Literature DB >> 26220780

Manure removal system influences the abundance and composition of airborne biotic contaminants in swine confinement buildings.

Priyanka Kumari1, Hong Lim Choi.   

Abstract

Little is known about the factors influencing the abundance and community composition of airborne biotic contaminants in swine confinement buildings (SCBs). Microbial air samples were collected from three different SCBs equipped with three different types of manure removal systems (deep-pit manure removal with slats, scraper removal system, and deep-litter bed system). The abundance and composition of airborne biotic contaminants of all the collected air samples were analyzed using cultivation-independent methods. The V1-V3 region of the 16S rRNA gene was amplified from the extracted DNA and sequenced using 454-pyrosequencing. The abundances of 16S rRNA genes and six tetracycline resistance genes (tetB, tetH, tetZ, tetO, tetQ, and tetW) were quantified using real-time PCR. The abundance of 16S rRNA gene and tetracycline resistance genes were significantly higher in SCBs equipped with a deep-pit manure removal system with slats, except for tetB gene. This contrasts with the opposite trend found previously by culture-based studies. The aerial bacterial community composition, as measured by pairwise Bray-Curtis distances, varied significantly according to the manure removal system. 16S rRNA-based pyrosequencing revealed Firmicutes (72.4%) as the dominant group with Lactobacillus as the major genus, while Actinobacteria constituted 10.7% of the detectable bacteria. Firmicutes were more abundant in SCBs with deep pit with slats, whereas Actinobacteria were highly abundant in SCBs with a deep-litter bed system. Overall, the results of this study suggest that the manure removal system plays a key role in structuring the abundance and composition of airborne biotic contaminants in SCBs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26220780     DOI: 10.1007/s10661-015-4759-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Monit Assess        ISSN: 0167-6369            Impact factor:   2.513


  28 in total

1.  Assessment of bioaerosols in swine barns by filtration and impaction.

Authors:  Bernardo Z Predicala; James E Urban; Ronaldo G Maghirang; Sheryll B Jerez; Robert D Goodband
Journal:  Curr Microbiol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.188

2.  Preventing respiratory disease in swine confinement workers: intervention through applied epidemiology, education, and consultation.

Authors:  K J Donham; J A Merchant; D Lassise; W J Popendorf; L F Burmeister
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.214

3.  Culture-independent characterization of bacteria and fungi in a poultry bioaerosol using pyrosequencing: a new approach.

Authors:  M W Nonnenmann; B Bextine; S E Dowd; K Gilmore; J L Levin
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.155

4.  Personal exposure to airborne dust and microorganisms in agricultural environments.

Authors:  Shu-An Lee; Atin Adhikari; Sergey A Grinshpun; Roy McKay; Rakesh Shukla; Tiina Reponen
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.155

5.  Exposure of workers to airborne microorganisms in open-air swine houses.

Authors:  C W Chang; H Chung; C F Huang; H J Su
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 4.792

6.  Monitoring airborne biotic contaminants in the indoor environment of pig and poultry confinement buildings.

Authors:  Pei-Ying Hong; Xiangzhen Li; Xufei Yang; Takumi Shinkai; Yuanhui Zhang; Xinlei Wang; Roderick I Mackie
Journal:  Environ Microbiol       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 5.491

7.  Effect of microclimate on particulate matter, airborne bacteria, and odorous compounds in swine nursery houses.

Authors:  H Q Yao; H L Choi; J H Lee; A Suresh; K Zhu
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2010-07-02       Impact factor: 3.159

8.  UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection.

Authors:  Robert C Edgar; Brian J Haas; Jose C Clemente; Christopher Quince; Rob Knight
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 6.937

9.  Seasonal variability in airborne biotic contaminants in swine confinement buildings.

Authors:  Priyanka Kumari; Hong L Choi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Source identification of airborne Escherichia coli of swine house surroundings using ERIC-PCR and REP-PCR.

Authors:  Huiyong Duan; Tongjie Chai; Jianzhu Liu; Xingxiao Zhang; Chunhua Qi; Jing Gao; Yaling Wang; Yumei Cai; Zengmin Miao; Meiling Yao; Gerd Schlenker
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  2009-04-05       Impact factor: 6.498

View more
  5 in total

1.  The Inhalable Mycobiome of Sawmill Workers: Exposure Characterization and Diversity.

Authors:  Anne Straumfors; Oda A H Foss; Janina Fuss; Steen K Mollerup; Håvard Kauserud; Sunil Mundra
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  The Indoor-Air Microbiota of Pig Farms Drives the Composition of the Pig Farmers' Nasal Microbiota in a Season-Dependent and Farm-Specific Manner.

Authors:  Julia G Kraemer; Susanne Aebi; Anne Oppliger; Markus Hilty
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2019-04-18       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  Variations in abundance, diversity and community composition of airborne fungi in swine houses across seasons.

Authors:  Priyanka Kumari; Cheolwoon Woo; Naomichi Yamamoto; Hong-Lim Choi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 4.  The Use of Bioaerosol Sampling for Airborne Virus Surveillance in Swine Production Facilities: A Mini Review.

Authors:  Benjamin D Anderson; John A Lednicky; Montserrat Torremorell; Gregory C Gray
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2017-07-27

5.  Pig Farmers' Homes Harbor More Diverse Airborne Bacterial Communities Than Pig Stables or Suburban Homes.

Authors:  Ditte V Vestergaard; Gitte J Holst; Ioannis Basinas; Grethe Elholm; Vivi Schlünssen; Allan Linneberg; Tina Šantl-Temkiv; Kai Finster; Torben Sigsgaard; Ian P G Marshall
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 5.640

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.