ArticlePloS one2024
Differential impact of environmental factors on airborne live bacteria and inorganic particles in an underground walkway.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technology-enhanced compression and AI-integrated lymphedema care: a narrative review.Irish journal of medical science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We previously reported that variations in the number and type of bacteria found in public spaces are influenced by environmental factors. However, based on field survey data alone, whether the dynamics of bacteria in the air change as a result of a single environmental factor or multiple factors working together remains unclear. To address this, mathematical modeling may be applied. We therefore conducted a reanalysis of the previously acquired data using principal component analysis (PCA) in conjunction with a generalized linear model (Glm2) and a statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) test employing the χ2 distribution. The data used for the analysis were reused from a previous public environmental survey conducted at 8:00-20:00 on May 2, June 1, and July 5, 2016 (regular sampling) and at 5:50-7:50 and 20:15-24:15 on July 17, 2017 (baseline sampling) in the Sapporo underground walking space, a 520-meter-long underground walkway. The dataset consisted of 60 samples (22 samples for "bacterial flora"), including variables such as "temperature (T)," "humidity (H)," "atmospheric pressure (A)," "traffic pedestrians (TP)," "number of inorganic particles (Δ5: 1-5 μm)," "number of live airborne bacteria," and "bacterial flora." Our PCA with these environmental factors (T, H, A, and TP) revealed that the 60 samples could be categorized into four groups (G1 to G4), primarily based on variations in PC1 [Loadings: T(-0.62), H(-0.647), TP(0.399), A(0.196)] and PC2 [Loadings: A(-0.825), TP(0.501), H(0.209), T(-0.155)]. Notably, the number of inorganic particles significantly increased from G4 to G1, but the count of live bacteria was highest in G2, with no other clear pattern. Further analysis with Glm2 indicated that changes in inorganic particles could largely be explained by two variables (H/TP), while live bacteria levels were influenced by all explanatory variables (TP/A/H/T). ANOVA tests confirmed that inorganic particles and live bacteria were influenced by different factors. Moreover, there were minimal changes in bacterial flora observed among the groups (G1-G4). In conclusion, our findings suggest that the dynamics of live bacteria in the underground walkway differ from those of inorganic particles and are regulated in a complex manner by multiple environmental factors. This discovery may contribute to improving public health in urban settings.
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.