Page 381 - Fundamentals of Air Pollution 3E
P. 381

336               20. Air Pollution Modeling and Prediction

                                     TABLE 20-1
                   Residual Analysis for the Gifford-Hanna Model (Eq. 18-19)
            Pollutant     N     M     SM     E      S E    d      S d   d

        Particulate       29   110.7  27.8  171.9  111.5  -61.2  103.7  81.3
        SO 2              20    89.8  83.1  116.25  72.0  -26.5  101.2  82.5
        Independent data set  15  91.6  38.7  93.2  51.7  -1.6   24.9  21.3
         particulate
       Note: N is the number of cities, M is measured, £ is estimated from the model, d is residual
        (measured — estimated) and S values are standard deviations.
        Source: Data are from Gifford and Hanna (23).




       only slight overestimation, and the standard deviation of residuals and
       mean absolute error are considerably smaller.
         A version of the Gifford-Hanna model was evaluated (50) using 1969
       data for 113 monitoring stations for particulate matter and 75 stations for
       SO 2 in the New York metropolitan area. This version differed from Eq. (20-
       19) in considering major point source contributions and the stack height
       of emission release. This model produced results (Table 20-2) comparable
       to those of the much more complicated COM model (51).
         The urban RAM model was evaluated (52) using 1976 sulfur dioxide data
       from 13 monitoring locations in St. Louis on the basis of their second-
       highest once-a-year concentrations. The ratio of estimated to measured
       3-h average concentrations was from 0.28 to 2.07, with a median of 0.74.
       Half of the values were between 0.61 and 1.11. For the 24-h average concen-
       trations the ratios ranged from 0.18 to 2.31, with a median of 0.70. Half of the
       values were between 0.66 and 1.21. Thus, the urban RAM model generally
       underestimates concentrations by about 25%.




                                     TABLE 20-2
                        Residual Analysis Using 1969 New York Data"

        Model      Pollutant    N       M       s m     £      s d      d
        CDM       Particulate  113      82      23      74     22      16
        6B        Particulate  113      82      23      67     25      19
        CDM       SO 2          75      135     72     138     52      37
        6B        SO 2          75      135     72     127     56      38
       " Adapted from Turner et al. (50).
       Note: N is the number of monitoring stations, M is measured, £ is estimated from the model,
       d is residual (measured - estimated), and S values are standard deviations.
   376   377   378   379   380   381   382   383   384   385   386