How should condensables be included in PM emission inventories reported to EMEP/CLRTAP?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Condensable primary organic aerosol emissions are a class of organic compounds that arevapour phase at stack conditions, but which undergo both condensation and evaporation processes as the stack air is cooled and diluted upon discharge into ambient air. Emission factorsmeasured in or close to the high-temperature high-concentration exhaust stack or pipe maymisrepresent, and even miss, the amount of PM or gas that actually enters the atmosphere,depending on the filters, dilution and sampling conditions of the emission measurement. Inthe current emission reporting to EMEP/CLRTAP there is no clear definition of whether condensable organics are included or not, and, if included, to what extent. In March 2020 MSC-W hosted an expert workshop on condensable organic aerosol emissions (funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers), which brought together experts in emissions, measurements, emission inventories, atmospheric chemistry, air quality models andpolicy from Europe and North America, and to create a much better understanding of theissues and possible approaches for dealing with this important class of compounds. More than 30 experts took part in the (zoom) meeting, including EMEP Chairs (EMEPSteering Body, TFIAM, TFMM, TFEIP, TFTEI), EMEP Centres (MSC-W, CEIP, CIAM),inventory developers (TNO, CIAM, COPERT, and national experts from UBA - Germany,SINTEF - Norway, IVL, ACES, Swedish EPA - Sweden, CITEPA, INERIS - France, ECCC- Canada, Univ. Patras - Greece), measurement experts (PSI - Switzerland, INERIS - France,Univ. York - England, NC State University - USA), industry (Concawe), the US EPA and theEuropean Commission. The workshop discussed a number of approaches for dealing with thisimportant class of compounds. This executive summary presents some of the key messagesfrom the workshop. Further background, addressing the technical matters in more detail canbe found in the main body of the report. The main idea of the workshop was to promote discussion among different communitiesand Task Forces that have different expertise and needs with regard to condensable organics and PM emission inventories. In order to aid these discussions, a number of importantquestions were identified: 1. For which source categories are condensable organics important? 2. What is included in official national and other emission inventories? 3. Do we expect emissions of condensable organics to be missing in these inventories? 4. Can we reliably predict the contribution of condensable vapours from major sources toambient PM using data from a smaller number of representative cases? 5. Can we recommend a practical approach for inclusion (or exclusion) of condensables in (a) emission inventories, and (b) chemical transport models? One of the ongoing major tasks for the Air Convention (CLRTAP) is the revision of the socalled ‘Gothenburg’ Protocol 1, with a final report of the review to be completed during 2022.It is important to note that for this review process, the consideration of condensables facesseveral (competing) challenges: (a) The need for emission data as soon as possible that are consistent across countries inorder to get a fair ‘optimised’ distribution of emission abatement efforts aimed at improving health and ecosystems protection targets; (b) The difficulties to change existing practices of some countries; (c) The wish of scientists to start multi-year work programs for the best possible way todefine and quantify condensable emissions and/or secondary PM formation in the atmosphere. (d) The need to assess the available options for short and longer term actions in terms ofe.g. time frame (feas
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».