| Literature DB >> 31294200 |
Liliana Aranha Caetano1,2, Tiago Faria1, Ana Crespo Batista1, Susana Viegas1,3, Carla Viegas1,3.
Abstract
Occupational exposure to bioaerosols resulting from handling of flour dust and raw materials in bakeries is associated with health problems. The emergence of azole-resistant fungal species in the environment is thought to be related with the use of azole fungicides in cereal crops and prevention of postharvest spoilage. As raw materials used in bakeries are commonly exposed to azoles, we investigated the mycobiota and azole-resistant fungi prevalence in this occupational environment. Ten Portuguese bakeries were assessed through electrostatic dust cloth (EDC, n = 27), settled dust (n = 7), and raw material (n = 26) samples. Samples were inoculated in malt extract agar (2%) (MEA) with chloramphenicol (0.05 g/L) and in dichloran glycerol (DG18), and onto Saboraud screening media supplemented with 4 mg/L itraconazole, 1 mg/L voriconazole, or 0.5 mg/L posaconazole, and incubated for 3-5 days at 27 °C. Except for one out of the ten analyzed bakeries, Cladosporium sp., Penicillium sp., and Aspergillus sp. were the most prevalent fungi identified. Aspergillus sp. and Mucorales order were identified in raw materials with both media, whereas Penicillium sp. was identified in DG18 only. Azole-resistant species were identified in the environment (EDC) and, to a lower extent, in raw materials, including Aspergillus sp. and Mucorales. The presence of azole-resistant fungal species in bakeries represents an occupational risk for workers. This study proposes complementary sampling methods for the evaluation of occupational exposure to mycobiota, and highlights the importance of studying the prevalence of azole-resistant strains in specific occupational environments.Entities:
Keywords: Aspergillus; Mucorales; azole-resistance; bakeries; fungi; occupational exposure
Year: 2017 PMID: 31294200 PMCID: PMC6604953 DOI: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.4.960
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AIMS Microbiol ISSN: 2471-1888
Type and number of samples collected in ten bakeries.
| Bakery | Settled dust | EDC | Raw material |
| 1 | NA | 2 | NA |
| 2 | NA | 3 | NA |
| 3 | 1 | 2 | NA |
| 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 |
| 5 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
| 6 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
| 7 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| 8 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| 9 | 1 | 3 | NA |
| 10 | NA | 3 | NA |
| n = 7 | n = 27 | n = 26 | |
NA: not applicable.
Figure 1.Fungal load in EDC after inoculation onto MEA and DG18 media.
Fungal distribution in EDC and raw material samples (fungal count for MEA and DG18 combined).
| Fungal species | EDC (CFU | Fungal species | Raw material (CFU/g) (n; %) |
| 74,642; 79.3 | 14; 63.6 | ||
| 11,346; 12.1 | 6; 27.3 | ||
| 7,315; 7.8 | Mucorales order | 2; 9.1 | |
| 746; 0.8 | |||
| 100; 0.1 |
CFU were calculated as follows: (n) = (CFU in MEA + CFU in DG18); (%) = (CFU in MEA + CFU in DG18)/(total CFU in MEA + total CFU in DG18) × 100
Fungal distribution in different work areas assessed by EDC.
| Bakery | Work site | MEA (CFU/m2 EDC) | Fungal species | DG18 (CFU/m2 EDC) | Fungal species |
| 1 | Warehouse | 50 | 6,419 | ||
| Production | 199 | 0 | |||
| 2 | Production | 0 | 0 | ||
| Packing | 100 | 1,841 | |||
| Store | 0 | 0 | |||
| 3 | Warehouse | 0 | 0 | ||
| Production | 0 | 50 | |||
| 4 | Warehouse | 0 | 0 | ||
| Production | 0 | 199 | |||
| 5 | Production | 0 | 0 | ||
| Warehouse | 0 | 0 | |||
| Store | 199 | 100 | |||
| 6 | Warehouse | 0 | 100 | ||
| Production | 0 | 0 | |||
| Store | 0 | 149 | |||
| 7 | Production | 199 | 448 | ||
| Warehouse | 100 | 199 | |||
| Store | 0 | 100 | |||
| 8 | Production | 0 | 50 | ||
| Warehouse | 0 | 50 | |||
| Store | 3,135 | 2,936 | |||
| 9 | Production | 249 | 299 | ||
| Warehouse | 199 | 0 | |||
| Store | 1,939 | 0 | |||
| 10 | Production | 24,881 | 100 | ||
| Warehouse | 24,881 | 348 | |||
| Store | 24,881 | 299 |
Azole-resistant fungal species distribution after EDC inoculation onto azole-supplemented Saboraud media.
| EDC (CFU | ||||
| Fungal species | 4 mg/L ITC | 1 mg/L VRC | 0.05 mg/L PSC | Total |
| 0; 0 | 49,761; 65.8 | 0; 0 | 49,761; 64.8 | |
| 0; 0 | 24,930; 33.0 | 0; 0 | 24,930; 32.5 | |
| 498; 71.4 | 249; 0.3 | 249; 55.6 | 995; 1.3 | |
| 100; 14.3 | 398; 0.5 | 149; 33.3 | 647; 0.8 | |
| 0; 0 | 100; 0.1 | 50; 11.1 | 149; 0.2 | |
| 50; 7.1 | 50; 0.1 | 0; 0 | 100; 0.1 | |
| 0; 0 | 50; 0.1 | 0; 0 | 50; 0.1 | |
| 50; 7.1 | 0; 0 | 0; 0 | 50; 0.1 | |
| 0; 0 | 50; 0.1 | 0; 0 | 50; 0.1 | |
| 0; 0 | 50; 0.1 | 0; 0 | 50; 0.1 | |
ITC, itraconazole; VRC, voriconazole; PSC, posaconazole; N, number of species isolates; %, number of species isolates per total of resistant isolates.
Figure 2.Fungal load in raw material after inoculation onto MEA and DG18 media.
Fungal distribution in raw materials (n = 26) collected at five bakeries (CFU/g).
| Raw material ID* (Code) | MEA (CFU/g) | Fungal species | DG18 (CFU/g) | Fungal species |
| 4A | 0 | 0 | ||
| 4B | 0 | 0 | ||
| 4C | 0 | 0 | ||
| 4D | 1 | 0 | ||
| 4E | 0 | 0 | ||
| 4F | 0 | 0 | ||
| 4G | 0 | 0 | ||
| 5E | 0 | 0 | ||
| 5B | 0 | 0 | ||
| 5G | 1 | 0 | ||
| 5C | 0 | 0 | ||
| 5F | 3 | 1 | ||
| 6H | 0 | 0 | ||
| 6I | 0 | 13 | ||
| 6J | 0 | 0 | ||
| 6K | 0 | 1 | ||
| 6L | 0 | 1 | ||
| 7M | 0 | 0 | ||
| 7N | 0 | 1 | ||
| 7O | 0 | 0 | ||
| 7P | 0 | 0 | ||
| 8B | 0 | 0 | ||
| 8F | 0 | 0 | ||
| 8Q | 0 | 0 | ||
| 8G | 0 | 0 | ||
| 8E | 0 | 0 |
* Code “Number, letter” refers to “Bakery unit, raw material type”.
Azole-resistant fungal species distribution after raw material inoculation onto azole-supplemented Saboraud media.
| Raw material (CFU | ||||
| Fungal species | 4 mg/L ITC | 1 mg/L VRC | 0.05 mg/L PSC | Total |
| 1; 100 | 1; 50 | |||
| 1; 100 | 1; 50 | |||
ITC, itraconazole; VRC, voriconazole; PSC, posaconazole.