# Presentation: 423448

## Atmospheric Mercury:Emissions, Transport/Fate, Source-Receptor Relationships

**Presentation at**
**Collaborative Meeting on Modeling Mercury**
**in Freshwater Environments **
**Niagara Falls, NY, January 19-20, 2006**

**Dr. Mark Cohen**
**NOAA Air Resources Laboratory**
**1315 East West Highway, **
**R/ARL, Room 3316**
**Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910**
***mark.cohen@noaa.gov***
***http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ss/transport/cohen.html***

## Mercury in the Environment

- 3 emission source types:
- anthropogenic;
- natural;
- re-emitted
- 3 forms of emissions:
- reactive: Hg(II);
- particulate: Hg(p);
- elemental: Hg(0).
- Hg(0) has a long atmospheric lifetime; can be transported globally; >90% in air is Hg(0)
- Hg(II) and Hg(p) have shorter atmospheric lifetimes and  deposit more locally and regionally.
- Deposition within the US and Canada comes from domestic sources and the global pool

- Source: adapted from slides prepared by USEPA and NOAA

## Emissions

**Measurements at specific locations**

**Ambient concentrations and deposition**

**Model **
**evaluation**

**Model **
**results**

**Source attribution**

## Global natural and anthropogenic emissions of mercury. 

**Global natural and anthropogenic emissions of mercury. **
**Estimates taken/ inferred from Lamborg et al. (2002). **
**All values are in metric tons per year, and are for ~1990.**

- Lamborg C.H., Fitzgerald W.F., O’Donnell L., Torgersen, T. (2002). *Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta*  **66**(7): 1105-1118.

## Slide 5

## Source of global data: Global Anthropogenic Mercury Emission Inventories for 2000 and 1995: Pacyna, J. and E. Pacyna. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association (in prep. 2005); http://www.amap.no/Resources/HgEmissions/HgInventoryDocs.html

*Source of global data: *Global Anthropogenic Mercury Emission Inventories for 2000 and 1995: Pacyna, J. and E. Pacyna. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association (in prep. 2005); *http://www.amap.no/Resources/HgEmissions/HgInventoryDocs.html*

## Different patterns of anthropogenic mercury emissions

**Different patterns of anthropogenic mercury emissions**

*Source: Streets et al., 2005, “Anthropogenic mercury emissions in China”, Atmospheric Environment 39, 7789-7806*

*Source: Environment Canada*

*Source: U.S. EPA*

## Some Current Emissions Inventory Challenges

- Re-emissions of previously deposited anthropogenic Hg
- Emissions speciation [at least among Hg(0), Hg(II), Hg(p); more specific species if possible]
- Reporting and harmonization of source categories
- Mobile source emissions?
- Enough temporal resolution to know when emissions for individual point sources change significantly
*	**Note: Hg continuous emissions monitors now commercially available*

## U.S. Anthropogenic Emissions for 1990 and 1999 (USEPA)

***There were big reported changes in emissions between 1990 and 1999, but when did these occur? And when did they occur for individual facilities?***

## Slide 10

## Emissions

**Measurements at specific locations**

**Ambient concentrations and deposition**

**Model **
**evaluation**

**Model **
**results**

**Source attribution**

## Slide 12

## Atmospheric Chemical Reaction Scheme for Mercury

| Reaction | Rate |  | Units | Reference |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|     GAS PHASE REACTIONS |  |  |  |  |
| Hg0  + O3   Hg(p) | 3.0E-20 | cm3/molec-sec |  | Hall (1995) |
| Hg0  + HCl  HgCl2  | 1.0E-19 | cm3/molec-sec |  | Hall and Bloom (1993) |
| Hg0  + H2O2  Hg(p)  | 8.5E-19 | cm3/molec-sec |  | Tokos et al. (1998) (upper limit based on experiments) |
| Hg0  + Cl2  HgCl2 | 4.0E-18 | cm3/molec-sec |  | Calhoun and Prestbo (2001) |
| Hg0 +OH  Hg(p) | 8.7E-14 | cm3/molec-sec |  | Sommar et al. (2001) |
|     AQUEOUS PHASE REACTIONS |  |  |  |  |
| Hg0 + O3  Hg+2 | 4.7E+7 | (molar-sec)-1 |  | Munthe (1992) |
| Hg0  + OH  Hg+2 | 2.0E+9 | (molar-sec)-1 |  | Lin and Pehkonen(1997) |
| HgSO3  Hg0 | T*e((31.971*T)-12595.0)/T)    sec-1
[T = temperature (K)] |  |  | Van Loon et al. (2002) |
| Hg(II)  + HO2  Hg0 | ~ 0 | (molar-sec)-1 |  | Gardfeldt & Jonnson (2003) |
| Hg0  + HOCl  Hg+2 | 2.1E+6 | (molar-sec)-1 |  | Lin and Pehkonen(1998) |
| Hg0  + OCl-1  Hg+2 | 2.0E+6 |  (molar-sec)-1 |  | Lin and Pehkonen(1998) |
| Hg(II)     Hg(II) (soot) | 9.0E+2 | liters/gram;
t = 1/hour |  | eqlbrm: Seigneur et al. (1998)
rate: Bullock & Brehme (2002). |
| Hg+2  + h  Hg0 | 6.0E-7 | (sec)-1 (maximum)	 |  | Xiao et al. (1994); 
Bullock and Brehme (2002) |

## Logarithmic

***Logarithmic***

**Why are emissions speciation data - and potential plume transformations -- critical?**

***NOTE: distance results averaged over all directions – ***
***Some directions will have higher fluxes, some will have lower***

## Some Current Atmospheric Chemistry Challenges

***Plume chemistry***, e.g., rapid reduction of RGM to elemental mercury?

***If***** significant reduction of RGM to Hg(0) is occurring in power-plant plumes, then much less local/regional deposition**

## RGM reduction in power-plant plumes?

- No known chemical reaction is capable of causing significant reduction of RGM in plumes – e.g. measured rates of SO2 reduction can’t explain some of the claimed reduction rates
- Very hard to measure
-  Aircraft
-  Static Plume Dilution Chambers (SPDC)
-  Ground-based measurements

**RGM reduction in power-plant plumes?**

## Slide 17

## Slide 18

## Slide 19

## RGM reduction in power-plant plumes?

**Recent measurement results show less reduction**
**Significant uncertainties – e.g., mass balance errors comparable to measured effects... **
**Current status – inconclusive... but weight of evidence suggest that while some reduction may be occurring, it may be only a relatively small amount**
**Recent measurements at Steubenville, OH appear to show strong local mercury deposition from coal-fired power plant emissions.**

**RGM reduction in power-plant plumes?**

## Some Current Atmospheric Chemistry Challenges

***Plume chemistry***, e.g., rapid reduction of RGM to elemental mercury?
***Boundary conditions*** for regional models?

## Slide 22

## Slide 23

## Some Current Atmospheric Chemistry Challenges

***Plume chemistry***, e.g., rapid reduction of RGM to elemental mercury?
***Boundary conditions*** for regional models?
***Oxidation of elemental mercury by O******3****** and OH******•****** may be over-represented***, leading to overestimation of the contribution of global sources to regional deposition
- Calvert, J., and S. Lindberg (2005). Mechanisms of mercury removal by O3 and OH in the atmosphere. Atmospheric Environment 39: 3355-3367.

## Some Current Atmospheric Chemistry Challenges

***Plume chemistry***, e.g., rapid reduction of RGM to elemental mercury?
***Boundary conditions*** for regional models?
***Oxidation of elemental mercury by O******3****** and OH******•****** may be over-represented***, leading to overestimation of the contribution of global sources to regional deposition
- Calvert, J., and S. Lindberg (2005). Mechanisms of mercury removal by O3 and OH in the atmosphere. Atmospheric Environment 39: 3355-3367.
***Atmospheric methyl-mercury****:* significance? sources? transport? chemistry? deposition?
- e.g., Hall et al. (2005). Methyl and total mercury in precipitation in the Great Lakes region. Atmospheric Environment 39: 7557-7569.

## Some Current Atmospheric Chemistry Challenges

***Plume chemistry***, e.g., rapid reduction of RGM to elemental mercury?
***Boundary conditions*** for regional models?
***Oxidation of elemental mercury by O******3****** and OH******•****** may be over-represented***, leading to overestimation of the contribution of global sources to regional deposition
- Calvert, J., and S. Lindberg (2005). Mechanisms of mercury removal by O3 and OH in the atmosphere. Atmospheric Environment 39: 3355-3367.
***Atmospheric methyl-mercury****:* significance? sources? transport? chemistry? deposition?
- e.g., Hall et al. (2005). Methyl and total mercury in precipitation in the Great Lakes region. Atmospheric Environment 39: 7557-7569.
_***Source-Receptor answers influenced by above factors***_

## Emissions

**Measurements at specific locations**

**Ambient concentrations and deposition**

**Model **
**evaluation**

**Model **
**results**

**Source attribution**

## Some Model Evaluation Issues

**Data availability**
**Simple vs. Complex Measurements**

## Data availability

## Simple vs. Complex Measurements: 1. Wet deposition is a very complicated phenomena...

- _Simple vs. Complex Measurements: __1. Wet deposition is a very complicated phenomena..._

***many ways to get the “wrong” answer – incorrect ***_***emissions***_***, incorrect t***_***ransport***_***, incorrect ***_***chemistry***_***, incorrect ***_***3-D precipitation***_***, incorrect ***_***wet-deposition algorithms***_***, etc..***

**?**

**?**

**?**

## Simple vs. Complex Measurements: 2. Potential complication with ground-level monitors... (“fumigation”, “filtration”, etc.)...

- _Simple vs. Complex Measurements: __2. Potential complication with ground-level monitors... __(“fumigation”, “filtration”, etc.)..._

## Simple vs. Complex measurements - 3. Urban areas:

**Simple vs. Complex measurements - 3. Urban areas:**
**Emissions inventory poorly known**
**Meteorology very complex (flow around buildings)**
**So, measurements in urban areas not particularly useful for current large-scale model evaluations**

## Simple vs. Complex Measurements – 4: extreme near-field measurements

**Sampling near intense sources?**
**Must get the fine-scale met “perfect” **

**Ok, if one wants to develop hypotheses regarding**** *****whether or not this is actually a source***** ****of the pollutant *****(and you can’t do a stack test for some reason!).***

**Sampling site?**

**Simple vs. Complex Measurements – ****4: extreme near-field measurements**

## Complex vs. Simple Measurements – 5: Need some source impacted measurements

**Major questions regarding plume chemistry and near-field impacts (are there “hot spots”?)**
**Most monitoring sites are designed to be “regional background” sites (e.g., most Mercury Deposition Network sites).**
**We need some source-impacted sites as well to help resolve near-field questions**
***But not too close – maybe 20-30 km is ideal (?)***

## Some Current Model Evaluation Challenges

***Lack of speciated atmospheric concentration measurements, at ground level and aloft***
***Emissions inventory uncertainties, including speciation and temporal resolution – i.e., is the model wrong or is the inventory wrong?***
***It has not really been possible to adequately evaluate current atmospheric mercury models***

## Emissions

**Measurements at specific locations**

**Ambient concentrations and deposition**

**Model **
**evaluation**

**Model **
**results**

**Source attribution**

_**SUMMARY**_

## Thanks!

## EXTRA SLIDES

## Sources of Data: U.S. [USEPA], Canada [Environment Canada],

*Sources of Data:* **U.S.** [USEPA], **Canada** [Environment Canada],
**China** [Streets et al., 2005, “Anthropogenic mercury emissions in China”, Atmospheric Environment 39, 7789-7806]

## Challenges of using wet deposition data to assess local and regional deposition impacts... 

_**Challenges of using wet deposition data to assess local and regional deposition impacts... **_

**Wind has to blow from source to monitoring site**
**It has to be raining at the monitoring site when this happens**
**It can’t have rained so much along the way that**
**	****the mercury has all been deposited already**
**Weekly integrated samples (e.g, MDN) complicate interpretation -- as several different rain events (with different source-attributions) can contribute to one sample**
**MDN monitoring generally sited *****not***** to be impacted by local/regional sources**
**Can have high deposition because there is a lot of rain, **
**	****or because there is a lot of mercury...**

## ?

**Need speciated data (Hg0, Hg(p), RGM)**
**Relatively expensive and time-consuming**
**Still have problem of having the plume hit the site, but can measure continuously... and the plume hit and rain doesn’t have to occur at the same time (as with wet dep monitors) ...**
**Results from ground-level monitors can be hard to interpret – **
- rapid dry deposition ... large vertical gradients ... measuring right where things are changing very rapidly ... don’t want the whole analysis to depend on whether the sampler was at an elevation of 10 meters or 2 meters...
- fumigation... filtration by plant canopies

**?**

_**Challenges of using air concentration data **__**to assess local and regional deposition impacts... **_

## Observations of “depleted” RGM at ground-based stations downwind of power plants – sometimes thought to be evidence of RGM reduction to Hg0 -- might be strongly influenced by RGM dry deposition...would be better to have a monitor far above the canopy...

- Observations of “depleted” RGM at ground-based stations downwind of power plants – sometimes thought to be evidence of RGM reduction to Hg0 -- might be strongly influenced by RGM dry deposition...would be better to have a monitor far above the canopy...

**?**

## Preliminary Results from Steubenville Hg Deposition Source Apportionment Study

- Briefing for Tim Oppelt
- April 27, 2005
- Presented by Tim Watkins, NERL
- Research conducted by Matt Landis, Gary Norris, and David Olson in collaboration with the University of Michigan

## Results

- Approximately 70% of Hg wet deposition at Steubenville site is attributable to local/regional fossil fuel (coal and oil) combustion sources
- Not entirely attributable to electric utilities
- Preliminary results
- Additional analysis to finalize results will be completed within a month

- Steubenville

## There were few stack tests for waste incineration (and other sources), and thus, 1990 inventory must have been based primarily on emissions factors.

- How confident can we be about 1990 emissions estimates?
- Example: Phoenix Services medical waste incinerator in Baltimore MD:
- Estimated to be the largest source of RGM in the U.S., in 1999 EPA emissions inventory.
- This inventory estimate was apparently made using standard emissions factors for medical waste incineration.
- However, stack tests appear to indicate that the inventory estimates were on the order of a factor of 10 too high!

_**Questions about 1990 Baseline Inventory**_

## From the U.S. EPA website (re-checked Dec 12, 2005):

- “October 1, 2003:
-  The 1996 National Toxics Inventory and the 1996 Emission Inventory for criteria pollutants data and documentation are no longer available.
-  The EPA has released the 1999 National Emissions Inventory for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants. It is the most recent inventory available.
-  We recommend the use of the 1999 NEI because better quality data were submitted to EPA and new methodologies have been used.”
***http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/1996inventory.html***

_**Questions about 1996 Inventory**_

## The 1999 emissions inventory for municipal waste incinerators is believed to have assumed a level of compliance with regulations that did not actually exist in 1999 for all facilities.

- 	USEPA (2005). Emissions Inventory And Emissions Processing For The Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC ***http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/emiss_inv_oar-2002-0056-6129.pdf***
- The assumed 1999 emissions may not have actually been realized at some facilities until sometime in 2000 or 2001

_**Questions about 1999 Inventory**_

## Slide 48

## Slide 49

## Sensitivity Analysis of Modeled Mercury Deposition

- O. Travnikov, I. Ilyin (2005). Regional Model MSCE-HM of Heavy Metal Transboundary Air Pollution in Europe. EMEP/MSC-E Technical Report 6/2005. Meteorological Synthesizing  Centre – East, Moscow, Russia.

**Sensitivity Analysis of Modeled Mercury Deposition**

***http://www.msceast.org/events/review/hm_description.html***