Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 176

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

Lung Toxicity of Ambient Particulate Matter from Southeastern U.S. Sites with Different Contributing Sources: Relationships between Composition and Effects

Open access
Seagrave, JeanClare, McDonald, Jacob D., Bedrick, Edward, Edgerton, Eric S., Gigliotti, Andrew P., Jansen, John J., Ke, Lin, Naeher, Luke P., Seilkop, Steven K., Zheng, Mei, Mauderly, Joe L.·2006·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Exposure to air pollution and, more specifically, particulate matter (PM) is associated with adverse health effects. However, the specific PM characteristics responsible for biological effects have not been defined. OBJECTIVES: In this project we examined the composition, sources, and relative toxicity of samples of PM with aerodynamic diameter </= 2.5 microm (PM2.5) collected from sites within the Southeastern Aerosol Research and Characterization (SEARCH) air monitoring network during two seasons. These sites represent four areas with differing sources of PM2.5, including local urban versus regional sources, urban areas with different contributions of transportation and industrial sources, and a site influenced by Gulf of Mexico weather patterns. METHODS: We collected samples from each site during the winter and summer of 2004 for toxicity testing and for chemical analysis and chemical mass balance-based source apportionment. We also collected PM2.5 downwind of a series of prescribed forest burns. We assessed the toxicity of the samples by instillation into rat lungs and assessed general toxicity, acute cytotoxicity, and inflammation. Statistical dose-response modeling techniques were used to rank the relative toxicity and compare the seasonal differences at each site. Projection-to-latent-surfaces (PLS) techniques examined the relationships among sources, chemical composition, and toxicologic end points. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Urban sites with high contributions from vehicles and industry were most toxic.

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.9234

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 176

Metadata

Authors
Seagrave, J., McDonald, J. D., Bedrick, E., Edgerton, E. S., Gigliotti, A. P., Jansen, J. J., Ke, L., Naeher, L. P., Seilkop, S. K., Zheng, M., & Mauderly, J. L.
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2006-09
Volume
114
Issue
9
Pages
1387-1393
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2071013498
Cited by
176
References
3
FWCI
9.11
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: Lung Toxicity of Ambient Particulate Matter from Southeastern U.S. Sites with Different Contributing Sources: Relationships between Composition and Effects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1289/ehp.9234
The paper
Seagrave, J., McDonald, J. D., Bedrick, E., Edgerton, E. S., Gigliotti, A. P., Jansen, J. J., Ke, L., Naeher, L. P., Seilkop, S. K., Zheng, M., & Mauderly, J. L. (2006). Lung Toxicity of Ambient Particulate Matter from Southeastern U.S. Sites with Different Contributing Sources: Relationships between Composition and Effects. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9234

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.