TY - JOUR
T1 - Erratum
T2 - “Corrigendum to Continental-scale variation in chloride/bromide ratios of wet deposition” [Sci. Total Environ. 574 (2017) 1533–1543] (Science of the Total Environment (2017) 574 (1533–1543), (S0048969716318617), (10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.161))
AU - Short, M. A.
AU - de Caritat, P.
AU - McPhail, D. C.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2021/7/1
Y1 - 2021/7/1
N2 - The authors regret to advise that the above article relied heavily on data that have since been withdrawn by the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) due to a ‘known or suspected bias’ in the laboratory analytical methods used to quantify bromide concentrations in wet deposition samples (‘Bromide Notification’ under http://nadp.slh.wisc.edu/newissues/). The magnitude or ubiquity of the bias are not described or quantified in the NADP statement. Nevertheless, findings from our article are considered to be potentially unreliable. The imputation method we described in the above paper, however, remains valid and could be applied to other datasets. In their statement, the NADP indicated that they will not continue to include bromide as a routine analyte for their monitoring program. Therefore, the assessments included in our article will not be able to be verified or corrected in the near future for North-American data. However, bromide concentration data between June 2018 and June 2019 (not included in the article above) are considered valid according to the NADP, which means that those data may be able to be requested from the NADP and used in future investigations using our methods. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
AB - The authors regret to advise that the above article relied heavily on data that have since been withdrawn by the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) due to a ‘known or suspected bias’ in the laboratory analytical methods used to quantify bromide concentrations in wet deposition samples (‘Bromide Notification’ under http://nadp.slh.wisc.edu/newissues/). The magnitude or ubiquity of the bias are not described or quantified in the NADP statement. Nevertheless, findings from our article are considered to be potentially unreliable. The imputation method we described in the above paper, however, remains valid and could be applied to other datasets. In their statement, the NADP indicated that they will not continue to include bromide as a routine analyte for their monitoring program. Therefore, the assessments included in our article will not be able to be verified or corrected in the near future for North-American data. However, bromide concentration data between June 2018 and June 2019 (not included in the article above) are considered valid according to the NADP, which means that those data may be able to be requested from the NADP and used in future investigations using our methods. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85104308781&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146596
DO - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146596
M3 - Comment/debate
SN - 0048-9697
VL - 776
JO - Science of the Total Environment
JF - Science of the Total Environment
M1 - 146596
ER -