| Literature DB >> 31906026 |
Erika Bruni1, Giulia Simonetti2, Beatrice Bovone1, Chiara Casagrande3, Federica Castellani2, Carmela Riccardi2,4, Donatella Pomata2,4, Patrizia Di Filippo2,4, Ermanno Federici3, Francesca Buiarelli2, Daniela Uccelletti1.
Abstract
Wastewater carries different pathogenic and non-pathogenic microorganisms that can be dispersed in the surrounding environment. Workers who frequent sewage treatment plants can therefore be exposed to aerosols that contain a high concentration of potentially dangerous biological agents, or they can come into direct contact with contaminated material. This can lead to allergies, infections and occupational health-associated diseases. A characterization of biological risk assessment of bioaerosol exposure is necessary. The aim of this study was to evaluate the application of an interdisciplinary method that combines chemical and biological approaches for the analysis of a bioaerosol derived from a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) situated in Italy. Sampled filters were analyzed by HPLC-MS/MS spectroscopy that searched for different chemical biomarkers of airborne microorganisms. The analytical quantification was compared to the biological cultural method that revealed an underrated microbial concentration. Furthermore, next generation sequencing analysis was used also to identify the uncultivable species that were not detected by the culture dependent-method. Moreover, the simple animal model Caenorhabditis elegans was used to evaluate the pathogenicity of two isolates-Acinetobacter iwoffii and Micrococcus luteus-that showed multidrug-resistance. This work represents a starting point for the development of a multidisciplinary approach for the validation of bioaerosol exposure on WWTP workplaces.Entities:
Keywords: Caenorhabditis elegans; airborne; bacterial bioaerosol; wastewater; worker exposure
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31906026 PMCID: PMC6981557 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17010273
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Sampling campaigns performed in the wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), located in central Italy.
| Date | Acronym | Da (µm) | Volume m3 | PM (µg/m3) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5–11/04/18 | WWTP_RE1 | <1 | 84 | 10 |
| 1–10 | 84 | 13 | ||
| 11–16/04/18 | WWTP_RE2 | <1 | 72 | 12 |
| 1–10 | 72 | 37 |
Da: aerodynamic diameter. Volume m3: volume of sampled air. PM: particulate matter.
Figure 1Wastewater treatment plants with the oxidation aeration tanks highlighted by the yellow star.
Standard and reagent brands.
| Standards and Reagents | Company |
|---|---|
| Acetonitrile (AcN) | Romil LTD (Cambridge, UK) |
| Methanol (MeOH | Romil LTD (Cambridge, UK) |
| Ethanol (EtOH) | Romil LTD (Cambridge, UK) |
| Dichloromethane (DCM) | Romil LTD (Cambridge, UK) |
| 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane (iso-octane, ISO) | Romil LTD (Cambridge, UK) |
| Propan-2-ol (IPA) | Romil LTD (Cambridge, UK) |
| Water (H2O) | Romil LTD (Cambridge, UK) |
| Hydrochloric acid (HCl) 30% | Merck S.p.a. (Vimodrone, Milan, Italy), |
| 2,6-Pyridinedicarboxylic acid | Sigma-Aldrich S.r.l. (Milan, Italy) |
| Muramic acid (MUR) | Sigma-Aldrich S.r.l. (Milan, Italy) |
| Ergosterol (ERG) | Sigma-Aldrich S.r.l. (Milan, Italy) |
Instrumentation.
| Analyte | Column | Brand | HPLC | MS-MS | Software |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MUR | SeQuant® ZIC®- | Merk s.p.a (Vimodrone, Milan, Italy). | 1260 Infinity II system (Agilent Technologies Italy S.p.A. Cernusco sul Naviglio MI, Italy) | API 2000 + ESI source (AB SCIEX S.r.l. Forster City, CA, USA) | Analyst 1.6.2 |
| ERG | Discovery C8 (50 × 2.1 mm, 5 µm) + guard column (20 × 2.1 mm) | Phenomenex (Torrance, CA, USA) | 1290 Infinity system (Agilent Technologies Italy S.p.A. Cernusco sul Naviglio MI, Italy) | G 6460 +APCI source (Agilent Technologies Italy S.p.A. Cernusco sul Naviglio MI, Italy) | Mass Hunter |
Figure 2Number (n°) of total bacterial cell/m3 in the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Sampling campaign WWTP_RE1 (first period) and WWTP_RE2 (second period).
Figure 3Number (°) of total bacterial spores/m3 in the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Sampling campaign WWTP_RE1 (first period) and WWTP_RE2 (second period).
Figure 4Number (n°) of total fungal spores/m3 in the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Sampling campaign WWTP_RE1 (first period) and WWTP_RE2 (second period).
Summary of microorganisms number/m3 obtained during the monitoring campaign in particulate matter (PM) < 1 and PM > 1 dimensional fractions.
| n° Microorganisms/m3 | WWTP_RE1 | WWTP_RE2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| PM < 1 | 2.10 × 105 | 1.70 × 105 |
| PM > 1 | 7.20 × 104 | 4.70 × 105 | |
|
| PM < 1 | 1.10 × 105 | 1.00 × 105 |
| PM > 1 | 1.70 × 104 | 4.60 × 104 | |
|
| PM < 1 | * n.d. | * n.d. |
| PM > 1 | 2.90 × 103 | 1.10 × 104 |
* n.d. not detected.
Figure 5Simulation, according to the HYSPLIT model, of the wind trajectory coming from the desert areas of North Africa (16 April 2018 H 12:00).
Figure 6Most abundant genera (>1%) in WWTP_RE1 and WWTP_RE2 samples (Unid, unidentified).
Figure 7Cultivable microbial charge derived from the filters of the two subsequent samplings of WWTP_RE1 and WWTP_RE2. (a) Bacteria colony forming unit (CFU)/m3 obtained on NB agar plates by washing the sampled filters. Amounts for fine (PM < 1) and coarse fraction (PM > 1) are reported for each sampling. (b) Fungi CFU/m3 obtained on yeast extract peptone dextrose (YPD) agar plates by washing the sampled filters. Amounts for fine (PM < 1) and coarse fraction (PM > 1) are reported for each sampling. (c) Total amount of collected CFU/m3 of bacteria and fungi in the WWTP_RE1 and WWTP_RE2 samplings.
List of isolated-cultivable bacteria derived from washing the sampled filters. The basic local alignment search tool (BLAST) percent identity expresses how similar the query sequence (rDNA16S) of each isolate was to the target sequence that was present in the database.
| Isolate Number | Strain ID | Bacterial Species | BLAST Percent Identity | GenBank Accession Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AW 25 |
| 99% | NR_025922.1 |
| 2 | CMS 76or |
| 98% | NR_028924.1 |
| 7 | LMG 7040 |
| 99% | NR_117269.1 |
| 8 | C58 |
| 98% | NR_074266.1 |
| 9 | ZS207 |
| 93% | CP019143.1 |
| 10 | TA68 |
| 99% | NR_026452.1 |
| 12 | NBRC 12092 |
| 99% | NR_112637.1 |
| 13 | DSM 11821 |
| 99% | NR_024697 |
| 14 | DSM 13 |
| 99% | NR_118996.1 |
| 15 | DSM 6998 |
| 98% | NR_113392.1 |
| 16 | DM 122 |
| 99% | NR_036956.1 |
| 18 | ODN7 |
| 98% | NR_116570.1 |
| 19 | G2-1 |
| 99% | NR_027199.1 |
| 20 | NCTC 2665 |
| 99% | NR_075062.2 |
| 23 | ICB 89 |
| 99% | NR_116793.1 |
| 29 | DSM 20578 |
| 99% | NR_044931.1 |
| 30 | IAM 12423 |
| 99% | NR_041577.1 |
| 32 | A1920 |
| 98% | NR_104936.1 |
| 33 | P 369/06 |
| 99% | NR_025405.1 |
| 35 | LMG 25348 |
| 99% | NR_118008.1 |
| 36 | B6 |
| 95% | NR_024874.1 |
| 38 | Fussel |
| 99% | NR_036904.1 |
| 40 | AE-6 |
| 99% | NR_134088.1 |
Antibiotic resistance of isolated Micrococcus luteus and Acinetobacter iwoffii. The table shows resistances (R) and inhibition zones with relative measures in centimeters (from the center of the disc) for each tested molecule. R means that no inhibition zone was detected.
| Antibiotics | μg |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Ampicillin | 10 | R | 5 cm |
| Tetracycline | 30 | 2.5 cm | 4 cm |
| Chloramphenicol | 30 | 4 cm | 4.5 cm |
| Erythromycin | 15 | 3.5 cm | 3 cm |
| Cephalothin | 30 | R | 3 cm |
| Clindamycin | 2 | R | 3 cm |
| Cefotaxime | 30 | R | 3 cm |
| Cefuroxima | 30 | R | 3 cm |
| Rifamycin | 30 | 2 cm | 3 cm |
| Oxacillin | 1 | R | 1.5 cm |
| Mezlocillin | 75 | 1 cm | 3 cm |
| Amikacin | 30 | 1 cm | 1.5 cm |
| Fosfomycin | 50 | R | R |
| Aztreonam | 30 | 1 cm | R |
| Gentamycin | 10 | 1 cm | 2 cm |
| Tobramycin | 10 | 1 cm | 1.5 cm |
| Carbenicillin | 100 | 1 cm | 3 cm |
| Streptomycin | 25 | 2 cm | 3 cm |
| Penicillin | 10 u | 1 cm | 4 cm |
| Vancomycin | 30 | 1 cm | 3 cm |
Figure 8Effects of M. luteus and A. iwoffii on Caenorhabditis elegans physiology. (a) Kaplan–Meier survival plot of N2 worms fed with A. iwoffii and (b) M. luteus. Infections were performed at 25 °C, and worm mortality was monitored every day. The lifespan of OP50-fed animals is reported as control; n = 60 for each data point of single experiments. Statistical analysis was evaluated by Log-rank (Mantel–Cox) test; asterisks indicate significant differences (*** p < 0.001). (c) Measurement of worm’s body length starting from their hatching on plates that were seeded with the indicated bacteria. Worm length was measured from head to tail at the indicated time points. Statistical analysis was evaluated by a one-way ANOVA with the Bonferroni post-test; asterisks indicate significant differences (ns as non-significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001).
Figure 9(a) Average embryos production per worm of M. luteus-, A. iwoffii- and OP50-fed animals. Bars represent the standard deviations. (b) Pharyngeal pumping rate after continued exposure to the indicated bacteria and worms fed with OP50 were used as controls. The contractions were measured for 30 s and determined from the mean of 10 worms for each bacterial strain. (c) Body bend frequency of worms fed with OP50, M. luteus and A. iwoffii from one-day-adult stage. The number of thrashes was measured in a time period of 60 s. Statistical analysis was performed by a one-way ANOVA with the Bonferroni post-test; asterisks indicate significant differences (ns as non-significant; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001).