INFLUENCE OF SURFACE METEOROLOGICAL DATA ON AERMOD-SIMULATED TSP DISPERSION FROM MDF FACTORY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/aej.v16.25699Keywords:
AERMOD, Fiber dust, TSP, MDF, Meteorological dataAbstract
This study evaluates the influence of surface meteorological data on the dispersion of Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) emitted from a Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) factory in Southern Thailand using AERMOD model. Meteorological inputs from two nearby stations, Khohong and Sadao, were applied to simulate emissions from six stacks and predict concentrations at 15 receptors within a 10 km radius during 2020–2023. The results demonstrated that Sadao data generated higher localized concentrations due to weaker winds and more stable atmospheric conditions, whereas Khohong data produced wider dispersion plumes with lower ground-level concentrations under stronger mixing. Despite these differences, all predicted values complied with Thailand’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (24-hour: 200 µg/m3; annual: 80 µg/m3). Model validation indicated moderate agreement with observations, highlighting both the capability of AERMOD for regulatory applications and the sensitivity of outcomes to meteorological inputs. The findings underscore the importance of selecting appropriate meteorological stations in tropical monsoon climates to ensure accurate and representative air quality assessments.
References
[1] Priha, E., S. Pennanen, T. Rantio, J. Uitti, and J. Liesivuori. 2004. Exposure to and acute effects of medium-density fiber board dust. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 1(11): 738–744. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620490520774
[2] Chung, K. Y., R. J. Cuthbert, G. S. Revell, S. G. Wassel, and N. Summers. 2000. A study on dust emission, particle size distribution and formaldehyde concentration during machining of medium density fibreboard. The Annals of Occupational Hygiene. 44(6): 455–466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/44.6.455
[3] Ding, T., J. Zhao, N. Zhu, and C. Wang. 2020. A comparative study of morphological characteristics of medium-density fiberboard dust by sieve and image analyses. Journal of Wood Science. 66: 18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10086-020-01896-x
[4] Hiziroglu, S., and P. Kosonkorn. 2006. Evaluation of surface roughness of Thai medium density fiberboard (MDF). Building and Environment. 41: 527–533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.02.016
[5] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: Chapter 10.6.1 – Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) Manufacturing. https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissions-factors Retrieved on 15 January 2025
[6] Thetkathuek, A., T. Yingratanasuk, and W. Ekburanawat. 2016. Respiratory symptoms due to occupational exposure to formaldehyde and MDF dust in a MDF furniture factory in Eastern Thailand. Advances in Preventive Medicine. 2016: 3705824. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3705824
[7] Cui, Y., J. Yin, Y. Cai, H. Wang, N. Zhu, and T. Ding. 2022. Spatial distribution characteristics of the dust emitted at different cutting speeds during MDF milling by image analysis. Journal of Wood Science. 68(1): 17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10086-022-02025-6
[8] Thetkathuek, A., T. Yingratanasuk, W. Ekburanawat, W. Jaidee, and T. Sa-ngiamsak. 2020. The risk factors for occupational contact dermatitis among workers in a medium density fiberboard furniture factory in Eastern Thailand. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health. 75(6): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2020.1819185
[9] Thetkathuek, A., T. Yingratanasuk, and W. Ekburanawat. 2016. Respiratory symptoms due to occupational exposure to formaldehyde and MDF dust in a MDF furniture factory in Eastern Thailand. Advances in Preventive Medicine. 2016: 3705824. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3705824
[10] Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2025. Wood dust – Hazards. https://www.osha.gov/wood-dust/hazards Retrieved on 15 June 2025
[11] Suriyawong, P., S. Chuetor, H. Samae, S. Piriyakarnsakul, M. Amin, M. Furuuchi, M. Hata, M. Inerb, and W. Phairuang. 2023. Airborne particulate matter from biomass burning in Thailand: Recent issues, challenges, and options. Heliyon. 9(3): e14261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14261
[12] Pollution Control Department (PCD). 2022. Thailand State of Pollution Report 2022. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. https://www.pcd.go.th/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/pcdnew-2022-08-08_08-30-05_795080.pdf Retrieved on30 January 2025
[13] Cimorelli, A. J., S. G. Perry, A. Venkatram, J. C. Weil, R. J. Paine, R. B. Wilson, and R. F. Lee. 2005. AERMOD: A dispersion model for industrial source applications. Part I: General model formulation and boundary layer characterization. Journal of Applied Meteorology. 44(5): 682–693. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/JAM2227.1
[14] Perry, S. G., A. J. Cimorelli, R. J. Paine, R. W. Brode, J. C. Weil, A. Venkatram, and R. B. Wilson. 2005. AERMOD: A dispersion model for industrial source applications. Part II: Model performance against 17 field study databases. Journal of Applied Meteorology. 44(5): 694–708. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/JAM2228.1
[15] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. AERMOD Modeling System Overview. https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersion-modeling-preferred-and-recommended-models#aermod Retrieved on30 January 2025
[16] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2024a. User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model – AERMOD. https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/preferred/aermod/aermod_userguide.pdf Retrieved on15 January 2025
[17] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2024b. AERMOD Model Evaluation. EPA-454/B-24-006. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P101CGTM.PDF?Dockey=P101CGTM.PDF Retrieved on30 January 2025
[18] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2024c. AERMOD Model Formulation. EPA-454/B-24-010. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P101CLHZ.PDF?Dockey=P101CLHZ.PDF Retrieved on30 January 2025
[19] Fadavi, A., M. F. Abari, and M. A. Nadoushan. 2016. Evaluation of AERMOD for distribution modeling of particulate matters (Case study: Ardestan Cement Factory). International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research & Allied Sciences. 5(4): 262–270.
[20] Jayadipraja, E. A., A. Daud, M. A. H. Assegaf, and M. Maming. 2017. The application of the AERMOD model in the environmental health to identify the dispersion area of total suspended particulate from cement industry stacks. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 4(6): 2044–2049. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20161757
[21] Zou, B., F. B. Zhan, J. T. Wilson, and Y. Zeng. 2010. Performance of AERMOD at different time scales. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory. 18: 612–623. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2010.01.005
[22] Kakosimos, K. E., M. J. Assael, and A. S. Katsarou. 2011. Application and evaluation of AERMOD on the assessment of particulate matter pollution caused by industrial activities in the Greater Thessaloniki area. Environmental Technology. 32(6): 593–608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2010.506491
[23] Khamyingkert, L., and S. Thepanondh. 2016. Analysis of industrial source contribution to ambient air concentration using AERMOD dispersion model. EnvironmentAsia. 9(1): 28–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14456/ea.2016.4
[24] Kesarkar, A. P., M. Dalvi, A. Kaginalkar, and A. Ojha. 2007. Coupling of the weather research and forecasting model with AERMOD for pollutant dispersion modeling. Atmospheric Environment. 41(9): 1976–1988. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.10.042
[25] Kumar, A., S. Dixit, C. Varadarajan, A. Vijayan, and A. Masuraha. 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
[26] Kumar, A., R. S. Patil, A. K. Dikshit, R. Kumar, J. Brandt, and O. Hertel. 2016. Assessment of impact of unaccounted emission on ambient concentration using DEHM and AERMOD in combination with WRF. Atmospheric Environment. 142: 406–413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.08.024
[27] Kumar, A., R. S. Patil, A. K. Dikshit, and R. Kumar. 2017. Application of WRF model for air quality modelling and AERMOD – A survey. Aerosol and Air Quality Research. 17: 1925–1937. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2016.06.0265
[28] Chusai, C., K. Manomaiphiboon, P. Saiyasitpanich, and S. Thepanondh. 2012. NO₂ and SO₂ dispersion modeling and relative roles of emission sources over Map Ta Phut industrial area, Thailand. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. 62(8): 932–945. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2012.687704
[29] Thawonkaew, A., S. Thepanondh, D. Sirithian, and L. Jinawa. 2021. Assimilative capacity of air pollutants in an area of the largest petrochemical complex in Thailand. GEOMATE Journal. 11(23): 2162–2169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21660/2021.76.2517
[30] Loo, Y. Y., L. Billa, and A. Singh. 2015. Effect of climate change on seasonal monsoon in Asia and its impact on the variability of monsoon rainfall in Southeast Asia. Geoscience Frontiers. 6(6): 817–823. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2014.02.009
[31] Thai Meteorological Department (TMD). 2023. Climatological Reports and Monsoon Data for Southern Thailand. https://www.tmd.go.th Retrieved on15 October 2023
[32] Durre, I., R. S. Vose, and D. B. Wuertz. 2006. Overview of the Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive. Journal of Climate. 19(1): 53–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3594.1
[33] Malakan, W., J. Keawboonchu, and S. Thepanondh. 2018. Comparison of AERMOD performance using observed and prognostic meteorological data. EnvironmentAsia. 11(2): 38–52. https://doi.org/10.14456/ea.2018.21
[34] Amatayakul, P., and T. Chomtha. 2013. Agricultural Meteorology to Know for Songkhla. Meteorological Department. 551.6593.17-2013
[35] Eastern Economic Corridor Office. 2020. Environmental Guidelines for Air Quality Modeling in EIA Reports. https://www.eeco.or.th/en Retrieved on 20 January 2025
[36] Hanna, S. R., and J. Chang. 2012. Acceptance criteria for urban dispersion model evaluation. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics. 116: 133–146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-011-0177-1
[37] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2024d. User’s Guide for the AERMOD Terrain Preprocessor (AERMAP). EPA-454/B-24-008. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P101D4C5.PDF?Dockey=P101D4C5.PDF Retrieved on 15 January 2025
[38] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2024e. User’s Guide for the AERMOD Meteorological Preprocessor (AERMET). EPA-454/B-24-004. https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/met/aermet/aermet_userguide.pdf
[39] Willmott, C. J. 1982. Some comments on the evaluation of model performance. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 63: 1309–1313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477
[40] Willmott, C. J., and K. Matsuura. 2005. Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance. Climate Research. 30: 79–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/cr030079
[41] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Protocol for Determining the Best Performing Model. EPA-454/R-92-025. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020- Retrieved on30 January 202510/documents/model_eval_protocol.pd Retrieved on 15 January 2025
[42] Hanna, S. R. 1989. Confidence limits for air quality model evaluations, as estimated by bootstrap and jackknife resampling methods. Atmospheric Environment. 23(6): 1385–1398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(89)90162-9
[43] Chang, J. C., and S. R. Hanna. 2004. Air quality model performance evaluation. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics. 87(1–3): 167–196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-003-0070-7
[44] Boylan, J. W., and A. G. Russell. 2006. PM and light extinction model performance metrics, goals, and criteria for three-dimensional air quality models. Atmospheric Environment. 40(26): 4946-4959. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.09.087
