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
  • [41] On Dry Deposition Modelling of Atmospheric Pollutants on Vegetation at the Microscale: Application to the Impact of Street Vegetation on Air Quality
    Jose-Luis Santiago
    Alberto Martilli
    Fernando Martin
    Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 2017, 162 : 451 - 474
  • [42] DRY DEPOSITION OF ATMOSPHERIC PARTICLES - APPLICATION OF CURRENT MODELS TO AMBIENT DATA
    HOLSEN, TM
    NOLL, KE
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 1992, 26 (09) : 1807 - 1815
  • [43] FIELD COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF GASEOUS AND PARTICULATE CONTRIBUTORS TO ACIDIC DRY DEPOSITION
    SICKLES, JE
    HODSON, LL
    MCCLENNY, WA
    PAUR, RJ
    ELLESTAD, TG
    MULIK, JD
    ANLAUF, KG
    WIEBE, HA
    MACKAY, GI
    SCHIFF, HI
    BUBACZ, DK
    ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT PART A-GENERAL TOPICS, 1990, 24 (01): : 155 - 165
  • [44] Investigating sources of gaseous oxidized mercury in dry deposition at three sites across Florida, USA
    Gustin, M. Sexauer
    Weiss-Penzias, P. S.
    Peterson, C.
    ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 2012, 12 (19) : 9201 - 9219
  • [45] Atmospheric particulate mercury concentration and its dry deposition flux in Changchun City, China
    Fang, FM
    Wang, QC
    Li, JF
    SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2001, 281 (1-3) : 229 - 236
  • [46] An application of passive samplers to understand atmospheric mercury concentration and dry deposition spatial distributions
    Huang, Jiaoyan
    Choi, Hyun-Deok
    Landis, Matthew S.
    Holsen, Thomas M.
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING, 2012, 14 (11): : 2976 - 2982
  • [47] Gaseous Oxidized Mercury Dry Deposition Measurements in the Southwestern USA: A Comparison between Texas, Eastern Oklahoma, and the Four Corners Area
    Sather, Mark E.
    Mukerjee, Shaibal
    Allen, Kara L.
    Smith, Luther
    Mathew, Johnson
    Jackson, Clarence
    Callison, Ryan
    Scrapper, Larry
    Hathcoat, April
    Adam, Jacque
    Keese, Danielle
    Ketcher, Philip
    Brunette, Robert
    Karlstrom, Jason
    Van der Jagt, Gerard
    SCIENTIFIC WORLD JOURNAL, 2014,
  • [48] COMPARISON OF SURROGATE SURFACE TECHNIQUES FOR ESTIMATION OF SULFATE DRY DEPOSITION
    VANDENBERG, JJ
    KNOERR, KR
    ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 1985, 19 (04) : 627 - 635
  • [49] An Analytical Dispersion Model for Sources in the Atmospheric Surface Layer with Dry Deposition to the Ground Surface
    Kumar, Pramod
    Sharan, Maithili
    AEROSOL AND AIR QUALITY RESEARCH, 2016, 16 (05) : 1284 - 1293
  • [50] Photoreduction of gaseous oxidized mercury changes global atmospheric mercury speciation, transport and deposition (vol 9, 4796, 2018)
    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, 2022, 13 (01)