Atmospheric Mercury Modeling Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory (ARL)

Atmospheric Mercury Modeling

Dr. Mark CohenNOAA Air Resources Laboratory (ARL)

College Park, MD, USA

Meeting with John Sherwell, Power Plant Research Program

Maryland Department of Natural ResourcesApril 2, 2013, NCWCP, College Park MD

NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 2April 2, 2013

Trajectory-based Analysis

Meteorological Analysis

HYSPLIT-Hg – Great Lakes

HYSPLIT-Hg – Maryland

CMAQ-Hg – Li Pan

CAM-Chem-Hg -- Hang Lei

this talk

MODELING PRESENTATION OUTLINE






CMAQ-Hg – Li Pan


this talk


NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 4

When we see high concentrations of mercury, where did the air come from?

07:

30 0

8:30

09:

30 1

0:30

11:

30 1

2:30

13:

30 1

4:30

15:

30 1

6:30

(Eastern Standard Time)January 7, 2007

0

20

40

60

80

100

RG

M (p

g/m

3)

Reactive Gaseous Mercury episodeBeltsville, Maryland

mercury site

April 2, 2013

NOAA Air Resources Laboratory

07:

30 0

8:30

09:

30 1

0:30

11:

30 1

2:30

13:

30 1

4:30

15:

30 1

6:30


0

20

40

60

80

100

RG

M (p

g/m

3)

07:

30 0

8:30

09:

30 1

0:30

11:

30 1

2:30

13:

30 1

4:30

15:

30 1

6:30


0

20

40

60

80

100

RG

M (p

g/m

3)

07:

30 0

8:30

09:

30 1

0:30

11:

30 1

2:30

13:

30 1

4:30

15:

30 1

6:30


0

20

40

60

80

100

RG

M (p

g/m

3)

07:

30 0

8:30

09:

30 1

0:30

11:

30 1

2:30

13:

30 1

4:30

15:

30 1

6:30


0

20

40

60

80

100

RG

M (p

g/m

3)

07:

30 0

8:30

09:

30 1

0:30

11:

30 1

2:30

13:

30 1

4:30

15:

30 1

6:30


0

20

40

60

80

100

RG

M (p

g/m

3)

07:

30 0

8:30

09:

30 1

0:30

11:

30 1

2:30

13:

30 1

4:30

15:

30 1

6:30


0

20

40

60

80

100

RG

M (p

g/m

3)

07:

30 0

8:30

09:

30 1

0:30

11:

30 1

2:30

13:

30 1

4:30

15:

30 1

6:30


0

20

40

60

80

100

RG

M (p

g/m

3)

07:

30 0

8:30

09:

30 1

0:30

11:

30 1

2:30

13:

30 1

4:30

15:

30 1

6:30


0

20

40

60

80

100

RG

M (p

g/m

3)

07:

30 0

8:30

09:

30 1

0:30

11:

30 1

2:30

13:

30 1

4:30

15:

30 1

6:30


0

20

40

60

80

100

RG

M (p

g/m

3)

07:

30 0

8:30

09:

30 1

0:30

11:

30 1

2:30

13:

30 1

4:30

15:

30 1

6:30


0

20

40

60

80

100

RG

M (p

g/m

3)

5

Chesap

eake

BayBaltimore

Washington D.C.

When we see high concentrations of mercury, where did the air come from?

April 2, 2013


Gridded Trajectory Frequency and Residence Time Analysis

Rolison, J.M., W.M. Landing, W. Luke, M. Cohen, V.J.M. Salters. Isotopic Composition of Species-Specific Atmospheric Hg in a Coastal Environment. Chemical Geology 336, 37-49, 2013.

April 2, 2013

• Distinctly different air mass patterns with different isotopic GEM signatures

• Low d202Hg GEM samples appear associated with uniformly marine air masses

• Hg(II)(aq) photoreduction to Hg(0)(aq) and subsequent volatilization has been shown to exhibit mass dependent fractionation --> enrichment in light isotopes in product Hg(0)

• Thus, less Hg202, a heavier isotope, associated with the marine air masses






CMAQ-Hg – Li Pan


this talk


Preliminary Atmospheric Monitoring Data from EPA/NOAA Beltsville SiteMercury Data courtesy of Winston Luke and Paul Kelley, NOAA; Trace Gas Data courtesy of EPA CASTNet/Mactec

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

4004/

15/0

8 0:

004/

15/0

8 3:

004/

15/0

8 6:

004/

15/0

8 9:

004/

15/0

8 12

:00

4/15

/08

15:0

04/

15/0

8 18

:00

4/15

/08

21:0

04/

16/0

8 0:

004/

16/0

8 3:

004/

16/0

8 6:

004/

16/0

8 9:

004/

16/0

8 12

:00

4/16

/08

15:0

04/

16/0

8 18

:00

4/16

/08

21:0

04/

17/0

8 0:

004/

17/0

8 3:

004/

17/0

8 6:

004/

17/0

8 9:

004/

17/0

8 12

:00

4/17

/08

15:0

04/

17/0

8 18

:00

4/17

/08

21:0

04/

18/0

8 0:

004/

18/0

8 3:

004/

18/0

8 6:

004/

18/0

8 9:

004/

18/0

8 12

:00

4/18

/08

15:0

04/

18/0

8 18

:00

4/18

/08

21:0

04/

19/0

8 0:

004/

19/0

8 3:

004/

19/0

8 6:

004/

19/0

8 9:

004/

19/0

8 12

:00

4/19

/08

15:0

04/

19/0

8 18

:00

4/19

/08

21:0

04/

20/0

8 0:

004/

20/0

8 3:

004/

20/0

8 6:

004/

20/0

8 9:

004/

20/0

8 12

:00

4/20

/08

15:0

04/

20/0

8 18

:00

4/20

/08

21:0

04/

21/0

8 0:

00

Local Date/Time (Eastern Standard Time)

RGM

(pg/

m3)

, FPM

(pg/

m3)

, CO

* 0

.1 (p

pb),

SO2

* 5

(ppb

), O

3 (p

pb)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

GEM

(ng/

m3)

CO * 0.1

SO2 * 5.0

O3

FPM average

FPM-D1

FPM-D2

FPM-D3

FPM-D4

RGM average

RGM-D1

RGM-D2

RGM-D3

RGM-D4

GEM average

GEM-D1

GEM-D2

GEM-D3

GEM-D4

EpisodeBV-20

episode analysis --> can we understand peaks?

South-west corner (km) Number of cells Resolution (km)

Starting point relative to mother domain

X-origin Y-origin Easting Northing X-direction Y-direction

D01 -2808 -2268 157 127 36 1 1D02 180 -1548 193 223 12 84 21D03 1524 -180 163 151 4 113 115

Projection center: 40N, 100WStandard latitude: 30N, 60N

Layers: 43, with model top at 50 mb (1st layer thickness is 33 m and 15 layers are below 850 mb)

Domain configuration

D01

D02

D03

10

from Fantine Ngan, Air Resources Laboratory

ANE1: base case (EDAS IC/BC, 3D FDDA)

ANE13: ANE1 + OBJ IC/BC + SFC FDDA + obs nudging

ANE23: ANE13 but PX LSM, AMC2

Time series at Beltsville site

11

April 2, 2013 12






CMAQ-Hg – Li Pan


this talk



Modeling Atmospheric Mercury Deposition to the Great Lakes. Final Report for work conducted with FY2010 funding from theGreat Lakes Restoration Initiative. December 16, 2011.Mark Cohen, Roland Draxler, Richard Artz. NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD, USA. 160 pages.

http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/reports/GLRI_FY2010_Atmospheric_Mercury_Final_Report_2011_Dec_16.pdfhttp://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/reports/Figures_Tables_GLRI_NOAA_Atmos_Mercury_Report_Dec_16_2011.pptx

One-page summary: http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/reports/GLRI_Atmos_Mercury_Summary.pdf

April 2, 2013


2005 Atmospheric Mercury Emissions (Direct Anthropogenic + Re-emit + Natural)

Policy-Relevant Scenario Analysis

April 2, 2013

To simulate the global transport of mercury, puffs are transferred to Eulerian grid after a specified time downwind (~2 weeks), and the mercury is simulated on that grid from then on…

When puffs grow to sizes large relative to the meteorological data grid, they split, horizontally and/or vertically

This is how we model the local & regional impacts.

But for global modeling, puff splitting overwhelms computational resources

16


y = 0.95xR² = 0.59

y = 1.44xR² = 0.15

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Mod

eled

Mer

cury

Wet

Dep

ositi

on (u

g/m

2-yr

)

Measured Mercury Wet Deposition (ug/m2-yr)

MDN sites in the "western" Great Lakes regionMDN sites in the "eastern" Great Lakes region1:1 lineLinear (MDN sites in the "western" Great Lakes region)Linear (MDN sites in the "eastern" Great Lakes region)

Error bars shown are the range in model predictions obtainedwith different precipitation adjustment schemes (none, all,EDAS only, NCEP/NCAR only)

Error bars shown are the range in model predictions obtainedwith different precipitation adjustment schemes (none, all,EDAS only, NCEP/NCAR only)

Modeled vs. Measured Wet Deposition of Mercury at Sites in the Great Lakes Region

April 2, 2013


Standard source locations, MDN sites, and mercury emissions in the Great Lakes region


Geographical Distribution of 2005 Atmospheric Mercury Deposition Contributions to Lake Erie

Policy-Relevant Scenario Analysis

Keep track of the contributions from each source, and add them up

April 2, 2013


-500

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

< 50

0 km

500

-1,0

00 k

m

1,00

0 -3

,000

km

3,00

0 -1

0,00

0 km

10,0

00 -

20,0

00 km

Mer

cury

Em

issio

ns (

Mg/

yr)

Distance of Emissions Source from the Center of Lake Erie

Emissions from Natural Sources

Emissions from Re-Emissions

Emissions from Anthropogenic Sources

A tiny fraction of 2005 global mercury emissions within 500 km of Lake Erie

-

50

100

150

200

250

< 50

0 km

500

-1,0

00 k

m

1,00

0 -3,

000

km

3,00

0 -10

,000

km

10,0

00 -2

0,00

0 km

Dep

ositi

on C

ontr

ibuti

on (

kg/y

r)

Distance of Emissions Source from the Center of Lake Erie

Contributions from Natural Sources

Contributions from Re-Emissions

Contributions from Anthropogenic Sources

Modeling results show that these “regional” emissions are responsible for a large fraction of the modeled 2005 atmospheric deposition

Important policy implications!

Results can be shown in many ways…

April 2, 2013


DETR

OIT

EDI

SON

MO

NRO

E PO

WER

CON

ESVI

LLE

RELI

ANT

ENER

GY A

VON

LAKE

FIRS

TEN

ERGY

CO

RP E

ASTL

AKE

RELI

ANT

ENER

GY K

EYST

ON

EN

antic

oke

Gene

ratin

g St

ation

PA P

OW

ER C

O B

RUCE

MAN

SFIE

LD P

LTDE

TRO

IT E

DISO

N T

REN

TON

CHA

NN

ELCA

RDIN

AL P

OW

ER P

LAN

TRE

LIAN

T EN

ERGY

SHA

WVI

LLE

W. H

. SAM

MIS

PLA

NT

DUN

KIRK

STE

AM G

ENER

ATIN

G S

TATI

ON

HOM

ER C

ITY

OL

HOM

ER C

ITY

GEN

STA

CLEV

ELAN

D EL

ECTR

IC A

SHTA

BULA

TOLE

DO E

DISO

N C

O. B

AY S

HORE

OHI

O P

OW

ER -

MIT

CHEL

L PLA

NT

ALLE

GHEN

Y EN

ERGY

HAT

FIEL

DS F

ERRY

MO

NO

NGA

HELA

PO

WER

FO

RT M

ARTI

N

J RW

HITI

NG

CODE

TRO

IT E

DISO

N R

IVER

RO

UGE

OHI

O P

OW

ER -

KAM

MER

PLA

NT

ALLE

GHEN

Y EN

ERGY

ARM

STRO

NG

ORI

ON

PO

WER

NEW

CAS

TLE

DETR

OIT

EDI

SON

ST.

CLA

IRM

OU

NT

STO

RM P

OW

ER P

LAN

T

R. E

. BU

RGER

PLA

NT

HUN

TLEY

STE

AM G

ENER

ATIN

G ST

ATIO

N

APPA

LACH

IAN

PO

WER

-JO

HN E

AM

OS

Dom

tar P

aper

John

sonb

urg

Mill

CLEV

ELAN

D EL

ECTR

IC LA

KE S

HORE

PLA

NT

Lam

bton

Gen

erati

ng S

tatio

n

PPG

INDU

STRI

ES O

HIO

CIR

CLEV

ILLE

Essr

oc C

emen

t Cor

p.

LAFA

RGE

SYST

ECH

ENVI

RON

MEN

TAL C

ORP

.

Nia

gara

Fal

ls

ROSS

INCI

NER

ATIO

N S

ERVI

CES

INC.

Biom

edic

al W

aste

Inci

nera

tion_

4320

Biom

edic

al W

aste

Inci

nera

tion_

4245

STER

ICYC

LE IN

C

VON

RO

LL A

MER

ICA

INC

Biom

edic

al W

aste

Inci

nera

tion_

4319

CEN

TRAL

WAY

NE

ENER

GY R

ECO

VERY

Repu

blic

Eng

inee

red

Stee

ls In

c

NO

RTHS

TAR

BLU

ESCO

PE S

TEEL

LLC

AK S

TEEL

CO

RPO

RATI

ON

Nor

th S

tar S

teel

ISG

CLEV

ELAN

D IN

C.Va

ndM

STA

R

ASHT

A CH

EMIC

ALS

INC

GE R

AVEN

NA

LAM

P PL

ANT

MI

OH

OH

OH

OH

OH

PAO

N PAM

I OH PA

OH N

Y PA OH O

H WV IN PA W

V OH M

I MI

WV NY PA PA M

IW

V OH OH OH OH NY OH

WV ON ON PA OH OH ON OH ON M

IO

H OH OH M

I

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cum

ulati

ve F

racti

on o

f Tot

al

Mod

eled

Dep

ositi

on (2

005)

Rank of Source's Atmospheric Mercury Deposition Contribution to Lake Erie

Top 50 Atmospheric Deposition Contributors to Lake Erie

coal fired power plants

other fuel combustion

waste incineration

metallurgical

manufacturing and other

Based on estimated 2005 mercury emissions, e.g., from the 2005 USEPA National Emissions Inventory, and atmospheric fate and transport simulations with the NOAA HYSPLIT-Hg model

April 2, 2013

NOAA Air Resources Laboratory

Natural23%

Ocean Re-emission

14%

U.S.32%

China14%

Canada3%

India2%

Other Countries12%

Sources of Mercury Deposition to the Great Lakes Basin2005 Baseline Analysis

Total = 11,300 kg/yr

Natural16%

Ocean Re-emission

10%

U.S.49%

China10%

Canada4%

India1%

Other Countries9%

Sources of Mercury Deposition to the Lake Erie Basin

2005 Baseline Analysis

Total = 2,300 kg/yr

22April 2, 2013






CMAQ-Hg – Li Pan


this talk


Smith Mountain Lake

Lake Anna

MDNVA28 MDN

VA08

MDNVA98

MDNMD08

MDN MD99

MDNPA00

MDNPA47

MDNPA60

MDNPA13

CamdenLiberty Lake

Reservoir

Prettyboy Reservoir

Deep Creek LakeLoch Raven

Reservoir

Tuckahoe Creek

Watershed

Blackwater WildlifeRefuge

St. Mary’s River Watershed

Rock Creek Watershed

Savage River Reservoir

Chesapeake Bay

CanaanValley

Institute

area and point receptors in and around Maryland in

recent HYSPLIT-Hg modeling

24

Receptor Number Receptor Name Number of

polygonsArea

(km2)Centroid Latitude

Centroid Longitude

14 Chesapeake Bay 56 11,800 38.08 -76.29

15 Chesapeake Bay Watershed 182 162,600 39.68 -77.42

16 Liberty Reservoir 12 13 39.43 -76.89

17 Liberty Reservoir Watershed 24 404 39.51 -76.93

18 Prettyboy Reservoir 12 8 39.64 -76.75

19 Prettyboy Reservoir Watershed 33 182 39.66 -76.80

20 Loch Raven Reservoir 27 12 39.46 -76.58

21 Loch Raven Reservoir Watershed 15 499 39.56 -76.67

22 Rock Creek Watershed 8 213 39.05 -77.09

23 St. Mary’s River Watershed 15 221 38.21 -76.48

24 Tuckahoe Creek Watershed 6 395 38.99 -75.92

26 Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge 11 22 38.42 -76.12

51 Deep Creek Lake 13 19 39.50 -79.31

52 Deep Creek Lake Watershed 37 140 39.51 -79.31

53 Savage River Reservoir 10 1.4 39.52 -79.14

54 Savage River Reservoir Watershed 22 297 39.57 -79.11

25 Lake Anna (VA) 16 68 38.07 -77.81

64 Smith Mountain Lake (VA) 11 93 37.08 -79.63

Maryland-Region Area Receptors Included in Recent HYSPLIT-Hg Modeling Exercises

25


These receptors – and numerous point receptors – in and around Maryland have been included in recent HYSPLIT-Hg modeling…

To date, not enough resources to provide computational intensity required to produce source-attribution estimates for these Maryland receptors…

However, could be carried out, and in doing so, can leverage earlier model runs, i.e., can use all the runs done for the Great Lakes analysis, and just need to add simulations from “standard sources” in the Maryland region.

April 2, 2013

27

Thanks!

April 2, 2013

Documents

Atmospheric Mercury Modeling Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory (ARL)