ArticlePloS one2015
Field evaluation of personal sampling methods for multiple bioaerosols.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Culturable Airborne Microorganisms in Urban and Coastal Recreation Areas (Southern Baltic Sea).Microbial ecology · 2026Article
- Characterization of occupational exposure to airborne particles and bioaerosols in dental clinics.Annals of work exposures and health · 2026Article
- Electrospun Nanofibrous Membranes for Controlling Airborne Viruses: Present Status, Standardization of Aerosol Filtration Tests, and Future Development.ACS environmental Au · 2022Review
- Miniaturizing Wet Scrubbers for Aerosolized Droplet Capture.Analytical chemistry · 2021Article
- Article
- Bioaerosol biomonitoring: Sampling optimization for molecular microbial ecology.Molecular ecology resources · 2019Article
- Collection and Extraction of Occupational Air Samples for Analysis of Fungal DNA.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2018Article
- Near-Patient Sampling to Assist Infection Control-A Case Report and Discussion.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
- Clean Low-Biomass Procedures and Their Application to Ancient Ice Core Microorganisms.Frontiers in microbiology · 2018Article
- Evaluation of micro-well collector for capture and analysis of aerosolized Bacillus subtilis spores.PloS one · 2018Article
- Evaluation of personal inhalable aerosol samplers with different filters for use during anthrax responses.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2017Article
- The Use of Bioaerosol Sampling for Airborne Virus Surveillance in Swine Production Facilities: A Mini Review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2017Review
- Evaluation of sampling methods for toxicological testing of indoor air particulate matter.Inhalation toxicology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.