Air samplings in a Campylobacter jejuni positive laying hen flock

• Autorzy: El Metwaly Ahmed M. F. , Schulz J. , Hartung J.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The air in laying hen houses contains high concentrations of airborne bacteria. The numbers of these bacteria can be influenced by the efficiency of the chosen sampling method. In the presented study, AGI-30 Impingers and the Coriolis®μ air Sampler were compared in terms of their efficiency in sampling aerobic mesophilic bacteria in a laying hen house. Measurements were conducted in a laying hen flock with high prevalences of C. jejuni in order to investigate if culturable cells of this organism can also be detected by the applied methods. Airborne dust was also analyzed for the presence of C. jejuni specific DNA to assess the possible occurrence of non-culturable C. jejuni in the hen house air. The numbers of mesophilic airborne bacteria ranged from 8 × 104 – 2 × 106 CFU/m-3 when sampled using AGI-30 Impingers, and from 2 × 105 – 4 × 106 CFU/m-3 when sampled using a Coriolis®μ air Sampler. The concentrations detected simultaneously by both devices correlated well (rPearson = 0.755), but the Coriolis®μ air Sampler showed a significantly higher sampling efficiency (p < 0.001). Although, the within flock prevalence of C. jejuni was high during the experiments (between 70-93%), neither of the air sampling methods could detect culturable C. jejuni from the air. However, C. jejuni specific DNA was detected in 15 out of 18 airborne dust samples by mapA PCR. Based on the results, it can be concluded that airborne culturable C. jejuni were not detectable, even with an efficient air sampler, because of their low concentration. Therefore, the risk of airborne infection to poultry workers on inhaling airborne C. jejuni seems negligible. Also, the transmission of culturable C. jejuni to neighboring farms by the airborne route is unlikely. Otherwise, the detection of airborne C. jejuni specific DNA suggests that non-culturable cells could appear in the hen house air, and in future it should be verified whether sampling stress of the air sampling methods could induce the non-culturable state.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: 20
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.16-20,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

El Metwaly Ahmed M. F.

• Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Germany; Department of Animal Hygiene and Zoonoses, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

autor

Schulz J.

• Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Germany

autor

Hartung J.

• Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Germany

Bibliografia

• 1. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Campylobacter. 2010; Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/divisions/dfbmd/diseases/campylobacter/ (access: 30.08.2012).
• 2. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Community summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses and zoonotic agents and food-born outbreaks in the European Union in 2008, EFSA J. 2010; 8(1): 111-136.
• 3. WHO (World Health Organization). Campylobacter. Fact sheet N°255. 2011; Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs255/en/(access: 30.08.2012).
• 4. Atanassova V, Ring C. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in poultry and poultry meat in Germany. Int J Food Microbiol. 1999; 51: 187-190.
• 5. Wingstrand A, Neimann J, Engberg J, Nielsen EM, Gerner- Smidt P, Wegener HC, et al. Fresh chicken as main risk factor for campylobacteriosis. Denmark Emerg Infect Dis. 2006; 12: 280-285.
• 6. Sahin O, Morishita TY, Zhang Q. Campylobacter colonization in poultry: sources of infection and modes of transmission. Anim Health Res Rev. 2002; 3: 95-105.
• 7. Shanker S, Lee A, Sorrell TC. Horizontal Transmission of Campylobacter jejuni amongst Broiler Chicks: Experimental Studies. Epidemiol. Infect. 1990; 104(1): 101-110.
• 8. Berrang ME, Northcutt JK, Cason JA. Recovery of Campylobacter from broiler feces during extended storage of transport cages. Poult.Sci. 2004; 83(7): 1213-1217.
• 9. Bull SA, Allen VM, Domingue G, Jorgensen F Frost JA, Ure R, et al. Sources of Campylobacter spp. colonising housed broiler flocks duringrearing. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006; 72: 645-652.
• 10. Zhao Y, Aarnink AJA. Groot Koerkamp PWG, Hagenaars TJ, Katsm, WEA, Jong de MCM. Detection of airborne Campylobacter with threebioaerosol samplers for alarming bacteria tranmission in broilers. BiolEng Trans. 2011; 3(4): 177-186.
• 11. Wilson IG. Airborne Campylobacter infection in a poultry worker: case report and review of the literature. Commun Dis Public Health.2004; 7: 349-353.
• 12. Jensen PA, Todd WF, Davis GN, Scarpino PV. Evaluation of 8 bioaerosol samplers challenged with aerosols of free bacteria. Am Ind Hyg AssocJ 1992; 53: 660-667.
• 13. Jensen PA, Schafer MP eds. Sampling and characterization of bioaerosols. In: NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods. 1998.p.82-112.
• 14. Wang L, Li Q, Esch RK, Simmons OD, Classen JJ, Beasley DB. Biological characteristics of aerosols emitted from a layer operation in Southeast U.S. ASABE Paper No. 096358. Presented at the 2009 American Societyof Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) Annual InternationalMeeting. June 21 – June 24, 2009; Reno, Nevada.
• 15. Thorne PS, Kiekhaefer MS, Whitten P, Donham KJ. Comparison of bioaerosol sampling methods in barns housing swine. Appl EnvironMicrobiol. 1992; 58(8): 2543-2551.
• 16. Schulz J, Hartung J. Nachweis von MRSA in Schweinestallluft mit Impingement und nachfolgender Membranfiltration. Gefahrstoffe –Reinhaltung der Luft 2009; 69: 348-352.
• 17. Seedorf J, Hartung J, Schröder M, Linkert KH, Phillips VR, Holden et al. Concentrations and Emissions of airborne Endotoxins andMicroorganisms in Livestock buildings in Northern Europe. J AgricEng Res. 1998; 70: 97-109.
• 18. Saleh M, Seedorf J, Hartung J. Total count of bacteria in the air of different laying hen housing systems. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr.2003; 110: 394-397.
• 19. Langer V, Hartmann G, Niessner R, Seidel M. Rapid Quantification of Bioaerosols Containing L. pneumophila by Coriolis®μ Air Samplerand Chemiluminescence Antibody Microarrays. J Aerosol Sci. 2012;48: 46-55.
• 20. Ahmed, M, Schulz, J Hartung J. Laying hens as a source of Campylobacter jejuni. In: Köfer, J.;Schobesberger, H. (eds.): XVth International Congressof the International Society for Animal Hygiene. Animal hygiene andsustainable livestock production. Proc. Vol. 1, Vienna, Austria, 3-7July 2011, 173-175. 2011.19
• 21. SAS Institute Inc. SAS Online Doc® Version 9.1.3, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC., USA. 2005.
• 22. Springorum AC, Hartung J. Occupational exposure to airborne bacteria in four alternative housing systems for laying hens. In: Briese A, Clauß M, Hartung J, Springorum A. (eds.): XIVth Internattional Congresson Animal Hygiene of the ISAH (International Society for AnimalHygiene), “Sustainable animal husbandry: prevention is better thencure”. Proc. Vol. 1, Vechta, Germany, 19-23 July 2009, 611-614. 2009.
• 23. Willeke K, Grinsphpun SA, Chang CW, Jacozaitis A, Liebhaber F, Nevalamen A, et al. Inlet sampling efficiency of bioaerosol samplers.J Aerosol Sci. 1992; 23:S651 S654.
• 24. Carvalho E, Sindt C, Verdier A, Galan C, O’Donoghue L, Parks S, et al. Performance of the Coriolis air sampler, a high-volume aerosolcollectionsystem for quantification of airborne spores and pollengrains. Aerobiologia. 2008; 2:191-201.
• 25. Gupte, AR, de Rezende CLE Joseph SW. Induction and resuscitation of viable but nonculturable Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium DT104. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003; 69(11):6669-6675.
• 26. Willeke K, Lin XJ, Grinshpun SA. Improved aerosol collection by combined impaction and centrifugal motion. Aerosol Sci Technol. 1998; 28(5):439-456.
• 27. Cawthraw SA, Wassenaar TM, Ayling R, Newell DG. Increased colonization potential of Campylobacter jejuni strain 81116 after passagethrough chickens and its implication on the rate of transmission withinflocks. Epidemiol Infect. 1996; 117: 213-215.
• 28. Qi R, Manbeck HB, Maghirang RG. Dust net generation rate in a poultry layer house. Trans ASAE. 1992; 35(5):1639-1645.
• 29. Seedorf J. An emission inventory of livestock-related bioaerosols for Lower Saxony, Germany. Atmos Environ. 2004; 38: 6565-6581.
• 30. Cambra-López M, Hermosilla T, Lai HTL, Aarnink AJA, Ogink NWM. Particulate matter emitted from poultry and pig houses: Source identification and quantification. Trans ASABE. 2011; 54:629-624.35.
• 31. Schulz, J, Seedorf J, Hartung J. Estimation of a „safe distance“ between a natural ventilated broiler house and a residential dwelling.In: Krynski, A., Wrzesien, R. (eds.): XII th Internattional Congresson Animal Hygiene of the ISAH (International Society for AnimalHygiene) “Animals and Environment”, Proc., Vol. 2, Warsaw, Poland,04.-08.09.2005, 41-45. 2005.
• 32. Kersh GJ, Wolfe TM, Fitzpatrick KA, Candee AJ, Oliver LD, Patterson NE, et al. Presence of Coxiella burnetii DNA in the environment of the United States, 2006 to 2008. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010; 76:4469-4475.
• 33. Olsen KN, Lund M, Skov J, Christensen LS, Hoorfar J. Detection of Campylobacter bacteria in air samples for continuous real-timemonitoring of Campylobacter colonization in broiler flocks. ApplEnviron Microbiol. 2009; 75:2074-2078.
• 34. Berndtson E, Danielsson-Tham ML, Engvall A. Campylobacter incidence on a chicken farm and the spread of Campylobacter during the slaughter process. Int J Food Microbiol. 1996; 32: 35-47.
• 35. Chinivasagam H, Tran N, Maddock TL, Gale A, Blackall PJ. Mechanically ventilated broiler sheds: a possible source of aerosolized Salmonella,Campylobacter, and Escherichia coli. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75:7417-25.

Uwagi

rekord w opracowaniu