The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methods for estimating uncertainty in PMF solutions: Examples with ambient air and water quality data and guidance on reporting PMF results
Open accessAbstract
The new version of EPA's positive matrix factorization (EPA PMF) software, 5.0, includes three error estimation (EE) methods for analyzing factor analytic solutions: classical bootstrap (BS), displacement of factor elements (DISP), and bootstrap enhanced by displacement (BS-DISP). These methods capture the uncertainty of PMF analyses due to random errors and rotational ambiguity. To demonstrate the utility of the EE methods, results are presented for three data sets: (1) speciated PM2.5 data from a chemical speciation network (CSN) site in Sacramento, California (2003-2009); (2) trace metal, ammonia, and other species in water quality samples taken at an inline storage system (ISS) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (2006); and (3) an organic aerosol data set from high-resolution aerosol mass spectrometer (HR-AMS) measurements in Las Vegas, Nevada (January 2008). We present an interpretation of EE diagnostics for these data sets, results from sensitivity tests of EE diagnostics using additional and fewer factors, and recommendations for reporting PMF results. BS-DISP and BS are found useful in understanding the uncertainty of factor profiles; they also suggest if the data are over-fitted by specifying too many factors. DISP diagnostics were consistently robust, indicating its use for understanding rotational uncertainty and as a first step in assessing a solution's viability. The uncertainty of each factor's identifying species is shown to be a useful gauge for evaluating multiple solutions, e.g., with a different number of factors.
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
Cites
Evolution of Organic Aerosols in the Atmosphere
Jimenez, J. L., Canagaratna, M. R., Donahue, N. M., Prevot, A. S. H., Zhang, Q., Kroll, J. H., DeCarlo, P. F., Allan, J. D., Coe, H., Ng, N. L., et al. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1180353 · Cited by 4,167
Cited by
Almeida, S. M., Manousakas, M., Diapouli, E., Kertesz, Z., Samek, L., Hristova, E., Šega, K., Alvarez, R. P., Belis, C. A., & Eleftheriadis, K. (2020) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115199 · Cited by 137
Masiol, M., Squizzato, S., Formenton, G., Khan, M. B., Hopke, P. K., Nenes, A., Pandis, S. N., Tositti, L., Benetello, F., Visin, F., et al. (2020) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135287 · Cited by 77
Kotchenruther, R. A. (2016) · Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.07.048 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, S. G., Eberly, S., Paatero, P., & Norris, G. A.
- Venue
- Science of The Total Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-06
- Volume
- 518-519
- Pages
- 626-635
- ISSN
- 0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2021327933
- Cited by
- 733
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.91
- 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: Methods for estimating uncertainty in PMF solutions: Examples with ambient air and water quality data and guidance on reporting PMF results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.01.022
- The paper
- Brown, S. G., Eberly, S., Paatero, P., & Norris, G. A. (2015). Methods for estimating uncertainty in PMF solutions: Examples with ambient air and water quality data and guidance on reporting PMF results. Science of The Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.01.022
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.