Annual Meeting, June 15-16 2015, Istanbul, Turkey Use of CHASE assessment tool with EMODNet Chemistry data EMODnet Chemistry Martin M. Larsen, Aarhus University Jesper H. Andersen, Tore Høgåsen NIVA Denmark
Jan 21, 2016
Annual Meeting, June 15-16 2015, Istanbul, Turkey
Use of CHASE assessment tool with
EMODNet Chemistry data
EMODnet Chemistry
Martin M. Larsen, Aarhus University
Jesper H. Andersen, Tore Høgåsen NIVA Denmark
Annual Meeting, June 15-16 2015, Istanbul, Turkey
Test run with all Danish data:
Current status
# data “good” “modererate” “bad”
Water (not shown) 138 138 0 0
Sediments 62 47 13 2
Biota 112 99 5 8
Biological-effects 15 9 6 0
Annual Meeting, June 15-16 2015, Istanbul, Turkey
The CHASE model:
What is CHASE
For each contaminant measured, calculate the ratio to a threshold value (CR):
For each substance group, calculate the Contaminant Score (CS):
Contaminant scores was collected for water, biota, sediment and biological effects
Annual Meeting, June 15-16 2015, Istanbul, Turkey
Examples of thresholds
Annual Meeting, June 15-16 2015, Istanbul, Turkey
The CS for eachData type:•Sediment•Biota•Bio. Marker
Annual Meeting, June 15-16 2015, Istanbul, Turkey
The CS for eachData type:•All together
Example of result list:Name/code Water Sediments Biota Bio-effects FINAL37-27 0 - 0.194 - HIGH37-31 0 0.048 - - HIGH37-32 0 0.024 0.107 - HIGH38-27 0 - 46.013 - BAD38-31 0 0.807 - - GOOD38-34 0 - 0.005 0.1 HIGH41-23 0 - 1.055 - MODERATE41-24 0 0.625 0.166 - HIGH41-32 0 1.944 - - MODERATE41-33 0 1.276 0.116 - HIGH42-23 0 0.893 10.634 - BAD42-26 0 1.858 0.406 - MODERATE42-27 0 0.247 0.627 - GOOD43-27 0 0.883 0.128 - GOOD43-28 0 0.525 1.11 - MODERATE44-22 0 1.417 - - MODERATE44-24 0 - 9.976 - POOR44-31 0 1.618 0.304 - MODERATE45-24 0 1.115 0.152 - MODERATE45-25 0 73.566 0.009 - BAD45-26 0 - 13.418 - BAD45-28 0 - - 1.061 MODERATE45-39 0 - 0.675 0.771 GOOD46-25 0 0.6 0.512 1.317 MODERATE47-25 0 6.427 35.549 1.483 BAD50-23 0 0.796 105.915 - BAD51-28 0 0.928 0.151 1.089 MODERATE51-29 0 0.442 87.798 1.061 BAD
Summary of results:
Sampling matrix Status class
Assessment units
Grand total Denmark - Open sea Denmark - Coastal Sediment High 0 37 37
Good 0 10 10Moderate 0 13 13Poor 0 1 1Bad 0 1 1
Sediment total 0 62 62Biota High 0 83 83
Good 0 16 16Moderate 0 5 5Poor 0 2 2Bad 0 6 6
Biota total 0 112 112Bio-effects High 3 3 6
Good 0 3 3Moderate 0 6 6Poor 0 0 0Bad 0 0 0
Bio-effects total 3 12 15Integrated High 3 95 98
Good 0 17 17Moderate 0 18 18Poor 0 2 2Bad 0 6 6
Integrated total 3 138 141
Annual Meeting, June 15-16 2015, Istanbul, Turkey
So what happened:
Combining sediment, biota and biological effects
• Better geographical coverage
• Sediment and Biological effect data available for open sea
• Easy to include water data
• Only works if Threshold values are comparable !
• Several stations can be included in each ”assessment unit” (typically 20x20 km grid coastal)
How to procede:
• Aggree on substances and thresholds (sea-wise)• Currently Cd, Pb, Hg, PAHs, TBT others ?• EU EQS limits ”natural” for EU areas (Baltic, North Sea),
combined with OSPAR/HELCOM assessment criteria• Is the classification suggested ok or use other limits?
• 0,5 (High)– 1 (Good) – 5 (Poor) – 10 (Bad)• Include local/national limits for other areas/parameters
And when it all have been integrated…• Decide if combined CHASE results can be DIVA’ed
Annual Meeting, June 15-16 2015, Istanbul, Turkey
Planning for the last year