Document DDZngmgrLamkgM6LjqOXk4ExO

AR226-2234 Steven L Grise 12/12/2001 03:26:26 PM To: Debbie J Mulrooney/AE/DuPont@DuPont cc: Bernard J Reilly/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Robert F Pinchot/DEV/AE/DuPont@DuPont Subject: Re: C.O. Doc # 2 - Vapor Scavenging Coefficients Q Rob, Bemie - I'll assume you will add the red line to the paragraph as Debbie describes. A ll I realize I didn't put the references in completely. Partly because I didn't have them, partly because I followed the logic and discussion rather closely from Seinfeld's book. 1can put them in if we feel it is necessary, since they are easy to get. What does everyone think ? Steve Debbie J Mulrooney ^ Debbie J Mulrooney ' 12/12/2001 10:57 AM To: cc: Subject: Steven L Grise/AE/DuPont@ DuPont Bernard J Reilly/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Robert F Pinchot/DEV/AE/DuPont@DuPont, Steven L G rise/A E /D u Po n t@ D u P o n t Re: C.O. Doc # 2 - Vapor Scavenging Coefficients Q Steve, A couple of comments. First I would add to the wording of the last paragraph as follows In red: Results of the numerical integration are shown below in tabular and graphical form. The maximum intensity value used was 30 mm/hr, which exceeded the maximum observed intensity of 27.9 mm/hr recorded at the Washington Works site during 1996. (This is the year of on-site meteorological data that has been processed for use in the ISC model.) Also, details on a couple of the references seem to be missing (Marshall & Palmer; Fuller et al). Were you planning to include a list of references at the end? Alternatively, you could give the details in the text like you did for the Seinfeld reference. . Other than that, this looks really good. And it looks like it was a lot of work. I'm glad you were the one who had to deal with the integrals, etc. and not me! Debbie EDD007 9293