Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 88, Issue 3, pp 1893–1901 | Cite as

Assessment of the plume dispersion due to chemical attack on April 4, 2017, in Syria

  • Kiran BhaganagarEmail author
  • Sudheer R. Bhimireddy
Short Communication

Abstract

A numerical investigation has been performed using Weather Research and Forecasting model to determine the role of atmospheric factors that influenced the dispersion of the chemical plume released on the fateful date of April 4, 2017, at 6.30 a.m. in the town of Khan Sheikhoun in northwestern region of Syria. The plume has been approximated as an inert tracer and the effect of meteorological and topographical conditions on the plume dispersion has been studied. The results have shown that the released plume formed a thin layer up to 100 m above the surface known a “fumigation plume”. The plume spreads radially, undiluted to distance of 7.9 and 19.3 km at 1 and 2 h, respectively, after the initial release. Due to change to convective atmospheric stability conditions, the turbulence convective eddies dilutes the plume. The atmospheric stability conditions in the next 2 h were critical in dispersing the plume. The study motivates the importance of estimating short-term transport of the plume in health-, safety- and evacuation-management.

Keywords

Chemical plume Atmospheric pollution Plume tracking WRF model Syria Chemical attack 2017 Early Warfare Detection 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding for the research has been provided by Department of Army, Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center, Aberdeen, Maryland, USA under the Grant MSRDC D01_W911SR-14-2-0001-0006.

References

  1. Barr S, Kyle TG, Clements WE, Sedlacek W (1983) Plume dispersion in a nocturnal drainage wind. Atmos Environ 17:1423–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bierly EW, Hewson EW (1962) Some restrictive meteorological conditions to be considered in the design of stacks. J Appl Meteorol 1(3):383–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boybeyi Z, Sethu R, Paolo Z (1995) Numerical investigation of possible role of local meteorology in Bhopal gas accident. Atmos Environ 29:479–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Briggs GA (1965) A plume rise model compared with observations. J Air Pollut Control As 15:433–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dosio A, Vilà-Guerau de Arellano J, Holtslag AA, Builtjes PJ (2003) Dispersion of a passive tracer in buoyancy-and shear-driven boundary layers. J Appl Meteorol 42:1116–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Draxler RR (1991) The accuracy of trajectories during ANATEX calculated using dynamic model analyses versus rawinsonde observations. J Appl Meteorol 30:1446–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dudhia J (1989) Numerical study of convection observed during the winter monsoon experiment using a mesoscale two-dimensional model. J Atmos Sci 46:3077Google Scholar
  8. Ek MB, Mitchell KE, Lin Y, Grunmann P, Rogers E, Gayno G, Koren V (2003) Implementation of the upgraded Noah land-surface model in the NCEP operational mesoscale Eta model. J Geophys Res 108:8851. doi: 10.1029/2002JD003296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferrier BS, Jin Y, Black T, Rogers E, DiMego G (2002) Implementation of a new grid-scale cloud and precipitation scheme in NCEP Eta model. In: 15th conference on numerical weather prediction, San Antonio, TX, American Meteor Society, pp 280–283Google Scholar
  10. Garratt JR (1992) The atmospheric boundary layer. Cambridge atmospheric and space science series, vol 416. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanna SR, Briggs GA, Hosker RP Jr (1982) Handbook on atmospheric diffusion (No. DOE/TIC-11223). National oceanic and atmospheric administration, Oak Ridge, TN (USA). Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  12. Hong S, Noh Y, Dudhia J (2006) A new vertical diffusion package with an explicit treatment of entrainment processes. Mon Weather Rev 134:2318–2341. doi: 10.1175/MWR3199.1
  13. Janjic ZI (1996) The surface layer parameterization in the NCEP Eta Model. World Meteorological Organization-Publications-WMO TD, pp 4–16Google Scholar
  14. Jorquera H, Castro J (2010) Analysis of urban pollution episodes by inverse modeling. Atmos Environ 44:42–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kain J, Fritsch JM (1993) Convective parameterization for mesoscale models: the Kain-Fritsch scheme. In: The representation of cumulus convection in numerical models of the atmosphere, Meteor Monog, vol 24. American Meteor Society, pp 165–170Google Scholar
  16. Mandija F, Guerrero-Rascado JL, Lyamani H, Granados-Muñoz MJ, Alados-Arboledas L (2016) Synergic estimation of columnar integrated aerosol properties and their vertical resolved profiles in respect to the scenarios of dust intrusions over Granada. Atmos Environ 145:439–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mlawer EJ, Taubman SJ, Brown PD, Iacono MJ, Clough SA (1997) Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwave. J Geophys Res 102:16,663–16,682Google Scholar
  18. Monin AS, Obukhov AM (1954) The basic laws of turbulent mixing in the surface layer of the atmosphere. Tr Akad Nauk SSSR Geofiz Inst 24:163–187 English translation by John Miller, 1959 Google Scholar
  19. Noh Y, Cheon WG, Hong SY, Raasch S (2003) Improvement of the K-profile model for the planetary boundary layer based on large eddy simulation data. Bound-Layer Meteor 107:401–427Google Scholar
  20. Saide PE, Carmichael GR, Spak SN, Gallardo L, Osses AE, Mena-Carrasco MA, Pagowski M (2011) Forecasting urban PM10 and PM2. 5 pollution episodes in very stable nocturnal conditions and complex terrain using WRF-Chem CO tracer model. Atmos Environ 45:2769–2780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Skamarock WC, Klemp JB (2008) A time-split non-hydrostatic atmospheric model for weather research and forecasting applications. J Comput Phys 227:3465–3485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stull RB (2012) An introduction to boundary layer meteorology, vol 13. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. Wyszogrodzki AA, Miao S, Chen F (2012) Evaluation of the coupling between mesoscale-WRF and LES-EULAG models for simulating fine-scale urban dispersion. Atmos Res 118:324–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Xiao-Ming H, Nielson-Gammon WJ, Zhang F (2010) Evaluation of three planetary boundary layer in the WRF model. J Appl Meteor Climatol 49:1831–1844CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of TexasSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations