Suppr超能文献

猪舍生物气溶胶采样方法的比较

Comparison of bioaerosol sampling methods in barns housing swine.

作者信息

Thorne P S, Kiekhaefer M S, Whitten P, Donham K J

机构信息

Department of Preventive Medicine and Environmental Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242.

出版信息

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1992 Aug;58(8):2543-51. doi: 10.1128/aem.58.8.2543-2551.1992.

Abstract

The air in livestock buildings contains bioaerosol levels that are sufficiently high to cause adverse health effects in animals and workers. These bioaerosols are complex mixtures of live and dead microorganisms and their products as well as other aeroallergens. The effectiveness of sampling methods used for quantifying the very high concentrations of microorganisms in these environments has not been well studied. To facilitate an accurate assessment of respiratory hazards from viable organisms in agricultural environments, three bioaerosol sampling methods were investigated: the Andersen microbial sampler method (AMS), the all-glass impinger method (AGI), and the Nuclepore filtration-elution method (NFE). These methods were studied in a parallel fashion in 24 swine confinement buildings. Measurements were taken in two seasons with three types of culture media in duplicate to assess total bacteria, gram-negative enteric bacteria, and total fungi. Methods were analyzed for the proportion of samples yielding data within the limits of detection, intraclass reliability, and correlation between methods. For sampling viable bacteria, the AMS had a poor data yield because of overloading and demonstrated weak correlation with the AGI. Conversely, the AGI and NFE gave sufficient numbers of valid data points (90%), yielded high intraclass reliabilities (alpha greater than or equal to 0.92), and were highly correlated with each other (r = 0.86). The AGI and the NFE were suitable methods for assessing bacteria in this environment, but the AMS was not. The AMS was the only method that consistently recovered enteric bacteria (73% data yield). For sampling fungi, the AGI and AMS both yielded sufficient data and all three methods demonstrated high intraclass reliability.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

摘要

畜禽舍内的空气含有生物气溶胶,其浓度高到足以对动物和工作人员的健康产生不利影响。这些生物气溶胶是活的和死的微生物及其产物以及其他空气过敏原的复杂混合物。用于量化这些环境中极高浓度微生物的采样方法的有效性尚未得到充分研究。为便于准确评估农业环境中活生物体造成的呼吸危害,研究了三种生物气溶胶采样方法:安德森微生物采样器法(AMS)、全玻璃冲击式采样器法(AGI)和核孔过滤洗脱法(NFE)。在24个猪舍中以平行方式对这些方法进行了研究。在两个季节中,使用三种培养基进行重复测量,以评估总细菌、革兰氏阴性肠道细菌和总真菌。分析了这些方法在检测限内产生数据的样本比例、组内可靠性以及方法之间的相关性。对于活细菌采样,由于过载,AMS的数据产量很低,并且与AGI的相关性较弱。相反,AGI和NFE给出了足够数量的有效数据点(90%),具有较高的组内可靠性(α大于或等于0.92),并且彼此高度相关(r = 0.86)。AGI和NFE是评估该环境中细菌的合适方法,但AMS不是。AMS是唯一能持续回收肠道细菌的方法(数据产量为73%)。对于真菌采样,AGI和AMS都产生了足够的数据,并且所有三种方法都显示出较高的组内可靠性。(摘要截断于250字)

相似文献

1
Comparison of bioaerosol sampling methods in barns housing swine.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1992 Aug;58(8):2543-51. doi: 10.1128/aem.58.8.2543-2551.1992.
2
Bioaerosol sampling in field studies: can samples be express mailed?
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1994 Nov;55(11):1072-9. doi: 10.1080/15428119491018367.
3
Impact of production systems on swine confinement buildings bioaerosols.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2010 Feb;7(2):94-102. doi: 10.1080/15459620903425642.
4
Field evaluation of personal sampling methods for multiple bioaerosols.
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 23;10(3):e0120308. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120308. eCollection 2015.
5
Bioaerosols Play a Major Role in the Nasopharyngeal Microbiota Content in Agricultural Environment.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Apr 16;16(8):1375. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16081375.
6
The suitability of the IOM foam sampler for bioaerosol sampling in Occupational Environments.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2010 Jan;7(1):1-6. doi: 10.1080/15459620903298015.
7
Evaluation of eight bioaerosol samplers challenged with aerosols of free bacteria.
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1992 Oct;53(10):660-7. doi: 10.1080/15298669291360319.
8
Personal exposure to airborne dust and microorganisms in agricultural environments.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2006 Mar;3(3):118-30. doi: 10.1080/15459620500524607.
9
Comparison of endotoxin exposure assessment by bioaerosol impinger and filter-sampling methods.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001 Jun;67(6):2775-80. doi: 10.1128/AEM.67.6.2775-2780.2001.
10
[Nature and amount of aerial pollutants from livestock buildings].
Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 1998 Jun;105(6):213-6.

引用本文的文献

2
The BioCascade Impactor: A novel device for direct collection of size-fractionated bioaerosols into liquid medium.
Aerosol Sci Technol. 2024;58(3):264-275. doi: 10.1080/02786826.2024.2301941. Epub 2024 Jan 25.
3
Use of prototype side stream filtration system to control dust levels in a commercial swine farrowing building.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2023 Dec;20(12):633-645. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2023.2247457. Epub 2023 Aug 15.
4
Air Quality Assessment in Pig Farming: The Italian Classyfarm.
Animals (Basel). 2023 Jul 13;13(14):2297. doi: 10.3390/ani13142297.
5
Bioaerosol Sampling: Classical Approaches, Advances, and Perspectives.
Aerosol Sci Technol. 2020;54(5):496-519. doi: 10.1080/02786826.2019.1671950. Epub 2019 Oct 4.
6
Airborne Microorganisms From Livestock Production Systems and Their Relation to Dust.
Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 2014 Apr 16;44(10):1071-1128. doi: 10.1080/10643389.2012.746064. eCollection 2014.
7
Collection efficiencies of aerosol samplers for virus-containing aerosols.
J Aerosol Sci. 2005 May-Jun;36(5):593-607. doi: 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2004.12.004. Epub 2005 Jan 12.
8
Indoor distribution characteristics of airborne bacteria in pig buildings as influenced by season and housing type.
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2019 May;32(5):742-747. doi: 10.5713/ajas.18.0415. Epub 2018 Aug 27.
9
Airborne bioaerosols and their impact on human health.
J Environ Sci (China). 2018 May;67:23-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jes.2017.08.027. Epub 2017 Sep 20.
10
The Use of Bioaerosol Sampling for Airborne Virus Surveillance in Swine Production Facilities: A Mini Review.
Front Vet Sci. 2017 Jul 27;4:121. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00121. eCollection 2017.

本文引用的文献

1
Evaluation of Four Aerobiological Sampling Methods for the Retrieval of Aerosolized Pseudomonas syringae.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1991 Apr;57(4):1268-70. doi: 10.1128/aem.57.4.1268-1270.1991.
2
Bacterial aerosol samplers. II. Development and evaluation of the Shipe sampler.
Appl Microbiol. 1959 Nov;7(6):349-54. doi: 10.1128/am.7.6.349-354.1959.
3
CALIBRATION OF A MODIFIED ANDERSEN BACTERIAL AEROSOL SAMPLER.
Appl Microbiol. 1964 Jan;12(1):37-43. doi: 10.1128/am.12.1.37-43.1964.
4
Bacterial aerosol samplers. I. Development and evaluation of the all-glass impinger.
Appl Microbiol. 1959 Nov;7(6):337-49. doi: 10.1128/am.7.6.337-349.1959.
5
6
New sampler for the collection, sizing, and enumeration of viable airborne particles.
J Bacteriol. 1958 Nov;76(5):471-84. doi: 10.1128/jb.76.5.471-484.1958.
8
The efficiency of various liquid impinger samplers in bacterial aerosols.
Br J Ind Med. 1957 Oct;14(4):287-97. doi: 10.1136/oem.14.4.287.
10
Comparison of methods for quantitative determinations of airborne bacteria and evaluation of total viable counts.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1982 Jul;44(1):179-83. doi: 10.1128/aem.44.1.179-183.1982.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验