Abstract
The Minamata Convention, a global and legally binding treaty that entered into force in 2017, aims to protect human health and the environment from harmful mercury (Hg) effects by reducing anthropogenic Hg emissions and environmental levels. The Conference of the Parties is to periodically evaluate the Convention’s effectiveness, starting in 2023, using existing monitoring data and observed trends. Monitoring atmospheric Hg levels has been proposed as a key indicator. However, data gaps exist, especially in the Southern Hemisphere. Here, we present over a decade of atmospheric Hg monitoring data at Amsterdam Island (37.80°S, 77.55°E), in the remote southern Indian Ocean. Datasets include gaseous elemental and oxidised Hg species ambient air concentrations from either active/continuous or passive/discrete acquisition methods, and annual total Hg wet deposition fluxes. These datasets are made available to the community to support policy-making and further scientific advancements.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Background & Summary
Mercury (Hg) is a ubiquitous toxicant harmful to human health and the environment1. This global contamination issue is addressed under the 2017 Minamata Convention (https://www.mercuryconvention.org/en) which commits its current 147 parties to curb anthropogenic Hg emissions to air and releases to land and water. According to Article 22 of the Convention, the Conference of the Parties (COP) is required to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the Convention starting in 2023, and to perform this evaluation on the basis of available scientific information. The overarching goal of the effectiveness evaluation is to assess whether actions taken under the umbrella of the Minamata Convention have resulted in changes in Hg levels in the environment. Monitoring of atmospheric Hg levels and associated trend analysis has been identified as one of the primary and most appropriate tools to help evaluate the Convention’s effectiveness2. While Hg cycles through all environmental reservoirs, the atmosphere responds to changes in emissions much more quickly (within months) than terrestrial and oceanic reservoirs (years to decades)3,4.
Hg exists in three forms in the atmosphere (Fig. 1): gaseous elemental mercury (GEM), the dominant form of atmospheric Hg, and two oxidised forms, gaseous oxidised mercury (GOM) and particulate-bound mercury (PBM). These three Hg species can be deposited to ecosystems through wet and dry processes. In the guidance report UNEP/MC/COP.4/INF/12 on monitoring Hg and Hg compounds to support the effectiveness evaluation of the Minamata Convention5, a three-tier approach is recommended, with a gradual increase in complexity. Tier 1 focuses on GEM and wet deposition monitoring through automated, manual, or passive sampling, and on the collection of ancillary meteorological variables. Tiers 2 and 3 involve advanced techniques for atmospheric Hg measurements (e.g., dry deposition, Hg isotope measurements) and ancillary data (e.g., carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter measurements). Given the analytical challenges e.g.6, GOM and PBM are currently not recommended for monitoring in Tier 1. However, as noted in the guidance report UNEP/MC/COP.4/INF/12, “several monitoring networks and research groups perform Hg speciation measurements in a comparable manner and are encouraged to share these results, as their data will be helpful in answering questions for the effectiveness evaluation.” Further scientific work will improve understanding of biases in existing methods and comparability across measurement techniques.
Atmospheric Hg has been successfully monitored for decades through dedicated regional and global networks but with clear data gaps identified in the Southern Hemisphere7,8. This issue of data coverage is particularly problematic given the natural and anthropogenic differences between hemispheres that affect the Hg biogeochemical cycle8,9 and, ultimately, the effectiveness evaluation. Here, we give an overview of atmospheric Hg monitoring activities carried out at Amsterdam Island (AMS; 37.80°S, 77.55°E; Fig. 2) in the southern Indian Ocean since 20127,10. Being one of the world’s most remote islands, AMS is the ideal location for monitoring the Southern Hemisphere atmospheric background. Monitoring activities have been carried out there for more than 40 years, including monitoring of greenhouse gases and other pollutants10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23. The site is currently labelled global GAW/WMO (Global Atmospheric Watch/World Meteorological Organisation) and hosts monitoring activities that are part of international initiatives such as the Integrated Carbon Observation System (ICOS; https://www.icos-cp.eu) and, since 2012, the Global Observation System for Mercury (GOS4M; http://www.gos4m.org/)7,10,12,13,22.
In an effort to support the effectiveness evaluation of the Minamata Convention, we report here Hg datasets recommended in Tier 1, i.e., ambient air GEM concentrations and total mercury (THg) wet deposition fluxes. Our datasets of oxidised Hg species (referred to as Reactive Mercury; see Fig. 1) are also being shared with the community to promote scientific progress and better understanding of the Hg cycle.
Early subsets of these observations have already been described in the literature, as detailed below: (1) For GEM active/continuous measurements, the period covered was 2012 to 20177,10,12,13, with no subsequent publication available for datasets collected from 2018 onwards. (2) For GEM passive/discrete measurements, the range was from November 2018 to November 202124, with no further description available for datasets collected since then. (3) In terms of RM active/continuous measurements, data from 2012 and 2013 were previously discussed10; however, there is no additional description of datasets collected afterwards. (4) As for RM active/discrete measurements, no description of this dataset has been presented up to the present date. (5) Lastly, wet deposition fluxes from 2013 to 2019 were published22,25, without additional details provided for datasets collected from 2020 onwards.
In addition to presenting unpublished datasets collected in recent years, this data descriptor provides the first comprehensive overview of all Hg measurements performed at this site since 2012. It also offers a detailed description of all changes in instrumental setup since 2012 that may affect trend analysis, particularly in the context of the effectiveness evaluation of the Minamata Convention.
Methods
Study area
AMS is located halfway between South Africa and Australia (3200 km away from Australia, 2880 km from Reunion Island, 4200 km from South Africa, and 3300 km from the Antarctic coast) (Fig. 2). Emerging from the ocean 700 kyr before present, this small island (about 9.2 km long and 7.4 km wide; 55 km2 surface area) is located at the northern margin of the southwest wind zone characterised by prevailing westerly and north-westerly winds with an average speed over 7 m/s11. The island is mostly influenced by marine air masses, with occasional airflow from continental regions (Africa and South America) in the late austral winter and early spring (August to November), concomitant with the intense biomass burning season over the African continent10,12,13,14,26.
Most of the atmospheric Hg monitoring activities described in this article are carried out at the Pointe Bénédicte observatory, located at 70 m above sea level and 2 km upwind from the main research station (Fig. 2). THg wet deposition monitoring is carried out elsewhere, at ~30 m above sea level and in the vicinity of Martin-de-Viviès.
Atmospheric Hg monitoring activities
In situ Hg monitoring activities are summarised in Fig. 3 and Table 1. THg wet deposition monitoring and active/continuous measurements of GEM and of the operationally-defined RGM and PBM2.5 species (Fig. 1) were initially performed under the framework of the Global Mercury Observation System (GMOS) programme (2011–2015; https://www.gmos.eu/; last access: 13/03/2023). The RM discrete monitoring (2015–present) is now part of the 2016–2025 GEO-flagship Global Observation System for Mercury (https://www.earthobservations.org/, http://www.gos4m.org/; last access: 13/03/2023). Passive GEM measurements (2019–present) were first done in collaboration with the research team that developed the MerPAS system at the University of Toronto27,28,29,30 and will be fully incorporated in the Canadian-led Global Atmospheric Passive Sampling (GAPS) network in 2024. All these monitoring activities have been implemented at AMS since 2012 within the framework of the GMOStral programme funded by the French Polar Institute.
Gaseous elemental mercury (GEM)
Active measurements
A commercial Tekran® 2537 A/B model Hg analyser, commonly used at monitoring sites all over the world7,31,32, has continuously been deployed at the Pointe Bénédicte observatory since January 201210,12,13 (Fig. 3a). The operating principle is based on Hg enrichment on dual pure gold cartridges, followed by a thermal desorption and detection by cold vapour atomic fluorescence spectroscopy (CVAFS) (λ = 253.7 nm)33,34. Switching between two gold cartridges allows for alternating sampling and desorption modes, and results in continuous measurements. GEM was measured at a time resolution of 5 min from January 2012 to November 2015, and of 15 min since (Table 1). The integration of the signal was optimised in order to avoid potential biases and to allow comparability of the measurements regardless of the sampling frequency (5 vs 15 min), in compliance with international standards35,36. This is further discussed in the Technical Validation section. Ambient air is sampled at 1.2 L per minute through a 10 m long heated (50 °C) and UV protected polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sampling line, with an inlet installed outside at 6 m above ground level (Fig. 2f,g). From January 2012 to November 2015, the instrument was operated in speciation unit mode (see reactive mercury species section) ensuring that only GEM (as opposed to total gaseous mercury (TGM = GEM + GOM)) was sampled and analysed. Since the uninstallation of the speciation unit in November 2015, we have used two 0.45 µm polyethersulfone cation-exchange membranes (PES-CEM, 0.45 μm, 47 mm, Merck Millipore®) and one 0.45 µm PTFE filter (47 mm diameter), respectively installed at the inlet of the heated line and at the entrance of the instrument. This specific setup prevents any introduction of oxidised species37 ensuring that, again, only GEM is sampled and analysed. The instrument is automatically calibrated every 69 h using an internal Hg permeation source which, in turn, is quarterly checked by manual injections of saturated Hg vapour collected from a temperature-controlled Tekran® 2505 Hg vapour calibration unit38. The internal mass flow metre controlling the sampling flow rate is also fortnightly checked by a standardised external calibrator to prevent any drift. Concentrations are expressed in nanograms per cubic metre at standard temperature and pressure (STP; 273.15 K, 1013.25 hPa) with an instrumental detection limit below 0.1 ng/m3 and a GEM average systematic uncertainty around 10%12. The Tekran® 2537 A/B model Hg analyser is operated according to standard operating procedures routinely applied by the Global Mercury Observation System (GMOS), the Canadian Atmospheric Mercury Measurement Network (CAMNet), and the United States Atmospheric Mercury Network (AMNet)7,39.
Passive measurements
GEM has also been simultaneously measured by passive air samplers (Tekran® MerPAS) at the Pointe Bénédicte observatory since November 2019 (Fig. 3c). These passive samplers have been extensively used and tested under a wide range of climatic conditions27,28,40,41,42,43,44,45,46, including at AMS24, and have been shown to have a precision and accuracy that is comparable to that of state-of-the-art active measurement techniques28. They provide an inexpensive and easy-to-use alternative to active measurements and are increasingly used worldwide. GEM is sequestered in a sulphur-impregnated activated carbon sorbent (HGR carbon, Calgon®) cartridge through a collection system using a Radiello diffusive barrier. At AMS, the MerPAS systems (samples, blanks) are deployed on a quarterly basis. They are carefully stored in well-sealed glass jars and in the dark before and after field deployment to avoid contamination and to lower blanks24. Back to the laboratory, samples undergo thermal decomposition and amalgamation, and are analysed by atomic absorption spectroscopy (AMA254 (Leco® Instruments Ltd) or MA3000 (Nippon® Instruments Corporation)) using pure oxygen as carrier gas. The analytical procedure and associated metrology (calibration, blank correction, method detection and quantification limits calculation) are described in Hoang et al.24 and McLagan et al.29. Final volumetric air concentrations (in ng per cubic metre) are obtained by dividing the field blank-adjusted amount of Hg in each sampler (in ng) by the product of a temperature and wind-corrected sampling rate (m3/day) and the deployment duration in days24.
Reactive mercury species
Continuous measurements
A commercial Tekran® 1130/1135 model speciated Hg analyser was deployed at AMS from January 2012 to November 2015 (see Fig. 3b) for the monitoring of Reactive Gaseous Mercury (RGM; a subset of GOM consisting of all forms of Hg sampled using a KCl-coated denuder47; see Fig. 1) and Particulate Bound Mercury (PBM2.5, i.e., PBM with an upper-size cutoff diameter of 2.5 µm; see Fig. 1)7,10. This so-called speciation unit system, consisting of both Tekran® 1130/1135 modules, was connected to the Tekran® 2537 A/B analyser for simultaneous GEM monitoring (see Gaseous Elemental Mercury section) through a 10 m long and heated (50 °C) PTFE sampling line. RGM is sequestered by the Tekran® 1130 module KCl-coated denuder while the fraction of PBM below 2.5 µm (PBM2.5; see Fig. 1) is trapped onto a quartz regenerable filter located within the Tekran® 1135 module47. At AMS, the 1130 and 1135 modules were configured to collect RGM and PBM2.5 over a three-hour period at a 10 L/min flow rate. RGM and PBM2.5 were then sequentially thermally desorbed (500 °C for 15 min and 800 °C for 20 min, respectively) into a Hg-free air stream and subsequently analysed as GEM by the Tekran® 2537 A/B analyser. RGM and PBM2.5 concentrations are expressed in picograms per cubic metre under STP conditions with an instrumental detection limit below 0.4 and 0.3 pg/m3 for the Tekran® 1130 and 1135 modules, respectively48. By analogy with the Tekran® 2537 A/B model, the 1130/1135 modules were operated following well established standard operating procedures39.
Discrete measurements
Reactive Mercury (RM = GOM + PBM; see Fig. 1) has been collected since December 2015 (Fig. 3d) using the two PES-CEMs installed at the inlet of the Tekran® 2537 A/B model heated sampling line (see Gaseous Elemental Mercury section). Gustin et al.49,50 and Dunham-Cheatham et al.51 have shown that PES-CEMs collect RM quantitatively. Two PES-CEMs are deployed to limit RM losses due to possible breakthrough37,52. Previous studies37,52,53,54 have shown the inertness of such membranes to GEM when deployed in an active sampling setting under environmental background conditions (1 to 2 ng/m3) guaranteeing no overestimation of RM and underestimation of GEM. At AMS, time-integrated RM samples are collected at a frequency ranging from ~3 to ~37 days (average ~11 days) depending on local environmental conditions. This sampling frequency ensures the collection of sufficient RM mass on the membranes for further chemical analysis while limiting sampling losses. After collection, the two PES-CEMs are stored separately in Petri dishes inside double-zipper bags and kept dark frozen (−20 °C) until repatriation and chemical analysis. In the laboratory, each filter is placed in a PTFE beaker, digested in 16 mL of 2.5% inverse aqua regia and analysed with a Brooks Rand Model III CVAFS detector. The analytical procedure is further described in Marusczak et al.55 and Koenig et al.56. The instrumental method detection limit is estimated to ~5 pg of Hg56. The volume of air sampled on the membranes is extracted from the Tekran® 2537 A/B flow rate and RM concentration is consequently expressed in picograms per cubic metre under STP conditions.
Wet deposition fluxes
In order to estimate annual wet deposition fluxes, THg collection in precipitation has been carried out at AMS since March 2013 (Fig. 3e) following well-established international protocoles22. Rain events are sampled by a commercial Eigenbrodt® NSA-171/KE automatic wet only collector22,25. The start of a rain event induces an impulse from the infrared precipitation sensor and causes the lid to open up as follows: the lid moves up, swings to the side, and sinks down to prevent aerodynamic interference. Precipitation impacting a 100 mm borosilicate-glass funnel flows through a PTFE pipe directly into a 1 L fluorinated high density polyethylene (FLPE) sample bottle containing 0.8% v/v 30% concentrated Suprapur® quality hydrochloric acid. When precipitation stops, a signal from the precipitation sensor causes the collection funnel to close, ensuring that only wet fallout is collected, without interference from dry deposits. Evaporation of volatile Hg is prevented by maintaining a constant indoor temperature (below the outdoor temperature) and by using a vapour lock connected to the sampling bottle. Every single component of the sampling system is composed of chemically neutral material and is carefully cleaned with acid, following the procedure reported in Tassone et al.57 and adapted from the US-EPA 1631 method58. Integrated samples are collected over periods ranging from ~6 to ~45 days, depending on the season and on the occurrence of exceptional rainfall events, with an average fortnightly and monthly collection frequency in wet and dry periods, respectively. Precipitation samples are then kept frozen (−20 °C) and in the dark (to avoid photo-induced reduction of Hg species) until repatriation and further chemical analysis. Field, transport, bottle, and reagent blanks are also regularly collected and analysed25,57,59. The complete analytical procedure and associated metrology can be found in Tassone et al.25,57. THg values are derived according to the UNI 15853:2010 method and converted into volume-weighted mean concentration values. Annual THg wet deposition fluxes are then calculated as reported in Sprovieri et al.22.
Data Records
Our datasets are available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) Licence from the GMOS-FR AERIS website (https://gmos.aeris-data.fr/ last access: 13/03/2023). As summarised in Table 2, level 1 and 2 data products are available on the AERIS website for active/continuous GEM measurements60,61, discrete GEM measurements62, RGM/PBM2.5 active/continuous measurements60, RM active measurements63, and THg wet deposition fluxes64. Tables 3–6 summarise the list of attributes for each qualified and downloadable dataset. Level 1 data represent quality-checked datasets in their original time resolution. Level 2 data, when available, are modified quality-checked data products. The GEM level 2 dataset provides hourly averaged GEM concentrations calculated from quality-controlled level 1 GEM data (5- or 15-min time resolution) when the hourly recovery rate exceeds 50% (i.e., number of valid data points vs. that possible over the reporting period). Level 2 annual THg wet deposition fluxes give the annual flux calculated based on the individual rain samples collected during the corresponding year. It is important to note that the periods considered for each annual flux do not always strictly correspond to a calendar year starting on January 1st and ending on December 31th due to logistical constraints and depending on rainfall events. Users can refer to variables ‘Date_time_START’ and ‘Date_time_STOP’ for more information (see Table 6).
Technical Validation
Active/continuous measurements of gaseous elemental mercury (GEM) and reactive mercury (RGM and PBM2.5)
To ensure the comparability and the quality of the GEM/RGM/PBM2.5 active/continuous measurements, dedicated instruments and all retrieved data are respectively operated and quality controlled following established SOPs routinely applied by monitoring networks such as GMOS, CAMNet, and AMNet7,39 (see Methods section). AMS being a background air monitoring site (i.e., low atmospheric levels corresponding to ~1 ng/m3 or less for GEM), we have further optimised the instrumental detection capacities of the Tekran® 2537 A/B Hg analysers. This optimisation process, discussed with and validated by the manufacturer, guarantees the best possible sensitivity for low-level detection and quantification. More specifically, two actions were undertaken: (1) implementation of a new set of peak integration settings to improve quantification at low sample mass loading (Table 7) as discussed in Swartzendruber et al.35, and (2) increase of the residence time in the detection cuvette by reducing the argon carrier gas flow rate to half of the manufacturer default settings while remaining within the range of recommended values (40 ml/mn and 100 ml/mn in “measure” and “flush flow” instrumental modes vs. 80 and 200 ml/mn in default settings).
Quality control procedures are applied at each step of the data processing chain, from the raw measurement to the provision of the qualified dataset. Standardised quality assurance measures and calibration tools are applied on-site to provide documented and traceable data and data products. Raw datasets as well as routine or exceptional maintenance files are compiled and processed by a custom-built software developed at the Institute of Environmental Geosciences (Grenoble, France) specifically designed for the QA/QC of the GEM/RGM/PBM2.5 datasets. In this automated process, the raw dataset is flagged (valid, warning, invalid) according to 43 possible criteria corresponding to all operation phases of the instrument (e.g., calculation of Hg concentration, calibration, sensitivity of the instrument). The inclusion of all field notes implying further invalidations (e.g., during maintenance operations) allows the production of a fully QA/QC’d dataset. Our data processing procedure is relatively close to the one developed under the umbrella of the GMOS project (G-DQM65) but accounts for first-hand inputs from the site manager (e.g., field notes). A detailed description of this QA/QC procedure is available on the French national GMOS-FR AERIS data portal, reported in various publications7,10,66 and briefly summarised in Fig. 4.
It should be noted that, since 2012, we have had to replace the Tekran® 2537 instrument 6 times due to instrument failure or unresolved technical issues (Fig. 3a). These replacements were made following strict operating procedures (see above), with a strong focus on calibration tests, to prevent the introduction of systematic bias. Despite these occasional instrumental issues, the fraction of valid hourly measurements per month generally exceeded the 66% minimum WMO GAW requirement for continuous measurements67 (72 out of 84 months; see Fig. 3a). From 2012–2015, this minimum requirement can be reduced to 50% given the operating principle of the Tekran® speciation unit (25% of the operating time of the 2537 analyser dedicated to RGM/PBM2.5 measurements). That target was also generally reached (43 out of 48 months; see Fig. 3a).
Discrete measurements of Gaseous elemental mercury (GEM), reactive mercury (RM), and THg wet deposition
Figure 5 synthesises the data processing workflow related to these datasets.
Operating and analytical procedures related to passive measurements of GEM with MerPAS systems are described in McLagan et al.27,28,30. Additional tests were made to (1) evaluate the dependence of the passive sampling rate on meteorological conditions encountered at AMS and (2) to lower blanks. The results, reported in Hoang et al.24, highlight the quality of our operating protocols. In addition, we follow the procedure described in McLagan et al.29 during the subsequent chemical analysis step to prevent sulphur poisoning of catalysts.
Since 2015, RM species have been collected on two successive PES-CEMs (0.45 μm, 47 mm, Merck Millipore®) installed at the inlet of the Tekran® 2537 A/B model heated sampling line. The decision to switch from automatic and high frequency RGM/PBM2.5 measurements to discrete RM measurements was made based on the very low concentrations observed over the 2012–2015 period10 and on the need to reduce costs and power consumption. This decision was further reinforced by the growing body of literature demonstrating (1) potential sampling biases associated with the Tekran® speciation unit6,52,53,68,69,70 and (2) the very good performances of PES-CEMs50,51,55. Depending on the speciation of oxidised Hg (e.g., HgCl2, HgBr2, HgO, Hg(NO3)2, HgSO4), the collection efficiency of PES-CEMs is indeed 1.3 to 12 times higher than that of the Tekran® speciation unit6,50,52. Figure 6 shows the distribution of RM concentrations observed at AMS with the Tekran® speciation unit (RGM + PBM2.5) and with PES-CEMs and confirms that RM concentrations inferred from the Tekran® speciation unit at AMS are slightly biased low by a factor of 2.7 (median (interquartile range): 1.7 (1.6) vs. 4.7 (2.9) pg/m3), in line with the literature.
Operating and analytical procedures related to the determination of the THg wet deposition flux are described in Sprovieri et al.22 and Tassone et al.25 and follow the GMOS SOP adapted from the US EPA method 1631E57. QA/QC procedures include duplicate sample analysis, precision testing using a certified reference material, matrix spikes, and regular system, transport, reagent, and field blank analysis25.
Usage Notes
The standardised *.csv file format permits easy import into all analysis software commonly used in the atmospheric science community. The datasets can be used without further processing. In addition to datasets and associated metadata, the GMOS-FR AERIS website also includes a list of peer-reviewed publications that can help better understand the current state of science associated with these datasets. User should be aware that the RGM/PBM2.5 datasets collected with a Tekran® speciation unit may be biased, as discussed above. It is essential to consider these biases when interpreting and utilizing the data.
The data presented in this manuscript have undergone peer review in 2023 and are represented by the specific versions (#v1.0) given in Table 2. As monitoring activities are still ongoing, new datasets will be regularly uploaded to the GMOS-FR AERIS data portal. These new versions might include additional information (e.g., additional monitoring years) or refined data. Please note that any updates or new versions of the datasets are not part of the peer-reviewed data associated with this manuscript.
We welcome enquiries regarding ancillary datasets also collected at AMS by partners (e.g., meteorological conditions, greenhouse gases or ozone ambient air mole fractions) that could help interpret atmospheric Hg time-series.
Code availability
No custom code has been used during the generation of these datasets.
References
Basu, N. et al. The impact of mercury contamination on human health in the Arctic: A state of the science review. Sci. Total Environ. 831, 154793 (2022).
Evers, D. C., Keane, S. E., Basu, N. & Buck, D. Evaluating the effectiveness of the Minamata Convention on Mercury: Principles and recommendations for next steps. Sci. Total Environ. 569–570, 888–903 (2016).
Amos, H. M., Jacob, D. J., Streets, D. G. & Sunderland, E. M. Legacy impacts of all-time anthropogenic emissions on the global mercury cycle. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 27, 410–421 (2013).
Angot, H. et al. Global and Local Impacts of Delayed Mercury Mitigation Efforts. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 12968–12977 (2018).
Guidance on monitoring mercury and mercury compounds to support the effectiveness evaluation of the Minamata Convention | Minamata Convention on Mercury. https://www.mercuryconvention.org/en/documents/guidance-monitoring-mercury-and-mercury-compounds-support-effectiveness-evaluation-0 (2021).
Gustin, M. S. et al. Do we understand what the mercury speciation instruments are actually measuring? Results of RAMIX. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 7295–7306 (2013).
Sprovieri, F. et al. Atmospheric mercury concentrations observed at ground-based monitoring sites globally distributed in the framework of the GMOS network. Atmos Chem Phys 16, 11915–11935 (2016).
Schneider, L. et al. A synthesis of mercury research in the Southern Hemisphere, part 1: Natural processes. Ambio https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01832-5 (2023).
Fisher, J. A. et al. A synthesis of mercury research in the Southern Hemisphere, part 2: Anthropogenic perturbations. Ambio https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01840-5 (2023).
Angot, H., Barret, M., Magand, O., Ramonet, M. & Dommergue, A. A 2-year record of atmospheric mercury species at a background Southern Hemisphere station on Amsterdam Island. Atmos Chem Phys 14, 11461–11473 (2014).
Baboukas, E., Sciare, J. & Mihalopoulos, N. Spatial, Temporal and Interannual Variability of Methanesulfonate and Non-Sea-Salt Sulfate in Rainwater in the Southern Indian Ocean (Amsterdam, Crozet and Kerguelen Islands). J. Atmospheric Chem. 48, 35–57 (2004).
Slemr, F. et al. Comparison of mercury concentrations measured at several sites in the Southern Hemisphere. Atmos Chem Phys 15, 3125–3133 (2015).
Slemr, F. et al. Atmospheric mercury in the Southern Hemisphere – Part 1: Trend and inter-annual variations in atmospheric mercury at Cape Point, South Africa, in 2007–2017, and on Amsterdam Island in 2012–2017. Atmospheric Chem. Phys. 20, 7683–7692 (2020).
Li, C. et al. A peat core Hg stable isotope reconstruction of Holocene atmospheric Hg deposition at Amsterdam Island (37.8oS). Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2022.11.024 (2022).
Gaudry, A., Ascencio, J. M. & Lambert, G. Preliminary study of CO2 variations at Amsterdam Island (Territoire des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Francaises. ). J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 88, 1323–1329 (1983).
Gros, V., Poisson, N., Martin, D., Kanakidou, M. & Bonsang, B. Observations and modeling of the seasonal variation of surface ozone at Amsterdam Island: 1994–1996. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 28.103–109 (1998).
Gros, V., Bonsang, B., Martin, D. & Novelli, P. C. Carbon monoxide short term measurements at Amsterdam Island: estimation of biomass burning rates. Chemosphere Glob. Change Sci 1, 163–172 (1999).
Sciare, J., Baboukas, E., Hancy, R., Mihalopoulos, N. & Nguyen, B. C. Seasonal Variation of Dimethylsulfoxide in Rainwater at Amsterdam Island in the Southern Indian Ocean: Implications on the Biogenic Sulfur Cycle. J. Atmospheric Chem. 30, 229–240 (1998).
Sciare, J., Kanakidou, M. & Mihalopoulos, N. Diurnal and seasonal variation of atmospheric dimethylsulfoxide at Amsterdam Island in the southern Indian Ocean. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres 105, 17257–17265 (2000).
Sciare, J., Mihalopoulos, N. & Baboukas, E. Short-term variations of dimethylsulfide and its oxidation products at Amsterdam Island during summer time. J. Atmospheric Chem. 39, 281–302 (2001).
Sciare, J. et al. Long-term observations of carbonaceous aerosols in the austral ocean atmosphere: evidence of a biogenic marine organic source. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D15302 (2009).
Sprovieri, F. et al. Five-year records of mercury wet deposition flux at GMOS sites in the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Atmos Chem Phys 17, 2689–2708 (2017).
El Yazidi, A. et al. Identification of spikes associated with local sources in continuous time series of atmospheric CO, CO2 and CH4. Atmospheric Meas. Tech. 11, 1599–1614 (2018).
Hoang, C. et al. Probing the limits of sampling gaseous elemental mercury passively in the remote atmosphere. Environ. Sci. Atmospheres https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EA00119E (2023).
Tassone, A. et al. Seven-year monitoring of mercury in wet precipitation and atmosphere at the Amsterdam Island GMOS station. Heliyon 9(3), e14608 (2023).
Moody, J. L. et al. Precipitation composition and its variability in the southern indian ocean: amsterdam island, 1980–1987. J. Geophys. Res. 96, 20,769–20,786 (1991).
McLagan, D. S. et al. A High-Precision Passive Air Sampler for Gaseous Mercury. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 3, 24–29 (2016).
McLagan, D. et al. Global evaluation and calibration of a passive air sampler for gaseous mercury. Atmospheric Chem. Phys. 18, 5905–5919 (2018).
McLagan, D. S., Huang, H., Lei, Y. D., Wania, F. & Mitchell, C. P. J. Application of sodium carbonate prevents sulphur poisoning of catalysts in automated total mercury analysis. Spectrochim. Acta Part B At. Spectrosc. 133, 60–62 (2017).
McLagan, D. S., Mazur, M. E. E., Mitchell, C. P. J. & Wania, F. Passive air sampling of gaseous elemental mercury: a critical review. Atmospheric Chem. Phys. 16, 3061–3076 (2016).
Angot, H. et al. Chemical cycling and deposition of atmospheric mercury in polar regions: review of recent measurements and comparison with models. Atmospheric Chem. Phys. 16, 10735–10763 (2016).
Gay, D. A. et al. The Atmospheric Mercury Network: measurement and initial examination of an ongoing atmospheric mercury record across North America. Atmos Chem Phys 13, 11339–11349 (2013).
Fitzgerald, W. F. & Gill, G. A. Subnanogram determination of mercury by two-stage gold amalgamation and gas detection applied to atmospheric analysis. Anal. Chem. 51, 1714–1720 (1979).
Bloom, N. S. & Fitzgerald, W. F. Determination of volatile mercury species at the picogram level by low temperature gas chromatography with cold-vapor atomic fluorescence detection. Anal. Chim. Acta 208, 151–161 (1988).
Swartzendruber, P. C., Jaffe, D. A. & Finley, B. Improved fluorescence peak integration in the Tekran 2537 for applications with sub-optimal sample loadings. Atmos. Environ. 43, 3648–3651 (2009).
Ambrose, J. L. Improved methods for signal processing in measurements of mercury by Tekran® 2537A and 2537B instruments. Atmos Meas Tech 10, 5063–5073 (2017).
Miller, M. B., Dunham-Cheatham, S. M., Gustin, M. S. & Edwards, G. C. Evaluation of cation exchange membrane performance under exposure to high Hg0 and HgBr2 concentrations. Atmospheric. Meas. Tech. 12, 1207–1217 (2019).
Dumarey, R., Temmerman, E., Dams, R. & Hoste, J. The accuracy of the vapour injection calibration method for the determination of mercury by amalgamation/cold vapour atomic spectrometry. Anal. Chim. Acta 170, 337–340 (1985).
Steffen, A., Scherz, T., Oslon, M., Gay, D. A. & Blanchard, P. A comparison of data quality control protocols for atmospheric mercury speciation measurements. J. Environ. Monit. 14, 752–765 (2012).
McLagan, D. S. et al. The effects of meteorological parameters and diffusive barrier reuse on the sampling rate of a passive air sampler for gaseous mercury. Atmospheric Meas. Tech. 10, 3651–3660 (2017).
McLagan, D. et al. Identifying and evaluating urban mercury emission sources through passive sampler-based mapping of atmospheric concentrations. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 074008 (2018).
McLagan, D. S. et al. Characterization and Quantification of Atmospheric Mercury Sources Using Passive Air Samplers. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres 124, 2351–2362 (2019).
McLagan, D. S., Osterwalder, S. & Biester, H. Temporal and spatial assessment of gaseous elemental mercury concentrations and emissions at contaminated sites using active and passive measurements. Environ. Res. Commun. 3, 051004 (2021).
Wohlgemuth, L., McLagan, D., Flückiger, B., Vienneau, D. & Osterwalder, S. Concurrently Measured Concentrations of Atmospheric Mercury in Indoor (household) and Outdoor Air of Basel, Switzerland. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 7, 234–239 (2020).
Si, M. et al. Measurement of atmospheric mercury over volcanic and fumarolic regions on the north island of New Zealand using passive air samplers. ACS Earth Space Chem. 4(12), 2435–2443, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.0c00274.s001 (2020).
Naccarato, A. et al. A field intercomparison of three passive air samplers for gaseous mercury in ambient air. Atmospheric Meas. Tech. 14, 3657–3672 (2021).
Landis, M. S., Stevens, R. K., Schaedlich, F. & Prestbo, E. M. Development and Characterization of an Annular Denuder Methodology for the Measurement of Divalent Inorganic Reactive Gaseous Mercury in Ambient Air. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36, 3000–3009 (2002).
Wang, F. et al. Enhanced production of oxidised mercury over the tropical Pacific Ocean: a key missing oxidation pathway. Atmospheric Chem. Phys. 14, 1323–1335 (2014).
Gustin, M. S., Amos, H. M., Huang, J., Miller, M. B. & Heidecorn, K. Measuring and modeling mercury in the atmosphere: a critical review. Atmos Chem Phys 15, 5697–5713 (2015).
Gustin, M. S., Dunham-Cheatham, S. M., Huang, J., Lindberg, S. & Lyman, S. N. Development of an Understanding of Reactive Mercury in Ambient Air: A Review. Atmosphere 12, 73 (2021).
Dunham-Cheatham, S. M., Lyman, S. & Gustin, M. S. Evaluation of sorption surface materials for reactive mercury compounds. Atmos. Environ. 242, 117836 (2020).
Huang, J., Miller, M. B., Weiss-Penzias, P. & Gustin, M. S. Comparison of Gaseous Oxidized Hg Measured by KCl-Coated Denuders, and Nylon and Cation Exchange Membranes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 7307–7316 (2013).
Huang, J. & Gustin, M. S. Uncertainties of gaseous oxidized mercury measurements using KCl-coated denuders, cation-exchange membranes, and nylon membranes: humidity influences. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49(10), 6102–6108 (2015).
Lyman, S. et al. Automated Calibration of Atmospheric Oxidized Mercury Measurements. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 12921–12927 (2016).
Marusczak, N., Sonke, J. E., Fu, X. & Jiskra, M. Tropospheric GOM at the Pic du Midi Observatory—Correcting Bias in Denuder Based Observations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51(2), 863–869, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04999 (2017).
Koenig, A. M. et al. Mercury in the free troposphere and bidirectional atmosphere–vegetation exchanges – insights from Maïdo mountain observatory in the Southern Hemisphere tropics. Atmospheric Chem. Phys. 23, 1309–1328 (2023).
Tassone, A. et al. Modification of the EPA method 1631E for the quantification of total mercury in natural waters. MethodsX 7, 100987 (2020).
United States Environment Protection Agency, Method 1631, Revison E: Mercury in water by oxidation, purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry. Report No. EPA-821-R-02-019 (2002).
Munthe, J., Sprovieri, F., Horvat, M. & Ebinghaus, R. SOPs and QA/QC protocols regarding measurements of TGM, GEM, RGM, TPM and mercury in precipitation in cooperation with WP3, WP4 and WP5. GMOS deliverable 6.1, CNR-IIA, IVL. http://www.gmos.eu, last access: 3 March 2014. (2011).
Angot, H., Dommergue, A., Magand, O. & Bertrand, Y. Continuous measurements of atmospheric mercury at Amsterdam Island (L1). AERIS https://doi.org/10.25326/345#v1.0 (2023).
Angot, H., Dommergue, A., Magand, O. & Bertrand, Y. Continuous measurements of atmospheric mercury at Amsterdam Island (L2). AERIS https://doi.org/10.25326/168#v1.0 (2023).
Angot, H., Dommergue, A., Magand, O. & Bertrand, Y. Discrete measurements of atmospheric elemental mercury at Amsterdam Island (L1). AERIS https://doi.org/10.25326/489#v1.0 (2023).
Angot, H., Dommergue, A., Magand, O. & Bertrand, Y. Discrete measurements of atmospheric reactive mercury at Amsterdam Island (L1). AERIS https://doi.org/10.25326/488#v1.0 (2023).
Angot, H., Dommergue, A., Magand, O. & Bertrand, Y. Total mercury wet deposition fluxes at Amsterdam Island (L2). AERIS https://doi.org/10.25326/487#v1.0 (2023).
D’Amore, F., Bencardino, M., Cinnirella, S., Sprovieri, F. & Pirrone, N. Data quality through a web-based QA/QC system: implementation for atmospheric mercury data from the global mercury observation system. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 17, 1482–1491 (2015).
Magand, O., Boulanger, D. & Dommergue, A. GMOS-FR (Global Mercury Observation System – FRance) Research Data Management Plan for Atmospheric Mercury datasets. Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7406251 (2022).
Global Atmospheric Watch. Guidelines for continuous measurements of ozone in the troposphere. 82 https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=7814 (2013).
Lyman, S. N., Jaffe, D. A. & Gustin, M. S. Release of mercury halides from KCl denuders in the presence of ozone. Atmospheric Chem. Phys. 10, 8197–8204 (2010).
Ambrose, J., Lyman, S., Huang, J., Gustin, M. S. & Jaffe, D. A. Fast time resolution oxidized mercury measurements during the Reno atmospheric mercury intercomparison experiment (RAMIX). Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 7285–7294 (2013).
Jaffe, D. A. et al. Progress on understanding atmospheric mercury hampered by uncertain measurements. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 7204–7206 (2014).
Acknowledgements
We deeply thank the overwintering staff for their tremendous work (Boris Bouillard and Erwan Coz in 2012, Matthieu Le Dréau and Alice Croguennoc in 2013, Vincent Lucaire and Jeoffrey Chastaing in 2014, Joyce Marais and Nicolas Joly in 2015, Isabelle Jouvie in 2016, Marine de Florinier in 2017, Yann Bertrand in 2018, Elisabeth Logeais in 2019, Laura Noël in 2020, Sophia Laporte in 2021, Solène Duperray in 2022, and Virgile Legendre in 2023), Manuel Barret for his help with the initial setup, the French Polar Institute Paul-Emile Victor (IPEV) (https://institut-polaire.fr/) and Terres Australes et Antarctique Françaises (TAAF) (https://taaf.fr/) technical teams who contributed to the setup and maintenance of our Hg instruments under the framework of the GMOStral-1028 IPEV program and made this endeavour possible. We also warmly thank our national and international partners and colleagues who contributed to this effort: Antonella Tassone, Attilio Naccarato, Francesca Sprovieri, and Nicola Pirrone (IIA-CNR, Italy) for the analysis of THg in precipitation samples, Frank Wania, Ying Duan, and Christopher Hoang (University of Toronto, Canada) for the analysis of MerPAS samples, as well as Stefan Osterwalder, Beatriz F. Arraujo, and Alkuin Koenig for their help with the chemical analysis of PES-CEMs. We would also like to thank the French national centre for Atmospheric data and services AERIS (https://www.aeris-data.fr/) for the maintenance of the GMOS-FR data portal. Our monitoring activities at Amsterdam Island were made possible thanks to the financial support of the European Union 7th Framework Programme project Global Mercury Observation System (GMOS 2010–2015 Nr. 26511), the French Polar Institute IPEV via the GMOStral-1028 IPEV programme since 2012, the LEFE CHAT CNRS/INSU, and the H2020 ERA-PLANET (Nr. 689443) iGOSP programme.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A.D. and O.M. initiated the long-term monitoring effort at Amsterdam Island and secured funding over the years. Y.B., O.M. and H.A. led the in situ monitoring activities and performed the annual on-site visits for maintenance operations. O.M., Y.B. and H.A. performed the data processing. L.L., S.D., L.C., J.E.S. and O.M. conducted RM analysis and associated data treatment for discrete samples. D.B. managed the GMOS-FR AERIS platform. O.M. and H.A. wrote the manuscript with contributions from all co-authors.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Magand, O., Angot, H., Bertrand, Y. et al. Over a decade of atmospheric mercury monitoring at Amsterdam Island in the French Southern and Antarctic Lands. Sci Data 10, 836 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02740-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02740-9
- Springer Nature Limited