Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34124803›Full record

ArticleIndoor air2021

Comparison of three air samplers for the collection of four nebulized respiratory viruses - Collection of respiratory viruses from air.

Jasmin S Kutter, Dennis de Meulder, Theo M Bestebroer, Ard Mulders, Ron A M Fouchier, Sander Herfst

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Indoor air, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Early Warning Signs for Monitoring Airborne Respiratory Virus Transmission.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Mechanisms, Techniques and Devices of Airborne Virus Detection: A Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jasmin S KutterDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Dennis de MeulderDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Theo M BestebroerDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Ard MuldersDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Ron A M FouchierDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Sander HerfstDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NL

Funding

NIAID NIH HHS HHSN272201400008C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Viral respiratory tract infections are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Unfortunately, the transmission routes and shedding kinetics of respiratory viruses remain poorly understood. Air sampling techniques to quantify infectious viruses in the air are indispensable to improve intervention strategies to control and prevent spreading of respiratory viruses. Here, the collection of infectious virus with the six-stage Andersen cascade impactor was optimized with semi-solid gelatin as collection surface. Subsequently, the collection efficiency of the cascade impactor, the SKC BioSampler, and an in-house developed electrostatic precipitator was compared. In an in vitro set-up, influenza A virus, human metapneumovirus, parainfluenza virus type 3, and respiratory syncytial virus were nebulized and the amount of collected infectious virus and viral RNA was quantified with each air sampler. Whereas only low amounts of virus were collected using the electrostatic precipitator, high amounts were collected with the BioSampler and cascade impactor. The BioSampler allowed straight-forward sampling in liquid medium, whereas the more laborious cascade impactor allowed size fractionation of virus-containing particles. Depending on the research question, either the BioSampler or the cascade impactor can be applied in laboratory and field settings, such as hospitals to gain more insight into the transmission routes of respiratory viruses.

Indexed as

Air MicrobiologyAir Pollution, IndoorAerosolsInfluenza A virusMetapneumovirusParainfluenza Virus 3, HumanRespiratory Syncytial VirusesAerosolsair samplingcollection efficiencyelectrostatic precipitatorimpactorimpinger

Identifiers

PMID34124803
PMCPMC8530848
OpenAlexW3169596564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.