CCPortal
DOI10.1039/c7em00257b
Comparison of indoor air sampling and dust collection methods for fungal exposure assessment using quantitative PCR
Cox, Jennie1; Indugula, Reshmi1; Vesper, Stephen2; Zhu, Zheng1; Jandarov, Roman1; Reponen, Tiina1
发表日期2017-10-01
ISSN2050-7887
卷号19期号:10页码:1312-1319
英文摘要

Evaluating fungal contamination indoors is complicated because of the many different sampling methods utilized. In this study, fungal contamination was evaluated using five sampling methods and four matrices for results. The five sampling methods were a 48 hour indoor air sample collected with a Button (TM) inhalable aerosol sampler and four types of dust samples: a vacuumed floor dust sample, newly settled dust collected for four weeks onto two types of electrostatic dust cloths (EDCs) in trays, and a wipe sample of dust from above floor surfaces. The samples were obtained in the bedrooms of asthmatic children (n = 14). Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was used to analyze the dust and air samples for the 36 fungal species that make up the Environmental Relative Moldiness Index (ERMI). The results from the samples were compared by four matrices: total concentration of fungal cells, concentration of fungal species associated with indoor environments, concentration of fungal species associated with outdoor environments, and ERMI values (or ERMI-like values for air samples). The ERMI values for the dust samples and the ERMI-like values for the 48 hour air samples were not significantly different. The total cell concentrations of the 36 species obtained with the four dust collection methods correlated significantly (r = 0.64-0.79, p < 0.05), with the exception of the vacuumed floor dust and newly settled dust. In addition, fungal cell concentrations of indoor associated species correlated well between all four dust sampling methods (r = 0.68-0.86, p < 0.01). No correlation was found between the fungal concentrations in the air and dust samples primarily because of differences in concentrations of Cladosporium cladosporioides Type 1 and Epicoccum nigrum. A representative type of dust sample and a 48 hour air sample might both provide useful information about fungal exposures.


语种英语
WOS记录号WOS:000413199000010
来源期刊ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE-PROCESSES & IMPACTS
来源机构美国环保署
文献类型期刊论文
条目标识符http://gcip.llas.ac.cn/handle/2XKMVOVA/57938
作者单位1.Univ Cincinnati, Dept Environm Hlth, POB 670056, Cincinnati, OH 45267 USA;
2.US EPA, 26 WML King Dr,Mail Stop 587, Cincinnati, OH 45268 USA
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714
Cox, Jennie,Indugula, Reshmi,Vesper, Stephen,et al. Comparison of indoor air sampling and dust collection methods for fungal exposure assessment using quantitative PCR[J]. 美国环保署,2017,19(10):1312-1319.
APA Cox, Jennie,Indugula, Reshmi,Vesper, Stephen,Zhu, Zheng,Jandarov, Roman,&Reponen, Tiina.(2017).Comparison of indoor air sampling and dust collection methods for fungal exposure assessment using quantitative PCR.ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE-PROCESSES & IMPACTS,19(10),1312-1319.
MLA Cox, Jennie,et al."Comparison of indoor air sampling and dust collection methods for fungal exposure assessment using quantitative PCR".ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE-PROCESSES & IMPACTS 19.10(2017):1312-1319.
条目包含的文件
条目无相关文件。
个性服务
推荐该条目
保存到收藏夹
导出为Endnote文件
谷歌学术
谷歌学术中相似的文章
[Cox, Jennie]的文章
[Indugula, Reshmi]的文章
[Vesper, Stephen]的文章
百度学术
百度学术中相似的文章
[Cox, Jennie]的文章
[Indugula, Reshmi]的文章
[Vesper, Stephen]的文章
必应学术
必应学术中相似的文章
[Cox, Jennie]的文章
[Indugula, Reshmi]的文章
[Vesper, Stephen]的文章
相关权益政策
暂无数据
收藏/分享

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。