Investigating the differences between receptor and dispersion modeling for concentration prediction and health risk assessment of volatile organic compounds from petrochemical industrial complexes
Receptor and dispersion models both provide important information to help understand the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and develop effective management strategies. In this study, differences between the predicted concentrations of two models and the associated impacts on the estimat...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of environmental management 2016-01, Vol.166, p.440-449 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Receptor and dispersion models both provide important information to help understand the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and develop effective management strategies. In this study, differences between the predicted concentrations of two models and the associated impacts on the estimated health risks due to different theories behind two models were investigated. Two petrochemical industrial complexes in Kaohsiung city of southern Taiwan were selected as the sites for this comparison. Although the study compares the approaches by applying the methods to this specific area, the results are expected to be adopted for other areas or industries. Ninety-nine VOC concentrations at eight monitoring sites were analyzed, with the effects of diurnal temperature and seasonal humidity variations being considered. The Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) receptor model was used for source apportionment, while the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) dispersion model was used to predict the VOC concentrations at receptor sites. In the results of receptor modeling, 54% ± 11% and 49% ± 20% of the monitored concentrations were contributed by process emissions in two complexes, whereas the numbers increased to 78% ± 41% and 64% ± 44% in the results of dispersion modeling. Significant differences were observed between two model predictions (p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0301-4797 1095-8630 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.10.050 |