626
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Technical Papers

Partition and Tempospatial Variation of Gaseous and Particulate Mercury at a Unique Mercury-Contaminated Remediation Site

, , , , , , & show all
Pages 1115-1123 | Published online: 31 Oct 2011

Figures & data

Figure 1. Landscape and site locations of the atmospheric mercury sampling network surrounding the mercury-contaminated remediation site.

Figure 1. Landscape and site locations of the atmospheric mercury sampling network surrounding the mercury-contaminated remediation site.

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the separate atmospheric mercury sampling system for collecting GEM and PTM.

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the separate atmospheric mercury sampling system for collecting GEM and PTM.

Table 1. Meteorological measurement data during the atmospheric mercury sampling periods

Table 2. Field measurement of atmospheric mercury concentrations and their mean, median, standard deviation (SD), and partition of GEM, PTM, and DFM at each sampling sites

Figure 3. Seasonal variation of GEM, PTM, and DFM at the mercury-contaminated remediation site.

Figure 3. Seasonal variation of GEM, PTM, and DFM at the mercury-contaminated remediation site.

Table 3. Correlation of GEM, PTM, and DFM with ambient meteorological factors

Figure 4. Correlation of GEM concentration with ambient temperature and relative humidity.

Figure 4. Correlation of GEM concentration with ambient temperature and relative humidity.

Figure 5. Concentration contour of GEM + PTM surrounding the mercury-contaminated remediation site.

Figure 5. Concentration contour of GEM + PTM surrounding the mercury-contaminated remediation site.

Figure 6. Concentration variation of GEM + PTM versus transportation distance from the southern tip of the mercury-contaminated remediation site to the downwind fishing villages.

Figure 6. Concentration variation of GEM + PTM versus transportation distance from the southern tip of the mercury-contaminated remediation site to the downwind fishing villages.

Figure 7. Comparison of auto-monitoring and manual sampling data during the open excavation period.

Figure 7. Comparison of auto-monitoring and manual sampling data during the open excavation period.

Figure 8. Spatial distribution of deposition fluxes of wet/dry mercury surrounding the mercury-contaminated remediation site.

Figure 8. Spatial distribution of deposition fluxes of wet/dry mercury surrounding the mercury-contaminated remediation site.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.