5are GreenWalls Better Options Than Green Roofs

sustainability
Article
Are Green Walls Better Options than Green Roofs
for Mitigating PM10 Pollution? CFD Simulations
in Urban Street Canyons
Hongqiao Qin, Bo Hong * and Runsheng Jiang
College of Landscape Architecture & Arts, Northwest A&F University, 712100 Yangling, China;
hongqiao@nwafu.edu.cn (H.Q.); jrs_96@nwafu.edu.cn (R.J.)
* Correspondence: hongbo@nwsuaf.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-029-8708-0269

Received: 11 July 2018; Accepted: 8 August 2018; Published: 9 August 2018
Abstract: To examine the effect of green roofs (GRs) and green walls (GWs) on coarse particle
(PM10 ) dispersion in urban street canyons, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation was
conducted with a Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) model and a revised generalized drift
flux model. Simulations were performed with different aspect ratios (H/W = 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0),
greenery coverage areas (S = 300, 600, and 900 m2 ), and leaf area densities (LADs = 1.0, 3.5, 6.0 m2 /m3 ).
Results indicate that: (1) GRs and GWs all had the reduction ability of PM10 at the pedestrian level;
(2) Averaged concentrations of PM10 in GWs and GRs varied little as LAD changed in H/W = 0.5
and 1.0. When H/W = 2.0, the aerodynamic effects of GRs increased since airflow was enhanced
within street canyons, resulting in the increasing concentrations in GRs compared with non-greening
scenarios; (3) Given equal greenery coverage area and aspect ratio, GWs are more effective in reducing
street-canyon PM10 , and the averaged concentrations declined with increasing LADs and greenery
coverage areas, especially the H/W; (4) At the pedestrian level, the reduction ratio of GRs is greater
than that of GWs with the maximum value of 17.1% for H/W = 0.5. However, where H/W = 1.0 and
2.0, the concentrations within GWs are lower than GRs, with maximum reduction ratios of 29.3% and
43.8%, respectively.
Keywords: green roofs; green walls; computational fluid dynamics; PM10 ; greenery coverage;
street canyon
1. Introduction
Global population data have shown that the urban residents numbered 4.0 billion in 2015,
representing 54% of the total world population. Demographic models further predict that this
proportion will exceed 60% (4.9 billion) in 2030 [1]. Rapid urbanization has turned cities into reinforced
concrete forests accompanied by many environmental issues, such as rising urban temperature,
prominent urban heat island effects, and continuously aggravated urban environmental pollution [2,3].
It has been well documented that urban greening plays a significant role in mitigating urban heat island
effects and diluting particulate pollutants. Among the numerous forms of greening infrastructure,
green roofs (GRs) and green walls (GWs) are preferred, especially for congested urban environments,
because these two greening modes do not take up additional space. In addition, GRs and GWs have
obvious positive effects on improving local air quality in the built environment [4–6].
Vegetation dilutes and reduces particulate pollutants through the influence of plant crowns on
airflow fields and particulate pollutant dispersion [7,8]. Different vegetation types and planting
patterns are the main factors affecting particulate dispersion [9–11]. Using a dry deposition model,
Yang et al. indicated that GRs can reduce both gas contamination (O3 , NO2 , and SO2 ) and concentration
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2833; doi:10.3390/su10082833 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2833 2 of 21
of suspended particulate pollutants (PM10 ) [12]. Currie and Bass used the UFORE model to analyze
retention effects of different vegetation patterns on air pollutants, reporting that dust-retaining effects
of shrubs on GRs is greater than that of trees [13]. Moradpour et al. used NO-NO2 -O3 photochemistry
and energy-balance models to analyze the absorption effect of GRs on nitric oxides and ozone under
different aspect ratios in street canyons and leaf area densities and found that GRs in deeper street
canyons are more effective in improving air quality [14]. A field study of dust-retaining effects of GRs
measured the CO2 distributions surrounding roof greening but neglected the influence of vegetation
on periphery airflow [15]. Results of Baik et al. indicated that improving air quality on adjacent roads
is mainly due to GRs strengthening airflow fields near the ground in street canyon spaces [16].
Related research has been conducted on the dust-retaining effects of GWs. Pugh et al. used the
CiTTy-street model to analyze pollutant absorption of street canyon greening reporting that vertical
greening in street canyons can cut PM10 by 60% [17]. Ottelé et al. compared the dust-retaining effects of
vertical greening adjacent to roads and forests and indicated that small particulate pollutants are easily
retained by GWs [18]. By incorporating the Large Eddy Simulation (LES) turbulence model into the
Comprehensive Turbulent Aerosol Dynamics and Gas Chemistry (CTAG) model, Tong et al. compared
the effects of six near-road vegetation barriers on particle concentrations on and near the road [19].
Measurements have also shown the ability of GWs to capture fine dust as a function of plant leaf
shape and surface type (i.e., thick cuticular waxes on leaves epidermis) but unrelated to season or
leaf age [20]. Field experiments have demonstrated that smaller leaves of living wall plants have
greater capture capability for all PM size fractions [21]; and a rooftop farm had 7%–33% less PM
concentration than at ground level [22]. Simulations and field studies have also analyzed the influence
of GRs on the dispersion of air suspended particulate pollutants. Kessler stated that GWs may be
a better option for mitigating street-canyon pollution than trees or GRs [23]. Moreover, a modeling and
measurement study indicated that GWs are beneficial at near or far distances but worsen air quality
above the pedestrian level [24]. The Guidance on Construction of London Garden City recommends
that increasing urban GRs by 70% can reduce PM10 concentrations by 0.5% [25]. However, little
research has considered the interaction of urban forms and vegetation on particle deposition in urban
street canyons [17,26].
Nevertheless, it is currently difficult to draw clear relationships among green infrastructure and
particulate pollution on the basis of available research: whether GRs or GWs have better dust-retaining
effects in urban street canyons. Moreover, few studies have conducted quantitative comparisons
between GRs and GWs in improving air quality under controlled conditions (equal coverage area,
identical vegetation type and identical plantation environment). To fulfill this gap, it is necessary to
clarify the influence of green infrastructure in street canyons on particulate dispersion in different
architectural spatial forms so as to quantitatively segregate the effects of GRs and GWs on particulate
pollutant absorption.
Based on the RANS and revised generalized drift flux models, this study used the CFD code
PHOENICS (Parabolic Hyperbolic Or Elliptic Numerical Integration Code Series) to evaluate the
influence of GRs and GWs on airflow fields and PM10 dispersion under different leaf area densities
(LADs = 1.0, 3.5, and 6.0 m2 /m3 ) with three levels of street canyon aspect ratios (H/W = 0.5, 1.0,
and 2.0) and areas of greenery coverage (S1 = 300, S2 = 600, and S3 = 900 m2 ) in street canyons.
Additionally, a non-greening environment was also simulated to compare the results with that of
vegetated conditions to quantify the overall reduction of PM10 concentration by GRs and GWs.
2. Methodology
2.1. Flow and Dispersion Model
2.1.1. Model Description

A three-dimensional steady-state isothermal flow simulation model was used to reproduce and
simulate airflow and dispersion in an idealized street canyon. CFD numerical simulation settings
refer to the COST Action 732 standard, including choices of target variables, approximate equations,
the geometrical representation of obstacles, the computational domain, boundary conditions, initial
data, computational grid, numerical approximations, and iterative convergence criteria [27]. The
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) model, which contains the k-ε Murakami-Mochida-Kondo
(MMK) turbulence closure scheme, is adopted in the simulation. This model is modified based on the
standard k-ε model. The Semi-Implicit Method for Pressure-Linked Equations (SIMPLE) algorithm with
the Quadratic Upstream Interpolation for Convective Kinematics (QUICK) discretization scheme was
applied to all governing equations except the concentration equation. The scaled iterative convergence
criteria for all parameters were taken as 10−6 . Simulations were processed using an i7 2.67 GHz
processor (Intel, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The PHOENICS 2009 (CHAM, London, UK) program was
used to determine the solution.
Vegetation is regarded as porous medium in the model, and its influence on airflow fields is
measured by adding momentum source term, turbulent kinetic energy and turbulent dissipation
rate in a relational computing grid of GRs and GWs. The continuity and momentum equations are
expressed as follows:
Continuity equation:
∂ ( ui )
=0 (1)
∂xi
where ui is the spatial average velocity, and xi is the spatial coordinate.
Momentum equation:
!
∂ ( ui ) ∂ ( ui ) 1 ∂( P) ∂ ∂ ( ui )
+ uj =− + νe f f + SUi (2)
∂t ∂x j ρ ∂xi ∂x j ∂x j
where P is the pressure (Pa), ρ is the air density (kg/m3 ), SUi is a drag term imposed by the vegetation,
and veff is the effective viscosity (N s/m2 ) that is computed as:
k2
νe f f = ν + νt = ν + cµ (3)
ε
where k is the turbulent kinetic energy (Nm), ε is the dissipation rate (m/s), vt is the turbulent kinetic
viscosity (N s/m2 ), and cµ is an empirical constant that set to 0.09 [28].
The drag force term, which is proportional to the leaf area density (LAD) and the plant drag
coefficient, is expressed as:
SUi = −ρCd α(z)|U |Ui (4)
where ρ is ambient air density, Cd is the dimensionless drag coefficient, α(z) is the leaf area density
at height z (m2 /m3 ), |U| is the magnitude of the superficial velocity vector (m/s), and Ui is the
superficial Cartesian velocity in the ith direction (m/s).
Vegetation density is characterized by the integral value of LAD. This integral value is determined
by the leaf area index (LAI), which is defined as:
Zh
LAI = α(z)dz (5)
o
where h is the average height of the canopy.

To simulate turbulence interactions between the plant canopy and airflow caused by leaves, the
wake turbulence model, including additional source terms in the transport equations for k and ε, is
used in canopy cells:
Sk = ρCd α(z) β p |U |3 − β d |U |k (6)
ε
Sε = ρCd α(z) C4ε β p |U |3 − C5ε β d |U |ε (7)
k
where the constant βp is the fraction of mean-flow kinetic energy converted to wake-generated k, and βd
is the fraction of k dissipated by short-circuiting of the Kolmogorov energy cascade. C4ε and C5ε are
closure constants. βp , βd , C4ε , and C5ε are, respectively, set as 1.0, 3.0, 1.5, and 1.5 in this study [29–31].
A revised generalized drift flux model, modified from the Eulerian model, is used as an influence
model of vegetation on pollutant dispersion. This model is a widely used Eulerian model, and treats
particles as a continuum in particle conservation equations considering slippage between particles and
flow (air) fields [32,33]. Due to the deposition action of plants on particles and effects of rain washing
or wind, some particles will be re-diffused into air. Therefore, the deposition and resuspension effects
of vegetation on particles are expressed by adding additional terms (Ssink and Sresuspension ). In this way,
the model can comprehensively and accurately reflect particle dispersion in a real urban environment.
This model is expressed as:
" #
∂ Vj + Vg,j C ∂ ∂C
= εp + Sc − Ssin k + Sresuspension (8)
∂x j ∂x j ∂x j
The deposition effect of plant canopies, depending on LAD, deposition velocity, and ambient
particle concentration, are described as:
Ssink = α(z) × Vd × C (9)
Particulate resuspension is calculated as a volumetric source term, and described as:
Sresuspension = α(z) × Vr × Csink (10)
where Vj and Vg ,j are the averaged fluid (air) velocity and the gravitational settling velocity of particles
in j-th direction(m/s), respectively. C is the averaged concentration of particles (µg/m3 ), εp is the
diffusion coefficient of the pollutant in the air (m2 /s), Sc is the source term of pollutant (kg/(m3 ‚ s)),
Ssink is the mass of particles absorbed per unit vegetation volume per unit time (µg/m3 ), Sresuspension is
the particles resuspended from foliage per unit vegetation volume per unit time (µg/m3 ) [34], Vd is the
particle deposition velocity on plant foliage (m/s), Vr is the particle resuspension velocity from plant
foliage (m/s), α(z) is the leaf area density at the height z (m2 /m3 ), and Csink is the particle concentration
deposited on plant foliage (µg/m3 ).
2.1.2. Model Validation

These models were validated by measuring in situ green walls in a Beijing residential district
from 1 May to 3 May 2016. There, residential buildings have broad peripheries without influences
from other buildings or high trees. The GWs are on western walls, comprised of Virginia Creeper
(Parthenocissus vitacea), with a coverage ratio of 100%. The measurement period was from 11:00
to 18:00 at three measuring points (M1 , M2 , and M3 ) set at 1.5, 4.0, and 6.5 m above the wall
greening to monitor PM10 concentrations at different heights (Figure 1). A measuring point (P) was
set on the roof of the building (10 m) to monitor meteorological parameters including the incoming
wind speed, wind direction using a Kestrel 5500 (Nielsen-Kellerman Inc., Boothwyn, PA, USA),
and PM10 concentrations using Metone 531S (METONE INSTRUMENTS, Inc., Grants Pass, OR, USA).
These parameters were measured at five-minute intervals and averaged hourly. A LAI-2200C Plant
Canopy Analyzer (LI-COR Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA) was used to test LAD determined by the total
one-sided area of leaves per unit volume of Virginia creeper. The three dimensions of the building,
length (L’ = 40 m), width (W’ = 15 m), height (H0 = 10 m), were also recorded.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21
(a) (b)
Figure 1. Location of measurement points (a) and a lateral view of points implemented (b) at the field site.
Figure 1. Location of measurement points (a) and a lateral view of points implemented (b) at the
field site.
The model was built according to site dimensions. Size of computational domain was set based
on the recommendations [27,35]. The distance from the inlet to the windward building, from the
downwind The model
building was built
to the according
outlet, and from to site
the dimensions.
buildings to bothSize boundaries
of computational
were setdomain
to 5H’, was
20H’,set
based on the recommendations [27,35]. The distance from the inlet to the
and 9H’, respectively. The height of the domain was 11H’. Three different grid sizes (coarse meshes: windward building,
from
Xmin the= downwind
= Ymin Zmin = 0.10H’, building to theXmin
fine meshes: outlet,
= Yminand= Zfrom the buildings to both boundaries were set
min = 0.02H’, and finest meshes: Xmin = Ymin = Zmin
to 5H 0 , 20H0 , and 9H0 , respectively. The height of the domain was 11H0 . Three different grid sizes
= 0.01H’) were set in the target area and the grid convergence index (GCI), calculated by the Equations
(coarse meshes: Xminto=evaluate
Ymin = Zthe = 0.10H 0 , fine meshes: X 0 and finest
(11)–(13), was applied min grid independence. min = were
The GCIs Ymin 2.97%
= Zminfor
= 0.02H
coarse, and fine
meshes: Xmin = Ymin = Zmin 0
meshes, and 2.61% for fine and= finest
0.01Hmeshes
) were set
(allinless
thethan
target areaindicating
5%), and the grid
thatconvergence indexwere
the fine meshes (GCI),
calculated by the Equations (11)–(13), was applied
sufficient to conform to computational requirements [36]. to evaluate the grid independence. The GCIs were
2.97% for coarse and fine meshes, and 2.61% for fine and finest meshes (all less than 5%), indicating
that the fine meshes were sufficient to conform to computational  requirements [36].
GCI  Fs prms (11)
1
r ξ rms
GCI = Fs p (11)
r − 11
 n  i2,u  2! 1
 rms   ∑i in1=1 ξ i,u
2 2 (12)
ξ rms = nn  (12)
 
u ui,coarse−
u ui, f ine
 i ξ,ui,u= i ,coarseui, f inei , fine (13)
(13)
ui , fine
where F and p are empirical constants, and respectively defined as 3 and 2; r is the ratio of fine grid to
where
coarseF and
gridpsize,
are empirical constants,
and u is the and respectively
velocity magnitude (m/s).defined as 3 and 2; r is the ratio of fine grid
to coarse grid size,
Boundary and u issettings
condition the velocity
refer magnitude
to measured(m/s).values at point P (Figure 2). The deposition velocity
Boundary condition settings refer to measured
of Virginia Creeper was set as 0.64 cm/s [37,38]. Values values at point
obtained P (Figure
through 2). The
simulation deposition
were compared
velocity of Virginia Creeper was set as 0.64 cm/s [37,38]. Values obtained through
with average measured data over three days. Comparisons between the measurement data at M simulation were
3 and
compared with average measured data over three days. Comparisons between the
M1 and situation data at the same height indicated favorable correlations between simulation andmeasurement data
at field
M3 and
data M 1 and situation
(Figure data
3, R2 = 0.910 at M at the same
2 height indicated favorable correlations between
3, and R = 0.974 at M1 ). Additionally, a set of acceptance criteria
simulation and field
were selected data (Figure
to examine whether 3, R
the=data
2 0.910 at M3,target
satisfy and Rvalues
2 = 0.974 at M1). Additionally, a set of
[39,40]. All metrics obtained were
acceptance criteria were selected to examine whether the data satisfy
within the allowable ranges, indicating the models could suitably reproduce target values [39,40].
the actual All metrics of
environment
obtained were within the allowable ranges, indicating the models could suitably
street canyon (Table 1). Additionally, the present authors compared this model with a wind reproduce the actual
tunnel
environment of street canyon (Table 1). Additionally, the present authors compared this model with
a wind tunnel experiment from a previous study that also showed that this model could accurately
represent the actual street canyon environment [41].
experiment from a previous study that also showed that this model could accurately represent the
actual street canyon
Sustainability
Sustainability 2018, environment
2018,10,
10,xxFOR
FORPEER [41].
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 66ofof21
21
May1 1
May May2 2
May May3 3
May
May1 1
May May2 2
May May3 3
May May1 1
May May2 2
May May3 3
May
3.6
3.6 360
360 150
150
10 concentration(μg/m )
concentration(μg/m33)
120
120
2.7
2.7 270
270
velocity(m/s)
Wind velocity(m/s)
direction(°))
Wind direction(°
90
90
1.8
1.8 180
180
60
60
Wind
Wind
PM10
0.9
0.9 90
90
30
30
PM
0.0
0.0 00 00
Time
Time Time
Time
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure2.2.Field
Figure Fieldmeasurements
measurementsofof(a)
(a)averaged
averagedwind
windvelocity
velocityand
andwind
winddirection
directionper
perhour
hourand
and(b)
(b)
Figure 2. Field measurements of (a) averaged wind velocity and wind direction per hour and
averagedPM
averaged PM1010concentrations
concentrationsper
perhour
houratatpoint
pointP.P.
(b) averaged PM10 concentrations per hour at point P.
160
160 160
160
yy==1.131x
1.131x- -10.77
10.77 yy==0.9106x
0.9106x++11.512
11.512
R²
R² ==0.910
0.910 R²
R² ==0.9748
0.9748
(μg/m3))
(μg/m3))
3
3
data (μg/m
120
120
data (μg/m
120
120
Simulation data
Simulation data
80
80 80
80
Simulation
Simulation
40
40 40
40
00 00
00 40
40 80
80 120
120 160
160 00 40
40 80
80 120
120 160
160
Measurementdata
Measurement (μg/m3)3)
data(μg/m Measurementdata
Measurement (μg/m3)3)
data(μg/m
UpperSample
Upper Sample(M
(M3)3) LowerSample
Lower Sample(M
(M1)1)
Figure 3.3. Comparisons

Figure Comparisons between
between normalized
normalized PM PM1010 concentrations
concentrations inin field
field measurements
measurements and
and
Figure 3. Comparisons between normalized PM10 concentrations in field measurements and simulations
simulations(dashed
simulations (dashedlines
linesrepresent
representlinear
linearfits
fitswith
withlinear
linear equations
equations and
and RR alongside).
2 2alongside).
(dashed lines represent linear fits with linear equations and R2 alongside).
Table1.1.Statistical
Table Statisticalanalysis
analysisofofmodel
modelperformance
performancewith
withthe
thecorresponding
correspondingtarget
targetvalues
valuesand
andaarange
range
Table 1. Statistical analysis of model performance with the corresponding target values and a range of
ofofacceptance
acceptancecriteria.
criteria.
acceptance criteria.
AcceptanceCriteria
Acceptance Criteria ReferenceModel
Reference ModelPerformance
Performance
Metrics
Metrics TargetValue
Target Value
Acceptance[39,40]
[39,40]
Criteria UpperSampling
Upper
Reference Sampling
Model LowerSampling
Lower
Performance Sampling
Metrics Target Value
FB
FB 00 −0.3 ＜
[39,40]
−0.3 ＜ FB ＜ 0.3
FB ＜ 0.3
Upper −0.007
−0.007
Sampling Lower −0.047
−0.047
Sampling
NMSEFB
NMSE 000 < FB < ＜
NMSE
NMSE
−0.3 ＜ 1.5
0.3 1.5 0.011
−0.007 0.011 −0.047 0.005
0.005
FAC2
FAC2 NMSE 101 NMSE
0.5
0.5 ＜＜ FAC2
1.5 ＜
<FAC2 ＜ 22 0.011 1.007
1.007 0.005 1.048
1.048
MGFAC2
MG
1
11
0.5 < FAC2 < 2
0.7 ＜
0.7 ＜ MGMG ＜＜ 1.3
1.3 1.007
0.954
0.954
1.048
0.944
0.944
MG 1 0.7 < MG < 1.3 0.954 0.944
VG VG
VG 111 VG
VG
VG < 4 ＜＜ 44 1.018 1.018
1.018 1.006 1.006
1.006
NAD
NAD NAD 000 NAD
NAD
NAD ＜
< 0.3＜ 0.3
0.3 0.042
0.042 0.042 0.031 0.031
0.031
RR R 111 0.8 < R
0.8 ＜
0.8 ＜ RR 0.952 0.952
0.952 0.985 0.985
0.985
Note:Note:
FB—fractional
Note: bias; bias;
FB—fractional
FB—fractional NMSE—normalized mean mean
bias;NMSE—normalized
NMSE—normalized square error; error;
meansquare
square FAC2—fraction within within
error;FAC2—fraction
FAC2—fraction awithin
factoraaof twoof
factor
factor of
of
the observations; MG—geometric mean bias; VG—geometric variance, NAD—normalized absolute difference;
two
two ofof the
the observations;
observations;
and R—correlation coefficient. MG—geometric
MG—geometric mean
mean bias;
bias; VG—geometric
VG—geometric variance,
variance, NAD—normalized
NAD—normalized
absolutedifference;
absolute difference;and
andR—correlation
R—correlationcoefficient.
coefficient.
2.2.Numerical
2.2. NumericalSimulation
Simulation
2.2. Numerical Simulation
2.2.1. Sustainability
Numerical Model
2018, Setting
10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21
To investigate the effects of GRs and GWs on PM10 concentration distributions in different street
2.2.1. Numerical Model Setting
canyon configurations, street canyon aspect ratios (H/W) were set to 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0. Since the
To investigate
dust-retaining ratio ofthe effects
the of GRsenvelope
building and GWs on wasPM10 concentration
low, distributions
it was treated in different
as a solid blockstreet
without
canyon configurations, street canyon aspect ratios (H/W) were set to 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0. Since the dust-
consideration of dust retention and wind penetration [41]. Herbaceous plants are generally used
retaining ratio of the building envelope was low, it was treated as a solid block without consideration
for GWs with a height of 0.1–0.5 m [42]. Herbs and shrubs were commonly used for roof greening
of dust retention and wind penetration [41]. Herbaceous plants are generally used for GWs with a
with height
a height of 0.2–1.0
of 0.1–0.5 m [42].m Herbs
[43,44]. andToshrubs
makewereresearch results
commonly usedcomparable, it is assumed
for roof greening thatofherbs
with a height
were 0.2–1.0
planted m [43,44]. To make research results comparable, it is assumed that herbs were planted for coverage
for both GRs and GWs at the height of 0.3 m in the study. The greenery both
areasGRs
were and300
GWsm2at(Sthe
1 ), height
600 mof 2 (S ), and 900 m2 (S ). The LAD of herbs ranges 1.0 to
0.32 m in the study. The 3 greenery coverage areas were 300 m2 (S6.0 m2 /m3
1), 600
according
m2 (S2to available
), and 900 m2literature
(S3). The LAD[45], of
thus,
herbsLADs
rangeswere
1.0 respectively adopted as
to 6.0 m2/m3 according 1.0, 3.5, and
to available 6.0 in this
literature
[45], Due
research. thus,to
LADs were respectively
differences adopted characteristics
in morphological as 1.0, 3.5, and 6.0 in thisleaves
of plant research.
andDue to differences
ambient in
environments,
morphological
the deposition characteristics
velocities of most of plants
plant leaves and ambient
are within 0.01–10 environments,
cm/s [46,47].the deposition
Vd value as velocities of in
0.64 cm/s
mostof
research plants
Nowakare within
was used 0.01–10 cm/sresearch
in this [46,47]. Vd[17,37,38].
value as 0.64 Thiscm/s in research
value is veryofcommonly
Nowak was used used inand is
this research [17,37,38]. This value is very commonly used and is suitable for our research as it is
suitable for our research as it is identical with deposition velocity of herbs predicated by Petroff and
identical with deposition velocity of herbs predicated by Petroff and Zhang using a process-based
Zhang using a process-based model [48]. In all, fifty-four cases with three levels of aspect ratios,
model [48]. In all, fifty-four cases with three levels of aspect ratios, greenery coverage areas, and leaf
greenery
area coverage areas,
densities were and
built forleaf
thisarea
studydensities were built for this study (Figure 4).
(Figure 4).
Aspect Ratio Coverage Leaf Area

（H/W） Area (S) Density (LAD)
Green Walls 0.5 300 1.0

(GWs)
1.0 600 3.5
Green Roofs
(GRs)
2.0 900 6.0
Figure 4. Case settings in this study (54 cases were built within three levels of greenery coverage areas,
Figure 4. Case settings in this study (54 cases were built within three levels of greenery coverage areas,
LADs and aspect ratios).
LADs and aspect ratios).
2.2.2. Domain Size and Grid Independence Testing
2.2.2. Domain Size and Grid Independence Testing
This model is of an isolated street canyon with a north-south orientation, representing the most
common
This forms
model in an
is of Beijing, China.
isolated The canyon
street street is 18 m wide
with (W), and are
a north-south set to 9, 18,representing
orientation, and 36 m highthe (H)most
to create three levels of street canyon aspect ratios, i.e., shallow street canyon,
common forms in Beijing, China. The street is 18 m wide (W), and are set to 9, 18, and 36 m high (H) to symmetric street
createcanyons, and of
three levels deep street
street canyon.
canyon Thisratios,
aspect corresponds to H/W
i.e., shallow = 0.5,
street 1.0, and
canyon, 2.0 and street
symmetric simulates
canyons,
categorized airflow patterns, including isolated roughness flow, wake interference flow, and
and deep street canyon. This corresponds to H/W = 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 and simulates categorized airflow
skimming flow in the street canyons [49]. The length of the street canyon is 100 m. Based on recent
patterns, including isolated roughness flow, wake interference flow, and skimming flow in the street
guidelines [27,35], the distance between the inlet boundary and the windward façade of the front
canyons [49]. is
building The5H,length of the street
and between canyon
the outlet is 100 m.
boundary andBased
leewardonfaçade
recentofguidelines [27,35],
back building the The
is 15H. distance
between the inlet
distance boundary
between and the lateral
the symmetrical windward façade
boundary of the
to the front
target areabuilding
in 5H, andis 5H, and between
the distance from the
outletthe
boundary and leeward
ground boundary to topfaçade of back
boundary is set building is 15H.
as 11H (Figure 5). The distance between the symmetrical
lateral boundary to the target area in 5H, and the distance from the ground boundary to top boundary
is set as 11H (Figure 5).
Figure5.5. The
Figure The computational
computational domain
domain (schematic
(schematicdiagram
diagramof
ofthe
thestreet
streetcanyon
canyonwith
withGRs
GRsat
atthe
thelevel
levelof
of
H/W 1.0, SS == 900m22, and LAD == 6.0
H/W== 1.0, m22/m
6.0 m /m 3 ).
3).
AAstructural
structuralhexahedral
hexahedral mesh
mesh was was
usedused to ensure
to ensure reasonable
reasonable computing
computing time.
time. The The area
target target area
within
within
the streetthe street
canyon canyonofconsisted
consisted of cell
the smallest thedimension
smallest cell of the dimension of=the
cells of Xmin Ymincells
= Zminof =X0.027H,
min = Ymin = Zmin =
while the
0.027H, while the grid expansion ratio was 1.2 outside the target area. Thus,
grid expansion ratio was 1.2 outside the target area. Thus, the total cell number of the computational the total cell number
domain of
the approximately
was computational6.2 domain
millionwas approximately
to ensure 6.2 million
a higher resolution in thetointerested
ensure aregion.
higherGridresolution in the
independence
interested region. Grid independence was tested by the GCI [36]. The GCI
was tested by the GCI [36]. The GCI value is 2.67% following the procedures implemented by Hefny and value is 2.67% following
the procedures
Ooka implemented
[50]. This result by the
indicates that Hefny
givenand
gridOoka [50]. This
arrangement result indicates
is adequate that simulations.
to distinguish the given grid
arrangement is adequate to distinguish simulations.
2.2.3. Boundary Conditions
2.2.3. Boundary Conditions
Boundary conditions, including the inlet, outflow, top, ground, and lateral, are set to reproduce
Boundary conditions,
the atmospheric boundaryincluding
layer. Tothe inlet, outflow,
represent top, ground,and
wind transported andtraffic-originated
lateral, are set to reproduce
pollutant
dispersions, two types of pollution sources were added: one though the inflow boundary, andpollutant
the atmospheric boundary layer. To represent wind transported and traffic-originated another
dispersions,
was added astwo linetypes
sources of pollution sources
in intersections were added:
exceeded the streetone canyon
though by theapproximately
inflow boundary, 10% and
on
another
each sidewas added
[51]. Since asthe
linehighest
sourceslevel
in intersections
of pollutant exceeded
occurs from the street canyon by approximately
mid-November to December [52]. 10%
on each
The side [51].
averaged PM10Since the highest
concentration is level
96 µg/m 3 during occurs
of pollutant this period from[53].
mid-November
Thus, this valueto December
was selected[52].
Thethe
for averaged
numerical PMsimulations.
10 concentration is 96 μg/m during this period [53]. Thus, this value was selected
3
for the numerical simulations.

For the inlet boundary, a power law profile mean velocity was adopted and expressed as:
For the inlet boundary, a power law profile mean velocity was adopted and expressed as:
u(z) = u0 (z/z0)α (14)
u  z   u0  z z 0  (84)
where u(z) is the horizontal velocity at height z, u0 is the horizontal velocity at the height of z0 . In this
where u(z) is the horizontal velocity at height z, u0 is the horizontal velocity at the height of z0. In this
study, the averaged wind velocity during mid-November to December is 2.1 m/s with a westerly
study, the averaged wind velocity during mid-November to December is 2.1 m/s with a westerly
direction. In the model, u0 = 2.1 m/s, z0 = 10 m, and α = 0.25 [51].
direction. In the model, u0 = 2.1 m/s, z02= 10 m, and α = 0.25 [51].
The turbulent kinetic energy, k (m 2/s22 ), and its dissipation rate, ε (m22 /s3 3 ), are set as:
The turbulent kinetic energy, k (m /s ), and its dissipation rate, ε (m /s ), are set as:
u2 2 zz
k =k p ∗u* 11 −

Cµ  δ (15)
(15)
C  
u3∗ 3 z
ε= u * 1− z (16)
 kz 1  δ  (16)
kz   
where u* is the friction velocity, δ is the boundary layer depth, k is the von Kàrmàn constant, Cμ is a
model constant, u* = 0.52 m/s, k = 0.4, and Cμ = 0.09 [54].
where u* is the friction velocity, δ is the boundary layer depth, k is the von Kàrmàn constant, Cµ is
A fixed pressure and zero gradients were specified for the outflow boundary. A fully rough wall
a model constant, u* = 0.52 m/s, k = 0.4, and Cµ = 0.09 [54].
function was implemented for the ground boundary. The constant horizontal velocity and turbulent
A fixed pressure and zero gradients were specified for the outflow boundary. A fully rough wall
kinetic energy that corresponds to the inflow profile were fixed to the top boundary, and the lateral
function was implemented for the ground boundary. The constant horizontal velocity and turbulent
planes were simulated as symmetric boundaries.
kinetic energy that corresponds to the inflow profile were fixed to the top boundary, and the lateral
planes were simulated as symmetric boundaries.
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Airflow Fields with GRs and GWs
3.1. Airflow Fields with GRs and GWs
Figure 6 shows the streamline fields and wind velocities at y = 140 m in H/W = 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0
with Figure
non-greening
6 shows scenarios,
the streamlineGRsfields
and GWs withvelocities
and wind LADs of at 6.0y m 2/m3 and greenery coverage area of
= 140 m in H/W = 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 with
S3. As seen, LADs
non-greening and greenery
scenarios, GRs and coverage
GWs withhaveLADs a minor 2
of influence
6.0 m /monand3 the greenery
airflow field in street
coverage canyons
area of S3 .
both
As in LADs
seen, GRs or and GWs, and coverage
greenery three greenery coverage
have a minor areas on
influence with theLADs
airflowhave fieldsimilar
in streetturbulent
canyons
phenomena
both in GRs or withGWs,theandsame aspect
three ratio. coverage
greenery When airflow encounters
areas with LADs have the windward façade phenomena
similar turbulent of the front
building,
with the samethe wind
aspect speed abruptly
ratio. When increases at the building’s
airflow encounters roof. These
the windward images
façade of thedemonstrate that
front building,
wind
the wind speedspeedincreases
abruptlywith increasing
increases aspect ratio,
at the building’s roof.because the dragging
These images demonstrate force that
exertswinda strong
speed
influence with
increases within deep street
increasing canyons
aspect and strengthens
ratio, because the draggingmomentum and akinetic
force exerts strongenergy.
influence Forwithin
H/W deep= 0.5
and 1.0,
street a clockwise
canyons vortex appears
and strengthens within the
momentum andstreet canyon
kinetic energy.in each
For H/W scenario
= 0.5 asandreported
1.0, a by Li et al
clockwise
and Bright
vortex appears et al. [55,56].
within Due to
the street the influence
canyon of GRsasand
in each scenario GWs,by
reported the
Li shape
et al and of Bright
the vortex differs
et al. [55,56].
compared
Due to the with the scenario
influence of GRs and without
GWs,greened
the shape surfaces. When differs
of the vortex H/W = compared
0.5, the predominant
with the scenariowind
directiongreened
without is identical to a When
surfaces. weakenedH/Wturbulent effect in street
= 0.5, the predominant windcanyons
direction in GRs cases. to
is identical However,
a weakened the
turbulent effect
turbulent effectinisstreet
obviously
canyonsstrengthened,
in GRs cases. and the predominant
However, the turbulent wind direction
effect is from
is obviously the bottom
strengthened,
to thethe
and toppredominant
of the building windin GW cases. When
direction is fromH/W the =bottom
1.0, turbulence
to the top is relatively
of the buildingflat in GRin GWscenarios.
cases.
Wind speed
When H/W = is 1.0,
slightly higher near
turbulence the windward
is relatively flat in façade of the leeward
GR scenarios. Wind building
speed is and the lowest
slightly higherwindnear
speed appears in the turbulent region in the street canyon. GWs
the windward façade of the leeward building and the lowest wind speed appears in the turbulent could cause the airflow field to
changeinwhich
region is represented
the street canyon. GWs bycould
the position
cause theofairflow
vortexfieldmoving up, and
to change which theispredominant
represented by wind
the
directionofchanges
position from the
vortex moving up,bottom
and theleft to the upper
predominant windright. For H/W
direction changes = 2.0,
from twothevertically-aligned
bottom left to the
clockwise
upper right.vortices
For H/W are generated
= 2.0, two at the rooftops. Airflow
vertically-aligned fieldsvortices
clockwise with two aredeformable
generated vortices in GRs
at the rooftops.
are significantly
Airflow fields with affected by impeding
two deformable vegetation,
vortices in GRs which causes velocity
are significantly affectedto byincrease
impeding and vegetation,
vortices to
compress.
which causes It should
velocitybe to noted
increase that
and wind speed
vortices initially increases
to compress. It shouldand then decreases
be noted that wind with speedbuilding
initially
height. GWs,
increases anddue thentodecreases
vegetationwith distribution
buildingalongheight. theGWs,
vertical
due wall, have a large
to vegetation effect on the
distribution airflow
along the
field in wall,
vertical the street
havecanyon. As a on
a large effect result
the of GWs,field
airflow windinvelocity
the street is canyon.
relativelyAslow and two
a result clockwise
of GWs, wind
vortices is
velocity arerelatively
generated lowin and
the street canyon. vortices are generated in the street canyon.
two clockwise
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 6. Cont.
(d) (e) (f)
(g) (h) (i)
Figure
Figure 6.
6. Streamline
Streamline fields
fields and
and wind
wind velocities
velocities at at yy == 140
140 m
m in
in H/W
H/W == 0.5
0.5 (left
(left panels),
panels), 1.0
1.0 (middle
(middle
panels),
panels), and
and 2.0
2.0 (right
(right panels)
panels) with
with non-greening
non-greening scenarios
scenarios (a–c),
(a–c), GRs
GRs (d–f),
(d–f), and
and GWs
GWs (g–i)
(g–i) with
with LAD
LAD
of
of 6.0 m22/m
6.0 m /m 3 and
3 and greenery
greenerycoverage
coveragearea
areaofofS3S. 3 .
3.2.
3.2. Pollutant
Pollutant Dispersion
Dispersion by
by GRs
GRs and
and GWs
GWs
3.2.1.
3.2.1. Street-Canyon
Street-Canyon Concentration
Concentration Distributions
Distributions
Figure
Figure 7 illustrates the contours
contours of of PM
PM10 10 concentration
concentration at yy = 190 m in H/W H/W ==0.5, 0.5,1.0,
1.0,and
and2.0
2.0 with
with
non-greening
non-greening scenarios, GRs GRs andand GWs
GWs with
withLADLADof of6.0
6.0m 2
m /m
2 3
/m and
3
and greenery
greenery coverage
coverage of S33.. As
As can
can be
be
seen
seen in
in Figure
Figure 7,
7, PM
PM1010concentrations
concentrationsdisperse
dispersetoward
towardwindward
windward walls walls for
for the
thenon-greening
non-greening scenarios,
scenarios,
and
and their dispersion
dispersionpatterns
patternschange
changeasasvegetation
vegetation is is implemented
implemented in the
in the roofsroofs
andand
wallswalls
suchsuch that
that their
their concentrations
concentrations on theon the leeward
leeward walls decrease
walls decrease with increasing
with increasing street canyon
street canyon aspect
aspect ratio. ratio.
This This is
is because
because the deposition effect of vegetation on GRs (GWs) and the shading
the deposition effect of vegetation on GRs (GWs) and the shading effect of the windward building effect of the windward
building
increasing increasing
with thewith theratio,
aspect aspect ratio,creates
which which creates
greatergreater
drag forcesdrag within
forces within street canyons.
street canyons. For
For these
these reasons,
reasons, the smallest
the smallest valuesvalues are found
are found in H/W in =
H/W = 2.0 scenarios.
2.0 scenarios. At theAt the same
same time, time, concentrations
concentrations along
along the leeward
the leeward façadefaçade
of theoffront
the front building
building are smaller
are smaller in comparison
in comparison to windward
to the the windward façade
façade of
of the
the
backback building.
building. For For
H/W H/W = 0.5,
= 0.5, concentration
concentration distributions
distributions in GRsin GRs are similar
are similar to non-greening
to the the non-greeningcase.
case. The smallest
The smallest concentrations
concentrations existvegetation
exist where where vegetation
was installedwas in installed in GWs. Concentrations
GWs. Concentrations decrease at
decrease
the streetat the street
corner for H/Wcorner
= 1.0forcases
H/Wwith= 1.0GRscases
andwith
GWs.GRs andH/W
In the GWs.= In2.0the H/W =concentrations
scenario, 2.0 scenario,
concentrations along vertical
along vertical profile profile
of the street of theremains
corner street corner
lowerremains
for GRslower cases.for GRs cases. Concentration
Concentration distributions
distributions have a similar trend of increasing
have a similar trend of increasing with building height. with building height.
(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e) (f)
(g) (h) (i)
Figure 7. Contours of PM10 concentration at y = 190 m in H/W = 0.5 (left panels), 1.0 (middle panels),
Figure 7. Contours of PM10 concentration at y = 190 m in H/W = 0.5 (left panels), 1.0 (middle panels),
and 2.0 (right panels) with non-greening scenarios (a–c), GRs (d–f), and GWs (g–i) with LAD of 6.0
and 2.0 (right panels) with non-greening scenarios (a–c), GRs (d–f), and GWs (g–i) with LAD of
m2/m32 and3 greenery coverage of S3.
6.0 m /m and greenery coverage of S3 .
Averaged PM10 concentrations in street canyons were calculated to determine how much they
wereAveraged PMGRs
reduced by 10 concentrations in streetconcentrations
and GWs. Averaged canyons were in calculated to determine
street canyons how muchusing
were calculated they
were reduced by GRs and GWs. Averaged concentrations in street canyons were calculated
concentrations within three-dimensional space of the street canyons, from 99 to 117 m on the X using
concentrations
axis, from 90 towithin
190 mthree-dimensional
on the Y axis, and space
fromof0the
to street
9 m, 18canyons,
m, andfrom 99respectively,
36 m, onXthe
to 117 m on the axis,
Z
from 90 to 190 m on the Y axis, and from 0 to 9 m, 18 m, and 36 m, respectively, on the Z axis for
axis for scenarios simulating three aspect ratios. Averaged concentrations plotted against LADs
scenarios simulating three aspect ratios. Averaged concentrations plotted against LADs and greenery
and greenery coverage are depicted in Figure 8. This approach reveals that averaged concentrations
coverage are depicted in Figure 8. This approach reveals that averaged concentrations are lower in
are lower in GWs than that in GRs. With the same greenery coverage, concentration differences
GWs than that in GRs. With the same greenery coverage, concentration differences between GWs and
between GWs and GRs gradually decreases as LAD increases. This also indicated that averaged
GRs gradually decreases as LAD increases. This also indicated that averaged concentration in GRs
concentration in GRs is higher than in cases with non-greening, especially within deep canyon of
H/W = 2.0 (Figure 8c). Thus, GRs in deep street canyons can cause the concentrations to increase
within the street canyon.
is higher than in cases with non-greening, especially within deep canyon of H/W = 2.0 (Figure 8c).
Thus, GRs in deep street canyons can cause the concentrations to increase within the street canyon.
54 34 23
GRs GRs GRs
54 34 23
GRs
GWs GRs GRs
53 33 GWs 22 GWs
53 GWs 33 22
S1 S2 S3 GWs GWs
52 S1 S2 S3 32 21
S1 S2 S3
10(μg/m )
10(μg/m )
10(μg/m )
3
3
52 32 21 S1 S2 S3
S1 S2 S3
3)
3)
3)
51 31 20
10(μg/m
10(μg/m
10(μg/m
S1 S2 S3
51 31 20
50 30 19
PMPM
PMPM
PMPM
50 30 19
49 29 18
49 29 18
48 28 17
48 1 3.5 6 1 3.5 6 1 3.5 6 28 1 3.5 6 1 3.5 6 1 3.5 6 17 1 3.5 6 1 3.5 6 1 3.5 6
1 3.5 6 1 3.52 6 3 1 3.5 6 1 3.5 6 1 3.52 6 3 1 3.5 6 1 3.5 6 1 3.52 6 3 1 3.5 6
LAD(m /m ) LAD(m /m ) LAD(m /m )
LAD(m2/m3) LAD(m2/m3) LAD(m2/m3)
(a) (b) (c)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 8. Averaged concentrations in H/W = 0.5 (a), 1.0 (b), and 2.0 (c) against LADs (red dashed lines
Averagedconcentrations
Figure8.8.Averaged
Figure H/W==0.5
concentrationsininH/W 0.5(a),
(a),1.0
1.0(b),
(b),and
and2.0
2.0(c)
(c)against
againstLADs
LADs(red
(reddashed
dashedlines
lines
represent the averaged concentrations in non-greening scenarios).
3.2.2. Pedestrian-level Concentration Distributions
3.2.2.Pedestrian-level
3.2.2. Pedestrian-levelConcentration
ConcentrationDistributions
Distributions
Figure 9 depicts the contours of PM10 concentration in H/W = 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 with GRs and GWs
Figure99depicts
Figure depictsthe thecontours
contours ofof
PM PM 10 concentration
10 concentration in H/W
in H/W = 0.5,=1.0,
0.5,and
1.0,2.0
and 2.0GRs
with withand GRsGWsand
at the pedestrian level (1.5 m height), a level where is essential for pedestrians’ outdoor breathing.
atGWs at the pedestrian
the pedestrian levelm(1.5
level (1.5 m height),
height), a level
a level where
where is essential
is essential for for pedestrians’
pedestrians’ outdoor
outdoor breathing.
breathing.
The concentrations decrease with increasing aspect ratio due to the building shading effect. For H/W
Theconcentrations
The concentrations decrease
decreasewithwithincreasing
increasing aspect ratio
aspect due
ratio to the
due building
to the shading
building effect.
shading For H/W
effect. For H/W= 0.5
= 0.5 and 1.0, particle concentrations are lower in the middle region of the street canyon, are higher
=and
0.5 1.0,
andparticle concentrations
1.0, particle are lower
concentrations are in the middle
lower in the region
middleofregion
the street canyon,
of the streetare higher are
canyon, at the street
higher
at the street corner, and the range of low concentration is clearly larger in all H/W = 2.0 cases. For
atcorner, and the
the street rangeand
corner, of low
the concentration
range of lowisconcentration
clearly larger in
is all H/Wlarger
clearly = 2.0 cases.
in all For
H/W H/W = 0.5,
= 2.0 particle
cases. For
H/W = 0.5, particle concentrations are clearly lower in street canyon center with GRs and GWs are
concentrations
H/W are clearly
= 0.5, particle lower in are
concentrations street canyon
clearly center
lower with GRs
in street canyonandcenter
GWs arewithpresent.
GRs and Additionally,
GWs are
present. Additionally, their distributions are approximate. However, lower concentrations exist in
their distributions
present. Additionally,are approximate. However,
their distributions lower concentrations
are approximate. However, existlower
in theconcentrations
region close toexistthe wall
in
the region close to the wall façade for GWs. Concentrations are slightly lower and clearly decrease in
façade
the for close
region GWs.to Concentrations
the wall façade arefor
slightly
GWs.lower and clearlyare
Concentrations decrease
slightlyin the center
lower andregion
clearlyfor H/W = in
decrease 1.0.
the center region for H/W = 1.0. Furthermore, this comparison indicates that concentrations are lowest
Furthermore,
the thisfor
center region comparison
H/W = 1.0. indicates that concentrations
Furthermore, are lowest
this comparison at thethat
indicates pedestrian level withare
concentrations GWs when
lowest
at the pedestrian level with GWs when H/W = 2.0. Based on the comparison of concentration
atH/Wthe =pedestrian
2.0. Based on the with
level comparison of concentration
GWs when H/W = 2.0. distributions
Based onunder three aspect ratios,
the comparison the influence
of concentration
distributions under three aspect ratios, the influence of GRs on particle concentration gradually
of GRs on particle
distributions underconcentration
three aspectgradually
ratios, the weakens as the
influence of aspect
GRs on ratio increases
particle at the pedestrian
concentration level,
gradually
weakens as the aspect ratio increases at the pedestrian level, but strengthens with GWs.
but strengthens
weakens with GWs.
as the aspect ratio increases at the pedestrian level, but strengthens with GWs.
a1 a2 b1 b2 c1 c2
a1 H/W = 0.5 a2 b1 H/W = 1.0 b2 c1 H/W = 2.0 c2
H/W = 0.5 H/W = 1.0 H/W = 2.0
Figure 9. Contours of PM10 concentration in H/W = 0.5 (left), 1.0 (middle), and 2.0 (right) with GRs
Figure 9. Contours of PM10 concentration in H/W = 0.5 (left), 1.0 (middle), and 2.0 (right) with GRs
(a1–c1)
Figure and GWs (a2–c2)
9. Contours at10the
of PM pedestrian level
concentration (Z ==1.5
in H/W 0.5m).
(left), 1.0 (middle), and 2.0 (right) with GRs
(a1–c1) and GWs (a2–c2) at the pedestrian level (Z = 1.5 m).
(a1–c1) and GWs (a2–c2) at the pedestrian level (Z = 1.5 m).
The averaged concentrations against LAD and greenery coverage at the pedestrian level (1.5 m
The averaged concentrations against LAD and greenery coverage at the pedestrian level (1.5 m
height) are illustrated in Figure 10. Averaged concentrations at the pedestrian level were calculated
height) are illustrated in Figure 10. Averaged concentrations at the pedestrian level were calculated
using concentrations at Z = 1.5 m within street canyons, from 99 to 117 m on the X axis, and from
using concentrations at Z = 1.5 m within street canyons, from 99 to 117 m on the X axis, and from
90 to 190 m on the Y axis. The averaged concentrations decrease with increasing aspect ratios.
90 to 190 m on the Y axis. The averaged concentrations decrease with increasing aspect ratios.
Concentrations in GWs are higher for H/W = 0.5, in comparison to GRs. Moreover, with the same
Concentrations in GWs are higher for H/W = 0.5, in comparison to GRs. Moreover, with the same
The averaged concentrations against LAD and greenery coverage at the pedestrian level (1.5 m height)
are illustrated in Figure 10. Averaged concentrations at the pedestrian level were calculated using
concentrations at Z = 1.5 m within street canyons, from 99 to 117 m on the X axis, and from 90 to 190 m
on the Y axis. The averaged concentrations decrease with increasing aspect ratios. Concentrations in
GWs are higher for H/W = 0.5, in comparison to GRs. Moreover, with the same LAD, concentrations
LAD, concentrations gradually decrease as greenery coverage and LAD increase. However, when
gradually decrease as greenery coverage and LAD increase. However, when greening areas are S2 and S3,
greening areas are S2 and S3, the concentration changes are smaller 2as LAD increases from 3.5 to 6.0
the2 concentration changes are smaller as LAD increases from 3.5 to 6.0 m /m3. Concentration changes show
m /m . Concentration changes show similar trends in GRs. Additionally, concentration differences
3
similar trends in GRs. Additionally, concentration differences among the three LADs become more obvious
among the three LADs become more obvious as greenery coverage increased in area. For H/W = 1.0,
as greenery coverage increased in area. For H/W = 1.0, averaged concentrations of GWs decline greatly as
averaged concentrations of GWs decline greatly as LAD and greenery coverage increase. While, the
LAD and greenery coverage increase. While, the effect of GRs on pollutant absorption is unclear due to the
effect of GRs on pollutant absorption is unclear due to the distance from the street canyon,
distance from the street canyon, concentration differences between GWs and GRs increases with greenery
concentration differences between GWs and GRs increases with greenery coverage and LADs. This
coverage and LADs. This phenomenon indicates, that for H/W = 1.0, the greater the LADs and greenery
phenomenon indicates, that for H/W = 1.0, the greater the LADs and greenery coverage, the stronger
coverage, the stronger the deposition effect exerted by GWs. When H/W = 2.0, the averaged concentrations
the deposition effect exerted by GWs. When H/W = 2.0, the averaged concentrations in GWs are
in GWs are clearly lower than that in GRs. However, concentration differences are not very clear as LADs
clearly lower than that in GRs. However, concentration differences are not very clear as LADs and
and greenery coverage increase with GWs (or GRs). Nevertheless, the overall tendency remains consistent;
greenery coverage increase with GWs (or GRs). Nevertheless, the overall tendency remains consistent;
concentrations decrease with increasing LADs and greenery coverage.
concentrations decrease with increasing LADs and greenery coverage.
48 GRs
32 14
GRs GRs
GWs GWs GWs
46 30 12
S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3
44 28 10
PM10(μg/m3)
PM10(μg/m3)
PM10(μg/m3)
42 26 8
40 24 6
38 22 4
36 20 2
1 3.5 6 1 3.5 6 1 3.5 6 1 3.5 6 1 3.5 6 1 3.5 6 1 3.5 6 1 3.5 6 1 3.5 6
(a) (b) (c)
Figure
Figure 10.
10. Averaged
Averaged concentrations
concentrationsatatthe
thepedestrian
pedestrianlevel
level(Z(Z= =
1.51.5
m)m)
forfor
H/W = 0.5
H/W (a),(a),
= 0.5 1.0 1.0
(b) (b)
andand
2.0
(c) against LAD (red dashed lines represent the averaged concentrations in non-greening scenarios).
2.0 (c) against LAD (red dashed lines represent the averaged concentrations in non-greening scenarios).
Based on the above comparisons, PM10 concentrations with GRs are lower in H/W = 0.5. However,
Based on the above comparisons, PM10 concentrations with GRs are lower in H/W = 0.5. However,
for H/W = 1.0 and 2.0, the deposition effect of GWs is stronger, and differences between GWs and
for H/W = 1.0 and 2.0, the deposition effect of GWs is stronger, and differences between GWs and
GRs are larger compared to that for H/W = 0.5. The differences among LADs are significant with the
GRs are larger compared to that for H/W = 0.5. The differences among LADs are significant with
greenery coverage of S3 where the absolute value reaches 6.1 μg/m3.3 In addition, the absolute
the greenery coverage of S3 where the absolute value reaches 6.1 µg/m . In addition, the absolute
differences between GWs and GRs ranges from 1.0 to 2.3 μg/m3 for
3 H/W = 0.5, and from 2.0 to 3.1
differences between GWs and GRs ranges from 1.0 to 2.3 µg/m for H/W = 0.5, and from 2.0 to
μg/m3 for3H/W = 2.0 cases, respectively.
3.1 µg/m for H/W = 2.0 cases, respectively.
3.2.3. Vertical Concentration Distributions
3.2.3. Vertical Concentration Distributions
Figure 11 depicts the PM10 concentrations along a vertical line located at the canyon-center on
Figure 11 depicts the PM10 concentrations along a vertical line located at the canyon-center on
windward wall of back building with GRs. In scenarios where H/W = 0.5, particle concentrations
windward wall of back building with GRs. In scenarios where H/W = 0.5, particle concentrations
without greening are slightly smaller at the same level with S 1 greening coverage (Figure 11a).
without greening are slightly smaller at the same level with S1 greening coverage (Figure 11a).
Increasing the greenery area to S3 causes concentrations of various LADs to be smaller than in non-
Increasing the greenery area to S3 causes concentrations of various LADs to be smaller than in
greening scenarios (Figure 11c). It is also observed that concentration differences, plotted against
non-greening scenarios (Figure 11c). It is also observed that concentration differences, plotted
LADs at the same level, increase with increased greenery coverage. For H/W = 1.0, particle
against LADs at the same level, increase with increased greenery coverage. For H/W = 1.0, particle
concentrations in non-greening cases are greater than that with greening. Particle concentration
concentrations in non-greening cases are greater than that with greening. Particle concentration
differences among various scenarios are all small when Z > 17 m. The concentration changes are
differences among various scenarios are all small when Z > 17 m. The concentration changes are
identical among LADs of 1.0, 3.5, and 6.0 m22/m33 in S1. Increasing to S2, concentrations among various
identical among LADs of 1.0, 3.5, and 6.0 m /m in S1 . Increasing to S2 , concentrations among various
LADs differ slightly. However, when greening coverage is S3, the concentrations are clearly different
LADs differ slightly. However, when greening coverage is S3 , the concentrations are clearly different
at different LADs (ranked as: C(LAD=1) < C(LAD=3.5) < C(LAD=6) < C(LAD=0)). In the scenario where H/W = 2.0,
at different LADs (ranked as: C(LAD=1) < C(LAD=3.5) < C(LAD=6) < C(LAD=0) ). In the scenario where H/W
concentrations of LAD = 0 increase abruptly because of wind deflection created by windward
buildings above 31 m. Due to the deposition effect of vegetation, concentrations of LAD = 0 are
significantly higher than other LADs and above 31 m. Furthermore, the concentrations increase
rapidly at about 33 m with greening scenarios because GRs affects airflow fields and increase the
shading effect of windward buildings. Particle concentrations for each LAD (except for non-greening
= 2.0, concentrations of LAD = 0 increase abruptly because of wind deflection created by windward
buildings above 31 m. Due to the deposition effect of vegetation, concentrations of LAD = 0 are
significantly higher than other LADs and above 31 m. Furthermore, the concentrations increase
rapidly at about 33 m with greening scenarios because GRs affects airflow fields and increase the
shading effect of windward buildings. Particle concentrations for each LAD (except for non-greening
scenarios) are almost identical above 33 m but with smaller differences. Analysis of mentioned line
along building
along building façade indicates
façade that that
indicates maximum
maximum particle concentrations
particle are found
concentrations aboveabove
are found the roof
thebecause
roof
wind deflection
because windcauses
deflectionthe causes
particlethe
concentration to increase
particle concentration to rapidly
increasenear the near
rapidly building tops. tops.
the building
10 10 10
8 8 8
6 6 6
Z(m)
Z(m)
Z(m)
4 4 4
LAD=0 LAD=0 LAD=0

2 2 2 LAD=1
LAD=1 LAD=1
LAD=3.5 LAD=3.5 LAD=3.5
LAD=6 LAD=6 LAD=6
0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PM10(μg/m3) PM10(μg/m3) PM10(μg/m3)
(a) (b) (c)

18 18 18
15 15
15
12 12
12
Z(m)
Z(m)
Z(m)
9 9
9
6 6
6
LAD=0 LAD=0
LAD=0 3 LAD=1
3 LAD=1 3 LAD=1
LAD=3.5 LAD=3.5
LAD=3.5 LAD=6
0 LAD=6 LAD=6 0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PM10(μg/m3) PM10(μg/m3)
PM10(μg/m3)
(d) (e) (f)
36 36 36
30 30 30
24 24 24
18
Z(m)
Z(m)
Z(m)
18 18
12 12 12
LAD=0 LAD=0 LAD=0
6 LAD=1 6 LAD=1 6 LAD=1
LAD=3.5 LAD=3.5 LAD=3.5
0 LAD=6 LAD=6 LAD=6
0 0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
PM10 (μg/m3) PM10(μg/m3) PM10(μg/m3)
(g) (h) (i)

Figure 11. PM10 concentrations in H/W = 0.5 (a–c), 1.0 (d–f), and 2.0 (g–i) under S1 (left panels), S2
Figure 11. PM10 concentrations in H/W = 0.5 (a–c), 1.0 (d–f), and 2.0 (g–i) under S1 (left panels), S2
(middle panels), and S3 (right panels) along a vertical line located at the canyon-center on windward
wall of back building with GRs.
wall of back building with GRs.
Figure 12 shows the PM10 concentrations along a vertical line located at the canyon-center on
Figure 12 wall
windward shows ofthe PMbuilding
back 10 concentrations
with GWs. along
Foraaspect
verticalratios
line located
where at the =canyon-center
H/W on windward
0.5, concentrations with
wallLAD
of back building
= 1.0 withoften
m2/m3 are GWs. For aspect
higher ratioswith
than that where
LAD H/W= 0= at0.5,
theconcentrations with LAD = 1.0
same height. Additionally, m2/m3
particle
are concentrations
often higher than that
at the with LAD
bottom of the=street
0 at the samespace
canyon height. Additionally,
decrease particle concentrations
with increasing greenery coverage at the
for LADs.
bottom of theAnalysis of Figure
street canyon 12adecrease
space shows thatwithparticle concentrations
increasing under non-greening
greenery coverage scenariosof
for LADs. Analysis
are 12a
Figure clearly
showslower
thatthan thatconcentrations
particle in GWs when Z > non-greening
under 2.5 m. This phenomenon demonstrates
scenarios are clearly lower thanthatthat
thein
GWs aerodynamic
when Z > 2.5effect of GWs
m. This is greaterdemonstrates
phenomenon than the deposition
that theeffect when Z effect
aerodynamic > 2.5 of
m GWs
underisSgreater
1, suggesting
than the
that GWs
deposition perform
effect whenwell at higher
Z > 2.5 m underPMS101, concentrations.
suggesting that However,
GWs perform the concentrations
well at higher PM within LAD = 1.0
10 concentrations.
m2/m3 are all lower than those with LAD = 0 at the same height due to smaller aerodynamic effects.
When Z > 5 m, concentrations are all higher in greening scenario compared with non-greening
scenario for greater aerodynamic effect of GWs (Figure 12b). In scenarios of H/W = 1.0, concentration
is higher with S1 for LAD = 1.0 m2/m3 compared with non-greening situation (Figure 12d).
Concentrations are both greater than non-greening cases at the same level when Z > 1 m under S2 and
However, the concentrations within LAD = 1.0 m2/m3 are all lower than those with LAD = 0 at the same
height due to smaller aerodynamic effects. When Z > 5 m, concentrations are all higher in greening scenario
compared with non-greening scenario for greater aerodynamic effect of GWs (Figure 12b). In scenarios of
H/W = 1.0, concentration is higher with S1 for LAD = 1.0 m2/m3 compared with non-greening situation
(Figure 12d). Concentrations are both greater than non-greening cases at the same level when Z > 1 m
under S2 and Z > 2.5 m under S3 (Figure 12e,f). Similar to H/W = 0.5 cases, concentrations decrease with
increasing
greenery greenery
coverage coverage forLAD
for each eachatLADthe at the bottom
bottom of theofstreet
the street canyon
canyon (except
(except for for
thethe non-greening
non-greening
scenario). In the
scenario). casecase
In the of H/W
of H/W= 2.0, thethe
= 2.0, concentrations
concentrations gradually decrease
gradually with
decrease building
with buildingheight andand
height reach
their minimum
reach at Z = 31 at
their minimum m,Zthen
= 31abruptly increase when
m, then abruptly LAD
increase = 0.LAD
when Nevertheless, when Z <when
= 0. Nevertheless, 26 m,Zparticle
< 26
concentrations are uniform in are
m, particle concentrations GWs, which in
uniform areGWs,
smaller thanare
which non-greening
smaller thanscenarios, have obvious
non-greening effects
scenarios, haveon
reducing
obvious particles.
effects onHowever,
reducingconcentrations clearlyconcentrations
particles. However, increase in GWs aboveincrease
clearly 26 m and grow above
in GWs larger 26
thanm in
andwhere
cases growLAD larger= than
0. in cases where LAD = 0.
10 10 10
8 8 8
6 6 6
Z(m)
Z(m)
Z(m)
4 4 4
LAD=0 LAD=0 LAD=0

2 LAD=1 2 2 LAD=1
LAD=1
LAD=3.5 LAD=3.5 LAD=3.5
LAD=6 LAD=6 LAD=6
0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(a) (b) (c)

18 18 18
15 15 15
12 12 12
Z(m)
Z(m)
Z(m)
9 9 9
6 6 6
LAD=0 LAD=0 LAD=0
3 LAD=1 3 LAD=1 3 LAD=1
LAD=3.5 LAD=3.5 LAD=3.5
0 LAD=6 LAD=6 LAD=6
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PM10 (μg/m3) PM10(μg/m3) PM10(μg/m3)
(d) (e) (f)

36 36 36
30 30 30
24 24 24
Z(m)
Z(m)
Z(m)
18 18 18
12 12 12
LAD=0 LAD=0 LAD=0
6 LAD=1 6 LAD=1 6 LAD=1
LAD=3.5 LAD=3.5 LAD=3.5
LAD=6 LAD=6 LAD=6
0 0 0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
(g) (h) (i)
Figure 12. PM10 concentration in H/W = 0.5 (a–c), 1.0 (d–f), and 2.0 (g–i) under S1 (left panels), S2
Figure 12. PM10 concentration in H/W = 0.5 (a–c), 1.0 (d–f), and 2.0 (g–i) under S1 (left panels), S2
wall of back building with GWs.
wall of back building with GWs.
3.3. PM10 Reduction Ratio with GRs and GWs
3.3. PM10 Reduction Ratio with GRs and GWs
The averaged PM10 concentrations with and without greening were calculated to confirm their
The averaged
efficiency PMparticulate
to reduce 10 concentrations with
pollution. and without
Reduction ratiosgreening were
of averaged calculated to
concentration confirm
against their
LADs
efficiency to reduce
and greenery particulate
coverage pollution.
for three Reduction
aspects ratios ratios
with GRs of averaged
(Figure concentration
13a–c) and GWs (Figureagainst
13d–f)LADs
are
illustrated. The reduction ratio is calculated as:
 Cave,non greening  Cave 

    100% (17)
 C 
 ave,non greening 
and greenery coverage for three aspects ratios with GRs (Figure 13a–c) and GWs (Figure 13d–f) are
illustrated. The reduction ratio is calculated as:
!
Cave,non− greening − Cave
ω= × 100% (17)
Cave,non− greening
where ω is the reduction ratio that describes the reduction capability of greening on PM10
concentrations.
where ω is the Cave,
reduction and C
non-greeningratio ave are
that the averaged
describes concentrations
the reduction capabilityat of non-greening
greening onand PMGRs10
(GWs) scenarios, respectively.
concentrations. Cave,non-greening and Cave are the averaged concentrations at non-greening and GRs (GWs)
The results
scenarios, presented in Figure 13 indicate that the reduction ratios increase with LADs and
respectively.
greenery Thecoverage at the same
results presented inaspect
Figureratio. The reduction
13 indicate that the effect
reductionon particles due to with
ratios increase GWs,LADs
performing
and
all greenery coverage atratio
positive reduction the same
values, aspect ratio.stronger
is clearly The reduction
than thateffect
of on
GRs particles
under due to GWs,
the same performing
condition for the
all positive
domain. reduction
Reduction ratiosratio values, is concentrations
of averaged clearly stronger in than
GRs that
areofallGRs under within
negative the same condition
street canyons forfor
H/W the domain. Reduction
= 2.0. GRs increase ratios of averaged concentrations
the street-canyon concentrations in GRs are all
at this negative
aspect within
ratio. Twostreet canyons
positive values
forwhen
exist H/W =H/W2.0. GRs increase
= 1.0, beingthe street-canyon
0.5% concentrationswhere
and 1.3%, respectively, at thisLADaspect = ratio.
3.5 mTwo
2 /m3positive
and 6.0values
m2 /m3
exist when H/W = 1.0, being 0.5% and 1.3%, respectively, where LAD = 3.5
with S3 . For H/W = 0.5, most reduction ratios are positive values. With the greenery coverage of S3 , m 2/m3 and 6.0 m2/m3 with
theSreduction
3. For H/W = 0.5, most reduction ratios are positive values. With the
ratio increases rapidly as LAD increases from 1.0 to 3.5 m2 /m greenery coverage
3 . However, whenofitSchanges
3, the
reduction ratio2increases
3 rapidly as LAD increases from 1.0 to 3.5 m 2/m3. However, when it changes
from 3.5 to 6.0 m /m , the reduction ratio increases slightly, and the ratio reaches the maximum value
from 3.5 to 6.0 m2/m3, the reduction ratio increases slightly, and the ratio reaches the maximum value
of 4.9% when LAD = 6.0 m2 /m3 .
of 4.9% when LAD = 6.0 m2/m3.
Figure 13 also shows that the reduction ratio clearly increases with greenery coverage with the
Figure 13 also shows that the reduction ratio clearly increases with greenery coverage with the
same LAD for H/W = 0.5. Reduction ratio difference increases as LAD and coverage greenery increase.
same LAD for H/W = 0.5. Reduction ratio difference increases as LAD and coverage greenery increase.
When H/W = 1.0, reduction ratios have a similar trend as that with aspect ratio of 0.5, and differences
When H/W = 1.0, reduction ratios have a similar trend as that with aspect ratio of 0.5, and differences
among
among LADs
LADsincrease
increasesignificantly
significantlywithwith aagreenery
greenery increases.
increases. For For H/WH/W= =2.0, 2.0,reduction
reduction ratios
ratios of of
particle concentrations under different scenarios are all low, and LAD and
particle concentrations under different scenarios are all low, and LAD and greenery coverage can greenery coverage can cause
minor
cause concentration reduction
minor concentration within within
reduction a rangea of justof
range 0.4–0.9%.
just 0.4–0.9%.
6 S1
6 S1
6
S1
S2 S2 S2
4 S3 4 S3 4 S3
Reduction ratio (%)
Reduction ratio (%)
Reduction ratio (%)
2 2 2
0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
(a) (b) (c)

6 6 S1
6
S1 S1
S2 S2 S2
4 S3 4 S3 4 S3
Reduction ratio (%)
Reduction ratio (%)
Reduction ratio (%)
2 2 2
0 0 0
-2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
(d) (e) (f)

Figure 13. Reduction ratios of averaged concentrations in H/W = 0.5 (left panels), 1.0 (middle panels),
Figure 13. Reduction ratios of averaged concentrations in H/W = 0.5 (left panels), 1.0 (middle panels),
and 2.0 (right panels) with GRs (a–c) and GWs (d–f).
and 2.0 (right panels) with GRs (a–c) and GWs (d–f).
Figure 14 depicts the reduction ratio of averaged concentration at the pedestrian level. The
reduction ratio, expressed as Equation 17, estimates the attenuation efficiency of PM 10 for GRs and
GRs. It could be seen that both GRs and GWs have significant effects to reduce the pedestrian-level
concentrations, and GRs strongly reduce concentrations when H/W = 0.5 (Figure 14a). The effect is
slightly weaker in H/W = 2.0 scenarios and is the weakest when H/W = 1.0 (Figure 14b,c). The
reduction effect of GWs is clearly strengthened as the aspect ratio increases. Reduction ratios of GRs
are higher than GWs under the same conditions which suggests that GRs have better deposition
Figure 14 depicts the reduction ratio of averaged concentration at the pedestrian level. The reduction
ratio, expressed as Equation 17, estimates the attenuation efficiency of PM10 for GRs and GRs. It could be
seen that both GRs and GWs have significant effects to reduce the pedestrian-level concentrations, and
GRs strongly reduce concentrations when H/W = 0.5 (Figure 14a). The effect is slightly weaker in H/W
= 2.0 scenarios and is the weakest when H/W = 1.0 (Figure 14b,c). The reduction effect of GWs is clearly
strengthened as the aspect ratio increases. Reduction ratios of GRs are higher than GWs under the same
conditions
effects when which
H/W suggests that GRs have
= 0.5. However, when better
H/W deposition
ratios areeffects when
1.0 and H/W
2.0, = 0.5. However,
reduction when
ratios are H/W
higher in
ratios
GWs. are 1.0 and 2.0, reduction ratios are higher in GWs.
The reduction ratios
The reduction ratiosincrease
increasewith
withLADsLADs and
and greenery
greenery coverage
coverage under
under different
different H/WH/W
ratiosratios
with
with GWs. With greenery coverage
GWs. With greenery coverage of S1, the reduction of S 1 , the reduction
ratio changes uniformly among LADs forLADs
ratio changes uniformly among for
different
different
H/W ratios. H/W Forratios.
S2 andFor S3, Sthe
2 and S3 , the reduction
reduction ratio significantly
ratio increases increases significantly as LADfrom
as LAD changes changes from
1.0 to 3.5
1.0 to 3.5 m 2 /m3 , but increases only slightly from 3.5 to 6.0 m 2 /m3 . In the scenario where H/W = 0.5,
m /m , but increases only slightly from 3.5 to 6.0 m /m . In the scenario where H/W = 0.5, the reduction
2 3 2 3
the
ratioreduction ratio4.9%
ranges from ranges from 4.9%
to 13.5%. Thetoreduction
13.5%. The reduction
ratio ratio
difference difference
among among
greenery greenery
coverage coverage
areas is the
areas
largest is when
the largest
H/Wwhen = 1.0.H/W = 1.0. Nevertheless,
Nevertheless, when H/Wwhen = 1.0 H/W = 1.0
and 2.0, theand 2.0, the reduction
reduction ratio
ratio ranges areranges
from
are from 9.3 to 29.3%, and from 28.3 to
9.3 to 29.3%, and from 28.3 to 43.8%, respectively. 43.8%, respectively.
50 S1 50 S1 50 S1
S2 S2 S2
S3 S3 S3
40 40 40
Reduction ratio (%)

Reduction ratio (%)
Reduction ratio (%)
30 30 30
20 20 20
10 10 10
0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
(a) (b) (c)

50 S1 50 S1 50 S1
S2 S2 S2
S3 S3 S3
40 40 40
Reduction ratio (%)
Reduction ratio (%)
Reduction ratio (%)
30 30 30
20 20 20
10 10 10
0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
(d) (e) (f)

Figure 14. Reduction ratios of averaged concentrations at the pedestrian level (Z = 1.5m) in H/W = 0.5
Figure 14. Reduction ratios of averaged concentrations at the pedestrian level (Z = 1.5m) in
(left panels), 1.0 (middle panels), and 2.0 (right panels) with GRs (a–c) and GWs (d–f).
H/W = 0.5 (left panels), 1.0 (middle panels), and 2.0 (right panels) with GRs (a–c) and GWs (d–f).
Results of this research demonstrated that the GRs and GWs can effectively cut PM10 pollution
at theResults of thislevel,
pedestrian research demonstrated
especially within that
deep the GRs canyons.
street and GWs These
can effectively
findingscut PM
add pollution
to10the at the
conclusions
pedestrian level, especially within deep street canyons. These findings
drawn by Moradpour et al. [13]. The comparison of GRs and GWs demonstrated that the add to the conclusions drawn by
Moradpour
aerodynamic et effect
al. [13].ofThe
GRscomparison of GRs
is greater than theand GWs demonstrated
deposition that the
effect, resulting in aerodynamic effect ofinGRs
decreasing airflow the
is greater than the deposition effect, resulting in decreasing airflow in the street
street canyons, and leading to an increase in concentrations in the whole domain, especially canyons, and leading
when to
an increase in concentrations in the whole domain, especially when H/W = 2.0. Additionally,
H/W = 2.0. Additionally, by using wind tunnel experiments and numerical simulations, Buccolieri et by using
wind tunnel experiments
al. demonstrated that theand numerical
aspect ratio simulations, Buccolieri
of street canyons waseta al.
moredemonstrated that the aspect
crucial parameter ratio
than plant
of street canyons was a more crucial parameter than plant morphology, positioning
morphology, positioning and arrangement [57]. Our simulation study also showed that the reduction and arrangement [57].
Our
ratiosimulation
of PM10 study
was also showed
strongly that the reduction
despondent upon ratio of PM10 aspect
increasing was strongly
ratiosdespondent
of street upon increasing
canyons, thus
aspect ratios of street canyons, thus
consolidating Buccolieri’s conclusion. consolidating Buccolieri’s conclusion.
This study quantified the aerodynamic and deposition effects of GRs and GWs on PM 10
dispersion in street canyons. The results indicate that judicious design of vegetation and urban
morphology can yield improvements in air quality in dense urban streets. However, our research has
some limitations. First, particle dispersion is modeled as a continuum and assumed to have no effect
on airflow turbulence in our simulations, so it was the steady state result. However, wind flow in
This study quantified the aerodynamic and deposition effects of GRs and GWs on PM10
dispersion in street canyons. The results indicate that judicious design of vegetation and urban
morphology can yield improvements in air quality in dense urban streets. However, our research
has some limitations. First, particle dispersion is modeled as a continuum and assumed to have
no effect on airflow turbulence in our simulations, so it was the steady state result. However,
wind flow in actual environments is transient. Even a constant condition results in transient vortex
shedding under certain configurations that are important for pollutant mixing [58]. Thus, experimental
validation of our quantitative results is needed. Second, the pollutants are wind dispersed in this
study. However, there are other mechanisms under thermally driven conditions that also disperse
particles that we do not consider. Further study should consider the non-isothermal cases with solar
radiation and convective heat transfer between buildings and vegetation. Third, GWs in our models
were simulated as entire walls with no consideration of window-wall ratios on building façades.
Further research should take this condition into account for simulating a more realistic environment.
Fourth, this study compared herbaceous vegetation on GRs and GWs affecting the street-canyon airflow
and pollutant dispersion. Except for grass, small trees and shrubs are commonly included in GRs,
thus, more comparative studies should consider the influence of small trees and shrubs. Fifth, this study
was done under the condition of wide width building, such as more than 100 m. It must be accepted
that the building width has much effect on all calculated results. Thus, the conclusions drawn below
may be not applicable for the actual building of less than 100 m width. Finally, a previous study
indicated that an accurate assessment of the porosity of plant canopies with height could precisely
describe the LAD and drag coefficient [59], and the drag coefficients remained nearly constant for
Reynolds number greater than 6 × 104 [60]. In this CFD simulation, only herbaceous vegetation with
the height of 0.3 m was considered. Further research should pay more attention to the relationship
between the LAD and drag coefficient concerning the small trees and shrubs.
4. Conclusions
In this study, the dispersion of coarse particles in urban street canyons with GWs and GRs were
studied at three levels of street canyon aspect ratios (0.5, 1.0, and 2.0). Vegetation on GWs and GRs
with different coverage areas (300, 600, and 900 m2 ), and leaf area densities (1.0, 3.5, and 6.0 m2 /m3 )
was considered, and their effects on airflow fields and PM10 dispersion were investigated by CFD
simulations coupled with the RANS model and revised generalized drift flux model. From the results,
under the wide width building of more than 100 m, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) Turbulence on a street canyon vertical plane is greater with GWs, and its influence on airflow
field and turbulence is stronger than that with GRs. While the roof turbulence of GRs is
large, it is manifested by weakened turbulent effects and increasing wind speed in the street
canyon. The flow structure contains one clockwise vortex within H/W = 0.5 and 1.0, and two
vertically-aligned vortices in GWs within H/W = 2.0.
(2) Particle concentrations within the street canyon on a vertical line at windward façade of the
back building changes greatly with building height. For GRs, particle concentration differences
among LADs increase with the increasing greenery coverage when H/W = 0.5 and 1.0. Particle
concentrations of LAD = 0 are significantly higher than in other LADs above 31 m, and increase
abruptly with height above 31 m when H/W = 2.0. For GWs, particle concentrations at the bottom
of street canyon decrease with increasing greenery coverage for the same LAD in H/W = 0.5 and
1.0 cases. In the case of H/W = 2.0, the concentrations gradually decrease with building height
and reach their minimum at Z = 31 m.
(3) At the pedestrian level, the effect of GRs on reducing particle concentrations is weakened with
increasing H/W compared to that of GWs. For H/W = 0.5, the concentration is lower within GRs
ranging from 37.9 to 41.3 µg/m3 , and the reduction ratio is larger than GWs with a maximum
reduction ratio of 17.1%. For H/W = 1.0 and 2.0, the concentration within GRs is larger than that
of GWs, with maximum reduction ratios of 29.3% and 43.8%, respectively.
(4) Particle concentrations in GWs are lower than those in GRs across the entire spatial domain in the
same scenarios. GRs result in higher averaged concentrations compared with the non-greening
case where H/W = 2.0. Averaged concentrations decline within creasing LADs and greenery
coverage areas, especially the H/W. With the aspect ratio held constant, the reduction ratio
between GRs and GWs increases with the increasing LAD and greenery coverage areas.
In this study, the urban street canyon was composed of two parallel and contiguous building complexes
with the street canyon length of 100 m. The numerical analysis for modeling airflow and PM10 dispersion
for building complexes suggests that GWs are more effective than GRs in reducing street-canyon PM10
with equal greenery coverage area and aspect ratio, and the averaged PM10 concentrations declined with
increasing LADs and greenery coverage areas, especially the H/W. Additionally, the reduction ratio of
GRs is greater than GWs for H/W = 0.5. However, for H/W = 1.0 and 2.0, the concentrations within GWs
are lower than GRs at the pedestrian level. These results indicate that urban planners should judiciously
consider the implementation of GWs and GRs by analyzing each particular scenario combined with multiple,
interacting factors, i.e., block morphology, vegetation types, planting density, coverage area, and location of
pollutant sources (e.g., traffic-originated, atmospheric transportation) with the purpose of improving air
quality in urban street canyons.
Author Contributions: H.Q. and B.H. conceived and designed the experiments; H.Q., B.H., and R.J. performed
the simulations and analyzed the data; H.Q. wrote the paper; and B.H. revised the paper.
Acknowledgments: This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 51708451)
and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (no. 2452017100).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. UN-Habitat. Urbanization and Development: Emerging Futures. In World Cities Report; United Nations
Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat): Nairobi, Kenya, 2016; Available online: http://wcr.unhabitat.
org/main-report (accessed on 1 January 2017).
2. Hong, B.; Lin, B. Numerical studies of the outdoor wind environment and thermal comfort at pedestrian
level in housing blocks with different building layout patterns and trees arrangement. Renew. Energy 2015,
73, 18–27. [CrossRef]
3. Pierangioli, L.; Cellai, G.; Ferrise, R.; Trombi, G.; Bindi, M. Effectiveness of passive measures against climate
change: Case studies in Central Italy. Build. Simul. 2017, 10, 459–479. [CrossRef]
4. Rowe, D.B. Green roofs as a means of pollution abatement. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 2100–2110. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
5. Berardi, U.; GhaffarianHoseini, A.H.; GhaffarianHoseini, A. State-of-the-art analysis of the environmental
benefits of green roofs. Appl. Energy 2014, 115, 411–428. [CrossRef]
6. Jayasooriya, V.M.; Ng, A.W.M.; Muthukumaran, S.; Perera, B.J.C. Green infrastructure practices for
improvement of urban air quality. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 21, 34–47. [CrossRef]
7. Gromke, C.; Ruck, B. On the impact of trees on dispersion processes of traffic emissions in street canyons.
Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 2009, 131, 19–34. [CrossRef]
8. Buccolieri, R.; Salim, S.M.; Leo, L.S.; Di Sabatino, S.; Chan, A.; Ielpo, P.; de Gennaro, G.; Gromke, C.
Analysis of local scale tree–atmosphere interaction on pollutant concentration in idealized street canyons
and application to a real urban junction. Atmos. Environ. 2011, 45, 1702–1713. [CrossRef]
9. Speak, A.F.; Rothwell, J.J.; Lindley, S.J.; Smith, C.L. Urban particulate pollution reduction by four species of
green roof vegetation in a UK city. Atmos. Environ. 2012, 61, 283–293. [CrossRef]
10. Janhäll, S. Review on urban vegetation and particle air pollution—Deposition and dispersion. Atmos. Environ.
2015, 105, 130–137. [CrossRef]
11. Tong, Z.; Whitlow, T.H.; MacRae, P.F.; Landers, A.J.; Harada, Y. Quantifying the effect of vegetation on
near-road air quality using brief campaigns. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 201, 141–149. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Yang, J.; Yu, Q.; Gong, P. Quantifying air pollution removal by green roofs in Chicago. Atmos. Environ. 2008,
42, 7266–7273. [CrossRef]
13. Currie, B.A.; Bass, B. Estimates of air pollution mitigation with green plants and green roofs using the
UFORE model. Urban Ecosys. 2008, 11, 409–422. [CrossRef]
14. Moradpour, M.; Afshin, H.; Farhanieh, B. A numerical study of reactive pollutant dispersion in street canyons
with green roofs. Build. Simul. 2017, 11, 1–14. [CrossRef]
15. Li, J.-F.; Wai, O.W.H.; Li, Y.-S.; Zhan, J.; Ho, Y.-A.; Li, J.; Lam, E. Effect of green roof on ambient CO2
concentration. Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 2644–2651. [CrossRef]
16. Baik, J.J.; Kwak, K.H.; Park, S.B.; Ryu, Y.H. Effects of building roof greening on air quality in street canyons.
Atmos. Environ. 2012, 61, 48–55. [CrossRef]
17. Pugh, T.A.; Mackenzie, A.R.; Whyatt, J.D.; Hewitt, C.N. Effectiveness of green infrastructure for improvement
of air quality in urban street canyons. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 7692–7699. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Ottelé, M.; van Bohemen, H.D.; Fraaij, A.L.A. Quantifying the deposition of particulate matter on climber
vegetation on living walls. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36, 154–162. [CrossRef]
19. Tong, Z.; Baldauf, R.W.; Isakov, V.; Deshmukh, P.; Zhang, K.-M. Roadside vegetation barrier designs to
mitigate near-road air pollution impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 541, 920–927. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Perini, K.; Ottelé, M.; Giulini, S.; Magliocco, A.; Roccotiello, E. Quantification of fine dust deposition on
different plant species in a vertical greening system. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 100, 268–276. [CrossRef]
21. Weerakkody, U.; Dover, J.W.; Mitchell, P.; Reiling, K. Particulate matter pollution capture by leaves of seventeen
living wall species with special reference to rail-traffic at a metropolitan station. Urban For. Urban Gree. 2017, 27,
173–186. [CrossRef]
22. Tong, Z.; Whitlow, T.H.; Landers, A.; Flanner, B. A case study of air quality above an urban roof top vegetable
farm. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 208, 256–260. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Kessler, R. Green walls could cut street-canyon air pollution. Environ. Health Persp. 2013, 121, 14. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
24. Morakinyo, T.E.; Lam, Y.F.; Hao, S. Evaluating the role of green infrastructures on near-road pollutant
dispersion and removal: Modelling and measurement. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 182, 595–605. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
25. Pochee, H.; Johnston, I. Understanding design scales for a range of potential green infrastructure benefits in
a London Garden City. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 2017, 38, 728–756. [CrossRef]
26. Buccolieri, R.; Santiago, J.; Rivas, E.; Sanchez, B. Review on urban tree modelling in CFD simulations:
Aerodynamic, deposition and thermal effects. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 31, 212–220. [CrossRef]
27. Franke, J.; Hellsten, A.; Schlunzen, K.H.; Carissimo, B. The COST 732 best practice guideline for CFD simulation
of flows in the urban environment: A summary. Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 44, 419–427. [CrossRef]
28. Amorim, J.H.; Rodrigues, V.; Tavares, R.; Valente, J.; Borrego, C. CFD modeling of the aerodynamic effect of
trees on urban air pollution dispersion. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 461, 541–551. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Sanz, C. A note on k-epsilon modelling of vegetation canopy air-flows. Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 2003, 108,
30. Katul, G.G.; Mahrt, L.; Poggi, D.; Sanz, C. One- and two-equation models for canopy turbulence.
Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 2004, 113, 81–109. [CrossRef]
31. Endalew, A.M.; Hertog, M.; Delele, M.A.; Baetens, K.; Persoons, T.; Baelmans, M.; Ramon, H.; Nicolai, B.M.;
Verboven, P. CFD modelling and wind tunnel validation of airflow through plant canopies using 3D canopy
architecture. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 2009, 30, 356–368. [CrossRef]
32. Ji, W.; Zhao, B. Numerical study of the effects of trees on outdoor particle concentration distributions.
Build. Simul. 2014, 7, 417–427. [CrossRef]
33. Zhao, B.; Chen, C.; Tan, Z. Modeling of ultrafine particle dispersion in indoor environments with an improved
drift flux model. J. Aerosol Sci. 2009, 40, 29–43. [CrossRef]
34. Bell, J.N.B.; Treshow, M. Air Pollution and Plant Life, 2nd ed.; John Willey & Sons, Ltd.: West Sussex, UK, 2003.
35. Tominaga, Y.; Mochida, A.; Yoshie, R.; Kataoka, H.; Nozu, T.; Yoshikawa, M.; Shirasawa, T. AIJ guidelines for
practical applications of CFD to pedestrian wind environment around buildings. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
2008, 96, 1749–1761. [CrossRef]
36. Roache, P.J. Perspective: A method for uniform reporting of grid refinement studies. J. Fluids Eng. 1994, 116,
37. Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C. Air pollution removal by trees and shrubs in the United States.
Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 4, 115–123. [CrossRef]
38. Jeanjean, A.P.R.; Monks, P.S.; Leigh, R.J. Modelling the effectiveness of urban trees and grass on PM2.5
reduction via dispersion and deposition at a city scale. Atmos. Environ. 2016, 147, 1–10. [CrossRef]
39. Chang, J.; Hanna, S. Air quality model performance evaluation. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 2004, 87, 167–196.
[CrossRef]
40. Hanna, S.; Chang, J. Acceptance criteria for urban dispersion model evaluation. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 2012,
116, 133–146. [CrossRef]
41. Hong, B.; Qin, H.; Lin, B. Prediction of wind environment and indoor/outdoor relationships for PM2.5 in
different building–tree grouping patterns. Atmosphere 2018, 9, 39. [CrossRef]
42. Zaid, S.M.; Perisamy, E.; Hussein, H.; Myeda, N.E.; Zainon, N. Vertical Greenery System in urban tropical
climate and its carbon sequestration potential: A review. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 91, 57–70. [CrossRef]
43. Zhang, L.; Moran, M.D.; Maker, P.A.; Brook, J.R.; Gong, S. Modelling gaseous dry deposition in AURAMS:
A unified regional air quality modelling system. Atmos. Environ. 2002, 36, 537–560. [CrossRef]
44. Whittinghill, L.J.; Rowe, D.B.; Schutzki, R.; Cregg, B.M. Quantifying carbon sequestration of various green
roof and ornamental landscape systems. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 123, 41–48. [CrossRef]
45. Li, G.; Ding, S.; Zhou, X. Ecological effects of the twelve species for vertical greening in South China.
J. South China Agric. Univ. 2009, 29, 11–15. (In Chinese)
46. Litschke, T.; Kuttler, W. On the reduction of urban particle concentration by vegetation—A review.
Meteorol. Zeit. 2008, 17, 229–240. [CrossRef]
47. Freer-Smith, P.H.; Beckett, K.P.; Taylor, G. Deposition velocities to Sorbus aria, Acer campestre, Populus deltoides
x trichocarpa ‘Beaupré’ Pinus nigra and x Cupressocyparis leylandii for coarse, fine and ultra-fine particles in the
urban environment. Environ. Pollut. 2005, 133, 157–167. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Petroff, A.; Zhang, L. Development and validation of a size resolved particle dry deposition scheme for
application in aerosol transport models. Geosci. Model Dev. 2010, 3, 753–769. [CrossRef]
49. Oke, T.R. Street design and urban canopy layer climate. Energy Build. 1988, 11, 103–113. [CrossRef]
50. Hefny, M.M.; Ooka, R. CFD analysis of pollutant dispersion around buildings: Effect of cell geometry.
Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 1699–1706. [CrossRef]
51. Xue, F.; Li, X. The impact of roadside trees on traffic released PM10 in urban street canyon: Aerodynamic
and deposition effects. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 30, 195–204. [CrossRef]
52. Ye, B.; Ji, X.; Yang, H.; Yao, X.; Chan, C.K.; Cadle, S.H.; Chan, T.; Mulawa, P.A. Concentration and chemical
composition of PM2.5 in Shanghai for a 1-year period. Atmos. Environ. 2003, 37, 499–510. [CrossRef]
53. Beijing Municipal Environmental Monitoring Center (BMEMC). Real-Time Air Quality in Beijing. Available
online: http://www.bjmemc.com.cn (accessed on 1 December 2016).
54. Barratt, R. Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling: An Introduction to Practical Applications; Earthscan Publications:
London, UK, 2001.
55. Li, X.-X.; Britter, R.E.; Norford, L.K.; Koh, T.Y.; Entekhabi, D. Flow and pollutant transport in urban street
canyons of different aspect ratios with ground heating: Large-eddy simulation. Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 2012,
142, 289–304. [CrossRef]
56. Bright, V.B.; Bloss, W.J.; Cai, X. Urban street canyons: Coupling dynamics, chemistry and within-canyon
chemical processing of emissions. Atmos. Environ. 2013, 68, 127–142. [CrossRef]
57. Buccolieri, R.; Gromke, C.; Di Sabatino, S.; Ruck, B. Aerodynamic effects of trees on pollutant concentration
in street canyons. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 5247–5256. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. King, M.; Gough, H.L.; Halios, C.; Barlow, J.F.; Robertson, A.; Hoxey, R.; Noakes, C.J. Investigating the
influence of neighbouring structures on natural ventilation potential of a full-scale cubical building using
time-dependent CFD. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 2017, 169, 265–279. [CrossRef]
59. Desmond, C.J.; Watson, S.J.; Aubrun, S.; Ávila, S.; Hancock, P.; Sayer, A. A study on the inclusion of
forest canopy morphology data in numerical simulations for the purpose of wind resource assessment.
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2014, 126, 24–37. [CrossRef]
60. Molina-Aiz, F.D.; Valera, D.L.; Àlvarez, A.J.; Madueño, A. A wind tunnel study of airflow through
horticultural crops: Determination of the drag coefficient. Biosyst. Eng. 2006, 93, 447–457. [CrossRef]
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

5are GreenWalls Better Options Than Green Roofs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5are GreenWalls Better Options Than Green Roofs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2833; doi:10.3390/su10082833 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2.1. Flow and Dispersion Model

2.1.1. Model Description

where h is the average height of the canopy.

Ssink = α(z) × Vd × C (9)

Particulate resuspension is calculated as a volumetric source term, and described as:

Sresuspension = α(z) × Vr × Csink (10)

2.1.2. Model Validation

Figure 3.3. Comparisons

2.2. Numerical Simulation

Aspect Ratio Coverage Leaf Area

Green Walls 0.5 300 1.0

1.0 600 3.5

for the numerical simulations.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g) (h) (i)

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g) (h) (i)

LAD=0 LAD=0 LAD=0

(a) (b) (c)

(g) (h) (i)

LAD=0 LAD=0 LAD=0

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

 Cave,non greening  Cave 

Reduction ratio (%)

Reduction ratio (%)

(a) (b) (c)

Reduction ratio (%)

Reduction ratio (%)

(d) (e) (f)

Reduction ratio (%)

(a) (b) (c)

Reduction ratio (%)

(d) (e) (f)

You might also like