Measuring and modeling mercury in the atmosphere: a critical review

Gustin, M. S.; Amos, H. M.; Huang, J.; Miller, M. B.; Heidecorn, K.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5697-2015

Articles | Volume 15, issue 10

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5697-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Special issue:

Data collection, analysis and application of speciated atmospheric...

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5697-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 10

Research article

|

26 May 2015

Research article |

| 26 May 2015

Measuring and modeling mercury in the atmosphere: a critical review

M. S. Gustin, H. M. Amos, J. Huang, M. B. Miller, and K. Heidecorn

Download

Final revised paper (published on 26 May 2015)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 10 Feb 2015)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C576: 'Successes and challenges of measuring and modeling atmospheric mercuryat the part per quadrillion level: A critical review', Franz Slemr, 08 Mar 2015
RC C599: 'Review of Gustin et al', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Mar 2015
AC C1062: 'Response to Dr. Slemr', Mae Gustin, 24 Mar 2015
AC C1080: 'Response to reviewer 2', Mae Gustin, 24 Mar 2015
AC C1087: 'Response to Dr. Slemr-use this one it has a few minor changes', Mae Gustin, 24 Mar 2015
SC C1430: 'ACP-2015-18 Successes and challenges of measuring and modeling atmospheric mercury at the part per quadrillion level: A critical review', Anthony Hynes, 08 Apr 2015
EC C2199: 'Editor’s statement', Leiming Zhang, 04 May 2015

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Mae Gustin on behalf of the Authors (09 Apr 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (14 Apr 2015) by Leiming Zhang

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (29 Apr 2015)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The revised paper reads better than the original one and can be published after the authors considered one general comment and several suggestions listed below.

General comment: The authors try to substantiate their claims about higher than reported GOM concentrations by GEM changes, e.g. in the discussion of the results by Weiss-Penzias et al. (2003). Because of changing winds and the diurnal breathing of the boundary layer it is almost impossible to separate photochemistry from transport without measuring special tracers for photochemistry. Mercury studies are notorious for lack of measurements of such tracers. Consequently, most discussions about GEM chemistry from observed GEM changes remain unfounded speculations.

Line 40: “We recommend applying a factor of 3 as a conservative correction to reported GOM concentrations.” Why not 1.6 or 12, the factors mentioned before? What is the meaning of “conservative”? “Reported GOM concentrations” relate to those measured by Tekran? What about other GOM methods? This recommendation is too sweeping and ambiguous and should be thus deleted.

Lines 65-67: An explanation was published by Soerensen et al., 2012. Please correct the sentence accordingly.

Line 109: Please add reference Amos et al., 2012.

Line 139-140: Is the variation by 7% a natural or an analytical one.

Line 205: …between 4 and 6 hours a day.

Line 209: GOM instead of RGM

Lines 234-235: Previously it was said that the mist chamber collects also PBM. Thus RM instead of GOM should be mentioned here.

Line 245: Please correct the reference Huang et al., 2015, this issue. Dtto lines 248, 379, 442, 589.

Lines 304-305 and 316-317: One of the sentences about fly ash is redundant.

Lines 328-330: What do the authors mean with the sentence about the passivation? What do they mean with “loss of replication”? In a row of measurements there are no measurements replicated.

Line 334: Please delete the reference Brunke et al. Measurements at Cape Point do not provide any information about GOM concentrations. Neither is Cape Point located in tropics.

Line 361: Please specify: “Breakthrough of GOM from upstream denuder…”

Line 410: What is Aerohead?

Lines 448-450: “..GOM compounds in the air vary seasonally and spatially “ is a banality and as such does not need to be mentioned. Perhaps the stress should be laid on GOM composition.

Line 581: Please be specific: “..to adjust GOM measurements by Tekran in..”

Lines 595-596: What has GEM mentioned in the last sentence to do with GOM mentioned in the few paragraphs before? See also the general comment.

Lines 646-649: The consensus among atmospheric chemists about OH, the major atmospheric oxidant, is that it is more or less constant. Halogenes are going down because of Montreal protocol. Thus the sweeping statement about increasing oxidants is wrong. GEM concentrations are primarily dependent on emissions. I do not see any consistent hypothesis in this paragraph.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (04 May 2015) by Leiming Zhang

AR by Mae Gustin on behalf of the Authors (09 May 2015) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

The Minamata Convention for mercury (Hg) has been signed by many nations and the primary objective is to protect human health and the environment from releases of Hg. A key challenge researchers is developing linkages between Hg in the atmosphere, deposition, and ecosystem contamination. Here we critically review where the science on measuring and modeling atmospheric Hg stands and offer suggestions for future research that will both advance understanding of Hg cycling and serve the convention.