Average rating:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of importance:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of validity:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of completeness:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of comprehensibility:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Competing interests:	None

Reviewed article

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Mind the gap between non-activated (non-aggressive) and activated (aggressive) indoor fungal testing: a short paper

Spyros Efthymiopoulos, Aktas Yasemin, Altamirano Hector (2022)

Indoor fungal testing has been within the researchers’ scope of interest for more than a century. Various sampling and analysis techniques have been developed over the years, but no testing protocol has been yet standardised and widely accepted by the research and practitioner communities. The enormous diversity in fungal taxa within buildings with varied biological properties, and implications on the health and wellbeing of the occupants and the building fabric complicates the decision-making process for selecting an appropriate testing protocol. This study aims to present a critical review of non-activated (or non-aggressive/passive) and activated (or aggressive/active) approaches focusing on the preparation of the indoor environment prior to sampling. The study emphasises the potential errors while interpreting results obtained from testing protocols based on non-activated and activated strategies.

2 comments Cited 0 times – based on 0 reviews

Preprint version 1

     Review now

Bookmark

Review information

DOI:: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-ENG.AUQO9A.v1.RRIGGJ

License:

This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

ScienceOpen disciplines: Engineering

Keywords: Mould growth assessment,Non-aggressive,Built environment,Aggressive,The Environment,Fungal testing,Sustainable development,Indoor fungi,Mould

Review text

In the first paragraph, you state that ‘…indoor fungal testing has not yet been standardised’, and then reference a standard (BS EN ISO 16000-19:2014). This could be clarified.

The term activated vs non-activated is a bit confusing, given active vs passive air sampling methods.

I imagine the methods also reflect the research questions. ie. what are all the types of fungi in the building (activated) vs what are people exposed to under normal operating conditions (non-activated). This is covered somewhat in section 2.1, but could be expanded on.

section 2.2 – air speed can also lead to the air pressure differentials which could draw spores out of spaces where they would not normally come from. It may not only be a question of the duration of aerosolising spores, but also the pressure differential created.

The experimental section is interesting, but particle sensors are used, not bioaerosol samplers. So this would show the effects of air speed on all particles not just fungal spores.

Comments

Comment on this review

Version and Review History

Published Version

Preprint version 3

Preprint version 2

Reviewed by Birgitte Andersen Reviewed by Jonathon Taylor

Preprint version 1

Reviewed by Jonathon Taylor Reviewed by Birgitte Andersen