• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

[来自一个鸭子育肥场的生物气溶胶排放与散发]

[Emissions and immisions of bio-aerosols from a duck fattening unit].

作者信息

Seedorf J, Schröder M, Hartung J

机构信息

Institut für Tierhygiene und Tierschutz der Tierärtzlichen Hochschule Hannover.

出版信息

Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed. 1998 Dec;201(4-5):387-403.

PMID:9916293
Abstract

In a field study emissions and immissions (receptor exposition) of bioaerosols emitted from and near a duck fattening house (25 m distance) were investigated. Within the livestock building mean concentrations of 3,342,289 CFU m-3 for airborne total mesophilic bacteria were determined. Total dust and endotoxin yields were 1.9 mg m-3 and 7,132.4 ng m-3, respectively. Additionally, enterobacteria, mesophilic and thermotolerante fungi as well as mesophilic actinomycetes were detectable. Measurements of immissions have shown, that downwind in the rear of the house a mean total germ concentration of 10,007 CFU m-3 was measurable in contrast to the upwind side of the building, where no airborne mesophilic bacteria were found. Higher concentrations downwind were generally determined for total dust, mesophilic fungi and actinomycetes, too, but not so for endotoxins. A supporting application of a numeric dispersion model confirmed the immissions for total mesophilic bacteria near by the duck fattening house. From this viewpoint immission predictions can be made in future for varying input data, i.e. wind conditions, of different components of bioaerosols.

摘要

在一项实地研究中,对一座鸭舍(距离25米)及其附近排放的生物气溶胶的排放和暴露(受体暴露)情况进行了调查。在畜舍内,测定了空气中总嗜温细菌的平均浓度为3,342,289 CFU/m³。总粉尘和内毒素产量分别为1.9毫克/立方米和7,132.4纳克/立方米。此外,还检测到了肠杆菌、嗜温和耐热真菌以及嗜温放线菌。暴露测量结果表明,与建筑物上风侧未发现空气中嗜温细菌相比,在鸭舍后方下风处可测量到平均总细菌浓度为10,007 CFU/m³。下风处的总粉尘、嗜温真菌和放线菌浓度通常也较高,但内毒素并非如此。数值扩散模型的辅助应用证实了鸭舍附近总嗜温细菌的暴露情况。从这个角度来看,未来可以针对生物气溶胶不同成分的不同输入数据(即风况)进行暴露预测。

相似文献

1
[Emissions and immisions of bio-aerosols from a duck fattening unit].[来自一个鸭子育肥场的生物气溶胶排放与散发]
Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed. 1998 Dec;201(4-5):387-403.
2
Assessment of bioaerosols and inhalable dust exposure in Swiss sawmills.瑞士锯木厂生物气溶胶和可吸入粉尘暴露评估。
Ann Occup Hyg. 2005 Jul;49(5):385-91. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/meh105. Epub 2005 Feb 7.
3
Bioaerosol emissions from a suburban yard waste composting facility.来自郊区庭院垃圾堆肥设施的生物气溶胶排放。
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2001;8(2):177-85.
4
[Air microorganisms in animal housing--4. Airborne gram-negative bacteria and airborne endotoxin in pig houses].[动物饲养环境中的空气微生物——4. 猪舍中的空气传播革兰氏阴性菌和空气传播内毒素]
Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2002 Jan-Feb;115(1-2):30-6.
5
Exposure of hop growers to bioaerosols.啤酒花种植者接触生物气溶胶的情况。
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2004;11(1):129-38.
6
[Investigations on airborne microorganisms in animal stables. 3: Relationship between inhalable endotoxin, inhalable dust and airborne bacteria in a hen house].[动物厩舍空气中微生物的调查。3:鸡舍中可吸入内毒素、可吸入粉尘与空气传播细菌之间的关系]
Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2000 Jul-Aug;113(7-8):279-83.
7
[Relationship between the concentration of different bioaerosol components and the general hygienic condition in two pig fattening houses].[两个育肥猪舍中不同生物气溶胶成分浓度与总体卫生状况的关系]
Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2005 May-Jun;118(5-6):224-8.
8
Exposure of Indian agricultural workers to airborne microorganisms, dust and endotoxin during handling of various plant products.印度农业工人在处理各种植物产品过程中暴露于空气中的微生物、灰尘和内毒素的情况。
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2005;12(2):269-75.
9
[Emission of particulates from a pig farm with central air exhaust in the pig stall].
Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 1998 Jun;105(6):244-5.
10
Exposure to airborne microorganisms, dust and endotoxin during processing of peppermint and chamomile herbs on farms.在农场加工薄荷和洋甘菊草药过程中暴露于空气传播的微生物、灰尘和内毒素。
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2005;12(2):281-8.