Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 1, 2026

Combustion Characterization and Model Fuel Development for Micro-tubular Flame-assisted Fuel Cells
Published on: October 2, 2016
Comparison of emission models with computational fluid dynamic simulation and a proposed improved model
James S Bennett1, Charles E Feigley, Jamil Khan
1Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Applied Research and Technology, Engineering and Physical Hazards Branch, 4676 Columbia Parkway MS-R5, Cincinnati, OH 45226, USA.
Comparing airborne contaminant models, the uniform diffusivity (UD) model showed the lowest error for steady-state emissions. For time-varying sources, a location-specific model (CM-L) provided the most accurate emission estimates.
Area of Science:
- Environmental Engineering
- Occupational Health and Safety
- Computational Fluid Dynamics
Background:
- Accurate estimation of airborne contaminant sources is crucial for controlling workplace exposure.
- Industrial hygienists often infer emission data from room concentration measurements, a complex task.
- Existing models simplify contaminant transport, but the resulting errors are not well understood.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the accuracy of different emission estimation models against computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations.
- To evaluate the impact of source and receptor locations on model performance.
- To develop and assess an improved time-dependent emission model.
Main Methods:
- Employed CFD simulations (Fluent 4) to generate workplace airflow and concentration fields.
- Compared single-zone completely mixed (CM-1), two-zone completely mixed (CM-2), and uniform diffusivity (UD) models.
- Conducted numerical experiments with factorial combinations of source/receptor locations, airflow rates, and generation profiles (constant/time-varying).
Main Results:
- For steady-state conditions, the UD model demonstrated the lowest error compared to CFD.
- Model performance varied with source and receptor proximity; CM-2 was better when the receptor was in the source near-field.
- A location-specific mixing factor improved accuracy, with the developed CM-L model outperforming CM-1 and CM-2 for time-varying sources.
Conclusions:
- The uniform diffusivity (UD) model offers better accuracy for steady-state emission estimation than CM-1 and CM-2.
- Source and receptor location significantly impact emission estimates, particularly for the CM-1 model.
- The developed CM-L model, incorporating location-specific factors, provides a more accurate approach for time-dependent emission modeling.
Related Concept Videos
Laminar and Turbulent Flow
Accelerating Fluids
The motion of the liquid within this infinitesimal cylinder is considered to obtain the pressure difference. Three vertical forces act on this liquid:
The Kinetic Model of Gases
Modeling and Similitude
Typical Model Studies
Design Example: Creating a Hydraulic Model of a Dam Spillway

