Upload
alvaro-corliss
View
222
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Source-attribution for atmospheric mercury deposition:Where does the mercury in mercury deposition come from?
Dr. Mark CohenNOAA Air Resources Laboratory
Silver Spring, Maryland, [email protected]
http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ss/transport/cohen.html
Presentation given via speakerphone to a meeting of the Mercury Working Group, Office of Air Quality,
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)April 21, 2005
2
For mercury, how important is atmospheric deposition relative to other loading pathways?
3
Three “forms” of atmospheric mercuryElemental Mercury: Hg(0)
• ~ 95% of total Hg in atmosphere• not very water soluble• long atmospheric lifetime (~ 0.5 - 1 yr); globally distributed
Reactive Gaseous Mercury (“RGM”)• a few percent of total Hg in atmosphere• oxidized mercury: Hg(II)• HgCl2, others species?• somewhat operationally defined by measurement method• very water soluble• short atmospheric lifetime (~ 1 week or less);• more local and regional effects
Particulate Mercury (Hg(p)• a few percent of total Hg in atmosphere• not pure particles of mercury…
(Hg compounds associated with atmospheric particulate)• species largely unknown (in some cases, may be HgO?)• moderate atmospheric lifetime (perhaps 1~ 2 weeks)• local and regional effects• bioavailability?
4
modeling the fate and transport
of atmosphericmercury
5
CLOUD DROPLET
cloud
PrimaryAnthropogenicEmissions
Reactive Gaseous Mercury: RGM
Elemental Mercury: Hg(0)
Particulate Mercury: Hg(p)Atmospheric Fate Processes for Hg
Dry and Wet Deposition
Hg(0) oxidized to dissolvedRGM by O3, OH, HOCl, OCl-
Hg(II) reduced to Hg(0) by SO2
Re-emission of natural AND previously depositedanthropogenic mercury
Adsorption/desorptionof Hg(II) to/from soot
Hg(p)
“DRY” (low RH)ATMOSPHERE:
Hg(0) oxidized to RGMby O3, H202, Cl2, OH, HCl
Polar sunrise“mercury depletion events”
Br
Upper atmospherichalogen-mediatedheterogeneous oxidation?
6
7
8
some illustrative modeling
results
9
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
day of year
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ug/m
2-ye
ar if
dai
ly d
ep c
ontin
uted
at
sam
e ra
te
daily value
weekly average
Illustrative example of total deposition at a location~40 km "downwind" of a 1 kg/day RGM source
The impact of any given mercury emissions source on any receptor is highly variable, both in space and in time
Think about the weather and then add in all the chemistry and physics of mercury’s interactions with the weather
10
The impact of any given mercury emissions source on any receptor is highly dependent on the “type” of mercury emitted
Elemental mercury - Hg0 - is not readily dry or wet deposited, and its conversion to ionic Hg or Hg(p) is relatively slow
Particulate mercury – Hg(p) - is moderately susceptible to dry and wet deposition
Ionic mercury – also called Reactive Gaseous Mercury or RGM – is very easily dry and wet deposited
Conversion of RGM to Hg0 in plumes?
11
0.1o x 0.1o subgrid for near-field analysis
sourcelocation
12
13
14
15
16
Estimated Speciation Profile for 1999 U.S.Atmospheric Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions
Very uncertain for most sources
17
Each type of source has a very different emissions speciation profile
Even within a given source type, there can be big differences – depending on process type, fuels and raw materials, pollution control equipment, etc.
18
Estimated 1999 U.S. Atmospheric Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions
19
coal elec gen (GL_states)57.7%waste incin (GL_states)
21.0%
other fuel (GL_states)8.1%
manuf/other (GL_states)4.3%
metals (GL_states)0.8%
coal elec gen (GL_provinces)1.7%
waste incin (GL_provinces)2.1%
other fuel (GL_provinces)1.0%
manuf/other (GL_provinces)1.3%
metals (GL_provinces)2.1%
Emissions of Ionic Mercury (RGM) from Different AnthropogenicSource Sectors in Great Lakes States and Provinces (~1999-2000)
[Total RGM emissions = 13.4 metric tons/year]
20
0 - 15 15 - 30 30 - 60 60 - 120 120 - 250
distance range from source (km)
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
depo
sitio
n flu
x (u
g/m
2-yr
)
Hg(II) emit, 50 mHg(II) emit, 250 mHg(II) emit, 500 mHg(p) emit; 250 mHg(0) emit, 250 m
Source at Lat = 42.5, Long = -97.5; simulation for entire year 1996 using archived NGM meteorological data
Deposition flux within different distance ranges from a hypothetical 1 kg/day source
Hypothesized rapid reduction of Hg(II) in plumes? If true, then dramatic impact on modeling results…
There can be large local and regional impacts
21
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
distance range from source (km)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
cum
ulat
ive
frac
tion
depo
site
d Hg(II) emit, 250 mHg(p) emit, 250 mHg(0) emit, 250 m
Source at Lat = 42.5, Long = -97.5; simulation for entire year 1996 using archived NGM meteorological data
Cumulative fraction deposited out to different distance ranges from a hypothetical source
250 km
At the same time, medium to long range transport can’t be ignored
22
There are a lot of sources…
Large spatial and temporal variations
Each source emits mercury forms in different proportions
A lot of different sources can contribute significant amounts of mercury through atmospheric deposition to any given receptor
23
Geographic Distribution of Largest Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions Sources in the U.S. (1999) and Canada (2000)
24
25
Getting the source-apportionment information we all want is difficult
With measurements alone, generally impossible
Coupling measurements with back-trajectory analyses yields only a little information
Comprehensive fate and transport modeling – “forward” from emissions to deposition – holds the promise of generating detailed source-receptor information
26
11/0111/02
11/0311/04
11/0511/06
11/0711/08
11/0911/10
11/1111/12
11/1311/14
11/1511/16
day (1999)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
conc
entr
atio
n (p
g/m
3)
Measured Modeled (background = 0) Modeled (with background)
Comparison of measured vs. modeled TPMZingst
There are a lot of uncertainties in current comprehensive fate and transport models... Nevertheless, many models seem to be performing reasonably well, i.e., are able to explain a lot of what we see
27
somesource-receptorresults for the Great Lakes
28
Cohen, M., Artz, R., Draxler, R., Miller, P., Poissant, L., Niemi, D., Ratte, D., Deslauriers, M., Duval, R., Laurin, R., Slotnick, J., Nettesheim, T., McDonald, J. “Modeling the Atmospheric Transport and Deposition of Mercury to the Great Lakes.” Environmental Research 95(3), 247-265, 2004.
Note: Volume 95(3) is a Special Issue: "An Ecosystem Approach to Health Effects of Mercury in the St. Lawrence Great Lakes", edited by David O. Carpenter.
Note: results in this paper are for 1996;
Results shown in the following slides have been updated to 1999
29
Emissions sources which are among the top-25 model-estimated contributors to
one or more of the Great Lakes
30
Geographical Distribution of 1999 Direct Deposition Contributions to Lake Michigan
31
0 - 100100 - 200
200 - 400400 - 700
700 - 10001000 - 1500
1500 - 20002000 - 2500
> 2500
Distance Range from Lake Michigan (km)
0
10
20
30
40
50
Em
issi
on
s (m
etri
c to
ns/
year
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Dep
osi
tio
n F
lux
(ug
/m2-
year
)
Emissions Deposition Flux
Emissions and Deposition Contributions from Different Distance Ranges Away From Lake Michigan
32
Top 25 Contributors to 1999 Hg Deposition Directly to Lake Michigan
Pleasant PrairieJoliet 29
J.H. CampbellWaukegan
MARBLEHEAD LIME CO.Will County
JERRITT CANYON LWD
South Oak CreekPowerton
Superior Special ServicesCLARIAN HEALTHCrawfordR.M. Schahfer Joliet 9Rockport
Marblehead Lime (South Chicago)BALL MEMORIAL FiskState LineEdgewaterVULCAN MCCOOK LIMEMonroe Power PlantMonticelloParkview Mem. Hosp.
WI IL
MI IL IL IL NV KY WI IL WI IN IL IN IL IN IL IN IL IN WI IL MI TX IN
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Cumulative Fraction of Hg Deposition
0
5
10
15
20
25
Ra
nk
coal-fired elec gen
other fuel combustion
waste incineration
metallurgical
manufacturing/other
33
source-attribution –
the “big picture”
34
Freemont Glacier, Wyoming
source: USGS, Shuster et al., 2002
Natural vs. anthropogenicmercury?
Studies show that anthropogenic activities have typically increased bioavailable Hg concentrations in ecosystems by afactor of 2 – 10
35
Average mercury accumulation rate relative to pre-industrial (1800-1850)accumulation rate in five lakes in Northern Alaska (based on sediment cores)
from Fitzgerald et al. (2005), “Modern and Historic Atmospheric Mercury Fluxes in Northern Alaska: Global Sources and Arctic Depletion” Environ Sci Tech 39, 557-568
Hg flux / pre-industrial Hg flux
another example of atmospheric deposition flux increasing due to anthropogenic emissions
36
What is the relative importance of global,
national, regional, and local sources?
37
?
Data used by EPA to support recent Clean Air Mercury Rule
38
Data from Seigneur et al. (2004) model paper
Percentage US Contribution to Deposition
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Est
imate
d T
ota
l De
posi
tion (
ug m-2
yr-1
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
r2 = 0.53
the Seigneur et al. (2004) paper shows that, for regions where deposition is high, the impact of local/regional sources is the main cause for these elevated concentrations.
(slide courtesy of Rob Mason, Univ. of CT)
[Seigneur et al., (2004), “Global Source Attribution for Mercury Deposition in the United States”, ES&T 38, 555-569.]
1999 Hg Emissions
39
Results from the EPA REMSAD Mercury model
Source: slide developed by Anne Pope for the Hg Roundtable conference call April 21, 2005
Percent non-US for 1998
40
Jan-96Feb-96
Mar-96Apr-96
May-96Jun-96
Jul-96Aug-96
Sep-96Oct-96
Nov-96Dec-96
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
cum
ulat
ive
depo
sitio
n (u
g H
g/m
2)
measuredmodeled
Cumulative Wet Deposition at MDN_MD_13
Modeled vs. Measured Wet Deposition at Mercury Deposition Network Site MD_13 during 1996
HYSPLIT modeling has shown thatin areas of significant local and regional anthropogenic sources,ambient measurements can be explained reasonably well by considering only these local and regional anthropogenic sources.
41
For areas without large emissions sources
the deposition may be relatively low, but what deposition there is may largely come from
natural and global sources
For areas with large emissions sources
the deposition will be higher and be more strongly influenced by these large
emissions sources...
Source-apportionment answers depend a lot on where you are
42
What is the relative importance of global, national, regional, and local sources?
Possible answers are emerging as our understanding improves, but
there is no scientific consensus yet...
43
Conclusions
Impacts are episodic & depend on form of mercury emitted
Source-attribution information is important
Modeling needed to get source-attribution information
(more!) Monitoring needed for model evaluation & refinement
Many uncertainties but useful model results are emerging – these HYSPLIT model results are being extended to include global & natural emissions, and re-emissions
The question of the relative importance of global vs. national vs. regional vs. local sources is complex – the answer depends on location and on what model one is using...