Cited by 22Immunotoxicology and immune responsesAir Quality and Health ImpactsHeavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Health effects from exposure to atmospheric mineral dust near Las Vegas, NV, USA

Open access

Abstract

Desert areas are usually characterized by a continuous deposition of fine airborne particles. Over time, this process results in the accumulation of silt and clay on desert surfaces. We evaluated health effects associated with regional atmospheric dust, or geogenic dust, deposited on surfaces in the Nellis Dunes Recreation Area (NDRA) in Clark County, Nevada, a popular off-road vehicle (ORV) recreational site frequented daily by riders, families, and day campers. Because of atmospheric mixing and the mostly regional origin of the accumulated particles, the re-suspended airborne dust is composed of a complex mixture of minerals and metals including aluminum, vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, copper, zinc, arsenic, strontium, cesium, lead, uranium, and others. Geogenic dust with a median diameter of 4.1 μm was administered via oropharyngeal aspiration to female B6C3F1 mice at doses of 0.01 to 100 mg dust/kg body weight, four times, a week apart, for 28-days. Immuno- and neurotoxicological outcomes 24 h following the last exposure were evaluated. Antigen-specific IgM responses were dose-responsively suppressed at 0.1, 1.0, 10 and 100 mg/kg/day. Splenic and thymic lymphocytic subpopulations and natural killer cell activity also were significantly reduced. Antibodies against MBP, NF-68, and GFAP were not affected, while brain CD3 + T cells were decreased in number. A lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 0.1 mg/kg/day and a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 0.01 mg/kg/day were derived based on the antigen-specific IgM responses.

Overview

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 · 10.1016/j.toxrep.2016.09.009

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Concern exists for potential acute and/or chronic multiorgan toxicities from lunar dust exposure given known deleterious effects of terrestrial particulate matter and mineral dusts such as quartz.

    “Given the known deleterious effects of exposure to terrestrial particulate matter as well as some mineral dusts such as quartz, concern exists for the potential of acute and/or chronic multiorgan toxicities10–12.”

    From Overview of lunar dust toxicity risk (2022) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Introduction describes health concerns from mineral dust, including quartz-containing dust, and the Conclusions report immune effects in mice after repeated exposure to terrestrial dust. The paper supports concern about toxicity beyond the lung, but it does not study lunar dust or establish acute and chronic multiorgan toxicity; its exposure period was 28 days. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Keil, D. E., Buck, B., Goossens, D., Teng, Y., Pollard, J., McLaurin, B., Gerads, R., & DeWitt, J.
Affiliations
  • Montana State University (US)
  • University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US)
  • Bloomsburg University (US)
  • East Carolina University (US)
Corresponding author
Keil, Deborah E.
Venue
Toxicology Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016
Volume
3
Pages
785-795
ISSN
2214-7500 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2521301003
Cited by
22
References
33
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Toxicology Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Montana State University ScholarWorks (Montana State University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Scholarship - UNLV (University of Nevada Reno) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • The Scholarship East Carolina University's Institutional Repository (East Carolina University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (L11AC20058)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotoxicology and immune responses
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Air Quality and Health Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Heavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity
Keywords
atmospheric mineral dust, oropharyngeal aspiration, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, lymphocyte subsets, natural killer cells, metal exposure, lowest observed adverse effect level, no-observed-adverse-effect level, dust resuspension, Las Vegas

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