Advertisement

Waste Disposal & Sustainable Energy

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 127–132 | Cite as

Mercury emissions in China: a general review

  • Xinyu Jiang
  • Fei WangEmail author
Review
  • 129 Downloads

Abstract

This paper provides a general review of the research status of mercury emissions in China. Global surveys rank Asia as the region with the largest share of global mercury emissions, accounting for almost half. China contributes about one-third of the world’s mercury emissions, which is 600–800 t per year. And thus, it plays a vital role in reducing global mercury emissions. Data since 2003 has been surveyed. Mercury emissions in China have risen in the beginning and then declined. There are differences in the composition of mercury emissions sources between China and the world, in which coal combustion and non-ferrous metals smelting contribute more than 50% of the emissions in China. Although mercury emission standards in China are close to those of the European Union and the United States, annual mercury emissions in China are four times higher than those of the United States. Mercury emissions in China are concentrated in the central and eastern regions now, but the annual mercury emissions are increasing in the western regions, which may be related to the construction of industrial parks.

Keywords

Mercury emissions inventory Mercury distribution Emission standard Mercury emission trend 

Introduction

Mercury, the only heavy metal pollutant in the atmosphere that exists mainly in gaseous form, has been widely studied, as it can survive and travel long distances in the atmosphere [1, 2] and has bioaccumulation effects [3]. Different from other heavy metal pollutants that are bound to particulate matter, mercury exists in the atmosphere in three forms [4]: gaseous elemental mercury, gaseous oxidized mercury, and particulate-bound mercury. Gaseous elemental mercury emissions account for more than 60% of total mercury emissions. The shelf life of this form of emissions is 0.5–2 years, enabling it to spread globally [5, 6, 7]. Mercury is converted to methyl mercury in aquatic ecosystems, which is neurotoxic, causing damage to human health and organisms [8].

Various sources contribute to mercury emissions [9, 10]. Due to the different ratio of different pollution sources to total emissions differs, the required measures to deal with the pollution also differ [11, 12, 13]. For this reason, a mercury emissions inventory is required to show the status of mercury emissions [6, 14]. This inventory has been undertaken by the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) every 5 years since 2002. Recent report suggests that in 2015 [15], the total global mercury emissions to air from anthropogenic sources amounted to 2220 t, and were approximately 20% higher than the updated estimates for 2010 only 5 years earlier. Stationary combustion of fossil fuels and biomass is responsible for about 24% of the estimated global emissions, primarily from burning coal (21%).

In 2013, the Minamata Convention on Mercury was signed by 128 countries, including China [16]. Even though China is the country with the highest mercury emissions in the world [17, 18], its inventory statistics for mercury emissions have been studied only in the past decade. In this time, attention has turned to clarifying the source types and assessment of total mercury emissions, as well as the options for reduction of mercury emissions [19]. Since there are no official data on mercury emissions in China, the estimates from different scholars differ [8, 9, 17, 20].

The purpose of this study is to analyze the trend of mercury emissions in China by comparing the statistics of different research. Assessment data comprise either those for East Asia or those for China, depending on the global mercury emission inventory used.

Mercury emissions in China

The results are presented in three sections to provide insight into the status of mercury emission in China in recent years: mercury trends in China, mercury source composition, and mercury distribution. Because the relevant data come from Chinese domestic statistics as well as global statistics, selective aggregation is necessary to guarantee the objectivity and accuracy of the analysis [21]. Previous studies have tended to calculate mercury emissions in China based on each author’s own theory [4, 14, 17, 18]. Here, we discuss the general pollution status and emission trends. This section discusses, in order, status and trends, source composition, and distribution in mercury emissions in China.

Mercury emissions status and trends in China

Pacyna et al. [22] provided the first systematic statistics on mercury emissions via a global mercury emissions inventory in 1995. Although some of the data are incomplete, the statistical methods and results have certain reference value. Generally, two approaches [23] are used to calculate mercury emissions: estimation by national emission experts, and calculation based on emission factors. In Pacyna’s research, about 1900 t of mercury was emitted in total, of which China accounted for about 500 t in 1995.

Since 2002, a global mercury assessment [15] has been undertaken by UN Environment every 5 years, including data for China. The assessment shows that of global mercury emissions in 2010 of 1960 t, China accounted for about one-third, 650 t. In 2015, total mercury emissions increased to about 2220 t, of which China accounted for about 720 t.

In China, relevant research has also been undertaken. Wang et al. [24] calculated China’s total mercury emissions in 2003 as 650 t. Cheng et al.’s [25] study of major heavy metal emissions in China concluded that mercury emissions were 842.22 t in 2010. Tian et al. [26] calculated an inventory of heavy metal emissions in China, placing mercury emissions in China at about 685.1 t in 2015. Data from the abovementioned literature are plotted in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

Mercury emissions of China and the world

The average annual growth rate of mercury pollution from 1995 to 2005 is 5.14%. In this decade, mercury emissions rose from 500 to 825 t owing to rapid economic development and extensive environmental governance. During this period, artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) accounted for a large proportion of mercury emissions. Due to the adjustment of industrial structure, the strengthening of environmental governance, and the upgrading of production technology, mercury emissions were effectively controlled from 2005 to 2010. It is noteworthy that in 2010, Cheng’s statistics for mercury emissions in China were on the high side compared to other works. Possible reasons are the higher estimates for primary mercury ore mining and the higher mercury content of Chinese coal and MSW. Although many emissions reduction measures were implemented continuously, mercury emissions in China slowly increased at an average annual growth rate of 1.96% from 2010 to 2015 [27]. In addition, it is important to note that China’s share of global mercury emissions dropped from 42.8% in 2005 to 32.4% in 2015, which shows China’s efforts in reducing emissions in recent years.

Depending on the specific mathematical model, the relationship between raw materials or products and mercury emissions can vary. In this way, the mercury emissions data over the years was tracked with GDP growth rates, as shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2

Comparison of annual mercury emissions and GDP growth rate in China

Despite the lack of some data, mercury emissions are found to increase year by year before 2008, which is line with the trend of the GDP growth rate. In 2008, economic growth slowed due to the financial crisis, and mercury emissions also fell. In 2012, stricter emission standards for thermal power plants were issued, and more environmentally friendly technologies adopted, which is reflected in emissions reductions. Mercury emissions are also affected by volume of industry output and raw material consumption, which may be why mercury emissions have continued to rise in recent years even with more advanced technologies. It must be noted that the conclusions are highly uncertain owing to incomplete data and lack of official statistics.

Source composition of mercury emissions in China

Atmospheric mercury pollution consists of many different anthropogenic sources. Figure 3 shows the sources of mercury emissions in global mercury emissions.
Fig. 3

Global mercury emissions statistics 2010 and 2015 from UNEP [2]

A breakdown of anthropogenic mercury emissions by industry is included in the 2015 UNEP global mercury assessment. The largest sources are artisanal and small-scale gold mining; coal burning [4, 27, 28]; mining, smelting, and production of metals [29]; and cement production. Moreover, mercury emissions from mercury-containing waste account for 5%, some of which flows into municipal solid waste streams and is discharged into the atmosphere by incineration [30].

The sources of mercury emissions inventory in China differ. The small-scale gold mining (ASGM) is illegal in China. Based on the estimation of the China Gold Association, mercury emissions from these illegal activities accounted for only 1%–3% of total mercury emissions in China in 2010 owing to an explicit order prohibiting the practice. In addition to its small contribution, owing to the uncertainty of its estimation, the small-scale gold mining (ASGM) is generally ignored in mercury emissions inventories in China. Because coal is the main fossil energy in China, the atmospheric mercury pollution caused by coal combustion accounts for a higher proportion. China’s heavy metal emissions inventory is shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4

Emissions investigation of Hg, As, Pb, Cd, and Cr by source categories, China 2010 [25]

Non-ferrous metals smelting, coal combustion, and construction materials production (including cement production) account for the largest proportion of mercury emissions by industry. It is noteworthy that other emissions, like vinyl-chloride monomer production [31], are not included in the calculation. Furthermore, with the improvement of metallurgical technology, mercury pollution caused by metallurgical technology needs to be re-evaluated.

Based on data from UN Environment’s global mercury assessment [15], we compare emissions from China, United States (US), and the European Union (EU), as shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5

Contrast of emission between China, US, and the EU [2, 6, 7]

It should be noted that in the 2005 assessment, the emissions data of China, the US, and the EU are provided directly, while the data for 2010 and in 2015 are counted based on regional statistics, as reflected in Fig. 2. Thus, in 2010 and 2015, the actual emissions of China and the US are lower than those shown in Fig. 2. Moreover, the ASGM emissions data shown in the figures are calculated for the region of East and Southeast Asia [32, 33]. The proportion for China requires further analysis.

However, in general, some useful information can be obtained from Fig. 5. The proportion of mercury pollution caused by stationary combustion in China has been significantly reduced, indicating that efforts to improve environmental regulation of stationary combustion have been successful. Emissions from industrial production and other sources, including mercury-containing by-products, are increasing. This indicates that industrial mercury removal may need more attention in the future. In terms of total mercury emissions, emissions in China far exceed those of the US and the EU, which requires more advanced control technology and stricter emissions standards.

Mercury geographic distribution in China

The emissions calculated in this work are shown in Fig. 6, with sub-regional spatial distributions from Wu et al. [12]. Figure 6a shows that mercury emissions in China in 2014 are mainly concentrated in Henan, Hebei, and Shandong, among other places, while the overall level of mercury emissions in the northern and western regions is relatively high. The changes in mercury emissions in different regions of China from 2003 to 2014 are shown in Fig. 6b. Variations in mercury emissions during this period are represented by corresponding colors. It can be seen that emissions in the western and eastern regions have increased significantly, while those in the northern regions have decreased accordingly [34]. This result shows that researchers should pay more attention to mercury-polluting industries in the western region.
Fig. 6

Distribution of anthropogenic mercury emissions in China and the differences

These distribution data are calculated or estimated. Compared with other developed countries, China has only a few mercury detection points [35, 36], and it is impossible to obtain mercury emissions through measured data. Horowitz et al. [37] compared the monitored values of mercury emissions in North America, Europe, and China, as shown in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7

Annual Hg wet deposition fluxes over North America, Europe, and China

From 2007 to 2013, observations are obtained from the Mercury Deposition Network (National Atmospheric Deposition Program, http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn/) for North America (58 sites) [38], the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme for Europe (20 sites), and data from Fu et al. [4, 39, 40] for China (9 sites).

Due to precipitation changes and sedimentation, the maximum mercury emissions in North America occur on the northwest coast, while the higher monitoring values along the Gulf of Mexico coast may be affected by deep convection scavenging upper-tropospheric air enriched in \( {\text{Hg}}^{2 + } \) [41, 42]. The background concentration of mercury emissions in Europe is very low and uniformly distributed, and there is no obvious source of mercury emissions. This indicates that anthropogenic mercury emissions in Europe are well controlled. Meanwhile, the overall level of mercury monitoring in China is relatively high, and the distribution of mercury is uneven between urban and rural areas [43]. However, this result may be inaccurate owing to China’s relatively fewer measuring points.

Conclusions

Because mercury pollution is a global problem, China, as the country with the largest anthropogenic source of mercury emissions in the world, has attracted wide attention. Specifically, it is necessary to define mercury emissions characteristics and regulations in China. This study collates the literature and provides an analysis of mercury emissions in China. Annual atmospheric mercury emissions in China are estimated to be 600–800 t over the past decade in related research and reports, which is in line with the calculated values but lower than the published values estimated by some surveys.

Unlike the long-term emission trends in EU and the US, the calculated results show that anthropogenic mercury emissions in China have increased slowly in recent years. Even though China has made considerable efforts to improve mercury emission technology and regulations, the reduction of mercury emissions has been offset to some extent by the use of coal combustion as the main energy source and the increase in mercury-polluting industrial capacity. This result shows that China makes a decisive impact on world mercury emissions. Because mercury emissions are affected by economic factors, future emission trends can be predicted from some data. In addition, policy, technology, and other factors should be considered comprehensively alongside emissions data.

It should be noted that although the UNEP report considers ASGM to account for a large proportion of total mercury emissions, this industry is seldom mentioned in domestic surveys in China. The Chinese industries with the largest mercury emissions are coal combustion, metal smelting, and cement production. Some mercury-polluting and waste incineration industries also need attention. Mercury emissions from all provinces over the years show that the emissions are concentrated in eastern China. Furthermore, the trend of increasing mercury emissions in south and southeast China shows that emission sources are moving westward gradually, which has important significance for guiding industrial structure and policy formulation.

Mercury concentration in rural areas of China is lower than that in the US, but the average mercury concentration is higher, which indicates that further studies are needed to understand the transmission and deposition of mercury in China, as well as to predict the impact of changes in mercury emissions in China on global mercury pollution.

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Lindberg SE, Stratton WJ. Atmospheric mercury speciation: concentrations and behavior of reactive gaseous mercury in ambient air. Environ Sci Technol. 1998;32(1):49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Streets DG, Zhang Q, Wu Y. Projections of global mercury emissions in 2050. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43(8):2983–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jonsson S, et al. Terrestrial discharges mediate trophic shifts and enhance methylmercury accumulation in estuarine biota. Sci Adv. 2017;3(1):1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fu XW, et al. Observations of atmospheric mercury in China: a critical review. Atmos Chem Phys. 2015;15(16):9455–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lindqvist O, et al. Mercury in the Swedish environment—recent research on causes, consequences and corrective methods. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1991;55(1–2):11–261.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Streets DG, et al. Historical releases of mercury to air, land, and water from coal combustion. Sci Total Environ. 2018;615:131–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hylander LD. Global mercury pollution and its expected decrease after a mercury trade ban. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2001;125(1–4):331–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Streets DG, et al. Global and regional trends in mercury emissions and concentrations, 2010–2015. Atmos Environ. 2019;201:417–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Selin H, et al. Linking science and policy to support the implementation of the Minamata Convention on Mercury. Ambio. 2018;47(2):198–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hui ML, et al. Mercury flows in china and global drivers. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51(1):222–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mukherjee AB, et al. Mercury in waste in the European Union: sources, disposal methods and risks. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2004;42(2):155–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wu QR, et al. Temporal trend and spatial distribution of speciated atmospheric mercury emissions in china during 1978–2014. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50(24):13428–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horvat M, et al. Total mercury, methylmercury and selenium in mercury polluted areas in the province Guizhou, China. Sci Total Environ. 2003;304(1–3):231–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Streets DG, et al. Total mercury released to the environment by human activities. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51(11):5969–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Environment UN. Global mercury assessment 2018. Geneva: UNEP; 2018.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Andresen S, Rosendal K, Skjaerseth JB. Why negotiate a legally binding mercury convention? Int Environ Agreem Polit Law Econ. 2013;13(4):425–40.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ying H, et al. Anthropogenic mercury emissions from 1980 to 2012 in China. Environ Pollut. 2017;226:230–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hu YA, Cheng HF, Tao S. The growing importance of waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration in China’s anthropogenic mercury emissions: emission inventories and reduction strategies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2018;97:119–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Evers DC, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of the Minamata Convention on Mercury: principles and recommendations for next steps. Sci Total Environ. 2016;569:888–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang ZW, et al. Gaseous elemental mercury concentration in atmosphere at urban and remote sites in China. J Environ Sci. 2007;19(2):176–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sprovieri F, et al. A review of worldwide atmospheric mercury measurements. Atmos Chem Phys. 2010;10(17):8245–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pacyna JM, et al. Mapping 1995 global anthropogenic emissions of mercury. Atmos Environ. 2003;37:S109–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pacyna JM, et al. Current and future levels of mercury atmospheric pollution on a global scale. Atmos Chem Phys. 2016;16(19):12495–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang SX, et al. Streets estimate the mercury emissions from non-coal sources in China. Environ Sci. 2006;12(27):2401–6.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cheng K, et al. Atmospheric emission characteristics and control policies of five precedent-controlled toxic heavy metals from anthropogenic sources in China. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(2):1206–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tian HZ, et al. Quantitative assessment of atmospheric emissions of toxic heavy metals from anthropogenic sources in China: historical trend, spatial distribution, uncertainties, and control policies. Atmos Chem Phys. 2015;15(17):10127–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang Y, et al. Evaluation of costs associated with atmospheric mercury emission reductions from coal combustion in China in 2010 and projections for 2020. Sci Total Environ. 2018;610:796–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zheng LG, Liu GJ, Chou CL. The distribution, occurrence and environmental effect of mercury in Chinese coals. Sci Total Environ. 2007;384(1–3):374–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang FY, et al. Mercury mass flow in iron and steel production process and its implications for mercury emission control. J Environ Sci. 2016;43:293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang Y, et al. Atmospheric emissions of typical toxic heavy metals from open burning of municipal solid waste in China. Atmos Environ. 2017;152:6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Song ZC, et al. Environmental mercury pollution by an abandoned chlor-alkali plant in Southwest China. J Geochem Explor. 2018;194:81–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhang HB, et al. Anthropogenic mercury sequestration in different soil types on the southeast coast of China. J Soils Sediments. 2015;15(4):962–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sakata M, Natsumi M, Tani Y. Isotopic evidence of boron in precipitation originating from coal burning in Asian continent. Geochem J. 2010;44(2):113–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tang Y, et al. Recent decrease trend of atmospheric mercury concentrations in East China: the influence of anthropogenic emissions. Atmos Chem Phys. 2018;18(11):8279–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhu WZ, et al. Annual time-series analyses of total gaseous mercury measurement and its impact factors on the Gongga mountains in the southeastern fringe of the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau. J Mt Sci. 2008;5(1):17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Liu C, et al. Sources and outflows of atmospheric mercury at Mt. Changbai, northeastern China. Sci Total Environ. 2019;663:275–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Horowitz HM, et al. A new mechanism for atmospheric mercury redox chemistry: implications for the global mercury budget. Atmos Chem Phys. 2017;17(10):6353–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhou H, et al. Atmospheric mercury temporal trends in the northeastern United States from 1992 to 2014: are measured concentrations responding to decreasing regional emissions? Environ Sci Technol Lett. 2017;4(3):91–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fu XW, et al. Atmospheric wet and litterfall mercury deposition at urban and rural sites in China. Atmos Chem Phys. 2016;16(18):11547–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Qie GH, et al. Distribution and sources of particulate mercury and other trace elements in PM2.5 and PM10 atop Mount Tai, China. J Environ Manag. 2018;215:195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Guentzel JL, et al. Processes influencing rainfall deposition of mercury in Florida. Environ Sci Technol. 2001;35(5):863–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Holmes CD, et al. Thunderstorms increase mercury wet deposition. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50(17):9343–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cheng HX, et al. Overview of trace metals in the urban soil of 31 metropolises in China. J Geochem Explor. 2014;139:31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Zhejiang University Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Clean Energy UtilizationZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations