Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33338037›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

A comparison of several media types and basic techniques used to assess outdoor airborne fungi in Melbourne, Australia.

Wesley D Black

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Mycelium Growth and Development ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Two novelFungal systematics and evolution · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Advances and Challenges in FluorescenceFrontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Microorganisms · 2021
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Wesley D BlackBiotopia Environmental Assessment, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6611-4404

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the recent increase in interest in indoor air quality regarding mould, there is no universally accepted standard media for the detection of airborne fungi, nor verification of many commonly used techniques. Commonly used media including malt-extract agar (MEA), Sabouraud dextrose agar (Sab), potato dextrose agar (PDA) with and without antibiotics chloramphenicol & gentamycin (CG) were compared for their suitability in detecting a range of airborne fungi by collecting 150 L outdoor air on a number of different days and seasons via an Anderson 400-hole sampler in suburban Melbourne, Australia. There was relatively little variation in mean numbers of colony forming units (CFU) and types of fungi recovered between MEA, PDA, Sab media groups relative to variation within each group. There was a significant difference between Sab, Dichloran-18% glycerol (DG18) and V8® Original juice agar media, however. Antibiotics reliably prevented the growth of bacteria that typically interfered with the growth and appearance of fungal colonies. There was no significant evidence for a growth enhancing factor from potato, mineral supplements or various vegetable juices. Differing glucose concentrations had modest effects, showing a vague ideal at 2%-4% with peptone. Sanitisation of the aluminium Andersen 400-hole sampler top-plate by flame is possible, but not strictly required nor advisable. The use of SabCG as a standard medium was generally supported.

Indexed as

AgarAir MicrobiologyAir Pollution, IndoorAustraliaColony Count, MicrobialCulture MediaEnvironmental MonitoringFungiSeasonsAgarCulture Media

Identifiers

PMID33338037
PMCPMC7748268
OpenAlexW3117356697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.