Mathl. Comput. Modellzng Vol. 21, No. 9, pp.

23-29, 1995
Pergamon Copynght@1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0895-7177/95 $9.50 + 0.00
0895.7177(95)00048-S

A Gaussian Model for Estimating

Odour Emissions from Area Sources
R. J. SMITH
National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture
University of Southern Queensland
Toowoomba, Queensland, 4350 Australia

Abstract-A Gaussian plume model for the dispersion of odours is modified to calculate the
spatial average odour emissions from ground level area sources such ss beef cattle feedlots, given
simultaneous point measurements of odour concentration and wind speed at a location immediately
downwind of the source. The valichty of the method is demonstrated as is its application to sources
of irregular shape, of finite lateral extent, and with wmd directions other than perpendicular to the
source. Source size, aerodynamic roughness of the surface and atmospheric stability are shown to
be imporant in the selection of the preferred location for the measurements to enable a true spatial
average emission rate to be calculated.

Keywords-Odour, Emission,Dispersion,Gaussian,Feedlot.

1. INTRODUCTION

The nuisance caused by the odour emitted from area1sources such as wastewater treatment plants,
municipal refuse tips and beef cattle feedlots can be viewed to consist of a number of sequential
processes: generation; release; transport; dispersion and reception each of which is difficult to
deal with in quantitative terms. Measurement of the rate of odour emission (or release) from
these sources poses some major problems, not the least of which are that: there is no substantial
mass flow which can be readily sampled; and the emission rate can vary both temporally and
spatially. Two broad classes of method are available for the estimation of odour emission rates:
directly by sampling actual point emissions; and indirectly by calculation.
A variety of hoods and wind tunnels have been used for sampling odorous gas or similar
volatile emissions. These techniques have been reviewed recently by Smith and Watts [l] and
further detail is not warranted here. Suffice to say that direct measurement of odour emission
rates by these methods is difficult and expensive and that there is the very great risk that the
sampling technique will modify the emission rate being measured.
The indirect approach is to infer the spatial average emission rate from concentration mea-
surements taken in the air stream over or downwind of the source [l]. Methods include: a mass
balance; an energy balance; and a simple micrometeorological method, called the Theoretical
Profile Shape (TPS) method of [2].
In the present paper, an alternative indirect method is described. This method employs a
Gaussian dispersion model, assumed vertical wind speed profiles and simultaneous measurements
of the actual concentration and wind speed at a point downwind of the source to estimate the
emission rate. The method is compared to the TPS method. The factors to be considered in
selection of the preferred location for the measurements are also discussed.

23
 24 R. J. SMITH

2. THE GAUSSIAN PLUME MODEL

The Gaussian plume model STINK [3] predicts the dispersion of odours downwind of area1
sources of finite size and any orientation with respect to the wind direction. The model is based
on the Gaussian plume theory, usually attributed to Pasquill[4] where the concentration C(x, y, z)
downwind of a ground level point source is given by:

where C is the concentration averaged over time t; x is the distance downwind; y is the distance
crosswind; z is the height above ground level; E is the rate of emission from the source; crV and
uz are the ‘dispersion coefficients’ representing the crosswind and vertical spread of the plume,
respectively, and which are increasing functions of distance x and averaging time t; and g rep-
resents the vertically and time averaged wind speed. For an area1 source, the concentration is
determined by the integration of this equation over the source area.
The program STINK calculates a nondimensional concentration x(z, y, z) at specified points
downwind of a rectangular source. The source is centred on the origin and is specified by its
width Y and depth X and by the wind direction (angle 0 to the x-axis) as illustrated in Fig-
ure 1. Any number of receptors can be specified, with each located by a lateral distance y and
longitudinal distance x from the centre of the source. Other data required are the aerodynamic
roughness height zo and the atmospheric stability

Xi

Figure 1. Definition sketch for an area1 source.

The source is subdivided into n strips of width 6X perpendicular to the wind direction. Each
strip source is assumed to be a rectangle of length Yi (equal to the centre line length of the strip).
The point source equation (1) is first integrated along the length of the strip to give an equation
for a strip source of finite length [3]. The nondimensional concentration is then determined by
numerical integration of the contribution from each strip, viz:

{ (&2)5,i
x(x, Y1%I= c exp (-6) [erf (y~~~~y) -erf (‘$L”‘)] hX}i2j

where the ayi and CT~~are the dispersion coefficients for each strip.
 Estimating Odour Emissions 25

The actual odour concentration C(z, y, Z) at the receptor location is related to this non-
dimensional concentration X(X:,y, Z) by:

C(x,y,z) = x(xyEa,
where E, is the spatial average emission rate per unit area from the area1 source.
For ground level agricultural sources the preferred means for estimating the dispersion coeffi-
cients gy and oZ (and those used in the present application) are the equations used by Bowers
et al. [5] and Lorimer [6], based on the empirical Pasquill-Gifford curves [7], viz:

oy = 0.84678~ tan(a - blnz) and crZ = cxd, (4)

where a, b, c, and d are parameters which depend on the prevailing atmospheric stability; the
parameters c and d also depend on the distance x. Values for the four parameters are as presented
by Lorimer [6]. The equations (4) are based on an aerodynamic roughness ~0 for the ground
surface of 0.3m and an averaging time t of 1 h. For values other than these, the dispersion
coefficients can be scaled accordingly [6].
STINK was developed to predict the dispersion relatively close to large area sources where an
accurate description of the source geometry is important, compared to that used in the AUS-
PLUME model of Lorimer [6], currently the industry standard in Australia, which underestimates
the concentration close to area sources [3].
Close to the source the nondimensional concentration x is relatively insensitive to small changes
or errors in the measurements or estimates of the aerodynamic roughness, the atmospheric stabil-
ity or the wind direction [3]. However, some doubt exists concerning the value of the dispersion
coefficients for distances less than 100m. Further, the vertical dispersion from a ground level
source may not be Gaussian [8].
As a final point on the dispersion model, the units of the odour concentration and emission
rates warrant some discussion. In this paper, odour concentration (which is the concentration
of the odorous gas relative to the concentration at the threshold of detection as determined by
olfactometry [9]) will be treated as dimensionless and will be expressed as odour units (OU).
The total rate of emissions from an odour source is the product of the concentration and the
volumetric flow rate (m3/s) of the emissions. In that case, the units for the emission rate are
OUm3/s. Consequently, the units for the rate of emissions from unit area of an extensive area1
source are OUm/s.

3. BACK CALCULATION OF ODOUR EMISSIONS

The above model provides a means of estimating the average odour emissions from an area1
source by employing measurements of the odour concentration taken at receptor locations at, or
close to, the downwind edge of the source. To derive this estimate, a “back calculation” may be
performed as follows.
Equation (3) is rearranged in the form:

(5)

where C(z) and fi are quantities measured at the selected location along the downwind edge of
the source and X(Z) is calculated (2) by the program STINK for the same location and height Z.
(For convenience, the (x, 1~~z) suffix has been dropped: the suffix (z) is retained to denote values
at a particular height.)
To enable use of simultaneous point measurements (at height z) of C(z) and u(z), a normalised
velocity 6 is introduced where l? = r~(z)/ti. Equation (5) then becomes:

E = C(Z)u(Z)
a
Q(z) ’
 26 R. 3. SMITH

where Q(z) = x(z)0 is a new normalised concentration. The quantities Q and fi are both
calculated. The averaging time t used in the calculations must be the same as that used in the
measurement of C(z) and U(Z) .
In calculating 6, the wind profile U(Z) is given by the equations for stable, neutral and unstable
conditions as used by Wilson et al. [2]:

where u* is the wind shear velocity, k is von Karman’s constant, Q’m is the Monin-Obukhov uni-
versal function for momentum, and L is the Monin-Obukhov stability length. u(z) is determined
by integration of (7). For example, for stable stratification (L > 0):

Qn = 1+ y (8)

and
u(z) = F ln$ +4.7? (9)
( >
For neutral stratification (L = co), CDmequals 1, and for unstable stratification (L < 0):

-l/4
&=
( > 1-F .
(10)

l? can be determined by integration of the equations for u(z) over the height of the plume (at
least 20,). For the unstable condition, the profile is integrated numerically.
The method is designed for use in situations where measurement of the variables required for
the calculation of L is not practical. Hence, a scheme is required for relating L to the more
easily estimated Pssquill stability classes. Table 1 presents the relationship between L and the
Pasquill classes as given by Golder [lo] for a .zc of 0.2m. The particular values adopted for the
present study are shown in the third column. A value of -5 was adopted for L for the condition
of unstable stratification (Pasquill class A) [2].

Table 1. Relationship between stability classifications (after Golder [lo]).

Pasquill stability Monin-Obukhov Adopted

class length L (m) L (m)

A -5
B -40 5 L < -12 -40
C -200 5 L < -40 -200
D -1000 <L < -200
D IL1 > 1000 co
D 200 < L 5 1000
E 100 < L 9 200 100
E 40 < L < 100
F 10 < L 5 40
F O<L<lO 5

4. COMPARISON WITH THE TPS METHOD

The TPS method [2] was developed from the more data intensive mass balance approach.
A nondimensional concentration at the centre of a circular source is calculated using a particle
trajectory model and an appropriate theoretical wind speed profile, for example (7). Simultaneous
 Estimating Odour Emissions 27

measurements of concentration and time-averaged wind speed, also at the centre of the source,
are combined with the nondimensional concentration to give the emission rate.
The TPS method is based on the assumption that the concentration at the centre of the
circular source is the same as that immediately downwind of a source of infinite lateral extent
whose depth is equal to the radius of the circle and with the wind perpendicular to the source.
As a result, it needs only to model the vertical dispersion along the wind axis; any dispersion in
the crosswind direction is balanced by contributions from elsewhere along the source. For a real
source of limited lateral extent, this assumption may not apply.
The Gaussian model permits the estimation of the odour emission rate in a similar manner
but is applicable to sources which may be of irregular shape, of limited lateral extent and with
the wind orientation other than perpendicular to edges of the source. The nondimensional con-
centration Q(Z) is essentially the same quantity as that used in the TPS method. The significant
difference is the manner in which it is calculated. A further important advantage of the Gaussian
model is that any reasonable location can be used for the measurements providing the location,
the size of the source and the wind direction are known.
To compare the results of the Gaussian plume approach to those of the TPS method, plots
of 8 versus height t were prepared for various size sources, ~0 values, averaging times and
atmospheric stabilities, for example, Figure 2. Comparison of Figure 2 (and similar plots for
different parameter values) with the equivalent TPS plots in [2,11,12] show a less than perfect
correspondence. This was to be expected given the different and very empirical method of
quantifying the atmospheric stability in the Gaussian model. However, the following conclusions
may be drawn.

1.5

Figure 2. Typical plots of nondimensional concentration C! (for: X = 20m,

.zo = O.O02m, and t = 0.1 h).

First, the form of the curves representing the three stability conditions is similar and the
nondimensional concentrations are of similar order of magnitude. The spread of the curves is
greater suggesting that the 9 values from the Gaussian model are more sensitive to the assumed
atmospheric stability.
Second, the TPS plots suggest that, for any combination of source radius R and roughness ~0,
there is an optimum height for the concentration and wind speed measurements at which the
nondimensional concentration is (in essence) independent of the atmospheric stability. This
height, Zinst, is defined by the intersection of the curves representing the stable F and unstable A
conditions. For the Gaussian model, this optimum height is less well defined with a substantial
separation between the AfF intersection and the neutral D curve. This lack of definition of
 28 R. J. SMITH

the optimum height implies that estimation of the prevailing atmospheric stability is important
for application of the Gaussian model. However, for measurements taken during daylight hours,
when the stability would be expected to range between unstable and neutral conditions, then the
point of intersection of the A and D curves might be the more appropriate measurement height.
As the depth of the source (measured in the upwind direction) increases, the heights to the A/F
and A/D intersections both increase and, for larger sources, are too high to be of practical value.
The intersection heights also vary with the magnitude of the aerodynamic roughness ,ZObut not
to the same degree as in the TPS method.

5. THE SOURCE ‘FOOTPRINT’

The conventional wisdom (from the TPS method) suggests sampling at height Zinst at a central
point on the downwind edge of the source. The resulting emission rate is assumed to be a spatial
average emission rate for the entire source. For this to be so, all points within the source must be
contributing approximately equally to the nondimensional concentration Q. However, all points
do not contribute equally.

0 20 40 40 80 1W

x(m)

Figure 3. Contribution to @ at 1 m height by points at various distances z and y for

stability class A.

=I
0 20 40 60 80 100

x0-N

Figure 4. Centreline contribution to 9 at measurement heights of 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 m

far stability class A.

The contribution each point within the source makes to the Q at the receptor (the source
‘footprint’) can be calculated by a modified version of equation (1).

C(X,Y,Z) = &exp (-5) Y

ew (-$) z
1 (11)

where [(x, y, z) is the contribution at height z of the point within the source area distance x and y
from the receptor. How this contribution varies over the area of the source and with measurement
height z is illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, prepared assuming a wind direction along the x-axis.
 Estimating Odour Emissions 29

Two features of these figures are significant. First is the peakedness of the 5 curves, partic-
ularly at the lower measurement heights and for points along the centreline (z-axis). Second is
the negligible contribution from that part of the source close to the receptor. Together, these
suggest that for any source there is a measurement height and location which would maximise
the uniformity of the contribution from over the full area of the source. The distance of this point
downwind of the source, and its height, will be determined predominantly by the atmospheric
stability and by the size and aerodynamic roughness of the source.

6. CONCLUSIONS
A Gaussian plume dispersion model has been modified to allow it to be used to predict the
spatial average odour emissions from relatively large area sources given simultaneous point mea-
surements of odour concentration and wind speed at a location immediately downwind of the
source. This approach has the advantage of being able to accommodate sources of various and ir-
regular shape, of finite lateral extent and wind directions other than perpendicular to the source.
No specific location is required for the measurements although the uniformity of the source foot-
print, as influenced by the atmospheric stability and other parameters, should be considered
when selecting the measurement location. The comparison with the TPS method is sufficiently
good to suggest that the Gaussian model is suitable for predicting the rate of odour emissions
from real sources of finite size.

REFERENCES

1. R.J. Smith and P.J. Watts, Determination of odour emissionsfrom cattle feedlots: 1. Review, Jo~mal of
Agricultural Engzneering Research 57, 145-155 (1994).
2. J.D. Wilson, G.W. Thurtell, G.E. Kidd and E.G. Beauchamp, Estimation of the rate of gaseous mass transfer
from a surface plot to the atmosphere, Atmospherzc Envzronment 16, 1861-1867 (1982).
3. R.J. Smith, Dispersion of odours from ground level agricultural sources, Journal of Agriczllkrul Engineering
Research 54, 187-200 (1993).
4. F. Pssquill and F.B Smith, Atmosphenc Dzflusion, 3’d edition, Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UK, (1983).
5. J.F. Bowers, J.R. Bjorkland and C.S. Cheney, Industrial source complex (ISC) dispersion model user’s
guide, Report EPA-450/4-79-030, US Environment Protection Agency, (1979).
6 G. Lorimer, The AUSPLUME Gaussian plume dispersion model, Contract EPA/86-02, Environment Pro-
tection Authority, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, (1986).
7. F.A. Gifford, Turbulent diffusion-typing schemes: A review, Nuclear Safety 17, 68-86 (1976).
8. H.A. Panofsky and J.A. Dutton, Atmospherzc Turbulence-Models and Methods for Engineering Applzca-
tions, John Wiley and Sons, New York, (1984).
9. M. Jones, P.J. Watts and R J. Smith, A mobile dynamic olfactometer for feedlot odor studies, Applzed
Engineerzng in Agrzculture (3), 417-423 (1994).
10. D. Golder, Relations among stability parameters in the surface layer, Boundary Layer lMeteorology 3, 47-58
(1972).
11. J.D. Wilson, V.R. Catchpole, O.T. Denmead and G.W. Thurtell, Verification of a simple micrometeorological
method for estimating the rate of gaseous mass transfer from the ground plot to the atmosphere, Agmcultwal
Meteorology 29, 183-189 (1983).
12. S.R. Yates, Determining off-site concentration of volatile pesticides using the trajectory-simulation model,
Journal of Environmental Quality 22, 481-486 (1993).