<?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 Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-17-11655-2017</article-id><title-group><article-title>Impacts of large-scale circulation on urban ambient concentrations
of gaseous elemental mercury in New York, USA</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Impacts of large-scale circulation on urban ambient concentrations}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{H. Mao et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Mao</surname><given-names>Huiting</given-names></name>
          <email>hmao@esf.edu</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Hall</surname><given-names>Dolly</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Ye</surname><given-names>Zhuyun</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zhou</surname><given-names>Ying</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Felton</surname><given-names>Dirk</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Leiming</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5437-5412</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Chemistry, State University of New York College of
Environmental Science and Forestry, <?xmltex \hack{\break}?>Syracuse, NY 13210, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Bureau of Air Quality Surveillance, Division of Air Resources, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY 12233, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Air Quality Research Division, Science and Technology Branch,
Environment and Climate Change Canada, Toronto, M3H 5T4, Canada</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Huiting Mao (hmao@esf.edu)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>28</day><month>September</month><year>2017</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>17</volume>
      <issue>18</issue>
      <fpage>11655</fpage><lpage>11671</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>27</day><month>February</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>29</day><month>March</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>25</day><month>July</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>21</day><month>August</month><year>2017</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">https://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>The impact of large-scale circulation on urban gaseous elemental mercury
(GEM) was investigated through analysis of 2008–2015 measurement data from
an urban site in New York City (NYC), New York, USA. Distinct annual cycles
were observed in 2009–2010 with mixing ratios in warm seasons (i.e.,
spring–summer) 10–20 ppqv (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10–25 %) higher than in cool
seasons (i.e., fall–winter). This annual cycle was disrupted in 2011 by an
anomalously strong influence of the US East Coast trough in that warm season
and was reproduced in 2014 associated with a particularly strong Bermuda
High. The US East Coast trough axis index (TAI) and intensity index (TII) were
used to characterize the effect of the US East Coast trough on NYC GEM,
especially in winter and summer. The intensity and position of the Bermuda
High appeared to have a significant impact on GEM in warm seasons. Regional
influence on NYC GEM was supported by the GEM–carbon monoxide (CO)
correlation with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.17–0.69 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0) in most seasons. Simulated regional and local anthropogenic contributions to wintertime NYC anthropogenically induced GEM concentrations were averaged at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 75 % and
25 %, with interannual variation ranging over 67 %–83 % and 17 %–33 %, respectively.
Results from this study suggest the possibility that the
increasingly strong Bermuda High over the past decades could dominate over
anthropogenic mercury emission control in affecting ambient concentrations of
mercury via regional buildup and possibly enhancing natural and legacy
emissions.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      <?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Atmospheric mercury (Hg) is a prevailing pollutant that has global
consequences for both human and ecosystem health, and hence Hg emission
control is imperative. Mercury in the atmosphere is operationally defined in
three forms, gaseous elemental mercury (GEM), gaseous oxidized mercury (GOM),
and particulate-bound mercury (PBM). Total gaseous mercury (TGM) is the sum
of GEM and GOM. The most abundant of these three forms is GEM, with a lifetime
of 0.5–1 year (Driscoll et al., 2013) and mixing ratios on the order of
hundreds of parts per quadrillion (ppqv) (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> a few ng m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" 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> at
1 ng m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" 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> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 112 ppqv in a standard atmosphere of 0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and
1013.25 hPa; unit conversion was done in a standard atmosphere hereafter),
compared to GOM and PBM with lifetimes of hours to weeks and mixing ratios
often on the order of a single part per quadrillion (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> a few pg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p>The median concentration of
TGM/GEM
in global continental remote areas was
1.6 ng m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" 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> (180 ppqv), estimated from a large body of measurement
studies (Mao et al., 2016), and the background concentration of GEM in the
Northern Hemisphere was 1.5–1.7 ng m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" 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> (168–190 ppqv) (Lindberg et
al., 2007). Urban concentrations of GEM/TGM in the US varied between
0.05 and 324 ng m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" 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> (5.6–36 288 ppqv) (Mao et al., 2016). In
comparison, urban concentrations and their temporal variability were larger
than rural, remote, and high-elevation concentrations in the Northern
Hemisphere (e.g., Kim and Kim, 2001; Feng et al., 2003; Denis et al., 2006;
Liu et al., 2007; Peterson et al., 2009; Sprovieri et al., 2010; Zhu et al.,
2012; Lan et al., 2012, 2014; Chen et al., 2013; Civerolo et al., 2014; Fu et
al., 2015; Brown et al., 2015; Mao et al., 2016, and references therein) owing
to numerous controlling factors, including anthropogenic and legacy emissions,
deposition, meteorology, transport, and atmospheric chemistry (Mao et al.,
2016).</p>
      <p>Over the US, measurements from the Atmospheric Mercury Network
(AMNet) sites, located in urban, suburban, rural, and remote areas, suggested
that monthly median GEM mixing ratios varied from 148 to 226 ppqv
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.32–2.02 ng m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, with urban values at the higher end of the
range (Lan et al., 2012). Urban ambient atmospheric TGM/GEM concentrations in
Canada on average ranged from 1.7 to 4.5 ng m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" 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> (190–504 ng m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Mao et al., 2016, and references therein). Urban GEM/TGM concentrations in Asia
could be an order of magnitude larger than those in the US, Canada, and
Europe (Mao et al., 2016, and references therein). Many studies identified local
sources as a predominant factor controlling urban ambient concentrations
(Gabriel et al., 2005; Lyman and Gustin, 2009; Wang et al., 2013; Feng et
al., 2003; Fang et al., 2004; Zhu et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2014; Seo et
al., 2016; Kim et al., 2016). In some urban locations, nighttime daily
maximums and spring–summer annual peaks were attributed to local and regional
sources followed by boundary layer dynamics and meteorological conditions
(Liu et al., 2007, 2010; Cheng et al., 2009; Nair et al., 2012; Zhu et al.,
2012). Surface emissions were also suggested to play a major role in warm
season annual maximums (Denis et al., 2006; Zhu et al., 2012). Some sites
experienced early morning daily maximums, with the strongest diurnal variation
in summer, due possibly to local anthropogenic sources and surface emissions
(Stamenkovic et al., 2007; Peterson et al., 2009). Wintertime annual maximums
were probably attributed to more coal combustion to produce energy for space
heating, less oxidation of GEM (Stamenkovic et al., 2007), and periods of cold
and stagnant air probably leading to buildup of pollution and more Hg
evasion prompted by wet conditions (Peterson et al., 2009). Temporal
variations in GEM concentrations could be attributed to the combined
influence of environmental variables, anthropogenic sources, photochemistry,
and regional transport (Xu et al., 2014).</p>
      <p>Some studies suggested that regional sources dominated over local ones in
contributing to urban ambient Hg concentrations (e.g., Liu et al., 2007; Kim
et al., 2013; Engle et al., 2010; Xu et al., 2014; Hall et al., 2014). On
interannual timescales, the impact of regional transport, in comparison to
local sources, could vary greatly due to large variability in atmospheric
circulation and subsequently affect urban ambient concentrations very
differently. Additional emission control
associated with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule and the
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) international Minamata Treaty is anticipated in the future
(Selin, 2014). To regulate future emissions, it is important to understand
and quantify contributions of local versus regional sources to urban ambient
concentrations. The objective of this paper is to examine the seasonal,
annual, and interannual variability in GEM in the Bronx borough of New York
City (NYC) and its relation with large-scale circulation and the
contributions of local and regional sources to ambient NYC GEM
concentrations.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Map of mercury emission sources in the eastern US. The yellow
asterisk marks the location of the Bronx site.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/11655/2017/acp-17-11655-2017-f01.jpg"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Data and approaches</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Site description</title>
      <p>The site discussed herein is maintained by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) as a part of AMNet under the National
Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) and the National Toxics Network (NTN).
The monitoring site is located on the rooftop of the Pfizer Plant Research
Laboratory on the northern edge of the New York Botanical Garden in the north
Bronx (40<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>52<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>05<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>′</mml:mo><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 73<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>52<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>42<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>′</mml:mo><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W; US EPA site ID
36-005-0133). The height of the measurement point is about 9 m from ground
surface, and winds arriving at the location are not significantly obstructed
by immediate surroundings. The 100 ha New York Botanical Garden is
surrounded by highways and mixed residential–commercial areas. New York City
is a metropolitan area with a population <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 19 million, and the region has
a long manufacturing, petrochemical, and industrial legacy that includes
contamination from Hg and other toxic compounds. The Bronx site is also
downwind of many regional sources (Fig. 1). Continuous measurements of
meteorological variables and trace gas and toxic air pollutants are conducted
at this site. Additional details on the site can be found on the NYSDEC
website (<uri>http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/2017 plan.pdf</uri>).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Measurement data</title>
      <p>GEM was measured every 5 min using a Tekran (Toronto, ON) model 2537B
(27 August 2008 through 24 October 2013) or 2537X (25 October 2013 onward)
cold-vapor atomic fluorescence (CVAF) analyzer with a nominal detection limit
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 ng m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" 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> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 11.2 ppqv). The instrument was calibrated
daily with an internal permeation source. The Tekran system was operated
according to standard operating procedures from the NADP's AMNet. The AMNet
site liaison performs annual site visits, which include manual injections to
verify the internal permeation source, and is responsible for quality
assurance of the data (Civerolo et al., 2014). Additional details can be
found in Landis et al. (2002) and Gay et al. (2013).</p>
      <p>Measurement data of sulfur dioxide (SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, nitrogen dioxide (NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
carbon monoxide (CO), temperature, wind direction, and wind speed were
averaged hourly. The SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements were taken using a TEI 43C and a
43i TLE instrument using pulsed fluorescence. The NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements were
taken using a TEI 42C instrument using conversion on a heated molybdenum
catalyst followed by chemiluminescence. It is acknowledged that this method
is not specific to NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and suffers from interferences due to other oxides
of nitrogen. However, in this dense urban area with ample fresh anthropogenic
emissions, this artifact is relatively small in an absolute sense since
nitric oxide (NO) and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> account for a substantial fraction of total
reactive nitrogen. CO was measured by a TEI 48C and an API 300EU instrument
using reference method 054 with nondispersive infrared absorption. The
technical details of the deployment of these instruments are given by the
NYSDEC at <uri>www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8541.html</uri> and in the 2016 Annual
Monitoring Network Plan (<uri>www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/2016plan.pdf</uri>).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>HYSPLIT dispersion model description, configuration, and simulation
scenarios</title>
      <p>The impact of regional and local anthropogenic sources was simulated using
the NOAA HYSPLIT Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion Modeling System (Draxler and Hess, 1997, 1998; Draxler, 1999;
Stein et al., 2015) for the winters and summers of 2009–2015. HYSPLIT was
driven by the EDAS 40 km model output over a domain extending westward to
OH, southward to northern VA, and northward to include New England
(Fig. 10a). The model was run in the forward mode for 120 h starting from
each day of
a season.</p>
      <p>The dispersion of a pollutant is calculated by assuming a fixed number of
particles being advected about the model domain by the mean wind field and
spread by a turbulent component. By assigning certain mass to a particle,
emissions are also incorporated in the model (Stein et al., 2015). Within the domain there was a
total of 522 counties reporting Hg emissions that were
extracted from the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) 2011 of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
(<uri>https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2011-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data</uri>).
Note that the total emissions of Hg were treated as 100 % GEM emissions.
The US EPA's NEI documents emissions on an annual county basis. For model
simulations the EPA emission amount for each county was broken down to an
hourly rate by the annual emission amount divided by (365 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 24). Two
emission scenarios were designed. One scenario included emissions from all
the 522 counties, and the other scenario excluded emissions from the five
boroughs in NYC. Output of scenario no. 2 quantified the effect of
anthropogenic emissions outside of NYC (denoted as regional sources) on NYC
ambient GEM concentrations due to long-range transport only. The difference
in NYC GEM concentrations between the two scenarios was used to approximate
the effect of only local sources on NYC GEM concentrations.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <title>Large-scale circulation analysis</title>
      <p>In the analysis of the US East Coast trough, the trough axis index (TAI) and
trough intensity index (TII) defined by Bradbury et al. (2002) were used to
quantify the position and intensity of the US East Coast trough. The seasonal
TAI quantifies the mean longitudinal position of the quasi-stationary
midtropospheric East Coast trough. The TAI domain extends from 120 to
30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W and the southern to northern boundaries ranged from 40 to
50<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N. The TAI index was calculated by averaging the longitudinal
positions (Long) of the minimum 500 hPa heights (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mtext>min</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observed at
each of the four latitudinal steps (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">40</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 42.5, 45, and 47.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N)
within the index range to produce a practical index in longitudinal units
(relative to the prime meridian):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.Ex1"><mml:math id="M41" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>TAI</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mtext>average</mml:mtext><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mtext>Long</mml:mtext><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mtext>min</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p>The TII is an estimate of wave amplitude at 42.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and is the mean
height change at the 500 hPa surface from equal distances east and west of
the East Coast trough axis. It was calculated using
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.Ex2"><mml:math id="M43" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>TII</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="{" close="}"><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mtext>min</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mfenced></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          The more negative TII is, the stronger the influence of the US East Coast
trough would be. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reanalysis data from
the National Center of Environmental Protection/National Center of
Atmospheric Research were used to calculate average seasonal TAI and TII.
Additional details about TAI and TII can be found in Bradbury et al. (2002).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results and discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>General characteristics of diurnal, seasonal, and interannual
variation</title>
      <p>Annual cycles of 2009, 2010, and 2014 displayed larger GEM mixing ratios
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> the 75th percentile value of the entire study) during the warm seasons
(summer–spring) than the cool seasons (fall–winter) (Fig. 2, Table 1), in
agreement with previous urban site studies (Denis et al., 2006; Liu et al.,
2007; Zhu et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2013; Civerolo et al., 2014). The
pattern of such annual cycles was evidenced in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 % (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 %)
of the warm (cold) season in 2009 and 2010 and 67 % (31 %) of the
warm (cold) season in 2014 experiencing larger GEM mixing ratios (Table 1).
However, this pattern was not reproduced in 2011 and 2012, when the
frequency of occurrence of larger GEM values was either comparable between
the two seasons or slightly higher in the cold season.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><caption><p>Time series of 5 min average GEM mixing ratios (black dots) with
a 30-day running average (red line) during the study period. </p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/11655/2017/acp-17-11655-2017-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Seasonal 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentile
and median mixing ratios as well as the range of GEM values from the Bronx site.
Sample numbers are indicated with “Sample no.”. “Frequency of higher
values” represents the warm–cold seasonal frequency of GEM exceeding the
75th percentile mixing ratio (200 ppqv) of all data.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="10">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10th</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">25th</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Median</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">75th</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">90th</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Range</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Sample no.</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">Frequency of</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">high values</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2008</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fall</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">132</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">142</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">160</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">187</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">217</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–552</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">13 677</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">14 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2009</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Winter</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">135</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">151</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">166</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">184</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">207</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–62</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">8728</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Spring</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">149</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">159</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">173</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">196</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">224</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–463</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">14 655</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">22 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Summer</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">134</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">147</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">166</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">195</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">234</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–515</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">14 986</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fall</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">121</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">130</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">142</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">161</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">191</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–461</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">12 113</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">6 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2010</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Winter</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">129</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">137</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">146</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">159</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">177</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–288</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Spring</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">144</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">153</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">168</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">191</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">229</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">114–450</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">4203</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">24 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Summer</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">132</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">145</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">169</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">202</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">234</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–531</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">9014</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fall</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">122</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">132</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">147</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">169</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">197</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–1581</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">11 407</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">7 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2011</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Winter</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">136</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">143</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">153</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">169</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">188</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–318</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">15 085</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Spring</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">137</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">145</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">157</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">172</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">195</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–352</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">15 419</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">12 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Summer</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">127</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">139</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">160</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">188</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">226</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–468</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">11 522</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fall</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">138</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">148</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">166</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">193</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">228</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–660</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">12 758</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">13 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2012</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Winter</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">150</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">157</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">168</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">182</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">197</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">119–375</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">15 117</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Spring</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">145</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">156</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">170</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">195</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">234</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–1516</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">13 708</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">23 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Summer</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">140</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">152</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">170</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">199</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">243</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–445</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">8174</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fall</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">134</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">142</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">157</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">190</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">246</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">11–896</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">13 210</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">25 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2013</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Winter</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">151</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">160</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">177</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">199</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">234</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–1068</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">7781</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Spring</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">149</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">159</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">172</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">193</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">225</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">14–527</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">12 040</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">20 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Summer</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fall</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2014</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Winter</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">168</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">174</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">186</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">201</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">228</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">114–1908</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">10 986</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">26 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Spring</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">179</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">194</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">216</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">248</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">296</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">126–1151</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">15 272</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">67 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Summer</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fall</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">164</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">176</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">194</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">219</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">258</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–543</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">12 828</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">31 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2015</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Winter</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">159</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">176</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">186</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">198</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">214</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–376</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">15 218</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Spring</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">168</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">187</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">201</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">225</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">255</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112–687</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">11 107</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">52 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col2">2008–2015 </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">138</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">152</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">173</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">200</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">239</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">112l–1908</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">309 833</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>Three salient features were evident in the interannual variation in a range
of percentile mixing ratios of GEM (Fig. 3, Table 1). First, the 2009–2010
cool season percentile values of GEM were the lowest of all cool seasons.
Second, the 2011 warm season percentile values were the lowest of all warm
seasons, even lower than in the cool season of the same year, not reproducing
the 2009 and 2010 annual cycles. Third, the 2014 and 2015 seasonal percentile
values were mostly the highest of the study period and for the first time
since 2011, warm season values exceeded the cool season ones, reproducing the
2009 and 2010 annual cycles.</p>
      <p>The most pronounced diurnal cycles occurred in summer, as shown in seasonal
average diurnal cycles in Fig. 4, with a peak between 02:00 and 06:00 UTC
and a minimum between 10:00 and 16:00 UTC, which is consistent with previous
studies for urban locations (e.g., Denis et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2007; Zhu
et al., 2012; Lan et al., 2012). In the summers of 2009–2012, the daily maximum
was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 170–190 ppqv and the daily minimum <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 140–160 ppqv. The
diurnal amplitude, defined as the difference between the daily maximum and
minimum, was up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 ppqv in summer, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 ppqv in fall and
spring, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 ppqv in winter.</p>
      <p>During 2008–2013, the cool seasons experienced much larger interannual
variability in GEM than the warm seasons did, whereas in 2014 and 2015 GEM
concentrations were elevated significantly above other years in all seasons
(Fig. 4). Over 2008–2013, the largest interannual variability of up to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 40 ppqv difference was observed between the lowest GEM mixing ratios
in fall 2009 and the largest in fall 2012, whereas spring and summer
experienced much less interannual variability, except spring and summer 2011,
as aforementioned, which saw the lowest GEM mixing ratios, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 ppqv
lower than all other warm seasons.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p>Seasonal 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th GEM percentile values. The
black dots represent the 5th and 95th percentile values. The thickened lines
represent median values. The blue shaded areas are the cool season, including
fall and the following winter.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/11655/2017/acp-17-11655-2017-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Averaged seasonal diurnal cycles of GEM for spring, summer, fall,
and winter.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/11655/2017/acp-17-11655-2017-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Interannual variation of cool season GEM</title>
      <p>The 2009–2010 cool season exhibited the lowest percentile values, whereas
most of winter 2014 and cool season 2014–2015 percentile values were the
highest of the study period (Table 1, Fig. 3). The difference in percentile
values between the two cool seasons ranged from 30–40 ppqv in the 25th
percentile
and median values to 37–67 ppqv in the 90th percentile. The possible
effect of anthropogenic emission changes on those interannual variations in
GEM concentrations was the very first to be examined. EPA national emission
inventories showed a 13 % decrease from 2008 (31 810 kg) to 2011
(27 695 kg) and then an increase of 2 % to 2014 (28 270 kg) in total
emissions from the eastern US, including states east of the Mississippi
River, of which NYC emissions increased from 125 kg in 2008 to 145 kg in
2011 and to 199 kg in 2014
(<uri>https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2014-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data</uri>).
Using an average planetary boundary layer height of 1000 m over the eastern US (the surface area
for the eastern US is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.483</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, a decrease of 4115 kg
from 2008 to 2011 emissions was converted to a total decrease of 200 ppqv
over all days of the three years and averaged at a decreasing rate of
0.2 ppqv d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" 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>, and an increase of 575 kg from 2011 to 2014 emissions
was converted to a rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03 ppqv d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" 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>. The potential change
in NYC atmospheric concentrations was estimated to be
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3 ppqv d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" 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> from the 2008–2011 NYC emission increases alone
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6 ppqv d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" 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> from the 2011–2014 increase. The potential
changes in ambient concentrations caused by the regional emission
decrease–increase were negligible compared to the observed interannual
difference. Those possibly caused by NYC emission increases could be
significant but appeared to be inconsistent with the changes in ambient
concentrations in two ways. First, from 2010 to 2011 NYC emissions increased
and yet summertime ambient concentrations decreased by 10 ppqv throughout
the averaged seasonal diurnal cycle (Fig. 4). Second, if the residence time
of emitted GEM was 1 day, the total increase in ambient mixing ratio would be
6 ppqv d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" 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> due to anthropogenic emission increases and would be even
smaller, spreading throughout the day, which was negligible compared to the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 60 ppqv increase observed in the spring 2011 average seasonal
diurnal cycle compared to the spring 2014 one (Fig. 4). The contribution from
the NYC anthropogenic emissions to ambient GEM was further demonstrated using
the HYSPLIT simulations in Sect. 5.</p>
      <p>Legacy and natural emissions could be another driver for the observed
interannual variations in GEM. However, seasonal mean temperature and GEM
from the Bronx location were not found to be correlated, which suggested that
the effect of changes in legacy and natural emissions on ambient GEM might
not be dominant. In addition, using the estimated annual
natural and re-emissions of 9.4 to 13.0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" 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> from Zhang et al. (2016) for the Bronx site
during 2009–2014, the maximum year-to-year change was calculated to be
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 ppqv d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" 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>, assuming an average planetary boundary layer
height of 1000 m. This change alone could not explain the observed
interannual variations. It alludes to the potential effect of
regional legacy and natural emissions as well as chemistry, which
needs to employ modeling tools and is beyond the scope of this study. Here,
it was hypothesized that atmospheric circulation was one predominant factor
contributing to the observed interannual variation in ambient Bronx GEM
concentrations.</p>
      <p>To validate this hypothesis, circulation patterns were examined first using
the Bronx site wind data. In the falls of 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2013, wind came from
all four quadrants, with comparable frequency ranging from 15 to 30 % of the
season, whereas in fall 2010 the northwesterly (270–360<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) was more
frequent (37 %), and the northeasterly (0–90<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) became
predominant (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50–74 %) in the falls of 2012 and 2014 (Fig. 5a). The
winters experienced northwesterly winds (270–360<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) more often
ranging from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 40 to 65 % of the season, with the exception of
winter 2015 when a little below 40 % of the season experienced northwesterly winds, on par with
southwesterly wind (180–270<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Fig. 5a). Wind speed was averaged
seasonally for the four wind quadrants (Fig. 5b). Northwesterly wind
(270–360<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) was the strongest (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the winters and
springs of 2009–2013 and was reduced to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" 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> in 2014 and
2015. Southwesterly (180–270<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) wind hovered around 2 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" 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> in
the cool seasons, except 2009–2010 when it decreased to 1 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" 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>.
Wind speed in the two easterly quadrants (0–180<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) varied comparably
from 1 to 2 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" 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>, except in spring 2013 when it reached
2.5 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" 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> and was particularly low (0.5 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the 2014 cool
season.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><caption><p><bold>(a)</bold> Fraction of wind coming from <bold>(b)</bold> wind speed,
<bold>(c)</bold> GEM, and <bold>(d)</bold> SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> averaged in the four wind quadrants
in each season together with seasonal median and wind-direction-adjusted
values.
The shaded areas indicate the cool seasons. In <bold>(b)</bold> the dotted black
line indicates the wind speed averaged in all directions.
In <bold>(c)</bold> and <bold>(d)</bold> the dotted black line and solid black dots
represent the overall seasonal median values of GEM and SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the dotted dark
grey line and solid dark grey dots represent the wind direction adjusted GEM
and SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> values.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/11655/2017/acp-17-11655-2017-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>Since anthropogenic Hg sources are mostly concentrated to the west,
southwest, south, and northeast of the Bronx site with much fewer sources to
the northwest (Fig. 1), GEM mixing ratios would vary expectedly corresponding
to air masses arriving from different directions. This was clearly suggested
by mixing ratios of GEM averaged seasonally for the four wind quadrants
(Fig. 5c). Generally, seasonally averaged GEM mixing ratios were larger by
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20–50 ppqv in the two southerly quadrants than those in the northerly
quadrants. Overall, in addition to local emissions, interannual variability
in the origin of the air masses reaching the Bronx appeared to cast significant
influence on the ambient concentrations of GEM in the city. This argument was
strongly supported by SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> values in the four wind quadrants (Fig. 5d).
Consistent with GEM (Fig. 5c), southwesterly (180–270<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) wind brought
in air masses with the highest SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> levels in 2008–2011, especially in
winter, reaching 13–14 ppbv, followed by half the values in the winters of
2012–2015. In contrast, the SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> mixing ratios were close in the other
three wind quadrants. One difference between the variation patterns of GEM
and SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in the four wind quadrants was that air masses from the
southeast appeared to also be rich in GEM, whereas SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in air from the
southeast was low, close to that from the northwest and northeast. One
confounding factor for this difference could be due to the ocean being a
major source of GEM, and also the only landmass southeast of the Bronx is
Long Island, with limited major polluters.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p>September–February 500 hPa GPH for <bold>(a)</bold> 1980–2010,
<bold>(b)</bold> 2010, and <bold>(c)</bold> 2014; North American TAI and TII
for the winters of 2009–2015 <bold>(d)</bold>; sea level pressure averaged over the winters
of 1980–2010 <bold>(e)</bold>, winter 2010 <bold>(f)</bold>, and winter
2014 <bold>(g)</bold>. The red asterisks indicate the location of the Bronx site.
Courtesy: NOAA ESRL PSD Interactive Climate Analysis. </p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/11655/2017/acp-17-11655-2017-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Two cases, the lowest percentile values in the 2009–2010 cool season and the
highest in 2014–2015 were used to elaborate on this point. What was most
striking about the 2009–2010 cool season was the very low frequency (14 %)
of wind from the southwesterly quadrant (180–270<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) in fall 2009 and
the largest frequency of wind from the northwesterly quadrant (67 %,
270–360<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) in winter 2010 combined with nearly the lowest wind speed
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the three quadrants (0–270<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
(Fig. 5a–c). This indicates that the particularly low mixing ratios in the
cool season of 2009–2010 were likely caused by an
influx of relatively cleaner Canadian air masses that were over 4 times more frequent and the slowest southerly flow
of more polluted air.</p>
      <p>The second case is winter 2014 when GEM averaged in the four wind quadrants
reached the maximums of all time (Fig. 5c). Coincidently the
frequency of wind from the northwesterly quadrant (270–360<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) was
nearly the lowest of all cool seasons, barely reaching 40 % of the season
compared to up to 67 % in winter 2010 (Fig. 5a). Meanwhile, the frequency
of wind from the southwesterly quadrant (180–270<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) reached a high of
34 % of all cool seasons, and the wind speed of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" 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>
was comparable to the northwesterly quadrant. This is a strong indication of the arrival
of air masses rich in GEM originating from the heavy emitters in the
northeastern US urban corridor via flow nearly as frequent and as fast as the
relatively clean northwesterly quadrant. Winter 2015 showed similar wind patterns,
also coinciding with high GEM concentrations.</p>
      <p>Such variations in wind direction and speed at the Bronx site can be better
understood in the context of large-scale circulation. The climatological
500 hPa geopotential height (GPH) (1980–2010) for cool seasons during
1980–2010 exhibited the US East Coast trough centered over coastal
southeastern Canada extending southwestward over the eastern US (Fig. 6a).
All cool seasons experienced variations in this pattern, except the cool seasons
of 2009–2010 and 2013–2014, which appeared to be anomalous (Fig. 6b and c).
Specifically, the trough in winter 2010 shifted eastward farthest out over the
ocean and was the weakest, evidenced in the maximum TAI (62<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) and
nearly the least negative TII value (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m) (Fig. 6d). In contrast, the
trough in winter 2014 was situated the farthest over land and had the strongest
of all winters, backed by the most negative TAI (85<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) and nearly
the most negative TII value (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">201</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m) (Fig. 6d) . This suggested that in
winter 2010 the northeast US was most frequently under the influence of air
masses from higher latitudes via flow on the backside of the US East Coast
trough, whereas this was much less prevalent in winter 2014 due to the eastern US in winter 2014 being positioned near the axis
in
the front of the trough. This was further clearly reflected in
the maps of sea level pressure (SLP) for the two winters. The unusual winter
2010 circulation was signified by northerly gradient flow (Fig. 6f) from the
backside of the Icelandic Low, which shifted toward the south and west near
Newfoundland compared to its 1980–2010 climatological position right between
and below Greenland and Iceland (Fig. 6e). This indicated predominant
transport of relatively clean air from Canada combined with strong
ventilation of continental pollution, likely leading to the least polluted
air in winter 2010 of all seven winters. In contrast, in winter 2014 NYC appeared
to be on the periphery of high-pressure systems in predominantly slow
northwesterly and southwesterly flow regimes (Fig. 6g). This explains the
least frequent, lowest wind speed in the easterly wind quadrants during
winter 2014 (Fig. 5b), which is conducive to regional buildup of air
pollution, resulting in the highest mixing ratios of GEM of all winters. More
evidence was shown in Sect. 6 using modeled contributions to NYC ambient
concentrations from local versus regional anthropogenic sources.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Interannual variation in warm season GEM</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS1">
  <title>Annual maximums in warm seasons of 2009 and 2010</title>
      <p>The annual cycles of GEM at the Bronx site in 2009 and 2010, with larger
values in spring and summer (Table 1; Figs. 2 and 3), are consistent with
measurements from some urban and industrial locations in the literature
(Lindberg and Stratton, 1998; Liu et al., 2007; Zhu et al., 2012; Xu et al.,
2014). Lindberg and Stratton (1998) and Liu et al. (2007) attributed such
annual cycles to local anthropogenic sources, while Zhu et al. (2012) and Xu
et al. (2014) speculated re-emission from soils to be a potential dominant
factor. In NYC, impervious surfaces comprise 95 % of the total land
surface (Adler and Tanner, 2013), which, considering local sources alone,
makes re-emission of Hg from soils much less significant than anthropogenic
emissions from the area. Indeed, no correlation between seasonal temperature
and GEM was found for the Bronx site (not shown). It thus seemed unlikely
that NYC legacy emissions contributed to the 2009 and 2010 annual cycles. The
impact of regional vs. local anthropogenic sources on NYC GEM concentrations
was studied in Sect. 3.5, and quantifying the impact of regional
natural and legacy emissions calls for a regional modeling approach, which is
beyond the scope of this study. Here we focused on the potential impact of
large-scale circulation on NYC GEM concentrations.</p>
      <p>In the warm seasons, the Bronx was on the periphery of the Bermuda High
(Fig. 7c, f), where usually lower wind speed prevailed. This is consistent
with the annual cycle of wind speed shown in Fig. 5b, with wind mostly lower
in spring–summer and higher in fall–winter conducive to regional pollution
buildup, which could explain why the Bronx saw larger peaks in GEM in the warm
season than in the cool season.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p>The axis position (TAI) and intensity (TII) of the 500 hPa North
American trough in spring <bold>(a)</bold> and summer <bold>(b)</bold>. Sea level
pressure (SLP) in the springs of <bold>(c)</bold> 1980–2010, <bold>(d)</bold> 2011, and
<bold>(e)</bold> 2014. SLP in the summers of <bold>(f)</bold> 1980–2010, <bold>(g)</bold> 2011,
and <bold>(h)</bold> 2014. The red asterisks indicate the Bronx site location.
Courtesy: NOAA ESRL PSD Interactive Climate Analysis.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/11655/2017/acp-17-11655-2017-f07.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3.SSS2">
  <title>Lowest GEM in warm season 2011 and highest in 2014–2015</title>
      <p>In examining wind in the warm season of 2011, what stood out was that the Bronx
experienced a significantly increased frequency (37 %) of northeasterly
wind of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" 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> in spring and a decreased frequency of
(20 %) of northwesterly wind in summer compared to the spring and summer
in 2009 and 2010 (Fig. 5a). In summer 2014 nearly 80 % of the season had
northeasterly wind (0–90<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and there was unusually weak wind
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in all four wind quadrants (Fig. 5a, b), which
suggested calm conditions. In the warm season of 2011, GEM concentrations in
the northeasterly wind quadrant were averaged at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 145 ppqv, up to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 ppqv lower than those in the most polluted southerly quadrants
(Fig. 5c). In contrast, the springs of 2014 and 2015 GEM in the northeasterly
quadrant were averaged at 200 and 192 ppqv, respectively, equally large or even
larger than GEM in the other three quadrants (Fig. 5c). The unusually high
concentration was an indication of buildup under calm conditions.</p>
      <p>The anomalously increased occurrence of northeasterly wind in summer 2011
indicated unusual circulation. Compared to the 1980–2010 climatology, the
500 hPa GPH in spring 2011 showed the weakest US East Coast trough of all
springs (Fig. S1), evidenced in the westernmost trough axis position
(TAI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 108<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) and the smallest intensity (TII <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">27</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m)
of all springs (Fig. 7a). The 500 hPa GPH in summer 2011 suggested the
strongest US East Coast trough (TII <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">87</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m) and the second
easternmost trough axis position (TAI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 66<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) of all summers
(Figs. 7b, S2). This suggests that the northeastern US in summer 2011 was
frequently under significant influence of the backside of the trough, i.e.,
sweeping air flow from higher latitudes subsiding to the surface in
midlatitudes.</p>
      <p>Near the surface, the 1980–2010 SLP climatology suggested that in spring NYC
was situated in the gradient flow of the Bermuda High and a trough from the
Icelandic Low (Fig. 7c), conducive to transport of emissions from upstream
source regions such as upstate New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania,
while in summer NYC is under the influence of the Bermuda High, which is favorable for regional
buildup (Fig. 7f). However, in spring 2011, the trough of the Icelandic Low
gave way to the Canadian High, leaving NYC locked in a zone between the
Canadian High and subtropical high (Fig. 7d), possibly cutting regional
transport short in addition to strong subsidence of cleaner higher-latitudinal air, leading to the lowest concentrations of GEM of all springs.
Similarly unusual was summer 2011 when NYC was under less influence from the
Bermuda High than from the US East Coast trough, which is unfavorable for regional
buildup (Fig. 7g). These speculations appeared to be consistent with the
fact that both seasons saw unusual equal chances of winds from the four
quadrants (Fig. 5a) over the Bronx and its surrounding areas.</p>
      <p>The 500 hPa TAI and TII values (Fig. 7b) and the 500 hPa GPH map (Fig. S2)
in summer 2011 suggested the strongest (TII <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">87</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m) and second
easternmost (TAI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 66<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) US East Coast trough. In comparison,
summer 2014 (Fig. S2) saw the weakest US East Coast trough
(TII <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m) of all summers, with its axis on average at
72<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, near the East Coast. This contrast indicates that summer 2011
experienced the weakest influence of the Bermuda High on the East Coast
(Fig. 7e, h) of all summers during the study period, the polar extreme of the
2014 warm season. Correspondingly, the spring and summer 2014 SLP maps
(Figs. S3 and S4) exhibited the Bermuda High ridge over the eastern US more
north-extending than in other years, which is consistent with weak winds in
all directions as shown in Fig. 5b. This dynamic situation led to regional
buildup conducive to the highest GEM mixing ratios in all wind quadrants.</p>
      <p>To be quantitative, domain-average
SLP, the number of grids with SLP exceeding 1014 hPa over the domain (25–50<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 95–70<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W), the
northernmost latitude, and westernmost longitude of the 1014 hPa isobar, were
examined to gauge the intensity and spatial extent of the influence of the
Bermuda High. The domain-average SLP and the number of grids with
SLP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1014 hPa turned out to be best correlated (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.95, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05;
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.99, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.006) with summer season median GEM (Fig. 8). The lowest
GEM in summer 2011 was associated with the weakest influence of the Bermuda
High indicated by the lowest domain-average SLP (1013 hPa) and least number
(63) of grids with SLP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1014 hPa of all summers. Meanwhile, the US East
Coast trough reached as far down south as North Carolina (Fig. S4),
consistent with the most negative TII (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">90</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m), as aforementioned and shown
in Fig. 7b. This indicates more widespread influence of relatively clean
Canadian air on the eastern US, sweeping out the heavily polluted air in the
region. One may argue that the positive correlation shown above appears to
be driven by the four points in summers 2009–2012 due to missing and/or unavailable
data in summers 2013 and 2014. It should be noted that the increases in GEM
started in winter 2014, consistently evidenced in measurements available
through spring 2015 compared to all previous years (Fig. 3). Therefore, the
large increase in the 2014 warm season was most likely not fortuitous, and
more importantly such increases were consistent with the driving dynamical
mechanisms as suggested in the large-scale circulation.</p>
      <p>It should be noted that the seasonal median GEM values in the four wind
quadrants exhibited trends largely consistent with those in the overall
seasonal values (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.87–0.95, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0) (Fig. 5c). This suggests that
changes in ambient mixing ratios occurred in air masses coming from all
directions, whether they were from the relatively clean northwest and
northeast or the heavily polluted regions southeast and southwest of the Bronx.
A possible explanation is that the lifetime of GEM is long enough for air
from all wind directions to be regionally mixed. The fact that the GEM values
in the two relatively more polluted quadrants exhibited excellent
correlations with the overall values suggested that the trend in the ambient
GEM mixing ratio was largely shaped by the variability in anthropogenic
influence. Such influence may not necessarily be driven by changes in
anthropogenic emissions but could be caused by strong ventilation or regional
buildup of pollution as demonstrated in earlier discussions.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><caption><p>Average sea level pressure (SLP) over the domain of
25–50<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 95–70<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W (black), number of grids with SLP
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1014 hPa (red), and seasonal median GEM mixing ratios (dark green) in
the summer.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/11655/2017/acp-17-11655-2017-f08.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><caption><p>Values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (red) and slope (blue) of GEM–CO correlation during
each season from 2008 to 2013. All <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values were statistically
significant with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> approaching 0.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/11655/2017/acp-17-11655-2017-f09.png"/>

          </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Pearson correlation coefficients (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) between GEM and SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
between GEM and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values in parentheses, for seasons during
fall 2008–spring 2015.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center" colsep="1">All data </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center">SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for GEM <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 95th percentile </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" 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">NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" 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">SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fall 2008</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.371)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.32 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.07 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.502)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.08</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.476)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Winter 2009</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.26 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.41 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.132)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.875)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spring 2009</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.01 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.608)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.05 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.03)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.832)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.09 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.41)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Summer 2009</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.16 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.46 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.50 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.25 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0152)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fall 2009</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.25 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.53 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.08 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.505)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.15 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.190)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Winter 2010</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.42 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.55 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.03(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.794)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.05 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.693)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spring 2010</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.07 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.094)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.38 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.13</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.507)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.13 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.505)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Summer 2010</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.10 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.45 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.07</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.605)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.22 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.105)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fall 2010</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.06 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0101)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.36 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.09 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.403)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.00 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.972)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Winter 2011</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.51 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.71 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0464)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.03</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.802)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spring 2011</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.01 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.761)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.41 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.01 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.901)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.24 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0156)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Summer 2011</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.14 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.53 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.285)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.11 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.296)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fall 2011</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.22 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.51 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.34 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0018)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.26 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0185)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Winter 2012</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.20 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.57 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.00 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.986)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.27 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0078)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spring 2012</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.13 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.44 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.268)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.125)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Summer 2012</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.29 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.49 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.475)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.02 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.903)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fall 2012</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.13 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.43</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.46</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Winter 2013</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.10 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0016)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.37 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.23</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.101)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.31</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0196)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spring 2013</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">N/A</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">N/A</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">N/A</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">N/A</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Summer 2013</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">N/A</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">N/A</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">N/A</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">N/A</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fall 2013</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">N/A</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">N/A</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">N/A</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">N/A</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Winter 2014</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.04 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.13)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.47</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.21 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0944)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spring 2014</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.07 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.003)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.39 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.05 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.608)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.05 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.654)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Summer 2014</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">N/A</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">N/A</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">N/A</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">N/A</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fall 2014</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.13</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.33 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.11 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.362)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.02 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.887)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Winter 2015</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.27 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.60 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.07</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.570)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.07</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.555)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spring 2015</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.13 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.52 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.05 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.656)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.07 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.557)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <title>Relationships between GEM and anthropogenic tracers</title>
      <p>Correlations between Hg and several tracers (e.g., CO, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> have been commonly used to identify Hg anthropogenic sources,
source–receptor relationships, and/or emission ratios. The linear correlation
between CO and GEM, especially in winter, in rural locations despite their
different sources, reflects their emission ratios in regionally well-mixed
air masses (e.g., Mao et al., 2008). At the Bronx site, seasonal GEM and CO
values
were found to be correlated with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> up to 0.69 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0) in all seasons
during 2008–2013, indicating significant, year-round regional
influence, and the two were notably not or minimally correlated in all the
seasons from winter 2014 through spring 2015. During 2008–2010 and 2012
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values of GEM–CO were larger in warm than in cold seasons, with the
maximums exceeding 0.40, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values remained high from winter 2011
through winter 2012 (Fig. 9). The slope value varied from the smallest
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.02–0.03 ppqv ppbv<inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in winters of 2009–2010 to the
largest (0.21 ppqv ppbv<inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in summer 2012 (Fig. 9), with the largest
higher than the upper end of the range, 0.06–0.14 ppqv ppbv<inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" 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>, from
rural southern New Hampshire during winters 2004–2007 (Mao et al.,
2008). This was greatly different from the GEM–CO correlation in rural
southern New Hampshire in winter only due to confounding factors such as legacy
emissions and wet deposition in summer (Mao et al., 2008; Lombard et al.,
2011). The Bronx experiencing more significant GEM–CO correlation in warm seasons
indicated better regionally mixed air masses, influenced predominantly by
anthropogenic emissions, than in cool seasons. This is consistent with the
cool and warm seasonal circulation patterns as discussed in Sect. 3.2
and 3.3, which is that in warm seasons NYC was predominantly under the
influence of the subtropical high conducive to regional mixing and buildup
of pollutants.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><caption><p><bold>(a)</bold> Counties and states that contributed to Hg in NYC;
<bold>(b)</bold> contributions (%) of NYC sources to NYC Hg concentrations;
<bold>(c)</bold> contributions (%) of sources outside of NYC to NYC Hg
concentrations in winter (blue) and summer (red).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/11655/2017/acp-17-11655-2017-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>No correlation between GEM and CO during 2014–2015 could be due in part to the
more dramatic emission reductions in CO than changes in GEM in the eastern
US. The high percentile values of CO at the Bronx site had been affected by
anthropogenic emission reductions over the years, while the 10th and 25th
percentile values (referred to as baseline CO in the literature) remained
fairly constant in all seasons (Fig. S5). Zhou et al. (2017) suggested that baseline CO in
rural northeastern US areas was controlled by a multitude of factors,
including global biomass emissions, large-scale circulation, and cyclone
activity. At the Bronx site, the low percentile value, close to regional
baseline levels, was possibly determined by a range of factors, whose
importance could have varied from year to year.</p>
      <p>Unlike previous studies (e.g., Jen et al., 2013; Choi et al., 2013), GEM at
the Bronx site was found to be poorly correlated with SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> while somewhat to
moderately correlated with NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.13–0.71, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0001)
(Table 2), despite abundant sources co-emitting GEM, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
locally and upwind. In addition to different lifetimes, different magnitude
and timing of emission reduction implementations and source types of the
three compounds could have affected their relation. Total Hg anthropogenic
emissions in NYC were increased by 16 % from 2008 to 2011, mainly in
miscellaneous nonindustrial not elsewhere classified (NEC) and waste disposal emissions, and further
increased by 37 % from 2011 to 2014 primarily in fuel combustion. As
aforementioned, emissions of Hg in the eastern US decreased by 13 %
from 2008 to 2011 and increased by 2 % from 2011 to 2014. In contrast,
total SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions in NYC decreased steadily by 30 % from 2008 to
2011 followed by a further decrease of 43 % to 2014, while over the
eastern US total SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions decreased by 48 % from 2008 to 2011, furthered by another
29 % decrease in 2014. Specifically, NYC launched the Clean Heat program in
winter 2008–2009 resulting in a 69 % decrease in SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations
averaged over the city-wide street-level monitoring sites in winter
2012–2013 (NYC Health, 2013;
<uri>https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/environmental/air-quality-report-2013.pdf</uri>).
The Bronx data also reflected the effect of such emission reductions, with a
58 % decrease in the seasonal median mixing ratio of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from
9.2 ppbv in winter 2009 to 2.8 ppbv in winter 2015 (Fig. S6). As for
NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, fuel and mobile combustion emissions comprised <inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 99.5 % of
the total NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions in NYC and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 90 % over the eastern US.
NYC NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions changed insignificantly (1 %) from 2008 to 2011
and by 15 % from 2011 to 2014, while eastern US mobile and fuel
combustion emissions were decreased by 16 and 33 %, respectively, from
2008 to 2011, and further decreased by 13 and 9 %, respectively, to 2014.
These varying changes possibly contributed to confounding the emission
signature of GEM vs. NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and altered that of GEM vs. SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p>The effect of local emissions can be accentuated by the correlation between
GEM and SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and between GEM and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for the SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
mixing ratios, exceeding their respective seasonal 95th percentile
concentrations. However, nearly no correlation between GEM and SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> or between GEM and NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> was found in this subset of data (Table 2).
It should therefore be cautioned that tracer correlation could not be used to
identify source types of GEM or estimate emission ratios of GEM to SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
or NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in NYC.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5">
  <title>Regional vs. local contributions to NYC ambient GEM
concentrations</title>
      <p>HYSPLIT dispersion simulations were used to obtain a quantitative comparison
of the effects of sources outside and inside NYC on NYC ambient
concentrations of GEM. As stated in Sect. 2.3, the modeling domain extended
westward to OH and southward to northern VA and northward to include New
England (Fig. 10a), with a total of 522 counties reporting Hg emissions. As
described earlier, two scenarios were designed for model simulations:
<list list-type="order"><list-item><p>a scenario with the emission sources in all 522 counties within the domain</p></list-item><list-item><p>a scenario with the mercury emission sources in all but the five boroughs in NYC.</p></list-item></list></p>
      <p>Simulations of scenario no. 2 quantify the contribution of sources outside
of NYC to Hg concentrations in NYC, and the difference in the concentrations
in NYC between the two scenario
s quantifies the contribution of NYC local
sources to Hg concentrations in NYC.</p>
      <p>Shown in Fig. 10b is the contribution, in percentage of the total
contribution from all anthropogenic emissions in the domain, to NYC ambient
concentrations of GEM from anthropogenic emissions alone from local sources,
and in Fig. 10c is the contribution of emissions from regional anthropogenic
sources. There was clearly interannual variability in the contribution of
local versus regional anthropogenic sources. Local emissions averaged a
contribution of 25 % in all winters of 2009–2015, with the period minimum
of 17 % in winter 2011 and the maximum of 33 % in winter 2013
(Fig. 10b). Conversely, the contribution of regional sources averaged a
contribution of 75 % in all winters, with the largest 83 % in winter
2011 and the lowest 67 % in winter 2013 (Fig. 10c). Compared to contributions in
the winter of the same year, those from local sources were larger (by
up to 12 % in 2009) in the summers of 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2014, close in summer
2010, and 10 % smaller in summer 2013 (Fig. 10b).</p>
      <p>A close examination revealed largely consistent relation between NYC GEM
mixing ratios and source contributions. As suggested in Sect. 3.2, the Bronx experienced the lowest concentrations of GEM in all percentile
values in
winter 2010, and yet, interestingly, the simulated local contribution in
winter 2010 was in the midrange of the seven winters. This indicates that the
particularly low background concentration in the sweeping northerly flow led
to less regional contribution to NYC Hg concentrations than regional sources
would in other years. In contrast, winter 2014 saw the highest 25th, 50th,
75th, and 90th percentile concentrations of GEM, and yet the contribution of
local sources (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 22 %) was not even higher than average (25 %).
As aforementioned, in winter 2014 the eastern US was most likely under the
least dynamic conditions conducive to regional buildup of air pollution,
which resulted in a higher-than-average contribution from regional sources
and conversely lower-than-average contribution from local sources (Fig. 10c).
Consistent with GEM, the lower percentile mixing ratios of CO, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> appeared to be elevated or stopped decreasing compared to those in
the previous year (Figs. S5, S6).</p>
      <p>The HYSPLIT dispersion model simulations suggested that close to three-quarters of the anthropogenically induced concentration of GEM in NYC was
from regional sources. It should be pointed out that other factors and/or
processes, such as legacy and natural emissions, deposition, meteorology, and/or
large-scale circulation,
might have competed with the effect of anthropogenic emission reductions. Nearly 90 % of the model simulation domain is
covered by vegetation. SMOKE model output in Ye et al. (2017) suggested that
the ratio of anthropogenic to legacy and natural emissions was 0.3 over the
domain. Legacy and natural emissions could become dominant under warmer and
wetter conditions in summer. Moreover, Hg deposition could be impacted by
changes in physical parameters such as light, temperature, and plant species
(Rutter et al., 2011). Indeed, changes of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 50 % in Hg deposition
were simulated for the eastern US from the 2000s to the 2050s due to changes
in precipitation (Megaritis et al., 2014). Net GEM surface emissions were
estimated to be dominant in summer and net dry deposition was estimated to be dominant in other seasons at
the majority of AMNet monitoring sites in eastern North America (Zhang et al.,
2016). Since Hg deposition and legacy emissions are closely linked, these
studies indicate potential changes in legacy emissions in response to
variable meteorological conditions and changing climate with subsequent
effects on atmospheric Hg concentrations. Therefore, with legacy and natural
emissions accounted for, regional contributions to NYC ambient Hg
concentrations would be even more dominant.</p>
      <p>Caution needs to be taken in interpreting the model results due to the
limitation of the modeling exercise. First, to save computational time, the
simulation domain used in this study was smaller than is ideal, and thus with a
larger regional domain, the significance of regional anthropogenic sources
could be enhanced. Second, the HYSPLIT dispersion model accounts only for
long-range transport of a pollutant from sources within the domain, without
considering chemical transformation, gas-to-particle partitioning,
atmosphere–surface exchange of mercury, loss through deposition, and
background concentrations. This being said, for a compound such as GEM with
a lifetime of 6–12 months, dispersion model simulations would be adequate
for providing relative contributions of regional and local sources to ambient
concentrations at a location of interest in continental midlatitudes.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Summary</title>
      <p>For the Bronx site in NYC, distinct annual cycles of GEM were found in 2009
and 2010, with higher concentrations in warm seasons than in cool seasons by
10–20 ppqv (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10–25 %), consistent with urban annual cycles
reported in the literature. This annual cycle was not reproduced in 2011, as anomalously low concentrations occurred in that warm season, and resumed in 2014.
Such temporal variability in the urban GEM concentration was found to be
driven by that in large-scale circulation. Seasonal median mixing ratios of
GEM were found to be correlated with both the North American TAI and TII in
winter and with TII in summer. Further, the intensity and position of the
Bermuda High pressure system had a significant impact on Bronx GEM
concentrations in warm seasons. Winter 2014 through spring 2015 experienced
an anomalously strong influence from the Bermuda High, resulting in the largest GEM
mixing ratios of the entire study period in all percentile values throughout
the year. The regional influence on GEM concentrations in the Bronx was
corroborated by significant, year-round GEM–CO correlation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> up to 0.69,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0) during 2008–2013. This correlation disappeared or became minimal
from winter 2014 through spring 2015, resulting possibly from their very
different emission changes in the eastern US.</p>
      <p>HYSPLIT dispersion model simulations suggested that regional sources outside
of NYC contributed to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 75 % (67–83 %) of the anthropogenic
portion of the ambient GEM concentration and NYC emissions contributed the remaining
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 25 % (17–33 %). Significant interannual variation in the
regional and local contributions was found to be consistent with that in
large-scale circulation. The fact that there was no clearly defined trend in
GEM concentrations at the Bronx site during the study period, despite
anthropogenic emission reductions in the eastern US from 2008 to 2014,
suggested that other factors and/or processes, such as large-scale circulation and
legacy and/or natural emissions, might have dominated over anthropogenic emission
reductions.</p>
      <p>The North Atlantic subtropical high during 1978–2007 had reportedly become
more intense, and its western ridge had displaced westward with an enhanced
meridional movement (Li et al., 2011). The increasing intensity and spatial
extent of the high-pressure system could cast a strong influence on the
northeastern US with a subsequent effect on ambient concentrations of Hg via
regional buildup and changing legacy emissions. This could dominate over the
effect of anthropogenic emission reductions, as suggested by this study.
Indeed, Zhu and Liang (2013) recommended that strong decadal variations in the
Bermuda High should be considered in the US air quality dynamic management.
Therefore, controlling urban ambient concentrations of Hg needs to account for
the overall impact of multiple factors, which may not be dominated by
emission reductions.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p>The measurement data used in this study could be obtained
from AMNet of NADP
(<uri>http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/amn/data.aspx</uri>).</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p><bold>The Supplement related to this article is available online at <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-11655-2017-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-11655-2017-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</bold></p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p>The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This work was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency grant agreement
no. 83521501. We are grateful to Mark L. Olson and Thomas R. Bergerhouse of NADP
and University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign and Kevin Civerolo of NYS DEC
for making the Bronx GEM data available. We also thank
Kevin Civerolo for helpful comments
and input. The authors gratefully acknowledge the NOAA Air Resources
Laboratory for free access to HYSPLIT. We greatly appreciate the two anonymous
reviewers' thoughtful and constructive comments, which helped to improve the
paper significantly. Although this paper was reviewed internally,
it does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the NYS
DEC.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Edited by: Aurélien
Dommergue<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Reviewed by: three anonymous referees</p></ack><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Adler, F. R. and Tanner, C. J.: Urban Ecosystems: Ecological Principles for
the Built Environment, 1st Edn., Cambridge University Press, 353 pp., 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Bradbury, J. A., Keim, B. D., and Wake, C. P.: U.S. East Coast Trough Indices
at 500 hPa and New England Winter Climate Variability, J. Climate, 15,
3509–3517, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Brown, R. J. C., Goddard, S. L., Butterfield, D. M., Brown, A. S., Robins,
C., Mustoe, C. L., and McGhee, E. A.: Ten years of mercury measurement at
urban and industrial air quality monitoring stations in the UK, Atmos.
Environ., 109, 1–8, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, L., Liu, M., Xu, Z., Fan, R., Tao, J., Chen, D., Zhang, D., Xie, D.,
and Sun, J.: Variation trends and influencing factors of total gaseous
mercury in the Pearl River Delta – A highly industrialized region in South
China influenced by seasonal monsoons, Atmos. Environ., 77, 757–766, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Cheng, I., Lu, J., and Song, X.: Studies of potential sources that
contributed to atmospheric mercury in Toronto, Canada, Atmos. Environ., 43,
6145–6158, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Choi, H., Huang, J., Mondal, S., and Holsen, T. M.: Variation in
concentrations of three mercury (Hg) forms at a rural and a suburban site in
New York State, Sci. Total Environ., 448, 96–106,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotend.2012.08.052" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.scitotend.2012.08.052</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Civerolo, K. L., Rattigan, O. V., Felton, D. H., Hirsch, M. J., and DeSantis,
S.: Mercury wet deposition and speciated air concentrations from two urban
sites in New York State; temporal patterns and regional context, Aeros. Air
Qual. Res., 14, 1822–1837, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2014.03.0052" ext-link-type="DOI">10.4209/aaqr.2014.03.0052</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Denis, M. S., Song, X., Lu, J. Y., and Feng, X.: Atmospheric gaseous
elemental mercury in downtown Toronto, Atmos. Environ., 40, 4016–4024,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.07.078" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.07.078</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Draxler, R. R.: HYSPLIT4 user's guide, NOAA Tech. Memo. ERL ARL-230, NOAA Air
Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Draxler, R. R. and Hess, G. D.: Description of the HYSPLIT_4 modeling
system, NOAA Tech. Memo, ERL ARL-224, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Silver
Spring, MD, 24 pp., 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Draxler, R. R. and Hess, G. D.: An overview of the HYSPLIT_4 modeling system
of trajectories, dispersion, and deposition, Aust. Meteor. Mag., 47,
295–308, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Driscoll, C. T., Mason, R. P., Chan, H. M., Jacob, D. J., and Pirrone, N.:
Mercury as a global pollutant: sources, pathways, and effect, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 47, 4967–4983, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Engle, M. A., Tate, M. T., Krabbenhoft, D. P., Schauer, J. J., Kolker, A.,
Shanley, J. B., and Bothner, M. H.: Comparison of atmospheric mercury
speciation and deposition at nine sites across central and eastern North
America, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 115, D18306, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014064" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010JD014064</ext-link>,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Fang, F., Wang, Q., and Li, J.: Urban environmental mercury in Changchun, a
metropolitan city in Northeastern China: source, cycle, and fate, Sci. Total
Environ., 330, 159–170, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Feng, X., Tang, S., Shang, L., Yan, H., Sommar, J., and Lindqvist, O.: Total
gaseous mercury in the atmosphere of Guiyang, P. R. China, Sci. Total
Environ., 304, 61–72, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Fu, X. W., Zhang, H., Yu, B., Wang, X., Lin, C.-J., and Feng, X. B.:
Observations of atmospheric mercury in China: a critical review, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 15, 9455–9476, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-9455-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-9455-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Gabriel, M. C., Williamson, D. G., Brooks, S., and Lindberg, S.: Atmospheric
speciation of mercury in two contrasting Southeastern US airsheds, Atmos.
Environ., 39, 4947–4958, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</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="https://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.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Hall, C. B., Mao, H., Ye, Z., Talbot, R., Ding, A., Zhang, Y., Zhu, J., Wang,
T., Lin, C. J., Fu, C., and Yang, X.: Sources and dynamic processes
controlling background and peak concentrations of TGM in Nanjing, China,
Atmosphere, 5, 124–155, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Jen, Y.-H., Yuan, C.-S., Hung, C.-H., Ie, I.-R., and Tsai, C.-M.:
Tempospatial Variation and Partition of Atmospheric Mercury during Wet and
Dry Seasons at Sensitivity Sites within a Heavily Polluted Industrial City,
Aeros. Air Quality Res., 13, 13–23, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, K. H. and Kim, M. Y.: The temporal distribution characteristics of total
gaseous mercury at an urban monitoring site in Seoul during 1999–2000,
Atmos. Environ., 35, 4253–4263, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, K. H., Yoon, H. O., Brown, R. J., Jeon, E. C., Sohn, J. R., Jung, K.,
Park, C. G., and Kim, I. S.: Simultaneous monitoring of total gaseous mercury
at four urban monitoring stations in Seoul, Korea, Atmos. Res., 132,
199–208, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, K.-H., Brown, R. J., Kwon, E., Kim, I.-S., and Sohn, J.-R.: Atmospheric
mercury at an urban station in Korea across three decades, Atmos. Environ.,
131, 124–132, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</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.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Lan, X., Talbot, R., Castro, M., Perry, K., and Luke, W.: Seasonal and
diurnal variations of atmospheric mercury across the US determined from AMNet
monitoring data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 10569–10582,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-10569-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-10569-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Lan, X., Talbot, R., Laine, P., Lefer, B., Flynn, J., and Torres, A.:
Seasonal and diurnal variations of total gaseous mercury in urban Houston,
TX, USA, Atmosphere, 5, 399–419, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Li, W., Li, L., Fu, R., Deng, Y., and Wang, H.: Changes to the North Atlantic
Subtropical High and Its Role in the Intensification of Summer Rainfall
Variability in the Southeastern United States, J. Climate, 24, 1499–1506,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Lindberg, S., 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.bib29"><label>29</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.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Liu, B., Keeler, G. J., Dvonch, J. T., Barres, J. A., Lynam, M. M., Marsik,
F. J., and Morgan, J. T.: Temporal variability of mercury speciation in urban
air, Atmos. Environ., 41, 1911–1923, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.10.063" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.10.063</ext-link>,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, B., Keeler, G. J., Dvonch, J. T., Barres, J. A., Lynam, M. M., Marsik,
F. J., and Morgan, J. T.: Urban-rural differences in atmospheric mercury
speciation, Atmos. Environ., 44, 2013–2023, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Lombard, M. A. S., Bryce, J. G., Mao, H., and Talbot, R.: Mercury deposition
in Southern New Hampshire, 2006–2009, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7657–7668,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7657-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-7657-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Lyman, S. N. and Gustin, M. S.: Determinants of atmospheric mercury
concentrations in Reno, Nevada, USA, Sci. Total Environ., 408, 431–438,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Mao, H. and Talbot, R.: Speciated mercury at marine, coastal, and inland
sites in New England – Part 1: Temporal variability, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12,
5099–5112, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-5099-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-5099-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Mao, H., Talbot, R. W., Sigler, J. M., Sive, B. C., and Hegarty, J. D.:
Seasonal and diurnal variations of Hg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over New England, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 8, 1403–1421, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-1403-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-8-1403-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Mao, H., Cheng, I., and Zhang, L.: Current understanding of the driving
mechanisms for spatiotemporal variations of atmospheric speciated mercury: a
review, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 12897–12924,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-12897-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-12897-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Megaritis, A. G., Murphy, B. N., Racherla, P. N., Adams, P. J., and Pandis,
S. N.: Impact of climate change on mercury concentrations and deposition in
the eastern United States, Sci. Total Environ., 487, 299–312,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.084" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.084</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Nair, U. S., Wu, Y., Walters, J., Jansen, J., and Edgerton, E. S.: Diurnal
and seasonal variation of mercury species at coastal-suburban, urban, and
rural sites in the southeastern United States, Atmos. Environ., 47, 499–508,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Peterson, C., Gustin, M., and Lyman, S.: Atmospheric mercury concentrations
and speciation measures from 2004 to 2007 in Reno, Nevada, USA, Atmos.
Environ., 43, 4646–4654, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.053" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.053</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Rutter, A. P., Schauer, J. J., Shafer, M. M., Creswell, J., Olson, M. R.,
Clary, A., Robinson, M., Parman, A. M., and Katzman, T. L.: Climate
Sensitivity of Gaseous Elemental Mercury Dry Deposition to Plants: Impacts of
Temperature, Light Intensity, and Plant Species, Environ. Sci. Technol., 45,
569–575, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Selin, N. E.: Global change and mercury cycling: Challenges for implementing
a global mercury treaty, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 33, 1202–1210, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Seo, Y.-S., Jeong, S.-P., Holsen, T. M., Han, Y.-J., Choi, E., Park, E. H.,
Kim, T. Y., Eum, H.-S., Park, D. G., Kim, E., Kim, S., Kim, J.-H., Choi, J.,
and Yi, S.-M.: Characteristics of total gaseous mercury (TGM) concentrations
in an industrial complex in South Korea: impacts from local sources, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 16, 10215–10228, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-10215-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-10215-2016</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Sprovieri, F., Pirrone, N., Ebinghaus, R., Kock, H., and Dommergue, A.: A
review of worldwide atmospheric mercury measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10,
8245–8265, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-8245-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-8245-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Stamenkovic, J., Lyman, S., and Gustin, M. S.: Seasonal and diel variation of
atmospheric mercury concentrations in the Reno (Nevada, USA) airshed, Atmos.
Environ., 41, 6662–6672, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Stein, A. F., Draxler, R. R., Rolph, G. D., Stunder, B. J. B., Cohen, M. D.,
and Ngan, F.: NOAA's HYSPLIT atmospheric transport and dispersion modeling
system, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, 2059–2077, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00110.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00110.1</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</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.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Xu, X., Akhtar, U., Clark, K., and Wang, X.: Temporal Variability of
Atmospheric Total Gaseous Mercury in Windsor, ON, Canada, Atmosphere, 5,
536–556, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos5030536" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/atmos5030536</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Ye, Z., Mao, H., Hogrefe, C., Zhang, Y., and Jaegle, L.: Regional
photochemical model evaluation of speciated ambient mercury and mercury wet
and dry deposition, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sys., in review,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, L., Wang, S. X., Wang, L., and Hao, J. M.: Atmospheric mercury
concentration and chemical speciation at a rural site in Beijing, China:
implications of mercury emission sources, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13,
10505–10516, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10505-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-10505-2013</ext-link>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, L., Wu, Z., Cheng, I., Wright, L. P., Olson, M. L., Gay, D. A., Risch,
M. R., Brooks, S., Castro, M. S., Conley, G. D., Edgerton, E. S., Holsen, T.
M., Luke, W., Tordon, R., and Weiss-Penzias, P.: The estimated six-year
mercury dry deposition acrossNorth America, Environ. Sci. Technol., 50,
12864–12873, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04276" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.6b04276</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Zhou, Y., Mao, H., Demerjian, K., Hogrefe, C., and Liu, J.: Regional and
Hemispheric Influences on Temporal Variability in Baseline Carbon Monoxide
and Ozone over the Northeast US, Atmos. Environ., 164, 309–324,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Zhu, J., Wang, T., Talbot, R., Mao, H., Hall, C. B., Yang, X., Fu, C.,
Zhuang, B., Li, S., Han, Y., and Huang, X.: Characteristics of atmospheric
Total Gaseous Mercury (TGM) observed in urban Nanjing, China, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 12, 12103–12118, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-12103-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-12103-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Zhu, J. and Liang, X.-Z.: Impacts of the Bermuda High on Regional Climate and
Ozone over the United States, J. Climate, 26, 1018–1026, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>

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

    </app></app-group></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Impacts of large-scale circulation on urban ambient concentrations of gaseous elemental mercury in New York, USA</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p class="p">The impact of large-scale circulation on urban gaseous elemental mercury
(GEM) was investigated through analysis of 2008–2015 measurement data from
an urban site in New York City (NYC), New York, USA. Distinct annual cycles
were observed in 2009–2010 with mixing ratios in warm seasons (i.e.,
spring–summer) 10–20 ppqv ( ∼  10–25 %) higher than in cool
seasons (i.e., fall–winter). This annual cycle was disrupted in 2011 by an
anomalously strong influence of the US East Coast trough in that warm season
and was reproduced in 2014 associated with a particularly strong Bermuda
High. The US East Coast trough axis index (TAI) and intensity index (TII) were
used to characterize the effect of the US East Coast trough on NYC GEM,
especially in winter and summer. The intensity and position of the Bermuda
High appeared to have a significant impact on GEM in warm seasons. Regional
influence on NYC GEM was supported by the GEM–carbon monoxide (CO)
correlation with <i>r</i> of 0.17–0.69 (<i>p</i> ∼  0) in most seasons. Simulated regional and local anthropogenic contributions to wintertime NYC anthropogenically induced GEM concentrations were averaged at  ∼  75 % and
25 %, with interannual variation ranging over 67 %–83 % and 17 %–33 %, respectively.
Results from this study suggest the possibility that the
increasingly strong Bermuda High over the past decades could dominate over
anthropogenic mercury emission control in affecting ambient concentrations of
mercury via regional buildup and possibly enhancing natural and legacy
emissions.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Adler, F. R. and Tanner, C. J.: Urban Ecosystems: Ecological Principles for
the Built Environment, 1st Edn., Cambridge University Press, 353 pp., 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Bradbury, J. A., Keim, B. D., and Wake, C. P.: U.S. East Coast Trough Indices
at 500 hPa and New England Winter Climate Variability, J. Climate, 15,
3509–3517, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Brown, R. J. C., Goddard, S. L., Butterfield, D. M., Brown, A. S., Robins,
C., Mustoe, C. L., and McGhee, E. A.: Ten years of mercury measurement at
urban and industrial air quality monitoring stations in the UK, Atmos.
Environ., 109, 1–8, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, L., Liu, M., Xu, Z., Fan, R., Tao, J., Chen, D., Zhang, D., Xie, D.,
and Sun, J.: Variation trends and influencing factors of total gaseous
mercury in the Pearl River Delta – A highly industrialized region in South
China influenced by seasonal monsoons, Atmos. Environ., 77, 757–766, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Cheng, I., Lu, J., and Song, X.: Studies of potential sources that
contributed to atmospheric mercury in Toronto, Canada, Atmos. Environ., 43,
6145–6158, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Choi, H., Huang, J., Mondal, S., and Holsen, T. M.: Variation in
concentrations of three mercury (Hg) forms at a rural and a suburban site in
New York State, Sci. Total Environ., 448, 96–106,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotend.2012.08.052" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotend.2012.08.052</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Civerolo, K. L., Rattigan, O. V., Felton, D. H., Hirsch, M. J., and DeSantis,
S.: Mercury wet deposition and speciated air concentrations from two urban
sites in New York State; temporal patterns and regional context, Aeros. Air
Qual. Res., 14, 1822–1837, <a href="https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2014.03.0052" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2014.03.0052</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Denis, M. S., Song, X., Lu, J. Y., and Feng, X.: Atmospheric gaseous
elemental mercury in downtown Toronto, Atmos. Environ., 40, 4016–4024,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.07.078" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.07.078</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Draxler, R. R.: HYSPLIT4 user's guide, NOAA Tech. Memo. ERL ARL-230, NOAA Air
Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Draxler, R. R. and Hess, G. D.: Description of the HYSPLIT_4 modeling
system, NOAA Tech. Memo, ERL ARL-224, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Silver
Spring, MD, 24 pp., 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Draxler, R. R. and Hess, G. D.: An overview of the HYSPLIT_4 modeling system
of trajectories, dispersion, and deposition, Aust. Meteor. Mag., 47,
295–308, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Driscoll, C. T., Mason, R. P., Chan, H. M., Jacob, D. J., and Pirrone, N.:
Mercury as a global pollutant: sources, pathways, and effect, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 47, 4967–4983, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Engle, M. A., Tate, M. T., Krabbenhoft, D. P., Schauer, J. J., Kolker, A.,
Shanley, J. B., and Bothner, M. H.: Comparison of atmospheric mercury
speciation and deposition at nine sites across central and eastern North
America, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 115, D18306, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014064" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014064</a>,
2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Fang, F., Wang, Q., and Li, J.: Urban environmental mercury in Changchun, a
metropolitan city in Northeastern China: source, cycle, and fate, Sci. Total
Environ., 330, 159–170, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Feng, X., Tang, S., Shang, L., Yan, H., Sommar, J., and Lindqvist, O.: Total
gaseous mercury in the atmosphere of Guiyang, P. R. China, Sci. Total
Environ., 304, 61–72, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Fu, X. W., Zhang, H., Yu, B., Wang, X., Lin, C.-J., and Feng, X. B.:
Observations of atmospheric mercury in China: a critical review, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 15, 9455–9476, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-9455-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-9455-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Gabriel, M. C., Williamson, D. G., Brooks, S., and Lindberg, S.: Atmospheric
speciation of mercury in two contrasting Southeastern US airsheds, Atmos.
Environ., 39, 4947–4958, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</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, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-11339-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-11339-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Hall, C. B., Mao, H., Ye, Z., Talbot, R., Ding, A., Zhang, Y., Zhu, J., Wang,
T., Lin, C. J., Fu, C., and Yang, X.: Sources and dynamic processes
controlling background and peak concentrations of TGM in Nanjing, China,
Atmosphere, 5, 124–155, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Jen, Y.-H., Yuan, C.-S., Hung, C.-H., Ie, I.-R., and Tsai, C.-M.:
Tempospatial Variation and Partition of Atmospheric Mercury during Wet and
Dry Seasons at Sensitivity Sites within a Heavily Polluted Industrial City,
Aeros. Air Quality Res., 13, 13–23, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, K. H. and Kim, M. Y.: The temporal distribution characteristics of total
gaseous mercury at an urban monitoring site in Seoul during 1999–2000,
Atmos. Environ., 35, 4253–4263, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, K. H., Yoon, H. O., Brown, R. J., Jeon, E. C., Sohn, J. R., Jung, K.,
Park, C. G., and Kim, I. S.: Simultaneous monitoring of total gaseous mercury
at four urban monitoring stations in Seoul, Korea, Atmos. Res., 132,
199–208, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, K.-H., Brown, R. J., Kwon, E., Kim, I.-S., and Sohn, J.-R.: Atmospheric
mercury at an urban station in Korea across three decades, Atmos. Environ.,
131, 124–132, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</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-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Lan, X., Talbot, R., Castro, M., Perry, K., and Luke, W.: Seasonal and
diurnal variations of atmospheric mercury across the US determined from AMNet
monitoring data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 10569–10582,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-10569-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-10569-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Lan, X., Talbot, R., Laine, P., Lefer, B., Flynn, J., and Torres, A.:
Seasonal and diurnal variations of total gaseous mercury in urban Houston,
TX, USA, Atmosphere, 5, 399–419, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Li, W., Li, L., Fu, R., Deng, Y., and Wang, H.: Changes to the North Atlantic
Subtropical High and Its Role in the Intensification of Summer Rainfall
Variability in the Southeastern United States, J. Climate, 24, 1499–1506,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Lindberg, S., 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-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</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-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, B., Keeler, G. J., Dvonch, J. T., Barres, J. A., Lynam, M. M., Marsik,
F. J., and Morgan, J. T.: Temporal variability of mercury speciation in urban
air, Atmos. Environ., 41, 1911–1923, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.10.063" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.10.063</a>,
2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, B., Keeler, G. J., Dvonch, J. T., Barres, J. A., Lynam, M. M., Marsik,
F. J., and Morgan, J. T.: Urban-rural differences in atmospheric mercury
speciation, Atmos. Environ., 44, 2013–2023, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Lombard, M. A. S., Bryce, J. G., Mao, H., and Talbot, R.: Mercury deposition
in Southern New Hampshire, 2006–2009, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7657–7668,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7657-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7657-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Lyman, S. N. and Gustin, M. S.: Determinants of atmospheric mercury
concentrations in Reno, Nevada, USA, Sci. Total Environ., 408, 431–438,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Mao, H. and Talbot, R.: Speciated mercury at marine, coastal, and inland
sites in New England – Part 1: Temporal variability, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12,
5099–5112, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-5099-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-5099-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Mao, H., Talbot, R. W., Sigler, J. M., Sive, B. C., and Hegarty, J. D.:
Seasonal and diurnal variations of Hg° over New England, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 8, 1403–1421, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-1403-2008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-1403-2008</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Mao, H., Cheng, I., and Zhang, L.: Current understanding of the driving
mechanisms for spatiotemporal variations of atmospheric speciated mercury: a
review, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 12897–12924,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-12897-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-12897-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Megaritis, A. G., Murphy, B. N., Racherla, P. N., Adams, P. J., and Pandis,
S. N.: Impact of climate change on mercury concentrations and deposition in
the eastern United States, Sci. Total Environ., 487, 299–312,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.084" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.084</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Nair, U. S., Wu, Y., Walters, J., Jansen, J., and Edgerton, E. S.: Diurnal
and seasonal variation of mercury species at coastal-suburban, urban, and
rural sites in the southeastern United States, Atmos. Environ., 47, 499–508,
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Peterson, C., Gustin, M., and Lyman, S.: Atmospheric mercury concentrations
and speciation measures from 2004 to 2007 in Reno, Nevada, USA, Atmos.
Environ., 43, 4646–4654, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.053" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.053</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Rutter, A. P., Schauer, J. J., Shafer, M. M., Creswell, J., Olson, M. R.,
Clary, A., Robinson, M., Parman, A. M., and Katzman, T. L.: Climate
Sensitivity of Gaseous Elemental Mercury Dry Deposition to Plants: Impacts of
Temperature, Light Intensity, and Plant Species, Environ. Sci. Technol., 45,
569–575, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Selin, N. E.: Global change and mercury cycling: Challenges for implementing
a global mercury treaty, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 33, 1202–1210, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Seo, Y.-S., Jeong, S.-P., Holsen, T. M., Han, Y.-J., Choi, E., Park, E. H.,
Kim, T. Y., Eum, H.-S., Park, D. G., Kim, E., Kim, S., Kim, J.-H., Choi, J.,
and Yi, S.-M.: Characteristics of total gaseous mercury (TGM) concentrations
in an industrial complex in South Korea: impacts from local sources, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 16, 10215–10228, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-10215-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-10215-2016</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Sprovieri, F., Pirrone, N., Ebinghaus, R., Kock, H., and Dommergue, A.: A
review of worldwide atmospheric mercury measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10,
8245–8265, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-8245-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-8245-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Stamenkovic, J., Lyman, S., and Gustin, M. S.: Seasonal and diel variation of
atmospheric mercury concentrations in the Reno (Nevada, USA) airshed, Atmos.
Environ., 41, 6662–6672, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Stein, A. F., Draxler, R. R., Rolph, G. D., Stunder, B. J. B., Cohen, M. D.,
and Ngan, F.: NOAA's HYSPLIT atmospheric transport and dispersion modeling
system, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, 2059–2077, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00110.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00110.1</a>,
2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</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-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Xu, X., Akhtar, U., Clark, K., and Wang, X.: Temporal Variability of
Atmospheric Total Gaseous Mercury in Windsor, ON, Canada, Atmosphere, 5,
536–556, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos5030536" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos5030536</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Ye, Z., Mao, H., Hogrefe, C., Zhang, Y., and Jaegle, L.: Regional
photochemical model evaluation of speciated ambient mercury and mercury wet
and dry deposition, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sys., in review,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, L., Wang, S. X., Wang, L., and Hao, J. M.: Atmospheric mercury
concentration and chemical speciation at a rural site in Beijing, China:
implications of mercury emission sources, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13,
10505–10516, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10505-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10505-2013</a>, 2013.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, L., Wu, Z., Cheng, I., Wright, L. P., Olson, M. L., Gay, D. A., Risch,
M. R., Brooks, S., Castro, M. S., Conley, G. D., Edgerton, E. S., Holsen, T.
M., Luke, W., Tordon, R., and Weiss-Penzias, P.: The estimated six-year
mercury dry deposition acrossNorth America, Environ. Sci. Technol., 50,
12864–12873, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04276" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04276</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Zhou, Y., Mao, H., Demerjian, K., Hogrefe, C., and Liu, J.: Regional and
Hemispheric Influences on Temporal Variability in Baseline Carbon Monoxide
and Ozone over the Northeast US, Atmos. Environ., 164, 309–324,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Zhu, J., Wang, T., Talbot, R., Mao, H., Hall, C. B., Yang, X., Fu, C.,
Zhuang, B., Li, S., Han, Y., and Huang, X.: Characteristics of atmospheric
Total Gaseous Mercury (TGM) observed in urban Nanjing, China, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 12, 12103–12118, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-12103-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-12103-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Zhu, J. and Liang, X.-Z.: Impacts of the Bermuda High on Regional Climate and
Ozone over the United States, J. Climate, 26, 1018–1026, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
