Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 514

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sources of carbonaceous aerosols over the United States and implications for natural visibility

Open access
Park, Rokjin J., Jacob, Daniel J., Chin, Mian, Martin, Randall V.·2003·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

We use a global three‐dimensional model (GEOS‐CHEM) to better quantify the sources of elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC) aerosols in the United States through simulation of year‐round observations for 1998 at a network of 45 sites (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)). Simulation with our best a priori understanding of sources, including global satellite data to constrain fire emissions, captures most of the variance in the observations (R 2 = 0.84 for EC, 0.67 for OC) with a low bias of 15% for EC and 26% for OC. Multiple linear regression to fit the IMPROVE data yields best estimates of 1998 U.S. sources of 0.60 Tg year−1 EC and 0.52 Tg year−1 OC from fossil fuel; 0.07 Tg year−1 EC and 0.89 Tg year−1 OC from biofuel; 0.08 Tg year−1 EC and 0.60 Tg year−1 OC from wildfires; and 1.10 Tg year−1 OC from vegetation. We find that fires in Mexico and Canada contributed 40–70% of annual mean natural EC in the United States for 1998 and 20–30% of annual mean natural OC. Transpacific transport from Asian pollution sources amounted to less than 10% of the natural EC and less than 2% of the natural OC; in contrast to ozone, we find that intercontinental transport of anthropogenic carbonaceous aerosols does not enhance significantly the natural background. IMPROVE observations and model simulations for the summer of 1995 show that Canadian fire emissions can produce large events of elevated EC and OC in the southeastern United States. Our best estimates of mean natural concentrations of EC and OC in the United States, using a model simulation with climatological monthly mean fire emissions, are 2–3 times higher than the default values recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for visibility calculations, except for OC in the eastern United States (16% lower).

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 · 10.1029/2002jd003190

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 514

Metadata

Authors
Park, R. J., Jacob, D. J., Chin, M., & Martin, R. V.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Published
2003-06-20
Volume
108
Issue
D12
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2143993673
Cited by
514
References
1
FWCI
9.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Sources of carbonaceous aerosols over the United States and implications for natural visibility. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2002jd003190
The paper
Park, R. J., Jacob, D. J., Chin, M., & Martin, R. V. (2003). Sources of carbonaceous aerosols over the United States and implications for natural visibility. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd003190

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.