See this topic : Air quality issues plus Iimproving Testing of Air Pollution/Quality
EDIT, now combined into this topic.
where I’ve spoken to the EPA about the uselessness of the 24 hour rolling average, but of course the promise to get back to me never eventuated… typical of govt departments in my experience.
Hi @fizwidget, welcome to the community.
It is possibly because the recommended limits are measured as average 24 hour concentrations. This post in another thread provides rationale for these recommended limits…
Instantaneous or other shorter temporal reading while interesting, may not have benefit when determining long term health consequences.
Possibly the only benefit may be if one knows the exact dust particle composition concentration (of mineral, organic, pollen, smoke, NOx, SOx etc particles) that triggers a response to an individual (such as asthma), then one could determine actions needed to avoid a response due to instantaneous data readings.
I am not sure if one would know what levels and composition would trigger a response or whether monitoring equipment either:
In these times under ‘growth at any cost’ governments less or harder to find information is apparently better for many things. Trump leads the way and our government’s main concern seems to be not scaring the children [with facts].
Notwithstanding its version of ‘open and honest’ reporting of the nothing being done.
Good to see that Asthma Australia has taken up the issue of the need for hourly PM data in NSW.
Asthma woes in smoke-hit city
Asthma Australia has called on all states to provide real-time air quality reporting amid a rise in the number of ambulance call-outs for asthma related to bushfire smoke.
The article does however incorrectly report that the PM hourly data is available on the Departments website. I could find it so rang the Department - they told me it’s planned not yet set up, will be a few more months.
(We seem to have two threads on same topic - how do we get them merged?)
Moved the posts over to this thread.
Smoke isn’t the only fine particulate matter issue, dust storms are fairly frequent over the past couple of years, and breathing in dust could pose various risks, including silicosis.
Here’s the view from the veranda a few minutes ago.
Perhaps this article is worth a read as well into the air quality issues we have been having in Australia:
I just noticed this message on aqicn.org:
News (January 16th): NSW Environment Deparement is now publishing the hourly data for PM2.5 and PM10.
Any new readings starting from Janurary 16th 2020 will be reported using the hourly data.
Sounds promising! I can’t see real-time data on the department’s website, but perhaps they’re making it available via an API? Does anyone know the details?
https://aqicn.org/city/sydney/ shows hourly values, and interestingly, you can see how poor the correlation between NEPH and PM2.5 is! I was advised by the EPA dude (who never called me back as promised) that NEPH was a good guide to PM2.5 levels.
In any case NEPH data is not available here, and looking at https://www.dpie.nsw.gov.au/air-quality/current-air-quality, nothing has changed, it is still 24 hour rolling averages.
EDIT: https://aqicn.org/city/australia/nsw/tamworth/north-west-slopes/ does show Tamworth- so it looks like you have to avoid the government website if you want current information about air quality
Additional comment: It seems the aqicn.org data is somewhat limited in its usefulness, as the data for Tamworth is currently over 3 hours out of date. Hourly data sounds good, but is only useful if you can travel back in time to make use of it!
We get the odd spec of dust now and then - this pic taken a couple of minutes before we were hit with 900 km/h muddy rain …
I’m told that PurpleAir sensors are amongst the most reliable. They are awfully expensive though. A fellow in Canberra is organising a bulk buy for Canberrans. (10% off)… facebook group My Air Quality Australia.
https://www.purpleair.com/map?opt=1/mAQI/a10/cC0#11/-32.8723/151.6527
Only one sensor around here… plug your own location into the map
A friend about 200km west operates one of these, and there are a few a bit over 100km north… if I had some spare cash I might buy one myself. Meanwhile, it’s more a matter of using my nose and eyes, as there is no useful local monitoring. Currently over 2 hours out of date, the aqicn site says site quality 49 good for Tamworth, but looking out the front of the house tells a different story!
Apocolypse now or a typo?
Give or take 
like a liquid sandblasting, speed of approach might be a slight exaggeration …
Has anyone heard of the Fair Air fire mask? An Australian invention that removes 100% of PM 1.0 particulates, 99.94% of PM 0.3. (according to CSIRO tests).
I wonder if Choice is going to look into masks as there are so many around that make dubious claims? One designed for escaping a fire was guaranteeing free replacement if it had to be used. Of course you would have to survive the fire to claim…
As the flu germ is PM 0.43 the Fair Air mask would be great protection against Coronavirus.
P2s only remove about 94%, if you can get them to seal.
Hi @magic, welcome to the forum.
One has to remember that the coronovirus will be contained in droplets of fluid excreted when sneezing or coughing. These droplets will have significantly higher diameters than the virus itself. Therefore, a larger diameter filter than the virus can be used to prevent infection as the droplet containing the virus would be captured.
While not checking, say we assune a Fair Air Mask removes all PM0.3, it may not reduce risks for the general community. Breathing through a finer sized filter is more challenging and can require significantly more effort. It is likely that users, if not experienced or aware of risks, will touch the mask while wearing to either allow air to bypass the filter (if one experiences shortness of breath) or to cool the face where the mask sits (as a PM0.3 may have lower air flow and cooling effect than say a PM5 mask). Touching one’s face or the mask when wearing increases the risk of a virus being transported onto themask/face and thus increasing the risk of infection.
Hi Mike,
It would seem so easy to google this product. I did.
Do you have any connection to the product design, manufacture, distribution, retail etc?
It is always best to declare such in the interest of impartiality.
Hi Mark
What would give you that idea 
Yes to all your connection questions…
I will mention in future.
regards
Mike
phd
Your assumption that more effort is required than masks that filter larger particles is incorrect.
It is correct for most respirators but the advanced materials used in the Fair Air mask makes it extremely efficient.
I don’t know what you mean by a PM5 mask as they are rated P1, P2 and P3 only and this relates to the percentage of particulates removed, not the size: P1 80%, P2 94% and P3 99.95%.
The breathing resistance for these vary to allow for the extra protection (@30 l/min 110 Pa, 120 Pa and 170 Pa respectively).
The Fair Air tested @55 l/min has resistance of less than a P2 at the lower flow rate while giving the protection of a P3 with far less resistance.
The Fair Air masks are quite cool and have been happily worn all day long on firegrounds in 45 C temperatures so don’t require removal for your reasons given. However, if they were touched it would still not constitute a risk as the filters are about 1 cm thick and far from any deposited germs. If you still considered it to be one you might like to spray the cotton eyelet holder with a little tea tree oil, a natural antiseptic.
I am not surprised that germs are still spreading seeing a mixture of surgical masks (no protection for the wearer only stopping exhaled germs) and valved respirators (no protection for others as exhaled air passes through valve, not filter).
BTW, I am the inventor and manufacturer of the Fair Air fire mask.
With the dramatic drop in air pollution there will be a drop in the death rate and improvements in health in China. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
.
“7,000,000 people die prematurely every year from breathing toxic air.” Dr Maria Neira, WHO .
http://ow.ly/LkrU30qmwri](https://t.co/lHIy2Y7twN?amp=1
