The GOS4M Knowledge Hub: A web-based effectiveness evaluation platform in support of the Minamata Convention on Mercury

Abstract The Minamata Convention on Mercury was established to reduce the pressure on the environment caused by mercury by significantly reducing its emissions from anthropogenic activities. However, knowledge gaps still exist concerning emission inventories, emission factors and their integration in modelling frameworks. In addition, tools to facilitate communication between decision-makers and research groups providing measurement and modelling data are still scarce. This work presents the GOS4M Knowledge Hub, a public web application that provides an interactive and user friendly experience to access state-of-the-art modelling tools and data available in the literature. The Knowledge Hub currently integrates a Chemical Transport Model emulator, HERMES, coupled with a biogeochemical model, although it has been designed to house and deploy any number of different modelling components. Using the integrated dashboard, non-experts can perturb mercury releases from different anthropogenic emission sectors, simulating, for example, the application of Best Available Technologies, and then visualise in real-time the short- and long-term effects of the consequent reductions within a source-receptor framework. The dashboard also furnishes an estimate of the statistical significance of the changes in the model results. The analysis of a set of anthropogenic Hg emission reduction scenarios shows how an internationally coordinated effort would be necessary to achieve significant policy goals. It is important to note that the GOS4M Knowledge Hub yields the analysis presented here in a matter of seconds, compared to the days or weeks required by traditional modelling tools.

[1]  Domenico Talia,et al.  Making knowledge discovery services scalable on clouds for big data mining , 2015, 2015 2nd IEEE International Conference on Spatial Data Mining and Geographical Knowledge Services (ICSDM).

[2]  F. Simone,et al.  Estimating Uncertainty in Global Mercury Emission Source and Deposition Receptor Relationships , 2017 .

[3]  D. Jacob,et al.  A new mechanism for atmospheric mercury redox chemistry: implications for the global mercury budget , 2017 .

[4]  A. Schartup,et al.  Climate change and overfishing increase neurotoxicant in marine predators , 2019, Nature.

[5]  A. Unep.  Technical Background Report for the Global Mercury Assessment 2013. , 2013 .

[6]  A. Fraser,et al.  How important is biomass burning in Canada to mercury contamination , 2017 .

[7]  A. Dastoor,et al.  How relevant is the deposition of mercury onto snowpacks? – Part 2: A modeling study , 2012 .

[8]  I. Ilyin,et al.  The EMEP/MSC-E mercury modeling system , 2009 .

[9]  Nicola Pirrone,et al.  ICT Methodologies and Spatial Data Infrastructure for Air Quality Information Management , 2012, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing.

[10]  D. Jacob,et al.  Photoreduction of gaseous oxidized mercury changes global atmospheric mercury speciation, transport and deposition , 2018, Nature Communications.

[11]  A. Dastoor,et al.  Vegetation uptake of mercury and impacts on global cycling , 2021, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment.

[12]  Noriyuki Suzuki,et al.  Application of a new dynamic 3-D model to investigate human impacts on the fate of mercury in the global ocean , 2020, Environ. Model. Softw..

[13]  N. Pirrone,et al.  ECHMERIT V1.0 – a new global fully coupled mercury-chemistry and transport model , 2009 .

[14]  F. Simone,et al.  A Modeling Comparison of Mercury Deposition from Current Anthropogenic Mercury Emission Inventories. , 2016, Environmental science & technology.

[15]  G. Janssens‑Maenhout,et al.  Trend analysis from 1970 to 2008 and model evaluation of EDGARv4 global gridded anthropogenic mercury emissions. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[16]  N. Selin.  Global change and mercury cycling: Challenges for implementing a global mercury treaty , 2014, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[17]  Elisabeth Galarneau,et al.  Gas-particle partitioning of atmospheric Hg(II) and its effect on global mercury deposition , 2011 .

[18]  C. Gencarelli,et al.  Model study of global mercury deposition from biomass burning. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[19]  F. Carbone,et al.  A Chemical Transport Model Emulator for the Interactive Evaluation of Mercury Emission Reduction Scenarios , 2020, Atmosphere.

[20]  D. Streets,et al.  Legacy impacts of all‐time anthropogenic emissions on the global mercury cycle , 2013 .

[21]  D. Jacob,et al.  Observed decrease in atmospheric mercury explained by global decline in anthropogenic emissions , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[22]  D. Jacob,et al.  Global atmospheric model for mercury including oxidation by bromine atoms , 2010 .

[23]  Wei Zhang,et al.  Trans-provincial health impacts of atmospheric mercury emissions in China , 2019, Nature Communications.

[24]  Cindy Q. Tang,et al.  Author Correction: Identifying long-term stable refugia for relict plant species in East Asia , 2018, Nature Communications.

[25]  D. Jacob,et al.  Global source-receptor relationships for mercury deposition under present-day and 2050 emissions scenarios. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[26]  T. Jacques,et al.  Pediatric pan-central nervous system tumor analysis of immune-cell infiltration identifies correlates of antitumor immunity , 2020, Nature Communications.

[27]  E. Budtz-Jørgensen,et al.  Economic benefits of methylmercury exposure control in Europe: Monetary value of neurotoxicity prevention , 2013, Environmental Health.

[28]  D. Jacob,et al.  Global biogeochemical implications of mercury discharges from rivers and sediment burial. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[29]  O. Magand,et al.  Top-down constraints on atmospheric mercury emissions and implications for global biogeochemical cycling , 2015 .

[30]  Shiliang Wu,et al.  Impacts of changes in climate, land use and land cover on atmospheric mercury , 2016 .

[31]  P. Ariya,et al.  Evaluation of discrepancy between measured and modelled oxidized mercury species , 2012 .

[32]  A. Giang,et al.  Benefits of mercury controls for the United States , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  A. Dastoor,et al.  Atmospheric mercury in the Canadian Arctic. Part II: insight from modeling. , 2015, The Science of the total environment.

[34]  Yanxu Zhang,et al.  A Global Model for Methylmercury Formation and Uptake at the Base of Marine Food Webs , 2020, Global Biogeochemical Cycles.

[35]  F. Simone,et al.  Global atmospheric cycle of mercury: a model study on the impact of oxidation mechanisms , 2014, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[36]  O. Magand,et al.  Multi-model study of mercury dispersion in the atmosphere: atmospheric processes and model evaluation , 2016 .

[37]  Larry Griffin,et al.  Stochastic simulations reveal few green wave surfing populations among spring migrating herbivorous waterfowl , 2019, Nature Communications.

[38]  K. Schaefer,et al.  Potential impacts of mercury released from thawing permafrost , 2020, Nature Communications.

[39]  G. Janssens‑Maenhout,et al.  Evaluating EDGARv4.tox2 speciated mercury emissions ex-post scenarios and their impacts on modelled global and regional wet deposition patterns , 2018, Atmospheric Environment.

[40]  P. Artaxo,et al.  Particulate-phase mercury emissions from biomass burning and impact on resulting deposition: a modelling assessment , 2016, Atmospheric chemistry and physics.

[41]  Yanxu Zhang,et al.  A Coupled Global Atmosphere-Ocean Model for Air-Sea Exchange of Mercury: Insights into Wet Deposition and Atmospheric Redox Chemistry. , 2019, Environmental science & technology.

[42]  Qiang Zhang,et al.  Projections of global mercury emissions in 2050. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[43]  Mario Clerici,et al.  Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure and pediatric asthma in children: a case–control study , 2013, Environmental Health.