# Development and Evaluation of a Fluctuating Plume Model for Odor Impact Assessment
## 4 Results and Discussions  
### Raw Data Processing  
The first step was the elaboration of input data. The meteorological conditions, micrometeorological data and emission rates, the considered trials, and the meteorological conditions for each trial, are reported in Table 2. Due to the considerations reported in Section 3.3, the penultimate column of Table 2 shows the wind direction that has been used for the simulations. As reported, the chosen values are fully within the range of wind directions measured over the 10 minutes of each trial.  
The second step was to elaborate the fast-response ambient concentration data (Table 3). \(R_{90}\) was calculated from the ratio of the 90 th percentile (\(C_{90}\)) of the fast-response concentrations and the mean concentration. The 90 th percentile was obtained considering the extremes of the series. To make the elaboration of the raw data reported in Table 3, a  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Experiment**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Date**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Release Time**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SF\({}_{\epsilon}\) Emission**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\sigma_{\pi}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\sigma_{\pi}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\sigma_{\pi}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{**u\({}^{\ast}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Wind**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Wind**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Wind Direction**} \\  & & & & **Rate** & & & & & & & & \\  & **Start** & **End** & **(g/h)** & **(m/s)** & **(m/s)** & **(m/s)** & **(m/s)** & **(m/s)** & **(c)** & **(c)** \\ \hline B & 12 December 2000 & 13.00 & 13:10 & 121.7 & 0.393 & 0.368 & 0.257 & 0.192 & 3.9 & 210 & 205–222 \\ C & 12 December 2000 & 14:10 & 14:20 & 121.7 & 0.427 & 0.436 & 0.306 & 0.198 & 4.6 & 220 & 214–238 \\ D & 12 December 2000 & 14:45 & 14:55 & 121.7 & 0.294 & 0.305 & 0.221 & 0.14 & 2.5 & 237 & 222–26 \\ E & 13 December 2000 & 12:00 & 12:10 & 121.7 & 0.968 & 0.946 & 0.624 & 0.365 & 7.9 & 246 & 238–267 \\ F & 13 December 2000 & 13:05 & 13:15 & 121.7 & 0.776 & 0.762 & 0.489 & 0.321 & 6.8 & 244.5 & 217–255 \\ G & 13 December 2000 & 13:50 & 14:00 & 121.7 & 0.738 & 0.725 & 0.496 & 0.306 & 6.5 & 242 & 233–258 \\ H & 13 December 2000 & 15:10 & 15:20 & 121.7 & 0.533 & 0.531 & 0.369 & 0.238 & 2.7 & 236 & 225–257 \\ I & 31 October 2001 & 11:40 & 11:50 & 225.5 & 0.792 & 0.762 & 0.504 & 0.346 & 5.4 & 222 & 208–237 \\ J & 31 October 2001 & 12:00 & 12:10 & 225.5 & 0.743 & 0.702 & 0.492 & 0.337 & 5.8 & 225.5 & 211–235 \\ K & 31 October 2001 & 13:40 & 13:50 & 225.5 & 0.688 & 0.674 & 0.454 & 0.295 & 4.5 & 226 & 206–234 \\ L & 31 October 2001 & 14:05 & 14:15 & 225.5 & 0.656 & 0.617 & 0.423 & 0.274 & 5.2 & 232 & 216–236 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Summary of the trials considered of Uttenweiler experiments and related meteorological conditions. \(\sigma_{\omega}\), \(\sigma_{\omega}\), \(\sigma_{w}\): standard deviation of along-wind, crosswind, and vertical wind velocity components; \(\mathbf{u}^{\ast}\): surface friction velocity.  
graph is presented (Figure 2). In this graph it is possible to compare the values of \(C_{m}\) (blue bar), 90 th percentile (brown bar) and \(C_{max}\) (yellow bar) reported in (ug/m\({}^{3}\)) for every fast-response concentration point of measurement. The colored columns show the relationship between the three variables. For B T1P5, D T1P3, and D T2P3, the values are very low compared to the scale of the other points. Their values are anyway readable in Table 3.