Using mini sniffers for compliance monitoring

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Using mini sniffers for compliance monitoring"

James Nicholson
5 years ago
Views:

1 COMPMON CONFERENCE, BRUSSELS, DECEMBER 2016 Using mini sniffers for compliance monitoring Technology Review Jon Knudsen, CEO

INTRODUCTION Explicit at a glance COMPANY PARTNERS

Expertise in chemical engineering, data acquisition and

for airborne environmental monitoring TECHNOLOGY APPROACH

applications for UAVs Intelligent flight and sampling

interchangeable technologies INNOVATION OBJECTIVE To change

2 INTRODUCTION Explicit at a glance COMPANY PARTNERS Engineering company founded in 1998 Owned by management. Expertise in chemical engineering, data acquisition and software design Last 4-5 years focused on (UAV) payloads for airborne environmental monitoring TECHNOLOGY APPROACH Small, light-weight sensor payloads Non-imagery based applications for UAVs Intelligent flight and sampling Modern, cloud-based platforms Flexible design, interchangeable technologies INNOVATION OBJECTIVE To change the cost structure of air sampling To create new knowledge about air pollution and emission risks 2

3 THE OUR PROBLEM APPROACH One sniffer unit multiple airborne platforms Explicit mini sniffer unit If we can get close enough and navigate intelligently; mini sniffers can determine compliance. Sniffer box for helicopter mount Payload for UAV/RPAS integration 3

ROTTERDAM AIRBORNE CAMPAIGN SEPTEMBER 2016 Validating mini sniffers in Dutch Waters CAMPAIGN Joint partnership: Technology, authority and industry 7 days 42 flight hours 2 missions daily

helicopter carrying arm Dual sniffer setup (independent A and B samples) Smart flight guidance in plume, cloud-based analysis RESULTS 327 ships measured (cruising and anchored) Accuracy

4 ROTTERDAM AIRBORNE CAMPAIGN SEPTEMBER 2016 Validating mini sniffers in Dutch Waters CAMPAIGN Joint partnership: Technology, authority and industry 7 days 42 flight hours 2 missions daily Objectives: To scale-test and validate Explicit mini sniffer system To document compliance behaviour in Dutch waters TECHNOLOGY APPROACH Small, light-weight mini sniffer payload mounted on a helicopter carrying arm Dual sniffer setup (independent A and B samples) Smart flight guidance in plume, cloud-based analysis RESULTS 327 ships measured (cruising and anchored) Accuracy validated against vessel fuel samples and scrubber CEMS Consistently high quality output (+90%). Non-compliance detectable already at 0.13% sulphur (1 x RSD) and 0.16% sulphur (2 x RSD) PARTNERS: 4

TECHNOLOGY REVIEW Explicit mini sniffer system

integration 2 independent mini sniffer units (CO

pre-calibrated, certificate of calibration by

analysis output (both A and B sensor units)

5 TECHNOLOGY REVIEW Explicit mini sniffer system HARDWARE 100% standalone system no aircraft integration 2 independent mini sniffer units (CO 2, SO 2, NO, NO 2, temp, humidity) Units pre-calibrated, certificate of calibration by FORCE Technology EASA-approved design for dovetail mount SOFTWARE Real-time plume navigation ( smart flight ) Consolidated data analysis output (both A and B sensor units) Quality scoring based on gas concentration thresholds and time spent in plume (1-10) 5

to 15 ships measured / hour Measurable plumes: 300 operational radius around vessel High (score >=6): 91.

6 TECHNOLOGY REVIEW Quality and operation OPERATIONS QUALITY 0-25 knots winds All vessels successfully targeted: Big/small Cruising/anchored Harbour exit/open sea With/without scrubber Up to 200 km from shore Up to 15 ships measured / hour Measurable plumes: 300 operational radius around vessel High (score >=6): 91.4% Medium (score 3-5): 1.8% Low (score 0-2): 6.7% Quality score depends on gas concentrations, time in plume 91 % 7 % 2 % 6

7 7 Source: MUMM thank you! 7

8 Detechtor dual sensor sulphur % TECHNOLOGY REVIEW Comparatives and post-flight results COMPARATIVES 60 comparatives in total 12 vessel comparative measurements: 6 against fuel samples (Mærsk) 6 against scrubber CEMS (DFDS) Vessel comparatives verified blind by third-party sources. Max deviance: 0.03 % FSC. R 2 = direct comparative measurements against MUMM: Max time stamp difference: 7 minutes. Max deviance 0.05 % FSC. POST-FLIGHT LAB TESTS REGRESSION 0,12 0,1 0,08 0,06 0,04 Compare Vessel - Sulphur % y = 0,9306x R² = 0,8439 Cross-sensitivity re-evaluated and verified Drift test comparison show hardly any trace of wear Lab tests lead to revised RSDs = significant improvement on system uncertainty Review of in-cabin measurements show no SO 2, NO 2, CO 2 exposure risk to crew 0, ,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 Vessel fuel sulphur % Source: FORCE Technology 8

9 Estimation of measurement uncertainty for ratio SO 2 /CO 2 monitored by means of Explicit s Detechtor sensor system Karsten Fuglsang FORCE Technology

10 Procedure Data for precision of measurement collected by: Lab test 2014: Repeated, known mixtures of SO 2, CO 2, NO 2, NO and H 2 O in N 2 and in synthetic air. Improved performance in 2016 detector system: Temperature correction algorithm implemented. Peak areas used for ratio calculations (instead of peak heights). New prototype version of SO 2 and NO 2 sensors used. Lab test 2016: Repeated, known mixtures of SO 2 and NO 2 (cross interference test repeated with pulsed concentrations). Concentration range 0,5 1,1 ppm

11 Assessment of precision from lab tests

12 Assessment of precision from lab tests SO2 (low and high) SO2 (low) + NO2 (low and high) SO2 (high) + NO2 (low and high) Measured SO2 response corr. Measured SO2 for Measured SO2 response corr. for interference response interference from from NO2 (area per NO2 (area per second per (area per second second per ppm) per ppm) ppm) Avg. det Avg. det Avg. det Conc. Conc. Pulse Conc. Conc. Pulse Conc. SO2 Conc. NO2 Pulse time SO2 NO2 time SO2 NO2 time (ppm) (ppm) (sec) dimensionless (ppm) (ppm) (sec) dimensionless (ppm) (ppm) (sec) dimensionless 0,50 0, ,07E-05 0,51 0, ,37E-06 1,83 0, ,69E-06 0,50 0, ,08E-05 0,51 0, ,80E-06 1,83 0, ,54E-06 0,50 0, ,08E-05 0,51 0, ,00E-05 1,83 0, ,67E-06 Average 1,08E-05 Average 9,74E-06 Average 9,30E-06 STDEV 1,00E-07 STDEV 3,40E-07 STDEV 5,33E-07 2RSD (95% CI) 1,9% 2RSD (95% CI) 7,0% 2RSD (95% CI) 11,5% 1,81 0, ,16E-06 0,51 1, ,62E-06 1,86 1, ,15E-06 1,81 0, ,03E-05 0,51 1, ,53E-06 1,86 1, ,25E-06 1,81 0, ,03E-05 0,51 1, ,85E-06 1,86 1, ,19E-06 Average 9,91E-06 Average 9,67E-06 Average 9,19E-06 STDEV 6,49E-07 STDEV 1,67E-07 STDEV 4,96E-08 2RSD (95% CI) 13,1% 2RSD (95% CI) 3,5% 2RSD (95% CI) 1,1%

13 Assessment of accuracy (bias) SO2 in N2 SO2 and NO2 in N2 Effect of cross interference from NO2 on SO2 Pulse time SO2 added Meas SO2 in N2 "True" (avg. of sensor ) (a) NO2 added Meas SO2 in N2 after cross interference corr. (avg. of sensor ) (b) "Bias": Deviation between meas conc.: Pure SO2 - SO2 plus NO2 Sec ppm peak area per second per ppm ppm peak area per second per ppm Avg. det (a - b)/a *100 % 30 0,50 1,07E-05 0,50 9,37E-06 12% 60 0,50 1,08E-05 0,50 9,80E-06 9% 120 0,50 1,08E-05 0,51 1,00E-05 7% 30 0,50 1,07E-05 1,00 9,62E-06 10% 60 0,50 1,08E-05 1,00 9,53E-06 12% 120 0,50 1,08E-05 1,00 9,85E-06 9% 30 1,83 9,16E-06 0,51 8,69E-06 5% 60 1,83 1,03E-05 0,51 9,54E-06 7% 120 1,83 1,03E-05 0,51 9,67E-06 6% 30 1,81 9,16E-06 1,03 9,15E-06 0% 60 1,81 1,03E-05 1,03 9,25E-06 10% 120 1,81 1,03E-05 1,03 9,19E-06 11%

14 Test in 2016: Revised uncertainty budget r = SO 2 (corrሻ CO 2 (corr ሻ = ሻ SO 2 meas + K NO 2 (meas CO 2 meas CO 2 (backgroundሻ Gas Estimated uncertainty for single sensor system RSD (%) Typical conc. 75 m from source SO 2 20% 0,6 ppm NO 2 20% 0,7 ppm K (correction factor) 20% 1.0 CO 2 (meas) 10% 0,20 vol-% CO 2 (backgr) 10% 0,04 vol-%

15 Relative standard 66% CI (RSD) 95 CI (2RSD) Measurement uncertainty for measured ratio r (fuel type 0.1%S 3.0 %S) Uncertainty of measured ratio r = SO2(corr)/CO2(corr) Ratio based on avg. between results from parallel measurement with 2 sensor arrays 60% 50% 49% RSD (SO2(corr)/CO2(corr)) (Dual sensor) 2RSD (SO2(corr)/CO2(corr)) = 2*RSD 40% 30% 25% 30% 30% 31% 32% 33% 20% 15% 15% 16% 16% 16% 10% 0% 0.1% S 0.25 %S 0.5 %S 1.0 %S 2.0 %S 3.0 %S Sulfur content in fuel

16 Conclusion Significant improvement of precision since 2014: From ±100% to 0.1%S Improvement mainly obtained through use of: Dual sensor system. On line temperature correction. Improved, on line correction algorithm (NO 2 interference on SO 2 EC sensor). Surprisingly good performance found for a costeffective EC sensor system at low ppm levels!

CONCLUSION What we have learned so far Yes, mini sniffers can do the job!

Potential of mini sniffers: True scalability: Multiple platforms, redundant operations, low(er) costs Better legal

17 CONCLUSION What we have learned so far Yes, mini sniffers can do the job! But Intelligent plume navigation is essential to a consistently high quality output. AIS, wind and visuals are not enough! Hardware and algorithm design have a significant impact on performance, uncertainties and quality. Potential of mini sniffers: True scalability: Multiple platforms, redundant operations, low(er) costs Better legal reliance: A, B, C, D samples Reduced risk of measurement contamination Next steps: Quality standards! What constitutes a valid measurement (system)? Requirements to documentation and third-party validation. Rotterdam Campaign anonymised data application: 17

18 EXPLICIT Thank you! Jon Knudsen Insert Header Info Subtitle Here Insert Header Info Subtitle Here 18

Fixed wing airborne sulfur compliance monitoring techniques, based on Sniffer and optical technique

Fixed wing airborne sulfur compliance monitoring techniques, based on Sniffer and optical technique Johan Mellqvist, Vladimir Conde, Jörg Beecken and Johan Ekholm Department of Earth and Space Sciences