ArticleJournal of occupational and environmental hygiene2017
Evaluation of personal inhalable aerosol samplers with different filters for use during anthrax responses.
Article in Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Direct-Read Fluorescence-Based Measurements of Bioaerosol Exposure in Home Healthcare.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Precision public health to inhibit the contagion of disease and move toward a future in which microbes spread health.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Risk of inhalation exposure to viable Bacillus anthracis (B. anthracis) spores has primarily been assessed using short-term, stationary sampling methods which may not accurately characterize the concentration of inhalable-sized spores reaching a person's breathing zone. While a variety of aerosol sampling methods have been utilized during previous anthrax responses, no consensus has yet been established for personal air sampling. The goal of this study was to determine the best sampler-filter combination(s) for the collection and extraction of B. anthracis spores. The study was designed to (1) evaluate the performance of four filter types (one mixed cellulose ester, MCE (pore size = 3 µm), two polytetrafluoroethylene, PTFE (1 and 3 µm), and one polycarbonate, PC (3 µm)); and (2) evaluate the best performing filters in two commercially available inhalable aerosol samplers (IOM and Button). Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki [Bt(k)], a simulant for B. anthracis, served as the aerosol challenge. The filters were assessed based on criteria such as ability to maintain low pressure drop over an extended sampling period, filter integrity under various environmental conditions, spore collection and extraction efficiencies, ease of loading and unloading the filters into the samplers, cost, and availability. Three of the four tested collection filters-except MCE-were found suitable for efficient collection and recovery of Bt(k) spores sampled from dry and humid as well as dusty and clean air environments for up to 8 hr. The PC (3 µm) filter was identified as the best performing filter in this study. The PTFE (3 µm) demonstrated a comparable performance, but it is more expensive. Slightly higher concentrations were measured with the IOM inhalable sampler which is the preferred sampler's performance criterion when detecting a highly pathogenic agent with no established "safe" inhalation exposure level. Additional studies are needed to address the effects of environmental conditions and spore concentration. The data obtained in this investigation are crucial for future efforts on the development and optimization of a method for assessing inhalation exposure to B. anthracis.
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.