Hazardous substance assessment tool CHASE 2.0

21. Jan 2014 1Martin M. L., Jesper H.A.

Hazardous substance assessment tool

CHASE 2.0A first assessment of Hazardous

substances in the North Sea, a presentation for the Marine Strategy

2012 conference (Originally by Norman Green, NIVA 16 may 2012)


The origin of CHARM

CHARM was first developed as a parallel to the HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool (HEAT) used to integrate the different parameters used in HELCOM when assessing eutrophication. This was a spreadsheet model where each number was manually entered!

Then it was further developed for a subarea of the North Sea in the Harmony project (Denmark, Norway, Germany), with calculations based on a database.


Study area - Data overview


Station and matrices


Available data(2003 to 2010)

• ~1155 sediment locations• ~79 fish locations• ~123 blue mussel locations • ~82 gastropod locations (Imposex) • 1 tail muscle (shrimp)


Data sources• EIONET/Waterbase_TCM_v7: All sediment and

biota data except Norwegian

• OSPAR: All imposex data

• Norwegian CEMP database

• Norwegian MOD database (offshore installasjons)

• NIFES: Additional Norwegian fish data (2010)

• IMR: Additional Norwegian fish and sediment data

• Danish Operators: Pb and Cd data in Sediment in Danish waters


Aggregation of stations into ”assessment units (AU)”

• Stations divided into two groups:- Coastal(<20 km from shore)- Open Sea (>20 km from shore)

• Open Sea stations aggregated in 62 80x80 km AUs

• Coastal stations aggregated in 189 20x20 km AUs


Open SeaStations62 80x80km AUs


Coastal stations189 20x20km AUs


Coastal stations20x20km AUs – detail

Preliminary Final status for sediment


Threshold values- Environmental Assessment Criteria (EAC) from

Agreement on CEMP Assessment Criteria for the QSR 2010 (2009-2) and including update from December 2011

- Effects Range Low (ERL) (US-EPA) used for PAH and metals in sediments as recommended (no EAC defined yet)

- IMPOSEX threshold from OSPAR ASMO 2004 (species dependent)

- EMODNET: EU WFD criteria?


Substances/matrices/bases

• Sediment/metals (Pb, Cd, Hg): dw to 5% Al

• Sediment/POPs (PCB/PAH): dw to 2.5% TOC

• Fish liver/POPs (PCB): lipid basis

• Blue Mussel/POPs (PCB/PAH/TBT): dw

• Blue Mussel/metals: dw

• Water not used


CHASE 2.0 The HARMONY chemical status assessment Tool

Water body/sub-basin: COASTAL(22-4) Coordinates: 51.40356366176470588235294117647058823538,3.90922476307189542483660130718954248367

Water Threshold

Value

Unit Resp. Status 1997-

2007

Contamination

Ratio

Ind_Conf Contamination

Sum

QE status QE_Conf Weight

Anthracene [sediment] 85 µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 0 H M L 0.000 100 %

Add new indicator …

0.000 HIGH 75 % 25%Sediments Threshold

Value


2007

Contamination

Ratio


Sum


Anthracene [sediment] 85 µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 120 H M L 1.412 100 %

Benzo(ghi]perylene [sediment] 85 µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 114.2973856 H M L 1.345 100 %

Benzo[a]anthracene [sediment] 261 µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 33.82352941 H M L 0.130 100 %

Benzo[a]pyrene [sediment] 430 µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L H M L 100 %

Chrysene [sediment] 384 µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 180 H M L 0.469 100 %

Dibenzotiophene [sediment] 190 µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 140.625 H M L 0.740 100 %

Fluoranthene [sediment] 600 µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 75 H M L 0.125 100 %

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene [sediment] 240 µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 79.16666667 H M L 0.330 100 %

Naphtalene [sediment] 160 µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 108.3333333 H M L 0.677 100 %

Phenathrene [sediment] 240 µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 116.6666667 H M L 0.486 100 %

Pyrene [sediment] 665 µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 134.7222222 H M L 0.203 100 %

CB101 [sediment] 3 µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 0.756147059 H M L 0.252 100 %

CB118 [sediment] 0.6 µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 0.909926471 H M L 1.517 100 %






Cd [sediment] 1200 µg/kg(5%Al) + H M L 232.25 H M L 0.194 100 %

Hg [sediment] 150 µg/kg(5%Al) + H M L 875 H M L 5.833 100 %

Pb [sediment] 47000 µg/kg(5%Al) + H M L 58145 H M L 1.237 100 %


4.334 MODERATE 100 % 25%Biota Threshold

Value


2007

Contamination

Ratio


Sum


Naphtalene,mussel [biota] 340 µg/kg dw + H M L H M L 100 %

Phenathrene,mussel [biota] 1700 µg/kg dw + H M L 31.66666667 H M L 0.019 100 %

Anthracene,mussel [biota] 290 µg/kg dw + H M L 6.363636364 H M L 0.022 100 %

Fluoranthene,mussel [biota] 110 µg/kg dw + H M L 85.71428571 H M L 0.779 100 %

Pyrene,mussel [biota] 100 µg/kg dw + H M L 125.3846154 H M L 1.254 100 %

Benzo[a]anthracene,mussel [biota] 80 µg/kg dw + H M L 37.5 H M L 0.469 100 %

Benzo[a]pyrene,mussel [biota] 600 µg/kg dw + H M L 28.46153846 H M L 0.047 100 %

Benzo(ghi]perylene,mussel [biota] 110 µg/kg dw + H M L H M L 100 %

CB28,mussel [biota] 3.2 µg/kg dw + H M L 1.666666667 H M L 0.521 100 %


CB101,mussel [biota] 6 µg/kg dw + H M L 55.36931818 H M L 9.228 100 %





TBT [biota] 12 µg/kg dw + H M L 556.3636364 H M L 46.364 100 %

CB28,fish liver [biota] 64 µg/kg lipid + H M L 26.12903226 H M L 0.408 100 %



CB118,fish liver [biota] 24 µg/kg lipid + H M L 270 H M L 11.250 100 %





24.869 BAD 100 % 25%Biological Effects Threshold

Value


2007

Contamination

Ratio


Sum


VDSI(Littorina,Buccinum,Nassarius) [BE] 0.3 0 + H M L H M L 100 %

VDSI(Neptunea,Nucella) [BE] 2 0 + H M L H M L 100 %


#DIV/0! 100 % 25%

100 % 100 % 100%

Final chemical status: BAD

version 20101110 93.75 % Final confidence rating: Class I

Threshold

score

Status score

Threshold

score

Status score

Threshold

score

Status score

Threshold

score

Status score

IMPORT data from XML

EXPORT data to XML

Example CHASE 2.0 spreadsheet:

Coastal (quadrate 22-4)

Status values are median of year/station/assessment unit (nested)

High

Moderate

Bad


Sediments Thresh

old

Value

Unit Resp. Status

1997-

2007

Contam

ination

Ratio

Ind_Conf Contam

ination

Sum

QE statusQE_Conf Weight

Anthracene [sediment] 85µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 33.57843 H M L 0.395 100 %

Benzo(ghi]perylene [sediment] 85µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 118.3333 H M L 1.392 100 %

Benzo[a]anthracene [sediment] 261µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 77.16346 H M L 0.296 100 %

Benzo[a]pyrene [sediment] 430µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 99.47917 H M L 0.231 100 %

Chrysene [sediment] 384µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 80.02451 H M L 0.208 100 %

Dibenzotiophene [sediment] 190µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L H M L 100 %

Fluoranthene [sediment] 600µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 185.5882 H M L 0.309 100 %

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene [sediment] 240µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 137.9493 H M L 0.575 100 %

Naphtalene [sediment] 160µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 110 H M L 0.688 100 %

Phenathrene [sediment] 240µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 114.2974 H M L 0.476 100 %

Pyrene [sediment] 665µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 145.3125 H M L 0.219 100 %

CB101 [sediment] 3µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 2.5 H M L 0.833 100 %

CB118 [sediment] 0.6µg/kg(2.5%TOC) + H M L 2.03125 H M L 3.385 100 %






Cd [sediment] 1.2mg/kg(5%Al) + H M L H M L 100 %

Hg [sediment] 0.15mg/kg(5%Al) + H M L H M L 100 %

Pb [sediment] 47mg/kg(5%Al) + H M L H M L 100 %

Cr [sediment] 81mg/kg(5%Al) + H M L H M L 100 %

Cu [sediment] 34mg/kg(5%Al) + H M L H M L 100 %

Zn [sediment] 150mg/kg(5%Al) + H M L H M L 100 %


2.553 MODERATE 100 % 0%

Threshold score Status score


Preliminary Final status(all matrices)


Preliminary Final status(sediment)


Preliminary Final status(biota)


Preliminary Final status(biological effects status)


Coastal: substance count


Coastal: station count


Open sea: substance count


Open sea: station count


Status summaryTYPE

TARGET COASTAL OPENSEA Grand TotalSEDIMENT BAD 1 0 1

POOR 2 0 2MODERATE 53 8 61GOOD 34 17 51HIGH 33 26 59

SEDIMENT Total 123 51 174BIOTA BAD 2 0 2


BIOTA Total 93 30 123BM POOR 2 0 2

MODERATE 23 1 24GOOD 3 4 7HIGH 7 0 7

BM Total 35 5 40FINAL BAD 3 0 3


FINAL Total 189 62 251Grand Total 440 148 588


Primary cause of high ranking

A) Percent of totalB) Occurence in a.u.C) Frequency as highest

Region Coastal Open Sea Hazardous substance (medium) Count A% B% C% Count A% B% C%

CB118 (sediment) 29 28 52 30 0 0 34 0

VDSI (snails) 22 21 19 61 0 0 5 0

CB118 (mussel) 14 13 36 21 na na na na

TBT (shellfish) 14 13 12 61 na na na na

Benzo(ghi]perylene (sediment) 12 11 62 10 7 37 68 17

CB118 (fish liver) 6 6 13 24 10 53 42 38

Naphtalene (sediment) 3 3 42 4 0 0 47 0

HCHG (mussel) 2 2 30 4 na na na na

CB52 (mussel) 1 1 35 1 na na na na

HCB (mussel) 1 1 30 2 na na na na

HCHG (fish liver) 1 1 10 6 1 5 11 14

Anthracene (sediment) 0 0 56 0 1 5 71 2

Total 105 100 na na 19 100 na na


Next steps

• Do a systematical confidence rating

• Quality assurance

• Include more substances? (database work is done for all available data, only need to add to substance list)


Preliminary conlusions (1/2)...• Sediment

Generally good/high conditions in central North Sea, and moderate in parts of south North Sea and in coastal areas. The occurrence of “Poor” AUs was found only along the coast. The only “Bad” AU was coastal.

• BiotaGood/High conditions in open ocean of western North Sea, and moderate in parts of south North Sea and in coastal areas. The occurrence of “Poor” AUs was found only along the coast. The only two “Bad” AUs were registered, both coastal.


Preliminary conlusions (2/2)...• Biological effects

Observations were restricted to the coastal areas of Denmark, United Kingdom, Norway and Sweden with the exception of five offshore AUs. No “Bad” AUs which is good but the predomiance of “Moderate” AUs should be warning sign.

• Final StatusGenerally Moderate/Good/High conditions in central North Sea. A predominance of “High” on United Kingdom side mainly due to the results for biota. There is a predominance of “Moderate” AUs along the coast. The occurrence of “Poor” was found at coastal AUs. The three “Bad” AUs are still evident.

The map seems to give a reasonable view of the quality of the North Sea.


Conclusions and remarks

• Need to consider the balance in parameters/matrices used by each country

• Is there a need for region-specific thresholds?

• CHASE can easily be revised to take into account revised thresholds or preferred matrices.

• CHASE provides a robust and transparent means of assessing an aggregate of different contaminants/effects in different matrices.


Emodnet Extensions

• Dataproduct for the EMODNET MFS data (incl. some fine-tuning)

• How do EMODNET see this– EMODNET report– DCE / AU Bioscience report– Or MARE chapter?

• The harmony project results will be peer reviewed published (soon hopefully)


In cooperation with:Jesper Andersen (NERI)

Martin Larsen (NERI)Tore Høgåsen (NIVA)and supported by:

HARMONY andNorwegian Climate and Pollution Agency

Thank you for your attention

[email protected]

Documents

Hazardous substance assessment tool CHASE 2.0