Air Mercury Model Intercomparisons.


55 views
Uploaded on:
Category: Animals / Pets
Description
Niagara Falls, NY, January 19-20, 2006. Dr. Mark Cohen. NOAA Air ... EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of ...
Transcripts
Slide 1

Air 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

Slide 2

Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons Comparison of Utility Contributions to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg versus CMAQ-Hg EMEP Mercury Model Intercomparison Local Deposition Comparison: HYSPLIT-Hg versus ISC (Gaussian Plume) Summary 2

Slide 3

Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons Comparison of Utility Contributions to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg versus CMAQ-Hg EMEP Mercury Model Intercomparison Local Deposition Comparison: HYSPLIT-Hg versus ISC (Gaussian Plume) Summary 3

Slide 4

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. W ä ngberg … .. 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

Slide 5

Intercomparison Conducted in 3 Stages Comparison of substance plans for a cloud situation Air Concentrations in Short Term Episodes Long-Term Deposition and Source-Receptor Budgets 5

Slide 6

Participating Models 6

Slide 7

Intercomparison Conducted in 3 Stages Comparison of synthetic plans for a cloud domain Air Concentrations in Short Term Episodes Long-Term Deposition and Source-Receptor Budgets 7

Slide 8

Atmospheric Mercury Elemental Mercury [Hg(0)] cloud Hg(II), Reactive Gaseous Mercury [RGM] Particulate Mercury [Hg(p)] CLOUD DROPLET Hg(II) lessened to Hg(0) by SO 2 and daylight Vapor stage Hg(0) oxidized to RGM and Hg(p) by O 3 , H 2 0 2 , Cl 2 , OH, HCl Adsorption/desorption of Hg(II) to/from residue Hg(p) Hg(p) Dissolution? Essential Anthropogenic Emissions Hg(0) oxidized to broke down Hg(II) species by O 3 , OH, HOCl, OCl - Re-emanation of beforehand stored mercury Natural discharges Wet and Dry Deposition 8

Slide 9

Variation of Hg focuses (ng/L) 9

Slide 10

Stage I Publications: 2001 Ryaboshapko, An., 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. Examinations of Chemical Modules for Mercury Transformations in a Cloud/Fog Environment . Meteorological Synthesizing Center – East, Moscow, Russia. 2002 Ryaboshapko, A., Bullock, R., Ebinghaus, R., Ilyin, I., Lohman, K., Munthe, J., Petersen, G., Seigneur, C., Wangberg, I. Correlation of Mercury Chemistry Models . Climatic Environment 36 , 3881-3898. 10

Slide 11

Intercomparison Conducted in 3 Stages Comparison of compound plans for a cloud domain Air Concentrations in Short Term Episodes Long-Term Deposition and Source-Receptor Budgets 11

Slide 12

12

Slide 13

Mace Head, Ireland prairie shore Aspvreten, Sweden forested shore Rorvik, Sweden forested shore Zingst, Germany sandy shore Neuglobsow, Germany forested territory Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions Inventory and Monitoring Sites for Phase II (note: just demonstrating biggest transmitting lattice cells) 13

Slide 14

Mace Head Aspvreten Rorvik Zingst Neuglobsow 14

Slide 15

Neuglobsow NW S SE N NW N NW Total Gaseous Mercury at Neuglobsow: June 26 – July 6, 1995 15

Slide 16

Total Gaseous Mercury (ng/m 3 ) at Neuglobsow: June 26 – July 6, 1995 16

Slide 17

Using elective outflows stock Total Gaseous Mercury (ng/m 3 ) at Neuglobsow: June 26 – July 6, 1995 The discharges stock is a basic contribution to the models… Using default emanations stock 17

Slide 18

Total Particulate Mercury (pg/m 3 ) at Neuglobsow, Nov 1-14, 1999 18

Slide 19

EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury Intro-duction Stage I Stage II Stage III Conclu-sions Chemistry Hg 0 Hg(p) RGM Wet Dep Dry Dep Budgets Reactive Gaseous Mercury at Neuglobsow, Nov 1-14, 1999 19

Slide 20

EMEP Intercomparison Study of Numerical Models for Long-Range Atmospheric Transport of Mercury Intro-duction Stage I Stage II Stage III Conclu-sions Chemistry Hg 0 Hg(p) RGM Wet Dep Dry Dep Budgets TGM: all inside an element of 1.35 RGM: 90% inside a component of 10 TPM: 90% inside an element of 2.5 RGM: half inside an element of 2 Deviation Factor Overall Phase II insights for 2-week scene implies TGM: 2-week mean focuses inside variable of 1.35 TPM: 90% inside element of 2.5 RGM:90% inside an element of 10; half inside an element of 2 20

Slide 21

Stage II Publications: 2003 Ryaboshapko, An., 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. Correlations of Modeling Results with Observations Obtained During Short Term Measuring Campaigns . Meteorological Synthesizing Center – East, Moscow, Russia. 2005 Ryaboshapko, A., Bullock, R., Christensen, J., Cohen, M., Dastoor, An., Ilyin, I., Petersen, G., Syrakov, D., Artz, R., Davignon, D., Draxler, R., and Munthe, J. Intercomparison Study of Atmospheric Mercury Models. Stage II. Correlation of Models with Short-Term Measurements . Submitted to Atmospheric Environment. 21

Slide 22

Intercomparison Conducted in 3 Stages Comparison of synthetic plans for a cloud situation Air Concentrations in Short Term Episodes Long-Term Deposition and Source-Receptor Budgets 22

Slide 23

Phase III Sampling Locations 23

Slide 24

Due to asset limitations, not all shows reproduced the whole year 1999… 24

Slide 25

25

Slide 26

~100% inside a variable of 10 ~80% inside a component of 3 ~60% inside an element of 2 ~90% inside an element of 5 Wet Deposition Summary 26

Slide 27

For dry statement , there are no estimation results to think about the models against; However, the models can be thought about against each other… 27

Slide 28

28

Slide 29

Main things of mercury barometrical parity for the UK in 1999, t/yr 29

Slide 30

Items of Hg air parities for the nations in 1999, t/yr [average demonstrated result ( with reaches in enclosures) ] 30

Slide 31

Stage III Publication: 2005 Ryaboshapko, An., 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. Examination of Modeling Results with Long-Term Observations and Comparison of Calculated Items of Regional Balances . Meteorological Synthesizing Center – East, Moscow, Russia. 31

Slide 32

Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons Comparison of Utility Contributions to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg versus CMAQ-Hg EMEP Mercury Model Intercomparison Local Deposition Comparison: HYSPLIT-Hg versus ISC (Gaussian Plume) Summary 32

Slide 33

Calculated from information used to deliver Appendix An 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

Slide 34

HYSPLIT 1996 Different Time Periods and Locations, yet Similar Results ISC: 1990-1994 34

Slide 35

Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons Comparison of Utility Contributions to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg versus CMAQ-Hg EMEP Mercury Model Intercomparison Local Deposition Comparison: HYSPLIT-Hg versus ISC (Gaussian Plume) Summary 35

Slide 36

HYSPLIT-Hg comes about for Lake Erie (1999)

Slide 37

HYSPLIT-Hg comes about for Lake Erie (1999) 37

Slide 38

CMAQ-Hg comes about because of EPA examination performed for the Clean Air Mercury Rule Modeled Mercury Deposition in the Great Lakes Region from all sources amid 2001 Modeled Mercury Deposition in the Great Lakes Region owing to U.S. coal-let go power plants amid 2001

Slide 39

Model-assessed U.S. utility air mercury affidavit commitment to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 outflows) versus CMAQ-HG (2001 meteorology, 2001 outflows). 39

Slide 40

Model-evaluated U.S. utility climatic mercury testimony commitment to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg (1996 meteorology, 1999 discharges) versus CMAQ-Hg (2001 meteorology, 2001 discharges). This figure additionally demonstrates an additional segment of the CMAQ-Hg gauges - comparing to 30% of the CMAQ-Hg comes about – trying to alter the CMAQ-Hg results to represent the affidavit underprediction found in the CMAQ-Hg model assessment. 40

Slide 41

Atmospheric Mercury Model Intercomparisons Comparison of Utility Contributions to the Great Lakes: HYSPLIT-Hg versus CMAQ-Hg EMEP Mercury Model Intercomparison Local Deposition Comparison: HYSPLIT-Hg versus ISC (Gaussian Plume) Summary 41

Slide 42

Summary of Model Intercomparisons Extremely valuable for enhancing models Opportunity to cooperate and pool assets (e.g., everybody doesn\'t need to make their own stock or amass observing information for assessment) Funding is an issue… most studies don\'t support the individual members… . 10% of the work is doing the underlying displaying investigation; 90% of