Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,157

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Black Carbon as an Additional Indicator of the Adverse Health Effects of Airborne Particles Compared with PM 10 and PM 2.5

Open access
Janssen, Nicole A.H., Hoek, Gerard, Simic-Lawson, Milena, Fischer, Paul, van Bree, Leendert, ten Brink, Harry, Keuken, Menno, Atkinson, Richard W., Anderson, H. Ross, Brunekreef, Bert, Cassee, Flemming R.·2011·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current air quality standards for particulate matter (PM) use the PM mass concentration [PM with aerodynamic diameters ≤ 10 μm (PM(10)) or ≤ 2.5 μm (PM(2.5))] as a metric. It has been suggested that particles from combustion sources are more relevant to human health than are particles from other sources, but the impact of policies directed at reducing PM from combustion processes is usually relatively small when effects are estimated for a reduction in the total mass concentration. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the value of black carbon particles (BCP) as an additional indicator in air quality management. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of health effects of BCP compared with PM mass based on data from time-series studies and cohort studies that measured both exposures. We compared the potential health benefits of a hypothetical traffic abatement measure, using near-roadway concentration increments of BCP and PM(2.5) based on data from prior studies. RESULTS: Estimated health effects of a 1-μg/m3 increase in exposure were greater for BCP than for PM(10) or PM(2.5), but estimated effects of an interquartile range increase were similar. Two-pollutant models in time-series studies suggested that the effect of BCP was more robust than the effect of PM mass. The estimated increase in life expectancy associated with a hypothetical traffic abatement measure was four to nine times higher when expressed in BCP compared with an equivalent change in PM(2.5) mass. CONCLUSION: BCP is a valuable additional air quality indicator to evaluate the health risks of air quality dominated by primary combustion particles.

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 · 10.1289/ehp.1003369

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 1,157

Metadata

Authors
Janssen, N. A. H., Hoek, G., Simic-Lawson, M., Fischer, P., van Bree, L., ten Brink, H., Keuken, M., Atkinson, R. W., Anderson, H. R., Brunekreef, B., & Cassee, F. R.
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2011-12
Volume
119
Issue
12
Pages
1691-1699
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2040359857
Cited by
1,157
References
4
FWCI
27.44
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: Black Carbon as an Additional Indicator of the Adverse Health Effects of Airborne Particles Compared with PM 10 and PM 2.5. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1289/ehp.1003369
The paper
Janssen, N. A. H., Hoek, G., Simic-Lawson, M., Fischer, P., van Bree, L., ten Brink, H., Keuken, M., Atkinson, R. W., Anderson, H. R., Brunekreef, B., & Cassee, F. R. (2011). Black Carbon as an Additional Indicator of the Adverse Health Effects of Airborne Particles Compared with PM 10 and PM 2.5. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1003369

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.