In this presentation, similarities and differences between AERMOD and AUSLPUME are discussed and analysed with the ultimate goal of easing the transition from AUSPLUME to AERMOD in Victoria, as well as Australia as a whole. Topics discussed include source types, treatment of terrain, plume rise algorithms, low wind speed conditions, and chemical transformations.

1. CASANZ2015 Conference, Melbourne, 20-23 September 2015 1
AERMOD AND AUSPLUME: UNDERSTANDING THE
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
Tiffany Gardner, Qiguo Jing (PhD), Brian Holland, Weiping Dai (PhD, PE, CM)
Trinity Consultants, Inc.
Dallas, Texas, 75251 USA
Abstract
AUSPLUME has been the promulgated dispersion model in Australia since it
was developed in 1985. The model is based on the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Industrial Source Complex (ISC)
Gaussian plume model, and includes strictly Gaussian calculations. The
current version of AUSPLUME was released over one decade ago, in June
2004. Because of this, today the model lags behind newer Gaussian plume
models, like AERMOD.
AERMOD was developed by a collaborative working group of scientists from
the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the US EPA with the goal of
incorporating the state of science planetary boundary layer (PBL) concepts
into regulatory dispersion models. It has been the promulgated near-field
dispersion model by the US EPA since 2006 for air quality impact
assessments. The US EPA also continues to update and improve the model.
The latest AERMOD executable was released in 2014 and another executable
is expected to be released in summer 2015. Since 2006, more and more
countries across the globe have started using AERMOD for these
assessments including as of late Victoria, Australia, where the EPA (EPA Vic)
has adopted AERMOD in place of AUSPLUME in January 2014.
While AUSPLUME and AERMOD are both Gaussian plume models and
assume steady-state conditions, AERMOD includes advanced algorithms to
take into account impacts that cause a plume to act in a non-Gaussian
manner. Due to these advanced algorithms in AERMOD, AUSPLUME and
AERMOD calculate many key model parameters using differing approaches
and therefore treat certain factors entirely different, including low winds,
complex terrain, and plume rise.
In this paper, these similarities and differences between AERMOD and
AUSPLUME will be analysed in depth with the ultimate goal of easing the
transition from AUSPLUME to AERMOD in Victoria, as well as Australia as a
whole. The impact of the differing approaches in each model will also be
analysed, so that modellers are aware of potential implications that using one
model compared to the other may have on model results.
Keywords: AERMOD; AUSPLUME; Victoria; Gaussian
1. Introduction
With the promulgation of AERMOD in Victoria by the
EPA (EPA Victoria 2013) and the potential for future
promulgation of AERMOD in other Australian states
and in New Zealand, it is crucial that modellers
understand the similarities and differences between
AERMOD and AUSPLUME. While both are
Gaussian models, AERMOD includes additional
algorithms to account for key non-Gaussian
behaviours of a plume.
The purpose of this paper is to provide modellers
with an understanding of certain features and
algorithms that compare and differ between these
models to assist modellers with the transition from
AUSPLUME to AERMOD. The topics covered in this
paper are the similarities and differences in available
source types, algorithms to account for the influence
of terrain, plume rise calculations, low wind speed
conditions and chemical transformation options.
2. Source Types
In both AERMOD and AUSPLUME, modellers have
the option of selecting from point, area, and volume
source types. In addition to these, AERMOD also
includes a line and open pit source type, as well as
two beta source types (horizontal point source and
rain-capped point source).

2. CASANZ2015 Conference, Melbourne, 20-23 September 2015 2
2.1. Additional Source Types in AERMOD
2.1.1. Line Source Type
The line source type is typically used to represent
roadways, and was first introduced in AERMOD in
the 12345 EPA AERMOD executable (US EPA
2012). In AERMOD, the pollutants from line sources
are modelled as a series of area sources and as
such, the required input is similar to that of the area
source. Users may still choose to model a roadway
as an elongated volume or area source, but the line
source type provides an alternative method of
defining a rectangular area source that is much
longer than it is wide. It is important to note that while
a line source type is not available in AUSPLUME,
EPA Vic developed a specific line source air quality
model, AusRoads, for modelling the dispersion of
emissions from roadways. AusRoads is based on
algorithms utilized by Caline4, which was developed
by the California Department of Transportation, and
can predict concentrations of pollutants for receptors
located close to roadways.
2.1.2. Open Pit Source Type
The open pit source type is a specialized area
source that may be used for surface coal mines or
quarries when the total pollutant mass cannot
escape (US EPA 2011). The algorithm in AERMOD
employed for open pit source types uses an effective
area for modelling pit emissions based on
meteorological conditions. Then, the numerical
integration area source algorithm is used to model
the impact of emissions from the effective area
sources. Typical source parameters include
emission rate per area, coordinates and elevation,
release height above ground, pit volume, and the pit
dimensions, shape, and/or orientation.
An important factor when using the open pit source
type is that particle deposition parameters must be
included if the much earlier 07026 AERMOD
executable is selected even if the only result type
selected is concentration. Additionally, when using
the older 09292 or later AERMOD executable, open
pit sources require particle deposition parameters if
deposition is being modelled, or if at least one source
in the model scenario specifies particle deposition
parameters and the Control form option to explicitly
turn off dry and wet depletion are not selected.
2.1.3. Beta Source Types
AERMOD includes two additional source types that
are currently considered beta types by the US EPA
and EPA Vic: the horizontal point and capped point
(US EPA 2011). Aside beta source types, these
source types should not be used without specific
approval from a regulatory agency (US EPA 2011;
EPA Victoria 2013). If modelling for non-regulatory
purposes, these source types may be used for
stacks with non-vertical discharges (e.g., horizontal
or downward) or have raincaps that change the
outlet velocity from vertical to horizontal. If approved
by the US EPA or EPA Vic for modelling for
regulatory purposes though, the US EPA requires
these source types to be modelled as a vertical point
source with a vertical velocity of 0.001 m/s, which will
eliminate the momentum component. Note that if the
temperature for these stacks is greater than
ambient, the stack diameter may need to be adjusted
so that the volumetric flow rate is the same with the
0.001 m/s velocity as it is with the actual, non-vertical
velocity. Maintaining the flow rate will also serve to
maintain buoyancy of the plume in order to provide
a more realistic estimate of plume rise. As is noted
above though, in order to use these source types for
regulatory modelling, approval must be received
beforehand by US EPA or EPA Vic.
Another option for calculating the vertical velocity for
these source types is to use the following equation
and then use the larger of Vvert or 0.001m/s as the
exit velocity input to the model:
Vvert = Vs cos (Q),
Where: Vvert = Vertical Exit Velocity for AERMOD
Vs = Exit Velocity as Reported
Q = Angle of the Stack with the Vertical
(degrees)
3. Terrain
A main difference between AUSPLUME and
AERMOD is the way the models handle terrain. In a
majority of the older Gaussian models, like ISCST or
AUSPLUME, a pollutant plume can either rise above
a terrain feature or go around the terrain feature; not
both. As such, the way a plume behaves when it
encounters complex terrain is not accurately
captured in these models.
3.1. AUSPLUME: ISC Horizontal Plume and
Egan Half-Height Approaches
In AUSPLUME, three options for terrain adjustment
calculations are available (Ministry for the
Environment 2004).
3.1.1. ISC Horizontal Plume Method
First is the ISC method, or the horizontal plume
approach. With this method, terrain is assumed to
have no influence on the plume height above sea
level and as such, the plume is not uplifted by the
terrain below it (see Figure 1). This is a very simple
approach.

3. CASANZ2015 Conference, Melbourne, 20-23 September 2015 3
3.1.2. Egan Half-Height Method
The Egan half-height method, which is the second
and preferred terrain correction method, assumes
that in neutral or unstable conditions, a plume will
tend to be uplifted by broad terrain features. Under
stable conditions, this lifting will generally be less
and the plume path will be closer to the face of the
hill and may even impact the surface (see Figure 1).
In situations when a plume passes into a valley
though, the plume will tend to move further from the
ground. In all of these situations, the plume
centreline height above local terrain is more
apparent as atmospheric stability increases.
To simulate these reactions of the plume to terrain,
the plume axis remains at the plume stabilization
height above mean sea level in a stable atmosphere,
while in an unstable or neutral atmosphere the half-
height correction factor is used for changes in plume
axis height above terrain (see Figure 1). It is also
important to note that with this method, the plume
axis is constrained to be at least 10 m above ground
level.
3.1.3. Modified Egan Half-Height Method
This third method, the Modified Egan Half-Height
Method, allows the user to specify the constant of
proportionality of approach for each of the Pasquill
stability classes. This option is typically only used
where observational data exist.
Figure 1 below shows the ISC Horizontal Plume
Method, where there is no influence of terrain taken
into account; the Egan Half-Height Method, where
the half-height factor is used to account for changes
in the plume axis height to due terrain; and the
Modified Egan Half-Height Method, where the user
specifies the constant of proportionality of approach
each Pasquill stability class.
Figure 1. ISC Horizontal Plume Method and the Egan Half-
Height Methods
In each of these three methods, the plume can only
rise above or move horizontally around the terrain
feature; not both.
3.2. AERMOD: Dividing Streamline Height
Approach
Unlike AUSPLUME, AERMOD utilizes algorithms to
enable a plume to both impinge and/or go around the
hill, and also follow the terrain while maintaining a
separation from ground level equal to the initial
plume height. Using the concept of the dividing
streamline height, which is calculated based on
stability, wind speed, and plume height, AERMOD is
able to account for this non-Gaussian behaviour of a
plume. For the portion of the plume that is below the
dividing streamline height, the plume goes around
the terrain feature, and for the portion of the plume
that is above the dividing streamline height, the
plume rises up and over the terrain feature. Note that
in neutral and unstable conditions the dividing
streamline height is zero.
3.2.1. Terrain Data Selection for use in AERMOD
The terrain files accepted by AERMAP, the terrain
pre-processor of AERMOD, are Digital Elevation
Model (.DEM) data and National Elevation Dataset
(NED) GeoTIFF files and only the UTM coordinate
system is supported by AERMAP. AERMAP imports
model object elevations using these terrain data files
into AERMOD. As such, if a new model object is
added and AERMAP has already been run, it is
important to remember to rerun AERMAP so the
elevation for the new model object is also imported.
3.2.2. 10% Slope Rule
AERMOD requires that the DEM or NED data files
that are imported into the model encompass every
model object and also satisfy the 10% slope rule. In
other words, if a 10% slope is drawn from every
receptor, then the DEM or NED terrain data files
should include every terrain feature that rises above
this slope.
Estimating the number of DEM or NED files that are
necessary to include in the terrain analysis
performed by AERMAP is not straight forward
because there is no standard distance for which
terrain data should be provided; it varies case by
case. Because of this, many modellers simply obtain
terrain data that surrounds the extents of their
receptors. In areas with significant topography, this
will not be enough to compute the correct critical
scale height required by AERMOD though, which is
used to calculate the critical dividing streamline
height. As a conservative estimate, it is good
practice to estimate on the higher end to ensure the
correct number are included instead of
underestimating the number of DEM or NED data
files required.
4. Plume Rise
The final rise of a plume is essentially the sum of the
stack height, plume rise due to buoyancy, and plume
rise due to the initial momentum minus any stack-tip
downwash. In both AUSPLUME and AERMOD,
plume rise is taken into account but the methods and
algorithms used to calculate the plume rise in each

4. CASANZ2015 Conference, Melbourne, 20-23 September 2015 4
model differ. The sections below discuss how plume
rise is calculated in these models, highlighting the
similarities and differences.
4.1. Plume Rise in AUSPLUME
In AUSPLUME, there are three types of plume rise
options that can be selected; a) gradual rise of a
buoyant plume, b) partial penetration of elevated
inversions, and c) stack-tip downwash (Ministry for
the Environment 2004). Out of these options, while
a) and c) or b) and c) may be selected together, a)
and b) may not be.
When gradual plume rise is selected, the plume
gradually rises to its final height as it moves
downwind. If this option is not selected, then
AUSPLUME assumes the plume is at the final plume
height everywhere when calculating ground-level
concentrations. As such, it is typically recommended
to select this option.
Unlike the gradual plume rise option though, the
patrial penetration of elevated inversions option in
AUSPLUME assumes the plume reaches its
maximum height instantaneously when it exits a
stack. This option does not simulate the gradual rise
of a plume to its final plume rise height and as such
is used in cases when a tall buoyant sources and low
mixing heights are present and thus, the partial
penetration of inversions is important.
As is mentioned above, in AUSPLUME the user may
only pick one of these two options; the model will not
calculate both at the same time. In other words, if the
partial penetration of plumes through an elevated
inversion level is required, then in AUSPLUME the
gradual plume rise option cannot be selected. Due
to this limitation, it is necessary in certain scenarios
to run the ASUPLUME with one and then the other
selected to see which yields the highest ground-level
concentration.
Lastly, the stack-tip downwash calculations in
AUSPLUME are the same as those used in
AERMOD. As such, in both models the maximum
reduction to plume height due to stack-tip downwash
is three times the stack diameter.
4.2. Plume Rise in AERMOD
In AERMOD, the plume rise calculations are
different under stable and convective (unstable)
boundary layers and account for rise due to
momentum as well as buoyancy. Additionally, unlike
AUSPLUME where users may either select gradual
plume rise (e.g., plume gradually rises to final height)
or partial penetration of elevated inversions (e.g.,
plume is assumed to reach final height
instantaneously), AERMOD takes both into account.
4.2.1. Plume Rise in a Stable Boundary Layer
In a stable boundary layer, AERMOD uses the
minimum of the following four equations to
determine the plume rise (US EPA 2004):
 Transitional Rise:
 Final Rise:
 Neutral Limit:
where
 Near-Calm Conditions:
The transitional rise equation, which is taken from
Weil (1988b), applies when the plume is still rising,
and once the stable plume reaches its final height,
the final rise equation is used. In the final rise
equation in a stable boundary layer, notice that the
force due to momentum (Fm) is not present; only
the force due to buoyancy results in the rise of the
plume out of these two forces. As such, if there is
no buoyancy in a stable boundary layer, then there
is no plume rise calculated.
When the atmosphere is close to neutral, the Brunt
Vaisala frequency (N) is close to zero and as such,
the transitional rise equation can calculate an
unrealistically large plume rise. For this reason, in
neutral conditions the Neutral Limit equation is
used. Lastly, when the wind speed is near zero
(e.g., calm conditions), an unrealistically large
plume rise would be calculated from the transitional
rise equation so the Near-Calm Conditions equation
is used.
4.2.2. Plume Rise in a Convective Boundary Layer
In a convective boundary layer, the plume rise is
calculated using a combination of three equations
(US EPA 2004):
 Direct Plume:
 Indirect Plume:
 Penetrated Plume:

5. CASANZ2015 Conference, Melbourne, 20-23 September 2015 5
The direct plume is the plume within the mixed layer
that initially does not interact with the mixing height
whereas the indirect plume is the portion of the
plume that is within the mixed layer but rises up and
tends to loft near the mixing height. The penetrated
plume is the portion of the plume that is released in
the mixed layer but due to its buoyancy, penetrates
into the elevated stable layer aloft. By combining
these equations together to obtain the plume rise in
a convective boundary layer, the force due to
buoyancy and momentum are taken into account.
Similarly, by combining these equations the
calculated plume rise takes into account the
transition from the stack height to the final rise of the
plume as it does in the stable boundary layer.
5. Low Wind Speed Conditions
In Gaussian models, stable conditions with low wind
speeds is typically a combination that will produce
worst-case concentrations. The reason for this is
that in stable conditions, there is not much
atmospheric turbulence and as a result, the plume
stays more concentrated instead of mixing with the
ambient air. Additionally, in these models the
pollutant concentration and wind speed have an
inverse relationship, so if the wind speeds are low,
the concentrations are high.
Because of this, the ability of Gaussian models to
handle low wind speeds breaks down when wind
speeds are very low (e.g., calm conditions). As the
wind speed gets lower and lower, the concentration
can rise to unrealistic values. To try to account for
this limitation though, AERMOD and its
meteorological pre-processor, AERMET, have a few
beta options available.
5.1. Beta u* Option in AERMET
The friction velocity (u*) computed by AERMET is
used to calculate the mixing height, as well as the
initial horizontal and vertical dispersion dimensions.
In 2007, the US EPA noted issues with high
concentrations in AERMOD due to the treatment of
low winds at the EPA Regional/State/Local Modelers
Workshop, and AERMOD users began to see that
the highest impacts are typically associated with low
wind speeds during night time hours when the
atmosphere is stable. After looking into the matter
and conducting a number of analyses, the US EPA
realized that AERMET underestimates the friction
velocity for low wind speeds in stable conditions and
as such, adjustments for this u* value were tested.
In the US EPA AERMET 12345 executable, a new
beta option to adjust the surface friction velocity (u*)
value for stable low wind speed conditions was
introduced (ADJ_U*) based on Qian and Venkatram
(2011). This AERMET release was followed by
13350 which included a modification for ADJ_U* to
incorporate the Bulk Richardson Number approach
based on Luhar and Rayner (2009), which again was
followed by further modifications in the 14134
executable related to the use of the Bulk Richardson
Number. This ADJ_U* beta option is currently
considered non-default by the US EPA as it is still
undergoing testing and as such, approval is required
before using it in regulatory applications.
5.2. LOWWIND1 and LOWWIND2 Options in
AERMOD
At the same time that AERMET 12345 was released
with the ADJ_U* beta option, the US EPA AERMOD
executable 12345 also included two new beta
options related to low wind speeds; LOWWIND1 and
LOWWIND2 (US EPA 2012).
When LOWWIND1 is selected, the minimum value
of sigma-v (the standard deviation of the horizontal
wind speed) is increased from 0.2 to 0.5 m/s and the
horizontal meander algorithm is disabled. When
LOWWIND2 is enabled, the minimum value of
sigma-v is increased to 0.3 m/s and adjustments to
the horizontal meander algorithm are applied such
as an upper meander factor limit of 0.95.
While the ADJ_U* beta option is based on a peer-
reviewed study lead by Qian and Venkatram (2011),
these LOWWIND options in AERMOD have not
been peer reviewed. These options are also still
currently being reviewed and tested so they are non-
default options and specific approval from local
regulatory agencies is required in order to use them
in modelling scenarios for regulatory purposes.
6. Chemical Transformations
Chemical transformations in Gaussian models,
including AERMOD, are limited, however, they can
use a decay coefficient or half-life for pollutants of
interest (US EPA 2004). AERMOD in particular has
certain algorithms built in for specific pollutants that
AUSPLUME does not. As such, it is important to
understand the purpose of these options when
setting up a modelling scenario in AERMOD. Note
that these options are currently not to be used if
modelling for regulatory purposes in Victoria and in
order to use these options, specific approval by EPA
Vic must be received (EPA Victoria 2013).
6.1. Ambient Ratio Method
Beginning with AERMOD version 13350, two
Ambient Ratio Method (ARM) options, namely, the
default ARM and the non-default/Beta ARM2, are
incorporated into AERMOD (US EPA 2013).
When using the default ARM, the model predicted
NOx concentrations are multiplied by the empirically-
derived NO2/NOx ratio, generally based on a ratio

6. CASANZ2015 Conference, Melbourne, 20-23 September 2015 6
derived from ambient monitoring data. An annual
US national default ratio of 0.75 is recommended by
US EPA (US EPA 2005).
In response to the fact that estimated hourly
concentrations using the current three-tier levels
were predicted much higher than concentrations that
were observed (Jing and Schewe 2014), the
American Petroleum Institute (API) developed
ARM2 based on an empirical polynomial equation
for the calculation of the ambient ratio and derived it
by fitting all 2001-2010 monitoring data.
6.2. Ozone Limiting Method
The Ozone Limiting Method, or OLM, involves an
initial comparison of the estimated maximum NOX
concentration and the ambient ozone concentration
to determine which is the limiting factor to NO2
formation (Jing and Schewe 2014). When this OLM
option is activated in AERMOD, if the ozone
concentration is greater than the NOX concentration,
then total NOX to NO2 conversion is assumed. If the
maximum NOX concentration is greater than the
ozone concentration though, then the formation of
NO2 is limited by the amount of ozone available in
the ambient.
A limitation of the OLM is that fresh ozone is
assumed to be uniformly mixed across the cross
section of the plume. The molar ratio of NOX to
ozone mixed into the plume is not taken into account,
now if the gradual entrainment and mixing of ambient
ozone in the plume.
6.3. Plume Volume Molar Ratio Method
Similar to the OLM, the Plume Volume Molar Ratio
Method (PVMRM) is an option that may be activated
in AERMOD for modelling the conversion of NOX to
NO2. However, unlike the OLM, a key concept in the
PVMRM is that the conversion of NOX to NO2 is
determined by the ratio of the number of fresh ozone
moles entrained into a plume to the number of NOX
moles in the plume as it reaches a receptor (Jing and
Schewe 2014).
Basically, this method calculates the ratio of ozone
moles to NOX moles in an effluent plume segment
volume at downwind receptor locations, and then
multiples this molar ratio by the NOX concentrations
estimated by AERMOD in order to calculate the NO2
concentrations in the plume.
Similar to the OLM, the PVMRM does not account
for the gradual entrainment and mixing of ambient
ozone in the plume which is a limitation of this
method.
6.4. SO2 in an Urban Mode
While the OLM and PVMRM options in AERMOD
must be selected in order to be used in a model run
and are non-default options, another option that
relates to chemical transformation is default and
occurs automatically when a specific pollutant and
mode are selected.
In AERMOD, if the pollutant being modelled is SO2
and the urban mode is selected, then by default a
half-life of four hours will automatically be applied
(US EPA 2004). While this automatically occurs by
default in AERMOD, in order to use the urban mode,
specific approval from a local regulatory agency like
the US EPA and EPA Vic must be received.
7. Conclusion
While AERMOD and AUSPLUME are both Gaussian
models and include similar options and features, the
way certain options and features are accounted for
within the models differ. From differences in
available source types modellers can choose from,
to the way terrain is accounted for in each model,
there are similarities and differences between these
two models that are important to understand.
The choice to use features and options that are
included in AERMOD but are not accounted for in
AUSPLUME will mainly be dependent upon local
regulations so it is important to keep in mind that
some of the AERMOD features and options
discussed in this paper are not considered
regulatory and require special approval to use in
regulatory modelling analyses. By understanding
how certain features are accounted for in AERMOD
compared to AUSPLUME, as well as how the
algorithms that are built into the models differ,
modellers have a better understanding of model
input and output and as such, are more prepared to
make the transition to using AERMOD for regulatory
dispersion modelling analyses.
References
Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria
2013, Guidance Notes for using the Regulatory Air
Pollution Model AERMOD in Victoria, EPA
Victoria, 200 Victoria Street, Carlton.
Jing, Q., Schewe, G. J. 2014, ‘Hourly NO to NO2
Conversion Methods in AERMOD’, Trinity
Consultants, Inc. May 2014 e-News.
Luhar, A. K., Rayner, K. N. 2009, ‘Methods to
Estimate Surface Fluxes of Momentum and Heat
from Routine Weather Observations for Dispersion
Applications under Stable Stratification’,
Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 132:437-454.
Ministry for the Environment, 2004, Manatu Mo Te
Taiao, New Zealand, 2004, Good Practice for
Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling.
Pitts, O. 2009, ‘Preliminary Evaluation of Ausplume
for Low Wind Speed (LWS) Dispersion from
Surface Sources’ CASANZ Workshop, Perth 6th
September 2009.

7. CASANZ2015 Conference, Melbourne, 20-23 September 2015 7
Qian, W., Venkatram, A. 2011, ‘Performance of
Steady-State Dispersion Models Under Low Wind-
Speed Conditions’, Boundary-Layer Meteorology,
138: 3: 475-491.
USUS Environmental Protection Agency, 2004,
‘AERMOD: Description of Model Formulation’.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2005,
‘Revision to the Guidance on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and
Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other
Revisions; Final Rule’ 40 CFR Part 51.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2009,
‘AERMOD Implementation Guide’.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2011, ‘User’s
Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model –
AERMOD’.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2012, ‘Model
Change Bulletin MCB#8 AERMOD (dated 12345)’.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2013, ‘Model
Change Bulletin MCB#9 AERMOD (dated 13350)’.
Weil, J.C. 1988b, ‘Plume Rise’, Lectures in Air
Pollution Modeling, A. Venkatram and J.C.
Wyngaard, Eds., American Meteorological
Society, 119-162.