ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2022
Estimating acceptable exposure time for bioaerosols emission in a wastewater treatment plant by reverse quantitative microbial risk assessment based on various risk benchmarks.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Influence of PVDF Membrane Ageing on the Efficiency of Bacterial Rejection During the Ultrafiltration Treatment of Carwash Wastewater.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Applications of Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment to Respiratory Pathogens and Implications for Uptake in Policy: A State-of-the-Science Review.Environmental health perspectives · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Populations exposed to bioaerosols over time in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) will be infected. Then, the reverse quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) provides a quantitative framework for the estimation of acceptable exposure time to protect people from excessive exposure and then manage their health risk. In this study, the acceptable exposure time for staffs and visiting researchers exposed to S. aureus or E. coli bioaerosols emitted from aeration ponds in WWTPs was estimated and analyzed by Monte Carlo simulation-based reverse QMRA (using the 1E-4 pppy suggested by the US EPA or 1E-6 DALYs pppy suggested by the WHO as benchmarks). The 1E-3 and 1E-2 pppy were selected as a series of loose annual infection risk benchmarks to calculate a practical acceptable exposure time. The results showed that for the acceptable exposure time in each specific exposure scenario, the exposure of females was consistently 0.3-0.4 times longer than that of males; the exposure of staffs was 3.6-3.9 times shorter than that of visiting researchers; the exposures of populations in the rotating-disc aeration mode were consistently 6.3-6.6 and 2.8-3.1 times longer than those in the microporous aeration mode for S. aureus and E. coli bioaerosols, respectively. The acceptable exposure time with the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) was 33.4-35.0 times as long as that without PPE. The US EPA benchmark is stricter than the WHO benchmark with regard to the estimation of the acceptable exposure time of S. aureus or E. coli bioaerosols. The 1E-3 pppy is more appropriate and practical than the US EPA benchmark, but the 1E-2 pppy is notably too loose for health risk management. This research can assist managers of WWTPs to formulate a justified exposure time and develop applicable administrative and personal intervention strategies. The results can enrich the knowledge bases of reverse QMRA to elect a series of loose health-based target risk benchmarks for health risk management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34590226What 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.