Ar,,,osp,wr Envrronmenr Vol. 22. No. 4. pp. 783-788. 1988. OOfl4-698 I ;88 $3.00 + 0.

00
Prmted m Great Britain. Pergamon Press plc

SIMPLE APPROACH SMOKE ESTIMATION MODEL

A. R. RIEBAU*, D. G. Foxt, M. L. SESTAK*, B. DAILEY$ and S. F. ARCHER~~

*USDI Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, U.S.A.; tUSDA Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.; $Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, Cheyenne, Wyoming, U.S.A. and $USDl
Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Ofice, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.

(First receioed 19 September 1986 and in,finalform 30 June 1987)

Abstract-To compare fire emissions against Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulates and
predict reductions in visual range at selected receptors for public nuisance evaluation, a simple, automated,
smoke management tool for prescribed burns was devised. This tool, the Simple Approach Smoke
Estimation Model (SASEM), had as its design objectives: (1) minimal data requirements, (2) limited computer
resource requirements and (3) easy application by fire management field personnel. SASEM calculates
emissions from fire line intensity, average fuel loading and the type of fuel which is burned. Plume rise is
calculated from the fuel type (which is used to determine fire front heat production), wind speed and stability.
The particulate concentrations are obtained from the emission rate, plume rise, wind speed and stability using
the Gaussian dispersion formula for a line source (or point sources in the case of slash piles). The model
determines the maximum concentration and if any, the distance range over which applicable standards might
be violated. Reduction in visual range at selected receptors is obtained from calculation of a simple scattering
coefficient based on particulate concentration at the receptor. The concentration used is from the plume
calculations or a simple ‘box model’ type calculation. SASEM has been shown to produce results comparable
to other currently available dispersion models suitable for use in prescribed burning studies and used
successfully ‘as a smoke management planning and permitting tool in Wyoming by Federal and State
authorities.

Key word index: Smoke, modeling, screening, prescribed burning, visibility.

1. INTRODUCTION resulted in the decision that the best means of fulfilling

the requirement was a simple screening model to be
During 1985 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) developed by the BLM (as the first agency to respond
applied to the Wyoming Department of Environ- to this requirement). As a screening model, it would be
mental Quality, Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD) easily applied and remain within the limitations set by
for permission to conduct several prescribed burns. the lack of knowledge about the emission regimes of
Based on two sections of State air quality regulations, Wyoming rangeland fires. Through cooperative efforts
the Administrator of the AQD requested that the BLM with scientists of the US. Forest Service, the Wyoming
(and other practitioners of prescribed fire in the State) AQD and the BLM, the Simple Approach Smoke
present evidence that burning activities would not Estimation Model (SASEM) was developed.
violate ambient air quality standards for particulates.
First, section 13 of the Wyoming regulations defines
each fire as a permittable entity. Second, section 12 of 2. MODEL THEORY
the Wyoming air quality regulations prohibits the
AQD Administrator from permitting any activity that The Simple Approach Smoke Estimation Model was
would violate the Wyoming Ambient Air Quality designed to be a screening tool for air quality impacts
Standards (WAAQS) for total suspended particulate of controlled burns on Federal lands. To understand
(TSP). both the limitations and the strengths of SASEM, one
Prescribed burning is being used increasingly as a must first understand what is meant by a screening
resource management tool by Federal land manage- model or analysis in the context of air quality impact
ment agencies. Yet, when the requirement was handed assessment. The purpose of a screening analysis is to
down for demonstrating that ambient particulate make a first cut at a regulatory decision. A quick,
standards would not be violated by each individual relatively clear go/no go decision is the desired result.
burn, no analysis tool was available from or approved An ambiguous result indicates that a more sophisti-
by the AQD. No emission factors, fuel consumption cated approach is required to resolve the question. A
factors or plume rise calculations had been defined for screening analysis is technically correct, but contains
Wyoming range burns. Also, onsite weather data were simplifying assumptions which tend toward conserva-
seldom available. tive results (i.e. more likely over-than-under predic-
Consultation with Wyoming DEQ/AQD personnel tion). Such a procedure also should be simple to

783
784 A. R. RIEBAU et al.

perform, require minimal expertise and have limited where

data requirements.
EP= the particulate emission factor in g of particulate
SASEM was kept simple by building it out of well-
per kilogram fuel consumed
known components and was implemented on a small 1= the fire line intensity in kW m- ‘.
interactive computer with necessary information re-
quested in the language of the fire management officers These emission factors were derived from experiments
most likely to use it. The program was developed using in which the understory vegetation of palmetto
ideas from two previous screening techniques, PTDIS gallberry stands was burned in Florida. Though not the
and PTMAX (Turner and Busse, 1973) found in the closest of vegetation types to Wyoming sageland, it is
Models of Historical Significance section of the EPA the only shrub type for which particulate emission
UNAMAP model series and ideas from the Southern observations were available.
Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook (USDA, The emission rate is then determined from the fuel
1976). loading, fire size and duration, and the emission factor
Like the PTMAX model, SASEM calculates the as:
maximum ambient concentration and its distance from Q=F*A*EP/T (3)
the tire through a variety of wind speed and stability where
conditions preselected within the model or a range of
Q = the emission rate in g s - ’
conditions (the fire prescription) determined by the fire
F = average fuel loading on the site in kg ha-’
officer to be appropriate for the objectives of the
A= the area of the tire site in ha
prescribed burn and to maintain safety. Since this
T= the total time of the burn in s.
model is intended for regulatory purposes, these
maximum concentrations are then compared to the As a screening level model, the fire geometry is not
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for total considered within SASEM. The burned area is always
suspended particulates and any applicable local stan- assumed to be square, with a fire line the length of a side
dard (in our case, the Wyoming ambient particulate of that area, moving across it evenly during the entire
standard). If a standard is exceeded, then the model burn period. The fire duration is, however, intended to
determines the range of distances from the fire over include the major part of the smouldering period of the
which the exceedence occurs. fire as well as the period ofadvance of the flaming front.
As in PTDIS, concentrations at specified distances The fireline intensity, fuel loading, fire area and fire
are calculated. In the SASEM program these specific duration are all required by the fire managers in
locations are intended primarily as sensitive receptor Wyoming as they prepare a burn prescription. In the
sites, such as highways and towns, where visibility model, these factors are requested in the American
could be important from a human perception ‘nuis- units most familiar to the fire managers. These are
ance’ point of view. Two techniques are used to converted to metric units for the calculations within the
calculate a simple scattering coefficient at these lo- program and then the results are displayed, once again
cations. The scattering coefficient is then used to in the familiar units.
calculate the minimum visual range produced by the One special case of requesting information in terms
specified smoke plume. known to the fire managers is the use of dispersion day
SASEM thus produces tables of maximum ground for stability. For practitioners of prescribed burning in
level concentration of particulates, the distance at the State of Wyoming, the National Weather Service
which this concentration would occur, and the range of provides an index of smoke dispersion ranging from
distances from the fire over which specified ambient excellent to poor with four levels based on temperature
standards might be exceeded, if any, as well as the lapse rate and wind speed approximately as presented
minimum visual range at the distance of specified in Fig. 1. The wind speed range during which stability
sensitive receptor sites, for a variety of meteorological conditions for categories other than D and possibly C
conditions, for the size and type of fire specified. actually occur is much narrower than those covered in
Unlike most simple models, emission factors are the figure. Therefore, to within one stability category or
calculated within the SASEM program. Calculating less, the lapse rate based stabilities correspond to the
emission factors in the program allows the necessary dispersion day categories as given in Table 1.
information to be requested in terms which are familiar In SASEM the dispersion day category is requested
and in forms which are available to the fire managers and the corresponding stability category substituted by
rather than using air quality terminology. The emission the model. For the categories excellent and poor,
factors are calculated according to a technique sug- stabilities B and E were chosen out of the two
gested by Ward et al. (1980). possibilities for each. In nearly all models, line sources
are considered non-buoyant, such as vehicle exhaust
EP= 19.5-0.0737 1+0.000145 l2
along highways, and no plume rise is determined for
for I less than 470 kW m-l (1) them. The only widely available exception, BLP (Scire
EP= 16.7+O.o00243 1 and Schulman, 1980), developed for modeling alumi-
for 470 kW m - ’ less than or equal to I less than num reduction plants, uses a technique for line source
1750 kW m-i (2) plume rise which also includes line geometry and
 Simple approach smoke estimation mode1 785

where stability is in Pasquill-Gifford categories and

H = the maximum height of the smoke plume in m
QH = heat output of the fire contributing to plume
rise in cal s-l
V = the average wind speed during the burn in
m s-t.
However, when considering a long fire line, it is
apparent that all the heat produced by the line does not
go into producing a single coherent plume. As a simple
first approximation, we chose the average depth of the
tire line as the characteristic dimension which de-
Fig. 1. Dispersion day index (Pierce, termines what proportion of the heat of the fire acts to
1986, Personal communication). raise the plume along any part of its length. Because of
reinforcement effects along the line, the appropriate
length is probably greater than that which has been
chosen, but no ready representation of this effect is
available. The depth of the fire line is calculated from
the fire residence time (the time it takes the fire to pass
WEM by a particular point) and the fire rate of spread as:
Guide
PAL D=FR*RT (7)
BLP
BLP where
D= the depth of the fire line in m
FR= the rate of spread of the fire in ms-’
RT= the residence time of the fire in s.

Residence time depends on the size of the largest fuel

Fig. 2. Comparison of SASEM and other dispersion elements which will burn. Anderson (1969) gives an
models suitable for use in smoke management. Guide-
empirical relation for the residence time in minutes as
Southern Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook
(USDA, 1976); PAL-Point, Areaand Line Source Model eight times the diameter in inches of these fuel
(Petersen, 1978); BLP-Buoyant Line and Point elements. The resulting residence times for the fuel
Source Model (Scire and Schulman, 1980); BLP-BLP types currently accepted by the model are given in
without gradual plume rise or power law wind profile. Table 2. The tire rate of spread, for purposes of this
model, is simply the length of a side of the burn area
Table 1. Dispersion day to P-G stability class divided by the duration of the burn. The length of the
transformation used by SASEM
fire line is then divided by the fire depth to obtain a
Dispersion day Stability category number of ‘plumes’ by which the line can be represen-
ted. The total heat output is then divided by this
Excellent A, S number of plumes to produce the heat output used for
Good c plume rise calculations. In the case of slash pile
Fair D
Poor
burning, the heat output of a single, average slash pile is
E, F
calculated and used to determine the plume rise for all
slash piles according to the Briggs equations. The
average heat output of the fire is calculated from the
interactions between multiple lines which by itself is as
heat content of the fuel and the amount of fuel burned.
complicated as SASEM. Therefore, we used a point
Different fuels have different heat contents, mostly
source formula for plume rise with modifications made
because of moisture and mineral content variations.
to apply it to a fire line. Basically, plume rise is
For each fuel type, different proportions of the
calculated from the heat output of the fire as proposed
available fuel are actually consumed because of the
by Briggs (1969).
H =O.OlOi QH’3’4’/V
for stability A to D and QH less than Table 2. Emission characteristics related to fuel type
1.4 Meals-’ (4)
Heat Proportion Residence
H =0.0847 QH’3’5’/V produced burned time
for stability A to D and QH greater than Fuel type (Mcalkg-‘) (%) (s)
1.4 Meal s-l (5) Sagebrush 3.50 70 480
H~O.917 QH”‘3’ u’L’3’ Wood 3.88 50 960
Grass 3.33 90 120
for stability E and F (6)
786 A. R. RIEBAU et 01.

difficulty of burning larger pieces. Thus, the heat are calculated, the point of maximum concentration
output used to calculate plume rise is: must be determined. The condition for maximum
concentration can be determined from the line source
QH=HC* F* A* FB/(T* NP) (8)
equation by differentiating it and equating the result to
where zero. After simplification, ignoring factors which can
never be zero, the maximum surface concentration
HC= the heat content of the fuel in cal kg- 1
occurs when the vertical standard deviation of plume
FB= the proportion of the fuel actually burned
concentration is equal to the plume height. Since the
NP= the number of effective plumes which the fire
vertical width of the plume standard deviation can be
line represents; always equals 1 for slash piles
approximated by:
The heat content and proportion burned for the fuel sz = cxd (11)
types currently accepted by the model as given in where
Table 2 are contained in the program and automati- c, d = empirical coefficient
cally selected by choosing a particular fuel type. x = downwind distance in m
Not all the smoke remains with the rising plume
(USDA, 1976). Some leaves the plume at lower levels, then
(12)
moving with the wind flow and dispersing at that level. where
The suggested ratio is 60 % rises to 40 % does not rise.
The heat release rate and atmospheric stability can xmax =distance to maximum surface concentration
both push this ratio either lower or higher. For lack of in m.
appropriate observations, the above fixed ratio is used The values of c and d used are those from the EPA
in SASEM. Since smoke is observed to leave the plume CDM model (Busse and Zimmerman, 1973) among
at all levels from the surface to just below final rise others. A similar analysis for the point source equation
height, the level of the unentrained smoke used in the gives the maximum downwind concentration point as:
model is one-half the final plume rise.
Plume dispersion is calculated using the Gaussian xmax= ( H/((2)1’2/~))‘1id’. (13)
concentration equations from Turner (1970). For fire The maximum concentration from both the low level
lines, the modification for infinite line sources per- and full rise plumes is calculated and compared to the
pendicular to the wind is used. At large distances from applicable standards. If the standards are exceeded,
the fire the assumption of an infinite line is not correct, then the program increments outward at 100 m inter-
but is more conservative than using the point source vals in both directions to determine the range of
equation. Since fire line movement is controlled by the distances over which the exceedence occurs. The maxi-
wind, the line is nearly perpendicular to the wind mum concentration, its point of occurrence, and either
direction in most cases. For slash piles, the point source ‘No Exceedence’ or the range of distances over which
equation is used and it is assumed that all the piles are the primary and/or secondary standard are exceeded
close enough together that multiplying the concen- are reported for each of the meteorological conditions
tration produced from one pile by the number of piles, chosen.
as though all were located at the same point, will give Since prescribed burns are relatively short in dur-
an accurate enough concentration estimate. Again, this ation, only the 24-h particulate standards are under
is more likely to give a larger maximum concentration consideration. If a fire is less than 24 h in duration, then
than spreading the piles out in their actual geometric a receptor would be affected only for that duration and
configuration and much simpler to compute. Thus, the the 24-h concentration average should be adjusted
concentration at a given distance downwind is given accordingly. Also, an adjustment factor was included in
by: the model to account for the fact that the same wind
C=2Q*exp(-0.5(H/sz)2)/((2n)“2*sz*[i) speed, wind direction and stability conditions are
unlikely to persist for more than 8 h consecutively. The
for fire lines (9) time and persistence factor is thus:
C=Q*exp(-0.5(H/sz)2)/(x*s~*~y* U)
ADJ = T/86,400
for slash piles (10) for T less than 21,600 s (14)
where ADJ = (T+ 172,800)/777,600
C= the concentration in g me3 for 21,600 s less than or equal to T
sz= width of standard deviation of concentration in less than or equal to 86,400 s (15)
the vertical in m ADJ =0.333333
sy= width of standard deviation of concentration in for T less than 86,400 s (16)
the horizontal in m
U= horizontal wind speed in m s-r. where

In the case of line sources, the emission rate (Q) is given ADJ= the time and persistence adjustment factor.
per length (m) of fire line. Before any concentrations This factor is multiplied by the concentration to give
 Simple approach smoke estimation model 787

the value which is compared to the regulatory X = distance from fire line to the receptor in m.
standards. This concentration is an average for the entire burn
Smoke can cause highway safety problems and be period. To approximate the value for the peak fire
the source of general nuisance calls in populated areas. intensity, the concentration is multiplied by a factor of
For these reasons, the Wyoming AQD asked that the three. From their studies, Packham and Vines also
model also include some assessment of visual range determined a backscatter to concentration ratio for the
reduction. particulates generated by the fires they observed as
For a uniform concentration of particufates sur-
2.0 m* g- I. The difference between the two ratios is
rounding the observer, the visual range, the distance at
probably due to the nature of the particles involved.
which contrast between a solid black object and a solid
Those from the Molenor and Malm study are from all
white background is reduced to 2% is (Koshmieder,
sources in the southwestern U.S. some of which have
1924):
undoubtedly traveled long enough to grow due to the
VR = 3.9 Jb (17) addition of hygroscopic water attachment. Packham
where
and Vines measurements were of brushfire smoke
VR = the visual range in m particulates in Australia which were unlikely to have
b =a scattering coefficient in m-r any attached water. In the model, each ratio is used
with the corresponding concentration estimate.
and b can be determined from:
b=br+sc*C (18)
3. MODEL APPLICATION
where
br = Rayleigh scattering coefficient of air In the past, smoke management analyses have been
O.OOOOO1 m-l done either through a series of typical scenarios given
SC= backscatter to concentration ratio in m2 g-r. in the Southern Forestry Smoke Management
Guidebook or by adapting models designed for other
In this model, two alternative concentrations are used purposes. Since observations are not currently
to determine the scattering coefficient. First, the con- available against which to test SASEM, results from
centration at the distance of the receptor from the our model were compared to a typical scenario from
plume based dispersion equations for testing for the guidebook and two models which include line
regulatory exceedence is used except the time and sources, PAL (Petersen, 1978) and BLP. The
persistence factor was not applied so the maximum guidebook leads one through a series of decision steps
hourly concentration was approximated. For this case, and hand calculator computations to determine emis-
the backscatter to concentration ratio used is sion rates, then presents concentrations for a series of
5.0 m* g - ’ from the recent observations of particulates scenarios, one of which is hopefully close enough to the
in the southwestern U.S. by Molenor and Mafm (1988). proposed situation to provide useful information. PAL
For the second case, a simpler concentration calcu- is a moderately complex model for simulating point,
lation from Packham and Vines (1978) is used which is area and line sources. To use this model for smoke
independent of stability conditions and more nearly management, the emission rates and plume rise must be
approximates the uniform concentration surrounding computed since neither is determined in the program
the observer assumed by the Koshmieder relation. This for line or area sources. BLP is a special model for
technique calculates concentration by determining the complex buoyant point and line sources used by
total mass of particulate produced from the divided by aluminum reduction plants. This is the only readily
the total volume of air which passes the area of the fire available model (as part of the EPA UNAMAP series)
within a specified mixing depth over the duration of the which includes plume rise for line sources. However, as
burn. This value is adjusted for downwind dispersion with the other models, the emission rates must still be
from the fire to the site of interest as inversely calculated by hand.
proportional to the increase in width of a 12.5 degree The scenario chosen from the guidebook is for
sector spreading out from the fire site to the receptor palmetto-gallberry fuels with a backing fire, C stability
site. The concentration by this method is then: class, wind speed 8 m s-l, mixing height of 15Of1m,
800 m fire line, emission rate of 0.168 gm- 1s-l, and a
C=F*A*EP*DF/(L*U*MH*T) (19)
total heat release rate of 37.682 Meal s- l. The inputs to
DF=DOl(DO+X) (20) SASEM corresponding to this scenario are a good
dispersion day, 17.9 miles h- ’ (8.0 m s-r) wind speed,
DO= L/(ZTan (12.5 deg/2)) (21) 1500m mixing height, 158 acre (6.39 x 10s m2) fire,
where
2750 lb acre-’ (0.309 kg m - ’ ) fuel loading, and
DF = dispersion adjustment factor 180 Btuft-‘~-~ (622 kW m-t) fire which burns for
L= length of the tire line in m 4.8 h.
MH = mixing height in m with 1500 m as the default For this situation, SASEM produced a maximum
DO = distance from the fire line at which 12.5 degree concentration at 1.0 km of 49.9 pgme3. The actual
sector converges in m maximum point is closer to the fire, but the closest
788 A. R. RIEBAU et al.

point reported is 1 km as this is the distance the provides a conservative estimate of the possibility that
Wyoming DEQ has allowed to be considered the a given prescribed burn will cause an exceedence of air
property boundary for purposes of compliance with quality standards or be a public nuisance due to
the regulations. The guidebook gives the concentration visibility impairment at public highways or residential
at this distance as 110 pgme3. The guidebook, how- areas. By comparison with currently available disper-
ever, includes no averaging period in its calculations, sion models which include line sources, SASEM ap-
while SASEM assumes the results are to be compared pears to adequately fulfil this purpose. Furthermore,
to the 24-h standard. Adjusting for the 4.8-h duration because of the extremely simple data requirements, all
of the fire, the guidebook concentration would be of which are already being collected for purposes of
22 pgme3. This difference is probably due to the making fire prescriptions, and are requested in terms
higher plume rise used by the guidebook. For their familiar to fire management personnel, the tool is
calculations the heat of the entire fire line is used in the readily accessible to those who can make the best use of
plume rise determination. it.
For PAL, using the same meteorology and fire Further model development is most needed in the
dimensions, the emission rates and plume heights were area of field studies to determine better emission
calculated and entered into the model. For the full rise factors for brush tires and other fuel types. Better
plume, the emission rate was (xl01 grn-‘~-~ and the characterization of plume rise from fire lines which are
plume rise was 33.0 m. For the unentrained smoke, the very long, buoyant, moving, line sources, unlike any
emission rate was 0.067 gm- rs-’ and plume height other source type encountered in air quality modeling
was 16.5 m. Twenty-four hours were simulated with is also desirable.
PAL using the fire emissions for the first 4.8 h (the fire
duration) and no emissions for the remaining hours to Acknowledgement-The Bureau of Land Management Pub-
conform with SASEM. At the 1 km distance from the lication Number for this paper is BLM-WY-PT-87-008-493.
center of two 800m line sources, PAL produced a
ground level concentration of 49.2 pgmF3. At 1 km
downwind from an end of the line sources the resulting
ground level concentration was 24.6 pgm -3. This REFERENCES
indicates the variation which can occur when
plume/receptor geometry is included in the model. Yet, Anderson H. E. (1969) Heat transfer and fire spread.
the maximum concentration is still very comparable to Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station
Research Paper INT-69, USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT.
SASEM. Briggs G. A. (1969) Plume rise. U.S. Atomic Enerev
.z.sCorn..
~~I
The same scenario was used with the BLP model. Gak Ridge,‘TN.
This model requires that the heat output of the entire Busse A. D. and Zimmerman J. R. (1973) User’s guide for the
line source be entered in terms of the buoyancy flux climatological dispersion model. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-R4-73-024, Research Triangle
which for our situation was 1386 m4sm3. By default,
Park, NC.
the BLP model also includes a power-law wind profile Koshmieder H. (1924) Theorie der Horizontalen Sichtweite.
and gradual plume rise calculations; features not used Acm Eeitr. Phys. frien. 12, 33-54.
in the other model calculations. Twenty-four hours Molenor J. V. and Malm W. C. (1988) Photographic emu-
were simulated with BLP as described for the PAL lation of the effect of various atmospheric constituents on a
scenic resource. APCA Visibility Specialitv Conference.
setup. For this setup, the BLP model produced a Jackson Hole, WY, 8-10 Septe&erq1986 (in press).
concentration of 71.3 /lgmd3 at a distance of 1000 m Packham D. R. and Vines R. G. (1978) Prowrties of bushfire
from the center of the fire line. If additional input smoke: the reduction in visibihty resulting from prescribed
information is supplied to remove the power-law wind fires in forests. J. Air Pollut. Control Ass. 28, 790-795.
Petersen W. B. (1978) User’s guide for PAL: a
profile and to use only the final plume rise, then this
Gaussian-plume algorithm for point,area and line sources.
concentration is reduced to 23.0 pgmm3. This tends to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
indicate that though the model equations include Park, NC.
factors to account for entrainment ofambient air into a Scire J. S. and Schulman L. L. (1980) Buoyant line and point
line plume, the dominant effect is still the point source source (BLP) dispersion model user’s guide, NTIS PB81-
164642.
plume rise equation which is not realistic for a near Turner D. B. (1970) Workbook of atmospheric dispersion
kilometer fire line. These results are summarized in Fig. estimates, US. Environmental Protection Agency.
2 where graphs of concentration vs distance from the Turner D. B. and Busse A. D. (1973) User’s guide to the
center of the fire line for SASEM, the guidebook, PAL, interactive versions of three point source dispersion pro-
and BLP with and without the power-law wind profile grams: PTMAX, PTDIS and PTMPT. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
and gradual plume rise are compared for the fire line USDA Forest Service (1976) Sourhern Forestry Smoke
described above. Management Guidebook. Southeastern Forest Experiment
Station, Macon, GA.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Ward D. E., Clements H. B. and Nelson R. M., Jr (1980)
Particulate matter emission factor modeling for fires in
southeastern fuels. In Proceedings Sixth Conference on Fire
The Simple Approach Smoke Estimation Model was and Forest Meteorology, pp. 276-284. Society of American
designed to serve as a screening level model which - ._.
Foresters, Seattle, WA