4.5 Article

Measurements of atmospheric mercury species at a German rural background site from 2009 to 2011-methods and results

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 102-110

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/EN12107

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union [ENV.2010.4.1.3-2]
  2. German Federal Environment Agency [351 01 060]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Measurements of mercury species started in 2009 at the air pollution monitoring site 'Waldhof' of the German Federal Environmental Agency. Waldhof (52 degrees 48'N, 10 degrees 45'E) is a rural background site located in the northern German lowlands in a flat terrain, 100 km south-east of Hamburg. The temporally highly resolved measurements of total gaseous mercury (TGM), gaseous oxidised mercury (GOM), particle-bound mercury (PBMPM2.5, with particulate matter of a diameter of <= 2.5 mu m) and gaseous elemental mercury (GEM) cover the period from 2009 to 2011. The complete measurement procedure turned out to be well applicable to detect GOM and PBMPM2.5 levels in the range of 0.4 to 65 pg m(-3). As the linearity of the analyser was proven to be constant over orders of magnitude, even larger concentrations can be measured accurately. The 3-year median concentration of GEM is found to be 1.61 ng m(-3), representing typical northern hemispheric background concentrations. With 6.3 pg m(-3), the 3-year average concentration of PBMPM2.5 is found to be approximately six times higher than the 3-year average GOM concentration. During winter the PBMPM2.5 concentration is on average twice as high as the PBMPM2.5 summer concentration, whereas the GOM concentration shows no clear seasonality. However, on a comparatively low level, a significant diurnal cycle is shown for GOM concentrations. This cycle is most likely related to photochemical oxidation mechanisms. Comparison with selected North American long-term mercury speciation datasets shows that the Waldhof 3-year median speciated mercury data represent typical rural background values.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据