QUALITY CONTROL OF HIGH FREQUENCY DATA IN THE ATTO PROJECT
Keywords:Turbulence. Quality control. Reverse arrangement test.
Control quality in turbulence data is an essential step before carrying on any analysis. However, there are not standard tests to follow, and the evaluation criteria are left to the researcher. In this context, the main goal of this study is perform a quality control of high frequency data (10 Hz) measured at two levels above an Amazonian forest (39.4 and 81.6 m, where the average forest height is approximately 40 m). First of all, spikes were removed; in the following, changes in standard deviation in each variable were evaluated with the intention to detect sensor malfunction or low levels of turbulence. Finally, to detect trends and unsteady cases the Reverse Arrangement Test was applied, followed by an analysis of the temporal variation of each variable (difference between maximum and minimum values). After all control quality procedures, 15.8% of the data measured at 81.6 m and 40.7% of the data measured at 39.4 m remained. These results show the high quantity of inconsistent runs, highlighting the importance of the control quality in order to avoid that they contaminate the ensuing analysis.
Bendat, J. S., Piersol, A. G. (1986). Random Data, 2o edn. John Wiley & Sons.
Foken, T. (2008). Micrometeorology, 1o edn. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Foken, T., Gockede, M., Mauder, M., Mahrt, L., Amiro, B., Munger, W. (2005). Post-field data quality control. Em: Lee, X., Massman, W., Law, B. (Eds) Handbook of Micrometeorology: A Guide for Surface Flux Measurement and Analysis, Springer Netherlands.
Vickers, D., Mahrt, L. (1997). Quality control and flux sampling problems for tower and aircraft data. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 14, 512–526.
How to Cite
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.