Screening the Emission Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in China Based on Multi-effect Evaluation

Abstract:

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere have adverse impacts via three main pathways: photochemical ozone formation, secondary organic aerosol production, and direct toxicity to humans. Few studies have integrated these effects to prioritize control measures for VOCs sources. In this study, we developed a multi-effect evaluation methodology based on updated emission inventories and source profiles, which was combined with ozone formation potential (OFP), secondary organic aerosol potential (SOAP), and VOC toxicity data to identify important emission sources and key species. We derived species-specific emission inventories for 152 sources. The OFPs, SOAPs, and toxicity of each source were determined, and the contribution and share of each source to each of these adverse effects was calculated. Weightings were given to the three adverse effects by expert scoring, and the integrated impact was determined.

Using 2012 as the base year, solvent usage and industrial process were found to be the most important anthropogenic sources, accounting for 24.2 and 23.1% of the integrated environmental effect, respectively. This was followed by biomass burning, transportation, and fossil fuel combustion, all of which had a similar contribution ranging from 16.7 to 18.6%. The top five industrial sources, including plastic products, rubber products, chemical fiber products, the chemical industry, and oil refining, accounted for nearly 70.0% of industrial emissions. In China, emissions reductions are required for styrene, toluene, ethylene, benzene, and m/p-xylene. The 10 most abundant chemical species contributed 76.5% of the integrated impact. Beijing, Chongqing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Guangdong were the five leading provinces when considering the integrated effects. Besides, the chemical mass balance model (CMB) was used to verify the VOCs inventories of 47 cities in China, so as to optimize our evaluation results. We suggest that multi-effect evaluation is necessary to identify the need for abatement at the source type and substance levels.