Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41967324›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2026

Comparative performance of air sampling methods in a broiler house: implications for use and recovery of bacteria.

J T Porzeinski, L A Wythe, A P McElroy, M B Farnell

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2026. 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
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

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

4 authors.

J T PorzeinskiDepartment of Poultry Science, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, College Station, TX, USA.
L A WytheDepartment of Poultry Science, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, College Station, TX, USA.
A P McElroyDepartment of Poultry Science, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, College Station, TX, USA.
M B FarnellDepartment of Poultry Science, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, College Station, TX, USA. Electronic address: morgan.farnell@ag.tamu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate quantification of airborne bacteria in broiler houses is essential for assessing exposure risks to workers and animals, as well as for developing informed sanitation and surveillance strategies. Numerous sampling methods and equipment with differing collection physics, sampling parameters, processing, and handling have been developed in order to collect and quantify bacteria within bioaerosols. The objective of this study was to conduct a field comparison of three commonly used air sampling methods, including a cyclonic liquid impinger, a single-stage impactor, and gelatin filters housed in two-piece cassettes. Sampling was performed in an active broiler house using a balanced design (n = 6, k = 3, days = 5, N = 90) across five days (broiler ages D37, D38, D39, D40, and D44), with variation across sampling days evaluated descriptively. Liquid impinger and gelatin filter samples were collected from 100 L of air, whereas impactor samples were collected from 10 L to maintain countable colony densities. All counts were standardized to log

Indexed as

Air MicrobiologyAir Pollution, IndoorBacteriaChickensEnvironmental MonitoringHousing, AnimalAnimalsAir samplingBioaerosolBroiler houseMethod comparison

Identifiers

PMID41967324
PMCPMC13092578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.