
We utilized the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard emission model, refined with adjustments for fuel flow, LTO cycle work mode time, and emission indices, to investigate the environmental footprint of airports at different altitudes. Airports categorized as high (above 5000 ft), medium (1500–5000 ft), and low (below 1500 ft) altitudes were selected to provide a comprehensive representation of the altitude spectrum. The analysis was anchored over the period spanning 2016 to 2017. Emission inventories for air pollutants and noise were computed for these airports, focusing on the LTO (Landing and Take-Off) cycle. Our findings indicated that high altitude airports exhibit the highest NOx emissions, reaching 406.4 t, whereas low altitude airports record the highest noise levels at 73.1 dB. Significant disparities in emission profiles were observed across different phases of the LTO cycle at airports of varying altitudes. Notably, during the climb phase, the types and proportion of NOx emissions at high altitude airports were as high as 71.8%, contrasting with the 45.6% at low altitude airports. Additionally, emissions of gaseous pollutants from major aircrafts, exemplified by the A320 model, escalated with altitude. Specifically, NOx emissions increased from 10.55 kg/cycle at low altitude to 20.48 kg/cycle at high altitude, and CO emissions from 10.88 kg/cycle to 22.89 kg/cycle. A robust correlation between NOx emissions and Lden was identified among airports at different altitudes, with correlation coefficients of 0.96 for low altitude, 0.97 for medium altitude, and 0.93 for high altitude airports. This study delineates the distinct characteristics of air pollutant and noise emissions from airports across altitudes, offering novel insights for the environmental assessment of airport operations.
Citation: Weizhen Tang, Jie Dai, Zhousheng Huang. Comprehensive assessment of air pollutant and noise emissions at airports across different altitudes[J]. Metascience in Aerospace, 2024, 1(3): 292-308. doi: 10.3934/mina.2024013
[1] | Cenap Özel, Habib Basbaydar, Yasar Sñzen, Erol Yilmaz, Jung Rye Lee, Choonkil Park . On Reidemeister torsion of flag manifolds of compact semisimple Lie groups. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 7562-7581. doi: 10.3934/math.2020484 |
[2] | Yunfeng Tang, Huixin Yin, Miaomiao Han . Star edge coloring of $ K_{2, t} $-free planar graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(6): 13154-13161. doi: 10.3934/math.2023664 |
[3] | Xiuhai Fei, Zhonghua Wang, Cuixian Lu, Haifang Zhang . Higher Jordan triple derivations on $ * $-type trivial extension algebras. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 6933-6950. doi: 10.3934/math.2024338 |
[4] | Gurninder S. Sandhu, Deepak Kumar . A note on derivations and Jordan ideals of prime rings. AIMS Mathematics, 2017, 2(4): 580-585. doi: 10.3934/Math.2017.4.580 |
[5] | Jung-Chao Ban, Chih-Hung Chang . Entropy dimension of shifts of finite type on free groups. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 5121-5139. doi: 10.3934/math.2020329 |
[6] | Limin Liu, Hongjin Liu . Consistent pairs of $ \mathfrak{s} $-torsion pairs in extriangulated categories with negative first extensions. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(1): 1494-1508. doi: 10.3934/math.2024073 |
[7] | Jin Cai, Shuangliang Tian, Lizhen Peng . On star and acyclic coloring of generalized lexicographic product of graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(8): 14270-14281. doi: 10.3934/math.2022786 |
[8] | Rashad Abdel-Baky, Mohamed Khalifa Saad . Some characterizations of dual curves in dual 3-space $ \mathbb{D}^{3} $. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(4): 3339-3351. doi: 10.3934/math.2021200 |
[9] | Jin Yang, Zhenzhen Wei . The optimal problems for torsional rigidity. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(5): 4597-4613. doi: 10.3934/math.2021271 |
[10] | Hui Chen . Characterizations of normal cancellative monoids. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(1): 302-318. doi: 10.3934/math.2024018 |
We utilized the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard emission model, refined with adjustments for fuel flow, LTO cycle work mode time, and emission indices, to investigate the environmental footprint of airports at different altitudes. Airports categorized as high (above 5000 ft), medium (1500–5000 ft), and low (below 1500 ft) altitudes were selected to provide a comprehensive representation of the altitude spectrum. The analysis was anchored over the period spanning 2016 to 2017. Emission inventories for air pollutants and noise were computed for these airports, focusing on the LTO (Landing and Take-Off) cycle. Our findings indicated that high altitude airports exhibit the highest NOx emissions, reaching 406.4 t, whereas low altitude airports record the highest noise levels at 73.1 dB. Significant disparities in emission profiles were observed across different phases of the LTO cycle at airports of varying altitudes. Notably, during the climb phase, the types and proportion of NOx emissions at high altitude airports were as high as 71.8%, contrasting with the 45.6% at low altitude airports. Additionally, emissions of gaseous pollutants from major aircrafts, exemplified by the A320 model, escalated with altitude. Specifically, NOx emissions increased from 10.55 kg/cycle at low altitude to 20.48 kg/cycle at high altitude, and CO emissions from 10.88 kg/cycle to 22.89 kg/cycle. A robust correlation between NOx emissions and Lden was identified among airports at different altitudes, with correlation coefficients of 0.96 for low altitude, 0.97 for medium altitude, and 0.93 for high altitude airports. This study delineates the distinct characteristics of air pollutant and noise emissions from airports across altitudes, offering novel insights for the environmental assessment of airport operations.
Consider a non trivial group A and take an element t not in A. Consider an equation,
s(t)=a1tp1a2tp2...antpn=1, |
where, ajϵA, pj = ±1 and aj≠ 1 if it appears between two cyclically adjacent t having exponents with different signs. The equation s(t)=1 is solvable over the group A if it has a solution in some group extension of A. Precisely, let G be a group containing A, if there exist an injective homomorphism, say λ:A→G, such that, g1gp1g2gp2⋯gngpn=1 in G, where gj=λ(aj) and g∈G then the equation s(t)=1 is solvable over A. A conjecture stated in [2] by Levin asserts that if A is torsion- free, then every equation over A is solvable. Bibi and Edjvet [1], using in particular results of Prishchepov [3], has shown that the conjecture is true for equations of length at most seven. Here we prove the following: Theorem: The singular equation,
s(t)=atbt−1ctdtet−1ftgt−1ht−1=1, |
of length eight is solvable over any torsion-free group.
Levin showed that any equation over a torsion-free group is solvable if the exponent sum p1+p2⋯+pn is same as length of the equation. Stallings proved that any equation of the form a1ta2t⋯amtb1t−1b2t−1⋯bnt−1=1, is solvable over torsion-free group. Klyachko showed that any equation with exponent sum ±1 is solvable over torsion free group.
All necessary definitions concerning relative presentations and pictures can be found in [4]. A relative group presentation P is a triplet <A,t|r> where A is a group, t is disjoint from A and r is a set of cyclically reduced words in A∗<t>. If the relative presentation P is orientable and aspherical then the natural homomorphism A→G is injective. P is orientable and aspherical implies s(t)=1 is solvable. We use weighttest to establish asphericity. The star graph Γ of a relative presentation P=<A,t|r> is a directed graph with vertex set {t,t−1} and edges set r∗, the set of all cyclic permutations of elements of {r,r−1} which begin with t or t−1. S∈r∗ write S=Tαj where αj∈A and T begins and ends with t or t−1. The initial function i(S) is the inverse of last symbol of T and terminal function τ(S) is the first symbol of T. The labeling function on the edges is defined by π(S)=αj and is extended to paths in the usual way. A weight function θ on the star graph Γ is a real valued function given to the edges of Γ. If d is an edge of Γ, then θ(d) = θ(ˉd). A weight function θ is aspherical if the following three conditions are satisfied:
(1) Let R ϵr be cyclically reduced word, say R=tϵ11a1...tϵnnan, where ϵi = ±1 and ai∈ A. Then,
n∑ι=1(1−θ(tϵιιaι...tϵnnantϵ11a1...tϵι−1ι−1aι−1))≥2. |
(2) Each admissible cycle in Γ has weight at least 2.
(3) Each edge of Γ has a non-negative weight.
The relative presentation P is aspherical if Γ admits an aspherical weight function. For convenience we write s(t)=1 as,
s(t)=atbt−1ctdtet−1ftgt−1ht−1=1, |
where a,b,c,e,f,g∈A/{1} and d,h∈A. Moreover, by applying the transformation y=td, if necessary, it can be assumed without any loss that d=1 in A.
(1) Since c(2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3) = 0, so at least 3 admissible cycles must be of order 2.
(2) ac and ac−1 implies c2 = 1, a contradiction.
(3) af and af−1 implies f2 = 1, a contradiction.
(4) be and be−1 implies e2 = 1, a contradiction.
(5) bg and bg−1 implies g2 = 1, a contradiction.
(6) If two of ac, af and cf−1 are admissible then so is the third.
(7) If two of ac−1, af−1 and cf−1 are admissible then so is the third.
(8) If two of ac,cf and af−1 are admissible then so is the third.
(9) If two of ac−1, af and cf are admissible then so is the third.
(10) If two of be,eg, bg−1 are admissible then so is the third.
(11) If two of be−1, eg and bg are admissible then so is the third.
(1) a=c−1,b=e−1
(2) a=c−1,b=g−1
(3) a=c−1,e=g−1
(4) a=c−1,d=h−1
(5) a=c−1,b=e
(6) a=c−1,b=g
(7) a=c,b=g−1
(8) a=c,e=g−1
(9) a=c,d=h−1
(10) a=c,b=e
(11) a=c,b=g
(12) a=c,e=g
(13) a=f−1,b=g−1
(14) a=f−1,d=h−1
(15) a=f−1,b=g
(16) c=f−1,b=e−1
(17) c=f−1,b=g−1
(18) c=f−1,d=h−1
(19) c=f−1,b=e
(20) c=f−1,b=g
(21) c=f−1,e=g
(22) a=f,d=h−1
(23) a=f,b=e
(24) a=f,b=g
(25) c=f,b=g−1
(26) c=f,e=g−1
(27) c=f,d=h−1
(28) c=f,b=e
(29) b=e,d=h−1
(30) a=c−1,a=f−1,d=h−1
(31) a=c−1,a=f−1,c=f
(32) a=c−1,a=f,c=f−1
(33) a=c−1,c=f−1,d=h−1
(34) a=c−1,c=f,d=h−1
(35) a=c,a=f,c=f
(36) a=c,a=f−1,c=f−1
(37) a=f−1,c=f−1,d=h−1
(38) a=f−1,c=f,d=h−1
(39) a=f,c=f−1,d=h−1
(40) a=f,c=f,d=h−1
(41) b=e−1,b=g−1,d=h−1
(42) b=e−1,b=g−1,e=g
(43) b=e,b=g−1,e=g−1
(44) b=e−1,b=g,e=g−1
(45) b=e−1,b=g,d=h−1
(46) b=g−1,e=g−1,d=h−1
(47) b=g−1,e=g,d=h−1
(48) b=g,e=g−1,d=h−1
(49) b=g,e=g,d=h−1
(50) a=c−1,a=f,c=f−1,d=h−1
(51) a=c−1,a=f−1,c=f,d=h−1
(52) a=c−1,b=e,b=g−1,d=h−1
(53) a=c,a=f−1,c=f−1,d=h−1
(54) a=c,a=f,c=f,d=h−1
(55) b=e−1,b=g−1,e=g,d=h−1
(56) a=c−1,b=e,b=g−1,e=g−1,d=h−1
(57) a=c,a=f,c=f,b=e−1,d=h−1
(58) a=c,a=f,c=f,b=e,d=h−1
(59) c=f,b=e,b=g−1,e=g−1,d=h−1
(60) a=c,a=f−1,c=f−1,b=e−1,b=g−1,d=h−1
(61) a=c,a=f,c=f,b=e−1,b=g−1,d=h−1
(62) a=f−1,c=f,b=e−1,b=g,e=g−1,d=h−1
(63) a=f,c=f−1,b=e,b=g−1,e=g−1,d=h−1
(64) a=f,c=f−1,b=e−1,b=g,e=g−1,d=h−1
(65) a=c−1,a=f,c=f−1,b=e,b=g−1,e=g−1,d=h−1
(66) a=c−1,a=f−1,c=f,b=e−1,b=g,e=g−1,d=h−1
(67) a=c,a=f,c=f,b=e−1,b=g,e=g−1,d=h−1
Recall that P=<A,t|s(t)>=1 where s(t)=atbt−1ctdtet−1ftgt−1ht−1=1 and a,b,c,e,f,g∈A/{1} and d,h∈A. We will show that some cases of the given equation are solvable by applying the weight test. Also the transformation y=td, leads to the assumption that d=1 in A.
In this case the relative presentation P is given as :
P=<A,t|s(t)=atbt−1ctdtet−1ftgt−1ht−1>
= <A,t|s(t)=c−1te−1t−1ct2et−1ftgt−1ht−1=1>.
Suppose, x=tet−1 which implies that x−1=te−1t−1.
Using above substitutions in relative presentation we have new presentation
Q=<A,t,x|t−1c−1x−1ctxftgt−1h=1=x−1tet−1>. Observe that in new presentation Q we have two relators R1=t−1c−1x−1ctxftgt−1h and R2=x−1tet−1. The star graph Γ1 for new presentation Q is given by the Figure 1.
Let γ1↔c−1,γ2↔c,γ3↔1,γ4↔f,γ5↔g,γ6↔h and η1↔1,η2↔e,η3↔1.
Assign weights to the edges of the star graph Γ1 as follows:
θ(γ1)=θ(γ2)=θ(η2)=1 and θ(γ3)=θ(γ4)=θ(γ5)=θ(γ5)=θ(γ6)=θ(η1)=θ(η3)=12. The given weight function θ is aspherical and all three conditions of weight test are satisfied.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(1+1+12+12+12)+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+1+0)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contraction. For example, γ3γ6η1 is a cycle of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies h=1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1atbt−1a−1t2et−1ftb−1t−1h and R2=ta−1t−1. The star graph Γ2 for new presentation Q is given by the Figure 1.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(0+1+1+12+1+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+1+1)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example γ6γ3η1 is a cycle of length 2, having weight less than 2, which implies h=1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=xbx−1tg−1t−1ftgt−1h and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ2 for new presentation Q is given by the Figure 1.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(0+1+1+12+1+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+1+0)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ5η3γ1η3 is a cycles of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies b=g−1, a contradiction.
(3) Each admissible cycle has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=xbx−1et−1ftg and R2=t−1a−1t2. The star graph Γ3 for the relative presentation is given by the Figure 1.
(1) Observe that ∑(1−θ(γj))=4−(0+1+12+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=4−(0+12+1+12)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=xbx−1tbt−1ftgt−1ht−1 and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ4 for the relative presentation is given by the Figure 1.
(1) Observe that ∑(1−θ(γj))=7−(0+1+1+1+12+12+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+12+1+12)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ5η3γ1η3 is a cycle of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies g=b−1 a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1axa−1t2et−1fxh and R2=x−1tb−1t−1. The star graph Γ5 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 2.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(12+1+12+1+12+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+12+0)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ6γ3η3 is a cycle of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies h=1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight,
In this case we have two relators R1=xg−1xtet−1ftgt−1h and R2=x−1t−1ct. The star graph Γ6 for the relative presentation is given by the Figure 2.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(32+12+1+12+12+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+1+0)=2
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction, For example, the cycle γ1η1η3, γ6η1η3γ2 and γ6η1η3γ1 are the cycles of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies g=1, h=1 and h=g, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=xht−1atbt−1atx−1f and R2=x−1tgt−1. The star graph Γ7 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 2.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(12+1+1+1+12+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+12+0)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For Example η2γ5γ1 is a cycle of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies g=h−1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1xbxtet−1ftg and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ8 for the relative presentation is given by the Figure 2.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(12+32+0+12+12+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+1+0)=2.
(2) Each edge having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ2η1η3 is a cycle of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies b=1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1axatxftgt−1h and R2=x−1tb−1t−1. The star graph Γ9 for the relative presentation is given by the Figure 3.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(1+12+12+12+1+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+12+12)=2.
(2) Each edge having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ6γ5η1 is a cycles of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies that h=1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1axat2et−1fxh and R2=x−1tgt−1. The star graph Γ10 for the relative presentation is given by the Figure 3.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(12+1+12+1+12+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+12+0)=2.
(2) Each edge having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ6γ3η3 is a cycles of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies that h=1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1ctbt−1axfx−1th and R2=x−1t2et−1. The star graph Γ11 for the relative presentation is given by the Figure 3.
(1) Observe that ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(1+12+0+12+1+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=4−(1+0+12+12)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=xbt−1ct2ex−1b−1t−1h and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ12 for the relative presentation is given by the Figure 3.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(12+12+0+1+1+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+1+0)=2.
(2) Each edge having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ6γ3η1 is a cycles of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies that h=1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1xbt−1ct2exg and R2=x−1t−1ft. The star graph Γ13 for the relative presentation is given by the Figure 4.
(1) ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(12+12+1+1+1+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+12+12)=2.
(2) Each edge having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ6γ4γ1 amd γ6γ5η1η3 are the cycles of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies g=1 and g=e−1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=xbt−1ct2ex−1bt−1h and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ13 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 4.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(12+1+1+12+1+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+12+12)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ6η1γ3 is a cycle of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies h=1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1ac−1tx−1ctxgt−1h and R2=x−1tb−1t−1c−1t. The star graph Γ14 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 4.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(1+12+1+1+12+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=4−(0+1+12+12)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ6η1γ4 is a cycles of length 2, having weight less than 2, which implies h=1 a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1axtex−1h and R2=x−1tbt−1ct. The star graph Γ15 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 4.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=4−(1+0+1+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=4−(1+0+0+1)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ4η4γ2γ1 is a cycle of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies h=1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−2atbx−1texg and R2=x−1t−1et−1c−1t. The star graph Γ16 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 4.
(1) ∑(1−θ(γj))=4−(1+1+12+12+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=4−(12+12+12+12)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1atbxtbx−1gt−1h and R2=x−1t−1ct. The star graph Γ17 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 5.
(1) ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(1+12+1+12+1+12+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+12+0)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ6η3γ3 is a cycle of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies h=1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1axct2et−1c−1tbt−1h and R2=x−1tbt−1. The star graph Γ18 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 5.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(12+1+12+1+12+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+12+0)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ6γ3η3 is a cycle of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies h=1 a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1atbxtex−1et−1h and R2=x−1t−1ct. The star graph Γ19 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 5.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(12+1+12+1+12+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+1+0)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ6η3γ3 is a cycle of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies h=1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1xbt−1ct2exg and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ20 for the Q relative presentation is given by the Figure 5.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(1+12+1+1+0+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+12+12)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1axctxatget−1h and R2=x−1tbt−1.
The star graph Γ21 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 6.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(12+12+1+12+12+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+12+12)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ6γ3η1, is a cycle of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies h=1 a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=xct2exh and R2=x−1t−1atbt−1. The star graph Γ22 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 6.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=4−(12+12+12+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=4−(12+12+12+12)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ23η1 is a cycle of length 2, having weight less than 2, which implies e2=1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1atg−1xtexgt−1h and R2=x−1t−1ft>. The star graph Γ23 for the relative presentation is given by the Figure 6.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(1+12+12+12+1+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+12+0)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ6η3γ3 is a cycle of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies h=1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1atbxtexe−1t−1h and R2=x−1t−1ct. The star graph Γ23 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 6.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(1+12+12+12+1+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+12+0)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ6η3γ3 has weight less than 2, which implies h=1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−2atbxtexg and R2=x−1t−1ct. The star graph Γ24 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 6.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(1+12+1+1+12+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+1+0)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight at least 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1axt−1cxctgt−1h and R2=x−1t2bt−1. The star graph Γ25 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 7.
(1) ∑(1−θ(γj))=4−(12+12+12+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=4−(12+12+12+12)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=xcta−1t2xftg and R2=x−1t−2atbt−1. The star graph Γ26 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 7.
(1) ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(1+12+1+12+12+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=5−(12+1+12+12+12)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1xbx−1tex−1g and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ27 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 7.
(1) ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(1+0+1+1+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+0+1)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1axctx−1fte−1t−1h and R2=x−1tbt−1. The star graph Γ27 for the new presentation Q is given by the Figure 7.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(1+0+1+1+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+0+1)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=xbx−1tex−1gt−1h and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ27 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 7.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(0+1+1+0+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+0+1)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative watch.
In this case we have two relators: R1=xbx−1tet−1c−1tgt−1h and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ28 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 7.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(0+1+1+1+12+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+12+12)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contrdiction. For example, γ5η3γ1 is a cycle of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies g=b−1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1xbx−1texg and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ29 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 8.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(1+0+1+0+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+0+1)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1xbx−1tex−1g and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ30 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 8.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(1+0+1+1+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+0+1)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=xbxtexgt−1h and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ31 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 8.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(1+0+12+12+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+0+12)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=xbxtex−1gt−1h and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ32 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 8.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(0+1+0+1+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(1+0+0)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1xbxtex−1g and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ33 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 9.
(1) Observe that ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(1+1+0+12+12)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+0+12)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1xbt−1ct2ex−1g and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ38 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 9.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(1+12+1+1+12+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+12+12)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ2γ−16η1η3γ5 is the cycle of length 2 having weight less than 2, which leads to a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1xbx−1texg and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ35 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 9.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(0+1+1+1+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(1+0+0)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1xbx−1tbxb−1 and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ35 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 9.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(1+0+1+0+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+0+1)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1xbxtexg and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ36 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 9.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(0+1+1+1+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(1+0+0)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1axctx−1fx−1 and R2=x−1tbt−1. The star graph Γ37 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 10.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(12+12+1+1+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+12+0)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1axctx−1fx−1h and R2=x−1tbt−1. The star graph Γ37 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 9.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(12+12+1+1+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+0+12)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1axctxfx−1h and R2=x−1tbt−1. The star graph Γ38 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 10.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(0+1+1+0+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+0+1)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2, so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1axctx−1fte−1t−1h and R2=x−1tbt−1. The star graph Γ39 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 10.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(12+1+0+12+1+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+12+0)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example, γ5η1η3 is the cycle of length 2 having weight less than 2, which implies h=1, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1axctx−1fx and R2=x−1tbt−1. The star graph Γ40 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 10.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(12+1+0+12+1+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+12+0)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=|t−1axctxfx−1 and R2=x−1tbt−1. The star graph Γ41 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 11.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(12+1+0+12+1+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+12+0)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1axa−1txfx−1 and R2=x−1tbt−1. The star graph Γ41 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 11.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(0+1+1+0+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+0+1)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=x−1t−1axctx−1f and R2=x−1tbt−1. The star graph Γ42 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 11.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(0+12+12+1+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+0+12)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=xatbt−1cx−1f and R2=x−1tbt−2. The star graph Γ43 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 11.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(12+1+0+12+1+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+12+0)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=xt−1axctxf and R2=x−1tbt−1. The star graph Γ44 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 11.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(12+12+12+12+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+0+12)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=xbx−1etxg and R2=x−1t−2c−1t. The star graph Γ45 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 12.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=4−(0+1+1+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=4−(1+0+0+1)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1xbxtex−1g and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ46 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 12.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(1+1+0+0+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(1+0+0)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1xbxtexg and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ47 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 12.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(1+1+0+1+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(1+0+0)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=x−1t−1axctx−1f and R2=x−1tbt−1. The star graph Γ48 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 12.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(0+0+1+1+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+0+0)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=xc−1x−1tcx−1f and R2=x−1tb−1t−2. The star graph Γ49 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 13.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=4−(0+1+1+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=4−(1+0+0+1)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1xbxtb−1xg and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ50 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 13.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(12+1+12+1+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+0+12=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example γ2η1γ−15 is a cycle of length 2 having weight less than 2 which implies b=g, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=|t−1xbxtbxg and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ50 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 12.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(12+1+12+1+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+0+12)=2.
(2) Each admissible cycle having weight less than 2 leads to a contradiction. For example γ2η1γ−15 is a cycle of length 2 having weight less than 2 which implies b=g, a contradiction.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=x−1t−1axctxc and R2=x−1tbt−1. The star graph Γ51 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 13.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(1+0+0+1+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+0+1)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=xat−1x−1atxta−1 and R2=x−1tbt−1t−2. The star graph Γ52 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 13.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(0+1+0+1+1+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=4−(0+0+1+1)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1xbxtb−1xb−1 and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ53 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 14.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(12+1+12+1+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(12+0+12)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=xbt−1x−1bxtb−1tb−1 and R2=x−1t−1a−1tbt−1. The star graph Γ54 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 14.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=6−(12+1+0+1+12+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=4−(1+0+0+1)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1axa−1txax−1 and R2=x−1tbt−1. The star graph Γ55 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 14.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(0+1+1+0+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+0+1)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1xbx−1tb−1xb and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ56 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 14.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(1+0+1+0+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+0+1)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1xbx−1tb−1x−1b and R2=x−1t−1at. The star graph Γ57 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 14.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(1+0+1+1+0)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(0+0+1)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In this case we have two relators R1=t−1axatx−1ax and R2=x−1tbt−1. The star graph Γ58 for the relative presentation Q is given by the Figure 15.
(1) Observe that, ∑(1−θ(γj))=5−(1+0+1+0+1)=2 and ∑(1−θ(ηj))=3−(1+0+0)=2.
(2) Each possible admissible cycle has weight atleast 2 so θ admits an aspherical weight function.
(3) Each edge has non-negative weight.
In all the cases, 3 conditions of weight test are satisfied.
Hence the equation s(t)=atbt−1ctdtet−1ftgt−1ht−1=1 where a,b,c,e,f,g∈A/{1} and d,h∈A is solvable.
In this article, we reviewed some basic concepts of combinatorial group theory (like torsion-free group, equations over groups, relative presentation, weight test) and discussed the two main conjectures in equations over torsion-free groups. We investigated all possible cases and solved the singular equation of length eight over torsion free group by using weight test. This result will be useful in dealing with equations over torsion-free groups.
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Prince Sultan University for facilitating the publication of this article through the Theoretical and Applied Sciences Lab.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] |
Dessens O, Kohler M O, Rogers H L, et al. (2014) Aviation and climate change. Transport Policy 34: 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.02.014 doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.02.014
![]() |
[2] |
Chu YP (2013) Impacts of aircraft exhaust emissions on air quality in the vicinity of Shanghai Pudong International Airport. Environ Monit Early Warning 5: 50–52+56. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-6732.2013.04.016 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-6732.2013.04.016
![]() |
[3] |
Stettler ME, Eastham S, Barrett SRH (2011) Air quality and public health impacts of UK airports. part l: Emissions. Atmos Environ 45: 5415–5424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.07.012 doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.07.012
![]() |
[4] |
Wilcox LJ, Shine KP, Hoskins BJ (2012) Radiative forcing due to aviation water vapour emissions. Atmos Environ 63: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.08.072 doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.08.072
![]() |
[5] |
Meister J, Schalcher S, Wunderli JM, et al. (2021) Comparison of the aircraft noise calculation programs sonAIR, FLULA2 and AEDT with noise measurements of single flights. Aerospace 8: 388. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8120388 doi: 10.3390/aerospace8120388
![]() |
[6] |
Ollerhead J, Sharp B (2001) MAGENTA-Assessments of Future Aircraft Noise Policy Options. Aair Space Europe 3: 247–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1290-0958(01)90108-X doi: 10.1016/S1290-0958(01)90108-X
![]() |
[7] |
Mato RR, Mufuruki TS (1999) Noise Pollution Associated with the Operation of the Dar Es Salaam International Airport. Transport Res D-Tr E 4: 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(98)00024-8 doi: 10.1016/S1361-9209(98)00024-8
![]() |
[8] |
Xia Q (2012) Aircraft Engine Emission Impact Assessment of Airports on the Atmospheric Environment. Nanjing U Aeronaut Astronaut. https://doi.org/10.7666/d.y1855019 doi: 10.7666/d.y1855019
![]() |
[9] |
Hudda N, Fruin SA (2015) International airport impacts to air quality: size and related properties of large increases in ultrafine particle number concentrations. Environ Sci Technol 50: 3362–3370. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05313 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05313
![]() |
[10] | Kampa M, Castanas E (2008) Human health effects of air pollution. Environ Pollut 151: 362–367. |
[11] |
Wasiuk DK, Khan MAH, Shallcross DE, et al. (2016) A commercial aircraft fuel burn and emissions inventory for 2005–2011. Atmosphere 7: 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos7060078 doi: 10.3390/atmos7060078
![]() |
[12] |
Cao HL, Miao JH, Miao LY, et al. (2019) Study on the estimation method of daily emission inventory of aircraft engines at the capital airport based on actual flight data. J Environ Sci 39: 2699–2707. https://doi.org/10.13671/j.hjkxxb.2019.0048 doi: 10.13671/j.hjkxxb.2019.0048
![]() |
[13] |
Li J, Zhao ZQ, Liu XK, et al. (2018) Computational analysis of aircraft emission inventory at Capital International Airport. China Environ Sci 38: 4469–4475. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-6923.2018.12.009 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6923.2018.12.009
![]() |
[14] |
Xu R, Lang JB, Yang XW, et al. (2016) Establishment of an aircraft emission inventory at the Capital International Airport. China Environ Sci 36: 2554–2560. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-6923.2016.08.038 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6923.2016.08.038
![]() |
[15] |
Xu R, Lang JB, Cheng SY, et al. (2017) Inventory of mobile source air pollutant emissions at the Capital International Airport. J Safety Environ 17: 1957–1962. https://doi.org/10.13637/j.issn.1009-6094.2017.05.065 doi: 10.13637/j.issn.1009-6094.2017.05.065
![]() |
[16] |
Wang YN, Sun NX, Feng JH, et al. (2023) Emissions from Beijing Daxing International Airport and their environmental impacts and predictions. J Environ Sci 43: 153–165. https://doi.org/10.13671/j.hjkxxb.2022.0426 doi: 10.13671/j.hjkxxb.2022.0426
![]() |
[17] |
Li N, Sun Y, Gao Z (2019) Computational analysis of aircraft emission inventory at Pudong International Airport. Aviat Comput Technol 49: 15–19. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-654X.2019.03.004 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-654X.2019.03.004
![]() |
[18] |
Huang QF, Chen GN, Hu DX, et al. (2014) Analysis of air pollutant emissions from aircraft at Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport. Environ Monit Manage Technol 26: 57–59. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-2009.2014.03.022 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-2009.2014.03.022
![]() |
[19] |
Wang RL, Cheng H, Ren HJ, et al. (2018) Inventory of air pollutant emissions from the takeoff and landing (LTO) cycle of civil aircraft in the Yangtze River Delta region. J Environ Sci 38: 4472–4479. https://doi.org/10.13671/j.hjkxxb.2018.0262 doi: 10.13671/j.hjkxxb.2018.0262
![]() |
[20] |
Han B, Kong WK, Yao TW, et al. (2020) Inventory of air pollutant emissions from aircraft LTO in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei airport cluster. Environ Sci 41: 1143–1150. https://doi.org/10.13227/j.hjkx.201908199 doi: 10.13227/j.hjkx.201908199
![]() |
[21] |
Du YY (2022) Prediction and prevention of aircraft noise pollution at Tianjin airport based on INM model. Noise Vib Control 42: 186–190. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-1355.2022.02.031 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-1355.2022.02.031
![]() |
[22] |
Cheng DL, Yi CJ, Liang ZF (2005) Research on aircraft noise and countermeasures. Noise Vib Control 25: 47–51. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-1355.2005.05.016 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-1355.2005.05.016
![]() |
[23] |
Mato RR, Mufuruki TS (1999) Noise Pollution Associated with the Operation of the Dar Es Salaam International Airport. Transport Environ 4: 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(98)00024-8 doi: 10.1016/S1361-9209(98)00024-8
![]() |
[24] | International Civil Aviation Organization. 2014. ICAO Environmental Report 2013. International Civil Aviation Organization. |
[25] |
Wei C, Diao HZ, Han B (2014) Calculation of pollutant emissions from civil aircraft during cruise phase. Science. Technol Eng 14: 122–127. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-1815.2014.19.023 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-1815.2014.19.023
![]() |
[26] | The Environment Branch of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). (2014). ICAO Environmental Report 2013. International Civil Aviation Organization. |
[27] |
Chandrasekaran N, Guha A (2012) Study of prediction methods for NOx emission from turbofan engines. J Propuls Power 28: 170–180. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.B34245 doi: 10.2514/1.B34245
![]() |
[28] |
Huang MY, Hu R, Zhang JF, et al. (2020) Calculation and analysis of aircraft exhaust emissions based on fast access logger data. Science. Technol Eng 20: 13502–13507. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-1815.2020.32.060 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-1815.2020.32.060
![]() |
[29] | Kalivoda MT, Monika K (1998) Methodologies for estimating emissions from air trafficc: future emissions [R]. MEET Project ST-96-SC, 204, Vienna, Austria: Perchtoldsdorf-Vienna, 46–53. |
[30] | ISO 20906. 2009. Acoustics-unattended monitoring of aircraft sound in the vicinity of airports. |
[31] | Directive EU (2002) Directive 2002/49/EC of the European parliament and the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise. Off J Eur Commun L 189: 2002. |
[32] | Federal Aviation Administration (1983) Noise control and compatibility planning for airports. Advisory circular AC150-5020-1. |
[33] |
Cao XY, Liu Q, Liu Z, et al. (2022) Assessment of pollutant emissions from the LTO cycle of Chinese civil aviation aircraft. Environ Sci Technol 45: 116–124. https://link.cnki.net/doi/10.19672/j.cnki.1003-6504.2303.21.338 doi: 10.19672/j.cnki.1003-6504.2303.21.338
![]() |
[34] | Wu ZB (2017) Research on fuel ignition characteristics and combustion enhancement in high altitude environment. University of Science and Technology of China. |
[35] |
Dai SP, Jia XH, Ding SJ, et al. (2024) Experimental study on the combustion characteristics of small-scale oil pool fire in restricted space in plateau. Fire Sci Technol 43: 161–167. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-0029.2024.02.004 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-0029.2024.02.004
![]() |
[36] |
Liu QY, Zhu WT, Zhu B, et al. (2021) Study on combustion characteristics of combustible liquids under high plateau airport environment. Fire Sci Technol 40: 613–616. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-0029.2021.05.003 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-0029.2021.05.003
![]() |