1. Modelling of BaP concentrations over France.
Florian Couvidat

2. Simulations of BaP with Chimere
Chimere was used to simulate BaP deposition over France watersheds
Partitioning of BaP using its saturation vapor pressure (9.34 x 10-7 Pa) and degradation with OH (kinetic parameter of 5.00 x molecules-1 cm3 s-1)
Annual emmissions from the French Emission Inventory (INS): 1 km
Two studies with Chimere for year 2010:
Europe 0.5° and France 0.07°
Europe 0.25° and France 0.04° with
the runoff coefficient to estimate the
contribution of wet deposition to
surface water concentrations

3. Low concentrations of BaP compared to other countries
Results
Similar results between EMEP and Chimere
EMEP
ng m-3
Chimere
ng m-3
Low concentrations of BaP compared to other countries
ng m-3

4. Contribution to groundwater
Espèces
Deposition kg/an
Amount deposited in groundwater
Industrial emissions in ground water
BaP
4846
2364 ± 242
Between 2 and 45 kg/an
BghiP
5484
2680 ± 274
Between 1 and 64 kg/an
InD
3133
1529 ± 157
Between 0,4 and 39 kg/an
Deposition kg/an
Amount deposited in groundwater
Industrial emissions in ground water
BaP
4846
2364 ± 242
Between 2 and 45 kg/an
BghiP
5484
2680 ± 274
Between 1 and 64 kg/an
InD
3133
1529 ± 157
Between 0,4 and 39 kg/an

5. Measurements vs Model
Correlation :
0.037

6. BaP~ f(emission, distance, altitude)
Kriging : Obs + émissions + altitude
Model
Mean quadratic error by station type:
Indust
Rural
Subur
Traffic
Urban
0.52
0.14
0.046
0.022
BaP~ f(emission, distance, altitude)
Average: 0.17
Mean quadratic error divided by kriging variance:
Indust
Rural
Subur
Traffic
Urban
7.0
1.9
0.62
0.30
Average: 2.3
Cross Validation result: Cor=0.708
Observations BaP 2010
Kriging result

7. BaP~ f(emission, distance, altitude)+ population
Kriging : Obs + emissions/distance + population
Model
Mean quadratic error by station type:
Indust
Rural
Subur
Traffic
Urban
0.45
0.17
0.043
0.015
0.13
BaP~ f(emission, distance, altitude)+ population
Average: 0.15
Mean quadratic error divided by kriging variance:
Indust
Rural
Subur
Traffic
Urban
5.9
2.2
0.56
0.20
1.6
Average: 2.0
Cross Validation result: Cor=0.735
Observations BaP 2010
Kriging result

8. 2012
(Guereiro et al, 2016 )
~Emiss*altitude+pop
CHIMERE
Emissions

9. Are emissions underestimated over France???
Weak emissions of BaP in France
BaP emissions EMEP for 2000:
7,9 T for France
7,5 T for Belgium
31 T for Germany
Emissions TNO
83 T for France
51 T for Germany
France and Germany : Official data
Spain, Italy, Belgium: CEIP estimates

10. BaP from residential wood burning
Residential wood burning is the main contributor to BaP emissions 67% for France and 83% for Germany with also 21% of BaP emissions from forest fires for France (not estimated for Germany) French emissions factors was estimated in 2000 by INERIS More recent devices seem to emit more BaP
BaP/(RWB PM2.5) ratio (in T/kT)

11. New simulations
New simulations: - with a saturation vapor pressure of 6,3 x 10-6 Pa (instead of 9.34 x 10-7 Pa) based on Efstathiou et al., taking into account heterogeneous degradation with ozone - with or without a factor 10 of increased emissions of BaP

12. Station in the southeast
Station near Belgium
Station in the southeast

13. Conclusions
Low emissions of BaP compared to the other countries giving strong differences in concentrations (that does not seem supported by measurements) Lack of correlation between high resolution simulations and measurements Hypothesis: underestimation of BaP emissions that could be due to the wrong trend (decrease instead of increase) coupled with a overestimation of emissions in neighbouring countries