Show simple item record

Comparative recoveries of airborne fungus spores by viable and non-viable modes of volumetric collection

dc.contributor.authorBurge, Harriet P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBoise, J. R.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRutherford, J. A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSolomon, William R.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-09-08T21:16:46Z
dc.date.available2006-09-08T21:16:46Z
dc.date.issued1977-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationBurge, Harriet P.; Boise, J. R.; Rutherford, J. A.; Solomon, W. R.; (1977). "Comparative recoveries of airborne fungus spores by viable and non-viable modes of volumetric collection." Mycopathologia 61(1): 27-33. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/43291>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0301-486Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1573-0832en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/43291
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=895829&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractThe suitability of viable and non-viable volumetric collectors as prevalence indicators for potentially allergenic airborne fungi was studied during 124 paired exposures of the Burkard (Hirst) spore trap and a modified, wind-oriented Andersen sampler. Overall, viable recoveries of several Cladosporium form species varied directly with microscopic spore counts (p≤0.0001). However, as spore levels rose, culture plate data progressively underestimated prevailing concentrations (recoveries falling below 5% at levels above 500 spores/M 3 ). Viable collections yielded low estimates of prevalence (20–40%) even at modest Cladosporium levels (< 100 spores/M 3 ) and substantially understated the abundance and regularity in air of several additional taxa. Spores typical of Penicillium and Aspergillus form species were not sought in spore trap deposits. Careful examination of these failed to reveal typical arthrospores or Fusarium macrospores despite substantial recoveries of corresponding growth in culture. Correlations in the occurrence patterns of arthrospore-forming and non-sporulating colonies with those of Coprinus and ‘other basidiospores’ (excluding Ganoderma) were noted.en_US
dc.format.extent677511 bytes
dc.format.extent3115 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherKluwer Academic Publishers; Dr. W. Junk bv - Publishers ; Springer Science+Business Mediaen_US
dc.subject.otherLife Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.otherMedical Microbiologyen_US
dc.subject.otherMicrobial Ecologyen_US
dc.subject.otherMicrobiologyen_US
dc.subject.otherPlant Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.otherAnimal Anatomy / Morphology / Histologyen_US
dc.titleComparative recoveries of airborne fungus spores by viable and non-viable modes of volumetric collectionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEcology and Evolutionary Biologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumSection of Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, and Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumSection of Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, and Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumSection of Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, and Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumSection of Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, and Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampusAnn Arboren_US
dc.identifier.pmid895829en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43291/1/11046_2004_Article_BF00440755.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00440755en_US
dc.identifier.sourceMycopathologiaen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.