Indoor Emissions Contributed the Majority of Ultrafine Particles in Chinese Urban Residences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultrafine particle (UFP) pollution should be controlled to reduce its effects on health. The design of control measures is limited owing to the uncertainty of source contributions in Chinese residences, where indoor UFP pollution is more severe than in Western residences. Herein, a source-specific, time-dependent UFP concentration model was developed by applying an infiltration factor model incorporating coagulation effects. A Monte Carlo framework with the UFP concentration model was employed to estimate the probabilistic distribution of source contributions in Chinese residences. The input parameter distributions were determined based on our survey and previous studies. The annually averaged indoor UFP concentration was estimated at (2.75 ± 1.71) × 10 4 #/cm 3, ranging from 2.35 × 10 3 to 1.27 × 10 5 #/cm 3 outside the kitchen, and at (5.48 ± 3.08) × 10 4 #/cm 3, ranging from 2.90 × 10 3 to 1.94 × 10 5 #/cm 3 in the kitchen. Indoor sources contributed more to indoor UFPs, accounting for 61% in the nonkitchen and 80% in the kitchen, surpassing their contribution to indoor PM 2.5 in Chinese residences. Meanwhile, the indoor UFP emission contributions were higher than those in the United States, Canada, and Germany, owing to higher emissions from cooking and cigarette smoking. These results will aid in elucidating human exposure to UFPs and in designing more targeted control measures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".