{"title":"过滤取样和萃取回收金黄色葡萄球菌生物气溶胶的效率","authors":"Ching-Wen Chang , Yen-Ni Lin , Sheng-Hsiu Huang , Yu-Ju Horng","doi":"10.1016/j.jaerosci.2024.106390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Airborne <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em> is detected in various locations and linked to human infection. Reliable quantification of viable <em>S. aureus</em> bioaerosols by filter-based samplers helps characterize personal exposure, requiring efficient sampling and post-sampling processing. However, the efficiencies of filtration sampling and cell extraction are undetermined for viable <em>S. aureus</em>. In coupled with quantitative PCR and propidium monoazide, the performance of three widely-used samplers (IOM, Button, and Cassette) loaded with polycarbonate (PC) or gelatin filters was evaluated over 30–270 min of sampling and compared to that of BioSampler containing deionized water (DW). Effects of sampler type, filter type, and sampling time on cell recovery efficiency of sampling methods were assessed. Methods to extract cells from filters were also studied. The 1.5-min vortexing in peptone-Tween mixture and 10-min heating in DW were respectively granted optimal for cell extraction from PC and gelatin filters with extraction efficiencies averaged 1.0–1.76 (n = 4). Both Button and IOM with 3-μm gelatin filter performed best to capture <em>S. aureus</em>, significantly greater than Button with 0.8-μm PC by a factor of 9–11 (P < 0.05) and Cassette or IOM with 0.2-μm PC by a factor of 15–79 (P < 0.05). Cassette and IOM with 0.2-μm PC also showed less efficiencies than BioSampler/DW by a factor of 4–16 (P < 0.05). Cell recovery efficiency was not affected by sampling time except for the Button with 0.8-μm PC. Overall, filter type is the most critical factor governing cell recovery efficiency. Button and IOM with gelatin filter and 10-min heating in DW are considered the most efficient filtration sampling and extraction methods for viable <em>S. aureus</em>.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":14880,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Aerosol Science","volume":"179 ","pages":"Article 106390"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficiencies of filtration sampling and extraction for recovery of viable Staphylococcus aureus bioaerosols\",\"authors\":\"Ching-Wen Chang , Yen-Ni Lin , Sheng-Hsiu Huang , Yu-Ju Horng\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jaerosci.2024.106390\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Airborne <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em> is detected in various locations and linked to human infection. Reliable quantification of viable <em>S. aureus</em> bioaerosols by filter-based samplers helps characterize personal exposure, requiring efficient sampling and post-sampling processing. However, the efficiencies of filtration sampling and cell extraction are undetermined for viable <em>S. aureus</em>. In coupled with quantitative PCR and propidium monoazide, the performance of three widely-used samplers (IOM, Button, and Cassette) loaded with polycarbonate (PC) or gelatin filters was evaluated over 30–270 min of sampling and compared to that of BioSampler containing deionized water (DW). Effects of sampler type, filter type, and sampling time on cell recovery efficiency of sampling methods were assessed. Methods to extract cells from filters were also studied. The 1.5-min vortexing in peptone-Tween mixture and 10-min heating in DW were respectively granted optimal for cell extraction from PC and gelatin filters with extraction efficiencies averaged 1.0–1.76 (n = 4). Both Button and IOM with 3-μm gelatin filter performed best to capture <em>S. aureus</em>, significantly greater than Button with 0.8-μm PC by a factor of 9–11 (P < 0.05) and Cassette or IOM with 0.2-μm PC by a factor of 15–79 (P < 0.05). Cassette and IOM with 0.2-μm PC also showed less efficiencies than BioSampler/DW by a factor of 4–16 (P < 0.05). Cell recovery efficiency was not affected by sampling time except for the Button with 0.8-μm PC. Overall, filter type is the most critical factor governing cell recovery efficiency. Button and IOM with gelatin filter and 10-min heating in DW are considered the most efficient filtration sampling and extraction methods for viable <em>S. aureus</em>.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Aerosol Science\",\"volume\":\"179 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106390\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Aerosol Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021850224000570\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Aerosol Science","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021850224000570","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
空气中的金黄色葡萄球菌可在不同地点检测到,并与人类感染有关。利用过滤采样器对存活的金黄色葡萄球菌生物气溶胶进行可靠的定量有助于确定个人接触的特征,这就要求高效的采样和采样后处理。然而,过滤采样和细胞提取对存活金黄色葡萄球菌的效率尚不确定。结合定量 PCR 和单氮化丙啶,我们对三种广泛使用的采样器(IOM、纽扣式和盒式)的性能进行了评估,这三种采样器装有聚碳酸酯(PC)或明胶过滤器,采样时间为 30-270 分钟,并与装有去离子水(DW)的生物采样器进行了比较。评估了采样器类型、过滤器类型和采样时间对采样方法细胞回收效率的影响。还研究了从过滤器中提取细胞的方法。在蛋白胨-吐温混合物中涡旋 1.5 分钟和在 DW 中加热 10 分钟分别被认为是从 PC 和明胶过滤器中提取细胞的最佳方法,提取效率平均为 1.0-1.76(n = 4)。使用 3-μm 明胶过滤器的 Button 和 IOM 在捕获金黄色葡萄球菌方面表现最佳,明显高于使用 0.8-μm PC 的 Button 9-11 倍(P < 0.05),而使用 0.2-μm PC 的 Cassette 或 IOM 则高出 15-79 倍(P < 0.05)。使用 0.2-μm PC 的 Cassette 和 IOM 的效率也比 BioSampler/DW 低 4-16 倍(P < 0.05)。除了使用 0.8-μm PC 的 Button 外,细胞回收效率不受采样时间的影响。总之,过滤器类型是影响细胞回收效率的最关键因素。使用明胶过滤器和在 DW 中加热 10 分钟的纽扣式过滤器和 IOM 被认为是最有效的金黄色葡萄球菌过滤取样和提取方法。
Efficiencies of filtration sampling and extraction for recovery of viable Staphylococcus aureus bioaerosols
Airborne Staphylococcus aureus is detected in various locations and linked to human infection. Reliable quantification of viable S. aureus bioaerosols by filter-based samplers helps characterize personal exposure, requiring efficient sampling and post-sampling processing. However, the efficiencies of filtration sampling and cell extraction are undetermined for viable S. aureus. In coupled with quantitative PCR and propidium monoazide, the performance of three widely-used samplers (IOM, Button, and Cassette) loaded with polycarbonate (PC) or gelatin filters was evaluated over 30–270 min of sampling and compared to that of BioSampler containing deionized water (DW). Effects of sampler type, filter type, and sampling time on cell recovery efficiency of sampling methods were assessed. Methods to extract cells from filters were also studied. The 1.5-min vortexing in peptone-Tween mixture and 10-min heating in DW were respectively granted optimal for cell extraction from PC and gelatin filters with extraction efficiencies averaged 1.0–1.76 (n = 4). Both Button and IOM with 3-μm gelatin filter performed best to capture S. aureus, significantly greater than Button with 0.8-μm PC by a factor of 9–11 (P < 0.05) and Cassette or IOM with 0.2-μm PC by a factor of 15–79 (P < 0.05). Cassette and IOM with 0.2-μm PC also showed less efficiencies than BioSampler/DW by a factor of 4–16 (P < 0.05). Cell recovery efficiency was not affected by sampling time except for the Button with 0.8-μm PC. Overall, filter type is the most critical factor governing cell recovery efficiency. Button and IOM with gelatin filter and 10-min heating in DW are considered the most efficient filtration sampling and extraction methods for viable S. aureus.
期刊介绍:
Founded in 1970, the Journal of Aerosol Science considers itself the prime vehicle for the publication of original work as well as reviews related to fundamental and applied aerosol research, as well as aerosol instrumentation. Its content is directed at scientists working in engineering disciplines, as well as physics, chemistry, and environmental sciences.
The editors welcome submissions of papers describing recent experimental, numerical, and theoretical research related to the following topics:
1. Fundamental Aerosol Science.
2. Applied Aerosol Science.
3. Instrumentation & Measurement Methods.