Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 285

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

U.S. National PM2.5Chemical Speciation Monitoring Networks—CSN and IMPROVE: Description of networks

Open access
Solomon, Paul A., Crumpler, Dennis, Flanagan, James B., Jayanty, R.K.M., Rickman, Ed E., McDade, Charles E.·2014·Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Abstract

The US. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) initiated the national PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Monitoring Network (CSN) in 2000 to support evaluation of long-term trends and to better quantify the impact of sources on particulate matter (PM) concentrations in the size range below 2.5 μm aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5; fine particles). The network peaked at more than 260 sites in 2005. In response to the 1999 Regional Haze Rule and the need to better understand the regional transport of PM, EPA also augmented the long-existing Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) visibility monitoring network in 2000, adding nearly 100 additional IMPROVE sites in rural Class 1 Areas across the country. Both networks measure the major chemical components of PM2.5 using historically accepted filter-based methods. Components measured by both networks include major anions, carbonaceous material, and a series of trace elements. CSN also measures ammonium and other cations directly, whereas IMPROVE estimates ammonium assuming complete neutralization of the measured sulfate and nitrate. IMPROVE also measures chloride and nitrite. In general, the field and laboratory approaches used in the two networks are similar; however, there are numerous, often subtle differences in sampling and chemical analysis methods, shipping, and quality control practices. These could potentially affect merging the two data sets when used to understand better the impact of sources on PM concentrations and the regional nature and long-range transport of PM2zs. This paper describes, for the first time in the peer-reviewed literature, these networks as they have existed since 2000, outlines differences infield and laboratory approaches, provides a summary of the analytical parameters that address data uncertainty, and summarizes major network changes since the inception of CSN. Implications: Two long-term chemical speciation particle monitoring networks have operated simultaneously in the United States since 2001, when the EPA began regular operations of its PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Monitoring Network (IMPROVE began in 1988). These networks use similar field sampling and analytical methods, but there are numerous, often subtle differences in equipment and methodologies that can affect the results. This paper describes these networks since 20000 (inception of CSN) and their differences, and summarizes the analytical parameters that address data uncertainty, providing researches and policymakers with background information they may need (e.g., for 2018 PM2.5 designation and State Implementation Plan process; McCarthy, 2013) to assess results from each network and decide how these data sets can be mutually employed for enhanced analyses. Changes in CSN and IMPROVE that have occurred over the years also are described.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10962247.2014.956904

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 285

Metadata

Authors
Solomon, P. A., Crumpler, D., Flanagan, J. B., Jayanty, R. K. M., Rickman, E. E., & McDade, C. E.
Venue
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Published
2014-11-14
Volume
64
Issue
12
Pages
1410-1438
ISSN
  • 1047-3289 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-2247
  • 2162-2906
OpenAlex
W2059395660
Cited by
285
References
1
FWCI
8.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.