Can the MerPAS Passive Air Sampler Discriminate Landscape, Seasonal, and Elevation Effects on Atmospheric Mercury? A Feasibility Study in Mississippi, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurately measuring gaseous elemental mercury (GEM) concentrations in the atmosphere is important to understand its sources, cycling, distribution, and temporal trends. The MerPAS passive air sampler from Tekran Inc. (Toronto, ON, Canada) captures GEM on sulfur-impregnated activated carbon after it passes through a Radeillo diffusive barrier. Because they are small, relatively low in cost, and require no power, they can be deployed at multiple locations, yielding a much greater spatial resolution, albeit at coarser temporal resolution, compared to active sampling. In this study, we used the MerPAS to measure GEM concentration gradients at a mixed hardwood forest, wetland, pond, and a mowed (grass) field, all within close proximity (<500 m) to each other. Vertical profiles (0.5, 3.0, 5.5 m) were assessed during summer and winter. The sorbent was analyzed using a direct mercury analyzer. The samplers were captured between 0.90 to 2.2 ng over 2 weeks, well above the mean blank of 0.14 ng. We observed differences between the landscapes, elevation, and seasons. Nearest to the surface, GEM concentrations were lowest in the wetland (both seasons), where there was dense vegetation, and highest in the mowed field (both seasons). Generally, GEM levels increased with the elevation above the ground, except for the forest where the trend was slightly reversed. This suggests a possible net GEM deposition from the atmosphere to surfaces for three of the four landscapes. GEM concentrations were slightly higher in the winter than the summer at 5.5 m height where air masses were unimpeded by vegetation. Overall, we conclude that the MerPAS is indeed capable of measuring GEM gradients between landscapes, elevations, and seasons, if given sufficient collection time, good analytical precision, and low blank levels.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".