An assessment of costs and benefits associated with mercury emission reductions from major anthropogenic sources.
Several measures are available for reducing mercury emissions; however, these measures differ with regard to emission control efficiency, cost, and environmental benefits obtained through their implementation. Measures that include the application of technology, such as technology to remove mercury from flue gases in electric power plants, waste incinerators, and smelters, are rather expensive compared with nontechnological measures. In general, dedicated mercury removal is considerably more expensive than a co-benefit strategy, using air pollution control equipment originally designed to limit emissions of criterion pollutants, such as particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, or oxides of nitrogen. Substantial benefits can be achieved globally by introducing mercury emission reduction measures because they reduce human and wildlife exposure to methyl mercury. Although the reduction potential is greatest with the technological measures, technological and nontechnological solutions for mercury emissions and exposure reductions can be carried out in parallel.
Pacyna
Jozef M
JM
NILU-Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Kjeller, Norway. jp@nilu.no
Sundseth
Kyrre
K
Pacyna
Elisabeth G
EG
Jozewicz
Wojciech
W
Munthe
John
J
Belhaj
Mohammed
M
Aström
Stefan
S
D000397:Air Pollution / Q000191:economics* / Q000517:prevention & control*; D000468:Alkalies / Q000737:chemistry; D000818:Animals; D002713:Chlorine / Q000737:chemistry; D003031:Coal / Q000032:analysis; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D006801:Humans; D007220:Industrial Waste / Q000517:prevention & control; D008628:Mercury / Q000032:analysis* / Q000191:economics*; D011210:Power Plants / Q000592:standards
D000468:Alkalies; D003031:Coal; D007220:Industrial Waste; D002713:Chlorine; D008628:Mercury