A framework for emissions source apportionment in industrial areas: MM5/CALPUFF in a near-field application

Figures & data

Table 1. Characteristics of the main plants in the study area ^a

	Production				Process Fuel		Energy Fuel
Industry Name	Process	Product (S)	Emission Control ^b	Rate (T/D)	Type	Quantity (T/D)	Type	Quantity (T/D)
Holcim (1 and 2)	Dry/preheater/precalciner	Clinker	ESP, BHF, C	5,800	Petcoke	580	Fuel oil	77
		Gray cement		3,190
Holcim (3)	Dry/preheater	Clinker	ESP, BHF, C	300	Petcoke	39	—	—
		White cement		167	Fuel oil	47
Cimenterie Nationale (CN)	Dry/preheater/precalciner	Clinker	ESP, BHF, C	2,900	Petcoke	480	Fuel oil	140
		2,000			Fuel oil	54
		Gray cement		1,380
Seament (CMO)	Dry/preheater	Clinker	ESP, BHF, C	200	Fuel oil	22	Fuel oil	1.7
		Gray cement		52
Lime & Plaster Co. (L&P)	Rotary kiln/ore/calciner	Lime	BHF	8.2	Fuel oil	2.7	—	—
		Plaster		1.8
Mineral Oil Recycling Co. (MORC)	Traditional batch	Base/lube oil		5.6	Gas oil	0.21	—	—
Lebanon Chemicals Co. (LCC)	Double contact/Rhone-Poulenc	Sulphuric acid	WS	650	Fuel oil	33	—	—
		Phosphoric acid		200
		TSP fertilizer		183
		SSP fertilizer		83
Notes: ^aSource: El-Fadel et al. (2009). ^bESP = electrostatic precipitator; BHF = baghouse filter; C = cyclone; WS = wet scrubber.

Table 2. Physical characteristics of modeled source groups

	Parameters
Industry Name	Stack Height (m)	Stack Diameter (m)	Gas Exit Temperature (K)	Gas Exit Velocity (m/sec)
Holcim (1 & 2)	108.5	3	393	12
Holcim (3)	51	2.1	403	12
Cimenterie Nationale (CN)	75	4	393	14
Seament (CMO)	55	1	393	12
Lime & Plaster (L&P)	52	0.75	398	12
Mineral Oil Recycling Co. (MORC)	10	0.3	433	6
Lebanon Chemicals Co. (LCC)	38	0.9	353	9
Area Sources	Dimensions (m^2)
Highway	Series of rectangular area sources with total area of 16,000 m × 16 m
CN quarry	Polygonal area source with an area of 510,500 m^2
Holcim quarry	Polygonal area source with an area of 93,705 m^2
LP quarry	Polygonal area source with an area of 151,800 m^2

Figure 1. Characteristics of the study area (colour figure avilable in online).

Table 3. Summary of field monitoring campaign for CO, NO₂, and PM_{1 0}

			Number of Daily Records ^b
Designation	Location	Monitoring Periods ^a	CO	NO2	PM10 ^c
LO1	Enfeh	Jan 01–Jan 11; Apr 19–May 13; Sep 09– Oct 05	59	48	6
LO2	Chekka	Jan 11–Feb 02; May 13–May 20; Sep 06–Sep 23	42	20	3
LO3	Fih	Feb 03–Feb 19; Jun 15–Jul 05; Aug 26–Sep 06	45	35	3
LO4	Kfar-hazir	Mar 01–Mar 15; Jul 05–Aug 16	40	40	3
LO5	Kefraya	Mar 15–Mar 23; Jun 15–Jul 05	28	8	3
Notes: ^aAll measurements were conducted during the year 2003. ^bTotal number of days considered for statistical analysis. ^cPM10 measurements were conducted at selected discrete (nonconsecutive) days at each location.

Table 4. Range of emission factors (g/sec)

	CO		NOx		PM10
Emittant Source (see Figure 1)	EEA(Min–Avg–Max)	USEPA(Min–Max)	EEA(Min–Avg–Max)	USEPA(Min–Max)	EEA(Min–Avg–Max)	USEPA(Min–Max)
Point sources
Holcim (1 & 2)	104.1–208.1–416.2	15.5–46.5	41.6–161.3–624.3	120.6–212.6	0.5–4.4–12.8	326.5–825.7
Holcim (3)	5.4–10.8–21.6	0.43–5.03	2.2–8.4–32.4	8.4–13.8	0.055–0.83–2.16	4.7–49.9
Cimenterie  Nationale (CN)	72.7–145.4–290.7	26.44–52.9	29.1–112.7–436.1	152–229.6	0.607–9.54–27.9	494.9–1861.3
Seament (CMO)	2.9–5.8–11.7	0.4–1.4	1.2–4.5–17.5	2–6.6	0.001–0.007–0.03	12.9–31.9
Lime & Plaster Co.  (L&P)	0.03–0.20–1.40	0.014–0.16	0.05–0.30–1.40	0.21–0.43	0.028–0.25–0.57	1–2
Mineral Oil Recycling Co.  (MORC)	0.001–0.0017–0.002	0.001–0.01	0.002–0.005–0.01	0.05–0.05	0.000007–0.0004–0.0001	0.0011–0.0011
Lebanon Chemicals  Co. (LCC)	0.3–0.7–10	0.2–2.3	0.09–1.7–2.6	3.4–3.8	0.012–0.105–0.3	1.6–2.2
Area sources
Holcim quarry	—	—	—	—	0.095–0.57–2.84	30.9–36.6
CN quarry	—	—	—	—	0.051–0.36–2.06	112.3–142.9
L&P quarry	—	—	—	—	0.00012–0.00061–0.00307	16.7–16.7
Line sources
Highway	3.55–77.27–154.54	2472– 4172	0.31–7.73–13.91	618.15–726.33	0.0062–0.011–0.012	—

Table 5. Statistical analysis of model simulations against field measurements for CO and NO₂

Pollutant		CO				NO2
Location	Period	FB	MG	NMSE	FAC2(%)	FB	MG	NMSE	FAC2(%)
Enfeh (LO1)	Jan 01–Jan 11	0.57	2	0.4	50	—	—	—	—
	Apr 19–May 13	1.2	5	3	10	0.38	0.8	1.9	25
	Sep 09–Oct 05	−0.5	0.97	2.3	31	0.8	3.3	4.9	15
	Aggregate^a	0.6	2.1	2	28	0.78	2	4.9	19
Chekka (LO2)	Jan 11–Feb 02	0.48	2.1	0.6	55	0.54	1	1.9	35
	May 13–May 20	0.04	1.2	0.3	67	—	—	—	—
	Sep 06–Sep 23	1.2	6.7	3	25	—	—	—	—
	Aggregate	0.8	3	1.4	41	—	—	—	—
Fih (LO3)	Feb 03–Feb 19	1.8	405	32	3	1.8	52.2	22.8	10
	Jun 15–Jul 05	1.7	28	16	2	1.97	223	225	2
	Aug 26–Sep 06	1.1	4.6	2.4	40	—	—	—	—
	Aggregate	1.7	50	14.1	10	1.9	223	285	4
Kfarhazir (LO4)	Mar 01–Mar 15	0.78	3	1.8	24	1.1	6	2.4	29
	Jul 05–Aug 16	1.4	19.7	5.8	18	1.4	4.5	12	17
	Aggregate	1.2	9.7	4	15	1.4	5.1	8.4	16
Kefraya (LO5)	Mar 15–Mar 23	−0.36	0.8	0.6	75	−0.54	0.4	1.3	38
	Jun 15–Jul 05	−0.7	0.6	3.2	70	—	—	—	—
	Aggregate	−0.72	0.64	3.5	71	—	—	—	—
Notes: ^aAggregate: Total observations at a receptor were compared with predictions regardless of time period.

Table 6. Statistical analysis of model simulations against field measurements for PM₁₀

		PM10
Designation	Location	FB	MG	NMSE	FAC2(%)
LO1	Enfeh	0.06	1	0.83	50
LO2	Chekka	0.8	1.95	1.4	67
LO3	Fih	−0.1	0.98	0.09	100
LO4	Kfar-hazir	−0.21	0.85	0.17	100
LO5	Kefraya	−0.56	0.56	0.33	100

Figure 2. Selected (a) scatter and (b) Q-Q plots for CO (µg/m³), NO₂ (µg/m³), and PM₁₀ (µg/m³).

Figure 3. Emission characteristics in the study area.

Figure 4. Ratio of the 24-hr average concentration predicted via the EI and EO scenarios.

Table 7. Source contribution to the highest weekly average CO concentration

Location (Period)	Observed (µg/m^3)	Predicted (µg/m^3)	Point Sources (%)	Highway (%)	Quarries (%)
LO1 (Jan 01–Jan 11)	274	110	53	47	0
LO2 (Jan 12–Feb 02)	550	440	4	96	0
LO3 (Jun 15–Jul 05)	800	35	54	46	0
LO4 (Jul 06–Aug 10)	700	200	23	77	0
LO5 (Jun 15–Jul 05)	940	1780	1	99	0

Figure 5. Typical daily source contribution to CO concentration (µg/m³) at several locations.

Figure 6. Spatial distribution of the 24-hr average CO concentration during winter and summer (colour figure avilable in online).

Table 8. Source contribution to the highest weekly average NO₂ concentration

Location (Period)	Observed (µg/m^3)	Predicted (µg/m^3)	Point Sources (%)	Highway (%)	Quarries (%)
LO1 (Jan 01–Jan 11)	95640	624	6	94	0
LO2 (Jan 12–Feb 02)	3010	1910	1	99	0
LO3 (Jun 15–Jul 05)	24550	100	13	87	0
LO4 (Jul 06–Aug 10)	1840	455	2	98	0
LO5 (Jun 15–Jul 05)	1670	3102	0	100	0

Figure 7. Typical daily source contribution to NO₂ concentration at several locations.

Figure 8. Spatial distribution of the 24-hr average NO₂ concentration during winter and summer (colour figure avilable in online).

Figure 9. Spatial distribution of the 24-hr average PM₁₀ concentration during summer (colour figure avilable in online).

Figure 10. Time series of NO₂ concentration with and without chemical transformations.

El-Fadel , M. , Abi-Esber , L. and Ayash , T. 2009 . Managing emissions from highly industrialized areas: Regulatory compliance under uncertainty . Atmos. Environ. , 43 : 5015 – 5026 . doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.06.056

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar