ATMOSPHERIC

ENVIRONMENT
PERGAMON Atmospheric Environment 35 Supplement No. 1 (2001) $99-S105
www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv

Modelling of the dispersion and deposition of coarse particulate

matter under neutral atmospheric conditions
V. Vesovic*, A. Auziere, G. Calviac, A. Dauriat
TH Huxley School of Environment, Earth Sciences and Engineering, Imperial College, London SW7 2BP, UK
Received 6 November 2000; accepted 14 November 2000

Abstract

This work examines the deposition of particulate matter from elevated sources in a neutrally stratified atmosphere.
Two current models have been compared with the available experimental data. The particle trajectory model (PTM)
shows very good agreement with index of agreement of 0.99, while the fugitive dust model (FDM) tends to over-predict
the value of the concentration peak and under-predict the concentration profiles at large downwind distances. The paper
also reports on the influence of particle shape on the dispersion and deposition of heavy particles. Simulation runs have
been performed for 75 and 100 gm particles of different sphericity by means of the PTM. The results indicate that the
shape of the particle is a very important parameter in determining the deposition curves, but that its importance
decreases with the size of the particle. © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Particles; Dispersion; Deposition; Modelling

1. Introduction quantities of particulates that enter the atmosphere dir-

Airborne particulate matter significantly contributes
to atmospheric pollution and is classified as the primary
pollutant emitted from a variety of sources, some of
which are industrial. Although most industries rely on
emission control and cleaning the gas prior to release,
primarily by reasonably efficient electrostatic precipita-
tors, some of the particulate matter does end up being
released into the atmosphere. Furthermore, there is al-
ways the possibility of accidental release from any part of
the process that involves laden flows and therefore par-
ticulate matter release is an important part of any risk
assessment exercise which nuclear, chemical and power
plants have to undertake before being commissioned.
Not all the sources of particulate matter are prone to
emission control and certainly operations in open-cast
mines and some forms of fuel burning produce large
* Corresponding author. Tel.: + 44-171-594-7352; fax: + 44-
171-594-7444.
E-mail address: v.vesovic@ic.ac.uk (V. Vesovic).
ectly. The particulate matter released by all these sources
vary greatly in size and shape and hence in their ability to
disperse and deposit.
In order to address this problem there is a genuine
need for a more complete understanding and subsequent
quantification of the transport of particles from the
source downwind to the receptors. This is especially true
for coarse particles, on average larger than 10-201am,
where the transport is not only governed by advection
and turbulence, but is also affected by gravity; thus, it is
not possible to treat the dispersion of such particles as if
they have zero mass and to rely on numerous models
developed for gas dispersion. The mass of coarse particles
is sufficiently large that the gravitational settling velocity
cannot be neglected, and one has to consider the interac-
tion of the particle with the turbulent atmospheric flow.
Firstly, because of its inertia, the particle takes a finite
amount of time to respond to the changes in the fluid
velocity caused by turbulent fluctuations. Secondly, as
the particle settles and drifts downwards under the influ-
ence of gravity, it moves from one turbulent eddy to
another, resulting in the 'crossing-trajectory effect'. Thus,
it is not in general possible to equate particle velocity

1352-2310/01/$-see fi'ont matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S1 3 5 2 - 2 3 1 0 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 5 3 4 - 3
$100 V. Vesovic et al. / Atmospheric Environment 35 Supplement No. 1 (2001) $99-S105
correlation functions with that of the surrounding fluid,
nor is one fluid time scale sufficient to describe the
relative particle motion.
A number of models have been proposed to account
for the dispersion and deposition of the coarse particles
in the atmosphere. They can be generally divided into
two classes, namely, those that rely on suitable modifica-
tions of the Gaussian plume model (Ermak, 1977;
Winges, 1992) and those that simulate a large number of
particle trajectories (Ley, 1982; Wilson and Legg, 1983;
Walkate, 1987; Hashem and Parkin, 1991; Sawford and
Guest, 1991). The work on modifications of the Gaussian
plume model culminated in the development of the fugi-
tive dust model (FDM) (Winges, 1992) which is currently
the EPA-recommended model for predicting the disper-
sion and the deposition of particulate matter. The work
on particle trajectory models was more geared towards
gaining an understanding of particle fluid interaction and
no general-purpose model, analogous to FDM, exists.
It is important to stress that all of the currently avail-
able models assume that the released particles are spheri-
cal. This is certainly not true of most of the emitted
particles and shape is believed to play an important role
in particle transport away from the source. Recently,
some improvements have been proposed to the particle
trajectory models which incorporate the shape of the
particle and avoid having to estimate the particle re-
sponse timescale. A result of these modifications was
the development of a new two-dimensional Lagrangian
model for heavy, non-spherical particle dispersion
from elevated sources under neutral stability conditions
(Calviac and Yesovic, 1998; Dauriat and Vesovic,
1999).
The present paper reports on the comparison of the
predictions of the two models against available ex-
perimental data and presents the simulation results
that show the effect of particle shape on the deposition
curves.
2. Mathematical models
2.1. Fugitive dust model (FDM)
The F D M (Winges, 1992) is based on the analytical
equations derived by Ermak (1977) for dispersion and
deposition of airborne particulate matter from the point
source. Ermak (1977) used as a starting point the K-
theory advection-diffusion equation. He solved it under
the steady-state conditions assuming that the turbulent
transport takes place in the crosswind direction and as
a function of height, and that advective transport is by
wind and gravitational sedimentation. Furthermore,
he assumed that the ground-level particle flux is pro-
portional to the local concentration, where the constant
of proportionality is the deposition velocity, yd. The
ground-level concentration is then given as
C - Q exp - exp ~/expl-
rcayazU ~ [_uaZ. 2u a~] 1_
x 1 - ~(Vd -- 0 . 5 v g ) - - exp [72] erfc(7) , (1)
0"zU
,/2(V d -- 0.5Vg)X h
= + --, (2)
where Q is the emission rate, u the wind speed, h the
source height, x the downwind distance, and Vg the gravi-
tational settling velocity. The standard deposition curves,
as reported by Winges (1992), were used to evaluate
ay and az. This led to a mass conservation failure when
making use of Eq. (1). In order to correct for this incon-
sistency, Winges (1992) modified Eq. (1) to predict the
corrected ground-level concentration, C .....
c .... = Cf(x) (3)
by introducing a distance-dependent correction factor, f
The correction factors were obtained by numerical integ-
ration of the mass conservation equation at various wind
speeds, atmospheric stability classes, release heights and
particle sizes. The data were fitted as a function of down-
wind distance and incorporated into the computer
model.
2.2. Particle trajectory model (PTM)
A two-dimensional mathematical model of dispersion
of heavy particles in the atmosphere under neutral stabil-
ity conditions has been recently developed (Calviac and
Vesovic, 1998; Dauriat and Vesovic, 1999) based on the
previous work (Ley, 1982; Wilson and Legg, 1983; Wal-
kate, 1987; Hashem and Parkin, 1991; Sawford and
Guest, 1991) in the field. The extension to the three-
dimensional model is straightforward, but would involve
a substantial increase in computational time. It is be-
lieved that the crosswind dispersion of particulates is
Gaussian and of relatively short range. Thus, no major
gain in physical insight is expected by extending the
model to 3-D, atleast not in this preliminary stage of
investigation. Furthermore, due to the complexities of
modelling the turbulent flows, only neutral stability con-
ditions are considered. Although the extension to stable
atmospheres should present no problem, the extension to
cover the unstable stability class would require much
more work. For brevity, only the main features of the
PTM will be discussed, since a more detailed description
has already been published (Calviac and Vesovic, 1998;
Dauriat and Vesovic, 1999).
The particle trajectory of a single, non-spherical,
heavy particle in air is modelled by means of Newton's
 V. Vesovic et al. / Atmospheric Environment 35 SupplementNo. 1 (2001) $99-S105 SlO1

equations of motion, Parkin, 1991)

dvi [ul -- v~]f

(4) if(t) = u ' ( t - - A t ) e x p ( - - - ~ L )
dt gi,

dx~ At z) 1/2
- - = vi, (5)
dt

where v~ and u~ are the components of the particle and where r/ is the Gaussian random number and the esti-
wind velocity, respectively, and subscript i indicates mates of the Lagrangian time scale, TL, and the velocity
either x or z-component. Both the particle and the fluid standard deviations, cry and az, are given for neutral
motion are viewed relative to the stationary frame of stability conditions by (Hanna, 1982)
reference fixed in space in such a way that the negative 0.4z
z direction indicates the gravity direction and z = 0 TLx = TLz u* (9)
indicates the ground level. The parameter z is the
particle aerodynamic response time, the factor f is the ax = 2.4u*, a~ = 1.25u*. (10)
drag force correction factor given by a semi-empirical
expression As described previously (Calviac and Vesovic, 1998;
Dauriat and Vesovic, 1999), a set of four coupled first-
1 + O.1118[ReKxK2] °'6s67 order stiff differential equations, Eqs. (4) and (5), has been
f- solved by a forward difference method based on variable
K1
time step and originally proposed by Gear (1971). A com-
prehensive series of tests have been carried out by de-
+O.O1794ReK2 1 + ReK1K2 ' (6)
creasing the time step, to ensure that the solutions are
stable and well behaved. By decreasing the size of turbu-
where parameters K1 and K2 are Stokes' and Newton's
lent fluctuations it was demonstrated that the numerical
shape factors, respectively, which are related to the
solution obtained corresponds, in the limit, to the ana-
sphericity, qS, and projected area diameter, da, for a given
lytical solution for the wind profile given by Eq. (7).
non-spherical particle (Ganser, 1993). It measures devi-
Finally, an automatic adjustment of the time step
ations of the drag force experienced by the particle mov-
throughout the integration was implemented, thus lead-
ing relative to the fluid from the Stokes's law.
ing to a large reduction in computation time. The Gaus-
In order to solve a set of four coupled differential
sian random numbers, r/, were generated by means of the
equations, Eqs. (4) and (5), and thus compute the particle
minimal standard algorithms of Park and Miller (Press
trajectory from its release to its deposition, it is assumed
et al., 1992).
that, in principle, the wind components ux and uz are
No attempt has been made to model the particle tra-
known and thus calculable at any position and at any
jectories inside the roughness layer. For the average
instant in time. In this respect, the present model differs
release heights, 10-15m, and the average roughness
from most of the other previous particle trajectory mod-
height, 0.005-0.1 m, considered in this work, the amount
els (Ley, 1982; Wilson and Legg, 1983; Walkate, 1987;
of time that the particle spends inside the roughness layer
Hashem and Parkin, 1991; Sawford and Guest, 1991), in
is less than 1% of the total travel time. It is thus reason-
that it does not require an estimate of the particle time
able to assume, as a first approximation, that only grav-
scale. Thus, it uses a type of Markov chain process to
ity acts on the particle and that the particle does not
model the wind velocity, rather than particle velocity.
undergo any horizontal movement once inside the
This results in an increase in computational time, but
roughness layer. Taking into account that the velocity
avoids the complexities of having to estimate the particle
components inside the layer are on average small, the
time scale.
numerical error introduced in the overall landing posi-
As is customary (Zannetti, 1990) the instantaneous
tion of the particles is believed to be negligible in the
wind velocity u has been decomposed into two compo-
context of this work.
nents, namely the ensemble-average wind velocity,
fi(fix,0), given by

U* z -I- z o 3. Results
fix = - - In , (7)
1£ Zo
3.1. Comparison with field data
where u* is the friction velocity, Zo is the surface
roughness length, ~ is the yon Karman's constant Reliable experimental data on particle deposition, that
equal to 0.4, and the turbulent fluctuation u' (u', u/) can be used to validate and compare different models, are
given by (Hanna, 1982; Walkate, 1987; Hashem and rather scarce. The majority of the field data that exist on
S102 K Vesovic et al. / Atmospheric Environment 35 Supplement No. 1 (2001) $99-S105
particle deposition have been obtained for monitoring
purposes under routine measurement conditions usually
over lengthy periods of time. The lack of controlled
conditions, inadequate knowledge of the variation of
meteorological parameters, inefficiencies in collecting
devices and sometimes even lack of knowledge of the
size distribution of the released particulate matter make
the use of such data for validation purposes rather
problematic.
As far as the authors are aware, the only currently
available data that have been obtained under what could
be described as controlled conditions are the data of
Hage (1961) and the data generated as part of the Han-
ford experiments (Doran et al., 1984; Doran and Horst,
1985). Unfortunately, for the purposes of the present
comparison, the Hanford data set refers to the dispersion
and deposition of ZnS aerosol of particulate size of the
order of 2-51am. This is below the range of the PTM
model which in its present form is only applicable to
coarse-sized particles bigger than 10-20 gm as discussed
in the Introduction. For smaller particles the number of
trajectories required to obtain sensible statistics would be
very large and would result in computationally prohibi-
tive simulations.
Thus, the only data set that can adequately be used for
comparison of the PTM and FDM models are the data
of Hage (1961). Hage performed a series of experiments
under carefully monitored conditions that involved dis-
persing glass microspheres of mass mean diameter of
106.7~m from a height of 15m over a relatively flat
prairie. The deposited microspheres were collected at
distances of up to 800 m from the source and the results
were presented as cross-wind integrated number frequen-
cies as a function of the landing distance downwind from
the source. Only three field trials, denoted Trials 5, 8 and
9 in the original publication (Hage, 1961), were carried
out under atmospheric conditions that can be approxi-
mated by neutral stability.
The F D M and PTM were run for the conditions
present in the three trials by using the particle character-
istics, the average wind speeds and roughness length
given by Hage as the input parameters. Both models were
run in purely predictive mode and no experimental data
of Hage was used to optimise the performance.
A commercially available FDM computer code was
used for the purposes of this study. The F D M is a three-
dimensional model and in order to compare with the field
data the cross-wind integration of the deposit was per-
formed for a given downwind distance. This was achieved
by placing 12-14 receptors crosswind in a small arc
downwind from the source. The results confirmed that
the crosswind dispersion is relatively small when com-
pared to the distance travelled by the particles down-
wind. The results are presented as deposition curves in
terms of distribution of normalised particle number fre-
quency as a function of the landing distance from the
0.010
i
0.008 i
i
¥ 0.006
L~ 0.004
0.002 t
0.000
0
J 200 400 600
Downwind distance, rn
800
Fig. 1. Deposition curve for the conditions corresponding to
those of the original Trial 5 (average wind speed at the release
height, u15 m = 7.31m s 1, Zo = 0.023m): (Hi experimental data
points (Hage, 1961);. . . . FDM; - - PTM).
source. The normalised number frequency has been de-
fined in such a way to make the area under each depos-
ition curve equal to unity.
Figs. 1-3 illustrate the comparison between the two
models, F D M and PTM, and the experimental data of
Hage. The FDM correctly predicts the behaviour near
the source and the position of the maximum concen-
tration. Nevertheless, it over-predicts the value of the
maximum concentration by about 60% and more impor-
tantly the predicted deposition curves decay much faster
than that observed by Hage. This failure is manifested
primarily at larger downwind distances where the F D M
predicts very low particle concentrations, where in fact,
at least according to Hage's data, particle concentration
is still significant. For example, the results of Trial 9 (see
Fig. 3) indicate that only 80% of particles have landed
200m downwind of the source, where according to
FDM, 99% of the particles have landed.
The simulations obtained by PTM indicate a much
better agreement with the experimental data. The shape
of the deposition curve is represented very well and so is
the position of the maximum. The actual maximum con-
centration is obtained within 10%. This is a very good
agreement considering the sensitivity of the peak concen-
tration to the input parameters (Dauriat and Vesovic,
1999). The agreement between PTM predictions and the
experimental data is marginally better than previously
 V. Vesovic et al. / Atmospheric Environment 35 Supplement No. 1 (2001) $99-S105 $103

0.010 Table l
Statistical measures of model performance

MA£ IA
0.008
PTM 0.00045 0.99
FDM 0.00138 0.92
i

¥ 0.006

0.016

¥
[a.
0.004 0.012
¢-

g o.oo8
"o
I19
0.002 *6
~5 0.004
13-

0.000
0.000 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016
0 200 400 600 800
Experimental frequency, m -1
Downwind distance, m

Fig. 2. Deposition curve for the conditions corresponding to Fig. 4. Measured vs. predicted frequency based on the data
those of the original Trial 8: (average wind speed at the release generated in Trials 5, 8 and 9: (U] FDM; A PTM).
height, u~ s m = 9.1 m s 1, Zo = 0.005 m): (11 experimental data
points (Hage, 1961); . . . . FDM; - - PTM).
reported (Calviac and Vesovic, 1998) primarily due to the
use of a more accurate expression for the drag force,
0.016 Eq. (6), and due to improvements made in a numerical
technique used to solve the set of differential equations,
I' which in turn allows for a better resolution of the peak
0.014 [i concentration.
I I
iq
in order to examine the overall agreement between the
o.o, fl predicted and experimental data the use is made of two
statistical indices, namely, the mean absolute error
(NAg)
0.010
¥ 1 N
M A E = N~-~I IPi - OiL (11)
~, 0.008
g
u-
and the index of agreement (IA),
0.006
ZL~ (Pi o,F
-

IA = 1 -- ~ 7 = , (IP, - O , J + IO, - O.vl?' (12)

0.004
where Pi and Oi are the predicted and observed values,
0.002 respectively, while Oar. is the observed average value.
Table 1 summarises the two indices for P T M and F D M ,
while Fig. 4 illustrates the overall agreement generated
0.000 for all the data obtained in the three trials. Both models
0 200 400 600 800 exhibit a very high index of agreement and relatively low
Downwind distance, m
M A E indicating a good predictive power. The tabulated
Fig. 3. Deposition curve for the conditions corresponding to statistics confirm the findings based on the analysis of the
those of the original Trial 9: (average wind speed at the release results for individual trials (see Figs. 1-3) that overall the
height, u 15 m = 4.87 m s- 1, Zo = 0.033 m): (11 experimental data P T M model is better than F D M in representing the data
points (Hage, 1961); . . . . FDM; - - PTM). of Hage (1961).
S104 V. Vesovic et aL /Atmospheric Environment 35 Supplement No. l (2001) $99-S105
Table 2
Statistical analysis of the deposition curves for different particle shapesa
.~peak Xpeak
(m- 1) (In)
100gm sphere 17.3 x 10.3 52
100gm tetrahedron 10.5 x 10-3 55
100 gm disk 5.9 x 10- 3 70
75 gm sphere 8.2 x 10- 3 73
75 gm tetrahedron 7.5 x 10- 3 75
75gm disk 5.1 x 10-3 86
afpea k -- normalised number frequency corresponding to the maximum in the deposition curve; Xp~ak - the landing position
corresponding to the maximum in the deposition curve;xm,ai,n - the landing position at which 50% of the released particles have landed;
x < 3 Xm~ai,n -- the percentage of particles that have landed by the distance corresponding to 3 Xm~alan X70O/o -- the landing position at
which 70% of the released particles have landed.
3.2. Influence oJ))article shape
A series of parametric studies have been carried out to
ascertain the influence Of particle shape on the deposition
curves. All the simulations have been performed by run-
ning PTM, since the FDM does not allow for the explicit
inclusion of the shape factor. No reliable experimental
data exist on release of non-spherical particles, so the
validity of P T M for non-spherical particles rests on the
good agreement achieved with the data of Hage. For
the purposes of this paper the results are illustrated by
simulations carried out on particles of 75 gm equivalent
volume diameter and nominal density of 2700 kg m-3.
The use of the equivalent volume diameter for different
shape particles ensures that all the particles are of t h e
same volume and therefore weight. In the example
presented, all the particles were released from a height of
10m into average wind of 5 m s-1 over the flat terrain
with the roughness length of Zo = 0.1m, corresponding
to grassland. Simulations were performed for three differ-
ent shapes, namely sphere, tetrahedron (q5 = 0.67) and
disk (~b = 0.23; d,/dv = 0.4), thus covering a wide range of
sphericity. The results of the simulations, presented here,
supplement the investigations reported previously under
the same conditions, but for 100gm particles (Dauriat
and Vesovic, 1999).
Table 2 summarises the main statistical characteristics
of the deposition curves for 75 and 100 ~tm particles, for
the three different sphericities. The results indicate that
for 100 ~tm particles the peak concentration reduces dras-
tically with decreasing sphericity resulting in approxim-
ately a 65 % reduction between deposition of spheres and
disks. The position of the peak also changes, shifting
downwind from 52m for spheres to 70m for disks. For
75 gm particles the effect is less pronounced. The compari-
son between spheres and the disks indicates that the peak
concentration drops off by about 40%, while the position
of the peak increases by 13 m. As discussed previously,
Xrnedia n X < 3 Xmcdian X70 %
(m) (%) (m)
66 94.3 88
91 91.1 115
135 83.5 208
115 86.9 173
130 85.2 204
187 79.4 357
the peak concentration is very sensitive to a number of
parameters and thus has the highest uncertainty of all the
quantities tabulated in Table 2. Therefore, a number of
additional statistical measures were used to examine the
influence of the shape of the particles.
The median of the deposition curves, as illustrated in
Table 2, increases for decreasing sphericity. The change is
more pronounced for the larger 100 gm particles where
the median for the disk deposition is twice the median
for the deposition of spherical particles. For smaller
particles the analogous change in the median is 60%.
Similar conclusions can be drawn by examining the per-
centage of the particles that have landed by a distance of
three times the median. Again the influence of the particle
shape is more prominent for the larger particles. Only at
very large downwind distances from the source, does the
shape of the 75 gm particles appreciably influence the
deposition rate. Thus, by 173 m, 70% of the spheres have
landed, while the disks travel approximately twice as
long and 70% of the disks would land by 357m.
4. Conclusions
The ground-level deposition curves of the coarse par-
ticles released from the elevated source have been
simulated by the recently developed model of heavy
particle dispersion (PTM) and FDM. The results have
been compared to the available experimental data. The
overall agreement of both models is very good as demon-
strated by the high values of the index of agreement (IA)
of 0.99 for PTM and 0.92 for FDM. The detailed analysis
indicates that the agreement between the PTM predic-
tions and the experimental data is very good everywhere
except near the concentration peak, while the F D M
tends to over-predict the value of the concentration peak
and under-predict the concentration profiles at large
downwind distances.
 V. Vesovic et al. / Atmospheric Environment 35 Supplement No. 1 (2001) $99-S105
Influence of the particle shape on the deposition of
particles was also examined by means of the P T M simu-
lation runs performed for 75 and 100gm particles of
different sphericity. The results indicate that the shape of
the particle is a very important parameter in determining
the deposition curves. Although, as the particle size de-
creases the differences in shape become less important in
influencing the particle deposition.
References
Calviac, G., Vesovic, V., 1998. Modelling dispersion of partic-
ulate matter in the mining environment. In: Pasameh-
metoglu, A.G., Ozgenoglu, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth
International Symposium on Environmental Issues and
Waste Management in Energy and Mineral Production
- SWEMP '98. Balkema Publishers, Brookfield, pp. 143-148.
Dauriat, A., Vesovic, V., 1999. Modelling dispersion of heavy
particulate matter. In: Brebbia, C.A., Jacobson, M., Power,
H. (Eds.), Air Pollution VIII. WIT Press, Southampton,
pp. 843-852.
Doran, J.C., Abbey, O.B., Buck, J.W., Glover, D.W., Horst, T.W,
Lee, R.N., Lloyd, F.D., 1984. Field Validation of Exposure
Assessment Models, Vol. 1: Data. EPA/600/3-84/0924,
NTIS, Springfield.
Doran, J.C., Horst, T.W., 1985. An evaluation of Gaussian
plume depletion models with dual-tracer field measure-
ments. Atmospheric Environment 19, 939-951.
Ermak, D., 1977. An analytical model for air pollutant transport
and deposition from a point source. Atmospheric Environ-
ment 11,231-237.
Ganser, G.H., 1993. A rational approach to drag prediction of
spherical and non-spherical particles. Powder Technology
77, 143-152.
S105
Gear, C.W., 1971. Numerical Initial Value Problems in Ordi-
nary Differential Equations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Hage, K.D., 1961. On the dispersion of large particles from
a 15-m source in the atmosphere. Journal of Meteorology 18,
534-539.
Hanna, S.R., 1982. Applications in air pollution modelling in
atmospheric turbulence. In: Nieuwstadt, F.T., van Dop, H.
(Eds.), Air Pollution Modelling. D. Reidel, Dordrecht,
pp. 275-310.
Hashem, A., Parkin, C.S., 1991. A simplified heavy particle
random-walk model for the prediction of drift from
agricultural sprays. Atmospheric Environment 25A (8),
1609-1614.
Ley, A., 1982. A random walk simulation of two-dimensional
turbulent diffusion in the neutral surface layer. Atmospheric
Environment 16 (12), 2799-2808.
Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T., Flannery, B.P.,
1992. Numerical Recipes; the Art of Scientific Computing.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 266-280.
Sawford, B.L., Guest, F.M., 1991. Lagrangian statistical simula-
tion of the turbulent motion of heavy particles. Boundary-
Layer Meteorology 54, 147-166.
Walkate, P.J., 1987. A random-walk model for dispersion of
heavy particles in turbulent air flow. Boundary-Layer
Meteorology 39, 175-190 and references therein.
Wilson, J.D., Legg, B.J., 1983. Calculation of particle trajectories
in the presence of a gradient in turbulent-velocity variance.
Boundary-Layer Meteorology 27, 163-169 and references
therein.
Winges, K.D., 1992. User's Guide for the Fugitive Dust Model.
Environmental Protection Agency Report, EPA-910/
9-88-202R.
Zannetti, P., 1990. Air Pollution Modelling; Theories, Computa-
tional Modelling and Available Software. Computational
Mechanics Publications, Southampton.