Ozone Draining Substances ?

Ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are chemicals that contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer, which protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation. These substances contain chlorine or bromine atoms that break down ozone molecules when they are released into the atmosphere. Some of the main ozone-depleting substances include:

1. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs):
   • Commonly used as refrigerants, propellants in aerosol sprays, and solvents.
   • CFCs contain chlorine, which can break apart ozone molecules in the stratosphere.
2. Halons:
   • Used primarily in fire extinguishing systems.
   • Halons contain bromine, which is even more destructive to ozone than chlorine.
3. Carbon Tetrachloride (CCl₄):
   • Previously used in the production of CFCs and as a solvent.
   • It contains chlorine and contributes to ozone depletion.
4. Methyl Chloroform (C₆H₁₃Cl) or 1,1,1-Trichloroethane:
   • Used in cleaning and degreasing applications.
   • It releases chlorine when broken down in the atmosphere.
5. Hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs):
   • Used as refrigerants and in fire suppression systems.
   • HBFCs release bromine, which contributes to ozone depletion.
6. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs):
   • These were introduced as alternatives to CFCs, but still contain chlorine.
   • They are less harmful than CFCs but still contribute to ozone depletion.
7. Bromochloromethane (CH₂BrCl):
   • A pesticide fumigant and a fire retardant.
   • It contains both bromine and chlorine, contributing to ozone depletion.

These substances were largely phased out under the Montreal Protocol, which was adopted in 1987 and is an international treaty aimed at protecting the ozone layer by reducing and eliminating the production and use of ODS. Despite this, illegal use and certain activities still contribute to the release of these harmful substances.

What is Ozone Draining Substances ?

Ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are chemicals that damage or deplete the ozone layer in the Earth’s stratosphere. The ozone layer acts as a shield, absorbing most of the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which can lead to skin cancer, cataracts, and other health issues, as well as damage to ecosystems.

ODS contain certain chemicals, particularly chlorine and bromine, which break down ozone (O₃) molecules when released into the atmosphere. When these substances are emitted, they rise into the stratosphere, where they are broken down by UV radiation into smaller components (like chlorine or bromine), which then react with ozone molecules, breaking them apart and reducing the ozone concentration.

Common Types of Ozone-Depleting Substances:

1. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs): Once commonly used in refrigeration, air conditioning, and aerosol propellants.
2. Halons: Used in fire extinguishers, containing bromine, which is even more damaging to ozone than chlorine.
3. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs): Used as a temporary replacement for CFCs but still contain chlorine and contribute to ozone depletion.
4. Carbon Tetrachloride: Previously used in industrial applications like cleaning solvents, it contains chlorine.
5. Methyl Chloroform: A solvent previously used for cleaning and degreasing, which also contains chlorine.
6. Hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs): Used in fire extinguishing systems, these contain bromine, which is highly destructive to ozone.

Why They’re Harmful:

• Chlorine and Bromine atoms are the main culprits in the depletion of the ozone layer. They break apart ozone molecules, which can lead to thinning of the ozone layer (the “ozone hole”).
• A thinner ozone layer allows more UV radiation to reach Earth’s surface, which can have harmful effects on human health, wildlife, and ecosystems.

Efforts to reduce the use of these substances, such as the Montreal Protocol (1987), have led to a significant decline in the production and release of ODS. The protocol has been successful in phasing out many of these chemicals globally, helping to heal the ozone layer.

Who is required Ozone Draining Substances ?

The use of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) is regulated globally due to their harmful effects on the ozone layer. While the production and use of these substances have been heavily restricted under international agreements such as the Montreal Protocol, there are still some industries and sectors that may have historically used or continue to require certain ozone-depleting substances, though their use is highly controlled.

Here’s a look at the main sectors and industries that historically used or required ozone-depleting substances, and how their use is currently regulated:

1. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

• Past Use: CFCs (such as R-12) and HCFCs (such as R-22) were widely used as refrigerants.
• Current Situation: These substances are being phased out in favor of more environmentally friendly alternatives (like HFCs, ammonia, or natural refrigerants). However, some older systems still use these substances and may need to be serviced with them, although strict regulations apply to their use and disposal.

2. Fire Extinguishing Systems

• Past Use: Halons (such as Halon-1301) were used in fire suppression systems, particularly in areas where water damage from traditional sprinklers could be a concern, like aircraft, data centers, and other sensitive equipment.
• Current Situation: Halons have been banned in many countries, and alternatives such as clean agents (e.g., FM-200, Novec) are now used. However, older systems may still contain halons, and managing these systems is regulated.

3. Aerosol Propellants

• Past Use: CFCs were once commonly used as propellants in aerosol sprays (e.g., hairspray, deodorants, and cleaning products).
• Current Situation: The use of CFCs in aerosols has been mostly replaced with non-ozone-depleting alternatives (such as hydrocarbons or HFCs), though regulations are in place to ensure that ODS are not used in new products.

4. Solvents and Cleaning Agents

• Past Use: Substances like carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform were used for industrial cleaning and degreasing.
• Current Situation: These substances are being phased out in favor of safer, environmentally friendly alternatives. Regulations now restrict the use of ODS in cleaning processes.

5. Agriculture and Pest Control

• Past Use: Certain ODS, like methyl bromide, were used as pesticides and fumigants, particularly for soil sterilization and controlling pests in agriculture.
• Current Situation: Methyl bromide has been largely phased out for most agricultural uses, though there are exemptions for critical uses, such as for certain crops where no effective alternatives exist.

6. Manufacturing of Foam Products

• Past Use: CFCs and HCFCs were used as blowing agents in the production of foam insulation, packaging materials, and other foam products.
• Current Situation: Alternatives such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and other non-ODS substances are now used in foam production. The transition to non-ozone-depleting substances is mandated by international regulations.

Who Needs to Comply with Ozone Regulations?

• Governments: Countries are required to implement the provisions of the Montreal Protocol, which includes phasing out the use and production of ODS.
• Industries using ODS: Any industry that previously relied on ozone-depleting substances for refrigeration, air conditioning, fire suppression, aerosols, or agriculture must comply with the regulations set out by the protocol. This includes:
  • Manufacturers of refrigerants, solvents, foams, and other chemical products.
  • Companies that maintain, repair, and service older equipment containing ODS.
  • Agricultural industries using fumigants like methyl bromide, under specific exemptions.
• Service Technicians: People who work in the refrigeration and air conditioning sectors need specialized training and certification to handle, recycle, or dispose of ozone-depleting substances in compliance with environmental regulations.

Summary:

Though many industries once relied on ozone-depleting substances, today their use is highly regulated or banned in most countries under the Montreal Protocol and other national regulations. Businesses and organizations in industries such as refrigeration, agriculture, and fire suppression are the main groups that need to adhere to these rules to minimize the use of ODS.

When is required Ozone Draining Substances ?

The use of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) is heavily restricted due to their harmful impact on the ozone layer. However, some sectors and specific applications still require ozone-depleting substances or have used them historically. The “requirement” for ODS comes primarily from industries that need these chemicals for specific functions or for the servicing of existing equipment that has not yet been updated to more environmentally friendly alternatives.

Here are the key times or situations when ODS might still be required:

1. Servicing and Maintaining Older Equipment

• When: Ozone-depleting substances, such as CFCs or HCFCs, may still be required when servicing or repairing older equipment (e.g., old refrigerators, air conditioners, or fire suppression systems) that was originally manufactured with these substances.
• Why: While new equipment now uses non-ODS refrigerants or agents, older systems often still rely on ODS, and repairs require the same chemicals to be used for refilling or maintaining the system.

2. Critical Use Exemptions (Agriculture)

• When: Methyl bromide, a potent ozone-depleting substance, may still be required for certain agricultural applications, like pest control or soil fumigation, where no effective alternatives exist or the alternatives are not yet viable in certain circumstances.
• Why: For example, some crops may still need methyl bromide to meet international trade standards, or to control particular pests that other chemicals cannot manage. This use is heavily regulated and granted only under critical use exemptions by the Montreal Protocol.

3. Specialized Fire Suppression Systems (Halons)

• When: Halons, such as Halon-1301, may still be required in certain industries like aviation, data centers, and military applications where traditional fire suppression methods could cause damage to sensitive equipment.
• Why: Halons were used due to their effectiveness in fire suppression in confined spaces, but their use is now largely phased out. Some systems may still need to be maintained or serviced, and only recycled halons are allowed in many countries.

4. Legacy Uses in Specific Industrial Processes

• When: Some historical industrial processes used ODS, such as cleaning agents like methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane) or carbon tetrachloride. These may still be required for specific legacy processes in manufacturing or cleaning, although alternatives have largely replaced them.
• Why: Older equipment and processes may still rely on these substances for specific functions, and while their use is limited, transitional periods may still exist, especially if alternatives are not as effective or cost-efficient.

5. Emergency Situations

• When: In some emergency situations (such as in firefighting), halons and other ODS may still be used if there is a lack of immediate access to appropriate alternatives.
• Why: Halons, for example, were used in fire suppression systems in aviation and high-risk facilities due to their rapid and effective action. Though alternatives are now preferred, these substances might still be used in emergency situations if they are the most suitable option available.

6. Research and Development

• When: ODS might still be used in certain research settings or scientific studies where it is necessary to understand their environmental effects, develop better alternatives, or assess new technologies.
• Why: Research into ozone depletion and atmospheric science may require controlled use of ODS to study their impact on the ozone layer and to develop improved substitutes.

Summary:

ODS are no longer generally required in most modern-day applications due to international agreements like the Montreal Protocol. However, they may still be required in specific situations where alternatives are not viable or for servicing legacy systems. These situations include the maintenance of old equipment, critical agricultural uses, special fire suppression systems, or during research. In all cases, the use of ODS is heavily regulated and must comply with environmental protection guidelines and agreements.

COURTESY : Annenberg Public Policy Center

Where is required Ozone Draining Substances ?

Ozone-depleting substances (ODS) were historically used in many industries and applications, but their use is now highly regulated due to their harmful effects on the ozone layer. However, there are still specific places or sectors where ODS are required (or were historically required) under certain circumstances or due to legacy systems that are difficult or expensive to replace.

Here are some of the key places where ozone-depleting substances may still be used or required:

1. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Systems

• Where: In older industrial, commercial, and residential refrigeration and air conditioning units.
• Why: Refrigerants like CFCs (e.g., R-12) and HCFCs (e.g., R-22) were commonly used in older refrigeration and air conditioning systems. While newer systems now use non-ozone-depleting refrigerants, older equipment that still uses these substances may require servicing or refilling with the same refrigerant.

2. Fire Suppression Systems

• Where: In aircraft, data centers, and high-value asset protection areas (e.g., server rooms, military facilities, etc.).
• Why: Halons (e.g., Halon-1301) were used in fire suppression systems because of their effectiveness in extinguishing fires without damaging sensitive electronics or equipment. Though halons are now phased out, they may still be required in legacy systems or certain critical applications.

3. Agricultural Fumigation and Pest Control

• Where: In agricultural fields, especially for soil fumigation in crops like strawberries, tomatoes, or tobacco.
• Why: Methyl bromide has been used to sterilize soil and control pests. It is a potent ozone-depleting substance but remains necessary in some circumstances for critical uses in agriculture. Its use is now limited and regulated under the Montreal Protocol, with exemptions allowed only when no suitable alternative exists.

4. Industrial Cleaning and Solvents

• Where: In manufacturing or electronics industries that require cleaning agents for delicate processes, such as degreasing or electronics cleaning.
• Why: Substances like methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane) and carbon tetrachloride were historically used as solvents for cleaning purposes. While alternatives are now commonly used, some industries may still rely on ODS for certain legacy applications.

5. Certain Legacy Industrial Equipment and Processes

• Where: In older industrial facilities, including chemical plants, manufacturing lines, or any facility that used ODS-containing systems in the past.
• Why: Older equipment that was designed before the phase-out of ODS may still require the use of CFCs or HCFCs for maintenance or operation. Refilling or servicing legacy equipment is one reason why these substances might still be used in specific locations.

6. Aerosol Products and Consumer Goods

• Where: In certain aerosol products still available in specific regions (though rare) or for specialized industrial applications.
• Why: Although the use of CFCs in aerosol products has been largely phased out globally, certain aerosols (like medical inhalers) or specialty industrial products might still use ODS in some instances where no alternative is available or practical. However, these instances are rare, and many products have switched to alternatives like hydrocarbons or HFCs.

7. Research Laboratories and Environmental Monitoring

• Where: In research institutions and scientific laboratories focused on ozone layer studies, climate change, or atmospheric science.
• Why: Ozone-depleting substances may still be used in controlled environments for studying their environmental impact, testing alternatives, or monitoring their presence in the atmosphere. Research into ODS and their effects on the ozone layer may require the use of small quantities of these substances under regulated conditions.

8. Certain Military and Aviation Applications

• Where: In military installations, aircraft, or naval vessels.
• Why: Halons and other ODS were commonly used for fire suppression in military and aviation applications because of their ability to quickly suppress fires without damaging sensitive electronics. Although the use of these chemicals has decreased, some older systems may still rely on halons.

9. Building Insulation (Foams)

• Where: In older buildings or construction projects using insulation foams that were manufactured with CFCs or HCFCs.
• Why: CFCs and HCFCs were once used as blowing agents to create foam products for insulation in buildings, appliances, and packaging. While the production of foam products with ODS has been largely phased out, older foam structures may still be in place in buildings and equipment.

10. Aviation

• Where: In aircraft fire suppression systems and old aircraft maintenance.
• Why: Halons were widely used in fire suppression systems for aircraft because they were effective in suppressing fires in confined spaces. Despite the phase-out of halons, some older aircraft may still rely on them, and these systems may need to be recharged or maintained.

Summary:

Although the use of ozone-depleting substances is now largely prohibited, they are still required in specific places and situations, especially involving legacy systems or where no viable alternatives exist. Key sectors include refrigeration, fire suppression, agriculture, industrial cleaning, aerosols, and research. The use of these substances is highly regulated by international agreements like the Montreal Protocol to minimize environmental damage and encourage the adoption of safer alternatives.

How is required Ozone Draining Substances ?

The term “required” when referring to ozone-depleting substances (ODS) typically means that certain industries, sectors, or processes still use these substances due to historical reliance, lack of alternatives, or specific regulatory allowances. However, the need for ODS has decreased significantly over the years due to international agreements like the Montreal Protocol that seek to phase out their production and consumption.

Here’s how Ozone-Draining Substances are still “required” in some situations:

1. Servicing and Maintenance of Older Equipment

• How: Ozone-depleting substances such as CFCs or HCFCs were used in refrigeration, air conditioning, and fire suppression systems in older equipment. These chemicals may still be required for servicing or refilling legacy systems.
• Example: A refrigerator manufactured in the 1990s may still contain R-12 (a CFC), and if it requires repair, the same refrigerant will likely be needed to maintain its functionality.
• How it works: The systems must be carefully handled, ensuring that ODS are not released into the atmosphere during the service process, and that they are properly disposed of when removed.

2. Critical Use Exemptions in Agriculture

• How: Methyl bromide, an ozone-depleting substance, was widely used in agriculture, especially for soil fumigation and pest control. Though it is banned in most uses, it is still allowed in critical use exemptions.
• Example: A farmer might need methyl bromide to control specific pests in certain crops where no effective alternatives exist.
• How it works: Governments and regulatory bodies assess whether the use is necessary and if no alternatives can achieve the same results. The amount of methyl bromide used is also tightly controlled.

3. Legacy Use in Fire Suppression Systems

• How: Halons (such as Halon-1301) were commonly used in fire suppression systems, particularly in aviation, data centers, and military applications. These chemicals are still required to service older systems that were originally designed with halons.
• Example: An aircraft or a military facility with an older fire suppression system may still rely on halons to suppress fires in sensitive environments (like electronics).
• How it works: Recycled halons may be used for these systems to ensure they are maintained properly. New systems no longer use halons, but these legacy systems may continue to be operational for several years.

4. Research Purposes

• How: Ozone-depleting substances are used in scientific research to study their effects on the atmosphere, their role in ozone layer depletion, and the effectiveness of alternatives.
• Example: Scientists may still need CFCs or HCFCs in controlled research environments to test their environmental impact or to create models for ozone depletion.
• How it works: Research in ozone chemistry and atmospheric science may require the use of small quantities of ODS to understand the long-term effects and to improve technologies that reduce ozone depletion.

5. Legacy Industrial Applications

• How: Certain legacy industrial processes, such as electronics cleaning or solvent applications, may still require ozone-depleting solvents like methyl chloroform or carbon tetrachloride.
• Example: Some industries might continue to use ODS in cleaning agents if their equipment is outdated and requires those specific chemicals for effective cleaning or degreasing.
• How it works: Companies may still use these substances in the short term until more environmentally friendly alternatives can be implemented.

6. Aerosol Products in Some Regions

• How: In some cases, certain aerosol products (e.g., medical inhalers or industrial sprays) may still require CFCs or HCFCs as propellants, especially in regions where they have not yet transitioned to new formulations.
• Example: Some metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) used for asthma treatment still contain CFCs, though there has been a push to use HFCs as an alternative.
• How it works: Regulatory exceptions may allow specific products to use ODS for public health reasons or in regions with slower adoption of alternative technologies.

7. Building Materials and Insulation

• How: Ozone-depleting substances such as CFCs and HCFCs were used in foam production, including insulation materials used in buildings and appliances. Although new materials no longer use ODS, older buildings or equipment may still contain these substances.
• Example: Insulated foam in older refrigerators or in building insulation may contain ODS, and when this foam is disturbed (e.g., during renovations), there may be a risk of ODS release.
• How it works: When the foam needs to be removed or replaced, proper disposal techniques are necessary to avoid releasing ODS into the atmosphere.

8. Aviation

• How: Some aircraft and aviation fire suppression systems that were designed before the Montreal Protocol still require the use of halons.
• Example: In commercial aviation, older aircraft may still be fitted with halon-based fire suppression systems.
• How it works: While newer aircraft use more environmentally friendly alternatives, these legacy systems are required to use halons and can be maintained through recycled halons.

Summary:

The “requirement” for ozone-depleting substances is largely tied to legacy equipment, critical use exemptions, or specific regulated uses where alternatives are not yet fully viable or suitable. Over time, the need for ODS has decreased, but in certain industries such as refrigeration, agriculture, fire suppression, and aerosols, ODS are still required for maintenance, special applications, and research purposes, although their use is carefully monitored and restricted under international agreements like the Montreal Protocol.

Case study is Ozone Draining Substances ?

Case Study: Phasing Out Ozone-Depleting Substances in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

Background:

Ozone-depleting substances (ODS), particularly chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), were widely used in refrigeration and air conditioning systems throughout the 20th century. These chemicals were found to contribute significantly to the depletion of the ozone layer, which protects life on Earth from harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation.

In response to the growing concern about ozone depletion, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, signed in 1987, set the global framework to phase out the use of ODS. The protocol has been widely successful in reducing the production and consumption of these substances, and it has been ratified by nearly all countries globally.

The Problem:

Refrigerants such as CFC-12 (R-12) and HCFC-22 (R-22) were commonly used as coolants in refrigerators, air conditioners, and heat pumps. These substances, when released into the atmosphere, would break down and release chlorine atoms, which in turn, would destroy the ozone layer. By the late 20th century, scientists had shown a direct correlation between the rise in UV radiation and the thinning of the ozone layer, leading to increased rates of skin cancer and other health risks.

As a result, many countries committed to reducing and eventually eliminating the use of ODS through the Montreal Protocol.

Key Events in the Case Study:

1. The Montreal Protocol (1987):
   • Action Taken: The Montreal Protocol required all ratifying nations to phase out the use and production of CFCs, HCFCs, and other ozone-depleting chemicals. Initially, this meant setting deadlines for the complete phase-out of CFCs by 2000 in developed countries and 2010 in developing countries.
   • Outcome: As a result, the use of ODS began to decline globally, and manufacturers began to develop and adopt safer, non-ozone-depleting alternatives, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
2. Transition to Safer Alternatives in Refrigeration (1990s–2000s):
   • Action Taken: The refrigeration industry, which was heavily reliant on CFCs and HCFCs, began transitioning to HFC-134a (tetrafluoroethane) and other non-ozone-depleting refrigerants. These alternatives do not contain chlorine atoms, which is the key component responsible for ozone depletion.
   • Outcome: By 2010, the transition in many countries was largely complete, and CFCs and HCFCs were no longer used in the production of new refrigeration and air conditioning units.
3. Challenges and Continued Use of HCFCs:
   • Action Taken: Despite progress, HCFC-22 (R-22) remained in widespread use for servicing older air conditioners and refrigerators. This presented a challenge as it still contributed to ozone depletion, although it was less harmful than CFCs.
   • Outcome: Countries were given a grace period to phase out R-22 production and importation, with service-only exemptions for existing equipment. The phased-out production began in 2010, and full service-based use was eventually eliminated by 2020 in many regions.
4. Recent Developments – The Kigali Amendment (2016):
   • Action Taken: The Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, adopted in 2016, further extended the protocol’s goals by targeting the phase-out of HFCs, which, while not ozone-depleting, contribute to global warming.
   • Outcome: The global community began to adopt more environmentally friendly refrigerants like HFOs (hydrofluoro-olefins) and natural refrigerants such as ammonia and CO2, which have minimal environmental impact.

Key Results from the Case Study:

1. Success in Reducing Ozone Depletion:
   • The Montreal Protocol has been one of the most successful international environmental agreements, leading to a dramatic decline in the use of CFCs and HCFCs. As of today, atmospheric levels of ODS have begun to decrease, and the ozone layer is showing signs of recovery.
   • According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the ozone layer is expected to be fully healed by the middle of the 21st century if current policies remain in place.
2. Transition to New Refrigerants:
   • The refrigeration and air conditioning industry has largely moved away from ODS and embraced HFCs and HFOs. These newer refrigerants, while not completely free from environmental concerns (especially HFCs, which are potent greenhouse gases), have much less impact on the ozone layer.
   • However, further innovation continues with the aim of reducing the global warming potential (GWP) of refrigerants by adopting natural alternatives, such as ammonia (NH3), propane, and carbon dioxide.
3. Phasing Out R-22:
   • The phase-out of R-22 in air conditioners and refrigeration units required significant infrastructure changes, with many systems requiring retrofit or replacement. In many regions, older units using R-22 had to be replaced or retrofitted with newer, more environmentally friendly refrigerants, a process that took over a decade in some countries.
   • By 2020, the use of R-22 was officially banned for servicing in many developed countries, although in developing countries, it continued to be used until the agreed-upon phase-out dates.

Lessons Learned:

1. Global Cooperation is Essential:
   • The Montreal Protocol demonstrated the importance of global cooperation to solve environmental issues. International agreements and commitments allowed countries to collaborate and meet the challenge of phasing out ODS on a global scale.
2. Technological Innovation and Adaptation:
   • The transition away from ozone-depleting refrigerants required extensive research and technological innovation. The industry adopted new refrigerants and improved energy-efficient technologies, and ongoing research into alternatives continues today.
3. Long-Term Commitment:
   • Phasing out ODS was not a short-term effort. It required a long-term commitment, both from governments and industries, to fully eliminate these substances from everyday use. This is especially true in sectors like refrigeration, where the service life of equipment can span many years.
4. Environmental and Economic Impact:
   • While the phase-out of ODS required significant initial investment and adaptation costs, the long-term environmental and health benefits far outweighed the costs. Restoring the ozone layer will reduce the risks associated with UV radiation, which can lead to skin cancer, cataracts, and other health problems.

Conclusion:

The case of ozone-depleting substances in refrigeration and air conditioning serves as a key example of how international cooperation and technological innovation can mitigate environmental damage. Through the Montreal Protocol and subsequent measures, the world has made significant progress in eliminating ODS and moving toward more sustainable alternatives. This case study shows how global policies, industry adaptation, and scientific advancements can work together to protect the ozone layer and promote a healthier environment.

COURTESY : Simply The Best BIO

White paper on Ozone Draining Substances ?

White Paper on Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS)

Executive Summary

Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS) are chemicals that contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer, which acts as Earth’s protective shield against harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation. The ozone layer protects life on Earth from excessive UV radiation, which can cause various health issues, including skin cancer, cataracts, and weakened immune systems, as well as environmental impacts such as crop damage. ODS have been widely used in refrigerants, solvents, foam-blowing agents, and fire extinguishing systems.

This white paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of Ozone-Depleting Substances, the global efforts to reduce their use, the impact of their phase-out, and the ongoing challenges and innovations in the transition to environmentally-friendly alternatives.

1. Introduction

The ozone layer, located in the stratosphere, plays a crucial role in protecting life on Earth by absorbing and scattering the sun’s harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation. The depletion of the ozone layer has raised significant environmental and health concerns worldwide. A primary cause of ozone layer depletion is the release of synthetic chemicals, particularly chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and halons, known collectively as Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS).

Historically, these substances were widely used in industries such as refrigeration, air conditioning, firefighting, and manufacturing. However, by the 1970s, scientific research identified the link between these substances and ozone layer depletion, leading to the adoption of global protocols aimed at mitigating their environmental impact.

2. Understanding Ozone-Depleting Substances

ODS are a class of chemicals that contain chlorine, bromine, or fluorine, which break down the ozone molecules in the stratosphere. These substances are particularly harmful because they can remain in the atmosphere for decades, slowly accumulating and contributing to ozone depletion.

Common Ozone-Depleting Substances:

1. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs):
   • Used in refrigeration, air conditioning, solvents, and foam-blowing agents.
   • Examples: CFC-12 (R-12), CFC-11 (R-11).
   • Environmental Impact: CFCs break down into chlorine atoms in the stratosphere, which catalyze the destruction of ozone molecules.
2. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs):
   • Used as a replacement for CFCs in refrigeration and air conditioning.
   • Examples: HCFC-22 (R-22).
   • Environmental Impact: HCFCs are less damaging than CFCs but still contribute to ozone depletion and global warming.
3. Halons:
   • Used in fire suppression systems, especially in aviation and military applications.
   • Examples: Halon-1301, Halon-1211.
   • Environmental Impact: Halons release bromine into the stratosphere, which is more efficient than chlorine at destroying ozone.
4. Methyl Bromide:
   • Used in agriculture for soil fumigation and pest control.
   • Environmental Impact: Methyl bromide is a potent ozone-depleting substance that has been heavily regulated due to its impact on the ozone layer.

3. The Impact of Ozone Depletion

The depletion of the ozone layer allows greater amounts of harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation to reach Earth’s surface. This has various detrimental effects, including:

1. Human Health:
   • Skin Cancer: Increased UV radiation exposure has been linked to higher rates of skin cancer, including melanoma.
   • Cataracts and Eye Damage: Prolonged UV exposure increases the risk of cataracts and other eye disorders.
   • Weakened Immune System: Increased UV radiation can suppress the immune system, making the body more susceptible to infections and diseases.
2. Environmental Impact:
   • Ecosystems: Increased UV radiation harms aquatic ecosystems, especially phytoplankton, which form the basis of the ocean food chain.
   • Agriculture: UV damage can stunt plant growth, reduce crop yields, and affect food security.
   • Wildlife: Many animal species are sensitive to UV radiation, which can affect reproduction and overall biodiversity.

4. The Montreal Protocol: A Global Effort to Protect the Ozone Layer

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, signed in 1987, was a landmark international treaty designed to phase out the use of ODS globally. The protocol has been ratified by nearly every country, making it one of the most successful environmental agreements in history.

Key Milestones of the Montreal Protocol:

• 1987: The protocol is adopted, setting binding targets for the phase-out of CFCs, HCFCs, and halons.
• 1992: The London Amendments introduce a plan to eliminate HCFCs by 2030 and accelerate the phase-out of CFCs and halons.
• 1997: The Kyoto Amendments set specific targets for countries to meet their phase-out commitments.
• 2016: The Kigali Amendment expands the protocol to include the phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a potent greenhouse gas, to address both ozone depletion and climate change.

Successes of the Montreal Protocol:

• The protocol has been instrumental in reducing the global production and consumption of ODS.
• The ozone layer is showing signs of recovery, with estimates suggesting it will fully heal by the mid-21st century.
• The Montreal Protocol has prevented millions of cases of skin cancer and cataracts globally.

5. Current Challenges and the Transition to Alternatives

Although significant progress has been made in reducing ODS, challenges remain in the transition to environmentally friendly alternatives. Some of the key issues include:

1. Legacy Systems:
   • Many refrigeration and air conditioning systems still contain ODS, and servicing these systems requires the use of CFCs and HCFCs.
   • The transition to new refrigerants often requires costly retrofits, especially in older equipment.
2. HFCs and Climate Change:
   • While hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) do not deplete the ozone layer, they are potent greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. The Kigali Amendment addresses this issue by phasing down the use of HFCs.
   • There is a growing push to adopt natural refrigerants such as ammonia, CO2, and hydrocarbons, which have low global warming potential (GWP) and are environmentally friendly alternatives to HFCs.
3. Agricultural Fumigation:
   • Methyl bromide, which is still used in certain critical applications for soil fumigation, is being phased out, but suitable alternatives are still being explored, especially for crops like strawberries and tomatoes.
4. Developing Countries:
   • While developed countries have largely transitioned away from ODS, developing nations still rely on HCFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals due to cost constraints and limited access to alternatives. Financial and technical assistance through the Multilateral Fund is critical to support their transition.

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

The global phase-out of Ozone-Depleting Substances has been a remarkable success story for international environmental policy. However, challenges remain, particularly in the transition to sustainable alternatives and addressing the climate impact of newer chemicals like HFCs.

Key recommendations for further progress include:

1. Increased investment in research for alternatives to ODS and HFCs, focusing on natural refrigerants and other sustainable options.
2. Strengthening enforcement mechanisms to ensure full compliance with phase-out targets, especially in developing countries.
3. Public education and awareness campaigns to promote the importance of reducing ODS and adopting environmentally friendly alternatives.

The continued success of global ozone protection efforts depends on the collective action of governments, industries, and individuals. The recovery of the ozone layer is a testament to the power of international cooperation and the positive impact that proactive environmental policies can have on both public health and the planet’s ecosystems.

References:

1. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – Ozone Layer Protection
2. Montreal Protocol Secretariat
3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports
4. World Health Organization (WHO) – UV Radiation and Health

Industrial application of Ozone Draining Substances ?

Industrial Applications of Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS)

Ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are chemicals that have historically been used across various industries due to their unique properties, particularly their stability and effectiveness in processes like refrigeration, fire suppression, and solvent applications. These substances, including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and halons, have been phased out under international agreements like the Montreal Protocol due to their detrimental effects on the ozone layer.

Despite the global reduction in their use, some industrial applications of ODS continue to persist, especially in legacy systems or where suitable alternatives are not yet fully available. Below are some key industrial applications where ODS have been historically used and continue to have an impact.

1. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

ODS Used: CFCs, HCFCs

Applications:

• Refrigeration Systems: ODS, particularly CFC-12 (R-12) and HCFC-22 (R-22), were extensively used in refrigeration systems, including household refrigerators, commercial coolers, and industrial refrigeration units.
• Air Conditioning Systems: CFCs and HCFCs were commonly used in both residential and commercial air conditioning units, as well as large-scale industrial HVAC systems.

Why ODS Were Used:

• Efficiency: These substances had high thermodynamic efficiency, which made them ideal for cooling systems.
• Stability: ODS were chemically stable and non-toxic, making them relatively safe for use in a variety of equipment.
• Low Cost: At the time, they were more affordable than alternatives, which made them widely adopted in both residential and industrial applications.

Current Status:

• The production and use of CFCs have been phased out in most countries, and HCFCs are being gradually phased out, with R-22 set to be completely banned by 2020 in many developed countries.
• Alternatives such as HFCs, hydrofluoro-olefins (HFOs), and natural refrigerants (e.g., ammonia, CO2, propane) have been adopted as more environmentally friendly replacements, though challenges persist in retrofitting older systems.

2. Fire Suppression Systems

ODS Used: Halons (e.g., Halon-1301, Halon-1211)

Applications:

• Fire Extinguishers: Halon-1301 (bromotrifluoromethane) and Halon-1211 (bromochlorodifluoromethane) were widely used in fire suppression systems, particularly in aviation, military facilities, and data centers.
• Aircraft and Marine Applications: Halons were commonly used in aviation and marine fire suppression systems due to their efficiency in quickly extinguishing fires in enclosed spaces.

Why ODS Were Used:

• Effectiveness: Halons are highly effective at suppressing fires in enclosed spaces with minimal damage to electrical equipment, which is particularly important in environments like airplanes or data centers.
• Quick Acting: They rapidly disrupt the chemical reactions that sustain fires, making them highly efficient in emergencies.

Current Status:

• The production of halons has been completely phased out under the Montreal Protocol, but existing systems may still rely on recycled or stockpiled halons for servicing. New fire suppression systems are transitioning to clean agents such as HFCs, HFOs, and inert gases like nitrogen and argon.
• Special exceptions exist for certain critical applications, especially in aviation and military sectors, where halon-based systems remain in service.

3. Solvents and Cleaning Agents

ODS Used: CFCs, HCFCs, Methyl Chloroform, Carbon Tetrachloride

Applications:

• Degreasing and Cleaning: CFCs, HCFCs, and other ODS were once commonly used as solvents in industrial cleaning, especially for cleaning electronics, precision instruments, and metal parts.
• Aerosol Products: ODS were also used in aerosol propellants for products like spray paints, cleaning sprays, and cosmetic products.

Why ODS Were Used:

• Chemical Stability: ODS are chemically inert, non-flammable, and effective at dissolving a wide range of oils, greases, and residues.
• Non-Toxicity: In their gaseous or liquid forms, these substances were generally considered safe for workers and consumers when used properly.
• Efficient Dispensing: In aerosol form, ODS served as ideal propellants, allowing for precise and consistent application.

Current Status:

• The use of ODS for industrial cleaning and degreasing has largely been replaced by non-ozone-depleting alternatives, such as hydrofluoroethers (HFEs), water-based cleaners, and other solvent systems.
• In the case of aerosols, HFCs or compressed gases like nitrogen are now used as replacements for ODS-based propellants.

4. Foam Production

ODS Used: CFCs, HCFCs

Applications:

• Foam Blowing: CFCs and HCFCs were used as blowing agents in the production of rigid foam insulation, commonly used in building materials, refrigerators, and appliances.
• Packaging: ODS were also used in foam packaging materials like polystyrene and polyurethane foam.

Why ODS Were Used:

• Low Boiling Points: ODS such as CFCs and HCFCs have low boiling points, making them ideal for creating foam materials with a lightweight, insulative structure.
• Insulation Properties: The foam produced from ODS was highly effective at providing thermal insulation, making it ideal for refrigerators, coolers, and building insulation.

Current Status:

• The use of CFCs in foam production was largely phased out in the early 2000s, and HCFCs are being replaced with more sustainable blowing agents, such as hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) and water-based systems.
• In many cases, non-ODS alternatives like pentane (for rigid foam) and CO2 have been introduced as blowing agents to minimize environmental impact.

5. Agricultural Applications

ODS Used: Methyl Bromide

Applications:

• Soil Fumigation: Methyl bromide was widely used in agriculture as a pest control agent, particularly for soil fumigation before planting crops like tomatoes, strawberries, and other high-value plants.
• Post-Harvest Treatment: It was also used to control pests and diseases in stored grain and fruit exports.

Why ODS Were Used:

• Effectiveness: Methyl bromide is highly effective in killing soil-borne pests, weeds, and fungal spores, which are difficult to control through other means.
• Fast-Acting: It acts quickly and has a broad-spectrum effect on a variety of pests, making it a popular choice in commercial agriculture.

Current Status:

• The use of methyl bromide has been severely restricted under the Montreal Protocol, with exceptions for critical uses. Alternative pest control methods such as biological control, heat treatment, and chemical alternatives like chloropicrin are now used as substitutes.
• Efforts are focused on developing more sustainable alternatives for soil fumigation, and there has been growing success with integrated pest management (IPM) techniques.

Conclusion

Ozone-depleting substances have played an important role in many industrial processes, particularly in refrigeration, fire suppression, cleaning, foam production, and agriculture. However, their environmental impact, particularly the depletion of the ozone layer, has led to significant global efforts to reduce and eventually phase out their use.

With the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, industries have gradually transitioned to safer alternatives. While some legacy applications still rely on ODS, technological innovation continues to provide effective, environmentally friendly substitutes that minimize ozone depletion and reduce overall environmental impact.

As a result, industries must continue to adopt sustainable practices and focus on advancing green technologies to ensure the protection of the ozone layer and mitigate future environmental damage.

Research and development of Ozone Draining Substances ?

Research and Development of Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS)

The research and development of Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS) primarily focused on understanding their environmental impact, particularly their role in the depletion of the ozone layer. However, over the past few decades, due to growing concerns about the harmful effects of ODS on the ozone layer and human health, global efforts have shifted toward minimizing their use and replacing them with safer alternatives. Research and development (R&D) in this area has primarily aimed to:

1. Understand the science behind ozone depletion.
2. Develop alternative chemicals and technologies that are both effective and environmentally friendly.
3. Improve methods for phasing out or controlling the use of existing ODS.

1. Scientific Research Behind Ozone Depletion

The research into ozone depletion began in the late 1970s and 1980s, when scientists discovered that certain chemicals, notably chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and halons, were breaking down the ozone layer.

Key Findings:

• CFCs and HCFCs: These substances were found to release chlorine and bromine when they break down in the stratosphere. These chlorine and bromine molecules then react with ozone (O₃), breaking it apart into oxygen molecules (O₂), leading to ozone layer depletion.
• Ozone Depletion Mechanism: The chlorine atoms released from CFCs and bromine atoms from halons were identified as the primary agents responsible for ozone destruction. A single chlorine atom could destroy thousands of ozone molecules over a period of time.
• UV Radiation Effects: Ozone depletion leads to an increase in ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth’s surface, which can cause skin cancer, cataracts, immune system suppression, and damage to plant life and marine ecosystems.

The findings were instrumental in developing global policies, such as the Montreal Protocol, which aimed to phase out ODS and protect the ozone layer.

2. Development of ODS Alternatives

Research into replacing Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS) has led to the development of a range of alternative chemicals and technologies that do not contribute to ozone depletion. These alternatives are not only designed to be safe for the ozone layer but also have minimal impact on climate change and human health.

Types of Alternatives Developed:

1. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
   • HFCs were introduced as an alternative to CFCs and HCFCs because they do not contain chlorine or bromine, which are responsible for ozone depletion.
   • Example: HFC-134a (R-134a) is widely used in refrigeration and air conditioning as a replacement for CFC-12 (R-12).
   • Environmental Concerns: Although HFCs are ozone-safe, they are potent greenhouse gases and contribute to global warming. This led to the adoption of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which calls for the gradual reduction of HFCs.
2. Hydrofluoro-Olefins (HFOs)
   • HFOs represent a newer class of refrigerants that are being developed to replace HFCs. They have low global warming potential (GWP) and are non-ozone-depleting.
   • Example: HFO-1234yf is an emerging refrigerant used as an alternative to HFC-134a in automotive air conditioning systems.
   • Advantage: These refrigerants are more energy-efficient and have a much lower environmental impact than HFCs.
3. Natural Refrigerants
   • Natural refrigerants are non-ozone-depleting and have low global warming potential. They include:
     • Ammonia (NH₃): Used in industrial refrigeration.
     • Carbon Dioxide (CO₂): A promising alternative for commercial refrigeration and air conditioning.
     • Hydrocarbons (e.g., propane (R-290), butane (R-600a)): These are increasingly used in small refrigeration and air conditioning systems.
   • Benefits: Natural refrigerants are non-toxic, energy-efficient, and have little to no impact on the ozone layer.
4. Water as a Refrigerant
   • Research into using water as a refrigerant has been explored in low-temperature refrigeration systems. Water is an effective solvent and refrigerant, but it has limitations, especially for higher-temperature applications.
5. Alternative Foam-Blowing Agents
   • CFCs and HCFCs were traditionally used as blowing agents for producing foams like polystyrene and polyurethane.
   • Alternatives like hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs), CO₂, and water-based systems have been developed to replace ODS in foam production.

3. Innovations in ODS Phase-Out Technologies

The global phase-out of Ozone-Depleting Substances under the Montreal Protocol has prompted several technological innovations in the way that industries approach the use of refrigerants, solvents, fire suppression systems, and foam-blowing agents.

Key Technologies:

1. Closed-Loop Systems for Refrigerants
   • In refrigeration and air conditioning, closed-loop systems have been introduced to recover and recycle refrigerants at the end of their lifecycle. This helps reduce the demand for new refrigerants and minimizes the release of ODS into the atmosphere.
2. Retrofit Technologies
   • The use of retrofit kits allows older refrigeration and air conditioning systems that originally used ODS like R-12 or R-22 to be adapted for use with safer, alternative refrigerants such as HFC-134a or HFO-1234yf.
3. Improved Fire Suppression Technologies
   • New, more environmentally friendly fire suppression systems have been developed to replace halon-based systems. These include:
     • Inert gases (e.g., argon, nitrogen) used in clean agent fire suppression systems.
     • Water mist systems that use fine sprays of water to suppress fires without harmful environmental effects.
4. Alternative Agricultural Fumigants
   • Research has led to the development of alternative fumigants to replace methyl bromide for soil pest control. Alternatives such as chloropicrin, dazomet, and metam sodium are being tested for use in specific agricultural applications.

4. Challenges and Ongoing Research

Despite significant progress in the phase-out of ODS, there are still challenges that hinder the complete transition to non-ozone-depleting and climate-friendly alternatives:

1. Availability and Cost of Alternatives:
   • Although alternative chemicals like HFOs and natural refrigerants are increasingly available, they are often more expensive or less efficient than ODS, requiring significant investment in infrastructure and training.
2. Retrofit and Transition Challenges:
   • Older refrigeration, air conditioning, and fire suppression systems still rely on ODS, and retrofitting them to work with newer refrigerants can be expensive and technically challenging.
3. Environmental Trade-Offs:
   • Some of the alternatives to ODS, especially HFCs, still contribute to global warming. Continued research is needed to balance ozone protection with addressing climate change.
4. Developing Economies:
   • Many developing countries still face challenges in phasing out ODS due to a lack of financial resources, access to alternatives, and technical know-how. Continued support and funding are essential for helping these countries transition.

5. Future Outlook and Emerging Technologies

The research and development in the field of ozone-depleting substances and their alternatives will likely continue for years to come. Some emerging areas of interest in R&D include:

1. Synthetic Biology and Biotechnology: The potential use of biotechnological processes to create environmentally friendly chemicals that could serve as refrigerants or foam-blowing agents.
2. Energy-Efficient Refrigeration: Developing highly efficient refrigeration systems that reduce the environmental impact not only in terms of ozone depletion but also energy consumption, contributing to sustainable cooling solutions.
3. Climate-Optimized Refrigerants: As more focus is placed on dual benefits (protecting the ozone layer and mitigating climate change), new chemicals with zero ozone depletion potential and minimal global warming potential will be the goal for researchers.
4. Global Cooperation and Policy: Ongoing global cooperation and policy frameworks like the Montreal Protocol and its amendments will continue to be critical in guiding the safe phase-out of ODS and incentivizing the development and adoption of safe, sustainable alternatives.

Conclusion

While the research and development of Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS) in the past focused on their widespread industrial use, today, the emphasis is on phasing out these harmful substances and replacing them with environmentally friendly alternatives. The progress made over the last few decades is a testament to the success of international cooperation, technological innovation, and rigorous scientific research.

The Montreal Protocol has been instrumental in driving the phase-out of ODS, and ongoing research continues to offer new solutions, technologies, and alternatives to protect the ozone layer and address broader environmental challenges such as climate change.

COURTESY : Biology ScienceSK

References

1. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f} “Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer” (PDF). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010. World Meteorological Organization. 2011. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2013-03-05. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
2. ^ Gruijl, Frank de; Leun, Jan (October 3, 2000). “Environment and health: 3. Ozone depletion and ultraviolet radiation”. CMAJ. 163 (7): 851–855. PMC 80511. PMID 11033716 – via www.cmaj.ca.
3. ^ Andino, Jean M. (October 21, 1999). “Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are heavier than air, so how do scientists suppose that these chemicals reach the altitude of the ozone layer to adversely affect it ?”. Scientific American. 264: 68.
4. ^ “Part III. The Science of the Ozone Hole”. Retrieved March 5, 2007.
5. ^ “Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation”. www.cancer.org. Retrieved 2022-04-06.
6. ^ “The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer”. United States Department of State. Retrieved 2022-04-06.
7. ^ Banerjee, Antara; et al. (2020). “A pause in Southern Hemisphere circulation trends due to the Montreal Protocol”. Vol. 579. Nature. pp. 544–548. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2120-4.
8. ^ Jump up to:^a b “The Antarctic Ozone Hole Will Recover”. NASA. June 4, 2015. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
9. ^ Jump up to:^a b Bowden, John (2019-10-21). “Ozone hole shrinks to lowest size since 1982, unrelated to climate change: NASA”. The Hill. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
10. ^ Ansari, Talal (October 23, 2019). “Ozone Hole Above Antarctica Shrinks to Smallest Size on Record”. The Wall Street Journal – via www.wsj.com.
11. ^ “The Week”. No. 1418. Future PLC. 14 January 2023. p. 2.
12. ^ Laboratory (CSL), NOAA Chemical Sciences. “NOAA CSL: Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2022”. www.csl.noaa.gov. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
13. ^ “The Ozone Hole – The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer”. Theozonehole.com. 16 September 1987. Archived from the original on 2012-09-12. Retrieved 2019-05-15.
14. ^ “Background for International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer – 16 September”. www.un.org. Retrieved 2019-05-15.
15. ^ “Ozone”. earthobservatory.nasa.gov. 1999-07-30. Retrieved 2022-04-06.
16. ^ Lary, D. J. (2004). “Atmospheric pseudohalogen chemistry”. Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics Discussions. 4 (5): 5381. Bibcode:2004ACPD….4.5381L. doi:10.5194/acpd-4-5381-2004.
17. ^ “World of Change: Antarctic Ozone Hole”. earthobservatory.nasa.gov. 2009-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-26.
18. ^ Newman, Paul A. “Chapter 5: Stratospheric Photochemistry Section 4.2.8 ClX catalytic reactions”. In Todaro, Richard M. (ed.). Stratospheric ozone: an electronic textbook. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Branch. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
19. ^ Ricaud, P.; Lefèvre, F. (2006). “Fluorine in the Atmosphere”. Advances in Fluorine Science. 1: 1–32 See 12–13. doi:10.1016/S1872-0358(06)01001-3. hal-00256296. Thus, fluorine chemistry does not represent a significant sink for stratospheric ozone. All fluorine released from the source gases ends up in the form of HF, which accumulates in the stratosphere (Fig. 8). … The high stability of HF makes it an effective tracer of fluorine input in the stratosphere arising from fluorinated anthropogenic gases
20. ^ “Q7 What emissions from human activities lead to ozone depletion?” (PDF). 20 Questions: 2010 Update: Section II The Ozone Depletion Process. Chemical Sciences Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). pp. 3–4. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-02-26. Retrieved 22 October 2022. Iodine is a component of several gases that are naturally emitted from the oceans. Although iodine can participate in ozone destruction reactions, these iodine-containing source gases generally have very short lifetimes and, as a result, only a very small fraction reaches the stratosphere. There are large uncertainties in how these emissions vary with season and geographical region.
21. ^ “Stratospheric Ozone Depletion by Chlorofluorocarbons (Nobel Lecture)—Encyclopedia of Earth”. Eoearth.org. Archived from the original on September 9, 2011.
22. ^ Laboratory (CSL), NOAA Chemical Sciences. “NOAA CSL: Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010”. csl.noaa.gov. Retrieved 2024-04-01.
23. ^ “The Ozone Hole Tour: Part II. Recent Ozone Depletion”. University of Cambridge. Retrieved March 28, 2011.
24. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Solomon, S.; Ivy, D. J.; Kinnison, D.; Mills, M. J.; Neely Rr, 3rd; Schmidt, A. (June 30, 2016). “Emergence of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer”. Science. 353 (6296): 269–274. Bibcode:2016Sci…353..269S. doi:10.1126/science.aae0061. PMID 27365314.
25. ^ Mersmann, Katy; Stein, Theo (November 2, 2017). “Warm Air Helped Make 2017 Ozone Hole Smallest Since 1988”. nasa.gov. Retrieved December 31, 2017.
26. ^ “Spring 2020 brings rare ozone “hole” to the Arctic | NOAA Climate.gov”. www.climate.gov. Retrieved 2022-04-06.
27. ^ “U.S. EPA: Ozone Depletion”. 2006-09-30. Archived from the original on 2006-09-30. Retrieved 2024-04-01.
28. ^ Zafar, A. Mannan; Müller, Rolf; Grooss, Jens-Uwe; Robrecht, Sabine; Vogel, Bärbel; Lehmann, Ralph (January 2018). “The relevance of reactions of the methyl peroxy radical (CH3O2) and methylhypochlorite (CH3OCl) for Antarctic chlorine activation and ozone loss” (PDF). Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology. 70 (1): 1507391. Bibcode:2018TellB..7007391Z. doi:10.1080/16000889.2018.1507391. ISSN 1600-0889. S2CID 106298119.
29. ^ Son, Seok-Woo; Han, Bo-Reum; Garfinkel, Chaim I.; Kim, Seo-Yeon; Park, Rokjin; Abraham, N. Luke; Hideharu Akiyoshi; Archibald, Alexander T.; Butchart, N. (2018). “Tropospheric jet response to Antarctic ozone depletion: An update with Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI) models”. Environmental Research Letters. 13 (5): 054024. Bibcode:2018ERL….13e4024S. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabf21. hdl:20.500.11850/265235. ISSN 1748-9326.
30. ^ “Largest-ever Ozone Hole over Antarctica”. earthobservatory.nasa.gov. 2000-09-11. Retrieved 2018-11-26.
31. ^ Jump up to:^a b “Myth: Ozone Depletion Occurs Only In Antarctica”. EPA. June 28, 2006. Retrieved March 28, 2011.
32. ^ Self, Stephen, et al. (1996). “The Atmospheric Impact of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo Eruption”. USGS. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
33. ^ Jump up to:^a b “Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis”. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Work Group I. 2001. pp. Chapter 6.4 Stratospheric Ozone. Archived from the original on June 3, 2016. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
34. ^ 2008 News, Briefs, and Features. NASA
35. ^ “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis”. UNEP. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
36. ^ “Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 1998 – Preface”. US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved 21 December 2012.
37. ^ Newman, P. A.; Daniel, J. S.; Waugh, D. W.; Nash, E. R. (2007). “A new formulation of equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine (EESC)” (PDF). Atmos. Chem. Phys. 7 (17): 4537–52. Bibcode:2007ACP…..7.4537N. doi:10.5194/acp-7-4537-2007. S2CID 1934089. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2011-05-11.
38. ^ Kauffman, G. B. (2005). “CFCs: On the 75th Anniversary of Their Introduction as Commercial Refrigerants by Thomas Midgley, Jr. (1889–1944)”. The Chemical Educator. 10 (3): 217–226. doi:10.1333/s00897050916a.
39. ^ “chlorofluorocarbons”. Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved March 28, 2011.
40. ^ Adcock, Karina; Reeves, Claire; Gooch, Lauren; GGBC ham Elvidge, Emma; Ashfold, Matthew; Brenninkmeijer, Carl; Chou, Charles; Fraser, Paul; Langenfelds, Ray; Mohd Hanif, Norfazrin; O’Doherty, Simon; Oram, David; Ou-Yang, Chang-Feng; Phang, Siew Moi; Samah, Azizan Abu; Röckmann, Thomas; Sturges, William; Laube, Johannes (9 April 2018). “Continued increase of CFC-113a (CCl3CF3) mixing ratios in the global atmosphere: emissions, occurrence and potential sources”. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 18 (7): 4737–4751. Bibcode:2018ACP….18.4737A. doi:10.5194/acp-18-4737-2018.
41. ^ McGrath, Matt (2019-05-22). “China confirmed as source of rise in CFCs”. BBC News. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
42. ^ “China factories releasing thousands of tonnes of illegal CFC gases, study finds”. The Guardian. 2019-05-23. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
43. ^ Stoye, Emma (May 22, 2019). “China identified as source of unexpected rise in CFC emissions”. Chemistry World. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
44. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Ferreira, Jose P.; Huang, Ziyu; Nomura, Ken-ichi; Wang, Joseph (11 June 2024). “Potential Ozone Depletion From Satellite Demise During Atmospheric Reentry in the Era of Mega-Constellations”. Geophysical Research Letters. 51 (11). doi:10.1029/2024GL109280.
45. ^ Jump up to:^a b Puiu, Tibi (2015-02-18). “Short-lived chemicals that burn a hole in the ozone layer are on the rise”. ZME Science. Retrieved 2025-02-09.
46. ^ Nash, Eric; Newman, Paul (September 19, 2001). “NASA Confirms Arctic Ozone Depletion Trigger”. Image of the Day. NASA. Retrieved April 16, 2011.
47. ^ “Emissions of a banned ozone-depleting gas are back on the decline”. NOAA Research News. 11 February 2021.
48. ^ Sparling, Brien (June 26, 2001). “Antarctic Ozone Hole”. NASA Advanced Supercomputing Department. Archived from the original on March 12, 2005.
49. ^ Parson, Robert (December 16, 1997). “Antarctic ozone-depletion FAQ, section 7”. Faqs.org. Retrieved April 16, 2011.
50. ^ Toon, Owen B.; Turco, Richard P. (June 1991). “Polar Stratospheric Clouds and Ozone Depletion” (PDF). Scientific American. 264 (6): 68–74. Bibcode:1991SciAm.264f..68T. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0691-68. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 25, 2011. Retrieved April 16, 2011.
51. ^ Sumi´nska-Ebersoldt; Lehmann, R.; Wegner, T.; Grooß, J.-U.; Hösen, E.; Weigel, R.; Frey, W.; Griessbach, S.; Mitev, V.; Emde, C.; Volk, C. M.; Borrmann, S.; Rex, M.; Stroh, F.; von Hobe, M. (July 2011). “ClOOCl photolysis at high solar zenith angles: analysis of the RECONCILE self-match flight”. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 12 (3): 1353–1365. Bibcode:2012ACP….12.1353S. doi:10.5194/acp-12-1353-2012.
52. ^ “Ozone Facts: What is the Ozone Hole?”. Ozone Hole Watch. NASA. November 18, 2009. Archived from the original on November 20, 2010. Retrieved April 16, 2011.
53. ^ Rowland, Frank Sherwood (May 29, 2006). “Stratospheric ozone depletion”. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 361 (1469): 769–790. doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1783. PMC 1609402. PMID 16627294. Free radical reactions for ozone removal: Reaction 4.1
54. ^ Banerjee, Antara (25 March 2020). “A pause in Southern Hemisphere circulation trends due to the Montreal Protocol”. Nature. 579 (7800): 544–548. Bibcode:2020Natur.579..544B. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2120-4. PMID 32214266. S2CID 214648481. Retrieved 31 March 2020.
55. ^ “Ozone and You | Ozone Secretariat”. ozone.unep.org. Retrieved 2022-04-06.
56. ^ “Health and Environmental Effects of Ozone Layer Depletion”. EPA. 2013-02-15. Retrieved September 26, 2013.
57. ^ “Reconstruction of Paleobehavior of Ozonosphere Based on Response to UV-B Radiation Effect in Dendrochronologic Signal” (PDF). Atmospheric Radiation Measurement, USA. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2004-10-29. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
58. ^ The HIPERION Report (PDF) (Report). Ecuadorian Civilian Space Agency. 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-12-31.
59. ^ Lilley, Ray (October 5, 2000). “Ozone Hole Over City for First Time”. Associated Press. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
60. ^ Bothwell, Max L.; Sherbot, Darren M. J.; Pollock, Colleen M. (July 6, 1994). “Ecosystem Response to Solar Ultraviolet-B Radiation: Influence of Trophic-Level Interactions”. Science. 265 (5168): 97–100. Bibcode:1994Sci…265…97B. doi:10.1126/science.265.5168.97. PMID 17774696. S2CID 43683982.
61. ^ “Ozone Pollution: An Insidious and Growing Threat to Biodiversity”. Yale E360. Retrieved 2024-04-12.
62. ^ Bais, F.; Luca, R. M.; Bornman, J. F.; Williamson, C. E.; Sulzberger, B.; Austin, A. T.; Wilson, S. R.; Andrady, A. L.; Bernhard, G.; McKenzie, R. L.; Aucamp, P. J. (2018-02-14). “Environmental effects of ozone depletion, UV radiation and interactions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, update 2017”. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences. 17 (2): 127–179. doi:10.1039/c7pp90043k. ISSN 1474-905X. PMC 6155474. PMID 29404558.
63. ^ de Gruijl, Frank R. (Summer 1995). “Impacts of a Projected Depletion of the Ozone Layer”. Consequences. 1 (2).
64. ^ Fears, T. R.; Bird, C. C.; Guerry d, 4th; Sagebiel, R. W.; Gail, M. H.; Elder, D. E.; Halpern, A.; Holly, E. A.; Hartge, P.; Tucker, M. A. (2002). “Average midrange ultraviolet radiation flux and time outdoors predict melanoma risk”. Cancer Res. 62 (14): 3992–6. PMID 12124332.
65. ^ Abarca, J. F.; Casiccia, C. C. (December 2002). “Skin cancer and ultraviolet-B radiation under the Antarctic ozone hole: southern Chile, 1987–2000”. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 18 (6): 294–302. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0781.2002.02782.x. PMID 12535025. S2CID 25748826.
66. ^ West, S. K.; Duncan, D. D.; Muñoz, B.; Rubin, G. S.; Fried, L. P.; Bandeen-Roche, K.; Schein, O. D. (1998). “Sunlight exposure and risk of lens opacities in a population-based study: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation project”. JAMA. 280 (8): 714–8. doi:10.1001/jama.280.8.714. PMID 9728643.
67. ^ Dobson, R. (2005). “Ozone depletion will bring big rise in number of cataracts”. BMJ. 331 (7528): 1292–1295. doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7528.1292-d. PMC 1298891.
68. ^ “Ozone: Good Up High, Bad Nearby” (PDF). EPA. Archived from the original on June 2, 2013. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
69. ^ Webb, Ann R.; Engelsen, Ola (2006). “Calculated Ultraviolet Exposure Levels for a Healthy Vitamin D Status”. Photochemistry and Photobiology. 82 (6): 1697–1703. doi:10.1111/j.1751-1097.2006.tb09833.x. ISSN 1751-1097. PMID 16958558. S2CID 222102318.
70. ^ Melamed, M. L.; Michos, E. D.; Post, W.; Astor, B. (2008). “25-hydroxyl Vitamin D Levels and the Risk of Mortality in the General Population”. Arch. Intern. Med. 168 (15): 1629–37. doi:10.1001/archinte.168.15.1629. PMC 2677029. PMID 18695076.
71. ^ Vieth, R. (1999). “Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, and safety”. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 69 (5): 842–56. doi:10.1093/ajcn/69.5.842. PMID 10232622.
72. ^ “Sunburned whales: Troubling environment news of the week”. The Washington Post. BlogPost (blog). November 11, 2010. Archived from the original on January 7, 2012. Retrieved March 28, 2011.
73. ^ Thomas, Abbie (November 10, 2010). “Whales showing more sun damage”. Abc.net.au. Retrieved March 28, 2011.
74. ^ Mayer, S. J. (1992-08-08). “Stratospheric ozone depletion and animal health”. Veterinary Record. 131 (6): 120–122. doi:10.1136/vr.131.6.120 (inactive 2024-11-02). ISSN 0042-4900. PMID 1529513. S2CID 22177257.
75. ^ Sinha, R. P.; Singh, S. C.; Häder, D. P. (1999). “Photoecophysiology of cyanobacteria”. Recent Research Developments in Photochemistry and Photobiology. 3: 91–101.
76. ^ “Health and Environmental Effects of Ozone Layer In Plants”. U.S Environmental Protection Agency. 2013-02-15. Retrieved November 12, 2013.
77. ^ Barnes, P. W.; Robson, T. M.; Neale, P. J.; Williamson, C. E.; Zepp, R. G.; Madronich, S.; Wilson, S. R.; Andrady, A. L.; Heikkilä, A. M.; Bernhard, G. H.; Bais, A. F. (2022-03-01). “Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and interactions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2021”. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences. 21 (3): 275–301. doi:10.1007/s43630-022-00176-5. ISSN 1474-9092. PMC 8860140. PMID 35191005.
78. ^ Searles, Peter S.; Flint, Stephan D.; Caldwell, Martyn M. (2001-03-01). “A meta-analysis of plant field studies simulating stratospheric ozone depletion”. Oecologia. 127 (1): 1–10. Bibcode:2001Oecol.127….1S. doi:10.1007/s004420000592. ISSN 1432-1939. PMID 28547159. S2CID 7049908.
79. ^ Xiong, Fusheng S.; Day, Thomas A. (2001-02-01). “Effect of Solar Ultraviolet-B Radiation during Springtime Ozone Depletion on Photosynthesis and Biomass Production of Antarctic Vascular Plants”. Plant Physiology. 125 (2): 738–751. doi:10.1104/pp.125.2.738. ISSN 0032-0889. PMC 64875. PMID 11161031.
80. ^ United Nations Environment Programme, Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (2017). “Environmental effects of ozone depletion and its interactions with climate change: Progress report, 2016”. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences. 16 (2): 107–145. doi:10.1039/C7PP90001E. hdl:11336/183828. ISSN 1474-905X. PMC 6400464. PMID 28124708.
81. ^ Allen, Damian J.; Nogués, Salvador; Baker, Neil R. (1998-11-01). “Ozone depletion and increased UV-B radiation: is there a real threat to photosynthesis?”. Journal of Experimental Botany. 49 (328): 1775–1788. doi:10.1093/jxb/49.328.1775. ISSN 0022-0957.
82. ^ Björn, Lars Olof (1996-12-01). “Effects of ozone depletion and increased UV-B on terrestrial ecosystems”. International Journal of Environmental Studies. 51 (3): 217–243. Bibcode:1996IJEnS..51..217B. doi:10.1080/00207239608711082. ISSN 0020-7233.
83. ^ Bornman, J. F.; Barnes, P. W.; Robinson, S. A.; Ballaré, C. L.; Flint, S. D.; Caldwell, M. M. (2015). “Solar ultraviolet radiation and ozone depletion-driven climate change: effects on terrestrial ecosystems”. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences. 14 (1): 88–107. doi:10.1039/C4PP90034K. hdl:20.500.11937/28562. ISSN 1474-905X. PMID 25435216. S2CID 10176384.
84. ^ “Environmental effects of ozone depletion and its interactions with climate change: 2010 assessment : Executive summary”. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences. 10 (2): 178–181. 2011. doi:10.1039/c0pp90043e. ISSN 1474-905X. PMID 21253669. S2CID 40238255.
85. ^ Björn, L. O.; Callaghan, T. V; Gehrke, C.; Johanson, U.; Sonesson, M. (November 1999). “Ozone depletion, ultraviolet radiation and plant life”. Chemosphere – Global Change Science. 1 (4): 449–454. Bibcode:1999ChGCS…1..449B. doi:10.1016/s1465-9972(99)00038-0. ISSN 1465-9972.
86. ^ Bornman, Janet F.; Barnes, Paul W.; Robson, T. Matthew; Robinson, Sharon A.; Jansen, Marcel A. K.; Ballaré, Carlos L.; Flint, Stephan D. (2019). “Linkages between stratospheric ozone, UV radiation and climate change and their implications for terrestrial ecosystems”. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences. 18 (3): 681–716. doi:10.1039/C8PP90061B. hdl:10138/307029. ISSN 1474-905X. PMID 30810560. S2CID 73506953.
87. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f} Reiner Grundmann Technische Problemlösung, Verhandeln und umfassende Problemlösung, generic problem solving capability) Archived 2016-03-03 at the Wayback Machine in Gesellschaftliche Komplexität und kollektive Handlungsfähigkeit (Societys complexity and collective ability to act), ed. Schimank, U. (2000). Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Campus, pp. 154–182, book summary at the Max Planck Gesellschaft Archived 2014-10-12 at the Wayback Machine.
88. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Ungar, Sheldon (1 July 2000). “Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: climate change versus the ozone hole”. Public Understanding of Science. 9 (3): 297–312. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/306. S2CID 7089937.
89. ^ National Academy of Sciences (1976). Halocarbons, effects on stratospheric ozone. Washington, DC. ISBN 9780309025324. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
90. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Morrisette, Peter M. (1989). “The Evolution of Policy Responses to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion”. Natural Resources Journal. 29: 793–820. Retrieved April 20, 2010.
91. ^ Sawchuk, Arthur R. (December 19, 1994). “Voluntary Initiatives to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 6, 2011. Retrieved 2010-06-03. DuPont Canada Incorporated.
92. ^ Shabecoff, Philip (November 5, 1986). “U.S. Report Predicts Rise in Skin Cancer with Loss of Ozone”. The New York Times. p. A1. Retrieved January 10, 2013.
93. ^ Jump up to:^a b Grundmann, Reiner (2001). Transnational Environmental Policy: the ozone layer. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-22423-9.
94. ^ Jump up to:^a b “Amendments to the Montreal Protocol | Ozone Layer Protection | US EPA”. Epa.gov. June 28, 2006. Retrieved March 28, 2011.
95. ^ Gareau, Brian J. (2010). “A critical review of the successful CFC phase-out versus the delayed methyl bromide phase-out in the Montreal Protocol”. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 10 (3): 209–231. Bibcode:2010IEAPL..10..209G. doi:10.1007/s10784-010-9120-z. S2CID 153692785.
96. ^ Decanio, Stephen J.; Norman, Catherine S. (July 2005). “Economics of the ‘Critical use’ of Methyl Bromide under the Montreal Protocol”. Contemporary Economic Policy. 23 (3): 376–393. doi:10.1093/cep/byi028.
97. ^ Sarma, K. Madhava, “Compliance with the Multilateral Environmental Agreements to Protect the Ozone Layer” in Ulrich Beyerlin et al. Ensuring Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff 2006.
98. ^ Mate, John (2001). “Making a Difference: A Case Study of the Greenpeace Ozone Campaign”. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law. 10 (2): 190–198. doi:10.1111/1467-9388.00275.
99. ^ Currie, Duncan E. J. (2005) “The Experience of Greenpeace International” in Tullio Treves et al. (eds.) Civil Society, International Courts, and Compliance Bodies, The Hague, The Netherlands: TMC Asser.
100. ^ Benedick, Richard Elliot (1991) Ozone Diplomacy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University.
101. ^ Jump up to:^a b “Happy birthday, Greenfreeze!”. Greenpeace International. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
102. ^ Stafford, Edwin R.; Hartman, Cathy L.; Liang, Ying (2016-10-10). “Forces driving environmental innovation diffusion in China: The case of Greenfreeze” (PDF). Business Horizons. 46 (2): 47–56. doi:10.1016/S0007-6813(03)00009-0. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-10-10.
103. ^ “Climate-Friendly Greenfreezers Come to the United States”. NBC New York. 2 October 2008. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
104. ^ Jump up to:^a b c “Greenpeace USA”. Greenpeace.org. September 23, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2015.
105. ^ Jump up to:^a b “Greenfreeze: A Revolution In Domestic Refrigeration”. Ecomall.com. January 1, 1995. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
106. ^ “Natural Refrigerants – Businesses”. Greenpeace International. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
107. ^ “La Historia del “Greenfreeze””. Ilustrados!. Archived from the original on September 12, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2015.
108. ^ “Lanzan la primera de las “Propuestas Greenpeace”: la heladera “Greenfreeze” | Greenpeace Argentina”. Greenpeace.org. Retrieved September 27, 2015.
109. ^ “Use of Ozone Depleting Substances in Laboratories. TemaNord 516/2003” (PDF). Norden.org. January 1, 2003. Archived from the original on February 27, 2008. Retrieved March 28, 2011.
110. ^ “Der Greenfreeze – endlich in den USA angekommen”. Greenpeace (in German). 14 November 2014. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
111. ^ “Discurso de Frank Guggenheim no lançamento do Greenfreeze”. Brasil. Archived from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
112. ^ “SNAP Program Chronology | Alternatives / SNAP | US EPA”. Epa.gov. 2014-10-15. Retrieved September 27, 2015.
113. ^ “Greenfreeze F-Gas Victory! Greener Refrigerators Finally Legal in the U.S.” Greenpeace USA. December 14, 2011. Archived from the original on January 29, 2012. Retrieved January 1, 2018.
114. ^ “GE Opening a Door to a Future of Cleaner Home Refrigeration” (Press release). Archived from the original on June 5, 2011. Retrieved August 24, 2014.
115. ^ “EUR-Lex – 32009R1005 – EN – EUR-Lex”. eur-lex.europa.eu. Retrieved 2022-12-07.
116. ^ “European Regulation of Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS)”. Enviropass. November 2022. Retrieved 2022-12-07.
117. ^ Molina, M.; Zaelke, D.; Sarma, K. M.; Andersen, S. O.; Ramanathan, V.; Kaniaru, D. (2009). “Reducing abrupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO₂ emissions”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106 (49): 20616–20621. Bibcode:2009PNAS..10620616M. doi:10.1073/pnas.0902568106. PMC 2791591. PMID 19822751.
118. ^ Norman, Catherine; Decanio, Stephen; Fan, Lin (2008). “The Montreal Protocol at 20: Ongoing opportunities for integration with climate protection”. Global Environmental Change. 18 (2): 330–340. Bibcode:2008GEC….18..330N. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.03.003.
119. ^ Estrada, Francisco (2013). “Statistically derived contributions of diverse human influences to twentieth-century temperature changes”. Nature Geoscience. 6 (12): 1050–1055. Bibcode:2013NatGe…6.1050E. doi:10.1038/ngeo1999. hdl:2144/27169. S2CID 130224979.
120. ^ “NOAA Study Shows Nitrous Oxide Now Top Ozone-Depleting Emission”. Noaanews.noaa.gov. August 27, 2009. Retrieved April 6, 2011.
121. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Naik, Vaishali; Szopa, Sophie; Adhikary, Bhupesh; Artaxo Netto, Paulo Eduardo; et al. (2021). “Chapter 6: Short-lived climate forcers” (PDF). IPCC AR6 WG1 2021.
122. ^ “CNW Group | CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY | Canada’s SCISAT satellite explains 2006 ozone-layer depletion”. 2007-12-09. Archived from the original on 2007-12-09. Retrieved 2024-04-01.
123. ^ “Ozone hole set to close”. Space Daily. Space Media Network. 12 November 2019. Retrieved 8 December 2019.
124. ^ Baker, Harry (7 October 2023). “‘One of the biggest on record’: Ozone hole bigger than North America opens above Antarctica”. livescience.com. Retrieved 10 October 2023.
125. ^ Lipkin, Richard (October 7, 1995). SST emissions cut stratospheric ozone. (The introduction of 500 new supersonic transport planes by 2015 could deplete the ozone layer by as much as 1%) Archived 2023-01-07 at the Wayback Machine. Science News.
126. ^ “Increase in supersonic jets could be threat to ozone U-2 plane trails Concorde, studies exhaust particles”. The Baltimore Sun. Newsday. October 8, 1995. Archived from the original on September 1, 2016. Retrieved December 21, 2012.
127. ^ “Du Pont: A case study in the 3D corporate strategy”. Greenpeace. 1997. Archived from the original on April 6, 2012.
128. ^ Roan, Sharon (1989) Ozone crisis: The 15-year evolution of a sudden global emergency, New York: Wiley, p. 56, ISBN 0-471-52823-4.
129. ^ Causes and Effects of Stratospheric Ozone Reduction: An Update. National Research Council. 1982. p. Summary, 3. doi:10.17226/319. ISBN 978-0-309-03248-3.
130. ^ Farman, J. C.; Gardiner, B. G.; Shanklin, J. D. (1985). “Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClO_x/NO_x interaction”. Nature. 315 (6016): 207–210. Bibcode:1985Natur.315..207F. doi:10.1038/315207a0. S2CID 4346468.
131. ^ Jump up to:^a b Zehr, Stephen C. (1994). “Accounting for the Ozone Hole: Scientific Representations of an Anomaly and Prior Incorrect Claims in Public Settings”. The Sociological Quarterly. 35 (4): 603–619. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1994.tb00419.x. JSTOR 4121521.
132. ^ Bhartia, Pawan Kumar; McPeters, Richard D. (2018). “The discovery of the Antarctic Ozone Hole”. Comptes Rendus Geoscience. 350 (7). Elsevier BV: 335–340. Bibcode:2018CRGeo.350..335B. doi:10.1016/j.crte.2018.04.006. ISSN 1631-0713.
133. ^ History and politics Archived 2016-10-05 at the Wayback Machine accessed September 30, 2016.
134. ^ Solomon, P. M.; Connor, B.; De Zafra, R. L.; Parrish, A.; Barrett, J.; Jaramillo, M. (1987). “High concentrations of chlorine monoxide at low altitudes in the Antarctic spring stratosphere: Secular variation”. Nature. 328 (6129): 411–413. Bibcode:1987Natur.328..411S. doi:10.1038/328411a0. S2CID 4335797.
135. ^ Reddy, Jeevananda (4 November 2008). Climate Change Myths and Realities. p. 32. Retrieved 20 December 2018.
136. ^ “Ozone hole closing up, research shows”. ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Commission. November 16, 2007.
137. ^ “New report highlights two-way link between ozone layer and climate change”. UNEP News Center. November 16, 2010. Archived from the original on December 5, 2010. Retrieved September 18, 2010.
138. ^ “NOAA, NASA: Antarctic ozone hole second smallest in 20 years”. October 24, 2012.
139. ^ Kuttippurath, Jayanarayanan; Nair, Prijitha J. (2017-04-03). “The signs of Antarctic ozone hole recovery”. Scientific Reports. 7 (1): 585. Bibcode:2017NatSR…7..585K. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-00722-7. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 5429648. PMID 28373709.
140. ^ Kuttippurath, J.; Kumar, P.; Nair, P. J.; Pandey, P. C. (2018-11-21). “Emergence of ozone recovery evidenced by reduction in the occurrence of Antarctic ozone loss saturation”. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science. 1 (1): 42. Bibcode:2018npCAS…1…42K. doi:10.1038/s41612-018-0052-6. ISSN 2397-3722.
141. ^ “Study Links Ozone Hole to Weather Shifts”. The Earth Institute – Columbia University. April 22, 2011. Retrieved December 21, 2012.
142. ^ “Study Links Ozone Hole to Weather Shifts – The Earth Institute – Columbia University”. www.earth.columbia.edu. Retrieved 2022-07-13.
143. ^ Schiermeier, Quirin (2005). “Solar wind hammers the ozone layer”. Nature: news050228–12. doi:10.1038/news050228-12. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
144. ^ Dell’Amore, Christine (March 22, 2011). “First North Pole Ozone Hole Forming?”. National Geographic. Archived from the original on March 24, 2011. Retrieved April 6, 2011.
145. ^ Jump up to:^a b Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres (March 14, 2011). “Arctic on the verge of record ozone loss”. Science Daily. Retrieved April 6, 2011.
146. ^ “The Arctic Ozone Sieve: More Global Weirding?”. Scienceblogs.com. March 25, 2011. Archived from the original on April 4, 2011. Retrieved April 6, 2011.
147. ^ Jump up to:^a b c “Developing ozone hole approaches Europe”. EurActiv. Archived from the original on April 4, 2011. Retrieved April 6, 2011.
148. ^ Jump up to:^a b c “Arctic ozone loss at record level”. BBC News Online. October 2, 2011. Archived from the original on October 2, 2011. Retrieved October 3, 2011.
149. ^ Jump up to:^a b “Unprecedented Arctic Ozone Loss in 2011, Says NASA-Led Study” (Press release). NASA. October 2, 2011. Archived from the original on July 9, 2023. Retrieved July 1, 2016.
150. ^ Millan, Luis; Manney, Gloria (2017-05-02). “An assessment of Ozone Mini-holes Representation in Reanalyses Over the Northern Hemisphere”. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions. 17 (15): 9277. Bibcode:2017ACP….17.9277M. doi:10.5194/acp-2017-341.
151. ^ Strahan, S. E.; Douglass, A. R.; Newman, P. A. (2013). “The contributions of chemistry and transport to low arctic ozone in March 2011 derived from Aura MLS observations”. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 118 (3): 1563–1576. Bibcode:2013JGRD..118.1563S. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50181. hdl:2060/20120011691. ISSN 2169-8996. S2CID 128447261.
152. ^ Zell, Holly (2013-06-07). “NASA Pinpoints Causes of 2011 Arctic Ozone Hole”. NASA. Archived from the original on 2019-09-07. Retrieved 2019-10-03.
153. ^ Earth, Stephanie Pappas 2013-03-11T23:38:39Z Planet (11 March 2013). “Cause of Odd Arctic Ozone ‘Hole’ Found”. livescience.com. Retrieved 2019-10-03.
154. ^ Witze, Alexandra (27 March 2020). “Rare ozone hole opens over Arctic — and it’s big”. Nature. 580 (7801): 18–19. Bibcode:2020Natur.580…18W. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00904-w. PMID 32221510. S2CID 214694393.
155. ^ Harvey, Fiona (2020-04-07). “Record-size hole opens in ozone layer above the Arctic”. The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-04-08.
156. ^ Lubben, Alex (8 April 2020). “Now There’s Another Hole in the Ozone Layer. Great”. Vice.
157. ^ “Earth news: Chinese Scientists Find New Ozone Hole Over Tibet”. Elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com. May 4, 2006. Retrieved April 6, 2011.
158. ^ Schiermeier, Quirin (February 22, 1999). “The Great Beyond: Arctic ozone hole causes concern”. Blogs.nature.com. Retrieved April 6, 2011.
159. ^ Oskin, Becky (July 26, 2012). “Storm Clouds May Punch Holes in Ozone”. LiveScience. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
160. ^ Fountain, Henry (July 27, 2012). “Storms Threaten Ozone Layer Over U.S., Study Says”. The New York Times. p. A1. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
161. ^ American Institute of Physics (2022-07-05). “Discovery reveals large, year-round ozone hole over tropics: ‘New’ ozone hole much larger than Antarctic ozone hole”. ScienceDaily. Retrieved 2022-07-06.
162. ^ “Expert reaction to research claiming ozone hole over tropics | Science Media Centre”.
163. ^ Lu, Qing-Bin (2022), “Observation of large and all-season ozone losses over the tropics”, AIP Advances, 12 (7): 075006, arXiv:2112.14977, Bibcode:2022AIPA…12g5006L, doi:10.1063/5.0094629, S2CID 251643894.
164. ^ Gramling, Carolyn (March 8, 2023). “How wildfires deplete the Earth’s ozone layer”. ScienceNews.
165. ^ Chu, Jennifer (February 28, 2022). “Study reveals chemical link between wildfire smoke and ozone depletion”.
166. ^ Solomon, Susan; Stone, Kane; Yu, Pengfei; Murphy, D. M.; Kinnison, Doug; Ravishankara, A. R.; Wang, Peidong (March 8, 2023). “Chlorine activation and enhanced ozone depletion induced by wildfire aerosol”. Nature. 615 (7951): 259–264. Bibcode:2023Natur.615..259S. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05683-0. PMID 36890371.
167. ^ Solomon, Susan; Dube, Kimberlee; Stone, Kane; Yu, Pengfei; Kinnison, Doug; Toon, Owen B.; Strahan, Susan E.; Rosenlof, Karen H.; Portmann, Robert; Davis, Sean; Randel, William; Bernath, Peter; Boone, Chris; Bardeen, Charles G.; Bourassa, Adam; Daniel Zawada; Doug Degenstein (March 1, 2022). “On the stratospheric chemistry of midlatitude wildfire smoke”. PNAS. 119 (10): e2117325119. Bibcode:2022PNAS..11917325S. doi:10.1073/pnas.2117325119. PMC 8915979. PMID 35238658.
168. ^ Jump up to:^a b Hegerl, Gabriele C.; et al. “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change” (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. p. 675. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 8, 2018. Retrieved February 1, 2008.
169. ^ “Ozone Depletion”. UNEP/DEWA/Earthwatch. 16 January 2010. Archived from the original on 16 January 2010.
170. ^ “The Relative Roles of Ozone and Other Greenhouse Gases in Climate Change in the Stratosphere”. Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. February 29, 2004. Archived from the original on January 20, 2009. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
171. ^ Silverman, Amy (May 4, 1995). “Freon Easy”. Phoenix News. Archived from the original on October 11, 2007. Retrieved April 6, 2011.
172. ^ Fabian, P.; Borchers, R.; Krüger, B. C.; Lal, S. (1985). “The vertical distribution of CFC-114 (CClF2-CClF2) in the atmosphere”. Journal of Geophysical Research. 90 (D7): 13091. Bibcode:1985JGR….9013091F. doi:10.1029/JD090iD07p13091.
173. ^ ozone-depletion FAQ, Part II Archived 2009-02-03 at the Wayback Machine, section 4.3
174. ^ Yokouchi, Y.; Noijiri, Y.; Barrie, L. A.; Toom-Sauntry, D.; Machida, T.; Inuzuka, Y.; Akimoto, H.; Li, H. -J.; Fujinuma, Y.; Aoki, S. (2000). “A strong source of methyl chloride to the atmosphere from tropical coastal land”. Nature. 403 (6767): 295–298. Bibcode:2000Natur.403..295Y. doi:10.1038/35002049. PMID 10659845. S2CID 4318352.
175. ^ Jump up to:^a b ozone-depletion FAQ, Part II Archived 2009-02-03 at the Wayback Machine, section 4.4
176. ^ Zuev, V. V.; Zueva, N. E.; Savelieva, E. S.; Gerasimov, V. V. (2015). “The Antarctic ozone depletion caused by Erebus volcano gas emissions”. Atmospheric Environment. 122: 393–399. Bibcode:2015AtmEn.122..393Z. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.10.005.
177. ^ Dobson, G.M.B. (1968) Exploring the Atmosphere, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press.
178. ^ ozone-depletion FAQ, Part III Archived 2009-02-24 at the Wayback Machine, section 6. faqs.org
179. ^ “ozone-depletion FAQ, Antarctic”. Faqs.org. Retrieved April 6, 2011.
180. ^ Chen, Sheng Bo; Zhao, Liang; Tao, Yu Long (2017), “Stratospheric ozone change over the Tibetan Plateau”, Atmospheric Pollution Research, 8 (3): 528–534, Bibcode:2017AtmPR…8..528C, doi:10.1016/j.apr.2016.11.007
181. ^ Boyesa, Edward; Stanisstreeta, Martin (1992). “Students’ perceptions of global warming”. International Journal of Environmental Studies. 42 (4): 287–300. Bibcode:1992IJEnS..42..287B. doi:10.1080/00207239208710804.
182. ^ Compare Sheldon Ungar, 2000 and various web sites such as Gavin Schmidt‘s realclimate complaint in Ozone depletion and global warming 2005 Archived 2014-10-10 at the Wayback Machine or the UCS FAQ on the topic
183. ^ Gunkel, Christoph (September 13, 2013). “Öko-Coup aus Ostdeutschland”. Der Spiegel (in German). Retrieved 4 September 2015.
184. ^ Grundmann, Reiner (May 14, 2007). “Climate Change and Knowledge Politics” (PDF). Environmental Politics. 16 (3): 414–432. Bibcode:2007EnvPo..16..414G. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.535.4984. doi:10.1080/09644010701251656. S2CID 153866225. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 26, 2014.
185. ^ “Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis”. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Work Group I. 2001. pp. Chapter 9.3.2 Patterns of Future Climate Change. Archived from the original on June 3, 2016. Retrieved May 28, 2016.
186. ^ Muir, Patricia (March 6, 2008). “Stratospheric Ozone Depletion”. Oregon State University. Retrieved April 16, 2011.
187. ^ “Long-term increase in summer UV radiation”. NIWA. 1999-09-09. Retrieved December 4, 2013.
188. ^ McKenzie, Richard; Conner, Brian; Bodeker, Greg (September 10, 1999). “Increased Summertime UV Radiation in New Zealand in Response to Ozone Loss”. Science. 285 (5434): 1709–1711. doi:10.1126/science.285.5434.1709. PMID 10481002.
189. ^ “International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer, 16 September”. www.un.org. Retrieved 2020-04-22.
190. ^ Canada, Environment and Climate Change (2015-02-20). “Ozone layer depletion: Montreal Protocol”. aem. Retrieved 2020-04-22.
191. ^ Andersen, Stephen O.; Sarma, K. Madhava (2002). Protecting the Ozone Layer: The United Nations History. Earthscan. p. 272. ISBN 9781849772266.

Recommended HashTags

• #pumps
• #drinkingwater
• #legionella
• #watermakers
• #watertreatmentspecialists
• #specialists
• #legionellatesting
• #chemicals
• #mlc
• #nengi
• #hiphop
• #thinkoutsidethebottle
• #orlando
• #ozonetherapy
• #watersport
• #outriggercanoe
• #outriggerzone
• #row
• #undergroundhiphop
• #outside