Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8234653›Full record

ArticleRadiation and environmental biophysics1993

Behaviour of magnetic micro-particles in the human lung.

W Stahlhofen, W Möller

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

W StahlhofenGSF-Forschungszentrum für Umwelt und Gesundheit, Institut für Biophysikalische Strahlenforschung, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
W Möller
Amt für Umwelt · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Magnetic micro-particles were used to investigate the defence system of the human lungs against foreign material. After primary magnetisation a remanent magnetic field (RMF) of the lung can be measured that allows estimation of the amount of dust retained in the lung. After calibration of the system with a lung phantom the magnetic contamination retained in the lungs of dental technicians and welders was estimated at mean values of 22 and 500 mg respectively. In normal controls only 0.3 mg was found. About 0.5 mg of spherical monodisperse magnetite particles was deposited in the alveolar region of the lung by voluntary inhalation. The decay of the RMF, called relaxation, results from a misalignment of the dipole particles due to the activity of pulmonary macrophages. This macrophage activity is characterised by a cellular energy Ez. With a secondary magnetisation the lung can be remagnetised by rotation of the dipole particles. This allows an estimation of the intracellular viscoelasticity and the motility of the alveolar macrophages in vivo. Secondary magnetisation and relaxation curves of spherical monodisperse magnetic particles are presented. Intracellular viscosity was estimated to be n approximately equal to 100 Pa.s at shear rates near 0.01 s-1, the rigidity modulus being v approximately equal to 4-8 Pa. Macrophage activity was described by a cellular energy EZ approximately 5 x 10(-18) J. Additionally, non-magnetic aerosol exposure resulted in a faster relaxation, which was interpreted to be due to activation of the macrophages. The magnetite particles were cleared with a half-time of approximately 110 days.

Indexed as

MagneticsAdministration, InhalationCalibrationElasticityHumansLungMacrophages, AlveolarViscosity

Identifiers

PMID8234653
OpenAlexW2061502071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.