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: 9Number 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: 32Number 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 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: 7Number 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: 31Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 2The 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: 10Number 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) 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: 32Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 0The 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.

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 chromium concentrations. Therefore, only the "Trend" metric is analyzed for this contaminant. Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 3Number of stations for which no conclusion on whether or not the contaminant reaches good status could be reached (stable or negative trend): 5The 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 chromium, 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: 27Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach the good status: 5The 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 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: 1Number of stations for which no conclusion on whether or not the contaminant reaches good status could be reached (stable or negative trend): 7The 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 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: 31Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach the good status: 1The 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: 7Number 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 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: 9Number 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: 33Number 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 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: 6Number 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 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: 33Number 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 to conclude on the achievement or not of the parameter evaluated.

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: 2Number 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 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: 10Number 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) 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: 25Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach the good status: 7The 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: 8Number 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: 33Number 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 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 nickel concentrations. Therefore, only the metric "Trend" is analysed for this contaminant. Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach 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): 6The 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: 10Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 22 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 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: 9Number 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 where the contaminant reaches good status: 33 Number of stations where the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations where 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: 9Number 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 where the contaminant reaches good status: 33 Number of stations where the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations where 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: 9Number 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 where the contaminant reaches good status: 33 Number of stations where the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations where 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: 9Number 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 where the contaminant reaches good status: 33 Number of stations where the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations where 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: 9Number 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 where the contaminant reaches good status: 31Number of stations where the contaminant does not reach good status: 0The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations where 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: 9Number 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 where the contaminant reaches good status: 33 Number of stations where the contaminant does not reach good status: 0 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations where 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: 7Number 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: 32Number 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 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: 9Number 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: 33Number 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 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: 0Number of stations for which no conclusion on whether or not the contaminant reaches good status could be reached (stable or negative trend): 8The 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: 27Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach the good status: 5The 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: 7Number 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: 33Number 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 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: 9Number 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: 33Number 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 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: 8Number 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: 29Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 4The 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: 9Number 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: 1Number of stations for which no conclusion on whether or not the good status of the contaminant has been reached (stable or negative trend): 5The 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: 31Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 2The 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: 9Number 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) 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: 27Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach the good status: 5The 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: 7Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 2The 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 where the contaminant reaches good status: 29 Number of stations where the contaminant does not reach good status: 1 The absence of a threshold for the percentage of stations where 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: 6Number of stations for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 2The 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.

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: 4 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake 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 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: 4 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake 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 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: 4 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake 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 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: 4 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake 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 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: 4 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake 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 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: 4 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake 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 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: 4 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake 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 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: 4 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake 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 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: 4 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake 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 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: 4 (mackerel, blue whiting, hake 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 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: 2 (blue whiting and small spotted catshark) Number of species for which the contaminant does not reach good status: 2 (mackerel and hake)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.