Cargando…
Monitoring the effects of different conservation treatments on paper-infecting fungi
Fungi are among the most degradative organisms inducing biodeterioration of paper-based items of cultural heritage. Appropriate conservation measures and restoration treatments to deal with fungal infections include mechanical, chemical, and biological methods, which entail effects on the paper itse...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier Applied Science
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3728566/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2012.08.005 |
_version_ | 1782278884504371200 |
---|---|
author | Michaelsen, Astrid Pinzari, Flavia Barbabietola, Nicoletta Piñar, Guadalupe |
author_facet | Michaelsen, Astrid Pinzari, Flavia Barbabietola, Nicoletta Piñar, Guadalupe |
author_sort | Michaelsen, Astrid |
collection | PubMed |
description | Fungi are among the most degradative organisms inducing biodeterioration of paper-based items of cultural heritage. Appropriate conservation measures and restoration treatments to deal with fungal infections include mechanical, chemical, and biological methods, which entail effects on the paper itself and health hazards for humans. Three different conservation treatments, namely freeze-drying, gamma rays, and ethylene oxide fumigation, were compared and monitored to assess their short- (one month, T1) and long-term (one year, T2) effectiveness to inhibit fungal growth. After the inoculation with fungi possessing cellulose hydrolysis ability — Chaetomium globosum, Trichoderma viride, and Cladosporium cladosporioides — as single strains or as a mixture, different quality paper samples were treated and screened for fungal viability by culture-dependent and -independent techniques. Results derived from both strategies were contradictory. Both gamma irradiation and EtO fumigation showed full efficacy as disinfecting agents when evaluated with cultivation techniques. However, when using molecular analyses, the application of gamma rays showed a short-term reduction in DNA recovery and DNA fragmentation; the latter phenomenon was also observed in a minor degree in samples treated with freeze-drying. When RNA was used as an indicator of long-term fungal viability, differences in the RNA recovery from samples treated with freeze-drying or gamma rays could be observed in samples inoculated with the mixed culture. Only the treatment with ethylene oxide proved negative for both DNA and RNA recovery. Therefore, DNA fragmentation after an ethylene oxide treatment can hamper future paleogenetic and archaeological molecular studies on the objects. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3728566 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Elsevier Applied Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-37285662013-10-01 Monitoring the effects of different conservation treatments on paper-infecting fungi Michaelsen, Astrid Pinzari, Flavia Barbabietola, Nicoletta Piñar, Guadalupe Int Biodeterior Biodegradation Article Fungi are among the most degradative organisms inducing biodeterioration of paper-based items of cultural heritage. Appropriate conservation measures and restoration treatments to deal with fungal infections include mechanical, chemical, and biological methods, which entail effects on the paper itself and health hazards for humans. Three different conservation treatments, namely freeze-drying, gamma rays, and ethylene oxide fumigation, were compared and monitored to assess their short- (one month, T1) and long-term (one year, T2) effectiveness to inhibit fungal growth. After the inoculation with fungi possessing cellulose hydrolysis ability — Chaetomium globosum, Trichoderma viride, and Cladosporium cladosporioides — as single strains or as a mixture, different quality paper samples were treated and screened for fungal viability by culture-dependent and -independent techniques. Results derived from both strategies were contradictory. Both gamma irradiation and EtO fumigation showed full efficacy as disinfecting agents when evaluated with cultivation techniques. However, when using molecular analyses, the application of gamma rays showed a short-term reduction in DNA recovery and DNA fragmentation; the latter phenomenon was also observed in a minor degree in samples treated with freeze-drying. When RNA was used as an indicator of long-term fungal viability, differences in the RNA recovery from samples treated with freeze-drying or gamma rays could be observed in samples inoculated with the mixed culture. Only the treatment with ethylene oxide proved negative for both DNA and RNA recovery. Therefore, DNA fragmentation after an ethylene oxide treatment can hamper future paleogenetic and archaeological molecular studies on the objects. Elsevier Applied Science 2013-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3728566/ /pubmed/24092956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2012.08.005 Text en © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Open Access under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) license |
spellingShingle | Article Michaelsen, Astrid Pinzari, Flavia Barbabietola, Nicoletta Piñar, Guadalupe Monitoring the effects of different conservation treatments on paper-infecting fungi |
title | Monitoring the effects of different conservation treatments on paper-infecting fungi |
title_full | Monitoring the effects of different conservation treatments on paper-infecting fungi |
title_fullStr | Monitoring the effects of different conservation treatments on paper-infecting fungi |
title_full_unstemmed | Monitoring the effects of different conservation treatments on paper-infecting fungi |
title_short | Monitoring the effects of different conservation treatments on paper-infecting fungi |
title_sort | monitoring the effects of different conservation treatments on paper-infecting fungi |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3728566/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2012.08.005 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT michaelsenastrid monitoringtheeffectsofdifferentconservationtreatmentsonpaperinfectingfungi AT pinzariflavia monitoringtheeffectsofdifferentconservationtreatmentsonpaperinfectingfungi AT barbabietolanicoletta monitoringtheeffectsofdifferentconservationtreatmentsonpaperinfectingfungi AT pinarguadalupe monitoringtheeffectsofdifferentconservationtreatmentsonpaperinfectingfungi |