4.8 Article

Comparison of the action spectra and relative DNA absorbance spectra of microorganisms: Information important for the determination of germicidal fluence (UV dose) in an ultraviolet disinfection of water

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 43, 期 20, 页码 5087-5096

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2009.08.032

关键词

Bacillus subtilis spores; Salmonella typhimurium; Ultraviolet; Action spectrum; DNA absorbance spectrum

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The action spectra of Bacillus subtilis spores (ATCC6633) and Salmonella typhimurium LT2 were characterized using physical radiometry for irradiance measurements and a multiple target model to interpret the inactivation kinetics. The observed action spectrum of B. subtilis spores deviated significantly from the relative absorbance spectrum of the DNA purified from the spores, but matched quite well with the relative absorbance spectrum of decoated spores. The action spectrum of B. subtilis spores determined in this study was statistically different from those reported in previous studies. On the other hand, the action spectrum of S. typhimurium bacteria matched quite well with the relative absorbance spectrum of DNA extracted from vegetative cells, except in the region below 240 nm. It is concluded that the common use of the relative DNA absorbance spectrum as a surrogate for the germicidal action spectrum can result in systematic errors when evaluating the performance of a polychromatic UV light reactors using bioassays. For example, if the weighted germicidal fluence (UV dose) calculated using the relative DNA absorbance spectrum as the germicidal weighting factor is found to be 40 mJ cm(-2) for a medium pressure lamp UV reactor, that calculated using the relative action spectrum of B. subtilis spores, as determined in this study, would be 66 mJ cm(-2). (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据