Version 1
: Received: 28 February 2023 / Approved: 28 February 2023 / Online: 28 February 2023 (04:20:28 CET)
How to cite:
Shapero, A.; Keck, S.; Goswami, E.; Love, A. Supplemental Analyses for Comment on “Impacts of Sugarcane Fires on Air Quality and Public Health in South Florida”. Preprints2023, 2023020503. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202302.0503.v1
Shapero, A.; Keck, S.; Goswami, E.; Love, A. Supplemental Analyses for Comment on “Impacts of Sugarcane Fires on Air Quality and Public Health in South Florida”. Preprints 2023, 2023020503. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202302.0503.v1
Shapero, A.; Keck, S.; Goswami, E.; Love, A. Supplemental Analyses for Comment on “Impacts of Sugarcane Fires on Air Quality and Public Health in South Florida”. Preprints2023, 2023020503. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202302.0503.v1
APA Style
Shapero, A., Keck, S., Goswami, E., & Love, A. (2023). <em>Supplemental Analyses for</em> Comment on “Impacts of Sugarcane Fires on Air Quality and Public Health in South Florida”. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202302.0503.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Shapero, A., Emily Goswami and Adam Love. 2023 "<em>Supplemental Analyses for</em> Comment on “Impacts of Sugarcane Fires on Air Quality and Public Health in South Florida”" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202302.0503.v1
Abstract
This document serves as supplemental information to Shapero et al. (2023), which is itself a comment on Nowell et al. (2022). Environmental Health Perspective’s publishing standards for article comments have strict word counts and do not allow the addition of new primary data analyses; therefore, this document provides an additional level of detail and supporting analyses that serve as an important backup to and expansion of Shapero et al. (2023) and that also respond to some comments within the author’s reply to our comments (Holmes and Nowell, 2023).Nowell et al. (2022) evaluated potential PM2.5 community impacts from sugarcane harvesting. However, their analysis is flawed by erroneous assumptions and misapplied technical approaches, as discussed in Shapero et al. (2023) and as detailed in this supplemental information document. Additionally, the authors ended their analysis with 2018 data, but later data shows no marginal increase in PM2.5 during sugarcane harvest following 2019 even using the authors’ approach (Holmes and Nowell, 2023). Therefore, the authors’ evaluations have no relevance to current conditions. Nonetheless, even their evaluation and conclusions regarding PM2.5 concentrations purportedly attributable to sugarcane harvesting prior to 2019 are unsupported and technically unsound as detailed below.
Keywords
particulate matter; statistics; air modeling
Subject
Environmental and Earth Sciences, Atmospheric Science and Meteorology
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
