@article{
 title = {Positive matrix factorization of PM(2.5): comparison and implications of using different speciation data sets.},
 type = {article},
 year = {2012},
 identifiers = {[object Object]},
 keywords = {Air Pollutants,Air Pollutants: analysis,Colorado,Environmental Monitoring,Environmental Monitoring: methods,Environmental Monitoring: statistics & numerical d,Particulate Matter,Particulate Matter: analysis,Uncertainty},
 pages = {11962-70},
 volume = {46},
 websites = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22985292},
 month = {11},
 day = {6},
 id = {c6ecb7c3-41be-330a-83d4-912194888826},
 created = {2014-06-01T21:17:38.000Z},
 file_attached = {true},
 profile_id = {9edae5ec-3a23-3830-8934-2c27bef6ccbe},
 group_id = {63e349d6-2c70-3938-9e67-2f6483f6cbab},
 last_modified = {2014-11-19T06:03:46.000Z},
 read = {false},
 starred = {false},
 authored = {false},
 confirmed = {true},
 hidden = {false},
 abstract = {To evaluate the utility and consistency of different speciation data sets in source apportionment of PM(2.5), positive matrix factorization (PMF) coupled with a bootstrap technique for uncertainty assessment was applied to four different 1-year data sets composed of bulk species, bulk species and water-soluble elements (WSE), bulk species and organic molecular markers (OMM), and all species. The five factors resolved by using only the bulk species best reproduced the observed concentrations of PM(2.5) components. Combining WSE with bulk species as PMF inputs also produced five factors. Three of them were linked to soil, road dust, and processed dust, and together contributed 26.0% of reconstructed PM(2.5) mass. A 7-factor PMF solution was identified using speciated OMM and bulk species. The EC/sterane and summertime/selective aliphatic factors had the highest contributions to EC (39.0%) and OC (53.8%), respectively. The nine factors resolved by including all species as input data are consistent with those from the previous two solutions (WSE and bulk species, OMM and bulk species) in both factor profiles and contributions (r = 0.88-1.00). The comparisons across different solutions indicate that the selection of input data set may depend on the PM components or sources of interest for specific source-oriented health study.},
 bibtype = {article},
 author = {Xie, Mingjie and Hannigan, Michael P and Dutton, Steven J and Milford, Jana B and Hemann, Joshua G and Miller, Shelly L and Schauer, James J and Peel, Jennifer L and Vedal, Sverre},
 journal = {Environmental science & technology},
 number = {21}
}

{"_id":"S9Rz8iR6vkTcKtp8t","bibbaseid":"xie-hannigan-dutton-milford-hemann-miller-schauer-peel-etal-positivematrixfactorizationofpm25comparisonandimplicationsofusingdifferentspeciationdatasets-2012","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2017-01-12T21:32:05.878Z","title":"Positive matrix factorization of PM(2.5): comparison and implications of using different speciation data sets.","author_short":["Xie, M.","Hannigan, M., P.","Dutton, S., J.","Milford, J., B.","Hemann, J., G.","Miller, S., L.","Schauer, J., J.","Peel, J., L.","Vedal, S."],"year":2012,"bibtype":"article","biburl":null,"bibdata":{"title":"Positive matrix factorization of PM(2.5): comparison and implications of using different speciation data sets.","type":"article","year":"2012","identifiers":"[object Object]","keywords":"Air Pollutants,Air Pollutants: analysis,Colorado,Environmental Monitoring,Environmental Monitoring: methods,Environmental Monitoring: statistics & numerical d,Particulate Matter,Particulate Matter: analysis,Uncertainty","pages":"11962-70","volume":"46","websites":"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22985292","month":"11","day":"6","id":"c6ecb7c3-41be-330a-83d4-912194888826","created":"2014-06-01T21:17:38.000Z","file_attached":"true","profile_id":"9edae5ec-3a23-3830-8934-2c27bef6ccbe","group_id":"63e349d6-2c70-3938-9e67-2f6483f6cbab","last_modified":"2014-11-19T06:03:46.000Z","read":false,"starred":false,"authored":false,"confirmed":"true","hidden":false,"abstract":"To evaluate the utility and consistency of different speciation data sets in source apportionment of PM(2.5), positive matrix factorization (PMF) coupled with a bootstrap technique for uncertainty assessment was applied to four different 1-year data sets composed of bulk species, bulk species and water-soluble elements (WSE), bulk species and organic molecular markers (OMM), and all species. The five factors resolved by using only the bulk species best reproduced the observed concentrations of PM(2.5) components. Combining WSE with bulk species as PMF inputs also produced five factors. Three of them were linked to soil, road dust, and processed dust, and together contributed 26.0% of reconstructed PM(2.5) mass. A 7-factor PMF solution was identified using speciated OMM and bulk species. The EC/sterane and summertime/selective aliphatic factors had the highest contributions to EC (39.0%) and OC (53.8%), respectively. The nine factors resolved by including all species as input data are consistent with those from the previous two solutions (WSE and bulk species, OMM and bulk species) in both factor profiles and contributions (r = 0.88-1.00). The comparisons across different solutions indicate that the selection of input data set may depend on the PM components or sources of interest for specific source-oriented health study.","bibtype":"article","author":"Xie, Mingjie and Hannigan, Michael P and Dutton, Steven J and Milford, Jana B and Hemann, Joshua G and Miller, Shelly L and Schauer, James J and Peel, Jennifer L and Vedal, Sverre","journal":"Environmental science & technology","number":"21","bibtex":"@article{\n title = {Positive matrix factorization of PM(2.5): comparison and implications of using different speciation data sets.},\n type = {article},\n year = {2012},\n identifiers = {[object Object]},\n keywords = {Air Pollutants,Air Pollutants: analysis,Colorado,Environmental Monitoring,Environmental Monitoring: methods,Environmental Monitoring: statistics & numerical d,Particulate Matter,Particulate Matter: analysis,Uncertainty},\n pages = {11962-70},\n volume = {46},\n websites = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22985292},\n month = {11},\n day = {6},\n id = {c6ecb7c3-41be-330a-83d4-912194888826},\n created = {2014-06-01T21:17:38.000Z},\n file_attached = {true},\n profile_id = {9edae5ec-3a23-3830-8934-2c27bef6ccbe},\n group_id = {63e349d6-2c70-3938-9e67-2f6483f6cbab},\n last_modified = {2014-11-19T06:03:46.000Z},\n read = {false},\n starred = {false},\n authored = {false},\n confirmed = {true},\n hidden = {false},\n abstract = {To evaluate the utility and consistency of different speciation data sets in source apportionment of PM(2.5), positive matrix factorization (PMF) coupled with a bootstrap technique for uncertainty assessment was applied to four different 1-year data sets composed of bulk species, bulk species and water-soluble elements (WSE), bulk species and organic molecular markers (OMM), and all species. The five factors resolved by using only the bulk species best reproduced the observed concentrations of PM(2.5) components. Combining WSE with bulk species as PMF inputs also produced five factors. Three of them were linked to soil, road dust, and processed dust, and together contributed 26.0% of reconstructed PM(2.5) mass. A 7-factor PMF solution was identified using speciated OMM and bulk species. The EC/sterane and summertime/selective aliphatic factors had the highest contributions to EC (39.0%) and OC (53.8%), respectively. The nine factors resolved by including all species as input data are consistent with those from the previous two solutions (WSE and bulk species, OMM and bulk species) in both factor profiles and contributions (r = 0.88-1.00). The comparisons across different solutions indicate that the selection of input data set may depend on the PM components or sources of interest for specific source-oriented health study.},\n bibtype = {article},\n author = {Xie, Mingjie and Hannigan, Michael P and Dutton, Steven J and Milford, Jana B and Hemann, Joshua G and Miller, Shelly L and Schauer, James J and Peel, Jennifer L and Vedal, Sverre},\n journal = {Environmental science & technology},\n number = {21}\n}","author_short":["Xie, M.","Hannigan, M., P.","Dutton, S., J.","Milford, J., B.","Hemann, J., G.","Miller, S., L.","Schauer, J., J.","Peel, J., L.","Vedal, S."],"urls":{"Paper":"http://bibbase.org/service/mendeley/9edae5ec-3a23-3830-8934-2c27bef6ccbe/file/489e7a90-0504-0397-7e52-fb4e5c7203a6/2012-Positive_matrix_factorization_of_PM(2.5)_comparison_and_implications_of_using_different_speciation_data_sets..pdf.pdf","Website":"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22985292"},"bibbaseid":"xie-hannigan-dutton-milford-hemann-miller-schauer-peel-etal-positivematrixfactorizationofpm25comparisonandimplicationsofusingdifferentspeciationdatasets-2012","role":"author","keyword":["Air Pollutants","Air Pollutants: analysis","Colorado","Environmental Monitoring","Environmental Monitoring: methods","Environmental Monitoring: statistics & numerical d","Particulate Matter","Particulate Matter: analysis","Uncertainty"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["positive","matrix","factorization","comparison","implications","using","different","speciation","data","sets","xie","hannigan","dutton","milford","hemann","miller","schauer","peel","vedal"],"keywords":["air pollutants","air pollutants: analysis","colorado","environmental monitoring","environmental monitoring: methods","environmental monitoring: statistics & numerical d","particulate matter","particulate matter: analysis","uncertainty"],"authorIDs":[]}