Cited by 85Infection Control and VentilationIndoor Air Quality and Microbial ExposureSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing

SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review of indoor air sampling for virus detection

Open access
Borges, João Tito, Nakada, Liane Yuri Kondo, Maniero, Milena Guedes, Guimarães, José Roberto·2021·Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Abstract

In a post-pandemic scenario, indoor air monitoring may be required seeking to safeguard public health, and therefore well-defined methods, protocols, and equipment play an important role. Considering the COVID-19 pandemic, this manuscript presents a literature review on indoor air sampling methods to detect viruses, especially SARS-CoV-2. The review was conducted using the following online databases: Web of Science, Science Direct, and PubMed, and the Boolean operators "AND" and "OR" to combine the following keywords: air sampler, coronavirus, COVID-19, indoor, and SARS-CoV-2. This review included 25 published papers reporting sampling and detection methods for SARS-CoV-2 in indoor environments. Most of the papers focused on sampling and analysis of viruses in aerosols present in contaminated areas and potential transmission to adjacent areas. Negative results were found in 10 studies, while 15 papers showed positive results in at least one sample. Overall, papers report several sampling devices and methods for SARS-CoV-2 detection, using different approaches for distance, height from the floor, flow rates, and sampled air volumes. Regarding the efficacy of each mechanism as measured by the percentage of investigations with positive samples, the literature review indicates that solid impactors are more effective than liquid impactors, or filters, and the combination of various methods may be recommended. As a final remark, determining the sampling method is not a trivial task, as the samplers and the environment influence the presence and viability of viruses in the samples, and thus a case-by-case assessment is required for the selection of sampling systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11356-021-13001-w

Cites

62 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Despite significant limitations, bioaerosol monitoring may be a useful tool for studying occupational exposure and the transmission of infectious diseases.

    “Despite its significant limitations, bioaerosol monitoring may be a useful tool for studying occupational exposure and the transmission of infectious diseases [18].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Chen P Du Y Xu YZ Liu Z Yan K Review: bioaerosol collection IJPEST 2017 11 1 52 55 10.34343/ijpest.2017.11.01.052 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Borges, J. T., Nakada, L. Y. K., Maniero, M. G., & Guimarães, J. R.
Affiliations
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) (BR)
Corresponding author
Guimarães, José Roberto
Venue
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Published
2021-02-25
Volume
28
Issue
30
Pages
40460-40473
ISSN
  • 0944-1344 (ISSN-L)
  • 1614-7499
OpenAlex
W3130501066
Cited by
85
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 14
FWCI
2.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Science and Pollution Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2, indoor air sampling, airborne virus detection, aerosol sampling, air samplers, virus transmission, COVID-19 pandemic, sampling flow rate
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Aerosols, Humans, Air Pollution, Indoor, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review