transboundary acidiﬁcation, eutrophication and ground ... · chapter 4 presents progress with the...

EMEP Report 1/2001Date: July 2001

DET NORSKE METEOROLOGISKE INSTITUTTNorwegian Meteorological Institute

Research Report No. 124

Transboundary acidification, eutrophication and

ground level ozone

in Europe

EMEP Summary Report 2001

ISSN 0332-9879

i

ContributersEMEP/MSC-W, Norwegian Meteorological Institute (DNMI), Oslo, Norway.Amund Bjerve, Anna Carlin, Hilde Fagerli, Jan Eiof Jonson, David Simpson, Leonor Tarrason,Asmund Ukkel-berg

EMEP/CCC, Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU), Kjeller, Norway.Anne-Gunn Hjellbrekke, Jan Schaug, Sverre Solberg, Wenche Aas

EMEP/CIAM, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.Markus Amann, Janusz Cofala

CCE, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.Maximilian Posch

Joint Research Centre, Environmental Unit, Ispra, Italy.Philippe Thunis

Institute of Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy (IER), University of Stuttgart, Germany.Rainer Friedrich, Stefan Reis

The Research Institute for Computer Architecture and Software Technology (FIRST) of the GermanNational Research Centre for Information Technology (GMD), Berlin, Germany.Steffen Unger

AcknowledgementsThe work of EMEP is carried out in collaboration with a broad network of scientists at national level that-

contribute with the systematic collection, analysis and reporting of emission inventories and measurementsfrom the EMEP monitoring networks. Without them, and the invaluable assistance of the ECE Secretariat, thisreport would not have been possible.

The Research Institute for Computer Architecture and Software Technology (FIRST) of the German NationalResearch Centre for Information Technology (GMD), Berlin, is thanked for continued support with the Eule-rian models. Thanks are also due to the Coordinating Centre for Effects for providing the latest informationon critical loads.

The calculations presented in this report are based on meteorological data obtained from the NumericalWeather Prediction (NWP) model runs at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute. We would especially liketo thank Jan Erik Haugen and Dag Bjørge for their efforts updating the meteorological model HIRLAM-PSfor use in MSC-W dispersion pollution models.

The calculaltions were facilitated by access to a CRAY T3E supercomputer at the Norwegian University ofScience and Technology in Trondheim, Norway. The invaluable assistance from the staff at NTNU is greatlyacknowledged here.

iii

Contents

1 Linking hemispheric, regional and local air pollution 11.1 Linking hemispheric and regional scale modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Linking regional and urban scale pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2 IIASA-DNMI and MERLIN: two approaches to optimizing emission control 92.1 Two different integrated assessment approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.2 IIASA-DNMI contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.3 MERLIN Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3 Transposition from Lagrangian to Eulerian models in EMEP 153.1 Main differences in model formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.2 Models performance against observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163.3 Main differences in source-receptor calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193.4 Main differences in derived critical level and critical load exceedances . . . . . . . . 243.5 Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4 Progress with the “Unified” EMEP Model 334.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334.2 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344.3 New features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344.4 Current status (June 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364.5 Preliminary model results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5 EMEP Measurement data quality 395.1 Data quality procedures in EMEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395.2 Quality of the 1999 measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405.3 Laboratory improvements at the end of the nineties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445.4 Results from the field comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455.5 Suggestions for improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

A Comparison of source-receptor matrices for acidification and eutrophication calculatedwith the Lagrangian and Eulerian models (1996 values). A:1

B Status review by country B:1

C Laboratory comparison results 1994-2000 C:1

v

Preface

The main task of the Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-RangeTransmission of Air pollutants in Europe (EMEP) is to provide the ECE Governments and the Con-vention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) with qualified scientific informationto support the revision of international agreements to solve air pollution problems. This report hasbeen prepared for presentation and consideration at the twenty-fifth session of the Steering Bodyof EMEP. It is concerned with the evaluation and review of modelling and monitoring informationunderlying the EMEP programme.

This summary report on acidifying and eutrophying compounds is combined with the summary re-port on photo-oxidants. The integration of these two thematic areas of EMEP responds to the needto analyse significant interactions between different types of transboundary air pollution and theireffects. The decision to combine the two reports coincides also with the development of the Uni-fied Eulerian model, where the integration of a modular treatment of acifidification, eutrophication,ground level ozone and atmospheric particles is a goal in itself.

The present report focuses on the links between air pollution transport at different scales. The firstchapter summarises on-going progress at MSC-W in the study of the relation between hemispheric,regional and local air pollution exchange. These studies are mainly concerned with the influence ofresolution in ozone formation. The second chapter presents two different projects concerned withlinking local and regional scale for integrated assessment modelling and shows how the advancesreported in Chapter 1 can be extended to other pollutants, e.g. particulate matter, in the broaderframework of collaboration within the European Commission Clear Air For Europe programme.

The transposition of Lagrangian to Eulerian models in EMEP is analysed in Chapter 3. Here again,the influence of resolution in the determination of transboundary exchange is analysed. Despite theirdifferent resolution, the Lagrangian and Eulerian models produce similar sosourcerce-receptor allo-cation patterns in Europe and similar long-term results on the importance of transboundary fluxes.

Chapter 4 presents progress with the Unified Eulerian model and Chapter 5 revises the quality ofthe measurement data compiled in EMEP. There are serious gaps in the measurement data compiledby the EMEP programme, in particular with respect to ammonium, nitrate and VOC speciation.These gaps will become more important as the programme extends to include particulate matter. Ur-gent action is required to define a feasible and operative monitoring strategy for these compounds.

A part of the activities of the EMEP Centers are not included in this summary report. This con-cerns the work carried out on the determination of trends and it is not reported here because it isexpected to be reported in due time under the work for the Task Force on Measurements and Mod-elling.

As in the past years, the information in the Appendices is organised with dedicated data for eachindividual country. We trust that this form of presenting the information available under EMEP isuseful for the Parties to the LRTAP Convention, its Executive Body and subsidiary bodies. This

vii

report, and the technical notes and scientific papers that support it, are intended to stimulate commu-nication between the participants and users of EMEP. Their purpose is to facilitate the exchange ofinformation by:

a) documenting the availability of the data,

b) sharing methodologies and research developments,

c) clarifying the operational objectives and needs of the programme,

d) providing a common basis for discussion.

All data included in this report will be available via Internet after it is approved by the Steering Bodyof EMEP. Countries are encouraged to analyse the data and provide their own conclusions. Reactionsand comments are both welcome and encouraged.

http://www.emep.int

viii

Chapter 1

Linking hemispheric, regional and localair pollution

Leonor Tarrason, Jan Eiof Jonson and Philippe Thunis

The EMEP programme focuses on regional air pollution problems. Both monitoring and model-ling within EMEP are designed to evaluate the long-term transboundary exchange of pollution inEurope. Consequently, the choice of the domain and resolution of the EMEP models has beendetermined by the physical and chemical processes involved in transboundary air pollution.

For some time it has been recognized that persistent airborne pollutants may be transported oververy long distances and affect remote environments. However, over the last decade there has beenincreasing evidence that air pollution problems traditionally considered as local or regional such astropospheric ozone and fine particles are linked to physical and chemical processes that take place athemispheric and global scales. This evidence has been taken into account in EMEP by linking globaland regional air pollution models and through the evaluation of the choice of boundary conditions.

At the same time, the increased interest on the human health impacts of air pollution imposes im-portant constraints to the development of environmental policies for the next few years. Local airpollution problems are expected to be part of future regional air pollution control strategies and thetransboundary component of local air pollution needs to be identified. Therefore regional air pollu-tion models should be linked to local dispersion models.

This chapter summarises recent progress made in the linking of hemispheric, regional and localair pollution at EMEP/MSC-W by presenting the conclusions discussed in Jonson et al. (2001) andEMEP Note 2/2001. These initial studies analyse the influence of resolution in ozone formation.They show that appropiate low resolution models can provide comparable results to higher resolu-tion models, in particular for ozone mean values and AOT40 calculations. It is also shown that higherresolution models generally simulate higher ozone peaks and stronger responses to NOx and VOCcontrol.

1.1 Linking hemispheric and regional scale modelling

There are clear signs that ozone has been increasing in the free troposphere in most parts on theNorthern Hemisphere Logan et al. (1999). However, the increase may have leveled off in the lastdecade. According to Oltmans et al. (1998) there has been a slowing or cessation of the ozone in-crease that was observed in previous decades. A plausible explanation for this decrease could be adecline in CO concentrations Novelli et al. (1998). There are also speculations that the slowing ofthe increase in ozone in the free troposphere could be caused by a reduction in the flux from the

2 EMEP SUMMARY REPORT 2001

stratosphere. If this is the case, the expected recovery of the ozone layer may result in a furtherincrease in the free troposphere in the decades to come.

An interesting question from the point of view of environmental control is how free troposphericozone changes may affect surface ozone levels. There is general agreement that frontal motions andcloud ventilation processes related with synoptic weather systems can transport air pollution overlong distances and may affect surface pollution levels. However, there is no scientific consensus yeton the actual extent of this impact. The actual significance of free tropospheric ozone for surfacelevels depends strongly on the model assumptions for exchange between the surface layer and thefree troposphere and is still under discussion.

Figure 1.1: Predicted differences in surface ozone levels between 2010 and 1996 as estimated byJonson et al. (2001). Decreases of surface ozone over Europe are mostly related to the envisagedreduction of European emissions of ozone precursors.

In Jonson et al. (2001) the Eulerian EMEP Photo-oxidant model is coupled to the global chem-ical transport model from the University of Oslo (CTM2). The models are used to evaluate theinfluence of long-range Northern Hemispheric transport of ozone in European surface ozone levelsfor different emission scenarios (1996 and 2010). Both models predict a general increase of freetropospheric ozone levels in 2010 with respect to 1996. At surface level, however, the two modelspredict a general decrease of ozone levels in Europe (see Figures 1.1and 1.2). In these estimates, asin Collins et al. (2000), the increase in free tropospheric ozone has been attributed to a rapid increasein emissions of ozone precursors in parts of Asia. However, the increase of Asian emissions is notnecessarily as large as first estimated. Recent studies indicate that the increase in emissions in Asiahas begun to level off, partly due to the recent economic setback in the region and partly because newtechnology has been implemented Amann, M. (2000). Even in the less favorable scenario, where free

Linking hemispheric-regional and -local air pollution 3

Figure 1.2: Predicted increase in free tropospheric ozone in 2010 with respect to 1996 as estimatedby Jonson et al. (2001).

tropospheric ozone levels can be globally increased by 13%, both the Eulerian EMEP model and theCTM2 model predict European emission reductions to be effective in reducing exceedances to ozonethreshold levels in Europe. It is also shown that the general increase in free tropospheric values gen-erally implies an increase in surface level ozone but at such increase is smaller than the changes insurface level ozone derived from European emission reductions.

Although the general conclusions from the two models are similar, the EMEP Eulerian model isable to resolve significant regional variations. The use of a finer grid resolution allows the regionalmodel to describe European scale non-linearities in ozone production. Thus, for example, the EMEPmodel is able to describe ozone level increases in 2010 in northern western Europe (high NOx ar-eas) due to planned NOx emission reductions, and surface ozone decreases in central, eastern andsouthern Europe where NOx emissions are not as high. This is not possible with the coarser gridresolution of the global CTM2 model that predicts an overall decrease of surface ozone levels inEurope. European NOx emissions are better resolved by the regional Eulerian model, this giveshigher NOx concentrations at surface levels and therefore lower ozone values as NOx acts as a sinkto ozone through the titration reaction. Scale resolution differences are believed to be the reason forthe different performances of the two models as these share the same chemical scheme.

Further studies on the choice and influence of lateral boundary conditions are already in progress atEMEP/MSC-W in collaboration with the University of Oslo and the Joint Research Centre and willbe reported in due time. Co-operation and exchange of information with global modelling groupswill be most useful to continue to investigate the linkages between regional and global air pollution


and their relation to climate change. Initiatives like the recent workshop on “Photo-oxidants, Par-ticles and Haze across the Arctic and the North Atlantic: Transport, Observations and Models” aremost welcome in this respect. It is also expected that the newly initiated Intercontinental Transportand Chemical Transformation (ITCT) project under the International Global Atmospheric ChemistryProject (IGAC) would contribute to improve the coordination of international scientific efforts atglobal and regional scale.

Figure 1.3: Modelled time evolution of the ozone peak value. Simulations with 50x50km2 grid res-olution (black), 10x10km2 grid resolution (blue) and 4x4 km2 grid resolution (red). Upper panel (a)shows simulated peaks, lower panel (b) shows ozone peak values when all simulations are aggregatedto 50x50km2 resolution.


Figure 1.4: 40% reduction of NOx emissions from Milan. Modelled time evolution of the changesin ozone peak value. Simulations with 50x50km2 grid resolution (black), 10x10km2 grid resolution(blue) and 4x4 km2 grid resolution (red). Upper panel (a) shows differences in simulated peaks,lower panel (b) shows averaged differences in peak values when all simulations are aggregated to50x50km2 resolution.

1.2 Linking regional and urban scale pollution

Following the discussion above on the optimal resolution to describe responses to pollution controlpollution, this section summarizes part of the findings reported in Thunis (2001). Only the analysisof the expected changes in the response of ozone to NOx and VOC emission control in urban areasis presented here. The goal is to investigate grid resolution effects in the response of ozone to NOxemission control and VOC emission control in order to determine which resolution is necessary tosimulate the relevant processes in air quality around cities.


Figure 1.5: 40% reduction of VOC emissions from Milan. Modelled time evolution of the changesin ozone peak value. Simulations with 50km2 grid resolution (black), 10km2 grid resolution (blue)and 4 km2 grid resolution (red). Upper panel (a) shows differences in simulated peaks, lower panel(b) shows averaged differences in peak values when all simulations are aggregated to 50x50km2

resolution

To address these questions, the TAPOM model used at the Joint Research Center has been set upfor different spatial resolutions ranging from 50 to 4 km. The grid resolutions in the model havebeen selected to be characteristic of regional (50x50km2) and urban scale models (4x4 km2). Allother parameters are identical in the model simulations so that the differences presented below aredue only to differences in grid resolution. At present, the simulations cover one single episode forthe city of Milan for the particular episode occurring on May 13th 1998, so that extrapolations of theconclusions to other situations should only be made with extreme care.


Figure1.3 shows the time evolution of maximum ozone value during the simulations. The coarserresolution simulation underestimates the values of the ozone peak values by ˜20% with respect to theother estimates. The finer the grid resolution, the higher are the ozone peak values that are simulated.Note that the position of the ozone peaks changes over time, following the ozone plume through themodel domain. It is also interesting to note that the simulations with 10x10km2 resolution and thesimulations with 4x4km2 resolution give very similar results. The lower panel shows spatially aver-aged results. When ozone peaks values are spatially averaged to the coarser resolution (50x50km2),the largest ozone peak values are overestimated by the coarser resolution. This is probably due to alarger dilution of the NOx emissions in coarse grids that favors O3 production. All three simulationsgive very similar results when averaged over a the 50x50km2 resolution grid.

Similar conclusions are drawn for AOT40 and AOT60. Differences between the three model resultsare not larger than 14% for AOT40 and 26% for AOT60. In all cases, differences between ozone peakvalues at 10x10km2 and 4x4km2 show differences smaller than 10%. It appears that a 10x10 km2

resolution could be sufficient to reproduce accurately both O3 peaks and AOT-40 and AOT-60 valuesunder the special conditions of this episode. Significant differences are only observed for AOT100.On the other hand, the 50x50km2 resolution produces similar results to the higher resolution sim-ulations for spatially averaged O3 concentrations and for AOT-40 calculations whereas differencesbetween the model resolutions become more significant ( larger that 25%) when considering AOT-60or AOT-100.

The effects of reducing NOx emissions in the city of Milan by 40% are depicted in Figure 1.4.It is interesting to note that both positive and negative responses to NOx control are very similar forthe three simulations when ozone peaks are averaged over the 50x50km2 grid resolution. Otherwise,the finer grid simulations tend to predict stronger changes in ozone peaks and AOT40 than the coarsergrid simulations. This is particularly the case for the “negative” effects of NOx control, where thefiner grid resolution produces very large ozone increases. Increases in ozone due to NOx emissionreductions are mainly observed in and around Milan, whereas decreases are observed further awayfrom the city, around the Lake region. Again, the ozone reduction by the titration reaction in highNOx regions is accentuated when using finer grid resolution, as NOx is less diluted in these simula-tions.

Figure 1.5 show the decrease in ozone peak concentrations when VOC emissions from the city ofMilan are reduced by 40%. The positive effects of VOC control are again much more pronouncedwith the finer grid resolution simulations. Coarser grids tend therefore to underestimate the impactof a VOC emission reduction with respect to finer grids. Again, the results for averaged grids arevery similar for all resolutions.

1.3 References

Amann, M., 2000, Emission inventories, emission control options and control strategies: Anoverview of recent developments, In Proceedings of Acid Rain conference, Tsukula, Japan.

Collins, W.J., Stevenson, D.S., Johnson, C.E., and Derwent, R.G , 2000, The European regionolozone distribution and its links with the global scale for the years 1992 and 2015, AtmosphericEnvironment, in press.

Jonson, J.E., Sundet, J.K., and l.Tarrason, 2001, Model calculations of present and future levels ofozone and ozone precursors with a global and a regional model., Atmospheric Environment, 35,525–537.


Logan, J.A , Megretskaia, I.A., Miller, A.J., Tiao, G.C., Choi, D., Chang, L., Bishop, L., Stolarski, R.,Labow, G.J., Hollandsworth, S.M., Bodeker, G.E., Claude, H., DeMuer, D., Kerr, J.B., Tarasick,D.W., Oltmans, S.J., Johnson, B., Schmidlin, F., Staehelin, J., Viatte, P., and Uchin, O., 1999,Trends in the vertical distribution of ozone: a comparison of two analyses of ozonesonde data, J.Geophys. Res., 104, 26373–26399.

Novelli, C., Masarie, K.A., and Lang, P.M., 1998, Distributions and recent changes of carbonmonoxide in the lower troposphere, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 19,015–19,033.

Oltmans, S.J., Lefohn, A.S., Scheel, H.E., Harris, J.M., Levy, H., Galbally, I.E , Brunke, E.-G.,Meyer, C.P., Lathrop, J.A., Johnson, B.J., Shadwick, D.S., Cuevas, E., Schmidlin, F.J., Tarasick,D.W., H.Claude, Kerr, J.B., Uchino, O., and Mohnen, V., 1998, Trends in ozone in the tropo-sphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 139–142.

Thunis, P., 2001, The influence of scale in modelled ground level ozone, Norwegian MeteorologicalInstitute, Oslo, Research Report No. 57.

Chapter 2

IIASA-DNMI and MERLIN: twoapproaches to optimizing emissioncontrol

Leonor Tarrason, David Simpson, Markus Amann, Janusz Cofala, Rainer Friedrich and StefanReis

Earlier this year, on May 4th 2001, the European Commission adopted the official Communi-cation announcing and describing the new Clean Air For Europe (CAFE) program. CAFE has thegeneral aim of developing long-term strategic and integrated policy to protect against the effects ofair pollution on human health and the environment. Although the major priorities identified for thenext phase of EU’s air quality policy relate to particulate matter and ozone, CAFE also aims to ad-dress problems of acidification, eutrophication and material damage.

Both the UN/ECE Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) and CAFEhave recognized the need to create and maintain strong structural links to ensure cooperation andcoordination between the technical analysis work carried out under the two programs. Structurallinks have been established (ECE/EB.AIR/71) and the technical work to support the developmentof future policy work has already been initiated. The time frame of the CAFE program coincideswith the envisaged revision of the Gothenburg Protocol by 2004. Therefore, the next few years offera unique possibility for scientific cooperation to improve the underlying knowledge used in policydevelopment. Among others, two projects have been identified as potentially significant contributorsto the scientific work under this process. These are:

1. The IIASA-DNMI contract contribution to CAFE

2. The MERLIN project

Both projects address the development of integrated assessment frameworks to support the air qualitypolicies in Europe but propose different approaches. This chapter shortly describes the main simi-larities and differences between the projects and explores how they can be best conducted in a com-plementary manner. It shows that the IIASA-DNMI contribution to CAFE is at present mainly con-cerned with the inclusion of urban scale pollution in the framework economic of cost-effectiveness.The MERLIN project investigates in addition the advantages of introducing a cost-benefit approachin integrated assessment. This implies the inclusion of an economical assessment for the environ-mental goals. The participants from both projects are aware of the need to coordinate their effortsand avoid duplication of work. The fact that the EMEP/MSC-W modeling team is involved in bothprojects facilitates the exchange of information and coordination between the projects and their linksto the CLRTAP work. It is shown here how both projects can benefit from each other and how their


added contributions can best support the strategy discussion on the development European air qualitypolicies.

2.1 Two different integrated assessment approaches

Integrated assessment supports the development of emission control strategies to reduce the impactof air pollution. The idea is to combine the present understanding on driving forces for emissions,atmospheric dispersion and transport processes, evaluation of impact and effects, with an evalua-tion of the costs involved to reduce emissions. Studies for integrated assessment include emissionmodels, atmospheric transport models, effects indicators and optimization models and combine thesewith an analysis of the costs involved. Integrated assessment models combine this information in acommon framework, including the optimizing capability. There are various possibilities to define theoptimization process in integrated assessment, for instance:

cost-effectiveness will provide an analysis on how to reach a defined

environmental target at minimum costs.

cost-benefit assessment will balance the costs of reducing emissions with

the advantages of reducing their impact.

uncertainty assessment will analyze the emission reduction measures which

provide the minimum uncertainty on the attainment

of the environmental targets.

How the optimization process is to be driven is a political choice. Since the 2nd Sulphur Proto-col, effect-based European policies have been based on a cost-effectiveness optimization approach.This applies in particular to EC National Emission Ceilings Directive and the Gothenburg Protocol.Although there is much room for improvement in the cost-effectiveness approach, the revision ofthe present air quality policies in Europe should also consider the possibility of introducing alter-native optimization approaches. It is probably too difficult at present to introduce an uncertaintybased approach because the determination of uncertainties in integrated assessment is still prelim-inary. However, the scientific development on cost-benefit assessment allows a discussion on thepossibility of using this type of optimization.

Table 2.1 lists the main similarities and differences between the IIASA-DNMI contract and the MER-LIN project. The scope of the projects is very similar, both dealing with the analysis of measuresaffecting different air pollutants and different effects. We have identified three significant differencesbetween the projects.

One substantial difference is the fact that MERLIN project includes macro-economic effects andcost-benefit assessment in the optimization. This means that in MERLIN there is an economic eval-uation of the benefit of reducing the environmental impact of the air pollutants. In this respect, thecomparison of the results from these two projects can provide a scientific basis for the political dis-cussion on which optimization process should be applied to future European air quality policies.

Another substantial difference is the approach chosen for determination of cost-effectiveness.While the IIASA-RAINS model considers the cost-curves in a country-by-country basis, the MERLIN-OMEGA-2 system considers abatement measures in a sector-by-sector basis. Both approaches arevalid and complement each other. Other differences, like the inclusion of greenhouse gases andheavy metals in the pollutant analysis or the inclusion of material damage in the analysis of effects,are not substantial in nature, as both modelling systems are in principle prepared to deal with these.The actual improvement for integrated assessment models is to have the possibility of choosing be-tween optimization based on country cost-curves or on individual sector-measure costs. Once themethodology has been developed, the basic assumptions and transfer matrices remain available for

IIASA

-DN

MI

andM

ER

LIN

11

IIASA-DNMI contract MERLIN project

Funding Body DG Environment DG ResearchTime frame 2001-2003 2001-2003

Partners International Institute for Applied University of Stuttgart (IER, coordinator)System Analysis (IIASA, coordinator) University College London

Norwegian Meteorological Institute Norwegian Meteorological InstituteJoint Research Center- Environmental Institute Institute for Ecology in Industrial Areas

Ecofys B.V.Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Pollutants SO2, NOx, NH3, VOC, CO, PM SO2, NOx, NH3, VOC, CO, PMCO2, CH4, N2O, HM

Effects Health, acidification, eutrophication, crops and forests Health, acidification, eutrophication, crops and forestsmaterial damage

Years 2000-2020 2000-2020Emissions IIASA- EMEP/CORINAIR EMEP/CORINAIR

Atmospheric transport Regional model : EMEP/MSC-W Regional model: EMEP/MSC-W (extended to HM for MERLIN)Urban model: JRC-EI (TAPOM) Urban model: AUT (OFIS and EZM)

Inter-comparison studyTransfer matrices country -to-grid sector-to -grid

Optimization RAINS OMEGA-2Cost effectiveness YES, country cost curves YES, individual abatement measures

Macro economic effects NO YESBenefit assessment NO YES, ECOSENSE

Table2.1:

Main

similarities

anddifferences

between

theIIA

SA

-DN

MI

contractand

theM

ER

LIN

projectforintegrated

assessment

modeling

inE

urope.


all integrated assessment models operative in Europe, and thus the complementarity of these contri-butions is generally beneficial to European policy discussions.

The third substantial difference concerns the inclusion of urban air quality in integrated assess-ment. MERLIN proposes to assess the impact of regional air quality control strategies in urban areasby coupling two different types of urban models with a regional scale model. The IIASA-DNMIcontribution explores instead the needs and requirements for extending the concepts of integratedassessment in urban areas and analyses the benefits of coupling urban and regional models. In col-laboration with the Joint Research Center (JRC) at Ispra, the project provides a coordinated forum fordiscussion through the proposal of a European-wide city modelling inter-comparison. The goal is tocompare responses to emission changes at urban and regional scales and establish the significance ofthese responses for European environmental policies. It is envisaged that the urban modelling teamin MERLIN will participate in the city model inter-comparison coordinated by JRC and benefit fromthe discussion on urban integrated assessment carried out under the IIASA-DNMI contract.

In summary, the two projects complement each other in their cost-effectiveness analysis. MER-LIN provides a different approach with cost-benefit assessment and the two projects can benefitfrom each other in the development of requirements for urban integrated assessment. Their envis-aged added contributions, together with the work on emission scenarios and integrated assessmentcarried out by the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the work by modelling groups andstake-holders at national level, should provide a solid basis for the revision of European air qualitystrategies.

2.2 IIASA-DNMI contract

The IIASA-DNMI contract under LOT10 “Preparatory actions in the public health and environmentalpolicy sector” focuses on cost-effective strategies for reducing health impacts caused by fine partic-ulate matter. This includes an analysis of the interactions of particles with other pollutants such asozone and sulphur dioxide. It also involves the assessment of interactions between regional and ur-ban air pollution and proposes to coordinate the identification of relevant approaches for the revisionof air quality control strategies in Europe. Progress reports and information on this project can befound at http://www.iiasa.ac.at/˜rains/index.html.

Cost-effectiveness in RAINS

Cost-effectiveness is calculated at IIASA with the RAINS model. The project aims at extending theanalytical capabilities of the RAINS model by carrying out a systematic study of non-linearities inthe air concentrations of primary and secondary components of Particulate Matter due to changes inprimary emissions of particles and precursor gases. Regional air concentration fields are calculatedwith the EMEP/MSC-W model developed at DNMI.

Different emissions scenarios are used as a basis to derive source-receptor relationships and arecalculated on a country-by-country basis for the RAINS model. Non-linear responses in air con-centrations due to emission changes are mainly due to the complexity (non-linearity) of atmosphericphoto-chemistry and to a lesser degree to the numerical treatment of atmospheric transport and dis-persion. The systematic analysis of these non-linear responses serve to identify critical interactionson the impacts and in relation to atmospheric processes thus improving the reliability of the mod-els used in integrated assessment. They also will allow the development at IIASA of a statisticalproxy-model that simulates atmospheric transport in the RAINS model.

IIASA-DNMI and MERLIN 13

The inclusion of urban air quality

In collaboration with the Joint Research Center (JRC) at Ispra, the project proposes an Europeanwide city modelling inter-comparison. The goal is to determine what type of emission reductionmeasures are most significant to reduce both ozone and particulate matter exposure in cities. A firststep is to identify how important is the regional scale contribution to urban air quality. Then, a secondstep is to analyze what type of additional emission reductions are necessary in cities. This requiresa systematic analysis of the interactions between chemistry and transport at different scales and aninterpretation of the non-linear responses to emission changes. Therefore, the approach adopted forthe city model inter-comparison is an evaluation of responses to emission changes.

Urban and regional modelled concentrations are not to be primarily analyzed against observationsas is often the case in modelling inter-comparison studies. The different models will be comparedinstead in terms of how the modelled concentrations respond to emission changes. In this way, therobustness of the modelled responses to emission changes can be identified and a qualification of theexpected uncertainties from atmospheric modelling can be determined. JRC is presently working onthe selection of the temporal and spatial coverage of the inter-comparison to allow a discussion onthe European representativeness of the results.

It is desirable that the urban modelling team in MERLIN participates in this city model inter-comparison coordinated by JRC. The statistical capability of the OFIS model to provide long-termsimulations and the possibilities of the Eulerian mesoscale approach from the European ZoomingModel (EZM) will be much useful in the discussion of the European representativeness of the re-sults. At the same time, it is expected that the participants from MERLIN will benefit from theunderlying discussion on urban integrated assessment carried out under this IIASA-DNMI contract.

2.3 MERLIN Project

The MERLIN project (Multi-pollutant, Multi-Effect Assessment of European Air Pollution Con-trol Strategies: an Integrated Approach) aims at the development and application of methodologiesand tools for integrated assessment in Europe. These methodologies will be implemented both forcost-effectiveness and for cost-benefit assessment, thus allowing for comparison of these two ap-proaches. More information on the MERLIN can be found in the project web site at http://www.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/merlin

Cost-effectiveness in MERLIN

Cost-effectiveness is determined in MERLIN with the help of the optimization model OMEGA-2.There are a series of differences between OMEGA-2 and the RAINS optimization module. The mostimportant difference is in the way that abatement measures are evaluated and taken into accountin the optimization process. While RAINS uses country-specific abatement cost curves, MERLINanalyses the costs of individual technologies. The optimization approach in MERLIN is an iterativeassessment based on abatement measures that can be both technical or non-technical.

Both OMEGA-2 and RAINS use long term source-receptor relationships calculated with the EMEP/MSC-W chemical transports models. However these source-receptor relationships are not the samefor both cases but require a separate evaluation of the model responses to emission changes. The re-sulting two sets of source-receptor relationships complement each other and allow a cross-examinationof the present understanding of the non-linear responses from chemical and physical processes toemission changes. They provide also a relevant input to the evaluation of the differences betweenregional and urban scale responses to emission changes. As stated before, MERLIN can benefit fromthe discussion on urban scale integrated assessment envisaged under the IIASA-DNMI contract and


can contribute to it with the analysis of European cities carried out by the OFIS and EZN (EuropeanZooming Model) models from the University of Thessaloniki.

In MERLIN, measures to reduce greenhouse gases are explicitly analyzed. An analysis of syner-gies with greenhouse gas emission reduction has also been investigated by IIASA/RAINS model inprevious studies. As many measures reduce greenhouse gases as well as other pollutants, it is inter-esting to note that both modelling approaches have developed methodologies to include the study ofsynergies with climate change.

The inclusion of material damage and heavy metals analysis complete the study proposed in theMERLIN project. These inclusions require additional effort on the evaluation of indicators for ma-terial damage and on the upgrading of the EMEP/MSC-W chemical transport model to derive theatmospheric dispersion of lead, cadmium and mercury. Such advances in the methodological toolscan be easily incorporated by other integrated assessment models and in this way MERLIN cancontribute to the further development of the RAINS model.

Cost-benefit assessment in MERLIN

The basic difference between the two approaches is the fact that MERLIN includes a cost-benefitassessment and an economic evaluation of the abatement measures. This implies that the analysis inMERLIN will balance the costs of reducing emissions with the economical advantages of reducingtheir impact. A further special feature of the project is the inclusion of macro economic effects. Bycoupling OMEGA-2 to a partial equilibrium model, some statements on the impacts of abatementstrategies on unemployment and on economic growth in the different countries can be made. Fur-thermore, the impacts of pollution control strategies on income distribution can be investigated. Themacro economic impacts derived from the cost of air pollution control in each country can be de-termined in MERLIN by using a complex tool called ECOSENSE, developed at IER (University ofStuttgart). In this way, MERLIN will bring the possibility to consider an alternative approach to thewell established cost-effectiveness policy and provide a scientific basis for the strategy discussionsfor the revision of air quality policies by 2004.

Chapter 3

Transposition from Lagrangian toEulerian models in EMEP

Leonor Tarrason, Hilde Fagerli, Anne-Gunn Hjellbrekke, Asmund Ukkelberg and MaximilianPosch

In 1999, the EMEP/MSC-W 3-dimensional Eulerian models were used for the first time to esti-mate the source allocation of transboundary air pollution in Europe. Since then, the performanceof the Eulerian models has been further tested and first analysis of the differences between the Eu-lerian and Lagrangian EMEP models have been presented. There are two Lagrangian models (onefor acid deposition, one for photo-oxidants) and two Eulerian models (one for acid deposition alsocalled MADE-50 and one for photo-oxidants also called MACHO). This chapter summarizes themain differences and similarities of these models in terms of their model formulation, their modelperformance, their derived source-receptor relationships and the resulting critical load exceedances.

It is shown here how the Lagrangian and Eulerian EMEP dispersion models produce similar source-allocation patterns in Europe and similar long-term results on the importance of transboundary fluxes.The most significant differences introduced by the refined resolution of the Eulerian models are:

� for acidification and eutrophication, the higher resolution Eulerian results increase the totalallocated depositions in Europe, with the consequence of increasing the predicted critical loadexceedances.

� for ground level ozone, the higher resolution Eulerian model generally predicts stronger re-sponses to NOx or VOC control.

These results imply that the Lagrangian EMEP models have provided a reassuring conservative esti-mate of transboundary regional exchange and its consequences. On the other hand, the 3D Eulerianmodels can better identify the position of “hot spots” and the responses to determinate control mea-sures in different areas in Europe.

3.1 Main differences in model formulation

The Lagrangian and the Eulerian EMEP models at MSC-W differ mostly in their numerical struc-ture. This involves primarily their spatial and vertical resolution. While the Lagrangian models use ahorizontal grid of 150x150 km2 and have one single vertical layer corresponding to the mixing layer,the Eulerian models have a spatial resolution which is three times finer (50x50km2) and resolve thetroposphere up to 100 hPa in 20 vertical layers.

Table 3.1 summarizes the main differences between the two EMEP acid deposition models. It is


worth mentioning that the two models use meteorological input from different numerical weatherprediction models. An overview description of the different meteorological models used in EMEP isgiven in Lenschow and Tsyro (2000). Other significant differences between the two acid depositionmodels are: a) the partitioning between nitric acid and nitrate in the chemical scheme, b) the treat-ment of wet phase chemistry and wet deposition of sulphur and c) the choice of surface resistancesand local deposition factors which are only used in the Lagrangian Acid Deposition Model.

The latest complete description of the Lagrangian acid deposition model can be found in the ap-pendix of EMEP/MSC-W Report 1/98. The same report contains also an appendix with a detaileddescription of the Eulerian acid deposition model (also called MADE-50) while the latest updates inthe Eulerian acid deposition model formulation are reported in Olendrzynski (2000).

Table 3.2 briefly summarizes the similarities and differences between the EMEP Photo-oxidantmodels. The models use similar chemistry schemes, both originally developed at the University ofOslo but that have diverged in time, particularly in their reaction pathways. The most significant dif-ferences are the photolysis schemes and the isoprene chemistries. The Lagrangian model uses photol-ysis rates based on the UK photochemical trajectory model (Derwent et al., 1996, Jenkin et al., 1997)while the Eulerian photo-oxidant model uses considerable higher photolysis rates following the rec-ommendations from DeMore et al. (1997). It is important to realize that the two chemical schemeshave never been tested against each other.

Other significant differences between the models are: a) the more detailed treatment of emissionsin the Lagrangian model and b) the treatment of boundary conditions. The Lagrangian modeluses boundary conditions based mainly on measured data whereas the Eulerian model uses bound-ary conditions derived from the global chemical transport (CTM) model of the University of Oslo(Sundet, 1997). A detailed description of both models can be found in EMEP/MSC-W Report 2/98and references within.

3.2 Models performance against observations

It is characteristic of EMEP to qualify the validity of its conclusions by regular comparison of themodelling results against observations. This contributes to assess the scientific soundness of the re-sults and allows the continuous improvement of the modelling tools. The progress with the EMEPmodels has been extensively documented and verified since the beginning of the programme. The lat-est EMEP model validation results can be found in Olendrzynski (2000), Tarrason and Schaug (1999)and Solberg et al. (2000). Earlier comparisons of the Lagrangian and Eulerian model performancesagainst observations can be found in Bartnicki and Tarrason (1998), Simpson and Jonson (1998).Only main conclusions from these inter-comparisons are summarised in the following.

Photo-oxidant models

1. The performance of the Eulerian EMEP photo-oxidant model is comparable to that of theLagrangian model both with respect to ozone and carbon monoxide (CO).

2. For aldehyde concentrations, however, the correlation with measured values are in generalsomewhat better for the Lagrangian model. Since aldehydes are directly linked to the atmo-spheric chemical conditions, the somewhat higher correlations of the Lagrangian model sug-gest that the chemical reaction mechanism applied in the Lagrangian model may give a betterdescription than the one used in the Eulerian model.

3. The Eulerian model shows generally higher correlations with ozone measurements.

Transposition

fromL

agrangianto

Eulerian

models

inE

ME

P17

��

� � � ��

� � � �! � � �� "� � � � � �

#$ $ � � % �� &� � " �$ � ' � �� (� � ( � )* �,+ �.- � �� / � � � (� � )* �� /

0 � � � � � � � � � ! � � � �$ � � � 0 �- � � 0� � � � 0 �- � �1 � � 0 + � � 234 54 678 6 9:; 8 5 : <; 8 7 =4 68 : >3? @ : 3A =B ; 8 @

C B =: 6 C 6 5; 5 63 8 D E FG H F 2JI E K : 3A =B4 >; B 7 =B ; B =; D�� $ � � # � � � L � 0 �� # � � � L � 0 ��

0� � + M 0� � + M

� (� � �� " � � ! (� � � ! � � ! �� $ � �� N ! (� � � ! � � ! �� $ � �� O 6 P =B =8 : =4 68 5 < = 5 B =; 5Q =8 5 3 R C; B 5 6:? >; 5 =8 6 5 B; 5 =

; 8 @ 68 7 ; 4 ; 8 @S = 5 C <; 4 = : < =Q 64 5 BT 3 R4 ? > C <? B DM� � & � $ �� ! �U � � � � � � � � �� ! �U � � � � � � � � ��V � �+ ! � �� & O 6 P =B =8 : =4 68 S = 5 @ = C 34 6 5 63 8 3 R4 ? > C <; 5 =

� � & � � %+ ! � �� & ' � � � � �� WX 3 8 4 3 8 ; 8 @Y =B 7 =[Z \] ]^ _

� � " & � $ �� 1 � � �� ! � � �� " 1 � � �� ! � � �� " O 6 P =B =8 : =4 68 5 < = 6Q C > =Q =8 5; 5 63 8 3 R4 ? B R; : =

B =4 64 5; 8 : =4 W X ; `3 a4 =8 = 5; > D Z \] ] b _ Dc3 >3 :; > @ = C 34 6 5 63 8 R; : 53 B4 68 d? > =B 6; 8 Q 3 @ = > De �� &� � " ! � � & � � � � �� ! � � � � �� ! � �

� � � � ( � "U � � �� ( � "U � � �� O 6 P =B =8 5 6Q C > =Q =8 5; 5 63 8 4

� � # � �f � � � � � � � �� ' � � * g ( �� * h gi ( �� j G Fk lm dnZ \o C B 3 : =4 4 3 B4

� "� � � � �� ! � � � � � ! � � � � � N ( �� h ! ��

Table3.1:

Main

similarities

anddifferences

between

theL

agrangianand

Eulerian

EM

EP

aciddepo-

sitionm

odels(B

artnickiandTarrason,1998).

18E

ME

PSU

MM

AR

YR

EP

OR

T2001

pq rs rut rvw x yz s { |} ~� }� ~ �}� �� }� ��

q � � �� } � � � � � ��

�� } � �}� � � � � ��

�� } �� s � � � � � � � �� ~ �� ~ � � �� p} ��

�� t ��

� � � � � � �� ~ �� } � �� x z w ¡ | y �� x z w ¡ | y �� ¢£¤ ¥ ¦ §¨© ª« ¤ ¦¤ ¬ ¬ ª ¬® §¨© ª § ¥¯° ¦ « ¬ £¤ ª±

¤ ²¨¤ ¯ ¦ ³ ¬ ¤ ± ¬ ª° ¦ § ¬ ¥

� � �� z � � � ´ � � p � z � � � ´ � � p µ § ¶¤ ¤ ¥ ¨¤ ± §« ¯ ª¤ « ¤ ¥ ¦© ¦ § ¬ ¥ ± ¬ ³ ±¤ ¨ ¦ ¬ ± ¯ ª § ¦

{ �t · {�ut · © ¥£ ¦¤ « ¯ ¬© ª¸ © §© ¦ § ¬ ¥ ±

¹ �� ~�� t º» �� ~� �t º» �� ~� ¼½ §« ¯ ± ¬ ¥¤ ¦© ªn¾¿ ÀÁ ÁÂ Ã

� �� t �� t �� Ä ¬ ¥ ± §£¤ © Å ª¤ £ § ¶¤ ¤ ¥¨¤ ± § ¥ ¦ Æ¤ ¯ Æ ¬ ¦ ¬ ªÇ ± § ±

� »� � � } � � �� È È � � } � � �� ± ¨ Æ¤ « ¤ ± © ¥£ § ¥ ¦ Æ¤ § ± ¬¯ ¤ ¥¤ ¨ Æ¤ « § ± ¦ §¤ ± ¾É É � � � � � � � �� Ê Æ¤ Ë© ® © ¥ ® §© ¥ « ¬ £ ¤ ª £ ¬¤ ± ¥ ¬ ¦ § ¥¨ ª° £ ¤

© « « ¬ ¥ §©

·� � � � � � � � � �� { � }Ì �� ~ �� ~ � } � �� { � }Ì �� ~ �� ~ � } � �� µ § ¶¤ ¤ ¥ ¨¤ ± § ¥Í ¤ ¦ £ ¤ ¯ ¬ ± § ¦ § ¬ ¥ ¬ ³ ±° ª¯ Æ© ¦¤

�� t � �� }� � � � �t � �� ¼Î ¬ ¥ ± ¬ ¥© ¥£ Ï¤ ®¤ ¿ ÀÁ Á Â Ã

x �� Ð� � �� } � � � }� } �� ~� Ð� � �� }� � � } � } �� ~� µ § ¶¤ ¤ ¥ ¨¤ ± § ¥ ¦ Æ¤ §« ¯ ª¤ « ¤ ¥ ¦© ¦ § ¬ ¥ ¬ ³

±° ³© ¨¤ ¤ ± § ± ¦© ¥¨¤ ±

¹� � � �} �� } �� ~ �� } � � � � �} �� ~ �� } �

�� } � � � � � �} � � � �� Ì } �� ~ �� } � �s µ § ¶¤ ¤ ¥ ¦ §« ¯ ª¤ « ¤ ¥ ¦© ¦ § ¬ ¥ ±

� p � � �Ñ � � � � �� É � �� º �� ÄÒ ÓÔ ÊÕ Ö¿ À× ¯ ¬ ¨¤ ± ± ¬ ±

É �� Ø� � � � � �

Table3.2:

Main

similarities

anddifferences

between

theL

agrangianand

Eulerian

EM

EP

Photo-oxidantm

odels(Sim

psonand

Jonson,1998).

4.For

ozone,V

OC

andC

O,

theE

ulerianm

odelperform

sbetter

thanthe

Lagrangian

model

inm

eteorologicalsituations

characterisedby

anticyclonicflow

orw

indshear

situations,as

areoften

foundin

Mediterranean

areas.T

heE

ulerianm

odelis

clearlysuperior

when

comparing

with

observationsatIspra.

How

ever,theam

ountofm

easurementdata

availablefrom

Mediter-

raneanareas

isstilltoo

limited

todraw

firmer

conclusions.

Transposition from Lagrangian to Eulerian models in EMEP 19

Component Observed L E L E L E

Mean Mean Mean Rel. Bias Rel. Bias Annual Annual

(µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) correlation correlation

SO2 1.79 2.05 2.16 +14% +21% 84% 82%SO2 Ù

4 1.04 1.18 0.64 +13% -37% 80% 76%

NO2 1.96 1.16 1.94 -41% -1% 70% 69%HNO3 +NO Ù

3 0.5 1.11 0.36 +122% -28% 90% 81%NH3+NH Ú4 1.48 1.02 1.04 -31% -27% 82% 83%

(mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)

SO2 Ù4 (l) 0.60 0.51 0.46 -15% -23% 61% 60%

NO Ù3 (l) 0.40 0.37 0.27 -10% -33% 69% 72%

NH Ú4 (l) 0.50 0.34 0.32 -32% -35% 75% 70%

Table 3.3: 1996 Eulerian acid deposition model (E) against Lagrangian acid deposition model(L) performance against observations from the EMEP network.

Acid deposition models

1. The Eulerian acid deposition model shows comparable performance to Lagrangian model.Both models show high correlations with observations, with relative biases generally below40%. Table 3.3 summarises the comparison of model performance for 1996 with the latestupdated version of the Eulerian model.

2. Despite its much simpler parametrisation of sulphur oxidation, the Lagrangian model showsbetter correlation with sulphate observations both in air and precipitation. This may be causedby an insufficient oxidation of SO2 in the aqueous phase in the Eulerian models and concernsboth the acid deposition and the photo-oxidant versions of the model.

3. The Eulerian acid deposition model performance is better for NO2. The Lagrangian model un-derestimates NO2 concentrations in air probably because it overestimates the nocturnal mixingheight. The finer vertical resolution of the Eulerian model close to the surface allows a betterdescription of the diurnal variations of the local boundary layer, giving results that agree fairlywell with observations.

4. The Eulerian model is clearly superior for total nitrate. This is probably due to a combination oftwo factors. Firstly, the models use two different parameterisations of the partitioning betweennitric acid and particulate nitrate. Secondly, the finer mesh of the Eulerian model compared tothe Lagrangian model also allows a better description of the airflow in complex terrain, whichcan be another reason for the improved results of the Eulerian model for total nitrate in air.

3.3 Main differences in source-receptor calculations

Source-receptor relationships are an essential input to emission control analysis. A comparison ofthe Lagrangian and the Eulerian photo-oxidant models behavior as a response to NOx or VOC con-trol was presented in Simpson and Jonson (1999) and updated source-receptor relationships wereincluded in last year’s EMEP Report 2/00. The main conclusions from these inter-comparisons willbe summarised below.

For acidification and eutrophication, however, this is the first time that a direct comparison of sourcereceptor matrices from the Lagrangian and Eulerian models is presented.

In 1999, source-receptor relationships for oxidized sulphur and nitrogen and reduced nitrogen, were


first calculated with the Eulerian EMEP acid deposition model for 1997 meteorological conditionsand emission values (Bartnicki, 1999). The 1997 source-receptor calculations were affected by twodifferent problems:

a) boundary conditions for sulphur and nitrogen oxides were not included, and

b) the meteorological input fields used in the 1997 calculations systematically underestimated the3-dimensional precipitation fields.

These were corrected in the 1998 source-receptor calculations for acidifying and eutrophying com-pounds Bartnicki (2000) and the same model version has been used this year to calculate 1996source-receptor matrices. The reason to chose 1996 as simulation year for the present comparisonstudy and not 1999 is that 1996 is the only year for which meteorological input fields are presentlyavailable for all chemical transport models at MSC-W. This allows for the first time a direct compar-ison of Lagrangian and Eulerian acid deposition model results.

Source-receptor matrices for sulphur and nitrogen deposition calculated with the Eulerian and theLagrangian EMEP acid deposition models are presented in Appendix A for 1996. To facilitate thecomparison between these estimates, the five largest contributors to imported and exported depositionin each country are presented as histograms in Appendix B. Four different columns are presented ineach histogram. The two broad columns in the center show the 1996 allocated depositions calculatedwith the Lagrangian and the Eulerian models. The first column to the left shows the averaged yearlyallocated deposition as calculated by the Lagrangian Acid Deposition model from 1985 to 1996. Thelast column to right shows 1998 results from the Eulerian model. These two thinner columns can beused as reference to analyze inter-annual variations.

The main conclusions derived from the above mentioned comparisons of source-receptor relation-ships are:

Û The Lagrangian and Eulerian EMEP models derive similar source allocation patterns in Eu-rope.

Û For acidification and eutrophication, the Eulerian model provides generally higher estimates ofdeposition and transboundary fluxes than the Lagrangian model and allocates a larger portionof the country emissions inside the EMEP domain.

Û For photo-oxidant pollution, the Eulerian model consistently shows larger responses than theLagrangian model to emission changes imposed by NOx or VOC control.

Similar source-allocation patterns

The country allocated calculations by the two types of models show reassuringly similar pat-terns. This applies both for acidification, eutrophication and ground level ozone. Ozone increasesand decreases in response to reductions in NOx and NMVOC emissions are similar for most coun-tries, except probably Italy where the higher performance of the Eulerian model is also able to betterdistinguish the NOx-sensitive areas in Northern Italy.

For acidification and eutrophication, the figures in Appendix B illustrate how the main contributors todeposition in each country change with emission and with the actual meteorological conditions, andthose changes are generally more significant than the type of model used in the calculations. Bothmodels indicate similar importance of the transboundary fluxes of sulphur and nitrogen in Europe.


Figure 3.1 depicts the relative contribution of transboundary pollution to the deposition in differ-ent countries in the EMEP area. The largest differences can be observed for reduced nitrogen, thecompound with the most decided local component. A combination of reasons determine these dif-ferences. On one side, the increased resolution of the Eulerian model allows to distinguish betterthe country margins and this usually results in a decreased deposition to countries with small areas(e.g. Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands). implying an increase in the relative weight of theimported deposition. On the other side, there is no indeterminate deposition of reduced nitrogen inthe Eulerian model calculations. For countries where that contribution was large in the Lagrangianmodel estimates, the Eulerian model import is considerably smaller (e.g. Iceland, Finland, RussianFederation). For reduced nitrogen, however, the most significant difference between the two modelsis the physical parametrisation of local dry deposition. The Eulerian model treats local dry depositionthrough the resistance approach whereas the Lagrangian model uses a constant local dry depositionfactor. These differences in the physical parametrisation of reduced nitrogen rather than differencesin scale of the models are believed to be the main reason for the differences shown in Figure 3.1.

The Eulerian model calculates the total deposition of sulphur in EMEP countries in 1996 to be 9.3Mtonnes(S), whereas the Lagrangian model estimates 7.0 Mtonnes(S). The Eulerian model allocatesabout 46% of the total sulphur deposition to the transboundary exchange of pollution among coun-tries. The Lagrangian model instead, allocates 62%. For total nitrogen the total Eulerian depositionin EMEP countries is estimated to be 8.8 Mtonnes(N), whereas the Lagrangian model estimates 7.4Mtonnes(N). The Eulerian model allocates about 36% of the total nitrogen deposition to the trans-boundary exchange of pollution among countries, whereas the Lagrangian model calculates 48% (seeTable 3.4).

Thus, although the Eulerian model predicts larger depositions in countries in the EMEP area, therelative contribution of transboundary exchange of sulphur and nitrogen derived by the Lagrangianmodel is larger. One of the reasons is that the Eulerian model calculates larger country-to-itself de-positions than the Lagrangian model, particularly for oxidised nitrogen and sulphur. On the otherhand, the estimates of transboundary deposition of sulphur and nitrogen in 1996 presented here aresmaller compared to those calculated with the Eulerian model for meteorological conditions in 1998Tarrason and Schaug (2000). Therefore, larger country-to-itself depositions in 1996 by the Eulerianmodel can partly be explained by interannual meteorological variability.

Model Component Emission Deposition Import ImportMtonnes Mtonnes Mtonnes Mtonnes %

Lagrange Ox. S 7.1 7.0 4.4 62Lagrange Ox. N 3.3 3.0 2.1 70Lagrange Red. N 4.6 4.4 1.4 33Lagrange Tot. N 7.9 7.4 3.5 48

Euler Ox. S 11.8 9.3 4.3 46Euler Ox. N 4.7 4.1 2.0 48Euler Red. N 5.7 4.7 1.2 26Euler Tot. N 10.4 8.8 3.2 36

Table 3.4: Emission and deposition of sulphur and nitrogen from the countries in the EMEParea. The contributions to and from sea and remaining land areas are omitted

Larger portion of allocated depositions

The increased vertical resolution of the Eulerian model and its ability to describe the transport ofpollution in the free troposphere implies that the model is able to trace the fate of European emis-


Nor

way

FYR

Mac

edon

iaAu

stria

Luxe

mbo

urg

Cro

atia

Swed

enLa

tvia

Switz

erla

ndR

ep. M

oldo

vaAl

bani

aSl

ovak

iaLi

thua

nia

Icel

and

Finl

and

Esto

nia

Net

herla

nds

Slov

enia

Bela

rus

Den

mar

kYu

gosl

avia

Belg

ium

Italy

Gre

ece

Cze

ch R

epub

licFr

ance

Hun

gary

Irela

ndU

krai

neR

oman

iaBo

snia

and

H.

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

Turk

eyG

erm

any

Portu

gal

Pola

ndBu

lgar

iaSp

ain

Uni

ted

King

dom

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

1996

Eulerian modelLagrangian model

Oxidized Sulphur emep/msc−w

FYR

Mac

edon

iaEs

toni

aAl

bani

aLa

tvia

Cro

atia

Lith

uani

aLu

xem

bour

gIc

elan

dYu

gosl

avia

Slov

enia

Irela

ndR

ep. M

oldo

vaBo

snia

and

H.

Slov

akia

Nor

way

Aust

riaBe

laru

sD

enm

ark

Swed

enSw

itzer

land

Ukr

aine

Hun

gary

Belg

ium

Cze

ch R

epub

licFi

nlan

dR

oman

iaTu

rkey

Net

herla

nds

Gre

ece

Bulg

aria

Fran

cePo

land

Portu

gal

Ger

man

y

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

Spai

nIta

ly

Uni

ted

King

dom

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

1996


Oxidized Nitrogen emep/msc−w

Latv

iaLu

xem

bour

gC

roat

iaR

ep. M

oldo

vaSl

ovak

iaN

orw

ayLi

thua

nia

FYR

Mac

edon

iaIc

elan

dSl

oven

iaBo

snia

and

H.

Aust

riaC

zech

Rep

ublic

Swed

enH

unga

ryFi

nlan

dEs

toni

aBe

lgiu

mBu

lgar

iaYu

gosl

avia

Alba

nia

Switz

erla

ndG

reec

eN

ethe

rland

sBe

laru

sR

oman

iaD

enm

ark

Pola

ndPo

rtuga

lG

erm

any

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

Uni

ted

King

dom

Ukr

aine

Turk

eyFr

ance

Irela

ndSp

ain

Italy

0

20

40

60

80

%

1996


Reduced Nitrogen emep/msc−w

Figure 3.1: Relative contribution of transboundary pollution to the deposition of oxidized sulphur,oxidized nitrogen and reduced nitrogen in EMEP countries.

sions in the whole model domain. Consequently, the Eulerian model allocates a larger portion of theEuropean country emissions.Both the imported and exported deposition of pollutants are generallylarger for every country in the Eulerian model calculations (see Appendix A and B).

This is particularly the case for allocated depositions of oxidized sulphur and oxidized nitrogen.


15 20 25 30 35

5

10

15

20

25

30

Lagrangian AOT40/ Enox

Source-receptor calculations for Emissions from Germany

15 20 25 30 35

5

10

15

20

25

30

Eulerian AOT40/ Enox

15 20 25 30 35

5

10

15

20

25

30

Lagrangian AOT40/ Evoc

15 20 25 30 35

5

10

15

20

25

30

Below -960-960 - -320-320 - -96-96 - 0

0 - 9696 - 320

320 - 960Above 960

AOT40 (ppb.h)

Eulerian AOT40/ Evoc

15 20 25 30 35

5

10

15

20

25

30

Lagrangian AOT40/ Enox

Source-receptor calculations for Emissions from Hungary

15 20 25 30 35

5

10

15

20

25

30

Eulerian AOT40/ Enox

15 20 25 30 35

5

10

15

20

25

30

Lagrangian AOT40/ Evoc

15 20 25 30 35

5

10

15

20

25

30

Below -960-960 - -320-320 - -96-96 - 0

0 - 9696 - 320

320 - 960Above 960

AOT40 (ppb.h)

Eulerian AOT40/ Evoc

Figure 3.2: Comparison of source-receptor calculations from Eulerian and Lagrangian models. Plotsshow reductions in AOT40 f levels caused by 40% reduction of NOx or VOC emissions from Ger-many (Simpson and Jonson, 1999).

For reduced nitrogen, however, imported deposition can in some countries be lower than in the cor-responding Lagrangian model calculations. These countries (e.g. Finland, Iceland, Norway) arecharacterized by a particularly large deposition from indeterminate contribution (IND) in the La-grangian model calculations. The Eulerian model calculations do not include this indeterminatecontribution and therefore the total reduced nitrogen deposition can be lower than in the Lagrangianestimate. For oxidized sulphur and nitrogen, it is interesting to note that the Lagrangian model inde-terminate contribution is usually of the same order of magnitude as the Eulerian model contributionfrom boundary and initial conditions (BIC). This supports the interpretation usually provided for theindeterminate contribution in the Lagrangian model calculations as originating from lateral and freetropospheric boundary conditions.

Larger responses to NOx or VOC control

First comparisons of the country-to-grid calculations with the Lagrangian and the Eulerian photo-oxidant models reported in Simpson and Jonson (1999) showed that the 3D model generally predictsstronger responses to NOx or VOC control. This implies that both the negative and the positiveeffects of NOx control are stronger in the Eulerian model prediction. For VOC control, the alwayspositive ozone reduction effects are more pronounced when calculated with the Eulerian model. Anexample for Germany is given in Figure 3.2.

Most differences between the two models in their response to NOx and VOC control can be re-lated to the higher resolution of the Eulerian model, although other factors, such as chemistry anddilution in the spatial distribution of emissions can also play a role. This situation is consistent withthe analysis of the influence of scale in emission control presented in Chapter 1. The basic feature isthat NOx in the coarser grids can be more diluted. Surface NOx sources can be better resolved with


finer vertical and horizontal grid resolutions giving higher NOx surface concentrations. This wouldincrease the model sensitivity to VOC control and result in more negative effects (ozone increases)if NOx control is applied.

Despite these differences, it is reassuring that the source-receptor relationships for acidification, eu-trophication and ground level ozone show similar patterns independently of the type of models used.In all cases, results show that the source-receptor relationships calculated with the Lagrangian EMEPmodels have provided a conservative estimate of the transboundary pollution exchange in Europeancountries.

3.4 Main differences in derived critical level and critical load exceedances

Jonson et al. (1999) presents a comparison of AOT40 and AOT60 values calculated both with theLagrangian and the Eulerian photo-oxidant model which indicates that, although both models pre-dict similar distribution patterns, the Eulerian model has a tendency to predict higher exceedances tothreshold ozone levels.

For acidification and eutrophication, the general increase in deposition derived from the Eulerianmodel has the immediate consequence of an increase in the calculated exceedances to the criticalloads. The accumulated exceedances (AE) are the total amount of excess deposition of sulphur andnitrogen in a grid cell. These have been calculated by multiplying the deposition in exceendance ofcritical load for every ecosystem in the grid cell with the area covered by the ecosystem and summingup over all ecosystems in the grid cell, according to Posch et al. (1999).

Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4 show the accumulated exceedances of the critical load of acidity andof nutrient nitrogen. The accumulated exceedances calculated by the Eulerian model are higher andaffect larger areas that the accumulated exceedances calculated with the Lagrangian model. This isthe result of the generally larger deposition values calculated with the Eulerian model.

Component Observed Euler Mod. Rel. Bias Annual No. of

Mean (µg/m3) Mean (µg/m3) correlation stations

SO2 1.17 1.64 +40% 63% 44

SO2 Ü4 0.72 0.46 -36% 73% 64

NO2 1.75 2.21 +26% 74% 31

HNO3 +NO Ü3 0.41 0.32 -21% 73% 35

NH3+NH Ý4 1.22 0.95 -22% 68% 35

(mg/l) (mg/l)

SO2 Ü4 (l) 0.47 0.33 -29% 80% 60

NO Ü3 (l) 0.37 0.21 -43% 83% 61

NH Ý4 (l) 0.40 0.30 -25% 77% 57

Table 3.5: 1999 Eulerian acid deposition model performance against observations from theEMEP network.


(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 3.3: Accumulated exceedances of the critical loads of acidity in 1996. Acidification estimatesbased on: a) Eulerian acid deposition model in 50x50 km2 grid, b) Eulerian model results averaged to150x150km2 and c) Lagrangian acid deposition model in 150x150km2 . All critical loads calculatedby CCE.


(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 3.4: Accumulated exceedances of the critical load of nutrient nitrogen in 1996. Eutrophicationestimates based on: a) Eulerian model in 50x50 km2 grid, b) Eulerian model results averaged to150x150km2 and c) Lagrangian model in 150x150km2 . All critical loads calculated by CCE.


The effect of averaging at different grid resolutions is shown in part b) of the figures. There, theaccumulated exceedances calculated with the Eulerian model in 50x50 km2 have been aggregated tothe 150x150km2 resolution. Some of the high exceedance values are reduced when averaged to lowerresolutions but there are few significant changes between a) and b) in the figures. It is also noteworthythat the Lagrangian model generally manages to identify the areas affected by exceedances althoughthese are somewhat underestimated. Thus, the Lagrangian model provides a conservative estimatefor the level of exceedances in Europe.

3.5 Outlook

The main reason for the implementation of Eulerian EMEP models is their capability to describethe vertical distribution of pollution and simulate the exchange between the mixed layer and the freetroposphere. This allows Eulerian models to allocate a larger fraction of European emissions thanpreviously done with Lagrangian models. The fact that the EMEP Eulerian models are highly opti-mised to allow long-term calculations and perform comparably to the Lagrangian models have alsocontributed to their choice as operational models. The last reason is the increased horizontal resolu-tion in the Eulerian models which allows these models to better identify the position of “hot spots”and the responses to particular control measures in specific European areas.

It should be noted that the Lagrangian and Eulerian models give similar results on source allocationpatterns. Both models are able to characterise regional long-term transboundary pollution exchangein Europe. The main differences are the larger allocated depositions and stronger responses to emis-sion control derived by the Eulerian model.

These conclusions from the comparison of Lagrangian and Eulerian models in EMEP are consis-tent to the preliminary conclusions of the study of the effect of grid resolution in ozone formationpresented in Chapter 1. Although it is difficult to extrapolate results derived from a single episode,there are indications that, within certain margins, the selection of grid resolution is less importantthan the choice of the physical and chemical parameterisations describing pollution transport.

There are in fact differences in the parameterisations used in the different EMEP models and thesegive rise to differences in the behaviour of the models. The harmonisation of the EMEP models isreported in the next chapter. The development of the Unified Eulerian model involves a series ofinter-comparisons to understand which processes and parameterisations most affect the behaviour ofthe model.

As an example, the summary behaviour of the Eulerian acid deposition model for 1999 is given inTable 3.5. This model performance confirms to the conclusions derived from previous comparisonswith measurements. Figures 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 show that the Eulerian acid deposition model generallyunderestimates sulphate, nitrate and ammonium in air. This is also the case for their concentrationsin precipitation and for the concentrations derived by the Eulerian photo-oxidant model. Since thesecomponents are particularly relevant for the characterisation of European aerosol, increased effortsshould be dedicated to revise the chemical and physical description of the secondary inorganic par-ticles. This requires a co-ordinated effort between modelling and monitoring in order to allow anappropriate investigation of the partitioning between gas and particle phase of these components.Aqueous aerosol chemistry, the partitioning of gas and particulate nitrate and the speciation of NHxare important processes that need to be well describe before linking transport at regional and localscales.

At present, there are serious gaps in the monitoring information compiled in the EMEP networks.Those gaps involve mostly the partitioning of gas and particle phases and the speciation of hydrocar-


bons. Chapter 5 revises the quality of the measurement data compiled in EMEP which shows thaturgent action is required to define a feasible and operative monitoring strategy for these compounds.

a) Modelled Nitrate in air b) Measured nitrate in air

c) Interpolated normalized differences d) Combined nitrate in air

Figure 3.5: Analysis of yearly averaged total nitrate concentrations in air. Values for 1999.Units areµg(N)/m3. For interpolated normalized differences between model and observations in Figure c),yellow, orange and red show where the model underpredicts respectively within a factor of 2, 3 and4. Green, blue and purple show where the model overestimates observed values respectively withina factor of 2,3 and 4. Black dots indicate the position of measurement sites.


a) Modelled NH3+NH Þ4 in air b) Measured NH3+NH Þ4 in air

c) Interpolated normalized differences d) Combined NH3+NH ß4 in air

Figure 3.6: Analysis of yearly averaged total nitrate concentrations in air. Values for 1999.Units areµg(N)/m3. For interpolated normalized differences between model and observations in Figure c),yellow, orange and red show where the model underpredicts respectively within a factor of 2, 3 and4. Green, blue and purple show where the model overestimates observed values respectively withina factor of 2,3 and 4. Black dots indicate the position of measurement sites.


a) Modelled Sulphate in air b) Measured Sulphate in air

c) Interpolated normalized differences d) Combined Sulphate in air

Figure 3.7: Analysis of yearly averaged total nitrate concentrations in air. Values for 1999.Unitsare µg(S)/m3. For interpolated normalized differences between model and observations in Figure c),yellow, orange and red show where the model underpredicts respectively within a factor of 2, 3 and4. Green, blue and purple show where the model overestimates observed values respectively withina factor of 2,3 and 4. Black dots indicate the position of measurement sites.


3.6 References

Bartnicki, J. and Tarrason, L., 1998, Comparison of the lagrangian and the eulerian model perfor-mance, In Transboundary acidifying air pollution in Europe. EMEP/MSC-W Status Report 1/98,The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway.

Bartnicki, J., 1999, Computing Source-Receptor Matrices with the Eulerian Acid Deposition Model,EMEP/MSC-W Note 5/99, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway.

Bartnicki, J., 2000, Non-linear effects in the source receptor matrices computed with the EMEPEulerian Acid Deposition Model, EMEP/MSC-W Note 4/00, The Norwegian MeteorologicalInstitute, Oslo, Norway.

DeMore, W.B., Sander, S.P. amd Golden, D.M., Hampson, R.F., Kurylo, M.J., Howard, C.J., Ravis-hankara, A.R., Kolb, C.E., and Molina, M.J., 1997, Chemical kinetics and photochemical data foruse in stratospheric modelling, JPL Publication 97-4.

Derwent, R.G., Jenkin, M.E., and Saunders, S.M., 1996, Photochemical ozone creation potentialsfor a large number of reactive hydrocarbons under European conditions, Atmospheric Environ-ment, 30, 189–200.

Jenkin, M.E., Saunders, S.M., and Pilling, M.J., 1997, The tropospheric degradation of volatileorganic compounds: a protocol for mechanism development, Atmospheric Environment, 31, 81–104.

Jonson, J.E., Simpson, D., Reis, S., Sundet, J.K., and L., Tarrason , 1999, Model calculations for theyear 2010, In Transboundary photo-oxidant in Europe. EMEP/MSC-W Status report 2/99, TheNorwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway.

Lenschow, Hilde Sandnes and Tsyro, Svetlana , 2000, Meteorological input data for emep/msc-w airpollution models, EMEP MSC-W Note 2/2000.

Olendrzynski, K., 2000, Performance of the EMEP Eulerian Acid Deposition Model for 1998,Technical report, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway, EMEP/MSC-W Note3/00.

Posch, M., de Smet, P.A.M., Hettelingh, J.-P., and Downing, R.J., 1999, In, Calculation and map-ping of critical thresholds in Europe, Status report 1999 Coordination Centre for Effects, RIVM,Bilthoven, The Netherlands, eds. M. Posch, P.A.M. de Smet, J.-P. Hettelingh and R.J. Downing.

Simpson, D. and Jonson, J.E., 1998, Comparison of Lagrangian and Eulerian models for the sum-mer of 1996, In EMEP MSC-W Report 2/98, Part III Transboundary photooxidant air pollution inEurope. Calculations of tropospheric ozone and comparison with observations. Norwegian Mete-orological Institute, Oslo, Norway.

Simpson, D. and Jonson, J.E., 1999, Source-receptor calculations, In EMEP Summary Report 2/99,Transboundary photooxidants in Europe. Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway, pp.29-40.

Solberg, S., Simpson, D., and Jonson, J.E., 2000, Evaluation of the Eulerian and Lagrangian modelsby measurements of VOC and CO., In Transboundary photo-oxidant in Europe. EMEP/MSC-WStatus Report 2/2000, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway.

Sundet, J., 1997, Model studies with a 3-d global CTM using ECMWF data, PhD thesis, Departmentof Geophysics, University of Oslo, Norway.

Tarrason, L. and Schaug, J., 1999, (eds.) Transboundary acid deposition in Europe, EMEP Report1/99, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway.

Tarrason, L. and Schaug, J., 2000, (eds.) Transboundary acid deposition in Europe, EMEP Report1/2000, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway.

Chapter 4

Progress with the “Unified” EMEPModel

David Simpson, Jan Eiof Jonson and Steffen Unger

In this chapter we report on progress with the new “unified” modeling system at MSC-W. Thisproject, reported initially in Simpson and Unger (2000), is designed to allow a more unified andflexible approach to modelling. We have aimed at a system with one core set of subroutines andmodules, which can optionally run different chemical schemes and/or aerosol modules. Thus, wecan run either acidification or ozone chemistries with the same basic model, simply by changing afew input modules where these chemistries are specified and other model-specific data (emissions,output-species, etc.) are indicated.

Such a system will greatly ease the maintenance of the current models and allow future changesto be made without the re-coding of multiple programs. We report here on progress with this “unifi-cation” project, highlighting some of the new features and discussing the current status.

4.1 Background

Previously, the Eulerian modelling tools available at EMEP MSC-W have consisted of two mainmodels, the acidification model (MADE) of Berge and Jakobsen (1998), Jonson et al. (1998b), andthe oxidant model (MACHO) of Jonson et al. (1997), Jonson et al. (1998a). These models were com-plex, with about 16000 lines of FORTRAN code for MADE and 24000 lines for MACHO. Aftersome years of separate development, these two codes had diverged in their coding in almost everysubroutine.

These differences have arisen mainly for historical reasons, rather than through scientific necessity,because different workers have modified different codes at different times, and usually under sometime-pressure. Thus, the deposition routines are very different in the current models, with the oxi-dant model using a drag-coefficient approach for the whole grid-square (Berge and Jakobsen, 1998)whereas the acidification model uses a sub-grid treatment as discussed in Jakobsen et al. (1996) andOlendrzynski (2000). Further, when the acidification model was re-coded to use the 3-hourly res-olution meteorological data of Lenschow and Tsyro (2000), this job was not done for the MACHOmodel which still uses 6-hourly data.

Examples abound of routines and methods developed for specific models which should ideally beavailable to a common EMEP model. For example, MADE has recently been extended to include pri-mary aerosol emissions and transport (Tsyro and Erdman, 2000, Lazaridis et al., 2000). Both MA-


CHO and the Lagrangian oxidant model (Simpson, 1993, Simpson, 1995) include a much more de-tailed, sector-specific, treatment of emissions than MADE. The Lagrangian model also includes achemical scheme which has been extensively tested against other mechanisms (Kuhn et al., 1998,Andersson-Skold and Simpson, 1999), and one version includes the chemical pre-processor whichenables flexible input of chemical mechanisms. Schemes for including secondary organic aerosol for-mation have also been developed and applied for this model (Andersson-Skold and Simpson, 2001).Finally, an offline deposition module for ozone (Emberson et al., 2000) is under development. Thestructure of this module bears many resemblances to the sub-grid deposition scheme used in the acid-ification models, so implementation into MACHO would require substantial changes in that model’sdeposition code.

Rather than make the effort required to re-code both MACHO and MADE to cope with all of thesepossibilities, it was decided to begin the job of unifying all Eulerian model versions into one commonstructure.

4.2 Approach

During 2000/2001 work has proceeded to compare the codes of MADE and MACHO, to identifyand code the core structure required for a unified model, and to try to establish a minimum set ofadditional elements needed to run specific chemical schemes or modules. It was found that manydifferences were not fundamental, but could be overcome with re-coding for a more flexible struc-ture. For example, many subroutines to handle the meteorology were already very similar in the twocodes, and only minor changes were needed to unify these routines.

In other cases changes to the code have been extensive, especially in forcing the code into a moremodular structure. Many routines have been written to act as stand-alone modules, so that they canbe run and tested in box-model versions as well as in the 3-D model. In some cases this structureleads to a slowdown in the full model, however the benefits in terms of ease-of-testing and readabilityhave been judged to outweigh the efficiency losses.

FORTRAN’90 code has replaced much of the earlier FORTRAN’77. FORTRAN’90 has superiorarray-handling abilities, and is specifically designed to enable modular program design. This changehas resulted in a virtual elimination of large and error-prone ‘common blocks’ and helped in produc-ing more compact and structured code. Fortran modules are now used to share data, with use of the“use only” construct to give both stricter and more transparent code. The code is also smaller nowthan MACHO (ca. 17000 lines), even though it includes a much higher degree of documentation inmany routines.

4.3 New features

GenChem - the chemical pre-processor

The main new feature of the unified model is the ability to use new chemical schemes with the simplespecification of chemical equations. No hard-coding of differential equations, as had to be done forMADE and MACHO, is needed. Instead a pre-processor (GenChem, written in Perl) is used to readthe chemical equations and their rates, and produce Fortran code for the appropriate solver. Thisdifference is easily illustrated with the reaction:

OH à X á Prod1 à Prod2 à Prod3 â with rate kX ã (4.1)

In MADE/MACHO this equation would require hard-coding of production and loss rates in 5differential equations, one for each reactant or product. For example, for Prod2 we would have to

Progress with the “Unified” EMEP Model 35

add a production term kX ä C å OH æ ä C å X æ , with C åçæ representing the concentration. In the unifiedmodel we simply write the equation as above, with the rate-coefficient kX on the left hand-side. Thepre-processor reads the equation and outputs the FORTRAN’90 code for all differential equations.As well as saving time, the automatic generation procedure should be much less error-prone thanhand-coding. To further improve error-checking, the current version of GenChem checks both thestructure and mass-balance of each equation.

Emissions

The emissions routines previously implemented in the Lagrangian oxidant model and MACHO havebeen further improved for the unified model:

Sector-split input The unified model now makes full use of the 11-sector SNAP data available inthe EMEP emissions inventory. Thus, for each of the EMEP 50x50km2 grid squares, emissionsfor all pollutants are now specified by sector, rather than as simply high and low totals as inMADE.

In fact, any number of sectors may be specified, thus previous MADE-usage could be simulatedby setting a parameter NSECTORS=2 (to represent low, high). However, routine running ofthe unified model is likely to use the SNAP codes or even more extensive sector-allocations.Such emissions handling enables detailed investigations of emission controls, for example aspresented in Reis et al. (2000) and Simpson et al. (1999).

Speciation Emissions may be “plain” or “speciated”, where the latter represents emissions such asVOC or PM, which need to be split into individual species within the model. Through theimplementation of common algorithms for these simple classes, code which had originallybeen designed for the treatment of VOC speciation is now equally applicable to PM2.5, PM10or indeed any emission for which speciation is desired.

Monthly and Daily Variations The unified model now makes use of a set of monthly and daily vari-ation factors to give a more realistic time-series of emissions input. These factors are appliedfor each country and SNAP sector, and were derived from a calculation of 1994 emissions un-der the GENEMIS project (U. Schwarz, IER Stuttgart, pers.comm.). These time-variations hadpreviously been applied in MACHO as part of the detailed emissions investigations mentionedabove.

Domains and Outputs

The model has a number of new output features which give much greater flexibility in producingbinary or ASCII output files. The old hard-coding of outputs has been replaced by user-specifiedarrays, which let the model know which outputs should be in particular formats. In order to simplifytesting, and considerably speed-up development times of the new model, a user-specified run-domaincan also be specified. Whereas the old models were able to run only for full domains (171x133x20grid cells) the new model can run for any sub-division of this, typically 40x40x20 for testing. Optionsalso allow the output of full 3-D data for a sub-volume of the domain, intended to provide boundary-conditions for urban-modeling studies. The domains are illustrated in Figure 4.1.

The new outputs give the user many options, although the file-sizes achieved can be quite daunt-ing. Although ASCII hourly outputs for the whole domain would be useful in principal for post-processing some statistical values (e.g. exceedance frequencies), file-sizes of Gbyte size are easilyachieved, so these options must be used with care.


Meteorology

EMEP area

Run area

Hourly output

Restri output

Figure 4.1: The domains of the new EMEP model

4.4 Current status (June 2001)

One version of the unified model is currently working and produces preliminary results. This ver-sion includes the chemical mechanism from the Lagrangian oxidant model (Simpson et al., 1993,Simpson, 1995) with a secondary organic aerosol formation scheme from Andersson-Skold andSimpson, (2001). The chemistry is solved numerically using a version of TWOSTEP (Verwerand Simpson, 1994), although with short time-steps to avoid numerical problems while develop-ing the rest of the code. Initial and boundary conditions are from the University of Oslo CTM-2(Jonson et al., 2001, Sundet, 1997). The current version does not have any adjustment of ozonethrough potential-vorticity-scaling, as was done in MACHO (Jonson et al., 1998a), although thismay be introduced in later versions. Among the tasks which still need to be done before the modelachieves its purpose of a flexible code for multiple chemical schemes are:

è Finish implementation of optional “background” species, such as ozone or OH in a MADE-type chemistry. Such species need to be provided as boundary- conditions and are used by thechemistry without themselves reacting.

è Implement optional dry deposition schemes, especially that of Emberson et al. (2000) (afterextension to other gases than ozone).

è Review numerical schemes for chemistry. For the model development a safe-but-slow versionof TWOSTEP has been implemented. In order to enable country-to-grid runs a much fasterchemical solver will be needed; either TWOSTEP with longer time-steps, fewer iterations,or chemical-lumping (see e.g.Verwer and Simpson, 1994), QSSA as was used previously inMACHO, or another scheme entirely.

è Several errors/inconsistencies are identified in the section below. These have to be fixed.

Progress with the “Unified” EMEP Model 37

é De-bugging. With many thousands of lines of new or changed code there is of course signif-icant potential for errors, and the new model has to be evaluated thoroughly before it is usedfor scientific or politically sensitive tasks.

1999Apr May Jun Jul

1 6 11 16 21 26 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30

1 6 11 16 21 26 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

ppb

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

____ OZONE : Waldhof ........ ozone : Waldhof

Waldhof

1999Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

1 6 11 16 21 26 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 4 9 14 19 24 29 3 8 13 18 23 28

1 6 11 16 21 26 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 4 9 14 19 24 29 3 8 13 18 23 28

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

ppb

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

____ OZONE : Illmitz ........ ozone : Illmitz

Illmitz

Figure 4.2: Preliminary results: Measured (solid line) versus Calculated Daily Maximum Concen-trations from the Unified Model.

4.5 Preliminary model results

The model has been run for the six summer months April through September 1999. The revision ofthe model is not yet completed, and a thorough checking of the model still remains. This model eval-uation was performed with an intermediate model version, and the model contains several known andprobably many more unknown errors. A very evident known error is the fact that the wet depositionscheme for this version is not working. Other problems concern the lateral boundary concentrations(BCs) from the global model (Oslo CTM2). For unknown reasons the lateral boundary concentrationsdid not get updated in the model runs performed so far, and thus April values were used throughoutthis calculation. Other problems arose with these BCs which will be fixed in future versions. Someof these problems are obvious when comparing with measurements, for example at sites in NorthernEurope.

In view of the many problems still remaining we will only present results for two sites where rea-sonable agreement was obtained. This is intended only to illustrate that the model is approachingusability and that to some extent it looks promising. Figure 4.2 compares modelled and observeddaily maximum ozone concentrations for two stations, Waldhof (Germany) and Illmitz (Austria).These sites are not expected to be affected too much by the known boundary-condition problems,and indeed show quite reasonable agreement.

4.6 References

Andersson-Skold, Y. and Simpson, D., 1999, Comparison of the chemical schemes of the EMEPMSC-W and the IVL photochemical trajectory models, Atmospheric Environment, 33, 1111–1129.

Andersson-Skold, Y. and Simpson, D., 2001, Secondary organic aerosol formation in NorthernEurope: a model study , J. Geophys. Res., 106, No. D7, 7357–7374.

Berge, E. and Jakobsen, H. A., 1998, A regional scale multi-layer model for the calculation oflong-term transport and deposition of air pollution in Europe, Tellus, 50, 205–223.

Emberson, L., , Simpson, D., Tuovinen, J.P., Ashmore, M.R., and Cambridge, H.M., 2000, Towardsa model of ozone deposition and stomatal uptake over Europe , EMEP MSC-W Note 6/2000.


Jakobsen, H. A., Jonson, J. E., and Berge, E., 1996, Transport and deposition calculations of sulphurand nitrogen compounds in Europe for 1992 in the 50 km grid by use of the multi-layer Eulerianmodel., EMEP/MSC-W Note 2/96, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway.

Jonson, J.E., Jakobsen, H.A., and Berge, E., 1997, Status of the development of the regional scalephoto-chemical multi-layer Eulerian model, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, EMEP MSC-WNote 2/97.

Jonson, J. E., Tarrason, L , Sundet, J.K., Berntsen, T., and Unger, S., 1998a, The Eulerian 3-Doxidant model: Status and evaluation for summer 1996 results and case-studies, In Transbound-ary photo-oxidant air pollution in Europe. EMEP/MSC-W Status Report 2/98, The NorwegianMeteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway.

Jonson, J.E., Bartnicki, J., Olendrzynski, K., Jokobsen, H.A., and Berge, E., 1998b, EMEP Eulerianmodel for atmospheric transport and deposition of nitrogen species over Europe, EnvironmentalPollution, 102, 289–298.

Jonson, J.E., Sundet, J.K., and l.Tarrason, 2001, Model calculations of present and future levels ofozone and ozone precursors with a global and a regional model., Atmospheric Environment, 35,525–537.

Kuhn, M., Builtjes, P.J.H., Poppe, D., Simpson, D., Stockwell, W.R., Andersson-Skold, Y., Baart, A.,Das, M., Fiedler, F., Hov, Ø., Kirchner, F., Makar, P.A., Milford, J.B., Roemer, M.G.M., Ruhnke,R., Strand, A., Vogel, B., and Vogel, H., 1998, Intercomparison of the gas-phase chemistry inseveral chemistry and transport models, Atmospheric Environment, 32, No. 4, 693–709.

Lazaridis, M., Tarrason, L., Semb, A., Tsyro, S., Pacyna, J., Simpson, D., Hov, Ø , Olendrzynski, K.,Larssen, S., and Andersson-Skol, Y., 2000, Status report with respect to measurements, modellingand emissions of particulate matter in emep. an integrated approach, EMEP Rep. 5/00.

Lenschow, Hilde Sandnes and Tsyro, Svetlana , 2000, Meteorological input data for emep/msc-w airpollution models, EMEP MSC-W Note 2/2000.

Olendrzynski, K., 2000, Performance of the EMEP Eulerian Acid Deposition Model for 1998,Technical report, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway, EMEP/MSC-W Note3/00.

Reis, S., Simpson, D., Friedrich, R., Jonson, J.E., Unger, S., and Obermeier, A., 2000, Road trafficemissions - predictions of future contributions to regional ozone levels in Europe, AtmosphericEnvironment, 34, 4701–4710.

Simpson, D. and Unger, S., 2000, Towards a modular ctm system for emep, In EMEP Report 2/2000,Transboundary Photo-oxidants in Europe. Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway.

Simpson, D., Andersson-Skold, Y., and Jenkin, M. E., 1993, Updating the chemical scheme forthe EMEP MSC-W oxidant model : current status, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, EMEPMSC-W Note 2/93.

Simpson, D., , Reis, S., and Jonson, J.E., 1999, Effects of emissions control - sector specific cal-culations, In EMEP Summary Report 2/99, Transboundary photooxidants in Europe. NorwegianMeteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway, pp. 29-40.

Simpson, D., 1993, Photochemical model calculations over Europe for two extended summer peri-ods: 1985 and 1989. Model results and comparisons with observations, Atmospheric Environment,27A, No. 6, 921–943.

Simpson, D., 1995, Biogenic emissions in Europe 2: Implications for ozone control strategies, J.Geophys. Res., 100, No. D11, 22891–22906.

Sundet, J., 1997, Model studies with a 3-d global CTM using ECMWF data, PhD thesis, Departmentof Geophysics, University of Oslo, Norway.

Tsyro, S. and Erdman, L., 2000, Parameterisation of aerosol deposition processes in emep msc–eand msc–w transport models, MSC-W Note 7/00.

Verwer, J.G. and Simpson, D., 1994, Explicit methods for stiff ODEs from atmospheric chemistry,Report NM-R9409.

Chapter 5

EMEP Measurement data quality

Jan Schaug, Sverre Solberg and Wenche Aas

This chapter provides an assessment of the EMEP 1999 data quality as derived from recent labo-ratory and field comparisons. Evaluation of data quality per country is provided in two appendixesand a network wide approach is given below. The evaluation of the acidification and eutrophicationnetwork is very similar to previous evaluations leading to nearly the same recommendations and sug-gestions for improvements. This is an unsettling situation that calls for urgent action, particularly asthe Convention now faces a period for revision and update.

5.1 Data quality procedures in EMEP

The laboratory comparisons of the main components in precipitation, sulphur dioxide and sulphatein airborne particles covers twenty years and give an important documentation of the evolution ofthe data quality in EMEP during the years. These components have relevance to the acid depositionand related problems, but more recently the laboratory performance for VOC, heavy metals and POPhave also been tested. Laboratory comparisons are important, but should not be expected to give acomplete correct image of the data quality. There are many reasons for this, one being that the com-parison samples seldom are treated as routine samples, but are analysed separately and often severaltimes in order to determine the theoretical value the best way. Another reason is that the number ofcomparison samples in each exercise is small; normally four for each component, and the exerciseshave been carried out not more frequently than yearly.

A better estimate of data quality and comparability can be obtained through field comparisons wherethe participating institutions bring their own sampling equipment to a suitable measurement site.Large scale comparison of sulphur and nitrogen in air have been carried out for up to six weeks; thistime period was, however, too short and the variability in concentrations too small to give sufficientlyreliable quantitative results of quality and data comparability. A different approach, proposed by theCCC to the Steering Body in 1983, was however realized from the middle of the nineties. Referencesamplers for sulphate in airborne particles, sulphur dioxide, the sums of nitrate in particles and nitricacid, and nitrogen dioxide have been compared with the national equipment for approximately oneyear aiming at about a 100 samples evenly distributed over the year from each sampler. The samplesfrom the reference equipment were analysed at the CCC and the samples from the national equip-ment the normal way in the host country. The comparisons include therefore the complete chain ofoperations in the measurements and give a quality estimate relative to one common reference; thereference sampler and the laboratory at the CCC.

For other components, e.g. ozone measured with a commercial monitor, EMEP has not performedfield comparisons. All experience show that proper maintenance and calibrations are of outmost


importance for correct results. The monitors need comparison with transfer standards traceable atregular intervals as described elsewhere, and the transfer standards need likewise at regular intervalsto be compared with secondary standards comparable to one single common standard (NIST). Anassessment of ozone data quality should include the calibration results and information on mainte-nance procedures and frequency.

Besides the efforts made to obtain information through measurement comparisons and collectionof metadata and information about the measurements, different tests and graphical plots further en-lighten the quality of data series. This comprises plots of time series for single stations and neighbourstations for all components, and ion balance as a function of concentrations and pH for precipitationcomponents.

5.2 Quality of the 1999 measurements

Acid deposition components

The performance of the laboratories has been evaluated on the basis of the results obtained in the lab-oratory comparisons 17 and 18 from 1999 and 2000, which are the most relevant comparisons for the1999 measurements. The laboratory comparisons contained the main components in precipitation,and comparison No. 17 also as usual samples for sulphur dioxide (impregnated filter and absorbingsolution), nitrogen dioxide and sulphate samples on filter. Air samples were not included in the 18thcomparison, this occurred due to a mistake only and air samples will be included in future laboratorycomparisons. These will also be extended with filter samples of nitrate and ammonium.

The recommended EMEP methods have been given in the Manual (EMEP, 1995), and most par-ticipants make use of these. It is, however, a number of other methods in use in EMEP of differentreasons, such as a lack of adequate equipment or sufficient funding, extraordinary long data seriesobtained with other methods which need careful parallel measurements with the new method over along period before the old method can be replaced, or simply good experience with other methodsand therefore a reluctance to change to the recommended ones.

The EMEP laboratory comparisons include samples for the recommended methods only; countrieswith alternative methods are consequently not tested in these exercises. The performance of the othermeasurements methods and the comparability with the recommended ones is a crucial point, and fieldcomparisons have been organized for this reason.

Laboratories in the Czech Republic, Switzerland and Germany are using the XRF-method; samplesfor X-ray fluorescence analysis no longer are included in the comparisons and EMEP participantsare consequently not tested for this component in the laboratory comparisons. Croatia, Germany,and Yugoslavia use the TCM method for sulphur dioxide, which is not included in the comparisons.The TCM method has been compared with the recommended method (KOH impregnated filters) infield comparisons both in Germany and in Turkey (poster presentation at the Dubrovnik workshop,1999). Based on the discouraging results obtained for the TCM method at today’s concentration lev-els, Turkey today uses impregnated filter and Germany is in a process changing to the recommendedmethod. Some laboratories use monitors giving continuous sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxideconcentrations. Very good as well as poor results have been obtained in various field comparisons ofsulphur dioxide monitors with the recommended method. It seems that the sulphur dioxide monitorsare demanding with respect to calibration and maintenance, and the detection limit is higher than forthe recommended method. There is a clear need to do more comparisons at different concentrationslevel, and for the time being the data quality of sulphur dioxide monitors is rated as ”Unknown”.Nitrogen dioxide monitors are not completely specific for this component; the exception being thetype of monitor applied at Jungfraujoch in Switzerland (Cranox).

EMEP Measurement data quality 41

Results from field comparisons have been used in addition to the laboratory comparisons to eval-uate the 1999 data quality. A summary of the field comparisons carried out during the second half ofthe nineties is given below. Besides the results from comparisons, plots of ion balance versus pH andthe sum of concentration in precipitation (Aas et al., 2000b) give strong indications about the dataquality.

The Appendix B contains the results of the evaluation of the data quality with A indicating an ex-pected accuracy in annual average better than ê 10 per cent, B ëìê 25 %, C ëìê 30 %, and D ëìê 30%. ”U” means an unknown quality due to a lack of documented comparisons with reference meth-ods. It should be noted that the use of ”U” is different from earlier reports were both a low qualityand an unknown quality were contained in ”D”.

It should be emphasized that the present Appendix B does not give an exact assessment of dataquality, but contain the best judgement based on tests and results.

An European wide overview of the 1999 data quality for the EMEP precipitation and air measure-ment networks is given in Figure 5.1 and 5.2. The figures show the total number of stations for eachcomponent that has been included in the five different categories. In general the EMEP precipitationmeasurement program is mostly satisfactory. Nevertheless, the measurement quality of especiallyCl, Mg, Ca, and K can be improved at many sites.

The air components on the other hand have various qualities and particularly the quality of SO2-and NO2 measurements is variable. The main reasons for these variations are the different method-ologies used; a further harmonization is therefore essential. From Figure 5.2 it is also very clear thatmany sites measure less than a full measurement program, especially the nitrogen part is incomplete.There are also very few countries using denuders for separating the gaseous and particulate nitrogencompounds, and this is the reason that most of this data is classified as unknown.

This exercise was also carried out for the 1997 data, and when comparing the results some dif-ferences are seen. There are more stations in 1999, 99 against 93 in 1997; the quality of the sulphate,ammonium (sum of ammonium in air) and nitrate (sum of nitrate in air) in both air and precipitationhas improved, but the quality of the chloride and potassium is somewhat decreased.

Photo-oxidants

A questionnaire requesting information about the applied procedures for ozone monitoring was dis-tributed within EMEP last year. Summaries of local surroundings and emission sources of NOx

was also requested. This information was included in the technical report on data quality last year(Aas et al., 2000a) both in a complete version and as a summary table.

This year the same information was reviewed with reference to specified recommendations on ozonemeasurements given in the EMEP manual (EMEP, 1995) or elsewhere. The aim of this years reviewwas to identify areas for improvement as well as to give a general overview of the quality of theozone-monitoring network for end users of this data. The information supplied by the laboratorieswas evaluated against the set of criteria given in Table 5.1 and the result for the reported stations aregiven in the Appendix B. Note that this is entirely based on the information supplied in 2000, noupdates or additions have been asked for.

Criteria for calibration procedures and standards were based on the recommendations in the EMEPmanual (EMEP, 1995). The EMEP manual does, however, not give quantitative requirements to the


í

îuï

ðòñ

óuô

õuö

÷,øùø

únûýü þ�ÿ ��

� �� !" #$%& '()*+,- . /0 12 3456

798;:�<�=;>@? A�BDCFEHG@I@J K9L;MFN@OHP@Q RTSDUFV@WHX@Y Z[H\D[^]`_a[

Figure 5.1: Classification of the 1999 precipitation data measurements at EMEP stations.

b

c@d

eFf

g@h

iHj

kDlHl

monpaq rHs t�u�vxw yHz|{�}�~�x� ��a� �� o��x� �D� ��a� �D� ��o�x� �`�� ¡¢�£ ¤�¥H¦§�¨©�ª «D¬

�®o¯�° ±�²H³´�µ·¶H¸ ¹`º

» ¼½¾ ¿ÀÁÂ ÃÄ ÅÆÇ ÈÉÊË ÌÍÎÏÐÑÒ Ó ÔÕ Ö× ØÙÚÛ

Ü9ÝDÞ�ß·àDá@â ã�äDåFæHç@è@é ê9ëDìFí@îHï@ð ñTò;ó�ô@õHöH÷ øùHúDù�û`üaù

Figure 5.2: Classification of the 1999 air data measurements at EMEP stations.

maintenance procedures, which should be in accordance with the producer’s specifications, or better.The requirements to the maintenance procedures in Table 5.1 are based on CCC’s view only; theproducer’s specifications may be different for different monitors. This should be kept in mind whenusing the results. Furthermore, the evaluation of local NOx sources is highly uncertain as it dependsto a large extent on how this information is supplied from the laboratories. More information is givenin last year’s data quality report (EMEP, 1995). The questionnaire also asked for information on in-strumentation and data validation. This turned out to be well taken care of in all countries and is notincluded in Appendix B.

The results in Appendix B are self-explaining, a few remarks may nevertheless be made; this eval-uation identifies violations with the applied criteria in several ways; quality assurance proceduresapplied less frequent than the recommendations are seen at many stations both for calibration andmaintenance procedures. This does not necessary indicate poor data quality, but rather an elevatedrisk for technical errors and loosing data.


Maintenance Inlet filter exchange interval 3 monthsLeak test interval 3 monthsFreq. of checking the pressure transducer 1 yearFreq. of checking the scrubber performance 1 year

Calibration Freq. of zero and span checks 2 weeksFrequency of calibration against transfer standard 3 months

Standards Is the transfer standard tracable to a NIST SRP? YesFreq. of calibration of transfer standard with NIST SRP 1 year

Table 5.1: The criteria used to evaluate the information supplied by the laboratories in the question-naire in 2000 regarding ozone monitoring.

ýÿþ�� þ��

!#"

$&%

'&(

)+*

,.-

/&0

1&2

3&4

576.8:9<;�=>6+?.@ 8>A&= BDCFE G7H I+G7CFGKJ>I L�MFN O P&Q M&R O SFT UWV X+Y7Z#[ \+V+Z#] XFY7^.X+V ^

_ `ab cdef gh ijk lmn

oqp rts�p uwvtxzy+{�|w|qx�uW}�~�r�p {�u<� ��F� �W� �z��t�z�.��w�q��<��W�� W�

Figure 5.3: Classification of the 1999 ozone data measurements.

The results of the questionnaire for QA procedures for ozone as given in Appendix B are summa-rized in Fig 5.3, indicating to what extent the applied procedures follow the recommendations withinthe EMEP ozone monitoring network. This shows that the recommended procedures for calibrationare violated at many (more than 50% of the sites). This reflects that local laboratories calibrate theirmonitors less frequent than the recommended 3 months interval. Furthermore, problems of localNOx emissions are also a rather common problem. On the other hand, most laboratories use transferstandards that are tracable to a NIST standard. It should be noted that the results summarized in Fig5.3 are based on a limited number of the ozone monitoring sites and is therefore not giving the com-plete picture of the ozone program within EMEP. Data for German sites are lacking and informationof the local NOx sources at most UK sites were not supplied either. As mentioned elsewhere, thediscrepancy relative to recommended procedures does not necessarily indicate poor data quality, butrather an increased risk of failures in the monitoring.

Both laboratory and field comparisons of VOC measurements have been performed. The Frenchlaboratory (Ecole des Mines de Douai) started measurements of light hydrocarbons and carbonyls in1997, and parallel sampling of carbonyls with EMEP-CCC was continued until April 1999. Previousresults have indicated a good correspondence for formaldehyde and acetone, while larger differenceswere seen for other components (Solberg, 1999). The results are only partly evaluated. Umwelt Bun-des Amt (UBA) in Germany started carbonyl measurements in 1999 and the results of the parallel


measurements with CCC are preliminary.

Hydrocarbon samples have been analysed in parallel by participating countries and the CCC in pe-riods during several years, and the results have in general been satisfactory. In the EU FP5 projectAMOHA (Accurate Measurements of Hydrocarbons in the Atmosphere) a large number of laborato-ries in Europe participated in parallel sampling and analyses of hydrocarbons in ambient air. Mainresults from the second sampling period is shown in Figure 5.4. The results show that except for afew laboratories the agreement is within +/- 25% of the median for the lighter alkanes. For some aro-mats and unsaturated hydrocarbons as well as the C6-C7 alkanes a large spread in the values are seen,indicating measurement difficulties with these compounds. The spread in the results were, however,much less for laboratories using a NPL standard for calibration. Thus, part of the differences seen inFigure 5.4 reflects the use of different calibration gases.

0,00

0,01

0,10

1,00

10,00

Eth

ane

Pro

pane

Eth

yne

Buta

ne

2-M

eth

ylp

ropane

Pro

pyne

2-M

eth

ylb

uta

ne

Penta

ne

Cyclo

hexane

2-M

eth

ylp

enta

ne

3-M

eth

ylp

enta

ne

Hexane

Hepta

ne

Benzene

Tolu

en

Eth

ylb

enzene

m-X

yle

ne

o-X

yle

ne

Ete

ne

Pro

pene

C4,C

5alk

enes

Isopre

ne

pp

b(v

ol)

-lo

gari

thm

ic

Figure 5.4: Results of the hydrocarbon measurement intercomparison (sampling period 2) in the EUFP5 project AMOHA. The symbols mark the average results from individual laboratories for a widerange of individual species given on top of the panel. The blue lines mark the median

�25%.

5.3 Laboratory improvements at the end of the nineties

The results from the laboratory comparisons no.14 (1994) to no.18 (2000) have been included inAppendix C. The relative deviation from the expected value (per cent) has been calculated for eachsample. The sign of the deviation is not taken into account. The comparisons included 4 - 8 samplesdepending on sample type.

In this evaluation the laboratory performance was characterized as ”Very good” if the relative de-viation was less than 5 per cent, ”Good” if between 5 and 10 per cent, and ”Needs improvements” ifbetween 10 and 20 per cent. A classification ”Not satisfactory” was used when the relative deviationwas larger than 20 per cent. Absolute differences were used for pH due to it’s logarithmic scale. Theclass limits were 0.03, 0.05, and 0.10 pH units. A colour code has been used to indicate the differentclasses in the Appendix C. The French results are given below as an example.

The results indicate that the French sulphate and nitrate analysis in precipitation have been verygood during the period and that improvements have been made in the ammonium analyses. Thequality of the calcium and pH measurements as well as the sulphur dioxide analysis have variedfrom one comparison to the next, but have mostly been ”very good” or ”good”. There is, however, apotential for improvements in the analysis of the three components. With respect to sulphur dioxide


Comparison/year Precipitation Air

SO4 NO3 NH4 Ca pH SO2 SO4 NO2

#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000

The colour code is as follows:

�Very good� �Good� �Need improvements� �Not satisfactory�

Figure 5.5: Laboratory comparison results 1994-2000.

the old absorbing solution method is still in use, and further improved results can be obtained byusing the recommended impregnated filter method. The comparison no. 18 did not contain samplesfor air components and is left open in the figures. France does not report nitrogen dioxide, and thecorresponding fields in the figure are consequently left open.

The figures with the comments for each specific country are given in the country specific AppendixC. As comments above some laboratories apply methods that cannot be compared in a laboratorycomparison of this type in which case the corresponding fields are left open.

Some countries report concentrations of nitrate and ammonium concentrations in airborne particles,or the sum of nitric acid and particulate nitrate or ammonia/particulate ammonium. The analysisof these components has not yet been included in the laboratory comparisons. An indication of thelaboratory performance is given by it’s ability to analyse nitrate and ammonium in precipitation; thedifference being the extraction of the aerosols from the filters. The extraction process itself is a po-tential source to errors.

Sulphate in particles is extracted from the aerosol filter in the same extraction as nitrate and am-monium, and in a similar way as are nitric acid and ammonia from impregnated filters. A goodperformance for both sulphate in air and precipitation therefore indicates that the extraction is welldone even for the other components. For ammonia there is in addition a potential contaminationproblem with the acid impregnated filters. Future laboratory comparisons are expected to containfilter samples of nitrates and ammonium.

5.4 Results from the field comparisons

Field comparisons have so far been carried out United Kingdom, Ireland, Portugal, France, Germany,Poland, Czech Republic, and Croatia, and comparisons are at present run in Spain and Slovenia. Ref-erence samplers for sulphate in airborne particles, sulphur dioxide, the sums of nitrate in particlesand nitric acid, and nitrogen dioxide have been compared with the national equipment for approxi-mately one year aiming at about a 100 samples evenly distributed over the year from each sampler.

A summary of the result is given in Table 5.2. Comparisons of different methods applied for mea-surements of sulphur dioxide show that:

� the H2O2 absorbing solution method gives higher concentration than the reference methodat low concentration due to a higher detection limit, this giving too high averages when theconcentrations frequently are below 1 µg(S)/m3

� the TCM method failed to measure concentrations below about 0.5 µg(S)/m3 and give lower


UK IE PT FR DE PL(IEP) CZSO2

Reference 0.62 0.59 1.79 0.73 0.54 1.39 1.57Filter 0.57 0.64 2.18Abs. sol. 0.86 ** 0.81 0.20 1.22Monitor 1.15

SO2 �4

Reference 0.63 0.85 1.56 0.82 0.61 1.02 1.09Filter 0.64 0.78 1.77 0.62 0.66 1.24 1.24

NO2

Reference 0.51 0.99 1.00 0.89 1.61Filter 2.50Abs. sol. 0.65 1.13 0.94Monitor 1.04 1.67

HNO3+NO3 �Reference 0.46 0.54 (0.65)Filters 0.73 0.64 (0.60)

Table 5.2: Arithmetic averages of sulphur dioxide, sulphate in particles, nitrogen dioxide, nitric acid+ nitrate in particles. The sampling periods are different but covers approximately 1 year with up to100 samples. ( ) means very few samples. ** indicates errors and high values. ”Reference” is theresults from the reference measurement, while ”filter”, ”Abs.sol.” and ”Monitor” refers to differentmeasurement methods applied by the participants.

results than the reference method even at higher concentrations, resulting in too low averages.The problems with the method may be due to a chemical interference with oxidants

� the monitor results from Schauinsland in Germany, where the annual average are around 0.5µg(S)/m3 or lower, were far too high. Unpublished comparison results from Finland indicates,however, good correspondence between monitor and reference method even at low concen-tration levels. More comparisons with the UV monitor are needed at different concentrationlevels, the preliminary conclusions being that frequent maintenance and calibration is highlyimportant and that the detection limit most probably is too high to give correct average resultsat most EMEP sites.

Some of the comparison results indicated that the chemical analysis was less than satisfactory. Thiswas also reflected in the comparisons of the particulate sulphate measurements. Two participants(Germany, Czech Republic) applied XRF-analysis for sulphate in particles and their average resultswere well within the variability of participants who applied the recommended IC analysis.

Two methods have been recommended for measurements of NO2; the TGS/ANSI method, whichuses an alkaline absorption solution and more recently a method with sodium iodide added to a glasssinter frit. The latter method will give a smaller liquid volume after extraction than the liquid vol-ume in the TGS/ANSI method, which gives to a lower detection limit for the sodium iodide/glasssinter method. There has also been an uncertainty with respect to the absorption efficiency of theTGS/ANSI method and a correction factor has been applied. These differences explain some of thedifferences in Table 5.2 (Ireland, Poland; PL5). The Salzmann method (Germany) gives too highresults at concentrations below 1 µg(N)/m3, but even at higher concentrations the method is unsat-isfactory. One participant (Czech Republic) used a nitrogen dioxide method different from those


above, and this method gave far too high results. Only a few comparison results have been obtainedso far for the sum of nitric acid and nitrate in particles. These indicated, however, systematic differ-ences in some of the measurements and that there is a strong need for improvements.

More details are given in the annual technical reports on data quality in Schaug et al. (1998),Aas et al. (1999), Aas et al. (2000a), Aas et al. (2000b).

5.5 Suggestions for improvement

The quality of the EMEP measurements was reviewed in 1997, and a comparison of recommenda-tions made then with this review shows that the main conclusions still are valid;

� there is still a strong need for further harmonization of sampling and analysis,

� there is a need for wet-only samplers, but in addition to havea rain gauge with a better collec-tion efficiency than the wet-only collector has, in order to measure the wet deposition morecorrectly. This is particularly important for weekly sampling,

� there is still need to strengthen the air measurements with more measurements of nitrogencomponents in air since little progress has been made with respect to nitrate, nitric acid, am-monium, and ammonia,

� the use of denuders for the nitrogen components in air is highly recommended. The chemicaland physical properties of nitric acid and nitrate in particles are highly different, and this hasconsequences for dry deposition, transportation in the boundary layer, and light scattering.Similar considerations can be made for the ammonia/ammonium system. In this case a newand less expensive denuder system for monthly or weekly sampling has been proposed inSutton et al. (2001), which could further be tested in field comparisons and implemented inEMEP,

� the selection of the individual VOCs recommended for reporting should be revised based onthe experience with the VOC monitoring and data quality,

� there are still regions not well covered by EMEP today (e.g. mediterranean regions), and itshould be necessary to make better use of additionally data for EMEP purposes, e.g. fromsecondary networks which exist in many participating countries,

� there is still need for an assessment of spatial and temporal site representativeness for differentcomponents.

The field comparisons are time-consuming, but add important knowledge to the measurement qual-ity, which laboratory comparisons cannot give. More comparisons of monitors for sulphur dioxidewith reference instrumentation at different concentration levels are needed.

In general, since good performance of monitors for sulphur dioxide as well as ozone and other com-ponents, depend on frequent calibrations and maintenance, SOPs following good laboratory practiceand the producer’s manuals are essential for the data quality.

Parties’ implementation of Protocols and the documentation of the coming reduction in emissionsmay require measurement sites that are more frequently and directly exposed to source regions thanthe present sites are. A new monitoring strategy, which also includes new sites, or a re-location ofsome of the present sites, is therefore needed.


5.6 References

Aas, W., Hjellbrekke, A.-G , Semb, A., and Schaug, J., 1999, Data quality 1997, quality assur-ance, and field comaprisons, EMEP/CCC Report 6/99, The Norwegian Institute for Air Research,Kjeller, Norway.

Aas, W., Hjellbrekke, A.-G., Semb, A., and Schaug, J., 2000a, Data quality 1998, quality assur-ance, and field comaprisons, EMEP/CCC Report 6/00, The Norwegian Institute for Air Research,Kjeller, Norway.

Aas, W., Hjellbrekke, A.-G., Semb, A., and Schaug, J., 2000b, Data quality 1999, quality assur-ance, and field comaprisons, EMEP/CCC Report 6/01, The Norwegian Institute for Air Research,Kjeller, Norway.

EMEP, 1995, Manual for sampling and chemical analyses, EMEP/CCC-Report 1/95.Schaug, J., Semb, A., and Hjellbrekke, A.-G., 1998, Data quality 1996, quality assurance, and

field comaprisons, EMEP/CCC Report 6/98, The Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Kjeller,Norway.

Solberg, S., 1999, VOC measurements 1998, Technical Report EMEP/CCC Report 5/99, Norwe-gian Institute for Air Research, Kjeller, Norway.

Sutton, M.A., Tang, Y.S., Miners, B., and Fowler, D., 2001, Water, Air and Soil Pollution, in press.

Appendices

Appendix A

Comparison of source-receptor matricesfor acidification and eutrophicationcalculated with the Lagrangian andEulerian models (1996 values).

A:2 EMEP SUMMARY REPORT 2001

APPENDIX: Source receptor matrices A:3

Country codes used in this Appendix

......Country/Region...... jCode ............Country/Region............ jCodeAlbania AL Poland PLArmenia AM Portugal PTAustria AT Republic of Moldova MDBelarus BY Romania ROBelgium BE Russian Federation RUBosnia and Hercegovina BA Slovakia SKBulgaria BG Slovenia SICroatia HR Spain ESCyprus CY Sweden SECzech Republic CZ Switzerland CHDenmark DE The FYR of Macedonia MKEstonia EE Turkey TRFinland FI Ukraine UAFrance FR Yugoslavia YUGeorgia GE United Kingdom GBGermany DE European Community EUGreece GRHungary HU Baltic Sea BASIceland IS Black Sea BLSIreland IE Mediterrean Sea MEDItaly IT North Sea NOSKazakhstan KZ Remaining N.E. Atlantic ATLLatvia LV Boundary and Initial conditions BICLithuania LT North Africa NOALuxembourg LU Remaining Asian Areas ASIMalta MT Remaining Land Areas REMNetherlands NL Natural marine emissions NATNorway NO Volcanic emissions VOL

Russian Federation means the part of the Russian Federation inside the EMEP domain of calculations. Thesame applies to the Remaining N.E. Atlantic region and natural marine emission area. North Africa meansparts of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. Remaining Asian Areas include Kazakhstan, Azerbad-jan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, parts of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Iraq and Jordan. Remaining Land Areasincludes both North Africa and Remaining Asian Areas (REM=NOA+ASI). European Union includes Aus-tria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands,Portugal, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom.

All Parties to the LRTAP Convention, except four, are included in the calculations. These are:Canada and United States of America, Monaco and Liechtenstein. The first two countries are not in-cluded because they lie outside the EMEP area domain. Monaco and Liechtenstein are not includedbecause their emissions and geographical extents are below the accuracy of the source-receptor cal-culations.

Although Albania is not a Party to the LRTAP Convention, its situation in Europe and the extentof its estimated emissions justify a separate study of this country as emitter and receptor.

Malta is introduced as a receptor country. The estimated emissions from Malta are below theaccuracy limits of the source-receptor calculations and do not justify a separate study of Malta as aemitter country. Georgia and Kazakhstan are only considered as emitter regions.


Source-receptor matrices for acidificationand eutrophication. Calculations for 1996

with the Lagrangian Acid model.

AP

PE

ND

IX:Source

receptorm

atricesA

:5

��

�� ¡¢ ¡£ � � �£ ¤¥ ¢ ¦ ¢ � ¢ � � ¥ §� § ¨ © � © � £ ¨ � ¦ ¦� ª ¤ � £ � � �« ¥ �¬ � £ ¥ � � � � � ¦ ¢ ¤£ � � « ¥ ¬ ª® ¦ £ � ¬ � � ¦ § ¨ ¦ �� ¬ � � � � ¦ § �� ¢ §� ¦ ¥ ¬

� � ¯ ¯ ° ° ±² ° ° ³ ³ ¯´ µ ° ° ³ ¯ ° ° ° ¯ ° ¯ ³ ° ° ´ ± ° ³ ° ° ° ° ° ° ± ± ° ± ± ³ ³ ± ´ ´ ° ° ° ° ° ± ¶ ¯ µ ³ ¶ � �

�� ± ¯· ¸ ² ³ ° µ ³ ± ± ¸ ³ · ³ ° ± ± ° ´ ° µ ° ¶ ¸ ° ± ³ ¯ ° ´ ± ± ¯ ± ¸ ° ± ° ° ± · ± ´ ² ± ° ° ± ± ¸ ³ ¯ ± µ ³ ´ ³ ° ° ± ± ´ · ² ± ³ ��

�� ° ° ± µ ¶ ° ± ° ¶² · ± ° ³ ° ± µ ± ³ ± ° ¶ ± ± ¸ ° ° ° ¯ ¶ ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ± ° ° ± ³ ± ± ± ³ ¶ ¯ ° ° ³ µ ¶ ¯ ¯ ´ � �

� � ² ± ° ² ¸ ¯ ° ° ³ ¶ µ · µ ¶ ° ° ± ° ° ° ° µ ¯ ° ± ´ ° ± ° ° µ · ± ³ ¯ ³ ´ · ° ° ° ± ± µ ° ¸ ° · ± ± ² µ ³ ± ° ° ° ° ± ³ ° ¯ ± ¶ ¯ ´ � �

� ° ° ´ ° ¸ ° ± ² · · ° µ ° ± ± ° · ± · µ ° ± ± µ ° ° µ ¸ ± µ ° ± ± ° ± ° ° ° ± ° ±² ± ° ±² ³ µ ³ ° ° ¯ ¯ ± µ ¶ · �

¡¢ ° ° µ ³ ± ± ± ³ ¶ ¯ ³ ¶ ° · ° ± ± ° ³ ¯ ´ µ ° ¯ ± ³ ° ° ± ³ ´ ± ¯ ± ´ ± ³ ± · ¯· ² ² ° ° ± ± ° ± µ ³ ± ¯· ± ° µ ° ° ¶ µ ± ° ± ° ° ¯ ¡¢

¡£ ° ¯ ± ³² µ ¶ ° ± ± µ ¶ ±² ¯ ± ± · ° ² ± ¯ ± ¶ µ ¶ ° ¯ ± ± ³ ¯ µ ³² ± ± µ ± ³ µ ± ° ³ ° ° ° ° ° · ³ ¶ µ ° ´ ¸ · ± ° ¸ ¯ ± ³ · ² · µ · ° ³² ´ ² ¶ µ · ° ± ¡£

� � ° ±² ± ¯· ² ¯ ¯ ³ ³ ´ ² ±² ´ ² ° ´ ¸ ° ´ ¶ ´ ¸ ¶ ¯ ± ¯ ¯ ¶ ³ ³ ³ µ µ ¯ ± ¯ ° ³ ³ ³ ¯ ± ¯ ° ´ ³ ± ³ ± ± µ ¸ ± µ ° ¶· ³ µ ± ¸ µ ¶ ± ± ± ± ¸ ± ° ± · ¯´ ¯ ¯² µ · � �

�£ ± ¸ ° ° ³ ¸ ± ° ° µ ¯ ³ ¶´ ± ± ° ° ³ ³ ° ° ° ± ³ ° µ ³ ¯ ° ° ¶ ³ ± ± ³ ± ³ µ ° ° ° ° ± ± ¯ ± ¸ µ · µ ± ° µ ° ° ° ° ° ¯ ³ · ³ ± ± ´ ´ �£

¤¥ µ ± ° ³ ¯ ° ± ° ¸ ¯´ ¶ ´ µ² ° ° µ ³ ° ± ° ± ³² ° ² ´ µ ° ± ¯ ¯ ± ± ¯ ± ³ ° ° ± ± ± ± ¶ ´ ¯ ± ° · ± ´ ´ ¸ µ ± ¸ ± ³ ° ° ° ± ± · ´ ± · ¶ ° ¤¥

¢ ¦ ° ° ± ° ± ° ³ ¯ ° ° ± ¯ ³ ° ° ± ° ¯ ° ° ° ° ° ° ± ´ ° ± ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ³ ° ° ± ³ ¯ ° ° ± ´ · ± ± ³ ³ ¢ ¦

¢ � ° ° ¯ ° ° ° ± ¯ ± ³ ° ³ ° ± ° ´ ° ° ³ ° ¶ ± ± ¯ ° ° ° ± ° ± ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ¶ ± ± ° ² ³ µ ° ° ± ¯ ¯² µ · ¸ ¢ �

¢ � µ ² ´ ± ¶ ± ° ± ° ¸ · ² ± · ¯ µ ° ± ± ± µ ³ ° ³ ° ¯· · ± ± · ³ ° ± ° ¸ ± ° ° ´ ° ° ° ° ° µ · ± ¶ ¯ ³ ± ¸ ° ¯ ¸ ± ± ± ° · ´ ± · ´ ± · ° ± ± · µ ° µ µ µ ¸ ¢ �

� ¥ ° ° µ ° ° ° ² ¯ ° ° ° ° ± ³ ± ° ° ° ° ± ° ° ° ³ ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ± ° ° ° ± ° ° ° ° ¯ ³² � ¥

§� ° ± · µ ° µ ° µ² ² µ ° ¯ ° ³ ³ ° ¶ ¸ ° ±² ± ± µ ° ° ° ¶ ¶ ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ± ° ° ° ° ³ · ³ ° ³ ¯ ° µ ± ° µ µ² ¯² ³ §�

§ ¨ ° ° ± ° ° ³ ´ · ± · ¯² ° · ° µ ± ° ´ µ µ · ¸ ° ± ³ ± ¸ ° ° ± ± ³ ´ · ° ´ ¯ ¯ ³ · ° ° ³ ³ ° ³ ³ ³ ° ³ ± ¯ · ± ´ ° ° ³ ´ µ ¯ µ ² °² § ¨

© � µ ± ± ± ¶ µ µ µ ³ µ µ µ ´ ° ³ · ³ ¯ ° ° ± µ ± ± ± ° ± µ ¯ µ ¸ ± ¸ ¶ · ¶ ± ³ ¯ ¶ ³ ¸ ± ° ¯ · ¯ ± · ´ ³ ± ± µ ¸ µ · · ´ ± ¯ ¸ ° ± ± ¯ ± ¶ ¯² ³ · ¯ ° ° ¶ · ± ³ ´ ± ¯ ³ © �

© � ° ° ° ° ° ° ³ ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ³ ³ ´ ° · µ ° ° ° ± ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ± ° ° ¯· ³ ³ ° · ¶ ¯ ¯ ³² © �

£ ¨ ¸ µ ³ µ ¸ µ ± ° · µ ¯ ³ ³ ± ¸ ´ ° ° ³ µ ° ± ° ± µ ¯ ° ± ± ¶ µ ± ° ° ¯ µ · ´ ± · µ ³ · ± ´ ± ± ± µ · ´ ¯ ± ¸ · µ ¯ µ ¯ ± µ ´ ³ ³ ° ° ° ³ ¯ ¯ ¯ µ ° · ¶ £ ¨

� ¦ ° ° ´ ° ± ° ´ µ ± ³ ° ³ ° ± ± µ ° ³ ° µ ± ³ µ ± ± ¯ µ ¶ ° ± ° ³ ³ ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ± ± ° ¯ ° ³ ± ± ¶ ² ¸ µ ³² ° ± · ¯ ° ¯ ³ · ´ ¸ � ¦

¦� ° ± ± ° ± ¶ ± ³ ³ ± · ¸ ¯ ° ± · ° ³ ³ ° ¶ ± ´ ± · · ° · µ ¸ ¸ ° ° ¶ ¸ ± µ ± µ ° ¶ ± ± ¯ ² ± ¯ ± ± · ´ ° µ ¶ ´ ± ¸ ° ¯ ± ± ° ° ° ± ¶ µ ¸ ¯ ± ³² ¸ ¦ �

ª ¤ ° ³ · ° ° ° ¯ ¶ ³ ° ° ³ ° ° ² ¯ ° ³ ° ¯ ° ± ¶ ° ³ ¶ ° ¸ ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ³ ± ³ ± ° ¶ ± ± ° ° µ ³ ° ° ± ¶ · µ ³ ¯ ª ¤

� £ µ ° ° ± ¯² ° ° ³ · ¶ ¶ ± ° ° ° ± ± ° ° ° ± ´ ° µ ± ³ ° ° ± µ ¯· ° µ ¶ ³ ¯ ± ³ ° ° ± ° ° ¯ ± ³ ± ´ ³ ¶ µ ° ° ° ± ° ¶ ± ³² ³ µ ± ¯ ± � £

� � ° ± ¯ ° ± ¶ ± ² ³ ² ¯ ° ± ° ° ¯ µ · ± ³ · ± · ¯ ³ ¯ ±² ± ± ° ³ ° · · ± ³ ° ³ ± ° ± ± ° ± ± ° ¯ ¯ ¯ µ ¯ ± ³ µ ´ ³ ± ° µ µ ±² · ³² µ ´ � �

�« ± ³ ³ µ · · ³ ´ · µ ¯ · ³ ° ° ± ° ° ± ° µ ³ · ± ´ ± ³ ³ ° ¶ ¸ ³ ¶· ± ´ ° ¸ ¶² ´ ± ° ³ ´ µ ³ ± ° ± ´ ° ¯´ ³ ° ± ´ ± ± ¯ ± ° ° ³ µ ± µ ± · ¸ ¶ �«

¥ � ¯ µ ¯ ³ ³ ¶ ´ ³ ² ¶ ¶ ³ ° ± ¶ ° ° ± ³ ¶ ° ³ ° ¯ ¶ ± ° µ · µ µ ³ ± ± ± ¸ ± µ ¶ ¯ ±² ¸ ° ´ ´ ³ ¯ ° · ¯ ± ³ · · µ ± ´ ´ ± ¶ ¸ · ¸ ¯ ± ± ± ´ ± ° ° · ± ° ± ´ · ³ ± ¸ ¥ �

¬ � ° ° ° ³ ± ° ° ° ¯ ± ¸ ° ° ³ ° ° ° ± ¸ ° · ¯ ° ° ° ¸ ± ³ · ¸ µ ´ ´ ° ° ° ° ° ³ ¯ ° µ µ ³ ° ° ° ° ° ° ´ ° ³² µ ¬ �

£ ¥ ³ ¯ ¸ ± ´ ² ³ ¶ ± ° µ ±² ± ¯² ± · ± ° ° ° ± ± ¸ ° · ´ · ¶² ° ± · ° ³ ³ · ± ± ¯ ¶ ¯² ³ ¶² ² ¯² ³ ± · ³ ° ³ ³ ° ´ · ¯ · ² · µ ³ ³ µ ¶ ° ± ± ´ µ ´ ³ °² ¸ ¸ ³ µ ² ° ° ³ µ · ± ³² ± ¯ ° ¯² £ ¥

� � ° ° ± ± ¯ ± ° ³ ± ¯ ° µ ° ° ° ° ± ° ¯´ ° µ ° µ ° ° · ² ¸ ± ³ · ´ ² ± µ ¶ ° ° ± ± ° ¶ ± ± ³ ± µ ° ° ° ± ¶ ³ µ µ µ � �

� ° ° ± µ ´ µ µ ³ ¶ ° ² ° ° ³ ° ± ° ² ¶ ° ¶ ± µ ° ° ¸ ³ · ± ¶ ± ³ ¶ ± ³ ¯ ± ³ ¶ ° ° ³ µ ° ± ¶ µ µ ± ¶ ¯ ± ° ° ³ ± ° ° ¯ ¶ µ �

� � ° ± ³ ¯ · ± ¯ µ ¯ ° ± ´ ° ° ³ ° ± ° ± · ² ° ± ° ° ³ ° ° ¸ ³ ³ ³ ± ± ³ ³ ¯ ± ± ¶ ¸ ± ± µ ´ ° ³ ³ ´ µ ± ³ µ ° ° ° ± ² ² · ´ · � �

¦ ¢ ° · ± ¯ ° ° ¯ ± µ ± ± ¯ ° ° ¯ ´ ° ° ° ± ³ ° µ ³ ° ° ° ± ° ³ ° ° ° ° ° ´ ¸ ¶ · ¯ ° ± µ ¯ ¸ ° ° ° ± ° ° ¯ ± ³ · ² ¦ ¢

¤£ ³ ¯ ± ± ³ ° ° ´ ³ µ ´ ´ · ° ° ´ ± ° ° ° ¯ ° ° ± ° · ° ° µ ³ ° ¯ ° ± ° ° ° ± ± ¯ ± ¸ ¯ ³ µ ° µ ± ± µ ¯· ± ± ± ¯ ° ± ± ° ³ ´ ° µ ¤£

� � · ³ ± ± ± ° ° ¯ ± µ ² µ ¶ ° ° µ ¸ ° ° ° ³ ¶ ° ¸ µ ° ° µ ± ± µ ° ± ° ° ° µ ± ° µ · ´ µ ³ ° ± ´ ¸ ´ · ° ° ° ³ ° ± ± ° ° ¶´ ° � �

« ¥ ³ ¯ ³ ± ¶ · ° ° · ³ ³ µ · ± ° ¸ ° ° ¯ ± ° ± ° · µ ± · ´ µ ° ° ± ¯ µ ± ± ° ± ³ ° ° ° ³ ¶ ³ ³ µ ¯ ¶ ¸ ´ ³ ¶ ±² · ² ± ± ° ± ° ³ ³ ° ³ ± ¯ ¸ ´ « ¥

¬ ± ¯ ° ° ¯ ¯ ° ° ± ± µ µ · ° ° ¸ ° ° ° ¯ ° ¸ ± ° ° ¶ ° ° µ ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ± ° ± · ¸ ³ ± ³ ³ ° ° ° ° ° ± · ± ³ µ² ¬

ª ® ° ± µ ¸ ± ± ¯ ° ³ ± µ ± ¸ ± ´ ¶ ° ° ³ µ ± ¯ ° µ ± ´ ± ± ¶ µ ± ± ± ± ¶ ³ ± ° ° µ ± ± ± ± ± µ ¸ ± ³ ° ´ ¶ ¶ ¯ ¯ · · ¶ ³ ° ° ± ± µ ± ± ¶· ³ ª®

¦ ± ¶ ³ ± ´ ± ° · µ² µ ³ ± ´ ° ° ± µ ° ± ° ±² ¸ ° µ ¯ ± ° ° ± ¯ ± ± ³ ± ³ ° ° ± ´ · ³ ³ µ ³ ° ¶ ³ ± ´ ¶ ¶ ± ³ ° ° ° ± ² ± ² ´ · ¦

£ � ¬ ± ° µ ³ ¯ ± ± ³ ´ ¸ ² · ° ° ¯ ° ° ± ° ± ¶ ² ± ¯ ¶ ¯ ° ± ³² ¶ · ¶ µ ³ ³ ° µ ± ° ± ± ± ´ ´ ° · ± ¶ ° ¶ ± ³ ¸ ¶ ° ° ± ± ± · ´ ² ³² ¯ µ £ � ¬

� � ¦ ° µ ±² · ± ¯ ± ´ ¶ µ ° ³ ´ µ ± ¯ µ ° µ ¸ ° ± µ · · ² ± ° ± ¸ · ¶ ° ° ± ² · µ ³ µ ¸ ³ ± ° µ ´ ³ µ ¸ ¯ ° µ ± ¸ ± ³ ° ± ± ¸ ± ¶ ¯ µ ³ · · ¯ ´ ° ° ³ ± ¯´ ´ ³ ¶ µ ± � � ¦

§ ¨ ¦ ° ¶ ± ¶ ° ´ ± · ¯ · µ µ ¯ ´ ³ ³ ° · · ± µ ¸ ± ¯ µ ± ´ µ ±² · ´ ³ µ ³ µ ¯ ° ³ ³ ³ ° ³ ³ ´ ° ± µ ³ ¸ ± ³ ¸ · ¯ ± ° ¯ ³ ¯ ¶ ° ³ ¶² ³ ´ ´ ¶ µ ¶ ¸ ± ² ¶ µ ° ± ¯ ± ´ ¸² ´ ¶ ° ¯ § ¨ ¦

�� ° · ± ° ¶ ¯ · ¶ ³ ¯ ¯ ± · µ · ° ° ¯ ± ¯ ³ µ ° µ ± ³ µ · ¶ ³ ´ µ ³ µ ± ¸² ± · ¶´ µ ³ ´ ³ ° ± ¸ · ³ ±² ³ ¯ ± ´ ¯ ¶ ± ¸ ¸ ± µ µ ± ³ ¯ ° ± ¶ ¸ ± ¸ ± ³ ¯² ³² ¯ ³ ° °² ³ ¶ ° ± ¯ ¸ · ¯ µ ¸ ¶ ± µ ¸ ± · ��

¬ � � ¯ µ ± ³ ³ µ ¯ ¯ µ ¯ ° µ ¸ ± ± µ ³ · ² ° ± µ µ ° µ ± ³ µ ± ± ¸ ° ± ¯´ µ · ± ° µ ´ ´ ¶ ± ² ´ ° ³ ¯ ¸ · ² ¶ ² ± µ ± ± ³ µ ³ ´ ± ± ¸ ± ² µ ¯ ± ± ± ³² µ ¯ ¸ ¶ ¯ ±² ¯ ± ³ µ² ° ± ³ ³ ³ · ´ ± ± ± ¶ ³ ¶¬ � �

� � ¦ ¯ ± ° ¯ ¯² ± ± ± ± µ µ ¯ µ ° ° ° ¸ ° ° ° · ¯ ° ± ³ µ ° ° ° ¯ µ ¸ ³ ² µ ¯ ¸ ± ¶ ´ · ± ± ³ ± ± ± ± ³ ¶ ± ± · ¸ ´ ° ³ ± ° ° ° ± ¶ ¸ ¯ · ³ · ² ± � � ¦

¦ ¥ ¬ ±² µ ± ¶ ¸ ² ¯ ± µ ¯² · ¶ ° · µ ¸ ° µ ³ ´ ¶ · ¶ ³ ° ± ³ ¯ ¸ ³ · µ ± · ¶ · ³² µ µ µ · ³ ¸ · µ² ± ± µ ¸ ¸ ¯ µ ´ ± µ ³ ¶ ³ ³ µ · · ° ³² ² ² ± ³ ¸² ¶ ¶· ° µ ¸ · · ¯ µ ³ µ ³ ± ³ ¶ ± ° ¸ ¯´ ¯ ³ ± ¯ µ µ ´ ³² ¯ ³ ± ¯ ± ³² ± ± ¯ ° ³ µ ´ µ ´ ³ · ¸ ³ ´ ´ µ µ ± ¸² µ ± ¸ ± ³ ³ · ¶ µ ¶· ³ ° ³ ° ´ ° ³ ¯ ¸ ³ ° ± ± ° ³ ± ¸ ¦ ¥ ¬

�� ¡¢ ¡£ � � �£ ¤¥ ¢ ¦ ¢ � ¢ � � ¥ §� § ¨ © � © � £ ¨ � ¦ ¦� ª ¤ � £ � � �« ¥ �¬ � £ ¥ � � � � � ¦ ¢ ¤£ � � « ¥ ¬ ª® ¦ £ � ¬ � � ¦ § ¨ ¦ �� ¬ � � � � ¦ § �� ¢ §� ¦ ¥ ¬

TableA

:1:1996country-to-country

blame

matrices

foroxidizedsulphurcom

putedw

iththe

EM

EP

Lagrangian

Acid

Deposition

Model.U

nits:100

tonnesof

S.Em

itters ¹,Receptors º

A:6

EM

EP

SUM

MA

RY

RE

PO

RT

2001

»¼½ ¾ ¾ »¿

ÀÁ ÀÂ ÃÄ Ã ÅÆ ÇÈ É È Ê Æ Ä Å ÊË Ì É Í ÉÄ É Â Á Ì ÎÁ Î Ï ÐÁ Ð Â Ê Ï Ä Í ÍÄ ÑË Â Ê Å Ã ÃÒ Ì ÀÓ Æ Ê Ì Ä Ä ÁÔ Á Â Í É Ë Ê Ã À Ò ÌÓ Ç ÑÕ Í Ç ÊÄ Ó Ã À Í Î Ï Í ÀÂ Á Ó Ä Æ Ã Á Í Î À Â É ÎÆ Í ÌÓ

ÀÁ Ö × × Ø × × Ù ÚÛ Ü Û × × Ú Ü × × × Ú × Û Ú × × Ö Û × Û × × × × × × Û ÚÛ × Û × × × × × Û × × ÚÝ Û × Ö ÀÁ

À Â × Ø Ü Þ Ú Ø Û ÙÛ Û Ú Ø Û Ý × Û Û × ÜÛ Û Û Û Ú Ü × Ø Ú ÚÛ Ö × Û ß Û Ú × Û × × ×Û Ø Ö ÚÛ × Ø Ö Ü × Ø Ý Ú × × × ß Þ Ù ß Ü À Â

ÃÄ × Û ØÝ × Ú × Ù Ø ÖÝ × × × Û ØÛ Ú Ü × Ú × × Ù Û Û × Ø ß × × × × × × × × × × × × Ø × × Û Û Þ ß × × × Û Ü Ú ß Ù ÃÄ

Ã Å Ú Ú Û ß Ù × × Ø Ü Ú Ú Þ × × Û Ø × Û × Û Ù × Ø ß Û × × Û Ý Û Û Û Ú Ú Ý × × × × Ú Ø Ü Û Ù Ù Û Û Û × × × × ß Ú Ø × Ü Ã Å

Æ Ç × Û ß × ÚÝ Û Û Ú Ö Ú × Û × Û Û × Û Ø Ú Û Ù × × Û Ù Û × Ø Ü Û Û × Û × × × × × × × × Ù Û ×Û Û Û Þ Ø × × × Û Ý Ú Ú Ü Æ Ç

È É × Û Ù ×Û ÝÛ × Þ Þ Ø ß × Ú × Û Ú × Û × Ú Ø Ø ß × Û Û Ù × × Û ØÛ Þ ß × Ù ÝÛ × Ö ß × × × × × Ü Û × Ù × Û Ü Ù × × × Û Û Ù ß Ú Ö È É

È Ê × Ü Þ × × Ý Û Þ Ú Ü Ú ß Ú Û Ø × ÜÛ Ù Ö Þ Ü Ö Û Û ÖÛ Ü Û Û Ý ß Ø Ø × × Ú × Ü × Û × × × × × Ú Ú Û × × Ú × Ú Û ÙÛ × ÙÛ ÚÛ Ù × × × Ø Ø ß Ú ß ÖÝ È Ê

Æ Ä × ÚÝÛ Û Ü Ú Ö × Ö Ø ÚÛ Û × ØÝ ×Û Ú × ß Ý ×Û Û Û Ý × ÜÛ ×Ý Û ß Û Ý Û Ø Ø Ú × ÚÛ Ø Ú Ö × Ö × × Ú Ù Ú Û Û ×Û ØÝ Û × × Ø ØÛ Û Ö Ú Þ Û × × ÚÛ Ý ÚÝ ×Û Æ Ä

Å Ê Ö Û × Ú Ø × × Ù Ö Ü ß Ø × × Ú Ý × Û × ß × Ý Ø × × Ø Ù Û × Ü Û ß × × × × Û Ú Ú × Ú Û Û × × Û × × × Ý Ü Ø × Þ Å Ê

Ë Ì Û Û Ü Ø Ü Û Û Û Ø Ö × Ù ß Ú × × Ö Ö × Ö × Ö ß × ÚÛ Ú Û Ø Ú Ù Û Ö Û Ø × × × ÙÛ Ú Ý Ý × Ú Ö Ú ß × Ú Ø Û × × × Ù Ø Ö Ú Þ Ë Ì

É Í × × Ú × Ú × Ö Ý × × ß Ú × × Ø Û Ø × × × Û × × Ú × × × × × × × × × × × × × Û × × Û Ö ß × × × Ø Þ Û × Ø É Í

ÉÄ × Û Ö × Û × ÚÛ Û Ý × Û × Ú Ø Û × ß × Ø Û × Ø × × × Ù × × × × × × × × × × × × × Ú Û × Û Û × ÚÝ × × × Ú Ü Ú × Ú ÉÄ

É Â Û Û Ý Ü Ø Ú ×Û ß Ü Ü Ú ÞÛ × × Û Ü Ù ßÛ Ü × Û Ü ß Ø Ö Ö Û Ú Ø Ù Û Ø × Ú × Û × × ×Û ÚÛ × Ý Ú ×Û Ü Ù Ú Ú Ü Û × ÚÝ × × Ú Ú ÖÛ Ö Þ ß É Â

Á Ì × × Ú × × × Ü Ù × × × × ×Û Û × × × × Û × × × Ú × × × × × × × × × × × × × × × × Û Û × × × Ú Ú Ø Á Ì

ÎÁ × Û Ú Ö × Ú × Ø Ú ÜÛ × Û × Û ÚÛ Ù Ö Û Ù × × Ú Û Û × Ù Ü × × × × × × × × × × × × Ù × × Ú Ú ß ß × × × Û Ý ØÛ Ø ÎÁ

Î Ï × ÚÛ Ø × Ø ÖÛ Û Ú Ù ÙÝ × ÚÛ Ø Ú × Ú ß Ý Ù Ø Ú × Û Û Ö × × ×Û Ú × Ù Ø × Û Ý Û Û Ø × × × × ×Û × Û × Ú Þ Ù Ú Û Ü × × × Û ÖÛ Ü Ø Ü Î Ï

ÐÁ Û ÚÛ ÚÛ ß ÖÛ Ý Ù Ú Ú ßÝ Ø Ö Ú × Û Ø Ý Ú ØÝ Ü ÙÝ × Û Ú × Ú Ú Ø Ö Û Ù ÚÛ Þ Ú Ø Ú Ø Ú Ú Ø Ý ß ß Ö Ù ×Û ÚÛ Ø Ù × ÙÛ Ø Ù ß × × × Û Ý ×Û Ü Ü × ÐÁ

Ð Â × × × × × × Ö Û × × × × × × × × × Ý Ù × Ø Ø × × × Û × × × × × × × × × × × × × × × × Û Ö × ÚÛ × × ß Þ Ú Ù Ù Ð Â

Ê Ï Ú ß Ú Ù Ù Ú Û Ü Ú ÜÛ ß ØÝ × × Ø Ø × Ø × Ù Ö ×Û ß Ú Û Û Û Ú Ø Ö Ö Ø ß Ý Ú Ú × × Û Û Ù ßÛ Ö Û Û ÜÛ Þ Û Ø Ú × × × × Û Ú Ö Ü × Ú Ê Ï

Ä Í × × Ü × Ú × Þ Ú Ú Ú × × × Û Û ØÛ ß × ÚÛ Û Ú × Ù Ø Þ Û Ú × Ú Ù × × × × × × × × × × × × Ú × Û Û Û ×Û × Ù Ø Ú × × × Ø Ú ØÛ Ù Ý Ü Ä Í

ÍÄ × ØÛ Ú × ßÛ Ö × Ú Ú Þ Ø × Ù × Ø Ù × Ú Þ Ù Þ Ü × × Ú ÚÛ Û Û × × Þ × Ý Ù × Ø Ü Ù Ö Ý Û Û Û Û ×Û ß Ø × Ü Ø Ù Ú Û Ø × × × Û Ù Ø Þ Ý Ý ÍÄ

ÑË × Ø ß × Û × ß Ü Ø Ú × × × × ß ÜÛ Ù × Û × × Ö × Ú ß × Þ × × × × × × ×Û × × × × Ú × × × Ö Ø × × × Ø Ú Ú ß Ö ÑË

Â Ê Û Û ×Û Ö × × Ö Ö Ø Þ Ú × × Û Ö × × × Ü × Ý Û × × ÖÛ Ø Û Ú Ú Ú Û Ú Ü × × × × Û Û Û × Ø Û Ú Û × × Û × × Ø Ú ß Ý ÞÝ Â Ê

Å Ã × Ø Ú Þ × Þ Û Ý Ý Þ ß × Ú × Ú ß ÙÛ Ö Þ Ø Û Þ Ø Û Û Ú Ö Ú × ß Ø Ø Û Û × Ú × × Û × × × × ×Û Ú Ú × ß Ý Þ ßÝ Û × × Þ ÞÛ Ú ßÝ Å Ã

ÃÒ × Ö Ö Ù Þ Ù Û Ú Ö Ö ÚÛ Û × × Û Û × Ü ÚÛ × Ü ×Û Ö Û Þ Û Ö Û Û Ù Þ Ö Ø Ø Ü Ø Ú ÖÛ ×Û Û Û Û ×Û Ý Ý Û Û ß Ü Û × × × Þ Ù ß × Ü ÃÒ

Ì À Û Ü Ù Ø ÚÛ × ß Û Ù ß ØÛ Ø Ø Ø × Û Ø Ø × Û Û ÚÛ ß Ú × Ü Ø Ú Ý Ú ß Ö Û Ü Ø Ù Ú Ü ÞÛ Ý Ú Ú ß Ú Ú Ü Ú Ö Ö ß × Ø × Ú Ø ÙÛ Ù Þ Û × × × Ø ×Ý Û Ù Ø ß Ì À

Ó Æ × × × Ø × × Û Ø Û Ú × × Ú × × × Ü × Þ × × × Ö Û Û Û Û Ù Ü × × × × × × × × Û Û × Û × × × × × Û Ü Ü Ü Ó Æ

Ê Ì ×Û Û Û Ú Ú Ù Ö Þ Ú × Ö Ø ÞÛ Ù ØÛ × Ú Ù × Û Ú Ö × Ú Þ Ø Ö Ú Ù Ü × Ö Ú Û Þ × Ø Ü Ù ß ÙÛ Û Ú Ú Ù ÜÛ × Ú Ö Þ Ü ØÝ Ú Ø Ø Ù Ú Ø Ú Ø × Ö ÞÛ Ý Ø ßÛ Ú Ü ÖÛ Û Ø × × ×Û ÞÛ Ý ß Ø Ø Ø Ê Ì

Ä Ä × Û Û × ßÛ Û Ö Û Ö × Û × × Û × Ø Ú Û Þ × Û × Ý × × ß Ö Ø × Û Ù ß Ø Ø × × × × × Ø Û ×Û ß Ù Û × × × Ú Ù Û ß Ø Ä Ä

ÁÔ × Û Ú × Þ ß Ö Ú Ø × Ú × × Ú × Ö Ú Ø Ø × Ú × Þ × × Þ Þ Ù × Ú × Ø Ù Ü × × × × × ß Û ×Û Ü ß Û × × × Ø Ù Ú Ú Ø ÁÔ

Á Â × Û Ú Û Ý Ø ß ÚÝ × Ö × × Ø × Ù Ú Ù × × Ø × Ü × × Û ×Û × ß × Û ÙÛ ØÛ Ú × × ×Û × Ý Ø ×Û Ö ß Û × × × Ø Ö Ú Ö Ü Á Â

Í É × Ü Û Û × × Ü Û Ú Û Ø × × Ö Ú × Û × Ö × Û Û × Û × Û × × × × × × × Ý Ø Û × × Ö Û × × Û × Û × × Û Ù Û Û Ü Í É

Ë Ê Û Ý Û Ú Û × Û Û Û Þ ÖÛ Û × × Ü Ù × Ú × Û Ö × Ú Ö Û Û Û Ú × Û × Û × × × ÖÛ Ú Þ Ú ×Û × Ù × Û Û Û Ö × × Ø ß Ú Ö Ü Ë Ê

Ã À Û Ö Û Ú × × Ü Û Ú ß Ü × × Ù Þ × Û × Û Û × Ú Ú × Û Ú Ú × Û × Û × × ×Û ÜÛ ß Ø × ß Ø × Û Û Û Ø × × Ø ß Ú × × Ã À

Ò Ì Ù Ù ÚÛ Û Û × Ý Ú × Ú × ÚÛ × × Ù Ú × Ú × Ú Ú Û Û Ö Ø × Û Ý Ø Û Ø Û Ú × × ×Û ßÛ Ö ÚÛ ÚÛ Ú Ý × Û Û Û Ú × × ß Ö Ø Ø Þ Ò Ì

Ó Ç Ú × × Ù × × Ú Û Û Ö Û × × Þ × × × Ú × Ú Û × × Ö × × Û × Û × × × × × Û Û Û Û Û × × × × × × × Û Ü ß Ü Ó Ç

ÑÕ × Ú ×Û × Ú ß Û Ø ÖÛ Ö Ü Û Û Û × × Ú ßÛ Û Ù Û Ü × × Ù Û Ö Ö × Û Þ Û Ø × Ú × × Û Ù Ø Û Û × Þ ÜÛ Û × Ü Û × Ú × × × Ù Ù Ù Ü Ü ÑÕ

Í Ç ×Û Û Ø Ø Û Û Þ ØÛ Ú Ú Þ × × Û Ý × Ö × Ù Ù × Ý Û Û Ú Û Ù Û Ø × Ú × × × Ø Ö Ø Ø × Ú Ø Ú Ö × Ú Ú × × × × Ø Ø Ú Ý Ý Í Ç

ÊÄ Ó × Û Ù Ö Û Û Ù Ø Û Ü Ù Û × × Ö Ü × Ö × ÞÛ × Ö ÙÝ Û Ú Û Ù Û × ÚÛ Þ Û Û Ö ß × × × × Û Û Û × Ø Û ÚÝ Û Ö Û Ú Ý Ö × × Ý Ü ÚÛ Ö Ú Ö ÊÄ Ó

Ã À Í × ßÛ Þ Û Ý ß Ù Ü ÖÛ Û Ý Ø × Ý × Ø Û ØÛ Ö Ú Ú ÖÛ Ù Ü × Ö Ø Ý Ý Ú × ÞÝ Û ÜÛ Û Û Ù ÞÛ Û ÞÛ Ö Ú Û Û Û × Ø Ù ß ×Û Ú Ü ÙÝ Û × × × × Û ÙÝ Û Ø Ù Ü Ã À Í

Î Ï Í ×Û Û Þ × Û Ý Þ Þ Ú Ù Þ Ö × Ü × ÞÛ Ú Ü Û Ö Ö Ú × Ú Ø ØÛ ÖÛ Ù ß Ú Ö Ø Þ ß × Þ ß Ø Ý Ý Û Û Þ Ú Ú Ö Ú Û Û Û × ß × Ý × Ù Ù Ú Þ ÚÛ × ß Ø × × ÚÝ Ú ØÛ Þ Ù Î Ï Í

À Â Á ×Û ØÛ Ú Ö Û Û × × ÙÛ ÙÛ Ú Ù ÚÛ ×Û Ú Ú ØÛ Û Þ Û Ù ß Ú × Ø Þ ÜÛ ß ÖÛ × Ù Ù Ú Ø Ú Ü ß Ý ×Û Ø Ö ÜÛ ÖÛ Ú Û Û ØÛ ß Ö Ý Ú Û × × × Ü ØÛ × × ÝÛ Ø Ù ÖÛ Ú Ø Þ Ø Ö × × Ú Ù Ø Ö Ý Ú ØÝ À Â Á

Ó Ä Æ Ü ÚÛ Ú Ø Ø Þ Ù Û Ö ÚÛ Û Ø ÞÛ ß Ø Ú Ù × Ú Ý Þ × Ú Ú Ø Û Ù Ú Ø Ø Ú Ú Ø Ú ß Ø Ú ÜÛ Ý Ö Ö Ù Ø ÚÝ Ø Ú Ú × × Û Û Û ÚÛ ÚÛ Ý Û Ø ÖÛ Û Û Ú Ù Ú Ø Ö Ü Ú × Ù × ×Û × Þ Ü Ö × × ÜÓ Ä Æ

Ã Á Í Û Û Û Ú Þ Û Û Ú Ý Û Ü ß × × Ý × Û × Û Ý × Ú Ú × Û ×Û ÖÝ Û Ö Ü Ú ÖÛ Û Ø × × Û × Û Û Ú × Ù Ø Ü Ú Û × × × × ÚÛ ß ß ÞÝ Ã Á Í

Í ÌÓ Ø Ö Ú Ý Ü Ü × Ö Ø Ö Ü ß Ø Þ Ù Ø Ù Ø Ö Ø Ý Ö Ú Ú Ú Ö ÖÝ Ö Ú ß ØÛ Ú ØÛ Ú Ü Ø Þ Ö ÖÛ Û × Ü Ø Þ × Ú ÖÛ Ý ØÝ × ÙÛ ÙÛ Ù Ú ß ß × Ø Ú ×Û Û ×Û Ú Ö Ú Ö × Ø Ø Ù Ý Þ ß ß Ø Ø Ù Ü Ú Ý Þ ß ÜÛ Ø Ú Þ ×Û Û ßÛ Û ß ÞÝ ß Þ Ú Ù Ú ß Ü ÞÝ Ü ß ÙÛ Ö ×Û Û Þ ×Ý Ü Ù Þ × ×Û × ß × Ü ÖÝ Ý Ú Ü Í ÌÓ

ÀÁ ÀÂ ÃÄ Ã ÅÆ ÇÈ É È Ê Æ Ä Å ÊË Ì É Í ÉÄ É Â Á Ì ÎÁ Î Ï ÐÁ Ð Â Ê Ï Ä Í ÍÄ ÑË Â Ê Å Ã ÃÒ Ì ÀÓ Æ Ê Ì Ä Ä ÁÔ Á Â Í É Ë Ê Ã À Ò ÌÓ Ç ÑÕ Í Ç ÊÄ Ó Ã À Í Î Ï Í ÀÂ Á Ó Ä Æ Ã Á Í Î À Â É ÎÆ Í ÌÓ

TableA

:2:1996

country-to-countryblam

em

atricesfor

oxidizednitrogen

computed

with

theE

ME

PL

a-grangian

Acid

Deposition

Model.U

nits:100

tonnesof

N.E

mitters à,R

eceptors á

AP

PE

ND

IX:Source

receptorm

atricesA

:7

âãä å å âæ

çè çé êë ê ìí îï ð ï ñ í ë ì ñò ó ð ô ðë ð é è ó õè õ ö ÷ è ÷ é ñ ö ë ô ôë øò é ñ ì ê êù ó çú í ñ ó ë ë èû è é ô ðò ñ ê ç ù óú î øü ô î ñë ú ê ç ô õ ö ô çé è ú ë í ê è ô õ ç é ð õí ô óú

çè ý ýþ þ þ ý þ þ ÿ þ � ý þ þ � þ þ þ ý þ ý ý þ þ ý þ þ ÿ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý � ÿ þ þ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ �þ ý � � çè

ç é þ ÿ� � � ý ý þ � � ý �þ þ ýþ þ ý � � ý � þ ý � þ � ÿ ý ÿ ÿ þ � ý � þ ý þ þ þ ý � ÿ ý ÿ þ ÿ � � þ þ þ þ þ þ þ �þ � � � çé

êë þ þ � ÿþ þ ý þ �þ ÿ � þ þ þ ý ý ÿ � � þ ý þ þ � þ ý þ ýþ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý � � � � êë

ê ì � ý þ ÿ� � þ þ ý ý ý � � þ þ � þ þ þ � þ � � þ þ þ � þ ÿ � ÿ � � þ þ þ þ ý ÿ ÿ � � ý ÿ � þ þ þ þ þ þ � � � � � ê ì

í î þ ý � þ � ÿ � þ � � ÿ þ þ þ ý ý þ � þ ýþ þ þ þ � þ þ � ÿ ÿ þ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý � � � ý í î

ï ð þ ý ÿ þ � ý � � � ý � þ ý þ ý þ þ � � ý � þ ý ý ý � þ þ � ý � ý � þ ÿ ÿ ý � � � þ þ þ þ þ ÿ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ �� ï ð

ï ñ þ � � � þ � þ � � ý ÿ ý ÿ � þ ý þ � � � � � � þ � � ý ý � � ý � � þ � ÿ þ ý þ þ þ þ þ ý ý þ ý þ � ý � þ þ þ þ þ þ ÿ �þ � �þ �ï ñ

í ë þ � � � � þ � � þ ÿ � � ÿ� � ý þ � þ � � � ýþ ý � � ÿ � ÿ ý � ý ÿ � � � þ �� ýþ þ ý þ þ ý � ý þ ÿ þ � � � þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý � � �þ � ý í ë

ì ñ ý ý þ þ ý � þ þ ÿ ý ÿ �þ ÿ þ þ � þ þ þ ÿ þ � ý þ þ ý ý þ ý ý � ý ÿ þ þ þ þ ý ý � � þ þ ÿ þ þ þ þ þ þ � � � ÿ � ì ñ

ò ó ý ý � ý � ý þ � ý � ÿ �þ ÿ þ þ ý � þ ÿ þ ý � þ � ý ý þ ÿ ý ý ÿ ý � ý ÿ þ þ þ � � � ÿ � ý � ÿ � þ þ þ þ þ þ þ � � � � � ò ó

ð ô þ þ ý þ ý þ � � þ þ ý ý � þ þ ý þ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ � þ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ÿ ý � ÿ ð ô

ðë þ ý ÿ þ þ þ ÿ � � þ þ þ �þ � þ þ ÿ þ ý þ þ � þ þ þ � ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý � �� ðë

ð é ý ý � ÿ ý ý þ � ÿ �� ÿ � þ þ ÿþ þ ÿ þ ÿ þ � ÿ � ÿ � þ � � ý ÿ þ � þ þ þ þ þ � � � � þ � ÿ � þ þ þ þ þ þ ÿ ý � ÿ �� ð é

è ó þ þ ÿ þ þ þ � � þ þ þ þ þ ÿþ ý þ þ þ þ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ÿ � � è ó

õè þ ý � ý þ ÿ þ �þ �þ þ þ þ ÿ ý þ � � � þ ÿ þ þ ÿ þ ý þ ý � þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý � � � � õè

õ ö þ ý � þ ÿ ý ÿ ý � � ÿ þ ý þ � ý þ ý ý ý ý � ý � þ ý ý ý � þ þ ÿ � � � þ � ÿ ý � þ þ þ þ þ � ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý ý � � ÿ � õ ö

÷ è ý ý � � � ÿ � ý ÿ � ý � � ý ÿ � þ ý ý � ý ý � ý ý � � � þ ÿ � ý ý ý � þ � � � ýþ � � ÿþ ÿ ÿ ý ý � � ÿ � ý � ý ÿ � ý þ þ þ þ þ þ ý � � ÿ � �þ ÷ è

÷ é þ þ þ þ þ þ � þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ � ÿ � þ � � þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ÿ ÿ �� ÿ ÷ é

ñ ö � � ý �� ý þ ÿ ýþ � �þ þ þ ýþ þ ý þ ÿ ý þ � � � þ þ þ � ý � ý � � ÿ ÿ ý � þ þ ý ý � � � � � � � ÿ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý � � ý �� ñ ö

ë ô þ þ � þ ý þ � þ � þ þ þ ý � þ ÿ þ þ � ý þ ÿþ � � þ ÿ þ � þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ � þ þ þ þ þ þ ý ÿ � ÿ � �� ë ô

ôë þ ÿ � þ � � ýþ ý � �� þ ÿ þ ÿ ý þ ý ý ý � � � þ ÿ ý ÿ �þ þ þ ý � ý � ý ÿ þ ý � � � � þ þ þ ÿ þ � ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý ý � � � ÿ ôë

øò þ � � þ þ þ �þ � � þ þ þ þ � � þ ÿ þ þ þ þ � þ ÿ � ý þ ÿ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ � ý � � � øò

é ñ ý þ þ � þ þ ý ý ýþ ý þ þ � þ þ þ ÿ þ � ý þ þ � � � þ � � ÿ ý ý � þ þ þ þ þ þ ÿ ý ý þ ý � þ þ þ þ þ þ ÿ � � ý � � ý é ñ

ì ê þ ÿ ÿ ý þ � þ ýþ þ � � þ ý þ � � ÿ ý ÿ ÿ ý � ý ý � ý ÿ þ ý � �� ý ÿ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ � ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ � ý ý � � ÿ ì ê

ê ù ý � ý � � ý � ý � ý � þ þ � þ � þ � � þ ÿþ ý � ý ý ÿ � ý � ý � � � � ÿ ÿ � ý � ý ý ý � þ � � ÿ þ þ þ þ þ þ ýþ þ ý � � � ê ù

ó ç ý � ÿ ý � � ý � ÿ � � ÿ � þ ý ý � þ � þ � � þ ý ý � ý ÿ ÿ � � ÿ ý ý � � � � � � ý ý � � ý ý � ý ÿ ÿ ý ÿ ý � ý ÿ ÿ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ � ÿ ÿ � � ÿ � ó ç

ú í þ þ þ ÿ þ þ þ ý þ ý þ þ ý þ þ þ � þ ÿþ þ þ þ ÿ þ � � � ýþ ÿ � þ þ þ þ þ þ ý þ þ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý � ÿ ÿ � ú í

ñ ó ý � � ý � ý � � � ý � � ÿ � ý � þ ý � þ � � ý � ÿ þ � ý ý ÿ ý ý � � � ÿ � � � � � ý ý � � �� ÿþ ÿ � ý ý ÿ � ý ý ÿ � ý � ý þ þ þ þ þ þ ý � �þ �� ñ ó

ë ë þ þ þ þ � ÿ ÿ � þ þ þ þ þ þ ý þ ý ÿ þ ý þ � þ þ ý ýþ � þ � ýþ ý � � þ þ þ þ þ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ÿ ý ý � � ë ë

èû þ ý ý þ � ý ÿ ýþ þ ý þ þ ý þ ý þ ÿ ÿ þ ÿ þ � þ þ ý �þ ý � ý ýþ � � � ý � þ þ þ ý þ ÿ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ÿ � ÿ ÿ ÿ èû

è é þ ý ý þ � þ � ý � þ ÿ þ þ ý þ ÿ þ � � þ � þ � þ þ ý � ý ÿ � ý ýþ ÿ � ý � � þ þ þ ý þ ÿ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ �þ � ÿ ÿ è é

ô ð þ ýþ þ þ þ þ � � þ � þ þ ÿ � þ þ þ ÿ þ ý ý þ ý þ þ þ ý þ þ þ þ þ � � � ý ý þ ÿ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý � ý � ý ô ð

ò ñ ý � þ ý þ þ � � ý ý � þ þ � � þ þ þ � þ ÿ ÿ þ ý þ þ ý � þ þ þ þ þ � � ý ý ÿ � þ � � þ þ þ þ þ þ þ � � ÿ ÿ � ò ñ

ê ç ÿ ÿ þ ý þ þ ÿ � ÿ � þ þ ÿþ þ þ þ � þ ÿ ý þ þ ý þ ý ÿ þ þ þ þ þ ý ýþ ý ý � ý ý þ ÿ ÿ ý þ þ þ þ þ þ � � ÿ ÿ � ê ç

ù ó ý � � þ ýþ þ þ � � � ÿþ þ þ ý � þ ý þ � þ ý � ý þ ý ÿ þ ý ýþ ý ý þ þ þ ý � ý � � � � � � � ý þ þ þ þ þ þ �� ù ó

ú î ýþ þ þ � þ þ ý þ ýþ ý þ þ � þ þ þ ý þ ÿ þ þ þ ý þ þ � þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý � � � þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý � ý ÿ ý ú î

ø ü þ � ÿ � ý � þ ÿþ ý ÿ� þ � þ þ ýþ ý � þ � � þ � ý ý � þ � � ýþ þ ý þ þ ý � ý ý ÿ þ � ÿ ý ýþ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ � � � �þ ø ü

ô î ý ý ý ý ÿ ý þ � ý � ý ÿ � þ þ � þ ý þ � � þ ýþ þ þ ý þ ý ÿ ý � þ ý þ þ þ ÿ ÿ ÿ � þ ý ÿ ý � � þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ÿ� � �þ ô î

ñë ú ý ý ÿ ÿ þ þ ÿ � � ý ý þ þ ý � þ ý þ ÿ � � � � þ ý � � ý � � ÿ ý ý ý ÿ þ þ þ þ þ ý ÿ þ ý þ � � � þ þ þ þ þ þ �þ � ý �þ ÿ ñë ú

ê ç ô þ � � ý �� ÿ ý ÿ ÿ ý � � þ � þ ÿ � þ ÿþ � ý ÿ � þ � ÿ � � ý þ ý � �þ � � ý ÿ � ÿ � ý ÿ ý � ý þ þ ÿ þ � � þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý ÿ � � � ý ê ç ô

õ ö ô þ � � ÿ ý ý ÿ ý ý � � � �þ ÿ þ � þ �� ÿ ý � � ý � � � ý � ý � ÿ � � þ � � � ý � ÿ � ý � ý ý � ý ý þ ý þ ÿþ � þ þ þ þ þ þ þ ý � � ý � � � õ ö ô

çé è þ � � ÿ þ � ý � � � � ÿ ý � þ � � ÿ � � � � � ý ÿ � � � � � � ý � � ý � � þ � � ý ý � ÿ � þ � � � ÿ � ý þ þ ý þ ý � � ý þ þ þ þ þ þ ý � � � � � � � ç é è

ú ë í ÿ ÿ ý ÿ � ý � ÿ þ ÿ � � � � � ÿ ý � þ ý � � � ý � þ ý � ý ÿ ÿþ ÿ �þ ý ÿ ý � ý � � � ÿ � � þ þ þ � ý � ý � ý � � � � � ÿ þ þ þ þ þ þ � �� ÿ � � ýú ë í

ê è ô ý þ þ ý � þ þ þ ÿ � � þ þ ÿ þ þ þ � þ �þ þ þ þ ý � ý þ ýþ ÿ � � � � � þ þ ý þ þ þ � ý ý ý � � þ þ þ þ þ þ ÿþ � � � ý ê è ô

ô óú ý � þ � ýþ � � � � � ý � � � ÿ � � �� þ � � � � � � ý � � � ÿ ÿ � � � �þ ý ý ý ÿ ý � � ÿ � �þ �� ý �þ � ÿ � ÿ ÿ � � � � � � ý � � � ÿ � � � ý � �� ý ý � ÿþ � � � � � ÿ ý ÿ ý ý � ÿ � ý ý �þ ý �þ ý � � � � � � ý � � þ ÿ� þ � � � þ þ þ þ þ þ � � ý ý � � � � � ô óú

çè çé êë ê ìí îï ð ï ñ í ë ì ñò ó ð ô ðë ð é è ó õè õ ö ÷ è ÷ é ñ ö ë ô ôë øò é ñ ì ê êù ó çú í ñ ó ë ë èû è é ô ðò ñ ê ç ù óú î øü ô î ñë ú ê ç ô õ ö ô çé è ú ë í ê è ô õ ç é ð õí ô óú

TableA

:3:1996country-to-country

blame

matrices

forreducednitrogen

computed

with

theE

ME

PL

agrangianA

cidD

epositionM

odel.Units:

100tonnes

ofN

.Em

itters �,Receptors �


Source-receptor matrices for acidificationand eutrophication. Calculations for 1996

with the Eulerian Acid model.

AP

PE

ND

IX:Source

receptorm

atricesA

:9

� � � �� ! � � !� ! " � ! " # � # � � � �� " � � � � � � �� " � �� $% &' & & & &' % ( &) &' & * & & +' & ) & $ (' % & &) ) & & & & * (' & ' & & & , & & * &' & & ) ' + & & ( ) ' % () ( ) % * � �� &' & $ & & & & & & $ , ' &' & & & ( & & ( & ' & & & ' ' & & & & ' & & & & & & & ( , & & & ' & & & & & $) ' & ( & ( $- �� ' & + ( ( ( + & ( * ( , ( *' ' &' +' ( & *) % & ( $ & (' $ $ % - & & , + & &' ' & ' ' ' ' ( ) &' ( $ ' & ) ' () () - % *' ( & - ' ' ( ' &) % ' % ' ' +- � �� ( ' ) ' & * & * ) ( (' - & +- ) & $% + % ' - ,) - ' % - % -' & & ( ( *' $) , &' +' ' ' ' ) &) $) & ) ( & - *' ' * ( * - *) ' $ ( ( $ ' ' *- ( &' , ( &� �� & &' ' & (' ( & ' ' & ' & &' % ( & $ ( & & , $ & +% & $ &' ) & & &' & ' & ( -) ) * & ' % & & & ( ( & (' ' $ & & & ' $ , ( ' - ( *� �� + &) & ' ' & $ ,' ( +) ,' ) & ( + & & ' ( , & + & ( +' $ - ( & & $ + & & & &' ( (' ' & & & *) ' & $ ' ( $ ' ' ) +' $ & & ' + ( % %' & ,' (' % � �� ' & ' ' & ( & - ) ' ) $' - *) ' &' * & & ' & * & ( & ' - *% ) % & & ( +' & & & , ' % , ( & & & ) - & ( * & (%) % ' ' ( , & &' + *% ' , $ + & ( $ & (� �� * & - ' ' ' &' * & ( &) ( - ( & * & & & ' * + & , & ) ,' &' &' & & - + & & & &' (- ' ' & & & $' ' & * ' ) & ' ' +' , ' * & & ' , ( , ( - * , $ * � �� & & & & & & & & - ' &' $ & & & ' & & & & ' & & & & & & & & & $ & ' & & & & & ( ' & & & & & & & &' ' & & ' & * * � �� ' & ( & $ ) % & ( % ' % ( & + & % (' $' - ( +' ' % & $ & , *' ( , &' ( + &' ' ' & - ' ' * $ & $ $ & & & ( ' ( ( $ - -' , ' &' ( ' ' , ' + (- ( * ( $' ' � �� & &' * $ ( - & ) % ( & & ( *' ) ' ' ) &' ' % & ,) & + &' ( &' ( & & & & $ * ( % ' - , & & & ' ( ( (' * + & & $ $ ( ( ( $' +� �� & & &' % ' ( ' & ( ' & + & &' $ * - ( - * + ( & ) $ ' * & & ( &' $ % & & ' ' ' ' ( & -' & & & & $ ( , (' ' ) & &' - + $ ( ) * * � �� ' ' ( + & () $ & + , *' % ' & $' ' - + ( *- % () - ' & &' ' * ( ( & &' +' ' -' - & & ( ( - ( , *' - - & ' ' (' & ( , + % ) , ( , & ' ) () ,' ) $' * &) � �� ( & + $ ' ' -' & () ( ( ( (' - &' ) , % &) , ( + &' , + , & * & + +) ( &' &' % - & &' % & , +' (% * +' +' &' ' ' ' - & ( $ - *' * ' ' ' ' ) - % ( ' (' & %) , +' ( % ' $ *% +% �� ( &) ' $- ,' +) & ( * %) ( + $ & + +% $- ( * +) & ( ( , % &) - *) $ % , & $ - $ & ( $ % & ' ( (' ' , %' ' &' + * * ' & * + ( , ' ' ) %' , ,' - (- ' ) % ( + $ $- ' % - % $ % � �� ( $ &' & ' & ) ( $ -' $ ( + ( & , & & ,' - & $ & ' & + ( + ( & & & $ + & & & & + % () - & & & (' ' ' ' ' ' $ + * - (' * & & ( ( ( ( ' ' % - ) *' % +) �� * &' ' ' ( ( & , ( (' + (' + & ,- ' & ' ,) & , & ,' ' ' + * ( & & $ ( & &' &' ' ) ( ' ' ' &' , & ' & * &' ) * *' ' %' *' ' &' ) ) ( * % + %' ' % & , � �� & & & ' & ( & & * ( & & & (' & $ & & * & + & ' () ) ' & & & & & & &' +' ( & * & & & ) & ' & & * & & & & ( + ' & ' * + �� & & & ' & * & ' ) * ' & & +' & *-' &' ' & ' , & ( & ( * $ ' & & & & & ' &' $ ( , & ' & ' & &' % ' & ' & ( & & & & ' ' $ , ' ' $- $ � �� ' & &' * ' ' * &' ' (' $' + *) ) & +- ' &' % * , &' &- &' &- ) + , & & &' $ $ & & & & & ( ( *- ' ' ( ' ) & + ( - & ) + *) , ' ' , - +' ' ) & % (' ) ' &' *' ( - $ * * , , � �� & &' ' $) & ( & * ' +' ( & & ( $ -' *' & &) * & -' ' ' & & & *' $ %) - & & ' ' (' ) &' &- & & & & , ) ' $' () & & (- ' ( , ) $' , � � � & &' ' () ) ( & $ ' +' *' & (% , $ ' & , ( * & - - (' $ & & - ' ' - % - & & ' ( ' ' ) &' - $ & & & &' ' ( $ + ( () & &) & ' ' ' & $ -' * � �� & & & & & + & & ' & & & ( & & ) $ &' & & ' & & ' & & & & & &) & & & &' ' & ( & & & & & & & & ' & & & & ) & & * ( � �� & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & ' & & & & & & & & ' & & & & & ' & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & ) & $ � �!� & &' ( & , ( & ' % ' & &) ' * & *% % &) % &' ) % & * &' ( & & &' & ' & ) ' ) - -' & ) % & & & ( ( & (' ' & & & & ( , * ( ' - -) !�! " & &' ( & ,' $ & +' * , + & &) -) ' $ * + + $ ( $ &' ' , ' ' & & * - & $ , & & ( & ( * - *' $ $ , ( & & ' ' * +' * * $' ' (' % & &' & () * % - ' ' ) ( ! "# � * &' ( $' $' ' , ' - - - * , + % & $ $ +) - -' (% - *) & &' &) *' ) ( *' &' $ $ ( ,) &' ' ' ) + $ ,' +' *) - & & ' * ' % & * +' (- (' ' + + ( (' +) - &' ' ' $- + $' ' # �# � & & & & & ' & & * , & & & ' & & $' $ & $ & ( & & & & ( & & & & & * & , & ' & ' ) $ % & ' $ % & & & &' *) & & & & ) ) & - *' # �� ' & & & ) & ( - ' &) ( & & * & & ' , & ' & + $ , & & *' & & & & ) * * & & & & ' % & ' ' & - + , ) ' ' & & $ , & &' ' $ ) ) ) � �� "' ( ' * ( % (' &' &' + & $- ( - & - * ( & () & & ,' + ( * ,' %) & & +) ) ' ( & * ) & * & ) ' ' &' , , ' ) , ' ' % + & ( + $) % ' $ & & () (' * *' % %' - ( * ( & (� "� � ' & $ , % - -) *% ' +' $ %) ( $- , *' , , $ (' -) ' ( +- , ,- % $) + $ & * &' $' ' $ + &' % * ( ( $ - ( - % & ( ) %) ) ( * +' $ $ +- * ' ' $ $ ' ' - (- , ,-) ( - ( ( &) ( () () $ *' * & , , +' +% ,-' + $% - � �� ( & $ ' ( ( &) $ ' ) ) % $ & , (' & ' ( & & $ & - + - ( ,) & & ( * & &' &' - ' &' ' & (- - & & ( & * ( ) ' , & % $ & & ' ( * * * *) ) ' ' % - � �� ' & - & & & &' ( % ' ' ' , & ( & & & , $ & * & ' % ) ( , & & *- & & & & & , & & & & & ( ( & & ( &' & & - + + - & & & ) ' ( % ' & ) $' � �� & &' ' & , & $ ( ,- - ' &' & ( & ( ,- + & % , & ( + ) * & ( * $ & & & & &' ( ( & ( () % & ,' $ % & ( (' ( * ) & ' ( ( * , & &' & ' ) % + & ) ) $- , �� ' & (' * ( ( &' - &' ( % ( () ' & - - % ( ( ( +) ) ) - ( $ & ( & + ) ( + &) % ' ' * (' & & ( (' ) ,) % ( & ( (' & & ' $' % ,' ' ( (' ' ' $ + & ' (- ' - *' ) ' ' ' - *) � �� & &) & & + & * () *' & ( ( & & ( * + & $ , & - , ' $ & & +- & & &' & - & ' ( * & ' * & & ) ' ( & ' ) ( & & $ & & ' ' ' ' % ( *' ) �� (' & & & & & &' ' ' ) + $' & * & & $ ( & ' & * ( % % & &' $ & & & &' $ % & ' & & & , & & ( &' * ' ) ' ) & & ) ) & * $ ( + ) ' , � �� + $ (' & $ ' ) +' % , $ ,) $ ( ' ) ) ' ' & & ( (- & +' ' ' $' ' % ( & & & -) $ &' & (' *-' &' - & & & ) & ' (- - ) ( ' , * $ & - (' , & & ( + & ,' * $ ' ( ( , () $) , + �� + , - +' ' * * ( & + ( ( (-) ) + +' % $ - *) & % (' ( - ' * & * $' +' & & - $' , $' ) & ( ( % % - , ( ) & $ , , ' ( * , &) $ &) ( % +) ' ) ' ( (' ,- (- *' ' (' ) , +) $ , , ( � �� & & ( * ' *' & ) % & * & & *- % &) - (- &' ' ( &' * & ' ' ) & $ ,' & & &' ' & * &) % ( *' , $' + & ) & ( $) - ( - ( + +' ' & $) ' * +' & ) *' + + �� ( + &) ' ( ' ' () & ) ,' % & , & * *' & ' - - & - & * &) *' ) $ & & - * & &' &' & ( + ( ( & ' & + , ' ' + ' ' ) ( ) ) & - ' * & & * () (' -' - + $ ( & &- � �� * ( ' ' ) $) ) & $ % + ( + ) ( *' ' (' , +) & - & &' * (%) ( $ % + (' + ,- ( + $ ( + & + & $ ( & & +% & * & % &) ( + ( &) - () ) * + ( $ % $ , $' (' + () , ( - - ( ( +' - + + $ * + (' & +) * * ( & $) %' ' * $ ( &-) - ,' ( & & - * ( +' - , * * (%' % * ,' +%) ) *' + � �� ( & * * + ( $' ' % & () - , * *) &' - (' - +' & *' & *' %) ) ' & * +' - - % & (' % ' $ ( +) ' & $ * ( *' &) % $ , * ( & ' ( () +' ( () ' +' * % (' ' +) ' ' () & ( &) *' ' � �� $ (' ' ' , &' $ * () ' * *) ,- () (' ' ' ' & + & ) (' () $ & *' & & () ' (' ' &' ) * (- ) ( & & & $ + &) * + & ( & (' % *' ' ( $ & &) ( , $ +' ' - % ) * ( $ $ *� � �� % , (' , ) $' - ' ,) ) ,' &) ) ' & + + - % + +' * ( *' * * , % & * *% ' ' % + % &' ' % * &' ' % & $ ' ' (' ' &) , +' ' ' ( , ( - ' ) &' , , *%' - ( *) ' - , (' & ' % * $ + & % & $ ' % $ ( +' & *) -) , , , ( & (' +- -' � ��! " � ' & - +) ' ) ' ,' &' +' + ( ' - ( & ( $ +' + * * * & & &) ) +' & , $ $ ( $ ( &) & ( , & *' ' ) & ,' ' , $' + &' ' ' ) ( , $ &' * & ) - & ( ( ( & ( $ +' ' - ( ,) &) * ( & (% ( ,' ) - - +) ! " �� ) ' , * & ( *' * & & ( % +) * , * ( $ & ( ( ( + (' % - + + $ () $) % & -) - + - $ % () $ & +- ( ,' $ *' * $ ( ( , ( ( $ ,) & , *' ) - $ - () ( ' * ( * + ,) +' &) % ( ,' ' ' * ( ( () - * * $ ( +% * ,) () ( ( & * * � � �� ' & +- ( ' + ) $ $' ) +- , ( & , $) - () ' ' - ,) & * * * * ) ) ' ( & ( , & & ( $ & ( * +' ' & ( * , * $ $ ( ' ( & * + ( $ ( $- * + , $ ( % - * *' * % +' % - &' + $ *' ) % , ,' *) +' ' * & *� �� ) * &) ( + ( +' ' ' ) (' ' % ,' ' +- ( + * ( ( % (' ,' *) - $-) ) ' $' +' *-) ) , , * - &% * * + * + $' - * * & $' ) +' &) * & () $-) (% &' ' $ + ( & $ ( ( ( $ ( + ( , + * $-) + +- $ * + *) ( () - ,) - - * ( () %' - (' ' - $) ' ( $-) ( $' ' * $-) &' ( * *' $' ' - -) ' ' & % $ *) - $ + ( * & ,' *) *%' % - ( + * % % ( & , $ % & ( & , $' $- - ( $ � � �� ! � � !� ! " � ! " # � # � � � �� " � � � � � � �� " � ��

TableA

:4:1996


em

atricesfor

oxidizedsulphur

computed

with

theE

ME

PE

ulerianA

cidD

epositionM

odel.Units:

100tonnes

ofS.E

mitters .,R

eceptors/

A:10

EM

EP

SUM

MA

RY

RE

PO

RT

2001

012 3 3 0456 57 589 5: 9 ;9 <9 6 : 9 5 9= >9 ?@ A > ; >BC D < < <E F= F A ? <C < ? A@ E= : = < = 8 DB 6G 6 8 6 E 7 D 7 <C 7C H 58 H6 H I: H IJ 6 J 8 5:= A <7 58 6 A I AE : D := <: : < >@ 8 A E 5 ?9 G I6 ;E : E 756 K LM L L L L N O K OM L M L L K O L N L PM Q M L L O N L L L LM P N L L L L L P L L L M P M M M O L L M M M P O M R R 5657 L PS L L L L L L N O L L L L L L L L L P L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L N L L L M L L L L L S L L L L Q Q 5 758 L L Q O PM N L O RT P T L R P P L O O K L PM LM M QM M N L L SM L L LM L T L L K O L O O L L L M R PM L PT OM M O L P R L P RT S 5 89 ; L L NM L S Q P PM T O R P LM N T P S R R T M OM P Q L LM NM NM K L L N N L R N PM L P L L L PM N Q N Q P M T P K R OM L LM K P L9 ;9 < L LM M LM L K L L M T L L L N P L O R P L K N L K Q L M LM O L L L P L M L L RS P QM N L L L O L L L L NM M L L NM L L NM O9 <9 5M L T M LM L O N R P NM P L S M LM L L L T L M M KM O L L RS L L L L L P L L L M M LM P L L L M N P R O R L M M M P LM L P QT 9 59 ? O L P M M M Q O K S P P NM L N L L T L L NM T O P T L LM T L L L LM M K O L M M LM L L L L M K Q M P OM OM M M M M N P L Q R N P9 ?@ AM LM R M LM LM S OT N P O LM K M LM N Q LM L L M Q N PM L L Q Q L L L L L PT L L M M LM QM L L M K P Q Q KM P M P P M K O R O@ A> ; L L L L L L L L T L L K L L L P L L L LM L L L M L L L L L T L L L L L L L L L L L M L L L L L T L L L L O L > ;>B L L O O RM Q L O O R P N LM S N R L O LM M PM LM T T M M Q L L P K L LM M L O L L M M KM M P N L L L M N OM Q T P O R L NM P L P T N P > BC D L LM P QM K L L M R L L L T N K LM KT M M M L OS L M LM O L LM L L L L L M O P N NM Q L L L P L M M L M M M M L M O N L L PT PC D< < L LM M K RM L L M N L L L O R K N NM L P L M L L M L L M L N N L L L L L P PM M R L L L M M M Q M L L T L L O R L L M OS < <F= L L P KM M L O L L QT M L L QM T M R O K P P L Q S L O N L M LM R L R K L L M L L T M LM P O O L L L NM R N PM P RM M M K P O L L K Q P F=F A L LM O QM M N Q L O N L R P N L OM M P L O NM T PM Q N Q L NM S P RM M L P N L L LM M R L Q R L LM LS M K N R P SM N L P Q K O R O K P K R K R O M P OM N M M N O P N F AC < L L R L NT NM N K L PM T T M P LM S O R L L P Q KT N PTM LM Q L Q M M P L R T R LM PM N L Q L L P PM M M O SM T OM L LM N R M LM L K P LM Q RT L QM Q O LM OT P PC <? A T L P M M M O OM L Q RT M L PM L O P N L Q L T P N N O L L N Q L L L LM M L LM L M M L KM L M PM R S PM T M M M K T O P N KT S ? A@ E M L P N PM P M M P NM M LM O L OS M LM NM M M L L OT RM RT L L NS L L L L L M LM L O PM K Q L L L M PT R RM Q NM P M Q N LM L KM O@ E= : L L L M LM L L NS L L L LM L P S L O L N L L S P L L L L L L L L L P PM M L L L O L M L L M M L L LM N L L S K= := < L L L M L O L L NT L L L PM LM K K LM R L M P L L L PT P L L L L L M L L T M LM OM L LM S L M L L T M L L L S L L L P RM = <= 8 O L O O OM R M P P PSM Q P N L P P O LM S R R M M NT L T SM KM K LM M R Q R L L LM L P Q RM L T KM P P R L NM L Q K K O R R K P O O N NM NM O T PT SM = 86G L LM M T M M M L L P OM L L K Q O K R R N L PM L M L L O LM LM M L L M L L N NM O N L L L M M PM P L M Q M M K S L L P PM 6 G6 8 L L PM NM O P L L P OM L L SM L M TM O N L P R L P L L N L N PM L L M M L N NM R R L L L M O M Q OM L Q M L Q S L L P R K 6 86 E L L L L L R L L P L L L L L L P S L Q L S L L L L L L L L O L L L L P M L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L P L L O P 6 E7 8 L L L L L L L L M L L L L L L M L L L L L L L L M L L L L L M L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L O 7 8H6 L LM P L OT L L M R L L L R N L O Q S L OM L Q K L L LM O L L LM L M L LM K K N RM T L L L O L L L L OM M L L R R L L N KS H6H I L LM M Q OM M L LM NM L L L K PS M PS K T P K L R N L M M O R LM OM L M L L M Q O N Q PM Q L L LM PM M M M L O OM M L PM LT L L K O N H IJ 6 M L P N R R P OM Q M RM M M K K LM Q R N P M KM S Q OT L O NM O OS L P OS M OM PM L T O L OM P O KM M M M L L L NM S O R NT Q N P P K M OT NT L R P O Q LJ 6J 8 L L L L LM L L KT L L L L L L O K Q LM L L O L L L L P L L L L L K L L M P L M P R N L L TM L L L L S P L L L L R L L RM RJ 87C L L L LM L P L M N N L L M L L Q L M L OM M L L P L L L L L PM M L L L L K L L L LM N Q M L L L L PM Q M L L S O 7CA I OM Q O N PM LM M M P Q Q P R LM S P LM P S M S M PT M S NM L L N R M LM LM P LM P L O PM R RM L L P O N O O L PM O R P PM O R N R LM T M LM R A IAE M M KM L KTM P KM OM R OM T RS P O OM O N O N NT RS PM O P NM O KM O LM LM NM O R R K LM Q PT M L M S S L P N P R P RM K NM PM LM S N N O RT RM N NM P RT K T Q P QM K S L O TM O L AE: D M LM L M M P L N P R N N L O NM L T T L K L P K P N O L L P O L L L L L N L L P M L Q N L L L M M L O NT N M M M M R O L N O RS : D:= L LM P L L L L P M KM S L T L L SM L R L M LM R L L R Q L L L L L Q L L M L L T L L L L P M PM T O L M L M M M M M T P :=<: L L P M L T LM NT R M M L P P LM T O P M M R L L P RM M L P R O L L LM LM O N L L Q M PM OM O N L PM P NM P M M M O L Q P N L M O K L L P R L L <:: < L L OM M K QM O LM M OM M M LM R Q K R KM R N L P Q L S QM O L O Q L R QM L P L L PT N K N L R K L L L Q O P K OM N PM R M L R Q Q LM M M LM : <>@ L L R L L N L L N Q L L L O L L P L R L RM L K O L L L L KS L L LM L O L L N P L P L L L M L L LM N L T P L L N L L O OT >@7 D N LM L L L LM P KM L L L M L L NM L M L M P Q M L L S L L L LM K L L L L L P L L L L O M M L M L L M M L L O M L O 7 D8 A PM T O P O P O Q P Q NS NM M Q N P LM NS PM OM L M R R K O L L O K P LM L LM P Q N L O PM M OM OM O O P O T Q PM Q P P T Q P N L K L P P P NT 8 AE 5M O SM L N P N PM R P R R O N N L P R T M M T T RM R K NT M N P K LM NM R P K L L M S P Q L T K OM TM M O L N Q O P K N P K O R T O OT OSM M N L RM K KS E 5?9 L L O KM O L L LM NT L L LM M M M LM KT L M M M P L S T L PM OM M O L L LM L N L L R QM N N KM Q P L L R PM O PM PT N O L PM P Q L L L P LT N ?9;E K L T M M M M PM T R PT Q LM NM LM M M M T L M KM Q O P L L RM L L L L O PM M L M M L P O L L L M P N NM P P RM M P R P L N P N OS ; E<E M L LM S N PT T P Q RM R N O R P L NM T O N L L O R N P OT P LM NT NS P R Q PT O O L PS L P P K K RS P Q O PM OM LM M M Q N LM K O R P L KS P K LS QM N L K NM P L S O S S N PM M S N L T SM T S S OM NM KS P P O Q PM T OM KM K P L N L N < E9 5: L L T PM NM T M K L P QM P P L O K Q QM P K L L KM O P LM KT M S L PM K LM M M KM L OM L O P O RM PM Q O L L L K K NT Q P NM L K O M M N KT LM M O P N9 5:9 6 : M S O P NM Q Q PM PS NS M M K P L Q L P T M K M N PM K L LM Q N LM L L O P Q L P PM M S L R M P NT PM O OM O P M M LT M M R R L O S RS 9 6 :7 <C P L P O QM R Q P O P N N KM N R PM L Q O R P P NT M O M O P R S Q NS S OM Q P NM M OM M NM N L K P P O P O P R N R K L PS OM T QM NT P O R P S S R K S PM R P Q RM NM M O L P P L N Q T P NSM S Q N Q R 7 <CH I: L L S R O RM L R LM P K O M M L N QM L L M P P P S K P KM L O QM M RM P N OT L P O N L Q L L P N L RM O T Q S N O L L K N O M R R P O K NM S M Q S QM LM O NM N H I :5 8 6 LM M R RT M RM M Q M P NS P R N O L R O Q P R N LT P N R K N Q M N P K N S O QM K R Q N P N T K L NM M LM T K O O QM R LM P P P K R M M M N Q O S M R P S N N L S KM M K NM KM R K Q LM M M R NT 58 6A <7 O P Q Q K K K Q K P N Q NM T NM P M L R M K OM R SM OM NT R K N LM PM O T NM PM L RS R P L M L M L N P Q P P O KTM M S N OM R P KS N OM O O R T P R K O K P Q L P R L Q Q A <7: E 7 K RM L K N R N Q NS NM T Q KM P P N P P NM R O P R T N LM Q P R LM M Q P K Q NM L P PS P N R R K K N R RSM L Q RM S R S QM R R Q R O PS L N K O RM R P T TM R O R SM M N PM M S T LM O LSM K KM N RS O L O L T R N N R RM Q R PM RT QT N R L Q K O R QM S O PS T R T L L O N RM R K KM PM L R P P O KSM K R TM S N N : E 756 57 589 5: 9 ;9 <9 6 : 9 5 9= >9 ?@ A > ; >BC D < < <E F= F A ? <C < ? A@ E= : = < = 8 DB 6G 6 8 6 E 7 D 7 <C 7C H 58 H6 H I: H IJ 6 J 8 5:= A <7 58 6 A I AE : D := <: : < >@ 8 A E 5 ?9 G I6 ;E : E 7

TableA

:5:1996


em

atricesfor

oxidizednitrogen

computed

with

theE

ME

PE

ulerianA

cidD

epositionM

odel.Units:

100tonnes

ofN

.Em

itters U,ReceptorsV

AP

PE

ND

IX:Source

receptorm

atricesA

:11

WXY Z Z W[\] \^ \_` \a ` b`c ` ] a ` \`d e` fg h e b eij kc c c lm d m h fc j c f hg ld a d c d _ ki ]n ] _ ] l ^ k ^c j ^j o \_ o] o p a o pq ]q _ \ ad hc ^ \_ ] h p h l a k ad c a ac eg _ h l \ f` n p ] b l a l^\] rs s s s s s s t s u u s s s s tv s u s s u u u s s u u s s s s w s s s s s s u s s t s t s s s t s s u u s s ux u v s \]\^ s wy s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s t r s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s z r s s s u s s s s s zs s s s s u r w \^\_ s s t y r s u t s t s u v s{ w u s v ws s u u s u y w s t{ s s w z s s s s s s s s t s s u z s s u s v u u z t r t s t s s v t s { w{ u \_` b s s { s u s v t u s u s z u s x { { { y u t u u v u w s s x u r t{ s s s v s t s s r t s u s s u r w u v u s t u t ty v t s { ux{ u` b`c s s u s s t{ u s s s s s s u u s z t z s w{ s zx s s s u u s s s w s s s s v z s s u s s s s s s s s t s u s s w s s z t w`c` \ { s v s s s s r z s z u w s z s s zv s z s { t u{ s s tx s s s s u s s s s s s z s s { s v s z t v s s u t s s z t t z z` \` f v s u s u s s t s{ { z u s u s s zv s u u t{ z v s s v s s s s u{ s z s s s s z s s t s u s y z u s t s s w { u s s z t x u u` fg h u s u{ s s s s { w s { w t s v s s x r s z s { u{ u s s z z s s s s u s s s s s s z s s { s x u v ux z s s s { s s t s t w wg he b s s s s s s s s s s s z s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s u u s s s s s s s s w s s s s u{ e bei s s x z s t { s t s u { s t r{ t s t y y s u u s u y v s u z s s u t s s s s s s s s v s s wy s s u s v u{ s v t u v s y { s { w{ r eij k s s u s u { s s s s s s t t{ v s { { z s w s x x s s s u s s s s s s s s s w s u u t s s s s s s s s u u s s s t { s s { v tj kc c s s s s u s s s s s s s s u t y s u w t u s x s u s s u s u u z s s s s s u s s u u s s s s u u s s s s { s s x u s s u v tc cm d s s u s u t t s s s u s s { y t s t zv u wx v s t u s u s s t s z v s s s s s { s v u r s s s s u t{ u s u t u u u y v s s { v s m dm h s s v s s u t r s u s s u s v { s v u y t s z{ t t s u y w s u s r u u w s s s u{ s s s s z w s s x w s u s s u s s t t y u u w w s t x u s u v t y rm hj c s s wv s z rx s u s s u s wx z u s{ y s x s u y w s{ s v s s x s z t{ s s u u y s s s s tv w s u u t{ u s u s t t v t u v w u s s s u z { t s u z u zxj cf h t w s s s u s s t s t r u s u s s t w r s t s t tv y { s s u z s s s s u r s u s s s s { s s w s u t u u s { s s ux y s s u s z t u f hg l u s tx s u u s r s y t u s u z s s w u s z s u u t t w u s s t t s s s s u s s s u s s ux s s t s w t u zv u u { s u u t w u s { r x u tg ld a s s s s s u s s s s s s s u s u v s { s t s s r t s s s s s s s s s u s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s v s s t zd ad c s s s s s t s s s s s s s s s v r s s ux s v s s s v s z s s s s s s s s s t s s u u s s s s s s s z s s s s v x s s v r ud cd _ v s u y s s u s r s t u t s z s s t z{ t s v s s t s v y s s t{ s{ s s s s u s s s s s s { t s t t s z s t u y { t s u y u t u s u s tv v{ d _]n s s u s zs u s s s s s s { { u z t r u t s u{ s u s s u s z z{ u s s s s s u s s tx s s s s u u z u s s z s s u z t s s t u y ]n] _ s s u s rs u s s s u s s z z t { z s t s ux s t s s t s u s u{ y s s s u s t s s v x s s s s { ux t s s z s s t z t s u { y z ] _] l s s s s s w s s s s s s s s s { z s r s r s s s s s s s s y s s s s u s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s { z ] l^ _ s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s ^ _o] s s u s s wv s s s s s s s t s x wv s t s s u{ y s s s u s s s s u s s s s z{ u s s t s s s s s s s s u s u s s v s s x wy o]o p s s u s x w s s s s s s { t{ u u ws t tv s { r s u s { t s u t s s s s s u t s u u z u t s s s s u z s s { t s u s v { { s s { t u o pq ] u s u y s u u s y s z s x { s r u t{ t { tv u u v s t s u u tx s u ux s t u w u u s { s u v s u u y wx s s u s t y t z v s v { r z s u y u u{ s y t wx rq ]q _ s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s zv x s x s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s{ { u s u s s s s s u u r s s s s s s s zv wq _^j s s s s { s s s s t s s s s s t s s u s u s s s u s s s s s s wy s s s s t s s s s z w z s s s s s u u tx s s u tx w ^jh p v s v s w s s v s w w { s x u s v u s { t y u t v r s s ux u s u s v s z t s u s s u r s u z s u s v z u t u u u z s s w u y u u s v z ux s y h ph l u u t z s t t w x s { s ux u s ux u v z{ t u v zs u w t s v x r { u u s s u w zs t t t r s u s r s r s v u ts s v s t s z w v s v r x t z u y t zy v u{ u{ s y x w u{ h la k u s u t s t u s z s z{ s t t s s z{ s t s u{ u v x s s u u s s s s u s s s u s s zy s s u s ux u u u z { u s u s tx u s u s { v x a kad s s ux s s s s t s u u t s t s s x s s t s t s y s s { y s s s s s s s s s s s t s s u s { s t x u t s s s u s s { u v y adc a s s s s s z s s s s s s u u s t r{ r s u v w s y s s s t u v s s s s s s s s { s s u u u{ s u{ s s s s s tx tx s t s s u s s s t rv xc aac s s t s u t w s s s u s s z x r y z w t u y u r s x v s u s t { s { x s s s s s u z s t{ { { s s s s { u u u s { tv u u s u s u r s u v r s aceg s s z s s { s s s s s s t s s t s x s x s s w z s s s s v w s s s s s s s s t s s u s s u s s s s s z s{ t t s s t s s v{ t eg^ k tv s s s s s s u s w s s s s s tx s s s s t t u s s { s s s s z r s s s s s s u s s u s { s s s u s s u u s s u r u{ v ^ k_ h t t z s s { s s u s t u s z u s s { u s t{ v u u y u s s w u s s s u s z s s s s { s u z w u w s t u t w s s { s s ux{ v w t s s { ts v z _ hl \ t u z s ux u u s z s u r t s w t u v{ s { u t ux x t{ s s u z z u z s t s y w s t s s u u v s x t s u w z t t t ux t t u u t u{ y w z t s u t zy t y l \f` s s u s s t{ s s s s s s { v s u v w r s u t y s z r s u s r{ { s s s u s s s s t w s s x u s u s s s s s t u u { s u u t tx s s u v r z f`b l t t s z s u s s tx s t w y s v s s z{ s { s z u s { x s s u y s s s s t{ s u s s s s w s s z s z r u w u z s s t r s s{ y{ x v v b lc l{ t s{ r z s { u v y t s u v s{ z ts s u{ w{ x x t y ts s u w u r z v s u t s{ y v{ tx{ z z s x u w tv v v s w u t zy t s s u s y zy s { s t t z zv x s v x s t y { y t z v u{ u u u t r u t t z u y v t u z t w s tx t u ux rc l` \ a s s z s { x y s u s t u s u t ux t x s x s x { r u w s t t t s v s u x s t u t y u s s u s u w s z u y z s s s s v { u z u t u u u t s t r ux s u u s{ z` \a` ] a u z s s { s s u s{ x s s u s s u t s s x x t y t s s t { s s s u s u s s s s s z s r t s x z u z{ u s s s s u s z z u r s s z y r s ` ] a^c j v s s u s s t { s ty s{ w u r ux x s s u v x y s u y y u u v u v u u u s s wy{ s s s s y s { s t s s y u{ x r t u y s t z v { u z{ r r s z{ s v t w z s t w t zv{ ^c jo p a s s v s z u t{ s s s s s s u{ u y x u u r{ x u z{ u s { r t s { s t z y s u t t s s s s t s v s t z zy u s u s t { t u t w t w w s u s v s z s u ts v r o p a\_ ] s s { s r v y s s s u s s u{ t r t t w{ z w y u u s u v r s { u v { v t u u s u t{ s s s s x y s z{ { z u y u s v s t { u t u{ t{ u u y s r w u y s s t r u v \_ ]hc ^ z y s u s z u s { s y u{ t s s u w z s tx z{ r z u u { s s v t w z s s s u s t s s s s x w u w zs u s r y s u u u v z u u w u s u t tv zs u s x zs y u hc ^t zx u r r v r r s u y s v y s r s t zv s x v z u y r t w x ws y t t t{ w ty r zy t y y x x v t w r t v{ { s v v y x{ r t z u s s s{ w z w u t z u{ s t r{ v v u{ x s tv u s u u rv s t t u{ s s x x v y t s w{ u z t y s u y s u v y wy{ { x u w r{ r y t v s t v y z t z tx v r wx t wv u s w{ t x s t z r a l^\] \^ \_` \a ` b`c ` ] a ` \`d e` fg h e b eij kc c c lm d m h fc j c f hg ld a d c d _ ki ]n ] _ ] l ^ k ^c j ^j o \_ o] o p a o pq ]q _ \ ad hc ^ \_ ] h p h l a k ad c a ac eg _ h l \ f` n p ] b l a l^

TableA

:6:1996


em

atricesfor

reducednitrogen

computed

with

theE

ME

PE

ulerianA

cidD

epositionM

odel.Units:

100tonnes

ofN

.Em

itters |,Receptors}


Emission values used by EMEP/MSC-W for the 1996source-receptor model calculations for acidification and

eutrophication

The same definition of areas applies here as described in previous tables.

In the following, official values are displayed with white background. Emission figures inside grey boxes aredrawn from open sources or interpolated by MSC-W. Updates from EMEP/ MSC-W Note 1/00 (Vestreng andStoren, 2000) are marked in bold.

For table A7-A9, the following notes indicated as super-indexes are made as necessary: Footnotes (1)-(3)concerning the year 2010 projections:

1. The Gothenburg Protocol emission ceiling.

2. Officially reported by the Party.

3. IIASA, REF 8 scenario (Amann et al. 2000).

4. National emissions estimated as the sum of sector data.

5. The part inside the EMEP domain of calculation.”Remaining Asian areas” refers to Azerbaijan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel and parts of Uzbekistan, Turk-menistan, Iran, Iraq and Jordan.

6. Natural emissions reported by Italy.


Table A7: Emission of sulphur dioxide (100 tonnes as S per year)~ �� ¡��¢ ¢��£ ¢�¢�� ¢�¢�� ¢�¤�� £¥� �� ¤�¦�¡ ¤�¤�� ¤�¡ ¤�£ £�¤ ¡ ¤ £�� § � � ¨ª© � ��¬« �® ¯ £�¦�¤�¤ ¦�¢�� °�¢�� ¡��± ¢�¡�¢ ¢�£®� ±�¢�¢ ±�£�£ ��£¥¡ ��£ ¤�°�¢ ¤�°�¤ � © § �� ¨ � ¨�¨ �³²�´ £�¦�¢µ·¶ ¯ � ��¡�� ±�¢�� ±�¢�� °��¢ �� ±�� £�°�¢ ��¤�� ¤�¤�¦�� £�¦�£¥� £¥��¤�� £��¡�¢ £�¤��£ £¥��±�¤ ¦�¢�� ¸¹²�¸ ¤�±��µ»º �® ¯ ±�£¥±�� ¤�� £�°�°�¢ £�°��¢ £�¡�¡�� £��¤�¢ £�°�� £��¡�� £�¢�¦�� £¥±�°�¢ £¥¤��¢ £�¤�� £�¤�� £�£®�� ²�´ © ´ ¼ ¨ ´ ¢��µ � � � ¤�±�� ¤�±�� ¤�±�� ¤�±�� ¤�±�� ¤�±�� ¤�±�� ¤�±�� ¤�±�� ¤�±�� ¤�±�� ¤�±�� ¤�±�� ¤�±�� ¤�±�� ¤�±�� ´ª�� µ¾½ �® ¯ �À¿Á¯ÃÂÁ¿ �Á�ÀÂÁÄÃ¿ � �Á�ÆÅÁ�ÁÂ �Æ¯¥�Æ¿Á¿ �Á�Ã�ÆÇÁ¿ �À¿ÃÈÁ¿Á¿ �Æ¿Á¿ÀÇ®¿ °��¤�¢ ¢�¢�¡�¢ ¡�£�� ¡�±�� ¡��°�� ¡�£¥�� °�¤�¢ ��¤�¢�¢ §¹�ª²�� ±�¤�°��É�Ê �® ¯ ¡�¢�� °�¤�¢ � � � °�±�� °�¢�¢ � � � °�¡�� °�°�¢ � � ¦�� ¢�±�� ¢�� ¢��° ±�±�� ¢�¤ ��£ ±��¤ ±�±�¡ §¹� ¨ ��¢��Ë ¶ ¯ � ²�§ª´ ²�� ²�¼�´ ²�¼³� �ª²�´ ¤�£®� ¤�� ² © � ²�¼ª� �³²�� ¤�£¥� ��´ª� ¤�¤�¢ ¤��¢ ¤�±�¢ �ª��´ £�¦�¢Ë¾ÌÍ�Á ¯ �Á�À¯ÃÅÁÂ �Ã�À�ÁÅÃÂ �À¿ÃÅÁÅÁÂ �Æ¿ÁÅÃ¯Á¿ �À¿Ã�Á�Ã¿ ¦�¦�¦�� ¦��°�� °�°�°�� ¡��¦�� ¡��¦�¢ ��¢�� ¢�±�¢�¢ ±�¡�� ¢��¢ ¤�¤�£�¢ ² ¨ §³� £¥±�£�¢Î Ï ¯ � ¤�¤�� £�¡�£�¡ £¥±��£ £�¤�¦�± £�¤�¡�± ¦�°�° ¦�£�� £�¤��¢ ¦�±�£ ¡�¡�� ¡�°�¤ ¡�±�¤ °�¦�° ¢�¢�� °�± �ª��¼ ¤�¢��º·º ¯ � £¥±��¢ £�¤�¡�� £�¤�°�� £�¤�¡�¢ £�¤�¡�� £�¤�¡�� £�¤�� £�¤�¤�° ¦��¡ ¡��¦ ¡�±�¢ ¢�¦�¤ ��¤�� ¢�¦�¢ ¢�¢�� ³²�� ¸³�ÐÍÑ ¯ � ¤�¦�¤�� £�¦�£¥� £��¢�¢ £��±�� £�¢�£¥� £�¤�¤�� £�� ¦�¡�� ¡��¢ ��£�¢ ¢�¡�� ±�°�� ¢�¤�¢ ±�¦�¢ ±�¢�� § ¨ � ��´ÐÍÊ �® ¯ ÒÁÓ�Ô�Õ�Õ � ¨ ¼ª� © �ª²�� ©�© §¹� © ²�´�´ © ¸�¼ª� ©�¨ ¼ª´ © ¼�§³� © ´ª�� © ´ §ª¼ª��´ § © ��´ §³� © � ¨ ¸ ¨ � §ª´�§³´ ¨ §¹²�´ ¤��½ º � � £�£�¢�£ £�� £�¤�¡�� £�¤�¦�£ £�¤�¡�� £�¤�±�¢ £�¤�±�£ ¦�¡�� ¡�� ¢�¡ ¤��± £¥��£ £�¢�� £¥��¢ ²�´³² § ¨ � � � § ¨ � �Î º �® ¯ �®ÄÃÂÁÄÃ¿ �ÃÅÁÖÁÖÃ¿ �ÁÅÃ¯Á¿ÁÂ �ÃÖÁÈÃÅÁ¿ �Á¯ÀÇ®�ÃÂ �Á¿ÃÅÁ¯ÁÂ ¯ÃÖÁÖÃ¿ÁÂ �ÀÈÃÈÁÅÃ¿ �ÀÖÁÂÃ�ÁÂ �×Ç¥ÄÀ¯ÁÂ �À¯Ã�ÁÖÃÂ ¼�¼ª��´ ��´³�� ©�¨ � §�§ª¼³� §�²�� ´½ Ê �® ¯ ¤�� ¤�¢�� ¤�¢�£¥� � � ¤�¢�£�¢ � � ¤�¢�¤�� ¤�¢�¤�¢ � ¤�¢�� ¤�¡�±�¢ ¤�¡�°�� ¤�¡�¢�¢ ¤�� ¤�¡�¢�¢ ¤�¡�� ¤��¢�¢ ¤�¡�� ¤�¡�� ¤�¡��É�Ø �® ¯ °�£��¢ ¡��¤�� °�£¥� ��±�¤�¢ ��¦�� ¢�¢�£®� ¢��¢�� ±�¢��¢ ±�£�� ¨ ��¸ © ��¡��¢ ��¢�¤�¢ �� ¤�¦�¤ ¤�¦�¢�¦ ��¼ª�ª² ¤�¡�¢��Ñ×Ù ¯ � °�¦ ¦�� ¦�¤ °�£ °�¡ °�� £�¤�� £�£�¢ £�£¥¦ £�¤�¤ £�£�¦ £�£�¦ £�¤�� £¥¤�¤ £��± � £��± � � £¥±�¢ÑÚº �Á ¯ £�£�£¥� ¡�� °�£¥� °�¡�� ¡�� °�£®� ¦�� ¦�� °�� °��¢ °�¡�¢ °��¢ ¡��¢ °�� °�°�� ¸ª� ¤�£¥�Ñ « � � �ÀÅ®ÄÀÅÁÂ ¦�¢��¢ ¦��±�¢ �Æ¿¥�×Ç®Â ¦�°�£�¢ ¦�¤�¡�� °�¤�¢�¢ ¡��¦�¢ ��¦�¡�� ¢ ��¢�¢ ��£¥� © �ª��´ � ¨ �� ª²�¼³� § © ²�� ´�´ �Ï Ì � � � � ¡�� ¡�� ¡�� ¡�� ¡�� ¡�� ¡�� ¡�� ¡�� ¡�� ¡�� ¡�� ¡�� ¡�� ¡�� ¡�� ¡�� Û � � � ¢�¦�¢ � � � ¢�¦�¢ � � � ¢�¦�¢ � � � ¢�¦�¢ � � � ¢�¦�¢ � � � ¢�¦�¢ � � ¢�¦�¢ ±�¢�� ¦�¢ ��¢ ±�� ¤�¦�¢ ¤�¦�¢ ¤�¤�� ¤�� ² © � � � � ¨ � ��« ¯ � £�¢�¢�¢ £�¢�¤�� £�¢�°�� £�¢�°�� £�¢�� £¥±�¦�� £�£�£¥� £�£�¡�� ¦�¢ ��¤�¢ ¢�°�¢ ±�¡�� ±��¢ ��°�¢ ±�¡�� ¨ ��´ ¡�¤�¢� Ø �® ¯ £�¤�� °�� °�� °�� °�� ¡�¢ � � ¡�¢ � � � ¡�¢ � � � � � ¡�¢ � � ¡�¢ ��¢ ±�¢ ±�� ¤�� ²�¼ ¤��Ü � �® ¯ ¤�±�¢�� £�¤�¦�� £��¤�� £��£�¢ £�¤�¢�� £¥��¤�� £¥��£¥� °��¢ °�� °�¤�� ¡�� ¡��¢ ��¡�¢ ¢�¦�� ¨ � ��´�´ ¤�¢��Ü Ý �® ¯ ��°�� ±�¦�£ ±�¢�¡ ��¢ ��° ¤�¦�£ ¤�� ¤�¤�£ £�°�¤ £�¡�� £�¡�± £��¦ £��¢ £¥¢�£ £¥±�¦ ²�§ ¨ £�£¥�Þ � �Á ¯ ¯Á¿ÁÂÃ¿Á¿ ¯®�ÀÂÁ¿Ã¿ ¯¥�Æ¿Á¿Á¿ ¯®�À¿Ã¿Á¿ ¯Á¿ÃÈÁ¿Ã¿ �ÀÈÃÂÁÂÁ¿ �ÆÖÁ¿ÃÂÁ¿ �ÆÇÁÈ®ÄÀÂ �ÆÇ��Æ¿Á¿ �Æ�ÁÖÃ¯ÁÂ �À�Ã¿Á¯ÃÂ �Á�ÀÅÃÅÁ¿ �Ã�ÀÅÃÇÁ¿ �À¿ÃÈÁ¿ÁÂ ¦�±�°�¢ ¸³��¼ª� ��¦�°�¢Þ « � � � £�� ¦�¦�� £�£¥¡�� £¥��¦�� £¥��¤�� £¥±��° � ²��¼³� ²��¸ ��´�§³� ²�¸ª´�´ ² © ¼�§ ²�¸ª��¸ ² © ²�� ²��´ © ²�¸ª��§ � £�°�¡�± � � � ¸³��´ �� Î �® ¯ £�¢�±�� £¥±�£¥� £¥±�°�¢ £�¢�°�¢ £��¢ £�£�¦�� £��¤�¢ £�¤�¦�¦ °�±�£ ¡�°�¤ ¢�±�¤ ��¤�� ¢ £¥°�� £�� © ´ ��¡�¢Ê¾Ý � � ¢�¤�¡�¢ ��¤�¡�¢ ��±��¢ ��¢�¤�¢ ¡��±�¢ ¡�¢�°�¢ ��¢�¢�¢ ¢�¤��¢ ±�¡�¢�¢ ±��±�� ±�¢�� ±�¢�� ±�¢�� ±�¢�� ±�¢�� ±�¢�� §³��¼�´ �Ê»Ø � � �ÁÂÁÅÃ¿ÁÂ �Ã¿ÁÈÁÂÃÂ ¯ÁÅÃÂÁ�ÁÂ ¯ÃÅ¥�Ã�À¿ ¯ÁÂÁÄÃ¯ÃÂ ¯Á�Ã�ÁÅÁÂ ¯Ã¯Á�Ã¿Á¿ ¯¥�ÆÈÁÖÃ¿ �ÀÈ¥�ÆÈÁÂ �ÀÄÃ¯ÃÅÁ¿ �ÆÇÁÈ¥�ÆÂ �ÆÇ��ÆÈÁ¿ �Æ�ÃÇ®¯ÃÂ �À¯Ã¯ÃÇ®Â �Ã�À¿ÀÇ®¿ Ò®Ô�Ô�Ò¥Õ Ò�Ò¥ß�Ò®Õ �Ù�Ï � � ��¦�� ¢ ��¤�� ¡�� ¤�¦�±�¢ ¤�°��¢ ¤�¡�£�¢ ¤�¤�¤�¢ £�¦�� £��¤�¢ £�£�¦�¢ £�£�¦�¢ £�£��¢ £¥��£¥� °�¦�¢ ¸³�� ª��´ �Ù�Ñ �® ¯ £�£�¡�� £�¤��¢ £�¤��¢ £�£�£¥� £¥��¢�� £¥��¢�¢ ¦�°�� ¦�� ¦�� ¦�£�¢ °�°�¢ ��¤�¢ ¢�� ¢�¦�� £�¢ �ª��´ £��¢º»Ù � � �ÆÇ��ÆÅÁ¿ �Ã�ÀÈÁÖÃÂ �Á�Æ�Á�ÁÂ �Æ¿ÁÖÃÈÁÂ °�¦��¢ �À¿ÃÖ¥�À¿ �Æ¿Á¯ÀÇ®Â �À¿Ã¯ÁÂÃ¿ �À¿Á¯Ã¿Á¿ ¦�¢�¦�¢ ¦��¡�¢ °��¢ ¡�±�¦�� ¡�±�¦�� ¡�±�¦�� ¡�±�¦�� ¨ ¸ª��´ �Ù�º �® ¯ ¤�±�¢�¢ £�� £�� £�£¥±�� £�£�¤�� °�� ¢�¦�¢ ±�°�� ±�±�� ±��¢ ±�£¥� ��¦�¢ ±�£�¢ ¤�¢�¢ ¤�±�¢ ¨ ²�� ¢Ë É �® ¯ ¢�°�� °�� ±�� £¥� ¤�°�� ¤�±�¢ ¤�£¥� ¤��¢ £�¦�� £�¡�� £�¢�¢ £�¡�� £�¢�� £¥�� £��¢ ²�� £�� Ï � � � � � °�¢ � � � � � °�¢ � � � � � °�¢ � � � � � °�¢ � � � � � °�¢ � � � � � °�¢ � � � � � °�¢ � � � � � °�¢ � � � � � °�¢ � � � � � °�¢ � � � � � °�¢ � � � � � °�¢ � � � � � °�¢ � � °�¢ ¢�¤�¢ � ¢�¤�¢ � � � � §³´ª� �« Ê ¯� Ç £¥��¤�¤ ¤�¢�¦�¦ ��¡�¤ ¨ ´ ¨ � �ª�ª²�� ¨ ��´ ¨ ¨ ¸ª� ¨ §¹��´ ¨ §¹²�´ © ¨ ¸ ¨ ¼ §ª¼ª�� ´�¸�´ ��¸ © ´ © ²��´ © ¸�´³� © � ¨ � ±�¦�¡�¢Ø �� ÀÈÁ¯ÀÇ®Â �ÀÄÃ�¥�ÆÂ �ÀÖÃÈÁÖÁÂ �ÆÖÁ�Ã¯Á¿ �ÀÖÃ¿ÁÂÃÂ �ÀÂÃ�ÁÖÁÂ �ÆÅÁÈ®�À¿ �À¯ÃÖÁÈÃ¿ �Á�ÀÅÃÅÁ¿ �Æ¿ÁÈÁÄÃ¿ °�¢�¡�¢ °�£�¦�¢ ��±��¢ ¢�� ¢�� ¢�� ¸ª� �½ µ ¯ � à®á�á�Ô�Ô Ò®â�ß�Õ¥Ô Ò®ã�Õ�Õ®Ô ÒÁã�Õ¥á�Ô Ò®ã�ÒÁã�Õ Ò®â�Ó�Ô¥Ô ÒÁâ�ß�ß¥Ô Ò¥ß¥â¥á�Ô Ò¥ß�à¥ä�Õ Ò¥Õ¥Õ�à�Õ Ò®ä�ä�à�Õ Ò¥Ò¥ß¥á�Ô Ò®Ô¥Ô�Õ¥Ô ¸³²�¸ª� ��¸ ¨ � ��¼ ¨ � ¨ ´ © ²¶ Ø ¯ � ¤�� ¤��¦�� ¤��¢�� ¤�±�¤�� ¤�¢�£¥� ¤�¢�� ¤�¢�±�� ¤�¤�� £�¡�±�� ¤��¢ ¤�£�¤�� ¤��£¥� ¤�£�¡�� ¤��£¥� ¤��¢ � ¤��¢ � ¢��¡�¢Ü Ý � Â � ¤��¢ � � ¤��¢ � � ¤��¢ � � ¤��¢ � � ¤��¢ � � ¤��¢ � � ¤��¢ � � ¤��¢ � � ¤��¢ � � ¤��¢ � � ¤��¢ � � ¤��¢ � � ¤��¢ � � ¤��¢ � � ¤��¢ � � ¤��¢ � � ¤��¢ �� Ù�Ñ Â � ±��±�¢ � � ±��±�¢ � � ±��±�¢ � � ±��±�¢ � � ±��±�¢ � � ±��±�¢ � � ±��±�¢ � � ±��±�¢ � � ±��±�¢ � � ±��±�¢ � � ±��±�¢ � � ±��±�¢ � � ±��±�¢ � � ±��±�¢ � � ±��±�¢ � � ±��±�¢ � � ±��±�¢ �µ � Ù � � � £�£¥±�� £�£®±�� £�£¥±�� £�£¥±�� £�£¥±�� £�£¥±�� £�£¥±�� £�£¥±�� £�£¥±�� £�£¥±�� £�£¥±�� £�£¥±�� £�£®±�� £�£¥±�� £�£¥±�� £�£¥±�� £�£¥±�� µ � Ù � � � ¤�°�¢ � � � ¤�°�¢ � � � ¤�°�¢ � � � ¤�°�¢ � � � ¤�°�¢ � � � ¤�°�¢ � � � ¤�°�¢ � � � ¤�°�¢ � � � ¤�°�¢ � � � ¤�°�¢ � � � ¤�°�¢ � � � ¤�°�¢ � � � ¤�°�¢ � � � ¤�°�¢ � � � ¤�°�¢ � � � ¤�°�¢ � � � � ¤�°�¢ � �� º»Î � � ¢�¦�±�¢ � � ¢�¦�±�¢ � � ¢�¦�±�¢ � � ¢�¦�±�¢ � � ¢�¦�±�¢ � � ¢�¦�±�¢ � � ¢�¦�±�¢ � � ¢�¦�±�¢ � � ¢�¦�±�¢ � � ¢�¦�±�¢ � � ¢�¦�±�¢ � � ¢�¦�±�¢ � � ¢�¦�±�¢ � � ¢�¦�±�¢ � � ¢�¦�±�¢ � � ¢�¦�±�¢ � � ¢�¦�±�¢ �Ü Ý Ù � � � ¤�¤�¡�� ¤�¤�¡�� ¤�¤�¡�� ¤�¤�¡�� ¤�¤�¡�� ¤�¤�¡�� ¤�¤�¡�� ¤�¤�¡�� ¤�¤�¡�� ¤�¤�¡�� ¤�¤�¡�� ¤�¤�¡�� ¤�¤�¡�� ¤�¤�¡�� ¤�¤�¡�� ¤�¤�¡�� ¤�¤�¡�� ¬«å��Â � ±�¢��¢ � � ±�¢��¢ � � ±�¢��¢ � � ±�¢��¢ � � ±�¢��¢ � � ±�¢��¢ � � ±�¢��¢ � � ±�¢��¢ � � ±�¢��¢ � � ±�¢��¢ � � ±�¢��¢ � � ±�¢��¢ � � ±�¢��¢ � � ±�¢��¢ � � ±�¢��¢ � � ±�¢��¢ � � ±�¢��¢ �Ü �¬« Â � ��¡�£�¢ � � ��¡�£�¢ � � ��¡�£�¢ � � ��¡�£�¢ � � ��¡�£¥¢ � � ��¡�£�¢ � � ��¡�£�¢ � � ��¡�£¥¢ � � ��¡�£�¢ � � ��¡�£�¢ � � ��¡�£�¢ � � ��¡�£�¢ � � ��¡�£�¢ � � ��¡�£�¢ � � ��¡�£�¢ � � ��¡�£¥¢ � � ��¡�£�¢ �Û Ý � Ö �À¿ÁÄÃ¯Ã¿ � �À¿®ÄÀ¯Á¿ � �Æ¿®ÄÃ¯Ã¿ � �À¿ÃÈÁ¿ÁÂ � �Æ¿ÁÂÁÄÃ¿ � �Æ¯ÃÇ®ÖÃÂ � �À�Ã¿Á�ÁÂ � � � ÅÁ¯Ã¯ÁÂ � �Á�Ã�ÃÄÀÂ � �À¿®�À�ÁÂ � � � ÈÁÂÃÈÁ¿ � �À¿Ã¿Á¿Ã¿ � �À¿Á¿Ã¿Á¿ � �Æ¿Á¿Á¿Ã¿ � �À¿Ã¿Á¿Ã¿ � �À¿Á¿Ã¿Á¿ � �À¿Ã¿Á¿Á¿ æ �«�ç�è �Ã¿¥�ÀÅÃ¿ÁÂ ¯ÁÖÃÂÁÖÁ�Ã¿ ¯ÃÖ¥�ÀÄÃ¿ÁÂ ¯ÁÂÃÅÁÖÃÈÁÂ ¯ÃÇÁÇÁÈÁÖÃ¿ ¯ÀÇ��Æ¿ÁÖÁÂ ¯Á�®�ÃÄÀ¯ÁÂ ¯Á¿ÁÂÃÅÁÅÃ¿ �ÆÅÁÈÁÅÃÅÁÂ �ÃÄÀÅÁÂÃÅÁ¿ �ÀÖÁÖÃ¿ÁÂÃ¿ �ÆÂ®ÄÃ¯ÃÅÁÂ �ÆÇ®ÄÃÂÁÅÃ¿ �Æ�®ÄÀÅÁ¿ÃÂ �Æ�Á¯Á�ÀÇ®Â �À¯Ã�ÁÂÁ¯ÃÂ �Á�×Ç��×Ç®Â


Table A8: Emission of nitrogen oxide (100 tonnes as N per year)é ê�ë�ì³í ê�ë�ì�î ê�ë�ì³ï ê�ë�ìªð ê�ë�ì�ì ê�ë�ì�ë ê�ë�ë³í ê�ë�ëªê ê�ë�ë�ñ ê�ë�ë�ò ê�ë�ë�ó ê�ë�ë�î ê�ë�ë³ï ê�ë�ë³ð ê�ë�ë�ì ê�ë�ë�ë ñ³í�ê�íôöõ·÷ ø ø ù ú�û üýü ø ù ú�û üýü ø ù ú�û üýü ø ù ú�û üýü ø ù ú�û üýü ø ù ú�û ü ü ø ù ú�û üýü ø ù ú�û ü ü ø ù ú�û üýü ø ù ú�û üýü ø ù ú�û üýü ø ù ú�û üýü ø ù ú�û üýü ø ù ú�û üýü ø ù ú�û üýü ø ù ú�û üýü ø ù þªÿ�� øô�� ù ø ø ù �� üýü ��û�û �� ú � �� û û�� û�û � û�û �� û � � ÿ ù � �� üýüô�� ù�� ú � �� û� �� þ�� ÿ�� þ�� þ�� û �� ø ú�� ú� � ú �� ú��ú �� ú �� û � ��ú � ��û � �û � ú� � �� ú�"! ù�� û �� û�� û � � û�ú � �� û�� #�#�# �� ô ÷ ø ù � û � ù � û � ù � û � ù � û � ù � û � ù � û � ù � û � ù � û � ù � û � ù � û � ù � û � ù � û � ù � û � ù � û � ù � û � ù � û � ø ù þ$#%� ø�'& ù(� � �� ù � �� ù �� ù � �� û �� ³ÿ¹ÿ ú�û�� ú �� ú �� ú � �� )+* ù(� � � � ù � � ù �û � � ù � û � ù � � � ù �� ú ��ú � ��ú�� ú ��ú � � � �û�� þ�, � �- � � � � � � �� þ � þ �� ú � � � � � ú ��û ��û �� ,�, ú �-/.·ù(� � �� û �� û �� ú � � ��û� �û �� û ��û�� ú � � � þ¹þ�#�, � ú �0�1 ù � û � #�#�# ��, �� #��%� #� �ÿ #��$ � �� #Íþ � #¬þ�� #��þ ��, � #�# � ��,¹ÿ ú � û , � � ø ù � #�, ø!�! ÷ ù ��û � ù ��û � ù ��û � ��û ��û �� û �� ú ��û�û ��û�û � �� þ¹þ�# ��243 ù(� � � ��ú � û� �� û � ú� � �� û �� ú �� ú�� ú�� þ � þ��24* ù�� ,Íþ�� ÿ � Íÿ � � �� ÿ%� � , � � ,��, � #�� $ �ÿ �� ,�# � þ�� þ�� %�³ÿ �#� � �, � , ��ú&�! ø ø û� � � � �� ú �� ú û�� û�� û �� û ��ú � � ú�� þ�� ¬þ ø ø ù �� ø ø0�! ù(� � ù65�ù87(9 ��ú � ù65�5�5�5 ù65�ù6��: ��ú��û � � �� #�� %� � � #�� ³ÿ¹ÿ�� ,�,�,�� ,��³ÿ�� #�, � ��þ�� ;�³ÿ � �³ÿÍþ ��#�� ¹ÿ&�* ù�� ù ��û�� û�� ù � � � ø �� ù ��#¹ÿ ø ù ��#�, ø �� û � � �� ú � �� û�ú �� ù �� )+< ù�� ú ú��ú �� û �� û ú � ú �� ú� � ��ú �� ú � � ��û � �� ,Íþ� ,�� 3>= � ø ��û � � �� ú�û ú�û ú� ú� ú�� ø ù � üýü ��3?! ù�� ú� û �� û �� û�ú�� û � � û � � û� � û�� û�� û �� û �� û�� û � � û�ú�� ,%� ��ú3 � ù ø � � �� û �� û � �� û � ��ú � �� û �� ÿ�� ÿ � # �# � þ � þ$� � ÿ� � ù1 . ø ø ù �û�� ù �û�� ù �û�� ù �û�� ù �û�� ù �û�� ù �û�� ù �û�� ù �û�� ù �û�� ù �û�� ù �û�� ù �û�� ù �û�� ù �û�� ù �û�� ù �û�� üýüõ@ � ø � þªÿ � þªÿ � þ³ÿ � þªÿ � þ³ÿ � þªÿ � þªÿ �� þ$�Íþ þ��³ÿ � � � � �ú � � � ��û�û �� ú þ¹þ�# � �õ$� � ø � �� û � � �� û�ú �û � ��ú ��ú ��ú�û � � þ$,� û�û �õ < ù(� � ú � ��û ø ù ��û üýü ø ù �� üýü ø ù �� üýü ø ù ú � ü ü ú � ø ù ú � ü ü ø ù � � ø ø ��, ú � ��û �� %# û�ûA õ � ø ��ú�ú � ��ú�� ú � � � � �û � � û ��ú�ú�ú ��ú�� ú � �� û�ú � þ��#�� þ�� ¬þ ��¬þA�B ù(� � � � � ,� � ,��ÿ ,�� ,�#¬þ ,�� û�� û�û � � ú � �� , � þ ,��# ,%��# ,�#� �³ÿ�ÿ � ú �C õ ù(� � û�ú �� ú��ú �� û � � � û��ú û � û� û �� û�û��û û �� û � � û�û� � û � �� ÿ¹ÿ ��ú �C � ù ø �� û�û � û � û û�ú�� ù � � � � ��,� þ³ÿÍþªÿ þªÿ�� þªÿ � � þªÿ� �, þªÿ�#�, þªÿ�� þªÿ�� þ¹þ�� þ¹þ�� ø ù ��¬þ ø� 0 ù(� � ��ú�� û û �� û �� û %# �ú�û*'B ù ø � � �� ú � � ��ú�� ú�� ú�� ú ��ú � ��ú � ��ú � ��ú � ��ú � ��ú � þ �� ÿ ù*"< ÷ ø � �ú�ú � ú�� ú � ú��ú� ú�ú�ú � ù65�D�:�9 ù85�ù¥ù6D � � ��û �� ú�� ú � �� ú �� ú� �� ú � ú � � �¹ÿ #¹ÿ�� ù=$1 ù ø ù � �� ù � �� ù � �� ù � �� ú ,%� � � #Íþ � ,¹ÿ � �� û�� #¹ÿ û�� ø ù � � � ø=$3 ù(� � � �� ú�� ú�û ��ú� ��ú� �� ú�� ú� �� û ��û �� þ��, ��û��!"= ù ø û�� û �� û��û � û �� û � � � û�� û�ú�ú�û û�� û�� û�ú �� û��û�û û��û�û ù û��û�û ù û��û�û ù � � �� ù=$! ù(� � �� û�� û�û � ��û�� ú� � � � � � û�� ú �� ú � �� - ) ù(� � � ��ú �� %� � � � �û � þ� �,�# � � %�³ÿ � �� , � � � � � � � þ$, � ÿ¬þ �� 1 ÷ ø ù þ¹þ�# ø ù þ¹þ$# ø ù þ¹þ$# ø ù þ¹þ$# ø ù þ¹þ$# ø ù þ�þ$# ø ù þ¹þ$# ø ù þ�þ$# ø ù þ¹þ$# ø ù þ¹þ�# ø ù þ¹þ$# ø ù þ¹þ�# ø ù þ¹þ$# ø � � � ø ù �� üýü ø ø ù #�# ø ø� * �� 7 þªÿ�#¹ÿ þ� � %� þ � ��, þ��³ÿÍþ þ$,��%� þ�#Íþ$, þ$�Íþ�þ þ��, þ$��#Íþ ��þ ��þ��, � � ,Íþ � � �� < ô�� ø û �� û � �û û�û �� û�û� � û�û��ú û� � � û�û�û � û � � � � � ��û � ��ú� � �� û �� û �� ù ��û �� ù û�û ��&�� ø ��# � � �� %� � # � ÿ � #� %�¹ÿ #� %�� # � #%� #�ÿ¹ÿ�� ,�, ��þ��, ,�#��# , �%� ,Íþ��, � ,¬þ�� þ �#%��# û �� < � ø � � û ��ú� ��ú�� ú�û � � �� ú�� ú�û �� ù �� úA�B ô : ø ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� üýüô =$3 : ø ù � �� ù � �� ù � �� ù � �� ù � �� ù � �� ù � �� ù � �� ù � �� ù � �� ù � �� ù � �� ù � �� ù � �� ù � �� ù � �� ù � �� üýü� ô = ø � � ú�� ù � � ú�� ù � � ú�� ù � � ú�� ù � � ú�� ù � � ú�� ù � � ú�� ù � � ú�� ù � � ú�� ù � � ú�� ù � � ú�� ù � � ú�� ù � � ú�� ù � � ú�� ù � � ú�� ù � � ú�� ù ø � � ú�� ù� õ = ø ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� ù �� üýü� !�0 ø � � �� ù � � �� ù � � �� ù � � �� ù � � �� ù � � �� ù � � �� ù � � �� ù � � �� ù � � �� ù � � �� ù � � �� ù � � �� ù � � �� ù � � �� ù � � �� ù ø � � �� ùA�BE= ø ��ú� ù ��ú ù ��ú� ù ��ú� ù ��ú� ù ��ú� ù ��ú ù ��ú� ù ��ú ù ��ú� ù ��ú ù ��ú� ù ��ú ù ��ú� ù ��ú ù ��ú� ù ø ��ú� ùô�� õF: ø û �� û ù û �� û ù û �� û ù û �� û ù û �� û ù û �� û ù û �� û ù û �� û ù û �� û ù û �� û ù û �� û ù û �� û ù û �� û ù û �� û ù û �� û ù û �� û ù ø û �� û ùA ô�� ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø@ B õ ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø ø ø ø ù � ø ø ø�HGI ø J D�ù69�5 J D�5K5�: L�5�5�:�: L¥÷KL�9�D L¥÷��9�5 L¥÷KD�LK7 L�:�ù J ù LK��L�5 J L�:��67 J :�L�:�: J ��ù8L J 5�L��ù J 5�5K:K7 9 J LK7(: 9�9�:KD�ù 9�:�5�D¥÷ 9�ù J :�L


Table A9: Emission of ammonia (100 tonnes as N per year)M N�O�P�Q NO�P�R NO�P$S N�O�P�T NO�P�P NO�P�O N�O�O�Q NO�O$N N�O�O�U NO�O�V NO�O�W NO�O�R NO�O�S NO�O�T NO�O�P NO�O�O U�Q�N�Q

X+YFZ [ \ ]�^�_ [ \ ]�^�_ [ \ ]�^�_ [ \ ]�^�_ [ \ ]�^�_ [ \ ]�^�_ [ \ ]�^�_ [ \ ]�^�_ [ \ ]�^�_ [ \ ]�^�_ [ \ ]�^�_ [ \ ]�^�_ [ \ ]�^�_ [ \ ]�^�_ [ \ ]�^�_ [ \ ]�^�_ [ \ ]�`�` [ [X�a \(b c \ d�ef g \ de�f g \ d�ef g \ d�ef g \ de�f g \ d�ef g de�f \ d�ef g \ de�f g \ d�ef g \ de�f g \ d�ef g \ de�f g \ d�ef g \ de�f g \ d�ef g \ d�ef g [X�h�\�b c ^�i;j ^�^�k ^�^�l ^%j�k ^�j�m n fo n fo n f�p n dq n d n n d�g n pre f�s n fs�d f�s�e j�l�` f�gtu�v Z [ p�q�et \ pqe�t \ p�q�et \ p�q�et \ pqe�t \ p�q�et \ p�q�et \ p�q�et \ pqe�t \ p�q�et \ pqe�t \ p�q�et \ pqe�t \ p�q�et \ pqe�t \ p�q�et \ w$_�m%w \u"x \�b c \ ot�d g o�td \ of�o g \ oq�d g \ qe�o g \ qt�p g q�q�p o n f o�fo os�q o�s�e os�q q�pf q�p�f `�i�m `�i�` n esu X Z [ \ df�f g \ d�ff g \ df�f g \ df�f g \ d�ff g \ df�f g \ d�ff g \ df�f g \ d�ff g \ df�f g \ d�ff g \ df�f g \ d�ff g \ df�f g \ d�ff g \ df�f g \ w$`�k [ [u'y \(b c p�pq�f \ pp�qf \ p�pq�f \ p�pq�f \ pp�qf \ p�pq�f \ pp�qf pre�d�p s�p�g qs�o q�t�p q�p�f n qt n tg fg�t i%k�i qq�sz+{ \(b c \ t�e�g g \ teg g \ t�e�g g \ t�e�g g \ teg g \ t�e�g g teg d n e d�d�e d�es p�sq d�e�g p�sd pq�s p�s�p ]�m�m d�go| v [ [ [ \ td }~} [ \ t�d }~} [ \ t�d } } [ \ td }~} [ \ td }~} [ \ t�d }~} [ \ td }~} [ \ t�d } } [ \ td }~} [ \ t�d } } [ \ td }~} [ \ td }~} [ \ t�d }~} [ \ td }~} [ \ t�d }~} [ \ td }~} [ [ \ td }~}|/�F\(b c p�dqg \ pd�q�g \ p�dqg \ p�dqg \ pd�q�g \ p�dqg \ pd�q�g p�p�et sg�o q�p�f og�s o�eq n�n o nn o n fq ^;w�l `�_%w�� \ pre�d�s w�w�w$m w�w�w�w w$m�`%w w$m�j�w w$m�j�j w$m�j�] w�m%w$^ k�k�_ k�^�] k�]�_ `�^�j `�]�l `%]�_ `�_�m l�`�k \ j�^�` [ [x�x Z \ w$k�` [ \ w$k�` [ \ w�k�` [ \ w$k�` [ \ w$k�` [ \ w�k�` [ w$k�` w$`�] w�j�w w�w�w w$m�m `�^ `%w l�` l�` l�m \ d�tq }~}�4� \(b c td�p _�j$i tt�o _%l�m \ _�i%j [ \ _%]�k [ t�pd \ _%]�j [ _�_�l \ _�]%w [ \ _�m�i [ dq�s d�qq t�p�d t�p�e ]�`�k ]�j�j�4{ \�b c ^�^%]�k ^�^�i%j ^�^�`�l ^�^�i%j ^�i�`�k ^�i�`�k ^�j�m%j ^�i�`%w ^�_�k�m ^�_�]$i ^�_�l$i ^�i%_%w ^�j$i%l ^�^;w�] ^�^�i%j ^�^%]�k n g�d�ty�x \ os�q g \ o�sq g \ os�q g \ os�q g \ o�sq g \ os�q g \ o�sq g \ os�q g \ o�sq g \ os�q g \ o�sq g \ os�q g \ o�sq g \ os�q g \ o�sq g \ os�q g \ o�sq }~}��x \(b c n qo n o�efo n s n o n sf�q n q�o n n o�oo n tee f�f�gd ftgg f�dfg fd n d f�dd�s fd�ds f�p�go j�]�m�i j�w�_�` gfd�sy�{ \�b c \ n fe g \ n f�e g \ n fe g \ n fe g \ n f�e g \ n fe g n f�e n gd n po n p�o n e$p o�e�e n e$p fqg n e�s \ n es g n e�pz+� \�b c p�ds�d pd�tf prge�e p�dt�f pt�po \ p�g�ee p�ed�p o n f n s�p n tg n df n tg n g�d n d�f n e$p j�`�i o�g�p�>� [ \ d�g }~} [ \ dg }~} [ \ dg } } [ \ d�g }~} [ \ d�g }~} [ \ dg }~} [ \ d�g }~} [ \ dg } } [ \ d�g }~} [ \ dg } } [ \ d�g }~} [ \ d�g }~} [ \ dg }~} [ \ d�g }~} [ \ dg }~} [ \ d�g }~} [ [ \ d�g }~}�?x \�b c \ sd�d g \ s�dd g \ sd�d g \ sd�d g \ s�dd g \ sd�d g s�dd s�go s n t s n t s�q�e sq�q p�e�eg pre$p�d p�e�g�f w$m�i%j sf�f� h \ t�s�g�g ge�p�e g�e�o n g�e�s�d g$pre�s ts n p tq�to t�o�prg t n dt t n s�o to�q�e t�os n _�j$i;w _�^�i�` _�^�m�l _�^�`�k _�i;j�m \� � \ p�gq g \ prg�q g \ p�gq g \ p�gq g \ prg�q g \ p�gq g \ prg�q g \ p�gq g \ prg�q g \ p�gq g \ prg�q g \ p�gq g \ prg�q g \ p�gq g \ prg�q g \ p�gq g \ prg�q }~}Y� \ \ t n d g \ t n d g \ t n d g \ t n d g \ t n d g \ t n d g t n d t�gf d�o�p p n g prge p�g�e p�t�p pd�t pre�o k�` \ t n d }~}Y$h c o�e�e o�td ot�d o�g�p o�td oe�q n s�p o�e�e n�n o n f�q n fq t�p�d d�s n dq�q d�qq ]�_�` n s�pY � \(b c [ \ fo }~} [ \ f�o }~} [ \ f�o } } [ \ fo }~} [ \ fo }~} [ \ f�o }~} fo [ \ f�o } } [ \ fo }~} f�o fo f�o fo f�o fo j�` f�o� Y \(b c p�sd�o d�e�g�d d�pdg d�pdg ps�f�p ps�p�e pq n p p�qo�o p�gqd p�fo�d pt n o p�d�ed pde�d p�f�gq w�i�m�m w�i�i;w pre�fg�� \(b c pq�f p�qs pq�s pq�s p�o�g p�qo p�qq ps n de�f d�et deg d�p�d d�pq d�p n d�dd ]%w$` pq�s� Y \(b c gfd�s g�f�ds gfd�s gfd�s g�f�ds g�f�ds g$p�qt t�o�ef t n q�p t�p�gf t�p n d t�pd�s ds�so d�qq�d t�eff ]�`�m�` t�qfg� h�\ \ `�^�m } \ `�^�m } \ `�^�m } \ `�^�m } \ `�^�m } \ `�^�m } `�^�m `�]�_ `�l�^ `;w�l l�^�] `�_�^ `%w�j `%]�l `�i�` \ q�gq g `�`�ka � \(b c g�d�q g n s \ g n p g \ gg�g g \ gt n g \ g$p�p g g�e�t get t n d t�e�g d�qq do�p d�ff d�ef de�f w�k�l t�gf{'� \ d�q�e�e dq�d�g d�qq�d d�o�es do�s�p dqe�q d�go�e d�ps�q d�pree p�qt n pq�d�e p�qde \ pq�d�e \ p�qde \ pq�d�e \ p�qde \ w�l�]�k \{"� Z s�os�p \6��c��KZ \6�K�� \6��r\6� \6�K�(�K� \6�KZ�� sqe�q s�f n p qs�do og�t n n t�fo n oq�f n p n q n e$p�p ff�fq j$iFw$m l�_�^�] \�$� \ \ f�p�o g \ f�po g \ f�p�o g \ f�p�o g \ f�po g \ f�p�o g f�po g�q n gd�e to�p tg�s tt�q tge t�p�f d�qf ]�k�^ \ _�]�w i�$� \(b c \ ps�o g \ p�so g \ ps�o g \ ps�o g \ p�so g \ ps�o g p�so pq�s p�qs pq�s p�q�p pq�p p�q�p pf n w$^�i w�^�i p n gx"� \ t�d n p t�gfq t�fq�d t�s�et ts�pp ge�p�e tq�qo t�qfg tq�f�g t n q�s tq�o�e t�q�gf g�d�fo \ gdf�o \ g�d�fo \ gdf�o \ ]�k�m�l \�$x \(b c \ gg�g g \ g�gg g \ gg�g g \ gg�g g g�gg \ i�_�^ } i%]�m g�de fe�d f�ed fe�d f�ed fe�d g�q�f gqf i;j�] g n s| z \(b c n tg n e$p \ n es g \ n e�p g \ n e$p g \ fs�d g f�q�g f�ed f�p�e f�p�q \ f�pq g f n q f�q�g fqg j�^�m j�^�m f�p�qa � Z \ p�g�e g \ prge g \ p�g�e g \ p�g�e g \ prge g \ p�g�e g \ prge g \ p�g�e g \ prge g \ p�g�e g \ prge g \ p�g�e g \ prge g \ p�g�e g \ prge g \ p�g�e g \ w$_%w ih { d n gt \ d n g�t \ d n gt \ d n gt \ d n g�t \ d n gt \ d n gt \ d n gt \ d n g�t \ d n gt \ d n g�t \ d n gt \ d n g�t \ d n gt \ d n g�t \ d n gt \ [ d n gt \� X�Z n eet \ n e�e�t \ n eet \ n eet \ n e�e�t \ n eet \ n eet \ n eet \ n e�e�t \ n eet \ n e�e�t \ n eet \ n e�e�t \ n eet \ n e�e�t \ n eet \ [ gqo�f \y�u \ teeo \ t�e�e�o \ teeo \ teeo \ t�e�e�o \ teeo \ t�e�e�o d�s n g ]�`�_�m ]�`�]�^ ]�`�i�i ]�l�l�j do�f n ]�`�m�` dq�oo ]�`�^�l ]$i�i%j \v�� Z \ o�g�p g \ og$p g \ o�g�p g \ o�g�p g \ og$p g \ o�g�p g \ og$p g \ o�g�p g \ og$p g \ o�g�p g \ og$p g \ o�g�p g \ og$p g \ o�g�p g \ og$p g \ o�g�p g \ ^�l�j i�� X � p�st�f \ ps�tf \ p�st�f \ p�st�f \ ps�tf \ p�st�f \ p�st�f \ p�st�f \ ps�tf \ p�st�f \ ps�tf \ p�st�f \ ps�tf \ p�st�f \ ps�tf \ p�st�f \ [ p�st�f \X �$� � dg�s�f \ d�gsf \ dg�s�f \ dg�s�f \ d�gsf \ dg�s�f \ dg�s�f \ dg�s�f \ d�gsf \ dg�s�f \ d�gsf \ dg�s�f \ d�gsf \ dg�s�f \ d�gsf \ dg�s�f \ [ dg�s�f \u X � [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [u Y � [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [a x�� [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [��E� [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [X�h/Y [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [� X�h [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [� � Y [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [ [ [ [ \ e [ [ [hH�� Z�c�c�� (Z � c � �(\6�� r\ � � � \8� � ��K� � cr\�\6� �K��c��r\ � � �r\6� �6�(��c�� c�c��K� �Kc��K�(� �r\ � � � �(\6��Z�� r\8�� ZK� ��K�

Appendix B

Status review by country

B:2 EMEP SUMMARY REPORT 2001

APPENDIX: Status review by country B:3

Overview of regions included in Appendix B

Country/Region Code Country/Region Code

Armenia AM Norway NOAustria AT Poland PLBelarus BY Portugal PTBelgium BE Republic of Moldova MDBosnia and Hercegovina BA Romania ROBulgaria BG Russian Federation RUCroatia HR Slovakia SKCyprus CY Slovenia SICzech Republic CZ Spain ESDenmark DE Sweden SEEstonia EE Switzerland CHEuropean Community EU The FYR of Macedonia MKFinland FI Turkey TRFrance FR Ukraine UAGermany DE Yugoslavia YUGreece GR United Kingdom GBHungary HUIceland IS Albania ALIreland IEItaly IT Baltic Sea BASLatvia LV Black Sea BLSLithuania LT Mediterrean Sea MEDLuxembourg LU North Sea NOSMalta MT Remaining N.E. Atlantic ATLNetherlands NL

For Canada, Georgia, Liechtenstein, Monaco and United States only reported emission data areincluded.

Malta is introduced as receptor country. The estimated emissions from Malta are below the accuracylimits of the source- receptor calculations and do not justify a separate study of Malta as emitter

country.Although Albania is not a Party to the LRTAP Convention, its situation in Europe and the extent of its

estimated emissions justify a separate study of this country as emitter and receptor.

B:4 EMEP SUMMARY REPORT 2001

Appendix B

Description of contents Contactpersons

Part I: Data submitted by Parties

� Reported national emission totals [email protected]

� Overview of data uncertainity for [email protected] and air quality [email protected] data in 1999

� Synthesis of the responses to the [email protected] questionnare on ozone monitoringprocedures

Part II: Evaluation of transboundary fluxes

� Five largest contributions to source [email protected] of imported and exported [email protected] in each country. [email protected] for 1996 are presented toallow for direct comparison ofLagrangian and Eulerian model results

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

50

100

150

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

100

200

300

400

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions

NH3 (as NH3)NMVOC (as NMVOC)NO2 (as NO2)SO2 (as SO2)CO (as CO)

Armenia

emep/msc−w

Overview of expected data uncertainty for reported measurementsA < ±10%, B < ±25%, C < ±30%, D > ±30% or unknow n (U)

Air DATA SO2(g) NO2(g) HNO3(g) NH3(g) SO4(p) NO3(p) NH4(p) HNO3(g)+ NH3(g)+QUALITY NO3(p) NH4(p)

AM1 No stations

Synthesis of the responses to the 2000 questionnaireon ozone monitoring procedures.

Station Code and Name Local NOx sources 1) Maintenance 2) Calibration 3) Transfer standard 4)

AM1 No stations

"0" indicates within criterias, any mark indicate violation of the criterias. "?" indicates no information supplied.1) mw <x>: Motorway <x> km away; s.tr.: some traffic; s.town: small town; ppl: power plant; tr: traffic; psrc: point source2) nlt: No leak test; infreq scrub: infrequent scrubber test; not reg: not regularly; npt: No pressure transducer test; nsc: no scrubber test3) not reg: Not regularly; infreq: infrequent; infreq sp: infrequent span and zero check4) no st.: No standard; not trac: Presently not tracable to a NIST standard

Precipitation DATA SO4(l) NH4(l) NO3(l) pH Na Mg Cl Ca KQUALITY

AM1 No stations

Comments: It would be desirable to extend the EMEP monitoring program with at least 1 operative station in Armenia.

B: 5

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

2

4

6

8

10

Exported to:

Other areasREMBLSTRAMRU

Armenia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

Exported to:


Armenia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

Exported to:


Armenia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

2

4

6

8

10

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGEASIBICTRAM

Deposition of oxidised nitrogen

Armenia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGEASITRAMRU

Deposition of reduced nitrogen

Armenia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGEVOLASIBICTRAM

Deposition of oxidised sulphur

Armenia

emep/msc−w

B: 6

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

100

200

300

400

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

500

1000

1500

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Austria

emep/msc−w



AT2 Illmitz U U A

AT4 St. Koloman U U

AT5 Vorhegg U U



AT2 Illmitz 0 0 0 0

AT4 St. Koloman mw 8 0 0 0

AT5 Vorhegg 0 0 0 0



AT2 Illmitz A B A A A A A A B

AT4 St. Koloman A B A A A A A A B

AT5 Vorhegg A B A A A A A A B

Comments: Not intercomparison results for 1999, but used results from 1998 and 2000. Generally good precipitationresults, pH measurements can be improved. Sampling methods for SO2 and NO2 (DOAS) are not recommended.Documentation of their quality using field comparisons is needed. Poor data completeness for SO2 and NO2at AT04. There is also a need to measure all nitrogen components in air.

B: 7

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

Exported to:

Other areasITCZDEPLATHUMED

Austria

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

Exported to:

Other areasCZDEPLATHUMED

Austria

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

Exported to:

Other areasITCZDEPLATHUMED

Austria

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasITCZBICFRDEINDAT


Austria

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasCHSIITCZFRDEINDAT


Austria

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasSIITCZDEINDPLATHU


Austria

emep/msc−w

B: 8

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

200

400

600

800

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

500

1000

1500

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Belarus

emep/msc−w



BY1 No stations



BY1 No stations



BY1 No stations

Comments: It would be desirable to extend the EMEP monitoring program with at least 1 operative station in Belarus.

B: 9

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

Exported to:

Other areasPLBASUABYRU

Belarus

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

Exported to:

Other areasLTPLUABYRU

Belarus

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

Exported to:

Other areasPLBLSBASUABYRU

Belarus

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasPLDEBICUAINDBYRU


Belarus

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasLTPLUAINDBYRU


Belarus

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasPLHUDEUAINDBYRU


Belarus

emep/msc−w

B: 10

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

200

400

600

800

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Belgium

emep/msc−w



BE1 No stations



BE1 No stations



BE1 No stations

Comments: It would be desirable to extend the EMEP monitoring program in Belgium.

B: 11

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

Exported to:

Other areasPLFRNOSATLDEBE

Belgium

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

Exported to:

Other areasFRNOSATLDENLBE

Belgium

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

Exported to:


Belgium

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasFRGBDENLBE


Belgium

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasFRLUGBDENLINDBE


Belgium

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasFRNOSGBDENLINDBE


Belgium

emep/msc−w

B: 12

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

100

200

300

400

500

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Bosnia and Herzegovina

emep/msc−w



BA1 No stations



BA1 No stations



BA1 No stations

Comments: It would be desirable to extend the EMEP monitoring program with at least 1 operative station in Bosniaand Herzegovina.

B: 13

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Exported to:

Other areasBAITYUHRMED


emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

25

Exported to:

Other areasROBAITYUHRHUMED


emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

Exported to:

Other areasROBAITYUHRMED


emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasBAITBICFRDEINDPLHUMED



emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

25

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasBAITYUHRINDHU



emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasBAITYUDEVOLINDREMHU



emep/msc−w

B: 14

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Bulgaria

emep/msc−w



BG1 No stations



BG1 No stations



BG1 No stations

Comments: It would be desirable to extend the EMEP monitoring program with at least 1 operative station in Bulgaria.

B: 15

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

Exported to:

Other areasBLSGRROBGMEDUA

Bulgaria

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

Exported to:

Other areasBLSGRROBGMEDUA

Bulgaria

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

Exported to:

Other areasBLSGRROTRRUBGMED

Bulgaria

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGRROITBICTRDEBGINDUA


Bulgaria

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGRROYUBGINDUA


Bulgaria

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasROYUBGVOLINDHUUA


Bulgaria

emep/msc−w

B: 16

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

50

100

150

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Croatia

emep/msc−w



HR1 No data reported in 1999







Comments: No data was reported in 1999. It is strongly recommended to start reporting data again, improvementsin the laboratory comparison have been made the past years; however, there is still need forimproving the calcium analysis.

B: 17

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

Exported to:

Other areasBAITHRHUMED

Croatia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Exported to:

Other areasBASIITHRHUMED

Croatia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

Exported to:

Other areasBASIITHRHUMED

Croatia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasITBICFRDEHRINDPLHUMED


Croatia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasBASIITYUDEHRINDHU


Croatia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasBAITYUDEVOLHRINDREMHU


Croatia

emep/msc−w

B: 18

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

10

20

30

40

50

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Cyprus

emep/msc−w



CY1 No stations



CY1 No stations



CY1 No stations

Comments: It would be desirable to extend the EMEP monitoring program with at least 1 operative station in Cyprus.

B: 19

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

1

2

3

4

5

Exported to:

Other areasCYREMTRMEDRU

Cyprus

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Exported to:

Other areasCYREMTRMED

Cyprus

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

Exported to:

Other areasCYREMTRMEDRU

Cyprus

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

1

2

3

4

5

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasCYITBICTRMEDRU


Cyprus

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasCYREMASITR


Cyprus

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasCYVOLASIBICTRMED


Cyprus

emep/msc−w

B: 20

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Czech Republic

emep/msc−w



CZ1 Svratouch A B U U U U B B

CZ3 Kosetice A B U U U U B B



CZ1 Svratouch

CZ3 Kosetice



CZ1 Svratouch A A B A A A A B A

CZ3 Kosetice A A B A A A A B A

Comments: The field comparison in 1998 for the air components was not satisfactory, but more recent comparisonsshow improvements. The B for Ca and NH4 is due to the results from laboratory comparison

B: 21

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

Exported to:

Other areasATLCZRUNOSDEPLATUA

Czech Republic

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

Exported to:

Other areasCZSKRUNOSDEPLAT

Czech Republic

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

Exported to:

Other areasATLCZRUNOSDEPLUA

Czech Republic

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasCZBICFRDEINDPLAT


Czech Republic

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasCZSKFRDEINDPLAT


Czech Republic

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasCZSKDEINDPLHU


Czech Republic

emep/msc−w

B: 22

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

100

200

300

400

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Denmark

emep/msc−w



DK3 Tange A A A A A

DK5 Keldsnor A A A A A

DK8 Anholt A A A A A



DK5 Keldsnor s.town 20 not reg not reg 0

DK31 Ulborg 0 not reg not reg 0

DK32 Fredriksborg s.town 4 not reg not reg 0



DK3 Tange A A A A A A A A B

DK5 Keldsnor A A A A A A A A B

DK8 Anholt A A A A A A A A B

Comments: Generally, very good results have been achieved in precipitation and air measurements. pH measurementscan be improved.

B: 23

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

Exported to:

Other areasSEATLRUNOSDEBAS

Denmark

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

Exported to:

Other areasSEATLNOSDEBASDK

Denmark

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

Exported to:

Other areasSEATLRUNOSDEBASDK

Denmark

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler)* 0

20

40

60

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGBBICNOSDEINDBASDK


Denmark

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasSEGBFRDENLINDPLDK


Denmark

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler)* 0

20

40

60

80

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGBBICDEINDPLBASDK


Denmark

emep/msc−w

B: 24

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

50

100

150

200

250

300

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

100

200

300

400

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Estonia

emep/msc−w



EE9 Lahemaa B C B

EE11 Vilsandy U U B



EE9 Lahemaa 0 infreq infreq no st

EE11 Vilsandy 0 infreq infreq no st



EE9 Lahemaa A B A A A B B B B

EE11 Vilsandy A B A A A B B B B

Comments: Very good improvements have been made for precipitation components. Further improvements are neededfor pH, and the calcium analysis can also be improved. Air measurements strongly need improvements.

B: 25

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

Exported to:

Other areasSEATLEERUBASFI

Estonia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

Exported to:

Other areasEELVRUBASFI

Estonia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

Exported to:

Other areasSEATLEERUBASFI

Estonia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGBBICRUDEINDPLBASFI


Estonia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasEELVRUDEBYINDPLUA


Estonia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasEERUDEINDPLBAS


Estonia

emep/msc−w

B: 26

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100.0*100

5.0*103

1.0*104

1.5*104

2.0*104

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0*100

1*104

2*104

3*104

4*104

5*104

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


European Community

emep/msc−w



EU1 Ispra U C B U U



EU1 Ispra



EU1 Ispra A A A A A A B B A

Comments: Generally good results in the laboratory comparison; however, the ion balance plot indicates someproblems. Filter measurements of NH4(p) and NO3(p) are likely to be biased, HNO3 and NH3 shouldalso be measured preferably using denuders. SO2 measurements are unknown and further documentationof the data quality is needed.

B: 27

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Exported to:

Other areasFRNOSDEATLMED

European Community

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Exported to:

Other areasESFRITDEATL

European Community

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Exported to:

Other areasFRNOSDEATLMED

European Community

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESFRITGBDEBIC


European Community

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESFRITGBDE


European Community

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

1000

2000

3000

4000

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESFRITGBDEBIC


European Community

emep/msc−w

B: 28

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

100

200

300

400

500

600

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Finland

emep/msc−w



FI17 Virolahti A C A A A

FI22 Oulanka A C A A A

FI37 Ahtari A C A A A



FI9 Utö s.tr. 0 0 0

FI17 Virolahti s.tr. 0 0 0

FI22 Oulanka s.tr. 0 0 0

FI37 Ähtäri 0 0 0 0



FI17 Virolahti A A A A A A A A A

FI22 Oulanka A A A A A A A A A

FI37 Ahtari A A A A A A A A A

Comments: Finland has traditionally very good precipitation measurements, but NO2 is measured usingchemiluminescence, which is not recommended.

B: 29

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

Exported to:

Other areasSEATLBASRUFI

Finland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

Exported to:


Finland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

Exported to:


Finland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasSEDEBICBASINDRUFI


Finland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasPLSEDEEEINDRUFI


Finland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasPLDEBICEEBASINDRUFI


Finland

emep/msc−w

B: 30

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0.0*100

5.0*103

1.0*104

1.5*104

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


France

emep/msc−w



FR3 La Crouzille B A

FR5 La Hague B A

FR8 Donon B A

FR9 Revin B A

FR10 Morvan B A

FR11 Bonnevaux B A

FR12 Iraty B A

FR13 Peyrusse Vieille B A

FR14 Montandon B A



FR8 Donon 0 npt infreq sp 0

FR9 Revin 0 0 0 0

FR10 Morvan 0 0 0 0

FR13 Peyrusse Vieille 0 infreq lt infreq sp 0

FR14 Montandon 0 infreq lt 0 0



FR3 La Crouzille A A A A A A A A A

FR5 La Hague A A A A A A A A A

FR8 Donon A A A A A A A A A

FR9 Revin A A A A A A A A A

FR10 Morvan A A A A A A A A A

FR11 Bonnevaux A A A A A A A A A

FR12 Iraty A A A A A A A A A

FR13 Peyrusse Vieille A A A A A A A A A

FR14 Montandon A A A A A A A A A

Comments: Good results. Improvements should be possible for SO2. It is strongly recommended to startsampling nitrogen air components in France, preferably by use of denuders.

B: 31

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

Exported to:

Other areasNOSFRATLDEMED

France

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

Exported to:


France

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

500

Exported to:


France

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESFRGBDEBICIND


France

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESFRITDEBEIND


France

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

500

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESNOSFRGBDEBICIND


France

emep/msc−w

B: 32

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

2000

4000

6000

8000

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0.0*100

5.0*103

1.0*104

1.5*104

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Germany

emep/msc−w



DE1 Westerland D D A

DE2 Langenbruegge D D A

DE3 Schauinsland D D A

DE4 Deuselbach D D A

DE5 Brotjackriegel D D A

DE7 Neuglobsow D D A

DE8 Schmuecke D D A

DE9 Zingst D D A



DE all stations ? ? ? ?



DE1 Westerland A A A A A A A A B

DE2 Langenbruegge A A A A A A A A B

DE3 Schauinsland A A A A A A A A B

DE4 Deuselbach A A A A A A A A B

DE5 Brotjackriegel A A A A A A A A B

DE7 Neuglobsow A A A A A A A A B

DE8 Schmuecke A A A A A A A A B

DE9 Zingst A A A A A A A A B

Comments: Generally good precipitation measurements. For air sampling, Saltzmann method for NO2 and TCM methodfor SO2 give unreliable results. Germany will change to the recommended methods for air sampling.Poor data completeness for SO4. There is also a need to measure all nitrogen components in air.

B: 33

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Exported to:

Other areasATLNOSFRDEPLBAS

Germany

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

500

Exported to:

Other areasATLCZNOSFRDEPLATBAS

Germany

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

500

1000

1500

2000

Exported to:

Other areasATLCZRUNOSDEPLBAS

Germany

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGBCZBICFRDENLIND


Germany

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

500

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasCHBEFRDENLINDPL


Germany

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

500

1000

1500

2000

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGBCZBEFRDEINDPL


Germany

emep/msc−w

B: 34

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

100

200

300

400

500

600

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

500

1000

1500

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Greece

emep/msc−w



GR1 Aliartos C B A U



GR1 Aliartos



GR1 Aliartos

Comments: TGS method for NO2 not recommended; however consistently good analytical results in the laboratorycomparison. Absorption for SO2 is not recommended and also rather poor laboratory comparison results.Variable precipitation results that need improvements.

B: 35

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

100

Exported to:

Other areasGRBLSTRYUBGREMMED

Greece

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

50

Exported to:

Other areasMKGRTRBGMED

Greece

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

Exported to:

Other areasGRBLSALTRYURUREMMED

Greece

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

100

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGRITBICTRBGINDMED


Greece

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

50

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasMKGRROITALTRBGINDUA


Greece

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGRROBICTRBGVOLINDREMMED


Greece

emep/msc−w

B: 36

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

500

1000

1500

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Hungary

emep/msc−w



HU2 K−puszta A A U U A U U A B



HU2 K−puszta 0 npt, nsc infreq 0



HU2 K−puszta A A B A B A B B D

Comments: Data quality are worse than earlier, the QA/QC procedures need to be evaluated.

B: 37

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Exported to:

Other areasROSKYURUPLHUUAMED

Hungary

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

Exported to:

Other areasROSKYUHRPLHUUAMED

Hungary

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

Exported to:

Other areasROSKRUPLHUUAMED

Hungary

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasITBICSKDEINDPLHU


Hungary

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasROITSKYUDEINDATHUUA


Hungary

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasROBASKYUDEVOLINDPLHU


Hungary

emep/msc−w

B: 38

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

5

10

15

20

25

30

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Iceland

emep/msc−w



IS2 Irafoss A



IS2 Irafoss



IS2 Irafoss A A A

Comments: A full air and precipitation measurement programme is needed and recommended.

B: 39

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

2

4

6

8

10

Exported to:

Other areasATLISRUNOSREMNO

Iceland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

1

2

3

4

5

Exported to:

Other areasATLIS

Iceland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

Exported to:

Other areasATLISNOSDK

Iceland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

2

4

6

8

10

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasATLGBISBICFRDEINDNO


Iceland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

1

2

3

4

5

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGBISIEFRDENLIND


Iceland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasATLGBISBICDEINDNATPL


Iceland

emep/msc−w

B: 40

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

50

100

150

200

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

100

200

300

400

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Ireland

emep/msc−w



IE2 Turlough Hill A A

IE3 The Burren



IE31 Mace Head



IE2 Turlough Hill A A B A B B B B B

IE3 The Burren A A B A B B B B B

Comments: No data received from IE1 and IE4 in 1999. Rather poor laboratory comparison results.

B: 41

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Exported to:

Other areasFRNOSGBATLIE

Ireland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

100

Exported to:


Ireland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

Exported to:


Ireland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasFRDEGBATLBICIEIND


Ireland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

100

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESFRDEGBIEIND


Ireland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESDEGBATLBICIENATIND


Ireland

emep/msc−w

B: 42

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

1000

2000

3000

4000

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Italy

emep/msc−w



IT1 Montelibretti A C A A A A A

IT4 Ispra U C B U U



IT1 Montelibretti s.tr. nsc infreq sp 0

IT4 Ispra



IT1 Montelibretti A B A A A A A A A

IT4 Ispra A A A A A A B B A

Comments: Montelibretti is one of the few stations reporting denuder measurements of the nitrogen componentsin air. Very good laboratory comparison for sulphate and nitrate, improvements strongly needed forpH.

B: 43

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

Exported to:

Other areasITFRDEHRREMATMED

Italy

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

Exported to:

Other areasCHITFRREMATMED

Italy

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

500

Exported to:

Other areasCHITRUFRREMATMED

Italy

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESITBICFRDEINDMED


Italy

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESCHITFRDEINDREM


Italy

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

500

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESITBICFRDEVOLINDREMMED


Italy

emep/msc−w

B: 44

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

50

100

150

200

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

200

400

600

800

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Latvia

emep/msc−w



LV10 Rucava B A B U U A A

LV16 Zoseni B A B U U A A



LV10 Rucava 0 infreq, npt, nsc infreq no st



LV10 Rucava A A A A A D B B A

LV16 Zoseni A A A A A D B B A

Comments: A good progress has been made during the past years for sulphate and nitrate in precipitation inthe laboratory comparisons. Ammonium analysis is satisfactory, but improvements are needed forcalcium and the remaining components.

B: 45

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Exported to:

Other areasLTSELVRUBYBASFI

Latvia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

Exported to:

Other areasLTLVEERUBYBAS

Latvia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

Exported to:

Other areasLTLVEERUBYBASFI

Latvia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGBBICRUDEINDPLBAS


Latvia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasLTLVEEBYINDPLUA


Latvia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasLTLVRUDEINDPLBAS


Latvia

emep/msc−w

B: 46

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

50

100

150

200

250

300

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Lithuania

emep/msc−w



LT15 Preila A A A A A



LT15 Preila



LT15 Preila A A A A A − A B A

Comments: The measurement program needs to be completed by including Mg. A good progress has been made inthe laboratory comparisons, but there are still problems with calcium.START LVA good progress has been made during the past years for sulphate and nitrate in precipitation inthe laboratory comparisons. Ammonium analysis is satisfactory, but improvements are needed forcalcium and the remaining components.

B: 47

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

Exported to:

Other areasLTSELVRUBYPLBASUA

Lithuania

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Exported to:

Other areasLTLVRUBYBAS

Lithuania

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

100

Exported to:

Other areasLTLVRUBYBAS

Lithuania

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasLTGBBICRUDEINDPLBAS


Lithuania

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasLTRUDEBYINDPLUA


Lithuania

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

100

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasLTGBCZRUDEBYINDPLUA


Lithuania

emep/msc−w

B: 48

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

5

10

15

20

25

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

50

100

150

200

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Luxembourg

emep/msc−w



LU1 No stations



LU1 No stations



LU1 No stations

Comments: It would be desirable to extend the EMEP monitoringprogram with at least 1 operative station in Luxembourg.

B: 49

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exported to:

Other areasPLNOSFRATLLUDE

Luxembourg

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

1

2

3

4

5

Exported to:

Other areasNOSFRATLLUDEBE

Luxembourg

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

1

2

3

4

5

Exported to:

Other areasPLNOSFRATLLUDE

Luxembourg

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasFRGBLUDENLBEIND


Luxembourg

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

1

2

3

4

5

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasFRLUDENLBEIND


Luxembourg

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

1

2

3

4

5

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESFRGBLUDEBEIND


Luxembourg

emep/msc−w

B: 50

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Malta

emep/msc−w



MT1 No stations



MT1 No stations



MT1 No stations

B: 51

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0.0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Exported to:Other areas

Malta

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0


Malta

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8


Malta

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0.0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasITBICMED


Malta

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:Other areas


Malta

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasITVOLMED


Malta

emep/msc−w

B: 52

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

100

200

300

400

500

600

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

500

1000

1500

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Netherlands

emep/msc−w



NL9 Kollumerwaard U C A A A

NL10 Vreedepeel U C A A A



NL9 Kollumerwaard

NL10 Vreedepeel



NL9 Kollumerwaard A A A A A A A A A

NL10 Vreedepeel

Comments: Good results in the laboratory comparison, pH measurements can be improved. Further documentationof the data quality for the SO2 and NO2 measurements are needed. Field comparisons has started.NO3 and HNO3 in air should be included in the measurement program

B: 53

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

Exported to:

Other areasFRNOSATLDEBASNL

Netherlands

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

Exported to:

Other areasFRNOSATLDEBASNLBE

Netherlands

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

Exported to:


Netherlands

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasFRNOSGBDENLBE


Netherlands

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasFRGBDENLBE


Netherlands

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasFRNOSGBDENLBE


Netherlands

emep/msc−w

B: 54

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

100

200

300

400

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

200

400

600

800

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Norway

emep/msc−w



NO1 Birkenes A A A A A

NO8 Skreaadalen A A A A A

NO15 Tustervatn A A A A A

NO39 Kaarvatn A A A A A

NO41 Osen A A A A A

NO42 Spitzbergen, Z. A A A A A

NO55 Karasjok A A A A A



NO1 Birkenes 0 0 infreq 0

NO15 Tustervatn 0 0 infreq 0

NO39 Kaarvatn 0 0 infreq 0

NO41 Osen 0 0 infreq 0

NO42 Zeppelinfjellet 0 0 infreq 0

NO43 Prestebakke 0 0 infreq 0

NO45 Jeløya s.tr. 0 infreq 0

NO48 Voss 0 0 infreq 0

NO52 Sandve 0 0 infreq 0

NO55 Karasjok 0 0 infreq 0

NO56 Hurdal s.tr. 0 infreq 0



NO1 Birkenes A A A A A A A A B

NO8 Skreaadalen A A A A A A A A B

NO15 Tustervatn A A A A A A A A B

NO39 Kaarvatn A A A A A A A A B

NO41 Osen A A A A A A A A B

NO42 Spitzbergen, Z. A A A A A A A A B

NO55 Karasjok A A A A A A A A B

Comments: Titration of acids in precipitation is recommended. Very good and good results have been obtainedin the laboratory comparisons.

B: 55

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

Exported to:

Other areasSEATLRUNOSNO

Norway

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

Exported to:

Other areasSEATLRUNOSNOBAS

Norway

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

Exported to:

Other areasSEATLRUNOSNOBAS

Norway

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGBBICNOSDEINDNO


Norway

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasSEGBFRDEINDNODK


Norway

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGBBICRUDEINDPL


Norway

emep/msc−w

B: 56

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

1000

2000

3000

4000

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Poland

emep/msc−w



PL2 Jarczew A B A U U A A

PL3 Sniezka A B A U U A A

PL4 Leba A B A U U A A

PL5 Diabla Gora A A A A A



PL2 Jarczew

PL3 Sniezka

PL4 Leba

PL5 Diabla Gora s.tr. 0 infreq sp 0



PL2 Jarczew A A A A A A A B A

PL3 Sniezka A A A A A A A B A

PL4 Leba A A A A A A A B A

PL5 Diabla Gora B B A A A A B A A

Comments: IMGW, responsible for PL2 and PL4, obtain very good or good results in the laboratory comparison,pH is satisfactory. EPA which carry out measurements at PL5, has variable results although someof the laboratory comparison results are very good. This is reflected in the measurement resultswith a rather poor ion balance at PLO5. A B is given for the TGS methods for NO2.

B: 57

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exported to:

Other areasATLRUDEBYPLUABAS

Poland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

Exported to:

Other areasRUNOSDEBYPLUABAS

Poland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

500

1000

Exported to:

Other areasRUNOSDEBYPLUABAS

Poland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGBCZBICDEINDPLBAS


Poland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasCZDEBYINDPLUA


Poland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

500

1000

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGBCZDEINDPLHUUA


Poland

emep/msc−w

B: 58

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

100

200

300

400

500

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Portugal

emep/msc−w



PT1 Braganca

PT3 V.d. Castelo

PT4 Monte Velho



PT4 Monte Velho



PT1 Braganca A A A A B A A A A

PT3 V.d. Castelo A A A A B A A A A

PT4 Monte Velho A A A A B A A A A

Comments: Rather poor ion balance, but very good or good results in the laboratory comparison, except forpH which is not satisfactory. Improvements have been made. A full air measurement programme isneeded and recommended.

B: 59

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

Exported to:

Other areasREMFRESPTATLMED

Portugal

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

Exported to:


Portugal

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Exported to:


Portugal

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasFRESPTATLBICMEDIND


Portugal

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasREMFRESPTITIND


Portugal

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESPTATLBICMEDNATIND


Portugal

emep/msc−w

B: 60

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

50

100

150

200

250

300

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

100

200

300

400

500

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Republic of Moldova

emep/msc−w



MD1 No stations



MD1 No stations



MD1 No stations

Comments: It would be desirable to extend the EMEP monitoringprogram with at least 1 operative station in the Republic of Moldova.

B: 61

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

2

4

6

8

10

Exported to:

Other areasROBLSMDUARU

Republic of Moldova

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Exported to:


Republic of Moldova

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

Exported to:


Republic of Moldova

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

2

4

6

8

10

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasPLDEROMDBICUAINDRU


Republic of Moldova

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasPLROMDUABYINDRU


Republic of Moldova

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasPLBGROMDUAIND


Republic of Moldova

emep/msc−w

B: 62

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

500

1000

1500

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Romania

emep/msc−w



RO1 No stations



RO1 No stations



RO1 No stations

Comments: It would be desirable to extend the EMEP monitoringprogram with at least 1 operative station in Romania.

B: 63

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

100

Exported to:

Other areasROBLSRUBGUAMED

Romania

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

Exported to:

Other areasROBLSRUBGHUUA

Romania

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

Exported to:

Other areasROBLSRUBGUAMED

Romania

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

100

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasROITBICBGDEINDPLHUUA


Romania

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasROYUBGINDHUUA


Romania

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasROYUBGVOLINDPLHUUA


Romania

emep/msc−w

B: 64

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

2000

4000

6000

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0.0*100

5.0*103

1.0*104

1.5*104

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Russian Federation

emep/msc−w



RU1 Janiskoski B A A A A

RU13 Pinega B A A A A

RU16 Shepeljovo B A A A A

RU17



RU1 Janiskoski

RU13 Pinega

RU16 Shepeljovo



RU1 Janiskoski A A A A B A B B B

RU13 Pinega A A A A B A B B B

RU16 Shepeljovo A A A A B A B B B

RU17 A A A A B A B B B

Comments: The station RU17 measured only half the year and the results from this station show rather poorion balance. The results from the laboratory comparisons are variable; mostly good or very goodresults for sulphate, nitrate, and ammonium in precipitation, and for the air components. A strongneed for improvements in the analysis of the calcium.

B: 65

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

Exported to:

Other areasBLSATLRUREMUA

Russian Federation

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

800

Exported to:

Other areasBLSRUBYREMUA

Russian Federation

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

500

1000

1500

2000

Exported to:

Other areasATLRUREMNOUAFI

Russian Federation

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasBICRUDEINDPLUAFI


Russian Federation

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

800

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGERUINDBYREMPLUA


Russian Federation

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

500

1000

1500

2000

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasBICRUDEBGINDBYPLUA


Russian Federation

emep/msc−w

B: 66

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

200

400

600

800

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

100

200

300

400

500

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Slovakia

emep/msc−w



SK2 Chopok A B U A U A

SK4 Stara Lesna A B U A U A

SK5 Liesek A B U A U A

SK6 Starina A B U A U A



SK2 Chopok 0 0 infreq 0

SK4 Stara Lesna s.tr. 0 infreq 0

SK6 Starina 0 0 infreq 0



SK2 Chopok A A A A A A A A B

SK4 Stara Lesna A A A A A A A A B

SK5 Liesek A A A A A A A A B

SK6 Starina A A A A A A A A B

Comments: Improved results in the laboratory comparison; mostly very good and good results

B: 67

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

Exported to:

Other areasPLROHUUASKRU

Slovakia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

Exported to:

Other areasPLCZHUUASKRU

Slovakia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

Exported to:

Other areasPLCZROHUUASKRU

Slovakia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasPLDECZHUSKIND


Slovakia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasPLDECZHUUASKIND


Slovakia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasPLDECZHUSKIND


Slovakia

emep/msc−w

B: 68

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

50

100

150

200

250

300

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

20

40

60

80

100

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Slovenia

emep/msc−w



SI8 Iskrba A A A A



SI8 Iskrba s.tr. infreq lt infreq 0

SI31 Zavodnje ppl 8 infreq infreq 0

SI32 Krvavec some infreq infreq 0

SI33 Kovk ppl 4 infreq lt infreq 0



SI8 Iskrba

Comments: It is strongly recommended to start reporting precipitation data, especially since Sloveniaperforms well in the laboratory comparison.

B: 69

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

Exported to:

Other areasSIITPLATHUMED

Slovenia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

Exported to:

Other areasSIITHRATHUMED

Slovenia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Exported to:

Other areasSIITRUPLATHUMED

Slovenia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasSIITBICFRDEHRINDAT


Slovenia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasSIITDEHRINDATHU


Slovenia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasSIITCZDEVOLHRINDPLHU


Slovenia

emep/msc−w

B: 70

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Spain

emep/msc−w



ES1 San Pablo D D A A A

ES3 Roquetas D D A A A

ES4 Logrono D D A A A

ES5 Noya D D A A A

ES6 Mahon D D A A A

ES7 Viznar D D A A A



ES1 San Pablo s.tr. 0 infreq not trac

ES3 Roquetas suburb 0 infreq not trac

ES4 Logrono suburb 0 infreq not trac

ES5 Noia tr 0 infreq not trac

ES7 Viznar city1−10 0 infreq not trac

ES8 Niembro s.tr., ppl10−50 0 infreq not trac

ES9 Campisábalos 0 0 infreq not trac

ES10 Cabo de Creus l.tr. 0 infreq not trac

ES11 Barcarrota s.tr., psrc 22 0 infreq not trac

ES12 Zarra s.tr. 0 infreq not trac



ES1 San Pablo A B A A A A D A A

ES3 Roquetas A B A A A A D A A

ES4 Logrono A B A A A A D A A

ES5 Noya A B A A A A D A A

ES6 Mahon A B A A A A D A A

ES7 Viznar A B A A A A D A A

Comments: Generally good or very good results in the laboratory comparisons, except for pH and sulphur dioxidewhere mistakes were made during the last comparison. Good improvements have been made. Still ratherpoor ion balance, howevertitration of acids in precipitation is strongly recommended. The absorption methods for NO2 and SO2 are not recommended. Field intercomparison of air components indicatespoor results for these components. Also problems with measuring chloride.

B: 71

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exported to:

Other areasREMFRESATLMED

Spain

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

Exported to:

Other areasPTFRESATLMED

Spain

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

Exported to:

Other areasREMPTFRESATLMED

Spain

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasPTFRESATLBICMEDIND


Spain

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasREMPTFRESITDEIND


Spain

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasPTESATLBICMEDIND


Spain

emep/msc−w

B: 72

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

100

200

300

400

500

600

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Sweden

emep/msc−w



SE2 Roervik B A A A A

SE5 Bredkaelen B A A A A

SE8 Hoburg B A A

SE11 Vavihill B A A A A

SE12 Aspvreten B A A A A



SE2 Rörvik 0 0 infreq, infreq sp 0

SE11 Vavihill 0 0 infreq, infreq sp 0

SE12 Aspvreten 0 0 infreq, infreq sp 0

SE13 Esrange 0 0 infreq, infreq sp 0

SE32 Norra Kvill 0 0 infreq, infreq sp 0

SE35 Vindeln 0 0 infreq, infreq sp 0



SE2 Roervik A A A A A A A B B

SE5 Bredkaelen A A A A A A A B B

SE8 Hoburg A A A A A A A B B

SE11 Vavihill A A A A A A A B B

SE12 Aspvreten A A A A A A A B B

Comments: Generally, very good or good results in the laboratory comparison. Problems with sulphur dioxidein the last exercise.

B: 73

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

Exported to:

Other areasSEATLRUBASFI

Sweden

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

Exported to:

Other areasSERUNOSNOBASFI

Sweden

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

250

Exported to:

Other areasSEATLRUNOSNOBASFI

Sweden

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasSEGBBICDEINDPLBAS


Sweden

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasSEDEINDPLNODK


Sweden

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

250

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasSEGBBICDEINDPLBAS


Sweden

emep/msc−w

B: 74

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Switzerland

emep/msc−w



CH1 Jungfraujoch B A A

CH2 Payerne U C A A A

CH3 Taernikon U C

CH4 Chaumont U C

CH5 Rigi U C A



CH2 Payerne s.tr. nlt, infreq scrub 0 0

CH3 Tänikon s.tr. nlt 0 0

CH4 Chaumont 0 nlt, infreq scrub 0 0

CH5 Rigi 0 nlt, infreq scrub 0 0



CH1 Jungfraujoch A A A A A B A A B

CH2 Payerne A A A A A B A A B

CH3 Taernikon A A A A A B A A B

CH4 Chaumont A A A A A B A A B

CH5 Rigi A A A A A B A A B

Comments: Generally very good laboratory comparison results. Problems with calcium in the last comparison. SO2at CH1 is given a B due the methodology. The SO2 at the other stations are unknown and their qualityneed further documentation.

B: 75

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

Exported to:

Other areasFRDEITMEDCH

Switzerland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

50

Exported to:

Other areasFRATDEITCH

Switzerland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

50

Exported to:

Other areasFRDEITMEDCH

Switzerland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasFRDEITBICINDCH


Switzerland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

50

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESFRDEITINDCH


Switzerland

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

50

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESFRDEITBICINDCH


Switzerland

emep/msc−w

B: 76

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

20

40

60

80

100

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

5

10

15

20

25

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

emep/msc−w



MK1 No stations



MK1 No stations



MK1 No stations

Comments: It would be desirable to extend the EMEP monitoringprogram with at least 1 operative station in The FYR of Macedonia.

B: 77

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

2

4

6

8

10

Exported to:

Other areasMKGRROYUTRBGMEDUA


emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

Exported to:

Other areasMKGRROYUBGMED


emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Exported to:

Other areasMKGRROYUBGMED


emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

2

4

6

8

10

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGRROITBICTRBGINDMED



emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasMKGRITALYUBGIND



emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGRROALYUBGVOLINDREM



emep/msc−w

B: 78

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

500

1000

1500

2000

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0.0*100

2.0*103

4.0*103

6.0*103

8.0*103

1.0*104

1.2*104

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Turkey

emep/msc−w



TR1 Cubuk11 U D A A A



TR1 Cubuk11



TR1 Cubuk11 A A A A A A A B D

Comments: Very good results for most components in the laboratory comparison. Problems with the calcium andpH measurements. Poor data completeness for the air components. Salzsman method for NO2 and TCMfor SO2 are not recommended. More sites in Turkey would be very useful for EMEP.

B: 79

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

250

Exported to:

Other areasBLSTRRUREMMEDUA

Turkey

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

Exported to:

Other areasBLSTRRUREMMED

Turkey

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

500

Exported to:

Other areasBLSTRRUREMMEDUA

Turkey

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

250

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGRTRBICRUBGINDMEDUA


Turkey

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasROGEASITRRUINDREMUA


Turkey

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

500

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasROGRASITRBICVOLBGINDREMUA


Turkey

emep/msc−w

B: 80

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

1000

2000

3000

4000

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0*100

2*103

4*103

6*103

8*103

1*104

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Ukraine

emep/msc−w



UA1 No stations



UA1 No stations



UA1 No stations

Comments: It would be desirable to extend the EMEP monitoringprogramme with at least 1 operative stationin Ukraine. Progress is being made and there will hopefully be one site in operation in the nottoo distant future.

B: 81

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

Exported to:

Other areasBLSRORUBYREMUA

Ukraine

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Exported to:

Other areasBLSRORUBYUA

Ukraine

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

800

Exported to:

Other areasBLSRORUBYREMUA

Ukraine

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasROBICRUDEINDPLUA


Ukraine

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasRORUBYINDPLUA


Ukraine

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

800

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasRORUDEBGINDPLHUUA


Ukraine

emep/msc−w

B: 82

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


United Kingdom

emep/msc−wOverview of expected data uncertainty for reported measurementsA < ±10%, B < ±25%, C < ±30%, D > ±30% or unknow n (U)


GB2 Eskdalemuir B C A A A

GB4 Stoke Ferry B C A

GB6 Lough Navar B C A

GB7 Barcombe Mills B C A

GB13 Yarner Wood B C A

GB14 High Muffles B C A

GB15 Strath Vaich D. B C A

GB16 Glen Dye B C A

GB36 Harwell B C A

GB37 Ladybower B C A

GB38 Lullington Heath B C A

GB43 Narberth B C A

GB45 Wicken Fen B C A

Precipitation DATA QUALITY SO4(l) NH4(l) NO3(l) Local NOx 1) Maintenance 2) Calibration 3) Transfer 4)(Acidif.) + O3 dataquality sources (O3) (O3) (O3) standard (O3)

GB2 Eskdalemuir A A A ? 0 0 0

GB4 Stoke Ferry A A A

GB6 Lough Navar A A A ? 0 0 0

GB7 Barcombe Mills A A A

GB13 Yarner Wood A A A ? 0 0 0

GB14 High Muffles A A A ? 0 0 0

GB15 Strath Vaich D. A A A ? 0 0 0

GB16 Glen Dye A A A

GB31 Aston Hill ? 0 0 0

GB32 Bottesford ? 0 0 0

GB33 Bush ? 0 0 0

GB34 Glazerbury ? 0 0 0

GB35 Great Dun Fell ? 0 0 0

GB36 Harwell A A A ? 0 0 0

GB37 Ladybower A A A

GB38 Lullington Heath A A A ? 0 0 0

GB38 Lullington Heath ? 0 0 0

GB39 Sibton ? 0 0 0

GB43 Narberth A A A s.tr. 0 0 0

GB44 Somerton ? 0 0 0

GB45 Wicken Fen A A A ? 0 0 0

"0" indicates within criterias, any mark indicate violation of the criterias. "?" indicates no information supplied.1) mw <x>: Motorway <x> km away; s.tr.: some traffic; s.town: small town; ppl: power plant; tr: traffic; psrc: point source2) nlt: No leak test; infreq scrub: infrequent scrubber test; not reg: not regularly; npt: No pressure transducer test; nsc: no scrubber test3) not reg: Not regularly; infreq: infrequent; infreq sp: infrequent span and zero check4) no st.: No standard; not trac: Presently not tracable to a NIST standardComments: Most of the analyses of the main components in precipitation are very good, but the pH measurements

in the last laboratory comparison were not satisfactory. The sulphur dioxide results have beenrather variable and improvements and stability are needed. . It is strongly recommended to startsampling nitrogen air components at all stations and to take steps to increase the completenessof the NO2 measurements. B: 83

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

500

Exported to:

Other areasFRNOSDEATLGB

United Kingdom

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

250

Exported to:

Other areasFRNOSDEATLGBIE

United Kingdom

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

500

1000

Exported to:

Other areasFRNOSDEATLGB

United Kingdom

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

500

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasFRNOSDEATLGBBICIND


United Kingdom

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

250

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasFRDEGBNLIEIND


United Kingdom

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

500

1000

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasFRNOSDEGBIEBICIND


United Kingdom

emep/msc−w

B: 84

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Yugoslavia

emep/msc−w



YU5 Kamenicki vis D B

YU8 Zabljak D B



YU5 Kamenicki vis



YU5 Kamenicki vis A A A B A B C B A

YU8 Zabljak A A A B A B C B A

Comments: Further improvements are needed in the chemical analysis. Progress has been made as seen fromthe laboratory comparisons. There is a need for updating the measurement methods both in laboratoryand in field. The NO2 and SO2 measurements have too high detection limit.

B: 85

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

Exported to:

Other areasROBAYUBGHUMEDUA

Yugoslavia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

Exported to:

Other areasROBAYUBGHUMED

Yugoslavia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

250

Exported to:

Other areasROBAYUBGHUMEDUA

Yugoslavia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasROITBICYUBGDEINDPLHUMED


Yugoslavia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasROBAALITYUBGINDHU


Yugoslavia

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

250

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasROBAYUBGDEVOLINDHU


Yugoslavia

emep/msc−w

B: 86

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Albania

emep/msc−w



AL1 No stations



AL1 No stations



AL1 No stations

B: 87

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

Exported to:

Other areasMKGRROALYUTRMED

Albania

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

25

Exported to:

Other areasMKGRALYUMED

Albania

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

Exported to:

Other areasMKGRALYUMED

Albania

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESGRALITBICTRFRDEINDMED


Albania

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

5

10

15

20

25

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasMKGRALITYUIND


Albania

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

10

20

30

40

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGRALITYUBGVOLINDREM


Albania

emep/msc−w

B: 88

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

Exported to:

Other areasSEATLRUNOSPLBASFI

Baltic Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

100

Exported to:Other areas (no emissions)

Baltic Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

500

Exported to:

Other areasSERUNOSPLBASFI

Baltic Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasSEGBBICDEINDPLBASDK


Baltic Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

100

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasSEEEDEINDPLDK


Baltic Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

500

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGBCZDEINDPLBASDK


Baltic Sea

emep/msc−w

B: 89

Baltic Sea

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

100

Exported to:

Other areasBLSMEDUATRRU

Black Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80


Black Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

Exported to:

Other areasBLSMEDUATRRU

Black Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

100

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasROBGBLSBICUATRINDRU


Black Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

20

40

60

80

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasGEREMROBGUATRINDRU


Black Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

400

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasROBGBLSUATRINDRU


Black Sea

emep/msc−w

B: 90

Black Sea

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

800

Exported to:

Other areasESATLPTITTRFRREMMED

Mediterranean Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

250


Mediterranean Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

500

1000

1500

Exported to:

Other areasESATLPTITTRFRREMMED

Mediterranean Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

800

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESGRITBICFRDEINDMED


Mediterranean Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

250

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESGRITTRFRINDREM


Mediterranean Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

500

1000

1500

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESGRITTRBICBGVOLINDREMMED


Mediterranean Sea

emep/msc−w

B: 91

Mediterranean Sea

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

Exported to:

Other areasFRNOSGBDEATL

North Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200


North Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

800

Exported to:

Other areasFRNOSGBDEATL

North Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasFRNOSGBDEBICIND


North Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

50

100

150

200

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasFRGBDENLDKIND


North Sea

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

800

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasPLFRNOSGBDEBICIND


North Sea

emep/msc−w

B: 92

North Sea

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

800

1000

Exported to:

Other areasESATLGBPTNOSFRMED

Remaining North−East Atlantic Ocean

emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300



emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

500

1000

1500

2000

Exported to:

Other areasESATLGBNOSFRMED


emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

200

400

600

800

1000

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESATLGBBICFRDEIND



emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

100

200

300

kton

nes(

N)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESGBPTIEFRDEIND



emep/msc−w

<1985−96>(Lagr.)

1996(Lagr.)

1996(Euler)

1998(Euler) 0

500

1000

1500

2000

kton

nes(

S)/y

ear

Imported from:

Other areasESATLGBBICINDNAT



emep/msc−w

B: 93


1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0*100

2*103

4*103

6*103

8*103

1*104

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Canada

emep/msc−w

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100

50

100

150

200

250

300

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Georgia

emep/msc−w

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

1

2

3

4

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Liechtenstein

emep/msc−w

B: 94

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0

1

2

3

4

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


Monaco

emep/msc−w

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20100.0*100

5.0*103

1.0*104

1.5*104

2.0*104

2.5*104

NH

3,N

MV

OC

,NO

2,S

O2

(kto

ns/y

ear)

0*100

2*104

4*104

6*104

8*104

1*105

CO

(kto

ns/y

ear)

Official emissions


United States

emep/msc−w

B: 95

Appendix C

Laboratory comparison results1994-2000

C:2 EMEP SUMMARY REPORT 2001

APPENDIX: Laboratory comparisons C:3

Austria (all stations) Croatia (all stations)Comparison/year Precipitation Air


#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000

Czech Republic (all stations) Denmark (all stations)Comparison/year Precipitation Air


#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000

Estonia (all stations) Finland (all stations)Comparison/year Precipitation Air


#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000

�;�� >� �;� �¡ ¢£F¤'¥§¦4¨/©«ª�¬;¯®�°²±$³µ´F¶'·¹¸Fº"»½¼4¾'¿

À;ÁrÂEÃ;Á�Ä�Ä�ÂÅ;ÆÇ+È;Æ�É�É�ÇÊ;Ë�Ì�Í;Ë�Î�Î�ÏÐ;ÑÒ+Ó;Ñ�Ô�Ô�ÔÕ;Ö×+Ø$Ù�Ú�Ú�Ú

France (all stations) Germany (all stations)Comparison/year Precipitation Air


#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



For further comments on data quality, see Appendix B.


Greece (all stations) Hungary (all stations)Comparison/year Precipitation Air


#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000

#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



Iceland (all stations) Ireland (Environmental Protection Agency)

#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000





#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000

Ireland (Meteorological Service) Italy (Montelibretti)

#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000





#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000

Italy (Ispra) Latvia (all stations)Comparison/year Precipitation Air


#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000

#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000






APPENDIX: Laboratory comparisons C:5

Lithuania (all stations) Netherlands (all stations)

#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



Norway (all stations) Poland (Jarczew, Sniezka, Leba)

#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



Poland (Diabla) Portugal (all stations)

#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



Russian Federation (all stations) Slovakia (all stations)

#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000







Slovenia (all stations) Spain (all stations)

#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



Sweden (all stations) Switzerland (all stations)

#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



Turkey (all stations) United Kingdom (all stations)

#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000



Yugoslavia (all stations)

#14 / 1994

#15 / 1995

#16 / 1997

#17 / 1999

#18 / 2000






transboundary acidiﬁcation, eutrophication and ground ... · chapter 4 presents progress with the...

Documents