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
{"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 , Martha Sanchez-Tamayo , Govindaraj Dev Kumar , 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> < 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/<em>E. coli</em> bioaerosols in the poultry farm when samples were taken at the broiler house exhaust fan (<em>p</em> > 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.
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.