Abstract
Determination of the level of exposure due to a chemical incident is crucial for the assessment of public health risks and environmental impact. This kind of information is also useful for the subsequent legal responsibilities. If the air contaminant concentrations are not quantified during the incident, then its air concentration may fall below detectable levels shortly after the incident has passed. In case of smelly compounds, usually the incident chronogram indicates the time when the smell was detected and when the smell was gone. Unfortunately, an objective and analytical measure of odour is impossible. The present study shows that it is possible to computer simulate the concentration evolution in time for a defined indoor scenario. Comparing the odour detection in the chronogram with the computer simulations, it is feasible to determine the maximum gas contaminant exposure during the incident and its evolution in time. Once the pollution source indoor concentration is characterized, considering the overall air renewal time and a plume model, the effects on the environment around the building can be estimated.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aspen Plus Dynamics® (2013) www.aspentech.com/products/aspen-dynamics.aspxlast Accessed 10 Feb 2013
Bongers S, Janssen NAH, Reiss B, Grievink L, Lebret E, Kromhout H (2008) Challenges of exposure assessment for health studies in the aftermath of chemical incidents and disasters. J Expo Sci Environ Epid 18:341–359
EPA CSMoS (2013) http://www.epa.gov/ada/csmos/index.html#download Accessed 10 Feb 2013
EPA TTN (2013) http://www.epa.gov/scram001/aqmindex.htm Accessed 10 Feb 2013
EPA Water (2013) http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/models/ Accessed 10 Feb 2013
Gangadwala J, Radulescu G, Kienle A, Steyer F, Sundmacher K (2008) New processes for recovery of acetic acid from waste water. Clean Technol Environ Policy 10(3):245–254
Hoard M, Homer J, Manley W, Furbee P, Haque A, Helmkamp J (2005) Systems modeling in support of evidence-based disaster planning for rural areas. Int J Hyg Environ Health 208(1–2):117–125
Hou D, Shao S, Zhang Y, Liu SL, Chen Y, Zhang SS (2012) Exergy analysis of a thermal power plant using a modeling approach. Clean Technol Environ Policy 14(5):805–813
HSDB Hazardous Substances Data Bank (2013) http://hazmap.nlm.nih.gov/category-details?id=207&table=copytblagents, Accessed 22 Sep 2013
Kozarev N, Ilieva N, Sokolovski E (2013) Full scale plume rise modeling in calm and low wind velocity conditions. Clean Technol Environ Policy. doi:10.1007/s10098-013-0650-2
Luyben WL (2013) Distillation Design and Control Using Aspen TM Simulation, 2nd edn. AIChE and John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York
Manca D, Brambilla S (2012) Dynamic simulation of the BP Texas City refinery accident. J Loss Prev Process Ind 25:950–957
Mikulčić H, Von Berg E, Vujanović M, Priesching P, Tatschl R, Duić N (2013) Numerical analysis of cement calciner fuel efficiency and pollutant emissions. Clean Technol Environ Policy 15(3):489–499
Mohd Shariff A, Zaini D (2013) Using integrated toxic release consequences analysis tool for inherently safer design of process plant at preliminary design stage. Clean Technol Environ Policy. doi:10.1007/s10098-012-0572-4
Scheepers PTJ, Bos PMJ, Konings J, Janssen NAH, Grievink L (2011) Application of biological monitoring for exposure assessment following chemical incidents: a procedure for decision making. J Exp Sci Environ Epid 21:247–261
Schippmann B, Schernewski G, Gräwe U (2013) Escherichia coli pollution in a Baltic Sea lagoon: a model-based source and spatial risk assessment. Int J Hyg Environ Health 216(4):408–420
WHO (2009) Manual for the Public Health Management of Chemical Incidents. WHO, Geneva
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bonet, J., Plesu, V., Bonet Ruiz, A.E. et al. Use of computer dynamic simulation for indoor exposure assessment based on chronogram incident as air pollution source characterization. Clean Techn Environ Policy 16, 971–977 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-013-0679-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-013-0679-2