European Commission Joint Research Centre, via E.Fermi, 1, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy.
Sci Total Environ. 2010 Aug 15;408(18):3817-30. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.046. Epub 2010 Jan 25.
A review by Hollander et al. (in preparation), discusses the relative potentials, advantages and shortcomings of spatial and non spatial models of chemical fate, highlighting that spatially explicit models may be needed for specific purposes. The present paper reviews the state of the art in spatially explicit chemical fate and transport modeling in Europe. We summarize the three main approaches currently adopted in spatially explicit modeling, namely (1) multiple box models, (2) numerical solutions of simultaneous advection-dispersion equations (ADE) in air, soil and water, and (3) the development of meta-models. As all three approaches experience limitations, we describe in further detail geographic information system (GIS)-based modeling as an alternative approach allowing a simple, yet spatially explicit description of chemical fate. We review the input data needed, and the options available for their retrieval at the European scale. We also discuss the importance of, and limitations in model evaluation. We observe that the high uncertainty in chemical emissions and physico-chemical behavior in the environment make realistic simulations difficult to obtain. Therefore we envisage a shift in model use from process simulation to hypothesis testing, in which explaining the discrepancies between observed and computed chemical concentrations in the environment takes importance over prediction per se. This shift may take advantage of using simple models in GIS with residual uses of complex models for detailed studies. It also calls for tighter joint interpretation of models and spatially distributed monitoring datasets, and more refined spatial representation of environmental drivers such as landscape and climate variables, and better emission estimates. In summary, we conclude that the problem is not "how to compute" (i.e. emphasis on numerical methods, spatial/temporal discretization, quantitative uncertainty and sensitivity analysis...) but "what to compute" (i.e. emphasis on spatial distribution of emissions, and the depiction of appropriate spatial patterns of environmental drivers).
霍兰德等人(正在准备中)的评论讨论了化学命运的空间和非空间模型的相对潜力、优势和缺点,强调对于特定目的可能需要采用空间明确模型。本文回顾了欧洲空间明确化学命运和输运建模的最新进展。我们总结了目前在空间明确建模中采用的三种主要方法,即(1)多个箱模型,(2)空气、土壤和水中同时对流弥散方程(ADE)的数值解,以及(3)元模型的开发。由于所有三种方法都存在局限性,我们进一步详细描述了基于地理信息系统(GIS)的建模作为一种替代方法,允许对化学命运进行简单而空间明确的描述。我们回顾了所需的输入数据以及在欧洲范围内检索这些数据的选项。我们还讨论了模型评估的重要性和局限性。我们观察到,化学排放和环境中物理化学行为的高度不确定性使得难以获得现实的模拟。因此,我们预计模型的使用将从过程模拟转向假设检验,在这种情况下,解释环境中观测到的和计算出的化学浓度之间的差异比预测本身更为重要。这种转变可以利用 GIS 中的简单模型,并在复杂模型的详细研究中发挥剩余作用。这还需要更紧密地联合解释模型和空间分布监测数据集,并更精细地表示环境驱动因素(如景观和气候变量),以及更好的排放估计。总之,我们的结论是,问题不在于“如何计算”(即强调数值方法、时空离散化、定量不确定性和敏感性分析……),而在于“计算什么”(即强调排放的空间分布,以及适当的环境驱动因素的空间模式的描述)。