Search | OPac - the Publications Office online public access catalogue

1.

Droughts in Europe and worldwide 2019-2020 [er]. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication	Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.
Summary	This report summarizes a year of drought events through the monitoring and forecasting activity of European (EDO) and Global (GDO) Drought Observatories, as part of the Copernicus Emergency Management Service (CEMS). The period of interest spans from October 2019 to September 2020, during which several drought events of relevance and other minor events or intense dry spells were observed.

Add To Cart

2.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive [er] : review and analysis of Member States’ 2018 reports : descriptor 3 : commercial species. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

The current report analyses the information provided by the European Union Member States (MS) on Descriptor 3 (D3) – populations of commercial species - of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The reported information by the MS follows the Article 17 requirements of the MSFD for updating Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Directive, for the last 6-year MSFD reporting cycle. By September 2020, 20 MS reported on D3 in electronic format. Concerning Article 8, all reporting MS assessed the primary criterion D3C2 and 19 of them assessed the primary criterion D3C1 for at least a single element (i.e. population of a commercial species). However, only a few MS assessed the primary criterion D3C3. Nevertheless, even the more advanced criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were not assessed for the majority of reported elements indicating a significant knowledge gap. Coverage in terms of reported taxa was adequate for most MS, but improved coverage is needed by some MS, particularly in the western Mediterranean Sea. There was a gradient between MS reporting a low number of elements with most information completed, and MS reporting a large number of elements with most information missing. Additionally, we detected several issues that need to be rectified to achieve comparable assessments across MS, such as the assessment period varying significantly, gaps in reporting threshold values, threshold value sources, reported values and trends, and inconsistent integration rule types. There was also a general lack of consistency in the reporting terminology. With regards to Article 9, only half of the MS provided information on Good Environmental Status (GES) description at the Descriptor level and slightly more reported at the level of criteria. A general lack of harmonization in the GES determination was detected. In most cases, GES was not specified in a quantitative manner or in terms of threshold values. With regards to Article 10, inconsistencies were observed in the way the MS have set their targets, while many of the targets reported were not directly relevant to D3. Targets were largely not harmonised across MS and they were rarely quantitative and/or associated with specific thresholds. The present report provides recommendations for the application of D3 criteria, GES determination and on Article 10 targets.

Add To Cart

3.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive [er] : review and analysis of Member States’ 2018 reports : descriptor 4 : food webs. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

The current report analyses the information provided by the European Union Member States (MS) on Theme – ecosystem, including food webs, relating to Descriptor 1 and 4 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The reported information by the MS follows the Article 17 requirements of the MSFD for updating Articles 8 (GES assessment), 9 (GES determination) and 10 (targets) of the Directive, for the last 6-year MSFD reporting cycle. By September 2020, 20 Member States reported on D4 in electronic format. Regarding Article 8, all the Member States that were evaluated reported for the primary criteria D4C1 (trophic guild species diversity) and D4C2 (total abundance between trophic guilds), but only 58% of the MS reported D4C3 and 40% reported D4C4. Additionally, we detected several issues that need to be harmonized to achieve comparable assessments across MS, such as the assessment period. Moreover, the current gaps in threshold values, threshold value sources, reported values and trends did not allow to get an overview of the GES status across Europe for food webs. Evidently, the gaps of data could not support to test potential common integration rules for criteria and to select harmonised trophic guilds at regional or subdivision level. With regards to Article 9, a general lack of harmonization in the GES determination was detected. GES was not specified in a quantitative manner or in terms of threshold values. With regards to Article 10, inconsistencies were observed on how the MS have set their targets for each component and for the level assigned (descriptor, criterion, parameter). Many of the targets reported were not directly relevant to food webs. Targets were largely not harmonised across MS and they were rarely quantitative and/or associated with specific thresholds, pressures and measures. The present report provides recommendations for the application of D4 criteria, GES determination and target setting for food webs.

Add To Cart

4.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive : review and analysis of Member States’ 2018 reports : descriptor 4 : food webs. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

The current report analyses the information provided by the European Union Member States (MS) on Theme – ecosystem, including food webs, relating to Descriptor 1 and 4 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The reported information by the MS follows the Article 17 requirements of the MSFD for updating Articles 8 (GES assessment), 9 (GES determination) and 10 (targets) of the Directive, for the last 6-year MSFD reporting cycle. By September 2020, 20 Member States reported on D4 in electronic format. Regarding Article 8, all the Member States that were evaluated reported for the primary criteria D4C1 (trophic guild species diversity) and D4C2 (total abundance between trophic guilds), but only 58% of the MS reported D4C3 and 40% reported D4C4. Additionally, we detected several issues that need to be harmonized to achieve comparable assessments across MS, such as the assessment period. Moreover, the current gaps in threshold values, threshold value sources, reported values and trends did not allow to get an overview of the GES status across Europe for food webs. Evidently, the gaps of data could not support to test potential common integration rules for criteria and to select harmonised trophic guilds at regional or subdivision level. With regards to Article 9, a general lack of harmonization in the GES determination was detected. GES was not specified in a quantitative manner or in terms of threshold values. With regards to Article 10, inconsistencies were observed on how the MS have set their targets for each component and for the level assigned (descriptor, criterion, parameter). Many of the targets reported were not directly relevant to food webs. Targets were largely not harmonised across MS and they were rarely quantitative and/or associated with specific thresholds, pressures and measures. The present report provides recommendations for the application of D4 criteria, GES determination and target setting for food webs.

Add To Cart

5.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive [er] : review and analysis of Member States’ 2018 reports : descriptor 1 : species biological diversity. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

The report analyses the information provided by the European Union’s Member States (MS) for the species theme of Descriptor 1 (D1) – species groups of birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods (relating to Descriptor 1) – of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The reported information by the MS follows the MSFD Article 17 requirement to update Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Directive, for the current 6-year MSFD reporting cycle. By September 2020, 20 MS reported on D1 in electronic format. The MS made a huge and respectable effort to fulfil the demanding requirements of an environmentally ambitious Directive like the MSFD. The second reporting obligation for Art. 8, 9 and 10 was remarkably improved compared to the 2012 reporting, especially regarding the regional coordination, the consistency in the reporting (which can be further improved) and good understanding of the reporting and assessing requirements.

Add To Cart

6.

The European Commission Atmospheric Observatory [er] : 2019 report. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

A comprehensive set of essential atmospheric variables have been measured in 2019 at the European Commission Atmospheric Observatory on the site of the historical EMEP-GAW station of the JRC in Ispra to continue the assessment of the impact of European policies and international conventions on air pollution and climate forcing that started in 1985. The variables measured at the Atmospheric Observatory in Ispra included greenhouse gas concentrations (CO2, CH4), radon (222Rn) activity concentration, short-lived gaseous and particulate pollutant concentrations (CO, SO2, NO, NO2, O3, NMHCs, PM2.5 and its main ionic and carbonaceous constituents), atmospheric particle micro-physical characteristics (number concentration and size distribution) and optical properties (light scattering absorption and extinction in-situ, light scattering and extinction vertical profiles remotely), and eutrophying and acidifying species (SO42-, NO3-, NH4+) wet deposition. On-line measurements data are visible in real time at http://abc-is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/.

Add To Cart

7.

Report on the biogeochemical model of the North-Western European Shelf [er]. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2020.

Add To Cart

8.

Development of heavy duty vehicles CO2 certification for heavy buses and medium lorries [er] : pilot phase 2 : validation of the verification test procedure (VTP) for buses and medium lorries test campaign report. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2020.

Summary

In 2019, a Verification Test Procedure (VTP) – to be applied randomly on complete vehicles after the certification processes – became a part of the HDV CO2 Certification Regulation (EU/2019/318). The VTP consists of an on-road test to verify the CO2 emissions of new vehicles after production. At the same time, a new regulatory initiative aiming at the certification of the FC from HDVs not covered in EU/2017/2400 was initiated. The new methodology will also include a VTP test; however, adapted for vehicle categories such as Heavy Buses and Medium Lorries. In this framework, DG-GROW requested JRC to launch a test campaign to investigate the validity, accuracy, and feasibility of the proposed methodology for these vehicle categories. Experiments were conducted on four Euro VI HDVs; two Heavy Buses and two Medium Lorries. All on-road tests proved to be highly repeatable with the SE for the WSFC not exceeding 2%. Both Coaches showed a quite good agreement between the measured and simulated WSFC with the deviation not exceeding 5.5%. Medium Lorries exhibited a different behaviour mainly due to the overestimation of the electrical power demand of auxiliaries by VECTO in the VTP Mode. Overall, a less transient route, similar to the regulated, seems more appropriate for the VTP of Coaches. On the other hand, a more transient route might be more suitable for the VTP of Medium Lorries. Increasing the payload from 60% to 80% does not seem to affect the test repeatability. The CVTP for both vehicles fulfilled the pass criterion defined in 2019/318 for Heavy Lorries in all 14 tests. The FC data were analyzed to understand the suitability of different instruments to provide accurate FC measurements. The FC calculated from the PEMS CO2 emissions is generally close to the reference FFM FC with the averaged deviation not exceeding 4% in the vast majority of the tests. The ECU FC seems to be slightly less accurate compared to the PEMS FC. Both PEMS and ECU seem to perform equally well both under non-transient and highly transient conditions. Finally, one of the goals of the study was to collect experimental data of pollutant emissions during the VTP test. NOx emissions were generally low and did not exceed the EURO VI engine certification limit (0.46 g/kWh). The more transient routes exhibited higher NOx emissions pointing to a less effective operation of the catalyst under these conditions. CO emissions were generally low and well below the EURO VI engine certification limit (4.0 g/kWh).

Add To Cart

9.

Report of laboratory and in-situ validation of micro-sensor for monitoring ambient air pollution [er] : NO2 : Alphasense NO2-B4. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2020.

Summary

The aim of this study, carried out within the frame of the MACPoll project, is to assess if the NO2-B4 AlphaSense sensor meets the data quality objective (DQO) set in the European Air Quality Directive for NO2 indicative measurements. The report presents the evaluation of the performances and determination of the laboratory and field measurement uncertainty, compared to uncertainties fixed by the DQO, namely 25% at 100 nmol/mol, for hourly NO2 indicative measurements. The laboratory evaluation shows that the NO2-B4 sensor give a linear answer with changing NO2 concentrations. However, the tested sensors were suffering from an important long-term drift and a huge hysteresis effect against humidity and temperature changes. Among ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen monoxide (NO), ammonia (NH3) and sulphur dioxide (SO2), the sensor showed a high sensitivity to ozone (about 120 %). Moreover, the NO2-B4 was found slightly sensitive to NH3 while it was independent from the other species. The NO2-B4 sensor did suffer from short-term drift but did not show any hysteresis effect when NO2 levels change. The sensor appeared to be slightly influenced by wind velocity. Conversely, power supply (220 V) did not appear to have an effect on the sensor response likely because of the quality of the DC transformer used in laboratory. In our current laboratory set-up, it was not possible to test the effect of pressure. A multi-linear equation model was established in laboratory based on the aging of calibration, O3, temperature and relative humidity to estimate NO2. Using this model, the measurement uncertainty of NO2-B4 sensors was found lower than the DQO provided that the O3 contribution after correction was lower than 5%. Using a simple linear calibration did not allow reaching the DQO of the Directive. The sensors used during the field tests were first calibrated in laboratory experiments against reference NO2 gas mixtures. Unfortunately, the field campaign took place in late winter - summer period when NO2 was lower than O3 in ambient air. Additionally, since NO2-B4 sensor is sensitive to both species, NO2 was obfuscated by O3 that made impossible to evaluate the final field uncertainty. The noise was found to be high during the whole field campaign preventing from obtaining valid measurements. Therefore, the model established with the laboratory experiments could not be verified in field. According to this study, the application of the sensor as indicative method for NO2 measurement is not fully validated. In fact, the sensor is lacking field confirmation of the laboratory results which that suggest the need of sensor data correction for long term drift, O3 cross-sensitivity, temperature and relative humidity. Even though the NO2-B4 sensor is not fully selective, it produces repeatable values that can be useful provided that a correction algorithms is developed to correctly estimate NO2 using influencing variables to solve the sensitivity, selectivity and stability drawback of sensor measurements.

Add To Cart

10.

EMBLAS Plus [er] : joint Black Sea survey 2019 “JRC chemical contaminant measurements” : sampling, analytical methodologies and results of ultra-trace organic contaminants monitoring. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2020.

Summary

JRC provided sampling support and ultra-trace organic analytical measurements of marine contaminants in the framework of the support to DG NEAR (C2 – Neighbourhood East) for the EMBLAS_Plus project. Aim is to improve the monitoring and the availability of analytical data for the Black Sea. This report compiles the analytical results together with information on sampling, sample preparation, analytical instrumentation, analytical conditions and Quality Assurance/Quality Control information. On 4 transects and 21 spot sampling points a total of 39 samples were collected and 112 substances analysed. Contaminants selected from the so-called WFD EU-Watch list, from the Danube specific pollutants list (DRSPs), from the priority substances list of the Directive 2013/39/EU on priority substances in the field of water policy as well as from a list of flame retardants. The analytical measurements provide 4088 individual results as contribution to the environmental assessment of the Black Sea.

Add To Cart

11.

EMBLAS Plus : joint Black Sea survey 2019 “JRC chemical contaminant measurements” : sampling, analytical methodologies and results of ultra-trace organic contaminants monitoring. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2020.

Summary

JRC provided sampling support and ultra-trace organic analytical measurements of marine contaminants in the framework of the support to DG NEAR (C2 – Neighbourhood East) for the EMBLAS_Plus project. Aim is to improve the monitoring and the availability of analytical data for the Black Sea. This report compiles the analytical results together with information on sampling, sample preparation, analytical instrumentation, analytical conditions and Quality Assurance/Quality Control information. On 4 transects and 21 spot sampling points a total of 39 samples were collected and 112 substances analysed. Contaminants selected from the so-called WFD EU-Watch list, from the Danube specific pollutants list (DRSPs), from the priority substances list of the Directive 2013/39/EU on priority substances in the field of water policy as well as from a list of flame retardants. The analytical measurements provide 4088 individual results as contribution to the environmental assessment of the Black Sea.

Add To Cart

12.

Destination Earth [er] : survey on “Digital Twins” technologies and activities, in the Green Deal area. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2020.

Summary

Digital Twins have been around for decades, especially in industrial processes. However, with the recent advent of transformative digital technologies (i.e. IoT, AI, ML, Big Data analytics, and ubiquitous connectivity) Digital Twins are changing most of the society sectors, providing the most advance pattern to make the physical and the digital worlds interact. Naturally, this is also true for the scientific sector, and in particular those disciplines that are engaged in understanding and addressing the Global Change effects. Thanks to the Digital Twins growing development, for the first time, it is possible to envision a digital replica of important natural and social phenomena and processes, trying to anticipate their behavior.

Add To Cart

13.

Ocean color calibration and validation : the JRC contribution to Copernicus. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2020.

Summary

Copernicus Sentinel-3 missions, including the ongoing Sentinel-3A and -3B and the future Sentinel-3C and -3D, offer an unprecedented opportunity for long-term ocean colour observations to support global environmental and climate investigations. Nevertheless, any ocean colour mission incorporates calibration and validation activities essential for the indirect calibration of the space sensor and the validation of data products. These calibration and validation activities are largely centered on the production of highly accurate in situ reference measurements relying on state of the art measurement methods and instrumentation. Since the start of the operational ocean colour missions in 1997, the JRC sustained the required calibration and validation activities by developing unique expertise and setting up specific measurement programs and infrastructures. This expertise, measurement programs and infrastructures, currently support the Copernicus ocean colour calibration and validation tasks through the delivery and exploitation of in situ reference data essential for the quality control of satellite data products. This Technical Report aims at providing: i. a general introduction to the ocean colour paradigm; ii. an extended synopsis of requirements and strategies for satellite ocean colour missions with a detailed focus on the JRC experimental activities carried out during the last decades; and finally iii. a discussion supporting the need for a sustained support of the JRC laboratory and field measurement programs assisting the production and exploitation of in situ reference data for the validation of Sentinel-3 ocean colour products. The Report, mostly through section 2, should naturally satisfy readers interested in appraising the specific JRC activities performed to support ocean colour calibration and validation. The same Report through sections 1 and 3, should also satisfy the need for more essential information supporting the need for sustaining the JRC ocean colour validation activities currently embedded in the Copernicus Earth Observation program of major relevance for global marine and climate investigations.

Add To Cart

14.

Ocean color calibration and validation [er] : the JRC contribution to Copernicus. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2020.

Summary

Copernicus Sentinel-3 missions, including the ongoing Sentinel-3A and -3B and the future Sentinel-3C and -3D, offer an unprecedented opportunity for long-term ocean colour observations to support global environmental and climate investigations. Nevertheless, any ocean colour mission incorporates calibration and validation activities essential for the indirect calibration of the space sensor and the validation of data products. These calibration and validation activities are largely centered on the production of highly accurate in situ reference measurements relying on state of the art measurement methods and instrumentation. Since the start of the operational ocean colour missions in 1997, the JRC sustained the required calibration and validation activities by developing unique expertise and setting up specific measurement programs and infrastructures. This expertise, measurement programs and infrastructures, currently support the Copernicus ocean colour calibration and validation tasks through the delivery and exploitation of in situ reference data essential for the quality control of satellite data products. This Technical Report aims at providing: i. a general introduction to the ocean colour paradigm; ii. an extended synopsis of requirements and strategies for satellite ocean colour missions with a detailed focus on the JRC experimental activities carried out during the last decades; and finally iii. a discussion supporting the need for a sustained support of the JRC laboratory and field measurement programs assisting the production and exploitation of in situ reference data for the validation of Sentinel-3 ocean colour products. The Report, mostly through section 2, should naturally satisfy readers interested in appraising the specific JRC activities performed to support ocean colour calibration and validation. The same Report through sections 1 and 3, should also satisfy the need for more essential information supporting the need for sustaining the JRC ocean colour validation activities currently embedded in the Copernicus Earth Observation program of major relevance for global marine and climate investigations.

Add To Cart

15.

FAIRMODE guidance document on modelling quality objectives and benchmarking. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2020.

Summary

The development of the procedure for air quality model benchmarking in the context of the Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC (AQD) has been an on-going activity in the context of the FAIRMODE community. A central part of the studies was the definition of proper modelling quality indicators and criteria to be fulfilled in order to allow sufficient level of quality for a given model application under the AQD. The focus initially on applications related to air quality assessment has gradually been expanded to other applications, such as forecasting and planning. The main purpose of this Guidance Document is to explain and summarise the current concepts of the modelling quality objective methodology, elaborated in various papers and documents in the FAIRMODE community, addressing model applications for air quality assessment and forecast. Other goals of the Document are linked to presentation and explanation of templates for harmonised reporting of modelling results. Giving an overview of still open issues in the implementation of the presented methodology, the document aims at triggering further research and discussions. A core set of statistical indicators is defined using pairs of measurement-modelled data. The core set is the basis for the definition of a modelling quality indicator (MQI) and additional modelling performance indicators (MPI), which take into account the measurement uncertainty. The MQI describes the discrepancy between measurements and modelling results (linked to RMSE), normalised by measurement uncertainty and a scaling factor. The modelling quality objective (MQO) requires MQI to be less than or equal to 1. With an arbitrary selection of the scaling factor of 2, the fulfilment of the MQO means that the allowed deviation between modelled and measured concentrations is twice the measurement uncertainty. Expressions for the MQI calculation based on time series and yearly data are introduced. MPI refer to aspects of correlation, bias and standard deviation, applied to both the spatial and temporal dimensions. Similarly to the MQO for the MQI, modelling performance criteria (MPC) are defined for the MPI; they are necessary, but not sufficient criteria to determine whether the MQO is fulfilled. The MQO is required to be fulfilled at 90% of the stations, a criterion which is implicitly taken into account in the derivation of the MQI. The associated modelling uncertainty is formulated, showing that in case of MQO fulfilment the modelling uncertainty must not exceed 1.75 times the measurement one (with the scaling factor fixed to 2). A reporting template is presented and explained for hourly and yearly average data. In both cases there is a diagram and a table with summary statistics. In a separate section open issues are discussed and an overview of related publications and tools is provided. Finally, a chapter on modelling quality objectives for forecast models is introduced. In Annex 1, we discuss the measurement uncertainty which is expressed in terms of concentration and its associated uncertainty. The methodology for estimating the measurement uncertainty is overviewed and the parameters for its calculation for PM, NO2 and O3 are provided. An expression for the associated modelling uncertainty is also given.

Add To Cart

16.

FAIRMODE guidance document on modelling quality objectives and benchmarking [er]. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2020.

Summary

The development of the procedure for air quality model benchmarking in the context of the Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC (AQD) has been an on-going activity in the context of the FAIRMODE community. A central part of the studies was the definition of proper modelling quality indicators and criteria to be fulfilled in order to allow sufficient level of quality for a given model application under the AQD. The focus initially on applications related to air quality assessment has gradually been expanded to other applications, such as forecasting and planning. The main purpose of this Guidance Document is to explain and summarise the current concepts of the modelling quality objective methodology, elaborated in various papers and documents in the FAIRMODE community, addressing model applications for air quality assessment and forecast. Other goals of the Document are linked to presentation and explanation of templates for harmonised reporting of modelling results. Giving an overview of still open issues in the implementation of the presented methodology, the document aims at triggering further research and discussions. A core set of statistical indicators is defined using pairs of measurement-modelled data. The core set is the basis for the definition of a modelling quality indicator (MQI) and additional modelling performance indicators (MPI), which take into account the measurement uncertainty. The MQI describes the discrepancy between measurements and modelling results (linked to RMSE), normalised by measurement uncertainty and a scaling factor. The modelling quality objective (MQO) requires MQI to be less than or equal to 1. With an arbitrary selection of the scaling factor of 2, the fulfilment of the MQO means that the allowed deviation between modelled and measured concentrations is twice the measurement uncertainty. Expressions for the MQI calculation based on time series and yearly data are introduced. MPI refer to aspects of correlation, bias and standard deviation, applied to both the spatial and temporal dimensions. Similarly to the MQO for the MQI, modelling performance criteria (MPC) are defined for the MPI; they are necessary, but not sufficient criteria to determine whether the MQO is fulfilled. The MQO is required to be fulfilled at 90% of the stations, a criterion which is implicitly taken into account in the derivation of the MQI. The associated modelling uncertainty is formulated, showing that in case of MQO fulfilment the modelling uncertainty must not exceed 1.75 times the measurement one (with the scaling factor fixed to 2). A reporting template is presented and explained for hourly and yearly average data. In both cases there is a diagram and a table with summary statistics. In a separate section open issues are discussed and an overview of related publications and tools is provided. Finally, a chapter on modelling quality objectives for forecast models is introduced. In Annex 1, we discuss the measurement uncertainty which is expressed in terms of concentration and its associated uncertainty. The methodology for estimating the measurement uncertainty is overviewed and the parameters for its calculation for PM, NO2 and O3 are provided. An expression for the associated modelling uncertainty is also given.

Add To Cart

17.

Source apportionment to support air quality management practices [er] : a fitness-for-purpose guide (V 3.1). European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2020.

Summary

Information on the origin of pollution is an essential element of air quality management that helps identify measures to control air pollution. In this document, we review the most widely used source-apportionment methods for air quality management. Using simple theoretical examples we explain the differences between these methods and the circumstances where they give different results and thus possibly different conclusions for air quality management. These differences are a consequence of the assumptions that underpin each methodology and determine/limit their range of applicability. We show that ignoring these underlying assumptions is a risk for efficient/successful air quality management when the methods are used outside their scope or range of applicability. The simplest approach based on increments, contributions obtained through receptor models or tagging approaches built in air quality models as well as impacts obtained via “brute-force” methods are discussed. The guide is organised as follows: the different source apportionment methods and their associated properties are presented in Part I, simple examples are introduced in Part II to illustrate the main differences in terms of results while Part III focuses on the fitness-for-purpose aspects of the different methods. Finally, Part IV lists and briefly discusses a series of open issues.

Add To Cart

18.

Source apportionment to support air quality management practices : a fitness-for-purpose guide (V 3.1). European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2020.

Summary

Information on the origin of pollution is an essential element of air quality management that helps identify measures to control air pollution. In this document, we review the most widely used source-apportionment methods for air quality management. Using simple theoretical examples we explain the differences between these methods and the circumstances where they give different results and thus possibly different conclusions for air quality management. These differences are a consequence of the assumptions that underpin each methodology and determine/limit their range of applicability. We show that ignoring these underlying assumptions is a risk for efficient/successful air quality management when the methods are used outside their scope or range of applicability. The simplest approach based on increments, contributions obtained through receptor models or tagging approaches built in air quality models as well as impacts obtained via “brute-force” methods are discussed. The guide is organised as follows: the different source apportionment methods and their associated properties are presented in Part I, simple examples are introduced in Part II to illustrate the main differences in terms of results while Part III focuses on the fitness-for-purpose aspects of the different methods. Finally, Part IV lists and briefly discusses a series of open issues.

Add To Cart

19.

Report on the biogeochemical model setup for the Baltic Sea and its applications [er]. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2020.

Summary

Various human-induced environmental pressures such as eutrophication affect the Baltic Sea. A coupled hydrodynamic-biogeochemical model was used to assess the response of the Baltic Sea’s ecosystem to climate change and nutrient reduction. This model was run with different settings and observation data was used for data analysis and model validation. The validation confirmed that the results for the model are reliable and allow its usage for simulations involving hindcast and forecast scenarios. Hydrodynamic features such as salinity and temperature were well reproduced. Among the modelled eutrophication indicators, chlorophyll-a, oxygen, nitrate and phosphorus followed the seasonal cycle. The presence of ice affected the central variables of the biogeochemical model substantially. Changing ice conditions are one of the key factors directly affecting the timing and composition of spring bloom within the Baltic Sea, with cascading consequences for nutrient transfer and ecological dynamics. Moreover, the modelling results indicated that the assumed nutrient reductions based on the implementation of various measures in the catchment area could lead to a slight improvement in the health of the Baltic Sea as there was an approximate 2% increase in the improvement of the D5C1 indicators. But longer time series are required to observe a substantial change in the Baltic Sea’s environmental conditions and that stronger nutrient input reduction measures are necessary to achieve an improved environmental status

Add To Cart

20.

Report on the biogeochemical model of the North-Western European Shelf [er]. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2020.

Add To Cart

Contact information

Personal data protection

Treatment of your data

How do we treat e-mails you send us?

Copyright notice