## 4 Conclusions  
In summary, we presented accurate measurement methods centered around DRE, the use rate of gas (\(U_{i}\)), and by-product emission factors (\(B_{by\text{-}product,\,i}\)), which are characteristic parameters used for estimating GHG emissions in the semiconductor, and display industry and fluorine-based GHGs used in the electronics manufacturing processes were measured at Korea's various facilities. As a result, it was confirmed that GHG emissions and national GHG emissions are overestimated compared to the reduction and emission factor of '06 IPCC G/L and '19 IPCC G/L Refinement that are currently used to calculate GHG emissions in the Republic of Korea. Through this study, based on the established GHG emission calculation characteristic parameters in semiconductor and display industries, the need for re-establishment based on the facility's applicability of various coefficients presented in the EPA 40 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (part 98; Subpart I) was confirmed by comparing the '06 IPCC G/L and '19 IPCC Refinement to the '06 IPCC G/L for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Furthermore, by measuring the destruction removal efficiency (DRE), the use rate of gas (\(U_{i}\)), and the by-product emission factor (\(B_{by\text{-}product,\,i}\)) data for GHGs that are used in the manufacturing process in semiconductor and display industries, but not presented in IPCC G/L, the need for additional study to prevent any overestimation of GHG emissions in the Republic of Korea's semiconductor and display industries was made more apparent. Furthermore, we believe that reduction and emission factors that are unique to the Republic of Korea and that are more accurately established through additional measurements of GHGs used in semiconductor and display manufacturing processes in Korea, as well as research on characteristic parameters, can significantly help to reduce national GHG emissions, providing a good frame of references for countries that need to develop country-specific reduction and emission factors. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sector**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Gas**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Power Value (kW)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**By-Product Emission Factors (\(B_{by\text{-}product,\,i}\))**} \\ \cline{4-6}  & & & & **(Target Gas/By-Product Gas)** & \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & **CF\({}_{4}\) (\%)** & **C\({}_{2}\)F\({}_{6}\) (\%)** & **CHF\({}_{3}\) (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Display} & \multirow{4}{*}{C\({}_{2}\)F\({}_{6}\)} & 6.032 & 17.65 & - & - \\  & & 8.08 & 32.87 & - & - \\  & & 10.73 & 53.87 & - & - \\  & & 6.032 & 11.20 & 2.13 & - \\ \cline{2-6}  & & 8.08 & 15.20 & 3.28 & - \\ \cline{2-6}  & & 10.73 & 17.24 & 3.00 & - \\  & & 6.032 & 47.45 & 0.92 & 0.34 \\ \cline{2-6}  & & 8.08 & 75.16 & 6.09 & 0.22 \\ \cline{2-6}  & & 10.73 & 110.52 & 16.56 & 0.08 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 13: Comparison between by-product emission factor (\(B_{by\text{-}product,\,i}\)) measurements and IPCC guidelines’ factor value measurements (’06 and ’19) presented in this study. **Supplementary Materials:** The following supporting information can be downloaded at: [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app13158834/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app13158834/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app13158834/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app13158834/s1)). Table S1: Composition of Tiers 1, 2, and 3 in the electronics industry based on emission sources using guidelines for estimating and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Table S2: The detection limits (DLs) of FT-IR for each gas cell. Table S3: The classification of applicable FT-IR gas cell lengths according to scrubber type. Table S4: The gas composition of internal process gas in the electronics manufacturing process. Table S5: Gas compositions according to He gas injections for Experiment 3. Table S6: Measurements on comparing the validity (CHF3) of results between analysts to confirm the precision (reproducibility).