Content deleted Content added
Tag: |
|||
| (39 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Environment
{{WikiProject Weather |importance=High |general-meteorology-task-force=yes}}
}}
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}
Line 27 ⟶ 29:
I propose to make this change on Saturday unless there is any other feedback in accordance with [[WP:BB]].--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] ([[User talk:NHSavage|talk]]) 19:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I am kind of new to the business of editing wikipedia pages. So I do not know the procedure. But I object to the title of the page "Particulates" and generally to the use of the word "particulate" as a noun. It is an adjective, eg "particulate matter". I suggest change the page title to "Atmospheric aerosols". There might be another page entitled "Aerosols", as there are many other types of aerosols (industrial, medical) than atmospheric as indicated in comments by NHSavage below, which I generally agree with. [[User:Soccer59|Soccer59]] ([[User talk:Soccer59|talk]]) 05:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
: I agree. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 07:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
:: If the proposal is to rename this article, the procedure is set forth at [[WP:RM]]. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 13:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello SmokeyJoe; as I said above I am new to this process; I briefly looked at your talk page and see you seem to be up there with the experts. I also briefly looked at [[WP:RM]] but I am reluctant to do a unilateral move without some concurrence of other folks interested in this subject. But how to initiate a discussion? [[User:Soccer59|Soccer59]] ([[User talk:Soccer59|talk]]) 19:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
== Skopje ==
Line 120 ⟶ 129:
FULL FREE TEXT:
{{PMC|3622279}}
NIHMSID: NIHMS451584
{{PMID
== Airborne-particulate-size-chart ==
No Units on a chart? Are you kidding? This is something students learn in middle school. Put units on charts and graphs! [[User:JabberWok|JabberWok]] ([[User talk:JabberWok|talk]]) 03:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed--this is important. Who added the chart? Someone needs to add units forthwith. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JamesCAustin|JamesCAustin]] ([[User talk:JamesCAustin#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JamesCAustin|contribs]]) 19:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== PM2.5 ==
[[Boys]] and [[girls]] - this is not a [[refereed journal]], it's an [[encyclopedia]]. When I look up PM2.5, I expect to find out what the [[hell]] that means, not get into a discussion about what constitutes a "[[particle]]". PM is Particulate Matter? 2.5 is ... ? [[Inches]]? [[km]]? Is it even a size? Maybe it's how the particle [[tastes]] - 2.5 is [[raspberry]] and 10 is [[chocolate]]? --[[User:Plaws|plaws]] ([[User talk:Plaws|talk]]) 18:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
:The article says micrometers. If you think the description can be improved, feel free to [[WP:SOFIXIT|do it]]. — [[User:Hhhippo|<
Line 149 ⟶ 160:
*'''Support''' the rename, move [[Particulate (disambiguation)]] to [[Particulate]], and anything that is not obviously [[Atmospheric particulate matter]] should go there [[Special:Contributions/24.131.80.54|24.131.80.54]] ([[User talk:24.131.80.54|talk]]) 21:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with redirects as suggest by G.C. Hood.--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] ([[User talk:NHSavage|talk]]) 17:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
*Please hang on until I get back from Wikimania. I'll be available on the 12th. The discussion can be relisted to remain open until then. Cheers! [[User:BD2412|<
*'''Support''' per nom. "Particulate" fails to reflect the scope of this article, and is ambiguous with [[particle]]. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
*I am concerned that we are not fully thinking through and plotting out the best solution here. Our goal is to help readers find the article that they are likely to be looking for when they search for or link to [[particulates]]. I would much rather get this done right than get it done quickly, particularly since the status quo has existed for about two years, and I am not aware of any complaints about it in that time. I have some questions about possible alternatives to moving this page, first and foremost being whether the current article can be expanded or adjusted to include both airborne and waterborne particulates (aside from the much more rarely discussed [[space debris]], these appear to be the only important mediums in which particulates are carried). However, I have found some sources which distinguish these, only labeling airborne particles as particulates. For example:
Line 157 ⟶ 168:
: My Google Books search returns about 40,000 hits for "particulates", and 1,220 hits for the specific phrase "particulates in water". I would consider this a lack of evidence of anything other than air pollution being commonly referred to as [[Particulates]], although I also think that a more appropriate title given the sources would be [[Particulate matter]].
: I also looked at page hits. If readers are arriving at this page but intending to find something else, they might follow the hatlink to the disambiguation page. In the last 90 days, however, [[Particulates]] [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Particulates has been viewed nearly 48,000 times], while the disambiguation page [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Particulate_(disambiguation) has been viewed 178 times], of which about one third happened in the few hours after this page was initially moved to a different title. In the same period, [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Total_suspended_solids Total suspended solids] was viewed about 15,000 times, but again there is little evidence that this term is considered synonymous with "particulates", and no evidence that editors are reaching that page after having searched for "particulates", and then gone through the disambiguation page.
: Lastly, there is the question of ambiguity itself. I recently de-disambiguated [[Particulate pollution]], and noted there that the EPA describes how the ''same'' particles can pass back and forth between water and air, being carried in the air and deposited in the water, and then returning to the air to form acid rain and the like. I wonder, do we need a separate page on particulate pollution at all if it is asserted that all particulates are polluting? Some of the literature (e.g. Newton, above) suggests that there can be natural particulates such as dust, smoke from forest fires, and airborne biogenics, but this is a distinction that can be covered in an article, just as Newton has succinctly covered it in his book chapter. Based on all of the foregoing, I propose that the optimal solution is to move the current title to [[Particulate matter]], and move the current [[particulate pollution]] article to this title with some added material indicating that both natural and artificial particulates exist, with the latter constituting pollution. [[User:BD2412|<
::I don't really like any of these options. I agree from when I tried to do some disambiguation on links to [[Particulate (disambiguation)]] ages ago, that most (but not all) of the links meant aerosol pollution in Earth's atmosphere. Some meant naturally formed aerosols in Earth's atmosphere. A secondary usage was particles suspended in water. The problem of ambiguity is due to the way people abuse this term. How about this: rename this page as per your suggestion to particulate matter. Redirect particulates, particulate, particulate pollution, atmospheric particulate matter to particulate matter. Add a hat note along the lines of ''This article is about particles suspended in the atmosphere. For particulate matter suspended in water see [[Suspended solids]]''. I would ignore marine debris and space debris - neither article mentions particulates or any variant thereof. I would then delete Particulate (disambiguation). This article already mentions that there are natural sources of particulate. Are there any other redirects or pages I missed?--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] ([[User talk:NHSavage|talk]]) 20:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
::Oh one more thing - there is nothing in the EPA article cited by particulate pollution about particles evaporating from water. The point of the EPA article is that when particles settle on water, they can damage the water quality (or in the case of desert dust fertilize it, but that is another story). The particulate pollution is misleading to say ''Notably, some of the same kinds of particles can be suspended both in the air and in water, and pollutants specifically may be carried in the air and deposited in the water, or carried by water and transferred to the air through evaporation''. If aerosols are water soluble, then when deposited to water, they will dissolve. If they are insoluble, then they will generally not evaporate again. There are two main sources of particulates from water bodies that I can think of sea salt generated mechanically, but there is such a large resevoir of salt that the re-deposition of sea salt in the oceans is a bit beside the point, and [[dimethyl sulfide]] which is produced by plankton and can then be oxidised to give sulfate aerosol. In neither case does a particle cycle back and forth as that article suggests. If I wasn't proposing its deletion, I'd want to change that statement.--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] ([[User talk:NHSavage|talk]]) 20:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
::Oh I missed [[Colloidal particle]] - I would just redirect this to Colloid.--[[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]] ([[User talk:NHSavage|talk]]) 20:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
::: I '''support this alternative solution'''. With respect to evaporation, I was thinking of the reference to acid rain, since rain forms from evaporation. In retrospect, though , rain can obviously incorporate atmospheric pollutants. [[User:BD2412|<
*[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=particles+in+water%2Cparticles+in+air%2Cparticles+suspended%2Cparticulates+in+water%2Cparticulates+in+air%2Cparticulates+in+atmosphere%2Cparticulates+suspended&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cparticles%20in%20water%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cparticles%20in%20air%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cparticles%20suspended%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cparticulates%20in%20water%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cparticulates%20in%20air%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cparticulates%20suspended%3B%2Cc0 ngrams for particles in water,particles in air,particles suspended,particulates in water,particulates in air,particulates in atmosphere,particulates suspended], apart from crossing into original research, suggests that "particulate" is a new word, as ambiguous as particle, and not predominantly associated with the atmosphere as the current title implies. The article is very focused on the atmosphere, not at all on muddy water, and so it needs a more precise title. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
** There is a serious flaw in your approach there. Ngrams searches for ''exact phrases'', but people would generally use a definite article and say "particulates in ''the'' atmosphere" rather than "particulates in atmosphere" (and, as it turns out, "particulates in ''the'' air" also). [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=particles+in+water%2Cparticles+in+air%2Cparticles+suspended%2Cparticulates+in+water%2Cparticulates+in+air%2Cparticulates+in+the+atmosphere%2Cparticulates+suspended&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cparticles%20in%20water%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cparticles%20in%20air%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cparticles%20suspended%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cparticulates%20in%20water%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cparticulates%20in%20air%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cparticulates%20in%20the%20atmosphere%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cparticulates%20suspended%3B%2Cc0 Here is the Ngram with the definite article added to atmosphere]; and since the use of "particle" is not relevant to the meaning of particulate, [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=particulates+in+water%2Cparticulates+in+air%2Cparticulates+in+the+water%2Cparticulates+in+the+air%2Cparticulates+in+the+atmosphere%2Cparticulates+suspended&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cparticulates%20in%20water%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cparticulates%20in%20air%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cparticulates%20in%20the%20water%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cparticulates%20in%20the%20air%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cparticulates%20in%20the%20atmosphere%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cparticulates%20suspended%3B%2Cc0 here is your Ngram with only the "particulate" phrases included, and with versions including the definite articles added for water, air, and atmosphere]. Here you can see that the phrase "particulates in the air" by itself occurs more than ''all other uses combined''. Not only that, the ''next'' highest usage is for "particulates in the atmosphere", which is essentially an identical meaning to "in the air". Put that together, and [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=particulates+in+the+water%2Bparticulates+in+water%2Cparticulates+in+air%2Bparticulates+in+the+air%2Bparticulates+in+the+atmosphere%2Cparticulates+suspend&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=50&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%28particulates%20in%20the%20water%20%2B%20particulates%20in%20water%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28particulates%20in%20air%20%2B%20particulates%20in%20the%20air%20%2B%20particulates%20in%20the%20atmosphere%29%3B%2Cc0 here is the combined result for all the air or atmosphere references compared to the combined result for water references], which shows approximately 85% of results referring to air or atmosphere particulates. However, if you want to see something ''really'' interesting, [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=particulates+in+the+water%2Bparticulates+in+water%2Cparticulates+in+air%2Bparticulates+in+the+air%2Bparticulates+in+the+atmosphere%2Catmospheric+particulates&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=50&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%28particulates%20in%20the%20water%20%2B%20particulates%20in%20water%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28particulates%20in%20air%20%2B%20particulates%20in%20the%20air%20%2B%20particulates%20in%20the%20atmosphere%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Catmospheric%20particulates%3B%2Cc0 add the phrase "atmospheric particulates" to the same mix], and it turns out to have even ''more'' hits than all the other air and atmosphere references combined, so that adding "atmospheric particulates" yields a set where [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=particulates+in+the+water%2Bparticulates+in+water%2Cparticulates+in+air%2Bparticulates+in+the+air%2Bparticulates+in+the+atmosphere%2Batmospheric+particulates&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=50&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%28particulates%20in%20the%20water%20%2B%20particulates%20in%20water%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28particulates%20in%20air%20%2B%20particulates%20in%20the%20air%20%2B%20particulates%20in%20the%20atmosphere%20%2B%20atmospheric%20particulates%29%3B%2Cc0 the complete set of air and atmosphere hits add up to more than ''ten times'' the complete set of combined water hits]. [[User:BD2412|<
***Your use of the extreme smoothing parameter of 50 dramatically alters (distorts) the results. With a more reasonable value (default is 3), you can see that there was a sudden burst of use of "particulate" related to atmosphere in the 1970s, and the residual use has been in exponential decline since. The use of "particulate" related to water also suddenly increased, but not nearly so strongly, declined a little, has has remained fairly constant subsequently.
Line 169 ⟶ 180:
:::Prior to the 1970s, there was little discussion of particles in the atmosphere, "particulate" was barely used at all, water particulates was a mature field, and written discourse on atmospheric pollution was yet to explode. So yes, since 1980, particulate is associated with air more often than water, but it is not 10-tenfold in recent years, and the ratio is in decline. Particulate continues to be used in terms of water solids, and remains very important, even if there is less ongoing need for new books to be written about it. This article needs a more precise title. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
:::: Smoothing the results avoids a slavish adherence to microtrends. Our readers may just as well be reading books from the 1970s or 1980s when they come upon the term they wish to search as books from today. However, [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=particulates+in+the+water%2Bparticulates+in+water%2Cparticulates+in+air%2Bparticulates+in+the+air%2Bparticulates+in+the+atmosphere%2Batmospheric+particulates&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=1&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%28particulates%20in%20the%20water%20%2B%20particulates%20in%20water%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28particulates%20in%20air%20%2B%20particulates%20in%20the%20air%20%2B%20particulates%20in%20the%20atmosphere%20%2B%20atmospheric%20particulates%29%3B%2Cc0 even using a smoothing of 1, it is clear that air and atmospheric references continue to outnumber water references several times over], far more than the "all the other topics combined" threshold by which we determine the [[WP:PRIMARY|primary topic]] of a term. [[User:BD2412|<
:::::Yes, agreed that ngram evidence indicates that atmospheric usage outnumbers water usage several times. That's a worthy point, but I think it is diminished because atmospheric references are amplified by the recentism of interest in atmospheric pollution, even to the point of tabloid sensationalism, while water pollution because a boring known science decades ago. I suggest that this bias is influenced by wealthy book writers having easy access to clean water, but breathing the common air, and that such biases should be resisted. "Particulate" does not necessarily imply "atmospheric particulate".
:::::Above, you support an alternative solution with NHSavage. Can that alternative solution be clarified please? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 03:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::: I have only ever seen recentism raised as an issue in disambiguation discussions where one term was much, much older than the other. Here, it seems that "particulates" has referred to those in both air and water for about the same amount of time, and that reference to those in the atmosphere has predominated not just for a the past few years but consistently over decades. The alternative solution proposed by NHSavage is to move this page to [[Particulate matter]]; then redirect [[particulate]], [[particulates]], [[particulate pollution]], and [[atmospheric particulate matter]] to [[Particulate matter]]; and then put a hatnote on that page pointing to suspensions in water. [[User:BD2412|<
*'''Relisting comment'''. Would like some of the people who voted in support earlier to give their opinion on the alternative option that seems to be supported by [[User:BD2412|BD2412]] and [[User:NHSavage|NHSavage]]. Pinging [[User:G. C. Hood|G. C. Hood]], [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]] and [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]]. [[User:Jenks24|Jenks24]] ([[User talk:Jenks24|talk]]) 07:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:I continue to support the move, usage statistics notwithstanding because introductory usage of particulate matter seems to always be in the context of the atmosphere, and/or to have followed use of the word "aerosol". As a Wikipedia article title, neither is true. "Atmospheric" is required because the particulates covered by this article are limited to particulates in the atmosphere, and many important particulates do not pertain to the atmosphere. Definitely support "Atmospheric particulate matter" over the current. [[Atmospheric particulates]] may be superior, because "particulate" implies matter, there are no immaterial particulates in the atmosphere. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 05:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::After googling these terms, and reading what returns, I think [[Atmospheric particulates]] is far superior a title to [[Particulate matter]]. The first is overwhelmingly more frequently used in an introductory sense in scholarly sources. the contrast with [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=atmospheric+particulates%2Cparticulate+matter&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Catmospheric%20particulates%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Batmospheric%20particulates%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BAtmospheric%20Particulates%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BAtmospheric%20particulates%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BATMOSPHERIC%20PARTICULATES%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cparticulate%20matter%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bparticulate%20matter%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BParticulate%20matter%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BParticulate%20Matter%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPARTICULATE%20MATTER%3B%2Cc0 google ngram] tells me that google ngram is not to be relied upon for titling decisions. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 05:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::: Since you have done the research, would you agree at this point that most references to "particulates" intend atmospheric particulates? If the only other significant form of particulate is water-borne particulates, we can resolve all of this with a redirect and a hatnote. [[User:BD2412|<
::::::That "most references to "particulates" intend atmospheric particulates?". No, I would not agree to that wording. Instead, I would say "most recurring usage of the word "particulates" is in reference to atmospheric particulates". Once the context of the atmosphere is established, "particulates" can only refer to atmospheric particulates. However, at the level of the title, the context of the atmosphere is not established.
::::::"Significant" is a troublesome word, having different meanings opposite to each other. Discussion of atmospheric particulates dominates 5-10 fold. The overwhelming count of the remainder relates to particulates in water. Use of particulate elsewhere, such as low orbit space, cosmology (where it seems to mean undefinded particles, not elemental or plasma) and materials (a particulate solid is composed of finer parts than a conglomerate), are all important but not frequent. But none of this line of thinking goes to the question of how a stand-alone document, such as a Wikipedia article, should be titled. Without "Atmospheric (or similar), the title does not precisely define the scope of the article. A hatnote is not sufficient to correct a title that ignores other important uses of the word. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Line 183 ⟶ 194:
::::I agree that [[Atmospheric particulates]] is far better than both [[Atmospheric particulate matter]] and [[Particulate matter]]. The word "particulate" already implies "matter" (what else could it be in this context?), so that latter is just a redundant term.
::::Also, I am strongly against assuming that all "particulates" are in the atmosphere; presence of them in water (e.g. finely-divided plastic particles) and in other contexts is increasingly under study (e.g. soil contamination, biomass and seafood contamination). Conflating all "particulates" with "atmospheric particulates" is only going to result in more confused writing, confused readers, and time-wasting disputes over the coming years. Let's resolve this clearly now, and resume working on improving the content. [[User:Reify-tech|Reify-tech]] ([[User talk:Reify-tech|talk]]) 15:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::: What, then, do we do about the [[WP:DABCONCEPT]] problem? There may be different kinds of particulates, but that makes them related subtopics, not ambiguous terms. [[User:BD2412|<
::::::It's not so much a group of related topics, as a group of topics with one common intrinsic physical characteristic, connected by use of a common word. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::: It is the "common intrinsic physical characteristic" that ''makes'' them related. They are all only called "particulates" because they share the characteristic of the particulate form. This is what makes it a [[WP:DABCONCEPT]], because it is possible to explain that relationship. Perhaps a set index is in order, although I think a primary topic would be more informative to the average reader. [[User:BD2412|<
::::::::"It is the "common intrinsic physical characteristic" that makes them related." Yes. This could be well explained in a DABCONCEPT page at "particulate", or "particulate matter" (the first is an adjective, "particulates" is informal). Particulates are usually grains, dust, solid/liquid mixtures, larger and more complicated that particles, which include atoms, electrons, oxygen molecules. Is a water droplet a particulate?
::::::::"They are all only called "particulates" because they share the characteristic of the particulate form." No. "Particulate" is a persisting 1960s neologism coined and used to distinguish particulates from particles, used for convenience, not used in a serious treatment of the particulates themselves. When soot is called a particulate, it is not in a study of the structure of soot. (I wish I had handy access to the oed, by far the best source for this stuff) There is usage of the word 100 years preceding, but I believe that this was usage as adjective for the composition of materials, between pure and conglomerate, as in "concrete is a particulate material", "steel is not a particulate material". --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::::: If you have sources for this, then you have the basis for an article explaining what particulates (as an informal designation) are. We do have articles discussing the use of amorphously described concepts. They are difficult to write, but are particularly useful for readers like me, who would otherwise generally be under the impression that these concepts were well defines and cleanly delineated. There is, apparently, a history of use here that goes beyond mere etymology. [[User:BD2412|<
===Related moves===
Line 195 ⟶ 206:
* At 15:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC) the move proposal [[Particulate (disambiguation)]] → [[Particulate]] was withdrawn by its nominator. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 10:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
<hr />
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a [[WP:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->
== Mammoth captions ==
Line 234 ⟶ 245:
Dave <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Whoistrm|Whoistrm]] ([[User talk:Whoistrm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Whoistrm|contribs]]) 11:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Hi Dave,
Please go ahead and define PM10 and PM2.5 in the main article. I came to this page when searching the definition of PM10, but it is not in the main page.
[[User:Janvlug|Jan Vlug]] ([[User talk:Janvlug|talk]]) 19:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
=="Expert position paper on air pollution and cardiovascular disease" with focus on particulates - {{PMID|25492627}} ==
:"Particles are often classified into three major size groups (Figure 1): coarse particles (diameter <10 and ≥2.5 μm), fine particles (diameter <2.5 and ≥0.1 μm), and ultrafine particles (<0.1 μm)."
Expert position paper on air pollution and cardiovascular disease
:David E. Newby, Pier M. Mannucci, Grethe S. Tell, Andrea A. Baccarelli, Robert D. Brook, Ken Donaldson, Francesco Forastiere, Massimo Franchini, Oscar H. Franco, Ian Graham, Gerard Hoek, Barbara Hoffmann, Marc F. Hoylaerts, Nino Künzli, Nicholas Mills, Juha Pekkanen, Annette Peters, Massimo F. Piepoli, Sanjay Rajagopalan, Robert F. Storey. '''Expert position paper on air pollution and cardiovascular disease.''' European Heart Journal, December 2014 DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu458
Full final text, free: http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/2/83.
{{PMID|25492627}}
http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/2/83.full-text.pdf
http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/2/83
CONTENTS:
Introduction
The main air pollutants
Air pollution and mortality
Air pollution and cardiovascular disease
Coronary artery disease
Heart failure
Cardiac arrhythmias and arrest
Cerebrovascular disease
Venous thromboembolism
Biological mechanisms
Atherosclerosis
Inflammation
Thrombosis
Systemic vascular dysfunction
Mechanisms of heart failure
Epigenetic changes
Interaction with traditional risk factors
Air quality recommendations
Societal and personal advice
Conclusions and future research directions
Acknowledgements
References
Figures & data
Information
Explore
PDF
== Use of ordinals in Size distribution of particulates section ==
In [[Particulates#Size distribution of particulates]] there are a couple references to graphics by the order they appear in ("the third image" and "the seventh image"). Suggest that a better approach be found that isn't susceptible to becoming wrong the instant someone adds a graphic or reorders content and which doesn't require a reader to go back to the top and count images to figure what is being referred to. —[[User:Salton Finneger|Salton Finneger]] ([[User talk:Salton Finneger|talk]]) 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
== External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified {{plural:10|one external link|10 external links}} on [[Particulates]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=716481407 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110215095449/http://www.geologytimes.com/research/1600_Eruption_Caused_Global_Disruption.asp to http://www.geologytimes.com/Research/1600_Eruption_Caused_Global_Disruption.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100428052829/http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=08042402 to http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=08042402
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130307130448/http://news.sciencemag.org:80/sciencenow/2013/03/earth-not-so-hot-thanks-to-volca.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/03/earth-not-so-hot-thanks-to-volca.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081216221948/http://apollo.eas.gatech.edu/EAS6792/presentations/aerosol_effects.ppt to http://apollo.eas.gatech.edu/EAS6792/presentations/aerosol_effects.ppt
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120616044758/http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pbg2.pdf to http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pbg2.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110629014447/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aBt.yLf.YfOo to http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aBt.yLf.YfOo
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081217174016/http://www.baq2008.org/system/files/sw16_Vajanapoom+presentation.pdf to http://www.baq2008.org/system/files/sw16_Vajanapoom+presentation.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100101100532/http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDevelopment/Nanotechnology/index.cfm to http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDevelopment/Nanotechnology/index.cfm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100101164727/http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDevelopment/Nanotechnology/ArchivedSymposium.cfm to http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDevelopment/Nanotechnology/ArchivedSymposium.cfm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100101100532/http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDevelopment/Nanotechnology/index.cfm to http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDevelopment/Nanotechnology/index.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 00:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
== Solar geoengineering activity is a source of air pollution/fine particulate matter (PM2.5) ==
The chemical clumping behavior of particles released in the troposphere by solar geoengineering activity is consistent with the definition of a highly dispersed condensation aerosol. [[User:Tkadm30|Tkadm30]] ([[User talk:Tkadm30|talk]]) 12:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
== assorted (mostly minor) problems ==
They have impacts on climate and precipitation that? adversely affect human health - many of the adverse health effects are unrelated to climate or precipitation; recommend changing to: and adversely affect
Particulates are the deadliest form of air pollution due to their ability to penetrate deep into the lungs... - most forms of air pollution have this ability so it is not what makes particulates deadliest
Sources - ...vegetation and sea spray - there are other sources so recommend: vegetation, sea spray, etc.
Composition - sea salt is considered the second-largest contributor in the global aerosol budget - the previous section stated that salt spray over the oceans is the overwhelmingly most common form of particulate in the atmosphere
drift/mist emissions from the wet cooling towers is also source of particulate matter as they are widely used - recommend: drift/mist emissions from wet cooling towers are also a significant source of particulate matter as they are widely used
Size distribution - As shown in the seventh image on this page - it's the 5th image
Deposition - Any info regarding DPM and the atmosphere... - recommend deleting this sentence; it is unrelated to deposition
Controlling technologies - The now charged air then passes through large electrostatic plates which attract the charged particle - particles
Indirect effect - The Indirect aerosol effect - Indirect should be lower case
known as the Cloud albedo effect - Cloud should be lower case
Semi-direct effect - The Semi-direct effect - Semi should be lower case
The effects described here all lead to a reduction in cloud cover i.e. an increase in planetary albedo - wouldn't that cause a decrease (clouds reflect more than land or ocean)?
The semi-direct effect classified as a climate feedback) by - recommend: is classified as a climate feedback by
Sulfate aerosol - cloud properties -albedo and lifetime-) - delete )
Black carbon - permeating an EC buckyball - permeating isn't the right word; inside? (and recommend fullerene instead of buckyball)
with "total direct forcing - recommend: while "total direct forcing
Health effects - but particulate matter smaller than about 10 micrometers, can settle - delete ,
when asthmatics are exposed - capitalize When
Similarly, so called fine PM, (often referred to as PM2.5), - either delete the ,s or the ()
the different degrees of relative penetration of a PM particle into the cardiovascular system - respiratory system
and hence the circulatory system are termed respirable particles - add , after system
The site and extent of absorption of inhaled gases and vapors - delete this section; gases and vapors are not particulates
than rounder shapes, which in turn affects - delete in turn
Health problems - The effects of inhaling particulate matter that has - have
contributed to ~370,000 premature deaths in Europe during 2005. - there should be a , before contributed & the . after 2005 should be a ,
A 2014 meta analysis - shouldn't that be meta-analysis?
An increase in estimated annual exposure to PM 2.5 - delete space & make 2.5 a subscript
and colonisation of both Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae was altered by Black Carbon exposure - colonization, were altered, & black carbon shouldn't be capitalized
between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in diameter. was published 2008 - delete stray . & that should presumably be was published in 2008
which means the effect is due to the subsection - recommend: which means the effect may be due to the subclass
Bangkok Thailand - add , after Bangkok
from cardiovascular disease, and 1.0% risk of all disease for every 10 micrograms - either delete the , or add another , after all disease
The Mongolian government agency recorded a 45% increase in the rate of respiratory illness in the past five years (reported in September 2014) - what agency?, previous five years, and without information on changes in particulate levels this is meaningless anyway
A study In 2000 - in should not be capitalized
were primarily due fine particulate matter - due to fine particulate matter
Regulation - Particulates are the deadliest - see comment at start
California - is waiting for the upcoming 22 January 2010 deadline - not upcoming
members of the nanometal oxides, - metal oxide nanoparticles?;
Colorado - what Colorado Plan?
Ulaanbaatar - annual average mean temperature - mean means average so this is redundant
very high concentrations of airborne particles and particulate matter - also redundant
References - 26. - add , after Plants
[[Special:Contributions/96.88.198.77|96.88.198.77]] ([[User talk:96.88.198.77|talk]]) 06:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
== Change main title: Particulates ==
Hello friends. Somehow the adjective "particulate" as in "particulate matter" morphed into a noun meaning little particle. I would recommend a change from "Particulates" to "Particles". [[User:Soccer59|Soccer59]] ([[User talk:Soccer59|talk]]) 00:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
== Change main title: Particulates ==
Hello Friends, I advocate a change in main title. "Particulate" is an adjective, for example "particulate matter". Somehow through common misusage that adjective became treated as a noun. But what is the difference between a particulate and a particle? The intro gives several synonyms
Atmospheric aerosol particles – also known as atmospheric particulate matter, particulate matter (PM), particulates, or suspended particulate matter (SPM) – are microscopic solid or liquid matter suspended in the atmosphere of Earth.
I can understand the desire to lead the main title with the noun (particle) rather than with the pair of adjectives Atmospheric aerosol
So why not Particles (atmospheric aerosol)
I might point out that there atmospheric aerosols are a subset of colloidal suspensions, which set also includes suspensions of particles in liquids. Hence the need to specify atmospheric aerosol.
Also there are aerosols other than atmospheric aerosols (for example in laboratory studies in which the carrier gas is other than air). Hence the need to qualify "Particles" by both "atmospheric" and "aerosol".
One should not make such a change unilaterally. Hence I invite discussion.
[[User:Soccer59|Soccer59]] ([[User talk:Soccer59|talk]]) 15:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
== Diagram ==
"T'''''a'''''bacco" typo: should be Tobacco. Can this be fixed? [[User:Koro Neil|Koro Neil]] ([[User talk:Koro Neil|talk]]) 23:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
== Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:Display VSON WP6910 (air detector) - pm2,5 at Verona (Borgo Milano) Italy - (particulate pollution, polveri sottili) - 2020 01 15 (hour 22.35) OUTdoor & INdoor (HEPA H13) - first publication commons.wikimedia.org.webm|Display VSON WP6910 (air detector) - pm2,5 at Verona (Borgo Milano) Italy - (particulate pollution, polveri sottili) - 2020 01 15 (hour 22.35) OUTdoor & INdoor (HEPA H13) - first publication commons.wikimedia.org.webm]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-02-08T12:11:40.341962 | Display VSON WP6910 (air detector) - pm2,5 at Verona (Borgo Milano) Italy - (particulate pollution, polveri sottili) - 2020 01 15 (hour 22.35) OUTdoor & INdoor (HEPA H13) - first publication commons.wikimedia.org.webm -->
* [[commons:File:Display VSON WP6910 (air detector) -Location 45.44234 10.96862 Verona (Borgo Milano) Italy, strong burnt smell -pm2,5 OUTdoor particulate pollution, polveri sottili, smog (smoke heating systems???) -2020 04 02 (hour20 15).webm|Display VSON WP6910 (air detector) -Location 45.44234 10.96862 Verona (Borgo Milano) Italy, strong burnt smell -pm2,5 OUTdoor particulate pollution, polveri sottili, smog (smoke heating systems???) -2020 04 02 (hour20 15).webm]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-02-08T12:11:40.341962 | Display VSON WP6910 (air detector) -Location 45.44234 10.96862 Verona (Borgo Milano) Italy, strong burnt smell -pm2,5 OUTdoor particulate pollution, polveri sottili, smog (smoke heating systems???) -2020 04 02 (hour20 15).webm -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Vuvueffino|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 12:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
== Interpunct inconsistency ==
<blockquote>
European countries revealed that there was no safe level of particulates and that for every increase of 10 μg/m3 in PM10, the lung cancer rate rose 22% ['''95% CI''' 1·03–1·45]. The smaller PM2.5 were particularly deadly, with an 18% increase in lung cancer per 5 μg/m3 (['''CI 95%''' 0·96–1·46]) as it can penetrate deeper into the lungs.
</blockquote>
I'm going to edit this into consistency, and change the [[interpunct]] into regular dots, because it seems to me this can only interfere with [[assistive technology]]s such as text to speech.
I found a mention of interpunct in MOS:COMMONMATH, but it didn't resolve this case, so I'll go with my spidey sense, instead. Revert at will if you think I've got it wrong. — [[user:MaxEnt|MaxEnt]] 02:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
== Please check interlinkages with [[aerosol]] ==
I see that several people have improved this article in recent times. Could you please take a look also at the related article [[aerosol]] (a parent article?). I think the content about atmospheric aspects, climate change and so forth overlaps a bit in both articles. It's probably better covered here and might need culling/reworking at [[aerosol]]? [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 09:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
| |||