Air pollution transport in the Balkan region and country-to-country pollution exchange between Romania, Bulgaria and Greece

US EPA Models-3 system is used for calculating the exchange of ozone pollution between three countries in southeast Europe. For the purpose, three domains with resolution 90, 30 and 10 km are chosen in such a way that the most inner domain with dimensions 90 × 147 points covers entirely Romania, Bulgaria and Greece.The ozone pollution levels are studied on the base of three indexes given in the EU Ozone Directive, mainly accumulated over threshold of 40 ppb for crops (AOT40C, period May–July), number of days with 8-h running average over 60 ppb (NOD60) and averaged daily maximum (ADM). These parameters are calculated for every scenario and the influence of each country emissions on the pollution of the region is estimated and commented.Oxidized and reduced sulphur and nitrogen loads over the territories of the three countries are also determined. The application of all scenarios gave the possibility to estimate the contribution of every country to the S and N pollution of the others and detailed blame matrixes to be build.Comparison of the ozone levels model estimates with data from the EMEP monitoring stations is made.     

Performance evaluation of NOAA-EPA developmental aerosol forecasts

To aid air quality model development and assess air quality forecasts, the Meteorological Development Laboratory (MDL) provided categorical verification metrics for developmental aerosol predictions. The National Air Quality Forecasting Capability (NAQFC) generated 48 h (of) gridded hourly developmental predictions for the lower 48 states (CONUS) domain in 12 km horizontal spacing. The NAQFC uses the North American Mesoscale (NAM) model with EPA’s Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model to produce predictions of ground level aerosol concentrations. We used bilinear interpolation to calculate predicted daily maximum values at the location of the observation sites. We compared these interpolated predicted values to the observed daily maximum to produce 2 × 2 contingency tables, with a threshold of 40 μg/m³ during the months of March–August, 2007. The model showed some degree of skill in predicting aerosol exceedances. These results are preliminary as the NAQFC model for aerosol prediction is in the developmental stage. A more comprehensive performance evaluation will be accomplished in 2008, when more data become available. Our verification metrics included categorical analyses for Fraction Correct (FC) or percent correct (FC × 100), Threat Score (TS) or Critical Success Index (CSI), Probability of Detection (POD), and the False Alarm Rate (FAR), Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and mean algebraic error or bias, where bias is forecast minus observation. Graphic products included weekly statistics for the CONUS displayed in the form of bar charts, scatterplots, and graphs. In addition, we split the CONUS into six geographic regions and provided regional statistics on a monthly basis. MDL produced spatial maps of daily 1-h maximum predicted aerosol values overlaid with the corresponding point observations. MDL also provided spatial maps of the daily maximum of the 24-h running average. We derived the 24-h running average from the 1-h average predicted aerosol values and observations.     

Low dose effects and non-monotonic dose responses for endocrine active chemicals: Science to practice workshop: Workshop summary

A workshop was held in Berlin September 12–14th 2012 to assess the state of the science of the data supporting low dose effects and non-monotonic dose responses (“low dose hypothesis”) for chemicals with endocrine activity (endocrine disrupting chemicals or EDCs). This workshop consisted of lectures to present the current state of the science of EDC action and also the risk assessment process. These lectures were followed by breakout sessions to integrate scientists from various backgrounds to discuss in an open and unbiased manner the data supporting the “low dose hypothesis”. While no consensus was reached the robust discussions were helpful to inform both basic scientists and risk assessors on all the issues. There were a number of important ideas developed to help continue the discussion and improve communication over the next few years.     

化学品健康风险评估过程中的数据质量评估技术概述

自1938年美国首先颁布管控化学品的法律以来,健康风险评估逐步发展,各个国家和地区相继颁布文件,并已形成较为完善的评估框架.由于在化学品健康风险评估的过程中,存在大量收集引用的数据及信息,因此数据质量评估是保证风险评估结果可信的关键.目前为止美国环保署(environmental protection agency,E...     

RSB稀释度预测模型的原理简介

本文简要介绍了美国环境保护局（ＥＰＡ）推出的初始稀释度预测模型之一－ＲＳＢ模型的基本原理，ＲＳＢ模型是Ｒｏｂｅｒｔｓ，Ｓｎｙｄｅｒ和Ｂａｕｍｇａｒｔｎｅｒ在大量实验结果的基础上，将实验结果绘成实验曲线，然后适配成经验公式，在此基础上编制程序而成，对于线性分层情况，模型给出的结果与从曲线图上获得的结果完全一致。对于大线性分层情况，ＲＳＢ模型假定在上升高度内是线性分布近是一种偏于保守的假定。ＲＳＢ升高     

美国环境管理体系中联邦与地方政府角色透视

自美国环境保护局(EPA)成立以来,美国各州的环境执政体制产生了巨大的变化,取得了卓越的成绩.美国的环境执政体制从分权的、由州驱动的体制演变为自上而下、技术强制、联邦驱动的体制.近几年该体制更加分权化,各州的作用更为强大;引入了市场力量,加强了环境保护力度,成本竞争力亦得到改善.自上而下/技术强制的体制和以非集权化/市场为主的体制有其各自的优缺点.笔者将试图阐明环境保护体制的良好运转同时需要来自这2种方式的元素.     

Formulating an ecosystem approach to environmental protection

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has embraced a new strategy of environmental protection that is place-driven rather than program-driven. This new approach focuses on the protection of entire ecosystems. To develop an effective strategy of ecosystem protection, however, EPA will need to: (1) determine how to define and delineate ecosystems and (2) categorize threats to individual ecosystems and priority rank ecosystems at risk. Current definitions of ecosystem in use at EPA are inadequate for meaningful use in a management or regulatory context. A landscape-based definition that describes an ecosystem as a volumetric unit delineated by climatic and landscape features is suggested. Following this definition, ecosystems are organized hierarchically, from megaecosystems, which exist on a continental scale (e.g., Great Lakes), to small local ecosystems.Threats to ecosystems can generally be categorized as: (1) ecosystem degradation (occurs mainly through pollution) (2) ecosystem alteration (physical changes such as water diversion), and (3) ecosystem removal (e.g., conversion of wetlands or forest to urban or agricultural lands). Level of threat (i.e., how imminent), and distance from desired future condition are also important in evaluating threats to ecosystems. Category of threat, level of threat, and distance from desired future condition can be combined into a three-dimensional ranking system for ecosystems at risk. The purpose of the proposed ranking system is to suggest a preliminary framework for agencies such as EPA to prioritize responses to ecosystems at risk.     

Current uses of the EPA lead model to assess health risk and action levels for soil

The EPA lead model predicts mean blood lead levels and risk of elevated blood lead levels in children based on lead uptake from multiple sources. In the latest model versions, environmental data from individual homes within a community can be used to predict the overall blood lead distribution and percent risk of exceeding a specific blood lead level (i.e. 10 g dl^–1). Recent criteria used by the EPA to evaluate this information include no more than 5% of houses with a greater than 5% lead risk, and a community weighted-average risk below 5%. Environmental (primarily soil) and blood lead data from a residential community near a smelter were used to illustrate recent uses of the model. Scheduled remediation in the community will remove soil for approximately 60% of the houses (i.e. those with lead levels > 1000 mg kg^–1). After remediation, the model results indicate a relatively low community risk (0.5–1.9%), although the percentage of houses with lead risks above 5% ranged from 3 to as high as 13%, depending on the variation in blood lead and assuming the model's 7 g dl^–1 increase in blood lead with each 1000 mg kg^–1 increase in soil lead level. A comparison of the limited blood lead data with soil lead levels below 1000 mg kg^–1, however, indicated no apparent relationship. Given these uncertainties, less invasive actions than additional soil removal (e.g. exposure intervention, monitoring conditions, and follow-up as necessary) may be appropriate under the new EPA guidance for lead in soil.