4.3 Article

Sampling method comparison of enterococci aerosolization during continuous bubble bursting generation

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY LETTERS
卷 368, 期 21-24, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/femsle/fnac003

关键词

enterococci; bioaerosol; pathogen; aerosol; filtration; impaction

资金

  1. University of Miami Laboratory for INtegrative Knowledge (U-LINK)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the viability and transfer of enterococci bacteria in water-to-air emissions, comparing the performance of an impactor and an aerosol filter. The results showed that the aerosol filter had significantly higher recovery of viable enterococci compared to the impactor, although both methods had similar variability in the collected data. This study is important for understanding the measurement of aerosols generated from sewage-contaminated waters through wave breaking.
This study examined the water-to-air transfer and viability of the fecal indicator bacteria, enterococci, and compared capture performance of an impactor and aerosol filter. Results show that concentration of viable enterococci collected by the impactor (70.1 colony-forming units [CFU]/L) was lower than that using the filter (171.2 CFU/L) at 95% significance. Between the impactor and filter, coefficients of variation equaled 13% and 14%, respectively. Hence, for the collection of aerosolized enterococci in a controlled environment, use of the aerosol filter yielded significantly higher recovery relative to impaction, though equally variable data were collected by both methods. This work confirms that viable enterococci transfer across a simulated air-sea interface and that aerosol filters perform well in capturing viable bacteria. Results from this study are relevant to studies that measure environmentally generated aerosols such as those that occur via wave breaking from sewage-contaminated waters. An aerosol filter showed highest concentrations when measuring viable bacteria from seawater.

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

4.3
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