Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 304

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Trend analysis and forecast of PM2.5 in Fuzhou, China using the ARIMA model

Zhang, Lanyi, Lin, Jane, Qiu, Rongzu, Hu, Xisheng, Zhang, Huihui, Chen, Qingyao, Tan, Huamei, Lin, Danting, Wang, Jiankai·2018·Ecological Indicators

Abstract

Abstract Atmospheric haze from particulate matter has become a major health concern in many large and medium-sized cities of China. Fine airborne particles, PM2.5, are a major component of haze, and the reasons for their fluctuating concentrations need to be better understood to improve air quality. While much of the air quality data from the China National Environmental Monitoring Centre (CNEMC) has already been analyzed for larger Chinese cities such as Beijing and Shanghai, the data from Fuzhou is the topic of this study. Time series data of pollutant concentrations and meteorological parameters were accessed for Fuzhou from August 2014 to July 2016, covering two cold periods (November through February) and two warm periods (May through July). PM2.5 concentrations were compared with those of other pollutants and with meteorological parameters, and the AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model was applied to forecast PM2.5 concentrations. The correlation analysis of Spearman’s rho showed that PM2.5 concentrations had significant positive correlations with PM10, SO2 and NO2 concentrations, while they had negative correlations with meteorological parameters. The ARIMA results showed that PM2.5 concentrations experienced seasonal fluctuations over the two years, which were higher in the cold periods and lower in the corresponding warm periods, ranging from 23 to 52 μg/m3 and from 19 to 31 μg/m3, respectively. Average PM2.5 concentrations during these same cold periods and warm periods were 35 μg/m3 over the two cold periods, which was 52% higher than the 23 μg/m3 averaged over the two warm periods. Compared to the two observed years, 2014–15 and 2015–16, the forecast of PM2.5 concentrations for 2016–17, ranging from about 15 to 30 μg/m3, exhibited similar seasonal fluctuations but also reduced in the same period, ranging from 19 to 52 μg/m3. It is speculated that the Fuzhou Government's macro-policy on air quality may be one of the reasons for the decrease in PM2.5 concentration during the cold periods. Possible causes were given for the discrepancies between actual and fit values.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.032

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Cited by

See all 304

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, L., Lin, J., Qiu, R., Hu, X., Zhang, H., Chen, Q., Tan, H., Lin, D., & Wang, J.
Venue
Ecological Indicators
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
95
Pages
702-710
ISSN
1470-160X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2888345420
Cited by
304
References
24
FWCI
12.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Trend analysis and forecast of PM2.5 in Fuzhou, China using the ARIMA model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.032
The paper
Zhang, L., Lin, J., Qiu, R., Hu, X., Zhang, H., Chen, Q., Tan, H., Lin, D., & Wang, J. (2018). Trend analysis and forecast of PM2.5 in Fuzhou, China using the ARIMA model. Ecological Indicators. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.032

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.