meta data for this page
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
sector:agriculture:agricultural_soils:3df_agriculture_other [2023/10/25 08:44] – [Table] doering | sector:agriculture:agricultural_soils:3df_agriculture_other [2024/11/06 14:54] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ====== 3.D.f - Agriculture | + | ====== 3.D.f - Agriculture: Use of pesticides ====== |
- | ===== Country Specifics ===== | + | ==== Background |
- | ==== Background ==== | ||
{{ : | {{ : | ||
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) is one of the listed persistent organic pollutants covered by the Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants from 2009, Annex III((Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2009), United Nation: Aarhus Protocol on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, Persistent Organic Pollutants, 1998 - Amendment - (on Annexes V and VII) Decision 2009. Status In force (since Dec 13, 2010), Annex III.)), the Stockholm Convention((Stockholm Convention (2001): The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, opened for signature May 23, 2001, UN Doc. UNEP/ | Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) is one of the listed persistent organic pollutants covered by the Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants from 2009, Annex III((Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2009), United Nation: Aarhus Protocol on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, Persistent Organic Pollutants, 1998 - Amendment - (on Annexes V and VII) Decision 2009. Status In force (since Dec 13, 2010), Annex III.)), the Stockholm Convention((Stockholm Convention (2001): The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, opened for signature May 23, 2001, UN Doc. UNEP/ | ||
- | In Germany the application of HCB as a pesticide, in a pure form, has been prohibited | + | In Germany, the application of HCB as a pesticide, in a pure form, was prohibited |
- | + | ||
- | Lindane (gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane, | + | |
- | + | ||
- | DCPA (Dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate also known as Chlorthal-dimethyl or Dacthal), | + | |
- | + | ||
- | PCP (Pentachlorphenol), | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Atrazine (2-Chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-1, | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Simazine (2, | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Propazine (2, | + | |
- | Further active substances are chlorothalonil (fungicide), tefluthrin (insecticide) and picloram (herbicide). Two of these active substances | + | However, HCB can occur as an impurity in active substances |
- | //Table I, Chlorothalonil | + | * Lindane (C< |
+ | * DCPA (C< | ||
+ | * PCP (C< | ||
+ | * Atrazine | ||
+ | * Simazine | ||
+ | * Propazine (C< | ||
+ | * PCNB (C< | ||
+ | * **Chlorothalonil** (C< | ||
+ | * **Tefluthrin** (C< | ||
+ | * **Picloram** (C< | ||
- | ^ Chemical agent ^ Plant protection product | + | Only Tefluthrin and Picloram are continued to be used in approved |
- | | Chlorothalonil | + | In 2022, analyses were carried out for HCB contamination in the crop protection product Force 20 CS. HCB contamination could not be detected. Thus, it is not considered in the amount of reported HCB emissions. |
- | | ::: | Sambarin | + | |
- | | ::: | Pugil 75 WG | + | |
- | | ::: | AMISTAR Opti | 005748-00 | + | |
- | | ::: | Tattoo C | 005805-00 | + | |
- | | ::: | CREDO | + | |
- | | ::: | Simbo Extra | + | |
- | | ::: | ZAKEO Opti | 005748-61 | + | |
- | | ::: | Daconil 2787 Extra | 023138-00 | + | |
+ | __Tabel 1: Chlorothalonil: | ||
+ | ^ Plant protection product | ||
+ | | BRAVO 500 | ||
+ | | Sambarin | ||
+ | | Pugil 75 WG | ||
+ | | AMISTAR Opti | 005748-00 | ||
+ | | Tattoo C | 005805-00 | ||
+ | | CREDO | ||
+ | | Simbo Extra | ||
+ | | ZAKEO Opti | 005748-61 | ||
+ | | Daconil 2787 Extra | 023138-00 | ||
- | ^ | + | __Table 2: Picloram: Trade names, approval numbers and intended applications; |
- | | Picloram | + | ^ Plant protection product |
- | | ::: | + | | EFFIGO |
- | | ::: | + | | Barca 334 SL | 008772-00 |
- | | ::: | + | | Belkar |
- | | ::: | + | | Gajus |
- | | ::: | + | | Gala 334 SL |
- | | ::: | + | | GF-2545 |
+ | | Runway | ||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
HCB has never been contained in co-formulants of approved pesticides (communication of the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL, 2015)((BVL (2015) (Bundesamts für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit Braunschweig): | HCB has never been contained in co-formulants of approved pesticides (communication of the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL, 2015)((BVL (2015) (Bundesamts für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit Braunschweig): | ||
- | In the past, some applicants listed maximum HCB concentrations in technical active substances in certain lindane-containing substances. The concentrations given amounted to ≤ 0.1 g/kg, a level oriented to the detection limits of the analysis method used at the time. Substances conforming to that maximum concentration were approved only through 1989 or 1990 (in one case, through 1995). Obligations to report substance quantities sold did not take effect until 1998. For the other relevant active substances, the BVL has no information on HCB as an impurity. However, publications in recent years have included data from 1977 onward (BVL 2022) ((BVL 2022, “ Absatz an Pflanzenschutzmitteln in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Ergebnisse der Meldungen gemäß § 64 Pflanzenschutzgesetz für das Jahr 2017, korrig. Version von Nov 2018, Tab 3.2, https:// | + | In the past, some applicants listed maximum HCB concentrations in technical active substances in certain lindane-containing substances. The concentrations given amounted to ≤ 0.1 g/kg, a level oriented to the detection limits of the analysis method used at the time. Substances conforming to that maximum concentration were approved only through 1989 or 1990 (in one case, through 1995). |
+ | |||
+ | Obligations to report substance quantities sold did not take effect until 1998. For the other relevant active substances, the BVL has no information on HCB as an impurity. However, publications in recent years have included data from 1977 onward (BVL 2022) ((BVL 2022, “ Absatz an Pflanzenschutzmitteln in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Ergebnisse der Meldungen gemäß § 64 Pflanzenschutzgesetz für das Jahr 2017, korrig. Version von Nov 2018, Tab 3.2, https:// | ||
==== Methodology ==== | ==== Methodology ==== | ||
Line 59: | Line 61: | ||
The emissions were calculated in keeping with the method proposed in the EMEP (2019) ((EMEP (2019): EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook – 2019, EEA Report No 13/2019, https:// | The emissions were calculated in keeping with the method proposed in the EMEP (2019) ((EMEP (2019): EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook – 2019, EEA Report No 13/2019, https:// | ||
- | Epest = Σmpest_i • EFpest_i | + | <m> EM_pest |
To estimate the emission of HCB which is present as an impurity, an impurity factor (IF) has to be considered in the calculation: | To estimate the emission of HCB which is present as an impurity, an impurity factor (IF) has to be considered in the calculation: | ||
- | Epest = Σmpest_i • IFj,i • EFpest_i | + | <m> EM_pest |
+ | |||
where: | where: | ||
- | Epest = total HCB emission of active substance (in mg a-1, unit conversion | + | * EM< |
- | mpest = mass of individual active substance applied (kg a-1), | + | * m< |
- | IFj,i = impurity factor of the jth active substance in the ith active substance (mg kg-1) | + | * IF< |
- | EFpest= EF for individual active substance (volatile fraction of applied amount of the active substance). | + | * EF< |
A modeled emission factor is used for Germany (see description of Emission factors). According to the definition of the Tier 2 Approach ((Tier 2 is similar to Tier 1 but uses more specific emission factors developed on the basis of knowledge of the types of processes and specific process conditions that apply in the country for which the inventory is being developed. Tier 2 methods are more complex, will reduce the level of uncertainty, | A modeled emission factor is used for Germany (see description of Emission factors). According to the definition of the Tier 2 Approach ((Tier 2 is similar to Tier 1 but uses more specific emission factors developed on the basis of knowledge of the types of processes and specific process conditions that apply in the country for which the inventory is being developed. Tier 2 methods are more complex, will reduce the level of uncertainty, | ||
Line 79: | Line 82: | ||
As activity data, domestic sales of pesticides with the active substances chlorothalonil, | As activity data, domestic sales of pesticides with the active substances chlorothalonil, | ||
- | //Table II, Published data on domestic | + | __Table 3: Domestic |
- | ^ Year | + | ^ |
- | | 1987 | 260.2 | 0.4 | 129.1 | 2106.2 | 176.8 | | + | ^ 1987 | 260.2 | 0.4 | 129.1 | 2,106.2 | 176.8 | | 0.3 | |
- | | 1988 | 313.9 | 0.5 | 151.8 | 2074.6 | 210.5 | | + | ^ 1988 | 313.9 | 0.5 | 151.8 | 2,074.6 | 210.5 | | |
- | | 1989 | 234.9 | 0.6 | 90.6 | 1093.0 | 195.3 | | + | ^ 1989 | 234.9 | 0.6 | 90.6 | 1,093.0 | 195.3 | | |
- | | 1990 | 317.3 | - | 120.4 | 751.9 | 185.7 | | + | ^ 1990 | 317.3 | |
- | | 1991 | 417.9 | - | 127.4 | 7.3 | 7.0 | 0.16 | - | | + | ^ 1995 | 55.6 | |
- | | 1992 | 161.2 | - | 73.7 | - | 143.9 | 0.04 | - | | + | ^ 1996 | 82.5 | |
- | | 1993 | 83.4 | - | 47.0 | - | - | - | - | | + | ^ 1997 | 76.0 | |
- | | 1994 | 76.8 | - | 37.0 | - | - | - | - | | + | ^ 1998 | 16.7 | |
- | | 1995 | 55.6 | - | 26.2 | - | - | | + | ^ 1999 | 149.9 | |
- | | 1996 | 82.5 | - | 36.9 | - | - | | + | ^ 2000 | 109.3 | |
- | | 1997 | 76.0 | - | 29.0 | - | 0.8 | | + | ^ 2005 | 857.2 | |
- | | 1998 | 16.7 | - | | + | ^ 2010 | 620.7 | 1.9 | | |
- | | 1999 | 149.9 | - | | + | ^ 2015 | 886.0 | 3.5 | | |
- | | 2000 | 109.3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | + | ^ 2016 | 1,148.1 | 4.3 | | |
- | | 2001 | 19.8 | - | - | - | | + | ^ 2017 | 1,418.8 | 4.1 | | |
- | | 2002 | + | ^ 2018 | 860.8 | 3.9 | | |
- | | 2003 | 240.1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | + | ^ 2019 | 911.8 | 7.5 | | |
- | | 2004 | 39.8 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | + | ^ 2020 | 105.2 | 9.4 | | |
- | | 2005 | 857.2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | + | ^ 2021 | | 11.3 | | |
- | | 2006 | 905.0 | 2.3 | - | - | | + | ^ 2022 | | 13.0 | | | |
- | | 2007 | 741.2 | 6.8 | - | - | - | - | - | | + | |
- | | 2008 | 719.5 | 1.8 | - | - | - | - | | + | |
- | | 2009 | 525.1 | 1.6 | - | - | - | - | - | | + | |
- | | 2010 | 620.7 | | + | |
- | | 2011 | 649.2 | 3.7 | - | - | - | - | - | | + | |
- | | 2012 | 518.1 | 6.1 | - | - | - | - | | + | |
- | | 2013 | 565.4 | 3.7 | - | - | - | - | - | | + | |
- | | 2014 | | + | |
- | | 2015 | 886.0 | 3.5 | | + | |
- | | 2016 | 1148.1 | 4.3 | | + | |
- | | 2017 | 1418.8 | 4.1 | | + | |
- | | 2018 | 860.8 | 3.9 | | + | |
- | | 2019 | 911.8 | 7.5 | | + | |
- | | 2020 | 105.2 | 9.4 | | + | |
- | | 2021 | | + | |
=== HCB Impurities === | === HCB Impurities === | ||
Line 153: | Line 141: | ||
The BVL has no information on past or current concentrations of impurities in the active substances atrazine, simazine, propazine and quintozine that have been placed on the market. For this reason, the information on impurity levels compiled in the EMEP/EEA Guidebook 2019 is used (cf. Table III). | The BVL has no information on past or current concentrations of impurities in the active substances atrazine, simazine, propazine and quintozine that have been placed on the market. For this reason, the information on impurity levels compiled in the EMEP/EEA Guidebook 2019 is used (cf. Table III). | ||
- | // | + | __Table 4: Maximum concentrations of HCB impurities in relevant active substances, in mg/kg__ |
- | Table III: Maximum concentrations of HCB impurities in relevant active substances, in mg per kg// | + | ^ |
- | ^ Impurity content | + | | 1987-1994 |
- | | 1987-1994 | + | | 1995-1997 |
- | | 1995-1997 | + | | 1998 - 1999 | 300 | 50 |
- | | 1998 - 1999 | + | | 2000 |
- | | 2000 | | + | | 2001 - 2017 | 40 |
- | | 2001 - 2017 | + | | 2018 - 2022 | 10 |
- | | 2018 - 2022 | + | |
Line 191: | Line 178: | ||
//Picture 1: Annual trend of HCB emissions in Germany in the sector agriculture, | //Picture 1: Annual trend of HCB emissions in Germany in the sector agriculture, | ||
- | {{ : | + | {{ : |
===== Recalculations ===== | ===== Recalculations ===== | ||
+ | <WRAP center round info 65%> | ||
+ | With **activity data and emission factors remaining unrevised**, | ||
+ | </ | ||
- | Recalculations were made for the complete time series due to the changes and new information given by the BVL for the amount of domestic sales of the active substances atrazine, simazine, propazine and quintozine. | ||
- | No recalculation was made for lindane, chlorothalonil and picloram for the year 2020. HCB emissions from picloram were mistakenly omitted from 2006 until 2020 in the data model. | ||
- | Due to the changes in the input data and the assumptions on the maximum quantities of HCB, the emissions also change. The following Table IV shows the differences between the data for submission 2022 and the current data and are given in kg per year and in percentage. | + | ===== Uncertainty ===== |
- | //Table IV: Recalculation | + | For the calculation of emissions consumption figures (i. e. statistical figures) are used. Therefore, a standard error of HCB content is assumed as 2.5 % for the emission inventory. The 95% confidence interval is therefore 5 %. A normal distribution is assumed. |
- | ^ Emissions | + | The uncertainty for the emission factor was determined using the PELMO model. For this purpose, the applied amounts of HCB on the plant surface were calculated with a vapour pressure reduced by a factor of 10. In addition, the meteorological conditions for modelling were selected in such a way that a range of possible emission factors for different locations was distributed across Europe (from Porto, Portugal, to Jokioinen in Finland). This results in a minimum and maximum emission factor. The maximum range was 30 %; the arithmetic mean was 10 % uncertainty (personal communication, Klein, 2017). A conservative approach and thus 30 % uncertainty is chosen for the calculation of uncertainties. This results in a total uncertainty for HCB emissions of 30.4 %. |
- | | HCB_SUB 2023 | kg | 109,3 | 138,1 | 55,9 | 29,7 | 26,7 | 18,0 | 26,6 | 24,3 | 5,0 | 45,0 | | + | |
- | | HCB_SUB 2022 | kg | 107,2 | 138,1 | 55,7 | 29,7 | 26,7 | 18,0 | 26,6 | 24,2 | 5,0 | 45,0 | | + | |
- | | Difference (Sub2023 - Sub2022) | kg | 2,065 | 0,025 | 0,144 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0,0008 | 0,0002 | 0,0 | | + | |
- | | Difference | + | |
+ | ===== Planned improvements ===== | ||
- | ^ Emissions | + | <WRAP center round info 60%> |
- | | HCB_SUB 2023 | kg | 18,6 | 0,8 | 1,0 | 9,6 | 1,6 | 34,3 | 36,3 | 30,0 | 28,9 | 21,1 | | + | Currently, no source-specific |
- | | HCB_SUB 2022 | kg | 18,6 | 0,8 | 1,0 | 9,6 | 1,6 | 34,3 | 36,2 | 29,6 | 28,8 | 21,0 | | + | |
- | | Difference (Sub2023 - Sub2022) | + | |
- | | Difference | + | |
- | + | ||
- | ^ Emissions | + | |
- | | HCB_SUB 2023 | kg | 24,9 | 26,2 | 21,0 | 22,8 | 40,2 | 35,6 | 46,1 | 57,0 | 8,8 | 9,5 | | + | |
- | | HCB_SUB 2022 | kg | 24,8 | 26,0 | 20,7 | 22,6 | 40,0 | 35,4 | 45,9 | 56,8 | 8,6 | 9,1 | | + | |
- | | Difference (Sub2023 - Sub2022) | + | |
- | | Difference | + | |
- | + | ||
- | ^ Emissions | + | |
- | | HCB_SUB 2023 | kg | 1,5 | | + | |
- | | HCB_SUB 2022 | kg | 1,1 | | + | |
- | | Difference (Sub2023 - Sub2022) | + | |
- | | Difference | + | |
- | + | ||
- | <WRAP center round info 65%> | + | |
- | For **pollutant-specific | + | |
</ | </ | ||
- | ===== Uncertainty ===== | ||
- | For the calculation of emissions consumption figures (i. e. statistical figures) are used. Therefore, a standard error of HCB content is assumed as 2.5 % for the emission inventory. The 95% confidence interval is therefore 5 %. A normal distribution is assumed. | ||
- | |||
- | The uncertainty for the emission factor was determined using the PELMO model. For this purpose, the applied amounts of HCB on the plant surface were calculated with a vapour pressure reduced by a factor of 10. In addition, the meteorological conditions for modelling were selected in such a way that a range of possible emission factors for different locations was distributed across Europe (from Porto, Portugal, to Jokioinen in Finland). This results in a minimum and maximum emission factor. The maximum range was 30 %; the arithmetic mean was 10 % uncertainty (personal communication, | ||
- | |||
- | ===== Planned improvements ===== | ||
- | For the next submissions no further improvements are planned. |