4.1 Article

Bioaerosols of subterraneotherapy chambers at salt mine health resort

期刊

AEROBIOLOGIA
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 481-493

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10453-013-9298-y

关键词

Air quality; Bioaerosol; Salt mine; Health resort; Subterraneotherapy

资金

  1. Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education [N305 2552 33]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nowadays, an inhalation of naturally generated aerosols has again become a widely practiced method of balneological treatment of various respiratory diseases. The aim of this study was to characterize the microbial aerosol of subterraneotherapy chambers at the Bochnia Salt Mine Health Resort in southern Poland. The measurements were carried out using a 6-stage Andersen impactor over a period of 1 year in both indoor (i.e., two subterranean chambers, where curative treatments took place) and outdoor air. The maximum bacterial aerosol concentrations in the chambers reached 11,688 cfu/m(3). In such interiors, a high-performance method of microbial contaminant reduction need be introduced, especially when large groups of young patients are medically cured. Respecting fungal aerosol, its average indoor concentration (88 cfu/m(3)) was significantly lower than outdoor level (538 cfu/m(3)). It confirms that ventilation system provides efficient barrier against this type of biologically active propagules. Among identified micro-organisms, the most prevalent indoors were Gram-positive cocci, which constituted up to 80 % of airborne microflora. As highly adapted to the diverse environments of its human host (skin, respiratory tract), they can be easily released in high quantities into the air. The number of people introduced into such subterranean chambers should be in some way limited. The analysis of microclimate parameters revealed that temperature and relative humidity influenced significantly the level of bacterial aerosol only. Hence, a constant control of these parameters should be scrupulously superintended at this type of subterranean premises.

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