Open Access


Research Article

Main Article Content

Modeste Kameni Nematchouacorresponding author


The main objective of this research is to analyse and compare the photochemical ozone production coming from one neighbourhood initially located in Belgium. Which the same neighbourhood design is applied in150 countries, by applying four parameters adapted to each country such as: energy mix, local climate, building materials and occupants’ mobility. In addition, this research evaluates the induced environmental costs of the neighbourhood over a life cycle of 100 years in some regions located on the five continents, and examines the effect of photovoltaic panel on the photochemical ozone concentration. This environmental impact was evaluated by the Pleiades ACV simulation software under four phases (construction, use, renovation, and demolition), before being translated into environmental costs. The results show that in the case of sustainable neighbourhoods, the photochemical ozone production is 14.3% higher in the Low than High income countries. Photovoltaic panel has a significant effect on the photochemical ozone production, indeed, it allows to reduce up to 8.6% of this one. By 2030, if each of the 150 studied countries, increases up to 30% the renewable energy rate in its own energy mix, to the current examples of countries such as: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Costa Rica, DRC, Nepal, Tajikistan ..., so, Photochemical Ozone Production will decrease from 32% to 45% depending on the region. An average of 56% of photochemical ozone potential (POP) is produced during the operational phase of the neighbourhood.


simulation, ozone, inventory, eco-neighbourhood, countries, environmental impact

Article Details

How to Cite
Nematchoua, M. (2020). Simulation of the photochemical ozone production coming from neighborhood: A case applied in 150 countries. Health and Environment, 1(1), 38-47.


  1. Montzka SA, Dutton GS, Yu P, et al. An unexpected and persistent increase in global emissions of ozone-depleting CFC-11. Nature, 2018, 557(7705): 413.
  2. Ziemke JR, Oman LD, Strode SA, et al. Trends in global tropospheric ozone inferred from a composite record of TOMS/OMI/MLS/OMPS satellite measurements and the MERRA-2 GMI simulation. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2019, 19: 3257-3269.
  3. Mudway IS and Kelly FJ. An investigation of inhaled ozone dose and the magnitude of airway inflammation in healthy adults. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2004, 169: 1089-1095.
  4. Yang Q, Chen Y, Shi Y, et al. Association between ozone and respiratory admissions among children and the elderly in Vancouver. Inhalation Toxicology, 2003, 15: 1297-1308.
  5. Ziegler F . Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Seafood Products from Capture Fisheries. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2007, 12(1): 61.
  6. Guinee JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G, et al. Life Cycle Assessment Past Present and Future. Environmental ence & Technology, 2011, 45(1): 90-96.
  7. Andersson-Skold Y, Grennfelt P and Pleijel K. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potentials: A study of Different Concepts, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 1992, 42(9): 1152-1158.
  8. Reeves CE, Penkett SA, Bauguitte S, et al. Potential for photochemical ozone formation in the troposphere over the North Atlantic as derivedfrom aircraft observations during ACSOE. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2002, 107(D23): 4707.
  9. Anenberg SC, West JJ, Fiore AM, et al. In-tercontinental Impacts of Ozone Pollution on Human Mortality. Environmental Science & Technology, 2009, 43: 6482-6487,
  10. Brauer M, Amann M, Burnett RT, et al. ExposureAssessment for Estimation of the Global Burden of Disease Attributable to Outdoor Air Pollution. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012, 46: 652-660.
  11. Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD, et al. Comparative risk assessment of burden of disease andinjury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burdenof Disease Study 2010. Lancet, 2012, 380(9859): 2224-2260.
  12. OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050, OECD Publishing, 2012.
  13. Br¨uhl C and Crutzen PJ. Scenarios of possible changes in atmospheric temperatures and ozone concentrations due to man’s activities, estimated with a one-dimensional coupled photochemical climate model. Climate Dynamics, 1988, 2(3): 173-203.
  14. Nematchoua MK, Orosa J and Reiter S. Life cycle assessment of two sustainable and old neighbourhoods affected by climate change in one city in Belgium: A review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2019, 78: 106282
  15. Festy B. Urban atmospheric pollution: sources, pollutants and evolution. Bulletin de l’Academic nationale de medecine, 1997, 181(3): 461-474.
  16. Site web of International Energy Statistics.
  17. Remund J, Muller S, Kunz S, et al. Global Meteorological Database Version 7 Software and Data for Engineers, Planers and Education. Meteo Test Fabrik strasse 14 CH-3012 Bern Switzerland. 2017: 1-17.
  18. Peuportier B. Life Cycle Assessment applications in the building sector. International Journal of Environmental Technology & Management, 2008, 9(4): 334-347.
  19. Ecoinvent LCI database. wsdfZBRAkEiwAh2z65sg-fOlOpNksILo
  20. GoedkoopMand Spriensma R.TheEco indicator 99: A damage oriented method for lifecycle impact assessment. 2000: 142.
  21. Guine JB, Gorreeb M, Heijungs R, et al. Lyfe cycle assessment; an operational guide to the ISI Standard, 2001: 704.
  22. Ellis BA. Life Cycle Cost, 2007: 2-8.
  23. Colombert M, De Chastenet C, Diab Y, et al. Analyse de cycle de vie `a l’´echelle du quartier: un outil d’aide `a la decision? Le cas de la ZAC Claude Bernard `a Paris (France). Environnement Urbain/Urban Environment, 2011, 5: c1-c21.
  24. Salomons T, Coan J, Hunt S, et al. Assessing the impact of the pain face: Modulation of the pain experience by a voluntary facial display. Journal of Pain, 2005, 6(3-supp-S): S64.
  25. Leo De Nocker, VITO - Wim De backer, VITO. Annex: Monetisation of the MMG method (update 2017). 2018: 1- 65.
  26. Chan ALS . Energy and environmental performance of building fa?ades integrated with phase change material in subtropical Hong Kong. Energy & Buildings, 2011, 43(10): 2947-2955.
  27. Schaafsma M, Brouwer R, Liekens I, et al. Temporal stability of preferences and willingness to pay for natural areas in choice experiments: A test-retest. Resource & Energy Economics, 2014, 38: 243-260.
  28. Pictures from MS indonesia smog lrg.jpg
  29. Report of IPCC Working Groups I and III. Preservation of the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons, 2005.
  30. Trigaux D, Allacker K and De Troyer F. Life Cycle Assessment of Land Use in Neighbourhood s. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 2017, 38: 595-602.
  31. Nematchoua MK, Teller J and Reiter S. Statistical life cycle assessment of residential buildings in a temperate climate of northern part of Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 229: 621-631.
  32. Nematchoua MK and Reiter R. Analysis, reduction and comparison of the life cycle environmental costs of an econeighbourhood in Belgium. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2019, 48: 101558.
  33. Direction G´en´erale de l’Airet du Climat (DGEC) - Bilan de la qualit´e de l’airen, 2012.
  34. IPCC 2007 -Fouth report assessment.
  35. Marique AF and Reiter S. A simplified framework to assess the feasibility of zero-energy at the neighbourhood /community scale. Energy and Buildings, 2014, 82: 114-122.
  36. Nematchoua MK and Reiter S. Life cycle assessment of an eco-neighbourhood : influence of a sustainable urban mobility and photovoltaic panels. IAPE ’19, Oxford, United Kingdom.
  37. Amann M, Bertok I, Borken-Kleefeld J, et al. An updated set of scenarios of cost-effective emission reductions for the revision of the Gothenburg Protocol - Background paper for the 49th session of the working group on strategies and review - Geneva, September 12-15, 2011. f-Scenarios-of-Cost-effective-for-Amann-Bertok/d526801 d85a580a7a894298543dc75b5b8c2f0bb
  38. ISO (international Standardization Organization). International Standard ISO 14040. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework, 2006.
  39. Khasreen MM, Banfill PFG and Menzies GF. Life-Cycle Assessment and the Environmental Impact of Buildings: A Review. Sustainability, 2009, 1: 674-701.
  40. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), report 2001.