Comparison Between the Models Calpuff and Lagrangian Lambda With Line Source
Keywords:CALPUFF. Regulatory model. LAMBDA. Neutral boundary layer. Line source instantaneous emission.
The aim of this study is to compare the CALPUFF and LAMBDA models and evaluate the regulatory model CALPUFF accuracy in situations of line instant source emissions. Line source emissions exist in a variety of situations in the environmental field. Paved and unpaved roads are the most common examples of line sources. For instance, in the mining sector these two types of sources play an important role of anthropogenic influences in the environment. The OLAD experiment is appropriate to evaluate these models and check the accuracy of both. The CALPUFF results show in the simulations for short and long distances a systematic tendency of sub-prediction for the concentration. The LAMBDA model presented better accuracy in the prediction of natural pollutant dispersion even disregarding the spatial variability of meteorological field and topography. When the LAMBDA model is used the flow of pollutants to greater distances is less pronounced, especially because of the time step of one second adopted in the simulation.
Ferrero E., Anfossi D. Comparison of PDFs, Closures Schemes and Turbulence Parameterizations in Lagrangian Stochastic Models, Int. J. Environment and Pollution, v. 9, p. 384-410, 1998
Degrazia, G. A., Carvalho, Jonas C., Moreira, D. M., Vilhena, M. T., Roberti, D. R., Magalhães, S. G. Derivation of a Decorrelation Timescale Depending on Source Distance for Inhomogeneous Turbulence in a Convective Boundary Layer, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, v 374, p. 55-65, 2007.
Degrazia, F. C., Vilhena, M. T., Degrazia, G. A., Bodmann, B. The Influence of Decorrelation Time Scales in the CALPUFF Modeling System under Neutral Conditions. American Journal of Environmental Engineering, 5(1A), 125-132, 2015.
Rodean, Howard C. Stochastic Lagrangian Models of Turbulent Diffusion, American Meteorological Society, Boston, 1996.
C. A. Biltoft, S. D. Turley, T. B. Watson, G. H. Crescenti, R. G. Carter, Over-Land Atmospheric Dispersion (OLAD) Test Summary and Analysis, Customer Report, U.S. Army Dug-way Proving Ground, USA, 1999.
Scire, J. S., Strimaitis, D. G., Yamartino, R. J. A User’s Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model (Version 5). Earth Tech Inc., Concord, 2000.
How to Cite
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.