Mercury Conceptual Model
System is complicated, simplified by single box model
Slow response(decades)
MeHg matters most (to biota)
Methylmercury Conceptual Model
Need to track MeHg MeHg <1% of totHg Poor MeHg:totHg
correlation
Differences from Hg 1 Box Model Methylation &
demethylation Potentially rapid (days-
months)
Sed-water
exchange
Meth
Demeth
Demeth
WWMMBD?What Would the MeHg Mass Budget Do?• Synthesize- do Bay data make sense given…
– Loading, production, degradation, sed-water exchange, and other processes?
• Quantitative conceptual model of MeHg– ID key factors for MeHg fate
• Feasibility/needs of refined model(s)– E.g. temporal & spatial detail
• What it won’t/can’t do– Identify “hot” spot impacts (1 box)– Predict long term fate (no Hg linkage)
MeHg 1 Box Model
• Adapted from PCB 1 box model– One water compartment – One sediment compartment (10cm mixed layer)– Daily time step– Annually uniform (no seasonality)– Constant uniform mixing– Equilibrium partitioning
• Simplifications worked for PCBs, PBDEs
External Loads (Imports)
+Direct atmospheric (wet) deposition 0.1 g/d Area x literature rain MeHg x local rainfall
+Delta (Mallard Island) discharge 9.8 g/d Flow x concentration (Region 5 MeHg TMDL)
+Local watersheds 4.9 g/dRMP measured watersheds (extrapolated)
+Wetlands (upper range estimate) 2.0 g/dVolume x (incoming - outgoing) concentrations
+POTWs (16 largest, ~95% discharge) 0.8 g/dFlow x concentration
= 17.6 g/d total
Internal Load- MeHg Production• Function of multiple factors-
– Would need complex C & S & Hg model
• Next best- lab incubation production rates?– Marvin-DiPasquale et al anaerobic incubations
• Assume portion of sediment layer methylates– Methylating zone in fraction (30%) of sediment
Loss Processes
• Bio-uptake = “export” from Bay 0.13 g/d– Small fish biomass (CDFG) x concentration (RMP)
1-Box Model Losses• Volatilization
– Air/water partitioning (Lindqvist & Rodhe 1985)
• Outflow (through Golden Gate)– Tidal mixing (Connolly), assume ocean MeHg ~0
• Burial– Fuller sedimentation 0.88cm/yr (~9% of mixed
layer)
Modeled Processes
• Degradation– Sediment: Marvin-DiPasquale demethylation
rates = 0.083/d (decay)• Assume demethylating zone (70% of mixed layer)
– Water: Krabbenhoft Petaluma water half life~7 days (0.10/d decay)
• Benthic flux– In daily resuspension & de/sorption
Large uncertainties some parameters– Some have small ~no effect
Base Case Run
• Base case = averaged – initial concentrations
(from RMP monitoring)
– loading/process parameter values
• Quick steady state, within ~5% of T0
– Sediment mass ~– Water mass lower
Base Case Run• Mass (inventory) vs daily
flux/degrade/produce• Water Mass
– Net sediment to water exchange, ext load =
Degradation>, GG outflow, >> bio-uptake,volatilization
• Total (Water+Sediment)– Production ~balances
degradation >> all other processes
* Flux box measurement similar: ~.014 kg/d (Choe et al)
Mass in Water 0.236 kg
Ext. Load 0.018 kg/d
Sed to Water* 0.021 kg/d
Water Degrade 0.024 kg/d
GG Outflow 0.014 kg/d
Bio-uptake <0.001 kg/d
Volatilize <0.001 kg/d
Mass in Sediment
30.8 kg
Methylate 1.82 kg/d
Sed Degrade 1.79 kg/d
Sed to Water 0.021 kg/d
Burial 0.007 kg/d
Hot &@%$! Model Responds Fast!?
• Seasonal de/meth rates (winter -30%)~month response!
• Yes, but…– Model oversimplifies
(mixing, equilibrium)– Processes vary on
microscale (e.g. de/methylation)
– Still a good order of magnitude tool
Parameter Sensitivity
Scenario Mass S Mass W
Base Case 30.8 kg 0.236 kg
Load /3 30.7 0.191
Load x3 31.0 0.370
WaterDegrade /3 30.9 0.317
WaterDegrade x3
30.6 0.134
SedDegrade /3 88.8 0.556
SedDegrade x3 10.4 0.123
Methylate /3 10.3 0.123
Methylate x3 92.0 0.574
WDMMBD?What Did the MeHg Mass Budget Do?• Did Bay data make sense?
– Base case near starting state- near “right” Baywide?
– Non-unique solution (e.g. offsetting errors?)
• Feasibility/needs of refined model(s)– 1 box driven by steady state/equilibrium– Basis for more detailed model?
• Much higher data needs
• Key factors affecting MeHg fate– External loads have small/medium effect
– Very sensitive to de/methylation rates
Management Strategy – Dr. EvilAcquire $1 MillionOption A- Control Methylation:• Sterilize the Bay (thermonuclear device)Option B- Control Demethylation:• Equip sharks w/ UV lasers to
photodemethylate
Management Strategy -RMP• Option C- RMP Mercury Strategy:
– Where biota affected (food web entry)– ID disproportionate (high leverage) pathways– ID intervention opportunities
– IF strategy finds locations where critical pathways (e.g. de/methylation) may be acted on
• THEN act (e.g.holding ponds, aeration, dredging, nutrient reductions, etc)
– Monitor & model management effectiveness “adaptive management”
(Unfortunately likely > $1 million)
Acknowledgements
Too many to list…
“If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants”
– Sir Isaac Newton
Atmospheric (Wet) Deposition
• No local data – RMP MDN station only measured totHg
• Literature rainfall MeHg (avg 0.11 ng/L) …– Watras & Bloom (1989 Olympic Penins. WA
0.15ng/L)– Risch et al (2001-2003 Indiana, 0.06ng/L)– St Louis et al (1995, ELA area, 0.05ng/L)– Mason et al (1997, Still Pond, MD, HgT x %MeHg
avg = 0.04ng/L)
• x Local annual precipitation (0.45m/y)• = 0.10 g/d deposition Baywide
Discharges from…
• Delta (SWRCB Region 5)– Flow weighted avg concentration x mean annual
discharge = 4.7g/d in Hg TMDL– Revised to w/ later data
• Local watersheds– Extrapolate w/ SIMPLE Model (modeling mine +
urban + non-urban areas) • Local MeHg data, extrapolated to Bay area (3.6 g/d)• Local Hg data x MeHg%, extrapolated to Bay area (6.2
g/d)
– Use average of above 4.9g/d
Discharges from…
• Wetlands– Wetland Goals est. 40k acres wetland (1.6e8 m2),
assume 0.3m overlying water every day– Petaluma marsh extrapolation
• ~50% water particulate settles -1.2g/d• ebb tide dissolved conc ~2.5x flood tide (max 5x at
Petaluma) +3.2g/d • = net 2g/d load to Bay
– USACE Hamilton AAF leaching assumptions• 0.8%/d of net production = 4.0g/d load
– Stephenson et al showed net import and export different events for Suisun Marsh
• May be difficult to refine net load
Discharges from…
• POTWs– Annual mean conc x discharge for 16 largest
plants (loads for each plant calculated then summed) = 0.79g/d
• Conc range 0.04-1.3ng/L (mean ~0.42ng/L)• Discharge 14-165e9 L/y (sum ~2.15e9g/d ~95% of
discharge volume)
Bio-uptake “Loss”
• Phytoplankton?– Cloern 2002-2004 productivity ~210gC/m2y– Hammerschmidt MeHg 0.5ng/g ww =5ng/g dw– LakeMichMassBal algal MeHg = 30 ppb dw– C→CH2O, geomean MeHg 12ng/g– = 19.5g/d MeHg into phytoplankton?
• Phytoplankton rapid turnover (growth~0.3/d?), reversible “loss” from water/sed pools, loss estimate probably too high
• Small fish?– Slater (CDFG, IEP) young of year pelagic fish est. 0.01-
0.25g/m3 (Suisun lowest, Central highest, mostly anchovies) mean ~0.17g/m3 ww biomass
– RMP anchovy Hg 0.049µg/g ww = 0.13g/day MeHg into fish biomass (<1% of phyto?)
– Expect less (short term) cycling than algae, “irreversible” net loss by incorporation into higher trophic levels