Assessment of immunopathological responses of a novel non-chemical biocide in C57BL/6 for safe disinfection usage.

BACKGROUND: Water electrospray technology has been developed and extensively studied for its physical properties and potential application as a non-chemical biocide against airborne pathogens. However, there are still concerns regarding the safety and potential toxicity of inhaling water electrospray (WE) particles. To address these potential hazards and offer insights into the impact of WE on humans, we analyzed the immunopathological response to WE by employing an intranasal challenge C57BL/6 mouse model. This analysis aimed to compare the effects of WE with those of sodium hypochlorite (SH), a well-known biocidal agent. RESULTS: The study findings suggest that the WE did not trigger any pathological immune reactions in the intranasal-challenged C57BL/6 mouse model. Mice challenged with WE did not experience body weight loss, and there was no increase in inflammatory cytokine production compared to SH-treated mice. Histopathological analysis revealed that WE did not cause any damage to the lung tissue. In contrast, mice treated with SH exhibited significant lung tissue damage, characterized by the infiltration of neutrophils and eosinophils. Transcriptomic analysis of lung tissue further confirmed the absence of a pathological immune response in mice treated with WE compared to those treated with SH. Upon intranasal challenge with WE, the C57BL/6 mouse model did not show any evidence of immunopathological damage. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that WE is a safe technology for disinfecting airborne pathogens. It demonstrated little to no effect on immune system activation and pathological outcomes in the intranasal challenge C57BL/6 mouse model. These findings not only support the potential use of WE as an effective and safe method for air disinfection but also highlight the value of the intranasal challenge of the C57BL/6 mouse model in providing significant immunopathological insights for assessing the inhalation of novel materials for potential use.

Visual Complexity of Head-Up Display in Automobiles Modulates Attentional Tunneling.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how the visual complexity of head-up displays (HUDs) influence the allocation of driver's attention in two separate visual domains (near and far domains). BACKGROUND: The types and amount of information displayed on automobile HUDs have increased. With limited human attention capacity, increased visual complexity in the near domain may lead to interference in the effective processing of information in the far domain. METHOD: Near-domain and far-domain vision were separately tested using a dual-task paradigm. In a simulated road environment, 62 participants were to control the speed of the vehicle (SMT; near domain) and manually respond to probes (PDT; far domain) simultaneously. Five HUD complexity levels including a HUD-absent condition were presented block-wise. RESULTS: Near domain performance was not modulated by the HUD complexity levels. However, the far domain detection accuracies were impaired as the HUD complexity level increased, with greater accuracy differences observed between central and peripheral probes. CONCLUSION: Increased HUD visual complexity leads to a biased deployment of driver attention toward the central visual field. Therefore, the formulation of HUD designs must be preceded by an in-depth investigation of the dynamics of human cognition. APPLICATION: To ensure driving safety, HUD designs should be rendered with minimal visual complexity by incorporating only essential information relevant to driving and removing driving-irrelevant or additional visual details.

Ingroup favoritism overrides fairness when resources are limited.

Ingroup favoritism and fairness are two potentially competing motives guiding intergroup behaviors in human. Here, we investigate if and how limited resources can modulate the way these two motives affect individuals' decisions in intergroup situation. In the present study, participants (N = 58) were asked to accept or reject three types of resource allocation proposals generated by a computer: the ingroup advantageous condition, outgroup advantageous condition, and neutral condition. In general, participants were more willing to accept the proposals in the ingroup advantageous condition than the outgroup advantageous or the neutral conditions, and also in the moderate inequality than the extreme inequality condition. This may indicate that people sought a careful balance between ingroup favoritism and fairness, although we also found marked individual differences in their preferences for ingroup favoritism or fairness. Importantly, as predicted, participants were more likely to show ingroup favoritism only when limited resources affect the well-being of ingroup members. The present study provides novel insights into the situational and personality factors affecting human intergroup behaviors, shedding light on motives underlying intergroup conflicts prevalent in human societies.