Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31494643›Full record

ReviewReviews on environmental health2019

Building science approaches for vapor intrusion studies.

Elham Shirazi, Sweta Ojha, Kelly G Pennell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reviews on environmental health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Elham ShiraziDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA.
Sweta OjhaDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA.
Kelly G PennellDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA, Phone: +1 (859) 218-2540, Fax: +1 (859) 257-4404.

Funding

Vascular Mechanisms of PCB-Induced Brain MetastasesP42ES007380 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI PENNELL, KELLY G · 1997 to 2024
$47.8M
NIEHS NIH HHS P42 ES007380
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Indoor air concentrations are susceptible to temporal and spatial variations and have long posed a challenge to characterize for vapor intrusion scientists, in part, because there was a lack of evidence to draw conclusions about the role that building and weather conditions played in altering vapor intrusion exposure risks. Importantly, a large body of evidence is available within the building science discipline that provides information to support vapor intrusion scientists in drawing connections about fate and transport processes that influence exposure risks. Modeling tools developed within the building sciences provide evidence of reported temporal and spatial variation of indoor air contaminant concentrations. In addition, these modeling tools can be useful by calculating building air exchange rates (AERs) using building specific features. Combining building science models with vapor intrusion models, new insight to facilitate decision-making by estimating indoor air concentrations and building ventilation conditions under various conditions can be gained. This review highlights existing building science research and summarizes the utility of building science models to improve vapor intrusion exposure risk assessments.

Indexed as

Air PollutantsAir Pollution, IndoorEnvironmental ExposureEnvironmental MonitoringGasesModels, TheoreticalRisk AssessmentAir PollutantsGasesbuilding scienceindoor air qualitymodelingvolatile organic compounds

Identifiers

PMID31494643
PMCPMC6944199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.