Volume 13, Number 1—January 2007
Research
Cryptococcus gattii Dispersal Mechanisms, British Columbia, Canada
Sarah E. Kidd*, Paxton J. Bach*, Adrian O. Hingston*, Sunny Mak†, Yat Chow*, Laura MacDougall†, James W. Kronstad*, and Karen H. Bartlett*
Table 2
Airborne Cryptococcus gattii concentration before and during contracted tree-cutting activities
| Tree-cutting activity | Sampling method | C. gattii concentration in air (CFU/m3) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red alder | Douglas fir | ||
| Quiescent | Swab | Positive | Positive |
| Air; Andersen 6-stage* | 381 | 2,073 | |
| Limb removal | Air; Andersen 6-stage | 5,707 | 940 |
| Air; Andersen 6-stage | 3,622 | 1,279 | |
| Felling | Air; RCS-Plus,† 12–15 m above ground | 906 | 294 |
| Air; RCS-Plus, 12–15 m above ground | 881 | 213 | |
| Cutting limbs | Air; RCS-Plus, 6 m above ground | 750 | 1,719 |
| Air; RCS-Plus, 6 m above ground | – | 2,968 | |
| Cutting tree trunk | Air; RCS-Plus, 0–3 m above ground | 21,250 | 225 |
| Wood chipping | Air; RCS-Plus | 53,125 | 21,250 |
*Limit of detection of method: 6 CFU/m3.
†RCS, Reuter centrifugal sampler; limit of detection of method: 5 CFU/m3.
Page created: June 28, 2010
Page updated: June 28, 2010
Page reviewed: June 28, 2010
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.