The Study of AERMOD and ISCST3 for Area Source Simulation in Taiwan

Abstract:

This research compared the performance of ISCST3 model with the AERMOD simulated for six selected environmental impact assessment (EIA) cases which belongs four kinds of area in Taiwan (hotel, industrial area, road, reservoir). The influence of different terrain (complex or flat) and land use (countryside or urban) was then determined for the two air dispersion models.The results of the cross analysis indicated that there is no significant difference between of the complex terrain and flat terrain on the incremental concentration ratio. However, the biggest difference of incremental concentration of particulate matter (PM) is in the simulation for case in urban (ISCST3 is 1.96 times higher than AERMOD), and the gas pollutants in ISCST3 of incremental concentration simulation results ratio reach to 65.38% more than others. The highest incremental concentration of ISCST3 is 2.67 times to AERMOD. The concentration in AERMOD higher than that in ISTSC3 was 20% in the total 40 simulation values, due to the difference between their vertical diffusion simulations. The ratio of maximum incremental concentration in AERMOD was higher than ISCST3 by 42.5%. By the cross match of these incremental concentration, the ratio that maximum incremental concentration in AERMOD being less than ISCST3 was 22.5% after diffusion, which shows that the sinking rate in AERMOD is faster than ISCST3.The simulation of AERMOD considers more in complex terrain and surface characteristics. It uses the stratified flow over complex terrain and considers the effect in characteristics of the Earth’s surface. Thus, the theoretical basis of AERMOD is solider than ISCST3, and its simulation has more reliability.

• Periodical: Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volume 775)
• Pages: 491-495
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.775.491
• Online since: July 2015
• Authors: Wei Jen Tseng*, Chao Heng Tseng, Han Chi Liu
• Keywords: AERMOD, Environmental Impact Assessment, ISCST3

References

[1] EPA, User's guide for the industrial source complex (ISC3) dispersion model, Volume I: User Instructions, (1995).

[2] EPA, User's guide for the industrial source complex (ISC3) dispersion model, Volume II: Dispersion of Model Algorithms, (1995).

[3] Zhang Gen-hui etc, Air quality modeling technology and countermeasure support program, the EPA report (EPA-98-FA11-03-A229), Taipei, (2010).

[4] Kuang, Y-C, AERMOD smoke flow model applied research in Taiwan Area, Sinotech Engineering Consultants, Ltd. Vol 88. 2005, pp.55-62.

[5] William B. Faulkner, Bryan W. Shaw, Tom Grosch, Sensitivity of Two Dispersion Models (AERMOD and ISCST3) to Input Parameters for a Rural Ground-Level Area Source, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol. 58, October 2008, pp.1288-1298.

DOI: 10.3155/1047-3289.58.10.1288

[6] Tsai, J. -L., B. -J. Tsuang and P. -S. Lu, Surface Energy Components and Land Characteristics of a Rice Paddy, American Meteorological Society, vol. 46, November 2007, p.1879-(1900).

DOI: 10.1175/2007jamc1568.1

[7] TRAN, K.T., Comparative Use of ISCST3, ISC-PRIME and AERMOD in Air Toxics Risk Assessment, A&WMA Guideline Models Specialty Conference., Newport. RI, (2001).

[8] Yang, D., Chen G., and Yu Y. (2007). Inter-comparison of Aermod and ISC3 modeling results to the Alaska tracer field experiment., Chinese Journal of Geochemistry, vol. 26, pp.182-185.

DOI: 10.1007/s11631-007-0182-8