The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Oxidative potential of particulate matter collected at sites with different source characteristics
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The oxidative potential (OP) of particulate matter (PM) has been proposed as a more health relevant metric than PM mass. Different assays exist for measuring OP and little is known about how the different assays compare. AIM: To assess the OP of PM collected at different site types and to evaluate differences between locations, size fractions and correlation with PM mass and PM composition for different measurement methods for OP. METHODS: PM2.5 and PM10 was sampled at 5 sites: an underground station, a farm, 2 traffic sites and an urban background site. Three a-cellular assays; dithiothreitol (OP(DTT)), electron spin resonance (OP(ESR)) and ascorbate depletion (OP(AA)) were used to characterize the OP of PM. RESULTS: The highest OP was observed at the underground, where OP of PM10 was 30 (OP(DTT)) to >600 (OP(ESR)) times higher compared to the urban background when expressed as OP/m(3) and 2-40 times when expressed as OP/μg. For the outdoor sites, samples from the farm showed significantly lower OP(ESR) and OP(AA), whereas samples from the continuous traffic site showed the highest OP for all assays. Contrasts in OP between sites were generally larger than for PM mass and were lower for OP(DTT) compared to OP(ESR) and OP(AA). Furthermore, OP(DTT)/μg was significantly higher in PM2.5 compared to PM10, whereas the reverse was the case for OP(ESR). OP(ESR) and OP(AA) were highly correlated with traffic-related PM components (i.e. EC, Fe, Cu, PAHs), whereas OP(DTT) showed the highest correlation with PM mass and OC. CONCLUSIONS: Contrasts in OP between sites, differences in size fractions and correlation with PM composition depended on the specific OP assay used, with OP(ESR) and OP(AA) showing the most similar results. This suggests that either OP(ESR) or OP(AA) and OP(DTT) can complement each other in providing information regarding the oxidative properties of PM, which can subsequently be used to study its health effects.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Pöschl, U., & Shiraiwa, M. (2015) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr500487s · Cited by 657
Fang, T., Verma, V., Bates, J. T., Abrams, J., Klein, M., Strickland, M. J., Sarnat, S. E., Chang, H. H., Mulholland, J. A., Tolbert, P. E., et al. (2016) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-16-3865-2016 · Cited by 373
Lakey, P. S. J., Berkemeier, T., Tong, H., Arangio, A. M., Lucas, K., Pöschl, U., & Shiraiwa, M. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep32916 · Cited by 365
Particulate matter and the airway epithelium: the special case of the underground?
Cooper, D. M., & Loxham, M. (2019) · European Respiratory Review · doi:10.1183/16000617.0066-2019 · Cited by 80
Metadata
- Authors
- Janssen, N. A. H., Yang, A., Strak, M., Steenhof, M., Hellack, B., Gerlofs-Nijland, M. E., Kuhlbusch, T., Kelly, F., Harrison, R., Brunekreef, B., Hoek, G., & Cassee, F.
- Venue
- Science of The Total Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-02
- Volume
- 472
- Pages
- 572-581
- ISSN
- 0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2142912905
- Cited by
- 322
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Oxidative potential of particulate matter collected at sites with different source characteristics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.099
- The paper
- Janssen, N. A. H., Yang, A., Strak, M., Steenhof, M., Hellack, B., Gerlofs-Nijland, M. E., Kuhlbusch, T., Kelly, F., Harrison, R., Brunekreef, B., Hoek, G., & Cassee, F. (2014). Oxidative potential of particulate matter collected at sites with different source characteristics. Science of The Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.099
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.
