The ECHMERT model

  • Gerlinde Jung
  • Ian M. Hedgecock
  • Nicola Pirrone


A global atmospheric circulation model, ECHMERIT, with coupled meteorology and atmospheric chemistry including mercury has been developed. The model is designed to study in detail the atmospheric physical and chemical processes which influence the atmospheric lifetime of mercury, and therefore its global deposition patterns. ECHMERIT, based on the Global Circulation Model (GCM) ECHAM5 differs from most global mercury models in that the emissions, chemistry, transport and deposition are coupled on-line to the GCM. Many atmospheric chemistry models treat meteorological and chemical processes separately, in giving the meteorological conditions to the CTM in relatively coarse temporal resolutions. Their coupling in ECHMERIT avoids temporal and spatial interpolation, which permits more accurate representation of the interaction between chemical and meteorological phenomena, providing more highly resolved (temporal and spatial) meteorological fields. The coupling of the modules has been achieved in a modular way keeping the model as flexible as possible. This flexibility allows the model to be run with different levels of complexity. An example of a process for which a more detailed impact study could improve understanding of the atmospheric Hg cycle is biomass burning, which involves emission, reaction, gas-particle partitioning and deposition of Hg. At present ECHMERIT is being used within the HTAP Task Force to contrast and compare the performance of different models in a series of passive tracer transport experiments. Modelling experiments with extensive Hg chemistry, with both wet and dry deposition included, to assess the consequences of emission scenario changes for different Hg source areas are being evaluated.


Mercury Concentration Biomass Burning Atmospheric General Circulation Model Receptor Region Mercury Species 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

19.5 References

  1. Aghedo A., Rast S. & Schultz M. G. (2008): Sensitivity of tracer transport to model resolution, forcing data and tracer lifetime in the general circulation model ECHAM5; Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions; Vol. 8: p. 137–160.Google Scholar
  2. Calvert J.G. & Lindberg S.E. (2005): Mechanisms of mercury removal by O3 and OH in the atmosphere; Atmospheric Environment; Vol. 39: p. 3355–3367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Damina-Iordache V., Sandu A., Damian-Iordache M., Carmichael G. R. & Potra F. A. (2002): The kinetic preprocessor KPP: a software environment for solving chemical kinetics; Computers Chemical Engineering; Vol. 26: p. 1567–1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Duncan B. N., West J. J., Yoshida Y., Fiore A. M., & Ziemke J. R. (2008): The influence of European pollution on ozone in the Near East and northern Africa; Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions; Vol. 8: p. 1913–1950.Google Scholar
  5. Granier C., Guenther A., Lamarque J., Mieville A., Muller J., Olivier J., Orlando J., Peters J., Petron G., Tyndall G. & Wallens S. (2005): POET, a database of surface emissions of ozone precursors; techreport; available on the internet at: ACCENT/POET.php.
  6. Hall B. (1995): The phase oxidation of elemental mercury by ozone. Water, Air and Soil Pollution; Vol. 80: p. 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kerkweg A., Buchholz J., Ganzeveld L., Pozzer A., Tost H. & Joeckel P. (2006): Technical Note: an implementation of the dry removal processes DRY DEPosition and SEDImentation in the Modular Earth Sumodel System (MESSy); Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions; Vol. 6: p. 6853–6901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lohman K., Seigneur C., Gustin M. & Lindeberg S. (2008): Sensitivity of the global atmospheric cycle of mercury to emissions; Applied Geochemistry;accepted for publication.Google Scholar
  9. Pacyna E.G., Pacyna J.M., Steenhuisen F. & Wilson S. (2006): Global anthropogenic mercury emission inventory for 2000. Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 40 (22): p. 4048–4063. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pal B. & Ariya P. (2004): Studies of ozone initiated reactions of gaseous mercury: kinetics, product studies, and atmospheric implications. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics; Vol. 6: p. 572–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pirrone N., Forlano L. & Hedgecock I.M. (2000): Role of the ambient aerosol in the atmospheric processing of semivolatile contaminants: a parameterized numerical model (Gas-Particle Partitioning (GASPAR)). Journal of Geophysical Research; Vol. 105(D8): p. 9773–9790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pongprueksa P., Lin C.-J., Lindberg S.E., Jang C., Braverman T., Bullock O.R., Ho T.C. & Chu H.-W. (2008): Scientific uncertainties in atmospheric mercury models III: Boundary and initial conditions, model grid resolution, and Hg(II) reduction mechanism; Atmospheric Environment; Vol. 42: p. 1828–1845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Roeckner E., Baeuml G., Bonaventura L., Brokopf R., Esch M., Giorgetta M., Hagemann S., Kirchner I., Kornblueh L., Manzini E., Rhodin A., Schlese U., Schulzweida U., Tompkins A., (2003): The atmospheric general circulation model ECHAM5: Model description. Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Technical Report, 349.Google Scholar
  14. Schulzweida U., Kornblueh L. & Quast R. (2007): CDO User's Guide, Climate Data Operators, Version 1.0.7; techreport;
  15. Seigneur C., Vijayaraghavan K. & Lohmann K. (2006): Atmospheric mercury chemistry: Sensitivity of global model simulations to chemical reactions; Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres; Vol. 111, D22306, doi:10.1029/2005JD006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Seinfeld C. P. & Pandis S. N. (1998): Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, From Air Pollution to Climate Change.Google Scholar
  17. Slinn, W. G. N., (1982) Prediction for particle deposition to vegetative canopies. Atmospheric Environment; Vol.16: p. 1785–1794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wesely M. L. (1989): Parameterization of the surface resistances to gaseous dry deposition in regional-scale numerical models; Atmospheric Environment; Vol. 23: p. 1293–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wesely M. L. & Hicks B. B. (1977): Some factors that affect the deposition rates of sulfur dioxide and similar gases on vegetation; Journal of Air Pollution Control Assessment; Vol. 27: p. 1110–1116.Google Scholar
  20. Yang X., Cox R.A., Warwick N.J., Pyle J.A., Carver G.D., O'Connor F.M. & Savage N.H. (2005): Tropospheric bromine chemistry and its impacts on ozone: A model study; Journal of Geophysical Research; Vol. 110, D23311, doi:10.1029/2005JD006244.Google Scholar
  21. Zaveri R. A. & Peters L. K. (1999): A new lumped structure photochemical mechanism for large-scale applications; Journal of Geophysical Research; Vol. 104(D23): p. 30.387–30.415.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerlinde Jung
    • 1
  • Ian M. Hedgecock
    • 1
  • Nicola Pirrone
    • 1
  1. 1.CNR-Institute for Atmospheric PollutionRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations