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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Michaelsen, Astrid, Pinzari, Flavia, Barbabietola, Nicoletta, Piñar, Guadalupe
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