the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Alternate materials for the capture and quantification of gaseous oxidized mercury in the atmosphere
Abstract. Methodologies for identifying atmospheric oxidized mercury (HgII) compounds, including particulate-bound HgII (HgII(p)) and gaseous oxidized mercury (HgII(g)), by mass spectrometry (MS) are currently under development. This method requires preconcentration of HgII for analysis due to high instrument detection limits relative to ambient HgII concentrations. The objective of this work was to identify and test materials for quantitative capture of HgII from the gas phase, and to suggest potential surfaces onto which HgII can be collected, thermally desorbed, and characterized using MS methods. From the literature, several compounds were identified as potential sorbent materials and tested in the laboratory for uptake of gaseous elemental mercury (Hg0) and HgII(g) (permeated from a HgBr2 salt source). Chitosan, α-Al2O3, and γ-Al2O3 demonstrated HgII(g) capture in ambient air laboratory tests, without sorbing Hg0 under the same conditions. When compared to cation exchange membranes (CEM), chitosan captured a comparable quantity of HgII(g), while ≤ 90 % of loaded HgII(g) was recovered from α-Al2O3, and γ-Al2O3. When deployed in the field, the capture efficiency of chitosan decreased compared to CEM, indicating environmental conditions impacted the sorption efficiency of this material. The poor recovery of HgII from the tested materials compared to CEM in the field indicate that further identification and exploration of alternative sorbent materials is required to advance atmospheric mercury chemistry analysis by MS methods.
- Preprint
(1480 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 Jul 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2024-50', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jun 2024
reply
The study assesses alternative capture surfaces of HgII(g) through a series of lab and field experiments. The study is compact by design, which is effective in not extending its discussions and implications beyond the scope of what the experiments represent. However, this compactness does limit the overall impact of the study somewhat; it is more of a short technical report than a full research study. While the science seems mostly sound, I do have some major concerns that should be addressed before publication.
Why were recoveries only based on comparisons to CEM sorption? It would seem relatively easy to include a second set of calculations based on the calibrated HgBr2 salt permeation rates to present a more detailed and comprehensive assessment of the methods. Any such calculations have been dismissed because (1) of differing distance between filter packs and permeation system, and (2) the permeation rate "dropped" during some of the experiments. I don't think those are valid reasons to dismiss those data from analysis (this links for discussion on using CEMs as "real" HgII(g) concentration data below). At minimum, the calculations should be made for the experiments that were not impacted by the short-term permeation malfunction error. I also do not understand why the data on the calculated permeation rates are not included in the appendix/supporting information (see line 166: "data not shown").
Following on from this, I also question whether using BrCl2 salt is really a valid way to assess HgII(g) sorption? HgBr2 is one of potentially 100s of different HgII(g) species. Do they all behave the same? I understand that these measurements are difficult to calibrate and evaluate due to the dearth of effective measurement systems and calibration standards, but much more discussion is needed on this. Furthermore, the issues with variable permeation rates due to system issues, distance from permeation unit (and concerns of representativeness) do bring up further questions relating to the effectiveness of using this system as the sole means of calibrating GOM measurement systems.
Another oversight I see is the limited information on the blank (unexposed) Hg concentrations of these surfaces, and in particular the Hg concentrations on the unexposed CEMs. Previous studies have shown these blanks can have elevated and variable Hg concentrations before exposure. Since the whole study is premised on the CEMs providing the "real" HgII(g) concentration data, should there not be a very clear assessment of the CEM blank levels? Is there no pre-cleaning (acid bath) method for CEMs to improve blank levels to ensure what is measured comes from the deployments. If CEMs present "real" HgII(g) concentration data (something that I do not believe has been comprehensively confirmed in the literature or by the wider atmospheric Hg science community), then surely very complete QAQC data for this method must be detailed. In some ways this also leads to the question: if CEMs are effective HgII(g) measurements sorbents, then why do alternative capture methods need to be tested. I guess the answer to this question lies in the discussion on lines 45-79 (concerns of reduced CEM capture efficiency and surface reaction), which loops back to concerns of CEMs being considered the "real" data.In lines 275-278, the authors provide discussion on the possible capture of a small fraction of HgII(g) species on PTFE filters (used to remove particulates and HgII(p)). They then use this as justification to add ALL HgII(p) captured on the PTFE filters to the HgII(g) measurements of the sorbents tested in these experiments. I do not believe this is valid and appears to be a means to increase sorbent recoveries. I do not question that some HgII(g) could sorb to particles attached to PFTE filters - this is a legitimate concern, but I do not agree that all HgII(p) from the PTFE should be added to the HgII(g) sorbent data. Indeed, delving into the Allen et al. (2024) paper, they state PTFE captures only 4% of HgII(g) (described as GOM in that study) on new PTFE filters and ~50% on filters previously deployed for 1 week. Based on the methods in this manuscript, it appears the same brand and new PTFE filters were utilized. Therefore, there is no justification for assuming all the HgII(p) captured on PTFE is HgII(g) that would have been captured by the HgII(g) sorbents tested. All the HgII(p) data from the PTFE filters should be included in the appendix/supporting information if not already.
I believe most of these concerns could be addressed by utilizing all available data and improving the discussion to more comprehensively account for all the possible the uncertainties of these experiments and the sorbents used (including the CEMs).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-50-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
62 | 10 | 7 | 79 | 3 | 2 |
- HTML: 62
- PDF: 10
- XML: 7
- Total: 79
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1