AEM
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Alvarez, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Stetzenbach, L. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Alvarez, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Stetzenbach, L. D.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Alvarez, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Stetzenbach, L. D.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Appl. Environ. Microbiol., Oct 1995, 3639-3644, Vol 61, No. 10
Copyright © 1995, American Society for Microbiology

PCR for bioaerosol monitoring: sensitivity and environmental interference

AJ Alvarez, MP Buttner and LD Stetzenbach
Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas 89154-4009, USA.

The PCR technique has potential for use in detection of low concentrations of airborne microorganisms. In this study, the sensitivity of PCR and its susceptibility to environmental interference were assessed with Escherichia coli DH1 as the target organism. Air samples, containing environmental bioaerosols, were collected with AGI- 30 samplers and seeded with E. coli DH1 cells. Parallel studies were performed with cells seeded into the sampler prior to collection of air samples to determine the effects of environmental inhibition and sampling stress on the PCR assay. Baseline studies were also performed without environmental challenge or sampling stress to compare two protocols for cell lysis, solid phase and freeze-thaw. Amplification of a plasmid target sequence resulted in a detection limit of a single bacterial cell by the freeze-thaw and solid-phase methods within 5 and 9 h, respectively. With a genomic target, the sensitivity of the solid- phase method was 10-fold lower than that of freeze-thaw. Samples which contained 10(3) to 10(4) CFU of environmental organisms per m3 inhibited amplification; however, a 1/10 dilution of these samples resulted in successful amplifications. No difference in sensitivity of the PCR assay was obtained as a result of sampling stress, although a 10-fold decrease in culturability was observed. A field validation of the protocol with genomic primers demonstrated the presence of airborne E. coli and/or Shigella spp. in outdoor samples. This study indicates that the PCR method for detection of airborne microorganisms is rapid and sensitive and can be used as an alternative method for air quality monitoring.


This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Eukaryot. Cell All ASM Journals

Copyright © 1995 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.