meta data for this page
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2025/02/21 13:34] – [Table] niebuhr | sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2025/02/25 11:29] (current) – [Table] niebuhr | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
| The detailed NH< | The detailed NH< | ||
| For the detailed emission factors of livestock husbandry see Rösemann et al. (2025), Chapter 4.3. | For the detailed emission factors of livestock husbandry see Rösemann et al. (2025), Chapter 4.3. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Table 3 provides, by animal category, the implied NH< | ||
| The detailed emission factors for N< | The detailed emission factors for N< | ||
| - | Table 3 shows the implied emission factors of NH< | + | Table 3 shows the implied emission factors of NH< |
| __Table 3: IEF for NH< | __Table 3: IEF for NH< | ||
| - | ^ | + | ^ |
| - | | **Ammonia** | + | | **Ammonia** |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | + | ^ sheep |
| - | ^ goats | + | ^ goats |
| - | ^ swine | + | ^ swine |
| - | ^ laying hens | + | ^ laying hens |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ ducks | + | ^ ducks |
| - | ^ geese | + | ^ geese |
| - | ^ deer | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | + | ^ deer | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| - | | **Nitrogen oxides** | + | | **Nitrogen oxides** |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | + | ^ sheep |
| - | ^ goats | + | ^ goats |
| - | ^ swine | + | ^ swine |
| - | ^ laying hens | + | ^ laying hens |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ ducks | + | ^ ducks |
| - | ^ geese | + | ^ geese |
| - | ^ deer | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | | + | ^ deer | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| == Trend discussion for Key Sources == | == Trend discussion for Key Sources == | ||
| Line 233: | Line 231: | ||
| == Recalculations == | == Recalculations == | ||
| - | All timeseries of the emission inventory have completely been recalculated. Tables | + | All timeseries of the emission inventory have completely been recalculated. Tables |
| For NH3 there are two main reasons for very different emissions compared to last year’s submission: the new emission factors for housing systems **(recalculation No. 3)** results in significantly lower emissions for cattle housing systems and slightly lower emissions for pig housing systems. The correction of the numbers of horses **(recalculation No. 4)** more than doubles the emissions of the other animals. Many of the other recalculations have much smaller effects, see main page of the agricultural sector). Overall the opposing changes partially cancel each other out and result in slightly higher emissions up to 2014 and slightly lower emissions thereafter compared with last year’s submission. | For NH3 there are two main reasons for very different emissions compared to last year’s submission: the new emission factors for housing systems **(recalculation No. 3)** results in significantly lower emissions for cattle housing systems and slightly lower emissions for pig housing systems. The correction of the numbers of horses **(recalculation No. 4)** more than doubles the emissions of the other animals. Many of the other recalculations have much smaller effects, see main page of the agricultural sector). Overall the opposing changes partially cancel each other out and result in slightly higher emissions up to 2014 and slightly lower emissions thereafter compared with last year’s submission. | ||
| Line 241: | Line 239: | ||
| - | __Table 4: REC-1: Revised | + | __Table 4: Comparison of NH< |
| - | | ^ 1990 | + | | **NFR TOTAL EMISSIONS** |
| - | | **NFR TOTAL EMISSIONS** | + | | | **Submission** |
| - | ^ current | + | | | | |
| - | ^ previous | + | | Total |
| - | ^ absolute change | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ relative change [%] | | + | | ::: |
| - | | **thereof: from dairy cattle** | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ current | + | | | | |
| - | ^ previous | + | | dairy cattle |
| - | | **thereof: from other cattle** | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ current submission | + | | other cattle |
| - | ^ previous submission | + | | ::: |
| - | | **thereof: from swine** | + | | swine |
| - | ^ current submission | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ previous submission | + | | poultry |
| - | | **thereof: from poultry** | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ current submission | + | | other animals |
| - | ^ previous submission | + | | ::: |
| - | | **thereof: from other animals** | + | |
| - | ^ current submission | + | |
| - | ^ previous submission | + | |
| \\ | \\ | ||
| - | __Table 5: REC-2: Revised | + | __Table 5: Comparison of NO< |
| - | | ^ 1990 ^ 1995 ^ 2000 ^ 2005 ^ | + | | **NFR TOTAL EMISSIONS** |
| - | | **NFR TOTAL EMISSIONS** |||||||||||||| | + | | | **Submission** |
| - | ^ current | + | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| - | ^ previous | + | | Totals |
| - | ^ absolute change | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ relative change [%] | 0.22 | 0.27 | 0.31 | 0.34 | 1.26 | 1.14 | 0.93 | 0.74 | 0.64 | 0.61 | 0.54 | 0.10 | | | + | | ::: |
| - | | **thereof: from dairy cattle** | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ current | + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| - | ^ previous | + | | dairy cattle |
| - | | **thereof: from other cattle** | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ current | + | | other cattle |
| - | ^ previous | + | | ::: |
| - | | **thereof: from swine** |||||||||||||| | + | | swine ^ current |
| - | ^ current | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ previous | + | | poultry |
| - | | **thereof: from poultry** |||||||||||||| | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ current | + | | other animals |
| - | ^ previous | + | | ::: |
| - | | **thereof: from other animals** |||||||||||||| | + | |
| - | ^ current | + | |
| - | ^ previous | + | |
| Line 294: | Line 286: | ||
| ===== NMVOC ===== | ===== NMVOC ===== | ||
| - | In 2022, NMVOC emissions from manure management amount to 278.2 kt which is 96.9 % of total NMVOC emissions from the agricultural sector. 84.8 % originate from cattle, 15.2 % from other animals. | + | In 2023, NMVOC emissions from manure management amount to 292.1 kt which is 96.9 % of total NMVOC emissions from the agricultural sector. 84.2 % thereof |
| ==== Method ==== | ==== Method ==== | ||
| - | The Tier 2 methodology provided by EMEP (2019)-3B-28 was used to assess the NMVOC emissions from manure management for dairy cattle and other cattle. For all other animals the Tier 1 methodology (EMEP (2019)-3B-17) was used. The use of the Tier 2 methodology yields NMVOC emissions which formally could be reported in the sectors 3.D.a.2.a (application of manure to soils) and 3.D.a.3 (grazing emissions). However, to be congruent with the NMVOC emissions for other animal categories, Germany reports these emissions in the NMVOC emissions reported from manure management (3.B). For the NFR codes 3.D.a.2.a | + | The Tier 2 methodology provided by EMEP (2023)-3B-26 was used to assess the NMVOC emissions from manure management for dairy cattle and other cattle. For all other animals the Tier 1 methodology (EMEP (2023)-3B-17) was used. The use of the Tier 2 methodology yields NMVOC emissions which formally could be reported in the sectors 3.D.a.2.a (application of manure to soils) and 3.D.a.3 (grazing emissions). However, to be congruent with the NMVOC emissions for other animal categories, Germany reports these emissions in the NMVOC emissions reported from manure management (3.B). For the NFR codes 3.D.a.2.a |
| === Activity data === | === Activity data === | ||
| Line 304: | Line 296: | ||
| === Emission factors === | === Emission factors === | ||
| For the Tier 2 methodology applied to dairy cattle and other cattle the following data was used: | For the Tier 2 methodology applied to dairy cattle and other cattle the following data was used: | ||
| - | * gross feed intake in MJ per year, country specific data from the annual reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, see NIR 2024, Chapter 5.1.3.3, | + | * gross feed intake in MJ per year, country specific data from the annual reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, see NID 2025, Chapter 5.1.3.3, |
| - | * proportion x< | + | * proportion x< |
| - | * FRAC< | + | * FRAC< |
| - | * FRAC< | + | * FRAC< |
| - | * EF< | + | * EF< |
| * EF< | * EF< | ||
| - | For all other animal categories the Tier 1 emission factors for NMVOC were used as provided in EMEP (2019)-3B-18, Table 3.4. For horses the emission factors for feeding with silage was chosen, for all other animals the emission factors for feeding without silage. Due to missing country-specific emission factors or emission factors that do not correspond to the inventory’s animal categories, the emission factors provided in EMEP (2019)-3B-18, Table 3.4, were used to define specific emission factors for weaners, boars, lambs, ponies/ | + | For all other animal categories the Tier 1 emission factors for NMVOC were used as provided in EMEP (2023)-3B-17, Table 3.4. For horses the emission factors for feeding with silage was chosen, for all other animals the emission factors for feeding without silage. Due to missing country-specific emission factors or emission factors that do not correspond to the inventory’s animal categories, the emission factors provided in EMEP (2023)-3B-17, Table 3.4, were used to define specific emission factors for weaners, boars, lambs, ponies/ |
| The implied emission factors given in Table 4 relate the overall NMVOC emissions to the number of animals in each animal category. The IEFs for dairy cattle and other cattle are much higher than the EMEP Tier 1 EF, which are 17.937 kg NMVOC for dairy cattle and 8.902 kg NMVOC for other cattle. The only possible explanation for those huge differences is that the EMEP Tier 2 and Tier 1 methods are not consistent. | The implied emission factors given in Table 4 relate the overall NMVOC emissions to the number of animals in each animal category. The IEFs for dairy cattle and other cattle are much higher than the EMEP Tier 1 EF, which are 17.937 kg NMVOC for dairy cattle and 8.902 kg NMVOC for other cattle. The only possible explanation for those huge differences is that the EMEP Tier 2 and Tier 1 methods are not consistent. | ||
| The IEFs for the other categories provided in Table 4 correspond to the EMEP Tier 1 emission factors, except for horses, sheep and swine. These categories comprise subcategories with different emission factors so that their overall IEFs in Table 4 represent subpopulation-weighted national mean values. | The IEFs for the other categories provided in Table 4 correspond to the EMEP Tier 1 emission factors, except for horses, sheep and swine. These categories comprise subcategories with different emission factors so that their overall IEFs in Table 4 represent subpopulation-weighted national mean values. | ||
| - | Note that other poultry in Germany includes not only geese and ducks but also pullets. For pullets no default EF is given in the EMEP guidebook (EMEP, | + | Note that other poultry in Germany includes not only geese and ducks but also pullets. For pullets no default EF is given in the EMEP guidebook (EMEP, |
| __Table 6: IEF for NMVOC from manure management, in [kg NMVOC per animal place]__ | __Table 6: IEF for NMVOC from manure management, in [kg NMVOC per animal place]__ | ||
| - | ^ | + | ^ |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | + | ^ sheep |
| - | ^ goats | + | ^ goats |
| - | ^ swine | + | ^ swine |
| - | ^ laying hens | + | ^ laying hens |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ ducks | + | ^ ducks |
| - | ^ geese | + | ^ geese |
| - | ^ deer | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | | + | ^ deer | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | 0.045 | |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| === Trend discussion for Key Sources === | === Trend discussion for Key Sources === | ||
| - | Dairy cattle and other cattle are key sources of NMVOC emissions from manure management. The total NMVOC emissions from both animal categories strongly correlate with the animal numbers given in Table 1 (dairy cattle: R² = 0.87; other cattle: R² = 0.99). | + | Dairy cattle and other cattle are key sources of NMVOC emissions from manure management. The total NMVOC emissions from both animal categories strongly correlate with the animal numbers given in Table 1 (dairy cattle: R² = 0.89; other cattle: R² = 0.99). |
| === Recalculations === | === Recalculations === | ||
| - | All timeseries of the emission inventory have completely been recalculated. Table REC-3 compares the recalculated time series of the NMVOC emissions from 3.B with the respective data of last year’s submission. The recalculated total emissions are slightly | + | All timeseries of the emission inventory have completely been recalculated. Table 7 compares the recalculated time series of the NMVOC emissions from 3.B with the respective data of last year’s submission. The recalculated total emissions are higher. |
| - | __Table 7: REC-3: Revised | + | __Table 7: Comparison of NMVOC emissions |
| - | | ^ 1990 | + | | **NFR TOTAL EMISSIONS** |
| - | | **NFR TOTAL EMISSIONS** | + | | | **Submission** |
| - | ^ current | + | | | |
| - | ^ previous | + | | Total |
| - | ^ absolute change | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ relative change [%] | | + | | ::: |
| - | | **thereof: from dairy cattle** | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ current | + | | | | |
| - | ^ previous | + | | dairy cattle |
| - | | **thereof: from other cattle** |||||||||||||| | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ current | + | | other cattle |
| - | ^ previous | + | | ::: |
| - | | **thereof: from other animals** | + | | other animals |
| - | ^ current | + | | ::: |
| - | ^ previous | + | |
| === Planned improvements === | === Planned improvements === | ||
| Line 375: | Line 366: | ||
| 68.6 % of total **PM< | 68.6 % of total **PM< | ||
| ==== Method ==== | ==== Method ==== | ||
| - | EMEP (2013-3B-26) provided a Tier 2 methodology. In the 2019 Guidebook (EMEP, 2019), this methodology has been replaced by a Tier 1 methodology. However, EF for cattle derived with the EMEP 2013 Tier 2 methodology remained unchanged. Therefore, the EMEP 2013((EMEP (2013): EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook – 2013)) methodology was kept for cattle. For swine the EMEP 2013 methodology was formally kept but the EMEP 2019 Tier 1 EF was used both for slurry and solid based manure management systems. The same was done with the EMEP 2016 EFs for laying hens (used for cages and perchery). In case the EMEP 2019 EFs are simply rounded EMEP 2013 EFs, the unrounded EMEP 2013 EFs were kept. For rabbits the EFs from The Netherlands’ inventory were adopted (Huis In’t Veld et al, 2011)((Huis In’t Velt, J.W.H., Dousma, F., Nijboer, G.M. (2011): Gaseous Emissions and fine dust from rabbit housing systems. Livestock research Wageningen, Report 459.)), for ostriches the EFs of goats were used. The inventory considers air scrubber systems in swine and poultry husbandry. For animal places equipped with air scrubbing the emission factors are reduced according to the removal efficiency of the air scrubber systems (90 % for TSP and PM< | + | EMEP (2013-3B-26) provided a Tier 2 methodology. In the 2023 Guidebook (EMEP, 2019), this methodology has been replaced by a Tier 1 methodology. However, EF for cattle derived with the EMEP 2013 Tier 2 methodology remained unchanged. Therefore, the EMEP 2013((EMEP (2013): EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook – 2013)) methodology was kept for cattle. For swine the EMEP 2013 methodology was formally kept but the EMEP 2019 Tier 1 EF was used both for slurry and solid based manure management systems. The same was done with the EMEP 2016 EFs for laying hens (used for cages and perchery). In case the EMEP 2023 EFs are simply rounded EMEP 2013 EFs, the unrounded EMEP 2013 EFs were kept. For rabbits the EFs from The Netherlands’ inventory were adopted (Huis In’t Veld et al, 2011)((Huis In’t Velt, J.W.H., Dousma, F., Nijboer, G.M. (2011): Gaseous Emissions and fine dust from rabbit housing systems. Livestock research Wageningen, Report 459.)), for ostriches the EFs of goats were used. The inventory considers air scrubber systems in swine and poultry husbandry. For animal places equipped with air scrubbing the emission factors are reduced according to the removal efficiency of the air scrubber systems (90 % for TSP and PM< |
| Line 382: | Line 373: | ||
| === Emission factors === | === Emission factors === | ||
| - | Tier 1 emission factors for TSP, PM< | + | Tier 1 emission factors for TSP, PM< |
| The implied emission factors given in Table 5 relate the overall TSP and PM emissions to the number of animals in each animal category. The Guidebook does not indicate whether EFs have considered the condensable component (with or without). | The implied emission factors given in Table 5 relate the overall TSP and PM emissions to the number of animals in each animal category. The Guidebook does not indicate whether EFs have considered the condensable component (with or without). | ||
| __Table 8: IEF for TSP, PM< | __Table 8: IEF for TSP, PM< | ||
| - | ^ ^ 1990 ^ 1995 ^ 2000 ^ 2005 ^ 2010 ^ 2015 ^ 2016 ^ 2017 ^ 2018 ^ 2019 ^ 2020 ^ 2021 ^ 2022 | + | ^ ^ 1990 ^ 1995 ^ 2000 ^ 2005 ^ 2010 ^ 2015 ^ 2016 ^ 2017 ^ 2018 ^ 2019 ^ 2020 ^ 2021 ^ 2022 |
| - | | **Total suspended particles** (TSP) | + | | **Total suspended particles** (TSP) ||||||||||||||| |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | 0.0484 | + | ^ sheep | 0.0484 |
| - | ^ goats | 0.0914 | + | ^ goats | 0.0914 |
| - | ^ swine | 0.8260 | + | ^ swine | 0.8260 |
| - | ^ laying hens | 0.1898 | + | ^ laying hens | 0.1898 |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ ducks | 0.1400 | + | ^ ducks | 0.1400 |
| - | ^ geese | 0.2400 | + | ^ geese | 0.2400 |
| - | ^ deer | 0.0000 | + | ^ deer | 0.0000 |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| - | | **PM< | + | | **PM< |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | 0.0194 | + | ^ sheep | 0.0194 |
| - | ^ goats | 0.0368 | + | ^ goats | 0.0368 |
| - | ^ swine | 0.1241 | + | ^ swine | 0.1241 |
| - | ^ laying hens | 0.0400 | + | ^ laying hens | 0.0400 |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ ducks | 0.1400 | + | ^ ducks | 0.1400 |
| - | ^ geese | 0.2400 | + | ^ geese | 0.2400 |
| - | ^ deer | 0.0000 | + | ^ deer | 0.0000 |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| - | | **PM< | + | | **PM< |
| - | ^ dairy cattle | + | ^ dairy cattle |
| - | ^ other cattle | + | ^ other cattle |
| - | ^ horses | + | ^ horses |
| - | ^ sheep | 0.0059 | + | ^ sheep | 0.0059 |
| - | ^ goats | 0.0112 | + | ^ goats | 0.0112 |
| - | ^ swine | 0.0056 | + | ^ swine | 0.0056 |
| - | ^ laying hens | 0.0030 | + | ^ laying hens | 0.0030 |
| - | ^ broilers | + | ^ broilers |
| - | ^ turkeys | + | ^ turkeys |
| - | ^ pullets | + | ^ pullets |
| - | ^ ducks | 0.0180 | + | ^ ducks | 0.0180 |
| - | ^ geese | 0.0320 | + | ^ geese | 0.0320 |
| - | ^ deer | 0.0000 | + | ^ deer | 0.0000 |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| ==== Trend discussion for Key Sources ==== | ==== Trend discussion for Key Sources ==== | ||
| - | Swine and laying hens are key sources of TSP emissions from manure management. The total TSP emissions from swine mainly follow the animal numbers given in Table 1 for the earlier years of the time series. However, due to increases in places equipped with air scrubbing and different emission factors of the different housing systems of the four swine subcategories (sows with piglets, weaners, fattening pigs, boars) and the varying population shares in those housing systems the R< | + | Swine and laying hens are key sources of TSP emissions from manure management. The total TSP emissions from swine mainly follow the animal numbers given in Table 1 for the earlier years of the time series. However, due to increases in places equipped with air scrubbing and different emission factors of the different housing systems of the four swine subcategories (sows with piglets, weaners, fattening pigs, boars) and the varying population shares in those housing systems the R< |
| ==== Recalculations ==== | ==== Recalculations ==== | ||
| - | The following table shows the effects of recalculations on emissions of particulate matter. Visible differences occur especially | + | The following table 9 shows the effects of recalculations on emissions of particulate matter. Visible differences occur in every year, these are largely |
| - | __Table 9: REC-4: Revised | + | __Table 9: Comparison of particle emissions (TSP, PM< |
| - | | ^ 1990 ^ 1995 ^ 2000 ^ 2005 ^ 2014 ^ 2015 ^ 2016 ^ 2017 ^ 2018 ^ 2019 ^ 2020 ^ 2021 ^ 2022 ^ | + | | ^ Submission |
| - | | **TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICLES (TSP)** | + | | |
| - | ^ current | + | | **Total Suspended Particles (TSP)** |
| - | ^ previous | + | | ::: ^ previous |
| - | ^ absolute change | + | | ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | ^ relative change [%] | 0.05 | 1.65 | 3.39 | 4.77 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | -0.01 | -0.01 | 0.02 | -0.01 | 0.01 | | | + | | ::: ^ relative change [%] | 0.61 | 0.91 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.68 | 0.65 | 0.65 | |
| - | | **PM< | + | | | | |
| - | ^ current | + | | **PM< |
| - | ^ previous | + | | ::: ^ previous |
| - | ^ absolute change | + | | ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | ^ relative change [%] | 0.15 | 1.82 | 3.83 | 5.62 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.04 | | + | | ::: ^ relative change [%] | 0.99 | 1.39 | 1.09 | 1.12 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.99 | 1.01 | 1.04 | -0.18 | -1.70 |
| - | | **PM< | + | | | | |
| - | ^ current | + | | **PM< |
| - | ^ previous | + | | ::: ^ previous |
| - | ^ absolute change | + | | ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | ^ relative change [%] | 0.09 | 0.52 | 1.10 | 1.67 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | | | + | | ::: ^ relative change [%] | 1.79 | 2.53 | 2.15 | 2.34 | 2.12 | 2.02 | 2.02 | 2.05 | 2.10 | 2.16 | 2.22 | 1.70 | 1.07 | | |
| <WRAP center round info 65%> | <WRAP center round info 65%> | ||
| - | For **pollutant-specific information on recalculated emission estimates for Base Year and 2021**, please see the pollutant specific recalculation tables following [[general: | + | For **pollutant-specific information on recalculated emission estimates for Base Year and 2022**, please see the pollutant specific recalculation tables following [[general: |
| </ | </ | ||
| ===== Planned improvements ===== | ===== Planned improvements ===== | ||
| Line 473: | Line 464: | ||
| ===== Uncertainty ===== | ===== Uncertainty ===== | ||
| - | Details | + | Details |