Authors: Duo-Xing Yang, Ka-Hing Yau, Xiao-Hong Zhao, Jesse L. The
Addresses: Institute of Crustal Dynamics, CEA, No. 1 Anning Zhuang Road, Xisanqi, Beijing, 100085, PR China; Institute of Geology and Geophysics, CAS, No. 19 Beitucheng Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, PR China. ' Weather Services Centre Trenton, Meteorological Service of Canada, 54 North Star Drive, CFB Trenton P.O. Box 100 Stn Forces, Astra ON K0K 3W0, Canada. ' Appraisal Center for Environment and Engineering, SEPA, No. 8 Dayangfang, Anwai, Beijing, 100012, PR China. ' Lakes Environmental Software Inc.,419 Philips Street, Unit 3, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3X2, Canada
Abstract: This paper inter-compares the performance of AERMOD and EIAA (the current Chinese regulatory model) against the Alaska tracer field experiment. The predicted maximum arc-wise Ground Level Concentrations (GLC) are compared with the observed tracer field data. The scatter plots, QQ plots, and residual plots are examined. EIAA frequently underestimates the GLC because it lacks any downwash algorithm. AERMOD with downwash shows significant improvement over the performance of EIAA. This work was initiated by a need for updating the Chinese regulatory guidelines, and to examine the suitability of US EPA models for use in China.
Keywords: AERMOD; EIAA; Gaussian plume modelling; building downwash; China; Chinese regulatory guidelines; air quality; air pollution; dispersion modelling; pollutant dispersion.
International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 2010 Vol.40 No.1/2/3, pp.226 - 235
Available online: 11 Jan 2010 *Full-text access for editors Access for subscribers Purchase this article Comment on this article