Numerically Simulated Atmospheric Transboundary Contribution of Lead Loading to the Great Lakes
Using a 3-D Eulerian atmospheric transport model, the lead loading to the Great Lakes subject to different emission sources were simulated for 1994, 1995, and 1996. It was found that the lead emissions from sources in the United States made major contributions to the lead loading to the Lakes Erie, Michigan, and Superior, whilst the lead loading to the Lakes Ontario and Huron were determined largely by the emissions from Canada. Overall results reveal that among the Great Lakes, Lake Michigan receives the largest lead loading and Lake Superior receives the least amount for total three years of 1994, 1995, and 1996. In 1994 and 1995, the lead loadings to the Great Lakes did not change dramatically. In 1996, however, we noticed significant changes of the lead loadings in several lakes. Among them the Lake Michigan showed significant reduction and the Lake Erie showed apparent increase. These variations are attributed largely to the changes of the lead emission sources in the United States. Model predicted sub-lake features such as non-uniform air concentration and deposition are noteworthy and such features have strong repercussions in comparison with the estimates of dry and wet deposition from land-based monitored data.
KeywordsGreat Lake Total Deposition Lead Emission Large Lead Lead Loading
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bartnicki J, et al, 1993: An Eulerian model for atmospheric transport of heavy metals over Europe. Technique report No. 117, Det Norske Meteorlogiske Institutt.Google Scholar
- Ma J. and S. M. Daggupaty, 2000: Effective dry deposition velocities for gases and particles over heterogeneous terrain. J. Appl. Meteorol., 39, 1379–1390.Google Scholar
- Daggupaty S. M. and J. Ma, 1998: Discrete ordinate/ Pseudospectral simulations of transport of heavy metals over regions of North America. 10th joint conference on the application of air pollution meteorology with the A&WMA. Phoenix, Pre-print volume Amer. Meteor. Soc., January 1998, 410–413.Google Scholar