Past Events  
   

THE EURASAP WORKSHOP ON AIR POLLUTION & THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: BIOLOGICAL MONITORING - PART 1. THE WORKSHOP

25-27 April 2001, Sofia, Bulgaria

Prof. Nigel Bell and Linda Davies, Imperial College, London, UK

Poor air quality affects our health and environment. To protect ourselves and the biosphere we need to establish criteria against which we can assess the impact of atmospheric pollution. Regular monitoring programmes can then be developed to identify changes and alert us to take remedial measures. These criteria should reflect the range of sensitivity of receptors to acute and chronic exposure from new and existing substances, both individually and synergistically. Physico-chemical measurements and modelling are the main tools used in air quality management in the UK. This workshops reviews current practice in biological monitoring in Europe as an adjunct to the present system with a view to establishing a direct link between measurements and effects.

The biological response by a living organisms following exposure to a pollutant can be used in two ways; to assess changes in atmospheric conditions and to alert us to toxicity effects, individually and synergistically. Initially, pollutants accumulate over time without negative effects providing spatial and temporal patterns of deposition for a range of substances the rate of which can be determined using sampling protocols and analytical techniques. Secondly, at the point at which stress develops, (determined by visible and invisible symptoms like chlorosis, stomatal conductance, leaf reflectance, chlorophyll fluorescence), the health of the species deteriorates and bio-diversity is affected. Local conditions both biotic and abiotic will greatly influence the point at which these responses occur Biological monitoring essentially determines deviations from normal conditions and is best used to assess spatial scale issues and temporal trends. Biological surveying brings the local community into air quality management.

Many European organisations and networks are currently developing and applying techniques to assess the accumulation of pollutants in flora and fauna or using changes in distribution patterns, community structure or general health in management systems and education. Biological monitoring forms an integral part of air quality management in many European countries but some countries appear reluctant to apply such semi-quantitative techniques. Many of their concerns were discussed at the EURASAP workshop, where the benefits and constraints of such systems were widely debated. The relationship between air quality and bio-diversity is rarely considered at a policy level in environmental protection yet biological systems demonstrate the accumulative potential and synergistic nature of pollution in a unique way.

Speakers demonstrated the extensive application of existing protocols. Research into the bio-chemical and physiological responses is providing a greater understanding of the variability across species, previously only identified through correlation studies, and the highly specific nature of the effect. Future research areas include the elasticity of perturbations, thresholds of accumulation and abiotic influences.

Over the course of the four-day workshop links were established with participants in thirteen European countries providing a comprehensive overview of current practice, problems and future requirements for air quality management with biological monitors.

Background

Each year EURASAP hosts a workshop devoted to an emerging area of atmospheric science. In 1999 an article was submitted to the EURASAP Editor by Dr. Jean Pierre Garrec of the Centre de Reserche de Nancy (INRA) Laboratoire Pollution Atmospherique in Nancy, France (see EURASAP Newsletter Issue 36). It provided an insight into the development and application of biological monitoring in air quality management in France and reported results from an extensive research programme completed over the past few decades. It provided a summary of the scientific basis from which such policy has developed. European funding provided under Interregs II utilised information from INRA to develop a comprehensive investigation into the cause of catastrophic early leaf fall in major coastal districts of Nord Pas de Calais in 1993. The programme identified a number of very poorly abated industries in the region which were subjected to appropriate industrial regulatory controls. A comparative study using similar methodologies in along 650 kms of Kent coastline was completed in 1998 to extend the investigation and test protocols. The project was carried out by Imperial College, London1 who have been actively involved in biological monitoring research for over thirty years both in the UK and extensively in Asia and Europe. INRA is also working with Hungary to establish the East Hungarian Biomonitoring Network and China.

In 1999, APRIL (Air Pollution Research in London) a multi-disciplinary research network with specialist groups on air quality and modelling, meteorology, measurements, transport, health, planning and indoor air established a Natural Environment Group. Members were concerned that the UK was not adequately represented internationally in this rapidly developing field and outlined a programme of work to consolidate current knowledge and establish a UK Biomonitoring Research Group.

New legislation including the Habitats Directive, Biodiversity Action Plans, EU Air Quality Directives, CROW, IPPC and UNECE Protocols have focused attention on harm to flora and fauna from anthropogenic pollution sources. The UNECE/ICP Vegetation programme are currently supervising European projects on ozone damage to crops , and biological monitoring with metal accumulation in bryophytes (8000 sites), and white clover (Trifolium repens) for as a potential biomonitor for ozone. The Programme is chaired by Dr. Gina Mills of CEH Bangor, home to the European Metals & Mosses Database. Administered from Germany the BIONET (EU sponsored) project is raising public awareness of air pollution using a range of biomonitoring techniques including ozone and metals as well as VOCs and PAHs.

Lichens have historically played an important role in the assessment of spatial distribution and temporal changes in atmospheric sulphur dioxide. Much new work has been commissioned through the BioMAP programme sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) to investigate the fate and extent of metals and radionuclides in the environment. The British Lichen Society* sponsored by NATO hosted an international meeting in the summer of 2000 to review international approaches to lichen surveying and biomonitoring. The outcome will inform the development of a European protocol. The methodology takes into account practical experience gained from the German Engineering Federations VDI* Guidelines for Biological Monitoring.

A EURASAP workshop on air quality and flora and fauna provided a platform for European biologists and air pollution scientists to discuss current and future legislative requirements, share research results and identify issues related to the practical development of biological monitoring programmes for air quality management.

The aim of the Workshop was to review current practice in Europe in Biological Monitoring and Air Quality Management

The objectives of the workshop were to:

The workshop, initiated by Imperial College, London, was chaired by Professor J.N.B. Bell who is currently leading three major biological monitoring research programmes; Aphids as indicators of environmental change (EXAMINE), higher plants and transport emissions (NERC URGENT) and ozone damage to crops (Imperial/Delhi). Dr. J.W. Bates (Imperial College, British Bryophyte Society & British Lichen Society representative) and Dr. Rachel Warren (Imperial College and British Trust for Ornithology representative) research scientists and members of the APRIL Natural Environment Committee presented new papers. JNCC*, currently developing a database of pollution impacts on flora and fauna, together with authors of the two WHO publication on Biological Monitoring, Dr. Agneta Burton of Hertforshire University (1976 edition) and Professor Peter Williams of King's College,London (2000 edition) contributed significantly to the meeting.

An evening slide show reviewing the history of biomonitoring in the UK was given by Professor Bell.

Our hosts, the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and the Bulgarian Environmental Executive Agency welcomed participants organised by Dr. Ekaterina Batchvarova (National Institute of Meteorology and Hyrdrology) and Linda Davies (Imperial College, London). Professor Helen ApSimon, (Imperial College, London) Eurasap President was in attendance.

Representatives from thirteen European countries presented papers. Each session was followed by a discussion leading to a plenary session to review the main themes of the workshop. Issues emerging for further consideration and development are summarised in the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report.

Conclusions and Recommendations

  1. A major outcome of the workshop was the identification of a large number of biomonitoring networks, both international and national, which were operating independently and often unknown to each other. It was recommended that a review be carried out of these networks and how they could be integrated. A possible mechanism for such an exercise might be via the European Environment Agency.
  2. It is apparent that a vast amount of biomonitoring data is being accumulated within Europe. However, concerns were expressed that this was not being utilised in an appropriate manner, if at all. Thus it is recommended that steps be taken to determine how these data could be utilised for regulatory, scientific and public participatory purposes.
  3. During the workshop many presentations described data on accumulation of pollutants by biota, particularly lichens and bryophytes. However, in some areas there was a serious lack of translation of these data into impacts on the organisms concerned. This should be remedied and include the identification of specific biomonitors for individual pollutants and their mixtures.
  4. There is a requirement for elucidation of fundamental processed-based mechanisms by which biomonitors respond to pollutants. It appears that responses such as luminescence may not be addressed sufficiently by the bio-monitoring community.
  5. During the workshop a major discussion took place on the issue of standardisation of methods across regions, countries and Europe as a whole. There was a need for intercalibration between the different systems. While it was agreed that standardisation was important, it should be developed with due recognition of the conditions prevailing in the areas of interest. An important conclusion was that any move towards standardisation should not result in individual monitoring groups abandoning their tried and tested techniques, as this would mitigate against developing data-bases on long-term trends.
  6. It was important to establish base-line data for biomonitor structure and function under normal pristine conditions, against which to assess any shifts occurring as a result of air pollution. This could include an index of ecosystem integrity. However, the state of the environment at the time of any baseline survey will provide a benchmark against which to monitor change.
  7. Greater opportunities should be taken to elucidate long-term trends in pollutant levels by analysis of stored material in herbaria. In this respect specimen banking should be encouraged.
  8. There was an urgent need to develop lichen pollutant zone scales which addressed current pollution climates, perhaps utilising a limited number of indicator species which would respond relative rapidly to ameliorating as well as deteriorating atmospheric conditions and also to pollutants other than SO2. Research into the impacts of nitrogenous compounds were poorly represented at the meeting.
  9. Greater use should be made of multi-variate statistical techniques and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) for analysis of biomonitoring data and identification of causality in terms of separating out effects of individual pollutants and climatic factors.
  10. Biomonitoring systems should be developed to take into account local conditions, particularly in developing countries where many of the conventional methods used in the developed world are unsuitable.
  11. It was felt that a greater range of species, both animal and plant could be utilised for biomonitoring. This was exemplified by the studies reported to the workshop on aphids, birds and leaf fungal pathogens. Algae and amoebae were suggested as having potential in this respect.
  12. It was concluded that the development of rigorous protocols and quality assessment procedures, as well as accreditation by appropriate bodies, was vital if biomonitoring data were to be employed for regulatory or litigation purposes.
  13. Greater attention should be paid to linking biomonitoring results to data generated by physico-chemical techniques. This should include low cost physico-chemical monitors, which were currently being developed.
  14. Greater integration was required between biomonitor measurements, modelling and impacts.
  15. Biomonitoring, particularly where visible injury was measured, should be addressed strongly towards both the general public and policy makers.
  16. Biomonitoring programmes should be designed to act as "early warning" systems.
  17. There was a requirement for training workshops in the use of biomonitors, which could be used for accreditation.
  18. It was recommended that a data-base of biomonitoring methods be developed.

References

1Biological Monitoring in the Transmanche. Davies, L., Ashmore, M.R., Bell, J.N.B., Bates, J.W. (ICON 1998)

       
  Past Events  
   

[To Contents]    [To Next Topic]