This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Particulates article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This says nothing intelligible. The thought should be completed by supplying the object -- what it is that sea salt does not absorb. Otherwise, the fragment should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx ( talk • contribs) 20:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
It has been a while since I tried to do anything on this article. I am still not happy with the aerosol/particulate distinction. Given the industrial and medical importance of aerosols it seems odd that that article only refers to atmospheric aerosols. This article also mostly covers atmospheric particulates with some brief mention of others in the lead only. I would like to propose the following changes:
-- NHSavage ( talk) 15:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Some ideas for sections in the new aerosol page
Thoughts welcome. -- NHSavage ( talk) 06:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I see that the last time this was proposed it failed because we did not know what the page should be redirected to. I think that the answer to this is that it doesn't need to be redirect but a disamabiguation page which consists of the first paragraph of the lead and then links to this article. and Total suspended solids for the water part.-- NHSavage ( talk) 06:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose to make this change on Saturday unless there is any other feedback in accordance with WP:BB.-- 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.
Soccer59 (
talk)
05:18, 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? Soccer59 ( talk) 19:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I removed the following text from the section on regulation. The link it gives no longer works and if it was just daily monitoring data, it would not be useful as a reference of past concentrations. It also does not include any units. Daily average of 500 means nothing. (It's probably μg/m3 but I don't know). If someone can find a sourced reference for this, it might go in the affected areas part (which also needs a lot of work)
During November and December 2011, the values for particulate matter concentrations in Skopje, Macedonia have been record high, with daily average of 500. The values are taken from a page supported by the city authorities. [1]
-- NHSavage ( talk) 08:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not happy with the current structure of this article and I would like to suggest the following sections:
First a lead which summarises all the content of the article and is not just a definition (although it needs to include a definition). Then:
Thoughts anyone?-- NHSavage ( talk) 10:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Most Polluted World Cities by PM [1] | |
---|---|
Particulate matter, μg/m3 (2004 and 2011) |
City |
508 | Skopje, Macedonia |
279 | Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia |
169 | Cairo, Egypt |
150 | Delhi, India |
128 | Kolkata, India (Calcutta) |
125 | Tianjin, China |
123 | Chongqing, China |
109 | Kanpur, India |
109 | Lucknow, India |
104 | Jakarta, Indonesia |
101 | Shenyang, China |
I have removed this table from the article for 2 reasons.
-- NHSavage ( talk) 11:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
EPA designated Fairbanks, Alaska as a non-attainment area for PM2.5. It would be neat to see the map updated to reflect this. Currently only the PM10 map includes Alaska, with Eagle River shaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdegan ( talk • contribs) 01:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Weuve J, Puett RC, Schwartz J, Yanosky JD, Laden F, Grodstein F.
Exposure to particulate air pollution and cognitive decline in older women.
Arch Intern Med. 2012 Feb 13;172(3):219-27. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.683.
An analysis of The Nurses' Health Study Cognitive Cohort, this study concluded:
FULL FREE TEXT:
NIHMSID: NIHMS451584
No Units on a chart? Are you kidding? This is something students learn in middle school. Put units on charts and graphs! JabberWok ( talk) 03:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed--this is important. Who added the chart? Someone needs to add units forthwith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesCAustin ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
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? -- plaws ( talk) 18:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus, much as it pains me to say it. I left this open for a fair while because it's clear that the current title is sub-par, but when deciding what to move it to I think both sides have made equally reasonable arguments and to split them would amount to a supervote. No prejudice against a new RM in the near-ish future because everyone seems to agree the current title is less than ideal. Jenks24 ( talk) 06:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Particulates →
Atmospheric particulate matter – The article, as written, is about
atmospheric particulate matter.
Particulates should be a disambiguation page similar to
Particulate (disambiguation), as atmospheric particulate matter is not the
primary topic of "Particulates", but rather one type of
particulate matter. There is some related discussion at
Talk:Particulate (disambiguation). Relisted.
Jenks24 (
talk) 07:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC) --Relisted.
George Ho (
talk) 05:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
G. C. Hood (
talk)
17:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
This article has some monster captions that far outweigh the graphics they are attached to. The massive text blocks in small print are nearly indigestible to non-specialist readers. It would be better to explain the pictures in ordinary text, with headings, paragraph breaks, references, and other readability accommodations for non-obsessive readers. The caption should concisely summarize what the picture shows, and refer to a nearby text explaining all the details for a reader wishing to delve into them. As it stands now, it is difficult to even discern what the pictures are supposed to show. Reify-tech ( talk) 19:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The lead sentence is currently:
Please can we amend it to something grammatical: at present it's saying "Atmospheric particulate matter are particles...", when you remove the parenthesis: a singular subject with a plural verb.
As the article title is "Particulates" I suggest:
Or, if there's consensus for keeping the order of the terms as is, then:
Or, for those who prefer simple language:
or (4)"consists of", (5)"is made up of", various other terms - anything to ensure that we have a leade sentence which doesn't jar the reader by having a disagreement in number between the subject and the verb. Pam D 08:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
Not new to particulates or aerosols, but new to contribution, but would like to contribute to these pages.
Can I tell you about my pet hate:
PM10 & PM2.5 which are always described incorrectly as particles less than 10 and 2.5 micrometers when in fact they have a mean diameter of 10 and 2.5 microns (must find the symbol for this!) respectively. This problem or information is so well ingrained within literature and even scientific journals & books, that it is hard to find a reference, but I know that it is probably within Hinds, I just don't have that book to hand. As this is part of my role at work, where I measure aerosols and calibrate the samplers that measure these particles I have researched this, so will come back to edit when I have found the relevant pages.
Chat to me about your thoughts people
Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoistrm ( talk • contribs) 11:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
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. Jan Vlug ( talk) 19:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Expert position paper on air pollution and cardiovascular disease
Full final text, free: http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/2/83.long
http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/2/83.full-text.pdf
http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/2/83
CONTENTS:
Article
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
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. — Salton Finneger ( talk) 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Particulates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
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. Tkadm30 ( talk) 12:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
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 96.88.198.77 ( talk) 06:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
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". Soccer59 ( talk) 00:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
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.
Soccer59 ( talk) 15:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
"Tabacco" typo: should be Tobacco. Can this be fixed? Koro Neil ( talk) 23:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
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.
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 technologys 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. — MaxEnt 02:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
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? EMsmile ( talk) 09:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Particulates article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This says nothing intelligible. The thought should be completed by supplying the object -- what it is that sea salt does not absorb. Otherwise, the fragment should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx ( talk • contribs) 20:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
It has been a while since I tried to do anything on this article. I am still not happy with the aerosol/particulate distinction. Given the industrial and medical importance of aerosols it seems odd that that article only refers to atmospheric aerosols. This article also mostly covers atmospheric particulates with some brief mention of others in the lead only. I would like to propose the following changes:
-- NHSavage ( talk) 15:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Some ideas for sections in the new aerosol page
Thoughts welcome. -- NHSavage ( talk) 06:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I see that the last time this was proposed it failed because we did not know what the page should be redirected to. I think that the answer to this is that it doesn't need to be redirect but a disamabiguation page which consists of the first paragraph of the lead and then links to this article. and Total suspended solids for the water part.-- NHSavage ( talk) 06:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose to make this change on Saturday unless there is any other feedback in accordance with WP:BB.-- 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.
Soccer59 (
talk)
05:18, 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? Soccer59 ( talk) 19:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I removed the following text from the section on regulation. The link it gives no longer works and if it was just daily monitoring data, it would not be useful as a reference of past concentrations. It also does not include any units. Daily average of 500 means nothing. (It's probably μg/m3 but I don't know). If someone can find a sourced reference for this, it might go in the affected areas part (which also needs a lot of work)
During November and December 2011, the values for particulate matter concentrations in Skopje, Macedonia have been record high, with daily average of 500. The values are taken from a page supported by the city authorities. [1]
-- NHSavage ( talk) 08:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not happy with the current structure of this article and I would like to suggest the following sections:
First a lead which summarises all the content of the article and is not just a definition (although it needs to include a definition). Then:
Thoughts anyone?-- NHSavage ( talk) 10:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Most Polluted World Cities by PM [1] | |
---|---|
Particulate matter, μg/m3 (2004 and 2011) |
City |
508 | Skopje, Macedonia |
279 | Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia |
169 | Cairo, Egypt |
150 | Delhi, India |
128 | Kolkata, India (Calcutta) |
125 | Tianjin, China |
123 | Chongqing, China |
109 | Kanpur, India |
109 | Lucknow, India |
104 | Jakarta, Indonesia |
101 | Shenyang, China |
I have removed this table from the article for 2 reasons.
-- NHSavage ( talk) 11:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
EPA designated Fairbanks, Alaska as a non-attainment area for PM2.5. It would be neat to see the map updated to reflect this. Currently only the PM10 map includes Alaska, with Eagle River shaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdegan ( talk • contribs) 01:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Weuve J, Puett RC, Schwartz J, Yanosky JD, Laden F, Grodstein F.
Exposure to particulate air pollution and cognitive decline in older women.
Arch Intern Med. 2012 Feb 13;172(3):219-27. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.683.
An analysis of The Nurses' Health Study Cognitive Cohort, this study concluded:
FULL FREE TEXT:
NIHMSID: NIHMS451584
No Units on a chart? Are you kidding? This is something students learn in middle school. Put units on charts and graphs! JabberWok ( talk) 03:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed--this is important. Who added the chart? Someone needs to add units forthwith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesCAustin ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
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? -- plaws ( talk) 18:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus, much as it pains me to say it. I left this open for a fair while because it's clear that the current title is sub-par, but when deciding what to move it to I think both sides have made equally reasonable arguments and to split them would amount to a supervote. No prejudice against a new RM in the near-ish future because everyone seems to agree the current title is less than ideal. Jenks24 ( talk) 06:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Particulates →
Atmospheric particulate matter – The article, as written, is about
atmospheric particulate matter.
Particulates should be a disambiguation page similar to
Particulate (disambiguation), as atmospheric particulate matter is not the
primary topic of "Particulates", but rather one type of
particulate matter. There is some related discussion at
Talk:Particulate (disambiguation). Relisted.
Jenks24 (
talk) 07:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC) --Relisted.
George Ho (
talk) 05:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
G. C. Hood (
talk)
17:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
This article has some monster captions that far outweigh the graphics they are attached to. The massive text blocks in small print are nearly indigestible to non-specialist readers. It would be better to explain the pictures in ordinary text, with headings, paragraph breaks, references, and other readability accommodations for non-obsessive readers. The caption should concisely summarize what the picture shows, and refer to a nearby text explaining all the details for a reader wishing to delve into them. As it stands now, it is difficult to even discern what the pictures are supposed to show. Reify-tech ( talk) 19:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The lead sentence is currently:
Please can we amend it to something grammatical: at present it's saying "Atmospheric particulate matter are particles...", when you remove the parenthesis: a singular subject with a plural verb.
As the article title is "Particulates" I suggest:
Or, if there's consensus for keeping the order of the terms as is, then:
Or, for those who prefer simple language:
or (4)"consists of", (5)"is made up of", various other terms - anything to ensure that we have a leade sentence which doesn't jar the reader by having a disagreement in number between the subject and the verb. Pam D 08:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
Not new to particulates or aerosols, but new to contribution, but would like to contribute to these pages.
Can I tell you about my pet hate:
PM10 & PM2.5 which are always described incorrectly as particles less than 10 and 2.5 micrometers when in fact they have a mean diameter of 10 and 2.5 microns (must find the symbol for this!) respectively. This problem or information is so well ingrained within literature and even scientific journals & books, that it is hard to find a reference, but I know that it is probably within Hinds, I just don't have that book to hand. As this is part of my role at work, where I measure aerosols and calibrate the samplers that measure these particles I have researched this, so will come back to edit when I have found the relevant pages.
Chat to me about your thoughts people
Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoistrm ( talk • contribs) 11:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
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. Jan Vlug ( talk) 19:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Expert position paper on air pollution and cardiovascular disease
Full final text, free: http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/2/83.long
http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/2/83.full-text.pdf
http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/2/83
CONTENTS:
Article
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
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. — Salton Finneger ( talk) 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Particulates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
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. Tkadm30 ( talk) 12:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
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 96.88.198.77 ( talk) 06:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
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". Soccer59 ( talk) 00:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
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.
Soccer59 ( talk) 15:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
"Tabacco" typo: should be Tobacco. Can this be fixed? Koro Neil ( talk) 23:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
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.
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 technologys 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. — MaxEnt 02:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
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? EMsmile ( talk) 09:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)