Using CALINE dispersion to assess vehicular PM2.5 emissions |
| |
| Institution: | 1. University of Ioannina, Department of Physics, Laboratory of Meteorology, GR-45110 Ioannina, Greece;2. Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Public Health England, Chilton, Oxon OX11 0RQ, United Kingdom;3. Department of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Heroon Polytechniou 9, Zografou Campus, 15780 Athens, Greece;4. Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Madrid (UPM), c/ José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain;1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong, China;2. Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512, USA;3. School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China;4. Key Lab of Aerosol Chemistry and Physics, Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xi''an, China;5. Department of Civil Engineering, Chu Hai College of Higher Education, New Territories, Hong Kong, China;6. State Key Laboratory of Severe Weather, Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry of China Meteorological Administration, Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China;7. State Key Laboratory of Organic Geochemistry, Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China;8. School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China;9. Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA;1. Department of Chemical & Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Madrid, (UPM), c/ José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain;2. Department of Environment, CIEMAT, Madrid, E-28040, Spain;3. Department of Geophysics and Meteorology, University Complutense of Madrid, Faculty of Physical Sciences, E-28040 Madrid, Spain;4. Environmental Change Department, Centre for Radiation, Chemical & Environmental Hazards, Public Health England, Chilton OX11 0RQ, UK;1. National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Centre for Atmospheric & Instrumentation Research, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK;2. Centre for Atmospheric & Instrumentation Research, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK;3. Environment Agency, Reading, UK;4. Met Office, Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK;5. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA;6. Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK;1. School of Intelligent Systems Engineering, Sun Yat-Sen University, 510275, Guangzhou, China;2. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Intelligent Transport System, 510275, Guangzhou, China;3. Guangdong Provincial Engineering Research Center for Traffic Environmental Monitoring and Control, 510275, Guangzhou, China |
| |
| Abstract: | This paper explores the range of CALINE4's PM2.5 modeling capabilities by comparing previously collected PM2.5 data with CALINE4 predicted values. Two sampling sites, a suburban site located at an intersection in Sacramento, CA, and an urban site located in London, were used. Predicted concentrations are graphed against observed concentrations and evaluated against the criterion that 75% of the points fall within the factor-of-two prediction envelope. For the suburban site, data estimated by CALINE4 produced results that fell within the acceptable factor-of-two percentage envelope. A reverse dispersion test was also conducted for the suburban site using observed and calculated emission factors, and although it showed correlations between the observed values and CALINE4 predicted values, it could not conclusively prove that the model is accurate at predicting PM2.5 concentrations. Although the results suggest that CALINE4 PM2.5 predictions may be reasonably close to observed values, the number of observations used to verify the model was small and consequently, findings from the suburban site should be considered exploratory. For the urban site, a much larger data set was evaluated; however, the CALINE4 results for this site did not fall 75% within the factor-of-two envelope. Several factors, including street canyon effects, likely contributed to an inaccuracy of the emission factors used in CALINE4, and therefore, to the overall CALINE4 predictions. In summary, CALINE4 does not appear to perform well in densely populated areas and differences in topography may be a decisive factor in determining when CALINE4 may be applicable to modeling PM2.5. For critical transportation projects requiring PM2.5 analysis, use of CALINE4 may not be optimal because of its inability to produce reasonable estimates for highly trafficked areas. Additional data sets for CALINE4 analysis, particularly in urban environments, are required to fully understand CALINE4's PM2.5 modeling capabilities. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
