ArticlePloS one2018
Evaluation of micro-well collector for capture and analysis of aerosolized Bacillus subtilis spores.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of aerosol persistence in ICUs via low-cost sensor network and zonal models.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Miniaturizing Wet Scrubbers for Aerosolized Droplet Capture.Analytical chemistry · 2021Article
- Solid-phase excitation-emission matrix spectroscopy for chemical analysis of combustion aerosols.PloS one · 2021Article
- Behavior of Ultrafine Particles in Electro-Hydrodynamic Flow Induced by Corona Discharge.Journal of aerosol science · 2020Article
- Usability of a Personal Air Pollution Monitor: Design-Feedback Iterative Cycle Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Bioaerosol sampling and identification are vital for the assessment and control of airborne pathogens, allergens, and toxins. In-situ analysis of chemical and biological particulate matter can significantly reduce the costs associated with sample preservation, transport, and analysis. The analysis of conventional filters is challenging, due to dilute samples in large collection regions. A low-cost cartridge for collection and analysis of aerosols is developed for use in epidemiological studies and personal exposure assessments. The cartridge collects aerosol samples in a micro-well which reduces particles losses due to the bounce and does not require any coating. The confined particle collection area (dwell~1.4 mm) allows reducing the elution volume for subsequent analysis. The performance of the cartridge is validated in laboratory studies using aerosolized bacterial spores (Bacillus subtilis). Colony forming unit analysis is used for bacterial spore enumeration. Cartridge collection efficiency is evaluated by comparison with the reference filters and found to be consistent with tested flow rates. Sample recovery for the pipette elution is ~80%. Due to the high density of the collected sample, the cartridge is compatible with in-situ spectroscopic analysis and sample elution into the 10-20 μl liquid volume providing a significant increase in sample concentration for subsequent analysis.
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.