4.5 Article

An inter-method comparison of mercury measurements in Icelandic volcanic gases

Journal

APPLIED GEOCHEMISTRY
Volume 152, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2023.105654

Keywords

Atmospheric mercury; Volcanic gas; Activated carbon; Lumex; Passive samplers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An inter-method comparison study of atmospheric Hg measurements at Icelandic volcanic systems found that the ACT and Lumex methods were suitable for gaseous Hg measurement in volcanic gas plumes. However, the PAS method yielded significantly lower concentrations.
Volcanic systems are challenging environments in which to accurately sample or measure gaseous mercury (Hg) concentrations, as the gas plumes may be hot, acidic and halogen-rich; Hg concentrations may be highly variable; and the environment may not be readily accessible. We conducted an inter-method comparison study of atmospheric Hg measurements at Icelandic volcanic systems using four different methods. These included a passive air sampler (PAS), an active sampler with activated carbon trap (ACT) and two real-time measurement instruments, the Lumex portable mercury analyzer and the Tekran automated mercury analyzer. Good agreement in calculated and time-averaged volcanic plume Hg concentrations (ranging from 2.3 to 7.2 ng m-3) was obtained between the ACT and Lumex methods operated simultaneously at the same sites. In a post-fieldwork intercomparison, ACT and Tekran sampling yielded excellent agreement in measuring background atmospheric Hg concentrations. However, PAS-measured concentrations were significantly lower than the other methods, and in many cases were below the method detection limit, which may be due to the short sampling timeframes and/or adverse meteorological conditions not allowing sufficient Hg to be collected on the samplers. These findings demonstrate that Lumex and ACT methods are suitable for gaseous Hg measurement in volcanic gas plumes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available