4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

European emissions of atmospheric mercury from anthropogenic sources in 1995

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Volume 35, Issue 17, Pages 2987-2996

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00102-9

Keywords

atmospheric omission; anthropogenic sources; mercury and its species

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Estimates of atmospheric emissions of mercury from anthropogenic sources in Europe in 1995 are presented with the information on emissions of both total mercury and its major chemical and physical forms. The 1995 anthropogenic emissions of total emissions were estimated to be about 342 tonnes, a decrease of 45% compared to these emissions in 1990. Combustion of fuels, particularly coal has been the major source of anthropogenic emissions contributing to more than half to the total emissions. The emissions from coal combustion have not changed significantly over the past decade. Major decrease has been estimated for emissions from industrial processes, particularly the chlor-alkali production using the Hg cell process. In 1995 the Europe emissions of anthropogenic mercury contributed about 13% to the global emissions of this element from anthropogenic sources. The anthropogenic Hg emissions in Europe were still higher than the natural emissions in the region, estimated to be about 250-300 tonnes per year. The accuracy of estimates of anthropogenic emissions of Hg in Europe in 1995 is considered to be between 25 and 50%. The most accurate seem to be the estimates for combustion sources, while the most incomplete data were collected and/or estimated for waste disposal. The emissions of gaseous elemental mercury contributed about 61% to the emissions of the total mercury, while the contribution of gaseous bivalent mercury and particulate mercury was 32 and 7%, respectively. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available