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.     

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.     

Which meteorological conditions produce worst-case odors from area sources?

Two competing meteorological factors influence atmospheric concentrations of pollutants from open liquid area sources such as wastewater treatment plant units: temperature and stability. High temperatures in summer produce greater emissions from liquid area sources because of increased compound volatility; however, these emissions tend to disperse more readily because of frequent occurrence of unstable conditions. An opposite scenario occurs in winter, with lesser emissions due to lower temperatures, but also frequently less dispersion, due to stable atmospheric conditions. The primary objective of this modeling study was thus to determine whether higher atmospheric concentrations from open liquid area sources occur more frequently in summer, when emissions are greater but so is dispersion, or in winter, when emissions are lesser but so is dispersion. The study utilized a rectangular clarifier emitting hydrogen sulfide as a sample open liquid area source. Dispersion modeling runs were conducted using ISCST3 and AERMOD, encompassing 5 yr of hourly meteorological data divided by season. Emission rates were varied hourly on the basis of a curve-fit developed from previously collected field data. Model output for each season was used to determine (1) maximum 2-min average concentrations, (2) the number of odor events (2-min average concentrations greater than odor detection thresholds), and (3) areas of impact. On the basis of these 3 types of output, it was found that the worst-case odors were associated with summer, considering impacts of meteorology upon both emissions and dispersion. Not accounting for the impact of meteorology on emissions (using a constant worst-case emission rate) caused concentrations to be overpredicted compared with a variable emission rate case. The highest concentrations occurred during stability classes D, E, and F, as anticipated. A comparison of ISCST3 and AERMOD found that for the area source modeled, ISCST3 predicted higher concentrations and more odor events for all seasons.     

Near-roadway monitoring of vehicle emissions as a function of mode of operation for light-duty vehicles

Determination of the effect of vehicle emissions on air quality near roadways is important because vehicles are a major source of air pollution. A near-roadway monitoring program was undertaken in Chicago between August 4 and October 30, 2014, to measure ultrafine particles, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, traffic volume and speed, and wind direction and speed. The objective of this study was to develop a method to relate short-term changes in traffic mode of operation to air quality near roadways using data averaged over 5-min intervals to provide a better understanding of the processes controlling air pollution concentrations near roadways. Three different types of data analysis are provided to demonstrate the type of results that can be obtained from a near-roadway sampling program based on 5-min measurements: (1) development of vehicle emission factors (EFs) for ultrafine particles as a function of vehicle mode of operation, (2) comparison of measured and modeled CO₂ concentrations, and (3) application of dispersion models to determine concentrations near roadways. EFs for ultrafine particles are developed that are a function of traffic volume and mode of operation (free flow and congestion) for light-duty vehicles (LDVs) under real-world conditions. Two air quality models—CALINE4 (California Line Source Dispersion Model, version 4) and AERMOD (American Meteorological Society/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model)—are used to predict the ultrafine particulate concentrations near roadways for comparison with measured concentrations. When using CALINE4 to predict air quality levels in the mixing cell, changes in surface roughness and stability class have no effect on the predicted concentrations. However, when using AERMOD to predict air quality in the mixing cell, changes in surface roughness have a significant impact on the predicted concentrations.

Implications: The paper provides emission factors (EFs) that are a function of traffic volume and mode of operation (free flow and congestion) for LDVs under real-world conditions. The good agreement between monitoring and modeling results indicates that high-resolution, simultaneous measurements of air quality and meteorological and traffic conditions can be used to determine real-world, fleet-wide vehicle EFs as a function of vehicle mode of operation under actual driving conditions.     

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.     

Evaluation of low wind modeling approaches for two tall-stack databases

The performance of the AERMOD air dispersion model under low wind speed conditions, especially for applications with only one level of meteorological data and no direct turbulence measurements or vertical temperature gradient observations, is the focus of this study. The analysis documented in this paper addresses evaluations for low wind conditions involving tall stack releases for which multiple years of concurrent emissions, meteorological data, and monitoring data are available. AERMOD was tested on two field-study databases involving several SO₂ monitors and hourly emissions data that had sub-hourly meteorological data (e.g., 10-min averages) available using several technical options: default mode, with various low wind speed beta options, and using the available sub-hourly meteorological data. These field study databases included (1) Mercer County, a North Dakota database featuring five SO₂ monitors within 10 km of the Dakota Gasification Company’s plant and the Antelope Valley Station power plant in an area of both flat and elevated terrain, and (2) a flat-terrain setting database with four SO₂ monitors within 6 km of the Gibson Generating Station in southwest Indiana. Both sites featured regionally representative 10-m meteorological databases, with no significant terrain obstacles between the meteorological site and the emission sources. The low wind beta options show improvement in model performance helping to reduce some of the overprediction biases currently present in AERMOD when run with regulatory default options. The overall findings with the low wind speed testing on these tall stack field-study databases indicate that AERMOD low wind speed options have a minor effect for flat terrain locations, but can have a significant effect for elevated terrain locations. The performance of AERMOD using low wind speed options leads to improved consistency of meteorological conditions associated with the highest observed and predicted concentration events. The available sub-hourly modeling results using the Sub-Hourly AERMOD Run Procedure (SHARP) are relatively unbiased and show that this alternative approach should be seriously considered to address situations dominated by low-wind meander conditions.

Implications: AERMOD was evaluated with two tall stack databases (in North Dakota and Indiana) in areas of both flat and elevated terrain. AERMOD cases included the regulatory default mode, low wind speed beta options, and use of the Sub-Hourly AERMOD Run Procedure (SHARP). The low wind beta options show improvement in model performance (especially in higher terrain areas), helping to reduce some of the overprediction biases currently present in regulatory default AERMOD. The SHARP results are relatively unbiased and show that this approach should be seriously considered to address situations dominated by low-wind meander conditions.     

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.     

Meteorological Considerations in Air Quality Planning

Results from dispersion models which are routinely used for regulatory purposes do not reflect the uncertainties which are Inherent In the input data. To remedy this, a formula for propagating measurement uncertainties of emission rate, wind speed, wind direction, horizontal dispersion parameter, vertical dispersion parameter, effective emission height, and mixing depth is derived for EPA’s Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST) Gaussian dispersion model for the simple case of a single stack-type source and nonbuoyant plume. Values for the uncertainties of the input variables are chosen and used to calculate ambient concentration uncertainties. These calculated uncertainties are compared with the standard deviation of ambient concentrations calculated from 2500 input data sets for each of four stability classes and three downwind distances, which were randomly altered to simulate the effects of measurement uncertainty. The calculated uncertainties do not differ significantly from the standard deviations of the randomized calculations for input data uncertainties as high as 30 percent and Stability Classes A-C. The calculated uncertainties overestimate the actual uncertainty of model calculations for input data uncertainties greater than 20 percent for Stability Class D.     

A comparison of model performance between AERMOD and AUSTAL2000

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 gem?beta 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.     

AERMOD performance evaluation for three coal-fired electrical generating units in Southwest Indiana

An evaluation of the steady-state dispersion model AERMOD was conducted to determine its accuracy at predicting hourly ground-level concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) by comparing model-predicted concentrations to a full year of monitored SO₂ data. The two study sites are comprised of three coal-fired electrical generating units (EGUs) located in southwest Indiana. The sites are characterized by tall, buoyant stacks, flat terrain, multiple SO₂ monitors, and relatively isolated locations. AERMOD v12060 and AERMOD v12345 with BETA options were evaluated at each study site. For the six monitor–receptor pairs evaluated, AERMOD showed generally good agreement with monitor values for the hourly 99th percentile SO₂ design value, with design value ratios that ranged from 0.92 to 1.99. AERMOD was within acceptable performance limits for the Robust Highest Concentration (RHC) statistic (RHC ratios ranged from 0.54 to 1.71) at all six monitors. Analysis of the top 5% of hourly concentrations at the six monitor–receptor sites, paired in time and space, indicated poor model performance in the upper concentration range. The amount of hourly model predicted data that was within a factor of 2 of observations at these higher concentrations ranged from 14 to 43% over the six sites. Analysis of subsets of data showed consistent overprediction during low wind speed and unstable meteorological conditions, and underprediction during stable, low wind conditions. Hourly paired comparisons represent a stringent measure of model performance; however, given the potential for application of hourly model predictions to the SO₂ NAAQS design value, this may be appropriate. At these two sites, AERMOD v12345 BETA options do not improve model performance.

Implications:

A regulatory evaluation of AERMOD utilizing quantile-quantile (Q–Q) plots, the RHC statistic, and 99th percentile design value concentrations indicates that model performance is acceptable according to widely accepted regulatory performance limits. However, a scientific evaluation examining hourly paired monitor and model values at concentrations of interest indicates overprediction and underprediction bias that is outside of acceptable model performance measures. Overprediction of 1-hr SO₂ concentrations by AERMOD presents major ramifications for state and local permitting authorities when establishing emission limits.     

Application of a combined measurement and modeling method to quantify windblown dust emissions from the exposed playa at Mono Lake, California

Particulate matter < or =10 microm (PM10) emissions due to wind erosion can vary dramatically with changing surface conditions. Crust formation, mechanical disturbance, soil texture, moisture, and chemical content of the soil can affect the amount of dust emitted during a wind event. A refined method of quantifying windblown dust emissions was applied at Mono Lake, CA, to account for changing surface conditions. This method used a combination of real-time sand flux monitoring, ambient PM10 monitoring, and dispersion modeling to estimate dust emissions and their downwind impact. The method identified periods with high emissions and periods when the surface was stable (no sand flux), even though winds may have been high. A network of 25 Cox sand catchers (CSCs) was used to measure the mass of saltating particles to estimate sand flux rates across a 2-km2 area. Two electronic sensors (Sensits) were used to time-resolve the CSC sand mass to estimate hourly sand flux rates, and a perimeter tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM) monitor measured hourly PM10 concentrations. Hourly sand flux rates were related by dispersion modeling to hourly PM10 concentrations to back-calculate the ratio of vertical PM10 flux to horizontal sand flux (K-factors). Geometric mean K-factor values (K(f)) were found to change seasonally, ranging from 1.3 x 10(-5) to 5.1 x 10(-5) for sand flux measured at 15 cm above the surface (q15). Hourly PM10 emissions, F, were calculated by applying seasonal K-factors to sand flux measurements (F = K(f) x q15). The maximum hourly PM10 emission rate from the study area was 76 g/m2 x hr (10-m wind speed = 23.5 m/sec). Maximum daily PM10 emissions were estimated at 450 g/m2 x day, and annual emissions at 1095 g/m2 x yr. Hourly PM10 emissions were used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guideline AERMOD dispersion model to estimate downwind ambient impacts. Model predictions compared well with monitor concentrations, with hourly PM10 ranging from 16 to over 60,000 microg/m3 (slope = 0.89, R2 = 0.77).     

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.     

Air quality modeling in the South Coast Air Basin of California: what do the numbers really mean?

This study evaluates air quality model sensitivity to input and to model components. Simulations are performed using the California Institute of Technology (CIT) airshed model. Results show the impacts on ozone (O3) concentration in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) of California because of changes in: (1) input data, including meteorological conditions (temperature, UV radiation, mixing height, and wind speed), boundary conditions, and initial conditions (ICs); and (2) model components, including advection solver and chemical mechanism. O3 concentrations are strongly affected by meteorological conditions and, in particular, by temperature. ICs also affect O3 concentrations, especially in the first 2 days of simulation. On the other hand, boundary conditions do not significantly affect the absolute peak O3 concentration, although they do affect concentrations near the inflow boundaries. Moreover, predicted O3 concentrations are impacted considerably by the chemical mechanism. In addition, dispersion of pollutants is affected by the advection routine used to calculate its transport. Comparison among CIT, California Photochemical Grid Model (CALGRID), and Urban Airshed Model air quality models suggests that differences in O3 predictions are mainly caused by the different chemical mechanisms used. Additionally, advection solvers contribute to the differences observed among model predictions. Uncertainty in predicted peak O3 concentration suggests that air quality evaluation should not be based solely on this single value but also on trends predicted by air quality models using a number of chemical mechanisms and with an advection solver that is mass conservative.     

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.     

Near-field dispersion modeling for regulatory applications

This paper evaluates the application of dispersion models to estimate near-field pollutant concentrations in two case studies. The Industrial Source Complex Short-Term Model (ISCST3) was evaluated with hexavalent chromium measurements collected within 100 m of two facilities in Barrio Logan, San Diego, CA. ISCST3 provided reasonable estimates for higher pollutant concentrations but underestimated lower concentrations. To understand the observed distribution of concentrations in Barrio Logan, a recently conducted tracer experiment was analyzed. The tracer, sulfur hexafluoride, was released at ambient temperature from an urban facility at the University of California at Riverside, and concentrations were measured within 20 m of the source. Modeling results indicated that Industrial Source Complex-Plume Rise Model Enhancement and American Meteorological Society/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model-Plume Rise Model Enhancement overestimated high concentrations and underestimated low concentrations. A diagnostic study with a simple Gaussian dispersion model that incorporated site-specific meteorology was used to evaluate model results. This study found that incorporating lateral meandering for nonbuoyant urban plumes in Gaussian dispersion models could improve concentration estimates even when downwash is not considered. Incorporating a meandering component in ISCST3 resulted in improvements in estimating hexavalent chromium concentrations in Barrio Logan. Credible near-source concentration estimates depend on accurate characterization of emissions, onsite micrometeorology, and a method to account for lateral meandering in the near field.     

Near-Field Dispersion Modeling for Regulatory Applications

Abstract

This paper evaluates the application of dispersion models to estimate near-field pollutant concentrations in two case studies. The Industrial Source Complex Short-Term Model (ISCST3) was evaluated with hexavalent chromium measurements collected within 100 m of two facilities in Barrio Logan, San Diego, CA. ISCST3 provided reasonable estimates for higher pollutant concentrations but underestimated lower concentrations. To understand the observed distribution of concentrations in Barrio Logan, a recently conducted tracer experiment was analyzed. The tracer, sulfur hexafluoride, was released at ambient temperature from an urban facility at the University of California at Riverside, and concentrations were measured within 20 m of the source. Modeling results indicated that Industrial Source Complex–Plume Rise Model Enhancement and American Meteorological Society/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model–Plume Rise Model Enhancement overestimated high concentrations and underestimated low concentrations. A diagnostic study with a simple Gaussian dispersion model that incorporated site-specific meteorology was used to evaluate model results. This study found that incorporating lateral meandering for nonbuoyant urban plumes in Gaussian dispersion models could improve concentration estimates even when downwash is not considered. Incorporating a meandering component in ISCST3 resulted in improvements in estimating hexavalent chromium concentrations in Barrio Logan. Credible near-source concentration estimates depend on accurate characterization of emissions, onsite micrometeorology, and a method to account for lateral meandering in the near field.     

Air Quality Modeling in the South Coast Air Basin of California: What Do the Numbers Really Mean?

Abstract

This study evaluates air quality model sensitivity to input and to model components. Simulations are performed using the California Institute of Technology (CIT) airshed model. Results show the impacts on ozone (O₃) concentration in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) of California because of changes in: (1) input data, including meteorological conditions (temperature, UV radiation, mixing height, and wind speed), boundary conditions, and initial conditions (ICs); and (2) model components, including advection solver and chemical mechanism. O₃ concentrations are strongly affected by meteorological conditions and, in particular, by temperature. ICs also affect O₃ concentrations, especially in the first 2 days of simulation. On the other hand, boundary conditions do not significantly affect the absolute peak O₃ concentration, although they do affect concentrations near the inflow boundaries. Moreover, predicted O₃ concentrations are impacted considerably by the chemical mechanism. In addition, dispersion of pollutants is affected by the advection routine used to calculate its transport. Comparison among CIT, California Photochemical Grid Model (CALGRID), and Urban Airshed Model air quality models suggests that differences in O₃ predictions are mainly caused by the different chemical mechanisms used. Additionally, advection solvers contribute to the differences observed among model predictions. Uncertainty in predicted peak O₃ concentration suggests that air quality evaluation should not be based solely on this single value but also on trends predicted by air quality models using a number of chemical mechanisms and with an advection solver that is mass conservative.     

Comparison of the industrial source complex and AERMOD dispersion models: case study for human health risk assessment

Air quality models are typically used to predict the fate and transport of air emissions from industrial sources to comply with federal and state regulatory requirements and environmental standards, as well as to determine pollution control requirements. For many years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) widely used the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) model because of its broad applicability to multiple source types. Recently, EPA adopted a new rule that replaces ISC with AERMOD, a state-of-the-practice air dispersion model, in many air quality impact assessments. This study compared the two models as well as their enhanced versions that incorporate the Plume Rise Model Enhancements (PRIME) algorithm. PRIME takes into account the effects of building downwash on plume dispersion. The comparison used actual point, area, and volume sources located on two separate facilities in conjunction with site-specific terrain and meteorological data. The modeled maximum total period average ground-level air concentrations were used to calculate potential health effects for human receptors. The results show that the switch from ISC to AERMOD and the incorporation of the PRIME algorithm tend to generate lower concentration estimates at the point of maximum ground-level concentration. However, the magnitude of difference varies from insignificant to significant depending on the types of the sources and the site-specific conditions. The differences in human health effects, predicted using results from the two models, mirror the concentrations predicted by the models.     

Roadside particle number distributions and relationships between number concentrations, meteorology, and traffic along a northern California freeway

Particle number distributions were measured simultaneously upwind and downwind of a suburban-agricultural freeway to determine relationships with traffic and meteorological parameters. Average traffic volumes were 6330 vehicles/hr with 10% heavy-duty vehicles, and volumes were higher in July than November. Most downwind particle number distributions were bimodal, with a primary mode at approximately 10-25 nm, indicating that newly formed particles were sampled. Total downwind 6-237 nm particle number concentrations (Ntot) ranged from 9.3 x 10(3) to 2.5 x 10(5) cm(-3), with higher daily average concentrations in November compared with July. Ntot correlated with wind speed, temperature, and relative humidity. Upwind photochemically initiated nucleation likely led to elevated background nanoparticle concentrations in July, as evidenced by increasing upwind distribution modal diameter with increasing temperature and a strong correlation between upwind Ntot and solar radiation. Also in summer, Ntot showed stronger correlation with heavy-duty vehicle volumes than wind speed, temperature, and relative humidity. These results indicate the importance of measuring background particle size distributions simultaneously with roadside distributions. There may be a minimum vehicle volume from which useful real-world vehicle particle number distributions can be measured at roadside, even when collecting samples within 10 m of the traveled lanes.