Bellin P, Schillinger J
California State University, Northridge, Health Sciences Department, Environmental and Occupational Health Program, 18111 Nordhoff Blvd, Northridge, California 91330-8285, USA.
Indoor Air. 2001 Mar;11(1):65-8. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0668.2001.011001065.x.
Comparisons of two common bioaerosol samplers were made after sampling and enumeration of airborne fungal propagules in several office structures on a university campus in Southern California. Data collected on five occasions throughout the year showed that a Surface Air Systems (SAS) high flow portable sampler recovered consistently lower levels of colony forming units (cfu) than an Andersen N6 single stage impactor. There was no difference statistically between the samplers when concentrations of Cladosporium were compared. Compared to the Andersen N6, the SAS sampler recovered about half the number of cfu for three other fungal categories, i.e. non-sporulating species, Aspergillus and Penicillium and others. Differences in sampler efficiencies are discussed in terms of effective particle diameters. Counts of culturable airborne fungal spores obtained with the SAS sampler should be interpreted with caution when genera other than Cladosporium predominate.
在对南加州大学校园里几座办公建筑中的空气传播真菌繁殖体进行采样和计数后，对两种常见的生物气溶胶采样器进行了比较。全年五次收集的数据表明，与安德森N6单级撞击式采样器相比，表面空气系统（SAS）高流量便携式采样器回收的菌落形成单位（cfu）水平始终较低。在比较枝孢菌浓度时，两种采样器之间没有统计学差异。与安德森N6相比，SAS采样器回收的其他三类真菌（即无孢子形成物种、曲霉属和青霉属以及其他真菌）的cfu数量约为其一半。根据有效粒径讨论了采样器效率的差异。当枝孢菌以外的属占主导时，使用SAS采样器获得的可培养空气传播真菌孢子计数应谨慎解释。
