Improving the Quality of HM Emission Inventories

Expert estimates for Heavy Metals from the ESPREME Project

TFEIP - Thessaloniki Oct 2006

Background

ProjectEstimation of willingness-to-pay to reduce risks of exposure to heavy metals and cost-benefit analysis for reducing heavy metals occurrence in Europe (ESPREME), co-ordinated by IER, University of Stuttgart

http://espreme.ier.uni-stuttgart.de

WorkshopTFEIP & ESPREME Workshop Heavy Metals and POPs - Emissions, Inventories and ProjectionsRovaniemi/Finland, Oct 18/19, 2005

A ‘Special Section’ within Atmos. Env. has been proposed, 5 papers submitted

PaperEuropean Emission Inventories of Heavy Metals for Modelling – a Critical ReviewStefan Reis, Jozef M. Pacyna, Oleg Travnikov, Elisabeth Pacyna, Thomas Pregger,Heiko Pfeiffer, Rainer Friedrich

Submitted to Atmos. Env. in Sep 2006

Scope

Analyzing differences between ESPREME emission data and officiallyreported datasets

Emissions of As, Cd, Cr, Ni, and Pb Emissions of Hg

Improved spatial and temporal resolution of heavy metal emissions

Atmospheric dispersion modelling of heavy metals Wind re-suspension of heavy metals (MSC-East) Evaluation of HM modelling results based on official and ESPREME emission data Summary and Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Emissions of As, Cd, Cr, Ni, and Pb (I)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

As Cd Cr Ni

EMEP Official (with gap filling)

ESPREME

Analyzing differences between ESPREME emission data and officially reported datasets

Cd • largest difference between official and expert

emissions (a factor of more than 2) for totals. • official Cd emissions from fuel combustion in

utility boilers, industrial furnaces and residentialand commercial units seem to be

underestimated by a factor of more than 3. • official data for Cd emissions are most likely

incomplete with respect to the inclusion of all important sources of these emissions

Cr • official data sets seem to be underestimated by

a factor ranging from 1.4 to 1.9 depending on source category

• Low emission factors for fuel combustion and iron and steel production, and

• missing sources within the category other sources main reasons for this underestimation

Emissions of As and Ni seem to be generally underestimated in the official datasets by factorsranging from 1.1 to 1.9 in different countries.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

EM

EP

ES

PR

EM

E

EM

EP

ES

PR

EM

E

EM

EP

ES

PR

EM

E

EM

EP

ES

PR

EM

E

EM

EP

ES

PR

EM

E

As Cd Cr Ni Pb

% s

hare

of to

tal e

mis

sions

Gasoline combustion

Cement production and othersources

Waste disposal

Iron and steel production

Non-ferrous metals

Fossil fuel combustion to produceheat and electricity

Emissions of As, Cd, Cr, Ni, and Pb (II)

Pb Italy 2000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

EMEP official ESPREME

Mg

Waste disposal

Gasoline combustion in mobilesources

Industrial combustion andprocesses

Combustion in commercial boilersand other sources

Analyzing differences between ESPREME emission data and officially reported datasets

Pb• analysis indicated for some countries a fair agreement between expert estimates and official

submissions• other countries report zero emissions e.g. from gasoline combustion in road transport• > 50% of the anthropogenic emissions of Pb in Europe in 2000 from the combustion of gasoline• exemplary analysis for two large countries illustrates the scope of the problem

Pb UK 2000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

EMEP official UK NAEI ESPREME

Mg

Waste disposal

Gasoline combustion inmobile sources

Industrial processes

Power plants, commercial,residential and industrialcombustion

Emissions of As, Cd, Cr, Ni, and Pb (III)

Analyzing differences between ESPREME emission data and officially reported datasets

Pb Hypothesis: Error due to the perception of ‘unleaded’ gasoline?

• this type of gasoline is defined as the gasoline without lead additives (!)• however, there is lead as an impurity in the gasoline due to the lead content of crude oil.• wide range of assumptions regarding Pb content of gasoline (~0-1mg/l@ – 10-15 mg/l*) • future (heavier) crude oils to be exploited with higher trace metal content

Playing with numbers:• Pb content in unleaded gasoline: 15 mg/l.

• 75% of Pb in gasoline is emitted tothe atmosphere during combustion process

• implied EF = 11.25 mg/l, resulting in336 t/a for the UK from gasoline

vehicles

• at Pb content of only 5 mg/l #

annual emissions of 150 t/a for the UK

• in the case of Italy, between ~240-540 t/a from gasoline vehicles

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

United Kingdom

Netherlands

Italy

Greece

Germany

# limit value according to the Directive 2003/17/EC on the quality of fuels@ UKPIA/NAEI, pers. comm.* Pacyna et al., CCC 2002

How much of the decline in Pb emissions is real?How will this evolve in the longer term future?(diesel? ships?)

Selected countries based EMEP MSC-East figures

Emissions of Hg

Analyzing differences between ESPREME emission data and officially reported datasets

Species of Hg by sector

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

C

oa

l co

mb

ust

ion

: P

ow

er

Pla

nts

C

oa

l co

mb

ust

ion

:R

esi

de

ntia

l an

d c

om

me

rcia

l

Oil

com

bu

stio

n

Ce

me

nt p

rod

uct

ion

No

n-f

err

ou

s m

eta

ls: L

ea

d

No

n-f

err

ou

s m

eta

ls: Z

inc

Iro

n &

ste

el p

rod

uct

ion

Ca

ust

ic s

od

a

Wa

ste

Oth

er

sou

rce

s

Mg

Hg0Hg 2+Hg part

• Hg emission data received from national authorities have then been checked by ESPREME emission experts for completeness and comparability

• completeness of data regarded mainly the inclusion of all major source categories which may emit mercury to the atmosphere.

• no major omissions have been detected in the reported data; all major source categories in all countries reporting the emission data were included.

• in the majority of the cases, emission factors estimated on the basis of national emission data reported to the project were within the range of emission factors proposed in the EIGB.

• Hg0: elemental mercury, 146 t (61%)

• Hg2+: gaseous divalent mercury, 76 t (32%)

• Hgpart: of Hg on particles, 17 t (7%)

Hg speciation/profiles need a detailed sectoral resolution of emissions.

Improving the Spatial Resolution

Analyzing differences between ESPREME emission data and officially reported datasets

• creating maps for the 50x50 km grid based on detailed sectoral distribution factors, road networks,land-use data, point source information

• assigning source sectors to low, medium and high (<50, 50-150 and >150 m effective emission height)

Ni

As Cd

Cr Hg0

Hg Hg2+

Hgpart

ConclusionsSignificant uncertainties in current officially reported HM inventories

due to missing sources (e.g. Pb from gasoline combustion, re-suspension)

reported emissions of Hg seem to be more robust than those of other metals

main problem for validation and verification is the completeness in reporting, lacking a consistent dataset without gaps (need to use ‘expert estimates’ for modelling)

‘gap’ between bottom-up calculation of expert estimates and often only aggregated inventory ‘sectors’

Improved spatial and temporal resolution of heavy metal emissions applying improved methods to distribute sectoral emissions, including distinct

source groups with assigned emission heights provides a better spatial representation

information on stack heights and other parameters for Large Point Sources in particular would further improve this

further advances in integrating temperature profiles and other meteorologicalparameters into the emission distribution can help to improve the temporal representation

Lessons learnedWhat is needed to conduct in-depth assessments?

Detailed sectoral (SNAP 3 / NRF-2 L2) inventory submissions & methods used to compile these

Additional information on major source groups (activity rates, up-to-date EF, control equipment)

Harmonisation between national and other projections of future activities/technologies

Better/more detailed scenario descriptions

What is missing? Current sectoral reporting structure does not provide sufficient detail, e.g. for the energy sector

1A1, 1A2 (lacking information on fuel types, technology, size) - except for some productionprocesses (2Ax)

LPS data reported e.g. to EPER/EPRTR could include basic parameters (height, T, …) For some source groups, general lack of information (e.g. residential combustion, wood

combustion), some results available, but further measurements needed (?) With major emission sources being reduced, the small fractions may make the difference,

where knowledge about EFs is limited or non-existent (measurements/analysis needed).

Acknowledgements

The main part of the work was financed under the EC 6th Framework Programme within the ESPREME project.

Discussions in the frame of a workshop co-organized by ESPREME and the UNECE Task Force Emission Inventories and Projections (TFEIP) on Heavy Metals and POPs in Rovaniemi in October 2005 have greatly contributed to the scientific discussions around this work.

http://espreme.ier.uni-stuttgart.de