Gaseous dry deposition of atmospheric mercury: A comparison of two surface resistance models for deposition to semiarid vegetation

被引:3
|
作者
Holmes, Heather A. [1 ]
Pardyjak, Eric R. [1 ]
Perry, Kevin D. [2 ]
Abbott, Michael L. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Utah, Dept Mech Engn, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 USA
[2] Univ Utah, Dept Atmospher Sci, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 USA
[3] Idaho Natl Lab, Idaho Falls, ID 83415 USA
关键词
ELEMENTAL MERCURY; SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTIES; PROFILE RELATIONSHIPS; PARAMETERIZATION; EXCHANGES; FLUXES; FOREST;
D O I
10.1029/2010JD015182
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
In the United States, atmospheric mercury (Hg) deposition, from regional and international sources, is the largest contributor to increased Hg concentrations in bodies of water leading to bioaccumulation of methyl mercury in fish. In this work, modeled dry deposition velocities (v(d)) for gaseous Hg are calculated using two surface resistance parameterizations found in the literature. The flux is then estimated as the product of the species concentration and modeled v(d). The calculations utilize speciated atmospheric mercury concentrations measured during an annual monitoring campaign in southern Idaho. Gaseous elemental mercury (GEM) and reactive gaseous mercury (RGM) were monitored with Tekran models 2537A and 1130, respectively. Two anemometers collected meteorological data, including one fast-response three-dimensional sonic anemometer to measure turbulence parameters. For the flux calculation, three resistances are required to model the mechanisms that transport gaseous Hg from the atmosphere to the surface, with the surface resistance being the largest source of error. Results from two surface resistance models are presented. In particular, the downward flux is sensitive to the choice of model and input parameters such as seasonal category and mesophyll resistance. A comparison of annual GEM and RGM fluxes calculated using the two models shows good agreement for RGM (3.2% difference for annual deposition); however, for the low-solubility species of GEM, the models show a 64% difference in annual fluxes, with a range of 32% to 200% in seasonal fluxes. Results indicate the importance of understanding the diurnal variation of the physical processes modeled in the surface resistance parameterization for v(d).
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Evaluating relative contribution of atmospheric mercury species to mercury dry deposition in Japan
    Sakata, Masahiro
    Asakura, Kazuo
    WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION, 2008, 193 (1-4): : 51 - 63
  • [12] Evaluating Relative Contribution of Atmospheric Mercury Species to Mercury Dry Deposition in Japan
    Masahiro Sakata
    Kazuo Asakura
    Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 2008, 193 : 51 - 63
  • [13] Photoreduction of gaseous oxidized mercury changes global atmospheric mercury speciation, transport and deposition
    Saiz-Lopez, Alfonso
    Sitkiewicz, Sebastian P.
    Roca-Sanjuan, Daniel
    Oliva-Enrich, Josep M.
    Davalos, Juan Z.
    Notario, Rafael
    Jiskra, Martin
    Xu, Yang
    Wang, Feiyue
    Thackray, Colin P.
    Sunderland, Elsie M.
    Jacob, Daniel J.
    Travnikov, Oleg
    Cuevas, Carlos A.
    Acuna, A. Ulises
    Rivero, Daniel
    Plane, John M. C.
    Kinnison, Douglas E.
    Sonke, Jeroen E.
    NATURE COMMUNICATIONS, 2018, 9
  • [14] Mercury Isotopes Reveal Atmospheric Gaseous Mercury Deposition Directly to the Arctic Coastal Snowpack
    Douglas, Thomas A.
    Blum, Joel D.
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LETTERS, 2019, 6 (04): : 235 - 242
  • [15] Photoreduction of gaseous oxidized mercury changes global atmospheric mercury speciation, transport and deposition
    Alfonso Saiz-Lopez
    Sebastian P. Sitkiewicz
    Daniel Roca-Sanjuán
    Josep M. Oliva-Enrich
    Juan Z. Dávalos
    Rafael Notario
    Martin Jiskra
    Yang Xu
    Feiyue Wang
    Colin P. Thackray
    Elsie M. Sunderland
    Daniel J. Jacob
    Oleg Travnikov
    Carlos A. Cuevas
    A. Ulises Acuña
    Daniel Rivero
    John M. C. Plane
    Douglas E. Kinnison
    Jeroen E. Sonke
    Nature Communications, 9
  • [16] Comparison of mercury in atmospheric deposition and in Illinois and USA soils
    Krug, EC
    Winstanley, D
    HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2004, 8 (01) : 98 - 102
  • [17] COMPARISON OF 3 METHODS OF ESTIMATING ATMOSPHERIC MERCURY DEPOSITION
    MORRISON, KA
    KUHN, ES
    WATRAS, CJ
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 1995, 29 (03) : 571 - 576
  • [18] DRY ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION OF ORGANIC PESTICIDES INTO SURFACE WATERS
    WAITE, DT
    CESSNA, AJ
    KERR, LA
    MCINTOSH, TC
    CHAU, DF
    GURPRASAD, NP
    BANNER, JA
    ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 1994, 207 : 58 - AGRO
  • [19] Parameterization of dry deposition velocity in the atmospheric surface layer
    Kharchenko, A.I.
    Journal of Aerosol Science, 1997, 28 (SUPPL. 1):
  • [20] Modification of coded parametrizations of surface resistances to gaseous dry deposition
    Walmsley, JL
    Wesely, ML
    ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 1996, 30 (07) : 1181 - 1188