Frank A. Chambers

Abstract

This work assessed the usefulness of a current air quality model (American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model [AERMOD]) for predicting air concentrations and deposition of perfluorooctanoate (PFO) near a manufacturing facility. Air quality models play an important role in providing information for verifying permitting conditions and for exposure assessment purposes. It is important to ensure traditional modeling approaches are applicable to perfluorinated compounds, which are known to have unusual properties. Measured field data were compared with modeling predictions to show that AERMOD adequately located the maximum air concentration in the study area, provided representative or conservative air concentration estimates, and demonstrated bias and scatter not significantly different than that reported for other compounds. Surface soil/grass concentrations resulting from modeled deposition flux also showed acceptable bias and scatter compared with measured concentrations of PFO in soil/grass samples. Errors in predictions of air concentrations or deposition may be best explained by meteorological input uncertainty and conservatism in the PRIME algorithm used to account for building downwash. In general, AERMOD was found to be a useful screening tool for modeling the dispersion and deposition of PFO in air near a manufacturing facility.     

Development and Evaluation of the PRIME Plume Rise and Building Downwash Model

ABSTRACT

A new Gaussian dispersion model, the Plume Rise Model Enhancements (PRIME), has been developed for plume rise and building downwash. PRIME considers the position of the stack relative to the building, streamline deflection near the building, and vertical wind speed shear and velocity deficit effects on plume rise. Within the wake created by a sharp-edged, rectangular building, PRIME explicitly calculates fields of turbulence intensity, wind speed, and streamline slope, which gradually decay to ambient values downwind of the building. The plume trajectory within these modified fields is estimated using a numerical plume rise model. A probability density function and an eddy diffusivity scheme are used for dispersion in the wake. A cavity module calculates the fraction of plume mass captured by and recirculated within the near wake. The captured plume is re-emitted to the far wake as a volume source and added to the uncaptured primary plume contribution to obtain the far wake concentrations.

The modeling procedures currently recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), using SCREEN and the Industrial Source Complex model (ISC), do not include these features. PRIME also avoids the discontinuities resulting from the different downwash modules within the current models and the reported overpredictions during light-wind speed, stable conditions. PRIME is intended for use in regulatory models. It was evaluated using data from a power plant measurement program, a tracer field study for a combustion turbine, and several wind-tunnel studies. PRIME performed as well as or better than ISC/SCREEN for nearly all of the comparisons.     

Development and evaluation of the PRIME plume rise and building downwash model

A new Gaussian dispersion model, the Plume Rise Model Enhancements (PRIME), has been developed for plume rise and building downwash. PRIME considers the position of the stack relative to the building, streamline deflection near the building, and vertical wind speed shear and velocity deficit effects on plume rise. Within the wake created by a sharp-edged, rectangular building, PRIME explicitly calculates fields of turbulence intensity, wind speed, and streamline slope, which gradually decay to ambient values downwind of the building. The plume trajectory within these modified fields is estimated using a numerical plume rise model. A probability density function and an eddy diffusivity scheme are used for dispersion in the wake. A cavity module calculates the fraction of plume mass captured by and recirculated within the near wake. The captured plume is re-emitted to the far wake as a volume source and added to the uncaptured primary plume contribution to obtain the far wake concentrations. The modeling procedures currently recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), using SCREEN and the Industrial Source Complex model (ISC), do not include these features. PRIME also avoids the discontinuities resulting from the different downwash modules within the current models and the reported overpredictions during light-wind speed, stable conditions. PRIME is intended for use in regulatory models. It was evaluated using data from a power plant measurement program, a tracer field study for a combustion turbine, and several wind-tunnel studies. PRIME performed as well as or better than ISC/SCREEN for nearly all of the comparisons.     

Evaluating the use of outputs from comprehensive meteorological models in air quality modeling applications

Currently used dispersion models, such as the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), process routinely available meteorological observations to construct model inputs. Thus, model estimates of concentrations depend on the availability and quality of meteorological observations, as well as the specification of surface characteristics at the observing site. We can be less reliant on these meteorological observations by using outputs from prognostic models, which are routinely run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The forecast fields are available daily over a grid system that covers all of the United States. These model outputs can be readily accessed and used for dispersion applications to construct model inputs with little processing. This study examines the usefulness of these outputs through the relative performance of a dispersion model that has input requirements similar to those of AERMOD. The dispersion model was used to simulate observed tracer concentrations from a Tracer Field Study conducted in Wilmington, California in 2004 using four different sources of inputs: (1) onsite measurements; (2) National Weather Service measurements from a nearby airport; (3) readily available forecast model outputs from the Eta Model; and (4) readily available and more spatially resolved forecast model outputs from the MM5 prognostic model. The comparison of the results from these simulations indicate that comprehensive models, such as MM5 and Eta, have the potential of providing adequate meteorological inputs for currently used short-range dispersion models such as AERMOD.     

Comparison of the complex terrain algorithms incorporated into two commonly used local-scale air pollution dispersion models (ADMS and AERMOD) using a hybrid model

ADMS and AERMOD are the two most widely used dispersion models for regulatory purposes. It is, therefore, important to understand the differences in the predictions of the models and the causes of these differences. The treatment by the models of flat terrain has been discussed previously; in this paper the focus is on their treatment of complex terrain. The paper includes a discussion of the impacts of complex terrain on airflow and dispersion and how these are treated in ADMS and AERMOD, followed by calculations for two distinct cases: (i) sources above a deep valley within a relatively flat plateau area (Clifty Creek power station, USA); (ii) sources in a valley in hilly terrain where the terrain rises well above the stack tops (Ribblesdale cement works, England). In both cases the model predictions are markedly different. At Clifty Creek, ADMS suggests that the terrain markedly increases maximum surface concentrations, whereas the AERMOD complex terrain module has little impact. At Ribblesdale, AERMOD predicts very large increases (a factor of 18) in the maximum hourly average surface concentrations due to plume impaction onto the neighboring hill; although plume impaction is predicted by ADMS, the increases in concentration are much less marked as the airflow model in ADMS predicts some lateral deviation of the streamlines around the hill.     

Sensitivity of two dispersion models (AERMOD and ISCST3) to input parameters for a rural ground-level area source

As of December 2006, the American Meteorological Society/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulatory Model with Plume Rise Model Enhancements (AERMOD-PRIME; hereafter AERMOD) replaced the Industrial Source Complex Short Term Version 3 (ISCST3) as the EPA-preferred regulatory model. The change from ISCST3 to AERMOD will affect Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increment consumption as well as permit compliance in states where regulatory agencies limit property line concentrations using modeling analysis. Because of differences in model formulation and the treatment of terrain features, one cannot predict a priori whether ISCST3 or AERMOD will predict higher or lower pollutant concentrations downwind of a source. The objectives of this paper were to determine the sensitivity of AERMOD to various inputs and compare the highest downwind concentrations from a ground-level area source (GLAS) predicted by AERMOD to those predicted by ISCST3. Concentrations predicted using ISCST3 were sensitive to changes in wind speed, temperature, solar radiation (as it affects stability class), and mixing heights below 160 m. Surface roughness also affected downwind concentrations predicted by ISCST3. AERMOD was sensitive to changes in albedo, surface roughness, wind speed, temperature, and cloud cover. Bowen ratio did not affect the results from AERMOD. These results demonstrate AERMOD's sensitivity to small changes in wind speed and surface roughness. When AERMOD is used to determine property line concentrations, small changes in these variables may affect the distance within which concentration limits are exceeded by several hundred meters.     

Critical review of the building downwash algorithms in AERMOD

The only documentation on the building downwash algorithm in AERMOD (American Meteorological Society/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model), referred to as PRIME (Plume Rise Model Enhancements), is found in the 2000 A&WMA journal article by Schulman, Strimaitis and Scire. Recent field and wind tunnel studies have shown that AERMOD can overpredict concentrations by factors of 2 to 8 for certain building configurations. While a wind tunnel equivalent building dimension study (EBD) can be conducted to approximately correct the overprediction bias, past field and wind tunnel studies indicate that there are notable flaws in the PRIME building downwash theory. A detailed review of the theory supported by CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) and wind tunnel simulations of flow over simple rectangular buildings revealed the following serious theoretical flaws: enhanced turbulence in the building wake starting at the wrong longitudinal location; constant enhanced turbulence extending up to the wake height; constant initial enhanced turbulence in the building wake (does not vary with roughness or stability); discontinuities in the streamline calculations; and no method to account for streamlined or porous structures.

Implications: This paper documents theoretical and other problems in PRIME along with CFD simulations and wind tunnel observations that support these findings. Although AERMOD/PRIME may provide accurate and unbiased estimates (within a factor of 2) for some building configurations, a major review and update is needed so that accurate estimates can be obtained for other building configurations where significant overpredictions or underpredictions are common due to downwash effects. This will ensure that regulatory evaluations subject to dispersion modeling requirements can be based on an accurate model. Thus, it is imperative that the downwash theory in PRIME is corrected to improve model performance and ensure that the model better represents reality.     

Coupling of the Weather Research and Forecasting Model with AERMOD for pollutant dispersion modeling. A case study for PM10 dispersion over Pune,India

The prediction of spatial variation of the concentration of a pollutant governed by various sources and sinks is a complex problem. Gaussian air pollutant dispersion models such as AERMOD of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) can be used for this purpose. AERMOD requires steady and horizontally homogeneous hourly surface and upper air meteorological observations. However, observations with such frequency are not easily available for most locations in India. To overcome this limitation, the planetary boundary layer and surface layer parameters required by AERMOD were computed using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model (version 2.1.1) developed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). We have developed a preprocessor for offline coupling of WRF with AERMOD. Using this system, the dispersion of respirable particulate matter (RSPM/PM10) over Pune, India has been simulated. Data from the emissions inventory development and field-monitoring campaign (13–17 April 2005) conducted under the Pune Air Quality Management Program of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), India and USEPA, have been used to drive and validate AERMOD. Comparison between the simulated and observed temperature and wind fields shows that WRF is capable of generating reliable meteorological inputs for AERMOD. The comparison of observed and simulated concentrations of PM10 shows that the model generally underestimates the concentrations over the city. However, data from this single case study would not be sufficient to conclude on suitability of regionally averaged meteorological parameters for driving Gaussian models like AERMOD and additional simulations with different WRF parameterizations along with an improved pollutant source data will be required for enhancing the reliability of the WRF–AERMOD modeling system.     

Pseudo-source parameters for flares: Derivation,implementation, and comparison

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) flare pseudo-source parameters are over 30 years old and few dispersion modellers understand their basis and underlying assumptions. The calculation of plume rise from the user inputs of pseudo-stack diameter, temperature and velocity have the most influence on air dispersion model predictions of ground-level concentrations. Regulatory jurisdictions across Canada, the United States and around the world have adopted their own approach to pseudo-source parameters for flares; all relate buoyancy flux to the heat release rate, none consider momentum flux and flare tip downwash as adopted by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). This paper derives the plume buoyancy flux for flares burning a gas in terms of combustion variables readily known or calculated without simplifying assumptions. Dispersion model prediction sensitivity to flared gas composition, temperature and velocity, and ambient conditions are now correctly handled by the AER approach. The AER flare pseudo-source parameters are based on both the buoyancy and momentum flux, thus conserving energy and momentum. The AER approach to calculate the effective source height for flares during varying wind speeds is compared to the US EPA approach. Instead of a constant source for all meteorological conditions, multiple co-located sources with varying effective stack height and diameter are used. AERMOD is run with the no stack tip downwash option as flare stack tip downwash is accounted for in the effective stack height rather than the AERMOD model calculating the downwash incorrectly using the pseudo-source parameters. The modelling approaches are compared for an example flare. Maximum ground level predictions change, generally increasing near the source and decreasing further away, with the AER flare pseudo-source parameters. It's time to update how we model flares.

Implications: What are the implications of continuing to model flare source parameters using the overly simplified US EPA approach? First, the regulators perpetuate the myths that the flare source height, temperature, diameter and velocity are constant for all wind speeds and ambient temperatures. Second, that it is acceptable to make simplifying assumptions that violate the conservation of momentum and energy principles for the sake of convenience. Finally, regulatory decisions based on simplified source modelling result in predictions that are not conservative (or realistic). The AER regulatory approach for flare source parameters overcomes all of these shortcomings. AERflare is a publicly available spreadsheet that provides the “correct” inputs to AERMOD.     

AERCOARE: An overwater meteorological preprocessor for AERMOD

AERCOARE is a meteorological data preprocessor for the American Meteorological Society and U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulatory Model (AERMOD). AERCOARE includes algorithms developed during the Coupled-Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment (COARE) to predict surface energy fluxes and stability from routine overwater measurements. The COARE algorithm is described and the implementation in AERCOARE is presented. Model performance for the combined AERCOARE-AERMOD modeling approach was evaluated against tracer measurements from four overwater field studies. Relatively better model performance was found when lateral turbulence measurements were available and when several key input variables to AERMOD were constrained. Namely, requiring the mixed layer height to be greater than 25 m and not allowing the Monin Obukhov length to be less than 5 m improved model performance in low wind speed stable conditions. Several options for low wind speed dispersion in AERMOD also affected the model performance results. Model performance for the combined AERCOARE-AERMOD modeling approach was found to be comparable to the current EPA regulatory Offshore Coastal Model (OCD) for the same tracer studies. AERCOARE-AERMOD predictions were also compared to simulations using the California Puff-Advection Model (CALPUFF) that also includes the COARE algorithm. Many model performance measures were found to be similar, but CALPUFF had significantly less scatter and better performance for one of the four field studies. For many offshore regulatory applications, the combined AERCOARE-AERMOD modeling approach was found to be a viable alternative to OCD the currently recommended model.

Implications: A new meteorological preprocessor called AERCOARE was developed for offshore source dispersion modeling using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory model AERMOD. The combined AERCOARE-AERMOD modeling approach allows stakeholders to use the same dispersion model for both offshore and onshore applications. This approach could replace current regulatory practices involving two completely different modeling systems. As improvements and features are added to the dispersion model component, AERMOD, such techniques can now also be applied to offshore air quality permitting.     

A hybrid modeling approach to resolve pollutant concentrations in an urban area

A modeling tool that can resolve contributions from individual sources to the urban environment is critical for air-toxics exposure assessments. Air toxics are often chemically reactive and may have background concentrations originated from distant sources. Grid models are the best-suited tools to handle the regional features of these chemicals. However, these models are not designed to resolve pollutant concentrations on local scales. Moreover, for many species of interest, having reaction time scales that are longer than the travel time across an urban area, chemical reactions can be ignored in describing local dispersion from strong individual sources making Lagrangian and plume-dispersion models practical. In this study, we test the feasibility of developing an urban hybrid simulation system. In this combination, the Community Multi-scale Air Quality model (CMAQ) provides the regional background concentrations and urban-scale photochemistry, and local models such as Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory model (HYSPLIT) and AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) provide the more spatially resolved concentrations due to local emission sources. In the initial application, the HYSPLIT, AERMOD, and CMAQ models are used in combination to calculate high-resolution benzene concentrations in the Houston area. The study period is from 18 August to 4 September of 2000. The Mesoscale Model 5 (MM5) is used to create meteorological fields with a horizontal resolution of 1×1 km². In another variation to this approach, multiple HYSPLIT simulations are used to create a concentration ensemble to estimate the contribution to the concentration variability from point sources. HYSPLIT simulations are used to model two sources of concentration variability; one due to variability created by different particle trajectory pathways in the turbulent atmosphere and the other due to different flow regimes that might be introduced when using gridded data to represent meteorological data fields. The ensemble mean concentrations determined by HYSPLIT plus the concentrations estimated by AERMOD are added to the CMAQ calculated background to estimate the total mean benzene concentration. These estimated hourly mean concentrations are also compared with available field measurements.     

Modeling Emissions from Elevated Cylindrical Bins

Abstract

This paper demonstrates how wind tunnel modeling data that accurately describe plume characteristics near an unconventional emission source can be used to improve the near-field downwind plume profiles predicted by conventional air pollution dispersion models. The study considers a vertical, cylindrical-shaped, elevated bin similar to large product storage bins that can be found at many industrial plant sites. Two dispersion models are considered: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ISC2(ST) model and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy's GAS model. The wind tunnel study showed that plume behavior was contrary to what was predicted using conventional dispersion models such as ISC2(ST) and GAS and default values of input parameters. The wind tunnel data were used to develop a protocol for correcting the dispersion models inputs, resulting in a substantial improvement in the accuracy of the dispersion estimates.     

Algorithms and analytical solutions for rapidly approximating long-term dispersion from line and area sources

Predicting long-term mean pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of airports, roads and other industrial sources are frequently of concern in regulatory and public health contexts. Many emissions are represented geometrically as ground-level line or area sources. Well developed modelling tools such as AERMOD and ADMS are able to model dispersion from finite (i.e. non-point) sources with considerable accuracy, drawing upon an up-to-date understanding of boundary layer behaviour. Due to mathematical difficulties associated with line and area sources, computationally expensive numerical integration schemes have been developed. For example, some models decompose area sources into a large number of line sources orthogonal to the mean wind direction, for which an analytical (Gaussian) solution exists. Models also employ a time-series approach, which involves computing mean pollutant concentrations for every hour over one or more years of meteorological data. This can give rise to computer runtimes of several days for assessment of a site. While this may be acceptable for assessment of a single industrial complex, airport, etc., this level of computational cost precludes national or international policy assessments at the level of detail available with dispersion modelling. In this paper, we extend previous work [S.R.H. Barrett, R.E. Britter, 2008. Development of algorithms and approximations for rapid operational air quality modelling. Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 8105–8111] to line and area sources. We introduce approximations which allow for the development of new analytical solutions for long-term mean dispersion from line and area sources, based on hypergeometric functions. We describe how these solutions can be parameterized from a single point source run from an existing advanced dispersion model, thereby accounting for all processes modelled in the more costly algorithms. The parameterization method combined with the analytical solutions for long-term mean dispersion are shown to produce results several orders of magnitude more efficiently with a loss of accuracy small compared to the absolute accuracy of advanced dispersion models near sources. The method can be readily incorporated into existing dispersion models, and may allow for additional computation time to be expended on modelling dispersion processes more accurately in future, rather than on accounting for source geometry.     

A Comparison of Model Performance between AERMOD and AUSTAL2000

ABSTRACT

In this study the performance of the American Meteorological Society and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD), a Gaussian plume model, is compared in five test cases with the German Dispersion Model according to the Technical Instructions on Air Quality Control (Ausbreitungsmodell gemäβ der Technischen Anleitung zur Reinhaltung der Luft) (AUSTAL2000), a Lagrangian model. The test cases include different source types, rural and urban conditions, flat and complex terrain. The predicted concentrations are analyzed and compared with field data. For evaluation, quantile-quantile plots were used. Further, a performance measure is applied that refers to the upper end of concentration levels because this is the concentration range of utmost importance and interest for regulatory purposes. AERMOD generally predicted concentrations closer to the field observations. AERMOD and AUSTAL2000 performed considerably better when they included the emitting power plant building, indicating that the downwash effect near a source is an important factor. Although AERMOD handled mountainous terrain well, AUSTAL2000 significantly underestimated the concentrations under these conditions. In the urban test case AUSTAL2000 did not perform satisfactorily. This may be because AUSTAL2000, in contrast to AERMOD, does not use any algorithm for nightly turbulence as caused by the urban heat island effect. Both models performed acceptable for a nonbuoyant volume source. AUSTAL2000 had difficulties in stable conditions, resulting in severe underpredictions. This analysis indicates that AERMOD is the stronger model compared with AUSTAL2000 in cases with complex and urban terrain. The reasons for that seem to be AUSTAL2000's simplification of the meteorological input parameters and imprecision because of rounding errors.

IMPLICATIONS This study contributes to the understanding of dispersion modeling and demonstrates the advantage of detailed meteorological data. It also helps air quality regulators and planners to identify the most appropriate model to use. It is indicated that AERMOD is more suitable for air quality planning and regulation, when all required meteorological information is available, because its predictions are mostly closer to field observations. Furthermore AUSTAL2000 predicted concentrations that showed a narrow range and triggered far less impacts from the source.     

Soil Suspension/Dispersion Modeling Methods for Estimating Health-Based Soil Cleanup Levels of Hexavalent Chromium at Chromite Ore Processing Residue Sites

Abstract

The primary health concern associated with exposures to chromite ore processing residue (COPR)-affected soils is inhalation of hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)] particulates. Site-specific soil alternative remediation standards (ARSs) are set using soil suspension and dispersion models to be protective of the theoretical excess cancer risk associated with inhalation of soil suspended by vehicle traffic and wind. The purpose of this study was to update a previous model comparison study that identified the 1995 AP-42 particulate emission model for vehicle traffic over un-paved roads and the Fugitive Dust Model (FDM) as the most appropriate model combination for estimating site-specific ARSs. Because the AP-42 model has been revised, we have updated our past evaluation. Specifically, the 2006 AP-42 particulate emissions model; the Industrial Source Complex–Short Term model, version 3 (ISCST3); and the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) air dispersion models were evaluated, and the results were compared with those from the previously used modeling approaches. Two sites with and two sites without vehicle traffic were evaluated to determine if wind erosion is a significant source of emissions. For the two sites with vehicle traffic, both FDM and ISCST3 produced total suspended particulate (TSP) estimates that were, on average, within a factor of 2 of measured; whereas AERMOD produced estimates that were as much as 5-fold higher than measured. In general, the estimated TSP concentrations for FDM were higher than those for ISCST3. For airborne Cr(VI), the ISCST3 model produced estimates that were only 2- to 8-fold of the measured concentrations, and both FDM and AERMOD estimated airborne Cr(VI) concentrations that were approximately 4- to 14-fold higher than measured. Results using the 1995 AP-42 model were closer to measured than those from the 2006 AP-42 model. Wind erosion was an insignificant contributor to particulate emissions at COPR sites.     

Soil suspension/dispersion modeling methods for estimating health-based soil cleanup levels of hexavalent chromium at chromite ore processing residue sites

The primary health concern associated with exposures to chromite ore processing residue (COPR)-affected soils is inhalation of hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)] particulates. Site-specific soil alternative remediation standards (ARSs) are set using soil suspension and dispersion models to be protective of the theoretical excess cancer risk associated with inhalation of soil suspended by vehicle traffic and wind. The purpose of this study was to update a previous model comparison study that identified the 1995 AP-42 particulate emission model for vehicle traffic over unpaved roads and the Fugitive Dust Model (FDM) as the most appropriate model combination for estimating site-specific ARSs. Because the AP-42 model has been revised, we have updated our past evaluation. Specifically, the 2006 AP-42 particulate emissions model; the Industrial Source Complex-Short Term model, version 3 (ISCST3); and the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) air dispersion models were evaluated, and the results were compared with those from the previously used modeling approaches. Two sites with and two sites without vehicle traffic were evaluated to determine if wind erosion is a significant source of emissions. For the two sites with vehicle traffic, both FDM and ISCST3 produced total suspended particulate (TSP) estimates that were, on average, within a factor of 2 of measured; whereas AERMOD produced estimates that were as much as 5-fold higher than measured. In general, the estimated TSP concentrations for FDM were higher than those for ISCST3. For airborne Cr(VI), the ISCST3 model produced estimates that were only 2- to 8-fold of the measured concentrations, and both FDM and AERMOD estimated airborne Cr(VI) concentrations that were approximately 4- to 14-fold higher than measured. Results using the 1995 AP-42 model were closer to measured than those from the 2006 AP-42 model. Wind erosion was an insignificant contributor to particulate emissions at COPR sites.     

The role of a steel plant in north-west Italy to the local air concentrations of PCDD/Fs

Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) are ubiquitous contaminants, mainly released into the environment during combustion processes (point sources), but also from other sources (traffic, uncontrolled combustion).This study aims at investigating the contribution of a steel plant in NW Italy (700 000 tons of steel year⁻¹) to the air concentrations of PCDDs/PCDFs at local level, through the analysis of measured, modelled and literature data. The study was carried out in an area of 600 km², using air quality data measured by the institutional monitoring network, data obtained from AERMOD simulations and literature data.The measured air concentrations were consistent with literature values for similar areas, and both the homologue profiles and PCA analyses showed a clear distinction between the monitoring stations and the source profiles.All the previous results were confirmed by the air dispersion model (AERMOD), that predicted PCDD/F air concentrations due to the steel plant from four to two orders of magnitude lower than those measured in the monitoring stations, highlighting the presence of other sources.This study outlines the limited influence of the source in the local PCDD/F air concentrations and at the same time the usefulness of a joint analysis of measured, literature and calculated data to correctly evaluate the role of a source to the local pollution. The study also highlights the usefulness of AERMOD as a complementary tool to define the correct placement of monitoring stations and to locate those areas expected to have the highest air concentrations deriving from a source.     

A Comparative Validation of the RAM and PTMTP Models for Short-Term SO2 Concentrations in Two Urban Areas

A comprehensive and comparative model validation of two EPA models for short-term SO₂ concentrations was performed. The two models tested were RAM (Urban version) and PTMTP (Terrain version). Both are multiple source, multiple receptor gaussian plume models, recommended in the EPA Guideline On Air Quality Models. ¹ The principal difference between the two models is in their use of empirical dispersion coefficients. It was because of the potential for markedly different predicted maximum SO₂ concentrations, and the absence of any testing data on the RAM model, that the validation analysis was undertaken. The current study utilized a full year of air quality data from monitoring sites in two Indiana cities, Michigan City and Indianapolis. Cumulative frequency distributions for each site and model were prepared and comparisons made. The results indicate that the RAM (Urban) model was highly inaccurate in predicting maximum short-term SO₂ concentrations. The PTMTP model, although conservative in its estimates, produces results which more closely resemble the distribution of observed SO₂ concentrations. The body of information presented in this paper is directed to environmental scientists responsible for air quality modeling, and to those persons who set policy on the use of models in air quality studies.