Literature DB >> 21257194

An evaluation of direct measurement techniques for mercury dry deposition.

Soon-Onn Lai1, Jiaoyan Huang, Philip K Hopke, Thomas M Holsen.   

Abstract

In this project, several surrogate surfaces designed to directly measure Hg dry deposition were investigated. Static water surrogate surfaces (SWSS) containing deionized (DI), acidified water, or salt solutions, and a knife-edge surrogate surface (KSS) using quartz fiber filters (QFF), KCl-coated QFF and gold-coated QFF were evaluated as a means to directly measure mercury (Hg) dry deposition. The SWSS was hypothesized to collect deposited elemental mercury (Hg⁰), reactive gaseous/oxidized mercury (RGM), and mercury associated with particulate matter (Hg(p)) while the QFF, KCl-coated QFF, and gold-coated QFF on the KSS were hypothesized to collect Hg(p), RGM+Hg(p), and Hg⁰+RGM+Hg(p), respectively. The Hg flux measured by the DI water was significantly smaller than that captured by the acidified water, probably because Hg⁰ was oxidized to Hg²+ which stabilized the deposited Hg and decreased mass transfer resistance. Acidified BrCl, which efficiently oxidizes Hg⁰, captured significantly more Hg than other solutions. However, of all collection media, gold-coated QFFs captured 6 to 100 times greater Hg mass than the other surfaces, probably because there is no surface resistance for Hg⁰ deposition to gold surfaces. In addition, the Hg⁰ concentration is usually 100-1000 times higher than RGM and Hg(p). For all other media, co-located samples were not significantly different, and the combination of daytime plus nighttime results were comparable to 24-h samples, implying that Hg⁰, RGM and Hg(p) were not released after they deposited nor did the surfaces reach equilibrium with the atmosphere. Based on measured Hg ambient air concentrations and fluxes, dry deposition velocities of RGM and Hg⁰ to DI water and other surfaces were 5.6±5.4 and 0.005-0.68 cm s⁻¹ in this study, respectively. These results suggest surrogate surfaces can be used to measure Hg dry deposition; however, extrapolating the results to natural surface can be challenging.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21257194     DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.12.032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  4 in total

1.  Gaseous Oxidized Mercury Dry Deposition Measurements in the Four Corners Area, U.S.A., after Large Power Plant Mercury Emission Reductions.

Authors:  Mark E Sather; Shaibal Mukerjee; Luther Smith; Johnson Mathew; Clarence Jackson; Michael Flournoy
Journal:  Atmos Pollut Res       Date:  2021       Impact factor: 4.352

2.  Mercury sources and fate in the Gulf of Maine.

Authors:  Elsie M Sunderland; Aria Amirbahman; Neil M Burgess; John Dalziel; Gareth Harding; Stephen H Jones; Elizabeth Kamai; Margaret R Karagas; Xun Shi; Celia Y Chen
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  2012-05-08       Impact factor: 6.498

3.  Gaseous oxidized mercury dry deposition measurements in the southwestern USA: a comparison between Texas, eastern Oklahoma, and the Four Corners area.

Authors:  Mark E Sather; Shaibal Mukerjee; Kara L Allen; Luther Smith; Johnson Mathew; Clarence Jackson; Ryan Callison; Larry Scrapper; April Hathcoat; Jacque Adam; Danielle Keese; Philip Ketcher; Robert Brunette; Jason Karlstrom; Gerard Van der Jagt
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2014-04-06

4.  An Artificial Turf-Based Surrogate Surface Collector for the Direct Measurement of Atmospheric Mercury Dry Deposition.

Authors:  Naima L Hall; Joseph Timothy Dvonch; Frank J Marsik; James A Barres; Matthew S Landis
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 3.390

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.