4.5 Article

Analysis of Black Fungal Biofilms Occurring at Domestic Water Taps (II): Potential Routes of Entry

期刊

MYCOPATHOLOGIA
卷 175, 期 5-6, 页码 399-412

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11046-013-9619-2

关键词

Black yeast; Drinking water; Fungal ecology; Exophiala; Route of contamination; Biofilm

类别

资金

  1. RheinEnergie AG, Cologne

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Formation of tenacious and massive black biofilms was occasionally observed at the water-air interphase of water taps and in associated habitats at several locations in Germany. Exophiala lecanii-corni was proven to be the dominant component of these biofilms. Water utility companies were interested to understand by which route fungi building these black biofilms enter their habitat at affected sites in domestic sanitary. A wide variety of fungi is known to be common in wet indoor environments, as well as in the drinking water resources. Two possible routes of entry are therefore considered as follows: (a) distribution by the drinking water system or (b) a retrograde route of colonisation. Previous compositional analysis revealed that the black constituents of biofilms primarily belong to the herpotrichiellaceous black yeast and relatives. Therefore, a systematic search for black fungi in the drinking water system was performed using Sabouraud's glucose agar medium with chloramphenicol and erythritol-chloramphenicol agar as isolation media. Cadophora malorum was the dominant fungus in the investigated drinking water systems, and samples taken from the house connections (n = 50; 74 %, < 200 cfu/L), followed by a so far undescribed Alternaria sp. (28 %; < 10 cfu/L) and E. castellanii (26 %; < 10 cfu/L). Of note, C. malorum was not present in any previously analysed biofilm. Since E. lecanii-corni was not found in any water sample from the distribution system tested, but represented the most abundant species in dark biofilms previously analysed, a retrograde route of contamination in case of E. lecanii-corni can be assumed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据