Does everyone believe the airborne fungal contribution to organic matter in PM2.5 (0.096%) truly nonnegligible? Why?
1. that is a remarkably precise number. Where does this number come from
2. science is not belief: you can ask for examples
3. why do you "believe" this number is wrong?
Thanks for your reply. The percentage is the fungal organic carbon contribution to the submicron particles. It was calculated following the method reported by Liang (2017, Atmospheric Pollution Research,8(2): 351–358). But my result are far lower than that in other sites using the same methods, so I am confused and not sure the number is right or not.
I could only read the abstract of the paper. What I see is that the numbers are very rough with an uncertainty of a factor of 2 . Are you aware of what it means to have a value of 3% +- 3%: this is not the very precise number of 0.096 suggesting an accuracy of better 1%
It must depend on the presence of fungi that spread by means of spitting out pores. I'll send you an article by W. Ebert et al, ACP 7, (2007). We measured size 1-2 u in an isolated 100% RH cave (no possibility of outside aerosols getting in), The concentration was about the same day or night. When humans entered they caused similar size aerosols, so that the percentage of the fungi/spores aerosols varied.
If you want these publications give me your e-mail address. Once i tried to attach it here and then it all got messed up.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Materials Engineering
- Annealing
- Metallurgy
- Metals