4.1 Article

Bioaerosol assessment in the library of Istanbul University and fungal flora associated with paper deterioration

期刊

AEROBIOLOGIA
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 151-166

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10453-016-9457-z

关键词

Airborne bacteria; Airborne fungi; Volumetric air sampler; Indoor air quality; Library; Biodeterioration

资金

  1. Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Istanbul University'' [24935]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Health problems in people who are in indoor environments with poor ventilation have resulted in an increase in the number of studies regarding air quality. Microorganisms and inferior indoor air-climatic conditions not only affect human health but also cause decay of invaluable materials present in libraries. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the culturable bioaerosol composition and concentration in the library of Istanbul University. The culturable fungal flora, a biodeterioration agent, of the damaged archival materials was also examined. The air was sampled for a year, as were the surfaces of 207 biologically damaged books. The fungal colonies' range was between 235 and 1850 CFU/m(3), and the bacterial colonies range between 270 and 1920 CFU/m(3). This is the first volumetric record in Turkey. Although the microbial contamination was not very high, molds such as Aspergillus versicolor, Cladosporium sphaerospermum, Penicillium chrysogenum, Alternaria alternata, Chaetomium globosum, Aspergillus flavus, and Aspergillus ochraceus might cause harm to human beings or to books as biodeterioration agents. The highest amount of fungus was determined in Archive 3, which contained damaged books. The fungal species isolated from the air and books were essentially the same. Therefore, it is important to determine not only the numeric values but also the microbiological composition of fungal colonies because the variety of fungal species is indicative of a deterioration process in effect over a long period. The deterioration of books must be remedied.

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

4.1
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