Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33257756›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Human volunteer study of the decontamination of chemically contaminated hair and the consequences for systemic exposure.

Samuel Collins, Thomas James, Felicity Southworth, Louise Davidson, Natalie Williams, Emily Orchard, Tim Marczylo, Richard Amlôt

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. The wash-in effect and its significance for mass casualty decontamination.Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Mass Casualty Decontamination for Chemical Incidents: Research Outcomes and Future Priorities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Samuel CollinsChemical and Environmental Effects Department, Centre for Radiation, Chemicals and Environmental Hazards, Public Health England, Didcot, Oxfordshire, UK. samuel.collins@phe.gov.uk.
Thomas JamesChemical and Environmental Effects Department, Centre for Radiation, Chemicals and Environmental Hazards, Public Health England, Didcot, Oxfordshire, UK.
Felicity SouthworthBehavioural Science Team, Emergency Response Department Science and Technology, Public Health England, Porton Down, UK.
Louise DavidsonBehavioural Science Team, Emergency Response Department Science and Technology, Public Health England, Porton Down, UK.
Natalie WilliamsBehavioural Science Team, Emergency Response Department Science and Technology, Public Health England, Porton Down, UK.
Emily OrchardBehavioural Science Team, Emergency Response Department Science and Technology, Public Health England, Porton Down, UK.
Tim MarczyloToxicology Department, Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Public Health England, Didcot, Oxfordshire, UK.
Richard AmlôtBehavioural Science Team, Emergency Response Department Science and Technology, Public Health England, Porton Down, UK.
Public Health England · GB

Funding

Department of Health PR-ST-1015-10016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The decontamination of exposed persons is a priority following the release of toxic chemicals. Efficacious decontamination reduces the risk of harm to those directly affected and prevents the uncontrolled spread of contamination. Human studies examining the effectiveness of emergency decontamination procedures have primarily focused on decontaminating skin, with few examining the decontamination of hair and scalp. We report the outcome of two studies designed to evaluate the efficacy of current United Kingdom (UK) improvised, interim and specialist mass casualty decontamination protocols when conducted in sequence. Decontamination efficacy was evaluated using two chemical simulants, methyl salicylate (MeS) and benzyl salicylate (BeS) applied to and recovered from the hair of volunteers. Twenty-four-hour urinary MeS and BeS were measured as a surrogate for systemic bioavailability. Current UK decontamination methods performed in sequence were partially effective at removing MeS and BeS from hair and underlying scalp. BeS and MeS levels in urine indicated that decontamination had no significant effect on systemic exposure raising important considerations with respect to the speed of decontamination. The decontamination of hair may therefore be challenging for first responders, requiring careful management of exposed persons following decontamination. Further work to extend these studies is required with a broader range of chemical simulants, a larger group of volunteers and at different intervention times.

Indexed as

AdultDecontaminationFemaleHairHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMass Casualty IncidentsSalicylatesScalpUnited Kingdombenzyl salicylatemethyl salicylateSalicylates

Identifiers

PMID33257756
PMCPMC7705014
OpenAlexW3108279278

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.