Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 158

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ultrafine particle concentrations and exposures in seven residences in northern California: Residential exposures to ultrafine particles

Open access
Bhangar, S., Mullen, N. A., Hering, S. V., Kreisberg, N. M., Nazaroff, W. W.·2011·Indoor Air

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Human exposures to ultrafine particles (UFP) are poorly characterized given the potential associated health risks. Residences are important sites of exposure. To characterize residential exposures to UFP in some circumstances and to investigate governing factors, seven single-family houses in California were studied during 2007-2009. During multiday periods, time-resolved particle number concentrations were monitored indoors and outdoors and information was acquired concerning occupancy, source-related activities, and building operation. On average, occupants were home for 70% of their time. The geometric mean time-average residential exposure concentration for 21 study subjects was 14,500 particles per cm(3) (GSD = 1.8; arithmetic mean ± standard deviation = 17,000 ± 10,300 particles per cm(3)). The average contribution to residential exposures from indoor episodic sources was 150% of the contribution from particles of outdoor origin. Unvented natural-gas pilot lights contributed up to 19% to exposure for the two households where present. Episodic indoor source activities, most notably cooking, caused the highest peak exposures and most of the variation in exposure among houses. Owing to the importance of indoor sources and variations in the infiltration factor, residential exposure to UFP cannot be characterized by ambient measurements alone. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Indoor and outdoor sources each contribute to residential ultrafine particle (UFP) concentrations and exposures. Under the conditions investigated, peak exposure concentrations indoors were associated with cooking, using candles, or the use of a furnace. Active particle removal systems can mitigate exposure by reducing the persistence of particles indoors. Eliminating the use of unvented gas pilot lights on cooking appliances could also be beneficial. The study results indicate that characterization of human exposure to UFP, an air pollutant of emerging public health concern, cannot be accomplished without a good understanding of conditions inside residences.

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 · 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00689.x

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 158

Metadata

Authors
Bhangar, S., Mullen, N. A., Hering, S. V., Kreisberg, N. M., & Nazaroff, W. W.
Venue
Indoor Air
Published
2010-10-28
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
132-144
ISSN
0905-6947 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2113289029
Cited by
158
References
3
FWCI
6.32
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: Ultrafine particle concentrations and exposures in seven residences in northern California: Residential exposures to ultrafine particles. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00689.x
The paper
Bhangar, S., Mullen, N. A., Hering, S. V., Kreisberg, N. M., & Nazaroff, W. W. (2011). Ultrafine particle concentrations and exposures in seven residences in northern California: Residential exposures to ultrafine particles. Indoor Air. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00689.x

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.