24.01.2013 Views

McKay, Donald. "Front matter" Multimedia Environmental Models ...

McKay, Donald. "Front matter" Multimedia Environmental Models ...

McKay, Donald. "Front matter" Multimedia Environmental Models ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

it to decay in concentration with time, but maintain equilibrium between all phases<br />

at the same time. This is analogous to a batch chemical reaction system. Although<br />

it is possible to include emissions or advective inflow, we prefer to treat first the<br />

case in which only reaction occurs to an initial mass M. We assume that all volumes<br />

and Z values are constant with time.<br />

But,<br />

Solving gives<br />

©2001 CRC Press LLC<br />

dM/dt = –SV iC ik i = –fSV iZ ik i = –fSD Ri<br />

M = SV iZ if = fSV iZ i<br />

df/dt = –fSV iZ ik i/SV iZ i = –fSD Ri/SV iZ i<br />

f = f O exp(–k Ot)<br />

where k O = SV iZ ik i/SV iZ i = SD Ri/SV iZ i, and f O is the initial fugacity. Note that k O,<br />

the overall rate constant, is the reciprocal of the overall residence time.<br />

Worked Example 6.6<br />

Calculate the time necessary for the environment in Example 6.3 to recover to<br />

50%, 36.7%, 10%, and 1% of the steady-state level of contamination after all<br />

emissions cease.<br />

Here, SVZ is 24 and SD is 0.2587. Thus,<br />

f = f O exp (–0.2587t/24) = f O exp (–0.01078t)<br />

Since M is proportional to f, and f O is 96.6 Pa, we wish to calculate t at which f is<br />

48.3, 35.4, 9.66, and 0.966 Pa. Substituting and rearranging gives t = –1/0.01078 ln<br />

(48.3/96.6), etc., or t is, respectively, 64 h, 93 h, 214 h, and 427 h. The 93-hour time<br />

is significant as both the steady-state residence time and the time of decay to 36.7%<br />

or exp(–1) of the initial concentration.<br />

It is possible to include advection and emissions with only slight complications<br />

to the integration. The input terms may no longer be zero.<br />

This example raises an important point, which we will address later in more<br />

detail. The steady-state situations in the Level II calculations are somewhat artificial<br />

and contrived. Rarely is the environment at a steady state; things are usually getting<br />

worse or better. A valid criticism of Level II calculations is that steady-state analysis<br />

does not convey information about the rate at which systems will respond to changes.<br />

For example, a steady-state analysis of salt emission into Lake Superior may demonstrate<br />

what the ultimate concentration of salt will be, but it will take 200 years<br />

for this steady state to be achieved. In a much smaller lake, this steady state may

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!