Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25799419›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Field evaluation of personal sampling methods for multiple bioaerosols.

Chi-Hsun Wang, Bean T Chen, Bor-Cheng Han, Andrew Chi-Yeu Liu, Po-Chen Hung, Chih-Yong Chen, Hsing Jasmine Chao

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Near-Patient Sampling to Assist Infection Control-A Case Report and Discussion.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Chi-Hsun WangSchool of Public Health, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Bean T ChenHealth Effects Laboratory Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, West Virginia, United States of America.
Bor-Cheng HanSchool of Public Health, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Andrew Chi-Yeu LiuSchool of Public Health, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Po-Chen HungInstitute of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health, Ministry of Labor, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Chih-Yong ChenInstitute of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health, Ministry of Labor, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Hsing Jasmine ChaoSchool of Public Health, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ambient bioaerosols are ubiquitous in the daily environment and can affect health in various ways. However, few studies have been conducted to comprehensively evaluate personal bioaerosol exposure in occupational and indoor environments because of the complex composition of bioaerosols and the lack of standardized sampling/analysis methods. We conducted a study to determine the most efficient collection/analysis method for the personal exposure assessment of multiple bioaerosols. The sampling efficiencies of three filters and four samplers were compared. According to our results, polycarbonate (PC) filters had the highest relative efficiency, particularly for bacteria. Side-by-side sampling was conducted to evaluate the three filter samplers (with PC filters) and the NIOSH Personal Bioaerosol Cyclone Sampler. According to the results, the Button Aerosol Sampler and the IOM Inhalable Dust Sampler had the highest relative efficiencies for fungi and bacteria, followed by the NIOSH sampler. Personal sampling was performed in a pig farm to assess occupational bioaerosol exposure and to evaluate the sampling/analysis methods. The Button and IOM samplers yielded a similar performance for personal bioaerosol sampling at the pig farm. However, the Button sampler is more likely to be clogged at high airborne dust concentrations because of its higher flow rate (4 L/min). Therefore, the IOM sampler is a more appropriate choice for performing personal sampling in environments with high dust levels. In summary, the Button and IOM samplers with PC filters are efficient sampling/analysis methods for the personal exposure assessment of multiple bioaerosols.

Indexed as

Occupational ExposureAerosolsAgricultureAir Pollutants, OccupationalAnimalsFiltrationHumansSwineAerosolsAir Pollutants, Occupational

Identifiers

PMID25799419
PMCPMC4370695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.