Upload
quentin-fleming
View
221
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 3April 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
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 4
When we see high concentrations of mercury, where did the air come from?
07
:30
08
:30
09
:30
10
:30
11
:30
12
:30
13
:30
14
:30
15
:30
16
:30
(Eastern Standard Time)
January 7, 2007
0
20
40
60
80
100
RG
M (
pg
/m3
)
Reactive Gaseous Mercury episodeBeltsville, Maryland
mercury site
April 2, 2013
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory
07
:30
08
:30
09
:30
10
:30
11
:30
12
:30
13
:30
14
:30
15
:30
16
:30
(Eastern Standard Time)
January 7, 2007
0
20
40
60
80
100
RG
M (
pg
/m3
)
07
:30
08
:30
09
:30
10
:30
11
:30
12
:30
13
:30
14
:30
15
:30
16
:30
(Eastern Standard Time)
January 7, 2007
0
20
40
60
80
100
RG
M (
pg
/m3
)
07
:30
08
:30
09
:30
10
:30
11
:30
12
:30
13
:30
14
:30
15
:30
16
:30
(Eastern Standard Time)
January 7, 2007
0
20
40
60
80
100
RG
M (
pg
/m3
)
07
:30
08
:30
09
:30
10
:30
11
:30
12
:30
13
:30
14
:30
15
:30
16
:30
(Eastern Standard Time)
January 7, 2007
0
20
40
60
80
100
RG
M (
pg
/m3
)
07
:30
08
:30
09
:30
10
:30
11
:30
12
:30
13
:30
14
:30
15
:30
16
:30
(Eastern Standard Time)
January 7, 2007
0
20
40
60
80
100
RG
M (
pg
/m3
)
07
:30
08
:30
09
:30
10
:30
11
:30
12
:30
13
:30
14
:30
15
:30
16
:30
(Eastern Standard Time)
January 7, 2007
0
20
40
60
80
100
RG
M (
pg
/m3
)
07
:30
08
:30
09
:30
10
:30
11
:30
12
:30
13
:30
14
:30
15
:30
16
:30
(Eastern Standard Time)
January 7, 2007
0
20
40
60
80
100
RG
M (
pg
/m3
)
07
:30
08
:30
09
:30
10
:30
11
:30
12
:30
13
:30
14
:30
15
:30
16
:30
(Eastern Standard Time)
January 7, 2007
0
20
40
60
80
100
RG
M (
pg
/m3
)
07
:30
08
:30
09
:30
10
:30
11
:30
12
:30
13
:30
14
:30
15
:30
16
:30
(Eastern Standard Time)
January 7, 2007
0
20
40
60
80
100
RG
M (
pg
/m3
)
07
:30
08
:30
09
:30
10
:30
11
:30
12
:30
13
:30
14
:30
15
:30
16
:30
(Eastern Standard Time)
January 7, 2007
0
20
40
60
80
100
RG
M (
pg
/m3
)
5
Chesap
eake
BayBaltimore
Washington D.C.
When we see high concentrations of mercury, where did the air come from?
April 2, 2013
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 6April 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
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 8April 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
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 1
D02 180 -1548 193 223 12 84 21
D03 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
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 13April 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
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 14
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
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 15
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
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 17
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
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 18April 2, 2013
Standard source locations, MDN sites, and mercury emissions in the Great Lakes region
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 19
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
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 20
-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
issi
ons
(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 -
20,0
00 k
m
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
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 21
DET
ROIT
ED
ISO
N M
ON
ROE
POW
ER
CON
ESVI
LLE
RELI
ANT
ENER
GY
AVO
N L
AKE
FIRS
TEN
ERG
Y CO
RP E
ASTL
AKE
RELI
ANT
ENER
GY
KEYS
TON
E
Nan
ticok
e G
ener
ating
Sta
tion
PA P
OW
ER C
O B
RUCE
MAN
SFIE
LD P
LT
DET
ROIT
ED
ISO
N T
REN
TON
CH
ANN
EL
CARD
INAL
PO
WER
PLA
NT
RELI
ANT
ENER
GY
SHAW
VILL
E
W. H
. SAM
MIS
PLA
NT
DU
NKI
RK S
TEAM
GEN
ERAT
ING
STA
TIO
N
HO
MER
CIT
Y O
L H
OM
ER C
ITY
GEN
STA
CLEV
ELAN
D E
LECT
RIC
ASH
TABU
LA
TOLE
DO
ED
ISO
N C
O. B
AY S
HO
RE
OH
IO P
OW
ER -
MIT
CHEL
L PL
ANT
ALLE
GH
ENY
ENER
GY
HAT
FIEL
DS
FERR
Y
MO
NO
NG
AHEL
A PO
WER
FO
RT M
ARTI
N
J RW
HIT
ING
CO
DET
ROIT
ED
ISO
N R
IVER
RO
UG
E
OH
IO P
OW
ER -
KAM
MER
PLA
NT
ALLE
GH
ENY
ENER
GY
ARM
STRO
NG
ORI
ON
PO
WER
NEW
CAS
TLE
DET
ROIT
ED
ISO
N S
T. C
LAIR
MO
UN
T ST
ORM
PO
WER
PLA
NT
R. E
. BU
RGER
PLA
NT
HU
NTL
EY S
TEAM
GEN
ERAT
ING
STA
TIO
N
APPA
LACH
IAN
PO
WER
-JO
HN
E A
MO
S
Dom
tar P
aper
John
sonb
urg
Mill
CLEV
ELAN
D E
LECT
RIC
LAKE
SH
ORE
PLA
NT
Lam
bton
Gen
erati
ng S
tatio
n
PPG
IND
UST
RIES
OH
IO C
IRCL
EVIL
LE
Essr
oc C
emen
t Cor
p.
LAFA
RGE
SYST
ECH
EN
VIRO
NM
ENTA
L CO
RP.
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
RECO
VERY
Repu
blic
Eng
inee
red
Stee
ls In
c
NO
RTH
STAR
BLU
ESCO
PE S
TEEL
LLC
AK S
TEEL
CO
RPO
RATI
ON
Nor
th S
tar S
teel
ISG
CLE
VELA
ND
INC.
Vand
M S
TAR
ASH
TA C
HEM
ICAL
S IN
C
GE
RAVE
NN
A LA
MP
PLAN
T
MI
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
PA
ON PA
MI O
H PA
OH N
Y PA OH O
H WV IN PA W
V OH M
I MI
WV NY PA PA M
I
WV OH OH OH OH NY OH
WV ON ON PA OH OH ON OH ON M
I
OH 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
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 23April 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
Smith Mountain Lake
Lake Anna
MDNVA28 MDN
VA08
MDNVA98
MDNMD08
MDN MD99
MDNPA00
MDNPA47
MDNPA60
MDNPA13
CamdenLiberty Lake
Reservoir
Prettyboy Reservoir
Deep Creek Lake
Loch 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
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 26
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