A Comparison of Model Performance between AERMOD and AUSTAL2000

ABSTRACT

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 gemäβ 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.

IMPLICATIONS

This study contributes to the understanding of dispersion modeling and demonstrates the advantage of detailed meteorological data. It also helps air quality regulators and planners to identify the most appropriate model to use. It is indicated that AERMOD is more suitable for air quality planning and regulation, when all required meteorological information is available, because its predictions are mostly closer to field observations. Furthermore AUSTAL2000 predicted concentrations that showed a narrow range and triggered far less impacts from the source.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Bruce A. Egan of Egan Environmental, Steve R. Hanna of Hanna Consultants, and the EPA for providing us with the field databases. This study would not have been possible without the data. The authors also thank the air quality experts of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for their friendly support, Hayley Chamberlain and Lillian Harris for language editing of the manuscript, and the reviewers for their careful work.