EPA Surface Ozone Readings are Inflated by Mercury Vapor – The EPA has known about positive biases caused by mercury vapor since 1999
Guest essay by Forrest M. Mims III
Accurate ozone measurements are required by the Clean Air Act, for public health, many jobs and billions of dollars are at stake. Yet since 1999 the EPA has failed to acknowledge erroneous ozone measurements biased upward by mercury vapor and other interferences.
Measurement error may apply to a supposed ozone spike in San Antonio on October 3, 2016, for on that day much of Texas was blanketed by smog and mercury vapor from coal-burning power plants. San Antonio may now be subject to EPA sanctions for a violation it may not have committed.
While the EPA has long known that ozone measurements are significantly biased upward by mercury vapor, the agency has required States to use ultraviolet ozone monitors subject to mercury interference. These ozone monitors blow air between an ultraviolet (UV) lamp and a UV detector. Ozone strongly absorbs UV, so reductions in UV arriving at the detector are proportional to the ozone in the air. But mercury vapor and other contaminants in air also absorb UV, thus, artificially inflating the amount of “ozone” that is measured. The bias can range from a few parts per billion to many more.
While writing a book on environmental science last spring, I came across a 1999 EPA report that described the mercury interference problem in detail: “Laboratory Study to Explore Potential Interferences to Air Quality Monitors.” https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/archive/files/ambient/criteria/reldocs/finalreport.pdf
In the conclusion:
Low levels of mercury vapor show a marked impact on all three UV photometers at both low and high humidity. The two UV photometers with the heated scrubbers were affected the most. While heated metal scrubbers helped to reduce instrument bias for some VOCs, they seemed to increase bias due to mercury vapors
This report describes how UV ozone analyzers are vulnerable to serious interference, especially from mercury vapor and also from sulfur dioxide, VOCs and water vapor. While the EPA approved this report, the agency did not require the States to use chemiluminescent ozone monitors that are unaffected by mercury and other interferences.
Last summer the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) hired me to calibrate the world standard ozone layer instrument (Dobson 83) at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO). (Dobson 83 measures the total ozone layer, not just ozone near the ground.)
While living for two months at that alpine site 11,200 feet above the Pacific, I often checked the readings made by a mercury vapor monitor and two UV ozone monitors like those used across the US. The scientist in charge told me that mercury interference with ozone measurements is well known.
Erroneous ozone measurements could mean that at least some of the cities in the eastern half of the US in violation of the Clean Air Act may actually be complying.
Moreover, automobile emissions testing, electric vehicles and some other ozone reduction strategies will not eliminate erroneous ozone readings caused by mercury. So, I asked the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the EPA to investigate the mercury bias in ozone measurements. The OIG declined without explanation, so I sent a second request. That request was also declined.
There’s more to this story, for atmospheric mercury, which the EPA does not monitor, is far more dangerous to human health than ozone. As reported by the San Antonio Express-News (January 27, 2011):
“Children exposed to low-dose levels of mercury in-utero can have impaired brain functions, including verbal, attention, motor control, and language deficits, and lower IQs.”
Mercury also contaminates fish in lakes and oceans. The Express-News and many other publications have reported that coal burning power plants in Texas emit more mercury than any other State. Among the main mercury emitters in Texas is CPS Energy’s Calaveras Power Station, which is located on the southeast side of San Antonio from where the wind predominantly blows.
It’s time for the EPA to cease punishing States for putative ozone “violations” caused by mercury vapor and to require a transition to ozone monitors unaffected by interferences. It’s also time for the EPA to recognize that mercury is a far more serious threat to the health of our children than ozone. Finally, it’s time for the EPA Inspector General to follow its charter and fully investigate reports about potentially serious errors in EPA ozone measurements.
Forrest M. Mims III received a Rolex Award for his ozone research, was named one of the “50 Best Brains in Science” by Discover Magazine. More at http://www.forrestmims.org/
When I was at school, and we had to use mercury, while we could form little mercury puddles and tiny silver balls, but the Physics master was most upset if it got onto the floor. This was because of wastage -the cost was important. The tables in the physics lab had grooves around the edge to collect droplets of mercury, which could be shooshed along to a drain hole at each corner, and there drained back into the jar.
At work, we used ozonators to disinfect and deodourize frig chambers – the smell of many frig cargoes will stick to the walls and is very difficult to get off by mechanical (ie, washing) means, so the ozonators were used in the shut chamber to chemically oxygenate the molecules of the odours.
So now ozone is supposed to be a pollutant? Well, one would never have thunk it!
At college we had a temporary chemistry teacher who was previously a researcher at Oxford University. He told us of the way he used to clean up mercury by squeezing it through a chamois leather bag. He said that he occasionally got tingling in his arms, but there seemed to be no other effects.
Stephen,
During the California gold rush, mercury was commonly used in the sluice boxes to help trap the gold. What formed is called amalgam. It was common procedure to put the amalgam into a chamois cloth and squeeze the excess mercury out before the remaining amalgam was placed in a retort to separate the mercury and gold. The mercury passed off as vapor, which was condensed and re-cycled. What remained is called gold sponge and was then later melted and cast into bars.
Polar vortex is broken.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00839/f9bm5d1d66rv.png
Was only a matter of time.
All the imbalance in energy from the EL Nino and NA blob has now been sucked up into the Arctic for gradual disposal. There is no warmth to replace it.
The cooling from the sleepy sun will now start to take over.
Here is an electoral map and a crime map. Compare to the WUWT map headlined…..
http://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/11/11/correlation-or-coincidence/
nuff said….
Tears, angst as workforce braces for Trump takeover
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060045642
U.S. EPA employees were in tears. Worried Energy Department staffers were offered counseling. Some federal employees were so depressed, they took time off. Others might retire early.
And some employees are in downright panic mode in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory.
“People are upset. Some people took the day off because they were depressed,” said John O’Grady, president of American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, a union that represents thousands of EPA employees. After Election Day, “people were crying,” added O’Grady, who works in EPA’s Region 5 office in Chicago. “They were recommending that people take sick leave and go home.”
Awww….Poor babies! Maybe they need “participation” trophies, and to be told that they are special too.
Tears from EPA employees? Panic and depression? Frankly, this is a positive development in view of the tears and depression experienced by many young school children who have been instructed with clearly biased and even erroneous information from the EPA about the origin and effects of climate change. Then there are the huge fines and criminal sanctions the now depressed EPA staff have imposed on property owners for violating their extreme interpretation of “Waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act.
They were not ‘depressed’. Depression is a clinical condition. They may have been sad, disappointed, listless, demotivated, upset, disoriented, unfocussed or even despondent, but not depressed.
Why are they crying? Why are so many depressed? If nothing else, Trump is a smart business man that will not fire people doing good work… Oh! Right! They’re self-incriminating themselves. They should have “taken” the 5th, put their heads done and went back to work. But then THAT is really what this article is about, isn’t it. The EPA is NOT about doing good science, it is about politics and politics is about money. So they KNOW they got a cushy Gov. job and as long as they trumpeted the party line and pushed the data to conform with the agenda – – they’ll keep their jobs. When you you think about it, it’s us that should be crying because it’s OUR tax money they have been wasting.
Isn’t that ridiculous.
WikiLeaks @wikileaks 6h6 hours ago
The nightmares liberals have over Trump are nothing compared to the dictatorships they forced others to live under
My post was mainly about erroneous ozone readings caused by mercury vapor and other interferences. This and the fact the EPA does not track mercury vapor or account for the error in ozone readings it causes may provide the basis for injunctive relief for cities and States charged with violating the EPA’s latest ozone rule. In contrast with some of the anecdotal accounts given here, the presence of mercury vapor in exhaust plumes from coal-burning power plants and the serious health effects of inhaling mercury vapor are well documented in the scholarly literature. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a basic informational website on this topic, which states (in part): “Breathing mercury vapors in air is the most common way to be exposed to elemental mercury, and is the most harmful to your health. If mercury is swallowed most of it passes through your body and very little is absorbed. If you touch mercury for a short period of time a small amount may pass through your skin, but not enough to harm you.” http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mercury/docs/healtheffectsmercury.pdf
Many responses have drifted away from your point about “erroneous ozone readings caused by mercury vapor and other interferences.” What should be ;most troubling here is the fact that the EPA is aware of this yet they don not measure/track the mercury vapor. Injunctive relief while the EPA replaces the incompetent individuals responsible would seem to be a prudent first course of action.
Is this a travesty caused by environmentalists?
@JohnWho. The mercury interference problem (and other interferences) might explain why the EPA once had a +/- 20 percent tolerance for air quality readings. Years ago when I found a +20 percent bias in ozone readings by CAMS 23 in San Antonio, the EPA agreed to the error but ruled that it met their tolerance allowance. They then required the modeler for the Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG) to use the knowingly erroneous data in the ozone model. DISCLAIMER: I was once retained by the EPA to give a talk on my UV measurements at an international UV conference in Japan. The EPA once installed an automated Brewer spectrophotometer at my site for a 60-day comparison of its ozone layer measurements with mine. I’ve represented my county on AACOG’s AIR Technical Committee since 2002. It’s an appointment with no compensation or reimbursement of expenses. I serve on the committee’s Ozone Subcommittee. The views expressed on WUWT are my own.
Forest
I saw your post as a plea to stop using a UV instrument and start using chemiluminesence. instruments. As I’m sure you know chemiluminesence instruments are routinely used to measure a host of other air pollutants. Why the EPA would continue to specify the use of an instrument with a known interference, without some sample preconditioning to remove the interference, smacks of trying to increase the measured ozone for political purposes.
Speaking of ozone levels in the atmosphere, Crispin (above) is right, 70 ppb (that’s parts per billion) is a travesty. It’s almost ground level background .
@old engineer. Based on my reply below about the EPA’s former +/- 20 percent tolerance for ozone measurements, I have to agree with your first paragraph. As for natural background ozone, during my 9-week stay at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory last summer, surface ozone levels fell to as low as 20 ppb, the lowest I’ve ever observed. On the other hand, on some days the ozone exceeded 100 ppb, the highest I’ve observed in 25 years of calibrating my instruments at MLO. Most authors assign the natural background to be around 30-40 ppb. As for 70 ppb, the health benefits are controversial and it’s unattainable in many regions without shutting down transportation and factories. It’s also unattainable when measurements are dependent on 254-nm analyzers when significant interferences are present, including being downwind from coal-burning power plants that emit mercury vapor.
There are no erroneous readings or health effects from burning coal.
Forest does not understand the science.
Latest Wind Turbine Fires:
http://timesleader.com/news/local/605797/flames-heavy-smoke-from-a-bear-creek-windmill-fire-can-be-seen-for-miles
http://wnep.com/2016/11/10/wind-turbine-burns-in-luzerne-county/
http://kfyo.com/wind-turbine-destroyed-by-fire-in-lynn-county/
http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/1182476/vestas-begins-inquiry-into-turbine-fire-at-brazilian-wind-farm
http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/1185510/turbine-fires-a-burning-issue-for-the-industry
It’s time to set up the Truth and Reconciliation Court like Mandela did in South Africa.
Ozone discrimination has run rampant and a lot of poor cities and towns suffered because of it, even those upwind.
It’s the new asthma.
Forrest talks about the advantages of changing to LEDs, but there maybe drawbacks as well.
“The near-infrared range affects your health in a number of important ways. For example, it helps prime the cells in your retina for repair and regenerate.
Since LEDs have virtually no infrared and an excess of blue light that generates reactive oxygen species (ROS), this explains why LEDs are so harmful for your eyes and overall health. ”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/10/23/near-infrared-led-lighting.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20161023Z1&et_cid=DM123594&et_rid=1723606131
This problem is well known and being thoroughly studied. The excessive blue is probably more important than the absence of near-IR. GaN that is used to make blue LEDs can be compositionally tailored to produce wavelengths ranging from the UV-C to the green. This flexibility and the ever-growing array of phosphors that transform GaN emissions into longer wavelengths may eventually solve the excess blue problem. If indoor near-IR is important, it can be easily provided by existing technology (GaAs:Si and Al;GaAs near-IR LEDs with emission peaks from 880 nm to 940 nm and FWHM emission widths >100 nm).
Pish and Tosh! The body generates reactive species all the time as part of its normal molecular signaling. Nitric oxide (NO) is an important reactive signaling molecule that regulates blood flow in the retina and elsewhere. The typical human has plenty of retinal cells when they die. However, they usually have selective losses in the macula (color receptors) and general dropout of the ganglion cells that provide axons from the retina to the brain. There is a lot going on with aging of the eye that depends on genetics and on the cornea and lens, not the retina. The causes for age-related blindness are still being explored, but blue light with such low intensity isn’t a leading candidate so far as I know. Your argument is like saying looking at blue sky more than cloudy sky causes blindness. There’s just no evidence of a significant effect in humans over the normal lifespan.
It sounds as though the EPA has inadequate Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control protocols in place. In my former lab. had we done such measurements, we would have isolated the equipment and fed other pure gases alone through the system to see the instrument response, and then we would have a ‘standard Ozone’ gas of known concentration to calibrate the instrument each day. Any gas that interfered, would have to be quantified, and accounted for, and the correction process described and defined. The EPA should not be allowed to formulate policy or punishment on the garbage they measure.
This is known and documented by EPA.
Yes some error may occur in some circumstances, also known and avoidable.
Described by EPA:
http://mattson.creighton.edu/Ozone/OzoneEPAMethod.pdf
Victory for America’s Youth – Constitutional Climate Lawsuit against U.S. to Proceed
https://earthnetwork.news/2016/11/12/the-kids-win-again-lawsuit-against-us-regarding-climate-change-can-proceed/
Federal Judge Ann Aiken rejects U.S. government and fossil fuel industries motions to dismiss
Eugene, OR – Today, the federal court in Eugene, Oregon decided in favor of 21 youth plaintiffs in their “groundbreaking” constitutional climate lawsuit against President Obama, numerous federal agencies, and the fossil fuel industry. U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken completely rejected all arguments to dismiss raised by the federal government and fossil fuel industry, determining that the young plaintiffs’ constitutional and public trust claims could proceed. Now, the 21 plaintiffs, who range in age from 9-20, are preparing for trial in what is believed to be a turning point in United States constitutional history.
In determining the complaint to be valid, Judge Aiken’s ruling contained these passages:
Here is some background material in an article I wrote awhile back…
http://dailybail.com/home/kids-climate-crusade-keeps-rolllin-through-the-courts.html
@John. Thanks for posting this. It’s must reading, for: “It alleges that defendants’ actions and inactions – whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty – have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.” The government and other defendants should demand that the plaintiffs produce evidence of the “profound damage” that can be directly or even indirectly attributed to the carbon dioxide that made possible the paper on which both the lawsuit and the judge’s opinion were printed. The plaintiffs should also be demanded to produce any IPCC forecast models that have reasonably predicted global temperatures over the past two decades. (I was an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s AR5 and saw no such model results.)
Thank you and much appreciated!
The decision was made in Oregon, ground zero for violent protests.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/11/post_566.html
Just a glance at the “8-hour Ozone Nonattainment” map shows the O3 in many areas cannot be man made . I’m at 2500m up in Teller County Colorado with no significant population or industry anywhere around . The entire high mountain band in CO is red .
I think the only way to cut the O3 is to ban UV from the Sun . That not only is absorbed by the O3 it creates it .
BTW : I remember the fresh smell of UV ozone generators in the halls of the Culver Military Academy infirmary over half a century ago . If O3 is so dangerous why does it smell so fresh and healthy ?
Ozone is a very powerful dis-infectant. See ozone generators used in water purification.
Growing up in Fort Wayne, I had friends who went to Culver Military Academy.
One of the misleading things about air quality maps, is the location of the sensors. For example, the closest air monitors for where we lived in Bedford County was Roanoke, VA. In the city, burning leaves is banned and it is a ritual in the county.
So Bob If you live in a rural areas check to see where the sensor is located.
http://www.colorado.gov/airquality/all_sites_map_ags.aspx
Bob A
You are supporting my argument that mountain air has high ozone. When that air blows eastwards down onto the Plains it obviously raises the ‘local’ level. Apart from the readings being an issue because of equipment, it is silly to assume that ‘local’ readings always tell us something about local pollution. If the background (natural) level varies from 100 then it is pointless to have a standard of <70 ppb. It is like having a methane 'pollution' max that is below the ambient average.
More info on ozone. Ozone may seem to be a simple molecule to a chemist, but it’s properties are not simple. Some general info on how ozone is used, and chemical properties.
http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/Encyclopedia.asp?GasID=137
General safety considerations are not simple.
https://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_259300.html
A very interesting starting link for more info on ozone.
http://mcclainozone.com/research-data/
For those interested in how ozone is naturally created in the stratosphere, the chemical formation of ozone from UV and O2 has a POSITIVE pressure coefficient. As pressure gets higher (lower altitude) the chemical formation of O3 becomes more favorable. If you were to completely destroy all ozone in the stratosphere, solar UV would penetrate to lower altitudes where the chemical reactions forming ozone are favored, and a new “layer” of ozone would form almost instantly, and that new layer will block UV from passing to lower altitudes, etc.
IE, Earth’s natural ozone layer is self healing.
But if you generate ozone at surface pressure, the chemical reactivity of ozone with other chemicals will cause it to dis-appear with a half life of about a day.
If something is a big problem, there should be lots of real smoking guns but mercury poisoning is rarely seen by US doctors.
To be sure mercury is bad stuff and should be handled carefully. When fear mongers tell me how dangerous something is, I want to see the dead bodies.
Where is the smoking gun?
I have been on the front line of safety for most of my career on navy ships, in nuclear power plants, and nuclear fuel assembly manufacturing plants. There is a long list of hazards that have the potential to be fatal. Yet I work in a very safe industry. Almost all of the fatalities were before my time and the result of human error.
Here is an example of a mercury smoking gun.
Old natural gas meters used to located basement of houses. Growing up we would live the backdoor unlocked so the meter could be read the meter.
There all kinds of data on emergency room visits. I read an interesting report on mercury poisoning. A teenage boy was brought to the ER because he was unable to walk. He claimed he was not taking drugs but that was the first thing they test for. The doctors were baffled. They had read about mercury poisoning but had never seen it. A simple blood test confirmed it and a chelation therapy was started.
Then the doctors notice his younger sister could not sit still. Tested her, mercury big time. Same for the parents who are less symptomatic. When they tested, their house it had high levels of volatile mercury that the family was breathing. Indoor air pollution from conserving energy.
The source was a mercury switch in the gas meter. The gas company was replacing gas meter. They went back and checked the houses and 9000 homes were contaminated.
I found the report interesting from a safety standpoint. Heating with gas is hazardous. Statistically it is very safe but gas explosions do occur. Because of the odor, people evacuate before the explosion and are rarely killed. From an economic standpoint, extra precautions to prevent spilling mercury would have saved lots of cleanup costs.
Here is the science. Mercury is liquid at room temperature and volatile. If you spill it indoors and breath it, mercury could result. However, the amount has to be more significant than a CFL.
I hope most of you understand indoor and outdoor. If you exhaust the stack of a coal plant or even your car inside, you will die most like from carbon monoxide poisoning.
There is no smoking gun for mercury from burning coal.
Chemical assays of coal are routine. eg. here is a USGS survey report of mercury in coal.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs095-01/fs095-01.html
Generally, around 0.1 ppm in the US. That’s less than one gram mercury in one million grams of coal.
I’d agree that the general medical hazard of mercury from coal burning is not very important. Especially when compared to the amount of mercury in sea-food. There are also many other heavy metals in coal, but most of that is oxidized and remains in the ash. I’m no expert on ash disposal, but I’d guess there are volumes of data somewhere that quantify the amounts.
Extrapolating on a global scale, for one gigatonne of coal the amount of mercury is
1E9 times 1E-7 or 100 tonnes of mercury. Supposedly, burning coal accounts for roughly 1/2 of anthropogenic mercury. If that ends up in the oceans, then it’s not surprising that bio-accumulation through the food chain causes fish to show elevated mercury. Then again, mammals have a liver and kidneys that are designed to reduce any bad stuff in ordinary life. My botany professor told us that as a student in the 1950s he would clean botanical samples by pushing whole plants under the surface of open vats of liquid mercury with his bare hands. This caused contaminants and bugs to float and be skimmed off.
He was a robust and young looking 65 years old when I took his classes and was continued to be active at age 90 last i heard.
BW
I must have a quibble on the calculation, as presented. If mercury is 0.1 ppm is that on a mass or molar basis? If it is literally 0.1 ‘parts’ per million then it is much more than that on a % mass basis. Mercury is about 16 times the mass of carbon.
The calculation should be done on the basis of the number of atoms in the coal so that a meaningful calculation can be made of the concentration in the emissions. When I started reading your contribution I thought you were going to provide that.
1% is 10,000 ppm. If the mercury is 0.1 ppm on the basis of mass, then it is 0.00001%. That seems low.
Whatever the case, the issue with toxins is exposure. By the time the coal is burned and turned into a diluted gas, which is then dispersed into the environment, the amount we could breathe is very low. Really, really low. I expect the EPA is aware of that which is why they don’t monitor it.
The description above about the ‘contest’ to lower the permissible ozone level with no real basis for it (epidemiological evidence) is indicative of the real problem: too many politicians.
Coal ash is a big legacy issue. Spent nuclear fuel storage is easy in comparison.
Assay ppm is mass based. That means micrograms mercury per gram of coal. Read the link.
Retired Kit P,
I read recently that coal ash is being looked at as a source for Rare Earth Elements so that we are not so dependent on China. One might look at coal ash as being a potential resource that provides power as a side-benefit of the initial concentration step.
Ozone is formed by UV light below 200 nm (amongst other ways) but once formed it absorbs UV light below about 290 nm strongly which is why the ozone layer protects us from solar UV C (wavelengths below 290 nm). Mercury has a strong absorption line at 253.7 nm so yes both absorb in the UV C region however lots of organic molecules also absorb strongly in this region. For example nitric oxide (NO) emitted by diesel engines is a very good absorber of low UV. This is really basic spectroscopy, surely any approved measurement technique must take such well known interferences into account.
Oh, and by the way, I noticed some comments above to the effect that mercury occurs is several forms and that it is methyl mercury that is toxic not elemental mercury. Yes methyl mercury is insanely toxic but elemental mercury is also very toxic. The term “mad as a hatter” has a basis in fact. Hatters used to soak the felt of which hats were made in mercury to make it heavier and easier to mold. But in the process they slowly absorbed enough mercury to cause brain damage so that they slowly became mad. Mercury has a very low boiling point so even at room temperature it has a significant vapour pressure and can be ingested by breathing in the vapour. I have heard stories that in the 1920’s in German universities, a significant liquid mercury spill in a lab with a wooden floor was grounds to replace the entire floor!
Nitric oxide is made by human bodies (and other mammals at least) and is released in small amounts in the exhaled breath. Nitric oxide is one of many chemical signals used to control tissue processes. In the blood, nitric oxide is a vasodilator and pharmaceutical amounts are produced by the metabolism of nitroglycerin or other nitrated compounds (including the oxidation of arginine, if I am remembering correctly). Sublingual nitroglycerin is used to treat the angina (chest pain) associated with partial blockage of the heart’s coronary arteries, because this form bypasses the liver and allows a higher blood concentration to be reached. The vasodilatory action reduces the chest pain by allowing a greater blood flow through the partial blockage (flow is a 4th power function of inner diameter). This, in turn, reduces the effects of the altered tissue pH, oxygenation, sugar and fat content of the working muscle that is hypoxemic from the partial blockage. In a full blockage (infarction) the effects of nitrates help shunt blood around the blockage, which may reduce the amount of tissue loss from local calcium induced apoptosis.
Saturation vapor pressure of pure metallic mercury at 315K (42C) is 1 Pa.
cdquaries you stated “Saturation vapor pressure of pure metallic mercury at 315K (42C) is 1 Pa”. I am not sure what your purpose was in making that comment but it seemed to me you were claiming it is really low. Well atmospheric pressure is 100,000 Pa so 1 Pa is 1 in 100,000 or 10 ppm by volume! Mercury has atomic mass 200 whereas air has atomic mass about 29 so by weight this corresponds to 10 *200/29 ppm or 69 ppm. Looking up the chemical dictionary, it quotes that mercury is highly toxic by skin absorption and inhalation of vapour – tolerance 0.05 mg per cubic meter (of air). 1 cubic meter of air = 1.25 kg and 0.05 mg = 5*10^-2 mg = 5*10^-5 gm = 5*10^-8 kg. Thus the toxic limit is 5*10^-8/1.25 = 4*10^-8 or 0.04 ppm. Thus your saturation pressure is 69/0.04 = 1725 times the tolerance limit.
Don’t know about you but that’s pretty toxic by my standards!
Weight doesn’t matter that much and, yes, I question the actual toxicity, since your typical spill won’t reach saturation. How many atoms is that? Room temperature, being lower than 42C (more like 24C so, at a rough first approximation, that’s going to mean that the saturation vapor pressure is less than 1 Pa. What’s going to count is how much gets past the skin or past the mucus lining in the lungs, remembering that some of it is not going to reach the dermis or the epithelial lining (binds to sulfides) and some is going to bind to circulating glutathione, so much more data is going to have to be presented in order to evaluate what “highly” toxic means.
By the way, I’ve worked with chemicals much more toxic than mercury.
So we have another bureaucratic bungle based on bad instrumentation, like much of the rest of the environmental/climate scam industry.
I don’t like burning coal for energy, lets go nuke.
Anthony/Moderators,
There is a typo’ in the sub-heading. It should read “positive” rather than “posive.”
[fixed thanks, Anthony]
“San Antonio may now be subject to EPA sanctions for a violation it may not have committed.”
You say this as if it were a bad thing.
Please flag this for Anth0ny since I know he knows the State Meteorologist of Texas.
Thanks very much for this post. I have been watching ozone levels in San Antonio (and Austin) for 12 years. Both cities have a distinct ozone season that ends in late September. October events are rare. (I used to suspect that the authorities were creating these epsidodes to insure that an ozone violation accurred in an otherwise low-ozone year. This year ozone levels were down in EVERY Texas city, as of Oct 1. The “background” level for the entire state fell, and has been falling ~1.5 ppb / year for 10 years.)
Both Austin and San Antonio have major coal fired power plants located south east of the cities. Both have ozone monitors distributed around the cities. And both cities have high ozone readings in the north and west located monitors, while the south and east monitors are low ozone. (Mimms is correct that the dominant wind pattern is from the south east! A smoking gun?)
For example, the following link lists all of the ozone monitors in San Antonio. The monitors on the east and south sides have readings in the 60’s (ppb). The north and west monitors are in the 70’s and 80’s.
http://tceq.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/compliance/monops/8hr_4highest.pl
Monitors maked with a bold N in the second column are un-official. You can click on any monitor and get detailed info on its location, with 4 photos of each monitor from N,E,W and S, and capabilties etc.
Texas has fabulous reporting. Another link lets you look up the environments conditions of each monitor for each day of the year, going back to 1998. You can pull up a high ozone day for monitor x and find readings for all criteria pollutants, wind speed , wind direction, temps, etc etc.
http://tceq.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/compliance/monops/monthly_summary.pl
This provides further evidence that implicates coal fired power plants. I am a carpenter and will leave this to experts.
I think Mims’ statement about VOC’s fooling ozone monitors is important to. Both San Antonio and Austin have ~200 miles of oak forests in their incoming air supply. There are at least 500 tons of isoprene coming into each city per day. Even if it only increased reading by 1 ppb, that would be significant. Ditto sulphur dioxide. (When Texas mandated low sulfur diesel, ozone levels fell the following year. I am going to send this to some lege friends. The EPA needs to be held accountable.
“This provides further evidence that implicates coal fired power plants. I am a carpenter and will leave this to experts.”
No, it does not, association is not causation. Large cities with large number of cars and no coal plants much have higher levels of pollution than rural areas with coal plants.
There are physical mechanisms that sometimes trap pollutants and cause elevated levels of pollutants. There is no magic physical process that concentrates pollutants from rural areas into cities.
I worked in the nuclear industry and would love to blame coal plants for pollution.
Texas cities have something in common with every other big city. Road clogged with big pickup trucks driven by type A personalities. This is fine with me because because avoiding big cities is easy.
Kit P wrote:
““This provides further evidence that implicates coal fired power plants. I am a carpenter and will leave this to experts.”
No, it does not, association is not causation. Large cities with large number of cars and no coal plants much have higher levels of pollution than rural areas with coal plants. ”
I did not assert causation. The word “implicate” implies causation, and I ask for experts to verify it.
“There are physical mechanisms that sometimes trap pollutants and cause elevated levels of pollutants. There is no magic physical process that concentrates pollutants from rural areas into cities.”
Yes there is. It isn’t magical but wind coming from the southeast (in San Antonio and Austin) has greatly elevated levels of pollutants like “mercury vapor, sulfur dioxide, VOCs and water vapor”, which according to the article above, can cause incorrect readings on ozone monitors. Wind coming from the northwest has greatly reduced levels of these pollutants. The monitors exceed on days when the wind is from the southeast and drop on days when it comes from the nothwest. Do you think a scientist should investigate?
“I worked in the nuclear industry and would love to blame coal plants for pollution.”
Great. I think we should have a lot more coal and nuclear plants, with appropriate emission controls. Several years ago Austin overhauled its coal plant. At that time they installed scrubbers. The following year our ozone values dropped. This is just another of my implications that tends to support Mimms’ article.
“Texas cities have something in common with every other big city. Road clogged with big pickup trucks driven by type A personalities. This is fine with me because because avoiding big cities is easy.”
Cars are part of the problem but a declining part. Austin has quadrupled the number of vehicle miles driven in recent years while seeing the total volume of emissions from cars fall. (Detroit is doing it’s part!) And type A personalities in congested traffic doesn’t matter anymore (pollution wise) because car computers now compensate for those conditions.
The question you should be focused on is why, with the same number of cars on the road each day, why are some days low ozone and others high ozone. It’s (primarily) the wind, and coal plants, and defective ozone monitors and …
Do you agree that it is a good idea to investigate this and replace the defective monitors?
Dear Forrest, I am not sure that all UV-based ozone-meters have a mercury bias. When an instrument regularly (every xx minutes at least) makes a zero calibration, it sucks in ambient air, strips away ozone by pumping it through an absorber like black carbon and takes this measure as a zero ozone reference. If mercury vapor is still present in that zero reference, the normal reading being the difference between the ambient air measurement and this zero reference will cancel out the effect of mercury (and other VOC’s that would survive the ozone removing).
Besides this topic, I would join all the peoples who admire you for your past achievements, and I am still a near daily user of your exquisite Microtops total ozone measuring instrument.
Mr Massen, I suspect you will find that an activated charcoal filter will adsorb mercury and VOCs at least as effectively as it will ozone. So while the zeroing process will deal with instrumental drift, it is likely useless when sorting out UV absorption by chemical species. Using a multi wavelength absorption spectrophotometer could potentially identify the various constituents, but you’d need to back it up with physical samples to confirm the optical instrument’s results.
I believe in most cases the Federal Government SHOULD ONLY be making suggestions, and leaving most of the actual lawmaking and enforcement to the States.
Every state has different needs. A huge valley in Cali needs harsher vehicle pollution standards than open air arizona.
If Californians want to push for renewable energy, let them do it. Forcing other states to do it is not the idea we had when we created these United States.
Every state can have stricter regulation than federal regulations.
The problems is many manufacturers will only meet CARB requirements so we are stuck with meeting California standards.
One example is portable generators for RV and backup power for homes. A few can not be sold in California and they are cheaper.
“Yes there is. It isn’t magical but wind coming … greatly elevated levels of pollutants l…..”
Let me make this simple Vince, your statement is wrong. You do not understand that air quality is better around the the coal plants which are in rural areas. Level of pollution are much lower in rural areas generally.
An exception would be stagnate wind conditions and a temperature inversion trapping the pollution around the power plant. In which case, coal plant pollutants would not be transported to the city.
Again, the monitors are not defective. Investigation because ‘armature’ scientist do not understand the science are not required.
Retired Kit P
eVince may have been inelegant and confused in his statement, but he’s not wrong. If we assume the city contributes 50 ppb to the ambient levels of O3, and that ambient measures 10 ppb to the NE and 30 ppb to the SW(where the coal fired power plant is) then A) the air around the plant is indeed better than the city air and B) the city air will only be over the 70 ppb limit when the wind is from the SW (10+50=60, 30+50=80).
Secondarily, eVince did not claim the monitors were defective, the EPA did. Mr. Mims has pointed out that VOCs & mercury, both present in coal fired power plant exhaust, will cause a UV based ozone meter to read higher than it would with O3 alone. Unless the sensor has a method of measuring the concentration of confounding chemical species, the measurement is unreliable. (eg the +/- 20%)