1 / 26

Using In-Network Precision Data as a Basis for Cross-Network Comparisons Warren H. White, Nicole P. Hyslop, and Charles

Using In-Network Precision Data as a Basis for Cross-Network Comparisons Warren H. White, Nicole P. Hyslop, and Charles E. McDade. AAAR Specialty Conference: Particulate Matter, Supersites Program & Related Studies Atlanta, GA 11 February 2005. collocated samplers in IMPROVE network

mea
Download Presentation

Using In-Network Precision Data as a Basis for Cross-Network Comparisons Warren H. White, Nicole P. Hyslop, and Charles

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using In-Network Precision Data as a Basis for Cross-Network Comparisons Warren H. White, Nicole P. Hyslop, and Charles E. McDade • AAAR Specialty Conference: • Particulate Matter, Supersites Program & Related Studies • Atlanta, GA 11 February 2005

  2. collocated samplers in IMPROVE network starting summer 2003 Module A (PM2.5, Teflon Filter) Mesa Verde National Park, CO Proctor Maple Research Facility, VT Olympic National Park, WA Saint Marks National Wildlife Refuge, FL Sac and Fox Tribe, KS Trapper Creek (Denali National Park), AK Module B (PM2.5, Nylon Filter) Big Bend National Park, TX Blue Mounds State Park, MN Frostburg Reservoir, MD Gates of the Mountains Wilderness, MT Lassen Volcanic National Park, CA Mammoth Cave National Park, KY Module C (PM2.5, Quartz Filter) Everglades National Park, FL Hercules Glades Wilderness, MO Hoover Wilderness, CA Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge, MT Saguaro National Park (Western Section), AZ Seney National Wildlife Refuge, MI Module D (PM10, Teflon Filter) Houston, TX (STN urban site) Jarbridge Wilderness, NV Joshua Tree National Park, CA Quabbin Reservoir, MA Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge, NC Wind Cave National Park, SD

  3. collocated monitoring by Speciation Network uncertainty reporting started summer 2003 STN data provided by Shelly Eberly, EPA OAQPS

  4. obligatory introductory slide • When should both parties be happy with the results of a comparison? • First impressions – how do the collocated and routine IMPROVE results compare? • First impressions – how do the STN and IMPROVE results compare?

  5. Se, ug/m3

  6. Se, ug/m3

  7. V, ug/m3

  8. V, ug/m3

  9. Fe, ug/m3

  10. Fe, ug/m3

  11. relative error IMPROVE SO4= arithmetic error

  12. IMPROVE SO4= observed D expected D

  13. IMPROVE SO4= cumulative distribution of observed D / expected D

  14. IMPROVE SO4= unit normal distribution* * corresponding to normal error, unbiased with known precision

  15. SO4= IMPROVE-IMPROVE STN-IMPROVE

  16. Are observed STN-IMPROVE differences accounted for by the two networks’ reported uncertainties? STN - IMPROVE Yes! no!

  17. How about collocated-routine differences within IMPROVE?

  18. What I just said • When should both parties be happy with the results of a comparison? When observed differences are consistent with reported uncertainties. • First impressions – how do the collocated and routine IMPROVE results compare? We are generally ‘happy’, except with the ‘crustal’ elements and S. • First impressions – how do the STN and IMPROVE results compare? See C.E. McDade et al., this room, just 1 hour from now.

More Related