1. An Investigation of Atmospheric Mercury Deposition to Bay Area Storm Runoff: a Pilot Study Sarah Rothenberg, Lester McKee, Don Yee, Alicia Gilbreath, Michelle Lent February 20, 2008

2. 1.Introduction to atmospheric mercury 2.Methods 3.Results A. Dry deposition rates B. Wet deposition rates 4. Summary Overview of presentation

3. Atmospheric Mercury (Hg) 1. Sources (Mason et al., 1994) Anthropogenic (80%) Natural (20%) 2. Speciation and Residence Time (Lindberg et al., 2007) Gaseous Elemental Hg (Hg o ): ~ 1 year Reactive Gaseous Hg (RGM): minutes-weeks Particulate Hg (Hg p ): minutes-weeks

4. Hintelmann et al. 2002 METAALICUS STUDY: Newly deposited Hg through atmospheric deposition is more rapidly converted to methylmercury (by a factor of 3.8), than “native” Hg Hammerschmidt and Fitzgerald 2006

5. Examples of emission factors: Crematoria: 1.5 g Hg (body) -1 Cement: 0.065 g Hg (ton clinker) -1 Refineries 210 g Hg (10 12 Btu) -1 Source: Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Mercury and Mercury Compounds, EPA-454/R-97-012, 1997 How are Hg air emissions estimated?

6. In California, estimated Hg emissions are highest in the Bay Area Air District. Data from ARB Facility Search www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facinfo.php

7. Data from ARB Facility Search www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facinfo.php In the Bay Area, 2005 estimated Hg emissions (233 Kg) are comprised of 5 refineries (58%), 1 cement plant (35%), 39 crematoria (5%), and 240 miscellaneous sources (2%).

8. Hanson’s Permanente Cement Manufacturing 24001 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino Research Question: Are industrial air emissions important sources of Hg to the Bay Area watershed?

9. Methods 1. Dry deposition rate: Tekran ® 2537A/1130/1135 Calculate flux (Laurier et al., 2003, Lyman et al., 2007) Compare results between 3 sites 2. Wet deposition rate: Mercury Deposition Network collectors Calculate flux Compare results from 3 sites

10. 1 Next to Hanson’s (source) 1 Sampling Sites: Dry Deposition 3 2 Moffett Field NAS (control) 7 miles N from source Calero Reservoir (control) 20 miles SE from source 3 2

11. 1 Next to Hanson’s (source) 1 Sampling Sites: Dry Deposition 3 2 Moffett Field NAS (control) 7 miles N from source Calero Reservoir (control) 20 miles SE from source 3 2

12. Moffett Field NAS 8/30/05-9/9/05 Calero Reservoir 9/18/05-9/27/05 Hanson’s Cement 11/26/07-12/12/07 Day Hg o (ng m -3 ) Rain Hg o (ng m -3 ) Day MoffettCalero

13. Moffett Field NAS 8/30/05-9/9/05 Calero Reservoir 9/18/05-9/27/05 Hanson’s Cement 11/26/07-12/12/07 Hg p, RGM (pg m -3 ) MoffettCalero Day Hg p, RGM (pg m -3 ) Rain

14. Hg o n (ng m -3 ) Moffett Field NAS 1.71757 Calero Reservoir 1.7 1757 Hanson’s Cement 2.1 3019 Global background level1.5-1.7 (Lindberg et al., 2007) SF Estuary 1.5-4.2 (Tsai and Hoenicke, 2001) Average Hg o levels were ~20% higher at the source…….

15. Hg p RGMn (pg m -3 ) Moffett Field NAS 3.1 1.8 76 Calero Reservoir 4.4 6.3 76 Hanson’s Cement 20 18 111 ……while average Hg p and RGM levels were 6-10 times higher at the source

16. Calero Reservoir 9/18/05-9/27/05 Hanson’s Cement 11/26/07-12/12/07 Annual RGM flux (  g m -2 ) Day Calero Annual RGM Flux (  g m -2 yr -1 )

17. Annual RGM flux n (  g m -2 yr -1 ) Calero Reservoir 2.2 (0-15)76 Hanson’s Cement 6.4 (0.081-100) 79 Average RGM flux levels were 3 times higher at the source

18. Calero Reservoir 9/18/05-9/27/05 Hanson’s Cement 11/26/07-12/12/07 Annual Hg p flux (  g m -2 ) Day Calero Annual Hg p Flux (  g m -2 yr -1 )

19. Annual Hg p flux n (  g m -2 yr -1 ) Calero Reservoir 0.53 (0.022-2.2)76 Hanson’s Cement 1.9 (0-29) 91 Average Hg p flux levels were 4 times higher at the source

20. Need longer deployments to accurately quantify annual flux Determine catchment size, to quantify mass deposited locally Calculate runoff efficiency, to determine potential mass entering storm water Data needs:

21. 1 Next to Hanson’s (source) 1 Sampling Sites: Wet Deposition 2 4 Moffett Field NAS (control) 7 miles N from source De Anza College (control) 2.2 miles E from source 2 4 3 3 Stevens Creek Park (control) 1.5 miles S from source

22. Moffett Field NAS 1/11/2000-12/27/2006 Hanson’s Cement 12/6/2007-1/24/2008 Hg T (ng L -1 ) 29 6 13 20 27 3 4 10 17 24 Nov Dec Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Hg T (ng L -1 )

23. Moffett Field NAS 1/11/2000-12/27/2006 Hanson’s Cement 12/6/2007-1/24/2008 Hg T (  g m -2 ) 29 6 13 20 27 3 4 10 17 24 Nov Dec Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Hg T (  g m -2 )

24. Hg T levels n (ng L -1 ) Moffett Field NAS14 (1.7-250) 146 Hanson’s Cement 29 (7.8-61) 6 Hg T flux n (  g m -2 ) Moffett Field NAS 0.13 (0.0025-1.0) 146 Hanson’s Cement 0.45 (0.032-0.91) 6

25. Finish collecting precipitation this season Compare concurrently collected precipitation data between Hanson’s and 2 control sites Determine catchment size, to quantify mass deposited locally Calculate runoff efficiency, to determine potential mass entering storm water Continued research

26. Many thanks to: De Anza College, Environmental Studies Program, Julie Philips, Pat Cornely Andy Lincoff, Peter Husby, and Greg Nagle from EPA, Region IX for providing Tekran support Steve Lindberg, Mae Gustin, Eric Prestbo, and Mark Marvin-DiPasquale for their helpful advice This study was funded through Proposition 13. Brooks Rand, LLC for all laboratory analyses

27. Thank you!