Individualization of a representative daily trend of pollutant concentrations as characteristic scenario to be simulated by mathematical models
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X63622Abstract
The paper presents a daily trend of pollutant concentrations, referred to as the “representative day”, i.e. the day for which the overall sum of the mean-square differences between its concentration, averaged within each hour, and the concentrations for all other days at the same hour, is a minimum. The approach also allows the identification of the “least representative day” (the daily series that maximises the mean sum of squared residuals).The purpose of such typifying is that of outlining characteristic scenarios for a given period under investigation and than mathematical models make it possible to attempt simulations of a typical period trend, without the need to simulate all the days of the time interval covered by the typical period.Downloads
References
Seinfeld J.H. and Pandis S.N. (1988). Atmospheric Chemistry And Physics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Tirabassi T. and Rizza U. (1993). Flux Parameterization For Atmospheric-Diffusion Models In An industrialized area. Il Nuovo
Cimento, 16 C, 187-192.
Tirabassi T. E Nassetti S. (1999). The Rapresentative Day. Atmos. Environ., 33, 2427-2434.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
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.
In particular,
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.
