Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188: 516

DOI 10.1007/s10661-016-5508-8

Comparison of AERMOD and CALPUFF models

for simulating SO2 concentrations in a gas refinery
Farideh Atabi & Farzaneh Jafarigol & Faramarz Moattar &
Jafar Nouri

Received: 27 January 2016 / Accepted: 26 July 2016 / Published online: 13 August 2016
# Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Abstract In this study, concentration of SO2 from a gas complex conditions of topography, CALPUFF offers
refinery located in complex terrain was calculated by the better agreement with the observed concentrations.
steady-state, AERMOD model, and nonsteady-state
CALPUFF model. First, in four seasons, SO2 concen- Keywords SO2 concentration . AERMOD .
trations emitted from 16 refinery stacks, in nine recep- CALPUFF . Dispersion models . Gas refinery
tors, were obtained by field measurements, and then the
performance of both models was evaluated. Then, the
simulated results for SO2 ambient concentrations made
Introduction
by each model were compared with the results of the
observed concentrations, and model results were com-
Entering pollutants and also the rate of releasing pollutants
pared among themselves. The evaluation of the two
into the atmosphere have adverse effect on air quality.
models to simulate SO2 concentrations was based on
Pollutants may be released periodically or continuously
the statistical analysis and Q-Q plots. Review of statis-
from a point or non-point source or sources. The dispersion
tical parameters and Q-Q plots has shown that, accord-
of pollutants also depends on the way they are entering the
ing to the evaluation of estimations made, performance
atmosphere. Lack of information on the distribution of
of both models to simulate the concentration of SO2 in
pollutants makes the determination of their emissions dif-
the region can be considered acceptable. The results
ficult outside the site and the surrounding residential areas.
showed the AERMOD composite ratio between simu-
Because of the focus on oil and gas industry, Assaluyeh is
lated values made by models and the observed values in
the spotlight of many professionals of Environmental Sci-
various receptors for all four average times is 0.72,
ences and air pollution is considered as one of the chal-
whereas CALPUFF’s ratio is 0.89. However, in the
lenges facing this industrial area. Hence, better and more
effective control and reduction of air pollutants have been
the agenda of the relevant organizations. Generally, sulfur
oxides are the maximum amount of gases discharged into
F. Atabi : F. Jafarigol (*) : F. Moattar the atmosphere in addition to NOx around gas refineries
Department of Environmental Engineering, Graduate School of
Environment and Energy, Science and Research Branch, Islamic (Yannopoulos 2007). Sulfur dioxide is one of the important
Azad University, Tehran, Iran atmospheric pollutants, which is a major cause of urban air
e-mail: f.jafarigol@srbiau.ac.ir quality problem (Sahin et al. 2005; Karbassi et al. 2007). In
fact, many studies have emphasized that the critical con-
J. Nouri
Department of Environmental Management, Graduate School of centration of SO2 emitted from industrial facilities in the
Environment and Energy, Science and Research Branch, Islamic area countries can seriously affect air quality in the region
Azad University, Tehran, Iran (Abdul-Wahab 2006; Abdul-Wahab et al. 2011a). In this
516 Page 2 of 13
study, SO2 emissions from a gas refinery in South Pars Gas
Complex located in Assaluyeh have been simulated by
two common atmospheric dispersion models AERMOD
and CALPUFF.
AERMOD is composed of three preprocessors: mete-
orological preprocessor (AERMET), geological prepro-
cessor (AERMAP), and main processor (AERMOD)
(Willis and Deardorff 1981). Preprocessor AERMET pro-
cesses the hourly upper and surface meteorological data
and estimates the boundary layer parameters of the atmo-
sphere (Gulia et al. 2015). The second preprocessor,
AERMAP, analyzes topographic data in conjunction with
a layout of receptors and emission sources (Rood 2014).
Finally, the model has done its calculation and provided its
final results using the results of both the processors and the
complementary information about sources of emissions
and receptor network (Cimorelli et al. 2004).
CALPUFF has been approved by the US Environmen-
tal Protection Agency as a nonsteady-state Lagrangian-
Gaussian puff model for complex flow modeling including
cases that are in the complex terrain and also in places
where the stationary and reverse flow are important
(Holnicki and Nahorski 2015). Modeling system consists
of three main parts CALMET, CALPUFF, and
CALPOST. CALMET is a meteorological model that
takes mid-scale meteorological data from prognostic me-
teorological models and calculates values for the finer
scales using data of terrain and land use in more precise
networking (Abdul-Wahab et al. 2011b). CALPUFF is a
nonsteady-state model of fluid motion which has subrou-
tines for networking of time changes, the meteorological
conditions in the three dimensions, and effects of terrain,
wetland and dry land subsidence, diffusion and dispersion
on the marine environment, and building downwash.
CALPOST is used for post-processing the output results
and processing simulation files (Snyder et al. 1985).
Generally, few evaluations have been conducted to
compare the performance of CALPUFF and AERMOD
models. Dmitry Tartakovsky and colleagues have
reviewed the amounts of particulate emissions from a
mine located in the hilly terrain of Israel by the atmospher-
ic dispersion models, AERMOD and CALPUFF in 2013.
For a wide range of weather conditions and topography in
the study area, the values simulated by AERMOD com-
pared with field measurement results were in a better
agreement than the results obtained by CALPUFF
(Tartakovsky et al. 2013). Alan Dresser and colleagues
have collected SO2 emission values from the stacks of
both coal-fired power plants at eight receptor stations
Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188: 516
during the year 2011 and then compared the field mea-
surement results with simulation results made by
AERMOD and CALPUFF models. Based on the results
of each model verification, the performance of CALPUFF
has been found superior than AERMOD in that case
(Dresser and Huizer 2011). However, it should be empha-
sized that the performance evaluation and comparison for
both AERMOD and CALPUFF together have never been
done for a gas refinery so far, especially for complex
terrain conditions. Therefore, this study examines the
performance of each model AERMOD and CALPUFF
in such circumstances for the first time. The focus of this
study is characterizing spatial and temporal patterns of
SO2 emissions, the transfer and fate of this gas in two
media, because it is located between Persian Gulf and the
Zagros Mountains. Performance evaluation of the models
has been conducted in two ways in the study: first, by
comparing the observed data and model output, modeling
accuracy at any point in the desired time period has been
achieved in the designated recipient points for models
(based on the coordinates UTM). In the second stage,
the performance accuracy of the models compared with
each other has been examined.
Materials and methods
Study area
The South Pars gas field located on the border of Qatar
some 100 km from the Iranian Gulf coast has been
rapidly developing. This world’s largest gas field will
be developed in 30 phases, of which this refinery en-
compasses phases 6, 7, and 8. The South Pars forth
refinery includes a condensate line, which transports
the condensate to a single point mooring (SPM) for
exportation. In this study, the fourth gas refinery located
in South Pars Gas Complex in Assaluyeh was selected
as a case study, due to the presence of various industries
in the region, high density of air pollution in this area,
community concern about poor air quality in this area,
special topographical, land use and climatological con-
ditions of the study area and being close to Nayband
gulf and National Park which are sensitive ecosystems
in the area (Fig. 1).
Generally, the data required for this study can be
divided into three main categories: the data required
for modeling of atmospheric conditions, the data re-
quired for modeling the dispersion and diffusion of
Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188: 516
Fig. 1 Study area map
SO2 including inputs of AERMOD and CALPUFF, and
the ambient measured data of SO2 concentrations for the
verification of the model’s simulations. A summary of
the input data for the AERMOD and CALPUFF model-
ing systems is provided in Table 1. After collecting data,
the ambient concentrations of SO2 in the region have
been modeled and simulated by AERMOD and
CALPUFF and the results of the two models together
with the results of field measurements have been com-
pared using statistical parameters.
Meteorological, topographical and emission sources
inputs
In this study, upper atmosphere data and synoptic sta-
tions have been obtained from Iran Meteorological Or-
ganization to verify the initial studies of climate and to
provide input data of meteorological model CALMET
and AERMET (IRIMO 2014). Assaluyeh Airport
(24 km from the reference point) and Jam-Tohid
(37 km from the reference point) stations are the closest
stations to the study area and the emission sources. The
meteorological parameters include surface (Assaluyeh
Airport station) and upper air data (Jam-Tohid station).
As seen in Fig. 2, seasonal wind roses in Assaluyeh
airport meteorological station are similar. Specifically,
Fig. 2 demonstrates that the prevailing wind direction is
from the northwest to southeast in the station.
The implementation of air pollution model for each
point requires topographic data and land use to deter-
mine the effects of dispersion and the surface roughness
Page 3 of 13 516
(Vijay Bhaskar et al. 2008). AERMAP information
source has been digital elevation model (DEM) which
has been created by Iran national cartographic center
and has been used as input data of the preprocessor and
converted to XYZ formats that can be read by
AERMAP. The output of this preprocessor contains
the coordinates of each receptor and its height above
sea level, roughness height at the receptor, and the
geographical coordinates of the source. The preproces-
sor is just implemented once for a desired region
(U.S.EPA 2004).
Since, DEM file cannot be used as input in
CALPUFF the available global data has been used as
topographic file SRTM 3 (Shuttle Radar Topography
Mission) with an accuracy of 90 m and GTOPO with
resolution of 900 m to provide data on the natural effects
CALPUFF. The GLCC file has been used for land use
data with a spatial resolution of 1 km. SRTM is an
international project led by the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration (NASA). SRTM consists
of a special radar system which had been mounted on
space shuttle Endeavor processor during its 11-day mis-
sion in February 2000. So, SRTM is one of the most
complete digital topographic database of Earth with
high resolution. Terrain map in the study area has been
displayed using the software CALPUFF in Fig. 3.
Seasonal changes, especially changes in atmospheric
parameters such as temperature, the speed and direction
of wind, relative humidity, and boundary layer height in
the area in different seasons will have a significant effect
516 Page 4 of 13 Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188: 516

Table 1 Summary of input data to the AERMOD and CALPUFF modeling systems

Type of input data Observation Source

AERMOD Summary of input data Wind direction, wind speed, cloud cover, pressure Hourly averages from synoptic stations of Assaluyeh
used by AERMET at sea level, standard pressure as superficial Airport (IRIMO 2014).
characteristics, and rainfall, temperature, dew
point temperature, and moisture as profile
characteristics
Surface characteristics: surface roughness, Bowen In the fourth section of user’s guide for the AERMOD
ratio, and albedo meteorological preprocessor (AERMET), values of
these parameters are presented based on user type and
vegetation and Theory of Pain (1987). The values of
these three parameters are introduced monthly, quarterly
or yearly.
Summary of input data Gridded terrain data The data from Mapping Organization of Iran has been used
used by AERMAP as the input data of the preprocessor in this study.
Other requirements of Location of the receptors, emission sources, Characteristics of stacks: stack dimensions, output stack
AERMOD model specifications of weather files temperature, emission flow, and velocity, etc.
Location of the monitoring stations has been identified as
discrete receptors in the model.
CALPUFF Summary of input data Surface meteorological data (cloud cover, ceiling Hourly averages from synoptic stations of Assaluyeh
used by CALMET height, relative humidity, station pressure, Airport (IRIMO 2014).
temperature, wind direction, and wind speed)
Upper air meteorological data (wind speed, wind Hourly averages observed vertical profiles from Jam-Tohid
direction, temperature, pressure, and elevation) station (IRIMO 2014).
Geophysical data (gridded fields) Terrain elevation, land use categories, albedo, Bowen ratio,
surface roughness length, soil heat flux, and vegetative
leaf area index.
Summary of input data Meteorological and geophysical data Produced binary file by CALMET
used by CALPUFF Location of the receptors, emission sources Characteristics of stacks: stack dimensions, output stack
characteristics temperature, emission flow and velocity, etc.
Location of the monitoring stations.

on the dispersion of pollutants (plume). Therefore, the
modeling has been done in four seasons to investigate
the effects of climatological changes.
Receptors in two separate and network system have
been presented to the model to cover all the sources in
the domain of study area. Then, one of the sources was
considered as reference point in the area with special
topographical and meteorological features. Network re-
ceptors have been specified in Cartesian coordinates
within an area of 50 × 50 km2, and the locations of the
monitoring stations have been introduced to the model
as distinct receptors. Arrangements of all receptors in
respect to the reference stack in the gas refinery have
been selected so that it cover all sources and indicate the
atmospheric conditions in intermediate and micro-scales
as well as the effects of land use and topography in the
study area. Location of the monitoring stations
(receptors) in respect to the reference stack has been
presented in Cartesian coordinate system in Table 2.
Simulation has been done at a height of 1.5 m above
ground level (breathing height) for all receptors.
After reviewing the production process and deter-
mining the sources of emissions during a field visit in
the study area, sampling of SO2 from active stacks have
been done by Testo 350-S/XL in four seasons (Table 3)
in 2014 and three times per season (ASTM 2011b).
Since the diffusion coefficients indicate production and
emissions in normal operating conditions of a process,
the sampling has been done in normal operating condi-
tions of the system and refused in the abnormal condi-
tions such as repairs or out of service equipment that
affect the performance of the process (Method 1997).
Measuring ambient SO2 concentrations have been done
simultaneously with sampling from stacks for evalua-
tion of simulation results. For this purpose, nine moni-
toring stations have been set in the area around the
refinery. The measurements have been carried out in
four seasons of the year 2014 using LSI-Lastem Babuc
Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188: 516 Page 5 of 13 516

Spring 2014 Summer 2014

Fall 2014 Winter 2014

Fig. 2 Wind roses based on seasonal meteorological data from Assaluye airport in 2014

Fig. 3 Map of the three-

dimensional terrain within the
50 × 50 km (preprocessor output
CALPUFF with a precision of
1 km)
516 Page 6 of 13 Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188: 516

Table 2 Location of air quality monitoring stations (Jafarigol measurements for the desired receptors, using the statis-
et al. 2015)
tical parameters proposed by the U.S. Environmental
Station name Coordinates (UTM) Protection Agency (U.S.EPA 2003). The following pa-
rameters were applied in this study:
X (m) Y (m)
& The correlation coefficient (CCOF)
A 654,966.4 3,046,687
B 655,666.4 3,047,269
According to Equation (1), parameter CCOF shows
C 656,317.2 3,047,253
the relationship between the model results and field
D 656,192.9 3,046,577
measurements and as much as it is closer to 1, it shows
E 655,961.1 3,046,268
the desired accuracy of the model results.
F 655,548.3 3,045,966
G 655,545.9 3,046,695 N   
H 655,374 3,046,566 ∑ X i −X Y i −Y
i¼1
I 654,857.3 3,046,491 CCOF ¼   2  2 1 =2 ð1Þ
∑Ni¼1 X i −X ∑Ni¼1 Y i −Y

A. Measurements were done based on the average hour
concentrations (ASTM 2011a).
Performance evaluation of the models
In the present study, the simulated SO2 ambient concen-
trations (simulated by AERMOD and CALPUFF) have
been compared with the results of the field
& Fractional bias (FB)
Based on the framework provided by Olesen (2001),
statistical performance of the results has been expressed
by fractional bias parameters (fractional bias), which
represents the tendency of the model to simulate more
or less than the measured values in this study. The
amount of fractional bias −0.67 has been equal to over

Table 3 Stacks characteristics and SO2 seasonal average emissions from gas refinery

Source name X-coord. (m) Y-coord. (m) Stack height (m) Stack diameter (m) Stack temp. (K) Average SO2 emissions (g/s)

Spring Summer Fall Winter

SP6-2-1104 235.13 43.92 16.8 1.30 527.20 0.08 0.1 0.06 0.09
SP6-2-2104 158.29 −19.53 16.8 1.30 523.25 0.1 0.3 0.23 0.14
SP7-2-3104 71.39 −90.81 16.8 1.30 509.10 0.11 0.18 0.2 0.19
SP7-2-4104 −5.45 −153.97 16.8 1.30 502.45 0.09 0.1 0.13 0.14
SP8-2-5104 −92.07 −225.55 16.8 1.30 494.95 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.09
SP8-2-6104 −168.10 −288.70 16.8 1.30 495.75 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.03
SP7-2-3107 0 0 12.745 1.75 658.65 0.28 0.3 0.19 0.25
SP7-2-4107 −77.38 −64.08 12.745 1.75 688.15 0.29 0.23 0.3 0.35
SP8-2-5107 −160.99 −135.32 12.745 1.75 678.88 0.4 0.29 0.34 0.37
SP8-2-6107 −245.01 −195.79 12.745 1.75 665.55 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.41
121-U-103 A −133.59 −521.57 42 2.80 426.65 0.16 0.1 0.2 0.15
121-U-103 D −214.24 −588.16 42 2.80 421.65 0.18 0.12 0.19 0.22
121-U-103 E −241.12 −610.05 42 2.80 405.48 0.15 0.1 0.16 0.13
120-16-GTG1 296.57 −756.38 20 3.63 760.75 1.33 1.52 1.86 1.29
120-17-GTG2 273.35 −775.14 20 3.63 749.15 1.68 1.23 1.54 1.72
120-17-GTG3 250.33 −793.94 20 3.63 768.15 2.21 1.98 1.85 2.6
Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188: 516 Page 7 of 13 516

Table 4 Comparison of the simulated values with seasonal average of observed values for SO2 ambient concentrations in spring 2014

Station name Observed (μg/m3) AERMOD CALPUFF

Simulated (μg/m3) Ratio to Observed Simulated (μg/m3) Ratio to observed

A 0.59 0.38 0.64 0.47 0.79

B 0.33 0.17 0.52 0.19 0.59
C 0.34 0.60 1.77 0.64 1.88
D 1.04 0.72 0.69 0.98 0.94
E 0.77 0.60 0.77 0.74 0.96
F 0.59 0.34 0.58 0.47 0.81
G 0.63 0.39 0.62 0.47 0.74
H 0.64 0.45 0.71 0.58 0.90
I 0.54 0.31 0.57 0.41 0.76

estimation by a factor of 2 and 0.67 equal to under
estimation by a factor of 2. The deficit bias 0 indicates
that the estimation of model is complete. A good model
performance should have a fractional bias of less than
0.3 (Ghannam and El-Fadel 2013).
Y −X
FB ¼ i i 
0:5 Y i þ X i
In which the parameters are as follows: Xi is the
simulated values, Yi is the measured values (observed),
X is the average of simulated values, Y is the average
of measured values, and N is the total measured number.
& Q-Q plots
AERMOD and CALPUFF results were also judged
with quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plots (Fig. 5).One-hour
observed and simulated concentrations were ranked re-
gardless of time and space. The middle line shows the
slope, which at the slope of 1:1 observed and simulated
concentration are the same, at the slope of 1.5:1 simu-
lated concentration is 1.5 times of observed concentra-
tions, and at the slope of 1:1.5 observed concentration is
ð2Þ
1.5 times of simulated concentrations, which in fact
shows the amounts of under estimation and over esti-
mation respectively (Myerson et al. 2003).
Results and discussion
In this study, at first, the characteristics of each model
(CALPUFF and AERMOD) have been evaluated. Since

Table 5 Comparison of the simulated values with seasonal average of observed values for SO2 ambient concentrations in summer 2014

Station name Observed (μg/m3) AERMOD CALPUFF

Simulated (μg/m3) Ratio to observed Simulated (μg/m3) Ratio to observed

A 1.29 0.62 0.48 0.98 0.76

B 0.54 0.41 0.76 0.51 0.95
C 0.56 0.43 0.76 0.46 0.82
D 1.26 1.81 1.44 1.75 1.39
E 0.67 0.49 0.74 0.51 0.77
F 0.57 0.27 0.47 0.51 0.90
G 0.64 0.43 0.68 0.46 0.72
H 0.61 0.56 0.91 0.57 0.94
I 1.01 0.57 0.56 0.91 0.90
516 Page 8 of 13 Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188: 516

Table 6 Comparison of the simulated values with seasonal average of observed values for SO2 ambient concentrations in fall 2014

Station name Observed (μg/m3) AERMOD CALPUFF

Simulated (μg/m3) Ratio to observed Simulated (μg/m3) Ratio to observed

A 0.83 0.46 0.55 0.69 0.84

B 1.28 0.68 0.53 0.98 0.77
C 0.45 0.31 0.68 0.43 0.94
D 0.96 0.68 0.71 0.87 0.91
E 1.20 1.39 1.16 1.42 1.18
F 0.62 0.36 0.57 0.55 0.89
G 1.00 0.61 0.62 0.87 0.87
H 0.65 0.39 0.60 0.62 0.95
I 1.06 0.83 0.79 0.87 0.82

CALPUFF and AERMOD have been proposed for large
(more than 50 km) and small ranges, respectively, they
have been selected for better comparison of an area with
dimensions of 50 × 50 km and then simulated results of
these models have been compared with each other. As
indicated in Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7, the performance
evaluation of the models is directly estimated as simply
the ratio of simulated to observed concentration. Con-
ceptually, model precision is measured by the scatter of
the ratio of simulated to observed concentration in four
seasons. The averaging of observed concentrations of
SO2 within the study area in spring period of 2014
was 0.61 μg=m3 , in summer was 0.79 μg=m3 , in fall
was 0.90 μg=m3 and in winter was 0.92 μg=m3 . The
peak concentrations of SO2 occur in fall and winter
because sulfur oxides, produced mainly in heating facil-
ities, are mostly emitted in the fall and winter, and
calmer winds in the study area, which prevent helpful
dispersion of air pollutants, occur more in fall and
winter. AERMOD and CALPUFF simulated ratios ex-
cept one in each season represent an under estimation.
The AERMOD average composite ratio for all four
seasons for 1 h is 0.72, whereas CALPUFF’s ratio is
0.89. The results show that CALPUFF has a less ten-
dency to under estimate actual 1-h concentrations than
AERMOD.
Figure 4 present the simulated SO2 concentration
values for each receptor of study domain (50 × 50 km)
for seasonal averaging period. In Assaluyeh, the prevail-
ing wind is almost all the time from the northwest to the
southeast as shown in Fig 2 confirming the highest
ground level SO2 concentration to be the south east
from predominate source. This represents the depen-
dency of pollutant dispersion patterns on the

Table 7 Comparison of the simulated values with seasonal average of observed values for SO2 ambient concentrations in winter 2014

Station name Observed (μg/m3) AERMOD CALPUFF

Simulated (μg/m3) Ratio to observed Simulated (μg/m3) Ratio to observed

A 0.68 0.25 0.37 0.55 0.81

B 1.16 0.43 0.37 0.92 0.79
C 1.36 0.90 0.66 1.08 0.80
D 1.45 1.25 0.86 1.31 0.90
E 0.40 0.61 1.53 0.60 1.51
F 0.84 0.47 0.56 0.64 0.77
G 0.77 0.56 0.73 0.58 0.76
H 1.26 0.62 0.49 0.57 0.45
I 0.37 0.17 0.46 0.26 0.70
Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188: 516
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
Fig. 4 Seasonally simulation results of SO2 distribution in 2014
meteorological conditions. The meteorology and com-
plex conditions of topography of the study area played a
main role for SO2 emissions in the neighborhood of the
refinery sources.
Performance evaluation of dispersion models al-
ways can be performed by comparing the simulated
results with the observed values. Therefore,
AERMOD and CALPUFF results have been com-
pared with observed values for the maximum 1-h
average concentration in nine receptors for this
study. Statistical parameters CCOF and FB for the
two models have been shown in Table 8. Both
models showed good agreement compared with the
measured values. The CALPUFF output has been
also more consistent with the observed values. The
average value of the fractional bias (FB) for SO2 in
AERMOD and CALPUFF models has been 0.33
Page 9 of 13 516
Summer 2014
Winter 2014
and 0.13, respectively. The AERMOD average FB
shows a bias toward under estimation, whereas
CALPUFF average FB is relatively unbiased. For
all four seasons, the CALPUFF’s FB certainty limits
are closer to zero than AERMOD’s, indicating more
precise estimations. The average values of CCOF for
AERMOD and CALPUFF has been 0.71 and 0.84,
respectively. For all four seasons, CALPUFF’s
CCOF were closer to 1 than AERMOD’s. Consider-
ing these factors, the models used has shown rea-
sonably satisfactory results to estimate the distribu-
tion of SO2 ambient concentrations.
The Q-Q plots are probably the most illustrative in
terms of summarizing models performance in simulat-
ing the concentrations of SO2 compared to observed
concentrations at nine receptors in the study area (Fig
5). Each figure includes the Q-Q plots of three sets of
516 Page 10 of 13 Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188: 516

Spring Summer
AERMOD
AERMOD
CALPUFF
CALPUFF
Scale=1:1
Scale=1:1
Scale=1.5:1
Scale=1.5:1
Scale=1:1.5
Scale=1:1.5
1.0 1.0
Observed

Observed
0.1 0.1
0.1 Simulated 1.0 0.1 Simulated 1.0

Fall Winter
AERMOD AERMOD
CALPUFF CALPUFF
Scale=1:1 Scale=1:1
Scale=1.5:1 Scale=1.5:1
Scale=1:1.5 Scale=1:1.5
1.0 1.0
Observed
Observed

0.1
0.1
0.1 Simulated 1.0
0.1 Simulated 1.0

Fig. 5 Comparison seasonal of CALPUFF and AERMOD simulation results at nine receptor stations in 2014

ambient sampling results in each season as input data.
Each point in plots shows a pair of simulated and
observed SO2 concentrations at the monitoring recep-
tors. In general, the simulated average concentrations of
SO2 made by AERMOD and CALPUFF models were
similar for all four seasons but CALPUFF model
showed better correlation to the observed concentrations
and a greater number of points within a factor of 1.5 of
the observed values compared to the AERMOD (Fig 5).
AERMOD underestimated almost all the concentrations
by more than a factor of 1.5. The highest observed
concentrations were within a factor of 1.5 of corre-
sponding CALPUFF simulated concentrations.
Models unrealistic estimation is because of the accu-
racy limitation of the devices and also due to back-
ground SO2 concentrations in the study area and contri-
bution of the pollutants resulted from other nearby re-
fineries and industries or emissions from transportation
that have not been considered in this study. The distri-
butions of simulated SO2 concentrations show that
CALPUFF modeling results have better agreement with
the observed concentrations than AERMOD results, and
the simulated values of both models are less than the
measured values. In conclusion, within the complex
conditions of topography, CALPUFF offers better
results.
Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188: 516 Page 11 of 13 516

Table 8 Validation of AERMOD and CALPUFF results

Model Statistical parameters 2014 spring 2014 summer 2014 fall 2014 winter

AERMOD CCOF 0.64 0.69 0.78 0.73

FB 0.32 0.24 0.34 0.44
CALPUFF CCOF 0.79 0.86 0.88 0.82
FB 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.24

Conclusion of the model is done in the short term, CALPUFF will

In general, accurate estimation of the air pollutants in
industrial areas has been always considered as a major
step for decision-making concerning implementation of
air quality management programs. In this study,
AERMOD and CALPUFF dispersion models have been
used to study the dispersion of SO2 emitted from stacks
over a gas refinery for the four seasons in 2014. The
simulated results made by the models have been com-
pared with the observed values in monitoring stations,
using a set of statistical relationships in order to verify
the accuracy and the performance of models. The results
showed that the overall performance of CALPUFF has
been superior to AERMOD. According to the results of
modeling, different output concentrations have been
mainly obtained from the comparison of the Gaussian
model (AERMOD) and Lagrangian puff model
(CALPUFF). Based on the comparison of the models
performance to simulate the complex conditions of to-
pography, the following are concluded: (1) CALPUFF
estimates greater amounts at the receptor points for an
average period, for example an hour, than AERMOD.
(2) When the simulation of average output concentration
have more favorable comparison with AERMOD. (3)
AERMOD sensitive to specification of surface proper-
ties and land use may involve substantial error associat-
ed with its inability to vary surface properties appropri-
ately for the facility source and especially background
sources. Totally Lagrangian puff model showed better
performance than steady-state model especially in the
complex terrain conditions. In most receptors,
CALPUFF exhibited higher correlation to observed
values and a higher percentage of observations within
a factor of 1.5 of the observations compared to
AERMOD.
In this study, we include also results of studies done
with other sources. Generally, the average ratio between
the simulated and the observed gas pollutant concentra-
tions for AERMOD and CALPUFF varies between 0.7
and 1.41(Table 9). The average ratio of the AERMOD
and CALPUFF estimates to observed values in this
complex topography study were met within the previ-
ously published range (0.72 and 0.89, respectively). In
general, the concentration levels simulated by
AERMOD and CALPUFF have been less than the real
amounts. That means that the ambient SO 2

Table 9 Summary of AERMOD and CALPUFF evaluation for stacks and other sources

Study Emission source Simulation software Average ratio of the Notes

simulated to the observed

(Tartakovsky et al. 2013) Quarry AERMOD and CALPUFF Not reported Complex terrain
(Dresser and Huizer 2011) Power plants’ stacks AERMOD 0.85 Near field
(Dresser and Huizer 2011) Power plants’ stacks CALPUFF 1.01 Near field
(EPA 2010) Stacks AERMOD 0.85–1.09 Hilly terrain
(EPA 2010) Stacks CALPUFF 0.98–1.41 Hilly terrain
(Hrebenyk et al. 2007) Line sources with CALPUFF 0.7–0.9 Flat terrain
16 % area sources
(Orloff et al. 2006) Pads of crushed ore AERMOD 0.76 N/A
Jafarigol (present study 2014) Stacks AERMOD 0.72 Complex terrain
Jafarigol (present study 2014) Stacks CALPUFF 0.89 Complex terrain
516 Page 12 of 13
concentrations are not only due to point sources emis-
sions but also mobile emission sources and other refin-
eries and petrochemical industries in the study area have
contribution in this case.
Acknowledgments This paper uses computations which were
performed with the financial support from the South Pars Gas
Complex (SPGC). The authors wish to thank the expert’s team
for their assistance in the preparation of the emission data.
References
Abdul-Wahab, S., Ali, S., Sardar, S., Irfan, N., & Al-Damkhi, A.
(2011a). Evaluating the performance of an integrated
CALPUFF-MM5 modeling system for predicting SO2 emis-
sion from a refinery. Clean Technologies and Environmental
Policy, 13(6), 841–854. doi:10.1007/s10098-011-0360-6.
Abdul-Wahab, S., Sappurd, A., & Al-Damkhi, A. (2011b).
Application of California puff (CALPUFF) model: a case
study for Oman. Clean Technologies and Environmental
Policy, 13(1), 177–189. doi:10.1007/s10098-010-0283-7.
Abdul-Wahab, S. A. (2006). The role of meteorology on
predicting SO2 concentrations around a refinery: a case study
from Oman. Ecological Modelling, 197(1–2), 13–20.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.02.021.
ASTM (2011a). Standard practice for general ambient air ana-
lyzer procedures. ASTM D3249-95. West Conshohocken:
ASTM International.
ASTM (2011b). Standard test method for determination of nitrogen
oxides, carbon monoxide, and oxygen concentrations in emis-
sions from natural gas-fired reciprocating engines, combustion
turbines, boilers, and process heaters using portable analyzers.
ASTM D6522–11. West Conshohocken: ASTM International.
Cimorelli, A. J., Perry, S. G., Venkatram, A., Weil, J. C., Paine, R.
J., Wilson, R. B., et al. (2004). AERMOD: description of
model formulation. North Carolina: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Dresser, A. L., & Huizer, R. D. (2011). CALPUFF and AERMOD
model validation study in the near field: Martins Creek
revisited. Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association, 61(6), 647–659.
EPA U. S. (2010). Air quality document technical support docu-
ment: NJ 126. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Ghannam, K., & El-Fadel, M. (2013). Emissions characterization and
regulatory compliance at an industrial complex: an integrated
MM5/CALPUFF approach. Atmospheric Environment, 69(0),
156–169. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.12.022.
Gulia, S., Nagendra, S., & Khare, M. (2015). Comparative evalu-
ation of air quality dispersion models for PM2.5 at Air
Quality Control Regions in Indian and UK Cities. MAPAN,
1–12, doi:10.1007/s12647-015-0149-x.
Holnicki, P., & Nahorski, Z. (2015). Emission data uncertainty in
urban air quality modeling—case study. Environmental
Modeling & Assessment, 1–15. doi:10.1007/s10666-015-
9445-7.
Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188: 516
Hrebenyk, B., McEwen, B., & Limited, S. C. (2007). CALPUFF
air dispersion modeling assessment at EKATI diamond mine
(peer reviewed). Vancouver: Independent Environmental
Monitoring Agency.
IRIMO (2014). http://www.weather.ir/. Accessed 26 June 2014.
Jafarigol, F., Atabi, F., Moattar, F., & Nouri, J. (2015). Predicting
ambient concentrations of NO2 in a gas refinery located in South
Pars Gas Complex. International Journal of Environmental
Science and Technology, 1–10. doi:10.1007/s13762-015-0870-6.
Karbassi, A. R., Abbasspour, M., Sekhavatjou, M. S., Ziviyar, F., &
Saeedi, M. (2007). Potential for reducing air pollution from oil
refineries. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 145(1),
159–166. doi:10.1007/s10661-007-0025-4.
Method, G. R. I. (1997). Determination of nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, and oxygen emissions from natural gas-fired en-
gines, boilers and process heaters using portable analyzers.
(Vol. 7): Gas Research Institute Method.
Myerson, J., Adams, D., Hale, S., & Jenkins, L. (2003). Analysis
of group differences in processing speed: Brinley plots, Q-Q
plots, and other conspiracies. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 10(1), 224–237. doi:10.3758/BF03196489.
Olesen, H. R. (2001) Harmonisation within atmospheric disper-
sion modelling for regulatory purposes, Belgirate. In Ten
years of harmonization activities: past, present, and future,
7th Int. Conf, Roskilde, Denmark, 2001: National
Environmental Research Institute (NERI).
Orloff, K. G., Kaplan, B., & Kowalski, P. (2006). Hydrogen
cyanide in ambient air near a gold heap leach field: measured
vs. modeled concentrations. Atmospheric Environment,
40(17), 3022–3029. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.09.089.
Rood, A. S. (2014). Performance evaluation of AERMOD,
CALPUFF, and legacy air dispersion models using the winter
validation tracer study dataset. Atmospheric Environment,
89, 707–720. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.02.054.
Sahin, U., Ucan, O., Bayat, C., & Oztorun, N. (2005). Modeling of
SO2 distribution in Istanbul using artificial neural networks.
Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 10(2), 135–142.
doi:10.1007/s10666-004-7262-5.
Snyder, W. H., Thompson, R. S., Eskridge, R. E., Lawson, R. E.,
Castro, I. P., Lee, J. T., et al. (1985). The structure of
strongly stratified flow over hills: dividing-streamline
concept. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 152, 249–288.
doi:10.1017/S0022112085000684.
Tartakovsky, D., Broday, D. M., & Stern, E. (2013). Evaluation of
AERMOD and CALPUFF for predicting ambient concentra-
tions of total suspended particulate matter (TSP) emissions
from a quarry in complex terrain. Environmental Pollution,
179(0), 138–145. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.04.023.
U.S.EPA (2003). Guidelines for developing an air quality (ozone
and PM2.5) forecasting program. EPA-456/R-03-002.
Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality,
Planning and Standards.
U.S.EPA (2004). User's guide for the AERMOD terrain prepro-
cessor (AERMAP). North Carolina 27711: US EPA,
Environmental Protection Agency.
Vijay Bhaskar, B., Jeba Rajasekhar, R. V., Muthusubramanian, P.,
& Kesarkar, A. (2008). Measurement and modeling of respi-
rable particulate (PM10) and lead pollution over Madurai,
India. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 1(1), 45–55.
doi:10.1007/s11869-008-0004-0.
Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188: 516 Page 13 of 13 516

Willis, G. E., & Deardorff, J. W. (1981). A laboratory study of Yannopoulos, P. (2007). Spatial concentration distributions of
dispersion from a source in the middle of the convectively sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in Patras, Greece, in a
mixed layer. Atmospheric Environment (1967), 15(2), 109– winter period. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
117. doi:10.1016/0004-6981(81)90001-9. 135(1–3), 163–180. doi:10.1007/s10661-007-9641-2.