Lessons learnt from the EMEP intensive measurements Wenche Aas

Objective of intensive measurements To underpin the EMEP programme not realistic to require full daily chemical speciation or continuous measurements 365 days a year. Coordinate and harmonise the research campaigns and monitoring efforts in Europe Improving our current understanding of the temporal and spatial variation of PM and PM constituents, their sources and formation mechanisms, and for model validation. Motivate and prepare the Parties to initiate new measurements stated in the EMEP monitoring strategy.

Sites and measurments

Challenges to combine all the information Chemical speciation in many sizes, but not always mass measurements for the same sizes PM mass at many sites and sizes, but not necessary chemical speciation Different species for speciation. Inorganic at several, EC/OC at some, mineral dust at only two How to use the POP and HM measurements? Data completeness are varying. Missing data is a problem when comparing averages Are these data comparable?

PM10 June 2006 PM10 Jan 2007 PM2.5 Jan 2007 PM2.5 June 2006 PM2.5 june 2006

Different methodology EC/OC (or TC) are sometimes corrected and sometimes not. Not always known what temperature programme is used. Size distribution are measured differently and size boxes are not really comparable (SMPS;DMPS;TDMPS;LASX). And not sure if the different sites use recommended calibration procedures etc (jf EUSAAR recommendations) NO3, NH4 from filters without knowing the artefact (only IT01) Different filters (quartz, cellulose, Teflon) may also play a difference

Carbonaceous material in PM2.5 corrected for positive artefacts. New: Defined two different OC and TC in the EMEP database: Organic_carbon (OC) and organic_carbon_corrected (OCp). Important to report which method used (QBQ, Teflon..)

Artefact in gas/particle for N IT01, Jan 2007 Underestimation of N IT01, June 2007

Reporting of data Only in excel Very individual reporting, no common format like the official reporting format NASA AMES Different units are used (e.g mgS/m3, mgSO4/m3, ppm), and not always clear which one has been used. Chemical speciation in which size (TSP, PM10, PM2.5, PM1) are not always clearly specified. Method not always specified. This is needed for QA/QC and to include data in the database Combined data sets instead of components (i.e sea salt, mineral dust, sum N) Extra workload on data management

What to do next Import all the data in ebas and further QA/QC Daily data are being assessed at present Hourly data compiled by CEH should be submitted to CCC Forward to MSC-W Will be used in next year EMEP reporting Peer reviewed papers How many? What to include ? Lead authors? Time frame?

Peer reviewed papers My personal suggestion No special issue, the dataset is too small and varied for that. Two or three general papers: A paper on high time resolution data set (lead CEH) A paper on mass closure and uncertainty (lead CCC) Model performance –either as separate paper or included in the two above (lead MSC-W) Individual papers from the different sites/institutes are encouraged but should be initiated by the countries.

Next campaign EMEP/EUCAARI 17 Sep – 16 Oct 2008 and 25 Feb – 26 Mar 2009 Mass closure (inorganic, crustal, EC/OC) in PM2.5 and PM10 . Daily or hourly Aerosol size distributions Inorganic gas concentrations (HNO3, NH3) Attempts to quantify aerosol water Attempts to quantify the OC/OM ratio Separation of organic aerosol into primary vs. secondary and biogenic vs. anthropogenic components (e.g. levoglucosane, 14C); Vertical profiles (Earlinet)

How to improve for next period Clear guidelines of which measurements are needed/wanted Harmonised measurement methods, especially needed for EC/OC –use reference Data reporting in harmonised format, either as NASA AMES or special excel template Data ownership might be an issue when this is combined with EUCAARI