Plume‐in‐grid modeling of atmospheric mercury

[1] An existing plume-in-grid model for ozone and particulate matter, which provides an explicit treatment of stack plumes embedded within a three-dimensional grid-based Eulerian air quality model, is extended to include a comprehensive treatment of mercury (Hg) processes. The model is applied to the continental United States to investigate the subgrid-scale effects associated with Hg emissions from large elevated point sources on atmospheric Hg concentrations and deposition. The top thirty Hg-emitting power plants in the U.S. were selected for explicit plume-in-grid treatment. Two new processes are included in the Hg chemical mechanism: the gas-phase adsorption of reactive gaseous mercury (RGM) on atmospheric particulate matter and the reduction of RGM to elemental Hg by sulfur dioxide. The plume-in-grid treatment results in improved performance for Hg wet deposition over a purely Eulerian grid-based model, partial correction of overpredictions of wet deposition downwind of coal-fired power plants in the northeastern U.S., and decreases of approximately 10% in simulated dry and wet deposition over large parts of the eastern U.S., with larger decreases near the plants selected for plume-in-grid treatment. On average, 23% of ambient RGM is modeled to adsorb on atmospheric particulate matter.

[1]  E. Edgerton,et al.  Modeling mercury in power plant plumes. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  Prakash Karamchandani,et al.  Global source attribution for mercury deposition in the United States. , 2004, Environmental science & technology.

[3]  A. Russell,et al.  Development of a computationally efficient, reactive subgrid‐scale plume model and the impact in the northeastern United States using increasing levels of chemical detail , 1996 .

[4]  Pai,et al.  On artificial dilution of point source mercury emissions in a regional atmospheric model , 2000, The Science of the total environment.

[5]  Prakash Karamchandani,et al.  Plume-in-grid modeling for particulate matter , 2006 .

[6]  I. Ilyin,et al.  Comparison of mercury chemistry models , 2002 .

[7]  A. Venkatram,et al.  The electrical analogy does not apply to modeling dry deposition of particles , 1999 .

[8]  J. Sørensen,et al.  Six-year trend (1990--1995) of wet mercury deposition in the Upper Midwest, U.S.A. , 1999 .

[9]  R. I. Sykes,et al.  Representation of Velocity Gradient Effects in a Gaussian Puff Model , 1995 .

[10]  J. Schauer,et al.  The effect of temperature on the gas–particle partitioning of reactive mercury in atmospheric aerosols , 2007 .

[11]  J. Seinfeld,et al.  Development and application of the Model of Aerosol Dynamics, Reaction, Ionization, and Dissolution (MADRID) , 2004 .

[12]  T. Ho,et al.  Scientific uncertainties in atmospheric mercury models III: Boundary and initial conditions, model grid resolution, and Hg(II) reduction mechanism , 2008 .

[13]  M. Reinhard,et al.  Mercury adsorption to elemental carbon (soot) particles and atmospheric particulate matter , 1998 .

[14]  E. Edgerton,et al.  Mercury speciation in coal-fired power plant plumes observed at three surface sites in the southeastern U.S. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[15]  C. Walcek,et al.  A Theoretical Method for Computing Vertical Distributions of Acidity and Sulfate Production within Cumulus Clouds , 1986 .

[16]  C. Seigneur,et al.  Modeling Atmospheric Mercury Deposition in the Vicinity of Power Plants , 2006, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[17]  P. Pai,et al.  A North American inventory of anthropogenic mercury emissions , 2000 .

[18]  Daewon W. Byun,et al.  Scientific uncertainties in atmospheric mercury models I: Model science evaluation , 2006 .

[19]  R. Mason,et al.  Annual and seasonal trends in mercury deposition in Maryland , 2000 .

[20]  G. Gill,et al.  Processes influencing rainfall deposition of mercury in Florida. , 2001, Environmental science & technology.

[21]  S. Sillman,et al.  Reactive mercury in the troposphere: Model formation and results for Florida, the northeastern United States, and the Atlantic Ocean , 2007 .

[22]  R. Bergstrom,et al.  Formulation of a second-generation reactive plume and visibility Model , 1997 .

[23]  Adel F. Sarofim,et al.  Gas-phase transformations of mercury in coal-fired power plants , 2000 .

[24]  Nicola Pirrone,et al.  A Synthesis of Progress and Uncertainties in Attributing the Sources of Mercury in Deposition , 2007, Ambio.

[25]  D. Wen,et al.  Modeling of mercury emission, transport and deposition in North America , 2007 .

[26]  Christian Seigneur,et al.  On the treatment of point source emissions in urban air quality modeling , 1983 .

[27]  G. Grell,et al.  A description of the fifth-generation Penn State/NCAR Mesoscale Model (MM5) , 1994 .

[28]  C. Seigneur,et al.  Development and Application of a Multipollutant Model for Atmospheric Mercury Deposition , 2007 .

[29]  David R. Miller,et al.  A regional scale modeling study of atmospheric transport and transformation of mercury. I. Model development and evaluation , 1998 .

[30]  C. Seigneur,et al.  Atmospheric mercury chemistry: Sensitivity of global model simulations to chemical reactions , 2006 .

[31]  J. Christensen,et al.  Test of two numerical schemes for use in atmospheric transport-chemistry models , 1993 .

[32]  R. Shia,et al.  Multiscale modeling of the atmospheric fate and transport of mercury , 2001 .

[33]  O. Bullock,et al.  Atmospheric mercury simulation using the CMAQ model: formulation description and analysis of wet deposition results , 2002 .

[34]  Prakash Karamchandani,et al.  Plume-in-grid modeling of summer air pollution in Central California , 2006 .

[35]  W. S. Lewellen,et al.  Numerical Simulation of ANATEX Tracer Data Using a Turbulence Closure Model for Long-Range Dispersion , 1993 .

[36]  R. Shia,et al.  On the effect of spatial resolution on atmospheric mercury modeling. , 2003, The Science of the total environment.

[37]  G. Sistla,et al.  The North American Mercury Model Intercomparison Study (NAMMIS): Study description and model‐to‐model comparisons , 2008 .

[38]  D. Jacob,et al.  Seasonal and spatial patterns of mercury wet deposition in the United States: Constraints on the contribution from North American anthropogenic sources , 2008 .

[39]  Sanford Sillman,et al.  A regional scale model for ozone in the United States with subgrid representation of urban and power plant plumes , 1990 .

[40]  Julius Chang,et al.  A non-local closure model for vertical mixing in the convective boundary layer , 1992 .

[41]  J. Schauer,et al.  The impact of aerosol composition on the particle to gas partitioning of reactive mercury. , 2007, Environmental science & technology.

[42]  X. Lin,et al.  A numerical modelling study on regional mercury budget for eastern North America , 2003 .

[43]  D. Jacob,et al.  Chemical cycling and deposition of atmospheric mercury : Global constraints from observations , 2007 .

[44]  M. C. Dodge,et al.  A photochemical kinetics mechanism for urban and regional scale computer modeling , 1989 .

[45]  M. Chin,et al.  Natural and transboundary pollution influences on sulfate‐nitrate‐ammonium aerosols in the United States: Implications for policy , 2004 .

[46]  Prakash Karamchandani,et al.  Development and Evaluation of a State-of-the-Science Reactive Plume Model , 2000 .

[47]  Prakash Karamchandani,et al.  Development and application of a state-of-the-science plume-in-grid model , 2002 .

[48]  D. Byun,et al.  Review of the Governing Equations, Computational Algorithms, and Other Components of the Models-3 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System , 2006 .

[49]  Prakash Karamchandani,et al.  Simulation of the regional atmospheric transport and fate of mercury using a comprehensive Eulerian model , 1997 .