ArticleToxics2023
Forecast of Fine Particles in Chengdu under Autumn-Winter Synoptic Conditions.
Article in Toxics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We conducted an evaluation of the impact of meteorological factor forecasts on the prediction of fine particles in Chengdu, China, during autumn and winter, utilizing the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST)733 objective weather classification software and the Community Multiscale Air Quality model. This analysis was performed under four prevailing weather patterns. Fine particle pollution tended to occur under high-pressure rear, homogeneous-pressure, and low-pressure conditions; by contrast, fine particle concentrations were lower under high-pressure bottom conditions. The forecasts of fine particle concentrations were more accurate under high-pressure bottom conditions than under high-pressure rear and homogeneous-pressure conditions. Moreover, under all conditions, the 24 h forecast of fine particle concentrations were more accurate than the 48 and 72 h forecasts. Regarding meteorological factors, forecasts of 2 m relative humidity and 10 m wind speed were more accurate under high-pressure bottom conditions than high-pressure rear and homogeneous-pressure conditions. Moreover, 2 m relative humidity and 10 m wind speed were important factors for forecasting fine particles, whereas 2 m air temperature was not. Finally, the 24 h forecasts of meteorological factors were more accurate than the 48 and 72 h forecasts, consistent with the forecasting of fine particles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.