You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
@farhadsalimi we need to address this concern from Geoff at some stage.
Geoff says:
For eg there are 4 pm2.5 monitoring sites operating during our study period. the study period is very long - 20 years. during this period pm2.5 monitoring has changed within the sydney region. i'm not sure about excluding PM2.5 monitors if data is not available from a site for >25% (ie: >5 years) of study period when we have such a long study period this means we can exclude sites with 15 years of data. as monitoring PM2.5 became more important the nsw epa likely increased the number of monitoring sites over time. as we have such a long study period i think we should create 2 (or 3 at most) exposure metrics based on different monitor site exclusion criteria
site operating for >75: ie our current approach
best use of available data
re 2: look at operating periods of monitoring sites and base exclusions on reasonable data use criteria. ideally this would result in 2 (or 3 at most) periods where the number of monitoring sites used was potentially different. eg: 94 to 2007? when 3 monitoring sites were operating for >75% of the time. 2008 to 2013 when 4 monitoring sites were operating for >75% of the time. ideal;ly these periods will coincide with the periods for which the fire smoke day validation process was different, and the 95%ile/ 99%ile calculation to id those days will be different
the bottom line is even if this will not change any results, these alternative metrics will be useful to have.
SO:
We think it would be useful to produce two pm2.5 metrics:
one based on avaraging 3 sites for who study period as you suggest
one for a sensitivity analysis based on: 3 sites for the period 1jan94 to chullora start date; 4 sites for the period chullora start date to 31dec2013.
call the pm2.5 estimates something like
pm2.5site3
pm2.5site34
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@farhadsalimi we need to address this concern from Geoff at some stage.
Geoff says:
For eg there are 4 pm2.5 monitoring sites operating during our study period. the study period is very long - 20 years. during this period pm2.5 monitoring has changed within the sydney region. i'm not sure about excluding PM2.5 monitors if data is not available from a site for >25% (ie: >5 years) of study period when we have such a long study period this means we can exclude sites with 15 years of data. as monitoring PM2.5 became more important the nsw epa likely increased the number of monitoring sites over time. as we have such a long study period i think we should create 2 (or 3 at most) exposure metrics based on different monitor site exclusion criteria
re 2: look at operating periods of monitoring sites and base exclusions on reasonable data use criteria. ideally this would result in 2 (or 3 at most) periods where the number of monitoring sites used was potentially different. eg: 94 to 2007? when 3 monitoring sites were operating for >75% of the time. 2008 to 2013 when 4 monitoring sites were operating for >75% of the time. ideal;ly these periods will coincide with the periods for which the fire smoke day validation process was different, and the 95%ile/ 99%ile calculation to id those days will be different
the bottom line is even if this will not change any results, these alternative metrics will be useful to have.
SO:
We think it would be useful to produce two pm2.5 metrics:
call the pm2.5 estimates something like
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: