Cited by 19Indoor Air Quality and Microbial ExposureAsthma and respiratory diseasesOccupational exposure and asthma

HEPA filtration intervention in classrooms may improve some students’ asthma

Open access
Vesper, Stephen J., Wymer, Larry, Coull, Brent A., Koutrakis, Petros, Cunningham, Amparito, Petty, Carter R., Metwali, Nervana, Sheehan, William J. +8 more·2023·Journal of Asthma

Abstract

Objective The School Inner-City Asthma Intervention Study 2 (SICAS 2) tested interventions to reduce exposures in classrooms of students with asthma. The objective of this post-hoc analysis was limited to evaluating the effect of high-efficiency particulate (HEPA) filtration interventions on mold levels as quantified using the Environmental Relative Moldiness Index (ERMI) and the possible improvement in the students’ asthma, as quantified by spirometry testing.Methods Pre-intervention dust samples were collected at the beginning of the school year from classrooms and corresponding homes of students with asthma (n = 150). Follow-up dust samples were collected in the classrooms at the end of the HEPA or Sham intervention. For each dust sample, ERMI values and the Group 1 and Group 2 mold levels (components of the ERMI metric) were quantified. In addition, each student’s lung function was evaluated by spirometry testing, specifically the percentage predicted forced expiratory volume at 1 sec (FEV1%), before and at the end of the intervention.Results For those students with a higher Group 1 mold level in their pre-intervention classroom than home (n = 94), the FEV1% results for those students was significantly (p < 0.05) inversely correlated with the Group 1 level in their classrooms. After the HEPA intervention, the average Group 1 and ERMI values were significantly lowered, and the average FEV1% test results significantly increased by an average of 4.22% for students in HEPA compared to Sham classrooms.Conclusions HEPA intervention in classrooms reduced Group 1 and ERMI values, which corresponded to improvements in the students’ FEV1% test results.

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 · 10.1080/02770903.2022.2059672

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • The 2009 IPM study demonstrates that integrated pest management achieved a greater and meaningful reduction in cockroach allergen levels, providing a model for school-based allergen control.

    “While clinical outcomes were not assessed, the study demonstrates that IPM achieved a greater and meaningful reduction in cockroach allergen levels providing a model for school-based allergen control with demonstrated efficacy at reducing exposure, a necessary first step toward impacting asthma outcomes (59).”

    From Indoor Allergen Interventions in Homes and Schools for Managing Asthma (2025) · cites this paper as [59]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) reports a 63% reduction in asthma symptoms in IPM schools, contrary to the citing sentence’s statement that clinical outcomes were not assessed. The Methods describe SICAS 2 rather than a 2009 study; no passage found in our copy reports a reduction in cockroach allergen levels. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the 2009 IPM study, allergen reductions were especially pronounced in food service areas.

    “Allergen reductions were especially pronounced in food service areas (59).”

    From Indoor Allergen Interventions in Homes and Schools for Managing Asthma (2025) · cites this paper as [59]

    The Introduction reports reduced airborne mouse and dog allergens in HEPA-treated classrooms. It does not report allergen reductions in food service areas, compare reductions across school areas, or identify a 2009 IPM study as the basis for this finding; the Methods describe a later five-year classroom intervention. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In a 2009 study of North Carolina public schools, schools using integrated pest management had significantly lower cockroach counts and allergen concentrations (Bla g 1) compared with schools using conventional pest control.

    “This study found that schools using integrated pest management (IPM) had significantly lower cockroach counts and allergen concentrations (Bla g 1) compared with schools using conventional pest control (59).”

    From Indoor Allergen Interventions in Homes and Schools for Managing Asthma (2025) · cites this paper as [59]

    The Methods describe a classroom intervention that included integrated pest management, and the Introduction reports a reduction in asthma symptoms at IPM schools. Our copy does not report cockroach counts, Bla g 1 concentrations, or a comparison with conventional pest control; searches for those terms and the claimed 2009 North Carolina study found no matching passage. The supplied sections have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vesper, S. J., Wymer, L., Coull, B. A., Koutrakis, P., Cunningham, A., Petty, C. R., Metwali, N., Sheehan, W. J., Gaffin, J. M., Permaul, P., Lai, P. S., Bartnikas, L. M., Hauptman, M., Gold, D. R., Baxi, S. M., & Phipatanakul, W.
Affiliations
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Vesper, Stephen J.
Venue
Journal of Asthma
Published
2022-04-10
Volume
60
Issue
3
Pages
479-486
ISSN
  • 0277-0903 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-4303
OpenAlex
W4220827177
Cited by
19
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2
FWCI
1.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Asthma (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational exposure and asthma
Keywords
HEPA filtration, classroom air quality, childhood asthma, indoor mold exposure, lung function, FEV1, school-based intervention, dust sampling, sham intervention
MeSH terms
Asthma, Dust, Fungi, Housing, Humans, Spirometry, Air Pollution, Indoor

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