The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Source Apportionment of Molecular Markers and Organic Aerosol. 3. Food Cooking Emissions
Abstract
The chemical mass balance model is applied to a large dataset of organic molecular marker concentrations to apportion ambient organic aerosol to food cooking emissions in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Ambient concentrations of key cooking markers such as palmitoleic acid, oleic acid, and cholesterol are well correlated, which implies the existence of well-defined source profiles. However, significant inconsistencies exist between the ambient data and published source profiles. Most notably, the ambient ratio of palmitoleic-acid-to-oleic-acid is more than a factor of 10 greater than essentially all published source profiles. This problem is not unique to Pittsburgh. The reason for this discrepancy is not known but it means that both acids cannot be fit simultaneously by CMB. CMB analysis is performed using three different combinations of food cooking source profiles and molecular markers. Although all three solutions have high statistical quality, the amount of OC apportioned to food cooking emissions varies by a factor of 9. Differences in fitting species and source profile marker-to-organic-carbon ratios cause most of the large systematic biases between the different solutions. The best CMB model includes two alkanoic acids as fitting species in addition to other cooking markers, which helps constrain the source contribution estimates. It also includes two meat cooking source profiles to account for the variability in the ambient data. This model apportions 320+/-140 ng-C m(-3) or 10% of the study average ambient organic carbon to food cooking emissions. Although these results illustrate the significant challenges created by source profile variability, the strong correlations in the ambient dataset underscore the significant promise that molecular markers hold for source apportionment analysis.
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
Abdullahi, K. L., Delgado-Saborit, J. M., & Harrison, R. M. (2013) · Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.01.061 · Cited by 565
Mohr, C., Huffman, J. A., Cubison, M. J., Aiken, A. C., Docherty, K. S., Kimmel, J. R., Ulbrich, I. M., Hannigan, M., & Jimenez, J. L. (2009) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es8011518 · Cited by 388
Organic aerosol composition and sources in Pasadena, California, during the 2010 CalNex campaign
Hayes, P. L., Ortega, A. M., Cubison, M. J., Froyd, K. D., Zhao, Y., Cliff, S. S., Hu, W. W., Toohey, D. W., Flynn, J. H., Lefer, B. L., et al. (2013) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1002/jgrd.50530 · Cited by 298
Real-time chemical characterization of atmospheric particulate matter in China: A review
Li, Y. J., Sun, Y., Zhang, Q., Li, X., Li, M., Zhou, Z., & Chan, C. K. (2017) · Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.02.027 · Cited by 264
Temporal patterns in daily measurements of inorganic and organic speciated PM2.5 in Denver
Dutton, S. J., Rajagopalan, B., Vedal, S., & Hannigan, M. P. (2010) · Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.06.006 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Robinson, A. L., Subramanian, R., Donahue, N. M., Bernardo-Bricker, A., & Rogge, W. F.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2006-11-15
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 7820-7827
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2003514756
- Cited by
- 187
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.72
- 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 Molecular Markers and Organic Aerosol. 3. Food Cooking Emissions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/es060781p
- The paper
- Robinson, A. L., Subramanian, R., Donahue, N. M., Bernardo-Bricker, A., & Rogge, W. F. (2006). Source Apportionment of Molecular Markers and Organic Aerosol. 3. Food Cooking Emissions. Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/es060781p
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.