1. OSPAR chemical monitoring and assessment of the North-East Atlantic
Patrick Roose,
Head of Laboratory MUMM

2. OSPAR?
OSPAR is the convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic

3. OSPAR area and contracting parties

4. The 1992 OSPAR Convention requires the Contracting Parties to:
OSPAR philosophy
The 1992 OSPAR Convention requires the Contracting Parties to:
”take all possible steps to prevent and eliminate pollution and take the necessary measures to protect the maritime area against adverse effects of human activities so as to safeguard health and conserve marine ecosystems and, where practicable, restore marine areas which have been adversely affected”.

5. OSPAR philosophy
The 1992 OSPAR Convention requires the Contracting Parties, amongst other things, to “cooperate in carrying out monitoring programmes”, to develop quality assurance methods, and assessment tools.

6. OSPAR JAMP
The main objective of the Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme (JAMP) is to provide arrangements for preparing periodic assessments of the environmental quality status of the OSPAR Convention area and for progress assessments on the implementation of the five thematic OSPAR Strategies.

7. OSPAR JAMP - Programmes
the Coordinated Environmental Monitoring Programme (CEMP): can be described as that part of monitoring under the JAMP where the national contributions overlap and are co-ordinated. It covers temporal trend and spatial monitoring for concentrations of selected chemicals and nutrients and for biological effects.
the Comprehensive Atmospheric Monitoring Programme (CAMP): covers monitoring at coastal stations of the concentrations of selected contaminants (including nitrogen) in precipitation and air and their depositions.
the Comprehensive Study on Riverine Inputs and Direct Discharges (RID): assesses, on an annual basis, all riverborne and direct inputs of selected contaminants (including nutrients) to the OSPAR Convention area and to determine the longterm trends of such inputs.22

8. OSPAR CEMP – Key parameters
Mercury, cadmium and lead in biota and sediments
PCBs in biota and sediments
PAHs in biota and sediment (parent and alkylate)
PBDEs in biota and sediment
Nutrients in seawater
Direct and indirect Eutrophication effects
PAH- and Metal specific Biological effects
Organotins in sediments and biota
TBT specific effects

9. Data and information flow
CEMP data from CP BE DE DK … SE UK QA QA QA QA QA QA
ICES
OSPAR

10. Priority Substances (Groups of) substances OSPAR CEMP WFD Monitored
Matrices
Data
‘Old’ organochlorines
Endosulphan X X2 No
Hexachlorobenzene
Yes
B,S
Hexachlorocyclohexane isomers (HCH)
W,B,S
PCBs
PCDDs
PCDFs
PCNs X1
Toxaphene (OSPAR: heptachloronorbornene )
1 Lower priority in OSPAR because of exclusive use as intermediates in closed systems or no current production and/or use in the OSPAR area; 2 first-priority hazardous substances.

11. Priority Substances (Groups of) substances OSPAR CEMP WFD Monitored
Matrices
Data
‘New’ pesticides
Alachlor X No
Atrazine X2
Chlorfenvinphos
Chlorpyrifos
Dicofol
Diuron
Ethyl O-(p-nitrophenyl) phenyl phosphonothionate (EPN) X1
Flucythrinate
1 Lower priority in OSPAR because of exclusive use as intermediates in closed systems or no current production and/or use in the OSPAR area; 2 first-priority hazardous substances.

12. Priority Substances (Groups of) substances OSPAR CEMP WFD Monitored
Matrices
Data
‘New’ pesticides
Isodrin X1 X No
Isoproturon X2
Methoxychlor
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) X3
Simazine
Tetrasul
Trifluralin
1 Lower priority in OSPAR because of exclusive use as intermediates in closed systems or no current production and/or use in the OSPAR area; 2 first-priority hazardous substances.

13. Priority Substances (Groups of) substances OSPAR CEMP WFD Monitored
Matrices
Data
VOCs
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene X X2 No
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene
Benzene
Dichloromethane
Trichloromethane X1
1 Lower priority in OSPAR because of exclusive use as intermediates in closed systems or no current production and/or use in the OSPAR area; 2 first-priority hazardous substances.

14. Priority Substances (Groups of) substances OSPAR CEMP WFD Monitored
Matrices
Data
PAHs
Anthracene X X2
Yes
B,S
Fluoranthene X3
Naphthalene
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons
1 Lower priority in OSPAR because of exclusive use as intermediates in closed systems or no current production and/or use in the OSPAR area; 2 first-priority hazardous substances.

15. Priority Substances (Groups of) substances OSPAR CEMP WFD Monitored
Matrices
Data
‘New’ organohalogens
Brominated flame retardants (WFD: polybrominated biphenyls only) X X2
Yes
B,S
1,3,5-tribromo-2-(2,3-dibromo-2-methylpropoxy)-benzene X1 No
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HCCP)
Pentabromoethylbenzene
Pentachloroanisole
Pentachlorobenzene
2-Propenoic acid, (pentabromo)methyl ester
1 Lower priority in OSPAR because of exclusive use as intermediates in closed systems or no current production and/or use in the OSPAR area; 2 first-priority hazardous substances.

16. Priority Substances (Groups of) substances OSPAR CEMP WFD Monitored
Matrices
Data
‘New’ organohalogens
Short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs) X X2 No
Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBP-A)
Hexachlorobutadiene
Endocrine disruptors
Nonylphenol/ethoxylates (NP/NPEOs) and related substances
Octylphenol
Phthalates: dibutylphthalate, diethylhexylphthalate (DEHP)
1 Lower priority in OSPAR because of exclusive use as intermediates in closed systems or no current production and/or use in the OSPAR area; 2 first-priority hazardous substances.

17. Priority Substances (Groups of) substances OSPAR CEMP WFD Monitored
Matrices
Data
Metals and related compounds
Cadmium X X2
Yes
B,S
Lead and organic lead compounds X1
Mercury and organic mercury compounds
Nickel and its compounds
Organic tin compounds S
Nutrients
Nutrients in seawater X3 W
1 Lower priority in OSPAR because of exclusive use as intermediates in closed systems or no current production and/or use in the OSPAR area; 2 first-priority hazardous substances.

18. OSPAR Priority Substances
(Groups of) substances
OSPAR
CEMP
WFD
Monitored
Matrices
Data
Other organic chemicals
1,5,9-Cyclododecatriene X1 No
2,4,6-Tri-tert-butylphenol X
3,3'-(ureylenedimethylene)bis(3,5,5-trimethylcyclohexyl)-Diisocyanate
4-(dimethylbutylamino)-Diphenylamin (6PPD)
4-tert-Butyltoluene
Clotrimazole
Cyclododecane
Diosgenin
1 Lower priority in OSPAR because of exclusive use as intermediates in closed systems or no current production and/or use in the OSPAR area; 2 first-priority hazardous substances, 3 identified by the international Scheldt commission.

19. Priority Substances (Groups of) substances OSPAR CEMP WFD Monitored
Matrices
Data
Other organic chemicals
Hexamethyldisiloxane (HMDS) X No
Musk xylene
Neodecanoic acid, ethenyl ester
Perfluorooctanol sulphonic acid and its salts (PFOS)
Triphenyl phosphine
1 Lower priority in OSPAR because of exclusive use as intermediates in closed systems or no current production and/or use in the OSPAR area; 2 first-priority hazardous substances, 3 identified by the international Scheldt commission.

20. Priority Substances (Groups of) substances OSPAR CEMP WFD HELCOM
UNEP-POP
‘Old’ organochlorines
DDTs X
Endosulphan X2
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclohexane isomers (HCH)
PCBs
PCDDs
PCDFs
PCNs
Toxaphene

21. Priority Substances (Groups of) substances OSPAR CEMP WFD HELCOM
Metals and related compounds
Cadmium X
Lead and organic lead compounds
Mercury and organic mercury compounds
Nickel and its compounds
Organic tin compounds
1 Lower priority in OSPAR because of exclusive use as intermediates in closed systems or no current production and/or use in the OSPAR area; 2 first-priority hazardous substances.

22. OSPAR CEMP
Three elements are essential for the realisation of monitoring under the CEMP:
Technical guidelines
Quality assurance tools
Assessment tools

23. OSPAR CEMP - Guidelines
JAMP guidelines for monitoring contaminants in biota
ASMO 1997
Status - Category I
Technical Annex 1 – determination of organic contaminants
Technical Annex 2 – determination of metals
Technical Annex 3 – determination of PAHs
ASMO(1) 1999
JAMP guidelines for monitoring contaminants in sediments
ASMO 1997
Technical Annex 1 – statistical aspects
Technical Annex 2 – determination of CBs
ASMO 1998
Technical Annex 4 – determination of TBT
ASMO(1) 1999
Technical Annex 5 – normalisation of contaminant concentrations
ASMO 2002
Technical Annex 6 – Determination of metals – analytical methods
And more….

24. OSPAR CEMP – QA/QC Accreditation is not required but encouraged
Participation in proficiency testing schemes (PTS) is demanded.
OSPAR has made arrangements with the QUASIMEME PTS concerning reporting of results from OSPAR labs
QA/QC data should be reported together with the data
During assessments the data of CPs is weighted against the provided QA information

25. OSPAR CEMP – QA/QC QA items: QUASIMEME Z-score CRM mean value Yes
QA data
absent
Yes
OSPAR WG
MON
Analytical weight: 0.2 No
Two items of
QA data
QA data
satisfactory No No
Analytical weight: 0.2
Yes
QA items:
QUASIMEME Z-score
CRM mean value
Yes
Analytical weight: 1
QA data
satisfactory
One item
satisfactory No No
Analytical weight: 0.2
Yes
Yes
Analytical weight: 1
Analytical weight: 0.7

26. OSPAR CEMP – Assessment tools
A key objective of the OSPAR strategy is the “cessation of discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances by 2020”.

27. OSPAR CEMP – Assessment tools
Background Concentration or BC
The Background Concentration is the concentration of a contaminant at a “pristine” or “remote” site based on contemporary or historical data.
The Background Concentration of a man-made compound is taken as zero.
Background Assessment Concentration or BAC
The Background Assessment Concentration is a value for testing whether the concentrations [sediments; water; biota] at a site are at or close to background.

28. OSPAR CEMP – BC and BAC
The aim of an assessment is to demonstrate that concentrations are at or near background.

29. OSPAR CEMP – BC and BAC Background Assessment Concentration or BAC
The BAC is a concentration greater than the BC that quantifies what is meant by near background or close to zero.
The test assumes that the mean concentration [c] is above background (i.e., [c] > BAC) unless there is statistical evidence to show that it is near background (i.e., [c] ≤ BAC).
Formally, the null and alternative hypotheses are:
H0: [c] > BAC (i.e., concentrations above background)
H1: [c] ≤ BAC (i.e., concentrations near background)
and H0 is rejected in favour of H1 if the upper confidence limit on [c] is below the BAC.

30. OSPAR CEMP – BC and BAC

31. OSPAR CEMP – BC and BAC
BACs should be both low enough to reflect near background concentrations and high enough that we are likely to conclude that concentrations are near background when [c] = BC. Specifically, the BAC are set to give a 90% probability of concluding that concentrations are near background when [c] = BC.

32. OSPAR CEMP - BC and BAC for PAHs
Sediment
(g kg-1 dry weight normalised to 2,5% organic carbon) BC
BAC
Naphthalene 5 8
Phenanthrene 17 32
Anthracene 3
Fluoranthene 20 39
Pyrene 13 24
Benz[a]anthracene 9 16
Chrysene 11
Benoz[a]pyrene 15 30
Benzo[ghi]perylene 45 80

33. OSPAR CEMP - BC and BAC for PCBs
Polychlorinated
biphenyl (CB)
Sediment
(g kg-1 dry weight normalised to 2,5% organic carbon)
Mussel
(g kg-1 dry weight)
Fish liver
(g kg-1 wet weight) BC
BAC1
BAC2
BAC
CB153
0,2
1,1
Sum7CB
1,5
4,6
1,2

34. OSPAR CEMP - Environmental Assessment Criteria
“Environmental assessment criteria” (EACs) are tools for assessing the significance of concentrations of hazardous substances in the marine environment. They are used to assess whether there are grounds for concern about the presence of those substances and to establish priorities for action.

35. OSPAR CEMP - Environmental Assessment Criteria
Two types of EAC have been identified:
“EACs (lower)”, which are concentrations below which it is reasonable to expect that there will be an acceptable level of protection of marine species (including sensitive species) from chronic effects from the hazardous substances concerned. EACs (lower) should be used to identify potential areas of concern and to identify substances whose concentrations in the marine environment cause potential concern for marine species. EACs (lower) should not be used as firm standards or as triggers for remedial action;
(b) “EACs (higher)”, which are concentrations above which it is reasonable to expect acute toxic effects on marine species. Further consideration is being given to how to define EACs (higher) and how to develop them.

36. OSPAR CEMP - EACs for metals
EACwater
EACsediment
EACfish
EACmussel
Secondary Poisoning
µg l-1
mg kg-1 dry wt
μg kg-1 wet wt
µg kg-1 wet wt As
0.1 (f)
0.71 (p) nr Cd
0.21 (f)
0.06 (p)
7.35 (p)
55.9 (p) ** Cr
4.2 (f)
21 (p) Cu
0.476 (f)
0.22 (p) Hg
0.055 (p)
3.5 (p)
1.7 (p) Ni
1 (f)
2.8 (p) Pb
0.13 (f)
2.22 (p)
300 (p)
1690 (p) Zn
3.0 (f)
1.48 (p)
f = firm
p = provisional
nr = not relevant in relation to the current monitoring programme, or considered for secondary poisoning
fc = further consideration
dry wt = dry weight
wet wt = wet weight
* = sediment normalised to 1% organic carbon
** = not reported, values lower than derived from direct effects

37. OSPAR CEMP - EACs for organics
EACwater
EACsediment
EACfish
EACmussel
Secondary Poisoning
µg l-1
mg kg-1 dry wt
μg kg-1 wet wt
µg kg-1 wet wt
DDE
(f)
(p)*
0.5 (f)
0.18 (f)
Dieldrin
(f)
(p)*
1.7 (f)
0.076 (f)
Lindane
0.002 (f)
(p)
1.1 (f)
0.29 (f) nr
TBT
(f)
(p)
2.4 (f)
PBDE
(f)
0.062 (f)*
100 (f)
5 (f)
f = firm
p = provisional
nr = not relevant in relation to the current monitoring programme, or considered for secondary poisoning
fc = further consideration
dry wt = dry weight
wet wt = wet weight
* = sediment normalised to 1% organic carbon
** = not reported, values lower than derived from direct effects

38. OSPAR CEMP - EACs for organics
EACwater
EACsediment
EACfish
EACmussel
Secondary Poisoning
µg l-1
mg kg-1 wet wt
μg kg-1 wet wt
µg kg-1 wet wt
∑ group PAHs
2 rings: naphthalene
2.4 (p)
0.038 (p)*
1024 (p)
91 (p) fc
3 rings: phenanthrene & anthracene
0.17 (p)
0.031 (p)*
852 (p)
1290 (p)
4 rings: fluoranthene, pyrene, benz[a]anthracene & chrysene
0.69 (p)
0.141 (p)*
6900 (p)
5 rings: benzo[k]fluoranthene & benzo[a]pyrene
0.03 (p)
0.021 (p)*
1069 (p)
6 rings: benzo[ghi]perylene & indeno[123-cd]pyrene
0.016 (p)
(p)*
73 (p)
p = provisional
fc = further consideration
dry wt = dry weight
wet wt = wet weight
* = sediment normalised to 1% organic carbon
** = not reported, values lower than derived from direct effects

39. OSPAR CEMP - EACs vs EQS Group of substances / substances
EQS water [ug/l]
MAC-QS [ug/l] for inland waters
EAC water – current range [ug/l]
Calculated Lower EAC [ug/l]
cadmium
0.2
0.056
lead and organic lead compounds
2.16
0.5-5
0.9
mercury and organic mercury compounds
0.05
0.07 l
0.01
organic tin compounds
0.0001
0.0015
lindane
0.002
0.04
0.0017
Fluoranthene
0.09
0.069
Naphthalene
1.2 80
5-50
7.5

40. OSPAR CEMP - Results

41. assessment for lead in biota
OSPAR CEMP - Results
cod liver
1990
2000
400
CEMP
assessment for lead in biota

42. OSPAR CEMP - Results lead benzo[a]pyrene I II III IV I II III IV
100
300
1000
3000
10000
BAC = 1520
mean concentration (ug/kg) in molluscs in final year
benzo[a]pyrene IV
III II I 30
BAC = 7.1
BC = 1
mean concentration (ug/kg) in molluscs in final year

43. benzo[a]pyrene (µg/kg dw)
OSPAR CEMP - Results
benzo[a]pyrene (µg/kg dw)
Lead (µg/kg dw)

44. Phenathrene/anthracene ratio
OSPAR CEMP - Results
Phenathrene/anthracene ratio
A ratio of less than 10 is generally accepted to indicate a pyrolytic origin

45. Conclusions
The OSPAR commission has, in the last decades, played a leading role in the field of marine environmental monitoring
Through the JAMP and it’s predecessor the JMP, a considerable experience was build both at the level of the commission and it’s contracting parties
OSPAR monitoring has resulted in long time series that are now, through innovating approaches, fully showing their value
Recent advances in assessment tools and innovative approaches towards assessment have resulted in tools “that work”.

46. Conclusions
Coordinated monitoring i.e. harmonisation of protocols, QA and data reporting are essential.
There has to be a willingness/obligation to do the monitoring and report the data.
Good assessments require a lot of data.
Harmonisation between programmes/obligations is in everybody’s interest.
Even brilliant plans do not survive the contact with reality.