ArticleJournal of aerosol science2015
Evaluation of particle resuspension in young children's breathing zone using stationary and robotic (PIPER) aerosol samplers.
Article in Journal of aerosol science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel VOC breath tracer method to evaluate indoor respiratory exposures in the near- and far-fields; implications for the spread of respiratory viruses.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2023Article
- Resuspension of particles deposited by nano-enabled consumer sprays: The role of product type, flooring material, and resuspension force.Indoor air · 2022Article
- A novel VOC breath tracer method to evaluate indoor respiratory exposures in the near- and far-fields.Research square · 2022Article
- Pyrethroid levels in toddlers' breathing zone following a simulated indoor pesticide spray.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2019Article
- 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
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Development of asthma in young children may be associated with high exposure to particulate matter (PM). However, typical stationary samplers may not represent the personal exposure of children ages 3 and younger since they may not detect particles resuspended from the floor as children play, thus reducing our ability to correlate exposure and disease etiology. To address this, an autonomous robot, the Pretoddler Inhalable Particulate Environmental Robotic (PIPER) sampler, was developed to simulate the movements of children as they play on the floor. PIPER and a stationary sampler took simultaneous measurements of particle number concentration in six size channels using an optical particle counter and inhalable PM on filters in 65 homes in New Jersey, USA. To study particle resuspension, for each sampler we calculated the ratio of particle concentration measured while PIPER was moving to the average concentration of particles measured during a reference period when PIPER remained still. For all investigated particle sizes, higher particle resuspension was observed by PIPER compared to the stationary sampler. In 71% of carpeted homes a more significant (at the α = 0.05 level) resuspension of particles larger than 2.5 μm was observed by PIPER compared to the stationary sampler. Typically, particles larger than 2.5 μm were resuspended more efficiently than smaller particles, over both carpeted and bare floors. Additionally, in carpeted homes estimations of PM
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.