Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.01.009
DC FieldValue
dc.titleScientific uncertainties in atmospheric mercury models I: Model science evaluation
dc.contributor.authorLin, C.-J.
dc.contributor.authorPongprueksa, P.
dc.contributor.authorLindberg, S.E.
dc.contributor.authorPehkonen, S.O.
dc.contributor.authorByun, D.
dc.contributor.authorJang, C.
dc.date.accessioned2014-10-08T08:33:43Z
dc.date.available2014-10-08T08:33:43Z
dc.date.issued2006-05
dc.identifier.citationLin, C.-J., Pongprueksa, P., Lindberg, S.E., Pehkonen, S.O., Byun, D., Jang, C. (2006-05). Scientific uncertainties in atmospheric mercury models I: Model science evaluation. Atmospheric Environment 40 (16) : 2911-2928. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.01.009
dc.identifier.issn13522310
dc.identifier.urihttp://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/87629
dc.description.abstractEulerian-based, first-principle atmospheric mercury models are a useful tool to assess the transport and deposition of mercury. However, there exist uncertainty issues caused by model assumptions/simplifications and incomplete understanding of mercury science. In this paper, we evaluate the model science commonly implemented in atmospheric mercury models. The causes of the uncertainties are assessed in terms of gas phase chemistry, aqueous phase chemistry, aqueous phase speciation, aqueous phase sorption, dry deposition, wet deposition, initial and boundary conditions, emission inventory preparation, and domain grid resolution. We also present a new dry deposition scheme for estimating the deposition velocities of GEM and RGM based on RADM formulation. From our evaluation, mercury chemistry introduces the greatest uncertainty to models due to the inconsistent kinetic data and lack of deterministic product identification in the atmosphere. Model treatments of deposition velocities and aqueous Hg(II) sorption can also lead to distinct simulation results in mercury dry and wet depositions. Although model results may agree well with limited field data of GEM concentrations and Hg(II) wet deposition, it should be recognized that model uncertainties may compensate with each other to yield favorable model performance. Future research needs to reduce model uncertainties are projected. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
dc.description.urihttp://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.01.009
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectAqueous sorption
dc.subjectAtmospheric mercury
dc.subjectChemical mechanism
dc.subjectCloud water
dc.subjectDeposition
dc.subjectEmission inventory
dc.subjectInitial and boundary conditions
dc.subjectMercury speciation
dc.subjectModeling
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentDIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & ENGG
dc.description.doi10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.01.009
dc.description.sourcetitleAtmospheric Environment
dc.description.volume40
dc.description.issue16
dc.description.page2911-2928
dc.description.codenAENVE
dc.identifier.isiut000237489800013
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

187
checked on Aug 5, 2021

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

182
checked on Jul 28, 2021

Page view(s)

81
checked on Aug 2, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.