Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34743183›Full record

ArticleJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2022

Exploring spatial averaging of contamination in fomite microbial transfer models and implications for dose.

Amanda M Wilson, Rachael M Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Assessing the risk ofFrontiers in public health · 2026
    Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Amanda M WilsonRocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. amwilson2@arizona.edu.
Rachael M JonesRocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Funding

ACL HHS T42OH008414NIOSH CDC HHS T42 OH008414
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen modeling exposures from contact with fomites, there are many choices in defining the sizes of compartments representing environmental surfaces and hands, and the portions of compartments involved in contacts. These choices impact dose estimates, yet there is limited guidance for selection of these model parameters.

objectiveThe study objective was to explore methods for representing environmental surface and hand contact areas in exposure models and implications for estimated doses.

methodsA simple scenario was used: an individual using their hands to contact their face and two microbially contaminated environmental surfaces. Four models were developed to explore different compartmentalization strategies: (1) hands and environmental surfaces each represented by one compartment, (2) hands represented by two compartments (fingertips vs. non-fingertip areas) while environmental surfaces were represented by one compartment, (3) hands represented by a single compartment and environmental surfaces represented by two compartments, and (4) hands and environmental surfaces each represented by two compartments. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the influence of heterogeneous surface contact frequency, hand contact type, and hand dominance on dose.

resultsEstimated doses were greatest when hand areas and environmental surfaces were each represented by two compartments, indicating that surface area "dilutes" contaminant concentration and decreases estimated dose. SIGNIFICANCE: Model compartment designations for hands and environmental surfaces affect dose estimation, but more human behavior data are needed. IMPACT STATEMENT: A common problem for exposure models describing exposures via hand-to-surface contacts occurs in the way that estimated contamination across human skin (usually hands) or across environmental surfaces is spatially averaged, as opposed to accounting for concentration changes across specific parts of the hand or individual surfaces. This can lead to the dilution of estimated contaminants and biases in estimated doses in risk assessments. The magnitude of these biases and implications for the accuracy in risk assessments are unknown. We quantify differences in dose for various strategies of compartmentalizing environmental surfaces and hands to inform guidance on future exposure model development.

Indexed as

FomitesHandHumansFomite transmissioninfectious disease modelingrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID34743183
PMCPMC8571976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.