Dust pollution is a complex problem of growing interest because of its environmental, health, economic and political impact. Environmental impact assessment methods for dust pollution management are often based on the simulation of dust dispersion, which requires a precise characterization of the source term and of the source parameters. The source term model should be as simple and as accurate as possible and requires low time consumption in order to be easily connected to a more complex algorithm for the dispersion calculations. This work focuses on dust emissions from mineral storage piles, which are usually modelled as source terms by means of the algorithm proposed in the AP-42 US EPA standard. Unfortunately, this algorithm tends to overestimate emissions, and when coupled with a Gaussian dispersion model, it leads to inaccurate results in terms of estimation of both concentration and spatial distribution. This paper proposes a new methodology drawn from the original standard US EPA AP-42 https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch13/scheme with the purpose to account for the actual dynamics of erosion and to enhance the accuracy of the concentration and the pollutant spatial distribution assessment, thereby considering the effects of the wind interactions. The standard EPA methodology and the new one were compared by means of the AERMOD and CALPUFF dispersion models. Results are superimposable in terms of concentration values, leading to a quantification of the same order of magnitude, although with a different and more variable spatial distribution.

Dust emission and dispersion from mineral storage piles

ROMEO, ANDREA;CAPELLI, LAURA MARIA TERESA;SIRONI, SELENA;NANO, GIUSEPPE;ROTA, RENATO;BUSINI, VALENTINA
2017-01-01

Abstract

Dust pollution is a complex problem of growing interest because of its environmental, health, economic and political impact. Environmental impact assessment methods for dust pollution management are often based on the simulation of dust dispersion, which requires a precise characterization of the source term and of the source parameters. The source term model should be as simple and as accurate as possible and requires low time consumption in order to be easily connected to a more complex algorithm for the dispersion calculations. This work focuses on dust emissions from mineral storage piles, which are usually modelled as source terms by means of the algorithm proposed in the AP-42 US EPA standard. Unfortunately, this algorithm tends to overestimate emissions, and when coupled with a Gaussian dispersion model, it leads to inaccurate results in terms of estimation of both concentration and spatial distribution. This paper proposes a new methodology drawn from the original standard US EPA AP-42 https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch13/scheme with the purpose to account for the actual dynamics of erosion and to enhance the accuracy of the concentration and the pollutant spatial distribution assessment, thereby considering the effects of the wind interactions. The standard EPA methodology and the new one were compared by means of the AERMOD and CALPUFF dispersion models. Results are superimposable in terms of concentration values, leading to a quantification of the same order of magnitude, although with a different and more variable spatial distribution.
2017
AERMOD; AP-42; CALPUFF; Dispersion modelling; Emission factors; Particulate matter (PM) emission; Environmental Chemistry; Pollution; Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Romeo_ESPR_2017.pdf

Accesso riservato

: Publisher’s version
Dimensione 2.16 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.16 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri
Dust-emission-and-dispersion_pre-print.pdf

accesso aperto

: Pre-Print (o Pre-Refereeing)
Dimensione 665.88 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
665.88 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11311/1034395
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact