Excitation and Emission Wavelength Comparison Study for Bacterial Aerosol Identification Based on Intrinsic Fluorescence

Abstract:

Background: The rapid and efficient identification of bacterial aerosol become important in clinical application, public health, and manufacturing increasingly. Laser-induced-fluorescence is an important method for identifying bacteria from environmental aerosol. This method is real-time, can operate 24-hour without pretreatment, and even remotely. Objective: Choosing the optimal excitation and emission wavelength and designing an appropriate analysis apparatus fulfill identification of bacterial aerosol. Method: First, fluorescence spectral data of five different strains of bacteria (S.aureus, E.coli, Bacillus subtilis, salmonella, Vibrio Parahaemolyticus) and three types of disruptors (pollen, leave powder, cloth fiber) were obtained by Three-dimensional fluorescent spectrometer. Second, the original spectral data was preprocessed and analyzed in light of common laser wavelength. Last, the optimal excitation and emission wavelength was chosen based on the balance of identification performance and fabricating cost. Result: Experiments showed that choosing ex:266nm/em:354nm and ex:337nm/em:394nm as ex/em wavelength can meet the requirement to identify bacterial aerosol specifically. Furthermore, the 337nm/394nm wavelength had more practical value. Conclusion: Choosing 337nm wavelength laser as excitation light inducing intrinsic the fluorophores within bacterial aerosol and receiving emission fluorescence with 394nm bandpass light filter can differentiate bacteria from disruptors in environmental aerosol efficiently.

• Periodical: Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volume 696)
• Pages: 127-133
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.696.127
• Online since: November 2014
• Authors: Chen Yu Li*, Zhi Cheng, Feng Chen, Yao Hua Du, Long Xue Qiao, Hong Tao Bao, Tai Hu Wu
• Keywords: Bacterial Aerosol, Detecting Sensitivity, Laser-Induced-Fluorescence, Three-Dimensional Fluorescence Spectrometer

References

[1] Whitman W., Coleman D., Wiebe W. (1998). Prokaryotes: the unseen majority. ProcNatlAcadSci USA. 95(12): 6578–6583.

DOI: 10.1073/pnas.95.12.6578

[2] Giana H., Silveira L., Zangaro R. (2003). Rapid identification of bacterial species by fluorescence spectroscopy and classification through Principal Components Analysis. Journal of Fluorescence 13(6): 489-493.

DOI: 10.1023/b:jofl.0000008059.74052.3c

[3] Murray P., Baron E., Jorgensen J. (2007). Manual of Clinical Microbiology. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Microbiology.

[4] Belgrader P., Benett W., Hadley D. (1998). Rapid pathogen detection using a microchip PCR array instrument. Clin Chem 44(10): 2191-2195.

DOI: 10.1093/clinchem/44.10.2191

[5] Beatty B., Mai. S, Squire J. (2002). FISH: A Practical Approach. London: Oxford University Press.

[6] Rider T., Petrovick M., Nargi F. (2003). A B Cell-Based Sensor for Rapid Identification of Pathogens. Science 301(5630): 213-215.

DOI: 10.1126/science.1084920

[7] Lakowicz J. (2006). Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy(3rd ed). Berlin: Spriger-Verlag.

[8] Clegg R. (1995), Fluorescence resonance energy transfer. Curr Opin Biotechnol 6(1): 103-110.

[9] Parson W., (2007). Modern Optical Spectroscopy: With Examples from Biophysics and Biochemistry. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

[10] Liu B., Su R., Song Z. (2010). Research on the 3D fluorescence spectra differentiation of phytoplankton by coiflet2 wavelet. Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis 30(5): 1275-1283.

[11] Gorpas D., Andersson-Engels S. (2012). Evaluation fo a radiative transfer equation and diffusion approximation hybrid forward solver for fluorescence molecular imaging. J Biomed Opt 17(12): 126010.

DOI: 10.1117/1.jbo.17.12.126010