The evaluation of atmospheric pollution in

Europe

The evaluation of atmospheric pollution in

Europe

Wenche AasEMEP/CCC (NILU)

The EMEP Programme

OutlineOutline

History of EMEP (CLTRAP)

Environmental issues throughout the

history of EMEP

Trends

Outlook

Long Range Transport of Air Pollution history

1866, “Brand” (H. Ibsen) 1872, The term ”Acid Rain” was introduced (R.A. Smith) 1881, Black snow observed in Southern Norway (W.C. Brøgger) 1890 - 1900, reductions in salmon stocks in Southern Norway 1916, reduced trout stocks reported (Landmark, Dahl) 1934, First association made between acid rain and adverse effects

on fisk populations was made (Torgersen) 1959, The relationship between Acid Rain and acidity in rivers and

lakes was described (Dannevig) 1968-1970, The relationship betweeen Acid rain and fish death was

described (Odén, Dannevig). 1972-1979, OECD-project and the SNSF-project 1979 CLTRAP

“Brand” (Henrik Ibsen, 1866);” Worse times, worse sights flashes through future nights! The sickening black coal clouds of the Brits descends on the country, soils all the fresh green, suffocates all green

sprouts, moves low with poison mixed”

Protocols to the ConventionProtocols to the Convention

1) The 1984 Protocol on Long-term Financing of the Cooperative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe (EMEP protocol)

2) The 1985 Protocol on the Reduction of Sulphur Emissions or their Transboundary Fluxes by at least 30 per cent

3) The 1988 Protocol concerning the Control of Nitrogen Oxides or their Transboundary Fluxes

4) The 1991 Protocol concerning the Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds or their Transboundary Fluxes

5) The 1994 Protocol on Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions

6) The 1998 Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). The Aarhus protocol

7) The 1998 Protocol on Heavy Metals. The Aarhus protocol

8) The 1999 Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone. The Gothenburg multi-pollutant protocol

The EMEP vision;

To be the main science based and policy-driven instrument for international cooperation in atmospheric monitoring and modelling activities, emission inventories and projections, and integrated assessment to help solve transboundary air pollution problems in Europe

Artic Ocean

Atlantic Ocean

Pacific Ocean

Slovenia

Hungary

Slovakia

Poland

Lithuania

Latvia

Estonia

Finland

Sweden

Georgia

Norway

Belarus

Czech Rep. Ukraine

Denmark

Moldova

Germany

Yugoslavia

Austria

Bulgaria

Liechtenstein

Turkey

Italy

Monaco

Cyprus

Switzerland

Malta

Netherlands

Greece

Belgium

F.Y.R.ofMacedonia

Luxembourg

Albania

France

Bosnia andHerzegovina

Spain

Croatia

Portugal

IrelandUnited Kingdom

Romania

Russian Federation

Iceland

Kara SeaBarents Sea

North Sea

Atlantic Ocean

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea Caspian Sea

Aral Sea

Canada

of America

Kyrgyzstan

Kazakhstan

AzerbaijanArmenia

Uzbekistan

Turkmenistan Tajikistan

UN-ECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution ( 51 Parties) - 8 Specific protocols, where the first is

European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP) (42 Parties)

www.emep.intEMEP TopicsAcidification and Eutrophication

Sulphur, Nitrogen, base cations

Photochemical oxidants

Tropospheric ozone, precursors (NOx, VOC)

Heavy metals

Pb, Cd, Hg, +++

Persistent Organic Pollutants

(POPs)

PAH, PCB, HCB, Chlordane, DDT/DDE...

Particulate matter

PM mass, chemical speciation, physical characterisation

Primary

PMPM pollutionPrimary

PMPM pollution

Climate changeClimate changeGHGGHGGHG

Light blue = no risk

Forests – acid dep. Semi-natural – acid dep. Freshwater – acid dep.

Health - PM Health+vegetation - ozone Vegetation – N dep.

Projections for 2020

Monitoring programme:Level 1•Main ions in precipitation and in air •heavy metals in precipitations•ozone •PM10 and PM2.5 mass •meteorology

at ca 125 sites

Level 2, supersite (joint EMEP/GAW)• POPs• Heavy metals in air and aerosols• VOC• EC/OC, OC speciation• Mineral Dust• PM speciation incl. gas particle ratio

+ all level 1 activities

15-20 sitesBoth levels are mandatory by all Parties

Programme Parameters Minimum time resolution

Level-3 sites (monitoring at these sites do not require all level-1 and level-2 parameters) Dry deposition flux of Nand S SO2, NH3, HNO3 (SO4

--, NH4+, NO3

-) Hourly/Daily Dry deposition flux of O3

O3 Hourly/Daily

Hydrocarbons C6-C12 Hourly/Daily NOy chemistry NO, NO2, PAN, organic nitrates Hourly/Daily

OC speciation Both water soluble and water insoluble OC

Hourly/Daily

“Black carbon” BC Hourly/Daily Size/number distribution dN/dlogDp Hourly/Daily Light scattering Aerosol optical depth Hourly/Daily Vertical profiles O3 soundings, PM lidar, Hourly/Daily Mercury speciation TGM, RGM and TPM Daily/Weekly Congener-specific POPs PCBs, PAHs, PCDDs and PCDFs Daily/Weekly Multi-compartment (air, soil, water)

POPs and Hg Daily/Weekly

Monitoring programme, Level 3Monitoring programme, Level 3

Optical properties Scattering and absorption coefficients

Research driven and voluntary,

Emissions1980

Trends in SulphurTrends in Sulphur1990 2004

Modelled1980 1990 2004

http://webdab.emep.int

Long-term changes in sulphur

Long-term changes in sulphur

k tons NO2/year

Average 24% decrease

Decreased NOx emissions are mainly due to changes in combustion sector

Average 20% decrease

Decreased NH3 is due to activity changes and control measures in agricultural sector

Trends in Nitrogen emissions, 1980-2000Trends in Nitrogen emissions, 1980-2000

k tons NH3 /year

Trends in observations, 1990 -2004Trends in observations, 1990 -200420 sites with N in air and 33 sites with S,N in precip and S in air

Comp Max Min Average sites with reduction

SO2 -99 % -34 % -77 % 97 %

SO4 air -81 % -19 % -54 % 88 %

SO4 precip -81 % -30 % -58 % 97 %

NO2 -91 % -30 % -50 % 63 %

sum NO3 air -34 % -25 % -28 % 21 %

NO3 precip -54 % -21 % -32 % 45 %

sum NH4 air -88 % -19 % -45 % 84 %

NH4 precip -82 % -16 % -44 % 48 %

Change in chemical composition in air. Less (NH4)2SO4 and more NH4NO3. Shift in equilibrium between HNO3 + NH3 = NH4NO3

Emissionreduction

65%

30%

22%

NOx

Violet = 60% or more

Red = 30 - 59%

Yellow = 1 - 29%

Green = the goal is achieved

Emissions left to reduce, 2000-2010Emissions left to reduce, 2000-2010

NH3SO2

Spanish emissions

Distance to target (Goth. Protocol)

EMEP report 1/2006

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

OZ

ON

E C

ON

C (

PP

B)

O3 Baseline monthly means 12-month moving averageLinear (12-month moving average)

Ozone baseline (1987 –2004) Ozone baseline (1987 –2004)

at Mace Head, Ireland

Ozone is a large health problem in Europe

Summer 2003 ETC/ACC

8th TFMM meeting, Dessau, 2007

Contribution of non-European sources to Hg depositions in the NH

25-60% of Hg depositions in Europe comes from global sources

EMEP region

Hg deposition to Germany

Hg deposition to the UK

Belgium3%

France8%

Others8%

Natural (Europe)

1%

Germany49%

Netherlands7%

Global sources24%

UK29%

France2%

Others3%

Germany4%

Natural (Europe)

1%

Netherlands1%

Global sources60%

Hg intercontinental transport

From 8th TFMM meeting, Dessau, 2007

Contributions of different emission sources to total depositions of 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF over Austria and Finland

Austria

Austria25%

Slovakia6%

Poland5%

Germany8%

Czech Republic

9%

Other15%

non-European sources

17%Re-emission

15%

Finland

Other16%

Poland6%

Russian Federation

5%Ukraine

3%Sweden

3%

Finland21%

non-European sources

40%

Re-emission6%

PCDD/F intercontinental transport

Particles cause large environmental problemsParticles cause large environmental problems

Local: health and visibility Regional: acidification, eutrophication, ozone Global: climate, (ozone layer)

50 % of PM10 in Berlin is from regional background

PM [µg/m³]

urban background

regional background

hemisspheric/natural background

Urban areas countryside

1015

20

30

25

35

40 Traffic, local sources

Ref: Martin Lutz, Senate Department for Urban Development Berlin

Radiative forcing by sulphate and by carbonaceous material

High uncertainty in both direct and indirect effect of aerosols on the climate

Intensive measurements and modelling of size segregated

chemical composition of aerosols in June 2006 and Jan 2007

Intensive measurements and modelling of size segregated

chemical composition of aerosols in June 2006 and Jan 2007

Wenche Aas, Rami Alfarra, Elke Bieber, Darius Ceburnis, Thomas Ellermann, Martin Ferm, Marina Frölich, Robert Gehrig, HC Hansson, Gyula Kiss, Ulla Makkonen, Nichos Mihalopoulos, Eiko Nemitz, Rene P. Otjes, Noemí Perez, Cinzia Perrino, Jean Philippe Putaud, Christian Plass-Duelmer, Gerald Spindler, Svetlana Tsyro, Milan Vana, Karl Espen Yttri.

www.emep.int

PM10 June 2006

PM2.5 june 2006

PM10 Jan 2007

PM2.5 Jan 2007PM2.5 June 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

NO01 FI17 NL11 DE44 IT04 IT01 ES31

Tot C SO4 NH4 NO3 Dust Sea salt not det.

Extreme episode, May 2006Extreme episode, May 2006

CO, PM, O3 and AOT were all record high

Forest fires in eastern Europe observed in the arctic

Challenges Unresolved issues (Acid, Eutrophication, PM, Ozone, HMs/POPs) Additional pollutants (new POPs, health relevant exposure, ....) climate change, biodiversity, biogeochemical cycles, hydrological cycle, land-use

changes, biomass burning.....

Synergies wrt climate change large overlap in parameters of relevance Joint infrastructures

EMEP wrt GEO (GEOSS) ”New” technologies: multiple platforms and data assimilation Near-Real-Time data provision GAS; GMES Atmospheric Service

Geographical coverage Hemispheric and global transport fluxes Regional vs. Local pollution issues

EMEP in the years to come...EMEP in the years to come...

Thank you for the attention

AND

Congratulation with the

35 year anniversary!!