This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

40/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Air pollution and environmental exposures

Plain-language summary

Context Inhaled nanoparticles can migrate to the brain via the olfactory bulb, as demonstrated in experiments in several animal species. This route of exposure may be the mechanism behind the correlation between air pollution and human neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. Objectives This article aims to (i) estimate the dose of inhaled nanoparticles that deposit in the human olfactory epithelium during nasal breathing at rest and (ii) compare the olfactory dose in humans with our earlier dose estimates for rats. Materials and methods An anatomically-accurate model of the human nasal cavity was developed based on computed tomography scans. The deposition of 1-100 nm particles in the whole nasal cavity and its olfactory region were estimated via computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. Our CFD methods were validated by comparing our numerical predictions for whole-nose deposition with experimental data and previous CFD studies in the literature. Results In humans, olfactory dose of inhaled nanoparticles is highest for 1-2 nm particles with ∼1% of inhaled particles depositing in the olfactory region. As particle size grows to 100 nm, olfactory deposition decreases to 0.01% of inhaled particles. Discussion and conclusion Our results suggest that the percentage of inhaled particles that deposit in the olfactory region is lower in humans than in rats. However, olfactory dose per unit surface area is estimated to be higher in humans in the 1--7 nm size range due to the larger inhalation rate in humans. These dose estimates are important for risk assessment and dose-response studies investigating the neurotoxicity of inhaled nanoparticles.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Garcia, G. J., Schroeter, J. D., & Kimbell, J. S. (2015). Olfactory deposition of inhaled nanoparticles in humans. Inhalation toxicology. https://doi.org/10.3109/08958378.2015.1066904

Vancouver

Garcia GJ, Schroeter JD, Kimbell JS. Olfactory deposition of inhaled nanoparticles in humans. Inhalation toxicology. 2015. doi:10.3109/08958378.2015.1066904. PMID: 26194036.

BibTeX

@article{garcia2015-26194036,
  author  = {Garcia, G. J. and Schroeter, J. D. and Kimbell, J. S.},
  title   = {{Olfactory deposition of inhaled nanoparticles in humans}},
  journal = {Inhalation toxicology},
  year    = {2015},
  doi     = {10.3109/08958378.2015.1066904},
  pmid    = {26194036},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3109/08958378.2015.1066904}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record reports “0.01%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Context Inhaled nanoparticles can migrate to the brain via the olfactory bulb, as demonstrated in experiments in several animal species.
Results In humans, olfactory dose of inhaled nanoparticles is highest for 1-2 nm particles with ∼1% of inhaled particles depositing in the olfactory region.
Discussion and conclusion Our results suggest that the percentage of inhaled particles that deposit in the olfactory region is lower in humans than in rats.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →

Study details

Effect size0.01%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 40/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Inhalation toxicology)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26194036)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	23 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100.
Total	40 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Risk factors from nearby years

Also tagged “air”

237 studies in the library carry the topic tag “air”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 237 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →