環境資源報告成果查詢系統

室內空氣中微生物調查技術之探討

中文摘要 室內空氣品質係為近年重要之環境衛生議題。本計畫針對「直接推盤塗抹法」與「濾膜法」兩種前處理方法，以及「無菌水」(Deionized water, DW)與「含有Tween之無菌水」(Tween mixture, TM)二種收集液對液體採樣器採樣效能之影響進行評比，並根據「空氣中細菌濃度檢測方法（NIEA E301.13C）」與「空氣中真菌濃度檢測方法（NIEA E401.13C）」，選出四類液體採樣器(高流量A、B採樣器與低流量C、D採樣器)及一款衝擊式採樣器(E採樣器)，進行生物氣膠採樣效能評估。 結果顯示濾膜法雖有較高陽性率，但卻顯著低估空氣中微生物濃度，故續以直接推盤塗抹法分析樣本。而收集液評估，則見TM對細菌採樣效能較佳，至於真菌則無顯著差異。然考量樣本若保存不當，TM可能促使樣本中微生物增生，故改以磷酸緩衝液(Phosphate buffer saline, PBS)進行後續樣本採集。 五類採樣器評估發現，細菌陽性率皆為100%，而真菌檢出率由小至大依序為D採樣器(75 %,15/20)、C採樣器(85%, 17/20)、B採樣器(95 %,19/20)與A、E採樣器陽性率(100 %)。細菌平均檢出濃度由大至小依序為E採樣器(853.4 CFU/m3)、C採樣器(651.4 CFU/m3)、D採樣器(462.6 CFU/m3)、B採樣器(449.5 CFU/m3)與A採樣器 (369.3 CFU/m3)，但五採樣器間無顯著差異(p > 0.05)；細菌RA值則達統計顯著差異(p<0.01)，其中，E採樣器之RA值顯著高於A、B採樣器。真菌濃度方面亦以E採樣器最高 (328.0 CFU/m3)，其次為C採樣器(219.0 CFU/m3)、D採樣器(179.2 CFU/m3)、A採樣器(71.4 CFU/m3)與B採樣器(69.6 CFU/m3)，彼此亦無顯著差異；真菌RA值方面則以E採樣器顯著高於四種液體採樣器，而液體採樣器中則以C、D採樣器顯著高於A、B採樣器。 綜上所述，衝擊式採樣器表現優於四種液體採樣器，然值得注意的是C液體採樣器於真菌與細菌之檢出濃度、細菌RA值以及是否符合法令規範上，其表現均與衝擊式E採樣器相當。
中文關鍵字 液體採樣器、空氣中細菌、空氣中真菌

基本資訊

專案計畫編號 EPA-103-1605-02-02 經費年度 103 計畫經費 1480 千元
專案開始日期 2014/03/12 專案結束日期 2014/12/31 專案主持人 張靜文
主辦單位 環檢所 承辦人 尹開民 執行單位 國立臺灣大學

成果下載

類型 檔名 檔案大小 說明
期末報告 EPA10316050202_詳細版摘要.pdf 0MB
英文摘要 Indoor air quality has become an important issue in Taiwan. In this study, the effects of two sample treatment methods (spread plates and membrane filtration) and two collection fluids (deionized water (DW) and Tween mixture (TM)) were evaluated. Moreover, four liquid samplers (Sampler A, B, C and D) and one agar impactor (Sampler E) were further tested for their biological collection efficiencies on airborne bacteria and fungi. Results show the positive rates of the membrane filtration method were greater than those of the spread plate method, whereas the membrane filtration method tended to underestimate the concentrations of culturable bacteria and fungi. On the other hand, the TM was performed superior to the DW. Considering the potential of the TM to promote microbial growth, phosphate buffer saline (PBS) was adopted in the following tests on five types of bioaerosol samplers. The 100% detection of airborne bacteria were revealed by five kinds of tested samplers. For fungal detection, Sampler D had the lowest positive rate (75 %, 15/20), followed by Sampler C (85%, 17/20), Sampler B (95 %, 19/20) and Sampler A and E ( both: 100%). The trend in bacterial concentrations in descending order was Sampler E (853.4 CFU/m3), Sampler C (651.4 CFU/m3), Sampler D ( 462.6 CFU/m3), Sampler B (449.5 CFU/m3) and Sampler A (369.3 CFU/m3). However, no statistically significant difference was noted among five tested samplers (p>0.05). Results of bacterial RA showed the Sampler E performed better than Sampler A and B (p <0.01). In term of fungal concentrations, Sampler E obtained greater concentrations than four liquid samplers but at statistically insignificant levels (p>0.05). The RA values show the Sampler E performed better than Sampler C and D, followed by Sampler A and B (p < 0.01). In conclusion, the Sampler E performed better than four tested liquid samplers (A-D). However, it should be noted that the Sampler C presented similar results in bacterial and fungal concentrations and bacterial RA values as compared to the Sampler E.
英文關鍵字 Liquid sampler, Airborne bacteria, Airborne fungi