MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123569067 · doi:10.5194/acp-12-9251-2012

How relevant is the deposition of mercury onto snowpacks? – Part 2: A modeling study

2012· article· en· W2123569067 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Dorothy Durnford, Ashu Dastoor, A. Ryzhkov, Laurier Poissant, Martin Pilote, D. Figueras-Nieto

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)Collège de MaisonneuveEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSnowpackMeltwaterMercury (programming language)SnowArcticEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesGeologyOceanographyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. An unknown fraction of mercury that is deposited onto snowpacks is revolatilized to the atmosphere. Determining the revolatilized fraction is important since mercury that enters the snowpack meltwater may be converted to highly toxic bioaccumulating methylmercury. In this study, we present a new dynamic physically-based snowpack/meltwater model for mercury that is suitable for large-scale atmospheric models for mercury. It represents the primary physical and chemical processes that determine the fate of mercury deposited onto snowpacks. The snowpack/meltwater model was implemented in Environment Canada's atmospheric mercury model GRAHM. For the first time, observed snowpack-related mercury concentrations are used to evaluate and constrain an atmospheric mercury model. We find that simulated concentrations of mercury in both snowpacks and the atmosphere's surface layer agree closely with observations. The simulated concentration of mercury in both in the top 30 cm and the top 150 cm of the snowpack, averaged over 2005–2009, is predominantly below 6 ng L−1 over land south of 66.5° N but exceeds 18 ng L−1 over sea ice in extensive areas of the Arctic Ocean and Hudson Bay. The average simulated concentration of mercury in snowpack meltwater runoff tends to be higher on the Russian/European side (>20 ng L−1) of the Arctic Ocean than on the Canadian side (<10 ng L−1). The correlation coefficient between observed and simulated monthly mean atmospheric surface-level gaseous elemental mercury (GEM) concentrations increased significantly with the inclusion of the new snowpack/meltwater model at two of the three stations (midlatitude, subarctic) studied and remained constant at the third (arctic). Oceanic emissions are postulated to produce the observed summertime maximum in concentrations of surface-level atmospheric GEM at Alert in the Canadian Arctic and to generate the summertime volatility observed in these concentrations at both Alert and Kuujjuarapik on subarctic Hudson Bay, Canada. We find that the fraction of deposited mercury that is revolatilized from snowpacks increases with latitude from 39% between 30 and 45° N, to 57% from 45 to 60° N, 67% from 60 to 66.5° N, and 75% polewards of 66.5° N on an annual basis. Combining this latitudinal gradient with the latitudinally increasing coverage of snowpacks causes yearly net deposition as a fraction of gross deposition to decrease from 98% between 30 and 45° N to 89% between 45 and 60° N, 73% between 60 and 66.5° N, and 44% within the Arctic Circle. The yearly net deposition and net accumulation of mercury at the surface within the Arctic Circle north of 66.5° N are estimated at 153 and 117 Mg, respectively. We calculate that 58 and 50 Mg of mercury are deposited annually to the Arctic Ocean directly and indirectly via melting snowpacks, respectively. For terrestrial surfaces within the Arctic Circle, we find that 29 and 16 Mg of mercury are deposited annually directly and indirectly via melting snowpacks, respectively. Within the Arctic Circle, multi-season snowpacks on land and over sea ice gained, on average, an estimated 0.1 and 0.4 Mg yr−1 mercury, respectively, from 2000–2005. The developed snowpack/meltwater model can be used for investigating the impact of climate change on the snowpack/atmosphere exchange of mercury.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations63
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207