Comparison of Three Air Sampling Methods for the Quantification of Salmonella, Shiga-toxigenic Escherichia coli (STEC), Coliforms, and Generic E. coli from Bioaerosols of Cattle and Poultry Farms

IF 2.1 4区 农林科学 Q3 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY Journal of food protection Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI:10.1016/j.jfp.2024.100282
Blanca Ruiz-Llacsahuanga , Martha Sanchez-Tamayo , Govindaraj Dev Kumar , Faith Critzer
{"title":"Comparison of Three Air Sampling Methods for the Quantification of Salmonella, Shiga-toxigenic Escherichia coli (STEC), Coliforms, and Generic E. coli from Bioaerosols of Cattle and Poultry Farms","authors":"Blanca Ruiz-Llacsahuanga ,&nbsp;Martha Sanchez-Tamayo ,&nbsp;Govindaraj Dev Kumar ,&nbsp;Faith Critzer","doi":"10.1016/j.jfp.2024.100282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recent fresh produce outbreaks potentially associated with bioaerosol contamination from animal operations in adjacent land highlighted the need for further study to better understand the associated risk. The purpose of this research was to evaluate three sampling methods for quantifying target bacterial bioaerosols from animal operations. A dairy cattle and poultry farm located in Georgia, U.S. were visited six times each. Air was collected for 10 min using: 2-stage Andersen impactor with and without mineral oil overlay and impingement samplers. Sampling devices were run concurrently at 0.1, 1, and 2 m heights (<em>n</em> = 36). Andersen samplers were loaded with CHROMagar™ <em>Salmonella,</em> CHROMagar™ STEC, or Brilliance™ coliforms/<em>E. coli</em>. The impingement sampler contained buffered peptone water (20 mL) which was vacuum filtered through a 0.45 µm filter and placed onto the respective media. Plates were incubated at 37 ℃ for 48 h. PCR confirmation followed targeting <em>ttr</em> for <em>Salmonella</em> and <em>stx<sub>1</sub></em>, <em>stx<sub>2</sub></em>, and <em>eae</em> genes for STEC. No significant differences were found among methods to quantify coliforms and <em>E. coli</em>. <em>Salmonella</em> and STEC bioaerosols were not detected by any of the methods (Limit of detection: 0.55 log CFU/m<sup>3</sup>). <em>E. coli</em> bioaerosols were significantly greater in the poultry (2.76–5.00 log CFU/m<sup>3</sup>) than in the cattle farm (0.55–2.82 log CFU/m<sup>3</sup>) (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05), and similarly distributed at both stages in the Andersen sampler (stage 1:&gt;7 μm; stage 2: 0.65–7 μm particle size). Sampling day did not have a significant effect on the recovery of coliforms/<em>E. coli</em> bioaerosols in the poultry farm when samples were taken at the broiler house exhaust fan (<em>p</em> &gt; 0.05). A greater and constant emission of coliforms and <em>E. coli</em> bioaerosols from the poultry farm warrants further investigation. These data will help inform bioaerosol sampling techniques which can be used for the quantification of bacterial foodborne pathogens and indicator organisms for future research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of food protection","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X24000668/pdfft?md5=3facbf124bf3225150ad16ab81d480a6&pid=1-s2.0-S0362028X24000668-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of food protection","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X24000668","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent fresh produce outbreaks potentially associated with bioaerosol contamination from animal operations in adjacent land highlighted the need for further study to better understand the associated risk. The purpose of this research was to evaluate three sampling methods for quantifying target bacterial bioaerosols from animal operations. A dairy cattle and poultry farm located in Georgia, U.S. were visited six times each. Air was collected for 10 min using: 2-stage Andersen impactor with and without mineral oil overlay and impingement samplers. Sampling devices were run concurrently at 0.1, 1, and 2 m heights (n = 36). Andersen samplers were loaded with CHROMagar™ Salmonella, CHROMagar™ STEC, or Brilliance™ coliforms/E. coli. The impingement sampler contained buffered peptone water (20 mL) which was vacuum filtered through a 0.45 µm filter and placed onto the respective media. Plates were incubated at 37 ℃ for 48 h. PCR confirmation followed targeting ttr for Salmonella and stx1, stx2, and eae genes for STEC. No significant differences were found among methods to quantify coliforms and E. coli. Salmonella and STEC bioaerosols were not detected by any of the methods (Limit of detection: 0.55 log CFU/m3). E. coli bioaerosols were significantly greater in the poultry (2.76–5.00 log CFU/m3) than in the cattle farm (0.55–2.82 log CFU/m3) (p < 0.05), and similarly distributed at both stages in the Andersen sampler (stage 1:>7 μm; stage 2: 0.65–7 μm particle size). Sampling day did not have a significant effect on the recovery of coliforms/E. coli bioaerosols in the poultry farm when samples were taken at the broiler house exhaust fan (p > 0.05). A greater and constant emission of coliforms and E. coli bioaerosols from the poultry farm warrants further investigation. These data will help inform bioaerosol sampling techniques which can be used for the quantification of bacterial foodborne pathogens and indicator organisms for future research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较三种空气采样方法,以量化养牛场和家禽养殖场生物气溶胶中的沙门氏菌、志贺致病性大肠杆菌 (STEC)、大肠菌群和普通大肠杆菌。
最近发生的新鲜农产品疫情可能与邻近土地上的动物饲养产生的生物气溶胶污染有关,因此有必要开展进一步研究,以更好地了解相关风险。这项研究的目的是评估三种采样方法,以量化来自动物饲养场的目标细菌生物气溶胶。对位于美国佐治亚州的奶牛场和家禽养殖场各进行了六次访问。使用以下方法收集空气 10 分钟:有矿物油覆盖和无矿物油覆盖的 2 级安徒生冲击器和撞击采样器。采样装置在 0.1 米、1 米和 2 米高度同时运行(n = 36)。安徒生取样器装有 CHROMagar™ 沙门氏菌、CHROMagar™ STEC 或 Brilliance™ 大肠菌群/大肠杆菌。撞击取样器中装有缓冲蛋白胨水(20 mL),通过 0.45 µm 过滤器进行真空过滤,然后放入相应的培养基中。培养皿在 37 ℃ 下培养 48 小时后进行 PCR 确认,沙门氏菌的目标基因为 ttr,STEC 的目标基因为 stx1、stx2 和 eae。大肠菌群和大肠埃希氏菌的定量方法没有明显差异。任何一种方法都检测不到沙门氏菌和 STEC 生物气溶胶(检测限:0.55 log CFU/m3)。家禽养殖场的大肠杆菌生物气溶胶(2.76-5.00 log CFU/m3)明显高于养牛场(0.55-2.82 log CFU/m3)(p <0.05),在安徒生采样器的两个阶段(第 1 阶段:7 μm;第 2 阶段:0.65-7 μm)的分布情况相似。在肉鸡舍排风扇处取样时,取样日对家禽养殖场中大肠菌群/大肠杆菌生物气溶胶的回收率没有明显影响(p >0.05)。家禽养殖场的大肠菌群和大肠杆菌生物气溶胶排放量更大且持续存在,这值得进一步调查。这些数据将有助于为生物气溶胶采样技术提供信息,这些技术可用于量化细菌性食源性病原体和指示生物,供未来研究使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of food protection
Journal of food protection 工程技术-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
296
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Food Protection® (JFP) is an international, monthly scientific journal in the English language published by the International Association for Food Protection (IAFP). JFP publishes research and review articles on all aspects of food protection and safety. Major emphases of JFP are placed on studies dealing with: Tracking, detecting (including traditional, molecular, and real-time), inactivating, and controlling food-related hazards, including microorganisms (including antibiotic resistance), microbial (mycotoxins, seafood toxins) and non-microbial toxins (heavy metals, pesticides, veterinary drug residues, migrants from food packaging, and processing contaminants), allergens and pests (insects, rodents) in human food, pet food and animal feed throughout the food chain; Microbiological food quality and traditional/novel methods to assay microbiological food quality; Prevention of food-related hazards and food spoilage through food preservatives and thermal/non-thermal processes, including process validation; Food fermentations and food-related probiotics; Safe food handling practices during pre-harvest, harvest, post-harvest, distribution and consumption, including food safety education for retailers, foodservice, and consumers; Risk assessments for food-related hazards; Economic impact of food-related hazards, foodborne illness, food loss, food spoilage, and adulterated foods; Food fraud, food authentication, food defense, and foodborne disease outbreak investigations.
期刊最新文献
Isolation and Enumeration of the Bacillus cereus Group Using a Chromogenic Substrate that Targets Phosphatidylcholine Phospholipase C Activity. Evaluation of a postbiotic on Salmonella enterica prevalence, serotype diversity, and antimicrobial resistance in the subiliac lymph nodes of cull dairy cattle. Hazard characterization of antibiotic-resistant Aeromonas spp. isolated from mussel and oyster shellstock available for retail purchase in Canada. Generic Food Safety Assessment: A Framework to Evaluate Food Safety Hazards Emerging from Change(s) in the Primary Production System – A Case Study Involving Intercropping Investigation of Feedlot-level Use of a Direct-fed Microbial on Fecal Shedding of E. coli O157:H7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1