Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2016 | 25 | 1 |
Tytuł artykułu

Determining performance and application of steady-state models and Lagrangian puff model for environmental assessment of CO and NOx emissions

Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
Air quality modellings are highly useful systems used to investigate the possible impact of emissions diffusing into the atmosphere in any area they might have on that area. There are many modelling methods whose capacities are limited by their advantages and disadvantages or the equipment they use. In this study, therefore, both steady-state models (AERMOD and ISCST-3) and the Lagrangian model (CALPUFF) are used. This study has two purposes: one is to specify performance of the models. Performances were determined with various statistical methods such as fractional bias (FB), mean squared error (MSE), and geometric mean bias (MG). The other purpose of this study is to evaluate temporal and spatial variations of point (P), area (A), and line (L) - sourced CO and NOx emissions in the research area by using the modelling methods. The district of Körfez, which is one of the districts of the province of Kocaeli, was chosen as the study area. When the results obtained with modelling all P and A sources by three programs are analyzed, the highest annual concentration AERMOD, ISCST-3, and CALPUFF were found as 128.82, 86.96, and 201.30 μg/m3 for CO, and 7.56, 26.31, and 6.10 μg/m3 for NOx, respectively. On the other hand, when the results obtained with modelling all P and A and L sources by two programs are investigated, the highest annual concentration AERMOD and ISCST-3 were found to be 155.12, 92.46 μg/m3 for CO, and 166.93 and 89.98 μg/m3 for NOx, respectively. When contributions of the pollutant sources on pollution are evaluated, it was observed that area sources and line sources are more predominant than other sources for CO and NOx emissions. It was observed by analyzing the diffusion maps that residential areas in the district are more concentrated. Therefore, in the study the predicted and observed values were also compared with national and international limit values and determined to meet these limit values. According to the results obtained by evaluation of performances of the models with FB, MS, and MG statistical methods, performance sorting for NOx emissions was found to be ISCST-3 > CALPUFF > AERMOD, while for CO emissions it is given as CALPUFF > AERMOD > ISCST-3. However, since it is not correct to distinguish between performance of a model for an application and that of another model accurately, performances of the models were interpreted according to the results of this study and literature review
Słowa kluczowe
Opis fizyczny
  • Department of Environmental Engineering, Artvin Coruh University, 08000 Artvin, Turkey
  • Department of Environmental Engineering, Kocaeli University, 41380 Kocaeli, Turkey
  • 1. AUGILERA X., BASAGANA T.M., PAY D., AGIS L., BOUSO M., FORASTER M., RIVERA M., BALDASANO J.M., KUNZLI N. Evaluation of the CALIOPE air quality forecasting system for epidemiological research: The example of NO2 in the province of Ginona (Spain). Atmos Environ 72, 134, 2013.
  • 2. RUSSO A., TRIGO R.M., HARTINS H., MENDES M.T. NO2, PM10 and O3 urban concentrations and its association with circulation weather types in Portugal. Atmos Environ 89, 768, 2014.
  • 3. DHOLAKIA H.H., PUROHIT P., RAO S., GARG A. Impact of current policies on future air quality and health outcomes in Delhi, India. Atmos Environ 75, 241, 2013.
  • 4. WEB-1: The Environment and Forest Ministry, the General Directorate of Environmental Management. Clean Air Action Plan 2010-2013. http://www. anasayfaDuyurular/ TemizHava/TemizHavaEylemPlani.pdf, TemizHava/ TemizHavaEylemPlani.pdf, Accessed: 17 April 2015.
  • 5. WEB-2: Eskisehir Province Clean Air Plan 2011-2014. Eskisehirili-Temiz-Hava-Plani.pdf, Accessed: 10 April 2015.
  • 6. THUNIS P., PEDERZOLI A., PERNIGOTTI D. Performance criteria to evaluate air quality modeling applications. Atmos Environ 59, 476, 2012.
  • 7. BENTAYEB M., STEMPFELET M., WAGNER V., ZINS M., BONENFANT S., SONGEUR C., SANCHEZ O., ROSSO A., BRULFERT G., RIOS I., CHAXEL E., VIRGA J., ARMENGAUD A., ROSELLO P., RIVIERE E., BERNARD M., VASBIEN F., DEPROST R. Retrospective modeling outdoor air pollution at a fine spatial scale in France, 1989-2008. Atmos Environ 92, 267, 2014.
  • 8. HAGAN N., ROBINS N., HSU-KIM H., HALABI S., MORRIS M., WOODALL G., ZHANG T., BACON A., RICHTER D.D.B., VANDERBERG J. Estimating historical atmospheric mercury concentrations from silver mining and their legacies in present day surface soil in potosi Bolivia. Atmos Environ 45 (40), 7619, 2011.
  • 9. KESARKAR A.P., DALVI M., KAGINALKAR A. OJHA A. Coupling of the weather research and forecasting model with AERMOD for pollutant dispersion modeling. A case study for PM10 dispersion over pune India. Atmos Environ 41 (9), 1976, 2007.
  • 10. COELHO M.C., FONTES T., BANDERIA J.M., PEREINA S.R., TCHEPEL O., DIAS D., SA E., AMORIM J.H., BARREGO C. Assessment of potential improvements on regional air quality modeling related with implementation of a detailed methodology for traffic emission estimation. Sci Total Environ 470-471, 127, 2014.
  • 11. CAPELLI L., SIRONI S., ROSSO R.D., GUILLOT M. Measuring odours in the environment vs. dispersion modeling: A review. Atmos Environ 79, 731, 2013.
  • 12. SANGÜN L. An investigation on principal component, discriminate and cluster analyses and their application on ecological data. PhD Thesis. Department of aquaculture science institute of natural and applied sciences ęukurova University. Turkey, 2007.
  • 13. WEB-3: Accessed: 7 September 2015.
  • 14. WEB-4: 19328. Accessed: 2 April 2015.
  • 15. WEB-5: Satellite image by google earth. Accessed: 21 April 2015.
  • 16. MOKHTAR M.M., HASSIM M.H., TAIB R.M. Health risk assessment of emission from a coal fired power plant using AERMOD modeling. Process Saf Environ 92, 2, 2014.
  • 17. HUERTAS J.I., HUERTAS M.E., CERVANTES G., DIAZ J. Assessment of the natural sources of particulate matter on the opencast mines air quality. Sci Total Environ 493 (2000), 1047, 2014.
  • 18. STEIN A.F., ISAKOV V., GODOWITCH J., DRAXLER R.R. A hybrit modeling approach to resolve pollutant concentrations in an urban area. Atmos Environ 41 (40), 9410, 2007.
  • 19. TARTAKOVSKY D., BRODAY D.M., STERN E. Evaluation of AERMOD and CALPUFF for predicting ambient concentrations of total suspended particulate matter (TSP) emissions from quarry in complex terrain. Environ Pollut 179, 138, 2013.
  • 20. ABRIL G.A., WANNAZ E.D., MATEOS A.C., PIGNATA M.L. Biomonitoring of airborne particulate matter emitted from a cement plant and comparison with dispersion modelling results. Atmos Environ 82, 154, 2014.
  • 21. AL-RASHIDI M.S., NASSEHI V., WAKEMAN R.J. Investigation of the efficiency of existing air pollution monitoring sites in the state of Kuwait. Environ Pollut 138 (2), 219, 2005.
  • 22. CETIN, S. Dispersion modelling of NOx emissions in Kocaeli. PhD Thesis. Institute of science department of environmental engineering. Kocaeli University. Turkey. 2006.
  • 23. ABDUL-WAHAB S.A., CHAN K., ELKAMEL A., AHMADI L. Effects of meteorological conditions on the concentration and dispersion of an accidental release of H2S in Canada. Atmos Environ 82, 316, 2014.
  • 24. CURCI G., CINQUE G., TUCELLA P., VISCONTI G., VERDECCHIA M., IARLORI M., RIZI V. Modelling air quality impact of a biomass energy power plant in a mountain valley in central Italy. Atmos Environ 62, 248, 2012.
  • 25. AINSLE B., JACKSON P. The use of an atmospheric dispersion model to determine influence region in the Prince George, B.C air shed from the burning open waste piles. J Environ Manage 90 (8), 2393, 2009.
  • 26. CHOI Y., FERNANDO H. Simulation of smoke plumes from agricultural burns: application to the San Luis/Rio Colorado air shed along the U.S./Mexico border. Sci Total Environ 388 (1-3), 270, 2007.
  • 27. MACHINTOSH D.L., STEWART J.H., MYATT T.A., SABATO J.E., FLOWERS G.C., BROWN K.W., HLINKA D.J., SULLIVAN D.A. Use of CALPUFF for exposure assessment in a near-field, complex terrain setting. Atmos Environ 44 (2), 262, 2010.
  • 28. ROJAS A.L.P., VENEGAS L.E. Dry and wet deposition of nitrogen emitted in Buenos Aires city to water of de la Plata River. Water Air Soil Poll 193, 175, 2008.
  • 29. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Environmental Protection Division Environmental Quality Branch. Air Protection Section. Guidelines for Air Quality Dispersion Modelling in British Columbia. March 2008.
  • 30. Emissions report 2009. Kocaeli Governorship Provincial Directorate of Environment and Urbanization. Date of Visit: December 2010.
  • 31. Kocaeli provincial environmental status report. Kocaeli Governorship Provincial Directorate of Environment and Urbanization. 2008.
  • 32. USEPA. Technology transfer network clearinghouse for inventories and emission factors. Fifth Edition. 1998.
  • 33. The Department of Strategic Development Division of Transport Cost and Productivity. The annual average daily traffic values of highways and state roads transportation information according to traffic zone in 2008. May 2009.
  • 34. BOTLAGUDURU V.S.V. Comparison of AERMOD and ISCST3 models for particulate emissions from ground level sources. Master of Science. Texas A&M University, Texas USA. 2009.
  • 35. WEB-6: RADONJIC Z., GARISTO N. C. An assessment of the suitability of air dispersion models to predict contaminant concentrations in air due to industrial emissions. www.iitk. Accessed: 01 January 2012.
  • 36. OZKURT N., SARI D., AKALIN N., HILMIOGLU B. Evaluation of impact of SO2 and NO2 emissions on the ambient air-quality in the ęan-Bayramię region of northwest Turkey during 2007-2008. Sci Total Environ 456-457, 254, 2013.
  • 37. ROOD A.S. Performance evaluation of AERMOD, CALPUFF, and legacy air dispersion models using the winter validation tracer study dataset. Atmos Environ 89,707, 2014.
  • 38. MASURAHA A. Evaluation of the AERMOD model and examination of required length of meteorological data for computing concentrations in urban areas. Master of Science in Civil Engineering. The University of Toledo. Spain. 2006.
  • 39. GHANNAM K., EL-FADEL M. Emissions characterization and regulatory compliance at an industrial complex: An integrated MM5/CALPUFF approach. Atmos Environ 69, 156, 2013.
  • 40. IM U., YENIGÜN O. An application of a puff dispersion model on power plant emissions in Yatagan region, Turkey. Int J Environ Pollut 23 (3), 314, 2005.
  • 41. DREW G.H., SMITH R., GERARD V., BURGE C., LOWE M., KINNERSLEY R., SNEATH R., LONGHURST P.J. Appropriateness of selecting different averaging times for modelling chronic and acute exposure to environmental odours. Atmos Environ 41, 2870, 2007.
  • 42. EL-FADEL M., ABI-ESBER L., AYASH T. Managing emissions from highly industrialized areas: Regulatory compliance under uncertainty. Atmos Environ 43 (32), 5015, 2009.
  • 43. CUI H., YAO R., XU X., XIN C., YANG J. A tracer experiment study to evaluate the CALPUFF real time application in a near field complex terrain setting. Atmos Environ 45 (39), 7525, 2011.
  • 44. HONAGANAHALLI P.S., SEIBER J.N. Measured and predicted air shed concentrations of methyl bromide in an agricultural valley and applications to exposure assessment. Atmos Environ 34 (21), 3511, 2000.
  • 45. HAO J., HE D., WU Y., FU L., HE K. A study of the emission and concentration distribution of vehicular pollutants in the urban area of Beijing. Atmos Environ 34, 453, 2000.
  • 46. BELLASIO R., MAFFEIS G., SCIRE J.S., LONGANI M.G., BIANCONI R., QUANNANTA N. Algorithms to account for topographic shading effects and surface temperature dependence on terrain elevation in diagnostic meteorological models. Bound-Lay Meteorol 114 (3), 595, 2005.
  • 47. DEMIRARSLAN, K.O. Determination of air quality and air pollutant sources in Körfez District in Kocaeli. PhD Thesis. Institute of science. Department of environmental engineering. Kocaeli University. Turkey, 2012.
  • 48. HUERTAS J.I., HUERTAS M.E., IZQUIERDO S., GONZALES E.D. Air quality impact assessment of multiple open pit coal mines in northern Colombia. J Environ Manage 93 (1), 121, 2012.
  • 49. LORBER M., ESCHENROEDER A., ROBINSON R. Testing the USA EPA's ISCST-3 version 3 model on dioxins: A comparison of predicted and observed air and soil concentrations. Atmos Environ 34 (23), 3995, 2000.
  • 50. SCHUTTE A., JAIN R., WALSH C. CALPUFF modelling for the Williams Lake air shed. Ministry of Environment Cariboo Region. 405-0145, 24, 2005.
  • 51. Air Quality Assessment and Management Regulation, T.C. The Ministry Of Environment and Urban Planning. R.G.S. 26898 R.G.T. 06.06.2008.
  • 52. WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. World Health Organization. 2006.
  • 53. Air Quality Standards. European Commission. 2012.
  • 54. NationalAmbientAir Quality Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012.
  • 55. DRAGOMIR C.M., CONSTANTIN D-E., VOICULESCU M., GEORGESCU L.P., MERLAUD A., ROOZENDAEL A.M. Modeling results of atmospheric dispersion of NO2 in an urban area using METI-LIS and comparison with coincident mobile DOAS measurements. Atmos Pollut Res 6, 503, 2015.
  • 56. TOPGÜL T., YÜCESU H.S., OKUR M. The experimental investigation of the effects of operating parameters on exhaust emissions on a spark ignition engine, J Polytec, 8, 43, 2005.
  • 57. OZENSOY A., HEPER G. Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. AIBU Izzet Baysal Medical Journal 4 (2), 54, 2009.
  • 58. VARDOULAKIS S., FISHER B.E.A., PERICLEOUS K. GONZALEZ-FLESCA N. Modelling air quality in street canyons: a review. Atmos Environ 37, 155, 2003.
  • 59. TAYANC M. Air quality modelling in Turkey, Air Pollut Res J 2 112, 122, 2013.
  • 60. YEGNAN A. WILLIAMSON D.G. GRAETTINGER A.J. Uncertainty analysis in air dispersion modeling. Environ Modell and Softw 17 (7), 639, 2002.
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.