4.8 Article

Empirical Models for Estimating Mercury Flux from Soils

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 22, Pages 8522-8528

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es1021735

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Texas Air Research Center [078LUB2076A]
  2. U.S. Department of Agriculture [38899-20017]
  3. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and Nevada Mining Companies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multiple parameters have been suggested to influence the exchange of mercury (Hg) between the atmosphere and soils. However, models applied for estimating soil Hg flux are simple and do not consider the potential synergistic and antagonist relationships between factors controlling the exchange. This study applied a two-level factorial experimental design in a gas exchange chamber (GEC) to investigate the individual and combined effects of three environmental factors (temperature, light, and soil moisture) on soil Hg flux. It was shown that individually irradiation, soil moisture, and air temperature all significantly enhance Hg evasive flux (by 90-140%). Synergistic effects (20-30% of additional flux enhancement) were observed for all two-factor interactions, with air temperature/soil moisture and air temperature/irradiation being the most significant. Results from the factorial experiments suggest that a model incorporating the second-order interactions can appropriately explain the flux response to the changes of the studied factors. Based on the factorial experiment results and using the flux data for twelve soil materials measured with a dynamic flux chamber (DFC) at various temperatures, soil moisture contents, solar radiation exposures, and soil Hg contents, two empirical models for estimating Hg flux from soils were developed. Model verification with ambient flux data not used to develop the models suggested that the models were capable of estimating dry soil Hg flux with a high degree of predictability (r similar to 0.9).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available