Atmospheric mercury model intercomparisons
Download
1 / 58

Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 263 Views
  • Updated On :

Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons. 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. Presentation at Collaborative Meeting on Modeling Mercury

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons' - richard_edik


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 model intercomparisons l.jpg
Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons

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

Presentation at

Collaborative Meeting on Modeling Mercury

in Freshwater Environments

Niagara Falls, NY, January 19-20, 2006


Slide2 l.jpg

Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons

Comparison of Utility Contributions to the Great Lakes:

HYSPLIT-Hg vs. CMAQ-Hg

EMEP Mercury Model Intercomparison

Local Deposition Comparison:

HYSPLIT-Hg vs.

ISC (Gaussian Plume)

Summary

2


Slide3 l.jpg

Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons

Comparison of Utility Contributions to the Great Lakes:

HYSPLIT-Hg vs. CMAQ-Hg

EMEP Mercury Model Intercomparison

Local Deposition Comparison:

HYSPLIT-Hg vs.

ISC (Gaussian Plume)

Summary

3


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

4


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

5



Intercomparison conducted in 3 stages7 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

7


Slide8 l.jpg

Atmospheric Mercury

Elemental Mercury [Hg(0)]

cloud

Hg(II), Reactive Gaseous Mercury [RGM]

Particulate Mercury [Hg(p)]

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)

Hg(p) Dissolution?

Primary

Anthropogenic

Emissions

Hg(0) oxidized to dissolved

Hg(II) species by O3, OH,

HOCl, OCl-

Re-emission

of previously

deposited mercury

Natural

emissions

Wet and Dry Deposition

8



Stage i publications l.jpg

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 Environment36, 3881-3898.

10


Intercomparison conducted in 3 stages11 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

11

11



Slide13 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)

13


Slide14 l.jpg

Mace Head

Aspvreten

Rorvik

Zingst

Neuglobsow

14


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

15


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

16


Total gaseous mercury ng m 3 at neuglobsow june 26 july 6 199517 l.jpg

Using alternative emissions inventory

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

The emissions inventory is a critical input to the models…

Using default emissions inventory

17


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

18


Reactive gaseous mercury at neuglobsow nov 1 14 1999 l.jpg

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

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

19


Overall phase ii statistics for 2 week episode means l.jpg

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

TGM: all within a factor of 1.35

RGM: 90% within a factor of 10

TPM: 90% within a factor of 2.5

RGM: 50% within a factor of 2

Deviation Factor

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

20


Stage ii publications l.jpg

Stage II Publications: Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury

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.

21


Intercomparison conducted in 3 stages22 l.jpg

Intercomparison Conducted in 3 Stages Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury

  • Comparison of chemical schemes for a cloud environment

  • Air Concentrations in Short Term Episodes

  • Long-Term Deposition and Source-Receptor Budgets

22

22


Phase iii sampling locations l.jpg

Phase III Sampling Locations Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury

23

23



Slide25 l.jpg

25 entire year 1999…


Wet deposition summary l.jpg

~100% within entire year 1999…

a factor of 10

~80% within

a factor of 3

~60% within

a factor of 2

~90% within

a factor of 5

Wet Deposition Summary

26


Slide27 l.jpg

  • For entire year 1999…dry deposition, there are no measurement results to compare the models against;

  • However, the models can be compared against each other…

27


Slide28 l.jpg

28 entire year 1999…



Slide30 l.jpg

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

30


Stage iii publication l.jpg

Stage III Publication: t/yr

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.

31


Slide32 l.jpg

Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons t/yr

Comparison of Utility Contributions to the Great Lakes:

HYSPLIT-Hg vs. CMAQ-Hg

EMEP Mercury Model Intercomparison

Local Deposition Comparison:

HYSPLIT-Hg vs.

ISC (Gaussian Plume)

Summary

32


Slide33 l.jpg

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

33


Slide34 l.jpg

HYSPLIT 1996 (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

Different Time Periods and Locations, but Similar Results

ISC: 1990-1994

34


Slide35 l.jpg

Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons (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

Comparison of Utility Contributions to the Great Lakes:

HYSPLIT-Hg vs. CMAQ-Hg

EMEP Mercury Model Intercomparison

Local Deposition Comparison:

HYSPLIT-Hg vs.

ISC (Gaussian Plume)

Summary

35


Slide36 l.jpg

HYSPLIT-Hg results for Lake Erie (1999) (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


Slide37 l.jpg

HYSPLIT-Hg results for Lake Erie (1999) (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

37


Slide38 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


Slide39 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).

39


Slide40 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.

40


Slide41 l.jpg

Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions).

Comparison of Utility Contributions to the Great Lakes:

HYSPLIT-Hg vs. CMAQ-Hg

EMEP Mercury Model Intercomparison

Local Deposition Comparison:

HYSPLIT-Hg vs.

ISC (Gaussian Plume)

Summary

41


Slide42 l.jpg

Summary of Model Intercomparisons contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions).

  • 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


Slide43 l.jpg

Thanks! contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions).


Slide44 l.jpg

Extra contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions).

Slides


Effect of different assumptions regarding hg p solubility aer epri 0 msce emep 50 cmaq epa 100 l.jpg

Effect of Different Assumptions Regarding Hg(p) Solubility contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions). AER/EPRI 0%; MSCE-EMEP 50%; CMAQ-EPA 100%

45


Slide46 l.jpg

European anthropogenic Hg re-emissions contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions).

50 t/yr

European natural Hg emissions

180 t/yr

2000 European anthropogenic Hg emissions

240 t/yr


Slide47 l.jpg

global natural Hg emissions contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions).

1800 t/yr

1995 global anthropogenic Hg emissions

1900 t/yr


There are uncertainties in measurements even of precipitation amount l.jpg

There are uncertainties in measurements -- even of contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions). precipitation amount…

48


Slide49 l.jpg

49 contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions).


Slide50 l.jpg

50 contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions).


Slide51 l.jpg

51 contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions).


Slide52 l.jpg

52 contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions).


Slide53 l.jpg

53


Total modeled hg deposition wet dry l.jpg

Total Modeled Hg Deposition (wet + dry) contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions).

54


Total modeled hg deposition wet dry55 l.jpg

Total Modeled Hg Deposition (wet + dry) contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions).

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

55


Total modeled hg deposition wet dry56 l.jpg

Total Modeled Hg Deposition (wet + dry) contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions).

56


Emep model results in relation to the other models l.jpg

EMEP model results in relation to the other models contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions).

57


Conclusions uncertainties in mercury modeling l.jpg

Conclusions: Uncertainties in Mercury Modeling contribution to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 emissions) vs. CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 emissions).

  • 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

58