S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 1 PM in Europe - State and past trends Emissions and concentration levels Steinar Larssen Norwegian Institute.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Summary of relevant information in the CAFE Position paper on PM Martin Meadows UNECE PMEG Berlin, 23 & 24 May 2005.
Advertisements

Finn Palmgren et al.TFMM PM Workshop, Paris National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark PM pollution in Denmark Finn Palmgren, Thomas Ellermann.
Air quality in Europe report. Air pollution impacts human health, contributes to climate change and damages ecosystems. Here are some of the pollutants.
AIR QUALITY INDICATORS Frank de Leeuw 8th Air Quality EIONET workshop 6-7 November 2003, Oslo.
1 Europe’s water – an indicator-based assessment Niels Thyssen.
Model used in « Source Apportionment of Airborne Particulate Matter in the UK » [Stedman et al., Receptor modelling of PM 10 concentrations at a UK national.
1 European Environment Agency (EEA) Air and Climate Change Programme Anke Lükewille Co-operation with EEA programmes 10 th Task Force on Measurement and.
Markus Amann The RAINS model: Modelling of health impacts of PM and ozone.
PM in Sweden HC Hansson and Christer Johansson ITM, Stockholm University.
Indicators for policy support of atmosphere related environmental problems Robert Koelemeijer National Institute for Public Health and the Environment.
1 Laxenburg, 16 Nov TFIAM-TFMM joint workshop(1) Similarities and Differences in Particle Characteristics across Europe Jean-Philippe Putaud EC –
PM mapping in Scotland, 2007 Andrew Kent. What are we presenting today? 1) Context to the work 2) Modelling process 3) Model results 4) Future work possibilities.
RAINS review 2004 The RAINS model: Health impacts of PM.
The use of the BelEUROS model for policy support at LNE TEMIS-workshop 8/9 October 2007 on behalf of: Mirka Van der Elst Flemish Ministry of the Environment,
WORKING GROUP I MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION TFMM Workshop, Paris, 2006, Nov 29 –Dec 1.
The experience from Stockholm city road tax Christer Johansson Lars Burman Tage Jonson Bertil Forsberg Umeå university
The robustness of the source receptor relationships used in GAINS Hilde Fagerli, EMEP/MSC-W EMEP/MSC-W.
IMPLEMENTATION OF EU AQ LEGISLATION IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC J. FIALA Czech Hydrometeorological Institute Prague, Czech Republic.
Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications DETEC Federal Office for the Environment FOEN Modelling the spatial distribution.
EUROPEAN TOPIC CENTRE ON AIR AND CLIMATE CHANGE N:\adm\arkiv\overhead\stl \etc-acc\geneve.ppt 1 Air Quality in Europe 1999 Steinar Larssen, Kevin J. Barrett,
10th EIONET Workshop on Air Quality Management and Assessment, Vilnius, October 2005 Air pollution at street level in European cities Nicolas Moussiopoulos,
STATE OF PLAY - FORECASTS FOR EUROPEAN CONSTRUCTION
Draft conclusions and key recommendations of the CAFE Position Paper on PM Martin Meadows and Bernd Seifert CAFE Workshop, 20 & 21 October 2003 Web link:
SOURCE APPORTIONMENT of PARTICULATE MATTER Imperial College 23 rd April 2010 APRIL:Air Pollution Research in London.
GROWTH DRIVERS AND INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN EUROPEAN CONSTRUCTION TO 2016 Michael Weingärtler Metal Expert Europe Steel.
Simulation of European emissions impacts on particulate matter concentrations in 2010 using Models-3 Rob Lennard, Steve Griffiths and Paul Sutton (RWE.
Reinhard Mechler, Markus Amann, Wolfgang Schöpp International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis A methodology to estimate changes in statistical life.
Sustainable Development Background indicators Presentation at meeting of Scottish Sustainable Development Advisory Group February 2005.
EIONET11-APREPORT2004-STL Air Pollution in Europe 2004 Based mainly upon AirBase data as well as on gap-filled emissions data (AEAT) ETC/ACC project group:
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Contribution from MSC-W to the review of the Gothenburg protocol – Reports 2006 TFIAM, Rome, 16-18th May, 2006.
P. Otorepec, M. Gregorič IVZ RS Use of rutinely collected air pollution and health data on local level for simple evaluation of health impact.
| Folie 1 Assessment of Representativeness of Air Quality Monitoring Stations Geneva, Wolfgang Spangl.
Uncertainty assessment in European air quality mapping and exposure studies Bruce Rolstad Denby, Jan Horálek 2, Frank de Leeuw 3, Peter de Smet 3 1 Norwegian.
Environment 1 The current work on Air Quality Indicators Best needed “ Population exposure” vs. Best available “Population weighted concentrations” Ute.
Attaining urban air quality objectives- links to transboundary air pollution Helen ApSimon, Tim Oxley and Marios Valiantis UK Centre for Integrated Assessment.
Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090 Vienna Overview PM10 NO 2 Ozone Measures EIONET Oslo Air Quality in Austria.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH INDICATORS: EXPERIENCES IN HUNGARY Tibor Málnási, É. Vaskövi, G. Nádor, A. Páldy “József Fodor” National Center for Public Health,
ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH INDICATORS FOR EUROPE: A PILOT STUDY OF INDICATORS OF AIR POLLUTION & HEALTH D Dalbokova, 1 M Sadeh, 2 M Krzyzanowski, 1 P Wilkinson.
11 September 2015 On the role of measurements and modelling in Dutch air quality policies Guus Velders The Netherlands (RIVM)
M. Houssiau | EIONET AQ | Ljubljana – 5 October 2015 Cross analysis between urban system and air quality Provisional results ETC/Urban Land Soil systems.
Arno Graff Susan Klose UBA-II 4.2 – Air Quality Assessment Some Aspects on Air Quality in Germany related to SOER 14th EIONET Meeting, Warsaw,
Air Quality trend analyses under EMEP/TFMM and link to EEA work Augustin COLETTE (INERIS), Chair of the TFMM/CLRTAP TFMM National Experts, CCC, MSC-E,
ASSESSMENT OF URBAN AIR QUALITY, HOT SPOTS FRANK DE LEEUW.
1 European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change Air pollution by ozone in Europe in summer 2005 Preliminary results Libor Cernikovsky 10th EIONET Workshop.
1 European air indicator reporting Process and experience © iStockphoto.com/cmisje.
Evaluation of pollution levels in urban areas of selected EMEP countries Alexey Gusev, Victor Shatalov Meteorological Synthesizing Centre - East.
1 Černikovský, Krejčí, Volná (ETC/ACM): Air pollution by ozone in Europe during the summer 2012 & comparison with previous years 17th EIONET Workshop on.
Air Quality in EEA and EECCA Europe’s Environment assessment report, th Europe’s Environment assessment report, 2007 (‘the Belgrade report’) Hans.
Impact of various emission inventories on modelling results; impact on the use of the GMES products Laurence Rouïl
Joint EMEP/WGE meeting, Geneva, 2016 Evaluation of B[a]P pollution in the EMEP region: temporal trends and spatial variability Alexey Gusev, Olga Rozovskaya,
Assessment of POP pollution in EMEP region
Joint thematic session: from hemispheric to local scale air pollution; Twin Site project Task Force on Measurements and modelling A. Colette (TFMM),
Joint thematic session on B(a)P pollution: main activities and results
Analysing AQ monitoring networks
Air Pollution in Europe
Measurements of PM10 a contribution from EIONET
Air Quality in Europe – 2017 report
Steinar Larssen NILU and ETC/ACC
PM mass concentrations in Europe 2004
Assessment of Atmospheric PM in the Slovak Republic
MSC-E: Alexey Gusev, Victor Shatalov, Olga Rozovskaya, Nadejda Vulykh
TFMM PM Assessment Report
PM observations in Europe a review of AirBase information
Trends in sulphur and nitrogen components
Contributions to total changes in emissions of ozone precursors
Analysis of ozone data from AIRBASE: Weekday dependence and trends
Trend analysis of contamination in the EMEP region by HMs & POPs
Model assessment of HM and POP pollution of the EECCA region
An Overview of Europe’s Air Quality and Air Pollutant Emissions
Summary of discussion (1)
Presentation transcript:

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 1 PM in Europe - State and past trends Emissions and concentration levels Steinar Larssen Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) European Topic Centre for Air Quality and Climate Change (ETC-ACC)

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 2 Conclusions on PM emissions PM emission and trends data have been improved, but are still uncertain Primary PM 10 and precursor gases emissions have been reduced by 18 % and 40% since 1990, respectively. Source contributions: - differs in EU15 and AC13 Resuspension of particles from road surfaces in an important source, but poorly quantified; source strength highly dependent on weather/climatic conditions

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 3 PM 10 emissions, 2000 European emissions of primary PM 10 and PM 10 precursors, 2000 (in ktonnes) 29 countries

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 4 PM 10 emissions, 2000 Source contributions, primary PM Energy Industries Industry (Energy + Processes) Other (Energy + Non Energy) Road Transport AgricultureWaste % contribution EU15 AC13

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 5 PM emissions, 2000 Source contributions, PM precursor gases (weighted) Energy Industries Industry (Energy + Processes) Other (Energy + Non Energy) Road Transport AgricultureWaste % contribution EEA18 AC13

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 6 PM 10 emission trends Primary PM 10 Precursor gases

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 7 Conclusions on state of PM 10, 2001 Data from 928 stations (97 / 417 / 293 / 77) 750 cities and towns Methods: Beta 40% ; Gravi 20% ; TEOM 20% ; nondef 20% Limit value exceedances at 34% of the stations Limit value exceedances in cities with total 30 mill people Population exposure: Remember importance of indoor exposure Average annual concentrations Rural 20.6 µg/m 3 Urban 25.2 µg/m 3 Traffic 32.1 µg/m 3

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 8 From 89 traffic/urban station pairs: –35% higher concentration at traffic stations –Up to 90% higher Regional differences –Rural background higher in some accession countries and in NL, BE and NW DE –Urban concentrations highest in Southern/Eastern Europe? The indicative LV for 2010 was exceeded at most stations in cities and at about 50% at the rural sites. Significant uncertainty in such summary assessments due to –Representativeness of stations –Different monitoring methods

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 9 PM 10 concentrations, Europe 2001 Max. value µg/m 3 # stations > LV Annual average103 (Spain)93 of th highest day180 (Spain)242 of 718 8th highest day245 (Spain)584 of 718 Some statistics

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 10 PM Map PM 10 Rural stations Annual average Note: different methods, no corrections (also following maps)

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 11 PM Map PM 10 Rural stations ”Max 36”

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 12 PM Map Urban background ”Max 36”

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 13 PM Map PM 10 Hot spot ”Max 36”

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 14 ”Population exposure” to PM 10 Population in cities according to concentration range, ”max 36”

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 15 PM Distribution of concentrations at stations Rural stations y = 1,65x y = 2,4747x annual average ug/m3 MAX8 MAX36 stage 1 stage 2 Linear (MAX36) Linear (MAX8)

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 16 PM Distribution of concentrations at stations Urban stations y = 1,6026x y = 2,3613x annual average ug/m3 MAX8 MAX36 stage 1 stage 2 Linear (MAX36) Linear (MAX8)

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 17 PM Distribution of concentrations at stations Street stations y = 1,5476x y = 2,1903x annual average ug/m3 MAX8 MAX36 stage 2 stage 1 Linear (MAX36) Linear (MAX8)

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 18 PM 10 for station types PM 10, Annual average mean - max ruralurbanstreet ug/m max mean

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 19 PM 10 at hot-spot stations, 2001 Data from ”station pairs” Ratio PM 10 street / PM 10 urban, Annual average Average ratio: 1.34  0.25 Also up to 50 more daily exceedances at street station

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 20 Conclusions on PM 10 past tendencies Time series are too short ( ) to conclude statistically on trend Only 6 countries have a significant amount of stations reporting data since 1997 (UK, NL, BE, CZ, CH, ES) The tendency is towards lower concentrations (15-20%) but the tendency is not monotonic The upward tendency since 1999 is to a large extent guided by the tendency in the Czech Republic.

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 21 The tendency, and absolute amount of reduction, is on the average, about the same for rural, urban and hot-spot areas Much of the downward tendency can be explained by reductions in rural concentrations of secondary inorganic particles (SO 4, NO 3,....)

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 22 PM 10 concentration tendencies Annual average 183 stations 36th highest day 193 stations

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 23 PM 10 trends Location of stations with >4 years with data Mainly UK, NL, BE, CH, CZ, ES

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 24 The use of correction factors for PM 10 Information extracted from the Compliance Reporting Questionnaire, for 2001 Total stations: 1098 No methods info on 353 stations

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 25 PM 10 correction factors on AirBase data Belgium:No corrections till 2001 (included) 1.37/1.47 from 2002 onwards Germany:All PM 10 data are in principle corrected PM 10 data Netherlands:1.33 for all station years Czech Republic:No correction applied United Kingdom: No correction applied France: Spain: No correction applied

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 26 PM Rural tendencies PM (”SPM”) at EMEP stations, country averages CH: PM 10 from 1997 onwards DE: PM 10 from 1999 onwards Source: EMEP-CCC

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 27 PM Rural tendencies Country averages CH: PM 10 DE: PM 10 from 1999 onwards

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 28 PM 10 Rural tendencies Secondary inorganic particles (SO 4 ) (EMEP data) Rough estimate of reduction of sulfate and nitrate particles : Source: EMEP-CCC ~ 5 µg/m 3

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 29 PM 10 Urban tendencies Urban background, 36th highest day, country averages 0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 60,00 70,00 80,00 90,00 100, BE(3) CH(4) CZ(29) UK(29) NL(5) PL(4) SE(2)

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 30 PM 10 Street tendencies Traffic stations, 36th highest day, country averages 0,00 20,00 40,00 60,00 80,00 100,00 120,00 140,00 160, BE(4) CH(2) CZ(5) DE(1) ES(17) FI(2) UK(5) NL(4) PL(1) PT(1)

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 31 Conclusions on other PM metrics Available data on PM 2.5, PM 1.0 and UFP are too scarce to draw firm conclusions The PM 2.5 / PM 10 ratio is about 0.65 (average ) The indicative PM 2.5 LV of 20 µg/m 3 (aa) was –met at all rural and most urban sites –exceeded at 15 or 23 traffic sites

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 32 PM 1.0 was reported from 15 stations in 4 countries The PM 1.0 / PM 2.5 ratio was about 0.75 Annual average PM 1.0 range: 6-21 µg/m 3 Max. 24 h concentration: 147 µg/m 3 UFP was reported from 15 stations in 5 countries High surplus burden of UFP at traffic sites

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 33 PM 2.5 Concentrations, Europe countries with data 119 station years 38 urban background 23 traffic 58 rural Methods: Gravimetry: 8 countries TEOM: 6 countries

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 34 PM 2.5 at urban and street stations 36 of 61 stations met a threshold of 20 µg/m3 in 2001

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 35 PM 2.5 Ratio 90%-ile (day) to annual average

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 36 Ratio PM 2.5 / PM 10 From PM WG questionnaire Putaud et al Average Range Std. Dev.±0.09±0.15 N72 Somewhat higher at rural than at traffic stations, reflecting resuspension at traffic stations

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 37 PM 1.0 concentrations, countries 15 station years no rural stations Range: 6-21 µg/m 3 annual average Max. daily: > 50 µg/m 3 at most stations Max. 24 h conc: 147 µg/m 3

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 38 PM ratios PM 2.5 / PM  0.09 N = 72 PM 1.0 / PM  ± 0.16 N = 15 PM 1.0 / PM  0.11 N = 15

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 39 Ultra-fine particles, UFP 2001 Number size distributions  Traffic Urban background Rural background

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 40 UFP 2001 Total number of particles Station type Number of UFP R(B) SB U(B) T