Aerosol Optical Depth

A review article is not an original study. It examines previous studies and compiles their data and evidence to reach a conclusion that is statistically stronger than any in the single studies, mainly because of having more study subjects and more diversity among subjects. A good review usually concentrates on a theme, such as different theories, information on the progress of developing a new medical device, or how past developments influence new discoveries. A review might also ask that more resources be used to continue research in that specific field.  Literature Searches Authors must ensure that the sources are legitimate research studies and so only use Google Scholar to find scientific articles for your review. Sources such as Popular Science and WebMD.com are not allowed to be used as sources for review articles. Your paper should include a minimum of 5 references. Manuscript Preparation Times New Roman, 12 point, 1.0-inch margins on all four sides, and 1.5 line spacing. No more than 5 pages (including cover page and references).  OUTLINE of Environmental Literature Review Paper: 1) Title page • Main title (possibly, short title) • Author name and affiliation (ex: Carol Kaplan, Professor of Environmental Science, Miami Dade College) 2) Abstract • Main points of the project should be outlined • Subheadings should be included (e.g., objective, methods, results, and conclusions) • The length of the abstract should be between 200 and 250 words • No citations included within the abstract • Acronyms and abbreviations should be included only if used more than once 3) Introduction • Background information on the topic should be discussed • Introduction must address the objective (research question) • Text should be written in present tense 4) Methods • Should be written in past tense • Should provide information necessary to repeat the review • Search strategies, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data sources and geographical information, characteristics of study subjects, and statistical analyses used should be included 5) Results • Authors must include all the results • Their relevance to the objective should be mentioned 6) Discussion • Background information and objective can be reiterated • Results and their relevance clearly and concisely discussed 7) Conclusions • This section should discuss the objective discussed in the introduction. This section should discuss the implications of the findings, interpretations, and identify unresolved questions. 8) References • You must be able to cite your source according to one of the following formats: MLA, Turabian, or APA.     About…….. Any topic you like: Water pollution Urbanization Air Pollution Green Spaces Environmental Regulations Air Water Soil Soil degradation Desertification ***** ( I believe my subject will fit these topics) Extreme Weather. *** Species Conservation Fragmentation of Land Renewable Energies  Outline of Review of Research Paper :  Title Page Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion References Requirements: MUST REVIEW AT LEAST 4 PAPERS EXAMPLES:  A Scoping Review Mapping Research on Green Space and Associated Mental Health Benefits Charlotte Wendelboe-Nelson 1,*, Sarah Kelly 2 , Marion Kennedy 2 and John W. Cherrie 1,3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6616579/pdf/ijerph-16-02081.pdf Water pollution in Pakistan and its impact on public health — A review Azizullah Azizullah a , Muhammad Nasir Khan Khattak b , Peter Richter a, ?, Donat-Peter Häder a  Can ornamental potted plants remove volatile organic compounds from indoor air? — a review https://greenplantsforgreenbuildings.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Dela-Cruz-2014-review-on-phytoremediation-with-indoor-plants-2.pdf ABSTRACT:  Background: There is a growing interest in research investigating the association between green space (GS) and mental health and wellbeing (HWB), in order to understand the underlying mechanisms. Accordingly, there is a need to map the literature and create an overview of the research. Methods: A scoping review approach was used to map literature on GS, including context and co-exposures (the GS exposome), and their associations with mental HWB. The review considers mental HWB definitions and measurements and how GS is characterized. Furthermore, the review aims to identify knowledge gaps and make recommendations for future research. Results: We identified a great diversity in study designs, definitions, outcome measures, consideration of the totality of the GS exposome, and reporting of results. Around 70% of the 263 reviewed studies reported a positive association between some aspect of GS and HWB. However, there is a limited amount of research using randomized controlled crossover trails (RCTs) and mixed methods and an abundance of qualitative subjective research. Conclusions: The discords between study designs, definitions, and the reporting of results makes it difficult to aggregate the evidence and identify any potential causal mechanisms. We propose key points to consider when defining and quantifying GS and make recommendations for reporting on research investigating GS and mental HWB. This review highlights a need for large well-designed RCTs that reliably measure the GS exposome in relation to mental HWB. Keywords: green space; mental health and wellbeing; exposome