ReviewEnvironmental science and pollution research international2016
Lung bioaccessibility of contaminants in particulate matter of geological origin.
Review in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 64 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterization of the inhalable fraction (< 10 μm) of soil from highly urbanized and industrial environments: magnetic measurements, bioaccessibility, Pb isotopes and health risk assessment.Environmental geochemistry and health · 2024Article
- Article
- Arsenic and lead in soil: impacts on element mobility and bioaccessibility.Environmental geochemistry and health · 2022Article
- Effects of carbonaceous materials and particle size on oral and inhalation bioaccessibility of PAHs and OPEs in airborne particles.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
- Bioaccessibility of potentially toxic elements in mine residue particles.Environmental science. Processes & impacts · 2021Article
- The influence that different urban development models has on PMScientific reports · 2019Article
- Metal concentrations in homing pigeon lung tissue as a biomonitor of atmospheric pollution.Ecotoxicology (London, England) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human exposure to particulate matter (PM) has been associated with adverse health effects. While inhalation exposure to airborne PM is a prominent research subject, exposure to PM of geological origin (i.e., generated from soil/soil-like material) has received less attention. This review discusses the contaminants in PM of geological origin and their relevance for human exposure and then evaluates lung bioaccessibility assessment methods and their use. PM of geological origin can contain toxic elements as well as organic contaminants. Observed/predicted PM lung clearance times are long, which may lead to prolonged contact with lung environment. Thus, certain exposure scenarios warrant the use of in vitro bioaccessibility testing to predict lung bioavailability. Limited research is available on lung bioaccessibility test development and test application to PM of geological origin. For in vitro tests, test parameter variation between different studies and concerns about physiological relevance indicate a crucial need for test method standardization and comparison with relevant animal data. Research is recommended on (1) developing robust in vitro lung bioaccessibility methods, (2) assessing bioaccessibility of various contaminants (especially polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)) in PM of diverse origin (surface soils, mine tailings, etc.), and (3) risk characterization to determine relative importance of exposure to PM of geological origin.
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.