Previous Article | Next Article 
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, January 2001, p. 155-161, Vol. 67, No. 1
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health,
Council of Labor Affairs, Executive Yuan,
Taipei,1 and Department of Environmental
and Occupational Health, National Cheng Kung University,
Tainan,2 Taiwan, Republic of China
Received 14 July 2000/Accepted 11 October 2000
This study quantified the levels of airborne microorganisms in six
swine farms with more than 10,000 pigs in subtropical Taiwan. We
evaluated breeding, growing, and finishing stalls, which were primarily
open-air buildings, as well as partially enclosed farrowing and nursery
piggeries. Airborne culturable bacteria, gram-negative bacteria, and
fungi were placed on appropriate media by using an all-glass impinger
or single-stage Andersen microbial sampler. Results showed that mean
concentrations of culturable bacteria and gram-negative bacteria were
3.3 × 105 and 143.7 CFU/m3, respectively.
The concentration of airborne culturable fungi was about
103 CFU/m3, with Cladosporium the
predominant genus. The highest airborne levels of culturable bacteria
and gram-negative bacteria were identified in the finishing units. The
air of the nursery stalls was the least contaminated with culturable
and gram-negative bacteria. Irregular and infrequent cleaning, high pig
density, no separation of wastes from pen floors, and accumulation of
water as a result of the processes for cleaning and reducing pig
temperature possibly compromise the benefits of the open characteristic
of the finishing units with respect to airborne bacterial concentration.
Modern agricultural methods have
changed the way pigs are raised. To increase production with minimum
labor, swine have been fed in confinement buildings, which are mainly
enclosed structures densely stocked with swine (12, 13,
29). A mechanical ventilation system and a system for handling
animal wastes are usually set up to maintain the health status of pigs
indoors. Pigs are managed in different types of confinement sectors
depending on their growth stage and the operation process. The stages
of swine growth can be categorized as lactating sow and offspring,
prenursery (10 to 30 lb), nursery (30 to 75 lb), growing (75 to 150 lb), and finishing (150 lb to market weight) (29).
Accordingly, five types of buildings are generally involved in swine
production: breeding (for prepregnant and pregnant swine), farrowing
(for delivered swine and newborn pigs), nursery (for weaned piglet less
than 75 lb), growing (for swine approximately under 150 lb), and
finishing (for swine before slaughtered). Some farms may also have a
separate house for male pigs, which are brought to the breeding
buildings periodically for copulation.
Microorganisms and their components or products, resulting from pig
dander, fecal matter, and feed materials, are easily accumulated and
aerosolized in such densely populated and enclosed buildings (14). Due to exposure, swine workers may experience upper
respiratory irritation, chronic bronchitis, organic dust toxic
syndrome, or other respiratory symptoms (15). Exposure
assessments show that airborne bacteria in pig confinement buildings in
the United States, Canada, The Netherlands, Sweden, and Poland, reach
levels of 105 to 106 CFU/m3
(3, 8, 9, 14-16, 21, 27) and up to 107
CFU/m3 in the United Kingdom (10), whereas the
number of viable fungi is lower, approximately 10 to 104
CFU/m3 (8-10, 14). Gram-positive bacteria are
the predominant bacteria present (3, 8, 10, 14, 15, 21,
27), and microbial genera have been identified in many swine
confinement units (8-10, 14, 16). Some organisms are
recognized as potential agents inducing extrinsic allergic alveolitis
and causing pathogenic infection (9).
In Taiwan, a subtropical country, swine production farm industries are
mainly located in the southern area, where the relatively high ambient
temperature is above 30°C in summer. Because of the weather, swine
houses are built and operated in an open-air style, as high temperature
affects the adult swine's appetite and fertility, which decreases
swine production. An example of open-air swine buildings is shown in
Fig. 1. Plastic curtains are occasionally used to cover both sides of the building when the ambient temperature is relatively low in winter. On the other hand, most of farrowing and
nursery houses are partially enclosed with many open windows. Some
other farrowing and nursery houses are constructed in an open-air style
with plastic curtains on sides that are usually rolled up for better
ventilation. Sometimes windows are closed or the curtains are rolled
down to protect newborn and growing piglets, which are sensitive to low
ambient temperature. A mechanical ventilation system is usually built
into these types of buildings to help maintain air exchange.
0099-2240/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/AEM.67.1.155-161.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Exposure of Workers to Airborne Microorganisms
in Open-Air Swine Houses
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
View larger version (145K):
[in a new window]
FIG. 1.
Photograph of a finishing piggery as an example of
open-air swine houses commonly found in subtropical Taiwan.
Given the differences in building structure, the magnitude of exposure to airborne microorganisms in such piggeries may be different from those in mainly or completely enclosed buildings. However, to our knowledge, no information regarding the level of airborne microorganisms in such structures has been previously published. Further, exposure in many studies has been measured mostly in swine fattening, nursery, or farrowing buildings (2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 21); little exposure assessment has been conducted simultaneously for all kinds of swine buildings by specific building type, including the breeding unit. Therefore, the major aim of this study was to determine the levels of airborne microorganisms in five major kinds of swine houses. The results were then compared to published data for enclosed swine buildings. The farm characteristics, feeding and cleaning practices, and environmental factors that might affect both the composition and the concentration of airborne microorganisms in piggeries were also investigated.
| |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
|
|---|
Sampling strategy and procedure. Ten swine farms with five types of swine houses were randomly selected. Walk-through and preliminary surveys of these farms were conducted as a pilot study in September and repeated in December 1994. Airborne microorganisms were sampled from one randomly selected piggery of six of visited swine farms, which included four farrowing, one growing, and one finishing unit. The information was then used to determine the optimal and feasible sampling method and protocol for airborne microorganisms for the follow-up investigation.
In April to May 1995, a 2-day comprehensive sampling was performed on each of five types of swine houses of six swine farms, for a total of 30 swine houses. Samples of airborne culturable bacteria, gram-negative bacteria, and culturable fungi were simultaneously collected 1.5 m above the floor of the central walkway in each of the examined piggeries. Temperature, relative humidity, and wind velocity were recorded at the same floor height in the central walkways as well as two open ends of swine houses, using direct-reading instruments (Testo GmbH, Lenzkirch, Germany). Information on the characteristics of the stalls where environmental measurements were taken was obtained through visual inspection and interviews with swine workers regarding the structure of each pig house; pig density; feeding method, material, and frequency; and cleaning practice and frequency.Bioaerosol sampling and analysis. Three sampling methods that have been used in swine farms for collecting airborne microbes were used in the preliminary survey: filtration (10, 14-16, 32), liquid impingement (3, 10, 16, 32), and impaction on agar plates (8, 9, 14, 15, 20, 21, 32). Samples were simultaneously collected with a single-stage Andersen microbial sampler (AMS; (Graseby, Smyrna, Ga.) operated at 28.3 liter/min; an all-glass impinger (AGI) with 30-mm jet-to-bottom spacing (AGI-30; Ace Glass Incorporated, Vineland, N.J.) operated at 12.5 liter/min; and Nuclepore filter (NF; polycarbonate membrane filter, 0.4-µm pore size, 37-mm diameter; Costar, Boston, Mass.) in a three-stage polystyrene cassette (37-mm diameter; SKC, Eighty Four, Pa.) operated at 2 liter/min. Airflow was calibrated before and after field sampling. By using two identical sampling devices, duplicate samples were simultaneously collected at the same sampling time in each swine house.
The AMS was preautoclaved in the laboratory and disinfected by 70% ethanol-immersed cotton balls between each sampling. By using six AMSs simultaneously operated for 0.5 to 10 min, airborne microbes were directly collected onto 20 ml of Trypticase soy agar (TSA), MacConkey's medium (MAC), and malt extract agar with streptomycin sulfate (MEAS) (Difco Laboratories, Detroit, Mich.) in 100-mm-diameter petri dishes. Duplicate samples of each of three media were simultaneously collected at the same sampling time. Two field blank samples were taken in the same way at each measurement site, except that the samplers were not operated. All of the AMS samples were sent back to the laboratory at room temperature. Concentrations of culturable bacteria, gram-negative bacteria, and culturable fungi were respectively determined after incubation. The collection medium for AGI-30 was 20 ml of 1% peptone-distilled water with 0.01% Tween 80 and 0.005% antifoam A (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, Mo.) (32). The AGI-30 and collection medium were autoclaved before use. After a 30-min sampling in the field, the neck of each impinger was flushed with the impinger solution, and the liquid was transferred to sterile glass bottles. Samples were then transported under refrigeration to the laboratory for treatment on the same day. The final volume of each sample was measured and corrected for evaporation. After shaking, samples were diluted in 10-fold series with sterile 0.1% peptone-distilled water. An aliquot of 0.1 to 0.5 ml of each sample was plated onto duplicate TSA, MAC, and MEAS plates. One field blank sample for each measured stall was also collected and treated in the same way. NF and cellulose backing pads were sterilized by UV illumination at 254 nm for 2 h. Three-piece polystyrene cassettes were sterilized with 12% ethylene oxide. The filters supported by pads were then housed into closed-face sterile cassettes, sealed, and brought to swine farms. The sampling times ranged from 20 to 30 min. After sampling, filters were sealed inside the cassettes and within 1 h sent to the laboratory along with one blank field sample at ambient temperature. Samples were then eluted from the filters by injecting 1 ml of sterile 0.1% peptone-distilled water with 0.01% Tween 80 into the support pad and 5 ml of the same medium onto the filter surface. The cassettes were recapped and shaken for 15 min; the solution was drawn off, measured, and then plated in serial 10-fold dilutions onto the culture media (TSA, MAC, and MEAS) with 0.1 to 0.5 ml of solution. Regardless of sampling method, all TSA, MAC, and MEAS plates were incubated, at 30°C for 2 to 5 days, 30°C for up to 10 days, and 25°C for 5 to 7 days, respectively. Colonies formed on plates were then enumerated. The positive-hole method was applied to AMS samples for corrections of microbial coincidence (1). Fungi were identified morphologically under a microscope by a trained technician. Culture plates were first examined under a dissecting microscope (model SZ-PT; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). The spores of each colony were picked and placed under a high-resolution microscope (model BH-2; Olympus) for identification of genus according to published references (4, 23).Environmental factors. The temperature, wind velocity, and relative humidity in the stalls were recorded using direct reading instruments at 7:30 to 8:30 a.m., 10:30 to 11:30 a.m., 1:30 to 2:30 p.m., and 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. on each sampling day. Three readings were recorded and averaged for each measurement.
Statistical analysis. SAS software was used to test the normality of original and transformed data. For normally distributed data, analysis of variance and Scheffe test were performed to detect significant difference among means of contaminants at various measurement sites. Nonparametric analysis was carried out for nonnormally distributed data.
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
|
|---|
Comparison of bioaerosol sampling and analysis
methods.
The AGI-30 sampling and analysis method obtained the
highest concentration of culturable bacteria: 12 times that obtained using NF and 17.8 times that obtained using AMS (Table
1). In terms of forming countable
bacterial colonies, 91% of AGI-30 samples were within the recommended
plate count limit of 30 to 300 CFU on 100-mm-diameter plates
(19), while only 58% NF samples were within this range.
In AMS samples, only 37 and 17% culture plates were countable after
sampling for 0.5 and 2 min, respectively. Colonies grown on most
culture plates of AMS samples were found to be too numerous to count.
The extremely high density of colonies on AMS collection plates
resulted in difficulty in enumeration and significant underestimation
of concentration of culturable bacteria.
|
Airborne microorganisms.
By using optimal sampling methods in
a way that would properly minimize colony masking (6, 7),
bioaerosol concentrations in five types of swine houses were determined
(Table 2). The results showed that mean
concentrations of culturable bacteria among five types of swine houses
ranged from 1.0 × 105 to 7.6 × 105
CFU/m3, with an overall average of 3.3 × 105 CFU/m3. The highest concentration, 3.5 × 106 CFU/m3, was found in a finishing unit.
The airborne concentration of culturable bacteria was significantly
higher in the finishing houses (7.6 × 10 CFU/m3) than in the farrowing, nursery, or growing
piggeries (P = 0.009, 0.001, or 0.002, respectively, by
the Scheffe test). The airborne concentration of culturable bacteria in
breeding units was the second highest. Relatively low levels of
culturable bacteria were determined in the air of the farrowing,
nursing, and growing piggeries.
|
|
Characteristics of piggeries.
The floors of pens were mostly
concrete in the breeding, growing, and finishing houses and were
neither elevated nor slatted in most growing and finishing stalls
(Table 4). In contrast, slatted and
elevated floors made by metal frames were mainly observed in the
farrowing and nursery houses. Open style with no curtains or with
curtains rolled up on both sides of the building was observed in all of
the breeding, growing, and finishing houses; 50, 20, and 17%,
respectively, were ventilated mechanically in addition to naturally. In
84% of farrowing and 67% of nursery houses, the structures were
partially enclosed with open windows or with curtains partially rolled
down. Mechanical ventilation was used in two-thirds of farrowing and
nursery buildings. At least half of all types of swine houses except
for the finishing units had natural ventilation in the form of long
vents in the roof.
|
|
Environmental factors. The averages of wind velocity, temperature, and relative humidity among swine houses are presented in Table 5.
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
|
|---|
Due to differences in survival capability and culturablility among microorganisms, culture methods generally underestimate the actual concentration of airborne microorganisms present in an environment. However, culture is still one of the most popular methods used in bioaerosol field studies because it allows the investigators to determine microbial composition and concentration simultaneously. Among the sampling methods that utilize culture assay, impingement into liquid media tends to give higher colony counts for environments where microorganisms are carried as aggregates, mainly because microbial clusters are broken up during sampling (25). Species of airborne bacteria collected in the present investigation have been identified in a follow-up study, in which Micrococcus and Staphylococcus were identified as predominant. Both genera are known to form aggregates in nature and were probably collected in AGI-30 liquid media in such form. However, bacterial clusters such as Micrococcus and Staphylococcus were likely broken up in AGI-30 liquid media, as the cells were vigorously scrubbed in liquid for a long (30-min) sampling period. The present study and a previous investigation of swine barns by Thorne et al. (32) demonstrated this possibility. Both studies found that the AGI sampling method gave the highest value of airborne bacteria concentration.
Clusters of bacteria are common in nature, but the same may not be true for dry fungal spores. Besides, the hydrophobicity of fungal spores facilitates their escape from the liquid media of AGI samplers even after they have been captured (26), which in turn decreases colony counts obtained from AGI-30 sampling. This may be one of the reasons why both the present study and that of Thorne et al. (32) found a lower level of fungi obtained by the AGI method than by the NF method.
We also found that the AMS sampling method yielded the highest proportion of data within the limit of plate counts when sampling for gram-negative bacteria and fungi, but was easily overloaded for collecting culturable bacteria even with very short (30-s) sampling times. Due to microbial overloading and subsequent colony masking, we, like Thorne et al. (32), do not recommend the AMS as a validated sampling method for airborne culturable bacteria in swine houses but consider it optimal for gram-negative bacteria. Our results agree with the conclusion of Thorne et al. that the AGI is the best sampling method for culturable bacteria in swine buildings. However, we did not find an acceptable portion of samples with colony counts falling within plate count limits when sampling for fungi by AGI-30 as did Thorne et al. Thus, we used the AMS method for sampling of culturable fungi.
Although the finishing units were not enclosed, we found that such buildings contained the highest airborne levels of culturable bacteria and gram-negative bacteria. This result agrees with those of other studies conducted in enclosed swine buildings (9, 11). Compared to other types of buildings in the present study, the finishing units were found to be more densely stocked, not only in pig number but also with respect to the body size of growing pigs. Substantial amounts of swine wastes remained on the nonslatted floors (in 83% of cases) where pigs lived. In addition, an automatic water mist spray system to reduce pig body temperature was observed in operation around noon in some breeding, growing, and finishing stalls; for those without an automatic system, workers manually sprayed water directly on pigs via hoses as well as on the floors for cleaning purposes. Wastewater that is not quickly removed from nonslatted floors provides high moisture for microbes to quickly multiply on fecal matter and feed materials abundant in finishing stalls. Furthermore, the interval of house cleaning for finishing piggeries was the longest, averaging 31 days with a great variation of 59 days. Irregular and infrequent cleaning of the densely stocked finishing units offered a great opportunity for bacterial growth, accumulation, and aerosolization. A significant positive correlation has been shown between airborne levels of culturable bacteria and the interval of stall cleaning (3).
In contrast, 83% of the floors in the nursery buildings examined in this study were slatted. Cleaning by water spraying was performed routinely at an average interval of 1.3 days. Produced wastewater was quickly drained from the buildings through floor grates. Consequently, although 67% of the nursery stalls were enclosed, the air in this type of building was the least contaminated with culturable bacteria and gram-negative bacteria.
Wind velocity inside the houses was less than 0.8 m/s on average and did not vary significantly among piggeries (Table 5). In a similar stable atmosphere, a better dilution of airborne contaminants by wind force in open-air buildings (e.g., finishing stalls) might not be as significant as expected. Based on the above findings, poor cleaning practice, high swine density, and no separation of wastes from pen floors tend to compromise the benefit of open-air structures in relation to level of airborne bacteria. Our results also demonstrate the importance of routine sanitation for reducing microbial contamination.
Temperature and relative humidity have been reported as two important factors related to the survival of bacteria in dust (24) and the number of airborne microorganisms (28). However, these variables cannot account for the differences in airborne bacterial concentrations shown in the present study because they were relatively homogeneous among all studied piggeries.
The levels of airborne culturable bacteria in this study were comparable to those documented in many published reports (3, 8, 9, 14-16, 20, 21, 27). However, we found lower airborne concentrations of gram-negative bacteria compared to the level of 103 to 104 CFU/m3 previously found in other swine confinement buildings (3, 8, 15, 16, 20, 21). The airborne concentration of average gram-negative bacteria in all piggeries was only 0.04% of that of culturable bacteria, compared to 10, 6.5, and 29% reported by Attwood et al. (3), Heedrick et al. (21), and Clark et al. (8), respectively. The different performance characteristics of the samplers used in assessing culturable bacteria and gram-negative bacteria may partly account for this great deviation. As shown in Table 1, sampling with AGI-30 acquired 17.8 times the levels of culturable bacteria simultaneously collected with AMS. On the other hand, increases in the levels of airborne gram-positive bacteria may provide an explanation. Because 90% of the bacteria isolated from the feces of adult swine are reported as gram positive (31), it is reasonable to attribute the high concentrations of airborne culturable bacteria in stalls to the increase in the number of dominant gram-positive microflora rather than gram-negative bacteria.
Fungal concentrations found in this study were generally also lower than the previously reported levels of 103 to 105 CFU/m3 (10, 14, 15, 20, 32) but similar to the 10 to 103 CFU/m3 reported by Cormier et al. (9) and Clark et al. (8). Cladosporium was always the predominant fungus in swine houses surveyed, as it was in studies conducted in swine buildings in the United Kingdom (10) and Sweden (14). However, researchers in Quebec did not isolate this genus from their samples (9). Aspergillus and Penicillium, the genera found most frequently by both Cormier et al. (9) and Donham et al. (14), were also identified in the present study along with other molds reported elsewhere (9, 14), including Alternaria, Fusarium, Verticillium, Geotrichum, and yeast. Nevertheless, we did not detect Scopulariopsis (9, 14), Homodendrum (14), Circinella (9), Mucor (9), or Rhizopus (14), which are described by Cormier et al. (9) and Donham et al. (14). Cephalosporium, which represented 34% of fungi identified in the September 1994 sampling of our study, was neither isolated later (April to May 1995 sampling) nor, to our knowledge, mentioned in any published papers. The reasons for the differences in fungal genera found in various studies are not clear but are probably related to differences in collection media, incubation conditions, climatic condition, types of buildings investigated, or time of year when the samplings were conducted.
Among those identified in the present study, the genera Penicillium, Aspergillus, Cladosporium, Alternaria, Curvularia, Stemphyllium, and Trichoderma have been regarded as common allergens (5). Aspergillus, Alternaria, Penicillium, and Aureobasidium are associated with extrinsic allergic alveolitis (18, 30). Penicillium, Aspergillus, Curvularia, Geotrichum, Drechslera, Stemphyllium, and Candida may cause allergic bronchopulmonary mycoses (17), and Aspergillus and Candida are known to be potentially pathogenic for humans (22). In addition to the presence of allergic or infectious species, the airborne culturable bacterial concentration in our investigated finishing houses exceeded the level of 6.3 × 105 CFU/m3 reported in a previous study in which significant decrements in baseline of pulmonary function testing were present (15). The high level of airborne bacteria and presence of dangerous fungal genera implied the probability of health hazards for workers in some of the investigated piggeries.
In conclusion, airborne culturable bacterial levels in the open-air swine houses were comparable to those found in enclosed buildings and were probably due to irregular or infrequent cleaning and water accumulation in such densely stocked and nonslatted piggeries. Poor maintenance of piggery sanitation compromises the benefit of open-air piggeries at low wind velocity. As a result, the presence of high concentrations of airborne culturable bacteria and potentially allergic or infectious fungi might pose health risks for workers even in open-air swine stalls.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We are indebted to the farmers who participated in this study and to Shouw-Liang Cheng and Shen Chen for technical assistance.
This study was funded by the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Council of Labor Affairs, Executive Yuan of Taiwan, Republic of China (grant IOSH84-H308).
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: 4th floor, 132 Min-Sheng E. Rd., Taipei 105, Taiwan, Republic of China. Phone: 886-2-87701567. Fax: 886-2-25451048. E-mail: cwchang{at}mail.cla.gov.tw.
Present address: 3M Taiwan, Ltd., Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
|
|---|
| 1. |
Andersen, A. A.
1958.
New sampler for the collection, sizing, and enumeration of viable airborne particles.
J. Bacteriol.
76:471-484 |
| 2. |
Attwood, P.,
P. Versloot,
D. Heederik,
R. de Wit, and J. S. M. Boleij.
1986.
Assessment of dust and endotoxin levels in the working environment of Dutch pig farmers: a preliminary study.
Ann. Occup. Hyg.
30:201-208 |
| 3. | Attwood, P., R. Brouwer, P. Ruigewaard, P. Versloot, R. de Wit, D. Heederik, and J. S. M. Boleij. 1987. A study of the relationship between airborne contaminants and environmental factors in Dutch swine confinement buildings. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 48:745-751[Medline]. |
| 4. | Barnett, H. L., and B. B. Hunter. 1987. Illustrated genera of imperfect fungi, 4th ed. Macmillan Company, New York, N.Y. |
| 5. | Burrell, R. 1991. Microbiological agents as health risks in indoor air. Environ. Health Perspect. 95:29-34[Medline] |
| 6. |
Chang, C. W.,
Y. H. Hwang,
S. A. Grinshpun,
J. M. Macher, and K. Willeke.
1994.
Evaluation of counting error due to colony masking in bioaerosol sampling.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
60:3732-3738 |
| 7. | Chang, C. W., S. A. Grinshpun, K. Willeke, J. M. Macher, J. Donnelly, S. Clark, and A. Juozaitis. 1995. Factors affecting microbiological colony count accuracy for bioaerosol sampling and analysis. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 56:979-986[Medline]. |
| 8. | Clark, S., R. Rylander, and L. Larsson. 1983. Airborne bacteria, endotoxin and fungi in dust in poultry and swine confinement buildings. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 44:537-541[Medline]. |
| 9. | Cormier, Y., G. Tremblay, A. Meriaux, G. Brochu, and J. Lavoie. 1990. Airborne microbial contents in two types of swine confinement buildings in Quebec. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 51:304-309[Medline]. |
| 10. | Crook, B., J. F. Robertson, S. A. Travers Glass, E. M. Botheroyd, J. Lacey, and M. D. Topping. 1991. Airborne dust, ammonia, microorganisms, and antigens in pig confinement houses and the respiratory health of exposed farm workers. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 52:271-279[Medline]. |
| 11. | Curtis, S. E., J. G. Drummond, K. W. Kelley, D. J. Grunloh, V. J. Meares, H. W. Norton, and A. H. Jensen. 1975. Diurnal and annual fluctuations of aerial bacterial and dust levels in enclosed swine houses. J. Anim. Sci. 41:1502-1511. |
| 12. | Donham, K. J., M. Rubino, T. D. Thedell, and J. Kammermeyer. 1977. Potential health hazards to agricultural workers in swine confinement buildings. J. Occup. Med. 19:383-387[Medline]. |
| 13. | Donham, K. J., and K. E. Gustafson. 1982. Human occupational hazards from swine confinement. Ann. Am. Conf. Gov. Ind. Hyg. 2:137-142. |
| 14. | Donham, K. J., W. Popendorf, U. Palmgren, and L. Larsson. 1986. Characterization of dusts collected from swine confinement buildings. Am. J. Ind. Med. 10:294-297[Medline]. |
| 15. | Donham, K., P. Haglind, Y. Peterson, R. Rylander, and L. Belin. 1989. Environmental and health studies of farm workers in swedish swine confinement buildings Brit. J. Ind. Med. 46:31-37. |
| 16. |
Elliott, L. F.,
T. M. McCalla, and J. A. Deshazer.
1976.
Bacteria in the air of housed swine units.
App. Environ. Microbiol.
32:270-273 |
| 17. | Elliott, M. W., and A. J. Newman Taylor. 1997. Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. Clin. Exp. Allergy 27(Suppl. 1):55-59. |
| 18. | Fink, J. 1986. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis, p. 481-500. In J. A. Merchant (ed.), Occupational respiratory diseases. DHHS (NIOSH) publication no. 86-102. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. |
| 19. | Greenberg, A. E., L. S. Clesceri, and A. D. Eaton (ed.). 1992. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 18th ed., p. 9-32-9-34. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C. |
| 20. | Haglind, P., and R. Rylander. 1987. Occupational exposure and lung function measurements among workers in swine confinement buildings. J. Occup. Med. 29:904-907[Medline]. |
| 21. | Heedreick, D., R. Brouwer, K. Biersteker, and J. S. M. Boleij. 1991. Relationship of airborne endotoxin and bacteria levels in pig farms with the lung function and respiratory symptoms of farmers. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 62:595-601[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 22. | Lacey, J. 1975. Potential hazards to animals and man from microorganisms in fodders and grain. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 65:171-184. |
| 23. | Larone, D. H. 1987. Medically important fungi: a guide to identification, 3rd ed. Elsevier Science, New York, N.Y. |
| 24. | Lidwell, O. M., and E. J. Lowbury. 1950. The survival of bacteria in dust. II. The effect of atmospheric humidity on the survival of bacteria in dust. J. Hyg. 48:21-27. |
| 25. |
Lundholm, I. M.
1982.
Comparison of methods for quantitative determinations of airborne bacteria and evaluation of total viable counts.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
44:179-183 |
| 26. | Macher, J. M., M. A. Chatigny, and H. A. Burge. 1995. Sampling airborne microorganisms and aeroallergens, p. 589-617. In B. S. Cohen, and S. V. Hering (ed.), Air sampling instruments for evaluation of atmospheric contaminants. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio. |
| 27. | Mackiewicz, B. 1998. Study on exposure of pig farm workers to bioaerosols, immunologic reactivity and health effects. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 5:169-175[Medline]. |
| 28. | Malmberg, P., A. Rask-Andersen, U. Palmgren, S. Heglund, B. Kolmodin-Hedman, and G. Stalenheim. 1985. Exposure to micro-organisms, febrile and airway obstructive symptoms, immune status and lung function in Swedish farmers. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 11:287-293[Medline]. |
| 29. | Olson, D. K., and S. M. Bark. 1996. Health hazards affecting the animal confinement farm worker. AAOHN J. 44:198-204[Medline]. |
| 30. | Reynolds, H. Y. 1988. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis: correlation of cellular and immunologic changes and clinical phases of disease. Lung 166:189-208[Medline]. |
| 31. |
Salanitro, J. P.,
I. G. Blake, and P. A. Muirhead.
1977.
Isolation and identification of fecal bacteria from adult swine.
App. Environ. Microbiol.
33:79-84 |
| 32. |
Thorne, P. S.,
M. S. Kiekhaefer,
P. Whitten, and K. J. Donham.
1992.
Comparison of bioaerosol sampling methods in barns housing swine.
App. Environ. Microbiol.
58:2543-2551 |
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, January 2001, p. 155-161, Vol. 67, No. 1
0099-2240/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/AEM.67.1.155-161.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Zorman, T., Jersek, B.
(2008). Assessment of Bioaerosol Concentrations in Different Indoor Environments. Indoor and Built Environment
17: 155-163
[Abstract] -
Lues, J. F. R., Theron, M. M., Venter, P., Rasephei, M. H. R.
(2007). Microbial Composition in Bioaerosols of a High-Throughput Chicken-Slaughtering Facility. Poult. Sci.
86: 142-149
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Wu, Z., Tsumura, Y., Blomquist, G., Wang, X.-R.
(2003). 18S rRNA Gene Variation among Common Airborne Fungi, and Development of Specific Oligonucleotide Probes for the Detection of Fungal Isolates. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
69: 5389-5397
[Abstract] [Full Text] -
Wilson, S. C., Morrow-Tesch, J., Straus, D. C., Cooley, J. D., Wong, W. C., Mitlohner, F. M., McGlone, J. J.
(2002). Airborne Microbial Flora in a Cattle Feedlot. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
68: 3238-3242
[Abstract] [Full Text]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»