1 / 20

EMEP Progress on HMs, 2006

WGSR, 2006. EMEP. Heavy Metals (J. Schneider, EMEP SB). EMEP Progress on HMs, 2006. Review and evaluation of the MSCE-HM model (TFMM) Atmospheric pollution in 2004 (emissions, monitoring and modelling data) Further development of the model (TFMM, TFEIP) Conclusions.

marcuskelly
Download Presentation

EMEP Progress on HMs, 2006

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. WGSR, 2006 EMEP Heavy Metals (J. Schneider, EMEP SB) EMEP Progress on HMs, 2006 • Review and evaluation of the MSCE-HM model (TFMM) • Atmospheric pollution in 2004 (emissions, monitoring and modelling data) • Further development of the model (TFMM, TFEIP) • Conclusions

  2. Review of MSC-E models (ECE/EB.AIR/GE.1/2006/4) • The aim – 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. • 48 experts took part in the EMEP Workshop on MSC-E Model Review (Moscow, October, 2005) • Main elements of the review • Examination of the models formulation and sensitivity study • Comparison with other models • Evaluation of the model performance against measurements

  3. Model review Conclusions • Model description and parameterization • The model parameterization are appropriate for operational modelling • Model intercomparison • HM depositions, concentrations and transboundary fluxes of HMs calculated by MSC-E model corresponded well with other transport models

  4. Model review • Comparison with measurements • Other models, such as the MSC-E model underestimated air and precipitation of Pb and Cd when using official emission data. • Discrepancies may involve: • the emission of source categories in official statistics • emission hights • re-suspension from soil • particle size distribution • Subject to these limitations, MSC-E model satisfactorily reflected observed spatial distribution and temporal variations characterized by the observations.

  5. Recommendations • Future research: • the inclusion of a shallow lowest layer in vertical structure of model • development of emission algorithms and models for the representation of re-suspension and volatilization from soil • extension of the MSC-E model to Ni, Cu, Cr, As, Zn and Se • extension of the MSC-E model to the global scale • investigation of the potential influence of climate change on fate and behaviour of Hg • dry deposition of mercury to forest, • chemical kinetics of the reaction of atmospheric mercury Model review

  6. Model review Model development, 2006 Wind re-suspension of HM Dust suspension: Saltation Horizontal movement of soil aggregates (40 mm – 10 mm) Sandblasting Collisions of soil aggregates resulting in emission of dust particles (0.1 – 20 mm)

  7. Model review 3000 Re-suspension 2500 Anthoropogenic emissions 2000 1500 1000 500 0 RU IT FR UA PT DE GE ES TR PL GB RO KZ SE BG BE CZ HR CH HU NL SL BA MC Anthropogenic emissions vs.re-suspension, Pb Re-suspension Anthropogenic emissions (ESPREME) Pb total anthropogenic emissions and resuspension from soil

  8. Model review Model review Model results vs. observations Annual meanPbconcentration in precipitation, 2000 Official/TNO emissions + resuspension11 + 6.5 kt/y ESPREME emissions + resuspension13 + 6.5 kt/y Official/TNO emissions11 kt/y Areg = 0.35 Rcorr = 0.70 Areg = 0.79 Rcorr = 0.62 Areg = 0.62 Rcorr = 0.59 Official/TNO emissions < ESPREME ~2 kt Areg – linear regression coefficient; Rcorr – correlation coefficient

  9. Model results vs. observations Annual meanCdconcentration in precipitation, 2000 Official/TNO emissions + resuspension280 + 65 t/y ESPREME emissions + resuspension580 + 65 t/y Official/TNO emissions280 t/y Areg = 0.26 Rcorr = 0.76 Areg = 0.71 Rcorr = 0.53 Areg = 0.32 Rcorr = 0.84 Official/TNO emissions < ESPREME - 300 t Areg – linear regression coefficient; Rcorr – correlation coefficient

  10. Model review EMEP TF on Measurements and Modelling (ECE/EB.AIR/GE.1/2006/3, Finland, May, 2006) 13. The Task Force on Measurements and Modelling supported the workshop`s conclusion that the MSC-E Heavy Metal model was suitable for evaluation the long-range transboundary transport and deposition of HMs in Europe, while recognizing the significant difficulties that remained with official emission data and the significant uncertainties with regard to the chemistry and HM deposition.

  11. Task Force on Emission Inventories and Projections [ECE/EB.AIR/GE.1/2006/7] III. Draft conclusions of the fifteenth and sixteenth meeting 21.(m) Unofficial datasets might help fill gaps in emission inventories when official data were not available or not considered of sufficient quality. Outcome of the ESPREME workshop on POP and HM emission inventories 6. Three European unofficial emission inventories were presented by ESPREME, TNO and MSC-E, their application in modeling concentrations and deposition in Europe resulted in estimates that were much closer to measured data than estimates based on official submissions.

  12. Emissions of priority metals 35 Parties (71%) by 15 June, 2006 Maximum recalculationsof lead emissions for 1990-2003 -80% up to 2800% -5 times up to 29 times

  13. Emissions in individual countries1990-2004 Pb Cd Germany Latvia

  14. UNCERTAINTIES Variation of total emissions of lead Emission [t/y] Variation [t/y] Austria 12 6 – 26 Finland 27 21 – 33 United Kingdom 162 130 – 210 France 178 53% Denmark 5 278%

  15. Exceedances of Pb depositions 2000 2020 ~42% of European area ~33% of European area Exceedance for Pb in 2000 (TNO/Official emissions) and 2020 (TNO emissions, scenario “Full implementation of Protocol”)

  16. Exceedances of Hg depositions 2000 2020 ~77% of European area ~80% of European area Exceedance for Hg in 2000 (TNO/Official emissions) and 2020 (TNO emissions, scenario “Full implementation of Protocol”)

  17. Exceedances of Cd depositions 2000 2020 0.3% of European area 0.1% of European area Exceedance for Cd in 2000 (TNO/Official emissions) and 2020 (TNO emissions, scenario “Full implementation of Protocol”)

  18. ContinentA Continent B Cooperation with TF on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution (June 2006, Moscow) Hg intercontinental transport

  19. Hg deposition to Germany Hg deposition to the UK Hg intercontinental transport, 2000 Contribution ofnon-Europeansources to Hg depositions in the NH EMEP region 25-60%of Hg depositions in Europe comes from global sources

  20. Conclusions • MSC-E atmospheric model for HM is • state of the art • Fit to assess long-range transboundary transport and deposition of HMs in Europe • Calculated deposition based on officially submitted emission data underpredict the measured concentrations • Uncertainties concerning emission data, need to improve emission estimates

More Related