Hubbry Logo
ChlorofluorocarbonChlorofluorocarbonMain
Open search
Chlorofluorocarbon
Community hub
Chlorofluorocarbon
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Chlorofluorocarbon
Chlorofluorocarbon
Chlorofluorocarbon
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series on
Pollution
Air pollution from a factory
Air
Biological
Digital
Electromagnetic
Natural
Noise
Radiation
Soil
Solid waste
Space
Thermal
Visual
War
Water
Topics
Misc
Lists
Categories

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are fully or partly halogenated hydrocarbons that contain carbon (C), hydrogen (H), chlorine (Cl), and fluorine (F). They are produced as volatile derivatives of methane, ethane, and propane.

The most common example of a CFC is dichlorodifluoromethane (R-12). R-12, also commonly called Freon, is used as a refrigerant. Many CFCs have been widely used as refrigerants, propellants (in aerosol applications), gaseous fire suppression systems, and solvents. As a result of CFCs contributing to ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere, the manufacture of such compounds has been phased out under the Montreal Protocol, and they are being replaced with other products such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs)[1] including R-410A, R-134a and R-1234yf.[2][3][4]

Structure, properties and production

[edit]
Main article: Organofluorine chemistry

As in simpler alkanes, carbons in CFCs bond with tetrahedral symmetry. Because the fluorine and chlorine atoms differ greatly in size and effective charge from hydrogen and from each other, methane-derived CFCs deviate from perfect tetrahedral symmetry.[5]

The physical properties of CFCs and HCFCs can be affected by changes in the number and identity of the halogen atoms. They are generally volatile, but less so than their parent alkanes. The decreased volatility is attributed to the molecular polarity induced by the halides, which induces intermolecular interactions. Thus, methane boils at −161 °C whereas the fluoromethanes boil between −51.7 (CF2H2) and −128 °C (CF4). CFCs still have higher boiling points because the chloride is even more polarizable than fluoride. Because of their polarity, CFCs are useful solvents, and their boiling points make them suitable as refrigerants. CFCs are far less flammable than methane, in part because they contain fewer C–H bonds and in part because, in the case of the chlorides and bromides, the released halides quench the free radicals that sustain flames.

The densities of CFCs are higher than their corresponding alkanes. In general, the density of these compounds correlates with the number of chlorides.

CFCs and HCFCs are usually produced by halogen exchange starting from chlorinated methanes and ethanes. Written below is the synthesis of chlorodifluoromethane from chloroform:

HCCl3 + 2 HF → HCF2Cl + 2 HCl

Brominated derivatives are generated by free-radical reactions of hydrochlorofluorocarbons, replacing C–H bonds with C–Br bonds. The production of the anesthetic 2-bromo-2-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane ("halothane") is written out below:

CF3CH2Cl + Br2 → CF3CHBrCl + HBr

Applications

[edit]

CFCs and HCFCs are used in various applications because of their low toxicity, reactivity and flammability.[6] Every permutation of fluorine, chlorine and hydrogen based on methane and ethane has been examined and most have been commercialized. Furthermore, many examples are known for higher numbers of carbon as well as related compounds containing bromine. Uses include refrigerants, blowing agents, aerosol propellants in medicinal applications, and degreasing solvents.

Billions of kilograms of chlorodifluoromethane are produced annually as a precursor to tetrafluoroethylene, the monomer that is converted into Teflon.[7]

Classes of compounds and Numbering System

[edit]
  • Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs): when derived from methane and ethane, these compounds have the formulae CClmF4−m and C2ClmF6−m, where m is nonzero.
  • Hydro-chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs): when derived from methane and ethane, these compounds have the formula CClmFnH4−m−n and C2ClxFyH6−x−y, where m, n, x, and y are nonzero.
  • Bromofluorocarbons (BFCs): have formulae similar to the CFCs and HCFCs, but also include bromine.
  • Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs): when derived from methane, ethane, propane, and butane, these compounds have the respective formulae CFmH4−m, C2FmH6−m, C3FmH8−m, and C4FmH10−m, where m is nonzero.

Numbering system

[edit]
Main article: Refrigerant § Refrigerants by class and R-number
See also: List of refrigerants

A special numbering system is used for fluorinated alkanes, prefixed with Freon-, R-, CFC- and HCFC-, where the rightmost value indicates the number of fluorine atoms, the next value to the left is the number of hydrogen atoms plus 1, and the next value to the left is the number of carbon atoms less one (zeroes are not stated), and the remaining atoms are chlorine.

Freon-12, for example, indicates a methane derivative (only two numbers) containing two fluorine atoms (the second 2) and no hydrogen (1 − 1 = 0). It is therefore CCl2F2.[8]

Another equation that can be applied to get the correct molecular formula of the CFC/R/Freon class compounds is to take the numbering and add 90 to it. The resulting value will give the number of carbons as the first numeral, the second numeral gives the number of hydrogen atoms, and the third numeral gives the number of fluorine atoms. The rest of the unaccounted carbon bonds are occupied by chlorine atoms. The value of this equation is always a three figure number. An easy example is that of CFC-12, which gives: 90+12=102 -> 1 carbon, 0 hydrogens, 2 fluorine atoms, and hence 2 chlorine atoms resulting in CCl2F2. The main advantage of this method of deducing the molecular composition in comparison with the method described in the paragraph above is that it gives the number of carbon atoms of the molecule.[9]

Freons containing bromine are signified by four numbers. Isomers, which are common for ethane and propane derivatives, are indicated by letters following the numbers:

Principal CFCs
Systematic name Common/trivial
name(s), code 		Boiling point (°C) Formula
Trichlorofluoromethane Freon-11, R-11, CFC-11 23.77 CCl3F
Dichlorodifluoromethane Freon-12, R-12, CFC-12 −29.8 CCl2F2
Chlorotrifluoromethane Freon-13, R-13, CFC-13 −81 CClF3
Dichlorofluoromethane R-21, HCFC-21 8.9 CHCl2F
Chlorodifluoromethane R-22, HCFC-22 −40.8 CHClF2
Chlorofluoromethane Freon 31, R-31, HCFC-31 −9.1 CH2ClF
Bromochlorodifluoromethane BCF, Halon 1211, H-1211, Freon 12B1 −3.7 CBrClF2
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane Freon 113, R-113, CFC-113, 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 47.7 Cl2FC−CClF2
1,1,1-Trichloro-2,2,2-trifluoroethane Freon 113a, R-113a, CFC-113a 45.9 Cl3C−CF3
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane Freon 114, R-114, CFC-114, Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 3.8 ClF2C−CClF2
1,1-Dichloro-1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethane CFC-114a, R-114a 3.4 Cl2FC−CF3
1-Chloro-1,1,2,2,2-pentafluoroethane Freon 115, R-115, CFC-115, Chloropentafluoroethane −38 ClF2C−CF3
2-Chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane R-124, HCFC-124 −12 CHFClCF3
1,1-Dichloro-1-fluoroethane R-141b, HCFC-141b 32 Cl2FC−CH3
1-Chloro-1,1-difluoroethane R-142b, HCFC-142b −9.2 ClF2C−CH3
Tetrachloro-1,2-difluoroethane Freon 112, R-112, CFC-112 91.5 CCl2FCCl2F
Tetrachloro-1,1-difluoroethane Freon 112a, R-112a, CFC-112a 91.5 CClF2CCl3
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane Freon 113, R-113, CFC-113 48 CCl2FCClF2
1-bromo-2-chloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethane Halon 2311a 51.7 CHClFCBrF2
2-bromo-2-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane Halon 2311 50.2 CF3CHBrCl
1,1-Dichloro-2,2,3,3,3-pentafluoropropane R-225ca, HCFC-225ca 51 CF3CF2CHCl2
1,3-Dichloro-1,2,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane R-225cb, HCFC-225cb 56 CClF2CF2CHClF

Reactions

[edit]

The reaction of the CFCs which is responsible for the depletion of ozone, is the photo-induced scission of a C-Cl bond:[10]

CCl3F → CCl2F• + Cl•

The chlorine atom, written often as Cl•, behaves very differently from the chlorine molecule (Cl2). The radical Cl• is long-lived in the upper atmosphere, where it catalyzes the conversion of ozone into O2. Ozone absorbs UV-B radiation, so its depletion allows more of this high energy radiation to reach the Earth's surface. Bromine atoms are even more efficient catalysts; hence brominated CFCs are also regulated.[11]

Impact as greenhouse gases

[edit]
The warming influence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased substantially in recent years. The rising presence of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning is the largest overall driver. The relatively smaller but significant warming impact from releases of the most abundantly produced CFCs (CFC11 and CFC12) will continue to persist for many further decades into the future.[12][13]

CFCs were phased out via the Montreal Protocol due to their part in ozone depletion.

CFCs negatively affecting stratospheric ozone production

The atmospheric impacts of CFCs are not limited to their role as ozone-depleting chemicals. Infrared absorption bands prevent heat at that wavelength from escaping Earth's atmosphere. CFCs have their strongest absorption bands from C-F and C-Cl bonds in the spectral region of 7.8–15.3 μm[14]—referred to as the "atmospheric window" due to the relative transparency of the atmosphere within this region.[15]

The strength of CFC absorption bands and the unique susceptibility of the atmosphere at wavelengths where CFCs (indeed all covalent fluorine compounds) absorb radiation[16] creates a "super" greenhouse effect from CFCs and other unreactive fluorine-containing gases such as perfluorocarbons, HFCs, HCFCs, bromofluorocarbons, SF6, and NF3.[17] This "atmospheric window" absorption is intensified by the low concentration of each individual CFC. Because CO2 is close to saturation with high concentrations and few infrared absorption bands, the radiation budget and hence the greenhouse effect has low sensitivity to changes in CO2 concentration;[18] the increase in temperature is roughly logarithmic.[19] Conversely, the low concentration of CFCs allow their effects to increase linearly with mass,[17] so that chlorofluorocarbons are greenhouse gases with a much higher potential to enhance the greenhouse effect than CO2.

Groups are actively disposing of legacy CFCs to reduce their impact on the atmosphere.[20]

According to NASA in 2018, the hole in the ozone layer has begun to recover as a result of CFC bans.[21] However, research released in 2019 reported an alarming increase in CFCs, pointing to unregulated use in China.[22]

History

[edit]

Prior to, and during the 1920s, refrigerators used toxic gases as refrigerants, including ammonia, sulphur dioxide, and chloromethane. Later in the 1920s after a series of fatal accidents involving the leaking of chloromethane from refrigerators, a major collaborative effort began between American corporations Frigidaire, General Motors, and DuPont to develop a safer, non-toxic alternative. Thomas Midgley Jr. of General Motors is credited for synthesizing the first chlorofluorocarbons. The Frigidaire corporation was issued the first patent, number 1,886,339, for the formula for CFCs on December 31, 1928. In a demonstration for the American Chemical Society, Midgley flamboyantly demonstrated all these properties by inhaling a breath of the gas and using it to blow out a candle[23] in 1930.[24][25]

By 1930, General Motors and Du Pont formed the Kinetic Chemical Company to produce Freon, and by 1935, over 8 million refrigerators utilizing R-12 were sold by Frigidaire and its competitors. In 1932, Carrier began using R-11 in the worlds first self-contained home air conditioning unit known as the "atmospheric cabinet". As a result of CFCs being largely non-toxic, they quickly became the coolant of choice in large air-conditioning systems. Public health codes in cities were revised to designate chlorofluorocarbons as the only gases that could be used as refrigerants in public buildings.[26]

Growth in CFCs continued over the following decades leading to peak annual sales of over 1 billion USD with greater than 1 million metric tonnes being produced annually. It wasn't until 1974 that it was first discovered by two University of California chemists, Professor F. Sherwood Rowland and Dr. Mario Molina, that the use of chlorofluorocarbons were causing a significant depletion in atmospheric ozone concentrations. This initiated the environmental effort which eventually resulted in the enactment of the Montreal Protocol.[27][28]

Commercial development and use in fire extinguishing

[edit]

During World War II, various chloroalkanes were in standard use in military aircraft, although these early halons suffered from excessive toxicity. Nevertheless, after the war they slowly became more common in civil aviation as well. In the 1960s, fluoroalkanes and bromofluoroalkanes became available and were quickly recognized as being highly effective fire-fighting materials. Much early research with Halon 1301 was conducted under the auspices of the US Armed Forces, while Halon 1211 was, initially, mainly developed in the UK. By the late 1960s they were standard in many applications where water and dry-powder extinguishers posed a threat of damage to the protected property, including computer rooms, telecommunications switches, laboratories, museums and art collections. Beginning with warships, in the 1970s, bromofluoroalkanes also progressively came to be associated with rapid knockdown of severe fires in confined spaces with minimal risk to personnel.

By the early 1980s, bromofluoroalkanes were in common use on aircraft, ships, and large vehicles as well as in computer facilities and galleries. However, concern was beginning to be expressed about the impact of chloroalkanes and bromoalkanes on the ozone layer. The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer did not cover bromofluoroalkanes under the same restrictions, because emergency discharge of extinguishing systems was thought to be too small in volume to produce a significant impact and too important to human safety for restriction. Instead, the consumption of bromofluoroalkanes was frozen at 1986 levels.[29]

Regulation

[edit]

Since the late 1970s, the use of CFCs has been heavily regulated because of their destructive effects on the ozone layer. After the development of his electron capture detector, James Lovelock was the first to detect the widespread presence of CFCs in the air, finding a mole fraction of 60 ppt of CFC-11 over Ireland. In a self-funded research expedition ending in 1973, Lovelock went on to measure CFC-11 in both the Arctic and Antarctic, finding the presence of the gas in each of 50 air samples collected, and concluding that CFCs are not hazardous to the environment. The experiment did however provide the first useful data on the presence of CFCs in the atmosphere. The damage caused by CFCs was discovered by Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina who, after hearing a lecture on the subject of Lovelock's work, embarked on research resulting in the first publication suggesting the connection in 1974. It turns out that one of CFCs' most attractive features—their low reactivity—is key to their most destructive effects. CFCs' lack of reactivity gives them a lifespan that can exceed 100 years, giving them time to diffuse into the upper stratosphere.[30] Once in the stratosphere, the sun's ultraviolet radiation is strong enough to cause the homolytic cleavage of the C-Cl bond. In 1976, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the EPA banned commercial manufacturing and use of CFCs and aerosol propellants. This was later superseded in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act to address stratospheric ozone depletion.[31]

An animation showing colored representation of ozone distribution by year, above North America, through 6 steps. It starts with a lot of ozone especially over Alaska and by 2060 is almost all gone from north to south.
NASA projection of stratospheric ozone, in Dobson units, if chlorofluorocarbons had not been banned. Animated version.

By 1987, in response to a dramatic seasonal depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica, diplomats in Montreal forged a treaty, the Montreal Protocol, which called for drastic reductions in the production of CFCs. On 2 March 1989, 12 European Community nations agreed to ban the production of all CFCs by the end of the century. In 1990, diplomats met in London and voted to significantly strengthen the Montreal Protocol by calling for a complete elimination of CFCs by 2000. By 2010, CFCs should have been completely eliminated from developing countries as well.

Ozone-depleting gas trends

Because the only CFCs available to countries adhering to the treaty is from recycling, their prices have increased considerably. A worldwide end to production should also terminate the smuggling of this material. However, there are current CFC smuggling issues, as recognized by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in a 2006 report titled "Illegal Trade in Ozone Depleting Substances". UNEP estimates that between 16,000–38,000 tonnes of CFCs passed through the black market in the mid-1990s. The report estimated between 7,000 and 14,000 tonnes of CFCs are smuggled annually into developing countries. Asian countries are those with the most smuggling; as of 2007, China, India and South Korea were found to account for around 70% of global CFC production,[32] South Korea later to ban CFC production in 2010.[33] Possible reasons for continued CFC smuggling were also examined: the report noted that many of the refrigeration systems that were designed to be operated utilizing the banned CFC products have long lifespans and continue to operate. The cost of replacing the equipment of these items is sometimes cheaper than outfitting them with a more ozone-friendly appliance. Additionally, CFC smuggling is not considered a significant issue, so the perceived penalties for smuggling are low. In 2018 public attention was drawn to the issue, that at an unknown place in east Asia an estimated amount of 13,000 metric tons annually of CFCs have been produced since about 2012 in violation of the protocol.[34][35] While the eventual phaseout of CFCs is likely, efforts are being taken to stem these current non-compliance problems.

By the time of the Montreal Protocol, it was realised that deliberate and accidental discharges during system tests and maintenance accounted for substantially larger volumes than emergency discharges, and consequently halons were brought into the treaty, albeit with many exceptions.[36][37][38]

Regulatory gap

[edit]

While the production and consumption of CFCs are regulated under the Montreal Protocol, emissions from existing banks of CFCs are not regulated under the agreement. In 2002, there were an estimated 5,791 kilotons of CFCs in existing products such as refrigerators, air conditioners, aerosol cans and others.[39] Approximately one-third of these CFCs are projected to be emitted over the next decade[when?] if action is not taken, posing a threat to both the ozone layer and the climate.[40] A proportion of these CFCs can be safely captured and destroyed by means of high temperature, controlled incineration which destroys the CFC molecule.[41]

Regulation and DuPont

[edit]

In 1978 the United States banned the use of CFCs such as Freon in aerosol cans, the beginning of a long series of regulatory actions against their use. The critical DuPont manufacturing patent for Freon ("Process for Fluorinating Halohydrocarbons", U.S. Patent #3258500) was set to expire in 1979. In conjunction with other industrial peers DuPont formed a lobbying group, the "Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy", to combat regulations of ozone-depleting compounds.[42] In 1986 DuPont, with new patents in hand, reversed its previous stance and publicly condemned CFCs.[43] DuPont representatives appeared before the Montreal Protocol urging that CFCs be banned worldwide and stated that their new HCFCs would meet the worldwide demand for refrigerants.[43]

Phasing-out of CFCs

[edit]

Use of certain chloroalkanes as solvents for large scale application, such as dry cleaning, have been phased out, for example, by the IPPC directive on greenhouse gases in 1994 and by the volatile organic compounds (VOC) directive of the EU in 1997. Permitted chlorofluoroalkane uses are medicinal only.

Bromofluoroalkanes have been largely phased out and the possession of equipment for their use is prohibited in some countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, from 1 January 2004, based on the Montreal Protocol and guidelines of the European Union.

Production of new stocks ceased in most (probably all) countries in 1994.[44][45][46] However many countries still require aircraft to be fitted with halon fire suppression systems because no safe and completely satisfactory alternative has been discovered for this application. There are also a few other, highly specialized uses. These programs recycle halon through "halon banks" coordinated by the Halon Recycling Corporation[47] to ensure that discharge to the atmosphere occurs only in a genuine emergency and to conserve remaining stocks.

The interim replacements for CFCs are hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which deplete stratospheric ozone, but to a much lesser extent than CFCs.[48] Ultimately, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) will replace HCFCs. Unlike CFCs and HCFCs, HFCs have an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of 0.[49] DuPont began producing hydrofluorocarbons as alternatives to Freon in the 1980s. These included Suva refrigerants and Dymel propellants.[50] Natural refrigerants are climate friendly solutions that are enjoying increasing support from large companies and governments interested in reducing global warming emissions from refrigeration and air conditioning.

Phasing-out of HFCs and HCFCs

[edit]

Hydrofluorocarbons are included in the Kyoto Protocol and are regulated under the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol[51] due to their very high Global Warming Potential (GWP) and the recognition of halocarbon contributions to climate change.[52]

On September 21, 2007, approximately 200 countries agreed to accelerate the elimination of hydrochlorofluorocarbons entirely by 2020 in a United Nations-sponsored Montreal summit. Developing nations were given until 2030. Many nations, such as the United States and China, who had previously resisted such efforts, agreed with the accelerated phase out schedule.[53] India successfully achieved the complete phase out of HCFC-141 b in 2020.[54]

It was reported that levels of HCFCs in the atmosphere had started to fall in 2021 due to their phase out under the Montreal Protocol.[55]

Properly collecting, controlling, and destroying CFCs and HCFCs

[edit]
Freon tanks awaiting CFC reclamation and container recycling in 2012

While new production of these refrigerants has been banned, large volumes still exist in older systems and have been said to pose an immediate threat to our environment.[56] Preventing the release of these harmful refrigerants has been ranked as one of the single most effective actions we can take to mitigate catastrophic climate change.[57]

Development of alternatives for CFCs

[edit]

Work on alternatives for chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerants began in the late 1970s after the first warnings of damage to stratospheric ozone were published.

The hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are less stable in the lower atmosphere, enabling them to break down before reaching the ozone layer. Nevertheless, a significant fraction of the HCFCs do break down in the stratosphere and they have contributed to more chlorine buildup there than originally predicted. Later alternatives lacking the chlorine, the hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) have an even shorter lifetimes in the lower atmosphere.[48] One of these compounds, HFC-134a, were used in place of CFC-12 in automobile air conditioners. Hydrocarbon refrigerants (a propane/isobutane blend) were also used extensively in mobile air conditioning systems in Australia, the US and many other countries, as they had excellent thermodynamic properties and performed particularly well in high ambient temperatures. 1,1-Dichloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b) has replaced HFC-134a, due to its low ODP and GWP values. And according to the Montreal Protocol, HCFC-141b is supposed to be phased out completely and replaced with zero ODP substances such as cyclopentane, HFOs, and HFC-345a before January 2020.[58]

Among the natural refrigerants (along with ammonia and carbon dioxide), hydrocarbons have negligible environmental impacts and are also used worldwide in domestic and commercial refrigeration applications, and are becoming available in new split system air conditioners.[59] Various other solvents and methods have replaced the use of CFCs in laboratory analytics.[60]

In Metered-dose inhalers (MDI), a non-ozone effecting substitute was developed as a propellant, known as "hydrofluoroalkane".[61]

Applications and replacements for CFCs
Application Previously used CFC Replacement
Refrigeration & air-conditioning CFC-12 (CCl2F2); CFC-11 (CCl3F); CFC-13 (CClF3); HCFC-22 (CHClF2); CFC-113 (Cl2FCCClF2); CFC-114 (CClF2CClF2); CFC-115 (CF3CClF2); HFC-23 (CHF3); HFC-134a (CF3CFH2); HFC-507 [1:1 azeotrope of HFC-125 (CF3CHF2) and HFC-143a (CF3CH3)]; HFC-410 [1:1 azeotrope of HFC-32 (CF2H2) and HFC-125 (CF3CF2H)]
Propellants in medicinal aerosols CFC-114 (CClF2CClF2) HFC-134a (CF3CFH2); HFC-227ea (CF3CHFCF3)
Blowing agents for foams CFC-11 (CCl3F); CFC 113 (Cl2FCCClF2); HCFC-141b (CCl2FCH3) HFC-245fa (CF3CH2CHF2); HFC-365mfc (CF3CH2CF2CH3)
Solvents, degreasing agents, cleaning agents CFC-11 (CCl3F); CFC-113 (CCl2FCClF2) HCFC-225cb (C3HCl2F5)

Development of Hydrofluoroolefins as alternatives to CFCs and HCFCs

[edit]
Main article: Hydrofluoroolefins

The development of Hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) as replacements for Hydrochlorofluorocarbons and Hydrofluorocarbons began after the Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol in 2016, which called for the phase out of high global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants and to replace them with other refrigerants with a lower GWP, closer to that of carbon dioxide.[62] HFOs have an ozone depletion potential of 0.0, compared to the 1.0 of principal CFC-11, and a low GWP which make them environmentally safer alternatives to CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs.[63][64]

Hydrofluoroolefins serve as functional replacements for applications where high GWP hydrofluorocarbons were once used. In April 2022, the EPA signed a pre-published final rule Listing of HFO-1234yf under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program for Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning in Nonroad Vehicles and Servicing Fittings for Small Refrigerant Cans. This ruling allows HFO-1234yf to take over in applications where ozone depleting CFCs such as R-12, and high GWP HFCs such as R-134a were once used.[65] The phaseout and replacement of CFCs and HFCs in the automotive industry will ultimately reduce the release of these gases to atmosphere and in turn have a positive contribution to the mitigation of climate change.[66][67]

Tracer of ocean circulation

[edit]

Since the history of CFC concentrations in the atmosphere is relatively well known, they have provided an important constraint on ocean circulation. CFCs dissolve in seawater at the ocean surface and are subsequently transported into the ocean interior. Because CFCs are inert, their concentration in the ocean interior reflects simply the convolution of their atmospheric time evolution and ocean circulation and mixing.

The entry of CFCs into the ocean makes them extremely useful as transient tracers to estimate rates and pathways of ocean circulation and mixing processes.[68][69] However, due to production restrictions of CFCs in the 1980s, atmospheric concentrations of CFC-11 and CFC-12 has stopped increasing, and the CFC-11 to CFC-12 ratio in the atmosphere have been steadily decreasing, making water dating of water masses more problematic.[69] Incidentally, production and release of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) have rapidly increased in the atmosphere since the 1970s.[69] Similar to CFCs, SF6 is also an inert gas and is not affected by oceanic chemical or biological activities.[70] Thus, using CFCs in concert with SF6 as a tracer resolves the water dating issues due to decreased CFC concentrations.

Using CFCs or SF6 as a tracer of ocean circulation allows for the derivation of rates for ocean processes due to the time-dependent source function. The elapsed time since a subsurface water mass was last in contact with the atmosphere is the tracer-derived age.[71] Estimates of age can be derived based on the partial pressure of an individual compound and the ratio of the partial pressure of CFCs to each other (or SF6).[71]

The age of a water parcel can be estimated by the CFC partial pressure (pCFC) age or SF6 partial pressure (pSF6) age. The pCFC age of a water sample is defined as:

where [CFC] is the measured CFC concentration (pmol kg−1) and F is the solubility of CFC gas in seawater as a function of temperature and salinity.[72] The CFC partial pressure is expressed in units of 10–12 atmospheres or parts-per-trillion (ppt).[73] The solubility measurements of CFC-11 and CFC-12 have been previously measured by Warner and Weiss[73] Additionally, the solubility measurement of CFC-113 was measured by Bu and Warner[74] and SF6 by Wanninkhof et al.[75] and Bullister et al.[76] Theses authors mentioned above have expressed the solubility (F) at a total pressure of 1 atm as:

where F = solubility expressed in either mol l−1 or mol kg−1 atm−1, T = absolute temperature, S = salinity in parts per thousand (ppt), a1, a2, a3, b1, b2, and b3 are constants to be determined from the least squares fit to the solubility measurements.[74] This equation is derived from the integrated Van 't Hoff equation and the logarithmic Setchenow salinity dependence.[74]

It can be noted that the solubility of CFCs increase with decreasing temperature at approximately 1% per degree Celsius.[71]

Once the partial pressure of the CFC (or SF6) is derived, it is then compared to the atmospheric time histories for CFC-11, CFC-12, or SF6 in which the pCFC directly corresponds to the year with the same. The difference between the corresponding date and the collection date of the seawater sample is the average age for the water parcel.[71] The age of a parcel of water can also be calculated using the ratio of two CFC partial pressures or the ratio of the SF6 partial pressure to a CFC partial pressure.[71]

Safety

[edit]

According to their material safety data sheets, CFCs and HCFCs are colorless, volatile, non-toxic liquids and gases with a faintly sweet ethereal odor. Overexposure at concentrations of 11% or more may cause dizziness, loss of concentration, central nervous system depression or cardiac arrhythmia. Vapors displace air and can cause asphyxiation in confined spaces. Dermal absorption of chlorofluorocarbons is possible, but low. The pulmonary uptake of inhaled chlorofluorocarbons occurs quickly with peak blood concentrations, occurring in as little as 15 seconds with steady concentrations, and evening out after 20 minutes. Absorption of orally ingested chlorofluorocarbons is 35 to 48 times lower compared to inhalation.[77] Although non-flammable, their combustion products include hydrofluoric acid and related species.[78] Normal occupational exposure is rated at 0.07% and does not pose any serious health risks.[79]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Chlorofluorocarbon

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are synthetic organic compounds composed exclusively of carbon, , and atoms, notable for their high , nonflammability, low , and inertness under normal conditions. These properties made them valuable substitutes for hazardous earlier refrigerants like and ; CFC-12 () was first synthesized in 1930 and commercially produced starting in 1931, followed by CFC-11 (trichlorofluoromethane) in 1936. CFCs saw extensive use from the mid-20th century onward as refrigerants in domestic and industrial cooling systems, propellants in sprays, solvents for precision cleaning in and metals, and blowing agents for foams and insulation materials. In 1974, chemists and proposed a mechanism whereby radiation in the photodissociates CFCs, releasing atoms that catalytically destroy (O₃) through cycles like Cl + O₃ → ClO + O₂ and ClO + O → Cl + O₂, with each chlorine atom capable of depleting thousands of ozone molecules before sequestration. This , initially met with debate over factors such as stratospheric transport efficiency and natural chlorine sources from volcanoes, gained empirical support from the 1985 discovery of severe seasonal —the "ozone hole"—over , corroborated by ground, aircraft, and satellite observations showing correlations between CFC emissions and ozone loss. The controversy spurred the 1987 , an international treaty phasing out CFC production and consumption, which nearly all nations ratified; atmospheric CFC levels subsequently declined, and direct measurements indicate recovery, with the hole shrinking since the mid-2000s and projections for return to 1980 levels by mid-century, affirming the causal role of these compounds while highlighting the protocol's success in averting broader ultraviolet radiation increases.

Chemical Structure and Properties

Molecular Composition and Classes

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are fully halogenated organic compounds composed solely of , , and atoms, lacking any . They belong to the broader class of halocarbons and are derived from saturated hydrocarbons where all atoms are replaced by and . The general molecular formula for these acyclic, saturated CFCs is \ceCnClmF2n+2−m\ce{C_n Cl_m F_{2n+2-m}}, where nn represents the number of carbon atoms (typically 1 or 2 for common compounds), and mm is the number of chlorine atoms, ranging from 0 to 2n+22n+2. CFCs are categorized primarily by their carbon chain length and halogen substitution patterns. Chlorofluoromethanes (n=1n=1) include prominent examples such as CFC-11 (\ceCFCl3\ce{CFCl3}, ), CFC-12 (\ceCCl2F2\ce{CCl2F2}, ), and CFC-13 (\ceCClF3\ce{CClF3}, chlorotrifluoromethane). Chlorofluoroethanes (n=2n=2) encompass compounds like CFC-113 (\ceC2Cl3F3\ce{C2Cl3F3}, 1,1,2-trichlorotrifluoroethane) and its isomers, as well as CFC-114 (\ceC2Cl2F4\ce{C2Cl2F4}, 1,2-dichlorotetrafluoroethane). These classes differ in their specific atomic ratios, which determine their physical properties and applications, though all share the defining absence of that confers high . CFCs are distinguished from related compounds by their complete lack of atoms. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) incorporate at least one alongside and , such as HCFC-22 (\ceCHClF2\ce{CHClF2}), which introduces a site for attack in the , reducing persistence compared to CFCs. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), like HFC-134a (\ceCH2FCF3\ce{CH2FCF3}), exclude entirely, consisting only of carbon, , and , thereby avoiding ozone-depleting release while still possessing potential. This structural differentiation is critical, as the presence of in CFCs and HCFCs enables catalytic destruction in the , whereas HFCs do not contribute atoms.

Physical and Chemical Properties

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are fully halogenated hydrocarbons consisting of carbon, chlorine, and fluorine atoms, typically appearing as colorless, odorless gases or liquids with low boiling points at ambient conditions. They are non-toxic and non-flammable, exhibiting very low reactivity with most substances encountered in everyday environments. For instance, CFC-12 (dichlorodifluoromethane) boils at -29.8 °C, allowing it to transition readily between liquid and vapor phases under moderate pressures. These compounds generally have low water solubility, high vapor pressures, and densities greater than air, contributing to their persistence as vapors. CFCs demonstrate exceptional due to the strength of their carbon-fluorine and carbon-chlorine bonds, rendering them resistant to , oxidation, and other degradative processes in the . This inertness persists under normal temperatures and pressures, with minimal even in the presence of or oxygen. Additionally, they possess high constants and effective solvency for non-polar substances, alongside low and , which enhance their utility in various technical contexts. Such properties stem from their non-polar molecular structure and lack of hydrogen atoms, preventing hydrogen bonding or facile radical formation.

Numbering System

The numbering system for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), devised by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in the early , encodes the molecular composition by specifying the counts of carbon, , and atoms through a numerical identifier following the "CFC-" prefix. For methane-based CFCs (one carbon atom), the two-digit code omits a for the carbon-minus-one value; the tens digit equals the number of atoms plus one (yielding 1 for fully halogenated CFCs lacking ), and the units digit denotes the number of atoms, with atoms occupying the remaining four bonds on the carbon. Thus, CFC-11 (tens digit 1, units 1) is CFCl₃ (, 1 carbon, 0 , 1 , 3 ), while CFC-12 (tens 1, units 2) is CCl₂F₂ (, 1 carbon, 0 , 2 , 2 ). For ethane-based CFCs (two carbon atoms), the three-digit code includes a hundreds digit of 1 (carbons minus one), a tens digit of 1 (hydrogens plus one, absent in CFCs), and a units digit for fluorines, with chlorines filling the eight total bonds across both carbons. CFC-113 (hundreds 1, tens 1, units 3), for instance, is C₂Cl₃F₃ (, 2 carbons, 0 , 3 , 3 ). This scheme extends analogously for higher alkanes, though CFCs beyond two carbons were less common industrially. A decoding mnemonic adds 90 to the identifier, producing digits for carbons (hundreds), hydrogens (tens), and fluorines (units); for CFC-113, 113 + 90 = 203 confirms 2 carbons, 0 hydrogens, 3 fluorines. Chlorines are calculated as (4 × carbons) - hydrogens - fluorines. This atomic encoding aids evaluation of reactivity, including ozone-depleting potential (ODP), standardized relative to CFC-11 (CFCl₃) with ODP = 1.0; variants like CFC-12 have ODP ≈ 1.0, while CFC-113 has ODP ≈ 0.8, reflecting chlorine release efficiency in the .

Production and Synthesis

Historical Production Methods

The synthesis of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) originated with the work of Belgian chemist Frédéric Swarts in the late 1890s, who developed a halogen exchange reaction involving the treatment of chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as (CCl₄) or (CHCl₃), with (HF) in the presence of antimony(III) fluoride (SbF₃) or (SbCl₅) catalysts. This process, known as the Swarts reaction, selectively replaced chlorine atoms with fluorine, yielding fluorinated compounds like (CF₂Cl₂). Swarts' method operated primarily in the vapor phase and laid the groundwork for later industrial applications, though initial yields were modest due to the corrosive nature of HF and catalyst handling challenges. In the 1920s, American chemist , working at ' Frigidaire division alongside colleagues Albert L. Henne and Robert E. McNary, adapted and refined the Swarts reaction to produce CFCs as non-toxic, non-flammable refrigerants. By 1928, they successfully synthesized the first viable CFC, (R-12), via the reaction of with excess HF using SbCl₅ as a catalyst to facilitate stepwise fluorination: CHCl₃ + 2HF → CF₂Cl₂ + 3HCl. This liquid-phase variant improved control over the and fluorine substitution selectivity compared to earlier vapor-phase attempts. Subsequent innovations in extended the Swarts process to other CFCs, such as (CFCl₃, R-11), by adjusting reactant ratios and compositions, enabling the production of a range of - and ethane-based derivatives. These methods prioritized antimony-based for its efficacy in handling anhydrous HF, though they required specialized corrosion-resistant due to the aggressive reagents involved. secured the first U.S. for CFC synthesis in , marking the transition from laboratory curiosity to targeted development.

Industrial Scale-Up and Key Manufacturers

DuPont pioneered the industrial-scale production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the early 1930s, commercializing them under the Freon trademark after developing non-toxic alternatives to earlier refrigerants like sulfur dioxide and ammonia. This scale-up aligned with surging demand from the expanding refrigeration and air-conditioning sectors, with DuPont establishing dedicated facilities to produce Freon-12 (dichlorodifluoromethane) and other variants via halogen exchange reactions. By the mid-1970s, DuPont dominated the market, supplying over half of U.S. CFC production and approximately one-quarter of global output, equivalent to hundreds of millions of pounds annually across its plants. Internationally, (ICI) in the emerged as a key player, manufacturing CFCs under the Arcton brand and building capacity to meet European and export needs through similar fluorination processes. Japanese firms, including Asahi Glass Co., Ltd., also scaled up operations in the post-World War II era, focusing on high-purity CFCs for domestic appliances and industrial uses, supported by government-backed chemical infrastructure. These manufacturers leveraged continuous-flow reactors and catalysts to achieve yields exceeding 90% in the chlorination-fluorination steps, minimizing waste and energy inputs relative to less stable intermediates. Global CFC production infrastructure expanded rapidly through the and , with major facilities in the U.S., , and handling volatile chlorinated feedstocks under controlled pressures and temperatures to ensure product purity. By the , annual worldwide output peaked at more than one million metric tons, reflecting optimized plant designs that integrated for separation of isomers like CFC-11 and CFC-113. This era's dominance by a handful of firms—led by DuPont's integrated from raw to finished products—facilitated cost-effective distribution, with production concentrated in regions with access to hydroelectric power for electrolysis-based fluorine .

Applications and Uses

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

Chlorofluorocarbons, particularly dichlorodifluoromethane (known as CFC-12 or R-12), served as the primary refrigerants in household refrigerators, commercial cooling systems, and automotive air conditioning from the 1930s onward, dominating these applications until regulatory restrictions in the 1990s. Invented in 1930 by Thomas Midgley Jr. at General Motors as part of a search for non-toxic alternatives, CFC-12 was commercialized by DuPont under the trade name Freon and rapidly adopted due to its chemical stability and compatibility with the vapor-compression cycle. Prior refrigerants like , , and methyl chloride posed significant hazards, including toxicity, corrosiveness, and flammability, limiting their use to industrial or large-scale settings and causing numerous accidents in early domestic systems. CFC-12 addressed these issues with its non-toxic, non-flammable nature, lack of odor, and low reactivity, enabling the production of smaller, safer units suitable for homes and vehicles without requiring extensive safety infrastructure. Although demonstrates a higher (COP) by 3-10% in thermodynamic efficiency, CFC-12's safety advantages outweighed this in consumer applications, facilitating mass-market penetration and system designs that prioritized reliability over marginal energy gains. The widespread deployment of CFC-based systems supported advancements in by providing consistent low-temperature storage, which inhibits microbial growth and toxin production in perishable goods, thereby reducing spoilage rates and risks in both household and commercial contexts. In , CFC-12 enabled compact window and split units from , improving indoor control in residences and , which enhanced occupant comfort and without the or hazards of earlier fluids. By 1950, over 80% of new U.S. refrigerators used CFC-12, underscoring its role in scaling modern cooling infrastructure.

Aerosol Propellants and Solvents

Chlorofluorocarbons such as (trichlorofluoromethane) and CFC-114 (1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane) were primary propellants in products including hairsprays, deodorants, and antiperspirants from the through the . These compounds offered effective dispersion of fine particles with minimal odor and high stability, enabling consistent spray performance. Unlike propellants like or , CFCs were non-flammable and non-toxic under normal use, reducing risks of ignition or in consumer applications. By 1977, uses accounted for about 50% of all CFCs produced in the United States, reflecting their dominance in the personal care market. In response to early concerns over atmospheric persistence, U.S. manufacturers began voluntary reductions in CFC propellants before the 1978 federal ban on non-essential uses. Consumer preferences shifted toward alternatives like blends, driven by public awareness campaigns; for instance, S.C. Johnson phased out CFCs in its products by 1975, a decade ahead of international agreements. This market transition was facilitated by the industry's adaptation to pump sprays and compressed gases, which maintained product efficacy without CFCs. CFC-113 (1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane) found extensive application as a precision in manufacturing, particularly for defluxing residues from printed circuit boards after assembly. Its low (18 dynes/cm) allowed penetration into microscopic crevices, while its high solvency power dissolved fluxes like rosin-based materials without damaging components or leaving residues upon evaporation. Non-corrosive and compatible with metals and plastics, CFC-113 was preferred in vapor degreasing systems for cleaning semiconductors, , and parts, comprising up to 65% of defluxing needs in the . Conservation practices, such as via , extended its utility until regulatory phase-outs.

Fire Suppression and Foam Blowing

Halon 1211 (bromochlorodifluoromethane, CBrClF₂) and Halon 1301 (bromotrifluoromethane, CBrF₃), chemically related to chlorofluorocarbons through their halogenated structure, function as fire suppressants by chemically inhibiting the free radical chain reactions essential to combustion, leaving no residue that could damage sensitive equipment. Halon 1211 is deployed in portable streaming extinguishers, effective against class B fires involving flammable liquids and class C electrical fires, with discharge concentrations typically around 5-10% by volume sufficient for suppression. Halon 1301, in contrast, is applied in fixed total-flooding systems, where design concentrations of 5-7% vol/vol extinguish surface and deep-seated fires in enclosed spaces. These agents gained prominence in and applications for their rapid action and minimal toxicity at effective levels, protecting engines, holds, and bays where alternatives like or dry chemicals risk short-circuiting or . In contexts, Halon 1301 systems were standard in vehicles and facilities requiring uninhibited visibility and post-suppression operability, with historical installations dating to the 1960s in U.S. assets. standards, such as those from the FAA, specified Halon 1301 for nacelles due to its vapor-phase suppression efficacy and low storage volume needs, enabling deployment in weight-sensitive environments. For foam blowing, CFC-11 (, CCl₃F) served as a physical in rigid production, volatilizing during the exothermic of polyols and isocyanates to create closed-cell structures with thermal conductivities as low as 0.02 W/m·K. Its zero solubility and compatibility with foam chemistry allowed uniform cell sizes of 200-300 μm, enhancing insulation efficiency in appliances like refrigerators and building panels. CFC-11 constituted up to 15% by weight in foam formulations, enabling spray-applied and molded products for commercial and residential thermal barriers, with global production peaking in the at millions of cubic meters annually.

Medical and Other Niche Applications

Chlorofluorocarbons, particularly (trichlorofluoromethane) and CFC-114 (dichlorotetrafluoroethane), served as propellants in pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) for delivering aerosolized medications such as bronchodilators (e.g., albuterol) and corticosteroids for and (COPD). These compounds provided the necessary and stability for consistent dose metering, with blends often incorporating (dichlorodifluoromethane) to optimize formulation performance. Globally, CFC use in pMDIs accounted for approximately 4,500 metric tons annually in the early 2000s, representing a small fraction (about 0.4%) of total CFC consumption but critical for essential therapeutic delivery. Under the , essential-use exemptions allowed continued production for pMDIs, with the receiving annual allocations for CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 until transitions to hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) propellants were completed. In , CFC-based pMDIs were fully phased out by 2010, while in the , albuterol CFC pMDIs ended in 2008, with broader elimination by 2011; worldwide phaseout extended to 2016 in some regions due to formulation challenges and dependencies in developing countries. These exemptions prioritized patient access over immediate environmental restrictions, as HFA alternatives required reformulation to match CFC's efficacy in drug dispersion. Beyond pharmaceuticals, CFCs have found niche applications as transient tracers in environmental and oceanographic research, leveraging their and known atmospheric release histories for quantifying ventilation rates and circulation patterns. CFC-11 and CFC-12, introduced anthropogenically since , enable age-dating of masses by measuring concentrations against historical emission records, aiding studies of mixing and deep- renewal times. In building ventilation assessments, CFCs have been employed alongside as inert tracers to evaluate air exchange rates in enclosed spaces, though their use has declined post-phaseout due to availability constraints. Limited legacy applications persist in specialized equipment in developing nations, where older CFC-charged units for remain operational due to limitations and transition costs, despite global production bans. Minor roles in processes, such as precision cleaning or cooling in legacy systems, have been reported but represent negligible volumes compared to historical industrial uses.

Reactivity and Atmospheric Chemistry

General Reaction Mechanisms

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) demonstrate exceptional chemical inertness under ambient tropospheric conditions, primarily due to the robust carbon-fluorine (C-F) and carbon-chlorine (C-Cl) bonds that resist cleavage by common oxidants. The C-F bond dissociation energy typically ranges from 485 to 550 kJ/mol, rendering these compounds unreactive toward hydroxyl radicals (OH•), atomic oxygen, or at ground-level temperatures and pressures. This stability prevents significant degradation pathways in the lower atmosphere, allowing CFCs to persist with lifetimes spanning 45 to 100 years depending on the specific compound, such as CFC-11 () or CFC-12 (). Photolytic decomposition of CFCs requires absorption of (UV) radiation at wavelengths below approximately 230 nm, which corresponds to the energy threshold for breaking C-Cl bonds and releasing atoms. However, the filters out such short-wavelength UV-C radiation (λ < 290 nm) through absorption by molecular oxygen (O₂) and ozone (O₃), effectively prohibiting photolysis at ground level or in the lower atmosphere. Consequently, CFCs do not undergo appreciable photochemical reactions until transported to higher altitudes where UV penetration increases. In laboratory environments, CFCs can be induced to react via high-temperature pyrolysis (typically >500°C), where overcomes bond strengths to yield decomposition products like and fluorocarbons, or through catalytic processes such as hydrogenolysis over or catalysts. These controlled decompositions highlight the compounds' latent reactivity but underscore their non-reactivity without extreme conditions or reagents, as natural tropospheric processes lack sufficient energy or catalysts for initiation.

Stratospheric Degradation Pathway

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), being chemically stable in the , are transported upward through atmospheric mixing and large-scale circulation patterns, reaching the at altitudes of approximately 10 to 50 km over timescales of years to decades. In the , CFCs undergo photolysis by (UV) radiation at wavelengths primarily between 190 and 230 nm, which breaks the C-Cl bond and releases chlorine radicals (Cl•). The released Cl• initiates a catalytic cycle that depletes ozone: Cl• reacts with O3 to form ClO and O2, and ClO subsequently reacts with atomic oxygen (O) to regenerate Cl• and produce another O2, net destroying one O3 molecule per cycle while reforming the catalyst. Each chlorine atom can participate in this cycle approximately 105 times before being temporarily sequestered into reservoir species like HCl or ClONO2, amplifying the efficiency of ozone loss far beyond the initial number of radicals produced. In the cold during winter, heterogeneous reactions on polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) or aerosols convert reservoir species into more reactive forms, such as the of ClONO2 and HCl to produce Cl2, which photolyzes upon return of to yield additional Cl•. This chlorine process, occurring on particle surfaces at temperatures below about 195 , significantly enhances catalytic destruction rates in the vortex core, where isolation by the strong winds prevents dilution.

Environmental Impacts

Role in Stratospheric Ozone Depletion

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) release chlorine in the stratosphere upon photolysis, enabling catalytic cycles that destroy ozone molecules far more efficiently than natural processes. Empirical observations link rising CFC concentrations—driven by emissions increasing from near-zero in the early 20th century to peak atmospheric burdens in the 1990s—with measurable ozone declines starting in the late 1970s. Global total column ozone, expressed in Dobson units (DU), decreased by approximately 3% from the late 1970s to the late , with mid-latitude declines reaching 5-6%. Satellite data from the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) aboard Nimbus-7, operational from 1979, documented this trend, showing annual averages dropping from around 300 DU to lower values consistent with chlorine loading from CFCs. The most dramatic manifestation occurred over Antarctica, where the seasonal "ozone hole" was first reported in May 1985 by ground-based Dobson spectrophotometer measurements at British Antarctic Survey stations, revealing springtime column ozone falling to below 200 DU— a reduction of over 50% from historical norms of 300-350 DU. By the early 1990s, minimum values within the hole routinely dipped below 100 DU, representing up to 60-70% local depletion, as confirmed by TOMS imagery and subsequent Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) data. Direct measurements substantiated the chlorine mechanism: balloon-borne and aircraft campaigns in the detected ClO concentrations spiking to 1-2 by volume (ppbv) in the vortex, inversely correlating with levels and aligning with CFC-derived budgets exceeding 3 ppbv total inorganic chlorine. Chlorine loading potential models, calibrated against these observations, attributed the bulk of polar loss to anthropogenic from CFCs rather than natural variability. Post-Montreal Protocol reductions in CFC emissions have since correlated with ClO declines and partial recovery, reinforcing causality.

Contribution to Greenhouse Effect

Chlorofluorocarbons contribute to the greenhouse effect through direct absorption of infrared radiation emitted from Earth's surface, primarily in the 8–12 micrometer atmospheric window where overlap with major greenhouse gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide is minimal. This absorption leads to radiative forcing, quantified as the change in Earth's energy balance in watts per square meter (W/m²). Unlike their role in ozone depletion, this effect stems solely from molecular vibrational modes trapping outgoing longwave radiation, independent of stratospheric chemistry. CFCs' efficacy arises from strong per-molecule infrared absorption cross-sections and persistence in the troposphere and stratosphere. Key CFCs exhibit high global warming potentials (GWPs) relative to CO₂ (GWP=1 by ), reflecting integrated radiative impact over time horizons. CFC-12 (, CCl₂F₂) has an atmospheric lifetime of about 100 years and a 100-year GWP of 10,900, meaning 1 kg of CFC-12 traps as much heat over a century as 10,900 kg of CO₂._1.pdf) CFC-11 (, CCl₃F) has a lifetime of 45 years and 100-year GWP of 4,660._1.pdf) These values derive from spectroscopic data and atmospheric modeling in IPCC assessments, emphasizing lifetime-weighted forcing rather than instantaneous effects. Prior to widespread phase-out under the , CFCs and related hydrochlorofluorocarbons accounted for approximately 11% of total from well-mixed greenhouse gases in the late , comparable to contributions from or but far exceeding their emission volumes. Emissions peaked in the , with CFC forcing rising rapidly from near-zero in the mid- to about 0.3–0.4 W/m² by 1990, representing a substantial fraction of incremental anthropogenic warming since 1950. Per , CFCs are thousands of times more potent than CO₂, though their aggregate forcing remained secondary to CO₂'s dominance due to lower release quantities. The subsequent decline in atmospheric abundances—e.g., CFC-12 concentrations falling from 540 ppt in 1993 to around 500 ppt by 2020—has averted additional forcing, yielding climate co-benefits estimated at 0.5–1 GtCO₂-equivalent annually in avoided emissions.

Use as Oceanic Tracers

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), particularly CFC-11 and CFC-12, serve as transient tracers in due to their chemical inertness in and well-documented atmospheric concentration histories, which rose sharply from onward, peaking in the before declining due to regulatory phase-outs. These compounds enter the primarily through air-sea at the surface, enabling scientists to estimate the "ventilation age" of water masses—the time elapsed since exposure to the atmosphere—by comparing measured oceanic partial pressures to historical atmospheric records. This application has been employed since the , with widespread sampling during the and coinciding with peak atmospheric levels, providing snapshots of circulation patterns that formed in the mid-20th century. CFC gradients have been instrumental in mapping deep ocean dynamics, including the propagation of intermediate and abyssal waters globally. For instance, vertical profiles of CFC-11 and CFC-12 reveal pathways and mixing rates, with higher concentrations indicating recently ventilated waters and gradients highlighting circulation slowdowns. In the North Atlantic, CFC-12 distributions from surveys like the 1990s World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) showed discrepancies in penetration depths that suggest a weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), as older-than-expected water ages imply reduced northward and deep convection. These tracers also quantify ocean uptake of anthropogenic signals, such as excess and carbon, by linking ventilation timescales to meridional variability. To address limitations from post-1990s CFC declines, sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) has been used alongside CFCs since the early 2000s, as its atmospheric concentrations continue rising, extending age estimates to younger waters (under 20 years). Paired CFC-SF6 measurements reduce uncertainties in age spectra, particularly in regions of partial ventilation or mixing, where CFC ages may overestimate by 5–10% per decade due to dilution effects. However, the phase-out of CFCs has curtailed their utility for tracking very recent circulation changes, shifting reliance toward SF6 and other emerging tracers like 14C for longer-term dynamics.

Historical Development

Invention and Early Commercialization

In the early 20th century, mechanical refrigeration systems commonly employed toxic and flammable substances such as , methyl chloride, and , which posed significant risks due to leaks and explosions in household and commercial units, resulting in numerous fatalities and injuries. To address these hazards, , an engineer at ' research division, synthesized (CFC-12) in 1928 as a stable, non-toxic, and non-flammable alternative refrigerant, initially branded as by . , a , secured the first U.S. patent (No. 1,886,339) for the CFC formula on December 31, 1928, enabling its integration into refrigeration apparatus. In 1930, and established the Kinetic Chemical Company to manufacture and commercialize on a large scale. Midgley demonstrated its safety in a 1930 presentation by inhaling the gas and using his breath to extinguish a , highlighting its inertness compared to prior refrigerants. DuPont's toxicity tests in the early confirmed CFC-12's low reactivity and absence of acute effects at typical exposure levels, facilitating regulatory acceptance and consumer trust. This innovation spurred rapid ; by 1935, and competitors had sold over 8 million U.S. refrigerators equipped with Freon-12 systems, transforming domestic cooling from a perilous novelty to a widespread staple.

Expansion in Consumer Products

In the post-World War II era, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) proliferated in consumer products, driven by their chemical stability, low toxicity, and non-flammability, which addressed limitations of prior alternatives like or in . During the late 1940s and 1950s, CFCs such as (CFC-12) were introduced as propellants in cans, initially for insecticides and paints, then expanding to personal care items including sprays, deodorants, and shaving creams, fueling a boom in convenient, pressurized consumer goods. By the late 1950s, CFCs like (CFC-11) became essential blowing agents in production, enabling the creation of lightweight, insulating materials for packaging, furniture cushioning, and rigid insulation panels, which saw rapid market growth into the 1960s as demand rose for disposable and durable consumer applications. CFCs also underpinned the expansion of household and ; CFC-12 powered the majority of domestic refrigerators by the 1950s and facilitated affordable automotive and room air conditioners in the early 1960s, allowing mass-market penetration that equipped most U.S. households with reliable cooling by the mid-1960s. U.S. consumption of CFCs in aerosols alone reached about 200,000 metric tons annually by the early , while total domestic production of CFC-11 and CFC-12 peaked at 812,500 metric tons in 1974, supporting robust exports to and amid global demand for these versatile compounds in consumer manufacturing. This surge generated economic advantages, including scaled production of appliances that preserved food more effectively, reduced spoilage losses, and provided cooling for improved comfort and in homes and vehicles, thereby elevating consumer standards without the safety risks of earlier technologies.

Emergence of Ozone Concerns

In June 1974, chemists Mario J. Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland published a seminal paper in Nature proposing that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), widely used as refrigerants and aerosol propellants, could reach the stratosphere intact and photodissociate under ultraviolet radiation, releasing chlorine atoms. These atoms would then catalyze a chain reaction destroying ozone molecules, potentially leading to a several percent reduction in stratospheric ozone levels if CFC emissions continued unchecked. The hypothesis relied on established photochemical kinetics but lacked direct empirical confirmation of CFC transport or chlorine-mediated depletion rates at the time. Throughout the mid-1970s, ground-based and early observations began indicating subtle declines in total column , with annual averages dropping by approximately 0.3% per year in some mid-latitude regions, prompting further of anthropogenic influences like CFCs. NASA's Nimbus-7 Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer, operational from late 1978, provided more comprehensive data supporting a gradual downward trend, though statistical significance was debated amid natural variability. These measurements aligned with model predictions from Molina and Rowland but were insufficient to isolate CFC causation definitively, as pre-1970s records showed no prior acceleration in decline rates. Industry leaders, including —the primary CFC producer—responded skeptically, commissioning kinetic studies that questioned the efficiency of the proposed and emphasized CFCs' stability and low stratospheric concentrations. DuPont publicly argued in 1975 that available evidence did not warrant production curbs, citing insufficient proof of significant impact and potential overestimation of chlorine yields. These counter-studies, while peer-reviewed, were critiqued for selective emphasis on uncertainties rather than integrating full atmospheric transport models. Public and regulatory alarm intensified by 1977, fueled by media coverage and advocacy, culminating in the U.S. government's ban on non-essential CFC use in effective March 1978, enforced by the EPA, FDA, and CPSC. This measure targeted propellants accounting for about half of U.S. CFC consumption but had negligible immediate global effect, as aerosol uses represented a minority of total emissions and production shifted elsewhere. had preemptively banned CFC aerosols in January 1978 amid similar concerns.

Regulation and International Agreements

Pre-Montreal Protocol Efforts

In 1977, the (UNEP) facilitated an international meeting where 32 countries endorsed the World Plan of Action on the , aimed at fostering research and monitoring of potential threats to stratospheric from substances like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This initiative established a Coordinating Committee under UNEP to oversee data collection and scientific assessments, marking the first coordinated global response to emerging ozone concerns without imposing binding controls. Domestic actions preceded broader international , with the implementing a ban on nonessential CFC use in propellants effective March 1978, enforced by the Agency (EPA), Consumer Product Safety Commission, and . This followed proposed regulations announced in May 1977 and targeted CFCs-11 and -12, which comprised about half of U.S. CFC consumption at the time, primarily due to evidence linking them to stratospheric chlorine increases. Several European nations, including (January 1978), , and , enacted similar bans around the same period, reducing CFC emissions from propellants by an estimated 25% globally by 1980. Industry responses evolved amid scientific debates, with —the leading CFC producer—initially opposing comprehensive controls in the early 1980s, citing insufficient evidence of significant risk, but shifting by 1986 to endorse production reductions following the hole discovery and internal assessments of substitute viability. DuPont announced plans to develop alternatives and support regulatory freezes, pledging voluntary cuts ahead of mandates if phased appropriately. These efforts culminated in the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, adopted on March 22, 1985, which established a framework for international cooperation on , monitoring, and regarding ozone-depleting substances (ODS) without specific emission limits. Signed by over 20 nations initially and entering into force in 1988, the convention facilitated technical assessments and laid groundwork for subsequent protocols by committing parties to share atmospheric data and assess CFC impacts empirically.

Montreal Protocol and Amendments

The on Substances that Deplete the was adopted on September 16, 1987, in , , by representatives from 24 countries and the , entering into force on January 1, 1989, after ratification by two-thirds of signatories representing at least two-thirds of 1986 global consumption of controlled substances. The original agreement targeted chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), requiring parties to freeze production and consumption at 1986 levels by July 1, 1990, and achieve a 50% reduction by 1998, while establishing a mechanism for scientific assessments and adjustments to control lists and phase-out schedules. Halons were included under initial controls with a production freeze but no specified reductions at adoption. The Protocol has achieved near-universal adherence, with 198 parties—including 197 UN member states and the —having ratified it as of 2024, marking the first multilateral environmental agreement with such comprehensive participation. Amendments progressively expanded coverage and tightened timelines. The London Amendment, adopted June 29, 1990, and entering into force in 1991, mandated complete phase-out of CFCs, halons, and by 2000 for developed countries (Article 2 parties), while introducing phase-down schedules for developing countries (Article 5 parties) with a 10-year ; it also added hydrobromofluorocarbons to the control list. The Copenhagen Amendment, adopted November 25, 1992, and effective from 1994, accelerated CFC phase-out to 1996 for developed countries, incorporated hydrochlorofluorocarbins (HCFCs) with a freeze in 1996 and phase-out by 2030, and extended controls to with a 25% reduction by 1999 for developed parties. These changes established differentiated schedules, aiming for full elimination of listed -depleting substances by 2000 in developed countries and 2010 in developing ones for most controlled substances. Further evolution included the 2016 , adopted October 15, 2016, during the 28th Meeting of the Parties in , , which extended the treaty framework to phase down hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)—substitutes not ozone-depleting but potent greenhouse gases—requiring an 85% reduction in developed countries by 2036 and baselines with freezes starting 2019 or 2024 for most parties, with projected avoidance of up to 105 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions. Ratified by over 140 parties as of 2024, it leverages the Protocol's implementation infrastructure for climate benefits without altering core ozone protections.

National and Regional Phase-Outs

, the Clean Amendments of 1990 mandated an accelerated phase-out of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) production and consumption, requiring the cessation of nearly all CFC production by January 1, 1996, which preceded the Montreal Protocol's adjusted 1996 deadline for developed countries following the 1990 London Amendments. The Environmental Protection Agency enforced this through Title VI regulations, including bans on new production and imports, strict labeling requirements, and penalties for non-compliance, resulting in full achievement of the CFC phase-out by 1996. The implemented CFC controls via Council Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 and subsequent measures, enforcing a stricter phase-out date of January 1, 1995, for most applications, exceeding the Protocol's timeline and incorporating early bans on non-essential uses such as aerosols dating back to the . EU member states coordinated enforcement through national authorities, with the overseeing compliance reporting and authorizing limited essential-use exemptions, primarily for metered-dose inhalers, which were tapered off as hydrofluoroalkane alternatives proved viable. In contrast, developing countries like and , designated as Article 5 parties under the Protocol, adhered to extended timelines, fully phasing out CFC production and consumption by January 1, 2010, with support from the Multilateral Fund's investment projects totaling hundreds of millions of dollars for industry conversions in , , and other sectors. 's completion involved eliminating over 600,000 metric tons of ozone-depleting substances cumulatively, aided by MLF-funded retrofits and technology transfers, while met sector-specific deadlines earlier—such as 2003 for and —but aligned overall compliance with the 2010 global cutoff for Article 5 nations. These disparities reflected the Protocol's differentiated responsibilities, granting developing economies a 14-year over developed ones, alongside financial assistance exceeding $3 billion globally from the MLF by the early to facilitate equitable . Essential-use exemptions persisted longer in some cases for critical medical applications but were subject to annual review and progressively curtailed as substitutes became available.

Phase-Out Implementation and Challenges

Transition Timelines and Compliance

Under the and its amendments, developed countries achieved a complete phase-out of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) production and consumption by January 1, 1996, as accelerated by the 1990 Amendment and 1992 Amendment, which mandated 100% reduction from baseline levels established in 1986. Developing countries followed a delayed schedule, completing their CFC phase-out by January 1, 2010, with compliance verified through annual data reporting to the Ozone Secretariat. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), permitted as interim substitutes, faced stepwise reductions: developed countries froze consumption at 1989 levels in 1996, cut 35% by 2004, 65% by 2010, 90% by 2015, and reached full phase-out by , 2020; developing countries began reductions from 2013 baselines, targeting 67.5% cut by 2025 and complete elimination by 2030. Global adherence has been tracked via quadrennial assessments by the (WMO) and (UNEP), which document atmospheric declines aligning with reported consumption data. By 2020, international efforts under the Protocol resulted in approximately 99% reduction in overall ozone-depleting substances (ODS) from peak levels, with CFC emissions dropping to near-zero in compliant regions, as measured by ground-based and observations. Limited exceptions persist for essential uses, including CFC-based metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) for treating and , with annual exemptions granted by Protocol parties until alternatives proved viable, fully phased out in the U.S. by 2010. Feedstock applications, where ODS are chemically transformed without atmospheric release, remain exempt from phase-out quotas under decisions like XXXVI/5, provided emissions controls are in place.

Economic Costs and Industry Adaptation

The phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) under the imposed substantial economic costs on industries reliant on these substances, particularly in , , and sectors. In the United States, compliance expenses—including equipment retrofits, higher prices for alternative , and lost during transitions—were estimated at $44.5 billion to $99.4 billion, with ongoing annual costs from elevated refrigerant prices adding billions more. These figures accounted for direct outlays such as converting existing systems and disposing of CFC-containing appliances, which strained small businesses and service technicians handling legacy equipment. Globally, analogous transitions amplified costs through technology transfers and infrastructure upgrades, though multilateral funds mitigated some burdens for developing nations. The and industries experienced notable disruptions, including job displacements from reduced demand for CFC-specific servicing and . Service technicians and manufacturers reported challenges in adapting to new standards, with the sector's reliance on CFCs—comprising a significant portion of U.S. usage prior to phase-out—leading to retraining needs and temporary shortfalls as production lines shifted. Industry analyses highlighted risks of bottlenecks, as the of CFCs post-1996 in developed countries inflated black-market prices and complicated for existing installations. Major CFC producers adapted through aggressive research and development investments in substitutes, enabling patent transitions to hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and other compounds. , the dominant U.S. manufacturer, pioneered commercial alternatives for and applications, scaling production after initial R&D pauses during periods of regulatory uncertainty; this positioned the company to capture in the post-CFC era. Similarly, (ICI) in the UK pursued parallel innovations, collaborating on cost-effective replacements that aligned with phase-out timelines. These efforts, often exceeding hundreds of millions in combined expenditures, reflected strategic pivots driven by anticipated regulatory inevitability rather than purely environmental motives. Market forces preceded full regulatory enforcement in some applications, demonstrating industry responsiveness to consumer and early policy pressures. In the U.S., CFC use in aerosol propellants declined from over 50% of the market in the early to near elimination by , largely through voluntary manufacturer switches to non-CFC alternatives amid public campaigns and pre-ban guidelines. Companies like S.C. Johnson phased out CFCs in aerosols a decade ahead of international deadlines, illustrating how competitive dynamics and reputational incentives accelerated adaptation without immediate mandates.

Enforcement, Smuggling, and Exceptions

In , scientists detected an unanticipated rise in atmospheric CFC-11 emissions, reversing prior declines and pointing to widespread illegal production primarily in eastern for use in insulating foam. The increase equated to roughly 11,000 additional tonnes emitted annually from 2012 onward, with investigations revealing factories substituting cheaper, banned CFC-11 for compliant alternatives despite the 2010 phase-out deadline for developing countries. Chinese authorities responded with raids, facility closures, and stricter controls, reducing emissions from the region by over 50% by 2020 and restoring the trajectory of ozone recovery. Similar illicit production has been reported in during 2018-2023, though quantified data remains limited compared to . Enforcement under the relies on national customs, atmospheric monitoring by networks like AGAGE, and international cooperation via UNEP implementation committees, but challenges persist due to underreporting and weak oversight in some Article 5 countries. typically involves misdeclaring CFCs as HCFCs, non-controlled chemicals, or using falsified export licenses from producer nations to high-demand markets like the and . Seizure data underscores the scale: UNODC documented 728 tonnes of mostly CFCs intercepted across East from 2006-2009, while historical estimates pegged annual illicit CFC flows at 16,000-38,000 tonnes in the mid-1990s amid phase-out pressures. Recent volumes are harder to quantify but remain lucrative, with EPA warnings noting risks of forfeited stockpiles for importers unknowingly handling smuggled goods. The Protocol permits narrow exceptions to the CFC phase-out, including feedstock use where CFCs serve as intermediates in producing non-ODS chemicals, exempt from consumption controls. Essential use exemptions, once applied to CFC-based metered-dose inhalers for treatment, have largely expired following transitions to alternatives, with no new nominations approved since the early . Limited allowances persist for laboratory calibration standards and the regulated destruction or reclamation of legacy stockpiles to prevent uncontrolled releases, as exemplified by EPA programs recovering CFCs from decommissioned equipment.

Alternatives and Technological Shifts

Interim Substitutes: HCFCs and HFCs

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) served as transitional substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) following the initial phase-out mandates of the Montreal Protocol, offering reduced atmospheric persistence due to the presence of hydrogen atoms that facilitate breakdown in the lower atmosphere before reaching the stratosphere. Unlike CFCs, HCFCs exhibit ozone-depleting potentials (ODPs) typically 1 to 2 orders of magnitude lower, though they retain some chlorine content capable of catalytic ozone destruction. A prominent example is HCFC-22 (R-22, chlorodifluoromethane), widely used in refrigeration and air conditioning, with an ODP of 0.055 and a global warming potential (GWP) of 1,810 relative to CO2 over 100 years. HCFCs were explicitly designated as interim options under the 1987 Montreal Protocol and its amendments, allowing their production to bridge the gap while longer-term alternatives were developed. The scheduled HCFC phase-out in stages to minimize disruption, with developed countries completing elimination of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b production and imports by 2020, and a global baseline freeze for developing countries in 2013 leading to full phase-out by 2030. This timeline reflects their intermediate environmental impact: shorter lifetimes (e.g., 12 years for HCFC-22 versus 100+ years for many CFCs) limit stratospheric release, but their high GWPs and residual ODP necessitated restrictions to prevent substitution from exacerbating ozone loss or forcing. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), lacking chlorine, were subsequently adopted as HCFC replacements, achieving zero ODP while maintaining compatible thermodynamic properties for applications like refrigeration. , a common CFC-12 substitute in , exemplifies this class with a GWP of approximately 1,430, though HFCs broadly range from 1,000 to 4,000. The to the , entering into force on January 1, 2019, initiated HFC phase-down for developed countries with an 85% reduction target by 2036 relative to 2011-2013 baselines, addressing their potent effects despite safety. While HFCs avoided ozone depletion, their adoption introduced trade-offs, including elevated GWPs contributing to equivalent to billions of tons of CO2 annually if unchecked. Some HFCs, particularly lower-GWP variants like HFC-152a, exhibit mild flammability under specific conditions (e.g., elevated pressure or oxygen mixtures), contrasting with the inherent non-flammability of CFCs and raising safety considerations in enclosed systems. These properties positioned HFCs as short-term bridges, pending further shifts to lower-impact alternatives.

Long-Term Options: HFOs and Natural Refrigerants

Hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs), such as HFO-1234yf (R-1234yf) and HFO-1234ze(E) (R-1234ze), represent a class of unsaturated hydrofluorocarbons developed as long-term substitutes for high-GWP HFCs in and systems, characterized by very low 100-year global warming potentials of approximately 4 for R-1234yf and 6-7 for R-1234ze. These compounds exhibit zero and are mildly flammable, classified as A2L under Standard 34, necessitating safety measures in system design but enabling broader adoption than highly flammable alternatives. R-1234yf gained significant traction in mobile air conditioning following its approval under the U.S. EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy program, with initial European vehicle integrations occurring in models like the and in January 2013, driven by regulatory mandates to reduce GWP in automotive applications. By the end of 2022, millions of vehicles worldwide utilized R-1234yf systems, reflecting scaled production investments by manufacturers such as and . HFO blends, often incorporating these olefins, are increasingly applied in stationary refrigeration to meet stringent GWP limits while maintaining thermodynamic performance comparable to HFC predecessors. Natural refrigerants, including (R-744), (R-717), and hydrocarbons such as (R-290), offer zero-GWP alternatives with established thermodynamic properties suited for pumps and , though they involve application-specific considerations. CO2 systems excel in transcritical cycles for high-temperature rejection but exhibit lower seasonal coefficients of performance () in mild ambient conditions compared to synthetic refrigerants, requiring optimized and designs to mitigate penalties. demonstrates superior volumetric capacity and in large-scale industrial and heat pumps, achieving high performance factors with minimal environmental impact, while hydrocarbons provide compact, energy-efficient solutions in domestic units despite flammability constraints limiting charge sizes. In the 2020s, the European Union's revised F-gas Regulation (EU) 2024/573, effective from March 2024, accelerates HFC phase-down to near-zero by 2050, explicitly promoting HFO blends and natural refrigerants through expanded quotas, emission prevention rules, and bans on high-GWP substances in new equipment, thereby incentivizing their deployment in commercial and residential sectors. This framework supports a shift toward climate-neutral technologies, with natural refrigerants positioned as viable for expansions under initiatives, contingent on addressing safety and infrastructure adaptations.

Performance Comparisons and Trade-Offs

Chlorofluorocarbons exhibited favorable thermodynamic properties in and systems, achieving (COP) values often 5-10% higher than (HFC) replacements like R-134a in direct empirical tests under comparable operating conditions, due to better characteristics and compatibility with established designs. This efficiency advantage translated to lower for equivalent cooling output, though HFC systems could approach parity with extensive redesigns involving larger evaporators or optimized expansion devices. Hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs), such as R-1234yf, demonstrate similar or marginally lower COP in vapor compression cycles compared to CFCs, but their unsaturated molecular structure necessitates tighter leak prevention measures, elevating risks of refrigerant loss and subsequent efficiency penalties from partial charges. Natural refrigerants like hydrocarbons (e.g., R-290 ) and can match or exceed CFC COP in tailored systems—up to 10-20% higher volumetric capacity in some low-temperature applications—but require fortified to mitigate flammability, increasing system complexity and potential for leaks that undermine overall performance. These trade-offs echo the pre-CFC era, when toxic and flammable fluids like and methyl caused frequent accidents due to poor stability, prompting the development of CFCs for their non-flammable, non-toxic profiles that prioritized operational without efficiency compromises. HFCs preserve much of this safety inertness but exhibit reduced thermal stability relative to CFCs, decomposing more readily under extreme conditions and potentially forming hazardous byproducts in overheated systems. Over the lifecycle, HFO alternatives introduce degradation products like trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a highly persistent strong acid that accumulates in surface waters and soils, with concentrations rising to microgram-per-liter levels in and posing risks of ecosystem acidification and even at low exposures. Unlike the inert persistence of CFCs, which minimized in-system reactions but contributed to long atmospheric lifetimes, HFO breakdown circumvents concerns at the cost of localized environmental acidity, compounded by higher upfront energy demands in mildly flammable blends. Natural options, while avoiding such chemical legacies, amplify leak-related energy losses in practice due to stringent charge limits (e.g., under 150g for hydrocarbons in many jurisdictions), contrasting CFCs' tolerance for larger inventories without safety trade-offs.

Scientific Controversies and Debates

Challenges to the CFC-Ozone Causation Theory

S. Fred Singer, a physicist and critic of the dominant CFC-ozone depletion narrative, contended that observed stratospheric ozone variations, including the Antarctic "hole," could largely be explained by natural dynamical processes within the polar vortex rather than chlorine catalysis from anthropogenic CFCs, emphasizing that cold temperatures and isolation naturally suppress ozone production without requiring elevated chlorine levels. Singer further argued that early instrumental measurements of ozone and chlorine monoxide in Antarctica were unreliable, potentially confounded by sulfur dioxide emissions from nearby Mount Erebus, which could mimic depletion signals and overestimate chemical loss. Alternative explanations for ozone fluctuations have invoked solar activity and volcanic aerosols, which demonstrably influence stratospheric chemistry independent of CFC emissions. Ozone levels exhibit a 1-2% variation tied to the 11-year , with reduced radiation during solar minima decreasing formation rates globally. Similarly, explosive volcanic eruptions release that forms sulfate aerosols, catalyzing heterogeneous reactions which temporarily deplete ; the 1991 eruption, for instance, reduced global column by approximately 5-8% over 2-3 years through enhanced activation on surfaces, illustrating a mechanism amplifying depletion without relying primarily on CFC-derived . Critiques have also questioned the uniqueness of CFC "fingerprints" in observed ozone loss patterns, noting that model predictions fail to fully account for hemispheric asymmetries, such as the Arctic's more variable and less severe depletions despite comparable CFC distributions, which suggest dynamical and variability—rather than solely anthropogenic chlorine loading—drive much of the observed trends. Regarding chlorine sources, while assessments attribute over 80% of stratospheric chlorine to activities, reviews of contributions highlight potential underestimation from oceanic methyl chloride and episodic volcanic injections, with single major eruptions capable of delivering up to 3 × 10^{13} grams of gaseous chlorine directly into the , challenging claims of negligible non-CFC influences on polar chemistry. These factors collectively imply that the causal attribution to CFCs may overstate their role relative to background variability and alternative chlorine reservoirs.

Discrepancies in Predicted vs. Actual Outcomes

In the and early , models linked projected from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to substantial rises in (UV) radiation, forecasting millions of additional cases globally if emissions continued unabated; for instance, unrestricted scenarios suggested a quadrupling of incidence in some regions by mid-century. These projections underpinned urgency for the , with estimates implying that without phase-out, the alone might see over 6 million excess skin cancer deaths by 2065. However, post-phase-out observations through the and beyond showed no corresponding of UV-induced skin cancers beyond pre-existing upward trends attributed to behavioral factors like increased sun exposure and tanning practices, contradicting the scale of anticipated surges. Global average stratospheric levels peaked at a depletion of approximately 3-5% in the late , far less severe than some early worst-case models of 30-50% loss by 2050 under continued CFC emissions, highlighting overestimations in projected uniform thinning outside polar regions. Despite emissions of ozone-depleting substances falling more than 99% since the Montreal Protocol's 1987 implementation, the Antarctic hole has persisted into the 2020s, with annual minima still reaching depths exceeding 100 Dobson units in recent years, and full recovery now projected for the 2060s rather than the quicker rebounds some initial assessments implied. This lag stems partly from CFCs' long atmospheric lifetimes and additional influences like very short-lived substances, but the ongoing seasonal hole—despite drastic CFC reductions—diverges from expectations of rapid post-phase-out stabilization.

Critiques of Regulatory Overreach

Critics have contended that the regulatory framework established by the exemplified overreach, as it imposed global production and consumption controls on CFCs just two years after the ozone hole's discovery in May 1985, prior to comprehensive confirmation of the photochemical mechanisms linking CFCs to polar loss. The heterogeneous reactions on particles in polar stratospheric clouds, essential for , were not fully detailed until subsequent expeditions in 1986 and 1987, raising questions about whether empirical causation was adequately established before committing to irreversible economic disruptions. Economic analyses have highlighted disproportionate costs relative to the anticipated ozone-related benefits, with U.S. phaseout expenses alone estimated at $44.5–$99.4 billion from 1994–2003, including retrofits for , , and chillers, translating to $445–$994 per household. These burdens funded primarily through consumer price hikes and industry retooling were contrasted against projections of up to 2 million annual cases averted globally by 2030, stemming from a modeled 10–20% UV increase in mid-latitudes absent intervention—a benefit some assessments deemed marginal given factors like behavioral changes in sun exposure. Such cost-benefit disparities were exacerbated by the protocol's acceleration of CFC elimination ahead of original timelines, effectively conducting large-scale testing of unproven substitutes at public expense without robust prior validation of net gains. Industry dynamics further fueled critiques, as , the dominant CFC manufacturer holding 25–30% of the global market, shifted from opposing aerosol bans in 1974–1975—citing scientific and $8 billion in potential U.S. economic losses—to endorsing the 1987 protocol's 50% reduction targets after securing patents for higher-margin alternatives like hydrofluorocarbons. This reversal, accelerated post-1985 ozone hole findings, aligned with DuPont's assessment that CFC production had become unprofitable amid voluntary market shifts (e.g., by firms like Johnson Wax), positioning substitutes priced 5–10 times higher as a strategic opportunity despite the phaseout's broader sectoral disruptions. Detractors argue this corporate pivot, rather than unassailable evidence, propelled policy momentum, sidelining first-mover verification of alternatives' efficacy and overlooking CFCs' ancillary climate forcing effects, which the ban serendipitously mitigated but were not central to the ozone-centric rationale.

Safety, Health, and Toxicity Profile

Human Health Effects

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) demonstrate low acute inhalation toxicity in humans and animal models, with LC50 values typically exceeding 50,000 ppm for 4- to 8-hour exposures in rats and mice, far above occupational exposure limits of 1,000 ppm or less. Human volunteer studies confirm no significant impairment or lethality at concentrations up to several thousand ppm for short durations, underscoring their chemical inertness under normal conditions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not classified CFCs as carcinogenic due to lack of supporting evidence from epidemiological or animal data, while the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorizes specific CFCs like chlorofluoromethane in Group 3 (not classifiable as to carcinogenicity to humans). Chronic exposure to CFCs at levels encountered in occupational settings produces minimal respiratory effects, with irritation thresholds generally above 1,000 ppm and reversible symptoms such as mild coughing or throat discomfort resolving post-exposure. Long-term studies in workers handling CFCs report no consistent evidence of , , or other persistent lung pathology attributable to the compounds themselves, contrasting with products from overheating which can cause acute irritant responses. CFCs offered superior safety over historical refrigerants like , which has an immediately dangerous to life or (IDLH) concentration of 300 ppm due to its pungent odor, corrosive effects on mucous membranes, and potential for fatal even at low exposures. This non-toxicity facilitated widespread adoption in domestic appliances by the 1930s, reducing accident rates from refrigerant leaks compared to ammonia systems prone to explosive reactions. In pharmaceutical applications, CFCs served as propellants in metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) for and treatments from the 1950s through the early 2000s, delivering medications effectively with rates comparable to and no propellant-specific toxicities beyond rare, mild throat irritation. Clinical trials switching from CFC to hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) MDIs showed similar safety profiles, with CFC formulations associated with low incidences of systemic effects or exacerbations directly linked to the CFC component. Their phase-out from inhalers stemmed from atmospheric concerns rather than risks, as confirmed by regulatory assessments finding negligible exposure contributions to .

Flammability and Stability Advantages

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were engineered as non-flammable refrigerants, possessing no and exhibiting zero flame propagation under standard test conditions, which marked a significant safety advancement over prior options like and that posed explosion risks in early systems. This enabled widespread adoption in household refrigerators and air conditioners starting in the 1930s, drastically reducing fire hazards associated with leaks or system failures in confined spaces. The thermal stability of CFCs further enhanced their utility, as these compounds resist decomposition even under elevated temperatures and pressures typical in compressor operations, minimizing the release of hazardous byproducts and ensuring reliable performance without corrosive interactions with system metals. Synthesized in 1928 by at , CFCs like (R-12) demonstrated exceptional inertness, allowing them to maintain integrity in high-stress environments where earlier volatile fluids would break down. In contrast to some hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) and hydrocarbon (HC) substitutes classified as mildly flammable (A2L) or highly flammable (A3), CFCs eliminated ignition risks in air conditioning units, correlating with fewer reported fire incidents in legacy systems compared to modern installations handling flammable alternatives that require additional safety mitigations like leak sensors. This non-flammable profile, combined with low acute toxicity under ASHRAE classifications, positioned CFCs as a Group 1 refrigerant standard for safety in commercial and residential applications until regulatory phaseouts.

Environmental Persistence Benefits and Drawbacks

The of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) imparts environmental benefits through their inertness in the and , preventing reactive degradation that could generate harmful byproducts or contribute to local . Unlike volatile organic compounds, CFCs do not participate in photochemical reactions, thereby avoiding any role in ground-level formation or tropospheric production. This inert character extends to ecosystems, where CFCs exhibit negligible direct toxicity to aquatic organisms, microbes, and in standard exposure tests, as their stability inhibits interactions with biological processes. However, the same persistence—manifested in atmospheric lifetimes of approximately 45–100 years depending on the specific CFC variant—enables long-range atmospheric transport, distributing trace quantities to remote ecosystems far from emission sources. While potential remains low due to limited in (e.g., <0.1 g/100 mL for many CFCs) and poor partitioning into tissues of aquatic species, prolonged environmental residence can result in detectable buildup in certain compartments, such as adipose tissues in exposed mammals. This global mobility amplifies the scope of potential indirect effects, even if direct ecotoxicological impacts are minimal.

Current Status and Future Prospects

The Antarctic ozone hole in 2024 reached a peak area of approximately 20 million square kilometers, ranking as the seventh-smallest since recovery monitoring began in 1992, according to and NOAA assessments. This size, smaller than averages from the early , reflects ongoing healing driven by reduced stratospheric chlorine from phased-out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), with the minimum column concentration hitting 109 Dobson units on October 5. The (WMO) reported the 2024 hole's depth, measured by maximum ozone mass deficit, at 46.1 million tonnes—below the 1990–2020 average—indicating progress in polar vortex chlorine decline. Global stratospheric levels are projected to return to 1980 concentrations by around 2066, per joint WMO and analyses, assuming continued compliance with the and stable atmospheric dynamics. CFC-11 and CFC-12 atmospheric burdens have declined steadily since peak levels in the , with equivalent effective levels dropping as tracked by NOAA's Ozone Depleting Gas Index (ODGI), which measures progress toward zero effective chlorine relative to 1980 baselines. Annual decline rates for major CFCs average 2-3% in recent decades, contributing to reduced catalytic ozone destruction cycles in the . However, very short-lived substances (VSLS), including chlorinated VSLS like , introduce and that partially offset recovery, particularly in the , by delaying rebound by up to a decade in model simulations. Rising VSLS emissions from industrial sources have amplified lower stratospheric loss trends, slowing healing despite CFC reductions, as evidenced by GEOS Chemistry projections incorporating VSLS transport to polar regions. These compounds, not fully regulated under the , highlight emerging challenges to full restoration timelines.

Ongoing Emissions and Monitoring

Atmospheric concentrations of CFC-11 and CFC-12 are monitored globally by networks including NOAA's Global Monitoring Laboratory and the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE), which provide precise measurements of mole fractions from flask samples and in-situ observations at multiple sites. As of 2023, CFC-12 remains the largest contributor to among ozone-depleting substances, while CFC-11's abundance has continued declining following a temporary emissions uptick resolved by 2019. These data indicate near-zero new industrial emissions, with global production banned since the 1990s under the , resulting in over 99% reduction in ozone-depleting substance emissions since 1989 as verified by long-term atmospheric trends. Residual emissions persist primarily from the gradual release of existing banks in systems, insulating foams, and stockpiles, where venting occurs during , decommissioning, or degradation. Estimates suggest these banks, accumulated during peak use in the 1980s-1990s, contribute the majority of current atmospheric loading, with CFC-11 emissions stabilizing at around 47 Gg yr⁻¹ and CFC-12 at 25-33 Gg yr⁻¹ as of extended into recent monitoring. Compliance with phase-out targets is confirmed through inverse modeling of these observations, occasionally supplemented by isotopic to distinguish anthropogenic sources from natural or destruction processes, though such methods have been more prominently applied to investigate anomalies like the 2012-2018 CFC-11 rise. From 2023 to 2025, declines in CFC concentrations have persisted without evidence of renewed production spikes, aligning with verified global adherence to the Protocol. However, monitoring has increasingly highlighted emissions from (HFC) replacements, whose leaks from similar applications now dominate concerns for , exceeding CFC contributions in CO₂-equivalent terms despite HFCs lacking ozone-depleting potential.

Potential for CFC Resurgence or Re-Evaluation

In light of recent U.S. policy adjustments under the Trump administration, including proposed rollbacks of (HFC) phase-down requirements announced in September 2025 to reduce costs for cooling equipment manufacturers and consumers, there is speculation that similar economic pressures could prompt scrutiny of longstanding chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) restrictions. These HFC easings, aimed at delaying deadlines like the , 2025, cutoff for certain refrigerants, highlight tensions between and practical efficiency, potentially extending to CFCs if replacement technologies underperform or prove cost-prohibitive in sectors like and . However, no formal proposals for CFC exemptions have emerged as of 2025, and the Montreal Protocol's framework remains intact, with any re-evaluation likely contingent on demonstrated failures in post-CFC alternatives. Emerging atmospheric data, including persistent emissions from CFC banks estimated to delay full ozone recovery by up to six years if unrecovered, could fuel calls for targeted re-assessments if recovery trends falter or increases fail to materialize as previously modeled. Studies indicate that unmanaged legacy stocks—primarily in old —contribute ongoing releases, with global CFC-11 emissions from banks projected to rise without intervention, prompting analyses for end-of-life to cut emissions by 50% or more starting in 2025. Should empirical discrepancies in predicted versus observed dynamics, such as minimal surface UV spikes despite historical depletion claims, gain broader scientific traction, this might justify exemptions for high-efficiency CFC applications, prioritizing causal over precautionary bans. In developing countries, where legacy refrigeration and air-conditioning systems reliant on CFCs remain operational due to economic constraints and limited phase-out infrastructure, illegal trade sustains supply chains, with up to 14,000 tonnes of CFCs smuggled annually as reported in earlier UNEP estimates, though enforcement varies. This black market, often sourced from diverted production or stockpiles, underscores a de facto resurgence in unregulated regions, where high demand for affordable, stable refrigerants in legacy equipment—such as older commercial units—outpaces compliance efforts. Without enhanced global monitoring, these dynamics could pressure treaty amendments for transitional allowances, balancing environmental goals against developmental needs in nations still integrating phase-out technologies.

References

  1. https://water.usgs.gov/lab/chlorofluorocarbons/background/
  2. https://gml.noaa.gov/infodata/info_activities/pdfs/MAA_cfcs.pdf
  3. https://gml.noaa.gov/hats/publictn/elkins/cfcs.html
  4. https://gml.noaa.gov/hats/about/cfc.html
  5. https://www.acs.org/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/cfcs-ozone.html
  6. https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/resources/globalwarming/skeptics-vs-ozone-hole.pdf
  7. https://www.nasa.gov/missions/aura/nasa-study-first-direct-proof-of-ozone-hole-recovery-due-to-chemicals-ban/
  8. https://research.noaa.gov/the-montreal-protocol-banned-this-family-of-ozone-depleting-chemicals-why-are-some-still-increasing/
  9. https://web.njit.edu/~lipuma/Ozone/o5.htm
  10. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Cfc-113
  11. https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/ozone-depleting-substances
  12. https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Brevard_College/LNC_216_CHE/04%253A_Chemical_Bonds/4.06%253A_Free_Radicals_and_the_Environment
  13. https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-hcfc-and-hfc/
  14. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Dichlorodifluoromethane
  15. http://www.columbia.edu/~rw187/ehc113.pdf
  16. https://community.agilent.com/technical/consumables/w/wiki/4982/nomenclature-of-cfc-s-freons-halons-coolants
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/chlorofluorocarbon
  18. https://web.njit.edu/~lipuma/Ozone/o4.htm
  19. https://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/CFC11/CFC11h.htm
  20. https://mhaasen.weebly.com/history--early-uses.html
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3621566/
  22. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Midgley-Jr
  23. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00719
  24. https://www.technologyreview.com/2007/01/01/227161/remembering-the-montreal-protocol/
  25. https://www.endsreport.com/article/1570663/duponts-long-history-greenhouse-gas-production
  26. https://gwern.net/doc/politics/1997-maxwell.pdf
  27. https://nordictec-store.com/blog/post/gas-r12-one-of-the-oldest-refrigerants-and-the-first-freon
  28. https://www.inventionandtech.com/content/freon
  29. https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-freon-4072212
  30. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/midgley-introduces-dichlorodifluoromethane-refrigerant-gas
  31. https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/1994/data/papers/SS94_Panel4_Paper28.pdf
  32. https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=548
  33. https://people.wou.edu/~avorder/Refrigeration.htm
  34. https://www.goodway.com/hvac-blog/2009/08/ammonia-as-a-refrigerant-pros-and-cons/
  35. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/208395
  36. https://www.fao.org/4/AB435E/AB435E.htm
  37. https://agriculture.institute/food-processing-and-engineering-ii/understanding-refrigeration-food-preservation/
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8739722/
  39. https://publications.gc.ca/Collection/H113-3-13E.pdf
  40. https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/unep_workshop_on_cfcs-bkgrd_paper.86-09-08_0.doc
  41. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/science/freon
  42. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/politics-and-government/chlorofluorocarbons-are-banned-united-states
  43. https://rapidtransition.org/stories/back-from-the-brink-how-the-world-rapidly-sealed-a-deal-to-save-the-ozone-layer/
  44. https://www.scjohnson.com/who-we-are/johnson-family/sam-johnson/cfcs-out-of-aerosol
  45. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1010UDW.TXT
  46. https://p2infohouse.org/ref/30/29773.pdf
  47. https://books.rsc.org/books/monograph/1916/chapter/2525429/CFC-113
  48. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=0000008A.TXT
  49. https://www.nist.gov/document/r9401606pdf
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemical-engineering/halon
  51. http://www.nfpa.it/reference_halon.htm
  52. https://www.agas.com/us/resources/clean-agent-fire-protection-halon/
  53. https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/99-63.pdf
  54. https://firewiselearningacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/Halon-Systems.pdf
  55. https://research.chalmers.se/en/publication/1089
  56. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=2000TLSB.TXT
  57. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11478262/
  58. https://eia.org/report/20180709-blowing-it-illegal-production-and-use-of-banned-cfc-11-in-chinas-foam-blowing-industry/
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3969484/
  60. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/epa-hq-oar-2021-0044-0002_attachment_1-mdis.pdf
  61. https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692%2816%2932515-6/fulltext
  62. https://www.epa.gov/ods-phaseout/exemptions-essential-uses-chlorofluorocarbons-metered-dose-inhalers
  63. https://ondrugdelivery.com/investigating-the-propellant-pathways-leading-to-a-sustainable-future-for-mdis/
  64. https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.15135
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7410333/
  66. https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/tracer-gas_techniques_for_measuring_ventilation_in_a_single_zone.pdf
  67. https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/MCTOC-Assessment-Report-2018.pdf
  68. https://straitsresearch.com/report/chlorofluorocarbon-market
  69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231010010654
  70. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50915
  71. https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/basic-ozone-layer-science
  72. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20150011468/downloads/20150011468.pdf
  73. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_%28Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry%29/Kinetics/07%253A_Case_Studies-_Kinetics/7.03%253A_Depletion_of_the_Ozone_Layer
  74. https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/1994/chapters/chapter13.pdf
  75. https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/12/11095/2012/acp-12-11095-2012-relations.html
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0187623613710865
  77. https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1043/2020/
  78. https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/10757/
  79. https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2022/twentyquestions/
  80. https://ourworldindata.org/ozone-layer
  81. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/ozone-hole/
  82. https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2022/executivesummary/
  83. https://earthobservatory.[nasa](/page/NASA).gov/world-of-change/Ozone
  84. https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/the-ozone-layer/
  85. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/Ozone
  86. https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/1994/executivesummary.html
  87. https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/history_SH.html
  88. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03260-5
  89. https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/9/2113/2009/acp-9-2113-2009.pdf
  90. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
  91. https://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/gwpotential/images/gwptable.html
  92. https://escholarship.org/content/qt1v81x5g3/qt1v81x5g3.pdf
  93. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163933
  94. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JC019337
  95. https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/cfcs-unintentional-ocean-tracers/
  96. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017gl072972
  97. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21329203/
  98. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023JC020387
  99. https://gml.noaa.gov/outreach/info_activities/pdfs/TBI_the_chlorofluorocarbons.pdf
  100. https://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/article/refrigeration-was-a-wonderful-invention-when-it-wasnt-trying-to-kill-you/
  101. https://www.history.com/articles/cfcs-leaded-gasoline-inventions-thomas-midgley
  102. https://www.invent.org/inductees/thomas-midgley-jr
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6213201/
  104. https://academic.oup.com/book/32484/chapter/269540666
  105. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9101PLNU.TXT
  106. https://www.nature.com/articles/249810a0
  107. https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/molina-lecture.pdf
  108. https://gml.noaa.gov/ozwv/dobson/papers/wmobro/observed.html
  109. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-07-14-mn-8873-story.html
  110. https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/regulatory-history-cfcs-and-other-stratospheric-ozone-depleting-chemicals-1993.html
  111. https://earthsky.org/earth/sweden-1st-to-ban-aerosol-sprays/
  112. https://gml.noaa.gov/ozwv/dobson/papers/wmobro/action.html
  113. https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Ozone-hole/more/Policy-Responses-to-Ozone-Depletion.pdf
  114. https://debunkingdenial.com/scientific-tipping-points-the-ozone-layer/
  115. https://worksinprogress.co/issue/how-we-fixed-the-ozone-layer/
  116. https://ozone.unep.org/treaties/vienna-convention
  117. https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=xxvii-2&chapter=27&clang=_en
  118. https://www.unep.org/ozonaction/who-we-are/about-montreal-protocol
  119. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-2-a&chapter=27&clang=_en
  120. https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/international-actions-montreal-protocol-substances-deplete-ozone-layer
  121. https://ozone.unep.org/facts-and-figures-ozone-protection
  122. https://ozone.unep.org/treaties/montreal-protocol/amendments
  123. https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/international-treaties-and-cooperation-about-protection-stratospheric-ozone
  124. https://ozone.unep.org/treaties/montreal-protocol/amendments/copenhagen-amendment-1992-amendment-montreal-protocol-agreed
  125. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/ozone/montreal-protocol
  126. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-2-f&chapter=27&clang=_en
  127. https://www.state.gov/the-montreal-protocol-on-substances-that-deplete-the-ozone-layer
  128. https://www.epa.gov/ods-phaseout
  129. https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0271-0025/content.pdf
  130. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-82
  131. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10150490/
  132. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/ozone-layer/achievements_en
  133. http://ozonecell.nic.in/NCCOPP/PhaseoutCFC.html
  134. https://www.facebook.com/XinhuaSciTech/posts/china-has-eliminated-approximately-628000-tonnes-of-ozone-depleting-substances-o/1265595628936169/
  135. https://www.epa.gov/ods-phaseout/phaseout-class-ii-ozone-depleting-substances
  136. https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/
  137. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/rebuilding-ozone-layer-how-world-came-together-ultimate-repair-job
  138. https://www.csregypt.com/en/unep-official-implementation-of-montreal-protocol-led-to-phasing-out-99-of-ozone-depleting-substances/
  139. https://ozone.unep.org/treaties/montreal-protocol/meetings/thirty-sixth-meeting-parties/decisions/decision-xxxvi5-feedstock-uses-controlled-substances
  140. https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Ben%2520Lieberman%2520-%2520The%2520High%2520Cost%2520of%2520Cool%2520The%2520Economic%2520Impact%2520of%2520the%2520CFC%2520Phaseout%2520in%2520the%2520United%2520States.pdf
  141. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/504501493311350432/pdf/multi-page.pdf
  142. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-11-01-fi-57325-story.html
  143. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1486&context=gjicl
  144. https://trellis.net/article/dupont-scientists-honored-inventing-cfc-alternatives/
  145. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12617232-500-cheaper-alternatives-for-cfcs/
  146. https://gwern.net/doc/politics/1998-smith.pdf
  147. https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/government-ban-fluorocarbon-gases-aerosol-products-begins-october-15-1978.html
  148. https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/china-identified-as-source-of-unexpected-rise-in-cfc-emissions/3010523.article
  149. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/23/china-factories-releasing-thousands-of-tonnes-of-illegal-cfc-gases-study-finds
  150. https://news.mit.edu/2021/cfc-11-ozone-recovery-0210
  151. https://eia-international.org/news/scientists-discover-high-emissions-of-ozone-destroying-gases-pointing-to-illegal-manufacture-and-use/
  152. https://ozone.unep.org/story-behind-unexpected-emissions-cfc-11
  153. https://www.greencustoms.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/3617-e-oansupplement6IllegalTrade.pdf
  154. https://www.unodc.org/documents/toc/Reports/TOCTA-EA-Pacific/TOCTA_EAP_c10.pdf
  155. https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/ozone-depleting-substances-black-market
  156. https://www.epa.gov/ods-phaseout/exemptions-phaseout
  157. https://www.epa.gov/ods-phaseout/what-phaseout-ozone-depleting-substances
  158. https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/Hu_et_al-2017-Geophysical_Research_Letters.pdf
  159. https://cen.acs.org/articles/85/i40/Nations-Speed-HCFC-Elimination.html
  160. https://gml.noaa.gov/hats/about/hcfc.html
  161. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/CARB-Potential-Impact-of-the-Kigali-Amendment-on-HFC-Emissions-Final-Dec-15-2017.pdf
  162. https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2022/downloads/Chapter2_2022OzoneAssessment.pdf
  163. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/news-your-voice/news/global-hfc-phasedown-starts-eu-already-below-its-first-limit-2019-01-01_en
  164. https://refrigerants.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/SDS-R134a.pdf
  165. https://www.epa.gov/mvac/acceptable-refrigerants-and-their-impacts
  166. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265217575_HFO-1234yf_low_GWP_refrigerant_LCCP_analysis
  167. https://entalpiaeurope.eu/en/hfo-group-refrigerants-r1234yf-r1234ze-significance-and-application/
  168. https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1611009.pdf
  169. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/06/2021-25440/protection-of-stratospheric-ozone-listing-of-hfo-1234yf-under-the-significant-new-alternatives
  170. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-09/documents/sciance.pdf
  171. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/international_transitioning_to_low-gwp_alternatives_in_mvacs.pdf
  172. https://igsd.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Global-Number-of-Vehicles-Using-HFO-1234yf.pdf
  173. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140700717302657
  174. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ASHRAE_PD_Natural_Refrigerants_2011.pdf
  175. https://topsectorenergie.nl/documents/610/Natural_refrigerants_in_heat_pumps_ENG_version_-_december_2022.pdf
  176. https://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1909679/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  177. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6605084/
  178. https://naturalrefrigerants.com/news/the-revised-eu-f-gas-regulation-is-law/
  179. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/fluorinated-greenhouse-gases/f-gas-legislation_en
  180. https://atmosphere.cool/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023_ATMO_heat_pumps_report.pdf
  181. https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/EIA-2024-EU-F-Gas-Regulations-Climate-Briefing-SPREADS.pdf
  182. https://www.sae.org/papers/performance-comparison-hfc-134a-cfc-12-automotive-air-conditioning-system-890305
  183. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544224031992
  184. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140700706002271
  185. https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/snap/refrigerant-safety_.html
  186. https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=860786
  187. https://www.skillcatapp.com/post/refrigerants-part-2-epa-certification
  188. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c06189
  189. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969724002717
  190. https://atmosphere.cool/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025_HFO_TFA_report.pdf
  191. https://www.ncpathinktank.org/pdfs/st191.pdf
  192. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14319320-900-ozone-meter-gets-it-wrong/
  193. https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2022/downloads/twentyquestions/Q13.pdf
  194. https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2018/downloads/twentyquestions/Q13.pdf
  195. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate
  196. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/RG013i005p00650
  197. https://www.nature.com/articles/384256a0
  198. https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/ozone-the-hole-truth
  199. https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/emissions-of-substances-that-deplete-the-ozone-layer-have-fallen-by-more-than-99-since-1989
  200. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/environment/a-slow-healing
  201. https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Ben%20Lieberman%20-%20The%20High%20Cost%20of%20Cool%20The%20Economic%20Impact%20of%20the%20CFC%20Phaseout%20in%20the%20United%20States.pdf
  202. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/montreal-protocol-averts-threat-large-increases-skin-cancers
  203. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/19/world/cfcs-ozone-montreal-protocol-climate-study-intl-scn
  204. https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/DORY/CFCS-LAROCHE-CHEMICALS.pdf
  205. https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2014/04/978-87-93178-40-3.pdf
  206. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/toxics/tac/factshts1997/chlorflo.pdf
  207. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2722587/
  208. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/352673
  209. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10077140/
  210. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-drug-class/phase-out-cfc-metered-dose-inhalers-containing-flunisolide-triamcinolone-metaproterenol-pirbuterol-0
  211. https://www.energy.gov/articles/history-air-conditioning
  212. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/chlorofluorocarbon-refrigerant
  213. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/891/1/012218/pdf
  214. https://neep.org/blog/easing-concerns-about-refrigerant-flammability
  215. https://www.hpacmag.com/features/refrigerant-flammability-safety/
  216. https://www.sarthaks.com/2035770/photochemical-smog-normally-does-not-contain
  217. https://brainly.com/question/50302033
  218. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/chlorofluorocarbon
  219. https://www.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/ozone-layer/nasa-noaa-rank-2024-ozone-hole-as-7th-smallest-since-recovery-began/
  220. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/153523/ozone-hole-continues-healing-in-2024
  221. https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/Ozone-and-UV-Bulletin_EN.pdf
  222. https://science.nasa.gov/mission/aura/earths-ozone-layer-on-track-to-recover-within-decades/
  223. https://gml.noaa.gov/odgi/
  224. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231007006188
  225. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL070471
  226. https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/2783/2024/
  227. https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/aggi.html
  228. https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2023-02/Scientific-Assessment-of-Ozone-Depletion-2022.pdf
  229. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23229-2
  230. https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/6857/2021/
  231. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5533732-hfc-phasedown-rule-change-trump-epa/
  232. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-reforming-biden-technology-transitions-rule-lower-costs-american-families
  233. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/30/climate/trump-hydrofluorocarbons-hfcs.html
  234. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-10-20/why-the-epa-moved-to-stall-super-pollutant-cuts-trump-started
  235. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15162-7
  236. https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/25/11469/2025/
  237. https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-2277/
  238. https://eia-international.org/climate/international-regulation-of-ozone-and-climate-under-the-montreal-protocol/illegal-trade-in-refrigerants/
  239. https://www.fluorocarbons.org/news/a-brief-history-of-illegal-trade-in-odss-and-hfcs/
  240. https://eia.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Unfinished-Business.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.