[CF-metadata] Clarifying standard names for 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles'
Dear Daniel,
Thanks for going through this list so thoroughly. I'm aware that these names have been waiting for attention for a while now and will try to look through them all this week, but please bear with me as we have a lot of standard names requests being processed at the moment.
Best wishes,
Alison
------
Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065
NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data Archival Email: alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
R25, 2.22
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
-----Original Message-----
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Neumann
Sent: 21 March 2018 11:14
To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Clarifying standard names for 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles'
Dear Jonathan, Dear List,
> To be quite clear (although the subject says so):
> your rename proposals concern particulate/aerosol > species.
Yes.
The renaming conventions and arising problems are generically described below.
In the meantime I had an idea for the 5 'no-idea' names. Therefore, we have 110 clear names, 58 to-discuss names, and 10 not-nice names to present. The 58 to-discuss names are split into five "situations"
(numbered 1 to 5) and the 10 not-nice names are split into two "situations (numbered 6 to 7). I also attached a xls file with five sheets, which contain my renaming suggestions. The third column in each sheet points to the respective "situation" (if applicable).
Everyone who takes time to look through this: I appreciate the time you spend on it :-) . It's really a long email.
Regards,
Daniel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
110 unproblematic names:
Generally, I renamed the species from the structure
..._of_SUBSTANCE_dry_aerosol_particles_[expressed_as_ELEMENT_]...
to
..._of_dry_particulate_SUBSTANCE_[expressed_as_ELEMENT_]...
and names with pm10/pm2p5/pm1 were converted from
..._of_pm(10|2p5|1)_SUBSTANCE_dry_aerosol_particles_[expressed_as_ELEMENT_]...
to
..._of_dry_pm(10|2p5|1)_SUBSTANCE_[expressed_as_ELEMENT_]...
In the case of "atmosphere_mass_content_of_..." I added "_in_air" in the end, which was not there before.
Their were a few standard names like
"...nitric_acid_trihydrate_ambient_aerosol_particles", which did not describe dry aerosol species but ambient (wet) ones. Therefore, I added "dry" in the beginning. See "Situation 3" below for details. I don't like this solution but I feel this is reasonable for being unambiguous.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
58 to-discuss names:
?? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
??? Situation 1: particulate organic matter (26 names)
There exist names with:
(a) ..._particulate_organic_matter_dry_aerosol_particles...
(b) ..._pm10_particulate_organic_matter_dry_aerosol_particles...
(c) ..._pm2p5_particulate_organic_matter_dry_aerosol_particles...
"particulate organic matter" is a commonly used expression. Although atmospheric science people often use "organic aerosol" instead (see situation 2) and, although, it seems to be more common in marine science, it might be reasonable to keep it. When we convert names (b) and (c), we get:
(b) ..._dry_pm10_particulate_organic_matter...
(c) ..._dry_pm2p5_particulate_organic_matter...
This is consistent with the general renaming policy from the beginning of this email. When we convert name (a) according to it, we get
(a) ..._dry_particulate_particulate_organic_matter...
Thus, we had "particulate" twice. We could also call it
(a) ..._dry_particulate_organic_matter...
which would be less confusing to read. But it would break the rule.
?? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
??? Situation 2: primary and secondary organic aerosols (15 names)
There exists names with:
..._(primary|secondary)_particulate_organic_matter_dry_aerosol_particles...
Although "primary particulate organic matter" is consistent with "particulate organic matter" from situation 1, it is not commonly used.
Commonly, the expression "primary organic aerosol" (POA) is used. The same for secondary organic aerosol. Therefore, I suggest to rename this name to
..._(dry|ambient)_particulate_(primary|secondary)_organic_aerosol...
We have a doubling of "particulate" and "aerosol" but particularly "secondary organic aerosol" is really often used. And, people will probably also look for this expression in the standard name table.
?? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
??? Situation 3: pm10, pm2.5 and pm1 mass (15 names)
There are name with
...pm10_(dry|ambient)_aerosol_particles...
which describe the pm10 particle mass (dry or wet). I renamed these names to
...ambient_pm10...
...dry_pm10...
The new names are clearly to understand and short. However, the renaming convention in the beginning yields a name structure like "SIZE-CLASS_WHAT" with "SIZE-CLASS" in "particulate", "pm10", "pm2p5", ... and with "WHAT" in "nitrate", "ammonium", ... . In this situation, we don't have a "WHAT" because we mean "all compounds" or "total".
Should we leave it like that or should we insert something for "WHAT"?
?? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
??? Situation 4: biomass burning aerosol (1 name)
There are names with
...biomass_burning_dry_aerosol...
which I renamed to
...dry_particulate_biomass_burning_aerosol...
I did not remove "aerosol" in the renaming process because "biomass burning aerosol" is commonly used and because "particulate biomass burning" is incomplete. In contrast, I renamed
...sea_salt_dry_aerosol_particles...
to
...dry_particulate_sea_salt...
Although "sea salt aerosol" is also often used, "particulate sea salt"
is a complete and understandable expression. Therefore, I did it this way.
?? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
??? Situation 5: coarse mode ... particles (1 name)
There are names with
...coarse_mode_(dry|ambient)_aerosol_particles...
which I renamed to
...(dry|ambient)_coarse_particulate_matter...
This adds another keyword "coarse". "coarse particulate matter" is a size category like "pm10" or "pm2.5". Thus, we have currently, "particulate" (total / all size classes), "pm10" (particles < 10 micro m), "pm2.5" (<2.5 micro m), "pm1" (<1 micro m), and "coarse particulate"
(something like > 10 micro m). If we use this new size category name with a specific substance like nitrate, we would have
...(dry|ambient)_coarse_particulate_nitrate...
If we had the un-speciated particle mass we would have
...(dry|ambient)_coarse_particulate_matter...
Thus, we add "matter". However, we cannot add this "matter" in "Situation 3" because "pm10" already means "particulate matter smaller than 10 micro meter".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10 not-nice names
?? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
??? Situation 6: ambient (5 names)
We have names with
...nitric_acid_trihydrate_ambient_aerosol_particles..
and other substance names, which I renamed to
...ambient_particulate_nitric_acid_trihydrate...
This follows the renaming convention introduced in the beginning.
However, I am not sure, whether this is ... semantically ... correct.
?? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
??? Situation 7: water (5 names)
Since writing this email, they are not 'no-idea-for-alternative-names'
anymore.
We have names with
...water_in_(pm10|pm2p5|empty)_ambient_aerosol_particles...
for which I don't have an alternative name.
"water" in "dry" particles would be 0 (zero). Therefore, "water" can only be reasonably given for "ambient" particles. We could add "water_in" similarly to "dry" and "ambient":
...dry_pm10...
...ambient_pm10...
...water_in_pm10...
so that "dry pm10" + "water in pm10" = "ambient pm10". This would be a consistent formulation.
But it is not intuitive ... .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE END
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On 20.03.2018 18:48, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Daniel
>
> To be quite clear (although the subject says so): your rename
> proposals concern particulate/aerosol species. Thanks for thinking
> about it. Although it might be more digestible, I feel it would be
> hard to discuss and decide these groups separately; we probably need
> the overview of them too, in order to appreciate the consistency of
> it. I assume that the 110 cases expected to be unproblematic and the
> five groups of easy cases can be illustrated generically. If you could
> do that, and also describe the 10 other cases individually, maybe that would be a good basis for discussion.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Daniel Neumann
> <daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de> -----
>
>> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:23:09 +0100
>> From: Daniel Neumann <daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de>
>> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Clarifying standard names for
>> 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles'
>>
>> Dear List-Members,
>>
>> Excuse me for the late reply on this issue.
>>
>> Following the discussion, I would like to propose to rename 178
>> standard names. These rename-requests can be divided in four groups:
>>
>> - 110 of my suggestions are probably ok
>> - 58 of my suggestions should be briefly discussed; they can be
>> broken down to 5 distinct cases
>> - 5 of my suggestions are not nice and might be ambiguous; same
>> problem for all 5 names
>> - for 5 names I have no idea for alternatives
>>
>> Because this is a large number of requests: How should I proceed?
>> Should I submit the requests in four emails -- one email per group?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
Received on Wed Mar 21 2018 - 05:17:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Sep 13 2022 - 23:02:42 BST