Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 236

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Respiratory health effects of ultrafine and fine particle exposure in cyclists

Open access
Strak, Maciej, Boogaard, Hanna, Meliefste, Kees, Oldenwening, Marieke, Zuurbier, Moniek, Brunekreef, Bert, Hoek, Gerard·2010·Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Abstract

Objectives: Monitoring studies have shown that commuters are exposed to high air pollution concentrations, but there is limited evidence of associated health effects. We carried out a study to investigate the acute respiratory health effects of air pollution related to commuting by bicycle. Methods: Twelve healthy adults cycled a low- and a high-traffic intensity route during morning rush hour in Utrecht, The Netherlands. Exposure to traffic-related air pollution was characterised by measurements of PM 10, soot and particle number. Before, directly after and 6 h after cycling we measured lung function (FEV 1, FVC, PEF), exhaled NO (FE NO) and respiratory symptoms. The association between post- minus pre-exposure difference in health effects and exposure during cycling was evaluated with linear regression models. Results: The average particle number concentration was 59% higher, while the average soot concentration was 39% higher on the high-traffic route than on the low-traffic route. There was no difference for PM 10. Contrary to our hypothesis, associations between air pollution during cycling and lung function changes immediately after cycling were mostly positive. Six hours after cycling, associations between air pollution exposure and health were mostly negative for lung function changes and positive for changes in exhaled NO, although non-significant. Conclusions: We found substantial differences in ultrafine particle number and soot exposure between two urban cycling routes. Exposure to ultrafine particles and soot during cycling was weakly associated with increased exhaled NO, indicative of airway inflammation, and decrements in lung function 6 h after exposure. A limitation of the study was the relatively small sample size.

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 · 10.1136/oem.2009.046847

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 236

Metadata

Authors
Strak, M., Boogaard, H., Meliefste, K., Oldenwening, M., Zuurbier, M., Brunekreef, B., & Hoek, G.
Venue
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2009-09-22
Volume
67
Issue
2
Pages
118-124
ISSN
  • 0007-1072 (ISSN-L)
  • 1351-0711
  • 1470-7926
OpenAlex
W2096866172
Cited by
236
References
2
FWCI
10.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Respiratory health effects of ultrafine and fine particle exposure in cyclists. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/oem.2009.046847
The paper
Strak, M., Boogaard, H., Meliefste, K., Oldenwening, M., Zuurbier, M., Brunekreef, B., & Hoek, G. (2010). Respiratory health effects of ultrafine and fine particle exposure in cyclists. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2009.046847

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.