Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 428

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Differential toxicities of fine particulate matters from various sources

Open access
Park, Minhan, Joo, Hung Soo, Lee, Kwangyul, Jang, Myoseon, Kim, Sang Don, Kim, Injeong, Borlaza, Lucille Joanna S., Lim, Heungbin, Shin, Hanjae, Chung, Kyu Hyuck, Choi, Yoon-Hyeong, Park, Sun Gu, Bae, Min-Suk, Lee, Jiyi, Song, Hangyul, Park, Kihong·2018·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Fine particulate matters less than 2.5 µm (PM 2.5) in the ambient atmosphere are strongly associated with adverse health effects. However, it is unlikely that all fine particles are equally toxic in view of their different sizes and chemical components. Toxicity of fine particles produced from various combustion sources (diesel engine, gasoline engine, biomass burning (rice straw and pine stem burning), and coal combustion) and non-combustion sources (road dust including sea spray aerosols, ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, and secondary organic aerosols (SOA)), which are known major sources of PM 2.5, was determined. Multiple biological and chemical endpoints were integrated for various source-specific aerosols to derive toxicity scores for particles originating from different sources. The highest toxicity score was obtained for diesel engine exhaust particles, followed by gasoline engine exhaust particles, biomass burning particles, coal combustion particles, and road dust, suggesting that traffic plays the most critical role in enhancing the toxic effects of fine particles. The toxicity ranking of fine particles produced from various sources can be used to better understand the adverse health effects caused by different fine particle types in the ambient atmosphere, and to provide practical management of fine particles beyond what can be achieved only using PM mass which is the current regulation standard.

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/s41598-018-35398-0

Cites

50 of 50 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

Show all 50 references

Cited by

See all 428

Metadata

Authors
Park, M., Joo, H. S., Lee, K., Jang, M., Kim, S. D., Kim, I., Borlaza, L. J. S., Lim, H., Shin, H., Chung, K. H., Choi, Y.-H., Park, S. G., Bae, M.-S., Lee, J., Song, H., & Park, K.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2018-11-19
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
17007-17007
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2900550733
Cited by
428
References
50
FWCI
14.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Differential toxicities of fine particulate matters from various sources. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41598-018-35398-0
The paper
Park, M., Joo, H. S., Lee, K., Jang, M., Kim, S. D., Kim, I., Borlaza, L. J. S., Lim, H., Shin, H., Chung, K. H., Choi, Y.-H., Park, S. G., Bae, M.-S., Lee, J., Song, H., & Park, K. (2018). Differential toxicities of fine particulate matters from various sources. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-35398-0

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.