Aviation-related aerosol emissions contribute to the formation of contrail cirrus clouds that can alter upper tropospheric radiation and water budgets, and therefore climate1. The magnitude of air-traffic-related aerosol–cloud interactions and the ways in which these interactions might change in the future remain uncertain1. Modelling studies of the present and future effects of aviation on climate require detailed information about the number of aerosol particles emitted per kilogram of fuel burned and the microphysical properties of those aerosols that are relevant for cloud formation2. However, previous observational data at cruise altitudes are sparse for engines burning conventional fuels2,3, and no data have previously been reported for biofuel use in-flight. Here we report observations from research aircraft that sampled the exhaust of engines onboard a NASA DC‐8 aircraft as they burned conventional Jet A fuel and a 50:50 (by volume) blend of Jet A fuel and a biofuel derived from Camelina oil. We show that, compared to using conventional fuels, biofuel blending reduces particle number and mass emissions immediately behind the aircraft by 50 to 70 per cent. Our observations quantify the impact of biofuel blending on aerosol emissions at cruise conditions and provide key microphysical parameters, which will be useful to assess the potential of biofuel use in aviation as a viable strategy to mitigate climate change.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds et al.) Ch. 7 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013)

  2. 2.

    , , , & The microphysical pathway to contrail formation. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres 120, 7893–7927 (2015)

  3. 3.

    The importance of contrail ice formation for mitigating the climate impact of aviation. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres 121, 3497–3505 (2016)

  4. 4.

    & Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus. Nat. Clim. Chang. 1, 54–58 (2011)

  5. 5.

    et al. Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: aviation. Atmos. Environ. 44, 4678–4734 (2010)

  6. 6.

    et al. Impact of Aviation on Climate: FAA’s Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) Phase II. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 97, 561–583 (2016)

  7. 7.

    & The climate impact of aviation aerosols. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 2785–2789 (2013)

  8. 8.

    , , & Aviation effects on already-existing cirrus clouds. Nat. Commun. 7, 12016 (2016)

  9. 9.

    Aviation biofuels: a roadmap towards more carbon-neutral skies. Biofuels 1, 519–521 (2010)

  10. 10.

    , & Sustainability of supply or the planet: a review of potential drop-in alternative aviation fuels. Energy Environ. Sci. 3, 17–27 (2010)

  11. 11.

    , & Aviation industry’s quest for a sustainable fuel: considerations of scale and modal opportunity carbon benefit. Biofuels 2, 33–58 (2011)

  12. 12.

    Fuel options for next-generation chemical propulsion. AIAA J. 50, 19–36 (2012)

  13. 13.

    Fuel options: the ideal biofuel. Nature 474, S9–S11 (2011)

  14. 14.

    et al. Emissions characteristics of a turbine engine and research combustor burning a Fischer–Tropsch jet fuel. Energy Fuels 21, 2615–2626 (2007)

  15. 15.

    , & Comparison of PM emissions from a commercial jet engine burning conventional, biomass, and Fischer–Tropsch fuels. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 10744–10749 (2011)

  16. 16.

    et al. Influence of jet fuel composition on aircraft engine emissions: a synthesis of aerosol emissions data from the NASA APEX, AAFEX, and ACCESS missions. Energy Fuels 29, 2591–2600 (2015)

  17. 17.

    et al. In situ observations of particles in jet aircraft exhaust and contrails for different sulfur-containing fuels. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres 101, 6853–6869 (1996)

  18. 18.

    et al. Airborne observations of aircraft aerosol emissions I: total nonvolatile particle emission indices. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 1689–1692 (1998)

  19. 19.

    et al. Ultrafine aerosol particles in aircraft plumes: in situ observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 2789–2792 (1998)

  20. 20.

    & Subsonic aircraft: contrail and cloud effects special study (SUCCESS). Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 1109–1112 (1998)

  21. 21.

    , , & In situ observations and model calculations of black carbon emission by aircraft at cruise altitude. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres 104, 22171–22181 (1999)

  22. 22.

    et al. Influence of fuel sulfur on the composition of aircraft exhaust plumes: the experiments SULFUR 1–7. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres 107, ACC 2-1–ACC 2-27 (2002)

  23. 23.

    et al. Ultrafine particle size distributions measured in aircraft exhaust plumes. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres 105, 26555–26567 (2000)

  24. 24.

    & Observations of black carbon mass emission indices of a jet engine. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 29, 355–356 (1998)

  25. 25.

    , , & An algorithm to estimate aircraft cruise black carbon emissions for use in developing a cruise emissions inventory. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 63, 367–375 (2013)

  26. 26.

    , , & Global civil aviation black carbon emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 10397–10404 (2013)

  27. 27.

    Properties of young contrails – a parametrisation based on large-eddy simulations. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16, 2059–2082 (2016)

  28. 28.

    , & Contrail ice particles in aircraft wakes and their climatic importance. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 2867–2872 (2013)

  29. 29.

    et al. Aircraft type influence on contrail properties. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 11965–11984 (2013)

  30. 30.

    Persistent contrails and contrail cirrus. Part II: full lifetime behavior. J. Atmos. Sci. 71, 4420–4438 (2014)

  31. 31.

    et al. Overview on the aircraft particle emissions experiment (APEX). J. Propuls. Power 23, 898–905 (2007)

  32. 32.

    et al.Alternative Aviation Fuel Experiment (AAFEX). Report No. NASA/TM-2011-217059 (NASA, 2011)

  33. 33.

    et al. Reductions in aircraft particulate emissions due to the use of Fischer–Tropsch fuels. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 14, 11–23 (2014)

  34. 34.

    et al. Chemical properties of aircraft engine particulate exhaust emissions. J. Propuls. Power 25, 1121–1137 (2009)

  35. 35.

    The Technology Behind the CFM56-2 Turbofan Engine (accessed 11 May 2016)

  36. 36.

    European Advanced Biofuels Flight Path Initiative (accessed 22 July 2016)

  37. 37.

    Agriculture and Aviation: Partners in Prosperity (US Department of Agriculture, 2012)

  38. 38.

    Aviation Outlook (International Civil Aviation Organization, 2010)

  39. 39.

    Annual Energy Outlook 2016: Petroleum and Other Liquids Supply and Disposition (US Energy Information Administration, 2016)

  40. 40.

    & Properties, characteristics, and combustion performance of Sasol fully synthetic jet fuel. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 131, 041502 (2009)

  41. 41.

    et al. Chemical, thermal stability, seal swell, and emissions studies of alternative jet fuels. Energy Fuels 25, 955–966 (2011)

  42. 42.

    , , & Effects of aromatic type and concentration in Fischer–Tropsch fuel on emissions production and material compatibility. Energy Fuels 22, 2411–2418 (2008)

  43. 43.

    ASTM International. ASTM D1655: Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels (2016)

  44. 44.

    ASTM International. ASTM D7566: Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons (2016)

  45. 45.

    et al. In-situ observations of young contrails: overview and selected results from the CONCERT campaign. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 9039–9056 (2010)

  46. 46.

    et al. Mapping the operation of the Miniature Combustion Aerosol Standard (Mini-CAST) soot generator. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 48, 467–479 (2014)

  47. 47.

    & Light absorption by carbonaceous particles: an investigative review. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 40, 27–67 (2006)

  48. 48.

    Correction of the calibration of the 3-wavelength Particle Soot Absorption Photometer (3λ PSAP). Aerosol Sci. Technol. 44, 706–712 (2010)

  49. 49.

    , & Particle Loss Calculator – a new software tool for the assessment of the performance of aerosol inlet systems. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2, 479–494 (2009)

Download references


We thank the flight crew of the NASA DC-8 and DLR Falcon, W. Ringelberg, D. Fedors, T. Asher, M. Berry, B. Elit, T. Sandon, P. Weber, R. Welser, S. Kaufmann, T. Klausner, A. Reiter, A. Roiger, R. Schlage and U. Schumann for providing meteorological forecasts, and B. Kärcher and P. Le Clercq for discussions. This work was supported by the NASA Advanced Air Vehicles Program, Advanced Air Transport Technology Project, the DLR Aeronautics Research Programme, the Transport Canada Clean Transportation Initiative, and the National Research Council Canada CAAFER Project (46FA-JA12). R.H.M. was supported, in part, by a NASA Postdoctoral Program fellowship. B.W. was supported by the Helmholtz Association (grant number VH-NG-606) and by the European Research Council grant agreement number 640458. C.V. and T.J. were supported by the Helmholtz Association (grant number W2/W3-060) and the German Science Foundation (DFG grant number JU3059/1-1).

Author information


  1. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, USA

    • Richard H. Moore
    • , Kenneth L. Thornhill
    • , Brian Beaton
    • , Andreas J. Beyersdorf
    • , John Barrick
    • , Chelsea A. Corr
    • , Ewan Crosbie
    • , Robert Martin
    • , Dean Riddick
    • , Michael Shook
    • , Gregory Slover
    • , Robert White
    • , Edward Winstead
    • , Richard Yasky
    • , Luke D. Ziemba
    •  & Bruce E. Anderson
  2. Science Systems and Applications, Incorporated (SSAI), Hampton, Virginia, USA

    • Kenneth L. Thornhill
    • , John Barrick
    • , Michael Shook
    •  & Edward Winstead
  3. Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany

    • Bernadett Weinzierl
    • , Daniel Sauer
    • , Eugenio D’Ascoli
    • , Jin Kim
    • , Michael Lichtenstern
    • , Monika Scheibe
    • , Tina Jurkat
    • , Christiane Voigt
    •  & Hans Schlager
  4. University of Vienna, Wien, Austria

    • Bernadett Weinzierl
  5. Ludwig Maximillians University, Munich, Germany

    • Daniel Sauer
    •  & Eugenio D’Ascoli
  6. California State University San Bernardino, San Bernardino, California, USA

    • Andreas J. Beyersdorf
  7. NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

    • Dan Bulzan
  8. Bennington College, Bennington, Vermont, USA

    • Chelsea A. Corr
  9. NASA Postdoctoral Program, Columbia, Maryland, USA

    • Ewan Crosbie
  10. Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany

    • Christiane Voigt
  11. National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    • Anthony Brown


  1. Search for Richard H. Moore in:

  2. Search for Kenneth L. Thornhill in:

  3. Search for Bernadett Weinzierl in:

  4. Search for Daniel Sauer in:

  5. Search for Eugenio D’Ascoli in:

  6. Search for Jin Kim in:

  7. Search for Michael Lichtenstern in:

  8. Search for Monika Scheibe in:

  9. Search for Brian Beaton in:

  10. Search for Andreas J. Beyersdorf in:

  11. Search for John Barrick in:

  12. Search for Dan Bulzan in:

  13. Search for Chelsea A. Corr in:

  14. Search for Ewan Crosbie in:

  15. Search for Tina Jurkat in:

  16. Search for Robert Martin in:

  17. Search for Dean Riddick in:

  18. Search for Michael Shook in:

  19. Search for Gregory Slover in:

  20. Search for Christiane Voigt in:

  21. Search for Robert White in:

  22. Search for Edward Winstead in:

  23. Search for Richard Yasky in:

  24. Search for Luke D. Ziemba in:

  25. Search for Anthony Brown in:

  26. Search for Hans Schlager in:

  27. Search for Bruce E. Anderson in:


R.H.M., B.B., G.S., R.Y., A.B., H.S. and B.E.A. designed and carried out the flight experiment; B.B., J.B., R.M., D.R. and R.W. designed and assisted with the payload integration; R.H.M., K.L.T., B.W., D.S., E.D., J.K., M.L., M.S., D.B., T.J., C.V., E.W., L.D.Z., A.B. and B.E.A. made in-flight measurements and analysed the data; R.H.M. wrote the paper. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard H. Moore.

Extended data

About this article

Publication history







By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.