Organization of Course

Organization of Course

INTRODUCTION

1. Course overview

2. Air Toxics overview

3. HYSPLIT overview

HYSPLIT Theory and Practice

4. Meteorology

5. Back Trajectories

6. Concentrations / Deposition

7. HYSPLIT-SV for

semivolatiles (e.g, PCDD/F)

8. HYSPLIT-HG for mercury

Overall Project Issues & Examples

9.Emissions Inventories

10.Source-Receptor Post-Processing

11.Source-Attribution for Deposition

12.Model Evaluation

13.Model Intercomparison

14.Collaboration Possibilities

So how good are current models, and how do they compare

with one another?

2

0 - 15 15 - 30 30 - 60

distance range from source (km)

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

for

1 kg

/day

sou

rce

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 3

0 - 15 15 - 30 30 - 60


0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

for

1 kg

/day

sou

rce

ug/m

2-ye

ar

Hg(2)_50m

Hg(2)_250m

Hg(2)_500m

Hg(p)_250m

Hg(0)_250m

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

0 - 15 15 - 30 30 - 60


0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

for

1 kg

/day

so

urce

ug/m

2-ye

ar

Hg(2)_50m

Hg(2)_250m

Hg(2)_500m

Hg(p)_250m

Hg(0)_250m

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

0 - 15 15 - 30 30 - 60


0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

for

1 kg

/day

so

urce

ug/m

2-ye

ar

Hg(2)_50m

Hg(2)_250m

Hg(2)_500m

Hg(p)_250m

Hg(0)_250m

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

0 - 15 15 - 30 30 - 60


0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

for

1 kg

/day

so

urce

ug/m

2-ye

ar

Hg(2)_50m

Hg(2)_250m

Hg(2)_500m

Hg(p)_250m

Hg(0)_250m

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

0 - 15 15 - 30 30 - 60


0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000fo

r 1

kg/d

ay s

our

ceug

/m2-

year

Hg(2)_50m

Hg(2)_250m

Hg(2)_500m

Hg(p)_250m

Hg(0)_250m

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

4

Erie Ontario Michigan Huron Superior0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

De

po

sitio

n (

ug

/m2

-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).

5

Erie Ontario Michigan Huron Superior0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

De

po

sitio

n (

ug

/m2

-ye

ar)

HYSPLIT

25% added to CMAQ

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).

This figure also shows an added component of the CMAQ-Hg estimates -- corresponding to 25% 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.

6

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

Summary presentedby Mark Cohen,

NOAA Air Resources Laboratory,

Silver Spring, MD, USA

EMEP/TFMM Workshop on the Review of the MSC-E Models on HMs and POPsOct 13-14, 2005Hotel Mir, Moscow Russia

7


Intro-duction

Stage I Stage II Stage III Conclu-sionsChemistry Hg0 Hg(p) RGM Wet Dep Dry Dep Budgets

8

ParticipantsD. Syrakov …………………………….. Bulgaria….NIMH

A. Dastoor, D. Davignon ……………… Canada...... MSC-Can

J. Christensen …………………………. Denmark…NERI

G. Petersen, R. Ebinghaus …………...... Germany…GKSS

J. Pacyna ………………………………. Norway…..NILU

J. Munthe, I. Wängberg ……………….. Sweden….. IVL

R. Bullock ………………………………USA………EPA

M. Cohen, R. Artz, R. Draxler …………USA………NOAA

C. Seigneur, K. Lohman ………………..USA……... AER/EPRI

A. Ryaboshapko, I. Ilyin, O.Travnikov… EMEP……MSC-E


Intro-duction


9

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


Intro-duction


10

Model Acronym Model Name and Institution Stage

I II III

CAM Chemistry of Atmos. Mercury model, Environmental Institute, Sweden

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

CMAQ Community Multi-Scale Air Quality model, US EPA

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

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

GRAHM Global/Regional Atmospheric Heavy Metal model, Environment Canada

EMAP Eulerian Model for Air Pollution, Bulgarian Meteo-service

DEHM Danish Eulerian Hemispheric Model, National Environmental Institute

HYSPLIT Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory model, US NOAA

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

Participating Models


Intro-duction


11

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


Intro-duction


12

Neuglobsow

Zingst

AspvretenRorvik

Mace Head


Intro-duction


13

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

26-Jun 28-Jun 30-Jun 02-Jul 04-Jul 06-Jul 08-Jul0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Tot

al G

aseo

us M

ercu

ry (

ng/m

3)

MEASURED

NW

NW

NW

N

N

S

SE

NW

Neuglobsow


Intro-duction


14

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

26-Jun 28-Jun 30-Jun 02-Jul 04-Jul 06-Jul0

1

2

3

4 MEASURED


1

2

3

4 MSCE


1

2

3

4 CMAQ


1

2

3

4 GRAHM


1

2

3

4 EMAP


1

2

3

4 DEHM


1

2

3

4 ADOM


1

2

3

4 HYSPLIT


Intro-duction


15

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

02-Nov 04-Nov 06-Nov 08-Nov 10-Nov 12-Nov 14-Nov 16-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

16

MSCE Neuglobsow RGM

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

11

/1/1

99

9

11

/2/1

99

9

11

/3/1

99

9

11

/4/1

99

9

11

/5/1

99

9

11

/6/1

99

9

11

/7/1

99

9

11

/8/1

99

9

11

/9/1

99

9

11

/10

/19

99

11

/11

/19

99

11

/12

/19

99

11

/13

/19

99

11

/14

/19

99

pg

/m3

ObsCalc

a

CMAQ Neuglobsow RGM

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1/1

1/9

9

2/1

1/9

9

3/1

1/9

9

4/1

1/9

9

5/1

1/9

9

6/1

1/9

9

7/1

1/9

9

8/1

1/9

9

9/1

1/9

9

10

/11

/99

11

/11

/99

12

/11

/99

13

/11

/99

14

/11

/99

pg

/m3

ObsCalc

a

ADOM Neuglobsow RGM

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

11

/1/9

9

11

/2/9

9

11

/3/9

9

11

/4/9

9

11

/5/9

9

11

/6/9

9

11

/7/9

9

11

/8/9

9

11

/9/9

9

11

/10/

99

11

/11/

99

11

/12/

99

11

/13/

99

11

/14/

99

pg

/m3

ObsCalc

a

EMAP Neuglobsow RGM

0

5

10

15

20

25

11

/1/1

99

9

11

/2/1

99

9

11

/3/1

99

9

11

/4/1

99

9

11

/5/1

99

9

11

/6/1

99

9

11

/7/1

99

9

11

/8/1

99

9

11

/9/1

99

9

11

/10

/19

99

11

/11

/19

99

11

/12

/19

99

11

/13

/19

99

11

/14

/19

99

pg

/m3

ObsCalc

a

GRAHM Neuglobsow RGM

0

35

70

105

140

11/1

/99

11/2

/99

11/3

/99

11/4

/99

11/5

/99

11/6

/99

11/7

/99

11/8

/99

11/9

/99

11/1

0/99

11/1

1/99

11/1

2/99

11/1

3/99

11/1

4/99

pg/m

3

ObsCalc

a

HYSPLIT Neuglobsow RGM

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

11/1

/99

11/2

/99

11/3

/99

11/4

/99

11/5

/99

11/6

/99

11/7

/99

11/8

/99

11/9

/99

11/1

0/99

11/1

1/99

11/1

2/99

11/1

3/99

11/1

4/99

pg/m

3

ObsCalc

a


BudgetsDry DepWet DepRGMHg(p)Hg0Chemistry

Conclu-sions

Stage IIIStage IIStage IIntro-duction

DEHM Neuglobsow RGM

0

6

12

18

24

30

11/1

/199

9

11/2

/199

9

11/3

/199

9

11/4

/199

9

11/5

/199

9

11/6

/199

9

11/7

/199

9

11/8

/199

9

11/9

/199

9

11/1

0/19

99

11/1

1/19

99

11/1

2/19

99

11/1

3/19

99

11/1

4/19

99

pg/m

3

ObsCalc

a

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


Intro-duction


17

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.


Intro-duction


18

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

ont

h)

Obs

MSCE-HM

MSCE-HM-Hem

HYSPLIT

DEHM

EMAP

CMAQ

August 1999 Mercury Wet Deposition


Intro-duction


19

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.


Intro-duction


20

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

Organization of Course