Screening differences between a local inventory and the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR)

Jessie Madrazo; Alain Clappier; Luis Carlos Belalcazar; Osvaldo Cuesta; Heydi Contreras; François Golay

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.094

Screening differences between a local inventory and the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR)

Sci Total Environ. 2018 Aug 1:631-632:934-941. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.094. Epub 2018 Mar 16.

Authors

Jessie Madrazo¹, Alain Clappier², Luis Carlos Belalcazar³, Osvaldo Cuesta⁴, Heydi Contreras⁵, François Golay⁶

Affiliations

¹ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, EPFL, Switzerland. Electronic address: jessie.madrazo@epfl.ch.
² Université de Strasbourg, Laboratoire Image Ville Environnement, Strasbourg, France.
³ Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia.
⁴ Institute of meteorology of Cuba, INSMET, Cuba.
⁵ Information Management and Energy Development Centre, Cubaenergía, Cuba.
⁶ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, EPFL, Switzerland.

PMID: 29728004
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.094

Abstract

In the vast majority of Latin American and South American countries, global emission inventories (EIs) are often used for modelling air quality. In particular the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research EDGAR is widely deployed but several studies have pointed to some gaps in comparison with national/regional inventories which incur errors in interpreting results. In Cuba, due to scarcity of a spatially distributed national inventory, EDGAR has been used as entry for air quality modelling without verifying their reliability over the region. Our goal in this article is to compare and contrast EDGAR with a local inventory and to evaluate similarities or discrepancies. We use advanced comparison techniques developed by the Forum for Air Quality Modelling in Europe-FAIRMODE. This approach differs from others in the detailed way in which it points out the differences and gets insights in possible explanations. Overall, EDGAR provided spatially smoother results and relatively lower values in hotspot areas. Coarse differences in terms of activities were low for all analyzed sectors. However, EDGAR overestimates emission factors (EFs) of stationary sources for CO by a factor of 3 and SO₂ by a factor of 1.5 while underestimates those of PPM₁₀ by a factor of 25. Most of the road transport EFs are overestimated in EDGAR; PM₁₀, CO and NOx are 2 times higher, while CH₄ and SO₂ are 5 to 20 times higher. Large differences were found on the spatial distribution of energy and industrial sources. EDGAR can be regionally accepted as a reference but it is not recommended for air quality simulation over Cuba. A more complete reporting must be expected when more official national data are due. A review and evaluation of local emission inventories over Cuba can be useful for identifying potential areas for future improvement.

Keywords: Activity data; Cuba; Emission factors; Local emission inventory.