Parameterization of EUSES
Chemical Fate Model for
Israel: EUSES-IL
Ella Cohen-Hilaleh
Mary Kloc
June 2010
Project Outlines
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Model description – EUSES.
Data collection.
Findings – test case, sensitivity analysis.
Conclusion.
Project outlines
• Pollution of natural resources is a main concern
of the developing world.
• Pollution sources:
Natural sources – fire, oil leak, saline springs…
Man-made sources –
industrial spills,
agricultural fertilizers
and pesticides,
domestic sewage,
transportation emissions…
Prediction of pollutant
concentration in the
environment is required.
Project outlines
EUSES – a European model for steady state
pollutant distribution.
• Purpose: Adjusting EUSES model to Israel
for interface with Eco–Indicator.
• Method: Wide data collection,
reprogramming of EUSES, test sample by
comparison with local data of spills and
residues monitoring, sensitivity analysis.
Introduction to Mass Balance
Models
This represents one environmental compartment (either air, water, soil, etc.)
at one spatial location.
Introduction to Mass Balance
Models
Chemical, such as a pesticide, is emitted into the
compartment at a certain rate.
Introduction to Mass Balance
Models
Chemical can move between different environmental
compartments (e.g., from water to soil)
Introduction to Mass Balance
Models
Chemical can move between different environmental
compartments (e.g., from water to soil) and between
different spatial compartments.
Introduction to Mass Balance
Models
Chemical can also be formed and degraded through
reactions.
Introduction to Mass Balance
Models
Mass flow for the single compartment:
flow in
flow out
Introduction to Mass Balance
Models
Mass flow for the single compartment:
0=
flow in
flow out
Steady state approximation
Relevant Output
• Concentration in the
compartment:
•Residence Time:
the average time the chemical spends in the box
Extension to Two
Compartments
SimpleBox 2.0
• 3 nested spatial scales, each with a set of
environmental compartments:
Example from SimpleBox model
Emitted into soil only
Example from SimpleBox model
Moves between environmental
compartments at various rates
Example from SimpleBox model
Moves between spatial
compartments at various rates
Example from SimpleBox model
Degrades through reaction
Example from SimpleBox model
Most of the chemical remains in the
soil compartment.
Parameterization for Israel
unchanged
Israel
Element from our
partition
Input data to the model –
• Demographic data
• Geophysical data
• Chemical data
Sources:
 Direct from literature – Scientific & Governmental sources.
 Indirect - Estimations.
Will see some main informative figures..
CBS’ division of Israel Districts, Sub-Districts and
Natural Regimes, 20081
CBS’ division of Israel Districts, Sub-Districts and
Natural Regimes, 20081
Population density
- Israel 20081
CBS’ division of Israel Districts, Sub-Districts and
Natural Regimes, 20081
Population density
- Israel 20081
Land use distribution in
Israel by district2
Northern district - 4
Israel – 22,000 sk.km
Constructed area
Agriculrural area
Other open areaNorthern district - 4635 sk.
Constructed area
Agriculrural area
Other open area
Hifa – 860 sk.km North – 4600 sk.km
Tel Aviv
Jerusalem
– 170 sk.km
– 650 sk.km
Center – 1300 sk.km
South - 14400 sk.km
Yearly rain average
map (1990-1961)6
Yearly rain average
map (1990-1961)6
Drainage basins
of Israel4,5
Yearly rain average
map (1990-1961)6
Drainage basins
of Israel4,5
Stream flow (MCM) 3
Dan - 190
Snir (hazbany)- 45
Hermon
Bezet – 0.15
(Banyas) - 70
Einan - 0
Cziv - 0.6
Gaaton - 0
Naaman - 15
Zipory - 2
Kishon – 0.5
Taninim - 25
Hadera - 0
Alexander - 0.5
Yarkon – 3.5
Sorek – 0.5
Dishon - 0
Amud – 1.5
Zalmon – 0.5
Yavniel - 1
Southern
Yarden - 20
Tavor - 1
Harodb - 6
Soil map of Israel7
Runoff determination11
Rational Equation Q=ciA
Q = Peak discharge [L3 /T]
c = Rational method runoff coefficient
i = Rainfall intensity [L/T]
A = Drainage area, [L2[
Runoff coefficients were
estimated according to:
• Soil type
• Land use
Soil erosion degree8
Soil Erosion
in literature
(ton/km^2/ year)
Converted
Soil Erosion
(mm/year)
Hilly areas
under vines9
142.8
0.102
Wheat areas9
17.6
0.013
Olives9
0.8
0.001
Shrubland9
6.7
0.005
Yatir
500
0.357
10
Conversion via bulk density:
Sandy soils – 1.2-1.8 g/cm3
Fine-textured soils– 1-1.6 g/cm3
Assuming bulk density
of 1.4 g/cm3
Soil erosion degree8
Color index for
soil erosion rate
(Estimated)
Soil Erosion
in literature
(ton/km^2/ year)
Converted
Soil Erosion
(mm/year)
soil
erosion
(mm/year)
Color
0.05
green
0.1
brown
0.2
red
Hilly areas
under vines9
142.8
0.102
Wheat areas9
17.6
0.013
0.05
light
green
Olives9
0.8
0.001
0.1
pink
Shrubland9
6.7
0.005
0.2
purple
0.1
dark
yellow
0.2
yellow
0.3
blue
built up area
grey
0.2
Golan,
Negev
and
Yehuda
desert
0.3
Wadi
0.2
other
Yatir
10
500
0.357
Conversion via bulk density:
Sandy soils – 1.2-1.8 g/cm3
Fine-textured soils– 1-1.6 g/cm3
Assuming bulk density
of 1.4 g/cm3.
Water table12
Coastal aquifer
Large variation over time – so
minimum water tables were taken:
Yarkon-Taninim aquifer
Minimum Water Table in Israel
Western Galilee
-500
Locations
Se
a
ea
d
t
D
ab
ri
Ki
nn
er
e
M
or
-400
C
de
ch
ai
et
te
r
Kf
ar
N
ol
on
H
a
Sh
ik
m
en
as
he
Be
it
Ya
d
-300
M
-200
Ti
kv
a
-100
Pe
ta
h
Sh
ev
a
0
Be
er
water table - height
above sea level (m)
100
Test sample – Pesticides in Lake Kinneret
Comparison of EUSES-IL prediction to measured concentration
in the main water compartment.
Input: Estimated amounts that are released to the environment each year,
from documented purchase-lists.
Test sample – Pesticides in Lake Kinneret
Comparison of EUSES-IL prediction to measured concentration
in the main water compartment.
Input: Estimated amounts that are released to the environment each year,
from documented purchase-lists.
Pesticide use comparison for 1996, 1997 and The Agricultural Extension
Service recommendations (SHAHAM) between different crops13:
The Agricultural Extension
Service
1996
1997
Amount (Kg-l/du)
Pesticide actual application for different crops
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Field crops Deciduous
Subtropic
Crop
No significant differences between crops, years
and professional recommendations.
Total
ex
ac
on
az
ol
e
D
i
az
Fe
in
nb
on
uc
Az
on
in
az
op
ol
ho
e
s
m
et
hy
Et
l
of
e
M
np
on
ro
oc
x
ro
to
ph
C
os
ar
O
xy
bo
de
su
m
lfa
et
n
on
m
et
Py
hy
rip
l
ro
xy
fe
n
Az
Fe
nt
in
op
hi
on
ho
s
m
M
et
on
hy
oc
l
ro
to
ph
os
Bu
pr
of
ez
in
Pa
ra
qu
at
Si
m
az
in
So
Pa
e
di
r
um
ae
gu
m
at
uo
ra
c
G
et
lu
at
M
fo
e
et
si
i
l
na
id
at
te
Am i lio n
m
on
Va
iu
m
m
id
ot
hi
Fl
on
uo
m
et
ur
on
H
Amount used (ton/year)
Amount used (ton/year)
C
hl
or
M
py
on
rif
os
oc
ro
to
ph
os
Al
ac
hl
or
C
ap
ta
n
Pr
op
ag
ite
Pr
op
ag
ite
At
ra
zi
ne
D
ic
hl
or
D
vo
im
s
et
he
na
m
id
M
a
ne
C
hl
b
Az
or
p
in
yr
op
ifo
ho
s
s
m
et
hy
l
D
iu
D
ro
ia
G
n
fe
ly
n
t
ph
hi
ur
os
on
at
e
Is
2,
op
4ro
D
py
lA
m
in
e
M
S
M
M
A
et
ol
ac
hl
or
Tr
i
f
l
G
u
ly
En ral in
ph
os
do
at
su
e
l fa
Pr
Is
op
om n
ro
eh
py
yn
lA
e
m
in
e
Sa
M
lt
al
at
hl
io
n
Pesticides bought in 1997
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
4.44
0.93
Active material
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.03
0.1
0.0
Active material
Tested chemicals
Active
material
Endosulfan
Commercial
name
Thionex
Diazinon
Diazol
Atrazine
Atranex
Endosulfan
Chemical class
Group
Organochlorine
Insecticide &
Acaricide
Insecticide &
Organophosphate Acaricide
Diazinon
Triazine
Herbicide
Atrazine
Monitoring data Pesticide residue concentration (ppb) in lake Kinneret water14
Results of Testing
Endosulfan
Atrazine
Diazinon
Comparison with EUSES and
measured values
EUSES Result
Our Result
Measured
Log Concentration in Air
1.E-06
1.E-07
1.E-08
1.E-09
1.E-10
1.E-11
1.E-12
1.E-13
1.E-14
Endosulfan
Endosulfan
4.44 ton/year
Diazinon
0.03 ton/year
Diazinon
Atrazine
Atrazine
0.93 ton/year
Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis: Temperature
4
3
1
Ours, 0.5x
EUSES, 0.5x
Ours, 2x
EUSES, 2x
0
1
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
Percent Change
2
Sensitivity analysis
30
Ours, 0.5x
10
EUSES, 0.5x
Ours, 2x
EUSES, 2x
0
6
5
Area Fraction
Agricultural
Soil
Sea Area
4
River Flow
3
Rain Rate
2
1
Wind speed Temperature
-10
Percent Change
20
-20
-30
Parameter
Our model is more dependent on geographical information than EUSES.
• We divide the regions using mostly geographical data
• We also consider the geographical locations of different soil types,
water types, etc., within each region.
• Geographical parameters are not distributed throughout large regions
as in EUSES, but are very region-specific.
Most other non-geographical parameters had similar sensitivities between models.
•Except wind speed (?)
Chemical properties of tested chemicals
Molecular weight and Vapor Pressure
MW
Pvap25
0.010
407
400
300
0.008
0.008
304
0.006
216
200
100
0.002
0.001
0
Endosulfan
0.004
Diazinon
Pvap25 (Pa)
Mw (m/mole))
500
0.00004 0.000
Atrazine
Pesticide
70
Water
solubility
(mg/l)
60
3500
60
50
40
1995
30
20
10
Solubility in 0
water
562
0.08
Endosulfan
Kow
Endosulfan
30
Diazinon
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Kow
Water solubility and Octanol-Water partition coefficient
Atrazine
Pesticide
Diazinon
Atrazine
Chemical properties of tested chemicals
Degredation constants in different media
1.E-04
kdeg(water)
kdeg(sed)
kdeg(soil)
1.E-05
kdeg (1/s)
kdeg(air)
1.E-06
1.E-07
1.E-08
Endosulfan
Diazinon
Atrazine
Pesticide
Endosulfan
Diazinon
Atrazine
Conclusion
 EUSES-IL is a significantly improved model
compared to EUSES.
 Possible future improvements:
•
Incorporate more accurate chemical
equations into the model.
•
More specific information is required for
optimizing results (chemical use, geophysical
data).
•
Find more measured data for testing and
optimizing the model.
References
1.
Central Bureau of Statistics - Statistical Abstract of Israel 2008 - No.59 .
2. Statistical Abstract of Israel 2009-No.60, Table 1.2.
3. Perlmutter M. Springs and streams in Israel 2008 - report of the SPNI (1), according to Hydrological Service data.
4. Israel Hydrological service.
5. Website of Moto Track: http://www.mototracks.co.il/thematics.htm
6. Gvirtzman, H. 2002. Israel Water Resources, Chapters in Hydrology and Environmental Sciences, Yad Ben-Zvi
Press, Jerusalem, 301 p.
7. Ministry of Agriculture – Agricultural research organization & soil conservation and drainage department - 1975.
8. Soil Survey, Ministry of Agriculture, Soil Conservation unit, 1954
9. Kosmasa C et al. The effect of land use on runoff and soil erosion rates under Mediterranean
conditions )1997(Catena ,)1( 29 ,pp. 45-59.
10. Laronne J., Lekach J., Cohen H., Alexandrov Y. Experimental Drainage Basins in Israel: Rainfall, Runoff,
Suspended Sediment and Bedload Monitoring American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2002, abstract
#H51B-0824.
11. Website of Mountain Empire Community College – Big Stone Gap, Virginia:
http://water.me.vccs.edu/courses/CIV246/table2_print.htm
12. Hydrological Representative Date - February 2010, Israel Water Authority, Israel Hydrological Service:
elyon1.court.gov.il/heb/mayim/Hodaot/hs_01.pdf
13. Bar-Ilan I., Melman G. Survey of pesticides use in the Northern drainage basin of Lake Kinneret (1998) MIGAL Galilee Technology Center. Kiryat-Shmona, Israel.
14. Zohary T. et al. Kinneret research and monitoring – lab work report for 2008 (T 9/2009) ) Kinneret Limnonological
Laboratory, Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research.
15. Kawamoto K, MacLeod M, Mackay D. Evaluation and comparison of multimedia mass balance models of chemical
fate: application of EUSES and ChemCAN to 68 chemicals in Japan. Chemosphere 44 (2001) 599-612.
16. Brandes LJ, den Hollander H, van de Meant D. SimpleBox 2.0: a nested multimedia fate model for evaluating the
environmental fate of chemicals. RIVM report no. 719101029, Netherlands.
Thank you!!
Parameterization for Israel
EUSES
Default C
Units
Israel C
Land Area
km2
3520000
21000
Sea Area
km2
3520000
590
Area Fraction Fresh Water
0.03
0.029
Area Fraction Natural Soil
0.27
0.76
Area Fraction Agricultural Soil
0.6
0.18
Area Fraction Other Soil
0.1
0.052
Average Temperature
◦C
12
20
Average Wind Speed
m/s
3
4.5
mm/yr
700
500
m
3
3
River Flow between continent
and region
0.034
0.02
Runoff Fraction
0.25
0.25
Infiltration Fraction
0.25
0.25
0.03
0.03
Rain Rate
Depth of Fresh Water
Soil Erosion
mm/yr