the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Global and regional emissions of 1,2-dichloroethane derived from AGAGE and NOAA observations
Abstract. For the first time, we present long-term, ongoing atmospheric measurements of 1,2-dichloroethane (DCE, CH2ClCH2Cl) from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) global monitoring networks. DCE is an industrially produced, very short-lived chlorinated substance (Cl-VSLS) that has the potential to contribute chlorine to the stratosphere and cause ozone depletion. Compared to other Cl-VSLS, DCE is produced in higher volumes for its primary use as a feedstock in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) manufacture. This production has sustained annual mean mole fractions at the Earth’s surface of between 5 and 10 ppt during 2017–2023, making it the third most abundant Cl-VSLS. In this study we estimate mean global emissions for 2017–2023 of 453 [268, 638] Gg yr−1 using the AGAGE observations, and 525 [316, 734] Gg yr−1 using the NOAA observations. We also use AGAGE measurements to estimate regional emissions for northwest Europe (2.06 [1.31, 2.65] Gg yr−1) and California (0.23 [0, 0.37] Gg yr−1), two domains with sufficient observational coverage to enable this approach. Our global emissions estimates are consistent (within uncertainties) with the only previously published estimate by Hossaini et al. (2024), whereas our regional emission estimates are at least an order of magnitude smaller than those in that study. This suggests global total emissions may be well constrained, but their spatial distribution remains uncertain. Improved measurement coverage in key source regions of DCE could address that uncertainty and better constrain the contribution of DCE to ozone-depleting chlorine in the stratosphere.
- Preprint
(3079 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 May 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1589', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 May 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 346 | 144 | 16 | 506 | 23 | 26 |
- HTML: 346
- PDF: 144
- XML: 16
- Total: 506
- BibTeX: 23
- EndNote: 26
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This paper describes measurements of 1,2-dicloroethane (DCE) at sites within the AGAGE and NOAA networks. The measurements are described and used in global and regional modeling to estimate global emissions and regional emissions for NW Europe and California. The global emissions are consistent with a previous study by Hossaini, but the regional emissions are much lower than Hossaini.
The paper is very clearly written, the results are significant and I recommend publication after addressing some minor comments.
Line 366-369 - The authors say that the increasing trend in DCE mole fraction in the archive samples is qualitatively consistent with increasing emissions after 2002 derived by Hossaini, but that it is not possible to provide a top-down estimate of global emissions. Is it possible to be a bit more quantitative, e.g. using scenarios of global emissions in the forward model, starting with the Hossaini emissions, with a specified latitudinal emission distribution consistent with Hossaini et al or the inferred distribution in this study? Couldn't a couple of different scenarios run forward in the 12-box model give some indication of the global emissions? I accept that there are not enough archive observations for the global inversion, but it still might be possible to be more quantitative.
Figs 7, F2 and F4 - I understand that it is difficult to show the prior and posterior emissions with the same linear scale. Have the authors tried a non-linear scale (e.g. such as used in Fig 6 of Manning et al., 2021 listed in the reference list)? It would be nice to be able to see more of the details in both the prior and posterior maps, but this is hard with the linear scale.
Line 477 - this is the first mention of the toxicity of DCE, it could be mentioned in the introduction.
I do think the paper would benefit from a Conclusions section, even if relatively short, and this is consistent with the Guidelines for authors at https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/policies/guidelines_for_authors.html. There is an Implications Section, which could stay as it is, but there is no summary of the main results relating them to the objectives, other than in the abstract, and I think this is missed at the end of the paper. The abstract is at maximum length, perhaps that could be shortened and some detail moved to the Conclusions. The paper ends too abruptly without a summary at the end.