Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 185, Issue 1–4, pp 21–32 | Cite as

Characterizing Dry Deposition of Mercury in Urban Runoff

  • Mark Fulkerson
  • Fidelia N. Nnadi
  • Lia S. Chasar
Article

Abstract

Stormwater runoff from urban surfaces often contains elevated levels of toxic metals. When discharged directly into water bodies, these pollutants degrade water quality and impact aquatic life and human health. In this study, the composition of impervious surface runoff and associated rainfall was investigated for several storm events at an urban site in Orlando, Florida. Total mercury in runoff consisted of 58% particulate and 42% filtered forms. Concentration comparisons at the start and end of runoff events indicate that about 85% of particulate total mercury and 93% of particulate methylmercury were removed from the surface before runoff ended. Filtered mercury concentrations showed less than 50% reduction of both total and methylmercury from first flush to final flush. Direct comparison between rainfall and runoff at this urban site indicates dry deposition accounted for 22% of total inorganic mercury in runoff.

Keywords

Dry deposition Mercury Partitioning Stormwater Urban runoff 

References

  1. American Society for Testing and Materials (1991). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 11, Water and Environment Technology, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  2. Brezonik, P. L., & Stadelmann, T. H. (2002). Analysis and predictive models of stormwater runoff volumes, loads, and pollutant concentrations from watersheds in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, USA. Water Research, 36, 1743–1757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, J. F., Edgerton, E. S., & Martin, B. E. (1997). Dry deposition calculations for the clean air status and trends network. Atmospheric Environment, 31, 3667–3678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DeWild, J. F., Olund, S. D., Olson, M. L., & Tate, M. T. (2004). Methods for the preparation and analysis of solids and suspended solids for methylmercury. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations, Book 5, Chapter 7, Section A.Google Scholar
  5. Dupuis, T., Kreutzberger, W., Kaster, J., & Harris, T. (1985). Effects of highway runoff on receiving waters, V. guidelines for conducting field studies. U.S. Department of Transportation Report No. FHWA/RD-84/066, U.S. Federal Highway Administration.Google Scholar
  6. Fitzgerald, W. F., Engstrom, D. R., Mason, R. P., & Nater, E. A. (1998). The case for atmospheric mercury contamination in remote areas. Environmental Science and Technology, 32, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fulkerson, M. (2006). Atmospheric mercury deposition in an urban environment. Dissertation. University of Central Florida.Google Scholar
  8. Fulkerson, M., & Nnadi, F. N. (2006). Predicting mercury wet deposition in Florida: A simple approach. Atmospheric Environment, 40, 3962–3968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gildemeister, A. E. (2001). Urban atmospheric mercury: The impact of local sources on deposition and ambient concentration in Detroit, Michigan. Dissertation. University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  10. Gilmour, C. C., Henry, E. A., & Mitchell, R. (1992). Sulfate stimulation of mercury methylation in freshwater sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 26, 2281–2287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Graves, G. A., Wan, Y., & Fike, D. L. (2004). Water quality characteristics of stormwater from major land uses in South Florida. Journal of American Water Resources Association, 40, 1405–1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kobriger, N. P., Meinholz, T. L., Gupta, M. K., & Agnew, R. W. (1981). Constituents of highway runoff – Volume III, Predictive procedure for determining pollution characteristics in highway runoff. U.S. Department of Transportation Report No. FHWA/RD-81/044, U.S. Federal Highway Administration.Google Scholar
  13. Lee, J. H., & Bang, K. W. (2000). Characterization of urban stormwater runoff. Water Research, 34, 1773–1780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewis, M. E., & Brigham, M. E. (2004). National field manual for the collection of water-quality data. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations, Book 9, Chapter A5, Section 5.6.4.B.Google Scholar
  15. Makepeace, D. K., Smith, D. W., & Stanley, S. J. (1995). Urban stormwater quality: Summary of contaminant data. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 25, 93–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mendenhall, W., & Sincich, T. (1995). Statistics for engineering and the sciences. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Mosley, L. M., & Peake, B. M. (2001). Partitioning of metals (Fe, Pb, Cu, Zn) in urban run-off from the Kaikorai Valley, Dunedin, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine Freshwater, 35, 615–624.Google Scholar
  18. Muschack, W. (1990). Pollution of street run-off by traffic and local conditions. Science of the Total Environment, 93, 419–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. NADP (1997). Quality assurance plan: mercury deposition network. Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, Illinois, http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/qaplans/mdn-qap-1997.pdf/ [accessed 5 March 2005].
  20. NADP (2003). MDN glass sample train collection and deployment – Trace metal clean sample handling. Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, Illinois, http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/manuals/mdnopman.pdf/ [accessed 9 September 2003].
  21. Novotny, V., & Olem, H. (1994). Water quality. prevention, identification, and management of diffuse pollution. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  22. Olund, S. D., DeWild, J. F., Olson, M. L., & Tate, M. T. (2004). Methods for the preparation and analysis of solids and suspended solids for total mercury. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations, Book 5, Chapter 8, Section A.Google Scholar
  23. Pitt, R., Field, R., Lalor, M., & Brown, M. (1995). Urban stormwater toxic pollutants: Assessment, sources, and treatability. Water Environment Research, 67, 260–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ramasamy, S. (2002). Development of the traffic simulation model for the UCF campus using paramics. Dissertation. University of Central Florida.Google Scholar
  25. Sakata, M., & Marumoto, K. (2004). Dry deposition fluxes and deposition velocities of trace metals in the Tokyo Metropolitan area measured with a water surface sampler. Environmental Science and Technology, 38, 2190–2197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sansalone, J. J., & Buchberger, S. G. (1997). Partitioning and first flush of metals in urban roadway stormwater. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 123, 134–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schroeder, W. H., & Munthe, J. (1998). Atmospheric mercury – An overview. Atmospheric Environment, 32, 809–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schueler, T. (1994). The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques, 1, 100–111.Google Scholar
  29. Seigneur, C., Vijayaraghavan, K., Lohman, K., Karamchandani, P., & Scott C. (2004). Global source attribution for mercury deposition in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology, 38, 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (1989). American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  31. USEPA (1983a). Results of the nationwide urban runoff program. PB 84-185552. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Planning Division.Google Scholar
  32. USEPA (1983b). Methods for the chemical analysis of water and wastes. EPA 600/4-79/020. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.Google Scholar
  33. USEPA (1992). NPDES stormwater sampling guidance document. EPA 833-B-92-001. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.Google Scholar
  34. USEPA (1996a). Method 1669. Sampling ambient water for trace metals at EPA water quality criteria. EPA 821-R-96-008. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  35. USEPA (1996b). Method 1631. Mercury in water by oxidation, purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence (CVAFS). EPA 821-R-96-012. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  36. USEPA (1997). Method 1630. Methylmercury in water by distillation, aqueous ethylation, purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence (CVAFS). Draft method. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  37. USEPA (2005). Clean Air Mercury Rule, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/ [accessed 17 March 2005].
  38. USGS (2005). Wisconsin District Mercury Laboratory Quality Assurance Manual, U.S. Geological Survey, Middleton, WI, http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/mercury/ [accessed 12 May 2005].
  39. Vermette, S., Lindberg, S., & Bloom, N. (1995). Field tests for a regional mercury deposition network – Sampling design and preliminary test results. Atmospheric Environment, 29, 1247–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Fulkerson
    • 1
    • 3
  • Fidelia N. Nnadi
    • 1
  • Lia S. Chasar
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological SurveyTallahasseeUSA
  3. 3.Engineering Section, Resource Management Department, Southwest Florida Water Management DistrictBrooksvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations