Evaluation of digital optical method to determine plume opacity during nighttime.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) set opacity standards for visual emissions from industrial sources to protect ambient air quality. USEPA developed Method 9, which is a reference method to describe how plume opacity can be quantified by human observers during daytime conditions. However, it would be beneficial to determine plume opacity with digital still cameras (DSCs) to provide graphical records of the plume and its environment during visual emission evaluation and to be able to determine plume opacity with DSCs during nighttime conditions. Digital optical method (DOM) was developed to quantify plume opacity from photographs that were provided by a DSC during daytime. Past daytime field campaigns have demonstrated that DOM provided opacity readings that met Method 9 certification requirements. In this paper, the principles and methodology of DOM to quantify plume opacity during nighttime are described. Also, results are described from a nighttime field campaign that occurred at Springfield, IL. Opacity readings provided by DOM were compared with the opacity values obtained with the reference in-stack transmissometer of the smoke generator. The average opacity errors were 2.3-3.5% for contrast model of DOM for all levels of plume opacity. The average opacity errors were 2.0-7.6% for the transmission model of DOM for plumes with opacity 0-50%. These results are encouraging and indicate that DOM has the potential to quantify plume opacity during nighttime.

Field evaluation of digital optical method to quantify the visual opacity of plumes.

Visual Determination of the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources (Method 9) is a reference method established by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to quantify plume opacity. However, Method 9 relies on observations from humans, which introduces subjectivity. In addition, it is expensive to teach and certify personnel to evaluate plume opacity on a semiannual basis. In this study, field tests were completed during a "smoke school" and a 4-month monitoring program of plumes emitted from stationary sources with a Method 9 qualified observer to evaluate the use of digital photography and two computer algorithms as an alternative to Method 9. This Digital Optical Method (DOM) improves objectivity, costs less to implement than Method 9, and provides archival photographic records of the plumes. Results from "smoke school" tests indicate that DOM passed six of eight tests when the sun was located in the 140 degrees sector behind one of the three cameras, with the individual opacity errors of 15% or less and average opacity errors of 7.5% or less. DOM also passed seven of the eight tests when the sun was located in the 216 degrees sector behind another camera. However, DOM passed only one of the eight tests when the sun was located in the 116 degrees sector in front of the third camera. Certification to read plume opacity by a "smoke reader" for 6 months requires that the "smoke reader" pass one of the smoke school tests during smoke school. The average opacity errors and percentage of observations with individual opacity errors above 15% for the results obtained with DOM were lower than those obtained by the smoke school trainees with the sun was located behind the camera, whereas they were higher than the smoke school trainee results with the sun located in front of the camera. In addition, the difference between plume opacity values obtained by DOM and a Method 9 qualified observer, as measured in the field for two industrial sources, were 2.2%. These encouraging results demonstrate that DOM is able to meet Method 9 requirements under a wide variety of field conditions and, therefore, has potential to be used as an alternative to Method 9.

Quantification of plume opacity by digital photography.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) developed Method 9 to describe how plume opacity can be quantified by humans. However, use of observations by humans introduces subjectivity, and is expensive due to semiannual certification requirements of the observers. The Digital Opacity Method (DOM) was developed to quantify plume opacity at lower cost, with improved objectivity, and to provide a digital record. Photographs of plumes were taken with a calibrated digital camera under specified conditions. Pixel values from those photographs were then interpreted to quantify the plume's opacity using a contrast model and a transmission model. The contrast model determines plume opacity based on pixel values that are related to the change in contrast between two backgrounds that are located behind and next to the plume. The transmission model determines the plume's opacity based on pixel values that are related to radiances from the plume and its background. DOM was field tested with a smoke generator. The individual and average opacity errors of DOM were within the USEPA Method 9 acceptable error limits for both field campaigns. Such results are encouraging and support the use of DOM as an alternative to Method 9.