I wish to study air pollution in Nepal. Which one is better? Taking average of PM2.5 and PM10 from different stations OR studying air pollution indicators at each stations of a city ?
Dear Sujan Prasad Gautam ,
Interesting question. I think it depends on your research question. If you want to identify significant determinants of air pollution, studying the variability of PM within each station, and between different stations, along with traffic load, asphalt, speed limit, measures to reduce air pollution, and so on, is a good approach; I think. If you want to say something about the average concentrations, combining all stations is one option. However, I think you get significantly less out of the latter one.
Good luck! Regards
Dear Sujan Prasad Gautam
Using your original data will provide a good spatiotemporal representation of the city. In case you have consistent data of different stations in a city, why should you dilute it by averaging? For missing data, try to find some interpolation technique.
It is not good to use average concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 from all stations in the city - in this way all the maximum concentrations for the individual areas in the city will be "lost". It is best to use information from different stations located in different areas - urban background point, transport-oriented point, industrial-oriented point (if any). In this way, real information on air pollution from various sources will be obtained and the level of exposure of the population will be clarified (it is very important).
It depends on the distance between the monitoring stations and the sources of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions surrounding each site. PM10 transport distances are much smaller than PM2.5 so the surrounding sources will dominate the mass measured by each monitor. If a large portion of the PM10 is PM2.5 then distance to source will not matter as much. In general, averaging is not done. The sources surrounding each monitor should be looked at individually. The spatial and temporal distribution of sources within 1 to 2 kilometers of each monitor will provide good information. If source inventories are not available, than meteorology should also be considered.
It is better to perform the study based on the original available data to understand the contributions of sources of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions.
When dealing with the city's air quality, it's important to know where monitoring stations are located (some of them might be located near the industries, residential area etc.). As a result, averaging stations from different land uses/sectors can have a significant impact on your PM value. It's possible that you'll come across articles that average all of the stations, but it all depends on the study's objectives.
Dear Drs. Geetali Saha , Rozalina Chuturkova , Catherine Rose MacDougall , Ashok Silwal
Thank you so much for your response. This discussion really helped me a lot.
Thank you very much, Sujan Prasad Gautam for the interesting topic of discussion! I wish you success!
PM2.5 poses an even greater danger to your health. One of the reasons scientists study PM2.5 separately from PM10 (even though PM2.5 is technically counted as PM10) is because of a special property of PM2.5. Unlike PM10, PM2.5 can not only enter your lungs but also permeate your bloodstream. PM10 particles get stuck higher up in your respiratory track and can't penetrate deep into your body, as PM2.5 does. PM2.5 can flow to other parts of your body like your brain and heart.
As PM2.5 enters different organs in your body, it causes inflammation and damage. For this reason, PM2.5 contributes to the same conditions as PM10 and additional ones like:
- Respiratory disease
- Reduced immune response
- Congenital disabilities
- Diabetes
- Reduced brain white matter
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Automotive Engineering
- Machines