• Michel M. Benarie
Part of the Air Pollution Problems Series book series (AIRPP)


The assumption of proportionality between emissions and air quality (ambient concentration) leads directly to the long-term simple box model, which is source oriented. The independent variable (input) for the box model is the source strength, and its output is the concentration value. However, if we use a past or present measured concentration as input and investigate the changes in source strength in order to find some other concentration (the desired air quality), we arrive at the receptor-oriented symmetrical counterpart of the box model which is called the rollback model or proportional scaling model.
where R is the percentage reduction required, xa the measured concentration, xb the background concentration and xc the desired air quality.


Nitrogen Dioxide Source Strength Motor Vehicle Emission Smog Chamber Nitrogen Dioxide Concentration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barth, S. D. (1970). Federal motor vehicle emission goal for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon and NO based on desired air quality levels. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., 20, 519–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chang, T. Y., and Weinstock, B. (1973). Urban carbon monoxide concentration and vehicle emissions. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc.,23, 691–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang, T. Y. (1974). Rollback modelling for urban air pollution control. Proc. Symp. Atmos.Diffusion Air Pollut., Santa Barbara, Calif, 9 to 13 September 1974, Am. Meteorol.Soc., Boston, Mass., pp. 184–9Google Scholar
  4. Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions (1973). A critique of the 1975 federal automobile emission standards for carbon monoxide; a critique of the 1975–1976 federal automobile emission standards for hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. Proc. Panel Emission Stand. and Panel Atmos. Chem., 22 May 1973, Natl Acad. Sci., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  5. Hamming, W. J., Chass, R. L., Dickenson, J. E., and Macbeth, W. G. (1973). Motor vehicle control and air quality. The path to clean air for Los Angeles. Proc. 66th Annu. Meet. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., Chicago, III., 24 to 28 June 1973, Paper, No. 73–73Google Scholar
  6. Horie, Y. (1974). A general rollback model for regional air pollution control planning. Environ. Planning A,6, 215–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Horie, Y., and Overton, J. H. (1974). The effect on rollback models due to distribution of concentration. Proc. Symp. Stat. Aspects Air Quality Data, US Environ. Prot. Agency, Publ., No. EPA–650/4–74–038, pp. 15–1–15–18Google Scholar
  8. de Nevers, N., and Morris, R. (1973). Modified rollback models. Proc. 66th Annu. Meet. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., Chicago, 111., 24 to 28 June 1973, Paper, No. 73–139Google Scholar
  9. Schuck, E. A., and Papetti, R. (30 October 1973 ). Examination of the photochemical air pollution problem in southern California. US Environ. Prot. Agency, Tech. Support Doc. Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate Air Quality Control Region Transportation Control Plan Final PromulgationGoogle Scholar
  10. Szepesi, D. J. (1977). Modified rollback model for air quality planning. Proc. 4th Int. Clean Air Congr., Tokyo, 16 to 20 May 1977, pp. 284–7Google Scholar
  11. United States Government (14 August 1971 ). Requirements for preparation, adoption and submittal of implementation plans. Fed. Regist., 36, No. 158Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Michel M. Benarie 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel M. Benarie
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut National de Recherche Chimique AppliquéeVert-le-PetitFrance

Personalised recommendations