Detection of<i>Legionella pneumophila</i>in bioaerosols by polymerase chain reaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most studies focusing on detecting microorganisms in air by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) have used a liquid impinger to sample bioaerosols, mainly because a liquid sample is easy to be processed by PCR analysis. Nevertheless, the use of multiple-hole impactors for the analysis of bioaerosols by PCR has not been reported despite its great utility in culture analysis. In this study we have modified the impaction onto an agar surface sampling method to impaction onto a liquid medium using the MAS-100 air sampler (Merck) (single-stage multiple-hole impactor). To evaluate the recovery of airborne microorganisms of both sampling methods, a suspension containing Escherichia coli was artificially aerosolized and bioaerosols were collected onto Tergitol-7 agar and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) with the MAS-100. A linear regression analysis of the results showed a strong positive correlation between both sampling methods (r = 0.99, slope 0.99, and y intercept 0.07). Afterwards, the method of impingement into a liquid medium was used to study airborne Legionella pneumophila by PCR. A total of 64 samples were taken at a wastewater treatment plant, a chemical plant, and an office building and analyzed by culture and PCR. Results showed that three samples were positive both by PCR and plate culture, and that nine samples negative by plate culture were positive by PCR, proving that L. pneumophila was present in bioaerosols from these three different environments. The results demonstrate the utility of this single-stage multiple-hole impactor for sampling bioaerosols, both by culture and by PCR.Key words: Legionella pneumophila, bioaerosols, PCR, multiple-hole impactor.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".