IMPACT OF LAND USE TYPES ON TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE (TSP) DISPERSION: A STUDY USING AERMOD MODEL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/aej.v16.24619Keywords:
AERMOD, Land use types, TSP, Albedo, Bowen ratio, Surface roughness lengthAbstract
This research investigated the influence of land use types on dispersion of total suspended particulate (TSP) using the AERMOD model. Eight land use types were analyzed: water (fresh and sea), deciduous forest, coniferous forest, swamp, cultivated land, grassland, urban and desert shrubland. The study area covered a 10-km radius within Patong Subdistrict Municipality, Hat Yai District, Songkhla Province, Thailand. Emission data from local wood processing factories and meteorological data from Kho Hong agricultural meteorological station (UTM x 661916.09 m: y 759424.31 m) were utilized. The results showed that variations in land use types influenced TSP dispersion due to changes in surface characteristics, such as albedo, Bowen ratio, and surface roughness length. The study of TSP dispersion characteristics across 8 land use types identified 3 distinct groups. Group 1 included urban, deciduous forest, and coniferous forest. Group 2 included water (fresh and sea) and swamp. Group 3 included cultivated forest, grassland, and desert shrubland in 1-hour, 24-hour and annual TSP dispersion. These groupings highlight the substantial variations in TSP concentrations driven by land use types. Additionally, the selection of different land use types resulted in substantial differences in the predicted TSP concentrations: 73.6% for 1-hour prediction, 30.31% for 24-hour prediction, and 28.1% for annual prediction. These findings highlight the complex interactions between land surface characteristics and TSP dispersion, highlighting the importance of accurately accounting for land use in air quality modeling.
References
Pollution Control Department (PCD). 2022. Thailand state of pollution report 2022. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://www.pcd.go.th/publication/30311 (in Thai)
Pollution Control Department (PCD). 1992. National Environmental Quality Promotion and Conservation Act B.E. 2535. (in Thai)
Orellano, P., Reynoso, J., Quaranta, N., Bardach, A., and Ciapponi, A. 2020. Short-term exposure to particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone (O3) and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment International, 142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105876
Eastern Economic Corridor Office of Thailand (EECO). 2022. A simple document to disseminate knowledge about air modeling AERMOD for the public. Retrieved July 6, 2023, from http://eec-mtp.onep.go.th/report/aermod-2020.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017. Guideline on Air Quality Models. Retrieved March 28, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersion-modeling-preferred-and-recommended-models.
Suadee, W. 2007. AERMOD model. Journal of Safety and Health, 1(2): 23-32. (in Thai)
Kumar, A., Dixit, S., Varadarajan, C., Vijayan, A., and Masuraha, A. 2006. Evaluation of the AERMOD dispersion model as a function of atmospheric stability for an urban area. Environmental Progress, 25(2): 141-151. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.10129
Zou, B., Zeng, Y., Liu, H., Zhang, H., Qiu, Y., and Zhan, B.F. 2010. Sensitivity analysis of AERMOD in modeling local air quality under different model options. 4th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering (ICBBE), Kaifeng, China, 18-20 June 2010, 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/iCBBE15114.2010
Brusca, S., Famoso, F., Lanzafame, R., Mauro, S., Marino Cugno Garrano, A., and Monforte, P. 2016. Theoretical and experimental study of Gaussian Plume model in small scale system. 71st Conference of the Italian Thermal Machines Engineering Association, Turin, Italy, Energy Procedia, 101: 58-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.11.008
Khan, M.M.H., Kurniawan, T.A., Chandra, I., and Lei, T.M.T. 2025. Modeling PM10 emissions in quarry and mining operations: insights from AERMOD applications in Malaysia. Atmosphere, 16(4): 369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16040369
Jittra, N., Pinthong, N., and Thepanondh, S. 2015. Performance evaluation of AERMOD and CALPUFF air dispersion models in industrial complex area. Air, Soil and Water Research, 8: 87-95, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4137/ASWR.S32781
Gulia, S., Shiva Nagendra, S.M., and Khare, M. 2014. Performance evaluation of ISCST3, ADMS-Urban and AERMOD for urban air quality management in a mega city of India. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 9(6): 778-793, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V9-N6-778-793
Atabi, F., Jafarigol, F., Moattar, F., and Nouri, J. 2016. Comparison of AERMOD and CALPUFF models for simulating SO2 concentrations in a gas refinery. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 188(9): 516, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5508-8
Carbonell, L.M.T., Gacita, M.S., Oliva, J.D.J.R., Garea, L.C., Rivero, N.D., and Ruiz, E.M., 2010. Methodological guide for implementation of the AERMOD system with incomplete local data. Atmospheric Pollution Research. 1: 102-111, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5094/APR.2010.013
Grosch, T.G., and Lee, R.F., 1999. Sensitivity of the AERMOD air quality model to the selection of land use parameters. Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 29: 803-812.
Karvounis, G., Deligiorgi, D., and Philippopoulas, K. 2007. On the sensitivity of AERMOD to surface parameters under various anemological condition. 11th International Conference on Harmonisation within Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes, Cambridge, United Kingdom, January 2007, 43-47.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2024. AERMOD Implementation Guide. Retrieved November 20, 2024. 34.
Siladee, K. 2009. Comparison study on air pollution concentrations estimated by AERMOD air quality model using different surface characteristics. Thammasat University, Master Environmental Science Thesis, 192 p. (in Thai)
Kalhor, M., and Bajoghli, M. 2017. Comparison of AERMOD, ADMS and ISC3 for incomplete upper air meteorological data (case study: Steel plant). Atmospheric Pollution Research, 8(6): 1203-1208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2017.06.001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2024. User's guide for the AMS/EPA regulatory model (AERMOD). Retrieved November 20, 2024, https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/preferred/aermod/aermod_userguide.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. User's guide for the AERMOD meteorological preprocessor (AERMET). Retrieved March 22, 2023, form https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/aermet_userguide.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. 36 FR 8186 Apr 30, 1971 National ambient air quality standards for particulate matter.
Chang, J.C., and Hanna, S.R. 2004. Air quality model performance evaluation. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 87: 167-196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-003-0070-7.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. 40 CFR Part 51 Revision to the guideline on air quality models: adoption of a preferred general purpose (flat and complex terrain) dispersion model and other Revisions; Final Rule. North Carolina.
Cole T.J., and Altman D.G. 2017. Statistics Notes: What is a percentage difference?. British Medical Journal 358: 3663. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3663
Waewsak, J., Chancham, C., Chiwamongkhonkarn, S., and Gagnon, Y. 2019. Wind resource sssessment of the Southernmost Region of Thailand using atmospheric and computational fluid dynamics wind flow modeling. Energies, 12(10): 1899. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en12101899
Igri, P.M., Vondou, D.A., and Kamga, F.M. 2011. Case study of pollutants concentration sensitivity to meteorological fields and land use parameters over Douala (Cameroon) using AERMOD dispersion model. Atmosphere, 2(4): 715-741, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos2040715
