Dynamic dental instruments generate abundant aerosols in the work environment. Dental unit waterlines (DUWL) support a large microbial population and can be a significant source of bioaerosols generated during dental treatments. This study was conducted to characterize bioaerosol generation during dental treatments performed in standardized conditions. Culture-based method (R2A, and blood agar with and without O2) and fluorescence microscopy were used. Dental cleaning procedures were performed in an isolated treatment room with controlled ventilation rate. Andersen microbial samplers were used to collect culturable bioaerosols generated before (baseline), during, and after 2 hr of dental treatments. Inhalable dust samplers were used to measure total bioaerosols content in dental hygienist's and patients' breathing zones. AGI-30 were used for the collection of the endotoxin. The use of fluorescence microscopy in combination with culture demonstrated that dental staff and patients were exposed to up to 1.86 E+05 bacteria/m(3) generated during treatments. Fortunately, bioaerosols returned to baseline within 2 hr after the dental procedures. The small diameter of the aerosols generated (< 1 microm) suggests that the risk of contact between the aerosolized bacteria and the respiratory system of exposed individuals is likely to occur.

Dental unit waterlines (DUWL) support growth of a dense microbial population that includes pathogens and hypersensitivity-inducing bacteria, such as Legionella spp. and non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM). Dynamic dental instruments connected to DUWL generate aerosols in the work environment, which could allow waterborne pathogens to be aerosolized. The use of the real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) provides a more accurate estimation of exposure levels compared with the traditional culture approach. Bioaerosol sampling was performed 13 times in an isolated dental treatment room according to a standardized protocol that included four dental prophylaxis treatments. Inhalable dust samples were taken at the breathing zone of both the hygienist and patient and outside the treatment room (control). Total bacteria as well as Legionella spp. and NTM were quantified by qPCR in bioaerosol and DUWL water samples. Dental staff and patients are exposed to bacteria generated during dental treatments (up to 4.3 E + 05 bacteria per m(3) of air). Because DUWL water studied was weakly contaminated by Legionella spp. and NTM, their aerosolization during dental treatment was not significant. As a result, infectious and sensitization risks associated with legionellae and NTM should be minimal.

SUMMARYThere are two very different approaches to laryngeal echolocation in bats. Although most bats separate pulse and echo in time by signalling at low duty cycles (LDCs), almost 20% of species produce calls at high duty cycles (HDCs) and separate pulse and echo in frequency. HDC echolocators are sensitive to Doppler shifts. HDC echolocation is well suited to detecting fluttering targets such as flying insects against a cluttered background. We used two complementary experiments to evaluate the relative effectiveness of LDC and HDC echolocation for detecting fluttering prey. We measured echoes from fluttering targets by broadcasting artificial bat calls, and found that echo amplitude was greatest for sounds similar to those used in HDC echolocation. We also collected field recordings of syntopic LDC and HDC bats approaching an insect-like fluttering target and found that HDC bats approached the target more often (18.6% of passes) than LDC bats (1.2% of passes). Our results suggest that some echolocation call characteristics, particularly duty cycle and pulse duration, translate into improved ability to detect fluttering targets in clutter, and that HDC echolocation confers a superior ability to detect fluttering prey in the forest understory compared with LDC echolocation. The prevalence of moths in the diets of HDC bats, which is often used as support for the allotonic frequency hypothesis, can therefore be partly explained by the better flutter detection ability of HDC bats. Supplementary material available online at

No abstract

Most studies assessing the impact of noises on zoo animal welfare did not measure sound frequencies outside of the human-hearing range (infrasounds and ultrasounds). Many nonhuman mammals can hear these frequencies, and because loud and variable soundscapes are potentially detrimental for animal welfare, this overlooked aspect of their acoustic environment could have important consequences.