<p>Atmospheric metals usually reside in aerosols with complex source origins. The concentrations distribution of metals especially for those with high toxicity (Pb, Cd, Ni, V) should be informative for assessing the health effects.  </p>

<p>Source apportionment studies can link the atmospheric species with source emissions, and the results can support the policy designing for pollution control. Therefore, to determine the pollution levels of heavy metals and quantify their origins should be an essential part for health risk management.   </p>

<p>Usually, the source apportionment include three different methods, i.e., inventories-based, chemical transport model-based and  receptor-based. For those studies for identifying the source origins of atmospheric metals, receptor models were the dominant method, and CTM models were seldom adopted. Therefore, I want to ask the difficulties of simulating atmospheric metals in different aspects.  </p>

<p>I come up with one reason:    </p>

<ul>
<li>The source origins of atmospheric were complex with anthropogenic, and natural sources all affected. Therefore, building the source inventories for those metals were challenging. </li>
</ul>

<p>Is there any other issues counted in the simulation work. Any comments or recommended material would be highly appreciated.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-28T14:33:23.443Z
A few basic thoughts based on some things, which I heard at conferences: (a) Heavy metals might be part of dust. Dust emissions are difficult to model. (b) Only trace levels of heavy metals are found in ore or coal. The levels might vary considerably for ore/coal from different regions/deposits (a guest). Therefore, these levels probably vary. (c) Heavy metals from tire and brake abrasion are often emitted in cities. Air quality in cities is difficult to model and we have severel substances of higher concern (and higher concentration) in cities. Therefore, the interest might be low.
daniel.heydebreck
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-28T16:46:45.050Z
I think you identified part of the problem; generally they are antropogenic ; And they drop out of the atmosphere relatively quickly.  Down wind of specific sources , eg Sudbury Canada, there are high levels . But they drop in a relatively short distance. Another specific example; down wind of a heavy oil fueled power plant you are likely to find V, but not at any distance.
blacksmith37
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-30T07:00:55.670Z
@gansub : I never though about that. Interesting aspect.
daniel.heydebreck
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-02T01:42:03.063Z
@gansub. I totally agree with that. CMAQ v5.0 has added the direct simulation of element Al, Ca, Fe, Na, K, Fe as the components of dust. I have read a [paper](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969714001636) simulating heavy metals for entire UK domain, the bias could be up to 2-10 times. The largest uncertainty was the re-suspension of heavy metal dust which was difficult to be quantified.
Han Zhengzu
<models><atmosphere-modelling><air-pollution><atmospheric-chemistry>
The difficulties for the simulation of atmospheric metals
Han Zhengzu
# The difficulties for the simulation of atmospheric metals

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-04-28)

Atmospheric metals usually reside in aerosols with complex source origins. The concentrations distribution of metals especially for those with high toxicity (Pb, Cd, Ni, V) should be informative for assessing the health effects.

Source apportionment studies can link the atmospheric species with source emissions, and the results can support the policy designing for pollution control. Therefore, to determine the pollution levels of heavy metals and quantify their origins should be an essential part for health risk management.

Usually, the source apportionment include three different methods, i.e., inventories-based, chemical transport model-based and receptor-based. For those studies for identifying the source origins of atmospheric metals, receptor models were the dominant method, and CTM models were seldom adopted. Therefore, I want to ask the difficulties of simulating atmospheric metals in different aspects.

I come up with one reason:

* The source origins of atmospheric were complex with anthropogenic, and natural sources all affected. Therefore, building the source inventories for those metals were challenging.

Is there any other issues counted in the simulation work. Any comments or recommended material would be highly appreciated.

**Tags:** models, atmosphere-modelling, air-pollution, atmospheric-chemistry

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: A few basic thoughts based on some things, which I heard at conferences: (a) Heavy metals might be part of dust. Dust emissions are difficult to model. (b) Only trace levels of heavy metals are found in ore or coal. The levels might vary considerably for ore/coal from different regions/deposits (a guest). Therefore, these levels probably vary. (c) Heavy metals from tire and brake abrasion are often emitted in cities. Air quality in cities is difficult to model and we have severel substances of higher concern (and higher concentration) in cities. Therefore, the interest might be low.  
> **username_2**: I think you identified part of the problem; generally they are antropogenic ; And they drop out of the atmosphere relatively quickly.  Down wind of specific sources , eg Sudbury Canada, there are high levels . But they drop in a relatively short distance. Another specific example; down wind of a heavy oil fueled power plant you are likely to find V, but not at any distance.  
> **username_1**: @gansub : I never though about that. Interesting aspect.  
> **username_0**: @gansub. I totally agree with that. CMAQ v5.0 has added the direct simulation of element Al, Ca, Fe, Na, K, Fe as the components of dust. I have read a [paper](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969714001636) simulating heavy metals for entire UK domain, the bias could be up to 2-10 times. The largest uncertainty was the re-suspension of heavy metal dust which was difficult to be quantified.  

---

## 0 answers

