# Presentation: 423449

## Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons

**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***

## Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons

**Local Deposition Comparison:**
**	****HYSPLIT-Hg vs.**
**	****ISC (Gaussian Plume)**

**Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons**

**Comparison of Utility Contributions to the Great Lakes:**
**	****HYSPLIT-Hg vs. CMAQ-Hg**

**Summary**

**EMEP Mercury Model Intercomparison**

## Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons

**Local Deposition Comparison:**
**	****HYSPLIT-Hg vs.**
**	****ISC (Gaussian Plume)**

**Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons**

**Comparison of Utility Contributions to the Great Lakes:**
**	****HYSPLIT-Hg vs. CMAQ-Hg**

**Summary**

**EMEP Mercury Model Intercomparison**

## Participants

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Participants**

- D. 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**

## Intercomparison Conducted in 3 Stages

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Intercomparison Conducted in 3 Stages**

**Comparison of chemical schemes for a cloud environment**
**Air Concentrations in Short Term Episodes**
**Long-Term Deposition and Source-Receptor Budgets**

## Participating Models

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

| 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**

## Intercomparison Conducted in 3 Stages

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Intercomparison Conducted in 3 Stages**

_**Comparison of chemical schemes for a cloud environment**_
**Air Concentrations in Short Term Episodes**
**Long-Term Deposition and Source-Receptor Budgets**

## Slide 8

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

## Variation of Hg concentrations (ng/L)

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Variation of Hg concentrations (ng/L)**

## Stage I Publications:

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Stage I Publications:**

**2001**	Ryaboshapko, A., Ilyin, I., Bullock, R., Ebinghaus, R., Lohman, K., Munthe, J., Petersen, G., Seigneur, C., Wangberg, I. *Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury. ****Stage I. Comparisons of Chemical Modules for Mercury Transformations in a Cloud/Fog Environment***. Meteorological Synthesizing Centre – East, Moscow, Russia.
**2002**	Ryaboshapko, A., Bullock, R., Ebinghaus, R., Ilyin, I., Lohman, K., Munthe, J., Petersen, G., Seigneur, C., Wangberg, I. ***Comparison of Mercury Chemistry Models***. _Atmospheric Environment_ **36**, 3881-3898.

## Intercomparison Conducted in 3 Stages

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Intercomparison Conducted in 3 Stages**

**Comparison of chemical schemes for a cloud environment**
_**Air Concentrations in Short Term Episodes**_
**Long-Term Deposition and Source-Receptor Budgets**

## Slide 12

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

| Model | CMAQ-Hg | ADOM | HYSPLIT | EMAP | GRAHM | DEHM | MSCE-Hg |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Model type | Eulerian | Eulerian | Lagrangian | Eulerian | Eulerian | Eulerian | Eulerian |
| Scale/
Domain | regional/
Central and
Northern Europe  | regional/ Central Europe | regional/
EMEP | regional/
EMEP | global | Hemispheric | regional/
EMEP |
| Source of meteorological data | ECMWF TOGA reanalysis (MM5) | HIRLAM | NCEP/NCAR (MM-5) | SDA,
NCEP/NCAR reanalysis | Canadian Meteorolo-gical Centre | NCEP / NCAR reanalysis  | SDA,
NCEP/NCAR reanalysis  |
| Model top height (km) | 15 | 10 | 15 | 5 | 30 | 15 | 3.9 |
| Horizontal resolution (km, unless noted differently) | 36 x 36 | 55 x 55 | 36 x 36,
108 x 108 | 50 x 50 | 1o x 1o | 50 x 50
150 x 150 | 50 x 50 |
| Hg(0) boundary condition (ng/m3) | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | No | 1.5 | 1.6 - 1.7 |
| RGM boundary condition (pg/m3) | 17 | 2 | 5 | 10 | none | 0 | 0 |
| TPM boundary condition (pg/m3) | 17 | 20 | 10 | 10 | none | 0 | 20 |
| Gas-phase oxidation agents | O3, H2O2, Cl2, OH· | O3 | O3, H2O2,
Cl2, HCl | O3, OH! | O3 | O3 | O3 (f) |
| Liquid-phase oxidation agents | O3, OH!, HOCl, OCl- | O3 | O3, OH!, HOCl, OCl- | O3 | O3 | O3 | O3 |
| Liquid-phase reduction agents | SO3=, hv, HO2 | SO3= | SO3=, HO2 | SO3=  | SO3= | SO3= | SO3=, HO2 |

## Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions Inventoryand Monitoring Sites for Phase II(note: only showing largest emitting grid cells)

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions Inventory****and Monitoring Sites for Phase II****(note: only showing largest emitting grid cells)**

## Slide 14

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

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

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

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

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

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Total Gaseous Mercury (ng/m****3****) at Neuglobsow: June 26 – July 6, 1995**

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

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Total Gaseous Mercury (ng/m****3****) at Neuglobsow: June 26 – July 6, 1995**

**Using default emissions inventory**

***The emissions inventory is a critical input to the models...***

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

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Total *****Particulate***** Mercury (pg/m****3****) at Neuglobsow, Nov 1-14, 1999**

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

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

## Overall Phase II statistics for 2-week episode means

**Overall Phase II statistics for 2-week episode means**

- TGM: 2-week mean concentrations within factor of 1.35
- TPM: 90% within factor of 2.5
- RGM:90% within a factor of 10; 50% within a factor of 2

## Stage II Publications:

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**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._

## Intercomparison Conducted in 3 Stages

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Intercomparison Conducted in 3 Stages**

**Comparison of chemical schemes for a cloud environment**
**Air Concentrations in Short Term Episodes**
_**Long-Term Deposition and Source-Receptor Budgets**_

## Phase III Sampling Locations

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Phase III Sampling Locations**

## Due to resource constraints, not all models simulated the entire year 1999...

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Due to resource constraints, not all models simulated the entire year 1999...**

|  | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CMAQ |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| HYSPLIT |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| ADOM |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| MSCE-HM |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| MSCE-HEM |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| DEHM |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| EMAP |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

## Slide 25

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

## Wet Deposition Summary

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Wet Deposition Summary**

## For dry deposition, there are no measurement results to compare the models against;

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**For *****dry deposition*****, there are no measurement results to compare the models against;**
**However, the models can be compared against *****each other...***

## Slide 28

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

## Main items of mercury atmospheric balance for the UK in 1999, t/yr

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Main items of mercury atmospheric balance for the UK in 1999, t/yr**

## Items of Hg atmospheric balances for the countries in 1999, t/yr[average modeled result (with ranges in parentheses)]

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Items of Hg atmospheric balances for the countries in 1999, t/yr****[average modeled result ****(*****with ranges in parentheses)*****]**

| Item  | The UK | Italy | Poland |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Total deposition | 3.5 (3.1-4.2) | 4.7(3.2-6.6) | 11.8(9.6-13.1) |
| Dep. from own emissions | 1.3 (0.8-1.6) | 1.3 (0.6-1.9) | 7.4(4.8-9.1) |
| Dep. from European emissions | 0.3 (0.2-0.6) | 0.8(0.5-1.3) | 2.1(1.4-2.6) |
| Outflow | 7.3 (7.0-7.8) | 8.4 (7.9-9.2) | 18.2 (16–21) |

## Stage III Publication:

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**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.

## Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons

**Local Deposition Comparison:**
**	****HYSPLIT-Hg vs.**
**	****ISC (Gaussian Plume)**

**Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons**

**Comparison of Utility Contributions to the Great Lakes:**
**	****HYSPLIT-Hg vs. CMAQ-Hg**

**Summary**

**EMEP Mercury Model Intercomparison**

## 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

## HYSPLIT 1996

_**HYSPLIT 1996**_

_**ISC: 1990-1994**_

***Different Time Periods and Locations, but Similar Results***

## Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons

**Local Deposition Comparison:**
**	****HYSPLIT-Hg vs.**
**	****ISC (Gaussian Plume)**

**Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons**

**Comparison of Utility Contributions to the Great Lakes:**
**	****HYSPLIT-Hg vs. CMAQ-Hg**

**Summary**

**EMEP Mercury Model Intercomparison**

## HYSPLIT-Hg results for Lake Erie (1999)

_**HYSPLIT-Hg results for Lake Erie (1999)**_

## HYSPLIT-Hg results for Lake Erie (1999)

_**HYSPLIT-Hg results for Lake Erie (1999)**_

## Modeled Mercury Deposition in the Great Lakes Region from all sources during 2001

**Modeled Mercury Deposition in the Great Lakes Region from all sources during 2001**

**Modeled Mercury Deposition in the Great Lakes Region attributable to U.S. coal-fired power plants during 2001**

_***CMAQ-Hg results from EPA analysis performed for the Clean Air Mercury Rule***_

## 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). 

**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). **

## 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). 

- 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 30% 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.

## Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons

**Local Deposition Comparison:**
**	****HYSPLIT-Hg vs.**
**	****ISC (Gaussian Plume)**

**Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons**

**Comparison of Utility Contributions to the Great Lakes:**
**	****HYSPLIT-Hg vs. CMAQ-Hg**

**Summary**

**EMEP Mercury Model Intercomparison**

## Summary of Model Intercomparisons

**Extremely useful for improving models**
**Opportunity to work together and pool resources **
**	*****(e.g., everyone doesn’t have to create their own inventory or assemble monitoring data for evaluation)***
**Funding is a problem... most studies do not fund the individual participants....**
**10% of the work is doing the initial modeling analysis; **
**90% of the work is trying to figure out why the models are different – but we rarely have the resources to do much of this**

## Thanks!

## Extra 

**Slides**

## Effect of Different Assumptions Regarding Hg(p) SolubilityAER/EPRI  0%;    MSCE-EMEP  50%;    CMAQ-EPA 100%

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Effect of Different Assumptions Regarding Hg(p) Solubility****AER/EPRI  0%;    MSCE-EMEP  50%;    CMAQ-EPA 100%**

## 2000 European anthropogenic Hg emissions

**2000 European anthropogenic Hg emissions**
**240 t/yr**

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

## 1995 global anthropogenic Hg emissions

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**1995 global anthropogenic Hg emissions**
**1900 t/yr**

## There are uncertainties in measurements -- even of precipitation amount...

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**There are uncertainties in measurements -- even of ****precipitation amount...**

## Slide 49

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

## Slide 50

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

## Slide 51

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

## Slide 52

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

## In the following, the total model-predicted deposition (= wet + dry) is compared  

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**In the following, the total model-predicted deposition *****(= wet + dry*****) is compared  **

## Total Modeled Hg Deposition (wet + dry)

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Total Modeled Hg Deposition (wet + dry)**

## Total Modeled Hg Deposition (wet + dry)

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Total Modeled Hg Deposition (wet + dry)**

***Note: ADOM was not run for August, so for this graph, ADOM results for July were used***

## Total Modeled Hg Deposition (wet + dry)

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**Total Modeled Hg Deposition (wet + dry)**

## EMEP model results in relation to the other models

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

| Range | Deposition over polluted area in Feb 1999, g/km2 |  | Total deposition over the countries in Feb 1999, kg |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Wet | Dry | The UK | Italy | Poland |
| Minimum | 0.24 | 0.10 | 76 | 143 | 300 |
| MSCE-HM | 0.54 | 0.16 | 235 | 261 | 1070 |
| MSCE-HM-Hem | 0.65 | 0.19 | 170 | 164 | 730 |
| Maximum | 1.03 | 0.39 | 240 | 334 | 1190 |

**EMEP model results in relation to the other models**

## Conclusions: Uncertainties in Mercury Modeling

| EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Intro-duction | Stage I | Stage II |  |  | Stage III |  |  | Conclu-sions |
|  | Chemistry | Hg0 | Hg(p) | RGM | Wet Dep | Dry Dep | Budgets |  |

**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**