ArticleIndoor air2012
Use of a robotic sampling platform to assess young children's exposure to indoor bioaerosols.
Article in Indoor air, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- A transdisciplinary process-oriented approach to evaluate infant exposure to indoor dust.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2026Article
- Resuspension of particles deposited by nano-enabled consumer sprays: The role of product type, flooring material, and resuspension force.Indoor air · 2022Article
- Crawling-induced floor dust resuspension affects the microbiota of the infant breathing zone.Microbiome · 2018Article
- Comparison of particulate matter exposure estimates in young children from personal sampling equipment and a robotic sampler.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2017Article
- Use of a Robotic Sampler (PIPER) for Evaluation of Particulate Matter Exposure and Eczema in Preschoolers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2016Article
- Evaluation of particle resuspension in young children's breathing zone using stationary and robotic (PIPER) aerosol samplers.Journal of aerosol science · 2015Article
- Improved exposure characterization with robotic (PIPER) sampling and association with children's respiratory symptoms, asthma and eczema.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2014Article
- Time for new methods for avoidance of house dust mite and other allergens.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
unlabelledIndoor exposures to allergens, mold spores, and endotoxin have been suggested as etiological agents of asthma; therefore, accurate determination of those exposures, especially in young children (6-36 months), is important for understanding the development of asthma. Because use of personal sampling equipment in this population is difficult, and in children <1 year of age impossible, we developed a personal sampling surrogate: the Pretoddler Inhalable Particulate Environmental Robotic (PIPER) sampler to better estimate their exposures. During sampling, PIPER simulates the activity patterns, speed of motion, and the height of the breathing zones of young children, and mechanically resuspends the deposited dust just as a young child does during running and crawling. The concentrations of allergens, mold spores, and endotoxin measured by PIPER were compared to those measured using traditional stationary air sampling method in 75 homes in central New Jersey, United States. Endotoxin was detected in all homes with median concentrations of 1.0 and 0.55 EU/m(3) for PIPER and stationary sampler, respectively. The difference in median concentrations obtained using the two methods was statistically significant for homes with carpeted floors (P = 0.0001) in the heating season. For such homes, the average ratio of endotoxin concentration measured by PIPER to the stationary sampler was 2.96 (95% CI 2.29-3.63). Fungal spores were detected in all homes, with median fungal concentrations of 316 and 380 spores/m(3) for PIPER and stationary sampler, respectively. For fungi, the difference between the two sampling methods was not statistically significant. For both sampling methods, the total airborne mold levels were statistically significantly higher in the non-heating season than in the heating season. Allergens were detected in ~15% of investigated homes. The data indicate that the traditional stationary air-sampling methods may substantially underestimate personal exposures to endotoxin, especially due to resuspension of dust from carpeted floor surfaces. A personal sampling surrogate, such as PIPER, is a feasible approach to estimate personal exposures in young children. PIPER should be seriously considered as the sampling platform for future exposure studies in young children. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This study investigated potential indoor bioaerosol exposure of young children using a Pretoddler Inhalable Particulate Environmental Robotic (PIPER) sampler platform. The results show that the traditional stationary air-sampling methods can substantially underestimate personal exposures to resuspended material, and that a personal sampling surrogate, such as PIPER, offers a feasible surrogate for measuring personal inhalation exposures of young children.
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.