In his article with the above title, published in the Environment Supplement of your paper on 20 November, Carmel Capopardo tries to discredit the report produced by Environmental Software and Services GmbH (ESS) and Ecoserv Ltd.
Mr Capopardo states, “… it is pertinent to point out that contrary to normal practice the scientists who carried out the study opted to remain anonymous”. In reality, not giving the names of scientists who contribute to a study when a company is providing the service is common practice, as anyone who has reviewed or handled environmental study reports would know, and there is no underlying motive of anonymity as he alludes. In any case, to allay Mr Capopardo’s suspicions, the study was undertaken by Dr Kurt Fedra, Dr Gabriela Heimhilcher, Dr Christina Witwer, Dr. Maja Zuvela-Aloise, Dr Milan Kubat, Mr Franz Karrer from ESS (Austria) who were responsible for the modelling component; Dr Filippo Gandolfo and Dr Filippo Giglio from CADA (Italy) who carried out the collection of particulate matter (PM) data at Birzebbuga and Marsaxlokk on behalf of Ecoserv; and Sarah Debono from Ecoserv who coordinated the study. The names of these scientists were provided in the method statement submitted to the client (Mepa) before the study was initiated.
Mr Capopardo refers to what he considers a discrepancy between the PM data collected at Birzebbuga and Marsaxlokk and the output from the simulation exercise undertaken as part of the modelling component. According to him, no explanation for this is given in our report. While his observation is correct, no explanation was provided simply because the two are not comparable and it would be presumptuous to do so. Yet, Mr Capopardo attempts comparison!
The following explains why the two should not be compared. First, the main scope of the whole study was to carry out a modelling simulation exercise, based on metrology, emissions data and air quality data of the past three years (2008, 2009, 2010) to determine whether or not the existing situation would change if the DPS extension (as described) is implemented. On the other hand, the PM data from Birzebbuga and Marsaxlokk were collected over a period of four weeks, which is very short compared to the three-year period considered in the simulation exercise. Furthermore, given that data collection was made at only one site in each of the two localities, any sporadic dust generation events resulting from either human activities (such as works or construction activities that may be present in the general area where the data collection equipment was stationed) or natural factors (e.g. wind borne dust originating from the natural environment) would have a large influence on the results. This is what happened during the collection of PM data at Birzebbuga and Marsaxlokk: one of the factors that contributed to the high PM levels recorded were Saharan dust events (during which mineral dust is transported from the Sahara Desert to neighbouring regions, including the Mediterranean) that occurred during the period of study. This was confirmed after satellite images taken during the study period were analysed and clearly indicated the Saharan dust event. So, we did not pull Mr Capopardo’s leg but perhaps the satellite did!
Finally, Mr Capopardo’s reference throughout his article to the “Ecoserv study” is erroneous, as the major contributor to the study was ESS. It would have been appropriate to refer to work as the “ESS-Ecoserv” study but for reasons known best to him, he singled out our company when referring to the report.
Mr Capopardo would do well to familiarise himself better with the technical and scientific aspects of air quality monitoring and modelling before criticising professionals who were simply carrying out the job they were asked to do.
Sarah Debono
Project Manager, Ecoserv Ltd
MOSTA