Challenges in Global Mercury Modeling Ashu Dastoor Meteorological Service of Canada Environment...

28
Challenges in Global Mercury Modeling Ashu Dastoor Meteorological Service of Canada Environment Canada Acknowledgements: Didier Davignon and Arturo Quintanar

Transcript of Challenges in Global Mercury Modeling Ashu Dastoor Meteorological Service of Canada Environment...

Challenges in Global Mercury Modeling

Ashu Dastoor

Meteorological Service of Canada

Environment Canada

Acknowledgements: Didier Davignon and Arturo Quintanar

Atmospheric Mercury Cycling

Gas-phase chemistryGEM↔RGM↔TPMO3, OH, H2O2, Halogens: tropospheric chemistry Q: reactions, rates and products?

Heterogeneous Chemistry ?

Aerosol dynamicsQ: TPM size distribution? Planetary Boundary Layer

Turbulent mixingmet model

Anthropogenic emissionsGEM, RGM, TPMQ: emission speciation andplume chemistry?

Flue gas chemistry?

Point sourcesPlume rise

Volcanic emissionsQ: inventory?

Bio-mass burningemissionsQ: inventory?

Surface natural and re-emission:soils, vegetation water bodies, snow, oceansQ: inventory/processes?

Wet depositionMet modelQ: precipitation scavenging?

EvaporationMet model

Gas/liquidexchange

TransportMet model

Transport

Dry depositionQ: deposition velocities?

Cloud propertiesMet models

Snow/Ice dynamicsIce model

Evaporation

Area emissions

Mercury transformation processesQ: residence time and revolatilization rate and species?

GEM↔RGM↔TPMO3, OH, HO2, (Cl), SO3,aerosols: tropospheric chemistryQ: reactions, rates and products?

Goals for a Global Mercury Model towards estimating Mercury in Lake Ontario

• What is the atmospheric flux of Hg that arrives to Lake Ontario from global anthropogenic sources?

• What is the atmospheric flux of Hg that arrives to lake Ontario from global natural and recycled sources?

• What are the sources of this distant mercury?

• What is the speciation of transported mercury?

• What is the time-space distribution of this flux?

• How are the fluxes changing with changing emissions?

• What is the contribution of distant mercury to the deposition in Lake Ontario basin? This question can be better answered by a regional model using the atmospheric background and boundary flux information from global models.

• Preliminary results from N. American model intercomparison study indicate significant impact of trans-boundary flows of mercury to the regional deposition. The study compares impact of boundary fluxes from three different global models.

Major Challenges faced by a global model in addressing the goals

• Emissions: Natural and re-emissions from land and ocean surfaces (very few flux measurements and no emissions inventory)

• Mercury Chemistry: Chemical reactions- products, rates and phase

• Mercury dry deposition process• What is the trend in natural and re-

emissions of mercury relative to the anthropogenic emissions?

THE MERCURY CYCLE: CURRENT

Wet & DryDeposition 3500

ATMOSPHERE5000

SURFACE SOILS1,000,000 OCEAN

288,000

Wet & DryDeposition3100

Oceanic Evasion

2600

Net burial200

Land emissions1600

Quantities in Mg/yearUncertainty ranges in parenthesesAdapted from Mason & Sheu, 2002

AnthropogenicEmissions 2400

Extraction from deep reservoirs2400

River200

(700-3500)

(1680-3120)

(700-3500)

Ocean flux distribution

0 100 200 300 kg

July ocean flux

Jan. ocean flux

latitude

Flux

(ng/

m2 )

Jan.July

• Higher flux in tropics due to high temperature and radiation

• High flux in regions of high deposition

• Seasonality, spatial variation due to temperature, npp, radiation, and mixed layer depth

• Diurnal variation: photochemistry

Hg0

1.7 ng/m3

GaseousPhase

AqueousPhase

Hg0

Henry’s Constant 0.11 M/atm

Particulate Phase

Oxidation

Hg2+

Products and phase

unclear

10-200 pg/m3

HgP

1-100 pg/m3

Hg2+

k=8.7(+/-2.8) x 10-14 cm3 s-1 (Sommar et al. 2001)k=9.3(+/-1.3) x 10-14 cm3 s-1(Pal & Ariya 2004)

Probably unimportant reaction (Goodsite et al. 2004)

k=3(+/-2) x 10-20 cm3 s-1 (Hall 1995) k=7.5(+/-0.9) x 10-19 cm3 s-1 (Pal and Ariya 2004)

Longer lifetime suggested (Calvert & Lindberg 05) Henry’s Constant 1.4x106 M/atm

OH

O3

Oxidation

HO2

??Reduction

SO3

k=1.1-1.7 x 104 M-1 s-1 (Pehkonen & Lin 1998)Shouldn’t occur (Gårdfeldt & Jonsson 2003)

k=0.0106 (+/- 0.0009) s-1

(vanLoon et al. 2000)Occurs only where high sulfur, low chlorine

Oxalate?

Is there Hope?

• Global model is a closed atmospheric system therefore observations can be used to constrain uncertainties.

• Observations available: atmospheric mercury concentrations, wet deposition, terrestrial and aquatic fluxes of mercury and measurements of long-range transport of mercury.

ATMOSPHERE

Hg0 Hg(II)

Via OH:10236Via OH:10236

Dry Deposition

Ocean Emissions

Land (Natural) Emissions

Anthropogenic Emissions

Land Re-emissions

Hg(P)

775775 204204

Via O3: 2377Via O3: 2377

1500150014461446

500500

20002000

Dry DepositionWet Deposition

Wet Deposition

10411041

53275327

191191

1111

MERCURY BUDGET IN GEOS-CHEM

Inventories in MgRates in Mg/yr

k=8.7 x 10-14 cm3 s-1

k=3 x 10-20 cm3 s-1

τ = 0.77 yr τ = 7 days τ = 3.5 daysNet ox: 5489

Reduction7124

How are we addressing the goals?

• Develop a well constrained global model with known chemistry and emissions.

• Use the constrained model to address the goals.• Perturb the system using emerging chemical mechanism for

mercury on the global balance of mercury and provide possible solutions.

• Assess the impact of emerging mercury chemistry on long range transport of mercury and trans-boundary fluxes of mercury for regional models.

• Evaluate the accuracy of trend in anthropogenic emissions inventory by modeling the global budgets and verify the changes against the observations.

• Develop detailed processes such as mercury evasion from snow, soil, vegetation etc and including aerosol dynamics.

90S 60S 30S Eq. 30N 60N 90N

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

TGM

ng/

m3

Latitude

Observed (left; Lamborg et al., 2002) and modeled (right)

Inter-hemispheric gradient of TGM Observed and from GRAHM simulation

Date (Julian Date)

0 100 200 300

Mer

cury

con

cent

ratio

n (n

g/m

3)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Mercury depletion

Mercury reduction

Mean mercury concentration in the Arctic

Elemental mercury vapor concentration at Alert for the whole year 1995

Rapid, near-complete depletion of mercury observed during spring in the Arctic,sub-Arctic and Antarctic is which is also correlated with ozone depletion.

Questions: Which halogen gases are responsible and what is the impact on the Arctic and global mercury deposition?

Mercury deposition without MDEs Mercury deposition with MDEs

Main conclusions:

• Br atoms (~.4 day) and BrO (~1 day) radicals are the most effective halogens driving mercury

oxidation to more hygroscopic species which are readily deposited and could be incorporated

in the biota.

• MDEs in the Arctic increase the net deposition into the Arctic by 100 tons/yr.

• Net accumulation in the Arctic 325 tons/yr

The Arctic: a sink for mercury

Slow oxidation of Hg0 by O3 in the troposphere – 1-2 years life timeFast oxidation of Hg0 by halogens in the polar regions and marine boundary layer – hours - 10 days life time

Hg0 HgII

Surface ocean

Evasion deposition

transport

reduction

Hg0 HgII

Marine Boundary Layer

Fast oxidation

Loss

• Reduction proportional to radiation and net primary productivity

transport

Sea-salt aerosolHalogen activation

Cl2, Br2, Cl, Br, BrO

Impact of mbl chemistry on transboundary flow from Asia

Surface air mercury concentrations(ng/m3)

MBL chemistry

No MBL chemistry

Impact of mbl chemistry on total mercury deposition (ug/m3)

MBL Chemistry

No MBL Chemistry

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

0.22

0.24

0.26

0.28

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Canada

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

0.22

0.24

J F M A M J J A S O N D

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

0.22

0.24

0.26

0.28

J F M A M J J A S O N D

0.1

0.6

1.1

1.6

2.1

2.6

3.1

3.6

J F M A M J J A S O N D

0.1

0.6

1.1

1.6

2.1

2.6

J F M A M J J A S O N D

0.1

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

5.1

6.1

7.1

J F M A M J J A S O N D

USA

Arctic

Surface air Hgo concentrations Total deposition in ug/m2/year

No MBL

MBL

Spring 2004 Experiment: Simultaneous Observations at Mt.Bachelor and Okinawa ( Jaffe et al. 2005)

MBO

Okinawa

Okinawa: Hg0,RGM, PHg, CO, O3, aerosols, etc.

MBO: Total Hg0 , CO, O3, aerosols, etc.

Mauna Loa

1

2

3 4

5

6

Jaffe et al. 2005

Vector winds700 mb, April mean

Hg transport to North America: April 25th, 2004

ΔHg/ΔCO=0.50 ng/m3/100 ppbv

Good tracer of Asian air masses

Suggests much larger Asian emissions? (Jaffe et al. 2005)

Possible causes for this discrepancy:• Underestimate of the industrial or domestic Hg emissions;• Natural emissions;• Re-emission of previously deposited Hg;• Too low a ratio of Hg0/total Hg in the inventory;• Conversion of RGM to Hg0 during transport;

Explanations/Hypotheses (Jaffe et al. 2005)

Using the observed Hg0/CO ratio, and the known CO emissions, Jaffe et al. calculate Hg0 emissions from Asia of 1460 mt/year (+/-30%);

This can be compared to 770 mt/year in the Pacyna et al., 2003 inventory.

Anthropogenic Air Emissions of Anthropogenic Air Emissions of Mercury: Distribution by Region in Mercury: Distribution by Region in

1990 and 20001990 and 2000

Total: 1,881 metric tons/yr Total: 2,269 metric tons/yr

Asia and Africa account for about 70% of global emissions and show steady, significant increases due to industrialization.

Based on Pacyna, J., Munthe J., Presentation at Workshop on Mercury: Brussels, March 29-30, 2004Slide courtesy Grace Howland, Air Pollution Prevention Directorate, Environment Canada

20001990Africa 9%

Asia38%

Australia 3%

Europe33%

North America14%

South America3%

Africa 18% Asia

52%

Australia 6%Europe

11%

North America9%

South America4%

GRAHM simulation with year 2000 Global mercury emissions

January GEM ng/m3 July GEM ng/m3

JanuaryJanuary JulyJuly

GEM surface air concentrations ng/m**3 GEM surface air concentrations ng/m**3

GRAHM simulation with year 1990 global emissions

Impact of mercury emission reductions

• Impact of proposed Canada wide standards for coal-fired power plants-

Reduction of 1,224 kg/yr will result in ~ 580 kg/yr reduction in total mercury deposition over Canada

• Impact of proposed US mercury rule for coal-fired power plants- Reduction of 30,000 kg/yr will result in ~ 2,600 kg/yr reduction in

total mercury deposition over Canada

• Asia contributes ~ 24,700 (21,650 with mbl chemistry) kg/yr mercury deposition into Canada of which ~ 15,300 kg/yr comes from China.