TEAP May 2020: Progress Report (Volume 1) - Advance · Web viewThe 2021 TEAP Report The 2021 TEAP Report consists of six volumes: Volume 1: TEAP 20 2 1 Progress Report Volume 2: Evaluation

MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER

REPORT OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT PANEL

SEPTEMBER 2021

VOLUME 1: PROGRESS REPORT

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

September 2021

VOLUME 1: PROGRESS REPORT

The text of this report is composed in Times New Roman.Co-ordination: Technology and Economic Assessment Panel

Composition of the report: Bella Maranion, Marta Pizano, Ashley WoodcockLayout and formatting: Marta Pizano (UNEP TEAP)

Date: September 2021

Under certain conditions, printed copies of this report are available from:

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMMEOzone Secretariat

P.O. Box 30552Nairobi, Kenya

This document is also available in portable document format from the UNEP Ozone Secretariat's website:

https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap

No copyright involved. This publication may be freely copied, abstracted and cited, with acknowledgement of the source of the material.

ISBN: 978-9966-076-91-5  

2021 TEAP Progress Report – Volume 1iii


Disclaimer

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) Co-chairs and members, the Technical Options Committees Co-chairs and members, the TEAP Task Forces Co-chairs and members, and the companies and organisations that employ them do not endorse the performance, worker safety, or environmental acceptability of any of the technical options discussed. Every industrial operation requires consideration of worker safety and proper disposal of contaminants and waste products. Moreover, as work continues - including additional toxicity evaluation - more information on health, environmental and safety effects of alternatives and replacements will become available for use in selecting among the options discussed in this document.

UNEP, the TEAP Co-chairs and members, the Technical Options Committees Co-chairs and members, and the TEAP Task Forces Co-chairs and members, in furnishing or distributing this information, do not make any warranty or representation, either express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or utility; nor do they assume any liability of any kind whatsoever resulting from the use or reliance upon any information, material, or procedure contained herein, including but not limited to any claims regarding health, safety, environmental effect or fate, efficacy, or performance, made by the source of information.

Mention of any company, association, or product in this document is for information purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation of any such company, association, or product, either express or implied by UNEP, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Co-chairs or members, the Technical and Economic Options Committee Co-chairs or members, the TEAP Task Forces Co-chairs or members or the companies or organisations that employ them.

Acknowledgements

The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, its Technical Options Committees and the TEAP Task Force Co-chairs and members acknowledges with thanks the outstanding contributions from all of the individuals and organisations that provided support to Panel, Committees and TEAP Task Force Co-chairs and members. The opinions expressed are those of the Panel, the Committees and TEAP Task Forces and do not necessarily reflect the reviews of any sponsoring or supporting organisation.

2021 TEAP Progress Report – Volume 1iv

Foreword

The 2021 TEAP Report

The 2021 TEAP Report consists of six volumes:

Volume 1: TEAP 2021 Progress Report Volume 2: Evaluation of 2021 critical use nominations for methyl bromide and related issues

- Interim Report – May 2021

Volume 3: Decision XXXI/3: TEAP Task Force Report on unexpected emissions of trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11)

Volume 4: Decision XXXI/7 – Continued provision of information on energy-efficient and low-global-warming-potential technologies

Volume 5: Evaluation of 2021 critical use nominations for methyl bromide and related issues – Final report

Volume 6: Decision XXXI/1: TEAP Assessment of the funding requirement for the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the period 2021-2023

This is Volume 1

The UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP):

Bella Maranion, co-chair US Kei-ichi Ohnishi JMarta Pizano, co-chair COL Roberto Peixoto BRAAshley Woodcock, co-chair UK Fabio Polonara ITOmar Abdelaziz EGY Ian Porter AUSPaulo Altoe BRA Rajendra Shende INSuely Machado Carvalho BRA Helen Tope AUS Adam Chattaway UK Dan Verdonik USRay Gluckman UK Helen Walter-Terrinoni USMarco Gonzalez CR Shiqiu Zhang PRCSergey Kopylov RF Jianjun Zhang PRC

2021 TEAP Progress Report – Volume 1v

TABLE OF CONTENTSDISCLAIMER................................................................................................................................................ IV

FOREWORD.................................................................................................................................................. V

1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. TASK FORCE UPDATES.................................................................................................................................11.2. KEY MESSAGES FROM THE TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEES...........................................................................5

1.2.1. FTOC.................................................................................................................................................51.2.2. HTOC................................................................................................................................................61.2.3. MBTOC.............................................................................................................................................71.2.4. MCTOC.............................................................................................................................................81.2.5. RTOC................................................................................................................................................9

2 FLEXIBLE AND RIGID FOAMS TOC (FTOC) PROGRESS REPORT...............................................................11

2.1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................112.2. GLOBAL FOAMS MARKET...........................................................................................................................11

2.2.1. MAJOR ISSUES INFLUENCING THE GLOBAL FOAMS MARKET..................................................................122.3. FACTORS IMPACTING BLOWING AGENT CHOICE............................................................................................13

2.3.1. LOW-PRESSURE SPRAY FOAM........................................................................................................ 152.4. ADDITIONAL BLOWING AGENTS IN CURRENT USE.........................................................................................15

2.4.1. EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE (XPS) FOAM BLOWING AGENTS....................................................................16

3 HALONS TOC (HTOC) PROGRESS REPORT.............................................................................................17

3.1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................173.2. KEY ISSUES.............................................................................................................................................17

3.2.1. AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY OF RECYCLED HALON 1301.......................................................................173.3. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN AVIATION FIRE PROTECTION...................................................................................183.4. NEW FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENTS.............................................................................................................19

3.4.1. HCFO/FLUOROKETONE BLEND....................................................................................................... 193.4.2. UPDATE FROM RUSSIA................................................................................................................. 193.4.3. UPDATE FROM INDIA................................................................................................................... 203.4.4. MARKET CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................................................ 20

3.5. IMPACT OF THE KIGALI AMENDMENT..........................................................................................................203.6. OTHER UPDATES......................................................................................................................................21

3.6.1. LEGISLATION.............................................................................................................................. 213.6.2. EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE REFRIGERANT SELECTION..............................................................................213.6.3. KNOWLEDGE AND TRAINING.......................................................................................................... 213.6.4. FIRES IN INCREASED OXYGEN ATMOSPHERES......................................................................................22

4 METHYL BROMIDE TOC (MBTOC) PROGRESS REPORT..........................................................................23

4.1. GLOBAL MB PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION............................................................................................234.1.1. PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR CONTROLLED USES.........................................234.1.2. METHYL BROMIDE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION FOR QPS (EXEMPTED USES)......................................24

4.2. UPDATE ON ALTERNATIVES FOR REMAINING CRITICAL USES.............................................................................264.2.1. IN THE SOIL SECTOR..................................................................................................................... 26

4.3. QPS USES OF METHYL BROMIDE.................................................................................................................294.3.1. CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................................................. 294.3.2. NON-CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................................... 32

4.4. METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS AND RECAPTURE.............................................................................................344.4.1. EMISSIONS OF MB...................................................................................................................... 344.4.2. RECAPTURE OF MB.................................................................................................................... 34

4.5. INTERNATIONAL PLANT PROTECTION CONVENTION (IPPC).............................................................................354.6. OTHER ISSUES.........................................................................................................................................36

4.6.1. PRE-PLANT SOIL FUMIGATION AND POST-HARVEST USE OF MB IN US......................................................364.6.2. POST-HARVEST USE FOR CURED HAMS..............................................................................................364.6.3. STUDY ON EMERGENCY USES OF MB IN THE US.................................................................................364.6.4. SULFURYL FLUORIDE AND ITS GWP.................................................................................................374.6.5. REPORTING OF METHYL BROMIDE STOCKS AND THEIR USES....................................................................38

2021 TEAP Progress Report – Volume 1vii

4.6.6. FUMIGATION OF WASTE MATERIAL UNDER QPS..................................................................................384.7. ECONOMIC ISSUES....................................................................................................................................394.8. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................39

5 MEDICAL AND CHEMICALS TOC (MCTOC) PROGRESS REPORT..............................................................49

5.1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................495.2. METERED DOSE INHALERS.........................................................................................................................495.3. USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES FOR CHEMICAL FEEDSTOCK..........................................................................53

5.3.1. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REPORTABLE FEEDSTOCK AND AN INTERMEDIATE............................................535.3.2. COMMON FEEDSTOCK APPLICATIONS OF ODS....................................................................................545.3.3. RECENT AND HISTORICAL TRENDS IN ODS FEEDSTOCK USES...................................................................585.3.4. CFC-113 AND CFC-113A FEEDSTOCK AND INTERMEDIATE USE AND EMISSIONS.........................................605.3.5. HCFC-132B, HCFC-133A, AND HCFC-31 BY-PRODUCT EMISSIONS.......................................................645.3.6. HFCS USED AS FEEDSTOCK............................................................................................................. 67

5.4. HFC-23 BY-PRODUCTION AND EMISSIONS...................................................................................................675.5. DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES....................................................................................................................69

5.5.1. DEFINITIONS AND CATEGORIES OF DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES.............................................................735.5.2. DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES APPROVED BY PARTIES...........................................................................735.5.3. BACKGROUND TO TEAP ASSESSMENT OF DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES....................................................745.5.4. SUGGESTED INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR TEAP ASSESSMENT UNDER DECISION XXX/6.......................765.5.5. PRELIMINARY INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY GUYANA ON A POTENTIAL NEW DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY.........785.5.6. CONVERSION OF HFCS................................................................................................................. 785.5.7. THE USE OF UNAPPROVED DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES AND THE USE OF APPROVED DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES

FOR PURPOSES OTHER THANARTICLE 7 DATA REPORTING UNDER THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL.........................795.5.8. DESTRUCTION OF END-OF-LIFE FOAM WASTES (DILUTE SOURCES)............................................................80

5.6. PROCESS AGENTS....................................................................................................................................825.7. LABORATORY AND ANALYTICAL USES...........................................................................................................825.8 N-PROPYL BROMIDE.................................................................................................................................82

6 REFRIGERATION, AIR CONDITIONING AND HEAT PUMPS TOC (RTOC) PROGRESS REPORT....................83

6.1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................836.2. REFRIGERANTS........................................................................................................................................836.3. FACTORY-SEALED DOMESTIC AND COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION APPLIANCES.....................................................856.4. FOOD RETAIL AND FOOD SERVICE REFRIGERATION..........................................................................................866.5. TRANSPORT REFRIGERATION......................................................................................................................866.6. AIR-TO-AIR AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS.........................................................................................876.7. COMMERCIAL COMFORT AIR CONDITIONING.................................................................................................886.8. MOBILE AC/HP......................................................................................................................................896.9. INDUSTRIAL REFRIGERATION, HEAT PUMPS AND HEAT ENGINES........................................................................896.10. HEATING-ONLY HEAT PUMPS.....................................................................................................................89

7 UPDATED RESPONSE TO DECISION XXX/7: FUTURE AVAILABILITY OF HALONS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES.......................................................................................................................................................... 91

7.1. GLOBAL HALON 1301 EMISSIONS..............................................................................................................92

8 DECISION XXXI/8 AND TEAP MATTERS................................................................................................94

8.1. RESPONSE TO DECISION XXXI/8................................................................................................................948.1.1. NOMINATION PROCESSES, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE MATRIX OF NEEDED EXPERTISE AND ALREADY AVAILABLE

EXPERTISE................................................................................................................................. 948.1.2. PROPOSED NOMINATIONS AND APPOINTMENT DECISIONS.....................................................................958.1.3. TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENTS...................................................................................................968.1.4. REPLACEMENTS.......................................................................................................................... 96

8.2. TEAP ASSESSMENT REPORT......................................................................................................................968.3. TEAP AND TOCS ORGANISATIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS.............................................................................97

8.3.1. FTOC...................................................................................................................................... 988.3.2. HTOC...................................................................................................................................... 988.3.3. MBTOC................................................................................................................................... 98

2021 TEAP Progress Report – Volume 1viii

8.3.4. MCTOC................................................................................................................................... 998.3.5. RTOC...................................................................................................................................... 99

8.4. CONTINUING CHALLENGES.......................................................................................................................101

ANNEX 1: TEAP AND TOC MEMBERSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION................................................................102

ANNEX 2: MATRIX OF NEEDED EXPERTISE..................................................................................................110

ANNEX 3: NOMINATION FORM................................................................................................................ 112

2021 TEAP Progress Report – Volume 1ix

1 Introduction

This is volume 1 of 6 of the 2021 Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) Report and contains Progress Reports from the five Technical Options Committees (TOCs) that compose the TEAP: Flexible and Rigid Foams TOC (FTOC), Halons TOC (HTOC), Methyl Bromide TOC (MBTOC), Medical and Chemicals TOC (MCTOC) and Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps TOC (RTOC). This report also includes updates on the work of three Temporary Subsidiary Bodies: the TEAP Decision XXXI/1 Replenishment Task Force (RTF), the TEAP Decision XXXI/3 CFC-11 Task Force, and the TEAP Decision XXXI/7 Energy Efficiency Task Force (EETF).

This report also contains the TEAP and TOC membership lists, as at 31st August 2021, including each member and their term of appointment; the expertise brought together by each TOC; and the matrix of needed expertise for the TEAP and its TOCs.

TEAP would like to express its sincere gratitude for the voluntary service and contributions of members of its TOCs and Task Forces . TEAP’s tasks have continued to be particularly challenging in view of the COVID-19 pandemic which imposed restrictions to global travel, and changes to scheduled meetings and typical modes of working. To meet these challenges in delivering its reports on time to parties and ensuring the safety of its members, TEAP and its TOCs and Task Forces have held their meetings virtually. We want to express our sincere appreciation to the Ozone Secretariat for its assistance in providing the TEAP with access to its virtual meeting platform for TEAP meetings and for providing support during those meetings.

Last year, TEAP prepared and posted its 2020 Progress Report which was posted in June 2020 on the Ozone Secretariat website. Given the limited agenda for the Forty-second Open-ended Working Group meeting (OEWG-42), TEAP did not present its 2020 Progress Report to parties. For its 2021 Progress Report, TEAP has provided relevant information provided in its 2020 report as well as any updates, as appropriate, and looks forward to presenting its 2021 report to parties in the online forum scheduled for 7 October 2021, ahead of the Thirty-third Meeting of Parties to be held 23-29 October 2021.

1.1. Task force updates

1.1.1. TEAP Decision XXXI/1 Replenishment Task Force

In November 2019, Decision XXXI/1 provided the terms of reference (TOR) for the TEAP to prepare a report on the appropriate level of the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund (MLF) for the triennium 2021-2023. The TEAP established the Replenishment Task Force (RTF), with members from TEAP, its TOCs, and other outside experts. In December 2019, RTF participated in the 84 th meeting of the Executive Committee of the MLF (ExCom-84) to conduct informal discussions with ExCom members, Implementing and Bilateral Agencies present at that meeting.

RTF co-chairs presented its May 2020 report on its assessment of the funding requirements for the replenishment of the MLF to the forty-second meeting of the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG-42), comprised of three substantially identical technical sessions covering different time zones on 14-16 July 2020. All sessions were online due to the pandemic. In these three sessions, the RTF responded to comments and questions submitted by parties, including those submitted to an online forum. Following these sessions, a second online forum round was opened for parties, and the RTF responded to the consolidated comments in its document, “TEAP Replenishment Task Force responses to many comments and questions submitted by the parties,” posted on 12 October 2020. As required by Decision XXXI/1, the RTF considered the projects approved intersessionally in 2020 and the decisions by the ExCom up to and including the 85th meeting. Due to the pandemic the 85th and 86th meetings of the ExCom (ExCom-85 and ExCom-86) were postponed, and an intersessional approval process (IAP 85) was established for ExCom-85, over the period May to June 2020, which allowed the approval of US$35 million for projects and activities.

2021 TEAP Progress Report – Volume 11

The 32nd Meeting of the Parties (MOP-32) was held online from 23-27 November 2020 with a reduced agenda. The agenda item on replenishment was “to ensure that the work of the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund could continue into 2021, given that the present fiscal period of the Multilateral Fund would finish at the end of 2020 and the COVID-19 pandemic had meant that the parties had been unable to meet face to face in 2020 to discuss the replenishment of the Fund for the fiscal period 2021–2023.”0F

[1][1] Two decisions by parties were relevant to the work of the RTF: 1) In Decision XXXII/1, parties agreed to adopt an interim budget for the MLF for the triennium 2021-2023 of US$ 268 million; 2) Given Section 2.6 of the TEAP TOR require a decision of the MOP to confirm any temporary subsidiary body (e.g., task force) that exists for a period of more than one year, parties adopted Decision XXXII/7 in which parties confirmed that the TEAP RTF could “continue [its] work up to the Thirty-Third Meeting of the Parties.” In December 2020, RTF co-chairs notified members of their continued appointment to the task force for 2021.

In 2021, OEWG-43 was held as an online session 22 and 24 May 2021, where parties considered guidance to the TEAP RTF on whether a supplementary report or an update to the RTF May 2020 report was required to support the negotiations on replenishment. After their discussions, parties requested the TEAP to “update the May 2020 report, as needed, to take into account…the corrections and clarifications identified in the TEAP Task Force Responses document…[and] [decisions], rules and guidelines agreed by the Executive Committee up to and including its 87th meeting.” The RTF participated in the ExCom-87 meetings held over a number of sessions in June and early July of 2021.

RTF is preparing its update to its May 2020 report for submission to MOP-33, following the guidance from parties from OEWG-43. The RTF will update its funding estimates based on the information in its report for MOP-33. RTF co-chairs are grateful for the continued excellent support of the Ozone Secretariat, the MLF Secretariat, and the extended commitment and ongoing efforts of RTF members to meet the continuing challenges of working virtually and by consensus to complete this important work for parties in support of a decision on replenishment for the 2021-2023 period.

1.1.2. TEAP Decision XXXI/3 Task Force on Unexpected Emissions of CFC-11

Following reported scientific findings of an unexpected increase in global emissions of CFC-11 after 2012 and the TEAP Decision XXX/3 Task Force Report in 2019, parties at the MOP-31 in November 2019 requested the TEAP to provide an update report, which would include any new compelling information that becomes available, and specific information as instructed in decision XXXI/3, paragraph 7.

In response to decision XXXI/3, TEAP formed a new Task Force on Unexpected CFC-11 Emissions, which combined expertise from TEAP, its TOCs, and outside experts, to address the requirements of this decision. The TEAP Task Force on CFC-11 included several consulting experts who provided an invaluable additional scientific resource.

At MOP-32, parties confirmed that the Task Force could continue its work up until and including MOP-33 and extended the timeline for reporting until the OEWG-43. TEAP’s response to decision XXXI/3 coincided with the response to decision XXX/3 from the Science Assessment Panel (SAP) and its new science findings in 2021. The SAP report in response to decision XXX/3 was published in April 2021. The Task Force report that addressed decision XXXI/3 was published in May 2021.

Parties were invited to submit their comments and questions through an online forum on unexpected emissions of CFC-11. The purpose of the online forum was to enable parties to comment and pose questions on the reports of the SAP and TEAP Task Force on CFC-11 prior to an online technical meeting on CFC-11. SAP and the TEAP Task Force considered the comments and questions

[1][1] UNEP/OzL.Conv.12(I)/6–UNEP/OzL.Pro.32/8


submitted by parties in preparing for their presentations to the technical meetings and specifically responded to those questions and to other questions raised by parties during those online sessions.

The reports of the TEAP Task Force on CFC-11 were presented to parties during two online technical meeting sessions, 14 and 15 July 2021, associated with the OEWG-43, in conjunction with the SAP presentation of its science findings on unexpected CFC-11 emissions. The presentation by the co-chairs of the TEAP Task Force summarised the key conclusions, first from the 2019 Decision XXX/3 TEAP Task Force Report and then from the 2021 Decision XXXI/3 TEAP Task Force Report.

The 2021 report updated and refined the inventory-based modelling of CFC-11 banks and emissions and compared the resulting estimated expected CFC-11 emissions with emissions derived from atmospheric observations to estimate the additional CFC-11 production needed to reconcile these two sets of emissions. The modelling effort for this analysis relied heavily on available data for CFC-11 production and usage by market sector. Market sector data was available through the voluntary reporting to the Alternative Fluorocarbons Environmental Acceptability Study (AFEAS) of CFC-11 sales from 1930s to 2003. Market sector data is not reported under Article 7 in the Montreal Protocol. There is a serious need for more detailed current and future global production data for each market sector that would replicate the valuable AFEAS data. This type of data is critical to the Montreal Protocol’s ability to analyse emissions of controlled substances and to answer future questions about emissions discrepancies, as a global check in compliance.

The Task Force analysis shows a difference between the inventory-based model’s estimation of expected CFC-11 emissions and CFC-11 emissions derived from atmospheric observations. This difference is indicative of unreported CFC-11 production and use, with emissions from CFC-11 banks alone unable to explain the unexpected increase in CFC-11 emissions between 2013 and 2018. A new conclusion of the Task Force is that unreported CFC-11 production would seem to have started before 2013, in the period from 2007 to 2012. This unreported production is necessary to explain the difference between inventory-based expected emissions and derived CFC-11 emissions during this earlier period.

Based on estimations of the additional CFC-11 production necessary to reconcile with the derived emissions, unreported CFC-11 production has been estimated by the Task Force in its report. Assuming the most likely usage in closed-cell foam production, the Task Force also estimated the increase in the magnitude of the CFC-11 bank. The Task Force also concluded that any additional unexpected emissions of CFC-12 are likely to be as a co-product associated with the production of CFC-11, rather than from any specific production initiated to supply CFC-12 in its own applications. Based on the estimated additional CFC-11 production, the Task Force presented the range of potential CTC amounts needed to supply CFC-11 production, dependent on the proportion of co-produced CFC-12.

The Task Force also reported on the specific information requested by parties in decision XXXI/3, including: an analysis of pre-2010 CFC-11 banks by region and market sector; possible drivers of illegal CFC-11 production and trade; linkages between anhydrous hydrogen fluoride, CTC production and the unexpected CFC-11 emissions; the disposition of CFC-11 products; the potential opportunities and challenges to recover and/or destroy CFC-11 and/or products; and opportunities to detect CFC-11 in products.

The Task Force noted that while sampling and detection methods and technologies are available, parties may wish to consider strengthening enforcement and training to ensure opportunities are not being overlooked to detect CFC-11 (or any controlled substance) and to alert authorities to illegal marketing or use.

The Task Force identified the following critical refinements, which establish an important basis for future inventory-based modelling estimates:


• Better representation of equipment/product lifetimes in the active bank.

• Incorporating new information about management practices.

• Using regional and product-based models to inform bank behaviours.

• Testing and bounding assumptions based on literature and expert input.

Finally, the Task Force reiterated the serious need for more detailed global data (production for each market sector) which is critical to the Montreal Protocol’s ability to answer future questions about emissions discrepancies, as a global check on compliance.

Parties may wish to consider how to generate global data on production by market sector.

1.1.3. TEAP Decision XXXI/7 Energy Efficiency Task Force Update

At the 31st Meeting of the Parties in Rome on November 2019, Parties adopted Decision XXXI/7, requesting the TEAP “to prepare a report for consideration by MOP-32 of the Parties addressing any new developments with respect to best practices, availability, accessibility and cost of energy-efficient technologies in the refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat-pump sectors as regards the implementation of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol.”

In response, the TEAP established the Energy Efficiency Task Force (EETF) with a wide geographical representation (16 A5; 12 non-A5).

The EETF initially planned a face-to-face meeting prior to the forty-second Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG-42) that had been planned to be held in Montreal in July 2020. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the meeting was cancelled. As requested, the EETF provided its report in September 2020, in time for the MOP-32 which was scheduled to be in November 2020. Again as a result of the pandemic, discussions at MOP-32 on the EETF report were deferred. This was the 5th TEAP report on energy efficiency during HFC phase-down under the Kigali Amendment.

The EETF continued its work into 2021. Over this period, the focus on climate change has increased markedly, and the demand for cooling continues to increase rapidly especially in A5 parties. If unmanaged this will result in a cycle of increasing global warming through direct emissions of high GWP refrigerants and indirect emissions from fossil fuelled electricity powering inefficient RACHP equipment. The 2021 EETF Update Report was posted online in May 2021, and was open to comments from parties on the Ozone Secretariat On-line Forum in June 2021. At the online OEWG-43 meeting on 16 and 17 July 2021, the EETF presented its report and responded to questions from parties. Energy efficiency is scheduled to be discussed again, virtually at MOP-33 in October 2021, and the EETF will be available to respond to questions.

The 2021 EETF Update report contains important new information and case studies on energy efficiency in the context of HFC phasedown, and on energy modelling, with suggestions for future work. Some key findings include that for room AC and commercial refrigeration, there has been continuing progress in new technology, widespread availability and increasing accessibility to higher efficiency and lower GWP based equipment, improving market uptake, and in our understanding of the interaction between HFC phasedown and energy efficiency in the RACHP sector. The EETF noted that it is possible to jump from HCFCs directly to lower GWP options in some RACHP applications and different regions whilst maintaining/enhancing energy efficiency.

The EETF noted that improved availability and accessibility in A5 parties to higher efficiency RACHP equipment using lower GWP refrigerants could be achieved sooner by:

faster ratification of the Kigali Amendment,


progress in operationalising the Kigali Amendment, enabling individual Parties for fast action, supporting policies designed to improve accessibility, e.g., tackling market barriers affecting

the end consumer, adopting ambitious and progressive energy performance standards across regions that are

appropriately harmonized and coordinated with HFC phase-down strategies (e.g., U4E model regulations),

coordinating multi-agency funding for A5 manufacturing enterprise conversions for higher EE equipment using lower GWP refrigerants.

The diverse membership of the EETF enabled the collection of 27 case studies covering a wide range of geographies, sectors, and policies. These case studies highlighted the importance of coordination between energy efficiency officials and ozone officers to facilitate the transition to lower GWP refrigerants and higher EE equipment. Lessons also included the value of pro-active measures to coordinate HFC phasedown and energy efficiency improvement and prevent the build-up of large stocks of inefficient equipment using high GWP refrigerants that result in higher energy demands and costs with associated economic burdens that could last decades due to the long lifetimes of cooling equipment. A case study on the Global Cooling Prize demonstrated the availability of technologies with the potential to provide comfort with five-times lower emissions at close to twice the cost of an average unit.

Initial modelling which integrates energy consumption related emissions with HFC phasedown, indicates the importance of combining early action to phase-down high GWP HFCs with improving energy efficiency (global average energy-related emissions account for around 70% of total GHG emissions from the RACHP sector) to provide substantial additional benefits in reducing the total cumulative GHG emissions.

In the exceptional and uncertain circumstances due to the COVID pandemic, the EETF has documented progress, maintained momentum, come to consensus, and provided its 2021 Update Report for parties. EETF co-chairs are grateful for the continued excellent support of the Ozone Secretariat and the TEAP, and for the prolonged commitment and efforts of all the EETF members to meet the continuing challenges to complete this important work for parties.

1.2. Key messages from the Technical Options Committees

TEAP presents below the main findings of the 2021 Progress Report, as key messages from each of the TOCs.

1.2.1. FTOC

There have been shortages of low-global warming potential (GWP) blowing agents in 2021 in both Article 5 (A5) and non-A5 parties due to the COVID pandemic disrupting the supply chain issues, severe weather and unclarified manufacturing issues from at least one supplier. As a result, there has been a significant increase in the use of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-365mfc in some A5 parties and a reversion to HFC-245fa in some non-A5 parties.

The transition away from ODS foam blowing agents in some regions and market segments (e.g. spray foam and extruded polystyrene [XPS]) may be delayed because of cost, especially where local codes require higher thermal performance 1F

0. It should be noted that the price of HFC blowing agents has

0 Although the cost of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) was approximately 20-30% of the cost of high-GWP HFCs, HCFC price is increasing as they are phased out globally. The low price of some high-GWP HFCs, particularly HFC-365mfc which is banned in some non-A5 parties, is leading to an increase in market share, and this is slowing the conversion to low-GWP blowing agents


risen substantively during the pandemic and in some A5 parties is almost as high as hydrofluoroolefin/hydrochlorofluoroolefin (HFO/HCFO) prices were prior to the pandemic.

Hydrocarbon (HC), methylal and methylene chloride are reportedly being used in blowing agent blends to reduce costs in some A5 parties. FTOC is seeking additional details on the safety measures being taken to address exposure and safety risks.

1.2.2. HTOC

The HTOC has identified several issues affecting the availability and quality of recovered halons from all fire protection sectors, but especially from the civil aviation sector. The HTOC also believes that ship-breaking could represent a significant source of halon 1301 that could support on-going activities. It is therefore important to conserve this supply to the greatest extent possible to avoid the need to manufacture new halons. To address these issues parties may wish to consider:

Re-emphasising the need to allow open trade of recovered, recycled and/or reclaimed halons in bulk containers or in prefilled fire protection components needed to support legacy halon uses, including civil aviation components required to allow aircraft to operate under international airworthiness requirements; and

Emphasising the importance of effective and complete recovery of halons to minimize halon losses to all parties, particularly those with ship-breaking activities.

Testing fire extinguisher cylinder integrity usually involves visual inspection and hydrostatic testing, which require that the fire extinguishing agent be removed from the container, leading to loss through emissions and loss through contamination (during reclamation/purification). It has recently been reported that a new ultrasonic method has been introduced to test fire extinguisher cylinders that does not require emptying the cylinder. This method has been approved by the US Department of Transportation (the agency that defines the inspection and hydrostatic testing requirements) and has been implemented by two organisations carrying out maintenance, repair and overhaul of fire extinguishers. If this method is widely adopted, it could reduce future emissions and thus extend the longevity of existing supplies (i.e., global bank) of halon 1301, as well as other fire extinguishing agents.

There are two different approaches that are provided in the HTOC Assessment reports on estimating halon 1301 emissions: (1) the HTOC model and (2) estimates derived from measured atmospheric abundances combined with its atmospheric lifetime. In general, the agreement between the two different approaches has been remarkably good. However, there have been two recent periods where the emissions estimated from atmospheric measurements are higher than the HTOC modelled emissions. The first is from about 2010 to 2016, and the second from about 2018 to 2020.

The HTOC is concerned about these discrepancies because the amount of additional halon 1301 emissions is approximately 3500 tonnes of halon 1301, or approximately 10% of the bank estimated by the HTOC model in 2021, meaning that there could be 10% less halon 1301 in the global bank if these “extra” emissions are coming from the current bank of halons. The HTOC is continuing to work with atmospheric scientists from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE) network to determine if additional data analysis can provide any insight into these emissions.

The HTOC is concerned that many personnel who are now responsible for managing fire protection agents controlled by the Montreal Protocol do not have the necessary experience with the issues surrounding the use, recovery, recycling, reclamation and banking of these agents. To address these issues, parties may wish to consider:


Supporting programmes to mitigate the loss in institutional memory of fire protection agents controlled by the Montreal Protocol; and

Supporting awareness programmes to address recovery, recycling, reclamation and banking of halons as well as HCFCs and HFC fire protection agents addressed by the Kigali Amendment.

Although research and development (R&D) continues, especially in regard to civil aviation applications, the certification timescales are long and it will still be at least several years before any of the fire extinguishing agents currently being evaluated could be in service on aircraft. Parties may wish to consider:

Requesting that the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) continue to liaise with the HTOC and provide annual updates on the status of development and implementation of aviation alternatives.

1.2.3. MBTOC

Quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) uses of methyl bromide (MB) (approximately 10,000 tonnes per year), which are exempted from the Montreal Protocol controls, far exceed the use of MB for controlled uses and are now the major anthropogenic contributor of MB to the stratosphere. QPS treatments are highly emissive of MB, and this is driving some countries to implement emission reduction technologies (e.g., recapture) where possible. Over the last decade, some parties have succeeded in completely phasing out QPS use of MB. However, the overall global consumption of MB for QPS has not changed markedly indicating that some A5 parties have increased QPS consumption substantially.

In 2020, there was a small rise in MB emissions, which could be due to natural fluctuations or from increased use either for QPS, or possibly for unknown uses. MBTOC notes that near-term reduction of atmospheric concentrations of MB in the future will rely on reduction in emissions from QPS or any unknown use of MB. Emissions of MB from QPS can be reduced by recapture, recycling and/or reuse.

Parties may wish to revisit the current QPS definition for pre-shipment applications as in general technical alternatives exist and review whether it is possible to remove the "preshipment" option or control the use of methyl bromide for that purpose given that alternatives are readily available and could replace an estimated 30-40% of current QPS use. Pre-shipment treatments in general are aimed at a lower standard of pest control than quarantine uses and are normally against domestic pests that are not quarantine pests. This lower level of security gives greater opportunity to use a wider choice of alternatives, in many instances well-proven and immediately available alternatives, which are available in both A5 and non-A5 parties. To achieve this, parties would need to record “Q” and “PS” categories of use separately. Parties may wish to ask MBTOC to update information on QPS uses collected in the past in response to various decisions of the Montreal Protocol.

Sulfuryl fluoride (SF) is widely adopted around the world as an alternative to MB for disinfestation of structures. Its registration and commercial adoption occurred in the 1990s and continued for many years until it was made available in many countries. SF is a key alternative to MB for treatment of empty structures such as flour mills and food and feed processing premises. In recent years, however, there is growing concern about the high GWP of SF (4780). Recent studies show that the primary source of global SF emissions in 2019 was structural fumigation in North America, but that the increase over the last two decades has also been driven by the growing use of SF in post-harvest treatment of crops in many countries.


1.2.4. MCTOC

Feedstock use of controlled substancesThe production and then consumption of intermediates in situ or on the same plant complex are typically not reported as production of controlled substances for feedstock use. If intermediates that are controlled substances are transported off-site and then used as a feedstock, their production is required to be reported as feedstock use under the Montreal Protocol. As a result of different methodologies and reporting, there could be inconsistencies in the attribution of chemical production for feedstock uses, with some production being incorrectly considered as intermediates, which is not required to be reported. Emissions of intermediates can occur during their production and use. Like feedstocks, emissions of intermediates, in most countries, are regulated through national pollution control measures.

Recent scientific papers conclude atmospheric-derived emissions and emissions trends of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-113 and CFC-113a are higher than expected based on reported production for feedstock uses. A comprehensive understanding of the production and use of CFC-113 and CFC-113a as a feedstock or an intermediate would contribute to a better understanding of global and regional emissions. A recent paper also reports on global abundances, trends, and regional enhancements for HCFC-132b, HCFC-133a, and HCFC-31. All three chemicals are most likely emitted as intermediate by-products in chemical production pathways; it is unlikely that HCFC-132b, HCFC-133a and HCFC-31 have any significant uses due to their toxicology properties.

Parties may wish to consider reviewing the production of CFC-113/113a for the manufacture of other chemicals to ensure that feedstock production of CFC-113/113a is being fully captured in Article 7 data reporting, noting that in situ production of intermediates is not required to be reported as production for feedstock uses. To develop a better understanding of emissions of CFC-113/113a and other controlled substances, the activity of in situ production of controlled substances as intermediates to manufacture chemicals might need to be accounted. Parties may also wish to consider, in the absence of reported data, how to account for production of controlled substances as intermediates in a manner that would allow meaningful global analysis.

HFC-23 by-production and emissionsHFC-23 is a by-product from the production of HCFC-22. According to a recent scientific paper, global HFC-23 emissions derived from atmospheric measurements were historically at their highest level in 2018, in contrast to expected emissions of HFC-23 as a by-product, primarily from reported HCFC-22 production, that were much lower. The paper concludes that the discrepancy between expected emissions and observation-inferred emissions makes it possible that planned reductions in HFC-23 emissions may not have been fully realised or there may be substantial unreported production of HCFC-22, both or either of which would result in unaccounted for HFC-23 by-product emissions. Other sources of HFC-23 emissions are continued use as a low temperature refrigerant and in some countries as a fire extinguishing and inerting agent.

MCTOC will report further on these and other potential sources of controlled substances from chemical production processes in its 2022 Assessment Report.

Destruction technologiesDecision XXX/6 on destruction technologies for controlled substances requests TEAP to assess destruction technologies listed (in annex II to the report of the Thirtieth Meeting of the Parties) as not approved or not determined, as well as any other technologies, and to report to the Open-ended Working Group prior to the Thirty-Third Meeting of the Parties. MCTOC outlined preparations for its assessment of destruction technologies in the 2020 TEAP Progress Report, including suggested guidance for parties on the type of relevant information needed for assessment. Decision XXX/6 paragraph 3 requested parties to submit this type of information. No information was submitted by parties by January 2021, as requested. MCTOC is also not aware of information, such as new test data, on approved destruction technologies or new technologies that would allow an assessment for


the OEWG meeting prior to the 33rd MOP. In consultation with the Ozone Secretariat, TEAP and its MCTOC will now include an assessment in response to decision XXX/6 in its 2022 Assessment Report based on information received and available at that time. MCTOC is preparing for this assessment and taking this opportunity to outline its recommended approach to the parties (with minor amendments from 2020) and to provide suggested guidance on the type of relevant information that parties are invited to submit by January 2022, to allow time for assessment. MCTOC has included a brief update report on available information on destruction technologies (Annex II, MOP-30 list of technologies, either not approved, not determined, or new) and highlights emerging issues relating to destruction technologies for further consideration in its 2022 Assessment Report.

Metered dose inhalersThere are alternatives to metered dose inhalers (MDIs) containing HFCs that are available in either dry powder inhaler (DPI) or "soft-mist" inhaler (SMI) formats for all categories of treatment in an increasing range of regions. The current manufacturing, use, and disposal of inhaler devices have an adverse impact on the environment due to the plastics and other components in these disposable devices and from the propellant gases used in pressurised MDIs, HFC-134a and less often HFC-227ea. There are a range of inhalers that offer lower carbon footprints. These currently include DPIs and SMIs, and MDIs themselves exhibit a range of carbon footprints. Two new propellants HFO-1234ze(E) and HFC-152a with 100-year GWPs of less than 1 and 124, respectively, are in development for use in MDIs.

1.2.5. RTOC

In 2021 RTOC created a “vaccine working group” with the aim to produce a Technical Note on the Vaccine Cold Chain. The Technical Note was finalized in mid-June 2021 and posted on the Ozone Secretariat website as an Advance Copy. It is also attached to the present Progress Report.

Since the publication of the RTOC 2018 Assessment Report, one single-component refrigerant and fourteen blends have achieved international designations and classifications (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 34; International Standards Organisation (ISO) Standard 817). The single-component refrigerant trifluoro(iodo)methane (IFC-13I1) has been assigned safety class A1 (class A1 refers to fluids with low chronic (long-term repeated exposures) toxicity that do not propagate a flame when tested as per standard). However, concerns about its chemical stability and chronic toxicity remain. IFC-13I1 is not new, but has now gained sufficient commercial interest to warrant the necessary toxicity testing. IFC-13I1 can be applied in blends to make them non-flammable (e.g. R-466A, currently undergoing R&D).

There has been significant progress with the development of safety standards to support the transition towards lower GWP alternative refrigerants, that are mostly flammable. IEC 60335-2-89 (applicable to commercial refrigeration) was revised to include larger charges of flammable refrigerants (up to 500 g – 1200 g given certain boundary conditions) and is currently being transferred to national standards. There is a substantial work ongoing on IEC 60335-2-40 (air conditioning – heat pumps), particularly considering the potential to increase the charge per unit room floor area for all flammable refrigerants .

The importance of reducing direct and indirect CO2 emissions from the RACHP sector is gaining increasing attention, especially the sustainable design and operation of equipment, with the strong growth of the equipment base. Improving the equipment energy efficiency during the HFC phase-down is a major opportunity to reduce energy demand, alongside phasing down equipment containing hig GWP HFCs. Training in the servicing and


maintenance of RACHP equipment to reduce leaks will reduce emissions of high GWP HFCs.


2 Flexible and Rigid Foams TOC (FTOC) Progress Report

2.1. Introduction

Foam production regulations are driving the transition from high GWP HFC in non-A5 parties, whereas in A5 parties, the transition continues to be driven by HPMPs.

Although the cost of HCFCs was approximately 20-30% of the cost of high-GWP HFCs, HCFC price is increasing as they are phased out globally. The relatively low price of some high-GWP HFCs, particularly HFC-365mfc (which is banned in some non-A5 parties), is leading to it gaining market share, thereby slowing the conversion to low-GWP blowing agents.

HFO/HCFO blown foams remain more expensive than HFC foams due to the total cost of blowing agent and required additives.

Hydrocarbon is reportedly being tested as a blowing agent for spray foam by at least one company. FTOC will continue to seek additional details on the safety measures being taken to address potential fire and explosion risk.

The importation of ozone-depleting foam blowing agents is controlled or under license, and more parties are controlling the import of polyols containing HCFC-141b or other ozone-depleting substances (ODS). More action is pending with import restrictions and potential requirements to add a label stating “containing HCFC 141b in formulated polyols”.The transition away from ODS foam blowing agents in some regions and market segments (e.g. spray foam and extruded polystyrene [XPS]) may be delayed because of the relative costs, especially where local codes require higher thermal performance.

It is possible that consolidation among foam manufacturing companies may occur during the phaseout of HCFC blowing agents in A5 parties, as it did in non-A5 parties2F

0.

o There continue to be some fires related to ignition of foams in both A5 and some non-A5 parties including foams containing HCFC-141b.

o There is new manufacturing capacity of HCFO-1224yd(Z) in Japan and significant quantities of HCFO-1233zd(E) in China. HFO-1336mzzm(E), with a boiling point of approximately 9°C, is also reportedly available in small quantities.

o Non-A5 and A5 parties are facing challenges with the supply of HFO/HCFOs due to operating challenges at chemical plants, supply chain disruptions due to the pandemic and weather-related issues. This has led to market growth of HFC-365mfc in some A5 parties and reversion to HFC-245fa in some non-A5 parties.

2.2. Global foams market

The production of polymer foam grew by an estimated 3.5% between 2018 and 2019. However, production forecasts for the period to 2024 are impossible to predict owing to the effect of current COVID-19 pandemic and its potential economic after-effects. It is possible that global production may not recover to 2019 levels until 2022.

0 There may be some extra capacity that will be resolved at this time especially where local demand has changed due to building codes or other changes in construction design and overall demand.


Overall, the global production of XPS remained stable. This material is typically used for its low-moisture permeability and high-compression strength in applications including refrigerated transport, perimeter insulation and cold stores. Polyurethane and polyisocyanurate rigid foam is not used as widely as other thermal insulation materials in building insulation due to relatively high cost. However, the low thermal conductivity of rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate foam at wide operating temperatures dominates the insulation demand from the cold chain and district cooling and heating systems.Developments in polymeric foams include vacuum-insulated panels and aerogels that offer ultra-high insulation performance and are used in specialist applications in refrigeration and construction. In addition, there is a small but growing demand for renewable and recyclable materials to replace polymeric foams in a range of applications including construction, furniture and bedding and automotive products.

2.2.1. Major Issues Influencing the Global Foams Market

More than 28 countries, covering more than 830 million people, have declared a state of emergency regarding climate change. Response plans vary but the need to reduce greenhouse gases will necessitate the need for greater energy efficiency, which will likely include the increased use of polymeric foams as thermal insulation.

Global growth in population influences the demand for polymeric foams used in the main end-use industries, including: building & construction, the cold chain, furniture and bedding, packaging and transportation industries (e.g. automotive industries (cars, buses, motorcycles), trains, ships etc.). Polyurethane, poluisocyanurates, polystyrene and phenolic foams contribute to the energy efficiency of heating and cooling systems in buildings, while flexible polyurethane foams provide acoustic insulation, energy absorption and comfort.

The main factors influencing thermal insulation are national and regional legislation and building standards to reduce heating and cooling losses in commercial and residential buildings. The European Union (EU) and North America are currently the leading proponents of building codes to improve energy efficiency in the construction industry, while the global appliance industry continues to develop new, more energy-efficient models.

Investment in infrastructure in China during 2020, included several end-uses for polymeric foams. The investment programme includes a range of opportunities for polymeric foams in the cold chain, district cooling and heating, high speed rail and the construction of temperature-controlled data server centres. Simplification of building codes may also allow greater use of polymeric foams for insulation materials in residential and commercial buildings.

An estimated one-third of global food production requires refrigeration. Cold chain solutions have now become an integral part of supply chain management for processing, transportation and storage of temperature-sensitive products. Increasing trade of perishable products is anticipated to drive the demand for these solutions over the coming years. North America was the largest cold chain market in 2018, followed by Europe, Asia Pacific, South America, and Middle East and Africa respectively. Asia Pacific is expected to grow the fastest due to the presence of major food and healthcare providers.


In Europe, the volume of XPS foam insulation is increasing in line with GDP growth with variation across individual countries. There is some increased demand for thick ( >200mm) XPS panels to meet certain construction requirements3F

0.

In North America, use of all insulation continues to grow, however the use of XPS appears to be growing at a lower rate especially where other products (e.g. EPS for construction below ground) may be replacing XPS as building insulation requirements change and builders seek the most cost-effective insulation. As oil prices decline, polymer prices may reduce costs of XPS which may impact preferences again. In Asia, both Korea and Japan have experienced strong growth in demand for XPS, due to construction associated with the winter and summer Olympics.

2.3. Factors Impacting Blowing Agent Choice

It has been estimated that 80-84% of HCFC-141b in A5 parties will be replaced with non-fluorocarbon alternatives including water-blown foams. However, this may be impacted by the low price offering of HFCs banned in non-A5 parties especially for use in spray foam. Evolving HCFC and HFC phase-out plans will have a large impact on the choices of non-ozone depletion potential (ODP) options.

In A5 parties, a growing number of foam producers are required by regulation to transition to zero ODP blowing agents. In some parties, use of HCFCs is now limited to applications where HCs are nearly universally considered to be unsuitable, such as spray foam. Many parties are regulating to ban the import of CFC-11 and HCFC 141b pre-blended polyols to prevent manufacture of foam using ODS.

There is a growing trend for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) consuming 1000 tonnes or more to self-formulate blends for their own systems especially in Asia.

As designed, as the phasedown progresses, the limited availability and increasing price of HCFCs will drive the selection of foam blowing agents. The availability and low price of high-GWP HFCs, particularly HFC-365mfc (which is banned in many non-A5 parties), is preventing the transition to low GWP substances. However, due to the pandemic, its price has reportedly risen to the pre-pandemic price of HFC-245fa.

China’s Ministry of Housing, Urban, and Rural Development is streamlining the existing 3,000 building standards into 300. It is likely to modify GB50016 “Code of Design on Building Fire Protection and Prevention” allowing for additional use of spray foam, which presents a significant challenge to SMEs on choice of blowing agents.

0 Thicker XPS is used decoratively and for roofs where they can be cut around protruding features. They also do not allow for moisture intrusion between layers which reduces thermal performance and provide more weight for ballast to prevent wind uplift and may have implications for building structure. Multiple layer XPS foam manufacturing techniques usually require the use of bonding chemicals which may increase thermal conductivity or water transfer. Additionally, those chemicals are likely to make the recycling process of XPS either much more complicated or impossible which is economically undesirable. There are very few manufacturers that can produce this as a monolithic board, leading to the use of multiple layers, which has some disadvantages, or the need by producers to invest in new thermal bonding technology.


In Latin America, imports of HCFC-141b and HCFC-141b containing polyols will likely be banned in the largest PU foam markets between 2020 and 2022. Some parties are also considering labelling requirements stating “containing HCFC 141b” on drums and containers of formulated polyol using HCFC-141b and its blends. These measures could improve control on HCFC-141b commercialised in the region. During the last decade, major enterprises, mainly in the domestic/commercial refrigeration and continuous panels have been successfully converted to HCs. HPMP projects continue to focus on implementation at SMEs, examining a wide range of non-HC neat and blended blowing agents (e.g. low volumes of HFOs, CO2 (water), methyl formate, methylal or dimethoxymethane, and blends). The use of HCs pre-blended in foams continues to be of concern, as their use requires safety measures and plant modifications for blending facilities and for SMEs.

In India, approximately 70% of companies are using non-ODS/low-GWP technologies. The remainder are using HFCs. No company is using HCFCs.

There is one report from an A5 party that funding was delayed in the first half of 2020 for at least some companies creating a compliance challenge with 2020 transition compliance dates as the import of HCFCs was banned on January 1, 2020. In the second half of the year, the pace of funding was accelerated and companies started converting plants.

In some A5 parties, there has been an increase in the use of methylal, methylene chloride 4F

0 and pentanes with HFCs to reduce cost. There are some limits to availability and allowance of use because of safety (flammability) and health (human exposure) concerns.

In non-A5 parties, in the EU, high-GWP fluorinated gases are being phased down under F-Gas Regulations. In 2015 in the EU, all HFCs with GWP greater than 150 were banned for foam manufacturing for use in domestic appliances. By January 2023, all HFCs with GWP greater than 150 use will cease being used in all foam manufacturing. Foams and polyol-blends containing HFC should be labelled, and the presence of any HFC has to be mentioned in the technical documentation and marketing brochures. The F-Gas Regulation operates on the supply-side through a quota system, which means that supply of HFC blowing agents to the foam sector is being constrained well before the phase-out dates and this is encouraging a major shift from HFC systems towards lower GWP technologies. Product standards are being reviewed to incorporate the new blowing agents to support CE marking and the Declaration of Performance required when placing construction products on the EU market.

The regulation of unsaturated HCFCs and HFCs are different between parties. In some EU countries, unsaturated HCFCs and HFCs are defined as volatile organic compounds (VOC) and require environmental permits for use. Other EU countries exempt them from VOC regulations based on their Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) in comparison to ethane. Denmark, which previously regulated unsaturated HCFCs and HFCs by the same laws as high GWP HFCs, has lifted the restriction when the GWP value is below 5 though a dedicated ordinance. In Switzerland, under the Swiss ODS Ordinance, HFO-1233zd (E) which has an ODP of 0.00034 is designated as an ODS although there is an exemption exemption based on the low-GWP value and its energy efficiency.

0 Methylene chloride is a controlled substance in some parties due to its use in processing cocaine.


2.3.1. Low-Pressure Spray Foam

Two-component polyurethane spray foam products processed by low-pressure mixing is often used to seal gaps in the building envelope and insulate cavities in the building. Polyol blends are stored in pre-pressurized tanks at low pressure and often contain a liquid and a gaseous blowing agent (to propel the blend into the cavity) The pressurized foam system can create challenges in maintaining stability of low-GWP blowing agents and catalysts. 5F

0 Continued research is underway to address the stability of polyol blends.

2.4. Additional Blowing Agents in Current Use

HFOs/HCFOs provide an alternative to HCs that can eliminate or reduce the flammability or the need for flame retardant for polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and extruded thermoplastic foam production. This reduces the capital investment required to address safety when using HCs as a blowing agent. In addition, HFOs/HCFOs can result in improved foam insulating values compared to HC blown foams.

There have been significant improvements in the development and availability of additives, co-blowing agents, equipment and formulations enabling the successful commercialization of foams containing low-GWP blowing agents.

The transition by SMEs to HFOs/HCFOs is currently slowed by both their greater cost, and limited but improving, supply in A5 parties. HFO/HCFOs are sometimes blended with other blowing agents to reduce costs in both A5 and non-A5 parties.

Manufacturers of HFO/HCFOs have increased capacity of some of the HFOs/HCFOs to meet the demand for low-GWP blowing agents that is expected to result from the implementation of low GWP regulations. Continued coordination could be helpful to ensure that there is adequate supply as regulations are implemented.

In Japan, the consumption of HFOs/HCFOs increased by 50% between 2019 and 2020, exceeding the consumption of HFCs.

In 2020 HCFO-1224yd(Z) was commercialized in Japan 6F

0. The boiling point of HCFO-1224yd(Z) is the same at that of HFC-245fa. HCFO-1224yd(Z) is also used as a refrigerant and solvent in addition to blowing agent.

The Multilateral Fund has published the outcomes from a demonstration project at foam system houses7F

0 to formulate pre-blended polyols for spray polyurethane foam applications using a low-GWP blowing agent HFOs with proper choice of catalyst package that could yield foam properties with comparable to HCFC-141b but at an increased cost (22-46%).

Methyl formate use as a sole blowing agent continues to increase around the world in rigid foam applications and integral skin foam applications. It is also being used in A5 parties as a co-blowing agent with HFCs for various rigid foam applications. Methyl formate blends with

0Recent papers focus on catalysts for the trimerization reaction. 0 Its boiling point is 15oC and its molecular weight is 1490 http://www.multilateralfund.org/Our%20Work/DemonProject/Document%20Library/8311ax5_Thailand.pdf


http://www.multilateralfund.org/Our%20Work/DemonProject/Document%20Library/8311ax5_Thailand.pdf

http://www.multilateralfund.org/Our%20Work/DemonProject/Document%20Library/8311ax5_Thailand.pdf

HFCs are also being used in the United States for manufacturing XPS boards and in some cases blends with HFCs and HCFOs for rigid polyurethane foams.

2.4.1. Extruded Polystyrene (XPS) Foam Blowing Agents

Some XPS manufacturers report continued challenges for the conversion of XPS for some products and regions. New foam blowing agents cannot directly replace some current products, and the need to maintain foam density may not allow for reduced loading of higher cost blowing agents. They further note that preparation for conversion to flammable8F

0 blowing agents requires approximately18 to 36 months for capital investment and product qualification based on the specific end use (e.g. walls, roofs, structural support, transportation, cold storage, etc).

In China there are local equipment vendors offering both CO2 based and HFC solutions for medium to large enterprises. It is expected that CO2 based systems will predominate for the phase-out of HCFCs.

Other blowing agents and co-blowing agents continue to be used in small quantities. Isopropyl chloride (2-Chloropropane) is blended with isopentane generally for phenolic foam. Foam additivies FA188 and PF-5056 were used and viewed technically as nucleating agents. However, based on the European Norm standard (EN13165), since this material can be found in the cell gas after 6 months at 70°C in polyisocyanurate (PIR) foam, then it is also classified as a blowing agent.

A patented chemical blowing agent (trade named CFA8) is being promoted to the polyurethane market by China’s Butian New Materials and Technology Company. It is expected that other innovative chemical and physical blowing agent technologies may be introduced over the coming years.

0 A new paper on flammability hazards of HFO-1234ze during processing. Comprehensive Evaluation of the Flammability and Ignitability of HFO-1234ze; R.J. Bellair, L.S. Hood, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, In Press (2019). https://www.sciencedirect.com/user/error/ATP-2?pii=S0957582019313734


https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.sciencedirect.com_user_error_ATP-2D2-3Fpii-3DS0957582019313734&d=DwMGaQ&c=zRqMG_fghhK--2M6Q5UUdA&r=-jzvY25JnuGjKSSLAE4r2ZqHTqxARpG4WmGvKAM8BFE&m=AeAEdbON1t2cBHHKI2pqMZLNJzuitjhp2vwSKAwkcxA&s=FtZNz0eZcm7hkdA1ZLkGaePVSZJ_f6eMRbYkxYELKxk&e=

3 Halons TOC (HTOC) Progress Report

3.1. Introduction

The HTOC did not meet in person in 2021 owing to COVID-19 travel restrictions; instead, the HTOC has been holding monthly virtual meetings. Each meeting was held twice to accommodate different time zones. Depending on future COVID-19 travel restrictions, the HTOC may hold a lead authors meeting in the 4th quarter of 2021, to refine the work assignments already in progress for the 2022 Assessment Report.

3.2. Key issues

3.2.1. Availability and quality of recycled halon 1301

The HTOC has identified several issues affecting the availability and quality of recovered halon 1301 from the civil aviation sector.

Methanol is sometimes introduced as an additive to halon 1301 to prevent the freezing of water from condensation during the low-rate discharge in cargo compartment fire protection systems. Removing the methanol requires distillation, and as not all halon recyclers have this capability this is compromising the available supply of halon 1301. As halon supplies become scarcer the logic of removing the methanol (thereby risking loss of halon 1301) only to put methanol back in is coming under scrutiny. The HTOC is currently investigating options to address this issue.

Quantities of contaminated halon 1301 are increasing with time, which is adversely affecting both the availability and quality of halons. This issue applies to all sources of recovered halon 1301 but appears to be more severe in the civil aviation sector. For example, contaminants such as HCFC-22 and HCFC-134a, which are not usually found in aviation fire protection systems, are being found in halon 1301 recovered from civil aviation fire protection systems. It is suspected that this contamination is the result of inadequate handling and processing practices. It is proving very difficult to remove these contaminants (sophisticated distillation is required to separate them), both from a technical and economic standpoint, thereby reducing the amount of halon available to continue to support long-term uses of halon in all legacy sectors. Halon that is not reclaimable due to the severity of the contamination should be destroyed using approved destruction technologies.

In civil aviation, fire protection systems used in engine and cargo bays must be fully operable before the aircraft can fly under international air worthiness requirements. Some countries have placed regulatory barriers that restrict the import of fire extinguishing components containing halons that are required for emergency replenishment after a halon discharge or a fault with the aviation fire protection system. This has placed administrative obstacles and delays in the issuing of import licences or permits, which has led to the grounding of aircraft, significant disruption to flying customers and consequential financial and reputational damage. Some countries have refused exemptions or waivers requested by airlines. As a result, some airlines are being forced to consider purchasing additional reserves of halon fire protection components for their fleets at significant cost and prepositioning the parts in these countries to avoid having to ground aircraft over non-functioning halon systems.

One company in Africa reported in August 2019 that they could not obtain halon 1301 that is required to support their country’s civilian aviation needs. This represents the first verifiable case of a regional imbalance affecting availability of halon 1301 to support enduring uses.

Several halon recycling/reclamation companies are reporting difficulties in shipping bulk recovered halon 1301 across national boundaries as some authorities appear to be classifying recovered halon as


hazardous waste under the Basel Convention, thus preventing shipment. This problem may be contributing to the airline difficulties in shipping their prefilled components into certain countries.

The HTOC believes that ship-breaking could represent a significant source of halon 1301 which could support on-going activities. It is therefore important to conserve this supply to the greatest extent possible. Parties may wish to consider:

Re-emphasising the need to allow open trade of recovered, recycled and/or reclaimed halons in bulk containers or in prefilled fire protection components needed to support legacy halon uses, including civil aviation components required to allow aircraft to operate under international airworthiness requirements, and

Emphasising the importance of effective and complete recovery of halons to minimize halon losses to all parties, particularly those with ship-breaking activities.

3.3. New Developments in Aviation Fire Protection

In the past, the majority of inflight halon 1301 emissions from aircraft cargo compartment fire protection systems have been the result of false alarms. New “discriminating” smoke detectors use more than one criterion to detect a fire and can better discriminate actual smoke from moisture and nuisance dusts present in air and therefore have a false alarm rate that is up to ten times lower. This substantially reduces unintended halon 1301 emissions from newer aircraft when these more modern detectors are used. Legacy aircraft continue to use the older smoke detectors with their higher rates of false alarm. Replacing these older smoke detectors would reduce emissions of halon 1301 and thus extend the longevity of existing supplies.

Handheld fire extinguishers containing halon 1211 on aircraft registered in the EU will be banned after 2025 according to EU legislation. They will most likely be replaced on civil passenger aircraft with 2-BTP (2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene) extinguishers. Additionally, the announced withdrawal of the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) standard for halon extinguishers should lead to the end of UL-marked extinguisher production after January 2025, regardless of whether the aircraft is registered in the EU or not. This may drive replacement of halon 1211 extinguishers for logistics/standardization reasons, thus increasing the amount of halon 1211 extinguishers being removed from service.

Alternatives to halon 1211 have yet to be developed for the different sizes of handheld extinguishers that are installed onboard military aircraft and helicopters, and on smaller civil aircraft. The process of replacing an extinguisher is costly and is delaying the development of the smaller unit used in cockpits and the larger one used in baggage compartments in these aircraft. The HTOC anticipates difficulties in replacing these other extinguishers as there are currently no standardized test methods, classifications or certification procedures for these other-sized extinguishers.

Testing fire extinguisher cylinder integrity usually involves visual inspection and hydrostatic testing, which require that the agent be removed from the container, leading to emissions (e.g., losses in the transfer process) and the potential to introduce contamination, which can also cause significant losses in the reclamation process. It has recently been reported that a new ultrasonic method has been introduced to test fire extinguisher cylinders that does not require removal of the agent. This method has been approved by the US Department of Transportation (the agency that defines the inspection and hydrostatic testing requirements) and has been implemented by two organisations carrying out maintenance, repair and overhaul of fire extinguishers. If this method is widely adopted, it could reduce future emissions and thus extend the longevity of existing supplies (i.e., global bank) of halon 1301, as well as other fire extinguishing agents.

In civil aviation, a blend of 2-BTP and CO2 has passed the US Federal Aviation Administration Minimum Performance Standard (FAA MPS) Test for cargo compartment fire protection. Whilst an encouraging result, this is only the first stage in the new agent assessment process and it could be


years before being commercially viable; still pending are discussions with regulation agencies to establish the certification protocol, as well fire suppression system design, certification, production and installation on the aircraft. Currently, this blend is not approved under the US EPA Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program.

Trifluoroiodomethane (CF3I) has also been considered by one aviation airframe manufacturer as a replacement for halon 1301 in cargo compartments (cargo compartments are considered non-occupied spaces). However, when tested to the cargo compartment FAA MPS, CF3I failed one of the required tests. CF3I is less thermally stable than halon 1301, thus, it is likely to decompose en route to the fire zone and therefore cannot suppress this particular fire threat.

R&D for cargo compartment fire protection systems continues. However, the development and certification timescales are long, and it will still be at least several years before any of the fire extinguishing agents currently being evaluated could be in service on aircraft. Parties may wish to consider:

Requesting that the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) continue to liaise with the HTOC and provide annual updates on the status of development and implementation of aviation alternatives.

3.4. New Fire Extinguishing Agents

3.4.1. HCFO/Fluoroketone blend

A new total flooding agent to potentially replace halon 1301, HCFC blends, and high GWP HFC-227ea and HFC-125, has been introduced to the US National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and ISO fire protection committees. It is a 50-50% blend by mass of the HCFO-1233zd(E) and the fluoroketone FK 5-1-12. Both components have short atmospheric lifetimes (i.e., they decompose in the troposphere) so they have low GWPs and negligible or zero ODPs. Significant data exist for each of the chemicals individually, but very limited information is yet available regarding performance of the blend. Further research including investigation into the full toxicological profile of the HCFO component is needed to determine the suitable applications for this blend; especially for potential use in occupied spaces.

3.4.2. Update from Russia

Development of new fire protection agents reported previously in the Russian Federation continues. The identities of the agents have now been revealed: three are isomers of perfluorohexene and one is a perfluorinated cycloalkane; all have the chemical formula C6F12. All four agents tested showed good results in fire suppression, physical properties and environmental characteristics. Selected data for the agents under development are provided in Table 3.1, together with the fluoroketone FK-5-1-12, obtained under the same conditions for comparison purposes.

All four new agents were found to be non-flammable in accordance with the Russian GOST 12.1.044 test method for determination of flammability limits. For many combustible gases, flammability limits are wider than those obtained in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 681 standard, thus GOST 12.1.044 could be considered a more stringent test.

While toxicity testing of the perfluorohexenes is continuing, preliminary tests have revealed a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (commonly referred to as the NOAEL) for perfluoro-1,2-dimethylcyclobutane that is 2.4 times higher than its Minimum Extinguishing Concentration (MEC) for n-heptane. This means that it is a potential candidate for total flooding applications in normally occupied areas (and therefore a potential replacement for halon 1301 and high-GWP HFC-227ea and HFC-125 in these applications). However, due to the relatively low thermal stability of the


perfluorohexenes there is a concern about their effectiveness as fire suppressants against large fire threats. Full-scale tests would answer this concern.

Table 3.1. - Selected data for the agents under development in the Russian Federationas compared with FK-5-1-12

Perfluorohexene (three isomers)

Perfluoro-1,2-dimethylcyclobutane FK-5-1-12

Formula C6F12 C6F12 C6F12O

Minimum extinguishing concentration for n-heptane, % vol.

3.3 – 3.5 3.7 4.4*

Boiling point, °C 45.0 - 47.0 43.0 - 45.0 49.2

Thermal stability, °C 350 >550 500

NOAEL, % vol. Still under estimation 9.0 (preliminary) 10.0

Flammability (GOST 12.1.044) non-flammable non-flammable non-flammable

ODP 0 0 0

Atmospheric lifetime, days 17.4 17.4 5.0

100 year GWP 5.7 5.7 <1

* ISO 14520 value is 4.5%

3.4.3. Update from India

In India, two molecules (both fluoroiodoalkanes) have been synthesised at laboratory scale and screened against their MEC and toxicity parameters with encouraging results. The next steps will be additional toxicity and fire performance studies (streaming and total flooding) per national and international standards. Both of these activities have long timescales. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic halted the progress of these activities.

3.4.4. Market considerations

As users switch to a broader range of firefighting alternatives, the potential market for any new fire suppressant diminishes. Also, after many years of ongoing research, the chances of finding a previously undiscovered alternative that is safe and effective also diminish. Therefore, fewer companies are willing to invest the significant resources necessary to develop chemicals that do not have wider application than fire suppression. For example, one major chemical manufacturer has indicated to at least one potentially interested party that they do not plan to further the commercialization of a promising candidate solely as a potential total flooding alternative for halon 1301, HFC-227ea or HFC-125 due to its relatively small projected market unless and until it were to find broader application.

3.5. Impact of the Kigali Amendment

As the production of HFCs is phased down under the Kigali Amendment, the HTOC believes that there will be a switch to the use of recycled agents where other fire extinguishing agents cannot be used. Additionally, there remain certain low-temperature applications that require halon 1301 or HFC-23, both very high-GWP agents. Therefore, parties may wish to consider re-emphasizing the


need to foster international trade of recycled/reclaimed high-GWP HFCs, i.e., HFC-227ea and HFC-125 used in legacy fire protection systems and specifically in civil aviation lavatory fire protection systems.

3.6. Other updates

3.6.1. Legislation

Legislation was passed in the United States in December 2020 (American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act) that among other things essentially implements the Kigali Amendment. It is not yet clear if the US will seek ratification of the Kigali Amendment. Nonetheless, US law is now in line with the requirements of the Kigali Amendment. The impact of these HFC phase-down requirements on the fire extinguishing sector will be monitored by the HTOC over the coming years.

3.6.2. Effects of alternative refrigerant selection

The HTOC continues to express concern with expanded use of alternative refrigerants due to their potential flammability and the potential to reduce the effectiveness and safety of firefighting systems (e.g., agent effectiveness, by-products generated, etc.). In addition to industry standard tests for measuring flame propagation (ASHRAE-34/ISO-817), new methods are being developed to address these concerns. One is the Japanese High-Pressure Gas Safety Act and its related regulations amended specifically to categorize “mildly flammable gases” or Class A2L Refrigerants. The regulations categorize mildly flammable gases by evaluating their lower and upper explosive limits, heat of combustion, burning velocity, or exhibition of flame propagation, in conformity with European EN-1839 and ISO-817 standards.

Another method is a U.S. Army bench-scale test chamber to evaluate the effects of military-representative thermal and shock conditions that are in general harsher than those of civilian scenarios. The chamber can be used to assess the effects of atmospheric pressure, humidity, oxygen, and ambient temperature extremes on combustion and energy release rates. Thermal and shock inputs can also be varied via customizable hot wire, spark, and explosive ignition sources. These issues are of particular concern to the military sector or other applications that may be subject to extreme environments. Users should evaluate the proposed alternative against any unique requirements before making a decision to adopt an alternative refrigerant.

3.6.3. Knowledge and training

The HTOC has a continuing concern regarding the historical knowledge that has been lost due to the length of time over which the Montreal Protocol activities have been conducted. Many personnel who are currently responsible for managing fire protection agents covered by the Montreal Protocol are not experienced with the issues surrounding the use, recovery, recycling, reclamation and banking of these agents. The HTOC is finding that this is becoming an increasing challenge as it works with various parties and organizations on issues related to acquiring halons or identifying alternatives to meet their continuing needs. For example, many national ozone unit (NOU) staff members indicated to the HTOC that they are looking for information that is already available from HTOC reports, but they seem unaware that the information is available and/or where to find it.

Parties may wish to consider:

Supporting programmes to mitigate the loss in institutional memory of fire protection agents under the Montreal Protocol; for example, including HTOC Reports and Technical Notes, presentations, etc. in Ozone Regional Manager Network Meetings, and

Supporting training and awareness programmes to address recovery, recycling, reclamation and banking of HCFCs and HFC fire protection agents under the Kigali Amendment.


3.6.4. Fires in increased oxygen atmospheres

The HTOC has been made aware of several incidents of fires involving oxygen in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. In the period from 9th May 2020 through to 12th July 2021, there have been at least 39 such incidents reported. Unfortunately, several of these fires caused multiple fatalities, owing to the fact that the oxygen caused the fires to be more severe than would otherwise be expected. Even a small increase in oxygen concentration can dramatically increase both the likelihood and the severity of a fire. Ease of ignition and rapid-fire growth are typical in oxygen enriched environments. While this is not considered an issue related to halons, high GWP HFCs or their alternatives, it is nonetheless an important safety issue and the HTOC offers the following information for parties.

In hospital settings using oxygen, strict safety protocols are normally enforced using National or internationally recognized standards, such as the NFPA 99, Health Care Facilities Code. Staff who would normally work in oxygen use setting are usually well trained in dealing with these hazards. Even in times of emergency it is important to enforce these strict protocols.

Given that infectious units have a low air exchange rate with the outside environment by design, the potential for a dangerous oxygen rich environment is increased. Leaking valves or hoses and openings in joints of tubes and masks can quickly lead to dangerous levels of concentrations. An increase in concentration of as little as 3% (i.e., 24% compared to 21% in air) can also dramatically change the flammability characteristics of materials. Treating several patients in the same room each requiring their own oxygen increases this potential risk. The use of high-flow nasal cannulas requires a high flow of oxygen (up to 60 L per minute instead of the 1-2 L per minute) and thus has the potential to further exacerbate the risk of elevated oxygen concentrations.

An increased need for ventilators in Intensive Care Units for COVID-19 leads to increased electrical demand not originally envisioned. Overloaded electrical supplies can be a source of ignition. Use of alcohol-based or organic solvents that are flammable increases this risk in a heightened oxygen environment.


4 Methyl Bromide TOC (MBTOC) Progress Report

The May 2021 MBTOC Progress Report provides an overview on the production and consumption of MB for both controlled and exempted (QPS) uses, and on recent developments of MB alternatives in sectors for which critical uses have been nominated this year for use in 2021 or 2022.

Recent research on alternatives to QPS uses of MB and the trend in atmospheric emissions of MB is also presented. MBTOC considers accurate reporting and determination of the correct categories of uses of MB for QPS will be important to assist the future development and adoption of alternatives around the world. The implementation/feasibility/economics of re-capture/ recycling of MB used for QPS in different sectors and regions would reduce emissions whilst still using MB and would contribute further to ozone layer protection.

An update on the collaboration between the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and MBTOC, plus some remaining challenges associated with MB use and phase-out are discussed.

Relevant information and key messages from the MBTOC 2020 Progress Report have been retained in this report, since MBTOC has not had the opportunity to present its findings and update to the parties.

4.1. Global MB production and consumption

4.1.1. Production and consumption of methyl bromide for controlled uses

ProductionIn the past decade, four parties have reported production of MB for controlled uses: Japan, China, Israel and the United States. Japan has not reported production since 2014. In 2018, production was reported by China and the United States, totalling 169.3 tonnes. Israel reported a negative amount of -217.5 tonnes (i.e., zero production; exports taken from stockpiles). In 2019 only the US reported production of MB for controlled uses of 14.2 tonnes; China reported zero production and Israel again reported a negative amount of -18.3 tonnes.

ConsumptionIn 2018, the MB consumption for controlled uses in 2018 was 243.95 tonnes. This matches with amounts granted under the Critical Use Exemption (CUE) by the MOP (A5 parties 209.2 tonnes; non-A5 parties 34.8 tonnes). The consumption of MB for controlled uses reported under Article 7 of the Protocol in 2019 was 116 tonnes, again matching CUEs for that year. In addition, volumes of MB that were used from stockpiles and exported to A5 parties in 2018 and 2019by EU were 9.5 tonnes and 1.3 tonnes, by Israel were 217.5 tonnes and 18.3 tonnes and by the United States were 17.7 tonnes and 76.7 tonnes, respectively.

Whilst the reduction trend in production above aligns with diminishing CUN requests from parties, a review of Article 7 data shows that in the period 2005 - 2013, about 7,950 tonnes of the MB production were not shown as consumption, i.e., used for unknown uses (see Fig. 4.1).


Fig 4.1. Controlled consumption vs controlled production of MB 2005-2019

20052006

20072008

20092010

20112012

20132014

20152016

20172018

20190

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000 Consumption ProductionM

ethy

l Bro

mid

e (t

)

Source: Ozone Secretariat Data Access Centre (reports as per Article 7). Accessed June 2021Note: Negative values reported by parties (i.e. exports of MB) have not been deducted from total consumption or production in a given year.

Phase-out of the remaining controlled uses of MB has continued under the CUE process, in both A5 and non-A5 parties. This reflects successful adoption of alternatives in the vast majority of sectors where MB was once used, both as a soil fumigant and as a postharvest or structural treatment (or re-categorisation to QPS by one party). However, challenges remain, particularly in certain critical use sectors.

In some A5 parties, it is possible that continuing controlled critical uses may be being supplied from an estimated 1,500 tonnes of stocks (presumably pre-2015 stocks), instead of making a CUE application.

4.1.2. Methyl bromide production and consumption for QPS (exempted uses)

Production of MB for QPSReported world production of MB for QPS amounted to 10,851 metric tonnes in 2018 and 8,724 tonnes in 2019. Five parties, two A5s (China and India) and three non-A5 parties (United States, Israel and Japan) currently produce MB for QPS.

Consumption of MB for QPSQPS uses, which are exempted from the Montreal Protocol controls, now far exceed the use of MB for controlled uses and are now the major anthropogenic contributor of methyl bromide to the stratosphere. QPS treatments are highly emissive of MB, although some countries are implementing emission reduction technologies where possible. In particular, recapture of MB to reduce emissions associated to QPS uses is increasing in some countries where regulations are driving its adoption (e.g. New Zealand).

Over the last decade, overall global consumption of MB for QPS has remained stable at around 10,000 tonnes/year in spite of some parties completely phasing out QPS use of MB (e.g. EU). However, between 2017 and 2018, there was an increase in global consumption of MB reported under Article 7 for QPS purposes of 700 tonnes to 10,700 metric tonnes and for 2019 a decline to 8,970 tonnes (Fig 4.2). Despite the downward trend in consumption of MB for QPS in Non A5 parties since 1999, consumption has been increasing in A5 parties. particularly from 2015 onwards. The increased use for QPS in some countries is offsetting the benefits gained by phasing out MB for controlled uses globally (eg Australia, Egypt, New Zealand, Vietnam). Data showed that some A5 parties have increased QPS MB consumption substantially. MBTOC is continuously discussing this issue with the IPPC. The reasons for the trend, not to replace MB use in QPS are under consideration: economic


constraints, accessibility due to complete lack of internationally accepted alternatives or the very slow and tedious process to obtain regulated alternatives for quarantine use within the IPPC.

Fig. 4.2. Consumption of MB for QPS (exempted) uses from 1999 to 2019.

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

20122013

20142015

20162017

20182019

0.00

2000.00

4000.00

6000.00

8000.00

10000.00

12000.00

14000.00

NA5 A5 Global

Met

hyl B

rom

ide

(met

ric to

nnes

)

Source: Ozone Secretariat Data Access Centre, accessed June 2021

Even though MB for QPS uses are exempt uses from a phase-out schedule under the Montreal Protocol, parties are encouraged to minimize and replace MB for these uses whenever possible.

Considering that MBTOC has identified opportunity for replacing between 30 and 40% of QPS uses with immediately available alternatives, parties are encouraged to consider controlling QPS uses to avoid these emissions.

Parties may wish to revisit the current QPS definition for pre-shipment applications with a view of establishing whether it is possible to remove the “preshipment” option or control the use of methyl bromide for that purpose, given that alternatives are readily available and an estimated 30-40% of the QPS consumption falls into this category. This would require parties to make a clear distinction between “Q” and “PS” categories of use. MBTOC stands ready to assist parties in achieving this. As a first step, parties may wish to ask MBTOC to update information collected for its 2010 and 2011 reports in response to Decision XX/6 and other relevant decisions of the Protocol.

Pre-shipment treatments in general are aimed at a lower standard of pest control than quarantine uses and are normally against pests that are not quarantine pests. Whilst quarantine treatments lead to a commodity free of regulated quarantine pests, pre-shipment only requires the consignment to be “practically free” of pests. This lower level of security gives greater opportunity to use a wider choice of alternatives, in many instances well-proven and immediately available alternatives, which are available in both A5 and non-A5 parties. In general, these alternatives also have, a reduced requirement for efficacy testing.

Section 4.3 of this report provides updates on relevant research on alternatives to various MB uses for pre-shipment uses of MB, as well as quarantine uses.

4.2. Update on alternatives for remaining critical uses

Technically and economically feasible chemical and non-chemical alternatives to MB have been found for virtually all soils, structure and commodity applications for which MB was used in the past


including nearly all critical uses applied for since 2005. Comprehensive information is available on the adoption of key alternatives in the MBTOC 2018 Assessment Report (MBTOC, 2019) past MBTOC CUN reports (MBTOC, 2003 - 2020) and the MBTOC progress report (TEAP, 2003-2020). This information is routinely shared with the IPPC.

This May 2021 progress report provides updated information on recent research related to alternatives for controlled uses of MB for which critical uses are still being requested, including tomatoes (mainly for control of Nacobbus aberrans, the false root-knot nematode), strawberry runners and fruit (soil-borne pathogens and weeds), mills, and houses (post-harvest and wood pests).

4.2.1. In the soil sector

4.2.1.1. Strawberry runner production – Australia and Canada

Australia continues to prioritise the registration of Methyl Iodide (MI) as the most efficient alternative to MB for treating soil grown with strawberry nurseries in the State of Victoria. According to the Party’s nomination, this fumigant is becoming registered in early 2022, leading to a 50% reduction in their CUN. The party expects to achieve full MB phase-out by the end of 2023 putting an end to CUN requests for this sector after 19 years of exemptions.

The Australian research program for strawberry runners continues with encouraging results for trials with higher rates of ethane dinitrile (EDN), application timing of TF-80®, longer treatment times and wavelengths of microwaves, and different rates and formulations of MI/Pic for control of Macrophomina phaseolina (causal agent of charcoal rot of strawberry) (McFarlane et al., 2019ab; Stevens and Freeman, 2019).

Canada. Canada’s requests for a CUE have virtually remained unchanged for many years. Many countries producing strawberry runners have in the absence of MB, found soilless culture systems technically and economically suitable, at least for a portion of certified nursery production operations as well as for stock plants. Such systems allow for producing pest and disease-free nursery material that meets the required plant health standards (López-Galarza et al., 2010; Rodríguez-Delfín, 2012; Wei, 2020). Canada continues to conduct research aimed at perfecting a soilless production system that will avert the need for soil fumigants, as no chemical alternatives to MB are allowed on Prince Edward Island, where the need for a CUE arises. Other methods which are considered acceptable for strawberry fruit production, such as biofumigants (Baggio et. al., 2018) and soil solarization, do not provide the consistent and appropriate pest-free status needed to meet the certification requirements of the United States, a major market for this grower.

Soil disinfestation with steam has been tested successfully in strawberry fruiting fields, but not in field production of strawberry daughter plants. In a recent study conducted in California, USA (Fennimore and Kim, 2020), daughter plant production was compared in soils treated with steam vs. MB:Pic treatment standards, with comparable results. Soil disinfestation with steam shows promise for strawberry nurseries, especially organic producers, although more research is needed to validate the pathogen levels on roots and any long term affects on plant quality.

4.2.1.2. Strawberry fruit production in Argentina

Argentina continues to reduce amounts requested in nominations for strawberry fruit production and is only seeking a small amount of MB for use in 2022. International research continues to show that a range of alternatives could be considered for the remaining use. Allyl isothiocyanate (AITC) is a biofumigant that has been registered in the United States to control fungal soil-borne pathogens such as M. phaseolina (charcoal rot). Investigating AITC under Argentinean conditions for management of this strawberry disease has been demonstrated (Baggio et al., 2018).


Other recent research on strawberry fruit relevant to Argentina includes, treatment with dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) combined with metam potassium or chloropicrin in Florida, which improved pest and weed control as compared with DMDS alone (Boyd et al., 2017; Yu et. al., 2019). In Argentina, research has been ongoing for several years: Del Huerto (2013) found no difference between MB and 1,3-D/Pic, which makes the latter a good alternative option. Jaldo et al. (2007) showed that 1,3-D/Pic injected in the soil gave better yields than methyl bromide in Lules/Tucumán. Aldercreutz and Szczesny (2008, 2010), showed that yields obtained in Mar del Plata with metam sodium and metam ammonium were comparable to those produced with MB. Bórquez and Agüero (2007) found that weed control achieved with metam ammonium, metam sodium and metam potassium in Lules, was comparable to that obtained with MB 70:30, and that yields obtained with these treatments were not significantly different. Other studies have confirmed these results (Bórquez and Mollinedo, 2009, 2010; Aldercreutz and Szczesny, 2008; Bórquez and Agüero, 2007).

Since 2017, substantial progress has been made in testing and commercially implementing soil-less culture in strawberry fruit production. This technique expanded in 2018 and 2019 in new projects in Santa Fe, Buenos Aires and Tucuman provinces of Argentina, using inert substrates, under macro tunnels where plants are fertigated via a drip system (INTA, 2018; La Capital, Mar del Plata, 2019; La Gaceta de Tucumán, 2019).

4.2.1.3. Greenhouse tomato es in Argentina

Many chemical and non-chemical alternatives to control the false root nematode Nacobbus aberrans, the key pest associated with this CUE, have been developed and are currently commercially used in countries where this nematode occurs. Following is a brief description of these options, which in most instances have been available for many years.

Non-chemical alternatives. Although N. aberrans has a wide host range, rotating tomatoes with other non-susceptible crops has proven important for its control since many years (Manzanilla‐Lopez et al., 2002; EFSA 2018; Vasquez-Sanchez et al., 2018).

Despite the high number of compatible and efficient rootstocks available for tomato production, there is no indication of any that might be resistant to N. aberrans. It has been demonstrated that Mi genes are not effective against N. aberrans and no reliable sources of resistance against this nematode in tomato have been found (Chale et al., 2013; Gutiérrez et al., 2013, 2014; Martinez et al., 2013; Miltidieri et al 2013; Andreau et al.,2014).

At INTA San Pedro, many biosolarisation experiments have been conducted since 2003. Organic amendments tested in these experiments include chicken manure, broccoli, tomato and pepper crop debris, brassicas such as rapeseed, broccoli, mustard and other materials (Mitidieri et al., 2015, 2017ab; Pagliaricci et al., 2015; Lafi et al., 2017). The fungal pathogens controlled in these experiments were Pyrenochaeta lycopersici, Fusarium solani, Sclerotium rolfsii and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, as well as nematodes like Nacobbus aberrans, Helycotylenchus spp. And Criconemella spp. In La Plata, biosolarisation using broccoli as organic matter has been evaluated with good results to control tomato soilborne pathogens, including N. aberrans (Martinez et al., 2013).

Further, interest in soilless culture (substrate cultivation and hydroponic systems) is increasing. Different organic and non-organic materials, often combined, have been tested. Commercial substrates and soluble fertilizers for use with irrigation systems are available (Osvaldo, 2016, 2017; Osvaldo and Czepulis, 2017).

Finally, biocontrol agents including Paecilomyces lilacinus, Arthrobotrys conoides and Pochonia chlamydosporia have been found to reduce N. aberrans populations (Franco‐Navarro et al., 2016; Sosa et al., 2018; Caccia et al. 2018; Marro et al., 2018; Gortari and Hours 2019; Cortez Hernandez et al., 2019).


Chemical alternatives. Several chemical alternatives are currently available for control of N. aberrans. For example, Fluensulfone (Nimitz®) is a contact nematicide with low human and environmental impact that targets nematodes including Nacobbus (Hidalgo et al.,2015). Ioannis et al., (2019) reported significant reductions in population density, reproduction rate, and root galling of N. aberrans with fluensulfone applications on tomato and consider this a good alternative to MB in tomato and cucumber crops affected by N. aberrans. In other studies, mixtures of 1,3-D/Pic (e.g. 40:60) and fluensulfone showed lower galling index compared to the fumigant alone (Castillo et al., 2016).

Recent research conducted at the University of Florida, USA shows EDN (ethanedinitrile) is a promising pre-plant soil fumigant, similar to MB, for control of a variety of nematodes, soilborne pathogens and weeds in greenhouse tomatoes (Stevens et. al, 2019)

Successful research on combined chemical and non-chemical alternatives (e.g. biofumigation, solarisation, grafting, and biological control) alternatives has been conducted, with promising results for control of Nacobbus spp. (Garbi et al., 2013; Mezquíriz et al., 2013; Quiroga et al., 2014; Franco‐Navarro et al., 2016; EFSA 2018; Garbi et al., 2018a, 2018b; Garita et al., 2019).

4.2.1.4. Structures and commodities sector – mills and houses in South Africa

Mills. In most countries, alternatives to MB are well established and disinfestation of mills is routinely achieved with either heat (Binker and Binker, 2001; Hofmeier, 1996; Suma et al., 2019; Teich, 1996) or sulfuryl fluoride (SF) (MBTOC, 2019; Reichmuth et al., 2003) usually combined with IPM (IAOM Integrated Pest Management Manual, 2016).

Introduction of heated air from an outside source or heating the inside air with electrical heaters is efficient for mills of up to 40,000 m³ in size (Binker and Binker, 2001; Hofmeier, 1996; MBTOC, 2019). In many cases, millers will implement an integrated pest management approach (sanitation, biological control plus pheromone traps, contact insecticides, spot treatments, etc.) (Cox, 2004; Phillips and Throne 2010). If being considered, microwave heating should be used in conjunction with chemical treatments in order to reduce human, animal and environmental hazards associated with biocide use (Riminesi and Olmi, 2016).

Sulfuryl Fluoride (SF) is another key alternative, especially for large mills or structures. When using SF, the mill must be emptied from any residual flour or packages to prevent exceeding residues in the product. Gas tightness should be checked prior to fumigation and leaks sealed to meet the required standards. This is to ensure efficiency of treatment and for the protection of bystanders (Reichmuth, 1993; Wohlgemuth, 1990). MBTOC has major concerns that despite SF being a key alternative to replace MB, that it has a high GWP (i.e.~4780) and therefore its use should only be considered with recaptuire technology in order to minimize its emissions. These options are further discussed in ensuing sections.

In Europe and New Zealand, hydrogen cyanide (HCN) has been registered and is available as a biocide for controlling pests in empty structures (Aulicky et al., 2015; Stejskal et al., 2016). MBTOC is not clear on whether HCN is registered and available for the CUN applied for by RSA and whether it can be used there for pest control in mills and other infested structures.

In the management of stored products, insect pheromones and other semiochemicals can be used to suppress and control pest populations by means of mass trapping, attractants and mating disruption methods. They also act as repellents, specific behavioral stimulants or deterrents (Cox, 2004; Phillips and Throne, 2010).

Disinfestation of houses. As with mills, disinfestations of wooden structures in dwellings is achieved in many countries with either heat (Hofmeier, 1996; Reichmuth et al., 2002; 2007; Teich, 1996) or SF (Reichmuth et al., 2003, Ducom et al., 2003) in many countries around the world. Williams and


Sprenkel (1990) have demonstrated the efficacy of these treatments against eggs of key pests of wood like anobiid and lyctid beetles. La Fage et al. (1982) showed that SF was effective against the Formosan termite Cryptotermes formosanus. Osbrink et al. (1987) described decades ago the effect of SF on termite species (Isoptera: Hodotermitidae, Kalotermitidae, Rhinotermitidae). Control of subterranean termite infestations can be achived by using baits containing an insect growth regulator such as hexaflumuron (Su, 2000).

Ethane-dinitrile (EDN) is an ozone-friendly alternative to MB. Its advantages are good penetration characteristics, high efficacy and short application time (Ryan et al., 2006). EDN® applications limit the risks of pests and diseases spreading within the agricultural and timber industry. It is efficient for fumigation of harvested timber and logs (Stejskal et al., 2018). BLUEFUME™ (HCN) is a promising treatment for controlling wood infesting pests in packages and structures and was registered in the EU in 2017. Pest resistance is currently not an issue for either HCN or EDN and their wide range of action for controlling timber pests (insects, mites, rodents, nematodes, fungi, etc.) makes them good potential alternatives to MB for treating wooden structures (Hnatek et al., 2018).

4.3. QPS uses of methyl bromide

The sections below summarize recent, relevant research on alternatives to MB for QPS applications.

4.3.1. Chemical alternatives

Even though MB fumigation is allowed under the QPS exemption of the Montreal Protocol for the control of quarantine pests, research on alternatives to this fumigant is very active. A recent example is a study of quarantine treatments for controlling Drosophila suzukii (Waslse et al., 2021), a fruit fly whose presence leads to restrictions on the trade of fresh fruit in many countries. The study includes a variety of options both chemical (e.g. phosphine, ethyl formate) and non-chemical (irradiation, cold), plus a systemas approach.

Recent research on specific treatments to control quarantine pests is summarized below.

4.3.1.1. Hydrogen cyanide (HCN)

HCN continues to show promise as an alternative to MB. For example, very good biocidal activity was found on package and structural wood infesting pests such as Hylotrupes bajulus, Anopolophora glabripennis and pine wood nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Stejskal et al., 2014; Douda et al., 2015). This compound is registered in Japan for phytosanitary treatment aimed at controlling scales, mealy bugs, aphids, thrips or whiteflies intercepted on imported commodities e.g. seedlings or fresh fruit. The fumigation schedule is prescribed by the related Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries (MAFF) at a dosage rate of 1.8 g/m3 for 30 minutes (MAFF, 1978; MAFF, 1987).

Residue patterns of HCN were investigated in South Korea and found safe; average residue levels on orange, banana and pineapple 3 days after a double dose fumigation treatment (HCN 6 g/m3, 2h, 15-20°C) were lower than the accepted MRLs of 5 mg/kg (Park et al., 2011). Stem and bulb nematodes (Ditylenchus dipsaci) infesting garlic cloves are efficiently controlled with HCN (Zouhar et al., 2016).

HCN is also in use in New Zealand for the disinfestation of surface pests on bananas and pineapples such as scale and mealybug (Table 2). The HCN fumigation schedule is prescribed in the Approved Biosecurity Treatments Standard treatment schedule at a dosage rate of 3g/m³ for two hours (plus 20 minutes for gas release from the HCN impregnated cardboard discs) carried out in chambers that are also used for the ripening process with ethylene (ACVM, 2020).

Table 4.2: Use of HCN for phytosanitary treatment in New Zealand

Application schedule Recommended Exposure Temperature


dosage/m3 time

Storage pests in mills warehouse and food factories 5-12 g 6-48 h 15o C or above

Rodents in empty warehouses, ships holds 2-4 g 2-4 h 4o C or above

Nursery stock in dormant stage 5-10 g 30-60 min 15o C or above

Storage pests in empty ships holds 10 g 10-12 h 5-9o C or above

Bananas 3 g 2 h 13.5-15o CSource: HCN Label NZ, ACVM 2020

Malaysia reported registration of HCN in 2019/2020 as an alternative to MB for postharvest treatments (Glassey, pers comm., 2021).

4.3.1.2. Ethyl formate (EF)

South Korea requires treating sweet persimmon and sweet pumpkin before export to control Tetranychus urticae and these requirements are currently met successfully with EF and 1-methylcyclopropene or EF alone. Several studies (Lee B. et al. 2018); Lee J. et al., 2018) demonstrated that the fruit fumigations completely control T. urticae on sweet persimmon and adults and eggs of T. urticae on sweet pumpkin. Efficacy of EF and MB were compared for disinfestation of Planococcus citri on bananas; in particular, the study looked at whether EF fumigation was compatible with packaging materials and loading ratios for bananas imported into South Korea, that is, whether EF gas effectively penetrates plastic bagging and other packaging materials (Park et al. 2020). The red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta has been intercepted in imported trade containers in South Korea and prevention measures are required. Lee et al., (2019) investigated effectiveness of EF for controlling this pest and found 99.9 % mortality of worker ants and female alates at dosages of 46.1 g h/m3 and 37.7 g h/m3 at 13 C and 23 C respectively.In Sri Lanka, 100% mortality of mealybugs (Dysmicoccus brevipes), maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais), rice weevil (S. oryzae), red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum), confused flour beetle (T. confusum) and rice moth (Corcyra cephalonica) was achieved with Vapormate (16.3% EF + 83.7% CO2, w/w) at the recommended fumigation standard of the fumigant for stored grains (24 h exposure of 420g/m3) (Warshamana et al., 2016).

Cho et al. (2020) evaluated the combined effect of EF (20 g/m3) plus PH3 (1 g/m3) for 4 hours, for controlling two mealybugs, Pseudococcus longisphinus and P. orchidicola on 13 foliage nursery plants, with a resulting 100 % mortality of both adults and nymphs. The combined treatment enhanced controlled, however all treated nursery plants except Philodendron selloum showed significant leaf damage after 1 week. Although most (10 out of 13 species) recovered from treatment damage after 5 months, this is a constraint to the adoption of this alternative.

4.3.1.3. Phosphine (PH 3)

Fumigation with PH3 at low temperatures completely killed the oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis), which is a quarantine pest of Chinese loquat (Eriobotrya japonica) with no adverse effects on fruit quality (Liu et al., 2018). The same fumigant at a dose of 2.5 mg/L for 6 hours at 25ºC was found to successfully disinfest harvested export celery against Purple Scum Springtails in Australia (Ahmed, 2018). In addition, mealy bugs where successfully treated on nursery stock after treating with 2 g/m3

of PH3 for 24 h at 16°C (Khang et al., 2019).


MBTOC notes as in previous reports that resistance to phosphine (PH3) has been recorded for several populations of storage pests from various parts of the world (Opit et al., 2012; Jagadeesan et al., 2012).

There have been recent demonstration projects that continue to support use of phosphine as an alternative to methyl bromide fumigation for stored grain. One small scale project (Arora et al., 2021) showed effectiveness of phosphine in well-sealed systems under Indian conditions against three common beetle pests of wheat under some Indian conditions with 7 and 10-day exposures.

Sri Lanka and Pakistan are increasing the acceptance of PH3 to replace MB for imported grains (Mirage News).

Trade of fresh fruit due to possible infestation by Drosophila suzukii requires treatment. Efficacious parameters for methyl bromide and phosphine have been published, while those for ethyl formate are ongoing. Cold treatments have been developed for several types of fruit, with durations lasting 12–14 days at <1 °C. D. suzukii in fruit subjected to irradiation at a dose of 80 Gy were unable to produce F1 adults. System (Walse, 2020)

Gourgouta et al. (2021) conducted mortality tests on different life stages (including diapause larva) of Khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium with phosphine at dosages of 50, 100, 200, 300, 500 and 1,000 ppm for 3 days and found that although eggs are the most tolerant to phosphine, 100% were killed with 1,000 ppm of phosphine after a 3 day exposure. Khapra beetle is a serious quarantine pest of grain worldwide.

4.3.1.4. Nitric oxide (NO)

NO is considered as an alternative to MB for postharvest pest control on lettuce, particularly the aphid Nasonovia ribisnigri and western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Yang and Liu, 2019).

4.3.1.5. Ethanedinitrile (EDN)

Research on EDN as an alternative to MB for QPS uses, particularly for timber and logs is very active for example in New Zealand, the Czech Republic and Korea (Armstrong and Najar-Rodriguez, 2019; Najar-Rodríguez et al., 2020; Stejskal et al., 2017; Uzunovic et al., 2019) with encouraging results.

EDN is currently being assessed for registration in New Zealand. The workplace safety department intends to allow fumigation using EDN under the following circumstances:

To be used for log fumigation only Fumigation may only take place under sheets meeting minimum established criteria A minimum buffer zone of 50m should be observed for each fumigation Ventilation must not begin until the concentration of EDN in the enclosed space is 500ppm or

less. Not before 8am and must be completed no later than 3pm. This is to reduce possible dispersion of any EDN released during fumigation.

Logs must not be moved until three hours after ventilation has been completed.

Malaysia, which reported usage of 170 tonnes of MB for QPS in 2019, has registered EDN in 2019/2020 as an alternative to MB for postharvest treatments (Glassey, pers comm, 2021). South Korea has also registered EDN for logs and timber (Draslovka MBAO 2020).

4.3.1.6. Sulfuryl fluoride (SF)

SF has long been been shown to penetrate wood as effectively as MB (Ren et al., 2011); its efficacy was demonstrated against Anopolophora glabripennis in Populus logs (Barak et al., 2006); against Hylotrupes bajalus in the timber parts of a historic building in Istanbul (Yildirim et al., 2012); and


against the cerambycid-vectored pinewood nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, in boards of Pinus pinaster (Bonifacio et al., 2014).

SF is also known to have a great potential for controlling forest pest insects (Mizobuchi et al., 1996; Soma et al., 1996; 1997) and is considered suitable for fumigation of exported logs (Zhang, 2006). As such it has been implemented into the recommendations for a range of phytosanitary treatments in quarantine (ISPM 15, 2018; ISPM 28, 2017) against the pinewood nematode Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Bonifacio et al., 2013; Dwinell et al., 2005; Soma et al., 2001; Sousa et al., 2010; 2011). It is also recommended for control of the Asian longhorn beetle Anoplophora glabripennis, (Barak et al., 2006), and the emerald ash borer Agrilus planipennis (Barak et al., 2010).

Cottrell et al., (2020) revealed that the lethal accumulated dosage (LAD99) of SF for controlling the fourth-instar of the pecan weevil Curculio caryae, which is native to North America, was 1,052.0 (95% CL: 683.21-2,573.0) g h/m3 at 25+1oC for an exposure period of 24 hours. All larvae were killed in a confirmatory trial at dosages of 1,100 and 1,300 g h/m3. A quarantine treatment schedule with a dosage of 1,300 g h/m3 at 25oC for 24 hours was proposed to maintain compliance with quarantine regulations within and outside the United States.

SF is more recently being used in the USA and Europe as quarantine treatment on cargo at risk of carrying the Brown Marmorated Stink bug Halyomorpha halys to Australia and New Zealand (New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries and the Australian Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment). It is approved for export logs to China from Australia (MICOR) and being used on European logs to China (Reichmuth pers comm).

4.3.2. Non-chemical alternatives

4.3.2.1. Irradiation

Use of irradiation for postharvest fumigation of fresh commodities from insect pests of quarantine concern continues to increase. However, many commodities are stored in controlled or modified atmospheres to preserve commodity quality and extend shelf life, and low-oxygen environments have been shown to affect radiotolerance in some insects, e.g. the cabbage looper, Trichoplus iani (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) (Lopez-Martinez et al., 2016).

This is not the case of Drosophila suzukii Matsumura (Diptera: Drosophilidae), an invasive drosophilid species native to Eastern and South Eastern Asia that is now found in other countries in Asia, as well as Europe and North America where it has become an important agricultural pest. Low-oxygen modified atmospheres did not enhance survival of D. suzukii pupae irradiated at 60 Gy in sweet cherry and thus does not inadvertently compromise treatment efficacy against this pest (Follett et al., 2018).

Irradiation is used in Thailand as an alternative to cold treatment for control of oriental fruit flies, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae), and other pests of mango fruits. Recently, Srimartpirom et al. (2018) found that Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP) with low O2/ high CO2

did not reduce the efficacy of the approved 150 Gy quarantine irradiation treatment for B. dorsalis. Further, modified atmospheres (where oxygen is replaced with carbon dioxide, nitrogen and/or ozone) proved to be effective in disinfesting cut lotus flowers after 9 h fumigation (Bumroongsook and Kilaso, 2018) for controlling common blossom thrip (Frankliniella schultzei) a major problem hindering exports of cut lotus flowers.

Recent research to develop irradiation as MB alternative for quarantine control of coffee berry borer (CBB) Hypothenemus hampei in green coffee shipped to Hawaii from the US mainland is in progress (Follett, 2018).

In South Korea various quarantine treatments are used to control whiteflies of exported strawberry fruit. Cho et al. (2019) examined the effects of gamma-ray irradiation on the development and


reproductive sterility of Bemisia tabaci and Trialeurodes vaporariorum. They found that 100 Gy suppressed the development and reproduction of eggs and adults in both species of whiteflies.

See the IPPC section below for the access to the search tool for approved treatments including many with irradiation.

4.3.2.2. Controlled atmospheres and temperature treatments

Controlled atmospheres (with low content of oxygen and increased CO2 and/or nitrogen content) combined with low temperature are increasingly used and accepted as quarantine treatments, often with good potential to replace MB. Some recent research shows promising results as discussed below. As mentioned in section 4.5, a new ISPM on controlled atmospheres is under consideration by the IPPC.

Control of mango quarantine pests is based mainly on cold treatments, with a possible deterioration of fruit quality. Recently Patil et al. (2019) reported a novel cold-quarantine treatment combining cold storage at 2ºC with artificial ripening with 150 ppm ethylene and modified atmosphere (fruit enclosed in perforated bags), resulting in significantly reduced chilling injury and ensuring consumer acceptance (taste, aroma and texture).

Tuta absoluta, an invasive and increasingly troublesome pest species affecting tomatoes, other solanaceous species and many other crops, which limits exports in various countries, is effectively controlled with modified atmospheres and cold treatments. Exposure of T. absoluta to modified atmospheres with 40% CO2 at 25ºC for 72 h was effective for controlling all life stages. In addition, a cold storage treatment at 1ºC for 10 days also proved effective for egg control of this species (Riudavets et al., 2016). These two treatments showed no negative effects on the quality of the tomatoes.

Hot water treatment combined with high-pressure controls taro mite, Rhixoglyphus sp., and root knot nematodes, Meloidogyne spp.) (Jamieson, 2018). Heat is being used in Europe, Japan and the USA as a quarantine treatment for cargo at risk of carrying the Brown Marmorated Stink bug, Halyomorpha halys, to Australia and New Zealand (New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries and the Australian Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment).Joule heating (60°C, 60 min.) is a potential alternative phytosanitary treatment for exports of Pinus radiate (Pinaceae) logs and is consistent with the ISPM 15 standard (Pawson et al., 2019).Vacuum steaming to eradicate Bretziella fagacearum in oak logs (Quercus rubra) is a promising alternative to MB (Juzwik et al., 2019).

CO2 fumigation for 24 hours at concentrations of up to 70% in air caused variable levels of mortality of Thaumatotibia leucotreta larvae in citrus, but did not provide complete control of this pest. A sequential treatment with 70% CO2 for 24 hours followed by cold treatment (2oC) for 13 days achieved 100% control of fifth instar larvae. The efficacy of this combined treatment was reduced when fruit refrigeration (in a cold room at 2oC) was delayed by 12 hours or more (Grout & Stoltz, 2020).

4.3.2.3. Essential oils

Anisole, a volatile compound extracted from aniseed proved very effective in laboratory tests for controlling four important insect pests: the adult rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae; the granary weevil, Sitophilus granarius; the confused flour beetle, Tribolium confusum; and a fresh produce pest, western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande), which has a very large host range and is considered a quarantine pests in various countries (Yang and Liu, 2021).


4.4. Methyl bromide emissions and recapture

4.4.1. Emissions of MB

Since 1999, the reduction in MB production and use has led to a more than 30% reduction in the concentration of MB in the atmosphere and this has been responsible for more than 35% of the present fall in Effective Equivalent Stratospheric Chlorine and a key driver for the recovery of the ozone layer (Porter and Fraser, 2020). Figure 3 provides an update of the atmospheric concentration of MB up until 2020 and shows that after a period of increase in MB concentration in the atmosphere from 2015-2017, the MB concentration appears to be declining again over the last few years (Fig 3.) The slight rise up in 2020 suggests that there is still a measurable level of unidentified source of MB within the fluctuations of change of atmospheric concentrations, which could be due to natural fluctuations or from changes in consumption, presumably for QPS or possibly from unknown uses. MBTOC notes that reduction of atmospheric concentrations in the future will rely on reduction in emissions from QPS or any unknown use of MB.

As indicated earlier in this report, future gains in reduction of atmospheric concentrations will rely on reduction in emissions from QPS use of MB, by either reducing use of MB for QPS or by reducing emissions of MB from QPS applications by recapture, recycling and/or reuse.

Fig. 4.3. Trend in Atmospheric concentration of methyl bromide (ppt) from 1930 - 2020.

Source: Fraser, Porter, Derek (Australia, pers. comm. 2021)

4.4.2. Recapture of MB

As noted in previous MBTOC reports, in 2010 the New Zealand Environmental Protection Agency (NZEPA) ruled that all QPS MB emissions were to be recaptured as of October 2020, although this has been extended through to February 2022. In response, a range of new technologies for recycling and recapture systems have been developed that are able to recapture up to 60% of MB in the headspace within hours, in commercial conditions (Genera 2020). However, due to the lack of available technology to achieve the required targets the NZEPA is currently reassessing this ruling. The majority of current emissions from container and undercover log QPS fumigations at four major


ports are being controlled with available recapture equipment, but emissions arising from fumigation of ship holds remain a challenge.

In Australia, a specific regulation on damage of emissions of MB to the ozone layer in addition to concerns on MB emissions on public health have led to adoption of recapture systems into several major fresh vegetable and fruit markets. Regulations also exist in other sectors of the world (e.g. US timber exports) to implement systems to reduce emissions. Limitations to date have been the added cost for the user of equipment required to recapture and destroy or landfill compared to venting directly to the atmosphere. In addition, in most areas local policies are generally not in place to encourage or mandate their use or are difficult to implement.

Aeros Environmental presented at the Methyl Bromide Outreach Conference (MBAO) in 2020 9F

0 a process for alkyl halide fumigant recovery and conversion that has a financial return from the process while capturing MB. Hsieh and Pignatello (2017) have developed a process to use activated carbon and catalysed hydrolysis to trap and treat MB.

4.5. International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)

As per the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Montreal Protocol and the IPPC, MBTOC continues to collaborate with the IPPC. A short contribution featuring MBTOC’s recent activities which are of relevance to IPPC was submitted to the IPPC for inclusion under the agenda item “Written reports from international organizations” of the IPPC’s 15th meeting of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM). This virtual meeting took place from 16 March to 1st April 2021, and MBTOC co-chairs attended some sessions.

MBTOC also monitored developments arising from the work conducted by the convention with potential to impact MB use and replacement. There are now 32 approved treatments available shown in the IPPC Phytosanitary Treatments search tool (https://www.ippc.int/en/core-activities/standards-setting/technical-panels/technical-panel-phytosanitary-treatments/phytosanitary-treatments-tool/ )

Nine draft phytosanitary treatments, some with potential to replace MB were presented for consultation as follows:

1) Draft phytosanitary treatment: irradiation treatment for Bactrocera dorsalis (2017-015) 2) Draft phytosanitary treatment: cold treatment for Ceratitis capitata on Prunus avium, Prunus

domestica and Prunus persica (2017-022A) 3) Draft phytosanitary treatment: cold treatment for Bactrocera tryoni on Prunus avium, Prunus

domestica and Prunus persica (2017-022B) 4) Draft phytosanitary treatment: Cold treatment for Ceratitis capitata on Vitis vinifera (2017-023A) 5) Draft phytosanitary treatment: Cold treatment for Bactrocera tryoni on Vitis vinifera (2017-023B) 6) Draft phytosanitary treatment: Irradiation treatment for Bactrocera tau (2017-025) 7) Draft phytosanitary treatment: Irradiation treatment for Carposina sasakii (2017-026) 8) Draft phytosanitary treatment: Irradiation treatment for the genus Anastrepha (2017-031) 9) Draft ISPM: Requirements for the use of modified atmosphere treatments as phytosanitary

measures (2014-006). This is of particular interest to MBTOC, since modified atmospheres, which create an environment that is lethal to target pests, are already under use to control pests for example in stored grain and other durables, a typical pre-shipment application of MB.

Additionally, the following International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) that will contribute to reducing the need to treat with MB were approved in 2020:

1) ISPM 35: Systems approach for pest risk management of fruit flies (Tephritidae) 2) ISPM 36: Integrated measures for plants for planting

0 wwwmmbao.org


3) ISPM 37: Determination of host status of fruit-to-fruit flies (Tephritidae) 4) ISPM 38: International movement of seeds 5) ISPM 39: International movement of wood 6) ISPM 40: International movement of growing media in association with plants for planting 7) ISPM 41: International movement of used vehicles, machinery and equipment 8) ISPM 42: Requirements for the use of temperature treatments as phytosanitary measures9) ISPM 43: Requirements for the use of fumigation as phytosanitary measure

In addition to the above, MBTOC continues to support IPPC’s “Recommendation on replacement or reduction of the use of methyl bromide as a phytosanitary measure” (IPPC 2008, published 2017).

4.6. Other issues

4.6.1. Pre-plant soil fumigation and post-harvest use of MB in US

The last CUE granted to the United States was for strawberry fruit production in for use in 2016 (Holmes et al., 2020). However, MB continues to be used in strawberry nurseries under a QPS exemption to prevent the spread of soilborne nematodes and pathogens on nursery stock. Research on alternatives to MB continues for diseases such as angular leaf spot caused by Xanthomonas fragariae in search of pre- and postharvest treatments that help overcome trade barriers for Californian strawberries. Heat treatment (Turechek and Peres, 2009), bactericides and propylene oxide fumigation (Haack et al., 2019) all showed positive results in reducing populations of X. fragariae.

For forest nurseries, soilborne diseases and weed control have been achieved primarily through preplant soil fumigation with MB/ Pic at 392 kg/ha under a QPS exemption (Weiland et al., 2016). Weiland et al. (2016) demonstrated that reduced rates of MB, metham sodium, and 1,3-D (all in combination with chloropicrin) under TIF was effective in reducing soil populations of Pythium spp. and Fusarium spp., however, tested biocontrol treatments were not effective. Allyl isothiocyanate (AITC), a biofumigant newly registered in the United States to control fungal soil borne pathogens in strawberries (Baggio et. al. 2018), may eventually provide an alternative for seedling production.

4.6.2. Post-harvest use for cured hams

Methyl bromide is still used on stored ham in the United States, although no CUE has been applied for or granted since 2016; the use is small and drawn from limited stock. The entire amount of use by the dry, cured pork-industry in the United States is less than 2,000 kg per year, which is down from the 3,500-4,000 kg granted five to seven years ago under a CUE. The concentration and exposure time are based on the label rate (16-32 g/m3 for 12-24 hours), and the frequency of use depends on how often mites are found in the aging rooms, typically 1 to 6 times per year. An alternative method is to use protective netting treated with polypropylene glycol (Zettler et al., 2001), which is awaiting approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The industry cannot use SF because control of mite eggs is only achieved by increasing the exposure amount to levels which affect ham quality and which leave unsafe residues (Zhang et al., 2017).

Research on alternatives for this use continues and includes for example exposure requirements of phosphine on key pests as related to resistance management, establishing efficacy and experimental criterion for quarantine applications, and the development of models to quantitatively understand the underpinnings of fumigations and related phytosanitary treatments (Walse et al., 2018).

4.6.3. Study on emergency uses of MB in the US

The U.S. Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (Farm Bill 2018) requires a study by USDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on whether any “emergency use,” as defined by the Farm Bill, could have occurred since September 1997. This report is only concerned with scoping out


emergency events and not with implementation. The study was completed in December, 2020, for the Congress of the United States. The emergency event, as defined by the Farm Bill is a situation:

(A) that occurs at a location on which a plant or commodity is grown or produced or facility providing for the storage of, or other services with respect to, a plant or commodity;

(B) for which the lack of availability of methyl bromide for a particular use would result in significant economic loss to the owner, lessee, or operator of the location or facility or the owner, grower, or purchaser of the plant or commodity; and

(C) that in light of the specific agricultural, meteorological, or other conditions presented, requires the use of methyl bromide to control a pest or disease in the location of facility because there are no technically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide easily accessible by an entity referred to in subparagraph (B) at the time and location of the event that –

(i) are registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7U.S.C. 136 et seq.) for the intended use or pest to be so controlled; and

(ii) would adequately control the pest or disease presented at the location or facility.

The purpose of this report was to document whether there would be any cases that could be considered to fall under the emergency measure for methyl bromide application in the U.S. within the stated time frame (September 15, 1997 to 2020). Conclusions of this report identified situations that could potentially have been designated as emergency events and eligible as an emergency use for methyl promide on or after September 15, 1997 if an application had been made. These conclusions were based upon first hand knowledge from those who prepared the report and stakeholder submission of examples, which included 21 growers in 2020 that submitted letters indicating that emergency conditions still continue. It does not imply or state that any methyl bromide was actually used in these cases.

4.6.4. Sulfuryl fluoride and its GWP

SF is now widely adopted around the world as an alternative to MB for disinfestation of structures. Its registration and commercial adoption occurred in the 1990s and continued for many years until it was made available in many countries. SF is a key alternative to MB for treatment of empty structures such as flour mills and food and feed processing premises that need to be disinfested against pests, particularly buildings larger than 40,000 m³, where heat treatment is not an option due to logistic reasons. Its use around the world is extensive. For example, Germany alone uses about 200 t of SF which replaces controlled as well as QPS uses of MB, including QPS treatment of logs in containers.

In recent years, however, there is growing concern about SF use due to its high global warming potential (GWP) (Gressent et al., 2021; Miller et al., 2017; Reimann et al., 2015, Dillon et al., 2008), which puts the continuity of its registration at risk.

Gressent et al (2021) have used atmospheric observations from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE) to show that global emissions of SF increased from close to zero in the early 1980s to ∼2.4 Gg yr−1 in 2019. They report that the primary source of these global emissions in 2019 was structural fumigation in North America, but that the increase over the last two decades has also been driven by the growing use of SF in postharvest treatment of crops in many countries around the world.

In the EU, a possible extension of SF registration will be considered in 2021, and there are preliminary indications that this may be complicated due to GWP issues. Due to its wide adoption as an alternative to MB for disinfestation of structures, deregistration of SF would create significant disruption in pest control strategies. Recapture and other technologies to reduce emissions could be considered to reduce its negative effects as correlated to its high GWP.


The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University is working on the Capture of Sulfuryl Fluoride Fumigant on Activated Carbon and Destruction by Electrochemical Treatment (MBAO 2020).

There is some indication that hydrogen cyanide could fill this gap given that it is already registered in Europe, Japan and other countries, and does not have adverse effects on the ozone layer or global warming. It is nevertheless very toxic to vertebrates.

4.6.5. Reporting of methyl bromide stocks and their uses

MBTOC is concerned that confusion can exist over how stocks of methyl bromide are reported by countries for production and consumption for controlled non-QPS uses and QPS uses. Although there are only three countries that produce MB, recent reporting information received under Article 7 data has been difficult to interpret against known uses. Information reported under Article 7 for MB consumption is even more confusing for sorting out how stockpiles are being used.

Below is the QPS consumption data for two A5 parties, who are still seeking MB for controlled non-QPS uses, but also and reporting a reduction in consumption data for such uses. (Fig 4). Despite a short increase in consumption for QPS use in 2015, Argentinas consumption is back to pre 2015 phase ouyt amounts, whereas South Africa has shown a shaprp rise sinbce 2015. MBTOC is not provided with information on what the MB is used for in each country under QPS or whether imported quantities of MB for QPS use are being stockpiled or could be used later for non-QPS purposes.

Improvement in definitions and more detail being reported under Article 7 (i.e. sector use, which includes a category for stocks) would greatly assist clarity on consumption and use of MB for QPS.

Fig 4.4. Trends in consumption for QPS applications in Argentina and South Africa from 1991 to 2019.

Source: Ozone Secretariat Data Access Centre. Accessed July, 2021

4.6.6. Fumigation of waste material under QPS

MBTOC considered information that amounts of MB may possibly be used for fumigation of plastic and paper waste imported by China, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, India, Pakistan and other Asian countries. Various reports provide estimates of waste volumes traded (Sai et al., 2012; Meng and Yoshida, 2012; Bami et al., 2018; Warren, 2019). MBTOC is assessing whether this may be


coincident with increasing amounts of QPS MB consumption reported by these Parties in the last 10 years (Ozone Secretariat Data Centre, 2020)

Although accurate information is currently not available, this potential situation raises doubts about whether these uses could be considered as quarantine or not (since target pests are not known), and that several alternatives would be available for such uses. It would appear that the QPS definitions may not be descriptive enough to address some recent developments in global trade. For this reason among others, MBTOC reiterates the importance of parties clarifying the definition of QPS uses which could significantly contribute to the use of alternatives and reduce emissions, without any disruption on international trade.

4.7. Economic issues

Three new publications that address the economic aspects of alternatives to methyl bromide appeared in 2020 and 2021. In the first, Li et al., (2020) argues the general case that farmers have a choice between using pesticides and adopting cultivars with genetic resistance to pests, and each has welfare implications. The latter “…offers an opportunity to address regulatory restrictions, control costs, and potentially meet increasing consumer demands to limit applications of agricultural chemicals, thereby reducing the human health and environmental impacts often associated with pesticide use.” Methyl bromide on strawberry fruit in Florida is used as an example.

The authors find that the growers place a higher value on fruit (size and flavour improvement) than on genetic resistance to pests. Furthermore, they find that the phaseout of MB caused greater welfare (economic) losses than did root and crown rot disease. Nevertheless, they argue that improved cultivars could provide substantial annual savings to growers and consumers. Finally, they estimate the total welfare implications of these economic losses and find that producers bear the brunt of the impact. In the second study, Zhaoxin Song (2021) investigated anaerobic soil disinfestation as a technical and economic alternative to suppress soil-borne diseases in a PhD thesis submitted successfully at the University of Liege. The main economic finding was that marketable income of producers could be increased using this technique.

In the third study Wijeyekoon et al. (2021) analyse the economic benefits of what they term “site symbiosis” using the example of a wood-processing cluster of enterprises in New Zealand. In this example, the bark from the trees to be processed is removed as a means of avoiding the costs of MB use to fumigate the logs, necessary because of imminent legislation to reduce the negative effects of MB through recapture or destruction. The bark is then used for the production of bark briquettes and tannin adhesive. While not an example of the direct economic benefits and costs of alternatives to MB use, economists are also interested in the indirect benefits, and this publication serves as a good example of indirect benefits (or positive externalities in economic jargon).

4.8. References

ACVM register (2020). HCN label: https://eatsafe.nzfsa.govt.nz.Ahmed, Q., Ren, Y., Emery, R., Newman, J., and Agarwal, M. (2018). Evaluation of Ethyl

Formate, Phosphine, and Their Combination to Disinfest Harvested Celery against Purple Scum Springtails. HortTechnology 28 (4), 492-561.

Aldercreutz, E. G. A., y Szczesny, A. (2008). Tratamientos de suelos alternativos al Bromuro de Metilo en el cultivo de frutilla (Fragaria x ananassa Duch.) realizadas por el proyecto Tierra Sana en el cinturón hortícola de Mar delPlata. XXXI Congreso Argentino de Horticultura; 30 de septiembre al 3 de octubre de 2008. Horticultura Argentina 27, 62-64.


https://eatsafe.nzfsa.govt.nz/

Aldercreutz, E. G. A., y Szczesny, A. (2010). Evaluación de tratamientos alternativos al bromuro de metilo realizados en el mismo período productive en el cultivo de frutilla (Fragaria x ananassaDuch.) por el Proyecto Tierra Sana en el Cinturón Hortícola de Mar del Plata. XXXIII Congreso Argentino de Horticultura; 28 sep- 1 oct 2010. Horticultura Argentina 29 (70), Sep.-Dic. 2010.

Andreau, R., Etchevers, P., Chale, W., Etcheverry, M., Calvo, M.Y., Génova, L. (2014). Injerto de tomate en La Plata: dos años de ensayos con pie Maxifort-copa Elpida conducidos bajo cubierta, bajo distintas condiciones de riego y drenaje. No. 019 Horticultura. Horticultura Argentina 33 (82), Sep.-Dic 2014.

Andreuccetti, D., Bini, M., Gambetta, A., Ignesti, A., Olmi, R., Priori, S., Vanni, R. (1995). A microwave device for woodworm disinfestation. Proceeding of the International Conference on Microwave and High Frequency Heating, 17-21 September 1995, Cambridge, 1995.

Andreuccetti, D., Bini, M., Ignesti, A., Gambetta, A., Olani, R. (1994). Microwave destruction of woodworms. Journal of Microwave Power and Electromagnetic Energy 29 (3), 153-160.

Armstrong J and Najar-Rodriguez A, (2019). Efficacy of ethanedinitrile (EDN) as a fumigant for export logs. Report prepared for Stakeholders in Methyl Bromide Reduction (StiMBR).

Arora, S., Stanley, J., Srivastava, C. (2021). Temporal dynamics of phosphine fumigation against insect pests in wheat storage, Crop Protection 144, June 2021(In press).

Aulicky, R., Stejskal, V., Dlouhy, M., Liskova, J. (2014). Potential of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) fumigant for control of mill and wood infesting pests. International Pest Control 56, 214-217.

Aulicky, R., Stejskal, V., Dlouhy, M., Liskova, J. (2015). Validation of hydrogen cyanide fumigation in flourmills to control the confused flour beetle. Czech J. Food Sci. 33, 174–179.

Baggio, J. S., Chamorro, M., Cordova, L. G., Vallad, G. E., Peres, N. A. (2018). Effect of formulations of allyl isothicyanate on survival of Macrophomina phaseolina from strawberry. Pl. Disease 102, 2212-2219.

Bamy L. Brooks, S., Jenna R. Jambeck, R (2018); The Chinese import ban and its impact on global plastic waste trade; Sci. Adv. 20 Jun 2018: EAAT0131.https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaat0131

Barak, A., Messenger, M., Neese, P., Thoms, E., Fraser, I. (2010). Sulfuryl fluoride treatment as a quarantine treatment for emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in ash logs. J. Econ. Ent. 103(3), 603–611.

Barak, A., Wang, Y., Zhan, G., Wu, Y., Xu, L., Huang, Q. (2006). Sulfuryl fluoride as a quarantine treatment for Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in regulated wood packing material. Journal of Economic Entomology 99 (5), 1628–1635.

Besri, M. (in press). The Montreal Protocol and the methyl bromide phase-out in the soil sector: key success factors and lessons learned to eliminate synthetic pesticides use in Africa. Chapter 12 in: Synthetic Pesticide Use in Africa: Impact on People, Animals, and the Environment”. C. L. Wilson and D. M. Huber (Eds) Purdue University, Idaho, USA

Binker, G., Binker, J. (2001). Thermal Pest Control. US Patent, US 6,279,261 B1, Aug. 28, 2001, 7 pp.

Biswas, T., Wu, F., Guan, Z., Vallad, G. (2018). Economic evaluation of fumigants in Florida bell pepper production: a multi-season perspective. 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida, DOI 266708, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, 1 p.


https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaat0131

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261219421000727?dgcid=raven_sd_via_email#!



Bonifacio, L. F., Sousa, E., Naves, P. (2014). Efficacy of sulfuryl fluoride against the pinewood nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Nematoda: Aphelenchidae) in Pinus pinaster boards. Pest Management Science 70, 6-13.

Bonifacio, L., Inácio, M. L., Sousa, E., Buckley, S., Thoms, E. M. (2013). Complementary studies to validate the proposed fumigation schedules of sulfuryl fluoride for inclusion in ISPM No. 15 for the eradication of pine wood nematode (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus) from wood packaging material. Report. Lisbon, Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e Veterinária (ex-INRB), 60 pp.

Bórquez, A. M., y Aguero, J. J. (2007). Evaluación del 1,3 diclorporopeno + cloropicrina y de la utilización del polietileno VIF con dosis reducida de bromuro de metilo 70:30 en la desinfección de suelo para el cultivo de frutilla, en Lules, Tucumán. XXX Congreso Argentino de Horticultura; 25 al 28 de septiembre de 2007; Horticultura Argentina 26(61), Jul.-Dic. 2007.

Bórquez, A. M., y Mollinedo, V. A. (2009). Evaluación del uso del ioduro de metilo, metam sodio y metam amonioco mo alternativas al bromuro de metilo para la desinfección de suelo en frutilla. XXXII Congreso Argentino de Horticultura; 23- 26 sep 2009. Horticultura Argentina 28 (67), Sep.-Dic. 2009.

Bórquez, A. M., y Mollinedo, V. A. (2010). Evaluación de alternativas al bromuro de metilo como desinfectante de suelo en el cultivo de frutilla en Lules (Tucumán). XXXIII Congreso Argentino de Horticultura; 28 de septiembre al 1 de octubre de 2010. Horticultura Argentina 29 (70), Sep.-Dic. 2010.

Boyd, N. S. (2017). Placement of metam potassium in combination with dimethyl disulfide, chloropicrin, and 1,3-dichloropropene for Cyperus rotundus L. and broad leaf weed control in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Crop Protection 100, 45-50.

Brigham, R. J. (1998). Corrosive Effects of Phosphine, Carbon Dioxide, Heat and Humidity on Electronic Equipment. Environment Bureau Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Bonanza Printing & Copying Centre Inc., Ottawa, ON, 42 pp.

Brooks, B. L., Wang, S., Jambeck, J. R. (2018). The Chinese import ban and its impact on global plastic waste trade; SCIENCE ADVANCES 20 JUN 2018: EAAT0131. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaat0131 China has increasingly implemented more rigid waste import policies, starting prior to 2010.

Bumroongsook, S., Kilaso, M. (2018). Modified atmosphere for thrip disinfection on cut lotus flowers. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 16 (4), 5237-5247.

Caccia, M., Marro, N. Rondan, D. J. (2018). Effect of the entomopathogenic nematode-bacterial symbiont complex on Meloidogyne hapla and Nacobbus aberrans in short-term greenhouse trials. Crop Protection 114, 162-166.

Castillo, G., Ozores-Hampton, M., Navia, P. (2016). Efficacy of drip injected fluensulfone in combination with 1,3-dichloropropene/chloropicrinto manage root-knot nematodes on fresh-market tomatoes. In: Obenauf, G. L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, (MBAO), 8-10 November 2016 in Maitland, FL, USA, http://www.mbao.org, 4-1 – 4-4.

Chale, W., Etcheverry, M., Génova, L., Etchevers, P., Calvo, I., Andreau, R. (2013). Ensayo comparativo de rendimiento de cinco injertos de tomate con copa Elpida en suelos con nemátodos conducidos bajo cubierta plástica en La Plata. No. 019 Horticultura. Horticultura Argentina 32 (79), Sep.-Dic. 2013.

Cho, S., Koo, H., Shin, S., Kim, H., Park, J., Yoom, Y. and Kim, G. (2019). Gamma-ray irradiation control of whiteflies Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) and Trialeurodes vaporariorum in the exportation of fresh strawberries. Journal of Economic Entomology 112 (4), 1611-1617.


https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaat0131

Cho S., Kim, H., Kim, B., Yang, J. and Kim, G. (2020). Combinatory effect of ethyl formate and phosphine fumigation on Pseudococcus longisphinus and P. Orchidicola (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) mortality and phytotoxicity to 13 foliage nursery plants. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology 23(1), 152-158.

Cortez-Hernández, M. A., Rojas-Martínez R. I., Pérez-Moreno J., Ayala-Escobar V., Silva-Valenzuela, M., Zavaleta-Mejía, E. (2019). Control biológico de Nacobbus aberrans mediante hongos antagonistas. Nematropica 49, 140-151.

Cottrell T. E., Aikins, M. J.,Thoms, E. M. and Phillips, T. W. (2020). Efficacy of sulfuryl fluoride against fourth-instar pecan weevil (Coleoptera: Curdullionidae) in pecans for quarantine security. Journal of Economic Entomology 113 (3), 1152-1157.

Cox, P. D. (2004). Potential for using semiochemicals to protect stored products from insect infestation. Journal of Stored Products Research 40, 1-25.

Del HuertoSordo, A. (2013). Se cultivaron 414 ha de frutilla en la Provincia de Santa Fé. Bol INTA, 3 pp.

Dillon, T. J., Horowitz Dillon, A., Crowley, J. N. (2008) The atmospheric chemistry of sulphuryl fluoride, SO2F2. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 8, 1547–1557.

Douda, O., Zouhar, M., Manasova, M., Dlouhy, M., Lıskova, J., Rysanek, P. (2015). Hydrogen cyanide for treating wood against pine wood nematode (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus), results of a model study. Journal of Wood Science 61, 204-210.

Ducom, P., Roussel, C., Stefanini, V. (2003). Efficacy of sulfuryl fluoride on European house borer eggs, Hylotrupes bajulus (L.) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), contract research project. Laboratoire National de la Protection des Végétaux, Station d`Etude des Techniques de fumigation et de Protection des Denrées Stockées, Chemin d`Artigues - 33150 Cenon, France. In: Inclusion of active substances in Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC: Assessment report: Sulfuryl fluoride, PT8, Appendix IV (List of studies), p. 31, September 2006.

Dwinell, L. D., Thoms, E., Prabhakaran, S. (2005). Sulfuryl fluoride as a quarantine treatment for the pinewood nematode in unseasoned pine. In: Obenauf, G. L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction, (MBAO), San Diego, CA, 31 October - 3 November 2005, http://www.mbao.org , 68-1 – 68-6.

EFSA (2018). Panel on Plant Health (PLH). Pest categorisation of Nacobbus aberrans, https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5249.

Farm Bill (2018). Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018. United States Public Law 115-334. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/115/public/334?link-type=pdf .

Fennimore S., Kim D.S 2020 . Soil disinfestation with steam in California strawberry nurseries. In; Procceedings of the 27th Meeting of the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach (MBAO). November 3-5, 2020 – Orlando, Florida

Fields, P. G., White, N. D. G. (2002). Alternatives to methyl bromide treatments for stored-product and quarantine insects. Annual Review of Entomology 47, 331-359.

Follett, P. A. (2018). Irradiation for quarantine control of coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Curdulionidae: Scolytinae) in coffee and a proposed generic dose for snout beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Journal of Economic Entomology 111, 1633-1637.

Follett, P. A., Swedman, A., Mackey, B. (2018). Effect of low-oxygen conditions created by modified atmosphere packaging on radiation tolerance in Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in sweet cherries. Journal of Economic Entomology 111 (1), 141-145.

Franco‐Navarro, F, Velasco‐Azorsa, R., Cid del Prado‐Vera, I. (2016). Pochonia chlamydosporia vs Nacobbus aberrans: experiences in the control of the false root‐knot nematode in Mexico. J. Nematol. 48, 322.


https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/115/public/334?link-type=pdf

https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5249

http://www.mbao.org/

Garbi, M., Carbone, A., Martínez, S., Oyarzun, M. (2018a). Productividad de dos híbridos de tomate injertados, conducidos a dos y cuatro ramas. 40º Congreso Argentino de Horticultura. 2nd to 5th October 2018. Córdoba. Libro de resúmenes, 306.

Garbi, M., Carbone. A., Martinez, S., Puig, L. (2018b). Fenología, tiempo térmico e intercepción de radiación fotosintéticamente activa en tomate injertado conducido a dos y cuatro ramas. XVII Reunión Argentina de Agrometeorología. 19th to 21st Septiember 2018. Merlo, San Luis.

Garbi, M., Morelli, G., Dietz, N., Rossomano, G., Martinez, S. (2013). Respuesta de tres híbridos de tomate injertados sobre Maxifort cultivados en suelo biofumigado. Horticultura Argentina 32, 79.

Garita, S. A, Bernardo, V. F, Guimarãe M. D. A., Cecilia, M., Arango, M. C, Ruscitti, M. F. (2019). Mycorrhization and grafting improve growth in the tomato and reduce the population of Nacobbus aberrans. Revista Ciência Agronômica 50 (4), 609-615.

Genera MB White paper (2020). Genera Group submission to NZ EPA, July 27, 2020Gherdan, K., Weiszburg, T. G., Bendo, Z., Kristaly, F. (2014). Phosphine fumigation

damage: Corrosion of metal and metal-textile composite museum objects. 11th International Conference on non-destructive investigations and microanalysis for the diagnostics and conservation of cultural and environmental heritage “art’14”, MADRID Museo Arqueológico Nacional.

Giannakou, I. O., Panopoulou, S. (2019). The use of fluensulfone for the control of root-knot nematodes in greenhouse cultivated crops: Efficacy and phytotoxicity effects. Cogent Food & Agriculture 5 (1), 1643819.

Gilma, X. C., Ozores-Hampton, M., Navia Gine, P. A. (2017). Effects of fluensulfone combined with soil fumigation on root-knot nematodes and fruit yield of drip-irrigated fresh-market tomatoes, Crop Protection 98, 166-171.

Gortari, M. C., Hours. R. A. (2019). In vitro antagonistic activity of Argentinean isolates of Purpureocillium lilacinum (Paecilomyces lilacinus) on Nacobbus aberrans eggs. Current Research in Environmental & Applied Mycology (Journal of Fungal Biology) 9 (1), 164–174.

Gourgouta, M., Agratioti, P. and Athanassiou, C. G. (2021). Insecticidal effect of phosphine for the control of different life stages of the khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium (Coleoptera: Dermestidae). Crop protection 140, 105409.

Grout, G. T. and Kim C. S. (2020). Carbon dioxide fumigation to shorten cold disinfestation treatment for Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Lepidoptera: tortricidae) in citrus fruit. Journal of Economic Entomology 112 (1), 144-151.

Gressent, A., Rigby, M., Ganesan, A.L., Prinn, R. G., Manning, A. J., Mu ̈hle, J., et al. (2021). Growing atmospheric emissions of sulfuryl fluoride. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126, e2020JD034327. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD034327

Gutiérrez, M. T., Peralta, I. E., Conte, M. E., Hidalgo, A. A. (2013). Respuesta de porta injertos comerciales de tomate frente al falso nematodo del nudo, Nacobbus aberrans (Thorne, 1935) Thorne & Allen, 1944. No. 229 Horticultura. Horticultura Argentina 32 (79), Sep.-Dic. 2014.

Gutiérrez, M. T., Peralta, I. E., Conte, M. E., Hidalgo, A. A. (2014). Respuesta de cuatro porta injertos comerciales de tomate para consumo en fresco frente al falso nematodo del nudo Nacobbusaberrans. No. 005 Horticultura. In: Horticultura Argentina 33 (82), Sep.-Dic. 2014.

Haack SE, Walse SS, Nguyen K, Adaskaveg JE. (2019). Management of Xanthomonas fragariae with Pre- and Postharvest Treatments to Overcome Trade Barriers for California Strawberries. Plant Dis. 103(6):1256-1263. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-08-18-1395-RE.


https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD034327

Hidalgo, C., Valadez Moctezuma, A. J. E., Marbán Mendoza, N. (2015). Effect of fluensulfone on the mobility in vitro, and reproduction and root galling of Nacobbus aberrans in microplots. Nematropica 45, 59-71.

Hnatek, J., Stejskal, V., Jonas, A., Malkova, J., Aulıcky, R., Weıss V. (2018). Two new fumigation preparations (EDN® and BLUEFUME™) to control soil, wood, timber, structural and stored product pest arthropods - an overview. The Kharkov Entomological Society Gazette XXVI (1), 115-118.

Hofmeier, H. (1996). Schädlingsbekämpfung durch Wärme in der Mühle, In Bäckereien und Gaststätten [Pest control with heat in mills, bakeries and restaurants]. Die Mühle + Mischfuttertechnik 133, 842-849.Holmes, G. J., Mansouripour, S. M., Hewavitharana, S. S. (2020). Strawberries at the crossroads: management of soil borne diseases in California without methyl bromide. Phytopathology (In Press).

Hsieh.H. and Pignatello, J. (2017). Catalytic oxidationfor elimination of methyl bromide fumigation emissions. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 211 (2017) 68-78

INTA (2018). Frutillas en altura; https://inta.gob.ar/noticias/frutillas-en-altura . IPPC (2017). International Plant Protection Convention R_03_En_2017-04-

26_Combined.pdf (ippc.int)ISPM 15 (2018). Regulation of wood packaging material in international trade. Food

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Plant Protection Convention, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy, www.fao.org/publications, 15-1 – 15-21.

ISPM 28 (2017). Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests, PT 23: Sulphuryl fluoride fumigation treatment for nematodes and insects in debarked wood. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Plant Protection Convention, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy, www.fao.org/publications, 23-1 – 23-4.

Jagadeesan, R., Collins, P. J., Daglish, G. J., Ebert, P. R., Schlipalius, D. I. (2012). Phosphine resistance in the rust red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae): Inheritance, gene interactions and fitness costs. PLoS ONE 7, e31582.

Jaldo, H. E, Foros, A. C., Ale, J. (2007). Ensayo de alternativas quimicas al bromuro de metilo. Lules, Tucumán. Valdez, EEA; Obispo Colombres; Tucumán, Argentina; XXX Congreso Argentino de Horticultura; 25 al 28 de septiembre de 2007. Horticultura Argentina 26(61), Jul.-Dic. 2007.

Jamieson, L. E., Page-Weir, N. E. M., Wikinson, R. T., Redpath, S. P., Hawthorne, A. J., Brown, S. D. J., Aalders, L. T., Tunupopo, F., Tugaga, A., To’omata, T., Shah, F., Armstrong, J. W., Woolf A. B. (2018). Developing risk management treatments for taro from the Pacific islands. New Zealand Plant Protection 71, 81-92.

Juzwik, J., Yang, A., Chen Z., White, M. S., Shugrue, S., Mack, R. (2019). Vacuum steam treatment eradicates viable Bretziella fagacearum from logs cut from wilted Quercus rubra. Plant Disease 103 (2), 276-283.

La Capital, Mar del Plata. (2019). Lanzan un proyecto para producir frutillas por hidroponía; https://www.lacapitalmdp.com/lanzan-un-proyecto-para-producir-frutillas-por-hidroponia.

La Fage, J. P., Jones, M., Lawrence, T. (1982). A laboratory evaluation of the fumigant, sulfuryl fluoride (Vikane), against the Formosan termite Coptotermes formosanus Shiraki. International Research Group on Wood Protection (IRGWP), Thirteenth Annual Meeting. Stockholm, May, 1982. Stockholm, IRGWP Secretariat.

La Gaceta de Tucumán (2019). Ensayan hidroponía con tomate y frutilla; https://www.lagaceta.com.ar/nota/827240/actualidad/ensayan-hidroponia-tomate-frutilla.html.


https://www.lacapitalmdp.com/lanzan-un-proyecto-para-producir-frutillas-por-hidroponia.

https://www.lacapitalmdp.com/lanzan-un-proyecto-para-producir-frutillas-por-hidroponia.

http://www.fao.org/publications

http://www.fao.org/publications

https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2017/04/R_03_En_2017-04-26_Combined.pdf

https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2017/04/R_03_En_2017-04-26_Combined.pdf

https://inta.gob.ar/noticias/frutillas-en-altura

Lafi, J. G., Tarquini, A. M., Sanz Pérez, M., Puglia, M. C. (2017). Susceptibilidad in vitro de Fusarium spp. patógenas en tomate, a biofumigación con brasicáceas. 4to Congreso Argentino de Fitopatología. Mendoza, 19th to 21st April 2017. Libro de Resúmenes. p. 363.

Lee, B., Park, C., Park, M., Roh, G., Kim, D., Riddick, E. W., Chen, J. and Cha, D. H. (2019). Ethyl formate fumigation for the disinfestation of red imported fire ants Solenopsis invicta Buren. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology 22(3), 838-840.

Lee, B., Park, C., Yang J., Kim, K., Lee, S. (2018). Concurrent application of ethyl formate and 1-methyl cyclopropene to control Tetranychus urticae on exported sweet persimmons (Diospyros kaki Thunb. ‘Fuyu’). Entomological Research 48 (3), 198-203.

Lee, J., Kim, H., Kyung, Y., Park, G., Lee, B., Yang J., Koo, H., Kim, G. (2018). Fumigation activity of ethyl formate and phosphine against Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) on imported sweet pumpkin. Journal of Economic Entomology 111 (4), 1625-1632.

Li, Z., Gallardo, R.K., McCracken, V., Yue, C., Whitaker, V., McFerson J.R., 2020. Grower willingness to pay for fruit quality versus plant disease resistance and welfare implications: the case of Florida strawberry. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 45, 199–218

Liang, S., Zhang, T., Xu, Y. (2012). Comparisons of four categories of waste recycling in China’s paper industry based on physical input–output life-cycle assessment model. Waste Management 32, 603-612.

Lijia, S., Wang, J., Gao, Z., Zhao, X., Di Gioia, F., Guo, H., Hong, J., Ozores-Hampton, M., Rosskopf, E. (2019). Economic analysis of anaerobic soil disinfestation for open-field fresh market tomato production in Southwest and North Florida. Hort Technology 2 (6), 777-787.

Liu, T., Li, L., Li, B., Zhan, G., Wang, Y. (2018). Evaluation of low-temperature phosphine fumigation for control of oriental fruit fly in loquat fruit. Journal of Economic Entomology 111 (3), 1165-1170.

López-Galarza, S., San Bautista, A., Martínez, A., Pascual, B., Maroto, J. V. (2010). Influence of substrate on strawberry plug plant production. Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 85, 415-420.

Lopez-Martinez, G., Meagher, R. L., Jeffers, L. A., Bailey, W. D., Hahn, D. A. (2016). Low oxygen atmosphere enhances post-irradiation survival of Trichoplusiani (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Fl. Entomol 99 (2), 24-33.

MAFF (1978). Outline of plant quarantine for imported seeds and nurseries. Notification of the director general 53-No. 6963, 30 Sep. 1978 [Last updated: 29 Mar. 2019].

MAFF (1987). Outline of plant quarantine for imported flesh fruits and vegetables. Notification of the director general 62-No. 2006, 15 Apr. 1987 [Last updated: 29 Mar. 2019].

Manzanilla‐Lopez, R. H., Costilla, M. A., Doucet, M., Inserra, R. N., Lehman, P. S., del Prado‐Vera, I. C., Souza, R. M., Evans, K. (2002). The genus Nacobbus Thorne & Allen, 1944 (Nematoda: Pratylenchidae): Systematics, distribution, biology and management. Nematropica, 32, 149–227.

Marro, N., Caccia, M., Doucet, M. (2018). Mycorrhizas reduce tomato root penetration by false root-knot nematode Nacobbus aberrans. Applied Soil Ecology 124, 262-265.

Martínez, S., Morelli, G., Garbi, M., Barrenechea, M., Notar, S., Ludueña, M. (2013). Evaluación del efecto de diferentes porta injertos de tomate sobre la respuesta de un híbrido comercial. No. 024. Horticultura. Horticultura Argentina 32 (79), Sep. -Dic. 2013.

MBTOC (2019), Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee, 2018 assessment, https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap, 150 pp.



McFarlane, D., Mattner, S., Gomez, A., Oag, D. (2019a). Improved management of charcoal rot of strawberry in Australia with soil fumigants. In: Obenauf, G. L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Fumigation, Storage and Trade, (MBAO), November 11-13, San Diego, California, USA, http://www.mbao.org, 22-1 – 22-4.

McFarlane, D., Zon, C., Mattner, S. (2019b). Masterclasses facilitate the adoption of farm biosecurity for soil-borne pathogens of strawberry. In: Obenauf, G. L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Fumigation, Storage and Trade, (MBAO), November 11-13, San Diego, California, USA, http://www.mbao.org, 14-1 – 14-4.

Meng, X., Yoshida, T. (2012). The Impact Analysis of Waste Plastic Trade between China and Japan—From Policy View. In: Matsumoto M., Umeda Y., Masui K., Fukushige S. (eds.), Design for Innovative Value Towards a Sustainable Society. Springer, Dordrech. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-007-3010-6_46#citeas .

Mezquíriz, N., Polack, L.A., Amoia, P. R., Villagra, J., Busse, G. (2013). Evaluación de alternativas para controlar patógenos de suelo y nematodos en tomate bajo invernadero. No. 144 Horticultura. Horticultura Argentina.

Miller, B. R., Hall, B. D., O‘Donnel, C., Crotwell, M., Sislo, C., Montzka, S. A., Andrews, A., Sweeneley, C., Tans, P. (2017). Sulfuryl fluoride atmospheric abundance and trend from the GGGRN North American Tower and Aircraft Networks and the HATS Global Flask Network. NOAA/ESRL/GMD Global Monitoring Annual Conference, Poster.

Mirage News Insight (2021). Sri Lanka’s rule changes mean fresh opportunities for grain, pulse and oilseed exporters. Australian grains, pulses and oilseeds making inroads into Pakistan.

Mitidieri, M., Valverde, J., Benitez, D., Carrasco, M., Coll, S. (2017a). Biofumigación en el establecimiento de un productor de Escobar, Buenos Aires. Argentina. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvz9XRJhBVQ.

Mitidieri, M. S., Brambilla, M. V., Barbieri, M. O., Piris, E., Celié, R., Paunero, I., Arpía, E. (2017b). Tratamientos combinados de biosolarización y cianamida cálcica en un invernadero hortícola. http://inta.gob.ar/documentos/tratamientos-combinados-de-biosolarizacion-y-cianamida-calcica-en-un-invernadero-horticola.

Mitidieri, M. S., Piris, E., Brambilla, V., Barbieri, M., Cap, G., González, J., Del Prado, K., Ciapone, M., Paunero, I., Schiavone, E., Celié, R., Arpía, E., Peralta, R., Verón, R., Sánchez, F. (2013). Evaluación de Solanum sisymbriifolium (Lam) como pie de injerto en cultivo de tomate bajo cubierta. No. 026 Horticultura. Horticultura Argentina 32 (79), Sep-Dic. 2013.

Mitidieri, M., Brambilla, V., Barbieri, M., Piris, E., Arpía, E., Celié, R., Peralta, R., Ferrari, M. (2015). Efecto de la biosolarización y fertilización con cianamida cálcica en la producción bajo cubierta de tomate (Solanum esculentum) en San Pedro, Buenos Aires. XXXVIII Congreso Argentino de Horticultura, 5 al 8 Octobre 2015. Horticultura Argentina 34(85), Sep.-Dic. 2015.

Mizobuchi, M., Matsuoka, I., Soma, Y., Kishino, H., Yabuta, S., Imamura, M., Mizuno, T., Hirose, Y., Kawakami, F. (1996). Susceptibility of forest insect pests to sulfuryl fluoride. 2. Ambrosia beetles. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service Japan 32, 77–82.

Najar-Rodriguez A, Hall M, Afsar S, Esfandi K, Adlam A, Wilks C, Noakes E, Richards K and Brash D, 2020. Laboratory toxicity and large-scale commercial validation of the efficacy of ethanedinitrile, a potential alternative fumigant to methyl bromide, to disinfest New Zealand Pinus radiata export logs. The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, New Zealand

Opit, G. P., Phillips, T. W., Aikins, M. J., Hasan, M. M. (2012). Phosphine resistance in Tribolium castaneum and Rhyzopertha dominica from stored wheat in Oklahoma. J. Econ. Entomol. 105 (1), 107- 114.


http://inta.gob.ar/documentos/tratamientos-combinados-de-biosolarizacion-y-cianamida-calcica-en-un-invernadero-horticola



https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-007-3010-6_46#citeas

Osbrink, W. L. A., Scheffrahn, R. H., Su, N.-Y., Rust, M. K. (1987). Laboratory comparisons of sulfuryl fluoride toxicity and mean time of mortality among ten termite species (Isoptera: Hodotermitidae, Kalotermitidae, Rhinotermitidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 80, 1044 – 1047.

Osvaldo V., Czepulis, J. (2017). Cultivos hidropónicos. Proyecto Específico PE1106082. Módulo suelo, agua y sustrato. Cartilla técnica “Cultivo sin suelo. Una alternativa innovadora para las producciones”. Intensivas. 2019. Proyecto “Tierra Sana”. INTA-ONUDI.

Osvaldo, V. (2016). Las 5 llaves del mundo de los sustratos para plantas. INTA San Pedro. 2016.

Osvaldo, V. (2017). El Cultivo sin suelo y la sustentabilidad de las producciones intensivas. Boletin de divulgación Técnica INTA San Pedro. 2017. N°24.

Pagliaricci, L. O., Delprino, M. R., Paganini, A. H., Barcelo, W., Peña, L. C., Bernardez, A., Constantino, A. R., Del Pardo, C. K., Ciaponi, M. M., Brambilla, M. V., Barbieri, M. O., Piris, E. B., Frank, F. C., Paolinelli, N., D'Angelcola, M. E., Mitidieri, M. S. (2015). Impacto económico y ambiental de la sustitución del bromuro de metilo en la producción de tomate bajo cubierta. estudio de caso de una empresa frutihortícola del partido de Zarate, Buenos Aires. 38 Argentinean Horticultural Congress, 5 - 8 October 2015. Bahía Blanca, Buenos Aires. AR.Pérez-Rodríguez, I., Franco-Navarro, F., Cid del.

Park, M, Park, C., Yang, J., Kim, G., Ren, Y., Lee, B. and Cha, D. (2020). Ethyl formate as a methyl bromide alternative for phytosanitary disinfestation of imported banana in Korea with logistical considerations. Journal of Economic Entomology 113 (4), 1711-1717.

Park, M., Sung, B., Cho, J. (2011) Residual characteristics of methyl bromide and hydrogen cyanide in Banana, Orange, and Pineapple. Journal of Applied Biology and Chemistry 54 (3), 214-217.

Patil, A.S., Maurer, D., Feygenberg, O., Alkan, N. (2019). Exploring cold quarantine to mango fruit against fruit fly using artificial ripening. Scientific Reports 9, 1948, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38521-x.

Pawson, S. M., Bader, M. K. F., Brockerhoff, E. G., Heffernan, W. J. B., Kerr, J. L., O’Connor, B. (2019) Quantifying the thermal tolerance of wood borers and bark beetles for the development of Joule heating as a novel phytosanitary treatment of pine logs. Journal of Pest Science 92 (1), 157-171.

Porter, I., and Fraser, P. (2020). Progress and remaining challenges with the phase-out of methyl bromide under the Montreal Protocol. Acta Hortic. 1270, 249-262https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1270.31

Phillips, T.W., Throne, J. E. (2010). Biorational approaches to managing stored-product insects. Annual Review of Entomology 55, 375–397.

Quiroga, R. J., Meneguzzi, N. G., Borquez, A. M., Kirschbaum, D. S. (2014). Dinámica de la temperatura a diferentes profundidades durante la solarización de un suelo franco-limoso en Tucumán. No. 115 Horticultura. Horticultura Argentina 33(82), Sep.-Dic. 2014.

Reichmuth, Ch. (1993). Drucktest zur Bestimmung der Begasungsfähigkeit von Gebäuden, Kammern oder abgeplanten Gütern bei der Schädlingsbekämpfung [Pressure test for the determination of suitability for fumigation of premises, chambers or stacked stored products under tarpaulin for pest control]. Biologische Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Merkblatt 71, https://vorratsschutz.julius-kuehn.de/dokumente/upload/BBA-Merkblatt_71.pdf, 22 pp.


https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1270.31

Reichmuth, Ch. (2002). Alternatives to methyl bromide for the treatment of wood, timber and artefacts in the European Community. In: Batchelor, T. A., Bolivar, J. M. (eds.), The remaining Challenges, Proceedings of an InternationalConference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, 5-8 March 2002 in Sevilla, Spain, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 432 pp., 93-97, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/docs/0039/conference_proceedings_en.pdf.

Reichmuth, Ch. (2007). Fumigants for pest control in wood protection. In: Noldt, U., Michels, H. (eds.), Wood–destroying Organisms in Focus – Alternative Measures for Preservation of Historical Buildings, Proceedings of the International Conference at the LWL-Open Air Museum, Detmold, Westphalian Museum of Rural History and Culture, 28-30 June 2006 in Detmold, Germany, 265 pp., 137-162.

Reichmuth, Ch., Rassmann, W., Binker, G., Fröba, G., Drinkall, M. J. (2003). Disinfestation of rust-red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum), saw-toothed grain beetle (Oryzaephilus surinamensis), yellow meal worm (Tenebrio molitor), Mediterranean flour moth (Ephestia kuehniella), and Indian meal moth (Plodia interpunctella) with sulfuryl fluoride in flour mills. In: Credland, P. F., Armitage, D. M., Bell, C. H., Cogan P. M., Highley, E. (eds.), Advances in Stored Product Protection, Proceedings of the 8th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, 22-26 July in York, UK, CAB International, London, 736-738.

Reimann, S., Vollmer, M. K., Brunner, D., Steinbacher, M., Hill, M., Wyss, S. A., Henne, S., Hörger, C., Emmenegger, L. (2015). Kontinuierliche Messung von Nicht-CO2-Treibhausgasen auf dem Jungfraujoch (Halclim-5). Empa Projekt-Nr.: 201‘203, Eidgenössische Materialprüfungs- und Forschungsanstalt, (EMPA), CH-8600 Dübendorf, EMPA, 82 pp.

Ren, L. J., Lee, B., Padovan, B. (2011). Penetration of methyl bromide, sulfuryl fluoride, ethane dinitrile and phosphine into timber blocks and the sorption rate of the fumigants. Journal of Stored Products Research 47 (2), 63-68.

Riminesi, C., Olmi, R. (2016). Localized microwave heating for controlling biodeteriogens on cultural heritage assets. INT J CONSERV SCI 7, SI1, 281-294.

Riudavets, J., Alonso, M., Gabarra, R., Arno, J., Jaques, J. A., Palou, L. (2016). The effects of postharvest carbon dioxide and a cold storage treatment on Tutaabsoluta mortality and tomato fruit quality. Postharvest Biology and Technology 120, 213-221.

Robbiola, L., Queixalos, I., Zwick, A., Baslé, K., Daniel, F., Drieux-Daguerre, M. J. F., Ducom, P. J. F., Fritsch, J. (2015). Disinfestation of historical buildings – corrosion evaluation of four fumigants on standard metals. Journal of Cultural Heritage 16, 15–25.

Rodríguez-Delfín, A. (2012). Advances of hydroponics in Latin America. Acta Horticulturae 947, 23-32.

Ryan, R., Martin, P., Haines, N., Reddi, R., Beven, D., Harvey, A. (2006). Sterigas™ & Cosmic™: update on proposed new fumigants. In: Obenauf, G. L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, (MBAO), 6-9 November 2006 in Orlando, Florida, USA, http://www.mbao.org, 138-1 – 138-2.

Sai Liang a, Tianzhu Zhang a,Yijian Xu a; 2012; Comparisons of four categories of waste recycling in China’s paper industry based on physical input–output life-cycle assessment model":https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X1100479X

Soma, Y., Mizobuchi, M., Oogita, T., Misumi, T., Kishono, H., Akagawa, T., Kawakami, F. (1997). Susceptibility of forest insect pests to sulfuryl fluoride. 3. Susceptibility to sulfuryl fluoride at 25 °C. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service Japan 33, 25–30.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X1100479X

https://www.researchgate.net/journal/0022-474X_Journal_of_Stored_Products_Research

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/docs/0039/conference_proceedings_en.pdf

Soma, Y., Naito, H., Misumi, T., Mizobuchi, M., Tsuchiya, Y., Matsuoka, I., Kawakami, F., Hirata, K., Komatsu, H. (2001). Effects of some fumigants on pine wood nematode, PT 23 Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests, PT 23-4 International Plant Protection Convention Bursaphelenchus xylophilus infecting wooden packages. 1. Susceptibility of pine wood nematode to methyl bromide, sulfuryl fluoride and methyl isothiocyanate. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service Japan 37, 19–26.

Soma, Y., Yabuta, S., Mizoguti, M., Kishino, H., Matsuoka, I., Goto, M., Akagawa, T., Ikeda, T., Kawakami, F. (1996). Susceptibility of forest insect pests to sulfuryl fluoride. 1. Wood borers and bark beetles. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service Japan 32, 69–76.

Song, Zhaoxin (2021). Enhanced efficacy and economic feasibility of anaerobic soil disinfestation combined with carbon source and cover tarps in controlling strawberry soil-borne diseases. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Liege. http://hdl.handle.net/2268/258129

Sosa, A. L., Rosso, L. C., Salusso, F. A, Etcheverry, M. G., Passone, M. A. (2018). Screening and identification of horticultural soil fungi for their evaluation against the plant parasitic nematode Nacobbus aberrans. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 34, 63.

Sousa, E., Bonifácio, L., Naves, P., Lurdes Silva Inácio, M., Henriques, J., Mota, M., Barbosa, P., Espada, M., Wontner-Smith, T., Cardew, S., Drinkall, M. J., Buckley, S., Thoms, M. E. (2010). Studies to validate the proposed fumigation schedules of sulfuryl fluoride for inclusion in ISPM No. 15 for the eradication of pine wood nematode (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus) from wood packaging material. Report. Lisbon, Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e Veterinária (ex-INRB), 20 pp.

Sousa, E., Naves, P., Bonifácio, L., Henriques, J., Inácio, M. L., Evans, H. (2011). Assessing risks of pine wood nematode Bursaphelenchus xylophilus transfer between wood packaging by simulating assembled pallets in service. EPPO Bulletin 41, 423–431.

Srimartpirom, M., Burikam, I., Limohpasmanee, W., Kongratarporn, T., Thannarin, T., Bunsiri, A., Follett, P. A. (2018). Low-dose irradiation with modified atmosphere packaging for mango against the oriental fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 111 (1), 135-140.

Stejskal et al, 2017. New Technology of Wood Fumigation Against Bark Beetle. First trial results – EDN product used for forest protection in Czech Republic. Lesnicka prace, Vol 11. pp 19-21

Stejskal, V., Aulický, R., Jonáš, A., Hnatek, J., Málková, J. (2018). Bluefume (HCN) and EDN® as fumigation alternatives to methyl bromide for control of primary stored product pests. In: Adler, C. S., Opit, G., Fürstenau, B., Müller-Blenkle, C., Kern, P., Arthur, F. H., Athanassiou, C. G., Bartosik, R., Campbell, J., Cavalho, M. O., Chayaprasert, W., Fields, P., Li, Z., Maier, D., Nayak, M., Nukenine, E., Obeng-Ofori, D., Phillips, T., Riudavets, J., Throne, J., Schöller, M., Stejskal, V., Talwana, H., Timlick, B., Trematerra, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection (IWCSPP), in Berlin, Germany, October 7-11, 2018, Julius-Kühn-Archiv 463, https://www.julius-kuehn.de, 1213 pp, 604-608.

Stejskal, V., Dlouhý, M., Malkova, J., Hampl, J., Aulicky, R. (2016). Flour-mill fumigation using hydrogen cyanide insecticide gas. In: Navarro, S., Jayas, D. S., Alagusundaram, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products, (CAF2016), New Delhi, India, November 6-11, 2016, 173-177.

Stejskal, V., Douda, O. Zouhar M. (2014). Wood penetration ability of hydrogen cyanide and its efficacy for fumigation of Anoplophora glabripennis, Hylotrupes bajulus (Coleoptera), and Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Nematoda). International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 86 (1), 189-195.


https://www.julius-kuehn.de/

Stevens, M. C., Freeman, J. H. (2019). Deposition of nitrogen by ethane dinitrile and subsequent transformation. In: Obenauf, G. L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Fumigation, Storage and Trade, (MBAO), November 11-13, San Diego, California, USA, http://www.mbao.org, 16-1 - 16-4.

Stevens, M.C., Freeman, J.H. and Boyd, N.S. (2019). Impact of ethanedinitrile rates and application method on nutsedge species and tomato root galling. Crop Protection 116: 1-6.

Su, Nan-Yao, et al. (2021). Control of formosan subterranean termite infestations using baits containing an insect growth regulator. Studies in Conservation, vol. 45, (1), 30–38. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1506681.

Suma, P., Chinnici, G., La Pergola, A., Russo, A., Bella, S., Pecorino, B., Pappalardo, G. (2019). Assessing the technical effectiveness and economic feasibility of pest management through structural heat treatment: an economic analysis of four mills in Sicily (Italy). Journal of Economic Entomology 112 (2), 957-962.

TEAP (2019). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, Vol 2: Evaluation of 2019 CUNs for Methyl Bromide, Final Report, https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap, 70 pp.

Turechek, W. W., Peres, N. A. (2009). Heat treatment effects on strawberry plant survival and angular leaf spot, caused by Xanthomonas fragariae, in nursery production. Plant Disease 93, 299-308.

Uzunovic A, Kus S and Hook A. (2019). Efficacy of EDN to kill pine wood nematodes (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus), and plant pathogens associated with forest commodities. A LUČEBNÍ ZÁVODY, DRASLOVKA A.S. KOLÍN. HAVLICKOVA 605,280 99 KOLIN, CZECH REPUBLIC

Vazquez-Sanchez, M., Medina-Medrano, J. R., Cortez-Madrigal, H. (2018). Nematicidal activity of wild plant extracts against second-stage juveniles of Nacobbus aberrans. Nematropica 48 (2), 136-144.

Walse, S.S., D.H. Cha, B.H. Lee and P.A. Follett (2021). Postharvest quarantine treatments for Drosophila suzukii in fresh fruit. Springer Nature, Switzerland AG.

Walse S.S. Cha.D.H, Lee.B., Follett. P. (2020). Postharvest quarantine treatments for Drosophila suzukii in fresh fruit Drosophila suzukii management (pp.255-267) doi:10.1007/978-3-030-62692-1_13 2020

Walse, S.S., M. Rodríguez and J.S. Tebbets. Postharvest treatment research at USDA-APHIS: stored product fumigation. In: 12th International workshop conference on stored product protection (IWCSPP) Berlin, Germany. October 7-11, 2018

Warren, S. (2019). Asia Stands up to ‘Waste Colonialism’; The Diplomat; June 2019. https://thediplomat.com/2019/06/asia-stands-up-to-waste-colonialism .

Warshamana, I. K., Jayalatharachchi, D. B., Wijestinghe, P. R. A., Perera, G. T. S., Fernando, T. N. P., Senarathne, S. M. A. C. U., Weligamage, S. S., Bandora, H. M. R., Sawaminathan, T., Nugaliyadde, L. (2016). Vapormate as a fumigant for the control of mealybugs in pineapple and pests of stored rice and maize. Tropical Agricultural Research and Extension 19 (3/4), 274-280.

Wei, H., Liu, C.and Jeong, B. (2020). An optimal combination of the propagation medium and fogging duration enhances the survival, rooting and early growth of strawberry daughter plants. Agronomy 210, 557;

Weiland, J. E., Littke, W. R., Browning, J. E., Edmonds, R. L., Davis, A., Beck, R., Miller, T.W. (2016). Efficacy of reduced rate fumigant alternatives and methyl bromide against soilborne pathogens and weeds in western forest nurseries. Crop Protection 85, 57-64.

Wijeyekoon, S., Suckling, I., Fahmy, M., Hall, P., Bennett, P. (2021). Techno-economic analysis of tannin and briquette co-production from bark waste: a case study quantifying symbiosis benefits in biorefinery. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, Early view article. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2246


https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2246

https://thediplomat.com/2019/06/asia-stands-up-to-waste-colonialism%20.


http://www.mbao.org/

Williams, L. H., Sprenkel, R. J. (1990). Ovicidal activity of sulfuryl fluoride to anobiid and lyctid beetle eggs of various ages. Journal of Entomological Science 25 (3), 366–375.

Wohlgemuth, R. (1990). Abdichtung von Lagerhallen, lebensmittelverarbeitenden Betrieben und Lagerpartien bei Begasungen gegen Vorratsschädlinge [Sealing of storehouses, food processing factories and stored products prior to fumigations against stored product pests]. Biologische Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Merkblatt 66, 2. Auflage, https://vorratsschutz.julius-kuehn.de/dokumente/upload/BBA-Merkblatt_66-2._Aufl.pdf, 18 pp.

Xiang, C., Z. Guan, G.Vallad, Wu, F. (2019). Economics of fumigation in tomato production: the impact of MB phase-out on the Florida tomato industry. Int. Food and Agrib Mgmt Rev 22 (4), 588-599.

Yang, X., Liu, Y. (2019). Nitric oxide fumigation for postharvest pest control on lettuce. Pest Management Science 75 (2), 390-395.

Yang, X and Y Liu (2021). Anisole is an environmentally friendly fumigant for postharvest pest control. J. Stored Products Res. (93)

Yildirim, N., Taşkin, H., Karaman, R. (2012). A fumigation treatment applied in Istanbul-Beylerbeyi Palace by using sulfuryl fluoride against Coleoptera species. Journal of Faculty of Forestry 62, 47-52.

Yu, J., Land, C. J., Vallad, G. E., Boyd, N. S. (2019). Tomato tolerance and pest control following fumigation with different ratios of dimethyl disulfide and chloropicrin. Pest Management Science 75, 1416-1424.

Zettler, J. L., Leesch, J. G., Gill, R. F. (2001). Chemical treatment alternatives for postharvest pests. 24th Annual MB Alternatives. San Diego, CA, October 19, 2000. NAPPO Bulletin 16, 32-35.

Zhang, X., Campbell, Y. L., Phillips, T. W., Abbar, S., Goddard, J., Schilling, M. W. (2017). Application of food-grade ingredients to nets for dry cured hams to control mite infestations. Meat and Muscle Biology 1, 53-60. Doi:10.22175/mmb2017.02.0014.

Zhang, Z. (2006). Use of sulfuryl fluoride as an alternative fumigant to methyl bromide in export log fumigation. New Zealand Plant Protection 59, 223–227.

Zouhar, M., Douda, O., Dlouhy, M., Liskova, J., Manasova, M., Stejskal, V. (2016) Using of hydrogen cyanide against Ditylenchus dipsaci nematode present on garlic. Plant, Soil and Environment 62 (4), 184-188


5 Medical and Chemicals TOC (MCTOC) Progress Report

5.1. Introduction

This report of the Medical and Chemicals Technical Options Committee provides an update on new developments for MDIs and other inhalers, use of controlled substances for chemical feedstock, and HFC-23 by-production and emissions. It also includes background to, and an update on, TEAP’s assessment of destruction technologies under decision XXX/6, now to be reported in MCTOC’s 2022 Assessment Report and some emerging trends for destruction of controlled substances. Aerosols (other than metered dose inhalers), laboratory and analytical uses, process agent uses, and n-propyl bromide were reviewed, however, no new compelling information is reported in 2021.

5.2. Metered dose inhalers

Inhaled medications are the mainstay of treatment for almost all patients with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other airway diseases. Metered dose inhalers (MDIs), dry powder inhalers (DPIs), aqueous soft mist inhalers (SMIs), and other delivery systems all play an important role in the treatment of asthma and COPD. No single delivery system is considered universally acceptable for all patients in all regions. Not all active ingredients are universally available as either an MDI or DPI, although there are alternatives to MDIs available in either DPI or "soft-mist" inhaler formats for all categories of treatment in an increasing range of regions. Costs also vary. Healthcare professionals continue to consider that a range of therapeutic options is important for ensuring patient choice.

Reliever medication to treat acute asthma symptoms represents the majority of global inhaler use and is predominantly salbutamol MDI. 10F

0 A recent Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) strategy document11F

0 recommends the increasing use of combination inhalers for asthma management to assure the inflammatory component of asthma is addressed, in preference to the use of a bronchodilator (e.g., salbutamol) alone. During an acute asthma exacerbation, however, GINA still recommends the use of repeat doses of salbutamol, usually administered via an MDI with spacer.

COPD management relies increasingly on combination inhalers. Short-acting beta-2-agonists, with or without short-acting anticholinergics, are recommended by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 12F

0 to treat an acute COPD exacerbation. More recently, the application of simple biomarkers has led to a reduction in the use of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD.13F

0

0 Inhaled treatment comprises drugs to relax smooth airway muscle (bronchodilators) and those to reduce underlying inflammation (corticosteroids). Bronchodilators, which can either be a beta-2-agonist or a muscarinic antagonist (also known as anticholinergic), can be short- or long-acting. Short-acting drugs treat acute airway muscle contraction and are often known as relievers. Long-acting drugs, including the corticosteroids, are used prophylactically and are termed preventers. Each type can be used alone, but are frequently administered as combinations, with either both types of bronchodilator, a beta-2-agonist with a corticosteroid, or all three together.0 Global Initiative for Asthma. Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention, 2020 Report. https://ginasthma.org/gina-reports/. Accessed May 2020.0 Singh D, Agusti A, Anzueto A, Barnes PJ, Bourbeau J, Celli BR, Criner GJ, Frith P, Halpin DMG, Han M, López Varela MV, Martinez F, Montes de Oca M, Papi A, Pavord ID, Roche N, Sin DD, Stockley R, Vestbo J, Wedzicha JA, Vogelmeier C, Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease: the GOLD science committee report 2019, Eur Respir J, 2019, 53, 1900164.0 Vogelmeier CF, Criner GJ, Martinez FJ, Anzueto A, Barnes PJ, Bourbeau J, Celli BR, Chen R, Decramer M, Fabbri LM, Frith P, Halpin DM, López Varela MV, Nishimura M, Roche N, Rodriguez-Roisin R, Sin DD, Singh D, Stockley R, Vestbo J, Wedzicha JA, Agusti A., Global Strategy for the


https://ginasthma.org/gina-reports/

The current manufacturing, use, and disposal of inhaler devices have an adverse impact on the environment due to the plastics and other components in these disposable devices and from the propellant gases used in pressurised MDIs, HFC-134a and less often HFC-227ea, with 100-year GWPs of 1430 and 3220, respectively. For the year 2016, HFC propellant consumption for MDI manufacture corresponded to direct emissions that were estimated to be about 2 percent of global GWP-weighted total emissions of HFCs. 14F

0,15F

0 Under the Kigali Amendment:

• Montreal Protocol parties are required to gradually reduce HFC consumption by 80-85 per cent by the late 2040s.

• First reductions by most developed countries commenced in 2019 and reduce to 85% by 2036.

• Most developing countries will freeze HFCs consumption levels in 2024, reducing to 80% by 2045, and some other developing countries will freeze HFCs consumption in 2028, reducing to 85% by 2047.

• The Kigali Amendment will phase down Annex F HFCs, with controlled substances including HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFC-152a, subject to these measures; these controlled substances are used, or are under development to be used in, MDIs.

There are a range of inhalers that offer lower carbon footprints. These currently include DPIs and SMIs. MDIs themselves exhibit a range of carbon footprints, with those containing HFC-227ea having the highest GWP, and some containing alcohol as a co-solvent and a lower amount of HFC-134a and, as a result, a lower GWP relative to some other MDIs. The current drivers for change are predominantly coming from corporate policies and pharmaceutical company developments within the background context of national carbon reduction policies. A recent analysis 16F

0 predicts future potential economic drivers resulting from the Kigali Amendment reductions in non-medical uses of HFCs, with a projected estimated 5-fold cost increase in HFC-134a and HFC-227ea propellant for MDI uses by around 2025 in developed countries that may lead to a price increase in salbutamol HFC MDIs.

Two new propellants HFO-1234ze(E) and HFC-152a with 100-year GWPs of less than 1 and 124, respectively, are in development for use in MDIs. Both are subject to necessary extensive ongoing technical, safety and toxicity programs. Development investigations, including further toxicology studies, are being conducted. HFC-152a now has a nearly completed set of pre-clinical safety studies, including a 2-year lifetime study in rats. Results to date show no safety compromise compared with HFC-134a. Complete HFC-152a safety study Drug Master Files or equivalents are expected to be lodged with key regulatory bodies, such as US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), early in 2022. One pharmaceutical company has announced that it is developing new MDIs using a low GWP propellant, and another company has announced it is planning to introduce HFC-152a inhalers. This

Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2017 Report: GOLD Executive Summary, Eur. Respir. J., 2017, 49, 1700214.Singh D, Agusti A, Anzueto A, Barnes PJ, Bourbeau J, Celli BR, Criner GJ, Frith P, Halpin DMG, Han M, López Varela MV, Martinez F, Montes de Oca M, Papi A, Pavord ID, Roche N, Sin DD, Stockley R, Vestbo J, Wedzicha JA, Vogelmeier C., Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease: The GOLD Science Committee Report 2019, Eur. Respir. J., 2019, 53, 1900164.0 United Nations Environment Programme, Report of the UNEP Medical Technical Options Committee, 2014 Assessment, page 36.0 As derived from atmospheric observations, total emissions of HFCs summed to 0.88 (± 0.07) GtCO2-eq/year in 2016, taken from: World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Executive Summary: Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, World Meteorological Organization, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project – Report No. 58, 67 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.0 Pritchard, J.N., The Climate is Changing for Metered-Dose Inhalers and Action is Needed, Drug Design, Development and Therapy, 2020, 14, 3043–3055.


would result in these companies’ MDIs having a carbon footprint within range of DPIs. 17F

0,18F

0 Clinical investigations are now underway with first launches by both companies being targeted for 2025. The possible timing and impact to the market of these MDIs is unclear at this early stage of their development. The world’s first medical HFC-152a propellant plant is under construction in the United Kingdom and will come online early in 2022.

There are alternatives to MDIs available in either DPI or "soft-mist" inhaler formats for all categories of treatment in an increasing range of regions. 19F

0 Some DPIs are available from the same companies that continue to market therapeutically equivalent MDIs, while some other companies have developed and launched new products exclusively in DPIs. In a real-world study 20F

0, a new DPI product resulted in improved asthma control with simultaneous halving of carbon footprint compared to usual treatment (including MDIs). One company has now received approval for 6 products in over 100 countries using a re-usable inhaler with capsules, with the lowest carbon footprint of all inhalers so far tested, around 200-fold less than an MDI containing HFC 227ea propellant. 21F

0

England’s National Health Service (NHS) has set a target to reach net zero carbon footprint for its greenhouse gas emissions, including MDIs, by 2040, with an ambition to reach 80% reduction by 2028 to 203222F

0. Inhalers contribute an estimated 3% to its carbon footprint. The NHS is aiming to reduce emissions by increasing the uptake of low carbon footprint inhalers and the use of DPIs, and by enabling shared informed decision making. 23F

0 The objective is to optimise inhaler prescribing, dispensing, and use, to improve patient outcomes and reduce carbon emissions. It is developing a range of actions, including training and education. The United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has issued a Patient Decision Aid 24F

0 that provides information to help people with asthma and their healthcare professionals to discuss options for inhaler devices, with comparative information on the relative carbon footprint of inhalers. The 2020/2021 General Practitioner contract included an incentive to encourage inhalers with lower carbon footprints (by reducing prescriptions for non-salbutamol MDIs as a proportion of all non-salbutamol inhalers by 10% during 2020/21), saving up to 20,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent/year25F

0. However, these incentives appear to have been put on hold because of COVID-19.

0 Chiesi outlines €350 million investment and announces first carbon minimal pressurised Metered Dose Inhaler (pMDI) for Asthma and COPD, 4 December 2019, https://www.chiesi.com/en/chiesi-outlines-350-million-investment-and-announces-first-carbon-minimal-pressurised-metered-dose-inhaler-pmdi-for-asthma-and-copd/ (accessed April 2020).0 AstraZeneca’s ‘Ambition Zero Carbon’ strategy to eliminate emissions by 2025 and be carbon negative across the entire value chain by 2030, 22 January 2020, https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/astrazenecas-ambition-zero-carbon-strategy-to-eliminate-emissions-by-2025-and-be-carbon-negative-across-the-entire-value-chain-by-2030-22012020.html (accessed April 2020).0 ERS, European Respiratory Society Position Statement on Asthma and the Environment, 5 May 2021 https://mk0ersnetorgsavg5whs.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ERS-position-statement-on-asthma-and-the-environment-5-May-2021.pdf. Accessed July 2021.0 Hunt F, Wilkinson A, P186 Carbon footprint analysis of the salford lung study (asthma): A SusQI analysis, Thorax, 2021, 76, A190. https://thorax.bmj.com/content/76/Suppl_1/A190.1 0 Aumônier, S, Whiting, A, Norris, S, Collins, M, Coleman, T, Fulford, B, Breitmayer, E, Carbon footprint assessment of Breezhaler® dry powder inhaler, Drug Delivery to the Lungs Conference, 2020.0 Delivering a ‘Net Zero’ National Health Service, https://www.england.nhs.uk/greenernhs/a-net-zero-nhs/. Accessed June 2021.0 https://www.england.nhs.uk/greenernhs/a-net-zero-nhs/areas-of-focus/. Accessed June 2021.0 Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng80/resources/inhalers-for-asthma-patient-decision-aid-pdf-6727144573 Accessed April 2019.0British Medical Association (BMA) General Practitioners Committee England (GPC) and NHS England and NHS Improvement, Update to the GP contract agreement 2020/21-2023/24, 6 February 2020, https://www.bma.org.uk/media/2024/gp-contract-agreement-feb-2020.pdf. Accessed May 2020.


https://www.bma.org.uk/media/2024/gp-contract-agreement-feb-2020.pdf

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng80/resources/inhalers-for-asthma-patient-decision-aid-pdf-6727144573

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng80/resources/inhalers-for-asthma-patient-decision-aid-pdf-6727144573

https://www.england.nhs.uk/greenernhs/a-net-zero-nhs/areas-of-focus/

https://www.england.nhs.uk/greenernhs/a-net-zero-nhs/

https://www.england.nhs.uk/greenernhs/a-net-zero-nhs/

https://thorax.bmj.com/content/76/Suppl_1/A190.1

https://mk0ersnetorgsavg5whs.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ERS-position-statement-on-asthma-and-the-environment-5-May-2021.pdf

https://mk0ersnetorgsavg5whs.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ERS-position-statement-on-asthma-and-the-environment-5-May-2021.pdf

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/astrazenecas-ambition-zero-carbon-strategy-to-eliminate-emissions-by-2025-and-be-carbon-negative-across-the-entire-value-chain-by-2030-22012020.html



https://www.chiesi.com/en/chiesi-outlines-350-million-investment-and-announces-first-carbon-minimal-pressurised-metered-dose-inhaler-pmdi-for-asthma-and-copd/



In other developments, the US government announced in January 2021 that it would initiate the moves to implement the Kigali amendments. The American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act directs EPA to address HFCs by providing new authorities in three main areas: to phase down the production and consumption of listed HFCs, to manage these HFCs and their substitutes, and to facilitate the transition to next-generation technologies. The draft implementing regulations, an EPA Proposed Rule, were published for public comment in May 2021. The draft regulations propose mandatory application-specific production/consumption allowances for a few specific applications, including MDIs, which would be subject to periodic review. A Final Rule is scheduled to be issued in September 2021. To date, the FDA has not issued public guidance on any regulatory requirements for reformulating HFC-134a or HFC-227ea to any of the low-GWP propellant alternatives, although a company did announce in 2020 that the FDA had allowed an investigational new drug application (IND) to proceed for the development of HFC-152a. 26F

0

In the European Union, MDIs are currently exempted from control under its F-gas Regulation No.517/2014. Member States must still conform to the controls on HFCs under the Kigali Amendment. The formal revision of the EU F-gas Regulation has been started by the European Commission and is expected to conclude in 2022. This will take into account the European Union climate change targets and the objective to attain carbon-neutrality by 2050. The proposal for the revision of the F-gas Regulation will be published by the European Commission in Q4 2021; it is clear that the F-gas Regulation will be strengthened although the exact measures to be proposed by the European Commission for specific applications such as MDIs are not currently known.

For developing countries, oral and nebulised therapies are commonly used asthma and COPD treatments. DPIs are an available low GWP option; single-dose DPIs have a growing market share owing to their affordability. The key driver for any MDI transition in developing countries will depend on economics, particularly the economics of salbutamol. Thus, if the cost of HFC-134a becomes prohibitive and the cost of HFC-152a and HFO-1234ze are commercially competitive with HFC-134a then this may accelerate the transition, likewise for the relative costs of DPI alternatives. However, there are several manufacturers of HFC-134a, and the Kigali Amendment transition periods for developing countries extend for a number of years, so it may be that HFC-134a continues to dominate MDIs for quite some time. MDI manufacturers in developing countries are generic players and generally follow the trends adopted by stringent regulatory authorities, like US FDA, UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, European Medicines Agency, Therapeutic Goods Administration Australia, Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency Japan, etc., and are following the developments made by large multinational companies. It is envisaged that, once any formulation using a new propellant is approved by any of these authorities, companies would adopt that propellant in their formulations and make appropriate investment for facility modifications. Nevertheless, in the meantime, some large generic companies are likely to progress proactively with product development using potential low GWP propellant candidates for their major products.

Each country has its own unique and complex makeup in terms of availability and affordability of medicines, overarching health care systems, and patient preferences. Complex considerations are necessary when patients and healthcare professionals make an informed choice about a patient’s inhaled therapy. They have to take into account the local availability and affordability of therapeutic options, patient preference, and clinical effectiveness (influenced by patient dexterity, inspiratory flow, simplicity of regimen, adherence to therapy, etc.), as well as environmental implications, with the overall goal of ensuring patient health.

In relation to impacts of the global pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), inhaler volumes increased initially as respiratory patients increased their adherence to treatment regimens. Global medical HFC-134a usage surged by around 12% in 2020. Once COVID infection controls were initiated, there was a decline in the frequency of common respiratory virus infections that exacerbate

0 https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/green-medical-propellant-receives-fda-approval-to-proceed-to-clinical-trials-300998598.html [accessed 29 May 2021]


https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/green-medical-propellant-receives-fda-approval-to-proceed-to-clinical-trials-300998598.html

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/green-medical-propellant-receives-fda-approval-to-proceed-to-clinical-trials-300998598.html

asthma and COPD, leading to a reduction in inhaler sales and a decline in HFC-134a usage towards more usual patterns in 2021. Recent scientific 27F

0 and clinical28F

0 data, suggesting a potential therapeutic benefit from inhaled steroids in COVID pneumonia, resulted in temporary local inhaler supply issues in some developing countries.

5.3. Use of controlled substances for chemical feedstock

Feedstocks are chemical building blocks that allow the cost-effective commercial synthesis of other chemicals. Controlled substances (ODS and HFCs) can be produced and/or imported for use as feedstocks. As raw materials, feedstocks are converted to other products, except for de minimis residues and emissions of unconverted raw material. Emissions from the use of feedstock consist of residual levels in the ultimate products, and fugitive leaks in the production, storage and/or transport processes. Significant investments and effort are spent to handle ODS and HFC feedstocks in a responsible, environmentally sensitive manner and, in most countries, are regulated through national pollution control measures. The definition of production under the Montreal Protocol excludes the amounts of controlled substances entirely used as feedstock in the manufacture of other chemicals. Similarly, the definition of consumption excludes controlled substances entirely used as feedstock.

5.3.1. The difference between a reportable feedstock and an intermediate

Some manufacturing processes produce chemical intermediates in situ that are either non-isolated or used on the same plant complex 29F

0. The intermediates are then converted to another chemical product. The production and then consumption of intermediates in situ or on the same plant complex are typically not reported as production for feedstock use. If intermediates that are controlled substances are transported off-site and then used as a feedstock 30F

0, their production are required to be reported as feedstock use under the Montreal Protocol. As a result of different methodologies for data collection, there could be inconsistencies in the attribution of chemical production for feedstock uses, with some production being incorrectly considered as intermediates, which is not required to be reported. Emissions of intermediates can occur during their production and use. Like feedstocks, emissions of intermediates, in most countries, are regulated through national pollution control measures.

0 Jeon S, Ko M, Lee J, Choi I, Byun SY, Park S, Shum D, Kim S., Identification of antiviral drug candidates against SARS-CoV-2 from FDA-approved drugs, Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2020, 64, 7, 64: e00819-20. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00819-20. Accessed June 2021.Shutoku Matsuyama, Miyuki Kawase, Naganori Nao, Kazuya Shirato, Makoto Ujike, Wataru Kamitani, Masayuki Shimojima, Shuetsu Fukushi, The inhaled corticosteroid ciclesonide blocks coronavirus RNA replication by targeting viral NSP15, bioRxiv (2020) doi:10.1101/2020.03.11.987016, March 12 2020 pre-print article not certified for peer-review. Accessed June 2021.0 Ramakrishnan S, Nicolau D V Jr, Langford B, Mahdi M, Jeffers H, Mwasuku C, et al., Inhaled budesonide in the treatment of early COVID-19 (STOIC): a phase 2, open-label, randomised controlled trial, Lancet Respir Med, 2021, Published Online April 9, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/ S2213-2600(21)00160-0. Accessed June 2021.Mahase E, Covid-19: Budesonide shortens recovery time in patients not admitted to hospital, study finds, BMJ, 2021; 373:n957, http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n957, Published 12 April 2021. Accessed June 2021.0 For example, the production of HCFC-22 using chloroform goes through the HCFC-21 intermediate however the HCFC-21 production is not reported as the reaction from chloroform to HCFC-21 to HCFC-22 occurs within the same reactor. Similarly, the production of HFC 134a from trichloroethylene typically uses 2 reactor loops, with the HCFC 133a produced in the first reaction loop reacted to HFC 134a in the second reactor loop, again the transient HCFC 133a production is not reported.0 For example, CFC-113a is an intermediate in the production of HFC-134a from CFC-113, but some may be separated, transported off-site and used as a feedstock. See Table 5.2 and section 5.3.4.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n957

5.3.2. Common feedstock applications of ODS

Table 5.1 shows common feedstock applications for ODS, although the list is not exhaustive. Parties report amounts of ODS used as feedstock to the Ozone Secretariat, but they do not report how they are used. Processes are proprietary and there is no official source to define the manufacturing routes followed and their efficacy. The table provides some examples and is the product of the collective experience and knowledge of MCTOC members. Products included are both intermediates as well as final products, including fluoropolymers.


Table 5.1: Common feedstock applications of controlled substances (this list is not exhaustive)

Feedstock ODS Products Further conversion products CommentsCFC-113 Chlorotrifluoroethylene Chlorotrifluoroethylene based

polymersPolymers include poly-chlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE), and poly-fluoroethylenevinyl ether (PFEVE).

CFC-113 CFC-113a CFC-113a may be an intermediate and may be transported off-site for use as a feedstock.

CFC-113 or CFC-113a Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and pesticides (including cyhalothrin)

Starting with CFC-113, CFC-113a is as an intermediate. Alternatively, CFC-113a may be the starting feedstock. TFA is a pesticide and medical intermediate.

CFC-113, CFC-114a HFC-134a The sequence for production of HFC-134a may begin with CFC-113, which is converted to CFC-113a and then to CFC-114a.

CFC-113a HFO-1336mzz isomers Low GWP alternatives for HFC-245faCTC CFC-11 and CFC-12 Production and consumption of these CFCs has fallen to zero based

on reported data. However, until 2017 a small quantity of CFC-12 (<100 tonnes) was intermittently reported for feedstock use. It is not known what the CFC-12 was used for.

CTC With water to make CO2 and HCl: the HCl is subsequently reacted with methanol to make methyl chloride and water

Methyl chloride in chloromethanes (CMs) plant converted to dichloromethane (DCM) and chloroform (CFM)

A method of recycling CTC into useful products rather than destruction operated in CMs plant complex.

CTC Perchloroethylene High volume use.CTC With hydrogen to make

chloroform with methane and HCl as by-products

Chloroform is used to make HCFC-22

A method of recycling CTC into useful products rather than destruction operated in CMs plant complex

CTC Chlorocarbons including chloropropanes and chloropropenes

Feedstocks for production of HFC-245fa and some HFOs and HCFOs: HFO-1234yf, HCFO-1233zd, and HFO-1234ze.

HFOs and HCFOs are ultra-low GWP fluorocarbons used in refrigeration, air conditioning and insulation and production is increasing.

CTC With acrylonitrile, intermediates Pyrethroid pesticides. CCl3 groups in molecules of intermediates become =CCl2 groups in pyrethroids.

CTC With 2-chloropropene - Intermediates

Production of HFC-365mfc

CTC With vinylidene chloride - Intermediates

Production of HFC-236fa

CTC With benzene to make triphenylchloromethane (trityl

Intermediate for dyes and pharmaceuticals such as antiviral

Trityl chloride is an efficient tritylation agent.


chloride) drugsCTC With 1,3-dichloro-4-fluorobenzene

to make 2,4-dichloro-5-fluorobenzoyl chloride (DCFBC)

Intermediate for example in the synthesis of highly active antibacterial agent ciprofloxacin

CTC With methyl 3,3-dimethyl-4-pentenoate to produce methyl 4,6,6,6-tetrachloro-3,3-dimethylhexanoate

1,1,1-trichloroethane HCFC-141b, -142b, and HFC-143a

Note that an alternative feedstock is 1,1-dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride), which is not an ODS.

HCFC-21 HCFC-225 isomers Reaction of TFE with HCFC-21 to give HCFC-225 isomers. Product used as a solvent or intermediate

HCFC-225ca HFO-1234yf and HCFO-1224yd HCFC-225 (produced from TFE and HCFC-21) can be further reacted to produce HFO-1234yf and HCFO-1224yd

HCFC-22 Tetrafluoroethylene (TFE, HFO-1114)

Polymerized to homopolymer (PTFE) and also co-polymersRoute to HFC-125

Very high-volume use. Work has been done for decades to find an alternative commercial route, without success.

HCFC-22 Hexafluoropropylene (HFP, HFO-1216)

Co-polymerised with TFE and other monomers. Route to HFO-1234yf. Route to HFC-227ea.

Fluorinated ethylene-propylene polymers (FEP)

HCFC-22 With 2,2,2-trifluoroethanol, then chlorination to anaesthetic isoflurane CF3CHClOCHF2

Isoflurane by reaction with HF is converted to anaesthetic desflurane CF3CHFOCHF2

HCFC-22 Sulfentrazone Sulfentrazone (N-{2,4-Dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-3-methyl-5-oxo-4,5-dihydro-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl] phenyl} methanesulfonamide) is a broad-spectrum herbicide.

HCFC-123 HCFC-124, HFC-125HCFC-124 HFC-125HCFC-123 Production of TFA

HCFC-133a HCFC-123, CFC-113a HCFC-133a can be transformed to HCFC-123 by chlorination and further to CFC-113a

HCFC-133a Production of trifluoroethanol


Bromotrifluoromethane

Production of the pesticide fipronil and other chemicals

Bromotrifluoromethane may also be an intermediate when HFC-23 is used as a starting material in the production of fipronil and other chemicals. Bromotrifluoromethane is used as feedstock in the preparation of chemicals including fipronil (insecticide), mefloquine (antimalarial), and DPP-IV inhibitor (antidiabetic). CF3 generated from bromotrifluoromethane can be introduced into a wide range of organic molecules by nucleophilic substitution.

HCFC-141b HCFC-142b, HFC-143a

HCFC-142b Vinylidene fluoride (HFO-1132a) Polymerised to poly-vinylidene fluoride or co-polymers.

Products are fluorinated elastomers and a fluororesin.Vinylidene fluoride is a very low temperature refrigerant

Bromochloromethane 2-(Thiocyanomethyl)-thiobenzothiazole (TCMTB)

TCMTB is a biocide used in the leather industry

HFC-152a* HCFC-142b Vinylidene fluoride, and subsequent polymerisation products (as above for HCFC-142b).

Photochlorination to obtain HCFC-142b, followed by dehydrochlorination to obtain vinylidene fluoride.

HFC-23 Production of Halon 1301 by bromination for use as a feedstock

HFC-23 is converted to bromotrifluoromethane by bromination. Bromotrifluoromethane is then used as feedstock in the preparation of chemicals including fipronil (insecticide), mefloquine (antimalarial), and DPP-IV inhibitor (antidiabetic). CF3 generated from bromotrifluoromethane can be introduced into a wide range of organic molecules by nucleophilic substitution.

* A more comprehensive list of HFC feedstock uses will be provided in the MCTOC 2022 Assessment Report.


5.3.3. Recent and historical trends in ODS feedstock uses

Data reported by parties to the Ozone Secretariat on production and import of ODS used as feedstock for the year 2019 was provided to the MCTOC. These also include quantities used as process agents because parties are required to report such consumption in a manner consistent to that for feedstock. In 2019, a total of 14 parties31F

0 reported feedstock use of ODS, while 11 of these parties also produced ODS for feedstock uses. In 2018, 14 parties had reported use of ODS as feedstock.

In 2019, total ODS production and import for feedstock uses was 1,486,288 tonnes, a small increase from 2018 (2018: 1,469,357 tonnes 32F

0). The most significant changes are increases in CTC and HCFC-22 offset to some extent by decreases in 1,1,1 trichloroethane and CFC-113/113a. The 2019 reported total production and import of ODS for feedstock use in metric tonnes represents 556,591 ODP tonnes.33F

0 The overall increase in ODS feedstock uses through the last decade has been mostly due to the increase in feedstock uses of Annex C1 HCFCs, while consumer uptake of HFOs is driving a more recent increase in CTC feedstock use.

Figure 5.1. Annual reported production (metric tonnes) of ODS for feedstock and process agent uses, categorised by Montreal Protocol Group, for the years 2002-2019 34F

0

0 Parties that imported less than 0.1 tonne are excluded from the total number, and this total also includes the EU as an importer.0 The 2018 feedstock production was stated as 1,364,998 tonnes in the MCTOC 2019 progress report. Any data changes result from data revisions that can occur for historical years. 0 While ODP tonnes are included, it should be noted that presenting production for feedstock use in ODP tonnes does not equate to emissions. From the total amount of ODS produced for feedstock use, only a relatively minor to insignificant quantity will be emitted depending on the abatement technologies and containment measures utilised.0 Annex AI CFCs -11, -12, -113, -114, -115; Annex BII carbon tetrachloride; Annex BIII 1,1,1 trichloroethane; Annex CI HCFCs. Annex AII Halons -1211, -1301, -2402; Annex BI CFCs -13, -111, -112, -211, -212, -213, -214, -215, -216, -217; Annex CII HBFCs; Annex CIII bromochloromethane; and Annex EI methyl bromide.


Table 5.2. Amount of ODS used as feedstock in 2019

Substance ODP TonnesHCFC-22 0.055 711,082Carbon tetrachloride 1.1 316,397HCFC-142b (reported as HCFC-142 & 142b) 0.065 170,981CFC-113 and CFC-113a 0.8 108,7831,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform) 0.1 >50,000CFC-114 1 >20,000HCFC-124 0.022 >20,000HCFC-141b 0.11 >10,000HCFC-123, Methyl bromide, Bromotrifluoromethane, Bromochloromethane

1000 to 5000

HCFC-133a (and HCFC-133), HCFC-225 isomers,

10 to 1000

Other substances <10Total metric tonnes 1,486,288(Total ODP tonnes*) (556,591)

Explanatory notes: For some substances, due to the limited number of parties reporting production for feedstock use or imports for feedstock use, quantities have been approximated. For those substances used in relatively small quantities, a quantity range is indicated. *While the corresponding ODP tonnes are shown, it should be noted that this does not equate to emissions. From the total amount of ODS used as feedstock, a relatively minor to insignificant quantity will be emitted depending on the abatement technologies and containment measures utilised. The ODP tonnes is calculated from the reported data but for some reports it is not certain that the correct isomer is identified.

The largest feedstock uses in 2019 are HCFC-22 (48% of the total mass quantity), CTC (21%), and HCFC-142b (12%). HCFC-22 is mainly used to produce tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), which can be both homo- and co-polymerized to make stable, chemically resistant fluoropolymers with many applications. TFE may also be used to produce HFC-125, although alternative processes may be lower cost. Polyvinylidene fluoride is made from HCFC-142b. The feedstock use of CTC continues to grow, due to growing demand for lower GWP HFOs and perchloroethylene (PCE). Figure 5.2 shows the trends for HCFC-22 and CTC feedstock uses 35F

0.

0 More information on CTC production and its uses as feedstock can be found in the TEAP Task Force Report on Unexpected Emissions of Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) September 2019.


Figure 5.2. Trends in annual use of HCFC-22 and CTC for feedstock for the years 2002-2019 (tonnes)

5.3.4. CFC-113 and CFC-113a feedstock and intermediate use and emissions

A 2020 paper36F

0 concluded that the emissions trends for CFC-113 since 2010 require further analysis. The paper notes that “CFC-113 is used as a feedstock for production of other chemicals, an allowed continuing use under the Montreal Protocol. According to the agreement, Parties are urged to keep feedstock leakage to a technically feasible minimum, which is thought to be of the order of 0.5%. Global production of CFC-113 for feedstock use was reported to be about 131 Gg [131 thousand tonnes] in 2014, implying emission of about 0.7 Gg yr−1 [0.7 kilotonnes] at 0.5%, or about ten times less than our estimate. [The Emission estimate] therefore suggests the need for further analysis of CFC-113 feedstock leakage as well as any potential for unreported non-feedstock production and use.” The 2019 MCTOC report concluded that an emissions factor range of between 0.5% to 4% by weight of the quantity of a substance produced for feedstock use provides an indicative estimate of the total emissions of a feedstock from its global production. It noted that for large scale, well designed, well operated and maintained feedstock processes, production, storage, distribution and use emissions well below 0.5% are achievable. For small-scale and/or poorly operated and maintained feedstock processes, emissions above 4% are possible. This range of emissions is below the paper’s estimated emissions rate.

An additional paper37F

0 published in 2021 further investigates the global emissions of CFC-113 and CFC-113a stating that “Estimated total CFC-113 emissions are ~8.6 Gg/yr with an ~95% CI of (6.0, 11.0) for both 2002–2012 and 2014–2016. Further, given the decrease in bank emissions, we estimate the direct total emissions to have increased to 7.8 Gg/yr in 2014–2016 from 3.3 Gg/yr in 2002–2012, 0 Megan Lickley, Susan Solomon, Sarah Fletcher, Guus J.M. Velders, John Daniel, Matthew Rigby, Stephen A. Montzka, Lambert J.M. Kuijpers & Kane Stone, Quantifying contributions of chlorofluorocarbon banks to emissions and impacts on the ozone layer and climate, Nature Communications, 2020, 11, 1380, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15162-7 . 0 Megan Lickley, Sarah Fletcher, Matt Rigby & Susan Solomon, Nature Communications, 2021, 12, 2920, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23229-2, www.nature.com/naturecommunications.


https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15162-7

substantially larger than expected from its allowed reported global use in feedstocks (see Lickley et al., 2020). We note that the NOAA and AGAGE data do not separate measurements of CFC-113 and CFC-113a. Recent studies have noted an increase in CFC-113a concentrations. Accounting for this trend in CFC-113a and assuming the instruments are equally sensitive to both CFC-113 and CFC-113a, we find direct total emissions of CFC-113 to be 6.4 Gg/yr in 2014–2016, which is within the 95% uncertainty range of our values reported here.” The paper notes that “Determining the sources of these emissions and whether and how to reduce them is a pressing challenge for the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.”

Lickley et al. (2021) references another paper 38F

0, which published emission trends for CFC-113 and CFC-113a and reported that “The continued presence of northern hemispheric emissions of CFC-113a is confirmed by our measurements of a persistent interhemispheric gradient in its mixing ratios, with higher mixing ratios in the Northern Hemisphere. The sources of CFC-113a are still unclear, but we present evidence that indicates large emissions in East Asia, most likely due to its use as a chemical involved in the production of hydrofluorocarbons 39F

0. Our aircraft data confirm the interhemispheric gradient as well as showing mixing ratios consistent with ground-based observations and the relatively long atmospheric lifetime of CFC-113a. CFC-113a is the only known CFC for which abundances are still increasing substantially in the atmosphere.”

The trend in the reported production of CFC-113 for feedstock use from 2002 is shown in Figure 5.3. For each year, it is understood that CFC-113a has been reported as CFC-113. However, in 2018 and 2019, some CFC-113a was reported separately and is included in the total CFC-113/113a quantity shown in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.3. Trends in annual use of CFC-113/113a for feedstock for the years 2002-2019 (tonnes)

0 Karina E. Adcock, Claire E. Reeves, Lauren J. Gooch, Emma C. Leedham Elvidge, Matthew J. Ashfold, Carl A. M. Brenninkmeijer, Charles Chou, Paul J. Fraser, Ray L. Langenfelds, Norfazrin Mohd Hanif, Simon O’Doherty, David E. Oram, Chang-Feng Ou-Yang, Siew Moi Phang, Azizan Abu Samah, Thomas Röckmann, William T. Sturges, and Johannes C. Laube, Continued increase of CFC-113a (CCl3CF3/ mixing ratios in the global atmosphere: emissions, occurrence and potential sources, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 2018, 18, 4737–4751. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-4737-2018.

0 The paper correctly states that the source of emissions is unclear.


https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-4737-2018

There is no production reported for feedstock uses by Article 5 parties and the quantity of CFC-113/CFC-113a used as an intermediate is not known for East Asia (or elsewhere). It is possible that emissions associated with its production and feedstock/intermediate use are within the expected range. However, to explain the reported estimated global and regional emissions, this would require significant use of CFC-113/113a as an intermediate 40F

0 with similar process emissions and/or would require poorly operated and maintained feedstock processes. Data on intermediate use and emissions, and improved data for feedstock use and its associated emissions, would be required to understand if emissions from other uses, such as emissive solvent uses, can be ruled out.

CFC-113 can be produced from perchloroethylene (PCE) using liquid phase fluorination technology with antimony pentachloride catalyst, a similar process to the production of CFC-11/12 and HCFC-22. CFC-113a is commonly made by isomerisation of CFC-113 in a liquid phase process using aluminium chloride as a catalyst. CFC-113a can also be prepared by the fluorination of trichloroethylene to HCFC-133a, which is then chlorinated to produce a mixture of CFC-113a and HCFC-123 and distilled into different streams. CFC-113 is a common feedstock or intermediate that can be used in the production of a range of chemicals including CFC-113a, chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE), HFC-134a, trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and HFO-1336mzz. The main feedstock or intermediate uses of CFC-113 and CFC-113a are shown in Figure 5.4.

Figure 5.4. Main Feedstock and Intermediate Uses of CFC-113 and CFC-113a

In non-Article 5 parties, the main reported feedstock use of CFC-113 is for the production of HFCs, mainly HFC-134a. Reducing consumption of HFC-134a in non-Article 5 parties, as well as market conditions, have led to a downward trend in CFC-113 production, mitigated to some extent by

0 The Lickley et al., 2021 paper estimated that the direct total emissions of CFC-113 have increased to 7.8 Gg/yr (7.8 kilotonnes) in 2014–2016. The CFC-113/113a reported feedstock use and associated emission rate (based on the estimated global emissions) in these years is 2014: 133.5, 5.8%; 2015: 62.2, 12.5%; 2016: 104.1 kilotonnes, 7.5% emission rate. These emission rates are higher than expected according to MCTOC Progress Report 2020, section 5.3.6, which suggests an average emission range of 0.5% to 4%. However, if, for example, 50 kilotonnes of CFC-113/113a were used as an intermediate, in each of these years, in addition to reported feedstock use, then total use (feedstock and intermediate) and associated emissions would be 2014: 183.5, 4.2%; 2015: 112.2, 7.0%; 2016: 154.1 kilotonnes, 5.1% emission rate. These emission rates are also higher than would be expected.


apparent increasing demand for CTFE and HFO-1336mzz. During the period 2002 to 2019, non-Article 5 parties accounted for over 99.9% of the total reported production of CFC-113/113a for feedstock use. According to publicly available information, the production of CFC-113 and CFC-113a also occurs in some Article 5 parties 41F

0. As Article 5 parties have not reported production of CFC-113 or CFC-113a for feedstock use since 2008, their known production must be as intermediates for use on the same plant complex. Even when used as an intermediate, emissions can occur during intermediate production and use onsite.

A comprehensive understanding of the production and use of CFC-113 and CFC-113a as feedstock or intermediate would contribute to a better understanding of global and regional emissions.

Parties may wish to consider reviewing their production of CFC-113/113a for the manufacture of other chemicals, including HFC-134a, TFA, CTFE, and HFO-1336mzz isomers, to ensure that feedstock production of CFC-113/113a is being fully captured in Article 7 data reporting, noting that in situ production of intermediates is not required to be reported as production for feedstock uses.

To develop a better understanding of CFC-113/113a emissions, the activity of in situ production of controlled substances as intermediates to manufacture chemicals might need to be accounted. Parties may wish to consider, in the absence of reported data, how to account for production of controlled substances as intermediates in a manner that would allow meaningful global analysis.

5.3.5. HCFC-132b, HCFC-133a, and HCFC-31 by-product emissions

A recent paper42F

0 reports on global abundances, trends, and regional enhancements for HCFC-132b, HCFC-133a, and HCFC-31. HCFC-132b appeared in the atmosphere 20 years ago and its global emissions increased to 1.1 kilotonnes/year by 2019. Regional top-down emission estimates for East Asia, based on high-frequency measurements for 2016-2019, account for ∼95% of the global HCFC-132b emissions and for ∼80% of the global HCFC-133a emissions of 2.3 kilotonnes/year during this period. Global emissions of HCFC-31 for the same period are 0.71 kilotonnes/year. Small European emissions of HCFC-132b and HCFC-133a, found in southeastern France, ceased in early 2017 when a fluorocarbon production facility in that area closed. The paper notes that although unreported emissive end-uses cannot be ruled out, all three chemicals are most likely emitted as intermediate by-products in chemical production pathways.

HCFC-133a (and HCFC-133) are reported as feedstock in quantities each year between 1000 and 3000 tonnes in the period 2002 and 2009 and between 600 and 1800 tonnes in the period 2010 to 2019. HCFC-132b has not been reported as a feedstock, and HCFC-31 was reported as feedstock in some years prior to 2006 but in very small quantities (<1 tonne). The following figures show the known intermediate use of HCFC-31 in the manufacture of HFC-32 and the known intermediate use of HCFC-132b and HCFC-133a in the manufacture of HFC-134a or for the anaesthetic, 2-bromo-2- chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane.

0 Technical publications relating to the fluorocarbon industry have continued to report on planning permission applications and environmental inspection authorisations for a small number of enterprises wishing to produce CFC-113 and CFC-113a. These were mostly about their use as intermediates for producing chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE) or for manufacturing trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and its derivatives. Most recently, it was reported that new production of both CFC-113 and CFC-113a was installed to produce the intermediate chemical for HFO-1336mzz. It is not certain to what extent final planning permission, or factory construction, went ahead.0 Martin K. Vollmer, Jens Mühle, Stephan Henne, Dickon Young, Matthew Rigby, Blagoj Mitrevski, Sunyoung Park, Chris R. Lunder, Tae Siek Rhee, Christina M. Harth, Matthias Hill, Ray L. Langenfelds, Myriam Guillevic, Paul M. Schlauri, Ove Hermansen, Jgor Arduini, Ray H. J. Wang, Peter K. Salameh, Michela Maione, Paul B. Krummel, Stefan Reimann, Simon O’Doherty, Peter G. Simmonds, Paul J. Fraser, Ronald G. Prinn, Ray F. Weiss, and L. Paul Steel, Unexpected nascent atmospheric emissions of three ozone-depleting hydrochlorofluorocarbons, PNAS February 2, 2021 118 (5) e2010914118; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010914118


https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010914118

It is unlikely that HCFC-132b, HCFC-133a and HCFC-31 have any significant uses due to their toxicology properties. HCFC-132b was evaluated for solvent applications as a potential replacement for CFC-113. In the United States, in 1987, as part of initiatives to develop alternatives to CFCs, HCFC-132a was reported to have adverse indications in preliminary toxicity evaluation, and unacceptable toxicity was also reported for HCFC-133a and HCFC-31, disqualifying them from further consideration.43F

0 ECETOC technical report 10344F

0 provides an occupational exposure limit value of 0.5 ppm for HCFC-31. In 1990, ECETOC published a report 45F

0 that included toxicology data for HCFC-133a.

0 Stratospheric Ozone: EPA's Safety Assessment of Substitutes for Ozone ... - United States. General Accounting Office, United States. General Accounting Office. RCED. - Google Books0 ECETOC Technical Report No.103 (2008), Toxicity of possible impurities and by-products in fluorocarbon products.0 ECETOC Joint Assessment of Commodity Chemicals Report No. 14 (1990), 1-chloro-2,2,2-trifluoroethane (HCFC-133a).


https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1IYy91EXg4oC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=hcfc132b+reactions&source=bl&ots=BZTdVQYasD&sig=ACfU3U2WUfkdAxJ_lJa6NFTbXxAwT5K3tg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEn8Hdw8zwAhVYB2MBHWEfCJcQ6AEwEnoECAUQAw#v=onepage&q=hcfc132b%20reactions&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1IYy91EXg4oC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=hcfc132b+reactions&source=bl&ots=BZTdVQYasD&sig=ACfU3U2WUfkdAxJ_lJa6NFTbXxAwT5K3tg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEn8Hdw8zwAhVYB2MBHWEfCJcQ6AEwEnoECAUQAw#v=onepage&q=hcfc132b%20reactions&f=false

Figure 5.5. Reaction pathway for production of HFC-32 from methylene chloride via HCFC-31

Methylene chloride (CH2Cl2)

Chlorofluoro

Methane

CH2ClF

(HCFC 31)

Difluoromethane

(CH2F2)

(HFC 32)

Anhydrous Hydrogen Fluoride

HFC 32 / HCFC 31 Production plant

Legend

Anhydrous hydrogen Fluoride

Isolated halogenated substance

Usually, un-isolated halogenated intermediate produced and consumed in situ, although co-production technically possible

The co-produced HCl is omitted for clarity


Figure 5.6. Reaction pathway for production of HFC-134a from trichloroethylene via HCFC-131, -132b, -133a

Legend

Anhydrous hydrogen Fluoride

Bromine

Isolated halogenated substance

Un-isolatable halogenated intermediate produced and consumed in situ practically instantaneously

Usually, un-isolated halogenated intermediate produced and consumed in different reaction loops

The co-produced HCl is omitted for clarity.

HCFC 131 and HCFC 132b are typically not found outside the reaction loops only TCE, HF, HCl, HCFC 133a and HFC 134a

Trichloroethylene (C2HCl3)

1,1, 2 -trichloro-1-fluoroethane (CFCl2CH2Cl)

(HCFC 131)

1,2-dichloro-1,1-difluoroethane

(CF2ClCH2Cl)

(HCFC 132b)

2-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane

(CF3CH2Cl)

(HCFC 133a)

1,1,1,2 tetrafluoro ethane

(CH2FCF3)

(HFC 134a)

2 Bromo-2- chloro – 1,1,1- trifluoroethane

(CHClBrCF3)

(Halothane)

Anhydrous Hydrogen Fluoride

Bromine

HFC 134a /HCFC 133a Production plant using trichloroethylene


5.3.6. HFCs used as feedstock

Following the entry into force of the Kigali Amendment, reporting of HFCs, including production and import for feedstock uses is required for all parties that have ratified the amendment. In addition to feedstock data reported as part of HFC baseline submissions, obligatory annual HFC data reporting will start with data for 2019 for countries that became party to the Kigali amendment before the end of 2019, and that 2019 Article 7 data was reported during 2020. The feedstock data reported for 2019 for non-Article 5 parties is incomplete (due to timing of reporting obligations) and is less than 10,000 tonnes, with HFC-23 and HFC-152a the two main HFCs reported 46F

0.

Historically, some of the HFC-23 generated as a by-product during the manufacture of HCFC-22 was recovered and used as a feedstock to produce halon 1301 (bromotrifluoromethane). When production of halon 1301 ceased in non-A 5 parties in 1994, in accordance with the Montreal Protocol, this demand for HFC-23 also largely ceased. However, HFC-23 is still used as a feedstock to produce halon 1301, which is still used as a feedstock for the manufacture of the pesticide fipronil and other chemicals.47F

0,48F

0

According to a recent paper 49F

0, the dehydrofluorination of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) is the most broadly used chemical process for the production of vinyl fluoride (used to produce polyvinylfluoride, a polymer used mainly in low flammability coatings). HFC-152a can also be used as a feedstock to produce vinylidene fluoride (CH2CF2), via photo-chlorination to obtain HCFC-142b followed by dehydrochlorination.

In the EU, according to a 2020 report 50F

0, since 2014, feedstock use has consisted almost exclusively of HFC-23. In addition, very small amounts have occasionally been reported for a couple of other gases, among them HFCs. HFC-23 is thought to be used for the manufacture of fipronil via bromotrifluoromethane.

5.4. HFC-23 by-production and emissions

HFC-23 is a by-product from the production of HCFC-22. Destruction technologies for HFC-23 have been evaluated by TEAP 51F

0 and approved by parties under decision XXX/6, and the ExCom have published several reports52F

0 on aspects of HFC-23 by-product control technologies. According to a

0 The total metric tonnes of ODS reported for feedstock use in 2018 is over 1.3 million tonnes (see table 5.2). HFCs reported for feedstock use for the baseline period (2011-2013) is less than 10,000 tonnes annually. Even though this is an incomplete data set due to the reporting requirements, the feedstock uses of HFCs have more limited application than ODS.0 TEAP Report, September 2019, Volume 1 Decision XXX/3 TEAP Task Force Report on Unexpected Emissions of CFC-11 page 69.0 CF3 generated from Halon 1301 can be introduced into a wide range of organic molecules by nucleophilic substitution to produce chemicals, including fipronil (insecticide), mefloquine (antimalarial), and DPP-IV inhibitor (antidiabetic).0 Haodong Tang, Mingming Dang, Yuzhen Li, Lichun Li, Wenfeng Han, Zongjian Liu, Ying Li and Xiaonian Li, Rational design of MgF2 catalysts with long-term stability for the dehydrofluorination of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a), RSC Advances, 2019, 9, 23744-23751. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RA04250D0 From EEA Report No 15/2020 Fluorinated greenhouse gases 2020, Data reported by companies on the production, import, export, destruction and feedstock use of fluorinated greenhouse gases in the European Union, 2007-20190 2018 TEAP Report, Supplement to the April 2018 Decision XXIX/4 TEAP Task Force Report on Destruction Technologies for Controlled Substances.0 See for example UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/83/44, 11 May 2019, Key aspects related to HFC-23 by-product control technologies (Decision 82/85).


recent paper53F

0, global HFC-23 emissions derived from atmospheric measurements were historically at their highest level in 2018, in contrast to expected emissions of HFC-23 by-product, primarily from reported HCFC-22 production, that were much lower. The paper concludes that the discrepancy between expected emissions and observation-inferred emissions makes it possible that planned reductions in HFC-23 emissions may not have been fully realised or there may be substantial unreported production of HCFC-22, both or either of which would result in unaccounted for HFC-23 by-product emissions.

Based on reported data, the Decision XXXI/1 Replenishment Task Force Report (Table 4.3) suggests that in a number of HCFC-22 plants where incineration was occurring about half of the HFC-23 generated as a by-product was incinerated. The amount collected and stored for use could not be estimated.

54F

0 Another paper55F

0 had previously concluded that between 2009 and 2016 atmospheric abundance of HFC-23 had increased faster than the atmospheric abundance of HCFC-22, with the divergence in annual average growth rates consistent with increasing HFC-23 emissions as a consequence of incomplete mitigation of HCFC-22 production. However, the paper also notes that this slowing atmospheric growth of HCFC-22 is consistent with HCFC-22 moving from dispersive (high fractional emissions) to feedstock (low fractional emissions) uses. HFC-23 can be produced via other routes; the dominant route is via HCFC-22.

It is only from recently (1 January 2020) that parties manufacturing Annex C, Group I (HCFC-22), or Annex F, substances must ensure that emissions of Annex F, Group II substances (HFC-23) are destroyed to the extent practicable under Article 2J of the Montreal Protocol (the Kigali Amendment).

It should be noted that other sources of HFC-23 emissions are continued use as a low temperature refrigerant and in some countries as a fire extinguishing and inerting agent. HFC-23 is also reported to be the only chemical extinguishing agent alternative to halon 1301 in applications subject to low ambient temperatures.

MCTOC will report further on potential sources of HFC-23 from chemical production processes in its 2022 Assessment Report.

5.5. Destruction Technologies

Decision XXX/6 on destruction technologies for controlled substances requests TEAP to assess destruction technologies listed (in annex II to the report of the Thirtieth Meeting of the Parties) as not approved or not determined, as well as any other technologies, and to report to the Open-ended Working Group prior to the Thirty-Third Meeting of the Parties. The text of the decision is below.

Decision XXX/6: Destruction technologies for controlled substances:

Noting with appreciation the report of the task force established by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel in response to decision XXIX/4 on destruction technologies for controlled substances,

Noting that destruction and removal efficiency is the criterion considered in approving destruction technologies,

0 K. M. Stanley, D. Say, J. Mühle, C. M. Harth, P. B. Krummel, D. Young, S. J. O’Doherty, P. K. Salameh, P. G. Simmonds, R. F. Weiss, R. G. Prinn, P. J. Fraser, M. Rigby, Increase in global emissions of HFC-23 despite near-total expected reductions, Nature Communications, 11, Article number: 397 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13899-4 . 0 TEAP Decision XXXI/1 Replenishment Task Force Report, May 2020.0 Simmonds, P. G. et al., Recent increases in the atmospheric growth rate and emissions of HFC-23 (CHF3) and the link to HCFC-22 (CHClF3) production, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 2018, 18, 4153–4169. https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/4153/2018/.


https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13899-4

Noting with appreciation the Panel’s advice on emissions of substances other than controlled substances, and suggesting that parties consider this information in the development and implementation of their domestic regulations,

Noting that the Code of Good Housekeeping Procedures set out in annex III to the report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Parties in accordance with paragraph 6 of decision XV/9 provides useful guidance for local management in respect of appropriate handling, transportation, monitoring and measurement in destruction facilities, where similar or stricter procedures do not exist domestically, but does not provide a framework that can be used for comprehensive verification,

1. To approve the following destruction technologies, for the purposes of paragraph 5 of Article 1 of the Montreal Protocol, and, with respect to Annex F, group II, substances, also for the purposes of paragraphs 6 and 7 of Article 2J, as additions to the technologies listed in annex VI to the report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties and modified by decisions V/26, VII/35 and XIV/6, as reflected in annex II to the report of the Thirtieth Meeting of the Parties:56F

0

(a) For Annex F, group I, substances: cement kilns; gaseous/fume oxidation; liquid injection incineration; porous thermal reactor; reactor cracking; rotary kiln incineration; argon plasma arc; nitrogen plasma arc; portable plasma arc; chemical reaction with H2 and CO2; gas phase catalytic dehalogenation; superheated steam reactor;

(b) For Annex F, group II, substances: gaseous/fume oxidation; liquid injection incineration; reactor cracking; rotary kiln incineration; argon plasma arc; nitrogen plasma arc; chemical reaction with H2 and CO2; superheated steam reactor;

(c) For Annex E substances: thermal decay of methyl bromide;

(d) For diluted sources of Annex F, group I, substances: municipal solid waste incineration; and rotary kiln incineration;

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to assess those destruction technologies listed in annex II to the report of the Thirtieth Meeting of the Parties as not approved or not determined, as well as any other technologies, and to report to the Open-ended Working Group prior to the Thirty-Third Meeting of the Parties, with the understanding that if further information is provided by parties in due time, in particular regarding the destruction of Annex F, group II, substances by cement kilns, the Panel should report to an earlier meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group;

3. To invite parties to submit to the Secretariat information relevant to paragraph 2 of the present decision;

MCTOC outlined preparations for its assessment of destruction technologies under this decision in the 2020 TEAP Progress Report, including suggested guidance on the type of relevant information needed for assessment. The 2020 TEAP Progress Report called on parties to submit this type of information in response to decision XXX/6 paragraph 3. Information has not yet been submitted by parties.

MCTOC is also not aware of information, such as new test data, on approved destruction technologies (Table 5.3, based on Annex II, MOP-30 list of technologies subject to this review that are either not approved, not determined), or new technologies that would allow an assessment for the OEWG meeting prior to the 33rd MOP. In consultation with the Ozone Secretariat, TEAP and its MCTOC will

0 UNEP/OzL.Pro.30/11.


now include an assessment in response to decision XXX/6 in its 2022 Assessment Report based on information received and available.

MCTOC is preparing for this assessment and taking this opportunity to outline its recommended approach (with minor amendments from 2020) and to provide suggested guidance for parties on the type of relevant information that parties are invited to submit under decision XXX/6(3). Information from parties is now requested to be submitted by January 2022, to allow time for assessment. MCTOC notes that a number of mainstream destruction technologies continue to lack specific data on demonstration of DRE for Annex F HFCs.

MCTOC has included below a brief update report on available information on destruction technologies (Annex II, MOP-30 list of technologies, either not approved, not determined, or new). MCTOC also highlights some emerging issues relevant to destruction technologies for further consideration in its 2022 Assessment Report.


Table 5.3. Based on Annex II, MOP-30 list of technologies subject to this review that are either not approved or not determined*

Technology

ApplicabilityConcentrated Sources Dilute Sources

Annex A Annex B Annex C Annex E Annex F Annex FGroup 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 Group 2 Group 1Primary

CFCs Halons Other CFCs

Carbon Tetrachloride

Methyl Chloroform HCFCs Methyl

Bromide HFCs HFC-23 ODS HFCs

DRE 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99% 95% 95%

Cement Kilns Approved Not Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not

Determined Approved Not Determined

Gaseous/Fume Oxidation Approved Not

Determined Approved Approved Approved Approved Not Determined Approved Approved

Liquid Injection Incineration Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not

Determined Approved Approved

Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Approved Approved

Porous Thermal Reactor Approved Not

Determined Approved Approved Approved Approved Not Determined Approved Not

Determined

Reactor Cracking Approved Not Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not

Determined Approved Approved

Rotary Kiln Incineration Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not

Determined Approved Approved Approved Approved

Thermal Decay of Methyl Bromide

Not Determined

Not Determined

Not Determined

Not Determined

Not Determined

Not Determined Approved Not

DeterminedNot

Determined

Argon Plasma Arc Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not Determined Approved Approved

Inductively coupled radio frequency plasma

Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not Determined

Not Determined

Not Determined

Microwave Plasma Approved Not Determined Approved Approved Approved Approved Not

DeterminedNot

DeterminedNot

DeterminedNitrogen Plasma Arc Approved Not


Portable Plasma Arc Approved Not


DeterminedChemical Reaction with H2 and CO2

Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not Determined Approved Approved

Gas Phase Catalytic De- Approved Not


Determined


halogenationSuperheated steam reactor Approved Not


Thermal Reaction with Methane Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Not

DeterminedNot

DeterminedNot

Determined

*Orange shaded cells indicated those destruction technologies to be reviewed as part of assessment under decision XXX/6, excluding any new technology for which information might become available.


5.5.1. Definitions and categories of destruction technologies

The Montreal Protocol’s Article 1, paragraph 5, and subsequent clarifying decisions of parties, have defined a destruction process as, “...one which, when applied to controlled substances, results in the permanent transformation, or decomposition of all or a significant portion of such substances”, and “relates to the input and output of the destruction process itself, not to the destruction facility as a whole.”

Destruction technologies can be grouped into three general categories: thermal oxidation, plasma technologies, and conversion (or non-incineration) technologies. Approved destruction technologies are those that are proven to result in the permanent transformation or decomposition of all or a significant portion of the substance being destroyed.

As a general category, conversion (or non-incineration) technologies are those that primarily rely on chemical transformation to convert halocarbons, sometimes to potentially useful chemicals (e.g., acids, vinyl monomers etc.). Conversion (transformation) as a destruction process differs from the conversion processes involving feedstock uses because, generally, a feedstock is specifically produced to manufacture a desired chemical and is not considered a waste. A waste by-product or substance at end-of-life may be destroyed by thermal oxidation or plasma technologies, without producing useful chemicals.

57F

0

5.5.2. Destruction technologies approved by parties

Environmentally sound destruction of surplus or contaminated ODS and HFCs at end-of-life is encouraged by the Montreal Protocol because it avoids unnecessary emissions and helps protect the stratospheric ozone layer and/or the climate.

The Montreal Protocol does not mandate the destruction of ODS or Annex F Group I HFCs. The exception is HFC-23 (Annex F, Group II) generated in manufacturing facilities, from which emissions must be destroyed to the extent practicable using technologies approved by parties.

The Protocol’s definition of ‘production’ of controlled substances subtracts the amounts destroyed from the amounts produced. The use of destruction technologies approved by parties applies to the amounts of controlled substances destroyed and accounted for within the Protocol’s definition of ‘production’. Article 7 data reporting requires production data to be reported by parties, including the amounts of controlled substances destroyed by technologies approved by parties. The Protocol also allows Parties to manufacture an amount of controlled substance almost equivalent to the quantity destroyed with technology listed as approved, within the same year as destruction, and within the same group of substances.

Parties have taken several decisions to approve destruction technologies for the purposes of Montreal Protocol production data reporting requirements. Over time, the list of destruction technologies approved by parties has been updated, with the most recent list of approved destruction processes contained in Annex II to the 30th MOP under decision XXX/6, reproduced in Table 5.3 above.

5.5.3. Background to TEAP assessment of destruction technologies

In the preamble to decision XXX/6, parties:

Noted that Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) is the criterion considered in their approval of destruction technologies, and

0 The definition of conversion applies to non-incineration technologies, and these might not always produce useful products. Incineration technologies can also produce useful products, for example reactor cracking produces technical-grade quality HF and HCl.


Suggested that parties also consider TEAP’s other technical advice on emissions of substances other than controlled substances in the development and implementation of their domestic regulations.

For its assessment under decision XXX/6, TEAP will assess destruction technologies for their destruction and removal efficiency and make recommendations to parties for potential approval for inclusion on the list of approved technologies.

TEAP will also provide technical advice about emissions of other pollutants and the technical capability of destruction technologies as part of its assessment. In addition to providing parties with technical guidance, this will also ensure internal consistency with previous assessments.

The TEAP assessment will consider the following parameters:

1. Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) 58F

0, which is a minimum of 99.99% for concentrated sources and 95% for dilute sources (e.g., foams)

2. Emissions of halogenated dioxins and furans 59F

0

3. Emissions of other pollutants: acid gases (HCl, HF, HBr/Br2), particulate matter (total suspended particles, TSP), and carbon monoxide (CO)

4. Technical capability, where the technology has demonstrated destruction on at least a pilot scale or demonstration scale, and for which the processing capacity is no less than 1.0 kg/hr of the substance to be destroyed, whether ODS or a suitable surrogate.

The DRE is a measure of the efficiency of destruction and is the basis of TEAP’s recommendations to parties. The 99.99% DRE minimum for concentrated sources of controlled substances is considered protective for minimising ozone depletion and climate impact. In the case of controlled substances contained in products such as closed cell foams and considered dilute sources, a DRE of 95% minimum is adopted for assessment purposes.

The technical performance advisory criteria for other pollutant emissions are measures of potential impacts of the technology on human health and the environment. The destruction technologies will be assessed against advisory criteria, which are consistent with previous assessments, and technical advice provided in relation to destruction technologies recommended on the basis of DRE.

The technical capability advisory criterion considers the extent to which the technology has been demonstrated to destroy ODS/HFCs (or a comparable recalcitrant halogenated organic substance such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)) effectively and is technically capable of commercial-scale destruction.

0 Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) is determined by subtracting from the mass of a chemical fed into a destruction system during a specific period of time the mass of that chemical alone that is released in stack gases and expressing that difference as a percentage of the mass of that chemical fed into the system. If interconversion to other controlled species is possible, it is recommended that analysis is used to measure emissions and that any controlled species is taken into account when determining DRE.0 Depending on the waste stream, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), polybrominated dibenzodioxins (PBDDs), polybrominated dibenzofurans (PBDFs), polyfluorinated dibenzodioxins (PFDDs), polyfluorinated dibenzofurans (PFDFs). For mixed substance destruction, mixed halogenated dioxins and furans can be formed.


To undertake its assessment and provide its technical advice, and in order to provide advice that the technology has the minimum level of technical capability to destroy ODS/HFCs efficiently and safely, TEAP will seek information for all of these parameters.

The following technical performance assessment and advisory criteria will be used for TEAP assessments of destruction technologies. These represent a minimum DRE for destroying ODS/HFCs and maximum advisory levels of emissions of pollutants to the atmosphere that would be considered as an acceptable minimum level of technical capability.

Table 5.4: Technical Performance Assessment and Advisory Criteria

Performance Qualification Units Concentrated

SourcesDiluted Sources

(e.g., foams)DRE % 99.99 95Dioxins/furans ng-ITEQ/Nm3 0.2 0.5HCl/Cl2 mg/Nm3 100 100HF mg/Nm3 5 5HBr/Br2 mg/Nm3 5 5Particulates (TSP) mg/Nm3 50 50CO mg/Nm3 100 100

Notes to the table:All concentrations of pollutants in stack gases and stack gas flow rates are expressed on the basis of dry gas at normal conditions of 0oC and 101.3 kPa, and with the stack gas corrected to 11% O2 (as referred to by normal cubic metre, Nm3).NB. Different stack gas conditions may apply in different countries for different technologies.ITEQ: International Toxic Equivalents 60F

0. Acid gases will be assessed based on the specific halogen species present in the waste stream.TSP – total suspended particles

The technical performance assessment (DRE) and advisory criteria (for pollutants other than controlled substances) serve as a benchmark used by TEAP for comparison purposes. They do not constitute standards, nor do they necessarily meet internationally accepted emissions guidance for pollutants, such as those adopted by the Basel Convention. 61F

0 They were developed only for the purposes of the Montreal Protocol for screening and recommending generic technologies that might be considered technically capable of meeting basic acceptable limits of pollutant emissions.

Operators of destruction technologies are required to meet local DRE requirements and pollutant emissions controls. In addition, the performance of technologies are plant and operation specific. Emissions management is a matter for operators and government agencies within national regulatory frameworks. A recommendation by TEAP or an approval by parties of a destruction technology under the Montreal Protocol does not guarantee that local emissions requirements can or will be met on a specific facility employing an approved

0 The International Toxic Equivalents (ITEQ) scheme was established by NATO in 1988. More recently the TEFs were re-evaluated by the World Health Organisation and the revised TEQ scheme is generally universally accepted, with the updated TEFs used in the TEQ calculation. Some of the data reviewed by the 2018 TFDT quotes TEQ values. A detailed discussion of ITEQ and TEQ is on page 13 of 2018 TEAP Report, Volume 2: Decision XXIX/4 TEAP Task Force Report on Destruction Technologies for Controlled Substances0 General technical guidelines on the environmentally sound management of wastes consisting of, containing or contaminated with persistent organic pollutants, UNEP/CHW.14/7/Add.1/Rev.1, Para 161, May 2019, http://www.basel.int/Implementation/TechnicalMatters/DevelopmentofTechnicalGuidelines/TechnicalGuidelines/tabid/8025/Default.aspx (accessed April 2020).


http://www.basel.int/Implementation/TechnicalMatters/DevelopmentofTechnicalGuidelines/TechnicalGuidelines/tabid/8025/Default.aspx

http://www.basel.int/Implementation/TechnicalMatters/DevelopmentofTechnicalGuidelines/TechnicalGuidelines/tabid/8025/Default.aspx

technology. There may be other concerns or emissions of interest to governments at their national or local levels.

Waste ODS/HFCs may be classified as hazardous wastes, with additional requirements imposed through relevant legislation, nationally, or regionally (European Union). Waste ODS/HFCs may also be subject to international reference guidance (such as adopted by the Basel Convention) in terms of emissions performance, including more comprehensive measures of destruction efficiency, other potential emissions, and sources of emissions and monitoring.

Below is a suggested list of information requirements for TEAP assessment of destruction technologies. Parties are invited to provide this type of information within a feasible timeframe for TEAP’s assessment, and no later than January 2022.

5.5.4. Suggested information requirements for TEAP assessment under decision XXX/6

1. Please provide a description of the process, including whether the destruction technology would be considered thermal oxidation, plasma arc, or chemical conversion 62F

0 technology, and associated scrubbing systems. Please include a schematic of the process, with information on the analysis points.

2. At the current stage of development, would you describe the technology as being a demonstration system with all of the characteristics of a commercial system, or a commercially ready system? Note that a demonstration system should achieve >1kg/hour throughput to qualify for assessment. 63F

0

3. Which ODS or HFC (CFC, CTC, halon, HCFC, methyl bromide, HFC, and specify Annex and Group relevant to controlled substance) wastes are being destroyed by the technology? Does destruction include mixed waste streams and, if so, is the DRE measured for individual substances or mixtures (either is acceptable)?

4. What other non-ODS or non-HFC waste streams have been destroyed using the technology? If these are a comparable recalcitrant halogenated organic substance such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), what is the DRE for these waste streams?

5. For the destruction technology, provide the operating conditions and associated results of analyses of pollutant emissions in the table below, specifying to which controlled substance the data is relevant. Unless advised otherwise, data may be published in a TEAP report; please let us know if this is acceptable or not.

0 Conversion technologies transform halocarbons under a range of operating conditions, often at lower temperature than incineration, using specific reactants to achieve the conversion of ODS or HFCs (including conversion to saleable products like acids, vinyl monomer etc.).0 The technology must demonstrate destruction on at least a pilot scale or demonstration scale, where the processing capacity is no less than 1.0 kg/hr of the substance to be destroyed, whether ODS/HFC or a suitable surrogate.


Operating Conditionsand Destruction Efficiency

Atmospheric Emissions

ODS/HFC Feed Rate64F

0 kg/hr Dioxins/Furans65F

0 ng ITEQ/Nm3

Temperature64 C HCl/Cl266F

0 mg/Nm3

Residence Time64 Sec. HF66 mg/Nm3

DRE67F

0 % HBr66 mg/Nm3

Oxygen Content in Exhaust Gas

% Particulates mg/Nm3

CO mg/Nm3

Stack gas flow rate68F

0Nm3

6. Describe how the DRE has been measured and calculated.

7. For a high temperature destruction technology, provide details of the quench conditions and flue gas treatment facilities as these are important in controlling dioxin/furan formation and emissions.

8. For a conversion technology, provide a mass balance 69F

0, also called a material balance, of the process.

9. Describe what methods have been used for sampling and analysis, including details on the number/sampling rate of analyses carried outand whether this is automated, and limits of detection.

10. Describe any procedures during start up or shut down to avoid emissions of the controlled substances.

11. Provide information about other environmental pollutant emissions of concern resulting from the process (e.g., fluorocarbons with high GWP, such as CF4, corrosive salts in effluent, Persistent Organic Pollutants controlled under Annex C (Unintentional

0 A range is acceptable.0 The specific dioxins/furans to be tested should be relevant to the halogenated species in the waste feed, e.g., chlorinated PCDD/PCDF for CFCs; fluorinated PFDD/PFDF for HFCs; brominated PBDD/PBDF for halons and methyl bromide; mixed halogenated species for mixed waste feeds. The analytical methods for chlorinated dioxins and furans are well established and widely available. Analytical capability for brominated species is also available. If brominated species analysis is not available, it is recommended that a chlorinated ODS or chlorinated recalcitrant organic substance is used to measure the dioxin/furan emissions. Under the same conditions, fluorinated dioxins/furans are less readily formed, allowing a chlorinated species to be used to establish dioxin/furan emissions if fluorinated species analysis is not available.0 The specific acid gases to be tested should be relevant to the halogenated species in the waste feed (e.g., HCl/Cl2 and HF for CFCs), and mixed halogenated species tested for mixed waste streams.0 The 2002 Task Force on Destruction Technologies Report Appendix F: Sampling and Analytical Methods states ‘Note that in determining DREs, it is necessary to test both the input to a destruction technology and the exhaust gas stream.’0 All concentrations of pollutants in stack gases and stack gas flow rates are expressed based on dry gas at normal conditions of 0oC and 101.3 kPa, and with the stack gas corrected to 11% O2 (as referred to by normal cubic metre, Nm3).Different stack gas conditions may apply in different countries for different technologies and so stack gas may need to be corrected to 11% O2.0 A mass balance is an application of the conservation of mass to the analysis of physical systems associated with the process, by accounting for material entering and leaving the system and by which mass flows can be identified. This will also help identify if there are any leakages or losses in the system.


Production) of the Stockholm Convention, etc.) and measures in place to control those pollutant emissions.

5.5.5. Preliminary information submitted by Guyana on a potential new destruction technology

On 25th July 2019, preliminary information was submitted by Guyana, indicating interest in possible TEAP assessment of the use of a local bauxite mining facility as a potential destruction technology for waste ODS/HFCs. During subsequent discussions in November 2019, TEAP experts provided initial guidance on the technical assessment process. Guyana indicated that it would seek to provide additional technical information based on the guidance provided. No information has been provided to date. If information were provided before or by January 2022, MCTOC would include it in its assessment of emerging new technologies in response to decision XXX/6.

5.5.6. Conversion of HFCs

As a general category of technology, conversion technologies are those that primarily rely on chemical transformation to convert halocarbons, sometimes to potentially useful chemicals. Feedstock uses and conversion technologies both transform a controlled substance completely into required substances, so how can these different processes be distinguished? A feedstock is generally specifically produced to manufacture a desired chemical. A waste by-product or substance at end-of-life may be destroyed by thermal oxidation or plasma technologies, without producing useful chemicals. 70F

0 The 2018 TEAP Task Force on Destruction technologies (TFDT) reports on several conversion technologies 71F

0, a few of which are approved destruction technologies within the Montreal Protocol.

The unavoidable generation of HFC-23 as a by-product from the production of HCFC-22 has resulted in initiatives to utilise the HFC-23 and avoid thermal oxidation forms of destruction. A 2019 paper72F

0 proposes converting HFC-23 back to HCFC-22 by reaction with chloroform. There are also several recent papers 73F

0 that report on the use of HFC-23 as a building block,

0 The definition of conversion applies to non-incineration technologies, and these might not always produce useful products. Incineration technologies can also produce useful products, for example reactor cracking produces technical-grade quality HF and HCl.0 See section 3.4, 2018 TEAP Report, Volume 2: Decision XXIX/4 TEAP Task Force Report on Destruction Technologies for Controlled Substances, April 2018.0 Reverting fluoroform back to chlorodifluoromethane and dichlorofluoromethane: Intermolecular Cl/F exchange with chloroform at moderate temperatures, Wenfeng Han, Jinchao Wang, Lulu Chen, Luteng Yang, Shucheng Wang, Miao Xia, Haodong Tang, Wucan Liu, Weiy Song, Jianjun Zhang, Ying Lia, Huazhang LiuaChemical Engineering Journal Volume 355, 1 January 2019, Pages 594-601, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.08.1350 Jia-Xiang Xiang, Yao Ouyang, Dr. Xiu-Hua Xu, Prof. Dr. Feng-Ling Qing, Argentination of Fluoroform: Preparation of a Stable AgCF3 Solution with Diverse Reactivities, Angewandte Chemie, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201905782. The transformation of a large-volume industrial by-product and stable greenhouse gas fluoroform (HCF3) to useful products has recently received significant attention. Now, a simple and scalable preparation of AgCF3 by treatment of HCF3 with t-BuOK and AgOAc is disclosed. Yamato Fujihira1, Yumeng Liang, Makoto Ono, Kazuki Hirano, Takumi Kagawa and Norio Shibata, Beilstein, Synthesis of trifluoromethyl ketones by nucleophilic trifluoromethylation of esters under a fluoroform/KHMDS/triglyme system, J. Org. Chem., 2021, 17, 431–438. https://doi.org/10.3762/bjoc.17.39. A straightforward method that enables the formation of biologically attractive trifluoromethyl ketones from readily available methyl esters using the potent greenhouse gas fluoroform (HCF3, HFC-23) was developed.Jacob B. Geri and Nathaniel K. Szymczak, Recyclable Trifluoromethylation Reagents from Fluoroform, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2017, 139 (29), 9811–9814.


including potentially for pharmaceutical products. HFC-23 is also converted by bromination into bromotrifluoromethane, which is used as a chemical intermediate, e.g., in the production of fipronil.

A new 4-year research project 74F

0 has the objective of separating HFC mixtures and transforming high GWP components into useful products. It will look at how to separate hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant mixtures such that the low-global-warming potential (GWP) components can be re-used and the high-GWP components converted into new products that are safe for the environment.

5.5.7. The use of unapproved destruction technologies and the use of approved destruction technologies for purposes other thanArticle 7 data reporting under the Montreal Protocol

Parties have taken several decisions to approve destruction technologies for the purposes of Montreal Protocol Article 7 data reporting requirements. Adoption of destruction technologies varies by parties75F

0, depending on the need for destruction, the requirements of national regulations and related standards, national and local air quality guidelines, availability of the technology, and viability of the market for destruction.

Destruction of controlled substances by technologies that are not approved by the Montreal Protocol does occur. The 2018 TFDT report commented that at that time no destruction technology had yet been approved for methyl bromide destruction. Even so, six parties had reported destruction of methyl bromide to the Ozone Secretariat. 76F

0 The use of technologies not approved by the Montreal Protocol may occur when there is no suitable approved technology or where an approved technology is not available. Their use must still meet national and local requirements and high DREs can still be achieved.

There are also examples where the use of a destruction technology approved by the Montreal Protocol is imposed as a benchmark, or as eligibility requirements, for the desired level of destruction to be achieved for purposes other than those within the Montreal Protocol. There might be circumstances where it is important to choose technology that maximises destruction efficiencies or to account for destroyed ODS/HFC wastes, e.g., for voluntary carbon markets. However, this does not necessarily need to be by a destruction technology approved by the Montreal Protocol, except for HFC-23 and in countries mandating technologies approved by the Montreal Protocol. For a party not interested in accounting for destroyed amounts of

https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.7b05408. We present a strategy to rationally prepare CF3– transfer reagents at ambient temperature from HCF3.Takuya Saito, Jiandong Wang, Etsuko Tokunaga, Seiji Tsuzuki & Norio Shibata, Direct nucleophilic trifluoromethylation of carbonyl compounds by potent greenhouse gas, fluoroform: Improving the reactivity of anionoid trifluoromethyl species in glymes, Scientific Reports, Volume 8, Article number: 11501 (2018). A simple protocol to overcome the problematic trifluoromethylation of carbonyl compounds by the potent greenhouse gas “HFC-23, fluoroform” with a potassium base is described.Daniel J. Sheldon, Greg Coates and Mark R. Crimmin, Defluorosilylation of trifluoromethane: upgrading an environmentally damaging fluorocarbon, Chemical Communications, 2020, 85. The rapid, room-temperature defluorosilylation of trifluoromethane, a highly potent greenhouse gas, has been achieved using a simple silyl lithium reagent.0 Further information is available at: Researchers will develop green technology to recycle refrigerants that drive climate change | EurekAlert! Science News. Accessed June 2021.0 Environmental emission requirements also vary.0 2018 TEAP Report, Volume 2: Decision XXIX/4 TEAP Task Force Report on Destruction Technologies for Controlled Substances, section 2.4.1


controlled substances for the Montreal Protocol, or not destroying HFC-23, a destruction technology that meets minimum local regulatory standards and provides acceptable ODS/HFC destruction efficiencies could be a suitable choice. Requiring the use of destruction technologies approved by the Montreal Protocol as a benchmark may even create a barrier to technically and economically feasible and available destruction of ODS and HFC waste streams. For example, cement kilns, which are approved for concentrated sources, may provide a technically suitable option for the destruction of (dilute) foam waste but are not yet an approved destruction technology for dilute sources because no test data has been available to assess their suitability. A destruction technology that meets national and local requirements with high DREs, but is not approved under the Montreal Protocol, may be a totally acceptable and feasible option for destruction.

Similarly, TEAP assessment and advisory criteria have also been used by some stakeholders as a reference for the adoption of destruction technologies for other purposes. TEAP assessment and advisory criteria are not suitable for determining the qualification or eligibility of individual destruction facilities. Eligibility should be guided by relevant international guidance (e.g., Stockholm Convention) and national regulatory requirements related to destruction efficiency and environmental emission performance. It is likely that the destruction of controlled substances will increase due to reasons unrelated to parties’ Article 7 data reporting. Increasingly, countries and operators will be incentivised to capture and destroy controlled substances as part of more generalised environmental policies applied to high impact waste streams. Controlled substances, and the products containing them, in both concentrated and dilute forms, are increasingly being treated as wastes subject to a range of directed waste management strategies linked to circular economy policies. These policies involve their separation and direction to waste stream specific management (e.g., Colombia). Likewise, they can be targeted for application of various Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, including in Article 5 parties (e.g., Brazil, Colombia, Mexico) for refrigeration equipment. The adoption of policies supporting carbon neutrality, along with measures to monetize carbon directly or indirectly, may be a major future driver in the capture and destruction of controlled substances reaching end of life, particularly HFCs.

5.5.8. Destruction of end-of-life foam wastes (dilute sources)

An issue that is increasingly of interest, particularly in some Article 5 parties, is the disposal or destruction of dilute waste containing controlled substances, e.g., closed cell foam waste, to avoid landfill, where emissions of ODS are released over an extended period. They are also a technically problematic waste stream for modern engineered landfills because of their physical characteristics and stability within landfill, when space is increasingly at a premium. For both these reasons, there is increasing interest in expanded options for management of these waste streams, including destruction and/or inclusion within integrated waste management and circular economy strategy. Under the Montreal Protocol for Article 7 data reporting purposes, municipal solid waste incineration and rotary kiln incineration are approved destruction technologies for dilute sources of controlled substances (ODS and Annex F, Group 1 HFCs), with demonstrated DREs of 95% or more.

In some non-Article 5 parties, particularly in the EU and Japan, foam wastes are directed to municipal solid waste incineration as a waste derived fuel offering net GHG reductions. For refrigeration foams, refrigeration de-manufacturing technologies can be employed to release blowing agents into a closed system and direct them for destruction, usually by incineration. Both these options are limited to relatively few countries and are generally unaffordable in Article 5 parties due to the high capital investment. For this reason, many are looking to the use cement kilns and other industrial processes that already exist, and which may be adapted to destroy foam waste streams.


A GIZ 2020 report77F

0 discusses the use of cement kilns for the destruction of foam waste, stating that theoretically the additional burner close to the kiln entrance could be used to mix PUR foams from old refrigerators into the fuel, but the respective tests are not known. The 2018 TFDT noted that there are reports of destruction of ODS foams in cement kilns. In Columbia, PUR foam generated from an EPR domestic refrigeration program is being disposed of in a local cement kiln. Columbia is also testing the option of direct feeding of domestic and commercial refrigeration cabinets and doors, including with their PU foam, for direct feeding to an Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) steel making process. While recognized to have relatively high losses in the scrap preparation process, the scheme would be economically self-sustaining given the potential for securing a reliable scrap supply and the inherent value provided while mitigating some level of blowing agent emissions.

The inclusion of foams in general solid waste management schemes may help decrease the foam to landfill option, and the avoidance of landfill could lead to economies of scale. Thermal destruction generating energy or value from co-disposal/processing may also help increase foam destruction as part of integrated waste management schemes.

The use of approved destruction technologies for dilute ODS/HFC sources is likely to have limited relevance to Article 7 data reporting, as originally intended. The practical ability to reliably determine the quantities of controlled substances from such dilute sources is limited. Except in highly controlled situations, it is unlikely to be practical for parties to account for and claim destruction of specific controlled substances for dilute sources for Article 7 data reporting purposes. The amount of foam waste containing ODS will decline over time, while zero ODS/low GWP blowing agents will predominate in about a decade. The principal exception to this is building insultation polystyrene (PS) and polyurethane (PU) foams containing ODS, which will continue to be generated from demolition waste in the long term. For these reasons, flexibility in adopting available and affordable options for destruction and other progressive solid waste management strategies should be encouraged, particularly where significant quantities can be destroyed, processing emission losses can be minimised to the extent practical, and destruction efficiency can be demonstrated.

The evolution of circular economy policies is stimulating the development and commercialisation of processes for reuse and remanufacture of waste polymers, including PU and PS foams, particularly in the EU. Specific initiatives include:

A German standard is available for the demanufacturing of CFC-blown foam products. The RAL Institute for Quality Assurance and Certification [Deutsches Institut für Gütesicherung und Kennzeichnung e.V.] in Germany published a set of quality assurance and test specifications (RAL GZ 729) that provide qualitative guidance on how these end-of-life products should be treated.

A commercial initiative78F

0, addressing the entire polystyrene foam value chain, recycles polystyrene foam demolition waste, namely expanded polystyrene (EPS) and extruded polystyrene (XPS). Pre-treatment of waste polystyrene removes and captures the HCFCs and CFCs to allow polystyrene recycling. The pre-treatment step has proven to exceed the 95% removal efficiency for (H)CFCs. After the pre-treatment, XPS material can then be recycled. A solvent-based purification technology allows the isolation of the brominated flame retardant (used until 2016) from the polystyrene. Over 99% of the polystyrene is thereby recycled.

0 GIZ 2020, Thermal destruction of (hydro)chlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons0 See https://polystyreneloop.eu/ and the PolyStyreneLoop stake-holder feedback to the F-gas review at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12479-Fluorinated-greenhouse-gases-review-of-EU-rules-2015-20-/feedback?p_id=8145899


A project79F

0 has developed a new construction material based on the reuse of polyurethane waste, which is otherwise deposited in landfills at a rate of around 800,000 tonnes per year. Using a new technology, polyurethane foam waste is integrated into new building materials, thus extending their life cycle. Some of the polyurethane foam waste used in the project comes from the refrigeration sector (following degassing of a polyurethane refrigerator insulator) and from the automotive sector and the treatment of end-of-life vehicles. As the PU waste is reduced to a powder as part of the process, foam that contained fluorocarbon blowing agents would result in emissions unless a contained system is used, which is a technically feasible option.

5.6. Process Agents

MCTOC has reviewed the information reported to the Ozone Secretariat under decisions X/14(4) and XXI/3(1) by China, EU, Israel and the USA. Considering decision XXXI/6(3), the review by the MCTOC does not identify new compelling information to report to parties in this progress report and will continue to monitor the information submitted by parties in subsequent years.

5.7. Laboratory and Analytical uses

MCTOC has reviewed the information reported to the Ozone Secretariat on production and import of controlled substances used for laboratory and analytical uses. Considering decision XXXI/5(7), the review by the MCTOC does not identify new compelling information to report to parties in this progress report and will continue to monitor the information reported by parties in subsequent years.

5.8 n-Propyl Bromide

MCTOC has considered available information on n-propyl bromide. Considering decision XXX/15 (6), MCTOC has not identified new compelling information to report to parties in this progress report.

0 See LIFE-REPOLYUSE website for more information.


6 Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps TOC (RTOC) Progress Report

6.1. Introduction

At the two meetings in 2020 and 2021, the RTOC membership reached consensus in relation to the structure of the 2022 Assessment Report (AR2022). The structure will consist of a vertical organisation as applied for previous RTOC assessment reports. RTOC will maintain the Chapter Lead Authors and Chapters Authors structure. Certain chapters, due to their size and other specific issues, will have one CLA and an associated CLA.

In 2021 RTOC created a “Vaccine Working Group” with the aim to produce a Technical Note on the Vaccine Cold Chain, including refrigerant use, energy efficiency, and other technical elements, related to the refrigeration and cooling processes related to the vaccine cold chain. The Technical Note was finalized around mid-June 2021 and an advance copy was posted on the Ozone Secretariat website. It is also attached to the present Progress Report.

In this report, the progress made in the different RACHP sub-sectors is documented with an emphasis on updating technical developments in relation to those reported in the 2018 RTOC Assessment Report.

6.2. Refrigerants

Since the publication of the RTOC 2018 Assessment Report, one single- component refrigerant and fourteen refrigerant blends have received designations and classifications in American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 34, subsequently also adopted in International Standards Organisation (ISO) Standard 817. The single-component refrigerant and the fourteen refrigerant blends are listed in tables 1, 2 and 3 below. The GWP and ODP values of the blends are calculated in the same way as those in the RTOC 2018 Assessment Report. Similar tables, reporting data on all refrigerants that have previously received designations and classifications in ASHRAE Standard 34, are reported in the RTOC 2018 Assessment Report.

The single-component refrigerant is trifluoro(iodo)methane, IFC-13I1, which has been assigned safety class A1 in ASHRAE Standard 34; class A1 refers to fluids with low chronic (long-term repeated exposures) toxicity that do not propagate a flame both predicated on recognized criteria. This refrigerant IFC-13I1 had seen notable historic attention but now reached sufficient commercialization interest to warrant the necessary toxicity testing. Although this fluid had not yet received a designation from one of the refrigerant standards, it had already been mentioned in the RTOC 2018 Assessment Report. Its boiling point is –22.5°C, and IFC-13I1 has the potential, when used as a component in refrigerant blends to make them non-flammable (such as the blend R-466A, currently being tested - among others - by manufacturers) while also resulting in a lower GWP. However, concerns about its chemical stability and chronic toxicity remain. The ODP of IFC-13I1 is less than 0.09, but the impact on the ozone layer varies significantly with the geographical location of the release of IFC-13I1, due to its short atmospheric lifetime. More details on its ODP can be found in the RTOC 2018 Assessment Report.

The remaining thirteen refrigerants are blends: R-427B, 427C, and R-467A are blends of “traditional” high GWP fluids. R-448B and R-457B are blends containing HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze(E), R-466A is a blend containing IFC-13I1, R-468A and R-473A are blends containing HFO-1132a, R-471A is a blend containing HFO-1234ze(E) and HFO-1336mzz(E). R-469A, R-470A, R-470B, R-472A, and 473A all contain CO2, which composition lowers the


GWP, lowers the boiling point and results in relatively large temperature glides. R-515B is very similar to the existing R-515A and is also an azeotropic blend of HFO-1234ze(E) and HFC-227ea.

It is worth noting from the tables below, that most of the new refrigerants are non-flammable and of low toxicity, furthermore they have boiling points similar to traditional refrigerants such as HFC-23, HFC-134a, R-404A, R-507, and R-410A, respectively.

Table 6.1: Data summary for new single component refrigerants

Refrigerant

Designation

Chem

ical Formula

Chem

ical Nam

e

Molecular W

eight

Boiling Point (°C

)

Safety Class

Atm

ospheric L

ifetime (Y

ears)

Radiative

Efficiency

(W/m

/ ppm)

GW

P 100 Year

GW

P 20 Year

OD

P

IFC-13I1 CF3ITrifluoro(iodo)methane 195.9 –-22.5 A1 <5

days 0.23 0.4 1 <0.09

Table 6.2: Data summary for new zeotropic refrigerant blends

Refrigerant

Designation

Refrigerant

Com

position (M

ass %)

Molecular

Weight

Bubble Point/

Dew

Point (°C)

Safety Class

GW

P 100 Year

GW

P 20 Year

OD

P

R-427B HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-143a/HFC-134a (20.6/25.6/19.0/34.8) 85.0 –46.2/–40.1 A1 2,500 4,800

R-427C He-32/HFC-125/HFC-143a/HFC-134a (25.0/25.0/10.0/40.0) 83.3 –45.9/–39.4 A1 2,100 4,400

R-448B HFC-32/ HFC-125/ HFO-1234yf/ HFC-134a/ HFO-1234ze(E) (21.0/21.0/20.0/31.0/7.0) 89.3 –44.1/–37.4 A1 1,300 3,000

R-457B HFC-32/HFO-1234yf/HFC-152a (35.0/55.0/10.0) 76.5 –46.4/–40.4 A2L 260 940

R-466A HFC-32/HFC-125/13I1 (49.0/11.5/39.5) 80.7 –51.7/–51.0 A1 740 2,000 <0.04

R-467A HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a/HC-600a (22.0/5.0/72.4/0.6) 84.4 –40.5/–33.3 A1 1,300 3,600

R-468A HFO-1132a/HFC-32/HFO-1234yf (3.5/21.5/75.0) 88.8 –51.3/–39.0 A2L 150 540

R-469A R-744/HFC- 32/HFC-125 (35.0/32.5/32.5) 59.1 –78.5/–61.5 A2L 1,400 2,900

R-470A R-744/32/HFC-125/HFC-134a/HFO-1234ze(E)/HFC-227ea (10.0/17.0/19.0/7.0/44.0/3.0)

84.4 –62.7/–35.6 A1 970 2,000

R-470B R-744/HFC-32/HFC-125/HFC-134a/HFO-1234ze(E)/HFC- 227ea (10.0/11.5/11.5/3.0/57.0/7.0) 89.7 –61.7/–31.4 A1 740 1,500

R-471A HFO-1234ze(E)/HFC-227ea/HFO-1336mzz(E) (78.7/4.3/17.0) 122.1 –41.5/–39.5 A1 140 240

R-472A R-744/HFC-32/HFC-134a (69.0/12.0/19.0) 50.4 –46.2/–40.1 A1 340 1,000


R-473A HFO-1132a/ HFC-23/R-744/ HFC-125 (20.0/10.0/60.0/10.0) 52.6 –87.6/–83.0 A1 1,600 1,700

Table 6.3: Data summary for new azeotropic refrigerant blends

Refrigerant

Designation

Refrigerant

Com

position (M

ass % )

Molecular

Weight

Bubble Point/

Dew

Point (°C)

Safety Class

GW

P 100 Year

GW

P 20 Year

R-515B HFO-1234ze(E)/HFC-227ea (91,1/8,9) 117.5 –19.0/–19.0 A1 280 470

6.3. Factory-sealed domestic and commercial refrigeration appliances

Currently, global domestic refrigerator production is predominantly based on HC-600a with a small market share of HFC-134a. The domestic refrigerator markets growth in developed countries is lower than the global average - while the developing countries have much higher growth rates. Refrigerant migration from HFC-134a to HC-600a is continuing, driven by the Kigali Amendment schedule or local regulations on HFCs. Significant progress has been made in the USA to convert from HFC-134a to HC-600a in domestic freezers and refrigerators.

Food and beverage multinational corporations (MNCs) develop their own environmental policies in choosing low-GWP refrigerants as well as energy-efficient systems are part of the green positioning for stand-alone equipment types. In bottle coolers, migration from HFC-134a to HC-290 is proceeding in several European and US companies, typically including improvements to energy efficiency. Vending machine productions are currently migrating to use refrigerants R-744 and HCs, and with higher energy efficiency. The choice between R-744 and HCs is made based on risk analysis and current safety regulations. In Europe, and in other regions, small ice machines now use HC-290 and are sold as a standard option. A few European manufacturers are manufacturing ice machines using R-744. The energy efficiency of refrigerators has continuously increased all over the world, including many A5 parties, with increasing awareness of consumers.

Domestic heat pump tumble (clothes or laundry) dryers (HPTDs) have entered the market as an energy efficient alternative to the conventional electric heater dryer. The product has become dominant on the EU market and has been introduced in the US and other parts of the world. There are large scale manufacturers from EU, Japan and Australia. During the last years, the EU market share for tumble dryers has increased drastically from a 9% market share in 2010 to 57% in 2020 (EU, 2019a), approximately 5 million shipments and the penetration rate in 2030 is likely to be 28.3%. Some EU manufacturers have ceased their development of electrical dryers. Switzerland has regulated the sale of tumbler dryers unless they are integrated with heat pumps.). It is projected that in the EU, HPTDs will continue to gain higher market share in the next few years as costs of heat pump dryers are likely to be reduced substantially.

The most commonly used refrigerants in HPTDs are HFC-134a, R-407C, and R-410A. Recently, HPTDs with HC-290 have emerged on the European market. Under the Kigali Amendment, the continued use of HFC-134a is under discussion in several global regions. Large European manufacturers, motivated by the reduction under the F-Gas regulation, have already switched to HC-290 with better efficiency and safety norms. The main disadvantage


of HC-290 is the relatively higher pressure for a condensing temperature of 70OC and the additional safety features adds to the overall cost.The Ecodesign and Energy Labelling regulations in Europe have been revised to be effective as of March 2021. The Minimum Energy Performance Requirements have been revised and are now more stringent. Ecodesign measures considering the life cycle impacts of product are to be issued for commercial refrigeration in Europe, with energy consumption being the main criterion.

6.4. Food retail and food service refrigeration

Globally, several countries and regions have started adopting controls on the use of high-GWP HFCs in food retail and food service applications. The F-gas regulation 517/2014 in Europe and the Canadian regulations released in October 2017 have been in effect for some time, whereas in the US, the American Innovation in Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM Act) was signed into law on December 27, 2020.

The commonly used HFCs in existing food retail and food service are R-404A (3922 GWP) and HFC-134a (1430 GWP); in many A5 parties HCFC-22 (1810 GWP) is also used. Much lower GWP alternatives for these refrigerants are now widely available in the EU and North American markets.

Non-halocarbon refrigerants such as R-744 (Carbon Dioxide) are increasingly being used in food retail systems worldwide – both in cascaded systems (R-744 for low temperature cascaded with a second refrigerant like HFC-134a, R-450A, R513A, HFO-1234ze or similar and R-717 or R-290 in limited cases) and in transcritical systems. Transcritical systems are being modified extensively to reduce their energy penalty at high ambient conditions with component and system technologies. R-744 is also beginning to see its use in food service applications with condensing units.

Commercial stand-alone systems, which are commonly used in food retail and food service establishments, have for the most part transitioned to R-290, with some exceptions where the properties of the halocarbon blends are needed for achieving performance.

Meanwhile, several lower GWP HFC/HFO blends (both A1 and A2L) are also being approved for use worldwide in various equipment types. A1 blends such as R-448A, R449A, R-449B, R-452A and R-407H are used as alternatives to R-404A. A1 blends R-450A, R-513A and R-515B are used as alternatives to HFC-134a. These alternatives have GWPs between one third and a half of the high GWP HFCs being replaced. These blends are also important for retrofitting existing R-404A and HFC-134a equipment to lower GWP A1 alternatives. Retrofits are a growing trend in Europe and North America, where the recovered and recycled or reclaimed R-404A and HFC-134a is used for service. Managing the refrigerant in the existing fleet of equipment as an asset is a positive trend.

One retailer in the UK, is a leading user of an A2L refrigerant R-454A (238 GWP); this has been made possible by the passage of the new safety standards from IEC and ISO. Installations with refrigerants such as R-454C and R-455A (148 GWP) are also growing in Europe. The successful examples of the use of A2L refrigerants with less than 150 GWP in Europe could lead to their use in place of R-404A in North America and in place of HCFC-22 in A5 parties in food retail and food service applications.

6.5. Transport refrigeration

The adoption of R-452A in trucks and trailers has increased, particularly in Europe, while in marine containers some presence of R-744 is now evident, but with limited penetration.


The adoption of lower GWP refrigerants is increasing, but mostly in an evolutionary mode and with no sudden shift since the RTOC 2018 Assessment Report. At the same time, some customers are observing the trend towards lower GWP solutions and, when purchasing equipment, are asking manufacturers for commitment to future low GWP solutions as they come available.

Research is continuing in multiple areas, with numerous publications related to energy efficiency optimization with new refrigerants and safe use of flammable or mildly flammable solutions. Substantial progress is being made in developing of safety standards, with the release of a standard for marine containers, and work in progress on truck and trailers.

An important shift in road transport refrigeration to eliminate the auxiliary diesel engine is happening, leading to additional interest in hermetic systems. Refrigerant charge reduction and leak elimination is continuing receiving attention, to enable the use of flammable or high-pressure solutions.

Training implemented in order to be able to service machines with new refrigerants and subsequent certification continues to represent a substantial barrier to adoption.

6.6. Air-to-air Air conditioners and heat pumps

Air conditioners, including reversible air heating heat pumps (generally defined as “reversible heat pumps”), range in size from 1 kW to 750 kW although the majority are less than 70 kW. The most populous are non-ducted single splits, which are produced in excess of 100 million units per year. All products sold within non-A5 parties use non-ODS refrigerants. There is an increasing proportion of production of air conditioners in A5 parties that do not use HCFCs. Globally approximately half of all units produced globally use non-ODP refrigerants.

Replacement of HCFC-22 production is continuing and in most non-A5 parties the use of HCFC-22 has been prohibited in new systems. For A5 parties less than a third of ACs are produced with HCFC-22. In addition to the widespread use of R-410A, the extensive introduction of HFC-32 in residential split air conditioners continues in many countries around the world.

Enterprises within A5 parties, but mainly within regions with non-A5, are continuing to evaluate and develop products with various HFC/unsaturated HFC blends, such as those comprising HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-1234yf and HFC-1234ze. Further conversion of production lines to HC-290 in China, South East Asia and South America is underway, and (except for small and portable units) there is limited market introduction, which is due to restrictive requirements of safety standards. In India widespread production of HC-290 split air conditioners continue. At least one company has introduced a range of products with R-463A. Some enterprises within the Middle East still see R407C and HFC-134a and in some applications R410A as favourable alternatives to HCFC-22.

Acknowledging that almost all medium and low-GWP alternatives are flammable there has been significant progress with the development of new requirements for safety standards, primarily IEC 60335-2-40 (particularly for increasing refrigerant charge size), with one working group now completing the improvements for A3, A2 and A2L refrigerants. Numerous research activities are investigating a variety of aspects related to the application of flammable refrigerants in air conditioning equipment.

Additionally, energy recovery systems are becoming more widely used in some air-to-air units, such as in packaged rooftop unts and air handling units with the aim of reducing energy consumption and with the benefit of smaller refrigerant charge.


6.7. Commercial comfort air conditioning

After years of research and product development, there are complete lines of all types and sizes of chillers available in all global markets that use lower GWP refrigerants (see Table below). Additionally, there are non-fluorinated refrigerants, e.g., ammonia, available in some chiller types, albeit in select sizes. Existing products using higher GWP refrigerants have not been discontinued, and in fact are the dominant products being sold in most markets. Normal market forces will cause this to change, and the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol is providing a concrete measure that will cause a more rapid change. However, products using higher GWP refrigerants will be sold for some time to come, and the installed base of these products will remain in service for lonnger years to come. Refrigerant options available for new and existing equipment may not be the final choices. There is continued pressure from regulators to move to yet another generation of zero ODP and near zero GWP, if technically possible.

Lower GWP refrigerant choices, notably replacements for R-134a (medium pressure) and R-410A (high pressure) include flammable refrigerants, safety class A2L. Safety regulations that allow use of A2L refrigerants, supported by recent research, are being written, but are not uniform nor adopted in all regions. It implies safety codes and standards may slow the adoption flammable lower GWP refrigerants.

In the face of ever-increasing energy demand from the use of comfort air conditioning, customers and regulators alike are interested in less energy consumption. As for most equipment, the global warming impact from chillers is mainly from emissions related to the energy produced to operate them, rather than from the direct refrigerant emissions. Regardless of any future refrigerant change, new products must improve full and part load or seasonal energy consumption.


6.8. Mobile AC/HP

At present, more than one refrigerant is used for new cars and light trucks air conditioning: HFC-134a will remain widely accepted world-wide while, due to regulations, the HFO-1234yf replaced other refrigerants in Europe, US and Japan.

The global use of HFO-1234yf and other low GWP options will be impacted by additional aspects including safety, regulations, system reliability, heat pump capability and servicing. It cannot be forecast if the existing and new refrigerants will remain parallel options in the market for a longer period. It is also unclear if other mobile AC applications, such as buses and heavy-duty trucks, will follow the trends now apparent in light-duty vehicles. The refrigerant choices for these applications are currently not really regulated but are impacted by the EU F-Gas regulation. This effectively leads to a reduction in available carbon dioxide equivalent emission quota that impacts the HFC-134a availability on the European market. This uncertain refrigerant availability situation may lead manufacturers to convert to lower GWP refrigerant options such as HFO-1234yf and R-744. For existing vehicles using HFC-134a, some technicians may decide to service with R-513A if neat HFC-134a supplies are constrained.

The transition to a decarbonised transport system is accelerating in the Europe, US, Japan and China and the announced European “Green Deal” will even more promote the transition to road transport electrification in Europe. This scenario affects indirectly the MAC systems that must be adapted to battery electric vehicle requirements. It is likely that introducing a wider use of heat pumps will lead to further optimization of HFO-1234yf systems and will open the door to alternative refrigerants such as R-744 or dual-loop systems (indirect expansion and condensation). To address this issue a SAE CRP is on its way to investigate suitable refrigerants and technologies for heat pumps installed in electrified vehicles. This could lead, on the long run, to a new generation of working fluids for the electrified vehicles.

In A5 parties, the availability and cost of low GWP refrigerants (e.g. HFO-1234yf) is still a barrier and options based on the use of a dual loop system combined with HFC-152a or hydrocarbons is under evaluation (e.g., in India)

6.9. Industrial refrigeration, heat pumps and heat engines

The Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol has stimulated the broader use of lower GWP refrigerants. Industrial systems with ammonia are seeing more competition from CO2 rather than from any HFCs and HCFCs, especially HCFC-22 (the latter in A5 parties).

6.10. Heating-only heat pumps

In general, heating-only heat pumps represent a fast-growing equipment type in several regions in the world. The growth is driven by decarbonisation and pollution targets. Currently, Europe, Japan and China are leading the way.

Energy efficiency and product cost are the most important characteristics, as heat pumps compete mainly with combusting type water heating equipment. Regulation is driving the adoption of lower GWP refrigerants, and noise level is becoming an important characteristic. The need to achieve high efficiency, low cost, low GWP and low noise represents a major challenge for equipment manufacturers.

As the heating-only heat pumps subsector does not represent a mature market yet, the availability of components at competitive price is critical. Specifically, compressor must be able to operate at specific heating operation conditions, and refrigerant must be chosen accordingly. For very high-pressure refrigerants, like R-744, there is a need for specific


components and control features, able to operate at very high pressure. Sometimes the other applications in which the same compressor is used (such as commercial refrigeration and air conditioners) drives the refrigerant selection.

In recent years, some refrigerant trends have emerged. For new developments, there is a general tendency to move away from high-GWP refrigerants. For water heating appliances there is a growing usage of R-744, R-290 and HFC-32 as refrigerant. R-290 is fast growing in monobloc equipment, and where the safety restrictions allow to use it. R-744 is applied for heating water for storage at high temperature, as R-744 shows good performance for this application; however, cost and performance for broader heating application are limiting adoption of R-744, particularly in Europe. For larger water heating Heat Pumps, as well as for combined space plus hot water heating Heat Pumps, HFC-32 shows fast-growing usage due to the broad availability of refrigerant and components already qualified for these applications. For areas in the world where there are restrictions on the use of flammable refrigerants, HFCs with higher GWPs are used. Based on upcoming regulations for the phase-down of the carbon impact of HFCs, continued transition to lower GWP refrigerants is expected in coming years.

As reported in the 2020 progress report, R-454C had been introduced for water heating heat-pumps by one manufacturer. Recently, R-454B is also introduced for the use in water heating heat-pumps. Besides the adaptations for using an A2L flammable refrigerant, design changes and production process impacts for using R-454B are limited when changing from R-410A.


7 Updated response to Decision XXX/7: Future availability of halons and their alternatives

Previously, in its response to Decision XXIX/8, the HTOC identified civil aviation as a likely significant contributor to halon emissions through losses from the maintenance and overhaul of aviation fire extinguishers. The Halon Alternatives Research Corporation (HARC) has formed an Aviation Committee that is developing an outreach program to operators (airlines) and Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) operations focused on better understanding and reducing these emissions through best management practices. HARC provided a virtual side-event during the 43rd meeting of the Open-ended Working Group in July 2021.

In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the HTOC raised concern that the economic downturn caused by the global response to the pandemic would have a lasting impact on the halon 1301 sector. The effect of the pandemic on global aviation (a 60% decrease in passenger traffic in 2020 vs. 2019) is illustrated in Figure 8.1.

It is widely reported and accepted that some civil aviation activities will be negatively impacted for the next few years. Airframe manufacturers have lowered their production rates and lowered their forecasts for aircraft sales for the next several years. Their internal predictions are that growth rates will not return to pre-COVID-19 levels for at least five years. Additionally, airlines appear to have accelerated decommissioning their older, less efficient aircraft. As of July 2021, a survey of 34 airlines indicated that the aggregate fleet has been reduced from 11,853 aircraft to 8,960, a reduction of 24%. Furthermore, of this reduced fleet another 1,306 aircraft (15%) are currently grounded. Whilst the fleet reduction does appear to be permanent, it is not known at this time whether these aircraft have been broken for spare parts, including the halon 1301 in the fire protection systems.

Figure 8.1: Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Global Aviation. Source: ICAO Conference80F

0

Other continuing halon 1301 users may also have had impacts but it is not nearly as likely that those impacts were as far reaching or will be as long-lived as those in civil aviation. For example, there may have been some temporary reductions in merchant shipping, which would

0 “Effects of Novel Coronavirus, (COVID‐19) on Civil Aviation: Economic Impact Analysis”, Montréal, Canada, 29 June 2021, ICAO Air Transport Bureau


resume as economies improve. On the other hand, it is possible that there was an increase in decommissioning and breaking of older ships that were fitted with halon 1301 for fire protection. Other sectors such as oil and gas, military and telecommunications may also have had short-term impacts, but none report expecting any long-term impacts to halon 1301 uses and/or emissions.

A major question that was raised by the HTOC last year was if the economic impacts caused by the COVID-19 pandemic would present a new opportunity to understand the installed amounts and emissions (i.e., needs) of halon 1301 from the enduring uses that was never possible before. For example, did emissions by region change or did emissions change in relation to civil aviation flights or flight hours that could be directly attributed to change in operations from the pandemic? The HTOC has received the latest estimates of global emissions based on atmospheric abundances, provided in Figure 2, which does not show any major decrease in halon 1301 emissions during 2020, and might actually show a small increase. Since we know that civil aviation flight hours dropped by 60% during the pandemic, this would appear to suggest that global emissions do not correlate well with civil aviation flight operations. In other words, total global emissions do not seem to be dependent on the number or duration of civil aviation flights. This does not necessarily mean that civil aviation is not the cause of some of or even a significant amount of the emissions but rather that a different part of the aviation lifecycle such as fire extinguisher maintenance could be responsible for much of these emissions. The HTOC is working cooperatively with ICAO, civil aviation non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and working groups, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), maritime / merchant shipping NGOs, and other halon 1301 sector experts to continue to understand the implications of these data to update the modelling and estimates for current and projected halon 1301 market in terms of uses, installed base and annual emissions. This remains a significant task for the HTOC and will be reported to the parties as part of its upcoming 2022 Quadrennial Assessment.

7.1. Global Halon 1301 emissions

There are two different approaches that are provided in the HTOC Assessment reports on estimating halon 1301 emissions: (1) the HTOC model (in grey in Figure 2), and (2) estimates derived from measured atmospheric abundances combined with its atmospheric lifetime (the blue in Figure 2).


Figure 8.2. Comparison of halon 1301 emissions from the HTOC model versus the latest estimates derived from atmospheric abundances

In general, the agreement between the two different approaches is remarkably good. However, there have been two recent periods where the emissions estimated from atmospheric measurements are higher than the HTOC modelled emissions, indicated by the blue and orange circles. The first is from about 2010 to 2016, and the second from about 2018 to 2020.

The HTOC is concerned about these discrepancies because the amount of additional halon 1301 emissions is approximately 2400 and 1100 tonnes respectively, or a total of 3500 tonnes of halon 1301. This represent 10% of the bank estimated by the HTOC model in 2021, meaning that there could be 10% less halon 1301 in the global bank than HTOC estimates if these “extra” emissions are coming from the current bank of halons. The HTOC is continuing to work with atmospheric scientists from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE) network to determine if additional data analysis can provide any insight into these emissions.


8 Decision XXXI/8 and TEAP matters

8.1. Response to Decision XXXI/8

At the 31st MOP, decision XXXI/8, “Terms of reference of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its technical options committees and temporary subsidiary bodies – procedures relevant to nominations,” states the following:

“…To request the Panel to provide, as part of its annual progress report, a summary outlining the procedures that the Panel and its technical options committees have undertaken to ensure adherence to the Panel’s terms of reference through clear and transparent procedures, including full consultations with the focal points, in line with the terms of reference, regarding:

a) nomination processes, taking into account the matrix of needed expertise and already available expertise;

b) proposed nominations and appointment decisions; c) termination of appointments; and d) replacements;

The challenge to TEAP and TOC leadership remains to identify candidates with technical expertise and time as well as relevant experience, in order for TEAP to continue to meet the significant demands of delivering outputs to support the deliberations of parties, without loss of continuity. One useful approach taken by TEAP and its TOCs is to appoint new experts in the required technical areas into TEAP Task Forces, where these new appointees can demonstrate their experience, knowledge, ability to communicate and write, and their capacity to contribute and work to consensus. Some of these experts can become TOC or TEAP members should the parties request further studies on such new technical areas.

In the previous decision XXX/15, “Review of the terms of reference, composition, balance, fields of expertise and workload of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel”, the parties requested the Ozone Secretariat to prepare a document, in consultation with the TEAP on the ongoing efforts made by the Panel to respond to changing circumstances of the Protocol, including the Kigali Amendment in relation to TEAP’s terms of reference under decision XXIV/8 (TOR), composition, geographgical and gender balance, representation of A5 parties and needed expertise. The Ozone Secretariat prepared a document 81F

0 in consultation with the TEAP, on the ongoing efforts made by the Panel to respond to changing circumstances of the Protocol, including the Kigali Amendment in relation to TOR, composition, geographical and gender balance, representation of A5 parties and needed expertise. The sections of that document, relevant to TEAP’s response to the current decisions XXXI/8 (i.e., related to nominations and appointments under TOR), are summarized below.

8.1.1. Nomination processes, taking into account the matrix of needed expertise and already available expertise

Under TEAP’s mandates from parties, TEAP continuously works to identifying appropriate expertise and finding qualified candidates who are interested and available to serve. TEAP takes into consideration of its current pool of experts, with the potential loss of expertise, through attrition or lack of support, and the need for specific and cross-cutting expertise within TOCs and the TEAP itself. TEAP communicates these needs to parties through its annual progress reports and the matrix of needed expertise.

To facilitate the submission of nominations by the parties, the terms of reference instructs the Panel and its TOCs to draw up guidelines for the nomination of experts. It is stipulated that “the TEAP/TOCs will publicize a matrix of expertise available and the expertise needed in 0 Available at http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop-31/presession/Background%20Documents/OEWG-41-4E.pdf


the TEAP/TOCs so as to facilitate submission of appropriate nominations by the parties. The matrix must include the need for geographic and expertise balance and provide consistent information on expertise that is available and required. The matrix would include the name and affiliation and the specific expertise required including on different alternatives. The TEAP/TOCs, acting through their respective co-chairs, shall ensure that the matrix is updated at least once a year and shall publish the matrix on the Secretariat website and in the Panel’s annual progress reports. The TEAP/TOCs shall also ensure that the information in the matrix is clear, sufficient and consistent as far as is appropriate between the TEAP and TOCs and balanced to allow a full understanding of needed expertise” (TOR 2.9).

Annex 1 of this report provides updated TOC membership lists, including the current terms of appointment for all members. Each TOC describes the expertise that is currently available and the expertise that is needed.

The TOR specify that “nominations of members to the TEAP, including co-chairs of the TEAP and TOCs, must be made by individual parties to the Secretariat through their respective national focal points. Such nominations will be forwarded to the Meeting of the Parties for consideration. The TEAP co-chairs shall ensure that any potential nominee identified by TEAP for appointment to the Panel, including co-chairs of TEAP and the TOCs, is agreed to by the national focal points of the relevant party. A member of TEAP, the TOCs or the TSBs shall not be a current representative of a party to the Montreal Protocol” (TOR 2.2.1).

For TOCs or temporary subsidiary bodies (TSBs), the TOR require all nominations to be made in full consultation with the national focal point of the relevant party. The TOR further state that “all nominations to the TOCs and TSBs shall be made in full consultation with the national focal point of the relevant party. Nominations of members to a TOC (other than TOC co-chairs) may also be made by individual parties or TEAP and TOC co-chairs may suggest to individual parties experts to consider nominating. Nominations to a TSB (including TSB co-chairs) can be made by the TEAP co-chairs” (TOR 2.2.2).

8.1.2. Proposed nominations and appointment decisions

Ensuring relevant and sufficient technical expertise is the priority consideration for the Panel and its committees. The need to maintain a reasonable size and balance, to avoid the duplication of expertise and to ensure that particular gaps in expertise gap are filled, means that experts nominated by parties may sometimes be declined or that their consideration may be deferred by the committee co-chairs in consultation with the Panel co-chairs. Although the committee co-chairs take into account A5/non-A5, gender and geographical balance, relevant technical expertise can outweigh those other considerations.

Nominations are currently made through a standardised nomination form, that may include a curriculum vitae, and which is available on the Ozone Secretariat’s website 82F

0. If information is not already included in the curriculum vitae of the nominee, the standardised form requests relevant information such as education and other qualifications, relevant employment history, publications, awards, memberships, and references.

It is helpful when there is consultation between the parties and the co-chairs of the Panel and/or the relevant committee on potential nominations for the positions of co-chairs of the Panel or the committees. In the case of nominations or nominations for reappointment for the position of members in a committee, the committee co-chairs consult with the Panel co-chairs and the relevant national focal points.

0 https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap


The TOCs committees also receive nominations for the position of members directly from parties. In determining whether to accept or decline a nomination, the committee co-chairs, in consultation with the Panel as appropriate, consider the expertise of the nominee taking into account the expertise needed by the relevant committee, and also the balance of A5/non-A5, geographical and gender. The gaps in the expertise within the committees are presented in the matrix of needed expertise and annual progress reports. It has been the practice that nominations for committee membership and appointments to the committee can be made at any time, which has worked well in promptly sourcing the needed expertise and flexibly responding to the constant and yet changing workloads of some committees.

As specified in section 2.3 of the TOR, upon nomination by the relevant party, parties appoint members of the panel upon nomination by the relevant party for periods of up to four years each. As specified in section 2.5 of the TOR, the “TOC members are appointed by the TOC co-chairs, in consultation with TEAP, for a period of no more than four years.”

8.1.3. Termination of appointments

Section 2.7 of the TOR specify that “[members] of TEAP, a TOC or a TSB may relinquish their position at any time by notifying in writing as appropriate the co-chairs of the TEAP, TOC or TSB and the relevant party.”

Furthermore, the “TEAP can dismiss a member of TEAP, the TOCs and the TSBs, including co-chairs of those bodies, by a two-thirds majority vote of TEAP…[and a] dismissed member has the right to appeal to the next Meeting of the Parties through the Secretariat.” The terms of reference require that the TEAP co-chairs inform the relevant party of dismissed members.

8.1.4. Replacements

Section 2.8 of the TOR specifies that “[if] a member of TEAP, including TOC co-chairs, relinquishes or is unable to function including if he or she was dismissed by TEAP, the Panel, after consultation with the nominating party, can temporarily appoint a replacement from among its bodies for the time up to the next Meeting of the Parties, if necessary to complete its work.” For the appointment of a temporary replacement TEAP member, the TOR procedure as described above is followed.

8.2. TEAP Assessment Report

At the 31st Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in November 2019, Parties adopted Decision XXXI/2 requesting the SAP, the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) and the TEAP to prepare their 2022 assessment reports and submit them to the Secretariat by 31 December 2022 for consideration by the Open-ended Working Group and the Meeting of the Parties in 2023, and to present a synthesis report by 30 April 2023. In paragraph 6 of that decision, the Parties requested the TEAP, in its 2022 Assessment Report, to include an assessment and evaluation of the following topics:

a) Technical progress in the production and consumption sectors in the transition to technically and economically feasible and sustainable alternatives and practices that minimize or eliminate the use of controlled substances in all sectors;

b) The status of banks and stocks of controlled substances and the options available for managing them so as to avoid emissions to the atmosphere;

c) Challenges facing all parties to the Montreal Protocol in implementing Montreal Protocol obligations and maintaining the phase-outs already achieved, especially those on substitutes and substitution technologies, including challenges for parties related to feedstock uses and by-production to prevent emissions, and potential technically and economically feasible options to face those challenges;


d) The impact of the phase-out of controlled ozone-depleting substances and the phase-down of HFCs on sustainable development;

e) Technical advancements in developing alternatives to HFCs suitable for usage in countries with high ambient temperatures, particularly with regard to energy efficiency and safety.

In response to Decision XXXI/2, the five TOCs have started planning and organizing its members to prepare their individual 2022 Assessment Reports, which address new developments and worldwide progress in the transition away from ODS and HFCs in the various sectors of use. The main findings from the TOC Assessment Reports will be integrated into the 2022 TEAP Assessment Report.

The decision also notes that the panels should continue to exchange information during the process of developing their respective reports in order to avoid duplication and to provide comprehensive information to the parties to the Montreal Protocol. TEAP intends to continue its coordination with both panels. With the EEAP, TEAP intends to continue to work through its MCTOC to exchange information and coordinate its reporting related to, among other things, the potential health and environmental effects of existing and emerging alternatives for ODS and HFCs in the various sectors of use. With the SAP, TEAP intends to continue the successful collaboration exemplified on the CFC-11 issue between the TEAP CFC-11 Task Force and SAP experts to produce its reports this year. TEAP and SAP are working to identify where TEAP input on crossover topics in the SAP report may be helpful and vice versa including work to reconcile atmospheric observations with updated models for sector and global transitions from ODS and HFCs. With the support of the Ozone Secretariat, TEAP looks forward to further coordination in face-to-face future meetings with the other Panels on these reports.

8.3. TEAP and TOCs organisational and other matters

TEAP currently includes 20 members including 3 co-chairs, 13 TOC co-chairs and 5 Senior Experts (one of the TEAP co-chairs is also a TOC co-chair). In addition, almost 150 experts serve on its five TOCs. Annex 1 of this report provides current TOC membership lists, which include the end dates for the current terms of appointment for all members. TOC co-chairs continue to assess the mix of skills required within the TOCs to meet the demands of its work under the continuing phase-out of ODS under the Montreal Protocol and the phase-down of HFCs under the Kigali Amendment.

TEAP welcomes the opportunity to further engage with Parties to address these challenges to the functioning of the TEAP and its TOCs going forward and remains committed to providing parties with independent, technical consensus reports to support their work.

TEAP takes a broad and long-term view of its work for parties going forward under these mandates, its current pool of experts, the potential loss of expertise through attrition or lack of support, and the need for specific and cross-cutting expertise. TEAP is continuously working to identify relevant expertise and qualified candidates who are interested and available to serve in these positions. TEAP will communicate these needs to parties through its annual progress report and the matrix of needed expertise. TEAP seeks to discuss with Parties how to engage experts in these areas, mindful of its need for geographical and gender balance and its annual workload.

TEAP takes this opportunity to bring to parties’ attention information relevant to each TOC:


8.3.1. FTOC

FTOC members currently have expertise in: Producing and handling foam blowing agents; foam formulation; foam production, processing, machinery, (XPS, spray foam, appliance etc.) and life cycle analysis; emissions and banks modeling; certification testing for foams; regulations related to foams; global foam markets including forecasting future production; historical knowledge of foams, foam blowing agents, regulations, and the Montreal Protocol; the building envelope and reducing energy demand from buildings; appliance design and production energy efficiency. The FTOC was unable to meet in person as planned in 2020 due to the pandemic. However, discussions were held virtually via teleconferences with considerable participation of members. The FTOC continues to face challenges with some member participation.

FTOC is seeking additional experts to provide expertise in A5 extruded polystyrene production in India and China replacing experts that left the FTOC. FTOC also seeks polyurethane system house technical experts from southern Africa, the Middle East, or Mexico (especially from small and medium enterprises), which have experienced challenges in the transition from HCFC-141b. FTOC seeks additional foam chemistry experts globally and expertise in building science related to energy efficiency from A5 or non-A5 parties.

8.3.2. HTOC

The Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) met 4-6 March 2020 at the United Nations Industrial Development Organization in Vienna, Austria. Twelve members attended from the following countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, India, Japan, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). Six members could not attend because of travel restrictions owing to the COVID-19 virus.

Since the 2020 meeting the HTOC has been convening monthly virtual meetings (each meeting being held twice to account for different time zones). No face-to-face meeting was posssible in 2021, owing to COVID-19 travel restrictions.

The HTOC is seeking to recruit additional members in the following five areas to broaden or expand expertise, while also being mindful of A5/non-A5, regional and gender balance: 1) fire protection applications in civil aviation, especially maintenance, repair and overhaul (called MRO) activities, in A5 and non-A5 parties, 2) general civil aviation fire protection applications in A5 parties, in particular South East Asia, 3) use of alternatives to halons, HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs and their market penetration in A5 parties, particularly in Africa, South America and South Asia, 4) banking and supplies of halons, HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs and their alternatives in A5 parties, particularly in Africa and South America, and 5) in ship breaking activities from A5 or non-A5 parties with particular expertise in quantities of halons, HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs and their alternatives contained on ships, and amounts recovered by ship class during ship breaking operations.

8.3.3. MBTOC

MBTOC met virtually in early March 2020. Membership continues to be at a historical low with 16 members (including one economist). The current expertise in soils, structures and commodities and QPS is adequate to complete the current tasks.

MBTOC is still seeking to recruit experts for the nursery industries, especially the issues affecting the strawberry runner industries globally, experts in emission reduction technologies and experts in QPS treatments for pests in commodities traded globally.


8.3.4. MCTOC

Face-to-face meetings were impossible due to COVID-19 and MCTOC’s progress report was developed online and through electronic means. 2022 assessment report discussions are planned for online meetings in the second half of 2021.

At the end of 2020, MCTOC had 5 members whose 4-year terms of appointment ended, 4 of whom were reappointed for additional terms of up to 4 years: Kathleen Hoffmann (medical (sterilants), US); Ryan Hulse (chemicals, US); Andrew Lindley (chemicals, UK); John G Owens (chemicals, US). With sincere gratitude, MCTOC congratulates You Yizhong (medical (metered dose inhalers) and aerosols, China) for his many years of voluntary service to the Montreal Protocol. You Yizhong will continue as a consulting expert to MCTOC until the end of the 2022 Assessment cycle. With sincere gratitude, MCTOC congratulates Hans Porre (chemicals (process agents), Netherlands) on his retirement and for his many years of voluntary service to the Montreal Protocol. Following a nomination from one party, 1 new member, Jin Fang (medical (metered dose inhalers), China) has been appointed. Considering additional expertise needs, a further 2 new members, Andrea Casazza (medical (metered dose inhalers), Italy) and Gerallt Williams (medical (metered dose inhalers), UK), have been appointed, following their nomination and in consultation with national focal points of the relevant parties, in accordance with TEAP’s terms of reference.

MCTOC seeks new members to strengthen expertise in the following identified key knowledge areas: destruction technologies; metered dose inhalers (an academic and/or clinician who is a medical expert in carbon footprints and environmental impacts of inhalers); and aerosols.

8.3.5. RTOC

During the 2020-2021 pandemic RTOC met virtually twice, on 9-10-11 September 2020, and 14-15-16 April 2021. Both meetings were held for two hours per day, using the Webex platform that was provided by the Ozone Secretariat.

The first meeting’s main goal was to get agreement from all members to a new format for the 2022 RTOC Assessment Report (AR2022).

After that consensus was reached on the format for the 2022 Assessment Report, the second meeting’s main objective was the revision of the Zero Order Draft and for the release of the guidelines for the preparation of the First Order Draft, which is planned for completion in early September 2021 and to be discussed at the RTOC 2021 fall meeting, scheduled for the end of September 2021.

The structure of the AR2022 will be vertically organized in the same way as the previous RTOC AR2018, maintaining the Chapter Lead Authors and Chapters Authors structure. It has the following Chapters (in sequence):


During the second RTOC meeting in April 2021, it was decided to produce an RTOC Technical Note (TN) on “The Vaccines Cold Chain”, to be prepared by RTOC volunteers and coordinated by RTOC co-chairs Omar Abdelaziz and Roberto Peixoto.The Technical Note was finalized around mid-June 2021 and posted on the Ozone Secretariat website as an Advance Copy. It is also attached to the present Progress Report.

At the second RTOC meeting in April 2021 the following work schedule was decided.

Draft Time Meeting

1st-Order September 2021 2021 Fall

2nd-Order March 2022 2022 Spring

Semi final (for review) May 2022

Final December 2022

During the 2020-2021 pandemic, the RTOC membership stood at 42 members (i.e., as of January 2020). This large RTOC membership exceeds the proposal in the TEAP TOR for the size of TOCs (it mentions “about 20 members”). However, this large size is of utmost importance to ensure adequate and sufficient expertise within this committee, which must cover several inter-related subsectors.

The large size of the RTOC is also considered important for allowing the use of a sub-committee structure, considered as the efficient mode to deal with the many types of RACHP applications. It enables RTOC members to share work on the various TEAP Task Forces which are necessary to respond to recent (and future) decisions taken by parties in relation to the RACHP sector.


8.4. Continuing challenges

The twenty months since the last Meeting of the Parties in Rome in 2019 has been a uniquely challenging period for the TEAP, its TOCs, and its three TSBs which have continued with an extended mandate (Replenishment Task Force, CFC-11 Task Force, Energy Efficiency Task Force). With the exception of the RTF attending the 85th Executive Committee in Montreal in December 2019, all meetings have been virtual and all reports completed through online coordination. This has been difficult from many perspectives especially the wide spread time-zones reducing the length and functionality of meetings which has required participation in many more virtual meetings of our experts. The Task Forces in particular can have many temporary members, and the absence of face-to-face discussions limits the opportunity to hear all opinions and come to true consensus. Nevertheless, all reports have been completed and submitted on time with the outstanding support of the Ozone Secretariat.

TEAP and its TOCs are now working towards the 2022 Assessment Report, for which TEAP and its TOCs have structured its membership and workload to complete its reports at the end of 2022. TEAP continues to review its organization and structure to ensure that TEAP and its TOCS are structured in size and expertise to support future efforts of the parties to phase out ODS and phase down HFCs.

The workload related to the tasks assigned to TEAP and its TOCs has continued to grow with members of TEAP and TOCs often concurrently serving on TEAP Task Forces adding to the workload and making it difficult to meet deadlines. This has been exacerbated by the virtual meetings and on-line reporting. To ensure that the functioning of the TEAP and its TOCs continue providing timely assessments to support the discussions of parties, both TEAP and the parties may need to consider the overall annual workload, the deadlines for delivery and the support provided to TEAP, at the time of making decisions requesting this work.

TOCs continue to be challenged with attrition through retirement of members and loss of expertise. This is of growing concern to the consensus process of the committees where a range of independent expert opinions is necessary. Absence of funding is of growing concern for TOC and TSB co-chairs, with the substantial administrative responsibility to bring their respective groups to consensus, generate draft reports, and then deliver final products within strict deadlines. The members of TEAP and its TOCs provide their expertise and work on a voluntary basis and many are finding the increasing time commitment and overall workload required difficult/impossible to manage in the context of a full-time occupation.

TEAP is well aware of the need to re-invigorate its membership and leadership, whilst maintaining involvement of TOC and senior expert members with substantial experience to ensure the continuity of its work for Parties. In view of the Kigali Amendment, TEAP has also made progress in recruiting contributing members with the expertise needed. The challenge to TEAP and TOC leadership remains to identify candidates with adequate history and experience as well as technical expertise and time, in order for TEAP to continue to meet the significant demands of delivering outputs to support the deliberations of parties, without loss of continuity. The main approach taken by TEAP and its TOCs is to appoint experts in the required technical areas, to contribute into TEAP Task Forces, and/or TOCs, where new appointees can share their experience, knowledge, ability to communicate and write, and their capacity to contribute in a timely manner. Some of these experts could become TOC or TEAP members should the parties request further studies on such new technical areas.


Annex 1: TEAP and TOC membership and administration

The disclosure of interest (DOI) of each member can be found on the Ozone Secretariat website at: https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap. The disclosures are normally updated at the time of TEAP’s annual meeting (normally in April/ May). TEAP’s Terms of Reference (TOR) (2.3) as approved by the Parties in Decision XXIV/8 specify that “… the Meeting of the Parties shall appoint the members of TEAP for a period of no more than four years…and may re-appoint Members of the Panel upon nomination by the relevant party for additional periods of up to four years each.”. TEAP member appointments end as of 31 December of the final year of appointment, as indicated in the following tables.

TEAP’s TOR (2.5) specifies that “TOC members are appointed by the TOC co-chairs, in consultation with TEAP, for a period of no more than four years…[and] may be re-appointed following the procedure for nominations for additional periods of up to four years each.” New appointments to a TOC start from the date of appointment by TOC co-chairs and end as of 31st December of the final year of appointment, up to four years.

1. Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) 2021

TEAP is presently composed of three co-chairs, the co-chairs of the Technical Options Committees and five senior experts as indicated in Table 1 below.

Table 1: TEAP Membership at August 2021

Co-chairs Affiliation Country Appointed throughBella Maranion U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency US 2024

Marta Pizano Independent Expert Colombia 2022Ashley Woodcock Manchester University NHS

Foundation TrustUK 2022

Senior Experts Affiliation Country Appointed throughSuely Machado Carvalho Independent Expert Brazil 2023Ray Gluckman Gluckman Consulting UK 2021*Marco Gonzalez Independent Expert Costa Rica 2021*Rajendra Shende Terre Policy Centre India 2021*Shiqiu Zhang Centre of Env. Sciences, Peking

UniversityChina 2022

TOC Chairs Affiliation Country Appointed throughOmar Abdelaziz Zewail City of Science and

TechnologyEgypt 2023

Paulo Altoé Independent Expert Brazil 2024Adam Chattaway Collins Aerospace UK 2024Sergey Kopylov Russian Res. Institute for Fire

ProtectionRussian Fed. 2021*

Kei-ichi Ohnishi AGC, Inc. Japan 2023Roberto. Peixoto Maua Institute (IMT), Sao Paulo Brazil 2021*Fabio Polonara Universitá Politecnica delle

MarcheItaly 2022

Ian Porter La Trobe University Australia 2021*Helen Tope Energy International Australia Australia 2021*Daniel P. Verdonik Jensen Hughes Inc US 2024Helen Walter-Terrinoni Air conditioning, Heating and

Refrigeration InstituteUS 2021*

Jianjun Zhang Zhejiang Chemical Industry Research Institute

PRC 2023



* Indicates members whose terms expire at the end of the current year2. TEAP Flexible and Rigid Foams Technical Options Committee (FTOC)

FTOC members currently have expertise in: Producing and handling foam blowing agents; foam formulation; foam production (XPS, Spray Foam, appliance etc.) and life cycle analysis; emissions and banks modeling; certification testing for foams; regulations related to foams; global foam markets including forecasting future production; historical knowledge of foams, foam blowing agents, regulations, and the Montreal Protocol; the building envelope and reducing energy demand from buildings; appliance design and production energy efficiency.

Needed expertise: FTOC is seeking additional experts to provide expertise in A5 extruded polystyrene

production in India and China replacing experts that left the FTOC. FTOC also seeks polyurethane system house technical experts from southern Africa, the Middle East, or Mexico (especially from small and medium enterprises) as they seem to continue to face challenges in the transition from HCFC-141b.

FTOC seeks additional foam chemistry experts globally and expertise in building science related to energy efficiency from A5 or non A5 parties.

Table 2: FTOC Membership at August 2021

Co-chairs Affiliation Country Appointed throughHelen Walter-Terrinoni The Air Conditioning, Heating

and Refrigeration InstituteUS 2021*

Paulo Altoé Independent Expert Brazil 2024Members Affiliation Country Appointed throughPaul Ashford Anthesis UK 2021*Kultida Charoensawad Covestro Thailand 2021*Roy Chowdhury Foam Supplies Australia 2024Joseph Costa Arkema US 2024Gwyn Davis Kingspan UK 2022Gabrielle Dreyfus Climate Works US 2022Rick Duncan Spray Polyurethane Association US 2024Koichi Wada Japan Urethane Industry Institute Japan 2022Ilhan Karaağaç Kingspan Turkey 2024Shpresa Kotaji Huntsman Belgium 2022Simon Lee Independent Expert US 2022Yehia Lotfi Technocom Egypt 2022Miguel Quintero Independent Expert Colombia 2021*Sascha Rulhoff Haltermann Germany 2022Enshan Sheng Huntsman China 2022Dave Williams Honeywell US 2022Consulting Experts Affiliation Country One-year renewable

termsSally Rand Independent Expert US

* Indicates members whose terms expire at the end of the current year


3. TEAP Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC)

Following the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, the role of the Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) has broadened to cover low/no-GWP alternatives to halons, HCFCs, and high-GWP HFCs. However, the Kigali amendment does not necessarily bring the need for any additional areas of expertise in fire protection because the uses remains unchanged, although additional expertise for regional or sub-regional considerations will be needed. From a fire safety standpoint, the HTOC remains concerned that the flammability of refrigerants, foam blowing agents and solvents requires fire protection expertise which almost exclusively resides in the HTOC within the TEAP. The HTOC remains available to assist in this area.

Generally speaking, the HTOC maintains expertise in the following five main areas:

1) a fundamental scientific understanding of fire chemistry and the process of combustion and fire extinguishment, and technical and economic expertise in fire protection needs, active and passive methods, system maintenance and personnel training.

2) the use of halons, HCFCs, high-GWP HFCs and their alternatives in fire protection, including emissions and installed amounts (bank estimates),

3) “banking” i.e., collection, recycling/reclamation, and re-deployment of fire extinguishants including their application standards, purity requirements, and destruction issues,

4) issues impacting current and future use, e.g., continued reliance on halons for existing uses in military, oil and gas, merchant shipping, etc., and for existing/new installations in civil aviation, and phase-down requirements of fire protections uses of high GWP HFCs. This includes modelling of remaining quantities and emissions of halons, and growth of HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs.

5) In addition, the HTOC maintains an understanding of the workings of the Montreal Protocol and how lessons learned in phasing out production and consumption of halons, for example, on some applications could be reapplied in phasing out the production and consumption of HCFCs and phasing down the high-GWP HFCs under the Kigali Amendment.

Within the five main areas, the expertise is further divided into sectoral expertise and regional expertise. From a sectoral perspective, the HTOC has experts on fire protection requirements for on-going uses of halons, HCFCs, high-GWP HFCs and their alternatives within civil aviation, military, telecommunications, oil and gas, power generation, merchant shipping, explosion protection, etc. The HTOC also maintains expertise in banking and recycling of halons, HCFCs, high GWP HFCs and their alternatives.

From a regional standpoint, the HTOC has expertise covering North America, Eastern and Western Europe, Australia and Japan, with some limited expertise in Anglophone North Africa (Egypt), the Middle East (Kuwait), South America (Brazil), Asia (India and World Bank expertise on halon production phase-out in China). As noted in the matrix of expertise needed, the HTOC is continuing to look for additional experts to promote A5/non-A5 and regional balance while also being mindful of gender balance.

Needed expertise:The HTOC is seeking to recruit additional members in the following five areas to broaden or expand expertise, while also being mindful of A5/non-A5, regional and gender balance: 1) fire protection applications in civil aviation, especially maintenance, repair and overhaul (called MRO) activities, in A5 and non-A5 parties, 2) general civil aviation fire protection


applications in A5 parties, in particular South East Asia, 3) use of alternatives to halons, HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs and their market penetration in A5 parties, particularly in Africa, South America and South Asia, 4) banking and supplies of halons, HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs and their alternatives in A5 parties, particularly in Africa and South America, and 5) in ship breaking activities from A5 or non-A5 parties with particular expertise in quantities of halons, HCFCs and high-GWP HFCs and their alternatives contained on ships, and amounts recovered by ship class during ship breaking operations.

Table 3: HTOC Membership at August 2021

Co-chairs Affiliation Country Appointed through

Adam Chattaway Collins Aerospace UK 2024Sergey N. Kopylov Russian Res. Institute for Fire Protection Russian Fed. 2021*Daniel P. Verdonik Jensen Hughes, Inc. USA 2024Members Affiliation Country Appointed

throughJamal Alfuzaie Independent Expert Kuwait 2022Johan Åqvist FMV Sweden 2023Youri Auroque European Aviation Safety Agency France 2023Michelle M. Collins Independent Expert - EECO International USA 2022Khaled Effat Modern Systems Engineering Egypt 2021**Carlos Grandi Independent Expert Brazil 2020*Laura Green Hilcorp Alaska, LLC USA 2020*Elvira Nigido A-Gas Australia Australia 2024Emma Palumbo Safety Hi-tech srl Italy 2022Erik Pedersen Independent Expert Denmark 2020*R.P. Singh CFEES, DRDO India 2024Donald Thomson MOPIA Canada 2020*Mitsuru Yagi Nohmi Bosai Ltd & Fire and Environment

Prot. NetworkJapan 2024

Consulting Experts Affiliation Country One-year renewable terms

Clare Bowens The Gas Xchange UKThomas Cortina Halon Alternatives Research Corporation USAJoshua R. Fritsch United States Army USAMatsuo Ishiyama Nohmi Bosai Ltd & Fire and Environment

Prot. NetworkJapan

Nikolai Kopylov Russian Res. Institute for Fire Protection Russian Fed.Steve McCormick United States Army (alternate) USAJohn G. Owens 3M Company USAJohn J. O’Sullivan Bureau Veriitas UKMark L. Robin Chemours USAJoseph A. Senecal FireMetrics LLC USASidney de Brito Teixeira

Embraer Brazil

* Indicates reappointment in progress for members whose terms expired at the end of 2020** Indicates members whose terms expire at the end of the current year


4. TEAP Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC)

The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee brings together expertise on controlled and exempted (QPS) uses of methyl bromide and their technically and economically feasible alternatives. Members are experts on the control and management of soilborne pests and pathogens attacking various crops where methyl bromide is used (currently under the Critical Use exemption) or was used in the past; pest control in a variety of stored commodities and structures; and alternatives for controlling quarantine pests and pathogens. Members have research, regulatory and commercial experience.

Needed expertise: MBTOC is seeking to recruit experts for the nursery industries, especially the issues

affecting the strawberry runner industries globally Experts in emission reduction technologies for commodity treatments for quarantine

pests Experts on QPS treatments for pests in exported and imported commodities traded

globally, particularly from A5 parties

Table 4: MBTOC Membership at August 2021


Marta Pizano Independent Expert Colombia 2021*Ian Porter La Trobe University Australia 2021*Members Affiliation Country Appointed

throughJonathan Banks Independent Expert Australia 2022Mohamed Besri Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire

Hassan IIMorocco 2021*

Fred Bergwerff Oxylow BV Netherlands 2021*Aocheng Cao Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences China 2022Ayze Ozdem Plant Protection Central Research Institute Turkey 2022Ken Glassey MAFF – NZ New Zealand 2022Eduardo Gonzalez Fumigator Philippines 2022Takashi Misumi MAFF – Japan Japan 2022Christoph Reichmuth

Honorary Professor – Humboldt University

Germany 2022

Jordi Riudavets IRTA – Department of Plant Protection Spain 2022Akio Tateya Technical Adviser, Syngenta Japan 2022Alejandro Valeiro Nat. Institute for Ag. Technology Argentina 2022Nick Vink University of Stellenbosch South Africa 2022Tim Widmer USDA US 2023



5. TEAP Medical and Chemicals Technical Options Committee (MCTOC)

The Medical and Chemicals Technical Options Committee brings together expertise on metered dose inhalers and their alternatives, aerosols, sterilants, feedstock uses of controlled substances, solvent and process agent applications, chemical substances of interest because of their ozone depletion or greenhouse warming potentials, laboratory and analytical uses, and destruction of controlled substances. Members are experts in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and their treatment, pharmaceutical manufacturing and marketing, aerosols manufacturing and markets, hospital and industrial sterilisation of medical equipment, chemicals manufacturing and markets, laboratory and analytical procedures, and destruction technologies. Members have research, academic, clinical, regulatory, laboratory, industrial, business and commercial experience.

Needed expertise: Destruction technologies, including knowledge of available technologies and their

application. MDIs, in particular an academic and/or clinician who is a medical expert in carbon

footprints and environmental impacts of inhalers. Aerosols, including development of new propellants and new aerosol products and

components.

Table 5: MCTOC Membership as of August 2021


Kei-ichi Ohnishi AGC Inc. Japan 2023Helen Tope Planet Futures Australia 2021*Jianjun Zhang Zhejiang Chemical Industry Research Institute China 2023Members Affiliation Country Appointed

throughEmmanuel Addo-Yobo Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and

TechnologyGhana 2022

Fatima Al-Shatti Consultant to the International Ozone Committee of the Kuwait Environmental Protection Authority

Kuwait 2022

Paul Atkins Oriel Therapeutics Inc. (A Novartis Company) USA 2022Bill Auriemma Diversified CPC International USA 2021*Olga Blinova St. Petersburg Pasteur Institute Russia 2022Steve Burns AstraZeneca UK 2021*Nick Campbell Arkema France 2022Andrea Casazza Chiesi Farmaceutici Italy 2024Nee Sun (Robert) Choong Kwet Yive

University of Mauritius Mauritius 2022

Rick Cooke Man-West Environmental Group Ltd. Canada 2021*Maureen George Columbia University School of Nursing USA 2021*Kathleen Hoffmann Sotera Health Company USA 2024Jianxin Hu College of Environmental Sciences & Engineering,

Peking UniversityChina 2022

Ryan Hulse Honeywell USA 2024Fang Jin Guangzhou Medical University China 2024Rabinder Kaul SRF Limited India 2023Javaid Khan The Aga Khan University Pakistan 2022Andrew Lindley Independent consultant to Koura and European

Fluorocarbon Technical Committee (EFCTC)UK 2024

Gerald McDonnell DePuy Synthes, Johnson & Johnson Ireland 2022Robert Meyer Consultant, Greenleaf Health USA 2022B. Narsaiah CSIR-Indian Institute of Chemical Technology

(Retired)India 2021*

Timothy J. Noakes Koura UK 2022


John G. Owens 3M USA 2024Jose Pons Spray Quimica Venezuela 2023John Pritchard Independent Consultant, Inspiring Strategies UK 2022Rabbur Reza Beximco Pharmaceuticals Bangladesh 2022Christian Sekomo University of Rwanda Rwanda 2023Rajiev Sharma GSK UK 2021*David Sherry Nolan Sherry & Associates Ltd. UK 2023Peter Sleigh Koura UK 2023Jørgen Vestbo Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Denmark 2021*Kristine Whorlow Non-Executive Director Australia 2022Gerallt Williams Aptar Pharma UK 2024Ashley Woodcock Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust UK 2023Lifei Zhang National Research Center for Environmental

Analysis and MeasurementChina 2022

Consulting Experts Affiliation Country One-year renewable terms

Hideo Mori Tokushima Regional Energy JapanYizhong You Journal of Aerosol Communication China



6. TEAP Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee (RTOC)

The RTOC brings together expertise on Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps (RACHP) sectors. Members are experts of: Refrigerants, Domestic refrigeration, Commercial refrigeration, Industrial refrigeration and heat pump systems, Transport refrigeration, Air-to-air conditioners and heat pumps, Water and space heating heat pumps, Chillers, Vehicle air conditioning, Energy efficiency and sustainability applied to refrigeration systems, Not-in-kind technologies, High-Ambient-Temperatures applications, Modelling of RACHP Systems. Members have research, industry activities regulatory and commercial experience.

Needed expertise:After the last appointment of members in 2019, RTOC co-chairs continue to assess current expertise, and to improving gender and geographical balance. RTOC co-chairs, together with the whole members group, are working to review the structure and function of RTOC, in order to manage the increasing workload across the different RACHP subsectors. At present the needed expertise is as follows:

RACHP expert from Sub-Saharan Africa could contribute with the knowledge of the specific requirements of his/her geographical area.

Expert on energy macro-economics aspects related to RAC equipment (from either A5 or non-A5 parties) could provide national, regional, and international analysis related to equipment energy efficiency, energy consumption, and market trends.

Table 6: RTOC Membership at August 31st,2021

Co-chairs Affiliation Party Appointedthrough

1 Abdelaziz, Omar Zewail City of Science and Techn. Egypt 20232 Peixoto, Roberto de A. Maua Institute, IMT, Sao Paulo Brazil 2021*3 Polonara, Fabio Univ. Politecnica Marche, Ancona Italy 2022

Members Affiliation Party Appointedthrough

4 Maria C. Britto Bacellar Johnson Controls, JCI Brazil 2021*5 Bhambure, Jitendra Independent expert India 20226 Calm, James M. Engineering Consultant USA 20227 Cermák, Radim Ingersoll Rand Czech Rep. 20228 Chen, Guangming Zhejiang University, Hangzhou PR China 20229 Colbourne, Daniel Re-phridge Consultancy UK 202210 De Vos, Richard GE Appliances USA 202211 Devotta, Sukumar Independent Consultant India 202212 Dieryckx, Martin Daikin Europe N.V, Belgium 202213 Dorman, Dennis Trane Co. USA 202214 Elassaad, Bassam Independent Expert Lebanon 202215 Gluckman Ray Gluckman Consulting UK 202216 Godwin, Dave U.S. EPA USA 202217 Grozdek, Marino University of Zagreb Croatia 202218 Hamed, Samir Petra Industries Jordan 202219 Herlianika Herlin PTAWH Indonesia 2021*20 Janssen, Martien Re/genT B.V. The Netherl. 202221 König, Holger ref-tech consultancy Germany 202222 Kauffeld, Michael Fachhochschule, Karlsruhe Germany 202223 Koban, Mary E. Chemours Co USA 2021*24 Köhler, Jürgen University of Braunschweig Germany 202225 Kuijpers, Lambert A/gent B.V. Consultancy The Netherl. 202226 Lawton, Richard Cambridge Refr. Technology CRT UK 2022


27 Li, Tingxun Guangzhou San Yat Sen University PR China 202228 Malvicino, Carloandrea FCA (Fiat) Italy 202229 Mohan Lal D. Anna University, Chennai India 202230 Mousa, Maher MHM Consultancy Saudi Arabia 202231 Nekså, Petter SINTEF Energy Research Norway 202232 Nelson, Horace Independent expert Jamaica 202233 Okada, Tetsuji JRAIA Japan 202234 Olama, Alaa M. Consultancy Egypt 202235 Pachai, Alexander C. Johnson Controls, JCI Denmark 202236 Pedersen, Per Henrik DTI, Consultant Denmark 202237 Rajendran, Rajan Emerson USA 202238 Rochat, Helene TopTen Switzerland 202239 Rusignuolo, Giorgio UTC Carrier USA 202240 Vonsild, Asbjørn Vonsild Consulting Denmark 202241 Yana Motta, Samuel Honeywell (USA) Peru 202242 Yamaguchi, Hiroichi Toshiba Carrier Co Japan 2022



Annex 2: Matrix of needed expertise

As required by the TEAP TOR an update of the matrix of needed expertise on the TEAP and its TOCs is provided below valid as of August 2021. Ensuring appropriate and sufficient technical expertise is the priority consideration for the TEAP and its committees.

Body Required Expertise A5/ Non-A5

Foams TOC Extruded polystyrene production in India and China

Polyurethane system house technical experts from southern (especially from small and medium enterprises).

Foam chemistry experts globally and expertise in building science related to energy efficiency

Africa, the Middle East, or Mexico

A5 or non-A5

Halons TOC Fire protection applications in civil aviation, especially maintenance, repair and overhaul activities.

General civil aviation fire protection applications in A5 parties, in particular in South East Asia

Knowledge of halons, HCFCs and high-GWP HFC agent use, their alternatives, and their market penetration in A5 parties in Central and South America, South East Asia (including China), and Africa (particularly central and south Africa).

Banking and supplies of halon and alternatives in A5 parties, particularly in Africa and South America

Expanding its knowledge of ship breaking activities from A5 or non-A5 parties particularly on actual quantities of halons recovered from shipbreaking activities, quantities of use of high-GWP HFCs and better knowledge of the anticipated lifetimes of merchant ships.

A5 / non-A5

A5

A5

A5

A5 or non-A5

Methyl Bromide TOC

Nursery industries, especially the issues affecting the strawberry runner industries globally.

QPS uses of MB and their alternatives

A5 or non-A5

A5


Body Required Expertise A5/ Non-A5

Medical and Chemical TOC

Destruction technologies, including knowledge of available technologies and their application

Metered dose inhalers, in particular an academic and/or clinician who is a medical expert in carbon footprints and environmental impacts of inhalers

Aerosols, including development of new propellants and new aerosol products and components.

A5 and/or non-A5

A5 and/or non-A5

A5 and/or non-A5

Refrigeration TOC

RACHP expert with knowledge of the specifc requirements of his/her geographical area.

Expert on energy macro-economics aspects related to RAC equipment to provide national, regional, and international analysis related to equipment energy efficiency, energy consumption, and market trends.

A5, sub-Saharan AfricaA5 or non-A5

A5 or non-A5


Annex 3: Nomination Form

This form is to be completed by:

Parties nominating experts to the TEAP, Technical Options Committees (TOCs), or Temporary Subsidiary Bodies (TSBs)

Please provide a CV detailing the candidate’s previous, relevant employment beginning with the most current one. Experience and expertise relevant to the Montreal Protocol are particularly important and a list of relevant publications is useful (do not provide copies of publications)

Position Nominated for:

Please provide full names rather than only acronyms or initials

Title: Ms.

Professor

Mr.

Dr

Other: _________

Name (underline family name):

Employer / Organization:

Job Title:

Address:

Telephone:

Skype:

Email:

Web Site:

Nationality/ies:

Country of residence:


TEAP: Nomination Form

Expert Information

118

Please provide a short summary of the applicants’ expertise and skills, as they relate to the position for which he/she is being nominated.

Main Countries or Regions Worked or Experience in (with relevance to Montreal Protocol)

Please give a list of relevant publications (do not attach)

(No need to fill this section if already provided with CV)

To be filled by the nominated expert:

I hereby confirm that the above information is correct and agree for review by the TEAP. I have no objection to this information being made publicly available. I also confirm that, if appointed, I will review and agree to abide by TEAP’s terms of reference, its code of conduct, operational procedures, and relevant decisions of the Parties as per Decision XXIV/8: https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/Decision_XXIV-8_TEAP_TOR.pdf

Signature: __________________________________________ Date: _____________________


Employment History and/or Relevant Experience

Publications

English Proficiency and computer skills

All meetings, correspondence and report writing are conducted in English so good command of English is essential. If English is not your mother tongue [native language] please describe briefly your proficiency to speak, read, and write in English. Basic computer literacy (Word, Excel, Power Point) for drafting and editing products is required and advanced computer skills are an asset.

References

Please provide names of two persons who have worked with you on issues relevant to the Montreal Protocol

Confirmation and Agreement

Applicant profile

119

https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/Decision_XXIV-8_TEAP_TOR.pdf

This section must be completed by the national focal point of the relevant party.

Government: ___________________________________________________________________

Name of Government Representative: ________________________________________________

Signature: __________________________________________ Date: _____________________

To be completed by the national focal point in the case of nomination by the party:

Has the matrix of needed expertise of TEAP been consulted? https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap/teap-expertise-required

Yes No

Has TEAP been consulted on this nomination?

Yes No

PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO: THE OZONE SECRETARIAT

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - Expectations for members of TEAP, TOCs and TSBs

Work done for TEAP, its TOCs and TSBs is on a voluntary basis and does not receive any remuneration [funding for their time]. Members from A 5 countries may be funded for their travel (flight) and per diem (UN DSA) only to relevant meetings, based on needed participation and availability of funding. Members are expected to attend meetings, engage in discussions, and devote time to the preparation of reports including finding and reviewing information to respond to the tasks set out by the Parties, drafting and formatting reports or sections of reports, reviewing reports and preparing presentations. TOC members attend at least annual meetings of that TOC. TOC co-chairs also attend the annual TEAP meeting, and typically two meetings per year of the Montreal Protocol. TSB members attend meetings of the TSB and may be asked to attend up to two meetings of the Montreal Protocol, based on needed participation and availability of funding.

All meetings, correspondence and report writing are conducted in English so good ability to read English plus good command of spoken and written English are essential.


Confirmation by Nominating Government

120

https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap/teap-expertise-required

Basic computer literacy (Word, Excel, Power Point) for drafting and editing products is required. Advanced computer/ document formatting skills are an asset.

All appointed members of TEAP, TOCs or TSBs should provide a “Declaration of Interest” prior to a meeting and at least once a year. The DOIs are posted at the Ozone Secretariat website.

In submitting a CV to support a nomination, Parties may wish to provide a short summary of the applicants’ expertise and skills, as they relate to the position for which he/she is being nominated, including the main countries or regions worked or experience in (with relevance to Montreal Protocol). Also please indicate if the nomination is in response to a specific category listed in the Matrix of Expertise published by TEAP https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap/teap-expertise-required

Once appointed, members of TEAP, TOCs or TSBs provide a “Declaration of Interest” (DOI) at least once a year and prior to the group’s first meeting. Members provide updated DOIs within 30 days of any changes. The DOIs are posted on the Ozone Secretariat website.

Members review and agree to abide by TEAP’s terms of reference, its code of conduct, operational procedures, and relevant decisions of the Parties as per Decision XXIV/8: https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/Decision_XXIV-8_TEAP_TOR.pdf


https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/Decision_XXIV-8_TEAP_TOR.pdf

https://ozone.unep.org/science/assessment/teap/teap-expertise-required