Eduard W, Lacey J, Karlsson K, Palmgren U, Ström G, Blomquist G
National Institute of Occupational Health, Oslo, Norway.
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1990 Aug;51(8):427-36. doi: 10.1080/15298669091369899.
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), light microscopy (LM), epifluorescence microscopy (FM), and culture were used to assess catches of microorganisms in parallel air samples on membrane filters from heavily contaminated working environments that differed in the relative abundance of bacteria, actinomycetes, and fungal spores. Except in pig houses, estimates by SEM and LM were similar, but those by FM and culture were smaller. However, in pig houses, the fluorescent stain enabled bacteria on skin scales, not seen by SEM or LM, to be counted. Although counts obtained by culturing were always smaller than those obtained by SEM or LM, they sometimes exceeded those obtained by FM. Counts suggested that 0.1-68% of bacteria + actinomycetes and 3-98% of fungal spores were viable. However, samples for culturing may have contained larger aggregates than parallel samples collected within a sampling apparatus. All spore types recognized by LM included aggregates--those of bacteria + actinomycetes sometimes exceeding 200 units, while Wallemia sebi spore aggregates were never larger than 3 spores. The size distributions of all types approximated to log-normal, although single spores and small aggregates of bacteria + actinomycetes were perhaps underrepresented. When spores were counted directly on the filter surface, as by SEM and LM, allowance was necessary for heavier deposition of particles near the center of filters by distributing counting fields systematically over the whole filter or a sector of it. Deposition was more uniform in graphite-filled polypropylene filter holders used open-faced. Losses within filter holders and during transportation from sampling site to laboratory were small. The precision of counting spore-containing particles by LM and SEM was better than that of counting individual spores. No such difference was found for FM because many large spore-containing particles were dispersed during preparation.
利用扫描电子显微镜(SEM)、光学显微镜(LM)、落射荧光显微镜(FM)和培养法,对来自细菌、放线菌和真菌孢子相对丰度不同的重度污染工作环境的平行空气样本中膜滤器捕获的微生物进行评估。除了在猪舍中,SEM和LM的估计值相似,但FM和培养法的估计值较小。然而,在猪舍中,荧光染色能够对SEM或LM无法看到的皮肤鳞屑上的细菌进行计数。尽管培养获得的计数总是小于SEM或LM获得的计数,但有时会超过FM获得的计数。计数表明,0.1 - 68%的细菌 + 放线菌和3 - 98%的真菌孢子是有活力的。然而,用于培养的样本可能比在采样装置内收集的平行样本包含更大的聚集体。LM识别的所有孢子类型都包括聚集体——细菌 + 放线菌的聚集体有时超过200个单位,而黑曲霉孢子聚集体从不超过3个孢子。所有类型的大小分布近似对数正态分布,尽管单个孢子和细菌 + 放线菌的小聚集体可能代表性不足。当像通过SEM和LM那样直接在滤器表面对孢子进行计数时,有必要通过在整个滤器或其一个扇区系统地分布计数区域,来考虑靠近滤器中心的颗粒沉积更重的情况。在敞口使用的填充石墨的聚丙烯滤器支架中,沉积更均匀。滤器支架内以及从采样地点运输到实验室期间的损失很小。通过LM和SEM对含孢子颗粒计数的精度优于对单个孢子计数的精度。对于FM未发现这种差异,因为许多大的含孢子颗粒在制备过程中被分散了。