Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34075500›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2021

Source apportionment based on the comparative approach of two receptor models in a large-scale region in China.

Mohamed Lamine Diakite, Yuanan Hu, Hefa Cheng

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 43% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mohamed Lamine DiakiteMOE Laboratory of Groundwater Circulation and Evolution, School of Water Resources and Environment, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing, 100083, China.
Yuanan HuMOE Laboratory of Groundwater Circulation and Evolution, School of Water Resources and Environment, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing, 100083, China. yhu@cugb.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7103-8119
Hefa ChengMOE Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China.
China University of Geosciences (Beijing) · CNPeking University · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China Grant No. 41725015National Natural Science Foundation of China Grant Nos. 42077110 and 41877112
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Soil heavy metal(loid) (HM) source apportionment is the prerequisite to develop suitable mitigation measures and make pollution control and prevention regulations. The selection of appropriate tools (models) for source analysis is crucial, that is especially true for large-scale regions, as the Pearl River Delta (PRD), due to the high spatial variability in soil parent materials, soil topographical feature, and wide range of anthropogenic activities. The objective of this study is to evaluate the potential applications of receptor models (positive matrix factorization [PMF] and Unmix) which have been widely used in air pollution research to quantitatively apportion sources of heavy metal(loid)s in the soils. To assist the interpretation of the derived factors (sources) of the receptor models, enrichment factors and GIS mapping were used to identify the potential relationships between the factor contributions and human activities in the study area. As the models are built on completely different algorithms, a comparative approach was adopted in addition to evaluate the impact of sample size on the model results. Factor profiles generated by different receptor models were quite similar as well as their corresponding factor contributions spatial distribution. Though the stability of their results decreases with a reduced sample size, the results of PMF were less significantly influenced by the sample size than those of Unmix. Due to the difficulty (time consuming and expensive) of soil sample collection in large-scale regions, the PMF model appears to be practically more effective than Unmix. In addition, further investigation is needed for Unmix model to understand the reason for its high sensitivity and determine an appropriate sample size.

Indexed as

Metals, HeavySoil PollutantsChinaEnvironmental MonitoringEnvironmental PollutionHumansSoilMetals, HeavySoilSoil PollutantsHeavy metal(loid)sPMF modelSample size impactSource interpretationSources apportionmentUnmix model

Identifiers

PMID34075500
OpenAlexW3164216947

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.