Modeling Mercury Fluxes and Concentrations in a Georgia Watershed Receiving Atmospheric Deposition Load from Direct and Indirect Sources

Abstract This paper presents a modeling analysis of airborne mercury (Hg) deposited on the Ochlockonee River watershed located in Georgia. Atmospheric deposition monitoring and source attribution data were used along with simulation models to calculate Hg buildup in the subwatershed soils, its subsequent runoff loading and delivery through the tributaries, and its ultimate fate in the mainstem river. The terrestrial model calculated annual watershed yields for total Hg ranging from 0.7 to 1.1 μg/m2. Results suggest that approximately two-thirds of the atmospherically deposited Hg to the watershed is returned to the atmosphere, 10% is delivered to the river, and the rest is retained in the watershed. A check of the aquatic model results against survey data showed a reasonable agreement. Comparing observed and simulated total and methylmercury concentrations gave root mean square error values of 0.26 and 0.10 ng/L, respectively, in the water column, and 5.9 and 1 ng/g, respectively, in the upper sediment layer. Sensitivity analysis results imply that mercury in the Ochlockonee River is dominated by watershed runoff inputs and not by direct atmospheric deposition, and that methylmercury concentrations in the river are determined mainly by net methylation rates in the watershed, presumably in wetted soils and in the wetlands feeding the river.

[1]  R. Mason,et al.  The fate and transport of mercury, methylmercury, and other trace metals in Chesapeake Bay tributaries. , 2001, Water research.

[2]  Y. Cohen,et al.  Environmental distribution and transformation of mercury compounds , 1996 .

[3]  R. B. Ambrose,et al.  An environmental simulation model for transport and fate of mercury in small rural catchments , 1999 .

[4]  R. Mason,et al.  Atmospheric deposition to the Chesapeake Bay watershed : Regional and local sources , 1997 .

[5]  Martin M. Shafer,et al.  Influences of watershed characteristics on mercury levels in wisconsin rivers. , 1995, Environmental science & technology.

[6]  B. Allard,et al.  Subcatchment Output of Mercury and Methylmercury at Svartberget in Northern Sweden , 1995 .

[7]  J. Rudd,et al.  Production and Loss of Methylmercury and Loss of Total Mercury from Boreal Forest Catchments Containing Different Types of Wetlands , 1996 .

[8]  D. Laudal,et al.  Mercury Mass Balances: A Case Study of Two North Dakota Power Plants , 2000, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[9]  I. Tsiros A modeling analysis of factors influencing mass balance components of airborne deposited mercury in terrestrial landscapes , 1999 .

[10]  R. B. Ambrose,et al.  Environmental screening modeling of mercury in the upper Everglades of South Florida , 1998 .

[11]  M. Meyer,et al.  Methylmercury in rivers draining cultivated watersheds. , 2003, The Science of the total environment.

[12]  loannis X. Tsiros Modeling Assessment of Air Emission Flux of Mercury from Soils in Terrestrial Landscape Components: Model Tests and Sensitivities , 2002, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[13]  I. Tsiros A screening model-based study of transport fluxes and fate of airborne mercury deposited onto catchment areas. , 2001, Chemosphere.

[14]  J. Greenfield,et al.  WATERSHED MODELING EXTENSIONS OF THE WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION SYSTEM , 2002 .

[15]  R. Ambrose,et al.  Calculation of soil-water and benthic sediment partition coefficients for mercury. , 1997, Chemosphere.

[16]  J. Munthe,et al.  An examination of current Hg deposition and export in Fenno-Scandian catchments , 1998 .

[17]  R K Srivastava,et al.  A Study of Gas-Phase Mercury Speciation Using Detailed Chemical Kinetics , 2001, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[18]  Reed C. Harris,et al.  Reactivity and mobility of new and old mercury deposition in a boreal forest ecosystem during the first year of the METAALICUS study. Mercury Experiment To Assess Atmospheric Loading In Canada and the US. , 2002, Environmental science & technology.

[19]  Robert P. Mason,et al.  Mercury and methylmercury transport through an urban watershed , 1998 .

[20]  Tim A. Wool,et al.  WASP4, a hydrodynamic and water-quality model - model theory, user's manual, and programmer's guide , 1988 .

[21]  Anthony Carpi,et al.  Application of a teflon™ dynamic flux chamber for quantifying soil mercury flux: Tests and results over background soil , 1998 .

[22]  M. Meyer,et al.  Transport of Mercury in Three Contrasting River Basins , 1998 .

[23]  S. Vermette,et al.  Field tests for a regional mercury deposition network—sampling design and preliminary test results , 1995 .

[24]  C. Driscoll,et al.  The chemistry and transport of mercury in a small wetland in the Adirondack region of New York, USA , 1998 .

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

[26]  Kjell Johansson,et al.  Mercury in swedish forest soils and waters — Assessment of critical load , 1991 .

[27]  John Munthe,et al.  Atmospheric mercury—An overview , 1998 .

[28]  N. Pirrone,et al.  Ambient levels and dry deposition fluxes of mercury to Lakes Huron, Erie and St. Clair , 1995 .