Institute of Landscape Ecology, Department of Climatology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2011 Jun;61(6):640-6. doi: 10.3155/1047-3289.61.6.640.
In this study the performance of the American Meteorological Society and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD), a Gaussian plume model, is compared in five test cases with the German Dispersion Model according to the Technical Instructions on Air Quality Control (Ausbreitungsmodell gemäbeta der Technischen Anleitung zur Reinhaltung der Luft) (AUSTAL2000), a Lagrangian model. The test cases include different source types, rural and urban conditions, flat and complex terrain. The predicted concentrations are analyzed and compared with field data. For evaluation, quantile-quantile plots were used. Further, a performance measure is applied that refers to the upper end of concentration levels because this is the concentration range of utmost importance and interest for regulatory purposes. AERMOD generally predicted concentrations closer to the field observations. AERMOD and AUSTAL2000 performed considerably better when they included the emitting power plant building, indicating that the downwash effect near a source is an important factor. Although AERMOD handled mountainous terrain well, AUSTAL2000 significantly underestimated the concentrations under these conditions. In the urban test case AUSTAL2000 did not perform satisfactorily. This may be because AUSTAL2000, in contrast to AERMOD, does not use any algorithm for nightly turbulence as caused by the urban heat island effect. Both models performed acceptable for a nonbuoyant volume source. AUSTAL2000 had difficulties in stable conditions, resulting in severe underpredictions. This analysis indicates that AERMOD is the stronger model compared with AUSTAL2000 in cases with complex and urban terrain. The reasons for that seem to be AUSTAL2000's simplification of the meteorological input parameters and imprecision because of rounding errors.
在这项研究中，美国气象学会和美国环保署的法规模型（AERMOD）与德国扩散模型（根据《空气质量控制技术指令》（AUSTAL2000），一个拉格朗日模型）进行了比较。在五个测试案例中，测试案例包括不同的源类型、农村和城市条件、平坦和复杂地形。预测浓度并与现场数据进行分析比较。为了评估，使用了分位数-分位数图。此外，还应用了一种性能指标，该指标参考了浓度水平的上限，因为这是监管目的最重要和最感兴趣的浓度范围。AERMOD 通常更接近现场观测预测浓度。当包括排放发电厂建筑物时，AERMOD 和 AUSTAL2000 的性能要好得多，这表明源附近的下降气流效应是一个重要因素。尽管 AERMOD 很好地处理了山区地形，但在这些条件下，AUSTAL2000 显著低估了浓度。在城市测试案例中，AUSTAL2000 表现不佳。这可能是因为与 AERMOD 不同，AUSTAL2000 没有使用任何算法来处理城市热岛效应引起的夜间湍流。这两种模型对于非浮力体积源的表现都可以接受。在稳定条件下，AUSTAL2000 遇到困难，导致严重的低估。这种分析表明，在复杂和城市地形情况下，AERMOD 是比 AUSTAL2000 更强的模型。原因似乎是 AUSTAL2000 对气象输入参数的简化以及舍入误差造成的不精确性。
