CAJ | 학술논문

在美国法规空气质量模式AERMOD的框架下,比较了4种已被广泛应用的扩散参数化方案(基于边界层微气象要素的AERMOD湍流参数化方案,基于湍流观测资料和扩散函数的Tub-Obd方案,Briggs参数化方案,NEPA方案).分析了不同稳定度、不同扩散参数方案下的污染物SO2地表浓度差别.总体来说,在中性和不稳定条件下,4种方案模拟结果的差别不大;在稳定条件下,AERMOD方案的地面浓度明显低于Briggs和NEPA方案,可能是由于AERMOD方案不能很好地识别局地湍流的贡献.
재미국법규공기질량모식AERMOD적광가하,비교료4충이피엄범응용적확산삼수화방안(기우변계층미기상요소적AERMOD단류삼수화방안,기우단류관측자료화확산함수적Tub-Obd방안,Briggs삼수화방안,NEPA방안).분석료불동은정도、불동확산삼수방안하적오염물SO2지표농도차별.총체래설,재중성화불은정조건하,4충방안모의결과적차별불대;재은정조건하,AERMOD방안적지면농도명현저우Briggs화NEPA방안,가능시유우AERMOD방안불능흔호지식별국지단류적공헌.
Based on framework of the US EPA regulatory air quality model (AERMOD), comparisons were conducted for four widely-used diffusion parameterization schemes, one based on micro-meteorological elements (AERMOD scheme), one based on turbulence observation (Tub-Obs scheme), one based on the Briggs' formulae (Briggs scheme), and one adopted in the Chinese EPA guidelines (NEPA scheme). Difference in the surface concentration of air pollutant simulated under different atmospheric stability with the four schemes, respectively, was analyzed. In general, under unstable and neutral conditions, differences from the four schemes are relatively small. However, under stable condition, the AERMOD scheme tends to overestimate the concentrations compared with the Briggs and NEPA schemes. This is possibly because the AERMOD scheme cannot sufficiently recognize the contribution of local turbulence.