ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2015
Characterization and Cytotoxicity of PM<0.2, PM0.2-2.5 and PM2.5-10 around MSWI in Shanghai, China.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Human Skin Diseases Due to Particulate Matter.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017Pooled it
- Immunotoxicity of Inhalable Organic Dust Samples Based on In Vitro Analysis of Human Respiratory Epithelial Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Particulate Air Pollution and Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2021Review
- Biomonitoring of Metals in Children Living in an Urban Area and Close to Waste Incinerators.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Direct Quantification of Rare Earth Elements Concentrations in Urine of Workers Manufacturing Cerium, Lanthanum Oxide Ultrafine and Nanoparticles by a Developed and Validated ICP-MS.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe potential impact of municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI), which is an anthropogenic source of aerosol emissions, is of great public health concern. This study investigated the characterization and cytotoxic effects of ambient ultrafine particles (PM<0.2), fine particles (PM0.2-2.5) and coarse particles (PM2.5-10) collected around a municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) plant in the Pudong district of Shanghai.
methodsMass concentrations of trace elements in particulate matter (PM) samples were determined using ICP-MS (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry). The cytotoxicity of sampled atmospheric PM was evaluated by cell viability and reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels in A549 cells.
resultThe mass percentage of PM0.2-2.5 accounted for 72.91% of the total mass of PM. Crustal metals (Mg, Al, and Ti) were abundant in the coarse particles, while the anthropogenic elements (V, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb) were dominant in the fine particles. The enrichment factors of Zn, Cd and Pb in the fine and ultrafine particles were extremely high (>100). The cytotoxicity of the size-resolved particles was in the order of coarse particles < fine particles < ultrafine particles.
conclusionsFine particles dominated the MSWI ambient particles. Emissions from the MSWI could bring contamination of anthropogenic elements (Zn, Cd and Pb) into ambient environment. The PM around the MSWI plant displayed an additive toxic effect, and the ultrafine and fine particles possessed higher biological toxicity than the coarse particles.
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.