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
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.