Atmospheric mercury modeling at the noaa air resources laboratory using the hysplit hg model l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 62

Atmospheric Mercury Modeling at the NOAA Air Resources Laboratory using the HYSPLIT-Hg Model PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 244 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Atmospheric Mercury Modeling at the NOAA Air Resources Laboratory using the HYSPLIT-Hg Model. Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 1315 East West Highway, R/ARL, Room 3316 Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910 [email protected] http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ss/transport/cohen.html.

Download Presentation

Atmospheric Mercury Modeling at the NOAA Air Resources Laboratory using the HYSPLIT-Hg Model

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Atmospheric mercury modeling at the noaa air resources laboratory using the hysplit hg model l.jpg

Atmospheric Mercury Modeling at the NOAA Air Resources Laboratory using the HYSPLIT-Hg Model

Dr. Mark Cohen

NOAA Air Resources Laboratory

1315 East West Highway,

R/ARL, Room 3316

Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910

[email protected]

http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ss/transport/cohen.html

Presentation at the

Gulf Coast Mercury Research Collaboration Meeting

Gulf Power Building, Pensacola FL, May 18-19, 2006


Slide2 l.jpg

  • Outline of Presentation

    • modeling methodology

    • some preliminary results for Mobile Bay

      (based on this methodology)

    • model intercomparisons

    • summary of previous work; current goals; challenges

2


Slide3 l.jpg

  • Outline of Presentation

    • modeling methodology

    • some preliminary results for Mobile Bay

      (based on this methodology)

    • model intercomparisons

    • summary of previous work; current goals; challenges

3


Modeling methodology l.jpg

Modeling Methodology

  • NOAA HYSPLIT model  HYSPLIT-Hg

4


Slide5 l.jpg

Lagrangian Puff Atmospheric Fate and Transport Model

0

1

2

TIME (hours)

The puff’s mass, size, and location are continuously tracked…

= mass of pollutant

(changes due to chemical transformations and deposition that occur at each time step)

Phase partitioning and chemical transformations of pollutants within the puff are estimated at each time step

Initial puff location is at source, with mass depending on emissions rate

Centerline of puff motion determined by wind direction and velocity

Dry and wet deposition of the pollutants in the puff are estimated at each time step.

deposition 2

deposition to receptor

deposition 1

lake

NOAA

HYSPLIT

MODEL

5


Slide6 l.jpg

6


Modeling methodology7 l.jpg

Modeling Methodology

  • NOAA HYSPLIT model  HYSPLIT-Hg

  • Modeling domain: North America

    (northern half of Mexico; continental U.S.; southern half of Canada)

  • 1996 meterology (180 km horizontal resolution)

7


Slide8 l.jpg

8


Modeling methodology9 l.jpg

Modeling Methodology

  • NOAA HYSPLIT model  HYSPLIT-Hg

  • Modeling domain: North America

    (northern half of Mexico; continental U.S.; southern half of Canada)

  • 1996 meterology (180 km horizontal resolution)

  • onlyU.S. and Canadian anthropogenic sources;

    (natural emissions, re-emissions, & global sources not included)

  • Model evaluation:1996 emissions and 1996 monitoring data

    (also evaluated in EMEP Hg model intercomparison project)

9


Slide10 l.jpg

Figure 7. Model evaluation sites for wet deposition fluxes within 250 km of any Great Lake with available data for 1996.(Cohen et al., 2004, Environmental Research 95: 247-265)

10

(Cohen et al., 2004, Environmental Research 95: 247-265)


Slide11 l.jpg

Figure 8. Comparison of annual model-estimated wet deposition fluxes with measured values at sites within 250 km of the Great Lakes during 1996. The range of modeled estimates shown for each site represents the difference in estimated deposition in using the NGM-forecast model precipitation and the actual precipitation at the site. (Cohen et al., 2004, Environmental Research 95: 247-265)

11


Modeled vs measured wet deposition at mercury deposition network site de 02 during 1996 l.jpg

Modeled vs. Measured Wet Deposition at Mercury Deposition Network Site DE_02 during 1996

12


Modeling methodology13 l.jpg

Modeling Methodology

  • NOAA HYSPLIT model  HYSPLIT-Hg

  • Modeling domain: North America

    (northern half of Mexico; continental U.S.; southern half of Canada)

  • 1996 meterology (180 km horizontal resolution)

  • onlyU.S. and Canadian anthropogenic sources;

    (natural emissions, re-emissions, & global sources not included)

  • Model evaluation:1996 emissions and 1996 monitoring data

    (also evaluated in EMEP Hg model intercomparison project)

  • 1st set of results – Cohen et al. 2004

13


Slide14 l.jpg

Cohen, M., Artz, R., Draxler, R., Miller, P., Poissant, L., Niemi, D., Ratte, D., Deslauriers, M., Duval, R., Laurin, R., Slotnick, J., Nettesheim, T., McDonald, J. “Modeling the Atmospheric Transport and Deposition of Mercury to the Great Lakes.” Environmental Research 95(3), 247-265, 2004.

Note: Volume 95(3) is a Special Issue: "An Ecosystem Approach to Health Effects of Mercury in the St. Lawrence Great Lakes", edited by David O. Carpenter.

14


Modeling methodology15 l.jpg

Modeling Methodology

  • NOAA HYSPLIT model  HYSPLIT-Hg

  • Modeling domain: North America

    (northern half of Mexico; continental U.S.; southern half of Canada)

  • 1996 meterology (180 km horizontal resolution)

  • onlyU.S. and Canadian anthropogenic sources;

    (natural emissions, re-emissions, & global sources not included)

  • Model evaluation:1996 emissions and 1996 monitoring data

    (also evaluated in EMEP Hg model intercomparison project)

  • 1st set of results – Cohen et al. 2004

  • 2nd set of results (examples shown today) –

    • 1996 meteorology

    • 1999 U.S. EPA National Emissions Inventory

    • 2000 emissions data from Environment Canada

15


Slide16 l.jpg

Geographic Distribution of Largest Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions Sources in the U.S. (1999) and Canada (2000)

16


Slide17 l.jpg

  • Outline of Presentation

    • modeling methodology

    • some preliminary results for Mobile Bay

      (based on this methodology)

    • model intercomparisons

    • summary of previous work; current goals; challenges

17


Slide18 l.jpg

some earlier results

for Mobile Bay

18


Slide19 l.jpg

Total modeled mercury deposition at selected receptors arising from from 1999 direct anthropogenic emissions sources in the United States and Canada (IPM coal fired plants are large coal-fired plants in the U.S. only)

19


Slide20 l.jpg

  • 1996 meteorology (NGM)

  • 1999 U.S. emissions (EPA NEI)

  • 2000 Canadian emissions (Envr. Canada)

  • no sources other than U.S. & Can. anthropogenic emissions

  • total modeled deposition to Mobile Bay ~ 3.5 g Hg/km2-year

Largest Modeled Individual Sources Contributing Mercury Deposition Directly to Mobile Bay (national view)

20


Slide21 l.jpg

  • 1996 meteorology (NGM)

  • 1999 U.S. emissions (EPA NEI)

  • 2000 Canadian emissions (Envr. Canada)

  • no sources other than U.S. & Can. anthropogenic emissions

  • total modeled deposition to Mobile Bay ~ 3.5 g Hg/km2-year

21


Slide22 l.jpg

22


Slide23 l.jpg

23


Slide24 l.jpg

24


Slide25 l.jpg

  • 1996 meteorology (NGM)

  • 1999 U.S. emissions (EPA NEI)

  • 2000 Canadian emissions (Envr. Canada)

  • no sources other than U.S. & Can. anthropogenic emissions

  • total modeled deposition to Mobile Bay ~ 3.5 g Hg/km2-year

Largest Modeled Individual Sources Contributing Mercury Deposition Directly to Mobile Bay (large regional view)

25


Slide26 l.jpg

  • 1996 meteorology (NGM)

  • 1999 U.S. emissions (EPA NEI)

  • 2000 Canadian emissions (Envr. Canada)

  • no sources other than U.S. & Can. anthropogenic emissions

  • total modeled deposition to Mobile Bay ~ 3.5 g Hg/km2-year

Largest Modeled Individual Sources Contributing Mercury Deposition Directly to Mobile Bay (regional view)

26


Slide27 l.jpg

  • 1996 meteorology (NGM)

  • 1999 U.S. emissions (EPA NEI)

  • 2000 Canadian emissions (Envr. Canada)

  • no sources other than U.S. & Can. anthropogenic emissions

  • total modeled deposition to Mobile Bay ~ 3.5 g Hg/km2-year

Largest Modeled Individual Sources Contributing Mercury Deposition Directly to Mobile Bay (local view)

27


Slide28 l.jpg

Top 25 Modeled Contributors to 1999 Hg Deposition Directly to Mobile Bay, considering anthropogenic direct emission sources in the United States and Canada

Cumulative Fraction of Modeled Deposition

28


Slide29 l.jpg

  • Outline of Presentation

    • modeling methodology

    • some preliminary results for Mobile Bay

      (based on this methodology)

    • model intercomparisons

    • summary of previous work; current goals; challenges

29


Slide30 l.jpg

  • Model Intercomparisons

  • EMEP MSC-East (~7 models)

  • HYSPLIT-Hg vs. ISC

  • HYSPLIT-Hg vs. CMAQ-Hg

30


Slide31 l.jpg

  • Model Intercomparisons

  • EMEP MSC-East (~7 models)

  • HYSPLIT-Hg vs. ISC

  • HYSPLIT-Hg vs. CMAQ-Hg

31


Participants l.jpg

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

32


Intercomparison conducted in 3 stages l.jpg

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

33


Participating models l.jpg

Participating Models

34


Slide35 l.jpg

Mace Head, Ireland

grassland shore

Aspvreten, Sweden

forested shore

Rorvik, Sweden

forested shore

Zingst, Germany

sandy shore

Neuglobsow, Germany

forested area

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

35


Slide36 l.jpg

Mace Head

Aspvreten

Rorvik

Zingst

Neuglobsow

36


Total gaseous mercury at neuglobsow june 26 july 6 1995 l.jpg

Neuglobsow

NW

S

SE

N

NW

N

NW

NW

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

37


Total gaseous mercury ng m 3 at neuglobsow june 26 july 6 1995 l.jpg

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

38


Total particulate mercury pg m 3 at neuglobsow nov 1 14 1999 l.jpg

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

39


Slide40 l.jpg

  • Model Intercomparisons

  • EMEP MSC-East (~7 models)

  • HYSPLIT-Hg vs. ISC

  • HYSPLIT-Hg vs. CMAQ-Hg

40


Slide41 l.jpg

41


Slide42 l.jpg

HYSPLIT 1996

Different Time Periods and Locations, but Similar Results

ISC: 1990-1994

42


Slide43 l.jpg

  • Model Intercomparisons

  • EMEP MSC-East (~7 models)

  • HYSPLIT-Hg vs. ISC

  • HYSPLIT-Hg vs. CMAQ-Hg

43


Slide44 l.jpg

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

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

44


Slide45 l.jpg

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).

45


Slide46 l.jpg

  • 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.

46


Slide47 l.jpg

  • Outline of Presentation

    • modeling methodology

    • some preliminary results for Mobile Bay

      (based on this methodology)

    • model intercomparisons

    • summary of previous work; current goals; challenges

47


Slide48 l.jpg

48


Slide49 l.jpg

49


Slide50 l.jpg

50


Slide51 l.jpg

51


Slide52 l.jpg

52


Slide53 l.jpg

53


Slide54 l.jpg

54


Atmospheric chemical reaction scheme for mercury l.jpg

Atmospheric Chemical Reaction Scheme for Mercury

55


Slide56 l.jpg

Elemental Mercury [Hg(0)]

Upper atmospheric

halogen-mediated

heterogeneous oxidation?

Polar sunrise

“mercury depletion events”

Hg(II), ionic mercury, RGM

Particulate Mercury [Hg(p)]

Br

cloud

CLOUD DROPLET

Hg(II) reducedto Hg(0)

by SO2 and sunlight

Vapor phase:

Hg(0) oxidized to RGM and Hg(p) by O3, H202, Cl2, OH, HCl

Adsorption/

desorption

of Hg(II) to

/from soot

Hg(p)

Primary

Anthropogenic

Emissions

Hg(0) oxidized to dissolved

Hg(II) species by O3, OH,

HOCl, OCl-

Wet deposition

Dry deposition

Re-emission of previously deposited anthropogenic and natural mercury

Natural

emissions

Atmospheric Mercury Fate Processes

56


Slide57 l.jpg

57


Slide58 l.jpg

58


Slide59 l.jpg

59


Slide60 l.jpg

60


Slide61 l.jpg

61


Thanks l.jpg

Thanks!

For more information on this modeling research:

http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ss/transport/cohen.html

62


  • Login