Draft results for the integrated contamination status Background - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
draft results for the
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Draft results for the integrated contamination status Background - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 05, 2022 464 likes •825 views

Draft results for the integrated contamination status Background Document 3 and Document 5 HELCOM SPICE HZ WS 1-2017 16 March 2017 3/17/2017 1 CHASE integration CHASE agreed to be used to develop an integrated contamination status

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Draft results for the integrated contamination status

HELCOM SPICE HZ WS 1-2017 16 March 2017

3/17/2017 1

Background Document 3 and Document 5

slide-2
SLIDE 2

CHASE integration

  • CHASE agreed to be used to develop an integrated

contamination status assessment for HOLAS II, the integrated assessment results should not be expressed in terms of GES/sub-GES (HOD 51-2016 outcome para 6.34)

  • Method developed in BalticBOOST project, described in

Document 2

  • Clarification on confidence minimum requirement penalty

to be concluded on based on information by DE at EN-HZ 6- 2017

3/17/2017 2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

BalticBOOST HZ WS 2-2016

  • Proposed that ’all available’ substances could be integrated, to increase overall

confidence in the assessment

  • Not many additional substances (to core indicators, RBSP, three additional

substances (HCB, DDE, Cu)) are anticiapted to be available, measurements from non-core indicator matrices may be available

3/17/2017 3

Core indicators and integrations

HOLAS II 5-2016

  • Invited S&C 5-2016 to conclude on whether to exclude bio-effect indicators
  • Noted that EQS exist for HCB, DDE, but for Cu a threshold needs to be agreed
  • Did not support integrating all available substances
  • Proposed integrating only core indicators

State&Conservation 5-2016 (outcome para 4J.75)

  • Agreed that only core indicators are to be integrated
  • Agreed that bio-effects should be excluded
  • Assessment gives overall contamination status
slide-4
SLIDE 4

3/17/2017 4

’R’ The journey of the ’MIME-script’ through the HELCOM decision making process

slide-5
SLIDE 5

2015 2015

  • CORESET II HZBE, 2-4 Feb (outcome para 3.6-3.13)

– Doc presented by SE: comparison MIME-method to HELCOM method(=SE method) – Con Conclusio ion: some differences between methods, but outcomes do not differ significantly, agreed to continue work on more detailed comparisons of method. Noting that SE method is not automated script.

3/17/2017 5

The journey of the ’MIME-script’ through the HELCOM decision making process

slide-6
SLIDE 6

The journey of the ’MIME-script’ through the HELCOM decision making process

2016 2016

  • EN-HZ 1-2016, 2-4 Feb (outcome points 6-10)

– Doc by SE: clarifying comments to outstanding issues – rec ecommended usin using the scrip script

  • 2x intersessional meetings with EN-HZ Co-Chairs, script developer and HELCOM

and ICES secretariats, two test runs of the script

  • EN-HZ 2-2016 noting that more lenient data-requirements (metadata) applied to

script compared to when used in OSPAR

  • HELCOM BalticBOOST HZ WS 2-2016, September (outcome point 15)

– recommended that CH CHAS ASE too

  • ol sho

hould ld use use indi ndicator resu esult lt valu alues base based on

  • n the

the upp upper 95th th con

  • nfid

idence limi mit instead of an average as calculated by MIME R-script, as this would make the assessment more robust and more representative for the station. If the MIME R-script is applied, it was noted that the upper

  • EN-HZ 4-2016 noted that each indicator lead should consider script from their

indicators perspective and ensure method is suitable

3/17/2017 6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

3/17/2017 7

2016 2016

  • State&Conservation 5-2016, (outcome para 4J.22)

– Endorse expert proposal to use OSPAR assessment method (cf. MIME-script) – Denmark places general study reservation

  • HOD 51-2016, December (outcome para 6.15)

– Denmark lifts study reservation on protocol for calculating hazardous substances indicators (cf. MIME-script)

2017 2017

  • EN-HZ 6-2017, February

– Denmark informally explains that the previous study reservation was due to the fact that the script uses 95% upper confidence values which differs from the WFD approach, however the aim is to use the same method as in OSPAR area i.e. The MIME-script – Note that stations for which only 1-2 years of data are available are not aggregated in the second step of the MIME-script as this is done based on the 95% upper confidence value derived based on a model requiring a minimum of 3 years of data. The points with less than 3 years of data only have an average value per station as output of MIME script 1st step and are referred to as ’initial status assessment’

The journey of the ’MIME-script’ through the HELCOM decision making process

slide-8
SLIDE 8

HELCOM COMBINE data

  • Reporting deadline for mid-2017 version of HOLAS II was

September 2016

  • ’Extraction table’ developed through BalticBOOST project

together with core indicator leads and EN-HZ

– Development and review by EN-HZ; 1-2016, 2-2016, 3-2016, 4-2016 – Final version concluded on EN-HZ 5-2016 December – Intersessional adjustments made in mid-January 2017 for updated extracting accepted by EN-HZ 6-2017 February

3/17/2017 8

slide-9
SLIDE 9
  • First extraction made in December 2016 for assessment

period 2011-2015

3/17/2017 9

HELCOM COMBINE data

slide-10
SLIDE 10

HELCOM COMBINE data

  • EN-HZ 5-2016 December

– The Meeting noted that the currently extracted data is for the HOALS II assessment period 2011-2015. The Meeting recalled that the core indicator assessment protocol builds on timetrend analysis and that the calculated trend is more robust the longer the dataperiod that has been taken into account. Thus, the meeting concluded that it would be relevant to make the dataset extraction without a cut of for the start date, and requested ICES to carry

  • ut this change.

– The Meeting further agreed that even if a robust timeseries is available for a previous period a minimum of one year of data needs to be available within the HOLAS II assessment period before the indicator evaluation can be made.

3/17/2017 10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

EN-HZ 5-2016 December

any amendments to the dataset have to be done during week 2, i.e. 9-13 January 2017 to then extract for indicators

– FI: dataset for trawled herring measurements missing, at least for metals (Hg muscle, Pb liver). 2013-2015 missing. Seawater data missing – EE: data was submitted in December missing – DE: PCB and PBDE data are missing, national clarifications with the Bundes länder are needed to clarify why the data are not available. – LT: data for 2015 on PFOS in water and biota (Mytilus and Macoma), TBT in water and sediments, HBCDD, FLU and BaP data in biota (Mytilus and Macoma) which has been submitter to ICES is missing

Intersessional clarifications between CPs, HELCOM Sec and ICES Sec Dec-Jan 13.1. solved EE and LT questions

3/17/2017 11

HELCOM COMBINE data

slide-12
SLIDE 12

HELCOM COMBINE data + foodsafety data

  • EN-HZ 5-2016 December, LT: addition to COMBINE, dioxin measurements by

foodsafety authorities, appropriate format to be ensured

  • Intersessional clarification between LT, HELCOM Sec, ICES Sec:

a) Only reported in ICES squares – coordinates to be inferred for mid-point, one of rectangles outside LT waters b) Salmon measured – not agreed indiciator species, excluded c) Reported for smoked samples – not comparable, excluded d) Pooled whole-fish samples – not MU, excluded

3/17/2017 12

None of the data fit the ’extraction table’ criteria During clarifying phone call env. had a good discussion with the deputy director of the Food and Veterinary Institute laboratory and they are really willing to find ways for future cooperation

slide-13
SLIDE 13

HELCOM COMBINE data

  • Final extraction made 18 January
  • 2011-2015 data provided in the national data

approval process (workspace, State&Conservatino contacts, SE and FI follow up questions with Sec)

  • Full extracted data (all available years) run through

the MIME-script

3/17/2017 13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Core indicator results

EN-HZ 6-2017, 14-16 February

  • Calculated results finalized in batches on

– 9 Feb sediment&water and half biota, 13 Feb biota

  • EN-HZ 6-2017 produced

– Indicator result tables, based on aggregated results (MIME- script step 2), see Document 3 – Some initial result tables, based on averages (MIME-script step 1) – Overview of data-issues to be resolved in time for the update in mid-2018 (Annex 2)

3/17/2017 14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Discussion on how to deal with

’Initial status assessment’

  • 1st step in MIME-script gives an average value per station
  • 2nd step in MIME-script produces an aggregated indicator result value

per area when at least 3 years of data is available, a model is fitted giving 95% confidence value this ’full data’ is the core indicator result, and integrated in CHASE

  • Stations with 1-2 years of data fall out from the second step, thus fall out
  • f the indicator result and the integration of the results,

data referred to by EN-HZ 6-2017 as ’initial status assessment’ NB: ’initial status assessment’ data is extracted from COMBINE using extraction table, so suitable to use in the core indicators as such (matrices cf. thresholds)

3/17/2017 15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

3/17/2017 16

EXAMPLE: step 1 MIME script output, ’initial status assessment’ station and ’full data’ station

slide-17
SLIDE 17

3/17/2017 17

Initial status assessment station Pihlavanlahti

Raw data with supporting information Raw data with assessment Assessment plot

slide-18
SLIDE 18

’full’ status assessment station Bothnian Sea offshore

3/17/2017 18

Raw data with supporting information Raw data with assessment Assessment plot

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Core indicators

results compiled at EN-HZ 6-2017 (14-16 Feb)

Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD)

  • 167 µg/kg ww whole fish, EQS biota secondary poisoning

– 7 open sea AU all green (CR 0.05-0.005) – 7 coastal AU all green (CR 0.002-0.009)

  • Initial status assessment
  • 12 coastal stations (DK, PL, SE) all green (CR 0.0022-0.0001)

3/17/2017 19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Metals (Cd, Pb, Hg) Mercury (Hg)

  • 20 µg/kg ww whole fish, EQS biota secondary poisoning

– 8 open sea AU red (CR 1.1-3.9) – 26 coastal AU red (CR 0.95-10.49) (POL-15 0.93 and SWE-013 0.95 should be green?)

  • Initial status assessment
  • 8 open sea stations green, 25 open sea stations red
  • 93 coastal stations green (DK, LT) (CR 0.0-1.0), 71 coastal stations red (DK,

LT, PL, FI, DE, SE) (CR 1.01-67.0)

3/17/2017 20

Core indicators

results compiled at EN-HZ 6-2017 (14-16 Feb)

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Metals (Cd, Pb, Hg) Cadmium (Cd)

  • 0.2 µg/l, EQS water(AA)

– No values

  • Secondary threshold: 2.3 mg/kg sediment, QS from EQS dossier

– 3 open sea AU green (CR 0.3-0.5), 1 open sea AU red (CR 4.4) – 2 coastal AU green (CR 0.6-0.9), 9 coastal AU red (CR 1.1-4.2)

  • Secondary threshold: 960 µg/kg dw mussels, OSPAR BAC

– 2 open sea AU red (CR 5.4-3.6) – 15 coastal AU red (DK, DE, LT, PL, SE)(CR 6.6-1.08)

  • Initial status assessment
  • Biota
  • 1 open sea stations green (CR 0.83), 3 open sea stations red (CR 1.3-4)
  • 63 coastal stations green (DK, LT) (CR 0.01-1), 55 coastal stations red (DK, DE) (CR 1.01-2.9)
  • Sediment
  • 20 open sea stations green (0.02-0.95), 8 open sea stations red (CR 1.4-6.2)
  • 75 coastal green (DK, DE) (CR 0.02-0.95), 20 coastal stations red (DK, DE) (CR 1.0-7.3)
  • Water
  • 5 open sea stations green (CR 0.3-0.5)
  • 23 coastal stations green (DE, PL) (CR 0.25-1.0), 5 coastal stations red (PL) (CR 2.5-3.5)

3/17/2017 21

Core indicators

results compiled at EN-HZ 6-2017 (14-16 Feb)

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Metals (Cd, Pb, Hg) Lead (Pb)

  • 1.3 µg/l, EQS water(AA)

– No values

  • Secondary threshold: 120 mg/kg sediment, QS from EQS dossier

– 1 open sea AU green (CR 0.7), 3 open sea AU red (CR 1.1-4.6) – 4 coastal AU green (DK, DE)(CR 0.4-0.8), 3 coastal AU red (DE) (CR 1.4-1.9)

  • Secondary threshold: 1300 µg/kg dw mussels, OSPAR BAC

Secondary threshold: 26 µg/kg ww fish liver, OSPAR proxy BAC (Fish liver and mussels counted together in MIME-script) – 3 open sea AU green (CR 0.4-0.9), 4 open sea AU red (CR 1.2-5.1) – 6 coastal AU green (SE, PL, DK)(CR 0.2-0.9), 15 coastal AU red (DK, EE, DE, LT, PL, SE)(CR 1.2-5.5)

  • Initial status assessmet
  • Biota
  • 5 open sea staions green (CR 0.4-0.6), 19 open sea stations red (CR 1.1-180.8)
  • 90 coastal stations green (DK, DE, SE) (CR 0.0-0.98), 38 coastal stations red (DK, DE, LT)(CR 1.02-5.1)
  • Sediment
  • 26 open sea stations green (CR 0.05-0.9), 3 open sea stations red (CR 1.4-2.0)
  • 78 coastal stations green (DE, DE, LT)(CR 0.04-0.95), 7 coastal stations red (DK, DE)(CR 1.05-4.4)
  • Water
  • 2 open sea stations green (CR 0.04), 3 open sea stations red (CR 1.2-1.5)
  • 13 coastal stations green (DE, PL) (CR 0.05-0.8), 15 coastal stations red (PL)(CR 1.5-4.8)

3/17/2017 22

Core indicators

results compiled at EN-HZ 6-2017 (14-16 Feb)

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Polybrominated biphenylethers (PBDE)

  • 0.0085 µg/kg ww fish muscle, EQS biota human health

– 7 open sea AU red (CR 867.2-101.5) – 9 coastal AU red (DK, SE) (CR 36.1-284.3)

  • Initial status assessment
  • 1 open sea stations red (CR 45.0)
  • 19 coastal stations red (FI, PL, SE, DK) (CR 1.95-15.8)

3/17/2017 23

Core indicators

results compiled at EN-HZ 6-2017 (14-16 Feb)

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS)

  • 9.1 µg/kg ww fish muscle, EQS biota human health

– 6 open sea AU green (CR 0.2-0.02) – 13 coastal AU green (SE, DK) (CR 0.2-0.04)

  • Secondary threshold: 1.3 10-4 μg/l , EQS water (AA)

– No value

  • Initial status assessment
  • 11 coastal stations green (FI, DK) (CR 0.01-0.4), 1 coastal station red (FI) (CR 1.3)

3/17/2017 24

Core indicators

results compiled at EN-HZ 6-2017 (14-16 Feb)

slide-25
SLIDE 25

PCB, dioxin and furan

  • Dioxin: 0.0065 TEQ/kg ww fish muscle, crustaceans or molluscs, EQS biota human

health

– No value

  • Non-dioxin like PCBs: sum of congeners (28, 52, 101, 138, 153, 180) 75 µg/kg

ww fish muscle, EC 1881/2006 – 4 open sea AU green (CR 0.3-0.9), 4 open sea AU red (CR 9.5-1.1) – 15 coastal AU green (CR 0.06-0.9), 5 coastal AU red (CR 2.6-3.9)

  • Initial status assessment
  • Dioxin (SDX) biota, 15 coastal stations green (FI, DK)(CR 0.01-0.1)
  • Non-dioxin PCB(SCB6) biota
  • 3 open sea stations green (CR 0.03-0.06)
  • 21 coastal stations green (FI, PL, SE, DK) (CR 0.0-0.4)

3/17/2017 25

Core indicators

results compiled at EN-HZ 6-2017 (14-16 Feb)

slide-26
SLIDE 26

PAH and metabolites

  • benzo(a)pyrene: 5 μg/kg ww crustaceans and molluscs, EQS biota human health

– 3 open sea AU green (CR 0.3-0.03) – 10 coastal AU green (DK, PL) (CR 0.2-0.7)

  • Secondary substance: Fluoranthene; Secondary threshold: 30 μg/kg ww crustaceans and molluscs,

EQS biota human health – 3 open sea AU green (CR 0.06-0.2) – 10 coastal AU green (CR 0.03-0.3)

  • Secondary substance: Anthracene, Secondary threshold: 24 ug/kg dw sediment, QS

– No value

  • Intermediate status assessment
  • BaP biota:
  • 4 open sea stations green (CR 0.1-0.4)
  • 117 coastal stations green (DK, DE, LT)(CR 0.04-0.74), 1 coastal station red (DK)(CR 3.64)
  • FLU biota:
  • 4 open sea stations green (CR 0.09-0.6)
  • 119 coastal stations green (DK, DE, LT) (CR 0.01–0.9)
  • ANT sediment:
  • 7 open sea stations green (CR 0.1-0.9), 7 open sea stations red (CR 1.3-8.2)
  • 66 coastal stations green (DK) (CR 0.02-0.98), 52 coastal stations red (DK) (CR 1.0-1712.8)

3/17/2017 26

Core indicators

results compiled at EN-HZ 6-2017 (14-16 Feb)

slide-27
SLIDE 27

TBT and imposex

  • TBT

– 1.6 µg /kg dw sediment (5% TOC), QS (DK study reservation, included as test)

  • No value

– Secondary threshold: 0.2 ng/l water, EQS water (AA)

  • no value

– Secondary threshold: 12 µg/kg dw mussel (DK study reservation, included as test)

  • No value
  • Imposex

– Peringia ulvae: 0.1 VDSI, Nucella lapillus: 2.0 VDSI, Neptunea antiqua: 2.0 VDSI, Hinia reticulata: 0.3 VDSI, Buccinum undatum: 0.3 VDSI, Littorina littorea: <0.3 ISI, Gercken & Sordyl 2009; Magnusson et al 2016, OSPAR EcoQO, (DK study reservation, included as test)

  • 2 open sea AU green (CR 0.4-0.7), 1 open sea AU red (CR1.0, should be green?)
  • 14 coastal AU red (DK, SE) (CR 1.1-9.7)
  • Intermediate status assessment
  • TBT sediment
  • 16 open sea stations red (CR 1.04-3055.9)
  • 2 coastal stations green (DK)(CR 0.93-1.0), 119 coastal stations red (DK)(CR 1.02-1167)
  • Imposex
  • 1 coastal station red (DK)(CR 2)

3/17/2017 27

Core indicators

results compiled at EN-HZ 6-2017 (14-16 Feb)

slide-28
SLIDE 28

3/17/2017 28

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Assessment unit scale 3 Document 5

  • At the HOLAS II 6E-2017 meeting it was proposed to carry out

the CHASE integrated assessment at assessment unit level 3, since HELCOM monitoring data is not of adequate spatial resolution to support an assessment at level 4 (outcome para 4.6).

  • NB: results have been prepared by aggregating results from

scale 4 and not by redoing the indicator calculations

  • NB: inconsistencies between the assessment units on scale 3

and 4

3/17/2017 29

slide-30
SLIDE 30

3/17/2017 30

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Radionuclides

  • CHASE agreed to be based on core indicators
  • ’Radioactive substances: Cs-137 in fish and

surface water’

– was not discussed at EN-HZ 6-2017 – is calculated on assessment unit scale 2

  • Indicator result included in CHASE by assigning

the scale 2 value to the open sea and coastal assessment units on scale 3

  • TBC if this approach is correct!

3/17/2017 31

slide-32
SLIDE 32

3/17/2017 32

slide-33
SLIDE 33

3/17/2017 33

EXAMPLE: ONE OPTION TO INCLUDE ‘INITIAL STATUS ASSESSMENT’

  • Show assessments (document 3)
  • IF no assessment for an

assessment unit is available

  • THEN use initial status assessment

average values as separate input to CHASE and display results as hashed/dotted/or other To Be Discussed:

  • 1. Is it helpful and correct to show a

mix of assessment 95% confidence values and average initial assessment values?

  • 2. Would it be better to integrate all

initial values, also if a full assessment is available for a unit?

  • 3. What confidence should be given

to initial assessment units?

slide-34
SLIDE 34

3/17/2017 34

ONE OPTION Denmark: to not present integrated results for the area

  • ut to 12 nautical

mile

slide-35
SLIDE 35

3/17/2017 35