HELCOM CORE INDICATOR Metals (lead, cadmium and mercury)

Transcription

1 HELCOM CORE INDICATOR Metals (lead, cadmium and mercury)

2 Work schedule for heavy metals core indicator 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 of the 2 nd holistic assessment to be prepared by mid-2017 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.

3 Data submission to the ICES database PUR MPROG PM Country RLABO STATN MYEA R DATE Latitude Longitude Subbasin Species SEXC O NOINP MATRX NODIS PARGR OUP PARAM BASIS QFLAG Value MUNIT WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO /09/ WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO /09/ WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO /09/ edulis 106SB I-MET CD W 287ug/kg edulis 61SB I-MET CD W 375ug/kg edulis 65SB I-MET CD W 331ug/kg WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO /09/ edulis 61SB I-MET CD W 304ug/kg WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO /09/ WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO /09/ WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO /09/ WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 06/09/ WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO /09/ COMB Poland IMWP LSOPO /09/ COMB Poland IMWP LSOP /09/ COMB Poland IMWP LSOP /09/ COMB Poland IMWP LSOP 12/09/ COMB Poland IMWP ROWY 18/09/ edulis 80SB I-MET CD W 284ug/kg edulis 168SB I-MET CD W 291ug/kg edulis 80SB I-MET CD W 220ug/kg edulis 137SB I-MET CD W 159ug/kg edulis 107SB I-MET CD W 218ug/kg edulis 114SB I-MET CD W 158ug/kg edulis 245SB I-MET CD W 176ug/kg edulis 220SB I-MET CD W 206ug/kg edulis 225SB I-MET CD W 214ug/kg edulis 420SB I-MET CD W 77ug/kg

4 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 fish muscle - 50 µg/kg ww mussel 960 µg/kg dw Pb seawater AA 1.3 µg/l fish liver 26 µg/kg ww 1,000 µg/kg dw do (d.w.) od (d.w.)* (d.w) * - + (d.w.) ,500 µg/kg ww fish muscle µg/kg mussel 1,300 µg/kg dw Hg fish muscle 20 µg/kg ww 1,500 µg/kg dw 500 µg/kg ww do (d.w.) od (d.w.)* (d.w) + (d.w) * * (d.w) + (d.w.) (d.w) *dry mass is missing in the data base

5 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 Hg fish muscle - fish muscle - mussel, fish liver

6 OSPAR Assessment Criteria

7 Using conversion factors Swedish conversion factors Whole fish/liver Whole fish/muscle Species Cadmium Mercury Lead Mercury Herring Perch Conversion from liver to whole fish 1248 µg kg -1 d.w 137 µg kg -1 w.w. Conversion from wet to dry mass Cd in herring liver, Polish results OSPAR BAC 26 µg kg -1 w.w Start point environmental data 437 µg kg -1 w.w Second. poisoning Quality Standard 160 µg kg -1 w.w CF = 16.8 BAD/subGES CF = 0.86 GOOD/GES

8 Hg (muscle), g kg -1 w.w R = ; p = Trend calculation 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) 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)

9 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?