1 / 20

Uncertainties of heavy metal pollution assessment

Uncertainties of heavy metal pollution assessment. Oleg Travnikov EMEP/MSC-E. Outline. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis Models intercomparison Model results vs. measurements Back trajectory analysis Emission reporting for model application. Model sensitivity analysis.

creda
Download Presentation

Uncertainties of heavy metal pollution assessment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Uncertainties of heavy metal pollution assessment Oleg Travnikov EMEP/MSC-E

  2. Outline • Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis • Models intercomparison • Model results vs. measurements • Back trajectory analysis • Emission reporting for model application

  3. Model sensitivity analysis Hg total deposition Pband Cd total deposition

  4. Model uncertainty Model intrinsic uncertainty without effect of emissions Mercury Lead and cadmium Uncertainty 20-50% Uncertainty 30-40%

  5. Review of MSC-E models Workshop on review of MSC-E models on HMs and POPs (Moscow, 2005) Purpose to establish whether MSC-E models on HMs and POPs are state of the art and fit for the purpose of evaluating long-range transport of HMs and POPs. • Conclusions [ ECE/EB.AIR/GE.1/2006/4 ] • The model parameterization is appropriate for operational modelling of heavy metal concentration and deposition in Europe • HM depositions, concentrations and transboundary fluxes of HMs calculated by MSC-E model corresponded well with other transport models • Other models, such as the MSC-E model, underestimated air and precipitation concentrations of Pb and Cd when using official emission data

  6. Cd air concentration (2000) MSCE-HM CMAQ Model intercomparison Comparison of MSCE-HM and CMAQ models for Pb and Cd Conditions of comparison: • Anthropogenic emissions based on official and ESPREME data • Identical meteorological data for 2000 • Similar initial and boundary conditions CMAQ (Community Multi-scale Air Quality model) – 3D chemical transport model developed in US EPA www.cmaq-model.org

  7. based on official data based on ESPREME data MSCE-HM = 0.62 Obs CMAQ = 0.68 Obs MSCE-HM = 0.32 Obs CMAQ = 0.32 Obs 30-40% underestimation 70% underestimation Model intercomparison Annual meanCd concentration in precipitation (2000)

  8. Total emission and re-suspension of Pb in Europe (1990-2005) Wind re-suspension of HMs HM re-suspension scheme: • Parameterization of mineral dust suspension [Marticorena and Bergametti, 1995; Alfaro and Gomes, 2001; Gomes et al., 2003] • Parameterization of sea salt aerosol production [Monahan et al., 1986;Gong, 2003] • Detailed soil properties data [ISLSCP (Initiative II), http://islscp2.sesda.com] • Measured HM content in soil [FOREGS, Salminen et al., 2005] Contribution of Pb re-suspension: 20% in 1990, 60% in 2005

  9. Evaluation vs. observations Annual meanconcentration in precipitation based on official emissions data (2005) Lead Cadmium Mod = 0.45 Obs Corr = 0.51 Mod = 0.70 Obs Corr = 0.57 Pb Cd 20-30% underestimation 30-50% underestimation

  10. 06.11.2005 01.09.2005 Analysis of discrepancies Daily mean Cd concentration in air (2005) Svratouch, Czech Republic (CZ1)

  11. Density of back trajectories February 2005 Kotinen, Finland (FI93) Neuglobsow, Germany (DE7) FI93 Cd emissions in 2005 FI93 Analysis of discrepancies Monthly mean Cd concentration in precipitation (2005)

  12. Density of back trajectories Kotinen, Finland (FI93) March 2005 Cd emissions in 2005 FI93 FI93 Analysis of discrepancies Monthly mean Cd concentration in precipitation (2005)

  13. Evaluation vs. observations Hgconcentration in air (2005) Mod = 0.94 Obs Hg Hgconcentration in precipitation (2005) Mod = 0.78 Obs Hg

  14. Coverage of EMEP region with emission data for Pb (2005) Reported Pb emission data for 2005: • National totals: 30 countries • Gridded data: 23 countries • Gridded sector data: 15 countries HM emissions reporting According to submission 2007

  15. HM emissions by sectors Cd emissions in large European countries (2005) According to submission 2007

  16. Non-Party emission estimates Comparison of official data with non-Party estimates of Pb emissions in 2000(TNO, ESPREME) Germany Germany According to submission 2007

  17. Emission uncertainty Emissions data uncertainties reported by countries (Pb)

  18. Gaps of HM officially reported emissions data • Incomplete data on emission totals • Limited data on spatial distribution • No data on temporal variation • Scarce data on emission uncertainty • … What data should be used to fill the gaps?

  19. Summary (1) • Estimated intrinsic model uncertainty is 30-40% for Pb and Cd and 20-50% for Hg • Modelling results are highly sensitive to emissions data for Pb and Cd and to boundary conditions for Hg • MSCE-HM and CMAQ models agree in underestimation of measurements (up to 70%) when officially reported emissions data is used • Assessment of wind re-suspension allows improve agreement between modelling results and measurements • Current model-to-measurement comparison demonstrates 20-30% underestimation for Pb and 30-50% underestimation for Cd. Modelling results for Hg well agree with observations

  20. Summary (2) • Reported emission inventories for heavy metals are incomplete and of limited value in terms of model applications • Procedure of thereported emission gaps fillingis to be elaborated

More Related