An assessment of the surface ozone trend in Ireland relevant to air pollution and environmental protection

Hourly data (1994–2009) of surface ozone concentrations at eight monitoring sites have been investigated to assess target level and long–term objective exceedances and their trends. The European Union (EU) ozone target value for human health (60 ppb–maximum daily 8–hour running mean) has been exceeded for a number of years for almost all sites but never exceeded the set limit of 25 exceedances in one year. Second highest annual hourly and 4th highest annual 8–hourly mean ozone concentrations have shown a statistically significant negative trend for in–land sites of Cork–Glashaboy, Monaghan and Lough Navar and no significant trend for the Mace Head site. Peak afternoon ozone concentrations averaged over a three year period from 2007 to 2009 have been found to be lower than corresponding values over a three–year period from 1996 to 1998 for two sites: Cork–Glashaboy and Lough Navar sites. The EU long–term objective value of AOT40 (Accumulated Ozone Exposure over a threshold of 40 ppb) for protection of vegetation (3 ppm–hour, calculated from May to July) has been exceeded, on an individual year basis, for two sites: Mace Head and Valentia. The critical level for the protection of forest (10 ppm–hour from April to September) has not been exceeded for any site except at Valentia in the year 2003. AOT40–Vegetation shows a significant negative trend for a 3–year running average at Cork–Glashaboy (–0.13±0.02 ppm–hour per year), at Lough Navar (–0.05±0.02 ppm–hour per year) and at Monaghan (–0.03±0.03 ppm–hour per year–not statistically significant) sites. No statistically significant trend was observed for the coastal site of Mace head. Overall, with the exception of the Mace Head and Monaghan sites, ozone measurement records at Irish sites show a downward negative trend in peak values that affect human health and vegetation.

Geographical variation in total and inorganic arsenic content of polished (white) rice

An extensive data set of total arsenic analysis for 901 polished (white) grain samples, originating from 10 countries from 4 continents, was compiled. The samples represented the baseline (i.e., not specifically collected from arsenic contaminated areas), and all were for market sale in major conurbations. Median total arsenic contents of rice varied 7-fold, with Egypt (0.04 mg/kg) and India (0.07 mg/kg) having the lowest arsenic content while the U.S. (0.25 mg/kg) and France (0.28 mg/kg) had the highest content. Global distribution of total arsenic in rice was modeled by weighting each country’s arsenic distribution by that country’s contribution to global production. A subset of 63 samples from Bangladesh, China, India, Italy, and the U.S. was analyzed for arsenic species. The relationship between inorganic arsenic content versus total arsenic content significantly differed among countries, with Bangladesh and India having the steepest slope in linear regression, and the U.S. having the shallowest slope. Using country-specific rice consumption data, daily intake of inorganic arsenic was estimated and the associated internal cancer risk was calculated using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cancer slope. Median excess internal cancer risks posed by inorganic arsenic ranged 30-fold for the 5 countries examined, being 0.7 per 10,000 for Italians to 22 per 10,000 for Bangladeshis, when a 60 kg person was considered.

Greenhouse gas emissions from waste management—assessment of quantification methods

Of the many sources of urban greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, solid waste is the only one for which management decisions are undertaken primarily by municipal governments themselves and is hence often the largest component of cities’ corporate inventories. It is essential that decision-makers select an appropriate quantification methodology and have an appreciation of methodological strengths and shortcomings. This work compares four different waste emissions quantification methods, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1996 guidelines, IPCC 2006 guidelines, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Waste Reduction Model (WARM), and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities- Partners for Climate Protection (FCM-PCP) quantification tool. Waste disposal data for the greater Toronto area (GTA) in 2005 are used for all methodologies; treatment options (including landfill, incineration, compost, and anaerobic digestion) are examined where available in methodologies. Landfill was shown to be the greatest source of GHG emissions, contributing more than three-quarters of total emissions associated with waste management. Results from the different landfill gas (LFG) quantification approaches ranged from an emissions source of 557 kt carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) (FCM-PCP) to a carbon sink of −53 kt CO2e (EPA WARM). Similar values were obtained between IPCC approaches. The IPCC 2006 method was found to be more appropriate for inventorying applications because it uses a waste-in-place (WIP) approach, rather than a methane commitment (MC) approach, despite perceived onerous data requirements for WIP. MC approaches were found to be useful from a planning standpoint; however, uncertainty associated with their projections of future parameter values limits their applicability for GHG inventorying. MC and WIP methods provided similar results in this case study; however, this is case specific because of similarity in assumptions of present and future landfill parameters and quantities of annual waste deposited in recent years being relatively consistent.