Environmental Planning Institute, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, South Korea.
Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI), Seoul 122-824, South Korea.
J Hazard Mater. 2014 Feb 15;266:34-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.12.009. Epub 2013 Dec 14.
Maintaining coherence among environmental quality objectives (EQOs) should be an important consideration for the EQOs to be met simultaneously. The objectives of the present work were to demonstrate the need of accurate variability prediction by models and to present considerations in selecting models for testing coherence of the EQOs. SimpleBox and POPsME were chosen as the two different types of models to compare the prediction variability and its influence on the results of coherence test among the maximum permissible concentrations (MPCs) of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in South Korea. False calls by these models on coherence were found to occur often due to inaccurate prediction of variability in the concentration ratio at steady state, strongly suggesting that models for coherence test should be accurate in predicting not only the point value representing the concentration ratio but the variability of the value. It was demonstrated that spatially resolved dynamic models would have an intrinsic advantage over one box steady state models in reducing the rate of false negative call.
同时满足环境质量目标 (EQO) 应考虑保持它们之间的一致性。本工作的目的是通过模型展示准确预测变异性的必要性,并提出在选择用于测试 EQO 一致性的模型时需要考虑的因素。选择 SimpleBox 和 POPsME 作为两种不同类型的模型,以比较预测变异性及其对韩国多环芳烃 (PAHs) 最大允许浓度 (MPC) 之间一致性测试结果的影响。由于在稳态下浓度比的变异性预测不准确,这些模型经常错误地判断一致性,这强烈表明用于一致性测试的模型不仅应该准确预测代表浓度比的点值,还应该准确预测该值的变异性。结果表明,与单箱稳态模型相比,空间分辨动态模型在降低假阴性率方面具有内在优势。