ArticleIndoor air2022
SARS-CoV-2 detection in bioaerosols using a liquid impinger collector and ddPCR.
Article in Indoor air, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Review
- Research progress of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 on aerosol collection and detection.Chinese chemical letters = Zhongguo hua xue kuai bao · 2023Review
- Droplet digital PCR application for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in air sample.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Monitoring Prevalence and Persistence of Environmental Contamination by SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a Makeshift Hospital for Asymptomatic and Very Mild COVID-19 Patients.International journal of public health · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The airborne route is the dominant form of COVID-19 transmission, and therefore, the development of methodologies to quantify SARS-CoV-2 in bioaerosols is needed. We aimed to identify SARS-CoV-2 in bioaerosols by using a highly efficient sampler for the collection of 1-3 µm particles, followed by a highly sensitive detection method. 65 bioaerosol samples were collected in hospital rooms in the presence of a COVID-19 patient using a liquid impinger sampler. The SARS-CoV-2 genome was detected by ddPCR using different primer/probe sets. 44.6% of the samples resulted positive for SARS-CoV-2 following this protocol. By increasing the sampled air volume from 339 to 650 L, the percentage of positive samples went from 41% to 50%. We detected five times less positives with a commercial one-step RT-PCR assay. However, the selection of primer/probe sets might be one of the most determining factor for bioaerosol SARS-CoV-2 detection since with the ORF1ab set more than 40% of the samples were positive, compared to <10% with other sets. In conclusion, the use of a liquid impinger collector and ddPCR is an adequate strategy to detect SARS-CoV-2 in bioaerosols. However, there are still some methodological aspects that must be adjusted to optimize and standardize a definitive protocol.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.