Please note that this forum is no longer in use and has been replaced by an online contact us form.

Be assured that the information service rendered by the EEA remains similar. Note that the content of this forum will remain publicly available until the end of 2020. After that we will archive it for internal use for a max retention period of 3 years. Any personal data will be deleted after this retention period.

With kind regards,
EEA Enquiry Service

Please login to participate.

mdol Hello, I am seeking data concerning the nitrogen oxides emissions. At this page I have found annual means of NO2 from 2013 to 2017 from lots of european stations. Where can I find data from previous years? M.

Last discussed by mdol
Dec 06, 2018 01:41 PM

MdI The PROBLEM of Acrolein and Formaldehyde Analysis from Stationary Source in Italy.
In Italy use EPA TO-11A 1999 for Industry Emission Stationary Source, not only for Formaldehyde (Instead of e.g. EPA M 0011 ) but also for Acroleine (Instead of e.g. NCASI 99.02). It is an absurd scientific and technicaly that could hide acroelin emission from some industry, like ceramic industry, due to the combustion of thousands of tons / year polyacrylates (used as slurry fluids), glycerol, vegetable oils and other polymers used as screen printing vehicles, as well as to underestimate formaldehyde due to the same use of glycols, polyglycols, etc. ..

All in ovens that have known problems of incomplete combustion due to the countercurrent supply of the tiles, which bring a large part of the organic substances to decompose between 250-450 °C before arriving in the part of the furnace where they would arrive between 800-1200 ° C for complete combustion.

In detail:
The PROBLEM of Acrolein and Formaldehyde Analysis from Stationary Source in Italy. The Emilia Romagna Region,(but it is not the only one in Italy...) with DGR 2236/2009 attachment 3 B indicates as methods suitable for the analysis of aldehydes and formaldehyde at emissions the following two methods:
EPA TO-11A of 1999 and the NIOSH 2016. Both methods for ambient air with DNPH derivative in silica cartridge. They are obviously ambient air methods and therefore off-field application among other things with derivatization method that is notoriously inadequate to the acrolein analysis and sampling flows below 2 l / min. A ceramic industry kiln emission , in example that is the mayor local kind of industry, have a flow rate between 20 and 30 thousand m3 / h corresponding to flows of about 400/500000 liters per minute.
EPA TO-11A has suffered an addendum in 2000 that specifies that this method not to be applicable acrolein and in the list of necessary updates of the EPA March 2018 is specified not to be adequate to the acrolein analysis:[…]/toxcompd.pdf
The NIOSH 2016 always indicated by the Region for generic analysis aldehydes is actually a room air derivatization for formaldehyde very similar to EPA to-11A. The analogous NIOSH 2018, which would be the apllicable in ambient air for generic aldehydes, also reports on page 5 the NON applicability to unsaturated aldehydes (with a 30% lower recovery). In addition, we always talk about ambient air methods and if we consider the indications in points 10.3 of the same EPA TO-11 A it is clear that the conditions of applicability of the same not only for acrolein, but for aldehydes in general a Stationary Stack are incompatible with the typical ones authorized for a ceramic kiln indicated here (and provided for by Legislative Decree 1159/2014 Emilia Romagna):[…]?id=2421&idlivello=1487
Among other things, we mention that this method the EPA Methods for Emissions Flows conveyed for formaldehyde / aldehydes are others and indicated here:[…]/final-rule-methods-innovation-rule-mir

NO METHOD is indicatedwith DNPH-Silica or other similar support

It's clear is not an alternative national or international or industrial counterpart to measure chimney in formaldehyde or acrolein and therefore does not comply with the provisions of UNI CEN TS 15675 of 2008 and EN ISO / IEC 17025, see the first with regard to Annexes A and C and see the second for the concept of "scope".
This does not conform to the principles of Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) or to the European Commission's MMR Guideline No. 5 of 2012 and is not even in line (and specifically for formaldehyde and in analogy for acrolein) with the JRC Reference Report on Monitoring of Emissions to Air and Water from 2018 IED Installations:[…]/ROM_2018_08_20.pdf
of which we report appropriate table (ANNEX 7) from which to choose suitable methods for formaldehyde. EPA M 0011 (in the JRC table for formaldehyde together with other NCASI and CARB methods) must not be confused with EPA TO-11A used in Emilia Romagna as one is an impinger DNPH method (specifically applicable for formaldehyde and other selected carbonyls) and the other is an exclusive ambient air method (with the exception of automobile emission) that uses Silice-DNPH cartridge (the florisil support is not expected even if some suppliers sell DNPH-florisil for EPA to-11A against what is provided by the method) as indicated in Section 1 of:[…]/to-11a_list_of_known_needed_updates.pdf
where EPA also officially declares the demonstrated inapplicability to the acrolein analysis.

The unique acrolein National / Industry Standard recognized for Stationary Stack Emission fron Industry is the NCASI IM / CAM / WP 99.02 which, in analogy to what is indicated in the table presented, can be considered a Method compliant with the requirements of the BREF JRC Reference Report in the absence of specific National and International Technical Standards.

In addition, we note that there are laboratories in Italy accredited for acrolein ambient air with EPA to-11A and NIOSH 2018 against what is recognized on their inapplicability for the analysis of the same and laboratories accredited to chimney for some aldehydes with EPA TO-11A 1999 we ask if it is CONSIDERED OR LESS OUT OF APPLICATION FIELD, IT IS ALSO VALID FOR THE PURPOSE, EVEN IF THE ABOVE IS INDICATED IT MAKES IT DIFFICULTY APPLICABLE.

I write on behalf of Reality, recalling the principles of the Aahrus Convention because AIR SHALL NOT LIVE BY PAPER ALONE.

Last discussed by MdI
Nov 17, 2018 10:27 PM

SHRoberts This page has a graph of 5 components of ESD for the EU28:[…]jections-3#tab-dashboard-01
There is a button below for "United Kingdom" but the graph doesn't change. If I follow "Based on data", this gets to the IPCCC categories which are for EST and ESD combined.
How can I create a version of the graph just for the UK?

Last discussed by SHRoberts
Nov 15, 2018 03:44 PM

rafael_carmona Good morning,

I was trying to access to the air quality time series database through the link ( and I found some problems downloading certain sets of data. As recommended in the same page, I used the viewers available in the air quality portal (e.g the UTD viewer to check the avilability of a certain contaminant and station before making the request.

In my case I am trying to access to ozone data in the southern part of Spain and I could only download it from a very limited amount of stations (EOI codes ES1644A,ES1638A
ES1450A,ES0890A,ES1924A,ES1560A and ES2030A), while in the viewer there are plenty of them available for ozone in that area. I tried both E1a and E2a for all the cases.

On example of data available in the viewer but not for downloading is the city called "DOS HERMANAS", code ES1653A. Where after the request it leads to a blank page with no links in it.

Thank you for your time,


Rafael Carmona

Last discussed by EEA
Nov 12, 2018 10:04 AM

a Hello,

Given that I can currently see data at please could you tell me the detailed reason (I am familiar with computer technology so feel free to reply technically if necessary) why no data is being shown for Turkey in the map at[…]/up-to-date-air-quality-data

If you want to know why I am asking please ask.

Thanks in advance.

Last discussed by EEA
Nov 08, 2018 11:17 AM

omri Hello, I have found information regarding the damage cost of Benzene on the paper "Costs of air pollution from European industrial facilities 2008–2012" ([…]/costs-of-air-pollution-2008-2012). However there seems to be some contradiction between the figures presented on page 26, table 3.1 (76000 Euro/ Tonne) and page 70, table A3.7 (0.076 Euro/ Kg). Other pollutants' damage costs appear to match along the Annexes and table 3.1. Which of these two is the correct value?
Much appreciation.

Last discussed by EEA
Nov 06, 2018 06:01 PM