Advertisement

Importance of a global scale approach to using regional models in the assessment of source-receptor relationships for mercury

  • O. Russell BullockJr.
  • Lyatt Jaeglé
Chapter

Summary

Regional atmospheric models simulate their pertinent processes over a limited portion of the global atmosphere. This portion of the atmosphere can be a large fraction, as in the case of continental-scale modeling, or a small fraction, as in the case of urban-scale modeling. Regional modeling of any air pollutant requires that the meteorological and chemical conditions at the boundaries of the model domain be taken into account, especially if the pollutants are long-lived. It was once a common practice for the boundary concentrations of mercury and its reactants to be specified using time-constant values based on limited historical observation. These values were often invariant in the horizontal and vertical dimensions too. This relatively simple procedure for establishing boundary concentrations could be justified based on the previous notion that mer-cury was a rather inert and long-lasting air pollutant. However, with the subsequent discovery of rapid physical and chemical transformations of atmospheric mercury and significant concentra-tions of oxidized mercury far removed from known emission sources, the presumption of mer-cury as an inert substance has generally disappeared. The effect of intercontinental transport is now treated with greater concern in regional atmospheric mercury modeling. Global mercury models are now commonly used to define boundary values for regional mercury modeling. How-ever, the global and regional models must use consistent information for emissions, surface physiology and meteorology to achieve consistent simulation results and associated source-receptor relationships. There is certainly a need for international InstitutionalAuthorNameoration on field research and numerical model development to supply the tools needed for confident assessment of source-receptor relationships for mercury on both global and regional scales.

Keywords

Regional Model Boundary Concentration Atmospheric Mercury Regional Model Simulation Intercontinental Transport 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

16.5 References

  1. Bullock, O.R., 2000. Modeling assessment of transport and deposition patterns of anthropogenic mercury air emissions in the United States and Canada. Science of the Total Environment 259, 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bullock, O.R., Brehme, K.A., 2002. Atmospheric mercury simulation using the CMAQ model: formulation description and analysis of wet deposition results. Atmospheric Environment 36, 2135–2146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bullock, O. R., 2008b. The effect of lateral boundary values on atmospheric mercury simulations with the CMAQ model. In: Carlos Borrego and Ana Isabel Miranda, editors. Air Pollution Modeling and Its Applications XIX. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, in press.Google Scholar
  4. Bullock, O.R., Atkinson, D., Braverman, T., Civerolo, K., Dastoor, A., Davignon, D., Ku, J.-Y., Lohman, K., Myers, T., Park, R., Seigneur, C., Selin, N.E., Sistla, G., Vijayaraghavan, K., 2008a. The North American Mercury Model Intercomparison Study (NAMMIS). Part 1: Study description and model-to-model comparisons. Submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research Google Scholar
  5. Christensen, J.H., 1997. The Danish Eulerian hemispheric model - A three-dimensional air pollution model used for the Arctic. Atmospheric Environment 31, 4169–4191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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., 2004. Modeling the atmospheric transport and deposition of mercury to the Great Lakes. Environmental Research 95, 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dastoor, A.P., Larocque, Y., 2004. Global circulation of atmospheric mercury: A modeling study. Atmospheric Environment 38, 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ICF, 2005. User's Guide to the Regional Modeling System for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD), Version 8. ICF Consulting/SAI, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Ilyin, I., Ryaboshapko, A., Afinogenova, O., Berg, T., Hjellbrekke, A.-G., Lee, D.S., 2002. Lead, cadmium and mercury transboundary pollution in 2000. EMEP/MSC-E Report 5/2002, Meteorological Synthesizing Centre - East, Moscow, Russia, 131 pp. http://www. msceast.org. html.
  10. Keeler, G. J., Gratz, L., Al-Wali, K., 2005. Influences on the long-term atmospheric mercury wet deposition at Underhill, Vermont. Ecotoxicology 14, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Murphy, D.M., Hudson, P.K., Thomson, D.S., Sheridan, P.J., Wilson, J.C., 2006. Observations of mercury-containing aerosols. Environmental Science & Technology 40, 3163–3167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pai, P., Karamchandani, P., Seigneur, C., 1997. Simulation of the regional atmospheric transport and fate of mercury using a comprehensive Eulerian model. Atmospheric Environment 31, 2717–2732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Petersen, G., Bloxam, R., Wong, S., Munthe, J., Kruger, O., Schmolke, S.R., Kumar, A.V., 2001. A comprehensive Eulerian modelling framework for airborne mercury species: model development and applications in Europe. Atmospheric Environment 35, 3063–3074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ryaboshapko, A., Bullock, O.R., Christensen, J., Cohen, M., Dastoor, A., Ilyin, I., Petersen, G., Syrakov, D., Travnikov, O., Artz, R.S., Davignon, D., Draxler, R.R., Munthe, J., Pacyna, J., 2007. Intercomparison study of atmospheric mercury models: 2. Modelling results vs. long-term observations and comparison of country atmospheric balances. Science of the Total Environment 377, 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schroeder, W.H., Anlauf, K.G., Barrie, L.A., Lu, J.Y., Steffon, A., Schneeberger, D.R., Berg, T., 1998. Arctic springtime depletion of mercury. Nature 394, 331–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Seigneur, C., Karamchandani, P., Lohman, K., Vijayaraghavan, K., Shia, R.-L., 2001. Multiscale modeling of the atmospheric fate and transport of mercury. Journal of Geophysical Research 106(D21), 27,795-27,809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Seigneur, C., Vijayaraghavan, K., Lohman, K., Karamchandani, P., Scott, C., 2004. Global source attribution for mercury deposition in the United States, Environmental Science & Technology 38, 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Selin, N.E., Jacob, D.J., Park, R.J., Yantosca, R.M., Strode, S., Jaegle, L., Jaffe, D., 2007. Chemical cycling and deposition of atmospheric mercury: Global constraints from observations. Journal of Geophysical Research 112, D02308, doi:10.1029/2006JD007450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shia, R.L., Seigneur, C., Pai, P., Ko, M., Sze, N.D., 1999. Global simulation of atmospheric mercury concentrations and deposition fluxes. Journal of Geophysical Research 104(D19), 23,747-23,760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Syrakov, Dimiter, Prodanova, Maria and Slavov Kiril (2005)Bulgarian Emergency Response System: Description and Ensemble Performance NATO Science Series Series IV: Earth and Environmental Series Advances in Air Pollution Modeling for Environmental Security Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Advances in Air Pollution Modeling for Environmental Security Borovetz, Bulgaria 8–12 May 2004-10.1007/1-4020-3351-6_33Google Scholar
  21. US EPA, 1997. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Fate and Transport of Mercury in the Environment, Vol. III. EPA-452/R-97-005, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. US EPA, 2005. Technical Support Document for the Final Clean Air Mercury Rule: Air Quality Modeling, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, March 2005. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/aqm_oar-2002-0056-6130.pdf)
  23. Vermette, S., Lindberg, S., and Bloom, N., 1995. Field tests for a regional Mercury Deposition Network - Sampling design and preliminary test results. Atmospheric Environment 29, 1247–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Russell BullockJr.
    • 1
  • Lyatt Jaeglé
    • 1
  1. 1.NOAA, Air Resources LaboratoryUSA

Personalised recommendations