1. Lessons learnt from the EMEP intensive measurements
Wenche Aas

2. 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.

3. Sites and measurments

4. 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?

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

6. 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

7. 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..)

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

9. 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

10. 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?

11. 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.

12. 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)

13. 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