Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Modeling the Dispersion of Air Pollution Due to Volcanic Eruptions Sufitri, Yumita; Bachtiar, Vera Surtia; Putra, Alqadri Asri; Nugroho, Sugeng
International Journal of Disaster Management Vol 7, No 3 (2024)
Publisher : TDMRC, Universitas Syiah Kuala

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24815/ijdm.v7i3.40546

Abstract

The eruption of Mount Marapi has caused damage to agricultural land and the temporary closure of Minangkabau International Airport. Simulations were conducted using HYSPLIT to detect the initial direction of volcanic ash dispersion. The trajectory analysis from HYSPLIT indicated that the volcanic ash dispersion on December 3, 2023, and January 5, 2024, extended beyond 100 km, while on December 22, 2023, January 19, February 4, and February 23, 2024, the dispersion was less than 100 km. HYSPLIT models indicated that the ash dispersion was directed towards Minangkabau Airport during the closure period. As a result, HYSPLIT can be considered a suitable software for simulating volcanic ash dispersion. Concentration evaluations based on Government Regulation No. 22 of 2022 revealed that several areas exceeded the applicable air quality standards. Validation using data from the HIMAWARI satellite and NASA WorldView indicated similar dispersion direction patterns in the simulation results. However, the Mann-Whitney test revealed significant differences when comparing the concentration outputs from HYSPLIT to PM2.5 levels before and during the eruption, based on PM2.5 monitoring documents from GAW Kototabang. Recommended mitigation measures include prioritizing the volcanic ash hazard zone within a 0-10 km radius from the crater by restricting activities and planning evacuation routes and safe areas away from volcanic ash exposure.
AERMOD as an Alternative Approach for Estimating Traffic-Related Ambient Pollutant Dispersion in Areas Without Air Quality Monitoring Stations Ilmi, Gian Mustika; Bachtiar, Vera Surtia; Sufitri, Yumita; Silvia, Shinta; Afrianita, Reri
Indonesian Journal of Environmental Management and Sustainability Vol. 10 No. 1 (2026): March
Publisher : Magister Program of Material Science, Graduate School of Universitas Sriwijaya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26554/ijems.2026.10.1.1-16

Abstract

The dispersion of pollutants originating from traffic activities has become a major environmental issue in many developing countries. Emissions such as SO2 and CO present significant challenges for air quality management due to their serious health impacts. Air Quality Monitoring Systems (AQMS) are commonly used to measure pollutant concentrations; however, limited availability and spatial coverage necessitate alternative approaches such as dispersion modeling using AERMOD. This study aims to evaluate the performance of AERMOD as an alternative method for estimating SO2 and CO concentrations, particularly those associated with traffic-related emissions. The simulation results indicate a strong alignment between dominant wind direction and pollutant dispersion patterns over the seven-day modeling period. Concentration accuracy assessed through regression analysis and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) revealed positive correlations between AERMOD simulations and observational data for both SO2 and CO, with RMSE values of 21.86 µg/m3 for SO2 and 485.25 µg/m3 for CO. Overall, statistical evaluations demonstrate a high level of agreement for SO2 and a moderate level of agreement for CO. These findings underscore the significant potential of AERMOD as an alternative monitoring tool for estimating pollutant dispersion in areas lacking AQMS infrastructure, thereby supporting more effective air quality management and pollution control strategies. However, the model’s performance remains influenced by several limitations, including dependency on the quality of meteorological and emission input data, the assumption of steady-state atmospheric conditions, and greater prediction uncertainty for CO compared to SO2. These factors should be carefully considered when applying AERMOD in regions without ground-based monitoring stations.