Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37229344›Full record

ArticleUCL open. Environment2023

Mind the gap between non-activated (non-aggressive) and activated (aggressive) indoor fungal testing: impact of pre-sampling environmental settings on indoor air readings.

Spyros Efthymiopoulos, Yasemin D Aktas, Hector Altamirano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in UCL open. Environment, 2023. 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. Article
  2. Damp Buildings: Associated Fungi and How to Find Them.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
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

3 authors.

Spyros EfthymiopoulosDepartment of Civil Environmental and Geomatic Engineering (CEGE), University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3762-4349
Yasemin D AktasDepartment of Civil Environmental and Geomatic Engineering (CEGE), University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6317-2673
Hector AltamiranoUK Centre for Moisture in Buildings (UKCMB), London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9398-3066

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Indoor fungal testing has been within the researchers' scope of interest for more than a century. Various sampling and analysis techniques have been developed over the years, but no testing protocol has been yet standardised and widely accepted by the research and practitioner communities. The diversity in fungal taxa within buildings with varied biological properties and implications on the health and wellbeing of the occupants and the building fabric complicates the decision-making process for selecting an appropriate testing protocol. This study aims to present a critical review of non-activated and activated approaches to indoor testing, with an emphasis on the preparation of the indoor environment prior to sampling. The study demonstrates the differences in the outcomes of non-activated and activated testing through a set of laboratory experiments in idealised conditions and a case study. The findings suggest that larger particles are particularly sensitive to the sampling height and activation, and that non-activated protocols, despite dominating the current literature, can significantly underestimate the fungal biomass and species richness. Therefore, this paper calls for better-defined and activated protocols that can enhance robustness and reproducibility across the research domain focused on indoor fungal testing.

Indexed as

activatedfungal growth assessmentfungal testingindoor fungimouldnon-activatedparticles

Identifiers

PMID37229344
PMCPMC10208333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.