MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057528339 · doi:10.1029/2003jd004364

Atmospheric mercury speciation and deposition in the Bay St. François wetlands

2004· article· en· W2057528339 on OpenAlexaff
Laurier Poissant, Martin Pilote, Xiaohong Xu, Hong Zhang, Conrad Beauvais

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMercury (programming language)Environmental chemistryVolatilisationDeposition (geology)MERCUREFlux (metallurgy)BayChemistryEnvironmental scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)GeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atmospheric mercury speciation and deposition are critical to understanding the fate of mercury in the environment. The importance of atmospheric mercury speciation and deposition was investigated during an intensive field campaign in the Bay St. François wetlands in late summer 2002. Measured gaseous elemental mercury (GEM), reactive gaseous mercury (RGM), and particulate mercury (PM: 0.1–2.5 μm) concentrations were 0.85–2.16 ng/m 3 (average 1.38 ng/m 3 ), 0–22 pg/m 3 (average 3.63 pg/m 3 ), and 0.5–18 pg/m 3 (average 6.44 pg/m 3 ), respectively. PM and RGM represented <1% of the total mercury. We reported the first synchronized automated high‐time‐resolution mercury species fluxes. The average GEM flux was 32.1 ng/m 2 /h (positive sign means volatilization, and negative sign indicates deposition) with a maximum deposition value of 110 ng/m 2 /h and a maximum volatilization value of 278 ng/m 2 /h. The average RGM flux was −2.6 ng/m 2 /h with a maximum deposition value of 25.6 ng/m 2 /h and a maximum evasion value of 0.6 ng/m 2 /h. The average PM flux was −0.4 ng/m 2 /h with a maximum deposition value of 8.7 ng/m 2 /h and a maximum resuspension value of 32.7 ng/m 2 /h. RGM contributed over 90% to the total dry deposition of mercury (GEM, RGM, and PM). GEM evasion exceeded deposition of GEM, RGM, and PM, thus suggesting other sources of mercury to the mercury budget such as wet deposition through precipitation or soil. The median dry deposition velocities calculated from flux and concentration measurements were 0.19 cm/s (GEM) < 2.1 cm/s (PM) < 7.6 cm/s (RGM). The dry deposition velocity of PM is large and should be viewed as upper limits only. Although RGM should be rapidly depositing species, as predicted by its solubility, little RGM flux was observed at night. Time series of canopy wetness and RGM fluxes suggested that RGM fluxes are not driven by RGM solubility (in water) since the canopy was dry when larger RGM deposition periods were observed during daytime. It is suggested that the vegetation might directly uptake RGM and release elemental gaseous mercury during daytime. Our experimental data showed that photochemically reactive air masses could produce RGM, which is rapidly removed by dry deposition to the surfaces. Lifetime of RGM over vegetation canopy is on the order of a few hours.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations127
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207