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