The influence of sampling duration on recovery of culturable fungi using the Andersen N6 and RCS bioaerosol samplers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The influence of sampling duration on recovery of culturable fungi was compared using the Andersen N6 and the Reuter Centrifugal Sampler (RCS). Samplers were operated side-by-side, collecting 15 samples each of incrementally increasing duration (1-15 min). From 270 samples collected, 26 fungal genera were recovered. Species of Alternaria, Aspergillus, Cladosporium, Epicoccum, Penicillium and Ulocladium were most frequent. Data adjusted to CFU/m3 were fitted to a Poisson regression model with a logarithmic link function and evaluated for the impact of sampling time on qualitative and quantitative recovery of fungi, both as individual taxa and in aggregate according to xerotolerance. Significant differences between the two samplers were observed for xerotolerant and normotolerant moulds, as well as Aspergillus spp. and Cladosporium spp. With the exception of Cladosporium spp., overall recoveries were higher with the RCS. When the Andersen N6 was used, the recovered levels of Cladosporium spp. and unidentified yeasts were reduced significantly at sampling times over 6 min. Similarly, when the RCS was used, recovery of Aspergillus spp., Penicillium spp., Ulocladium spp., unidentified yeasts, and low water activity fungi declined significantly at sampling times over 6 min. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Currently, the industry-wide trend for viable air sampling in indoor environmental investigations is to use sampling times between 2 and 4 min in duration. Our results support the routine use of a 6-min sampling time where low spore loads are expected, resulting in improved limits of detection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".