Cited by 58Environmental Justice and Health DisparitiesAir Quality and Health ImpactsAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Unequal airborne exposure to toxic metals associated with race, ethnicity, and segregation in the USA

Open access

Abstract

Persons of color have been exposed to a disproportionate burden of air pollution across the United States for decades. Yet, the inequality in exposure to known toxic elements of air pollution is unclear. Here, we find that populations living in racially segregated communities are exposed to a form of fine particulate matter with over three times higher mass proportions of known toxic and carcinogenic metals. While concentrations of total fine particulate matter are two times higher in racially segregated communities, concentrations of metals from anthropogenic sources are nearly ten times higher. Populations living in racially segregated communities have been disproportionately exposed to these environmental stressors throughout the past decade. We find evidence, however, that these disproportionate exposures may be abated though targeted regulatory action. For example, recent regulations on marine fuel oil not only reduced vanadium concentrations in coastal cities, but also sharply lessened differences in vanadium exposure by segregation.

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 · 10.1038/s41467-022-33372-z

Cites

57 of 58 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Collaborating with knowledgeable Indigenous stewards has the dual benefit of respecting Indigenous sovereignty demands while also addressing the city's environmental issues and caring for vulnerable coastal areas.

    “Collaborating with knowledgeable Indigenous stewards has the dual benefit of respecting Indigenous sovereignty demands while also addressing our city's environmental issues and caring for our vulnerable coastal areas.130,131”

    From NPCC4: Advancing climate justice in climate adaptation strategies for New York City (2024) · cites this paper as [130]

    The Results section discusses reduced coastal air pollution following marine-fuel regulations, not collaboration with Indigenous stewards. Searches for Indigenous stewardship and sovereignty found no passage addressing the claimed benefits for sovereignty, city environmental issues, or vulnerable coastal areas. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. McKinney, W. pandas: a foundational Python library for data analysis and statistics. Python high. Perform. Sci. Comput. 14, 1–9 (2011).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kodros, J. K., Bell, M. L., Dominici, F., L’Orange, C., Godri Pollitt, K. J., Weichenthal, S., Wu, X., & Volckens, J.
Affiliations
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Kodros, John K.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2022-11-01
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
6329-6329
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4308029173
Cited by
58
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 14
FWCI
17.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Health Effects Institute (4953- RFA14-3/16-4)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (DP2MD012722, R01MD012769, R01 ES028033, 1R01ES030616)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (R01MD012769)
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (83587201-0, RD83587101)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Air Quality and Health Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Keywords
PM2.5, racial segregation, environmental justice, air pollution, toxic metals, vanadium, coastal cities
MeSH terms
Air Pollutants, Air Pollution, Environmental Exposure, Environmental Monitoring, Ethnicity, Humans, United States, Vanadium, Particulate Matter

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