

Metropolitan cities' scorecard for particles (PM2.5) NEPM 24-hour standard, based on analysis of air quality index values, 2009-2014
Metropolitan cities' scorecard for particles (PM2.5) NEPM 24-hour standard, based on analysis of air quality index values, 2009-2014
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 71; good 29; fair <1; poor <1; very poor 0
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 91; good 8; fair 1; poor <1; very poor <1
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 77; good 17; fair 5; poor 1; very poor <1
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 58; good 29; fair 10; poor 3; very poor 1
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 78; good 17; fair 5; poor 1; very poor <1
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 69; good 27; fair 3; poor 1; very poor <1
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 68; good 30; fair 1; poor <1; very poor <1
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 64; good 32; fair 3; poor <1; very poor <1
Darwin began measuring PM2.5 in 2011. Melbourne Alphington station measured every 3 days until February 2014. Assessment trend is determined from trend during assessment period.
Assessment Summary Key
Grades
Very good
Air quality is considered very good, and air pollution poses little or no risk
Good
Air quality is considered good, and air pollution poses little or no risk
Fair
Air quality is acceptable. However, there may be a health concerns for very sensitive people
Poor
Air quality is unhealthy for sensitive groups. The general population is not likely to be affected in this range
Very poor
Air quality is unhealthy, and everyone may begin to experience health effects. People from sensitive groups
may experience more serious health effects
Recent Trends
-
Improving
-
Stable
-
Deteriorating
-
Unclear
Confidence
-
Adequate: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus
-
Somewhat adequate: Adequate high-quality evidence or high level of consensus
-
Limited: Limited evidence or limited consensus
-
Very limited: Limited evidence and limited consensus
-
Low: Evidence and consensus too low to make an assessment
Comparability
-
Comparable: Grade and trend are comparable to the previous assessment
-
Somewhat comparable: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the previous assessment
-
Not comparable: Grade and trend are not comparable to the previous assessment
-
Not previously assessed
Comments
Nil.