ArticleJournal of aerosol science2022
Particle emissions from mobile sources: Discussion of ultrafine particle emissions and definition.
Article in Journal of aerosol science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exposure to outdoor ultrafine particle number concentrations and incidence of childhood cancer: A population-based cohort study.Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026Article
- Aerosol Pollutants and Health: Role of Size and Chemical Composition.Public health challenges · 2025Review
- Airborne Nanoparticle Concentrations Are Associated with Increased Mortality Risk in Canada's Two Largest Cities.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2024Article
- Long-Term Exposure to Outdoor Ultrafine Particles and Black Carbon and Effects on Mortality in Montreal and Toronto, Canada.Research report (Health Effects Institute) · 2024Article
- Emissions of Carbonaceous Particulate Matter and Ultrafine Particles from Vehicles-A Scientific Review in a Cross-Cutting Context of Air Pollution and Climate Change.Applied sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is no universally agreed upon definition for ultrafine particles (UFP). Commonly used definitions for UFP are either particle number below 100 nm or total particle number, but without an agreed upon lower cut point. For example, a lower cut point of 3 nm compared to 10 nm could result in a substantially higher count. Another definition for UFP is total particle mass but without a commonly agreed upon aerodynamic diameter upper cut point, e.g., below 100 nm, 200 nm, 300 nm, etc. Yet another definition is lung deposited surface area weighted by lung deposition fraction, found mainly in the particle mobility diameter range from 20 to 400 nm. It is clear from these definitions that there are inconsistencies in the way UFP is used and defined in the literature. Sometimes these metrics are well correlated, sometimes not. In this paper we suggest three exposure metrics: UFP-N, UFP-M, and UFP-S, that we believe will add clarity. These metrics represent total number, mass, and surface area below 500 nm, respectively. For surface area and mass, the 500 nm cut point can be either aerodynamic or mobility diameter depending upon measurement methodology. For all metrics, this cut point captures nearly all of the primary particle emissions from mobile sources. Furthermore, UFP-N would include a lower cut point of 3-6 nm and would not require an upper size cut point because there is very little particle number above 500 nm or even above 100 nm. Thus, our definition of UFP-N is consistent with the current definition of ultrafine number except for, importantly, the specification of a lower cut point. These exposure metrics can help facilitate consistency in the characterization of both short- and long-term UFP ambient exposures and associated health effects in epidemiological studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.