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

52Citations
Citations of this article
51Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

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 bacterial 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 2 l/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 × 103 to 6.2 × 107 c.f.u./m3 of culturable fungi and 1.17 × 104 to 1.0 × 106 c.f.u./m3 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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Durand, K. T. H., Muilenberg, M. L., Burge, H. A., & Seixas, N. S. (2002). Effect of sampling time on the culturability of airborne fungi and bacteria sampled by filtration. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 46(1), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mef007

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free