ArticleInhalation toxicology2016
Evaluation of sampling methods for toxicological testing of indoor air particulate matter.
Article in Inhalation toxicology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Indoor PMIndoor air · 2022Article
- The Toxicity of Wiped Dust and Airborne Microbes in Individual Classrooms Increase the Risk of Teachers' Work-Related Symptoms: A Cross-Sectional Study.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Bioreactivity, Guttation and Agents Influencing Surface Tension of Water Emitted by Actively Growing Indoor Mould Isolates.Microorganisms · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is a need for toxicity tests capable of recognizing indoor environments with compromised air quality, especially in the context of moisture damage. One of the key issues is sampling, which should both provide meaningful material for analyses and fulfill requirements imposed by practitioners using toxicity tests for health risk assessment. We aimed to evaluate different existing methods of sampling indoor particulate matter (PM) to develop a suitable sampling strategy for a toxicological assay. During three sampling campaigns in moisture-damaged and non-damaged school buildings, we evaluated one passive and three active sampling methods: the Settled Dust Box (SDB), the Button Aerosol Sampler, the Harvard Impactor and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Bioaerosol Cyclone Sampler. Mouse RAW264.7 macrophages were exposed to particle suspensions and cell metabolic activity (CMA), production of nitric oxide (NO) and tumor necrosis factor (TNFα) were determined after 24 h of exposure. The repeatability of the toxicological analyses was very good for all tested sampler types. Variability within the schools was found to be high especially between different classrooms in the moisture-damaged school. Passively collected settled dust and PM collected actively with the NIOSH Sampler (Stage 1) caused a clear response in exposed cells. The results suggested the higher relative immunotoxicological activity of dust from the moisture-damaged school. The NIOSH Sampler is a promising candidate for the collection of size-fractionated PM to be used in toxicity testing. The applicability of such sampling strategy in grading moisture damage severity in buildings needs to be developed further in a larger cohort of buildings.
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.