ArticleToxicology reports2025
Health impacts and risk assessment of PM
Article in Toxicology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Relative risk and dalys assessment of indoor air pollutants in residential buildings - taking Dalian as an example.BMC public health · 2026Article
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
The aim of this study was to evaluate the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risks associated with heavy metals in PM₂.₅ and PM₁₀ through inhalation exposure among children and adults during both the summer and wet seasons in the Pathum Thani Province, Thailand. PM2.5 and PM10 samples were collected using a Tisch TE-Wilbur sampler, and elemental concentrations were analyzed using Proton-Induced X-Ray Emission (PIXE). Microsoft Excel was employed to determine the statistical values of PM₂.₅ and PM₁₀ concentrations, the concentrations of twelve elements, including Si, S, Cl, K, Ca, Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Zn, Ni, and Cu. The enrichment factor (EF), as well as health risk assessment indicators, including target hazard quotient (THQ), hazard index (HI), and carcinogenic risk (CR), were evaluated. The results showed that EF values for Zn, Ni, and Cu ranged from 10 to 100, indicating contributions from anthropogenic sources. Cr exhibited the highest EF values, ranging from 51 to 111, suggesting significant influence from industrial activities and traffic emissions. The mean PM₁₀ concentration (86.0504 µg/m³) during the wet season exceeded the WHO and EU standards but remained below the Thailand standard and the U.S. EPA limit. In contrast, the mean PM₂.₅ concentration (77.5143 µg/m³) during the same period exceeded all referenced standards. The calculated HI values were from 0.0459 to 0.1090 for adults and 0.3285-0.7811 for children. The CR values in PM₂.₅ ranged from 5.0884 × 10⁻⁸ to 7.9544 × 10⁻⁶ for adults and from 5.9364 × 10⁻⁸ to 9.2802 × 10⁻⁶ for children. For PM₁₀, the CR values ranged from 5.1865 × 10⁻⁸ to 1.0412 × 10⁻⁵ for adults and from 6.0509 × 10⁻⁸ to 1.2148 × 10⁻⁵ for children. Although both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks were within acceptable limits, higher risk values were observed in children compared to adults. Therefore, targeted and effective air pollution control policies are recommended, with a particular emphasis on protecting children's health and strengthening evidence-based air quality management strategies.
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.