Abstract
Bacterial recovery by a portable Reuter centrifugal air sampler and a standard Mattson-Garvin slit-to-agar air sampler was compared in a series of experiments. Microbial air quality was monitored in seven typical laboratory locations. Tests showed that the Reuter centrifugal air sampler yielded significantly higher recoveries than did the slit-to-agar unit.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Bovallius A., Bucht B., Roffey R., Anäs P. Three-year investigation of the natural airborne bacterial flora at four localities in sweden. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1978 May;35(5):847–852. doi: 10.1128/aem.35.5.847-852.1978. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gröschel D. H. Air sampling in hospitals. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1980;353:230–240. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1980.tb18926.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Loughhead H. O., Moffett J. A. Air sampling techniques for monitoring microbiological contamination. Bull Parenter Drug Assoc. 1971 Nov-Dec;25(6):261–265. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Raiman H. L. Panel discussion: environmental sampling in an aseptic environment. I. Microbiological environmental monitoring. Bull Parenter Drug Assoc. 1974 Nov-Dec;28(6):253–260. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]