Field evaluation of digital optical method to quantify the visual opacity of plumes.
Visual Determination of the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources (Method 9) is a reference method established by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to quantify plume opacity. However, Method 9 relies on observations from humans, which introduces subjectivity. In addition, it is expensive to teach and certify personnel to evaluate plume opacity on a semiannual basis. In this study, field tests were completed during a "smoke school" and a 4-month monitoring program of plumes emitted from stationary sources with a Method 9 qualified observer to evaluate the use of digital photography and two computer algorithms as an alternative to Method 9. This Digital Optical Method (DOM) improves objectivity, costs less to implement than Method 9, and provides archival photographic records of the plumes. Results from "smoke school" tests indicate that DOM passed six of eight tests when the sun was located in the 140 degrees sector behind one of the three cameras, with the individual opacity errors of 15% or less and average opacity errors of 7.5% or less. DOM also passed seven of the eight tests when the sun was located in the 216 degrees sector behind another camera. However, DOM passed only one of the eight tests when the sun was located in the 116 degrees sector in front of the third camera. Certification to read plume opacity by a "smoke reader" for 6 months requires that the "smoke reader" pass one of the smoke school tests during smoke school. The average opacity errors and percentage of observations with individual opacity errors above 15% for the results obtained with DOM were lower than those obtained by the smoke school trainees with the sun was located behind the camera, whereas they were higher than the smoke school trainee results with the sun located in front of the camera. In addition, the difference between plume opacity values obtained by DOM and a Method 9 qualified observer, as measured in the field for two industrial sources, were 2.2%. These encouraging results demonstrate that DOM is able to meet Method 9 requirements under a wide variety of field conditions and, therefore, has potential to be used as an alternative to Method 9.
Du
Ke
K
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
Rood
Mark J
MJ
Kim
Byung J
BJ
Kemme
Michael R
MR
Franek
Bill J
BJ
Mattison
Kevin
K
Cook
Joan
J
D000397:Air Pollution / Q000032:analysis*; D000465:Algorithms; D004463:Ecology / Q000193:education; D004784:Environmental Monitoring / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; D052638:Particulate Matter / Q000032:analysis*; D010781:Photography; D014481:United States; D014484:United States Environmental Protection Agency
D052638:Particulate Matter