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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |