Cargando…

Passive dust collectors for assessing airborne microbial material

BACKGROUND: Settled airborne dust is used as a surrogate for airborne exposure in studies that explore indoor microbes. In order to determine whether detecting differences in dust environments would depend on the sampler type, we compared different passive, settled dust sampling approaches with resp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Adams, Rachel I., Tian, Yilin, Taylor, John W., Bruns, Thomas D., Hyvärinen, Anne, Täubel, Martin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4593205/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26434807
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40168-015-0112-7
_version_ 1782393293990002688
author Adams, Rachel I.
Tian, Yilin
Taylor, John W.
Bruns, Thomas D.
Hyvärinen, Anne
Täubel, Martin
author_facet Adams, Rachel I.
Tian, Yilin
Taylor, John W.
Bruns, Thomas D.
Hyvärinen, Anne
Täubel, Martin
author_sort Adams, Rachel I.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Settled airborne dust is used as a surrogate for airborne exposure in studies that explore indoor microbes. In order to determine whether detecting differences in dust environments would depend on the sampler type, we compared different passive, settled dust sampling approaches with respect to displaying qualitative and quantitative aspects of the bacterial and fungal indoor microbiota. RESULTS: Settled dust sampling approaches—utilizing plastic petri dishes, TefTex material, and electrostatic dustfall collectors (EDCs)—were evaluated in indoor spaces in the USA and Finland and in an experimental chamber study. The microbial content was analyzed with quantitative PCR (qPCR) to quantify total bacterial and fungal biomass and through high-throughput sequencing to examine bacterial community composition. Bacterial composition and diversity were similar within a sampling environment regardless of the sampler type. The sampling environment was the single largest predictor of microbial community composition within a study, while sampler type was found to have much less predictive power. Quantitative analyses in indoor spaces indicated highest yields using a petri dish approach, followed by sampling with EDCs and TefTex. The highest correlations between duplicate samples were observed for EDC and petri dish approaches, indicating greater experimental repeatability for these sampler types. For the EDC samples, it became apparent that, due to the fibrous nature of the material, a rigorous extraction protocol is crucial to obtain optimal yields and stable, repeatable results. CONCLUSIONS: Correlations between sampler types were strong both in compositional and quantitative terms, and thus, the particular choice of passive settled dust sampler is not likely to strongly alter the overall conclusion of a study that aims to characterize dust across different environments. Microbial cell abundances determined from settled dust varied with the use of different sampling approaches, and thus, consistency in the method is necessary to allow for absolute comparisons within and among studies. Considering practical aspects, petri dishes were found to be an inexpensive, simple, and feasible approach that showed the highest quantitative determinations under typical building conditions, though the choice of sampler will ultimately depend on study logistics and characteristics such as low- or high-exposure settings. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40168-015-0112-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4593205
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45932052015-10-06 Passive dust collectors for assessing airborne microbial material Adams, Rachel I. Tian, Yilin Taylor, John W. Bruns, Thomas D. Hyvärinen, Anne Täubel, Martin Microbiome Research BACKGROUND: Settled airborne dust is used as a surrogate for airborne exposure in studies that explore indoor microbes. In order to determine whether detecting differences in dust environments would depend on the sampler type, we compared different passive, settled dust sampling approaches with respect to displaying qualitative and quantitative aspects of the bacterial and fungal indoor microbiota. RESULTS: Settled dust sampling approaches—utilizing plastic petri dishes, TefTex material, and electrostatic dustfall collectors (EDCs)—were evaluated in indoor spaces in the USA and Finland and in an experimental chamber study. The microbial content was analyzed with quantitative PCR (qPCR) to quantify total bacterial and fungal biomass and through high-throughput sequencing to examine bacterial community composition. Bacterial composition and diversity were similar within a sampling environment regardless of the sampler type. The sampling environment was the single largest predictor of microbial community composition within a study, while sampler type was found to have much less predictive power. Quantitative analyses in indoor spaces indicated highest yields using a petri dish approach, followed by sampling with EDCs and TefTex. The highest correlations between duplicate samples were observed for EDC and petri dish approaches, indicating greater experimental repeatability for these sampler types. For the EDC samples, it became apparent that, due to the fibrous nature of the material, a rigorous extraction protocol is crucial to obtain optimal yields and stable, repeatable results. CONCLUSIONS: Correlations between sampler types were strong both in compositional and quantitative terms, and thus, the particular choice of passive settled dust sampler is not likely to strongly alter the overall conclusion of a study that aims to characterize dust across different environments. Microbial cell abundances determined from settled dust varied with the use of different sampling approaches, and thus, consistency in the method is necessary to allow for absolute comparisons within and among studies. Considering practical aspects, petri dishes were found to be an inexpensive, simple, and feasible approach that showed the highest quantitative determinations under typical building conditions, though the choice of sampler will ultimately depend on study logistics and characteristics such as low- or high-exposure settings. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40168-015-0112-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4593205/ /pubmed/26434807 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40168-015-0112-7 Text en © Adams et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Adams, Rachel I.
Tian, Yilin
Taylor, John W.
Bruns, Thomas D.
Hyvärinen, Anne
Täubel, Martin
Passive dust collectors for assessing airborne microbial material
title Passive dust collectors for assessing airborne microbial material
title_full Passive dust collectors for assessing airborne microbial material
title_fullStr Passive dust collectors for assessing airborne microbial material
title_full_unstemmed Passive dust collectors for assessing airborne microbial material
title_short Passive dust collectors for assessing airborne microbial material
title_sort passive dust collectors for assessing airborne microbial material
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4593205/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26434807
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40168-015-0112-7
work_keys_str_mv AT adamsracheli passivedustcollectorsforassessingairbornemicrobialmaterial
AT tianyilin passivedustcollectorsforassessingairbornemicrobialmaterial
AT taylorjohnw passivedustcollectorsforassessingairbornemicrobialmaterial
AT brunsthomasd passivedustcollectorsforassessingairbornemicrobialmaterial
AT hyvarinenanne passivedustcollectorsforassessingairbornemicrobialmaterial
AT taubelmartin passivedustcollectorsforassessingairbornemicrobialmaterial