...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the air & waste management association >Fugitive Emissions Opacity Determination Using the Digital Opacity Compliance System (DOCS)
【24h】

Fugitive Emissions Opacity Determination Using the Digital Opacity Compliance System (DOCS)

机译:使用数字不透明度合规系统(DOCS)确定逸散性不透明度

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Maintenance of Department of Defense (DoD) weapon systems, conducting battlefield training exercises as well as meeting military construction and/or demolition schedules, invariably generate fugitive air emissions, many of which are visible. Although there is no codified federal method for quantifying fugitive emissions opacity, many state and local air regulatory agencies have instituted enforceable fugitive emission opacity standards at DoD facilities. The current study focused on comparing the performance of the digital opacity compliance system (DOCS) with U.S. Environment Protection Agency Method 9 (Method 9) certified human observers in quantifying the visible opacity associated with fugitive emissions produced using a commercial fog generator. By systematically repositioning both DOCS cameras and Method 9-certified observers during field testing, differences in method performance as a function of observational locations were documented. At both the 30- and 300-ft off-set distances, opacity levels reported by the DOCS technology and Method 9-certified smoke readers were found to be statistically different at the 99% confidence level. Alternatively, at the 90- and 150-ft off-set distances, results suggested that there was an insignificant difference at the 99% confidence level between the two methods. Comparing the magnitude of the each method's standard deviation suggested that, at the 30-ft off-set distance, the DOCS technology was consistently more precise than Method 9-certified readers regardless of the observer's downwind distance. However, at the 90, 150, and 300-ft off-set distances, method precision seemed to vary as a function of both off-set and downwind distance. The primary factor affecting the consistency in opacity measurements appeared to be the impact of ground-level air turbulence on fog plume dispersion and transport. Field observations demonstrated that localized wind shear played a critical and decisive role in how and to what extent fugitive emissions opacity could be determined, regardless of the method selected.
机译:国防部(DoD)武器系统的维护,进行战场训练演习以及满足军事建设和/或拆除时间表,总是会产生逃逸的空气排放,其中许多是可见的。尽管尚无统一的联邦方法来量化逃逸排放不透明性,但许多州和地方航空监管机构已在国防部设施中制定了可强制执行的逃逸排放不透明性标准。当前的研究着重于比较数字不透明度法规遵从系统(DOCS)与美国环境保护局方法9(方法9)认证的人类观察者在量化与使用商用雾发生器产生的逃逸排放物相关的可见不透明度方面的性能。通过在野外测试期间系统地重新定位DOCS摄像机和获得方法9认证的观察者,记录了方法性能随观察位置的变化。在30英尺和300英尺的偏移距离上,发现DOCS技术和经Method 9认证的烟雾读取器报告的不透明度在99%的置信度上具有统计学差异。或者,在90英尺和150英尺的偏移距离处,结果表明两种方法在99%置信度水平上的差异不明显。比较每种方法的标准偏差的大小,可以看出,在30英尺偏移距离处,DOCS技术始终比通过Method 9认证的阅读器更为精确,而与观察者的顺风距离无关。但是,在90英尺,150英尺和300英尺的偏移距离下,方法的精度似乎随偏移距离和顺风距离而变化。影响不透明度测量一致性的主要因素似乎是地面空气湍流对雾羽散布和运输的影响。现场观察表明,无论选择何种方法,局部风切变在如何确定以及如何确定逃逸性排放不透明方面都起着至关重要的决定性作用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号