An analysis of simulated wet deposition of mercury from the North American Mercury Model Intercomparison Study

• Published in: Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres Vol. 114; no. D8; pp. D08301 - n/a
• Main Authors: Bullock Jr, O. Russell, Atkinson, Dwight, Braverman, Thomas, Civerolo, Kevin, Dastoor, Ashu, Davignon, Didier, Ku, Jia-Yeong, Lohman, Kristen, Myers, Thomas C., Park, Rokjin J., Seigneur, Christian, Selin, Noelle E., Sistla, Gopal, Vijayaraghavan, Krish
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Washington, DC American Geophysical Union 27.04.2009; Blackwell Publishing Ltd
• Subjects: Atmospheric Composition and Structure; composition and chemistry; Computational Geophysics; Earth sciences; Earth, ocean, space; evaluation; Exact sciences and technology; Geochemical cycles; mercury; Model verification and validation; Modeling; Pollution; Troposphere; urban and regional; North America; evaluation; mercury; modeling; models; atmospheric precipitation; sensitivity analysis; aerosols; Bias; simulation; Regional scope; accuracy; Air quality; transport; Wet deposition; networks; monitoring; North America; atmospheric deposits; Pollutant emission; Modeling; Variance; trace-element analyses; correlation; programs; boundary conditions
• ISSN: 0148-0227; 2169-897X; 2156-2202; 2169-8996
• DOI: 10.1029/2008JD011224

A previous intercomparison of atmospheric mercury models in North America has been extended to compare simulated and observed wet deposition of mercury. Three regional‐scale atmospheric mercury models were tested: the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model, the Regional Modeling System for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD), and the Trace Element Analysis Model (TEAM). These models were each employed using three sets of lateral boundary conditions to test their sensitivity to intercontinental transport of mercury. The same meteorological and pollutant emission data were used in each simulation. Observations of wet deposition were obtained from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program's Mercury Deposition Network. The regional models can explain 50–70% of the site‐to‐site variance in annual mercury wet deposition. CMAQ was found to have slightly superior agreement with observations of annual mercury deposition flux in terms of the mean value for all monitoring sites, but REMSAD showed the best correlation when measured by the coefficient of determination (r2). With the exception of one CMAQ simulation, all of the models tended to simulate more wet deposition of mercury than was observed. TEAM exceeded the observed average annual wet deposition by 50% or more in all three of its simulations. CMAQ and REMSAD were better able to reproduce the observed seasonal distribution of mercury wet deposition than was TEAM, but TEAM showed the highest correlation for weekly wet deposition samples. An analysis of model accuracy at each observation site showed no obvious geographic patterns for correlation, bias, or error. Adjusting simulated mercury deposition on the basis of the difference between observed and simulated precipitation data improved the correlation and error scores for all of the models.