•

White Paper

Static Vs. Dynamic

Dispersion Modeling
Leader in Odour Science
• by Ray Porter

Dynamic dispersion modeling combines actual odor emission rates with on-site TRAINING
meteorological data to provide a representative assessment of potential odor impacts CENTER

on the community which can be used by managers and operators to minimize adverse
consequences from their operations.
Static Vs. Dynamic Dispersion Modeling
Dynamic dispersion modeling defines the relationship between the
emission source and the offsite receptor. It is more representative
than static dispersion modeling assessments. By Ray Porter

Dynamic dispersion modeling is significantly different from static dispersion modeling

Introduction for odor nuisance prediction and compliance. Dynamic dispersion modeling combines
actual odour emissions and on-site meteorological data to provide a more representative
assessment of the impacts on the surrounding community. Being able to attribute actual
emissions at the source to potential impacts offsite allow a plant operator to respond to
process upsets before they come complaints.

Dispersion modeling defines the relationship between the emission source and the
Dispersion receptor. While control measures may be applied to the emission source, compliance with
Modeling odor nuisance standards depends on whether the odor concentrations at the receptor
have been adequately reduced with respect to their frequency, intensity, duration and
location.

For existing sources, it is not possible to verify compliance with nuisance odor standards
by monitoring odor concentrations at the receptor because of the low odor thresholds
and the variable nature of odor impacts. For new or proposed odor emission sources,
dispersion modeling is also the only method to determine compliance, since the potential
odor emission source does not yet exist.

Static modeling is where the odor source is sampled during a single campaign and
Static the olfactometric results are used to define a single steady state characterization of
the source. Modeling is done using historical meteorological data (1 to 5 years). The
Modeling result is a probabilistic odor impact
assessment based on the pairing of
“worst case” emissions with “worst
case” dispersion. Compliance is based on
some “acceptable” level of exceedence
expressed as a percentile of number of
hours. Static modeling is the only option
for new or proposed odor emission
sources, as the odor source does not exist
and cannot be monitored. Static modeling
is also called odor dispersion modeling
assessment.
Figure 1 : Example static modeling of the odor concentration (o.u./m3) distribution -- percentile 98.

WP20161212-2 | WHITE PAPER: STATIC VS. DYNAMIC DISPERSION MODELING

Odotech.com | Info@odotech.com
TRAINING
CENTER 2
 The output of a static modeling assessment is a probabilistic isopleth map of odour
concentrations, as shown in Figure 1. This type of graphical representation can show the
extent to which odours above the threshold levels extend offsite. Another way to present
this data is the frequency at which odour threshold level is exceeded. While useful, these
graphical representations may show impacts that are unlikely to occur.

Dynamic modeling is a pairing in real time of monitored odour emissions and measured
Dynamic onsite meteorology. The pairing of emissions and dispersion are not independent
parameters as in the case above. The critical aspect of this is that odor control measures
Modeling can be applied dynamically, based on predicted exposures and not limited to controlling
the worst case condition. Dynamic modelling is the preferred option where the odour
emission source is large and not easily contained using conventional odour control
technology.

Figure 2 : Example dynamic modeling of the odor concentration (o.u./m3) distribution over a 24 hours period

Figure 2 shows a series of odour plume distributions over a 24-hour period. This
figure shows the variability of the plume with respect to direction of travel, extent of
exposure and relative concentration. Most of the time the predicted impacts are within
acceptable odour limits. If the odour threshold level is exceeded, an alert can be sent to
the operator to mitigate the potential exposure, before it triggers an adverse response
in the community.

The current approach of olfactometry-dispersion

Dynamic modeling is the preferred option
when the odour emission source is large
and not easily contained using conventional
odour control technology .
modeling uses the odor concentrations (dilution ratios)
to define the odor emission rate. The relationships
between odor concentration and odor intensity, as
defined by Steven’s law, are not accounted for in
the modeling analysis. Odor sources with the same
odor concentration can have variable perceived
intensities, character or hedonic tone (pleasantness
or un-pleasantness). This is particularly important
when odors from different sources with different odor
characteristics impact a receptor simultaneously.

WP20161212-2 | WHITE PAPER: STATIC VS. DYNAMIC DISPERSION MODELING

Odotech.com | Info@odotech.com
TRAINING
CENTER 3
 Odor concentration as defined by olfactometry is a volume ratio and therefore
Odor Emission dimensionless. It is given the pseudo units of “odor units per cubic meter” or o.u./m3.
Odor concentrations may also be described as a “dilution to threshold” ratio and be given
Rates the pseudo units of D/T. To calculate the odor emission rate for dispersion modeling
analyses, the odor concentration is multiplied by the exhaust air flow rate, expressed in
cubic meters per second (m3/s). The result is an odor emission rate expressed as “odor
units per second” (o.u./s) that is compatible with dispersion modeling.

For area sources, the odor concentration is multiplied by the flux rate, expressed as
“meters per second” (m/s), as determined by the type of flux chamber used to collect
the sample and the surface area of the odour source. In the dispersion model, the input
value may be the odor flux rate which is the product of the odor concentration and the
flux rate with units of o.u/m2/s.

In static modeling analyses, the odor emission rate would be limited to the odor
concentration obtained during the sampling campaign and olfactometry analysis. The
sampling procedure would be designed to characterize worst case conditions. In dynamic
modeling analyses, the odor emission rate is directly measured continuously with
electronic noses and source odor emission rates are updated live at each model iteration to
account for fluctuation
caused by unsteady
state processes or
variations caused by
weather conditions.
The variable nature of
actual odour emissions
from a biofilter is
represented in Figure 3.

Figure 3 : Biofilter odor concentration assessment over 3 days. Snapshot olfactometry samples provide an
average of 430 o.u/m3 used for impact modelling. Continuous monitoring with electronic nose gives similar
average but fluctuations from 150 to 700 o.u./m3 fed into a dynamic modeling system.

While the odor emission rate is directly proportional to the odor impact, the source
Source characteristics at the point of release can greatly influence how effectively the odors
Parameters will disperse. In modeling applications, a source may be characterized as a point, area
or volume source:

• A point source is characterized as a vertical discharge through a stack or vent.

It is described by the temperature and velocity of the exhaust gas, effective
diameter of the open area, and release height.

WP20161212-2 | WHITE PAPER: STATIC VS. DYNAMIC DISPERSION MODELING

Odotech.com | Info@odotech.com
TRAINING
CENTER 4
 • An area source is characterized as an open area where emissions are released
passively through the open area, as would be the case for a quiescent basin or
landfill or actively as would be the case for an aeration basin or biofilter. It is
describe by the horizontal length and width of the surface area, and effective
release height.

• A volume source is characterized as a horizontal release or vent that cannot

be defined as either a point or area source. It may be a louver vent on the side
of a building or a mobile source. It is defined as having an initial horizontal and
vertical dimension, as may be described in the modeling guidance, and initial
release height.

• For static modeling analyses, the source parameters are fixed to the values
that represent the worst case release scenario observed during the sampling
analysis, In a dynamic modeling analysis, the exhaust gas temperature and exit
velocity can be adjusted for each model iteration. There are fewer variables to
adjust for area or volume source releases but it can consist of source location
adjustments for operations that moves from day to day (landfill tipping front or
composting site) or open door conditions of a sludge dewatering building or grit
and screenings storage building with doors opened or closed.

The airflow around nearby buildings and structures can greatly influence the
Building Cavity dispersion from point sources. Depending on the wind speed, zones of recirculating
air or areas of downward moving air can increase impacts from point sources,
and Wake Effects compared to point sources not affected by a nearby structure. To account for this
effect, the dimensions (length width and height) of nearby structures are entered into
a modeling preprocessor algorithm along with the relative distance of the building
to the point source. The output of this preprocessor is an effective building profile
which potentially affects plume dispersion in each of the 36 radial directions. This
building profile array is entered into the dispersion model along with the other source
parameters.

While this algorithm does not apply directly to area or volume sources, the modeler
may adjust the effective release height or initial dispersion dimensions of the source
to account for the influence of a nearby building or structure. Buildings remain
stationary and are not affected by static or dynamic modeling approaches.

The structure of the surface boundary layer and turbulence intensity are directly
Land Use related to the land use characteristics surrounding the plant site. The land use
characteristics can be directly related to three parameters critical in defining
Parameters turbulence intensity, surface roughness, albedo and Bowen ratio. Once the land use
characteristics have been defined for a project site, they usually do not change for
either the static or dynamic modeling analysis. Although, dynamic modeling could
account of some changes in albedo or Bowen ratio depending on the quantity and
type of precipitation:

WP20161212-2 | WHITE PAPER: STATIC VS. DYNAMIC DISPERSION MODELING

Odotech.com | Info@odotech.com
TRAINING
CENTER 5
 • Surface roughness is directly proportional to the physical size of structures and
vegetation. It defines the friction velocity in the surface boundary layer and the
shape of the vertical wind speed profile. The surface roughness can change with
the seasons if the surrounding land use is vegetated (i.e., farm land or forested).
Surface roughness may also change with wind sector if an urban or suburban
land use exists on one side of the plant site and field or forest exists on the other
side.

• Albedo is the faction of incoming solar radiation that is reflected back to the
atmosphere. The albedo is small for dark surfaces such as roads and buildings
and large for bright surfaces like snow or sand. It is used to define the vertical
temperature profile and the depth of the convective boundary layer.

• The Bowen ratio is related to the amount of moisture in the surface soils. Surface
moisture can contribute to the release of latent heat and enhance mixing in the
convective boundary layer.

The receptor array contains the coordinates where plume predictions are made.
Topography and The coordinates may define discrete points or a grid of points in either a polar or
Cartesian reference system. The surrounding topography can greatly influence the
Receptor Array movement of the odour plume and potential impacts on the offsite receptors. While
the terrain elevations are usually accounted for in the receptor array, depending on
the dispersion model being used for the analysis, topographic data may also be input
to the preparation of meteorological data files.

In both static and dynamic modeling, the offsite receptor locations are where
compliance with odor threshold limits is determined. In dynamic modeling, predicted
exceedances of the odor threshold criteria can trigger measures to mitigate odor
emissions before an adverse odor event occurs.

Meteorological data used in a dispersion modeling analysis must be representative

Meteorological of weather conditions at the plant site. It defines the direction of the plume’s travel,
ambient turbulence intensities and depth of the surface mixing layer. It is critical to
Data defining the environment between the source where odors are released and receptor
where compliance with odor nuisance standards is determined.

In a static modeling analysis, historical meteorological data are taken from the
Land Use nearest airport. One to five years of data may be used in a modeling study. Surface
data includes, ambient temperature, wind speed, wind direction, and cloud cover.
Parameters Barometric pressure, relative humidity and precipitation may also be collected,
but are not used directly in modeling analysis. The critical issue here is that the
meteorological data becomes an independent variable from the odor emissions. The
static modeling analysis often predicts the maximum odor impact on calm winter
morning and when maximum odor emissions occur during warm summer days.

WP20161212-2 | WHITE PAPER: STATIC VS. DYNAMIC DISPERSION MODELING

Odotech.com | Info@odotech.com
TRAINING
CENTER 6
 Furthermore, the distance between the site and the location of the weather tower
is often more than 10 to 15 km. Thus the weather data set cannot reflect the micro
scale local particularities of the site and its immediate surroundings.

In Figure 4, the physical distance between the wastewater treatment plant and the
nearest airport is not very great (19 km). However, there is a ridge separating the two
sites and the land use around the treatment plant is more suburban than the open
field that surrounds the weather station at the airport location. These differences
greatly affect the meteorological parameters that would be measured at the two
sites.

Figure 4: Typical distance (19 km) between the source to model A (Roger Rd WWTP, Tucson) and weather
station B (Tucson International Airport) available for static dispersion modelling. Source: Google Maps

In a dynamic modeling analysis, meteorological data is collected onsite from a

weather tower that is linked to the real-time monitoring system that also calculates the
odor emission rate (i.e. network of eNoses at the sources). The same meteorological
parameters are collected with the exception of cloud cover observations that may
be replaced by solar radiation measurements. The result is the odor plume impact
prediction that is overlayed on a local map and representative of the local weather
conditions at that moment. As wind direction, wind speed and turbulence are by far
the three most sensitive input variables for plume calculation; local measurements
vastly improve the quality of the odor dispersion prediction.

Figures 5 and 6 show the difference in the wind direction and wind speed distributions
(wind roses) between the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the
Tucson International Airport. The wind direction profile is more narrowly distributed
along the west-northwest to east-southeast axis than the Tucson airport. Wind speeds
are lower at the treatment plant than the airport, which is important in predicting
offsite odor impacts.

WP20161212-2 | WHITE PAPER: STATIC VS. DYNAMIC DISPERSION MODELING

Odotech.com | Info@odotech.com
TRAINING
CENTER 7
 Figure 5: Roger Rd WWTP, Tucson Wind Rose for 2011 & 2013

Figure 6: Tucson Int. Airport Wind Rose for 2011 & 2013

In a static modeling analysis, the depth of the mixing layer is determined by

Upper Air Data radiosonde data collected by balloons that are sent upward through the depth of
the atmosphere. The number of stations that perform these upper air soundings is
limited and in many parts of the world the timing of the releases are not helpful in
determining the depth of the mid-day convective boundary layer or the early morning
stable boundary layer.

In dynamic modeling, measures to determine the depth of the surface mixing layer
are estimated using an upper air estimator algorithm. Since most odor emission
sources are non-buoyant, often released close to the ground and maximum predicted
impacts are typically on or near the plant property boundary, these estimations do
not adversely affect the results. When a hot exhaust is released from a very tall
stack, the estimation of a boundary for the surface mixing layer could have a more
important impact on the results.

WP20161212-2 | WHITE PAPER: STATIC VS. DYNAMIC DISPERSION MODELING

Odotech.com | Info@odotech.com
TRAINING
CENTER 8
 Summary of Differences Between Static Vs. Dynamic Modeling

You may also be interested

in our White Paper “ Validity To get some more interesting
of Discountinous Odor articles and White Papers visit
Sampling in Ambient Air”. http://www.odotech.com/en/blog/

Stay connected @odotech

WP20161212-2 | WHITE PAPER: STATIC VS. DYNAMIC DISPERSION MODELING

Odotech.com | Info@odotech.com
TRAINING
CENTER 9
 Feltner, Mark, et al., (2012) “Odor control using dosing, coupled with odor monitoring electronic
References noses on an aeration basin at a WWTP”. WEF/A&WMA Odors and Air Pollutants Conference, Louisville,
Kentucky, April 15-18, 2012

Dincer F., Muezzinoglu A., (2007) “Odor Determination at Wastewater Collection Systems: Olfactometry
versus H2S Analyses” Clean 2007, 35 (6), 565 – 570

Thresholds By a Forced-Choice Ascending Concentration Series Method of Limits. American Society

for Testing and Materials: p. 34-38. CEN (2003). EN 13725 - Air quality - Determination of odour
concentration by dynamic olfactometry. European Committee for Standardization: p. 71.

Devos M., Patte F., Roualt J., Laffort P., Van Gemert L.J., Standardized Human Olfactory Thresholds. IRL/
Oxford: New York, 1990.

Gostelow P., Longhurst P.J., Parsons SA, Stuetz RM (2003). Sampling for Measurement of Odours.
London UK, IWA, 80 pages.

Harreveld A. P. v., Heeres P. and Harssema H. (1999). “A Review of 20 Years of Standardization of

Odour Concentration Measurement by Dynamic Olfactometry in Europe.” Journal of the Air and Waste
Management Association Vol. 49: pp. 705-715.

van Gemert L. J., 2003. Odour thresholds, Compilation of odour threshold values in air, water and other
media. Oliemans Punter & Partners BV, The Netherlands.

Pagé T., Porter R., 2014. Static Vs. Dynamic Dispersion Modeling for Composting and Organics Recycling
Facilities, 2nd Annual Composting and Organics Recycling Conference at WasteExpo, Atlanta, GA, 2014.

Riddle A., Blais M., Hess U., Static Versus Dynamic Structural Models of Depression: The Case of the
CES-D, Scientific Series, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en analyse des organisations.

U.S. EPA (2004) “User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model – AERMOD”, EPA-454/B-03- 001,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 2004

Morselli M., Ghirardello D., Semplice M., Di Guardo A., February 2012, Integration of an atmospheric
dispersion model with a dynamic multimedia fate model: Development and illustration, Environmental
Pollution 164:182-7

3 333, ch Queen Mary #301 20, rue de la Villette Suecia 211

Montréal, Québec Lyon Cedex Oficina 1601, Santiago
Canada, H3V 1A2 France, 69328 Chili, 7510153 Leader in Odour Science
WP20161212-2 T. : +1.514.340.5250 T. : +33.4.26.68.51.56 T: +56.22.47.95.31 www.odotech.com | info@odotech.com