Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33524051›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2021

Evaluation of four sampling devices for Burkholderia pseudomallei laboratory aerosol studies.

Michael Schuit, Sierra Gardner, Jill Taylor, Paul Dabisch

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael SchuitNational Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center, Operated by BNBI for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, Frederick, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0263-0423
Sierra GardnerNational Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center, Operated by BNBI for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, Frederick, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4780-4861
Jill TaylorNational Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center, Operated by BNBI for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, Frederick, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2434-6797
Paul DabischNational Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center, Operated by BNBI for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, Frederick, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3181-6825
United States Department of Homeland Security · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous field and laboratory studies investigating airborne Burkholderia pseudomallei have used a variety of different aerosol samplers to detect and quantify concentrations of the bacteria in aerosols. However, the performance of aerosol samplers can vary in their ability to preserve the viability of collected microorganisms, depending on the resistance of the organisms to impaction, desiccation, or other stresses associated with the sampling process. Consequently, sampler selection is critical to maximizing the probability of detecting viable microorganisms in collected air samples in field studies and for accurate determination of aerosol concentrations in laboratory studies. To inform such decisions, the present study assessed the performance of four laboratory aerosol samplers, specifically the all-glass impinger (AGI), gelatin filter, midget impinger, and Mercer cascade impactor, for collecting aerosols containing B. pseudomallei generated from suspensions in two types of culture media. The results suggest that the relative performance of the sampling devices is dependent on the suspension medium utilized for aerosolization. Performance across the four samplers was similar for aerosols generated from suspensions supplemented with 4% glycerol. However, for aerosols generated from suspensions without glycerol, use of the filter sampler or an impactor resulted in significantly lower estimates of the viable aerosol concentration than those obtained with either the AGI or midget impinger. These results demonstrate that sampler selection has the potential to affect estimation of doses in inhalational animal models of melioidosis, as well as the likelihood of detection of viable B. pseudomallei in the environment, and will be useful to inform design of future laboratory and field studies.

Indexed as

Nebulizers and VaporizersAerosolsBacterial LoadBacteriological TechniquesBurkholderia pseudomalleiAerosols

Identifiers

PMID33524051
PMCPMC7850477
OpenAlexW3126635326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.