1 / 30

Hazardous substance assessment tool CHASE 2.0

Hazardous substance assessment tool CHASE 2.0. A first assessment of Hazardous substances in the North Sea, a presentation for the Marine Strategy 2012 conference (Originally by Norman Green, NIVA 16 may 2012). The origin of CHARM.

woody
Download Presentation

Hazardous substance assessment tool CHASE 2.0

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. Hazardous substance assessment tool CHASE 2.0 A first assessment of Hazardous substances in the North Sea, a presentation for the Marine Strategy 2012 conference (Originally by Norman Green, NIVA 16 may 2012)

  2. The origin of CHARM CHARM was first developed as a parallel to the HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool (HEAT) used to integrate the different parameters used in HELCOM when assessing eutrophication. This was a spreadsheet model where each number was manually entered! Then it was further developed for a subarea of the North Sea in the Harmony project (Denmark, Norway, Germany), with calculations based on a database.

  3. Study area - Data overview

  4. Station and matrices

  5. Available data(2003 to 2010) • ~1155 sediment locations • ~79 fish locations • ~123 blue mussel locations • ~82 gastropod locations (Imposex) • 1 tail muscle (shrimp)

  6. Data sources • EIONET/Waterbase_TCM_v7: All sediment and biota data except Norwegian • OSPAR: All imposex data • Norwegian CEMP database • Norwegian MOD database (offshore installasjons) • NIFES: Additional Norwegian fish data (2010) • IMR: Additional Norwegian fish and sediment data • Danish Operators: Pb and Cd data in Sediment in Danish waters

  7. Aggregation of stations into ”assessment units (AU)” • Stations divided into two groups:- Coastal(<20 km from shore)- Open Sea (>20 km from shore) • Open Sea stations aggregated in 62 80x80 km AUs • Coastal stations aggregated in 189 20x20 km AUs

  8. Open SeaStations62 80x80km AUs

  9. Coastal stations189 20x20km AUs

  10. Coastal stations20x20km AUs – detailPreliminary Final status for sediment

  11. Threshold values • Environmental Assessment Criteria (EAC) from Agreement on CEMP Assessment Criteria for the QSR 2010 (2009-2) and including update from December 2011 • Effects Range Low (ERL) (US-EPA) used for PAH and metals in sediments as recommended (no EAC defined yet) • IMPOSEX threshold from OSPAR ASMO 2004 (species dependent) • EMODNET: EU WFD criteria?

  12. Substances/matrices/bases • Sediment/metals (Pb, Cd, Hg): dw to 5% Al • Sediment/POPs (PCB/PAH): dw to 2.5% TOC • Fish liver/POPs (PCB): lipid basis • Blue Mussel/POPs (PCB/PAH/TBT): dw • Blue Mussel/metals: dw • Water not used

  13. Example CHASE 2.0 spreadsheet:Coastal (quadrate 22-4)Status values are median of year/station/assessment unit (nested) High Moderate Bad

  14. Preliminary Final status(all matrices)

  15. Preliminary Final status(sediment)

  16. Preliminary Final status(biota)

  17. Preliminary Final status(biological effects status)

  18. Coastal: substance count

  19. Coastal: station count

  20. Open sea: substance count

  21. Open sea: station count

  22. Status summary

  23. Primary cause of high ranking • Percent of total • Occurence in a.u. • Frequency as highest

  24. Next steps • Do a systematical confidence rating • Quality assurance • Include more substances? (database work is done for all available data, only need to add to substance list)

  25. Preliminary conlusions (1/2)... • SedimentGenerally good/high conditions in central North Sea, and moderate in parts of south North Sea and in coastal areas. The occurrence of “Poor” AUs was found only along the coast. The only “Bad” AU was coastal. • BiotaGood/High conditions in open ocean of western North Sea, and moderate in parts of south North Sea and in coastal areas. The occurrence of “Poor” AUs was found only along the coast. The only two “Bad” AUs were registered, both coastal.

  26. Preliminary conlusions (2/2)... • Biological effectsObservations were restricted to the coastal areas of Denmark, United Kingdom, Norway and Sweden with the exception of five offshore AUs. No “Bad” AUs which is good but the predomiance of “Moderate” AUs should be warning sign. • Final StatusGenerally Moderate/Good/High conditions in central North Sea. A predominance of “High” on United Kingdom side mainly due to the results for biota. There is a predominance of “Moderate” AUs along the coast. The occurrence of “Poor” was found at coastal AUs. The three “Bad” AUs are still evident.The map seems to give a reasonable view of the quality of the North Sea.

  27. Conclusions and remarks • Need to considerthebalance in parameters/matrices used by each country • Is there a need for region-specificthresholds? • CHASE caneasily be revised to takeintoaccountrevisedthresholds or preferredmatrices. • CHASE provides a robust and transparent meansofassessing an aggregateof different contaminants/effects in different matrices.

  28. Emodnet Extensions • Dataproduct for the EMODNET MFS data (incl. some fine-tuning) • How do EMODNET see this • EMODNET report • DCE / AU Bioscience report • Or MARE chapter? • The harmony project results will be peer reviewed published (soon hopefully)

  29. In cooperation with:Jesper Andersen (NERI)Martin Larsen (NERI)Tore Høgåsen (NIVA)and supported by:HARMONY andNorwegian Climate and Pollution AgencyThank you for your attentionnorman.green@niva.no

More Related