meta data for this page
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
sector:waste:biological_treatment_solid_waste_disposal:start [2021/01/25 12:48] – [Methodolgy] <sub></sub> gniffke | sector:waste:biological_treatment_solid_waste_disposal:start [2021/01/25 14:01] – schiller | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
- | In category 5.A, NMVOC and PM< | + | In category |
In the period since 1990 (and previously, to some extent), a number of legal provisions have been issued pertaining to Germany' | In the period since 1990 (and previously, to some extent), a number of legal provisions have been issued pertaining to Germany' | ||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
===== Methodolgy ===== | ===== Methodolgy ===== | ||
- | For the estimation of NMVOC, Germany decided against the proposed EF of the EMEP/EEA Guidebook 2016, but instead for the Tier 1 approach of the US-EPA which is also reproduced there (Part B, 5.A, chap. 3.2.2, p. 5; [1]). According to national experts in the field, the approach of the US-EPA is more likely to produce better data, because the ratio between NMVOC (1.3 %) and CH< | + | For the estimation of NMVOC, Germany decided against the proposed EF of the EMEP/EEA Guidebook 2016, but instead for the Tier 1 approach of the US-EPA which is also reproduced there (Part B, 5.A, chap. 3.2.2, p. 5; ((EMEP/EEA, 2016: EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2016, Copenhagen, 2016))). According to national experts in the field, the approach of the US-EPA is more likely to produce better data, because the ratio between NMVOC (1.3 %) and CH< |
Emissions for PM< | Emissions for PM< |