ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Assessment of airborne bacteria from a public health institution in Mexico City.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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.
- Genetic sequencing of the airborne fungal spectrum and air quality at a public hospital in Mexico City.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this work, the composition of the bacterial community in the air of a hospital in Mexico City was evaluated using metabarcoding and proteomics approaches, along with the assessment of environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, and suspended particles. Two types of aerobiological samplers were used: Andersen One-Stage Viable Particle Sampler (AVPS) and Coriolis μ sampler (CμS-Sampler). Sampling was performed in four areas of the hospital: Floor 1 (F1), Floor 2 (F2), and Emergency Unit (EU), as well as outdoors (OH). The use of both samplers showed variations in diversity and composition. Bacterial abundance was 89.55% with the CμS-Sampler and 74.00% with the AVPS. The predominant phyla with the AVPS were Firmicutes, Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria, while with the CμS-Sampler, the main phyla were Proteobacteria, followed by Actinobacteria and Firmicutes. The highest diversity and richness of bacteria was recorded in F1 and F2, with 32 species identified, with a greater number within the hospital. Potentially pathogenic bacteria such as Bacillus spp., B. cereus, B. pumilus, Clostridium spp., Enterococcus gallinarum, Micrococcus luteus and Staphylococcus spp. were detected. Furthermore, a high concentration of particles between 2.5 μm and 10 μm, and Total Particulate Matter (TPM) was observed, with values of TPM, 303 μg/m3 in F1, 195 μg/m3 in F2, 235 μg/m3 in EU and 188 μg/m3 in OH. Temperatures averaged between 26 and 27°C, and relative humidity ranged between 39.8 and 43.5%. These environmental conditions and particulate matter can promote bacterial growth and their dispersion in the air, constituting a continuous risk of exposure to pathogens, mainly in indoor areas of the hospital. This study provides a framework for air monitoring, where the results of different samplers complement the detection of potential pathogens.
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.