Assessing the Impact of Fugitive Dust Emissions from Cement Silos at Cluster of Concrete Batching Facilities Using Air Dispersion Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research assessed the environmental impact of cement silos emission on the existing concrete batching facilities in M35-Mussafah, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. These assessments were conducted using an air quality dispersion model (AERMOD) to predict the ambient concentration of Portland Cement particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) emitted to the atmosphere during loading and unloading activities from 176 silos located in 25 concrete batching facilities. AERMOD was applied to simulate and describe the dispersion of PM10 released from the cement silos into the air. Simulations were carried out for PM10 emissions on controlled and uncontrolled cement silos scenarios. Results showed an incremental negative impact on air quality and public health from uncontrolled silos emissions and estimated that the uncontrolled PM10 emission sources contribute to air pollution by 528958.32 kg/Year. The modeling comparison between the controlled and uncontrolled silos shows that the highest annual average concentration from controlled cement silos is 0.065 μg/m3, and the highest daily emission value is 0.6 μg/m3; both values are negligible and will not lead to significant air quality impact in the entire study domain. However, the uncontrolled cement silos’ highest annual average concentration value is 328.08 μg/m3. The highest daily emission average value was 1250.09 μg/m3; this might cause a significant air pollution quality impact and health effects on the public and workers. The short-term and long-term average PM10 pollutant concentrations at these receptors predicted by the air dispersion model are discussed for both scenarios and compared with local and international air quality standards and guidelines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".