The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 20-24

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 20... ... 20 The general objective of the intercomparison was to use equivalent input data in all four models, keeping the inputs consistent so that any differences in output would be the result of differences in the dispersion models. Of the four models, only AERMOD could directly support the nearly 5,000 area sources to represent aircraft activity; the other models needed to be customized for this application. Read the entire page →
From page 21... ... Dispersion Model Intercomparison 21 4. SCICHEM Sensitivity #2 with full chemistry, and 5. Read the entire page →
From page 22... ... 22 Dispersion Modeling Guidance for airports addressing Local air Quality health Concerns All models underpredict observed PM2.5 at all four sites, which highlights the lack of background concentrations in the local-scale modeling, thus pointing to the need to incorporate background concentrations using another regional-scale model like the CMAQ model, or to use geostatistical techniques such as Space-Time Ordinary Kriging (STOK) of observed concentrations from remote background locations. Read the entire page →
From page 23... ... Dispersion Model Intercomparison 23 highest concentrations occur under light winds (1–3 m/s typically) for both stable and unstable conditions. Read the entire page →
From page 24... ... 24 Dispersion Modeling Guidance for airports addressing Local air Quality health Concerns Based upon this scoring scheme, in the Good category SCICHEM -- with a score of 17.5 -- seems to slightly outperform AERMOD with a score of 15 and ADMS-Airport with a score of 13. CALPUFF has 12 points under the High category, with only 9 under the Good category. Read the entire page →

From page 20...

... 20 The general objective of the intercomparison was to use equivalent input data in all four models, keeping the inputs consistent so that any differences in output would be the result of differences in the dispersion models. Of the four models, only AERMOD could directly support the nearly 5,000 area sources to represent aircraft activity; the other models needed to be customized for this application.

Read the entire page →

From page 21...

... Dispersion Model Intercomparison 21 4. SCICHEM Sensitivity #2 with full chemistry, and 5.

Read the entire page →

From page 22...

... 22 Dispersion Modeling Guidance for airports addressing Local air Quality health Concerns All models underpredict observed PM2.5 at all four sites, which highlights the lack of background concentrations in the local-scale modeling, thus pointing to the need to incorporate background concentrations using another regional-scale model like the CMAQ model, or to use geostatistical techniques such as Space-Time Ordinary Kriging (STOK) of observed concentrations from remote background locations.

Read the entire page →

From page 23...

... Dispersion Model Intercomparison 23 highest concentrations occur under light winds (1–3 m/s typically) for both stable and unstable conditions.

Read the entire page →

From page 24...

... 24 Dispersion Modeling Guidance for airports addressing Local air Quality health Concerns Based upon this scoring scheme, in the Good category SCICHEM -- with a score of 17.5 -- seems to slightly outperform AERMOD with a score of 15 and ADMS-Airport with a score of 13. CALPUFF has 12 points under the High category, with only 9 under the Good category.

Read the entire page →

Key Terms

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.