Metals (lead, cadmium and mercury) Work schedule for heavy metals - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

HELCOM CORE INDICATOR Metals (lead, cadmium and mercury)

Work schedule for heavy metals core indicator

Finalization of the heavy metals core indicator report

• Heavy metals core indicator report will be complemented primarily by a detailed description of the assessment protocol to

be developed in the first quarter. Based on the recommendations regarding assessment protocol, the section on results and confidence will be developed. Conversion to the subbasins at agreed levels Assessment protocol development:

• Survey of data (including matrices detail: sea water, biota (bivalves, fish tissues) available in databases. It is necessary to

encourage contracting parties to provide data within the deadline

• Determination of the assessment level for heavy metals: Level 3 or Level 4 - including coastal and transitional waters

according to WFD (it should be taken into account (i) data availability (ii) the importance of the data from coastal areas for the holistic assessment and (iii) influence of the data from coastal areas on the holistic assessment.

• Selection of matrices and areas for assessment, taking into account the agreed GES boundaries. Conversion factors should

be avoided as far as possible.

• Aggregation rules for holistic assessment (taking into account different matrices and the areas).

Re-verification of the availability and adequacy of the data selected for assessment

• At this stage it could be worth to start a discussion on monitoring programs for heavy metals, as regards unification of

matrices and spatial resolution.

2015 2016 2017 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

EN-HZ / BalticBOOST WP 2.1 workshop (Feb) Finalization of the heavy metals core indicator report (first version) Assessment protocol development

Heavy metals core indicator report - further development Assessment protocol development

Heavy metals core indicator report - further development re-verification of the availability and adequacy of the data selected for assessment

Heavy metals core indicator report - finalization of the final version

Completing indicator evaluations for the first version

• f the 2nd

holistic assessment to be prepared by mid-2017

MPROG PUR PM Country RLABOSTATN MYEA R DATE Latitude Longitude Subbasin Species SEXC O NOINP MATRX NODIS PARGR OUP PARAM BASIS QFLAG Value MUNIT COMB~ WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200026/09/2000 54.44 18.60833 Mytilus edulis 106SB I-MET CD W 287ug/kg COMB~ WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200130/09/2001 54.44 18.60833 Mytilus edulis 61SB I-MET CD W 375ug/kg COMB~ WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200220/09/2002 54.44 18.60833 Mytilus edulis 65SB I-MET CD W 331ug/kg COMB~ WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200316/09/2003 54.4688 3 18.61833 Mytilus edulis 61SB I-MET CD W 304ug/kg COMB~ WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200423/09/2004 54.44 18.60833 Mytilus edulis 80SB I-MET CD W 284ug/kg COMB~ WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200512/09/2005 54.44 18.60833 Mytilus edulis 168SB I-MET CD W 291ug/kg COMB~ WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200608/09/2006 54.44 18.60833 Mytilus edulis 80SB I-MET CD W 220ug/kg COMB~ WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200706/09/2007 54.44 18.60833 Mytilus edulis 137SB I-MET CD W 159ug/kg COMB~ WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200803/09/2008 54.44 18.60833 Mytilus edulis 107SB I-MET CD W 218ug/kg COMB Poland IMWP LSOPO 200904/09/2009 54.44 18.60833 Mytilus edulis 114SB I-MET CD W 158ug/kg COMB Poland IMWP LSOP 201010/09/2010 54.44 18.60833 Mytilus edulis 245SB I-MET CD W 176ug/kg COMB Poland IMWP LSOP 201108/09/2011 54.44 18.60833 Mytilus edulis 220SB I-MET CD W 206ug/kg COMB Poland IMWP LSOP 201312/09/2013 54.44 18.60833 Mytilus edulis 225SB I-MET CD W 214ug/kg COMB Poland IMWP ROWY 201318/09/2013 54.6813 8 17.04083 Mytilus edulis 420SB I-MET CD W 77ug/kg

Data submission to the ICES database

GES boundaries and national data availability

GES baundary Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Latvia Lithuania Poland Sweden D8 D9 Cd seawater AA 0.2 µg/l

• +
• +
• fish liver
• 1,000

µg/kg ww + (w.w.) 2012 + (w.w.) 2008 + (w.w.) 2011 + (w.w.) do 2008 + (d.w.)

• d 2013

+ (d.w.)* 2007 + (w.w.) 2012-2014 + (w.w.) 2014 + (d.w.) 2013 fish muscle

• 50 µg/kg

ww + (w.w.) 2012

• + (w.w.)

2001 + (w.w.) 2000

• + (w.w.)

2012-2014

• mussel

960 µg/kg dw 1,000 µg/kg dw + (w.w) 2012 + (w.w.) 2005 + (w.w) 1987 + (w.w) 2014 + (d.w) 2007 + (w.w)* 2012-2014 + (w.w) 2012 + (d.w) 2013 Pb seawater AA 1.3 µg/l

• +
• +
• fish liver

26 µg/kg ww 1,500 µg/kg ww + (w.w.) 2012 + (w.w.) 2008 + (w.w.) 2011 + (w.w.) do 2008 + (d.w.)

• d 2013

+ (d.w.)* 2007 + (w.w.) 2012-2014 + (w.w.) 2014 + (d.w.) 2013 fish muscle

• 300 µg/kg

+ (w.w.) 2012

• + (w.w.)

2001 + (w.w.) 2000

• + (w.w.)

2012-2014

• mussel

1,300 µg/kg dw 1,500 µg/kg dw + (w.w) 2012 + (w.w.) 2005 + (w.w) 1987 + (w.w) 2014 + (d.w) 2007 + (w.w)* 2012-2014 + (w.w) 2014 + (d.w) 2013 Hg fish muscle 20 µg/kg ww 500 µg/kg ww + (w.w) 2012 + (w.w.) 2007 + (w.w) 2012 + (w.w) 2014 + (d.w) * 2007 + (w.w) 2012-2014 + (w.w) 2014 + (w.w) 2013

*dry mass is missing in the data base

Matrices recommended for the heavy metals assessment within D8 and D9

D8 D9 primary matrix secondary matrix primary matrix secondary matrix Cd seawater mussel fish muscle mussel, fish liver Pb seawater fish liver mussel fish muscle mussel, fish liver Hg fish muscle

• fish muscle

OSPAR Assessment Criteria

Using conversion factors

1248 µg kg-1 d.w

Start point environmental data

437 µg kg-1 w.w

Whole fish/liver ​ ​ ​ Whole fish/muscle Species Cadmium Mercury Lead Mercury Herring 0.11 0.52 4.58 0.86 Perch 0.16 1.63 12.18 0.72

137 µg kg-1 w.w. CF = 16.8 BAD/subGES

OSPAR BAC

26 µg kg-1 w.w CF = 0.86 GOOD/GES

• Second. poisoning

Quality Standard

160 µg kg-1 w.w

Swedish conversion factors Cd in herring liver, Polish results 2013 Conversion from wet to dry mass Conversion from liver to whole fish

Trend calculation

Concentration of mercury in flounder (Platichtys flesus) muscle in the Danish area (green – trend line, red line – Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) of 20 µg kg-1 w.w., circles – samples taken at different locations and different dates)

• The statistical relevance of the trends was

verified by significance level (p) at 95% confidence limit (a trend is statistically significant if p<0.05 at 95% confidence limit).

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Hg (muscle), g kg-1 w.w. R = -0.2049; p = 0.0000

Future work and questions

• ICES reporting format

– subbasins? – reported values expressed in units used for GES values? – dry weight obligatory for results expressed in the other units than used for GES values

• GES boundaries confirmations
• Matrices (sediment?)
• Fish species for the assessment
• Assessment unit levels (WFD?)
• Trend calculation (OSPAR method?)
• Ways of agregation:

– Mean? Median ? For subbasins? – one metal in all matrices – status for metal? – All metals together?