"The goal of the proposed research is to monitor changes in the particle size and chemical speciation of individual atmospheric aerosol particles over relatively short time intervals. Correlations will be established between fluctuations in aerosol particle size/composition distributions, gas phase measurements (i.e. NOx, ozone, NH3, HNO3), and meteorological conditions (wind speed, direction, relative humidity, temperature)... Using these real-time measurement capabilities [aerosol time-of-flight mass spectrometry (ATOFMS)], we will characterize temporal and spatial variations of atmospheric aerosol particles. These variations will be correlated with gas phase species concentrations, time of day, and meteorological conditions..."
1. Aggregation to longer averaging times (monthly, seasonal, annual means)
2. Supplemental rain chemistry data (merged from US & Canadian networks, and aggregated to similar averageing times as #1
Regarding #1, issues include data completeness (how many samples for a "valid" monthly mean?) and missing data (how to handle "below MDL" values in averaging?)
Regarding #2, comparing space/time patterns in aerosol and wet deposition for SO4, NO3, Ca, Mg, K, and NH4 could be illuminating...
"The goal of the proposed research is to monitor changes in the particle size and chemical speciation of individual atmospheric aerosol particles over relatively short time intervals. Correlations will be established between fluctuations in aerosol particle size/composition distributions, gas phase measurements (i.e. NOx, ozone, NH3, HNO3), and meteorological conditions (wind speed, direction, relative humidity, temperature)... Using these real-time measurement capabilities [aerosol time-of-flight mass spectrometry (ATOFMS)], we will characterize temporal and spatial variations of atmospheric aerosol particles. These variations will be correlated with gas phase species concentrations, time of day, and meteorological conditions..."
Finally, I would like to see the ozone and PMf data assessment folks merged.
ava
Finally, I would like to see the ozone and PMf data assessment folks merged.
ava
Operations of PM-2.5 monitoring networks, quality control, and data analysis.
Such a simple structure will force even the MTU to delve deeper.
The Workbook section would then contain all of the PM analysis content, structured according to one (or all) of the suggested forms. Anyone visiting the site, MTU or otherwise, would quickly realize that if they want to view some content they need to go to the workbook section. If we pull any of the Workbook sections to the top level then we added a degree of randomness (in my view) to the website. This randomness will help some first time visitor to quickly find things (inwhich case they may stop exploring), but will also confuse others.
No matter what form the workbook eventually takes, I think that we all agree that it must include a Resources section. If we also agree that no Workbook "content" should go at the top level then all resources must be placed in the Workbook - Resource section, or else we would be mixing incompatible elements such as web links and trends at the same workbook level. A suggested structure under Workbook - Resource is:
Data, Tools, Literature, Weblinks, Glossary, Contacts (or user groups)??, Training
About the Training section. I think that we should maintain the Activities - Training section and place only time sensitive material such as upcoming training events. We should also include a Resource - Training section would contain time insensitive materials. Also, training can go beyond tools, e.g. web sites, so I do not think it should be placed under the Resource - Tools section
I wonder if the concept of an e-mail "list-serve" has a place somewhere in the communications hierarchy? While approximately the same function can be served by e-mail distribution lists, the list-serve features of "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" provide a nice option for external entry to or retreat from a particular discussion or user group. For example, the subgroups (trends, who done it, etc.) might be appropriate forums for list-serve discussions. These would not replace the more open web-communication structure, but might fill an intermediate niche (and could perhaps also be made accessible via website through some sort of "news-reader"?
Regarding categorization (my NOAA READY submittal as example), some "resources" might have multiple logical categories (for READY, we have "data", "tools" and "training" - & might well add some "literature" and "glossary" links to same (though it could also be simply considered as just a "web-link"). In such cases, it seems "Redundancy" is the way to go - ie have each item listed under each category to which it pertains, with emphasis on the category (ie. the header would emphasize READY data under data, READY tools under tools, etc.