Detection of Airborne Bacteria in a Duck Production Facility with Two Different Personal Air Sampling Devices for an Exposure Assessment

Abstract

Prevalent airborne microorganisms are not well characterized in industrial animal production buildings with respect to their quantity or quality. To investigate the work-related microbial exposure, personal bioaerosol sampling during the whole working day is recommended. Therefore, bioaerosol sampling in a duck hatchery and a duck house with two personal air sampling devices, a filter-based PGP and a NIOSH particle size separator, was performed. Subsequent, quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out with" culture independent methods. Total cell concentrations (TCC) determined via fluorescence microscopy showed no difference between the two devices. In average, 8 × 10(6) cells/m(3) were determined in the air of the duck hatchery and 5 × 10(7) cells/m(3) in the air of the duck house. A Generated Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) pattern revealed deviant bacterial compositions comparing samples collected with both devices. Clone library analyses based on 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis from the hatchery's air showed 65% similarity between the two sampling devices. Detailed 16S rRNA gene sequence analyses showed the occurrence of bacterial species like Acinetobacter baumannii, Enterococcus faecalis, Escherichia sp., and Shigella sp.; and a group of Staphylococcus delphini, S. intermedius, and S. pseudintermedius that provided the evidence of potential exposure to risk group 2 bacteria at the hatchery workplace. Size fractionated sampling with the developed by the Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance (IFA) device revealed that pathogenic bacteria would deposit in the inhalable, the thorax, and possibly alveolar dust fraction according to EN481. TCC analysis showed the deposition of bacterial cells in the third stage (< 1μm) at the NIOSH device which implies that bacteria can reach deep into the lungs and contaminate the alveolus after inhalation. Nevertheless, both personal sampling devices could be recommended for exposure assessment at agricultural workplaces.

Adolescent lung function associated with incense burning and other environmental exposures at home

“…Kearney et al 30 also found that the values of lung function among poultry workers were smaller than predicted values. Martine et al 31 analyzed the bioaerosol samples from a duck production facility and observed bacteria such as Escherichia, Shigella, Staphylococcus in deposited particles, with diameters below 1 μm, which may be inhaled into alveoli.…”

Performance of Two Different Techniques to Concentrate Samples for Bioaerosol Quantification

“…The processing of field bioaerosol samples using the CP-150 yielded a higher quantity of total biological particles in the final solution than in the initial solution, most likely due to the use of the detergent which deagglomerated the particle clusters [30,31]. As a result, the loss of total particles when processing the field samples could not be determined.…”

One Health Approach to Tackle Microbial Contamination on Poultries—A Systematic Review

“…The majority of studies (31 out of 58, 53%) were performed on poultry farms [23,24,27,28,[30][31][32]35,36,38,40,41,43,44,48,49,54,55,57,60,62,63,66,[68][69][70][71][72]74,76,78]; followed by animal farms (19 out of 58%, 33%), namely, six on poultry and swine farms [40,[50][51][52]58,64], two on poultry and dairy farms [37,53], two on poultry farms, sheep sheds, and horse stables [33,49], one on cattle, chicken, swine, and sheep [67], one on poultry, swine, and cattle [59], one on cow barns, swine, sheep sheds, poultry houses, horse stables, and buildings for storage of hay [34], one on poultry, pork, and beef farms [45], one on a duck hatchery [22], one on a turkey hatchery…”

“…Most of the studies focus on occupational health (33 out of 58, 57%) [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]30,31,36,[38][39][40][41][42][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]55,[58][59][60]64,66,67,70,73,74], followed by food safety (6 out of 58, 10%) [43,45,49,69,71,75] and human health (5 out of 58, 9%) [32,53,56,63,77]. Some studies encompass occupational and animal health (4 out of 58, 7%) [33,35,54,61], while some studies focus only on animal health (4 out of 58, 7%) [44,…”

“…Table 2 describes the main characteristics of the selected studies. Of the reviewed studies (n = 58), 34 were conducted in Europe (9 in Germany [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29], 8 in Poland [25,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36], 4 in Portugal [37][38][39][40], 3 in Italy [41][42][43], 1 in the Netherlands [44], Spain [45], Austria [46], Lithuania [47], France [48], Denmark [49], 1 in Denmark and Switzerland [50], and 2 in several European countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain [51] and Denmark, Switzerland, and Spain [52]). Thirteen studies were performed in Asia, namely, six in China [39,[53][54][55][56][57], four in Korea [58][59][60][61], one in Lebanon [62], one in India [37], and on...…”