English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The primary concern of PM 2.5  (particle size of an aerodynamic diameter 2.5 micrometers or less) is its adverse health effects. As not all PM 2.5  particles are equally toxic, a uniform PM 2.5  mass control across the emitting sources may not provide the maximum health benefits. A new approach that apportions PM 2.5  constituents, based on their toxicity and further realigns them into the sources, is developed and applied to Delhi city. In PM 2.5 , concentrations of 81 constituents in 11 apportioned sources were derived. Fourteen carcinogen constituents (Pb, Cr, Ni, Cd, As, Co and eight PAHs) were considered. The USEPA’s CompTox was used to obtain the cancer threshold concentration ( C ca) of the constituents. A product of constituent concentration and the inverse of  C cayielded constituent-wise cancer potential ( CCP ca). The source-wise cancer potential was 20% for diesel, 19% for road dust, 16% for coal power plant, 13% for municipal solid waste burning and 8% for gasoline vehicles. Among 14 carcinogen constituents, Cr accounted for 20% of mass but showed the maximum  CCP ca. The net incremental lifetime cancer risk ( NILCR ) for all sources was 4.2 × 10 −4 . Diesel showed the maximum  NILCR  at 8.5 × 10 −5  and liquid petroleum gas lowest at 8.8 × 10 −6 .

An approach for cancer risk-based apportionment of PM 2.5 constituents and sources