摘要
目的通过试验比较两种不同类型的空气微生物采样器的采样效果。方法在实验室模拟和现场的情况下使用两种不同类型的空气微生物采样器进行空气采样,并比较两种采样器的采样效果。结果 Sampl’air固体空气微生物采样器的稳定性优于Coriolisμ液体空气微生物采样器(低浓度情况下其CV Sampl’air=11.79%,CV Coriolisμ=26.31%;高浓度情况下其CV Sampl'air=6.09%,CV Coriolisμ=11.61%)。在实验室模拟试验中,两种不同类型的空气微生物采样器对染菌空气中的粘质沙雷氏溶胶和白色葡萄球菌气溶胶的采样效果之间的差异有统计学意义(t serratia marrescens=21.33,P1<0.001;t staphylococcus albus=33.31,P2<0.001);对真菌气溶胶的采样效果之间的差异有统计学意义(t=25.96,P2<0.001)。在现场试验中,两种不同类型的空气微生物采样器对自然菌气溶胶的采样效果之间的差异有统计学意义(t=17.02,P<0.001);Coriolisμ液体空气微生物采样器的采样效果优于Sampl'air固体空气微生物采样器。结论使用者在进行空气微生物研究和现场监测时,可以优先考虑使用Coriolisμ采样器。
Objective To compare the sampling effects of two different types of air microbial sampler through tests. Methods Two different types of air microbial sampler were used to conduct the air sampling under the laboratory simulation and field test, and then the sampling effects were compared. Results The Sampl ＇air solid air-sampler was more stable than the Coriolis p liquid air-sampler. The bacteria and fungi aerosol sampling effects of Coriolis p liquid air- sampler were better than those of Sampl ＇air solid air-sampler in the laboratory simulation test （P 〈 0. 001 ）. Besides, the natural bacteria aerosol sampling effects of Coriolis liquid air-sampler were better than those of Sampl＇air solid air-sampler in the field test （P 〈 O. 001 ）. Conclusions The Coriolis sampler can be given priority to the air microbiology research and filed monitoring.
出处
《中华疾病控制杂志》
CAS
北大核心
2014年第1期51-54,共4页
Chinese Journal of Disease Control & Prevention
基金
国家质检总局科技计划项目(2011IK143
2008IK202)
