Scientific uncertainties in atmospheric mercury models I: Model science evaluation
Eulerian-based, first-principle atmospheric mercury models are a useful tool to assess the transport and deposition of mercury. However, there exist uncertainty issues caused by model assumptions/simplifications and incomplete understanding of mercury science. In this paper, we evaluate the model sc...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Atmospheric environment (1994) 2006-05, Vol.40 (16), p.2911-2928 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2928 |
---|---|
container_issue | 16 |
container_start_page | 2911 |
container_title | Atmospheric environment (1994) |
container_volume | 40 |
creator | Lin, Che-Jen Pongprueksa, Pruek Lindberg, Steve E. Pehkonen, Simo O. Byun, Daewon Jang, Carey |
description | Eulerian-based, first-principle atmospheric mercury models are a useful tool to assess the transport and deposition of mercury. However, there exist uncertainty issues caused by model assumptions/simplifications and incomplete understanding of mercury science. In this paper, we evaluate the model science commonly implemented in atmospheric mercury models. The causes of the uncertainties are assessed in terms of gas phase chemistry, aqueous phase chemistry, aqueous phase speciation, aqueous phase sorption, dry deposition, wet deposition, initial and boundary conditions, emission inventory preparation, and domain grid resolution. We also present a new dry deposition scheme for estimating the deposition velocities of GEM and RGM based on RADM formulation. From our evaluation, mercury chemistry introduces the greatest uncertainty to models due to the inconsistent kinetic data and lack of deterministic product identification in the atmosphere. Model treatments of deposition velocities and aqueous Hg(II) sorption can also lead to distinct simulation results in mercury dry and wet depositions. Although model results may agree well with limited field data of GEM concentrations and Hg(II) wet deposition, it should be recognized that model uncertainties may compensate with each other to yield favorable model performance. Future research needs to reduce model uncertainties are projected. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.01.009 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17167302</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1352231006000756</els_id><sourcerecordid>14772342</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-af5b46cc12ba4d10d100cd8b782ed50dad0b8f821e8fd6c3694f92d8245537473</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkNtKw0AQhoMoWKuvILnRu8TZQ7Jbr5TioVARPFwvm90Jbsmh7iaFvr2JrXhZGJhZ9vtn4IuiSwIpAZLfrFLd1W3AZpNSgDwFkgLMjqIJkYIlVHJ-PMwsowllBE6jsxBWAMDETEyit3fjsOlc6UzcNwZ9p93wxBC7Jv7du_5CP3zW6E3vt3HdWqxCvLiNX8YpDmPeYIwbXfW6c21zHp2Uugp4se_T6PPx4WP-nCxfnxbz-2ViOPAu0WVW8NwYQgvNLYGhwFhZCEnRZmC1hUKWkhKUpc0Ny2e8nFErKc8yJrhg0-h6t3ft2-8eQ6dqFwxWlW6w7YMiguSCAT0MciEo4yOY70Dj2xA8lmrtXa39VhFQo2u1Un-u1ehaAVGD6yF4tb-gg9FV6XVjXPhPC0EYl_nA3e24QSFuHHq112edR9Mp27pDp34ArNWZYg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>14772342</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Scientific uncertainties in atmospheric mercury models I: Model science evaluation</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Lin, Che-Jen ; Pongprueksa, Pruek ; Lindberg, Steve E. ; Pehkonen, Simo O. ; Byun, Daewon ; Jang, Carey</creator><creatorcontrib>Lin, Che-Jen ; Pongprueksa, Pruek ; Lindberg, Steve E. ; Pehkonen, Simo O. ; Byun, Daewon ; Jang, Carey</creatorcontrib><description>Eulerian-based, first-principle atmospheric mercury models are a useful tool to assess the transport and deposition of mercury. However, there exist uncertainty issues caused by model assumptions/simplifications and incomplete understanding of mercury science. In this paper, we evaluate the model science commonly implemented in atmospheric mercury models. The causes of the uncertainties are assessed in terms of gas phase chemistry, aqueous phase chemistry, aqueous phase speciation, aqueous phase sorption, dry deposition, wet deposition, initial and boundary conditions, emission inventory preparation, and domain grid resolution. We also present a new dry deposition scheme for estimating the deposition velocities of GEM and RGM based on RADM formulation. From our evaluation, mercury chemistry introduces the greatest uncertainty to models due to the inconsistent kinetic data and lack of deterministic product identification in the atmosphere. Model treatments of deposition velocities and aqueous Hg(II) sorption can also lead to distinct simulation results in mercury dry and wet depositions. Although model results may agree well with limited field data of GEM concentrations and Hg(II) wet deposition, it should be recognized that model uncertainties may compensate with each other to yield favorable model performance. Future research needs to reduce model uncertainties are projected.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1352-2310</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2844</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.01.009</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Applied sciences ; Aqueous sorption ; Atmospheric mercury ; Atmospheric pollution ; Chemical mechanism ; Cloud water ; Deposition ; Emission inventory ; Exact sciences and technology ; Initial and boundary conditions ; Mercury speciation ; Modeling ; Pollutants physicochemistry study: properties, effects, reactions, transport and distribution ; Pollution</subject><ispartof>Atmospheric environment (1994), 2006-05, Vol.40 (16), p.2911-2928</ispartof><rights>2006 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-af5b46cc12ba4d10d100cd8b782ed50dad0b8f821e8fd6c3694f92d8245537473</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231006000756$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=17713486$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lin, Che-Jen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pongprueksa, Pruek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindberg, Steve E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pehkonen, Simo O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Byun, Daewon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jang, Carey</creatorcontrib><title>Scientific uncertainties in atmospheric mercury models I: Model science evaluation</title><title>Atmospheric environment (1994)</title><description>Eulerian-based, first-principle atmospheric mercury models are a useful tool to assess the transport and deposition of mercury. However, there exist uncertainty issues caused by model assumptions/simplifications and incomplete understanding of mercury science. In this paper, we evaluate the model science commonly implemented in atmospheric mercury models. The causes of the uncertainties are assessed in terms of gas phase chemistry, aqueous phase chemistry, aqueous phase speciation, aqueous phase sorption, dry deposition, wet deposition, initial and boundary conditions, emission inventory preparation, and domain grid resolution. We also present a new dry deposition scheme for estimating the deposition velocities of GEM and RGM based on RADM formulation. From our evaluation, mercury chemistry introduces the greatest uncertainty to models due to the inconsistent kinetic data and lack of deterministic product identification in the atmosphere. Model treatments of deposition velocities and aqueous Hg(II) sorption can also lead to distinct simulation results in mercury dry and wet depositions. Although model results may agree well with limited field data of GEM concentrations and Hg(II) wet deposition, it should be recognized that model uncertainties may compensate with each other to yield favorable model performance. Future research needs to reduce model uncertainties are projected.</description><subject>Applied sciences</subject><subject>Aqueous sorption</subject><subject>Atmospheric mercury</subject><subject>Atmospheric pollution</subject><subject>Chemical mechanism</subject><subject>Cloud water</subject><subject>Deposition</subject><subject>Emission inventory</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Initial and boundary conditions</subject><subject>Mercury speciation</subject><subject>Modeling</subject><subject>Pollutants physicochemistry study: properties, effects, reactions, transport and distribution</subject><subject>Pollution</subject><issn>1352-2310</issn><issn>1873-2844</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkNtKw0AQhoMoWKuvILnRu8TZQ7Jbr5TioVARPFwvm90Jbsmh7iaFvr2JrXhZGJhZ9vtn4IuiSwIpAZLfrFLd1W3AZpNSgDwFkgLMjqIJkYIlVHJ-PMwsowllBE6jsxBWAMDETEyit3fjsOlc6UzcNwZ9p93wxBC7Jv7du_5CP3zW6E3vt3HdWqxCvLiNX8YpDmPeYIwbXfW6c21zHp2Uugp4se_T6PPx4WP-nCxfnxbz-2ViOPAu0WVW8NwYQgvNLYGhwFhZCEnRZmC1hUKWkhKUpc0Ny2e8nFErKc8yJrhg0-h6t3ft2-8eQ6dqFwxWlW6w7YMiguSCAT0MciEo4yOY70Dj2xA8lmrtXa39VhFQo2u1Un-u1ehaAVGD6yF4tb-gg9FV6XVjXPhPC0EYl_nA3e24QSFuHHq112edR9Mp27pDp34ArNWZYg</recordid><startdate>20060501</startdate><enddate>20060501</enddate><creator>Lin, Che-Jen</creator><creator>Pongprueksa, Pruek</creator><creator>Lindberg, Steve E.</creator><creator>Pehkonen, Simo O.</creator><creator>Byun, Daewon</creator><creator>Jang, Carey</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Science</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TV</scope><scope>KL.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060501</creationdate><title>Scientific uncertainties in atmospheric mercury models I: Model science evaluation</title><author>Lin, Che-Jen ; Pongprueksa, Pruek ; Lindberg, Steve E. ; Pehkonen, Simo O. ; Byun, Daewon ; Jang, Carey</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-af5b46cc12ba4d10d100cd8b782ed50dad0b8f821e8fd6c3694f92d8245537473</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Applied sciences</topic><topic>Aqueous sorption</topic><topic>Atmospheric mercury</topic><topic>Atmospheric pollution</topic><topic>Chemical mechanism</topic><topic>Cloud water</topic><topic>Deposition</topic><topic>Emission inventory</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Initial and boundary conditions</topic><topic>Mercury speciation</topic><topic>Modeling</topic><topic>Pollutants physicochemistry study: properties, effects, reactions, transport and distribution</topic><topic>Pollution</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lin, Che-Jen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pongprueksa, Pruek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindberg, Steve E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pehkonen, Simo O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Byun, Daewon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jang, Carey</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><jtitle>Atmospheric environment (1994)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lin, Che-Jen</au><au>Pongprueksa, Pruek</au><au>Lindberg, Steve E.</au><au>Pehkonen, Simo O.</au><au>Byun, Daewon</au><au>Jang, Carey</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Scientific uncertainties in atmospheric mercury models I: Model science evaluation</atitle><jtitle>Atmospheric environment (1994)</jtitle><date>2006-05-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>16</issue><spage>2911</spage><epage>2928</epage><pages>2911-2928</pages><issn>1352-2310</issn><eissn>1873-2844</eissn><abstract>Eulerian-based, first-principle atmospheric mercury models are a useful tool to assess the transport and deposition of mercury. However, there exist uncertainty issues caused by model assumptions/simplifications and incomplete understanding of mercury science. In this paper, we evaluate the model science commonly implemented in atmospheric mercury models. The causes of the uncertainties are assessed in terms of gas phase chemistry, aqueous phase chemistry, aqueous phase speciation, aqueous phase sorption, dry deposition, wet deposition, initial and boundary conditions, emission inventory preparation, and domain grid resolution. We also present a new dry deposition scheme for estimating the deposition velocities of GEM and RGM based on RADM formulation. From our evaluation, mercury chemistry introduces the greatest uncertainty to models due to the inconsistent kinetic data and lack of deterministic product identification in the atmosphere. Model treatments of deposition velocities and aqueous Hg(II) sorption can also lead to distinct simulation results in mercury dry and wet depositions. Although model results may agree well with limited field data of GEM concentrations and Hg(II) wet deposition, it should be recognized that model uncertainties may compensate with each other to yield favorable model performance. Future research needs to reduce model uncertainties are projected.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.01.009</doi><tpages>18</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1352-2310 |
ispartof | Atmospheric environment (1994), 2006-05, Vol.40 (16), p.2911-2928 |
issn | 1352-2310 1873-2844 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17167302 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Applied sciences Aqueous sorption Atmospheric mercury Atmospheric pollution Chemical mechanism Cloud water Deposition Emission inventory Exact sciences and technology Initial and boundary conditions Mercury speciation Modeling Pollutants physicochemistry study: properties, effects, reactions, transport and distribution Pollution |
title | Scientific uncertainties in atmospheric mercury models I: Model science evaluation |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T13%3A53%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Scientific%20uncertainties%20in%20atmospheric%20mercury%20models%20I:%20Model%20science%20evaluation&rft.jtitle=Atmospheric%20environment%20(1994)&rft.au=Lin,%20Che-Jen&rft.date=2006-05-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=16&rft.spage=2911&rft.epage=2928&rft.pages=2911-2928&rft.issn=1352-2310&rft.eissn=1873-2844&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.01.009&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E14772342%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=14772342&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S1352231006000756&rfr_iscdi=true |