HELCOM CORE INDICATOR Metals (lead, cadmium and mercury)
Work schedule for heavy metals core indicator 2015 2016 2017 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 EN-HZ / Heavy metals Completing Heavy metals Heavy metals BalticBOOST core indicator indicator core indicator core indicator WP 2.1 report - further evaluations for report - further report - workshop development the first version development finalization of of the 2 nd (Feb) the final version Finalization of holistic Assessment assessment to the heavy re-verification of protocol metals core the availability be prepared by development indicator and adequacy of mid-2017 report (first the data version) selected for Assessment assessment protocol development 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.
Data submission to the ICES database PUR MYEA SEXC PARGR MPROG PM Country RLABO STATN R DATE Latitude Longitude Subbasin Species O NOINP MATRX NODIS OUP PARAM BASIS QFLAG Value MUNIT COMB~ Mytilus WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200026/09/2000 54.44 18.60833 edulis 106SB I-MET CD W 287ug/kg COMB~ Mytilus WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200130/09/2001 54.44 18.60833 edulis 61SB I-MET CD W 375ug/kg COMB~ Mytilus WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200220/09/2002 54.44 18.60833 edulis 65SB I-MET CD W 331ug/kg COMB~ 54.4688 Mytilus WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200316/09/2003 3 18.61833 edulis 61SB I-MET CD W 304ug/kg COMB~ Mytilus WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200423/09/2004 54.44 18.60833 edulis 80SB I-MET CD W 284ug/kg COMB~ Mytilus WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200512/09/2005 54.44 18.60833 edulis 168SB I-MET CD W 291ug/kg COMB~ Mytilus WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200608/09/2006 54.44 18.60833 edulis 80SB I-MET CD W 220ug/kg COMB~ Mytilus WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200706/09/2007 54.44 18.60833 edulis 137SB I-MET CD W 159ug/kg COMB~ Mytilus WGA H Poland IMWP LSOPO 200803/09/2008 54.44 18.60833 edulis 107SB I-MET CD W 218ug/kg Mytilus COMB Poland IMWP LSOPO 200904/09/2009 54.44 18.60833 edulis 114SB I-MET CD W 158ug/kg Mytilus COMB Poland IMWP LSOP 201010/09/2010 54.44 18.60833 edulis 245SB I-MET CD W 176ug/kg Mytilus COMB Poland IMWP LSOP 201108/09/2011 54.44 18.60833 edulis 220SB I-MET CD W 206ug/kg Mytilus COMB Poland IMWP LSOP 201312/09/2013 54.44 18.60833 edulis 225SB I-MET CD W 214ug/kg 54.6813 Mytilus COMB Poland IMWP ROWY 201318/09/2013 8 17.04083 edulis 420SB I-MET CD W 77ug/kg
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 + (w.w.) + (w.w.) + (w.w.) + (w.w.) + (d.w.)* + (w.w.) + (w.w.) + (d.w.) µg/kg ww 2012 2008 2011 do 2008 2007 2012-2014 2014 2013 + (d.w.) od 2013 fish muscle - 50 µg/kg + (w.w.) - + (w.w.) + (w.w.) - + (w.w.) - - ww 2012 2001 2000 2012-2014 mussel 960 1,000 + (w.w) + (w.w.) + (w.w) + (w.w) + (d.w) + (w.w)* + (w.w) + (d.w) µg/kg µg/kg dw 2012 2005 1987 2014 2007 2012-2014 2012 2013 dw Pb seawater AA 1.3 - - - - + - + - - µg/l fish liver 26 1,500 + (w.w.) + (w.w.) + (w.w.) + (w.w.) + (d.w.)* + (w.w.) + (w.w.) + (d.w.) µg/kg µg/kg ww 2012 2008 2011 do 2008 2007 2012-2014 2014 2013 ww + (d.w.) od 2013 fish muscle - 300 µg/kg + (w.w.) - + (w.w.) + (w.w.) - + (w.w.) - - 2012 2001 2000 2012-2014 mussel 1,300 1,500 + (w.w) + (w.w.) + (w.w) + (w.w) + (d.w) + (w.w)* + (w.w) + (d.w) µg/kg µg/kg dw 2012 2005 1987 2014 2007 2012-2014 2014 2013 dw Hg fish muscle 20 500 + (w.w) + (w.w.) + (w.w) + (w.w) + (d.w) * + (w.w) + (w.w) + (w.w) µg/kg µg/kg ww 2012 2007 2012 2014 2007 2012-2014 2014 2013 ww *dry mass is missing in the data base
Matrices recommended for the heavy metals assessment within D8 and D9 D8 D9 primary secondary primary secondary matrix matrix matrix matrix Cd seawater mussel fish muscle mussel, fish liver Pb seawater fish liver fish muscle mussel, fish liver mussel Hg fish muscle - fish muscle -
OSPAR Assessment Criteria
Using conversion factors Whole fish/liver Whole fish/muscle Swedish conversion Species Cadmium Mercury Lead Mercury Herring 0.11 0.52 4.58 0.86 factors Perch 0.16 1.63 12.18 0.72 Conversion from liver to whole fish 1248 µg kg -1 d.w 137 µg kg -1 w.w. Conversion from wet to dry mass Start point Cd in herring liver, environmental data Second. poisoning 437 µg kg -1 w.w Polish results 2013 Quality Standard 160 µg kg -1 w.w OSPAR BAC 26 µg kg -1 w.w CF = 16.8 CF = 0.86 BAD/subGES GOOD/GES
Trend calculation 900 R = -0.2049; p = 0.0000 • The statistical relevance of the trends was 800 verified by significance level (p) at 95% 700 Hg (muscle), g kg -1 w.w. confidence limit (a trend is statistically 600 significant if p<0.05 at 95% confidence limit). 500 400 300 200 100 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 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)
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?
Recommend
More recommend
