Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 14Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter being assessed has been reached.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 42Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 1The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow to conclude on the achievement or not of the parameter evaluated.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 13Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter being assessed has been reached.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 40Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 3The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter evaluated has been reached.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 34 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 1 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow a conclusion to be drawn on whether the parameter being assessed has been reached or not.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html) and integrating reference data acquired at national level (e.g. pivot value). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 63Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0. The absence of a threshold in the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow to conclude on the achievement or not of the parameter evaluated.

A partir des jeux de données de concentrations disponibles par station, une métrique "Etat" (concentration de la substance considérée) est définie selon différents modèles statistiques. La méthode utilisée pour le calcul de la métrique "Etat" est une version adaptée de celle utilisée lors des évaluations OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html et http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). Une métrique "Tendance" sur la période 2010-2015 a également été définie pour chaque station lorsque les séries temporelles des données de concentrations permettaient une analyse de tendance (i.e. une série temporellle d'au moins 5 ans). Aucun seuil n'est actuellement disponible concernant les concentrations en chrome. Par conséquent, seule la métrique "Tendance" est analysée pour ce contaminant.Nombre de stations pour lesquelles le contaminant n'atteint pas le bon état : 3Nombre de stations pour lesquelles aucune conclusion sur l'atteinte ou non du bon état du contaminant n'a pu être réalisée (tendance stable ou négative) : 17L'absence de seuil au niveau du nombre de stations pour lesquelles le contaminant n'atteint pas le bon état ne permet pas de conclure sur la non atteinte du paramètre évalué. A noter que pour le chrome, ce paramètre permet uniquement d'évaluer une non atteinte du bon état (absence de valeur seuil de concentration à ne pas dépasser).

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html) and integrating reference data acquired at national level (e.g. pivot value). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches the good status: 59 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach the good status: 8 The absence of a threshold at the level of the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches the good status does not allow to conclude on the achievement or not of the evaluated parameter.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A "Trend" metric for the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed for trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). No thresholds are currently available for copper concentrations. Therefore, only the metric "Trend" is analysed for this contaminant. Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 3 Number of stations for which no conclusion on whether or not the contaminant reaches good status could be reached (stable or negative trend): 32 The absence of a threshold for the number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status does not allow to conclude on the non-achievement of the parameter evaluated. It should be noted that for copper, this parameter can only be used to assess failure to achieve good status (absence of threshold concentration value not to be exceeded).

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html) and integrating reference data acquired at national level (e.g. pivot value). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches the good status: 65Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach the good status: 2 The absence of a threshold at the level of the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches the good status does not allow to conclude on the achievement or not of the evaluated parameter.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 7 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 6 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter being assessed has been reached.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html).A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 14 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow a conclusion to be drawn on whether the parameter being assessed has been reached or not.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 41 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 2 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter evaluated has been reached.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 13Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter being assessed has been reached.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 43 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter evaluated has been reached.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 35 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 1 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter being assessed has been reached.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html) and integrating reference data acquired at national level (e.g. pivot value). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 61 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 6 The absence of a threshold in the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow to conclude on the attainment or not of the evaluated parameter.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 13Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter being assessed has been reached.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 43 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter evaluated has been reached.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A "Trend" metric for the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed for trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). No thresholds are currently available for nickel concentrations. Therefore, only the metric "Trend" is analysed for this contaminant. Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 6 Number of stations for which no conclusion on whether or not the contaminant reaches good status could be reached (stable or negative trend): 31 The absence of a threshold for the number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status does not allow to conclude on the non-achievement of the parameter evaluated. It should be noted that for nickel, this parameter can only be used to assess failure to achieve good status (absence of a threshold value for the concentration not to be exceeded).

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html) and integrating reference data acquired at national level (e.g. pivot value). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 19 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 48 The absence of a threshold in the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow to conclude on the attainment or not of the evaluated parameter.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html).A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 14 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow a conclusion to be drawn on whether the parameter being assessed has been reached or not.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The sediment thresholds considered for PCBs are the Environmental Assessment Thresholds (EACs) developed under the OSPAR Regional Seas Convention. Number of stations where the contaminant is in good status: 42 Number of stations where the contaminant is not in good status: 1 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations where the contaminant is in good status does not allow a conclusion to be drawn on whether the parameter being assessed has been reached.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 13Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter being assessed has been reached.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The sediment thresholds considered for PCBs are the Environmental Assessment Thresholds (EACs) developed under the OSPAR Regional Seas Convention. Number of stations where the contaminant is in good status: 42 Number of stations where the contaminant is not in good status: 1 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations where the contaminant is in good status does not allow a conclusion to be drawn on whether the parameter being assessed has been reached.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 13Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter being assessed has been reached.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment for PCBs are the environmental assessment thresholds (EAC) developed under the OSPAR Regional Seas Convention. Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 43 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter being assessed has been reached.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html).A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 14 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow a conclusion to be drawn on whether the parameter being assessed has been reached or not.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment for PCBs are the environmental assessment thresholds (EAC) developed under the OSPAR Regional Seas Convention. Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 43 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow to conclude on the achievement or not of the parameter evaluated.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html).A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 14 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow a conclusion to be drawn on whether the parameter being assessed has been reached or not.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment for PCBs are the environmental assessment thresholds (EAC) developed under the OSPAR Regional Seas Convention. Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 41 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter evaluated has been reached.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html).A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 14 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow a conclusion to be drawn on whether the parameter being assessed has been reached or not.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment for PCBs are the environmental assessment thresholds (EAC) developed under the OSPAR Regional Seas Convention. Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 42Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter evaluated has been reached.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html).A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 14 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow a conclusion to be drawn on whether the parameter being assessed has been reached or not.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 41 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 2 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter evaluated has been reached.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html).A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 14 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow a conclusion to be drawn on whether the parameter being assessed has been reached or not.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 42Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 1The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow to conclude on the achievement or not of the parameter evaluated.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A "Trend" metric for the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed for trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). No thresholds are currently available for zinc concentrations. Therefore, only the metric "Trend" is analysed for this contaminant. Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 4Number of stations for which no conclusion on whether or not the contaminant reaches good status could be reached (stable or negative trend): 31 The absence of a threshold for the number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status does not allow to conclude on the non-achievement of the parameter evaluated. It should be noted that for zinc, this parameter can only be used to assess failure to achieve good status (absence of a threshold value for the concentration not to be exceeded).

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html) and integrating reference data acquired at national level (e.g. pivot value). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches the good status: 63 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach the good status: 4 The absence of a threshold at the level of the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches the good status does not make it possible to conclude whether or not the evaluated parameter has been reached.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 12Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 1The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter being assessed has been reached.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 43 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter evaluated has been reached.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 13Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 1The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter being assessed has been reached.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 42Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 1The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow to conclude on the achievement or not of the parameter evaluated.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html).A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 14 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow a conclusion to be drawn on whether the parameter being assessed has been reached or not.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 38Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 5The absence of a threshold in the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not make it possible to conclude whether or not the parameter evaluated has been reached.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html).A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 14 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow a conclusion to be drawn on whether the parameter being assessed has been reached or not.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 3Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter being assessed has been reached.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A "Trend" metric for the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed for trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). No threshold is currently available for Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene concentrations. Therefore, only the metric "Trend" is analysed for this contaminant. Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach the good status: 0Number of stations for which no conclusion on whether or not the good status of the contaminant has been reached (stable or negative trend): 10The absence of a threshold for the number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach the good status does not make it possible to conclude on the non-achievement of the parameter evaluated. It should be noted that for indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, this parameter can only be used to assess failure to achieve good status (absence of threshold concentration value not to be exceeded).

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 42Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 1The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow to conclude on the achievement or not of the parameter evaluated.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 35Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 2 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter being assessed has been reached.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html) and integrating reference data acquired at national level (e.g. pivot value). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment are the Effects Range Low (ERL) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches the good status: 64Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach the good status: 2The absence of a threshold at the level of the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches the good status does not make it possible to conclude whether or not the parameter evaluated has been reached.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 6Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 7The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter being assessed has been reached.

For each station monitored: comparison of the threshold with the standardised concentration of the contaminant using a statistical approach derived from that developed by OSPAR (http://dome.ices.dk/OSPARMIME2016/help_methods_sediment_metals.html). Note that only one sediment value per substance*station pair is available every six years, i.e. between 2010 and 2015. The thresholds considered in the sediment for PCBs are the environmental assessment thresholds (EAC) developed under the OSPAR Regional Seas Convention. Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 38 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 3 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow conclusions to be drawn on whether or not the parameter evaluated has been reached.

Based on the available concentration data sets per station, a "State" metric (concentration of the substance under consideration) is defined according to different statistical models. The method used to calculate the "State" metric is an adapted version of the method used in OSPAR assessments (http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_biota_metals.html and http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/help_methods_less_thans.html). A trend metric over the period 2010-2015 was also defined for each station where the time series of concentration data allowed a trend analysis (i.e. a time series of at least 5 years). Number of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status: 5 Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 8 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow a conclusion to be drawn on whether the parameter being assessed has been reached or not.

This parameter is based on measurements of contaminant concentrations in several species of fish that have been carried out during fishing campaigns over the period 2014-2015 (territorial waters and offshore coverage area). For each fish species, a "State" metric is defined and corresponds to the 95 percentile of the concentrations measured for the contaminant in question. The "State" metric obtained for the contaminant in question, and for each species, is compared with the available threshold. Number of species for which the contaminant reaches the good status: 4 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake and sardine) Number of species for which the contaminant does not reach the good status: 1 (small-spotted catshark) The absence of a threshold for the percentage of species for which the contaminant reaches the good status does not make it possible to conclude whether or not the parameter evaluated has been reached.

This parameter is based on measurements of contaminant concentrations in several species of fish that have been carried out during fishing campaigns over the period 2014-2015 (territorial waters and offshore coverage area). For each fish species, a "State" metric is defined and corresponds to the 95 percentile of the concentrations measured for the contaminant in question. The "State" metric obtained for the contaminant in question, and for each species, is compared with the available threshold. Number of species for which the contaminant reaches good status: 5 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake, sardine and small spotted catshark) Number of species for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of species for which the contaminant reaches good status does not make it possible to conclude on whether or not the parameter assessed has been reached.

This parameter is based on measurements of contaminant concentrations in several species of fish that have been carried out during fishing campaigns over the period 2014-2015 (territorial waters and offshore coverage area). For each fish species, a "State" metric is defined and corresponds to the 95 percentile of the concentrations measured for the contaminant in question. The "State" metric obtained for the contaminant in question, and for each species, is compared with the available threshold. Number of species for which the contaminant reaches good status: 5 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake, sardine and small spotted catshark) Number of species for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of species for which the contaminant reaches good status does not make it possible to conclude on whether or not the parameter assessed has been reached.

This parameter is based on measurements of contaminant concentrations in several species of fish that have been carried out during fishing campaigns over the period 2014-2015 (territorial waters and offshore coverage area). For each fish species, a "State" metric is defined and corresponds to the 95 percentile of the concentrations measured for the contaminant in question. The "State" metric obtained for the contaminant in question, and for each species, is compared with the available threshold. Number of species for which the contaminant reaches good status: 5 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake, sardine and small spotted catshark) Number of species for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of species for which the contaminant reaches good status does not make it possible to conclude on whether or not the parameter assessed has been reached.

This parameter is based on measurements of contaminant concentrations in several species of fish that have been carried out during fishing campaigns over the period 2014-2015 (territorial waters and offshore coverage area). For each fish species, a "State" metric is defined and corresponds to the 95 percentile of the concentrations measured for the contaminant in question. The "State" metric obtained for the contaminant in question, and for each species, is compared with the available threshold. Number of species for which the contaminant reaches good status: 5 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake, sardine and small spotted catshark) Number of species for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of species for which the contaminant reaches good status does not make it possible to conclude on whether or not the parameter assessed has been reached.

This parameter is based on measurements of contaminant concentrations in several species of fish that have been carried out during fishing campaigns over the period 2014-2015 (territorial waters and offshore coverage area). For each fish species, a "State" metric is defined and corresponds to the 95 percentile of the concentrations measured for the contaminant in question. The "State" metric obtained for the contaminant in question, and for each species, is compared with the available threshold. Number of species for which the contaminant reaches good status: 5 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake, sardine and small spotted catshark) Number of species for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of species for which the contaminant reaches good status does not make it possible to conclude on whether or not the parameter assessed has been reached.

This parameter is based on measurements of contaminant concentrations in several species of fish that have been carried out during fishing campaigns over the period 2014-2015 (territorial waters and offshore coverage area). For each fish species, a "State" metric is defined and corresponds to the 95 percentile of the concentrations measured for the contaminant in question. The "State" metric obtained for the contaminant in question, and for each species, is compared with the available threshold. Number of species for which the contaminant reaches good status: 5 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake, sardine and small spotted catshark) Number of species for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of species for which the contaminant reaches good status does not make it possible to conclude on whether or not the parameter assessed has been reached.

This parameter is based on measurements of contaminant concentrations in several species of fish that have been carried out during fishing campaigns over the period 2014-2015 (territorial waters and offshore coverage area). For each fish species, a "State" metric is defined and corresponds to the 95 percentile of the concentrations measured for the contaminant in question. The "State" metric obtained for the contaminant in question, and for each species, is compared with the available threshold. Number of species for which the contaminant reaches good status: 5 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake, sardine and small spotted catshark) Number of species for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of species for which the contaminant reaches good status does not make it possible to conclude on whether or not the parameter assessed has been reached.

This parameter is based on measurements of contaminant concentrations in several species of fish that have been carried out during fishing campaigns over the period 2014-2015 (territorial waters and offshore coverage area). For each fish species, a "State" metric is defined and corresponds to the 95 percentile of the concentrations measured for the contaminant in question. The "State" metric obtained for the contaminant in question, and for each species, is compared with the available threshold. Number of species for which the contaminant reaches good status: 5 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake, sardine and small spotted catshark) Number of species for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of species for which the contaminant reaches good status does not make it possible to conclude on whether or not the parameter assessed has been reached.

This parameter is based on measurements of contaminant concentrations in several species of fish that have been carried out during fishing campaigns over the period 2014-2015 (territorial waters and offshore coverage area). For each fish species, a "State" metric is defined and corresponds to the 95 percentile of the concentrations measured for the contaminant in question. The "State" metric obtained for the contaminant in question, and for each species, is compared with the available threshold. Number of species for which the contaminant reaches good status: 5 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake, sardine and small spotted catshark) Number of species for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of species for which the contaminant reaches good status does not make it possible to conclude on whether or not the parameter assessed has been reached.

This parameter is based on measurements of contaminant concentrations in several species of fish that have been carried out during fishing campaigns over the period 2014-2015 (territorial waters and offshore coverage area). For each fish species, a "State" metric is defined and corresponds to the 95 percentile of the concentrations measured for the contaminant in question. Number of species for which the contaminant reaches good status: 3 (blue whiting, hake and small-spotted catshark) Number of species for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 2 (mackerel and sardine)Threshold exceedances are observed for CB 118 in mackerel and hake. The absence of a threshold for the percentage of species for which the contaminant reaches good status does not allow to conclude on the achievement or not of the parameter assessed.