Numerical Simulation of Atmospheric Loadings of Mercury from a Coal Fired Power Plant to Lake Erie S. M. Daggupaty, C. M. Banic and P. Blanchard Air Quality.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Modeling Atmospheric Mercury Deposition to the Sounds and Other Water Bodies O. Russell Bullock, Jr. NOAA Air Resources Laboratory (On assignment to the.
Advertisements

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.
Some recent studies using Models-3 Ian Rodgers Presentation to APRIL meeting London 4 th March 2003.
One Hg emissions source Gulfport Grand Bay NERR monitoring site > 1000 ug/m2-yr > 10 ug/m2-yr > 0.1 ug/m2-yr > ug/m2-yr two-hour deposition values.
Effect of Rain Scavenging on Altitudinal Distribution of Soluble Gaseous Pollutants in the Atmosphere B. Krasovitov, T. Elperin, A. Fominykh Department.
COMPARATIVE MODEL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CMAQ-VISTAS, CMAQ-MADRID, AND CMAQ-MADRID-APT FOR A NITROGEN DEPOSITION ASSESSMENT OF THE ESCAMBIA BAY, FLORIDA.
Shannon Capps April 22, Mercury cycling From
Photochemical Model Performance for PM2.5 Sulfate, Nitrate, Ammonium, and pre-cursor species SO2, HNO3, and NH3 at Background Monitor Locations in the.
Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA
Development of a mechanistic model of Hg in the terrestrial biosphere Nicole Smith-Downey Harvard University GEOS-Chem Users Meting April 12, 2007.
Climate, Fire and Air Quality Climate Impacts Group June 1, 2006.
Mercury & GCAP Nicole Smith-Downey, Noelle Eckley Selin, Chris Holmes, Bess Sturges, Daniel Jacob Harvard University Elsie Sunderland US EPA Sarah Strode,
T. Elperin, A. Fominykh and B. Krasovitov Department of Mechanical Engineering The Pearlstone Center for Aeronautical Engineering Studies Ben-Gurion University.
Atmospheric modelling activities inside the Danish AMAP program Jesper H. Christensen NERI-ATMI, Frederiksborgvej Roskilde.
METO 637 Lesson 13. Air Pollution The Troposphere In the Stratosphere we had high energy photons so that oxygen atoms and ozone dominated the chemistry.
Mercury Source Attribution at Global, Regional and Local Scales Christian Seigneur, Krish Vijayaraghavan, Kristen Lohman, and Prakash Karamchandani AER.
T. Elperin, A. Fominykh and B. Krasovitov Department of Mechanical Engineering The Pearlstone Center for Aeronautical Engineering Studies Ben-Gurion University.
Mercury in the Great Lakes Region Sponsored by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s Environment, Economy and Trade and Pollutants and Health.
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)
Modeling BC Sources and Sinks - research plan Charles Q. Jia and Sunling Gong University of Toronto and Environment 1 st annual NETCARE workshop.
D. Gay, Schmeltz, Sharac, Nat. Tribal Conf. for Env. Management, Billings, MT, June 26, 2008, Slide 1 Current Mercury Monitoring Approaches in Tribal Country.
Estimate of Mercury Emission from Natural Sources in East Asia Suraj K. Shetty 1 *, Che-Jen Lin 1, David G. Streets 2, Carey Jang 3, Thomas C. Ho 1 and.
EFCOG Safety Analysis Working Group May 10, 2012 Jeremy Rishel Bruce Napier Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling in Safety Analyses: GENII.
Modelling the Canadian Arctic and Northern Air Quality using GEM-MACH Wanmin Gong and Stephen Beagley Science and Technology Branch Environment Canada.
Ny-Ålesund Seminars, October Black carbon (BC) belongs to what is generally termed Short Lived Climate Forcers (SLCF). This means that the.
Modelling of Acid deposition in South Asia Magnuz Engardt Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI) Introduction to Acid deposition.
Trans-Pacific Chemical Transport of Mercury: Sensitivity Analysis on Asian Emission Contribution to Mercury Deposition in North America Using CMAQ-Hg C.-J.
O. Russell Bullock, Jr. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division (in partnership with the U.S. Environmental.
Implementation of the Particle & Precursor Tagging Methodology (PPTM) for the CMAQ Modeling System: Mercury Tagging 5 th Annual CMAS Conference Research.
Presentation by: Dan Goldberg Co-authors: Tim Vinciguerra, Linda Hembeck, Sam Carpenter, Tim Canty, Ross Salawitch & Russ Dickerson 13 th Annual CMAS Conference.
Presentation Slides for Chapter 20 of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling 2 nd Edition Mark Z. Jacobson Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering.
WRF Volcano modelling studies, NCAS Leeds Ralph Burton, Stephen Mobbs, Alan Gadian, Barbara Brooks.
Modeling of Ammonia and PM 2.5 Concentrations Associated with Emissions from Agriculture Megan Gore, D.Q. Tong, V.P. Aneja, and M. Houyoux Department of.
Department of Mechanical Engineering The Pearlstone Center for Aeronautical Engineering Studies Ben-Gurion University of the Negev P.O.B. 653, Beer Sheva.
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.
Sensitivity Evaluation of Gas-phase Reduction Mechanisms of Divalent Mercury Using CMAQ-Hg in a Contiguous US Domain Pruek Pongprueksa a, Che-Jen Lin a,
Organization of Course INTRODUCTION 1.Course overview 2.Air Toxics overview 3.HYSPLIT overview HYSPLIT Theory and Practice 4.Meteorology 5.Back Trajectories.
Rick Saylor 1, Barry Baker 1, Pius Lee 2, Daniel Tong 2,3, Li Pan 2 and Youhua Tang 2 1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Resources Laboratory.
Representation of Sea Salt Aerosol in CAM coupled with a Sectional Aerosol Microphysical Model CARMA Tianyi Fan, Owen Brian Toon LASP/ATOC, University.
Application of the CMAQ-UCD Aerosol Model to a Coastal Urban Site Chris Nolte NOAA Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division Research Triangle Park, NC 6.
Application of the CMAQ Particle and Precursor Tagging Methodology (PPTM) to Support Water Quality Planning for the Virginia Mercury Study 6 th Annual.
1 Modeling the Atmospheric Transport and Deposition of Mercury Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Silver Spring, Maryland Mercury Workshop, Great.
U.S. EPA and WIST Rob Gilliam *NOAA/**U.S. EPA
D. Gay, Schmeltz, Sharac, Nat. Tribal Conf. for Env. Management, Billings, MT, June 26, 2008, Slide 1 Current Mercury Monitoring Approaches in Tribal Country.
ESTIMATION OF SOLAR RADIATIVE IMPACT DUE TO BIOMASS BURNING OVER THE AFRICAN CONTINENT Y. Govaerts (1), G. Myhre (2), J. M. Haywood (3), T. K. Berntsen.
Diagnostic Study on Fine Particulate Matter Predictions of CMAQ in the Southeastern U.S. Ping Liu and Yang Zhang North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence Matthew Woody and Saravanan Arunachalam Institute.
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.
Introduction North China, or Huabei region, located between 32°- 42°N latitude in eastern China, is one of the most severely polluted regions in China.
Peak 8-hr Ozone Model Performance when using Biogenic VOC estimated by MEGAN and BIOME (BEIS) Kirk Baker Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium October.
W. T. Hutzell 1, G. Pouliot 2, and D. J. Luecken 1 1 Atmospheric Modeling Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 2 Atmospheric Sciences Modeling.
Source-apportionment for atmospheric mercury deposition: Where does the mercury in mercury deposition come from? Mark Cohen, Roland Draxler, and Richard.
Material Flow Carol Timson 4/12/2004. Overview l Biogeochemical Systems Mass Balance l Ecosystem Closed Loop l Anthroposystem Open System l Material Flow.
Case 5: Tracer Transport in Deep Convection STERAO-1996 From Dye et al. (2000)
UNEP Global Partnership on Mercury Air Transport and Fate Research - Canadian Contribution - Grace Howland Environment Canada, Chemicals Management Division.
Transport Simulation of the April 1998 Chinese Dust Event Prepared by: Bret A. Schichtel And Rudolf B. Husar Center for Air Pollution Impact and Trend.
Krish Vijayaraghavan, Rochelle Balmori, Shu-Yun Chen, Prakash Karamchandani and Christian Seigneur AER, San Ramon, CA Justin T. Walters and John J. Jansen.
NATURAL pH OF RAIN Equilibrium with natural CO 2 (280 ppmv) results in a rain pH of 5.7: This pH can be modified by natural acids (H 2 SO 4, HNO 3, RCOOH…)
Modeling of heat and mass transfer during gas adsorption by aerosol particles in air pollution plumes T. Elperin1, A. Fominykh1, I. Katra2, and B. Krasovitov1.
ADAGIO (Atmospheric Deposition Analysis Generated by optimal Interpolation from Observations): Project plans and status A.S. Cole1, A. Robichaud2, M.D.
Modeling of Air Pollutants Dispersion from
Nitrogen Deposition: Measurement Techniques and Field Studies
Changes to the Multi-Pollutant version in the CMAQ 4.7
Junhua Zhang and Wanmin Gong
M. Samaali, M. Sassi, V. Bouchet
Atmospheric modelling of HMs Sensitivity study
Presentation transcript:

Numerical Simulation of Atmospheric Loadings of Mercury from a Coal Fired Power Plant to Lake Erie S. M. Daggupaty, C. M. Banic and P. Blanchard Air Quality Research Division, Science and Technology Branch Environment Canada. Presented at 11th Conference on Atmospheric Chemistry January Phoenix, AZ.

 Dry deposition flux (g m -2 s -1 ), is given by F(x, y) d = c(x,y,z 1.5 )  v d eff (x, y) R a bulk aerodynamic resistance is function of u *, z 0, L. R d quasi- laminar or surface resistance, R c overall canopy resistance and V g gravitational settling velocity.  BLFMAPS – Mesoscale Boundary Layer Forecast Model with Air pollution Prediction system. (Daggupaty. et al 2006) was used for simulations.  Deposition Fluxes: - Dry and Wet processes are formulated following Ma and Daggupaty (2000), Daggupaty et al (2006) and Zhang et al (2001, 2003).

 Wet deposition flux (g s -1 / m 2 ) : For P-Hg the wet deposition flux is followed as in Daggupaty (2006).  is the normalised scavenging coefficient (s-1 /mm hr-1) I is precipitation intensity (water equivalent in mm/hr). For RGM (as of HNO 3 )  =6* For GEM with its low solubility  =3.0*10 -6 These are in agreement with Berg(2001), Petersen et al (1998) and Ryaboshapko et al (2004).  Adsorption at air – water interface was also estimated.

3. The chemical transformation of the plume Hg. species over the travel period (~ 10 hr) of study domain is hard to anticipate and is not modeled in this study. Thus the plume could be undergoing different combinations of species strength over the travel period. The different scenarios considered here could be mimicking the plume evolution in time. 1.The annual average total Hg emission rate for the Nanticoke power plant varies between 4 to 8 mg/s (i.e., 130 to 240 kg/y) from NPRI data (National pollutant release inventory, In the year 2005 the annual average emission rate is 5 mg/s. 2. Particulate Hg mass is assumed to be in large, medium and small particle size bins with respective fraction of 80%, 5% and 15%.

Table 1. Proportionate Hg species emission rates. Scenario GEMRGMP-Hg A45% 10% B 5%90% 5% C90% 5% D10%45%

15.Urban Inland Water Wet land with plants Crops,mixed farming 6.Grass 5.Mixed leaf trees 4.Decds brdleaf trees 3.Decds Ndle Lf trees 2.Evergrn BrdLf trees 1.

GEM emission rate of 4.5mg/s (Scenario C)

RGM emission rate of 0.25mg/s (Scenario C)

GEM with emission rate of 1 g/s.

RGM with emission rate of 1 g/s.

Fig. 4a. Fig. 4c. Fig. 4b.

... Figure 5a Figure 5b Figure 5c

Table 2. Mercury loading (g) to Lake Erie as per scenarios A to D. for April and May 2005 Scenarios with 5 mg/s of total Hg emission GEMRGMGEM+ RGM P-Hg Large Medium Small P-Hg Total Total Hg (GEM+RGM+ P-Hg) Dry AWet ,45,10Adsorption ATotal Dry BWet ,90,5Adsorption BTotal Dry CWet ,5,5Adsorption CTotal Dry DWet ,45,45 Adsorption DTotal

Total Hg deposited to Lake Erie in the percentage of total Hg emission (26.4 kg) in 61 days of April and May ScenarioModeled value (kg) In percentage of total Hg emission A (45, 45,10) B (5, 90, 5) C (90, 5, 5) D (10, 45, 45)

Wet deposition flux of total Hg to the lake as monitored at MDN site Erie was 9 µg/m2/year. ScenarioModeled value (µg/m2/y) In percentage of annual MDN value A (45, 45,10) B (5, 90, 5) C (90, 5, 5) D (10, 45, 45) Model vs MDN value:

CONCLUSIONS 1.RGM is found to be the dominant contributor of the three species of Hg to the Lake Erie loading. 2.The scenario B (with 90% as RGM) emissions gives highest loading and it was about 15% of observed MDN value to the Lake Erie. 3.98% of GEM emissions and 93% fine particulate Hg emissions were transported out of the circular area with 100km radius from the power plant. 4. Our experiments also suggest that a case with a larger GEM portion of emission (about 90% of total Hg emission) will have the least amount of total Hg loading to the Lake Erie. 5. It is prudent to mention that out of the four scenarios the aircraft measured Hg species configuration in the plume is that of scenario C and it has least impact with 3% of the observed total Hg wet deposition to Lake Erie.

Thank you. Any comments or ?