ArticlePloS one2025
Tracing CO2 sources in urban and rural areas characterized by different land-use patterns using carbon isotopes.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Air samples were collected from urban and rural areas of Korea with different land-use patterns between October 2022 and April 2023 to identify the sources of atmospheric CO2. We analyzed representative end-members from natural and anthropogenic sources (soil, vehicle exhaust gases, and coal) to determine the CO2 concentrations and carbon isotope compositions of CO2 (δ13C-CO2). Urban samples exhibited lower δ13C values and higher CO2 concentrations than rural samples. Both urban and tunnel samples showing similar slopes and intercepts on the plot of 1000/CO2 vs. δ13C-CO2 likely shifted toward the vehicle exhaust end-member. Among the rural samples, those collected from coastal areas showed trends similar to the urban and tunnel samples, which differed from those collected from inland areas. This suggests that samples from coastal areas were affected by CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants in the region. In contrast, inland samples showed the highest slope and lowest intercept (i.e., estimated δ13C-CO2 value of -27.0‰), suggesting that natural sources such as soil CO2 dominate the contribution to atmospheric CO2 in inland areas. This study demonstrates that the primary CO2 sources in regions with different land-use patterns can be distinguished using the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and δ13C-CO2 values.
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.