Comparison of analytical approaches for identifying airborne microorganisms in a livestock facility.

An intensive study, applied to a site characterized by multiple sources of microorganisms, was aimed at understanding the best approach to study bioaerosol. Culture-based, molecular biological, and chemical methods were applied to Particulate Matter (PM) samples collected in a livestock facility, during spring and autumn seasons, in two different outdoor areas. The first one was close to a place where feed was stored and handled and the second next to an open cowshed. Qualitative analysis of bacteria was performed by sequencing techniques applied to DNA extracted from both isolated culturable bacteria and particulate matter samples. Quantification of microorganisms was achieved through three distinct approaches. Microorganism colonies were counted, after incubation at 28 °C, and expressed as colony-forming units (CFU) per m ³ . Chemical method consisted in the identification of individual biomarkers, and their conversion to number of microorganisms per m ³ , using proper conversion factors. Finally, qPCR was applied to DNA extracted from PM samples, and the results were expressed as total amount of bacteria present in the bioaerosol (UG/m ³ ). The presence of airborne sterols was also studied to broaden the knowledge of bioaerosol components in atmosphere. Small seasonal differences and major sampling site differences occurred. Obviously, culture-dependent method identified less and different bacteria, than culture-independent approach. The chemical approach and the culture independent metagenomic method were in good agreement. As expected, CFU/m ³ accounted for not more than 0.3% of bacteria calculated as the average of chemical and culture independent metagenomic methods. The complexity of the obtained results shows that the different approaches are complementary to obtain an exhaustive description of bioaresol in terms of concentration, speciation, viability, pathogenicity.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)