Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2014, Article ID 580723, 14 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/580723
Research Article

Gaseous Oxidized Mercury Dry Deposition Measurements in the Southwestern USA: A Comparison between Texas, Eastern Oklahoma, and the Four Corners Area

1Air Quality Analysis Section, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, USA
2National Exposure Research Laboratory, US EPA (E205-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA
3Alion Science and Technology, Inc., P.O. Box 12313, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
4Houston Laboratory, US EPA Region 6, 10625 Fallstone Road, Houston, TX 77099, USA
5Cherokee Nation Environmental Programs, 208 E. Allen Road, Tahlequah, OK 74464, USA
6Eurofins Frontier Global Sciences, 11720 North Creek Parkway North, Suite 400, Bothell, WA 98011, USA

Received 10 December 2013; Accepted 22 January 2014; Published 6 April 2014

Academic Editors: A. W. Gertler, J. D. Herner, O. V. Rattigan, and L. Zhang

Copyright © 2014 Mark E. Sather et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. M. A. Mast, D. J. Manthorne, and D. A. Roth, “Historical deposition of mercury and selected trace elements to high-elevation National Parks in the Western U.S. inferred from lake-sediment cores,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 44, no. 21-22, pp. 2577–2586, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. National Atmospheric Deposition Program, “National atmospheric deposition program 2010 annual summary,” NADP Data Report 2011-01, Illinois State Water Survey, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Ill, USA, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  3. E. M. Prestbo and D. A. Gay, “Wet deposition of mercury in the U.S. and Canada, 1996–2005: results and analysis of the NADP mercury deposition network (MDN),” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 43, no. 27, pp. 4223–4233, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. P. F. Schuster, D. P. Krabbenhoft, D. L. Naftz et al., “Atmospheric mercury deposition during the last 270 years: a glacial ice core record of natural and anthropogenic sources,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 2303–2310, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. C. A. Caldwell, P. Swartzendruber, and E. Prestbo, “Concentration and dry deposition of mercury species in Arid South Central New Mexico (2001-2002),” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 40, no. 24, pp. 7535–7540, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. M. S. Castro, C. Moore, J. Sherwell, and S. B. Brooks, “Dry deposition of gaseous oxidized mercury in Western Maryland,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 417-418, pp. 232–240, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. J. Huang, H.-D. Choi, M. S. Landis, and T. M. Holsen, “An application of passive samplers to understand atmospheric mercury concentration and dry deposition spatial distributions,” Journal of Environmental Monitoring, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 2976–2982, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  8. S. N. Lyman, M. S. Gustin, E. M. Prestbo, and F. J. Marsik, “Estimation of dry deposition of atmospheric mercury in Nevada by direct and indirect methods,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1970–1976, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. S. N. Lyman, M. S. Gustin, E. M. Prestbo, P. I. Kilner, E. Edgerton, and B. Hartsell, “Testing and application of surrogate surfaces for understanding potential gaseous oxidized mercury dry deposition,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 43, no. 16, pp. 6235–6241, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. C. Peterson, M. Alishahi, and M. S. Gustin, “Testing the use of passive sampling systems for understanding air mercury concentrations and dry deposition across Florida, USA,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 424, pp. 297–307, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. M. E. Sather, S. Mukerjee, L. Smith et al., “Gaseous oxidized mercury dry deposition measurements in the Four Corners area and Eastern Oklahoma, U.S.A.,” Atmospheric Pollution Research, vol. 4, pp. 168–180, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  12. W. H. Schroeder and J. Munthe, “Atmospheric mercury—an overview,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 809–822, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. L. Zhang, L. P. Wright, and P. Blanchard, “A review of current knowledge concerning dry deposition of atmospheric mercury,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 43, no. 37, pp. 5853–5864, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. C.-J. Lin, S. K. Shetty, L. Pan, P. Pongprueksa, C. Jang, and H.-W. Chu, “Source attribution for mercury deposition in the contiguous United States: regional difference and seasonal variation,” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 52–63, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. M. Gustin and D. Jaffe, “Reducing the uncertainty in measurement and understanding of mercury in the atmosphere,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 2222–2227, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. J. Huang, Y. Liu, and T. M. Holsen, “Comparison between knife-edge and frisbee-shaped surrogate surfaces for making dry deposition measurements: wind tunnel experiments and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 45, no. 25, pp. 4213–4219, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. S.-O. Lai, J. Huang, P. K. Hopke, and T. M. Holsen, “An evaluation of direct measurement techniques for mercury dry deposition,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 409, no. 7, pp. 1320–1327, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. U.S. EPA, “Memorandum: Emissions Overview: Hazardous Air Pollutants in Support of the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standard,” U.S. EPA; EPA-454/R-11-014, November 2011, http://www.epa.gov/mats/pdfs/20111216EmissionsOverviewMemo.pdf.
  19. M. S. Gustin, P. S. Weiss-Penzias, and C. Peterson, “Investigating sources of gaseous oxidized mercury in dry deposition at three sites across Florida, USA,” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol. 12, pp. 9201–9219, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  20. C. Peterson and M. Gustin, “Mercury in the air, water and biota at the Great Salt Lake (Utah, USA),” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 405, no. 1-3, pp. 255–268, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. National Acid Deposition Program, AMNet Operations Manual 2011-05, Version 1.0, 2011, http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/amn/docs/AMNet_Operations_Manual.pdf.
  22. S. N. Lyman, D. A. Jaffe, and M. S. Gustin, “Release of mercury halides from KCl denuders in the presence of ozone,” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol. 10, no. 17, pp. 8197–8204, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NRSP-3), NADP Program Office, Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, Ill, USA, 2013, http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn/.
  24. U.S. EPA, “Method 1631, Revision E: Mercury in Water by Oxidation, Purge and Trap, and Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry,” EPA-821-R-02-019, August, 2002, http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/metals/mercury/upload/2007_07_10_methods_method_mercury_1631.pdf.
  25. R. J. C. Brown, Y. Kumar, A. S. Brown, and K.-H. Kim, “Memory effects on adsorption tubes for mercury vapor measurement in ambient air: elucidation, quantification, and strategies for mitigation of analytical bias,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 45, no. 18, pp. 7812–7818, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. S. K. Pandey, K.-H. Kim, and R. J. C. Brown, “Measurement techniques for mercury species in ambient air,” Trends in Analytical Chemistry, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 899–917, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. L. Zhang, P. Blanchard, D. A. Gay et al., “Estimation of speciated and total mercury dry deposition at monitoring locations in Eastern and Central North America,” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, vol. 12, pp. 2783–2815, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  28. L. Zhang, J. R. Brook, and R. Vet, “A revised parameterization for gaseous dry deposition in air-quality models,” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 2067–2082, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), “HYSPLIT (Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) Model,” September 2013, http://ready.arl.noaa.gov/HYSPLIT.php.
  30. U.S. EPA, “Power Plants Likely Covered by MATS Rule,” 2012, http://www.epa.gov/mats/pdfs/20111221PowerPlantsLikelyCoveredbyMATS.pdf.
  31. M. A. S. Lombard, J. G. Bryce, H. Mao, and R. Talbot, “Mercury deposition in Southern New Hampshire, 2006–2009,” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol. 11, no. 15, pp. 7657–7668, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus