Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38184724›Full record

SynthesisJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2024

Systematic review of microplastics and nanoplastics in indoor and outdoor air: identifying a framework and data needs for quantifying human inhalation exposures.

Tiffany Eberhard, Gaston Casillas, Gregory M Zarus, Dana Boyd Barr

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Modeling the Exposome in Murine Cardiovascular Disease.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tiffany EberhardGangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. eberhardtiff@gmail.com.
Gaston CasillasAgency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Office of Innovation and Analytics, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Gregory M ZarusAgency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Office of Innovation and Analytics, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Dana Boyd BarrGangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry · USEmory University · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHumans are likely exposed to microplastics (MPs) in a variety of places including indoor and outdoor air. Research to better understand how exposure to MPs correlates to health is growing. To fully understand the possible impacts of MPs on human health, it is necessary to quantify MP exposure and identify what critical data gaps exist.

objectivesThe current paper provides a human exposure assessment of microplastics in the air using systematically reviewed literature that provided concentration of MPs in air as well as doses used in toxicology studies to calculate inhalation exposure dose.

methodsAll published peer-reviewed journal articles, non-published papers, and grey literature that focused on micro- or nano-plastics in indoor and outdoor air were systematically searched using PRISMA guidelines. Literature that defined specific concentrations and size of MPs in air or exposed to human lung cells, animals, or humans with measurable health impacts were included in data extraction. Inhalational exposures were calculated for different age groups using published MP concentrations from the included literature using exposure dose equations and values from U.S. ATSDR and EPA.

resultsCalculated mean indoor inhalational exposures from passive sampling methods were higher than those calculated from active sampling methods. When comparing indoor and outdoor sampling, calculated inhalation exposures from indoor samples were greater than those from outdoor samples. Inhalation exposures of MPs differed between age groups with infants having the highest calculated dose values for all locations followed by preschool age children, middle-school aged children, pregnant women, adolescents, and non-pregnant adults. MP doses used in toxicology studies produced higher calculated mean inhalational exposures than those from environmental samples. IMPACT: This study is the first known systematic review of inhalational MP exposure from indoor and outdoor air. It also provides inhalational exposures calculated from previously published environmental samples of MPs as well as from toxicology studies.

Indexed as

Air PollutantsAir Pollution, IndoorInhalation ExposureMicroplasticsAdolescentAdultAnimalsChildChild, PreschoolEnvironmental MonitoringFemaleHumansInfantMaleRisk AssessmentYoung AdultAir PollutantsMicroplasticsAir PollutionEmerging ContaminantsInhalation Exposure

Identifiers

PMID38184724
PMCPMC11142917
OpenAlexW4390637848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.