Evaluating the HYSPLIT-Hg Atmospheric Mercury Model Using Ambient Monitoring Data Mark Cohen 1, Winston Luke 1, Paul Kelley 1, Fantine Ngan 1, Richard.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
One Hg emissions source Gulfport Grand Bay NERR monitoring site > 1000 ug/m2-yr > 10 ug/m2-yr > 0.1 ug/m2-yr > ug/m2-yr two-hour deposition values.
Advertisements

Georgia Chapter of the Air & Waste Management Association Annual Conference: Improved Air Quality Modeling for Predicting the Impacts of Controlled Forest.
1 Source-attribution for atmospheric mercury deposition: Where does the mercury in mercury deposition come from? Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory.
Atmospheric Mercury Research Mark Cohen Air Resources Laboratory ARL Laboratory Review May 3-5, 2011.
CO budget and variability over the U.S. using the WRF-Chem regional model Anne Boynard, Gabriele Pfister, David Edwards National Center for Atmospheric.
Paul Wishinski VT DEC Presentation for: MARAMA-NESCAUM-OTC Regional Haze Workshop August 2-3, 2000 Gorham, New Hampshire LYE BROOK WILDERNESS CLASS I AREA.
Slide 1 Transport and chemical processing of mercury during long-range transport in the Pacific by Dan Jaffe University of Washington Acknowledgements:
Atmospheric Mercury Modeling Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory (ARL) College Park, MD, USA Meeting with John Sherwell, Power Plant Research.
The Atmospheric Transport and Deposition of Mercury Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Silver Spring, Maryland Materials assembled for a discussion.
Mercury Source Attribution at Global, Regional and Local Scales Christian Seigneur, Krish Vijayaraghavan, Kristen Lohman, and Prakash Karamchandani AER.
Evaluation of the AIRPACT2 modeling system for the Pacific Northwest Abdullah Mahmud MS Student, CEE Washington State University.
Atmospheric Mercury: Emissions, Transport/Fate, Source-Receptor Relationships Presentation at Collaborative Meeting on Modeling Mercury in Freshwater Environments.
Mercury in the Great Lakes Region Sponsored by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s Environment, Economy and Trade and Pollutants and Health.
Atmospheric Mercury Measurements and Modeling at NOAA’s Air Resources Laboratory Mark Cohen, Winston Luke, Paul Kelley, Roland Draxler, Fantine Ngan, and.
Wet Deposition of Mercury In The U.S. Results from the NADP Mercury Deposition Network, David Gay Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL,
Atmospheric Mercury Deposition to the Great Lakes A Multi-Year Study Supported by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Principal Investigator: Dr. Mark.
(work funded through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative)
D. Gay, Schmeltz, Sharac, Nat. Tribal Conf. for Env. Management, Billings, MT, June 26, 2008, Slide 1 Current Mercury Monitoring Approaches in Tribal Country.
Grand Bay Mercury Intensive, Data and Planning Meeting, Jan 24, 2011, Georgia Tech University Forecast and Hindcast Modeling in the Grand Bay Mercury Intensive.
Simulations of Atmospheric Mercury with the NOAA HYSPLIT Model Mark Cohen, Roland Draxler, Winston Luke, Paul Kelley, and Richard Artz NOAA Air Resources.
Simulating diurnal changes of speciated particulate matter in Atlanta, Georgia using CMAQ Yongtao Hu, Jaemeen Baek, Bo Yan, Rodney Weber, Sangil Lee, Evan.
Muntaseer Billah, Satoru Chatani and Kengo Sudo Department of Earth and Environmental Science Graduate School of Environmental Studies Nagoya University,
Continuous measurements of the atmospheric concentrations of Reactive Gaseous Mercury (RGM), Fine Particulate Mercury (FPM) and Gaseous Elemental Mercury.
Modeling the Atmospheric Transport and Deposition of Mercury to the Great Lakes Mark Cohen, Roland Draxler, Hang Lei, Richard Artz NOAA Air Resources Laboratory.
Organization of Course INTRODUCTION 1.Course overview 2.Air Toxics overview 3.HYSPLIT overview HYSPLIT Theory and Practice 4.Meteorology 5.Back Trajectories.
NOAA’s Atmospheric Mercury Monitoring in the Gulf of Mexico Region [April 2007 summary] This summary is updated periodically, and the current version is.
Trans-Pacific Chemical Transport of Mercury: Sensitivity Analysis on Asian Emission Contribution to Mercury Deposition in North America Using CMAQ-Hg C.-J.
Gulf of Mexico Alliance Mercury Forum, May 10-12, 2010, Mote Marine Lab, Sarasota, Florida Atmospheric Mercury Measurements and Modeling at the Grand Bay.
Organization of Course INTRODUCTION 1.Course overview 2.Air Toxics overview 3.HYSPLIT overview HYSPLIT Theory and Practice 4.Meteorology 5.Back Trajectories.
Importance of Lightning NO for Regional Air Quality Modeling Thomas E. Pierce/NOAA Atmospheric Modeling Division National Exposure Research Laboratory.
Atmospheric Mercury Modeling 101 Mark Cohen Air Resources Laboratory ARL 101 June 19, /19/2012Air Resources Laboratory1.
1 Using Hemispheric-CMAQ to Provide Initial and Boundary Conditions for Regional Modeling Joshua S. Fu 1, Xinyi Dong 1, Kan Huang 1, and Carey Jang 2 1.
Atmospheric Fate and Transport of Mercury Lake Ontario Contaminant Monitoring & Research Workshop Planning for the 2008 Cooperative Monitoring Year - Contaminants.
Grand Bay Episode March 6, 2007 March 6March 7. March 6.
Global Modeling of Mercury in the Atmosphere using the GEOS-CHEM model Noelle Eckley, Rokjin Park, Daniel Jacob 30 January 2004.
Ultra-trace Mercury Monitoring in Air. Company History Founded in 1989 to develop custom instrumentation for environmental analysis Founded in 1989 to.
Modeling the Atmospheric Deposition of Mercury to Lake Champlain (from Anthropogenic Sources in the U.S. and Canada) Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources.
4. Atmospheric chemical transport models 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Box model 4.3 Three dimensional atmospheric chemical transport model.
Icfi.com April 30, 2009 icfi.com © 2006 ICF International. All rights reserved. AIR TOXICS IN MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA: A MONITORING AND MODELING STUDY WEBINAR:
Improving an Emissions Inventory for Bogotá, Colombia via a Top-Down Approach Robert Nedbor-Gross 1, Barron H. Henderson. 1, Jorge E. Pachon. 2, Maria.
Numerical Simulation of Atmospheric Loadings of Mercury from a Coal Fired Power Plant to Lake Erie S. M. Daggupaty, C. M. Banic and P. Blanchard Air Quality.
Mercury Measurement Programs within NOAA/ARL Steve Brooks, Mark Cohen, Tilden Meyers, Paul Kelley, Winston Luke NOAA/Air Resources Laboratory NOAA/Air.
Transboundary Air Pollution Plan of Islamic Republic of Iran
Application of the CMAQ Particle and Precursor Tagging Methodology (PPTM) to Support Water Quality Planning for the Virginia Mercury Study 6 th Annual.
TEMPLATE DESIGN © A high-order accurate and monotonic advection scheme is used as a local interpolator to redistribute.
Simulations of RGM air emissions from 30 power plants + 16 other large RGM sources in the 4-state region Simulations with HYSPLIT-Hg for Oct-2004 through.
1 Modeling the Atmospheric Transport and Deposition of Mercury Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Silver Spring, Maryland Mercury Workshop, Great.
 Great Lakes Areas of Concern  U.S. urban areas (pink shading)  Large U.S./Canadian 2005 point sources of mercury Type of Emissions Source coal-fired.
U.S. EPA and WIST Rob Gilliam *NOAA/**U.S. EPA
D. Gay, Schmeltz, Sharac, Nat. Tribal Conf. for Env. Management, Billings, MT, June 26, 2008, Slide 1 Current Mercury Monitoring Approaches in Tribal Country.
Lagrangian particle models are three-dimensional models for the simulation of airborne pollutant dispersion, able to account for flow and turbulence space-time.
Using HYSPLIT to Understand Source-Receptor Relationships: Some Examples HYSPLIT Training NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Jun 2-4, 2009 Silver Spring, MD,
Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Silver Spring, Maryland
The Atmospheric Transport and Deposition of Mercury to the Great Lakes Dr. Mark Cohen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory Silver Spring, Maryland Collection.
Why do we need atmospheric models?  to get comprehensive source attribution information...we don’t just want to know how much is depositing at any given.
Organization of Course INTRODUCTION 1.Course overview 2.Air Toxics overview 3.HYSPLIT overview HYSPLIT Theory and Practice 4.Meteorology 5.Back Trajectories.
Atmospheric mercury measurements in the Gulf of Mexico and mid-Atlantic regions: Early results from an emerging monitoring network Winston Luke, Mark Cohen,
ARL Mercury Measurements in the mid-Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Regions: Status and Update Winston Luke, Paul Kelley, Mark Cohen NOAA/Air Resources Laboratory.
Spatial distribution of hourly trajectory endpoint frequencies top 10% of daytime RGM vs. total year with estimated 2002 emissions of reactive gaseous.
Source-apportionment for atmospheric mercury deposition: Where does the mercury in mercury deposition come from? Mark Cohen, Roland Draxler, and Richard.
EMEP/WGE Bureaux, March 2015 MSC-E work plan, 2015 TaskItem Calculations of HMs/POPs for b Testing of HM/POP models in the new EMEP grid1.3.4.
2002 U.S. data from USEPA National Emissions Inventory (NEI); 2002 Canadian data from Environment Canada; 1999 Mexican data from inventory prepared by.
UNEP Global Partnership on Mercury Air Transport and Fate Research - Canadian Contribution - Grace Howland Environment Canada, Chemicals Management Division.
Preliminary Analysis by: Fawn Hornsby 1, Charles Rogers 2, & Sarah Thornton 3 1,3 North Carolina State University 2 University of Texas at El Paso Client:
Atmospheric Mercury Measurements Winston Luke NOAA/Air Resources Laboratory June 22, 2016.
NOAA’s Atmospheric Mercury Monitoring in the Gulf of Mexico Region January 17,
Simulating the Atmospheric Fate and Transport of Air Toxics with the NOAA HYSPLIT Model (with Particular Attention to Dioxin and Mercury) Mark Cohen NOAA.
UNEP Global Partnership for Mercury Air Transport and Fate Research: U
Air Transport and Fate Research Partnership Meeting,
Michael Moran Air Quality Research Branch
Presentation transcript:

Evaluating the HYSPLIT-Hg Atmospheric Mercury Model Using Ambient Monitoring Data Mark Cohen 1, Winston Luke 1, Paul Kelley 1, Fantine Ngan 1, Richard Artz 1, Steve Brooks 2, Venkata Bhaskar Rao Dodla 3, Roland Draxler 1, Xinrong Ren 1, David Schmeltz 4, Timothy Sharac 4, Jake Walker 5 10th International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant July 23-29, 2011, Halifax, Nova Scotia 1.NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring MD, USA 2.Canaan Valley Institute, Davis WV, USA 3.Jackson State University, Jackson MS, USA 4.USEPA Clean Air Markets Division, Washington DC, USA 5.Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Moss Point MS, USA

NOAA Air Resources Laboratory: Five Collaborative Speciated Atmospheric Mercury Measurement Sites 2002 mercury emissions sources based on data from USEPA, Envr. Canada and the CEC Mauna Loa Canaan Valley Allegheny Portage Beltsville Type of Emissions Source coal-fired power plants other fuel combustion waste incineration metallurgical manufacturing & other Emissions (kg/yr) – – – –3500 Grand Bay NERR

Atmospheric Mercury Monitoring Station at the Grand Bay NERR mercury and trace gas monitoring tower (10 meters) precipitation amount Mercury Deposition Network and heavy metals major ions (“acid rain”) precipitation collection

OctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSep …. time series of RGM concentrations measured at Grand Bay Then down for ~2 months due to hurricanes May episode

two co-located speciated mercury measurement suites provide continuous “coverage” and allow peaks to be verified Date

emissions of Hg(0), Hg(II), Hg(p) Hg from other sources: local, regional & more distant Measurement of wet deposition Measurement of ambient air concentrations Can we reproduce this episode with an atmospheric mercury model? Peaks are important to understand Opportunity for model evaluation Just one episode of many

Morrow Watson Lowman Greene Barry Daniel Crist Mobile* MississippiAlabama Louisiana Florida color of symbol denotes type of mercury source coal-fired power plants other fuel combustion waste incineration metallurgical manufacturing & other size/shape of symbol denotes amount of Reactive Gaseous Mercury (RGM) emitted during 2002 (kg/yr) – urban areas Ipsco Steel: significant mercury emissions in 2002 NEI, but negligible emissions reported in 2008 TRI Brewton Paper Mill: no emissions according to Toxic Release Inventory * Also called “Kimberly Clark Paper” Pascagoula Waste Incinerator: in 2002 NEI but shut down in 2001 Grand Bay site Lowman: big reduction in Hg emissions reported in 2008

Grand Bay site  NOAA “EDAS 40km” met data (grid points shown here)  Ok for regional analysis, but too coarse for local analysis  Unlikely to simulate sea-breeze well, and in general, wind speed and wind direction are unlikely to be very accurate on local scales

We created a 4km resolution met data set – also with enhanced vertical resolution – using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model (grid points shown here)

Model over- predicted wind speed Mercury peaks Model: WRF(a) (NOAH Land Surface Model + nudging) Model: WRF(b) (PX Land Surface Model + nudging) Measurements at the Grand Bay NERR site * May 3May 4 May 5May 6May 7

Modeled wind did not turn to north Model: WRF(a) (NOAH Land Surface Model + nudging) Model: WRF(b) (PX Land Surface Model + nudging) Measurements at the Grand Bay NERR site * Mercury peaks May 3May 4 May 5May 6May 7

This is the period that you just saw – a measured peak, but not a modeled peak (BARRY - blue line) BARRY DANIEL CRIST WATSON MOBILE GREENE LOWMAN RGM Measurements #1#2 One set of model results

May 2008  We typically assume emissions are constant throughout the year  May 2008: “typical” month for SO2 emissions at the Daniel plant Source of data: USEPA Clean Air Markets Division

May 4-7, 2008 But, hourly SO2 emissions at the Daniel plant were not constant… and so Hg emissions were also likely variable Source of data: USEPA Clean Air Markets Division

SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS (and questions): In order to “use” the AMNet data, we need Emissions information with higher temporal resolution (better than annual once every 3 years) Meteorological data with higher resolution …no matter what kind of analyses we are doing Comparing Trends; Trajectories; Dispersion Justification for the network depends on being able to use the data meaningfully! How can we improve this situation?

 This model evaluation exercise will be more fully characterized for this one episode at this one site  Of course, must look at other episodes, other sites  Variations and uncertainties in meteorology and emissions make local plumes “stochastic”…  Even if a model was “perfect” it would not be generally possible to reproduce a local plume hit at a monitoring site.  What is the best way to evaluate (and improve) models?

Thanks!

EXTRA SLIDES

Modeling – Comprehensive Fate and Transport Simulations Start with an emissions inventory Use gridded meteorological data Simulate the dispersion, chemical transformation, and wet and dry deposition of mercury emitted to the air Source-attribution information needed at the end, so optimize modeling system and approach to allow source-receptor information to be captured HYSPLIT-Hg developed over the last ~10 years with specialized algorithms for simulation of atmospheric mercury

(Proposed Alternative) Figure 3. Time series of Reactive Gaseous Mercury (RGM), Fine Particulate Mercury (FPM) and Gaseous Elemental Mercury (GEM) from two co-located instruments (D1 and D2) (top graph) and of SO2, O3, NO, NOy, and CO (bottom graph) measured at the Grand Bay NERR from May 3-8, 2008