Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 164

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Workgroup Report: Workshop on Source Apportionment of Particulate Matter Health Effects—Intercomparison of Results and Implications

Open access
Thurston, George D., Ito, Kazuhiko, Mar, Therese, Christensen, William F., Eatough, Delbert J., Henry, Ronald C., Kim, Eugene, Laden, Francine, Lall, Ramona, Larson, Timothy V., Liu, Hao, Neas, Lucas, Pinto, Joseph, Stölzel, Matthias, Suh, Helen, Hopke, Philip K.·2005·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

Although the association between exposure to ambient fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter < 2.5 microm (PM2.5) and human mortality is well established, the most responsible particle types/sources are not yet certain. In May 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Particulate Matter Centers Program sponsored the Workshop on the Source Apportionment of PM Health Effects. The goal was to evaluate the consistency of the various source apportionment methods in assessing source contributions to daily PM2.5 mass-mortality associations. Seven research institutions, using varying methods, participated in the estimation of source apportionments of PM2.5 mass samples collected in Washington, DC, and Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Apportionments were evaluated for their respective associations with mortality using Poisson regressions, allowing a comparative assessment of the extent to which variations in the apportionments contributed to variability in the source-specific mortality results. The various research groups generally identified the same major source types, each with similar elemental makeups. Intergroup correlation analyses indicated that soil-, sulfate-, residual oil-, and salt-associated mass were most unambiguously identified by various methods, whereas vegetative burning and traffic were less consistent. Aggregate source-specific mortality relative risk (RR) estimate confidence intervals overlapped each other, but the sulfate-related PM2.5 component was most consistently significant across analyses in these cities. Analyses indicated that source types were a significant predictor of RR, whereas apportionment group differences were not. Variations in the source apportionments added only some 15% to the mortality regression uncertainties. These results provide supportive evidence that existing PM2.5 source apportionment methods can be used to derive reliable insights into the source components that contribute to PM2.5 health effects.

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.7989

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 164

Metadata

Authors
Thurston, G. D., Ito, K., Mar, T., Christensen, W. F., Eatough, D. J., Henry, R. C., Kim, E., Laden, F., Lall, R., Larson, T. V., Liu, H., Neas, L., Pinto, J., Stölzel, M., Suh, H., & Hopke, P. K.
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2005-12
Volume
113
Issue
12
Pages
1768-1774
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2157799151
Cited by
164
References
0
FWCI
11.54
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: Workgroup Report: Workshop on Source Apportionment of Particulate Matter Health Effects—Intercomparison of Results and Implications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1289/ehp.7989
The paper
Thurston, G. D., Ito, K., Mar, T., Christensen, W. F., Eatough, D. J., Henry, R. C., Kim, E., Laden, F., Lall, R., Larson, T. V., Liu, H., Neas, L., Pinto, J., Stölzel, M., Suh, H., & Hopke, P. K. (2005). Workgroup Report: Workshop on Source Apportionment of Particulate Matter Health Effects—Intercomparison of Results and Implications. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7989

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.