These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24701687)

  • 1. AERMOD performance evaluation for three coal-fired electrical generating units in Southwest Indiana.
    Frost KD
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2014 Mar; 64(3):280-90. PubMed ID: 24701687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluation of low wind modeling approaches for two tall-stack databases.
    Paine R; Samani O; Kaplan M; Knipping E; Kumar N
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2015 Nov; 65(11):1341-53. PubMed ID: 26302223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluation of NO2 predictions by the plume volume molar ratio method (PVMRM) and ozone limiting method (OLM) in AERMOD using new field observations.
    Hendrick EM; Tino VR; Hanna SR; Egan BA
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2013 Jul; 63(7):844-54. PubMed ID: 23926853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. PRCI ambient NO
    Panek JA; McCarthy JM; Huth AZ; Krol AJ; Nowak C
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2020 May; 70(5):504-521. PubMed ID: 32186474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of AERMOD and CALPUFF models for simulating SO2 concentrations in a gas refinery.
    Atabi F; Jafarigol F; Moattar F; Nouri J
    Environ Monit Assess; 2016 Sep; 188(9):516. PubMed ID: 27521001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Development and application of an aerosol screening model for size-resolved urban aerosols.
    Stanier CO; Lee SR;
    Res Rep Health Eff Inst; 2014 Jun; (179):3-79. PubMed ID: 25145039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of model performance between AERMOD and AUSTAL2000.
    Langner C; Klemm O
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2011 Jun; 61(6):640-6. PubMed ID: 21751580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Modeling of air pollutant concentrations in an industrial region of Turkey.
    Tuygun GT; Altuğ H; Elbir T; Gaga EE
    Environ Sci Pollut Res Int; 2017 Mar; 24(9):8230-8241. PubMed ID: 28160171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Combined analysis of modeled and monitored SO2 concentrations at a complex smelting facility.
    Rehbein PJ; Kennedy MG; Cotsman DJ; Campeau MA; Greenfield MM; Annett MA; Lepage MF
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2014 Mar; 64(3):272-9. PubMed ID: 24701686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Emissions variability processor (EMVAP): design, evaluation, and application.
    Paine R; Szembek C; Heinold D; Knipping E; Kumar N
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2014 Dec; 64(12):1390-402. PubMed ID: 25562935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. An evaluation of CO, CO
    Mousavi SS; Goudarzi G; Sabzalipour S; Rouzbahani MM; Mobarak Hassan E
    Environ Sci Pollut Res Int; 2021 Oct; 28(40):56996-57008. PubMed ID: 34081282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. CALPUFF and AERMOD model validation study in the near field: Martins Creek revisited.
    Dresser AL; Huizer RD
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2011 Jun; 61(6):647-59. PubMed ID: 21751581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Ambient air total gaseous mercury concentrations in the vicinity of coal-fired power plants in Alberta, Canada.
    Mazur M; Mintz R; Lapalme M; Wiens B
    Sci Total Environ; 2009 Dec; 408(2):373-81. PubMed ID: 19875156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Use of dispersion model and satellite SO
    Akyuz E; Kaynak B
    Sci Total Environ; 2019 Nov; 689():808-819. PubMed ID: 31280163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Minimum turbulence assumptions and u* and L estimation for dispersion models during low-wind stable conditions.
    Hanna SR; Chowdhury B
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2014 Mar; 64(3):309-21. PubMed ID: 24701689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of AERMOD and WindTrax dispersion models in determining PM10 emission rates from a beef cattle feedlot.
    Bonifacio HF; Maghirang RG; Razote EB; Trabue SL; Prueger JH
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2013 May; 63(5):545-56. PubMed ID: 23786146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of Pollutants Along the National Road N2 in Togo using the AERMOD Dispersion Model.
    Amouzouvi YM; Dzagli MM; Sagna K; Török Z; Roba CA; Mereuţă A; Ozunu A; Edjame KS
    J Health Pollut; 2020 Sep; 10(27):200908. PubMed ID: 32874764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Ozone monitoring instrument observations of interannual increases in SO2 emissions from Indian coal-fired power plants during 2005-2012.
    Lu Z; Streets DG; de Foy B; Krotkov NA
    Environ Sci Technol; 2013 Dec; 47(24):13993-4000. PubMed ID: 24274462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of the Industrial Source Complex Short-Term model: dispersion over terrain.
    Abdul-Wahab SA
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2004 Apr; 54(4):396-408. PubMed ID: 15115368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of the complex terrain algorithms incorporated into two commonly used local-scale air pollution dispersion models (ADMS and AERMOD) using a hybrid model.
    Carruthers DJ; Seaton MD; McHugh CA; Sheng X; Solazzo E; Vanvyve E
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2011 Nov; 61(11):1227-35. PubMed ID: 22168106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.