Meteorol. Appl. 9, 199–210 (2002) DOI:10.

1017/S1350482702002050

Meteorological factors influencing the

occurrence of air pollution episodes involving
chimney plumes
Bernard Fisher, Environment Agency, National Centre for Risk Assessment and Options
Appraisal, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NF, UK, and School of Earth &
Environmental Sciences, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB, UK

This paper is concerned with meteorological processes that may have an influence on the occurrence of
episodes of high pollution involving chimney plumes. It reviews meteorological mechanisms that could
lead to or maintain high concentrations at distances beyond the range normally considered in dispersion
models (distances greater than 30 km). Fundamental parameters of the atmospheric boundary layer are
shown to largely determine short-range and long-range dispersion, but their values are usually not well
known in specific cases. A simple estimate is provided of the magnitude of the maximum hourly average
concentrations during a long-range fumigation episode from a tall stack.

1. Introduction some cases by vertical or horizontal eddy diffusivities.

Dispersion modelling is the technique widely used over
the past 40 years to estimate the mixing and dilution of
pollution in the atmosphere. It concerns itself mainly
with dispersion in the atmospheric boundary layer,
which is that portion of the atmosphere where the
direct effect of the surface (on heat, moisture, momen-
tum, etc.) is felt as a consequence of turbulent transfer.
Dispersion modelling has been used widely to assess
the acceptability of releases from industrial sources,
which are generally from tall stacks. Using dispersion
models (Fisher & Acres, 2000), it has been shown that
pollution episodes in which UK air quality objectives
are exceeded are unlikely. This does not preclude the
possibility that, on occasions, ground-level concentra-
tions may approach the limits set by a short-term air
quality standard and indeed such concentrations have
been observed infrequently in the UK constituting an
air pollution episode.
This paper addresses the question as to whether disper-
sion models are adequate for predicting the highest
short-term concentrations arising from a source. It
reviews the meteorological factors, which lead to the
formation of episodes, and how well these are treated in
dispersion models. For the purposes of this paper, an
episode is defined as a meteorological condition with
the potential for producing ground-level concentra-
tions from a tall stack close to an air quality standard
(e.g. 100 ppb for SO2 over short periods), at any dis-
tance from the source.
All dispersion models are dependent (directly or indi-
rectly) on the vertical and horizontal spread of plumes
which can be described by dispersion parameters, or in
The dispersion parameters are empirical functions of
the fundamental atmospheric parameters, as are the
wind, temperature and turbulence profiles. The close
connection between the dispersion of material and the
dispersion of heat and momentum should be recog-
nised. It is clear that the description of dispersion is
dependent on the properties of the atmospheric bound-
ary layer. The basic properties of the boundary layer
that are of importance for air pollution studies are the
vertical wind profile (wind speed and direction) which
determines transport, the level of turbulence which is
responsible for the spread and dilution of plumes, and
the height of the boundary layer. The vertical tempera-
ture profile also affects the rise of plumes and the level
of turbulence. Dispersion models that make use of dis-
persion parameters or eddy diffusivities, which are
consistent with the most appropriate description of the
atmospheric boundary layer, are to be preferred.
Figure 1 shows schematically the dispersion in the
atmosphere of pollution released from a chimney. Most
attention to modelling this behaviour centres on
describing in mathematical equations the spread of air-
borne material as a function of downwind distance.
This is shown in an idealised way in Figure 2, where the
shape of the dispersing plume is assumed to have the
form of a Gaussian or bell-shaped function, examples
of which are drawn on the diagram. These figures illus-
trate that concentrations generally decrease with
increasing travel distance downwind as the plume
mixes or dilutes in the atmosphere. Ground-level con-
centrations from emissions from tall stacks tend to a
maximum some distance from the stack as pollutants
disperse to the ground. The distance depends upon
plume height and is generally within 15 km (rather less
199
B Fisher
in highly convective conditions) and thereafter the con-
centration decreases with increasing distance (Environ-
ment Agency, 1998). Most of this process occurs within
the atmospheric boundary layer. The application of
short-range models in flat terrain is illustrated by these
figures and these models assume that the dispersion
occurs within the atmospheric boundary layer. This
paper is concerned with the meteorology associated
with dispersion conditions leading to episodes of high
concentration at short and long distances from the
source. The starting point for both situations is the
same, namely the description of the atmospheric
boundary layer.
Regional episodes associated with very persistent low
wind speeds and a shallow boundary layer capped by a
strong inversion will only be discussed briefly. In these
episodes the very light wind speeds imply that wind
direction fluctuations are very large. Puffs of pollution
from all sources in a region are subject to random
motion, mixing material within a confined box. It
would then be appropriate to describe the situation as
the build-up of pollution within a well-mixed box, cov-
ering a regional source area, capped by an elevated
inversion that most material would not penetrate, apart
from very buoyant plumes from tall stacks.
The descriptions of symbols used in this paper are
given in Table 1.
2. Boundary layer structure
It is not possible to consider the behaviour of chimney
plumes without reviewing the structure of the turbu-
lent atmospheric boundary layer in which the plume is
Figure 1. The processes of pollutant transport.
200
transported and in which it disperses. For short-range
dispersion the air flow and dispersion characteristics
(or turbulence levels) are generally assumed to be the
same throughout the area of interest and over the dura-
tion of travel from source to receptor. Fluctuations in
wind over the averaging time assumed within the
model are generally treated as part of the turbulence
and are included in any estimate of turbulence intensi-
ties. Generally, an averaging time of about 1 hour is
adopted in dispersion models. The traditional
approach, following the work of Pasquill (1961), is to
classify the dispersive properties in terms of a few (nor-
mally 6 or 7) ‘stability categories’. Each stability cate-
gory describes a range of atmospheric conditions, such
as cloud cover, wind speed, vertical temperature pro-
file, turbulence levels and surface radiation, but the cat-
egories differentiate broad differences in dispersion.
Plume spread is modelled as depending only on down-
wind distance and the stability category. These stability
categories form the basis for describing dispersion in
many commonly used regulatory models.
In recent years dispersion models have been developed
using an approach which is closer to the methods com-
monly used for describing the flow in the atmospheric
boundary layer (and indeed for describing the flow in
turbulent boundary layers generally, such as in engi-
neering flows). Such models attempt to describe the
dispersion in terms of the same few fundamental para-
meters as are used to characterise the flow, such as wind
speed u, surface heat flux H and boundary layer depth
h. This approach has a number of advantages over sim-
ple classification schemes. The dispersion can be related
directly back to basic physical parameters, such as wind
speed, or the heating or cooling of the air at the surface.
These parameters are in turn an essential part of larger-

Figure 2. The Gaussian plume concept.
scale numerical weather prediction models. The
approach also allows the meteorology of dispersion to
be described in similar terms for cases involving differ-
ing spatial scales, such as emissions from tall stacks,
emissions from short stacks, dispersion over short dis-
tances and over longer distances.
The properties of turbulence cannot be explicitly deter-
mined from first principles since the basic nature of
turbulence involves a coupled range of scales of
motion, making solution by even the most powerful
computers an impossible task. The problem is particu-
larly difficult in the case of the atmospheric boundary
layer, which is subject to continual variation in time
and space. In the context of regulations dealing with the
planning, control and management of atmospheric pol-
lution, there is a need to have available suitable, practi-
cal regulatory models, which can be readily applied fol-
lowing documented procedures (Hall et al., 2000).
These regulatory models will not necessarily describe
unusual events.
3. Neutral (or mechanical) atmospheric
boundary layer
The properties of the atmospheric boundary layer are
primarily derived from experimental data, analysed
within a theoretical framework in which the vertical
profiles of wind, temperature and turbulence are scaled
by a non-dimensional combination of height and other
fundamental parameters. The shape of the profiles is
determined empirically (Nieustadt & van Dop, 1982).
The levels of turbulence in an atmospheric boundary
Meteorological factors influencing pollution episodes
layer with zero heat flux at the surface in uniform,
homogeneous, steady conditions are determined by the
following fundamental parameters:
(a) wind speed at the top of the boundary layer (or the
geostrophic wind speed G),
(b) Coriolis parameter f arising from the Earth’s rota-
tion, and
(c) roughness of the surface described by the rough-
ness length z0, a measure of the height of typical
surface irregularities.
Near the surface, turbulence levels are related to the
friction velocity u , describing the transfer of horizon-
*
tal momentum to the surface. It is more useful near the
surface to scale the wind profile and turbulent veloci-
ties with respect to u , which is proportional to G.
*
In practice the assumption of steadiness is not satisfied.
The depth of the atmospheric boundary layer or mix-
ing height is commonly taken to be ‘the depth to which
pollution will disperse within a time scale of about an
hour’ (Seibert et al., 2000). Hence the boundary layer
depth h is not completely fixed by the geostrophic
wind speed G, Coriolis parameter f and z0, and h can be
regarded as an extra parameter needed to describe the
boundary layer.
4. Non-neutral (convective and stable)
atmospheric boundary layer
When the surface heating is non-zero, the surface sen-
sible heat flux H is the other driving force setting up the
201
B Fisher
Table 1. Description of symbols used in the paper.
Symbol Description
Cmax Maximum ground-level concentration (µg m–3)
f Coriolis parameter(s–1)
G Geostrophic wind speed (m s–1), wind speed at the top of the atmospheric boundary layer
h Depth of atmospheric boundary layer (m)
hs Stack height (m)
hp Plume rise (m)
H Surface sensible heat flux (W m–2)
Ky Horizontal eddy diffusivity (m2 s–1)
L Monin-Obukhov length (m), equal to –ρcpu*3/k β H, where ρ is the density of air (kg m–3), cp is the specific
heat of air (J kg–1 °C –1), k = 0.4 is von Karman’s constant and β is the buoyancy parameter equal to the
acceleration of gravity divided by absolute temperature. L is proportional to –u*3/H with a constant of
proportionality equal to about 9.1×10–4.
l Horizontal length scale (m)
Q Pollutant emission rate (kg s–1)
QH Heat flux out of the stack in MW
S Gradient in the geostrophic wind speed G (s–1)
t Travel time (s)
u Wind speed (m s–1) at plume height, or speed (m s–1) associated with the air mass trajectory
u* Friction velocity (m s–1)
w* Convective velocity scale (m s–1), equal to (βhH/ρcp)1/3, proportional to (hH) 1/3 with a constant of
proportionality equal to about 0.03.
w Upward velocity at top of boundary layer (w ≈-γh) (m s–1)
x Travel distance (m)
z0 Roughness length (m)
γ Horizontal divergence of the wind field in the lower troposphere (s–1)
ε Error in trajectory end points (m)
σy Standard deviation of the crosswind concentration profile (m)
σu Standard deviation of fluctuations in horizontal wind speed at plume height due to wind shear and
turbulence (m s–1)

structure of the boundary layer. During the day, when
the flux of heat carried from the surface into the atmos-
phere by convection is usually positive, the heat flux
acts as an extra source of turbulence over and above
that caused by the wind. At night the heat flux is usu-
ally negative and this tends to drain energy down from
the wind-induced turbulence, leading to much reduced
turbulence levels for a given wind speed. Since the
interests of boundary layer meteorology and dispersion
modelling are in the main velocity and length scales, it
is usual to introduce a length scale L into the equations,
known as the Monin-Obukhov length, equal to –u*3 / H
multiplied by a constant of proportionality. In convec-
tive boundary layers it is usual to introduce the con-
vective velocity scale w* which is proportional to
1
(h H) ⁄ . 3
For ideal conditions, boundary layer turbulence is
determined by the values of the fundamental parame-
ters, namely the geostrophic wind speed G or the fric-
tion velocity u*, the Coriolis parameter f, the roughness
length z0, the surface heat flux H, and the boundary
layer depth h, or convenient combinations of some of
these parameters (such as L and w*). For the depth of
the stable boundary layer, including the neutral case,
numerous formulae have been proposed based on vari-
ous combinations of u* (or G) and f and z0 in the neu-
tral case and u* (or G) f, z0 and L in the stable case.
These have been listed by Seibert et al. (1998, 2000).
The formulae assume that the atmospheric boundary
layer has had time to reach equilibrium. The same
authors list a number of formulae describing the evolu-
tion of the convective boundary layer. Heating at the
surface produces changes in depth, which occur rapidly
relative to the duration of daylight hours.
The layer of air in the troposphere above the atmos-
pheric boundary layer is known as the free atmosphere
and is generally associated with stable conditions and
lower turbulence than the atmospheric boundary layer.
The thermal stratification of the atmospheric layer
above the mixing layer is described by the Brunt-
Väisälä frequency, defined as the square root of the
product of the buoyancy parameter (g/T) and the ver-
tical potential temperature gradient.
5. Determination of fundamental parameters
The atmospheric boundary layer can rarely be
described exactly even when remote sensing equipment
is available or detailed numerical weather prediction
models have been applied. If the fundamental parame-
ters are to be useful for describing turbulent dispersion
in a practical way, they must be available at any site.
This is a necessary preliminary before using these para-

202

meters to describe the dispersion of a passive non-
reacting chemical in the atmosphere. The Coriolis para-
meter f is fixed by the latitude of the site, and the
roughness length z0 is fixed by the nature of the surface
at the site of interest. The geostrophic wind speed G is
determined by synoptic meteorology on a regular basis
at any location from numerical forecast models or sur-
face pressure charts. Estimates of the friction velocity
u* can also be made routinely from the wind and tem-
perature measurements near the ground at a nearby
site, provided a representative value of z0 is known.
The direct measurement of the surface sensible heat
flux H requires sophisticated instrumentation and
therefore H cannot normally be directly obtained from
synoptic stations. Processing of routinely measured
data is required. A number of different methods have
been proposed and used to determine the surface heat
flux on a routine basis. In other words H is derived
from other more readily derived parameters, such as
time of day, time of year and cloud cover using formu-
lae and models. Similarly, at most locations, measure-
ments of the mixing layer depth h are not available,
except when sophisticated equipment is available, and
even then interpretation may be difficult. Instead, a
large number of diverse formulae and methods have
been proposed for determining h, based on theoretical
arguments and empirical measurements. Surface heat
flux and mixing depth are the two fundamental para-
meters for which the literature contains the widest
diversity of formulae.
Measurements of wind, temperature and turbulence are
normally measured at a standard height of 10 m above
ground on a routine basis. Hence the description of
turbulence throughout the boundary layer relies on
formulae which include the height dependence of these
quantities up to the mixing height. A number of for-
mulae for the profiles of wind, temperature and turbu-
lence have been proposed in the literature. These for-
mulae consist of empirically determined relationships
between the required quantities and the fundamental
parameters, and are normally expressed in non-dimen-
sional form.
6. Specific studies of boundary layer structure
Because more recent methods of calculating dispersion
emphasise the way in which dispersion varies with
height in the boundary layer, the height dependence of
the wind, temperature and turbulence is of high prior-
ity. A wide variety of remote sensing measurement
techniques, such as sodar, and in-situ measurement
techniques, such as radiosondes, are available, leading
to atmospheric profiles from which the mixing height
can be estimated, but these measurement techniques are
not generally routinely available. Instead, a number of
operational methods have been developed. In situations
determined by mechanical turbulence these usually rely
Meteorological factors influencing pollution episodes
on formulae to describe the height of mixing. The
height is an evolving quantity in situations driven by
convective turbulence, and the methods depend on
solving equations describing the evolution of the
boundary layer as heat is fed into it.
Although in-situ measurements are to be preferred
when estimating mixing layer depth, for practical use
methods based on simple computer models are gener-
ally applied. Seibert et al. (1998, 2000) have tried five
methods for calculating the mixing height. The meth-
ods are based on similar principles with variations in
the choice of those parameters which are not measured
or cannot be measured routinely. They have used three
datasets to test the mixing height routines. The datasets
come from fairly uniform terrain in the Netherlands,
Switzerland and Germany and consist of a mixture of
tower, remote sensing (sodar and electromagnetic pro-
filer) and radiosonde data, together with measurements
of turbulent fluxes at the surface. The intercomparison
is further complicated because the measurement meth-
ods themselves give different results and need to be
interpreted using models. The data consisted of a num-
ber of days on which the hourly evolution of the mix-
ing height could be estimated from measurements.
Seibert et al. (1998) recommend ways of estimating
mixing height when profile data are available. When
computer codes in meteorological pre-processors are
used to calculate the mixing height from routine data,
these should be designed so as to allow for the substi-
tution of measured or estimated values when appropri-
ate. As these methods are by no means perfect, it is sug-
gested that these methods need further attention.
Estimates of dispersion are frequently required at sites
for which no routine meteorological dataset exists from
which turbulence can be estimated. In lowland areas,
with broadly flat, homogenous terrain, it is normally
possible to use a nearby site or interpolate between
sites at which a long series of observations have been
made. In regions of complex terrain this is no longer
possible and formidable problems exist. Simple theo-
ries of the boundary layer, based on a few fundamental
parameters, no longer apply. In such terrain, the wind
flow may no longer be interpolated directly from the
available observational network or from the synoptic
wind field. Dispersion in complex terrain is most sensi-
tive to the wind flow because the wind field determines
where the pollution cloud will travel.
The fundamental parameters that determine the
structure of the atmospheric boundary layer can be
clearly identified but there remain the difficulties of
obtaining reliable values for application to dispersion
models. Normally, data from a nearby site representa-
tive of the location are used, but the inaccuracies
involved have not been quantified. Estimating the
extent to which point measurements are representative
is very difficult.
203
B Fisher
It should be recognised that the methods used to deter-
mine surface heat flux, mixing height and turbulent
profiles from readily measured parameters are them-
selves based on models. These are often analogous to
dispersion models but involve the dispersion of
momentum, heat or water vapour rather than pollu-
tion.
7. Accuracy of description of the boundary
layer
One of the recurring themes of boundary layer meteo-
rology is the use of empirical data, using scaled quanti-
ties involving non-dimensional combinations of para-
meters, and applying conservation laws to describe the
structure of atmospheric turbulence. It is therefore not
surprising that a choice of formulae for some quantities
is available with no clear preferred formula.
In the real world the atmospheric boundary layer is
never really steady; it is always subject to time varia-
tions caused by disturbances such as cumulonimbus
clouds, rain and weather systems, etc. In addition, there
are always variations in space from changes at the sur-
face in roughness, topography or large-scale air
motions. Despite these difficulties, attempts to sum-
marise the turbulent properties of the boundary layer
in terms of a few non-dimensional combinations of the
fundamental parameters have been reasonably success-
ful, leading to descriptions of boundary layer profiles
in terms of simple scaling laws, which provide a frame-
work for describing different kinds of turbulent
boundary layers, and through these to better ways of
describing dispersion.
The usefulness of these scaling parameters decreases as
the complexity of the flow increases, e.g. due to com-
plex terrain, coastal effects, the rural-urban interface or
baroclinicity (when the vertical component of flow
becomes important). In such situations it can become
impossible to represent the flow in terms of a few fun-
damental parameters, and in cases of very extreme ter-
rain it is not clear that even the concept of the atmos-
pheric boundary layer remains useful.
Situations involving dispersion over longer distances
usually start to involve effects caused by changes in ter-
rain. Therefore longer-range transport shifts the
emphasis to changes in atmospheric flow. Before dis-
cussing episodes of high pollution occurring at long
distances from a source it is appropriate to discuss
short-range episodes.
8. Variability in short-range dispersion
In regulatory models of dispersion up to 30 km or so
from a source, the traditional and boundary-layer
scaling approaches do not differ fundamentally in the
204
way short-range episodes are described. The maximum
ground-level concentration around tall stacks is typi-
cally highest in high wind speed conditions, when
plume rise is not as great as normal, or in highly con-
vective conditions with light winds when thermals and
down draughts promote rapid vertical mixing.
For given meteorological conditions, the highest
maximum ground-level concentrations occur when the
top of the boundary layer is just above the effective
height of the plume. Scriven (1969) has shown that a
stable layer close to the source height (h ≈ effective
plume height) can increase the maximum ground-level
concentration by up to a factor of two, relative to the
maximum ground-level concentration when a stable
elevated layer is not present (h >> effective plume
height).
For regulatory purposes dispersion models are applied
in broadly two principal ways. Sequential, usually
hourly, meteorological data are entered into the model
and a time-series of hourly average predicted concen-
trations is obtained. These may be used to obtain peak
concentrations over a range of meteorological condi-
tions or some statistical average, such as the mean or a
percentile, by processing the model’s results.
Alternatively, a climatology is used as input data to the
model. This contains a limited number of categories of
meteorological conditions and the frequency with
which they occur. By running the model over these cat-
egories and taking a weighted average according to the
relative frequency with which each occurs, the mean
concentration may be obtained in a way that is compu-
tationally efficient. The same quantity can be estimated
by running sequential data of a year or more. This will
avoid the error introduced by the discrete categories,
but the calculation is more laborious. Episodes corre-
spond to the least frequently occurring conditions.
The enormous increases in computing power have
made the use of sequential data easier. Also, the
increased complexity of models and the range of prob-
lems tackled make statistical data less convenient. (If
the meteorological input is characterised by a large
number of parameters – e.g. humidity for condensing
plumes, lapse rate above the boundary layer for plumes
which penetrate the inversion, precipitation for
washout, as well as the basic parameters of wind speed
and direction, surface heat flux and boundary layer
depth – then one needs a large number of categories to
represent the climatology accurately; as the number of
parameters increases, the number of categories required
rapidly multiplies, so that eventually a sequential
approach may be preferred.) The spatial variability of
meteorology and the temporal variability can be
important in many cases, even over relatively short
ranges if the terrain is complex, and such effects cannot
be included in a statistical approach. However, it is still
not always practical to routinely run the most complex
dispersion models for, say, 10 years of hourly data.

Some work on climatologies for dispersion applications
for a site in flat terrain in the UK has been reported by
Davies & Thomson (1997) who considered the issues of
the number of years of data required, the differences
between using sequential data and statistical categories,
the differences between different choices of statistical
categories, and the differences caused by using meteo-
rological data from meteorological sites at various dis-
tances from the location of interest. They found that
using only three years’ data gave acceptable predictions
but that one year was not long enough. The differences
arising from the use of sequential and statistical data
were small. Perhaps the most interesting result was that
predictions for a large power station type source were
more sensitive to how the data were treated than pre-
dictions for a smaller factory source. This implies that
the type of source needs to be considered in any future
consideration of these issues.
The traditional approach to dispersion based on stabil-
ity categories does not provide a means for treating the
variation of turbulence and dispersion with height, and
is most applicable to near ground-level sources over
short distances. Over longer travel distances the varia-
tion of meteorological conditions in space and time
becomes increasingly important to the description of
dispersion. A framework based on fundamental
boundary layer parameters also applies to longer-range
transport, albeit that the fundamental parameters are
varying in space and time, and the atmospheric bound-
ary layer may be transformed between different states
(different fundamental parameters G, h, H and z0).
It is possible in principle to relate specific meteorolog-
ical conditions to a traditional stability category.
However, the same dispersion category may arise for
different combinations of surface heat flux and
geostrophic wind (Clarke, 1979). It is often the relative
importance of wind speed and heat flux in producing
turbulence that is important, rather than the absolute
size of each. This is because if the wind speed is
increased and the heat flux is also increased in magni-
tude, then the turbulent velocities can remain propor-
tional to the wind speed. As a result, although the
plume spreads faster in time, it also travels downwind
faster and can have a similar width at a given downwind
distance. This relative importance can be characterised
quantitatively via the Monin-Obukhov length, L, or by
the Richardson number. These effects are not quantita-
tively represented in the use of the stability category,
although they may reflect this qualitatively. Although
some traditional dispersion models make allowance for
surface roughness, and most treat the mixing height as
a limit to vertical dispersion, they do not generally
allow for the full effect of changing roughness length,
mixing height and source height.
Models which rely on describing plume spread in terms
of the fundamental parameters should, in principle,
encompass a fuller description of the dependence of
Meteorological factors influencing pollution episodes
plume spread on atmospheric conditions. They should
be preferable when considering episodes related to
infrequently occurring atmospheric conditions. Under
these conditions it is better to use an approach in which
underlying relationships are described, rather than
extrapolating from empirical data into situations for
which few measurements are available.
9. Longer-range transport
In designing regulatory models of dispersion over dis-
tances greater than 30 km from a source, the usual
approach adopted is to assume almost uniform mixing
within the atmospheric boundary layer and to charac-
terise the height of the atmospheric boundary layer in
simple terms. The models also require information
about the wind flow. Depending on its sophistication,
the model will require greater or lesser information
about turbulence levels.
The movement of air parcels over longer distances is
described by trajectories in which the synoptic struc-
ture of the atmosphere is considered. So-called
geostrophic trajectories can be drawn based on the sur-
face pressure field, or wind speeds at various heights
available from numerical weather forecasting models
can be applied. Such trajectories are very uncertain in
two types of atmospheric conditions: high pressure
systems leading to episodes of high ozone in the sum-
mer, and high particle and NO2 concentrations in win-
ter. In this case, winds are light and it is not possible to
define accurately where an air parcel is coming from or
going to. The second condition is one of high wet
deposition associated with precipitation. In this case
the air mass trajectory is involved in three-dimensional
movement in very disturbed conditions so that accurate
assessment of air movement is not possible.
Neither stationary high pressure systems nor condi-
tions of persistent precipitation are associated with the
kind of longer-range episode which has been attributed
to plumes from point sources with tall stacks. Episodes
involving point sources may involve persistent, moder-
ate to high winds, for which the tracking of trajectories
is more accurate. However, errors associated with any
attempt to plot trajectories increases with distance from
the source.
The European Tracer Experiments (ETEX), sum-
marised by Van Dop et al. (1998), showed that models
are not able to predict accurately the concentration
field from a 12 h release of tracer travelling up to 72 h
downwind in simple meteorological conditions. The
best models achieved correlation coefficients between
measured and calculated logarithmic concentrations of
greater than 0.6 (Ryall & Maryon, 1998), with more
than 50% of predictions within a factor of 5 of obser-
vations, and the overlap between the predicted and
measured clouds being over 70%.
205
B Fisher
It may be readily shown (Sykes & Hatton, 1976) that
errors in trajectory end points are large when wind
speed and direction fluctuations are large, or when the
gradient in the mean wind speed is high (corresponding
to the centres of high and low pressure systems). A for-
mula for the ratio of trajectory end points to the length
of the trajectory is:
ε δu (e St − 1) (1)
=
ut u St
where ε is the error in trajectory end points, t is the
travel time, u is the speed associated with the air mass
trajectory (u may taken to be proportional to the
geostrophic wind speed G), S is the gradient of u (S is a
measure of the vorticity and is high in the region of
depressions) and δu is the error in the estimate of the
trajectory speed. It can be seen that errors will build up
rapidly when δu/u is large, which occurs in high pres-
sure areas with slack pressure gradients, or when S is
large in the regions of depressions when S is compara-
ble with f (=10–4 s–1 in moderate latitudes), when it is
not possible to track trajectories for more than, say, six
hours before errors swamp the analysis.
10. Empirical measurements of plumes at
medium distances
Aircraft measurements have been undertaken (Fisher &
Callander, 1984) to look at dispersion over distances of
100 km or more. Although limited to six flights
studying transport from the UK, it was possible to
describe the crosswind spread (σy) with distance (x)
using a horizontal eddy diffusivity (Ky) equal to 3×103
m2 s–1 (Ky = σy2/(2x/u) where u is the wind speed ≈ G).
This value of Ky was thought to be low compared with
other estimates and is associated with travel over the
North Sea under conditions of low lateral dispersion. It
was suggested that over land higher horizontal turbu-
lence generated by topographic features causes greater
lateral dispersion and the reason for the low value of Ky
measured is the generally lower rate of lateral spread
over the sea (Crabtree, 1984). In an extreme case of
poor lateral dispersion, distinct plumes were still dis-
tinguishable on the far side of the North Sea from
power station sources 150 km apart (Cocks et al.,
1983). Low rates of lateral spread will tend to cause
longer-range episodes of high concentration.
The ratio of the fluxes of SO2 to NOx on these flights
were consistent with source inventories. Typically
some 60 to 70% of the NOx and SO2 remained air-
borne as the pollution crossed the coast suggesting that
over travel distances of about 100 km, or travel times of
a few hours, deposition is not an efficient loss mecha-
nism over short distances. The extreme event was an
example of an episode associated with poor lateral mix-
ing in which widths of plumes were very narrow.
206
Oxidation of NO to NO2 by ozone is potentially very
rapid but is limited by the amount of ozone present in
the boundary layer. Horizontal mixing of ozone into
power station plumes provides a source of ozone, but
the presence of narrow plumes implies slow lateral
mixing and a rate of oxidation which is dispersion lim-
ited. Ozone concentrations were low within major
plumes (ozone concentrations equalled 3 to 5 ppb), but
between plumes where NOx was low, the ozone con-
centration remained equal to background levels of 20 to
30 ppb. Freiberg (1977) showed that the oxidation of
pollutants within plumes tends towards limits after
long times, which are dependent on the reaction rate
and the rate of dispersion.
Peak instantaneous SO2 concentrations after some 100
km of travel have been found to be of the order of 100
ppb from the combined emissions from groups of
major power stations, reaching 200 ppb in one case
(Fisher & Callander, 1984) when the plumes from
nearby power stations overlapped. These flights illus-
trate the potential for medium-range episodes of high
ground-level SO2 over the Midlands.
On one occasion higher rates of removal were found
over part of the plume travel path and never satisfacto-
rily explained. Without evidence to corroborate mea-
surements (no duplicate observations), such events are
hard to explain and the behaviour seen on the majority
of other occasions is more likely to be typical. On these
other occasions multiple traverses through the plume
were made.
Other examples of plumes detected at medium-range
distances of about 100 km are illustrated by a number
of flights conducted by the Meteorological Office in
1971 and 1973 in steady south-westerly winds. It was
estimated that about 60% of the total SO2 emitted from
central England was still airborne over the coast. The
fraction of SO2 emitted from tall stacks was above 70%
(Fisher & Maul, 1976). Occasions when aircraft mea-
surements were made to intercept power station
plumes suggested that peak short-term depth-averaged
concentrations within the Eggborough and
Ferrybridge plumes at distances 50 to 100 km down-
wind in June 1975 under conditions of deep mixing (h
equal to about 1250 m and 1680 m) were about 100 ppb
(Fisher et al., 1977). The effective plume height at
Eggborough was thought to be about 500 m.
Instantaneous concentrations a factor of two or more
higher are to be expected within plumes from power
stations on full load, with lighter winds and shallower
atmospheric boundary layers.
Some long-range transport models may require more
complex parameter values than those routinely avail-
able. For example, Lagrangian particle flow models
require profiles of the Lagrangian time scale. Estimates
of the Lagrangian time scale amount in effect to making
estimates of the size of turbulent eddies (Ryall &

Maryon, 1998; Malcolm et al., 1999). Similarly Eulerian
grid models generally require eddy diffusivities which
depend on turbulence levels and eddy size. Potentially,
such models may lead to better predictions but are lim-
ited by the lack of routinely available data.
11. Conditions leading to longer-range
pollution episodes
There are two situations leading to longer-range
episodes associated with elevated point sources: plume
fumigation episodes and regional pollution episodes. In
plume fumigation episodes an elevated plume from a
high stack escapes from the boundary layer (of height
h) near the point of emission and travels with limited
dispersion without coming to the ground near the
point of emission (within 30 km) (see Figure 3).
Changes in meteorology, such as the development of a
convective boundary layer due to surface heating (an
increase in h), may lead to changed conditions and the
plume becomes absorbed into a deeper boundary layer
and disperses to the ground.
Although turbulence mixing may be lower in the free
atmosphere than in the boundary layer, the plume is
affected by the vertical and horizontal shear in wind
speed and direction leading to dilution of the time-
averaged plume. The maximum ground-level concen-
tration will occur after re-entrainment into the bound-
ary layer. This has been described by models of plume
fumigation. Venkatram (1988) has described the theory
in the simple case in which the plume is assumed to mix
rapidly to the ground. (See example in Appendix.)
Figure 3. Schematic representation of a plume fumigation episode.
Meteorological factors influencing pollution episodes
Because the plume from other sources may not neces-
sarily be absorbed in the boundary layer at the same
time, this type of episode provides a more distinct ‘sig-
nature’ from the individual source, consisting of a
short-duration pulse of pollutant concentrations with
ratios of individual pollutants that match the source
characteristics. Although rare this mechanism has been
suggested to explain occasional elevated sulphur diox-
ide concentrations in areas remote from power stations.
Close inspection of such episodes is necessary in order
to check whether other local sources of sulphur dioxide
(e.g. cement kilns, domestic coal burning) could also
have had an air quality impact in the area. These fumi-
gation episodes occur infrequently, perhaps once every
few years at a specified location (Bray et al., 2000).
The other type of pollution episode, the regional pollu-
tion episode, occurs during very persistent low wind
speeds (G low) in combination with a shallow
boundary layer (h low) capped by a strong inversion.
Under these conditions, emissions from all sources
including those from tall stacks can be trapped in the
boundary layer. Mixing in the boundary layer is slow
due to the low wind speeds, so exceptionally high con-
centrations can build up. The episode ends if the wind
speed G increases (due to synoptic changes) and greater
mixing occurs. In this kind of regional episode a rela-
tively large area is affected. All sources in the region
whose plumes are trapped in the boundary layer will
contribute to the episode. So in this kind of episode the
atmospheric composition is characteristic of the mix-
ture of sources within the region, not of any one indi-
vidual source.
207
B Fisher
12. Modelling of fumigation episodes
Broadly speaking the fumigation part of episodes can
be described by the dispersion incorporated in short-
range models. Traditional Gaussian models, as well as
more recently developed dispersion models based on
boundary layer scaling, such as ADMS (Carruthers et
al., 1995), are able to simulate the fumigation process.
Traditionally such events have been studied in associa-
tion with convective boundary layers associated with
shoreline fumigation (reviewed by Venkatram, 1988).
Complex modelling is unnecessary as illustrated by the
example in the Appendix.
However, dispersion models do not generally carry
over concentrations from hour to hour. Instead the
model starts afresh for each hour with a new set of
meteorological conditions and a new release.
Consequently the effect of changing conditions on a
release after the first hour is not described. Modelling
of long-range episodes therefore requires the facility to
model the evolving trajectory of the plume, hour to
hour. The Meteorological Office model ‘NAME’
(Ryall & Maryon, 1996; Ryall & Maryon, 1998) is one
example of a model which is able to model episodes in
this way. The model uses a numerical weather forecast-
ing model to describe the air mass trajectories. It
addresses the problem of boundary layer depth and
parameterisation, but inevitably suffers from being
unable to resolve features which occur on a fine scale,
such as plume structure near or above the top of the
boundary layer (Malcolm et al., 1999).
Sulphur dioxide is generally the pollutant of concern
from major stationary point sources during such
episodes. However, distant episodes are rare because
the necessary combination of stack height, plume
buoyancy, boundary layer depth and strong elevated
inversion occur infrequently. For example, monitoring
data suggest that distant fumigation episodes occur at
most about 4 to 5 times per year across central England
(Bray et al., 2000) and last for a few hours. The impact
of fumigation episodes is felt in different locations, so
that at any given location in central England fumigation
events would be expected to occur less than once per
year on average.
The plume from a point source can be considered as a
series of puffs or clouds each of which delineates a tra-
jectory in the atmosphere as the puff travels downwind.
The crosswind spread of the plume is determined by
the spread between adjacent trajectories (Sykes &
Hatton, 1976). The time-averaged spread can be con-
sidered analogous to the error between the end points
of trajectories given by equation (1), where ε is now the
crosswind spread, δu is replaced by σu, the standard
deviation of fluctuations in the horizontal wind speed
caused by turbulence and vertical wind shear, and S is
the horizontal wind shear. ε will be high in the condi-
tions similar to those when the errors in trajectory end
208
points are large (i.e. when wind speed and direction
fluctuations are large) or when the gradient in the mean
wind speed is high (corresponding to the centres of
high and low pressure systems). The mechanisms of
wind shear, turbulence and the change in wind flow
with time, all lead to a spreading of the puffs constitut-
ing a plume. There are therefore always mechanisms
present in the atmosphere which promote mixing and
dilution.
13. Convergence and divergence
The influence of large-scale convergence and diver-
gence on concentrations within the atmospheric
boundary layer can be assessed in terms of the concen-
tration within a regional box with sides of length l,
of area l2 and of depth equal to the boundary layer
height. If the horizontal divergence in the lower tro-
posphere equals γ (positive in areas of high pressure)
then the area of the box increases to l2eγt after a time t,
and the concentration decreases as e–γt as a result of
dilution. The upward velocity at the top of the bound-
ary layer equals –γh, and typically has a value of about
–0.01 m s–1 (Brunt, 1934). Since this is of the same order
of magnitude as the deposition velocity of reactive
gases such as SO2, the reduction in concentration from
additional horizontal dispersion is comparable to the
reduction caused by dry deposition. Both processes are
slow relative to the duration of regional episodes and
only reduce concentrations slowly. However, the small
downward velocity in high pressure systems encour-
ages the formation of elevated inversions at the top of
the boundary layer and increases the strength of the
inversion.
When γ is negative (convergence) there is an overall
upward velocity in the lower troposphere and removal
of material from the boundary layer into the free
atmosphere (Pedgley, 1962). This represents a removal
process from the boundary layer with a time constant
of order w/h. This rate is comparable with the removal
of airborne material from the atmosphere by wet
removal processes and is not associated with episodes
of high concentration.
14. Conclusions
Formulae for the fundamental parameters and profiles
of turbulence in the atmospheric boundary layer have
been widely and successfully exploited to reduce data
to manageable proportions. However, the comparisons
between the formulae and observations considered by
Seibert et al. (1998) have not been able to produce con-
sistently good agreement for a number of reasons.
Accepting the need for better empirical data for use in
testing current methods, it is reasonable to conclude
that all current methods, regardless of further testing,
are likely to be associated with errors in certain non-

ideal situations. Further improvements may come from
the widespread introduction of remote sensing. The
other line of approach is to exploit the use of improved
numerical weather prediction models and high speed
computing.
At the present time in practical applications of air qual-
ity dispersion models, the limitations on the accuracy
of predictions arising from limitations in the descrip-
tion of meteorological data should be recognised when
interpreting episodes. Models based on the use of fun-
damental parameters of the atmospheric boundary
layer do have a useful degree of skill and are to be rec-
ommended.
Interpretation of individual episodes will always be
incomplete and will probably suffer from a limited
description of the atmospheric boundary layer.
However, the interpretation should include an estimate
of the fundamental boundary layer parameters ( e.g. h
and G) which have been associated with the episode.
Without this the classification of episode occurrences is
not possible in a systematic way. It is always preferable
to be able to study a number of similar episodes in
order to increase confidence in the interpretation and
to reduce uncertainties.
Typical concentrations at long distances can be esti-
mated given broad estimates of the boundary layer
parameters. This should be attempted in order to asso-
ciate measured concentrations quantitatively with sus-
pected emissions.
Acknowledgements
Research for this paper was carried out under a con-
tract with TXU Europe Power while the author was at
the University of Greenwich. The author thanks Mr D
Acres and Mr P Simmons of TXU for useful scientific
discussions.
Appendix. Simple estimates of the ground-level
concentration from power stations during long-
range fumigation episodes
As an example of the application of simple ideas on
fumigation one may consider the highest ground-level
concentration of the grounded plume at distance x,
from a coal-fired power station, after rapid mixing
through the boundary layer (see Figure 3) after the start
of fumigation:
Q Environ. Pollut., 8: 443–446.
Cmax = (A1)
2π uσ y ( hp + hs )
where Q is the emission rate, and typically u ≈ G
—–
is the wind speed (in m s–1), σy (=0.08x √ 7/u), x is the
Meteorological factors influencing pollution episodes
distance downwind, hs is the stack height and hp is the
plume rise (= αQH1/4/u, α is a constant = 500 when QH
is the heat flux out of the stack in MW). The formula is
consistent with dispersion in the near field in the
ALMANAC model (Bennett, 1989). Thus:
Q
Cmax =
 Q1/4  (A2)
2π u0.08 u7 x  hs + α H 
 u 
If one considers the highest ground-level concentration
for various wind speeds, this arises when hs = hp. For a
typical 2,000 MW power station, hs = 200 m, QH =
2000/7, so that hs = hp when u = 10 m s–1. Then:
Q 3Q
Cmax =  (A3)
2 2π hsu0.067 x uhs x
Since Q = 10 kg s–1 SO2, for a major coal-fired power
station burning coal without flue gas desulphurisation,
u = 10 m s–1, hs = 200 m, at a distance of 50 km from the
stack one expects a worst case, one-hour average
ground-level concentration of about 300 µgm–3 ≡
100 ppb. At longer distances the maximum concentra-
tion is expected to be smaller. Peak concentrations may
occur at longer distances, but will be of smaller magni-
tude than the peak concentrations that arise following
fumigation closer to the point of emission.
References
Bennett, M. (1989). The ALMANAC plume dispersion
model. CEGB Report RD/L/3491/R89.
Bray, S. Arbuthnott, A. Hewitt, C. N. Fisher, B. Baldwin, D.
& Shears, P. (2000). The Role of Power Stations in Air
Pollution Episodes. TXU Report, Ipswich.
Brunt, D. (1934). Physical and Dynamical Meteorology.
Cambridge University Press, London. 411 pp.
Carruthers, D. J., Edmunds, H. A., Ellis, K. L., McHugh, C.
A., Davies, B. M. & Thomson, D. J. (1995). Atmospheric
Dispersion Modelling System (ADMS): comparison with
data from the Kincaid experiment. Int. J. Environ. Pollut.,
5: 382–400.
Clarke, R. H. (1979). A model for short and medium range
dispersion of radionuclides released to the atmosphere.
NRPB Report R91, Harwell.
Cocks, A. T., Kallend, A. S. & Marsh, A. R. W. (1983).
Dispersion limitations of oxidation in power plant plumes
during long-range transport. Nature, 305: 122–123.
Cosemans, G., Erbrink, J., Fisher, B. E. A., Kretzschmar, J.
G. & Thomson, D. J. (1997). Meteorological data for dis-
persion modelling: a brief report on the COST 710 pro-
gramme on pre-processing and harmonization. Int. J.
Crabtree, J. (1984) Studies of plume transport and dispersion
over distances of travel up to several hundred kilometres.
In C. De Wispelaere (ed.), Air Pollution Modeling and its
Application III. Plenum Press, New York and London. pp.
129–138.
209
B Fisher
Davies, B. M. & Thomson, D. J. (1997). Investigating the
importance of pre-processing in estimation dispersion cli-
matology. Int. J. Environ. Pollut., 8: 590–603.
Environment Agency (1998). Guidance for estimating the air
quality impact of stationary sources. Environment Agency
Report GN 24, Bristol.
Fisher, B. & Acres, D. (2000). Implications of the UK
National Air Quality Strategy for major stationary
sources. Clean Air, 30: 80–85.
Fisher, B. E. A. & Callander, B. A. (1984). Mass balance of
sulphur and nitrogen oxides over Great Britain. Atmos.
Environ., 18: 1751–1757.
Fisher, B. E. A. & Maul, P. R. (1976). The mathematical mod-
elling of the transport of sulphur dioxide across the coun-
try. Paper to Institute of Measurement and Control
Symposium, Systems and Models in Air and Water
Pollution, London, September 1976.
Fisher, B. E. A., Gotaas, Y., Hamilton, P. M., Houlgate, R.,
Maul, P. & Moore, D. J. (1997). Observations and calcula-
tions of airborne sulphur from multiple sources out to
100km. Atmos. Environ., 11: 1163–1170.
Freiberg, J. (1978). Conversion limit and characteristic
time of SO2 oxidation in plumes. Atmos. Environ., 12:
339–347.
Hall, D. J., Spanton, A. M., Dunkerley, F., Bennett, M. &
Griffiths, R. F. (2000). A review of dispersion model inter-
comparison studies using ISC, R91, AERMOD and
ADMS. R&D Technical Report P353, Environment
Agency, Bristol.
Malcolm, A., Maryon, R. & Webster, H. (1999).
Development and validation of a pollutant dispersion and
deposition model for meso-scale and regional scales. R&D
Technical Report P302, Environment Agency, Bristol.
Nieuwstadt, F. T. M. & van Dop, H. (1982). Atmospheric
Turbulence and Air Pollution Modelling. D Reidel,
Dordrecht, 358 pp.
210
Pasquill, F. (1961). The estimation of the dispersion of wind-
borne material. Meteorol. Mag., 90: 33–49.
Pedgley, D. E. (1962). A Course in Elementary Meteorology.
Meteorological Office, HMSO, London, 189 pp.
Ryall, D. B. & Maryon, R. H. (1996). The NAME dispersion
model: a scientific overview. MetO(APR) Turbulence and
Diffusion Note No 217b, Meteorological Office, Bracknell.
Ryall, D. B. & Maryon, R. H. (1998). Validation of the UK
Met Office’s NAME model against the ETEX data set.
Atmos. Environ.. 32: 4265–4276.
Scriven, R. A. (1969). Variability and upper bounds for the
maximum ground level concentrations. Proc. Phil. Roy.
Soc. Lond., A265: 209–220.
Seibert, P., Beyrich, F., Gryning, S-E., Joffre, S., Rasmussen,
A. & Tercier, P. (1998). Mixing height determination for
dispersion modelling. In Harmonisation of the Pre-process-
ing of Meteorological Data for Atmospheric Dispersion
Models. COST ACTION 710 – Final Report. European
Commission Report EUR 18195EN. Luxembourg. pp.
1–120.
Seibert, P., Beyrich, F., Gryning, S-E., Joffre, S., Ramussen,
A. & Tercier, P. (2000). Review and intercomparison of
operational methods for the determination of the mixing
height. Atmos. Environ., 34: 1001–1028.
Sykes, R. I. & Hatton, L. (1976). Computation of horizontal
trajectories based on surface geostrophic wind. Atmos.
Environ., 10: 925–934.
Van Dop, H., Addis, R., Fraser, G., Girardi, F., Graziani, G.,
Inoue, Y., Kelly, N., Klug, W., Kulmala, A., Nodop, K. &
Pretel, J. (1998). ETEX: A European tracer experiment:
observations, dispersion modelling and emergency
response. Atmos. Environ., 32: 4089–4094.
Venkatram, A. (1988) Topics in Applied Dispersion Modeling.
Lectures in Air Pollution. A. Venkatram and J. C.
Wyngaard (eds.), American Meteorological Society,
Boston, pp. 267–324.