Dergiler / Atmospheric Pollution Research / 2018 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3

Comparing estimates from the R-LINE near road dispersion model using model-derived and observation-derived meteorology

Sayfa
483–493
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Comparisonof the estimated surface characteristic variables using both the observation-derived and model-derived meteorologydisplayed similar diurnal trends.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Observed meteorological conditions, usually measured at airports or weather monitoring stations, have longprovided the only source of meteorology for many Gaussian air pollution dispersion models.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:This introducesuncertainty and limitations in numerical model estimates, especially for locations of interest far removed fromthese monitoring stations.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Comparisonof the estimated surface characteristic variables using both the observation-derived and model-derived meteorologydisplayed similar diurnal trends.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Observed meteorological conditions, usually measured at airports or weather monitoring stations, have longprovided the only source of meteorology for many Gaussian air pollution dispersion models. This introducesuncertainty and limitations in numerical model estimates, especially for locations of interest far removed fromthese monitoring stations. Hence, it is advantageous to employ predicted meteorology from a prognostic meteorologicalmodel as a substitute. The objective of this study was to compare estimates from the R-LINE nearroad dispersion model at three inland sites and one coastal site in Connecticut using observation-derived(weather station) and model-derived (Weather Research and Forecasting Model) meteorology. Both the graphicaland statistical comparisons indicated less pronounced discrepancies in model estimations in the timeperiods generally characterized by unstable atmospheric conditions than those characterized by stable atmosphericconditions. There were also more pronounced differences at larger distances from roadways. Comparisonof the estimated surface characteristic variables using both the observation-derived and model-derived meteorologydisplayed similar diurnal trends.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

PARVEZ, F., WAGSTROM, K. (2018). Comparing estimates from the R-LINE near road dispersion model using model-derived and observation-derived meteorology. Atmospheric Pollution Research, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3, 483–493. https://ajindex.com/articles/351350

Kaynakça (9)

  1. Adar, S.D., Kaufman, J.D., 2007. Cardiovascular disease and air pollutants: evaluating and improving epidemiological data implicating traffic exposure. Inhal. Toxicol. 19, 135–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08958370701496012.
  2. Barna, M., Lamb, B., 2000. Improving ozone modeling in regions of complex terrain using observational nudging in a prognostic meteorological model. Atmos. Environ. 34 (28), 4889–4906. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310-(00)00231-4.
  3. Benson, P.E., 1989. CALINE4-a Dispersion Model for Predicting Air Pollution Concentration Near Roadways. FHWA/CA/TL-84/15. pp. 245. Benson, P.E., 1992. A review of the development and application of the CALINE3 and 4 models. Atmos. Environ. Part B. Urban Atmos. 26, 379–390.
  4. Briant, R., Seigneur, C., 2013. Multi-scale modeling of roadway air quality impacts: development and evaluation of a plume-in-grid model. Atmos. Environ. 68, 162–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.11.058.
  5. Cimorelli, A.J., Perry, S.G., Venkatram, A., Weil, J.C., Paine, R.J., Wilson, R.B., Lee, R.F., Peters, W.D., Brode, R.W., 2005. AERMOD: a dispersion model for industrial source applications. Part I: general model formulation and boundary layer characterization. Appl. Meteorol. 44, 682–693.
  6. Crouse, D.L., Peters, P.A., van Donkelaar, A., Goldberg, M.S., Villeneuve, P.J., Brion, O., Khan, S., Atari, D.O., Jerrett, M., Pope, C.A., Brauer, M., Brook, J.R., Martin, R.V., Stieb, D., Burnett, R.T., 2012. Risk of nonaccidental and cardiovascular mortality in relation to long-term exposure to low concentrations of fine particulate matter: a canadian national-level cohort study. Environ. Health Perspect. 120 (5), 708–714. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104049.
  7. CT DEEP, U.S, 2015. Meteorological Data. https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_ related.htm. EPA, U.S., 2015a. Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modelling (SCRAM). https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_related.htm.
  8. EPA, U.S, 2015b. Development and evaluation of model algorithms to account for chemical transformation in the nearroad environement. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_ public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=311873. Franck, U., Odeh, S., Wiedensohler, A., Wehner, B., Herbarth, O., 2011. The effect of particle size on cardiovascular disorders - the smaller the worse. Sci. Total Environ. 409 (20), 4217–4221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.049.
  9. Haghighi, E., Or, D., 2015. Linking evaporative fluxes from bare soil across surface viscous sublayer with t