Mercury Dry Deposition

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Atmospheric Mercury in the Guadalupe Watershed Andy Lincoff Peter Husby Barbara Bates US EPA Region 9 Laboratory Richmond, CA Richmond, CA.
Advertisements

Modeling Atmospheric Mercury Deposition to the Sounds and Other Water Bodies O. Russell Bullock, Jr. NOAA Air Resources Laboratory (On assignment to the.
UPDATE ON DAQS AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS & MERCURY STUDIES NC DENR/DAQ Mercury/CO 2 Workshop Raleigh, NC April 19, 2004 Steve Schliesser Todd Crawford NC.
DOGEE-SOLAS: The UK SOLAS Deep Ocean Gas Exchange Experiment Matt Salter.
An Overview on the Source Identification of Atmospheric Mercury using PCA Xiaohong (Iris) Xu, Xiaobin Wang University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario Canada.
Tekran ® Automated Mercury Speciation F.H. Schaedlich 1, Robert K. Stevens 2, D.R. Schneeberger 2, Eric Prestbo 3, Steve Lindberg 4, Gerald Keeler 5 F.H.
Status of 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Program in Clark County Presentation to Air Quality Forum May 10, 2005.
Shannon Capps April 22, Mercury cycling From
SF Bay Region Atmospheric Mercury Monitoring Funded by: RMP, USEPA w/ services by: NADP/MDN, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Jose.
Perspectives in Designing and Operating a Regional Ammonia Monitoring Network Gary Lear USEPA Clean Air Markets Division.
An Investigation of Atmospheric Mercury Deposition to Bay Area Storm Runoff: a Pilot Study Sarah Rothenberg, Lester McKee, Don Yee, Alicia Gilbreath, Michelle.
Slide 1 Transport and chemical processing of mercury during long-range transport in the Pacific by Dan Jaffe University of Washington Acknowledgements:
Beyond Federal Standards Nevada Mercury Air Emission Control Program Leo M. Drozdoff, P.E. Administrator Nevada Division of Environmental Protection December.
Atmospheric modelling activities inside the Danish AMAP program Jesper H. Christensen NERI-ATMI, Frederiksborgvej Roskilde.
Global Transport of Mercury (Hg) Compounds Noelle Eckley EPS Second Year Symposium September 2003 Photo: AMAP & Geological Museum, Copenhagen.
Mercury Source Attribution at Global, Regional and Local Scales Christian Seigneur, Krish Vijayaraghavan, Kristen Lohman, and Prakash Karamchandani AER.
Atmospheric Mercury: Emissions, Transport/Fate, Source-Receptor Relationships Presentation at Collaborative Meeting on Modeling Mercury in Freshwater Environments.
Mercury in the Great Lakes Region Sponsored by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s Environment, Economy and Trade and Pollutants and Health.
Introduction to Air Pollution John Atkinson and Dr. Mark Rood Environmental Engineering and Science Program Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
Atmospheric Mercury Simulation with CMAQ Version Russ Bullock - NOAA Air Resources Laboratory* Kathy Brehme - Computer Sciences Corp. 5 th Annual.
Texas Lignite Industry. Texas Lignite  Because >95% of lignite mining operations in Texas are in support of electric generation…..whatever impacts the.
Wet Deposition of Mercury In The U.S. Results from the NADP Mercury Deposition Network, David Gay Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL,
(work funded through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative)
Missouri Air Quality Issues Stephen Hall Air Quality Analysis Section Air Pollution Control Program Air Quality Applied Sciences Team (AQAST) 9 th Semi-Annual.
Atmospheric Deposition of Air Toxics Matt F. Simcik Division of Environmental and Occupational Health School of Public Health University of Minnesota.
D. Gay, Schmeltz, Sharac, Nat. Tribal Conf. for Env. Management, Billings, MT, June 26, 2008, Slide 1 Current Mercury Monitoring Approaches in Tribal Country.
Air Quality, Atmospheric Deposition, and Lake Tahoe October 15, 2003 Western Regional Pollution Prevention Network Grannlibakken, Lake Tahoe Jim Pederson.
Characterisation of mixing processes in the lower atmosphere using Rn-222 and climate-sensitive gases P. Schelander, A. Griffiths, A.G. Williams, S. Chambers.
Continuous measurements of the atmospheric concentrations of Reactive Gaseous Mercury (RGM), Fine Particulate Mercury (FPM) and Gaseous Elemental Mercury.
Lindsey Kuettner and Dr. Patricia Cleary  Department of Chemistry  University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Back Trajectory Analysis and Measurement of Ozone.
Modeling the Atmospheric Transport and Deposition of Mercury to the Great Lakes Mark Cohen, Roland Draxler, Hang Lei, Richard Artz NOAA Air Resources Laboratory.
2537A Tekran Mercury Analyzer
Air-Surface Exchange of Persistent Substances by Michael McLachlan ITM, Stockholm University for the summer school The Advances.
Earth System Sciences, LLC Suggested Analyses of WRAP Drilling Rig Databases Doug Blewitt, CCM 1.
NOAA’s Atmospheric Mercury Monitoring in the Gulf of Mexico Region [April 2007 summary] This summary is updated periodically, and the current version is.
June 12 &13, 2007 Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Workshop II – Houston, Texas 1 Albuquerque, New Mexico Community Scale Ambient Air Monitoring.
Oil and Gas Workgroup Summary October 21-23, 2009 Denver.
Trans-Pacific Chemical Transport of Mercury: Sensitivity Analysis on Asian Emission Contribution to Mercury Deposition in North America Using CMAQ-Hg C.-J.
Organization of Course INTRODUCTION 1.Course overview 2.Air Toxics overview 3.HYSPLIT overview HYSPLIT Theory and Practice 4.Meteorology 5.Back Trajectories.
Global Modeling of Mercury in the Atmosphere using the GEOS-CHEM model Noelle Eckley, Rokjin Park, Daniel Jacob 30 January 2004.
Ultra-trace Mercury Monitoring in Air. Company History Founded in 1989 to develop custom instrumentation for environmental analysis Founded in 1989 to.
Investigation of air-snow exchanges of mercury: proof of concept for automated gradient sampling of interstitial air at the Summit FLUX facility Xavier.
Modeling the Atmospheric Deposition of Mercury to Lake Champlain (from Anthropogenic Sources in the U.S. and Canada) Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources.
4. Atmospheric chemical transport models 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Box model 4.3 Three dimensional atmospheric chemical transport model.
Mercury Stable Isotope Investigations in San Francisco Bay: Summary of Results and Proposal for Additional Work Joel D Blum, Principle Investigator Gretchen.
INDOFLUX NETWORK POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTION OF RRL BHUBANESWAR DR. G. ROY CHAUDHURY SCIENTIST REGIONAL RESEARCH LABORATORY, BHUBANESWAR.
1 Modeling the Atmospheric Transport and Deposition of Mercury Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Silver Spring, Maryland Mercury Workshop, Great.
 Great Lakes Areas of Concern  U.S. urban areas (pink shading)  Large U.S./Canadian 2005 point sources of mercury Type of Emissions Source coal-fired.
D. Gay, Schmeltz, Sharac, Nat. Tribal Conf. for Env. Management, Billings, MT, June 26, 2008, Slide 1 Current Mercury Monitoring Approaches in Tribal Country.
CEC SPA "Typhoon"Tiksi Meeting, Boulder, 7 March Experience in monitoring of airborne POPs, mercury and other metals in Russian Arctic. Perspectives.
Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Silver Spring, Maryland
The Atmospheric Transport and Deposition of Mercury to the Great Lakes Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Silver Spring, Maryland Collection.
Organization of Course INTRODUCTION 1.Course overview 2.Air Toxics overview 3.HYSPLIT overview HYSPLIT Theory and Practice 4.Meteorology 5.Back Trajectories.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Tom Rogers Division of Air Resource Management TMDL Mercury Emissions Inventory Subproject.
Update on the NADP Atmospheric Mercury Initiative Developing a new coordinated and collaborative approach to atmospheric mercury monitoring A Briefing.
NPS Source Attribution Modeling Deterministic Models Dispersion or deterministic models Receptor Models Analysis of Spatial & Temporal Patterns Back Trajectory.
Source-apportionment for atmospheric mercury deposition: Where does the mercury in mercury deposition come from? Mark Cohen, Roland Draxler, and Richard.
2002 U.S. data from USEPA National Emissions Inventory (NEI); 2002 Canadian data from Environment Canada; 1999 Mexican data from inventory prepared by.
UNEP Global Partnership on Mercury Air Transport and Fate Research - Canadian Contribution - Grace Howland Environment Canada, Chemicals Management Division.
Preliminary Analysis by: Fawn Hornsby 1, Charles Rogers 2, & Sarah Thornton 3 1,3 North Carolina State University 2 University of Texas at El Paso Client:
Atmospheric Deposition Unit 4451 Research on Air Pollution Distribution and Effects in California Mountains Andrzej Bytnerowicz, Michael Arbaugh, Nancy.
NOAA’s Atmospheric Mercury Monitoring in the Gulf of Mexico Region January 17,
UNEP Global Partnership for Mercury Air Transport and Fate Research: U
Air Transport and Fate Research Partnership Meeting,
Nitrogen Deposition: Measurement Techniques and Field Studies
National Monitoring Steering Committee Report
Suggested Analyses of WRAP Drilling Rig Databases
John Munthe and Ingvar Wängberg
10th TFMM meeting, June, 2009, France, Paris
U.S. Perspective on Particulate Matter and Ozone
Presentation transcript:

Mercury Dry Deposition EPA Local-Scale Air Toxics Ambient Monitoring Program Grant University of Nevada Reno – UNR Dr. Mae Gustin, Seth Lyman Frontier Geosciences Dr. Eric Prestbo Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

Grant Program Elements “Development of broadly-deployable methods for quantifying atmospheric Hg speciation in urban and rural settings in Nevada” Two-year Project Awarded October 2005 Funding rec’d & project started June 2006 End date to be adjusted to June 2008

Grant Program Elements Co-location of project field sites with urban & rural MDN sites Compare concentration & speciation of Hg at urban vs. rural locations Better understanding of dry vs. wet deposition Compare data collected upwind & downwind of naturally enriched areas & potential anthropogenic sources

Grant Program Elements Funding $363,890 EPA Grant through NDEP UNR, National Atmospheric Deposition Network & Frontier Geosciences $582,576 Total Project Cost w/ Cost Shares NDEP Equipment (incl. SO2 & O3 analyzers), FTE support and grant management UNR & Frontier Geosciences - cost sharing EPA continued support of MDN sites Lesperance & Gibbs landowner participation

Overview of the Mercury Cycle Hg(p) • Atmospheric Conversion – Sunlight and oxidants (ozone, hydroxyl radical) convert Hg(0) to RGM RGM and Hg(0) sorb to particles and become Hg(p) Complex chemistry Hg(0) RGM Hg(p) Emission & Re-Emission Natural: Soils & Hg enriched areas Plants Geothermally Active Zones Anthropogenic: Coal fired power plants Waste incineration and other combustion Mining activity Chlor-alkali plants and other chemical production facilities (e.g. HgCl2, Hg(OH)2) Relative amounts*: Hg(0) – 90 to 99% RGM – 0 to 10% Hg(p) – 1 to 5% (*Estimates based on Reno data) Seth Lyman, UNR

Overview of the Mercury Cycle • • • • • • • • Hg(p) • • RGM Hg(p) Hg(0) RGM Wet Deposition Re-emission of deposited mercury (includes re-emission of both anthropogenic and naturally deposited mercury) Dry Deposition – Not well understood – little data exists Site-specific Projected atmospheric lifetimes: RGM < Hg(p) < Hg(0) Seth Lyman, UNR

Project Building Blocks Current UNR Project Nearing Completion re Dry Deposition Mae Gustin, Seth Lyman, Frontier Geosciences, Oak Ridge Nat’l Lab, DRI, ranch landowners & EPA R9 Preliminary data on Hg speciation in air to develop insight re dry deposition of Hg in Reno & two rural MDN sites

Project Building Blocks Development & testing of field protocols for field use of ion exchange membranes Interim project outcomes helped focus lab & field studies and reduce start-up time for new Air Toxics Grant Collaborations in place with Ranchers, labs and others streamlined new grant

Project Building Blocks Project Goal: Measure atmospheric mercury species and try different techniques to infer dry deposition at the two Nevada MDN sites. UNR inferred dry deposition by: Deploying Surrogate Surfaces Measuring Soil Flux Deposition on Leaf Surfaces Applied Mathematical Models to measurements of RGM & Hg(p) Compared all collected data and Wet Deposition (MDN) Data

Project Building Blocks Deploying Surrogate Surfaces Exposed membrane faces oriented up, down, and vertically 6-day deployment time Trace-clean protocols utilized

Project Building Blocks Mercury soil flux: Measures air-soil Hg(0) exchange – deposition and emission Tekran 2537A, a 1L chamber, and a switching unit

Nevada MDN & Study Sites Reno Gibbs Ranch Lesperance Ranch

Gibbs Ranch, North of Wells, NV

Lesperance Ranch near Paradise Valley, NV

Expected Results Dry deposition rates depend on meteorological and surface parameters, as well as the composition of mercury species in the atmosphere. Each of the methods used showed that dry deposition was a significant component of total atmospheric deposition.

Expected Results The different methods showed similar seasonal and geographical variations in the depositional behavior of Hg(0), RGM, and Hg(p), and each form of Hg was found to be a significant and even dominant component of total dry deposition at some sites and/or seasons.

Expected Results Figure Deleted pending paper publication – for more information contact Jennifer Carr jcarr@ndep.nv.gov

Results to Apply to New Grant Understanding of expected concentrations of different Hg species Understanding of necessary detection limits for ambient samplers & field deployment time periods (use 7 days = time between MDN samples?) Understanding of QA/QC needed to obtain quality field data from passive samplers

Need for Air Tox Grant RGM is the most reactive of atmospheric mercury species, has shortest atmospheric residence time & is thought to have the highest deposition velocity Little is known about dry depositional behavior of both RGM and Hg(0), only limited measures of deposition available Tekran equipment is expensive & extensive training is required to operate

Grant Program Elements Currently setting up the new Reno MDN site, Ozone & SO2 monitoring equipment UNR is developing a diffusive sampler for RGM with lab testing. Frontier Geosciences is developing a total mercury diffusive sampler for UNR lab testing.

Grant Program Elements RGM diffusive samplers will be similar to the dry deposition sampler seen earlier Similar in that the collection surface is a filter that has high affinity for RGM and not elemental mercury Different in that the diffusive sampler collection surface is protected from atmospheric turbulence and, thus, collection to the filter is should be linear relative to RGM air concentration

Grant Program Elements Nearing final development of an appropriate membrane for diffusive sampling to measure RGM concentrations utilizing apparent affinity for RGM Barriers to turbulence Diffusive region Collection surface

Grant Program Elements Diffusive sampler measures concentration, not deposition For RGM, atmospheric concentration is the most important predictor of depositional flux Concentration can then be used for calculations related to deposition

Grant Program Elements After lab testing is complete & units are ready, field testing will occur simultaneously with: Tekran 2537A Gaseous Mercury Analyzer with 1130 (RGM) & 1135 (Hg(p)) speciation unit micro-met and other routine ambient air quality parameters Some testing will also be done by Frontier Geosciences in Seattle, WA to compare effects of climate on sampling system

Grant Program Elements After initial field testing is complete, proposal includes broad deployment at: MDN sites (3), a National Park Service AQ monitoring site, transects down wind of a coal-fired power plant, transects down wind of an ore-processing facility, and transects down wind of a naturally enriched (geogenic) area

Grant Program Elements This final phase of field deployment will test ability to obtain measurement of RGM on broad scale, in remote locations with minimal training (NDEP as guinea pigs)

Project Outcome Goals To collect data to advance the understanding of major research questions related to biogeochemical cycle of Hg: Can we do source apportionment by measuring atmospheric speciation using passive sampling systems? How does Hg speciation in urban air compare with that of air at remote sites and those downwind of known anthropogenic sources?

Project Outcome Goals Cont’d: How significant is dry deposition of Hg relative to wet deposition, especially in arid systems? Since the dominant form of Hg in the atmosphere is Hg(0), is the dry deposition of Hg(0) more significant than RGM or Hg(p)?

Ultimate Project Goals Develop a system for measurement of Total Atmospheric Hg & RGM that: Can be deployed reliably without high levels of technical training to be done with a simple instructional protocol that is easy to follow Can be low in cost Can be applied nationally