Cargando…

A comparison of passive and active dust sampling methods for measuring airborne methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pig farms

Methicillin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are resistant to most β-lactam antibiotics. Pigs are an important reservoir of livestock-associated MRSA (LA-MRSA), which is genetically distinct from both hospital and community-acquired MRSA. Occupational exposure to pigs on farms can l...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rittscher, Anne E, Vlasblom, Abel A, Duim, Birgitta, Scherpenisse, Peter, van Schothorst, Isabella J, Wouters, Inge M, Van Gompel, Liese, Smit, Lidwien A M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10516621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37300560
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxad033
_version_ 1785109164706496512
author Rittscher, Anne E
Vlasblom, Abel A
Duim, Birgitta
Scherpenisse, Peter
van Schothorst, Isabella J
Wouters, Inge M
Van Gompel, Liese
Smit, Lidwien A M
author_facet Rittscher, Anne E
Vlasblom, Abel A
Duim, Birgitta
Scherpenisse, Peter
van Schothorst, Isabella J
Wouters, Inge M
Van Gompel, Liese
Smit, Lidwien A M
author_sort Rittscher, Anne E
collection PubMed
description Methicillin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are resistant to most β-lactam antibiotics. Pigs are an important reservoir of livestock-associated MRSA (LA-MRSA), which is genetically distinct from both hospital and community-acquired MRSA. Occupational exposure to pigs on farms can lead to LA-MRSA carriage by workers. There is a growing body of research on MRSA found in the farm environment, the airborne route of transmission, and its implication on human health. This study aims to directly compare two sampling methods used to measure airborne MRSA in the farm environment; passive dust sampling with electrostatic dust fall collectors (EDCs), and active inhalable dust sampling using stationary air pumps with Gesamtstaubprobenahme (GSP) sampling heads containing Teflon filters. Paired dust samples using EDCs and GSP samplers, totaling 87 samples, were taken from 7 Dutch pig farms, in multiple compartments housing pigs of varying ages. Total nucleic acids of both types of dust samples were extracted and targets indicating MRSA (femA, nuc, mecA) and total bacterial count (16S rRNA) were quantified using quantitative real-time PCRs. MRSA could be measured from all GSP samples and in 94% of the EDCs, additionally MRSA was present on every farm sampled. There was a strong positive relationship between the paired MRSA levels found in EDCs and those measured on filters (Normalized by 16S rRNA; Pearson’s correlation coefficient r = 0.94, Not Normalized; Pearson’s correlation coefficient r = 0.84). This study suggests that EDCs can be used as an affordable and easily standardized method for quantifying airborne MRSA levels in the pig farm setting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10516621
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105166212023-09-23 A comparison of passive and active dust sampling methods for measuring airborne methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pig farms Rittscher, Anne E Vlasblom, Abel A Duim, Birgitta Scherpenisse, Peter van Schothorst, Isabella J Wouters, Inge M Van Gompel, Liese Smit, Lidwien A M Ann Work Expo Health Short Communications Methicillin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are resistant to most β-lactam antibiotics. Pigs are an important reservoir of livestock-associated MRSA (LA-MRSA), which is genetically distinct from both hospital and community-acquired MRSA. Occupational exposure to pigs on farms can lead to LA-MRSA carriage by workers. There is a growing body of research on MRSA found in the farm environment, the airborne route of transmission, and its implication on human health. This study aims to directly compare two sampling methods used to measure airborne MRSA in the farm environment; passive dust sampling with electrostatic dust fall collectors (EDCs), and active inhalable dust sampling using stationary air pumps with Gesamtstaubprobenahme (GSP) sampling heads containing Teflon filters. Paired dust samples using EDCs and GSP samplers, totaling 87 samples, were taken from 7 Dutch pig farms, in multiple compartments housing pigs of varying ages. Total nucleic acids of both types of dust samples were extracted and targets indicating MRSA (femA, nuc, mecA) and total bacterial count (16S rRNA) were quantified using quantitative real-time PCRs. MRSA could be measured from all GSP samples and in 94% of the EDCs, additionally MRSA was present on every farm sampled. There was a strong positive relationship between the paired MRSA levels found in EDCs and those measured on filters (Normalized by 16S rRNA; Pearson’s correlation coefficient r = 0.94, Not Normalized; Pearson’s correlation coefficient r = 0.84). This study suggests that EDCs can be used as an affordable and easily standardized method for quantifying airborne MRSA levels in the pig farm setting. Oxford University Press 2023-06-10 /pmc/articles/PMC10516621/ /pubmed/37300560 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxad033 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Short Communications
Rittscher, Anne E
Vlasblom, Abel A
Duim, Birgitta
Scherpenisse, Peter
van Schothorst, Isabella J
Wouters, Inge M
Van Gompel, Liese
Smit, Lidwien A M
A comparison of passive and active dust sampling methods for measuring airborne methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pig farms
title A comparison of passive and active dust sampling methods for measuring airborne methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pig farms
title_full A comparison of passive and active dust sampling methods for measuring airborne methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pig farms
title_fullStr A comparison of passive and active dust sampling methods for measuring airborne methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pig farms
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of passive and active dust sampling methods for measuring airborne methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pig farms
title_short A comparison of passive and active dust sampling methods for measuring airborne methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pig farms
title_sort comparison of passive and active dust sampling methods for measuring airborne methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in pig farms
topic Short Communications
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10516621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37300560
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxad033
work_keys_str_mv AT rittscherannee acomparisonofpassiveandactivedustsamplingmethodsformeasuringairbornemethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusinpigfarms
AT vlasblomabela acomparisonofpassiveandactivedustsamplingmethodsformeasuringairbornemethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusinpigfarms
AT duimbirgitta acomparisonofpassiveandactivedustsamplingmethodsformeasuringairbornemethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusinpigfarms
AT scherpenissepeter acomparisonofpassiveandactivedustsamplingmethodsformeasuringairbornemethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusinpigfarms
AT vanschothorstisabellaj acomparisonofpassiveandactivedustsamplingmethodsformeasuringairbornemethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusinpigfarms
AT woutersingem acomparisonofpassiveandactivedustsamplingmethodsformeasuringairbornemethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusinpigfarms
AT vangompelliese acomparisonofpassiveandactivedustsamplingmethodsformeasuringairbornemethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusinpigfarms
AT smitlidwienam acomparisonofpassiveandactivedustsamplingmethodsformeasuringairbornemethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusinpigfarms
AT rittscherannee comparisonofpassiveandactivedustsamplingmethodsformeasuringairbornemethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusinpigfarms
AT vlasblomabela comparisonofpassiveandactivedustsamplingmethodsformeasuringairbornemethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusinpigfarms
AT duimbirgitta comparisonofpassiveandactivedustsamplingmethodsformeasuringairbornemethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusinpigfarms
AT scherpenissepeter comparisonofpassiveandactivedustsamplingmethodsformeasuringairbornemethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusinpigfarms
AT vanschothorstisabellaj comparisonofpassiveandactivedustsamplingmethodsformeasuringairbornemethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusinpigfarms
AT woutersingem comparisonofpassiveandactivedustsamplingmethodsformeasuringairbornemethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusinpigfarms
AT vangompelliese comparisonofpassiveandactivedustsamplingmethodsformeasuringairbornemethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusinpigfarms
AT smitlidwienam comparisonofpassiveandactivedustsamplingmethodsformeasuringairbornemethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusinpigfarms