Talk:Particulates

message: 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)
replies: text: I suspect it means light - the start of the paragraph mentions that dust is light absorbing. I will complete the sentance, but leave the reference needed. I think that the discussion of optical properties is probably better moved to the section on direct radiative effect which mentions Single scattering albedo. --NHSavage (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is meant by the cryptic sentence fragment, "Sea salt does not absorb." ? 

message: 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:
# Remove most of the information on atmospheric particulates from the aerosol article apart from a brief section with a link to this page as the Main section.
# Extend the aerosol article to mention the wide technological uses of aerosols 
# Rename this article 'Atmospheric particulate matter' or if you insist 'Atmospheric particulates'.
--NHSavage (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Draft of how this page will look after the move is on a subpage at Particulates/draft. Comments and edits welcome. The biggest challenge will be sorting out the redirects etc and even more the foreign language wikipedias - some will need to go to one page and some to the other.--NHSavage (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the proposal is to rename this article, the procedure is set forth at WP:RM. bd2412 T 13:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerosol/particulates 

message: 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.
--NHSavage (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skopje 

message: 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:
#Definition (what is a particulate and how is it related to an aerosol, PM10, respirable fraction etc)
# Sources (natural and anthropogenic, including information on size and composition)
## Primary sources
## Secondary sources
# Atmospheric sinks (not including control technologies)
# Atmospheric concentrations (using material from Affected areas as a starting point)
# Impacts on human health
# Impacts on Ecosystems
# Climate impacts
# Regulation
# Control technologies
Thoughts anyone?--NHSavage (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed re-organisation 

message: Most Polluted World Cities by PM         	Most Polluted World Cities by PM
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. 
# Some of the entries in are not supported by the reference Skopje, Macedonia and Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
# I don't think that the caption is actually correct. The source states: The data on concentrations of particulate matter are estimates, for selected cities, of average annual concentrations in residential areas away from air pollution “hotspots,”. This does not support them being used to create a list of "Most polluted cities by PM".
# The average is for a single year - even with fixed emissions, variations in weather can cause changes from year to year
--NHSavage (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious table 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fairbanks designated non attainment for PM2.5 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Airborne-particulate-size-chart 

message: 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)
replies: text: The article says micrometers. If you think the description can be improved, feel free to do it. — HHHIPPO 14:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  PM2.5 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have reformatted those captions to make them more legible. I have extracted some matter from them into a new section Particulates#Size distribution of particulates. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for trimming the captions and moving much of the explanation details to the main text.  It is now noticeably easier to figure out what the images are showing.  As a further improvement,  I suggest that the image sourcing details be moved to the end of the captions, or still better, into the main text.  Concerned readers can always find full details about any Wikipedia image's sourcing, with a couple of clicks. The general reader needs to see quickly what an image is about; questions about sourcing and methodologies only emerge later, after the reader is drawn into the meaning of the image.  Reify-tech (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mammoth captions 

message: The lead sentence is currently: 
:"Atmospheric particulate matter – also known as particulate matter (PM) or particulates – are particles of solid or liquid matter suspended in the Earth's atmosphere as atmospheric aerosol, a term which refers to the particulate/air mixture, as opposed to the particulate matter alone."  
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:  
: (Option 1) Particulates – also known as atmospheric particulate matter or particulate matter (PM) – are particles of solid or liquid matter ... " 
Or, if there's consensus for keeping the order of the terms as is, then:
: (Option 2)  :"Atmospheric particulate matter – also known as particulate matter (PM) or particulates – comprises particles of solid or liquid matter ... " 
Or, for those who prefer simple language:
: (Option 3)  :"Atmospheric particulate matter – also known as particulate matter (PM) or particulates – is particles of solid or liquid matter ... "
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. PamD 08:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence and grammar 

message: 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)
thread_title:  PM10 etc. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of ordinals in Size distribution of particulates section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Solar geoengineering activity is a source of air pollution/fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  assorted (mostly minor) problems 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Change main title: Particulates 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Change main title: Particulates 

message: "Tabacco" typo: should be Tobacco.  Can this be fixed? Koro Neil (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Interpunct inconsistency 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please check interlinkages with [[aerosol]]