Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Despite increasing attention to mercury in the atmosphere,
there remain several scientifi c uncertainties that limit our
understanding of mercury chemistry, transport, and global
biogeochemical cycling.
First, constraining the global budget of mercury, and in
particular the interactions between land and ocean surfaces
and the atmosphere, is a priority. From the atmospheric
perspective, this will require improved measurements of
land and ocean fl uxes as well as dry deposition measure-
ments, and comparison of these measurements with atmo-
spheric models. Improved knowledge of land-atmosphere
fl uxes will also help to address the infl uence of historical
mercury that continues to reside in these reservoirs, and its
interactions with processes such as land-use and climatic
changes.
Second, as Hg(II) is the predominant form depositing to
ecosystems and Hg(0) represents the majority of emissions,
understanding the oxidation and reduction reactions that
control the speciation of mercury is necessary to better
constrain where and when deposition is most likely to
occur. Better understanding of where and under what con-
ditions Hg(II) is formed can help to trace pollutants from
source to receptor as well as identify gaps in measurements
in potentially impacted ecosystems.
Finally, to support policy applications, better integra-
tion and analysis of the fate of atmospheric mercury across
local, regional, and global scales is necessary. Deposition to
ecosystems comprises mercury from anthropogenic sources
nearby and faraway, in combination with historical mer-
cury loadings as well as natural background. These source
attributions vary spatially and temporally in ways that
are only beginning to be understood. Effective controls
on mercury pollution will thus likely require coordinated
policy actions at a variety of scales (Selin and Selin, 2006).
References
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). 2002.
Arctic Pollution
. Oslo, Norway: AMAP.
Baker, P. G. L., E. G. Brunke, F. Slemr, and A. M. Crouch. 2002.
Atmospheric mercury measurements at Cape Point, South
Africa.
Atmospheric Environment
36 (14): 2459-2465.
Banic, C. M., S. T. Beauchamp, R. J. Tordon, W. H. Schroeder,
A. Steffen, K. A. Anlauf, and H. K. T. Wong. 2003. Vertical
distribution of gaseous elemental mercury in Canada.
Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres
108 (D9).
Bullock, O. R., and K. A. Brehme. 2002. Atmospheric mercury
simulation using the CMAQ model: formulation description
and analysis of wet deposition results.
Atmospheric
Environment
36: 2135-2146.
Bullock, O. R., Jr., D. Atkinson, T. Braverman, K. Civerolo, A.
Dastoor, D. Davignon, J.-Y. Ku, K. Lohman, T. C. Myers, R. J.
Park, C. Seigneur, N. E. Selin, G. Sistla, and K. Vijayaraghavan.
2008. The North American Mercury Model Intercomparison
Study (NAMMIS): Study description and model-to-model
comparisons.
Journal of Geophysical Research
113 (D17310).
Bullock, O. R., Jr., D. Atkinson, T. Braverman, K. Civerolo,
A. Dastoor, D. Davignon, J.-Y. Ku, K. Lohman, T.
Myers, R. Park, C. Seigneur, N. E. Selin, G. Sistla, and
K. Vijayaraghavan. 2009. An analysis of simulated wet
deposition of mercury from the North American Mercury
Model Intercomparison Study (NAMMIS).
Journal of
Geophysical Research,
in press.
Calvert, J. G., and S. E. Lindberg. 2005. Mechanisms of
mercury removal by O3 and OH in the atmosphere.
Atmospheric Environment
39: 3355-3367.
Carpi, A., and S. E. Lindberg. 1998. Application of a Tefl on
(TM) dynamic fl ux chamber for quantifying soil mercury
fl ux: Tests and results over background soil.
Atmospheric
Environment
32 (5): 873-882.
Cohen, M., R. Artz, R. Draxler, P. Miller, L. Poissant, D. Niemi,
D. Ratté, M. Deslauriers, R. Duval, and R. Laurin. 2004.
Modeling the atmospheric transport and deposition of
mercury to the Great Lakes.
Environmental Research
95 (3):
247-265.
Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of
the Long-Range Transmissions of Air Pollutants in Europe
(EMEP). 2009. Heavy Metals and POP Measurements, 2007.
Kjeller, Norway: Norwegian Institute for Air Research.
EMEP/CCC Report 3/2009.
Dastoor, A. P., and Y. Larocque. 2004. Global circulation
of atmospheric mercury: a modelling study.
Atmospheric
Environment
38 (1): 147-161.
Donohoue, D. L., D. Bauer, B. Cossairt, and A. J. Hynes. 2006.
Temperature and pressure dependent rate coeffi cients for
the reaction of Hg with Br and the reaction of Br with Br:
A pulsed laser photolysis-pulsed laser induced fl uorescence
study.
Journal of Physical Chemistry A
110 (21): 6623-6632.
Ebinghaus, R., H. H. Kock, C. Temme, J. W. Einax, A. G.
Lowe, A. Richter, J. P. Burrows, and W. H. Schroeder. 2002.
Antarctic springtime depletion of atmospheric mercury.
Environmental Science and Technology
36 (6): 1238-1244.
Fitzgerald, W. F., and C. H. Lamborg. 2005. Geochemistry of
mercury in the environment. In:
Treat ise on Geoche mist r y
,
edited by B. S. Lollar. New York: Elsevier.
Friedli, H. R., L. F. Radke, R. Prescott, P. Li, J.-H. Woo, and
G. R. Carmichael. 2004. Mercury in the atmosphere around
Japan, Korea and China as observed during the 2001 ACE-
Asia fi eld campaign: Measurements, distributions, sources
and implications.
Journal of Geophysical Research
109 (D19S25): 1-13.
Graydon, J. A., V. L. St Louis, S. E. Lindberg, H. Hintelmann,
and D. P. Krabbenhoft. 2006. Investigation of mercury
exchange between forest canopy vegetation and the
atmosphere using a new dynamic chamber.
Environmental
Science and Technology
40 (15): 4680-4688.
Gustin, M. S., H. Biester, and C. S. Kim. 2002. Investigation
of the light-enhanced emission of mercury from naturally
enriched substrates.
Atmospheric Environment
36 (20):
3241-3254.
Gustin, M. S., and J. Stamenkovic. 2005. Effect of watering
and soil moisture on mercury emissions from soils.
Biogeochemistry
76 (2): 215-232.
