2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.09.089
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hydrogen cyanide in ambient air near a gold heap leach field: Measured vs. modeled concentrations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The models were specifically developed to simulate air pollution resulting from emissions from industrial sources and simulate the impact of a contaminating source such as emissions from mineral dumps, contaminated soils, etc. (e.g., Orloff et al, 2006). The models use meteorological data averaged over 1-h periods of time to estimate 1h steady-state concentrations of air contaminants.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The models were specifically developed to simulate air pollution resulting from emissions from industrial sources and simulate the impact of a contaminating source such as emissions from mineral dumps, contaminated soils, etc. (e.g., Orloff et al, 2006). The models use meteorological data averaged over 1-h periods of time to estimate 1h steady-state concentrations of air contaminants.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It assumes a Gaussian plume distribution in the vertical and horizontal direction for stable boundary layers; and Gaussian in the horizontal and bi-Gaussian in the vertical for convective boundary layers (Barrat, 2001). This model is typically used for large areas or stationary sources (Orloff et al, 2006). It is a steady-state plume model which assumes that concentrations at all distances during an hour of modeling are governed by the temporally averaged meteorology of the hour.…”
Section: Isc-aermodmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The coefficient of determination (R 2 ) of 0.9687 indicated that the modeled results are adequate to represent the observed results. With the slope of 0.9072, the modeled result from AERMOD is slightly under-predicted for the observed odor index, but is still acceptable based on a previous report using AERMOD (Venkatram et al, 2004;Kumar et al, 2006;Orloff et al, 2006).…”
Section: American Meteorological Society/environmental Protection Agementioning
confidence: 52%