ArticleInhalation toxicology2015
Characterization of ambient and extracted PM2.5 collected on filters for toxicology applications.
Article in Inhalation toxicology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Seasonal dynamics of airborne biomolecules influence the size distribution of Arctic aerosols.Environmental science and ecotechnology · 2024Article
- PMEnvironmental science and pollution research international · 2022Article
- Evaluating the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the particulate matters during the peak of COVID-19 in Padua, northern Italy.The Science of the total environment · 2021Article
- Long-Term Exposure to Urban Particulate Matter on the Ocular Surface and the Incidence of Deleterious Changes in the Cornea, Conjunctiva and Retina in Rats.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Atmospheric Pollution Exposure Increases Disease Activity of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Carcinogenic risks and chemical composition of particulate matter recovered by two methods: wet and dry extraction.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2020Article
- PMEnvironmental science & technology · 2019Article
- Interaction of PM2.5 airborne particulates with ZnO and TiOEnvironmental monitoring and assessment · 2017Article
- Association of IL-6 with PMWater, air, and soil pollution · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research on the health effects of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) frequently disregards the differences in particle composition between that measured on an ambient filter versus that measured in the corresponding extraction solution used for toxicological testing. This study presents a novel method for characterizing the differences, in metallic and organic species, between the ambient samples and the corresponding extracted solutions through characterization of extracted PM2.5 suspended on filters. Removal efficiency was found to be 98.0 ± 1.4% when measured using pre- and post-removal filter weights, however, this efficiency was significantly reduced to 80.2 ± 0.8% when measured based on particle mass in the extraction solution. Furthermore, only 47.2 ± 22.3% of metals and 24.8 ± 14.5% of organics measured on the ambient filter were found in the extraction solution. Individual metallic and organic components were extracted with varying efficiency, with many organics being lost entirely during extraction. Finally, extraction efficiencies of specific PM2.5 components were inversely correlated with total mass. This study details a method to assess compositional alterations resulting from extraction of PM2.5 from filters, emphasizing the need for standardized procedures that maintain compositional integrity of ambient samples for use in toxicology studies of PM2.5.
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.