EMEP INTENSIVE MEASUREMENt PERIODS in CLOSE PARTNERSSHIP with EU prOjects

1. EMEP INTENSIVE MEASUREMENt PERIODS in CLOSE PARTNERSSHIP with EU prOjects Wenche Aas , Andres Alastuey, Francesco Canonaco, Fabrizia Cavalli , Franco Lucarelli, Eiko Nemitz, André S.H. Prévôt, Jean-Philippe Putaud, David Simpson, Cathrine Lund Myhre, Xavier Querol, Svetlana Tsyro, Karl Espen Yttri

2. EMEP intensive measurementperiods To assist the implementation of the EMEP monitoring strategy. The task force of measurement and modelling (TFMM) has recommended conducting co-ordinated intensive measurements between the Level-2 sites (joint EMEP/GAW supersites). Furthermore, cooperation and involvement of research groups with more advanced research activities (i.e. level 3) has been encouraged • 1 st Period • 1 - 30 of June 2006 • 8 Jan -4 Feb 2007 • 2nd Period • 17 Sep – 16 Oct 2008 • 25 Feb – 26 Mar 2009 • 3rd Period • 8 to July 12(17) 2012 • 11 jan - 8 Febr2013 • Outline of this talk • Some main results from the different measurement periods • highlight the interlink with research projects • Highlight the importance of infrastructure project to develop harmonized methodology and reporting guidelines in Europe

3. Intensive measurements 2006/2007

4. Data available from 2006/2007

5. Chemical speciation comparison • Not complete chemical analysis of measurements in Switzerland • Model suggests that mineral dust can be important in the summer • Measurements of organic carbon is much higher than modeled, especially in winter • Indications of problems with official emission estimates

6. Lessons learnt from the 1. EMEP IMP • Produced a set of valuable data and new possibilities for validation of the EMEP model, In particular: • size-distribution and formation rates of HNO3 and coarse nitrate • the diurnal variation of ammonia, EMEP model to be coupled to a dynamic ammonia emission module • underestimation of EC and OC at southern sites, suggesting that residential wood burning source is underestimated in winter • Identified several measurement problems • Lack of mineral dust measurements • Biased measurements for nitrogen and carbonaceous matter • Lack of comparability • No standardized reporting format Improved in future intensive periods

7. Intensive periods 2008 and 2009

8. Sites with AMS measurements in the EUCAARI campaigns 2008/2009

10. Relative organic source contributions (ME-2 results).

11. EMEP IMP 2008/2009 - The Carbonaceous Aerosol Source apportionment of the carbonaceous aerosol by using weekly data on EC, OCp, TCp, levoglucosan and the 14C/12C as input for the statistical method Latin Hypecube Sampling (LHS) Weekly measurement and centralized laboratories and/or harmonized method (i.e EUSAAR-2)

12. Fall Relative contribution to the carbonaceous fraction in PM10 • Five predefined subcategories/sources. • Elemental and organic carbon from • combustion of biomass (ECbb and OCbb) • fossil fuel sources (ECff and OCff), • organic carbon from natural sources (OCnf). Winter/ spring

13. Intensive periodes 2012 and 2013 • June 8 to July 12(7) 2012, and jan/febr 2013 • One year measurements with ACSM (from june 2012) • High resolution, and extended measurements of aerosols and its precursors (ACTRIS) whileEMEP has a special focus on mineral dust. • A cooperation between • EMEP TFMM (http://www.nilu.no/projects/ccc/tfmm/ • ACTRIS (http://www.actris.net/) • ChArMeX (http://charmex.lsce.ipsl.fr).  • EARLINET • Pegasos (http://pegasos.iceht.f orth.gr/

14. ACTRIS

15. Distributionofsites +Armenia

16. Speciationof PM10, summer 2012 • Mineral dust: • centralized lab using PIXE – laboratory in Florence. • Scientific lead: • Xavier Querol and Andres Alestuey, CSIC • Inorganic ions (regular EMEP) • Carbonaceous • EC/OC (EMEP + extra) • Carbonate (Lead by JP Putaud and Fabrizia Cavalli, JRC)

17. Mineral dust (june 2012)(µg/m3) 7,2 Mineral load: obtained by the addition of the SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3 concentrations, and the dust contribution of Na2O, K2O, CaO and MgO after the subtraction of their marine contribution from the bulk concentrations

18. Africandustepisodes

19. From Lucia Mona –CNR-IMAA, Potenza

20. Trace metals: fuel oil combustion ng/m3

21. Trace metals: mixedorigin metallurgical origin fuel oil combustion

22. Trace metals: trafficorigin ng/m3

23. Trace metals: coalcombustion

24. Sulphate coal combustion fuel oil combustion

25. Data quality and quality control • Essential to have harmonized measurements to be able to do comparison over time and space • Standard operation procedures and reference methods developed • Regular field and laboratory intercomparison • Reportingguidlines Monitoringframeworks: Infrastructureprojects

27. Summary • The EMEP intensive measurement periods have become an important part of the monitoring programme • Production of high resolution and/or advanced measurement(EUCAARI and ACTRIS). • Production of chemical composition data on mineral dust and carbonaceous matter using comparable field and analytical methodology at a number of regional background sites representative of different European regions • Established reporting guidelines and QA/QC procedures for a range of new components for the EMEP Community (EUSAAR and ACTRIS project central) • Enhanced the cooperation between the research and monitoring communities –win win, co benefit: • EMEP benefits from the scientific development and development of reference methods and reporting • Research projects benefits from infrastructure and added value of the data (increased visibility). Partnership is often a prerequisite to get funding from the Commission • Data available at: http://ebas.nilu.no/ • Future campaigns are not fixed. Potentially in 2016, though need partnerships