Organization of Course

INTRODUCTION

1. Course overview

2. Air Toxics overview

3. HYSPLIT overview

HYSPLIT Theory and Practice

4. Meteorology

5. Back Trajectories

6. Concentrations / Deposition

7. HYSPLIT-SV for

semivolatiles (e.g, PCDD/F)

8. HYSPLIT-HG for mercury

Overall Project Issues & Examples

9.Emissions Inventories

10.Source-Receptor Post-Processing

11.Source-Attribution for Deposition

12.Model Evaluation

13.Model Intercomparison

14.Collaboration Possibilities

atmospheric chemistry

phase partitioning

Atmospheric Mercury Model

wet and drydeposition

Wet and dry deposition of different Hg forms to sensitive

ecosystems

Source attribution

information for deposition

Model Outputs

Speciated ambient concentration data

Wet deposition data

Model Evaluation

Model Inter-comparison

Model Visualization

meteorology

Inputs to Model

emissions land use

For model evaluation, model inputs must be

for the same time period as

measurement data

3

Hg from other sources: local, regional & more distant

emissions of Hg(0), Hg(II), Hg(p)

atmospheric deposition

to the water surface

Hg(0)

Hg(II) Hg(p)

atmosphericchemistry

inter-converts mercury forms

atmospheric deposition

to the watershed

Measurement of ambient air

concentrations

Measurement of wet

depositionWET DEPOSITION complex – hard to diagnose weekly – many events background – also need near-field

AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATIONS more fundamental – easier to diagnose need continuous – episodic source impacts need speciation – at least RGM, Hg(p), Hg(0) need data at surface and above

Largest sources of total mercury emissions to the air in the U.S. and Canada, based on the U.S. EPA 1999 National Emissions Inventory

and 1995-2000 data from Environment Canada

Canaan Valley Institute-NOAA

BeltsvilleEPA-NOAA

Three NOAA sites committed to emerging inter-agency speciated mercury ambient concentration measurement network

(comparable to Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) for wet deposition, but for air concentrations)

Grand BayNOAA

4

Barry

Holcim Cement

NOAA Grand Bay NERR Hg site

WeeksBay

OLF

Molino

Pace

Ellyson

Jack Watson

AL24

AL02

Crist

Pascagoula MSW incin

haz waste incin

paper manufpaper manuf

Victor J. Daniel

MobileBay

Mobile

Pascagoula

Mississippi Alabama

NOAA

SEARCH

USGS

UWF/FSU

MDN

Monitoring Site

coal-fired power plant

waste incinerator

manufacturing

metallurgical

other fuel combustion

type of mercuryemissions source

total atmosphericmercury emissions (kg/yr, 1999 EPA NEI)

50 - 100

100 - 200

200 - 400

1 – 50

MS 22

Atmospheric Mercury Measurement Siteat the Grand Bay NERR, MS

mercury and trace gasmonitoring tower (10 meters)

view from top of the tower

Elemental mercury * 2

Fine particulate mercury * 2

Reactive gaseous mercury * 2

Sulfur dioxide

Ozone

Carbon Monoxide

Nitrogen Oxides (NO, NOy)

Wind speed, Wind Direction

Temperature, Relative Humidity

Precipitation Amount

Total Mercury & Methyl Mercury in Precipitation

Trace Metals in Precipitation

Major Ions in Precipitation

WET DEPOSITION: Currently being added, in collaboration with MS DEQ and U.S. EPA

“Speciated” Atmospheric Mercury Concentrations

Trace gases to help understand and interpret mercury data

Meteorological Data

Atmospheric Measurements at the Grand Bay NERR

Instrumentation inside the trailer at the Grand Bay NERR site

05/01/0805/02/08

05/03/0805/04/08

05/05/0805/06/08

05/07/0805/08/08

05/09/0805/10/08

05/11/0805/12/08

05/13/0805/14/08

05/15/08

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.50

2.60

2.70

2.80

Speciated Atmospheric Mercury and Selected Trace Gas Concentration Measurements at Grand Bay NERR

Courtesy of Winston Luke and Paul Kelley (NOAA ARL) and Jake Walker (Grand Bay NERR) (Preliminary Values)

RGM(pg/m3)D1

RGM(pg/m3)D2

FPM(pg/m3)D1FPM(pg/m3)D2

FPM 10 micron D1

FPM 10 micron D2GEM(ng/m3)D1

GEM(ng/m3)D2

SO2*5 ppbO3 ppb

Local Time

RG

M (

pg

/m3

), F

PM

(p

g/m

3),

SO

2*5

(p

pb

), O

3 (

pp

b)

GE

M (

ng/m

3)

9

05/01/0805/02/08

05/03/0805/04/08

05/05/0805/06/08

05/07/0805/08/08

05/09/0805/10/08

05/11/0805/12/08

05/13/0805/14/08

05/15/08

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.50

2.60

2.70

2.80

Speciated Atmospheric Mercury and Selected Trace Gas Concentration Measurements at Grand Bay NERR

Courtesy of Winston Luke and Paul Kelley (NOAA ARL) and Jake Walker (Grand Bay NERR) (Preliminary Values)

RGM(pg/m3)D1

RGM(pg/m3)D2

FPM(pg/m3)D1FPM(pg/m3)D2

FPM 10 micron D1

FPM 10 micron D2GEM(ng/m3)D1

GEM(ng/m3)D2

SO2*5 ppbO3 ppb

Local Time

RG

M (

pg

/m3

), F

PM

(p

g/m

3),

SO

2*5

(p

pb

), O

3 (

pp

b)

GE

M (

ng/m

3)

10

We are organizing the initial collaborative work around specific episodes of high concentration of one or more mercury forms

11

Hg from other sources: local, regional & more distant

atmospheric deposition

to the water surface

atmospheric deposition

to the watershed

Measurement of ambient air

concentrations

Measurement of wet

deposition

Resolution: 2.5 min Duration: 11 Days

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

25-Aug 26-Aug 27-Aug 28-Aug 29-Aug 30-Aug 31-Aug 01-Sep 02-Sep 03-Sep 04-Sep 05-Sep

Hg

- (

ug

/m3 )

HgT

Hg0

Hg2

Series 3300 CEM - Continuous Speciated Mercury Data

Resolution: 2.5 min Duration: 11 Days

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

25-Aug 26-Aug 27-Aug 28-Aug 29-Aug 30-Aug 31-Aug 01-Sep 02-Sep 03-Sep 04-Sep 05-Sep

Hg

- (

ug

/m3 )

HgT

Hg0

Hg2

Series 3300 CEM - Continuous Speciated Mercury Data

Some Additional Measurement Issues (from a modeler’s perspective)

• Data availability

• Simple vs. Complex Measurements

wet dep monitor

Simple vs. Complex Measurements: 1. Wet deposition is a very complicated phenomena...

many ways to get the “wrong” answer – incorrect emissions, incorrect transport, incorrect chemistry, incorrect 3-D precipitation, incorrect wet-deposition algorithms, etc..

ambient air monitor

models need ambient air concentrations first, and then if they can get those right, they can try to do wet deposition...

?

?

?

monitor at ground

level

Simple vs. Complex Measurements: 2. Potential complication with ground-level monitors...

(“fumigation”, “filtration”, etc.)...

monitor abovethe canopy

atmospheric phenomena are complex and not well understood; models need “simple” measurements for diagnostic evaluations; ground-level data for rapidly depositing substances (e.g., RGM) hard to interpret elevated platforms might be more useful (at present level of understanding)

?

Simple vs. Complex measurements - 3. Urban areas:

a. Emissions inventory poorly known

b. Meteorology very complex (flow around buildings)

c. So, measurements in urban areas not particularly useful for current large-scale model evaluations

• Sampling near intense sources?• Must get the fine-scale met “perfect”

Ok, if one wants to develop hypotheses regarding whether or not this is actually a source of the pollutant (and you can’t do a stack test for some reason!).

Sampling site?

Simple vs. Complex Measurements – 4: extreme near-field measurements

Complex vs. Simple Measurements – 5: Need some source impacted measurements

• Major questions regarding plume chemistry and near-field impacts (are there “hot spots”?)

• Most monitoring sites are designed to be “regional background” sites (e.g., most Mercury Deposition Network sites).

• We need some source-impacted sites as well to help resolve near-field questions

• But not too close – maybe 20-30 km is ideal (?)