AEM
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thorne, P S
Right arrow Articles by Donham, K J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Thorne, P S
Right arrow Articles by Donham, K J
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Thorne, P S
Right arrow Articles by Donham, K J

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1992 August; 58(8): 2543-2551

Comparison of bioaerosol sampling methods in barns housing swine.

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

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

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)

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1992 August; 58(8): 2543-2551




This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Eukaryot. Cell All ASM Journals

Copyright © 1992 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.