Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29051440›Full record

ArticleToxics2017

Cytotoxic and Inflammatory Potential of Air Samples from Occupational Settings with Exposure to Organic Dust.

Susana Viegas, Liliana Aranha Caetano, Merja Korkalainen, Tiago Faria, Cátia Pacífico, Elisabete Carolino, Anita Quintal Gomes, Carla Viegas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Cytotoxicity ofToxins · 2022
    Article
  10. Cytotoxicity ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Dust at Various Workplaces-Microbiological and Toxicological Threats.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Susana ViegasEnvironment and Health Research Group, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa, ESTeSL, Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa, Av. D. João II, Lote 4.69.01, 1990-096 Lisboa, Portugal. susana.viegas@estesl.ipl.pt.ORCID 0000-0003-1015-8760
Liliana Aranha CaetanoEnvironment and Health Research Group, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa, ESTeSL, Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa, Av. D. João II, Lote 4.69.01, 1990-096 Lisboa, Portugal. Liliana.caetano@estesl.ipl.pt.ORCID 0000-0003-1496-2609
Merja KorkalainenNational Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Department of Health Security, Chemicals and Health Unit, P.O. Box 95, FIN-70701 Kuopio, Finland. merja.korkalainen@thl.fi.
Tiago FariaEnvironment and Health Research Group, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa, ESTeSL, Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa, Av. D. João II, Lote 4.69.01, 1990-096 Lisboa, Portugal. tiagof_scp@hotmail.com.
Cátia PacíficoEnvironment and Health Research Group, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa, ESTeSL, Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa, Av. D. João II, Lote 4.69.01, 1990-096 Lisboa, Portugal. catia.s.pacifico@gmail.com.
Elisabete CarolinoEnvironment and Health Research Group, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa, ESTeSL, Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa, Av. D. João II, Lote 4.69.01, 1990-096 Lisboa, Portugal. etcarolino@estesl.ipl.pt.ORCID 0000-0003-4165-7052
Anita Quintal GomesEnvironment and Health Research Group, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa, ESTeSL, Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa, Av. D. João II, Lote 4.69.01, 1990-096 Lisboa, Portugal. anita.gomes@estesl.ipl.pt.
Carla ViegasEnvironment and Health Research Group, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa, ESTeSL, Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa, Av. D. João II, Lote 4.69.01, 1990-096 Lisboa, Portugal. carla.viegas@estesl.ipl.pt.ORCID 0000-0002-1545-6479

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Organic dust and related microbial exposures are the main inducers of several respiratory symptoms. Occupational exposure to organic dust is very common and has been reported in diverse settings. In vitro tests using relevant cell cultures can be very useful for characterizing the toxicity of complex mixtures present in the air of occupational environments such as organic dust. In this study, the cell viability and the inflammatory response, as measured by the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα) and interleukin-1 β (IL-1β), were determined in human macrophages derived from THP-1 monocytic cells. These cells were exposed to air samples from five occupational settings known to possess high levels of contamination of organic dust: poultry and swine feed industries, waste sorting, poultry production and slaughterhouses. Additionally, fungi and particle contamination of those settings was studied to better characterize the organic dust composition. All air samples collected from the assessed workplaces caused both cytotoxic and pro-inflammatory effects. The highest responses were observed in the feed industry, particularly in swine feed production. This study emphasizes the importance of measuring the organic dust/mixture effects in occupational settings and suggests that differences in the organic dust content may result in differences in health effects for exposed workers.

Indexed as

cytotoxic effectsinflammatory effectsin vitrooccupational exposureorganic dust

Identifiers

PMID29051440
PMCPMC5606674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.