Abstract

There is no standardized protocol for the assessment of microbial air contamination in museums and other cultural heritage sites. Therefore, most museums conduct such assessments based on their own guidelines or good practices. Usually, microbial air contamination is assessed using only classical microbiology methods with the application of a single growth medium. Therefore, this medium should be carefully selected to limit any selective cultivation bias. Metabarcoding, i.e., a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based method, combined with classical microbiological culturing was used to assess the effectiveness of various media applications in microbiological screening at the Museum of King John III’s Palace at Wilanow (Warsaw, Poland). The obtained results indicated that when using a classical microbiology approach to assess the microbial air contamination at the museum, the selection of a proper growth medium was critical. It was shown that the use of rich media (commonly applied by museum conservators) introduced significant bias by severely underreporting putative human pathogens and the bacterial species involved in biodeterioration. Therefore, we recommend the use of other media, such as Frazier or Reasoner’s 2A (R2A) medium, as they could yield more diverse communities and recovered the highest number of genera containing human pathogens, which may be suitable for public health assessments.

Highlights

  • Microbial indoor air contamination is attracting increasing attention from researchers

  • We focused on airborne mesophilic bacteria, as this group provides the best estimate for contamination with human pathogens [30]

  • In order to obtain the most comprehensive results, based on our findings, we suggest starting with the Frazier agar (FA) medium and depending on the available resources, adding other media in the following order: Reasoner’s 2A (R2A), lysogeny broth agar (LB), nutrient agar (NA), Blickfeldt agar (BA), Brain Heart Infusion agar (BHI), and yeast extract agar (YEA)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Microbial indoor air contamination is attracting increasing attention from researchers. In 1955, in one of the first articles on this topic, Wells proposed that clean air should contain no more than. Other researchers proposed similar thresholds for clean, non-contaminated indoor air [2]. The common usage of such standards clearly indicates the importance of classical microbiology methods for indoor. Sci. 2020, 10, 7128 air quality assessments. This approach is highly variable and strongly dependent on the institution performing the analysis and the applied methodology. The very first step of such an analysis may involve various approaches, i.e., active (oftentimes involving the usage of various air samplers and impactors) [3] and passive sampling [4,5]. Different results may, be produced, even for the same indoor area

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call