Journal of Environmental Health Sciences (한국환경보건학회지)

Korean Society of Environmental Health (한국환경보건학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative Analysis of the CALPUFF and AERMOD Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Ready-Mixed Concrete Manufacturing Facilities Generating Particulate Matter

미세먼지 발생 레미콘시설에서의 대기확산모델 CALPUFF와 AERMOD 비교 분석

  • Han, Jin-hee (Department of Convergence Engineering, Graduate School of Venture, Hoseo University) ;
  • Kim, Younghee (Department of Convergence Engineering, Graduate School of Venture, Hoseo University)
  • 한진희 (호서대학교 벤처대학원 융합과학기술학과) ;
  • 김영희 (호서대학교 벤처대학원 융합과학기술학과)
  • Received : 2021.05.25
  • Accepted : 2021.06.17
  • Published : 2021.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: Using atmospheric dispersion representative models (AERMOD and CALPUFF), the emissions characteristics of each model were compared and analyzed in ready-mixed concrete manufacturing facilities that generate a large amount of particulate matter (PM-10, PM-2.5). Methods: The target facilities were the ready-mixed concrete manufacturing facilities (Siheung RMC, Goyang RMC, Ganggin RMC) and modeling for each facility was performed by dividing it into construction and operation times. The predicted points for each target facility were selected as 8-12ea (Siheung RMC 10, Goyang RMC 8, and Gangjin RMC 12ea) based on an area within a two-kilometer radius of each project district. The terrain input data was SRTM-3 (January-December 2019). The meteorological input data was divided into surface weather and upper layer weather data, and weather data near the same facility as the target facility was used. The predicted results were presented as a 24-hour average concentration and an annual average concentration. Results: First, overall, CALPUFF showed a tendency to predict higher concentrations than AERMOD. Second, there was almost no difference in the concentration between the two models in non-complex terrain such as in mountainous areas, but in complex terrain, CALPUFF predicted higher concentrations than AERMOD. This is believed to be because CALPUFF better reflected topographic characteristics. Third, both CALPUFF and AERMOD predicted lower concentrations during operation (85.2-99.7%) than during construction, and annual average concentrations (76.4-99.9%) lower than those at 24 hours. Fourth, in the ready-mixed concrete manufacturing facility, PM-10 concentration (about 40 ㎍/m3) was predicted to be higher than PM-2.5 (about 24 ㎍/m3). Conclusions: In complex terrain such as mountainous areas, CALPUFF predicted higher concentrations than AERMOD, which is thought to be because CALPUFF better reflected topographic characteristics. In the future, it is recommended that CALPUFF be used in complex terrain and AERMOD be used in other areas to save modeling time. In a ready-mixed concrete facility, PM-10, which has a relatively large particle size, is generated more than PM-2.5 due to the raw materials used and manufacturing characteristics.

Keywords

References

  1. Qiu H, Tian LW, Pun VC, Ho KF, Wong TW, Yu IT. Coarse particulate matter associated with increased risk of emergency hospital admissions for pneumonia in Hong Kong. Thorax. 2014; 69: 1027-1033. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-205429
  2. Horne BD, Joy EA, Hofmann MG, Gesteland PH, Cannon JB, Lefler JS, et al. Short-term elevation of fine partic?ulate matter air pollution and acute lower respiratory infection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018; 198: 759-766. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201709-1883oc
  3. Pope CA, 3rd, Muhlestein JB, May HT, Renlund DG, Anderson JL, Horne BD. Ischemic heart disease events triggered by short-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Circulation. 2006; 114: 2443-2448. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.636977
  4. Kim IS, Yang PS, Lee J, Yu HT, Kim TH, Uhm JS, et al. Long-term exposure of fine particulate matter air pollution and incident atrial fibrillation in the general population: A nationwide cohort study. Int J Cardiol. 2019; 283: 178-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.12.048
  5. Kim HJ, Kwon H, Jeong SM, Hwang SE, Park JH. Effects of abdominal visceral fat compared with those of subcutaneous fat on the association between PM10 and hypertension in Korean men: A cross-sectional study. Sci Rep. 2019; 9: 5951. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42398-1
  6. Li H, Cai J, Chen R, Zhao Z, Ying Z, Wang L, et al. Particulate Matter Exposure and Stress Hormone Levels: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover Trial of Air Purification. Circulation. 2017; 136: 618-627. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.026796
  7. He D, Wu S, Zhao H, Qiu H, Fu Y, Li X, et al. Association between particulate matter 2.5 and diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of cohort studies. J Diabetes Investig. 2017; 8: 687-696. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdi.12631
  8. Jung EM, Kim HS, Park H, Ye S, Lee D, Ha EH. Does exposure to PM10 decrease age at menarche? Environ Int. 2018; 117: 16-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.04.020
  9. Lee H, Myung W, Kim DK, Kim SE, Kim CT, Kim H. Short-term air pollution exposure aggravates Parkinson's disease in a population-based cohort. Sci Rep. 2017; 7: 44741. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44741
  10. Myung W, Lee H, Kim H. Short-term air pollution exposure and emergency department visits for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A time-stratified casecrossover analysis. Environ Int. 2019; 123: 467-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.12.042
  11. Lee S, Lee W, Kim D, Kim E, Myung W, Kim SY, et al. Short-term PM2.5 exposure and emergency hospital admissions for mental disease. Environ Res. 2019; 171: 313-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.01.036
  12. Buonicor, Anthony J., Wayne T. Davis, Air Pollution Engineering Manual, New York: ????; 1992. p.136-137.
  13. Mun NK, Lee YS, Kang YH, Kim YH. A study on the application of atmospheric diffusion model in environmental jmpact assessment. 2019; 283: 178-183.
  14. Lee SH. A comparative Study on the Atmospheric Diffusion characteristics of AERMOD and CALPUFF Models Considering Topography, Master's thenis, Department of Environmental Engineering,Graduate Sehool of Jndustry, Hanbat National University; 2012.
  15. Environmental Protection Agency, AERMOD: Description of Model Formulation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reserch Triangle Park. 1998.
  16. Environmental Protection Agency, User's Guide for the AERMOD Meterological Preprocessor (AERMET), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 2016.
  17. Environmental Protection Agency, User's Guide for the AERMOD Meterological Preprocessor (AERMAP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division,Research Triangle Park, NC. 2016.
  18. Levy JI, Spengler JD, Hlinka D, Sullivan D, and Moon D. Using CALPUFF to evaluate the impacts of power plant emissions in Illinois: model sensitivity and implications. Atmos Environ. 2002; 36: 1063-1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00493-9
  19. Scire JS, EM. Insley and RJ. Yamartino, Model fomulation and user's guide for the CALMET meteorological model, Sigma Research Corp., Concord, MA. 1990.
  20. Scire JS, EM. Insley and RJ. Yamartino, Model fomulation and user's guide for the CALPUFF dispersion model, Sigma Research Corp., Concord, MA. 1990.
  21. Environmental Protection Agency, User's Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) Dispersion models-Volume II Description of Mod el Algorithms, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reserch Triangle Park, 1995.
  22. Perry SG, DJ. Burns, LH. Adams, RJ. Paine, MG. Dennis, MT. Mills, DG. Strimaitis, RJ. Yamartino, EM. Insley, User's Guide to the Complex Terrain Dispersion Model Plus Algorithms for Unstable Situations (CTDMPLUS) Volume I: Model Description and User Instructions, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reserch Triangle Park. 1989.
  23. Lorimer G. The AUSPLUME Gaussian plume dispersion model, Environmental Protection Authority of Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 1986.