STATE & CON 3 HELSINKI 9.-13.11.2015
Comments by Michael Haarich, Germany
1. Revision of Guidelines
1.1. Lead for Hazardous substances: Yes (M. Haarich)
(Combine Manual Part B and Integration Coreset, MSFD D 8.1)
What has to be done ?
a. General: Restructuring of Part B (see below)
b. Checking all annexes and Appendices, as methods , procedures have not been checked
partly since 1997
c. Addition of new parameters and related method s etc. for Core indicators (Coreset):
inter alia PBDEs, PFOS
d. State: Check and revision has been started. Draft (hopefully) available for next STATE
meeting
1.2. Lead for Bioeffects: (Combine Part D, MSFD D 8.2): N.N.
2. Coreset Indicator fact sheets
Propsals for further development/revision etc.
2. GES values
2.1
MSFD demands , that there should be no deviation between the status assessment
for areas under WFD and MSFD. This is not equivalent to using identical assessment
procedures and GES values.
2.2
For MSFD, the use of GES values derived for environmental purposes should have
priority against values for human health. The practice of WFD to combine both with a
common GES value is scientifically very doubtful and should be not applied generally
for MSFD and HELCOM assessments. In the Indicator Fact Sheets, it should be
distinguished between different GES values for different purposes (see sheet for
Dioxins and dl-like CBs)
2.3
The outcome of the discussion in the EU (cross-cutting paper of the GES-group)
should be taken into account
2.4
It should be discussed to compile the GES values in a separate document which can
be more easily revised and updated for all indicators. Otherwise every single
indicator fact sheet needs to pass the entire process
2.5
Procedures to adjust concentration data in biota to the GES by transformation
procedures (lipid content, tissue to whole fish) , as described in some of the indicator
fact sheets, should be removed from the single documents and put to one guidance
document.
It should take into account that:
2.5.1 Transformation factors should only be applied area- and species-specific.
Otherwise unacceptable uncertainty will be introduced to the value being
2.5.2
2.5.3
compared with the GES value. Besides that, also for the GES value itself the
uncertainty is not known but has to be determined (see cross-cutting doc.)
The concentration has to be measured in the most suitable tissue and reported
and stored as this. Data have to be suitable for trend assessments also, which
demands low measurement uncertainty and variation within the batch of
samples for a certain area and year. The assessment and transformation to the
“model fish” should only be applied to the mean/median value for the purpose
of risk assessment and comparision with GES values.
The normalization to lipids is for most of the data sets unsuitable as the
conditions (linear regression between lipid content and concentration, resulting
for a data set in a lower standard deviation) for that are not fulfilled and should
therefore be avoided. A second problem is that changes in lipid content in a
certain tissue (e.g. liver) changes also the wet (total) weight, so that there is no
independence between both references, and between the change of lipid
content and the change of the contaminant concentration there is normally a
time shift, particular when a fish is becoming bad condition, the latter resulting
in outstanding high concentrations on lipid based calculated concentration
values. Conclusion: It is not possible to reduce the degrees of freedom by
normalization on a general lipid content and whole fish to compare all different
species to reduce the variability caused by the biology.
3. Monitoring for core-indicators, request for information from
contracting parties
Germany has given information to HELCOM within the MORE-project (see. attached document).
Since then, no worth mentioning changes in the monitoring of hazardous substances and bioeffect
monitoring in the Baltic Sea have been decided and performed.
Appendix:
Proposal Restructuring of COMBINE Manual Part B:
COMBINE Part B – Revision of Structure PART B(1). GENERAL GUIDELINES ON QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR MONITORING IN THE BALTIC SEA
These annexes are containing information and procedures relevant for quality assurance in the
analysis of chemical parameters:






Annex B-1 Principle components of a quality manual
Annex B-2. Validation of established analytical methods
Annex B-3 Quality audit
Annex B-4 Standard Operating Procedures
Annex B-5 General remarks on sampling
Annex B-6 Examples of reference materials for internal quality control

Annex B-7 Units and conversion
The following annexes are primarily guidelines for the technical and analytical aspects of chemical
monitoring in the marine environment, which are including also parameter and method related
aspects of quality assurance. The heading of this part should reflect this:
PART B(2). GUIDELINES FOR CHEMICAL MONITORING IN THE BALTIC SEA
Following Annexes of the HELCOM Combine Manual are related to
Hazardous substances and Biological Effects (MSFD Descriptor D8):




Annex B-11 Technical note on the determination of heavy metals and persistent organic
compounds in seawater
Annex B-12 Technical note on the determination of heavy metals and persistent organic
compounds in biota
Annex B-13 Technical note on the determination of heavy metals and persistent organic
compounds in marine sediments
PART D. Programme for monitoring of contaminants and their effects
Chemical Oceanography:






Annex B-8: Technical note on the determination of hydrographic parameters
Annex B-9 Technical note on the determination of nutrients
Annex B-10 Chemical analysis of anoxic waters
Annex B-14 Technical note on the measurement of pH in seawater
Annex B-15 Technical note on the measurement of total alkalinity in seawater
Annex B-17 Technical note on the determination of organic carbon in seawater
Relevant partly for both:
Annex B-16 Technical note on co-factors analysis