4.7 Article

Exposure to airborne fungi and bacteria while commuting in passenger cars and public buses

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 39, 期 38, 页码 7342-7350

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.09.013

关键词

airborne microbe; in-vehicle; outdoor; fungi; season

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present Study examined airborne microbe levels inside and outside passenger cars and public buses during two seasons (winter and summer). The prevalence level of individual fungal genera depended on the fungi and agar type, whereas a constant higher prevalence (> 90%) was found for the total bacteria and total fungi. The four most prevalent fungal genera were Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, and Alternaria in a descending order. The major parameters associated with the airborne microbe measurements included agar type, vehicle type, and seasonal variation. When compared to the malt extract agar (MEA), the dichloran glycerol 18 agar (DG-18) was found to produce better counts for the target fungi. The summer in-vehicle bacterial concentrations were significantly higher for public buses than for the passenger cars, whereas the reverse was true for summer in-vehicle total fungal concentrations. This pattern was also consistent with summer outdoor results. In contrast, the winter in-vehicle and outdoor airborne microbe levels were similar for cars and buses. Meanwhile, summer was generally found to have higher in-vehicle fungal concentrations than winter. The current in-vehicle airborne microbe concentrations were round to be similar to residential indoor values from other reports, such as bacterial values between 10 and 10(3) CFU m(-3) and total fungal aerosol concentrations ranging from 10 to 10(3) CFU m(-3). It was suggested that motor vehicles in which many individuals spend a certain percentage of their day or week for travel are also a potential microenvironment for individual exposure to airborne microbes. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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