<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0"><?xmltex \makeatother\@nolinetrue\makeatletter?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ACP</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ACP</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Chem. Phys.</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1680-7324</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus GmbH</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-15-5697-2015</article-id><title-group><article-title>Measuring and modeling mercury in the atmosphere: <?xmltex \hack{\\}?>a critical review</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Measuring and modeling mercury in the atmosphere: a critical review}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{M.~S.~Gustin~et~al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Gustin</surname><given-names>M. S.</given-names></name>
          <email>mgustin@cabnr.unr.edu</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Amos</surname><given-names>H. M.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Huang</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Miller</surname><given-names>M. B.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Heidecorn</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, University
of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV, 89557, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health,
Boston, MA, 02115, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">M. S. Gustin (mgustin@cabnr.unr.edu)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>26</day><month>May</month><year>2015</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>15</volume>
      <issue>10</issue>
      <fpage>5697</fpage><lpage>5713</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>9</day><month>January</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>10</day><month>February</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>9</day><month>April</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>4</day><month>May</month><year>2015</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>Mercury (Hg) is a global health concern due to its toxicity and ubiquitous
presence in the environment. Here we review current methods for measuring
the forms of Hg in the atmosphere and models used to interpret these data.
There are three operationally defined forms of atmospheric Hg: gaseous
elemental mercury (GEM), gaseous oxidized mercury (GOM), and particulate
bound mercury (PBM). There is relative confidence in GEM measurements
(collection on a gold surface), but GOM (collection on potassium chloride
(KCl)-coated denuder) and PBM (collected using various methods) are less
well understood. Field and laboratory investigations suggest the methods to
measure GOM and PBM are impacted by analytical interferences that vary with
environmental setting (e.g., ozone, relative humidity), and
GOM concentrations measured by the KCl-coated denuder can be too low by a
factor of 1.6 to 12 depending on the chemical composition of GOM. The
composition of GOM (e.g., HgBr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, HgCl<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, HgBrOH) varies across
space and time. This has important implications for refining existing
measurement methods and developing new ones, model/measurement comparisons,
model development, and assessing trends. Unclear features of previously
published data may now be re-examined and possibly explained, which is
demonstrated through a case study. Priorities for future research include
identification of GOM compounds in ambient air and development of
information on their chemical and physical properties and GOM and PBM
calibration systems. With this information, identification of redox
mechanisms and associated rate coefficients may be developed.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      <?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>The Minamata Convention for mercury (Hg) has been signed by more than 120
nations and is now being ratified. The primary objective of the convention
is to “protect human health and the environment from anthropogenic
emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds” (UNEP Minamata
Convention, 2014). A key challenge for Hg researchers is developing linkages
between Hg in the atmosphere, deposition, and ecosystem contamination
(Pirrone et al., 2013). Here we review where the science on measuring and
modeling atmospheric Hg currently stands and offer suggestions for future
research directions that will both advance understanding of Hg cycling in
and between environmental reservoirs and better serve the needs of the
convention.</p>
      <p>Although the atmosphere is a relatively minor reservoir of Hg compared to
oceans or soils, it is an important pathway by which Hg is distributed
globally over short timescales (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 year). Atmospheric deposition
represents the major pathway of Hg input to terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems outside areas of direct contamination. A variety of environmental
archives, including remote lake sediments, ombrotrophic peat bogs, glacial
ice, and tree rings, suggests Hg inputs to the atmosphere have increased
several fold in the last 150 years (cf. Engstrom et al., 2014; Schuster et
al., 2002; Wright et al., 2014a). Measured concentrations of atmospheric Hg
have been declining over the last <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 years (Slemr et al., 2011; Cole
and Steffen, 2010; Soerensen et al., 2012; Cole and Steffen, 2010; Cole et al.,
2014), despite inventories suggesting global anthropogenic
emissions have been relatively flat or increasing (AMAP/UNEP, 2013). This
conundrum has challenged our understanding of Hg cycling and emissions, and
underscores the need for continued atmospheric Hg monitoring.</p>
      <p>Measuring the forms of Hg in the atmosphere is difficult. Mixing ratios are
at low parts per quadrillion by volume (ng m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and pg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).
Atmospheric Hg is operationally defined as gaseous elemental Hg (GEM),
gaseous oxidized Hg (GOM), and particulate bound Hg (PBM) less than
2.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m in diameter (Lindberg et al., 2007; Schroeder and
Munthe, 1998; Landis et al., 2002). GOM can be present as different forms
(Huang et al., 2013, 2015). GOM and PBM have complex fundamental
physiochemical properties. Because of the complexity, recent work has
combined GOM and PBM concentrations as measured by the
Tekran<sup>®</sup> system and defined this as reactive
Hg (RM <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> GOM <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> PBM) (cf. Rutter and Schauer, 2007a, b; Gustin et al.,
2013; Weiss-Penzias et al., 2015). Previously it was thought that GEM was
95–99 % of Hg in the atmosphere (cf. Schroeder and Munthe, 1998). Recent
work is pointing towards GOM being 25 % of total Hg in the boundary layer
(see the discussion below). In the Arctic, up to 100 % conversion of GEM
to GOM has been observed (Steffen et al., 2014, 2015). In addition, it has
been demonstrated that there are different GOM compounds in the air (Huang et
al., 2013, 2015).</p>
      <p>Here we review current methods for measuring the forms of Hg in the
atmosphere and models used to interpret these data. The advantages and
limitations of each measurement method are discussed, and a narrative is
provided on how we have arrived at our current understanding of the
limitations. The number of models that have developed the capacity to
simulate atmospheric Hg has multiplied in the last decade. We review major
gains in Hg science gleaned from the use of measurements and models
together, as well as key open questions. We conclude with a discussion of
outstanding problems facing measurement and modeling communities.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Methods for measuring atmospheric Hg</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Atmospheric mercury basics</title>
      <p>Mercury is typically detected by atomic absorption (AAS) or atomic
fluorescence spectroscopy (AFS). In nearly all cases, Hg forms are
pre-concentrated on gold-coated surfaces because the sensitivity of AAS and
AFS are, with the exception of laser and Zeeman AAS techniques, not
sufficient for direct measurements of Hg at ambient concentrations. GOM and
PBM are converted to GEM by thermal desorption from the gold surfaces. Gold
is the most frequently used and best-studied pre-concentration material for
Hg but can become passivated (Huang et al., 2014; Landis et al., 2002).
Currently, the Tekran<sup>®</sup> 2537/1130/1135 system
is the most widely adopted method for measurement of atmospheric Hg, and this
instrument has been incorporated into monitoring networks, such as the
Canadian Mercury Network (CAMNet), Atmospheric Mercury Network (AMNet), and
Global Mercury Observation System (GMOS). Alternate measurement methods have
been developed, but are currently operated on a limited scale.</p>
      <p>An AAS or AFS instrument combined with a pre-concentration on a gold adsorber
with an in-line pyrolyzer will provide total gaseous mercury
(TGM <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> GEM <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> GOM) or total atmospheric mercury
(TAM <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> GEM <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> GOM <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> PBM). Since GOM is adhesive, sampling lines
are often heated and should be kept short in length to prevent wall loss.</p>
      <p>GOM and PBM are in temperature-dependent equilibrium (Rutter and Schauer,
2007b; Amos et al., 2012). Specific PBM sampling
has to take account of this, in addition to the usual precautions to prevent
size-dependent particle losses. Since it is difficult to achieve separation
of PBM and GOM without disturbing the equilibrium, RM is a more accurate
measurement to use. In addition, due to lack of capture of GOM by the denuder
and collection on the PBM unit (Gustin et al., 2013), discussion of RM is more appropriate.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Active automated systems</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS1">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{Tekran\textsuperscript{\textregistered} system}?><title>Tekran<sup>®</sup> system</title>
      <p>The Tekran<sup>®</sup> 2537/1130/1135 system has been
widely used to measure atmospheric Hg for the past <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 years (Landis et
al., 2002). The Tekran<sup>®</sup> 2537 module measures
TGM or GEM in ng m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and was the first component to be developed. The
1130 and 1135 components were added to this system to measure GOM and PBM in
 pg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Landis et al., 2002), respectively. The instrument pulls air
through an elutriator that is heated to 50 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and removes particles
&gt; 2.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m, depending on the flow rate (Lyman et al., 2007). This particle size cut is necessary to
keep larger particles from depositing on the denuder. GOM is collected on a
potassium chloride (KCl)-coated denuder, and PBM on a column of quartz chips
and a quartz filter. Air passes through 10 m of heated line with a soda lime
trap and Teflon filter at the 2537 inlet and then into the 2537 where GEM is
collected on a gold trap. It is not known whether the soda lime trap captures
and retains GOM. GOM (500 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) and PBM (800 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) are
thermally desorbed from their collection surfaces, loaded on the gold traps,
and quantified as GEM (gold traps are heated to 350 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) by cold
vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry (CVAFS). Although the particle cut
inlet, coated annular denuder, particle filtration device, and heated line
are all held at constant temperatures (50 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C) when sampling, there
are temperature drops within the sampling line and GOM may be lost to the
walls (Gustin et al., 2013). Recent work has shown that heating of the inlet
to 100 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C improves GOM collection (Huang and Gustin, 2015a).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Pros and cons of automated and integrative methods used to make Hg
measurements.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.8}[.8]?><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="justify" colwidth="80pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="103pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="80pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="justify" colwidth="83pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="justify" colwidth="120pt"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Hg form measured/detection limit</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Pros</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Cons</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Suggestion/comments</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Automated</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Tekran 2537 gold <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>traps</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GEM or TGM; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>0.5 ng m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> ambient air</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Low detection limit, 2.5 to 5 min resolution; there is a calibration source, standardized by AMNet and CAMNet (cf. Prestbo and Gay, 2009)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Inlet configuration <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>will impact whether measuring GEM or TGM; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>requires fairly trained technicians, stable <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>electrical source, regular calibration and checks</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Suggest using a pyrolyzer at the inlet if TGM measurement is desired</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Tekran 1130 KCl <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>denuder</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GOM; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>1 pg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Good time resolution <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(1 to 2 h)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">No calibration source; coating denuders needs to be done by one operator; does not measure all the GOM in air</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">New method needs to be developed that measures all forms in air and is not impacted by relative humidity and ozone; a different denuder coating would be useful</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Tekran 1135 quartz <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>filter and chips</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">PBM; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>1 pg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Good time resolution <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(1 to 2 h)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Positive artifact due to measurement of GOM that passes through the denuder; not all PBM is measured due to select grain size capture</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Filter method may be best and suggest using cation exchange membranes</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Lumex</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GEM or TGM; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>in liquids, solids, air; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>1 ng m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Good time resolution (seconds); <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>field portable; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>allows for measurement of Hg concentrations in environmental media in the field</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Not calibrated at low air concentrations</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Good for industrial applications</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Gardis</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GEM or TGM; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>0.5 ng m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Good time resolution <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(2.5 min)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Requires trained operators</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">DOHGS</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GEM and TGM; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>80 pg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Good time resolution (2.5 min)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Requires highly<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>trained operators and stable environment</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Useful as a research instrument</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Laser</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GEM</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Fast time resolution (seconds)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Requires highly <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>trained operators and a stable environment; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>cannot quantify GOM</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Useful as research instrument</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Integrated <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>measurements</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GEM sampler <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>activated carbon</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GEM or TGM; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>10–80 pg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Easy operation</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Long time resolution</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Good for areas with high <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>concentration gradients</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GOM mist chamber</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GOM; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Blank: 20–50 pg</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Complicated <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>operation; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>needs acidified solution</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Useful as a research instrument; needs to be re-evaluated</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GOM passive <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>sampler <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>concentration</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GOM; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>2.3–5 ng m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Easy operation</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Long time resolution</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Needs a new design <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GOM passive <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>sampler deposition</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GOM; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>probably PBM; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>0.02–0.24 ng m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Easy operation; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>real Hg loading to ecosystem</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Long time resolution</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Good for worldwide network</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Direct particulate <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>matter sampler <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>measurement</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">PBM; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>probably GOM</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Easy operation</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Artifacts from GOM partition; choice of filters important to consider and length of sampling line</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">UNR active system</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GOM; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 pg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Easy operation; <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>for quantifying GOM <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>and trying to understand the chemical forms in air</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Potentially some PBM measured</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Good for networks, and it could be used to help calibrate measurements made by the Tekran system</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>This instrument has high temporal resolution, low limit of detection, and
established quality assurance <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> quality control protocols
(Table 1). The CAMNet and AMNet developed best management practices for this instrument
(Steffen et al., 2012; Gay et al., 2013). Co-located GEM
measurement can deviate by 20 to 30 % (Aas, 2006; Gustin et al., 2013).
Lyman et al. (2007; Supplement) found that TGM could vary by
7.0 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5.3 %. There are no calibration standards for GOM,
breakthrough can result in collection on the PBM filter, and collection
efficiencies for GOM and PBM are uncertain (cf. Gustin and Jaffe, 2010; Huang
et al., 2013; Talbot et al., 2011).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS2">
  <title>Lumex</title>
      <p>Lumex RA-915 and Lumex 915<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> (Lumex, St. Petersburg, Russia) units measure
GEM and TGM, respectively, with a reported detection limit of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 ng m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for measurements in air. If averaged over the sampling
time of the GEM measurement by the Tekran<sup>®</sup>
system (5 min), a detection limit of a few tenths of ng m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> can be
achieved. The Lumex uses Zeeman atomic absorption spectrometry with Zeeman
background correction. In this instrument, a Hg vapor lamp sits in a magnetic
field and generates a 254 nm light wavelength split into three polarized light
fields. A photodetector detects light in one field within the Hg absorption
wavelength 254 nm and another lying outside of this wavelength. The signals
from both fields are equal when Hg is not present (for details see Sholupov
et al., 2004). The instrument can be periodically calibrated using a
permeation source such as used for internal calibration of the
Tekran<sup>®</sup> instruments. This is not available
commercially (F. Slemr, personal communication, 2015).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS3">
  <title>Gardis</title>
      <p>The Gardis Hg analyzer has two gold traps, a concentrating and analytical
trap, and measures Hg using CVAAS (Institute of Physics, Lithuania). Having
two gold traps might reduce some interferences, such as passivation. This
instrument will measure GEM, TGM, or TAM depending on inlet configuration
and was developed in 1995 by Urba et al. (1995). In a field comparison,
concentrations were similar to that measured by the
Tekran<sup>®</sup> 2537 (Ebinghaus et al., 1999). This
unit has had limited use and a reported detection limit of 0.5 ng m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Table 1).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS4">
  <title>University of Houston Mercury system (UHMERC)</title>
      <p>UHMERC was designed for measuring GEM and TGM (Talbot et al., 2008). This
instrument uses two Tekran<sup>®</sup> systems that are
slightly modified (gold trap heated to 460 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C). The inlet to the
instrument measuring GEM consists of a Teflon filter to remove fine particles
(&lt; 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m) with a molecular sieve trap immediately after to
remove GOM (Gustin et al., 2013).</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS5">
  <title>Detector for oxidized Hg species (DOHGS)</title>
      <p>The DOHGS instrument measures TGM and GEM using two
Tekran<sup>®</sup> 2537 units. The difference between
these measurements is interpreted as RM. The original instrument is described
in Swartzendruber et al. (2009), and subsequent modifications to the system
can be found in Ambrose et al. (2013) and Lyman and Jaffe (2012). The
measurement of GEM requires that GOM and PBM be selectively removed from the
airstream. In early versions, only GOM was removed using a KCl-coated
denuder. This led to the discovery of a discrepancy between GOM collected on
KCl-coated denuders and that measured by the difference method
(Swartzendruber et al., 2009). The GOM removal method was changed to quartz
chips maintained at 650 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C as a pyrolyzer to measure TGM and then
quartz wool (Lyman and Jaffe, 2012; Ambrose et al., 2013). More recently a
cation-exchange membrane filter has been used to remove RM compounds.</p>
      <p>The method detection limit for RM is <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 80 pg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Ambrose et al.,
2013; Table 1). Extensive testing has been conducted on the DOHGS using
calibration sources of Hg<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, HgBr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and HgCl<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. Improving the
sensitivity of the underlying CVAFS systems would enable more routine
operation of this instrument.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS6">
  <title>Laser systems</title>
      <p>Two laser systems have been developed for measurement of GEM (Faïn et al.,
2010; Pierce et al., 2013; Bauer et al., 2002, 2010, 2014). One is a cavity
ring-down system, and the other operates on the principle of laser-induced
fluorescence. Both are calibrated using
Tekran<sup>®</sup> data. These do not currently have the
ability to measure GOM or PBM. If GOM and/or PBM were to be measured, they
must be converted to GEM first. The cavity ring-down instrument has
interferences with ozone (O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Faïn et al., 2010; Pierce et al., 2013). Laser
systems are best applied in laboratory settings given the current
sensitivity, need for a consistent electrical supply, and large electrical
power use.</p>
      <p>During the Reno Atmospheric Mercury Intercomparison eXperiment, the laser-induced fluorescence system operated by University
of Miami successfully sampled on 18 days, typically for between 4 and 6 h
a day. The longest period of continuous sampling lasted for 26 h.
During RAMIX they sampled directly from the manifold and, in addition, at
the end of the campaign sampled ambient air independently, including true
in situ sampling on the roof of their mobile lab. They also attempted to measure
GOM by pyrolyzing the sample air and measuring the difference between Hg(0)
and TGM (Bauer et al., 2014; A. Hynes, personal communication, 2015).</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Active manual samplers</title>
      <p>Here we briefly review manual sampling methods for GEM/TGM, GOM, and PBM.
Manual samplers collect over a specific amount of time, and then the samples
collected need to be analyzed using an alternate method. In contrast,
automated samplers provide short time (seconds to minutes) resolution
measurements and do not need measurements by an alternate method.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS1">
  <title>Mist chamber method for RM</title>
      <p>Stratton and Lindberg (1995), Lindberg and Stratton (1998), Lindberg et
al. (2000), and Stratton et al. (2001) described development of a mist
chamber for measurement of GOM (termed RGM then). The principle of operation
includes pulling air at a high flow rate (15 to 20 Lpm) through a fine mist
aerosol made of water, NaCl, and HCl. GOM and PBM accumulate in droplets
captured on a membrane. This liquid drains into a chamber and is collected,
stored in vials, and analyzed using EPA Method 1631 (EPA Method 1631, 2013).</p>
      <p>Sheu and Mason (2001) compared denuders, mist chambers, and a filter pack
method for GOM (see the Supplement for details). They showed GOM
concentrations in Maryland could be up to 500 pg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and that GOM
could be up to 30 % of the TGM. Reported daytime concentrations measured
by the mist chamber were significantly higher (20 to 700 pg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) than
the KCl-coated denuder (20 to 70 pg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS2">
  <title>UNR active system for GOM</title>
      <p>The UNR active system measures ambient GOM concentrations and identifies GOM
compounds. It consists of a six-port system each with two in-series Teflon
filter holders. Three of the filter holders house nylon membranes and
three-cation exchange membranes. Air is pulled using a vacuum pressure pump
through the membranes with flow regulated by a mass flow controller at a
rate of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 Lpm. (Huang et al., 2013). This unit is not
thought to measure PBM as configured (Huang et al., 2013, 2015).</p>
      <p>Cation exchange membranes are analyzed using EPA Method 1631 (EPA Method
1631, 2013) to quantify GOM concentrations. Nylon membranes are thermally
desorbed to determine compounds present in the air (Huang et al., 2013,
2015). This method may not collect all GOM compounds (Wright et al., 2014b; Huang et al., 2014; Huang and Gustin,
2015b). The nylon membrane is influenced by relative humidity (RH) (Huang et al.,
2013; Huang and Gustin, 2015a). A summary of some advances presented in Huang
and Gustin (2015b) associated with this method are described in the
Supplement. The active system is currently limited to a resolution of
1 to 2 weeks.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS3">
  <title>Active manual systems for PBM/RM</title>
      <p>Teflon, glass-fiber, and quartz filters have been used in open-faced filter
packs, cascade impactors, and Micro-Orifice Uniform Deposition
Impactors<sup>™</sup> (MOUDIs) to measure atmospheric PBM concentrations
(Keeler et al., 1995; Wang et al., 2013; Talbot et al., 2011; Engle et al.,
2008; Rutter et al., 2008). PBM will vary depending on the chemistry of the
aerosol, the atmosphere, and GOM chemistry along with physical conditions of
the atmosphere, such as temperature and relative humidity. PBM measurements
will collect some GOM and will be impacted by the filter material, flow
rate, and inlet configuration.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <title>Passive samplers</title>
      <p>Passive samplers may be biotic (i.e., mosses, lichens, plant leaves) or
abiotic surfaces (membranes, water). Huang et al. (2014) recently
reviewed passive sampling methods for atmospheric Hg.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4.SSS1">
  <title>Total gaseous mercury</title>
      <p>The method developed by W. Zhang et al. (2012) used an abiotic passive
sampler with sulfate-impregnated carbon contained in an axial sampler.
Activated carbon was investigated as a sampling material for Hg by Lindberg
and Turner (1977), Lindberg et al. (1979), and Lindberg (1980). Other
materials that have been applied include silver wires, gold-coated plates,
and gold plugs (Gustin et al., 2011; Skov et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2014).
Sulfate-impregnated carbon is effective because it retains atmospheric Hg,
has a high sorption capacity, and will not become passivated over time (cf.
Huang et al., 2014). This sampler is best applied for Hg measurements across
significant concentration gradients (e.g., urban to rural). The sampler would
need to be deployed for more than 90 days at a remote site. It is not known
whether it measures TGM or GEM.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4.SSS2">
  <title>Gaseous oxidized Hg</title>
      <p>There are currently two types of passive samplers for GOM. These include
surrogate surfaces to measure dry deposition, and a measurement of diffusive
uptake as a surrogate for concentration. The most widely adopted dry
deposition method uses a cation exchange membrane in a down-facing
aerodynamic sampler housing (“Aerohead sampler”; Lyman et al., 2007, 2009)
and has been deployed in multiple studies (Castro et al., 2012; Sather et
al., 2013, 2014; Peterson et al., 2012; Gustin et al., 2012; Wright et al.,
2014b; Huang and Gustin, 2015b). Although there are limitations, such as
measurement of only unidirectional flux, dry deposition models also apply a
similar flux. Huang and Gustin (2015b) found that the surrogate surface
better agreed with models when air concentrations measured by the box sampler
and calibrated by the Tekran<sup>®</sup> system were
adjusted by a factor of 3. The box sampler designed by Lyman et al. (2010b)
provides a means for calculating concentrations based on uptake rate. Recent
work suggests the box sampler has significant wall loss (80 %) of GOM
(Huang and Gustin, 2015b). Lack of calibration is a limitation for all
passive samplers. The temporal resolution is coarse and samplers must be
deployed for 1 to 2 weeks.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <title>Calibration methods</title>
      <p>One of the major outstanding issues is that the vast majority of GOM and PBM
measurements are not calibrated (Jaffe et al., 2014). Calibration of GOM
measurements has been done using manifold and chamber systems. Neither is
automated or widely adopted. Coal fly ash is available as a standard for PBM,
but calibrations have not been done. Laboratory chambers have been developed
for calibrating and testing membranes and passive samplers (Gustin et al.,
2011; Lyman et al., 2007, 2010b; Skov et al., 2007).</p>
      <p>The UNR manifold calibration system is designed so specific Hg compounds can
be added at different concentrations as well as O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, water vapor, and
other chemical compounds. A pyrolyzer at the inlet can be used to determine
concentrations of Hg being permeated (Huang et al., 2013). The eight-port glass
manifold allows for collection of GOM on KCl-coated denuders and different
surfaces (Huang et al., 2013). A Tekran<sup>®</sup>
2537/1130 unit at the end of the manifold is used to measure GEM and GOM
concentrations. Manifold calibrations have also been performed by the
University of Washington in the laboratory (Finley et al., 2013; McClure et
al., 2014) and field (RAMIX; Gustin et al., 2013; Finley et al., 2013).
During the RAMIX campaign, transmission efficiencies of GEM and HgBr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
were 92 and 76 %, respectively.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Evolution of our understanding of the limitations of speciated Hg measurements</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Are we measuring TAM, TGM, or GEM?</title>
      <p>Inlet configuration and local atmospheric chemistry will affect the
measurement of TGM versus GEM. Limited work in dry air with uncovered lines
(i.e., exposed to sunlight) indicated that the
Tekran<sup>®</sup> 2537 measures TGM (see the
Supplement). If GOM is able to pass through the inlet to the
Tekran<sup>®</sup> 2537 and the gold traps are not
passivated, the instrument will measure TGM (Gustin et al., 2013; Temme et
al., 2002). Passivation of gold surfaces can occur (Barghigiani et al., 1991;
Brosset and Iverfeldt, 1989; Gustin et al., 2011; Munthe et al., 1990; Xiao
et al., 1991), and when this occurs these surfaces are no longer
quantitatively collecting atmospheric Hg. Landis et al. (2002) mentioned
passivation of gold traps periodically occurred right after analysis of a
denuder, with recovery dropping to 50 %. To measure TAM requires the use
of a pyrolyzer at the inlet to the sampling line to convert GOM <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> PBM to
GEM. Field data suggest GOM can constitute up to 25 % of TGM in Nevada,
Florida, and Maryland (see Sects. 2.3.1, 3.2.2, 4) and up to 100 %
during depletion events in the Arctic (Steffen et al., 2014, 2015).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>PBM measurements and potential artifacts</title>
      <p>Relative to GOM and GEM, PBM measurements have received less systematic
study. The Tekran<sup>®</sup> system is currently the
most widely used configuration for measuring PBM. Other sampling methods
tested include filter-based methods (Rutter et al., 2008; Talbot et al.,
2011; Malcolm and Keeler, 2007; Kim et al., 2012). The sign and magnitude of the
Tekran<sup>®</sup> measured PBM bias is presently
unclear. Both high and low biases have been reported (Talbot et al.,
2011; Rutter et al.,
2008; Malcolm and Keeler, 2007; Gustin et al., 2013).</p>
      <p>The particle size distribution of PBM is spatially heterogeneous and can
include both fine and coarse fractions (Kim et al., 2012; Keeler et al.,
1995; Malcolm and Keeler, 2007;
Engle et al., 2008). The standard inlet on the
Tekran<sup>®</sup> 2537/1130/1135 excludes particles
larger than 2.5  <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m (depending on the flow rate; Lyman et al.,
2010) in diameter to prevent large particles from depositing on the
KCl-coated denuder. Thus in coastal/marine, agricultural, or industrial
settings with high concentrations of large particles, reported PBM
concentrations represent a lower bound (Malcolm and Keeler, 2007; Kim et al.,
2012; Poissant et al., 2005). Surrogate surfaces with cation exchange
membranes may collect very small aerosol fractions by diffusion (Lyman et
al., 2007; Huang and Gustin, 2015b).</p>
      <p>Temperature and atmospheric composition potentially impact PBM measurements.
The Tekran<sup>®</sup> 1135 particulate module is
maintained at 50 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C to prevent condensation of water vapor. Based on
filter experiments compared with Tekran<sup>®</sup> PBM,
Rutter et al. (2008) suggested there is evaporative loss of PBM. Thermal
desorption profiles using nylon membranes showed that Hg(II) compounds are
emitted at temperatures ranging from 50 to 200 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (Fig. 2),
depending on charges on the collection surface and the polarizability of the
different Hg compounds (Huang et al., 2013). Lynam and Keeler (2005)
observed less PBM collected on quartz filters for 12 versus 4 h, and
suggested a negative sampling artifact associated with relative humidity or
reaction with gases in the air such as O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p>Breakthrough of GOM from the upstream denuder can result in inadvertent
retention of GOM on the PBM collection surface resulting in biased high PBM
measurement. In principal, the Tekran<sup>®</sup>
2537/1130/1135 removes GOM on the KCl-coated annual denuder and then PBM is
collected downstream. Field data have shown that GOM compounds not collected
by the KCl-coated denuder can be captured by the particulate unit (Gustin et
al., 2013). Quartz fiber filters used to collect PBM may also collect GOM
(Rutter et al., 2007; see the Supplement for detailed example). Lyman et
al. (2007) compared calculated dry deposition fluxes associated with coated
(KCl) and uncoated quartz fiber filters against data collected using
cation-exchange membranes, both yielded significantly lower deposition
fluxes. GOM breakthrough may not occur in all cases. For example, if there
are temperature drops within the instrument, then GOM will deposit to the
walls (Gustin et al., 2013). Because of these issues, the authors conclude it
is presently more robust to interpret RM rather than PBM and GOM data
separately.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>GOM: biases, interferences, and shedding light on the
spatiotemporal variability of GOM compounds in air</title>
      <p>Based on laboratory and field studies, concentrations of GOM collected on the
nylon and cation exchange membranes are higher than those collected by the
Tekran<sup>®</sup> system by 60–1000 % (Huang et
al., 2014; Huang and Gustin, 2015a, b). Laboratory and field experiments have
demonstrated the collection efficiency of KCl-coated denuders varies with
environmental conditions (O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, RH) and Hg(II) compounds present in air.
Below we discuss recent laboratory experiments and field studies that have
shaped our understanding of the limitations of GOM measurement methods.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS1">
  <title>Ozone and relative humidity interferences</title>
      <p>Laboratory experiments have confirmed O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> interferences for KCl-coated
denuders and relative humidity interferences for both denuders and nylon
membranes (Lyman et al., 2010a; McClure et al., 2014; Huang and Gustin,
2015b). Lyman et al. (2010a) found the collection efficiency of HgCl<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
loaded on a KCl denuder was reduced by 3 to 37 % when O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentrations were 6 to 100 ppbv. Lyman et al. (2010a) proposed reduction
was occurring on the denuder wall:

                  <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">HgCl</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Hg</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ClO</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

            Their results also indicated less GOM was recovered as O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> exposure time
increased (10 to 26 % removed from loaded denuders for 2.5 min and 29
to 55 % for 30 min at 30 ppbv).</p>
      <p>In experiments similar to those performed for O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, McClure et al. (2014)
found RH had a similar effect on HgBr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> loaded on KCl-coated denuders.
Huang and Gustin (2015a) permeated HgBr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and water vapor into a
Tekran<sup>®</sup> 2357/1130 system in ambient air and
found collection efficiencies dropped during the spikes of RH, and the
denuder became passivated over time.</p>
      <p>They found the following at RH of 21 to 62 %:

                  <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><?xmltex \hack{\hbox\bgroup\fontsize{9.5}{9.5}\selectfont$\displaystyle}?><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RH</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.63</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">GOM</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">loss</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>18.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.49</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">value</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn> 0.01.</mml:mn><?xmltex \hack{$\egroup}?></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

            Huang and Gustin (2015a) found a greater impact of relative humidity than
O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS2">
  <title>Variability of RM composition and concentrations</title>
      <p>Here we use comparisons of data collected with a variety of sampling methods
to better understand atmospheric Hg concentrations and how measurement
discrepancies vary with environmental setting (e.g., RH and O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
Hg(II) compounds present in the ambient atmosphere. This includes data
collected as part of a large study in Florida (Peterson et al., 2012; Gustin
et al., 2012), the RAMIX field campaign (Gustin et al., 2013), recent
comparison of KCl-coated denuder data with the UNR active system (Huang et
al., 2013, 2015), and laboratory testing (Huang et al., 2013; Huang and
Gustin, 2015a, b). For a historical review of additional literature see the Supplement in Gustin et al. (2013), Huang et al. (2014), and
this paper.</p>
      <p>Peterson et al. (2012) compared passive samplers and
Tekran<sup>®</sup> data from three sites in Florida. The
region has high Hg wet deposition but low GOM concentrations (on average
2–8 pg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> as measured by the Tekran<sup>®</sup>
system). In general, the Aerohead or dry deposition sampling system
(described above), showed higher deposition for GOM than that calculated
using KCl-coated denuder concentrations and a dry deposition model. Based on
passive sampler uptake and calculated deposition velocities, Peterson et
al. (2012) suggested the difference could be explained by the presence of
different GOM compounds in the air (see the Supplement for additional
detail). Examining the data across all seasons, using three Hg measurement
methods, criteria pollutants, and meteorology, Gustin et al. (2012) concluded
there were different GOM compounds in air that were derived from different
primary sources, sources producing different oxidants, and variation across
season.</p>
      <p>Data from the RAMIX experiment also indicated the KCl-denuder measurements
were biased low through spikes of GOM (HgBr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) into a manifold. Ambient
air RM concentrations measured by the DOGHS were higher than those measured
by the Tekran<sup>®</sup> system and this instrument
recovered 66 % of the HgBr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> spike during RAMIX (Gustin et al., 2013). The
experiment also indicated RH caused the denuders to become passivated over
time (Gustin et al., 2013). Spike recoveries of HgBr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> by KCl-coated
denuders were 2 to 5 times lower than that measured by the DOGHS, with mean
values for spikes ranging from 17 to 23 % recovery. Replicate nylon
membranes collected 30 to 50 % more RM than the
Tekran<sup>®</sup> system in ambient air. For a concise
summary of the results of the RAMIX DOHGS versus
Tekran<sup>®</sup> data and an explanation for a
component of the atmospheric chemistry occurring see the Supplement.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Correlation between GOM concentrations measured by KCl-coated
denuder and the nylon and cation exchange membranes in activated charcoal-scrubbed air. Modified from Huang et al. (2013).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/5697/2015/acp-15-5697-2015-f01.png"/>

          </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Regression equations comparing nylon membrane and cation exchange
membrane measured GOM concentrations to those measured by the denuder
using the UNR laboratory manifold system and charcoal-scrubbed air.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="justify" colwidth="82pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="72pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="75pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="justify" colwidth="60pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="justify" colwidth="70pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="justify" colwidth="72pt"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">HgCl<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">HgBr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">HgO</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Hg(NO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">HgSO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Nylon membrane (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>KCl denuder (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>1.6</mml:mn><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.002 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.97</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>1.7</mml:mn><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.99</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>1.8</mml:mn><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.02 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.99</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>1.4</mml:mn><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.04 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.90</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>1.9</mml:mn><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,  <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cation-exchange membrane (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>KCl denuder (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>2.4</mml:mn><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.58</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>1.6</mml:mn><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.86</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>3.7</mml:mn><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.99</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>12.6</mml:mn><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>2.3</mml:mn><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>095</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>18</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>Figure 1 and Table 2 show correlations between specific GOM compounds
concentrations measured by the nylon and cation exchange membranes versus the
KCl-coated denuder in the Tekran<sup>®</sup> system (see
Huang et al. (2013) for detail on the experimental setup). These data
demonstrate different compounds have different collection efficiencies by the
denuder. Figure 1 shows the nylon membrane has equal efficiency for all
Hg(II) compounds tested, and the cation exchange membrane quantitatively
collects the Hg(II) compounds permeated. The collection efficiency of the
cation exchange membrane relative to the KCl-coated denuder in a
Tekran<sup>®</sup> 1130 is HgBr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
(1.6) &gt; HgSO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (2.3) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> HgCl<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
(2.4) &gt; HgO (3.7) &gt; Hg(NO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (12.6).</p>
      <p>Huang et al. (2013) compared field data collected using the
Tekran<sup>®</sup> system and the UNR active system.
Cation-exchange membranes measured concentrations were 1.1 to 3.7 times
greater than the nylon membranes and 2 to 6 times greater than
Tekran<sup>®</sup> RM values. Substantial spatial and
temporal variability in the difference between the cation-exchange membrane
and Tekran<sup>®</sup> RM values were observed. Thermal
desorption profiles from the nylon membranes indicate this is explained by
variability in the Hg(II) compounds present in air (Huang et al., 2013,
2015).</p>
      <p>Data collected using the UNR Active System can be compared to KCl-coated
denuder measurements in different areas and used for understanding the GOM
concentrations and chemistry for different areas.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Case study demonstrating how we can use past measurements to move
forward</title>
      <p>In light of the new information about interferences affecting GOM
measurements, we may begin to go back and re-examine features of past data
that previously could not be explained. Here we explore Weiss-Penzias et
al. (2003) as a case study. They measured GEM, GOM, and PBM at Cheeka Peak
Observatory (Fig. 3), Washington, USA, in the marine boundary layer and found “air of
continental origin containing anthropogenic pollutants contained on average
5.3 % lower GEM levels as compared with the marine boundary”. GOM and
PBM concentrations in continental air were very low, 0–20 and
1–4 pg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. At the time, the results were “difficult
to reconcile”. Now we see that the change in GEM concentrations during local
anthropogenic pollution events relative to the mean of monthly marine air
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>60 to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>270 pg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) in Weiss-Penzias et al. (2003) are similar to
the disparity in concentrations measured during RAMIX between the DOHGS and
Tekran<sup>®</sup> RM measurement.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Thermal desorption profiles generated by permeating different Hg
compounds. Modified from Huang et al. (2013). Percent indicates the amount
released relative to the total. Profiles were developed in activated charcoal-scrubbed air. Compounds being permeated may not be the exact compound in the
permeation tube, and this needs to be verified.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=301.599213pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/5697/2015/acp-15-5697-2015-f02.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p>Figure 7 from Weiss-Penzias et al. (2003). Reprinted with permission
from Weiss-Penzias et al. (2003), copyright: 1 September 2003 American
Chemical Society.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/5697/2015/acp-15-5697-2015-f03.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p>Retrospectively, we suggest the observed differences between the two air
masses reported can be explained by differences in the mix of oxidants and
the resultant Hg(II) compounds formed. GOM and PBM were likely low due to
lack of collection efficiency, interferences with O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and loss in the
sampling line (see the Supplement for details of sampling set up).
Significantly lower GEM concentrations in the continental air are indicative
of greater oxidation, which is supported by decreases in GEM concentrations
coincident with O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> increases. Eastern Washington is covered by forests,
which generate volatile organic compounds that could contribute to O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
and GOM formation. The marine air masses likely contained HgBr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> or
HgCl<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the continental air Hg-O, Hg-S, and Hg-N compounds associated with
industry, agriculture, and mobile sources. The capture efficiency of
HgBr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and HgCl<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is greater than for O, S, and N compounds (Fig. 1;
Table 2). The case study exemplifies how we can use the loss of GEM as a
means of understanding the amount of GOM present or produced in air.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <title>Advancing understanding using Hg measurements and models</title>
      <p>Here we discuss several key scientific advancements that have come from
comparing models with speciated measurements, as well as the major questions
left open by these studies. The number of atmospheric models capable of
simulating speciated Hg has multiplied over the last decade (Table 3).
Detailed discussion on model/measurement comparisons of RM can be found in
Kos et al. (2013). Limitations and uncertainties of the models themselves
have been written about at length in original research articles on model
intercomparisons (Bullock et al., 2008; Pongprueksa et al., 2008; Lin et al.,
2006). Fully acknowledging current limitations, there have still been huge
strides made in our scientific understanding of the processes controlling
GEM, GOM, and PBM cycling in the atmosphere including: marine boundary layer
cycling, plume chemistry, source–receptor relationships, gas–particle
partitioning, and vertical distribution.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Atmospheric models with speciated mercury.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.85}[.85]?><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="justify" colwidth="150pt"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Model name</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Domain</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Type</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Explicit or lumped Hg(II)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">References</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GRAHM</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Global</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3-D, Eulerian</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Explicit (HgCl<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, HgO)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Dastoor and Larocque (2004); Ryaboshapko et al. (2007a, b); Dastoor et al. (2008); Durnford et al. (2010); Kos et al. (2013); Dastoor et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GEOS-Chem</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Global<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3-D, Eulerian</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Bulk Hg(II)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Selin et al. (2008); Selin and Jacob (2008); Holmes et al. (2010); Corbitt et al. (2011); Amos et al. (2012); Y. Zhang et al. (2012); Chen et al. (2014); Kikuchi et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CMAQ-Hg</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Continental USA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3-D, Eulerian</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Explicit (HgCl<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, HgO)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Bullock and Brehme (2002); Vijayaraghavan et al. (2008); Holloway et al. (2012); Bash et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GLEMOS</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Variable, global to regional</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3-D, Eulerian</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Lumped</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Travnikov and Ryaboshapko (2002, EMEP report); Travnikov (2010)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">ECHMERIT</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Global</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3-D, Eulerian</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">HgO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, HgCl<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, lumped Hg(II)<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>aq</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">De Simone et al. (2014); Jung et al. (2009)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">WRF-Chem</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Regional</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3-D, Eulerian</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Lumped</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Gencarellia et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MSCE-Hg-Hem</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Northern Hemisphere</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3-D, Eulerian</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">HgO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, HgCl<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, lumped Hg(II)<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>aq</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Travnikov and Ryaboshapko (2002); Travnikov (2005); Travnikov and Ilyin (2009)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">ADOM</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">North America, Europe</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3-D, Eulerian</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">HgO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, HgCl<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, lumped Hg(II)<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>aq</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Petersen et al. (2001)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">DEHM</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Northern Hemisphere</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3-D, Eulerian</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">HgO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, HgCl<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, lumped Hg(II)<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>aq</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Christensen et al. (2004); Skov et al. (2004, EST)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">WoRM3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Global</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2-D, multi-media</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Lumped</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Qureshi et al. (2011)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">PHANTAS</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Arctic</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">box model</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Detailed, explicit Hg(II) compounds</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Toyota et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">HYSPLIT</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Global</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3-D, Lagrangian</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">HgO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, HgCl<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, lumped Hg(II)<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>aq</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Cohen et al. (2004)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">TEAM</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">North America</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3-D, Eulerian</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">HgO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, HgCl<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, lumped Hg(II)<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>aq</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Bullock et al. (2008, 2009)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CTM-Hg</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Global</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3-D, Eulerian</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">HgO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, HgCl<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>g</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, lumped Hg(II)<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>aq</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Shia et al. (1999); Seigneur et al. (2001, 2003, 2004, 2006); Lohman et al. (2008)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">REMSAD</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">North America</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3-D, Eulerian</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Explicit (HgCl<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, HgO)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Bullock et al. (2008, 2009)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">EMAP</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Europe</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3-D, Eulerian</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Lumped</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Syrakov et al. (1995)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> The standard GEOS-Chem has a global domain with the option
to have a nested high-resolution simulation over North America (Zhang et al.,
2012).</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p>Our understanding of speciated Hg cycling in the marine boundary layer (MBL)
is one example of Hg science advancing as a result of using measurements and
models in combination. GOM in the MBL has a diurnal pattern characterized by
a midday peak and is depleted through deposition at night (Laurier and Mason,
2007; Laurier et al., 2003; Sprovieri et al., 2003). The use of observations
and models together determined that the MBL has bromine photochemistry and
was not affected by the hydroxyl (OH) radical. This drives the midday
photochemical peak in GOM concentrations in the MBL and that scavenging by
sea salt was driving rapid deposition at night (Holmes et al., 2009; Selin et
al., 2007; Obrist et al., 2010; Hedgecock and Pirrone, 2001, 2004; Hedgecock
et al., 2003; Jaffe et al., 2005; Laurier and Masson, 2007; Laurier et al.,
2003; Sprovieri et al., 2003).</p>
      <p>Model–observation comparisons consistently suggest models overestimate GOM
surface concentrations, sometimes by as much as an order of magnitude (Amos
et al., 2012; W. Zhang et al., 2012; Kos et al., 2013; Holloway et al., 2012;
Bieser et al., 2014). The measurement–model mismatch is now understood as
being partly explained by a low sampling bias (see Sect. 3), but this alone
cannot reconcile the discrepancy. Reduction of GOM to GEM in coal-fired power
plant plumes (Edgerton et al., 2006; Lohman et al., 2006) has been invoked as
a possible explanation (Amos et al., 2012; W. Zhang et al., 2012; Kos et al.,
2013; Holloway et al., 2012; Vijayaraghavan et al., 2008). The mechanism for
in-plume reduction (IPR) remains speculative, hindering inference about how
in-plume reduction may vary with coal type, control technology, or
atmospheric composition. Results from recent field and laboratory data have
been mixed, providing evidence for and against IPR (Tong et al., 2014; Landis
et al., 2015) (Deeds et al., 2013). The speciation of anthropogenic emission
inventories is also being revisited in order to reconcile model–measurement
RM mismatches (Wang et al., 2014; Bieser et al., 2014). Improving our
understanding of IPR and emission speciation has important implications for
the efficacy of domestic regulation such as the US EPA Mercury Air Toxics
Standard and for potentially attributing trends in Hg wet deposition over the
USA (Y. Zhang et al., 2012).</p>
      <p>Derived source–receptor relationships will also be sensitive to uncertainties
in IPR and emission speciation. On the whole, Hg models simulate wet
deposition fluxes better than surface GOM concentrations, contributing to the
relatively high degree of consensus among source–receptor studies. A
comparison of source–receptor studies found models agreed within 10 % in
terms of the attribution of total wet Hg deposition to a given continental
region (e.g., Europe, Asia) (AMAP/UNEP, 2013; Travnikov et al., 2010).
Several source–receptor studies have concluded domestic US emissions
contribute <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 % to total Hg deposition over the contiguous USA
(Selin and Jacob, 2008; Corbitt et al., 2011). W. Zhang et al. (2012) found
that including IPR in a model decreased the domestic contribution to wet
deposition over the USA from 22 to 10 %.</p>
      <p>An additional area of measurement–model study has been gas–particle
partitioning of GOM and PBM. Understanding gas–particle partitioning is
important because gases and particles are removed from the atmosphere by
different physical processes. There is observational and laboratory evidence
that gas–particle partitioning between GOM and PBM is driven by air
temperature and aerosol concentrations (Rutter and Schauer, 2007a, b; Steffen
et al., 2014; Rutter et al., 2008; Amos et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014).
Implementing temperature-dependent gas–particle partitioning in a global
model increased simulated annual Hg deposition at higher latitudes (Amos et
al., 2012). Aircraft observations suggest gas–particle partitioning also
plays a major role in influencing the vertical profile of Hg, especially in
the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (Swartzendruber et al., 2009;
Lyman and Jaffe, 2012; Murphy et al., 2006). Current gas–particle
partitioning relationships are derived from surface data. PBM measurements
from the summit of Mt. Bachelor suggest these relationships do not capture
PBM dynamics aloft (Timonen et al., 2013). Effects of aerosol composition
(Rutter and Schauer, 2007b), relative humidity, or even repartitioning of RM
within the Tekran<sup>®</sup> (see Sect. 3.3) could
potentially contribute to this deficiency.</p>
      <p>Oxidation also plays a central role in Hg cycling at the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere boundary. Comparisons against vertical
aircraft profiles of TGM consistently suggest there is too little oxidation
in models in the lower stratosphere (W. Zhang et al., 2012; Holmes et al.,
2010). Observations show that total Hg is depleted in the lower stratosphere
(Holmes et al., 2010; Lyman and Jaffe, 2012; Slemr et al., 2014), which is
thought to be the result of rapid oxidation of Hg(0) to Hg(II), partitioning
of Hg(II) to sulfate aerosol, and subsequent sedimentation of PBM (Lyman and
Jaffe, 2012). Aircraft measurements over Washington and Tennessee, USA, found
summertime GOM peaks between 2 and 4 km (Swartzendruber et al., 2009; Brooks et
al., 2014). Modeled GOM vertical profiles over the USA have a less pronounced
peak and generally place it higher (4–6 km) (Bullock et al., 2008).
Correctly modeling the vertical distribution of Hg, particularly GOM and PBM,
is essential for simulating deposition and hence Hg loading to surface
ecosystems.</p>
      <p>Chemistry remains one of the greatest uncertainties in Hg models. Improving
measurements to determine the chemistry can help determine the mechanism(s)
at play. There is still a general lack of rate coefficients and corresponding
step-by-step reaction mechanisms available. The estimated tropospheric
lifetime of RM against deposition and reduction is 40 days (Holmes et al.,
2010), but the reduction pathway is highly uncertain (Subir et al., 2011;
Pongprueska et al., 2008), and the burden of RM in the free troposphere is
uncertain by at least a factor of 2 (Selin et al., 2008; De Simone et al.,
2014). Improving our knowledge of the reduction and oxidation rates in the
atmosphere will allow models to better capture the vertical distribution of
Hg and in turn better simulate Hg deposition. The recent AMAP/UNEP (2013)
assessment identified this as the highest priority for Hg models due to the
importance in the Hg exposure pathway.</p>
      <p>A persistent issue is the ambiguity in comparing modeled Hg(II) compounds to
GOM and PBM, which are operationally defined. Models either have a lumped
Hg(II) tracer or explicitly resolve individual Hg(II) compounds (Table 3).
Since different Hg(II) compounds have different collection efficiencies by
the KCl coated denuder (Fig. 1), this further confounds how to best construct a
GOM-like model quantity to compare against observations. An active dialogue
between experimentalists and modelers is encouraged as the community moves
forward, so modelers may implement Hg tracers that emulate the Hg compounds
measured.</p>
      <p>Recent papers have used a three-fold correction factor to adjust the GOM
concentrations measured by the Tekran<sup>®</sup> system
to calculate dry deposition using models in the western USA and
Florida (cf. Huang and Gustin, 2015a; Huang et al., 2015). Use of this
correction factor is based on the discrepancy between denuder measurements in
the field and cation exchange membranes dry deposition measurements and
concentrations collected using the UNR active system. Weiss-Penzias et
al. (2015) found the GEOS-Chem model overestimated RM/GEM by a factor of 2.8
compared to Tekran<sup>®</sup> RM/GEM, which is roughly
in line with this correction factor. These field observations were collected
in dry and humid conditions and at O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations typically observed
in the atmosphere. Additional consideration could be based on the RH and
O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations and the potential GOM compounds in the air.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Outstanding issues</title>
      <p>Mercury is present in the atmosphere at pg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to ng m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the
capability to measure it is a substantial analytical accomplishment. Ongoing
measurements of atmospheric Hg will be key in evaluating the environmental
benefit of regulation on behalf of the Minimata Convention.</p>
      <p>Here we reviewed the current state of the science for measuring and modeling
atmospheric Hg concentrations. Recent laboratory and field investigations
have shown numerous artifacts and environmental interferences can affect
measurement methods. Some environments such as those with low humidity and
O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> may be less susceptible to sampling interferences than others. In
light of new information about the limitations of sampling methods, we may
revisit and better explain certain features of previous data sets and
measurement–model comparison.</p>
      <p>Fundamental research is needed on measurement methods and the atmospheric
chemistry of Hg. We need to obtain agreement between several methods for
understanding the chemical forms and compounds in the air. Only through
comparison of multiple calibrated measurements can results be determined to
be accurate.</p>
      <p>Identifying the chemical compounds of RM in the atmosphere is a top
priority. Understanding the final oxidation products are key for resolving
questions regarding Hg chemistry. Knowing the dominant compounds would help
with the design of measurement methods and determination of deposition
velocities. Thermal desorption shows promise and mass spectrometry may be a
way to verify compounds.</p>
      <p>Development of a standard, field-deployable calibration system is needed.
This system should provide spikes into ambient air and allow for studying
sampling efficiencies and artifacts associated with ambient air. Lack of
calibration is currently a major shortcoming.</p>
      <p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>A pyrolyzer should be used at the inlet of the 2537 if the goal is to
measure TAM. The way the Tekran<sup>®</sup> 1130/1135 system is
configured to capture GOM first and then PBM is the best method to measure
these two compounds. However, given the difficulty of separating GOM from
PBM, we recommend interpreting the sum of RM instead of PBM alone until
separation is improved.</p>
      <p>A measurement system that collects GOM on a denuder
material
demonstrated to work for all compounds of GOM, and a separate measurement on a
filter using a cation-exchange membrane could be used for measurement of GOM
and RM. Then PBM could be determined by difference. Due to negative artifacts
during long sampling times measurements should be done for &lt; 24 h.</p>
      <p>A new passive sampler design is needed that quantitatively determines
concentrations and is calibrated. Use of a computational fluid dynamics
model to help design the sampler could be one successful way forward.
Passive samplers and surrogate surfaces have longer time resolution (1 day
to weeks), but are relatively inexpensive and easy to operate and could
provide an alternative measure of GOM concentrations and dry deposition
fluxes in large-scale sampling networks once the above issues are resolved.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p><bold>The Supplement related to this article is available online at <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5697-2015-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">doi:10.5194/acp-15-5697-2015-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</bold></p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This manuscript was initiated by discussions at the “Data Collection,
Analysis and Application of Speciated Atmospheric Mercury” workshop
coordinated by Leiming Zhang and held on 29 July 2014 in San Francisco,
California. Work at UNR was supported by the National Science Foundation
(Awards: 0850545, 0917934, 1102336, 1326074), the Electric Power Research
Institute, and The Southern Company. We thank Dan Jaffe and Steve Lindberg
for comments on an early version of this manuscript. We thank Franz Slemr for
his extensive review and constructive comments,  two anonymous reviewers
for their comments, and Tony Hynes for providing information on his
instrument that has now been included in the paper. M. S. Gustin thanks all
the undergraduate students who clean glassware and process and analyze
samples in the lab, for this work could not have been done without their
conscientious efforts, and Michael Gustin for his continued
support.<?xmltex \hack{\\\\}?>Edited by: L. Zhang</p></ack><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Aas, W. (Ed.).: Data quality 2004, quality assurance, and field comparisons,
C587 EMEP/CCC-Report 4/2006, NILU, Kjeller, Norway 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>AMAP/UNEP: Technical Background Report for the Global Mercury Assessment
2013., Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, Oslo, Norway / UNEP
Chemicals Branch, Geneva, Switzerland, VI, 263 pp.,
<uri>http://www.unep.org/PDF/PressReleases/GlobalMercuryAssessment2013.pdf</uri>
(last access: 20 May 2015), 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Ambrose, J. L., Lyman, S. N., Huang, J., Gustin, M., and Jaffe, D. A.: Fast
Time Resolution Oxidized Mercury Measurements with the UW Detector for
Oxidized Hg Species (DOHGS) during the Reno Atmospheric Mercury
Intercomparison Experiment, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47, 7285–7294,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Amos, H. M., Jacob, D. J., Holmes, C. D., Fisher, J. A., Wang, Q., Yantosca,
R. M., Corbitt, E. S., Galarneau, E., Rutter, A. P., Gustin, M. S., Steffen,
A., Schauer, J. J., Graydon, J. A., St Louis, V. L., Talbot, R. W., Edgerton,
E. S., Zhang, Y., and Sunderland, E. M.: Gas-particle partitioning of
atmospheric Hg(II) and its effect on global mercury deposition, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 12, 591–603, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-591-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-591-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Barghigiani, C., Ristori, T., and Cortopassi, M.: Air mercury measurement and
interference of atmospheric contaminants with gold traps, Environ. Technol.,
12, 935–941, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Bash, J. O., Carlton, A. G., Hutzell, W. T., and Bullock, O. R.: Regional Air
Quality Model Application of the Aqueous-Phase Photo Reduction of Atmospheric
Oxidized Mercury by Dicarboxylic Acids, Atmosphere, 5, 1–15,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/atmos5010001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/atmos5010001</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Bauer, D., Campuzano-Jost, P., and Hynes, A. J.: Rapid, ultra-sensitive
detection of gas phase elemental mercury under atmospheric conditions using
sequential two-photon laser induced fluorescence, Environ. Monit., 4,
339–343, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Bauer, D., Swartzendruber, P. C., and Hynes, A. J.: Deployment of a compact
sequential 2 Photon LIF detection system for gaseous elemental mercury at
ambient levels, Geochim. Cosmochim. Ac., 74, A60–A60, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Bauer, D., Everhart, S., Remeika, J., Tatum Ernest, C., and Hynes, A. J.:
Deployment of a Sequential Two-Photon Laser Induced Fluorescence Sensor for
the Detection of Gaseous Elemental Mercury at Ambient Levels: Fast, Specific,
Ultrasensitive Detection with Parts-Per-Quadrillion Sensitivity, Atmos. Meas.
Tech., 7, 4251–4265, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-4251-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-7-4251-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Bieser, J., De Simone, F., Gencarelli, C., Geyer, B., Hedgecock, I.,
Matthias, V., Travnikov, O., and Weigelt, A.: A diagnostic evaluation of
modeled mercury wet depositions in Europe using atmospheric speciated
high-resolution observations, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 21, 9995–10012,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-2863-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11356-014-2863-2</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Brosset, C. and Iverfeldt, A.: Interaction of solid gold surfaces with
mercury in ambient air, Water Air Soil Poll., 43, 147–168, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Brooks, S., Ren, X., Cohen, M., Luke, W., Kelley, P., Artz, R., Hynes, A.,
Landing, W., and Martos, B.: Airborne Vertical Profiling of Mercury
Speciation near Tullahoma, TN, USA, Atmosphere, 5, 557–574, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Bullock Jr., O. R. and Brehme, K. A.: Atmospheric mercury simulation using
the CMAQ model: formulation description and analysis of wet deposition
results, Atmos. Environ., 36, 2135–2146,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00220-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00220-0</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Bullock, O. R., Atkinson, D., Braverman, T., Civerolo, K., Dastoor, A.,
Davignon, D., Ku, J. Y., Lohman, K., Myers, T. C., Park, R. J., Seigneur, C.,
Selin, N. E., Sistla, G., and Vijayaraghavan, K.: The North American Mercury
Model Intercomparison Study (NAMMIS): Study description and model-to-model
comparisons, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D17310, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009803" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD009803</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Bullock, O. R., Atkinson, D., Braverman, T., Civerolo, K., Dastoor, A.,
Davignon, D., Ku, J. Y., Lohman, K., Myers, T. C., Park, R. J., Seigneur, C.,
Selin, N. E., Sistla, G., and Vijayaraghavan, K.: An analysis of simulated
wet deposition of mercury from the North American Mercury Model
Intercomparison Study, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 114,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011224" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD011224</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Castro, M. S., Moore, C., Sherwell, J., and Brooks, S. B.: Dry deposition of
gaseous oxidized mercury in Western Maryland, Sci. Total Environ., 417,
232–240, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Chen, L., Wang, H. H., Liu, J. F., Tong, Y. D., Ou, L. B., Zhang, W., Hu, D.,
Chen, C., and Wang, X. J.: Intercontinental transport and deposition patterns
of atmospheric mercury from anthropogenic emissions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14,
10163–10176, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-10163-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-10163-2014</ext-link>, 2014</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Christensen, J. H., Brandt, J., Frohn, L. M., and Skov, H.: Modelling of
Mercury in the Arctic with the Danish Eulerian Hemispheric Model, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 4, 2251–2257, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-4-2251-2004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-4-2251-2004</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Cohen, M., Artz, R., Draxler, R., Miller, P., Poissant, L., Niemi, D., Ratte,
D., Deslauriers, M., Duval, R., Laurin, R., Slotnick, J., Nettesheim, T., and
McDonald, J.: Modeling the atmospheric transport and deposition of mercury to
the Great Lakes, Environ. Res., 95, 247–265,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2003.11.007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.envres.2003.11.007</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Cole, A. S. and Steffen, A.: Trends in long-term gaseous mercury observations
in the Arctic and effects of temperature and other atmospheric conditions,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 4661–4672, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-4661-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-4661-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Cole, A. S., Steffen, A., Eckley, C. S., Narayan, J., Pilote, M., Tordon, R.,
Graydon, J. A., St Louis, V. L., Xu, X., and Branfireun, B. A.: A Survey of
Mercury in Air and Precipitation across Canada: Patterns and Trends,
Atmosphere, 5, 635–668, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Corbitt, E. S., Jacob, D. J., Holmes, C. D., Streets, D. G., and Sunderland,
E. M.: Global Source–Receptor Relationships for Mercury Deposition Under
Present-Day and 2050 Emissions Scenarios, Environ. Sci. Technol., 45,
10477–10484, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es202496y" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es202496y</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Dastoor, A. P. and Larocque, Y.: Global circulation of atmospheric
mercury: a modelling study. Atmos. Environ., 38,  147–161, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Dastoor, A. P., and Durnford, D. A.: Arctic Ocean: Is It a Sink or a Source
of Atmospheric Mercury?, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 1707–1717,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es404473e" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es404473e</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Dastoor, A. P., Davignon, D., Theys, N., Van Roozendael, M., Steffen, A., and
Ariya, P. A.: Modeling Dynamic Exchange of Gaseous Elemental Mercury at Polar
Sunrise, Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 5183–5188, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Deeds, D. A., Banic, C. M., Lu, J., and Daggupaty, S.: Mercury speciation in a
coal-fired power plant plume: An aircraft-based study of emissions from the
3640 MW Nanticoke Generating Station, Ontario, Canada, Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 118, 4919–4935, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>De Simone, F., Gencarelli, C. N., Hedgecock, I. M., and Pirrone, N.: Global
atmospheric cycle of mercury: a model study on the impact of oxidation
mechanisms, Environ. Sci. Poll. Res., 21, 4110–4123,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-2451-x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11356-013-2451-x</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Durnford, D., Dastoor, A., Figueras-Nieto, D., and Ryjkov, A.: Long range
transport of mercury to the Arctic and across Canada, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10,
6063–6086, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-6063-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-6063-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Ebinghaus, R., Jennings, S. G., Schroeder, W. H., Berg, T., Donaghy, T., Guentzel,
J., Kenny, C., Kock, H. H., Kvietkus, K., Landing, W., Mühleck, T., Munthe,
J., Prestbo, E. M., Schneeberger, D., Slemr, F., Sommar, J., Urba, A.,
Wallschläger, D., and Xiao, Z.: International field intercomparison measurements of
atmospheric mercury species at Mace Head, Ireland, Atmos. Environ., 33,
3063–3073, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Edgerton, E. S., Hartsell, B. E., and Jansen, J. J.: Mercury Speciation in
Coal-fired Power Plant Plumes Observed at Three Surface Sites in the
Southeastern U.S., Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 4563–4570,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es0515607" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es0515607</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Engle, M. A., Tate, M. T., Krabbenhoft, D. P., Kolker, A., Olson, M. L., Edgerton, E. S., DeWild, J. F., and McPherson, A. K.: Characterization and cycling of atmospheric mercury
along the central US Gulf Coast, Appl. Geochem., 23, 419–437, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Engstrom, D. R., Fitzgerald, W. F., Cooke, C. A., Lamborg, C. H., Drevnick,
P. E., Swain, E. B., Balogh, S. J., and Balcom, P. H.: Atmospheric Hg Emissions from Preindustrial Gold and
Silver Extraction in the Americas: A Reevaluation from Lake-Sediment
Archives, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 6533–6543, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>EPA Method 1631: <uri>http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/metals/mercury/index.cfm</uri>,
last access: 27 December 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Faïn, X., Moosmüller, H., and Obrist, D.: Toward real-time measurement of
atmospheric mercury concentrations using cavity ring-down spectroscopy,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 2879–2892, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-2879-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-2879-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Finley, B. D., Jaffe, D. A., Call, K., Lyman, S., Gustin, M. S.,
Peterson, C., Miller, M., and Lyman, T.: Development, Testing,
And Deployment of an Air Sampling Manifold for Spiking Elemental and Oxidized
Mercury During the Reno Atmospheric Mercury Intercomparison Experiment
(RAMIX), Environ. Sci. Technol., 47, 7277–7284, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Gay, D. A., Schmeltz, D., Prestbo, E., Olson, M., Sharac, T., and Tordon, R.: The
Atmospheric Mercury Network: measurement and initial examination of an
ongoing atmospheric mercury record across North America, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
13, 11339–11349, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-11339-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-11339-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Gustin, M. and Jaffe, D.: Reducing the Uncertainty in Measurement and
Understanding of Mercury in the Atmosphere, Environ. Sci. Technol., 44,
2222–2227, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Gustin, M. S. and Lindberg, S. E.: Assessing the contribution of natural
sources to the global mercury cycle: The importance of intercomparing dynamic
flux measurements, Fresen. J. Anal. Chem., 366, 417–422, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Gustin, M. S., Lyman, S. N., Kilner, P., and Prestbo, E.: Development of a
passive sampler for gaseous mercury, Atmos. Environ., 45, 5805–5812, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Gustin, M. S., Weiss-Penzias, P. S., and Peterson, C.: Investigating sources
of gaseous oxidized mercury in dry deposition at three sites across Florida,
USA, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 9201–9219, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-9201-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-9201-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Gustin, M. S., Huang, J., Miller, M. B., Peterson, C., Jaffe, D. A.,
Ambrose, J., Finley, B. D., Lyman, S. N., Call, K., Talbot, R.,
Feddersen, D., Mao, H., and Lindberg, S. E.:
Do We Understand What the Mercury Speciation Instruments Are
Actually Measuring? Results of RAMIX, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47,
7295–7306, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Hedgecock, I. M. and Pirrone, N.: Mercury and photochemistry in the marine
boundary layer-modeling studies suggest the in situ production of reactive
gas phase mercury, Atmos. Environ., 35, 3055–3062, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1352-2310(01)00109-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/s1352-2310(01)00109-1</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Hedgecock, I. M. and Pirrone, N.: Chasing quicksilver: Modeling the
atmospheric lifetime of Hg-(g)(0) in the marine boundary layer at various
latitudes, Environ. Sci. Technol., 38, 69–76, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es034623z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es034623z</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Hedgecock, I. M., Pirrone, N., Sprovieri, F., and Pesenti, E.: Reactive
gaseous mercury in the marine boundary layer: modelling and experimental
evidence of its formation in the Mediterranean region, Atmos. Environ., 37,
S41–S49, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1352-2310(03)00236-x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/s1352-2310(03)00236-x</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Holloway, T., Voigt, C., Morton, J., Spak, S. N., Rutter, A. P., and Schauer,
J. J.: An assessment of atmospheric mercury in the Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) model at an urban site and a rural site in the Great Lakes
Region of North America, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 7117–7133, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-7117-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-7117-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Holmes, C. D., Jacob, D. J., Mason, R. P., and Jaffe, D. A.: Sources and
deposition of reactive gaseous mercury in the marine atmosphere, Atmos.
Environ., 43, 2278–2285, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.01.051" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.01.051</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Holmes, C. D., Jacob, D. J., Corbitt, E. S., Mao, J., Yang, X., Talbot, R.,
Slemr, F.: Global atmospheric model for mercury including oxidation by
bromine atoms, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 12037–12057, 2010, <?xmltex \hack{\\}?><ext-link xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/10/12037/2010/">https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/10/12037/2010/</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Huang, J. and Gustin, M. S.: Impacts of relative humidity on GOM
measurements, Environ. Sci. Technol., 49, 6102–6108, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00098" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.5b00098</ext-link>, 2015a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Huang, J. and Gustin, M. S.: Use of passive sampling methods and models to
understand sources of mercury deposition to high elevation sites in the
Western United States, Environ. Sci. Technol., 49, 432–441, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es502836w" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es502836w</ext-link>,
2015b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, J. Y., Miller, M. B., Weiss-Penzias, P., and Gustin, M. S.: Comparison
of Gaseous Oxidized Hg Measured by KCl-Coated Denuders, and Nylon and Cation
Exchange Membranes, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47, 7307–7316, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, J. Y., Lyman, S. N., Hartman, J. S., and Gustin, M. S.: A review of passive
sampling systems for ambient air mercury measurements, Environ.
Sci.-Proc. Imp., 16, 374–392, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Huang, J., Miller, M. B., Edgerton, E., and Gustin, M. S.: Use of Criteria
Pollutants, Active and Passive Mercury Sampling, and Receptor Modeling to
Understanding the Chemical Forms of Gaseous Oxidized Mercury in Florida,
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 12069–12105, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acpd-15-12069-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acpd-15-12069-2015</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Jaffe, D., Prestbo, E., Swartzendruber, P., Weiss-Penzias, P., Kato, S.,
Takami, A., Hatakeyama, S., and Kajii, Y.: Export of atmospheric mercury from
Asia, Atmos. Environ., 39, 3029–3038, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.01.030" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.01.030</ext-link>,
2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Jaffe, D. A., Lyman, S., Amos, H. M., Gustin, M. S., Huang, J., Selin, N. E.,
Levin, L., ter Schure, A., Mason, R. P., Talbot, R., Rutter, A., Finley, B.,
Jaeglé, L., Shah, V., McClure, C., Ambrose, J., Gratz, L., Lindberg, S.,
Weiss-Penzias, P., Sheu, G.-R., Feddersen, D., Horvat, M., Dastoor, A.,
Hynes, A. J., Mao, H., Sonke, J. E., Slemr, F., Fisher, J. A., Ebinghaus, R.,
Zhang, Y., and Edwards, G.: Progress on Understanding Atmospheric Mercury
Hampered by Uncertain Measurements, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 7204–7206, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5026432" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es5026432</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Keeler, G., Glinsorn, G., and Pirrone, N.: Particulate mercury in the atmosphere:
Its significance, transport, transformation and sources, Water Air Soil
Poll., 80, 159–168, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Kikuchi, T., Ikemoto, H., Takahashi, K., Hasome, H., and Ueda, H.:
Parameterizing Soil Emission and Atmospheric Oxidation-Reduction in a Model
of the Global Biogeochemical Cycle of Mercury, Environ. Sci. Technol., 47,
12266–12274, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401105h" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es401105h</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, P.-R., Han, Y.-J., Holsen, T. M., and Yi, S.-M.: Atmospheric
particulate mercury: Concentrations and size distributions,
Atmos. Environ., 61, 94–102, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Kos, G., Ryzhkov, A., Dastoor, A., Narayan, J., Steffen, A., Ariya, P. A.,
and Zhang, L.: Evaluation of discrepancy between measured and modelled
oxidized mercury species, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 4839–4863,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-4839-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-4839-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Landis, M. S., Stevens, R. K., Schaedlich, F., and Prestbo, E. M.: Development and
characterization of an annular denuder methodology for the measurement of
divalent inorganic reactive gaseous mercury in ambient air, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 36, 3000–3009, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Landis, M. S., Ryan, J. F., Arnout, F. H., Schure, T., and Laudal, D.: The Behavior
of Mercury Emissions from a Commercial Coal-Fired Power Plant: The
Relationship Between Stack Speciation and Near-Field Plume Measurements,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 13540–13548, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Laurier, F. J. G. and Mason, R. P.: Mercury concentration and speciation in
the coastal and open ocean boundary layer, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D06302,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007320" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JD007320</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>Laurier, F. J. G., Mason, R. P., Whalin, L., and Kato, S.: Reactive gaseous mercury
formation in the North Pacific Ocean's marine boundary layer: A potential
role of halogen chemistry, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4529, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003625" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003JD003625</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Lin, C.-J., Pongprueksa, P., Lindberg, S. E., Pehkonen, S. O., Byun, D.,
and Jang, C.: Scientific uncertainties in atmospheric mercury models I: Model
science evaluation, Atmos. Environ., 40, 2911–2928, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Lindberg, S. E.: Mercury partitioning in a power plant plume and its
influence on atmospheric removal mechanisms, Atmos. Environ., 14, 227–231,
1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Lindberg, S. E. and Stratton, W. J.: Atmospheric mercury speciation:
Concentrations and behavior of reactive gaseous mercury in ambient air,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 32, 49–57, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Lindberg, S. E. and Turner, R. R.: Mercury emissions from chlorine production
solid waste deposits, Nature, 268, 133–136, 1977.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Lindberg, S. E., Jackson, D. R., Huckabee, J. W., Janzen, S. A., Levin, M.
J., and Lund, J. R.: Atmospheric emission and plant uptake of mercury from
agricultural soils near the Almaden mercury mine, J. Environ. Qual., 8,
572–578, 1979.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
Lindberg, S. E., Stratton, W. J., Pai, P., and Allan, M. A.: Measurements and
modeling of a water soluble gas-phase mercury species in ambient air, Fuel
Process. Technol., 65, 143–156, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Lindberg, S. E., Bullock, R., Ebinghaus, R., Engstrom, D., Feng, X.,
FItzgerald, W., Pirrone, N., Prestbo, E., and Seigneur, C.: A
synthesis of progress and uncertainties in attributing the sources of mercury
in deposition, AMBIO, 36, 19–32, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>Lohman, K., Seigneur, C., Edgerton, E., and Jansen, J.: Modeling mercury in
power plant plumes, Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 3848–3854, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es051556v" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es051556v</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>Lyman, S. N. and Jaffe, D. A.: Formation and fate of oxidized mercury in the
upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, Nat. Geosci., 5, 114–117, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1353" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo1353</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>Lyman, S. N., Jaffe, D. A., and Gustin, M. S.: Release of mercury halides from
KCl denuders in the presence of ozone, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 8197–8204, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-8197-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-8197-2010</ext-link>, 2010a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>
Lyman, S. N., Gustin, M. S., and Prestbo, E. M.: A passive sampler for ambient
gaseous oxidized mercury concentrations, Atmos. Environ., 44, 246–252, 2010b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>
Lyman, S. N., Gustin, M. S., Prestbo, E. M., Kilner, P. I., Edgerton, E., and
Hartsell, B.: Testing and Application of Surrogate Surfaces for Understanding
Potential Gaseous Oxidized Mercury Dry Deposition, Environ. Sci. Technol.,
43, 6235–6241, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
Lyman, S. N., Gustin, M. S., Prestbo, E. M., and Marsik, F. J.: Estimation of dry
deposition of atmospheric mercury in Nevada by direct and indirect methods,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 41, 1970–1976, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>
Lyman, S. N. and Jaffe, D. A.: Formation and fate of oxidized mercury in the upper
troposphere and lower stratosphere, Nat. Geosci., 5, 114–117, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>
Lynam, M. M. and  Keeler, G. J.: Artifacts associated with the measurement of
particulate mercury in an urban environment: The influence of elevated ozone
concentrations, Atmos. Environ., 39, 3081–3088, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>
Malcolm, E. G. and Keeler, G. J.: Evidence for a sampling artifact for
particulate-phase mercury in the marine atmosphere, Atmos. Environ., 41,
3352–3359, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>
McClure, C. D., Jaffe, D. A., and  Edgerton, E. S.: Evaluation of the KCl Denuder
Method for Gaseous Oxidized Mercury using HgBr2 at an In-Service AMNet Site,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 11437–11444, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>
Munthe, J., Schroeder, W. H., Xiao, Z., and Lindqvist, O.: Removal of gaseous
mercury from air using a gold coated denuder, Atmos. Environ., 24, 2271–2274, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>Murphy, D. M., Hudson, P. K., Thomson, D. S., Sheridan, P. J., and Wilson, J.
C.: Observations of mercury-containing aerosols, Environ. Sci. Technol., 40,
316–3167, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es052385x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es052385x</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>Obrist, D., Faïn, X., and Berger, C.: Gaseous elemental mercury
emissions and CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> respiration rates in terrestrial soils under controlled
aerobic and anaerobic laboratory conditions, Sci. Total Environ., 408,
1691–1700, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.12.008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.12.008</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>Petersen, G., Bloxam, R., Wong, S., Munthe, J., Kruger, O., Schmolke, S. R.,
and Kumar, A. V.: A comprehensive Eulerian modelling framework for airborne
mercury species: model development and applications in Europe, Atmos.
Environ., 35, 3063–3074, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1352-2310(01)00110-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/s1352-2310(01)00110-8</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>
Peterson, C., Alishahi, M., and Gustin, M. S.: Testing the use of passive sampling
systems for understanding air mercury concentrations and dry deposition
across Florida, USA, Sci. Total Environ., 424, 297–307, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation>Pierce, A., Obrist, D., Moosmüller, H., Faïn, X., and Moore, C.: Cavity
ring-down spectroscopy sensor development for high-time-resolution
measurements of gaseous elemental mercury in ambient air, Atmos. Meas. Tech.,
6, 1477–1489, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-1477-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-6-1477-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation>
Pirrone, N., Aas, W., Cinnirella, S., Ebinghaus, R., Hedgecock, I. M.,
Pacyna, J., Sprovieri, F., and Sunderland, E. M.: Toward the next generation of air quality monitoring: Mercury,
Atmos. Environ., 80, 599–611, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><mixed-citation>
Poissant, L., Pilote, M., Beauvais, C., Constant, P., and Zhang, H. H.: A year of
continuous measurements of three atmospheric mercury species (GEM, RGM and
Hg-p) in southern Quebec, Canada, Atmos. Environ., 39, 1275–1287, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><mixed-citation>Pongprueksa, P., Lin, C. J., Lindberg, S. E., Jang, C., Braverman, T.,
Bullock, O. R., Ho, T. C., and Chu, H. W.: Scientific uncertainties in
atmospheric mercury models III: Boundary and initial conditions, model grid
resolution, and Hg(II) reduction mechanism, Atmos. Environ., 42,
1828–1845, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.11.020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.11.020</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib89"><label>89</label><mixed-citation>Qureshi, A., MacLeod, M., and Hungerbuhler, K.: Quantifying uncertainties in
the global mass balance of mercury, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 25, GB4012,
Gb4012, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GB004068" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011GB004068</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib90"><label>90</label><mixed-citation>
Ryaboshapko, A., Bullock Jr, O. R., Christensen, J., Cohen, M., Dastoor, A.,
Ilyin, I., Petersen, G., Syrakov, D., Artz, R. S., Davignon, D., Draxler, R.
R., and Munthe, J.: Intercomparison study of atmospheric mercury models: 1.
Comparison of models with short-term measurements, Sci. Total Environ., 376,
228–240, 2007a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib91"><label>91</label><mixed-citation>
Ryaboshapko, A., Bullock Jr, O. R., Christensen, J., Cohen, M., Dastoor, A.,
Ilyin, I., Petersen, G., Syrakov, D., Travnikov, O., Artz, R. S., Davignon,
D., Draxler, R. R., Munthe, J., and Pacyna, J.: Intercomparison study of
atmospheric mercury models: 2. Modelling results vs. long-term observations
and comparison of country deposition budgets, Sci. Total Environ., 377,
319–333, 2007b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib92"><label>92</label><mixed-citation>Rutter, A. P. and Schauer, J. J.: The impact of aerosol composition on the
particle to gas partitioning of reactive mercury, Environ. Sci. Technol., 41,
3934-3939, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es062439i" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es062439i</ext-link>, 2007a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib93"><label>93</label><mixed-citation>Rutter, A. P. and Schauer, J. J.: The effect of temperature on the
gas-particle partitioning of reactive mercury in atmospheric aerosols, Atmos.
Environ., 41, 8647–8657, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.07.024" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.07.024</ext-link>, 2007b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib94"><label>94</label><mixed-citation>
Rutter, A. P., Hanford, K. L., Zwers, J. T., Perillo-Nicholas, A. L., Schauer,
J. J., and Olson, M. L.: Evaluation of an offline method for the analysis of
atmospheric reactive gaseous mercury and particulate mercury, J. Air Waste
Manag. Assoc., 58, 377–383, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib95"><label>95</label><mixed-citation>
Sather, M. E., Mukerjee, S., Smith, L., Mathew, J., Jackson, C., Callison,
R., Scrapper, L., Hathcoat, A., Adam, J., and Keese, D.: Gaseous oxidized
mercury dry deposition measurements in the Four Corners area and Eastern
Oklahoma, USA, Atmos. Poll. Res., 4, 168–180, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib96"><label>96</label><mixed-citation>
Sather, M. E., Mukerjee, S., Allen, K. L., Sminth, L.,
Mathew, J., Jackson, C., Callison, R., Scrapper, L., Hathcoat, A.,
Adam, J., Keese, D., Ketcher, P., Brunette, R., Karlstrom, J.,
and Jagt, G. V. d. : Gaseous Oxidized Mercury Dry Deposition Measurements in the
Southwestern USA: A Comparison between Texas, Eastern Oklahoma, and the Four
Corners Area, Sci. World J., accession no. WOS:000334852000001,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib97"><label>97</label><mixed-citation>
Schroeder, W. H. and  Munthe, J.: Atmospheric mercury–An overview, Atmos.
Environ., 32, 809–822, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib98"><label>98</label><mixed-citation>
Schuster, P. F., Krabbenhoft, D. P., Naftz, D. L., Cecil, L. D.,
Olson, M. L., Dewild, J. F., Susong, D. D., Green, J. R., and
Abbott, M. L.: Atmospheric mercury deposition during the last 270
years: A glacial ice core record of natural and anthropogenic sources,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 36, 2303–2310, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib99"><label>99</label><mixed-citation>
Selin, N. E. and Jacob, D. J.: Seasonal and spatial patterns of mercury wet
deposition in the United States: Constraints on the contribution from North
American anthropogenic sources, Atmos. Environ., 42, 5193–5204, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib100"><label>100</label><mixed-citation>Selin, N. E., Jacob, D. J., Park, R. J., Yantosca, R. M., Strode, S., Jaegle,
L., and Jaffe, D.: Chemical cycling and deposition of atmospheric mercury:
Global constraints from observations, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D02308,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006jd007450" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006jd007450</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib101"><label>101</label><mixed-citation>Seigneur, C., Karamchandani, P., Lohman, K., Vijayaraghavan, K., and Shia, R.
L.: Multiscale modeling of the atmospheric fate and transport of mercury, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 106, 27795–27809, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000jd000273" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000jd000273</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib102"><label>102</label><mixed-citation>Seigneur, C., Karamchandani, P., Vijayaraghavan, K., Lohman, K., Shia, R. L.,
and Levin, L.: On the effect of spatial resolution on atmospheric mercury
modeling, Sci. Total Environ., 304, 73–81,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0048-9697(02)00558-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/s0048-9697(02)00558-2</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib103"><label>103</label><mixed-citation>Seigneur, C., Vijayaraghavan, K., Lohman, K., Karamchandani, P., and Scott,
C.: Global source attribution for mercury deposition in the United States,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 38, 555–569, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es034109t" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es034109t</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib104"><label>104</label><mixed-citation>Seigneur, C., Vijayaraghavan, K., and Lohman, K.: Atmospheric mercury
chemistry: Sensitivity of global model simulations to chemical reactions, J.
Geophys. Res., 111, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006780" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005JD006780</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib105"><label>105</label><mixed-citation>
Sheu, G. R. and Mason, R. P.: An examination of methods for the measurements
of reactive gaseous mercury in the atmosphere, Environ. Sci. Technol., 35,
1209–1216, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib106"><label>106</label><mixed-citation>Shia, R. L., Seigneur, C., Pai, P., Ko, M., and Sze, N. D.: Global simulation
of atmospheric mercury concentrations and deposition fluxes, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 104, 23747–23760, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900354" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/1999JD900354</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib107"><label>107</label><mixed-citation>Sholupov, S., Pogarev, S., Ryzhov, V., Mashyanov, N., and Stroganov, A.: Zeeman
atomic absorption spectrometer RA-915 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> for direct determination of mercury
in air and complex matrix samples, Fuel Process. Technol., 85, 473–485, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib108"><label>108</label><mixed-citation>Skov, H., Christensen, J. H., Goodsite, M. E., Heidam, N. Z., Jensen, B.,
Wahlin, P., and Geernaert, G.: Fate of elemental mercury in the arctic during
atmospheric mercury depletion episodes and the load of atmospheric mercury to
the arctic, Environ. Sci. Technol., 38, 2373–2382, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es030080h" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es030080h</ext-link>,
2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib109"><label>109</label><mixed-citation>
Skov, H., Sorensen, B. T., Landis, M. S., Johnson, M. S., Sacco, P., Goodsite,
M. E., Lohse, C., and Christensen, K. S.:
Performance of a new diffusive sampler for atmospheric Hg0
determination, Environ. Chem., 4, 75–80, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib110"><label>110</label><mixed-citation>Slemr, F., Brunke, E.-G., Ebinghaus, R., and Kuss, J.: Worldwide trend of
atmospheric mercury since 1995, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 4779–4787,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-4779-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-4779-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib111"><label>111</label><mixed-citation>Slemr, F., Weigelt, A., Ebinghaus, R., Brenninkmeijer, C., Baker, A., Schuck,
T., Rauthe-Schoch, A., Riede, H., Leedham, E., Hermann, M., van Velthoven,
P., Oram, D., O'Sullivan, D., Dyroff, C., Zahn, A., and Ziereis, H.: Mercury
Plumes in the Global Upper Troposphere Observed during Flights with the
CARIBIC Observatory from May 2005 until June 2013, Atmosphere, 5, 342–369,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/atmos5020342" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/atmos5020342</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib112"><label>112</label><mixed-citation>Soerensen, A. L., Jacob, D. J.,  Streets, D. G., Witt, M. L. I., Ebinghaus,
R., Mason, R. P., Andersson, M., and Sunderland, E. M.: Multi-decadal decline of
mercury in the North Atlantic atmosphere explained by changing subsurface
seawater concentrations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L21810,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053736" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012GL053736</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib113"><label>113</label><mixed-citation>
Sprovieri, F., Pirrone, N., Gardfeldt, K., and Sommar, J.: Mercury speciation in
the marine boundary layer alonga 6000 km cruise path around the
Mediterranean Sea, AE, 37, 63–71, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib114"><label>114</label><mixed-citation>
Steffen, A., Scherz, T., Olson, M., Gay, D., and Blanchard, P.: A comparison
of data quality control protocols for atmospheric mercury speciation
measurements, Environ. Monit., 14, 752–765, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib115"><label>115</label><mixed-citation>Steffen, A., Bottenheim, J., Cole, A., Ebinghaus, R., Lawson, G., and
Leaitch, W. R.: Atmospheric mercury speciation and mercury in snow over time
at Alert, Canada, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 2219–2231,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-2219-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-2219-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib116"><label>116</label><mixed-citation>
Steffen, A., Lehnherr, I., Cole, A., Ariya, P., Dastoor, A., Durnford, D.,
Kirk, J., and Pilote, M.: Atmospheric mercury measurements in the Canadian Arctic
Part 1: A review of recent field measurements, Sci. Total
Environ., 509–510, 3–15, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib117"><label>117</label><mixed-citation>
Stratton, W. J. and Lindberg, S. E.: Use of a refluxing mist chamber for
measurements of gas phase mercury(II) species in the atmosphere, Water Air
Soil Pollut., 80, 1269–1278, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib118"><label>118</label><mixed-citation>
Stratton, W. J., Lindberg, S. E., and Perry, C. J.: Atmospheric mercury speciation:
Laboratory and field evaluation of a mist chamber method for measuring
reactive gaseous mercury, Environ. Sci. Technol., 35, 170–177, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib119"><label>119</label><mixed-citation>
Subir, M., Ariya, P. A., and Dastoor, A. P.: A review of uncertainties in
atmospheric modeling of mercury chemistry I. Uncertainties in existing
kinetic parameters: Fundamental limitations and the importance of
heterogeneous chemistry, Atmos. Environ., 45, 5664–5676, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib120"><label>120</label><mixed-citation>
Syrakov, D., Gryning, S. E., and Schiermeier, F. A. (Eds.): On a PC-oriented
Eulerian Multi-level model for long-term calculations of the regional sulphur
deposition, Air pollution modeling and its application, XI, 21, Plenum
Press, New York, 645–646, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib121"><label>121</label><mixed-citation>Swartzendruber, P. C., Jaffe, D. A., and Finley, B.: Development and First
Results of an Aircraft-Based, High Time Resolution Technique for Gaseous
Elemental and Reactive (Oxidized) Gaseous Mercury, Environ. Sci. Technol.,
43, 7484–7489, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es901390t" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es901390t</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib122"><label>122</label><mixed-citation>Talbot, R., Mao, H., Scheuer, E., Dibb, J., Avery, M., Browell, E., Sachse,
G., Vay, S., Blake, D., Huey, G., and Fuelberg, H.: Factors influencing the
large-scale distribution of Hg<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the Mexico City area and over the
North Pacific, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 2103–2114,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-2103-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-8-2103-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib123"><label>123</label><mixed-citation>
Talbot, R.,  Mao, H., Feddersen, D., Smith, M., Kim, S. Y., Sive, B.,
Haase, K., Ambrose, J., Zhou, Y., and Russo, R.: Comparison of Particulate
Mercury Measured with Manual and Automated Methods, Atmosphere, 2, 1–20,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib124"><label>124</label><mixed-citation>
Temme, C., Einax Jr., W., Ebinghaus, R., and Schroeder, W. H.: Measurements
of Atmospheric Mercury Species at a Coastal Site in the Antarctic and over
the South Atlantic Ocean during Polar Summer, Environ. Sci. Technol., 37,
22–31, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib125"><label>125</label><mixed-citation>Timonen, H., Ambrose, J. L., and Jaffe, D. A.: Oxidation of elemental Hg in
anthropogenic and marine airmasses, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2827–2836,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2827-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-2827-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib126"><label>126</label><mixed-citation>Tong, Y. D., Eichhorst, T., Olson, M. R., Rutter, A. P., Shafer, M. M., Wang,
X. J., and Schauer, J. J.: Comparison of heterogeneous photolytic reduction
of Hg(II) in the coal fly ashes and synthetic aerosols, Atmos. Res., 138,
324–329, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.11.015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.11.015</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib127"><label>127</label><mixed-citation>Toyota, K., Dastoor, A. P., and Ryzhkov, A.: Air-snowpack exchange of
bromine, ozone and mercury in the springtime Arctic simulated by the 1-D
model PHANTAS – Part 2: Mercury and its speciation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14,
4135–4167, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-4135-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-4135-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib128"><label>128</label><mixed-citation>Travnikov, O.: Contribution of the intercontinental atmospheric transport to
mercury pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, Atmos. Environ., 39,
7541–7548, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.07.066" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.07.066</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib129"><label>129</label><mixed-citation>
Travnikov, O. and Ilyin, I.: The EMEP/MSC-E Mercury Modeling System, Mercury
Fate and Transport in the Global Atmosphere: Emissions, Measurements and
Models, edited by: Pirrone, N., and Mason, R., Springer, New York, 571–587,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib130"><label>130</label><mixed-citation>
Travnikov, O. and Ryaboshapko, A.: Modeling of mercury hemispheric transport
and depositions, EMEP/MSC-E Technical Report 6/2002, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib131"><label>131</label><mixed-citation>
Travnikov, O., Ilyin, I., Pirrone, N., and Mason, R. (Eds.): The EMEP/MSC-E
mercury modeling system, in: Mercury fate and transport in the global
atmosphere, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 571–587, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib132"><label>132</label><mixed-citation>
Travnikov, O., Lin, C. J., Dastoor, A., Bullock, O. R., Hedgecock, I.,
Holmes, C., Ilyin, I., Jaegle, L., Jung, G., Pan, L., Pongprueksa, P.,
Ryzhkov, A., Seigneur, C., and Skov, H.: Global and Regional Modeling, in:
Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution. Part B: Mercury, edited by: Pirrone,
N. and Keating, T., United Nations, 97–144, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib133"><label>133</label><mixed-citation>UNEP Minamata Convention on Mercury, available at:
<uri>http://www.mercuryconvention.org/</uri>, last access: 15 October 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib134"><label>134</label><mixed-citation>
Urba, A., Kvietkus, K., Sakalys, J., Xiao, Z., and Lindqvist, O.: A new
sensitive and portable mercury vapor analyzer GARDIS-1A, Water Air Soil
Poll., 80, 1305–1309, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib135"><label>135</label><mixed-citation>Vijayaraghavan, K., Karamchandani, P., Seigneur, C., Balmori, R., and Chen,
S. Y.: Plume-in-grid modeling of atmospheric mercury, J. Geophys. Res., 113,
D24305, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008jd010580" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008jd010580</ext-link>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib136"><label>136</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, Y., Huang, J., Hopke, P. K., Holsen, T. M., Rattigan, O. V., Chalupa, D. C., and Utell, M. J.: Effect of the
shutdown of a large coal-fired power plant on ambient mercury species,
Chemosphere, 92, 360–367, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib137"><label>137</label><mixed-citation>Wang, L., Wang, S., Zhang, L., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Nielsen, C., McElroy, M.,
B., and Hao, J.: Source apportionment of atmospheric mercury pollution in
China using the GEOS-Chem model, Environ. Poll., 190, 166–175,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.03.011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.envpol.2014.03.011</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib138"><label>138</label><mixed-citation>
Weiss-Penzias, P., Jaffe, D. A., McClintick, A., Prestbo, E. M., and Landis,
M. S.: Gaseous elemental mercury in the marine boundary layer: Evidence for
rapid removal in anthropogenic pollution, Environ. Sci. Technol., 37,
3755–3763, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib139"><label>139</label><mixed-citation>Weiss-Penzias, P., Amos, H. M., Selin, N. E., Gustin, M. S., Jaffe, D. A.,
Obrist, D., Sheu, G.-R., and Giang, A.: Use of a global model to understand
speciated atmospheric mercury observations at five high-elevation sites,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 1161–1173, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-1161-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-1161-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib140"><label>140</label><mixed-citation>
Wright, G., Woodward, C., Peri, L., Weisberg, P. J., and Gustin, M. S.:
Application of tree rings dendrochemistry for detecting historical trends in
air Hg concentrations across multiple scales, Biogeochemistry, 120, 149–162,
2014a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib141"><label>141</label><mixed-citation>
Wright, G., Gustin, M. S., Weiss-Penzias, P., and Miller, M. B.:
Investigation of mercury deposition and potential sources at six sites from
the Pacific Coast to the Great Basin, USA, Sci. Total Environ., 470,
1099–1113, 2014b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib142"><label>142</label><mixed-citation>
Xiao, Z. F., Munthe, J., and Lindqvist, O.: Sampling and determination of
gaseous and particulate mercury in the atmosphere using gold-coated denuders,
Water Air Soil Poll., 56, 141–151, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib143"><label>143</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, W., Tong, Y. D., Hu, D., Ou, L. B., and Wang, X. J.: Characterization
of atmospheric mercury concentrations along an urban-rural gradient using a
newly developed passive sampler, Atmos. Environ., 47, 26–32, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib144"><label>144</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, Y., Jaeglé, L., van Donkelaar, A., Martin, R. V., Holmes, C. D.,
Amos, H. M., Wang, Q., Talbot, R., Artz, R., Brooks, S., Luke, W., Holsen, T.
M., Felton, D., Miller, E. K., Perry, K. D., Schmeltz, D., Steffen, A.,
Tordon, R., Weiss-Penzias, P., and Zsolway, R.: Nested-grid simulation of
mercury over North America, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 6095–6111,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-6095-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-6095-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    </article>
