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 [2026/02/10 14:48] – [Method] roesemann | sector:agriculture:manure_management:start [2026/03/16 15:28] (current) – [Table] mielke | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| | 3.B.4.g i-iv | Poultry | | 3.B.4.g i-iv | Poultry | ||
| | 3.B.4.h | | 3.B.4.h | ||
| + | | {{page> | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| - | ^ ^ NO< | + | ^ |
| - | | 3.B.1.a | + | | 3.B.1.a |
| - | | 3.B.1.b | + | | 3.B.1.b |
| - | | 3.B.2 | -/- | + | | 3.B.2 |
| - | | 3.B.3 | -/- | + | | 3.B.3 |
| - | | 3.B.4.d | + | | 3.B.4.d |
| - | | 3.B.4.e | + | | 3.B.4.e |
| - | | 3.B.4.g.i | + | | 3.B.4.g.i |
| - | | 3.B.4.g.ii | + | | 3.B.4.g.ii |
| - | | 3.B.4.g.iii | + | | 3.B.4.g.iii |
| - | | 3.B.4.g.iv | + | | 3.B.4.g.iv |
| + | | {{page> | ||
| - | | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| Line 89: | Line 90: | ||
| For the year 2009, respective data are used that were derived from the 2010 official agricultural census and the simultaneous survey of agricultural production methods (Landwirtschaftliche Zählung 2010, Statistisches Bundesamt/ Federal Statistical Office) as well as the 2011 survey on manure application practices (Erhebung über Wirtschaftsdüngerausbringung, | For the year 2009, respective data are used that were derived from the 2010 official agricultural census and the simultaneous survey of agricultural production methods (Landwirtschaftliche Zählung 2010, Statistisches Bundesamt/ Federal Statistical Office) as well as the 2011 survey on manure application practices (Erhebung über Wirtschaftsdüngerausbringung, | ||
| + | For the year 2015, data on techniques of farm manure spreading from the 2016 official agricultural census (Agrarstrukturerhebung 2016, Statistisches Bundesamt / Federal Statistical Office) are used. | ||
| + | For the year 2019 data from the 2020 official agricultural census (Landwirtschaftszählung 2020, LW20) are used for housing systems, storage systems and manure spreading systems. | ||
| - | For the year 2015, data on techniques of farm manure spreading from the 2016 official agricultural census (Agrarstrukturerhebung 2016, Statistisches Bundesamt / Federal Statistical Office) are used. For the year 2019 data from the 2020 official agricultural census (Landwirtschaftszählung 2020, LW20) are used for housing systems, storage systems and manure spreading systems. | + | For 2010 to 2018 the housing and storage systems data was linearly interpolated between the censuses of 2010 and 2020.The data on manure spreading techniques was linearly interpolated between the census data from 2009 and 2015, and for 2016 to 2018 between the censuses conducted in 2016 and 2020. In addition, it was taken into account that, as of 2012, slurry spread on bare soil has to be incorporated within four hours. |
| The data from the 2020 official agricultural census (DESTATIS, 2020)((Statistisches Bundesamt (2020): LW20, Landwirtschaftszählung 2020. https:// | The data from the 2020 official agricultural census (DESTATIS, 2020)((Statistisches Bundesamt (2020): LW20, Landwirtschaftszählung 2020. https:// | ||
| - | For a description of the RAUMIS data, the data from official surveys and additional data from other sources see Vos et al. (2026), Chapter 2.5. Time series of frequency distributions of housing systems, storage systems and application techniques as well as the corresponding emission factors are provided in NID 2026, Chapter 17.3.1. | + | For a description of the RAUMIS data, the data from official surveys and additional data from other sources see Vos et al. (2026), Chapter 2.5. Time series of frequency distributions of housing systems, storage systems and application techniques as well as the corresponding emission factors are provided in NID 2026((NID (2026): National Inventory Report 2026 for the German Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2024. Available in April 2026.)), Chapter 17.3.1. |
| Since submission 2026 transports of manure, energy crops and digestates between NUTS 3 regions are simulated in the calculation model. This does not have major influence on the emissions of the whole country, but changes the distribution of emissions between single NUTS 3 regions. For details on the methodology, | Since submission 2026 transports of manure, energy crops and digestates between NUTS 3 regions are simulated in the calculation model. This does not have major influence on the emissions of the whole country, but changes the distribution of emissions between single NUTS 3 regions. For details on the methodology, | ||
| Line 148: | Line 150: | ||
| The calculation of the emissions of NH< | The calculation of the emissions of NH< | ||
| - | This approach differentiates between N excreted with faeces (organic nitrogen Norg, i. e. undigested feed N) and urine (total ammoniacal nitrogen TAN, i. e. fraction of feed N metabolized). The N flow within the manure management system is treated as depicted in the figure below. This method reconciles the requirements of both the Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook for NH< | + | This approach differentiates between N excreted with faeces (organic nitrogen Norg, i. e. undigested feed N) and urine (total ammoniacal nitrogen TAN, i. e. fraction of feed N metabolized). The N flow within the manure management system is treated as depicted in the figure below. This method reconciles the requirements of both the Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook for NH< |
| Not explicitly shown in the N mass flow scheme is air scrubbing in housing and anaerobic digestion of manure. These issues are separately described further below. Note that emissions from grazing and application are reported in sector 3.D. | Not explicitly shown in the N mass flow scheme is air scrubbing in housing and anaerobic digestion of manure. These issues are separately described further below. Note that emissions from grazing and application are reported in sector 3.D. | ||
| Line 159: | Line 161: | ||
| The model allows tracing of the pathways of the two N fractions after excretion. The various locations where excretion may take place are considered. The partial mass flows through the livestock systems are represented. | The model allows tracing of the pathways of the two N fractions after excretion. The various locations where excretion may take place are considered. The partial mass flows through the livestock systems are represented. | ||
| - | During storage Norg can be transformed into TAN and vice versa. Both, the way and the magnitude of such transformations may be influenced by manure treatment processes like, e. g., anaerobic digestion where a considerable fraction of Norg is mineralized to TAN. For details see Rösemann | + | During storage Norg can be transformed into TAN and vice versa. Both, the way and the magnitude of such transformations may be influenced by manure treatment processes like, e. g., anaerobic digestion where a considerable fraction of Norg is mineralized to TAN. For details see Vos et al. (2026), Chapter 4.2. Wherever NH< |
| == Air scrubber systems in swine and poultry housings == | == Air scrubber systems in swine and poultry housings == | ||
| For pig and poultry production the inventory model considers the effect of air scrubbing. Data on frequencies of air scrubbing facilities and the removal efficiency are provided by KTBL (Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft / Association for Technology and Structures in Agriculture) supplemented by data from the 2020 agricultural census. The average removal efficiency of NH< | For pig and poultry production the inventory model considers the effect of air scrubbing. Data on frequencies of air scrubbing facilities and the removal efficiency are provided by KTBL (Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft / Association for Technology and Structures in Agriculture) supplemented by data from the 2020 agricultural census. The average removal efficiency of NH< | ||
| - | According to KTBL, 7.6 % of all pig places were equipped with ”first class” systems in 2023, another 12.6 % were equipped with “second class” systems. For poultry 0.9 % of all laying hen places and 2.4 % of all broiler places were equipped with air scrubbers that remove both NH< | + | According to KTBL, 7.6 % of all pig places were equipped with ”first class” systems in 2024, another 12.6 % were equipped with “second class” systems. For poultry 0.9 % of all laying hen places and 2.5 % of all broiler places were equipped with air scrubbers that remove both NH< |
| - | The amounts of NH< | + | The amounts of NH< |
| == Anaerobic digestion of manure == | == Anaerobic digestion of manure == | ||
| - | According to IPCC (2006), anaerobic digestion of manure is treated like a particular storage type. In the German Inventory it comprises three sub-compartments (pre-storage, | + | According to IPCC (2006), anaerobic digestion of manure is treated like a particular storage type. In the German Inventory it comprises three sub-compartments (pre-storage, |
| - | NH< | + | NH< |
| == Emission Factors == | == Emission Factors == | ||
| Line 178: | Line 180: | ||
| The detailed NH< | The detailed NH< | ||
| - | For the detailed emission factors of livestock husbandry see Rösemann | + | For the detailed emission factors of livestock husbandry see Vos et al. (2026), Chapter 4.3. |
| - | 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< | ||
| - | ^ ^ 1990 | + | ^ |
| ^ Ammonia | ^ Ammonia | ||
| ^ dairy cattle | ^ dairy cattle | ||
| Line 220: | Line 222: | ||
| ^ ostrich | ^ ostrich | ||
| ^ fur animals | ^ fur animals | ||
| + | |||
| == Trend discussion for Key Sources == | == Trend discussion for Key Sources == | ||
| - | Dairy cattle, other cattle and swine are key sources of NH< | + | Dairy cattle, other cattle and swine are key sources of NH< |
| - | + | ||
| For NO< | For NO< | ||
| Line 232: | Line 233: | ||
| All timeseries of the emission inventory have completely been recalculated. Tables 4 and 5 compare the recalculated time series for NH< | All timeseries of the emission inventory have completely been recalculated. Tables 4 and 5 compare the recalculated time series for NH< | ||
| - | For NH3 there are two main reasons for very different emissions compared to last year’s submission: the new emission factors for housing systems | + | For NH3 there are many reasons for very different emissions compared to last year’s submission. For dairy cows the new methodology to claculate N and TAN excretions (see [[sector: |
| - | The total emissions of NOx for all years are | + | The total emissions of NO< |
| - | Further details on recalculations are described in Rösemann | + | |
| Line 241: | Line 241: | ||
| ^ NFR Total emissions | ^ NFR Total emissions | ||
| ^ ^ Submission | ^ ^ Submission | ||
| - | | Total ^ current | + | ^ Total ^ current |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | ::: ^ absolute change | + | ^ ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | | ::: ^ relative change [%] | -1.15 | -0.79 | -1.29 | -1.74 | -2.84 | -2.76 | -2.71 | -2.10 | -2.07 | -2.33 | -3.15 | -3.97 | -3.88 | -3.95 | | | + | ^ ::: ^ relative change [%] | -1.15 | -0.79 | -1.29 | -1.74 | -2.84 | -2.76 | -2.71 | -2.10 | -2.07 | -2.33 | -3.15 | -3.97 | -3.88 | -3.95 | | |
| - | | Dairy cattle | + | ^ Dairy cattle |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | Other cattle | + | ^ Other cattle |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | Swine ^ current | + | ^ Swine ^ current |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | poultry | + | ^ poultry |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | Other animals | + | ^ Other animals |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| __Table 5: Comparison of NO< | __Table 5: Comparison of NO< | ||
| ^ NFR Total emissions | ^ NFR Total emissions | ||
| - | | ^ Submission | + | ^ ^ Submission |
| - | | Total ^ current | + | ^ Total ^ current |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | ::: ^ absolute change | + | ^ ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | | ::: ^ relative change [%] | 5.60 | 4.35 | 3.20 | 2.38 | 0.84 | 0.67 | 1.01 | 1.77 | 0.97 | 0.65 | -0.40 | -1.48 | -1.39 | -0.86 | | | + | ^ ::: ^ relative change [%] | 5.60 | 4.35 | 3.20 | 2.38 | 0.84 | 0.67 | 1.01 | 1.77 | 0.97 | 0.65 | -0.40 | -1.48 | -1.39 | -0.86 | | |
| - | | Dairy cattle | + | ^ Dairy cattle |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | Other cattle | + | ^ Other cattle |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | Swine ^ current | + | ^ Swine ^ current |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | poultry | + | ^ poultry |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | Other animals | + | ^ Other animals |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| Line 280: | Line 280: | ||
| ===== NMVOC ===== | ===== NMVOC ===== | ||
| - | 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 originate from cattle, 15.8 % from other animals. | + | In 2024, NMVOC emissions from manure management amount to 291.7 kt which is 97.1 % of total NMVOC emissions from the agricultural sector. 84.1 % thereof originate from cattle, 15.9 % from other animals. |
| ==== Method ==== | ==== Method ==== | ||
| Line 290: | Line 290: | ||
| === 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 NID 2025, 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 2026, Chapter 5.1.3.3, |
| - | * proportion x< | + | * proportion x< |
| * FRAC< | * FRAC< | ||
| * FRAC< | * FRAC< | ||
| Line 297: | Line 297: | ||
| * EF< | * EF< | ||
| - | For all other animal categories the Tier 1 emission factors for NMVOC were used as provided in EMEP (2023)-3B-17, | + | For all other animal categories the Tier 1 emission factors for NMVOC were used as provided in EMEP (2023)-3B-17, |
| 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 6 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, 2023), hence the EF of broilers has been adopted (because of similar housing). This assumption significantly lowers the overall IEF of other poultry in Table 4 the IEFs are listed separately for each poultry category). The IEF of the sheep category is significantly lower than the EMEP Tier 1 emission factor, because for lambs the EF is assumed to be 40% lower compared to an adult sheep in accordance with the difference in N excretion between lambs and adult sheep. | + | 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, 2023), hence the EF of broilers has been adopted (because of similar housing). This assumption significantly lowers the overall IEF of other poultry |
| __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]__ | ||
| Line 324: | Line 324: | ||
| === 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 = 0.89; 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 = 0.90; other cattle: R² = 0.99). |
| === Recalculations === | === Recalculations === | ||
| - | 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. For dairy cattle and other cattle emissions are higher due to changes of NH3 emissions which have impact on the Tier 2 methodology which is applied for cattle NMVOC emissions. For other animals | + | 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. For dairy cattle and other cattle emissions are higher due to changes of NH< |
| Line 334: | Line 334: | ||
| ^ NFR Total emissions | ^ NFR Total emissions | ||
| ^ ^ Submission | ^ ^ Submission | ||
| - | | Total ^ current | + | ^ Total ^ current |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | ::: ^ absolute change | + | ^ ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | | ::: ^ relative change [%] | 0.82 | + | ^ ::: ^ relative change [%] | 0.82 |
| - | | Dairy cattle | + | ^ Dairy cattle |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | Other cattle | + | ^ Other cattle |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | Other animals | + | ^ Other animals |
| - | | ::: ^ previous | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| === Planned improvements === | === Planned improvements === | ||
| Line 350: | Line 350: | ||
| ===== Particle emissions ===== | ===== Particle emissions ===== | ||
| - | In 2022, **TSP** emissions from manure management amount to 64.4 % of total emissions from the agricultural sector. | + | In 2024, TSP emissions from manure management amount to 60.4 % of total emissions from the agricultural sector. Of these emissions |
| - | Of these emissions | + | |
| - | 36.6 % of total **PM< | + | 34.7 % of total PM< |
| - | + | ||
| - | 68.6 % of total **PM< | + | 66.4 % of total PM< |
| ==== Method ==== | ==== Method ==== | ||
| - | EMEP (2013-3B-26) provided a Tier 2 methodology. In the 2023 Guidebook (EMEP, | + | EMEP (2013-3B-26) provided a Tier 2 methodology. In the 2023 Guidebook (EMEP, |
| === Activity data === | === Activity data === | ||
| Line 366: | Line 364: | ||
| 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 8 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< | ||
| - | ^ | + | ^ |
| - | | **Total suspended particles** (TSP) ||||||||||||||| | + | ^ Total suspended particles (TSP) |||||||||||||||| |
| - | ^ 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 | 0.0000 | + | ^ deer | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| - | | **PM< | + | ^ |
| - | ^ 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 | 0.0000 | + | ^ deer | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| - | ^ rabbits | + | ^ rabbits |
| - | ^ ostrich | + | ^ ostrich |
| - | ^ fur animals | + | ^ fur animals |
| - | | **PM< | + | ^ |
| - | ^ 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 | 0.0000 | + | ^ 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 five swine subcategories (sows (divided in gilts and old sows), weaners, fattening pigs, boars) and the varying population shares in those housing systems the R< |
| ==== Recalculations ==== | ==== Recalculations ==== | ||
| - | The following table 9 shows the effects of recalculations on emissions of particulate matter. | + | The following table 9 shows the effects of recalculations on emissions of particulate matter. |
| - | __Table 9: Comparison of particle emissions (TSP, PM< | + | __Table 9: Comparison of particle emissions (TSP, PM< |
| - | | | + | ^ TSP, PM< |
| - | | | + | ^ |
| - | | **Total Suspended Particles (TSP)** | + | ^ TSP ^ current |
| - | | ::: | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | ::: | + | ^ ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | | ::: | + | ^ ::: ^ relative change [%] | 0.00 |
| - | | | + | ^ PM< |
| - | | **PM< | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | ::: | + | ^ ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | | ::: | + | ^ ::: ^ relative change [%] | 0.00 |
| - | | ::: | + | ^ PM< |
| - | | | + | ^ ::: ^ previous |
| - | | **PM< | + | ^ ::: ^ absolute change |
| - | | ::: | + | ^ ::: ^ relative change [%] | 0.00 |
| - | | ::: | + | |
| - | | ::: | + | |
| <WRAP center round info 65%> | <WRAP center round info 65%> | ||
| - | For **pollutant-specific information on recalculated emission estimates for Base Year and 2022**, please see the pollutant specific recalculation tables following [[general: | + | For **pollutant-specific information on recalculated emission estimates for Base Year and 2023**, please see the pollutant specific recalculation tables following [[general: |
| </ | </ | ||