3.9 Article

Effect of sampling time on the culturability of airborne fungi and bacteria sampled by filtration

期刊

ANNALS OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 113-118

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/mef007

关键词

bioaerosols; sampling methods; composting; organic dusts; microbial viability; filter sampling

资金

  1. ODCDC CDC HHS [U60/CCU014539] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Air sampling of bioaerosols by filtration may be preferable for many epidemiological studies because the methods can be used to collect personal samples for a full work-shift. There is some concern, however, that the viability of fungal spores and bacteria[ cells might be compromised by sampling for as long as a full shift. This study was designed to determine the effect of sampling up to 6 h on the viability (measured by culture) of airborne fungi and bacteria at composting facilities. Six side-by-side samples were collected in two locations at each of three composting facilities for 1 h at 21/m on polycarbonate filters. Two samples in each set were then capped while clean, HEPA-filtered air was drawn across two others for an additional 2 h and across the last two for an additional 5 h. Filters were washed and the samples were analyzed for culturable bacteria and fungi, and for total bacteria and fungi by microscopic counting. Concentrations ranged from 1.7 x 10(3) to 6.2 x 10(7) c.f.u./m(3) of culturable fungi and 1.17 x 10(4) to 1.0 x 10(6) c.f.u./m(3) of culturable bacteria. In linear models that included duration of sampling, location, and the interaction of location and sample duration, neither sample duration nor the interaction term were significant predictors of the logs of the concentrations of culturable fungi or bacteria or of the ratio of the logs of the culturable concentrations to total concentrations for fungi or bacteria. This suggests that increased sampling time does not affect the viability of the organisms commonly found in the air at composting facilities.

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

3.9
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