1 / 10

Analysis of the EMEP 2013 Emission factors for mineral fertilizers

Analysis of the EMEP 2013 Emission factors for mineral fertilizers. Sebastian Wulf. TFEIP – Agriculture and Nature Panel 13th May 2014, Ghent. Comparison of EMEP 2013 vs EMEP 2009. (*) for soils with pH < 7.

komala
Download Presentation

Analysis of the EMEP 2013 Emission factors for mineral fertilizers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Analysis ofthe EMEP 2013 Emission factorsformineralfertilizers Sebastian Wulf TFEIP – Agricultureand Nature Panel 13th May 2014, Ghent

  2. Comparisonof EMEP 2013 vs EMEP 2009 (*) forsoilswith pH < 7 Strong increase in calculatedemissionsfrommineralfertizers in inventories Data foranalysisoftheemissionfactors was readilyprovidedbythecolleaguesofAarhus University 1

  3. Calcium ammoniumnitrate – CAN CAN NH3-N-losses [% of N] 2 Temperature [°C]

  4. Ammonium nitrate - AN AN NH3-N-losses [% of N] 3 Temperature [°C]

  5. CAN and AN • Based on chemicalcompositionofthefertilizers EF of CAN shouldbegreaterorsimilarto AN EF AN > CAN needstobewelljustified • Chadwick et al. (2005): • Onlystudywithdirectcomparisonof AN und CAN (n=11) Nodifferentiationbetween CAN and AN possible Chadwick et al. (2005) useall valuesandpooled AN and CAN dataforthecalculationof an emissionfactor 4

  6. CAN and AN Analysis ofpooled CAN and AN data • Much lower EF für AN as in EMEP 2013 • If all valuesareconsidered, also for CAN lowerthan in EMEP 2013 ? Isitjustifiedtoneglect negative measurements (only)? 5

  7. Ammonium phosphate(MAP, DAP) • 7-fold increaseofemissionfactor (pH low) NH3-N-losses [% of N] Lab experiment, not suitableforcalculationof EF pH-value • Data basis not sufficient 6

  8. Ammoniumsolutions – Urea AN Urea-AN NH3-N-losses [% of N] Closedchambers(not considered) Also not considered: 2 measurements on sandysoils (2,5%N, 1,5%N-losses), because pH not known pH-value • Apart from 3 measurements all dataconsideredarefromsoils pH >7 • Measurementswithclosedchambersandmeasurements on sandysoils (pH < 7 assumed) indicatelower EF forsoilswith pH < 7. 7

  9. Urea Urea NH3-N-losses [% of N] Temperature [°C] Notemperature – or pH-dependencyvisible Variablityandunknownconditionsofmeasurementmightsuperimposetheseeffects 8

  10. Conclusion • Great advantageof EF in EMEP 2013 comparedwith EMEP 2009 iswellcompiledanddocumenteddatabasis - someaspectsofdataanalysis not clearfromguidebookandneedtobediscussed (exclusionof negative values) • Onecommonemissionfactorfor CAN and AN shouldbecalculatedfrompooleddataas fundamental differences in emissionscannotbeprooved. • Availabilityofdata on emissionsofammoniaphosphate(andammoniasulphate) isverylow. EF calculatedfromthisbasisarehighlyuncertain. • ForUrea AN andUrea a pH andtemperaturedependencycannotbeshownfromthedatasetused – althoughmostprobablyexisting. • Effectsof experimental conditions (time ofapplication, precipitationetc) mightsuperimpose effectsof pH andtemperature Welldocumentedexperimentsarenecessarytoclearlyidentifyparameterscorrelatedwiththehightofemissions – andtoquantifytheireffects. 9

More Related