Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Renewed and emerging concerns over the production and emission of ozone-depleting substances


Stratospheric ozone depletion, first observed in the 1980s, has been caused by the increased production and use of substances such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons and other chlorine-containing and bromine-containing compounds, collectively termed ozone-depleting substances (ODSs). Following controls on the production of major, long-lived ODSs by the Montreal Protocol, the ozone layer is now showing initial signs of recovery and is anticipated to return to pre-depletion levels in the mid-to-late twenty-first century, likely 2050–2060. These return dates assume widespread compliance with the Montreal Protocol and, thereby, continued reductions in ODS emissions. However, recent observations reveal increasing emissions of some controlled (for example, CFC-11, as in eastern China) and uncontrolled substances (for example, very short-lived substances (VSLSs)). Indeed, the emissions of a number of uncontrolled VSLSs are adding significant amounts of ozone-depleting chlorine to the atmosphere. In this Review, we discuss recent emissions of both long-lived ODSs and halogenated VSLSs, and how these might lead to a delay in ozone recovery. Continued improvements in observational tools and modelling approaches are needed to assess these emerging challenges to a timely recovery of the ozone layer.

Key points

  • Ozone recovery is expected mid-century, owing to adherence to the Montreal Protocol, but a number of recent trends could challenge its timely recovery.

  • The apparent illicit production of CFC-11 is one such challenge to ozone recovery, but the added damage to the ozone layer in this case depends on how rapidly the CFC-11 emissions are mitigated.

  • A number of industrial processes that are allowed by the Montreal Protocol contribute considerable amounts of chlorinated gas emissions to the atmosphere.

  • Increases in ozone-depleting chlorine from a number of human-produced, short-lived gases have led to some increased ozone depletion, although their future impacts on ozone depend on future uses.

  • Natural processes also affect the balance of ozone in the stratosphere in a number of ways and could change in the future as climate responds to increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Halogenated source gases and their impact on stratospheric ozone.
Fig. 2: Atmospheric concentrations of selected halogenated gases over time.
Fig. 3: Impact of chlorinated VSLSs on stratospheric HCl trends.
Fig. 4: Total CHBr3 emissions from the oceans.
Fig. 5: Production of chlorine-containing compounds.
Fig. 6: Antarctic ozone and metrics quantifying ozone loss as a function of additional CFC-11 and VSLS emissions.


  1. 1.

    Bais, A. F. et al. Environmental effects of ozone depletion, UV radiation and interactions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, update 2017. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 17, 127–179 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Myhre, G. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 659–740 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  3. 3.

    Thompson, D. W. J. & Solomon, S. Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change. Science 296, 895–899 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Gillett, N. P. & Thompson, D. W. J. Simulation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change. Science 302, 273–275 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Molina, M. J. & Rowland, F. S. Stratospheric sink for chlorofluoromethanes: chlorine atom-catalysed destruction of ozone. Nature 249, 810–812 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Stolarski, R. S. & Cicerone, R. J. Stratospheric chlorine: a possible sink for ozone. Can. J. Chem. 52, 1610–1615 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Farman, J. C., Gardiner, B. G. & Shanklin, J. D. Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction. Nature 315, 207–210 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    World Meteorological Organization. Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2018 (WMO, 2018).

  9. 9.

    Wofsy, S., McElroy, M. B. & Yung, Y. L. The chemistry of atmospheric bromine. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2, 215–218 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    McElroy, M. B., Salawitch, R. J., Wofsy, S. C. & Logan, J. A. Reductions of Antarctic ozone due to synergistic interactions of chlorine and bromine. Nature 321, 759–762 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Montzka, S. A. et al. Decline in the tropospheric abundance of halogen from halocarbons: implications for stratospheric ozone depletion. Science 272, 1318–1322 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Prinn, R. G. et al. History of chemically and radiatively important atmospheric gases from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE). Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 985–1018 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Newchurch, M. J. et al. Evidence for slowdown in stratospheric ozone loss: first stage of ozone recovery. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 108, 4507 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Yang, E.-S. et al. First stage of Antarctic ozone recovery. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 113, D20308 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Solomon, S. et al. Emergence of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer. Science 353, 269–274 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Strahan, S. E., Douglass, A. R. & Damon, M. R. Why do Antarctic Ozone recovery trends vary? J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 124, 8837–8850 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Chipperfield, M. P. et al. Detecting recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer. Nature 549, 211–218 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Eyring, V. et al. Multi-model assessment of stratospheric ozone return dates and ozone recovery in CCMVal-2 models. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 9451–9472 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Oman, L. D. et al. Multimodel assessment of the factors driving stratospheric ozone evolution over the 21st century. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 115, D24306 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Dhomse, S. S. et al. Estimates of ozone return dates from chemistry-climate model initiative simulations. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18, 8409–8438 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Montzka, S. A. et al. An unexpected and persistent increase in global emissions of ozone-depleting CFC-11. Nature 557, 413–417 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Rigby, M. et al. Increase in CFC-11 emissions from eastern China based on atmospheric observations. Nature 569, 546–550 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Schoenenberger, F. et al. First observations, trends, and emissions of HCFC-31 (CH2ClF) in the global atmosphere. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 7817–7824 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Vollmer, M. K. et al. Atmospheric histories and emissions of chlorofluorocarbons CFC-13 (CClF3), ΣCFC-114 (C2Cl2F4), and CFC-115 (C2ClF5). Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18, 979–1002 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Engel, A. et al. Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2018. Ch. 1 (WMO, 2018).

  26. 26.

    Laube, J. C. et al. Contribution of very short-lived organic substances to stratospheric chlorine and bromine in the tropics – a case study. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 8, 7325–7334 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Hossaini, R. et al. Recent trends in stratospheric chlorine from very short-lived substances. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 124, 2318–2335 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Brioude, J. et al. Variations in ozone depletion potentials of very short-lived substances with season and emission region. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L19804 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Pisso, I., Haynes, P. H. & Law, K. S. Emission location dependent ozone depletion potentials for very short-lived halogenated species. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 12025–12036 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Claxton, T., Hossaini, R., Wild, O., Chipperfield, M. P. & Wilson, C. On the regional and seasonal ozone depletion potential of chlorinated very short-lived substances. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 5489–5498 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. Volume 1: decision XXX/3 TEAP task force report on unexpected emissions of trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) (TEAP, 2019).

  32. 32.

    Stratosphere-Troposphere Processes And Their Role In Climate. Lifetimes of stratospheric ozone-depleting substances, their replacements, and related species (WCRP, 2013).

  33. 33.

    Liang, Q. et al. Constraining the carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) budget using its global trend and inter-hemispheric gradient. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 5307–5315 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Harris, N. R. P. et al. Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2014. Ch. 5 (WMO, 2014).

  35. 35.

    Ashford, P., Clodic, D., McCulloch, A. & Kuijpers, L. Emission profiles from the foam and refrigeration sectors comparison with atmospheric concentrations. Part 1: methodology and data. Int. J. Refrig. 27, 687–700 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Laube, J. C. et al. Newly detected ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere. Nat. Geosci. 7, 266–269 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Montzka, S. A., Butler, J. H., Hall, B. D., Mondeel, D. J. & Elkins, J. W. A decline in tropospheric organic bromine. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1826 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Yvon-Lewis, S. A., Saltzman, E. S. & Montzka, S. A. Recent trends in atmospheric methyl bromide: analysis of post-Montreal Protocol variability. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 9, 5963–5974 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Butler, J. H. et al. A record of atmospheric halocarbons during the twentieth century from polar firn air. Nature 399, 749–755 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Trudinger, C. M. et al. Atmospheric histories of halocarbons from analysis of Antarctic firn air: methyl bromide, methyl chloride, chloroform, and dichloromethane. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 109, D22310 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Rhew, R. C., Miller, B. R., Vollmer, M. K. & Weiss, R. F. Shrubland fluxes of methyl bromide and methyl chloride. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 106, 20875–20882 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    World Meteorological Organization. Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2010 (WMO, 2010).

  43. 43.

    Hossaini, R. et al. Growth in stratospheric chlorine from short-lived chemicals not controlled by the Montreal Protocol. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 4573–4580 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Hossaini, R. et al. The increasing threat to stratospheric ozone from dichloromethane. Nat. Commun. 8, 15962 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Fang, X. et al. Rapid increase in ozone-depleting chloroform emissions from China. Nat. Geosci. 12, 89–93 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Feng, Y., Bie, P., Wang, Z., Wang, L. & Zhang, J. Bottom-up anthropogenic dichloromethane emission estimates from China for the period 2005–2016 and predictions of future emissions. Atmos. Environ. 186, 241–247 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Schlosser, P. M., Bale, A. S., Gibbons, C. F., Wilkins, A. & Cooper, G. S. Human health effects of dichloromethane: key findings and scientific issues. Environ. Health Perspect. 123, 114–119 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Fang, X. et al. Challenges for the recovery of the ozone layer. Nat. Geosci. 12, 592–596 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    McCulloch, A. Chloroform in the environment: occurrence, sources, sinks and effects. Chemosphere 50, 1291–1308 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Simmonds, P. G., Derwent, R. G., Manning, A. J., O’Doherty, S. & Spain, G. Natural chloroform emissions from the blanket peat bogs in the vicinity of Mace Head, Ireland over a 14-year period. Atmos. Environ. 44, 1284–1291 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Kahlil, M. A. K. et al. Natural emissions of chlorine-containing gases: reactive chlorine emissions inventory. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 104, 8333–8346 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Ooki, A. & Yokouchi, Y. Dichloromethane in the Indian Ocean: evidence for in-situ production in seawater. Mar. Chem. 124, 119–124 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Worton, D. R. et al. 20th century trends and budget implications of chloroform and related tri-and dihalomethanes inferred from firn air. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 6, 2847–2863 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Simmonds, P. G. et al. Global trends, seasonal cycles, and European emissions of dichloromethane, trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene from the AGAGE observations at Mace Head, Ireland, and Cape Grim, Tasmania. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 111, D18304 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Kim, I., Ha, J., Lee, J. H., Yoo, K.-m. & Rho, J. The relationship between the occupational exposure of trichloroethylene and kidney cancer. Ann. Occup. Environ. Med. 26, 12 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Friesen, M. C. et al. Historical occupational trichloroethylene air concentrations based on inspection measurements from Shanghai, China. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 59, 62–78 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Leedham Elvidge, E. et al. Increasing concentrations of dichloromethane, CH2Cl2, inferred from CARIBIC air samples collected 1998–2012. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15, 1939–1958 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Harrison, J. J., Chipperfield, M. P., Hossaini, R. & Boone, C. D. Phosgene in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere: a marker for product gas injection due to chlorine-containing very short lived substances. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 1032–1039 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Rinsland, C. P. et al. Long-term trends of inorganic chlorine from ground-based infrared solar spectra: past increases and evidence for stabilization. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 108, D4252 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Froidevaux, L. et al. Global OZone Chemistry And Related trace gas Data records for the Stratosphere (GOZCARDS): methodology and sample results with a focus on HCl, H2O, and O3. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15, 10471–10507 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Bernath, P. & Fernando, A. M. Trends in stratospheric HCl from the ACE satellite mission. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 217, 126–129 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Froidevaux, L., Kinnison, D. E., Wang, R., Anderson, J. & Fuller, R. A. Evaluation of CESM1 (WACCM) free-running and specified dynamics atmospheric composition simulations using global multispecies satellite data records. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 19, 4783–4821 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Dorf, M. et al. Balloon-borne stratospheric BrO measurements: comparison with Envisat/SCIAMACHY BrO limb profiles. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 6, 2483–2501 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Quack, B. & Wallace, D. W. R. Air-sea flux of bromoform: controls, rates, and implications. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 17, 1023 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Butler, J. H. et al. Oceanic distributions and emissions of short-lived halocarbons. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 21, GB1023 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Gschwend, P. M., MacFarlane, J. K. & Newman, K. A. Volatile halogenated organic compounds released to seawater from temperate marine macroalgae. Science 227, 1033–1035 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Carpenter, L. J. & Liss, P. S. On temperate sources of bromoform and other reactive organic bromine gases. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 105, 20539–20547 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    von Glasow, R. Sun, sea and ozone destruction. Nature 453, 1195–1196 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Tegtmeier, S. et al. Oceanic bromoform emissions weighted by their ozone depletion potential. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15, 13647–13663 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Fuhlbrügge, S. et al. The contribution of oceanic halocarbons to marine and free troposphere air over the tropical West Pacific. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16, 7569–7585 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Fiehn, A. et al. Delivery of halogenated very short-lived substances from the West Indian Ocean to the stratosphere during Asian summer monsoon. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 6723–6741 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Aschmann, J., Sinnhuber, B.-M., Chipperfield, M. P. & Hossaini, R. Impact of deep convection and dehydration on bromine loading in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 2671–2687 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Hossaini, R. et al. Modelling future changes to the stratospheric source gas injection of biogenic bromocarbons. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L20813 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Fiehn, A., Quack, B., Stemmler, I., Ziska, F. & Krüger, K. Importance of seasonally resolved oceanic emissions for bromoform delivery from the tropical Indian Ocean and west Pacific to the stratosphere. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18, 11973–11990 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Ziska, F. et al. Global sea-to-air flux climatology for bromoform, dibromomethane and methyl iodide. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 8915–8934 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Wales, P. A. et al. Stratospheric injection of brominated very short-lived substances: aircraft observations in the Western Pacific and representation in global models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 123, 5690–5719 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Sherry, D., McCulloch, A., Liang, Q., Reimann, S. & Newman, P. A. Current sources of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) in our atmosphere. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 024004 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Delacroix, S., Vogelsang, C., Tobiesen, A. & Liltved, H. Disinfection by-products and ecotoxicity of ballast water after oxidative treatment - results and experiences from seven years of full-scale testing of ballast water management systems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 73, 24–36 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Liu, Z. et al. Removing of disinfection by-product precursors from surface water by using magnetic graphene oxide. PLoS One 10, e0143819 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Maas, J. et al. Simulating the spread of disinfection by-products and anthropogenic bromoform emissions from ballast water discharge in Southeast Asia. Ocean Sci. 15, 891–904 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Yang, J. S. Bromoform in the effluents of a nuclear power plant: a potential tracer of coastal water masses. Hydrobiologia 464, 99–105 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Boudjellaba, D., Dron, J., Revenko, G., Démelas, C. & Boudenne, J. L. Chlorination by-product concentration levels in seawater and fish of an industrialised bay (Gulf of Fos, France) exposed to multiple chlorinated effluents. Sci. Total Environ. 541, 391–399 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Maas, J. et al. Simulations of anthropogenic bromoform indicate high emissions at the coast of East Asia. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Leedham, E. C. et al. Emission of atmospherically significant halocarbons by naturally occurring and farmed tropical macroalgae. Biogeosciences 10, 3615–3633 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Dhomse, S. S. et al. Delay in recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole from unexpected CFC-11 emissions. Nat. Commun. 10, 5781 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Dameris, M., Jöckel, P. & Nützel, M. Possible implications of enhanced chlorofluorocarbon-11 concentrations on ozone. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 19, 13759–13771 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Fleming, E. L., Newman, P. A., Liang, Q. & Daniel, J. S. The impact of continuing CFC-11 emissions on stratospheric ozone. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 125, e2019JD031849 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Stratosphere-Troposphere Processes And Their Role In Climate. The mystery of carbon tetrachloride (WCRP, 2016).

  89. 89.

    Nolan Sherry and Associates & Tecnon Orbichem. Carbon tetrachloride 2016–2025: long, balanced or tightening? The impact of HFOs. NSA (2016).

  90. 90.

    Falk, S. et al. Brominated VSLS and their influence on ozone under a changing climate. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 11313–11329 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Ziska, F., Quack, B., Tegtmeier, S., Stemmler, I. & Krüger, K. Future emissions of marine halogenated very-short lived substances under climate change. J. Atmos. Chem. 74, 245–260 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Dessens, O., Zeng, G., Warwick, N. & Pyle, J. Short-lived bromine compounds in the lower stratosphere; impact of climate change on ozone. Atmos. Sci. Lett. 10, 201–206 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Reimann, S. et al. Observing the atmospheric evolution of ozone-depleting substances. Comptes Rendus Geosci. 350, 384–392 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Carpenter, L. J. et al. Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2018. Ch. 6 (WMO, 2018).

  95. 95.

    Chipperfield, M. P. New version of the TOMCAT/SLIMCAT off-line chemical transport model: intercomparison of stratospheric tracer experiments. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 132, 1179–1203 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    World Meteorological Organization. Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2014 (WMO, 2014).

  97. 97.

    Mahieu, E. et al. Recent Northern Hemisphere stratospheric HCl increase due to atmospheric circulation changes. Nature 515, 104–107 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Chipperfield, M. P. et al. On the cause of recent variations in lower stratospheric ozone. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 5718–5726 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Chipperfield, M. P. et al. Quantifying the ozone and ultraviolet benefits already achieved by the Montreal Protocol. Nat. Commun. 6, 7233 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors thank S. Dhomse (University of Leeds) for the data provided in Fig. 6. M.P.C. and R.H. acknowledge support through the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Sources and Impacts of Short-Lived Anthropogenic Chlorine (SISLAC) grant NE/R001782/1. R.H. is supported by a NERC Independent Research Fellowship (NE/N014375/1).

Author information




All authors contributed to all aspects of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martyn P. Chipperfield.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment thanks Brett Kuyper, Ross Salawitch and Bo Yao for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Related links

Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE) monitoring network:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ozone Watch:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Earth System Research Laboratory monitoring network:

United Nations Environment Programme:

United Nations Environment Programme Ozone Country Data:

World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme Ozone Assessments:

Supplementary Information



Layer of atmosphere (approximately 15–50 km).


Layer of atmosphere (surface to approximately 15 km).

Ozone-depleting substances

(ODSs). Man-made chlorine- and bromine-containing gases that cause ozone depletion once they reach the stratosphere and are controlled by the Montreal Protocol.


Ozone-depleting substance included in the Montreal Protocol for limits on consumption and production.


Reservoirs of produced ozone-depleting substances stored in equipment or materials and not yet released to the atmosphere.


Application that does not lead to the eventual emission of ozone-depleting substances.


A halogenated chemical whose production and/or international trade is not controlled by the Montreal Protocol.

Very short-lived substances

(VSLSs). Substances with an atmospheric lifetime of less than half a year.

Ozone-depletion potentials

Relative amounts of ozone loss caused by the emission of 1 kg of a substance compared with the emission of 1 kg of CFC-11.


Measure of the removal rate (e-folding time) of emitted species by atmospheric processes.


Reaction of a feedstock with a fluorine-containing compound to produce a substance.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chipperfield, M.P., Hossaini, R., Montzka, S.A. et al. Renewed and emerging concerns over the production and emission of ozone-depleting substances. Nat Rev Earth Environ 1, 251–263 (2020).

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing