Odor Impact Assessment via Dispersion Model: Comparison of Different Input Meteorological Datasets
Source abstract
Abstract
Dispersion modeling is a useful tool for reproducing the spatial–temporal distribution of pollutants emitted by industrial sites, particularly in the environmental odor field. One widely used tool, accepted by regulatory agencies for environmental impact assessments, is the CALPUFF model, which requires a large number of input variables, including meteorological and orographical variables. The reliability of model results depends on the accuracy of these input variables. The present research aims to discuss a comparative study of odor dispersion modeling by initializing the CALMET meteorological processor with different input data: surface and upper air observational meteorological data, 3D prognostic data, and a blend of prognostic and measured data. Two distinct sources (a point and an area source) and two different simulation domains in Cuba and Italy are considered. The analysis of results is based on odor impact criteria enforced in some Italian regions by computing the 98th percentile of odor peak concentrations on an annual basis. For the area source, simulation results reveal that the ‘OBS’ and ‘HYBRID’ modes are largely comparable, whereas prognostic data tend to underestimate the odor concentrations, likely due to a reduced percentage of wind calms. For point sources, different input meteorological settings provide comparable results, with no significant differences.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols · Wind and Air Flow Studies · Odor and Emission Control Technologies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering “Giulio Natta”, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milan, Italy
Center for Atmospheric Physics, Meteorology Institute (INSMET), Loma de Casablanca, Regla, Havana 11700, Cuba
Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universidad Tecnológica de La Habana José Antonio Echeverría, Calle 114, No. 11901. e/Ciclovía y Rotonda, Marianao, Havana 19390, Cuba
References (55)
Show source-provided references
1. Residential proximity to industrial pollution sources and colorectal cancer risk: A multicase-control study (MCC-Spain)10.1016/j.envint.2020.106055 ↗
2. Industrial air pollution and mortality in the Taranto area, Southern Italy: A difference-in-differences approach10.1016/j.envint.2019.105030 ↗
3. A case study of odour nuisance evaluation in the context of integrated urban planning10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.086 ↗
4. A review of odour impact criteria in selected countries around the world10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.11.160 ↗
5. A review of environmental odor quantification and qualification methods: The question of objectivity in sensory analysis10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148862 ↗
6. Measurements techniques and models to assess odor annoyance: A review10.1016/j.envint.2019.105261 ↗
7. Influence of a municipal solid waste landfill in the surrounding environment: Toxicological risk and odor nuisance effects10.1016/j.envint.2014.03.004 ↗
8. Odor emissions: A public health concern for health risk perception10.1016/j.envres.2021.112121 ↗
9. Sironi, S. (2012). Odour Regulation and Policies. Odour Impact Assessment Handbook, John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781118481264.ch6 ↗
10. Bokowa, A., Diaz, C., Koziel, J.A., McGinley, M., Barclay, J., Schauberger, G., Guillot, J.-M., Sneath, R., Capelli, L., and Zorich, V. (2021). Summary and overview of the odour regulationsworldwide. Atmosphere, 12.10.3390/atmos12020206 ↗
11. Evaluating the impact of odors from the 1955 landfills in China using a bottom-up approach10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.09.009 ↗
12. Dispersion modeling and air quality measurements to evaluate the odor impact of a wastewater treatment plant in İzmir10.1016/j.apr.2020.05.018 ↗
13. Assessment of odour emissions by the use of a dispersion model in the context of the proposed new law in Chile10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113208 ↗
14. Modeling the carbon monoxide dissipation in Timisoara, Romania10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.02.047 ↗
15. Development of a fluctuating plume model for odour dispersion around buildings10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.02.053 ↗
16. Influence of emission rate on atmospheric dispersion modeling of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident10.1016/j.apr.2016.10.013 ↗
17. An urban scale application and validation of the CALPUFF model10.1016/j.apr.2015.10.016 ↗
18. Assessment of the NOX integral emission from the St. Petersburg megacity by means of mobile DOAS measurements combined with dispersion modelling10.1016/j.apr.2022.101598 ↗
19. On the use of numerical modelling for near-field pollutant dispersion in urban environments—A review10.1016/j.envpol.2015.07.039 ↗
20. Health risk assessment of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted from landfill working surface via dispersion simulation enhanced by probability analysis10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120535 ↗
21. Emissions of volatile organic compounds during the ship-loading of petroleum products: Dispersion modelling and environmental concerns10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.045 ↗
22. Assessing particle dry deposition in an urban environment by using dispersion models10.1016/j.apr.2019.07.010 ↗
23. Odour impact assessment by considering short-term ambient concentrations: A multi-model and two-site comparison10.1016/j.envint.2020.105990 ↗
24. Dai, W., Otto, C., and Reeves, D. (2023, May 13). Performing CALPUFF Analyses with Pseudo-Station Data Derived from MM5 Data. Available online: https://d3pcsg2wjq9izr.cloudfront.net/files/3783/articles/5161/tp_perform_calpuff.pdf.
25. A sensitivity analysis applied to SPRAY and CALPUFF models when simulating dispersion from industrial fires10.1016/j.apr.2021.101249 ↗
26. Source contribution analysis of mercury deposition using an enhanced CALPUFF-Hg in the central Pearl River Delta, China10.1016/j.envpol.2019.04.008 ↗
27. Performance evaluation of approaches to predict sub-hourly peak odour concentrations
28. Intercomparison of FLEXPART and CALPUFF dispersion models. An application over a small tropical island
29. Variability in odour impact assessment due to different cloud cover estimation approaches: A northern Italy case study10.1016/j.cscee.2023.100492 ↗
30. Comparison of weather station and climate reanalysis data for modelling temperature-related mortality10.1038/s41598-022-09049-4 ↗
31. Velázquez-Zapata, J.A. (2019). Comparing meteorological data sets in the evaluation of climate change impact on hydrological indicators: A case study on a Mexican basin. Water, 11.10.3390/w11102110 ↗
32. Case study: A comparison of predicted Odour exposure levels in Barcelona using CALPUFF lite, CALPUFF NoObs and CALPUFF Hybrid model
33. Lombardia, D.G.R. (2023, May 13). n.IX/3018. Determinazioni Generali in Merito Alla Caratterizzazione delle Emissioni Gassose in Atmosfera Derivanti da Attività a Forte Impatto Odorigeno. Available online: https://www.regione.lombardia.it/wps/wcm/connect/1008c34a-79b9-4185-8557-6ffd65eb7e86/DGR+3018_2012.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-1008c34a-79b9-4185-8557-6ffd65eb7e86-nK1Rz2t.
34. Scire, J.S., Strimaitis, D.G., and Yamartino, R.J. (2000). A User’s Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model, Earth Tech, Inc.. Available online: http://www.src.com/calpuff/download/CALPUFF_UsersGuide.pdf.
35. US-EPA (2023, April 15). Meteorological Monitoring Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications; Epa-454/R-99-005, Available online: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/met/mmgrma.pdf.
36. US-EPA (2023, March 15). Appendix W: Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Enhancements to the AERMOD Dispersion Modeling System and Incorporation of Approaches to Address Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter, Available online: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/17/2016-31747/revisions-to-the-guideline-on-air-quality-models-enhancements-to-the-aermod-dispersion-modeling.
37. Parameterization and evaluation of the CALMET/CALPUFF model system in near-field and complex terrain–Terrain data, grid resolution and terrain adjustment method10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.379 ↗
38. Scire, J., Robe, F., Fernau, M., and Yamartino, R. (2000). A User’s Guide for the CALMET Meteorological Model, Earth Tech, Inc.
39. Performance evaluation of AERMOD, CALPUFF, and legacy air dispersion models using the Winter Validation Tracer Study dataset10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.02.054 ↗
40. Condiciones que favorecen el desarrollo de tornados en las provincias occidentales de Cuba en los períodos lluvioso y poco lluvioso
41. Estudio del contenido integral del vapor de agua en la zona tropical comprendida entre los 17? y 25? latitud norte y los 66? y 97? longitud oeste
42. Gandin, L.S. (2017). The Planning of Meteorological Station Networks, WMO Technical Note.
43. Representativeness errors for radiosonde observations10.1002/qj.49711548713 ↗
44. US-EPA (2023, February 12). Documentation of the Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long Range Transport Models Using Tracer Field Experiment Data, Available online: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/reports/EPA-454_R-12-003.pdf.
45. Caso de estudio en la bahía de jagua al sur de Cuba mediante un acoplamiento WRF/CALMET10.1590/0102-7786324013 ↗
46. The, J.L., and Lee, R.F. (2023, April 17). The Effect of the CALMET Surface Layer Weighting Parameter R1 on the Accuracy of CALMET at Other Nearby Sites: A Case Stud. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=5765d4a68fa1c3038a71d47e194fd88412e2a5a3.
47. CALPUFF and AERMOD model validation study in the near field: Martins Creek revisited10.3155/1047-3289.61.6.647 ↗
48. US-EPA (2023, March 05). User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), Available online: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/aermod/aermodugb.pdf.
49. The evaluation of the Odour Emission Rate for passive area sources: A new approach
50. Experimental evaluation on liquid area sources: Influence of wind velocity and temperature on the wind tunnel sampling of VOCs emissions from wastewater treatment plants10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.137337 ↗
51. Influence of wind velocity on the emission rate of acetone aqueous solution at different concentrations
52. Generalized approach for using unbiased symmetric metrics with negative values: Normalized mean bias factor and normalized mean absolute error factor10.1002/asl.393 ↗
53. Skyscraper rooftop tracer concentration observations in Manhattan and comparisons with urban dispersion models10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.01.051 ↗
54. Air quality model performance evaluation10.1007/s00703-003-0070-7 ↗
55. On the validation of models10.1080/02723646.1981.10642213 ↗