38th Session of the Working Group on Strategies and Review, Item 3, Review of the 1998 protocol on heavy metals

1
38th Session WGSRItem 3, Review of the 1998
protocol on heavy metalsJean-Paul Hettelingh
(CCE)

• Critical loads of heavy metals and their
  exceedances
• of Cd, Pb, Hg and tentatively of Cr, Ni, Cu, Zn,
  As and Se
• in Europe
• In collaboration with
• TNO (emissions),
• EMEP/MSC-E (dispersion)
• Alterra (CL-other metals)
• Coordination Centre for Effects (CL-priority
  metals and exceedances )

2
Critical loads of Cd, Pb and Hg and their
exceedances

• Details in CCE Status Report 2005, updated in
  2006 by BG, CY, IT, NL, UA
• Elaborated in the TFHM Sufficiency and
  Effectiveness Report
• In press in reviewed scientific journal Slootweg
  J, Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Schütze G, Spranger
  T, De Vries W, Reinds GJ, Van t Zelfde M,
  Dutchak S, Ilyin I, European critical loads of
  cadmium, lead and mercury and their exceedances,
  Water, Air and Soil Pollution Forum .
• Summary in ECE/EB.AIR/WG.1/2006/10, adopted at
  25th WGE session
• What do we want to protect
• Endpoints with respect to
• 1 Human health (drinking water)
• 2 Human health (food quality)
• 3 Ecotox. Effects on terrestrial ecosystems
• 4 Ecotox. Effects on aquatic ecosystems
• 5 Human health (Hg in fish)
• Exceedance in 2000 now use depositions computed
  by MSC-E based on emissions adjusted by TNO.
• Exceedance in 2020 based on three scenarios CLE,
  FI and FIAM

3
Source CCE SR2005 pp. 23
5th percentile CL(Cd) to protect human health
(g ha-1 a-1)
5th percentile CL(Cd) to protect Ecosystems (g
ha-1 a-1)
5th percentile CL(Pb) to protect human health (g
ha-1 a-1)
5th percentile CL(Pb) to protect Ecosystems (g
ha-1 a-1)
5th percentile CL(Hg) to protect Ecosystems (g
ha-1 a-1)
5th percentile CL(Hg) to protect human health (g
ha-1 a-1)
4
Areas at risk of health or ecosystem effects in
2000 based on Official Emission data incl. TNO
adjustments
area at risk of Health effects area at risk of Health effects area at risk of Health effects area at risk of Ecosystem effects area at risk of Ecosystem effects area at risk of Ecosystem effects
  Cd Pb Hg Cd Pb Hg
EU25 0.03 (0.1) 24.32 (8.1) 2.4 (3.9) 0.02 (0.0) 48.64 (7.4) 85.75 (51.2)
Europe 0.83 (0.8) 16.65 (8.3) 2.4 (3.9) 0.07 (0.1) 53.44 (28.7) 85.34 (51.0)
Between brackets Areas at risk based on official
2000 emission data as published in the CCE
SR2005 and the TFHM-SE
5
Scenario analysis in EuropeExceedances to both
public and environmental health by Cd, Pb and Hg
depositions in2000 compared to 2020-FIAM
6
Exceedance by cadmium (Cd) deposition In 2000 and
2020-FIAM
area at risk CLRTAP 0.02 EU25 0.02
area at risk CLRTAP 0.34 EU25 0.04
7
Exceedance by lead (Pb) deposition In 2000 and
2020-FIAM
area at risk in 2020-FIAM CLRTAP 19 EU25
27
area at risk in 2000 CLRTAP 42 EU25 42
8
lead (Pb) deposition in 2000 as factor of
critical loads
9
lead (Pb) deposition in 2000 as factor of
critical loads
Deposition is up to more than 10 x higher
than critical loads.
10
Exceedance by mercury (Hg) deposition In 2000 and
2020-FIAM
area at risk CLRTAP 74 EU25 61
area at risk CLRTAP 77 EU25 68
11
Conclusions and recommendationsregarding Cd, Hg
and Pb

• Conclusions also reflected in the TFHM
  Sufficiency en Effectiveness report.
• Lead (Pb) and mercury (Hg) deposition
  significantly exceed critical loads.
• The health risk is stressed in the unedited
  TFH-draft 2006 report (Health risks of heavy
  metals from LRTP air pollution)
• Cadmium deposition does not cause widespread
  exceedance
• However, Cd exposure (not only from LRTAP) may
  lead to damage to critical organs while Cd is
  suggested to still be accumulating in the
  top-soil of arable land (see TFH draft 2006).
• Current critical load data of Cd, Pb and Hg can
  be applied in chain-model (emission, deposition,
  exceedance) assessments of policy scenarios.
• Uncertainty, in particularly of emission data,
  requires further attention.
• Note that model and data uncertainty does not
  markedly vary between scenarios.

12
Chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zinc
(Zn), arsenic (As), selenium (Se)reported
inEmissions, depositions, critical loads and
exceedances in Europe (in press)

• Preliminary results
• of a collaborative project between TNO,
• EMEP/MSC-E, Alterra and CCE.
• Study commissioned by
• the Dutch Ministry of Public Housing, Spatial
  Planning and the Environment (VROM)

13
Preliminary critical load methodologyaddressing
other metals in Europe

• Steady State Mass Balance approach as described
  in the Mapping Manual.
• Critical limits (critical concentrations in soil
  drainage water)

Proposed critical limit values (Alterra, 2006) Proposed critical limit values (Alterra, 2006) Proposed critical limit values (Alterra, 2006)
Metal CC-Human health (µg.l-1) CC-ecotox (µg.l-1)
Cr 50 44
Ni 20 25-700
Cu 2000 1-50
Zn - 20-90
As 10 70
Se 10 1
14
Tentative results in 2000 and in 2020 following
CLE, FI and FIAM scenarios
Scenario Percentage of area in Europe at risk caused by exceedance of critical loads of the following heavy metals Percentage of area in Europe at risk caused by exceedance of critical loads of the following heavy metals Percentage of area in Europe at risk caused by exceedance of critical loads of the following heavy metals Percentage of area in Europe at risk caused by exceedance of critical loads of the following heavy metals Percentage of area in Europe at risk caused by exceedance of critical loads of the following heavy metals Percentage of area in Europe at risk caused by exceedance of critical loads of the following heavy metals
Scenario Cr Ni Cu Zn As Se
2000 0.07 0.71 0.76 1.66 0 2.41
2020-CLE 0.08 0.40 0.44 1.06 0 1.09
2020-FI 0.01 0.21 0.34 1.06 0 0.94
2020-FIAM 0.01 0.03 0.25 1.06 0 0.33
15
Conclusions

• No widespread exceedance in Europe of critical
  loads of Cr,Ni,Cu,Zn,As, Se in 2000 exceedance
  of Zn and Selenicum cover lt 3 of the European
  ecosystem area.
• In 2020, this exceedance is reduced to about 1
• In line with Presently, available information
  indicates that none of these other metals achieve
  high enough concentrations as a result of
  long-range atmospheric transport and deposition
  to cause adverse effects on wildlife and human
  health(Sufficiency and Effectiveness Report,
  A2).
• Therefore, the focus on priority heavy metals is
  justified from an effect-based perspective.