organization of course
DESCRIPTION
Organization of Course. Overall Project Issues & Examples Emissions Inventories Source-Receptor Post-Processing Source-Attribution for Deposition Model Evaluation Model Intercomparison Collaboration Possibilities. INTRODUCTION Course overview Air Toxics overview HYSPLIT overview - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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 (?)