The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Source Apportionment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Urban Atmosphere: A Comparison of Three Methods
Abstract
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are ubiquitous pollutants in urban atmospheres. Several PAHs are known carcinogens or are the precursors to carcinogenic daughter compounds. Understanding the contributions of the various emission sources is critical to appropriately managing PAH levels in the environment. The sources of PAHs to ambient air in Baltimore, MD, were determined by using three source apportionment methods, principal component analysis with multiple linear regression, UNMIX, and positive matrix factorization. Determining the source apportionment through multiple techniques mitigates weaknesses in individual methods and strengthens the overlapping conclusions. Overall source contributions compare well among methods. Vehicles, both diesel and gasoline, contribute on average 16-26%, coal 28-36%, oil 15-23%, and wood/other having the greatest disparity of 23-35% of the total (gas- plus particle-phase) PAHs. Seasonal trends were found for both coal and oil. Coal was the dominate PAH source during the summer while oil dominated during the winter. Positive matrix factorization was the only method to segregate diesel from gasoline sources. These methods indicate the number and relative strength of PAH sources to the ambient urban atmosphere. As with all source apportionment techniques, these methods require the user to objectively interpret the resulting source profiles.
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
Zhou, Q., Yang, N., Li, Y., Ren, B., Ding, X., Bian, H., & Yao, X. (2020) · Global Ecology and Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00925 · Cited by 694
Kim, K. E., Cho, D., & Park, H. J. (2016) · Life Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2016.03.039 · Cited by 455
Wang, C., Wu, S., Zhou, S., Wang, H., Li, B., Chen, H., Yu, Y., & Shi, Y. (2015) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.05.025 · Cited by 277
DiBlasi, C. J., Li, H., Davis, A. P., & Ghosh, U. (2009) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es802090g · Cited by 189
Seasonal changes, identification and source apportionment of PAH in PM 1.0
Agudelo-Castañeda, D. M., & Teixeira, E. C. (2014) · Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.07.030 · Cited by 124
Metadata
- Authors
- Larsen, R. K., & Baker, J. E.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2003-03-22
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1873-1881
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W1975995480
- Cited by
- 1,262
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.95
- 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: Source Apportionment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Urban Atmosphere: A Comparison of Three Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/es0206184
- The paper
- Larsen, R. K., & Baker, J. E. (2003). Source Apportionment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Urban Atmosphere: A Comparison of Three Methods. Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0206184
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.