Red window. Once again, 0.two) in t models matched reasonably well except the MC simulations. Thioacetazone;Amithiozone Bacterial thethe a window (0.2two Figure five case, a perpendicular incoming beam top rated of final results in between the the MC model top rated boundary (Figure 2b). The parametersof the window. Again, the models matched reasonably bigger radiative intensity the top rated (a the radiation in the dle with the created slightly effectively except at the location at values close to = 0.9, b = two)entrance particu window. The other area, away bigger radiative intensity values MC model created slightly from perpendicular for the incoming window, also had a lot dium are comparable to episodes of heavily polluted near the radiationsome urban ar atmosphere in entrance smaller valuesother towards the away fromof the direct beam the incoming reasonably medium window. The due location, scattering perpendicular to area for this window, also had 35]. The LBM simulation was also evaluated with our MC model andMC other MC opticalsmallerand huge scattering albedo. Some distinction betweenfor this reasonably memuch depth values on account of the scattering from the direct beam region RT-LBM plus the [29] results. depth and massive scattering albedo. The RT-LBM-simulated slightly smaller modeloptical dium was observed in these low-intensity locations. Some distinction between RT-LBM and values near the was observed in these low-intensity areas. The RT-LBM-simulatedFigure 6 Figure five compares our RT-LBM as well as reported in Mink et The outcomes among the MC model incoming radiation boundary will be the MC simulations. al. [29]. slightly compares the close to the incoming radiation boundary are 0.five, reported for RT-LBM, our smaller matched reasonably well except in the region in the prime from the window. Ag modelsvaluesline samples inside the z path (Y = 0.5; X = also 0.75, 0.85)in Mink et al. [29]. MC model, and thethe line samples in thesimulations.(Y = 0.five; X = 0.5, 0.75, 0.85) nicely in MC model [29] z direction The simulations examine for RTFigure 6 compares otherslightly bigger radiative intensity MCcenterline, excepting slight variations near the window region. values close to the radiation e model produced the our MC model, along with the other MC model [29] simulations. The simulations intensity The radiation compare LBM, window.reasonably properly but there arefrom perpendicular for the incoming window, a region, away compares The otherexcepting slight slightly extra differences off the centerline. properly within the centerline, differences close to the window area. The radiation considerably smaller values as a result of the scattering of themore differencesarea for this relativ intensity compares reasonably effectively but there are actually slightly direct beam off the centerdium optical depth and big scattering albedo. Some distinction in between RT-LB line.the MC model was observed in these low-intensity places. The RT-LBM-simulated smaller values close to the incoming radiation boundary are also reported in Mink etAtmosphere 2021, 12,8 ofAtmosphere 2021, 12, x FOR PEER Assessment phere 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW8 of 15 8 ofFigure five. Windowed simulation final results from RT-LBM (left panel) plus the MC model (appropriate panel). Figure 5. Windowedresults from outcomes from RT-LBM (left panel) model (proper panel). TheThe cross sections The simulation RT-LBM (left panel) and also the MC as well as the intensity fields. panel). Figure five. Windowed simulation X-Z cross sections (Y = 0.5) are from the 3-D radiative MC model (suitable X-Zradiative parameters are a 0.5) = in the 3-D radiative intensity a = 0.9, b = 2. (Y = 0.5) would be the X-Z crossradiative (Y.
