{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02600896860986547, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008071748878923767, 'mean_word_length': 5.526315789473684, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Enumeration and identification of airborne viable mould propagules in houses

A number of techniques for the enumeration and identification of viable mould propagules in the indoor air of houses were evaluated in order to document to what extent different results are obtained when different methods are used. A comparison was made between the results obtained with five commercially available air sampling devices (Slit‐to agar sampler, N6‐Andersen sampler, Surface Air System sampler, Reuter Centrifugal Air sampler. Gelatine Filter sampler) and a non‐volumetric sampler (the Open Petri Dish), in combination with four culture media (malt extract agar, dichloran glycerol‐18 agar, oxytetracycline glucose yeast extract agar and dichloran rose bengal chloramphenicol agar). The coefficients of variation were high (generally < 20%) for all combinations. Statistical analysis showed that the Slit sampler and the N6‐Andersen sampler in combination with DG18 and MEA gave the best precision and the highest yield in terms of colony forming units per square cubic meter of air (CFU/m3) and number of species isolated.