2016) A review on natural gas/diesel dual fuel combustion, emissions and performance. Fuel Process Technol 142:264–278. (ISSN 03783820) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cho HM, He B-Q (2007) Spark ignition natural gas engines–a review. Energy Convers Manag 48(2):608–618. (ISSN 01968904) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heywood JB (2018) Internal combustion engines fundamentals, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill Education, New York (ISBN 978-1-260-11610-6)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bourbon E (2015) Clean cities alternative fuel price report, July 2015Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eide MS, Endresen Ø (2010) Assessment of measures to reduce future CO\(_2\) emissions from shipping. Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Position paper 5, May 2010Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Curt B (2004) Others, Marine transportation of LNG. In: Intertanko Safety, Technical and Environmental Committee (ISTEC) meeting, Dubai. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nielsen JB, Stenersen D Emission factors for CH\(_4\), NO\(_X\), particulates and black carbon for domestic shipping in Norway, revision 1, Klima og forurensningsdirektoratet: MarintekGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stenersen D, Thonstad O (2017) GHG and NO\(_x\) emissions from gas fuelled engines. Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hiltner J, Loetz A, Fiveland S (2016) Unburned hydrocarbon emissions from lean burn natural gas engines–sources and solutions. In: 28th CIMAC World congressGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Disch C, Huegel P, Busch S, Kubach H, Spicher U, Pfeil J, Dirumdam B, Waldenmaier U (2013) High-speed flame chemiluminescence investigations of prechamber jets in a lean mixture large-bore natural gas engine. In: CIMAC congress, Shanghai, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Krivopolianskii V, Valberg I, Stenersen D, Ushakov S, Æsøy V (2018) Control of the combustion process and emission formation in marine gas engines. J Mar Sci Technol. (ISSN 0948-4280) Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lee Y, Park H, Kim K, Son J, Jung C (2013) Newly updated combustion system for HIMSEN gas engine H35/40G. In: CIMAC congress, ShanghaiGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ott M, Nylund I, Alder R, Hirose T, Umemoto Y, Yamada T (2016) The 2-stroke low-pressure dual-fuel technology: from concept to reality. In: 28th CIMAC World congress on combustion engineGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mathey C (2013) Valve control management–the possibility of improving gas engine performance. In: 27th CIMAC world congress, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China, pp 13–17Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Miyai H, Iwaya K, Kikusato A, Kusaka J, Daisho Y, Nakashima H, Kawaguchi Y, Mizuguchi D, Hasegawa H (2015) Numerical optimization of parameters to improve thermal efficiency of a spark-ignited natural gas engine. Technica report, SAE Institution Technical Paper. Accessed 10 Oct 2018
  41. 41.
    Karim GA (2015) Dual-fuel diesel engines. CRC Press, Boca Raton (ISBN 978-1-4987-0309-3)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kiesling C, Redtenbacher C, Kirsten M, Wimmer A, Imhof D, Berger I, Garc\(\backslash \)\(\backslash \)ia-Oliver JM (2016) Detailed assessment of an advanced wide range diesel injector for dual fuel operation of large engines. In: 28th CIMAC World congress 2016Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Redtenbacher C, Kiesling C, Malin M, Wimmer A, Pastor JV, Pinotti M (2017) Potential and limitations of dual fuel operation of high speed large engines. J Energy Resour Technol 140(3):032205. (ISSN 0195-0738) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kawase K, Okada A, Yamada T (2016) Development of the new DAIHATSU 2MW class dual-fuel engine for marine use. In: CIMAC congress, Helsinki Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hountalas DT, Kouremenos DA, Binder KB, Schwarz V, Mavropoulos GC (2003) Effect of injection pressure on the performance and exhaust emissions of a heavy duty di diesel engine. Technical report, SAE Institution Technical Paper. Accessed 10 Oct 2018
  46. 46.
    Yu L, Song E, Yang L (2016) Research on the influence of diesel injection law to combustion process of micro ignition dual fuel engine. In: CIMAC congress, Helsinki Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schlick H (2014) Potentials and challenges of gas and dual-fuel engines for marine application. In: 5th CIMAC CASCADES, Busan, South Korea, 2014Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Strödecke D (2016) Two-stroke dual-fuel technology evaluation. MTZ Ind 6(1):38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jalovaara T (1998) Reliability analysis of a gas-diesel engine’s fuel injection system, Käyttövarmuuden ja elinjaksotuoton hallinta 95Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Juliussen L, Mayer S, Kryger M (2013) The MAN ME-GI engine: from initial system considerations to implementation and performance optimization. In: CIMAC congress, Shanghai, China, 13–16 MayGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pedersen MP (2010) Two-stroke engine emission reduction technology. In: CIMAC congress 2010 BergenGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Brusick DJ (1983) Genetic and transforming activity of formaldehyde. In: Gibson JE (ed) Formaldehyde Toxicity. Hemisphere, New York, pp 72–83Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gong C, Huang W, Liu J, Wei F, Yu J, Si X, Liu F, Li Y (2018) Detection and analysis of formaldehyde and unburned methanol emissions from a direct-injection spark-ignition methanol engine. Fuel 221:188–195. (ISSN 00162361) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schinas O, Butler M (2016) Feasibility and commercial considerations of LNG-fueled ships. Ocean Eng 122:84–96. (ISSN 00298018) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bouman EA, Lindstad E, Rialland AI, Strømman AH (2017) State-of-the-art technologies, measures, and potential for reducing GHG emissions from shipping–a review. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 52:408–421. (ISSN 13619209) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Brownstein AM (2014) Renewable motor fuels: the past, the present and the uncertain future. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (ISBN 978-0-12-800970-3)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hegab A, La Rocca A, Shayler P (2017) Towards keeping diesel fuel supply and demand in balance: dual-fuelling of diesel engines with natural gas. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 70:666–697. (ISSN 13640321) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Anderson M, Salo K, Fridell E (2015) Particle- and gaseous emissions from an lng powered ship. Environ Sci Technol 49(20):12568–12575. (ISSN 0013-936X) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Thomson H, Corbett JJ, Winebrake JJ (2015) Natural gas as a marine fuel. Energy Policy 87:153–167. (ISSN 03014215) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ushakov S, Valland H, Æsøy V (2013) Combustion and emissions characteristics of fish oil fuel in a heavy-duty diesel engine. Energy Convers Manag 65:228–238. (ISSN 01968904) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    ISO 8178-1 (2006) Reciprocating internal combustion engines—Exhaust emission measurement—Part 1: Test-bed measurement of gaseous and particulate exhaust emissions. McGraw-Hill Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    I. M. O. (IMO) (2005) Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78, Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships and NOx Technical CodeGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    MAN (2015) EEDI Energy Efficiency Design Index. MAN Diesel & Turbo, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hutter R, Ritzmann J, Elbert P, Onder C (2017) Low-load limit in a diesel-ignited gas engine. Energies 10(10):1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Karim GA, Burn KS (1980) The combustion of gaseous fuels in a dual fuel engine of the compression ignition type with particular reference to cold intake temperature conditions. Technical report, SAE Institution Technical PaperGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tagai T, Gato S, Mimura T, Kurai T (2016) Development of dual fuel engine 28AHX-DF capable of FPP direct drive. In: 28 th CIMAC congress HelsinkiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers (JASNAOE) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marine TechnologyNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.SINTEF OceanTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations