Atmospheric Environment 140 (2016) 69e83

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Atmospheric Environment
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv

Factors inuencing separation distances against odour annoyance

calculated by Gaussian and Lagrangian dispersion models
Martin Piringer a, *, Werner Knauder a, Erwin Petz a, Gnther Schauberger b
a
b

Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics, Hohe Warte 38, A-1190, Vienna, Austria
rplatz 1, A-1210, Vienna, Austria
WG Environmental Health, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterina

h i g h l i g h t s

Austrian peak-to-mean algorithm is applied to a Gaussian and a Lagrangian model.

Atmospheric stability is deduced from ultrasonic anemometer measurements.

Site-specic peak-to-mean factors are compared and discussed.

Separation distances for two sites and with two models are compared and discussed.

The ndings are related to the Austrian odour impact criteria.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 25 February 2016
Received in revised form
25 May 2016
Accepted 27 May 2016
Available online 27 May 2016

Direction-dependent separation distances to avoid odour annoyance, calculated with the Gaussian
Austrian Odour Dispersion Model AODM and the Lagrangian particle diffusion model LASAT at two sites,
are analysed and compared. The relevant short-term peak odour concentrations are calculated with a
stability-dependent peak-to-mean algorithm. The same emission and meteorological data, but modelspecic atmospheric stability classes are used. The estimate of atmospheric stability is obtained from
three-axis ultrasonic anemometers using the standard deviations of the three wind components and the
Obukhov stability parameter. The results are demonstrated for the Austrian villages Reidling and
Weissbach with very different topographical surroundings and meteorological conditions. Both the
differences in the wind and stability regimes as well as the decrease of the peak-to-mean factors with
distance lead to deviations in the separation distances between the two sites. The Lagrangian model, due
to its model physics, generally calculates larger separation distances. For worst-case calculations
necessary with environmental impact assessment studies, the use of a Lagrangian model is therefore to
be preferred over that of a Gaussian model. The study and ndings relate to the Austrian odour impact
criteria.
2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords:
Odour
Stability class
Peak-to-mean factor
Separation distance
Ultrasonic anemometer

1. Introduction
Dispersion models usually calculate ambient concentrations
over an integration time of up to one hour. When applied to odour
pollution, a modication is needed to somehow account for the
ability of the human nose to perceive odour within a single breath;
in other words, a peak-to-mean concept is needed. Models modied in this way are then able to calculate separation distances for
so-called odour impact criteria, a combination of odour

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: martin.piringer@zamg.ac.at (M. Piringer).

concentration (mostly an odour threshold) and a pre-selected exceedence probability according to land use. An overview of various
national odour impact criteria can be found in Sommer-Quabach
et al. (2014).
Schauberger et al. (2012) demonstrate that the peak-to-mean
factor depends on several parameters, like stability of the atmosphere, intermittency, travel time or distance from the source.
There is a linear relationship between the peak-to-mean factor and
the squared uctuation intensity (Lung et al., 2002). The uctuation
intensity and thus the peak-to-mean factor decrease with travel
time and therefore distance from the source (Mylne, 1990). The
assumption of a constant peak-to-mean factor as in the German
guide line TA Luft (2002) can therefore only be used as a very rough

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.05.056
1352-2310/ 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
).

70

M. Piringer et al. / Atmospheric Environment 140 (2016) 69e83

estimate.
The Austrian concept to determine the short-term peak concentrations required for the assessment of odour perception is, in
its latest version, described in Piringer et al. (2014) and summarised
here in Section 2.1. To the knowledge of the authors, this is the only
approach where the peak-to-mean factors depend on atmospheric
stability; this algorithm is used in the Austrian Odour Dispersion
Model (AODM), the regulatory Austrian Gaussian model, and with
the German Lagrangian model LASAT (Piringer et al., 2015). The
coupling of the algorithm to LASAT was stimulated by the wider
range of applicability than a Gaussian model. Lagrangian models
are applied also in built-up areas or moderately orographic terrain.
An appropriate means to describe the effects of an odour source
on the surrounding residential area is the separation distance
intended to encompass the area within which odour might cause
annoyance. When a new odour source is planned, the calculation of
separation distances can help to avoid odour annoyance and
complaints. The direction-dependent separation distance divides
the area around a source in a zone which is protected from
annoyance and a zone closer than the separation distance where
annoyance can be expected. The protection level depends on the
land use category; the higher the protection level, the farther the
separation distance (Schauberger and Piringer, 2015).
In this study, separation distances are determined for Austrian
odour impact criteria allowing an exceedence of the odour
threshold by 3% (high level of protection) or 8% (lower level of
protection, see Section 3.3). The Austrian regulation is stricter than
the widespread one from the German odour regulation GIRL (2008)
which allows 10 or 15%, depending on the protection level. The
implications of the German regulation compared to the Austrian
one are briey discussed in Section 4. The separation distances
obtained by the algorithm explained in Section 2.1 depend on the
local meteorological conditions and on the peak-to-mean factors.
The focus here is on a detailed analysis of the separation distances between two sites with very different surroundings. At each
site, a one year time series of half-hourly meteorological data from
three-axis ultrasonic anemometers is available. They deliver not
only the necessary wind information, but also atmospheric stability
via only one parameter, namely the Obukhov length or its inverse,
the Obukhov stability parameter. Details will be given in Section
2.2. Moreover, the standard deviations of the three wind components are derived from the ultrasonic anemometer measurements
which are crucial for the decrease of peak-to-mean factors with
distance from the source.
The results are presented in Section 3. Sub-sections deal with
site-specic wind and stability information, the change of peak-tomean factors with distance, and the direction-dependent separation distances. This is followed by a discussion in Section 4,
analyzing and generalizing the ndings. Finally, Section 5 contains
concluding remarks and a brief summary.
2. Material and methods
2.1. The models and the peak-to-mean concept
A description of the dispersion models used here was already
given in Piringer et al. (2015); therefore, a brief outline is given here
to maintain the status of a stand-alone paper. The Austrian odour
dispersion model (AODM, Piringer et al., 2007, 2013; Schauberger
et al., 2000, 2013, 2002) estimates mean ambient concentrations

by the Austrian regulatory dispersion model (Osterreichisches

Normeninstitut, 1996; Kolb, 1981) and transforms these to instantaneous values depending on the stability of the atmosphere
(Section 2.2). The Gaussian model has been validated internationally with generally good results (Pechinger and Petz, 1995, 1997;

Baumann-Stanzer and Piringer, 2011; Piringer and BaumannStanzer, 2009). The model uses a traditional discrete stability
classication scheme with dispersion parameters developed by
Reuter (1970).
The dispersion model LASAT (Janicke Consulting, 2013) simulates the dispersion and the transport of a representative sample of
tracer particles utilizing a random walk process (Lagrangian
simulation). It computes the transport of passive trace substances
in the lower atmosphere (up to heights of about 2000 m) on a local
and regional scale (up to distances of about 150 km). LASAT is
usually run with the Klug-Manier stability scheme (TA Luft, 2002).
Like AODM, LASAT has been evaluated using test data sets for
different applications (e.g. Hirtl et al., 2007; Hirtl and BaumannStanzer, 2007; Baumann-Stanzer et al., 2008; Piringer and
Baumann-Stanzer, 2009; Schatzmann et al., 2010; BaumannStanzer et al., 2015). More references concerning LASAT model
evaluation can be found at www.janicke.de.
The peak-to-mean concept in the AODM, also explained in
Piringer et al. (2014), is based on a relationship by Smith (1973),
where the peak-to-mean factor j0 is given by:

j0

Cp

Cm

tm
tp

a
(1)

with the mean concentration Cm calculated for an integration time

of tm (1800 s) and the peak concentration Cp for an integration time
of tp (5 s). The exponent a depends on atmospheric stability
(Table 1). The maximum peak-to-mean factors j0 valid near the
odour source are given also in Table 1 for an approach used in a
Texas regulation (Beychock, 1994).
The approach results in relatively large values of j0. Following
Mylne (1992), it is assumed that, due to turbulent mixing, the peakto-mean factor is reduced with increasing distance from the source.
The resulting peak-to-mean factors are shown and discussed in
Section 3.2. Mylne and Mason (1991) analysed the uctuation of the
plume concentration and developed the following relationship:
The peak-to-mean factor in equation (1) is modied by an exponential attenuation function of T/tL, where T x/u is the time of
travel with the distance x and the mean wind speed u, and tL is a
measure of the Lagrangian time scale:

j 1 j0  1exp 0:7317

T
tL


(2)

where j0 is the peak-to-mean factor given in Table 1. The time scale

tL is taken to be equal to s2/ where s2 is the variance of the wind
speed taken as the mean of the three wind components u, v and w,
respectively:

s2


1 2
s s2v s2w
3 u

(3)

and is the rate of dissipation of turbulent energy using the

following approximation:

1  sw 3
kz 1:3

(4)

where k 0.4 is the von Karman constant and z 2 m is the height

of the receptor, the human nose.
2.2. Schemes to determine atmospheric stability
These schemes are presented in a similar way also in Piringer
et al. (2015); therefore, a shortened outline is provided here.
The estimate of atmospheric stability is obtained using the

M. Piringer et al. / Atmospheric Environment 140 (2016) 69e83

71

Table 1
Exponent a and maximum peak-to-mean factor (j0) depending on atmospheric stability (Beychock, 1994).
Stability class
2
3
4

V
IV

Very unstable
Unstable
Neutral
Neutral/day
Neutral/night
Slightly stable
Stable
Very stable

III/2
III/1
5
6
7

II
I

standard deviations of the three wind components and the Obukhov stability parameter (OSP, in m1), both from three-axis ultrasonic anemometer measurements. Depending on the stability
scheme, different limit values are used for the attribution of OSP to
a certain stability class. The transformation scheme of Golder
(1972) developed to relate OSP to Turner stability classes (the
Reuter (1970) scheme is very similar to these) is used here for
AODM (Table 2a); LASAT uses its own transformation scheme
(Table 2b) based on the German Klug-Manier (K-M) stability classes
(TA Luft, 2002). The scheme of Golder (1972) provides OSP class
limits and OSP calculation values for stability classes for roughness
lengths between 0.01 and 0.5 m, whereas the LASAT scheme shows
these values up to roughness lengths of 1.5 m. LASAT, in contrast to
AODM, can use explicit values of sonic-derived parameters, like the
OSP, as input instead of xed values for stability classes, as shown in
Table 2; this ability of LASAT was here taken into account. In this
way, also outliers in the range of very unstable or very stable stability classes are used.
In practice, within the Reuter (1970) scheme used with AODM,
stability classes 2 to 7 can occur in Central Europe. Stability classes 2

j0

0.68
0.55
0.43
0.43
0.30
0.30
0.18
0.18

54.74
25.47
12.57
12.57
5.85
5.85
2.88
2.88

and 3 occur during daytime in a well-mixed boundary layer, class 3

allowing also for cases of high wind velocity and moderate cloud
cover. Stability class 4 is representative for cloudy and/or windy
conditions including precipitation or fog and can occur day and
night. Stability classes 5 to 7 occur at night, static stability
increasing with class number.
Klug-Manier classes used with LASAT are numbered from I to V
and are classied according to atmospheric stability as follows:

Stability classes V and IV comprise very unstable and unstable
conditions, meaning good vertical mixing in the boundary layer.
They do not occur during night-time. Class V occurs only between May and September.

Stability classes III/2 and III/1 are classied as neutral. III/2 occurs predominantly at daytime, III/1 predominantly at nighttime and during sunrise and sunset. These classes are typical
for cloudy and/or windy conditions.

Stability classes II and I comprise stable and very stable conditions, mostly, but not exclusively at night. They occur with

Table 2
Scheme to transform the Obukhov stability parameter OSP [m1] to atmospheric stability classes depending on the local roughness length z0 [m] for the Gaussian model
(AODM) (a) and the Lagrangian model (LASAT) (b). For AODM, the Obukhov stability parameter OSP was transformed into discrete stability classes according to Golder (1972).
For LASAT, its own transformation scheme is used.
Stability class

Roughness length z0 [m]

Reuter

0.01

0.02

0.05

0.10

0.20

0.50

0.080
0.059
0.040
0.020
0.012
0.006
0.000
0.025
0.045
0.066
0.085

0.070
0.050
0.030
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080

0.055
0.039
0.025
0.012
0.008
0.005
0.000
0.016
0.030
0.050
0.070

0.050
0.033
0.020
0.010
0.007
0.004
0.000
0.012
0.025
0.040
0.060

0.045
0.028
0.017
0.008
0.006
0.003
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.050

0.040
0.025
0.015
0.006
0.005
0.002
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.040

a) AODM
7
6
5
4
3
2

Very stable
Class limit
Stable
Class limit
Slightly stable
Class limit
Neutral
Class limit
Unstable
Class limit
Very unstable

Stability class

Roughness length z0 [m]

Klug-Manier

0.01

0.02

0.05

0.10

0.20

0.50

1.00

1.50

0.175
0.122
0.049
0.024
0.000
0.017
0.041
0.061
0.082
0.122
0.175

0.124
0.087
0.035
0.017
0.000
0.012
0.029
0.043
0.058
0.087
0.124

0.078
0.055
0.022
0.011
0.000
0.008
0.018
0.027
0.037
0.055
0.078

0.055
0.039
0.015
0.008
0.000
0.006
0.013
0.019
0.026
0.039
0.055

0.039
0.027
0.011
0.005
0.000
0.004
0.009
0.014
0.018
0.027
0.039

0.025
0.017
0.007
0.003
0.000
0.002
0.006
0.009
0.012
0.017
0.025

0.017
0.012
0.005
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.012
0.017

0.014
0.010
0.004
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.003
0.005
0.007
0.010
0.014

b) LASAT
I
II
III/1
III/2
IV
V

Very stable
Class limit
Stable
Class limit
Neutral/night
Class limit
Neutral/day
Class limit
Unstable
Class limit
Very unstable

72

M. Piringer et al. / Atmospheric Environment 140 (2016) 69e83

reduced vertical mixing; horizontal transport over long distances is possible.

2.3. Description of sites and emissions

The investigation has been carried out at two very different sites
(Fig. 1) where a one year continuous data set of ultrasonic
anemometer measurements is available. One is Reidling, west of
Vienna near Tulln. The site is located at 15.828 E and 48.328 N at
193 m asl. It is within at terrain, mainly farmland. Weissbach near
Lofer (12.789 E, 47.498 N, at 678 m asl.) is situated in the Saalach
valley in the county of Salzburg which at the site stretches from SE
to NW. The valley with approx. only 1 km in width is relatively
narrow, anked by steep slopes with heights of several hundred
meters.
For all model runs, the same source data are used (Table 3 and
Piringer et al., 2015). These data are typical for a pig fattening unit
with about 750 animals with a mean life mass of 70 kg. The source
is assumed non-buoyant, i.e. the effective stack height is equal to
the physical stack height. Thus, possible differences between the
two models to treat buoyant plumes and their effect on the
dispersion do not show up in the results. For the AODM and LASAT
runs the same emissions and the same meteorological input data
are used. Possible building downwash as well as topography are not
considered; both phenomena cannot be adequately taken into account by a Gaussian model. At the valley site, the largest separation
distances occur along the valley axis, where the assumption of at
terrain is a good approximation. In addition, in this way the parameters possibly inuencing the comparison of model results can
be kept to a minimum. The resulting separation distances at one
site will still deviate from each other because of the different model
physics and the stability schemes used with the models resulting in
different frequencies of stability classes and different peak-to-mean
attenuation curves.

Table 3
Source data for dispersion calculations.
Stack height
Stack diameter
Outlet air velocity
Volume ow rate
Temperature
Odour emission rate

[m]
[m]
[ms1]
[m3h1]
[ C]
[ouEs1]

8.0
2.7
3.0
60,000
20
5200

3. Results
3.1. Site-specic wind and stability
Reidling can experience high wind speeds, mainly from Westsouthwest, often associated with frontal of systems and storms
(Fig. 2a). Secondary maxima of wind directions are from Northwest
and Southeast, the latter associated with anticyclonic conditions.
Southerly ow at Reidling shows a pronounced minimum, caused
by shadowing from nearby hills with a relative height of over
100 m.
Due to the topographical situation at Weissbach, the wind is
channelled along the valley axis. Up-valley ow is from NW, downvalley ow from SE (Fig. 2b). The down-valley ow from SE shows a
larger fraction of weaker winds, but also slightly more stronger
winds than the up-valley ow. The strong southerly winds might
also be associated with Foehn events.
The frequency of stability classes is at both sites determined
from the OSP with a roughness length of 0.05 m in Reidling and
0.5 m in Weissbach derived from on-site wind measurements
following Beljaars (1987), cit. in Kobmann and Namyslo (2007).
Neutral conditions are most abundant at Reidling (Fig. 3a), class 4
(AODM) and class III/1 (LASAT) showing frequencies of 45% each.
This is due to the high wind speeds and/or cloudy conditions. The
large differences for classes 4 and 5 compared to III/2 and III/1 is
due to the different stability concepts of the Reuter and Klug-

Fig. 1. Map of Austria indicating the sites of investigation.

M. Piringer et al. / Atmospheric Environment 140 (2016) 69e83

Fig. 2. Wind roses at a) Reidling (01.08.2012e31.07.2013) and b) Weissbach (01.09.2010e31.08.2011); colour coding denotes wind speed.

73

74

M. Piringer et al. / Atmospheric Environment 140 (2016) 69e83

Manier schemes. The differences are also an effect of the different

limit values to attribute OSP to atmospheric stability (see Table 2):
With a roughness length of 0.05 m, instability starts at a much
lower negative value, strong stability at a much lower positive value
with the AODM compared to the LASAT scheme. Neutral conditions
are more frequent with the LASAT scheme because of the much
larger window for classes III/1 and III/2 compared to the AODM
scheme for class 4. Reuters class 5 has no appropriate counterpart
in the LASAT scheme.
From Fig. 3b, the frequency distribution is roughly 30:30:40 for
unstable-neutral-stable conditions at Weissbach, especially for the
AODM scheme. The LASAT scheme calculates slightly more stable
and less unstable conditions. For a roughness length of 0.5 m, the
differences in the limit values to attribute OSP to atmospheric
stability are far less pronounced than for a roughness length of
0.05 m (see Table 2), reducing the differences between the two
schemes to determine atmospheric stability.
To facilitate the understanding of results presented in Section
3.3, it is worthwhile to look also on the distribution of the stability
classes to the 10 wind direction sectors (Fig. 4). In Reidling (Fig. 4a
and b), classes 4 or III/1 dominate, especially for wind from Westsouthwest which frequently comes with enhanced wind speeds
and/or cloudy conditions. For the mostly anticyclonic northeasterly to south-easterly winds, in contrast, the frequency of unstable classes can amount to 50% per wind direction class. Stable
conditions occur mainly with winds from WSW to WNW. There are
only small differences between the AODM (Fig. 4a) and the LASAT
(Fig. 4b) schemes.
For Weissbach (Fig. 4c and d), the result obtained is at rst
glance surprising. In both stability schemes, the down-valley ow
from South-East shows more unstable and less stable situations
than the up-valley ow from North-West. First, a strict separation
in unstable up-valley and stable down-valley ow cannot be expected as fair-weather days comprise only about one third of a year.

Fig. 3. Relative frequency [%] of stability classes at Reidling and Weissbach (details see
text).

Second, the measurement site near the western slopes in this

narrow valley apparently undergoes complex shadowing conditions, with comparatively early sunrise and early sunset compared
to a central valley site. So sunshine might well reach the site when
down-valley ow is still present, and the OSP will soon react to the
positive sensible heat ux caused by the warming sun. In the afternoon, the opposite occurs, up-valley ow still lling the valley
while the measurement site is already shaded, causing a negative
sensible heat ux leading to a stable OSP.
3.2. Change of peak-to-mean factors with distance
Due to turbulent mixing, the peak-to-mean factor is reduced
with increasing distance from the source. An exponential attenuation function (Mylne and Mason, 1991; Mylne, 1992) is used as
described in Section 2.1. That is where the standard deviations of
the three wind components come into focus. The ratios of the
standard deviations of the three wind components to the horizontal wind velocity derived from ultrasonic anemometer measurements at Reidling in Eastern Austria for a roughness length of
0.05 m and at Weissbach in the Saalach valley for a roughness
length of 0.5 m are shown in Table 4. With AODM, the class limits
from Table 2a are used, delivering the values in Table 4a; with
LASAT, the class limits from Table 2b are used to obtain the values in
Table 4b.
The ratios at Reidling show a dependence on stability and
especially large values for unstable conditions. The ratios at
Weissbach show a much weaker dependence on stability, but
considerably larger values than at Reidling. with the exception of
sw/u for classes 2 and V (unstable conditions).
From our understanding of turbulence, the standard deviations
of the wind components depend on both wind speed and stability
(increase with wind speed and decrease with stability). Due to high
wind speeds in neutral conditions, the standard deviations
(Table 5) are largest here at both sites. Whereas at the atland site
Reidling the standard deviations for stable are clearly lower than
for unstable conditions, at Weissbach they are almost equal or, in
the case of the LASAT scheme, even larger in stable conditions. The
differences between Reidling and Weissbach are thus most pronounced in stable conditions, for both schemes.
The standard deviations of the wind components should likely
increase with wind speed; from Fig. 5a, this is the case at the atland site Reidling. su and sv increase more rapidly than sw with
wind speed, su reaching values of almost 3 m s1 for higher wind
speeds, but with considerable scatter. The increase of sw with wind
speed is more gradual, but shows less scatter. sw generally remains
below 1.5 m s1 at Reidling. Fig. 5b reveals that wind speeds at
Weissbach are limited with approx. 7 m s1. In this wind speed
range, standard deviations are higher than at Reidling. The ow at
Weissbach is thus more turbulent, but shows by far lower wind
speeds than at Reidling.
The resulting peak-to-mean factors are displayed in Fig. 6 for
Reidling and in Fig. 7 for Weissbach. Peak-to-mean factors for distances larger than 100 m are primarily considered here. At shorter
distances the implicit assumption in Gaussian plume models that
the longitudinal diffusion is negligible compared to the lateral and
vertical diffusion is less and less valid. In Figs. 6 and 7, this distance
is marked by a thin vertical line.
A comparison of the peak-to-mean curves in Figs. 6 and 7 reveals differences between sites. At Reidling (Fig. 6), all peak-tomean curves approach the value of 1 within 300 m downwind of
the source. Using AODM (Fig. 6a), classes 3 and 4 show the highest
peak-to-mean factors between 100 and 150 m, followed by relatively equal peak-to-mean factors for stability classes 5 to 7; all
peak-to-mean factors beyond 100 m are signicantly lower than 2.

M. Piringer et al. / Atmospheric Environment 140 (2016) 69e83

75

Fig. 4. Dependence of stability classes on wind direction at a) Reidling (AODM), b) Reidling (LASAT), c) Weissbach (AODM) and d) Weissbach (LASAT).

Using LASAT (Fig. 6b), class III/2 is most important until about
120 m, followed by the stable classes II and I.
At Weissbach (Fig. 7), the decrease of the peak-to-mean factors
with distance is more pronounced than at Reidling. Unstable classes are most relevant here, for both models, starting with a value of
2 at 100 m distance and approaching 1 at about 200 m.
The differences in the peak-to-mean curves at Reidling and
Weissbach can be explained by a closer look on their dependence
on the standard deviations divided by the wind speed. In Fig. 8,
either su/u and sv/u are xed, and sw/u varies (left panel), or vice
versa (right panel). Fig. 8a shows a strong decrease of the peak-tomean factors with increasing sw/u values, Fig. 8b a somewhat
smaller increase with increasing su/u and sv/u values. The curves in
Fig. 8 are valid for neutral conditions, but a similar behaviour is
found for all stability classes. As sw/u at Reidling, with the exception
of very unstable conditions, is much lower than at Weissbach
(Table 4), the slower decrease of the peak-to-mean factors at Reidling for neutral and stable conditions (Figs. 6 and 7) can be
explained by the tendency shown in Fig. 8a. Really large differences

between Reidling and Weissbach are found for the unstable classes
2 and V (Figs. 6 and 7), with higher peak-to-mean factors at
Weissbach. These differences result from a combination of
considerably larger su/u and sv/u and a bit smaller sw/u values at
Weissbach compared to Reidling (Table 4).

3.3. Direction-dependent separation distances

Direction-dependent separation distances are calculated for two
odour impact criteria used in Austria: 1 ouE/m3 and 3% exceedence
probability, representative for recreation areas (high odour protection), 1 ouE/m3 and 8% exceedence probability, representative for
residential areas mixed with commercial activity (lower odour
protection). Following Piringer et al. (2015), the separation distances are shown as isolines in the coming gures, encompassing
the area of exceedence of the given thresholds. The larger the area,
the more unfavourable is the odour impact criterion. In each of the
gures showing the separation distances, AODM results (left) are
compared to LASAT results (right) for the same scenario.

76

M. Piringer et al. / Atmospheric Environment 140 (2016) 69e83

Table 4
Ratios of the standard deviations of the three wind components su, sv and sw to the horizontal wind velocity u depending on the stability of the atmosphere at Reidling (R) and
Weissbach (W), derived from three-axis ultrasonic anemometer measurements via OSP.
Stability class

su/u

Reuter

sv/u
W

sw/u
W

0.41
0.33
0.25
0.22
0.25
0.24

0.54
0.52
0.47
0.52
0.54
0.51

0.42
0.32
0.20
0.20
0.23
0.23

0.53
0.49
0.47
0.49
0.50
0.48

0.28
0.19
0.14
0.12
0.13
0.12

0.26
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.23

a) AODM
2
3
4
5
6
7

Very unstable
Unstable
Neutral
Slightly stable
Stable
Very stable

Stability class

su/u

K-M

sv/u
W

sw/u
R

0.41
0.35
0.28
0.24
0.25
0.23

0.54
0.53
0.52
0.47
0.53
0.51

0.42
0.35
0.27
0.20
0.23
0.23

0.54
0.50
0.48
0.47
0.49
0.49

0.29
0.21
0.16
0.13
0.13
0.11

0.27
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.26
0.23

b) LASAT
V
IV
III/2
III/1
II
I

Very unstable
Unstable
Neutral/day
Neutral/night
Stable
Very stable

Table 5
Standard deviations of the three wind components su, sv and sw depending on the stability of the atmosphere at Reidling (R) and Weissbach (W), derived from three-axis
ultrasonic anemometer measurements via OSP.
Stability class

su [cm s1]

sv [cm s1]

sw [cm s1]

Reuter

43
57
102
58
38
27

45
72
102
82
67
49

44
56
82
49
34
26

43
65
105
78
60
44

28
33
57
32
20
14

23
34
54
41
33
23

a) AODM
2
3
4
5
6
7

Very unstable
Unstable
Neutral
Slightly stable
Stable
Very stable

Stability class

su [cm s1]

sv [cm s1]

sw [cm s1]

K-M

43
54
69
99
37
26

44
66
83
104
73
52

43
54
64
79
34
25

42
60
79
108
67
47

28
32
39
56
19
13

22
31
42
56
36
25

b) LASAT
V
IV
III/2
III/1
II
I

Very unstable
Unstable
Neutral/day
Neutral/night
Stable
Very stable

Separation distances for Reidling using on-site ultrasonic

anemometer data to determine local ow conditions (Fig. 2) and
atmospheric stability (Fig. 3) are displayed in Fig. 9 using the peakto-mean factors in Fig. 6 and in Fig. 10 without using the peak-tomean concept (overall peak-to-mean factor 1). Using AODM,
maximum separation distances for an exceedence probability of 3%
are about 400 m towards E, but less than 150 m towards W; with
8%, these distances are about 180 and 80 m, respectively (Fig. 9,
left). The calculation with LASAT leads to a further increase of
separation distances for an exceedence probability of 3% by at least
100 m (Fig. 8, right) compared to AODM. For 8%, however, there is
only a slight increase towards W to about 120 m, but a considerable
increase to 300 m towards E, compared to the AODM results.
The results without peak-to-mean concept in Fig. 10 are shown
to document the relevance of the peak-to-mean factors for the site
of Reidling. The comparison between Figs. 10 and 9 reveals that,
without peak-to-mean algorithm, the areas of exceedences of 3 and
8% are reduced, for both models. For AODM (Fig. 10 left), this is

more pronounced for an exceedence probability of 8%. For LASAT

(Fig. 10 right), maximum separation distances towards W are
reduced by about 50 m, but towards E, only the area of exceedences
is slightly reduced.
At Weissbach, using AODM, maximum separation distances for
an exceedance probability of 3% are about 600 m towards NW and
about 500 m towards SE; with 8%, these distances are about 300 m
in both directions (Fig. 11, left). The calculation with LASAT leads
again to an increase of separation distances for an exceedance
probability of 3% (Fig. 11, right) compared to AODM. For 8%, however, maximum separation distances calculated with LASAT only
slightly increase to about 400 m in both directions, compared to the
AODM results. The area of exceedances is generally larger for LASAT
than for AODM.
The comparison without using a peak-to-mean concept at
Weissbach shows only small changes (compare Fig. 12 to Fig. 11).
The maximum separation distances are not affected, but near the
source, the area of exceedences is reduced, for both models.

M. Piringer et al. / Atmospheric Environment 140 (2016) 69e83

Fig. 5. Dependence of the standard deviations su, sv and sw on wind speed at a) Reidling and b) Weissbach.

77

78

M. Piringer et al. / Atmospheric Environment 140 (2016) 69e83

Fig. 6. Peak-to-mean factors at Reidling derived from ultrasonic anemometer data (OSP) using the conversion to stability classes according to Table 2a for AODM (left) and Table 2b
for LASAT (right).

Fig. 7. Peak-to-mean factors at Weissbach derived from ultrasonic anemometer data (OSP) using the conversion to stability classes according to Table 2a for AODM (left) and
Table 2b for LASAT (right).

4. Discussion
In this Section, the ndings discussed relate to the Austrian
impact criteria unless stated otherwise. This investigation revealed
considerable differences in separation distances between the chosen sites and also systematic differences between the two models
used. Looking rst on the differences caused by the sites, these are
certainly due to the different meteorological conditions, in the rst
place. We selected two topographically very different sites, a atland and a narrow valley site, for the calculation of separation
distances (Fig. 1 and Section 2.3). Reidling in the atlands near
Vienna can experience high wind speeds, especially with winds

from WSW to W (Fig. 2a); half-hour average wind speeds up to

14 ms1 are observed (Fig. 5a). In contrast, wind speeds of up to
only 7 ms1 occur at Weissbach in the Saalach valley, where the
ow is strongly channelled along the valley axis (Fig. 2b). The
standard deviations of the three wind components are a key
parameter in the peak-to-mean algorithm used, especially when
determining the decrease of the peak-to-mean factors with distance (Section 2.1). These standard deviations are larger at Weissbach than at Reidling (Fig. 5), when equal wind speeds are taken
into account. This means that the near-surface atmosphere,
apparently due to the topographical conditions, is much more
turbulent at Weissbach than at Reidling. This is also seen from a

M. Piringer et al. / Atmospheric Environment 140 (2016) 69e83

79

Fig. 8. Dependence of the peak-to-mean factor for neutral conditions on selected values of a) sw/u (su/u and sv/u are set to 0.50) and b) su/u and sv/u (sw/u is set to 0.20).

Fig. 9. Direction-dependent separation distances [m] with (left) AODM and (right) LASAT for 1 ouE/m3 and 3% (blue) and 8% (orange) exceedence probability with peak-to-mean
factors derived from ultrasonic anemometer measurements at Reidling, stability classes determined from Table 2a for AODM and from Table 2b for LASAT.

look at Table 4 where the comparison between Reidling and

Weissbach reveals larger s/u values at the latter, especially for
neutral and stable conditions. The overall effect on the peak-tomean factors is a more rapid decrease with distance at Weissbach
compared to Reidling, mainly due to the much larger sw/u values at
Weissbach for neutral and stable conditions. From Fig. 8, a strong
decrease of the peak-to-mean factors with increasing sw/u values
and a moderate increase with increasing su/u and sv/u values is
observed.
Another important meteorological parameter for the calculation
of separation distances is atmospheric stability which is also

entirely different between the two sites. Atmospheric stability is

here determined from three-axis ultrasonic anemometer measurements via the Obukhov stability parameter (Section 2.2). When
transformed into stability classes, the local roughness length is also
considered, and the stability schemes associated with the models
(the Reuter (1970) scheme with AODM, the Klug-Manier scheme
(TA-Luft, 2002) with LASAT) use different class widths and limits
for this transformation (Table 2). The distribution of stability classes
is different between the schemes as well as between the sites
(Fig. 3). The schemes are only partly comparable in their denition
of stability classes (Section 2.2), especially for neutral conditions:

80

M. Piringer et al. / Atmospheric Environment 140 (2016) 69e83

Fig. 10. Direction-dependent separation distances [m] with (left) AODM and (right) LASAT for 1 ouE/m3 and 3% (blue) and 8% (orange) exceedence probability with peak-to-mean
factor 1 at Reidling, stability classes determined from Table 2a for AODM and from Table 2b for LASAT.

Fig. 11. Direction-dependent separation distances [m] with (left) AODM and (right) LASAT for 1 ouE/m3 and 3% (blue) and 8% (orange) exceedence probability with peak-to-mean
factors derived from ultrasonic anemometer measurements at Weissbach, stability classes determined from Table 2a for AODM and from Table 2b for LASAT.

stability class 4 in the Reuter scheme can occur day and night,
whereas in the Klug-Manier scheme, class III/1 occurs predominantly at night, class III/2 predominantly at daytime; class 5 in the
Reuter scheme has no counterpart in the Klug-Manier scheme. At
Reidling, neutral conditions dominate in both schemes, comprising
45% (class 4 in the Reuter (1970) scheme) and 55% (classes III/2 and
III/1 in the Klug-Manier scheme) due to the high wind speeds
frequently observed here, whereas unstable conditions are least
frequent (Fig. 3a). At Weissbach, the distribution of stability classes
between unstable e neutral e stable is roughly 30:30:40 (Fig. 3b)

which is an effect of the low wind speeds here favouring the

occurrence of daytime unstable and night-time stable conditions.
This is also apparent from the dependence of stability classes on
wind directions (Fig. 4): at Reidling, neutral conditions dominate
especially for the high-speed westerly to south-westerly winds,
whereas with south-easterly winds occurring preferred during
anti-cyclonic conditions, all stability classes occur with similar
frequencies, especially for the Klug-Manier scheme (Fig. 4a). At
Weissbach, in both stability schemes, the down-valley ow from
South-East shows more unstable and less stable situations than the

M. Piringer et al. / Atmospheric Environment 140 (2016) 69e83

81

Fig. 12. Direction-dependent separation distances [m] with (left) AODM and (right) LASAT for 1 ouE/m3 and 3% (blue) and 8% (orange) exceedence probability with peak-to-mean
factor 1 at Weissbach, stability classes determined from Table 2a for AODM and from Table 2b for LASAT.

up-valley ow from North-West (Fig. 4b). This is mainly attributed

to complex shadowing conditions at the measurement site on the
west side of the valley oor, with comparatively early sunrise and
early sunset compared to a central valley site, decoupling the sign
of the sensible heat ux and the valley ow directions (see Section
3.1).
Atmospheric stability exerts an inuence on the separation
distances. As the peak-to-mean factors are stability-dependent, a
separate curve is obtained for each stability class for their decrease
with distance (Figs. 6 and 7). With the exception of very unstable
conditions, the differences between Reidling and Weissbach are not
very pronounced, despite the considerable differences in wind and
stability conditions. For classes 2 and V, the differences in the peakto-mean curves result from a combination of considerably larger su/
u and sv/u and a bit smaller sw/u values at Weissbach compared to
Reidling (Table 4). At Reidling, with AODM (Fig. 6a), classes 3 and 4
show the highest peak-to-mean factors between 100 and 150 m,
followed by relatively equal peak-to-mean factors for stability
classes 5e 7; all peak-to-mean factors beyond 100 m are signicantly lower than 2, and the value of 1 is reached at 300 m in all
conditions. Using LASAT (Fig. 6b), class III/2 is most important until
about 120 m, followed by classes II and I. At Weissbach, all peak-tomean curves approach the value of 1 within 200 m downwind of
the source (Fig. 7). Unstable classes are most relevant here, for both
models. Beyond 200 m, peak-to-mean factors do not inuence the
separation distances at Weissbach.
Reidling, compared to Weissbach, is thus characterized by
higher wind speeds, lower turbulence and somewhat larger peakto-mean factors up to 300 m. The question then arises why the
separation distances at Weissbach are mostly larger than at Reidling (Figs. 9 and 11).
The solution to this problem is seen in the distribution of stability classes to the wind direction sectors (Fig. 4). The along-valley
wind directions at Weissbach are often associated with stable
conditions, whereas the main wind direction sector at Reidling is
mainly combined with neutral atmospheric stability. The channelling of the ow in combination with frequent stable conditions
causes higher odour concentrations and leads to the enhanced

separation distances at Weissbach. This enhanced frequency

apparently compensates for the peak-to-mean factors which are
not relevant at Weissbach for large separation distances. At Reidling, separation distances to the east of the source are with more
than 500 m for an exceedence probability of 3% comparable to
those at Weissbach along the valley. The combination of a high
occurrence of wind directions and frequent neutral conditions is
also prone for large separation distances.
As the peak-to-mean factors reach the value of 1 approx.
200e300 m downwind of a source at both sites investigated, the
question about their importance for the calculation of separation
distances arises. For this purpose, the calculations have been
repeated for an overall peak-to-mean factor of 1, i.e. no peak-tomean concept is applied. The results are displayed in Fig. 10 for
Reidling and in Fig. 12 for Weissbach. At Reidling, without peak-tomean algorithm, the areas of exceedences of 3 and 8% are reduced,
for both models. For AODM (Fig. 10 left), this is more pronounced
for an exceedence probability of 8%. For LASAT (Fig. 10 right),
maximum separation distances towards W are reduced by about
50 m, but towards E, only the area of exceedences is slightly
reduced. At Weissbach (compare Figs. 12 to 11), the maximum
separation distances are not affected, but near the source, the area
of exceedences is reduced, for both models. For livestock farms with
low stacks and moderately warm outlet air temperatures as well as
neighbours in the immediate vicinity, the reduction of separation
distances in the near eld can be of utmost importance. This
decrease becomes more relevant with higher exceedence probabilities e.g. valid in Germany (see Section 1). The German odour
regulation GIRL (2008) allows exceedences of 10 or 15%, but in
combination with an odour threshold of 0.25 ouE/m3. SommerQuabach et al. (2014) state that the high threshold/low exceedence probability odour impact criteria (like in Austria) and the low
threshold/high exceedence probability odour impact criteria (like
in Germany) tend to deliver similar separation distances. A low
odour concentration threshold means that even very sensitive
humans which perceive odour by this low stimulus are taken into
account. For low exceedence probabilities, only few distinct meteorological situations will contribute to the separation distance.

82

M. Piringer et al. / Atmospheric Environment 140 (2016) 69e83

Piringer et al. (2015) investigated a site in the East-Austrian

atlands near Bratislava called Kittsee, where the combination of
high wind speeds and frequent neutral conditions leads to
extremely low sw/u values causing a more gradual decrease of
peak-to-mean factors with distance; the value of 1 is reached, under all meteorological conditions, 1 km downwind of a source.
Nevertheless, separation distances at Kittsee are lower than e.g. at
Weissbach. As stated before, the enhanced frequency of the combination valley wind e stable conditions at a valley site like
Weissbach apparently compensates for the peak-to-mean factors
which are not relevant for large separation distances. The separation distances are thus a result of a complex interaction of wind
conditions, stability classes, and attenuation curves, so that they
cannot be judged from e.g. looking at the s/u factors alone. This
underlines the importance of local meteorological measurements,
best undertaken via three-axis ultrasonic anemometers.
As already discussed in Piringer et al. (2015), a reason for
generally larger separation distances with LASAT compared to
AODM is probably due to the different model physics: whereas
AODM, a Gaussian model, produces a stationary concentration eld
for a half-hour time step, LASAT calculates concentrations as long as
the trajectories stay within the model domain, thus likely
increasing residence times and also separation distances. Because
of this more realistic assumption we conclude that, even in at
terrain, the use of a Lagrangian model is to be preferred over a
Gaussian model. For applications like the calculation of concentration elds and separation distances as well as the possible exceedence of limit values, the use of a Lagrangian model will better
guarantee to be on the safe side of the calculations, a necessary
prerequisite for pollution impact assessments. Within a recently
nished EU-COST program (Baumann-Stanzer et al., 2015), a model
evaluation study within an idealized city was carried out, revealing
that, in such a complex environment, CFD models perform best,
followed by Lagrangian models; Gaussian models show on average
the largest scatter. Another advantage of using a model like LASAT
in favour of a Gaussian model like AODM is the direct use of sonicderived parameters, like the OSP, instead of stability classes, as
shown in Table 2. In this way, also outliers in the range of very
unstable or very stable stability classes are used, and this leads also
to slightly increased separation distances.
5. Conclusions
The main emphasis of this paper was on a comparison of
direction-dependent separation distances derived for Austrian
odour impact criteria to avoid odour annoyance at two sites,
calculated with two models, the Gaussian Austrian Odour Dispersion Model AODM and the Lagrangian particle diffusion model
LASAT. Short-term peak odour concentrations have been calculated
with a stability-dependent peak-to-mean algorithm (Section 2.1).
In addition, separation distances have also been calculated with an
overall peak-to-mean factor of 1, i.e. without peak-to-mean algorithm, to investigate the importance of the latter. The same emission (Table 3) and meteorological data have been used for both
models. The estimate of atmospheric stability is obtained from
three-axis ultrasonic anemometers using the standard deviations
of the three wind components and the Obukhov stability parameter. The results are demonstrated at the Austrian villages Reidling
and Weissbach (Fig. 1) which are very different with respect to their
topographical surroundings (Section 2.3) and thus the resulting onsite meteorological conditions (Section 3.1). The causes for the
differences in separation distances between the two sites were
analysed in detail.
The shape of the contour lines of separation distances is primarily determined by the distribution of wind directions; the

elongation in the main wind directions is in addition caused by

wind speed (in Reidling) and the frequency distribution of stability
classes with wind direction (in Weissbach); see Figs. 9 and 11.
Weissbach is a very specic site as its situation in the narrow
Saalach valley leads to a strong channelling of the ow and the
development of a valley wind system. Both contribute to higher
odour concentrations and thus extended separation distances
along the valley axis despite to the lower wind speeds (Figs. 2 and
5) and the smaller peak-to-mean factors with the exception of
classes 2 and V (Figs. 6 and 7) compared to Reidling. The combination of a channelled ow with an enhanced occurrence of stable
conditions leads to larger separation distances than larger peak-tomean factors. The latter are most inuenced by sw/u; an increase in
sw/u leads to a pronounced decrease in peak-to-mean factors,
whereas an increase in su/u and sv/u leads only to their moderate
increase (Fig. 8). Atmospheric stability in combination with
frequent wind directions can be very important for large separation
distances, outweighing the values of the peak-to-mean factors. This
is underlined by the calculation of separation distances without
peak-to-mean factors which leads to an only modest reduction of
separation distances. In the vicinity of livestock farms, even slight
reductions can become important, and they will increase with
higher exceedence probabilities, often valid in agricultural areas, as
discussed in Section 4. This underlines the importance of the peakto-mean concept for odour impact analyses.
From a comparison of separation distances at other sites across
Austria conducted by our group (not shown here) we can conclude
that the separation distances are a result of a complex interaction of
wind conditions, stability classes, and attenuation curves. The latter
seem to play a more important role when turbulence levels are low,
like at very windy sites in the atlands or in Alpine basins. LASAT
calculates larger separation distances than AODM, at all sites. This is
attributed to the fact that the Klug-Manier scheme used with LASAT
shows a tendency to deliver more stable cases than the Reuter
scheme used with AODM. Probably more important, LASAT, in
contrast to the stationary concentration elds of AODM, calculates
concentrations as long as the trajectories stay within the model
domain, thus likely increasing residence times and also separation
distances. In addition, LASAT enables the direct use of sonic-derived
parameters, like the Obukhov stability parameter, instead of stability classes, which also slightly increases separation distances.
These features of Lagrangian models lead us to conclude that the
use of a Lagrangian model is to be preferred over a Gaussian model.
This conclusion is also supported by recent model evaluation case
studies (Baumann-Stanzer et al., 2015) which conrm the better
performance of Lagrangian over Gaussian models in a complex
environment.
Acknowledgment
This study has been funded by the Austrian Ministry of Science
and Research in the course of development grants to ZAMG for the
years 2011 and 2013.
References
Baumann-Stanzer, K., Piringer, M., 2011. Validation of regulatory micro-scale air
quality models: modelling odour dispersion and built-up areas. World Rev. Sci.
Technol. Sust. Dev. 8, 203e213.
Baumann-Stanzer, K., Piringer, M., Polreich, E., Hirtl, M., Petz, E., Bgelmayer, M.,
2008. User experience with model validation exercises. In: Croatian Meteorological Journal, the 12th International Conference on Harmonization within
Atmospheric Dispersion Meodelling for Regulatory Purposes, HARMO 12, Part
1: Oral Sessions, 6-10 October 2008, Cavtat, Croatia, pp. 52e56.
Baumann-Stanzer, K., Andronopoulos, S., Armand, P., Berbekar, E., Efthimiou, G.,
Fuka, V., Gariazzo, C., Gasparac, G., Harms, F., Hellsten, A., Jurcacova, K.,
Petrov, A., Rakai, A., Stenzel, S., Tavares, R., Tinarelli, G., Trini Castelli, S., 2015.

M. Piringer et al. / Atmospheric Environment 140 (2016) 69e83

COST ES1006 Model Evaluation Case Studies: Approach and Results. COST-ofce
Brussels. distributed by University of Hamburg, p. 110. ISBN 987-3-9817334-26.
Beljaars, A.C.M., 1987. The Measurement of Gustiness at Routine Wind Stations e a
Review. Scientic report WR 87-11. KNMI, p. 50. ISSN 0169-1651.
Beychock, M.R., 1994. Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion. M. R. Beychock,
Newport Beach, CA 92660, USA.
Golder, D., 1972. Relations among stability parameters in the surface layer. Bound.
Lay. Meteorol. 3, 47e58.
Hirtl, M., Baumann-Stanzer, K., 2007. Evaluation of two dispersion models (ADMSRoads and LASAT) applied to street canyons in Stockholm, London and Berlin.
Atmos. Environ. 41, 5959e5971.
Hirtl, M., Baumann-Stanzer, K., Kaiser, A., Petz, E., Rau, G., 2007. Evaluation of three
dispersion models for the Trbovlje power plant, Slovenia. In: Carruthers, D.J.,
McHugh, C.A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Harmonisation within Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes;
Held in Cambridge, UK, July 2-5, 2007, pp. 21e25.
Janicke Consulting, 2013. Dispersion Model LASAT. Reference/Working Book for
Version 3.3.
Kolb, H., 1981. Ein normatives physikalisches Modell zur Simulierung der Ausre mit besonderer Bercksichtigung
breitung von Schadstoffen in der Atmospha

ltnisse in Osterreich
der Verha
((A regulative model to simulate the dispersion
of pollutants in the atmosphere for the situation in Austria)). Institute for
Meteorology and Geophysics, Publication No. 29, University of Vienna.
Komann, M., Namyslo, J., 2007. Bestimmung der effektiven aerodynamischen
Rauigkeitsl
ange aus Windmessungen. In: Proc. METTOOLS VI, Garmischpartenkirchen, 2007, pp. 65e67.
Luft, T.A., 2002. Erste Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift zum BundeseImmissionsschutzgesetz (Technische Anleitung zur Reinhaltung der Luft e
TA Luft). Bundesministerium fr Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit.
ser, M., Mo
ller, B., 2002. Measurements and modelling of
Lung, T., Mller, H.J., Gla
full-scale concentration uctuations. Agrartech. Forsch. 8, E5eE15.
Mylne, K.R., 1990. Concentration uctuation measurements of a tracer plume at up
to 1 km range in the atmosphere. In: Proc. 9th Symposium on Turbulence and
Diffusion, pp. 168e171.
Mylne, K.R., 1992. Concentration uctuation measurements in a plume dispersing in
a stable surface layer. Bound. Lay. Meteorol. 60, 15e48.
Mylne, K.R., Mason, P.J., 1991. Concentration uctuation measurements in a
dispersing plume at a range of up to 1000m. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 117, 177e206.

Osterreichisches
Normeninstitut, 1996. ONorm
M 9440-Ausbreitung von luftverre; Berechnung von Immissionskonunreinigenden Stoffen in der Atmospha
hen. Austrian Standards
zentrationen und Ermittlung von Schornsteinho
Institute.
Pechinger, U., Petz, E., 1995. Model evaluation of the Austrian Gaussian plume
model ON M 9440: comparison with the Kincaid dataset. Int. J. Environ. Pollut.
5, 338e349.

83

Pechinger, U., Petz, E., 1997. Model evaluation of the Austrian Gaussian plume model
on M 9440: comparison with the Copenhagen and the Liliestrm datasets. Int. J.
Environ. Pollut. 8, 287e294.
Piringer, M., Baumann-Stanzer, K., 2009. Selected results of a model validation
exercise. Adv. Sci. Res. 3, 13e16.
Piringer, M., Petz, E., Groehn, I., Schauberger, G., 2007. A sensitivity study of separation distances calculated with the Austrian Odour Dispersion Model (AODM).
Atmos. Environ. 41, 1725e1735.
Piringer, M., Petz, E., Groehn, I., Schauberger, G., 2013. Corrigendum to a sensitivity
study of separation distances calculated with the Austrian odour dispersion
model (AODM) [Atmos. Environ. 41(2007) 1725e1735]. Atmos. Environ. 67,
461e462.
Piringer, M., Knauder, W., Petz, E., Schauberger, G., 2014. Use of ultrasonic
anemometer data to derive local odourrelated peak-to-mean concentration
ratios. Chem. Eng. Trans. 40, 103e108.
Piringer, M., Knauder, W., Petz, E., Schauberger, G., 2015. A comparison of separation
distances against odour annoyance calculated with two models. Atmos. Environ. 116, 22e35.
Reuter, H., 1970. Die Ausbreitungsbedingungen von Luftverunreinigungen in
Abh
angigkeit von meteorologischen Parametern. Arch. Met. Geoph. Biokl. A 19,
173e186.
Schatzmann, M., Olesen, H., Franke, J. (Eds.), 2010. COST 732 Model Evaluation Case
Studies: Approach and Results. COST Action 732-Quality Assurance and
Improvement of Microscale Meteorological Models, p. 121.
Schauberger, G., Piringer, M., 2015. Odour impact criteria to avoid annoyance.
Austrian Contrib. Vet. Epdiemiol. 8, 35e42.
Schauberger, G., Piringer, M., Petz, E., 2000. Diurnal and annual variation of the
sensation distance of odour emitted by livestock buildings calculated by the
Austrian odour dispersion model (AODM). Atmos. Environ. 34, 4839e4851.
Schauberger, G., Piringer, M., Petz, E., 2002. Calculating direction-dependent separation distance by a dispersion model to avoid livestock odour annoyance.
Biosyst. Eng. 82, 25e37.
Schauberger, G., Piringer, M., Schmitzer, R., Kamp, M., Sowa, A., Koch, R., Eckhof, W.,
Grimm, E., Kypke, J., Hartung, E., 2012. Concept to assess the human perception
of odour by estimating short-time peak concentrations from one-hour mean
values. Reply to a comment by Janicke et al Atmos. Environ. 54, 624e628.
Schauberger, G., Piringer, M., Petz, E., 2013. Corrigendum to Diurnal and annual
variation of the sensation distance of odour emitted by livestock buildings
calculated by the Austrian odour dispersion model (AODM) [Atmos. Environ.
34(2000) 4839e4851]. Atmos. Environ. 67, 459e460.
Smith, M.E., 1973. Recommended Guide for the Prediction of the Dispersion of
Airborne Efuents. ASAE Report, New York.
Sommer-Quabach, E., Piringer, M., Petz, E., Schauberger, G., 2014. Comparability of
separation distances between odour sources and residential areas determined
by various national odour impact criteria. Atmos. Environ. 95, 20e28.