

Regional cities' scorecard for particles (PM10) NEPM 24-hour standard, based on analysis of air quality index values, 1999-2014
Regional cities' scorecard for particles (PM10) NEPM 24-hour standard, based on analysis of air quality index values, 1999-2014
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- The period for the 2011 assessment was from 1999-2008
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 49; good 40; fair 8; poor 2; very poor 1
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 34; good 45; fair 13; poor 6; very poor 2 (Note: Although the overall assessment is good, the distribution has a significant ‘tail’ of 29 days on which the national standard was exceeded)
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 35; good 60; fair 4; poor 1; very poor <1
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 30; good 61; fair 1; poor 0; very poor 2
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 61; good 34; fair 4; poor 1; very poor <1
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 55; good 34; fair 8; poor 2; very poor 1
Tasmania - Launceston - PM10 (24-hour average)
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
- Title has changed from 2011.
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 75; good 22; fair 3; poor <1; very poor 0
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 65; good 30; fair 3; poor 2; very poor 1
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 51; good 42; fair 6; poor 1; very poor <1
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 39; good 49; fair 9; poor 2; very poor 1
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 51; good 46; fair 2; poor <1; very poor <1
Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 46; good 52; fair 2; poor 0; very poor 0
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.