# Cotton Terry Textiles with Photo- and Bio-Activity in a Model Study and Real Conditions
## 3 Results
This is because the duration of lighting was much longer than in the bathroom with artificial lighting (Table 5). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Towels/Light Conditions**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Days**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Number of Microorganisms in the Air**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Gas Concentrations in the Air**} \\  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**During Use of Towels**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**During Use of Towels**} \\ \cline{3-7}  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Bacteria (CFU/m2)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Fungi (CFU/m2)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**NO2 (ppm)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**CO2 (vol%)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**CO (ppm)**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Control(artificial light} & 1 & M: \(2.19\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(3.65\times 10^{2}\) & M: \(1.77\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(5.51\times 10^{1}\) & M: \(0.46\) SD: \(0.06\) & M: \(0.14\) SD: \(0.01\) & M: \(3.36\)7 SD: \(4.51\) \\  & 4 & M: \(1.84\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(3.28\times 10^{2}\) & M: \(1.21\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(1.79\times 10^{5}\) & M: \(0.43\) SD: \(0.11\) & M: \(0.18\) SD: \(0.01\) & M: \(32.33\) SD: \(4.16\) \\  & 7 & M: \(2.13\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(2.80\times 10^{2}\) & M: \(1.37\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(1.55\times 10^{3}\) & M: \(0.43\) SD: \(0.21\) & M: \(0.17\) SD: \(0.01\) & M: \(40.33\) SD: \(5.86\) \\  & MSD & **M: \(2.65\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(1.87\times 10^{2}\)** & M: \(1.45\times 10^{2}\)** SD: \(1.55\times 10^{3}\)** & **M: \(0.44\) SD: \(0.02\)** & **M: \(0.16\) SD: \(0.02\)** & **M: \(38.45\) SD: \(4.28\)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Control(natural light} & 1 & M: \(1.69\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(3.91\times 10^{2}\) & M: \(4.67\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(1.04\times 10^{3}\) & M: \(0.02\) SD: \(0.00\) & M: \(0.12\) SD: \(5.33\) SD: \(51.28\) \\  & 4 & M: \(1.17\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(1.94\times 10^{2}\) & M: \(9.67\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(1.03\times 10^{1}\) & M: \(0.03\) SD: \(0.01\) & M: \(0.13\) SD: \(0.01\) & M: \(20.33\) SD: \(0.40\) \\  & 7 & M: \(1.55\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(4.59\times 10^{2}\) & M: \(4.87\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(1.63\times 10^{3}\) & M: \(0.02\) SD: \(0.01\) & M: \(0.11\) SD: \(0.01\) & M: \(20.01\) SD: \(1.00\) \\  & MSD & **M: \(1.47\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(2.69\times 10^{2}\)** & **M: \(6.40\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(2.83\times 10^{4}\)** & **M: \(0.02\) SD: \(0.01\)** & **M: \(0.12\) SD: \(0.01\)** & **M: \(22.22\) SD: \(2.71\)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Modified/artificial light} & 1 & M: \(1.12\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(1.23\times 10^{2}\) & M: \(7.00\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(2.65\times 10^{4}\) & M: \(0.33\) SD: \(0.06\) & M: \(0.13\) SD: \(0.01\) & M: \(43.00\) SD: \(7.00\) \\  & 4 & M: \(8.33\times 10^{5}\) SD: \(2.52\times 10^{2}\) & M: \(2.33\timesThe gas concentration in the air of bathrooms where control towels were used (NO\({}_{2}\): 0.02-0.44 ppm; CO\({}_{2}\): 0.12-0.16 vol%; CO: 22.22-35.44 ppm) was statistically higher than in the air of bathrooms where modified towels were used (NO\({}_{2}\): 0.00-0.11 ppm; CO\({}_{2}\): 0.09-0.12 vol%; CO: 8.33-23.44 ppm) (Table 5). The lowest concentrations of gases in the air were found in the bathroom with natural lighting, where photocatalytically modified towels were used. One-hundred-and-eleven volatile organic compounds were detected in the air above the tested towels. Most could be of cosmetic origin (96 compounds), but some were of textile (38 compounds) and microbial (29 compounds) origins (Table 6). Among the identified volatile compounds, 25 were detected in all samples and 36 in towel samples before use (textile origin). Among all the identified compounds, the concentration of 66 volatile compounds in the air above the modified towels decreased compared to the control towels. An increase in the concentration of VOCs in the air was found for 32 compounds, while no change was found for 13 compounds. Moreover, 17 compounds were not detected in the air above modified towels compared to the control towels.