Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 747

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Monthly Global Estimates of Fine Particulate Matter and Their Uncertainty

Open access
van Donkelaar, Aaron, Hammer, Melanie S., Bindle, Liam, Brauer, Michael, Brook, Jeffery R., Garay, Michael J., Hsu, N. Christina, Kalashnikova, Olga V., Kahn, Ralph A., Lee, Colin, Levy, Robert C., Lyapustin, Alexei, Sayer, Andrew M., Martin, Randall V.·2021·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Annual global satellite-based estimates of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) are widely relied upon for air-quality assessment.Here, we develop and apply a methodology for monthly estimates and uncertainties during the period 1998-2019, which combines satellite retrievals of aerosol optical depth, chemical transport modeling, and ground-based measurements to allow for the characterization of seasonal and episodic exposure, as well as aid air-quality management.Many densely populated regions have their highest PM 2.5 concentrations in winter, exceeding summertime concentrations by factors of 1.5-3.0 over Eastern Europe, Western Europe, South Asia, and East Asia.In South Asia, in January, regional population-weighted monthly mean PM 2.5 concentrations exceed 90 μg/m 3 , with local concentrations of approximately 200 μg/m 3 for parts of the Indo-Gangetic Plain.In East Asia, monthly mean PM 2.5 concentrations have decreased over the period 2010-2019 by 1.6-2.6 μg/m 3 /year, with decreases beginning 2-3 years earlier in summer than in winter.We find evidence that global-monitored locations tend to be in cleaner regions than global mean PM 2.5 exposure, with large measurement gaps in the Global South.Uncertainty estimates exhibit regional consistency with observed differences between ground-based and satellitederived PM 2.5 .The evaluation of uncertainty for agglomerated values indicates that hybrid PM 2.5 estimates provide precise regionalscale representation, with residual uncertainty inversely proportional to the sample size.

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 · 10.1021/acs.est.1c05309

Cites

54 of 54 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

Cited by

See all 747

Metadata

Authors
van Donkelaar, A., Hammer, M. S., Bindle, L., Brauer, M., Brook, J. R., Garay, M. J., Hsu, N. C., Kalashnikova, O. V., Kahn, R. A., Lee, C., Levy, R. C., Lyapustin, A., Sayer, A. M., & Martin, R. V.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2021-11-01
Volume
55
Issue
22
Pages
15287-15300
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W3208553248
Cited by
747
References
54
FWCI
43.38
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

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.