The inclusion of photochemical initial concentrations in the combined-phase source apportionment of PM2.5, PAHs and VOCs from an industrialized environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PM2.5 species, PAHs and VOCs were sampled between 2013 and 2019 once every three or six days for a period of 24 hours in an industrialized city in Ontario, Canada, and analyzed to apportion their common sources. The consequences of using these species jointly for receptor modelling were assessed via combined-phase source apportionment that used the data as is, and in an approach that considered the potential for photochemical losses of gas-phase species. Thus, initial concentrations corrected for photochemistry, called PIC were calculated. The data were then analyzed either with positive matrix factorization or its dispersion-normalized variant (DN-PMF). Comparisons of applying PMF to the originally observed input data (BASE) and DN-PMF on data with PIC corrections were made. When the combined phase input data were analyzed, nine factors were resolved for both BASE and DN-PIC PMF. These factors were: particulate sulphate, secondary organic aerosol (SOA), particulate nitrate (pNO3), biomass burning with natural gas, crustal matter, winter blend of gasoline, coking/coal combustion, steelmaking, and summer blend/light duty vehicular emissions. On comparison of the BASE and DN-PIC PMF results, the average PM mass contribution of the summer gasoline fuel factor increased from 2% in BASE case to 5%, suggesting severe underestimation of this source’s initial contributions without DN-PIC. Also, substantial increases of reactive VOCs in the SOA factor, and PAHs with ≥four rings in the pNO3 and steelmaking factors were observed with DN-PIC PMF compared to the BASE PMF case, indicating that for the SOA factor, reactive VOCs at the location of study contributed to its sources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".