Atmospheric
Enr;ironmml
Vol. 11,PP.1245-1248.Pergamon
Press1977.hinled in Great Britain.
DISCUSSIONS
FURTHER COMMENT
The intent of our comments on the Gorr-Dunlap paper
was to show that the importance of the SW1 for buoyant
stack emissions follows directly from simple diffusion-
model theory. Obviously, the equation for the maximum
ground-level concentration does not provide sufficient in-
formation for air quality management. However, compre-
hensive diffusion models that use concurrent meteorologi-
cal and emissions data and that consider factors such as
plume rise, wind persistence and variations in terrain
height can and, in our view, should be used for air quality
management. Such models significantly supplement air
quality data in areas where there are no monitors and
are almost indispensable in the interpretation of air quality
data by defining source-receptor relationships. For
example, in the Applications Section of their paper, Gorr
and Dunlap are forced to hypothesize that power plant
B does not significantly affect the Logans Ferry SOr moni-
tor, but plant A does. The results of our model calculations
for the two plants during the SW1 on 4 January 1973 pro-
vide an objective confi~ation of this hypothesis.
In many areas, the multiplicity of sources, the high
short-term variability of pollutant emission rates, the very
limited number of air quality monitors and other factors
effectively preclude the establishment by direct empirical
methods of the relationships between pollutant emissions
and ambient air quality. The only practicable recourse cur-
rently available is to use models capable of calculating,
for multiple-source emissions, both short-term and long-
term ground-level concentrations at a very large number
of grid points. For a given source or group of sources,
diffusion models can be used with historical meteorological
data to predict the magnitude, location, duration and fre-
quency of ground-level concentrations for a variety of
meteorological conditions, including the SWI.
In summary, we believe that the qualitative analysis of
air quality data alone recommended by Gorr and Dunlap
is likely to lead to erroneous and ambiguous conclusions,
especially in areas with multiple sources. When properly
COMMENTS ON “MEASURE-
MENTS OF SOME HALOGENATED
COMPOUNDS IN AIR OVER EUROPE”
The work presented by Drs. de Bortoli and Pecchio as
a survey of the concentrations of SFs, CClsF, and CCl,F2
in the air over Europe is useful for documenting the vari-
ations at ground level in urban environments. In general
the values we have obtained in urban areas in the U.S.
are similar to their levels. However, in semi-rural areas
and remote mountain valleys our experience has shown
the CCl,F and CCl,F, levels to be lower than those
observed by De Bortoli and Pecchio for clean air. Typi-
cally, our clean air levels for CC&F range from 110 to
130ppt and CCl,F ranges 21&24Oppt for the same time
period in early 1976. Their consistently higher or more
* De Bortoli and Peccio (1976) Atmospheric Environment
10,921-923.
1245
used, diffusion models aid air quality management by
defining sour-receptor relationships and by supplement-
ing the available air quality data. Additionally, recourse
to diffusion model calculations is essential in testing the
performance of hypothetical air quality management stra-
tegies based on projected source configurations and emis-
sions data.
H. E. Cramer Co., Inc. HARRBON E. CRAMER
P.O. Box 8049 JAMESF. BOWERS,JR.
Salt Lake City, UT 84108, U.S.A.
FURTHER REPLY
We have used atmospheric diffusion models extensively
for many aspects of air quality management including the
SWI, and of course agree with Cramer and Bowers on
the value of such models. We also believe monitoring data
have a high information content for air quality analysis
and management, especially for the SWI.
Both the paper and our initial authors’ reply stress what
we’believe to be the proper approach for most analyses
of SWIs: careful analysis of the AQ data base coupled
with qualitative modeling descriptions. Cramer and
Bowers have evidently misunderstood our approach to be
“... .the qualitative analysis of air quality data alone”.
Actually, their statement that “.. . when properly used, diffu-
sion models aid air quality management by defining source
receptor relationships and by supplementing the available
air quality data” appears to be a rephrased description
of the coupled approach we advocate.
The Ohio State University WILPEN L. GORR
Columbus, OH 43210, U.S.A.
Carnegie-Mellon University ROBERTW. DUNLAP
Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A.
variable values for CC&F of 140-330ppt and for CC&F,
of 190-390ppt suggest to this investigator local or long-
distance transport of urban air into the sampling sites. The
very low value of 51 ppt for CCl,F, in their semi-rural
site is due, I believe, to an analytical problem and does
not reflect a correct ambient value.
Regarding the last two paragraphs in their paper con-
cerning the “sampling within commercial aircrafts during
line flights”, I believe that the ubiquitous occurrence of
the fluorocarbons precludes their being sampled in an open
situation on board aircraft flights. If the data to be
obtained are to truly reflect the ambient concentrations
outside the aircraft great care must be exercised to exclude
contamination. It has been our considerable ex rience
that CCl,F, and CCI,F are continually outgas sipe ng from
the upholstery and related surfaces of the aircraft. The
values that I believe are most representative of the free
troposphere in 1976 range from 120 to 140ppt CCl,F
rather than the r?ported 170-910 ppt levels. Similarly, the
range of CCl,F2 at the same altitudes are 21(X240 ppt and