Skip to main content

Evaluation of three pollutant dispersion models for the environmental assessment of a district in Kocaeli, Turkey

  • Authors
    ?etin D.
    Karademir A.
    Demirarslan K.Corresponding
    Download PDF
  • gnest_01901_published.pdf
  • Paper ID
  • Paper status
  • Date paper accepted
  • Date paper online

Air Quality Modeling is a method used to manage urban air quality. Various pollutant dispersion models are available, and each of these models is characterized by its own advantages and disadvantages. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the models and to determine their performance by applying them to a specific district. This study also enabled the determination of the contribution of pollution sources to the total pollution and the current air quality of the study area according to the selected pollutants. In this study, both steady-state models (the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model-AERMOD and the Industrial Source Complex Short Term Model-ISCST-3) and the Lagrangian model (the California Puff Model-CALPUFF) were used as the dispersion models. The Körfez district of Kocaeli was selected as the study area. SO2 and PM10 emissions were observed as pollutants. The statistical methods of mean squared error (MSE) and fractional bias (FB) were employed to evaluate the performance of these models.

The results of the study revealed that the highest concentration varied according to the models and time options. However, when the modeling results for all of the sources were examined, the highest concentration was calculated by ISCST-3. The effect of the line source was less than the other sources (point and area). The contributions of the pollution sources differed according to each modeling program. The results of the statistical methods, which were used for evaluating the performance of the models, varied according to both the pollutant type and the time option. An overall ranking regarding modeling performance is as follows: CALPUFF > AERMOD > ISCST-3 for PM10 and ISCST-3 > CALPUFF > AERMOD for SO2. The MSE/FB results demonstrated that the predicted values were lower than the measured outcomes. Similarly, a comparison of the predicted and measured values with national and international limits revealed that various measures are necessary to reduce SO2 and PM10.