Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36901493›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

Three Experimental Common High-Risk Procedures: Emission Characteristics Identification and Source Intensity Estimation in Biosafety Laboratory.

Zhijian Liu, Jiabin Lv, Zheng Zhang, Juntao Ma, Yangfan Song, Minnan Wu, Guoqing Cao, Jiacheng Guo

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhijian LiuDepartment of Power Engineering, North China Electric Power University, Baoding 071003, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1841-2671
Jiabin LvDepartment of Power Engineering, North China Electric Power University, Baoding 071003, China.
Zheng ZhangDepartment of Power Engineering, North China Electric Power University, Baoding 071003, China.
Juntao MaDepartment of Power Engineering, North China Electric Power University, Baoding 071003, China.
Yangfan SongDepartment of Power Engineering, North China Electric Power University, Baoding 071003, China.
Minnan WuDepartment of Power Engineering, North China Electric Power University, Baoding 071003, China.
Guoqing CaoInstitute of Building Environment and Energy, China Academy of Building Research, Beijing 100013, China.
Jiacheng GuoDepartment of Power Engineering, North China Electric Power University, Baoding 071003, China.
North China Electric Power University · CNChina Academy of Building Research · CN

Funding

Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities 2020YJ007Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities 2021MS075National Natural Science Foundation of China 41977368Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province E2021502046the National Natural Science Foundation of China 42122058
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biosafety laboratory is an important place to study high-risk microbes. In biosafety laboratories, with the outbreak of infectious diseases such as COVID-19, experimental activities have become increasingly frequent, and the risk of exposure to bioaerosols has increased. To explore the exposure risk of biosafety laboratories, the intensity and emission characteristics of laboratory risk factors were investigated. In this study, high-risk microbe samples were substituted with Serratia marcescens as the model bacteria. The resulting concentration and particle size segregation of the bioaerosol produced by three experimental procedures (spill, injection, and sample drop) were monitored, and the emission sources' intensity were quantitatively analyzed. The results showed that the aerosol concentration produced by injection and sample drop was 103 CFU/m3, and that by sample spill was 102 CFU/m3. The particle size of bioaerosol is mainly segregated in the range of 3.3-4.7 μm. There are significant differences in the influence of risk factors on source intensity. The intensity of sample spill, injection, and sample drop source is 3.6 CFU/s, 78.2 CFU/s, and 664 CFU/s. This study could provide suggestions for risk assessment of experimental operation procedures and experimental personnel protection.

Indexed as

COVID-19LaboratoriesAir MicrobiologyContainment of BiohazardsHumansRespiratory Aerosols and DropletsRisk Factorsbioaerosolgaussian mixture modelquantitative analysisrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID36901493
PMCPMC10002466
OpenAlexW4323044229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read1
measurements read29
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.