| Title |
Humidifier lung and humidifier fever
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Lung, December 1988
|
| DOI | 10.1007/bf02714035 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
X. Baur, J. Behr, M. Dewair, W. Ehret, G. Fruhmann, C. Vogelmeier, W. Weiss, V. Zinkernagel |
| Abstract |
The aim of our study was to evaluate clinical diagnoses in symptomatic persons exposed to aerosols from humidifiers or air conditioners. In addition, we tried to identify the causative antigens. Results of clinical investigations, including inhalation challenge tests, demonstrated a typical hypersensitivity pneumonitis (humidifier lung) in 9 persons and isolated systemic symptoms without significant changes in lung function and chest x-rays (humidifier fever) in 3 persons. Microbiological studies revealed a variety of fungi and bacteria in the water supplies of humidifiers and air conditioners at patients' workplaces. The detection of 4 members of the orderSphaeropsidales (Deuteromycotina), not previously associated with humidifier-induced diseases, is of special interest. By means of an improved polystyrene tube-immunoradiometric assay, high concentrations of IgG antibodies against extracts prepared from water of patients' humidifier systems were found in all cases. In addition, patients demonstrated low concentrations of IgG antibodies against thermophilicActinomycetes, and usually also against various fungi, such asAlternaria tenuis, Aureobasidium pullulans, Penicillium notatum, Aspergilli, and fungi of the orderSphaeropsidales, which were isolated and cultured from humidifier water supplies. The much higher concentrations of antibodies against humidifier/air conditioner water extracts seem to result from sensitization to a variety of antigens from different fungi and bacteria. For in vivo and in vitro diagnostic tests in humidifier-induced lung diseases, we especially recommend using extracts from water systems installed at the corresponding workplaces. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 25% |
| Professor | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 31% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 13% |
| Engineering | 2 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2018.
All research outputs
#4,695,422
of 22,785,242 outputs
Outputs from Lung
#131
of 884 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,736
of 53,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lung
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,785,242 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 884 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 53,796 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them