4.7 Article

Application of real-time PCR for total airborne bacterial assessment: Comparison with epifluorescence microscopy and culture-dependent methods

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 42, 期 28, 页码 6767-6774

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.05.018

关键词

Bioaerosols; Epifluorescence; Occupational health; Poultry firm; Q-PCR; Sewage treatment plant

资金

  1. Swiss National Foundation [3200BO-104246]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Traditional culture-dependent methods to quantify and identify airborne microorganisms are limited by factors such as short-duration sampling times and inability to count non-culturable or non-viable bacteria. Consequently, the quantitative assessment of bioaerosols is often underestimated. Use of the real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (Q-PCR) to quantify bacteria in environmental samples presents an alternative method, which should overcome this problem. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a real-time Q-PCR assay as a simple and reliable way to quantify the airborne bacterial load within poultry houses and sewage treatment plants, in comparison with epifluorescence microscopy and culture-dependent methods. The estimates of bacterial load that we obtained from real-time PCR and epifluorescence methods, are comparable, however, our analysis of sewage treatment plants indicate these methods give values 270-290 fold greater than those obtained by the impaction on nutrient agar method. The culture-dependent method of air impaction on nutrient agar was also inadequate in poultry houses, as was the impinger-culture method, which gave a bacterial load estimate 32-fold lower than obtained by Q-PCR. Real-time quantitative PCR thus proves to be a reliable, discerning, and simple method that could be used to estimate airborne bacterial load in a broad variety of other environments expected to carry high numbers of airborne bacteria. (C) 2008 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

4.7
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