Prezentace aplikace PowerPoint

1
  EEMEP ASSESSMENT REPORT   NATIONAL
CONTRIBUTION   CCZECH REPUBLIC       MMilan
Vána1), Karel Dejmal1), Pavel Machálek2), Ivan
Holoubek3)            
1)    Czech Hydrometeorological Institute -
Koetice Observatory 2)    Czech
Hydrometeorological Institute-Department of
Emission and Sources 3)    RECETOX-TOCOEN and
Associates
2
Location of the Czech EMEP stations
3
Total emissions of principal pollutants in the
Czech Republic (1980 - 2001)
4
Total emissions of HMs and POPs (1990 2001)
a) preliminary data
5
Trend of SO2S in the atmosphere Koetice
1989-2001
6
(No Transcript)
7
Trend of SO4S in the atmosphere Koetice
1989-1998
8
Sector distribution of SO4S concentrations
(Koetice 1989-1996)
9
Trend of NO2N in the atmosphere Svratouch
1980-2001
10
Trend of surface ozone in the atmosphere
Koetice 1992-2001
11
Sector distribution of surface ozone
concentrations (Koetice 1993-1996)
12
Number of days, when the 8-hour running mean of
surface ozone concentration exceeded 160 µg/m3
(Koetice, Svratouch 1993-2001)
13
Number of days, when the 8-hour running mean of
surface ozone concentration exceeded 120 µg/m3
(Koetice, Svratouch 1993-2001)
14
Trend of cyklohexan concentrations in the
atmosphere (Koetice 1995-2001)
15
Sector distribution of ethane concentrations
(Koetice 1993-1996)
16
Trend of PAHs concentrations in the atmosphere
(gas. phaseaerosol) (Koetice 1996-2000)
17
Trend of SO4S deposition (Svratouch 1978-2000)
18
Sector distribution of SO4S deposition
(Svratouch 1988-1995)
19
Comparison model versus observation - SO2S
concentration in the air (Koetice 1989-1996)
R 0.48
y 0.45x3.27
Max. dif. 129.1
Min. dif. -94.1
RMSE 9.6
BIAS -1.1
20
Trend of SO2S in the atmosphere -model versus
observation (Koetice 1989-1996 )
21
Comparison model versus observation - SO4S
concentration in the air (Koetice 1989-1996)
R 0.40
y 0.72x1.32
Max. dif. 59.4
Min. dif. -26.5
RMSE 3.3
BIAS 0.7
22
Trend of SO4S in the atmosphere -model versus
observation (Koetice 1989-1996 )
23
Comparison model versus observation - NO2N
concentration in the air (Svratouch 1985-1996)
R 0.43
y 0.47x1.14
Max. dif. 16.3
Min. dif. -19.3
RMSE 2.4
BIAS -0.1
24
Trend of NO2N in the atmosphere -model versus
observation (Svratouch 1985-1996 )
25
Conclusions           Concentrations of sulphur
compounds have been declining steadily during the
period reflecting a decrease in emissions
regionally        Nitrogen dioxide
concentrations dropped in 1980s steadily, but no
distinct change was observed during the nineties
       The surface ozone concentrations at the
regional scale of the Czech republic reach values
that affect both human health and
vegetation        The annual mean surface ozone
concentration stabilised in the nineties at a
relatively high level of around 70 µg.m-3. Since
1996 we have registered a slight decrease in
annual means concentrations, but more importantly
a reduction in the number of episodes in which
ambient air pollution limit is exceeded       
No significant trend was observed in mean annual
concentrations of most VOCs in the period
1993-2001. Significant downward trend was found
only by cyklohexane. Most of VOCs exhibit an
annual cycle that reflect their emission level,
i.e. with maxima in winter and minima in summer.
Isoprene is an exception. Although ranking among
the most reactive VOCs, it is of natural origin
and displays an inverse pattern.        The
reduction of sulphur emission in the Czech
Republic has resulted in decreasing background
sulphur deposition. The greatest difference is
observed in throughfall, which means the decrease
of dry sulphur deposition.        There is not
considerable trend observed in the deposition of
nitrogen        The deposition of hydrogen ions
gradually goes down, pH of the precipitation
samples increases.        In general, the
highest deposition by all evaluated compounds was
observed when the trajectories originate from
northwestern direction
26
EExperience problems               We found a
lot of discrepancies and problems in dataset
during the process of data evaluation (2nd round
of data checking)         Sampling method in
precipitation quality monitoring was changed
(before 1996 daily bulk after 1996 weekly
wet-only) problems in evaluation           We
found an error in the sector template tool in the
process of data evaluation (corrected immediately)