Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons · Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons Presentation at Collaborative Meeting on Modeling Mercury in Freshwater Environments Niagara

Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons

Presentation atCollaborative Meeting on Modeling Mercury

in Freshwater Environments Niagara Falls, NY, January 19-20, 2006

Dr. Mark CohenNOAA Air Resources Laboratory

1315 East West Highway, R/ARL, Room 3316

Silver Spring, Maryland, [email protected]

http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ss/transport/cohen.html

2. Local Deposition Comparison:HYSPLIT-Hg vs.ISC (Gaussian Plume)


3. Comparison of Utility Contributions to the Great Lakes:HYSPLIT-Hg vs. CMAQ-Hg

4. Summary

2

1. EMEP Mercury Model Intercomparison




4. Summary

3


EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury

BudgetsDry DepWet DepRGMHg(p)Hg0Chemistry

Conclu-sions

Stage IIIStage IIStage IIntro-duction

4

ParticipantsD. Syrakov …………………………….. Bulgaria….NIMHA. Dastoor, D. Davignon ……………… Canada...... MSC-CanJ. Christensen …………………………. Denmark…NERIG. Petersen, R. Ebinghaus …………...... Germany…GKSSJ. Pacyna ………………………………. Norway…..NILUJ. Munthe, I. Wängberg ……………….. Sweden….. IVLR. Bullock ………………………………USA………EPAM. Cohen, R. Artz, R. Draxler ………… USA………NOAAC. Seigneur, K. Lohman ………………..USA……... AER/EPRIA. Ryaboshapko, I. Ilyin, O.Travnikov…EMEP……MSC-E



Conclu-sions


5

Intercomparison Conducted in 3 Stages

I. Comparison of chemical schemes for a cloud environment

II. Air Concentrations in Short Term Episodes

III. Long-Term Deposition and Source-Receptor Budgets



Conclu-sions


6

Stage

Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory model, US NOAAHYSPLIT

MSC-E heavy metal hemispheric model, EMEP MSC-EMSCE-HM-Hem

Acid Deposition and Oxidants Model, GKSS Research Center, Germany ADOM

MSC-E heavy metal regional model, EMEP MSC-EMSCE-HM

Community Multi-Scale Air Quality model, US EPACMAQ

Eulerian Model for Air Pollution, Bulgarian Meteo-serviceEMAP

Chemistry of Atmos. Mercury model, Environmental Institute, SwedenCAM

Mercury Chemistry Model, Atmos. & Environmental Research, USA MCM

Danish Eulerian Hemispheric Model, National Environmental Institute DEHM

Global/Regional Atmospheric Heavy Metal model, Environment CanadaGRAHM

IIIIII

Model Name and InstitutionModel Acronym

Participating Models



Conclu-sions


7







Conclu-sions


8

Hg(II), Reactive Gaseous Mercury [RGM]Elemental Mercury [Hg(0)]

Particulate Mercury [Hg(p)]

Atmospheric Mercury

Re-emission of previously

deposited mercury

PrimaryAnthropogenic

Emissions

Naturalemissions Wet and Dry Deposition

CLOUD DROPLET

cloud

Hg(II) reduced to Hg(0) by SO2 and sunlight

Hg(0) oxidized to dissolved Hg(II) species by O3, OH,

HOCl, OCl-

Adsorption/desorptionof Hg(II) to/from soot

Hg(p)

Vapor phase Hg(0) oxidized to RGM and Hg(p) by O3,

H202, Cl2, OH, HCl Hg(p) Dissolution?



Conclu-sions


9

Variation of Hg concentrations (ng/L)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

TCM AER CAM MSC-E CMAQ

Models

Con

cent

ratio

n, n

g/L



Conclu-sions


10

Stage I Publications:2001 Ryaboshapko, A., Ilyin, I., Bullock, R., Ebinghaus, R., Lohman,

K., Munthe, J., Petersen, G., Seigneur, C., Wangberg, I. Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury. Stage I. Comparisons of Chemical Modules for Mercury Transformations in a Cloud/Fog Environment. Meteorological Synthesizing Centre – East, Moscow, Russia.

2002 Ryaboshapko, A., Bullock, R., Ebinghaus, R., Ilyin, I., Lohman, K., Munthe, J., Petersen, G., Seigneur, C., Wangberg, I. Comparison of Mercury Chemistry Models. Atmospheric Environment 36, 3881-3898.

11



Conclu-sions


11







Conclu-sions


12

SO3=, HO2SO3

=SO3=SO3

=SO3=, HO2SO3

=SO3=, hv, HO2

Liquid-phase reduction agents

O3O3O3O3O3, OH!, HOCl,

OCl-O3O3, OH!, HOCl, OCl-Liquid-phase oxidation agents

O3 (f)O3O3O3, OH!O3, H2O2,Cl2, HClO3O3, H2O2, Cl2, OH·Gas-phase oxidation

agents

200none10102017TPM boundary condition (pg/m3)

00none105217RGM boundary condition (pg/m3)

1.6 - 1.71.5No1.51.51.51.7Hg(0) boundary condition (ng/m3)

50 x 5050 x 50150 x 1501o x 1o50 x 5036 x 36,

108 x 10855 x 5536 x 36Horizontal resolution (km, unless noted differently)

3.915305151015Model top height (km)

SDA,NCEP/NCAR

reanalysis

NCEP / NCAR reanalysis

Canadian Meteorolo-gical Centre

SDA,NCEP/NCAR

reanalysis

NCEP/NCAR (MM-5)HIRLAMECMWF TOGA

reanalysis (MM5)Source of meteorological data

regional/EMEPHemisphericglobalregional/

EMEPregional/EMEP

regional/ Central Europe

regional/Central and

Northern Europe

Scale/Domain

EulerianEulerianEulerianEulerianLagrangianEulerianEulerianModel type

MSCE-HgDEHMGRAHMEMAPHYSPLITADOMCMAQ-HgModel



Conclu-sions


13

Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions Inventoryand Monitoring Sites for Phase II

(note: only showing largest emitting grid cells)

Mace Head, Ireland grassland shore Rorvik, Sweden

forested shore

Aspvreten, Sweden forested shore

Zingst, Germanysandy shore

Neuglobsow, Germany forested area



Conclu-sions


14

Neuglobsow

Zingst

AspvretenRorvik

Mace Head



Conclu-sions


15

Total Gaseous Mercury at Neuglobsow: June 26 – July 6, 1995

26-Jun 28-Jun 30-Jun 02-Jul 04-Jul 06-Jul 00.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Tota

l Gas

eous

Mer

cury

(ng/

m3)

MEASURED

NWNW

NW

N

N

S

SE

NW

Neuglobsow



Conclu-sions


16

Total Gaseous Mercury (ng/m3) at Neuglobsow: June 26 – July 6, 1995

26-Jun 28-Jun 30-Jun 02-Jul 04-Jul 06-Jul01234 MEASURED

26-Jun 28-Jun 30-Jun 02-Jul 04-Jul 06-Jul01234 MSCE

26-Jun 28-Jun 30-Jun 02-Jul 04-Jul 06-Jul01234 CMAQ

26-Jun 28-Jun 30-Jun 02-Jul 04-Jul 06-Jul01234 GRAHM

26-Jun 28-Jun 30-Jun 02-Jul 04-Jul 06-Jul01234 EMAP

26-Jun 28-Jun 30-Jun 02-Jul 04-Jul 06-Jul01234 DEHM

26-Jun 28-Jun 30-Jun 02-Jul 04-Jul 06-Jul01234 ADOM

26-Jun 28-Jun 30-Jun 02-Jul 04-Jul 06-Jul01234 HYSPLIT



Conclu-sions


17

Total Gaseous Mercury (ng/m3) at Neuglobsow: June 26 – July 6, 1995

26-Jun 28-Jun 30-Jun 02-Jul 04-Jul 06-Jul01234 MEASURED

26-Jun 28-Jun 30-Jun 02-Jul 04-Jul 06-Jul01234 MSCE

Using default emissions inventory

The emissions inventory is a critical input to the models…

26-Jun 28-Jun 30-Jun 02-Jul 04-Jul 06-Jul01234 MSCE - UBA

Using alternative emissions inventory



Conclu-sions


18

Total Particulate Mercury (pg/m3) at Neuglobsow, Nov 1-14, 1999

02-Nov 04-Nov 06-Nov 08-Nov 10-Nov 12-Nov 14-Nov0

50

100

150MEASURED


50

100

150CMAQ


50

100

150GRAHM


50

100

150EMAP


50

100

150DEHM


50

100

150ADOM


50

100

150HYSPLIT


50

100

150MSCE

19

MSCE Neuglobsow RGM

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

pg/m

3

ObsCalc

CMAQ Neuglobsow RGM

010203040506070

pg/m

3

ObsCalc

ADOM Neuglobsow RGM

010203040506070

pg/m

3

ObsCalc

EMAP Neuglobsow RGM

0

5

10

15

20

25

pg/m

3

ObsCalc

GRAHM Neuglobsow RGM

0

35

70

105

140

pg/m

3

ObsCalc

HYSPLIT Neuglobsow RGM

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

pg/m

3

ObsCalc



Conclu-sions


DEHM Neuglobsow RGM

0

6

12

18

24

30

pg/m

3

ObsCalc

Reactive Gaseous Mercury at Neuglobsow, Nov 1-14, 1999



Conclu-sions


20

Overall Phase II statistics for 2-week episode means

0

20

40

60

80

100

De viatio n fac t

Perc

enta

ge, %

2 3 5 10

TGMTPM RGM

Deviation Factor

RGM: 90% within a factor of 10

RGM: 50% within a factor of 2

TPM: 90% within a factor of 2.5

TGM: all within a factor of 1.35



Conclu-sions


21

Stage II Publications:2003 Ryaboshapko, A., Artz, R., Bullock, R., Christensen, J., Cohen, M.,

Dastoor, A., Davignon, D., Draxler, R., Ebinghaus, R., Ilyin, I., Munthe, J., Petersen, G., Syrakov, D. Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury. Stage II. Comparisons of Modeling Results with Observations Obtained During Short Term Measuring Campaigns.Meteorological Synthesizing Centre – East, Moscow, Russia.

2005 Ryaboshapko, A., Bullock, R., Christensen, J., Cohen, M., Dastoor, A., Ilyin, I., Petersen, G., Syrakov, D., Artz, R., Davignon, D., Draxler, R., and Munthe, J. Intercomparison Study of Atmospheric Mercury Models. Phase II. Comparison of Models with Short-Term Measurements. Submitted to Atmospheric Environment.

22



Conclu-sions


22





23



Conclu-sions


23

Phase III Sampling Locations



Conclu-sions


24

Due to resource constraints, not all models simulated the entire year 1999…

EMAP

DEHM

MSCE-HEM

MSCE-HM

ADOM

HYSPLIT

CMAQ

DecNovOctSepAugJulJunMayAprMarFebJan



Conclu-sions


25

DE01 DE09 NL91 NO99 SE02 SE11 SE12 SE05 FI96

Monitoring Station

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

wet

Hg

depo

sitio

n (g

/km

2-m

onth

)

Obs

MSCE-HM

MSCE-HM-Hem

HYSPLIT

DEHM

EMAP

CMAQ

August 1999 Mercury Wet Deposition



Conclu-sions


26

F2 F3 F5 F10Deviation Factor

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

ent o

f res

ults

with

in a

giv

en fa

ctor

ADOMCMAQEMAPMSCE-HMMSCE-HM-HemHYSPLITDEHM

Wet Deposition Summary

~60% within a factor of 2






Conclu-sions


27

For dry deposition, there are no measurement results to compare the models against;

However, the models can be compared against each other…



Conclu-sions


28


Monitoring Station

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8

Hg

dry

depo

sitio

n (g

/km

2-m

onth

)

model avg

MSCE-HM

MSCE-HEM

HYSPLIT

DEHM

EMAP

CMAQ

August 1999 Mercury Dry Deposition



Conclu-sions


29

Main items of mercury atmospheric balance for the UK in 1999, t/yr



Conclu-sions


30

Items of Hg atmospheric balances for the countries in 1999, t/yr[average modeled result (with ranges in parentheses)]

18.2(16–21)

8.4(7.9-9.2)

7.3 (7.0-7.8)

Outflow

2.1(1.4-2.6)

0.8(0.5-1.3)

0.3(0.2-0.6)

Dep. from European emissions

7.4(4.8-9.1)

1.3(0.6-1.9)

1.3 (0.8-1.6)

Dep. from own emissions

11.8(9.6-13.1)

4.7(3.2-6.6)

3.5(3.1-4.2)

Total deposition

PolandItalyThe UKItem



Conclu-sions


31

Stage III Publication:

2005 Ryaboshapko, A., Artz, R., Bullock, R., Christensen, J., Cohen, M., Draxler, R., Ilyin, I., Munthe, J., Pacyna, J., Petersen, G., Syrakov, D., Travnikov, O. Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury. Stage III. Comparison of Modelling Results with Long-Term Observations and Comparison of Calculated Items of Regional Balances. Meteorological Synthesizing Centre – East, Moscow, Russia.




4. Summary

32


0 - 15 15 - 30 30 - 60distance range from source (km)

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000fo

r 1 k

g/da

y so

urce

ug/m

2-ye

ar

Hg(2)_50mHg(2)_250mHg(2)_500mHg(p)_250mHg(0)_250m

Wet + Dry Deposition: ISC (Kansas City)for emissions of different mercury forms from different stack heights

Calculated from data used to produce Appendix A of USEPA (2005): Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) Technical Support Document: Methodology Used to Generate Deposition, Fish Tissue Methylmercury Concentrations, and Exposure for Determining Effectiveness of Utility Emissions Controls: Analysis of Mercury from Electricity Generating Units 33


0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

for 1

kg/

day

sour

ceug

/m2-

year


Wet + Dry Deposition: HYSPLIT (Nebraska)for emissions of different mercury forms from different stack heights


0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

for 1

kg/

day

sour

ceug

/m2-

year


Wet + Dry Deposition: ISC (Kansas City)for emissions of different mercury forms from different stack heights


0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

for 1

kg/

day

sour

ceug

/m2-

year


Wet + Dry Deposition: ISC (Tampa)for emissions of different mercury forms from different stack heights


0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

for 1

kg/

day

sour

ceug

/m2-

year


Wet + Dry Deposition: ISC (Phoenix)for emissions of different mercury forms from different stack heights


0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000fo

r 1 k

g/da

y so

urce

ug/m

2-ye

ar


Wet + Dry Deposition: ISC (Indianapolis)for emissions of different mercury forms from different stack heights

HYSPLIT 1996

ISC: 1990-1994

Different Time Periods and Locations, but Similar Results

34




4. Summary

35


HYSPLIT-Hg results for Lake Erie (1999)

municipal waste incin --medical waste incin --

hazardous waste incin --industrial waste incin --

other waste incin --

chloralkali --other chemical manuf --

pulp/paper --cement/concrete --

mining --metallurgical processes --lamp manuf & breakage --

other manufacturing --other --

other fuel combustion --natural gas combustion --

mobile sources --oil combustion (non-mobile) --coal combustion (comm/ind) --

coal-fired elec gen not IPM --

coal-fired elec gen IPM --

0 1 2 3 4 5 6Total Atmos. Dep Flux to Lake Erie (g Hg/km2-year)

USACanada

37

HYSPLIT-Hg results for Lake Erie (1999)

Modeled Mercury Deposition in the Great Lakes Region from all sources during 2001

Modeled Mercury Deposition in the Great Lakes Region attributable to U.S. coal-fired power plants during 2001

CMAQ-Hg results from EPA analysis performed for the Clean Air Mercury Rule

Erie Ontario Michigan Huron Superior0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Dep

ositi

on (u

g/m

2-ye

ar) HYSPLIT

CMAQ

Model-estimated U.S. utility atmospheric mercury deposition contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-HG (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions).

39

Erie Ontario Michigan Huron Superior0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Dep

ositi

on (u

g/m

2-ye

ar) HYSPLIT

25% added to CMAQCMAQ

Model-estimated U.S. utility atmospheric mercury deposition contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions).

This figure also shows an added component of the CMAQ-Hg estimates -- corresponding to 30% of the CMAQ-Hg results – in an attempt to adjust the CMAQ-Hg results to account for the deposition underprediction found in the CMAQ-Hg model evaluation.

40




4. Summary

41


Summary of Model Intercomparisons

Extremely useful for improving models

Opportunity to work together and pool resources (e.g., everyone doesn’t have to create their own inventory or assemble monitoring data for evaluation)

Funding is a problem… most studies do not fund the individual participants….

10% of the work is doing the initial modeling analysis;

90% of the work is trying to figure out why the models are different – but we rarely have the resources to do much of this

Thanks!

Extra Slides



Conclu-sions


45

Effect of Different Assumptions Regarding Hg(p) SolubilityAER/EPRI 0%; MSCE-EMEP 50%; CMAQ-EPA 100%

0

50

100

150

0 12 24 36 48

Hours

Con

cent

ratio

n, n

g/L

AER EPRIMSCE EMEPCMAQ EPA

2000 European anthropogenic Hg emissions

240 t/yr



Conclu-sions


European anthropogenic Hg re-emissions

50 t/yr

European natural Hg emissions

180 t/yr



Conclu-sions


global natural Hg emissions1800 t/yr

1995 global anthropogenic Hg emissions1900 t/yr



Conclu-sions


48

There are uncertainties in measurements --even of precipitation amount…

NL91 De Zilk

020406080

100120140160

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Months

Pre

cipi

tatio

n am

ount

, mm

HM samplerHg sampler

FI96 Pallas

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Months

Pre

cipi

tatio

n am

ount

, mm

HM samplerHg sampler



Conclu-sions



Monitoring Station

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

wet

Hg

depo

sitio

n (g

/km

2-m

onth

)

Obs

MSCE-HM

MSCE-HM-Hem

HYSPLIT

DEHM

EMAP

ADOM

CMAQ

February 1999 Mercury Wet Deposition

49



Conclu-sions


50


Monitoring Station

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

wet

Hg

depo

sitio

n (g

/km

2-ye

ar)

Obs

MSCE-HM

MSCE-HM-Hem

DEHM

EMAP

Full Year 1999 Mercury Wet Deposition



Conclu-sions


51


Monitoring Station

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Hg

dry

depo

sitio

n (g

/km

2-m

onth

)

model avg

MSCE-HM

MSCE-HEM

HYSPLIT

DEHM

EMAP

ADOM

CMAQ

February 1999 Mercury Dry Deposition



Conclu-sions


52


Monitoring Station

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Hg

dry

depo

sitio

n (g

/km

2-ye

ar)

model avg

MSCE-HM

MSCE-HEM

DEHM

EMAP

Full Year 1999 Mercury Dry Deposition



Conclu-sions


53

In the following, the total model-predicted deposition (= wet + dry) is compared



Conclu-sions


54

February 1999

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

NL91 DE09 DE01 SE11 SE02 NO99 SE12 SE05 FI96

Stations from south to north

Tota

l Hg

depo

sitio

n,

g/km

2 /y

ADOMEMAPMSCE-HMMSCE_HM_HemHYSPLITDEHMCMAQ

Total Modeled Hg Deposition (wet + dry)



Conclu-sions


55

Total Modeled Hg Deposition (wet + dry)August 1999

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5



Tota

l Hg

depo

sitio

n,

g/km

2 /y

ADOMEMAPMSCE-HMMSCE-HM-HemHYSPLITDEHMCMAQ

Note: ADOM was not run for August, so for this graph, ADOM results for July were used



Conclu-sions


56

Total Modeled Hg Deposition (wet + dry)1999 as whole

0

5

10

15

20



Tota

l Hg

depo

sitio

n,

g/km

2 /y

EMAPMSCE-HM

MSCE-HM-HemDEHM



Conclu-sions


57

11903342400.391.03Maximum

7301641700.190.65MSCE-HM-Hem

10702612350.160.54MSCE-HM

300143760.100.24Minimum

PolandItalyThe UKDryWet

Total deposition over the countries in Feb 1999, kg

Deposition over polluted area in Feb

1999, g/km2Range

EMEP model results in relation to the other models



Conclu-sions


58

Conclusions: Uncertainties in Mercury Modeling

• Elemental Hg in air - factor of 1.2• Particulate Hg in air - factor of 1.5• Oxidized gaseous Hg in air - factor of 5• Total Hg in precipitation - factor of 1.5• Wet deposition - factor of 2.0• Dry deposition - factor of 2.5• Balances for countries - factor of 2

Documents

Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons · Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons Presentation at Collaborative Meeting on Modeling Mercury in Freshwater Environments Niagara