Talk:Particulates/Archive 1

Are Clusters of Water Molecules considered a particulate ?

the article makes reference to 'liquid' / 'aerosol' and 'a gathering of a few molecules', but a water dimer is only two molecules, so at what number of molecules can I consider a cluster of water molecules to be within the particulate definition ? Teeteetee 14:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Particulates

How about someone add methods of removing particulates? Like electrostatic precipitation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maelgwn (talk • contribs)

Generally, the removal processes need some work: we need at least to distinguish diffusion, impaction, interception, sedimentation, turbulent transport, in-cloud scavenging and sub-cloud scavenging. Oderbolz (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

GreenFacts

I'd like to see the link to the GreenFacts summary removed, as Greenfacts is a questionable organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.3.212 (talk • contribs)

Merge from Aerosol

I have mergd the information from the aerosol page to here. It could do with some more tidying but it is a start. I'll work on sorting the links from aerosol which should be to this page next.--NHSavage 22:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge is completed. I have redirected the links as well. The ones to this page were mostly either chemical/biological weapons, health or atmospheric related.--NHSavage 16:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Apart form natural vs. man made the difference between primary and secondary particles is important. Oderbolz (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Measurement

We need a measurement section, including sampling techniques (impactors, precipitators, cyclones) and measurement techniques (gravimetry, nephelometry, beta attenuation, TEOM, AMS, passive sampling, remote sensing) Oderbolz (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Stationary Source Sampling (stack testing) techniques also should be added for PM measurement Farmercarlos (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Further work needed

What seems to me to need doing on this now is:

• Expansion of the section on radiative forcing from aerosol
• Some explanation of the applications of aerosol technology (weapons, medicine, others)
• Better general introduction on aerosol as suspended particulate matter.

NHSavage 16:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

With regards to radiative forcing, it would be worth mentioning that the radiation that aerosols reflect is in the visible range, as opposed to the radiation associated with greenhouse gases, in the infra-red. Aerosols reduce the amount of radiation reaching the earths surface, but this is not a good thing as it is that radiation that plants need to photosynthesise, and we need to see.

SulPHate vs SulFate

Someone just edited out Sulphate to Sulfate - however both spellings are correct by IUPAC rules, and the spelling distinction is explained here. To avoid swapping the two spelling versions on a near-constant basis, I suggest to just leave it as is. --Carboxen 04:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

According to this guideline, you are wrong. I think we should standardise on Sulfur (even though I am British). And the article already has 8 occurances of sulF* and only 2 of SulPH* --NHSavage 20:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Aerosol contributions

I direct the Center for Atmospheric Particle Studies (CAPS) at Carnegie Mellon [1]. We are interested in contributing to this and related pages. However, I don't want to just dive in before initiating a discussion. The essential details are present on this page -- I would make several minor tweaks but mostly add content on linked pages.

An intial comment is pedantic. There is something of a consensus in the community for using 'particulate' as an adjective only (this is the first definition in any event) and 'particle' as the noun. `Aerosol' is a bit ambiguous, but a suspension of particles and vapors in equilibrium seems to have won out (meaning that 'aerosol' can be taken to mean both the particles and vapors together), though often only the suspended particles are meant (for example `secondary organic aerosol'). I therefore suggest that the title of this page be changed to 'atmospheric particles' or 'aerosol'.

I could imagine getting several colleagues to contribute pages -- for example Jose Jiminez (Colorado) and Hugh Coe (U Manchester) on aerosol mass spectrometry, myself on secondary organic aerosol, Peter Adams (CMU) on aerosol and climate, Yinon Rudich (Weizmann Institute) on heterogeneous chemistry, etc.

ps -- I don't care at all about sulfate vs sulphate. Neilmd 14:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Neilmd, I'd be very happy for you to dive in now. I'd also be happy for you to go with the "something of a consensus" view from "the community" but remember the wider community (ie those outside the field) may be trying to comprehend your additions/contributions --Teeteetee 19:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see this page be entitled "Atmospheric Aerosol". I think "particles" are too general, as searches often turn up a variety of things like subatomic particles.--Ryanmoffet 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with all of the above. I suggest that this page be renamed "Atmospheric Aerosol", and that the current (smaller) aerosol page be folded in here where relevant. I am from Hugh Coe's group in Manchester University and will happily contribute a summary of aerosol radiative effects. The current description isn't written very well. I've never edited Wikipedia before - but if no one replies to this, I'll just go ahead Niallrobinson (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition to changing the title, the current definition isn't correct. For instanced, "soot" is definitely not a synonym for "particulate matter". The definition of aerosol/PM is worth a introductory section of its own, as this is something even people working in the field get wrong. Niallrobinson (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

a solid or a liquid suspended in a gas

Ordinary meteorological water clouds and water ice clouds would seem to meet the definitions of "smokes" and "aerosols" at the top of the page, but the article omits them from any mention, even to explain their absence.

This isn't a joke. I came here to figure out if regular clouds are "aerosols" or not. 67.168.216.176 15:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

         I have exactly the same question. -- Catherine

air pollution causes weight gain

The following I think is a joke. Someone may have tried to corrupt the information on this page by adding this comment which can only be described as ridiculous:

"thus, during episodes of poor air quality, a noticeable weight gain can be observed within the population causing major health concerns."

Billtubbs 21:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Arpan?

What is the meaning of the subject header "Arpan"? -- Beland 16:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Map request

It would be interesting to show a world map of atmospheric particulate concentration in the "affected areas" section. -- Beland 16:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Indoor sources

Would it be worth also discussing particulates arising in enclosed spaces such as homes, offices and factories? E.g., does smoking contribute? A recent article suggests that certain laser printers can distribute particles. [2]. Horatio 09:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Health Effects

The value 200,000 deaths needs a reference which seems to be correct . The following source indicates 95k-382k premature deaths per year. http://www.umweltdaten.de/uid/manual/healthrisk.pdf p10.

p31 has a nice diagram that could be shown on the side of this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jontw (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Indoor sources, among others: Pet Dander 0.5-100 microns. Dust Mite Debris 0.5-50 microns. Household Dust 0.5-100 microns. Skin Flakes 0.4-10 microns. Courtesy of Duke State U (Healthy Air - Healthy Homes)PhDHK1 (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

'Particulates' is not English

the title of the page should be changed to 'Particulate Matter'. The opening sentance would read 'Particulate Matter refers to airborne liquid or solid particles, sometimes incorrectly reffered to as 'particulates'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.176.66 (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, according to Britannica

I am not a native English speaker, but you are up against several book titles and e.g. this search[3] in the Britannica dictionary... --Claus Hindsgaul 17:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

... or how about the singular form? I would guess that this is a shortened back-formation from "particulate matter" but it does also seem to be in wide use in the world press (google search on "particulate -matter -particulates" ). Some mention of the variable singular and plural forms in the introduction might be in order. Correct English or not, there are likely many things that scientists and technologists would not deign to consult an English academician about (it would just be the tip of an iceberg), never mind vice versa. Even if it is "wrong" or "bad English", we should probably strive for a qualified descriptive tone in this article, not a prescriptive one.

Aside from that, I believe "particulate matter" would be the most formal and centrally agreed upon technical term (English and Physics mongers feel free to correct me on this) and would support renaming the article to that, with appropriate edits.

Per "what links here", there look to be about 295 articles that refer to this one. Making the switch without lots of multiple redirects (as far as I know, a frowned upon wikipedia practice) might be a bit time-consuming.

This issue also popped up for the pollution article, where the issue was renaming it to "environmental pollution". It seems to me that a bot that could do this would help out a lot. Does anyone know of any? I guess there's something to be said for naming an article optimally the first time, or before a stack of links to it sprout up. -Onceler 23:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

fine particles article merge into this one proposed

I posted on the other article as well. It shouldn't be a big deal, but here's to doing things by the wiki. I think replacing the other article with a redirect is all that is needed as this one already has the term in bold. Oh and carrying over the reference/category info as well. -Onceler 09:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I second that. --Claus Hindsgaul 06:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge completed. -Onceler 10:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Moldy figures!!

Radiative forcing from aerosols

Section 2.4.5.6, page 180 of the latest IPCC report (AR4) states:

"As in the TAR, only the aerosol interaction in the context of liquid water clouds is assessed, with knowledge of the interaction with ice clouds deemed insufficient. Since the TAR, the cloud albedo effect has been estimated in a more systematic way, and more modelling results are now available. Models now are more advanced in capturing the complexity of the aerosol-cloud interactions through forward computations. Even though major uncertainties remain, clear progress has been made, leading to a convergence of the estimates from the different modelling efforts."

Which seems to be in opposition to the view expressed in the TAR, as quoted in this section.

Sulfate aerosol

This section links to the TAR and contains the old error ranges. The latest report states (p. 160):

"The mean and median of the sulphate direct RF from grouping all these studies together are identical at –0.41 W m–2. Disregarding the strongest and weakest direct RF estimates to approximate the 90% confidence interval leads to an estimate of -0.4 +/- 0.2 W m-2."

Black Carbon

Confusingly, the section entitled 'Black Carbon' states: "BC from fossil fuels is estimated by the IPCC in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, TAR, ". Is that a joke or something? The quoted figures, however, are certainly not from the latest report. Table 2.12 on page 204 states very clearly that the direct RF due to fossil fuel BC is +0.20 +/- 0.15, while the indirect RF caused by the surface albedo due to BC aerosol on snow is +0.10 +/-0.10.

Albedo effects

I have no idea why the next paragraph is not listed under its own heading of 'Albedo effects', but it surely doesn't belong in such confusingly close proximity to the paragraph on BC.

All quotes and figures are from:

Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Elusiveneutrino (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 2008

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus/unclear where to redirect Particulate if moved. JPG-GR (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Particulate → Airborne particulate matter — The title is ambiguous, my proposal will better differentiate against other forms of particulate pollution — Jack · talk · 17:53, Saturday, 5 April 2008

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

• Wait, AFAIK, particulates have nothing to do with pollution, only with the size of particles. And they also occur in water, other liquids, and even solids, or found on surfaces. 70.55.84.42 (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point, but this article, which is plainly about airborne particulate matter, and not any other form of particulates, should be titled accordingly — Jack (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What should "particulate" redirect to? Dekimasuよ! 08:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Needs re-organization to focus on salient health effects of carbon burning byproducts, and regulation to protect populations from them

This article needs rewrite and re-organization to focus on health effects of carbon burning byproducts, versus e.g., sea spray, and on the fine- and ultra-fine carbon particles, versus others.

By far the most salient feature of fine particulates are the fine and ultra-fine particles produced by carbon combustion -- coal and diesel -- and the current efforts to protect human populations from their devastating health effects,

Lumping all fine particles together, this article obscures the salient health effects so much as to make them scarcely intelligible.

Fine particles from asbestos cause cancer, but few circulate. The most damaging particles circulating in populated areas are carbon-containing fine particles from coal generation and diesel combustion, agricultural burning, other human activity, and forest fires. Silicone-containing fine particles from dust storms are less significant as health threats. These cannot be lumped with fine particles from sea spray without loss of clarity. Sea spray has no recognized deleterious health effects -- the fact that there is a lot of sea spray is a footnote, not a lead.

The EPA has gradually recognized the health effects of fine particles, especially the damaging human-generated fraction, and the ability to further greatly reduce harm through effective regulatory action,

"In 2006, EPA strengthened the 24-hour fine particle standards from 65 micrograms per cubic meter to 35 micrograms per cubic meter of air to protect public health. Nationwide, monitored levels of fine particle pollution fell 11 percent from 2000 to 2007. Fine particles can either be emitted directly, or they can form in the atmosphere from reactions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Exposure to fine particle pollution can cause a number of serious health problems including aggravated asthma, increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory and cardiovascular disease, heart attacks and premature death." http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6424ac1caa800aab85257359003f5337/1036d3ae95185be285257527006c30fd!OpenDocument

The above quote from the EPA would be a better lead-in than the lead-burying current first paragraph of this article. The sub-sections should be re-organized according to the substance the fine particles are composed of, with carbon combustion pollution at the top, and the interesting sea-spray trivia at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.205.33 (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Scale classification

This section is completely wrong. The PMx standards are not defined as <= x µm. According to the EPA-standards (PM10: FR Vol. 52 No. 128, p. 24733 - PM2.5: FR Vol. 62 No. 138, p. 38826) these are defined by a reference sampler (impactor or cyclone) with a defined separation efficiency and the number specifies the aerodymanic diameter at which the sampler (roughly) has a 50 % efficiency. Each device used for PMx-sampling has to show agreement with the reference sampler within an error margin of (iirc) 5 % - so there are no "large error margins". I can try to fix this, however the help of a native speaker was welcome. --JogyB (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi JogyB, You are totally right. I encourage you to edit this into the article. If grammatical corrections are needed, they tend to be added relatively quickly after your edit. So please give it a try.

--Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer reviewed journal articles on ill health effects of particulate pollution -- Authors, Title, Year, Journal

Bell ML; Ebisu K; Peng RD; Walker J; Samet JM; Zeger SL; Dominic F. (2008). Seasonal and regional short-term effects of fine particles on hospital admissions in 202 U.S. counties, 1999-2005. Am J Epidemiol 168(11): 1301-1310.

Dominici F; Peng RD; Bell ML; Pham L; McDermott A; Zeger SL; Samet JMCEH. (2006). Fine particulate air pollution and hospital admission for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. JAMA 295: 1127-1134.

Sheppard, L. (2003). Ambient air pollution and nonelderly asthma hospital admissions in Seattle, Washington, 1987-1994. In: Revised analyses of time-series studies of air pollution and health. Special report. Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute; pp. 227-230. Available: http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/TimeSeries.pdf. October 18, 2004.

Chimonas MA; Gessner BD. (2007). Airborne particulate matter from primarily geologic, non- industrial sources at levels below National Ambient Air Quality Standards is associated with outpatient visits for asthma and quick-relief medication prescriptions among children less than 20 years old enrolled in Medicaid in Anchorage, Alaska. Environ Res 103: 397-404.

Franklin M; Zeka A; Schwartz J. (2007). Association between PM2.5 and all-cause and specific- cause mortality in 27 US communities. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 17: 279-287.

Franklin M; Koutrakis P; Schwartz P. (2008). The role of particle composition on the association between PM2.5 and mortality. Epidemiology 19: 680-689.

Wilson WE; Mar TF; Koenig JQ. (2007). Influence of exposure error and effect modification by socioeconomic status on the association of acute cardiovascular mortality with particulate matter in Phoenix. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 17: S11.

Mar, T. F.; Norris, G. A.; Larson, T. V.; Wilson, W. E.; Koenig, J. Q. (2003). Air pollution and cardiovascular mortality in Phoenix, 1995-1997. In: Revised analyses of time-series studies of air pollution and health. Special report. Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute; pp. 177- 182. Available: http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/TimeSeries.pdf. October 18, 2004.

Mar, T.F.; Norris, G.A.; Koenig, J.Q.; Larson, T.V. (2000) Associations between air pollution and mortality in Phoenix, 1995-1997. Env. Health Perspect. 108(4): 347-353.

Ostro B; Broadwin R; Green S; Feng WY; Lipsett M. (2006). Fine particulate air pollution and mortality in nine California counties: results from CALFINE. Environ Health Perspect 114: 29-33.

Ostro B; Feng WY; Broadwin R; Green S; Lipsett M. (2007). The effects of components of fine particulate air pollution on mortality in Clifornia: results from CALFINE. Environ Health Perspect 115: 13-19.

Moolgavkar, S.H. (2000a). Air pollution and daily mortality in three US counties. Env. Health Perspect. 108: 777-784.

Moolgavkar, S.H. (2003). Air pollution and daily deaths and hospital admissions in Los Angeles and Cook Counties. In: Revised analyses of time-series studies of air pollution and health. Special report. Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute; pp. 183-198. Available: http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/TimeSeries.pdf. October 18, 2004.

Fairley, D. (1999). Daily mortality and air pollution in Santa Clara County, 1989-1996. EHP. 107:637-641.

Fairley, D. (2003). Mortality and air pollution for Santa Clara County, California, 1989-1996. In: Revised analyses of time-series studies of air pollution and health. Special report. Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute; pp. 97-106. Available: http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/TimeSeries.pdf. October 18, 2004.

Schwartz J; Neas LM. (2000). Fine particles are more strongly associated than coarse particles with acute respiratory health effects in schoolchildren. Epidemiology 11: 6-10.

Laden, F.; Schwartz, J.; Speizer, F.E.; Dockery, D.W. (2006). Reduction in fine particulate air pollution and mortality: extended follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities Study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care. Med. 173: 667-672.

Klemm, R.J.; Mason, R.M.; Heilig, C.M.; Neas, L.M.; and Dockery, D.W. (2000). Daily mortality associated specifically with fine particles? Data reconstruction and replication of analysis. J Air Waste Manage Assoc. 50: 1215-1222.

Klemm, R. J.; Mason, R. (2003). Replication of reanalysis of Harvard Six-City mortality study. In: Revised analyses of time-series studies of air pollution and health. Special report. Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute; pp. 165-172. Available: http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/TimeSeries.pdf. May 12, 2004.

Lipfert F; Wyzga R; Baty J; Miller J. (2006a). Traffic density as a surrogate measure of environmental exposures in studies of air pollution health effects: Long-term mortality in a cohort of US veterans. Atmospheric Environment 40: 154-169.

Lipfert FW; Baty JD; Miller JP; Wyzga RE. (2006b). PM2.5 constituents and related air quality variables as predictors of survival in a cohort of U.S. military veterans. Inhal Toxicol 18: 645-657.

Villeneuve, P.J., M.S. Goldberg, D. Krewski, R.T. Burnett, Y. Chen (2002). Fine particulate air pollution and all-cause mortality within the Harvard Six-Cities Study: variations in risk by period of exposure. Ann Epidemol 12(8): 568-576.

Chock, D. P.; Winkler, S.; Chen, C. (2000). A study of the association between daily mortality and ambient air pollutant concentrations in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 50:1481–1500.

McDonnell WF; Nishino-Ishikawa N; Petersen FF; Chen LH; Abbey DE. (2000). Relationships of mortality with the fine and coarse fractions of long-term ambient PM10 concentrations in nonsmokers. Journal of exposure analysis and environmental epidemiology 10: 427-436.

Chen, Y.; Yang, Q.; Krewski, D.; Burnett, R.T.; Shi, Y.; McGrail, K. (2005) The effect of coarse ambient particulate matter on first, second, and overall hospital admissions for respiratory disease among the elderly. Inh. Toxicol. 17: 649-655.

Miller KA; Siscovick DS; Sheppard L; Shepherd K; Sullivan JH; Anderson GL; Kaufman JD. (2007). Long-term exposure to air pollution and incidence of cardiovascular events in women. The New England journal of medicine 356: 447-458.

Goss CH; Newsom SA; Schildcrout JS; Sheppard L; Kaufman JD. (2004). Effect of ambient air pollution on pulmonary exacerbations and lung function in cystic fibrosis. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 169: 816-821Graham, S. E. and McCurdy, T. (2004). Developing meaningful cohorts for human exposure models. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 14: 23-43.

Enstrom, J. E. (2005). Fine particulate air pollution and total mortality among elderly Californians, 1873-2002. Inh. Tox. 17:803-816.

Jerrett, M.; Burnett, R. T.; Ma, R.; Pope, C. A, III; Krewski, D. ; Newbold, K. B.; Thurston, G.; Shi, Y.; Finkelstein, M.; Calle, E. E.; Thun, M. J. (2005) Spatial analysis of air pollution and mortality in Los Angeles. Epidemiology 16(6):727-736.

Krewski, D.; Burnett, R. T.; Goldberg, M. S.; Hoover, K.; Siemiatycki, J,; Jerrett, M.; Abrahamowicz, M.; White, W. H. (2000). Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of particulate air pollution and mortality. A special report of the Institute’s particle epidemiology reanalysis project. Cambridge, MA: Health Effects Institute.

Slaughter JC; Kim E; Sheppard L; Sullivan JH; Larson TV; Claiborn C. (2005). Association between particulate matter and emergency room visits, hospital admissions and mortality in Spokane, Washington. Journal of exposure analysis and environmental epidemiology 15: 153-159.

Peel JL; Tolbert PE; Klein M; Metzger KB; Flanders WD; Todd K; Mulholland JA; Ryan PB; Frumkin H. (2005). Ambient air pollution and respiratory emergency department visits. Epidemiology 16: 164-174.

Krewski, D.; Burnett, R. T.; Goldberg, M. S.; Hoover, K.; Siemiatycki, J,; Jerrett, M.; Abrahamowicz, M.; White, W. H. (2000). Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of particulate air pollution and mortality. A special report of the Institute’s particle epidemiology reanalysis project. Cambridge, MA: Health Effects Institute.

Eftim SE; Samet JM; Janes H; McDermott A; Dominici F. (2008). Fine particulate matter and mortality: a comparison of the six cities and American Cancer Society cohorts with a medicare cohort. Epidemiology 19: 209-216. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.61.121 (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WHO review of fine particles ill health effects

WHO Air quality guidelines (AQG) Annual mean level

PM10 (μg/m3) 20 PM2.5 (μg/m3) 10

Basis for the selected level

These are the lowest levels at which total, cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality have been shown to increase with more than 95% confidence in response to PM2.5 in the ACS study (Pope et al., 2002). The use of PM2.5 guideline is preferred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdncntx (talk • contribs) 01:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Particulate → Particulates — Although in general WP prefers singular to plural for titles, in this case the noun appears only to be used in the plural, as shown in the lead of the article. WP:SINGULAR says "Exceptions include nouns that are always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors or trousers)", and while "Particulates" may not be quite in that class it's near. The singular form is confusable with the identical adjective, which again makes the plural preferable. PamD (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support "particulate" is an adjective, the noun is "particulates". --Bejnar (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.