uncertainties of heavy metal pollution assessment l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Uncertainties of heavy metal pollution assessment PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Uncertainties of heavy metal pollution assessment

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 20

Uncertainties of heavy metal pollution assessment - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Uncertainties of heavy metal pollution assessment. Oleg Travnikov EMEP/MSC-E. Outline. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis Models intercomparison Model results vs. measurements Back trajectory analysis Emission reporting for model application. Model sensitivity analysis.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Uncertainties of heavy metal pollution assessment' - elina

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
  • Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis
  • Models intercomparison
  • Model results vs. measurements
  • Back trajectory analysis
  • Emission reporting for model application
model sensitivity analysis
Model sensitivity analysis

Hg total deposition

Pband Cd total deposition

model uncertainty
Model uncertainty

Model intrinsic uncertainty without effect of emissions


Lead and cadmium

Uncertainty 20-50%

Uncertainty 30-40%


Review of MSC-E models

Workshop on review of MSC-E models on HMs and POPs (Moscow, 2005)


to establish whether MSC-E models on HMs and POPs are state of the art and fit for the purpose of evaluating long-range transport of HMs and POPs.

  • Conclusions [ ECE/EB.AIR/GE.1/2006/4 ]
  • The model parameterization is appropriate for operational modelling of heavy metal concentration and deposition in Europe
  • HM depositions, concentrations and transboundary fluxes of HMs calculated by MSC-E model corresponded well with other transport models
  • Other models, such as the MSC-E model, underestimated air and precipitation concentrations of Pb and Cd when using official emission data
model intercomparison

Cd air concentration (2000)



Model intercomparison

Comparison of MSCE-HM and CMAQ models for Pb and Cd

Conditions of comparison:

  • Anthropogenic emissions based on official and ESPREME data
  • Identical meteorological data for 2000
  • Similar initial and boundary conditions

CMAQ (Community Multi-scale Air Quality model) – 3D chemical transport model developed in US EPA


model intercomparison7

based on official data

based on ESPREME data

MSCE-HM = 0.62 Obs

CMAQ = 0.68 Obs

MSCE-HM = 0.32 Obs

CMAQ = 0.32 Obs

30-40% underestimation

70% underestimation

Model intercomparison

Annual meanCd concentration in precipitation (2000)

wind re suspension of hms

Total emission and re-suspension of Pb in Europe (1990-2005)

Wind re-suspension of HMs

HM re-suspension scheme:

  • Parameterization of mineral dust suspension

[Marticorena and Bergametti, 1995; Alfaro and Gomes, 2001; Gomes et al., 2003]

  • Parameterization of sea salt aerosol production

[Monahan et al., 1986;Gong, 2003]

  • Detailed soil properties data

[ISLSCP (Initiative II), http://islscp2.sesda.com]

  • Measured HM content in soil

[FOREGS, Salminen et al., 2005]

Contribution of Pb re-suspension: 20% in 1990, 60% in 2005

evaluation vs observations
Evaluation vs. observations

Annual meanconcentration in precipitation based on official emissions data (2005)



Mod = 0.45 Obs

Corr = 0.51

Mod = 0.70 Obs

Corr = 0.57



20-30% underestimation

30-50% underestimation

analysis of discrepancies



Analysis of discrepancies

Daily mean Cd concentration in air (2005)

Svratouch, Czech Republic (CZ1)

analysis of discrepancies11

Density of back trajectories

February 2005

Kotinen, Finland (FI93)

Neuglobsow, Germany (DE7)


Cd emissions in 2005


Analysis of discrepancies

Monthly mean Cd concentration in precipitation (2005)

analysis of discrepancies12

Density of back trajectories

Kotinen, Finland (FI93)

March 2005

Cd emissions in 2005



Analysis of discrepancies

Monthly mean Cd concentration in precipitation (2005)

evaluation vs observations13
Evaluation vs. observations

Hgconcentration in air (2005)

Mod = 0.94 Obs


Hgconcentration in precipitation (2005)

Mod = 0.78 Obs


hm emissions reporting

Coverage of EMEP region with emission data for Pb (2005)

Reported Pb emission data for 2005:

  • National totals: 30 countries
  • Gridded data: 23 countries
  • Gridded sector data: 15 countries
HM emissions reporting

According to submission 2007

hm emissions by sectors
HM emissions by sectors

Cd emissions in large European countries (2005)

According to submission 2007

non party emission estimates
Non-Party emission estimates

Comparison of official data with non-Party estimates of Pb emissions in 2000(TNO, ESPREME)



According to submission 2007

emission uncertainty
Emission uncertainty

Emissions data uncertainties reported by countries (Pb)

gaps of hm officially reported emissions data
Gaps of HM officially reported emissions data
  • Incomplete data on emission totals
  • Limited data on spatial distribution
  • No data on temporal variation
  • Scarce data on emission uncertainty

What data should be used to fill the gaps?

summary 1
Summary (1)
  • Estimated intrinsic model uncertainty is 30-40% for Pb and Cd and 20-50% for Hg
  • Modelling results are highly sensitive to emissions data for Pb and Cd and to boundary conditions for Hg
  • MSCE-HM and CMAQ models agree in underestimation of measurements (up to 70%) when officially reported emissions data is used
  • Assessment of wind re-suspension allows improve agreement between modelling results and measurements
  • Current model-to-measurement comparison demonstrates 20-30% underestimation for Pb and 30-50% underestimation for Cd. Modelling results for Hg well agree with observations
summary 2
Summary (2)
  • Reported emission inventories for heavy metals are incomplete and of limited value in terms of model applications
  • Procedure of thereported emission gaps fillingis to be elaborated