Comparison of traditional method and triple collocation analysis for evaluation of multiple gridded precipitation products across Germany

Evaluating the accuracy of precipitation products is essential for many applications. The traditional method for evaluation is to calculate error metrics of products with gauge measurements that are considered as ground-truth. The multiplicative triple collocation (MTC) method has been demonstrated powerful in error quantification of precipitation products when ground-truth is not known. This study applied MTC to evaluate five precipitation products in Germany: two raw satellite-based (CMORPH and PERSIANN), one reanalysis (ERA-Interim), one soil moisture-based (SM2RAIN-ASCAT), and one gauge-based (REGNIE) products. Evaluation was performed at the 0.5° -daily spatial-temporal scales. MTC involves a log transformation of data, necessitating dealing with zero values in daily precipitation. Effects of 12 different strategies for dealing with zero value on MTC results were investigated. Seven different triplet combinations were tested to evaluate the stability of MTC. Results showed that different strategies for replacing zero values had considerable effects on MTC-derived error metrics particularly for root mean squared error (RMSE). MTC with different triplet combinations generated different error metrics for individual products. MTC-derived correlation coefficient (CC) was more reliable than RMSE. It is more appropriate to use MTC to compare the relative accuracy of different precipitation products. Based on CC with unknown truth, MTC with different triplet combinations produced the same ranking of products as the traditional method. A comparison of results from MTC and the classic TC with additive error model showed the potential limitation of MTC in arid area or dry time periods with large ratio of zero daily precipitation.

Which particles to select, and if yes, how many?

Micro- and nanoplastic contamination is becoming a growing concern for environmental protection and food safety. Therefore, analytical techniques need to produce reliable quantification to ensure proper risk assessment. Raman microspectroscopy (RM) offers identification of single particles, but to ensure that the results are reliable, a certain number of particles has to be analyzed. For larger MP, all particles on the Raman filter can be detected, errors can be quantified, and the minimal sample size can be calculated easily by random sampling. In contrast, very small particles might not all be detected, demanding a window-based analysis of the filter. A bootstrap method is presented to provide an error quantification with confidence intervals from the available window data. In this context, different window selection schemes are evaluated and there is a clear recommendation to employ random (rather than systematically placed) window locations with many small rather than few larger windows. Ultimately, these results are united in a proposed RM measurement algorithm that computes confidence intervals on-the-fly during the analysis and, by checking whether given precision requirements are already met, automatically stops if an appropriate number of particles are identified, thus improving efficiency.