CALPUFF and AERMOD model validation study in the near field: Martins Creek revisited

This paper describes a near-field validation study involving the steady-state, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guideline model AERMOD and the nonsteady-state puff model CALPUFF. Relative model performance is compared with field measurements collected near Martins Creek, PA-a rural, hilly area along the Pennsylvania-New Jersey border. The principal emission sources in the study were two coal-fired power plants with tall stacks and buoyant plumes. Over 1 yr of sulfur dioxide measurements were collected at eight monitors located at or above the two power plants' stack tops. Concurrent meteorological data were available at two sites. Both sites collected data 10 m above the ground. One of the sites also collected sonic detection and ranging measurements up to 420 m above ground. The ability of the two models to predict monitored sulfur dioxide concentrations was assessed in a four-part model validation. Each part of the validation applied different criteria and statistics to provide a comprehensive evaluation of model performance. Because of their importance in regulatory applications, an emphasis was placed on statistics that demonstrate the model's ability to reproduce the upper end of the concentration distribution. On the basis of the combined results of the four-part validation (i.e., weight of evidence), the performance of CALPUFF was judged to be superior to that of 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.     

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.     

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.     

Use of CALPUFF for exposure assessment in a near-field,complex terrain setting

CALPUFF is an atmospheric source-receptor model recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for use on a case-by-case basis in complex terrain and wind conditions. The ability of the model to provide useful information for exposure assessments in areas with those topographical and meteorological conditions has received little attention. This is an important knowledge gap for use of CALPUFF outside of regulatory applications, such as exposure analyses conducted in support of risk assessments and health studies. We compared deposition of cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn) calculated with CALPUFF as a result of emissions from a zinc smelter with corresponding concentrations of the metals measured in attic dust and soil samples obtained from the surrounding area. On a point-by-point analysis, predictions from CALPUFF explained 11% (lead) to 53% (zinc) of the variability in concentrations measured in attic dust. Levels of heavy metals in soil interpolated to 100 residential addresses from the distribution of concentrations measured in soil samples also agreed well with deposition predicted with CALPUFF: R² of 0.46, 0.76, and 079 for Pb, Cd, and Zn, respectively. Community-average concentrations of Cd, Pb, and Zn measured in soil were significantly (p < 0.0001) and strongly correlated (R² ranged from 0.77 to 0.98) with predicted deposition rates. These findings demonstrate that CALPUFF can provide reasonably accurate predictions of the patterns of long-term air pollutant deposition in the near-field associated with emissions from a discrete source in complex terrain. Because deposition estimates are calculated as a linear function of air concentrations, CALPUFF is expected to be reliable model for prediction of long-term average, near-field ambient air concentrations in complex terrain as well.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Minimum turbulence assumptions and u* and L estimation for dispersion models during low-wind stable conditions

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) short-distance dispersion model, AERMOD, has been shown to overpredict by a factor of as much as 10 when compared with observed concentrations from continuous releases at the Oak Ridge, TN (OR), and Idaho Falls, ID (IF), field experiments during stable periods when wind speeds often dropped below 1 m/sec. Some of this overprediction tendency can be reduced by revising AERMOD's meteorological preprocessor's parameterizations of the friction velocity, u _* , during low-wind stable conditions, thus increasing the calculated σ _v and σ _w and hence the lateral and vertical dispersion rates. Observations show that as the mean wind speed approaches zero at night, there is always significant σ _v and σ _w over time periods of 15 to 60 min, while standard Monin–Obukhov Similarity Theory (MOST) predicts that σ _v and σ _w will approach zero. This paper focuses on the u _* estimation methods and the minimum turbulence (σ _v and σ _w ) assumptions in AERMOD (beta option 4) and two widely used U.S. operational dispersion models, AERMOD (v12345) and SCICHEM. The U.S. EPA has provided results of its tests with the OR and IF data, with its base AERMOD version and its December 2012 modified versions, which assume adjustments to the low-wind u _* and increases in the minimum σ _v parameterization. SCICHEM has relatively small mean bias for both data sets. The revised AERMOD shows much less mean bias, agreeing more with SCICHEM.

Implications:

Suggestions are made for improvements to dispersion models such as AERMOD to correct overpredictions during light-wind stable conditions. Methods for estimating u_*, L, and the minimum turbulence parameters (σ_v and σ_w) are reviewed and compared. SCICHEM and the current operational version and an optional beta version (December 2012) of AERMOD are evaluated with tracer data from low-wind stable field experiments in Idaho Falls and Oak Ridge. It is seen that the operational version of AERMOD overpredicts by a factor of 2 to 10, while the optional beta version of AERMOD and SCICHEM have much less bias.     

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.     

Site Representativeness of Urban Air Monitoring Stations

Abstract

This paper describes a statistic to quantify spatial representativeness for the air measurements of an urban fixed-site ambient air monitoring station. The application of such a statistic of representativeness has also been successfully demonstrated by two data sets collected at the Gu-Ting monitoring station in Taipei. By measuring NO2 at 22 sites simultaneously around the Gu-Ting station, the statistic has characterized different degrees of spatial representativeness for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) at various areas and microenvironments surrounding this fixed-site monitoring station. By measuring ambient air concentrations at six sites sequentially around the Gu-Ting station, the statistic has also characterized different degrees of representativeness for particulates less than 10 urn in size—(PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3), NO2, nitrogen oxides (NOX), nitrogen monoxide (NO), total hydrocarbons (THC), and nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHQ—at an open area surrounding this fixed-site monitoring station. This statistical method identifies the Gu-Ting station is well representative of outdoor concentrations of all nine air pollutants for a period of three weeks at the areas within a 700 m radius around this station. The indoor NO2 concentrations, however, are not represented by the measurements at the fixed-site monitoring station.     

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.     

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.     

On a Strategy for Reducing Short-range Daytime Ground Level Concentrations Due to Emissions from Very Tall Stacks

Abstract

Airborne fine particle sulfur data from the summer intensive of Project MOHAVE (Measurement of Haze and Visual Effects) was analyzed by the Receptor Model Applied to Patterns in Space (RMAPS) model, a novel multivariate receptor-oriented model that applies to secondary and primary species. The sulfur data from 17 sites were found to be well predicted by three spatial patterns interpreted as sources along the valley of the Colorado River; transport from sources located to the southwest; and transport from sources located to the southeast. The model was tested by using parameters derived from the 17-site data set to apportion sulfur for six sites that were not part of the original data set. The sulfur apportionment for these six sites was in agreement with the original apportionment and the physical interpretation of the spatial patterns given above. The effects of systematic and random error on the sulfur apportionment were estimated. The amount of sulfur associated with the Colorado River valley sources was rather insensitive to both types of error. For the two sites in the Grand Canyon National Park, the fraction of total particulate sulfur from the Colorado River valley source is estimated to be in the range of 27-65% at Meadview and 11-28% at Hopi Point.     

Photochemical oxidation and dispersion of gaseous sulfur compounds from natural and anthropogenic sources around a coastal location

The photochemical oxidation and dispersion of reduced sulfur compounds (RSCs: H₂S, CH₃SH, DMS, CS₂, and DMDS) emitted from anthropogenic (A) and natural (N) sources were evaluated based on a numerical modeling approach. The anthropogenic emission concentrations of RSCs were measured from several sampling sites at the Donghae landfill (D-LF) (i.e., source type A) in South Korea during a series of field campaigns (May through December 2004). The emissions of natural RSCs in a coastal study area near the D-LF (i.e., source type N) were estimated from sea surface DMS concentrations and transfer velocity during the same study period. These emission data were then used as input to the CALPUFF dispersion model, revised with 34 chemical reactions for RSCs. A significant fraction of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) was produced photochemically during the summer (about 34% of total SO₂ concentrations) followed by fall (21%), spring (15%), and winter (5%). Photochemical production of SO₂ was dominated by H₂S (about 55% of total contributions) and DMS (24%). The largest impact of RSCs from source type A on SO₂ concentrations occurred around the D-LF during summer. The total SO₂ concentrations produced from source type N around the D-LF during the summer (a mean SO₂ concentration of 7.4 ppbv) were significantly higher than those (≤0.3 ppbv) during the other seasons. This may be because of the high RSC and SO₂ emissions and their photochemistry along with the wind convergence.     

Catalytic Cigarette Filter for Carbon Monoxide Reduction

A comparative study was performed in order to determine the relative accuracy of a gaussian dispersion model. The U.S. EPA’s RAM (Urban) model was chosen to estimate 24-hour average sulfur dioxide concentrations in the Cleveland, Ohio area. Point and area source emissions, along with a background concentration were included in the modeling effort. Projections from the model made at the ambient air stations were compared to measured sulfur dioxide concentrations. A total of 3020 comparisons were performed at 33 monitoring sites. An analysis of the results illustrates that, on a daily basis, the predictions of the model did not reflect actual air quality. The correlation coefficients of the 24-hour comparisons at the monitoring sites varied from a low of —0.121 to a high of 0.541. When the highest and second highest modeled concentrations were evaluated with respect to the highest and second highest measured concentrations, over a period of a year, a more favorable comparison was observed.     

Modeling Evidence of Incloud Transformation Of Sulfur Dioxide to Sulfate

Methylene chloride (CH₂Cl₂) is presently under study by the U.S. EPA and other agencies to determine if the compound presents an unreasonable risk to human health and to determine if regulatory action is needed to reduce the risk. This paper describes one portion of the study which required the development and validation of a method of sampling and analysis for source emission measurements.

Prior to source sampling, laboratory experiments were conducted to determine the best sample container in which to collect an integrated sample. It was found that CH₂Cl₂ remained stable in Tedlar bags for at least four weeks. The analytical method selected was gas chromatography with flame ionization detection (GC/FID). During the field portion of the study, both manufacturer and user emission sources of CH₂Cl₂ were tested. Multiple sets of simultaneous quadruplicate bag samples were collected to determine the precision of both sampling and analysis in the field. All samples were analyzed at the test site after collection and then returned to Research Triangle Park. Samples were subsequently reanalyzed in the laboratories of Radian and the U.S. EPA using three GC/FID instruments and two types of GC columns. The range of concentrations from the sources was 100 ppm to 27,000 ppm CH₂Cl₂. A statistical analysis of samples collected simultaneously showed no difference in the samples, proving good precision In both sampling and analysis. Some of the sample bags returned from the test sites developed leaks indicating that immediate on-site analysis is best. A comparison of results obtained in the field and the two laboratories showed that interand intra-laboratory precision was within 10 percent.     

Comparison of the performances of land use regression modelling and dispersion modelling in estimating small-scale variations in long-term air pollution concentrations in a Dutch urban area

The performance of a Land Use Regression (LUR) model and a dispersion model (URBIS – URBis Information System) was compared in a Dutch urban area. For the Rijnmond area, i.e. Rotterdam and surroundings, nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) concentrations for 2001 were estimated for nearly 70 000 centroids of a regular grid of 100 × 100 m.A LUR model based upon measurements carried out on 44 sites from the Dutch national monitoring network and upon Geographic Information System (GIS) predictor variables including traffic intensity, industry, population and residential land use was developed. Interpolation of regional background concentration measurements was used to obtain the regional background. The URBIS system was used to estimate NO₂ concentrations using dispersion modelling. URBIS includes the CAR model (Calculation of Air pollution from Road traffic) to calculate concentrations of air pollutants near urban roads and Gaussian plume models to calculate air pollution levels near motorways and industrial sources. Background concentrations were accounted for using 1 × 1 km maps derived from monitoring and model calculations.Moderate agreement was found between the URBIS and LUR in calculating NO₂ concentrations (R = 0.55). The predictions agreed well for the central part of the concentration distribution but differed substantially for the highest and lowest concentrations. The URBIS dispersion model performed better than the LUR model (R = 0.77 versus R = 0.47 respectively) in the comparison between measured and calculated concentrations on 18 validation sites. Differences can be understood because of the use of different regional background concentrations, inclusion of rather coarse land use category industry as a predictor variable in the LUR model and different treatment of conversion of NO to NO₂.Moderate agreement was found between a dispersion model and a land use regression model in calculating annual average NO₂ concentrations in an area with multiple sources. The dispersion model explained concentrations at validation sites better.     

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.