05.01.2013 Views

Air quality expert group - Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in ... - Defra

Air quality expert group - Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in ... - Defra

Air quality expert group - Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in ... - Defra

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>PM2.5</strong> <strong>in</strong> the UK<br />

32<br />

43. Ratification of the data will <strong>in</strong>clude check<strong>in</strong>g that all <strong>in</strong>strument operat<strong>in</strong>g<br />

parameters are with<strong>in</strong> specification and that the result<strong>in</strong>g measurements<br />

compare sensibly with other monitor<strong>in</strong>g data at this site or from nearby<br />

locations (expla<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> more detail <strong>in</strong> Section 2.3.7).<br />

2.3.7 Comparison with other data<br />

44. In the case of <strong>PM2.5</strong> monitor<strong>in</strong>g one of the most important data ratification<br />

checks is comparison with other data, both other pollutants monitored at the<br />

same site and <strong>PM2.5</strong> monitored on a regional basis. The two key criteria are as<br />

follows:<br />

• Are <strong>PM2.5</strong> measurements at a site generally less than co-located PM10<br />

concentrations as you would expect (allow<strong>in</strong>g for occasional excursions<br />

with<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>strument uncerta<strong>in</strong>ties)?<br />

• Are the volatile <strong>PM2.5</strong> measurements at a site consistent with regional<br />

concentrations?<br />

QA/QC checks can easily be put <strong>in</strong> place to review <strong>in</strong>strument performance<br />

aga<strong>in</strong>st these criteria.<br />

45. Firstly, calculation and plott<strong>in</strong>g of the daily difference between PM10 and <strong>PM2.5</strong><br />

measurements from co-located <strong>in</strong>struments will show if there is any substantial<br />

bias towards <strong>PM2.5</strong> concentrations exceed<strong>in</strong>g PM10. Of course this will not<br />

identify <strong>in</strong> itself whether there is a problem with the <strong>PM2.5</strong> <strong>in</strong>strument overread<strong>in</strong>g<br />

or PM10 <strong>in</strong>strument under-read<strong>in</strong>g. This decision will need to be made<br />

through <strong>in</strong>terpretation of audit results, <strong>in</strong>strument servic<strong>in</strong>g reports and us<strong>in</strong>g<br />

the experience of the QA/QC Unit.<br />

46. Secondly, plott<strong>in</strong>g regional volatile <strong>PM2.5</strong> data, together with statistical analysis,<br />

can enable the identification of any monitor<strong>in</strong>g sites that may be operat<strong>in</strong>g<br />

as outliers. If outliers are detected then it may be that such data are <strong>in</strong>valid,<br />

depend<strong>in</strong>g of course on the number and <strong>quality</strong> of the other measurements<br />

<strong>in</strong> the region aga<strong>in</strong>st which they are be<strong>in</strong>g compared. An example of regional<br />

volatile <strong>PM2.5</strong> data is shown <strong>in</strong> Figure 2.5. In this case further <strong>in</strong>vestigation<br />

would be required for London Harl<strong>in</strong>gton and Camden Kerbside which appear<br />

to be high and low respectively compared to the regional mean.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!